Non-Monogamy

[Galactus]

I am old enough to remember when people said the same thing about being gay. Funny how things change as they become better-understood and destigmatized.

To be fair, I don't think any kind of preference is a "choice" in the true sense of the word. It's what we use to *make* choices.

[karaddin]

I feel like there is conflation of "sexual orientation" and "sexuality" going on in here. There is an awful lot more to your sexuality than just your orientation and thinking about it lately it seems to me that it absolutely can be considered to be part of your sexuality.

[Xray the Enforcer]

@Galactus: This is true. From my own life: I've chosen to be in monogamous relationships if that is what the other person wanted and I thought the person was worth the experiment. But I never felt like I could truly be myself -- that an entire chunk of myself was inaccessible -- due to that choice. Those who have been following LGBTQI rights for any amount of time will recognize that concept.

To me, a lot of the assertions I see from natural (as in, that's how they're wired) monogamists on this topic are basically heteronormativity put through a new lens. Monogamonormativity is a travesty of a word, but having been in the thick of the LGBTQI community for decades and dealing with heteronormativity...the parallels between what I used to hear/read about my queerness, and the things I'm reading/hearing now about my non-monogamy, are striking.

To expand a bit: I don't see sexual orientation as simply "to whom are you attracted" but also "how do you best express your sexual nature." For some, that a monogamous homosexual pairing. For others, it's a poly heterosexual structure. And so on.

And I should be clear -- I have no problems with those who choose monogamy. That's as valid a choice as any other ethical choice, and I celebrate it.

[karaddin]

To expand a bit: I don't see sexual orientation as simply "to whom are you attracted" but also "how do you best express your sexual nature." For some, that a monogamous homosexual pairing. For others, it's a poly heterosexual structure. And so on.

And I should be clear -- I have no problems with those who choose monogamy. That's as valid a choice as any other ethical choice, and I celebrate it.

Yeah this is what I was trying to get back. Perhaps it's easier for me to explain in other sexual contexts as well, to me being someone who is intrinsically submissive or dominating sexually is also part of your sexuality, someone who likes long slow teasing and foreplay or someone who likes things to be more direct. It's all part of how we interact with other people in sexual contexts. Also when I poke my feelings on the subject it feels like they are located in the same place as everything else sexuality wise :p

[Summah]

Chats, I admire how open you are about being an ethical non-monogamist. I think the more people who do it openly and ethically like you the more it will be accepted. And I've always thought that open non-monogamy is probably something that would fit a lot more people than would like to admit it (given how many people cheat, I imagine many would like this sort of thing). Personally, I like the idea and never personally ever considered myself in a monogamous relationship until there was a conversation, and I also don't like feeling tied down which was often how I started feeling after that (even if there was no one else I was actively interested in) so usually a break up a followed. (yes I have commitment issues) Right now I'm not well enough to date, but maybe if when I start dating again I'll explore this.

[TerraPrime]

I’m glad to see a discussion going on about non-monogamous relationships.

This will be a giant wall of text. You are warned. You can scroll to the end for the tl;dr version.

I’ve dated 2 men and 1 woman, all monogamously, before I ended up with my current husband, with whom I’ve shared 19 years of my life. Of those 19 years, we were monogamous for the first 11 years. This is the reflections, musings, observations, and conclusions from my own experience. I apologize in advance if what I write below comes across as pedantic or overly generalizing. When I fail to insert “I think” and “for me” and “in my experience” appropriately, please indulge me and assume that it is what I mean to say.

1. Terms and definitions

First, I would like to explain how I use certain terms and what I mean by those terms when I use them. You do not have to agree with how I define these terms, but that’s what I mean when I use them.

Polyamory – multiple people involved in the same romantic relationship where all participants are aware of, and agree to, this arrangement.

