494 - Can We Be Compassionate Towards One Penis Policies? Listener Q&A
It’s Q&A time again!
We’re back with another Q&A episode! The listener questions we’re diving into today are:
“A lot of men who implement OPPs do so out of deep fear and lack awareness of the inner mechanics that are causing this fear. When listening to the podcast and reading different content, there is a strong (understandable) blanket disapproval of OPP that looks like “No. That’s messed up and you’re messed up for wanting it for all of these reasons.”. I think it would really help to talk about what causes men to want this, where the fear comes from, how to work through it, and what needs to be unpacked.
Not Down With OPP.”
“Something I have observed over the last few years is the development of many different labels and identities for sexuality, relationship style and gender.
How important are labels and identity to each of you personally?
What values do you think they have or might not have for society? Do they break apart communities and make stereotypes possible? Or are they necessary in order to fight discrimination and make differences visible? Do you think we will not need them anymore at some point or will they always be important?
Philosophical Panda.”
“I dated someone for 3 months then we deescalated to friendship as he wasn't in a commitment space and I was. We've kept some elements of physical intimacy, just stuff like I'll stroke his hair or we'll have a cuddle on the sofa. He's started dating again and I'm worried that he will not want or need that anymore as he'll have another source of intimacy. I am single and dating on and off so he's been my constant in that sense.
Bothered in Bristol (UK).”
If you want your question to be answered on a future Q&A episode, consider becoming one of our Patreon supporters!
Transcript
This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.
Jase: On this episode of the Multiamory Podcast, we are answering listener questions. We will be diving into questions like, can we speak compassionately about one penis policies? What value are labels and identities? About the fear of losing an intimate friendship when that friend gets a new romantic partner. We're going to be covering a lot of ground today, and thank you to everybody who submitted their questions.
If you're interested in learning more about our fundamental communication tools that we reference on this show all the time and that some of our question-askers will also reference back to us, you can check out our book, Multiamory Essential Tools for Modern Relationships, which covers some of our most used communication tools for all types of relationships. You can find links to buy it at multiamory.com/book or wherever fine books are sold. Also, check out the first few episodes of the podcast, where we have reposted some of our most shared and most referenced episodes.
Dedeker: Before we get to our listener questions, we have to give our disclaimer that while we've spent a lot of time reading and studying up on healthy relationships and communication, we are not experts and we are not mind readers. Our advice is based solely on the limited information that we have sent into us, so please take it with a grain of salt, remembering that everybody's situation is unique. If you want to apply this advice to your own life, we encourage you to use your own judgment and, of course, seek professional help if it's needed. Also, these questions have been edited for time and clarity.
Emily: Here is our first question. Is there a way we can speak compassionately about OPP? Here's some context for this question. A lot of men who implement OPPs, which are one-penis policies, do so out of deep fear and lack awareness of their inner mechanics that are causing this fear. When listening to the podcast and reading different content, there is a strong, understandable blanket disapproval of OPP that looks like, "No, that's messed up, and you're messed up for wanting it for all of these reasons." I think it would really help to talk about what causes men to want this, where the fear comes from, how to work through it, and what needs to be unpacked, signed, "Not Down With OPP."
Dedeker: I appreciate that that's their sign-off because I suppose it helps to clarify that this isn't someone who is waving the pro-OPP flag.
Emily: Flag. Yes.
Dedeker: That flag we all know in love . I don't know what would be on that flag. I'm a little scared of what would be on that flag.
Jase: Oh, dear.
Emily: Just penises forever.
Dedeker: No, but pro-OPP would just be one penis. Right?
Jase: Right.
Emily: You're right. One giant phallus.
Jase: I'm thinking one penis on a hill in the middle with a machine gun or maybe a sword.
Dedeker: Oh, my goodness.
Jase: Then other penises down below running away in fear.
Dedeker: That's so violent.
Jase: That's part of the culture.
Emily: It's phallic, and it's--
Dedeker: See, I was imagining just one penis, and there were other penises, but they all have a cross out, like the no smoking signs-
Emily: Well, that's good
Jase: Sure.
Dedeker: -to imply there's only one of them, and others may not be allowed to exist.
Jase: Now, I do want to say that I would love to change this person's name to Not Down With OPP and then (You Don't Know Me).
Emily: Yes, you know me.
Dedeker: Oh, you don't know.
Emily: You don't know me.
Jase: You don't know me would be a fun little addition there.
