![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
This is a RANTY RANTY RANTY post! Rant on!
SO INTERNET! Let's have us a little talk about relationships.
See, I have this friend, Turquoise1, who considers themself to be monogamous. Recently, they have entered into a relationship with a polyamorous person (Green) who already had another partner (SIlver). Turquoise is monoamorous in relation to Green --T doesn't have any other partners, nor does T wish to find any. Turquoise is perfectly happy being romantically entangled ONLY with Green.
An ex-partner of theirs accused T, because of this relationship, of "Pretending to be monogamous."
This? This is not right in a big way.
The biggest problem is that T is still monogamous, and monoamorous. They are only dating Green. They are only romantically entangled with Green. They hold sexual fidelity towards Green2. Turquoise is entirely monogamous, and implying that they were "pretending" to be such implies that they no longer ARE. Patently false.
Now, is T in a polyamorous relationship? I'd say kindof --I wouldn't call T's relationship poly, but I would call Green's relationship thus. I would call the relationship as a whole a mono-poly relationship, because oh hey, those exist and flourish, no matter how hard you pretend they don't or can't.
Because sometimes a monoamorous person falls in love with a polyamorous person, and they are willing to put in the work to keep the relationship strong, and not limit either partner or illegitimate their sexuality. They are hard, and require a lot of communication, and people who can be open and honest about their wants and needs, and otherwise are in relatively good standing with themselves3. But they happen, and they can be just as happy and healthy as any other relationship.
The second problem is the fact that, oh gasp, sexuality is fluid.
Seriously. Please let your mind wrap around that a little. Sexuality is fluid, and the types or number of people you were attracted to at one point in your life may not be the same as the types or number of people you are attracted to at another point.
Now, before you release your fury, keep in mind that sexuality doesn't *HAVE* to change, and for many people it doesn't at all. Sometimes it doesn't change so much as encounter new information --a previously monoamorous person being introduced to the concept of poly and realizing that it fits their brain better than the strictly mono structures they'd grown up with. And sometimes it absolutely radically shifts, as someone grows older and changes what they want and desire.
And none of that means the person was "pretending" earlier in life.
As an aside, I would just like to remind the audience that "relationship structure" is not necessarily equal to "personal sexuality". I know several mono folk who are in mono-poly, or full poly relationships. I know a few poly-folk who are currently, or have been in the past, in strictly mono relationships4. People make relationships work for them, as they need to.
And really, I think that's what all this boils down to: Does your relationship structure work for you. If you are happy, and your partner(s) are happy, (and ideally, *their* partner(s) are happy) then that's about the best you can hope for. "All relevant parties" does not include your friends, your parents, your exes, or anyone on the internet who thinks you're a dirty perv. If your relationship works for you, then don't let _anyone_ tell you you're doing it wrong.
As a final (unrelated) aside, I have a friend who has no interest in being in relationships at all. I hesitently suggested "asexual", but we both agreed that's not the word being looked for, as that's a totally different set of things (And indeed, many asexual people can form happy relationships, with each other or with sexual people (or both!)). He proposed "anamorous", which I think is a lovely term --and one I fully intend to use.
Rant off.
~Sor
MOOP!
1: I have friends named Red and Blue. Writing this post got a little difficult as I navigated around that to choose arbitrary names.
2: Which is to say, the only sexual contact Turquoise has had outside of Green was with Silver, and this was part of the three of them being together with everyone communicating and having full knowledge of what was going on. There is no love between T and S, and no relationship --this wouldn't have happened were they not both dating Green.
3: Oh hey, did I just describe every relationship ever! I think I did!
4: Myself included --I was well aware I was polyamorous before I started dating kSatyr, but it was an agreement from the beginning that I would be strictly monoamorous while dating him. Now, this was an unhealthy situation for me personally to be in, but that's certainly not true of all poly-folk-in-mono-relationships, and more importantly, just because I am poly doesn't mean I *had* to be in a relationship thus.
