Another random post -- poly stuff

[moominmuppet]

Again, from an email conversation, from someone who was asking about poly stuff, and starting poly relationships.

I tend to think of relationship-style orientation as another spectrum like gender or sexual orientation or kink preference -- even to get reductively two-dimensional about it, there's a wide range, and a lot of people somewhere in the middle. For example, I would describe myself as being pretty much at the far end of the monogamy/polyamory spectrum. I don't seem to be able to function in officially monogamous relationships (although de facto monogamous seems to be ok for periods). I've never been able to. It never made sense to me. It's a bit like being gay in a straight world -- I just didn't _get_ it -- what I saw modelled around me didn't connect with me emotionally at all. The few mentions of open relationships (almost exclusively in SF/F -- thank god I was a geek) were absolute fantasies for me, before I could even explain why. It felt right. I also know a lot of people who are very, deep-down, inherently monogamous. They're not going to be happy in an open relationship. It's not even a possessiveness thing -- it's just not how they connect emotionally. They bond deeply to one person, period. And a lot of people are somewhere in the middle, but deeply influenced by our culture (similar to how so many people have some level of bisexual desire, but cultural pressures make it less likely to be expressed, and more high drama and stressful when it is). The people in the middle may be able to function in an open or closed relationship, depending on the people, the dynamics, the point in their life, the other practical life stressors and considerations... A decent number of people I know to have been successfully happy and poly at some points in their lives are monogamous at others just because it's simpler, and life is complicated enough. That said, I'd say that early conversations about relationship styles are a good way of sorting things out, although hampered by the fact that most people haven't even been told that's something they get to consider, and have trouble wrapping their brains around it. First poly relationships can be rocky, largely for those sorts of reasons -- it's a rethinking of all sorts of engrained assumptions, and sorting out personal needs from cultural chaff. As I've been more aware of my own relationship-style needs, (and had enough relationships go "BOOM" over me not understanding mine or my partners), I've learned better how to recognize potential compatibility and, conversely, "warning signs" (which aren't necessarily a reflection on the person -- simply on the likelihood of them having a happy relationship with me). I can be comfortably involved with people who are somewhere in the middle of the range, as long as we find a dynamic that makes it work for both of us, but I tend to be happiest with people who have a similar need for an open relationship, because it does sort of balance a bit better for me when it's something we are both actively invested in making maintainable for our own happiness as well as our partner's. Although I have seen poly/mono mixed relationships that work, it's generally seemed to be a very hard road to travel, and I try to avoid that dynamic, personally. In terms of trying to have a poly relationship, I'd say start with the old chestnuts -- honesty, communication, and going slow, with an awareness that it simply may not work with that person -- it may not be a relationship style that'll make that individual happy.

Comments

[cassidyrose.livejournal.com]

You have a lot of great things to say here.

I agree that mono/poly is a spectrum and is indeed an orientation.

I am not extremely at the poly end, but if it were a 10 point scale with 10 being the most poly one could be, I'd probably be a 6-ish. I had multiple partners in high school and spent a good chunk of my adult life in poly relationships (nine years). I am currently in a technically monogamous relationship due to a number of factors. One, we have a baby and it is hard enough to find time for each other let alone other partners. Two, while trying to conceive and during pregnancy we were not comfortable with any disease risk. Three, ptor (my husband) did not do poly well at all and he does much better in firmly closed arrangements. This is the second iteration of our relationship and we are being very careful with each other; however, we revisit the subject periodically and we know we may decide to someday open the relationship up again. One reason the compromise works for me is that I have been able to maintain my strong emotional bond to catzen--he and I broke up about a year after ptor and I got together again (break up not related to ptor, and while we are not romantically linked anymore we remain very close. In fact, catzen and ptor are very close now as well. It works for us.

Right now I cannot imagine trying to fit another relationship into my life--my child takes up almost all my emotional and physical energy. I do miss having more people around and sometimes that is hard. But I am happier with ptor than I've ever been with anyone or ever hoped to be with anyone and we have a beautiful relationship. However, just because I am in a romantic relationship with only one person doesn't make me any less poly any more than the fact that said person is male makes be any less bisexual.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

However, just because I am in a romantic relationship with only one person doesn't make me any less poly any more than the fact that said person is male makes me any less bisexual.

Exactly, exactly, exactly.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Oh yes.

Nor indeed, does having the interaction of having an extremely solid component of only being drawn to my friends and having a very strong preference for female friends leading to having all my current connections being female make me not bi. I get a bit miffed at those who seem to think bi must mean 50/50.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

I get a bit miffed at those who seem to think bi must mean 50/50

Well, aside from any other factors, the math just doesn't work out.

In terms of the most basic orientation compatibility (generally agreed to mostly be necessary for any further development of a romantic/sexual relationship), the skew is dramatic.

Let's go with the arbitrary 10% figure for gayness. And let's say maybe another 10% are bi -- very rough figures here, since I'm only illustrating the point. So, I'm female. Basic orientation compatibility with straight men, bi men, lesbians, and bi women. According to the previous arbitrary numbers, that's about 90% of men, and only 20% of women. Even if I'm equally likely to be attracted to any given woman as any given man -- even if I'm exactly, precisely 50/50, my dating life won't likely reflect that unless I intentionally force it to. And that doesn't even begin to touch all the cultural issues that feed into it being more difficult to pursue involvements outside of the "approved system". Why would we expect that bi people, in general, would somehow have all turned that 90/20 skew into a 50/50 pattern in their own lives, while fighting upstream against all the systemic homophobia out there?

It's just a silly expectation, and I don't have overwhelming respect for the statistical abilities of people who expect to see 50/50 in daily life on a regular basis.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

I'm broadly in agreement with what you say, although I think it's likely that queer people tend to hang around with queer people more, so the figures may not be quite as biased as your arithmetic shows.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's definitely part of the "all other things aside" aspect. It's part of why despite that math, for the past five years or so, my number of involvements with other women have outnumbered my involvements with men. In the larger scheme of things, though, many people don't have access to that kind of queer commmunity, or don't feel a part of it, especially given biphobia issues.

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I tend to let people self-identify as whatever they are. If someone tells me they're bisexual, that's good enough for me. If someone tells me they're male, that's good enough too. The only exception is slimy male types who insist they're lesbians trapped in a male body. I just sneer at that type and ask where I can get a knife and let her out.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

The only exception is slimy male types who insist they're lesbians trapped in a male body.

*chuckle* Totally agreed. Well, except for Eddie Izzard. He manages to pull it off without pissing me off.

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

I agree rather a lot. I often think of continuua instead of absolutes, which confuses and/or annoys a lot of people. They'd like their world to fit in nice, neat bins. The fact that the world doesn't generally work that way is a detail they'd prefer to ignore, as it complicates things. I also agree that honesty and communication are essential to a healthy working relationship (ANY relationship). I keep seeing people trying to find one pure distinct proximate cause for a relationship failure and deciding "poly doesn't work" or "gay doesn't work" or some such is it. When there's generally an assortment of ills that conspire to eventually wreck a relationship, and communication (which could be thought of as entraining honesty) is often a linchpin.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

I agree rather a lot. I often think of continuua instead of absolutes

Exactly. I'm not sure whether, for me, that's an effect of being a science geek, but I suspect it might be. Example after example after example of distribution of data points in ways that are anything but binary does tend to create a certain effect in how I'm most likely to interpret the world.