A Rule is just a Bad Agreement
Libby blows up the idea that there is any difference between rules and agreements and offers some alternative ways to communicate and negotiate needs in polyamorous relationships.
Transcript
I'm going to share a fairly controversial stance here. So strap in and get ready because what I'm here to talk about today is rules versus agreements. And what I'm gonna tell you is I don't think there's actually a difference between the two.
I'm just sharing that. I have like a real legitimate podcaster mic if you saw my post on Instagram or Facebook about it, and I'm just celebrating. So if you're enjoying the sound here, it's because I have a real legitimate microphone. Last thing I wanna say before we dive into today's episode, I am presenting a workshop in a week on breaking up. I was talking to two of my clients the other day about this and that I was recommending that they take the workshop and they were looking at each other going is Libby telling us that we should break up? And I was like, no, no, no, no, no. I think it's good to take a workshop on how to break up as part of preventing you from breaking up. I think it's a really good idea to think about the end before you're there in the same way that we think about our death before we die.
It's good to plan and reflect and think about possibilities, especially if you know that the ending is something that could happen, never know, and you want it to go lovingly rather than explosively dramatically, painfully excruciatingly. I mean, when relationships end, of course, they hurt, of course there's grief, but there are ways that it can be damaging and traumatizing, not just to the two people in the relationship or more than two people in the relationship, but also to everyone around them, to their community, their mutual friends, their families, their children. And so I created this workshop with the idea that we need to break up better with each other and we to in part so that when the moment comes when the relationship needs someone to rock the boat, take a risk, stick up for themselves, or stick up for the relationship or tell the truth that they know that if push comes to shove and the truth ends the relationship that the worst possible thing won't happen, that you've thought through how you can part lovingly honoring each other's truth.
And then you can approach those things with less fear and with more love, more compassion and more tools in your tool belt to work through whatever might up for you. So I really do encourage everyone to sign up for this workshop, even if a breakup isn't on the horizon, although I'll go ahead and say that one of the reasons I'm doing this breakup workshop right now is that wintertime is the prime time for breakups. So not only will I talk about how to think about breakups so that yours doesn't suck as much or so that you don't break up at all. I'm also gonna talk about how to take care of yourself or how to take care of the people that you love, who are in a breakup. Because I do think that the moment of breakup is hard, but the aftermath of a breakup is harder and we all deserve and need care during that transitional period. So I wanna give you some tools. So, and the workshop's only $27. It's super affordable. And if that's really not affordable for you, please let me know because I want anyone and everyone who needs this workshop to sign up. And by the way, you can sign up. If you just go to my website, libbysinback.com. There is a link there to sign up for the workshop, okay? That's all I've got. Now let's go into today's episode.
In the polyamory discourse. There's a lot of discussion about rules versus agreements. And the distinction that is often made between rules and agreements is that a rule is something that someone else sets on your behavior. Whereas an agreement is something that you agree together. I don't make that distinction because let's say I'm going to set a rule. That you have to text me after your date with a partner when you're on your way home. Or I set a rule that you can't sleep with people with penises, only people with vaginas, or I set a rule that you can't go with your partner to this restaurant that is special to me. And you, if you are the person on the other side of that, and you say, okay, I will abide by that rule. Then what have you done? You've agreed what you haven't done is negotiate.
Or if that rule doesn't work for you, you haven't pushed back. But if you are abiding by a rule that someone else has set for you, what you've really done is you've taken something that should be a request and said yes to it. So what makes a rule. rule really? What makes it feel like something that's being imposed upon you rather than something that you are choosing and participating in so that it feels like an agreement? The first thing is that an agreement is going to feel like a negotiation. It means that you have room to push back, that you have room to say what you'd like, that there is a desire for both partners needs to be taken into account. The second thing that's gonna make something, an agreement instead of a rule, potentially. Although actually this is one of my problems with agreements is that I think implied with a rule is that if you break the rule, then you are bad.
