Legal Poly Marriage is not fiscally practical

The blogPoly Percolations: polyamory in the news had an interesting jump point about how legal poly marriage is never going to happen. This is Mistress Matisse's personal experience of course but it does raise the question: Is legal poly marriage fiscally practical?

Why I don't want the government involved in my poly marriage:

First off, government would have to define what polyamory and poly marriage really mean. By defining a thing, you limit it. This is not really what polyamory is all about. It takes the individual choice out of it. You'd have to limit it in some way which necessarily excludes some expressions of the relationship style. Why the limit? Because of taxes.

You would also have to work out things like custody, how to protect in cases of domestic violence and child abuse and how divorce would work. That would require a social shift in attitudes about such things.

We aren't a large movement with a lot of funding. It's not important to me to be recognized as married in the sense of benefits. What is important is that it isn't criminal. That I won't be arrested for living in a way that harms no one.

I am married on paper already and that solves the problem of legal benefits and in no way indicates a stronger bond emotionally to Prof or Mad Science. It does however determine where I live and where my fiscal responsibilities lie. In many ways this makes legal marriage a financial decision rather than an emotional one. This is not far from how marriage has been in the past. Once and still in some places marriage was an arranged alliance between families to increase status, wealth, power or to create peace between families. It benefitted the social structure of family more than the married couple even in cultures that support wives with more than one husband.

The last time there was a really significant legal look at equality in marriage was at the beginning of the women's suffrage movement the following laws came into being. Divorce was expensive and difficult to obtain, especially for women. Women were also denied custody, sovereignty over her own property, and person. She would be denied higher education and the only career she could hope for outside marriage were the low paying or degrading jobs exclusive to women at the time. Seamstress, Laundress, Governess, Nanny, Cook, Nurse or Sex Worker.

• 1839: Infants and Child Custody Act: women were allowed take custody of their children under the age of seven if divorced or separated. They could not take custody if they had been found to be adulterous. Before this law the father was immediately awarded custody and it did not depend on the reasons for divorce.
• 1857: Matrimonial Causes Act: allows divorce—but only in limited instances: Imposes matrimonial double standard: Permits men to divorce on grounds of adultery, but not women.
• 1857: Civil divorce was introduced in England: The process left the divorced pair either unable to remarry, or it declared their existing children as illegitimate.
• 1870: Married Women's Property Act: allowed for women to keep their earnings and even inherit personal property and money. Everything else still belonged to her husband if she had acquired it before or after marriage.
• 1882: a woman could finally keep all personal and real property that she had gotten before and during her marriage.
• 1883: Custody Acts: allowed for women to be awarded custody of children up to the age of 16 (Moore par.4-5).

What does this have to do with poly marriage? Well, a lot really. These laws were made to protect women and children from the male dominated ownership policy marriage had been. An arrangement that allowed men to have a wife for property and procreation and a mistress (or mister) for companionship and sex for pleasure with no legal consequences. Many anti-suffragists considered feminism to be damaging to women because they were weak minded, emotionally unstable, and frail bodied. They believed this would bring the end of the institution of marriage whose sole purpose was property and procreation. Homosexual marriage doesn't meet these requirements even though it is often monogamous in nature how much more then, does poly stand outside tradition? That is not to say that poly isn't practical in our economy, more income and more support for children is a good thing, and in many ways is another way to have the benefits of extended family life of the past. The battle about abortion and rape culture we are experiencing proves that we aren't ready as a society to accept the leap to non-monogamy for a while yet. 

I, for one, am content with my situation. I, however, have no children to support and could support myself if things went south across the board. The more variables the more complicated this issue becomes, though, infinite possibility is hard to legislate. It would be like say, a small corporation with the members of the family as the board of directors which is an image most people have problems with when talking about the business of having relationships and children.

Bubble time

Bubble time- is the chance to spend intense time with another person without more than necessary practical issues.

