How do you understand polyamory?

[anamikanon]

I noticed here that most people who identify as poly seem to be in multiple relationships already or seeking them. On the other hand, I am in one relationship (which I hadn't seeked) and not seeking any. I don't imagine seeking in the future too, though it is tempting to add "at this point". Relationships for me "just happen" - I meet someone, we click, sometimes it grows. But I met the person in the course of life.

I tend to form deep relationships with a lot of involvement. Casual sex isn't for me, nor is taking relationships lightly "together while it works" kind of thing. If I get into one, I do it with a degree of commitment that expects a shared future. So I tend to not get too involved or commit unless I'm fairly certain I want the person in my life. Dating seems to be a waste of time. And my life is usually rich with things I enjoy (romantic or otherwise - often geeky projects/hobbies) so there isn't exactly a "vacancy" to fill or "missing a relationship" kind of feeling.

I identify as poly anyway because even when I didn't have partners, and now when I have one, I am still clear that it was neither a belief in celibacy or monogamy. I can have as many relationships as I want, right now one qualifies. And Spexy was aware of that from the word go. He knew when we came together that I wasn't promising monogamy and that even if I die single, I still won't promise monogamy.

As in, for me, it isn't so much about the actual number of relationships as managing them in a manner that doesn't deny me the freedom to fall in love. Whether one or none existing partner or many (obviously with communication and caring for any existing partners)

It occurred to me that poly may translate to many things to many people. So, I wanted to know.

How does polyamory play out in your life?

 

[kdt26417]

I only have one partner; she has two (my metamour and me). I am not looking for any new partners, but I am also open to the possibility of new partners. Basically I am involved with poly on a philosophical level.

 

[Marcus]

There are various definitions of the term polyamory. Folks can't generally arrive at a very good one. Check out the definition on this site:

Polyamory n 1: the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2: romantically loving more than one person at a time 3: responsible non-monogamy based on honest open communication and conscious choices​

The definition on Wikipedia is the one I like the best... at least the first part. I have no clue why they smushed "polysexuality" on there.

Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved. It has been described as "consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy", and may or may not include polysexuality (attraction towards multiple genders or sexes).​

The inclusion of "desire, or acceptance of" makes this a definition I can get behind. It doesn't insist that we are currently in multiple relationships or even actively seeking them out.

I tend to form deep relationships with a lot of involvement. Casual sex isn't for me, nor is taking relationships lightly "together while it works" kind of thing. If I get into one, I do it with a degree of commitment that expects a shared future. So I tend to not get too involved or commit unless I'm fairly certain I want the person in my life. Dating seems to be a waste of time. And my life is usually rich with things I enjoy (romantic or otherwise - often geeky projects/hobbies) so there isn't exactly a "vacancy" to fill or "missing a relationship" kind of feeling.

This is a description of how you approach relating to other people romantically, in my opinion. While you and I appear to approach romantic associations very differently, we are both polyamorous, at least according to the less restrictive definition above.

 

[anamikanon]

Thanks Kevin, that sounds similar to where I am.

Thanks Marcus, the second indeed is a definiton that fits me too even though not "actively" poly. Though I guess it may not fit DADT - or it may, if DADT is consensual... I wonder what other variations are out there in how it is seen.

 

[Al99]

Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved. It has been described as "consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy", and may or may not include polysexuality (attraction towards multiple genders or sexes).

This seems to me to be a solid definition that covers all the bases. While I am new to poly, I have read quite a bit already - and it does seem to me that the two primary aspects of poly are:
1. "More than two" - multiple long term, committed, romantic/sexual relationships.
2. Knowledge and consent of all involved.

But perhaps the phrase:
"practice, desire, or acceptance of" is also essential to gain a fuller understanding of who practices poly. I heard or read somewhere something to the effect of: "You are not really poly unless you can happily accept that you partner has other partners" - so it is not enough just to desire multiple partners (most people do - even if they keep it buried and don't act on it) - one also has to embrace their partner's doing the same.

