Why polyamory is a CHOICE

[Ravenscroft]

Originally Posted by vinsanity0

it's odd that you felt the need to start a new thread as opposed to keeping the discussion in one thread.

You may feel that it's "odd," but it maybe deserves exploration as to WHY this causes you such feelings, & then into why "odd" is somehow bad.

(As I've recently been reminded, it's a punishable offense here to criticize another person's practice of polyamory. How is that NOT your intent?)

IMO, the OP in the previous thread set out with a specific question in mind. My feeling was that my response would have taken away the OP's right to control that discussion.

I do hope that's adequate for you.

Originally Posted by kdt26417

I've never seen a source that comes right out and defines polyamory as, "successful and with good communication."

And neither did I say any such thing.

First, as we've explored elsewhere, any given source, even a common individual, often attempts to insert other clauses into the dictionary definition of polyamory, such as "ethical." Yet two of the most common poly-related phrases -- for decades -- are "communicate, communicate, communicate!" & "Communications is key!"

As well, one article after another cited in Polyamory In The News brags about how much polyfolk could teach monofolk about clear, effective communication... yet somehow THAT doesn't receive criticism.

I've also corrected myself, noting that "communication" is inadequate if it's nothing but two (or more) parties merely making mouth-noises, without any proper conversation taking place... but generally we're stuck with the incorrect word, which therefore drags along incorrect concepts.

Many people are imperfect conversationalists. This only gets worse when emotions get turned up: people SUCK at sticking to the actual core matters when they're hurt, sad, angry, afraid, etc. ... which is to say, at EXACTLY the moments when conversation is VITAL.

Certainly, few people will EVER achieve "perfect communication." However, that looks like a disingenuous dodge, like "if it's impossible to do perfectly, right from the very beginning, then it's not worth attempting."

I disagree. One honest conversation can make all the difference of a moment, & in fact -- like lies -- one honest dialogue leads to another.

And -- despite some apparent efforts to disrespect my topic & to derail discussion -- let's bring it back around:

Nothing about general nonmonogamy requires dialogue. People are free to run around & fuck whoever they want & however many, & not even speak a common language much less be able (or willing) to develop & encourage deep interpersonal bonds.

Generally, though, polyamory is all about such bonds.

Problem-solving IS NOT innate to humans; it must be learned, & practiced. Self-awareness (introspection) IS NOT innate. Empathy, cooperation, conversation... none of these arrives fully-developed in people.

Nonmonogamy has no inherent need of any such nuance. The various practices overlap because of shared animal instincts of sex-drive, often "elevated" into fluff like Love or Romance.

So, generalized nonmonogamy is indeed natural. That includes swinging, furtive affairs, drunken one-night stands, anonymous sex in alleyways, & prostitution, as well as polyamory, group marriage, polygamy, & polyfidelity. They are all expressions of basic animal drives.

Relational forms aren't natural. Monogamy is artificial, an elevation of the basic male/female reproductive pair. Polyamory recognizes the failures of Monogamism; IMO, its saving grace is that while it is unnatural, polyamory tries for something higher, reaching to turn our animal drives toward some (perhaps tenuous) sense of community, of connection, without imposing restraints in the manner of Monogamism.

The drive to sex/affection/whatever with multiple others is nonmonogamy, & is natural. People are born that way, or sometimes maybe not.

But nobody is born polyamorous: being that way requires work.

[Ravenscroft]

Originally Posted by AutumnLeaves

People ARE queer, trans, poly, and all sorts of other things. We should respect them and what they say about their own identities. Period.

I don't disagree. I thought I'd made that clear, but perhaps that was another thread. Heck, I don't even like separating "cis" from "trans": in our hearts, we are the gender that we are, period.

But there is a tendency toward one-upmanship that might be another aspect of humanity. IME, the "always known" faction often sets itself up as somehow superior to boneheads like me who clearly remember "just now figuring it out."

Call it a bias, but my experience is that "always been" is less likely than "always known." When I was first exploring my bisexuality, I was very fortunate to have a gay friend I could talk to & get emotional support from. I'd always kinda assumed I was bi, but going from "vaguely theoretical" to "there's a really cute guy making eyes at me" turned out to be a MUCH bigger leap than I'd anticipated.

I'd argue that I wasn't bisexual until I at least had developed a mad crush on a man. Until that point, it remained in "interesting idea" mode.

Maybe if there'd been something like a "bi community" -- as in an actual physical place with actual verifiable people in it -- my feelings could be more nuanced. The opportunity to see how others of a similar inclination comport themselves in public, to openly speak with them about my fledgeling feelings -- with those at about the same developmental stage as well as those of vast experience -- to obtain truly empathetic support from actual peers... wow.

