![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There is often a debate in online venues about the Unicorn, the Holy Grail of polyamory. Also known as the "mythical" HBB or Hot Bi Babe, this is the bisexual female that a married male-female couple is seeking to be their magical "third", the person who will "complete" them by developing equal emotional and sexual relationships with both members of the couple, who likes kids, is willing to help raise the couple's kids but not come with any of her own, willing to move out of her house (or city, or state) to move into the couple's house, and basically give up her entire life to fit herself into theirs.
The couple's sacrifices include buying a bed big enough for all 3 of them (because there is no consideration that she might want her own bed or that any of them might want some "alone" time in the future) but otherwise the couple's life goes on as is with little change. The reason for the "mythical" terms is not because bisexual women don't exist, but because this specific kind of bisexual woman is unlikely to exist and the quest for such is about as fruitful as seeking the Grail or unicorn is.
A derivative of this is all of the above except this girl will be a secondary only who will not be allowed to develop any emotional attachment to either of the couple, or at least it will not ever be "equal" to the bond between the original couple but the girl's interest will still be exactly the same for each half of the couple. Her position is tenuous, she has no say in when or how her relationship with this couple will be terminated because it is the prerogative of the couple to decide, at any time, when she gets the boot.
The rules are written by the couple before the HBB is even found, let alone consulted, and not up for negotiation, except members of the original couple can change the rules without warning and the girl, as the "secondary" is required to accept the decision without ever giving her input about it. She is not allowed to have other partners, but she is also not treated as a full member of the family, often given the title of "housekeeper" or "roommate" because the couple can't be outed to neighbors, friends, family, or jobs.
This is NOT, I repeat NOT how all polyamorous couples go about being poly, even some of those who are interested in creating a triad that includes 2 women and 1 man.
Many of us have a problem with the above scenarios because the couple completely overlooks what this hypothetical third person might have or want for *her* life. The person who might magically connect with the couple to create a family that meets everyone's needs might already have a partner or several, might have a bigger house or a high-paying, well-loved career she is unwilling to give up, or might even be male! The new partner is not given any say in how her (or his) relationship should look like. This person is treated as a job applicant, not as a human being with needs of her own and a right to get them met.
This type of couple often uses the HBB to cover up some sort of insecurity and/or get their selfish rocks off with a live-in maid / love-slave. This can be exhibited sometimes by rules created by the husband that forbid the wife from having male lovers, but allows female lovers for both because the male is afraid of the competition and often thinks that same-sex partners don't really "count" (forgetting that since he's engaging with an opposite-sex partner, it's therefore "cheating" by this same definition and totally discounting the validity of the same-sex relationship).
And sometimes it can be revealed by rules that do not allow either half of the married couple from experiencing *anything* with the new partner when the other married partner isn't around out of the deluded belief that as long as everyone does exactly the same things, the relationship between the HBB and one half of the couple will be *exactly* the same as the relationship between the HBB and the other half of the couple. We also dislike *these couples* because they all insist they are not this couple even when they are.
But, as I said above, this is NOT all married poly couples, even if they do want a triad. Sometimes a m-f couple is interested in an HBB because the wife is actively bi-sexual and wants a female partner *of her own* and the male happens to be straight and wouldn't it be fun if both of their partners happened to be the same person?
As a friend recently reminded me, all married poly couples face distrust from the poly community because so many of us are so tired and frustrated from *that type* of married couple that we automatically look on married-couples-looking-for-triads with suspicion. And that's really not fair. Hell, I'd like a triad someday, but my preference would be for a MFM triad and my HBBs are male ;-)
The difference is that I (and those couples who are not *that type* of couple) don't assume the triad is the magic configuration that will automatically be the perfect relationship. I am willing to consider all sorts of permutations of relationships because I understand that it's the *person* and not the position that makes a relationship work or not work. While a triad might be a nice thought in theory, in reality, the people I'm relating to right now or in the future might just not be suitable to that kind of configuration, but the V or the quad or the network we're in *does* work and *does* meet all of our needs, providing happiness, fulfillment, and joy. The difference is that I consider each potential partner on an individual basis and I try to find the relationship configuration that works with those personalities involved, I do not build a slot and find or force someone to fit in it.