Dedeker: We've established that we can speak humorously about OPPs, but can we speak compassionately about OPPs?
Emily: It's a penis. It's fine.
Jase: Compassionately.
Dedeker: I have to say, actually, I have a story related to this, and this was one of my very, very, very first clients right out the gate when I first started working with people. Someone came in, it was a guy. Really the gist was, he was very clear about how, with his partner, he was interested in maybe starting to open up the relationship, maybe starting to explore group sex or play parties or stuff like that, but he was adamant right out the gate like, "I do not want her hooking up with other dudes if I'm not there in particular." I don't remember if it was just if he's not there, if he had to be included, or if it was at all, but he was very, very adamant about that.
At that time, because this was almost 10 years ago, of course, I had a lot of opinions about the right and wrong ways to do non-monogamy. That was definitely what I categorized under the wrong ways of doing non-monogamy, anything that involved the control over what genitalia your partner can have sex with or interact with or things like that. Immediately, so early on, I was struck with that difficult position of, "I have my own particular stance on this and my own particular moral stance on this, but this person is not paying me for me to moralize at them and for me to tell them all the ways that they're wrong and messed up. I need to find a different way of talking about this or trying to understand this."
That's the first thing this makes me think of when I was actually in a position where you're not just yelling at somebody on the internet, but you're actually sitting in front of another human being who wants something or is practicing something that is very different from what you would personally choose or that is very different from what your value system around relationships or non-monogamy is.
Emily: I do know that historically, at least in the context of a lot of the relationships that I've been in, some men tend to think of relationships with women as in your woman partner is in a relationship with another woman as not being as intense or as "real," as if she were to enter into a relationship with a man. I think that that is just this cultural underlying narrative that gets bashed over the heads of so many people.
It's that uber sexualization of, "I'm looking at two women having sex, and that's hot to me, but the idea of my partner having sex with another man makes me really insecure and makes me really fearful of what is it that I'm lacking in." I do feel compassion for that. I understand that. I may not agree with it, but I do think that right off the bat, that's what we're dealing with here. This cultural narrative that's been ingrained in so many people for so long.
Jase: I think another way that we could look at this, and this is something I remember. When I was in college, is when I first started reading up on masculinity and trying to understand more of it from this sociological psychological cultural lens because there would be women's studies programs, but there wouldn't be men's studies. I became really fascinated with that and tried to look up some of the authors who were writing about that.
There's not a ton of resources about it, but one of the things that came up is that in our Western culture for men, there's this competing thing where masculinity is good and desired and you should be masculine, that's what makes you good, that's what makes you attractive, makes you successful, all those things, and if you're not masculine, that means you're bad, you're weak, those sorts of things.
That's really baked into how we talk about men, how we portray men in films most of the time, still, the ways that we look at these traits. Then, at the same time, there's this sense that masculinity is not something that you earn and then get to keep, but rather that it's something that could be taken from you at any time. I believe that the term that was used for it was precarious masculinity.
It's like people talk about fragile masculinity and stuff like that, usually, in this way of like, we want to denigrate what masculinity is or talk shit about it. Often I think that's a fair criticism, but I think what's interesting about this concept of precarious masculinity is it's approaching it more from this sociological point of view. Basically, the argument goes that in some cultures, which there's fewer and fewer of these, but in some cultures, there's this sense of when you go from being a boy to being a man, there's some rite of passage you go through. Some way that you earn being a man, and then you just inherently possess that.
You just are that, and that's not something that can be taken away from you. In the same way, I think a lot of us think that our gender works that way, where we're like, "Yes, I am this gender. That just is." It's like when you take the more emotional sense of what it means to be a man versus be a boy or whatever, that masculinity, that it's something that in our culture is treated like it's hard to earn, that you have to keep working to earn it, and that it can be taken away by somebody beating you at a sport.
It's like taking away some of your masculinity or your manness or you being weak or you not doing the right things. There's this constant fear that gets programmed into boys about, "Masculinity is important and I could lose it. I'm not totally sure how I earn it or how I can lose it, but I know that you can, and I've got to figure that out." All this to say, I think that that's another way that we could look at the one penis policy and why do we see relationships that our female partners would have with other men as being more threatening than them having relationships with other women.
I do think there's a devaluing of female-female relationships, but I think there's also this sense that this could be one of those threats to masculinity. Not that we ever think of it this way consciously, but that there could be a seed of that, of like, "Well, I was always told that this and owning this, claiming this, being the only one with access to this," this, of course, being a vagina in this case, "That that somehow is part of what my identity is based on. If I don't have that, there's a threat to it, an actual real existential threat."
