Poly principles vs. mono principles

[Ceoli]

So let's lay it out there. What's the difference?

I've recently been a part of a few conversations (not just here but in life and on other boards) that brought to light the amount of assumptions people make within and without the poly community. Assumptions such as people who elect to keep relationships open do so out of a "grass is always greener" mentality or out of some kind of ethical sluttiness. Or that open relationships are not conducive to having stable families, etc. As a poly single, I've dealt with all sorts of assumptions about my life and relationships from the poly community from people questioning whether I'm poly at all to people assuming I'm just in it for sexual exploration and nothing more. Or that because I have not had a long term monogamous relationship, I will never be equipped to have meaningful poly relationships.

Those assumptions run the other way too with many poly people viewing monogamy as "less evolved" or a product of social conditioning. Or that people are monogamous because they are insecure and haven't grown enough in themselves to question social conditioning etc...

I see a lot of these underlying assumptions in many discussions and for me, they cause an inability to understand and thus create frustration and hurt on all sides.

Honestly, I see very few principles that can be named "poly principles". The same thing that makes a poly relationship healthy is going to make a monogamous relationship healthy regardless of whether it's an open, closed or any other kind of relationship. Commitment is commitment. Levels of commitment can differ from relationship to relationship, but I don't see exclusivity as a measure of that. A monogamous exclusive relationship can be less committed than an open polyamorous one.


So let's unpack this. Where do the differences in principles *actually* lie between these two models of relationships? Are (or should) ideas like commitment and insecurity viewed differently in a poly or mono context?

[rolypoly]

I'm not sure if this is what you're after, but this is my spin.

When I'm thinking in mono terms, these "rules" seem to sprout and cause lots of angst for me.

(even though I'm bisexual, I say "he" in this context because it's a package in my head, the one that was taught to me as how I'm supposed to be)

- He must make all the first moves
- He must commit to me early on
- I would even say, he had better commit to me (I hear my aunt saying this)
- He better not look at other women
- It is his job to meet my needs
- He must desire me physically and sexually, love me with integrity, sacrifice for me, etc.

That sort of stuff.

The man I'm sort of seeing, 'R' was approached by an ex of mine not long ago. My ex asked him, "So, are you two dating?". 'R' replied "We're enjoying each other's company." This doesn't fit at all into the principles layed out for me by my family. When 'R' said this to me, I felt happy. We're not going too fast, we are definitely enjoying each other's company when we do see each other and my boundaries are feeling very honoured.

When I said this to my aunt, she got on her high horse and I knew she was applying all those rules that fall under the category of, "He had better...". It wasn't enough that he is enjoying my company, he's supposed to be doing much more for me as a responsible, reliable, monogamous, hetero partner for her niece.

Poly principles, in my life anyway, make all of that not only irrelevant, but painful, (which makes it very difficult to explain to my aunt how happy I am).

What matters most to me is that I be heard and understood. That I be free to express the amount of love that I feel, (all kinds of love, not simply romantic). That I be allowed to ask for what I need and desire, (doesn't mean I'll get it). And it matters a lot to me to know that someone I care about feel cared about.

Poly feels much more fluid. Maybe one person doesn't fill my sexual needs, but connects with me on another level that helps us both grow and brings us both happiness. In mono world, there would be a lot of discussion about how to have those unmet needs met by my partner who is falling short. How icky.

The principles I operate on in poly involve honesty, (still working out how much honesty though... does a partner need to know all of my inner ramblings, insecurities, etc?), concern and awareness for where everyone is at and willingness to negotiate.

[Ceoli]

- He must make all the first moves
- He must commit to me early on
- I would even say, he had better commit to me (I hear my aunt saying this)
- He better not look at other women
- It is his job to meet my needs
- He must desire me physically and sexually, love me with integrity, sacrifice for me, etc.

That sort of stuff.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not particularly looking for any specific kinds of replies, just some discussion (though I can be pretty relentless when discussing ideas).

I found what you posted really interesting, but it got me wondering- are those principles of monogamy or principles of insecurity or social conditioning that drive those qualifications? Is there a way to separate monogamy from social conditioning?

The principles I operate on in poly involve honesty, (still working out how much honesty though... does a partner need to know all of my inner ramblings, insecurities, etc?), concern and awareness for where everyone is at and willingness to negotiate.

Again, I guess I'm wondering. Are these principles that are exclusive to poly relationships? It seems to me that these are principles that work well in any kind of healthy relationship.

[rolypoly]

are those principles of monogamy or principles of insecurity or social conditioning that drive those qualifications? Is there a way to separate monogamy from social conditioning?

In my experience, monogamy was socially conditioned. I can remember as far back as my childhood crushing on lots of people and loving being in their energy. I got scolded by a cousin for flirting with his friend and closed myself off a lot. I've been teased by friends throughout the years about my dating style. I crush often, love easily and love the interactions that happen with people. I tend to find beautiful things in most people and can love those things, but this has often been seen as wrong, flighty, asking for trouble, scattered, whatever...

So, I think those qualifications are definitely socially conditioned. For me, they are synonymous with mono. As soon as I become exclusive with someone, the old story plays.

The poly principles I listed can definitely be present in monogamous relationships, (though willingness to negotiate then has limits). For me, they're not. Monogamy is what I think I'm supposed to do. Not what I want. So, when doing something I think I'm supposed to do, I do it the way I think I'm supposed to do it.

