poly: what & how many

[Ravenscroft]

I think that the only point in trying to cite any figures, is to tell people that "Hey. Lots of folks do this, whether you know about it or not."

I'm still trying to figure out exactly why unravelling this is on my mind, but that resonates with me as an underlying motive, as well as

putting that information in front of the "muggles" shows them that plenty of folks are doing this thing and society isn't collapsing and God isn't striking them down and yeah, you might even know some perfectly normal folks who do this and simply keep it on the down-low.

But I disagree withthe conclusion:

Which means that the number ... doesn't even matter.

Quick, everyone, answer this: what portion of the population is LGBTQ?



That would be one in ten.

Now, as I've discussed elsewhere that number is likely overinflated in a variety of ways. As Kinsey himself pointed out, if you take "heterosexual" to mean ONLY those adults who've NEVER stepped outside of #0, all that's left is a minority, possibly quite small. Conversely, if "homosexual" is used to indicate ONLY #9, again there ain't many; in that case, the general society can feel quite confident that they don't need to grant any "rights" to a few scattered deviants.

But "10%" kinda hit home. Just a number? It became a powerful meme, encouraged people to think about their family & closest friends, & wonder how many people they cared about had been inherently browbeaten into silence & kept under a blanket of shame & humiliation.

The "half a million" thingie, meanwhile, is quite flimsy. It was probably chosen to look BIG, because chanting "0.16 percent!!" would sound rather pathetic. I suspect propagandistic inflation because the Newsweek writer who came up with that (one Jessica Bennet) -- in 2009, mind -- then immediately claims there are "thriving contingents in nearly every major city."... &, again, she doesn't cite a source for this claim, or even define "major city" (as with "polyamorous families").

To my mind, Monogamism has ensured that monogamy is based upon lies, distortions, half-truths, & willful ignorance -- given those poor materials, the number who seem to find happiness in it is greater than one could hope.

However, from the outset, I have believed that responsible nonmonogamy ought to be better than that.

I'm gonna pretend that by "great" Bennett meant "populous" (rather than somehow "significant" or "important" or "really mind-expanding, man). Scanning the actual list, I bog down by about #100, because I cannot bring myself to consider either Boise or Des Moines "major."

First pass, I'll set "great" as 300,000+, which is likely overgenerous because it includes Saint Paul, & I've spent MUCH time in Saint Paul. Anyway, posit that half the "half-million" live in those 64 cities, so on average each has 3,906 poly "families."

That's a LOT of polyamory going on!!

The Jews coalesced in St. Louis Park in the 1950s in response to widespread Minneapolis antisemitism after the war, particularly housing discrimination. Within a few years, the residents turned a small quiet outlying village into a booming city. Now, even if polyfolk aren't much of a voting bloc, & probably don't dominate a suburb, how is it that a couple THOUSAND of 'em seem unaware of each other's simple existence?

 

[Ravenscroft]

Aren't there gay and lesbian teenage virgins?

I cannot accept the idea that polyamory is an orientation, any more than a deep-seated desire to own a Harley-Davidson is an orientation.

I could maybe make the case that polyamory is in fact the genetic norm... & everything else is a perversion of maximal freedom.

In the same way, I could say that pansexuality is the genetic norm, & anything else is some form of restriction that deserves at least to be questionable. And in that sense, "being gay" is (genetically speaking) just as normal as "being het" & therefore deserves parity of privilege & right.
________________

So far as poly, the WP article (& too many of its sources) quickly runs down the rabbit hole: polyamory is "defined" as encompassing ALL nonmonogamy... & as encompassing all RESPONSIBLE nonmonogamy... & as encompassing all nonmonogamy that claims to a high standard (communication, honesty, openness, etc.)... & as encompassing all nonmonogamythat actually PRACTICES those standards.

It also tries to dance on all sides of the fence by saying that "polyamory" ONLY applies to those people who RIGHT THIS SECOND have multiple sexual partners, yet turns around & says that "polyamory" applies to pretty much anyone who wants to claim it's whatever the hell they're doing (including random one night stands & extramarital affairs).

