Polyamory, page 35
Accurate information and myth-busting about polyamory
Support for accessing an internal sense of knowing, so they can do a deep dive into what is most important to them
Support for stretching and working with internal dilemmas, with regard to emotional regulation, belief systems about fidelity, narratives, holding and tolerating tension about differences, and any other issues that might relate to this
Assistance with full and deep communication with their partner, including considering and sharing how this topic challenges them, exploring what they want in their intimate relationship, and getting really curious about what their partner envisions and why polyamory feels important to them.
In short, this is a mono-polyam who could use a good relational therapist. You won’t know the outcome ahead of time, of course, and the therapy might not be entirely easy, but the partners themselves will work it out if you can help them avoid getting stuck in fearful responses, defensiveness, or other ineffective coping mechanisms. At the end of the day, this is a therapy that revolves around building differentiation; each partner must develop the skills to identify what they want, listen deeply to one another, and work together to build a relationship that works for them. For more about differentiation and therapy, see chapter 8, “Conceptualizing the Case: If Polyamory Isn’t the Problem, What Is?”
RELUCTANT MONO-POLYAMS: WORKING WITH AN IMPASSE
Now, imagine a monogamous client who asserts, “I’m monogamous, I don’t want to be polyamorous, and I didn’t sign up for a polyamorous relationship. I want a monogamous relationship, period.” At the same time, their partner identifies as polyamorous, and their position is, “This is what I want for my life, and it’s an essential part of who I am.” Yet, both partners love one another and are reluctant to break up. They are hoping therapy will help.
This, then, is a situation involving an impasse. An impasse is any situation where one partner has a strong opinion that they want one thing and the other partner has an equally strong opinion that they want something else. When there is an impasse, a therapist or coach can be extremely helpful in getting to a resolution, because the process can be tense and emotional. It is very tempting to ease all that tension by just making a decision, which in a polyamory versus monogamy dilemma would usually result in a breakup. I’m going to share with you my strategies for working with impasses as a therapist, all of which can also be applied to a self-help project. While I’ll specifically be talking about working with a “monogamy versus polyamory” impasse, keep in mind that impasses are very common and a normal aspect of any relationship; these are the same strategies I use with any set of clients stuck on either side of any seemingly unresolvable difference.
Working with an impasse can be frustrating and emotional but also potentially very fruitful and rewarding. An impasse can be a crucible for each partner to look more deeply into themselves and also discover a deeper layer of the person they love. When I’ve worked with monogamy versus polyamory impasses, I’ve seen a huge range of results—from breakups, to formerly monogamous partners discovering that polyamory actually works really well for them, to people who aspire to polyamory deciding to table it and be monogamous. I never know ahead of time what the outcome is going to be, because it depends on the partners and what they discover as they engage in a deep process of discernment, but as long as they work together to come to a solution that honors them both, I’m happy with the result.
The key to helping effectively with impasses is staying out of the middle. My interventions are designed to keep me firmly in the role of facilitator, not arbitrator. I tell my clients,
I don’t get a vote in the decision you will eventually make, and I don’t have a stake in the game. I’ve seen this work out any number of ways, and I’m confident you can work it out in some manner. But let’s make sure you both really understand yourselves and one another, and consider all angles of the dilemma you face, before you start taking action steps that you might regret later.
This is how I approach helping with an impasse:
Normalize discomfort and slow things down. If you break up every time you feel uncomfortable, you won’t get to have a long-term relationship. I don’t think it is likely that anyone can be with their partner for decades without coming up against some significant differences. When that happens, it is going to feel uncomfortable. This is a piece of attachment work: Strong, long-lasting relationships call on us to be able to disagree with someone and love them at the same time. An extreme difference of opinion (and the attendant discomfort) may feel like an emergency, but it isn’t one. Lots of people weren’t raised knowing this. If that’s the case for you, realize it can make a huge difference for you. Help your clients take the opportunity to learn how to find stability internally, as well as relationally. Here are some strategies you or your clients might find helpful: Find internal stability. Notice that you are okay now. You will be okay no matter what happens. Take some time to do something that makes you feel good: Go to the gym, take a bath, read a book, spend time in the woods, or do whatever else comes to mind. Don’t spend your self-care time simmering about the problem; use it to recharge, and learn to set aside the rumination.
Block rumination. Circling back to the problem and making meaning about it won’t help. That means no obsessing about the issue, no wondering “why me,” no angry venting to your friends. Give your brain a break, so it can use its energy to actually think. If you are having trouble thinking about other things or blocking ruminations, try meditation. Try exercise. Try things that feel good. Pet a cat. Wrap up in a fuzzy, weighted blanket and have some tea. Sing. Remind yourself that emotions pass and that when you are experiencing lots of emotions is not a time for thinking.
