Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Picture this. Partner A says, I need to know where you're going tonight. Partner B responds with, okay, I'm having dinner with Sam, then we're going back to their place to have sex. Partner A says, I didn't need to know. That last part sound familiar? Welcome to one of the most exhausting fights in polyamory, the information wars, where one partner shares too little and gets accused of hiding things, while another partner shares too much and gets told they're violating boundaries.
[00:00:32] Here's what's actually happening. Most people have no idea how to sort out information.
[00:00:38] They're treating privacy like it's the same thing as withholding. They're confusing transparency with oversharing.
[00:00:45] And they're having the same fight over and over because nobody's taught them that there are actually three different types of information that need three different types of consent.
[00:00:56] Today we're talking about the difference between privacy and withholding in non monogamous relationships. And I'm going to give you a framework that will stop these fights cold because you'll finally know what information actually needs to be shared, what information is optional, and how to ask for what you need without accidentally asking for what you don't want. Because here's the thing, you don't need more communication. You need cleaner categories.
[00:01:22] Welcome to Untamed Ember. I'm your host, Dr. Misty, and today's episode is about the difference between privacy and withholding in non monogamous relationships. If you're new here, this podcast is where we blend science story and rebellion to help you unlearn shame and build unapologetic connection. We talk about kink, polyamory and real world relationship dynamics without the gaslighting or gold stars for good behavior.
[00:01:48] And if you've been here before, you know I don't mess around with surface level advice. Today we're building a framework that'll help you sort information into clean categories so you can stop accidentally violating boundaries while trying to be transparent and stop accidentally withholding information while trying to respect privacy.
[00:02:08] Let's start by calling out what's actually happening here, because most people think this is a communication problem. It's. It's not. It's a category error, not an effort problem.
[00:02:19] Many couples are communicating constantly. The problem is that the information isn't sorted and the receiver can't consent to the type of information before it lands. I see this mislabeled in two common ways. First, you're hiding things from me when what's missing is a safety or impact detail, not a sexual confession.
[00:02:40] Second, you're making me tell you everything.
[00:02:43] When what's requested is a logistical anchor, not a sexual report, here's what's actually happening. The couple lacks a shared map for what information is required versus what's optional.
[00:02:57] So partners use mood, anxiety or shame as the sorting mechanism. Those are unreliable systems because they change day to day, and this creates these microdynamics that keep the loop going. The receiver reacts strongly to an accidental overshare. The sharer learns information is dangerous and becomes avoidant.
[00:03:20] The receiver senses distance and pushes for more. The sharer either floods again or goes silent again. From a nervous system perspective, what's happening is that both people's threat detection systems are activated, but they're detecting different threats. One person's nervous system is saying I need predictability and safety information, while the other person's nervous system is saying I need autonomy and privacy protection. The fight is often about feeling unprotected, not about morality. A partner can be loyal and still be unsafe with information boundaries. Trust isn't built by more disclosure. It's built by accurate disclosure. Okay, let's get crystal clear on definitions because the confusion between these two concepts is where most of the fights actually live.
[00:04:10] Privacy is choosing not to share information that isn't required for consent, safety, or shared decision making.
[00:04:18] Withholding is not sharing information that is required for consent, safety, or shared decision making.
[00:04:25] Now here's what confuses people.
[00:04:27] They treat sexual as automatically private and non sexual as automatically shareable. But in real life, the required category can include sexual health updates, exposure changes, or agreement shifts, even if those feel private.
[00:04:44] Let me add a third term to reduce confusion. Secrecy. Secrecy is actively concealing information that would change the other person's consent or choices.
[00:04:54] This is different from privacy. It's also different from I didn't want to upset you.
[00:05:00] Here's an important distinction that gets disclosure volume versus disclosure relevance. Oversharing can be a form of avoidance because it avoids the harder conversation about impact. Or agreements under sharing can be a form of conflict avoidance because it avoids anticipated reaction.
[00:05:21] So here's a simple test. You can remember if the information would change how your partner plans their day, protects their body, or consents to the relationship structure it's required.
[00:05:33] If it wouldn't change any of those, it's likely optional.
[00:05:37] Where we flirted heavily might be an optional thing to share with a partner. A required thing to share with a partner might be more like I had barrierless sex when we had an agreement for barriers because it changes risk and consent and two pieces of language to Avoid are First, I didn't tell you because you said you didn't want details when what was missing was a logistics or a safety anchor. And second, if you loved me, you would tell me everything, which collapses autonomy into disclosure volume.
[00:06:11] Now I'm going to introduce you to a model that'll change how you handle information in your relationships.
