If we say that polyamorous people are hard wired to be so, then we have to also accept that monogamous people are, too. I reject both of these (which I realize is something I've not always believed) because I truly think that if our society were not so firmly established as monogamist (on the surface, anyway), more people would attempt alternative relationship structures.
Defining it as a choice, and recognizing that that per force means that it's not hard-wired into a person.
But then I ask this: can you choose whether you WANT to be non-monogamous (in whatever form), or, alternatively, whether you WANT to be monogamous? I think that's the operative question, because even those who say that sexual preference (homo, hetero, whatever) is not a choice can't argue that you can still choose whether or not to practice a lifestyle consistant with that peference. You could prefer men, but choose to only sleep with women, or visa-versa.
So, then, sexual preference is, at it's extreme, defined as an innate or unchosen DESIRE or WANT...the choice to act on it is a separate thing. Is that different from people who choose non-monogamous/polyamorous lifestyles?
I think your desire to live your life a way that runs so counternormative has to be pretty strong to override our general needs for acceptance and support in our families, communities, etc. Where that desire comes from, I don't know. I don't see why that desire should be any different from the drive that defines sexual orientation.
I rarely take an essentialist view of things, but I don't think I've ever been monogamous despite being raised in a Catholic family. I am hard pressed to say I've in any way been socialized to be polyamorous.
Quite apart from sexual behavior, I think that's why some people like being polyamorous-- because they like being KNOWN as polyamorous. They get off on the social infamy, on being alter.
Perhaps we shall call these people "poli-amorous", as in "lovers of sexual politics".
Ah... But then...how do we define the terms politics? Or political? :P
Might not the same thing be said for any practice that one COULD do in secret, quietly, and get away with or go unnoticed at, but about which one chooses to be open?
I'm not actually sure that I'm disagreeing with you...but how is a poly rights activist any different than a gay rights activist?
It appears I'm jumping on the bandwagon a bit, but I've always felt it was more of an emotional choice. As in, I may or may not have expressed an interest in having multiple partners (as a complex person, I do think it would be the only way I could be truly fulfilled) but I have also realized that I am not emotionally detached enough to necessarily grant my partners the same freedom. And lacking equity in that regard, (true equity here simply means do unto others, etc) I have never pursued it as a lifestyle for myself
( ... )
No...your thoughts are pretty clear... I mean, you drifted from the original question by quite a distance, but you did it in a fairly organized fashion. :)
So...I'm coming with you to the outfield of the conversation: what makes you think that people couldn't have a long-term or stable dynamic in a non-monogamous situation?
Because most of the groups I've seen aren't stable beyond the primary couple. Secondary partners fall by the wayside, or occasionally supplant the primary, and after a while, the only steady partners are the original couple. Maybe if secondary partners are also involved with each other, the dynamic is more stable, but time passes, people move, and life happens, in other words. Also, unless you can afford to get a large house or really big apartment, then an equal relationship between more than two people isn't feasible, because there's always someone who doesn't live in. Having to travel to interact with someone makes it more of a choice, and less equal. Or something. You might have noticed that I'm not exactly good at staying on topic, yes? Besides, isn't your sexy law paper due by now?
it's interesting because even the phrase "sexual preference" implies choice when I think it's pretty well believed by people with a preference other than "straight" that it's not really a choice they've made
( ... )
well I'm saying that, arguably, it's a semantically bad term for what it has come to mean traditionally , so overloading it even more is probably not the best way to describe what you are asking about.
So I guess my short answer to your original question is "no", but not entirely for the reasons one might expect. non-monogamy might be described as an orientation, but the even the connotations of that word are sort of unidirectional and thus monogamist.
On this issue I agree with you entirely...and it's certainly the stance I take on issues of "nature" vs. "choice."
As a rule, I think we choose our actions, and can affect but not "choose" our desires or impulses.
And I think that the real question is never whether the desire or impulse is "wrong" or "right," but only whether the action taken is, and that since that should almost always be controllable, that's where we should be looking for morality and ethics...
And, y'know...as far as sex and love and relationships goes...I'm pretty much of the common liberal attitude...whatever gets you off, just make sure whomever you're doing it with is on board.
Still...I think it's worthwhile to examine why we do what we do...because the larger arguments, the way our lifestyles and choices fit into the larger social construct (read: the law) is important, and knowing from whence you come is often the best way to know which way you're pointed, and that's the only way to know how to get where you want to be....
Comments 55
If we say that polyamorous people are hard wired to be so, then we have to also accept that monogamous people are, too. I reject both of these (which I realize is something I've not always believed) because I truly think that if our society were not so firmly established as monogamist (on the surface, anyway), more people would attempt alternative relationship structures.
Reply
THIS is the good stuff.
Defining it as a choice, and recognizing that that per force means that it's not hard-wired into a person.
But then I ask this: can you choose whether you WANT to be non-monogamous (in whatever form), or, alternatively, whether you WANT to be monogamous? I think that's the operative question, because even those who say that sexual preference (homo, hetero, whatever) is not a choice can't argue that you can still choose whether or not to practice a lifestyle consistant with that peference. You could prefer men, but choose to only sleep with women, or visa-versa.
So, then, sexual preference is, at it's extreme, defined as an innate or unchosen DESIRE or WANT...the choice to act on it is a separate thing.
Is that different from people who choose non-monogamous/polyamorous lifestyles?
Reply
I rarely take an essentialist view of things, but I don't think I've ever been monogamous despite being raised in a Catholic family. I am hard pressed to say I've in any way been socialized to be polyamorous.
Reply
Do you think that the preference is not a choice but the lifestyle is?
Or something else?
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Perhaps we shall call these people "poli-amorous", as in "lovers of sexual politics".
Reply
But then...how do we define the terms politics? Or political? :P
Might not the same thing be said for any practice that one COULD do in secret, quietly, and get away with or go unnoticed at, but about which one chooses to be open?
I'm not actually sure that I'm disagreeing with you...but how is a poly rights activist any different than a gay rights activist?
Reply
Reply
I mean, you drifted from the original question by quite a distance, but you did it in a fairly organized fashion. :)
So...I'm coming with you to the outfield of the conversation: what makes you think that people couldn't have a long-term or stable dynamic in a non-monogamous situation?
Reply
Reply
Am I to infer from this some value judgment as to the quality "stability" in relationships?
Reply
Reply
<3
Reply
So...then...what you're saying is that you don't care for the term "sexual preference" in any context?
:)
Reply
So I guess my short answer to your original question is "no", but not entirely for the reasons one might expect. non-monogamy might be described as an orientation, but the even the connotations of that word are sort of unidirectional and thus monogamist.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
As a rule, I think we choose our actions, and can affect but not "choose" our desires or impulses.
And I think that the real question is never whether the desire or impulse is "wrong" or "right," but only whether the action taken is, and that since that should almost always be controllable, that's where we should be looking for morality and ethics...
And, y'know...as far as sex and love and relationships goes...I'm pretty much of the common liberal attitude...whatever gets you off, just make sure whomever you're doing it with is on board.
Still...I think it's worthwhile to examine why we do what we do...because the larger arguments, the way our lifestyles and choices fit into the larger social construct (read: the law) is important, and knowing from whence you come is often the best way to know which way you're pointed, and that's the only way to know how to get where you want to be....
Reply
Leave a comment