Polyamory is relatively new, and consequently not well defined. The poly community is still experimenting and feeling out how to define its terms. I get asked a lot about what it means and whether one thing or another is or is not poly. When asked about my relationship status, I sometimes just say I am an ethical nonmonogamist, since that starts the kind of conversation I actually want to have with someone in order to explain my own sitch.
But my own sitch is my own sitch. Polyamory is inclusive of countless different relationship styles. One of the fundamental core values of the polyamory community is that we should get to negotiate the kind of relationships we want. Tradition is a square peg for a round hole. Rather than force ourselves to follow some culturally fabricated and packaged script of what a relationship is “supposed” to be or how it is “supposed” to proceed, we can just create the relationships we want, and proceed in the way we want. The outcome in practice is: there are lots of different ways to do poly. Mine is just what I’m doing now. In some respects it’s what’s best for me. It will never suit everyone else. In other respects it’s just what fits my current circumstances, which could change.
So what is poly?
What’s a Definition For?
Of course we do need to distinguish “dictionary polyamory” (Merriam-Webster says its “the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time”) from polyamory as a community with a set of values. Ironically, atheists who think “dictionary atheism” is a thing, and therefore atheism has nothing to do with values, contradict themselves by insisting atheists adopt a whole slew of values—such as for logic, evidence, supporting science and skepticism, not supporting religion and supernaturalism, being a social justice warrior against anti-atheist discrimination in society, law, and government, and more. Dictionary atheists aren’t really a thing. Anyone who actually fits the description is scorned and mocked as kooks or apatheists by those who claim to be dictionary atheists but are actually “forcing a values agenda down everyone’s throat” (to borrow their own silly vernacular).
But the usual list of values readily accepted by self-described Dictionary Atheists as being essential to any self-respecting atheist as well as any organized atheist community is sociopathic. It only ceases to be so when humanist values are added to the list. Atheism does not semantically entail any values. You can be an anti-science, pro-religion, faith-cherishing, woo worshipping irrationalist who thinks anyone who openly admits to being an atheist should be shot—and still be an atheist. But. “Atheists ought to be humanists” is still a factually true statement—and not only because this is required to discredit theists who claim atheists are sociopaths with no values. But by the same reasoning, one can be poly by the dictionary, but it remains the case that if you are poly, you ought to be learning and living the core values of the progressive polyamory community. Which are, minimally: honesty, respect, communication, and equality (which unpack to include values for consent, autonomy, and negotiation, among other things). Wikipedia has a broader introduction to polyamory and its values.
For this reason, someone who isn’t living by those core values can validly be said to be either “not really poly” or (more accurately) “doing poly wrong.” And that’s fair. It’s the only way to ensure polyamory remains progressive and not destructive, a human good rather than a social problem. But this means there are two things that can be meant by the sentence “I’m poly” (or “their poly” or any variation thereof). It can mean only that they have multiple open relationships. Or it can mean they strive to live by the core values of modern polyamory (which is inclusive of the other meaning). This also means that when someone asks “What is polyamory?” or “What do you mean when you say you are polyamorous?” they could be asking for either—or probably both. In fact, you almost certainly don’t want to answer with the dictionary definition. Especially if you want them to date you. But even if you just want people to respect and understand polyamory—and you. (The same goes for atheism. “I’m an atheist with no values” is a doomed pickup line. And does not do wonders for respecting and understanding you—or atheism.)
As a result, the dictionary definition is inadequate for what these words are used for. When we are talking about an identity label, which always implies some set of goals and values, and if we actually want to know things about a person, or want them to understand and respect us, we need the broader, community definition. And in practice, that’s what we usually use anyway.
“We’re Not Swingers”?
But even with this understood, there is some confusion around. There are, for example, at least three things that you might be confused about if you try googling around to know what poly is. First, why polyamorists are obsessed with insisting they aren’t swingers. Second, whether polyamory is “about sex” or “about love.” And third, whether polygamy counts as polyamory.
The third confusion is easily dispatched by the core values argument. Indeed, technically polygamy is not even an open relationship, because the women aren’t allowed to have other partners. So whether it even meets the dictionary definition is a quibble. But certainly, as equality is fundamental to the polyamory movement and community, if you aren’t letting the girls do it, you aren’t poly. Or maybe at the most charitable, we’d say you are doing poly wrong. Note that this connects to one of the most common questions I get when I explain I do ethical nonmonogamy: “Do your girlfriends get to date other guys too?” (It rarely occurs to them to ask whether they date other girls too.)
A close competitor for my most asked question is, “And your girlfriends are okay with that?” (It rarely occurs to them to ask whether I have boyfriends who are okay with it.) The answer, of course, is yes. Which gets us to the second confusion. Often you’ll see 101s on polyamory insisting it’s not about sex, it’s about love (or at least implying it, like this brief definition from the Polyamory Society). That of course isn’t true.