PostScript: Oh and THIRDLY, because I forgot to mention it, it is not your right to declare other people's sexuality. Ever! You cannot say "they are not doing [sexuality] the way I think you should do [sexuality] and therefore I will accuse them of pretending", because you don't know what they're thinking, you don't know how they're reacting, and you have no way of knowing what they consider themself short of asking. So, unless you are a member of the relationship police (hint: That doesn't exist.) you do not get the right to decide if someone else is doing an adequete enough job of representing the sexualities they claim to represent.
SO INTERNET! Let's have us a little talk about relationships.
See, I have this friend, Turquoise1, who considers themself to be monogamous. Recently, they have entered into a relationship with a polyamorous person (Green) who already had another partner (SIlver). Turquoise is monoamorous in relation to Green --T doesn't have any other partners, nor does T wish to find any. Turquoise is perfectly happy being romantically entangled ONLY with Green.
An ex-partner of theirs accused T, because of this relationship, of "Pretending to be monogamous."
This? This is not right in a big way.
The biggest problem is that T is still monogamous, and monoamorous. They are only dating Green. They are only romantically entangled with Green. They hold sexual fidelity towards Green2. Turquoise is entirely monogamous, and implying that they were "pretending" to be such implies that they no longer ARE. Patently false.
Now, is T in a polyamorous relationship? I'd say kindof --I wouldn't call T's relationship poly, but I would call Green's relationship thus. I would call the relationship as a whole a mono-poly relationship, because oh hey, those exist and flourish, no matter how hard you pretend they don't or can't.
Because sometimes a monoamorous person falls in love with a polyamorous person, and they are willing to put in the work to keep the relationship strong, and not limit either partner or illegitimate their sexuality. They are hard, and require a lot of communication, and people who can be open and honest about their wants and needs, and otherwise are in relatively good standing with themselves3. But they happen, and they can be just as happy and healthy as any other relationship.
The second problem is the fact that, oh gasp, sexuality is fluid.
Seriously. Please let your mind wrap around that a little. Sexuality is fluid, and the types or number of people you were attracted to at one point in your life may not be the same as the types or number of people you are attracted to at another point.
Now, before you release your fury, keep in mind that sexuality doesn't *HAVE* to change, and for many people it doesn't at all. Sometimes it doesn't change so much as encounter new information --a previously monoamorous person being introduced to the concept of poly and realizing that it fits their brain better than the strictly mono structures they'd grown up with. And sometimes it absolutely radically shifts, as someone grows older and changes what they want and desire.
And none of that means the person was "pretending" earlier in life.
As an aside, I would just like to remind the audience that "relationship structure" is not necessarily equal to "personal sexuality". I know several mono folk who are in mono-poly, or full poly relationships. I know a few poly-folk who are currently, or have been in the past, in strictly mono relationships4. People make relationships work for them, as they need to.
And really, I think that's what all this boils down to: Does your relationship structure work for you. If you are happy, and your partner(s) are happy, (and ideally, *their* partner(s) are happy) then that's about the best you can hope for. "All relevant parties" does not include your friends, your parents, your exes, or anyone on the internet who thinks you're a dirty perv. If your relationship works for you, then don't let _anyone_ tell you you're doing it wrong.
As a final (unrelated) aside, I have a friend who has no interest in being in relationships at all. I hesitently suggested "asexual", but we both agreed that's not the word being looked for, as that's a totally different set of things (And indeed, many asexual people can form happy relationships, with each other or with sexual people (or both!)). He proposed "anamorous", which I think is a lovely term --and one I fully intend to use.
Rant off.
~Sor
MOOP!
1: I have friends named Red and Blue. Writing this post got a little difficult as I navigated around that to choose arbitrary names.
2: Which is to say, the only sexual contact Turquoise has had outside of Green was with Silver, and this was part of the three of them being together with everyone communicating and having full knowledge of what was going on. There is no love between T and S, and no relationship --this wouldn't have happened were they not both dating Green.
