The "rebuilding" isn't to incorporate a new person, it's to create a new relationship where new relationships can happen. Technically, every major change to a relationship *is* a "rebuilding" - when someone gets a new job that changes their income level, their schedule, or their location, the relationship gets rebuilt; when there is a baby, the relationship gets rebuilt; when there is a major move where jobs and friendships and communities have to be found again, the relationship gets rebuilt.
So, technically, any time someone who has partners finds other partners, each existing relationship will be affected, so you could say that is "rebuilding" each new relationship.
But none of that is the same thing as what I'm talking about.
If a couple "rebuilds" to incorporate a third, then A) yes that would require rebuilding if they then add a fourth; and B) that's exactly the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm basically suggesting that they *decouple* or *disentangle* themselves from their "couplehood" and start a brand new relationship that is not couple-centric in the first place.
If two people can build a partnership between them that is not couple-centric, that doesn't place a priority on their couplehood, that isn't trying to patchwork on new paradigms to an old, incompatible structure but instead is built from the ground up with the new paradigm *as* the new structure, then they don't need to demolish and rebuild every time there is a new partner because the structure that they built isn't number-of-partner-contingent. Does that make sense? That new structure is *already accommodating* of new relationships because that was the whole point to the redesign in the first place.
The point is not to go from a couple to a triad, the point is to go from a couple to two independent people in a partnership who are free to build other relationships with other people. So you don't dismantle and deconstruct a couple in order to build a triad, which would require you to dismantle and deconstruct the triad in order to build a quad, you dismantle and deconstruct the couple in order to clear the lot to make room for a multi-dwelling complex with room to grow and change over time.
You make two independent dwellings (people) that work in a cooperative system that leaves room for additional dwellings of as-yet unknown shape and size. Those other dwellings don't get built until the people who are going to live in them show up to design them for themselves. So you set about installing the infrastructure that can handle adding new dwellings in the future even though you don't know what those dwellings are going to be just yet.
If you can do that, then you don't have to bulldoze each and every time someone wants to build a new dwelling on your property with you. You only have to do a little accommodation in the places where that new dwelling will intersect with the existing dwellings, because the foundation and infrastructure is already there.
The problem with monogamous couples trying to "open up" is that they don't have this foundation or infrastructure. They're just trying to tack on an extra room (that they've designed) onto their existing house and to fit someone into it who had little to no say in the design of that room.
That's why I want them to stop looking at it as "opening up". They're not "opening up" their existing home to squeeze someone new into it. They need to build a whole new property that can allow for additional inhabitants without knowing who they are or what they want yet. They have to tear down their existing monogamous structure and put in a polyamorous foundation that can accommodate change and other people's input.
If they do that, then they don't have to start from scratch each and every time someone gets a new partner. If they do try to start from scratch with each new partner, that suggests that they didn't really start from scratch the first time, they just took the old model and made it one room bigger, just as if they would have tacked on the extra room to the old building only they're pretending it's not exactly the same because they built this one fresh with that extra room.
If it's the same house but with one extra room, it doesn't matter how recently they built it. It's the same problem. It's the act of dismantling all their previous structures and building something new intended to handle change and additions that I'm trying to get at here.
no subject
So, technically, any time someone who has partners finds other partners, each existing relationship will be affected, so you could say that is "rebuilding" each new relationship.
But none of that is the same thing as what I'm talking about.
If a couple "rebuilds" to incorporate a third, then A) yes that would require rebuilding if they then add a fourth; and B) that's exactly the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm basically suggesting that they *decouple* or *disentangle* themselves from their "couplehood" and start a brand new relationship that is not couple-centric in the first place.
If two people can build a partnership between them that is not couple-centric, that doesn't place a priority on their couplehood, that isn't trying to patchwork on new paradigms to an old, incompatible structure but instead is built from the ground up with the new paradigm *as* the new structure, then they don't need to demolish and rebuild every time there is a new partner because the structure that they built isn't number-of-partner-contingent. Does that make sense? That new structure is *already accommodating* of new relationships because that was the whole point to the redesign in the first place.
The point is not to go from a couple to a triad, the point is to go from a couple to two independent people in a partnership who are free to build other relationships with other people. So you don't dismantle and deconstruct a couple in order to build a triad, which would require you to dismantle and deconstruct the triad in order to build a quad, you dismantle and deconstruct the couple in order to clear the lot to make room for a multi-dwelling complex with room to grow and change over time.
You make two independent dwellings (people) that work in a cooperative system that leaves room for additional dwellings of as-yet unknown shape and size. Those other dwellings don't get built until the people who are going to live in them show up to design them for themselves. So you set about installing the infrastructure that can handle adding new dwellings in the future even though you don't know what those dwellings are going to be just yet.
If you can do that, then you don't have to bulldoze each and every time someone wants to build a new dwelling on your property with you. You only have to do a little accommodation in the places where that new dwelling will intersect with the existing dwellings, because the foundation and infrastructure is already there.
The problem with monogamous couples trying to "open up" is that they don't have this foundation or infrastructure. They're just trying to tack on an extra room (that they've designed) onto their existing house and to fit someone into it who had little to no say in the design of that room.
That's why I want them to stop looking at it as "opening up". They're not "opening up" their existing home to squeeze someone new into it. They need to build a whole new property that can allow for additional inhabitants without knowing who they are or what they want yet. They have to tear down their existing monogamous structure and put in a polyamorous foundation that can accommodate change and other people's input.
If they do that, then they don't have to start from scratch each and every time someone gets a new partner. If they do try to start from scratch with each new partner, that suggests that they didn't really start from scratch the first time, they just took the old model and made it one room bigger, just as if they would have tacked on the extra room to the old building only they're pretending it's not exactly the same because they built this one fresh with that extra room.
If it's the same house but with one extra room, it doesn't matter how recently they built it. It's the same problem. It's the act of dismantling all their previous structures and building something new intended to handle change and additions that I'm trying to get at here.