[00:06:17] I call it the three channels framework. And it's a consent model for information, not a control model for behavior. The goal here is to allow a partner to consent to the category of information before receiving it, instead of dumping everything together and hoping it lands okay, or avoiding everything and hoping that's fine.
[00:06:37] Channel one is logistics, safety and accountability.
[00:06:41] This is the basic information needed for shared reality and risk management.
[00:06:46] What belongs here? Who you're with, Using names or identifying labels depending on what you agree to. General location like the city area, venue type, not necessarily exact address unless that's something you've agreed to. Time boundaries like the start time, expected return time, overnight plans, emergency contact plan like who should be contacted if you're unreachable.
[00:07:12] A transportation plan like are you driving, taking a ride share and if substances are involved and what's the safety plan around driving?
[00:07:21] And finally, childcare or shared responsibility. Handoffs.
[00:07:25] What doesn't belong here? Sex acts, sexual dynamics, play by play, descriptions, kink, details, why? Explanations that become emotional justification or proving you're being ethical through explicitness.
[00:07:41] Here's why this matters for your nervous system. It supports real world safety and shared obligations. It reduces panic spirals that come from uncertainty. It helps partners practice non monogamy without living in constant vigilance.
[00:07:56] Now common pitfalls in this Turning logistics into surveillance demanding constant updates, GPS tracking or minute by minute check ins without mutual agreement and vagueness that functions as withholding, like saying I'm out with no who, no time frame, no return plan when those were specifically agreed upon. Useful phrases for this channel can be logistics only, not details or I'll be with X and Y or I'll be home around 11 or if plans change to overnight, I'll text you by 10.
[00:08:34] Channel two is relational impact.
[00:08:37] This is anything that changes the landscape of your existing relationships. What belongs here? Anything that changes Agreements, barrier use, STI testing cadence new partners, escalation decisions or DS commitments that affect time or attention.
[00:08:54] Scheduling impacts like lost weekends, holiday plans, overnights, recurring date nights Emotional bandwidth impacts like a new relationship, energy surge that changes availability or a breakup that'll change your support needs.
[00:09:10] Resource impacts like money, shared spaces, travel, childcare, cohabitation, logistics.
[00:09:17] What doesn't belong here. Erotic details that don't change health risk or agreements.
[00:09:23] Graphic emotional processing about another partner that effectively triangulates them into your existing relationship.
[00:09:30] Now why this channel is hard People confuse impact with permission sharing. Impact isn't asking your partner to authorize your choices, it's giving them what they need to consent to their own involvement and expectations.
[00:09:46] Common pitfalls can be using impact disclosures as soft disclosures that sneak in erotic detail or avoiding impact because it's uncomfortable, and then calling it privacy. Here's some useful phrases for this channel.
[00:10:00] This doesn't require your approval, but it does require you to have accurate information.
[00:10:05] Or this changes our schedule for the next two weeks. Or this changes my sexual health risk profile so we need to update our agreement. Channel 3 is erotic and experiential detail. This is everything about what actually happened sexually, emotionally or energetically. What belongs here Sex acts, girl group dynamics, kink scenes, intensity levels, role specifics, and crucially, anything the receiver has explicitly asked not to know.
[00:10:36] The consent rule for this channel Opt in only Silence is privacy, not withholding. Oversharing after a no is a boundary violation, even if it's framed as honesty. Why people overshare in this channel? It could be they confuse transparency with intimacy, or they fear being seen as deceptive. Or they're trying to soothe their own guilt or anxiety by confessing. Or they're trying to preemptively defend themselves.
[00:11:04] Why oversharing here actually harms relationships? Well, it can create intrusive imagery, overwhelm, shutdown, or comparison spirals.
[00:11:14] It can function as non consensual voyeurism. It can make future logistical disclosures feel threatening because the receiver associates updates with explicit content.
[00:11:26] Here are some useful phrases for this channel. Do you want experiential details or just logistics and impact?
[00:11:33] Or I have details I could share, but I'm not going to unless you opt in. Let me show you how this framework prevents the collapse I'm going out with Tina and Lisa. Tonight is channel one.
[00:11:45] I'm having a threesome with Tina and Lisa. Tonight is channel three.
[00:11:50] If someone says the second sentence when the partner wanted the first, the partner will likely stop trusting disclosures altogether. And if you want to get sophisticated, there's an optional channel zero identity protection and third party privacy. In non monogamy you also protect other partners privacy. You can't disclose someone else's STI status, trauma history, or personal story casually. That's a separate ethical layer.
[00:12:14] Now I want to talk about why people get stuck in this exhausting loop of either saying too much or saying nothing. Because understanding the mechanism helps you break that pattern.