Polyamory without sex is just having friends. No one calls having friends poly. Or nonmonogamy. Or cheating, for that matter. Even monogamy culture doesn’t object to partners having Platonic friends, even very close ones. And when it does (in the most abusive variants of monogamy culture), it’s only for fear that they will have sex. And people don’t just often have loving, intimate friendships, they can also have multiple loving, intimate relationships with their family. So obviously polyamory is about sex. It is the rejection of monogamy, and monogamy is only about having sex with one person. Love without sex is just a deep friendship or filial bond.
However, that should by no means diminish deep nonsexual relationships: they are real, important, and as respectable as anything, including marriage. The notion that they are not is a defect in any culture that thinks so. And for that reason, “polyamory” might still be a useful label for overcoming social prejudice against nonsexual intimate relationships. That possibility is still being explored by those who are employing it to that end. If it makes sense for two people in what they would call a romantic nonsexual relationship to call themselves monogamous (if such they were), then it can make sense to call themselves poly (if such they are). So although I will continue here under the operating definition that polyamory is distinguished from monogamy by its open sexuality, I think there may yet be room for a secondary usage for nonsexual bonding.
However, core values again. Though polyamory is primarily defined by one’s sexual behavior—being the only thing that distinguishes polyamory from having friends or close kin—the polyamory movement and community is very ardent in advocating that relationships incorporate a component of love as well. The word, after all, means “many loves.” Although it also means “many lovers.” And polyamorists vary in their criteria for what counts as “love” in this equation. So we should not be overly restrictive in what counts as love. But love has to mean something. And that’s a substantive requirement of polyamory as well.
Most explicitly, if you are only having openly nonmonogamous casual sex with people you don’t even consider your friends, and don’t even want anything more than that, then you are hardly recognized as poly today. That is so contrary to poly values that polyamorists don’t want people thinking they act like that. So they prefer to deny them the label. Though that grates against the dictionary definition. If they are being honest and open, they are technically polyamorous, unless you define “romantic” very narrowly. But it does warrant questioning why someone would not even want to be friends with their partners, or care about them at all. That does not sound good. For anyone. There are positive scenarios imaginable, however.
But this then gets us to the first confusion. You will often hear polyamorists insist they are not swingers. That swinging is not poly. And things of similar sort. Why on earth are they saying that? What’s the difference? Why do they care so much about the distinction that they can blow their tops over it? The distinction is weak at best. Not only because most polyamorists also swing, and most swingers live their alternative relationships identically to many polycules. But also because “swinging” is more a myth in people’s minds than the reality of what actually goes on. Polyamorists have an idea in their head of what “swinging” is, and it’s not actually what most swinging is (although sometimes it is). Many swingers are mutual friends. Or become such. Or are looking for such. Or prefer such. And friendship is love. And wanting friendship is wanting love. And that’s poly.
Because love comes in many degrees. We love our family. We love our friends. We might even love our neighbors. Or our fellow earthlings altogether. “Romantic” love, at least in the most common parlance, does not mean anything other than love + sex (or at least the prospect of a sexual component). Remove the sexual component from any relationship deemed “romantic” and what you have is simply identical to many a deep friendship or kinship. And even “romantic” love varies in degree. And in direct parallel, some friends we love more than others. So it is not plausible to demarcate poly from non-poly nonmonogamy by reference to whether we “love” our other partners. If you care about them, you love them in some degree. And if you don’t care about them, you are a sociopath. Which means whether you are “technically poly” should be the least of anyone’s concerns about you.
But also we must come full circle to the original point: that polyamory is about negotiating the relationships we want, and accordingly there are many ways to do poly (I’ll give some examples later), and that this is a good idea because tradition is a bad idea. When poly communities try to demean and exclude “swingers” (whatever they mean by that; it varies), they are doing the same faulty thing the gay community does when they try to live just like monogamous straight married couples: trying to fit the mold of what society says is “respectable” in order to have respect; rather than fight for the fact that they deserve respect just as they are, and that respect should not have to come at the price of adopting someone else’s cultural straight-jacket. Apart from some set of core values, of course—respect does have to be earned, but it ought not have to be earned by following traditional scripts, which do not actually realize those core values or have little to do with them.
When poly communities try to demean and exclude “swingers,” or even insist on things like the polycule sharing common meals or doing specific kinds of recognizable romanticky things, they are losing the narrative: they are trying to be “respectable” by the standards of monogamy culture, and not by the standards of what ought to deserve respect. Solo polyamory and relationship anarchy have arisen in protest of this. But there needn’t be any strong distinction. Polyamory should be inclusive of all ethical nonmonogamy that meets the same core values (and thus isn’t sociopathic), regardless of how any particular sexlife realizes those values.
For a really thorough analysis of this point, and some sensible philosophizing about how to correctly apprehend the problems defining polyamory, the social politics of it, and other related questions, I highly recommend PepperMint’s Defining Polyamory: Inclusion and Exclusion at Freaksexual. Written back in 2008, it still holds up as relevant and thorough. I find myself pretty much agreeing with all of it.
