Over past two and a half hours I’m pretty sure I’ve read two definitions of/introductions to polyamory that frame it as “something a couple decides to do” and requiring a primary relationship, when in reality neither of those are universally the case. Making couples the primary focus of your discussion about poly is like making sorbet the primary focus of your discussion of ice cream; it just doesn’t quite compute, at least not for me.

Are we as a culture really so focussed on the transcending two-person romantic relationship model, with all other relationships as secondary, that we can’t imagine something even something that steps outside those bonds leaving the context entirely? (protip: yeah, we kinda are.) There are so many ways to do poly. Some of them involve no relationships that resemble the standard model, and some of them involve multiple relationships that do. And if you want to do “poly 101” for the monogamous folks, please do your own homework first or you’ll end up doing as much harm as good.

There’s nothing wrong with the hierarchical model and nothing wrong with having a single primary relationship, it’s just not a universal experience. I have a partner I live with (for another month and a half or so) and two long-distance that I get to see on average about twice a year. A lot of people would assume that the partner I live with is my primary, but I don’t feel any closer to him than I do to my poet or my pixie; we don’t automatically share things with each other before anyone else, or even make that many more logistical decisions together. All of my relationships contribute enormously to my personal growth in a stunning variety of ways, and being poly has been a huge factor in building the life I want: not because I need more affection than one person can give, but because it’s made me question my fundamental beliefs about how relationships work and what constitutes a healthy one. I’ve moved from not even considering what I want most of the time, just assuming that whatever the other person wants is necessary for the relationship, to listening to my gut feelings about what is going to work for me and what’s not. I know I couldn’t have achieved that by now had I stayed in a one-primary-couple model (and even if I had, it would’ve been because I got unhappy and left or renegotiated it.)

-Julia

What are your thoughts on this topic?

deuxencore:

do not, under any circumstance, ask them, “well, are you sexually active with [partner x]?”

whether i have sex with my partners, they have sex with one another, none of us have sex, or we all have sex with one another at once is none of your damn business. 

ask yourself this: if i were in a monogamous relationship — whether heterosexual, homosexual, nonsexual, or asexual — could you ask me the same question without sounding rude and intrusive?  (the answer is no.)  if i volunteer the information and you have a question, ask, “are you comfortable answering questions about that?”  and, if i say no, respect that. 

people.

militantbarbie:

Call for research Participants via http://polytical.org follows:

As was suggested at Polyday, we’ve been keeping an eye out for non-monogamy research requests in the UK and here is our first one!

Hi, I’m Dr Christine Campbell, from St Mary’s University College, Twickenham and I’m about to begin a piece of research on consensual non-monogamy along with a colleague – Jane Adlard from Southampton Solent University. We’re looking for participants who are, or have been, in consensually non-monogamous relationships. What do I mean by that? – you might identify yourself as in an open-relationship or a swinger or polyamorous or you might not like labels at all, but that’s the kind of thing we’re talking about. There’s no money I’m afraid, but it will only take about 40 minutes and should be quite fun and interesting. I’ll come to you, there will be a few questionnaires, but mostly I’ll be asking you to talk about your relationship(s) in the form of a semi-structured interview (i.e. I’ll have some questions but we can go off topic).

I think it’s a really exciting time for consensually non-monogamous people, it’s becoming more mainstream and yet there’s hardly any serious academic research on this type of lifestyle. As a result there’s an unspoken assumption of monogamy in almost all the literature on relationships. I’m hoping to redress the balance slightly and am in the process of publishing one study in a mainstream psychology journal, this research will hopefully be the second.

The legal bit: You can refuse to take part, you can withdraw your participation at any time, you can ask for your data to be removed from the study with absolutely no consequences. Any information you give me is anonymised and stored securely, if it is used in any publications I guarantee you personally won’t be identifiable. I operate under strict ethical guidelines as laid down by my university and the British Psychological Society.

