94 thoughts on “Polyamory, Monogamy, and Ownership Paradigms”

1. This is excellent.

   Reply ↓

2. This is excellent.

   Reply ↓

3. This is an incredibly useful post, thank you.

   Reply ↓

4. This is an incredibly useful post, thank you.

   Reply ↓

5. This is great.

   A personal pet peeve of mine is treating a person as a highly-interactive sex toy within the confines of an opened (not even polyamorous, because it tends to veer far out of the realm of polyamory–though when I’ve seen this it’s sometimes occurred with people that label themselves as polyamorous) relationship. I.e. within the control paradigm: We will put our relationship above all others. We will share a partner and then when he/she is perceived as a threat or he/she is no longer interesting or exciting we can break things off with him/her without any regard for his/her feelings or autonomy.

   Reply ↓

6. This is great.

   A personal pet peeve of mine is treating a person as a highly-interactive sex toy within the confines of an opened (not even polyamorous, because it tends to veer far out of the realm of polyamory–though when I’ve seen this it’s sometimes occurred with people that label themselves as polyamorous) relationship. I.e. within the control paradigm: We will put our relationship above all others. We will share a partner and then when he/she is perceived as a threat or he/she is no longer interesting or exciting we can break things off with him/her without any regard for his/her feelings or autonomy.

   Reply ↓

7. But of course, this is problematized by the existence of individuals for whom unequal power or ownership is a big part of their kink or relationship, and so long as they’re all good with it and buy into it, I don’t think one can simply say that they’re wrong.

   In other thoughts, I’d add:

   Our other relationships are there to address a bug/feature in our relationship, and that is their primary function.

   vs.

   Our other relationships are their own creations and exist and flourish and find their ways independently of our relationship with one another. A relationship may overlap with and address something I need that you and I don’t focus on, but that is only a part of my relationship with that person, just as the things we are and do together is only a part of our relationship.

   Reply ↓

   • Yes indeed. This is the issue I have with folks who say, “I am polyamorous because one person can’t satisfy all my emotional needs.”

     Reply ↓

     • OTG I *hate* that phrase “I’m poly because one person can’t satisfy all my emotional needs”! People are not puzzle pieces, to be fit together to create the perfect Franken-Partner.

       Reply ↓

       • Seriously. Who can say that to their partners with a straight face? And how must the partners feel about it?

         Reply ↓

         • As someone who does say that, and has had it said to them: relieved not to be expected to try to do the impossible.

         • Fair enough.

         • Seconded! My individual relationships don’t tend to fill all of my emotional needs, and from what I’ve seen of the relationships of others, this doesn’t seem to be that unusual. I can fill in unfulfilled needs/wants with friends, or painting, or computer games, but I can’t expect one person to be _all_ of the interactions that I want. As I tend to really like interacting with people I’m close to, sometimes having more than one close partner can work out particularly well in terms of not over-expecting things from a single person.

           In the case of one of my partners, this is particularly true. To put it bluntly, she really likes having philosophy-appreciating, highly-emotionally-involved girlfriends. I’m very aware that I’m a boyfriend who is significantly less of the above than she would like, and in periods in which I’m her only partner, she’s still a perfectly functional, well-rounded human and our relationship is just fine… she’s just _happier_ when she also has a compatible girlfriend to talk about philosophy with. And I’m ok with that.

       • Oh, yes! I hear that from someone and just think “And you my friend, are clearly a giant sucking black hole of ego-centric need, from which any sensible person would hit Warp Whatever and get the hell out of there.”

         Reply ↓

       • LOL! Mind if I steal borrow that phrase?

         Unrealistic expectations play their part. There’s no person alive who will ever perfectly map to the ideal partner(s) one imagines, so it can be tempting to think maybe several different people can each play different parts of that romantic fantasy.

         Reply ↓

         • Steal away! Maybe if more people associate the scary monster with the concept of puzzle-piece relationships, they’ll start to see them as the horror story they are instead of some modern fairy tale about building the perfect partner out of people-shaped pieces. Personally, I don’t get what’s so attractive about dating partial people anyway. I prefer my partners to be whole and complete humans.

           Since I’m a straight female, I often use the phrase “frankenboyfriend” too.

         • FrakenPoly has been used here in Portland for about the last 3 years to discuss and describe folks holding that mindset. Oy. I do NOT like the idea anywhere near myself. 🙁

         • FrankenPoly

           I’m sure there are people who think of it as FrankenPoly, and yes, there are criticisms there. But I cannot and don’t want to be everything for someone else and I don’t want any individual to be everything for me. They are whole people and precisely because of that acknowledgement I know that we may only overlap in our needs in some areas and that doesn’t mean they are less of a good fit as a result of it. I want to graciously accept the things my partners can offer me but when there is something I want that they can’t fulfill (or vice versa, which happens a lot when you’re ace), I look for it elsewhere. They can be them and I can be me and its my responsibility to have my needs met. Of course its still about the individuals I have relationships with. But like all of life, its a patchwork, not a frankenstein monster. No one would begrudge you for making a friend who shares a hobby when your other friends don’t. So why begrudge someone who sees their intimate relationships in a similar way?

