Lets talk Labels.

graviton

graviton

New member
So I see the words "poly" and "mono" thrown around a lot and there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition for either. For example I have seen people described as being strongly monogamous in the following cases
1. someone that only has the desire to be romantically involved with one individual and expects the same from their partner
2. someone that is OK with their partner having other lovers but they don't want other lovers
3. someone that has or wants other lovers but needs their partner(s) to be monogamous to them

Similarly I have seen people described as polyamorous in the following examples
1. someone that wants or has other lovers and is OK with their lovers doing the same
2. someone that wants or has other lovers but expect their lover(s) to be monogamous to them

What are your thoughts about the disparities and overlap between the two?
In order to be truly poly shouldn't it be necessary to accept that your lovers can and should be able to have other lovers without resistance coming from your end?
In order to be truly mono or poly shouldn't it require consistency not just on your end of things but also being accepting of the same label and lifestyle in your partners?

We all know the easy part of being poly is the additional lovers, and that the harder part is accepting metamours.
 
This came up a while ago on a different forum (I think somewhere on Fet, but don't hold me to that) and I came up with what eventually evolved in my head into "Poly Type Chart"

Poly Type A: Attracted to Multiple people
Poly Type B: Comfortable when their partners are involved with multiple people

Poly Type Chart

A/yes A/no
-------------------------------------------
B/yes= AB Poly B Poly

B/no= A Poly Mono


Yes, the parallel to the typical "blood typing" chart is intentional


This bit of silliness aside, I think it is important to not get too caught up in labels. The most common usage i have seen is Poly=wants to/is involved with multiple people at once, and Mono=wants to/is involved with one person at a time

I don't think there is anything that requires a monogamous person to insist their partner also be monogamous--if there was Mono/Poly relationships wouldn't be thing, which they very much are.

I do think there are ethical problems with a poly person saying they want their partners to only be in a relationship with them. But poly folk are human, and some of us do deal with jealousy and control issues.
 
Sam told me because im not willing to be with poly guys im not poly. It's not so much them being poly (nate has multiple lovers for example ) its mostly im not willing to be with someone who has a live in partner. It just makes sense for me to be with someone who is mono. If someone wants to say my preference to avoid conflict and drama means im not poly doesn't bother me.
 
I'd think dating mono guys would just lead to more drama than having a living in partner, but to each their own.

Have you tried looking for solo poly guys to date? No live-in partner drama, but by none of the drama from dating mono guys either.
 
JessicaBurde said:
I'd think dating mono guys would just lead to more drama than having a living in partner, but to each their own.

Have you tried looking for solo poly guys to date? No live-in partner drama, but by none of the drama from dating mono guys either.
Click to expand...


It actually hasn't been. He's a super busy guy with lots of friends and he actually likes having me gone :p he's said he really likes this dynamic and he didnt think he would in the beginningm id say 90% of the drama actually came from nate. The entire time we'd been together he'd had about 20 other lovers while I had only a few and those were only when wec had been swinging then I hadn't been with anyone else before Sam for 2.5 years. He had a very hard time sharing me when he had never had to before.

I dated a couple in 2011 but the guy wasn't cool with his wife dating my husband (she wanted to date him). They had a lot of issues so they weren't acceptable. I dated a guy who had a poly partners (he had his own apartment within the big house ) but he also wasn't acceptable due to personality compatibility. I had just wanted to meet a cute, funny, smart, sweet guy who didn't have kids, lived alone, had a job, and had a vehicle that I could spend 1 night a week with and be able to do stuff with/talk on the phone.
 
We tend to use the same word to conflate personal love-style (for lack of a better term) and relationship style, which leads to an awful lot of confusion.

I personally see love-style as a spectrum akin to the Kinsey Scale. I lean strongly monogamous, as I only want one partner, and would probably be horribly conflicted if I were to nurture feelings for another. An aspect of *my* love style is to focus my romantic energy (so to speak) on my partner, and a lack of focus leaves me feeling not all that committed. In my blog, I equated that to a pendulum-style: http://frombaltictoboardwalk.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-analogies-and-love.html

I would *prefer* a mono relationship style, but what I *really* prefer is a relationship with my partner, so I'm able to compromise on that.

The conflation of love style and relationship style gets weird when, say, you have a poly person who, for whatever reason, isn't dating. Or... they're only in one relationship at the moment - a more de facto monogamy. Are they not poly? I say sure they are, because they have the desire/inclination to have multiple partners, regardless of whether or not they do.
 
Perhaps it would help to look at it as poly or mono people who are in poly or mono relationships.

A poly person (defined here as someone with the capacity/desire to have multiple loving relationships) may have only one partner at a given point in time, however it's their relationship that's mono, not them.

