emanix | Hi, I'm poly and I don't exist.

Current Mood: thoughtful

Entry tags:

Hi, I'm poly and I don't exist.

Hi, I'm a polyamorous woman, and I don't exist. In fact, I don't believe that polyamorous people exist.

“Huh?” I hear you say. “But you just declared yourself polyamorous. Up there! It says so!”

I did, and I do. I call myself polyamorous because I see this as an important part of how I relate to other people in my life. So I call myself poly in the same way I call myself an agnostic, or a Londoner, or a wearer of polka-dotted shirts. I get sick and tired, though, of hearing about poly people vs. monogamous people as though we're different species. Worse, the constant bickering about whether it's 'natural' for human beings in general to be monogamous or not. Good grief! Are we animals? It seems like a lot of people are deeply invested in perpetuating the split, but it's a false dichotomy that drives me up the wall. This may be an unpopular position but here I go:

There is no such thing as a polyamorous person.

There is no such thing as a monogamous person either.

I find it bizarre how often discussions about poly versus mono the arguments seem to fall back to biology. Folk are either claiming that we are ALL supposed to be one or the other, or they're claiming that there's a hard-wired difference between the two. Really? It's like claiming there is a biological reason for being a liberal versus a conservative, or a vegetarian versus a carnivore . The difference between these people is simple, obvious and nobody's arguing it: belief. When the issue is how to run a country or what to eat for dinner we're all happy to stick with arguing that this or that is the more rational option – x or y is better because it benefits people (or animals) in this or that way. So why on earth, when the issue is how to organise relationships, does everyone start insisting that nature has all of the answers?

Seriously, why on earth is anyone asking which is the 'natural' way to be? The natural way for us to be, running along some of these lines of thinking, is naked, eating raw foods and huddling in natural caves for warmth. Except that's not true either – the natural thing for us to be doing, as creatures of logic and imagination is *thinking* and basing our behaviours on the result of conscious thought, whatever internal system of logic we happen to be using.

What does nature want us to be doing? You know... it really doesn't matter. We started ignoring what nature wanted from us the minute we started adapting our environments to suit ourselves instead of vice versa. What matters is what we THINK. In other words, the difference between the mind of a monogamous person and that of a polyamorous person is the thoughts and beliefs inside it – and these are mutable things. On a daily basis people make the decision to stop, or start eating meat, choose which party to vote for, make decisions about moral and cultural issues based on their experiences and understanding of the world around them. If we are rational adults – and I think we are all aspiring to be rational adults here, no? - then we base our decisions on what our logic circuits tell us, not our bodies.

I'm Emanix. I'm a carnivore. Not because I believe it's the only right way to be. Not because I believe it's more natural, or more 'evolved', or because there is a fundamental difference between my brain chemistry and that of my vegetarian friends. I'm carnivorous because to me it's what makes sense on a daily basis.

Oh, and I happen to be polyamorous too.

I've had a few comments on the carnivore thing. Yes I know what carnivore actualy means, yes it's hyperbole for the sake of humour. My artistic license can be viewed here: [link to Artistic License'] it states 'Licensed to bend the truth in the name of comedy'. Can we get back to the point now please?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I contend that we are not "naturally a monogamous species", but that doesn't contradict any of what you're saying, and it certainly does not say anything about any given individuals.

It's long been my position that poly and monogamous people are not inherently different from each other other than the differences that arise between *any* individuals or group of people. That, in fact, if we had the ability to produce reliable statistical data, we'd find that the entire range of behaviours, emotions, and feelings that one group experiences is the same range as the other group.

As far as I can tell, the only difference seems to be one group is *more likely* to be intentional about their relationships than the other, but, again, that doesn't say anything about any individual's likelihood of being intentional, and it may ultimately show that even that criteria is more evenly matched than I suspect.

Although, there does seem to be evidence for *certain* hyper-religious individuals to be "hard-wired" for hyper-religiosity ;-)

But the overall point is that there are a lot of things that go into making any individual person any particular thing, some of which may be "nature" (going all the way back to the arguments against "free will"), some of which may be "nurture", and the most reasonable explanation so far is that it's some combination of the two. In that, we are, as a species, "plastic" - we have the ability to adapt and mold ourselves to our surroundings and to *also* mold and adapt our surroundings to us. Which makes the whole nature vs. nurture debate really pretty irrelevant.

You make great points. My only quibble is kind of funny. You too seem to be drawing a line between two things that cannot be separated, natural (biological/genetic/chemical) and rational/intentional. I don't think there is a line there, either. From what I know (admittedly I have way more to learn), what we do is as much rooted in our chemistry as it is a conscious choice. What I mean is, many many things that look like we chose them turn out to be things we were genetically predisposed to do, like becoming alcoholics for instance. There are many examples, that's just the first one that occurred to me. Yes there is choice and decision - but without that genetic compulsion, the choice is perhaps easier or more clear. We seem to be a blend of our chemistry and our minds.

