Poly Do’s and Don’t’s

Editorial Note: This post was written by Wes Fenza, long before the falling out of our previous quint household and the subsequent illumination of his abusive behavior, sexual assault of several women, and removal from the Polyamory Leadership Network and banning from at least one conference. I have left Wes’ posts here because I don’t believe it’s meaningful to simply remove them. You cannot remove the truth by hiding it; Wes and I used to collaborate, and his thoughts will remain here, with this notice attached.

—–

Solopoly has a list up of do’s and don’t’s when it comes to treatment of a non-primary partner. The list:

Do:

Honor time commitments and dates.
Listen to and honor your non-primary partner’s concerns, needs, and feelings.
Make your non-primary relationship a priority.
Offer reassurance and understanding.
Embrace your non-primary partner’s world.
Keep your promises.
Support good metamour relations.
Invite non-primary partners into negotiations and decisions that affect them.
Clarify your boundaries and commitments BEFORE you begin a new relationship.
Fully disclose your constraints, agreements and boundaries.
Speak up about fairness toward non-primary partners.
Assume good intentions.

Don’t:

Don’t violate agreements.
Don’t conflate “fairness” with “equality.”
Don’t bail at the first bump.
Don’t default to playing the go-between.
Don’t foster competition or conflict among your partners.
Don’t pretend the dynamic of your existing relationship(s) will not change.
Don’t make it more complicated than it needs to be.

These are mostly good suggestions. Most of them apply to any relationship, not just a non-primary relationship, and they are generally rather intuitive. However, I’d like to add something to the list that’s somewhat counterintuitive:

Do Take Sides

This does not necessarily apply to only non-primary relationships, but it applies to any situation in which you are dating multiple people who have exposure to one another. In such a situation, conflict is inevitable. If you date for long enough, your partners are going to have a conflict with each other. In such a situation, your instinct is going to be to remain neutral , to facilitate discussion, but not to exercise judgment. In my experience, this is a mistake.

When your partners have a conflict, you’re going to have an opinion. I’d be willing to bet you’re going to have a pretty clear opinion about who did what wrong, who should apologize, and what they should apologize for. Hiding that opinion doesn’t help anyone. Firstly, it harms the trust you’ve built with both partners. Hiding things always does, and hiding something so relevant and important harms the trust to a greater degree.

Secondly, when you’re in a relationship with two people having a conflict, you have a lot of power to influence how the conflict goes. And as Spider-Man has taught us, that comes with a corresponding responsibility. By being in a position of trust with both people, you are possibly the only person who can talk straight to both parties and have them actually listen. When one of your partners is behaving unreasonably, you are one of the only people who has the ability to talk them down. If you abdicate that responsibility, your partners have to solve the issue themselves. Maybe they will, but they’d stand a much better chance with an effective mediator.

The much better alternative is to pick a side in the dispute. If you think one party is right and the other wrong, say so. If you think both are wrong, say that. If you think one is very wrong and the other is only a little bit wrong, say that too. In almost any dispute, both sides have made errors. Point them out,. But do not try to remain neutral. It’s easy to fall into the “both sides are wrong” trap. It’s easy to point out minor infractions on both sides are pretend they are equivalent. Don’t do it. One side is almost always more wrong than the other. Say which one.

The other thing to remember, and I can’t stress this enough, is do not always choose your primary partner’s side. The whole thing only works if you give your honest opinion and overcome your biases. Your primary being your “top priority” does not mean that you always take your primary’s side in a dispute. Sometimes, your primary is going to be in the wrong. It happens. It’s up to you to say so.

Dan Savage Agrees With Me!

—–

UPDATE: Dan Savage quotes me in Slog

——————————————–

From the latest Savage Love:

Poly is not a sexual identity, PP, it’s not a sexual orientation. It’s not something you are, it’s something you do. There’s no such thing as a person who is “a poly,” just as there’s no such thing as a person who is “a monogamous.” Polyamorous and monogamous are adjectives, not nouns. There are only people—gay, straight, bi—and some people are in monogamous relationships, some are in open relationships, some are in polyamorous relationships, some are in monogamish relationships, some are in four-star-general relationships. These are relationship models, PP, not sexual identities.

As I’ve been saying for a while, polyamory is not a sexual orientation:

There are a few problems with describing polyamory as a sexual orientation. The first of which is that polyamory is not sexual. Polyamory is about relationships, honesty, and intimacy. Look back at the definitions given by Loving More. Not a single one mentions sex. Calling polyamory a sexual orientation is a joke.

Secondly, polyamory is not an orientation. Polyamory is not a physical desire or a feeling. While there is not complete agreement on what polyamory is, there is clear agreement about it isn’t. And it isn’t just an attraction to multiple people. As Shaun pointed out, if you define polyamory as a feeling or an inclination, then half of the country is polyamorous, which is an absurd result. Almost everyone feels attraction for multiple people at the same time. This does not make them polyamorous.