[LovingRadiance]

Overall question-I don't know.

I guess for me I don't care one way or another if someone is poly or mono-it really has very little baring on me. But I've been poly my whole life and for some reason that has always been a problem for the people around me.

I think in truth most of the "functional rules" are actually the same-but people are conditioned to think of them as different.

Great topic-hopefully with some time to think on it I can elaborate more!

[redsirenn]

I have thought about this at length before. I came to the conclusion, that I don't care either... It isn't the relationship "style" that is important to me... just the items in my previously posted relationship death list. That stuff applies to both styles of relationships. This is from a journal of mine:

"I have done alot of reading on this subject and have come to another epiphany. Polyamory is like any other relationship model. I say this because it involves all the good and the bad of any other relationship. Ideally, a good relationship, be it monogamous or polyamorous should involve honesty, care, compassion, communication, respect, appreciation for who each other is as individuals, freedom to be themselves, and growth.

The only difference is the number of people and relationships involved. All relationships are hard, all require work... I do NOT subscribe to the belief that one style is harder than another, or that one style is more "evolved" than another. Because truthfully, I don't think everyone is wired to be monogamous and to maintain a happy, healthy monogamous relationship for life is just as spiritual as maintaining a happy polyamorous one.

In monogamy it may be harder to find ways to "keep the spark alive" so you have to be creative. It may be harder to remember that you are individuals and not become codependent. It may be harder to stay emotionally and sexually faithful - but you do it, because when done right, it can be incredibly fulfilling!

In polyamory, it may be harder to make quality time for your lovers and make sure they feel special in your relationship. It may be harder to confront jealousy and feelings of ownership when faced with them head on. It may be harder to develop and maintain a deep, meaningful connection when your life is full with "distraction" or other possibilities."

Just a thought...

[ladyjools]

i don't care ethier,
but this is something i have thought about too,

i find it intresting that i am challange frequently by others on my poly life/setup. They feel they have some kind of right to judge me becasue what i do is not what is normally done, and yet i would never start judging someone who had chossen monogomy.

mono people often ask me questions about being poly
how can you love more than one
do you get jelous etc... i always answer honestly because i do want to educate people about how i live and how it can be done and often when i answer there questions they start to get defensive, saying i could never do that, i love my parnter to much to share etc...
and my usual reply is,
that i am not trying to convince you to be poly i am only answering your quetsions that you asked me about my life and my choice,

the bottom line is the principles that make a poly relationship a sucess are very similar to a mono one,
honesty, comunication and love,

Jools

[MonoVCPHG]

Commitment is commitment. Levels of commitment can differ from relationship to relationship, but I don't see exclusivity as a measure of that. A monogamous exclusive relationship can be less committed than an open polyamorous one.


Everything you are about to read is in my own humble opinion :D

You are absolutely correct that a monogamous relationship can be less committed than a poly one.

A person can be committed to aspects of the relationship at varying degrees. But, sexual/intimate exclusivity within a monogamous relationship is the key to defining the commitment two people make to each other.

Commitment to a monogamous relationship is based on being exclusive. Exclusivity and commitment go hand in hand. That is the appeal for many in monogamous relationships. That "having someone for yourself" is the fundamental core of committing to a monogamous relationship. Don't take my word for it....ask any monogamous couple if commitment to the relationship means they are intimately/sexually exclusive.

Why direct energy trying to understand the monogamist ideal of commitment when you have no desire to apply it in your own life is my question?

Define it the way you chose to use it in your life.

As a side note:
To say that monogamous relationships lead to cheating is a contradiction. Monogamous relationships only involve two people. When another person becomes involved there is no longer a state of monogamy. It is a state of deception and becomes it's own entity hidden within the preception of monogamy through acting monogamistic.

Yes there is pressure to conform to society's idea of a monogamous relationship, but there is also peer pressure to conform to what is the idea of a polyamorous relationship. Ceoli has experienced this, as have Redpepper and me. Polyfidelity is not the social norm within our community so therefore we are subjected to the same sort of bias, judgement that mainstream monogamists impose on polyamorists.

Lastly, acting monogamist, as is dictated by social norms is different than being monogamous as is dictated by nature. One is governed by established external rules; the other is a product of internal wiring.

[rolypoly]

redsirenn, I like the pro/con list you wrote.

[redsirenn]

Danka Roly. ;)

[Ceoli]

A person can be committed to aspects of the relationship at varying degrees. But, sexual/intimate exclusivity within a monogamous relationship is the key to defining the commitment two people make to each other.

Commitment to a monogamous relationship is based on being exclusive. Exclusivity and commitment go hand in hand.

They may go hand in hand, but I still don't see them as the same thing. It could be that in a monogamous context exclusivity is a necessary factor for it to be monogamous, and you can even say that that monogamous people make a commitment to be exclusive, but again, they are two different factors. The commitment is what you do. The exclusivity of monogamy is one particular way to manifest and follow through with a commitment. It is but one of many ways a person commits to a relationship. It just so happens that it is a necessary factor for monogamy.

Why direct energy trying to understand the monogamist ideal of commitment when you have no desire to apply it in your own life is my question?

