Opportunity and poly?

undefinable

undefinable

New member
So today I was reading through a couple of blogs that had been suggested to me for various reasons, and I kind of got derailed along the way, and I stumbled across something that I cant quite shake.

It was a blog posting with a video link, and in the post the author made statements about Polyamory that I felt were too broad, and lacked a proper understanding of the terms, practices, and values of Poly in general. I had basically given up on the entire blog, but for whatever reason I clicked on the video and watched some of it.

"Polyamorists in general tend to be younger, almost exclusively middle class, and usually white. Perhaps having less immediate threats to welfare and survival as in many inner-city and minority populations allows this group of people more freedom to go against societal norms." was the statement that grabbed my attention.

First and foremost, I disagree with the tone, content, and generalization of the statement out of hand.

But it did get me to thinking.

Most of the practicing poly people I have met in my life have been successful, in their own right. I have met more polyamorists in places where economically, life is better. And many of the polyamorists that I have met who are "all the way out" have been, if not wealthy, then certainly comfortable.

My question for all of you is this. Is it likely that safety and security, in spite of society's view of how one lives their life, would encourage a polyamorous individual to live more openly or comfortably with their chosen/inherent lifestyle?

I am still working on formulating my own thoughts on this matter, and I am hoping a little spirited discourse will assist me along the way.:confused:

Thx in advance,
Tim
 
Last edited:
We actually have been having this discussion in several groups over the last year. The consensus is that there's a lot of truth in it *at least in terms of OUT polys.

There is a similar observation in regards to discrimination(but not specifically poly) that has been made. That is that the more different "minority statuses" you fit into, the less likely you are to be open regarding any that *can be hidden. For example, minority race, minority gender, minority sexual preference, minority lovestyle=more likely to be in the closet than someone who is majority race, majority gender, majority sexual preference.

There does definitely appear to be some relationship to having financial security-but not so much as to be in the "media spotlight" (at least in certain spheres like politics) and safety.
Personally I have also noticed that there seems to be more "out" people in higher educated spheres. The lower educated spheres seem to be more closeted. I dont know if that one is happenstance or not as its just a personal observation.
 
Interesting! Were any of these discussed here on the forums? If so would really love to read them, but I have not found anything that addresses what I am looking for adequately. Not yet at least.

Maybe we all have a sort of "fit-in-ometer" and everyones is just set a little different. Ha, nobel prize, here I come, I discovered how to tell just how outside the box everyone is willing to live! Seriously though, I am glad I am not the only one thinking about this.
 
undefinable said:
So today I was reading through a couple of blogs that had been suggested to me for various reasons, and I kind of got derailed along the way, and I stumbled across something that I cant quite shake.

It was a blog posting with a video link, and in the post the author made statements about Polyamory that I felt were too broad, and lacked a proper understanding of the terms, practices, and values of Poly in general. I had basically given up on the entire blog, but for whatever reason I clicked on the video and watched some of it.

"Polyamorists in general tend to be younger, almost exclusively middle class, and usually white. Perhaps having less immediate threats to welfare and survival as in many inner-city and minority populations allows this group of people more freedom to go against societal norms." was the statement that grabbed my attention.

First and foremost, I disagree with the tone, content, and generalization of the statement out of hand.

But it did get me to thinking.

Most of the practicing poly people I have met in my life have been successful, in their own right. I have met more polyamorists in places where economically, life is better. And many of the polyamorists that I have met who are "all the way out" have been, if not wealthy, then certainly comfortable.
Click to expand...
I think its necessary to differentiate between "polyamorists" and people who are not monogamous, the two are not necessarily the same.

I would term a "polyamorist" as someone who actively identifies as polyamorous and is to some degree involved in the local poly community and/or in some for of activism surrounding the idea of polyamory. They stay active and informed on the subject, read books about it, etc etc. They also tend to be more open about who they are and what they do.

Someone who is not monogamous is someone who has a poly or poly-ish way of life but likely doesn't identify as such. They dont call themselves poly, they dont attend meetups, they may read an article if one pops up but they dont go seeking information about it. They dont readily make their presence known largely for the same reasons most mono couples dont have "Mono Pride" stickers on their cars; its their way of life, it works for them, that's what counts.