A third problem with describing poly as a sexual orientation is that being poly is nothing like being GLB. Being GLB is about the type of person to whom you are sexually attracted. Being polyamorous is about the amount of people you love. Describing polyamory as a sexual orientation suggests a false equivalence between the groups, and seems like an attempt to coopt the sympathy that the GLBT community has built up.

Sounds like at least one high-profile member of the GLBT community doesn’t like the comparison any more than I do.

Atlanta Poly Weekend, March 15-17 2013

As many readers may know, I lived in Atlanta for a little while a couple of years back. It was where I met Ginny! While living down there, I participated in the polyamorous community down there and made some friends. Some of those people still read this blog, and because of my awesomeness, have invited me to participate in their annual ~~orgy~~ polyamory-themed event in Atlanta, Atlanta Poly Weekend.

leprechaun2 — Know that I had the option of putting a picture of a sexy woman here dressed for St. Paddy’s day.

It will be the middle of March of 2013 (you know, because the 2012 Mayan calendar thing is bullshit), winter will be starting to give way, it will be St. Patrick’s Day weekend, and Atlanta will be warming up! Also, lots of smart, sexy, poly people gathering for workshops, presentations, and possibly a few drinks after we solve all the world’s problems with said workshops and presentations.

You can take a look at the list of presenters to get an idea of who will be there, and they look like a fantastic bunch! I am looking forward to meeting them all in March, and I hope to see some of you there as well.

So, the skinny is this:

The What: Atlanta Poly Weekend 2013

The Who (no, not the band!): you, and all your awesome friends (who will be permitted to listen to The Who, if that is your kink. The Kinks will also be acceptable).

The When: March 15-17, 2013

The Where:

Holiday Inn Select Atlanta- Perimeter/Dunwoody
4386 Chamblee Dunwoody Road

Atlanta, GA 30341

(770) 457-6363

(770) 458-5282 (Fax)

The Why: Because it will be awesome!

The How: That is for you to figure out, because I don’t know who you are or where you are coming from. If teleportation doesn’t work, try a car, train, plane, or penny-farthing.

Atonement and Monogamy as Impossible Ideals

As a student of anthropology, I think a lot about cultural constructs which permeate our lives, most of which are pretty invisible to us most of the time. From an early age I was fascinated with the various institutions of religion, as well as the many more personal spiritual ideologies people espouse, and the various psychological and sociological structures which surround them. Later on, I started thinking about similar aspects of how we think about sex and relationships, and eventually found many similarities between how we think about gods, spirits, and sex. This is no surprise since one of the best ways for religions to hold our attention is to demand certain behaviors is to hold us hostage with fears about our deepest inclinations; sex is a great example of this.

In religion, there is this idea of atonement. It comes in many forms from many theological systems, but it is basically the way that we come to make amends with some supernatural or natural power. Whether we have to deal with a fundamental brokenness in our nature, some separation, or lack of enlightenment (to only scratch the surface of ways religious ideas deal with this atonement thing) from the power we seek atonement with, there is a set of actions and beliefs which we must do or have in order to reach some ideal relationship with the universe, deity, or ourselves.

tantal1 — Tantalus perpetually reaching for fruit and water he will never grasp

It is my view that the religions which survive best find a balance of difficulty and comprehensibility in the ideals it sets up. Adherents must be, like the Tantalus of Greek mythology, perpetually reaching for this ideal of atonement which they cannot really achieve, but it must be something they can imagine as a logically possible thing to have. Sure, people can think that they have achieved the goal (as many Christians believe they are saved), but the scriptures and religious leaders will always mention that this is pride, or something similar in order to keep them in check.

Opposed, conceptually, to atonement is some detriment presented as part of our nature or circumstance. We stand unenlightened, sinful, or separated from some god(s), knowledge, or understanding and we will remain there until we atone, repent, or whatever must be done to solve this problem, heal this sickness, etc. As Christopher Hitchens said many times,

Even the most humane and compassionate of the monotheisms and polytheisms are complicit in this quiet and irrational authoritarianism: they proclaim us, in Fulke Greville‘s unforgettable line, “Created sick — Commanded to be well.”

The bottom line here is that there is a tendency in human worldviews, whether religion or otherwise, to present a highly unlikely ideal against some much more likely, and often repugnant, set of behaviors or beliefs which we must be encouraged away from.

The sin of non-monogamy and the atonement with The One.

There is a mainstream view of sex and relationships, here in the modern west and most other developed nations, with monogamy as the ideal relationship type. The majority of cultures have some version of this practice, and it’s major competitor is some kind of patriarchal polygamy. Polyandry or true sexual/relationship equality is rare and considered aberrational when it occurs. It took quite a while before we would have a sexual revolution, and with it true freedom started to become part of our cultural consciousness.

