[UUPoly-L] Tara's remarks about me

["Pete Benson" <petebenson@starpower.net>]

"Tara Affinity", mentioning that she is a former partner of my primary Deborah and me, had some very unkind things to say about me personally yesterday on this list.  *I* will not engage in mudslinging or defamation of character.  However, I feel it is essential for me to shed light on the factual errors in her note, since those erroneous statements paint me in a very negative light.

(The following is not all in the same order as Tara's note.)

Tara wrote:  "I personally found his rules and agreement based polyamory to be very confining....all the way down to the idea that all my email should be open to his perusal, and even my inner most thoughts if not shared could be considered 'withholding'."

I'll get back to "rules" and agreements, but as to sharing email and thoughts:

Not true.  Tara and Deborah and I never got as far as developing a three-way relationship agreement, so there were no rules or agreements to which she was a party.

Of course Deborah and I, being primary partners, do agree to keep each other informed of other romantic/sexual involvements, or potential new ones.  Our agreement (quoted in full beginning on p. 127 of my book-The Polyamory Handbook: A User's Guide, www.polyamoryhandbook.com; this excerpt is on p. 132) reads in relevant part:  "We will keep each other fully informed of the existence of any other developing or existing romantic and/or sexual involvements that we may have, and informed of the depth and character of each relationship....  Neither of us may agree with another person to hold information confidential from the other of us....  We will keep each other informed of ongoing communications between one of us and any other person with whom there is a romantic or sexual relationship or a potential new relationship, either by copying email to the other of us or by sharing the substance of any communication...."

Note that we are not obligated to share all email (though that's an easy way to share); we just promise to keep each other informed of the essence of what's going on.  How could it be any other way, in polyamory?  Without keeping each other informed, it's not polyamory, it's cheating.

Tara wrote:  "even my innermost thoughts if not shared could be considered 'withholding'."

Not true.  Of course the healthiest thing in any relationship, and especially in any poly relationship, is to share those innermost thoughts to a high degree.  I want to share my innermost thoughts with Deborah, because I love her, and I want to hear of hers.  By hearing those innermost thoughts from the other(s), we are able to build a loving and stable relationship.  If we don't, then a stable relationship won't happen.  But sharing those inner thoughts is not required but encouraged, while not sharing something is not branded with the sin of "withholding".

Tara wrote:  "Oh, and if I were to date someone else rather seriously, this person would have to agree to become a 'primary' to all three of us."

Not true.  The three of us, Tara and Deborah and I, were for a brief while tentatively considering whether we wanted to form a triad on the primary level among ourselves.  (Clearly it did not gel.)  But any dating relationships that any of us might have with someone else (even warmly loving) had its own existence, and almost certainly would have been on the secondary level, unless all concerned hypothetically agreed to bring the other person in as a new primary.  There were no such candidates.

Tara wrote:  "When he [Pete] and I had a final locking of horns, instead of coming together as family, he and his pre-existing partner [Deborah] simply went to the bedroom and shut and locked the door without one word from either of them."

Not true.  The "final locking of horns" was when Tara threw a very insulting and totally baseless charge at me.  I don't recall my words in response, but the essence was that if she were harboring such attitudes toward me, then there was no basis for a loving relationship, so our attempt to build a triad could not continue.  (And I said that in a totally calm tone of voice, matter-of-factly, if sadly.)

Deborah and I would never shy away from discussing issues in a relationship, our own or in any multi-adult relationship of which we might become a part.

I devote a whole chapter in the book (Chapter 6) to Relationship Skills, and the first section of that chapter (section 6.01) is on the extreme importance of communication.  The following chapter is about conflict resolution.  Section 6.01 says in part, "Of course communication is also extremely important in twosome relationships, but good communication is probably the single most important relationship skill when people maintain more than one emotionally and physically intimate relationship at a time...."