I think someone in the polyamory LJ community once said "you do not find people to fit the spaces in your life, you find spaces to fit the people in your life", and that's the big difference.
But, in order to discuss what's wrong with *that type* of couple, we might start out by prefacing that we're speaking of a particular kind of couple, but we always end up using some form of shorthand that might accidentally include *the other types* of couples just because it takes too long to qualify every sentence. My method of dealing with this in the past has always been to write a disclaimer that says "I am speaking of *this type of couple* and if you happen to be in a relationship that superficially resembles this one but you don't do the things I'm complaining about, then *assume I'm not talking about you*".
Problem is that people on the internet don't always read the posts carefully and too many people take these things personally. And, as newbies stumble on these posts and entries and web pages, people who haven't had the time to develop the kind of sensitivity to the nuances in terminology, the distrust persists even to couples who are not *that type*.
So, for my own part, I'm going to start referring to *that type* of couple as Percivalian Couples, maybe PCs or Percies for short? The term comes from the tales of King Arthur seeking the Holy Grail and his knight, Percival, actually finding it at one point but being too immature and failing to ask the proper question, causing him to fail in attaining the Grail and he must grow spiritually and mentally before he can locate it again. Percival is described in some places as "the least worldly and the least groomed of all the knights", having been raised in the woods away from society, and "extremely pious but somewhat naive".
I think these can be applied quite seamlessly with *that type* of couple. They are often new to polyamory and seem to lack the subtle social skills required to mix effortlessly with so many different (and volatile) poly personalities. They are also often quite pious in their belief that theirs is the One True Way to be poly and quite a bit emotionally naive as they don't even recognize that their rules and structures are designed to protect insecurities (because they are quite insecure).
Sometimes they will acknowledge that other types of poly are valid for other people, but they are dead set on the equilateral FMF triad being the One True Way for them and no other type could possibly bring them happiness because they cannot accept that happiness comes from the individuals involved and they insist there is some magic configuration that will make all other problems disappear. They do not ask the proper questions, mainly because they're too busy making statements about what they want to ask what anyone else might want of them.
It is my small attempt to distinguish between people who just happen to like FMF triads, but are willing to consider other types of relationships, are not looking for this particular configuration to protect insecurities of the original couple, and who do not look for partners like job applicants with an eye out only for what the couple gets out of the arrangement - from the couples who are not all of those things.
It is *these couples* who are responsible for causing all the real HBBs to go into hiding, disappearing into the glen like the mythical unicorns we liken them to, who infuriate those of us who are not bisexual (and those who are) when they come on to us with their form emails asking us to join their commune as another sister-wife, who hurt the male HBB's feelings by refusing their very existence, let alone validity, and who dismiss all the partners (current and future) of the women they approach as being totally unworthy of consideration because the couple is somehow the more noble relationship that all of us women would desire to attain even at the sake of dropping all our current and future partners just for the chance at happiness with this shining couple.
Some other terms helpfully suggested by my sweetie, Franklin, include:
The couple's sacrifices include buying a bed big enough for all 3 of them (because there is no consideration that she might want her own bed or that any of them might want some "alone" time in the future) but otherwise the couple's life goes on as is with little change. The reason for the "mythical" terms is not because bisexual women don't exist, but because this specific kind of bisexual woman is unlikely to exist and the quest for such is about as fruitful as seeking the Grail or unicorn is.
A derivative of this is all of the above except this girl will be a secondary only who will not be allowed to develop any emotional attachment to either of the couple, or at least it will not ever be "equal" to the bond between the original couple but the girl's interest will still be exactly the same for each half of the couple. Her position is tenuous, she has no say in when or how her relationship with this couple will be terminated because it is the prerogative of the couple to decide, at any time, when she gets the boot.