So when we refer to poly/mono marriages - if the mono partner has no desire to have other partners - but accepts that his spouse does, the mono partner might actually be considered poly as well from the perspective that he accepts his spouse having partners. Semantics perhaps but I find it an interesting thought. (Switch genders if desired - English needs a gender neutral personal pronoun).

I am on one leg of a V with my wife as the hinge and her bf as the other leg (some might call it an N - since he is in an DADT open marriage - but since she is not even aware of the V - I really don't think of her as in it). I am not currently involved with anyone else - so practicing mono. But it might be argued that I am poly also because I accept the situation. However, I am also potentially now open to having a partner myself at some point - so that would also cast me in the poly party.

Best to All,

Al

 

[anamikanon]

I read your story, Al, on the other thread. I do think that accepting poly amounts to being poly in the sense of recognizing that love isn't a "one vacancy" deal. Whether a person wants multiple relationships or not - for whatever reason - is another issue. Like one can believe in monogamy but remain celibate.

Interesting that accepting poly has helped you become curious of the possibility for yourself. Something similar happened with Spexy. He hadn't really given nonmonogamy much thought (he had never had reason to), but when we found each other interesting and I was very upfront that though I was single and we may be going somewhere, he should know that there was no way I'd agree to monogamy. He was taken aback and we discussed my reasons a bit, but he found himself agreeing that they made sense.

In our relationship, he was actually the first (and so far only) to attempt a second relationship. It didn't go well, but he did find that poly fit his feelings once it sank in and he found himself attracted to a woman friend.

 

[Nadya]

The definition on Wikipedia is the one I like the best... at least the first part. I have no clue why they smushed "polysexuality" on there.

Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved. It has been described as "consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy", and may or may not include polysexuality (attraction towards multiple genders or sexes).​

The inclusion of "desire, or acceptance of" makes this a definition I can get behind. It doesn't insist that we are currently in multiple relationships or even actively seeking them out.

It is a very common misunderstanding that one needs to be bi in order to be poly - this especially about us women. Many people think automatically of FMF triads and especially FMF threesome sex when they hear the word "polyamory". So maybe that is why there is the part in Wikipedia that polyamory "may or may not include polysexuality". Just a guess.

I also like the words "desire, or acceptance of" in the definition. I used to be poly in theory ie. have the acceptance of, and later a desire as well, to having multiple romantic partners, many years before it actually happened. For years I thought that I'd like to be one of "sister wives" with a shared husband - and considered myself poly even though I did not imagine having multiple relationships myself. Well, things are different now Also, my partner Mark does not want other partners in addition to me but he definitely is very accepting of my other relationships - so he would be poly, too, according to this definition. That sounds right.

ETA: I only joined this forum after I had my two relationships. Before, when things were just theoretical, I did not have a strong urge to discuss it. The practicalities of actually living the multi-partnered reality were the reason I felt the need to have support and read about how others do it.

 

[Spork]

Personal freedom is really important to me. The freedom to seek one's own happiness and authenticity.

So I don't really much like "Poly is always this and never that" or the same to be said for, say, any aspect of BDSM or any number of other things.

I loathe the idea of rigid social scripts that dictate how we are supposed to live and love and be. Hate it. So to me, some of the mono vs poly ideology hasn't really got a lot to do with actual mono vs poly and what that means. A lot of it is just the ability to be flexible in your thinking and living, and find security in things that society has told you aren't ok.

I am ok with only having one man that I am escalating into a really strong romantic partnership with. But my social life will ALWAYS have a fairly significant cast of characters. I have dealt with in the past, and a close friend of my partner's is in right now, a situation where the man felt really threatened by the wife's desire to have male friends. Because the male friend either maybe or definitely wanted to get sex with her. I say, "so what?" If he isn't going to force the issue, and if she isn't going to cheat, and is managing the situation, so hecking what if she just ignores his continued expressions of interest, having told said friend "it ain't gonna happen" and gets what she gets out of that friendship? The male who feels threatened and "gives her an ultimatum" that she's got to end the "inappropriate" friendship, is following a very mono social script.