Parity polyamory – polyamory wherein all parties aim for equal levels of engagement and equal levels of affection towards each other. In parity polyarmorous relationship involving people of more than 1 gender/sex, there must be plenty of bisexual participants (in a M/F/F triad, the two females will have to be bisexual). In comparison, monosexual parity polyamory can be sustained by people who are non-heterosexual (e.g. a F/F/F triad can be bi-bi-lesbian arrangement).

Pairwise polyarmory – polyarmory wherein each pairing maintains its own romantic dynamic in an open and mutually agreed upon parameters. For instance, partner A can be romantically involved with partner B and with Partner C, but partners B and C are non-romantic friends.

Stable/fluid polyamory – Stable polyamorous relationship is one where the participants are comparatively constant once they join. It is a sort of multiple, overlapping marriages. In contrast, fluid polyamorous relationship is one where the participants join and leave with some frequency and some regularity.

Open relationships – a romantic relationship between two people where sexual intimacy is no longer restricted to between the two people based on consent from both parties. This can mean that one, but not both, of the partners are sexually active with other people, provided that it is an agreed-upon arrangement between the two people. Another way to describe is that it is romantically monogamous but sexually promiscuous, or “swingers.”

These categories are not mean to be a comprehensive list of descriptors, and they are also not mutually exclusive, discreet categories. A relationship can move from one type to another and back, or it can stay as one type throughout. There is no “end point” where all non-monogamous relationships should strive to get to.

2. What non-monogamy is not

There are a lot of preconceived notions about non-monogamy, most of which are wrong. So I want to address those here and get them out of the way.

It is not cheating. I am invoking the definition rule here and I define non-monogamous relationships as ones that do not involve deceit. All parties are aware of, and consent to, the arrangement, at all times. There are examples where some might claim they’re polyamorous in order to cover up their infidelity. That’s unfortunate. But just as we don’t let the abusers of a system invalidate the merit of the system they abuse, so too, is polyamorous relationships not invalidated by the unethical actions of a few.

It is not greed. We should try to be as happy and as fulfilled as we can be in our lives, as long as we are not hurting others in the process. I find it peevish for some to label polyamorous people as “greedy” and to cast their relationship in a pejorative light, when all they’re doing is to search for fuller happiness with people who love them.

It is not all about sex. Although it can be, and when it is, there’s nothing wrong with it, either. Sex is good. Sex is glorious. Sex is amazing. Be safe, be honest, and go forth and climax.

It is not a lack of commitment. I’d argue that the vast majority of non-monogamous relationships demand more commitment than the average monogamous relationships do. Being polyamorous means you’re romantically committed to multiple parties. If that’s not more work than monogamy, I don’t know what is.

3. Bad reasons to go for a non-monogamous relationship

Here are some of the types of polyamorous relationships that I’ve seen, from friends or friends of friends, that I don’t think works out well for the participants.

The first type is the equivalent of “our marriage is failing so let’s have a baby to repair our relationship.” If a monogamous relationship is failing, for whatever reasons, transitioning to a polyamorous relationship is probably not going to help at all. It is indeed likely to just make things that much more awful. A better way to handle it will be to end the failing monogamous relationship first, and then start a fresh one, maybe polyamorous, maybe not.

The second type is the grudge fuck polyamorous, where one party cheated on the other and instead of repairing the damage the other party says “let’s go polyamorous,” and then proceeds to grudge fuck others to try to hurt the cheating party. This is about as toxic a way as I can think of to do a polyamorous relationship because the primary motivation is to hurt someone else.

The third type should be similar to all. This is where one party just want sex and then due to either the inability to separate sex from love, or due to other reasons, proceeds to try polyamorous. It’s the equivalent to a person telling someone else “I love you” just to get in to their pants. This can really backfire if the partner is genuinely convinced that this is a romantic adventure and not just a sexual one.

*** Begin Intermission ***

Kitty Rap Battle. NSFW

I want to be your abacus baby, you can count on me

*** End intermission ***

4. Non-monogamy, done right (according to my standards)

Now, as to good reasons to get into non-monogamous relationships, I think the first and foremost is that it fulfills more of the emotional and/or sexual needs for all parties involved. But that’s a pretty vague answer.