The rules are written by the couple before the HBB is even found, let alone consulted, and not up for negotiation, except members of the original couple can change the rules without warning and the girl, as the "secondary" is required to accept the decision without ever giving her input about it. She is not allowed to have other partners, but she is also not treated as a full member of the family, often given the title of "housekeeper" or "roommate" because the couple can't be outed to neighbors, friends, family, or jobs.
This is NOT, I repeat NOT how all polyamorous couples go about being poly, even some of those who are interested in creating a triad that includes 2 women and 1 man.
Many of us have a problem with the above scenarios because the couple completely overlooks what this hypothetical third person might have or want for *her* life. The person who might magically connect with the couple to create a family that meets everyone's needs might already have a partner or several, might have a bigger house or a high-paying, well-loved career she is unwilling to give up, or might even be male! The new partner is not given any say in how her (or his) relationship should look like. This person is treated as a job applicant, not as a human being with needs of her own and a right to get them met.
This type of couple often uses the HBB to cover up some sort of insecurity and/or get their selfish rocks off with a live-in maid / love-slave. This can be exhibited sometimes by rules created by the husband that forbid the wife from having male lovers, but allows female lovers for both because the male is afraid of the competition and often thinks that same-sex partners don't really "count" (forgetting that since he's engaging with an opposite-sex partner, it's therefore "cheating" by this same definition and totally discounting the validity of the same-sex relationship).
And sometimes it can be revealed by rules that do not allow either half of the married couple from experiencing *anything* with the new partner when the other married partner isn't around out of the deluded belief that as long as everyone does exactly the same things, the relationship between the HBB and one half of the couple will be *exactly* the same as the relationship between the HBB and the other half of the couple. We also dislike *these couples* because they all insist they are not this couple even when they are.
But, as I said above, this is NOT all married poly couples, even if they do want a triad. Sometimes a m-f couple is interested in an HBB because the wife is actively bi-sexual and wants a female partner *of her own* and the male happens to be straight and wouldn't it be fun if both of their partners happened to be the same person?
As a friend recently reminded me, all married poly couples face distrust from the poly community because so many of us are so tired and frustrated from *that type* of married couple that we automatically look on married-couples-looking-for-triads with suspicion. And that's really not fair. Hell, I'd like a triad someday, but my preference would be for a MFM triad and my HBBs are male ;-)
The difference is that I (and those couples who are not *that type* of couple) don't assume the triad is the magic configuration that will automatically be the perfect relationship. I am willing to consider all sorts of permutations of relationships because I understand that it's the *person* and not the position that makes a relationship work or not work. While a triad might be a nice thought in theory, in reality, the people I'm relating to right now or in the future might just not be suitable to that kind of configuration, but the V or the quad or the network we're in *does* work and *does* meet all of our needs, providing happiness, fulfillment, and joy. The difference is that I consider each potential partner on an individual basis and I try to find the relationship configuration that works with those personalities involved, I do not build a slot and find or force someone to fit in it.
I think someone in the polyamory LJ community once said "you do not find people to fit the spaces in your life, you find spaces to fit the people in your life", and that's the big difference.
But, in order to discuss what's wrong with *that type* of couple, we might start out by prefacing that we're speaking of a particular kind of couple, but we always end up using some form of shorthand that might accidentally include *the other types* of couples just because it takes too long to qualify every sentence. My method of dealing with this in the past has always been to write a disclaimer that says "I am speaking of *this type of couple* and if you happen to be in a relationship that superficially resembles this one but you don't do the things I'm complaining about, then *assume I'm not talking about you*".
Problem is that people on the internet don't always read the posts carefully and too many people take these things personally. And, as newbies stumble on these posts and entries and web pages, people who haven't had the time to develop the kind of sensitivity to the nuances in terminology, the distrust persists even to couples who are not *that type*.
