Is poly a decision or a person's nature?

[redpepper]

I came across this blog today and it got me thinking.... here is what it says,

"Polyamory is a lie that people use to make themselves feel different. They puff their chests out and proclaim "I'm poly!" to be trendy or to justify sneaking around on their spouses.

Guess what? No one, NO ONE gets all or his or her needs meet in one relationship. If someone decided to get his sexual needs met through multiple partners, that is a decision, not something in his genetic code. And if someone decides to fill her romantic cup with more than one lover, then that is a decision, not some driven need. Having multiple sex partners and multiple lovers is common as DIRT!

If I get hungry several times a day, it is because I am human, not a polymealist. And if I sleep once a day, it is because I am human, not a monosleepist.

Get over it, people! You make your decisions how to live your lives. Don't go pretending that you are different from other people."

what do we all feel about this? Is poly a decision? or not.....?

[Quath]

I think it is a combination of choice and genetics. I think polyamory is something to be proud of because it is an ethical way to express our desires as opposed to the cultural norm of cheating.

[vandalin]

I have to agree with Quath. I think we do make the choice to accept our poly sides/natures but I know that there are some who fully choose to become poly by changing and adjusting themselves to the situation. So it is both.

The problem I have with what this person said is "or to justify sneaking around on their spouses." Now I know that some people will claim to be poly just so they can feel better about sleeping around, but poly is all about openness and honesty so there would be no "sneaking".

[CaityandBen]

Well, I kind of decide that this is a choice...I could certainly live my life as in a monogamous relationship with my current boyfriend but I'm bisexual and I have needs that he knows he will never be able to fulfill. Also, as a human male, he needs variety, naturally. Therefore, this is a lifestyle for me that I have chosen.

Ben and I sat down and agreed that we are human beings. We need variety and that it's not really possible for us to be attracted to the same person...and only that person for the rest of our lives...

so maybe it's not a choice, naturally...You can live a miserable life, cheating and pretending to be something you're not...or you can be who you are and have an intimate relationship with your girlfriend and your boyfriend and get all your cookies!

We all know...or I hope that most of us here know that homosexuality and bisexuality is not a choice... and that's mostly the issue of poly relationships...right? one who is bisexual and needs both to be happy...and that's fine. Or sometimes you need that preppy hot jock guy with huge pecks and others you need that badass tattooed guy with the green mohawk.

It makes sense to me...:D

[foxflame88]

I think poly is nature... but we choose whether to live it.

[River]

Redpepper,

As a general rule, it is appropriate when quoting text found on the internet--especially lengthy quotes--to provide a link to the source material. Through a Google search, I identified the source of your quote in the opening post in this thread.:
http://poly-blog.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-is-polyamory-or-polyamoury.html

As is very often the case with internet posts exhibiting rabid contemptuousness, the poster of these quoted words also exhibits flagrant disregard for reasonableness. I hope it will not be necessary to point out the many ridiculous flaws in reasoning in that bit of text!

I'll weigh in on the topic in a later post.

[River]

The question as to whether polyamory is a choice is an interesting one for many reasons. One of the main reasons I find the question interesting is that it relates so closely to the question as to whether homosexuality, or bisexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter, is a choice. These latter are widely understood to be "sexual orientations," and polyamory isn't considered to be a sexual orientation so much as a ... well, a "lovestyle" choice.

As a bisexual man who has had only two enduring loving relationships (six years, and then thirteeen years in duration), both with men (I had a girlfriend once, but only for a short while), I can say that I'm pretty familiar with the insides and outside, the whole terrain, of the sexual orientation choice questions and debates. Supposedly, the fact that I and my queer brothers and sisters never chose to be queer/bisexual/whatever, provides me/us with a certain kind of political clout and power that we'd not have if we somehow "chose" to be as we are. Our claim to continuity with the various great civil rights movements is supposed to be strenghthened by the fact that we no more chose our sexual orientation than black people chose the color of their skin, or women their gender, etc. This lack of choice is true, of course, but it is strange that we've been boxed in to this frame on things. And now that polyamorists are wondering among themselves if they, too, were "simply born this way", whether their "lovestyle choice" may be no more a choice than eye or hair color, I think some of the weirdness of these choice debates and frames begins to rise to the surface.