People with at least exposure to poly ideology though? I like to think we know better. I'm friends with men who might want to sleep with me, and at least one who definitely does. They know I'm not interested or available for that, I've told them so. That any flirtation is only for social fun, and not "with intent." I've been quite clear on that point with them. And my good judgement and intuition tell me I'm not in danger of any consent violations. So. Zen knows all about it, Zen trusts me, he knows that I was poly as heck when we first got together, and if I needed to do something like that again, we would talk about it. I feel safe telling him the truth, and he feels safe that I WOULD tell him the truth, and it's goddamn glorious.

Meanwhile, I do have some flashes and flares of love or even sexual intimacy with another woman on occasion, well, he is knowing and consenting of that.

Even though we are pretty much mono together, Zen and I, I really think that there is a freedom, respect, trust, and honesty that I've seen "script following" mono folk struggle or fail to achieve. I brought a lot of poly learnin' to our mono lifestyle.

As for him, he says and acts as a mono man to me, but I have thought "what if he did find someone who is to his taste, who wanted to have a close friendship, or a play partner relationship, or even a sexual relationship with him? How would I feel about that?" Honestly? I think that while there was a time I would have said "I don't get jealous" and there have been plenty of times that some folks would expect jealousy to happen and I have not felt it...if this happened now, with him, I probably would feel jealous. And I would hope that we could talk and process and get through it, but I would never say "I can't have you doing this because it causes me bad feelings."

So to me, a lot of what poly is about is trusting your partner enough, that you don't need to try and control them. And owning your own emotional processes, instead of expecting your partner to own them for you and tailor all of their behavior to keeping you comfortable. The stuff that makes other relationships (no matter how invested or casual, sexual or friendly or family-like) possible, which could not thrive in the "mono script" environment.

 

[vinsanity0]

"Practice, desire, or acceptance of" works for me, though being merely accepting of poly people does not make one poly.

Being single doesn't make a mono person not mono just because they happen to not be in a relationship at the time. Likewise, being in only one relationship (or none) doesn't mean a poly person isn't poly.

 

[Marcus]

being merely accepting of poly people does not make one poly.

There is certainly room for disagreement about this statement. I had a metamour at one point who felt that, in a way, his ability to embrace his partners freedom and independence said more about his status as poly than did his own desires to have multiple partners. I have considered that the mono-poly spectrum is a not a valuable scale; that the real spectrum is more closely related to self-reliance, acceptance of difference, and the need to control... that kind of thing.

It's a conversation worth having, at least for academic entertainment.

Being single doesn't make a mono person not mono just because they happen to not be in a relationship at the time. Likewise, being in only one relationship (or none) doesn't mean a poly person isn't poly.

Agreed. Though, strangely, I've seen people actually try to argue against this reality. I don't get it.

 

[Spork]

From conversations with my ex and others, I've found that it might be more accurate than asking if a person is poly or not, to see if they have the ideological flexibility to consider it a viable thing or not.

My ex was a hardcore "I don't get it and I could never." He actually looks for reasons to judge people for doing things he "doesn't get and could never" such as poly. So he views every breakup or hiccup in a poly person's love life as PROOF that "poly doesn't work." He seeks justification to label it as sick and/or wrong.

Then I know people who might think on it a bit and decide that perhaps they could do it, or maybe they'd rather not, or maybe in certain circumstances, or perhaps in some ways. But ultimately, they don't see others doing poly (even if they are doing mono) as wrong or in any way less valid. They see it as one of a number of potentially valid and viable life choices to choose from and live, and they don't judge anybody. And that person, even if they never have multiple concurrent partners, is in my opinion, closer to poly than someone like my ex. They at least have some openmindedness about it.