Well, why do you post about your views on monogamy and commitment in other places? Why do you post about polyamory if you're monogamous? To get ideas out there and discuss them. I have continually seen on this board, on other boards and in many discussions the idea that commitment is measured in terms of exclusivity, i.e. somehow relationships eventually evolve into some form of fidelity and are somehow more committed than relationships that remain open. I've also seen a lot of judgement behind many of those assumptions. These are the kinds of assumptions that continue to drive negative stereotypes around polyamory. Plus it creates a false dichotomy between what it means to have a healthy mono or a healthy poly relationship.

And lastly, when opinions are put out there that drive negative stereotypes of any kind, I'm going to challenge them. When people start saying things like "It's only my opinion, but I think gay people are more promiscuous than straight people. But that's just my opinion. If it's ok for them, then more power to them!", of course people aren't going to remain silent. It may seem innocuous (though I imagine it doesn't sound so innocuous to us) but assumptions like that do a lot of damage and create a lot of prejudice that translates into an entire group of people in our society being marginalized in life altering ways. Those same types of assumptions can be harmful when applied to poly people. Because the idea that being in an open relationship is less committed pervades our society. It can damage poly families, it can disempower women who would have to hide their nature in order to not lose their families, it can marginalize men who practice ethical non-monogamy. I have seen people almost lose their kids because of such assumptions about commitment. It can do and has done a WHOLE lot of damage to people who choose to live this way.

So yes, I'm going to challenge these views, even if they're only opinions.

[Ceoli]

All relationships are hard, all require work... I do NOT subscribe to the belief that one style is harder than another, or that one style is more "evolved" than another.

Amen! And your list of the varying challenges each relationship model faces is great.

[rolypoly]

I do NOT subscribe to the belief that one style is harder than another

Except if the relationship style does not fit you. (Gay trying to be straight, poly trying to be mono)...

[GroundedSpirit]

Hi Ceoli,

Being a bit cautious of the term "principles" we'll try to just put out one or two "concepts" that might be seen as some type of dividing lines between poly & mono outlooks with the required disclaimer IOHO (In Our Humble Opinion)

1> In poly-minded folk, there's an acceptance of the fact/possibility that it's possible to have deep feelings/ caring/emotional bonding (love?) about someone other than one's primary mate and that the existence of this is not viewed as a threat to the primary relationship.

2> The expression of this caring in a sexual manner is accepted when it leads in that direction. It doesn't always, nor is it a requirement, but if it does it's just acknowledged as one component of a close relationship.

It would seem that these basic tenets seem to be the line in the sand in most cases - IOHO

As a sidenote we saw a comment somewhere in a forum or somewhere this morning stating that a mono relationship was much more complicated to maneuver than a poly relationship. LOVE to know how that conclusion got drawn <chuckle>

[MonoVCPHG]

So yes, I'm going to challenge these views, even if they're only opinions.


I simply live in a world where I don't feel the need to challenge things. I'm glad for that, it enables me to focus on the reality of my life and not worry about what the rest of the world thinks or does. I don't need approval or permission to be comfortable in how I chose to live my life. I get the sense that you do...I hope you get there, Ceoli. I truly do.

[Ceoli]

I simply live in a world where I don't feel the need to challenge things. I'm glad for that, it enables me to focus on the reality of my life and not worry about what the rest of the world thinks or does. I don't need approval or permission to be comfortable in how I chose to live my life. I get the sense that you do...I hope you get there, Ceoli. I truly do.

You misread my intentions then, Mono. I'm not looking for nor do I need approval or permission to live the life I lead. I have already made those choices and am quite comfortable with them. I already have what I need to live my life happily. And part of that is having the strength to challenge prejudices and misinformation. Both within my self and in other people. This doesn't take away from my inner peace. It takes away from my inner denial and thus allowing my peace to be more authentic in myself. Good for you that you don't feel the need to do that.

Perhaps you won't ever have to face a situation where such prejudices marginalize you or take away your rights. That's great for you. And honestly, I probably won't have to face a situation like that either (though I also know that it could happen). But because I'm a human being, I feel it a key aspect of my humanity to do my part to create a world that provides justice and understanding for all people. Not just my little isolated corner. Challenging prejudice isn't about "asking for permission or approval". It's about standing up for yourself and expecting that you will be able to live your life with your choices without having to pay a huge societial price. It's a huge difference. Gay and lesbian and transgendered people aren't asking for permission when raising issues. And neither am I.

[GroundedSpirit]

Hi All,

I think the whole topic of "commitment" and it's agreed to definition would be a great topic for it's own thread ! It's undoubtedly one of the most complex issues involved and therefore most subject to misinterpretation.
Really liked the comment Mono threw in about being aware of what we say in public like this because of the likelihood of a large segment of the readers coming away with slanted views/understanding.
Anyone want to open a "Commitment" thread ? Anyone feel the need?

[Ceoli]

I simply live in a world where I don't feel the need to challenge things.

(This is a bit of a tangent and not very poly-specific but is a key point nonetheless.)

This right here is a privilege that most people in the world don't have. I also have that privilege but I choose to reject it in favor of a better understanding of humanity. This is exactly why I do anti-racism and anti-oppression work.

[Ceoli]

Hi Ceoli,

Being a bit cautious of the term "principles" we'll try to just put out one or two "concepts" that might be seen as some type of dividing lines between poly & mono outlooks with the required disclaimer IOHO (In Our Humble Opinion)

1> In poly-minded folk, there's an acceptance of the fact/possibility that it's possible to have deep feelings/ caring/emotional bonding (love?) about someone other than one's primary mate and that the existence of this is not viewed as a threat to the primary relationship.

