Polyamory and monogamy as belief systems / paradigms

River

Active member
I'd like to explore the notion that polyamory and monogamy may be, at root, little more than differing systems of belief, and primarily a set of common (or less common) beliefs about loving relationships.

(Perhaps it will turn out otherwise, who knows? This is an open inquiry, not a finished "position" that I'm going to defend as if I had full and certain knowledge.)

In another thread, moments ago, I said that I used to be monogamously inclined and that I changed to become polyamorously inclined. When I look at what this transformation entailed, I see that what mainly changed for me was my belief system about loving relationships (and sexuality as well, and "romantic love").

I used to believe (however consciously) that "true love" was something that happened between two people, and two people only. I believed including another romantic love partner beyond this dyad meant either "watering down" (diluting) this love or otherwise discrediting or diminishing it. This I no longer believe. In fact, I believe having more than one love at the same time can raise the overall love level--and have had this experience.

There are many other beliefs, some core and some more peripheral, which comprise what I've recently been thinking of as two very different "paradigms" or theories of love -- romantic or otherwise. The one I just described seems to be at the core of the two contrasting paradigms, and I'd like -- over time -- to identify and share more beliefs of this kind. Perhaps you'd like to help?

What are the differing belief systems in their particulars? Of course, differing people will have varied particular beliefs in either paradigm, but I feel there must be a basic pattern to these differing beliefs / paradigms.
 
Perhaps down the road I'll assemble a sort of "map" of the contrasting belief systems I mention above. In the mean time, I hope to build up some sketches and notes to draw from. Just observations and recollections.

Here's one.:

One friend, upon learning of my polyamory, asked me "How could you do that to your partner?" Even when made aware that my partner was okay with my polyamory, and told that my partner is also poly, this person thought I was somehow harming and hurting my partner by loving another. In this thought, I'm taking something away from my partner which is precious and sacred.

This sketch indicates something important about what many or most monogamous people believe about love. You're very welcome to add your own "sketches".
 
Another sketch:

"What, aren't I enough for you? Aren't I good enough?"

When this question is asked from within the "paradigm" of monogamy / monogamism, it is taken for granted that one person should be able to supply all of one's most intimate companionship -- to complete satisfaction --, and that dissatisfaction with this purely dyadic "picture" of love must indicate one's partner in love is failing and inadequate.

The poly view is that this need not be the case at all. From this perspective, it is unreasonable to expect one person (any person) to be "everything" to any of us. We generally acknowledge this in the arena of friendship. Most mono people would not prohibit close and intimate, albeit nonsexual, friendships. But why limit loving relationships in this way? Why the expectation of sensual/physical/sexual exclusivity?

Poly folk will generally interpret this expectation as a barrier to intimacy with others rather than as some sort of sanctification of a relationship. Mono folk will generally consider physical exclusivity a sort of sacred oath of "true love".

Saying so doesn't mean voluntary monogamy is "less than" poly. Poly folk generally have a live and let live attitude, wheras most mono folk tend to think their approach is the one correct one.
 
Some thoughts on this:

Monogamy implies that we can have only one true match and that we are only capable of truly and fully loving one person, and there is a schema that two people marry and establish a unit.

Poly is a multischema practice. It may include a relatively small closed unit or a more freeflowing open unit, but basically accepts that we love more than one person with a special feeling for each person that is unique to the relationship with that person, but not detracting from the relationships with our other loves. Some loves may include sex, other loves may not yet be very intimate and there may yet be loves where it is more sexy than intimate emotionally and all are okay depending on one's emotional style and needs.
 
Even as a teen, there were times in my life that I was in love with more than one person at the same time. I didn't think I could act on both of them at the same time since I was growing up in the conservative midwest. So I broke up with one of them in order to be with the other.