In my experience, someone who is a polyamorist is more likely to be white, middle to upper class, and about 30-35 years old. There are plenty of ideas as to why this is and they're fairly well known so I wont get into them here.

As for non-monogamous, spin the fuckin' wheel. You can get ANYBODY under that label. Non-monogamy is as old as time and there have been consentual arrangements with multiple partners for as long as there's been monogamy.

My question for all of you is this. Is it likely that safety and security, in spite of society's view of how one lives their life, would encourage a polyamorous individual to live more openly or comfortably with their chosen/inherent lifestyle?
Click to expand...
I would say yes. If I know I'm less likely to be punished for socially abnormal behavior that I find agreeable, I'm much more likely to engage in it. That's fairly standard amongst people.

We also have to consider that, even in today's society, it's still possible to compartmentalize your life; your work and home lives stay separated. Work is where most of us are likely to face problems for not living the way most of our neighbors do but we can keep our personal lives out of work and even just away from certain people.

My boss is fairly conservative Jewish, very unlikely to like the idea that one of the people charged with forging the minds of our client's children lives in a way that so conflicts with normal social mores. Most of my coworkers know I'm poly and none particularly care, I'm not friends with my boss so we dont chit-chat and she's not tech savvy enough to want to be on FB or other social media so outside of work, we dont interact. This means its fairly easy for me to be pretty public about who I am and how I live without worrying that I'm going to be "caught." I'm white, but I am by no means "middle class."

Wealth has an insulating effect against the punishments a society will levy against someone for breaking its rules, regardless of the rule broken. But it also takes a certain "fuck you" attitude towards people that dont like what you're doing. I think that's certainly the biggest factor in my case. You can look at the gay community for some parallels; back when being openly gay was somewhere between illegal and a death sentence, the average person didnt really have a lot of opportunity to be open without taking significant risks. Compare that with people with wealth and privilege, many were gay and either very open about it or it was publically known. These fortunate few rarely suffered serious detriment the way a middle-class citizen would have for the same kind of behavior.
 
Last edited:
Helo said:
I think its necessary to differentiate between "polyamorists" and people who are not monogamous, the two are not necessarily the same.

I would term a "polyamorist" as someone who actively identifies as polyamorous and is to some degree involved in the local poly community and/or in some for of activism surrounding the idea of polyamory. They stay active and informed on the subject, read books about it, etc etc. They also tend to be more open about who they are and what they do.
Click to expand...

In this instance i am using the term Polyamorist in a broad sense, so as not to get bogged down by "which flavor of poly is best" issues. I intended it as an inclusive label (something which i am loathe to do) for the purposes of the discussion.

That said, i think i will take a shot at hijacking my own thread ;)

I am not comfortable with a "involvement in the community" provision as it feels to me like a price of admission. It seems exclusive, and elitist, and i just dont like it. For me it is akin to saying that a person who dedicates their life to jogging as far as possible is not an athlete because they do not compete in marathons. No recognition given for the countless hours, injuries, and sacrifices they have made, because they do not contribute to the process of athleticism.

Or like saying a gay man who does not have active involvement in LGBT issues. Attraction, romantic relationships, and sex with other men does not qualify if he doesnt participate in the community as well.

Personally the criteria you put forth would qualify a person as a polyamorous activist quite well, but i think it is defining too precisely a group of people who are by nature inclusive.

Proceed to lay waste to my logic..........NOW! :D
 
Thank you for mentioning that!
I agree fully with you, undefined. As there is (assumption based on lack of it magically appearing) no community here, am I, therefore, lead to believe, not a polyamorist? Or am I just someone with poly ideals?
 
undefinable said:
I am not comfortable with a "involvement in the community" provision as it feels to me like a price of admission. It seems exclusive, and elitist, and i just dont like it. For me it is akin to saying that a person who dedicates their life to jogging as far as possible is not an athlete because they do not compete in marathons. No recognition given for the countless hours, injuries, and sacrifices they have made, because they do not contribute to the process of athleticism.

Or like saying a gay man who does not have active involvement in LGBT issues. Attraction, romantic relationships, and sex with other men does not qualify if he doesnt participate in the community as well.
Click to expand...


