![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
m_d_hThe way the term "privilege" is thrown around these days, I could understand if somebody is skeptical about whether Couples Privilege is real, or if so whether it is a bad thing. Shouldn't non-monogamous couples be able to have rules and set boundaries about their particular instance of non-monogamy?
The problem with Couples Privilege isn't the establishment of rules and boundaries, most every non-monogamous relationship has rules and boundaries. The problem with Couples Privilege is when the couple designs rules that are intended to treat everybody outside of the couple as second-class.
The worst examples of Couples Privilege are veto rules. If one primary partner has veto power over the other primary partner's choices of who to date or whether to go on a date, then these relationships with secondary partners exist, or not, at the whim of somebody the secondary partners don't know and may have never met. "Sorry, I can't date you, my partner decided you're not my type." Or, "Sorry, I have to cancel tonight's date, my partner wants me home tonight." The needs and expectations of the secondary partners don't count, it's as though they aren't real people.
Also ranking on the list of worst examples are requirements that the couple can only date or play together. If you like one of the two, you've got to pretend to like the other one, or "consent" to playing with somebody you'd otherwise not consent to. Often one of the couple has standard good looks while the other does not, so they use the good looking partner to snare hookups for the less-desirable partner -- it's the only way the desirable partner gets to fuck around.
There's also what's called the One Penis Policy in heterosexual couples -- they only play with women so the primary male never feels his masculinity threatened. The primary male is always in charge, calls all the shots.
There are less drastic examples, but they all spring from the idea that the primary relationship "should come first" and so there need to be rules to enforce an explicit hierarchy. Instead of having fair and open negotiations with all concerned, the primary partners rig the game so they always win.
Couples Privilege doesn't have to be formal or mapped out in advance. It can arise spontaneously from a failure to set rules and boundaries ahead of time. The example I see most often is Primary A had a bad day at the office, but Primary B has already made plans with Secondary C to go out that night. Primary A demands that Primary B cancel the date with Secondary C, because Primary A had a bad day and needs comfort. Primary A believes that her needs should come first, because she's the primary. Or, after "opening up" the relationship for a while, Primary A decides unilaterally to "close" the relationship now because it "isn't working" for her.
But it isn't fair to Secondary C that her dates with Primary B can be canceled whenever Primary A is in a bad mood. And Primary B should not be able to blame his flakiness on Primary A being in a bad mood. Bad moods are not emergencies. Primary A should be able to exist in a bad mood without wrecking Primary B's relationship with Secondary C.
-----
A lot of the conflicts I see on the Poly subreddit flow from a belief that having a bad day means your partner(s) should drop everything to cater to you, or even break up with their other partners to cater to you. I've seen Secondary C complain bitterly that Primary B won't cancel a movie night with Primary A's kids to come over and comfort her after a bad day. Secondary C then complains, "Why am I even in this secondary relationship!" Secondary C hasn't been honest with herself about what she really wants in a relationship, she's settled for sharing Primary B with another family.
In the monogamy world, some couples can get away with this shit, insisting that you cancel all your plans when he's having a bad day. But in the poly world, this doesn't work anymore. Your relationships cannot be all about you, because your partners have other partners, and everybody has to juggle. Maybe, given a bad enough day, Secondary C would graciously offer to reschedule her date with Primary B, but you should not expect that, instead you should be able to endure a bad day on your own. Perhaps by reaching out to a friend or relative, or taking the kids to grandpa's for the evening and drawing a bubble bath, or going out into the back yard and chopping wood until you feel exhausted enough to sleep. Something other than demanding your partner cancel his other relationships to cater to you.
-----
This may feel far away from the example I wrote about yesterday: a BDSM Dom refuses to cuddle with his subs because he reserves cuddling for his husband. But it's the same thing -- treating a secondary partner as less than human in order to make the primary partner feel secure in the hierarchy. Human beings have emotional needs. If you are presently with a human being, participating in a BDSM scene, and this human has a meltdown, is it ethical to refuse cuddles and aftercare to this human because it would upset your non-present primary partner's sense of hierarchy?
Many non-monogamous couples do have rules that explicitly treat their other partners as objects rather than humans. No kissing, never fuck the same person twice, no feelings. These other partners are supposed to be sets of differently shaped holes, for some variety in the hole fucking, or to have more frequent hole fucking. If the other partner acts like a human for a second, you walk out or ghost them. "No way, man, you caught feelings, I'm not into that. This was supposed to be fun."
Many single people treat their hookups this way also, as holes for fucking. It's something I try to screen for when I'm looking for hookups, because I don't want to be treated as a simple sex object, I want to be treated as another human being. Somebody who deserves the basic respect of showing up and communicating and negotiating and being polite. I'm not into dehumanization.
For me, my philosophy of hookups was always, "If we had a fun time together, why not do it again?" But that philosophy risks treating each other as persistent human beings who exist beyond a single encounter. Which is who we are, in reality. Complex sentient beings who persist.
-----
I can't ban Couples Privilege, and I can't ban people from treating hookups as objects. But I can categorize and label these behaviors and pose alternatives and find these alternatives for myself. I'm not into monogamy, but I'm not into being a second class human or a sex object. There is a middle ground, that is sometimes called polyamory, sometimes called ethical non-monogamy, sometimes called relationship anarchism. This middle ground is what I advocate. This path between idealizing one human being as your one and only, and treating everybody else as objects. We're all people, all deserving of love, sex, snuggles, friendship, and time to ourselves, via consensual and open relationships.