Over Valentine's weekend I got a chance for some bubble time with my spice, Prof. We hung out, ate, slept, had sex. This isn't reality. It doesn't care about taxes, or government or responsibilities beyond self care. It's about being fully with another person. We don't have the luxury of this often. There are too many things to be done, discussed and dealt with. Laundry, dishes, cooking, going to the doctor, working and the other stuff that are part of having a life that is fairly comfortable but sometimes you have to make time for a little escape with the people you love most. Time to just be with them, just to see them beyond their practical role in the relationship.

Mad Science and I could use a little of this bubble time and we will talk about that need and then go do it. It's a chance to reconnect with what you love and know about the person and discover how they have evolved since last you took a close look. Let's face it most of us, if we feel secure and comfortable in a relationship go on auto pilot. Sometime later we look up and realize the person we have been assuming was predictable and unchanging has done something we didn't expect, like fall out of love or out grow us spiritually. So I think it is necessary to come back and see who that person is and be part of their lives instead of making them accessories to ours. I think that is part of the reason traditional marriage is in trouble. We put on and take off people as it suits us rather than doing the work to change with a person as opposed to expecting them to always be there to meet whatever needs we have without regard for their lives as people.

A relationship involves some sacrifice and care. The partnership is like a vehicle that takes the lovers from goal to goal and must be maintained consciously. To go thirty years and never give your relationship a tune up is the reason relationships sink. People can outgrow one another when left alone too long. The idea of a long relationship is to grow together. Does that mean you have to be attached at the hip? Not really but it is important to check in, discuss and negotiate. So we turn off the machines and go camping, we read to each other, we watch things that move us and discuss them, we check-in a thousand different ways but sometimes we need to loaf on the couch and cuddle, or have deep discussions into the night over a bottle of wine, or take time to be children together and have an adventure. The point of relationship is not to become secure and homogenous it's to cause us to grow at a deeper level. We can't do that unless there is some change and we are aware of it. How can you spend bubble time with someone you care about? Do you talk to your kids and spend time with them individually? How about your siblings? Do you really know them? What about those in your intimate circle? When was the last time you had a girl's/guy's night out? When was the last time you listened to what your spouse was actually saying?

What? Responsible non monogamy has rules?

I know it seems hard to believe that poly people have rules. First, the whole point of becoming poly for me was to love responsibly. Otherwise, I was miserable with the idea that I couldn't love more than one person on an intimate level without being referred to as "the slutty selfish cheater". Ok, I still get called that. However today's jump point is about "polynormativity" more specifically about how poly is presented as always beginning with a hetero couple who have all these rules and hierarchy about how everyone is supposed to behave and how everyone in poly is young and photogenic and they all sleep together.
The problem with polynormativity. This is long but well worth a look.

We started out with rules as a couple but we haven't been just a couple in a long time. We are a triad who is pretty much poly fi but not strictly so. It's hard for a decent guy to get a date much less an awesome poly guy. So that's the only reason there are really any limits. Do we have rules? Sure, but just the one really and it is for the protection of the health of everyone involved. Safe, sane, consensual, and courteous. Because no one wants to wake up at 4 in the morning with a gun to their head or in the ER because Belinda couldn't stand not getting to stay with Mona on her saturday just because it was Maria's birthday.

Whining drama aside, the whole point of polyamory, and it's flexibility, was to explore love as a fluid dynamic rather than a static one. So as we develop trust and self confidence and as we mature, naturally things should change. I think part of the reason poly fails is because the rules don't change or don't include everyone in the discussion.

There were a lot of rules. I had to know before sex. There had to be a meeting if we were welcoming a new person because of course every new person was going to be a long term partner and we had to all get along. I had to be allowed veto power on a new person. You see the problem? My insecurity. There were a lot of things like that in the beginning. I have since learned to trust.

Sometimes rules are like the training wheels for trust. That is why kids have rules to follow until they prove that they can be responsible. Once we see a person can be responsible and trusted then the rules relax.

But do we have to have them? I don't know, all things being equal and no baggage not so much. I am just not sure we are ever going to find someone to love that doesn't have some kind of baggage and can act like a responsible adult right off the bat in a new situation.