And yet even still there exists within our sexually liberated world a distinction between studs and sluts; men are expected to be promiscuous, women are often valued for their “purity.” These promiscuous men and these sluts are expected, or at least encouraged, to eventually outgrow this part of their life and find The One, or at least settle for A One.

monogamy-survey-1010-lg — Do you believe that lifelong monogamy is a realistic expectation for a married couple? (click for context and details)

For most people who have a period of sexual liberation, it ends with the attempt to reach an ideal of monogamy. Men and women may be expected to have sexual experiences in their teenage years and into their 20’s, but eventually most people expect them to settle down. “Settling down” means taking relationships seriously, and usually means exclusivity, marriage, and monogamy. So while we are liberated as a culture in terms of having sex before we “get serious,” get serious we should, because seriousness means exclusivity and exclusivity is good.

The fallen circumstance, or nature, which even our progressive culture patiently tolerates for is one of promiscuity. But this sexually liberated part of our lives is held against a stable future ideal of monogamy. The holy grail of relationships, The One, is presented against the superficial and regrettable reality of youthful promiscuity. This One is The person with whom we can have a real relationship, rather than failing perpetually hopping from one insignificant relationship to another (sometimes at the same time!).

A mnemonic device I learned years ago about the word atone was that you can break it down into at+one. In other words, especially for many Christian traditions, the goal was to work to become at one with some god or another. All of our other inclinations, not having to do with this atonement, should be secondary to that relationship of working towards chasing that ideal, because nothing was more important than that. Monogamy has taken a similar place in our culture as that ideal of religious atonement; the sinful and superficial world of sex, lust, and other failings of human behavior are presented against an ideal of monogamy. That is, even liberal society maintains this ideal, even though that liberality allows sexual promiscuity, co-habitation before marriage, etc. Anything that looks like monogamy, even if it isn’t really marriage, is what we should be striving for. The difference here between mainstream conservatives and liberals on this issue is how we get to monogamy, not whether that is the goal.

This shows me that culture tends to be truly human (all too human!) and tends to have worldviews which are conservative even when we are progressive (I actually argue that today’s liberals are tomorrow’s conservatives, because the mainstream is largely conservatives concerning ideals). We conserve ideals, even as our values shift. So, even as we become increasingly liberal as a society in terms of seeing redemption and atonement in looser and looser terms, we hold onto the ideal itself. Liberal views about the supernatural and what we should be doing with our lives changes in terms of the details of the path to get there, but the destination does not really change. This is one of the greatest failings of most of mainstream liberal culture; it does not seek to question the ideals, assumptions, and goals of our worldviews.

Ideals Worth Wanting

What should be the strength of progressive culture, or perhaps a radical culture, is the re-valuing of our values. We need to evaluate what is worth valuing, not what we should change in terms of how to get to our Heavens, Nirvanas, or other paradises whether they be otherworldly or physical. The question is not how we can get to paradise or what we are allowed to do before we settle into monogamy, the issue is why do we value such ideals? Why is being at one with some supernatural power good? Why is monogamy the ideal?

I don’t think there are good answers to those questions, except to say that perhaps those things should not be ideals at all. With religion, atonement is merely an impossible goal, set before us to tantalize us and keep us striving and behaving within acceptable boundaries. Monogamy is no different, in that the only way to achieve it is to pretend as if our ability of love is so limited, and our sexual desires so parochial, that we force ourselves into ideal relationship expectations while repeatedly failing in thought if not act. There is no reason to set us up with impossible ideals which make no sense to value, whether with gods or monogamy, when we have real ideals to inspire us.

A skeptical approach to reality brings us to an informed and skeptical atheism, and allows us to love the people we love, the way we want to love them, in order to live authentic and rewarding lives. And while we may never be ideal skeptics or lovers, we can at least have ideals worth wanting.

Coming out poly in light of mainstream images

I’m out. Anyone who knows me personally and socially who does not know that I’m polyamorous (or an atheist, for that matter), is either not paying attention or is just saying that they know me to look cool to their friends. OK, that last thing never happens. But that fact is that not everyone who is polyamorous is open about it, and they often have anxieties about if, when, and how they should come out to people around them, especially family.

showtime-pod-in-library — The “pod” from Showtime’s Polyamory: Married and Dating

Recently, I started watching the Showtime series, Polyamory: Married and Dating. It’s a fairly good show, and this issue of coming out is dealt with, but I’m concerned with how the show will effect coming out for the rest of us. I have a hypotheses that when a fringe or minority idea, group, etc comes into the mainstream, it is almost always has serious misrepresentations attached to it. Anyone serious about understanding the minority worldviews, upon its being portrayed in the mainstream, needs to do some personal research to get to the reality beneath the sexed-up mainstream presentation.

And that is true here, as well. The people in the Showtime series are not “bad” representations of polyamory; in fact, they seem at least mostly realistic and genuine. But what I think most people will take away from watching the series is that polyamory is a lot of sex with young, hot people all the time. And, I’m sure, for some people it is just that. At least, it is for a little while. I certainly had a lot more sex, with more people, in the beginning of my polyamorous life.