You could be poly and introverted and shy, or repressed, and only love from afar, but love more than one, more or less living in a fantasy world.

As one result, people read this nonsense, see it as one big self-serving DIY Relationship Kit, & a few wind up here asking "wtf happened?"

Again: I feel that polyamory -- the REAL polyamory that is, with the philosophical trappings -- can be better than that.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I was meditating at the cemetery earlier this week, disposing of brances from the windstorms. And the thought occurred to me in a flash --

Individuals cannot be polyamorous.

It was stunning... & it would solve a LOT of confusion.

A person can have a polyamorous worldview... polyamorous relationships... polyamorous experiences... maybe a polyamorous mindset...

But they really cannot BE polyamrous. It's existentially impossible.

And I remembered that our household had figured this out back around 1984.

Polyamory is an ideal. Like so many human ideals, it is the peak of a very slippery slope -- it cannot be once achieved & forever held. Getting distracted is EASY, & then we slip off to the side or behave badly -- lying, dissembling, snappishness, selfishness, meanness, emotional distancing, whatever -- & need to trudge our way back up. We learn, we make amends, we at least try to not continue making the same mistakes, & then something else goes off the rails.

And to me (to US, actually, o those years ago), it's that LACK of easy complacency that is a vital defining factor of what I see as responsible nonmonogamy, a.k.a. polyamory.
________________

Back when I was an officer of a sizable Minneapolis Wiccan organization, I put foreward the bones of a plan to set actual standards for membership. Almost all of us had come in through Wiccan lineages that had been around since the Dark Ages -- by which I mean the 1940s.

Increasingly, people were reading some scrap about Neopaganism, & deciding "hey, I like that, so that's what I am now!!" & show up, declaring themselves to be High Priests & Magisters & whatnot, & getting all sorts of upset when they weren't immediately granted the same authority as those who had studied & worked & learned the rituals & developed the discipline.

It was becoming like a REALLY badly run D&D tournament.

So I proposed some rather basic stuff like core reading materials (there were few relevant books at the time) & common terminology.

One reliable dissenter spoke up. "That sounds awfully ELITIST to me!"

I thought about it a moment... & agreed. "I don't see anything WRONG with building an organization of serious believers."

To my surprise, almost everyone went along with me. Committees were formed, papers were written, soon enough a generic "training coven" was formed that would get beginners upto speed & give them the tools they needed to forge an individual path or create their own group or join a "trad" coven. Everyone picked up the metaphorical ball & ran with it, & I was happy to let 'em do so. This launched a boom period for the overarching Wiccan organization, & noobs practically lined up to get involved.

And I've long hoped to see something similar happen in nonmonogamy.

 

[Ravenscroft]

As one result, people read this nonsense, see it as one big self-serving DIY Relationship Kit, & a few wind up here asking "wtf happened?"

Oh, darnit... to clarify, by "this nonsense" I am referring to the articles, NOT the wonderfully thought-provoking critiques provided by Magdlyn.

Chagrin for any misinterpretations.

 

[Magdlyn]

Oh, darnit... to clarify, by "this nonsense" I am referring to the articles, NOT the wonderfully thought-provoking critiques provided by Magdlyn.

Chagrin for any misinterpretations.

Oh thanks, I did read that and was confused. Admittedly I am often confused by your posts though. You seem to be talking to yourself, with personal views and assumptions and leaps of... logic? or lines of thought from your long personal experience, that we readers are not privy to.

Can poly nature be a spectrum, like gender preference (or even gender identity for that matter) is?

Going by these tired tropes that 10% of the population is "gay" or "lesbian" seems unhelpful. Being that I am pansexual, cisgendered and yet genderqueer, and partnered with a transwoman, I might have a more nuanced view on this than you do, Ravenscroft, if I assume you are cisgendered and hetero? Not to assume, but from your words you seem to be speaking theoretically, mostly from reading mainstream articles, not from experience or reading queer literature.

