322 - From the Kitchen Table to the Parallel Universe
The spectrum of entwinement
This episode is going to detail a lot of the different types of polyamory across the spectrum, as well as their levels of entwinement:
DADT/Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: “I am able to date and/or sleep with multiple people, but I do not discuss or ask about the details.” The level of details depends on each individual relationship. This style of polyamory has low entwinement.
Parallel Polyamory: Multiple relationships run in parallel but do not entwine or overlap. Low level of entwinement.
Garden Party Polyamory: “I’m comfortable to be acquaintances with my metas and willing to be friendly at group events or hangouts, but don’t feel the need to forge a deep friendship or an independent relationship outside of a partner we hold in common.” Low or medium level of entwinement.
Kitchen Table Polyamory: Initially based around the idea that all partners and metamours are willing and comfortable enough to sit around the kitchen table to have coffee or a meal together. Metamours may intentionally forge independent friendships. Medium to high entwinement.
Lap-sitting Polyamory: Polycule is highly entangled. Metamours may forge very close relationships or become romantic/sexual partners. Multiple partners may choose to cohabitate, closely co-parent, share finances or property, and may prioritize making decisions with group cohesion or happiness in mind. High entwinement.
Some dos and don’ts about different relationship styles:
DO be open to hybrid styles and creativity. Take some time to think what you’re longing for.
DON’T assume that what you want is what everyone else wants - communicate and check in.
DO talk about logistics.
DON’T be an ass, but also don’t be a doormat. Be open, but advocate for your wants and needs.
Transcript
This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.
Jase: On this episode of the Multiamory Podcast, we're talking about The spectrum of entwinement Within Polyamory. Now, while that may sound like a fun young adult fantasy novel series, the spectrum of entwinement, actually that's actually a really good title for that. You're welcome listeners for your YA series name. Anyway, what this is about is many of you have probably heard when people talk about polyamory, they might toss out terms like kitchen table polyamory, parallel polyamory, don't ask don't tell, or garden party polyamory or these other labels like that. Today what we're going to be doing is we're going to be discussing those explaining, first of all, what those terms mean.
Specifically, we're going to look at them in terms of how much entwinement they entail, meaning entwinement between met-amours as well as between partners. Within each of those, we're going to look at both healthy and unhealthy versions of those, what that might look like. Then some deeper things you may be looking for if you find yourself drawn to one of these particular forms of non-monogamy.
Emily: All I'm going to say as my favorite label for polyamory ever is the semi-porous polyfidelitous commune. I don't know listeners. We've talked about it. We were at a conference, somebody ran up to us drop trow. There were leggings underneath, but trow was dropped and they exclaimed that they were in this semi-porous polyfidelitous commune. That was the first time that I had ever heard those words strung together. That was really cool.
Dedeker: That's a very condensed version of what actually happened in that conversation. It makes it sound a lot funnier. This stranger running up to us, dropping their pants and yelling that they're in a semi-porous polyfidelitous commune.
Jase: It's not quite how it went down.
Emily: It wasn't a huge amount different than that. I'm just saying.
Dedeker: Of course, as I was writing this episode and researching this episode, that definitely came to mind, that phrase, the semi-porous polyfidelotous commune. I have to be honest. I initially didn't really want to talk about this. This is my episode, I came up with this topic and did most of the writing for this and I really dragged my feet about it. I almost talked myself out of even doing it, but then I found that I couldn't stop thinking about it and just having a lot of thoughts and opinions about it, and so I'm like, "Fine, I guess I'm going to write this episode." First, just for posterity, I'm going to lay out all the reasons why I didn't want to. Strap in.
First of all, it's difficult to find hard scientific research on this. We love scientific research here at Multiamory. There's just not a ton of robust studies out there yet really looking at these nuances between people who identify with parallel polyamory or people who practice kitchen table polyamory. We're starting to get there. There are some more savvy researchers who are starting to look at these things, but we don't have a ton yet. I can't necessarily present you with these hard facts about like this percentage of the non-monogamous community practices this, and they find that these people have a 200% increase in relationship satisfaction. I can't speak about that in very empirical terms.
That always makes me a little bit nervous. I also felt hesitant because sometimes I have noticed the non-monogamous community can get a little bit reactive if, let's say, you define a term we're using slightly different words than an individual may define them or if you don't include a term or a particular identity or particular specific flavor non-monogamy that someone is practicing. Have you all noticed that?
Jase: Yes, there can sometimes be like, I don't know, like, "I know better than you because I define this label in this particular way." While I think sometimes that discussion is useful, it can also sometimes lead some of us to just go, "Ugh," throw up our hands and be like, "Whatever, I give up then. I'm not even going to try." Yes, I get that being a hesitation.
Emily: Sometimes I do, like many of us who started off as a young non-monogamous person and we're like, "This is the best thing ever. I am now the most enlightened ever." I think that it can tend it towards that also with these labels. It's like, "Well, I do kitchen table polyamory. Therefore I do the best form of it, period." That sometimes is challenging because we're not really placing a better or worse label on these labels.
Jase: Right, and then I think also something we've talked about in the past, but it's just that thing of for some people you give them a label that roughly describes what they do and they're like, "Thank God. Finally, I belong, this makes sense. I have a thing to Google when I want to look up stuff about this. I have a shorthand." Other people are like, "Don't you dare try to label me, put me in a box." The tiger wants to get out of the cage, that thing.
Dedeker: Which is something that we've talked about before, that there can be this duality to labels in that way. That for some people it's very freeing and for other people very constricting. I also sometimes want to avoid talking about these things because as soon as you attach a label to a concept it can become very easy for people to fixate on it or to attach a value judgment to it. Like Emily mentioned this idea that like, "Well this label is good and that label is bad. This concept is good. This concept is bad." That makes it even easier for people to weaponize it against community members or their partners or their metamours or things like that.
We've also had some weird experiences with what people perceive our practice of monogamy/non-monogamy to be has been really interesting.
Jase: You mean the three of us?
Dedeker: Yes the three of us. Just as an example, someone reached out to me, this was probably a couple of years ago, where it was like, "You only ever talk about parallel polyamory on your show. I really wish you would talk about kitchen table. At that time I was like, "I think I'm practicing kitchen table. What? This is weird. Maybe, I can see how this person could perceive that. " I don't know. There's just a lot of confusion. Unfortunately, it's a fluid still a little bit of a Wild West world out there as far as figuring out language. Also things are a little bit fraught.