I’ve been around many polyamory meetups, a few parties, and have talked with poly people form various backgrounds over the last several years. The Showtime series, while somewhat good at presenting the open and honest form of communication between the people, is very focused on sex. I cannot think of too many times when an episode goes more than 5 minutes without some kind of sex being displayed. It’s not that I don’t like seeing hot, naked people enjoying each other, it’s that in my poly life nakedness and sex are not ubiquitous, and I think that’s probably true for most polyamorous people.

But I’m not here to analyze the saturation of nakedness in mainstream portrayal of polyamory, but rather the effect that such things have on other poly people, especially those who may be thinking about coming out to their family, friends, etc. My thought is that while such shows may give some context and grounding of what polyamory is to a larger audience, it also creates a stereotype with which we will be associated.

It’s not all about the sex, right?

It is somewhat common, in some poly resources, to emphasize that it’s not all about the sex. And this is true! Because while we do share some overlapping lifestyles with swingers, we are not swingers. The emphasis of polyamory is, obviously, love. And without getting all cheesy and hippy about it, the relationships we have with people around us are what are most important, and sex is often a part of that (but not always). So now when people I know see me, especially if they have seen Showtime’s presentation, they will associate that overly-sexualized perpetual orgy with what I mean when I say I’m polyamorous.

According to some people Gina knows, she has like 15 husbands (and she has not introduced me to 14 of them!). My mom (hi mom) thinks, or at least thought, that I was just going to keep adding women to my life. She says that I’m just using this as an excuse to sleep with many women (but at least I’m doing it openly, unlike say, my father when they were married). And when I have 500 lovers, my wife will leave me, knowing her turn won’t come around for a year and a half, or someshit. I, after all, will eventually have my own compound with thousands of adoring subjects, and watch over them as the great prophet of polyamory.

Yuck

The fact is that I actually have less sex partners than some of my monogamous friends (who are single), and that my life is not actually a perpetual orgy. (This is not to say that orgies are bad). I would actually not want 500, or 50(!), lovers all at once. Relationships are work, and while I am open to having more lovers if they come around, I’m not looking. This is not to say there are not people in my life I’m attracted to, only that so far nothing has come of it, because my life is not a perpetual pursuit of pussy. I’m afraid that a series like Polyamory: Married and Dating might give the impression that my life is such a persuit, when it is more about loving who I love, as I love them, without artificial constraints.

Getting Perspective

Soon enough, we here at the polyskeptic compound will have a chance to get a little piece of our life out to the world, and what they will see is that we are actually pretty normal most of the time. We watch movies, have dinner, and go out and get drinks together, just like monogamous people. It’s just that we have sex, with consent and knowledge of all involved, with more people rather than just go home and wish we could, like monogamous people often do.

When I was monogamous as a 20-something with a job and disposable income, I would go out with my girlfriend to meet up with male friends and their girlfriends, and everyone would flirt playfully as part of being drunk, young, and horny. We’d make jokes about how much we wanted to make out with the other people there, would steal sexy glances at each other, and then we would go home with our allotted partner. But many times, and this was true for a few of the girls I dated as well, I would sometimes be thinking of this other awesome person I met that night, and what I wanted to do with them. I would find myself wishing I could go home with them instead of, or perhaps in addition to, my girlfriend. It never meant I didn’t love my partner, it just meant I was capable of more and wanted more. And I’m sure some people out there didn’t think about that or want that, but I doubt that that this is true for the majority of people.

My hypothesis is that most people are potentially polyamorous, swingers, or cheaters.

And those people who accept that and are honest about it often become polyamorous or swingers. Some of them have tons of sex with lots of people, like they do in the Showtime series, and some take different routes. There are many ways to approach polyamory, and I wish that the mainstream presentations were more balanced. What I think Showtime should have done was to include a family who are less sex-driven, and more about focusing on relationships. Or at least de-emphasized the sex.

But then, of course, less people would watch it, right?

But this way, we are likely to attract people who just are only looking for tons of sex. Because while the relationships, discussions, etc are dealt with, they are overshadowed by sex. Monogamous couples watching the series might become intrigued by the idea, but get the message that the sex is prominent, which may cause them to jump in too fast and get hurt, which is the story of people who have tried polyamory and didn’t find it to be “for them.” It’s sort of like trying a relationship, not having it work, and then giving up on relationships. Thus, if people are truly going to try and challenge themselves to open up and be honest with what they want with their relationships, sexing it up and getting hurt will only damage the image of polyamory in the long run for many people.

Sex with as many, or as few, people as you want is a good thing. But making it look like sex is the thing that polyamory is about will cause people to overlook the emotional work that needs to be done, not just for the sake of having more sex with more people, but for the sake of becoming a more mature and capable adult. That’s what this culture needs right now.

If we as individuals and as a culture improve ourselves and our current relationships, the sex will come. It’s not like we humans don’t already want the sex, we just need to do the work to be ready to do it well. What Showtime’s series seems to leave out is the work it takes to get where those people are; it gives a glimpse of where we all could be, but not how to get there.