So, for my own part, I'm going to start referring to *that type* of couple as Percivalian Couples, maybe PCs or Percies for short? The term comes from the tales of King Arthur seeking the Holy Grail and his knight, Percival, actually finding it at one point but being too immature and failing to ask the proper question, causing him to fail in attaining the Grail and he must grow spiritually and mentally before he can locate it again. Percival is described in some places as "the least worldly and the least groomed of all the knights", having been raised in the woods away from society, and "extremely pious but somewhat naive".
I think these can be applied quite seamlessly with *that type* of couple. They are often new to polyamory and seem to lack the subtle social skills required to mix effortlessly with so many different (and volatile) poly personalities. They are also often quite pious in their belief that theirs is the One True Way to be poly and quite a bit emotionally naive as they don't even recognize that their rules and structures are designed to protect insecurities (because they are quite insecure).
Sometimes they will acknowledge that other types of poly are valid for other people, but they are dead set on the equilateral FMF triad being the One True Way for them and no other type could possibly bring them happiness because they cannot accept that happiness comes from the individuals involved and they insist there is some magic configuration that will make all other problems disappear. They do not ask the proper questions, mainly because they're too busy making statements about what they want to ask what anyone else might want of them.
It is my small attempt to distinguish between people who just happen to like FMF triads, but are willing to consider other types of relationships, are not looking for this particular configuration to protect insecurities of the original couple, and who do not look for partners like job applicants with an eye out only for what the couple gets out of the arrangement - from the couples who are not all of those things.
It is *these couples* who are responsible for causing all the real HBBs to go into hiding, disappearing into the glen like the mythical unicorns we liken them to, who infuriate those of us who are not bisexual (and those who are) when they come on to us with their form emails asking us to join their commune as another sister-wife, who hurt the male HBB's feelings by refusing their very existence, let alone validity, and who dismiss all the partners (current and future) of the women they approach as being totally unworthy of consideration because the couple is somehow the more noble relationship that all of us women would desire to attain even at the sake of dropping all our current and future partners just for the chance at happiness with this shining couple.
Some other terms helpfully suggested by my sweetie, Franklin, include:
Insecure
Clueless
Trophy Hunters
Safari Goers
And, for once, I'm actually trying to not be inflammatory or incite a riot (because, even though there are couples who are not *that kind* of couple, all of *those couples* insist that they are not either), so I'm actually kind of counting on the obscurity of the reference for a little subtlety.
Of course, I've learned my lesson and will not be posting in the LJ community, but I hope to use some term regularly enough that it takes on a life of its own.
Clueless
Trophy Hunters
Safari Goers
And, for once, I'm actually trying to not be inflammatory or incite a riot (because, even though there are couples who are not *that kind* of couple, all of *those couples* insist that they are not either), so I'm actually kind of counting on the obscurity of the reference for a little subtlety.
Of course, I've learned my lesson and will not be posting in the LJ community, but I hope to use some term regularly enough that it takes on a life of its own.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 01:51 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 5/8/08 02:08 am (UTC)From:I guess I was trying to tie it in to the already-in-use terminology of holy grail or unicorns. I didn't find any convenient term for a unicorn hunter other than "unicorn hunter".
I started out trying to make a term out of Indiana Jones because of the Grail reference, but using "Jones" or "Joneses" is too close to the phrase "keeping up with the Joneses", which is not right either and "Indy" or "Indies" is already used as shorthand for "independents", which these are definately not.
Perhaps Procrustians or Procrusties should be added to the list for consideration?
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 02:14 am (UTC)From:Quite accurate, really, for an analogy of those couples.
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 02:57 am (UTC)From:I think Insecure and Clueless are kind of mean.
The quote you quoted, "you do not find people to fit the spaces in your life, you find spaces to fit the people in your life", is I think the most important.