Be clear of one thing: polyamory is a cultural creation, not a biological essence. Polyamory is more like Permaculture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture] than it is like our desire or ability to love more than one person simultaniously. Even the concept of homosexuality and heterosexuality, and bisexuality, are cultural abstractions, as is the notion of "gayness" and "queerness". But you have to look very close to see culture at work in these terms and notions. Example: the term "homosexuality" emphasizes sexuality, which is but one part or dimention of being "queer". Notice they (and "they" were the "heterosexual" coiners and populizers of the term) didn't call us queers "homoaffectionate," "homophiles".... To call someone "homosexual," or even "heterosexual" is to define an entire person around, really, an absurd abstraction--a distortion of perception about what that person is: whole.

Engaging in "nature vs nurture" debates or discussions vis-a-vis polyamory may be an interesting and playful pastime, but it isn't all that damn important, I think, either way. The discussion arises only because there is prejudice directed at those who choose this lovestyle -- Did I just say "choose"? Oh, my!

I'd rather undermine the prejudice that gives rise to the defensive posturing and maneuvering which begins with "this isn't a choice". Of course it isn't a choice! But so what? Who ever chose their desires? We can, within limits, choose what not to desire. Vegitarians have often done that. They may really desire meat, but don't desire the torment most "farm" animals undergo in today's industrial hell-hole meat-growing operations. Eventually, this becomes seamless and the desire for meat falls away on ethical grounds.

Polyamorists are like vegitarains in this respect, in that we choose not to "cheat," lie, sneak around -- on ethical grounds, but we also choose not to be ashamed or even afraid about loving multiply. We choose to question the nearly ubiquitous assumption mantras our cultural monogamism chants to us everywhere, in movies and songs and pulpits. We even doubt the core premise of monogamism, that loving only one person at a time is superior to loving two, or three.

Permaculturists doubt that dramatically unsustainable systems in agriculture, transportation, housing..., can lead to anything other than global disaster with so many billions of people engaging in them. They choose to try to live true to life, and more ethically. Who would fault them for that?

===

[Note: the Wikipedia page link, for Permaculture, didn't work for me. I have no idea why!]

[River]

Related post:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5248&postcount=3

[XYZ123]

Personally, I feel it's in my nature to love deeply multiple people. Just as it is in my nature to be bisexual. However, I can choose to act (at least in the physical sense as I have no control over the depth of emotion) on these feelings. I can choose to be monogomous. I can choose to cheat. Or I can choose to form poly relationships. Currently, I choose not to choose. I'm not looking for a relationship with a woman, but I'm open to one. As far as a relationship with a man, maybe I will one day love another man deeply as I love my husband. But, because of agreed upon rules of conduct between me and N, I will not act on this physically.

Nature or nurture don't really matter in my eyes so long as poly is practiced ethically and openly with those involved. Does it matter what drives us to this life so long as we and those involved with us are happy in it?

[Mark1npt]

Nature or nurture? For me, it's a personal choice to live life fully but it's also in my DNA to act on my thoughts, to nurture, support and love. Can we as humans suppress our thoughts and desires? Of course, but we can also choose to act on them. Our society has developed religious and governmental policies to guide us or prevent us, whichever way you choose to view it. I suspect we all have different reasons for being poly. Is there a right or wrong?

[Quath]

When nature vs nurture use to come up with homosexuality, my first response was "does it matter?" If it is nature or if it is a choice, it doesn't change the ethical nature of it. But later on, I realized it mattered to religious people. If it were nature, then God set it up. It also works well with the "natural fallacy" where natural stuff seems to be more acceptable than man made stuff.

[MonoVCPHG]

I think being polyamorous (as in the ability to truly love more than one person in a sexually intimate manner) is a product of natural wiring.

I assume this because I know it is natural for me to love only one in this way therefore the possibility of loving more must be natural and possible as well.
I know this because I see the way Redpepper looks at her husband and me and am definite she loves us both.

However, I don't think being wired polyamorously is a requirement to live a polyamorous life however.

I think some people can choose to invest deeply in more than one Lover but does not necessarily have to be "in love" with each of them. This I have seen too.

Whether you choose it or are it...just take care of those you have in your life :D

[redpepper]

Redpepper,

As a general rule, it is appropriate when quoting text found on the internet--especially lengthy quotes--to provide a link to the source material. Through a Google search, I identified the source of your quote in the opening post in this thread.:
http://poly-blog.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-is-polyamory-or-polyamoury.html

thanks JRiverMartin, i will endevour to put a link in the future.... :) thanks for doing that for me.