I don’t believe in the romantic notion that there is “the one” person for each for each of us to fall in love with. I think we can romantically love many people, each to different extents. Even strict monogamous people can accept this, if they’ve had more than one relationship. So I never expect any single person to fulfill all of my needs at once, and I will never presume that I can fulfill all the needs of my partners at once, all by myself, either. To put it in monogamous parlance, it’s the same as saying that just because you’ve found your romantic partner, it doesn’t mean you no longer need your best friend(s) or your family. So when I am in a monogamous relationship, I accept that neither of us is completely fulfilled. But we are happier together than not, and our romantic and sexual relationships make both of us more fulfilled, so the relationship is worth it.

And, frankly, what pressure it is to have the entirety of someone’s happiness all on your own shoulders. It’s a pressure one would happily volunteer for, no doubt, but pressure nonetheless.

I will of course look for someone who is as close to meeting all my needs as possible, but not all needs are of equal importance and so I prioritize, e.g. kindness and generosity in spirit is more important to me than being rich, and being not a follower of religion is more important to me than having a good fashion sense, etc. It doesn’t mean that the areas/issues in which my lover isn’t very good at then all of a sudden become unimportant to me. It just means that he/she is offering a lot more than the shortcomings in those areas.

So, in that context, non-monogamous relationships make sense to me, because it offers each party extra options to search out additional partners to meet those needs. Of course, there’s also nothing wrong with non-monogamous relationships where the parties involved are just getting more of the same needs met, either. I think it’s rare when a non-monogamous relationship begins with all parties already present at the genesis and all participants begin at the same time. If that does happen, then more power to them. But this means that my default position is always that the two people in a relationship is already happy with each other, and they’re adding on to the fulfillment and happiness in pursuing a non-monogamous relationship.

I am not saying that only perfect relationships should pursue non-monogamy, because I don’t believe in flawless relationships. I think all relationships have fault lines and hidden stress points (these are usually sex, money, relationships with in-laws, or illnesses). I am talking about a good level of happiness for the two people in a relationship as a starting point to go into non-monogamy.

Non-monogamous relationships really test the emotional maturity of the participants. I am not saying, by any means, that only non-monogamous people are emotionally mature. One can certainly be emotionally mature and prefer monogamy. Perfectly reasonable and sensible choice, it is. But in order to pursue non-monogamy, at least successfully (as I see it), emotional maturity is critical. The participants have to be able to navigate issues of jealousy, self-confidence, and dependence. Non-monogamy is a work in progress, imo, and the participants are constantly wrestling with these demons that are common in monogamous relationships, except that there are now more demons due to the non-monogamous relationship’s composition. Even in stable, long-term non-monogamy that has gone on 20 years or more, some of these issues can still flare up from time to time. This is particularly true for the more fluid type of polyamory, because each round of new addition to the group means a new round of adjustment. Those who make it work cherish the freshness it brings to their relationships, but it is most definitely exponentially larger amount of work.

5. What makes non-monogamy work (imo)

I think the two most important traits for people in a healthy, rewarding non-monogamous relationship are humility and a genuine desire to see your romantic partners happy.

The humility is needed because you’ll have to accept that you are not the alpha-and-omega of your loved one’s happiness. You are not the only person who can bring joy and happiness to them. You are probably the one who is the most capable, out of all the other people in the world, but you cannot do it all. You also need to permit yourself to think that of your partner, while not doubting your love for him/her. You do not love them less for accepting that they cannot be responsible for all aspects of your needs. That’s a really, really, really hard thing to do, speaking for myself. I have not mastered it yet and I am still working on it. I suspect I will continue to work on this until I die. Ego is a hard thing to tame.