And I look at people I've known all my life who would say that they are mono...and as tradition goes, they are...but they have very close and meaningful and affectionate lifelong friendships that they don't consider to be romantic. Personally...sex off the table does not invalidate a relationship that is so close it may as well be familial, and I sometimes think people get a little weird about the significance and importance of sex. And in my life...what is sex, even? I have all sorts of sensual play with people that does not cross the line into intercourse, at the club. Does that not count? What about when Fire had her hands in me, did that not count? To many men, it doesn't. To me it did. Is our relationship therefore still sexual? Why does it matter?

I dunno. I'm still trying to figure out things sometimes. My "breakup" with my quad was so strange. For me, I was just looking at it like, "Something about this situation is really stressing me out. I need to change something." I decided it was that I felt this need to live up to the "girlfriend" label for too many people, and with the other obligations on my time and energy, I felt like I was spinning my wheels...trying but not doing it right or doing enough...so I wanted to redefine in ways that took the pressure off. And I was (still kinda am) baffled that if we're only having sex maybe once a month TOPS, if that, why is it a big hurtful thing to pull off the label and to take the sex part out of it? Like for the men in the quad at least. But just not having sexual access or the possibility anymore apparently WAS some kind of hurtful. Well. All I can say is that if somebody wants to keep having a "relationship" with me, they need to put more effort into certain of my needs than anyone in the quad was doing, or it's gonna just feel like friendship to me, and I'll wind up treating it accordingly. (Maybe? Likely? Probably? But...wasn't the friendship the important part?)

However...you take somebody like my ex, or like this one friend of Zen's...those men would be furious that I still would meet up with either of the men I'd previously had sexual relationships with, at parties or events or even at, say, Hefe's house...and I would hug them, give them friendly little kisses, scratch their backs, they see me naked, Hefe and I have done electricity scenes...the only real boundary there is that we're not touching each other's genitals anymore. But when I redefined everything, I specifically asked Zen where he would be comfortable with me placing boundaries. And that was the place. We negotiated it. I think he knows that even if we are D/s at some point, I won't be in a relationship with a man who is insecure and feels a need to control me because of it.

Now my ex would have never trusted that I could be around a previous partner, at their house, maybe with my clothes off, that a certain amount of affection might even occur, and that I would NOT let it lead to sex. But he does not live in a world of negotiation and informed, enthusiastic, explicit consent. He lives in a world of "give her alcohol until she trips up and lets you in her panties." A world of games and where frank negotiation is distasteful. A world that an awful lot of "normal" people live in, too.

So yeah, sorry for the novel, but I see greater cultural differences...between "normal" (mono, vanilla, default, American, traditional, what-have-you) society...and poly, or kinky, or consent-oriented "alternate lifestyle" people...who seem to see a lot of things very differently in a more general sense.

 

[vinsanity0]

There is certainly room for disagreement about this statement. I had a metamour at one point who felt that, in a way, his ability to embrace his partners freedom and independence said more about his status as poly than did his own desires to have multiple partners. I have considered that the mono-poly spectrum is a not a valuable scale; that the real spectrum is more closely related to self-reliance, acceptance of difference, and the need to control... that kind of thing.

It's a conversation worth having, at least for academic entertainment.



Agreed. Though, strangely, I've seen people actually try to argue against this reality. I don't get it.

Ah, but that person is practicing poly to some extent by having a poly partner. I was thinking more along the lines of I accept gay marriage but I'm not gay. Or I accept that some people are mono, but that doesn't make ne mono. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs.

 

[opalescent]

One of the best 'definitions' of poly I've come across is basically you are poly when you accept that your partner has other partners. (I wish I knew who came up with it.)

I find this a useful turnaround of the more common definitions because it refocuses poly to how you handle other people doing their thing instead of centering your own partnerships. Now I don't think it's a 'complete' definition but I find a handy way to think about polyamory.

 

[kdt26417]

Good point opal, it is a little hypocritical of someone to want extra/poly partners for themselves, while not wanting the same for their nesting partner.

 

[Lea]

"Practice, desire, or acceptance of" works for me, though being merely accepting of poly people does not make one poly.

