Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Katya wrote: Awesome! (It's not a problem that my job is in Utah, right? )

if you'll have me, i'm in.

Emiliana wrote:In short, I think we can say that Bob would be cool with a polygamous relationship, and Portia wouldn't. So if Portia gets married, Bob probably shouldn't try to marry her husband. :-P

Another issue that hasn't been brought up is that of sex drive ... If each of two sister-wives has an approximately equal sex drive, their husband would have to have TWICE the sex drive of either of them to keep them both happy. I don't regularly talk to males about their sex drives, but I doubt there are very many out there with twice my sex drive. (Can I get an amen, Portia?!)

Aaaamen. I'm sure there's more than one man who has crossed my path listening to Maroon 5's "This Love" right now. I tried my best to feed her appetite, keep her coming every night, so hard to keep her satisfied...

Talons wrote:Maybe you should stop hanging out in Pioneer Park at midnight...

I pass Pioneer Park after dark twice a week. I am not crazy enough to actually go in (and I wouldn't were I male), but I think I have the right to not be harassed, full stop.

Katya wrote:All through my 20s and into my early 30s, I would have assumed that I would quit my job and stay home if I ever got married, but recently I realized that I really enjoy working and I don't want to give that up. So, I guess I'm looking for a stay-at-home dad or a dad who wants to work part time. Also, I'm not changing my name if I get married. (Dealbreakers galore!)

My preferred surname name would be my mother's maiden name double-barreled with a future husband's name. Unconventional enough that I probably would just use the first as a nom de plume and take the husband's name.

Katya wrote:It's true that polygyny has been a stable relationship model at different times and in different places, but (1) I'm struggling to think of a culture that has ever practiced polygyny that also valued women as being of equal worth or having equal rights as men and (2) it's a mistake to think that the women who practiced historical Mormon polygyny were all happy in that situation. It may be that it was never meant for everyone and apparently it wasn't even meant for some of the women who ended up in that situation, for whatever reasons.

Katya wrote:And re polygamy, I should clarify that I don't take issue with women (historically or contemporarily) who think they could be happy in such a situation. But I do take issue with calling people who would prefer a traditional (two-person) marriage "egocentric."

Katya wrote:There is a lot of space between having a husband who has no other friendships, no close relationships with other family and no interests outside his marriage, and a husband who has a sexual relationship with one or more other people. The latter might not bother you, and you might consider the relationship with a sister-wife to be equally fulfilling, but it's not incorrect to point out the inequity of the man now having a sexual relationship with more than one person, while each woman still has only one sexual partner.

Bows to my sensei.

@Imogen

Hahaha. I'm now picturing you as a bobbed-hair Vassar 1920s flapper, whom all the Ivy League football boys in their sweaters assume is "queer."

@bob

Far be it from me to police your sexual preferences. I think your putative arrangement would require a degree of homoromantic desire that just isn't happening for me. I am fine with sapphic love, both sexual and emotional, but it's not something I can relate to. I have ready plenty of accounts of early Mormon women who were truly in love with their husbands and only wanted sex with them, and it really was like their husband was marrying their mistress. I think you'd appreciate the chapter I'm currently reading in How the French Invented Love by Marilyn Yalom, "Existentialists in Love." Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre had an open relationship, and it seems that they had a strong emotional bond even though they had many trysts with others. However, there were a lot of hurt feelings, there was questionable abuse of the student-teacher relationship, there was anti-Semitism... they hurt a lot of people along the way. I can't conceptualize love like that. As Katya pointed out, sex is just not on a par with, say, golf. #arentIpunny

I also feel that if that's really the strongest feminist case that can be made - "you can be liberated! Just let your husband stone-cold marry someone else!" - in the Mormon tradition ... it's weak.

I'd actually be able to get my head wrapped around a bisexual, we're-bringing-in-a-third arrangement more easily.

Katya is spot-on that polygyny goes hand in hand with cultures oppressive to women. It's common enough in the Muslim world, and that is not where I want to be getting my gender roles from.

