Ok, you don't seem to be reading what I'm actually writing. This is something you feel passionate about and that's great but I don't agree with your framing of the issue.

I think it's a pretty disingenuous read to miss what's intended by that statement.

While I agree that people should have their ducks in a row emotionally before engaging in poly, the reality of the world isn't ideal and people find themselves in a variety of different situations for different reasons and the best you can do is try to address these situations as they happen.

I don't think it's helpful to have a blanket rule given the vast range of different situations that exist. Closing up is an option, not the only one that exists.

Preserving a relationship where you feel insecure in that relationship is not a benefit for the people that might be closed out.

Staying in a relationship dynamic where you are not happy because the structure of the relationship is exacerbating issues you have with attachment is not a recipe for long term happiness.

If the foundations aren't secure, whatever is built on them is going to collapse.

There's nothing that says you have to close a relationship permanently. Were I in the position of being closed out, sure, it would hurt but if it was part of a process of the other people doing serious work to be more secure and aware in their relationship I would fully support it because I want them to be happy and if they're growing their relationship skills that's also something that's of benefit to me.

I'm not doubting that the quote exists, I'm questioning your interpretation of it.

Suggesting that people who are RA might take closing a relationship better makes sense when you understand that a core part of RA is the ability to move between different "states" in a relationship without necessarily feeling abandoned or rejected by something that feels like a deescalation.

You could say that that's an idealization and I might agree but the basic point being made is that a core part of RA is using a more fluid model of a relationship rather than the traditional relationship escalator and as such can accommodate these shifts better on an ideological level versus a more traditional conception of relationships where closing may feel more like a rejection.

Do you say “sure babe”.

In this hypothetical, I would ask questions to see if there's any pressure on Willow (even if inadvertent) to do this and I'd want to have a discussion with both of them to see if maybe there were any ways to support Willow in doing what they need to do that didn't involve them closing up or maybe see if we could keep it just the three of us for a while as Willow did the work they felt they needed to do.

If they both genuinely felt that this was what needed to happen, sure I'd be sad but I'd be supportive. I (presumably) care about these people and I want them to do what they can to grow and live their lives in a way that feels authentic to them and I need to accept that that may mean growing in a way where I'm not part of that dynamic anymore.

Is this “fix” workable for anybody but early stage to opening couples?

Sure. Not all "fixes" are comfortable or easy.

If not, why are you putting it in a book that’s supposed to, specifically help us all?

As I've pointed out, you are the one ascribing the "be all, end all" status to this book.

It's certainly a very useful book for a lot of people and well regarded as such but I don't think anyone you seriously talked to would tell you that it was meant to "help us all." If for no other reason there's literally no book that can speak to all people involved in something.

Why do you have to keep adding details to make it sound worse?

"No contact" wasn't a part of the original scenario.

Of course I wouldn't want to and I'm not for a second claiming I'd be jumping for joy. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to be accepting and supportive.

Think about it this way, Willow is not happy and they need to do some work for themselves. If I could somehow prevent them from closing up, what have I gained? I've kept Cedar in my life, but Willow is going to be struggling and unhappy which is going to make Willow unhappy and I'm not sure who Willow is to me in this but presumably I care about this person.

I've effectively said "I don't want you to grow because that would make me sad so I'm going to push for you to be in a position to feel shitty because that's less of a burden on me."

That's not the kind of person I want to be and that's not how I want to treat people I love and care about.

Sometimes being an adult means making hard choices that hurt.

Except this isn't a break up. That wasn't how it was framed originally.

I don't know how much more productive this can be considering you keep adding and changing details to try and make it worse and worse. I'm not going to speculate as to why but I'm less interested in trying to hit a moving target and I've already explained myself exhaustively.

At this point, call it a difference in fundamental values.

There are ways to behave with other humans that aren't acting like partners.

It is possible to be friendly with someone you are not partnered with.

I think the disconnect is in the framing.

You're using terms like "less valuable" and "disposable" when that's not really the read on the situation that I had from the hypothetical. In that scenario, I have no reason to doubt that Willow is sincere about this not being a long term thing.

I'm not clear on what you're getting at here.

That's not the assumption at all.

Security is built first from within and something healthy poly dynamics requires is that internal sense of security. Building that in a dynamic that is in flux and that relies on that healthy sense of security being in place is going to be incredibly difficult.

If you have multiple partners, there's going to be times when you have to reach for that inner security. Maybe your partner is going away with their partner for the weekend and you feel a bit lonely - that's a point where you need that sense of security within yourself and with your partner to touch back on.

