Polyamory is/is not a feminist movement

[Magdlyn]

I appreciate everyone's contributions. It's an interesting topic! I am surprised to learn that so many people do not recognize how feminism informs polyamory. To me, it's just self-evident that current contemporary polyamory could not exist without women having become empowered enough to be able to date multiple partners, especially men, at all. We've had to reclaim the term "slut," for example, and make it a thing of pride/joy/success to be able to have sexual/romantic/life partner relationships with more than one person, not something to be ashamed of and ostracized for.

And men who "sleep around," on the other hand, are now sometimes known as "man whores" or "fuckboys," rather than just playboys, or "lucky," something to be admired.

(I am trying to keep this discussion to just considering straight poly, or at most, including slightly bicurious women who are partnered with men. This is hard, since I am as queer as a 3 dollar bill. lol)

It's great to look at the history of polyamory, whether it is rooted in feminism, libertarianism or pure sci-fi fantasy. Someone I've been getting to know recently, a gay mono man, told me he was reading a book of the history of polyamory... which I'd not heard of. I think it must be this one (our conversation about it was a month ago):

Fifty Years of Polyamory in America: A Guided Tour of a Growing Movement​

I see the next one on this subject listed on Amazon is:

Polyamory, Monogamy, and American Dreams: The Stories We Tell about Poly Lives and the Cultural Production of Inequality (Feminism and Female Sexuality)​

Obviously, that one specifically addresses how feminism relates to polyamory. I might have to look into getting these books.

As for Morning Glory Zell and her husband, they were trailblazers, but their values are now outmoded. We no longer assume a married MF couple practicing hierarchical poly, and having to vet all of each other's new partners, and keeping all secondaries firmly in their place is the best way to practice poly. When I was an ignorant newbie to poly in 1999, my ex-h and I sort of had that POV, just in the beginning, but soon realized how unworkable it was. I'm not into those kind of limits to "protect the original couple" at all. I think that must come from the swinging realm, which we now have less of a link with.

As for the group sex so fondly remembered by Mr Zell, that's not the point of polyamory to me, even though poly is still thought of as including that by the mainstream. We have kitchen-table poly, we have parallel poly, but group sex is not really the point. In fact, we now have platonic poly arrangements, and asexuals involved in poly.

Probably the AIDS epidemic turned a lot of early polyamorists off of casual group sex. It's made our sex lives more "conservative," not politically, but just to protect our health and to actually not die.

 

[Magdlyn]

Polyamory Isn't Just for Liberals

In the history of sexual dissent, the relationship between politics and sexual freedom defies simplistic categorization.

time.com

I think this post gives a more concise timeline.

I am wary of this article just because of how it starts:

Polyamory seems to have burst upon the American mainstream over the past two decades. The deluge of podcasts, TV shows, books, and magazine articles detailing polycules, metamores, throuples, threesomes, and moresomes testifies to the growing number of Americans willing to jettison monogamy.

First of all, they spelled "metamour" wrong. Secondly, they used the offensive term "throuple." (We all know why that's an offensive term, right?) Next, they followed that word with "threesome," which basically means threeway sex, which is not what polyamory is about (confusing polyamory with swinging). And then they "cutely" follow threesome with "moresome" (leaving out the rhyming word "foursome"), again, giving the impression that they are talking about naughty titillating group sex, and not a poly network, which might be entirely parallel, and include LDRs, FWBs, comets, online relationships, parents taking care of children, etc. The terms they used are designed to appeal to the horny general public, making us actual polyamorists out to be sex-crazed orgiasts, players, "easy lays," indiscriminating people with a lack of moral character.

Anyway, the article might be somewhat helpful, but TIME is as mainstream as it gets.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Secondly, they used the offensive term "throuple."

Many triads use the term, especially closed triads. They feel it is exactly what they are. If you see, the person who co-coined the term polyamory feels group sex is the best bit.

The people who don't like it are those who are more benefitted by "open" poly. I personally don't care what a triad call themselves unless I am in it.

As for Morning Glory Zell and her husband, they were trailblazers, but their values are now outmoded. We no longer assume a married MF couple practicing hierarchical poly, and having to vet all of each other's new partners, and keeping all secondaries firmly in their place is the best way to practice poly

That may be the case, but it shows that the "roots" of modern polyamory had these values, not feminist ones. Ones that championed and protected the marriage above everyone and everything.

Probably the AIDS epidemic turned a lot of early polyamorists off of casual group sex.