Jase: That's also really funny because I feel like I've also seen feedback the opposite way saying, "Well, you guys are always glorifying kitchen table polyamory, and that's not how everyone practices."
Emily: Really?
Jase: Yes. It's really like whatever people are attuned to, or more sensitive to, it's easy to jump to these conclusions about, "Well, because there's this label, you're saying that this is bad or this is good. You mentioned this one thing that's related to what I define as this label, and so therefore you were making a judgment about it." It is fraught. I think that's a good term for it.
Dedeker: Despite this territory sometimes being fraught, I do think it is still really important to talk about. Now, for me, I've noticed when working with clients, and also this has happened in my own personal life, that it's really easy to get attached to particular words in particular labels. That could be I get super attached to the concept of kitchen table polyamory or I get super attached to the concept of primary or the concept of non-hierarchy, or even the concept of boundaries. I find that, especially in a relationship, whenever there's a word or a concept where there's repeated usage, and especially if it's central to some repeating conflict in relationship.
We have a lot of conflict around, "Are we hierarchical or not?" We have a lot of conflict around, "What counts as a boundary or not?" We have a lot of conflict around, "Are we practicing parallel polyamory or not?" I've noticed sometimes the actual meaning and purpose of the concept starts to get lost. It starts to get misconstrued. There starts to be maybe even multiple working definitions between different people. In my work with clients, I'm often helping people get back to what is it they're actually longing for and needing and encouraging them to ask for that or to go after that, rather than just trying to aim for a label.
I had a lot of experience with this myself in the past when I practiced more hierarchical polyamory, where I got really fixated on wanting that primary label because I thought, "As soon as I get that label, I'm going to get all the things that I need to have a secure relationship" It turns out that wasn't true at all. I really should have been-
Jase: We remember.
Dedeker: -should have been focusing on what I actually needed in the room relationship and asking for that, rather than really fixating on this primary title. To sprinkle some Buddhist aphorisms as we sometimes like to do, there's this idea of, sometimes it can be easy to confuse the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. I think that happens a lot when we're talking about labels for concepts or different forms of non-monogamy.
Emily: Perhaps this is a question for later in the episode, but in your work have you found that one specific type of polyamory or one specific type of relationship is more fraught than others? You don't necessarily need to say which, but it's yes or no.
Dedeker: Like format of non-monogamy?
Emily: Sure, yes.
Dedeker: I think, as we will find as we go through the episode, I've started to come to this conclusion that any relationship format where people are non-consensually engaging is going to be more fraught than others.
Emily: That makes sense.
Dedeker: It really does come down to the ethics and the honesty and the vulnerability and things like that. As time has gone on, I've found myself getting less and less attached to the particular label or the particular format. I'm just like, "Are you being good to each other and everyone involved? Is everyone feeling relatively fulfilled and safe? Then good job."
Emily: Even though those labels may not be serving you specifically, for other people they may be really beneficial. For someone like me who didn't even know what all of these labels were, like garden-party polyamory. I don't know if I've ever heard that term in my life. I learned about it this time, which is great, but it is really important to understand the nuances of different forms of polyamory and what maybe are motivating them. It's good for you to understand more about yourself. That's always really helpful in so many areas of our lives. What you're needing also helps to humanize other people who might be practicing a different form of non-monogamy than you are.
You get a moon buffet. You wrote this words Dedeker. I love them. You get a big old moon buffet if you know what other people are doing. Then maybe if one relationship is kitchen table, one relationship is garden party, you can explore and understand what everyone is going through. We're going to help you with that today.
Dedeker: Knowing all the different motivations and reasoning behind different formats of non-monogamy gives you access to the buffet, to pick or choose. The whole point is don't confuse the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. It's clearly a moon buffet. I couldn't make that any more obvious, Emily.
Jase: Connections come back around.
Emily: I know what you were getting at. I just was laughing at the fact that it said the moon buffet.
Jase: I do think that's a really good point though. About, by going through these in this episode, part of the goal is to, again, show that any of these can have more toxic versions or more healthy versions, then also understanding what some of the motivations might be for it. It's really easy to say, "Well, I was in a relationship once with this person who said that they wanted this type of polyamory, parallel polyamory, for example, and I felt really shitty. Therefore, I think that way of doing polyamory is bad." Of course, sure. It's like, that was your experience with it. It wasn't good. Maybe your partner was dishonest or maybe their partner kept trying to force everyone into one way of doing polyamory that you didn't want to do.
It can be easy to look at that and look at anyone who does that as like, "You must be bad too. You must be doing the same thing." That's also why I think this is valuable, to really humanize. Then also to realize that as non-monogamous people, we're still this perpetually misunderstood group, even if polyamory and non-monogamy is getting talked about a lot more, there's probably even more misunderstandings then going on from the larger society as a whole. These labels are a way of digging a little burrow within language that we have saying like, "We're going to assemble some of these twigs from language and assemble a nest for ourselves." I'm really going to all sorts of different animal metaphors here.
Emily: Lots of metaphors, Jase.
Dedeker: Like a little moon bunny perhaps?
Jase: Yes.
Dedeker: I can already anticipate it, and even when I was researching this episode, I had these very old lady feelings coming up where I just felt, "Back in my day, we just called it polyamory and we were thankful for that. God bless it. We were thankful to have a word. All your young ones need and all your format and labels." No, it's great. It's fantastic. I love it. Let me dive into the spectrum.
Emily: I do think that a lot of these labels are like fairly newish. No, am I wrong about that? They feel new. They feel fresh.
Jase: Yes, I do have the impression that along with polyamory growing out of the fact that people could connect online, originally and in message boards and BBS systems, that a lot of these terms have been able to grow. I think the internet really encourages labeling because if you're trying to search for something, you need something to call it. It's much harder to do a Google search or a Bing search or whatever for a relationship where I'm okay with my metamours and we all hang out together, but we don't have relationships with each other. That's, that's going to be harder for a search algorithm to find, as opposed to using some term, is more likely to help you connect with other people.
Let's dive in to the spectrum here. First, we're just going to be laying out a brief definition for each one. This is not our own definition. This is referenced from other blogs and content creators and compiled together to find a definition for each. We're going to be discussing both what we think functional versions might look like as well as what dysfunctional versions of it might look like. Then we're going to talk about, if this appeals to you, what parts of it you may actually be wanting or craving if you're drawn to that particular label.
