More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory (31 page)

Bella and I had been together for ten years when she called it off. I was devastated, but for a long time, I held on to the belief that what went wrong was somehow her fault: that if she had just stayed in the space Celeste and I had set aside for her, everything would have been okay. Only much later did I understand why making that space for her and telling her to stay put inside it was not a kind or loving thing for me to do—and when I did figure that out, the pain was much worse.

If your car needs an alternator, you can go to an auto parts store and pick one off the shelf. But people are not car parts. Each of us is unique, and it's the things that make us unique that matter. Swapping one person for another in the hopes that the new person will meet the needs unfilled by the old really doesn't work.

HIERARCHY AND ETHICS

Is it possible to practice hierarchical polyamory in a caring and ethical way? Yes, but it takes special attention to avoid hurting people. A secondary partner is in a uniquely vulnerable position and may feel she has limited recourse when problems arise. It is particularly vital to consider this whenever you make decisions that affect a secondary partner directly. This doesn't mean that consideration for the secondary partner should override any and all needs within the primary relationship. Avoid either-or thinking: that if someone's needs don't come first, that must mean another's needs do. Instead, work together to give everyone space to voice their needs. There might be many ways to have certain needs met, and needs do not always have to be in conflict even when they seem to be.

Primary partners should be especially conscious of how their decisions will impact their secondary partners, and take care to treat the secondary partner's needs and feelings gently and with compassion. In particular, when things get stormy in a primary relationship, it's easy to become so concerned with our own issues that we forget to pay attention to the secondary being hurt. Franklin has been guilty of this himself, and he knows how easy it can be.

In chapter 3 we introduced our
Relationship Bill of Rights
. It contains, we believe, standards by which to judge whether a hierarchical relationship is ethical and healthy. These rights apply to all relationships, but hierarchical relationships in particular risk abridging many of them. The following are examples of specific relationship rights that are at risk in hierarchical relationships and ways in which these rights are commonly overridden:

• to choose the level of involvement and intimacy you want,
  and to revoke consent to any form of intimacy at any time.
  Both the pivot partner (the person in the middle) and the secondary partner in a hierarchical vee structure can have this right violated if the primary partner restricts the intimacy they can choose with each other, or if the primary partner requires that the secondary partner be intimate with her too.
  
• to revoke consent to any form of intimacy at any time.
  This right can be violated when the primary couple keeps relevant information from the secondary partner.
  
• to hold and express differing points of view.
  It's common for primary couples to shut down complaints or concerns from the secondary partner if they contradict the primary couple's rules, or to forbid a secondary partner from attempting to renegotiate the rules.
  
• to feel all your emotions.
  Both the pivot and secondary partners may be subject to rules restricting what they are allowed to feel.
  
• to feel and communicate your emotions and needs.
  Generally speaking, rules against specific emotions are really rules against communicating feelings, since people cannot control what they feel, but only what they express. When a secondary partner does express "forbidden" emotions, they are often dismissed as unreal or less important than those of the primary couple.
  
• to set boundaries concerning your privacy needs.
  Some primary couples do not recognize the right to privacy of the members of a secondary relationship. There may, for example, be expectations that the primary partner will tell the other primary intimate details that the secondary partner considers private.
  
• to seek balance between what you give to the relationship and what is given back to you.
  It is common to see secondary partners expected to give things to the primary couple that are not reciprocated.
  
• to know that your partner will work with you to resolve issues that arise.
  Often secondary relationships are subject to rules that were put in place before the secondary partner came on the scene. If a rule is not working for the secondary relationship, will the original members of the relationship renegotiate?
  
• to make mistakes.
  There may be an expectation that a secondary relationship will be ended the first time the secondary partner makes a mistake.
  
• to decide how many partners you want and to choose your own partners.
  Hierarchy often includes a "screening veto," discussed in the next chapter, that restricts people from selecting their own partners.
  
• to have an equal say with each of your partners in deciding the form your relationship with that partner will take.
  In many hierarchies, the primary couple has more say than the secondary partner in deciding this.
  
• to choose the level of time and investment you will offer to each partner.
  The pivot partner's ability to choose the level of investment she wants to give to each of her relationships may be limited by pre-existing rules set by the primary relationship.
  
• to understand clearly any rules that will apply to your relationship before entering into it.
  Many secondary partners feel that they did not fully understand what they were getting into.
  
• to discuss with your partners decisions that affect you.
  Many primary couples make decisions about the secondary relationship, then present them as a fait accompli.
  
• to have time alone with each of your partners.
  Some primary couples have rules prohibiting this.
  
• to enjoy passion and special moments with each of your partners.
  Hierarchical relationships often have rules restricting the amount of intimacy or "specialness" the secondary relationship can have.
  
• to choose the level of involvement and intimacy you want with your partners' other partners.
  Hierarchical relationships often seek to prescribe the relationships with more than one person, sometimes even requiring the secondary partner to be sexually or romantically involved with both members of the primary couple.
  