They were the early polyamorists. In fact that article has a "condoms" section. They weren't put off of group sex at all. Group sex isn't more risky than having the same amount of partners seperately. Barriers are the key and they cover that.

These people are the roots of modern polyamory. They would have to espouse feminist values for polyamory to have any real foundation in feminism.

 

[Magdlyn]

Seasoned, you quoted me wrong in your first paragraph, attributing your words to me.

 

[AlwaysGrowing]

It's possible that this is a regional thing. The Boston-area poly community is super liberal and feminist. Magdlyn lives in this area too, so maybe that's why our perspectives are similar.

I do think much of the polyamorous experience depends on location. In my area (small city Oregon - nowhere near as large as Portland but not a rural town either), a not insignificant portion of the polyamorous folks I encounter are racist, bigoted, orange man supporters.

There is a solid community of decent human polyamorous people as well, but it takes time to find

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Seasoned, you quoted me wrong in your first paragraph, attributing your words to me.

Thats so weird. I was distracted when I posted.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I fixed it. For people reading in a gazillion years, there was originally a mistake.

 

[LaminarFlow]

There are some findings that during The Golden Age, polyamory and queerness in piracy was fairly normal as it was a sanctuary for all kinds of types, who for all kinds of reasons, could not fit into the rest of society. It was one of the very few subcultures with sexual freedom, and democratically organized before it was normal.

Female pirates were disguised as men, but if I have to bet on it, some of them having the same certain lifestyle behind close doors as men.

 

[Magdlyn]

I do think much of the polyamorous experience depends on location. In my area (small city Oregon - nowhere near as large as Portland but not a rural town either), a not insignificant portion of the polyamorous folks I encounter are racist, bigoted, orange man supporters.

There is a solid community of decent human polyamorous people as well, but it takes time to find

Are these far right winger, Trump-supporting (conservative "Christian" [?]) polyamorists egalitarian, where both the men and women have the full right to have relationships with any gender, or are they of the patriarchal sort, where the men have multiple "wives," but the women all have to only share one guy? I just wonder what the dynamic is like, in general.

 

[Magdlyn]

Many triads use the term, especially closed triads. They feel it is exactly what they are.

Couples that want prescribed triads, where their "third" is almost always a HBB (hot bi babe) who is meant to be equally attracted to both the guy and the woman, to agree to only having threeway sex or dates with them, to "stay in her lane" as a secondary, to follow the couple's "rules" without questions or input of her own, etc... These are the ones who enjoy thinking they are participating in a throuple. It seems these kinds of triads rarely last long, or if they do, one or more of the participants (usually the women) are deeply unhappy and forcing themselves to do things they don't want to do.

At least, that has been my experience with the stories of the people who come here desperate for help. Maybe there are egalitarian triads/"throuples" who have been happily together for 5, 10, 15+ years, who have few problems, and are led by the rules of the couple, and their HBB is agreeable to being always a secondary, and to have fewer rights than the couple does (i.e., the couple gets to have one-on-one sex, but she doesn't, the couple gets to breed, but she doesn't, the couple gets to attend work parties and extended family events, but she doesn't, the couple gets to be legally married, but she doesn't, etc.). I just don't hear about them.

If you see, the person who co-coined the term polyamory feels group sex is the best bit.

Yes, that was apparently a big part of it back in those early poly communes, which were consciously based on Heinlein's sci fi fantasies of plural marriage. I don't think they were anti-feminists, but I also do not think they are at all common nowadays. Communes, in general, don't tend to stay together long, as people come and go, get disenchanted, don't do the chores that are expected of them, start abusing each other, doing hard drugs, not contributing financially, etc., etc.

The people who don't like it are those who are more benefitted by "open" poly. I personally don't care what a triad call themselves unless I am in it.


That may be the case, but it shows that the "roots" of modern polyamory had these values, not feminist ones. Ones that championed and protected the marriage above everyone and everything.

I guess you could want to protect your marriage and still be a feminist.

They were the early polyamorists. In fact that article has a "condoms" section. They weren't put off of group sex at all. Group sex isn't more risky than having the same amount of partners separately. Barriers are the key and they cover that.

Okay, I didn't see that part. I read that article some years back but not since it was posted on this thread.

These people are the roots of modern polyamory. They would have to espouse feminist values for polyamory to have any real foundation in feminism.

I thought they did espouse feminist values?

 

[Magdlyn]

Well, polyamory is no longer one coherent movement (if it ever really was to begin with), so it can't be any one thing. And it's becoming more popular and trendy, so a wider variety of people are interested in it and practicing it.

