Polymorphous Relationships, The Original Form Of PolygamyThree Men & A WomanUnity Consciousness #3496

(9azzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzs of 11)

At first two men and a woman are standing and conversing in an enormous building containing several types of companies and governmental agencies. I am one of those men. The office we are in belongs to the other male. We all know each other to some degree personally, which to me covers the professional and the private, but not necessarily equally, broadly or deeply.

In this contextual framework, it is no secret that myself and the woman like each other way beyond the personal professional and personal private. In fact we openly choose to have planned engagements with each other outside the office.
Now this can be called dating and can be called being intimate and can be called whatever words people also use to describe the type of relationship that includes the physically naked range of physical intimacy. However, I consider all forms of personal interaction to be forms, types and levels of intimacy, from the artificial to the superficial to the foundational to the core root. This must be so, based on the reckoning that everything is everything.

Now on this particular day, the other male and the woman are conversing in his office in the earliest part of the business day. I walk in and immediately have the mind to invite the woman to go to breakfast. This is possible because neither of us three, being at the top of our games, are doing the type of cubicle confined work that requires someone else to keep tabs on us. It is normal for us to be out and about.
After we exchange a small amount of pleasantries, and before I can ask her, in walks another male that two of us are just meeting for the first time. Who among us cannot tell when someone is vibing on us or on someone else, even if it's only a stream of one-way call centered vibrations with no response due to peeping the caller id and m.o.?
This third male is vibing on the woman like a heat seeking missile syncing on its target. She is clearly realizing the missives also, and perhaps due to my presence, seems uncomfortable and dismissive.
Mind you, the third male, being new to the relationship of our threesome, knows nothing of the relationship between the woman and myself. The woman leaves. The guy who knows me, says to both of us that we are behaving like two who are fighting over the same thing. He said this quickly, obviously due to the quick glances that were shooting around the room. He said this without providing backstory to the other male and said it with the greatest of ease because a component of our three-way relationship was to speak in a free way so as to not allow ambiguity to speak for us. I stop him mid sentence as he rapidly moves uncritically toward a clueless cliff. This simultaneously told me that this part of relationship dynamics was an area for which he needs some sure-ing up. The first part of this lesson I proceeded to provide by example.

Speaking to him primarily, and to the other male secondarily, I say, although you are correct in assessing the obvious dynamics, you took your analogy too far, rather than use it as an entry point for further examination, revision and understanding. You made the error of assuming that the dynamics were the same as two wanting the same thing that only one can have. Instead the dynamics are more like two women, both claiming to be the mother of the same child. We are all brothers and I cannot be in contention or competition with my brother. I was being gracious in the sense and tradition of civility infused in my genetics. This is further based on the benefit of the double, aka, the benefit of the doubt in the original sense of the phrase.
The third male, having just received a lot of new information, was all the while looking tight and was fidgeting. He is clearly not used to this type of open thought exploration. He is now showing a sense of shame for vibing on the woman who was already vibed for, and that the one who vibed before him, was standing in front of him, and furthermore spoke of him in the spirit of brotherly love, just as Sistah Souljah had done via a reprise of everlasting teachings.

I continue to make my point to the two males. If this is my brother I should want for him what he is entitled to, capable of and is good for him. None of that interferes, lessens or threatens me. I have no lock, lease or leash on another person.
I now move directly to set free the elephant in the room. The choice is hers. If she and I, despite our previous interactions are not in the same headspace, and that distance between the thoughts we share, leaves unreserved room for another to move in between, then so be it.
I insert an intentional dramatic pause, then proceed. What are we doing here if we are not doing here what needs to be done?
I then speak directly to the brother. If you are interested in her, shoot your shot. He, showing relief, moved swiftly in a direction that was along the same path the woman took.

I continued my thoughts with the other male who had swallowed a bunch of female crickets and wingless male crickets. I spoke about the mess we make of the mess we are made of. This happens as relationships become more and more intimate, and then involve the physical touching that muddies our understandings of life, living, intimacy, sex, like, like-mindedness and love. It is my contention that the seven concepts in the previous sentence take place in many types of relationships. There are different forms, types and levels of each that combine to define each relationship. These have been explored elsewhere.
All relationships have a spiritual component, by which I also mean a soulful component, even if exercised like the smear of a veneer.
So when I speak of headspace, I also mean spirit space, soul space. Spirit space (soul space) is an inherent part of the meaning of headspace. Headspace as a descriptor is sufficient since most conversations are like the interaction between water and surface hardpan.

If I and another person are in the same headspace, we are also in the same spirit space in regards to the nature of the relationship. However, if we are not in the same headspace, then the gaps in the harmony of our logic might not even allow us to be close enough to bring us together in the same building, or not on the same floor, or not in the same office. We will function more like random people who meet on the street. Thus we will not have a meeting of the minds and share the same conceptual framework understanding of the relationship. When it comes to that small private intimate space usually only shared by two, one or both of us might not see our interactions as taking place in a shared headspace room that is custom built by just the two of us. When this occurs, this represents a failure of clearly communicated design and construction, thus is built without structural integrity Although this is often the case upfront when relationship are initiated, it is often unnoticed, ignored or rushed past. Then the finishing touches of dating, physically naked intimacy and marriage are added as cherries on top of rushed baked cake, that is not only without the strength of structure, but also without leavening agents - without making sure all the necessary ingredients are included.

In this all too familiar bruised, battered and pothole strewn road we stumble down, friendship, love, dating, engagements and marriage, though bonding, become restrictively binding, and in such a way that the knots tied, limit the growth potential freedom of movement of spirit-soul, of mind, of emotions, of body, of purposes. Thus confines and imprisons spirit-soul in a corrugated cardboard tiny house promoted as having an open concept. This is cramping and causes toes to be stepped on unless the two share a mental picture of the relationship that functions using logic that moves together symbiotically.

After all this spilled out, I went to my office and continued my reflections. In healthy relationships, there's no need to put up road signs as roadblocks or announce relationship status or display ring fingers or other symbols. Symbols are fine, but they are not the thing itself.
One thing we all we know about relationships is that it is natural, normal and to be expected that others we meet in life, will shoot their shot. It is a part of the navigation of limitations, temptations, dedications, disciplines and respectations (expectations).

So whether or not I am already sharing the type of room-for-two headspace, is not really the toggle switch driver of my response to anyone who shoots their shot.
Instead my response need only communicate whether or not I am open to explore the invitation.

My only responsibility to myself and the other person is to be clear. Nothing more or less.

It is not necessary to explain why I am not open to the invitation.
This is because no such explanation is expected, or given, if I am actually open to the invitation. No one asks, why did you accept? Therefore, it is not valid to ask, why did you reject, or decline.

To fall into the trap of explaining is to cross the yellow line, and almost certainly get knocked back to my side and into the guardrail, that is more of a friend to me when I move slightly onto the shoulder to lean on to let someone pass who is intruding into my headspace lane.

To get in the habit of explaining, with prefacing remarks or or by adding other reasons, is to set myself up to be blamed and made to feel guilty for something I didn't initiate or invite.

To be clear, it is a dangerous thread of logic to respond, I'm married, I'm dating, I'm seeing someone, I'm engaged, I just got out of a relationship, I'm recently divorced, I got kids, I got obligations, my job, my other just died, I'm too busy and so on. This is because a qualified rejection is not a rejection.
If I use any of these, I am signaling to the person, to try again another day and/or another way and/or another place and/or under different circumstances. If I say, I'm flattered but..., then I've got some real internal issues to work through as to why I need someone outside my room built for two, to validate my desirability.

What I should be communicating clearly and firmly is that I am in a headspace that is closed for the type of relationship invitation you are proposing.

A person who asks, why not, provides me with a strong indicator that whatever headspace that person is in, is not settled enough to allow my no, to be no.

A person who asks, why not, is displaying a justify-yourself-to-me mentality.
This is a seed of logic I do not want to introduce into the soil of my sacred garden space.

Why? Because the “why not” question is the type of seed that grows into a strangling limiting possessive vine.

To drive this point home further, a person who asks, why not, when their advance is stop signed, though feeling good about asking why not, will not feel good if I ask, why did you think it was okay, acceptable, permissible and non-offensive to shoot your shot at me?

Now, to say all this briefly in other ways:
1. All relationships, in their current form, are temporary.
2. Just because I'm “all in” in a relationship, does not mean all of me is locked in to that relationship.
3. Each relationship I choose outside of myself should be about me first and how the relationship facilitates my primary purpose and one or more of my secondary purposes, while not interfering with any other purpose.

4. I must be comfortable in my own headspace, my own spirit-soul space, my own living room where I can be any kind of way I want to be, am supposed to be, need to be, in order to continue being me, growing into myself more fully.
5. How do me and we, become as the two part double-sided mirror image, and achieve this both mutually and collectively?

6. My headspace is already subdivided into the holy and holy of holies. This is the original form and first form of the room built for two that must first be on purpose within itself. Any relationship outside of myself must match this foundation in order to create a shared room that is a double room with four compartments, two holies and two holy of holies, you know, the match game, equally kha yoked by the law of Maat and the ankh-tie. This trueprint blueprint is the basis for whatever we imagine in our lives.
a) In other words, if I am trying to understand my primary purpose and my secondary purposes after forming close personal relationships, I am already in the danger zone of not being in the headspace I belong, thus not around the type of people who, they and I, can help each other become full grown by way of the self and all else better known.

After first discussing this message with one or more people you think you share headspace with, then, after allowing that to marinate, all that's left is an assessment of the differences in the relationships among the four people in this polymorphous relationship, before and after today's interactions.