I don't think as a straight female WASM I am particularly oppressed by modern Mormon teachings, the way people of color or non-straight people are. But yeah, my partner having sex with someone else wouldn't be made better by her (or him!) being my friend. Having her take part in my children's upbringing would be salting the wound.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:It's not just that Portia wouldn't choose it for herself, but how she talks about it implies to me that anyone in such a relationship would be looked down on by her. I realize most people are not nearly as okay with the idea of a polygamous relationship as I am, but I am not okay with people thinking that because they would hate it that it's a morally wrong choice. This is why I can't get into FMH. They are clearly panicked by the thought of polygamy and can only see it in men-are-above-women light and so blast it at every opportunity.

In short, I take issue with you if you consider all monogamy moral and all polygamy immoral.

I don't even conceive of sexual relationships between consenting adults as "moral" or "immoral" the way every. single. other. Mormon. here. would. Saying something is not your preference and would leave you sexually unsatisfied and emotionally broken is not "selfish."

It's unclear to me if this is theoretical to you or something you've considered. Considering my own less-than-Victorian history, and my more-than-okay-ness with the fact that the men I become involved with have been involved with other women in the past, I think I'm sort of a less-than-ideal poster girl for the heteronormative "jealous" Mormon woman. However, I know what it's like the be cheated on, and grandfathering in another sex partner against the ground rules of the relationship is worlds away from having pre-acknowledged polyamory. I'd say it to socially-shunned Southern Utah cult members, I'd say it to liberal-arts coastal Savage Love-reading kids who think that having a threesome is somehow not going to introduce jealousy.

Though this could be an, ahem, interesting tack to take in my relationships. "Boohoo, you never let me do what I want - go to the symphony, 48 straight hours of Dominion and ice cream, your famous cousin."

Portia wrote:

Talons wrote:Maybe you should stop hanging out in Pioneer Park at midnight...

I pass Pioneer Park after dark twice a week. I am not crazy enough to actually go in (and I wouldn't were I male), but I think I have the right to not be harassed, full stop.

Maybe you understood me perfectly, but I feel like I should clarify anyway. I was suggesting that if Cindy didn't want crazy homeless people asking her out, she should stop hanging out where the crazy homeless people live.

Talons wrote:

Portia wrote:

Talons wrote:Maybe you should stop hanging out in Pioneer Park at midnight...

I pass Pioneer Park after dark twice a week. I am not crazy enough to actually go in (and I wouldn't were I male), but I think I have the right to not be harassed, full stop.

Maybe you understood me perfectly, but I feel like I should clarify anyway. I was suggesting that if Cindy didn't want crazy homeless people asking her out, she should stop hanging out where the crazy homeless people live.

Does Cindy Occupy Pioneer Park in the freezing cold past midnight? Because if so, she just shot up in my estimation.

Sometimes they're hard to avoid. There is a homeless shelter near my bus stop home from the Salt Lake Center, and it's not like I'm going to change my route just because maybe a creepy panhandler will bug me.

bobtheenchantedone wrote: The exact problem is that you ego-centrically think of polygamy as your husband who is all yours having some tramp, some "piece on the side," and I think of it as a mutual and loving relationship where all are equally loved and benefited. . . And don't forget that you yourself saw red flags in a man not wanting his wife to continue ballroom dancing - is it only a red flag if it's the man being possessive instead of the woman?

I can't believe you just compared sharing a husband with his hobbies to sharing a husband with another wife. I just can't. I've been married nearly a decade now, and we've each had hobbies come and go. Jobs, friends, you name it. But what I have with my husband has been the rock and foundation in my life. Sure, I'm as concerned about sharing my husband sexually as the next girl, but that's not even my main problem. I am intimate with my husband, not just physically but emotionally. He is my heart and soul, my hopes and dreams.

And you know what? We fight all the time. It happens. But we always come back to each other because we are bound together. No matter what happens, we will always turn back around and work on it because this marriage are all we have. And that is what scares me the most about sharing my husband. No one has ever loved multiple people exactly the same amount every single day of their lives. We aren't perfect like that. When I mess up and do something stupid, it is rather comforting to know that my husband isn't going to go to anyone else. That is the part that is the most unequal about it to me: the man has options, and the women do not. Part of why I can trust him so much in our relationship is that I know he has no where else to turn, just like I don't. I can be my true self and know that he'll still be there. That's why we'll always turn to each other.