For me, polyamory is an orientation not a belief system. I realize that this may not be true for everyone... :)

JG
 
We all have beliefs and operate within belief systems until we see those beliefs do not work for us anymore, or out of habit even after we see them for what they are. I have long said that "our beliefs are just beliefs" meaning that they don't have any impact on our lives unless we let them. I could believe that the sky is green, but that doesn't mean it's true. Our approaches to relationships and relationship structures such as polyamory and monogamy will naturally be influenced by our beliefs and cultural conditioning. I think it's really important to be aware of our beliefs and how they influence us, and to challenge them.

Most of the beliefs I have about myself in relationships have to do with issues of abandonment and feeling worthy of someone's love, time, and attention. Those are the beliefs I struggle with, which naturally come into play whether I'm in a poly or mono relationship. As far as beliefs about relationships in general, I think there's this underlying one I was taught, about men being rescuers, like a knight in shining armor, and that eventually I would find the one man who would rescue me, turn my life from shit to gold, and make everything all right. So mythic! However, that belief is completely at odds with my beliefs about myself being unworthy, so it's all a mindfuck in the end.
 
Last edited:
Potential long post incoming, so apologies in advance.

I personally believe that polyamory and monogamy are completely unrelated things. I think polyamory is the personal capability of someone to love more than one person, and I think this actually applies to all humans - that is to say that every human is capable of loving more than one person at a time. Just like the oft-used example of loving more than one child without loving another any less, I think that a person is able to love more than one person, but through a combination of social pressure and learning in the vast majority of cases, and where people who have come into contact with polyamory and have questioned their own beliefs about relationships etc and still prefer monogamy, I think that is a case of still being able to feel love for more than one person at once, but their DESIRE and PREFERENCE is monogamous arrangements.

There is huge social pressure against cheating, promoting monogamous arrangements and yet we hear of infidelity constantly. Now, yes, in some cases it's purely sexual, but we also hear about "emotional infidelity" where there is no sex involved, or the sex is incidental. To me the answer to this is because humans are naturally polyamorous, and to the "uninitiated" (i.e. anyone who hasn't examined their own love life to work out what it is that they want from it OR people who enter monogamous relationships as a form of control on their partner to protect their own feelings) there is conflicting desire between their promised monogamous relationship and their natural ability to love more than one person at once. I'll talk about people who HAVE examined their own lives as regards monogamy soon, once I define what I think monogamy is.

I believe that monogamy is a relationship SYSTEM - i.e. (generally) exclusive, one-one matches etc. We call it polyamory when we follow any of the huge number of possibilities that exists outside of monogamy, but I think non-monogamy is a better term, since as I explained above, I believe polyamory relates to our ability to love more than one person, rather than how we structure our loving relationships. If you're having trouble understanding this point, then try and define a polyamorous relationship... you can't do so without saying something like "it's not monogamy" - there are too many different ways of structuring relationships for it to apply to any one type of things.

I said that I'd mention people who have examined their own lives and still choose monogamous arrangements, or even define themselves as monogamous people. A frequent message on this site is that love is an infinite resource, but things like time and energy are not. While someone may be ABLE to love more than one person at once, they may only WANT to feel that with one person at a time. Obviously we're not including anyone who only gets into monogamous relationships because that's what they've been taught (although we shouldn't entirely discount the social learning that happens for years, reinforced all around our society - movies, books, tv shows etc) but people who have realised and understand that they WANT and CHOOSE monogamous relationships for themselves. I guess the best way to explain this is to say that while I think that all humans are ABLE to love more than one person, they are not REQUIRED to love more than one person, or even anyone at all.

I believe the difference between monogamy and non-monogamy as relationship systems can be compared to the people who naturally prefer to have a small group of close friends to a larger group of less close friends. While someone who prefers a small group of close friends would certainly be ABLE to add a new friend into the mix, they might not WANT to. Similarly for monogamous arrangements, someone might be ABLE to love a second person, but they don't WANT to. They understand themselves well enough to know that they prefer to invest their limited time and energy into one relationship with one person.

