Polyamory, page 39
Unlike primaries and secondaries, hinges exist in both hierarchical and nonhierarchical structures. Every polycule has at least one hinge, and sometimes several. Because of their position, hinges can make or break relationships between metamours, which affects the dynamic of the entire polycule. Because of this, whenever there are difficult relational dynamics, I strongly recommend looking to the role of the hinge. Hinges carry a lot of responsibility, because they are in direct communication with all of their lovers, some of whom may not be in communication with one another. A highly differentiated hinge can stabilize an entire polycule, and a hinge who is a bad communicator, overly avoidant, or lacking in emotional boundaries can brew a lot of bad blood and stir up a lot of chaos.
As a therapist, the effort you give to helping the hinges will pay off immensely for everyone involved. If you are a person in a polyamorous relationship, consider if the hinge(s) in your polycule are sufficiently supported, and if they are not, this would be an area where any investment will probably pay off very well. The more the hinge can understand their own thoughts, feelings, and desires; make good agreements and follow through; take responsibility for their opinions and choices; and stay steady in the face of others’ emotions the more their partners will benefit from their clear communication and strong boundaries. Consider the difference between a relationship ending because a primary partner enforced a veto rule and a situation where a strongly differentiated hinge made a decision to break up, took responsibility for their choice, and had the hard conversations associated with that decision without passing the buck.
METAMOURS
Every relationship between metamours is unique, but here are some possibilities:
The metamours have never met.
They have met but aren’t friends and feel neutral about one another.
They have met and don’t like one another.
They have met and one of them doesn’t like the other, but the other does and would like to hang out together sometimes, or a lot.
They are casual acquaintances and see one another socially.
They like one another but rarely see each other.
They are close friends and see one another often.
They live together and share household responsibilities.
Imagine all the ways these various situations might have come about and the potential implications of each.
The relationship between metamours may have evolved organically and without any real planning. For instance, metamours might never meet if they live in different cities or have vastly different interests. Alternatively, the status of the relationship between metamours may be determined by a primary/secondary agreement or set of rules. For instance, a primary partner who’s uncomfortable with the idea of knowing their partner’s lovers might ask to never meet their metamours or put a rule into place that their partner can only get involved with people they don’t know and will never meet. On the other hand, the primary partner might have made a rule like, “I want to meet all your lovers at least once.” In that case, they might have met, even if they have nothing in common and don’t like one another. The relationship dynamics surrounding metamours, primaries, secondaries, and hinges can be quite convoluted and complex, and each configuration carries its own challenges and strengths.
Metamours often suffer from triangulation. Many metamours don’t have direct communication with one another, making the hinge the messenger. Aside from the inherent liabilities of having someone else do your communicating for you, tons of unnecessary drama can result if the hinge lacks boundaries or good manners.
That said, I’ve also seen situations in which someone in the polycule insists on direct communication between metamours, even when it makes no sense at all. I think the dilemma boils down to this: What decision is being made, and who will be making that decision? If the decision is being made by an individual or dyad, I see no reason to force a summit with everyone around the same table. But if the decision is being made by consensus and it’s going to affect everyone, everyone definitely needs a voice in the negotiations. Figuring out how to hear every voice when metamours don’t speak to one another is a special challenge. It is important to note that some polyamorous relationships with noncommunicating metamours do quite well.
Frequently, the hinge is the person gathering votes and hearing opinions. That can be entirely appropriate and healthy, as long as they are able to take responsibility for their own decisions and choices. But if there is a lot of “he said . . . she said . . . they said . . .” in the conversation, either their emotional boundaries need clarification or the decision affects enough people that they should consider bringing everyone into the room to express their own opinion.
TRIADS, QUADS, AND OTHER FAMILIES
Triads and quads generally make decisions about things that affect the entire family together. The same principles apply: Use consideration, good manners, and clear communication, and take responsibility for your own preferences and choices. There may be more people around the table than most of us are used to, but the decision-making process is otherwise similar to that of any other family.
The most common challenges I see in family structures involve triangulation, peacemaking, and coalition-forming. For instance, if a dyad is having a conflict, it is tempting and common to debrief that fight with another family member, simply because everyone in the family is close friends, and often lovers, with everyone else. Unfortunately, that can result in an uncomfortable us/them dynamic. That’s not always the case; if the listener is able to stay boundaried and avoid the “fix it” pitfall, they may do just fine. But the risk is that they feel internal or external pressure to go to the other partner and try to sort it out second hand. This is often ineffective and, additionally, usually results in everyone’s feelings getting hurt in some manner. Better to listen and empathize, and leave it at that, or encourage direct communication.