Am I saying that no one in the history of the world has ever pulled this off? Nope. And if that floats your boat, bob, then go for it. But don't call Portia "egocentric". If I put in a 100% of my love, body and emotion to my husband, it is not egocentric to want that love in return. I'm sorry that your mother was not your perfect role model, but just because I encourage my husband to enjoy his hobbies and friends, even if they take him away from me, does not mean I want him to be intimate with anyone else.

So I've got a hypothetical for those coming out strongly against polygamy (and full disclosure, I'm talking polygyny or polyandry. There have been successful cultures of both. I'd be interested, Katya, to know your thoughts on polyandrous cultures, and whether you feel these are inherently discriminatory towards men.)

Let's say your husband had a best friend. This is a guy he hung out with a lot, he discussed all big decisions with him, they played video games together, etc. Would you be jealous of him and the time they spend together? Would you want him to break contact with this friend? Let's say that this friendship is a really enlightened one, and they are even emotionally attached, cry in front of each other, and so on. How do you feel about this friendship?

Now let's say this exact same relationship exists, but with a woman. How do the feelings differ?

I ask this not because I'm trying to lead a specific response, more because I'm curious about the feelings that go into it. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem being in a polyandrous relationship. My view is that sexual and emotional intimacy doesn't necessarily need to be only with one opposite gendered partner, but that these mores are cultural, and that a functioning society doesn't need monogamy to survive, or even have equitable gender roles. So I'm really curious to hear what you guys think, especially Portia, Katya, and 42 (although anyone is free to respond.)

Portia wrote: Does Cindy Occupy Pioneer Park in the freezing cold past midnight? Because if so, she just shot up in my estimation.

Sometimes they're hard to avoid. There is a homeless shelter near my bus stop home from the Salt Lake Center, and it's not like I'm going to change my route just because maybe a creepy panhandler will bug me.

Man, now I kind of wish I did. I'm not that adventurous (or foolhardy), though.

Yeah, I mostly get hit on at the bus stop. I work in downtown Salt Lake, so there are always interesting people around. I've gotten a lot of good stories out of it, though, so that's a plus.

Marduk wrote:
Let's say your husband had a best friend. This is a guy he hung out with a lot, he discussed all big decisions with him, they played video games together, etc. Would you be jealous of him and the time they spend together? Would you want him to break contact with this friend? Let's say that this friendship is a really enlightened one, and they are even emotionally attached, cry in front of each other, and so on. How do you feel about this friendship?

Now let's say this exact same relationship exists, but with a woman. How do the feelings differ?
)

I would say it the friendship with another guy would bug me if I felt like he valued his friend's opinion more than mine – if his friend's input affected his decision more, if he went to him over emotional issues before he went to me. Within marriage, I think spouses should be the main emotional supports of each other. Even in a platonic friendship, prioritizing that over the emotional intimacy of our marriage would be depriving me of an essential component of the marriage relationship.

With a woman, it would be the same thing, except I would feel like he was replacing her as the primary woman in that aspect of his life. Assuming my husband were straight, I would feel like emotional intimacy would open the door to a greater possibility of sexual intimacy. The two don't have to be related, but they're often correlated. Also, it goes against cultural norms, and what we feel is acceptable in relationships is influenced to some degree by our culture. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We don't live in a vacuum. What is acceptable in one culture may not be in another. Even something as simple as the fact that calling your wife "mujer" doesn't have the same connotations as calling your wife "woman," because of different cultures, affects relationships, as discussed earlier in this thread. And just like some couples are okay with "woman" and some aren't, some couples might be okay with emotional intimacy with another woman, and some couples will feel uncomfortable or disrespected by it. And that's part of why it would bother me; it goes against our culture, my husband knows it goes against our culture and displaces me as a wife, and he's not respecting my feelings by continuing to continue the relationship with this woman.

Obviously, your spouse can have friends of both genders without ruining a marriage. Friendships are important and healthy, and not letting your spouse have any friends could be extremely damaging, just as him being too close with his friends could be. Some people are too jealous. But I think there's a limit to how close you can be with your friends before you start to disrespect your spouse.

