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

[emanix]

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?

Comments

[joreth]

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.

[terriaminute.livejournal.com]

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.

[lscribbens.livejournal.com]

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.

[struuth.livejournal.com]

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!

[trishpiglet.livejournal.com]

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.

[self-etcetera.livejournal.com]

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

[just-becky.livejournal.com]

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.

[blazingrowan.livejournal.com]

Yup. Lol false binaries.

[world-rim-walke.livejournal.com]

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

[weegoddess.livejournal.com]

Tree pretty. Fire hot. emanix amazing writer.

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

Carnivorous

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[baby-rissa-chan.livejournal.com]

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.

[thalinoviel.livejournal.com]

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.

[petite-lambda.livejournal.com]

"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 :-)