Similarly, it requires a lot of self-control and restraint to avoid becoming a mediator for your partners in a triad, quad, or moresome, but it is an effort worth making. “I’m sorry you are having such a hard time with Joe; I think you are making some important points about what you want; why don’t you go have a conversation with Joe and share your thoughts and feelings directly? I know they would want to hear your concerns.”
It is also easy for two partners to form a coalition “against” the third—to stage an intervention regarding cleaning the kitchen or some other shared complaint, for instance. This dynamic can be problematic if they come off like critical parents, because that will almost certainly be met with rebellion, and the coalition-forming can feel hurtful. Ideally, each partner should make a deliberate effort to avoid manipulation and game-playing that becomes circular or mimics patterns from imperfect families of origin.
When I have worked with triads and quads, I have started the therapy with each partner present. I try to get well underway with skill-building and identifying everyone’s self-motivated goals and developmental growth edges before dividing up into smaller groups. Once I feel like the skill-building is sufficiently established, if it seems like it would be helpful, I might work with various dyads, individuals, or threesomes on issues they want to shift between them. Sometimes those sessions might have the fewest number of people possible, and sometimes the other partners might be present to support the deeper work and practice discussing issues without triangulation or coalition-forming. I like to use the initiator/inquirer process in family sessions by having just one initiator at a time but multiple inquirers. This helps partners in family groups learn a great strategy for teamwork that doesn’t involve inducting one partner as either a critic, advisor, or mediator.
SITUATIONAL RELATIONSHIP ROLE CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS
Nesting Partners
Nesting partners are partners who share a home, regardless of whether they have a primary/secondary or nonhierarchical structure to their relationship. The challenges and benefits nesting partners experience revolve around shared space, shared responsibility, and the challenges of long-term partnership.
Many primary partners are also nesting partners, but some are not, and there are plenty of nesting partners who practice nonhierarchical polyamory. Let’s imagine a pair of nesting partners, Nour and Crystal, who practice nonhierarchical polyamory. Nour and Crystal have a mortgage and household together, and pool their finances. That means that they probably will prefer to be available to one another in certain ways. Shared resources result in shared responsibilities; even though Nour and Crystal don’t have a primary/secondary structure, the fact that they have commitments to their shared household will affect their priorities and choices.
For instance, what if the basement floods when Crystal is out on a date? What if the dog becomes frighteningly ill? By the way, who is going to make sure the dog gets walked tonight if they forgot to discuss it at this week’s family meeting? Who will cancel their date to be home for the washing machine repair person? Is it okay to bring a date to the shared home? How about into the shared bed?
Situations like these arise more often than you might imagine, so it is important that nesting partners discuss the circumstances in which they want to be available to one another. I’ve seen trust erode between nesting partners based on a decision to shut off their phone on a date, either unconsciously or deliberately to get a break from tension at home. Naturally, that’s when emergencies crop up. Lack of follow-through when there are substantial shared responsibilities results in broken trust, often on a spectacular scale. Keep in mind how this relates to people who are newly opening their relationship, are nesting partners, and are perhaps a little conflict avoidant. Nesting partners, whether primary/secondary or not, who prefer not to make many agreements or avoid having discussions about agreements, will certainly encounter problems when life’s twists and turns happen with regard to shared responsibilities.
Nesting partners will need to discuss whether other partners can come to the shared home, sleep in a shared bed, interact with the children, or benefit from shared resources. These are going to be important conversations. These issues will probably need to be revisited periodically, as circumstances, people involved, and comfort with polyamory shift.
Non-Nesting Partners
Some of the challenges non-nesting partners face are analogous to those experienced by secondary partners, and, of course, the two categories often overlap but not always. If a crisis arises in your partner’s shared home and they decide to rush away to deal with it, you may feel sidelined; as always, the more differentiated, flexible, and gracious the partners can be with one another, the less likely troubling power dynamics are to arise.
On the other hand, there are certainly advantages to not being nesting partners. It probably means fewer conflicts about household chores, shared finances, and living arrangements. If you happen to be a messy person and your partner is neat as a pin, not living together can be what makes the relationship work. Not being nesting partners likely means more time apart; people may find that having ample time apart gives them the opportunity to bring their best selves to the occasion whenever they spend time together, rather than slipping into a “roommate” dynamic, as sometimes can happen with nesting partners.
Long-Standing Relationships
Jealousy is a common issue for polyamorous people of all stripes, but long-standing partners may be more likely to suffer from the “old news” kind of jealousy. Let’s return to our earlier imaginary couple, Sam and Anne. Say that Sam has just started seeing Jill, and he’s got stars in his eyes. He makes plans for exciting dates with Jill, and they stay up all night discovering new things about one another; the excitement of the new relationship makes them want to shine in one another’s eyes by being their best, most generous, most interesting selves. Then, when Sam gets home to Ann, he’s tired out and comfortable enough to just throw his socks on the floor and flop down on the couch, remote in hand.