• to seek compromise.
  Often the primary couple expects to dictate terms.
  
• to have relationships with people, not with relationships.
  The primary couple may expect the secondary partner to interact with them as a unit, limiting the individual relationships that may develop.
  
• to have plans made with your partner be respected; for instance, not changed at the last minute for trivial reasons.
  Primary couples often assume they are free to change plans whenever they "have to."
  
• to be treated as a peer of every other person, not as a subordinate, even when differing levels of commitment or responsibility exist.
  Hierarchical relationships tend to be disempowering to at least the secondary partner, and often to the pivot partner in the core couple as well.
  

So, are hierarchical relationships inherently disempowering? Or can they be practiced fairly and ethically, in a way that benefits everyone and does not violate the Relationship Bill of Rights? We are hesitant to give a categorical yes or no. Because of the popularity of hierarchical poly relationships, we would like to be able to say, "Yes, it is possible to conduct hierarchical relationships ethically and responsibly, for the benefit of everyone involved." But the truth is, in all our years of practicing polyamory, in the thousands of emails Franklin has received and the hundreds of stories people have shared online, we have never seen a hierarchical relationship that worked well for everyone over the long term.

It's common to hear people say that a hierarchical relationship "works for us," and by "us" they mean the primary couple. But if you look at their relationship histories, you'll often find a string of past secondary partners who were either vetoed for trying to renegotiate the rules once they became too constricting or who left the relationship because of poor treatment. (This, sadly, describes Franklin's history of secondary relationships during his eighteen years with Celeste.)

Many people who have been a secondary partner in a hierarchy have sworn never to do it again. It's difficult to say that hierarchy is "working" when we include these people in our assessment. On the other hand, couples often complain that they just can't seem to find secondary partners who are "really poly"—that is, who won't want a say in the rules that govern them. When couples consistently can't find partners willing to participate in their flavor of hierarchy, it's difficult to say that hierarchy is working for
them
, either.

You
do
see relationship networks where people have carefully worked to maximize well-being and respect the relationship rights of everyone involved, while upholding their commitments to their partners. But in our experience, by the time someone has managed to avoid the pitfalls above and remains focused on, say, a long-standing lifetime partnership while treating newer or less-entwined partners with integrity and compassion, the structure that is left tends to no longer resemble a hierarchy. Such relationships instead begin to look like empowered relationships, the subject of chapter 13. But first we need to talk about a particular kind of agreement that's a keystone of many hierarchical poly relationships: the veto.

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF

You may encounter relationship hierarchy in one of two ways: by instituting it in one or more of your relationships, or by entering a relationship with someone who is already part of a hierarchical structure. The questions to ask yourself will differ depending on which situation you're in.

If you are considering implementing a relationship hierarchy:

• How do I view potential new partners, both for myself and for my existing partners? Do I see them as potential problems to be managed? Or do I see them as potential sources of joy to enrich my partner's life? How does my approach to hierarchy reflect that view?
  
• Are there specific assets, commitments or people (such as children) I am seeking to protect with a hierarchy? Can I imagine other avenues for achieving that protection?
  
• Am I open to secondary relationships someday becoming primary relationships, given enough time and investment?
  
• What will I do if a secondary partner becomes dissatisfied with the rules that apply to them? Am I willing or able to involve that partner in renegotiations of those rules?
  

If you are considering entering a hierarchy as a secondary partner:

• Do I clearly understand both the letter and the intent of the rules that will apply to my relationship? Am I comfortable maintaining a relationship within those rules? Am I comfortable with the reasons for the rules?
  
• Do I know whether the rules that apply to my relationship are subject to change? If so, who may change them, and how? What input will I have into those changes?
  
• Will the term secondary be applied to my relationship, and if so, do I understand how the primary couple is defining the word? Am I comfortable with the definition?
  
• Will it be possible for the secondary nature of my relationship to evolve into primary, if my partner and I desire that? If not, how will I feel about my relationship remaining secondary long into the future—say, ten or fifteen years?
  

12

VETO ARRANGEMENTS

May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.

NELSON
MANDELA

The word
veto
is Latin for "I forbid." It refers to one person's power to prevent something from happening. In law—where the English use of the word comes from—a veto is something that happens at the
end
of a deliberative process. When we talk about "veto" in polyamorous relationships, we're talking about something very specific: the agreed-upon ability for one person to tell another "I want you to break up with your lover," and have the breakup happen.

Identifying a real veto situation can at times be tricky, because some people use the word
veto
to describe things that aren't veto by this definition. For instance, we often run into people who say, "We have the right to talk to our partner if one of her other relationships becomes a problem, discuss the problems we see and ask for resolutions, which might include changes up to and including ending the relationship." We prefer to call this sort of arrangement "good communication," not "veto." If you have something you call "veto" that looks like this, we are not talking about you.