At this point, I'd like to bring up poly-fidelitous arrangements, a sort of half-way house between monogamy and complete non-monogamy - a group of people who only have sex and romantic connection to other people within the group. To me, this actually reinforces the idea that monogamy (as a system) is a chosen system - while it's clear that these people can love more than one person (since the group is more than two) at the same time they're promising EXCLUSIVITY to each other because they, like those who choose monogamous relationships, prefer to invest their limited time and energy into those people within the group.

For all other non-monogamous arrangements, the people prefer to invest their time and energy with multiple people - I don't have to say a whole lot on this, since anyone on this site either knows, or is learning about it :)

These "belief systems" (I use quotation marks because for some people it's belief, some people know it instinctively and some people actively and consciously seek it out) are subject to the fact that we are all human and therefore make mistakes and don't always know what's best for ourselves. The changes from mono->poly or poly->mono are often brought about by shifts in our beliefs, and a greater understand of who we are. However, it's rare that you hear about people who go through the same process of introspection and/or learning but instead of changing their mind, it REINFORCES their belief in their own system. This is important to note, because I believe that each system is a totally valid way of living your life and managing your relationships, as long as you know that it's right for YOU. Any type of relationship borne out of fear and insecurity is a recipe for disaster.
 
Monogamy implies that we can have only one true match and that we are only capable of truly and fully loving one person, and there is a schema that two people marry and establish a unit.

Since I am a student of early Judaism and Christianity, I will add that a primary pair bond developed out of the patriarchy, whereby men owned women, and needed to control "their" women's fertility to ensure they left their other possessions to their own biological offspring only.

Of course, polygyny was common, allowed and practiced BCE (and still is practiced in some Jewish and Muslim communities to this day).

Monogamism developed out of an idea of St Paul's that a Christian bishop should be the husband of just one wife, to ensure he didn't spread himself too thin, and have plenty of time left in the day to focus on God and his church group. This was later extrapolated out into the general public.

Unless you believe St Paul was a true prophet of YHWH, you'll see that his ruling about one man/one woman went against what his Jewish ancestors were doing, with God's apparent blessing, back in the day. YHWH's greatest prophets and heroes all had multiple wives, and still had plenty of time to hear the lord and do his bidding. :p

There is also evidence in the Bible that not only did Jewish men have multiple wives, temple "prostitutes", aka holy ones, of both genders, lived and practiced in the Jewish Temple. Also, orgies at certain holidays were an approved practice (even in the Temple courts!). I have no doubt women also had female lovers, but this isn't mentioned in the Bible, because lesbian sex can't cause pregnancy, and therefore doesn't count. :p
 
One of the most central issues/beliefs I have spent time on is the notion that what makes my love special is the fact is is given to one person.

I really needed to strip that away and build this belief;
My love is special. (FULLSTOP)

This was a process I had to go through for myself, it was part of reevaluting my life and my personal value to myself. It was really important for me to accept that my love is special, in and of itself.

This was a very confronting process.....as I feel quite often the value of our love is validated by the people around us. It’s often the case that other people give our love value. My aim was to remove external validation in order to explore this. I found this to be extremely confronting....initially I felt scared, very, very, scared. For a period of time, I made a conscious decision to not be in a romantic or sexual relationship in order to focus my thoughts on valuing my own love for what it is for me, not for what is was for other people. During this period I spent time studying the way I build relationships, friendships...family, work colleagues...I studied the way or style in which I care for people, I studied the way I love people....I’m not finished this process of course...

But I do firmly believe my love is special. It is special because it is special. The number of people I give it to has no bearing on it’s value (yes...it may for them, I understand that part). This was one core belief that I challenged...quite a few others of course, but this one was central for sure..

I’m not quite sure I’m explaining this very well...I wanted to own my love, it is mine...I may give it to you, and it is mine to give...it will have my value...and you can attach you’re own value too...but it is essentially mine, not yours....

Now, if there is a font to slightly reduce the selfish tone in my words...I’d apply it ;)
 
Another sketch:

"What, aren't I enough for you? Aren't I good enough?"