Styles of Poly
Because polyamory is a broad tent term that includes a lot of different styles of nonmonogamy, it can’t really indicate by word alone which style a person wants or is in at any given time. It ranges from solo polyamory to polyfidelity and includes many different kinds of relationship structure. More in fact than I can describe here. More probably than I can even think of. But I often get asked questions that assume strange things about what polyamory entails. Like, “What will you do when you get old?” or “So you don’t ever want kids?” These are bizarre questions. Countless polyamorists are married for life and have kids. The questions are also a bit prejudiced, of course (nope, lots of people don’t want kids—including a lot of women; and worrying about what a polyamorist will do when they get old seems to harshly ignore the fact that widows and widowers are a thing—not to mention divorcees). But they also betray a failure to understand the options available to the polyamorous.
Here are some of the various relationship styles I have observed—some because I am dating someone in them, others because I am friends with someone in them—and all correspond to numerous cases just like them that I have confirmed in the literature or directly myself (by knowing more than one example personally), so none are unique (and in many particulars I have left the gender unstated, to remind you that these configurations exist along all axes of gender and sexuality):
- A married couple who live together and have kids, in every way just like any other marital unit—and openly date people on the side.
- A married couple with children who live with a third (forming a triad) with her own children by a previous relationship, sleeping together (all three share the same bed) and raising all their children in common, and allowed to take occasional lovers on the side.
- A married couple without children who both date regular partners and swing.
- A married couple who have a “don’t ask don’t tell policy” in result of which each has a few ongoing love affairs and occasional one night stands.
- Six unmarried people sharing the same household and finances and often meals as well, and who all have deep emotional bonds with each other, and all have sex with each other in various configurations on a regular basis, and occasionally date outside of the group as well.
- Two neighboring households each containing triads (three people together) and raising children, sharing child care duties from house to house, with strict rules limiting affairs outside the sextet.
- A straight single woman with no children (nor any intention of ever having children) who absolutely never wants a husband or live-in boyfriend ever again, or any relationship that ties her down, loves living alone, and who has numerous lovers with whom she has excellent friendships with and goes adventuring with, and also has casual sex with other men she takes a liking to whenever she wants.
- A single woman raising her own child who dates several men openly, depending on none of them for child care (but sharing custody with the child’s father, whom she has divorced), and also has various kinds of casual sex adventures on the side.
- An ummarried woman who lives with a man and has over a dozen lovers among her friends, while he dates other women much more occasionally.
Any or all of these arrangements are available to you if you are polyamorous. The difficulty of arranging or keeping them is certainly no greater than you’ll face with monogamy (though depending, I must assume, on where you live). And this list is by no means exhaustive. If you can imagine it, and really would like it, someone out there will probably also be keen on the idea. Poly relationships vary from primary (usually meaning someone one lives with, is married to, or otherwise organizes their life around), to secondary (a non-primary regular lover), to tertiary (a more occasional lover), and a polycule can contain any one or more of these in any combination. Polycules can exist alongside swinging, sex clubbing, one night stands, and other casual encounters (in fact I have found polyfidelity to be quite rare, and some amount of casual sex seeking common). Poly relationships can share homes or not, be local or long distance, vary in their involvement in any childcare or finances (from none to all and every measure in between)—and, again, have any of these in any combination.
Conclusion
Polyamory is basically ethical nonmonogamy. It is the acceptance of more than one sexual partner. It is also the acceptance of more than one emotionally intimate sexual partner. If you are seeking and committed to ethical nonmogamy even when you have no current relationships at all, or just happen to have only one, you are still poly. Because being open is being open, regardless of when you get to enjoy the benefits of that. And that distinction remains with monogamy. Similarly, someone who is asexual can also be poly even in the sexual sense, by being in or fully open to a relationship with someone (or even someones) who retain their sexual freedom. Because they are not forbidden to have multiple sexual partners; they simply don’t want them. But they also don’t need (or maybe even don’t want) a monogamous relationship either.
I’ve also been asked if polyamory should be regarded as a sexual orientation. That depends on what you mean by the term. But since it is certainly true that the desire to be nonmonogamous—and the discomfort at forcing yourself to abide by external cultural norms instead—is real in many people, and varies in intensity on a spectrum from zero to full-on, it certainly correlates with orientation. Similarly from the other perspective: many people literally don’t mind or even don’t want their partners to be sexually faithful to them, and may even feel very strongly about this. Polyamory can also be the target of discrimination. And it is connected to a community developing its own culture. It therefore does not differ from other sexual orientations in any significant respect that I can see. The primary axis of orientation is the gay-straight axis, with bisexuality at the middle. But we already acknowledge asexuality as a sexual orientation. And that entails a second axis, also from zero to full-on—asexual to hypersexual—with average libido at the middle. It would not be inconceivable then to add a third axis, perhaps from radical monogamy to polyamory, with serial monogamy in the middle (radical monogamy being the rejection of even serial monogamy), reflecting the heartfelt preferences of a subject on the spectrum.