2> The expression of this caring in a sexual manner is accepted when it leads in that direction. It doesn't always, nor is it a requirement, but if it does it's just acknowledged as one component of a close relationship.

It would seem that these basic tenets seem to be the line in the sand in most cases - IOHO


I would say that it doesn't even need the definition that includes the primary relationship since many people don't use that primary/secondary model in their relationships. But yes. The idea that one love doesn't threaten or replace another love seems to be at the center.

So is the difference that monogamy sees romantic love as a zero-sum game and polyamory doesn't?

[MonoVCPHG]

(This is a bit of a tangent and not very poly-specific but is a key point nonetheless.)

I simply live in a world where I don't feel the need to challenge things

This right here is a privilege that most people in the world don't have. I also have that privilege but I choose to reject it in favor of a better understanding of humanity. This is exactly why I do anti-racism and anti-oppression work.



I'm a little lost in this Ceoli, please help me understand. I do not live as society tells me I am supposed to (poly relationship). I chose not to concern myself with the judgement of that society....how is that a right that others don't have? It's a choice.

If you are implying that I am not an activist or promoting the acceptance of poly relationships then you are correct. I'm not an activist and feel no need to push for acceptance. If people or society don't like how I live so what? I'm not asking for legal rights and am not doing anything illegal.

[MonoVCPHG]

Perhaps you won't ever have to face a situation where such prejudices marginalize you or take away your rights. .

This is a good point Ceoli. I must admit that I have always been in the mainstream of society. (Middle class, white, straight, monogamous and oh so vanilla). From birth to adulthood I have played by the rules, blended with ease and never challenged the norms. I simply fit in to the majority so I don't have the experience to understand the struggles of others who have not shared my past....this is why I feel little passion in challenging things that essentially only affect me if I chose to let them.

Redpepper is teaching me a lot about opening my mind to other lifestyles, social influences and the people that make up the world. I aproach this knew awareness with interest but not the same passion she has.
My life is really very simple in many ways.

[redsirenn]

Anyone want to open a "Commitment" thread ? Anyone feel the need?

Yes. That would be fantastic.

[Ceoli]

I'm a little lost in this Ceoli, please help me understand. I do not live as society tells me I am supposed to (poly relationship). I chose not to concern myself with the judgement of that society....how is that a right that others don't have? It's a choice.

If you are implying that I am not an activist or promoting the acceptance of poly relationships then you are correct. I'm not an activist and feel no need to push for acceptance. If people or society don't like how I live so what? I'm not asking for legal rights and am not doing anything illegal.

I'm not implying that you need to be an activist. You are able to choose to not be affected by the general view of society. The ability to make that choice is a privilege. And there are a lot of people who don't have such a privilege. They are not asking for permission or seeking approval. They are just looking for the same things everyone else gets without having to earn it. That's all I'm saying.

For another example: You have the right to get married to a person whom matches your sexual orientation. Gay people in most places don't have this right. They have a harder time adopting and have to do a heck of a lot more work than most to get the same basic rights from getting insurance coverage to buying a house together that other people enjoy without issue. When issues are raised about it, those gay people are not asking for permission because they already have to do that for the same basic things most of us don't have to. They have to work a lot harder to get the same basic securities in relationships that straight people already have.

Those straight people don't have to challenge that system because it does not affect their life. Now, to put this in a poly context:

I had a friend who was in a poly triad who's ex-husband attempted to terminate her parental rights because of the nature of her relationship. The case went to court and thankfully went in her favor, but in researching precedents, we found out that it was the exception to the rule. We still live in a society that does not legally recognize the romantic bond if it involves more than two people.

Again, you don't have to worry about that because that situation doesn't affect you. You have that privilege. There are lots of people out there who don't have that privilege. They have to set up all sorts of legal protections for themselves just to enjoy the same basic rights of a secure loving home. Poly people may not be doing anything illegal by living together (although it should be noted that in Canada it still is illegal and is currently in the process of being upheld and enforced), but poly people do not have the same access or options for building legally secure homes that other people have. Poly people have to adjust how they structure things to accommodate that inequity.

Even for myself, I have to be aware that being out as poly person would jeopardize my ability to be a public school teacher because of the assumptions that parents would carry and the subsequent concerns that they would raise. Despite that, I still have a certain amount of privilege to not be bothered by it but I choose not to let that allow me to not be concerned for the injustice that others face.

If you're living with such privilege where things don't have that kind of effect on you, then it's easy to perceive others who take issue with it as "asking for permission" or "needing approval to feel comfortable", when it's far deeper issue than that.

I brought this up because you asked me why I would be concerned with the ideals of monogamy. You then perceived my answer as nothing more than seeking acceptance in order to be comfortable with myself. I'm just offering the explanation of why this is not the case. Privilege has a lot to do with that. I'm not saying or implying that you should or shouldn't do anything with that privilege. Just laying out why I choose to do what I do with mine.

[MonoVCPHG]

Poly people may not be doing anything illegal by living together (although it should be noted that in Canada it still is illegal and is currently in the process of being upheld and enforced),

There is absolutely no law in Canada saying it is illegal for poly people to co-habitate in a dwelling. There is a law that says you can't be married to more than one person or common law. We have a law against polygamy, not multiple loves.

