Note: since
this is really a blog post and not an academic paper, I’m choosing to cite my
sources by putting in links rather than having A Standard Format bibliography.
This was
originally a “response to bad takes on the internet” kind of post, specifically
about the definition of polyamory from r/polyamory. I wanted to get this out on
November 23rd, which is apparently World Polyamory Day, but then I
realised I hadn’t really done the topic justice and found interesting new
sources, and so it got pushed back to now. While missing that opportune timing
is unfortunate, I’m glad this has turned into something more than just internet
drama.
Here are
some definitions/descriptions of polyamory:
A) “Polyamory is openly, honestly, and consensually loving and being
committed to more than one person.”— r/polyamory subreddit.
B) "the practice, state[,] or ability of
having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full
knowledge and consent of all partners involved." – Zell Ravenheart (person
who wrote the first article in which the word appeared, according to Wikipedia).
C) “Polyamory describes a form of relationship
where it is possible, valid and worthwhile to maintain (usually long-term)
intimate and sexual relationships with multiple partners simultaneously” – Poly/logue: A Critical
Introduction to Polyamory.
D) “the practice of consensually and with mutual
interest negotiating desire for more than one [loving] relationship” – Alexis
Shotwell, ‘Ethical Polyamory, Responsibility, and Significant Otherness.’
[This is a great title].
Although getting at
similar things these, are quite different and grounded in the description polyamory as actions/potential for actions. For instance, the r/polyamory description explicitly
requires (active) commitment to more than one person, whereas the other definitions
only require that this is a possibility. The Alexis Shotwell definition is the only one which references an internal state (desire) but still emphasises the action of "negotiating". That said, she also elaborates that she doesn't believe one stops being polyamorous just because they are not involved in a relationship. We can read "negotiating" as also allowing for self-negotiation in that case.
To turn these into identities we have to assume something like "A person can describe themselves as polyamorous if they engage in the activity of polyamory" in which the identity, under definitions A) and C), require external world activity. Conversely, definition B) requires only the “ability” of having more than one “sexual loving” relationship but this can still be read to excludes those whose circumstances prevent them from establishing such relationships even though they want to (and includes those who could establish such relationships even if they didn’t want to). As for definition D), the presumed self-negotiation could be an internal activity.
The other thing that bothers me about most
of these is the way they emphasise consent as if that’s not already implicit.
This is the same reason I don’t like the term “ethically non-monogamous”. These definitions anticipate protests from people who believe “engaging in multiple
romantic/sexual/intimate relationships” = “cheating” and in doing so center other's comfort and understanding. It’s a definition that doesn’t serve
the people to which it applies. While I understand the practical reasons
for such a definition (e.g., optics, gaining acceptance) it is still
unsatisfactory. Particularly because polyamory is also not so fringe an idea as
it once was. The sentences “Sarah is dating both June and Jack. She is …” is
most naturally completed by the world “polyamorous”. Or maybe non-monogamous (but
this feels much more clinical and, as an aside, still centers monogamy as the default).
If someone finds themselves questioning whether they want to be intimately
involved with multiple people, they’ll likely come across the word “polyamory”
before anything else. Despite being particular it’s also the generic word one
would use to describe being romantically involvement of multiple people even
though this situation could work in very different ways.
This said, having read more of Alexis Shotwell's paper, I feel like her definition is by far the best of these. This is because her definition includes monogamy since monogamous relationships also requires negotiation over one's potential desire for other relationships and I find this encompassing very satisfying in some ways. That said, I would argue that a lot of the examples she uses as the example of questions that come up in these negotiations aren't really about desires for relationships. For instance hook-ups, thinking anime characters/celebrities during during sex, and watching porn aren't necessarily (or even usually [citation needed]) about a desires for a relationship (except under a very broad definition of relationship at which point the original definition becomes too fluid to be usable). Rather, they're often [citation needed] purely about the stimuli and one need not necessarily desire a relationship rather than just the fantasy of one.
Also, while I like that the definition D) includes monogamy, this also makes it ill-suited as an identity label. Indeed, if it is not distinct from monogamy, but rather encompasses it, then one cannot distinguish themselves meaningfully by claiming to be 'polyamorous'. This is not a criticism of this definition; I understand that it's a function of the definition in that it forces one to see relationships as a whole in a new light and I think that's valuable. But, similarly, it is also valuable to be able to identify oneself which also requires differentiation.
