jay | Is jealousy rational?

dawnd and

akienm are holding a local workshop on jealousy issues, tonight, so I thought I'd toss out a few contemplations...

Jealousy, particularly in polyamorous settings and groups, seems to me to be an attribute that no one wants to admit... the closest thing to labelling a "bad" emotion. But it is commonplace, IMO... and possibly rational.

Suppose A has an existing long-term relationship with B, and then B begins developing a new interest in C. Assume that A,B, and C are all reasonably busy people with other career and relationship commitments filling out their respective schedules, so there isn't lots of slack available. Love may be infinite, but time and energy are finite resources. Reasonably, A can expect that B's new energy and time going into developing a relationship (or friendship) with C will come from somewhere -- probably drawn from several places, including the relationship between A--B. Unless A is secretly looking to withdraw from or dump B, A will see this reduced time and energy from B as a loss, with a concomitant gain for C.

At the same time, A loses in other ways. Any emotional instability or drama or other fallout between B and C will ripple outward, and some of it find its way from B--A, increasing A's emotional support burden to B. And if there is sexual contact involved between B and C, then there's additional overheads -- tracking C's sexual history, current test results, risks posed by other partners. And A's net STD risk goes up overall, without A having any additional benefit or fun themselves.

And if A and B are together in a household with merged finances, B's pursuit of C may actually cost A something... plus there are second-order effects like B's vacation time being used with C and then not available for the annual holiday with A, etc.

So, in a new relationship of friendship between B and C... they each gain a new experience with each other, a new connection, shared likes and activities, NRE, perhaps ongoing love and support from each other.

But, rationally, what's in it for A? A would seem to be a identifiable loser from the new connection between B--C, therefore jealousy would be a rational response on A's part. And A would be justified in not supporting the B--C connection.

A's network would see one of its linkages (between A--B) reduced in energy and strength, especially for the first year or so during NRE, if that happens. The only gains that I can see are if C brings something positive to A's network... making B happier or relieving A of the burden of going clothes-shopping with B, say. Or if adding C adds resources (season tickets? social connections? different viewpoints?) to the local area network. Or perhaps, given a poly network, if C develops some connection to A as well.

So... I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I could see jealousy as a frequent-but-rational response. For poly people, I view it as a kind of dues-paying... gritting one's teeth and letting one's partners go, in exchange for the right to do likewise if one so chose. A given net loss, balanced by one's own possible future net gains in new relationships and friendships.

Someone's willingness to try poly might then balance on the magnitude of the loss(es) vs. that person's probability of finding other connections themselves. Not that there isn't lots of cause for jealousy in the mainstream -- looks at daytime TV -- but with more-frequent, ongoing connections, I think that poly is particularly jealousy-provoking, potentially. Hence the socialized "jealousy is bad" response in poly circles...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That makes them special when they're selected... but guarantees nothing later, when one's attentions turn to someone new.

Except that their specialness is still affirmed as you continue to choose to remain partnered with them.

What she said. Squared and cubed.

"New" does not mean "more special." It just means "new."

I think you're conflating these two concepts, Brian.

Not "out with the old, in with the new"? Besides, if old was covering all of the bases, there'd be little reason to look for new.

This is part of the reason I get fed up a bit with the idea that any one partner, or any particular combination of partners, is going to "meet all [my] needs". It's not a matter of "needs", in my mind, so much as it is a matter of "these people bring joy into my life". I don't have a checklist of "one who likes sushi, one who likes sailing, one who likes pop culture, one who likes road trips", etc. The people I get involved with are people whose presence in my life makes me happy because of who they are, not because they fit into some checklist.

And no, not "out with the old, in with the new". How often have your partners dumped you because they started seeing someone new? Honestly?

All needs? No. Agreed. And I don't have a checklist, either.

Dumped: Y - freaked over poly issues, B - no LDRs, D, L1 - not attractive enough, L2 - wrong friends. None of those coincided with those people adding new partners (well, one did, but probably incidentally). So I'll concede that one (nods).

All needs? No. Agreed.

Well, that was me responding to your "Besides, if old was covering all of the bases, there'd be little reason to look for new." which sounded to me like "if I was getting all my needs met, I wouldn't need to seek out or get involved in any further relationships".

Not everyone operates by the paradigm "out with the old, in with the new." To some of us, old is always as special as new (to me, for example).

Now, if you're the sort who thinks new is *always* better, then you may need to adjust your thinking. To my mind, that's the attitude of a serial monogamist, not a polyamorist.

No, it just means that I'm always sensitive to being replaced by new arrivals, and can take no one's affection for granted, ever.

In other words, you're suspicious and you don't trust anyone.

I could not be in a relationship with someone who was constantly suspicious that I was going to replace them with someone better. And I used to be that person, and I'm very glad I'm not anymore. It was tiring and draining.

What's in it for your SOs to be in a relationship with someone who's constantly second-guessing their motives and refusing to accept a positive explanation?

I'm afraid that I'm in complete agreement here. I've had it to here with people who are so insecure that anything you say or do is grounds for suspicion.

Me: That's a nice dress x is wearing.
SO: What do you mean by that?
Me: I meant that x is wearing a nice dress today.
SO: Does that mean that you fancy her?
Me: No, just that it's a nice dress.
SO: I don't believe you.

Real example. BT, DT. And it sucks. It gets very wearing, believe me.

What's in it for your SOs to be in a relationship with someone who's constantly second-guessing their motives and refusing to accept a positive explanation?

You are asking him to mind-read. I suggest that that is up to his SOs to decide what their comfort levels are, and what offsetting good qualities he has. Furthermore, they have experience with his *actions* rather than his words.

How exactly is describing him as someone who's "second-guessing their [partners'] motives and refusing to accept a positive explanation" in any way saying that he needs to mind-read? I see it as quite the opposite: he needs to take people at their word, and ask for feedback.

And if they aren't willing or able to give him the feedback he needs in the form he feels he needs it, perhaps reevaluation of whether it's a healthy/workable/mismatched/etc. relationship or not might be in order.

Furthermore, you are extrapolating yourself: from "I'm uncertain about why people care about me" to "You are suspicious and distrusting".

I suggest that if you are trying to engage with Brian in a useful way, insulting him is counterproductive.

It wasn't intended as insult. I may have been over-blunt, and for that I apologize.

Absolutely not; and no.

"Covering all of the bases"? Are we talking about partners, or polymathic, utltra-capable superheroes here?

Exactly!

That's a good point. Although it may take awhile (months? post-NRE?), until things have stabilized and the old partner has become convinced that the new partner isn't replacing them in whole or in part...

Is jealousy rational?

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...

Re: Jealousy...