EDIT: I am wrong :) Keep reading

[Ceoli]

There is absolutely no law in Canada saying it is illegal for poly people to co-habitate in a dwelling. There is a law that says you can't be married to more than one person or common law. We have a law against polygamy, not multiple loves.

According to this site: http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2009/09/crucial-polygamy-case-thrown-out-in.html

"The law mandates up to five years in jail for people who merely live as if they are plurally married, whether or not they have held a marriage-like ceremony. The penalty is the same for anyone who "assists" at such a ceremony. For instance, bringing potluck food to a triad's handfasting party would qualify.

A follow up call for poly people to testify is here:

http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2009/11/canadian-legal-followup-call-for-poly.html

[MonoVCPHG]

According to this site: http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2009/09/crucial-polygamy-case-thrown-out-in.html

"The law mandates up to five years in jail for people who merely live as if they are plurally married, whether or not they have held a marriage-like ceremony. The penalty is the same for anyone who "assists" at such a ceremony. For instance, bringing potluck food to a triad's handfasting party would qualify.

]

You got me there! The law is in fact worded "293. (1) Every one who (a) practices or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practice or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists, or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a marriage mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) and (ii), is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

It has also been used only twice in 100 years and is directed at polygamists who use multiple marraigeS primarily in abusive ways towards young women. I see no wrong in that. It has never been used against a poly person as far as my research indicates.

[Ceoli]

It has also been used only twice in 100 years and is directed at polygamists who use multiple marraigeS primarily in abusive ways towards young women. I see no wrong in that. It has never been used against a poly person as far as my research indicates.

But test cases such as these are important for setting legal precedents that can either increase or decrease the legal restrictions for how people love one another. So while the law has only been enforced twice, I wonder how many times cases around this law have been used to set legal precedents that restrict marriage rights. It is something of interest enough in the poly community for people to have called for mobilization.

Simply because an unjust law hasn't been enforced isn't reason enough to not call for it's repeal.

[MonoVCPHG]

Simply because an unjust law hasn't been enforced isn't reason enough to not call for it's repeal.

You're right Ceoli. I would support modifying the anti-polygamy law to be more specific.

[AutumnalTone]

I wouldn't say that. A mono friend of ours says he simply wouldn't have the energy or interest in trying to maintain more than one relationship. He's not mono because he thinks it's more moral or that a commitment relies on exclusivity or anything else; he simply doesn't want more than one romantic relationship to deal with at a time.

That suggests the reasons for living mono can vary the same as reasons for living poly. In the face of that, I certainly wouldn't say all mono folks view love as a zero sum game. I'd actually question the notion that most do--I suspect it's simply a structure that they find works for them most of the time. Some require the exclusivity (as does Mono), while for others it's just a way that works for them most of the time, while others view it as a moral thing, and so on.

All speculation on my part, of course.

[Ceoli]

That suggests the reasons for living mono can vary the same as reasons for living poly. In the face of that, I certainly wouldn't say all mono folks view love as a zero sum game. I'd actually question the notion that most do--I suspect it's simply a structure that they find works for them most of the time. Some require the exclusivity (as does Mono), while for others it's just a way that works for them most of the time, while others view it as a moral thing, and so on.

That makes total sense. And honestly, I've never ruled out the idea of being monogamous at some point or another in life. It could happen or it might not happen. But my reasons are not because I would see poly as too hard or monogamy as a more normal thing. It's more about being open to relationships in any form the come to me. And I just don't see that much of a difference between them. Plus I've learned to never say never..... :)

[ImaginaryIllusion]

It has also been used only twice in 100 years and is directed at polygamists who use multiple marraigeS primarily in abusive ways towards young women. I see no wrong in that. It has never been used against a poly person as far as my research indicates.

Ah Nuts...now I have work to do...there's been a lot of discussion about this on a yahoo group on this since the call came up for intervenors in BC case with regards to this section 293. <sigh>

Ok...info from other group has been posted to the Press & Media Forum. Linked out below, and followed by excerpts from the discussion there...and in particular some links and articles both for and against which may be of some interest to various people.

May also be a good meaty discussion for members looking for something less...basic to discuss. If nothing else, I'd encourage everyone to read the linked articles.

Call for Intervenors

November 13, 2009

Court case: Upcoming BC Government's Court Reference on the Criminalization of Polygamy and Group Marriages

[redpepper]

Ah Nuts...now I have work to do...there's been a lot of discussion about this on a yahoo group on this since the call came up for intervenors in BC case with regards to this section 293. <sigh>

Ok...info from other group has been posted to the Press & Media Forum. Linked out below, and followed by excerpts from the discussion there...and in particular some links and articles both for and against which may be of some interest to various people.

May also be a good meaty discussion for members looking for something less...basic to discuss. If nothing else, I'd encourage everyone to read the linked articles.

Some friends of ours went to intervene in Vancouver, Canada. They are still organizing and getting there act together, passion up and voices ready. We'll see what happens. One of them is giving me (and our local poly group website) an update as it goes along.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Some friends of ours went to intervene in Vancouver, Canada. They are still organizing and getting there act together, passion up and voices ready. We'll see what happens. One of them is giving me (and our local poly group website) an update as it goes along.

