Is polyamory a sexual identity, just like being queer?

Interesting topic. I consider it a continuum (like the gingerbread man illustration.) I'm probably closer to neutral on the poly/mono continuum. I am capable of romantically loving one person at the same time & have done so... but I'm perfectly content to love just one. I'm open to making more connections but I have no desire to actively seek connections.

On the other hand, Blue is very clearly poly. For the many years before he tried poly, one of two things would happen. He'd either have frequent breakups/reconciliations with partners in order to pursue someone, or, he'd cheat. He didn't like cheating, it didn't give him the rush that serial cheaters get. Instead, it made him feel defective and sad, and ultimately self-defeating (when his relationships would implode.) When the repetition became too much, he sought out another way (poly.)
 
I don't see being polyamorous as much as having to do with the numbers of people I am dating, it has to do with the way I fall in love and how my emotions relate to that. I could be single all my life, or date only one person, and I would still feel the way I feel.

Never in my life have I experienced that falling in love with one person has made me fall out of love with another. I always stayed strongly in love, and often after a breakup (weather or not I willed it) I had to work hard to let go of the other person emotionally. Also, it was never hard for me to fall in love, even falling in love deeply. I feel a bit ashamed even writing this, but as a 12 year old I was in love with 3 people at a time (two of which also had a thing for each other) - when I was in my early 20's I thought that just meant I had been young and immature.

I have had monogamous relationships, they definetely work for me. I didn't feel something was "lacking", but I was always very flirty. Then after getting married, I clearly fell in love with another man. After that did not work out, and I met N, I feel really settled in ways I had not felt before. The way I mostly see it is in my almost complete lack of interest for flirting with anyone ever. Dating two men has made me very dull in the sense that I hardly ever look at others. So, shall I take it to mean that I thrive? I do. Does it mean that this is the only way? Probably not. It does mean that it takes more to keep me within the bonds of monogamy. Still I also know that many ways of doing polyamory does no sit well with me, so the chances are typical monogamy would serve me better than the typical "all my boyfriends and then my lovers"-scenario.

That is the problem, rellly, I guess; comparing monogamy and polyamory is like comparing vegetables and fruit, and sometimes I would like to answer that I prefer semi-sweet.
 
@ River ... is cheating always an aberrance (from monogamy, polyamory, swing or whatever), or can it be an orientation in and of itself do you think? that is, are some cheaters, well, "wired" to be cheaters?
 
Well, cheating can be rooted in things such as insecurity or thrill for the forbidden. In such cases, you'll probably have a recurring pattern of cheating until the underlying issue is addressed. In other cases, cheating is a one-time kind of thing and not a chronic thing.

I don't think I would consider it an orientation though. Even when it reoccurring it's more like a disorder or a condition (not the cheating itself but what causes it). Calling it an orientation gives the idea that some people just can't help but cheat, or that someone who has cheated once will always cheat. I think those ideas are dangerous. They associate the person with the actions. People can and do change. Cheating, being a behaviour, isn't something I would consider an orientation. Being attracted to people while in a relationship, sure. But then there are many different ways to act in this situation, and cheating is only one of them.
 
It's clear that there are many differences of opinion here, as well as many different personal experiences. Putting my work-hat on for a moment though (I'm a scientific researcher), I'm curious to know one thing: what does it matter? In other words, what do you think the implications are? If polyamory is, as some of you believe, an orientation or a sexual identity, does that give it more impact or traction within society? If it's a choice, should it be something we educate others upon, so that people are aware of it as an option? Does an answer give polyamory a certain status in your eyes? If so, in what way?

Basically, what do we do with this concept? Why is this an important question?

