Fuck The Rules! Part 1

So The Boy spends a lot more time on "lifestyle" blogs than I do, because he has a far stronger stomach than I do.  For example, he's been reading Sadie's Open Marriage for years, written by open marriage/polyamory expert Sadie Smythe, although he's not exactly a fan of hers.  Given her sometimes turgid writing style and tendency to resort to psychobabble, I can't say I blame him.  Still, I wasn't particularly interested in her blog until I happened upon the Boy's netbook, which had this entry from her blog up.

Oh hell no.  As you guys know, there's few things that piss me off more in non-monogamy circles than One True Wayism.  And once again, we have an "expert" declaring that a couple dipping their toes in open relationship waters are "doing it wrong" if they decide to agree upon some basic boundaries.

Sadie describes chucking out the rules she and her husband had agreed upon, saying that rules are:

"...monogamous behavior, monogamous thinking, and that sort of thinking doesn’t fit within the open relationship paradigm. Our partners are not ours to control. Hell, they aren’t even ours at all. Open truly means open in this sense – open to allowing our partners the possibility to navigate their outside relationships without our interference."


Oh really?  I thought "open" meant that my husband and I choose to open ourselves up to a possibility other than strict monogamy.  Beyond that, what "open" means is totally individual and negotiable for every couple that decides to give this unique way of living the ol' college try. Not that I had to adhere to the prescribed notions of some blogger*.


Obviously, Sadie is far from alone in this mindset, which seems to come out of the "Secondaries are people too!" camp.  Because couples who have clearly stated expectations and boundaries hurt secondaries, or something.  Not that I should even be using the word secondary, as it's hierarchical and offensive to imply that my fuckbuddy may not carry the same weight as my husband when it comes to major life decisions.  Sure, I'm exaggerating (a little) but the idea that rules are just a misguided way of controlling relationships with secondaries has gained serious traction in the online poly scene.


Problem is, Sadie and those who agree with her are misapplying basic therapy concepts to relationships in baffling ways**.  "The only person you can control is yourself," is a truism so basic that it hardly needs repeating, but Sadie takes that to mean that there's no point in having established rules with your partner, because that's controlling.


Established boundaries and rules are not necessarily an attempt to control your partner, but rather a verbalized set of agreements about expectations around another's behavior.  I accept that I cannot control my partner and realize that if he wanted to, he could go out and fuck as many women as he wanted and there's absolutely nothing I can do about that.  However, I know and trust that my partner values me and our relationship, so he wants to know what my boundaries and expectations are with regards to him being intimate with other people, so that our relationship can continue in a happy and healthy manner.  And not communicating to him what I'm OK with or what makes me uncomfortable is just a recipe for bitterness, feelings of betrayal, and resentment.


The fact is, open or not, romantic or not, every human relationship is based on explicit or implicit rules and expectations.  My husband expects that I will take care of the food shopping and preparation unless I explicitly ask him.  He expects that I will handle our finances, because that's what we agreed upon.  I expect that he will go to work so we can pay our bills.  He expects that I will not jet off to Berlin for two days without checking in first.  This isn't controlling behavior.  These are all expectations based on discussions and negotiations we've had.  Why are expectations and boundaries when it comes to behavior outside the relationship different?  


Sure, at any point, I can decide to stop cooking and paying the bills and checking in with him if I'm not home, and he can't control that.  That doesn't make the concept of these sorts of agreements invalid, it would just mean that I'm being a really shitty person for changing the status quo without discussing it first.  Relationships function well when people articulate what they are willing to do and what they expect from their partner.  It isn't about control - it's about that favorite Poly word: communication.  Two people sharing their lives simply aren't going to get on very well if they aren't sharing what they expect and what makes them happy or unhappy about their partner's behavior.


Hypocritically, all the "Fuck the rules!" advocates in non-monogamy land ignore the fact that almost all of them have a hard and fast rule even if they claim they don't have any rules: they all have a rule about practicing safer sex.  The majority of people in long-term, established relationships don't use barrier protection with each other, which makes it pretty imperative that they do when playing outside the primary relationship and I have yet to encounter anyone in this relationship model who admits to not having a rule about safer play with others.  (Surely, the most soap-operaish drama in polyamory comes from "fluid-bonding" issues or when, god forbid, a primary-secondary couple end up pregnant.)  


But let's face it: "You must practice safer sex with other partners" is a rule, guys.  A controlling, nasty rule!  After all, you can't control your partner!  S/he could choose to not use a condom with another partner, after all, and there's nothing you can do about it.  I guess rules are futile.  Why do we have them? 


I think that most people who are in these types of relationships trust that their partner will abide by that rule, because it's pretty morally reprehensible not to.  But how is this, then, strategically or morally different from choosing to agree upon other rules?  Why is this a rule the non-rules folks employ while shitting on the concept of other rules?  Don't look at me like I have an answer: it's just silly.  Either rules are "monogamist thinking and unhealthy methods of control" or they're a tool that some people utilize in different ways to create a sense of comfort and safety in their relationships.  


Next time, I'll talk about why the two most maligned rules: "Love" and "Veto power" serve a valuable purpose for some people.  


*Having not read Sadie extensively, I could say I have no real issue with her other than I'm not a fan of her writing style.  But then I saw this abject travesty of a spoken word performance in which she fetishizes, otherizes, and stereotypes black men to justify of her love of "black gangster porn"  and I've decided I'm kind of OK with actively not being a fan based on limited information.  If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say so.


**It would be somewhat inappropriate of me to mention that Sadie announced her separation from her husband just weeks after writing about chucking out the rules.  Wait, whoops.