Is polyamory a sexual identity, just like being queer?

What about "cheating in plain sight?" such as, your spouse knows you're seeing someone, but doesn't consent. If you continue to see them without your spouse's permission, is that cheating without the lying?

Just how nuanced do you want to get? I could get very nit-picky and insist that there is an important, if somewhat subtle, distinction between consent and permission. (Hint: It's a matter of whether or not the parties in the decision treat one another as equals.) My partner and I NEVER ask one another for permission to do ANYTHING. Nor would we. Ick!

The overwhelming majority of what we call "cheating" (a shorthand term, not a legalistic one) is first and foremost a matter of lying. If both parties have not given their consent, I suppose it would still be "cheating" if one of the parties breaks the relationship agreement. So now we have a case of "cheating" which is not lying, per se. But it is just as ugly and unethical -- because hurtful and in opposition to a relationship agreement.

Personally, I'm interested in basic kindness as the very bedrock of any wholesome and healthy relationship. And I don't think "kindness" requires a legalistic definition. :p
 
Last edited:
A cheater is basically, most fundamentally, a liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission

There are a number of possible meanings for "being wired" (to be a certain way), but I'm going to take a stand for an ethical sensibility in which being honest is a choice we can all make -- or fail to make. Our faliure to live up to honesty is nothing we can blame on "our wiring".

Now, my being bi? I was born this way. I've always been this way. I have no idea what it would be like to be striclty "gay" or "straight" -- not from the inside. I never have.


I agree totally on the cheating front, BUT

I wouldn't say I was BORN bi, although I'm sure plenty of people are, as you seem to identify as far back as you remember. I would say my capability to love someone regardless of their gender was learned over time via experience. I've always found women attractive, but never thought my feelings could exceed that until they actually did.
 
I think there are two things at play.

First, the "hardwiring." How you're disposed or inclined to things. Whether genetic or a brain aberration or whatever, this is just something that's innate in you.

I AM polyamorous. I AM prone to addictions. I AM heterosexual. I AM a brunette. I AM someone with hazel eyes. etc.

But the second thing at play is what you do and what choices you make.

I can choose not to have hazel eyes, because I could buy colored contacts. I often choose not to be brunette; most recently, my hair was purple!

I can choose not to indulge in anything that I would be likely to become addicted to, such as drugs; and to be mindful about potential addictions that I can't completely avoid, like food.

I could choose to have sex with a woman. I would probably despise it (the one time I kissed a woman, I felt physically sick), but I could do it.

I could--and did, for many years--choose to be in a monogamous relationship.

The choices you make don't change how you're wired. You're still prone to addictions, or straight, or polyamorous, or whatever.

People have the capacity to ACT counter to who they ARE. So it is entirely possible for someone to be "wired" a certain way, but not live that way because they don't want to, or don't believe they're allowed to, or whatever.

As for the question of cheating... In my opinion, being involved with a partner in a way that includes any level of dishonesty or boundary-breaking with another partner is cheating. Whether your partner knows you're doing it or not, if it hasn't been agreed to by everyone involved, to me that would be cheating.
 
What about "cheating in plain sight?" such as, your spouse knows you're seeing someone, but doesn't consent. If you continue to see them without your spouse's permission, is that cheating without the lying?
If you hide it, it is lying.

If you do it in plain sight, it means that you try to establish a sort of "anything goes, whatever you say"-rule. But it can also mean that the other person is de facto accepting the situation, since they don't confront you and continue the relationship knowing how you behave.
 
My partner and I NEVER ask one another for permission to do ANYTHING. Nor would we.
I would. I do. We do. I asked for my husband's permission to sleep with my boyfriend. My boyfriend asked my permission to be one-one-one with other women (as in talking, not sex). It was assumed that it would be very ok. But we asked, making sure the other person was informed prior to the event. It has been very helpful to our level of trust.
 
I would. I do. We do. I asked for my husband's permission to sleep with my boyfriend. My boyfriend asked my permission to be one-one-one with other women (as in talking, not sex). It was assumed that it would be very ok. But we asked, making sure the other person was informed prior to the event. It has been very helpful to our level of trust.

I was trying to distinguish between "permission" and "consent," which terms may be said to have importand though rather nuanced differences in usage (depending upon the ear of the hearer).

I really don't ask for permission from my partner for anything I do. Ever. But I will ask for consent, on occasion -- especially when what I do may directly or indirectly affect my partner. We've been together for two decades, so this seems to be working for us.

To my ear, "permission" is something we ask of those who are above us in rank or authority, while "consent" is a better word for relationships which are among people of equal rank or authority.
 
Last edited:
I agree with River on the difference between permission and consent.

Permission implies that the person you're talking to has power and control over you. A child asks permission from their parent. A worker might ask permission from their boss or supervisor.

Consent implies that you're on an equal footing with the other person. You aren't asking them to tell you that you're *allowed* to do something (permission), you're asking them to tell you whether or not they agree with you doing something.