For that, everyone obviously needs to be reading polyskeptic.com!

😉

In response to the Monogamous Bisexual

I am watching this video put up by Dan Fincke, which is a discussion about bisexuality amoung other things, and I am particularly interested in the point made by Eponymous Fliponymous about being monogamous and bisexual. When I first saw the post about this issue a few days ago, I was unable to write anything because I was out of state and I subsequently got distracted by other things (ie Guild Wars 2) and forgot about writing about this.

Eponymous Fliponymous (henceforth Patrick) makes some good points, and I don’t think we would disagree too much, but I want to address something he said in the conversation that irked me a little bit. But first, let’s cover what is being discussed in context. From the post:

Several of the myths about bisexuality come from the common root that we are defined by our partners. This misconception is a direct cause of bisexual invisibility, and is frequently compounded into erasure. The common myths that come directly or indirectly from this include
1) Bisexuals are incapable of monogamy – they will cheat on you with another gender, can’t be satisfied with one partner, aren’t really bisexual if they aren’t polyamorous.

2) Bisexuality is a transitional phase rather than a stable identity – bi now, gay later.

And this is, of course, true. To be bisexual does not imply that one would have to be polyamorous. I would guess that many bisexual people are monamorous, if not monogamous, and it is true (as Patrick says) that it is harder to visibly be bisexual when in a relationship with one person; you appear as either heterosexual or homosexual in most circumstances. Thus, many people would have trouble understanding what it means to be bisexual if you are not doing some sort of non-monogamy, since people do assume that our sexual orientation implies something about who we date, and monogamy certainly does cut out about half the population for bisexual people. What I want to address, today, is why this question does not make any sense for more than the reasons that Patrick adeptly dealt with. Because while he is dead on correct that you can be monogamous and be bisexual, I think the question still remains how this is different than asking how anyone can be monogamous even while heterosexual or homosexual.

Before we get to making that point, however, let me acknowledge that Patrick is not dealing with polyamory directly in his post.

Polyamorous bisexuals would seem to be able to make their bisexuality more visible. This is debatable, because what they make visible by walking down the street tends to be myths about polyamory rather than about bisexuality. In any case, polyamory isn’t my subject here. I leave that to the polyamorous, who while they certainly represent a significant segment of the LGBT population, don’t by any means represent everybody.

Very well, so here I am. And while I define myself as heterosexual, I am close with people who are queer, trans, etc and so I know the LGBT community fairly well. In any case, I am glad to hear that Patrick made an attempt at polyamory, but did not find it suited him.

In those early heady days of blooming sexuality, I experimented with polyamorous options, but quickly found that was not the path that works for me. On an emotional and romantic level, monogamy suits me best. I’m one of those people who wants the intimacy and mutual trust that I can best develop in a dyadic relationship.

Now, I have some questions about what he means when he says that monogamy suits him emotionally and romantically. I have an idea that very few people actually desire monogamy per se, but rather don’t prefer to exert the effort it takes to be polyamorous due to constraints of time, inclination, or emotional insecurities (jealousy, for example). But I will let that go and trust him at his word that he has given this question thought and has made a rational choice. What I will say is I think it is a myth that a dyadic relationship allows intimacy and mutual trust that a polyamorous arrangement cannot. Perhaps Patrick (and many others) cannot develop that level of intimacy with two people, but that does not make it inherently impossible. (I know that was not what he said, but I wanted to address this myth about polyamory).

Again, I’m glad we have more allies out there.

Nothing against polyamory – if it works for you, it works for you, and I’m the last person to judge you for it, whether your polyamory expresses itself as multiple dyads, a triad, a group arrangement with or without in-group exclusivity, gay, straight, or bi, it just doesn’t bother me. The only reason I bring it up is that while I have (ultimately unsuccessful) polyamory in my history, it doesn’t make me poly.

Agreed. And the rest of the post is a good assessment of the myths associated with bisexuality.

So where is my issue?

Watch the segment of this video from about 11:30 to about the 13 minute mark. There is more relevant discussion beyond that (say, until around minute 16 or so), but that’s the essential part I want to address.

Dan Fincke is asking Patrick about whether there is something missing in being monogamous, in that there is a large segment of the population he’s attracted to which he does not have an outlet for. He’s essentially being asked if he misses men in his sexual and romantic life. Patrick’s response is to draw an analogy between hair color and gender. He basically says that in the same way that his wife has brown hair, and he likes red heads, he isn’t going around lamenting the lack of red heads in his life. This might seem to be a good point, at first glance, but let me address why I think it fails to make the point I think it sets out to make.

One of the reasons I am polyamorous is because I want to be authentic with the range of my sexuality. And the simple fact is that I like women of various personalities, physical attributes, etc. That is, I like red heads and I like brunettes. As well as black hair. Not so much blondes, historically. I like petite curvy women. I like tallish skinny girls. I like other body-types as well, but the point is that I am interested in relationships, whether sexual, romantic, or friendships, with people of various kinds. The point is that I recognize the reality that I am attracted to people, almost always women but sometimes those who gender-bend catch my interest as well, of varying shapes, sizes, and brains. And I don’t understand why it is considered better to choose one person to be with, since that is the case.