This touches on something I have been wondering about too. My partner and I agreed to dedicate one full year to learning about ethical non-monogamy, talking about our feelings, addressing issues between ourselves, all before we took the step of actually starting to meet new people socially. We are doing this to minimize avoidable mistakes and possible hurt to anyone. For us, this is the equivalent of training for a marathon. Rational people take the time, and put in the effort to prepare for something strenuous and new to them.

From what I have read, the poly group in the largest city near to us defines those suitable to join them as already being in polyamorous relationships.
In other words, we can't join them in order to learn how to do things correctly without having already done the thing we are joining to learn how to do. We can't sign up for classes, so to speak, until we have already graduated.

The price of admission referred to above is simply not possible. This just baffles me.:confused:
 
^That does not sound comforting to the outsiders looking in at all. I am sorry that it is that way for you. I feel that's a little barbaric in its reluctance to allow education. Isn't education the first step to acceptance?
I mean, if I were a gay man, for example, wouldn't it be better to educate my peers on my chosen lifestyle than barricade them from it? Isn't than just solidifying my position as an outcast by not welcoming their queries and the expecting the to understand? It's forming myself an island and then complaining that I don't have a boat to venture to neighbouring boats on. IMHO.
 
So my family is all young (mid to late 20s) and white but economically secure? That part make me giggle. Primal and I work full time both at about $9-10 an hour. Lamian is unemployed. Woodsmith is in school full time and doesn't even have time this semester for a part time job. That's house 1. House two: Peaseblossum makes under 20K a year and Darkeyes I think is the only one who makes decent money ($14 an hour but some weeks has 60 hours others is lucky to get 10).

However, thankfully in St. Louis there's a lot of things that are either cheap or free for being involved both in the polyamory and kink communities.
 
Malfunktions said:
^That does not sound comforting to the outsiders looking in at all. I am sorry that it is that way for you.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a bit odd. I just went to their site again to make sure I understood correctly. Since my last visit there, I see the circle discussion group has changed its status to inactive, and no longer has monthly meetings. Were they perhaps so exclusive they eventually ran out of members?

The local Yahoo group is reported as being Spam Land, due to lack of moderation. I am not encouraged.:mad:
 
Ugh!:mad: that would drive me! If it is because of lack of members I wonder if they know why.

:/
 
CattivaGattina said:
So my family is all young (mid to late 20s) and white but economically secure? That part make me giggle.
Click to expand...

See this is part of what got my wheels turning. How can the perception of polyamorists out there in everywhere include two criteria that are most often not simultaneous. Success is usually a product of experience, and experience is usually a product of time. Youth is not easily found in successful people, yet monetary security is usually found with successful people. Young and rich? Maybe poly is a subset of lottery winners? lols, i kid.

But seriously, i wish there was a more efficient way to explain to outsider that poly people truly do come from all walks of life. There are always going to be statistical patterns, but it seems that the sources who quote these patterns are usually outsider observers who lack a reasonable understanding of the big picture. As if they need to fill out a story so they spit out a generalization they assume to be true based on the statistics.

Ugh, more labels.
TTFN,
Tim
 
Given the reportedly high numbers of polyamorous people in my state, I am beginning to think that the gatherings have gone from public to private, and they're all just doing things with their friends now. I wish the group they called poly 101 was still active, but it has been listed as DOA also.

I think this means I need to follow the good advice I have been given about seeking groups with other common interests, and hoping that somewhere within those groups I might stumble over like-minded individuals. I had hoped for the easier route of going to poly-based meetings, not only to learn, but to erase that awkward "are they/aren't they"
poly friendly. Nothing to be done for it, though.
 
undefinable said:
In this instance i am using the term Polyamorist in a broad sense, so as not to get bogged down by "which flavor of poly is best" issues. I intended it as an inclusive label (something which i am loathe to do) for the purposes of the discussion.

That said, i think i will take a shot at hijacking my own thread ;)

I am not comfortable with a "involvement in the community" provision as it feels to me like a price of admission. It seems exclusive, and elitist, and i just dont like it. For me it is akin to saying that a person who dedicates their life to jogging as far as possible is not an athlete because they do not compete in marathons. No recognition given for the countless hours, injuries, and sacrifices they have made, because they do not contribute to the process of athleticism.