Emily: These labels are a spectrum and there's a lot of different ways that one could organize this spectrum but we decided to go in a general order of least entwined in terms of your relationship to super entwined, the most entwined. This is a spectrum or a web or whatever you want to call it. It's not a definitive list. All of these run on a mild to strict spectrum even within themselves. It can get a little convoluted, but just bear with us. You got this.
Dedeker: You got this.
Emily: We good? All right. Let's do it.
Dedeker: With that, yes, we're going dive in. Starting with a very low level of entwinement is a don't ask, don't tell arrangement. The short definition of this might be, "I'm able to date and or sleep with multiple people, but I don't discuss or ask about the details." What counts as "the details" could differ depending on the person or the situation. It could range from, "Don't even tell me when you're going out with someone else. Give me some generic views or whatever," or it could range to, "Yes, you can tell you when you're going on a date, but I don't want to hear anything else other than that. I'm not interested in knowing names, anything about the nature of your relationship or things like that."
It could be a standing agreement or practice just between two particular partners or it could apply to multiple partners across the board as well. Now I do think that don't ask, don't tell, often gets thrown under the bus as, "This is something you definitely don't want to do ever. Bad idea." I do think that some extreme versions of this have ended in heartache for a number of people. I guess my first challenge that I'd want to pose to the two of you is do you think that there's a functional version of don't ask, don't tell? What might that look like?
Emily: The first thing that came to mind was, and F Kevin Spacey, but the relationship in House of Cards, because there were these two people who were like very power hungry, who clearly had relationships outside of their marriage, but their marriage was very much one of power and convenience. I think of in the olden days, the really olden days before what we're even talking about here, that people would have arranged marriages and potentially people on the side. The arranged marriage was more for power.
Jase: Yes. That's an interesting way to look at it. I could see, making an argument now,. I personally have not encountered this type of relationship, but I could see making the argument for perhaps the couple who's from a different generation where polyamory is not really an option, but they do have this understanding with each other of like, "Yes, we both see other people. The people we see know that we're married, but we're not necessarily being sneaky about it. We're not being mean to each other. We both allow each other that freedom." I could see an argument for that being made. Like I said, I haven't personally seen this in a healthy version.
I guess that's the caveat I have to give is I am not sure I've ever actually seen a healthy version of, don't ask, don't tell, in practice. When I try to imagine it in theory, I could see it working maybe if it's like I acknowledge I'm going on a date with someone, you know their name, we're being safe in the sense of you know where I am. It's not like I'm having to lie to you in order to agree to our don't ask, don't tell. I could see that being maybe a loose way of approaching, like, "I just don't want to know the details. I don't want to know, that doesn't matter to me and I'm not comfortable with it." I still, I don't know, I'm hesitant to find a lot of positive versions of this. Have you seen that at all? Dedes?
Dedeker: Yes, I've seen some people where, for instance, some people have like a "100-mile rule" where maybe one or both of them travel a lot for work, or maybe one of them is a musician who goes on tour or an artist who goes on tour or whatever. I thought sometimes it's like, "Cool, when you go on tour, or when you're travelling for work great have fun, go to the parties, make out with or hook up with whoever you want. That's fine, that's an understanding, but we don't need to necessarily talk about it or process it unless there's some major issue that comes up or things like that."
I do think that for some people this can be a great fit, however, I do think that sometimes the way people end up here is for slightly more dysfunctional reasons.
Emily: Such as?
Dedeker: I think a lot of us have seen the experience of people who open up their relationship and go to a don't ask, don't tell, because neither of them are really actually comfortable, or only one of them is actually comfortable with an open relationship. The don't ask, don't tell agreement serves to create maybe a false sense of security or a false sense of comfort around it, maybe it enables some denial of what's actually going on. I think that this one gets thrown under the bus so frequently because it's so easy to find dysfunctional examples.
Emily: That's true. There is this question of if you are drawn to this type of polyamory or open relationship, or whatever, and don't ask, don't tell, what are you wanting? What are you craving? Something that might come up for you is that you want your privacy. You might want to take ownership of your own sexuality or dating choices without those choices being subjected to a partner's approval or opinions, or judgment, or someone wanting to veto, or something along those lines. Also, you might be undergoing some more vulnerable exploration of your own sexuality or kink. Maybe that feels a little bit vulnerable or embarrassing or awkward to share with a partner, and you simply just want to go out and explore that by yourself without speaking to them about it. That's an interesting option.
Jase: I could see also, in addition to thinking of it as privacy also could be independence, that perhaps for you in the relationship independence is a really high priority. This way feels like, "I have the freedom to do my own thing, but I'm not needing to tell you about it or justify it to you or whatever." I could see independence being an argument for it as well, I suppose. Another one could be simplicity, that you might be like, I don't want the complexity of trying to, I don't know introduce you or get my metamours to communicate or the emotional labor that it takes to navigate that. "I just want to keep it simple. I just have this one relationship and everyone else knows that I've got this one relationship." It tends to be more like, "I live with this one person I just don't talk about the other people I'm seeing." I could see the appeal of that too, that may be what you're actually just seeking is simplicity.
Dedeker: You could also be seeking some emotional or mental safety. Again, this could be on a range. You could just be wanting to feel considered and maybe feel like I don't need to be non consensually subjected to information or uncomfortable details about my partner's sex life or dating life that I don't want. This could also range up to you might really want to insulate yourself from the reality of non-monogamy, or from the more uncomfortable parts of having a partner who's dating other people. In talking about these things, when we're laying out the possibilities of what people may be longing for underneath this, we really encourage you as you're listening to think about that.
Try that on, think about, "Is privacy the thing that I've been yearning for?" Think about that, like, "Is there a way in my current life right now that I could be going after finding that privacy that doesn't necessarily entail a full don't ask, don't tell because maybe there's other parts of that arrangement that don't really work for me in my life?"
Jase: I like that idea. Same with simplicity, or security. Maybe there's other ways you can find those. Again, we're defining these labels, but then we're saying but really the whole point is just to identify what you really want so that you can custom tailor your relationship for yourself rather than just thinking, "Well, this is the closest label so I've got to do everything that's included in this label."
Emily: All right, let's move on to parallel polyamory, which is apparently the thing that we love on this show.
Dedeker: According to that one person.
Emily: Exactly. I'm kidding. What's parallel polyamory? The short definition is that it is multiple relationships that run in parallel but do not intertwine or overlap. Someone might be dating multiple people, but they don't connect or create any kind of relationship with their metamour and maybe they even totally avoid any contact whatsoever with metamours. Again, that level of intertwinement between the other members of, I guess, your circle that's a low level of intertwinement again.
