Is polyamory by choice or not?

[SlowPoly]

You’ve got a range of answers to chew on here. Mine is that monogamy is so culturally propped up that it would be hard to tell if anyone is inherently of a monogamous orientation. So many people defy the overwhelming pressure to be monogamous, that we must conclude nonmonogamy (or possibly a more general defiant nonconformity) is a strong drive.


But I want to ask you why you tossed this out before asking your topic question:

Before even asking about the concept of consensuality, . . .

What do you mean by “consensuality”? Are you asserting that the “orientation or preference” question is more important or more fundamental than matters of consent? Was this meaningless word clutter, or a space holder for another topic you plan?

 

[PurpleSun]

Yeah, so that makes me a womanizer in some people's eyes. I don't think you can speak for men at all.

I think your male privilege is coloring your views here.

 

[Magdlyn]

I doubt if it is as intense for most poly people. I certainly feel no pressure to remain hidden as I would if I was gay.

When you say "most poly people," you speak as if being male is the default.

Surely, it is considered "worse," in our hetero-normative, mono-normative patriarchal culture, for a man to be seen as gay than for a man to be seen as non-monogamous. Men are even encouraged to be non-mono, it's considered normal for a man to spread his seed, his "oats," and bang as many women as he can, whether he is partnered, married or not.

But being gay is more difficult for men than for women (I say, as a bisexual woman who is living with her female partner, and no males).

The Bible, our Western standard of patriarchal cultural expectations, has nearly nothing to say about FF romantic/sexual couplings. But MM relationships are discouraged. Polygyny (MFFF) is expected and lauded.

 

[Magdlyn]

I think your male privilege is coloring your views here.

Yes, pretty obviously.

 

[vinsanity0]

Oh good lord. First off I usually speak only for myself, so yes, that is a white, mostly straight male view. Secondly, I was speaking about the pressures society places on everyone. I have yet to hear of a case where a poly person was beaten because they were poly. I have yet to hear of a poly person being dragged behind a pickup truck. Or the use of "poly" as a slur...or anything that happens to lgbtq+ people.

Maybe if I lived in a little religious-centric community I would feel some pressure to conform to monogamy. As it is, I am a non-conformist long haired guy who has very little of this privilege you think we all have.

Now, instead of bashing a person from a community different than yours, why not add to the discussion by stating how it is in your community.

 

[JapinaTricycle]

What do you mean by “consensuality”? Are you asserting that the “orientation or preference” question is more important or more fundamental than matters of consent?

I was;

The same way I wouldn't tell a gay person: "You're gay only if you are in a gay relationship";

It doesn't make sense, nor is it fair to assume;

So at first, I believed poly people didn't need to be in a poly relationship to be considered poly (even if they feel forced into a monogamous relationship or cheat).

I still kind of do, but realize there is more than one type of poly people, now.

1:Core poly,
2oly by choice.

Core poly are unhappy in a mono relationship. (I want to name those people polycorn. Ex: "I'm a polycorn who isn't in a polyamorous relationship at the moment.")
Poly by choice can be happy in a mono relationship, but adapted their lifestyle with open views. Those people are generally older, sociable and experienced, and had only mostly positive relationships in their lifetime.

Just my guessing based on some observations.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I really dislike the "poly as orientation" meme, which seems to draw far too much on paralleling polyamory to... well, anything not strictly heterosexual.

The major difference is that anyone of a "nonmonogamous" bent has long at least some outlets -- for sex, companionship, affection -- that while not strictly acceptable have been part of what I call Monogamism. Swinging, affairs, drunken passes at neighborhood cocktail parties, & so on. (When in doubt, blame alcohol. )

Homosexuality has had no such "pressure relief" activities. Up through the '70s (at best), getting caught out could lead to arrest, police beatings, mob attacks, public humiliation, blackmail, loss of jobs & housing & parental rights. Heroin pushers got more respect.

Again: polyamory is a choice -- period.

