How monogamy and polyamory are similar - or are they?

[angelak]

How monogamy and polyamory are similar:

Now, I knew this would get the attention of 93% of my list.
Let me tell you this: In my mind, it really is all quite similar. I say this because I know how adamant and sometimes touchy this kind of topic can be. And I refer to inside the magickal community more than anything else.

There have been some conversations with people who are very important to me and very intelligent, that caused me to begin a new chain of thought. Let’s put it simply:

A lot of people accept that polyamory is a reference word, that there is no one definition of what polyamory is, and that this can come in about as many different flavors as there are differently laid out houses. This is something people of our caliber accept frequently.

Only recently did I realize: Why isn’t monogamy categorized similarly? If we vary our polyamorous relationships THAT much – which, I’ve seen living proof that most every poly agreement is NOT the same… why should it be assumed that monogamy isn’t variant too? Is it because we want to group things together and that we’re lazy? Was this also the same reason the word “polyamory” was born?

What are YOUR thoughts about why the terminology (that is widely accepted here and in other communities too) developed?

Now, here’s the other thought. My good friend in Florida, who I just visited – had a conversation with me about this. I had never expressed to her that I, at varying points in my life did walk a polyamorous path. Or shall I say, “lived that lifestyle”?

I had never discussed this with her. Ever. I felt a little shocked that I had thought I’d spoken to almost all of my really important friends about this. Of course, there are always people that fall through the cracks. I like to live my life very “outside the closet.”

I described to herne51 once that my sentiment on hiding things was that of a spike trying to escape the inside of my chest. (You know, gouging my internal organs and eventually puncturing my skin from the inside to the outside.) It BOTHERS me beyond belief. I’m not happy until whatever it is that I feel people should know, know it. That’s how I live my life. This is what makes me honest, this is what causes me to want to be open about almost everything there is to be open about. Sure, we all have our skeletons – and goodness knows no one is perfect.

DIGRESSING. Susan wanted to know why “Polyamory” was different than just outright “dating.” Well, it came down to vocabulary. Although I had many moments where I contemplated the term, and why it differs some much from person to person – I still never really analyzed why it can’t be classified differently. Differently? Like, say – a lot of typically monogamous couples call it “dating,” instead of “polyamory.”

Others call it something akin to an “open relationship.” Is this the same? Is it different? In my mind, I find it a lot the same. As I was describing the merits of polyamory to Susan, it was clear she wanted to view it as “dating.” This was her terminology for what we do. We (collective pagan community) call it that too.

I’ve come to notice through much discussion with mundanes, that MANY people in the greater mundane world accept polyamory more than we perhaps realize – deemed under a different name.

Okay, so moving on from the thoughts that Susan stirred, a few weeks later – last night in fact, I had a longer conversation with Jim on the phone. It wasn’t really about polyamory, or monogamy, however – we did begin discussing some things that we never said outright before. Jim and I have often spoken about accepting that we are not the only attractive humans that walk the earth. This is something that pertains to us as an awareness. We’re not “jealous” people (he and I) as a rule. (Obviously I think there are exceptions to every thing that is a rule).

Perhaps we even refer to different situations like involvements with other people. Now, previously my way of viewing and framing my polyamory was more emotionally based than physically based. I have also been comfortable with (in moderation, as I’m a little less liberal with sexuality than some) the physical side of that. And I’ve been comfortable with my partner exploring and sharing either emotional and/or physical sides to what is generally referred to as poly.

It’s okay by me if they
A- Want to forge emotional connections which some people refer to as friendships, although frankly, I think some intimate connections emotionally are more than *just* friendships.
B- Want to forge a purely physical connection with someone outside of our partnership.

Yes, OBVIOUSLY there are a billion details to specify circumstances for each of the two above, but that’s an outline.

These two things don’t bother me. In fact, I have been in a more or less successful poly relationship (outside of Robert and I) where this in fact, did not bother me. I was relieved that I had a successful experience with this, because I frankly wanted to prove to myself I would not be one of those people who would not accept their partner getting physical with someone else, but wanted to do it themselves.

My point here is convoluted. Cutting to the chase, the conversation that came up was basically about his comfort level in physical flings within our partnership.

Now, my only other poly experience was actually rather similar:
The agreement was basically that physical flings were okay if both parties were involved.

I began to realize: this is really a variant of monogamy as I see it.
I know that my current relationship identifies with monogamy.
This being said: I reiterate the idea that monogamy has its room for definition variation.

In some circles, Jim and my relationship is a conservative version of the primary/secondary model of poly. IE: ultimate veto power, our relationship being the forefront of anything that would stem off of it.

