I really don't know why I do this to myself.

[kiya]

(By "this" I mean "argue with Tal".)

Though at least this time I did not respond to his "Don't you agree that my conclusion drawn from my personal biases is the case?" with anything other than "No."


. . . provoked in part by being frustrated by Yet Another Round of "Possessiveness bad! Jealousy bad!" but also by the thing that got posted in kith_and_kin recently by wcg.

I'm grateful to songbird for his suggestion that "controlling" be used as a word-substitution for "possessive". Though the more I think about it, I'm not entirely sure that I can see being "controlling" as a bad thing. More on that later, as I work my way around to it.

The thing about the whole possessiveness-bad meme is that it confuses me; it's just . . . nonsensical to me. And the things that a lot of people call "possessiveness" don't parse to me either.

"Mine" means, in my head, "has a territory significantly coextensive with my own" and also requires some stuff actually being in that shared territory, which is mostly subverbal except for the parts that are private. Which means that if I don't apply translation-filters, "possession bad" translates to "commitment bad, expectations bad, depth bad, agreements bad, intimacy bad."

Back when brooksmoses and I were developing our relationship, there was a thread on (hm -- I wonder if this will work) rasfc, where we met; I forget what the thread was about entirely, though I suspect it was the one where I was completely gobsmacked at one point and commented to oneironaut, "Brooks just wrote me a love letter on usenet." In any case, there was a discussion about how having a hypothetical writing partner could be useful in facilitating work and making the work better, and Graydon asked (I think me) something about this, and . . . well, we only realized after the fact that the Platonically Correct Response would have been for him to reply, "Mine." (As opposed to the grammatically tangled response that actually got made.)

I pointed out to Brooks that that was probably the best response, when I realized it myself, and I think he was about as stunned by the intimacy of it as I had been by the love letter.

The thing I see other people pointing to when they say "possessiveness bad" doesn't have much to do with coextensivity of territory in what I see. I mean, I can stretch it if I presume that the territory is not merely significantly coextensive, but entirely subsumed, and the swallowed territory in some way digested such that it no longer exists, and no other territories overlap it in any way. If I add all that other crap on, I can call it "possessiveness", but I'd rather find another word for the other crap so I can point to that and not conflate it with the other stuff.

(I suspect, incidentally, that my perspective on possessiveness is probably a reflection of reading a lot of Le Guin while young and impressionable, and studying inflected languages when young enough to start dealing with the notion of possessives as if they were genitives.)

So I got asked if the controlling-possessiveness-thing-whatever thing looks to me to be more common among monogamous folk than polyfolk.

I said no.

I don't, really; I think the manifestations may differ in some ways (though not necessarily), and I don't think that monogamy in any way requires that sort of attitude. I don't think that someone with a particular relationship preference is necessarily going to be more or less likely to do the conflation-lump thing I mentioned above.

And I don't know where to draw the line between "bad controlling" and other life-management shit. Not from the outside.

For all the, "We're interested in finding a third who can be connected to both of us because that's the sort of synergy that appeals to us" there are "Sure, we're poly, you can have an additional partner so long as it's someone who'll fuck me too, never mind that we're both more or less straight so that's a serious unlikelihood"s. For all the people who have chosen to limit primary-relationship status to a single dyad for reasons of negotiation, consent, and comfort, there are people who want to slam down on expressions of intimacy that their partner can make to others. And so on.

There was someone on another list who was in a 24/7 d/s relationship, who was required by the dom to be monogamous while the dom had other relationships. That person was, I think, jealous as hell and incredibly turned on by the whole energy dynamic. Good controlling? Bad controlling? Damfino. When the person first turned up on the mailing list there was a whole, "Well, is this really poly" argument. I handflap in helpless confoundedness.

So where does the line go between this controlling thing and where it goes bad? I posit a set of N people with a sexual fidelity agreement, arranged because one or more of them has insecurity issues, disease concerns, or what have you for which that is a reasonable concern. Is that over the line? Is it over the line if it's presumed rather than explicitly negotiated? Is it over the line if the number N varies?

I think I can only speak to what's too controlling for me, what sorts of relationships presume to claim territory that I'm not willing to grant them. And I see relationships of all shapes that give me the howling heebie-jeebies on that account, and no correlation between whether they're monogamous or polyamorous structures and whether or not I get the screaming run-aways.


But enough Martian anthropology.

