Why polyamory is a CHOICE

[Ravenscroft]

Again: polyamory is a choice -- period.

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

Yes, actually -- I can, & will, & in fact be correct.

I'll take it in a stepwise fashion, for clarity. This may take a few entries, as I have a busy weekend.
________________

Firstly, you (like others in the previous thread) are probably attempting to say "I was actually nonmonogamous before I knew I was nonmonogamous... AND before I had any experience -- or even desire -- to be intimately involved simultaneously with more than one person... AND before I knew it was even a possibility, let alone an option."

(If that's incorrect, please elucidate.)

Statements such as that have always bothered me, for at least two reasons.

1. It is a core part of human nature to learn, grow, adapt, evolve. IMO, any statement of "I evolved" is (if accurate) deserving of a "well, DUH " before a "congratulations!"
2. It is just another attempt to leech onto the Gay Rights movement, with neither the background nor the effort. (Polyamory has never been a movement, & likely never will be.)

"I've been THAT WAY all along, just didn't know it" is at best mere post hoc rationalization, generally a softened "I've always known" which is a one-upmanship boast equivalent to "I'm better than all you dimwitted jerks who're just figuring it out!"

If that weren't its purpose, you would see a gaggle of "ooh, me too!" every time someone makes the claim.

I've known guys who were happily heterosexual, right up until they met Mister Right. They certainly didn't start proclaiming they'd been "gay all along."
________________

Since some people here are latching onto details they want to argue with, & ignoring the rest, let me reiterate --
Nonmonogamy is a practice.
Polyamory is a philosophy.

When someone types "poly" or "polyamory," easily nine times of ten what they MEAN is nonmonogamy.

Anyone can be nonmon (including monofolk). But to be polyamorous requires all sorts of stuff, not least being actual experience at maintaining more than one simultaneous intimate relationship -- until it's "road-tested," it's NOTHING BUT IDLE SPECULATION.

You can be obsessed with being a helicopter pilot. Until you get behind the stic -- & survive -- you have NO right to call yourself "a helicopter pilot" & can get in deep shit for trying to demonstrate otherwise.

Personally, I dislike applying the term "polyamory" to my life, as I was involved in responsible nonmonogamy a few years before anyone outside CAW knew about MGZ's neologism, & what we'd created had already surpassed the still-vague "definition."

Whether RM or polyamory, there IS at least one way to "do it right," & LOTS of opportunity to Muck It Up Badly. People like me have little to do with "defining" it, as the term's been around more than a generation, 30+ years.

I am in no way "defining polyamory" much less "for other people," though that's a common plaint from someone who finds themselves busted for trying to twist "poly" to fit their prejudices. I (like a few others here) am rather trying to codify what's actually occurred, to give some attention to what's actually worked out, & to examine the problems & disasters & how they were (or might have been) repaired.

 

[Ravenscroft]

polyamory is illegal (as in marrying 2 people).

I hope you see where that statement is nonsensical.
________________

First, "polyamory" is not illegal -- show me any one law where it has been explicitly outlawed.

Such claims are bullshit lies I hear among the "poly" who like to give themselves & each other a little thrill for being "naughty" & defying Mom/God/country & Going Up Against The Man & therefore trade warm fuzzies for being such enlightened & forward-looking revolutionaries.

There aren't enough in the world to cover that outlook.
________________

Second, polyamory has NOTHING to do with "marrying two people."

It's a conceit (usually of noobs ) that anything past absolute monogamy (including idle fantasy) is "polyamory." That's about as right as saying that everyone who's ever had at least one enjoyable same-gender sexual encounter is thereby homosexual -- that would be like 25%-33% of the population depending which studies I cite.

IMNSHO, it would be better all 'round if everyone still enchanted with "marriage" & the rest of the Relationship Escalator would remain squarely in monogamy rather than keep trying to drag Monogamism into polyamory, or at least CEASE trying to stretch "polyamory" to fit their irrational needs to please Family & Society. There are plenty of people who are happily unmarried, & anyone waving marriage as superior is inappropriate at best. Be married AND behave polyamorously, but move past the '50s & STOP with the "poly marriage" crap.

As the previous thread demonstrates, there are MANY "poly" people who either cannot distinguish polyamory from general nonmonogamy, or believe they personally benefit in some way from maintaining the confusion. So, let me clarify.

Polyamory is a SUBSET of nonmonogamy.

Polyamory REQUIRES all sorts of stuff, particularly communication of a high degree (which includes introspection, self-disclosure, empathy, trust, dialogue). Without such practices, polyamory tends to rapidly become a disaster area, & the participants usually blame "poly" (not themselves) for letting them down.

It's not uncommon to have people speak of "successful polyamory" because so many people grasp intuitively that there IS ACTUALLY at least one RIGHT way of being poly in the sea of assorted WRONG.

Generalized nonmonogamy has no such requirements. People are free to pretty much do whatever the hell they want. It can work out smoothly for all involved, or be one big ongoing disaster built from many small disasters, or anything between. As a likely result, I have NEVER heard the phrase "successful nonmonogamy."

The "communication" stuff that's important in polyamory would likely be highly useful in other nonmon forms, & in monomany, & actually in daily interaction with just about anyone.

Then again, there are apparently plenty of married dyads who fail at communication & equality & all that "poly" stuff, yet venture forth in search of "our third." Certainly some few actually manage this, so there we are with a vee or triad that doesn't know the firstthing about polyamory, much less how to make it work well, so they just stumble along doing the same old Monogamist mistruth & self-deception that was "good enough for Grampa." That's why FLDS-type polygamy is NOT polyamory.

In other words, "marriage+1" can be nothing like actual polyamory.

 

[kdt26417]

Citation needed ... I've never seen a source that comes right out and defines polyamory as, "successful and with good communication." Does such a source exist? Wiktionary is user-supplied but then so is Wikipedia. So something other than those two sources.

Re: communication ... does not strike me as a black/white dichotomy (that is, "good communication" and "bad communication"), it's more like there are degrees of how good communication is (or can be). I fancy that communication is a fine art, and if it can be mastered at all it would take many lifetimes.

Just some thoughts.

 

[lunabunny]

Yes, polyamory is a practice and a choice.

What's more, it is one that hinges on the ability to truly LOVE and/or be "in love with" two or more people simultaneously... AND the practice of constructing ethical, working relationships around this ability/desire/need.

Hence, not every person who is inclined to non-monogamy is "polyamorous". For example, married people who have affairs or one night stands, swingers or those who enjoy group sex in the confines of a mono relationship are not practising polyamory, though they cannot be considered monogamous.

 

[PurpleSun]

I never said polyamory is a movement.

And whether or not it is a movement has NOTHING to do with my personal life experience. I am oriented to be this way, and nothing you say will make me believe otherwise.

Again, who the hell are you to define the lives and experiences of someone you don't even know? This is incredibly arrogant.

Also, you took my post from another thread and started an entire thread to attack me. I will be reporting this thread as personal harassment.

 

[PurpleSun]

Firstly, you (like others in the previous thread) are probably attempting to say "I was actually nonmonogamous before I knew I was nonmonogamous... AND before I had any experience -- or even desire -- to be intimately involved simultaneously with more than one person... AND before I knew it was even a possibility, let alone an option."

No. I knew I could love more than one person as a teenager. Even in my first, very young relationships, I felt stifled and miserable and I would simultaneously care for the person I was with but also for others. I just had been socialized into monogamy and viewed that as wrong/cheating. So I was a serial monogamist until I was 19, and then discovered a throuple who were happy when I went to Michigan Womyn's Festival. That was how I found out that there were people who were just like me.

So, no, you're wrong. I've always loved others. Still, though, again, I find it wildly inappropriate that you took my quote, without my permission, to arrogantly attack my life experiences in a whole new thread in a whole new forum without even having the courtesy of telling me. That is harassing behavior.

 

[vinsanity0]

Citation needed ... I've never seen a source that comes right out and defines polyamory as, "successful and with good communication." Does such a source exist? Wiktionary is user-supplied but then so is Wikipedia. So something other than those two sources.

Re: communication ... does not strike me as a black/white dichotomy (that is, "good communication" and "bad communication"), it's more like there are degrees of how good communication is (or can be). I fancy that communication is a fine art, and if it can be mastered at all it would take many lifetimes.

Just some thoughts.

I agree. It's like saying that a mono person who sucks at relationships is not really a mono person. But really, I haven't seen anyone but Ravenscroft have such a strict view.

 

[vinsanity0]

Ravenscroft, it's odd that you felt the need to start a new thread as opposed to keeping the discussion in one thread.

As I said in the other thread, I think humans as a whole are not meant to be monogamous. I do agree with whoever said that it can be hard to discern what is natural or not due to the religious and social conditioning.

Unlike you, I do prefer a looser definition. Because of that, I can identify with PurpleSun. I have always had the capacity to love more than one. However, because of social pressures, I wasn't able to have simultaneous relationships. I can be happy in a monogamous relationship for a short time, but never long term.

It's fine for you to define what poly is for you, but she's right that you don't get to define it for everyone.

 

[AutumnLeaves]

Every time I come across some argument like this (are people born queer or is it a choice?) (are you born trans or is it a choice?) (are you born poly or is it a choice?) it seems to me like a ridiculous question.

People ARE queer, trans, poly, and all sorts of other things. We should respect them and what they say about their own identities. Period.

 

[HurtandConfused]

People ARE queer, trans, poly, and all sorts of other things. We should respect them and what they say about their own identities. Period.

well said

 

[Ravenscroft]

Polyamory requires talking, & thinking.

it's odd that you felt the need to start a new thread as opposed to keeping the discussion in one thread.

You may feel that it's "odd," but it maybe deserves exploration as to WHY this causes you such feelings, & then into why "odd" is somehow bad.

(As I've recently been reminded, it's a punishable offense here to criticize another person's practice of polyamory. How is that NOT your intent?)

IMO, the OP in the previous thread set out with a specific question in mind. My feeling was that my response would have taken away the OP's right to control that discussion.

I do hope that's adequate for you.

I've never seen a source that comes right out and defines polyamory as, "successful and with good communication."

And neither did I say any such thing.

First, as we've explored elsewhere, any given source, even a common individual, often attempts to insert other clauses into the dictionary definition of polyamory, such as "ethical." Yet two of the most common poly-related phrases -- for decades -- are "communicate, communicate, communicate!" & "Communications is key!"

As well, one article after another cited in Polyamory In The News brags about how much polyfolk could teach monofolk about clear, effective communication... yet somehow THAT doesn't receive criticism.

I've also corrected myself, noting that "communication" is inadequate if it's nothing but two (or more) parties merely making mouth-noises, without any proper conversation taking place... but generally we're stuck with the incorrect word, which therefore drags along incorrect concepts.

Many people are imperfect conversationalists. This only gets worse when emotions get turned up: people SUCK at sticking to the actual core matters when they're hurt, sad, angry, afraid, etc. ... which is to say, at EXACTLY the moments when conversation is VITAL.

Certainly, few people will EVER achieve "perfect communication." However, that looks like a disingenuous dodge, like "if it's impossible to do perfectly, right from the very beginning, then it's not worth attempting."

I disagree. One honest conversation can make all the difference of a moment, & in fact -- like lies -- one honest dialogue leads to another.

And -- despite some apparent efforts to disrespect my topic & to derail discussion -- let's bring it back around:

Nothing about general nonmonogamy requires dialogue. People are free to run around & fuck whoever they want & however many, & not even speak a common language much less be able (or willing) to develop & encourage deep interpersonal bonds.

Generally, though, polyamory is all about such bonds.

Problem-solving IS NOT innate to humans; it must be learned, & practiced. Self-awareness (introspection) IS NOT innate. Empathy, cooperation, conversation... none of these arrives fully-developed in people.

Nonmonogamy has no inherent need of any such nuance. The various practices overlap because of shared animal instincts of sex-drive, often "elevated" into fluff like Love or Romance.

So, generalized nonmonogamy is indeed natural. That includes swinging, furtive affairs, drunken one-night stands, anonymous sex in alleyways, & prostitution, as well as polyamory, group marriage, polygamy, & polyfidelity. They are all expressions of basic animal drives.

Relational forms aren't natural. Monogamy is artificial, an elevation of the basic male/female reproductive pair. Polyamory recognizes the failures of Monogamism; IMO, its saving grace is that while it is unnatural, polyamory tries for something higher, reaching to turn our animal drives toward some (perhaps tenuous) sense of community, of connection, without imposing restraints in the manner of Monogamism.

The drive to sex/affection/whatever with multiple others is nonmonogamy, & is natural. People are born that way, or sometimes maybe not.

But nobody is born polyamorous: being that way requires work.

 

[Ravenscroft]

People ARE queer, trans, poly, and all sorts of other things. We should respect them and what they say about their own identities. Period.

I don't disagree. I thought I'd made that clear, but perhaps that was another thread. Heck, I don't even like separating "cis" from "trans": in our hearts, we are the gender that we are, period.

But there is a tendency toward one-upmanship that might be another aspect of humanity. IME, the "always known" faction often sets itself up as somehow superior to boneheads like me who clearly remember "just now figuring it out."

Call it a bias, but my experience is that "always been" is less likely than "always known." When I was first exploring my bisexuality, I was very fortunate to have a gay friend I could talk to & get emotional support from. I'd always kinda assumed I was bi, but going from "vaguely theoretical" to "there's a really cute guy making eyes at me" turned out to be a MUCH bigger leap than I'd anticipated.

I'd argue that I wasn't bisexual until I at least had developed a mad crush on a man. Until that point, it remained in "interesting idea" mode.

Maybe if there'd been something like a "bi community" -- as in an actual physical place with actual verifiable people in it -- my feelings could be more nuanced. The opportunity to see how others of a similar inclination comport themselves in public, to openly speak with them about my fledgeling feelings -- with those at about the same developmental stage as well as those of vast experience -- to obtain truly empathetic support from actual peers... wow.