[redpepper]

as a human male, he needs variety, naturally. Therefore, this is a lifestyle for me that I have chosen.

Really?
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I think it is natural or not depending on the man, just as it is natural of not to be gay.

[MonoVCPHG]

Also, as a human male, he needs variety, naturally.

With all due respect I am going to flat out disagree with this statement...this is an extremely simplistic aproach which I am sure is used by many men all over the world..usually after they screw up.

[redpepper]

Polyamorists are like vegetarains ... in that we choose not to "cheat," lie, sneak around -- on ethical grounds, but we also choose not to be ashamed or even afraid about loving multiply. We choose to question the nearly ubiquitous assumption mantras our cultural monogamists chants to us everywhere, in movies and songs and pulpits. We even doubt the core premise of monogamism, that loving only one person at a time is superior to loving two, or three.

I love this statement.... well said!

[CaityandBen]

True I guess that does make sense. In our opinions, we feel like we need variety. So that is in our nature. Other people might be different...for instance, My mother feels she is completely monogamous and that sleeping with someone else outside of her monogamous relationship would be bad news.

[MonoVCPHG]

I have a question...how many people who identify as poly on here also identify as vegetarians, social activists and anti capitalists?

I'm curious because my old social group of monogamous friends were neither of the above. I'm wondering if there is a trend or social stream that polyamory flows more freely through.

[CaityandBen]

With all due respect I am going to flat out disagree with this statement...this is an extremely simplistic aproach which I am sure is used by many men all over the world..usually after they screw up.

I agree to disagree.. I can't say much more and I've typed literally about 20 explanations trying to be as reasonable and I can't. I feel this way and always have.

[MonoVCPHG]

I agree to disagree.. I can't say much more and I've typed literally about 20 explanations trying to be as reasonable and I can't. I feel this way and always have.

Fair enough my friend :)

[Quath]

I have a question...how many people who identify as poly on here also identify as vegetarians, social activists and anti capitalists?
I would identify as an omnivore, social activist, and 75% capitalist / 25% socialist. :)

[River]

I have a question...how many people who identify as poly on here also identify as vegetarians, social activists and anti capitalists?

I'm not a vegitarian, but I do lean that direction and do sympathize with vegitarians -- and abhor the maltreatment of animals in "factory farming".

I am a social / political activist. --mainly in environment / ecology / sustainability.

I'm not "anti-capitalist," I'm anti-fascist and pro-democracy. When capitalism undermines democracy -- and it generally does -- it needs to be put in check by democracy. Rather than the other way around, vice versa. It's silly to be "anti-capitalist". One should instead proffer alternatives, be pro-alternatives to capitalism, if you find capitalism destructive (which I do). Much of my life has been devoted to finding viable and desirable alternatives to the capitalist industrial system.


I'm curious because my old social group of monogamous friends were neither of the above. I'm wondering if there is a trend or social stream that polyamory flows more freely through.

When we realize that polyamorists are rather bravely stepping rather far out of a core or central cultural expectation (monogamism, monogamy), and that doing so typically requires a lot of introspection and facility with changing one's own acquired internal furnishings, it shouldn't be surprising that polyamorists, on average, are people with a certain set of inter- and intra-personal skills and insights that lend themselves to social / political activism. Generally, I'd say, polyamorists are unlikely to be the sort of people who accept beliefs and notions uncritically, simply because of tradition or due to their upbringing, etc. We will tend to be innovative in our thinking as much as in our behavior.

[XYZ123]

I'm an omnivore. I'm very open minded and accepting but not an activist. And I'm not anti capitalist.

[redpepper]

I have poly friends that are really good recyclers and that is it... Mono, you know them and yet you ask?

[MonoVCPHG]

I have poly friends that are really good recyclers and that is it... Mono, you know them and yet you ask?

I'm not convinced they are poly yet...they could just be enviro-swingers :)

[AJbear77]

Whenever you read an article such as this with so much negative emotion against something, or disrespect, the writer has personal issues. I wish people could have enough self awareness to see that about themselves. Everybody and everything is merely a mirror reflecting back. I know this for sure. I am thankful for the moment I 'woke up' and stopped being numb, playing victim, blaming others...and realized the whole world as I view it has to do with ME and where I AM at. What is within is without. I will say on the surface it always seemed much easier to be ignorant to that fact, but even though it is painful to break through barriers within yourself, in the end it is much more rewarding.

