http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/11/26/is-polyamory-a-sexual-orientation Comments On: Is Polyamory a Sexual Orientation? by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 21 May 2013 05:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by BatMastersonJr]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:55:11 -0800 The Stranger Posted by watchout5]]> Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:52:21 -0800 The Stranger
I've always been poly, even before I knew there is a word for it. I've tried being monogamous in a relationship for three long years, and was miserable the entire time. A number of long, otherwise good relationships with good people ended because I couldn't "choose" to become monogamous for them(even though they were always told up front about my poly whatchamacallit). In my late 30's, I finally found myself with people who are happy with me the way I am, but it's been a long, hard road. Yes, being poly is not just a sexual orientation - it's, for some of us, a core personality orientation. But then, being transgendered is not a sexual orientation either; it's a core gender identity, Dan, and there's still that T in LGBT.

You may squabble about what word to use - orientation, identity, whatever - but, some of us *can't* choose, because we were born this way. One of my partners is a genuinely monogamous person, and he can't choose to be poly any more than I can choose to be mono. *It's how he's wired.*

If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck...
Posted by Webmistress]]> Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:39:43 -0800 The Stranger
I've always been poly, even before I knew there is a word for it. I've tried being monogamous in a relationship for three long years, and was miserable the entire time. A number of long, otherwise good relationships with good people ended because I couldn't "choose" to become monogamous for them(even though they were always told up front about my poly whatchamacallit). In my late 30's, I finally found myself with people who are happy with me the way I am, but it's been a long, hard road. Yes, being poly is not just a sexual orientation - it's, for some of us, a core personality orientation. But then, being transgendered is not a sexual orientation either; it's a core gender identity, Dan, and there's still that T in LGBT.

You may squabble about what word to use - orientation, identity, whatever - but, some of us *can't* choose, because we were born this way. One of my partners is a genuinely monogamous person, and he can't choose to be poly any more than I can choose to be mono. *It's how he's wired.*

If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck...
Posted by Webmistress]]> Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:37:10 -0800 The Stranger
I don't know what your orientation is, but if you consider yourself polyfuckerous perhaps you wouldn't be if your partner(s) made you feel like a God (or a lion, or what have you)?

My purpose in attempting to describe this feeling was to elucidate the importance of fidelity to my particular situation, not to claim I am holier than thou but rather to provoke the question: Don't you want a bit of divinity in your life?

If you will grant me that marriage can be a conduit to enlightenment, will you then entertain my point that polygamists should be protected by the First Amendment?

For the record, here is the quote to which you referred: “I do like various vaginas you know? I think I might, like, identify as polyamorous-orientated and that.”

I'll leave it to others to judge whether they think I might've been going for a slightly ironic voice.

General criticism of my tone well taken though- thanks for the tip.
Posted by gypsysattva]]> Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:36:10 -0800 The Stranger Posted by bleepinbleep]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:40:40 -0800 The Stranger Guess I'll just head on home, draw a nice bath, and get spiritual. :)
Posted by Lissa]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:48:27 -0800 The Stranger
It's the same as any Catholic priest who claims that anyone who questions them just isn't holy enough: in this case, he's decided that we're just not enlightened or "spiritual" enough to interpret him correctly when he communicates poorly.

It doesn't matter that none of our criticism has to do with being polygynous in general and that all of it centered on his creepy phrasing (like calling women "vaginas" in his original post). He's decided (wrongly, based on no evidence) that we're just bitter monogamists who are "of a mind to misinterpret" his words because we've never had spiritual experiences while naked, and he just repeats that in one form or another whenever corrected. Chalk this up to another case of fake open-mindedness and move on.
Posted by Bonefish]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:03:16 -0800 The Stranger Again, nobody here on Slog has a problem with your situation per se. You and your partners are on the same page, and happy, and I’m sure we all wish for you to remain so, because love is grand.
I have explained to you what the problem is, and why. You are, of course, free to express yourself on this topic in any way that you care to, but please stop pretending that the cool reception you have received here has anything to do with poly itself, or the lack of spirituality (experienced naked or otherwise) on the part of those posting here.
You’re a guy in a fulfilling relationship with two women, which is awesome, who creeps people out when he talks about it, which is unfortunate. That’s it.
 