   • Agreed. This is why I never mix poly and D/s. Controlling someone’s love life is not healthy in my experience or belief. Whether they like it or not…humans are too flawed, there’s too much room for ego and insecurity and negative expressions of control to emerge, without either partner being aware of the motivation or even the flawed/unhealthy nature of the relationship they form.

     K.

     Reply ↓

8. But of course, this is problematized by the existence of individuals for whom unequal power or ownership is a big part of their kink or relationship, and so long as they’re all good with it and buy into it, I don’t think one can simply say that they’re wrong.

   In other thoughts, I’d add:

   Our other relationships are there to address a bug/feature in our relationship, and that is their primary function.

   vs.

   Our other relationships are their own creations and exist and flourish and find their ways independently of our relationship with one another. A relationship may overlap with and address something I need that you and I don’t focus on, but that is only a part of my relationship with that person, just as the things we are and do together is only a part of our relationship.

   Reply ↓

9. To a large extent, my experience over the past nine years has been moving from the left column toward the right column.

   Reply ↓

   • Yeah, I think a lot of us start on the left and move to the right. But it’s wonderful to see what the best version of poly could/should look like!

     Reply ↓

     • I actually think that the egalitarian model is the way to go whether or not one is in a polyamorous relationship. It’s quite possible to choose a monogamous relationship that isn’t about control or ownership. It just isn’t common (largely because people aren’t aware of these assumptions). 🙂

       Reply ↓

       • I would absolutely agree with you!

         Reply ↓

   • I think that’s how poly works for a lot of people. Wading in the left column, striving for the right one.

     Reply ↓

10. To a large extent, my experience over the past nine years has been moving from the left column toward the right column.

    Reply ↓

11. Yes indeed. This is the issue I have with folks who say, “I am polyamorous because one person can’t satisfy all my emotional needs.”

    Reply ↓

12. Wow. Thank you for sharing this.

    Reply ↓

13. Wow. Thank you for sharing this.

    Reply ↓

14. OTG I *hate* that phrase “I’m poly because one person can’t satisfy all my emotional needs”! People are not puzzle pieces, to be fit together to create the perfect Franken-Partner.

    Reply ↓

15. This is where I get the phrase Monogamous Mindset (TM), and why I add the disclaimer whenever I use it that not all monogamous people have the Monogamous Mindset, and that people in non-monogamous relationships can still retain the MM. The MM is that collection of social expectations that go along with monogamy that many people (non-mono included) take as a given part of relationships. I don’t know who used that phrase first, or where I saw it, but it was helpful to have a phrase to distinguish between that collection of expectations and the act of relating to a single romantic partner (or being married to a single partner, depending on one’s definition of “monogamy”).

    And, as I also so often say, polyamory and monogamy are not all that different, for all that the number of partners differ. Habits, practices, mindsets, assumptions, expectations, and even solutions are quite often universal. If the “solution” to a poly problem is often the same as the solution to a monogamous problem (i.e. what about the children? – handle kids the same way any other “non-traditional” family handles kids, like single moms or adopted parents), then it stands to reason that the problems themselves are often the same as well, and that being polyamorous is not like some Life Graduation certificate, where we only earn the right to call ourselves Polyamorous (like “doctor”) after passing some exam that leaves us more “enlightened” than other folk.

    Reply ↓

16. This is where I get the phrase Monogamous Mindset (TM), and why I add the disclaimer whenever I use it that not all monogamous people have the Monogamous Mindset, and that people in non-monogamous relationships can still retain the MM. The MM is that collection of social expectations that go along with monogamy that many people (non-mono included) take as a given part of relationships. I don’t know who used that phrase first, or where I saw it, but it was helpful to have a phrase to distinguish between that collection of expectations and the act of relating to a single romantic partner (or being married to a single partner, depending on one’s definition of “monogamy”).

    And, as I also so often say, polyamory and monogamy are not all that different, for all that the number of partners differ. Habits, practices, mindsets, assumptions, expectations, and even solutions are quite often universal. If the “solution” to a poly problem is often the same as the solution to a monogamous problem (i.e. what about the children? – handle kids the same way any other “non-traditional” family handles kids, like single moms or adopted parents), then it stands to reason that the problems themselves are often the same as well, and that being polyamorous is not like some Life Graduation certificate, where we only earn the right to call ourselves Polyamorous (like “doctor”) after passing some exam that leaves us more “enlightened” than other folk.

    Reply ↓

17. Seriously. Who can say that to their partners with a straight face? And how must the partners feel about it?

    Reply ↓

18. As someone who does say that, and has had it said to them: relieved not to be expected to try to do the impossible.

    Reply ↓

19. Fair enough.

    Reply ↓

20. — PART 1 —

    I feel this article makes a few good points, but overall merely slaughters a few straw men.