I simply would never walk away from a relationship issue and refuse to talk about it.  However, at the moment in time to which Tara refers, there was no longer a three-way relationship that could have issues or conflicts, because Tara had just shattered that budding relationship with her insult to me.

Tara wrote, "The final straw (if that wasn't) was when he pounded his fist on the table demanding rather loudly that I only use 'I statements' or he would not listen to me."

I'm a gentle, mild-mannered person, and I do not throw tantrums.  I do not speak loudly or forcefully without necessity.  I will express myself emphatically when I need to.  I needed to in that instance because Tara had repeatedly phrased comments to me in terms of "You're this" and "You're that," i.e., using "you statements" repeatedly even after I had called her on that point.  (Look at Tara's note itself.  It's all about "Pete has this or that terrible trait.")  I don't think any more needs to be said about that; just look at Tara's own manner of expressing herself, as her note reflects.  Decide for yourself.

Tara wrote, "He was also quite fond of being the man in the middle of two women, in the hand-in-hand-in-hand configuration even though we were a delta, and at some point I began feeling way more like an object that was owned, rather than a person that was valued."

Not true about what I was fond of.  (Of course I can't speak to Tara's feelings, even though she doesn't hesitate to claim to know mine.)  Of course I did enjoy being between Deborah and Tara, walking in public or in bed.  But I enjoyed equally much being on either side, which we also did plenty.  I would absolutely never consider that I "own" or control a partner of mine; I find that notion very abhorrent.  I always want an egalitarian relationship, whether it's a dyad, triad, or larger family.  Tara knew that-or should have.

Also, Tara never once voiced to Deborah or me such a concern of feeling like an "owned object".  Now where are her communication and conflict resolution skills?

Tara wrote:  "Ultimately, once I got out of that relationship and moved on...."

Not true.  Tara didn't "get out of that relationship"; i.e., she didn't initiate breaking off from Deborah and me.  Deborah and I initiated the breaking off, after she and I picked our jaws up off the floor after Tara's insulting remark to me, following on several other troubling events among us.

Tara wrote:  "In my estimation his [Pete's] words and actions are not congruent."

Two responses here.  You can ask three or four present and past partners of mine, primary and secondary, who I believe are on this list, about their opinion of my actions or my character, and the extent to which they are congruent with my words.  Also, consider this:  Every bit of feedback I've gotten about my book has been favorable, including from Alan and Maria, preceding Tara's remarks in this thread.  Even Tara had complimentary things to say about my words in my book.  I ask, could I have written that book if it did not reflect my real life?

Tara wrote:  "I personally found his rules and agreement based polyamory to be very confining...."

Agreements, yes; rules, no.  I state in the Introduction of my book, p. xiii:  "I cannot offer concrete 'instructions' about how you can best live your life.  No one can.  The most I can hope to do is offer food for thought-some ideas for you to consider, singly or with your partner(s), about how best to proceed."  Throughout my book, I almost never say, "Do this;" it's generally, "I suggest that ...," or "You might want to consider ...," or similar phrasing.  We're all different, and what works well for one person may not for someone else, and vice versa.

As for agreements, any two or more people in partnership have to have agreements about how they're going to live together, whether explicit or tacit.  Otherwise there is only chaos, not a relationship.  With additional partners in the mix (primary or secondary), an explicit agreement becomes all the more important.  This is why I devote a whole chapter in my book (Chapter 5) to the importance of developing a relationship agreement, and some suggestions (not rules, but suggestions) as to what topics poly people might want to cover in it.  I reprinted Deborah's and my relationship agreement in its entirety, not as "the right way to do a relationship agreement", but as one model from which others might glean ideas for their own agreement, or at least for topics to cover, even if their own agreement reflects preferences quite different from Deborah's and mine.

I mean Tara no ill will.  We were attracted (she and Deborah and I); we tried forming a relationship together; we soon realized that it would not work; we moved on.  Let's all leave it at that.

May you all always find more love-
Pete Benson