Anyway, the actual thing I want to talk about is the debate over whether polyamory should be considered akin the use "polyamory" as descriptive of what you do (external) vs what you feel (internal). It's used in both ways, and this inconsistency is seen both between individuals and within individuals (see this paper). The more common view (at least on Reddit) is that it should only be used as descriptive of what you do, e.g., “I am polyamorous” should only mean “I am actively participating in multiple romantic relationships”, but this sort of attitude is also quite evident in definitions A) - C) and, at least partially, D) too.
In Mia Mulder’s
recent video about identity,
one key point was that some people more or less consider all identities as
“descriptive” rather than “aspirational”. As another aside, this is the reason I use any
pronouns: I feel like if someone does truly have a very narrow understanding of
gender then, personally, I’d rather let them describe me in whatever words fit
their own mental model. (However, I will find it very weird if their mental
model amounts to undue concern over my genitalia and probably won’t interact
with them much. And, of course, people should respect other’s choices for how
they’d like to be described.)
In view of this, I don’t think it’s weird that some people take a hardline stance either way over whether one can use “polyamory” as descriptive of externalities vs internalities, but more so that it appears as if this applies specifically to polyamory compared to other possible identities. It’s not that they believe that all identities should be descriptive of one’s actions, but rather that polyamory is somehow special. As Meg Barker puts it, “The way in which people conduct their relationships (monogamous, polyamorous, or otherwise) seems to have a more complex relationship to self-identity [than sexual orientation does].” This is discussed by Christian Klesse here who argues against viewing polyamory as a sexual orientation. On a practical level he criticizes a biological essentialist view of sexual orientation, since (among other things) it offers limited practical benefits (citing, for instance, the difficulty in demonstrating persecution asylum seekers face when presenting a bisexual history). He also argues that the sexual orientation framework "arrests the multi-directional flows of desire" in that ascribes to a group people an unchangeable characteristic. I’m inclined to, somewhat, agree; I’m not fond of the biological essentialism in general. That said, I don’t view sexual orientations this way in the first place and (although now I’m wondering if this is the ‘default’ way to view them and if I should abandon the concept entirely). However, that paper is based around political and legal frameworks for identification, rather than personal identification, which is what I’m focused on so it ma be the meaning shifts between these two modes of thoughts. In any case, let me clarify how I think about identification.
Words such
as “bisexual” or “polyamorous” could (in principle) be used to describe not
just “what you do” or “what you feel” but also “what you do (external world)” (e.g., engage
romantically with multiple genders) or “what you do (internally)” (e.g., experience
romantic attraction to multiple genders) or “who you are (self-identity)”. It
seems that “bi”, and most orientation labels, are used in the latter two senses
almost interchangeably (although I know of people who do not identify by the
attraction they experience). All identities
possess this duality: there’s a base level descriptive meaning and an
associated cultural context which coexist and inform each other. To further illustrate
this point, consider how orientation identities are based around gender rather
than any other characteristics like “tallness” or “musical ability.” It’s
normal to say, “I’m straight/gay/ect.,” but it would be weird to say, “I’m
musician-attracted” (even though musicians are typically quite attractive). This
is because “musician-attracted” does not have enough cultural context
communicate nearly as much orientation labels do. There’s a shared
understanding of experience of having certain types of attraction and saying “I’m lesbian/bi/ect.,” suggests that maybe you share other characteristics with
individuals who identify themselves similarly. It’s a showing of solidarity
rather than functioning purely as descriptive.
To summarize,
for me identities are words with both a foundational descriptive use and a cultural
context which mutually inform each other. Although identification with sexual
orientation labels has roots in biological essentialism, I think we’re at a
point where these identifications can be used without any such assumptions about ‘innateness’.
Bearing in
mind this framework: if it is reasonable to claim the bisexual identity because they
experience attraction to multiple genders then is it also reasonable to claim the polyamorous identity if they experience a desire and willingness to have multiple
romantic connections at the same time? I think it is. The external world alternative
seems too restrictive, and it would difficult to delineate the boundaries in such a case.
For each of the definitions A) - D) consider if a person could claim to be "polyamorous" if their dating interests and history were completely described by following situations.
a) You were in an (enjoyable and unregretted) polyamorous relationship but you’re now either dating at most one person. You may be open to polyamorous relationships in the future.
b) You're interested in dating more than one person, but are entirely unsuccessful.
c) You engage in romantic-seeming activities with several people, such
as going on dates, and appear as if you practice polyamory but really
all these acts are non-romantic for you.
