I absolutely hate this phrase. I can’t tell you how much I loathe it. This makes so little sense, you might as well say “blue fish tuba” to me. I understand the definition of each individual word, but string them together like that and it’s complete gibberish.
I was listening to back episodes of
Polyamory Weekly and I came across one of the seminars that Minx gave at last year’s Heartland Polyamory Conference. I believe the topic had something to do with Agreements between partners. One woman shared a story of how important agreements and communication were in her monogamous marriage. They did not make assumptions about their monogamy; they consciously constructed their relationship through discussion and consensual agreements. Her story included one night that her partner was at a social gathering without her. They had an agreement that they could attend social functions separately as long as they told each other what time they expected to be home. They also had an agreement for exceptions to that agreement, such as one person having too much to drink and staying over instead of driving home, all one had to do was call the spouse and say so.
So, one night, the husband didn’t come home after a party. The next day, she discovered her husband had spent the night with a woman of questionable morals, at least, according to this wife. The wife was livid that her husband broke their agreement, not just in not calling first, but in staying over at
this woman’s house, who would have been off-limits even if he
had called the wife first.
She then said “Of course I trust you honey, it’s
her I don’t trust”. The rest of this workshop went on with no one seeming to notice or comment on this statement, as she continued to extol the virtues of communication and how they eventually arrived at a new agreement. I have to be honest, I don’t even remember what the conclusion was because I was stopped dead at this point.
Here’s the problem I have with this statement. So what if you don’t trust her? She can’t do anything your husband doesn’t let her do! So what if she comes on to him? If he is honorable and trustworthy, he will abide by his agreement with you and not engage in any activity with her you deem unacceptable. The ONLY way she could possibly do anything against your agreements is if you partner ALLOWS her to. And then, you should have a problem with your partner and it
is him you don’t trust. What is the worst that could happen with this untrustworthy other woman? She comes on to him? So what? All he has to do is tell her no. She tries to kiss him? All he has to do is back away. She tries to fuck him? Unless she’s strong enough to physically rape him totally against his will, she won’t accomplish this without his permission (people wishing to prevent their smaller and/or female partners from being alone with a stronger and/or male untrustworthy person is much more reasonable if this is the fear).
What if, in this case, he was incapacitated by alcohol and she takes advantage of him? What if drinking removed his inhibitions and good judgment so that he is more likely to allow something to happen with this other woman that he himself might regret in the morning? She would have duped him, right? Sorry, no, it’s still not
all her fault. I have to question his judgment in deciding to get so bombed that he can no longer be “responsible” for his own actions, particularly if she was present when he started drinking in the first place. The people I tend to surround myself with know how to limit their alcohol intake so that it doesn’t impair their judgment and/or to not drink to excess unless someone they
do trust is present and in the capacity of playing “keeper” for them (I don’t understand the attraction to getting hammered, but some people I know enjoy it on occasion and will arrange for a “keeper” – like a designated driver with more responsibilities than just getting him home alive). So, again, it comes back to the husband not being responsible enough to keep himself from getting in the position where he is likely to break a pre-existing agreement.
If it’s a fear that they might do something that makes you uncomfortable or unhappy but have not explicitly stated in your previous agreement-making discussions and therefore it’s an unanticipated accidental breach, again, this is a flaw in your relationship with him, not with this other woman.
And finally, I have to question the honorability of the husband who is willing to socialize with a woman of such questionable ethics, one who would take advantage of an inebriated state and disrespect his pre-existing agreements. If he doesn’t see anything wrong with socializing with such a person, once again, the responsibility falls on him, not on her.
No matter how you break it down, anyone who says this line
is saying that she doesn’t trust her partner. Because, if she trusted him, it wouldn’t matter how atrocious the other woman is, if he is trustworthy and honorable, he will extricate himself from any sticky situation and it won’t matter that she’s present at all.
If my partners are honorable, trustworthy, ethical, and considerate, I do not need to make rules about their behaviour to ensure they behave honorably, trustworthily, ethically, and considerately because they will
want to do those things the “rules” would cover. If they are not honorable, trustworthy, ethical, and considerate, no amount of rules will prevent them from misbehaving precisely because they
are dishonorable, unethical, untrustworthy and inconsiderate.
Discussions to clarify that we both have the same idea of how we want our relationship to look that might end in agreements like “I agree, I want our relationship to look like that too” is not the same thing as a rule governing your partner’s behaviour. I say “I want my relationships to look like this.” My potential partner says “I want my relationships to look like that too.” Then I can say “great, we want the same kind of relationship and we like each other, let’s be together!” Refining and further clarifications, as well as regular check-ins to keep an eye on the evolution of the relationship are also beneficial.
But this scenario is telling a partner that he cannot do something that he wants to do. She is telling him that he is not capable of preventing their agreements from being broken by this other woman without the wife’s interference. That this other woman is somehow so powerful and overwhelming, that even a trustworthy, honorable, considerate, and ethical husband cannot even be allowed in her presence and cannot judge for himself that this other woman is such a monster.
Of course the wife doesn’t trust the other woman – as people get further outside of our monkeysphere, our trust levels decline. Most reasonable people trust social acquaintances less than close friends or lovers. But so what? I don’t trust other drivers not to be stupid on the road and possibly kill my lovers either, but I don’t need to place a rule restricting them from driving. I count on their ability – my trust of their abilities – to drive defensively in spite of the idiots on the road and come back home again. They might not, and that’s a risk that has to be taken to exist in this society.
But it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT that this other woman is not trustworthy. She doesn’t have to be. Who has to be is your partner, and if he is trustworthy, then it doesn’t matter what she does, he will honor your agreements. This statement of trust only broadcasts your own distrust and insecurities and your unspoken assumptions about your relationship, not the other woman.
Further reading on rules and relationship agreements:
Some Thoughts On Relationship Rules by Tacit Some Thoughts On Rules, Responsibility, Ethics, Polyamory, And Relationships by Tacit![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
childfreepoly . It seems to be a fledgling site and I have yet to determine how poly-friendly it is (there are no glaring red flags so far), but I want to support any dating site that encourages non-traditional relationship styles. And since I happen to *be* Childfree By Choice, I joined, and I'm recommending everyone else who is to join too, whether you want to actively participate or not. 
