From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Subject: Re: Poly breakups?
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:49:57 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov12164256@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>What happens when part of a poly relationship breaks up?  I've seen or
>thought of some examples:
>
>  A secondary relationship breaks up.  The non-involved member of the
>  primary relationship has to deal with the effect on the involved
>  member.  It seems a little rough on the non-involved member, even
>  though they presumably want to provide emotional support to their
>  partner when they are needed.  Of course, the non-primary person is
>  without this sort of support at all.

Not rough at all, I would think. If my mate were to break up with one of
her close loves, I would -of course- be there for her. She wouldn't be
on her own because it was 'her' relationship. It wouldn't matter WHY she
was hurt, I would want to help her anyway.

>  Both members of a primary relationship get secondarily involved with a
>  third person.  One member wants to split with the third person, the
>  other doesn't.  This is difficult to manage, since anyone your SO is
>  involved with is at least a little involved with you.

The answer to this one really depends on the 'veto' section of the
relationship agreement. If there is veto power, then you just have to
deal with it. If there is no veto power, there should be nothing wrong
with member 'b' staying involved with the outside person on thier own
time.

>  A poly person is involved in a non-primary relationship with someone
>  who gets involved in another non-primary relationship.  The first
>  person doesn't like the third person (but there is no "veto"
>  agreement) and ends the first relationship.  Is it necessary to like
>  all the people involved?  If so, how much?

It would be rediculousx to assume that there is some requirement to like
someone. One of the things I value most in the poly relationship that I am 
in is my freedom. I can say how I feel about whomever I like, I can express
my feelings of like and dislike with nobody to really answer to but myself.
If there is no veto power in the relationship there is even more freedom.
(My relationship has a veto clause.. never used, but there. Kind of a safety
valve.)

>  A poly person is in a primary relationship with a "veto."  They get
>  involved with another person, who their SO seems to accept.  After
>  they get very close, the veto is invoked, and the second relationship
>  is ended.  Is this "fair"?  It's certainly hard on the people who
>  thought it was okay.  What if there were problems all along?  Is there
>  a limit (time or emotional) past which a veto either cannot be used or
>  is much more negotiable?

I would question my primary VERY closely about the other person during the
build up leading towards involvement with this other person, so I would hope
to head off any nasty surprises. If there were suddenly a problem, I would
not just say 'okay' and be done with it. I would want to know -why- there
was a problem. Who knows? This third person might have done something to
offend, or worse injure, my primary.

This leaves me with a few courses of action. I can act in defense of my
primary and confront this other person with the situation. (In a 'Hey, we
need to talk' kind if format.) Or I can act in defense of the third person
if I feel that my primary has misinterpreted the intentions of this other
person. 

Because there -is- a primary in my relationship, that leaves me with something
else to consider, and that is the strength of relationship #2. Since there is
veto power, I would need to decide which relationship was more important to me.
Rough, but I would have to do it.

The veto power, once there, should -never- expire. There can be any number of
reasons for invoking it, and you might not have all the information once you
find it is being used. Which leads to my next point....

In any of these relationships, communication should be a trait you do so well
that you should be able to put it on your resume. Each new person added to 
the relationship creates an exponential increase in the number of lines of
communications which can be potentially messed up. Consider this..

       A <--------> B
       |  \      /  |   There are -=Twelve=- lines of communication
       |   \    /   |   here. This is for a four way, or for a couple
       |    \  /    |   with two outside partners. Yes, most of my lovers
       |     \/     |   have met my other lovers. In a four way, this is
       |     /\     |   also the number of 'love lines' that must be there
       |    /  \    |   for the relationship to work. Not a simple thing
       |   /    \   |   to deal with by any means.
       |  /      \  |
       C <--------> D

>  A primary relationship breaks up, but one of the members has a
>  secondary relationship.  How does this secondary relationship change
>  with the loss of the primary?  Is it likely to become a primary, or
>  will the person find some other primary and keep the secondary as is
>  (I know either is possible, but what have people seen happen?)

I would think that the disconnected primary person would fall back on the
secondary a little more strongly. It may or may not develop in to something
stromger, but I think it would be likely, given the circumstances. Rebound,
however, still exists, and should be watched out for.

>I'm basically interested in information or speculation on how breakups
>happen and affect people outside of serial-monogamy arrangements.

Nice question. I will look forward to seening the other responses to this
posting.

>Muffy

Scott

-- 
Scott Moir  /  Satyr on IRC    ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+!) s+ m r p+    \/\/  # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's    # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1872 soc.singles:31622 alt.pagan:13239 misc.kids:29018