Most people who are "gay" have had sex with the opposite sex at least once. In fact, if you have never, there is a term for you, "gold star."

I think our culture is too based on black and white, on or off, binaries. We gravitate towards absolutes. Married til death do us part. Yeah right.

So, let's be biracial or multiracial, bisexual or pansexual. Let's be mono sometimes, poly other times. Life is long. Why do we have to pick a fucking side?? Who says we do?

Some people think transgendered persons are "gay." They will see a femme guy and assume he's gay. But he may love to fuck women very much and just have a strong femme side. He may ID as cis, or be undergoing transition. It's up to him how to identify. If he does transition to a woman, and now ID as she, but still likes to fuck women only, this person will now be a lesbian.

Some people might have seen me casually when I was married to a man, or when I am dating a man and they see me at the grocery store, and judge me as straight and monogamous. They don't know, can't tell just by looking at me, that I am pansexual, that I am capable of loving and relating to more than one. They don't know how many lovers I have had, or the times I've worn a men's suit to a formal event, or how many pussies I've had my hand in. lol

My point is, again, it's not gay/straight, it's not poly/mono, and never the twain shall meet. I prefer to encourage those grey areas.

 

[Spork]

I completely agree with Magdlyn, and I also go back to something I often say when people cite statistics:

"Hm. No one polled me. Did anyone poll you? No? Well, there are two of us now who weren't counted in these statistics. Bet there are more. Bet that number gets more and more meaningless the more people you ask, whether anybody consulted them for this very official study."

Again, how is anyone gathering this information on "one in ten" gay people or half a million poly families or whatever? Who are they asking?

The ONLY caveat to this, that I can put a finger on, is that nowadays we live in the information age as it were, and *waves hello at Big Brother* people are sharing more than ever before. And our devices and services and apps and companies are scooping up our vital statistics in aggregate as best they can and trying to find exciting and profitable new uses for all of this personal info we put all over the place. I have admitted all kinds of extremely "private" things about myself and others, and I don't kid myself into thinking that my username is an effective smokescreen to hide my real identity from anybody who comes here and reads it. So I have shrugged my shoulders and just accepted the reality that I am shouting my perversions off the rooftops and hope that nobody really cares that much.

This kind of data aggregation MIGHT actually enable present day and future statisticians to be more accurate than ever before about such subjects as this. But of course they still cannot count all of the people who don't participate in social media, or own smart phones, and so forth. I still do know a few people who have a really small internet footprint, or insist on their obsolete tech, in the hopes of remaining invisible to The Man.

 

[kdt26417]

I don't think we'll ever know how many polyamorists live in this world; there's too many variables; there's too many hidden in the closet. I suspect the number in the United States is more than 500,000 ... but I would not want to be quoted on that.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I might have a more nuanced view on this than you do ... you seem to be speaking theoretically, mostly from reading mainstream articles, not from experience or reading queer literature.

That alone is a lot to parse, but I'll try.

FWIW, I do read a LOT of (to use the Fox News term) "mainstream" articles, because I'm interested in seeing how the deviant cultures to which I feel I belong are presented to the world. Seems to me like this would be a GOOD thing, but others may disagree.

And I don't keep a proper c.v. of my life experiences but I can summarize a bit. I've been sexually involved with a couple of guys, felt love for a few others, shared a bed with a few though there was no sexual interest for each other. I've felt love for staunch lesbians & for two trans women (counting four more among my friends & co-conspirators). I was on the organizing committee of the Minneapolis BECAUSE conference for two years, & previously a regular visitor to the University's gay & lesbian groups& the Feminist Resource Center.

I've read stories & articles about "the queer experience" as about "the black experience" or "the Jewish experience" or what have you, though I haven't felt the need to study anything outside of my immediate experience -- heavens, I wouldn't have the time.

Does that mean I'm properly nuanced?

