Is polyamory a sexual identity, just like being queer?

Wow, great points here.

nycindie, I see what you are saying... I don't know if I got identity and orientation mixed up, maybe, I am confused now ;)

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, you are saying that you can choose both mono and poly situations and be fine with it. To me that is a lifestyle choice you have made. Others can't choose, they are poly or mono and that is that. That to me is different and something they are born with. Sure, it might be they grew into understanding that whereas you grew into being comfortable with and choosing poly. To me it isn't an option. I am poly and now that I know that I am relieved and feel whole. I figured something out about who I am that makes me feel sane. I might choose mono for whatever reason, but I am still poly.
 
Last edited:
We are so new to this I am not sure how this works out. I know this has fed into my sexuality in ways I wasn't even sure existed. I have never felt so complete or so happy in my life. I guess that is why after we realized all three of us felt that way, we decided we were absolutely going poly.

When I talk about being complete it's not just sexually but it's nice to finally feel like that is getting the right amount of attention in my life too. I think the happiness that I enjoy the most though has NOTHING to do with when the clothes are off. Ok, so yeah it is... we all know that plays in. But it's so much more. I can say if there was some catastrophic accident and my "guys" couldn't have sex with me or each other, I would be very very sad. But i would still love them and still be just as committed to them.

Does that make sense?
 
For me, I don't think it's a choice - I can't imagine being with only one person for the rest of my life. Even if that person were absolutely amazing and I was head-over-heels in love.
 
I don't know if poly is something I need, but I definitely think it's something I am. I would definitely say it's part of my identity, and my relationship orientation.
 
i've only had one relationship, the one i'm in now. but i never saw any sense in the idea that when you have one, you should turn down others that may start to develop. i don't see it as an identity. i see the principle of monogamy as a silly tradition. it's those who adhere to it who are making a lifestyle choice, not me.
 
For me, making connections with other people is part of me, not something I actively choose to do. In that way it's the same as my sexual orientation, in that it's not something I consciously choose.

But I do choose what to do with those connections. I could choose to keep them all at the level of friendship without any physical involvement and live in a mono relationship. I'd survive and probably be happy enough. But luckily I know myself well enough that when MC and I started dating, I said upfront that he needed to be able to accept and support my flirtations and FWB's or our relationship was not going to work. So I don't have to make that choice to be strictly mono.

However, I didn't really CHOOSE poly either. It just sort of happened. TGIB was a FWB who became something more. I was lucky that, though we hadn't expressly discussed it previously, MC was not threatened by me developing a more serious relationship with TGIB. I suppose I could have been considered open to poly, since I'm not a fan of forcing relationships to fit predetermined definitions, but I kind of feel like poly chose ME, rather than the other way around. I was never LOOKING for another serious LTR besides the one I have with my husband, so I can hardly say it was a lifestyle choice in my case. It's a choice NOW, so MC and I can have this amazing person in our lives permanently, but even now that I know so much more about poly and the different ways it can work, I don't think of myself as "practicing polyamory". The three of us just figure out what works for us and call it good. (I also no longer have much interest in flirtations or FWB's. I'm polysaturated with my two guys, thankyouverymuch! :p )
 
^^^^That sounds damn healthy to me.

We did a ton of talking about this, that and everything when we were starting. It provided a really good path as we stepped off the map. Now, we're back to just living and being ourselves and enjoying our lives together. I'd consider myself polysaturated, too. I might steal that....;)
 
I had a conversation about this with Country yesterday, because we were talking about what's included under the "queer" umbrella aside from the LGBT most people are familiar with.

As far as she's concerned, at least, being polyamorous counts as being "queer."

As far as whether it's an identity vs. an action... Polyamor*ous* is who you are. It's a romantic orientation. Polyamor*y* is what you do.

You can be polyamorous but not do polyamory; that's how I lived most of my life. You can do polyamory without being polyamorous, though I would wonder if it's actually polyamory in that case because if you aren't polyamorous, I'm not sure you can legitimately *love* more than one partner. Need to think more on that.