(FWIW, very few "poly" people have spent any significant time around others so self-identified, much less experienced, aside from the one or two with which they are or wish to become involved. More's the pity. )

 

[JapinaTricycle]

Wow, Ravenscroft, you have some guts to start this thread the way you did.

Could I suggest you edit your introduction?

 

[Al99]

Could I suggest you edit your introduction?

Just a note on the mechanics - the edit window is only 12 hours, long enough for the original poster to take a second look and add additional thoughts if they desire and correct typos. After that the post cannot be changed by the poster, only by an admin/moderator. Al

 

[vinsanity0]

You may feel that it's "odd," but it maybe deserves exploration as to WHY this causes you such feelings, & then into why "odd" is somehow bad.

(As I've recently been reminded, it's a punishable offense here to criticize another person's practice of polyamory. How is that NOT your intent?)

IMO, the OP in the previous thread set out with a specific question in mind. My feeling was that my response would have taken away the OP's right to control that discussion.

I do hope that's adequate for you.
.

Where did I say odd was bad. Interesting the you inferred such a thing.

Nor have I criticized "your way" of doing poly. I do, however, criticize your way of trying to force your beliefs on others with an almost religious fervor.

 

[kdt26417]

Re (from Ravenscroft):

"Certainly, few people will *ever* achieve 'perfect communication.' However, that looks like a disingenuous dodge, like, 'If it's impossible to do perfectly, right from the very beginning, then it's not worth attempting.'"

Au contraire. My position is that no matter how well someone communicates, they should still (be motivated to) strive to do better. But what I was trying to get at in this thread is, who sets the standard for what counts as "good" communication, and if no one does, then we can't determine whether any relationship has the good communication required to work/count as poly.

I said:

"I've never seen a source that comes right out and defines polyamory as, 'successful and with good communication.'"

You replied:

"And neither did I say any such thing."

To which I say:
You didn't say it in those exact words. Maybe it's the difference between "defined as" and "requires." And I am saying that polyamory with "poor" communication can exist.

 

[ref2018]

And I am saying that polyamory with "poor" communication can exist.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I am saying that polyamory with "poor" communication can exist.

And by saying that, you are (again ) intimating that you are somehow correcting my gross overstatement.

I say (again) that I said no such thing.

Do you drive? Go out to your car, & drain off half the oil. Don't re-add; drive it for a couple thousand miles.

I was a garage mechanic for a few years (my first vo-tech path). It's long been common knowledge that you can drive around with a vehicle low on oil & coolant & transmission fluid & brake fluid, with balding/flaking & underinflated tires, with even squealing brakes & no windshield wipers, & 99+% of the time you'll do just fine.

You seem to be arguing that none of these things is significant to the act of "driving a car" because no one of them -- & even all of them put together -- will stop that act from occurring, & anyway none are explicitly required in the definition of "driving a car."

(There isn't even a physical requirement for a driving license, much less plates or insurance, therefore (as you'd apparently claim) such bureaucratic nonsense does nothing to prevent you from turning the key & driving off.)

Meanwhile, I am aware of the overengineering involved, & yet am saying these "safety margins" are not only a GREAT idea, but in fact are NECESSARY to RESPONSIBLY driving a car.

For this, you belittle & even ridicule the notion.

Which of us is foolish?

None of that maintenance happens merely because you're a "natural driver."

Likewise, having a perfectly clean driving record won't help you much if the direct result is a breakdown or a collision -- "past performance is no guarantee of future results."

People certainly CAN "do poly" (or something sort-of like it) without gaining the skills I discuss, but it's a very rude awakening when they hit some minor difficulty & their entire "lifestyle" falls apart. Worse, they get encouraged to learn NOTHING from the experience, to lah-de-dah go & do it again (maybe with a different troupe) in expectation that it was just bad luck, or sabotage by others, rather than an inherent non-understanding of what the hell they THINK they're trying to accomplish.

And personal choice is one thing. Encouraging others to act in such a manner, though, is (IMNSHO) irresponsible at best.

 

[kdt26417]

People are not cars. What works for one person is not necessarily the same as what works for another person.

 

[lunabunny]

This is such a semantic argument.

To all of the above, I'd say:

Being "polyamorous" or "monoamorous" may be similar to sexual orientation, in that a person may be more inclined to one or the other. (i.e. Some people have the ability to be "in love with" / love romantically, more than one person simultaneously, while others find they're capable of loving only one person at a time in this manner.)

This is different to being non-monogamous by nature, which many would argue most/all human beings are naturally, or would be, if not for our mono-normative society's indoctrination.

However, the mindful intentional practice of polyamory (and monogamy) is a choice, because, no matter what our personal, internal inclinations may be, as human beings capable of reason and free choice, we get to DECIDE what relationship shape/s we wish to pursue, and do the work necessary to accomplish those goals.