(And often a choice made by people who have no idea what they're talking about, when they actually MEAN "nonmonogamy." They can demand all the consideration for their assumed "polyness," without the least need to do the heavy lifting, & absolute freedom to bounce back & forth at whim -- something IME vanishingly few gayfolk have done.)

 

[PurpleSun]

I really dislike the "poly as orientation" meme, which seems to draw far too much on paralleling polyamory to... well, anything not strictly heterosexual.

The major difference is that anyone of a "nonmonogamous" bent has long at least some outlets -- for sex, companionship, affection -- that while not strictly acceptable have been part of what I call Monogamism. Swinging, affairs, drunken passes at neighborhood cocktail parties, & so on. (When in doubt, blame alcohol. )

Homosexuality has had no such "pressure relief" activities. Up through the '70s (at best), getting caught out could lead to arrest, police beatings, mob attacks, public humiliation, blackmail, loss of jobs & housing & parental rights. Heroin pushers got more respect.

Again: polyamory is a choice -- period.

(And often a choice made by people who have no idea what they're talking about, when they actually MEAN "nonmonogamy." They can demand all the consideration for their assumed "polyness," without the least need to do the heavy lifting, & absolute freedom to bounce back & forth at whim -- something IME vanishingly few gayfolk have done.)

It is not a choice for me. You don't get to define that for other people.

 

[PurpleSun]

Oh good lord. First off I usually speak only for myself, so yes, that is a white, mostly straight male view. Secondly, I was speaking about the pressures society places on everyone. I have yet to hear of a case where a poly person was beaten because they were poly. I have yet to hear of a poly person being dragged behind a pickup truck. Or the use of "poly" as a slur...or anything that happens to lgbtq+ people.

Maybe if I lived in a little religious-centric community I would feel some pressure to conform to monogamy. As it is, I am a non-conformist long haired guy who has very little of this privilege you think we all have.

Now, instead of bashing a person from a community different than yours, why not add to the discussion by stating how it is in your community.

when we say "privilege," we're talking about institutional, SYSTEMIC oppression. If you are white, male, straight, or a member of ANY majority group, you have privilege that the rest of us who are members of oppressed minorities do not have. For instance, as a white guy, you are a lot less likely to be shot by police, or have the police called on you for no reason. As a straight person, nobody is going to fire you or evict you or deny you basic public services if they find out who you are married to if you live in a state with no non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. Nobody is saying your life is easy. It's just a viewpoint that is blind to the oppression the rest of us face, that's all.

 

[Evie]

In my experience, the choice I've always made is to be monogamous.
Now, I've undone that choice and can be authentically me.

 

[lunabunny]

There are some people who are predominantly disposed toward monogamy and feel distinctly uncomfortable practising any other form of relationship style... and some who feel like polyamory is a reflection of their authentic self and who therefore find it difficult if not impossible to limit themselves to a mono situation. And then there are people who find they can adapt to either, given the right person, group, or situation.

Orientation wise, there are people who are born exclusively or predominantly lesbian, gay or asexual... and then there are the grey areas (sexuality being a spectrum and some people's sexuality being more fluid than others) - bisexuals, demi-sexuals, hetero-and-homoflexible people, etc. etc.

It is similar to, though not precisely the same, when it comes to a person's natural inclination towards specific relationship styles - although everybody has a choice regarding HOW and IF they will practise any kind of sexual behaviour.

Personally, polyamory sets up a kind of cognitive dissonance in me. Although I CAN love and have sex with more than one person at a time (and have), I tend to place great value on the (monogamous) idea of being "special" in the eyes of the person I am in love with, and vice versa - being "the One" - rather than being one of many who my partner may "also" be in love with. I've experienced this as an issue even as the hinge in a poly V. I had to really compartmentalise each relationship in my mind in order to deal with this.