/19-year-old-single-girl-opinions

Zedability wrote:

Marduk wrote:
Let's say your husband had a best friend. This is a guy he hung out with a lot, he discussed all big decisions with him, they played video games together, etc. Would you be jealous of him and the time they spend together? Would you want him to break contact with this friend? Let's say that this friendship is a really enlightened one, and they are even emotionally attached, cry in front of each other, and so on. How do you feel about this friendship?

Now let's say this exact same relationship exists, but with a woman. How do the feelings differ?
)

I would say it the friendship with another guy would bug me if I felt like he valued his friend's opinion more than mine – if his friend's input affected his decision more, if he went to him over emotional issues before he went to me. Within marriage, I think spouses should be the main emotional supports of each other. Even in a platonic friendship, prioritizing that over the emotional intimacy of our marriage would be depriving me of an essential component of the marriage relationship.

Zed's got a good point there. My husband has great friends that he spends a lot of time with. Doesn't bother me. But if he had a big decision to make and he valued someone else's opinion over mine, that would bother. In that context, it wouldn't make a difference if it was another guy, a different girl, or his mother. (The latter is one that is a common problem for this particular issue, in couples I have seen, though usually it is the wife that calls her parents too much and disregards her husband's opinions.) So the question is, if my husband has a crisis in his life and he needs someone to talk to / someone to get advice from etc, does he go to me first or someone else? It doesn't matter who that other person is, that is a part of the intimate bond of marriage to me, and that would bug me.

Katya wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote:This is why I can't get into FMH. They are clearly panicked by the thought of polygamy and can only see it in men-are-above-women light and so blast it at every opportunity.

I don't see it that way. I think that there is so little recognition in the mainstream church of the hurt, fear, and grief many LDS women feel with regard to (possible future or eternal) polygamy, that all that pain is looking for any release valve possible and FMH happens to be a good outlet. (Also, I'm surprised that a disagreement on this one issue would outweigh everything else that FMH covers. Do you care that much about it or do you not care that much about the other issues FMH tackles?)

It might just have been that they had posted about it three or four times recently the couple of times I went to check them out, plus I probably shouldn't have been reading comments, as those are almost always more extreme than the original post (true in all of the internet).

I won't deny that the thought of and teachings about polygamy has hurt many women in the Church. However, I don't think that lashing back at it is the best way to combat this - that's just trading one set of bad feelings for another, and still acting and thinking from a place of hurt and fear. Polygamy is not either "God wants it, so I'd better get used to the idea" or "it's false, hurtful, oppressive to women, and must be squashed." It's a complex and nuanced issue with no universally right answer, and so to talk about it in either a degrading way (again, "piece on the side") or to assume everyone just needs to accept it are equally wrong. To see that FMH covered issues in such a surface way without getting deeper or going with anything beyond gut feeling meant that I couldn't stick around. We may have some of the same opinions, but the ways in which we arrived at those opinions is so radically different that we have less in common then you might think.

TheAnswerIs42 wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote: The exact problem is that you ego-centrically think of polygamy as your husband who is all yours having some tramp, some "piece on the side," and I think of it as a mutual and loving relationship where all are equally loved and benefited. . . And don't forget that you yourself saw red flags in a man not wanting his wife to continue ballroom dancing - is it only a red flag if it's the man being possessive instead of the woman?

I can't believe you just compared sharing a husband with his hobbies to sharing a husband with another wife. I just can't. I've been married nearly a decade now, and we've each had hobbies come and go. Jobs, friends, you name it. But what I have with my husband has been the rock and foundation in my life. Sure, I'm as concerned about sharing my husband sexually as the next girl, but that's not even my main problem. I am intimate with my husband, not just physically but emotionally. He is my heart and soul, my hopes and dreams.

And you know what? We fight all the time. It happens. But we always come back to each other because we are bound together. No matter what happens, we will always turn back around and work on it because this marriage are all we have. And that is what scares me the most about sharing my husband. No one has ever loved multiple people exactly the same amount every single day of their lives. We aren't perfect like that. When I mess up and do something stupid, it is rather comforting to know that my husband isn't going to go to anyone else. That is the part that is the most unequal about it to me: the man has options, and the women do not. Part of why I can trust him so much in our relationship is that I know he has no where else to turn, just like I don't. I can be my true self and know that he'll still be there. That's why we'll always turn to each other.