In his mind, this is purely monogamy, without a definition of what the other conceivable “situations” could be – even if he has expressed exactly what would be okay by him.

So, here’s a prime example of vocabulary. I’m living pretty much the same lifestyle I’ve lived in a previous relationship (albeit with WAY more trust from either side of the fence and a much healthier situation).

Same situation, pretty damned close to the SAME rules of thumb…
Primary relationship #1 was referred to as polyamorous.
And this relationship (#2) is referred to as monogamous.

Interesting.
It was not until my boyfriend quoted a line that I have used in polyamory, almost word for word, that the correlation hit me. And then Susan’s discussion followed my brain pattern.

He said: “…. I mean after all I know you love me and all that so there's nothing to worry about.” (There was a precursor, however I’m not given to share some of our personal details.)

He quoted my all time trust-induced, confident favorite, that I have said to myself over and over in poly situations, and that I have been FRUSTRATED over when the other person didn’t have that view. I will re-phrase what I perceive that to mean if I say it, and in this circumstance where I heard it: "The bottom line is that you love me and it's not a threat" (to the primary relationship.)

What I like is that he never heard me SAY this, in spite of the fact this is one of – as I mentioned already, a regular thing that is integral to my view of relationships beyond my primary unit. He didn’t parrot it off of me. He came up with it all on his own, which means…

Drum roll:

WE are on the same page naturally. I FEEL SO DAMNED LUCKY and I am so stoked to have made the realization. So this is what it amounts to in my head:

I found a mainstream man with poly tendencies.
Here I had the fear around the time I began dating him that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to actually find someone outside the OLOTEAS community that could fit my paradigm.

Don’t read that last line wrong. I just knew there were no “long term” potentials for me in the OLO group. What I learned was, the basic way my relationship has developed is pretty much about a greater form of accumulative trust that eventually gets to a point where external situations are possible. It also releases the part of monogamy I think a lot of people see as a “freedom” issue.

The underlying thought I had that made me want to post was:

Poly has many different definitions.
So why can’t monogamy?


Your opinions, like your assholes, exist out there. Feel free to comment - although like your asshole, I may not want to really inhale too much too close. ;) Just a personal thing. Damn I'm vulgar.

Although more seriously and less sarcastically, I am interested.

*grins*
Thank you for tuning into Angela on her soapbox.
Have a fucktastic Friday.

93,
-Angela

Comments

[cupiecake.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

when i think of polyamory, i think of, well. less of 'open' relationships and more triangles and various similar interweavings. just extending the partnership to more than two people.

but I was reading this short where two people loved each other very much, but not sexually. they started a household together anyway, and then the original guy found a boyfriend, and he moved in and was with *both* of them; and later they found another guy, and it appeared to be a very comfortable household. (it's a sweet story about the original two loving each other and the other two and the main character carrying the guy's baby etc etc)

anyway. maybe i don't make too much sense. but that's kind of more my view on how poly differs from an 'open' relationship. *shrug*

Each

[ithisia.livejournal.com]

That is also another form, and again like I said - there are as many definitions for Poly as there grains of sand (there's another nice analogy!) lol.

That's the thing. Everyone has their own definition.

-Angela

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

See, both A and B would bother me if I was in a serious relationship and if the person that my partner was directing those towards was man, but neither A or B would bother me if my partner was feeling or doing anything with a woman. But I agree that monogomy can be defined slightly differently. For some people, even really close friendships are akind to cheating, were as other people can say that some things like kissing are ok. That being said, I would really see it as hard to call a relationship monogomous if one or both partners had a romantic relationship out of side of the pairing. I could almost see allowing the random purely physical act, simply because then one could argue that there is no real love or attachement, but even then, that seems to be taking the defintion a bit too loosely.

We had the gender convo

[ithisia.livejournal.com]

We had the gender convo, and this was the reference point.

He outwardly admitted that he doesn't carry the standard male double standard (there's a mouthful) haha.

Basically for him it wouldn't matter what #3 fling person was. Male/Female - although I'm doubly certain if it were a merely selfish thing, he'd prefer a female because he's straight.

And I have often thought of the variance in what people are even okay with in monogamous relationships.

Excellent points.

-Angela

Re: We had the gender convo

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

See, my thought was, and i forgot to write it out, I might be considered both in a monogomus and poly relationship. Monogmous because in theory I am supposed to be the only man. Poly because Jasmin is not nescessary supposed to be the only woman. So what does that make me?

Re: We had the gender convo

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

I had the idea...maybe it's not a strict black/white mono/poly thing at all.

Maybe it's more like the Kinsey scale or some other spectrum of emotional/sexual involvement and fidelity.

Re: We had the gender convo

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

Could well be. I think that would be more logical; I know even in terms of other guys, I dont want Jasmin doing anything with them, but I dont care if she kisses them. That being said, I know guys who would fly off the handle at even a hug that went to on too long.

Re: We had the gender convo

[ithisia.livejournal.com]

Yeah,
WE can call it the ANGELA scale. Wait.

I suppose I am not the self involved.
:P

-Angela

Re: We had the gender convo

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

We could call it that, but you would have design it first. So, you know, get to work.

First of all, this is a fucking awesome post.

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

Poly has many different definitions.
So why can’t monogamy?

Well...there already are several different definitions, depending on a lot of things. Modern culture seems to define it as serial monogamy-you might have several partners over your lifetime, but only ever one at a time. I've heard of others who believed that monogamy meant one sex (or even dating) partner only for your lifetime, period.

I've always felt that how people defined monogamy was really up to them. I've been told that I shouldn't have close male friends if I was in a monogamous relationship with a man (and I've known people who were threatened by the idea), but that always struck me as bullshit.

If my partner and I trust each other, why does it matter who else we're close to on a friendly level, or even on a "best friends" level? Besides, anyone who tried to keep me from my friends would set off major warning signals in me. I don't like being isolated. But maybe some people don't see it as such.

Likewise...why should polyamory mean sleeping with other people on top of being emotionally involved? Just because I've slept with everyone I've dated (and a few I wasn't actually dating) doesn't mean that everyone else does, or has to, or wants to, or whatever. It's entirely possible to date several people and only engage in sexual activity with the primary (or whatever other boundary they are comfy with). Doesn't mean they aren't polyamorous (or evolved even though I fucking hate that term w/regards to poly) and anyone who makes them feel otherwise really isn't worthy of them, are they?


This response went WAY longer than I thought it would.

Re: First of all, this is a fucking awesome post.

[ithisia.livejournal.com]

No, long replies are pretty much what it takes to get anything across about this topic!

haha.

AS FOR Evolved. Ugh, that makes my skin crawl. Like monogamous people are apes. HAH. AS if. Cause neither lifestyle makes you better than the other people living differently.

Onwards.
"I've been told that I shouldn't have close male friends if I was in a monogamous relationship with a man (and I've known people who were threatened by the idea), but that always struck me as bullshit."

THIS has also made me cringe. The restrictive thought of LIVING that way. Although, if that's how some people are happy operating, I guess that's fantabulous for them.

(NOT me, yikes).
Agree with the warning signals, personally. But that's because I cannot thrive or even LIVE that way.

I think how people define RELATIONSHIPS in general, is entirely up to each person...
Although, I bring stuff up because I see a lot written about poly in this community and variety keeps us all a little more open ;)

That and I am truly excited to share new insights. And viewpoints. And stuffs. :D

And this topic can go on and on and on!

-Angela

Re: First of all, this is a fucking awesome post.

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

Agree with the warning signals, personally. But that's because I cannot thrive or even LIVE that way.

Neither can I. Frankly I view that kind of isolation as scary. I need interaction with people I'm not related to, dammit.

[quetz.livejournal.com]

Good thing you're not from West Virginia, then!

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

*queue Dueling Banjos*

Re: First of all, this is a fucking awesome song.

[quetz.livejournal.com]

I'm not "Evolved" because I'm poly; I'm "Evolved" because I can use the incredible psychic powers of my highly advanced brain...What powers, you ask?
I dunno...how 'bout the power of flight?
That do anything for ya?
That's levitation, Holmes.
How 'bout the power to kill a yak from 200 yards away...with mind bullets!
That's telekinesis, Kyle.
How 'bout the power...
to move you?

Re: First of all, this is a fucking awesome post.

[ithisia.livejournal.com]

Aw, you liked my post!
Yeay.

I love people. Except some of them. Hahaha

-Angela

Re: First of all, this is a fucking awesome post.

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you really did write something to make people think.

Re: First of all, this is a fucking awesome post.

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

Yep.

more on definitons...

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't be surprised if most polyamorous folks still practiced fluid monogamy also.

Re: more on definitons...

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

Yeah, which adds a whole new dimension.

Re: more on definitons...

[quetz.livejournal.com]

and what's your definition of "fluid monogamy," then?

Re: more on definitons...

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

Fluid-bonded to only one partner, latex barriers used for all other folks.

Me = Nerd

[quetz.livejournal.com]

Aha! And here I was thinking of different states of matter as analogous to different patterns of relationships...

Solid Mono would be strictly one person with one person, and anything outside that considered cheating, the dominant societal paradigm.