    “People who live outside the cultural mainstream love to believe that they have escaped the petty social norms that enslave all the other sheeple still trapped in the spider web of normative behavior.” – This is certainly true for all sorts of people outside the mainstream, not just in relation to one’s partnership behaviours. However, it doesn’t really fit with my personal impression of people who identify as polyamorous. While there may be some youthful exuberance at the recognition that one can have multiple meaningful relationships, I don’t think polyamory is driven by a particular desire to “be alternative” or “transcend the mainstream”. The article makes it sound as if poly people are driven by some sort of ideology, when in fact it’s usually simply a discovery they’ve made about what works and doesn’t work for them in relationships. It seems to me that polyamorous people are *very* acutely aware of cultural narratives of ownership, and they know very well that they are *not* immune to them. Instead, successfully maintaining a poly network of relationships requires a great deal of self-reflection about precisely the sort of cultural influences, lapses of communication and empathy, and personal insecurities that make a less monopolistic model of relationships such a challenge.

    I’m not sure what sort of argument the “control paradigm” vs “egalitarian paradigm” table in the article is supposed to support, but it certainly works as an indicator that the author seems to confuse “open relationships” with “polyamory”. Since everyone may have different interpretations of such terms, here is my take. I’ll try to argue that the difference is important:
    There are many ways of being non-monogamous. One of them is what Dan Savage calls “monogamish”; other terms are “open”, “poly”, etc … Of course it’s up to individual partners to define what their relationship(s) mean to them, and dictionary definitions are not the way to resolve such practical tasks. However, talking about the topic, I do think there are significant differences between some terms, even if not all of them are clearly defined. As a shortcut, I’d suggest that “open” usually means partners allow each other some level of involvement with others (this can include all sorts of sexual behaviours and various levels of emotional involvement, but usually stops short of fully parallel love relationships), and frequently they don’t want to know too many details about each other’s involvements. (Some enjoy the sexual titillation of hearing what their partner got up to, but not necessarily their emotional involvement). By contrast, “polyamorous” implies (to me and my partners) that one hasn’t abandoned the right to be sexually and romantically involved with others in the first place. This difference between “open” and “poly” is reflected very well by the first row in the table in the article linked above. Moreover, rather many poly people seem to be quite interested in their partners’ involvements, and not just from a sexual perspective. It’s interesting and enlightening to understand what a partner finds attractive, fascinating, sexy, and adorable in someone else, and it’s good to know that they, in turn, are communicating about the things that are important to them.

    I feel that the article is correct in pointing out all those ways in which the “control paradigm” can slip into any kind of relationship, but I don’t think the assertion that poly people feel somehow immune to those dangers is correct. Instead, they are perhaps more aware (sometimes from bitter experience) than others of all the ways things can go wrong if trust and communication break down. Certainly the “Egalitarian Paradigm” column lists the sort of attitudes that polyamorous folks identify with, and “Control Paradigm” are the pitfalls they strive to avoid. I don’t feel they claim to be immune to them.

    — WILL POST PART 2 IN A MOMENT —

    Reply ↓

21. — PART 1 —

    I feel this article makes a few good points, but overall merely slaughters a few straw men.

    “People who live outside the cultural mainstream love to believe that they have escaped the petty social norms that enslave all the other sheeple still trapped in the spider web of normative behavior.” – This is certainly true for all sorts of people outside the mainstream, not just in relation to one’s partnership behaviours. However, it doesn’t really fit with my personal impression of people who identify as polyamorous. While there may be some youthful exuberance at the recognition that one can have multiple meaningful relationships, I don’t think polyamory is driven by a particular desire to “be alternative” or “transcend the mainstream”. The article makes it sound as if poly people are driven by some sort of ideology, when in fact it’s usually simply a discovery they’ve made about what works and doesn’t work for them in relationships. It seems to me that polyamorous people are *very* acutely aware of cultural narratives of ownership, and they know very well that they are *not* immune to them. Instead, successfully maintaining a poly network of relationships requires a great deal of self-reflection about precisely the sort of cultural influences, lapses of communication and empathy, and personal insecurities that make a less monopolistic model of relationships such a challenge.

    I’m not sure what sort of argument the “control paradigm” vs “egalitarian paradigm” table in the article is supposed to support, but it certainly works as an indicator that the author seems to confuse “open relationships” with “polyamory”. Since everyone may have different interpretations of such terms, here is my take. I’ll try to argue that the difference is important:
    There are many ways of being non-monogamous. One of them is what Dan Savage calls “monogamish”; other terms are “open”, “poly”, etc … Of course it’s up to individual partners to define what their relationship(s) mean to them, and dictionary definitions are not the way to resolve such practical tasks. However, talking about the topic, I do think there are significant differences between some terms, even if not all of them are clearly defined. As a shortcut, I’d suggest that “open” usually means partners allow each other some level of involvement with others (this can include all sorts of sexual behaviours and various levels of emotional involvement, but usually stops short of fully parallel love relationships), and frequently they don’t want to know too many details about each other’s involvements. (Some enjoy the sexual titillation of hearing what their partner got up to, but not necessarily their emotional involvement). By contrast, “polyamorous” implies (to me and my partners) that one hasn’t abandoned the right to be sexually and romantically involved with others in the first place. This difference between “open” and “poly” is reflected very well by the first row in the table in the article linked above. Moreover, rather many poly people seem to be quite interested in their partners’ involvements, and not just from a sexual perspective. It’s interesting and enlightening to understand what a partner finds attractive, fascinating, sexy, and adorable in someone else, and it’s good to know that they, in turn, are communicating about the things that are important to them.