Hierarchy? Maybe we have a little of that based solely on the distance between spice but we have gone a long way to help Prof feel as comfortable as an equal partner as we can. We value his opinion and needs as much as we do our own. We've been together a long time the three of us. Mad Science has the odd encounter. Prof pines for his love interest. I sometimes dream we had a car mechanic in the family. But all that aside, it was a process. I had to overcome jealousy, ownership, mistrust etc., because my experience led me to believe that those things where what love was about. It isn't. I actually show less love if I am trying to control the behavior for others for my comfort. Watch out codependents poly may not be right for you. But by giving it a chance, it did work and continues to. Would I like to see some things different? Sure. It would be nice to have all of us in proximity but I realize the game isn't done yet and you never know what will happen on an idle Thursday.

As for the media thing: Media trolls what sells and making poly look hetero-normative and slightly less scary than the reality of infinite possibility in infinite combinations can be useful, of course, they have to go with what sells.

LGBTQ: We have a transgendered person in our circle who I like very much. She presents as female and I treat her as female. If she was to become involved intimately with anyone in the triad she would be welcome. We personally haven't had direct experience with that. There is a lot of opening up to happen and a lot of exploration and experience to be had but it will come in time. Until then we roll as best we can, as our skills and self awareness develop, sometimes rules are necessary, sometimes not so much. The skill of living or loving for that matter is in flexibility and willingness to grow. Some people don't like change, those people maybe shouldn't be poly unless they can learn.

Honor and Gender

Here's the start point: What is Honor?

I enjoy the work of Brett McKay on his site The Art of Manliness while I don't agree with everything he says, much of it makes sense. But let's talk honor.

In the start point article he points out that honor is given by a peer group or superior based on the meeting of minimum standards, and new actions that support them. That it can be lost, must exist in an exclusive group of equals (horizontal honor), and that shame is an important part of the all or nothing game.

We view this, in modern times, as an adherence to some internal code of ethics, integrity, the keeping of one's word, behaving on the outside as one believes internally. Conviction and behavior that follows this. Unfortunately, this is not kept in check by any self monitoring awareness these days. Honor should include some element of respect for all things, and protection of the weak, rather than it's exploitation.

This brings us to the peculiar gender based honor system. A woman's honor stems from her person, bearing, charity and not least of which, fidelity and chastity, as judged by others. At least in bygone days, a woman's perceived honor depended a great deal on decent behavior by men and their view of her behavior. For women as property were judged like one's dogs or horses. A well behaved property meant that you were a person of honor. There are flaws in this argument that we will have to cover another time.

It's not so different now. As women we still bear the labels of shame because of rape, incest, abuse, and a lack of sovereignty in our physical person. We sought out the right to behave as men do, without the cost we normally incurred. The cost has not changed.

Once you seek equality by engaging in the competitive honor system of men you must show yourself equal in all things to men. Such a thing is asking an elephant to climb a tree. I'm not saying that there are not many women who are physically equal, or that there are not women who are not as staunch protectors, or financiers of family life. There are truly remarkable women who can perform feats of "manliness". However, it comes at a cost. Such behavior strips you of your femininity. Don't believe me? Think about the female boss who demands performance in the strictest sense, a ball buster. Or the woman who doesn't take excuses for bad behavior, the prude. How about the woman who says no. Bitch. Are these less damaging than slut, whore, nag or bluestocking? In truth, men are not easier on each other where a strict ethical code is in place but they take it as appropriate behavior for other men to behave this way. Whereas women in the same position, expecting the same things are greeted with derogatory back talk, and slandering gossip.

Historically, a woman's honor group has been other women and works best in the  cooperative rather than competitive. A grouping of women as part of a subset of a society who share as friends and family apart from the governess of men. I'm for honor systems, to a point but not so much along gender lines.

Shouldn't honor instead be adjusted as the definition of equality changes. Should we not include more people as equals based on new criteria? Should we not treat all living creatures with respect who honor the code? Our peer group should be all humanity, and the shame we accrue for violating the human code of honor should be regulated by self awareness as well as some external pressure. Should it mean our lives? I don't know. It depends on the severity of the infraction. If a person violates or kills should they be violated or killed? Is the goal of honor to weed out the bad or teach some lesson and civilize or raise the level of behavior to something more enlightened and harmonious? Or is honor outmoded?