Being single doesn't make a mono person not mono just because they happen to not be in a relationship at the time. Likewise, being in only one relationship (or none) doesn't mean a poly person isn't poly.

I have to agree with this more so. Being accepting of poly doesn't 'make one able to have or want to have multiple relationships themselves.

I do see it a little different than "well I accept that people are gay but that doesn't make me gay" because the partner is PART of the relationship.

But, for example, my husband and boyfriend accept that I am bisexual and they are involved with me, but that does not make them bisexual just because they are involved with someone who is.

So I don't see someone as being poly just because they are involved with someone who is. I seem them as being accepting that the person they love is different than they are.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of ...

Nope, sorry -- it stuck right at that point.

I hate the word "tolerance." To me it's always meant "putting up with the irritant, minute by damned minute, to prove what a morally superior person I am." When I recently happened to see South Park's "The Death Camp of Tolerance," I totally laughed my ass off.

But I have worked hard for many years for as much conscious acceptance as I can find in my heart.

Then again, merely because I can fully accept the individuality & uniqueness of the many people in my life who are somehow different from me DOES NOT somehow make me one of them. To me, that's just another shading of the "morally superior person" thing, not a large step away from "minute by damned minute."

I've loved a few women, & deeply. That doesn't make me a woman.

I loved someone who's black, proudly & even militantly. That doesn't mean that I love all African-Americans (a proclamation that is simply a less-visited facet of racism), much less that I have somehow BECOME black.

As for "desire," I'm willing to (yet again ) risk being called elitist, & say that I do not feel that someone who is "poly-curious" -- or, better still, might someday eventually get around to being poly-curious -- is AT ALL even remotely "equivalent" to someone who is sustaining multiple deeply intimate relationships right damned now.

 

[Halcyeus]

One of the best 'definitions' of poly I've come across is basically you are poly when you accept that your partner has other partners. (I wish I knew who came up with it.)

I find this a useful turnaround of the more common definitions because it refocuses poly to how you handle other people doing their thing instead of centering your own partnerships. Now I don't think it's a 'complete' definition but I find a handy way to think about polyamory.

This is a great practical definition and one I will use going forward.

By that definition I am so very much poly yet few, possibly even none, of my partners has ever been poly themselves, including my current partner. Its been a very common experience of mine to date someone who is really happy with the freedom to see others but can't cope with me doing the same!

 

[Spork]

Nope, sorry -- it stuck right at that point.

I hate the word "tolerance." To me it's always meant "putting up with the irritant, minute by damned minute, to prove what a morally superior person I am." When I recently happened to see South Park's "The Death Camp of Tolerance," I totally laughed my ass off.

But I have worked hard for many years for as much conscious acceptance as I can find in my heart.

Then again, merely because I can fully accept the individuality & uniqueness of the many people in my life who are somehow different from me DOES NOT somehow make me one of them. To me, that's just another shading of the "morally superior person" thing, not a large step away from "minute by damned minute."

I've loved a few women, & deeply. That doesn't make me a woman.

I loved someone who's black, proudly & even militantly. That doesn't mean that I love all African-Americans (a proclamation that is simply a less-visited facet of racism), much less that I have somehow BECOME black.

As for "desire," I'm willing to (yet again ) risk being called elitist, & say that I do not feel that someone who is "poly-curious" -- or, better still, might someday eventually get around to being poly-curious -- is AT ALL even remotely "equivalent" to someone who is sustaining multiple deeply intimate relationships right damned now.

Does one need to somehow love all persons of African ethnic descent in order to not be racist? Because I can't really imagine LOVING all persons of any race. Frankly...at the risk of pulling this thread out of kilter, I really do think that it's a fair approach to come to every interaction with a stranger, with a basic respect and well..."tolerance?"...a readiness to be accepting, a basic sense of human compassion.