    I feel that the article is correct in pointing out all those ways in which the “control paradigm” can slip into any kind of relationship, but I don’t think the assertion that poly people feel somehow immune to those dangers is correct. Instead, they are perhaps more aware (sometimes from bitter experience) than others of all the ways things can go wrong if trust and communication break down. Certainly the “Egalitarian Paradigm” column lists the sort of attitudes that polyamorous folks identify with, and “Control Paradigm” are the pitfalls they strive to avoid. I don’t feel they claim to be immune to them.

    — WILL POST PART 2 IN A MOMENT —

    Reply ↓

22. — PART 2 —

    Having said that, and returning to the beginning of the article, a lot of poly people do feel that monogamy centres around ownership and control, and polyamory is more egalitarian. That’s because … well, because it *is*. That’s not to say things can go wrong; and of course monogamous couples can be very egalitarian, too, but the fact remains that monogamy is built around a (comforting?) monopoly granted to each other with respect to some activities, and some of it doesn’t make all that much sense. (Particular activities are ruled out, and some emotions, too, presumably because one can’t trust a partner to love one if they are also acting on their attraction to someone else. The attraction itself is fine, as long as it’s never expressed. On the other hand, trust and honesty are valued.)

    The author then acts as if the recognition of this difference means that poly people think that their perspective is “more evolved”. I don’t think that’s the case. Different things work for different folks; however, there are clearly indications that a lot of people can love more than one person (often that’s not welcome, as in being in love with the ex, while also loving the new partner), and certainly people can have sexual fun with a trusted partner, even if they are not in love, so it would seem that many more people might want to consider looking into polyamory as a happy, fulfilling, and nurturing way to conduct relationships. Poly people often recognise that, because of their own experiences, so they might want to spread the news, since we are indeed quite caught up in notions of ownership and control, and there may be different, more communicative, and more egalitarian ways to approach relationships.

    Reply ↓

    • the fact remains that monogamy is built around a (comforting?) monopoly granted to each other with respect to some activities

      Speaking as a monogamous person, that is absolutely not what I have built it around. I identify as monogamous because as far as I can tell I am NOT capable of loving more than one person at once and am not particularly interested in having sex with people other than my spouse. I still find other people pretty to look at and even occasionally fun to fantasize about but the actual experience of forming a relationship, sexual or emotional, with someone else is just not something I am interested in or that I expect would add to my happiness.

      The fact that I am married to someone who identifies as polyamorous and thus feels differently is a challenge. I might wish that he felt differently and would “grant me a monopoly” in some sense (really, if he only wanted me the way I want him there would be no monopoly involved – it would just be both of us being happy with each other). But the fact that he does not does not change MY identification as monogamous because that identification is about the kind of relationships I am capable of.

      Reply ↓

23. — PART 2 —

    Having said that, and returning to the beginning of the article, a lot of poly people do feel that monogamy centres around ownership and control, and polyamory is more egalitarian. That’s because … well, because it *is*. That’s not to say things can go wrong; and of course monogamous couples can be very egalitarian, too, but the fact remains that monogamy is built around a (comforting?) monopoly granted to each other with respect to some activities, and some of it doesn’t make all that much sense. (Particular activities are ruled out, and some emotions, too, presumably because one can’t trust a partner to love one if they are also acting on their attraction to someone else. The attraction itself is fine, as long as it’s never expressed. On the other hand, trust and honesty are valued.)

    The author then acts as if the recognition of this difference means that poly people think that their perspective is “more evolved”. I don’t think that’s the case. Different things work for different folks; however, there are clearly indications that a lot of people can love more than one person (often that’s not welcome, as in being in love with the ex, while also loving the new partner), and certainly people can have sexual fun with a trusted partner, even if they are not in love, so it would seem that many more people might want to consider looking into polyamory as a happy, fulfilling, and nurturing way to conduct relationships. Poly people often recognise that, because of their own experiences, so they might want to spread the news, since we are indeed quite caught up in notions of ownership and control, and there may be different, more communicative, and more egalitarian ways to approach relationships.

