Poly principles vs. mono principles

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

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

Redpepper is teaching me a lot about opening my mind to other lifestyles, social influences and the people that make up the world. I aproach this knew awareness with interest but not the same passion she has.
My life is really very simple in many ways.
 
I'm a little lost in this Ceoli, please help me understand. I do not live as society tells me I am supposed to (poly relationship). I chose not to concern myself with the judgement of that society....how is that a right that others don't have? It's a choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I brought this up because you asked me why I would be concerned with the ideals of monogamy. You then perceived my answer as nothing more than seeking acceptance in order to be comfortable with myself. I'm just offering the explanation of why this is not the case. Privilege has a lot to do with that. I'm not saying or implying that you should or shouldn't do anything with that privilege. Just laying out why I choose to do what I do with mine.
 
Poly people may not be doing anything illegal by living together (although it should be noted that in Canada it still is illegal and is currently in the process of being upheld and enforced),

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

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

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

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

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

http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2009/11/canadian-legal-followup-call-for-poly.html
 
According to this site: http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2009/09/crucial-polygamy-case-thrown-out-in.html

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

]

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

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

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

Simply because an unjust law hasn't been enforced isn't reason enough to not call for it's repeal.
 
I wouldn't say that. A mono friend of ours says he simply wouldn't have the energy or interest in trying to maintain more than one relationship. He's not mono because he thinks it's more moral or that a commitment relies on exclusivity or anything else; he simply doesn't want more than one romantic relationship to deal with at a time.

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

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

That makes total sense. And honestly, I've never ruled out the idea of being monogamous at some point or another in life. It could happen or it might not happen. But my reasons are not because I would see poly as too hard or monogamy as a more normal thing. It's more about being open to relationships in any form the come to me. And I just don't see that much of a difference between them. Plus I've learned to never say never..... :)
 
It has also been used only twice in 100 years and is directed at polygamists who use multiple marraigeS primarily in abusive ways towards young women. I see no wrong in that. It has never been used against a poly person as far as my research indicates.

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

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

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

Call for Intervenors

November 13, 2009

Court case: Upcoming BC Government's Court Reference on the Criminalization of Polygamy and Group Marriages
 
Last edited:
Ah Nuts...now I have work to do...there's been a lot of discussion about this on a yahoo group on this since the call came up for intervenors in BC case with regards to this section 293. <sigh>

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

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

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

Yep...the conversation I cross-posted came from same Vanpoly yahoo group that they would be meeting with. Their other website is www.vanpoly.ca.
 
rolypoly;12299 - He must make all the first moves - He must commit to me early on - I would even say said:
So you are saying these are things that you feel have been stressed to you by your family/upbringing? That monogamy means that a man bends over backward for the woman he intends to marry? Wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really think this is GREAT!:D This makes a lot of sense to me and puts it in a way that is very simple. I think a lot of discussions and arguments I have had with people (mono and poly) are all about these two items listed above. In a nutshell. Good work!
 
What I am seeing in some poly relationship descriptions are these exact same things. But I think it is called Polyfidelity - which is confusing to me....I thought a major point of poly was to give your partner(s) the freedom to explore any/all relationships? But some people have these 'closed' poly groups.....which I don't understand. Is it possible some poly's are monogamous poly's? (Or am I opening a GIGANTIC can of worms on that?)

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

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

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

I hope this helps

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

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

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

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

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

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

wording.

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

my opinion/perception of underlying principles:

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

2.



Mono:

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

2.


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

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

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

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

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

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