I used to ask Hubby for permission for things, back in the early days when I wasn't used to being in a healthy relationship. He told me he wasn't in charge of me, wasn't my parent, and didn't want me to ask permission. He wanted me to tell him what I wanted to do and give him a chance to say whether or not he was okay with it. Which is consent, not permission.
 
So, let's say I have a wife who wants the two of us to be monogamous. But, I want to be polyamorous, so I start dating another woman. My wife has full knowledge of this, and it makes her deeply unhappy, but she doesn't divorce me, so that means she doesn't mind too much, so I'm not cheating, right?

Suppose my wife gets more and more upset about it, and finally she does divorce me. Well, after that, I can continue to date the other woman, and it certainly won't be cheating then, since I have no objecting wife at home. So, as long as I don't hide the affair, I can't possibly be cheating, can I?

I'm just sayin' ...

I agree with what's been said about permission and consent.
 
To my ear, "permission" is something we ask of those who are above us in rank or authority, while "consent" is a better word for relationships which are among people of equal rank or authority.
I see your point about English, and I might have used the word permission wrongly. I certainly did not mean to imply la hirarchy.

My problem is that there is not really a Norwegian word that translates to "concent", because the one who comes closest is only used in formal settings (giving concent to an operation, for instance). You would never say that you would give your concent to your husband sleeping with someone else, that just sounds silly, like you are a lawyer. The Norwegian word that is used the most literally means "making something the law" but is used to describe everything from what your boss says to your boyfriend says to moral ponderings. You have to know from the context if the permission/concent was hierarcical or not. The Norwegian language is designed to conceal and downplay hierarchy.... Perhaps that is why the discussion on permission/concent went a bit over my head.

My Turkish boyfriend is raised in a country where everything is about hieracy and rank (and family names), hierarchy in the family is not offensive to him. He actually sees it as charming or sexy to allow me to become his authority of sorts... At other times he will assort a similiar authority over me. It becomes a "I bow before you, you bow before me" sort of play with power. It is important to him that we are in a position to actively influence each other. We don't do it a whole lot, but when we do it it feels important. I get at sense that it works to create a balance and reduce the chance of jealousy, because we are discussing boundries in this fashion.

The important thing is that you feel safe, things are properly discussed and you get to share how you feel and influence what happens with you and other people (or no influence, if your instinct is to live and let live).
 
So, let's say I have a wife who wants the two of us to be monogamous. But, I want to be polyamorous, so I start dating another woman. My wife has full knowledge of this, and it makes her deeply unhappy, but she doesn't divorce me, so that means she doesn't mind too much, so I'm not cheating, right?

Suppose my wife gets more and more upset about it, and finally she does divorce me. Well, after that, I can continue to date the other woman, and it certainly won't be cheating then, since I have no objecting wife at home. So, as long as I don't hide the affair, I can't possibly be cheating, can I?
This was more or less the situation when I sort-of-dated my sort-of-ex. He said that he wanted to have his freedom, while she wanted them to be engaged and live monogamously. He said that he appreciated her loyalty and her fending other (intrusive) girls off, but that he felt that she could not really decide for him in this matter (he was influenced by Osho, by the way. She was too, hence her dillemma). The problem was, of course, that they had not really discussed this. He had never told her that by the logic of his own philosophy, she was also allowed to have others - and I suspect that was because he did not want her to have others, but that did not fit with the philosophy and also she was not inclined to want others, so he just let the question remain foggy. On the other hand, he had not really gained her permission to sleep around. She had expressed some sympathy of what she - and on some days even he - saw as his weakness, that he was prone to aimlessly flirth with other (and sometimes younger) women. She saw herself as the aid for his impulsive wound, and he sometimes expressed things in those terms. I think together they created a sort of understanding that he had to, or should be allowed to, flirt a little bit as long as he was relatively descreet about it. The problem was of course that the very idea of her controlling him upset him very much. Wheras she felt like he would go kiss another woman just to spite her, possably not even because he was horny that much. So in a way he was using his sexualty as a sort of weapon in their fights and power struggles. And she felt a sort of safety in the fact that he more or less announced when he was going to sort of date another woman, she would not have to guess and it usually was just some kissing and fondling anyway, and he soon lost interest in them.

Then he met me, fell in love and stayed in love. She felt very hurt by it and the fact that he did not withdraw from the situation. At the same time, she got very much into getting to know me, possably to find out what attracted him and try to mimic it. For instance, she got her ears pierced like me and she started wearing my type of makeup. But of course what he fell for with me was my inability to be the pleaser. He hinted I should dye my hair, I did not do it, he gave me career advice and I did not take it. It went on for more than four years. Weird situations happened, for instance she would sometimes be very happy to see me, tell me we should record songs together (and later she let me temp for her job, and rent out her flat)... I often felt like she needed me to cheer him up, but in a way that did not make it too obvious. I don't know... Once when I swam in the sea in the fall she recorded it on video. I sort of slept with him once. I think part of her really hated me, but that she also sort of needed me because she knew he would be unhappy without me. So that he would be more happy with her if he also had me.