A mono person (defined here as someone with the capacity/desire to have no more than one loving relationship at a time) may be in a relationship with a poly person who has other partners, meaning that they're involved in a poly relationship, however remain mono themselves.

The type who identifies as poly themselves but can't handle the idea of their partner being with anyone else but them could fit in as a subset of the second group, where the mono person is mono through agreement rather than desire. This could work well where the mono party is actually mono, but if they're poly it probably won't be sustainable for the long term because as with the first group it's their section of the relationship that's mono, not them.
 
I've always assumed that the word described what YOU do/are, not what your partners do.

I'm polyamorous because I have/am open to having multiple loving relationships (sex and/or romance may or may not be involved in each relationship for me).

A person is monogamous because they only want to have a single romantic/loving/sexual relationship (it all seems to have to get bundled into one person if one is being monogamous).

So my polyamory doesn't change if I'm dating a monogamous person. Likewise, their monogamy doesn't change, if they feel that I meet all of their needs and are only having a sexual/romantic/loving relationship with me.

Make sense?
 
Here is our take on labels. After 38 years of having sex with her girlfriend, I asked my wife for the first time if she considered herself bisexual. She responded by saying that she never thought about it. Imagine that. She still does not know what label fits her since she is only sexual with one woman her whole life and that was after many years of being just friends. She has no idea of how she would feel with another women sexually and never had sex with her girlfriend unless I was part of it. She could be heteroflexible or bisexual but she does find women attractive at times when she sees them on TV but never pursues them in real life and does not have the urge to. She basically just likes having a male and female in bed with her that she loves. That is her idea of good sex.

As far as your various forms of poly goes, as an old timer, for us poly was several people living within the same relationship and not everyone having outside relationships. My wife was fine with me having relationships with other women and in fact, it was her that invited her best friend to have sex with me. Luckily that turned into a 38 year poly triad that was wonderful for all of us.

Much of what I see today can be called open relationships, hot wife, etc.. I sometimes feel that those who do things that we called something else in my time, slap the label of poly on it so that they can more easily sell it to their other partners. :) Men and women in my time often had more than one boyfriend/girlfriend. Nothing new about that. Husbands and wives had mistresses and lovers. Many times it was known but unspoken. No one called it poly though.

Am I wrong or does it appear from the many posts I read that most of these poly relationships do not last long or are problem free as our poly triad was?
 
Len51 said:
Am I wrong or does it appear from the many posts I read that most of these poly relationships do not last long or are problem free as our poly triad was?
Click to expand...

As we are taking labels I think you need to consider what you would mean by "successful" or "problem free". As a committed feminist I could never see a relationship that was unequal in its rights, restrictions and obligations on different sexes as problem free or successful. I would judge a successful poly relationship on one that was loving and ethical while supporting equality of opportunity and expression. Longevity would not feature as a success criteria. I know many unhappy people with long marriages.
 
Len51 said:
Am I wrong or does it appear from the many posts I read that most of these poly relationships do not last long or are problem free as our poly triad was?
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's normal. Think about monogamous relationships. Most mono people I talk with about poly compare the "success" rate of poly to the success rate of mono marriages. (Success being defined by longevity, which as ZigZag points out has it's own problems, but we'll run with it.)

However, comparing poly relationships to mono marriages is highly inaccurate. Think of all the mono relationships people have, from dating in high school to the singles scene, to engagements that get broken off, to senior dating, to divorcees hooking up, to (yes) marriage. How many of those relationships meet your definition of "successful?" Damn few. For most people, it takes a lot of failure to find what works, and that's as true of poly as monogamy
 
graviton said:
So I see the words "poly" and "mono" thrown around a lot and there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition for either.
Click to expand...

That's because labels are inherently vague. They mean whatever the person using them (to describe themselves) means by it.

3. someone that has or wants other lovers but needs their partner(s) to be monogamous to them
Click to expand...

I've never seen anyone use mono this way (though I support them if they choose to). Do you have some examples from the forum?

The way I see it, whatever behaviour someone prefers in their partners is irrelevant to their own personal identity. Generally speaking (and subject to personal interpretation): You're mono if you only want to be with one person; You're poly if you want to be with more than one person. Whether you want your mates to be mono or poly doesn't affect that.

In order to be truly poly
Click to expand...

I absolutely abhor the usage of the word "truly" before any label, be it mono, poly, bisexual, asexual, male, female, etc. It's elitist. It assumes that the person using it is some kind of (self-proclaimed) authority on what is and is not <the label>. It implies that failing to meet the so-called authority's definition eliminates your right to self-identify however the hell you want. Frankly, that's pure and utter bullshit.

For all I care, a man could be dating two other men, and identify as a monogamous lesbian. It's not my place to tell them they're wrong -- it's their identity! They can label it however they want!
 