[AutumnalTone]

The author of that blog post would offer us that anything we do is completely modular--that anything can be switched out for anything else, because everything is simply the result of a decision.

So, if you have a hobby, it can be switched out for any other hobby and you would be just as interested and fulfilled because it's all just a decision. That you have an inclination for advanced math puzzles and no interest or ability in sports is immaterial--you can replace the time spent doing math puzzles with time spent playing rugby and get as much fulfillment. It's just a decision, remember.

There are some people who are truly monogamous and have only one mate for life, never considering anybody else as a potential partner. There are those who are serial monogamists who never consider anybody else while still involved in a pairing. There are serial monogamists who are always considering options while still involved in a pairing. There are poly folk who have a couple of relationships and never consider more. There are poly folk who have several relationships and are open to yet more. There are folk who never have any serious relationships and just bounce from one sexual dalliance to another. To suggest that the whole range of human behavior regarding relationships is due simply to choice and anybody displaying one of those forms of behavior would be just as comfortable displaying a different one is ludicrous, at best!

[River]

Technical problems caused me to lose a longish post following SeventhCrow's here. So I'll make my response concise this try.

Who wants to provide an argument in favor of the belief or notion that any of us choose our desires?

Shouldn't people be free to choose to live life how they will within the constraints of their desires? -- So long as that choice harms none? or is otherwise ethically okay?

I don't know why or how our desires go as they go, and I'm a longtime student of philosophy and psychology. Some combination of nature and nurture -- or? Hardly a settled question.

I cannot choose to favor brussels sprouts (least favorite veggie) over asparagus (my favorite). I can choose to eat either one -- just barely -- if forced to do so for survival reasons.

[redsirenn]

No - I don't think you can choose your desires... But you do choose your actions, for sure.

For example, I never would have thought about any of this just a year ago. When Ouroboros opened my eyes to it, I began some really hard thinking and began to realize that my desires include: honesty, genuineness, openness, caring, love, and the list goes on.

I realized long ago that I never wanted to control another person, and that attractions to others can rarely be stifled... however, how you act upon those can be. I wonder sometimes if my ex could have been honest... I do not know if he was capable, not in HIS nature, unfortunately. Maybe he was too afraid.

So, Although I am new to this philosophy, I am choosing to explore polyamory. I have to think about it frequently, and it is not because of my current relationship. My current relationship is simply providing me a path towards something that I would probably, at this point, be curious about and explore regardless. I don't think I could ever pick apart if it is Natural or not.

Maybe it is Natural for me to think openly and question society, or maybe it is my upbringing...(although liberal, also VERY monogamy-leaning and following of the catholic faith)

Like others on here, I have had similar feelings when watching star wars, etc, wondering why they can't all be together, and just blowing it off, thinking that was a ridiculous notion!

So, Although people may have a desire to be polyamorous, or the desire to act upon attractions, they do not have to act upon them...

Although, think about the argument about same-sex love. Just because you don't have a SO, doesn't mean you are hetero.

Now, following that logic, does simply thinking poly make you poly, or is it the action that does?

[River]

Although, think about the argument about same-sex love. Just because you don't have a SO, doesn't mean you are hetero.

Now, following that logic, does simply thinking poly make you poly, or is it the action that does?

Tricky questions!

Are people who simply desire to love more than one person necessarily, thus, polyamorous? Not necesarily, depending. "Depending" because polyamory is more than simply an ability or desire to love more than one person simultaniously, as the term is used in common usage. It's also an ethos.

["Ethos, according to The Oxford English Dictionary, is defined as "the characteristic spirit, prevalent tone of sentiment, of a people or community; the 'genius' of an institution or system", ..." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos]

Polyamory is something defined by an emerging and evolving global polyamory community, or culture, or sub-culture--even a "movement". It is a cultural phenomenon and creation, and it will evolve just as such things do. And right now, honesty and openness along with actual loving (not just sex!) are crucial to this emerging and evolving ethos. So the poly culture/community has criteria as to who is a member of the species: polyamorous. Not all swingers are members of this species, though some may be.

... returning ...


Although, think about the argument about same-sex love. Just because you don't have a SO, doesn't mean you are hetero.

Now, following that logic, does simply thinking poly make you poly, or is it the action that does?

Gay/Queer folk are gay/queer whether or not they are involved with anyone romantically or sexually. Desire makes it so.

