I originally come from a dyadic model (since I am married and now separated). but now I’m more like a “poly single” in some ways. My “primary partnership” is with myself now. I am the final arbiter of what sorts of agreements I’ll make, and with whom.

I know what you mean about “protecting the dyad” — that’s a common way for people to do ‘couple-centric” non-monogamy, and I definitely practiced that in the past. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m discussing that keeping one’s agreements — to self, to partner/s, to friends, family, work, etc.. — is supportive of relationships of all sorts. Being careful with one’s word is important, even if the agreements aren’t written or codified.

To bring it back to this particular post here, I strongly believe that ALL sorts of polyamory (and ethical non-monogamy) should be allowed to exist and be practiced without persecution, so long as people are in agreement with each other about the basis for their relationships, and are being honest and ethical in how they conduct those relationships. Whether or not you and I would want to be in relationship with each other doesn’t affect whether I think we should both get to practice our respective relationships hassle-free.

I understand your trepidation about “imposing certain restraints” and the effect that can have on love. For me, the issue of “consent” is key. I’ve been writing about Agreements in my blog (though I’ve been on hiatus on that topic for a few months), and one of the key points is that for it to be an Agreement, both partners need to AGREE. I find that people who want to make “rules” that are inflexible, and impose them (rather than collaboratively agree upon them), tend to create an atmosphere of distrust, which as you have alluded to, is pretty antithetical to love.

Agreements don’t have to be rigid rules however; they CAN be a co-created structure for success, so long as both parties freely consent. We do this all the time in “the outside world,” for instance when we agree to show up to work every weekday at 9, and our employer agrees to pay us every 2 weeks. Agreements between lovers can be similar, in that they can help to codify roles, responses to repeated situations, and help ensure that both parties are using the same definitions. As long as they remain “at will,” are freely entered-into, and can be renegotiated (at some interval agreed upon by the “signatories”) then they can be used to build a sense of safety that will help *foster* love.

How does that compare with your conversation in your blog? (http://natjasnatterings.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-this-monogamish-thing-polyamory.html) Does that resonate with what you and others discussed there?

Best wishes! ~Dawn

I wrote a reply before but it must have been lost so anyway, I just wanted to say I have been debating on my blog the use of defining Polyamory and whether limits in Polyamory restrict our ability to love!

Thank you again for posting, you have given me a lot to think about.
Natja

…………………………………………….

† Further discussion on the PLN list involved the question of how to distinguish familial relationships from polyamory. After all, they’re certainly (or they should be!) “loving” relationships amongst multiple people. No one asks the older brother to break up with his sister when a third child comes along, nor do parents need to end their relationship with their first-born to accommodate her brother. So why wouldn’t these “count” as polyamorous? The general assumption of most polyamorous people seems to be that we’re talking about adult romantic/sexual relationships, not, for instance, your familial relationship with your children or your grandparents, nor your platonic relationship between you and your aunt, or you and your cousins. “Kissing cousins” could be involved in a polyamorous relationship, though, if there were three or more of them! They wouldn’t be polyamorous just because they’re cousins; it would take more than a platonic peck to move the relationship over into potentially polyamorous territory.