But whether we call it an orientation or not, it is a lifestyle and identity label. And since polyamory is an identity label, people get to identify with it however they want. Many people I know who might be called swingers are actually just as poly as many a polycule. But they assume, because it is often advocated, that polyamory means “more” than that—and they don’t want people mistaking them for that—so they don’t identify as poly (this way of defining the “swinger/poly” distinction is the tack taken at Loving More). There can be other reasons not to, even when you actually are poly by some objective standard of classification. There is an analog to this in the way many people who don’t believe in gods also choose not to identify as atheists, but by some other label (such as “agnostic”). That’s their right. You should generally respect that. Likewise when an asexual person needs the polyamory label to define the particular relationships they are in.
You can only rightly question someone’s self-identification when it literally does not make sense, as for example someone identifying as an atheist who believes there is an actual supernatural God. You get to question that. Or someone who claims to be a feminist, but only attacks feminism and defends sexism and misogyny. Or someone who claims to be a progressive but whose politics is wholly right-wing. By the same token, people who cheat on an otherwise monogamous relationship shouldn’t get to claim they are poly, because that is not an open relationship. And if someone who is a relationship sociopath—as in, openly nonmonogamous but not caring about any of their sexual partners—comes along and insists they are polyamorous, you can at least justifiably say they are doing poly wrong.
But you don’t get to say swingers aren’t poly, if poly they claim to be, and if they realize the core values of polyamory in their own way: caring about their partners as friends or potential friends, respecting them, communicating, and being honest about it all. And, of course, being legitimately open. Which means, as I answered my building superintendant recently, “Yes. The girls get to do it too.”
You define romantic love as friendship + sex.
That does not describe my experience at all. The emotions I have felt for my romantic partners have been and are qualitatively different from the emotions I have felt and feel for my friends, including friends I have been sexually attracted to, or had sex with, entirely apart from the sexual component.
Me, too. But you and I are not everyone. Many people do feel that way about friends or family. Minus the sexual component of course. We can’t judge the world by our own limited experience. Everyone is different from us and has different experiences.
Hi, Richard! 🙂
I have just a couple of points to make, if I may. First, you’re going to get disagreement from the asexual and non-sexual people for define away their relationships as “not love” because they don’t have sex. Sex isn’t a requirement of a romantic relationship. Those who have live without sex can still be poly, if they fall under the “open relationship” umbrella.
Second, swingers don’t all identify as poly, and in my personal experience, people who refer first to themselves as “lifestylers”or “swinger” don’t want the poly label because they’re not open to their partner having outside romantic relationships. Just going by my personal experience (10 years) swingers call themselves that to distinguish themselves from polyfolk precisely because they don’t want their partner being with anyone they have romantic feelings for. Among the group I was in, people were quite specific about ending relationships if one person developed feelings. I also saw several divorces because one partner wanted to be with someone else romantically, and their partner couldn’t handle that.
Also, I don’t identify as a swinger anymore, because I’m not open to casual sex. I’m actually monogamous with my boyfriend, though that could change if I met someone I seriously wanted to date. I think polyfolk like me vehemently deny the swinger label because we simply don’t identify with it, and because we do NOT want people thinking they can approach us for casual sex. In the poly group my partner and I socialise with, I did my best to make this very clear. Nevertheless, more than one guy approached me with the assumption I would be into casual sex. Their approach was not unlike the ones I get on OkCupid – totally presumptuous and more than a little bit rude. As you are aware of, there are women who are into heavy-handed, sexual come-ons, and there are other women who are not. By being clear you aren’t a swinger, you have a higher chance that would-be seducers won’t approach you.
Believe me, I’m not trying to put on a veneer of “respectability” – I honestly enjoy my non-normative, pervert status quite a bit! (Relish it, even!) I simply don’t like to be hit on by guys who are only looking to get laid and who think all poly women are “available”. Yuck!!
And just to add to your collection of poly structures, here’s mine:
– Bisexual, unmarried woman (soon) living with a bisexual married man, who has casual sex with men and women; whose wife has several romantic male partners; none of whom identify with the “swinger” label.
Interesting, isn’t it? 🙂
Just to clarify, I definitely don’t call sexless relationships “not love”! I said not romantic. And explained that they were love. And arguably that even depends on whether we restrict romantic love to sexual relationships. The word originally referred to nonsexual ones. Language has changed. But if someone wants to apply the old use, and makes clear they are, that’s fine. It just then won’t mean what most people take it to mean. And it will then apply to far more relationships than are usually contemplated.
I know of intimate friendships and family relations (often sibling) adjunct to marriage that have every depth and component of anything we would call nonsexual romantic love. We don’t call that poly. Because it has rarely been called a violation of monogamy. Except when the fear attended that it would become sexual. Even when it led to emotional detachment from one’s spouse, the criticism usually was “you don’t love me like that/anymore” and not “you are cheating on me” or “you aren’t being monogamous.” (There was also a study done that found that even people who said emotional cheating was a thing, upon questioning revealed it was really about the fear it will become sex. I can dig that reference up if requested.)