I don't agree with a couple points, but it in no way diminishes the importance of what you are saying.

I feel that there are certain innately human traits, such as we are naturally omnivores. Being a vegetarian is a choice, just as someone who decides to be strictly a carnivore. Our natural state is to eat a diet of both meat and plants.

I also believe that as a species we are innately non-monogamous and we choose to be monogamous, be non-monogamous and deceptive or be non-monogamous and open and honest about our behavior. I feel being non-monogamous is natural and what we do with it from there is choice.

That said, I agree fully with you that there is too much argument and taking one side or the other, being confrontational and overall judgmental of others and their relationship and life choices just because they do not match our own. Other's choices should be respected for what they are and recognized as equally valid to our own without judgment and divisiveness.

In my opinion being poly or mono are choices that we make and neither of them is more right or wrong. What I beleive is wrong is not being honest with your partner / partners and in truth this is a trait more commonly found in people who would call themselves monogamous!

Talking sense there

There is no such thing as a polyamorous person.
There is no such thing as a monogamous person either.

There are people who are choosing to be in a type X relationship set up.

This isn't something I agree with.

Personally, I think being someone who prefers and seeks out multiple relationships is as much a choice as liking men, women or both. My desire to have multiple relationships is as old as me wanting relationships in the first place. I never chose Poly and I reject the notion that I choose to be in a relationship that's polyamorous as much as a gay man would reject the notion that he chooses to like men.

I'm happy to debate this on here, but I appreciate how hard it is to discuss opposing points of view online so please, if you're going, find me at BiCon and we can chat about it there instead :)

(belatedly)

I do have to point out that desire and action are not the same thing. I don't believe there is a person on earth, poly or mono that has never looked at a person they weren't dating and desired them. The thing that makes the difference is your belief as to whether it is okay or not okay to act on that desire. This is what I'm talking about here.

There are few things that annoy me more than the old 'I couldn't help it, I fell in love!' trope, which I have to say this reminds me of. Every interaction with another person, or with the environment around you involves choices on a conscious level, and barring a very few of us with severe mental illnesses, we all have much more control of our behaviour than many of us would like to admit to. You may well not have chosen to hold the particular beliefs or experiences that lead you to conclude that poly makes sense to you, but you absolutely have the option to behave in a not-poly way, which makes this about conscious choice, not about desire.

My point here though, is not that this is a switch that people can flip on and off whenever they choose - I doubt many conservatives consciously chose to be conservatives either, but that it is a ridiculous and ultimately useless argument to make. If these things were truly based in biological difference, nobody would ever be capable of going from one belief position to the other, and that's simply and obviously not true.

Also just because you 'feel' that something's right for you, that doesn't make it based in biology, it just means that it is based on a deeper laid belief about the value of whateveritis and how it relates to your life. These things can and do alter for many people every day.
I don't discount the possibility that my ideas about what suits me may change too based on some input that I may or may not have chosen. Two + two continues to equal four no matter what the genetic code of the person counting it, but if I have been told that a plus sign means 'double the two figures before adding them together' then suddenly it will signify eight to me.

but you absolutely have the option to behave in a not-poly way
This is why I'm happy to continue this in-person, but would like to not continue this conversation on here.

This line smacks of a really unpleasant attitude/opinion akin to "just because you're gay doesn't mean you shouldn't get a wife and have kids". Obviously, this isn't a stance I'd ever associate with yourself, which means carrying on this conversation feels really really awkward.

This is something I'd really like to explore with you and either France and/or OpenCon provide some excellent backdrops and opportunities for this potentially tricky subject. Feel free to bring this up next time we meet up :)

If you're going to conflate concepts like 'can' and 'should', then there is no appropriate place to carry on a conversation. A gay-identified man absolutely CAN get a wife and have kids, and he may carry beliefs about himself and the world that convince him it's a good idea to do so. That doesn't imply any opinion on my part as to whether or not he SHOULD.
Your original comment displayed a curious ambivalence to poly which implied that you felt you had no choice about being so, and might prefer to be otherwise. My point was that if you honestly preferred to behave otherwise, you have that option open to you.

None of this reflects on my opinion of you as a person, and I hope to enjoy the trip to France, but perhaps we can leave the intellectual debate for later in the trip.

but perhaps we can leave the intellectual debate for later in the trip
*nods enthusiastically*

I think there has been a crossed wire somewhere so yes, let's leave this one be :)

well said. I am enjoying reading your essays! Thank you.

An excellent well written and thought provoking read. Thank you :-)

The sad truth regarding what is "Natural" though, is that humans instinctively polarise the world into "Them and Us". Poly vs Monogamous, Meat eater vs Veggie, Straight vs "Not Straight".