 

[opalescent]

First of all, this whole 'nature vs. nurture' thing is entirely the wrong question. It sets up a false dichotomy of genetic vs environment which is entirely false in reality. We are all complex interweaving of genetic inheritance, genes getting switched on and off in response to environment, how we were raised, how our parents were raised, our diet, our social climate, and too many more factors to list.

Too often, making a claim for genetic origins of a behavior is either to discredit that behavior OR to make it socially acceptable (as in we're born gay and can't help it so therefore we should be accepted). This argument has made quite a bit of headway in getting some people to accept LGBTQ but it misses the point that LGBTQ folks deserve rights because we exist, not because we can't help it.

Same for being 'born' poly or not. It's a false dichotomy. It's a question that doesn't fucking matter. Poly people deserve consideration because we exist, not because we 'can't help it' or could be happy in a monogamous relationship but choose not to. It's being used in the same 'being born gay' is being used - as a way to make people who are poly feel better about themselves and to persuade others to accept polyamory/ethical non-monogamy. And just like LGBTQ movements, while it may work in the short term, it has negative implications long term.

 

[icesong]

Same for being 'born' poly or not. It's a false dichotomy. It's a question that doesn't fucking matter. Poly people deserve consideration because we exist, not because we 'can't help it' or could be happy in a monogamous relationship but choose not to. It's being used in the same 'being born gay' is being used - as a way to make people who are poly feel better about themselves and to persuade others to accept polyamory/ethical non-monogamy. And just like LGBTQ movements, while it may work in the short term, it has negative implications long term.

This. A thousand million times this.

 

[vinsanity0]

when we say "privilege," we're talking about institutional, SYSTEMIC oppression. If you are white, male, straight, or a member of ANY majority group, you have privilege that the rest of us who are members of oppressed minorities do not have. For instance, as a white guy, you are a lot less likely to be shot by police, or have the police called on you for no reason. As a straight person, nobody is going to fire you or evict you or deny you basic public services if they find out who you are married to if you live in a state with no non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. Nobody is saying your life is easy. It's just a viewpoint that is blind to the oppression the rest of us face, that's all.

Thank you, but I don't need privilege explained to ne. The thing is, I am not blind to the oppression you face.

Come up with another analogy though. I can barely walk down the street without the police hassling me.

Anyways, I feel the calling out of white privilege was misused in this thread. Obviously you disagreeb

 

[Magdlyn]

...I can barely walk down the street without the police hassling me.

Really? As a 55 year old white male? I was partnered/married to white male for over 30 years and he was never hassled by the police except when he deserved it, when he was driving too fast.

I know white teen males, or early 20somethings, can get hassled more often when out driving, even when obeying the speed limit, just because young white males tend to be driving too fast, or drinking or doing drugs, than other white people (older white men, young or older white women). (I'll leave the "driving/walking/sitting in public while black" issue out.)

What is it about you that brings police attention?

As for the complaints of being "bashed" as a white male, when you said your experience (as a white straight poly male) was the experience of "most" poly people, that use of white straight male experience as "default" was what set off my "check your privilege" meter.

I'm sorry you feel bashed. I don't believe I personally attacked you.

 

[Magdlyn]

First of all, this whole 'nature vs. nurture' thing is entirely the wrong question. It sets up a false dichotomy of genetic vs environment which is entirely false in reality. We are all complex interweaving of genetic inheritance, genes getting switched on and off in response to environment, how we were raised, how our parents were raised, our diet, our social climate, and too many more factors to list.

Too often, making a claim for genetic origins of a behavior is either to discredit that behavior OR to make it socially acceptable (as in we're born gay and can't help it so therefore we should be accepted). This argument has made quite a bit of headway in getting some people to accept LGBTQ but it misses the point that LGBTQ folks deserve rights because we exist, not because we can't help it.