On your expansion of what some swingers think, I agree, and that falls under the umbrella of my pointing out that many people who look poly don’t identify as poly. But I know people who do identify as poly and also restrict romantic relationships. So the distinction is vague in practice. Those I know who do that don’t see a loving friendship as romance. For them, it’s just poly with rules, limiting the time and resources you can divert to a partner. This is why trying to make these distinctions often fails to match reality. PepperMint’s article covers this problem in greater detail.
On avoiding the label, that’s another reason. Although identifying as poly often has the same effect: everyone just assumes you are a swinger anyway and thus available for sex. Educating the public is thus still necessary. Although that might have the same effect for swingers: if we promote a proper consent and respect culture, the problem would diminish for both groups.
And thank you for sharing your structure! It’s valuable for people to see how many variations are possible. And how other people vary from themselves. Combating bi-erasure, especially for men but also women, is likewise helpful.
Firstly, I don’t think Poly is a new lifestyle.
Secondly, I don’t think you can exclude the “bad” polys from the definition of Poly just because they are unethical.
Last (but not least): Why was your building superintendent quizzing you about your sex life?
That aside we are getting some interesting insights into this phenomenon.
Firstly, you might be right. It was hard to find evidence, but I do believe we have found some that it did exist even two thousand years ago (see my talk on Sex and Sexism in Ancient Rome). It just didn’t have a name or a culture. What’s new is that, and its going public. Causing more and more people to ask, “What is that?” And those doing it, “What is this?”
Secondly, I agree, hence I called that (doing it wrong) the more accurate thing to say. But the other thing will still be said. I will often take it as a different way of saying the more accurate thing. And that perhaps depends on what’s being done wrong.
Lastly, it’s common to ask about relationship status in casual convo (in California at least; in the Midwest I hear the standard ice breaker question is “What church do you go to?”; I prefer the California custom). I always answer honestly. That leads to questions. Plus, of course, he’s going to see me coming and going with different girls, and have to awkwardly chat with or avoid them, so it’s better he know so it’s less awkward.
My comment got deleted. I must have been too off topic. Sorry.
Yes. Please do monitor staying on topic.
“Atheists ought to be humanists” is still a factually true statement”
For you. (And for me,) But not in general. It’s a statement of opinion.
Not true. For the formal case that such statements are falsifiable statements of empirical fact, and not just “opinions” (I think you must mean “desires”) see my chapter on moral facts in The End of Christianity</em>.
“When we are talking about an identity label, which always implies some set of goals and values, and if we actually want to know things about a person, or want them to understand and respect us, we need the broader, community definition.”
This doesn’t seem consistent with what you have said about identity labels in the past. In your feminism posts you have shrugged off the silly elements of the feminist movement by insisting that we all have the right to define our own feminism, practice be damned. Now, when it comes to polyamory, you are arguing for a normative, community-based concept. That seems like a contradiction.
I happen to agree that the meanings of identity labels, like the meanings of words, ought to be determined by practice and usage, but I also think that we should be not be selective in applying that standard. In my opinion you need to be more clear about when and why one gets to define a label for oneself.
Not really. I have consistently said false feminists exist. For example, I’ve repeatedly pointed out that Christina Hoff Sommers is one. And I give the criteria in the post you are now commenting on: “someone who claims to be a feminist, but only attacks feminism and defends sexism and misogyny.” That’s just like being an atheist who believes in God. That is consistent with defining your own feminism. Because feminism does not entail every position any feminist happens to take. But it does entail something. If it didn’t, the word would be literally meaningless.
And in that, I agree with you, that labels should mean something universal (“feminists are against sexism”), but at the same time not justify false generalizations (“feminists are against high heels,” the example I gave in Why Atheism Needs Feminism of a position one needn’t take to be a feminist…and of course, that most feminists in fact don’t take).
This polyamory thing is no different than swinging, open marriage, separated but still married, season of love, or even cult. You are free to do as you will. If your girlfriend wants to have an affair and you are OK with it, so be it. And vice versa. A return to the 60’s? Whatever. This type of thing has been going on for centuries – you haven’t invented anything. You’re giving it a new name. Why? Do the existing names have connotations that you don’t like? If it makes you feel better by calling it some other name, go ahead – but you are asking for trouble.
And, especially if you are married (gay or straight) and/or have kids, you are putting forth a horrible example and exposing yourself to legal ramifications. I say it’s immoral to do so when you have committed to a monogamous relationship – but if you both agree, fine. But deal with the legal consequences when it all falls apart. These types of relationships go south quickly. And you are really showing a lack of moral fortitude (and boy do I hate to use that phrase) if you have kids. If you have kids, this is a bad, bad idea.
Not one of your better ideas there Richard.
We are developing an ethical culture and an identity that allows us to build public awareness and acceptance. Just like atheism (why name that?) or humanism (why name that?) or being gay or bi (why name those?) etc.