Am I saying that no one in the history of the world has ever pulled this off? Nope. And if that floats your boat, bob, then go for it. But don't call Portia "egocentric". If I put in a 100% of my love, body and emotion to my husband, it is not egocentric to want that love in return. I'm sorry that your mother was not your perfect role model, but just because I encourage my husband to enjoy his hobbies and friends, even if they take him away from me, does not mean I want him to be intimate with anyone else.

Again, I do not find fault with anyone who would prefer to keep their husband to themselves. Portia's language implied that polygamy was always the wrong choice, and that she would look down on any man and second wife in such a situation. I have to admit that I resent that, and replied harshly and with rather extreme examples as both a form of retort as well as an attempt to force the consideration of another point of view.

You think about polygamy a little differently than Portia, but either the "my husband has sex with me" approach or the "my husband is fully devoted to me" approach are still miles away from how I think about it. This is not a threesome/legalized cheating or two separate relationships that happen to be connected to the same man. This is not having only half a husband, but having a husband and a best friend. A successful polygamous (or polyandrous) relationship is one where three people are able to go above and beyond, to be intimately connected to not one but two other people, and to fully love and support each other. It's a higher form of relationship that takes a lot more work but can be much more rewarding.

As for your specific points, there are lots of times where Marduk values someone else's opinion over my own, and many ways in which he is intimate with other people. He asked his sister last night for advice on what he should do about getting further schooling. He asks his father for his opinions on certain scriptures or doctrines. When his sister comes to visit, she gets to sit in the front seat of his car so they can play a radio game together - one that I can't play because I have a very limited knowledge of music. When I went out of town a year ago, he took another friend of his (who happened to be a woman) out to dinner and spent several hours having a great conversation with her on topics I wasn't well-versed in. And I have zero problem with any of this.

I don't think of love as quantifiable. There is no "100% of my love." Otherwise how would families work? How can you have much love for anyone where there are a spouse, parents, children, siblings, and friends to love? Not to mention how we should also love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. Therefore, a man can be fully devoted to two wives - difficult, but certainly possible.

Aren't we doing our best to become more Christlike? Wasn't one of his defining characteristics the ability to love everyone equally, no matter what he did to them? How, then, is it not only impossible but somehow not desirable for us to strive to do the same?

bobtheenchantedone wrote: As for your specific points, there are lots of times where Marduk values someone else's opinion over my own, and many ways in which he is intimate with other people. He asked his sister last night for advice on what he should do about getting further schooling. He asks his father for his opinions on certain scriptures or doctrines. When his sister comes to visit, she gets to sit in the front seat of his car so they can play a radio game together - one that I can't play because I have a very limited knowledge of music. When I went out of town a year ago, he took another friend of his (who happened to be a woman) out to dinner and spent several hours having a great conversation with her on topics I wasn't well-versed in. And I have zero problem with any of this.

I don't think these are really the same thing as what I'm talking about. Many of your examples seem to focus on specific situations where the other person is an objectively better source of advice, or who is better able to intellectually connect on a specific topic. Furthermore, a lot of your examples centered around Marduk's family, and the long-standing and close nature of family relationships makes them a pretty normal source of advice, since they know you so well and were often raised with a similar worldview. What I was saying is that if there was one other specific person who my significant other always went to for advice first, and whose advice unconditionally carried more weight than mine, regardless of knowledge on the subject, I would feel like he was replacing my emotional support role in his life.

Also, like I said before, part of it comes down to what the individual couple is okay with. You have zero problem with Marduk taking another woman out to dinner, so I agree that it's appropriate. If you felt uncomfortable with it, however, that would be a different matter.

As an example from my own life, a lot of people in my ward were very openly and vocally disapproving of my unusually close friendship with El Corazon Solo last semester, since they were sure I must be lying to or leading on either M or ECS. In reality, I told them both everything, they were both fine with the situation, and M and ECS actually really like each other. Even though, from an outside perspective of our culture, there were things a lot people told me were "inappropriate." And even though, in some ways, ECS did replace M as a source of emotional support in my life, which directly contradicts what I said. In the specific situation, everyone was okay with it. But in general, in such a situation, if one person is uncomfortable with being replaced, I think that's an important and valid concern, not the other person being selfish.