Jase: I think this one's interesting too because when we talk about parallel polyamory or when people talk about it, there really is a range of how connected the metamours are. I guess all of these labels, when you get onto a far end of intertwinement starts to maybe bleed into another label. I think sometimes people can be like, "I don't want that other label because I associate other things with it.
Emily: Again, we come back to all this like baggage that gets attached to these. I'm trying to think, though, maybe Dedeker? I'd be curious to hear from you like what a functional version of this looks like.
Dedeker: YI did dive into the internet because I don't know if I personally have a ton of experience with parallel polyamory, at least not functional parallel polyamory, if I'm being totally honest. People have some really interesting stories where, for instance, they talk about one person shared a story of they have a partner who is a single mom and an artist, and just like really, really taken up with a lot of other things in her life. For her, for this particular partner it was like, "Yes, of course, I'm okay for you to date people and you can talk about the people that you're dating with, but I just don't have a ton of energy in my life to try to forge independent relationship with a metamour or things like that. I feel a little bit better if I can keep things just a little bit separate."
"Maybe it's okay, it's okay if we're ships passing in the night, we run into each other maybe occasionally. It doesn't have to be hermetically sealed, but I'm okay with these relationships just running in parallel to each other." That was one person's experience. Again, this is going to run in a range from slightly less than entwined to slightly, slightly even more or less than twine depending on what people are comfortable with.
Jase: In defining this one for the episode, something that was interesting to me is that the label will talk about next, about garden party polyamory. To me, I grouped that and what we're talking about now all into parallel polyamory. That's also, as I was saying, it's interesting where they'll dovetail into each other.
Dedeker: Overlap a little?
Jase: Yes. Overlap a little bit on the edges.
Dedeker: I do think that there can be functional parallel polyamory. Again, it's the same thing of if we're choosing parallel polyamory because the very idea that I have a metamour is just too uncomfortable for me. That's maybe a little bit weird, but if it is just I don't necessarily have a super intense interest in becoming best friends with my metamour or things like that, even though I'm okay for them to be around, I think that could be a little bit different.
Jase: I could see also the example you gave, Dedeker, is really good one. Just sort of, "I've got a lot going on, I've got a kid maybe so I just don't want my life to get a lot intertwined with a lot of other people. Let's just keep that separate. We can acknowledge each other, we're not hiding it, but keeping it a little bit separate makes sense."
Dedeker: Jase, you make the comparison pretty frequently about the metamour relationship being similar to an in-law relationship. I do think about when you date someone or start a relationship with someone and you don't want to get super entwined with this person. Maybe you're just like, "I don't need to meet your parents. That's not really the relationship that we're building, maybe I'll be open to it someday. Maybe if I accidentally crossed paths with your parents that's fine, but maybe for me it's not priority number one that I get entwined to the level of meeting your parents."
I think for some people it could be like that. "'I'm okay for you to have other partners, but I don't feel super motivated to have to meet them, or forge relationship with them, or be in contact with them.
Jase: What is a dysfunctional version of this, people are refusing to see an additional metamour, or I don't want to hear anything about them. I know they exist, but please do not talk to me about them if you're having a problem with them. The dysfunctional versions of this that I've seen the most is that whole like, "Don't even talk to me about them," to me falls more into the don't ask don't tell side of things. Within the parallel polyamory, the version I've seen of this is that it's like, "I know you're dating someone else and that's fine.
You tell me you're going on dates with them. Maybe we'll even check in about where are you in that relationship. Are you saying I love you now or are you having sex now?" Whatever. That kind of conversation. It's this extreme of, "I don't ever want to see something of his in the house. You need to scrub all traces of this person from anything that intersects with my life. If you have a date with them and then I'm going to see you later you have to put buffer time in there so there's no chance that I bump into them on the way. I've seen this come up, that kind of like, "I acknowledge it and totally say I'm fine with it, but I can't even at all have them in my vicinity." Which in the case that I'm thinking of was much more rooted in this just one person just really wasn't okay with polyamory. I think also, in this case, had some trust issues with that partner too that were being masked by just trying to hide it and stay away from these things rather than actually addressing that issue.
Emily: That makes sense.
Jase: If you're drawn to this, what are some of the things that you might be craving that you want to get out of this? The first one, I think, like we talked about in the don't ask, don't tell, is just that autonomy. Having independence, the ability to choose who you create a relationship with and who you don't. I think also extending to those metamours and those friends, being like, "You know? I want to choose if I'm going to end up friends with someone. I don't want to be forced into a friendship just because you start dating someone." It's that, "You know what? I'm fine, I just want to do my own thing." That's fine, right? "I don't need to be involved with everyone that you're involved with in any way."
Dedeker: Yes, you may also be craving just less emotional labor. You may want to preserve the energy that would otherwise be spent on facilitating a metamour relationship for yourself, for your life, or for the energy that you're putting into the relationship with your partner or with your partners. It may just be a matter of really choosing and prioritizing who you want to spend your emotional labor on.
Emily: Finally, you might just want healthy boundaries in your life. You might want to just have the ability to say no, or decline interaction with someone that you don't get along with, or that you just have no interest in getting to know better. There also is this option to keep certain relationships separate from your work life or your family life, especially if maybe you're not out with every single person in your life and you simply are like, "That's going to be something else entirely that has nothing to do with me over there and that I don't have to incorporate it in my life in any way."
Dedeker: I found an interesting take on this when I was reading up on what other content creators are saying about parallel polyamory. Someone made the observation, at least in their opinion, that all polyamory starts out as parallel in default. Essentially, we're starting from a baseline of you are not obligated to be connected to anyone in particular. You're not obligated to reach out to your metamour, you're not obligated to have to be in some kind of connection with your metamour. It's like everyone has that choice, doesn't mean that that's the way that it needs to stay, doesn't mean that that's the healthiest version. Doesn't mean that that's what everybody wants.
It's like we start from this framework of no one necessarily having any obligations of who they connect to, which I thought is actually a really interesting way of looking at it. I think it's also really helpful because, of course, as we keep moving along the spectrum of entwinement into more and more entwined forms of polyamory, some people have felt that pressure of, "If I don't want to be best friends with my metamour that means I'm doing polyamory wrong." "If I don't want to correct my metamour that must mean I'm secretly not okay with polyamory," when maybe that's not actually the case.