It's deeply ingrained tribal behaviour. In most cases these days, putting people on the other side of a hypothetical line is just a way of allowing the discriminator look down on the "Thems" and feel smug about being an "Us" [*]. But in viewing "Them" as inferior it opens the door to other more sinister behaviours. Deriding and dismissing "Them" leads to dehumanising "Them", when you see "Them" as less than human its easier to take away their rights their property, their lives.

But as you mention, we are also creatures of thought and logic and it is essential that we remember to use that logic and thought to keep such divisive impulses in check.

Sorry for ranting off at a tangent, but this is a pet subject of mine, labels create division where we should be building empathy and inclusion. So reading your post about no such thing as Poly/Mono makes me want to give you a huge hug, then put you on a pedestal and point at you shouting "This is how we should be thinking" at passers by! :-)

You rock very much!

[*] I was going to make a snide remark about "See Daily Mail readers for more on this subject" but that in itself is creating another "Them and Us" situation, see how easy it is to create divisions.

Yup. Lol false binaries.

I like this essay. Most descriptions are convenient stereotypes which save one from giving the full description.

Tree pretty. Fire hot.

emanix amazing writer.

(Yeah, that's about as far as my brain is going lately.)

I don't know you, but I would wager heavily that you aren't carnivorous. Perhaps you've subscribed to a false dichotomy and overlooked omnivores.

Ah, caught! This was me using my Artistic Licence (http://www.maxinegreen.co.uk/jnt/toons/ArtisticLicence-RLSm.jpg).

The small text reads 'The holder of this card is authorised to bend the truth in the name of comedy.'

In other words, 'carnivorous' was funnier. ;)

My philosophy is that there are many different paths to happiness and you should pick the one that best suits you and not worry too much about what other people are doing as long as their paths and yours aren't getting in each others' ways. I have friends who are poly and friends who are monogamous and as long as it works for them, it makes no difference to me. The only time that it matters to me is when I'm involved, in which case we need to find some kind of compromise that allows for everyone involved to be as happy and fulfilled as possible.

Also, I recognize that you're going for hyperbole for the sake of humor, but there is a part of me that cringes when I see people say things like "I'm a carnivore" when they actually mean that they are omnivores simply because most of them don't actually know the difference.

While I like your points philosophically, I wonder about where that leaves poly rights.
I like you, and I'm interested in what you're saying, but there's a big problem here.

Presently, there are some jobs where one can be openly poly and it's fine, others where admitting to being poly (or being found out to have been discreetly poly for years) would be a career-ending event.

The present legal status and protections accorded to LGBT people have been won on the back of a long fight to get others to realise that these sexualities are not a lifestyle choice but a natural and inherent part of an individual, though there is an associated community and lifestyle.

Your argument, while appealing, makes it clear that poly is a lifestyle choice, albeit one upheld by important beliefs, similar to others such as being vegetarian. I disagree: I think being poly is a form and aspect of sexuality, and that this needs to be recognised for polyamory to gain legal status.

Argh, I've been failing to catch up with LJ for a long while now!

While I concede that the biological argument has been of use in improving LGBT rights, I think it's ultimately the wrong way to go about promoting personal freedom in matters that are ultimately nobody else's business.

I'm not stating at any point that a person necessarily has control over the beliefs and attitudes that make up their life choices - or their personality, only that these things aren't built in to the species or nobody would be able to change from one to the other. I feel that demanding that every life choice be made on biological grounds negates, for example, the choice of veganism, which it could easily be argued is biologically inappropriate for our species, whilst leaving folk engaging in consensual kink high and dry also.

More important to me would be a rule of law that respects the personal sovereignty of every individual in any matter where they are consenting and not harming those outside themselves, and it's logic, not biology that I see as the most useful tool to achieve that. A system that considers positive ethical measures such as honesty, respect and following through on promises, rather than being based on who you may have had sex with and how.

"Seriously, why on earth is anyone asking which is the 'natural' way to be?"

I just want to answer that question: one reason is the discussion which lifestyle choice is easier. For example, my friend Emilia has a food phobia -- she can't stand meat. For her, being a vegetarian is very easy (and being omnivorous would be near impossible). There is a big difference between her and some vegetarians that crave the taste of meat, but refrain from eating it for ideological reasons. She could get psychological treatment and through a long and painful process arrive at a state where meat would no longer disgust her; but it sure wouldn't be easy. It's the same thing with poly lifestyle -- for some people it just comes "naturally", they don't need to fight jealousy, they simply never have it to begin with.
But the more important reason nature pops in poly/mono discussions is that the mono people bring it in. Very often, I hear "but your relationship form is not natural!" and feel an urge to throw it back at them :-)

Sorry for commenting so late on your posts, but I just saw you through

tacit and I think you're awesome :-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hi, I'm poly and I don't exist.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Carnivorous

Re: Carnivorous

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject