Why Do You or Don't You Self Identify As Poly

hedgehog

hedgehog

New member
Why do you or don't you self identify as poly? A seemingly simple question. Perhaps not so simple answers. I will begin by offering my own perspective, which is that I fell into it by accident after happening across The Ethical Slut in a local bookstore. From there I began reading other books and searching out information on the web. The literature corresponded with the way I had been looking at relationships my whole life. So I adopted the label. Then I tried to engage with it in the real world ( or quasi-real world ) through dating websites, meetup groups, and forums like this one. In the process I found that the reality is very different from the theory. Consequently I no longer self-identify as polyamorous. Maybe I fall into a more ambiguous poly pool, where the criteria is more fluid. I don't know for sure anymore. What about you?
 
Last edited:
I realize that the Ravenhearts said, "The two essential ingredients of the concept of polyamory are 'more than one;' and 'loving.' That is, it is expected that the people in such relationships have an emotional bond, are involved in each other's lives multi-dimensionally, and care for each other." I think there are a few things to keep in mind about this.

First, they may have intended this loving emotional bond to apply just to the people in a polycule who are amorously connected; that is, in a V, it suffices for the hinge to have a loving emotional bond to each of his/her partners.

Second, when they said that, poly (the coined word) was still in its infancy; parallel poly may have evolved later on (assuming it didn't exist in the beginning). I think that if both of the Ravenhearts were around today and could observe the evolution of poly, they would happily include parallel poly in their definition of poly.

Third, it doesn't really matter what the Ravenhearts say, said, or meant. The inclusion, in the definition of poly, of V's and of parallel poly, has become so widely accepted that it trumps their (supposed) disagreement. Poly has greatly expanded and become a thing of its own, far beyond those tiny beginnings when it was up to the Ravenhearts to explain the word. Read about polyamory in Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Neither says anything about interrelationships. Assuming interrelationships were ever part of the definition, they're not now.

Based on the above points, I am very comfortable in identifying the V I am in as wholly polyamorous. As parts of that polyamorous whole, I am also comfortable in identifying each of the three members of the V as personally polyamorous. So I self-identify as poly.
 
okay, I'll bite. Sigh. I kinda hate myself for this, but it's been a really bad day so fuck it.

I haven't bothered with all those how to books. Ethical Slut, Opening Up, More Than Two, anything else on the recommended reading list. I haven't read them so I don't know the theory. Slightly partial to Stranger, though ;-) Although Jitterbug Perfume is really where it's at, existentially, lol.

I've just done me, in the "you do you" sense as much as I could throughout my life.

Admittedly, my poly journey is one that I do wish I had a word for way back when I was young (let's run with '95 to 2004) and rejecting relationship labels because I wanted to be able to have many "friends", and truly, loving friends were what many of my bedfellows were.

It's always been a part of me and I tried monogamy along the way but if I got a do-over I wouldn't bother. I'm poly as an orientation, and as a lifestyle now I have a partner and a husband. I also have an interest in knowing my metamours but not sleeping with them. Kitchen table but not sexual OR cohabitation.

I self identify as poly because I wouldn't feel true to myself any other way.
 
hedgehog said:
I no longer self-identify as polyamorous.
Click to expand...
I'm curious why you don't consider yourself poly.

I call myself monogamish because I was in a poly relationship and when another man put forth his serious intentions, I was not able to hold two in my heart. The poly relationship was beautiful, my meta and I had (still have) a loving, non-sexual friendship. The three of us in the V enjoyed a generosity of spirit that came naturally. But my heart just can't contain more than one at a time, much as I wished it could. I don't know if it's a wired thing or a brainwashing thing - it's just my thing. So while I'm not poly, I certainly am poly-positive and am close with a number of people who are making it work for the long term.
 
I personally do not identify as poly in any way.

I am interested in and open to sexual encounters with other women on a superficial level. Some feelings as in, affection and caring might happen and be welcome if the person becomes a longer term contact but I do not need or require that in order to have what i want. I love my wife, she is enough in the love department.

My wife would identify as poly.

In that she is open to and wanting to fall in love in order to truly enjoy a relationship with another man or woman. She does see the need and desire as i get old before her to have another stable meaningful love relationship in her life. However she does not feel that poly is an orientation or something similar, as in she has not always desired multiple loves in her life.

She is in reflection mode post a short but passionate relationship and right now hesitant to try again mainly because of social anxiety and not wanting to complicate life nor be dumped again.

so for those wondering... we are slowly working out a game plan or set of agreements to help us if and when she does try again. Sort of a lets get in front of a few likely issues before NRE is in the mix. She is not on the board because that's not her thing, so it sort of falls to me to do lots of the learning and research, hence why I am on here :) We have the two main books out there, I don't think Minxi has read them both.
 
Last edited:
I self identify as poly because I am capable of multiple loving relationships. I've known this a long time. Certainly longer than the word "polyamorous" has been coined. I think it's important to remember that none of those authors invented polyamory, including the one who coined the word. Their writings are mere opinion. If you want a true history read Sex at Dawn.
 
I identity as only Dagferi.

I do not need to label myself.
 
I find my situation to be descriptively poly, but I do not embrace the label as either a "lifestyle" or an "identity".
 
Amygdala said:
I personally do not identify as poly in any way.
Click to expand...

Here is how to state this clearly. You ARE polysexual. You are not polyamorous. Minxi is polyamorous, and probably demi-sexual. This is, she is only attracted to people she likes as people/friends, she is not interested in just fucking random bodies, as you are. I'm not trying to be gross, btw, just being simple and clear.

I am interested in and open to sexual encounters with other women on a superficial level. Some feelings, as in affection and caring, might happen, and be welcome, if the person becomes a longer term contact, but I do not need or require that in order to have what i want. I love my wife, she is enough in the love department.

My wife would identify as poly(amorous), in that she is open to and wanting to fall in love, in order to truly enjoy a relationship with another man or woman. She does see the need and desire, as I get older before her, to have another stable meaningful love relationship in her life. However, she does not feel that polyamory is an orientation or something similar, as in she has not always desired multiple loves in her life.

She is in reflection mode now, post a short but passionate relationship, and is hesitant to try again, mainly because of social anxiety and not wanting to complicate life, or be dumped again.

So for those wondering, we are slowly working out a game plan or set of agreements to help us, if and when she does try again. Sort of like, let's get in front of a few likely issues, before NRE is back in the mix. She is not on this board, because that's not her thing, so it sort of falls to me to do lots of the learning and research.

We have the two main books out there, but I don't think Minxi has read them either of them.
Click to expand...
 
I really didn't want to add to this thread but I think this is very interesting:

"Some feelings as in, affection and caring might happen and be welcome if the person becomes a longer term contact but I do not need or require that in order to have what i want. "


If we really were going to start to police who can and can't or shouldn't identify as polyamorous, would this "requirement" be where we started?

I think that there is pretty much a general consensus that someone can be polyamorous and have a variety of relationship dynamics or all of one type (eg "long term" or "casual") and how these relationships coincide or intertwine also differs greatly (eg KTP). That's despite what the author of this thread thinks. But is the ultimate distinction between "poly" and "open" relationships that the people in the former at least generally "require" that that things like "care and affection" are present in more than one of their relationships?

Amygdla seems like he would be content with totally random encounters only which would be pretty much devoid of those feelings outside of those inspired by lust, respect and desire for the duration of the encounter. Is this what makes him "not poly" because a poly person would "require" relationships which have the possibility of more rather than just be "open" to the possibility?

I ask because I know people who could have written that quote about themselves but label themselves as poly. Being "open" is enough to meet the criteria in their eyes.
 
I don't require anything of anyone who wants to identify as poly, they can define it however they want. I do however have my own personal definition, which for the most part is based on what I perceive as the majority consensus.
 
I knew I was different because my relationships would implode because I would fixate on another person before the first relationship was over. And in the case of my marriage I did have an affair with a close male friend of ours. But, I came to realize I was polyamorous after a brief stint in swinging after my divorce. And I have never looked back. This is were I feel the most comfortable romantically & sexually.
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
I ask because I know people who could have written that quote about themselves but label themselves as poly. Being "open" is enough to meet the criteria in their eyes.
Click to expand...
This speaks to Mag's inquiry about swingers who love their partners in a way. I know quite a few swingers who would say that they do "love" certain people in the sex group/clique/gang, but only the poly people in that social circle specifically have full on multiple romantic love relationships. I'm familiar with both styles, have been intimate in both styles, and can say that there is a definite difference between a poly and a non-poly (swingery) sexual relationship/friendship. In my experience, it's not that falling in love outside the couple is verboten among the swingers I know, it's that they just don't. There's a very clear mutual desire to keep romantic love and romantic behaviors between the two in the couple. Being merely "open" is not being polyamorous. Polyamory, by definition, involves romantic love. I guess people can call themselves anything they want to, but I'm not sure why they would. Maybe those people you're referring to have a dated and stereotypical concept of swinging and don't want to be associate with "those people."
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone who has taken the time to express your views so far on this subject. I find them all really interesting in their own right. I think the answer I like best is Evie's. She said, "I self identify as poly because I wouldn't feel true to myself any other way." This is the same reason I once used when self-identifying as polyamorous, and also the same reason I would give today to answer FallenAngelina's question as to why I no longer self-identify as poly.

More specifically, the pervasive attitude that the label can mean whatever is convenient for anyone who wants to use it, has compromised the core concepts and principles that once defined it. Combined with an already colored perspective by the mono majority, the label has become a liability ( for me ) that no longer stands for anything in particular, which is a position I feel devalues it to the point where if I were to use it, I would no longer be being true to myself ( or anyone else ).

I don't know what the solution to this problem is, or if there is any solution at all. The journey into this realization has been both enlightening and disheartening. What is emerging from it I cannot yet tell. My present view is that that whatever this new relationship paradigm is, I think it's mutated so far from classical polyamory ( for lack of a better name ) that it deserves its own label. But what? Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
The label "polyamory" works just fine for me.
 
kdt26417 said:
The label "polyamory" works just fine for me.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it does, but the problem is that it's not really just the label polyamory ( by its objective self ) that work's for you, it's your version of polyamory that works for you. A hundred other versions, all of which are different, can also carry the same label, and might not work for you, but work for a hundred other different people, none of whom agree on what it actually means. So if everyone gets to have their own version, then there is no value in the label. Let's just put it in a plain yellow box and call it poly-juice. No particular flavor, no particular ingredients, nothing to make it stand out from any other flavor except mono-juice, and maybe even that is going to far.
 
hedgehog said:
I'm sure it does, but the problem is that it's not really just the label polyamory ( by its objective self ) that work's for you, it's your version of polyamory that works for you. A hundred other versions, all of which are different, can also carry the same label, and might not work for you, but work for a hundred other different people, none of whom agree on what it actually means. So if everyone gets to have their own version, then there is no value in the label. Let's just put it in a plain yellow box and call it poly-juice. No particular flavor, no particular ingredients, nothing to make it stand out from any other flavor except mono-juice, and maybe even that is going to far.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to ask yourself why you feel the need to be validated by a label. Labels are just a general means of identification. So poly is just a general label. There are no core principles other than multiple romantic relationships and ethics. There are lots of ways to do poly.
 
Oh fu**, I didn't realise it was a competition.

Seriously, I didn't see any answer as better than any other. That's so much the beauty of this group of people; we can have totally different opinions on this and we still all coexist here - at least those who've never been banned do.
 
hedgehog said:
I'm sure it does, but the problem is that it's not really just the label polyamory ( by its objective self ) that work's for you, it's your version of polyamory that works for you. A hundred other versions, all of which are different, can also carry the same label, and might not work for you, but work for a hundred other different people, none of whom agree on what it actually means. So if everyone gets to have their own version, then there is no value in the label. Let's just put it in a plain yellow box and call it poly-juice. No particular flavor, no particular ingredients, nothing to make it stand out from any other flavor except mono-juice, and maybe even that is going to far.
Click to expand...

I used to have a job with really unsociable shifts. It didnt work for me. I changed to the same type of job but where I wasnt required to do those shifts. It worked for me. Both those jobs were jobs in the same field with the same job title. It was the details that made one work for me and one not.
 
hedgehog said:
none of whom agree on what it actually means. So if everyone gets to have their own version, then there is no value in the label.
Click to expand...
Except that there is common agreement on what polyamory means. Everyone gets to have their own version of consensual multiple romantic love relationships. Time marches on, man. Marriage doesn't mean today what it has always meant. Family doesn't mean today what it has always meant. And just because Whoozie & Whatzit wrote about poly a few years ago doesn't mean that they originated the practice, it just means that they wrote about their version of poly. Hippies were popularizing poly in its many forms before there was a treatise and history is full of people who practiced it without fanfare. Your sacred definition of poly is just another version of poly, not the "pure" way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top