Most non-monogamous people hail from amatonormative upbringings reinforced by pop culture, media, families of origin, etc. We work to unlearn that while trying to navigate a course that isn’t supported by a lot of widely available maps. Along the way communication becomes our primary religion, because without it we’re condemning ourselves to actual hell.
Talk, talk, talk – listen, listen, listen – and then talk some more, while listening, and on and on forever until death brings its sweet release.
I’m kidding of course – even if I never had another partner again besides the one I have now, I’d still insist on that much communication because I am a better partner for it. And what requires the most communication, is the stuff that isn’t all matchy-matchy in our hearts and minds.
For example: I have three kids. Well, actually I have four because one kiddo is married and his wife is for sure one of my darlings. So I have four kids, and there’s a good chance someone, someday, is gonna add a twig to the family tree. After holding a new niece last year, I began to wax pre-sentimental about the prospect of being a grandparent. My partner informed me in no uncertain terms that I should NOT become attached to the idea that we grandparent together . . . and, that’s fair. When I was much younger, I took for granted I’d be growing old with someone who would share my affinity for children, but rarely does reality look like a romanticized fantasy. I won’t give up the dream of being the coolest grandma in the whole wide world, but my current partner has clearly communicated that he does not see himself by my side in that endeavor and I am genuinely grateful to know that up front.
And that’s the thing about communicating freely and welcoming it from your partners: you never have to be blindsided by mismatched desires. He and I can move forward with the awareness that I have positive feelings about the prospect of someday being a grandmother (maybe – no pressure, kids) and I know he’s less-than-thrilled and even a little worried I might be disappointed in his non-involvement there. It doesn’t mean we have perfect feelings, but it means we are well informed, and therefore we can negotiate with reasonable expectations if the issue ever arises.
Wait – isn’t negotiation something you do with a hostile force?
I mean, yeah, sometimes. But I prefer negotiating with nice folks like my partners. And I like to keep the focus on self-advocacy vs. compromise as it’s a really big component of autonomy. Self-advocacy focuses on individual priorities, while compromise is more about meeting in the middle.
So, if my priority as a grandparent is maximizing my time with my grand-kids, and my partner’s priorities do not match mine, it is not a given that we should meet each other in the middle where he’ll be partially miserable and I’ll be getting less than I want. Self-advocacy and a willingness to honor individual desires instead of subscribing to the dominant narrative that states couples have to basically be a hive mind or they’re not truly connected allows each individual to come out on top.
I feel truly connected when I am free to do as I please and my partners love me exactly as I am without making themselves miserable on my behalf or expecting me to do the same for them.
Misery is not a metaphorical bouquet of long-stemmed roses.
If my partner chose to grandparent with me out of a false sense of obligation to my desire and not because he wanted to, it would ruin it for me. If he does opt to join? Cool beans – I’ll be able to trust he is doing exactly what he wants to be doing. Cuz you know what? I’m gonna be one stupidly happy old lady spending time with my grand-kids (that may or may not manifest, and honestly it’s super okay if they don’t – I mean it, no pressure kids) and he can go be stupidly happy doing something else, and then we can reconnect as stupidly happy people living our best lives instead of partially miserable ones, wishing we were elsewhere.
Which would you rather be?