    Reply ↓

24. As always, Franklin, you are beautiful and I love the way you communicate. I’ve already shared this with folks. xx

    Reply ↓

25. As always, Franklin, you are beautiful and I love the way you communicate. I’ve already shared this with folks. xx

    Reply ↓

26. Agreed. This is why I never mix poly and D/s. Controlling someone’s love life is not healthy in my experience or belief. Whether they like it or not…humans are too flawed, there’s too much room for ego and insecurity and negative expressions of control to emerge, without either partner being aware of the motivation or even the flawed/unhealthy nature of the relationship they form.

    K.

    Reply ↓

27. Nice catch on the idea of “this is a privilege I grant you” especially as we debate the rights v. privileges question in so many other parts of our daily lives.

    “for many poly folks, monogamy is about owning your other partner…”

    Franklin (and Joreth), don’t forget that that ownership idea comes straight out of our history. After all, the marriage contract originated as a way to control property so, in many respects, wives became chattel, along with the slaves and the trinkets.

    We don’t believe that anymore, except when we do: “my wife/your lover” is still a pretty typical expression.

    Our culture reinforces it. From songs like The Cookies’ Chains (written by Carole King and Gerry Goffin, btw) to movies like The First Wives Club we implicitly lock our babies up in the chains “of love.” Yeah, yeah, the message of First Wives is “you don’t own me” but I posit that that underscores the message that “you did own me, once upon a time.”

    As you say, it sneaks up on us.

    Reply ↓

28. Nice catch on the idea of “this is a privilege I grant you” especially as we debate the rights v. privileges question in so many other parts of our daily lives.

    “for many poly folks, monogamy is about owning your other partner…”

    Franklin (and Joreth), don’t forget that that ownership idea comes straight out of our history. After all, the marriage contract originated as a way to control property so, in many respects, wives became chattel, along with the slaves and the trinkets.

    We don’t believe that anymore, except when we do: “my wife/your lover” is still a pretty typical expression.

    Our culture reinforces it. From songs like The Cookies’ Chains (written by Carole King and Gerry Goffin, btw) to movies like The First Wives Club we implicitly lock our babies up in the chains “of love.” Yeah, yeah, the message of First Wives is “you don’t own me” but I posit that that underscores the message that “you did own me, once upon a time.”

    As you say, it sneaks up on us.

    Reply ↓

29. YAYYYY! 😉

    Reply ↓

30. YAYYYY! 😉

    Reply ↓

31. I feel a bit bad pointing it out, but you seem like the kind of person who would appreciate it if I’m right:
    9th egalitarian paradigm: ” I may reasonably expect that they will respect the relationship between you and I”
    Shouldn’t it be “between you and me”?

    I really liked this post, and I agree with it. However, I wonder if there might be a way to simplify it to a smaller number of paradigms and make a poster out of it.

    Reply ↓

    • I agree — I think it has the makings of a good poster. And I also think there are some entries that overlap and could be edited in order to accomplish that. A worthy goal. 🙂

      Reply ↓

32. I feel a bit bad pointing it out, but you seem like the kind of person who would appreciate it if I’m right:
    9th egalitarian paradigm: ” I may reasonably expect that they will respect the relationship between you and I”
    Shouldn’t it be “between you and me”?

    I really liked this post, and I agree with it. However, I wonder if there might be a way to simplify it to a smaller number of paradigms and make a poster out of it.

    Reply ↓

33. Yeah, I think a lot of us start on the left and move to the right. But it’s wonderful to see what the best version of poly could/should look like!

    Reply ↓

34. This is fantastic, well-written, and sorely needed! Thank you for taking the time to put this together so eloquently.

    Reply ↓

35. This is fantastic, well-written, and sorely needed! Thank you for taking the time to put this together so eloquently.

    Reply ↓

36. Thank you for this! I am sort of pasting it all over everywhere.

    Reply ↓

37. Thank you for this! I am sort of pasting it all over everywhere.

    Reply ↓

38. I think that’s how poly works for a lot of people. Wading in the left column, striving for the right one.

    Reply ↓

39. We don’t always see completely eye-to-eye, but on this one, I’m in pretty much complete agreement. 🙂 I still think it’s possible to have relationships that look like hierarchies and aren’t toxic… but the internal structure of those is closer to your “egalitarian” side than your “control” side, where the terms “primary” or “secondary,” etc are being used as a shorthand to denote things like time spent and mutual responsibilities, rather than an assumption of control. And I absolutely agree that the ultimate kicker is that — no matter what Agreements we may have made! — there is nothing to compel any of my partners to abide by those Agreements if they change their mind/s (short of a shotgun and a length of chain, as you say, which puts us firmly back in the “control” side.) Negotiating in Good Faith is required to make Agreements work, but if someone is not negotiating in Good Faith, there’s not bloody much you can do about it other than choose to leave the relationship or change its form.