When this question is asked from within the "paradigm" of monogamy / monogamism, it is taken for granted that one person should be able to supply all of one's most intimate companionship -- to complete satisfaction --, and that dissatisfaction with this purely dyadic "picture" of love must indicate one's partner in love is failing and inadequate.

Saying so doesn't mean voluntary monogamy is "less than" poly. Poly folk generally have a live and let live attitude, wheras most mono folk tend to think their approach is the one correct one.

Monogamy implies that we can have only one true match and that we are only capable of truly and fully loving one person, and there is a schema that two people marry and establish a unit.

The schema and the myth and the reason most people think that monogamy is "correct" is because it is dominant, and it is dominant for a reason. Millions of years of evolutionary biology made humans a 'mostly monogamous' species, along with a lot of birds and a few other mammals. It is a system that produced young that were able to reproduce and spread their genes. That being said, birds and other mammals don't have the option of thinking about the long view of evolutionary biology and whether that is something that really works within a culture, so as humans we are lucky to be able to take advantage of trying out other systems that might just elevate us even further as a species.

People believe in monogamy as a cultural tool because its been handed down to us over many many generations of both thought and physical. Its only recently that humans have had the time and resources to farm less and think about things like romance more, and for the last few thousand years its been monotheism which has dominated most of the world, who wanted to reinforce the system that bred the most people to push the darkness of the wild back, and for good reason.

De-programming oneself from one's dominant culture is not easy but it is hopefully a worthwhile pursuit for those of us that want to spend the time to examine what a life of non-dominant paradigms could potentially offer.
 
Last edited:
The schema and the myth and the reason most people think that monogamy is "correct" is because it is dominant, and it is dominant for a reason. Millions of years of evolutionary biology made humans a 'mostly monogamous' species...

Actually this is not true. Monogamy is a late development, which only came along when agriculture developed. If humans had developed into a naturally monogamous species, no one would ever cheat (and half of all people do), no one would ever get divorced, and there would be only monogamous cultures out there. Try reading Sex at Dawn for more information on this.

If monogamy were natural, we wouldnt need social structures, rewards and punishments (legal or religious) to keep people from straying.

...as humans we are lucky to be able to take advantage of trying out other systems that might just elevate us even further as a species.

People believe in monogamy as a cultural tool because its been handed down to us over many many generations of both thought and physical. Its only recently that humans have had the time and resources to farm less and think about things like romance more, and for the last few thousand years its been monotheism which has dominated most of the world, who wanted to reinforce the system that bred the most people to push the darkness of the wild back, and for good reason.

Interesting. Do monotheism and monogamy go hand in hand? No, not even then. Many Muslims and some Jews still practice non-monogamy, ie, polygamy. Current day hunter gatherers (who spend less time getting food than more "advanced" societies) practice non-monogamy.

I am not sure what you mean by darkness of the wild being controlled by monogamy and monotheism. Monogamy developed so that men could control women's fertility and assure the children the women bore were the men's genetic offspring, for economic reasons. Nowdays, people are marrying less. That has been a late 20th and 21st century development. Even people who do marry have a 50% chance of splitting up, and finding new partners is the next step. So, serial monogamy, dating, kids being raised by the woman's extended family, given money by the state when necessary, all these things have to happen because monogamy is not natural and does not work. We wouldnt need porn, strippers, and prostitutes if we were naturally mono. No one would ever cheat on their spouses.

We wouldnt have the very common phenomenon of people being in love with 2 people at once and feeling like they need to choose between them, and suffering because of it.
 
I said that I'd mention people who have examined their own lives and still choose monogamous arrangements, or even define themselves as monogamous people. A frequent message on this site is that love is an infinite resource, but things like time and energy are not. While someone may be ABLE to love more than one person at once, they may only WANT to feel that with one person at a time. Obviously we're not including anyone who only gets into monogamous relationships because that's what they've been taught (although we shouldn't entirely discount the social learning that happens for years, reinforced all around our society - movies, books, tv shows etc) but people who have realised and understand that they WANT and CHOOSE monogamous relationships for themselves. I guess the best way to explain this is to say that while I think that all humans are ABLE to love more than one person, they are not REQUIRED to love more than one person, or even anyone at all.