Can you be a sexist, male chauvinist, authoritarian, patriarchal, misogynistic person and be polyamorous? I think you can't. Unless you insist on a OPP. And if you do that, it's basically just harem building. The man has several female lovers/wives, and these women can't have sex with other men. They can only have sex with that one guy, and with each other (because FF sex is hot and titillating, or at least inconsequential to the man).

But I think the philosophy behind polyamory is pretty feminist. A lot of newbies, outsiders, media portrayals of poly, etc., are unaware of or downplay the feminist aspects.

And somehow feminism has become a dirty word, like the way right-wing media has demonized being "woke." As I said earlier, people distance themselves from feminism while fully enjoying the rights won for them by feminists (and other progressives).

In poly social circles (at least in the Boston area currently), I have met so many poly men who are strongly feminist and deeply engaged with feminist issues. Much more so than were the mostly mono men I encountered before I became poly. So, earlier this year, when I decided to be open to dating mono men as well, I was curious if I would still notice that dichotomy.

And I have to say that, yes--the poly men I met were much more obviously and openly feminist than the mono-identifying ones. But, this is in the context of me already selecting for the most politically leftist and pro-feminist men. So, if there are conservative poly men out there, I wouldn't have matched with them. And the mono men I met were all pro-feminist in their beliefs, but they noticeably hadn't done as much questioning and thinking about feminist issues as the poly men had done.

Interesting experiment!

It's possible that this is a regional thing. The Boston-area poly community is super liberal and feminist. Magdlyn lives in this area too, so maybe that's why our perspectives are similar.

I'd agree, except for the fact that Boston (and other cities in Massachusetts, such as Provincetown, Northampton, Salem and many others) is not the only liberal progressive (feminist-friendly) city in the country. Most big cities are more progressive than surrounding rural areas, and alternative types (poly folk, queers, artists, pagans and atheists, drag queens, etc.) flock to them to find like-minded people, friends/lovers, audiences, patrons, congregations and covens.

However, there are liberal conclaves in parts of rural Vermont (homesteaders move there from Mass.) upstate NY (around Woodstock) and no doubt out West too.

But I don't think anyone is arguing that polyamory is the best or the only way to express feminism.

No, certainly not.

That would be kind of like arguing that lesbianism is the best way to express feminism...which definitely WAS an argument made by some capital-L Lesbians back in the '70s, and is definitely a part of the history of second-wave feminism...and straight women feminists at the time were left feeling like they were giving in to the patriarchy if they dated men...but today, nobody would take that argument seriously.

I remember all of that in Ms Magazine, to which my mother was a charter subscriber.

Plenty of people are monogamous by orientation. My closest friends are all strong feminists...90% of them are monogamous. They don't find non-monogamy or polyamory relevant to their lives or particularly appealing. They were never unhappy due to monogamy and never felt that monogamy was an oppressive structure for them personally.

I don't think my friends are giving into the patriarchy by not questioning monogamous norms...although I have definitely felt judged by them at times for my being non-monogamous, so I think they could learn a bit more about polyamory and particularly its feminist aspects.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Unless you insist on a OPP. And if you do that, it's basically just harem building.

Harem building is polyamory. This goes back to the No True Scotsman fallacy, you are saying that the types of anti-feminist polyamory aren't polyamory. Polyamory just means more than one intimate relationship that everyone knows about.

I thought they did espouse feminist values?

No they espoused values that suited married cis het men and secondly, their wives. They weren't values that saw all women as equally valuable or with equal rights. Hence the explicit veto rules, hierarchy and focus on group sex.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

It seems these kinds of triads rarely last long, or if they do, one or more of the participants (usually the women) are deeply unhappy and forcing themselves to do things they don't want to do.

It is still polyamory. No matter how long it lasts.

but I also do not think they are at all common nowadays.

Well that is why i say polyamory is only now starting to maybe become inherently feminist. It never was before.

 

[Magdlyn]

Harem building is polyamory. This goes back to the No True Scotsman fallacy, you are saying that the types of anti-feminist polyamory aren't polyamory. Polyamory just means more than one intimate relationship that everyone knows about.

No, it's not just "with the knowledge of everyone involved;" it definitely includes "with the informed consent of all players," as well. And being informed and actually feeling good about this choice is part of it, to many of us. How many people come here who have been hit with the poly bomb, and are going along with it out of some kind of feeling of self-sacrifice or duty, to make their spouse feel good, to fulfill their spouse's desires, while feeling sick, sad, desperate, upset, angry, lonely and frightened themselves? We tell them, don't bend yourself into a pretzel, don't shrink yourself to please or keep your spouse, don't agree to being in a poly relationship if it really doesn't suit you or make you feel joyful.