    Thanks, and I’ll be re-posting. 🙂

    Reply ↓

40. We don’t always see completely eye-to-eye, but on this one, I’m in pretty much complete agreement. 🙂 I still think it’s possible to have relationships that look like hierarchies and aren’t toxic… but the internal structure of those is closer to your “egalitarian” side than your “control” side, where the terms “primary” or “secondary,” etc are being used as a shorthand to denote things like time spent and mutual responsibilities, rather than an assumption of control. And I absolutely agree that the ultimate kicker is that — no matter what Agreements we may have made! — there is nothing to compel any of my partners to abide by those Agreements if they change their mind/s (short of a shotgun and a length of chain, as you say, which puts us firmly back in the “control” side.) Negotiating in Good Faith is required to make Agreements work, but if someone is not negotiating in Good Faith, there’s not bloody much you can do about it other than choose to leave the relationship or change its form.

    Thanks, and I’ll be re-posting. 🙂

    Reply ↓

41. I actually think that the egalitarian model is the way to go whether or not one is in a polyamorous relationship. It’s quite possible to choose a monogamous relationship that isn’t about control or ownership. It just isn’t common (largely because people aren’t aware of these assumptions). 🙂

    Reply ↓

42. I would absolutely agree with you!

    Reply ↓

43. I agree — I think it has the makings of a good poster. And I also think there are some entries that overlap and could be edited in order to accomplish that. A worthy goal. 🙂

    Reply ↓

44. Really good stuff. Makes me think deeply about my lack of communication skills, and just how I would like to be. Damn, learning is hard. I think I’ll tack that right column up in a number of places.

    Reply ↓

45. Really good stuff. Makes me think deeply about my lack of communication skills, and just how I would like to be. Damn, learning is hard. I think I’ll tack that right column up in a number of places.

    Reply ↓

46. Egalitarianism
    Asserting, Affirming and Promoting the Equality of All People.

    Reply ↓

47. Egalitarianism
    Asserting, Affirming and Promoting the Equality of All People.

    Reply ↓

48. Oh, yes! I hear that from someone and just think “And you my friend, are clearly a giant sucking black hole of ego-centric need, from which any sensible person would hit Warp Whatever and get the hell out of there.”

    Reply ↓

49. Thanks for this, as someone wandering between the two columns, (I’m not big in the control sector, but I also lack explicit, well-communicated agreements of the egalitarian side) this chunks a lot of the significant portions into workable pieces.

    Reply ↓

50. Thanks for this, as someone wandering between the two columns, (I’m not big in the control sector, but I also lack explicit, well-communicated agreements of the egalitarian side) this chunks a lot of the significant portions into workable pieces.

    Reply ↓

51. LOL! Mind if I steal borrow that phrase?

    Unrealistic expectations play their part. There’s no person alive who will ever perfectly map to the ideal partner(s) one imagines, so it can be tempting to think maybe several different people can each play different parts of that romantic fantasy.

    Reply ↓

52. Steal away! Maybe if more people associate the scary monster with the concept of puzzle-piece relationships, they’ll start to see them as the horror story they are instead of some modern fairy tale about building the perfect partner out of people-shaped pieces. Personally, I don’t get what’s so attractive about dating partial people anyway. I prefer my partners to be whole and complete humans.

    Since I’m a straight female, I often use the phrase “frankenboyfriend” too.

    Reply ↓

53. Perfect timing. I was recently involved with someone whose wife operates under the “control paradigm” side of things, but I was too naive to recognize it until it was too late. Having these ideas referenced (in a manner) might help should I find myself similarly entangled. Thank you for sharing your insights.

    Reply ↓

54. Perfect timing. I was recently involved with someone whose wife operates under the “control paradigm” side of things, but I was too naive to recognize it until it was too late. Having these ideas referenced (in a manner) might help should I find myself similarly entangled. Thank you for sharing your insights.

    Reply ↓

55. Great post. I actually wish I’d had it as a reference a few years ago, when someone I love was pressuring me to engage with her physically even though I’d told her that I’d chosen to be in a physically monogamous relationship with my husband.

    Reply ↓

56. Great post. I actually wish I’d had it as a reference a few years ago, when someone I love was pressuring me to engage with her physically even though I’d told her that I’d chosen to be in a physically monogamous relationship with my husband.

    Reply ↓

57. FrakenPoly has been used here in Portland for about the last 3 years to discuss and describe folks holding that mindset. Oy. I do NOT like the idea anywhere near myself. 🙁

    Reply ↓

58. Seconded! My individual relationships don’t tend to fill all of my emotional needs, and from what I’ve seen of the relationships of others, this doesn’t seem to be that unusual. I can fill in unfulfilled needs/wants with friends, or painting, or computer games, but I can’t expect one person to be _all_ of the interactions that I want. As I tend to really like interacting with people I’m close to, sometimes having more than one close partner can work out particularly well in terms of not over-expecting things from a single person.

    In the case of one of my partners, this is particularly true. To put it bluntly, she really likes having philosophy-appreciating, highly-emotionally-involved girlfriends. I’m very aware that I’m a boyfriend who is significantly less of the above than she would like, and in periods in which I’m her only partner, she’s still a perfectly functional, well-rounded human and our relationship is just fine… she’s just _happier_ when she also has a compatible girlfriend to talk about philosophy with. And I’m ok with that.