The genuine desire to see the other person happy is what will make you want to keep trying when the going gets tough. And it will get tough. Recognizing that you cannot be all that is needed for his/her happiness, what will you do? Will you bar him/her from pursuing that which can make his/her life better? We all have limits beyond which our romantic commitment breaks. That’s not the issue. The issue is how far do these limits go and can you loosen that perimeter. So, for instance, anal sex. If one partner wants it and the other does not, does it detract from the romantic commitment and from the love in the relationship if s/he goes out and find a partner who does want anal sex and then fulfill that need? Can you be happy for him/her to go get that backdoor opened if you are not willing to do it? I’m not saying that you’re a terrible person if you cannot tolerate it, because I have limits of my own that I would not want my husband to cross, but the worthwhile question is, imo, can you work to loosen that limit in some way or is it really the final deal breaker. This goes back to what xray was saying about the presumption of monogamy – people often presume that monogamous exclusivity is the way things are done and they don’t really know whether they have the capacity to loosen up those limits for their loved ones or not. I would not feel right about myself if there is a need that I know my husband have and where I never even make the attempt to let him explore that need. If I try, and I find that I cannot make it work, then I can at least be assured that I have done all that I can to make him happy but this is not something that is in my capacity to offer. In return, I expect the same consideration from my husband. There are still things that he’d want in an non-monogamous relationship that I cannot offer and there are things that I want from it that he cannot offer, but we each have tried, and are still trying, to change that. And that’s what’s important to me.

One point I would like to make is that a good non-monogamous relationship is whatever format it takes to make all parties involved happier and more fulfilled. I am going to list a couple examples here. These are all cases that I have seen evidence of and not just stories.

Vincent, Amy, and Leanne. Vincent and Amy were married for 5 years, with one child, when the relationship started to fail. They ended up separating, with Vincent taking care of the daughter, because Amy wanted to move out of state and get a fresh start. So she did. And there, she discovered she’s bisexual (she’s always known in a way but never dealt with it) and fell in love with Leanne. Once Amy and Leanne started being a serious couple, they travelled back to visit Amy’s daughter fairly regularly, like once or twice a week. Amy then found out that she still loves Vincent, and of course, she loves her daughter very much. The three of them sat down, talked about this, and decided to try a polyamorous relationship. Amy is romantically and sexually active with both Vincent and Leanne, but Leanne and Vincent are just friends (Leanne identifies as a lesbian). They eventually moved in together and ended up raising the girl as a team. They’ve been in this arrangement for over 7 years now and it seems that it is likely to continue on for quite some time. During this period, Vincent also explored his sexuality and started seeing men, but he just isn’t romantically engaged with men. So from time to time, he will have a short-term fuck buddy on the side, and then it will end and that’s that.

Larry and Frank. Larry and Frank have been together for 25 years now, and they have been non-monogamous from the start. Their relationship shifted through different formats as time went by. Mostly, Frank is romantically monogamous but sexually promiscuous, whereas Larry is non-monogamous for both romance and sex. However, at any given time, Larry is always Frank’s primary lover and Frank is always Larry’s primary lover. They’ve had several third parties join them, and in some cases, the third party is sexually active with both but mostly romantically engaged with Larry while being friends with Frank. But there were also a few notable exceptions where their relationship became more like a parity polygamous relationship for a short period.

Master Ken. The only more-than-3 party polyamorous relationship that I know of is the example of Master Ken. It is a BDSM (bondage domination sadomasochism) context so it is a bit difficult to map to the terms that I am currently using, but it’s the closest I can think of. Master Ken has 2 live-in submissives (one with him for 12 years and one with him for 3 so far). He’s the Dominant master to both of them, and the two of them are friends who will have sex with each other when ordered to by their Master. Master Ken also takes in temporary parties, either for sex only, or for short-term arrangements. But in all cases, he’s the Dominant to each of the other parties and each of the members are nominally friends to each other, although friendship is not required. “Love” and “romance” both take on a new dimension in BDSM so it’s not the most directly comparable to monogamy, though there are monogamous BDSM pairs.

