Another conflict question: Talk with SIL tomorrow

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess I wouldn't cut a sibling off except in extreme circumstances like heavy drug use. I have relatives who married people that none of the rest of us can stand. We still deal with that person at family get-togethers. The rest of us don't get to pick for them, ya know? So...I don't know what I was trying to convey other than-I wouldn't cut off communication with my brother, but that is just me.

[Joanne]

His choice is morally unacceptable to me. Plus these types of relationships are against the law in AZ. So it's an issue. His employer has a morals clause and he stands to lose his job if it gets out.

 

.

 

Having a consentual 3 person arrangement is against the law? :confused:

 

I understand it's not a legal, binding marital contract. But it is expressly against the law?:001_huh:

[Joanne]

I guess I wouldn't cut a sibling off except in extreme circumstances like heavy drug use. I have relatives who married people that none of the rest of us can stand. We still deal with that person at family get-togethers. The rest of us don't get to pick for them, ya know? So...I don't know what I was trying to convey other than-I wouldn't cut off communication with my brother, but that is just me.

 

:iagree:

 

I think that the motivation behind exclusion over issues like this are increasingly likely to be controlling rather than protective/boundary seeking. I think the risk then becomes selective judgment. We tend to allow gossipy Aunt June at Thanksgiving, slightly drunk Uncle Carl but not polyamorous brother Ken.

[GailV]

:iagree:

 

I think that the motivation behind exclusion over issues like this are increasingly likely to be controlling rather than protective/boundary seeking. I think the risk then becomes selective judgment. We tend to allow gossipy Aunt June at Thanksgiving, slightly drunk Uncle Carl but not polyamorous brother Ken.

 

But she hasn't cut him off -- he's welcome to come, as is SIL. It's more akin to saying that Uncle Carl is invited, but his bottle is not; or Aunt June is invited, but we're going to steer the conversation away from idle gossip.

[Trish]

His choice is morally unacceptable to me. Plus these types of relationships are against the law in AZ. So it's an issue. His employer has a morals clause and he stands to lose his job if it gets out.

 

I really can't compare it to a gay sibling which even though it may sound strange, I'd have an easier time accepting. And I don't have an issue with divorce..two of my sisters are divorced. One's happily remarried. Both their ex's were emotionally abusive.

 

Yes, it is morally unacceptable to me, too. (I would doubt threesomes are against the law in unless they are trying to get a marriage license) As far as the employer with the morals clause -- would they be able to discriminate in this case any more than they could in a case where someone was gay?

 

Anyway, you sort of hit the nail on the head with me. If it's okay to accept the a gay sibling, why wouldn't this fall in the same category? Now, if you'd bar the gay sibling's partner from family functions, then I guess it would also make sense to keep the extra partner in the threesome situation from attending. (although perhaps this need not be explained to children of a young age, they could just be identified as a friend? And when they get older you would say, "we consider that wrong, but we still love Uncle Mordred...")

 

I'm just wondering if social mores are holding more sway here than religious ones. Since most people would go "ewwww" over this, it becomes easier to turn you back, whereas with the gay sibling society is coming to terms with that, so people are developing more of a "live and let live" attitude. (BTW I'm not judging you on this -- clearly you are trying to do the right thing here! I'm just thinking aloud some of what would go through my head in a similar situation. And I certainly wish you and your family all the best, however you decide to handle it!)

 

:grouphug:

[FaithManor]

But she hasn't cut him off -- he's welcome to come, as is SIL. It's more akin to saying that Uncle Carl is invited, but his bottle is not; or Aunt June is invited, but we're going to steer the conversation away from idle gossip.

 

 

I agree. It's the poly partner thing...exactly what are young children going to call this person? How is this person going to act with children? If it's a long distance trip and they want to stay over, will the other person be willing to sleep in a different room than bil or will there be a scene if you suggest a hotel? How much potential drama does someone have to deal with?

 

My aunt, at one time an AA mentor, used to constantly bring alcoholics that NOBODY knew for family dinners because apparently she was afraid they'd drink at the holidays if she didn't have them near. Sometimes they were already drunk when they came and very verbally abusive of everyone at the dinner. Some of them turned out to be on the registered s*x offenders list! Finally, the family said "NO MORE! You are more than welcome to come, but your friends are not."

 

There is much for the OP's family to sort out. I wouldn't add dealing with the third party to the relationship, yet. The OP said she isn't cutting off contact and I recommended that until she should figure out her brother's state of mind and what kind of person the third party is, they meet on neutral territory such as a restaurant. This way she can be accessing the situation to make sure nothing is abusive. Neutral public places without the kids would be my first choice for contact until more is known.

 

Joanne, I too am live and let be when it comes to consenting adults (despite my own firece inner moral code), but that's EXCEPTING the relationship isn't abusive. I WON'T enable that and we both know that many, many people will say something is consentual and will say something isn't abusive when it is in fact a very bad situation.

 

My brother's narcissistic wife is into SCA at a literally delusional level and as a result, my kids only see her for a few hours at Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, and Father's Day. Given that OP has mentioned that her brother's involvement no longer seems to be a hobby, pasttime, enjoyment level, but something much more intense - she mentioned some red flags there and my own brother is in danger of losing his job as he gets sucked deeper, and deeper into my SIL's alternative life, I think there is reason to proceed with caution. It's not because they've made a choice to have this type of marriage, it's because it may be a manifestation of something much worse and possible mental illness is one of them.

 

So, I vote for NOT excluding him, but as the OP is doing, keeping it neutral and away from the kids. I think that is the wisest plan until more is known about how this new unit is functioning and whether or not there is abuse and if the brother is mentally stable or not.

 

Faith

[Catwoman]

Given that OP has mentioned that her brother's involvement no longer seems to be a hobby, pasttime, enjoyment level, but something much more intense - she mentioned some red flags there and my own brother is in danger of losing his job as he gets sucked deeper, and deeper into my SIL's alternative life, I think there is reason to proceed with caution. It's not because they've made a choice to have this type of marriage, it's because it may be a manifestation of something much worse and possible mental illness is one of them.

 

:iagree:

 

I think that if we believe that Robin's distress is only about the concept of her brother having a polyamorous relationship, we're missing the bigger picture, which is that her brother seems to be having some difficulty separating his "real life" from his "SCA life," and the second wife thing seems to be one of several manifestations of that new reality. Also, he has basically said that the SCA people are his family now, so I don't think it's fair to suggest that Robin is being the intolerant one here. Her brother is drawing a line in the sand and giving his "real" family a my-way-or-the-highway ultimatum about his new wife and his SCA lifestyle. Why shouldn't Robin be entitled to draw her own line in the sand with her brother?

 

It may not be the best way to maintain a relationship with him, but who are we to suggest that she has to maintain the relationship if she feels it's not healthy for her or her family?