Well, then there's another way y'all have to accept my definition of polygamy before we can get anywhere else in this conversation (at least, if you want to keep talking to me). Critical decisions aren't being made without you. They're being made with all three of you.

bobtheenchantedone wrote: Critical decisions aren't being made without you. They're being made with all three of you.

Right. And I've never disagreed with the idea that such a situation could lead to a happy polygamous relationship, or that it could be a good thing. What I'm saying is that someone might feel uncomfortable including someone else in the critical decision making process, and those people would not be happy in a polygamous relationship, and I don't think it's a bad thing that they'd be uncomfortable with that.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:You think about polygamy a little differently than Portia, but either the "my husband has sex with me" approach or the "my husband is fully devoted to me" approach are still miles away from how I think about it. This is not a threesome/legalized cheating or two separate relationships that happen to be connected to the same man. This is not having only half a husband, but having a husband and a best friend. A successful polygamous (or polyandrous) relationship is one where three people are able to go above and beyond, to be intimately connected to not one but two other people, and to fully love and support each other.

Are you using a group of three as an example or are you assuming only three people would be involved? Do you think it would be harder to be in a polygamous relationship with one man and three women? Four women? Five or more women? Or are you dividing each of those relationship into three-person sub-relationships?

bobtheenchantedone wrote:It's a higher form of relationship that takes a lot more work but can be much more rewarding.

By referring to it as a "higher form of relationship," you're implying that "successful" polygamy (i.e., people who are happy in a polygamous relationship) is somehow superior to "successful" monogamy. I find that insulting to those of us who have stated we would prefer the latter.

Katya wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote:You think about polygamy a little differently than Portia, but either the "my husband has sex with me" approach or the "my husband is fully devoted to me" approach are still miles away from how I think about it. This is not a threesome/legalized cheating or two separate relationships that happen to be connected to the same man. This is not having only half a husband, but having a husband and a best friend. A successful polygamous (or polyandrous) relationship is one where three people are able to go above and beyond, to be intimately connected to not one but two other people, and to fully love and support each other.

Are you using a group of three as an example or are you assuming only three people would be involved? Do you think it would be harder to be in a polygamous relationship with one man and three women? Four women? Five or more women? Or are you dividing each of those relationship into three-person sub-relationships?

For ease of speaking, I confined it to three people. Of course more can be involved, it just gets exponentially harder.

Katya wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote:It's a higher form of relationship that takes a lot more work but can be much more rewarding.

By referring to it as a "higher form of relationship," you're implying that "successful" polygamy (i.e., people who are happy in a polygamous relationship) is somehow superior to "successful" monogamy. I find that insulting to those of us who have stated we would prefer the latter.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I'm sorry you find it insulting, but just as being able to sing and dance and act makes someone a more successful performer, being able to have a healthy and intimate relationship makes you more successful at relationships. Not everyone needs to be at that level, but we can't deny that they're better than we are in that respect.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

Katya wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote:It's a higher form of relationship that takes a lot more work but can be much more rewarding.

By referring to it as a "higher form of relationship," you're implying that "successful" polygamy (i.e., people who are happy in a polygamous relationship) is somehow superior to "successful" monogamy. I find that insulting to those of us who have stated we would prefer the latter.

Yep. Sorry.

You're sorry to have insulted us (by mistake or misunderstanding) or you're sorry that you genuinely think we're inferior to you? (If the latter, I don't think we have anything left to discuss.)

Forgive me, I just edited my comment to make it more clear and less flippant. Also, I'm not saying that I'm ready for a polygamous relationship. I can just see reasons why it would be a good thing to work toward, and I do think that if it became a possibility I could manage it.

That's not the only way of looking at it, though. You've referred to people who prefer monogamy as "egotistical" and you think we're settling for some kind of lesser relationship. We could easily say that in refusing to commit intimately to one person, you're holding some part of yourself back and you're settling for a lesser, more distant relationship. (From what I've read of the experiences of women who seem to have fared best in polygamy, their lives were basically that of single mothers with a lot of community support. If you're going to be a single mother, being one with a lot of community support is ideal, but I'm looking for more than that.)

Marduk, I did see your question about polyandry, and I've been thinking about it, but if you're coming from the same perspective as bob, then, again, I don't think we have enough common ground for a productive discussion.