I suggest that the definitions give the answers as in Table 1. The r/polyamory definition A) requires external world activity and that the relationships are loving (i.e., romantic) so it's a no all around. The Zell Ravenheart definition B) requires that the relationships are loving but also that one has the ability to have more than one. The Poly/logue definition also requires possibility but does not specify that the relationships need to be romantic (only intimate and/or sexual). Finally D) allows for self-negotiation of desire for multiple (loving) relationships. I think it's only the last that aligns with my own sense of what counts as a polyamorous relationship and the reason it can do this is because it allows for qualification based on what is internal.
A B C D
a N Y Y Y
b N N N Y
c N N Y N
Table 1
As discussed, definition D) is too general to be used as a basis for identity, but it does highlight value of internality, and especially whether that internality should be internal activity (which is intentional) or internal desires (which are automatic). At this point I'll throw my own hat (definition) into the ring (list of definitions)
E) polyamory is state of desiring, and being willing to engage in, multiple simultaneous romantic relationships
I believe a definition grounded in internalities, such as D) or E), is best for the following reasons.
Consistency
Taking the
word to describe internalities is that this is more consistent with how we
generally view identities related to attraction. Granted, the sort of person
you’re attracted to is a different thing to the sort of relationship style
you’re willing to engage in, but these things are still within the realm of
describing romantic interests.
Kinship
By identifying
with a word, it suggests not only that you have a shared experience with others
but also that this experience is meaningful enough to you that you want
others to know about it. It also suggests possible secondary characteristics
you might want to align yourself with. That’s not to say everyone who
identifies a particular way is the same but rather than you’ve seen
enough people using with that identity that you’re willing to say “these are my
people.” I believe merely having the desire to engage in multiple romantic
relationships is a distinct enough experience that it’s worthwhile to identify
with regardless of whether one is actively in such relationships.
Expanded
Utility
While both polyamory
(as identity related to externalities) and polyamory (identity related to
internalities) promotes kinship based on shared experience, the latter is far
more inclusive. Inclusivity alone isn’t enough, though, because if one
were to be perfectly inclusive the word would be meaningless. However, I don’t
see any drawbacks in this case; one is still able to focus in on more specific
experiences related to what one has does externally after establishing
a shared identity based on one’s internal experience. The orientation labels “gay”,
“bi”, “straight” remain functional while being based on a description of one’s
internal state.
All this
said, these musings are somewhat inconsequential. I’m not really
asking anyone to use the world polyamory differently. There may well be
some utility for those who use it as an identity grounded in the description of
external states which I’m unaware of precisely because it’s a much more
internal thing for myself. Moreover, as mentioned at the start, the term has
historically not served the people who it describes, and based on my experiences online, it seems to retain
that legacy. Consequently, I don’t really want to apply it to myself.
Ultimately,
my issue with the definition of polyamory isn’t really about the word, but rather
about a lack of community to identify with based on my own experiences regarding non-monogamy more generally. Since as far back as I can recall having romantic desires, I’ve also found myself attracted to the idea of being romantically involved with more multiple
people. The exception to this is that, between the ages of about 14 – 20, extreme
possessiveness and jealousy somewhat repressed those desires. However, I got
over that and almost immediately felt again a powerful desire to seek out
multiple romantic relationships. This desire hasn’t gone away since then. This
experience, and the feelings that resurfaced following, is integral to who I am.
I’m proud of the fact I don’t get very jealous, especially since I used to, and
of the fact that when I do, I’m able to deal with it well. I take great
pleasure in even one-sided crushes, and I want people to be aware that I crush
on others easily, especially if I have a crush on them. I enjoy being
thought of as a very amorous person. I consider my encouragement of romantic
and sexual freedom as one of the main benefits of being in a relationship with me.
Non-monogamy is a core part of my identity, but I’ve so far failed to find
any sort of community with whom I can feel a true kinship.
A bit of a sad note to end on, I suppose, so let me emphasise some optimistic points: although I haven't found kinship with groups, I do have polyamorous friends with whom I have at least related somewhat (although I have no idea what they think of this particular topic). Also, I am satisfied that I understand my own romantic desires in great detail, and the lack of people who get them exactly is also a reflection of that fact. Is there a name for that phenomenon, where the better one understands oneself, the less they feel understood by others?
Other updates:
I will eventually write a part 2 to the previous post about immortality.
I finished writing the new Act 1 for Solipsism=0+. Editing the rest should be a much quicker process.
There are a few updates (aesthetic changes mainly) which are upcoming to FdotG.
I've been reading a webcomic called BreadAVOTA. I read a good chunk of it years ago, but I 'get' it a lot more this time around I'll say more about that soon too (possibly on the website itself).
I've been really enjoying a manga called After God which has narrative density like I've never seen in a manga before.