The reason I ask is that I wonder if polyamory faces the same kinds of acceptance problems as something like having a minority sexual orientation, even if it's actually a different kind of thing altogether. To explain, if I consult my own experience I would say that for me polyamory not an identity/orientation: it is a relationship style I have chosen because it better fits the needs of my personality type, my current life-style, Nina's personality type, her current life-style, and the relationship that we have built together. If any of those things were to change, then I would re-evaluate whether a polyamorous relationship were still a good fit for me. It doesn't feel like a thing I cannot influence with conscious choice, like who I am sexually attracted to is. For me, that's an orientation. I don't 'choose' who I find attractive, but I do choose whether and when I act on an attraction. I have the hots for who I have the hots for, but I decide for myself whether I want to pursue people one at a time or in parallel, and if I've already agreed to be in a monogamous relationship for some reason, then I need to renegotiate that agreement with my current partner and take their preferences into account too.

You can see I'm drawing a distinction between my sexual orientation (being something I don't feel I choose) and being in a polymorous relationship (being something I might prefer, but ultimately decide upon with a partner). However, unlike many who see sexual orientation (gay, hetero, bi, pan, etc) as strongly innate part of your personhood, I have *actually* experienced it as something that can shift quite dramatically over time - and this complicates things a little. The fact that a person's sexuality (mine, in this case) can change over time implies to me that it's not strongly innate at all, but rather is something that straddles that middle ground between choice, conditioning, and natural instinct.
If I talk about sexual orientation being a flexible, malleable thing however, I rub up against opposition both internally (it feels like a dangerous thing to admit to) and from friends in the LGBT community. It seems that in having the whole world think that being LGBT is not a choice, we somehow earn some protection from those who have ideas that being LGBT is wrong. If we contradict that claim, we risk reducing societal acceptance and basically a return to LGBT-hood being seen as a pathology of some kind. Does polyamory fall into this same camp do you think? Is even asking this question ('is polyamory a sexual identity, just like being queer?') perhaps opening a pandoras box that we don't want to delve into?
 
The fact that a person's sexuality (mine, in this case) can change over time implies to me that it's not strongly innate at all, but rather is something that straddles that middle ground between choice, conditioning, and natural instinct.
If I talk about sexual orientation being a flexible, malleable thing however, I rub up against opposition both internally (it feels like a dangerous thing to admit to) and from friends in the LGBT community. It seems that in having the whole world think that being LGBT is not a choice, we somehow earn some protection from those who have ideas that being LGBT is wrong. If we contradict that claim, we risk reducing societal acceptance and basically a return to LGBT-hood being seen as a pathology of some kind. Does polyamory fall into this same camp do you think? Is even asking this question ('is polyamory a sexual identity, just like being queer?') perhaps opening a pandoras box that we don't want to delve into?

I'd agree that my sexual orientation is a flexible, malleable thing that has changed over the years. I've read studies that claim that's more common with women, less so with men though I don't know how true that is? It makes sense to me that our orientation (and our love style if we call poly/mono love styles) could change and evolve, just as other aspects of our personalities change and evolve with our life experiences. I do think that love style is probably more easily changed than orientation. But, that's just speculation based on GLBT family members who struggled unsuccessfully to change their orientation before finally accepting it.

For me, my orientation change was more like waking a sleeping dragon... until I considered that women might be a viable option for me, they weren't a viable option. Once I recognized that I could be physically attracted to women (I was already emotionally attracted to them), I became physically attracted to women.
 
is cheating always an aberrance (from monogamy, polyamory, swing or whatever), or can it be an orientation in and of itself do you think? that is, are some cheaters, well, "wired" to be cheaters?
Sometimes people make mistakes and regret them. As for repeated cheating, it would be a little weird calling "I can do it, behind your back, I trust you don't" an orientation, I mean it is just lying, basically. Of course people can be more or less wired to tell the truth, or stick to deals they made, or make good deals for themselves in the general sense, but I am not sure that is an orientation. If you want no rules you can just call it relationship anarchy. If you want the rule to apply to everyone but you, you issues are of a different kind.
 
Last edited:
So ... cheating itself is not polyamorous ... but can the cheater be polyamorous (on another level)?