 

[Ravenscroft]

Hm; sparking old memories. I knew a woman who detested the "trans/cis" thing:

I was born in a boy's body, & I don't have ovaries. I'm a woman, simple as that.

As well, Steve is reallyREALLY gay, & also not totally happy with labels as he feels this confines him with other peoples' expectations.
________________

In their last year of publication, Equal Times set up a rather large poll of Twin Cities lesbians (self-identified). A big controversy of the time was how lesbians were coming down with AIDS even though the community (there's that word again) was nowhere near so sexually active as gay men. Some had launched the notion that the problem stemmed from women less than "gold star" infiltrating, bringing along man-borne disease. There were actually calls to close ranks & expunge their ranks of these few deviants.

The paper's staff spotted something interesting in this: about 40% of self-termed lesbians (NOT "bi" or "queer" or whatever, though those terms were very trendy) had willingly had sex with a man in the previous two years.

And ~70% of those men were described as "gay."

The "saboteurs" meme kinda died down after that.
________________

Now, I figure someone's going to suggest this (& my Wiccan Church experience) means I'm drawing a parallel, suggesting that all True Polys should consider expunging anyone who doesn't live up to my criteria.

Far from it.

I'm saying that giving the same rote support & resources to people with wildly variant needs -- just because they happen to have latched onto the same label -- is not good for anyone. It's NOT that I want a "one size fits all" polyamory, rather that this is what we've already got.

There are those (like Zell) who can explain why swinging is part of poly; there are those who can explain why it's NOT. Some say that "it ain't poly" unless ALL the intimate interactions involved are committed or at least serious.

I began study as a Rogerian therapist, specifically for relationship counseling. If I were somehow spotted as "poly friendly," the firstthing I'd have to ask such clients is, "Okay, first: what exactly do YOU mean by 'polyamory'?"

Aside from "multiple sexual partners, or at least the potential for such, mightbe involved here." After that, all bets are off.

To do otherwise is not unlike a doctor dosing up EVERY patient who walks in the door with massive antibiotics on the grounds that this is what MOST need, or probably anyway, because that's how it used to be during flu season. In reality, it won't do much good for most at that moment, it might help some at least a little, & it could kill a few, but "greater good" & all that.

That's why "poly friendly" is not necessarily a good thing: it creates preconceptions that could well break more than it fixes.

I don't agree with online statements that polyamory is "do whatever you want." But if I were to examine the needs of two reasonably identical MFM vees, they would share some commonalities yet be markedly different in others. That's not anarchy, but simple variability.

If people wanted total freedom, they wouldn't so giddiliy embrace questionable terminology & get all into a rush to join a club. Therefore, I feel justified saying they WANT structure, they WANT logic, they WANT consistency. They might be capable of building it themselves, but they're not only new to the concepts, they're inexperienced in worldbuilding, & in fact can't quite yet wrap their brain around the idea that it's possible to effect change.

Help is a good thing.

 

[Al99]

By the numbers

Kevin wrote earlier in the thread:

I don't think we'll ever know how many polyamorists live in this world; there's too many variables; there's too many hidden in the closet. I suspect the number in the United States is more than 500,000 ... but I would not want to be quoted on that.

(Sorry, Kevin - I quoted you anyway )


A 2016 article on the Advocate.com (which quoted a "Psychology Today" article from 2014) - asserted some possible numbers.

Exact numbers for individuals practicing non-monogamy can be maddeningly hard to come by. But most researchers estimate that a full 4–5 percent of Americans participate in some form of ethical non-monogamy. In her Psychology Today blog post on May 9, 2014, Elisabeth Sheff relates the findings of independent Australian academic Kelly Cookson:

“It appears that sexually non-monogamous couples in the United States number in the millions. Estimates based on actually trying sexual non-monogamy are around 1.2 to 2.4 million. An estimate based solely on the agreement to allow satellite lovers is around 9.8 million. These millions include poly couples, swinging couples, gay male couples, and other sexually non-monogamous couples.”