Emily: It's the cuckolding thing, right?
Jase: I think that's why that could be a kink.
Dedeker: Not in a sexy way.
Jase: I think that's why it can be a kink because it is a threat because it is scary. A lot of kinks are based around, "How can I embrace this thing that's-"
Dedeker: Risk and fear.
Jase: Yes, and power and losing power. It's right there. The thing that can make it hot for people is also the thing that makes it very threatening for I think-
Emily: Some people.
Jase: -most people. I don't know quite where we go from there, but I do think it's a very real thing to be aware of and to consider that the people that want that aren't someone setting out to be bad or to do a wrong thing or to hurt someone else or denigrate someone else, but that it's so subtly coded into the way we're taught to value ourselves and other people.
Dedeker: To try to accept this mission given to us by the question asker, speaking compassion about it, I think we all have to set aside-- maybe this is dramatic language to use, but we have to set aside our own triggers in talking about OPP because I think this can be a very triggering and upsetting topic for a lot of people because it has roots in misogyny, patriarchy, in transphobia, honestly, in gender essentialism. There are so many very deeply upsetting things that can be connected to this.
I do think that that's something that does get in the way when it turns into a fight on the internet about OPP or piling on to somebody who wants OPP, is because these things are there, these are part of it. For myself, personally, if I'm able to set that aside, at least put that on the shelf just for a second, I can zoom out and I can acknowledge that, yes, I have a sense of if I imagine a partner of mine dating somebody else, there are people that I imagine that feeling easier with versus harder with.
That for me, is not necessarily tied to gender, but it could be like, "Yes, I imagine, I don't know, if my partner is dating someone who I perceive to be less accomplished than me, maybe that would feel easier than if my partner was dating someone who was way more accomplished than me and super intimidating," just to use an example that I think we all have our stuff and baggage that we bring to a non-monogamous relationship and that different people that a partner chooses to date are going to bring out different insecurities, and some people are going to bring out more insecurities than others.
I can acknowledge that when it comes to the way we might feel about a partner dating, it's not necessarily an equal playing field. That it's like different potential metamores are going to bring out different things. I think that then the challenge, though, is that if I acknowledge those fears with myself, not lie to myself about that necessarily, but I maybe can't necessarily let my own fears or insecurities dictate policy in my relationship.
At least in my value system, I'm not going to go to Jase to be like, "Don't date anyone who's more accomplished than me. This is a one-accomplishment-only policy, and I'm the accomplished one, and anyone else you date can't be like that."
Emily: How do we even measure that. It's easier to measure if somebody has a penis or not, presumably.
Dedeker: That's true. I think you get at least the heart of what I'm saying, that I have a particular value system that doesn't want to let that dictate policy. I recognize that as some of my own work to do and maybe some of the work that I need to do in my relationship to make things feel secure and things like that.
I suppose to try to put a button on all of this is that I do think there's a difference between someone who is in a relationship and says, "I don't want you to date anyone else with a penis, that's it. Portcullis down, case closed," versus someone who can recognize, "Yes, it is more challenging for me when my female partner dates someone with a penis versus when they don't. I'm trying to work on that and figure that out. Let's work together as a team to figure that out," acknowledging that there is a certain reality that maybe this person's insecurities are triggered in a different way. Does that make sense?
Jase: It does. I actually think you may have really hit something with comparing to accomplishment because I think we have similar things of the date someone--
Dedeker: I've often considered accomplishment to be like a penis, yes.
Jase: Yes, you got it. Now, if you think about can feel more threatening or be harder if my partner's dating someone that I view to be better than me in some way, whether that's like, "Oh, they're thinner than me, they're richer than me, they're taller than me, they're smarter than me," whatever it is, if that's something that we feel insecure about or feel like, "Oh, this is the only that makes me valuable," that then that can feel extra threatening.
I think to go back to compassion, that if there is this sense of "Masculinity is a hard, tricky thing to do, but I've been taught that it's important for me to do, and I don't quite know if I'm doing it, but other people are probably doing it better," that there's this unconscious fear or competition there. I think it's also a thing that can hold men back from having close friendships and being vulnerable with each other, is there is a little bit of that sense of threat of maybe, "Oh, if I show that I'm less masculine, I might be losing out to you, or that that would then make me lose that altogether."