But I'm willing to say that there are millions of black Americans who prefer fashion and entertainment and other life priorities that don't align with my own preferences, which means that we are less likely to socialize. I won't be in their circles and spaces, they won't be in mine. The same holds for a majority of Latino/Latina/Hispanic folks, plenty of Asian immigrants I'm sure, and loads and loads of white folks.

The white gals who are all "OMG SHOES" and listen to girly pop singers? Nope. The white folks who own commemorative Nascar plate collections and listen to country and have camo painted trucks? Nope. The white folks who are proud to be part of the HOA and the PTA and the church bake sale? Nope.

Some stereotypes are actual pictures of actual people living actual lives. And plenty of 'em...I am not gonna be friends with. Some of them I might even give a bit of side eye over some of their life choices. Plenty of reasons for that. Skin color barely factors when I can start talking about all of the preferences and goals and lifestyles that divide us. And yet, there is a difference between, "You know...we don't actually have to be friends." and "You really should change to be more like me, because I can't stand you and I think that you are less, or wrong, or damned, or not as human, or not as deserving of rights..." What tolerance was supposed to be, was live and let live. What it became is, live and let live but I still don't have to like it and would rather if I never had to see it and I don't want anyone to think I'm hateful or bigoted but I'll vote for things that will screw your life. Tolerance became a joke. Some people manage acceptance. But that still doesn't mean you are part of the marginalized group, that they shook your hand and gave you a membership card and you're part of the club.

Poly? Well. Poly is complicated because relationships are complicated.

I still think that there are points on the spectrum. And I think that somebody who can deal with their partner having other partners even though they don't want to do that themselves is closer to poly than the "I don't know how you could do that, and I've never seen it work" people. Or the, "I don't think that would be for me, but why would I ever judge how others want to live their lives? Are you happy? Good!" That person at least ought to get the "Ally" badge, even if they're a few steps removed from being poly...?

But yanno we've got:
Poly by Identity.
Poly by Choice.
Poly Sometimes.
Poly Forever.
Poly but mono temporarily.
Poly but single.
Solo Poly to Communal Kitchen Table Polyborg Collective...
Polysexual, Polyromantic, Polyamorous, Polyplatonic? Monogamish? Polyflexible? Mono/Poly?

Then there are folks like me who have been but aren't so much now...and then a few steps out of the circle, you get your allies and openminded folks, and way out in the field you can find the bitchy, grouchy, judgy folks looking for reasons to throw stones or, if we're lucky, saying "Well, it's wrong, but it's your life...I just don't want to have to see it or acknowledge it." The ones too who think that decadence will be the end of us all, and this is proof. Whateva.

I don't love or even like all poly folks, either! That would be asking a lot, I'm afraid. Doesn't mean I'm judging them for BEING poly, though I might raise an eyebrow at how some have chosen to go about it. *shrug*

 

[Ravenscroft]

The initial statement was "Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of..." which then goes on to attempt a definition of polyamory.

This implies that "acceptance of polyamory" somehow equates to "being polyamorous."

I strongly disagree with any such equation. As illustration, I presented equally silly equations.

And I don't like that people who merelythink "polyamory is an interesting idea" could thus be seen as somehow knowledgeable of living polyamorously.
________________

And what is meant by "acceptance of," anyway?

I accept that I have to share this world with Neonazis. Does that mean that I am therefore a Neonazi?

I accept that a friend I've known for decades is a transwoman. Does that make me a transwoman?

I accept that my lover is a Morris dancer. Does that make me a Morris dancer?

 

[Spork]

Oh, Ravenscroft...

Your poly is not my poly.

And that's ok.



EDIT: OK but seriously. First off you launched with a tirade on the word "tolerance" when it wasn't in the bit you quoted at all, and frankly I don't find acceptance and tolerance to be the same concept...tolerance, it's more like what you speak of. Acceptance is more like what the notion was supposed to mean when people used it with good intentions. IMO.

But hey, whateva. Semantics.

Mainly I am just so damned into building community and human connections, that I'm not gonna shut anybody out of my ideological clubhouse because they don't know the password. I'll teach them the password, if they hang around me long enough to learn...