Posted by Lissa]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:44:44 -0800 The Stranger
What you choose to call gross is up to you of course, but I'm guessing you haven't had too many spiritual experiences while naked. If so (and if you're polyamorous) thank you for illustrating my point about the critical nature of fidelity.
Posted by gypsysattva]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:20:12 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Lissa]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:54:52 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Lissa]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:38:01 -0800 The Stranger Posted by DRF]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:34:04 -0800 The Stranger
Unfortunately to make any headway towards being able to marry officially we're going to need a buttload of people on our side. Hence the First Amendment (freedom of Church) argument.
Posted by gypsysattva]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:31:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Lissa]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:07:33 -0800 The Stranger I'm sure that people of good will here on Slog would wish your tribe nothing but happiness as it is an arrangement upon which you all agree. Indeed, finding partners with whom one is so compatible is a rare and wonderful thing. Since you have this in your life, don't take on so the words of strangers on the internet. You don't have to convince us of anything. The women in your life presumably love you. You don't need Bonefish, or me for that matter, to swoon as well do you? Your writing style is indeed off putting. You're not a lion ok? That just sounds grandiose and insecure. But so what? I'm just some pixels.
I'd like to write more but I have to go to work, so I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Now go have fun and stop writing like yoga instructor who "accidentally" rubs his dick on people during class.
Posted by Lissa]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:26:29 -0800 The Stranger
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments and to reflect upon what they meant to you. Bonefish, I had a good little chuckle at the image my words apparently put in your mind. I can see how you wouldn’t totally respect someone who utilizes a thing as powerful spirituality to trick drunk sorority girls into having threeways.

Just for the record, this isn’t first date banter stuff, I’m describing my relationship with my WIFE with whom I intend to spend the rest of my LIFE and another woman who we BOTH want to MARRY. It’s serious.

Which is exactly the distinction I would like to point out between polygamy and polyfuckery: One is VERY SERIOUS, one isn’t. Obviously there are many polys out there in long-term committed partnerships with people not their husband or wife. That kind of situation strikes me as preferable to having an ‘open marriage’ or ‘swinging’ or ‘sleeping around with permission’, but according to MY particular innerGod fidelity is critical.

You both seem to find my intensity slightly offputting; probably I’m not your ideal partner then. However I AM exactly what the women who did choose me want. And that’s what I want. That’s vital for me. I want women who want me exactly as I am and each other too and nobody else. Call me a caveman. Call me a misogynist if you must, but that’s not who I am. In fact I am a romantic, and my harem bastards and I prefer the term Tribe.

I told my wife I identify as plyg before we got serious, indeed, as we were having our first discussion about the possibility of getting serious. It’s what she wanted too. She identifies as bisexual, which obviously helped. I knew she was bisexual when I began to date her. Maybe that’s even a big reason why I fell for her (well, one of uncountably many). But I didn’t coerce her. I’m not Charlie Manson, praying with and preying on runaways. We’re not a cult. We’re a family, dedicated to cornerstone of society freakin shit.

BTW I never said “sister wife”. I believe this is the passage to which you are referring:

“Someone beautiful who loves you too to kiss and cuddle and shower shave and shit with, a cooperator not a cooperator, to cherish til death do you part even if your husband is late. To raise the kids with, to lean on, a strong sister who contributes harmony and laughter to the team, i.e. family, aka tribe.”

I didn’t mention it, because I thought it obvious (and crude), but they also girlfuck.

To me, the “Big Love” or “Sister Wives” model seems like a ton of work. As does polyamory, what with the SCHEDULING! Both situations seem ripe for misunderstandings and jealousy and drama and furthermore less fun. Trust me, a bisexual triad works nice. As you’ve both admitted, in theory it doesn’t necessarily seem so terrible.

Just not with me because I’m gross then?

Perhaps it was my use of the word “allow”. Admittedly, I can see how my point could have been misinterpreted by someone of a mind to misinterpret it. So let me make another distinction: Unlike Warren Jeffs and his ilk, who dictate people’s futures for them, in keeping horny men away from my partners I am actually acting on THEIR desires (that is, my girlfriend’s and wife’s desires, not the sleezeballs’). Most people who aren’t looking for sex don’t love getting hit on, and they’re happy when they can beckon over a lion to do a bit of growling. I protect my women, which is what they WANT me to do. THEY want only the One Dick.

Perhaps you yourselves prefer not to be possessed by a man, perhaps that’s the “ick”?

But some women do want to be possessed. For SOME women (like my wife) that’s a very comfortable, very very nice feeling.