I believe the difference between monogamy and non-monogamy as relationship systems can be compared to the people who naturally prefer to have a small group of close friends to a larger group of less close friends. While someone who prefers a small group of close friends would certainly be ABLE to add a new friend into the mix, they might not WANT to. Similarly for monogamous arrangements, someone might be ABLE to love a second person, but they don't WANT to. They understand themselves well enough to know that they prefer to invest their limited time and energy into one relationship with one person.

At this point, I'd like to bring up poly-fidelitous arrangements, a sort of half-way house between monogamy and complete non-monogamy - a group of people who only have sex and romantic connection to other people within the group. To me, this actually reinforces the idea that monogamy (as a system) is a chosen system - while it's clear that these people can love more than one person (since the group is more than two) at the same time they're promising EXCLUSIVITY to each other because they, like those who choose monogamous relationships, prefer to invest their limited time and energy into those people within the group.

For all other non-monogamous arrangements, the people prefer to invest their time and energy with multiple people - I don't have to say a whole lot on this, since anyone on this site either knows, or is learning about it :)

I believe that each system is a totally valid way of living your life and managing your relationships, as long as you know that it's right for YOU. Any type of relationship borne out of fear and insecurity is a recipe for disaster.

Thank you, Z, for your insight, it really helped me think some things through in my own situation right now.

One concept I'm struggling with is "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Personally, that perspective is failing us right now. "If you love someone else, then it's ok for me to go look for someone else, too..." For some reason, we seemed to think that just because one of our hearts (mine) opened for someone new (and as a lovely consequence, my husband's heart opened for him, too), my husband needed to find someone new, too. Is this a Noah's Ark thing??! Everybody must be in pairs??

(Speaking of Bible stories/religion, Wow, Mag -- you refer to "YHWH" -- you must be very current on things. Isn't this something new? And Catholic?)

After reading Z's post, I'm realizing that maybe it's ok to say, "I am most comfortable living in a MFM V relationship. Forcing it into an N is not going so well, and it's ok to admit that just because I could be ok with it eventually, I may not WANT to. I lost sight lately of the freedom gained from living an honest, authentic, life, one of the things I've really embraced in poly. Am I a hypocrite for saying, "It's ok for me to love two, but YOU have to love only ME" -- ? What about, "I am not comfortable with you having casual sex with others, even if I am having sex with two men, because I am committed to our V and I would like you to be, too" -- ? Which brings me back to a more general discussion (and I apologize for getting off on a personal tangent)...

Polyamory is about loving more than one, not just having sex with more than one. Right? I guess I'm confused sometimes in that regard. The book Sex at Dawn is about SEX, not necessarily love. And as far as the reproductive systems are concerned -- what about when you're past fertility? Isn't it clear to see that those things are rather moot after a certain age? With people living longer these days, it seems logical that we are examining relationships differently. Between that and the availability of birth control, it's not all about the babies we are potentially creating anymore.

I just realized that the terms aren't congruent! Mono-gamy is not the same as mono-amory, is it?? Ah, there lies my confusion, possibly...:confused:
 
...(Speaking of Bible stories/religion, Wow, Mag -- you refer to "YHWH" -- you must be very current on things. Isn't this something new? And Catholic?)

No, actually, it's very old, and Jewish. YHWH is the Jewish god's name. Usually pronounced Yahweh. Over the years, it became understood The Name was too sacred to write, so it was traditional to replace the word Yahweh with the term The Lord. Every time you read "The Lord" in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, it stands in for the name Yahweh. (PM me if you want to discuss this, I don't want to get too off topic.)