So, Patrick’s analogy not only fell flat for me, but it seems to actually backfire from my perspective. Patrick being bisexual, at least in the context of this question about polyamory, is equally as relevant as my being attracted to many women, so I am confused how this point he makes is supposed to make any point at all. The same problem which needs to be addressed by monogamous heterosexual or homosexual people about why they choose monoamory is equally as relevant as with bisexuals.

That is, the issue with polyamory is no more relevant for bisexuals than it is for anyone else, since whether one is bisexual or not, people are actually interested in more than one person sexually and romantically. (I’ll grant that some very small segment of people may be interested in nobody, and some larger, but also small segment, genuinely interested in only one person, but the overwhelming majority, I’d wager, are potentially polyamorous in inclination at least). The question, therefore, is not how a bisexual person can be monoamorous and still really be bisexual any more than how any person of any orientation can be monoamorous and really be authentically, fully, sexual.

If (as is the thinking behind the question posed by Dan in the video) a bisexual man, married to a woman, is cutting himself off from part of his sexuality by not being with men, then not only is he also cutting himself off from other women besides his wife, but so is every other heterosexual or bisexual married man in the same situation. If it’s a problem for bisexuals, then it is a problem for anyone who is attracted, whether romantically and/or sexually, to more than one person. Because yes, Patrick may desire sex and/or romance with men, but this is no more to the point than a heterosexual person is capable of sexual and romantic interest in two or more people. Patrick is in the same exact circumstance as any other monoamorous person, in terms of polyamory. His bisexuality does not make him more relevant to non-monogamy. The question of if we are cutting off our sexuality is true for all people who do not choose non-monogamy.

So, I agree with Patrick that this myth about bisexuality and non-monogamy is something which needs to be addressed. I was just somewhat interested in his analogy, since it does not solve the problem so much as it misses another one; why not polyamory?

I know many people are not interested in the work it takes to be successfully polyamorous, but at bottom the same question applies to everyone as it does to bisexual people; if you are attracted to more than one (type of) person (irregardless of their genders), then why wouldn’t you want to do the work to be able to love (or lust openly for) all the people you desire, as you actually desire them, rather than arbitrarily cut yourself off from sex, romance, etc?

I understand if you don’t actually have the time or inclination to do such work, but otherwise why be so conservative sexually and romantically?

So, we call it PolyBar, or something…

This is the bar at the PolySkeptic compound:

Let it suffice that this is among the nerdiest bars I have ever seen. There is no real point to this post, I just wanted to share how awesome the area behind my desk is. I mean, I only have to walk like 10 feet to get to the closest bar!

I live a charmed life.

YodaPez — Hilarious corkscrew and lighter shown for scale

But the question becomes what we should call this bar. It is dominated by Star Trek paraphernalia, so we could call it Ten Forward, but I’m not very fond of that. I considered Trek, but the fact is that there is also a huge Yoda Pez dispenser, which means that there is a mingling of Star Trek and Star Wars. Our goal is to piss off as many nerds as we can, I suppose.

So, here are some of the ideas we have come up with:

Trek
PolyBar Galactica
Bar Noir
Polycule (which is a term we like generally for our little family, as well)
Nerdgasm
The Fenzorselli-McBrownigal Liquor Depot
The Real Classy Booze Shack (because the nicer the description of the bar, the worse it is, amirite?)
[insert clever bar name here]

In any case, I’m sure we will settle on something eventually. In the meantime, here’s some more close-ups.

bar3 — Yes, those are rubber duckies in a basket.

Notice, below, the huge Pauwel glass, designed for drinking lots of Kwak, apparently. If you have not had it, Kwak is a quite delicious Belgian amber ale. You should try some.

bar4 — That, in the background, is a signed picture of Brent Spiner (Data) with Patrick Stewart (Jean Luc-Picard), wearing 20’s style garb.

So, we should totally throw more parties. Also, you should all come.
Now, to make myself a drink or something….

Screw This Survey and the Horse it (Monogamously) Rode in on!

One time at an Arcati Crisis rehearsal, Peter took the time to take a survey being conducted over the phone. It was some kind of political survey, I think. The mayoral elections were coming up and they wanted to know where people stood on the issues. Peter took it and then got off the phone with a scathing review of the survey and the surveyor herself.

At one point she brought up the possibility of bringing gambling to Philadelphia. Unless you were living under a rock (which I would hope a survey company wasn’t), you may have recalled that the possibility of bringing gambling to Philadelphia was not the simplest of things. People were terrified of it. What will it do to the traffic in the already congested area in which they want to build? What about the potential of an increase in hobos on Delaware Avenue? WHY DOESN’T ANYONE THINK ABOUT HOBO JOE? But according to the surveyor, “You probably support gambling because it will bring revenue to the city, and everyone likes revenue, right?”