I've been dealing with depression again. And I'm actually dealing at the moment; my personal goal is to do one significant and useful thing per day, and also to remember to eat each day. Two days ago, I got about two thirds of the way through cleaning the cruft off the living room rug so I could vacuum it. Yesterday, I cleaned out Kunda's favorite lurking log, which had accumulated lots of skin and such and thus needed to be blasted clean with the hose. Today I have done laundry (not sure how many useful things that counts as; it was put in the wash, and transferred to the dryer, and I may remember to take it out and bring it upstairs when it's done). I have unloaded and loaded the dishwasher, though I haven't started it, because I have not the brains to either work out how to get the hose attached to the faucet or figure out why the door won't close.

This is useful inasmuch as it keeps me from feeling like a complete waste of oxygen.

I also finally beat the scenario in Kohan that was aggravating me. And the next one, for good measure. But those don't count as useful, even if they were personal goals.

Comments

[elynne.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I grok. :) I'm too sleepy to write a coherent response right now, though.

I sometimes sign my email, but any notes I write are generally "signed" "Meow!" They know who it's from. ;)

[kiya]

Should you feel like making a coherent response at some point, I would be enthused to hear.

For now I think I'm going to fetch the laundry and go to bed. . .

[redbird]

I suspect you argue with Tal for the same reasons I do: he's so clearly, blatantly wrong, and the other people on the newsgroup, or the lurkers, might be enlightened.

The extreme form of bad-possessiveness does seem, in your idiolect, to be "the other person/their sexuality and intimacy are part of my territory". Maybe the difference between "we've agreed that this is shared territory" and "I claim you as my territory, and you have no say in it."

I'm noodling, pre-tea, and writing in something other than my own language and models; I hope some of this is clear or useful.

[kiya]

I suspect you argue with Tal for the same reasons I do: he's so clearly, blatantly wrong, and the other people on the newsgroup, or the lurkers, might be enlightened.

Yeah, he does set off the occasional, "I beseech you sir, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you may be mistaken!" response, doesn't he. . .

The extreme form of bad-possessiveness does seem, in your idiolect, to be "the other person/their sexuality and intimacy are part of my territory".

"And have no territory of their own."

I suspect my idiolect wandered off in this direction because "mine and I can do with it what I please" has never really made sense to me; many things have territory of their own. (I was raised by someone who taught me this about books, for example.)

The whole bad-possessiveness thing requires a willingness to . . . negate other people's territories that's very hard for me to wrap my head around.

[azurelunatic]

I suspect that one of the things about some d/s relationships that sets me off is the concept of the dominant having control without responsibility. Being that I'm a submissive myself under certain circumstances, and have been in a situation where a dominant controlled me without taking responsibility for either of us, it's certainly one of my triggerpoints.

So, a mark of a good possessive relationship would be responsibility. The governor(s) of the territory have to accept responsibility for what goes on within, besides managing activities.

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

I would draw the line for "bad" possessiveness at the point at which one person (A) is preventing another person (B) from doing things they (B) want to do without their (A's) consent without their (B) consent. (Okay, that was really confused, but I needed the last clause to cover d/s etc.)

Frex, a "good" possessive boyfriend will only come over and start being "she's my girlfriend get away from her" at someone his girlfriend is talking to if the girlfriend shows signs of wanting him to, or is starting to look uncomfortable (i.e., to "rescue" her). A "bad" possessive boyfriend won't let his girlfriend talk to anyone else because they might "steal" her from him. In the first case, the girlfriend *wants* the boyfriend to come and be obviously "possessive," in the second, she doesn't. Am I making sense? (That's an honest question -- I translate badly from "my head" to "everyone else's head" and I'm not quite awake yet.)

I think the idea being "possessiveness" being bad is the implication of the "possessor" treating the "possessee" as an object, a thing to be owned, and not necessarily as a person who has needs and desires that need to be respected.

[kiya]

I think that it makes sense, but I'm not necessarily awake enough to judge. (It takes me about three hours to boot up. I probably need more RAM.) The way it translates in my head is the difference between getting assistance defending threatened boundaries and having welcome guests-to-territory driven off.

The object-thing is the negation-of-territory that bewilders me so. . .

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

I don't get the "negation of territory" thing either, because I'm not like that and I'm not friends with anyone who is.

I honestly think it's a product of low self-esteem -- that's the only thing I can think of that would make someone need to control who someone else interacts with and what they do so closely, that they're afraid they'll lose the other person. Of course, I've always sort of thought that was silly, but it's the best reason I can come up with?

[kiya]

(Argh. I'm now earwormed: "Hold on loosely / don't let go / If you cling too tightly / you're gonna lose control. . . .")

There's something that I think is something else, at least, but which can look like that -- the extreme end of joined-at-the-hip syndrome.

