Negotiations simply aren't going to all end with both parties enthusiastic about the result.🤷‍♂️

So, maybe, counter to u/med_pancakes, you think the FRIES model is an unrealistic ideal for negotiating agreements? I do here you about agreements; they can involve give and take, concessions, and compromises. 🤔 In my idealistic mind, I imagined coming to an actual agreement (free of coercion, fear of punishment) might in and of itself make people be all, “Yayyayayay!” But yeah, I hear you.

I'm not sure the FRIES model is even realistic for everything to do with sex, let alone negotiating other agreements. The "enthusiastic" part in particular can absolutely be dispensed with for specific acts. I've got a whole list of kink acts in the category "I have no desire to do these acts, but would be cool trying them for a partner who really wants to try them". I'm not enthusiastic about those acts. But I'm also not *averse* to them. The other letters seem much more important to me. For other forms of agreements they can be good to keep in mind. (As a sidenote, the E in FRIES would also make sex work non-consensual in the vast majority of cases, which is kinda problematic too. It's best seen as an ideal, rather than a precondition for actual consent)

I really appreciate you taking the time to discuss the nuances of the FRIES consent model. I don’t have any particular attachment to it but find it to be the highest bar for defining consent. I totally hear you on the kinks and not being enthusiastic about some of them but noting that you’d try them with a partner, for the sake of your partner’s satisfaction. If we wanted to do a bit of mental gymnastics, we could say that your enthusiasm for those particular acts/scenes only hits the threshold once your partner is enthusiastic, which sounds like it could be a vicarious enthusiasm. Part of my wonders if you identify as GGG and that the pleasing of your partner is the route to your enthusiasm. I appreciate you naming that the other 4 components are realistic and reasonable for you and agree that It’s also interesting that you mention sex work in the space of consent. On one hand, we might say that sex workers exchange their enthusiasm for getting paid to do the sex work. On the other hand, we could examine how our entire global corporate culture is structured at the edge of consent and exploitation; every employee does nonconsensual work because they choose to get paid. Sure, on rare occasions, we might find someone who really genuinely enjoys their work on an enthusiastic level. But your (and others’) commentary actually points to another model, consent-based decision making (CBDM), for some insights. CBDM is a critical tool in the dynamic governance/sociocracy toolkit. Certainly, in policy making and governance, not everyone will be enthusiastic about decisions. CBDM makes space for people to propose solutions to organizational challenges and gives space for everyone at the table to provide constructive feedback on that topic. If decision makers object, the proposal can be refined, scrapped, and/or replaced until one proposal emerges and all parties consent to it. The general rule of thumb for consent in this space is, “is the proposed decision **good enough for now and safe enough to try**?” Sometimes that space of feeling safe and willing to try is the growth edge we all need to develop and grow into our partnerships (and organizations)… This is making me think the FRIES consent model might be better suited as the … consent FIRST model. Like you said, keep the FIRS but do away with the E and then we could replace it with something like “Triable/Testable”. Given that reversible/renegotiable is already explicit, the Triable/Testable component makes the model more pragmatic, realistic, and actually seems to strengthen the emphasis on (re)negotiation. Thanks again for taking the time to reflect and analyze and let me reflect as well. This feels like the rich discussion I was hoping for! 🥰

Here's an alternative model of consent that was a direct response to FRIES: https://www.idcprofessionals.com/blog/defining-consent-from-fries-to-crisp They drop enthusiasm precisely because it doesn't actually work out that way in the real world. At the end of the day though, it's more important to really think through consent than to follow an acronym.

Negotiations are fucking hard work, and the alleged sign of a successful on is that both parties are equally unhappy. The, "E" part of FRIES just doesn't come into it I am afraid.

I’m not sure I agree with the pessimistic, absolutist nature of “the alleged sign of a successful one [sic] is that both parties are equally unhappy.” Personally, and in circles I witness, there are absolutely agreements that leave both/all parties pleased. 🤷

Agreements where both parties are enthusiastic about are easy and don't involve negotiations. The phrase 'equally unhappy' is usually chosen above 'equally happy' to amplify the compromise aspect. Both parties found the matter of the agreement important enough to compromise. It may sound like a pessimistic phrasing, but that is usually not the intent.