I do think that there is something really important of reminding ourselves that we start from a basis of everyone is able to have the boundaries and say no to connecting to a metamour or a teramour or whoever it is. We're going to keep on going along the spectrum of entwinement. We're going to talk about things like garden party polyamory, kitchen table polyamory, lap-sitting polyamory at the other end of the spectrum. Before we do that we're going to take a minute to talk about the best ways that you can support this show so that we can keep this information out there for free.
Jase: We're back, all right. The next one we're going to talk about is garden party polyamory. This one-
Emily: Sounds fun.
Jase: It does sound fun. It does sound fun. Also, gosh, quick tangent. Dedeker and I have been reading Emily Post's Etiquette for fun. The 1923 version of it or something like that. It had many editions, but in it she goes on a rant about how what everyone calls a garden party is not a garden party because a garden party --
Emily: What is a garden party?
Jase: A garden party is the most formal occasion you could possibly have. It's the level of formal of a wedding and that what people call a garden party now is really just a party in the garden. She wants to make a clear distinction for society people between a party in the garden which is casual and a garden party which is super formal.
Dedeker: Emily post, the queen of garden party gatekeeping.
Emily: Wow. Geez.
Jase: Speaking of labels and gatekeeping.
Emily: Did she create the polyamory garden party thing society as well?
Jase: Yes.
Emily: Wow.
Jase: This is the most formal of-- No, just kidding. Garden party polyamory short definition is this. It's uncomfortable to be acquaintances with my metas, I'm willing to be friendly at group events or hangouts, we can all go to the same parties, we'll all attend your birthday, but we don't have the need to form deep relationships with our metamours and that we have sort of independent relationships outside of that partner we have in common. Also sometimes called birthday party polyamory, which makes sense.
Emily: You just see them at your birthday.
Jase: Yes, which makes sense because often partner's birthdays is the one time each year when I've often with my metamours been like, "This is the time we unite, a birthday." That makes sense. This one to me was a newer term because, like I said, for me, parallel polyamory included also this. I do like that there's this term in between to clarify it's not that we're needing to stay totally separate. We can still all hang out and be cool, but we're not hanging out a ton independently of the partner that we're dating.
Dedeker: It was funny when I was looking into the online polyamory content sphere as it were, that there was one person who was like, "I really don't like this label because to call it garden party polyamory implies a class structure that I think is just like really not accessible to some people." It's like, "Oh my God, missing the point."
Emily: I mean, you could go to a park and have a garden party or whatever.
Jase: Party in the garden. What if we call it party in the garden polyamory? Would that be better?
Dedeker: Some PGP.
Emily: Party in the garden polyamory? Yes.
Dedeker: Oh, no, that would be P-I-G so some PIG polyamory.
Jase: I like that. Pig polyamory. That's good.
Emily: That's cool, love it.
Dedeker: Oh my goodness, well, let's talk about what's the functional version of this? What does that look like?
Emily: Like, chill with everyone. Going to parties, seeing people and then just not having any issue with your metamours. Being kind to them and lovely to them when you see them.
Jase: I think you could even have like, "Well, I like this metamour better than this other one so at the party I'm going to talk to this one more than the other," or something. It's still like we're able to be cordial. We're able to be fine in a social situation. One of us isn't like suffering the whole time. I guess to me that's what defines it, is that we're able to hang out without a lot of suffering.
Dedeker: I like that. I like the emphasis on that. Just how much suffering is involved. That leads to the next question of what is the dysfunctional version of this look like?
Emily: So much suffering.
Dedeker: Lots of suffering?
Jase: Yes.
Dedeker: I think I could see both, I could see both maybe everyone involved would really prefer things to be more parallel, but we're putting on a brave face for my partner's birthday because they really want this even though everyone's miserable and it's not the happy family feeling that maybe they want. I can see that. If anyone's in a position where it's like, "I'm obligated and I can't say no to going to the garden party or going to the birthday party. I can't say no to it," then I think people are going to feel a little unhappy. It's probably going to be a little dysfunctional.
Jase: Yes, I'd say also a way this can happen, and I've made this mistake in the past too, of just assuming that everyone's okay with garden party style polyamory. It's like, "I've invited you to a thing then I also invite another partner to that thing and that's no big deal." If not everyone's okay with that, or not everyone is openly communicating the fact that they would not prefer that, I could see that becoming a big problem. If that ends up being the only way of socializing, is this, "I can only see you when it's at this gathering with all these other people. Now I'm not even getting time with my partner when that's what I want," I guess that mismatch. If someone just doesn't want it and that feels like that's their only option, like he said.
Emily: Before I even dated you Jase, so this is a long time ago,, and before I even knew what polyamory was, I was dating like five people at once. I was at a party with one of them and then the other one texted me that they were coming and I was like, "You got to leave," to the first guy. I told him, "I'm sorry, you need to go."
Dedeker: Did you say why?
Emily: I did. It was mean, I was like, "Well, this other guy that I'm dating is coming and I feel bad if both of you are here. We've had some time together. Can you please go?" I was. like, 22, and this is awful.
Dedeker: I want to give you major props for being honest about it, though. I think that normal traditional dating rules, it's like, yes, you want to avoid that situation, but I don't think a lot of people would have the guts to be straight up honest about this is what's going on. I think a lot of people would try to pull a fast one, or something really sketchy, or they would bail on the party themselves or something to avoid the awkwardness.
Jase: Right.
Emily: Well, I definitely was being honest. I was being honest to a fault. I know the person that I kicked out, I remember who that person was, but I can't for the life of me remember the person who was coming.
Oh, yes. Anyways.
Dedeker: Oh, no.
Emily: Don't do that, is what I'm saying. At your birthday party, party, garden party, whatever it is, don't do that. That's dysfunctional.
Dedeker: At your pig party.
Emily: Yes.
Dedeker: If you're finding yourself drawn to garden party, birthday party, pig party, polyamory, what might you be wanting or craving? I think first thing that comes to list for me is, maybe you're craving just a sense of community. Maybe you do really enjoy having that support network of friends and partners that can show up for you in big or small ways, or maybe even just show up for you on your birthday, and that's enough. That's a good feeling to be surrounded by your friends, your family, all your partners, things like that.
Jase: Yes, I think also there is a certain ease to it if you do have a comfortable pig polyamory setup, or party in the garden setup. There's an ease to it, especially if you have overlapping groups of friends. Like in Emily's example, where if I'm dating two different people, or maybe I'm dating someone who's also dating another person in our friend group, then this is just easier. It's cool. Then we can all go to the same events still. There doesn't have to be this, "Oh, are you going with them or with me?" It's just, "Okay, yes. We can all go to that thing and that's okay."