My thoughts on this -

4-5% of the US population is in the 15,000,000 range - but this includes all forms of ethical non-monogamy - poly, swinging, DADT, "open" relationships, etc.

I'm guessing that the reference to 1.2 to 2.4 million (US population) trying "sexual non-monogamy" refers just to poly. Side note - it seems that I do keep seeing this phrase "sexual non-monogamy" being used in place of poly - although it seems to me that "sexual non-monogamy" is not specific enough to be synonymous with polyamory. Nevertheless, the recent NY Times Magazine article contained the following quote:

Terms have long existed for arrangements similar to those she was seeing — they could fall under the category of polyamory, which involves more than one loving relationship, or the more all-encompassing term, consensual nonmonogamy, which also includes more casual sex outside of marriage or a relationship. (The use of each term implies full knowledge of all parties.) But most of the couples she was seeing did not feel the need to name what they were doing at all. “Most people don’t like the word ‘polyamorous,’ ” Nelson told me. “It’s not easy to say; it sounds a little French, with all respect to the French.”

It seems that some folks just don't like the "sound" of the word "polyamory" - and to some extent I have to concur - it does seem a bit awkward phonetically and aurally (maybe those mixed Greek and Latin roots). But, at least it does provide a specific reference to a specific form of consensual non-monogamy. Maybe we could have an online contest to find a new term for polyamory that is more pleasing to the ear - but is still *specific* enough to refer just to poly as we currently understand it.

The second paragraph refers to a lower number of approximately 10,000,000 for the total number of all forms of consensual non-monogamy. And I have seen estimates of as many as 10,0000,000 active swingers in the US quoted elsewhere as well.

But I agree with Kevin, I don't think that we will ever know the exact number of poly folks due to its fluid nature and somewhat slippery definition - and that (I strongly suspect at least) the vast majority of poly folks are closeted - especially in mono marriages that have opened up (such as my own). Still, I would tend to think that the total number of individuals involved in some type of poly situation is easily in excess of a million. The original quoted article in "Psychology Today" was from 2014 - three years ago - and poly has certainly got a lot of press since then so I would even venture that a million is a very conservative number (but bearing in mind that even a couple of million is still less than 1% of the US population).

Just a couple of cents worth. Al

 

[kdt26417]

Exactly ... and that's not to include those who cheat (or have cheated) on their spouses: not poly, but not quite monogamous either.

 

[Al99]

Kevin wrote:

Exactly ... and that's not to include those who cheat (or have cheated) on their spouses: not poly, but not quite monogamous either

I know that I have read statistics that indicate that at least half of individuals in monogamous relationships will cheat at some point in their lives. Of course cheating-"adultery" is far different than poly because it is non-consensual and non-ethical, but it does point out that many who profess monogamy fail to live up to that self-professed standard and are not truly monogamous themselves.

I have read in a few places that the number of people in the US who actively practice consensual non-monogamy in some form (poly, swinging, etc) is probably around 5% at any given time. However, the following study quoted on the Bustle.com web site states that 20% of "single people" had tried non-monogamy at some point in their lives - not sure how that would apply to "formerly single people" - possibly about the same for those under 40 (?) = maybe a little less for those older. Or perhaps, the point is that it is more prevalent in "non-legally married" relationships?

From the Bustle.com web site.

A recent study in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy surveyed 87,000 people and discovered that 20 percent of single people had tried a non-monogamous arrangement at some point in their lives. That means one in five of your single friends is likely to have dipped their toe into the waters of "open relationships," which researchers defined as anything from long-term non-monogamous couplings to friends with benefits scenarios. When you skew it that way, perhaps the country is a lot more non-monogamous than we think.

 

[kdt26417]

I think it is generally considered more excusable to be single and nonmonogamous, than it is to be married and nonmonogamous. In other words, people often think, if you're going to be nonmonogamous, ever, you should do it before you get married and get it out of your system.