The Fallacy of Fair

Today's jump point is an excellent article on fairness by David Noble, The Fallacy of Fairness.

He brings up some interesting ideas about fairness and balance I would like to explore in my own relationships. We are in a V, of which, I am the hinge. This means that the distribution of my time must be split between three people, myself, Prof, and Mad Science.

Should things be equal? This usually means I need to spend equal time with both partners? At least that is the expectation. Supposedly, to offset or avoid jealous feelings on the part of one or more of the people involved. Here are a few reasons things will never be truly fair or equal in our relationships.

1. I have a partner that lives three hours away. How much time I spend with him is contingent on technology and money. (my car, my computer, time to talk on the phone or skype).

2. They work full time jobs which makes their time limited. Down shift time is super important and cuts into real relationship interaction stuff, like sex, meaningful conversation, or just connection.

3. Level of need and contribution fluctuate as individuals change and grow or cycle through their normal stuff. For example: Illness. One may be sick and need extra care. By necessity that leaves out the others in some way, or when I hit bottom in my manic depression cycle, I am more vulnerable and require some special care. Maybe Mad Science has an important function I need to be present for, say he won inventor of the year or something, then I would choose to support him in this one off deal instead of celebrating a birthday with my friends.

So how do we cope? Well, we recognize that if our preferred person can not meet a need we have it is ok to ask someone else to help with that. We are all on the same side not in competition. Not all need is need, sometimes it is want packaged as need. We recognize need for what it is and want for what it is. Not all desire can be met as we would like, that is acceptable. When we need or want we ask. The worst that can happen is the other will say "No, I can't right now. Is there another way we can do this? Or another time?"

Also let me say that the idea of fairness embodies the idea of entitlement. Somehow things are supposed to be fair, I am owed a certain amount of your time because you are committed to me in some way. It's more of a monogamous body ownership idea but we were all raised this way so it's bound to bleed through, even if we think we've got it handled. We also tend to equate time with love. Not always true. Certainly, it is supposed that if you love someone you want to spend a great deal of your time together but it doesn't mean you are required to or that it is somehow to be expected. I mean that it isn't a measure of veracity of feeling. I may not be in physical proximity with my lover more than once a month but that does not mean I love him less. Time may equal money but love doesn't equal time. Love is a limitless expression, time is more of a commodity that must be managed with intention and an eye to harmony in one's life. There have been many complaints from women who feel their husbands are married to their jobs instead of them. Mismanaged time. This is not because a man doesn't love his wife necessarily but because provision is a more important an act of love than connection for some men. That would be ok if women and men saw love and it's expression the same ways, often they don't. So fair doesn't really exist for us. I rarely harbor so great a resentment as to stomp my pretty little feet claiming it isn't fair. I look at what I want and need and try to think practically about how to resolve the issue with as much eye to the happiness and security of the guys as I can but fair/equal doesn't feature in as much as. Do they feel secure in the relationship? Do they feel loved? Do I give them space to chose happiness over resentment? Do my choices do the same for me?

gender equality...Hah!

Ok. There is not really a jump point for today. I heard someone say something that harkened back to my mother and had to blog about it. The person said of a college aged child of theirs regarding sexual misconduct (to be clear, this was rape).

"You know how boys are. It was her fault for being too drunk at the party." This said by the Mother of the boy in question.

In my case it was..."Men are animals with insurmountable instincts we just let them do what they do and get on with our lives." My mother's words. She also told me "You are a woman you should know better." This creates an inherited social order where women are morally responsible for society, have to constantly protect themselves from harm, and see  being female as a liability.

The "boys will be boys" tripe has excused violence against anyone different than the person committing such injustice for a really long time. If I were a man I would be angry that someone automatically assumed I had no self control. Or worse intentionally gave me liberty to be something so socially suicidal as being a creepy stalker with entitlement issues that I would, as an adult, have to work hard to change.