3: Oh hey, did I just describe every relationship ever! I think I did!
4: Myself included --I was well aware I was polyamorous before I started dating kSatyr, but it was an agreement from the beginning that I would be strictly monoamorous while dating him. Now, this was an unhealthy situation for me personally to be in, but that's certainly not true of all poly-folk-in-mono-relationships, and more importantly, just because I am poly doesn't mean I *had* to be in a relationship thus.
PostScript: Oh and THIRDLY, because I forgot to mention it, it is not your right to declare other people's sexuality. Ever! You cannot say "they are not doing [sexuality] the way I think you should do [sexuality] and therefore I will accuse them of pretending", because you don't know what they're thinking, you don't know how they're reacting, and you have no way of knowing what they consider themself short of asking. So, unless you are a member of the relationship police (hint: That doesn't exist.) you do not get the right to decide if someone else is doing an adequete enough job of representing the sexualities they claim to represent.
no subject
How'd you get so smart, Sorcy? ;-)
no subject
Does being poly always work for you, or just when you are feeling secure and confident, or something inbetween?
no subject
no subject
Maybe, "is right for you" or "is the right choice for you" or "is the type of relationship(s) you want". Or feel free to define it yourself.
+1
no subject
Nicely put. I think people pretend to know too much, too much of the time. Relatedly, I wish people would remember that in real life you only know isolated facts about other people's behavior, not platonic truths. The polite thing to do is never to contest someone else's self-identification as to their sexuality. But you don't actually know anything. Maybe they are doing what they are doing, or presenting their public face, or whatever, out of fear, or pressure, or inertia, or lack of opportunity. You can't know for certain.
So I try to never claim anyone is straight or gay or anything, just what they self-identify as, if I know that, and who I have seen them do stuff with, if I think gossiping is ethical. I don't always succeed, but I at least aspire to sticking to observable facts.
Another aspect of this, for people who think labels are bad and no one should use them to describe themselves or others, ever, is that you can avoid using them without making a big, obvious deal of it.
Personally, I don't think labeling our sexuality is bad, per se, but I do think it is a symptom of our species taking too long to evolve past primitive tribalism. If aliens decided to make contact with our species now, I'd be horribly embarrassed by a lot of things. In the meantime the labels themselves are not a big deal.
no subject
Sexuality would be so much less fun (for me) without the possibility that it could change.
no subject
no subject
- Accusing T of "pretending" when T said T was exclusive.
- Accusing T of "pretending" when T insisted ex be exclusive.
- Accusing T of "pretending" to be loyal to monogamy as a norm in general, a member of team monogamy, or what have you.
All completely rude and unreasonable accusations, but quite different readings for a single phrase.
An important part of the poly critique seems to be how personal monogamy (being exclusive) and normative monogamy (insisting other people (at least one's partners) be exclusive) get mixed together in a way that implies they're inseparable. Maybe we need a word for "personally monogamous, but doesn't insist the same of partners".
Speaking of which, I do like the word "anamorous". I will store that in my word hat for later use.
no subject
You're quite right that nobody gets to define anybody else's sexuality. I mean, WTF.
It is, OTOH, not entirely illegitimate for someone to say "you are using word X to define your sexuality, but based on what you've said about your sexuality, I don't think that's what that word means."
In this, based on "ex partner", I have to assume that X assumes that just because Turquoise is dating a poly person, that they are therefore poly. And that therefore when they were dating X, they were also poly (this is where your point that sexual orientation is fluid comes in; regardless of where you go with definitions, any discussion or identity or orientation falls down into incoherence if it assumes that these things can never change).
One -could- claim not unreasonably something like "in order to be mono, you have to not only be the kind of person who only loves one person at a time, but also demand fidelity from your mate." I think it's a shit claim, frankly; poly-friendly isn't the same thing as poly, and love doesn't always pay attention to rules. But it's consistent.
OTOH, once you start accusing someone of "pretending" (in the modern sense), well, you better have a damned good reason to accuse them of lying.