You have done a wrong, and therefore there needs to be a consequence. And, and oftentimes when people set a rule, the consequence for breaking the rule is pretty vague. The consequence might be, I'm gonna be mad at you, or you're gonna be the bad guy here or I'm going to retaliate against you. And of course, retaliation, I don't think is a very functional response to someone doing something that you would not like them to do. I think that is an escalating response. I don't think it is a winning strategy and threatening someone in order to get what you want from them. Like the implicit threat of punishment. If you don't abide by a rule, implies a lack of respect and equality within the relationship and it also is rooted in control, right? You do what I want. And if you don't do what I want, you're gonna get it.
Or at the very least I'm gonna be a victim and you're gonna be a bad guy, which oftentimes when people put themselves in the victim role, then they then feel entitled to treat you badly in response without any consequences or without any accountability. The reason why I still think that's an agreement is because if you are in a relationship with someone and they have asked for a rule and you have agreed to it, and you have agreed that if you break it, that you're the bad guy, guess what agreement you've decided you're gonna put up with that power dynamic. You've decided that you're going to accept punishment. If you make a mistake or if something doesn't work for you instead of negotiating instead of stating what you want, instead of pushing back, if that's happening, then there's a problem of empowerment in the relationship.
If you feel like someone is insisting on rules with you and you don't feel like you can push back or negotiate, or just say no openly and make it clear to them, that they have the incorrect expectations of you. If they think that you're going to abide by their rule, that is something that needs to be addressed. I don't think polyamory can operate with that kind of power differential. I don't think polyamory can operate when partners are trying to control each other with incentives, with punishments and rewards. I just don't see that as a functional way that two adults can interact with each other in any kind of relationship, but certainly not in polyamory, because then it not only creates a power struggle between those two partners that are imposing rules on each other, but then it also creates power struggle between anybody else in that ecosystem. Because what happens when you're trying to set rules with one partner, but then your partner's partner's trying to set rules too. And those rules conflict, because you're not actually treating the relational situation, like an ecosystem where you're all impacting each other. It doesn't work because if you can't negotiate with your partner, then that relationship can't function in the kind of ecosystem that polyamory is designed for. And the tricky thing is agreements. Even when they're negotiated, can still act like rules. Because again, what is, when an agreement is broken, then there's a bad guy who broke the agreement and a good guy or a victim who had the agreement broken on them. And then what is the response? The response is, I don't know, punishment. I'm not saying you shouldn't make agreements in an ideal world. You make agreements with the understanding that if they are broken, it is not a sign that someone doesn't care or that someone is a violator of agreements.
But rather that it's a sign that the agreement doesn't work. And yes, ideally in an ideal world with both partners, feeling fully empowered to speak their truth and honor themselves. And the other person that if an agreement isn't working for you, that you don't break it, speak up and you say, Hey, this agreement that I thought would work, doesn't work, and I need to change it. And then ideally the partner who is hearing that would say, oh, okay, let's go back to the negotiating table and figure out what agreement will work. And what I find is that a lot of people don't do that. Instead. What happens is they treat agreements like legal documents and someone brings up an agreement that isn't working and the other person says, well, but we agreed to this. You can't go back on the agreement. And again, I just don't think that's the way functioning, living, breathing relationships can work, especially when you're not just taking into account the needs of the two people who might have a particular agreement, but the needs of other people for whom that agreement might be incompatible.
And it's okay. I wanna say to make agreements between just two people within a relational ecosystem, but if those agreements impact other people in that ecosystem and they start saying, Hey, that agreement doesn't work for me. And then you don't go back to the negotiating table and try to figure out what works for them. Then those agreements, aren't gonna function for everybody who they affect. And it's gonna put the person often, it's a hinge partner type person in a really shitty position. I'll give you an example. Let's say that, you know, my partner and I both agree that we're not gonna take other partners to this particular restaurant that is really special just between us and we, we make that agreement out of love and out of commitment to keeping something special just between us and you know, what harm does that honestly do?