I don’t know what you mean by “asking for trouble.” That’s like saying naming and advocating acceptance of homosexuality is “asking for trouble.” The people causing the trouble are the ones in the wrong. Not the other way around. Especially in child custody issues.
As to your claim that “these types of relationships go south quickly,” that’s factually false. They are no less stable than monogamous relationships. Yet by being multiple, they are collectively more reliable (because when one fails, you have others already working as backups).
There is also no evidence that poly groups raising kids is bad for them in any way. It’s even biblical (apart from the Bible not allowing equality). Polygamy was standard in the days of Moses and the Laws of God, and even in the time of Jesus was legal and common among the Jewish community and even the Christian community—leaders only were asked to restrict their number of wives, and that was simply so they could secure legal status and respect among the pagan authorities—because it was pagans, not Jews, who outlawed polygamy—yes, monogamy is a pagan idea.
All in all, you are (a) making tons of shit up and (b) not even paying attention to the article you are commenting on. You should look at yourself in the mirror and ask, out loud, why you just did those two things.
Not at all true if “you” is plural here. Richard is free to report on developments that others make in areas important to him and they will be no less novel to many of his readers because others accomplished them. Since I trust he’s putting things into his own words, he need not cite anything – it’s good etiquette to link to internet sources you’re using, sure, but blogs are very informal by nature and intent. I don’t think Richard has claimed to have “invented” polyamory, whatever that would mean (since you’re clearly excluding “coined” from “invented”).
So, really, what’s your beef? That you don’t know what’s new about polyamory? Because that’s on you. Richard’s provided some and there’s much more out there. But polyamorists have provided a new formulation of old critiques of monogamy combined with a semi-novel set of ethical principles (the closest of which I’m aware was actually in the 19th century, not the 1960s) and a truly novel practice of community building.
it’s the last, in particular, that justifies giving members of this new community their own name.
Finally you say:
and you also say:
Are you incoherent on purpose, or did your momma just dress your argument funny?
Just a correction to that last: I said he was (a) making tons of shit up. 🙂
Mr J:
I don’t know how I forgot to address this, I did note it when reading.
Mr J, perhaps you missed this, but polyamory is predicated on not committing to a monogamous relationship. Polyamorous relationships are not monogamous relationships in which two or more parties agree to have sex and/or romance with still other parties. That’s not even remotely coherent.
I now know why you don’t think polyamory isn’t anything new: you literally haven’t learned the second thing about it. Frankly I’m surprised you even learned the first thing, its name, given how insurmountably tall your reading comprehension hurdle appears.
I think he means, cheating is bad unless you have permission (then it’s not cheating), in which case he is just agreeing with us.
Those relationships fall apart quickly, you say. Do you have evidence, or is this an assertion you are making due to your own personal disbelief?
May I ask, how do you measure “quickly” and how do you measure “successful”? That is, in comparing open relationships to monogamous ones, what parameters are you measuring by?
I ask, because the divorce rate is pretty high, and statisically speaking, most of those people were monogamous. Also, statistics say most divorces occur within the first 10 years of marriage. Is that not “quickly?”
In addition, there exist long-married monogamous couples who aren’t happy. Are they “successful”?
My boyfriend and his wife have been married 11 years. He and I have been together for 6. Is that not successful?
Just wondering how exactly you’re measuring this.
(Also remember marriages are also not the most common monogamous relationship. When you include all monogamous relationships, the “failure rate” if you want to call it that, is staggeringly high. They even had to invent a word for it: “serial monogamy”)
Sorry, one more thing. Polyamory is very different from swinging. If you equate them, then you don’t know anything about either.
I’m polyamorus, but I’m not a swinger. See?
Several thoughts, though first a general agreement with much of what you wrote.
1st:
I’d prefer to see you say “women”; “girlfriends” I’d generally let slide.
2nd:
Respect each individual’s choice, yes. But being able to observe this dynamic should indicate a need for some intra-community soul searching. Intra-community policing about who is “really” or “objectively” trans* certainly co-occurs with an insistence on respecting individual choices about membership/identification. If people are “worried” about not being “poly enough” to take the label on themselves, then I think we as a community should take the lesson from trans* communities and be worried about why others are worried.
3rd: In your discussion of romantic love, you state:
I think I agree with this, but this sentiment is in part why I don’t agree with
When defining “lesbian” or “dyke” I tend to write something like:
“a woman who is open to having romantic and/or sexual relationships with women, whether or not she has had or currently has such relationship/s”.*1
In defining poly, I would do much the same: use “romance and/or sex” where you have just sex. In addition to sexual persons’ common misunderstandings of asexual relationships which can complicate welcoming asexual people with romantic attractions into poly communities, there can be many reasons why people don’t have sex that don’t include unwillingness and many cases where what is sex to some doesn’t count as sex to others. [On this point in particular I recommend the wisdom of Garfunkel and Oates, the artists behind “The Loophole”.] Not wanting to spend my time in classically Clintonian definitionalizing, I find the inclusion of non-sexual romance to be a better approach on many levels. I’m not attempting to mandate it, of course, but I do think you should consider it.