Or like saying a gay man who does not have active involvement in LGBT issues. Attraction, romantic relationships, and sex with other men does not qualify if he doesnt participate in the community as well.

Personally the criteria you put forth would qualify a person as a polyamorous activist quite well, but i think it is defining too precisely a group of people who are by nature inclusive.

Proceed to lay waste to my logic..........NOW! :D
Click to expand...
I dont think there's a requirement to be considered poly, I certainly didn't intend what I said to convey that message.

To fall back on metaphor, its the difference between calling one's self religious and calling one's self Christian; one implies a more formalized way of living and thinking than the other with a more specific "crowd" to be a part of.

I feel like I'm not explaining myself in the right way and I'm having difficulty conveying the proper meaning. That annoys me.

See this is part of what got my wheels turning. How can the perception of polyamorists out there in everywhere include two criteria that are most often not simultaneous.
Click to expand...
For that you'd probably have to look at where people see poly people most often. They're unlikely to know anyone who is so they have to fallback on the only exposure they have and that usually is media of some form. Take a look at some of the recent examples of poly in the media, its easy to see why someone would come away with the idea that poly people are young and successful if that was the only exposure they have to draw on. Plus we still have a cultural perception that "playing the field" is something you do when you're young until you're ready to "grow up" and get married.
 
Last edited:
We don't like Mondays...

From the point of view of a Monday in February in these climes it is not always easy to keep our spirits up:(... Fortunately we have each other here...:)
 
bigkellyna said:
From the point of view of a Monday in February in these climes it is not always easy to keep our spirits up:(... Fortunately we have each other here...:)
Click to expand...

Winter in Canada. Could there be a more powerful arguement in favor of seeking a warm place to curl up with someone you love than six months of freezing tempuratures? I think not. Chin up, spring is just around the corner. pretty soon you will be waiting for the highway construction to finish for the year and wishing for the snow again!
 
Poly on the Beach...

Too bad there isn’t a “polycycle”;) to transport our precious crew, get around hazards like construction and end up in a tropical paradise…at least for a few months… corners are better on 2 wheels anyway…
 
The discussions were on fb. I am in several poly groups on fb that have several hundred members each. Thats where I saw this topic tossed around.
I do think the quote, while misleading, was intended to mean that visible polys TEND to those statistics.
Unfortunately-anyone who knows even the most basic info about stats can tell you that "significant" in stats doesnt mean shit in rekationship to what significant means in any other conversation. ;)
 
Significance is a victim of population too. I live in a city of approximately 65,000 people yet we have the second largest population of gay and lesbians per capita in North America. Second of course to San Francisco. So statistics play around with the per capita thing to make it seem outrageously high or insanely low, all to fit the point they are trying to make.

Example:
There are 3 male humans, 1 male dog, 5 male fish, and a male cat in my house,

Then there's me.

Using the art of statistics, even though 7 males aren't even human, a statistician would make the conclusion that my households gender ratio is 10:1 ignoring to mention the fact that, again 7 are not even human.

^^ I feel like I lost my point and don't know how to get it back...
Oh we'll hopefully you get it. ;)

As for winter in Canada, lets just say winter is meant for cozying... Makes sense considering both my boy were born in the summer ;)
 
I find that an interesting idea. The white, young, middle class being the "generic" polyamorist. The young part makes sense ... as my generation is much more accustomed to the idea of different lifestyles than previous ones ... though I would think that pretty much anybody who came of age during or after the 60's has had enough time to acclimate to a society that accepts non-traditional lifestyles.

The middle class also makes sense, since honestly, at the lower end of the economic spectrum I don't think they have the time and energy to invest into discovering the possibilities and educating themselves about what an adult relationship could be. And I say this as a professional who teaches adults in the lower income levels how to use a computer mouse on some days. They're super nice, but their time seems to be consumed with getting by, and polyamory takes time and energy for studying and contemplation and soul searching that they simply don't have.

The white part I don't get. But that might just be because I'm Asian and my husband is Hispanic. We've met/interacted with gays/straights/polys/etc of all races, possibly because we're West Coasters and ethnic ourselves we tend to mix with middle class people of all ethnic backgrounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top