I feel like that’s like going into a weight loss seminar with a jar of sterile tape worms and saying, “This parasite will make the pounds fly off without any other side effects! Also, the early 1900’s were awesome, with absolutely no caveats!”

If that’s not biased, I don’t know what is.

So, Shaun just wrote about this monogamy survey the GoodinBed.com is conducting, in this post and despite being an intelligent person, I decided to go take it. I mean, people like us with our big alternative lifestyle should be represented in such things, right? Right.

Spoilers ahead!!!

I thought about writing a diatribe here, but after I got going it wasn’t so much funny as it was sad. So instead, I will post the conversation Shaun and I had about it.

Me: Yep. This survey is dumb.

Shaun: It’s totally monogamy privileged. There are answers not available to give.

Me: Yeah. I filled out “other” for relationship status and explained. And then it immediately talked about you having one partner. And a statement like “monogamy builds intimacy between 2 people” is difficult to answer. Obviously it does, But I feel like I need a caveat there. I’m sure there’s not the statement, “Intimacy builds commitment between 2 people”.

Shaun: Yeah. I had the same issues.

Me: Argh, this is aggravating.

Shaun: Yay, monogamous privilege

Me: It talks about infidelity, but never non-monogamy.

Me: Hahahahahaha “What are the biggest barriers to monogamy for you? What a way to word that!

(Side note: You were supposed to check off all that apply here. There were ones that made sense like “Life Experience” and “Attraction”, but there were also choices like “Money” and “Kids”. The latter would seem like barriers to non-monogamy, but I would be amused if they were suggesting prostitution or something like that.)

Shaun: I was hoping for a feedback box.

Me: Wow…the last part of the questionnaire is the dumbest thing ever. How well does your partner know you???? This is the Newlywed Game!

Shaun: I know.

Me: Are you thinking of fucking other people right now because you are uncertain your partner knows your favorite food???

SLUT!

Shaun: lol

Me: Well, I’m sure glad I did THAT

Shaun: You’re welcome.

Me: I felt completely unable to take it honestly, haha.

“As a person who engages in infidelity, what makes you such a dishonest, mangy slut?”

“Well, I’m not committing infidelity and not particularly a slut…”

“Slut says what?”

“There’s nothing wrong with sluts.”

“Why are you such a SLUT? And why do you hate AMERICA???”

Shaun: You should write a post mocking that survey.

Me: Hmm, perhaps I shall. Ok, I’m doin’ it. Heh heh, I said doin’ it.

So there you have it. Shaun posted the results link also and of course the results are that everybody loves and believe in monogamy…but are cheating on their partners a lot, statistically speaking. But what would the survey results have looked like if polyamorous people could have answered completely? Would it have shown a decent percentage of people who were satisfied with their relationships, their sex life, and who hold commitment and honesty in very high regard?

Or maybe we’re just the dumb ones that actually took this thing. Oy!

Survey about monogamy

I just found this survey about monogamy created by the site GoodInBed.com and took it. There are some results over at Foxnews.com (yes, that FoxNews), if you are interested.

(H/T Polyamory Daily)

Where polyamory is needed; relationship advice blogs.

Occasionally I check out the blogs at wordpress (which is the software this site is run on) for tags like “religion” or, in today’s case, “relationships,” to see what people are writing about. And most of the time I find a bunch of crap, but occasionally I find something interesting. Today, I found a couple of posts that touched on polyamory.

Over at Emilystarz, we have a post simply called “My Life” which is about a fairly common situation of a woman who has a man in her life who has been, and wants to be, sexual with other people. The added complication of a baby between them makes the situation more frustrating to see, and it is obvious to me that this is just one more situation where monogamy is not working for at least one person in the relationship.

Now, all I know from the post there is what is written, so any advice I have is most-likely crap. But I think people in such situations should be aware of polyamory, even if they ultimately decide against it, part ways, or whatever. I think that this issue of responsible non-monogamy needs to be part of the conversation, not only in specific cases such as this, but in all similar cases with relationships.

I think it needs to be part of our cultural conversation about relationships. With that in mind, let’s move onto the next post I found. In this case we have a writer asking for advice, and getting an awful response. It’s over at lovejays.com, and it is entitled “Playing the Field.” here’s the gist:

Q: Dear Love Jays,

Is it okay I’m dating one guy (we aren’t exclusive) and sleeping with another?

A: Dear Double Dippin’,

Non-exclusive dating gives you the freedom to date, sleep, or hang out with anyone your little heart desires. Dating is a time when you get to explore several options and decide which person (if any) has the potential of becoming more serious.