I know I want partners who won’t ever stray. I don’t think that’s so uncommonly rare. I knew what I was looking for, and I looked for it, and I found it. I would never have committed to having a serious relationship with either of my mates before laying every single card on the table, making sure we were all on the same page, and otherwise thoroughly mixing my metaphors because we’re talking about an ENTIRE LIFE together here, hopefully one lived with as much SPIRITUAL PURPOSE as we can muster. Marriage is different than any other type of relationship. It’s a union; you become one. Yeah I know, that’s corny. But

“touchyfeelycreepydouchy” kind of hurt my feelings.

Posted by gypsysattva]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:36:32 -0800 The Stranger emotional and physical intimacy, as well as sexual intimacy. and it is all about being committed. it's hard to find the right language, but i'll try.

i consider myself autonomous, because i have no 'primary' - no one who has veto rights of any kind. at the same time i have two people, who have been my family for more than 18 years. there have been every possible combination of living arrangements, the longest standing being one living down the road(with another partner) from the other two. we have all had other relationships, some of which have become 'family', some not. some of those 'other' relationships were long term, six or ten years, and a couple were considered a primary/monogamous-type affair. we have had two kids. it is possible(though unlikely) that there could be more.

where is this only about sex, or the absence of commitment?

if i have any partner, i have two. one is kinda my wife. the other is definitely my best friend. sometimes one of those relationships is sexual, sometimes both, sometimes neither - just like any long-term relationship, i'm guessing. but none of that changes the very deep and real commitment. and while the details may change, none of that real stuff changes, even when i have another(different) lover.

this doesn't mean that it has always been easy. these were my high-school sweethearts. we have put each other through hell a few times. :-) personally, i feel that my commitment to these people is such that who lives where, or who fucks who/who else, is just not the most important thing.
Posted by sappho]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:15:26 -0800 The Stranger

Posted by IPJ]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:02:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by John Horstman]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:53:55 -0800 The Stranger Posted by tkc]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:30:17 -0800 The Stranger
Exactly! If by some bizarre set of circumstances a poly arrangement(please note, this does not necessarily mean I have two people who can't do things with other people of any gender. Two girls who are dating a guy and a girl each? Sure! Three girls who each have two separate guys? Groovy!) happened all at once that would allow me to get all of my relationship needs met(i.e., I'm not going months without sex because the one person I'm intimate with can't keep up with having sex with 3 people at once) and didn't make me want to choke myself with my own intestines due to the drama I would be willing to hear the interested party/parties out.

But at the same token if I was with the person I'm with now for the rest of my days or things didn't work out and I ended up having a chain of monogamous relationships if they were of the quality I am enjoying now I'd be just fine with it.
Posted by GhostDog]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:00:47 -0800 The Stranger
Polyamory is one particular variation of how to organize your sexual relationships. Monogamy, serial monogamy, cheating, and swinging (and I suppose contented onanism) are some other ways. You may be temperamentally pre-disposed to be good at any of these- you're not prone to jealousy, you might be good at poly. But I don't think anyone is born "a poly". It's not an orientation in that sense. Neither is religion, but there are definitely examples of different personality types fitting better with one religion or another, and religion is protected under the law. So I don't think it lessens the legitimacy of polyamory by saying it's not an orientation.

Personally, I think polyamory is a type of specialized relationship structure that takes a lot of skill to do right. Arnold Schwarzenegger does monogamy badly, and I've met plenty of people who do poly badly. You may like the idea, and you may have a good personality for it, but if you don't do a lot of work and get your relationship/communications chops up you're going to suck at it. The same is true of monogamy, by the way; monogamy is less complicated but farther from our natural state. Being good at relationships of any sort takes work, but poly is more of a challenge because most of us didn't grow up even realizing it was a possibility, so there's a lot of flailing around when you first start out. I think this is true in the personal sense, and in the cultural sense as a whole- I see the poly community as flailing around while it figures itself out. But I don't think there's any doubt that polyamorous relationships are possible, and work really well for some people. Eventually one hopes it will be as accepted as a legitimate option, and this talk of poly folks getting fired or poly families getting children taken away will seem as idiotic by the general population as it does to us weirdos today.
Posted by Stacy in Austin]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:58:51 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Megaera]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:39:06 -0800 The Stranger @77: That rings true to me. I've gone back and forth between poly and monogamy depending on the relationship and persons involved as well.
Posted by Lissa]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:29:47 -0800 The Stranger