In my case, my husband and I knew we were both interested in non-monogamy from the start, but we decided that we were not ready then to tackle it. So we went with monogamy for the first 11 years. Then, due to certain life circumstances, the opportunity for non-monogamy came up and we decided to try it. It took a couple of false starts, a couple of fights, and a lot of talking, before we got it to work. I am romantically monogamous but sexually promiscuous. My husband tends to, though not always, find himself romantically involved first, and then the sexual desires followed. In practice, he will have short-term secondary boyfriends. These can last anywhere from months to years. But it was a very pairwise arrangement where his dynamic with his boyfriends is not the same as the one has with me, and I am not romantically or sexually involved with his boyfriends. In the mean time, I have multiple sexual partners, some long term and some short term, and these partners are not part of our shared social circles. I only see them when I have sex with them, i.e., they’re fuck buddies, not boyfriends. We each have veto power over the relationships outside of our marriage and we have ground rules to guide us on what is acceptable and what isn’t. We also talk a lot about our relationship and work through issues as they surface. This is what works for us now. It may change in time. We might go back to monogamy at some point. Or not. But whatever we do, it will be because it makes us both happier.

6. Conclusions (a.k.a tl;dr)

If you have read nothing else, these are the take-home messages:

- I don’t think non-monogamy is superior to monogamy

- I don’t think monogamous people are lacking in anything, if they’re happy with the arrangement they have

- I think more couples will be happier if they could explore non-monogamy, even if in the end they decide to go back to monogamy

- Don’t do non-monogamy as an escape from a bad relationship

- Non-monogamy is difficult

- 42

[sologdin]

very thorough, terra. must cogitate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

To be fair, I don't think any kind of preference is a "choice" in the true sense of the word. It's what we use to *make* choices.

Interesting. My wife and I are not in a polyamourus relationship. Nevertheless, we have both from time to time found other individuals sexually and emotionally attractive. We have not acted on those attractions. We chose not to.

What I'm trying to understand is this distinction you are making between "choice" and "preference". Does the existence of the attraction to people who are not part of a monogamus pairing mean that we are, by preference, non-monagamus but we are chosing to ignore that preference, or are you using preference to mean something more than attraction to other indivuduals outside of a monagamus pair bond? I'm trying to better understand the distinction you are making between choice and preference in this context.

Xray,

To expand a bit: I don't see sexual orientation as simply "to whom are you attracted" but also "how do you best express your sexual nature." For some, that a monogamous homosexual pairing. For others, it's a poly heterosexual structure. And so on.

Again, interesting. I do think it goes a long way to answer my question above. If I understand what you are saying "preference" is more than simple attraction if your sexuality is best suited to the preference stated taking it outside simple choice?

[Slurms McKenzie]

Yeah, very thorough and fair arguements.

However, I had a very conservative and religious upbringing and although I am an atheist, its fair to say that quite a bit of it has still rubbed off on me. I can read your arguements Terra and about your relationship and the rational part of my brain is telling me: "Yeah, thats fair enough, perfectly reasonable... and if everybody's happy, then what the hell? Go for it."

But then I can't shake this nagging voice in my head when I'm reading this thread thats screaming: "Nein, Nein, Nein, Nein, Nein, Nein, Nein, Nein, Nein, Nein!!! Zis is wrong, zis is all symptomatic of the moral decay of western civilization! You must fight it Slurms, fight it!"

*sigh* ah I suppose this is my problem though, its not any of my business..

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Practically speaking if non-monagamy and polyamory become generally accepted and legally recognized I feel really bad for family court judges and attornies. It's difficult now with only monogamus pair bonds legally recognized.

:)

[MercenaryChef]

Practically speaking if non-monagamy and polyamory become generally accepted and legally recognized I feel really bad for family court judges and attornies. It's difficult now with only monogamus pair bonds legally recognized.