4th: I think we agree not only on what you said, but on what I’m about to say, regarding poly insistence that “we’re not swingers”. But you didn’t happen to express something that I consider quite important. Let’s start with what you did say:
Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. And in the preceding paragraph*2 you articulated this positive statement:
What you didn’t say, and what pepomint did not say at Freaksexual, is this:
*1: For lesbian I might add: “but is not open to having such relationships with men, whether or not she has had such relationships in the past”. Typically, however, I wouldn’t add that, not least because it invites distracting confusion over corner cases such as a woman who realizes that she really doesn’t want relationships with men anymore even though she’s currently in one and extricating it, for very human reasons, doesn’t happen as quickly and easily as one can recite, “I’m a lesbian”.
*2: I found it odd that you wrote these things in this order, but apparently my synaptic firings do not dictate the order of your synaptic firings, more’s the pity.
You know, I have no idea how I ended up placing that link at the bottom of that comment. I know I copied it for something else I was writing, but I don’t remember pasting it here and certainly didn’t intend to do so as it wasn’t relevant to anything we were discussing. I do like how Hilary’s campaign rolled with the gaffe rather than trying to scream “ZOMG, WE HATE ANAL GUYS. REALLY!” just because some automated formatting of the word “Analysis” created an inconvenient word fragment. But like it or not, it’s irrelevant to the discussion. I wish I could have deleted the link. Sorry, Richard.
No worries. I’ll delete it myself. I’m leaving this comment up so others will note that I do this sort of thing (more often than you might realize, since I don’t usually post the correction comment, as it wasn’t intended to be published anyway, but I just realized that makes the whole phenomenon invisible…so, note to all: I have no problem following edit requests in followup comments; I might not heed them all, but I usually do).
I’m sympathetic to all of this. And they are remarks worth reading for everyone’s consideration as well.
(I’d just add the trivial qualifier for myself that “girls and guys” is California dialect. It does not imply infantilization, for example. It’s just how we normally speak. I’d rather people not treat “girl” derogatorily than that they police the word. Infantilizing our youth is a bigger problem, IMO. And policing “girl” is similar to calling guys “girls”: it implies there is something wrong with being one. And I don’t like that. Except…)
…I should also mention that I’m sympathetic to the other concern, as well, because it still exists. So in some circumstances, for example professional settings, I try to avoid using the vernacular “girl and guy”, precisely because of the need to bypass the prejudices they can evoke.
There is a lot of straightwashing going on here. Queer people have been engaged in nonmonogamous relationships for generations, partly because of disenfranchisement from state-recognized relationships, partly because of general rebeliousness against the oppressive mainstream. Affluent white people columbused it and packaged it as “polyamory”. The difficulty in finding written (rather than oral) history on this phenomenon is a continuation on the violence against our people.
I can’t speak for asexuals but the ace community has many educational resources available online. Please do look into polyamory and asexuality, as they’ve been doing a lot of valuable work that is of benefit to all relationships types (mono/poly, sexual/ace, etc). Polyamory needs to be made more accessible, and it’s our job to put in the labor to ensure that happens.
I agree that is a problem when poly communities try to create a respectability that plays on straight culture, rather than accepting that gay culture already had this. And yes to the rest!
I’ve recently been thinking about how I would be fine with a partner who liked to occasionally enjoy sex outside of our relationship. So long as our bond is strong, I don’t see the problem, and if our own bond is weak, there are other problems anyway. I have no interest in doing so myself when I’m with a partner I find satisfying (and I’ve learned to quickly break things off with a partner that is dissatisfying). Based on many discussions, I’d say I bond more strongly than most people (that feeling of infatuation that strongly grows from having sex such that I feel mild forms distress when not with that person, and just being in their presence makes me more relaxed and trusting, and perhaps more importantly for this distinction, other potential partners just don’t seem very interesting to me anymore), but I don’t think I’m terribly far from median (definitely median, mean is tough to judge from casual conversation). Nevertheless, I wouldn’t describe myself as poly, I’m not searching for a poly woman where we would be the primary bond–my ideal relationship would be a woman that feels as I do. But I’m accepting of such a difference if we otherwise connect very well.
I think it’s a stretch to say that because I agree with the principles you idealize in polyamory: honesty, respect, communication, and equality–I idealize those values, too–that I’m part of the poly community. I think you overstate that holding those values necessarily result in polyamory. And because a substantial proportion of humans, very possibly a majority, don’t have the same bonding experience as me, or others like me, doesn’t mean there is not a substantial proportion of humans that do. I think there are many people, that should they embrace the same values, they should be considered monogamous.
