Several years ago, someone created a small tempest by suggesting, to a group of Unitarian Universalist polys, that it might be useful to think of polyrelationships the way you think of relatives: After all, people have several children or several siblings, love them all, aren’t told that they should restrict themselves to “just one”.
For some reason, this provoked a “But surely you aren’t advocating incest?!” response. I always thought that was a misunderstanding and an overreaction.
I find the poly/relative analogy useful. Perhaps it is better to say poly/in-law analogy?
When I date someone, it puts my wife into a once-removed relationship with my date. That’s a little bit like acquiring a new in-law. My two lovers are in relationship simply by the fact that each one of them is my lover. My brother-in-law is in a relationship of some sort with me, simply because he is married to my sister. I find this a useful concept in my polyness. My lover’s lover is in a relationship of some sort with me, even if we barely say “hi” to each other.
It is a different case if I am also involved with my lover’s lover. That is more like a group-marriage paradigm. I’m not talking about that right now.
But I would like these in-law-like relationships to be more recognized and appreciated and nurtured.
When my wife and I visit her family over holidays, I could merely tolerate her parents and siblings, on the theory that “we’re only related through marriage, after all”.
I think it’s much better to be on good terms with them, even (dare I say?) like them and appreciate them!
And that’s my ideal for lovers-in-law (did I just coin that term???). Not just to be “aware” of them; not just to tolerate them; but to appreciate them: the people my lovers love – even if I don’t have a romantic relationship with them myself.
Compersion strikes again!