Yep...the conversation I cross-posted came from same Vanpoly yahoo group that they would be meeting with. Their other website is www.vanpoly.ca (http://www.vanpoly.ca).

[Nyx]

[QUOTE=rolypoly;12299

- He must make all the first moves
- He must commit to me early on
- I would even say, he had better commit to me (I hear my aunt saying this)
- He better not look at other women
- It is his job to meet my needs
- He must desire me physically and sexually, love me with integrity, sacrifice for me, etc.

[/QUOTE]

So you are saying these are things that you feel have been stressed to you by your family/upbringing? That monogamy means that a man bends over backward for the woman he intends to marry? Wow.

My idea of monogamy is very different. I think my upbringing never really touched on what relationships were, healthy or otherwise. I could get into it more in depth, but it would take a while to explain the conflicting values my family exhibited. So I will just say that I sort of had to make up my own concept of what monogamy means....a concept which is, at this time, being totally disassembled (having been introduced to poly over a year ago). I had these very sort of stringent assumptions and expectations about monogamy but I never really examined them in depth until recently.

I think what monogamy is to me is the expectation that your partner is the only person who holds The Special Place. The term Significant Other illustrates that. My children, my mom, my friends, etc are all significant. But no one gets that title except my monogamous partner, right? This partner has certain responsibilities and rights within the relationship: exclusive sexuality, emotional intimacy, life-sharing, and I believe most are responsible for giving their partner support (emotional, physical....and day to day things like fetching medicine when the partner is sick or sharing finances). They are also the person you check in with on a daily basis about pretty much everything.

What I am seeing in some poly relationship descriptions are these exact same things. But I think it is called Polyfidelity - which is confusing to me....I thought a major point of poly was to give your partner(s) the freedom to explore any/all relationships? But some people have these 'closed' poly groups.....which I don't understand. Is it possible some poly's are monogamous poly's? (Or am I opening a GIGANTIC can of worms on that?)

I am going to read the rest of the replies to this post and may post more.......

[Nyx]

Hi Ceoli,

1> In poly-minded folk, there's an acceptance of the fact/possibility that it's possible to have deep feelings/ caring/emotional bonding (love?) about someone other than one's primary mate and that the existence of this is not viewed as a threat to the primary relationship.

2> The expression of this caring in a sexual manner is accepted when it leads in that direction. It doesn't always, nor is it a requirement, but if it does it's just acknowledged as one component of a close relationship.




I really think this is GREAT!:D This makes a lot of sense to me and puts it in a way that is very simple. I think a lot of discussions and arguments I have had with people (mono and poly) are all about these two items listed above. In a nutshell. Good work!

[MonoVCPHG]

What I am seeing in some poly relationship descriptions are these exact same things. But I think it is called Polyfidelity - which is confusing to me....I thought a major point of poly was to give your partner(s) the freedom to explore any/all relationships? But some people have these 'closed' poly groups.....which I don't understand. Is it possible some poly's are monogamous poly's? (Or am I opening a GIGANTIC can of worms on that?)

I am going to read the rest of the replies to this post and may post more.......

The word poly refers to the ability to love more than one. It does not mandate that you have to be open all the time. That is how some people aproach living poly but not a requirement. You could be in love with just two people for your entire life and that is still being poly. Polyfidelitous living is essentially embracing more than one love in an apparently monogamous manner. It is not monogamous because it involves more than two people.

There are no "points" to how you have relationships...that almost makes it sound like a club with rules you have to follow or you are out LOL! (traditional monogamous relationships have a lot of these) Yes I do see this attitude in my poly community. There are some that think if you aren't open to new loves you aren't poly. That's fine for them. I would find a great deal of weakness in someone who felt they had to leave themselves open only to fit in or meet the "club" requirements. I find a weakness towards anything like that really..cheerleaders, jocks, bikers, anyone. I would also find this a weakness in someone forcing themselves to act mono just to blend with society for any reasons less than survival and health of family.

I hope this helps

Peace and love
Mono

[Ceoli]

I really think this is GREAT!:D This makes a lot of sense to me and puts it in a way that is very simple. I think a lot of discussions and arguments I have had with people (mono and poly) are all about these two items listed above. In a nutshell. Good work!

I like those two points as well, except for the fact that the first point looks at it from the stand point of someone partnered in a primary relationship. There are other models of poly that don't use the primary/secondary model and there are lots of poly people who are not in primary relationships so this wouldn't apply to them (or me at the moment). I would rephrase it to say that love growing in one relationship does not take from the love in another relationship.

[LovingRadiance]

I like those two points as well, except for the fact that the first point looks at it from the stand point of someone partnered in a primary relationship. There are other models of poly that don't use the primary/secondary model and there are lots of poly people who are not in primary relationships so this wouldn't apply to them (or me at the moment). I would rephrase it to say that love growing in one relationship does not take from the love in another relationship.

That fits much better to me. I have no ability to say that I BELIEVE that Maca is my primary AND that GreenGecko is my secondary.

Like Mono-GG CHOOSES to identify himself as my secondary in some of his actions and when discussing the situation (he doesn't use these words ever) with certain people who are "in the know".

But for ME-they are both quite definitely my primaries. They have equal responsibility to me (in my eyes) and to our family. They both support the household with their incomes, they both participate in planning and organizing finances, care of the children, upkeep of our home etc.