 

[lafayettejeffersona]

Why does it have to be a sexual act? I'm asexual and I hardly ever even kiss my boyfriend. I can still consider myself poly seeing as I'm working up the nerve to ask another person into our relationship.

My less than 15 word definition- Loving or willing to love more than one person.

 

[Magdlyn]

Why does it have to be a sexual act? I'm asexual and I hardly ever even kiss my boyfriend. I can still consider myself poly seeing as I'm working up the nerve to ask another person into our relationship.

My less than 15 word definition- Loving or willing to love more than one person.

I take issue with your definition and even your post... You can't "ask someone into" your relationship with you and your boyfriend. If you desire that person romantically or sexually, you're asking them to be into relationship with YOU. What that person and your bf get up to between them is their business. Even if you eventually create a true triad, where all the dyads in the relationship click romantically, intimately (if not sexually), there are still 3 dyads and one triad.

It's not going to start out that way. And it's a diss to that person to be expected to be "added" to your existing relationship. What if you and new person click, but bf and new person do not click? That often happens. Metamours don't need to be friends, much less lovers.

As far as your definition, define adult "love." Loving more than one is what most of us do, family, platonic friends, we love them. Intimate romantic love (usually involving sex, with exceptions made for asexual people) is what polyamory is about.

 

[lafayettejeffersona]

I take issue with your definition and even your post... You can't "ask someone into" your relationship with you and your boyfriend. If you desire that person romantically or sexually, you're asking them to be into relationship with YOU. What that person and your bf get up to between them is their business. Even if you eventually create a true triad, where all the dyads in the relationship click romantically, intimately (if not sexually), there are still 3 dyads and one triad.

It's not going to start out that way. And it's a diss to that person to be expected to be "added" to your existing relationship. What if you and new person click, but bf and new person do not click? That often happens. Metamours don't need to be friends, much less lovers.

As far as your definition, define adult "love." Loving more than one is what most of us do, family, platonic friends, we love them. Intimate romantic love (usually involving sex, with exceptions made for asexual people) is what polyamory is about.

I've been talking with my boyfriend about it and he's one of our close friends. We're just having a hard time talking to him about it.

 

[Spork]

I agree with the asexual poster. It's my nod to "Relationship Anarchy" that I place a certain weight on certain friendships, they are not "just" anything merely because we don't have sex. Maybe we will one day. Maybe not. But that alone should not be the One Thing that defines how important someone is in your life, or how intimate your connection is.

And seriously, I've had sex partners with whom my connection was far less, than what I share with many of my friends.

It's one of the big reasons I still kinda hold onto the sense that I'm polyish.

But I generally think that society/culture gets way too worked up about sex and everything related to it. Sometimes the fact that so many laws and religion are obsessed with who is doing what to whom behind closed doors, even if it's all consenting adults involved...it's baffling. We've seriously got these high ranking and high paid people in positions of leadership and supposed public service who have nothing better to worry about than what people want to do with their genitals. Humanity needs to grow up already.

 

[Magdlyn]

I agree with the asexual poster. It's my nod to "Relationship Anarchy" that I place a certain weight on certain friendships, they are not "just" anything merely because we don't have sex. Maybe we will one day. Maybe not. But that alone should not be the One Thing that defines how important someone is in your life, or how intimate your connection is.

And seriously, I've had sex partners with whom my connection was far less, than what I share with many of my friends.

It's one of the big reasons I still kinda hold onto the sense that I'm polyish.

But I generally think that society/culture gets way too worked up about sex and everything related to it. Sometimes the fact that so many laws and religion are obsessed with who is doing what to whom behind closed doors, even if it's all consenting adults involved...it's baffling. We've seriously got these high ranking and high paid people in positions of leadership and supposed public service who have nothing better to worry about than what people want to do with their genitals. Humanity needs to grow up already.