I always thought finding a girl to date or dating a couple would be the best thing for me. However, that's not what happened. I found D, and as the quote says, we figured out what space he fit into our lives. It's awesome.
I always feel sorry for the couples posting in lj or other communities who are looking for a bisexual female for a meaningful relationship - one that doesn't include servitude - because I KNOW they're going to get blasted.
And btw, you're right about the separate bedroom thing. While we do often all sleep in the master bedroom, D and I have started sleeping in his room on occasion, and he also sleeps in his room so that R and I can sleep alone, too. I think in our next home, I'd like to have my own room/space to call my own.
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 03:27 am (UTC)From:The "safari hunter" term came from "Married couple on safari, looking to bag something they can use as a sex trophy" and I kinda like that one too, but I can see people being offended by it.
Personally, I think that all households, mono and poly alike, should have one room for each adult - whether it's a bedroom or a workroom or an office or a rec room or whatever. Some place that they can decorate as they choose, they can be alone or they can invite in who they choose, a room that is not subject to the whims or desires of anyone else.
If I decide to share a home again, I might never sleep in my own bedroom, but dammit, I will have my own bedroom! If, for nothing else, each member of the group should be allowed to have their own "alone" time without the non-invited persons feeling kicked out of their own bedroom!
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 04:21 am (UTC)From:And yes, I think you're right, having your own bedroom is important!
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 04:25 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 5/8/08 03:20 am (UTC)From:Ah, a new definition is needed: "Hot Bi Boy"....
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 03:29 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 5/8/08 03:43 am (UTC)From:....I wonder if anyone uses "Hot Bi Boi"....
(Discussions about the intersection of language and gender can be so odd, at times.)
By the way, I agree with your argument.....
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 04:15 am (UTC)From:As for being called "babe", I'd take it as an insult too. I associate it with purely physical appreciation, often ignoring intellectual capability or assuming there is none, but applicable to both genders. But I understand many people think only of women (with the associating "hot" adjective) and some (including me) remember the more parochial use of "babe" to mean child.
I've gotten into several discussions on PMM before I quit going there where people used "Hot Bi Boy", "Hot Bi Boi" and "Hot Bi Babe = male", but I don't think any of those are very common.
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 07:43 am (UTC)From:I'm not entirely sure, since your userinfo doesn't have such info, but you're very roughly 30ish, give or take a couple of years, right? That'd put you safely into the group of people one generation younger than I, presuming a generation is 20-22 years, plus or minus.
(I'd put you into the established urban professional age-group; I'm a grumpy old man in training. And Lord keep me from using "Norwegian Bachelor Farmer" and "young whippersnapper".)
....and as for that first line of yours, I suspect my comment should be, "Why, thank you, young lady!"
PMM: I don't recall much use of the terms mentioned other than the usual very common one, but I wasn't looking much, either, I guess.
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 03:40 am (UTC)From:Procrustians, fascinating. Never heard that before.
"you do not find people to fit the spaces in your life, you find spaces to fit the people in your life" I like that very much.
I learn so much from this community.
These paradigms could apply to some of the things that happen at my company. (Although, I could just be being Procrustian. :-))
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 04:10 am (UTC)From:I'm glad you are finding something of value here.
As for the paradigms being applicable in a work situation, absolutely. This is one of the reasons why I get so frustrated with people who say things like "poly just seems like too much work" because everyone everywhere is doing this kind of work.
We are social creatures, we have to relate to people all the time. We have to schedule work and children and family alongside of our partners, so I don't see how scheduling for 2 partners is inherently insurmountable compared to a monogamous person's life. We have to deal with conflicting personalities at work, whether we like the co-worker or not, we have to find a way to get along or leave the company, and I don't see how that's fundamentally different than metamours trying to get along.
It's about people trying to relate to other people and finding the combination of relationships that give everyone involved something worth experiencing while respecting everyone else's boundaries, limitations, and needs. That's just being human, not specifically being poly :-) The trick is that being poly forces us to consciously choose our relationship structures, while being monogamous can allow someone to just bumble along indefinately if they want to.