It's not that big a deal. It's not that controlling, but then let's say that we start dating someone who the restaurant is a really special place for them, or they've always wanted to try it. And they really wanna bring the person that is their love to that place. And maybe we want that too with them. And so we need to be able to at least have a negotiation and a conversation about whether that agreement still functions. And again, a lot of times when that happens, the person who really needed that agreement in place gets really triggered and flooded and unable to proceed. And instead feels like, even though they're trying to renegotiate the agreement, rather than just breaking it, that that they're going back on their word. And I, I just don't think agreements can function in that way. Although something equally problematic that often happens when someone doesn't like a rule or an agreement is that they just break it and don't discuss it until after it's been broken.
And the problem with that, my lovely humans is that that under minds trust, what can you do differently here? Well, there are so many things and I'm not gonna be able to address them all in this episode. But I think the first thing to understand is that if someone in your relational ecosystem is attempting to impose a rule on you, I would reframe it in your mind as a request because no one, no one, unless they're your boss, or unless they somehow have some kind of sway over you like money or housing or access to your children, which granted is a power dynamic that is set up sometimes in relationship, nobody has a right to tell you what to do. No other human being has a right to control any other human being. We have a right to make requests. We have a right to be accommodated.
We have a right to care. Sure. We all affect each other. And it's important to acknowledge that and try to work with each other, but nobody gets to unilaterally say what anybody else does. And the thing is, even when we try, you can always say no. Now there are lots of different ways you can say, no, you can say no with forcefulness, with distancing, you can say no with sharpness and harshness, you can also say no with loving firmness. Like, I hear that you would like me to do this. And I wanna honor that request. There's nothing wrong with you asking for that, but it's something I can't do for you. And I would love to talk more about what's underneath that request and how I might be able to meet your need another way. That in fact is not just a no, but a no, but, and what I mean by a no, but is no, I can't do that, but let's find out what I can do or no, I can't do that.
But here's what I will do. That leaves so much room for it. Not to be a power struggle, but instead, to be a mutually empowering interchange, to a certain degree, we all have to be willing to be flexible and work with the people that we have in our lives. You're gonna just be bashing your head against a wall. If you impose a rule that actually does not work for the human being that you're imposing it on anyway. So that's, that's how I would reframe it for the person who wants the rule for the person who doesn't or who would like to negotiate it, or at least feel like they have some agency, you need to own your agency and your power. And if you don't feel like you can, I would look into that and address it and maybe get some help and support to rebalance the power differentials in there.
Second thing, anytime you're creating an agreement you want to ask yourself, what is the purpose? Is the purpose control? Protection,? or is the purpose elevation creation, honoring setting intentions and following through on them because when you're going to a place of control and protection, again, I, I just don't think that works. It's a, it's a route to safety for a lot of people, but with other human beings, we actually can't control them. I think when we try, we shoot ourselves in the foot. So you really have to check yourself. But again, it doesn't mean you don't get to ask for anything or need anything or have anything that you can rely on. What I often tell my clients is instead of thinking about agreements, think about commitments, instead of thinking about what are you trying to protect? Think about what you're trying to create. I think that's a much more empowering space to be in than protection and control.
The last thing is you always have to ask yourself, is this a freely consent to agreement or request? So when you ask for something is no unacceptable answer for you because I think it always has to be. I think we always have to be respectful that just because we want something doesn't mean it works for everyone else. And it doesn't mean our needs aren't valid, It doesn't mean we can't figure out how to get our needs met. It's just that when you're imposing a rule, you're deciding how your need is gonna get met through what someone else is gonna do, or when you even make a request. But implied in the request is that if you don't do it, you're in trouble. That's not really a request, right? That's more of a demand yourself on whether you are okay with hearing a no or a no, but or whether you've done something or acted in some way that is disempowering your partner from telling you that no. Or that no, but like when you hear a no, maybe you want your partner to say no, but then you also want the right to full lip out when they do and get triggered and say, you know, you don't really love me or care about me. If you don't wanna do this for me, that's all coercive. That's gonna disempower your partner from being an equal player at the table with you in creating the relationship you want.