JessicaBurde said:
However, comparing poly relationships to mono marriages is highly inaccurate. Think of all the mono relationships people have, from dating in high school to the singles scene, to engagements that get broken off, to senior dating, to divorcees hooking up, to (yes) marriage. How many of those relationships meet your definition of "successful?" Damn few. For most people, it takes a lot of failure to find what works, and that's as true of poly as monogamy
Click to expand...

It confuses me that some people define success as "together until death."

Relationships come and go. They fill a role while they're happening, and when they stop fulfilling that purpose, they ought to end. Sometimes they don't end in time, or people don't allow them to end smoothly and hold on well after the good times are gone... and to me, that's the definition of unsuccessful.

Was reading a book the other day, one character described himself as having been happily married for three weeks, but that was 20-some-odd years ago, and it's been miserable ever since. That's not successful. Meanwhile, a marriage that lasts 3 years and then ends amicably is perfectly successful.
 
Emm said:
Perhaps it would help to look at it as poly or mono people who are in poly or mono relationships.

A poly person (defined here as someone with the capacity/desire to have multiple loving relationships) may have only one partner at a given point in time, however it's their relationship that's mono, not them.

A mono person (defined here as someone with the capacity/desire to have no more than one loving relationship at a time) . . .
Click to expand...
That would only work for people who view polyamory and monogamy as orientations, something a person is. I don't see poly that way. To me, poly is just an approach to relationships, not a type of person or personality trait. I am open to poly, want poly, practice poly, therefore I am a polyamorist. I am not, however, polyamorous if the word is being used to describe me, rather than what I do. I don't believe in the concept of people being "wired" for one relationship type or another.
 
Last edited:
graviton said:
We all know the easy part of being poly is the additional lovers, and that the harder part is accepting metamours.
Click to expand...

I can grapple with jealousy like a champ, but by far the hardest part of poly has been truly and deeply allowing lovers into my life. So - other way around for me.

Be that as it may, there is no such thing as "true poly." Polyamory means many loves and by its very definition has infinite ways of appearing.
 
nycindie said:
That would only work for people who view polyamory and monogamy as orientations, something a person is. I don't see poly that way. To me, poly is just an approach to relationships, not a type of person or personality trait. I am open to poly, want poly, practice poly, therefore I am a polyamorist. I am not, however, polyamorous if the word is being used to describe me, rather than what I do. I don't believe in the concept of people being "wired" for one relationship type or another.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about this lately - the idea of if people are "wired" to be poly or monogamous.

I've heard some people talk about being monogamous in the same anguished tones that I've heard gay people talk about dating opposite sex partners before they could safely be openly gay. Jonathan has always been poly - even before he knew what poly was, he wasn't comfortable agreeing to be monogamous with someone. I asked him to describe why not once and he said it felt being forced to go against an integral part of himself.

Myself, I definitely chose to be poly and honestly, it makes me feel like the same way about my sexuality. Though I'm bisexual, I never felt like something was missing if I was dating only one sex. I'd dated a lot more men than women because my experience with gay woman has been that they generally don't want to date bi women, and sadly, the bi women I've met and been attracted to were either very transitory in my life or I learned very quickly weren't emotionally/mentally compatible to me. If I had to choose one sex and only be involved with that sex, it would suck, but I don't think it would feel like an integral part of my soul was being damaged.

Jon feels the same way as I do about being bisexual. He's had relationships with men, but not nearly as many as women (for similar reasons to mine). Like me, he thinks he'd enjoy having more same-sex relationships, but doesn't feel strongly enough about it to pursue them exclusively, and although he'd never want to NOT be bi, if he was never able to date men again, he wouldn't feel damaged by that.

So could it be an orientation for some people but a choice for others? The same way that bisexuality may be more of a choice (instead of a driving imperative) for some bi people?
 
LizziE said:
I've been wondering about this lately - the idea of if people are "wired" to be poly or monogamous.

So could it be an orientation for some people but a choice for others?
Click to expand...

I have been wondering this same thing. I struggle with labels because they often feel confining to me. There are days when I feel like I desire a little of this and a little of that, but to say "I am (this or that)" would not always be true. I feel like many of my choices are born out of circumstance and experience.
 
There *must* be something like a poly orientation.

I was comparing notes today with a girl I'm interested in who is very similar to me. I mentioned that right from my earliest crushes I never got jealous or insecure about girls I liked being with others. Sometimes, by way of revenge, people went out of their way to try to make me jealous and I had NO IDEA that was what they were trying to do. Instead I'd be happy or excited for them. She (the girl I was talking to) was very much the same.

From what I've heard personality is partly genetic, partly conditioned by peers and family and partly 'noise'. My peers and family have surely played a large part in my poly-friendly ways. I also realise I've never known my brother to get jealous, which is interesting. The difference between me and him is he's always been a serial monogamist when in significant relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top