So, is it okay that you’re dating one and sleeping with another? Technically, yes. Would I recommend continuing this behavior? No. Sex embodies much more emotions than just the physical exchanges of pleasure between our “money spots”. Sex was designed to be shared between two people who are committed to each other and share something special. Casually having sex with people will eventually take its toll on the mental psyche of woman or man. I’m sure there are several of you who want to rebuttal my last statement, but rest assured – you will have your “aha” moment one day. Long story short, sex simply makes things complicated – physically and emotionally.

Easy advice – pick one and stick to ‘em! It’s much much easier to focus your attention on one person and will save you from emotionally damage, even if you are unaware of it at this moment.. If you get bored of him, on to the next one. That’s the beauty of dating!

Sincerely,

Mr. J

This, quite frankly, is the poly equivalent to reading a creationist argument for an atheist. Reading this is like looking at a train wreck of relationship advice.

To deconstruct what is wrong with this advice, I would have to start from page one of polyamory. I’d have to link so many posts from this blog in the past…I just don’t have the energy to do it.

Oh fine…here a couple of examples:

But, onto the post. Let’s do it a piece at a time:

Non-exclusive dating gives you the freedom to date, sleep, or hang out with anyone your little heart desires. Dating is a time when you get to explore several options and decide which person (if any) has the potential of becoming more serious.

This is not awful. If I were to try and be fair to this, I could even partially agree with this. The first sentence, in fact, is spot on. It’s a statement of fact, but then with the following sentence it takes a turn for the worse.

Where it says “…and decide which person (if any) has the potential of becoming more serious,” it could be read to mean that we use this time to decide which people are worth keeping around, which is true for polyamory as well. But the “more serious,” as we shall see, implies exclusivity. Exclusive does not mean more serious, nor vice-versa.

“Mr. J” continues:

So, is it okay that you’re dating one and sleeping with another? Technically, yes. Would I recommend continuing this behavior? No. Sex embodies much more emotions than just the physical exchanges of pleasure between our “money spots”. Sex was designed to be shared between two people who are committed to each other and share something special.

Sex does often involve many emotions, and should be dealt with responsibly, both in terms of physical safety and emotional maturity. My experience with sex with many people over the years in serially monogamous, polyamorous, and group sex environments has shown me that we are capable of sex in more ways than most people have imagined.

Sex is great between two people. It has the capability to draw them emotionally close, bring great pleasure, and is even good exercise. But there is no necessary damage to that relationship just because you have it with other people. The only way this is possible is by not being safe (and thus subjecting yourself to potential infections) or to not developing your emotional self such that you deal with emotional issues such as jealousy.

Things like jealousy are real issues that need to be dealt with, and it is fortunate that they can be dealt with. And let’s not forget that some people are simply not prone to it in the same way. But jealousy is not, in itself, an excuse not to pursue our desires. Rather, it is a challenge to work on. Like fear, it stands against us and makes us dip into the well of our baser instincts. It makes us act irrational, possessive, and petty rather than mature and rational. Jealousy is not something to be proud of; it is something to try and heal if we can.

Sex can be shared between two people who share something special, sure. It’s great when that happens. But it does not imply that at some other time those same two people might also have some special sexy time with some other people with whom they share a close and special relationship. Further, sex can also can be shared between three or four people who share something special, or even between some people who just sort of like each other a bit and like each others’ bodies. This conservative view of sex espoused by “Mr. J” is simply not true in general, and so it should not be espoused as general advice.

It may be true for Mr. (and/or Miss.) J, but if it isn’t true for many people, then it’s only true by accident and not by necessity or generally. Nonetheless, he continues:

Casually having sex with people will eventually take its toll on the mental psyche of woman or man. I’m sure there are several of you who want to rebuttal my last statement, but rest assured – you will have your “aha” moment one day.

I, and many other committed polyamorous (and swinging) people out here in the world have a different experience. My “aha” moment was realizing that the mythology of the ideal “one” that exists for each of us was the problem. Mr. J needs to check his assumptions about the very nature of relationships before proclaiming general truths about love and sex, because there are many of us who find his view, well, parochial.

Still, he persists:

Long story short, sex simply makes things complicated – physically and emotionally.

It sure does. How does this imply that we should have to limit ourselves to one person, ultimately? Because it’s easier? It might be easier, except when you are in love with two people, when you have to repress your natural sexuality in favor of a cultural construct which asks us to repress much of that sexuality, etc for the sake of an ideal. There is a real existential agony that can exist in moments when we yearn for two loves, and feel like we have to choose. How awful to be told that you, in fact, should choose rather than consider other options, such as polyamory, swinging, etc. How trite. How small-minded. How limited—and limiting!

Why, for the sake of all that is not holy, would anyone have to choose simply because it is superficially “easier”? It’s only easier because it conforms to the narrative you, Mr. J, are drowning in. Swim to the surface, Mr. J, and breathe pure air.

So, my advice to Double Dippin’; Love who you love, how you love them (even if it’s just dirty, fun, sex) openly, honestly, and with consideration and respect. Don’t let Mr. J’s conservative views on sexuality ruin your ride in life or force you to choose when you may not have to.

That’s all I can stomach, today.