I've encountered people who are of the school that the romantic dyad Is A Unit, socializes as a unit, is treated as a unit, is not separable. Which means that any interaction that does not include one is a threat to both. I think. (Not sure; I can't make my head work that way.)

(I've only encountered a serious case of this in a poly context, actually. When I pointed out that my partners have aspects of their lives that are none of my damn business -- Kevin plays cards a couple nights a week, for example -- I got what felt to me like a "You space alien. Why would you call such an unintimate situation a partnership?" response. The idea that he (tried to do this sentence plural and it just didn't work) has other relationships and I neither have nor want territorial claim on them was apparently serious not-on-my-planet stuff.)

There's a situation that hits my "damnit, I have MY OWN BLOODY TERRITORY!" buttons just to contemplate, but it seems to be just how things work for some subset of people. (I already have moderate frustration with the number of people who have taken to referring to me as "Mrs. Kevin Marsh" just because we've got a document filed in City Hall. As oneironaut says, "I love how married women become subsets of their husbands." I didn't change my name, and no, there is no Mrs. Marsh at this number, Mr. Telemarketer. Hm. That was a peripheral rant, wasn't it?)

Rar, read-only. :P

[boojum.livejournal.com]

I was going to respond more coherently as soon as I'd thought out enough, but now I'm feverish enough to not be able to think out enough. I liked reading your original post and the thought trails it was starting to produce in my head. (especially the idea of a 24-7 sub being turned on by jealousy. All sorts of thought fodder. If the thoughts came home so I could feed them) Fun stuff to think on. Or try to.

This is just to commiserate on the Mrs. HisLastName assumption. I'm both married and legally married to Arlo, but we have different last names. We're also handling affairs for his parents (two different last names; he and his father share last name) while they're gallivanting. Most of the callers assume I'm Mrs. HisLastName, I can't tell which of the two hims they actually want, and some small percentage are actually legitimate. It's driving me mildly crazy.

If you could find a way to be sweetly baffled, Miss Manners style, at why people were referring to you as Kevin Marsh rather than him, that would be wonderfully evil. Especially if you could work in some rhetoric about how referring to people's marriage status is so outdated, and really, he prefers to be known as Mr. Unless it's just telemarketers and other people you don't feel forced to talk with.

[kiya]

Mostly I just answer, "Are you Mrs. Marsh?" with "No."

My favorite of these was a telemarketer for the bank, who would presumably have access (if he's legitimate) to the bank records, which have our joint account in both names. One might presume that someone possessed of this information might consider asking the woman on the account if she were attached to the woman's-name on the account . . . .

I still think the best was when I was off visiting Brooks and Suzi was here and dealing with the telemarketers. One finally asked her, "Who are you?" and she answered, "I'm Mr. Marsh's lover."

For some reason that telemarketer went away very quickly after that.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

As an almost completely unrelated comment. . .

A lot of our friends have been getting married in the past couple years. And almost all of the women have been taking their husbands' names. And it's wigging me out!

I mean, it's their choice. And I don't have any problem with any indivudual situation -- and, for that matter, most of the folks have specific reasons for doing so -- they hate their birth name, they hate their birth family, they have 9,458 siblings while their husband is the only Xrrybrgfield in existence and they think the name is cool . . . it's the aggrigate effect that's bugging me.

Heck, at this point, the fact that one of my friends gave me the reason, "In my family, women have always taken their husband's names, and ever since I was a small child, I knew I would, so there wasn't a question for me," was a relief in a way. . .

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

I'm planning on taking my husband's last name if/when I get married only so that I can stop having this feeling that I'm dishonoring one side or the other of my horribly distended family. (Since I was raised as an Arden, went to HS and college as a Secor, and am now related to people named Arden, Peman, Dupier, Frey and Secor -- and my mother's maiden name was Smith, so it's not even like I can just revert!)

[azurelunatic]

No taxation without representation, eh?

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

This "good possessive" thing isn't a use of the language with which I'm comfortable. Your example there of boyfriend rescuing girlfriend strikes me as a situation where "protective" is a perfectly good word, and "possessive" does not compute. [ Though I have problems with assumptions about when people wnat to be rescued in that sense, largely because I am really bad with non-overt signals. ]

"Protective" and indeed "reliable" are perfectly good words here. I think part of my discomfort is with the idea implict in the use of "good possessive" that someone has an expectation of being or feeling possessed, which squicks me from either end because of the degree of treating-person-as-object therein.