Affirm your essential okayness. Some people get a lot of relief from figuring out how they will survive the breakup, if it comes to that. Remind yourself that when you have had enough, you will leave the relationship. Make sure you are clear that you are making a choice to stay for now, and you are capable of making the choice to leave if you get clear that is the right thing. Another aspect of being “okay” is realizing you are strong enough to handle this conversation; talk won’t kill you. Breathe. You’re okay. Your partner is okay. You will work it out. Or, at some point, you will know for sure that the right step is to leave. Either way, you’re okay now, and you will be okay in the future.
Challenge yourself to stretch, explore, and get curious. Do not make a decision until plenty of exploration has happened. Plan to spend some amount of time—three months, six months, a year—exploring the territory, learning about yourself, learning about your partner, and learning about various kinds of relationships. Plan to explore with curiosity before expecting yourself to make a decision. Plan to figure out how to think about different kinds of relationships without freaking out. Remember, no one can make you choose to be in a relationship that doesn’t work for you. This helps avoid the pitfall of taking every conversation or thought too seriously. It is easier to hear your partner’s perspective if you don’t think you need to react to it by making a decision. Don’t make a decision yet.
Deliberately create positive interactions. No one works hard to nurture a relationship that isn’t fun and alive. Figure out how to table the stressful topic, and make time to snuggle, go for a bike ride, take a vacation, and talk about something else. Being able to deliberately create connecting, pleasant experiences together, in between discussions about the difficult topic, is an essential skill for a happy long-term relationship.
Make sure you have self-motivated goals. Why are you still wrestling with this dilemma? I’m guessing it is because part of each of you wants this relationship to work. Maybe you are hoping that you will change your partner. That’s common, and it wouldn’t surprise me a bit. Oftentimes, when my clients come to me, one is hoping that I’ll convince their partner that polyamory won’t work, and the other is hoping I’ll convince their partner to give polyamory a try. That’s not my job, thank goodness. Even if I wanted to, I have absolutely no way of knowing if polyamory is a good fit for anyone, nor can I change anyone other than myself. The first order of business is to help everyone get clear on what they want to change about themselves, not about their partner. For more on this, check out the “Creating Change Worksheet Set” in appendix E, starting with “Getting Clear on Your Goals.” This worksheet set will walk you through the exact process I use personally, and with clients, when there is something I (or my client) is unhappy about (and somewhere I/they hope to get with that situation). The following are some examples of good self-motivated goals: “I want to show up with curiosity, rather than defensiveness, when my partner is telling me something about themselves.”
“I want to figure out what I think and feel, and tell my partner about it.”
“I want to learn more about polyamory without getting wrapped up in fears about my future.”
“I want to create a loving, safe, and secure connection with my partner.”
“I want to make good agreements and follow through on them reliably.”
“I want to understand better why this freaks me out so much.”
Avoid stonewalling. “I won’t talk about the thing that is important to you” or “I won’t consider the thing that is important to you” are not relational stances, and they will not help you connect or further the success of the relationship. Sometimes people are afraid that if they get curious about their partner’s perspective or experience empathy for their partner’s viewpoint they will somehow have to adopt it for themselves. They will need to understand that considering or talking about something is not the same as agreeing to it. Hearing and empathizing with your partner’s perspective might change you, and them, but it cannot force anyone to make a decision they don’t want to make. Maybe their partner would be willing to acknowledge that discussing this is a separate process from making a decision and promise not to hold them to anything they might explore in the process of discussing possibilities. Consider putting that in writing. Consider reminding your partner that you appreciate them exploring the material and won’t make any assumptions about actions they might take in the future. Remind your partner that you are not interested in coercing or manipulating them; you are interested in knowing them, and you respect their willingness to explore interesting material with you.
Remember the parts of differentiation of self, and work toward them. It will take some developmental growth to have the robust conversations that lead to well-informed and sound decisions. A push to open a relationship can be a sign that one partner is differentiating—that is, expressing something about themselves, their preferences, beliefs, dreams, or desires. The process of differentiating inherently creates tension, but it is a necessary part of growth for both the individuals involved and the relationship as a whole. Chapter 8, “Conceptualizing the Case: If Polyamory Isn’t the Problem, What Is?” describes how to assess your clients, or yourself, to determine which areas of differentiation need special attention and cultivation. As you support your clients, yourself, or your partner through many conversations, keep an eye on which aspects of differentiation are slipping and build skills where they are needed. The growth edge will probably be a little different for each partner and shift throughout time.