Unfortunately, this is a huge problem in the poly world in my area. I know several people who are sincerely poly at heart, but because they have a DADT along with dishonesty. I wouldn't deny that they are poly, but those specific issues I don't feel are proper examples of an actual "poly" functioning relationship. It would be like taking sex advice from a virgin; that level of intimacy via honesty is simply not there, regardless of how much the heart might truly feel.
 
Saying that someone was genetically born a cheater would be like saying someone was genetically born an alcoholic. While it's probably true that some people were born with an addictive personality that alcohol happens to be a problem for. (I have an addictive personality but stimulants like caffeine and gambling would be more my vices. Oh, and forums, blogs, and Facebook). But just because it's true that you were wired for cheating doesn't mean it is healthy and alternative ways to feed or control that desire should be used in order to live a happy and healthy life. Whether poly, swinging, medication, or even accountability, you can find things and ways to overcome addictive traits that you were born with if they are not healthy.

Being poly is not unhealthy as long as you know what your doing and are honest with yourself and others. So I wouldn't worry about being wired that way.
 
Re:
"Saying that someone was genetically born a cheater would be like saying someone was genetically born an alcoholic."

Even if some people appear to have some kind of genetic propensity toward alcoholism, that doesn't mean alcoholism is good or even okay (for them or anyone else). But I guess that is a dangerous thing to say if homosexuality is defended as a genetic proclivity.

@ tenK ... maybe poly can be viewed as an identity/orientation that might change over time?
 
Re:


Even if some people appear to have some kind of genetic propensity toward alcoholism, that doesn't mean alcoholism is good or even okay (for them or anyone else). But I guess that is a dangerous thing to say if homosexuality is defended as a genetic proclivity.

@ tenK ... maybe poly can be viewed as an identity/orientation that might change over time?

I think you would then have to prove that there was something about homosexuality that was bad for you or unhealthy. Something other than the stigma produced by society for being homosexual, I actually don't see any unhealthy things about it.
 
Is homosexuality-justified-by-its-genetic-roots then an idea whose time will come and go? Maybe GLBT defenders should abandon that particular argument right away, given its potential flaw. "What if homosexuality really is a choice?" "Well, even if it is, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad choice."

"Why would anyone *choose* to be gay? Society punishes that choice far more than anyone would want to endure." "Is poly, then, an equally unpleasant choice? After all, plenty of poly people feel like they have to be in the closet about it."

Maybe poly hasn't paid the price for its "orientation stance" like homosexuality has?
 
Is homosexuality-justified-by-its-genetic-roots then an idea whose time will come and go? Maybe GLBT defenders should abandon that particular argument right away, given its potential flaw. "What if homosexuality really is a choice?" "Well, even if it is, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad choice."

"Why would anyone *choose* to be gay? Society punishes that choice far more than anyone would want to endure." "Is poly, then, an equally unpleasant choice? After all, plenty of poly people feel like they have to be in the closet about it."

Maybe poly hasn't paid the price for its "orientation stance" like homosexuality has?

I'm in agreement with you. The only thing the choice vs genetics argument helps them with is against religious pressure. Take religion out of the equation and it really just comes down to whether the behavior is healthy or not. I would definitely arguing that forcing a group of people into the closet about anything would create unhealthy behaviors. In my opinion once someone begins doing something society views as wrong, they have a tendency to lose sight of what right and wrong even is. When they finally find it again they could have already gotten involved in behaviors that may be unhealthy for them.

I wish society would talk about wrong and right in the sense of hurting people or not hurting people. And then have a separate category for healthy and unhealthy. It would make drawing clear boundaries for yourself a lot easier. And boundaries that actually make sense given the knowledge we have at the time. It individualizes it more and makes us pay more attention to our needs, desires, ect. What's healthy for you may not be healthy for me.
 
Re:
"I wish society would talk about wrong and right in the sense of hurting people or not hurting people."

Amen.

Although I suppose some would say, "Well, being gay [and/or poly] causes you to go to Hell, so right there you're hurting someone."