So I can more easily identify with the
"love growing in one relationship does not take from the love in another relationship."

wording.

;)

[Legion]

So let's lay it out there. What's the difference?

my opinion/perception of underlying principles:

Poly:
1. Love is self-perpetuating in all its forms (romantic, platonic, agape, &c.). The more you love, the more love you have.

2.



Mono:

1. Love is self-perpetuating in all forms excepting romantic love. In regards to romantic love, the more individuals you love, the less you love each one. True, pure and legitimate romantic love is reserved for one person, all others are forsaken and forsworn.

2.


Other rules or guidelines like honesty, communication, and trust are not specific to one or the other, but I think an important thing to recognize is that these are two very different paradigms: sets of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitute a way of viewing reality for the communities that share them.

There are all sorts of beliefs that people hold, but these vary from individual to individual. Things like: "if a man cheats, it's because his lover wasn't any good." or "Bros before hos". They can be sexist, racist or in our situations, prejudices about lovestyles.

I admit I am one of those that sees monogamy as a less enlightened way of living when used as a moral compass. I respect our MonoVCHP's way of living and also my lover, Bee's declaration that she "doesn't really want to sleep with anyone else because things get confusing." That's fine if you don't have the desire or the time or whatever it is. I guess part of my high horse when it comes to poly vs. mono is that I get defensive. I've had people respond the same way jools described but I wasn't as savvy to answer so appropriately. I end up defending my way, and they defend theirs... sigh.

[GroundedSpirit]

my opinion/perception of underlying principles:

Poly:
1. Love is self-perpetuating in all its forms (romantic, platonic, agape, &c.). The more you love, the more love you have.
Mono:
1. Love is self-perpetuating in all forms excepting romantic love. In regards to romantic love, the more individuals you love, the less you love each one. True, pure and legitimate romantic love is reserved for one person, all others are forsaken and forsworn.
..

This is an interesting theory. Note the underlining (mine) about a theory of love having limitations.

I suspect we couldn't get an accurate poll here on a "poly" area as to whether many people (mono) hold this belief to be true or not. I have absolutely nothing to contribute on that topic as it's not a theory I've ever heard debated in a group of (labeled) mono people.
But gut instinct says..........
I suspect folks choosing to live a mono lovestyle probably don't question the "possibility" of romantic love flowering (it's existence) but simply forbid any EXPRESSION of that love. In other words - it's a "concept" vs "reality" issue. I suspect it's the expression, the actions, associated with spreading love that constitutes the threat or breaking of vows. Whether "mono" minded people (as any large percentage) believe "love" to be a finite thing, somehow just doesn't compute with me.
But I'd love to hear (or see) a good discussion of this somewhere among a group of mono minded folk.

[redsirenn]

I suspect folks choosing to live a mono lovestyle probably don't question the "possibility" of romantic love flowering (it's existence) but simply forbid any EXPRESSION of that love. In other words - it's a "concept" vs "reality" issue. I suspect it's the expression, the actions, associated with spreading love that constitutes the threat or breaking of vows. Whether "mono" minded people (as any large percentage) believe "love" to be a finite thing, somehow just doesn't compute with me.
.

I tend to agree with you GS. I really don't buy most of the arguments that there are big differences between poly and mono minds, and what they view as "possible", or whatever. Therefore, what Legion stated in the previous post really doesn't make much sense to me. Good monogamous relationships last because it is understood that attractions and feelings DO develop for other people outside of the mono relationship. And, the rules and boundaries for mono relationships are just as complex as poly ones... e.g. cheating could be porn, could be emotional, etc. But having deep emotional connections for others might be fine, and even supported, time even could be shared.. My parents, for example, have a long lasting mono relationship, where both are encouraged to have deep emotional connections with others of the opposite sex. They say it is healthy.

The only real difference in poly vs. mono principles is how many people one is involved with in an honest manner. Some could argue sex is involved in this divide. However, even this has caveats, because monogamous living does "allow" for dating multiple people, even somewhat seriously, and having all partners aware of it. Until EVENTUALLY one is chosen for some period of time. (mono can mean one at a time, not in a lifetime)

So - The more I think about it, the more the divide is blurred.

[Legion]

I suspect folks choosing to live a mono lovestyle probably don't question the "possibility" of romantic love flowering (it's existence) but simply forbid any EXPRESSION of that love. In other words - it's a "concept" vs "reality" issue. I suspect it's the expression, the actions, associated with spreading love that constitutes the threat or breaking of vows.

Disclaimer:
Included in the following statements are generalizations and therefore subject to discrepancy among individuals. I'm just saying general trend, not every mono person ever.

I think that many mono people would view those "possibilities of romantic love" as just pure lust or some other form of devilry. Whether that would be blamed on the luster, the lustee, the luster's partner or the relationship; fault would be found somewhere. Time and time again, I've said things like "expression of love" and see folks' eyes glaze over. I've even had people echo back to me what they think I've said: "you mean $*&ing"

Sure they don't question the possibility that their partner could be attracted to someone else. Expressing attraction is not the only forbidden, also to varying degrees, are actions that could cause attraction. Pre-emptive strike style. Looking at others, doing favors for others, talking "too much" with others... all those are possible signs that you've got a "bad" partner in many mono minds. (By "others" I mean "people of the same gender as those which your partner prefers sexually")

[Ceoli]

I think the principles that monogamous people apply to love and relationships are wide and varied, just as the principles that poly people apply to relationships are.