Gaseous Mono, OTOH, would be those who flit from relationship to relationship, but not serious about any of them.

Re: more on definitons...

[ithisia.livejournal.com]

If they didn't want to deal with the real-life risk of STD's, I'd say that would be a smart way of going about sexuality and polyamory.

I know I sure as hell wouldn't risk it. I don't want your (collective, ya'll) cooties. HHRRRRM.

-Angela

Re: more on definitons...

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it would work for some people (a closed triad or group, for example). But that's just something that I see as a primary-only thing.

Re: more on definitons...

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

Which raises another area where people could differ: Are there some activities that would be only for your primary, like certain kinky things?

Re: more on definitons...

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

Hm. I think at that point it would be up to the people involved.

Re: more on definitons...

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

Well yeah, but we are talking about degrees and definitions here, so one could almost argue that again, you need to define how open you are in terms of kind of play is acceptable.

Re: more on definitons...

[ithisia.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what each and every couple involved in such activities (as I see it) SHOULD be discussing.

Is there?
Is there not?
If so, what are they?

And if possible - to get as specific as possible.

Unless it's stipulated between said individuals that the "don't ask don't tell" policy is practiced.

These are all variants and NORMAL things that each set of poly folks all have different ideas about. As a lot of folks who begin dabbling with polyamory eventually learn, and sometimes the hard way (basically mis-understanding and miscommunicating what the assumptions are on these topics.)

The natural, "everybody does it that way," reaction that sometimes we don't even REALIZE we are doing. And other times we do realize it.

-Angela

Re: more on definitons...

[ithisia.livejournal.com]

Good point.
Forgot about PolyFidelity.
Would you like me to throw out any other buzzwords?

:P

-Angela

Re: more on definitons...

[vixenesque93.livejournal.com]

Hehehe...no that's ok.

Re: more on definitons...

[lordofsporks.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[glitch25.livejournal.com]

What it all comes down to is that they are just labels.. and labels, as in most other context are a bad way to quantify things that can't really be quantified. Particularly because you'll start to get so much overlap that you really wonder what the whole point is.

But, all labels aside, its good to hear that you and Jim are on the same page.

[quetz.livejournal.com]

Monoamorous, polyamorous, it makes no difference. Every relationship between two people is different. Some relationships are based on physical attraction, others on emotional connectedness, and the hope is to find both. A person will likely be involved with many different people over the course of their life, in one of these manners; The only real difference is whether they are open to more than one such relationship at the same time.

From my point of view, I think the only truly "mono" people are those who are attracted to/involved with just one person their whole life.

[bluedrgn52.livejournal.com]

Well, you were right that everyone wants to read and comment on this! hehe. I think that basically, what I've come accross is that in all relationships, wether poly or not, vary in what is "acceptable" and what isn't. I also think that anyone who can't see outside the box of right and wrong and draws a line there is just an idiot. You are what you are and you can't change that. Your post is awesome. Go you. :)

[dudelovenext.livejournal.com]

Hm, interesting topic. :)

From my point of view, monogamy has a pretty straight-forward definition. Mono = one. Though one what could lead to different definitions...

*shrug* The words themselves don't really hold much meaning to me. It's what you and your partner define as the relationship that counts.

Here's a good example. :)

Not sure if you know my whole situation (gah, we need to hang out again soon!!!), but Whitney is poly while I'm....um, poly-in-training? Chibi-poly? ^_^

I was a little uncomfortable about the idea at first, but I'm slowly getting into it. We have similiar takes on what we want, though there're differences. I'd like to explore my/our sexuality with other people, though I have no interest in finding another primary or really even a seconardy (not sure I'd have the energy for it, but it's hard to say what the future could hold). I don't have too much interest in having sex with someone else alone. I guess what I'm looking for is some fun and people that we could become good/close friends that we could have sex with (swapping and such).

Whitney, on the other hand, wants what I want, plus some. She'd like to find a seconardy girlfriend since she's mainly attracted to girls (guess I got pretty lucky!). It kind of bothered me at first, but as time went on I realized that Whitney really does love me. Do I trust her? Yes. This is her lifestyle and I've come to the conclusion that as long as she's safe and loves me and I'm primary, then she's open to do what she likes and I'll (try my best!) go along with it. My thoughts are that if she's poly and I'm not (or at least wouldn't even entertain the idea of it or try it myself) and I have a problem with it...well, it's my problem, y'know?

Getting back to the original topic of the post, what would I call us? Even if I started out monogamous and at this point I haven't done anything that could be considered anything but, I think I'd have to call our relationship polyamorous. It's something that will happen in the future.