And, "Well, being gay [and/or poly] hurts your church, your family, your community, and society as a whole." Am I right? :mad:
 
Is homosexuality-justified-by-its-genetic-roots then an idea whose time will come and go? Maybe GLBT defenders should abandon that particular argument right away, given its potential flaw. "What if homosexuality really is a choice?" "Well, even if it is, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad choice."

"Why would anyone *choose* to be gay? Society punishes that choice far more than anyone would want to endure." "Is poly, then, an equally unpleasant choice? After all, plenty of poly people feel like they have to be in the closet about it."

Maybe poly hasn't paid the price for its "orientation stance" like homosexuality has?

It all depends on where you live (and etc.), but I've found that I'm generally accepted by most people as a "gay man" (folks assume I'm gay because I've been with the same man for decades) in my neck of the woods. People are used to gay people these days -- in my neck fo the woods.

Bi people tend to be met with a bit more confusion or reluctance.

But poly folks? Shoot. We poly folk really tend to get the short end of the stick.

I think being poly is significantly more stigmatized in many quarters than being gay or bi. It's pretty damn sad, that.
 
Re:


Amen.

Although I suppose some would say, "Well, being gay [and/or poly] causes you to go to Hell, so right there you're hurting someone."

And, "Well, being gay [and/or poly] hurts your church, your family, your community, and society as a whole." Am I right? :mad:

That would be the archaic church narrative. As well as a bunch of other stupid ways they try to justify their hate. (Ex - homosexuality causes STD's. When reality is that anal sex causes more STDs. The relationship that causes the least STDs is lesbian sex, so by that standard we should all be lesbian) or worse yet the procreation argument when we live in a world rife with overpopulation. It's all really illogical crap that really has no basis in reality. And all because in my opinion Paul who wrote over half the New Testament happened to be sexist and homophobic. Jesus never gave that message from anything available to us today.
 
@ River ... is cheating always an aberrance (from monogamy, polyamory, swing or whatever), or can it be an orientation in and of itself do you think? that is, are some cheaters, well, "wired" to be cheaters?

A cheater is basically, most fundamentally, a liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission

There are a number of possible meanings for "being wired" (to be a certain way), but I'm going to take a stand for an ethical sensibility in which being honest is a choice we can all make -- or fail to make. Our faliure to live up to honesty is nothing we can blame on "our wiring".

Now, my being bi? I was born this way. I've always been this way. I have no idea what it would be like to be striclty "gay" or "straight" -- not from the inside. I never have.
 
A cheater is basically, most fundamentally, a liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission

There are a number of possible meanings for "being wired" (to be a certain way), but I'm going to take a stand for an ethical sensibility in which being honest is a choice we can all make -- or fail to make. Our faliure to live up to honesty is nothing we can blame on "our wiring".

Now, my being bi? I was born this way. I've always been this way. I have no idea what it would be like to be striclty "gay" or "straight" -- not from the inside. I never have.

While a cheater is a liar, so is an alcoholic, a drug addict, or pretty much anybody else doing something unhealthy their spouse would not approve of and then lying about it. But I'm not sure the act of lying sums up the whole problem.

I guess that bids an interesting question though. Is a cheater any more likely to have a successful relationship in a poly world than mono? If you take away the need to lie in order to live your life the way you want does it make it any less likely that the person will still step outside the bounds of what their spouse deems acceptable?
 
I guess that bids an interesting question though. Is a cheater any more likely to have a successful relationship in a poly world than mono?


Honesty is at -- or VERY near -- the top of my list of those qualities which must be present in order for there to be a "succesful relationship" -- a bacic criteria of "success". If one is lying about important matters, then, there can be no successful relationship. What you have, instead, is a sham, a ruse, a fraud....
 
What about "cheating in plain sight?" such as, your spouse knows you're seeing someone, but doesn't consent. If you continue to see them without your spouse's permission, is that cheating without the lying?
 
Back
Top