Finding your tribe

At a recent non-monogamy potluck I hosted, one of the attendees remarked to me how happy and relieved they were at the event, hanging out with "their tribe."

This made me think: is the non-monogamy community I'm so thickly involved in, my tribe?

I'd say no. Yes, I share the non-monogamy identity, and that provides a kinship. And yes, it's a relief to attend and host events in that community, where I can be open about that part of myself (as opposed to work and extended family settings, where I "turn down" or conceal that aspect of myself.)

However, it's far from the center of my many overlapping identities. Overachiever, tech employee, father, fitness freak, intellectual, writer, ant enthusiast, heterosexual, *post-conformist, altruist, curious student, runner: many of these identities are better guideposts to my ideal tribe.

Honestly, nowhere feels like my tribe right now. I'm too conventional and overachieving to fit in the non-monogamy community, which is a more normal distribution of humans (e.g. on employment and education dimensions), leaning toward the unconventional and anti-establishment if anything. I feel more amongst my tribe at my large tech company employer amid other high-functioning highly educated overachievers, most of whom are conventional and conformist in almost all ways. I'm in the minority being divorced and non-monogamous, sure, but relationship model & status is less important in that community. And in most other ways I fit in, bond naturally with other altruists there (e.g. I'm active in groups for bereavement, effective altruism, divorce/separation support, and accessibility for users with disabilities), and feel at home in the large bureaucracy. 

And when it comes to humans I'm most intensely attracted to romantically and drawn to friend-wise, the majority of them are peers in the overachieving community. As a result I'm skeptical I'll find my tribe in the near term, especially in the romance realm. Building it seems prohibitively difficult too, for someone in my position whose energy is mostly sapped by parenting and a demanding full-time job. 

I wrote on one of my dating profiles: "Someone once asked me to describe 'my tribe.' I haven't found mine yet: but an overachieving altruist that wants to overachievingly altruist a bit harder as a result of their primary relationship, sounds like a kindred spirit to me." That is something I seek, and something I valued when I was married: that I was able to perform at work and in altruism and parenting, a bit better than I would alone. I thirst to be higher-functioning and more effective than I am now, to be a better version of myself.  

*post-conformist: a new term I've been experimenting with. It describes someone who spent much of their life, let's say the first 2-3 or more decades, conforming socially (e.g. go to college, get married, have kids, live out the religion you were brought up in), followed by a significant departure in at least one area. That might look like coming out as gay, leaving your religion, switching from monogamy to non-monogamy, or quitting your high-paying job to pursue a decidedly less lucrative aim. Since I've left Mormonism and monogamy, I find I have a lot in common with other folks that've walked a similar path - obviously post-Mormons and post-monogamists, but also post-Adventists and post-tech-workers and post-raised-Republicans and expats. There's something about the overlap of attaining the social status that results from conforming to social norms, while also having the power and awareness to depart from a chosen subset of those same social norms. 

Reflections on The Ethical Slut, Second Edition: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships, and Other Adventures

 A few things have stood out to me so far. First was this section:

That's been one of the "hard truths" that I've seen practiced more in non-monogamy circles, than I did in monogamous ones: namely that it's more pragmatic to own your own feelings, than to hold someone else responsible for them via blaming. This isn't equivalent to giving malfeasors a free pass by the way: it's still appropriate to hold actors accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, including the emotional ones. 

I also disagree with the claim that feelings are chosen, at least on an incident basis (I buy more into a cognitive behavioral therapy-based model, where an expectation or belief is what connects a trigger to an experienced emotion). However, because most of the variables that drive the presence and intensity of emotion are within the experiencer rather than the trigger actor, it is more pragmatic in the narrow case of mature adult peer relationships, for the experiencer to own their feelings rather than to blame those feelings on a partner. Through therapy and other means, over time one can change how and whether they respond to the same stimulus. They can also change the environment, communicate and enforce boundaries in the relationship, and deescalate: all of which are preferably empowering, relative to the "you made me mad" power handover to the partner.

It also feels less mature to blame one's feelings on another, rather than claim ownership of them, especially when that partner claims ownership of her own feelings: they are then responsible for an unequal ratio of feelings of the pair (say, 60%: 50% their own, and 10% the partner's). Even though the underlying truth is that both the trigger actor and the experiencer share in the causality pie, the empowerment assumption is more accurate and more useful than the victim assumption, especially with respect to problem solving for similar trigger-->emotion cycles in future.

It also results in a more empowered community, where ongoing relationships and agreements are more often the result of deliberate, considered choices with meaningful alternatives: rather than the defaults and roles and assumptions that prevail more often in monogamous communities, relative to partner-triggered emotions. It also gives members of that community more autonomy and individual identity (which can blur into codependence otherwise). 

Second passage that stood out to me. This part hit close to home:

Just last night, after frustration-induced yelling at my kids, I reminded them an hour later when things were calmer that I'm responsible for my feelings and not them. And the coffee that they spilled, or getting distracted for the umpteenth time during the night routine, doesn't mean that they did something wrong or that it's their job to help me calm down. Not sure how deep the message sunk. 😆

The third thing to stand out to me is the motif of every relationship being free to seek its own level. I've applied that in my poly journey: rather than trying to fit a partnership into a mold (e.g. cohabiting partner or spouse), I've instead adjusted the intensity and nature of each relationship to what I see as its natural equilibrium. That has reduced tension and resulted in the presence of relationships I would not otherwise maintain. I love this new, freer approach to relating!