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

I was trying to mirror the original language used. :)

Plus, in my head, there are certain *actions* that are possessive in and of themselves, no matter what the meaning behind them (because they'll be read like that by third parties) and they can be "good" (non-invasive/desired) or "bad" (invasive/unwanted).

In my head, "possessive" is generally bad, but "acting possessive" as a short term-thing isn't, always, although I agree with you that there are better words for the impetus behind them.

[kiya]

Heh. Mirroring the original language used might have worked better if you'd been using an example that in my use of language has the slightest bit to do with possessiveness. :}

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

At least I tried! I'm not very good at converting from my version of the world to anyone else's, I don't think. :(

[kiya]

I'm not really, either. And I think that my angle on things is sufficiently idiosyncratic that it glitches things up something fierce.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Ah, OK, now I see where the axiom lock is. I don't believe in actions being possessive in and of themselves, and _certainly_ not because of how they may be read by third parties in any given cultural background - having thus far spent non-trivial amounts of time living in five different such backgrounds as an adult, it's become clear to me that the way people read things has no universals.

In the normal span of human interaction, to me, most actions are mute. They can convey too many different meanings based on the thought behind them. I trust words well ahead of my reading of actions.

[kiya]

I agree with you that 'protective' looks like a better word -- largely in my case because the behaviour in question doesn't have anything to do with 'possessive' to me, and so the original usage had me saying, "oh. . . kay. If you say so."

[wiredferret.livejournal.com]

Oh, not my Tal. I was confused, since 'possessive' is not something I associate. ;>

I think my line frequently breaks at motivation. Controlling actions motivated for the benefit of the controller almost always parse as icky to me. Negotiated rules are the sane middle ground, with give on both sides. Controlling actions motivated for the benefit of the controllee .... are oka as long as they're consensual.

So when I had a boyfriend who resented me touching other people because it made him feel threatened, that was bad. When I dated someone who asked me not to and we made a rule about it, and I agreed, that was okay. And when I have been asked not to date people who are bad for me, that's okay.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Due to my childhood and my first relationship (whee being forbidden to talk to MOTOS; I never understood that at all, so I forgot all the time and he'd beat me for it) I have my own issues wrt possessiveness. So, when I started reading the section about possessiveness I thought I was going to disagree with you. But by the time I got to the bottom I was pretty much agreeing with you, with one caveat. And then aiglet addressed that:

I think the idea being "possessiveness" being bad is the implication of the "possessor" treating the "possessee" as an object, a thing to be owned, and not necessarily as a person who has needs and desires that need to be respected.

So there we are. :)

In the wider scheme of things, congrats on working through your depression, and *big hug* :)

A.

[kiya]

I'm still not writing, afortunalmente, but I'm at least Getting Stuff Done occasionally. Which is something.

Re: caveat, I note that the whole object-thing requires the digestion of territory such that it does not exist, which I suppose was not entirely clear in meaning when I said it. . . .

*hugs* t'you too. Sounds like you could use 'em.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

"I think I can only speak to what's too controlling for me, what sorts of relationships presume to claim territory that I'm not willing to grant them."

I think that's true for everyone, though. There does seem to be a certain amount of consensus in my corner of society about what is just too controlling to be a good thing for anyone, but I know I am a lot more leery than most of my friends about things that look like people are coming into my territory uninvited, and it's because I'm worried those people will start planting flags in it. (Also it's terribly rude, but that'd just make me mad, not scared.)

Your brand of possessiveness makes sense to me, but it didn't come naturally for me to think of it like that. Mostly I've heard possessiveness to mean the inclination to take over people, to consider them objects without a right to personalities/attractions/interests of their own. Having your usage in my head too helps quite a bit when I have the urge to sign emails "yr affectionate", though; it's acknowledging overlap, not putting myself into someone's power.

[kiya]

As I started thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that figuring that something is "too controlling for everyone" is liable to trespass on a goodly number of people's territories just by being insufficiently nuanced: there was that person in the 24/7 d/s thing, after all. . .

I'm glad the looking-at-shape is useful, even if it's not perfectly sensical.

Kohan?

[omnifarious.livejournal.com]

Your posting was food for thought, and think about it I shall. But, one peripheral thing caught my eye and made me perk up. You play Kohan? :-) Under Linux perchance?

Re: Kohan?

[kiya]

On the Winbox, actually. And I've only really just started and I'm none too good at it. (My real-time processing sucks slugs, but the game's flexible enough that I can poke at it in a way that makes it possible for me to do. It's brain-stretching.)

[baratron.livejournal.com]

Argh! I read "argue with Tal" as "agree with Tal"! I know I've been out of alt.poly for a while, but I didn't think it had been that long!