    Reply ↓

59. This has been open in my browser since you first posted it, I read it all the time, whenever I’m confused!

    Reply ↓

60. This has been open in my browser since you first posted it, I read it all the time, whenever I’m confused!

    Reply ↓

61. the fact remains that monogamy is built around a (comforting?) monopoly granted to each other with respect to some activities

    Speaking as a monogamous person, that is absolutely not what I have built it around. I identify as monogamous because as far as I can tell I am NOT capable of loving more than one person at once and am not particularly interested in having sex with people other than my spouse. I still find other people pretty to look at and even occasionally fun to fantasize about but the actual experience of forming a relationship, sexual or emotional, with someone else is just not something I am interested in or that I expect would add to my happiness.

    The fact that I am married to someone who identifies as polyamorous and thus feels differently is a challenge. I might wish that he felt differently and would “grant me a monopoly” in some sense (really, if he only wanted me the way I want him there would be no monopoly involved – it would just be both of us being happy with each other). But the fact that he does not does not change MY identification as monogamous because that identification is about the kind of relationships I am capable of.

    Reply ↓

62. Monogamy is ownership, by definition. It might be consensual and mutual ownership, but that doesn’t change the fundamentals. 99% of the monogamists I’ve met have only mystical, irrational and absurd excuses for why they do what they do. Yes, I’m in that “sad” group that believes our entire monogamous relationship system grew out of patriarchal and religious authority and that emotional freedom is the path to enlightenment. I’m sorry that you hate my point of view. I’m sure a lot of people will tell you that this post is great and I’m full of shit without giving it a second thought, but that just shows how ignorant people are.

    Reply ↓

    • i though polygamy was the norm in patriarchy,where people bring this idea that monogamy has any thing to do with patriarchy .monogamy is not marriage,they are 2 different things

      Reply ↓

63. Monogamy is ownership, by definition. It might be consensual and mutual ownership, but that doesn’t change the fundamentals. 99% of the monogamists I’ve met have only mystical, irrational and absurd excuses for why they do what they do. Yes, I’m in that “sad” group that believes our entire monogamous relationship system grew out of patriarchal and religious authority and that emotional freedom is the path to enlightenment. I’m sorry that you hate my point of view. I’m sure a lot of people will tell you that this post is great and I’m full of shit without giving it a second thought, but that just shows how ignorant people are.

    Reply ↓

64. I.love.this.

    Thank you for this. I have never read a post that so properly and eloquently stated what I believe we should all be striving for in *any* relationship (“I trust you to make choices that honor and cherish our relationship”), especially a poly one.

    I appreciate this so much, that I bookmarked it on my phone but had forgotten that’s where I bookmarked it, and was searching to find this again (via computer- different web browsers). I’m so glad I found it again, as I needed to share it with a few people.

    People with whom it was shared said the following:
    “one of the more comprehensive and respectful writings on those subjects I’ve seen. Thank you for sharing it with me.”
    “Read the article you linked. THAT one fucking hit home, much like a punch in the face from one’s mother.” – he saved it to be sure he could re-read it later to be reminded of the awesomeness.

    Reply ↓

65. I.love.this.

    Thank you for this. I have never read a post that so properly and eloquently stated what I believe we should all be striving for in *any* relationship (“I trust you to make choices that honor and cherish our relationship”), especially a poly one.

    I appreciate this so much, that I bookmarked it on my phone but had forgotten that’s where I bookmarked it, and was searching to find this again (via computer- different web browsers). I’m so glad I found it again, as I needed to share it with a few people.

    People with whom it was shared said the following:
    “one of the more comprehensive and respectful writings on those subjects I’ve seen. Thank you for sharing it with me.”
    “Read the article you linked. THAT one fucking hit home, much like a punch in the face from one’s mother.” – he saved it to be sure he could re-read it later to be reminded of the awesomeness.

    Reply ↓

66. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

    Having just left a relationship in which I was unhappy and stifled for years, I now realize that for years I have been saying everything in the right column while my partner has been saying everything in the left. This was a real eye opener to me, and you put it in such perfect terms. More people in this world need to have the insight and understanding of what is important in a relationship that you are obviously possessed of.

    Reply ↓

67. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

    Having just left a relationship in which I was unhappy and stifled for years, I now realize that for years I have been saying everything in the right column while my partner has been saying everything in the left. This was a real eye opener to me, and you put it in such perfect terms. More people in this world need to have the insight and understanding of what is important in a relationship that you are obviously possessed of.

    Reply ↓

68. Poly Superiority

    Regarding polyamorous people being “more evolved”, I believe that poly folk, on the whole, didn’t just turn poly without a great deal of introspection and research on the matter. When I was monogamous, I wasn’t scouring the internet, libraries and monogamous social scene for information on how to be a better partner or how to relate to people better. It wasn’t until I was introduced to polyamory that I began reading and learning what it means to love others and even more so, myself. So, in a way, I do think that someone who identifies as polyamorous, has done some work and is “more equipped” to deal with relationships both with others and themselves. Great article though. I can’t think of any additional examples at the moment though.