I know I'm really coming back to this, but I think to bring the compassion piece in is that I do think the question asker is onto something here, where if someone wants a one-penis policy, I want to ask the question to them of-- I don't think they'd be ready to answer this right away, but it's like I just want to say, "Hey, you're great. You are awesome by yourself. You don't need to push anyone away in order for you to be valuable and important and cool and strong and powerful and whatever the things are that you want to be."
I feel like that is a way to bring some compassion to it, is how can we focus on making that fear less a part of our culture and less a part of the way we treat men? I even see feminists use language that's very much activating that threat in trying to say, "Hey, we should stop doing this." It's like, that's not a good way to make someone say, "Yes, I want to stop doing this," when you're threatening the only thing I've been told makes me worthwhile.
Dedeker: Interesting.
Jase: I'll get off my soapbox now. I love this question that, yes, I think compassion is a really important thing to bring in all areas of our life, but I do think this is one that can often get left out also by us on this show.
Dedeker: Also, anyone who's listening and is about to angry email that we've offered any compassion whatsoever, don't worry. We could record an entire episode about all the ways that OPP is inherently messed up. Just trust us that you're on the same page as us.
Jase: I think we have before.
Dedeker: We have.
Emily: You wrote an article about it early on in the Multiamory
Dedeker: Oh, yes, you're right. A long time ago.
Emily: Yes, it was a good article.
Jase: Even this question asker is not in support of it.
Dedeker: It's true. Not Down With OPP.
Jase: I do think that's important to emphasize, too, that the point here is, yes, just saying it's shitty and you suck for wanting it doesn't really help anyone stop wanting it or engage in a good conversation.
Emily: Don't go out and post that Multiamory loves OPP and flies the flag and Jase hates feminists and other misconstructions from this episode.
Dedeker: No, it's all good. It's good to have compassion for things and to stop and think, "Why is this prevalent?" We appreciate you for giving us the opportunity to do so.
Jase: We're going to take a quick break before our next question to talk about how you can help support this show and be part of our amazing community of people who ask really good questions and also do a great job of supporting each other. That is to join our Patreon at patreon.com/multiamory. We've got all sorts of tiers there, but just joining the community is a great place to start.
Then also take a moment, check out our sponsors. They're the ones that help us fund this show in addition to our Patreon. Please take a moment. If they're interesting, use our promo codes. That does directly help support our show. Our next question today is, what are your views on labels and identities? Now, here's the full context. Something I've observed over the last few years is the development of many different labels and identities for sexuality, relationship style, and gender. How important are labels and identity to each of you personally? What value do you think they might have or might not have for society?
Do they break apart communities and make stereotypes possible, or are they necessary in order to fight discrimination and make differences visible? Do you think we will not need them anymore at some point, or will they always be important? This is from Philosophical Panda.
Emily: That's a good one.
Jase: Yes.
Emily: It's interesting because I really had a time in my life where I didn't want labels to be a part of who I was. Then I really enjoyed having and finding the label of bisexuality, for instance, for who I am. I do still adhere to that label. In terms of the label of ambiamory or something else, I'm not quite sure what fits exactly. I think that I more adhere to a label of just, I enjoy people and I'm interested in people, and I'm interested in having relationships with them. That's what matters to me.
There is so much interest in labels because people find home with them. They find care within those labels, and they find community, and that's really important to them. I do think that they serve a purpose, but there's always this question of, are we othering each other by getting these labels and adhering to these labels so specifically and strictly?
Dedeker: A truth that I think I've been coming around to recently is the fact that labels never entirely belong to just you. That a label or an identity is a little bit collectively held. That can bring some really wonderful things like making it easier to access community. Like, "Oh, I've met this person who shares the same label as I do, and so that means maybe we'll have a certain amount of kinship, or at the very least I know what search terms to use when looking for particular munches or meetups that I want to go to and it can act as a shorthand.
That collectively held label can bring these really positive things. It also can bring these drawbacks, like the fact that it does leave you subject to stereotype, and it leaves you open to what everybody else's definition of that label is. That it's never 100% under your control. You have to learn to tolerate a certain amount of that, I think, if you want to embrace a particular label and identity, is that I think that the benefits of adopting that label or identity have to outweigh the costs for you.