(FWIW, very few "poly" people have spent any significant time around others so self-identified, much less experienced, aside from the one or two with which they are or wish to become involved. More's the pity. )

[JapinaTricycle]

Wow, Ravenscroft, you have some guts to start this thread the way you did.

Could I suggest you edit your introduction?

[Al99]

Could I suggest you edit your introduction?

Just a note on the mechanics - the edit window is only 12 hours, long enough for the original poster to take a second look and add additional thoughts if they desire and correct typos. After that the post cannot be changed by the poster, only by an admin/moderator. Al

[vinsanity0]

Originally Posted by Ravenscroft

You may feel that it's "odd," but it maybe deserves exploration as to WHY this causes you such feelings, & then into why "odd" is somehow bad.

(As I've recently been reminded, it's a punishable offense here to criticize another person's practice of polyamory. How is that NOT your intent?)

IMO, the OP in the previous thread set out with a specific question in mind. My feeling was that my response would have taken away the OP's right to control that discussion.

I do hope that's adequate for you.
.

Where did I say odd was bad. Interesting the you inferred such a thing.

Nor have I criticized "your way" of doing poly. I do, however, criticize your way of trying to force your beliefs on others with an almost religious fervor.

[kdt26417]

Re (from Ravenscroft):

"Certainly, few people will *ever* achieve 'perfect communication.' However, that looks like a disingenuous dodge, like, 'If it's impossible to do perfectly, right from the very beginning, then it's not worth attempting.'"

Au contraire. My position is that no matter how well someone communicates, they should still (be motivated to) strive to do better. But what I was trying to get at in this thread is, who sets the standard for what counts as "good" communication, and if no one does, then we can't determine whether any relationship has the good communication required to work/count as poly.

I said:

"I've never seen a source that comes right out and defines polyamory as, 'successful and with good communication.'"

You replied:

"And neither did I say any such thing."

To which I say:
You didn't say it in those exact words. Maybe it's the difference between "defined as" and "requires." And I am saying that polyamory with "poor" communication can exist.

[ref2018]

Originally Posted by kdt26417

And I am saying that polyamory with "poor" communication can exist.

[Ravenscroft]

Originally Posted by kdt26417

I am saying that polyamory with "poor" communication can exist.

And by saying that, you are (again ) intimating that you are somehow correcting my gross overstatement.

I say (again) that I said no such thing.

Do you drive? Go out to your car, & drain off half the oil. Don't re-add; drive it for a couple thousand miles.

I was a garage mechanic for a few years (my first vo-tech path). It's long been common knowledge that you can drive around with a vehicle low on oil & coolant & transmission fluid & brake fluid, with balding/flaking & underinflated tires, with even squealing brakes & no windshield wipers, & 99+% of the time you'll do just fine.

You seem to be arguing that none of these things is significant to the act of "driving a car" because no one of them -- & even all of them put together -- will stop that act from occurring, & anyway none are explicitly required in the definition of "driving a car."

(There isn't even a physical requirement for a driving license, much less plates or insurance, therefore (as you'd apparently claim) such bureaucratic nonsense does nothing to prevent you from turning the key & driving off.)

Meanwhile, I am aware of the overengineering involved, & yet am saying these "safety margins" are not only a GREAT idea, but in fact are NECESSARY to RESPONSIBLY driving a car.

For this, you belittle & even ridicule the notion.

Which of us is foolish?

None of that maintenance happens merely because you're a "natural driver."

Likewise, having a perfectly clean driving record won't help you much if the direct result is a breakdown or a collision -- "past performance is no guarantee of future results."

People certainly CAN "do poly" (or something sort-of like it) without gaining the skills I discuss, but it's a very rude awakening when they hit some minor difficulty & their entire "lifestyle" falls apart. Worse, they get encouraged to learn NOTHING from the experience, to lah-de-dah go & do it again (maybe with a different troupe) in expectation that it was just bad luck, or sabotage by others, rather than an inherent non-understanding of what the hell they THINK they're trying to accomplish.

And personal choice is one thing. Encouraging others to act in such a manner, though, is (IMNSHO) irresponsible at best.

[kdt26417]

People are not cars. What works for one person is not necessarily the same as what works for another person.

[lunabunny]

This is such a semantic argument.

To all of the above, I'd say:

Being "polyamorous" or "monoamorous" may be similar to sexual orientation, in that a person may be more inclined to one or the other. (i.e. Some people have the ability to be "in love with" / love romantically, more than one person simultaneously, while others find they're capable of loving only one person at a time in this manner.)

This is different to being non-monogamous by nature, which many would argue most/all human beings are naturally, or would be, if not for our mono-normative society's indoctrination.

However, the mindful intentional practice of polyamory (and monogamy) is a choice, because, no matter what our personal, internal inclinations may be, as human beings capable of reason and free choice, we get to DECIDE what relationship shape/s we wish to pursue, and do the work necessary to accomplish those goals.