Spork, I'm not critcising lafayette for being asexual! All people are on a spectrum and thank the gods for that. Even in my own life, my sex drive has varied wildly. It goes down a lot when I am exhausted or ill. It's off the charts high when I am well and feeling good in my relationship(s).

I objected to her saying she wants to "bring a guy into" her relationship with her and her husband. I think I clearly laid out why.

And her definition of poly as someone loving more than one... There is a difference between loving a friend, loving a child, loving a parent, loving your community or country or planet, and the love you share with a romantic/sexual partner! The Greeks had 3 words for love: agape, caritas and eros. I was trying to point out the different kinds of love as applied to modern polyamory.

It was nothing to do with sex, and I feel slightly offended you seemed to think I was objecting to someone's identification as asexual.

 

[Spork]

Spork, I'm not critcising lafayette for being asexual! All people are on a spectrum and thank the gods for that. Even in my own life, my sex drive has varied wildly. It goes down a lot when I am exhausted or ill. It's off the charts high when I am well and feeling good in my relationship(s).

I objected to her saying she wants to "bring a guy into" her relationship with her and her husband. I think I clearly laid out why.

And her definition of poly as someone loving more than one... There is a difference between loving a friend, loving a child, loving a parent, loving your community or country or planet, and the love you share with a romantic/sexual partner! The Greeks had 3 words for love: agape, caritas and eros. I was trying to point out the different kinds of love as applied to modern polyamory.

It was nothing to do with sex, and I feel slightly offended you seemed to think I was objecting to someone's identification as asexual.

I was not responding to you, Mags, nor even addressing the question of bringing someone into a dyad...though I have known people who did in one fashion or another, but we have all seen the pitfalls of this thinking.

My premise was that for someone like me, the lines between those different kinds of love can be very blurry. And I see them somewhat different than what you describe (briefly) here.

I think of chemical love, probably hormone driven, which can drive everything from Mother-baby bonding, to the wild ride of NRE.

I think of friend-love which can bond a romantic partnership into a long term deep enduring fondness, and hopefully keep it going well past the point if NRE fades out, regardless of the matches of sexual drives, abilities, and desires.

I think of familial love as being not only what I might feel for my parent or sibling or (teenage) kid, but what I felt for my ex husband and still do to some extent, and even the tribal feeling of community and chosen family. That would be on a spectrum just like one of close to extended family...I feel more familial love for my ex (even when I can't stand him) than I feel for the outliers of my community or the cousins I haven't seen in decades.

My point is that even if I choose to commit sexually to one partner, I will inevitably want closeness and intimacy and feelings I call LOVE to exist with others, sometimes many others, to varying degrees. This is wildly different from my experience of "monogamy as practiced" (to use Ravenscroft's terminology) in that most hard-mono folks I know feel threatened if their partner associates with someone who COULD be a sexual candidate and somehow threaten or compete with them. During my marriage to my ex, I could not have had male friends who I'd previously had sex with or who were not related and therefore possibly eligible, and express love for them, spend time giving them attention, hug and kiss on them, let them see me with no clothes, or even touch me (albeit restricted to certain anatomical areas, which they respect) when I am nude. Under my current relationship, my partner understands that these many layers of intimacy even to the point of play at parties, are things I will want, and he trusts me to take it only so far and no further, based on our agreements, and to me this is something quite different from monogamy as I have ever known it.

And of course I might also get up to sex with other women, but that isn't something I am very good at pursuing and it really hasn't come together as of yet.

I like to play with the word bits anyways. I see polyamory as loving more than one, intimately, romantically, freely. The assumed thing of "having sex with more than one" is more "polysexual" in my thinking. As "polygamy" is having married or marriage-like committed relationships (insofar as we can) with more than one. So I think I am generally monosexual at the moment, but still polyamorous.

I wasn't trying to refute what you said, in saying that I agreed with lafayette in thinking we need flexibility in defining poly as various people do it...which is the premise of this thread and how hard it would be to count or census the poly population with any accuracy at all.

 

[Magdlyn]

Thanks for clarifying.