Actually, I've never really talked about this, but increasingly over the past few years, I've been using the word non-monogamous to describe myself, and just describe my relationship practice more so than polyamorous. Even though I think that in practice, polyamory is what I do and what I tend to do, for me, being in this scene and especially creating so much content around non-monogamy, and doing so many interviews and stuff like that, I've been exposed so much to polyamory, the word being used almost like a four letter word, honestly.
Emily: Interesting.
Dedeker: Being used as a subject of derision and the target of stigma and stuff like that. For myself, it started to have this weird negative connotation just when I hear it to my ears. Conceptually I'm all on board. It's like for myself, I find myself gravitating to non-monogamy as maybe the safest feeling term for myself. This is maybe just a little window to my own psyche right now. I don't want the label of polyamory to change. I want people to still be using that label and adopting that identity, but for myself, I found myself just drifting in that particular direction.
Again, I think for me is a little bit of-- this term polyamory, to me it feels like there are some costs in the way that people misconstrue what it means, misuse the term, misapply the term. I just feel more comfortable saying non-monogamous rather than polyamorous. Is that weird? Does that make sense? Am I
Emily: You changed one label for another kind of.
Dedeker: Oh, yes. For sure.
Emily: Even though both encompass who you are.
Dedeker: Exactly.
Emily: Which is interesting.
Dedeker: It's just like a weird felt sense for me that shifted that.
Jase: There's a couple interesting things. One is it reminds me of conversations we had in our very first few episodes of this show, where we encountered some people who also didn't use the word polyamory because for them it had a bad connotation. It had developed that. To us that was new, novel, like, "Wow, gosh, what do you mean?" because the term was relatively new to all of us, within the last few years before that.
I think the other factor is that as polyamory has been talked about more and there are more resources about it, there can be this feeling like the connotation and the meaning of it is maybe solidifying a bit more and moving to using the label non-monogamy, which is less solid by its nature because it is more of this umbrella term that captures a lot of things, is what attracts you to it because it prompts people to ask more questions because it intentionally doesn't tell them as much upfront.
Dedeker: Yes, maybe there's something about that. That even though chances are high that if I say polyamorous, maybe what the other person is thinking matches with what I'm saying, but there's also increasingly higher chances that maybe it doesn't, as more people have become more aware of it as a term. Then also there's more-- I don't know. Just people are misconstruing more I suppose. I think it's something about that that I don't want to take the risk because I have a feeling that the word that I'm using is actually not translating. I would rather use this more generic term, and then have to follow it up with specific description.
Emily: In an episode that we did with Martha Kauppi, she talked about the fact that labels are like a shorthand, a way for people to make assumptions about you that you can essentially tolerate. If a person sees you and you say the word non-monogamous, that can mean a lot of different things. It encompasses the whole breadth of whatever non-monogamy is. Polyamory, I think there's a certain flavor or maybe "type of person". This is stereotypical and not necessarily at all true, but somebody may jump to a different viewpoint of what that type of person is, for example.
Dedeker: Or what that type of relationship is-
Emily: Yes, totally.
Dedeker: -because for all I know, this person I'm talking to has read 600 news articles that are just about the white throuple.
Emily: There you go.
Dedeker: That's what they think polyamory is.
Emily: Exactly. That you're some influential coastal type, which I suppose you kind of are.
Dedeker: I am an influential coastal type.
Jase: It's accurate.
Emily: That's not wrong, but here we are.
Jase: Sure. No, I do think that part of what's underneath that is that as the term is being used more, it's not maybe that the meaning of it is solidifying, but that it's more likely you'll encounter a person who thinks they know for sure what that means when they might not know what it means to you. That maybe we're in a little bit of this in-between phase where it's not super well defined. I think in general, the community, myself at least, like it that way. It shouldn't be this fully locked down, it has to look exactly like this. I think the wider public might think they know what it means because they read one news article about it and so they're like, "Ah, yes, I know what that is."
That makes me think of another situation where for myself, I feel like I'm constantly doing a little bit of this mental work when talking to people in choosing which label to use when it comes to bisexual versus pansexual versus queer. I feel like there's this moment every time if that subject comes up, where I have to make this judgment call of which set of connotations and assumptions do I think will most accurately communicate what I'm trying to communicate in this situation because ultimately I think the label is there to help us communicate, not for us to be the slave to those labels, and to just try to follow exactly precisely what they are.
I think the scientists out there, the academic writers might struggle with that because that's so focused on, "We have to define terms very clearly." I think that's a different context than what we're talking about here, where with bisexual, I can say that, and I know that everybody no matter where they lie on their understanding of sexuality and gender and whatever, gets a basic sense of what that means.