Was he unfaithful to her? Looking back, I think he was sort of unfaithful to both of us, because he never really wanted to have the kind of talk where you really go into what is happening and what are we going to do about it. He never really went deep into the discussion with her and said, listen, we want very different things! How can we work through that as a couple. And that also made things more difficult for me, because she wore an engagement ring and talked about their monogamous love and he still claimed that he could do as he pleased - and was shocked that I have a husband that knew about it and accepted it. It was like in his eyes it was better to get a half-concent like he had than having an open discussion about where the dicks, fingers and mouths were going and who is ok with what.
 
"Amoury" is love, not sex, so it would be a romantic identity, not sexual. But at some point, we can drop the suffices and say "Identity." The lines are usually blurred anyway.

My identity is asexual, polyamorous, panromantic. There's also a term polysexual, which is used by some to mean the same as pansexual, and then others use it like polyamorous but sex instead of love.

Queer is a label anyone can adopt if they want, even straight cisgender allies. Lots of people who are "straight but not normal" identify as queer, for example.

I hope that all this gender identity stuff, and labels for relationship styles, etc.. are all just stepping stones until we can get to a point in society where none of it matters, and people just do what makes them happy, and nobody cares because it's not them. The bonobos seem to get along well enough without analyzing it and discussing it all the time :) But then, what would we do with the internet??
 
"I can't log off now! Somebody's wrong on the internet. If I log off now, they'll keep being wrong!" :p
 
So, let's say I have a wife who wants the two of us to be monogamous. But, I want to be polyamorous, so I start dating another woman. My wife has full knowledge of this, and it makes her deeply unhappy, but she doesn't divorce me, so that means she doesn't mind too much, so I'm not cheating, right?

Suppose my wife gets more and more upset about it, and finally she does divorce me. Well, after that, I can continue to date the other woman, and it certainly won't be cheating then, since I have no objecting wife at home. So, as long as I don't hide the affair, I can't possibly be cheating, can I?

I'm just sayin' ...

I agree with what's been said about permission and consent.

Just because something isn't cheating, it doesn't mean that it is ethical, or kind, as someone else pointed out. It's both unethical and unkind to continue a relationship knowing at least one of your partners has not willingly consented to polyamory.
 
Norwegianpoly, I get what you're saying about "consent" having a different implication in your language.

Maybe "approval" works better? I ask for Hubby's or S2's approval before I do something that might be a problem; they ask for mine. (Usually. If they think about it.) Approval would still be an equal thing; I'm not asking to be "allowed" to do something, but merely whether my partner is okay with it.

Kevin, to answer your hypothetical situation, if you're with a wife, and she finds out you're with another woman and asks you to stop, and you don't stop, you're cheating. Regardless of whether your wife stays married to you. You are doing something she has asked you not to do, and you are ignoring her request, ignoring her lack of consent/approval, and doing it anyway. Implied consent isn't a thing in this situation. It's a three-yes system if there are three people involved.

I guess maybe that's the difference as to whether it's cheating or not. If you don't have the *consent* (or approval) of your spouse, you're cheating, whether they know about it or not. Especially if they've stated flat out that they *don't* consent/approve.
 
Re:
"If you don't have the *consent* of your spouse, you're cheating, whether they know about it or not."

Ah, I was hoping someone would say that! :)
 
Re:


Ah, I was hoping someone would say that! :)

But isn't that what they call a "no brainer" -- an obvious fact?

It only gets mentioned here, I suspect, because "cheating" tends to imply hiding, sneaking around, ... dishonesty. I've never even heard of a case of someone "cheating" right out in the open light of day.
 
I've seen quite a few instances where someone's monogamous partner refuses to consent to polyamory, so the advice (one of the options) offered is to say, "Well, I am unwilling to close, so, I am going to have a poly relationship with a second partner. I hope you won't break up with me, but you can if you want."

Is that cheating? (or at least somehow doing wrong?) Some say it's just stating your boundaries and then letting incompatibility run its course. Personally I am uneasy about it.
 
It seems to me it's more honest to break up with your partner rather than do something you know is a dealbreaker. The option is that they stay and are miserable, or break up and you can say they broke up, not you. Either way, it seems like a pretty insensitive and even cowardly thing to do.

I don't think they have any high ground with the "at least I'm being honest". You were told "this is not okay in our relationship" so if you want to do it, end the relationship. Don't create a third option where you have your cake and eat it too and hope your partner will be coerced into staying/unable to leave you, or have to be the one leaving because you won't commit to your decision.
 
Thanks for that input Tonberry, it makes sense.
 
Back
Top