Emily: You might also be looking for acceptance. It's cool when you get to see friends, and you get to see other partners acknowledge each other and get along. That can offer validation to this type of polyamory that you're choosing to do, or just validation for yourself in general. Some of us have a hard time finding that validation in our lives. It's really nice in this way. I know Dedeker you talk about this a lot, but we've had a similar situation where you've had friends and partners, and all of these people, a real sense of community at a party, and how validating that made you feel. I agree, it's super cool to see these people from different parts of your life come together.
Dedeker: Yes, the thing is, I hate parties, and so--
Emily: Really? I love them.
Dedeker: I tend to hate parties. After this whole pandemic is over, we'll see. I may be coming around on parties, but the parties though in my life that stand out to me the most, that I've just absolutely loved, have been those ones where I have multiple partners there, my partners have their partners there, maybe even ex-partners there with their new partners, but it's cool, everyone's chill, and it's great.
Having that really intense felt sense of chosen family where not everybody has to have an independent relationship, or has to get along 100% of the time outside of the way they're connected to me, but just being able to show up in that way and have that really felt sense of support network is really, really nice. The way I think about it is, some people absolutely love it when they can blend their circles of friends together, and they love seeing their friends make connections.
I hear a lot of people talk about this at their weddings, where their weddings is the place, the event where all their circles of friends and families come together and some people express just loving seeing, "Oh my god, my old uncle Boris is talking to my friend from sixth grade, and they're having a great time. That's so cool." Other people, that's extremely stressful and upsetting. Some people find that just really, really unsettling. I think it's the same thing here, that it can depend on how that lands for you. Speaking of that, let's keep on moving along this entwinement train, up the spectrum into higher levels of entwinement, and then we get to kitchen table polyamory, which--
Emily: Here it is, folks.
Dedeker: Yes, seems to be just the golden child of the polyamory world. Short definition, the term was initially based around this idea that all partners and metamours are willing and comfortable enough to sit around the kitchen table, to have coffee or a meal together. I think this also usually tends to imply, again as you get into higher levels of entwinement, metamours may be intentionally forging independent friendships. Maybe this is metamours who are quite happy to go have a beer together without their partner there, or happy to play video games together without their partner there or something like that, that there's more levels of entwinement between metamours themselves.
Jase: I think that part of this too, that tends to come up with kitchen table, again on the spectrum, is that this could be like we're at the kitchen table having coffee because we've all slept in the same building, as in we're so comfortable that all of us can have a sleepover. Not necessarily that we're all having sex together, but just that we're like that level of comfortableness, that maybe I'm sleeping in one room and you two are sleeping in another room. That that's on the more entangled side, or it could just be like Dedeker was saying that we're all cool with hanging out and maybe forge more independent relationships with our metamours.
Emily: Yes, I often think of where-- We were in Boise, Idaho, and we met someone who was buying a big house, and everyone was coming into that house, and going to live together eight people and kids. That's what I think of when I think of kitchen table polyamory, although maybe not all of them are even that entwined.
Jase: Right, it's a spectrum.
Dedeker: Yes, again, even within kitchen table polyamory, is its own little mini spectrum of how entwined do you get together or not. We could also talk about dysfunctional versions of this, where I think I'm going to sound like a little bit of a broken record, but definitely, the dysfunctional versions I've seen is when someone doesn't want this and they're being forced into it. I don't want to sit at the kitchen table and have coffee. Maybe I would like the garden party. Garden party is great. I don't want the coffee, but I'm being forced into the coffee. Something like that.
There's this thing where I've seen in recent years, I think, again, as non-monogamy and polyamory are talked about more often in the mainstream, and we're starting to see more models, more visible models trickling into the mainstream, that sometimes I see a lot of newbies show up and want this right away. It's instantly, "This is what we're aiming for, so I'm going to date this person, go on three dates with this person, and then immediately, they need to be able to have coffee with me and like my wife that I live with or whatever."
Jase: Waiting three dates, it sounds like a lot, compared to some of the examples I've heard. It's like first date, you're expected to come over and hang out and spend the night and all that stuff.
Dedeker: Yes. Some people love that, and it's great, and they're all about it, but other people, not so great, for sure.
Jase: Yes, the recurring theme with all the dysfunctional versions seems to be someone's not on board. That really seems to be a--
Emily: Yes, that's going to suck a lot for that person. That's going to be a hard time.
Dedeker: I've also seen some people feeling, "My metamours have to forge an independent relationship. They have to figure that out outside of me, otherwise, I feel less secure, or I feel like they're not accepting, or I feel like they're not going to get along or whatever." Again, human beings don't do well when they're told, you need to be in a relationship with someone that you didn't choose.
Jase: Right.
Emily: Yes, it's true.
Jase: I think the other dysfunctional version of this is not even my partner's really pushing for this type of relationship, and I don't want to do it, but I think people push themselves toward this, being like, "Well, if I'm going to be a good polyamorous person, TM, TM, TM, I have to seek out this friendship." Even if it's like, "I'm so busy, I've got my other relationships, I have my other friends," but it's like, "Gosh. Okay, I've got to put in this effort." I would say another side of that too is when it's like, "Not only do I have to put in this effort but also, we're doing it so that our mutual partner doesn't actually have to do the emotional labor of scheduling with us. We're going to do all that for him."
Dedeker: Amen.
Emily: That's an interesting point.
Jase: Or, "We're going to do all of the managing between us for him, because he's either not willing or doesn't want to do it or something." I could see that also that definitely edges on the dysfunctional side of things, when it's like, "Well, I have to do this, because someone has to do it, and it's not getting done by my partner."
Dedeker: Now that you mentioned it, let's just keep on the soapbox, shall we? I've definitely seen situations where, let's say it's a hinge situation, where metamours, maybe the two partners actually have an issue with their hinge partner and how their hinge partner is talking to the other person about the other partner or stuff like that. I've definitely seen situations where the hinge partner is like, "Okay, metamours, it's your job to work on this. I have zero responsibility whatsoever."
That's a little bit tricksy, because, on the one hand, it's like, okay, if metamours directly have an issue with the other person, sure, they should probably communicate that with each other. I've also seen it go to this extreme where the hinge partner is like, "I have nothing to do with this, it's all you. I have no influence or a say on this whatsoever. If I'm having relationship drama, y'all have to work it out and I don't need to be involved."