In another context though, I might judge that-- I think pansexual might help clarify for this particular audience, who understands or might think more about this distinction, that I don't mean that to say I believe in a gender binary. In a different context, I might use that label instead because I think it's going to help communicate more information more clearly.
Dedeker: Sounds like a tiny bit of code-switching.
Jase: Yes. I'd say code-switching is part of that. Then using queer is like for me using the non-monogamy label.
Emily: I like using it.
Jase: I like it because it doesn't have as much meaning, and so there's this like, "We're going to have to talk about that more if you want to. If you don't, all you have to know is it's just not the heteronormative thing that you may have assumed about me," because I think most people just assume that out the gate about everybody, unless they have clear signs otherwise.
Emily: It's funny, I have been friends with someone who is gay for most of my life, one of my best friends. I said I'm queer recently and he's like, "That's our word," and I'm like, "No, I'm part of that too. Please, just because I've been dating men doesn't mean that I've never dated a woman or people who are non-binary or I still, am reflective of this community of which you are a part. I want you to acknowledge me as that as well, even though maybe in your mind, me as a young person, I only dated men so that was how you see me but it's not who I am and have become and always have been."
It is interesting. It is exactly what you said. It's language. It's just how we want people to see us and understand us better. I think that it is important because of that but it would be really nice if nobody gave a shit too and we just could be who we are without needing to label ourselves all the time. It's helpful, at least. It's helpful to let people know where they stand with us and where we stand with them.
Dedeker: I want to quote, or at least reference a writer. I always feel awkward referencing this writer because his real name is Dinty Moore like the canned beef stew.
Jase: Really?
Dedeker: Yes.
Emily: I'm not aware of this stew. Maybe because I'm vegan.
Dedeker: Yes, Dinty Moore.
Jase: Dinty Moore is what your grandma would have gotten. It's old school.
Dedeker: Old school canned beef stew but anyway, this is his name. An amazing essayist and writer. He writes a lot about writing in particular. He was very inspirational to me any time that I've been doing writing, or working on a book or things like that. At one point he talked about the process of writing and working with this imperfect medium of language and how when we're writing and trying to put words into an idea, it's like we have a bucket full of minnows that we're trying to grasp with our bare hands.
It's like all of these concepts and identities are slippery and fast, like little minnows and we're attempting to use this really imperfect tool to try to keep it in one spot. A label is the best that we got sometimes and we try our best with it. Also, it's like it's going to slip away and it's going to change. I don't know, I think we just roll with the punches. I suppose it comes back to that theme of maybe for myself, it's been this journey of trying to not grasp so incredibly tightly to labels, maybe as much as I once used to.
Jase: I don't know if we fully answered the question of whether we think labels will always be necessary or not. I tend to come down on the pragmatic side of yes, I think they--
Dedeker: As long as we have language and that's how we communicate with each other of course.
Jase: Language is labels in a way. There's really no getting around it completely. I do like it when you're able to be in certain communities where certain labels don't have to be used as much or become less meaningful. Like if I'm at a queer meetup, using the label queer becomes less meaningful and that's nice because it's like, "Yes, that's now just the normal," versus in other more public type settings where it's like, "No, that is an important label because the assumption is you're not because you're just a person in the world." I do think that's an interesting aspect too, of when does a label become more or less meaningful based on how unique it is in the context.
Emily: Did that philosopher maybe make the stew?
Dedeker: He was a writer, not a philosopher.
Emily: Oh.
Jase:
Dedeker: No, but if you're writing, I highly recommend checking out The Mindful Writer by Dinty Moore and if you're not vegan, maybe enjoy some Dinty Moore stew while you're reading it.
Jase: We have one more question to get to today, but we're going to take another quick break to talk about a couple sponsors of the show. We really appreciate so much that these companies are willing to help sponsor this show. Not all companies are comfortable with our show because we're too weird and too outside the normal, or we're part of too many labels.
Emily: It's because of our labels. Exactly.
Jase: Yes. We really appreciate the sponsors that do work with this show, and we want to say thank you to them for sponsoring us and for you, listen to them. If they're interesting to you, using our promo codes then helps them know that that's worthwhile to keep doing. We really appreciate that. If you want to become one of our patreons and also have an option for ad-free episodes, you can check that out at multiamory.com/join.