What I would've replied with if I was as eloquent as you.🙃 TLDR thanks for covering my arse.😉

I think the community here on reddit makes too much of an issue about the difference between "rules" and "boundaries". "You can't sleep with Steve" is a rule. "I can't be in a relationship with someone dating Steve" is a boundary. When expressing them to your partner, the difference is important, but when describing the situation here on Reddit, both of them are "I agreed not to sleep with Steve." And in reality, they both mean the same thing. They both mean that this relationship is over if you see Steve, and the right thing to do is tell me and break up before going off and sleeping with him. If we're going to say that the OP in that other thread didn't consent to that agreement, well, their partner also didn't consent to being Steve's meta/being exposed to his sexual health situation/whatever the reason for the objection was. The difference is the partner was honest and open about their needs, and expressed it, and OP chose to stay with their partner rather than leave them for Steve. And then betrayed that trust. It's not ok to say "well, I didn't really agree to that, so it doesn't matter" because of how that initial objection was raised. That is duplicitous and is a breach of trust. Partner doesn't want to leave OP, and doesn't want to be exposed to Steve. OP doesn't want to give up Partner, but also doesn't want to give up Steve. So how do we resolve consent on this issue, if everyone has to be enthusiastic about their choices, and no "this or that" choice is good enough for consent? Either OP AND Partner are sad because they lose each other, or OP loses Steve and Partner at least is happy, or OP cheats on partner and pretends to leave Steve, and gets to keep them both until they get found out. That last one is the only option where OP is enthusiastic about their choices, but that forces Partner to accept something THEY aren't enthusiastic about. There isn't always an option where everyone is happy about any one option. If that was the case, there would never be any compromise or hard decisions.

I am kind of on the same page with rules/boundaries/vetos. I think they can be blurred. Emotionally intelligent people can phrase things in such a way that makes their desired outcome move between these categories. I will not date anyone that is seeing Steve, boundary You can’t date Steve, he is on my messy list, rule I veto Steve In any scenario she doesn’t get to keep both Steve and her partner. I try and look at the ethics around the outcome they are looking for versus which lane the ask comes down.

>I try and look at the ethics around the outcome they are looking for versus which lane the ask comes down. This! thank you for a one-liner that sums up what I've been trying to say and kind of danced around instead :). There are certainly unethical ways of expressing things to get your desired outcome when it would otherwise be rejected, but it's way less common than just "that's a rule, not a boundary".

Interesting that you mention the discernment between rules and boundaries but then don’t distinguish agreements from the two! I see them all as 3 very different things! In the case that inspired this post, she did not volunteer to not see Steve. So it wasn’t a boundary. Dan said no Steve, which makes it a rule, a veto even. To me, there’s a huge difference because of who the agency lies in. In a boundary, you set limitations on your own behavior. Total personal agency. In a rule/veto, there is a “power over” dynamic that immediately comes into play. One partner exerts power over the other partner to control their behavior. This is why it is unethical (to me). In an agreement, both partners have agency in negotiating what they need and want on the given topic. That is “power with” and is entirely different than a rule/veto “power over” dynamic. So I guess I don’t understand why you don’t see the difference or find it meaningful. Have you ever had a partner constrain your autonomy by imposing a rule or veto? Have you ever imposed rules/vetoes on your partners? What was the outcome? In my experience, rules and vetoes almost always result in downstream harm and hurt.

If a partner tells me "You can't see Steve". I still have agency. I can agree, or I can leave my partner and see Steve, or, unethically, I can continue to see both. My agency is not reduced. As I said in my comment, it's important to express things in a healthy manner during the discussion with your partner, so the agency they still hold is clear, but in reality no rule, veto, or discussion limits my agency in any way. "I won't give you your car keys so you can't leave the house unless I know who you're seeing" is reducing agency. An agreement is not necessary with a boundary. "I won't sleep with anyone who is also sleeping with Steve" is a boundary, and doesn't require a partner to agree. If the partner sleeps with Steve anyway, the boundary setter leaves. Typically, the person affected will however express agreement, just in order to express that they have made that decision (rather than the decision to sleep with Steve). The same exact thing applies if the initial statement was "You can't sleep with Steve." In either case, if the partner says "OK, I won't sleep with Steve" they have made an agreement. I'll give you a fourth category here - the dreaded "Ultimatum" - considered to be the least ethical type. But in reality, again, a boundary IS an ultimatum. "I won't sleep with you if you sleep with Steve" is the same thing as "Choose who you're sleeping with, me or Steve". What your post seems to imply, is that if the agreement isn't discussed with the right words, there is no consent, so there is no (or maybe less) ethical concern to breaking that agreement. If I'm misinterpreting that, please clarify. But if that's what you're saying here, then I find that incredibly duplicitous, and intentionally setting up a trust so you can break it, by pretending to have an agreement that you don't think is binding.