    Reply ↓

    • Re: Poly Superiority

      For me, I actually did research monogamy and how to be a better partner before I discovered polyamory. It depends on the person. That said, it does seem like research and care is more common among poly people.

      Reply ↓

69. Poly Superiority

    Regarding polyamorous people being “more evolved”, I believe that poly folk, on the whole, didn’t just turn poly without a great deal of introspection and research on the matter. When I was monogamous, I wasn’t scouring the internet, libraries and monogamous social scene for information on how to be a better partner or how to relate to people better. It wasn’t until I was introduced to polyamory that I began reading and learning what it means to love others and even more so, myself. So, in a way, I do think that someone who identifies as polyamorous, has done some work and is “more equipped” to deal with relationships both with others and themselves. Great article though. I can’t think of any additional examples at the moment though.

    Reply ↓

70. FrankenPoly

    I’m sure there are people who think of it as FrankenPoly, and yes, there are criticisms there. But I cannot and don’t want to be everything for someone else and I don’t want any individual to be everything for me. They are whole people and precisely because of that acknowledgement I know that we may only overlap in our needs in some areas and that doesn’t mean they are less of a good fit as a result of it. I want to graciously accept the things my partners can offer me but when there is something I want that they can’t fulfill (or vice versa, which happens a lot when you’re ace), I look for it elsewhere. They can be them and I can be me and its my responsibility to have my needs met. Of course its still about the individuals I have relationships with. But like all of life, its a patchwork, not a frankenstein monster. No one would begrudge you for making a friend who shares a hobby when your other friends don’t. So why begrudge someone who sees their intimate relationships in a similar way?

    Reply ↓

71. Reflections

    Wow, what a well-thought out post. I particularly like this part:

    “People who live outside the cultural mainstream love to believe that they have escaped the petty social norms that enslave all the other sheeple still trapped in the spider web of normative behavior. In reality, though, cultural ideas have an insidious way of seeping into us even when we’re aware of them. Simply knowing that we were raised in a climate of ownership assumptions about sex and love doesn’t make us immune to internalizing them. In fact, many, many people in the poly community cling just as strongly to paradigms of ownership and control as they believe all those poor “unevolved” monogamous folks do–they simply manifest differently, that’s all.”

    This is true for people outside of the mainstream in other ways. Many of the events I attend are vegan, and I’ve noticed a trend that vegans feel very superior to vegetarians, or people who eat a Paleo diet, or people who eat a “standard American diet” but care about the planet in other ways (like driving an electric car, shopping local, recycling, etc), as if care for animals is a superior compassion to care for the environment at large.

    The thing is, we choose our lifestyle based on what we feel is best. The tricky part is recognizing that it is best for OURSELVES and not necessarily best for everyone… And our choices may not always be what is best for us, but just we currently believe to be best for ourselves.

    Being a polyamorous person who is very insecure, I relate to a lot of the points above. That is, I feel that I’m walking the line between possessive of my husband and treating my husband with respect on many of those… I can feel both sides keenly, and have experiences being controlled as well as being respected as a human being.

    Reply ↓

72. Reflections

    Wow, what a well-thought out post. I particularly like this part:

    “People who live outside the cultural mainstream love to believe that they have escaped the petty social norms that enslave all the other sheeple still trapped in the spider web of normative behavior. In reality, though, cultural ideas have an insidious way of seeping into us even when we’re aware of them. Simply knowing that we were raised in a climate of ownership assumptions about sex and love doesn’t make us immune to internalizing them. In fact, many, many people in the poly community cling just as strongly to paradigms of ownership and control as they believe all those poor “unevolved” monogamous folks do–they simply manifest differently, that’s all.”

    This is true for people outside of the mainstream in other ways. Many of the events I attend are vegan, and I’ve noticed a trend that vegans feel very superior to vegetarians, or people who eat a Paleo diet, or people who eat a “standard American diet” but care about the planet in other ways (like driving an electric car, shopping local, recycling, etc), as if care for animals is a superior compassion to care for the environment at large.

    The thing is, we choose our lifestyle based on what we feel is best. The tricky part is recognizing that it is best for OURSELVES and not necessarily best for everyone… And our choices may not always be what is best for us, but just we currently believe to be best for ourselves.

    Being a polyamorous person who is very insecure, I relate to a lot of the points above. That is, I feel that I’m walking the line between possessive of my husband and treating my husband with respect on many of those… I can feel both sides keenly, and have experiences being controlled as well as being respected as a human being.

    Reply ↓

73. Re: Poly Superiority

    For me, I actually did research monogamy and how to be a better partner before I discovered polyamory. It depends on the person. That said, it does seem like research and care is more common among poly people.

    Reply ↓

74. i though polygamy was the norm in patriarchy,where people bring this idea that monogamy has any thing to do with patriarchy .monogamy is not marriage,they are 2 different things

    Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.