That said, one of the valuable things about a more vocal polyamorous movement is to create an ethical path to interactions that would otherwise be considered ‘cheating’ and a greater compatibility, or at least understanding, of the more monogamous minded and the more polyamorous minded. This is to say I view things on a 2-d axis. Ethical, and unethical. Poly and mono. I would classify you as an ethical poly, and me as an ethical mono. The real problem is with unethical values, not our preferences for single or multiple sexual relationships.
Ug, reason to read slower. I completely missed the non in your ethical nonmonogamy. Kind of makes everything I said pointless.
As someone who is both polyamorous and polyromantic I tend to quibble about romance needing sex. I have deep friendships with people who I love like family and I have romantic relationships with people I don’t have sex with. Nor do I see myself getting that intimate for varying reasons.
Many asexual people are capable of romance without sex. Physical and emotional intimacy are not exclusive to sexual desire.
Otherwise, wonderful article. I will definately share this with my spouse and the poly community in my area.
I agree “physical and emotional intimacy are not exclusive to sexual desire,” but do be aware, people have those kinds of relationships in all cultures—with certain members of their family and friends. Maybe this is a Western Protestant thing? Assuming that friendships and kinships must be more distant (physically and emotionally) so as not to be “mistaken” for sexual relationships? I’m not sure. But what you are talking about, I have seen frequently in the world, especially outside the U.S., but even here. And no one thinks to call it romantic. It might even be sad that we have to call it “romantic” or “polyamory” to make a friendship or kin relationship that deep respectable. It looks to me like that is the real problem here. But certainly it would not be incorrect to use those labels, provided the people you are using them with understand you don’t mean by them what most other people do. Unless, of course, you need to mislead them in that way, in order to secure the respect from them your relationship deserves. But then, the real problem in that case is still with them.
I very much doubt that sleeping in a bare skinned cuddle and the range of kissing and caressing is common between friends and family even outside the western world.
Unless, they’re very very close. And with family that’s just awkward and taboo regardless of culture.
It’s very much courtship behavior, minus the inclusion of genetalia.
“No homo” is largely an American disease, though. Kissing and holding hands and hugging and even lounging or sleeping together are not uncommon friendship behaviors in other cultures. The most homophobic Christians even have to admit Jesus cuddled his best friend (John 13:23). Because that wasn’t unusual. Margaret Cho has a routine describing such a friendship her dad had in Korea. It is only the increasing fear of “being gay” in certain Christian cultures that has placed this behavior under suspicion. And notably, why is it under suspicion? Because everyone thinks it is or will lead to sex (or laugh at a guy when it’s with a girl and it doesn’t). It is thus still all about sex. Even when it isn’t for the people doing it.
Update: After many helpful discussions and comments, I’ve improved the article slightly. I still don’t think it’s perfect. But I think it’s better after these revisions:
After the paragraph beginning “Polyamory without sex is just having friends” I have added a much needed paragraph:
Because the original text could have been taken as implying otherwise. Accordingly, where I wrote “Though polyamory is defined by one’s sexual behavior” I revised it to say “primarily defined.” Likewise where I said romantic love “does not mean anything other than love + sex” I have revised to say “at least in the most common parlance.” And when I said “someone who is asexual can also be poly” I now say “someone who is asexual can also be poly even in the sexual sense.” And after “You should generally respect that” I have added “Likewise when an asexual person needs the polyamory label to define the particular relationships they are in.”
Then after the sentence “the polyamory movement and community is very ardent in advocating that relationships incorporate a component of love as well” I have added this:
Since that did not seem to be adequately emphasized. Accordingly after the later sentence “It is the acceptance of more than one sexual partner.” I have added “It is also the acceptance of more than one emotionally intimate sexual partner.”
I have also added to “and it’s not actually what most swinging is” the parenthesis “(although sometimes it is)” so as to make clear the word “most” was in there. And conversely, after the sentence “That does not sound good. For anyone.” I have added “There are positive scenarios imaginable, however.” So as to not misportray aspects of the swinging community (positive or negative).
Oh, and just so there will be a convenient one-stop place to reference this point:
When you get the lame joke that polyamory is an abomination because it mixes Latin and Greek, point out that if someone thinks this is an abomination, they are in serious trouble:
“The most common form of hybrid word in English is one which combines etymologically Latin and Greek parts.”
In fact, “Since many prefixes and suffixes in English are of Latin or Greek etymology, it is straightforward to add a prefix or suffix from one language to an English word that comes from a different language, thus creating a hybrid word.”
Common examples:
Television
Homosexuality
Sociology
Electrocution
Automobile
Biathlon
Bioluminescence
Dysfunctional
Genocide
Geostationary
Hyperactive
Meritocracy
Neuroscience
Neurotransmitter
Quadriplegic
Etc.
I like the improvements, Richard, and I like the transparency of documenting them. Thanks!
I just did a couple of short blog posts which, among other things, address the question of the rights of people in Poly Relationships. See:
http://palpatinesway.blogspot.com/2019/08/brainwashing-wonder-years-or-trauma-of.html
http://palpatinesway.blogspot.com/2019/08/things-i-learned-from-seinfeld-last.html