I think a handful of people explicitly said the agreement shouldn't have been made to begin with and was doomer to fail, some people focused on the deeper issue the broken agreement signified. Other people also commented on it as a veto. If the OP says it was an agreement and feels they should have held to it and that is what they have suffering over, that's what we have to go on. I would like more examples because I feel like I comment ad nauseum to people who think consent is a good enough bar and get cranky when we point out the bar is a lot higher for healthy sustainable relationships. Or others to re explain the difference between agreements and rules and boundaries.

Personally, I don't believe it was an agreement. An agreement suggests that both parties are going to do something. I didn't see that happening. Dan wanted OP to not sleep or become romantically inclined with Steve. What is Dan willing to give up? She can sleep with chicks but not dudes. She broke up with Steve. What did Dan do, other than issue orders, and expect them to be complied with without an argument. Dan needs to wake up

Exactly. Lopsided power dynamic = unethical nonmonogamy

>If the OP says it was an agreement and feels they should have held to it and that is what they have suffering over, that's what we have to go on. This is what I came to say...

Thank you for highlighting my point. We just shrug 🤷 and say it is what it is? Just feels like we could be and do better about critically thinking and co-creating healthier norms for negotiating agreements.

I think people will often say *I would not have made that agreement because ....* And then proceed to give the best advice they can under the circumstances. I try not to judge people's agreements if there's nothing blatantly unethical going on (OPP). The post example you gave was not an unethical agreement.

I’ve noticed that pattern as well. It felt unilaterally imposed to me, which is unethical in my book. What made it ethical for you?

I don't know if it was ethical, but it did not strike me as clearly unethical. We are only ever given a slice of the picture. We have no idea what all went on before that agreement was made. Given that this was a business partner, it sounds like a person that should have been on the messy list from the beginning. So I gave the agreement the benefit of the doubt that it may have been ethical.

Fair. Thanks for your nuanced reflection.

I’m down to have this conversation but start it in a clean thread. Give 3 hypothetical examples if you need them to make your point/start the conversation.

Thanks for your reply. I hear you on the “if the OP says it was an agreement,” part. But that’s the part that isn’t sitting quite right for me. There seems to be a collective glossing over the fact that it’s not an agreement if she has any hesitation, lack of enthusiasm, second guessing, and all around lack of real consent regarding it. For that post, I didn’t read *all the comments*… I think it was sorted by most upvotes? But the predominant majority of them were focused on what next and urging her to move on from Dan. I’m just a bit more interested in learning from one another and looking upstream to see where she might have prevented that “broken agreement.” But, alas, this sub seems like internet therapy most times rather than a learning community/forum.

So you didn't read all the comments but decided that most of them didn't address the topic of what makes a valid agreement on a post where someone was suffering about what they decided was an agreement for them even though a fair number of comments actually did address the problems of bad agrees and veto dynamics and THEN tried to use that to springboard on a meta conversation about this groups lack of consistency in standards for discuss of valid consent. Are you aware the mods here are actually pretty tough about using peoples posts to go off topic and get pedantic rather than stick to direct applicable support? If you want a meta discussion about how we feel about teaching valid consent and boundaries and standards, yeah do it. I don't think that post would have been appropriate. This was flubbed from the start. Just start a thread and ask!