Create space for nuance. Oftentimes, in an impasse, people get stuck on their side of the playing field. As they argue around and around an issue, they dig in their heels and get entrenched in position A or position Z. Because they don’t want to weaken their stance, they can’t really have an authentic, nuanced conversation, which would wander through the entire alphabet. Consider a discussion about opening up the relationship in which both partners have gotten entrenched on their side. The partner who’s all for opening up the relationship probably won’t feel comfortable sharing that there are some things about the idea that make them nervous and some things they prefer about being monogamous, because they don’t want their partner to seize on those arguments to “prove” that they’re wrong. The partner who wants to stay monogamous, on the other hand, can’t share that there are some things that intrigue them about the idea of exploring an open relationship, for the same reason. This entrenchment means that the partners are not really having a full, honest conversation—they’re just holding down their respective forts. You can do your part to shift this dynamic. Create some wiggle room and space for everyone to express complicated feelings and nuanced opinions. See “Exercise: Resolving a Dilemma Using Two Chairs” later in this chapter for more on this strategy.
Open up the field of possibilities. People sometimes don’t have a lot of information about what a nonmonogamous relationship can look like, and they may make a lot of assumptions about what it would entail that aren’t necessarily true. This is one of the unfortunate results of the lack of visibility of nonmonogamous relationships. The fact is (as you know from chapter 1, “Consensual Nonmonogamies: What Are the Options?”), polyamory can look like an infinity of different things. Among other things, many people don’t know that a mono-polyam relationship is even possible. I think it’s important for people to know that the field of options doesn’t just include two opposite poles. It’s a vast menu, and although you can’t control what your partner wants, you have more options than just “exactly what they want, and I get nothing” or “exactly what I want, and they get nothing.” I often recommend that clients read books that describe the vast array of variations of consensual nonmonogamies to enrich their sense of possibilities and shake up their entrenched positions. They might also expand their options using the exercise “30 Ideas No Matter How Silly: Brainstorming Process” in appendix D.
Use the initiator/inquirer (I/I) process. When I work with impasses, I spend the bulk of therapy supporting every aspect of differentiation of self while the partners discuss their dilemmas using the initiator/inquirer process. The I/I is a tool for guiding partners toward deeper insight and empathy in their discussions of sensitive topics. It’s especially great for times when you want to make absolutely sure you are not contributing your own opinion to the outcome: It keeps you out of the middle, because the conversation is between them. You coach the process but don’t weigh in regarding content. Help them stay in the process and access curiosity, empathy, and depth, and they will resolve their dilemma. For much more about the I/I process, including guidelines on how to put it into practice in your therapy room, or your living room, see chapter 9, “Using the Initiator/Inquirer Process to Support Differentiation and Move Toward Decisions.”
Consider using individual sessions or individual self-care time for skill-building. This can be helpful when the partners are very reactive about a particular topic. I use individual sessions or even a referral to an individual therapist when I think there are specific skills that will help the difficult discussions move forward more productively, for example, self-soothing, communicating just one thing at a time, holding steady when hearing something difficult, rehearsing how they might want to handle it if their partner responds in the ways they fear, figuring out what they want to express, and accessing empathy for a different and possibly scary perspective.
Exercise: Resolving a Dilemma Using Two Chairs
A dilemma is a situation in which someone faces a choice between two or more options. This comes up almost every time anyone has a goal for themselves or a desire for something that doesn’t come easily to them. If it were easy, it would already be decided and done. When someone is wrestling with a dilemma, it may appear that external circumstances have them stuck, but more likely they would be able to solve the problem and take action if it weren’t for the internal conflict and the confusion the internal conflict stirs up. That is more likely what has them stuck.
What I am describing is the internal argument between the two parts, or viewpoints, within the person with the dilemma. Imagine a dilemma like this: “One part of me wants to stay in this relationship, and another part wants to leave” or “One part of me wants to try opening up my marriage, and another part is sure that is a bad idea.” Just as you start thinking about the topic from one point of view, the other point of view interrupts with objections, fears, limitations, and dire predictions. Then emotions get a foothold and take control of thoughts, and it becomes hard to think clearly about anything.
To my way of thinking, the magic of chair work with a dilemma like these comes as a result of giving each viewpoint an uninterrupted opportunity to speak. This allows for an evolution of thought, and eventually some clarity. Using two chairs to give each of the two parts of the self their own space is helpful for the full experience, which can be quite powerful.
The other magical aspect of chair work is that it keeps the therapist and anyone else, including the other partner, out of the middle. Clearly every aspect of the internal conflict exists within the person experiencing the dilemma.
This is also a useful exercise if two or more clients disagree with one another about something, for instance, opening up the relationship. In that case, you can use the same two-chair strategy to help each partner, first working with one and then the other, identify both perspectives within themselves. Almost always, each partner can relate at least a tiny bit to each position, and helping them explore both is the most effective way I know to work with gridlock. Watching your partner grapple with both sides of a dilemma when you thought they only could see “their side” is a revelation, and then it is your turn to do the same. This strategy often leads to less tension, more empathy, and a lot more creativity when it comes to problem-solving. It is my favorite way to decrease artificial polarization and shake up impasses that have calcified in place.