Country, Alt, and their friends--and I know they aren't the only ones, just the only ones I know--consider there to be three aspects to whether you're queer or not: your *sexual* orientation; your *romantic* orientation (which is where polyamory would fall as I said above); and your gender identity.
 
Definitions I currently use:

  • Polyamory = "the state of being, or the ability and/or inclination to be, in a romantically- and/or intimately-connected group of more than two adults, with the full knowledge and consent of all the adults in the group."
  • Polyamorous = "practicing, inclined toward, or having to do with, polyamory."
  • Polyamorist = "one who is practicing, or who is inclined toward, polyamory."
  • Poly = "polyamory, polyamorous, or polyamorist."
It might be worth noting that I've heard that you can be a polyamorous cheater, in that you aren't really practicing polyamory, but you're polyamorous at heart. At the time, I reluctantly assented, but I keep hoping someone else can explain how it's not true. :(
 
Last edited:
Definitions I currently use:
It might be worth noting that I've heard that you can be a polyamorous cheater, in that you aren't really practicing polyamory, but you're polyamorous at heart. At the time, I reluctantly assented, but I keep hoping someone else can explain how it's not true. :(

Heck, ... Shoot..., that's easy.

I'm polyamorous "at heart," because I'd really, really like to live a polyamorous life ...beyoond being open to it, welcoming of it, and availing myself to another intimate relationship (at least) which is "intimate" in the multifarious ways..., -- emotional, physical, intellectual, sexual.... And my partner of many (and many) years is okay with that -- at least.

But it is possible, though extremely unlikely, that I could meet and connect with this woman or man ... and not mention him or her to my partner of the last century.

If that did happen, and was kept a secret, that'd be one among a number of ways It could be "cheating" on my part.

Cheating is basically dishonesty.
 
So ... cheating itself is not polyamorous ... but can the cheater be polyamorous (on another level)?
 
So ... cheating itself is not polyamorous ... but can the cheater be polyamorous (on another level)?

Yes. In just the same way that a good or nice guy or gal ban be an asshole sometimes. Nobody is perfect. We all fail to uphold our best ideals sometimes. But that is no excuse for our failures.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417:
So ... cheating itself is not polyamorous ... but can the cheater be polyamorous (on another level)?


Can one be a skilful and talented -- and committed -- mountain climber and yet be killed by inclemate weather at high elevations? Is it possible for such a person to forget to bring her compass or map on an excursion?
 
Last edited:
You're not saying cheating is an accident, or the result of ill fortune, are you?
 
You're not saying cheating is an accident, or the result of ill fortune, are you?

No. I'm saying that one can be committed to things, and honestly so, and yet sometimes fail to hold up to one's commitments. I'm not excusing anyone for their failures. I'm saying that honest people sometimes fail to live up to their honest commitments or ideals.

In other words, one can be polyamorous in intent, and even as an identity, and yet fail to uphold the ideals entailed.

Plenty of people are monogamous, with monogamy as an "identity," and yet plenty of these same folks fail to live in accordance with their commitment and ideal. Why should it be different with poly folk?

Same with other identities -- e.g., Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative..... Anarchist, Green, Socialist.... -- Any of these people can vote outside of the expected vote. (I've voted Democrat while registered as a Green.) Sometimes anarchists, who don't subscribe to the philosophical premises of majoritarian "democracy," will even vote in elections in which a majority must necessarily win! Do these people necesarily lack a commitment to anarchist ideals?

Some gay people have sex with persons of the "opposite" sex, sometimes, and vice versa -- straight folks having sex with gay people..., or even people of the same sex!

My point is that an identity -- if such things exist -- need not depend upon any sort of perfectionism or absolutism. If I'm 95% into garening, and not 100% into it all of the time (sometimes I go bowling), am I not a gardener?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top