[00:12:24] What's happening is that the sharer is trying to prevent negative reactions. They treat their partner's boundary as a minefield, not a map. So they either overshare and apologize, or they say nothing and hope it's fine.
[00:12:38] The common beliefs that drive this oscillation.
[00:12:42] If I leave anything out, I'm lying, or if I say too much, I'm cruel, or if I get it wrong, it'll mean I'm unsafe. These beliefs turn information sharing into a performance of correctness.
[00:12:55] The hidden issue here is shame and correctness culture. People try to be the good poly person rather than being clear. They get stuck in performing ethics instead of practicing ethics.
[00:13:07] Here's a line I want you to remember. Fear isn't a good information policy.
[00:13:12] Now, how the receiver sometimes contributes to this dynamic. And I'm not saying this to blame anyone. The receiver may respond to a boundary violation with global distrust. The receiver may punish small mistakes so harshly that disclosures become high stakes.
[00:13:29] This creates an environment where the sharer avoids clarity because clarity feels dangerous.
[00:13:36] What helps break this loop? Clear repair language. Something like that detail crossed my boundary. And I want logistics.
[00:13:44] Clear request language. Like I want channel one updates. I don't want channel three details. From a polyvagal perspective, what's happening is that both nervous systems are in threat detection mode, but they're scanning for different threats. One person's system is scanning for unpredictability and loss of agency, and the other person's system is scanning for overwhelm and evasion.
[00:14:07] When we create clear channels, both systems can relax because the threats become manageable. Alright, so let's get practical. The core method for stopping this guesswork cycle is simple. Label first and then share.
[00:14:22] Instead of hoping your partner correctly interprets the type of information you're about to give them, you tell them explicitly, I'm sharing logistics. I'm sharing relational impact. I'm checking consent for experiential details. And this is why labeling works. It gives the receiver choice and preparation. It reduces defensive interpretation. It de shames clarity. Clarity becomes normal, not an accusation. Let me give you a short scripts for both the sharer and the receiver. For the sharer, I want to share some logistics. I'm with X at Y kind of place and home by 11. Or I want to share about an impact. I'm planning an overnight next week. This changes our schedule. Or I have experiential details. Do you want any of that? Yes or no is fine.
[00:15:12] And then for the receiver, I want logistics and impact, not experiential details. Or if I want details, I'll ask. Or please don't use sexual specifics as a proxy for being transparent. Here's a rule that'll save you a lot of trouble. The two sentence rule. First sentence is category. Second sentence is the required info in that category. And then stop. Don't fill space with nervous chatter that drifts into other channels. Here's an example for the logistics. I'm with Tina and Lisa tonight and home around midnight. And then stop. Don't continue with we're going to this restaurant that has amazing food and then probably back to Tina's place, which is really beautiful and they have this amazing bedroom set up. And here's a repair microscript for when oversharing happens, because it will happen. While you're learning this for the receiver, they can say, hold on, that's channel three, I didn't consent to that. I still want channel one. Please tell me just the logistics. And the sharer can say, okay, I understand just the logistics. I'm with Tina and Lisa tonight and I'll be home around midnight. From a nervous system perspective, this labeling system helps both people's systems stay in ventral connection instead of flipping into vigilance or shutdown. When you know what type of information is coming, your nervous system can prepare appropriately instead of bracing for overwhelm or scanning for threats. Let's talk about where responsibility lies in this system, because this is where a lot of people get confused and start pointing fingers. The sharer is responsible for sorting information appropriately and for respecting the receiver's channel consistency.
[00:16:53] The receiver is responsible for being explicit about which channels they want and for not implying that love equals disclosure volume. I want you to understand that there are two boundary types that get mixed up constantly. A content boundary like I don't want explicit sexual details and a process boundary like I need you to tell me who you're with and when you'll be home.
[00:17:16] Both can happen at the same time, but many couples act like one cancels out the other.
[00:17:22] Here's how consent actually works. The receiver consents to receiving information, not just to the relationship structure.
[00:17:29] Dumping explicit details onto someone who opted out isn't honesty, it's non consensual information exposure.
[00:17:37] And there's another layer here, third party ethics. Even if your partner wants details, the other partners involved may not consent to being discussed.
[00:17:46] A good practice is to treat other partners sexual privacy as protected by default unless there's explicit consent to share. When someone says, I don't want to know details. They're creating a boundary that protects their nervous system from overwhelm. When someone says I need to know logistics, they're creating a boundary that protects their nervous system from unpredictability.
[00:18:09] Both boundaries can exist simultaneously and both deserve respect.
[00:18:13] Before we wrap up, I want to be clear about what this framework isn't about, because some people are going to try to use it in ways that miss the point entirely. This isn't about total transparency. Total transparency is often framed as virtue, but it can become coercive. It can also become a substitute for accountability. People disclose instead of negotiating agreements or doing repair work.