We’re hoping to begin data collection in October and carry on till Christmas, if you think that you, or anyone else you know, might be interested then please send us an email (with absolutely no obligation) with your contact details, any questions and maybe a bit about yourself to relationships.research@hotmail.co.uk

You can either contact Dr. Campbell yourself or, if you would prefer, you can drop us an email at research@polytical.org and we’ll pass your details on for you.

miglenotbombs:

 Main article: Values within polyamory

• Fidelity and loyalty: Many polyamorists define fidelity not as sexual exclusivity, but as faithfulness to the promises and agreements made about a relationship. A secret sexual relationship that violates those accords would be seen as a breach of fidelity. Polyamorists generally base definitions of commitment on considerations other than sexual exclusivity, e.g. “trust and honesty” or “growing old together”.^[35]

• Communication and negotiation: Because there is no “standard model” for polyamorous relationships, and reliance upon common expectations may not be realistic, polyamorists often advocate explicitly negotiating with all involved to establish the terms of their relationships, and often emphasize that this should be an ongoing process of honest communication and respect. Polyamorists will usually take a pragmatic approach to their relationships; many accept that sometimes they and their partners will make mistakes and fail to live up to these ideals, and that communication is important for repairing any breaches.^[36][37]

• Trust, honesty, dignity, and respect: Most polyamorists emphasize respect, trust, and honesty for all partners.^[36][37] Ideally, a partner’s partners are accepted as part of that person’s life rather than merely tolerated, and usually a relationship that requires deception or a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is seen as a less than ideal model.

• Boundaries and agreements: Poly relationships often involve negotiating agreements, and establishing specific boundaries, or “ground rules”; such agreements vary widely and may change over time, but could include, for example: consultation about new relationships; devising schedules that work for everyone; limits on physical displays of affection in public or among mixed company; and budgeting the amount of money a partner can spend on additional partners.

• Gender equality: Many polyamorists do not believe in different relationship “rules” based on gender, a point of contrast with some forms of religious non-monogamy which are often patriarchically based. Commonly, however, couples first expanding an existing monogamous relationship into a polyamorous one, may adhere to gender-specific boundaries until all parties are comfortable with the new dynamic, such as when a wife agrees not to engage sexually with another male at her husband’s request, but may be allowed to have romantic and sexual relationships with women. Such terms and boundaries are negotiable, and such asymmetric degrees of freedom among the partners (who need not be of different genders) are more often due to individual differences and needs, and are usually understood to be temporary and within a negotiated time frame until further opening up of the relationship becomes practicable or easier for the parties to handle emotionally.

• Non-possessiveness: Many polyamorists view excessive restrictions on other deep relationships as less than desirable, as such restrictions can be used to replace trust with a framework of ownership and control. It is usually preferred or encouraged that a polyamorist strive to view their partners’ other significant others (often referred to as OSOs) in terms of the gain to their partners’ lives rather than a threat to their own (see compersion). Therefore, jealousy and possessiveness are generally viewed not so much as something to avoid or structure the relationships around, but as responses that should be explored, understood, and resolved within each individual, with compersion as a goal.

The ask box is open and you can message us nonymously or anonymously for advice, support or to tell us what you’d like to see on the blog;

the submissions box is also open and we are soliciting your pictures, links, quotes and stories: about how you discovered polyamory, implemented it in your relationshapes, came out to family and friends, dealt/are dealing with jealousy, and anything else related to ethical non-monogamy.

annabunches:

So, Ed Whelan, a conservative man who runs the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said the following in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act:

If the male-female nature of traditional marriage can be dismissed as an artifact and its inherent link to procreation denied, then surely the distinction between a marriage of two persons and a marriage of three or more is all the more arbitrary and irrational.

Whose side are you on here, Ed? Because you’re making all our points for us here. The distinction is arbitrary and irrational, and should be considered in those terms.

The key difference in our thinking here is that all of these things you see as horrifying, we see as liberating, necessary, logical. This is a fundamental disconnect - you are even able to see our line of reasoning, but you then stand that reasoning up as ‘obviously bad’, without bothering to explain why you think it is bad.

And that’s because there is no reason (that is, based in logic) for your belief; it is entirely emotional, founded on values you unquestioningly assimilated and never once stopped to analyze on the basis of whether they actually improve the lives of either individuals or communities.

Or, to quote professor of Law William Jacobson:

The polyamory slippery slope argument was met with derision precisely because it raised a legitimate point….

Yeah. That.