Jase: Then on the other side, there's that thing we've talked about many times on this show when the hinge is facilitating all communication. That's also not good, because then you get this triangulated thing. Yes, it's all a balance and finding a way that feels good and feels healthy.
Emily: Absolutely. If you are drawn to this, what might you be wanting or craving, and a big one is the sense of family, this community that's super close in proximity, may involve more mutual care and cooperation regarding travel, or even things like finances and living arrangements and big life decisions, stuff like that. The community is first in a way, or it's at least close second to the individual relationships operating within that community.
Jase: Yes, I'd say another one could be security and stability. Again, that can come from a sense of community. To go back to that example of a lot of different couples, and triads and groupings all getting housed together, when not everyone's dating each other but maybe there's lots of intertwining between that and it's this, "Well, we've got some more financial security by all of us pulling resources or childcare resources," things like that. Which also leads into another one, which is just collaboration of sharing the load of emotional labor, financial, labor, planning labor.
Again, it comes into that balance of if you're having a really hard time scheduling between two partners, the ability to all sit down together and do the scheduling. Yes, that's great. It allows everyone to get more immediate feedback and more direct involvement in that process if everyone's on board with it, versus the maybe less functional version being like, "You two deal with it, I'm out." It's kind of a balance there. We're collaborating rather than just, "You do it, so I don't have to."
Emily: All right, it is time for the final one that we're talking about today, which is lap-sitting polyamory. This is something I have never heard of before.
Dedeker: How have you not?
Emily: No, lap-sitting, goodness, but I don't know. It's just an interesting-- It's a really funny visual that we're so entwined that we're literally on each other all the time.
Dedeker: Yes, we're not just at the kitchen table, we're sitting on each other's laps.
Emily: Exactly. The definition of this is that the polycule is highly entangled, metamours may forge very close relationships or become even romantic or sexual partners. Multiple partners may choose to cohabit closely, co-parent, share finances or property, and they may prioritize making decisions with group cohesion or happiness in mind. Then this level of entwinement is clearly very, very high. Yes, well, this can work. Sure?
Dedeker: Oh yes, definitely.
Jase: Absolutely.
Emily: Again, everyone's got to be super into it. You really have to be into it with this one.
Jase: I think this is another one, like with parallel and party in the garden polyamory, that these two also dovetail into each other where what some people call kitchen table polyamory, another person might say, "That's more like lap-sitting polyamory, where you're all very, very up in each other's business and intertwined with each other." Just to be aware of that there's a spectrum for both, and I think these two also overlap.
Emily: I've got to say, the three of us, and he who should not be named, kind of forged this initially with our quad thing that we had happening to a degree.
Dedeker: Yes, I think we climbed really quickly up the ladder of entwinement, and we're really wanting to entwine even more.
Emily: Then we had a spectacular falling out.
Dedeker: Now we have a podcast so that's our level of entwinement.
Jase: Not with us.
Emily: There you go.
Jase: Podcast polyamory.
Emily: That's what happens if you do this. You become podcasters.
Jase: That's not a fate that anyone wants, so be careful with this one.
Emily: I heard recently that business partners break up even more than romantic partnerships, which is really interesting. I'd say we're doing very well as podcasts partners been together for seven years.
Dedeker: Good job, us.
Emily: Well done.
Jase: Multi-businessary, that's our next podcast.
Emily: I guess.
Jase: Let's talk about, what does the highest functioning versions of this look like?
Dedeker: I've seen a lot of people who do the co-parenting between multiple partners thing, who choose to maybe live in the same house together to co-parent or not. Maybe live in different places, but still choose to raise children together in certain ways. Definitely heard, seen examples of a lot of people who go all in together to buy a property, to create the little commune or the little compound of where everybody gets to live, and of course, there are like organic, healthy triads that form.
I think that we're so used to thinking about the stereotypically unhealthy unicorn hunting triad, but there are organic healthy triads and quads out there that do form where people do you enjoy this level of romantic and sexual entwinement where everybody is involved with each other. Yes, I think there's definitely functional versions of this out there.
Jase: I think that the best functioning ones tend to be those ones that grow organically. The example would be, say Dedeker was dating someone else, and over time, meeting him maybe in more of a pig polyamory situation, that he and I really connect, of like, "Oh, this is, this is cool. We really get along. Hey, do you want to play video games sometime, or do you want to come bowling with me and my friends?" Whatever it is that we start then socializing and it forms itself, versus that one of, "Well you're dating me, so now you've got to live in the commune." Maybe it could work, but it's just that's a lot to ask. That's a lot more challenging.
I think that's a key part of it, is that everyone has to have that feeling of opting in and they made the choice to have these relationships, but it can be really cool. Times when I've had partners who get along well with each other, and that even if I'm not sitting on my metamours lap, that he and I could sit down and play a game together while our mutual partner's off talking to someone else. That's a really cool feeling. I've really enjoyed that when I've had it. Yes, it is a really cool situation. Again, if you've gotten into it organically and everyone's feeling good about it.
Emily: I do have to say that I think that a lot of people's perception of polyamory is, "Oh well, do I have to meet everyone before dating you because I have to be accepted into the fold?"
Dedeker: This is a form of polyamory that gets a lot of I think unjustified airtime in the media, because it's not sensational either, it's the triads, triads being over-represented in news media, or it's like we talked about earlier, people who decide to co-parent together with multiple partners, getting sometimes a little over-represented in the media. Just because people are like, "Oh my God, sensational, wow, amazing. Look at what these people are doing." That does feed into people's perception of polyamory being just this.
That we're all on a track to live together in the same house, or we're all on a track to raise a child together, we're all on a track to create the commune together in some way, which is, it's just not true. Again, to talk about dysfunctional versions of this. Of course, if there's any obligation, if there's this sense of, well if you're going to be dating me, I'm going to expect that you're okay to have sex with me and your metamour, or me and this other partner or things like this. Or if you turn down sex, or you turn down living in the house, you're going to be treated very differently, or treated like an outsider or maybe even punished in some way, and that's not good for anybody.
I've definitely heard a lot of horror stories where people feel the sense of the group being the priority, and therefore, if I don't go along with what the group wants, then I'm ostracized for that.
Emily: I'm f-ed.