How exactly did moral onus become a "woman's job"? Knowing rationally, that I can no more control or change the behavior of another person any more than I can magically become 5'8" and 120 lbs overnight. How then, is it ok to excuse rape, violence, or any other douchebaggery solely on the basis of gender, or race for that matter?

This attitude that violence and rape are inevitable means no one is safe from the ravages of male privilege. It causes problems for those who do have self control. I know a man who fought for custody of his daughter and because he was male didn't get it on the grounds that a) no man would willingly want to raise a child, b) that there was an increased risk of sexual abuse in a situation where a single father was raising a daughter, and c) that said person, being male didn't have the required parental instincts to properly raise a child. All of which, in this case, were totally unfounded.

It is truly sad that over half of our population is in fear of violence just for being unlucky enough not to be male and/or white. I'm not really hating on white men, because there are many good ones who don't exhibit a need to control everyone around them as their right. I am saying those who beat their wives, stalk innocent women, engage in revenge porn, abuse children, and are irresponsible in general give the rest a bad name. When 1 in 6 girls is raped before they finish high school either there are more men out there that believe the lie of privilege or the few sure get around.

The media historically has been no help here. When everything comes down to a battle of us vs them. Venus against Mars, as though we are a different species entirely, then there is going to be a conquer or surrender dynamic in male-female relationships. It is a sad commentary on our society when I look at a man in my space and automatically assess the possibility of violence and form an escape route as part of my daily life. Men don't have to do this unless they are gay or trans but "apparently" they aren't "real" men and therefore free game too. What is equally sad is that women perpetuate this as much as men do. The two examples above are just the tip of the iceberg of things that women tell their daughters. If this nonsense is allowed to continue we may as well begin self defense training and arming girls as early as 3.

"Sorry, no ballet Susi, you have to go to Judo instead and then the gun range, because men are beasts." really?

Then there is the sense that our sex is a liability. Don't believe me? Check this out. A man fires a woman, not because she has agreed to sexual congress, or has tried to file sexual harassment but because he is attracted to her and it may cause him to damage his marriage. How about women on the front lines? We can't have women on the front lines because the necessary segregation because of hygiene is impractical in a war situation. So you don't mind peeing next to a man but the idea of a woman relieving herself or showering nearby makes your heart beat fast? Gays weren't allowed in the military until recently for a similar reason. As if every gay man is attracted to straight homophobic tough guys and will therefore rape someone out in the field. What? How about the debate on maternity leave or sick days around the stressful days of the menstrual cycle, or birth control as part of insurance, or daycare? What about sick days taken for children who need cared for at home? All issues mean women cost more to employ and therefore deserve less pay. These same detractors complain about welfare too, which they feel is dominantly collected by single moms. I read a comment on a blog about this recently that indicated that if women weren't so weak and lazy maybe they would get paid more. What?

The bottom line is if society marginalizes women and keeps them in survival mode they don't have time to exercise greater levels of excellence thus perpetuating the myths that we are weak and unequal to the task of being considered real human beings with rights. It is also true for minorities and LGBTQ folks. It's how privilege maintains its status.

Some people will point to women in power, of the women in political or business power, I wonder how many of them were privileged in some way. Liberal parents and/or rich parents? How many of those women had to endure harassment or paid by de-feminizing themselves in some way? Or worse, using their femininity in debasing and degrading ways to get ahead? My sister has worked in the auto business for 15 years and has struggled with discrimination. She is pretty and once was very feminine but has had to "butch up" to keep from being harassed and to be taken seriously in spite of the fact that she is very intelligent, good at her job and is more knowledgeable about cars than many men she works with.

When we can stop being trained to feel ashamed of our very gender, and stop fearing for our lives and safety, maybe we will summon the will to have enough voice to stop violence against women. When men begin to see this as a human problem maybe the ones who aren't asshole will stand up to those who are on our behalf and join the fight instead of remaining silent for fear of being put in the "pussy whipped" camp.