[00:18:38] This isn't about control.
[00:18:40] Wanting logistics isn't wanting control. It becomes control if it escalates into surveillance, constant access, or punitive monitoring.
[00:18:49] But asking who will you be with and when will you be home? Isn't controlling. It's asking for basic information that affects shared life. This isn't about punishment for mistakes. People will make mistakes while learning these channels. The goal is to correct the category, repair quickly and rebuild reliability, not to shame someone for accidentally giving you information in the wrong channel.
[00:19:13] And this isn't about no feelings.
[00:19:15] Some people decline experiential details because they want to protect their emotional stability, not because they're disinterested.
[00:19:22] Declining details can be a form of wise self protection, and that choice deserves respect.
[00:19:29] From a polyvagal perspective, all of these choices wanting logistics, declining details, needing processing time are valid nervous system responses. The goal isn't to have no reactions. The goal is to have sustainable agreements that honor everyone's capacity. So let me bring this all together with a tight recap because I want you to walk away with a clear framework that you can actually use. Channel one is logistics. The who, when, where, how long emergency contact.
[00:20:01] Channel two is impact.
[00:20:03] Anything that changes agreements, schedules, resources, or shared Life.
[00:20:08] And Channel 3 is experiential detail, sex, kink, emotional processing, anything that's opt in. Only privacy protects optional information.
[00:20:18] Withholding removes required information.
[00:20:21] Relevance is the filter, not comfort, not mood, not anxiety. Here are two reflection prompts to take with you.
[00:20:29] Where have you been? Using discomfort as the filter instead of relevance.
[00:20:34] Which channel do you actually need from your partners? And which channel have you been accidentally requesting? And here's one practice that'll change your relationships. Have a short conversation where each partner states I want channel one updates in these situations or I want channel two updates when these things change.
[00:20:55] Or channel three is opt in and this is my current yes or no and here's your final takeaway. You don't need more disclosure. You need cleaner categories. Before we close, I want to give you a moment to pause and notice what's coming up for you after this conversation, think about your current relationships or relationships that you've had in the past.
[00:21:16] Where have you felt overwhelmed by too much information?
[00:21:20] Where have you felt anxious from too little information? And notice what that felt like in your body when someone shared explicit details that you weren't prepared for. Where did you feel like that landed? Maybe your stomach dropped, or your chest got tight, or you felt heat in your face.
[00:21:38] Now think about a time when you got exactly the information you needed. Nothing more, nothing less.
[00:21:44] Maybe it was I'm going to be with Sarah, I'll be home by 10.
[00:21:49] Or maybe it was plans changed and I'm staying over, but everything's fine.
[00:21:54] Notice how different that felt. That difference you're feeling right now? That's your nervous system showing you the difference between information that supports safety and information that creates overwhelm. Both types of information might be true, but only one type serves connection.
[00:22:12] And if you're recognizing patterns where you've been either oversharing or undersharing, I want you to notice that without judgment, these patterns develop for good reasons, probably to manage other people's reactions or to protect yourself from conflict. The goal isn't to shame yourself for those patterns. The goal is to build more clarity going forward.
[00:22:32] So here's what I want you to take away from information. Hygiene isn't about controlling people.
[00:22:37] It's about creating sustainable systems that honor everyone's nervous system capacity. When you stop treating information sharing like a minefield and start treating it like a sorting system, you can build relationships where people feel both informed and protected, where transparency serves connection instead of serving anxiety.
[00:22:59] So take this three channel framework and use it.
[00:23:03] Practice labeling before you share. Practice asking for what you actually need instead of what you think you should want.
[00:23:11] Practice saying, that's Channel three. I'm not consenting to that. When someone overshares because polyamory is hard enough without accidentally violating each other's boundaries while trying to be honest, it's hard enough without withholding necessary information while trying to respect privacy.
[00:23:28] These channels will help you navigate both.
[00:23:31] If today's episode gave you language for cleaner communication in your relationships, subscribe to Untamed Ember wherever you get your podcasts and join my newsletter @untamed ember kit.com for deeper dives into relationship dynamics, consent, culture, and practical tools that actually work.
[00:23:49] And if you want hands on practice with these frameworks and many more. Check out my workshops on the website@untamed ember.com your relationships deserve information systems that serve connection and not confusion. They deserve boundaries that honor everyone's capacity, not just the person who talks the loudest or needs the least.
[00:24:07] I'm Dr. Misty, and this has been Untamed Ember, and I'll see you next time for more science story and rebellion in service of your unapologetic connection.