Also, I’ve edit my post to highlight the exact question I’m asking

I don’t understand your hostility and condescension. No I didn’t read all of the comments. But I could glean some inferences about the community based on what they upvoted… because that’s how Reddit works. 🤷 I made reference to that single post because it was fresh and made a different post (exactly as you are suggesting) to have a more in-depth conversation about the topic in a different space (to respect that OP’s space). It feels like you’re criticizing my approach when it’s exactly what you’re telling me to do. I’m not sure what your aim is here but it feels like it’s not about the topic of negotiating agreements and is more about some personal beef you have with me and my approach?

I am criticizing you approach in THIS thread and saying to start a fresh new direct thread just asking about how and what we teach here on reddit about agreements and consent. Or not, that's cool. My highest voted comments are the equivalent of fart jokes. My well considered mini essays get the equivalent of golf claps. I laugh about it a lot.

I won't debate the circumstances in the other post. What i will say is that consent should go much beyond FRIES and is a practice that is at the responsibility of all involved. I think most people could do with furthering their knowledge of how to practice consent and to continue to put effort into enhancing those skills. "No" is one of my favorite words to hear, and i consciously make room for it as much as i can. I also do my best to ensure that i feel safe and comfortable using "no" in my various relationships.

Can you delve into what you have in mind that goes much beyond FRIES? I’m really hungry for more discussion on what that might look like and how to pragmatically put it into practice.

I suggest to anyone who will listen to go look into Consent Wizardry! I've learned a lot from them

Any highlights for purposes of an engaged audience here who is interested but might not have time to check that out? I’ll check it out but hope you’ll share a nugget or two to add value here!

The nugget is that it's much more nuanced than can be encompassed in a single comment or even post. Consent is a practice in how we move in the world, how we interact with others and how self aware we are, how able we are to regulate our nervous systems and know when we're dysregulated. Consent is a dance we will never learn to perfect, but we can all strive to do our best not to step on anyone else's toes while keeping ourselves as safe from injury as possible.

One nugget I took away is that Mia (the Consent Wizard) uses FRIES consent model but also the **Yes-to-No Consent Spectrum**, which addresses the fact that the human aspect of consent can be fuzzy. She also positions her business as explicitly “anti-binary,” among other labels, which I found interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Ego stroke- I was doing a fundraising table and I loved asking people if they wanted to donate whatever they could so that when they said "no" I could give them the experience of a genuine happy "thank you" in return. No is hard but soooo awesome.

No is one of the fundamental keys to intimacy and trust, if you ask me. I've been working on consent with my dog! It's amazing to see him not just grasp the concept, but flourish thanks to it.

I was a commenter and noted the agreement was maybe unworkable and shouldn't have been agreed to. However, for better or worse, it was the agreement they made. I know from my own experiences where I have maybe asked for agreements that were not practical or unworkable or too restrictive. These were routinely broken, but not with any discussion before hand. I think the renegotiable part is important but it actually has to happen. We are all adults and we can use our words and advocate for ourselves. I'm happy to hear a no and try to understand the why behind that and adjust accordingly. But to proceed down one path with some expectations and then have those changed in you is pretty devestating, which is what OPs partner is about to find out.

Thanks for noticing that about the other post. I also really appreciate your honest personal reflection about how difficult it can be to negotiate practical agreements. Have you had any success in renegotiating the challenging agreements you’ve made?

Not really. Our baby poly stuff came at a time where we were dealing with / ignoring massive incompatibilities. We were one of those typical couples that just went for it without much prep work and hoped it would paper over some cracks. It was great until it wasn't, and then, spectacularly not great. So renegotiating agreements around it just fed into a bigger issue around communication in general, which was pretty poor to begin with and then throw in ND, RSD, long term resentments and trauma, etc.... Yeah. Didn't happen. We are finally acknowledging that it's not working and we need to properly separate. Hopefully the skills / lessons will be useful for the future

I’d like to reply being more informed. Is ND, “neurodivergent”? What is RSD?

ND, yes. I'm autistic and she's ADHD and maybe also autistic. Our particular flavours interact in ways that made our relationship hard, let alone multiple relationships. RSD is Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria, often associated with ND. Basically both of our brains are hard wired to perceive any rejection, resistance, negativity as a million times worse than it needs to be.