Dedeker: Or I'm f-ed. Not in a good way, and that's not functional, that's not fun or functional for anybody. If you're drawn to this, what might you be wanting or craving. I want to make a call back to our Episode 306, with Eli Sheff where they were talking about the bonding project. They talked about the many-to-many bonding style. If I recall correctly, statistically, this was more rare, but some people do fantasize about having this tight-knit intentional community, commune paradise where we make decisions in community, as a community of interlinked partners and metamours and things like that.
That there are people who do feel a little bit more like group-oriented perhaps in their decision making, rather than individual-oriented. I think as Americans, we get really nervous about that, about prioritizing the group over the individual, but it works for a lot of other people.
Jase: I'd say also, another need you could get from this would just be inclusion. This idea that no one has to get left out at any time. It's just anyone can come around and hang out, and be intimate or be romantic or whatever, at any time. There's just that sense of we can all be included. We're not having to say no actually, you need to spend some time alone while we're together.
Dedeker: It could also be much more specifically, "I want to be included. I'm craving inclusion as well. I don't want to be left out."
Emily: Finally, the sensational one, those group sexy times. It could be like a fantasy fulfillment, but with people that you feel really close and safe with, rather than just a group of strangers or go into a dungeon or something like that. There's a lot of reasons.
Jase: Something that came up for me as we were going through this list of the different labels is just how I could see there being a temptation to say we're doing parallel polyamory, and that's the one I feel most comfortable with. Then my partner does want to have us all come to his birthday party. Well, we can't do that because we're parallel polyamory. That's a hard no, because we're parallel polyamory. With all these, when I think about my actual real-life experiences over the years having different types of relationships is one, even if maybe most of the time, it's like a party in the garden polyamory, but every now and then we might all hang out like go someplace for a weekend altogether.
We might occasionally drift into more of a kitchen table or lap-sitting style polyamory or at other times, maybe drift into like, "I've just got to focus on work or whatever else right now. I'm going to be a little more separate," that you can drift in and out. Then the other part is that from one partner to another, this could be different. You could have lap-sitting polyamory with a couple of your partners and another of their partners. Then someone else you're dating might be more of the party in the garden where they might come to social events but they're not always up in that all the time.
Dedeker: That leads exactly into what we're talking about in the practical applications.
Emily: Exactly what you were saying, Jase, is that one should be open to hybrids and creativity. Take some time to think about what it is that you're actually looking for, what you're excited about, and what creative ways can you instill that need or that longing, and how can those be met by the type of polyamory that you're doing? Maybe your needs are being met in one relationship. Can you forego a certain type for a different relationship, stuff like that? Can you and your partners collaborate on a middle ground or a temporary experiment just to meet everyone's needs in that moment, see how it works?
Be a scientist. Get curious about the type of polyamory that you're doing. Experiments, try things on yourself. We want you to explore.
Dedeker: To give maybe some more concrete examples of this that maybe as you're listening, you're realizing, "Oh, gosh, yes, the inclusion of lap-sitting polyamory sounds really nice, but I also really want privacy. I don't like the idea of having to just constantly expose my dating choices, or run them by another person, or multiple people, or things like that. That's okay. It doesn't mean that you're going to have to pick, "Oh, I got to pick a don't ask, don't tell, or I got to pick the other extreme of lap-sitting polyamory," like, go wild and create your own custom-fit version of a relationship for yourself with multiple people.
That's the whole point of this of going to the moon buffet, is figuring out what is it you actually want, because then that is really going to open up a wide variety of options to where you don't need to be limited by a particular label or by a particular format. Again, don't assume that what you want is what everyone else wants by default. This can happen pretty frequently, like Emily said at the top of the episode that sometimes, especially if you're new to this, and you find something that really excites you and feels like it really works for you, it can be tempting to think, "Oh, this is the best way. This is how everybody should be practicing non-monogamy." That's not necessarily true.
Just take the time to communicate and check in with your cule, with not only the people that you're dating, but also the people that they're dating to get a sense of what people are actually comfortable with, and what's going to be best for them. Of course, regardless of where you land, we do encourage you to talk about logistics with your partners or with your metamours. It's like, "If we've agreed that keeping things fairly parallel feeling is something that we like, how do we handle emergencies in this particular format?"
"What happens if things do end up drifting a little bit in the more entwined direction or in the less entwined direction than we expected? Is that okay with everybody, or do we need to be a little bit more careful with that?" I can definitely relate to Jase's experience of sometimes there's a little bit of this drift around where maybe you go through periods of not having a ton of metamour contact and then shift into a period where because of the timing or because of the location, you end up hanging out a whole bunch. Then maybe you go back to not and just having a sense of, "Is that okay?" Are we going to get freaked out it feels like we're changing lanes, or is it okay for us to be a little bit flexible with this?
Jase: Then when it comes to that communication, we like to say don't be a jerk, but also don't be a doormat. Communicate as honestly and assertively as you can but also, some compromise is really important, and being understanding of what other people want is really important. It's always a balance. I think part of that is also being aware that other people are probably somewhere else on that spectrum from assertiveness to compromising.
If they naturally are a lot more compromising and you're naturally a lot more assertive, you need to be extra careful there and make sure that you're putting extra emphasis on anything they do say about their opinions and being a little bit careful not to accidentally believe them into something that they don't want because they're inclined to be more accommodating. There's a lot of dynamics here, especially the more people are involved in the communication. Just really put in that work to try to make sure everyone feels able to speak up and that you're also able to speak your mind about what it is that you want and be part of that customizing.
Dedeker: We're going to be sticking around for the bonus episode. We're going to be talking a little bit more about pushing out to the even, even further extremes of the spectrum. If we go even less entwined from don't ask, don't tell, what does that look like? If we go even more entwined from lap-sitting polyamory, what does that look like? What might people be craving underneath that? I'm really excited for that discussion. Our question for this week is, what label do you use to describe your preferred flavor of polyamory?
We're always curious to see the different ways that people are using language, the different ways that people are defining the way that they practice non-monogamy. You can find that question and answer it by checking out our Instagram stories for this week. The best place to share your thoughts with other listeners is on this episode's discussion thread in our private Facebook group or Discord chat. You can get access to these groups and you can join our exclusive community by going to patreon.com/multiamory.
In addition, you can share with us publicly on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram. Multiamory is created and produced by Jase Lindgren, Emily Matlack, and me, Dedeker Winston. Our episodes are edited by Mauricio Balvanera. Our social media wizard is Will McMillan. Our production assistants are Rachel Schenewerk and Carson Collins. Our theme song is Forms I Know I Did by Josh and Anand from the Fractal Cave EP. The full transcript is available on this episode's page on multiamory.com.