Same for being 'born' poly or not. It's a false dichotomy. It's a question that doesn't fucking matter. Poly people deserve consideration because we exist, not because we 'can't help it' or could be happy in a monogamous relationship but choose not to. It's being used in the same 'being born gay' is being used - as a way to make people who are poly feel better about themselves and to persuade others to accept polyamory/ethical non-monogamy. And just like LGBTQ movements, while it may work in the short term, it has negative implications long term.

Just want to *like* this wise post too!

 

[JapinaTricycle]

Homosexuality has had no such "pressure relief" activities. Up through the '70s (at best), getting caught out could lead to arrest, police beatings, mob attacks, public humiliation, blackmail, loss of jobs & housing & parental rights. Heroin pushers got more respect.

Again: polyamory is a choice -- period.

That sort of strict categorizing (or denying) does sound a bit like what you're describing in part, just in a modern society. Otherwise, polyamory is illegal (as in marrying 2 people). Poly people find ways around the law to find happiness, but I wonder what it would really take to change the law: arrest, media shaming, and loss of job. Even today.

And then, if poly is a choice, how can you explain I can't be contented in a monogamous relationship and would rather choose to be if I could?
How can mono relationships even be considered as successful (happy) if it's a choice (therefore choosing to be happy)?
I think you're falling into the addage that "if a mono relationship is a choice (as opposed to being single), then poly is certainly the same".
But if poly was nothing but a choice, that would make every mono relationship meaningless, because it would put it on the same stage as being single. Is it possible, then, to consider every "single" person as happy? Or would they rather be happier being in a relationship?
How come do people consider themselves happier in healthy (mono) relationships?

I want to have a serious debate about this, because I think it's going to help me finding clear answers to my questioning.
So I hope you don't hold any grudge against my arguments.

 

[JapinaTricycle]

In my experience, the choice I've always made is to be monogamous.
Now, I've undone that choice and can be authentically me.

It sounds like you've liberated yourself, but I'm curious: how happy were you before (in mono relationships)? Did you feel like you were so very far from being your true self that you couldn't be truly happy?

 

[JapinaTricycle]

Same for being 'born' poly or not. It's a false dichotomy. It's a question that doesn't fucking matter. Poly people deserve consideration because we exist, not because we 'can't help it' or could be happy in a monogamous relationship but choose not to. It's being used in the same 'being born gay' is being used - as a way to make people who are poly feel better about themselves and to persuade others to accept polyamory/ethical non-monogamy. And just like LGBTQ movements, while it may work in the short term, it has negative implications long term.

This. A thousand million times this.

"I am because I am."

Wise words.

 

[vinsanity0]

Really? As a 55 year old white male? I was partnered/married to white male for over 30 years and he was never hassled by the police except when he deserved it, when he was driving too fast.

I know white teen males, or early 20somethings, can get hassled more often when out driving, even when obeying the speed limit, just because young white males tend to be driving too fast, or drinking or doing drugs, than other white people (older white men, young or older white women). (I'll leave the "driving/walking/sitting in public while black" issue out.)

What is it about you that brings police attention?

I've never asked, but I assume it's my long long hair. When people see me they tend to project what they think a long haired person is. A drug addict, biker, hippie, surfer, whatever it is they don't like. Of course, I could comply with society, but I don't.

Please note that I in no way equate this with the treatment of lbgtq or poc. However, I do believe we have a common enemy.

As for the complaints of being "bashed" as a white male, when you said your experience (as a white straight poly male) was the experience of "most" poly people, that use of white straight male experience as "default" was what set off my "check your privilege" meter.

Except that is not what I stated. As I stated above, I have never heard of a person being beaten for being poly. Yes, I was comparing the experiences of straight (or mostly straight) poly people to the experiences of lbgtq and poc. I wouldn't presume to speak for the latter communities. I have no idea how the queer community feels about poly, for example.

I'm sorry you feel bashed. I don't believe I personally attacked you.

I don't feel bashed as much as I feel jumping to that default prohibits meaningful conversation. I mean, you should know by now I'm not some ignorant rightie...lol