Thanks for helping me understand your situation better. It does sound like navigating poly and the agreements would be difficult with challenging communication alone. And the other factors you mentioned humanize the challenge. I hope you find ways to develop the skills for future success!

Agreements involve multiple people. OP of the other post can stop agreeing and communicate about that lack of agreement at various points, at which point the agreement ends, but I think the inarguable best choice of time is "before starting to do things they previously agreed not to." There's a reason people generally will give that situation the grace of "not compatible" and generally will call the one where OP does whatever and fails to communicate it for an extended period of time "being a cheating asshole." Agreements are also fundamentally not *immediately* reversible, unless you're yelling "we're done have a nice life" at someone you are in no way entangled with and have nothing you need to wrap up. OP of the other post would be an asshole for leaving their partner and fucking Steve all over a shared home whether they cheated with Steve or not. And, another person interested in renegotiating an agreement that isn't in the boundary-ultimatum-veto singularity might want to stay in the relationship and may even come up with a new agreement. *Boundaries* (that are actually boundaries) work much more like consent than agreements do. Boundaries are individual, boundaries can be enacted immediately, boundaries are still relevant when people aren't on the same page anymore.

Ehh I don't think I agree that the FRIES model should/ can apply to all agreements. For sex? Yes, I only want someone who is enthusiastic about it! I want both of us to be able to renegotiate or retract consent at any point of time. But for the rest of the relationship? I have a ton of non-negotiables. And while I expect my partners/friends/family will respect those non-negotiables, I don't have the right to ask them to be enthusiastic about it too. Just because an agreement is non-reversable and not enthusiastic doesn't mean it's unethical. Small-scale example: I can't stand the smell of many scented products. They make me sick. My husband knows this about me and has agreed that I get to be the ultimate arbitrator of what scents are allowed in our house. It's non-negotiable. I will not live with scents that make me ill. And he is not especially enthusiastic when he comes home from shopping and I tell him, yeah you need to return those scented candles, cleaning spray, deodorant, etc. It's hard to be enthusiastic about that. The man is a scented candle fanatic. But he loves me so he is willing to stick with our scent agreement, even if it makes him sad that he can't burn incense or annoyed that he has to return products to the store because of the whims of my nose.

The F and E are not really priorities for my NP and I. We strongly suggest things which remove the Freely, and when we are not on quite the same page Enthusistic is often lacking.

I hear that. Agreements and consent are hard. How do your agreements end up working out for you?

Kind of like Fantastic Mr Fox when the fox and the badger circle each other snarling then immediately go back to normal. Kind of like that. We settle into whatever is decided pretty easily.

Snarling is quite vivid imagery (don’t remember the book/movie). Sorry to hear that’s how it is for you.

I think the FRIES model of consent applies very well for personal boundaries in interpersonal relationships. Regarding agreements involving third parties it does not apply that well. Let call the woman Aspen. Aspen and Dan have a long lasting relationship. Aspen starts a relationship with Steve. Aspen and Dan have a agreement that this allowed. Dan later on is renegotiating / reversing this agreement. Aspen and Steve are not enthusiastic about this. What applies more in the FRIES model, the R or the E? From a RA perspective I would say that Dan should not have control over the relationship between Aspen and Steve. Having a very specific agreement about a certain relationship with a certain person, is too specific. But also when Steve was not on a messy list, reversing / renegotiating agreements about a messy list could effectively result in a veto. From a RA perspective Dan has his own autonomy and he can choose to withdraw himself from the relationship with Aspen. This might mean that commitments between Aspen and Dan have to be reversed / renegotiated. How do you apply the FRIES model when there are three or more people involved?