Dedeker: The last question for this episode is, "How do I deal with the worry that an intimate friendship will change when my friend gets a romantic partner? I dated someone for three months and then we de-escalated to a friendship as he wasn't in a commitment space, and I was. We've kept some elements of physical intimacy, just stuff like I'll stroke his hair or we'll have a cuddle on the sofa. He started dating again, and I'm worried that he won't want or need that anymore, as he'll have another source of intimacy. I'm single and dating on and off, and so he's been my constant in that sense."
That is from Bothered in Bristol. They did write in parentheses, "UK." At first, I was like, "Well obviously Bristol is in the UK," but then I googled it and I was like, 'Oh no, there's 10 cities in the US called Bristol," so thank you for clarifying.
Jase: We could all tell it was the UK because--
Emily: A cuddle on the sofa, that's how I know.
Jase: -have a cuddle instead of to cuddle on the sofa.
Dedeker: Oh, is that the giveaway?
Emily: Have a cuddle?
Dedeker: To have a cuddle? I suppose so.
Emily: Yes, that's very cute. Love it. This is tough.
Dedeker: Oh, boy. I would have some follow-up questions around the de-escalation because I suppose that feels important to me because I think that you can have a de-escalation like this where you're dating, this person is not ready to commit and so you decide to be friends, where one version of that maybe could be really healthy. Maybe you both come to the conclusion, "Yes, you know what? You're right. Let's be very relationship anarchy smorgasbord about this. Let's figure out what are the things we still want to have on the table. What are the things we don't want to have on the table?"
So cool, can be mutually co-created. There also could be a version of this where we de-escalate. One person doesn't want to commit to the relationship right now, but the other person hangs on to literally whatever crumbs they can get because they're sad about losing the relationship. I think this is where I've seen people who've broken up, but they're still like, "Well, yes, let's still cuddle," or "Let's still keep having sex," or "Let's still keep texting each other every single day."
It's not necessarily because that's the best thing for the relationship at that moment. It's because people are afraid of the change and not having this particular channel. It's unclear from the question asker's context that they gave but I guess that's where my brain goes first.
Jase: That's interesting. That's not where my brain went right away but it does make sense that I've been in that type of situation before. There could be some of that going on. I just would have felt like we would have seen a little more of that desire leak through in the question, so to speak, if that were the case but I'm also reading between the lines a lot because we only got this one paragraph here, so who knows?
It does make me wonder if this is a relationship where you could have that conversation, looking at the smorgasbord and saying, "You know what? Do we have in this relationship that we like, and is it okay for us to keep that?" Granted, that can be hard, especially depending on if this person is monogamous, it might be harder if they start dating someone, or even if they want to maintain that relationship with you, the person they're dating might feel threatened by that and have a hard time, but if they're non-monogamous, there's probably more likelihood that that other person would get it and be more comfortable with that.
It does make me wonder if that is something that you could just talk about more explicitly, even if the result of that is understanding from them that they're like, "Yes, I could take it or leave it with this relationship," at least that would be clear, even if it's not the answer you'd want.
Emily: I did wonder if this was a monogamous configuration and that at the moment, at least the physical intimacy is occurring because there is a promise or a hope of another monogamous type relationship eventually that is going to transfer those more physically intimate things that you're doing in this one now to that one. Clearly, many people can get physical intimacy from both friendships and from romantic relationships. That is absolutely possible, but there's always a potential of another partner, especially in a monogamous type setting, not wanting that to be the case, for example.
That is a thing that perhaps you have to worry about or think about at the very least. Dedecker said, bring up to this person that, "Hey, I would love this to be a thing in our lives and our friendship, that we have the ability to do this because it's really important to me and it feels like it's important to you as well. What are the things that potentially could make that not happen anymore? Is that something that I need to worry about? Is that a potential thing that I need to start divesting myself of because I'm doing that in preparation for the inevitable when you are eventually going to find someone and then transfer all of these lovely parts of our relationship to them?"
Dedeker: I think what's hard though, because I'm on the same page with both of you, that if the channel is open in this relationship to just have an open conversation about this that people should, I do think it's hard though, because I don't think a lot of people are willing to admit something like, "No, I'm not actually interested in keeping this relationship around, but I'm scared that if I tell you that, that I'm going to lose my access to nice cuddles in the meantime-
Emily: I thought that too.