So here's an example of how this can go badly. And here's an example of how this can go. Well, common agreement that I hear or rule again, I see it as an agreement either way. I might say to my partner, you may not have overnights with your other partner. Only overnights with me. Again, as soon as you say, okay, I won't have over with my partner. Even if you don't like it, it's an agreement. Someone places a rule on you, you say, yes, that's an agreement. Now, if you do not want that rule, then what you might say is, Hey, I hear that you're worried about me having overnights with other partners. What is the underlying need that you are trying to meet? Or what is the fear you're trying to avoid? What would me not having overnights with someone give us that we don't have now, what would it preserve that we're worried about losing and how can we address this differently?
Because having overnights with people that I care about, sometimes it might just be logistically better for me and my sleep. Sometimes it might be a really tender bit of intimacy that I wanna be able to share with my other people. And I don't want to feel restricted on that, but I don't wanna feel like your needs don't matter. So let's talk about them. If that feels completely unsafe to you to have that kind of conversation, if it feels completely inaccesible for you to push back, say no negotiate again, I would get help. And sometimes the help might look like asking yourself, am I really an agent in this relationship? Do I have choices or is my partner intentionally? Or maybe even unintentionally outta fear restricting my choices. I want you to honor your instincts. If it really does feel unsafe to negotiate, that might be a sign you're in a relationship where you're not safe.
I would check that. It's just, we're looking at lastly, I'll say that a lot of people really like the language of boundaries these days, instead of rules and agreements. And in some cases, what I want you to watch out for is when people use the language of boundaries, but they haven't changed any aspect except for the word. So you might say something like I have a boundary on my partner having overnights with other partners. That's not a boundary, that's a rule. It's not a boundary. It's a request really. And it's a request your partner has agreed to. And if it feels like a rule, then what it really is, is a request that they agreed to, that they didn't feel like they could not agree to. So it's not a boundary boundaries are the lines you draw for yourself about what you will and won't do what is, and isn't okay for you.
What kinds of ways you will listen and take in other people's stuff? And what kinds of you will let out and show other people. And I have a whole episode coming on boundaries while really multiple episodes on boundaries. But please be mindful when someone is using the term boundary to talk about someone else's behavior or a behavior that you are both mutually either restricting or engaging in that boundaries, not the right term. It is misused. The reason I am belaboring this point is because the discourse on boundaries that boundaries are inviolable. So if I set a boundary, then you violate my boundary. Then you are a boundary violator. And I generally agree with this, but this is why boundaries are things about you. What's okay and not okay for you, what you will. And won't do. So when someone is trying to set a boundary on your behavior, that is not with them.
That is something that you are choosing to do. That is not something you're choosing to do to them or with them. Then that's not a boundary that is a request or an attempt to set a rule. And if they say that you're violating their boundary by choosing to do something, then what they're doing is they're using the language of boundaries to try to control you. You cannot place boundaries on other people's behavior. So if someone's saying that, just replace it in your mind, that's a rule, that's an agreement or a request. So to recap, rules and agreements are the same thing. It's just that rules are agreements that haven't actually been negotiated. And if you want to have good agreements, then you need to have two partners who are mutually empowered, who are willing to say no and hear no, and work with each other to get each other's needs met. One of my favorite strategies to do this is to try to shift out of rules and agreements and into commitments and setting intentions and thinking about what it we want to create rather than what do we want to protect. And lastly, please don't use boundaries to describe restrictions on other people's behavior. That is not what a boundary is.
What do you think about what I've said today? Do you agree? Do you not agree?