[Legion]

Is it possible there is a spectrum, with most people laying somewhere between the extremes of 100% mono or 100% poly?

Not that the extremes have been defined, but I would think 100% mono would mean one partner for life. A person might date but not get sexual or express romantic love until they were absolutely sure this was "the one".

100% poly, on the other foot, would mean what? Loving everyone they meet?

[redsirenn]

And... this is why I personally don't believe that people are 100% either! Both of those extremes sound, well extreme! (and a bit unbelievable).

I think it is similar to sexuality - there is a continuum, and the position on the continuum can change for people over the course of their life, or even over a few days. So Legion - yes, I agree with that concept. I have seen it before, maybe on this forum.

Part of the reason I have a hard time grasping the "divide" between things like this is because of these constant changes... I know there are some differences, but it might lie in how we EXPRESS our desires, and not the desires themselves. I think a big part of mainstreaming poly ( or at least minimizing oppression) is to recognize how we are actually more similar than different - that everyone is on the same continuum (planet earth) just in a different spot (town).;)

I.e. we are all human and our basic needs are the same - we need companionship, a sense of security, freedom, etc.

[redpepper]

Red I am secretly in love with you today. Just thought you should know. Your words on this speak to me. This last post and the one earlier.

*hugs* RP

[redsirenn]

it's not secret anymore... *muah*!

[GroundedSpirit]

Some could argue sex is involved in this divide. However, even this has caveats, because monogamous living does "allow" for dating multiple people, even somewhat seriously, and having all partners aware of it. Until EVENTUALLY one is chosen for some period of time. (mono can mean one at a time, not in a lifetime)

So - The more I think about it, the more the divide is blurred.

I totally agree with everything you say Red.
And I think the "sex" thing does become maybe the biggest divide.
Our current western culture is just totally ....what's the best word....obsessed, with sex in general. This has often been my "soapbox" and I'm coming to think that the way I view sexuality is vastly disconnected from mainstream culture and even some on the fringe. I think it's given WAY more attention than it deserves primarily because I feel a vast majority of people have never really dug into it beyond the superficial aspects. I've always said that for example, the whole gay rights etc movement(s) should never have been necessary. People's sexual preferences deserve no more discussion than their culinary tastes ! You like bland - I like spicy - cool ! Let's go eat. End of discussion.
Of course I've always felt the same about race and many other things and I realize that I seem to among the tiny minority apparently. You're black - I'm white - She's red. Cool ! Let's go eat ! End of discussion.
But humans seem to have a proclivity for wanting to turn a multi-hued world into balck and white - with THEIR definition of black and white being the only one possible. Are we just lazy ? I don't know.
Things really could just be so much simpler, and nicer if some of these "divides" just were acknowledged for the color they are and let go. We have more important things to accomplish.

GS

[redpepper]

Oh I think I might love you today too GS. Let's go eat! Wouldn't that be great to actually do that?! We do that after our monthly poly meets. I look forward to that more than the meets sometimes as a table of drinks and food often inspire a good conversation.

[MonoVCPHG]

But humans seem to have a proclivity for wanting to turn a multi-hued world into balck and white - with THEIR definition of black and white being the only one possible. Are we just lazy ? I don't know.

GS

I don't know about the rest of humanity but I certainly take a great deal of pleasure in black and white so you are right about at least one of us LOL! I think of grey as the period between internally debating something and making a decision about it. Once I'm done it is one color or the other. I might revisit it later and it will change color, but it will not remain grey for long.

Haha! I just thought of something..I think in binary...switch on/switch off, ones and zeros. I'm a PC not a Mac LOL!

[Legion]

Let's go eat. End of discussion.
Of course I've always felt the same about race and many other things and I realize that I seem to among the tiny minority apparently. You're black - I'm white - She's red. Cool ! Let's go eat ! End of discussion.
But humans seem to have a proclivity for wanting to turn a multi-hued world into balck and white - with THEIR definition of black and white being the only one possible. Are we just lazy ? I don't know.
Things really could just be so much simpler, and nicer if some of these "divides" just were acknowledged for the color they are and let go. We have more important things to accomplish.
GS

Well, there are a great many people who insist that because *they* like spicy food, spicy food is the best. And if you eat bland food, they need to insist on telling you how you are blind and why spicy is better, you are just ignorant or uncultured or there is some other thing *wrong* with you.

Same thing for race or religion. Or lovestyles.

It would be nice to just drop it and go eat. But I'm a little competitive. So when someone tells me, or even infers, that what I'm choosing to eat is somehow not as acceptable, I want to put in a rebuttal.

I don't think you're in the minority at all. Or maybe. Idk. I don't think people *want* to fight about what's the best way to live. I think most people just have a certain investment in who they are and they either believe in themselves and what they are doing with their lives or they at least *want* to. So they have some pride, whether it's for being gay or gangster, and all those egos bouncing around out there tend to create some conflicts.

Philosophically speaking, I believe that truth is subjective. That said, I am in compassion with individuals having their individual realities where what is true for one person is not true for another.

I also believe that there are plenty of people out there who believe in objective truth. That is, black and white. "Some things are evil, others good."