Anne knows Sam loves her deeply, but she can’t help but feel jealous that he hasn’t put aside time for a romantic date together any time recently. Although she deeply values the stable home they’ve managed to build together, she also remembers what it was like when she and Sam first fell in love and wishes she could have a little of that romance and infatuation back.
There is nothing like new relationship energy to motivate people. The worst problems arise when people feel like they’re entitled to new relationship energy and their partner is “getting in the way” by asking them to honor their commitments, make themselves available to handle shared responsibilities, and offer their attention and support. That kind of attitude creates all sorts of mischief. Experiencing new love while in a long-term committed relationship with someone else is a privilege. By enabling them to have that experience, their long-term partner is giving them a beautiful gift. They can keep the love flowing by honoring and appreciating their partner, and making sure all positive benefits accrue to everyone involved.
When you’re working with this kind of jealousy, it helps to highlight how consideration and creativity keeps the spark alive in long-term relationships. Ask your clients how they can consciously choose to honor and feel honored by one another. Long-term polyamorous couples often work quite deliberately to keep their connection alive. When I see that, I am impressed by the gifts that can result from open relationship structures. It seems that the very stressors that could spell disaster are turned into significant strengths. How many people in long-term, stable marriages could benefit from their partner becoming highly motivated and creative about going on extra-fun dates?
New Relationships
New relationships carry a special challenge: handling new relationship energy. New relationship energy (NRE) has the power to make or break relationships. It is a force of nature, and like any force of nature, it tends to shake up things quite a bit, sometimes by creating a powerful impetus for growth, sometimes by leaving a path of destruction in its wake. Oftentimes, it’s a little bit of both. NRE tends to result in a certain amount of impulsivity in even the most responsible and reliable people, and that impulsivity can easily lead to broken agreements and inconsiderate behavior. Refer to chapter 18, “Relationship Transitions: New Relationship Energy, Relationship Decisions, Shifting Between Partners, and Breakups,” for an in-depth discussion of NRE, including strategies for handling its challenges well.
Aside from the excitement of NRE, there’s an entire slate of challenges that come with having a relationship of relatively short duration. First of all, in a new relationship, everything feels a little insecure. That newness is invigorating partly because you are on high alert and nothing is really settled. It can be challenging to manage all of that intensity and uncertainty in any circumstances, and doing so in a polyamorous relationship adds a layer of complexity. Imagine being newly involved with someone who has a stable relationship that has lasted a decade or more and is deeply connected with their partner. Feelings of insignificance and competition can easily complicate the new love experience, as well as fears about measuring up or destabilizing something amazing.
One big pitfall of a new relationship is that the intensity and rose-colored glasses of NRE can result in a new partner fantasizing about being an only partner, particularly if they aren’t experienced with polyamory. This happens for lots of reasons, but I suspect the main one is that most of us grew up and formed our ideas about relationships in a culture of monogamy (and serial monogamy). A new partner may not yet have realized that falling in love with a polyamorous person doesn’t have to lead to their beloved choosing between relationships.
If you are noticing desires to supplant a longer-term partner in the life of your beloved, you are likely to be disappointed. If, on the other hand, you are dating someone who is dropping hints about wanting to be your one-and-only and you have a long-term partner at home, the conventional wisdom is to run from that relationship. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I think that before dropping your new lover completely, it’s worth having a frank talk about what polyamory means to you and the importance of your long-term relationship in your life. Don’t be wishy-washy or waffle. It is your job to make it crystal-clear to your new love that you are not looking for a monogamous relationship with anyone, no matter how attractive that person may be.
HANDLING IMPERFECTION
Every role in a polycule will benefit from increased differentiation of self and nonattachment to specific outcomes. Flexibility is key, as is tuning in to partners, showing good manners and consideration, and using good boundaries. There will always be problems. Negative feelings will arise. People will make mistakes. Partners will express themselves imperfectly. The key lies in responding with as much flexibility and grace as possible when it happens, and continuing to challenge yourself to be the partner you aspire to be.
I think differentiation is a moving target, not a static state. The skills of differentiation develop throughout time, usually in response to discomfort that spurs growth. Helping people deal with relationship challenges requires helping them respond to their own difficult emotions by striving for growth, rather than collapsing into escaping, attacking, controlling, or shutting down. That said, you can’t know if growth for the client will result in them staying in the relationship or leaving it. Only the client can figure that out, so I see it as my role to help them respond to their challenges proactively, rather than falling into reactivity, and see where it leads them.