After reading Z's post, I'm realizing that maybe it's ok to say, "I am most comfortable living in a MFM V relationship. Forcing it into an N is not going so well, and it's ok to admit that just because I could be ok with it eventually, I may not WANT to. I lost sight lately of the freedom gained from living an honest, authentic, life, one of the things I've really embraced in poly. Am I a hypocrite for saying, "It's ok for me to love two, but YOU have to love only ME" -- ?

Yes.

What about, "I am not comfortable with you having casual sex with others, even if I am having sex with two men, because I am committed to our V and I would like you to be, too" -- ?

Yes. Because of course, love can develop from a casual relationship! Happens every day!

Polyamory is about loving more than one, not just having sex with more than one. Right? I guess I'm confused sometimes in that regard. The book Sex at Dawn is about SEX, not necessarily love.

True, but again, where there is sex, there is often love.

And as far as the reproductive systems are concerned -- what about when you're past fertility? Isn't it clear to see that those things are rather moot after a certain age? With people living longer these days, it seems logical that we are examining relationships differently. Between that and the availability of birth control, it's not all about the babies we are potentially creating anymore.

Right. And it actually hasn't been all about babies, for humans, in like, forever. Sex is an important pair bonding activity.
 
For some reason, we seemed to think that just because one of our hearts (mine) opened for someone new (and as a lovely consequence, my husband's heart opened for him, too), my husband needed to find someone new, too.

After reading Z's post, I'm realizing that maybe it's ok to say, "I am most comfortable living in a MFM V relationship. Forcing it into an N is not going so well, and it's ok to admit that just because I could be ok with it eventually, I may not WANT to. I lost sight lately of the freedom gained from living an honest, authentic, life, one of the things I've really embraced in poly. Am I a hypocrite for saying, "It's ok for me to love two, but YOU have to love only ME" -- ? What about, "I am not comfortable with you having casual sex with others, even if I am having sex with two men, because I am committed to our V and I would like you to be, too" -- ? Which brings me back to a more general discussion (and I apologize for getting off on a personal tangent)...

Polyamory is about loving more than one, not just having sex with more than one. Right?

Carma, for lots of people, sex happens before love, in the more casual stages of a relationship. We can't expect everyone else to fall in love instantly and only pursue sex after that happens. In your case, it's the dishonesty that is mucking things up, not the sex, but that's been addressed in other threads of yours.
 
Monogamous animals don't adhere to belief systems...and they do exist therefore monogamy is natural and clearly predates religion and conditioning in my opinion. That being said, Monogamy is definitely a relationship ideal as well though, just like polyamory is both a nature and a belief system I feel.

Which one do I think is the most productive belief system to base a social structure on in a modern capitalist world? Monogamy…specifically serial monogamy because I don't think monogamy is defined by only bonding with one person over an entire unnaturally long lifespan. Polyamourous people spend more time making connections and managing relationship dynamics than mono ones from my point of view and experience. For the most part the major difference I have observed between my old mono community and my newer poly one is the level of success in a capitalistic world. More possessions, more money, more financial and career stability. Why is that? Stability in the relationship allowing for more focus in other areas. Does this make it better as a relationship structure? Absolutely not. It does however give the impression that society has a way of migrating to the most efficient way of doing things to achieve certain forms of social structures. Big capitalistic modern societies generally migrate to monogamy regardless of whether the people involved are all mono or not. Low tech, more nature orientated societies or communal living populations seem to share more, love more and have a greater appreciation for all life and co-existing with the world around them.

Which structure dominates the world and likely will continue to do so? The one with global power and influence - the one we're currently in.

In order for things to change more than just beliefs have to evolve, humans do. What our desires are and what we value as a global community needs to change or whatever structure that supports them will remain dominant. If that structure continues to dominate than that is either what the bulk of society wants or we are being controlled by some very clever and well positioned people who are imposing their beliefs on every one else.
 
Monogamous animals don't adhere to belief systems...and they do exist therefore monogamy is natural and clearly predates religion and conditioning in my opinion.

There are very few monogamous animals. They are an anomaly.