Monogamy is a narrowing of attention, time, affection, etc to one person and that can be an important part of building a secure relationship with that one person or to do the work to build that within yourself.

That's something that can be helpful to some people and as such it should be an option if that's what someone feels they need.

See, you're operating with the assumption that there's only one real couple here, and that's precisely the problem.

How am I doing that?

The premise of the book is exploring and developing secure attachment within the context of a poly relationship.

Again, just because it didn't resonate with you doesn't mean that it hasn't been helpful to a lot of other people.

That's not my determination to make.

It's not my place to tell someone "Your needs are wrong."

If Willow wants polyamory, returning to monogamy over their feelings is not actually growth, it’s preventing growth by reverting to their comfort zone.

Which is sometimes necessary to facilitate growth.

I also dislike the framing of monogamy as some kind of regression. You don't "advance" to poly from monogamy.

Growth would be learning to feel secure and stable in the kind of relationship structure they want.

Which can necessitate transitioning into another type of relationship where there aren't as many externalities while they work towards feeling more secure in themselves to the point where they can engage with poly in a healthy way.

Look, why do people tell you after a break up to "focus on yourself?"

They do it because there's probably some personal growth that needs to happen or at least properly mourn and do a postmortem on the relationship and reassess what your needs, values, and goals are. That process is a lot harder if you're simultaneously trying to start a new relationship. It's not impossible, sure, but the general wisdom is that it's healthy to take some time to focus on your own needs without things in your life that may make it harder for you to do that work effectively.

The same principle applies in the hypothetical. Willow has decided they want to engage in the work needed to develop a more secure sense of self and connection and feels safe enough with Cedar that they've asked Cedar to be exclusive with them while this process happens and Cedar agreed.

Willow is narrowing down their world to people that they feel safe being supported by and removing the things that agitate their nervous system, like dating multiple people or dealing with a partner who has multiple other partners.

It's easy to see why that would feel shitty being "me" in that situation and, like I said, I'd like to have some conversations to see if there was a way Willow could feel supported in their work without completely closing the relationship, but at the end of the day Willow is making a choice for their own well being.

I'm going to be honest here, I don't think your analysis is coming from an impartial place.

I can absolutely understand why a dynamic like your hypothetical could make someone feel like they're being rejected or thrown away and I don't think it's irrational to have those feelings. I've acknowledged that, were I in that position, I would definitely have negative feelings and hurt around it, no question.

But that can exist at the same time as recognizing that your partner/s is/are independent people who can and should make decisions with their needs and well being as a priority. I can recognize that there's a tendency among people (especially in poly/non-mono spaces) to emphasize this kind of hyper independence that often covers for a fear of intimacy or commitment and that it's entirely possible to prioritize your own needs to the point at which it becomes harmful to others and you go about that in a way that's unkind.

But that does not also mean that you should maintain a relationship that is actively holding back your growth and happiness because acting towards that would upset the other person/people involved.

If Willow and Cedar have discussed this move and they've both come to the conclusion that this is what's needed, my opinion on that situation is not relevant. I don't own Cedar and I don't have the right to dictate what they can and can't do with their life. That doesn't mean I'm not going to feel sad but if I love Cedar and they feel that it's important for them to be there and supportive for Willow, that's their decision to make and I can respect that.

From my perspective, that's the mature approach.

including the never-mono (a growing subset! Younger folks are starting out non-mono! It’s exciting stuff!) the sopo (a graying demographic, for sure. I wonder how the generations that come after Gen X will change polyam. I know so many sopo older folks) and the folks who left their mono relationships and have begun very serious committed relationships with people they have no monogamous history with.

And that's fine, but I don't think there's anything in the book that's an explicit disservice to people who don't start mono. Even just the information about attachment theory and the basics of a good relationship are pretty valuable and applicable even if you aren't poly.

I think it's fair to acknowledge that how we view and "do" poly is likely to change in the future such that this book may not be as helpful, Ethical Slut was the go-to for years and that's been largely supplanted as time has gone on, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

Is it perfect? No, I don't think so. But if you read it, you're probably going to be better equipped to handle any relationship than you would be had you not read it.

Part of valuing a relationship is respecting the choices the other person in that relationship makes as well as the needs they express and doing so above your own short term comfort.

Wanting to preserve a dynamic that isn't allowing someone else to grow and meet their needs isn't valuing that relationship or that person, it's valuing your own short term comfort which eventually is going to spoil because the person you're with will likely be unhappy.