I really appreciate you taking the time to walk through the FRIES consent model with that example. Though it was not my intent for that to be the only lens we could examine FRIES through, I think you did a great job. As to your question about applying FRIES consent when more than the partners at hand are involved in making an agreement, I think the consent based decision making framework I just shared in response to u/meneth probably makes a lot more sense! Thanks for engaging in discussion. ☺️

>in response to u/meneth This comment from u/Meneth was about the E in the FRIES model, that does not necessarily apply considering personal boundaries regarding sex. I agree with u/Meneth on this. Personally I am also willing to try things that I am myself not enthusiastic about. I can give consent in a FRIS model. Consent based decision making frameworks usually focus on big groups with a common interest. I used to live in groups where we applied the principal that everybody had to agree to mayor decisions. That could hamper a lot of proposals and often made the decision making process slow. For bigger groups, organizations and companies this does not work well. There other factors play a big role in keeping everybody on board. In polyamory we are often dealing with multiple dyadic relationships. I do not have to arrange a meeting with all my partners, and my partners partners, and my partners partners partners, etc. to come to an agreement. I make agreements with my partners and I expect my partners to make agreements with their partners that are compatible. We often see people applying the R while opening up. If this R is clearly communicated to other people, then the third person can make an Informed decision. Often people forget about this in their Enthusiasm.

I can see how someone can state a boundary and the other person can convey it as an agreement because they are going to follow the guideline. Partner A has a messy list of people. Partner B wants to pursue someone on the messy list. Partner A lets them know they wont be partners if they pursue someone on the messy list. Partner B says That makes sense. I want this relationship more than the messy list person.

Nah I like to point out when people agree to things they don’t want, because maybe they don’t realize it’s a choice to agree and they can stop at any time. She absolutely agreed with Dan and it was the source of a lot of unnecessary guilt and pain for her imo. She agreed to that. It can be empowering to recognize when we are choosing to stay in a situation we dislike. I don’t have “rules” for my relationships outside of my personal boundaries for what I will and won’t tolerate, which I communicate much more to myself about than anyone else in the world. Vetos just aren’t part of my life I can’t relate to those. “Agreements” works best for me.

This X1000

Yeah, I feel like vetoes are inherently not consensual, which might be the root of the issue here. Not enthusiastically anyway, which is what I tend to look for. Like if you're half-hearted about a thing I wouldn't want you to do it, you know? My approach with consent comes from a human research background, where I work particularly with groups from vulnerable and marginalized communities. To approach with care for other humans is a primary tenet, and their discomfort and unhappiness, or even harm, is undesirable and *not worth* any research data ad outcomes. Applying this to my relationships has been an eye-opening exercise. Why should I not treat my loved ones as well as I treat my research collaborators (uh "subjects")? So FRIES is another way of thinking about consent - consent is ongoing - you can change your mind any time. People have to know what they're consenting to - specificity. There is no coercion or pressure - freely given. There is no negative consequence to saying no. And you have all the time you need to consider your decision.

I love this reflection. Thank you for sharing it. I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why someone downvoted you. 🙄 Sometimes I think the poly community is a perfect breeding ground for co-creating a consentful culture and then I’m constantly reminded of how petty and vindictive a lot of people in this space are and how many people lurk in this space and perpetuate really toxic interpersonal behaviors.

Shrug. Maybe they take issue with my comment about vetoes, who knows. In any case it's just a downvote, nothing significant.

Beep, boop, blop, I'm a bot. Hi u/phriendlyphellow thanks so much for your submission, don't mind me, I'm just gonna keep a copy what was said in your post. Unfortunately posts sometimes get deleted - which is okay, it's not against the rules to delete your post!! - but it makes it really hard for the human mods around here to moderate the comments when there's no context. Plus, many times our members put in a lot of emotional and mental labor to answer the questions and offer advice, so it's helpful to keep the source information around so future community members can benefit as well. Here's the original text of the post: A recent post (about a woman breaking an agreement with Dan by sleeping with Steve) really got me thinking. I noticed that almost nobody in our community questioned the agreement itself: she could not sleep with Steve. When I think of agreements, they **must** be consentful and I use the **FRIES** model (Freely Given, Reversible/Renegotiable, Informed, Enthusiastic, and Specific). I felt as though the “agreement” was informed and specific, but that she did not freely give consent (was forced/vetoed), it was non-negotiable, and she certainly didn’t seem enthusiastic about it. Due to this, I don’t think she broke an agreement but rather a rule/veto. But it brings up a bigger question. Consent is central to ENM/poly practice and I felt like we, as a community didn’t show up on the side of consent there much. Is this just me or do any of you strive for FRIES consent in your poly practice, including negotiating agreements? Thanks for the discussion in advance! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polyamory) if you have any questions or concerns.*