That being said, Monogamy is definitely a relationship ideal as well though, just like polyamory is both a nature and a belief system I feel.

Which one do I think is the most productive belief system to base a social structure on in a modern capitalist world? Monogamy…

Please explain the French.

...specifically serial monogamy because I don't think monogamy is defined by only bonding with one person over an entire unnaturally long lifespan.

Serial monogamy can really impact the wallet.

Polyamourous people spend more time making connections and managing relationship dynamics than mono ones from my point of view and experience. For the most part the major difference I have observed between my old mono community and my newer poly one is the level of success in a capitalistic world. More possessions, more money, more financial and career stability. Why is that? Stability in the relationship allowing for more focus in other areas.

Stability? When at least half of all these materialistic capitalists are cheating and lying like a rug?

Does this make it better as a relationship structure? Absolutely not. It does however give the impression that society has a way of migrating to the most efficient way of doing things to achieve certain forms of social structures. Big capitalistic modern societies generally migrate to monogamy regardless of whether the people involved are all mono or not.

Please pontificate on feminism and women objecting to being treated like possessions.

Low tech, more nature orientated societies or communal living populations seem to share more, love more and have a greater appreciation for all life and co-existing with the world around them.

:)


Which structure dominates the world and likely will continue to do so? The one with global power and influence - the one we're currently in.

Please compare and contrast feminist capitalists (and the cougar culture) to wealthy men and their trophy wives.


we are being controlled by some very clever and well positioned people who are imposing their beliefs on every one else.

It's called a Bible based culture, which affects the most atheistic members of society as much as the religious. We are applying the laws of an Early Iron Age culture (with a warlike jealous male god) to our feminist, anti-slave owning one.
 
There are very few monogamous animals. They are an anomaly.



Please explain the French.



Serial monogamy can really impact the wallet.



Stability? When at least half of all these materialistic capitalists are cheating and lying like a rug?



Please pontificate on feminism and women objecting to being treated like possessions.



:)




Please compare and contrast feminist capitalists (and the cougar culture) to wealthy men and their trophy wives.




It's called a Bible based culture, which affects the most atheistic members of society as much as the religious. We are applying the laws of an Early Iron Age culture (with a warlike jealous male god) to our feminist, anti-slave owning one.

Just passing on my views, opinions and experience. Consider it a stand alone comment.
 
Last edited:
How many of you think being poly or mono is an orientation, and how many think it's a philosophy/belief system? Why or why not?

This topic REALLY interests me, and I myself was going to post something very similar to River's original post.

I am struggling with this very question. I have spent years coming to the realization that I am non-monogamous. Now I am trying to figure out whether my non-monogamy is based on my belief system or on my inherent nature.

Maybe the distinction isn't important, but somehow it feels like it is. I am still in the phase where I need to explain this to myself (let alone other people!) and understand more about it.

I'm definitely leaning toward the philosophy/belief system side.

I've been surprised and somewhat puzzled that most poly people seem to accept (or believe) that some people are mono and others are poly, and that it's an orientation (like being gay).

This view doesn't really make sense to me. Someone who believes they are mono could suddenly fall in love with two people, right? I think all humans have the capacity to be polyamorous (although anyone may also choose to be monogamous, of course).

But maybe I'm wrong. There are so many mono/poly relationships out there, and the idea that each person is oriented toward either mono or poly seems to work for them.

But on the other hand, it seems to me that when a mono person and a poly person have a relationship, the issue really is philosophical: the mono person must accept a polyamorous belief system for the relationship to work, even if she/he has no interest more than one partner.

I guess for me personally the question seems to be: do I accept that I'm inherently different from most people (different from monogamous people, that is), or do I spread the word about my belief system?

Maybe it's not an either-or situation. One of the issues I am dealing with is that I have a lot of anger at the mono-centric culture around me--which is something I have to move past.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Bella ~ "My Love Is Special!" (FULLSTOP) Thank you for this :) those four simple words are so powerful, and such good medicine for me right now.
 
Back
Top