Dedeker: -before I found another partner." Not even that people don't want to say that because it sounds bad because it does, but also sometimes people haven't even thought that far necessarily, and sometimes we can bury the things that we want under a lot of layers of justification or denial or obfuscation. That could complicate this as well is if this person hasn't quite done some of that self-reflection around what the goal is for them here, or what the purpose is for them here in staying connected, or maybe what their own value system is around having this type of friendship that it could be hard to have a very clear conversation about what's going on.
Jase: Now, this is going to sound weird because you know on this show we're always such advocates for clear verbal communication about things wherever possible, but I do think for the question asker, if you feel like, "I don't know if that's a conversation that I could have," or you have that situation where, "Yes, we talked about it and I just don't know for sure that he's being honest with himself even, or that he really knows. I'm not sure." Some things that come to mind of just what to look for when evaluating this is when you spend this time together, who's initiating this connection?
You mentioned you stroking his hair, does that ever go the other way around? Is it both of you initiating cuddles equally? What about the hanging out itself? Is that feeling one-sided or both-sided? That might at least give you some clues of, "Okay, am I holding onto something that I want, but this person really isn't as much, or is this, 'Yes, okay. There's something here that doesn't mean a new relationship won't complicate that, but at least I can get a sense of, yes, no, there's definitely something valuable in this that both of us seek out?'"
I always am cautious of trying to read too much between the lines, but I do think it helps you to get some data and to help understand what might be informing your feelings. Is this a fear purely practical? Because when people date people, they often stop hanging out with their friends as much, or that person might be threatened by me, or is this coming from a place of, "There's part of my subconscious that's already feeling like this is tenuous and not very secure and that's why I'm feeling this feeling." That might at least help give you some data to evaluate that even though it's not perfect.
Dedeker: Here's something that I think I can feel pretty confident in extracting from the information that we have here, which is that there's an attachment here. That there's something about this relationship that has tipped over into that sense of attachment. I think anytime there's a sense of stakes, there's a fear of losing somebody, there's some kind of attachment that's there. Again, we don't just have attachment with romantic and sexual relationships. We can have attachment with our friends, with our parents, with our children, with anybody really.
I do think, again, if this is a conversation that could be had, really I think it boils down to, is this other person on the same page that, "Yes, this is an attachment between the two of us that we want to care for in some way, and that we want to keep negotiating what that attachment looks like and how we make each other feel secure and good in this attachment," or is the other person not on the same page? Are they not interested in caring for an attachment-based connection? Maybe that's me trying to oversimplify it, but I feel like that's maybe the crux of it.
Emily: No, I do worry that it feels good right now, so I'm going to do it for the other person. Not that there's any evidence to that necessarily, but that's where my head went initially. It was like, "Well, I don't know what this person is going to do ultimately," because it seems like the one who is invested is the question asker and they're worried about this, and so, yes, I think absolutely getting on the same page or realizing there isn't going to be a same page and therefore I got to figure that out.
Dedeker: Even if you do get on the same page, evaluating, can you tolerate or are the benefits of this connection going to be worth the potential pain when this person does commit to somebody else? When it's a situation of, "Oh, they weren't ready to commit to you, but now they're ready to commit to somebody else. Even if you're on the same page about what type of connection you want to have, that could still freaking suck. I feel like it'd be really hard to not experience feelings of rejection in that situation.
Jase: Yes, I've thought about that a lot, because I do have a friend who we started off by going on a couple of dates and then I was in a place of, "I don't think I really want to be dating right now. Let's have this be more of a friendship." Now it's become a really great friendship. Now as I do think about, "Yes, maybe I'd want to date again," I do have a little fear of her feeling slighted by that or feeling like, "Oh, well, was that not true before?" It's more like this relationship now occupies this very different and still very important place for me. I don't want to try to make it into this other thing that I thought it was going to be at first. It is a bit tricky.
There's definitely stuff to talk about and explore there, and it can be difficult to communicate about no matter what. Even if both people come in with the best intentions, it's a hard thing to evaluate, because we don't have a lot of examples of how to think about friendships and relationships in a more-- how do I say? Proactive, clear way, an intentional way that you don't have a lot of examples, and so it can feel a little bit like we're trying to pave the way that no one has gone before. Even though they have, it's just harder to find those examples.
Dedeker: Bothered in Bristol. Thank you so much for writing in and we wish you all the best.
Jase: Yes. Thank you to all of our question-askers for this week's episode. Bothered in Bristol, Philosophical Panda, and Not Down With OPP (You Don't Know Me), thank you all for submitting your questions.