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 07:46 am (UTC)From:Not everyone. Some of us are lazy, either by nature or by preference. Mycroftian, if you prefer.
no subject
Date: 5/21/08 11:31 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 5/8/08 03:29 pm (UTC)From:I told Minx about a story about "Recovery, recovery, recovery."
It means that, in flying, you're never stabilized on speed, on course, on altitude. You're always recovering to the ideal. Even monogamous people (which I am) need to work on recovery. If you're not paying attention, you're drifting off course.
Almost without fail, the lessons that you, Tacit, and Cunningminx provide, can apply to monogamous relationships. That's why I'm here, to learn.
Bubba
BTW, I have some off topic questions for you. I'll send a personal message.
no subject
Date: 5/9/08 03:29 am (UTC)From:Hence, my previously-mentioned frustration :-) I don't think these are poly-specific lessons, I think these are the kinds of tools people need to develop in order to enjoy a full range of healthy, fulfilling relationships period, whether you're talking about a monogamous romantic partner, siblings, parents, friends, or multi-partners.
And I'm honored to be included in a group that includes both
no subject
Date: 5/8/08 02:42 pm (UTC)From:Grail hunters / Grailies?
Preconnos (for Preconceived Notions)?
ISOHBBs (pronounced eye-sobs)?
I really like the myth of Procrustes as a parallel; it fits what you're talking about very well. So my personal favorite would be the term "Procrusteans."
Sadly, I'm afraid very few people know that myth, so the term would get a lot of "Huh??"s, and probably make most people think of paleontology. :-)
no subject
Date: 5/21/08 11:30 pm (UTC)From:I'll probably add both terms to my Poly Terms page and see if either of them take off. Lots of terms are fairly colloquial and don't get used much, like "cowboy", for instance.
no subject
Date: 5/12/08 08:33 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 5/12/08 08:48 pm (UTC)From:But I'm flattered you enjoyed my post. It does feel a little unfinished to me, but I'm sure I'll come back to this later :-) What is the benefit of having some other place to host these articles? Why might I want to go outside of LJ?
no subject
Date: 5/12/08 09:34 pm (UTC)From:As for other blogging systems, they just seem to get more viewers, in my experience. Formal blogs have various systems for searching and rating that tend to bring people to you, and more importantly there's a common habit of creating a blogroll of similar blogs, something that is lacking on LJ, or at least that people rarely do. Since I've started blogging on WordPress, my stuff has received a circulation that it never got on LJ or on my personal website. It is common for me to meet someone totally new and hear "oh yeah, I read your blog", something that never happened before.
So yeah, it all boils down to more viewers and more exposure. Which may not be your goal. As you've pointed out, it can come with drawbacks, like flames.
I do want to say that I like your writing because you take hard stances on hard subjects. Which attracts flames, but is very important to do. Sometimes flames are a sign you are doing something right, hitting a nerve to the extent that people feel the need to say defensive things. (This happened to me with the poly "sex vs. love" war on my blog.)
no subject
Date: 5/12/08 09:48 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 5/12/08 10:28 pm (UTC)From:This is a big way that stuff gets around. My traffic took a sharp turn up when Mistresse Matisse linked to a post of mine, and Susie Bright (!!) reprinted it in her blog.
As for civility, if you are running a blog, you can set the tone in various ways, which gets rid of some problems but not all. This can happen via moderation, asking for specific sorts of comments, warning users, etc. I've found that I have a lot of control on my blog, more than on my LJ actually.
no subject
Date: 5/12/08 11:01 pm (UTC)From:I'll look into some of the other options like blogspot, etc., but the idea of switching to a new service is daunting :-)
Thanks for all the suggestions, btw!
no subject
Date: 5/12/08 09:50 pm (UTC)From:As a matter of fact, I just listened to your interview with Minx yesterday!