The reality of this middle path is usually messy, but it feels more authentic to me than either of the two extremes. I'm not your everything, but I'm also more than just a fuckhole.
The problem with Couples Privilege isn't the establishment of rules and boundaries, most every non-monogamous relationship has rules and boundaries. The problem with Couples Privilege is when the couple designs rules that are intended to treat everybody outside of the couple as second-class.
The worst examples of Couples Privilege are veto rules. If one primary partner has veto power over the other primary partner's choices of who to date or whether to go on a date, then these relationships with secondary partners exist, or not, at the whim of somebody the secondary partners don't know and may have never met. "Sorry, I can't date you, my partner decided you're not my type." Or, "Sorry, I have to cancel tonight's date, my partner wants me home tonight." The needs and expectations of the secondary partners don't count, it's as though they aren't real people.
Also ranking on the list of worst examples are requirements that the couple can only date or play together. If you like one of the two, you've got to pretend to like the other one, or "consent" to playing with somebody you'd otherwise not consent to. Often one of the couple has standard good looks while the other does not, so they use the good looking partner to snare hookups for the less-desirable partner -- it's the only way the desirable partner gets to fuck around.
There's also what's called the One Penis Policy in heterosexual couples -- they only play with women so the primary male never feels his masculinity threatened. The primary male is always in charge, calls all the shots.
There are less drastic examples, but they all spring from the idea that the primary relationship "should come first" and so there need to be rules to enforce an explicit hierarchy. Instead of having fair and open negotiations with all concerned, the primary partners rig the game so they always win.
Couples Privilege doesn't have to be formal or mapped out in advance. It can arise spontaneously from a failure to set rules and boundaries ahead of time. The example I see most often is Primary A had a bad day at the office, but Primary B has already made plans with Secondary C to go out that night. Primary A demands that Primary B cancel the date with Secondary C, because Primary A had a bad day and needs comfort. Primary A believes that her needs should come first, because she's the primary. Or, after "opening up" the relationship for a while, Primary A decides unilaterally to "close" the relationship now because it "isn't working" for her.
But it isn't fair to Secondary C that her dates with Primary B can be canceled whenever Primary A is in a bad mood. And Primary B should not be able to blame his flakiness on Primary A being in a bad mood. Bad moods are not emergencies. Primary A should be able to exist in a bad mood without wrecking Primary B's relationship with Secondary C.
-----
A lot of the conflicts I see on the Poly subreddit flow from a belief that having a bad day means your partner(s) should drop everything to cater to you, or even break up with their other partners to cater to you. I've seen Secondary C complain bitterly that Primary B won't cancel a movie night with Primary A's kids to come over and comfort her after a bad day. Secondary C then complains, "Why am I even in this secondary relationship!" Secondary C hasn't been honest with herself about what she really wants in a relationship, she's settled for sharing Primary B with another family.
In the monogamy world, some couples can get away with this shit, insisting that you cancel all your plans when he's having a bad day. But in the poly world, this doesn't work anymore. Your relationships cannot be all about you, because your partners have other partners, and everybody has to juggle. Maybe, given a bad enough day, Secondary C would graciously offer to reschedule her date with Primary B, but you should not expect that, instead you should be able to endure a bad day on your own. Perhaps by reaching out to a friend or relative, or taking the kids to grandpa's for the evening and drawing a bubble bath, or going out into the back yard and chopping wood until you feel exhausted enough to sleep. Something other than demanding your partner cancel his other relationships to cater to you.
-----
This may feel far away from the example I wrote about yesterday: a BDSM Dom refuses to cuddle with his subs because he reserves cuddling for his husband. But it's the same thing -- treating a secondary partner as less than human in order to make the primary partner feel secure in the hierarchy. Human beings have emotional needs. If you are presently with a human being, participating in a BDSM scene, and this human has a meltdown, is it ethical to refuse cuddles and aftercare to this human because it would upset your non-present primary partner's sense of hierarchy?
Many non-monogamous couples do have rules that explicitly treat their other partners as objects rather than humans. No kissing, never fuck the same person twice, no feelings. These other partners are supposed to be sets of differently shaped holes, for some variety in the hole fucking, or to have more frequent hole fucking. If the other partner acts like a human for a second, you walk out or ghost them. "No way, man, you caught feelings, I'm not into that. This was supposed to be fun."
Many single people treat their hookups this way also, as holes for fucking. It's something I try to screen for when I'm looking for hookups, because I don't want to be treated as a simple sex object, I want to be treated as another human being. Somebody who deserves the basic respect of showing up and communicating and negotiating and being polite. I'm not into dehumanization.
For me, my philosophy of hookups was always, "If we had a fun time together, why not do it again?" But that philosophy risks treating each other as persistent human beings who exist beyond a single encounter. Which is who we are, in reality. Complex sentient beings who persist.
-----
I can't ban Couples Privilege, and I can't ban people from treating hookups as objects. But I can categorize and label these behaviors and pose alternatives and find these alternatives for myself. I'm not into monogamy, but I'm not into being a second class human or a sex object. There is a middle ground, that is sometimes called polyamory, sometimes called ethical non-monogamy, sometimes called relationship anarchism. This middle ground is what I advocate. This path between idealizing one human being as your one and only, and treating everybody else as objects. We're all people, all deserving of love, sex, snuggles, friendship, and time to ourselves, via consensual and open relationships.
The reality of this middle path is usually messy, but it feels more authentic to me than either of the two extremes. I'm not your everything, but I'm also more than just a fuckhole.