:)

feeling bad for attorneys is a symptom of a moral decay in society that all the drug and sex fueled hedonism could never touch. ;)

[Castel]

feeling bad for attorneys is a symptom of a moral decay in society that all the drug and sex fueled hedonism could never touch. ;)

I thought we only hated the bankers now?

[Slurms McKenzie]

Practically speaking if non-monagamy and polyamory become generally accepted and legally recognized I feel really bad for family court judges and attornies. It's difficult now with only monogamus pair bonds legally recognized.

:)

Yeah, also I can't see the introduction of third parties being good for a family set-up.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Does the existence of the attraction to people who are not part of a monogamus pairing mean that we are, by preference, non-monagamus but we are chosing to ignore that preference

Xray,

Again, interesting. I do think it goes a long way to answer my question above. If I understand what you are saying "preference" is more than simple attraction if your sexuality is best suited to the preference stated taking it outside simple choice?

To answer the bold: absolutely not. Almost everyone on the planet, at one time or another, has been attracted (sexually, emotionally) to someone who is not their primary monogamous partner. That's just human nature. I am not crazy about the "preference" label, because that suggests that this is not a fundamental part of one's sexual matrix. It's like saying gay dudes "prefer" to sleep with other men. I mean, yes, but "prefer" suggests they have an alternative out there that will make them equally happy, and that is not the case for most gay men.

What I mean by saying that non-monogamy is an essential part of my sexual matrix: I do not feel like my entire essential self, the very basic building blocks of my self-identity and existence, is being addressed in a monogamous situation. For the monogamous person, it would be akin to enforced celibacy. You've cut off access to a very basic part of yourself to meet the external requirement (in your case, celibacy; in mine, monogamy).

Choice comes in when monogamy is the best choice for the pair. Terra covers this well when he describes how he and Mr. T decided to be monogamous for the first decade+ of their relationship, because they were not yet ready to deal with the ramifications of a non-monogamous relationship. (BTW, Terra, hats off to you on that. Let's just say I know exactly what you're talking about here.) They are currently happier with non-monogamy (and it seems to be an essential aspect to each of their sexual matrices), but they chose to be monogamous for a time for the greater good of the relationship, and they might opt for it again in the future. I have done the same.

And, yeah, props to TerraPrime for that monster post. Lots of good information in there. I wish I had more time to devote to it this morning, but that "job" thing calls.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Yeah, also I can't see the introduction of third parties being good for a family set-up.

Remember how you said others' choices of arrangements were none of your business? This is none of your business, either.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Also, I think it would be awesome if this thread did not get overrun with a bunch of monogamists dominating the conversation stating their opinions of non-monogamy. The more you talk, the less you (and others who might be curious) will learn about a world that is currently beyond your ken. And that would be kinda sad for everyone.

[Slurms McKenzie]

Remember how you said others' choices of arrangements were none of your business? This is none of your business, either.

That was in regards to someone's private romantic and sexual life.

But if you bring children into such an arrangement and I think that would be bad for the child, I can't see why I can't express that opinion.

[Slurms McKenzie]

And, frankly, I think it would be awesome if this thread did not get overrun with a bunch of monogamists dominating the conversation stating their opinions of non-monogamy. The more you talk, the less you (and others who might be curious) will learn about a world that is currently beyond your ken. And that would be kinda sad for everyone.

Alright then.

And also beyond my ken? Sounds kinda insulting

But alright, I'll leave

[Xray the Enforcer]

I'm not telling you to leave. I'm asking you (and others) to be polite and to not dominate the conversation with your opinions about something you probably don't understand very well.

Hang around, ask questions if you are sincerely curious. But if you just want to repeatedly state that non-monogamy is not for you, and it's bad for families, etc., then, yeah, maybe you don't have anything else to contribute to the discussion and it is best to leave at this point. It's up to you, really.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Xray,

I can see what you are saying. Thank you. And, for the record, as long as everyone consents it'a their call and I wish them every happiness.