But this isn't quite so simply said about poly (multiple) amory (love/loving), because of the openness and honesty aspect of the ethos which is polyamory. I'm polyamorous even though I have only one love/lover/partner at this time, and this is so not only because I'm capable of loving more than one person at a time, but more crucially because I subscribe to the ethos of openness and honesty -- as does my partner. But there's more to it than that, still. The polyamorist ethos also includes, generally, the belief that not only can people have multiple loves unproblematically, but that a multiple loving style of loving can enhance the love we have within our original bonded relationships! This fact -- and it is a fact -- is in myriad ways astonishing and unsettling to the popular culture of "romantic love". Imagine: We may be even a little MORE romantic at times than the monos!:D;)

[MonoVCPHG]

We may be even a little MORE romantic at times than the monos!:D;)


:eek: Avoiding my buttons...avoiding my buttons...whew! I did it! :D

[redpepper]

mono is the most romantic anyone I have ever known. He still leaves me notes on my running route that are filled with love, desire and endless commitment to me and my family.... nope, No other Poly guy has topped that!

Good conversation going on though.... oh so interesting... do carry on!

[River]

:eek: Avoiding my buttons...avoiding my buttons...whew! I did it! :D

Congrats! I'm not all that serious about the claim. It's just that some folk think we're less romantic, so I like to playfully chide them.:D

[MonoVCPHG]

No other Poly guy has topped that!



News flash - I'm not poly :D

For JRM: I get more playful as I get more comfortable. I do appreciate a good chiding :)

[redpepper]

I have heard the less romantic thing too! I suppose if you spread yourself too thinly? Really, a lot of the couples in my life that I associate with on a day to day basis have lost romance entirely from their life... very sad, but true. If more partners can add to the romance, why not. Sometimes it takes someone else to remind what romance is like again. That is what I found with mono anyways... he brought it all back on so many levels... thanks sweets *kiss* (he's a libra after all you know ;))

[NeonKaos]

O comon people! You gotta be kidding!

How can such a statement as "Monos are more or less romantic than polys".

How about "heteros are more or less romantic than gays".

etc.

Yeash, you folks don't REALLY buy into this...

Funny... Ha-Ha!

[River]

Yes, YGirl, I was kidding!

But there is an underlying point in the kidding -- which is that we're not necessarily any LESS romantic than monogamous folk.

[MonoVCPHG]

we're not necessarily any LESS romantic than monogamous folk.

You certainly are not any less romantic! If anything you remember to be more romantic more frequently to reassure your partners in my experience. This is a lesson a lot of people in mono relationships could definitely learn from :)

[Sunshinegrl]

I think for me personally that it was a bit of both. I loved two people before I even knew that it had a name. It felt natural..yet confussing for me. Confussing because of the "expectation" Of only being "allowed" to love one person. Yet I was able to love two people in and amazing way. It took time to process that it was "ok" even. Guess you could even say I tried not to be Poly. But failed. A Steak is still a Steak..even when dressed as a salad. ;)

[aussielover]

I think for me personally that it was a bit of both. I loved two people before I even knew that it had a name. It felt natural..yet confussing for me. Confussing because of the "expectation" Of only being "allowed" to love one person. Yet I was able to love two people in and amazing way. It took time to process that it was "ok" even. Guess you could even say I tried not to be Poly. But failed. A Steak is still a Steak..even when dressed as a salad. ;)

Have to say, I'm very glad you failed! ;)

I think the fact that it felt so natural, so normal for me makes it less of a decision and more of just a realization that it's possible. Honestly felt a LOT like when I came out and realized it really was ok and I could be who I was. Society surpresses it so much you don't even know it's an option, so I never thought about it until I was already in the relationship.

[AutumnalTone]

Maybe it is Natural for me to think openly and question society, or maybe it is my upbringing...(although liberal, also VERY monogamy-leaning and following of the catholic faith)


I'm thinking the balance is more on the nature side of things. I come from a fundamentalist Christian background--very conservative (reactionary in large part), and strongly steeped in "traditional" gender roles and relationship expectations.

I began seriously questioning those while still quite young and decided much of what I'd been taught was so much hooey (that's a technical term, ya know). If nurture were the primary decider in such things, I'd be able to "decide" to go along with what I'd been taught without discomfort--and I wouldn't be poly or Pagan or politically just left of center, I'd be mono and evangelical and politically just left of the John Birch Society and Adolph Hitler.