We've had both women and men try to do poly to please their spouses/long-term partners, although I think it's more common for women to make this sacrifice. Squishy Husk is a man who is going along with an actual triad to please his wife.

How many women in harems are actually totally satisfied with that kind of arrangement? I guess, if they are super bisexual and really get off on having their sister wives as lovers, it could work. If they've agreed, for good reasons, with the man telling them, "You CANNOT date/have sex with other men," I guess they could be truly joyful. But it seems to me like it's much more common to do it out of fear of loss.

Maybe I just don't get closed poly relationships. That's just me? I think no one person should be able to tell another whom they can date. It just smacks too much of fundamentalist polygynous patriarchal cults like the FLDS (Fundamentalist Mormons) where the men have so much power they can get away with marrying 14 year olds, marrying literally a dozen or more women, and getting them all pregnant, having 30-40 kids, and usually forcing them all into lives of poverty.

No, they espoused values that suited married cis het men and secondly, their wives. They weren't values that saw all women as equally valuable or with equal rights. Hence the explicit veto rules, hierarchy and focus on group sex.

Hmm... okay, so we could say that despite these people considering themselves feminists, they weren't really, by today's standards. Back then, it was all about the marriage, and/or the collective. People were coming, as couples, into polyamory, and keeping their other partners as secondary satellites. Whereas, nowadays we have many people who are solo poly, and/or relationship anarchists, and/or even asexual or greysexual, who wouldn't be pulled in by the glorious group sex the Zells were fond of. We also have more people with co-primaries.

It seems like lots of newbie couples come here wanting a hierarchy, but have trouble getting the hot bi babes to go along with being secondaries nowadays.

(I tried to read the article about the Zells last night, but the format was such a mess, and I think it wanted me to download it, and I was afraid of catching a virus, so I didn't download it. I did read the 2018 interview with the Wizard Zell though. He talked about how poly has changed over the years, from the 1980s to 2018, which was interesting.)

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

and actually feeling good about this choice is part of it, to many of us

On a personal level, I agree. However, this conditon isnt part of the definition of a polyamorous relationship. It is part of my personal conditions.

So, how many women in harems are actually totally satisfied with it?

The same goes for this.

And this is why I am saying polyamory itself isn't feminist. You can have these configurations, and have them for the worst possible reasons, and still be poly.

We agree that those configurations are not feminist. It isn't enough to say that the women chose them freely. I think we agree on that.

So it follows that unless all polyamorous configuations are inherently feminist and challenge patriarchial ideals, polyamory itself cannot be inherently feminist.

At best, some people can use feminism to inform their relationship choices.

 

[Magdlyn]

On a personal level, I agree. However, this conditon isnt part of the definition of a polyamorous relationship. It is part of my personal conditions.

That is highly debatable. If you're going along with polyamory out of fear of loss, or some other negative emotion, and you're not happy, it's not about amory. You're not doing it to give and get love. You're doing it out of fear. We don't want poly to be about fucking FEAR! I wouldn't be part of the polyamorous movement if it was about coercion, fear, force, rape, dominance, etc.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

You're not doing it to give and get love.

Well you are. You are doing it to sustain the loving relationship you have with your partner or to build a loving relationship with a new (poly) partner. You might even hope to find love with other partners, too, despite your fear

 

[Inaniel]

(I tried to read the article about the Zells last night, but the format was such a mess, and I think it wanted me to download it, and I was afraid of catching a virus, so I didn't download it.

I took screen captures of the Morning Glory article and compiled them into pdfs if anyone is interested in reading it, I did this for my own sanity because that website was unbearable. They had to be compressed to meet the upload limits on this website so the quality is only so-so.

 

[ref2018]

I took screen captures of the Morning Glory article and compiled them into pdfs if anyone is interested in reading it, I did this for my own sanity because that website was unbearable. They had to be compressed to meet the upload limits on this website so the quality is only so-so.

Thank you for taking the trouble to do that. Perhaps it would allow you to upload the uncompressed versions if you broke them up into separate posts.

 

[Magdlyn]

Yay! Thanks, Inaniel. Much better. I started to read it. Their "rules" are shit, but there is lots of other good info in there.

From the Bible/David section:

Today polyamory relations are based on love and equality between men and women.