Know the difference between polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy isn't that uncommon but is often used to serve patriarchal hierarchies. Polyamory is much closer to "do whatever" (though that's not strictly true).
I'm trans and let me tell you so many of us are polyamorous. In my personal experience it has to do with spending so much time fighting against society to claim our identity that we end up questioning a lot of social norms. I think that more people than we realize could live very happily being poly, and if we had better poly representation more people would know how to approach it in a healthy way. But it doesn't serve the hierarchies we live under to let people love freely in that way, so it gets othered in media and by governments.
Also the "groups" you're talking about teaming up in are typically called polycules. There are a lot of forms they can take it is an umbrella term.
I think that as people are made more aware of the harm caused by some aspects of society we'll be better at questioning things like monogamy as a whole. It isn't an overnight thing. Also, often even in the poly community it is considered an unstable way to raise children (I don't agree with this but it is a common enough sentiment). I don't think polyamory will overtake monogamy certainly not any time in my life but I hope it becomes more common.
I think monogamous people could all do with a dose of the lessons and the vocabulary the polyamory community has developed over the years. Even if they never have more than one partner it helps to have the words to talk about things and the awareness of when you might be treating your partner unfairly out of emotional reflexes.
Polygamy just means that you marry more than one person. It's not related to patriarchy and there are many polygamous people around the world who are not patriarchal at all.
Polyamory means loving more than one person and can take many of the same forms as polygamy does, including patriarchal structures.
I chose my words intentionally for the context of the post. I said 'often' not 'universally'. The post is asking about social acceptance and I was pointing out that polygamy already is socially acceptable in some cultures and where that's true it is often in the form of patriarchal hierarchy.
Also polygamy by definition is a hierarchy because there is one primary partner with many partners/spouses, but those partners don't have the same freedom to take on other partners. If they did, then that is called polyamory. Polyamory may or may not have hierarchy depending on the structure, polygamy has to have hierarchy.
I think polyamory is an immutable part of someone's sexual orientation as much as the gender preference spectrum (homo/heterosexual) and the intensity/situationalness (ace/gray-ace/demi). I think some people just naturally see sex and intimate relationships as something they can do openly with multiple people and some people just don't. I think it will become more acceptable for the people who see sex that way to find each other and express their love that way, the same as with all the other sexual relationships between consenting adults are becoming more acceptable. But the same way it would be silly to say we'll all be homosexual eventually I don't think we'll all be poly someday either.
This is how I see it. It’s probably a fairly fluid part of someones sexual identity, but it is identity nonetheless. Though I would argue most people aren’t poly, as there’s a pretty big difference between having multiple sexual partners and multiple romantic partners, as well as between one person with multiple partners and several people all in a relationship together.
It appears to be pretty stable through history and prehistory around the world, so it's probably biological. Occasionally cultures allow limited exceptions but they're usually one-sided. This lines up with my personal experience, which is that some people are capable of being poly, but most people just aren't.
That’s… not true? Monogamy was not the primary form of bonding through humanity’s history. It actually is only recently a global phenomenon, mostly due to European colonialism and the spread of Christianity.
You really need to show some data or sources to backup such a claim tbh. It contradicts most of anthropology of bonding and relationships.
Well, here's the Wikipedia. To be clear, I'm counting a society where elite men might have multiple wives as still monogamous, since that's not representative of an average member of the population and the wives themselves are still bound to a single partner. Maybe that's a terminology error but for the sake of this question I think it's clearest.
And yeah, as someone pointed out there's an amount of infidelity in every human society, but it's generally neither endorsed by the legitimate partner or society at large, at least not as an actual relationship.
I think monogamy will continue to be the default MO of relationships although divorce will become more common as life expectancy keeps increasing. I also think acceptance of other relationship models will increase but I doubt they'll become prominent among lower classes, having one partner already is a lot of work and people with little in terms of money and perspective are unlikely to be able to afford that full attention for another partner. (yes cheating is a thing, it usually also involves either a reduction in relationship activity with the cheated on or a relationship light with the affair partner)
A core tenant of polyamory is consent. Without consent from all partners to be in multiple relationships, it’s just infidelity.
So no, secret partners isn’t polyamory. Polyamory is a form of ethical, or consensual, non-monogamy, and infidelity is both unethical and non consensual.
First world urbanites for sure, but as far as I can tell there's many that are pretty poor by that standard, as queer people often are. I guess I know less about the circumstances of their birth.
Anecdotally speaking, probably not. I haven't seen many poly relationships really last, nor have many of my friends (all queer).
I do see the rise of grandparents caring for children as a thing though, as wages continue to stagnate and both parents are forced to work. Intergenerational housing too. Multiple friends buying houses nearby and caring for kids if one parent is fiscally fortunate enough to be stay at home. That sort of thing.
I, after some admittedly short research found averages for monogamous relationships (including marriage) anywhere from 18 months to around 4 years. Which surprised the heck out of me. I've been Polyamorous for the last 24 years and the shortest relationship I've had in that time is 6 years. Most of my poly friends are also in quite long term relationships but that may just be a function of the friends I make.
This is also an entirely anecdotal response to your experiences as well.
The main problem with polyamory is the jealousy. I have experienced jealousy maybe three to five times in life, because I was an only child and I have a very laid back temperament. I think if we start prioritizing quality of life more as a society, parents will be free to raise their children well with less insecurities, and maybe that would result in more people gravitating towards polyamory. But it's really not for everyone. Poly is hard work.
Jealousy is definitely the biggest sticking point for me. Every woman I've been with has always had a few other dudes sniffing around at any given time waiting for their chance. I on the other hand have gone years between relationships because I have a hard time meeting women that I'm interested in who also want to be with me. If I could easily find someone else to hook up with while my gf was out doing it I wouldn't really have that big of a problem but I would have a huge issue if I was stuck at home by myself while she was out potentially finding a replacement for me.
Also I think you have a good point that if we didn't have to invest so many resources into a relationship more people would probably be more okay with it.
Monogamous relationships are hard. I expect romantic groups are far harder.
This is very true. Even with parallel polyamorous relationships, relationship difficulty is turned up to high. When you introduce polycules to the mix with triads, quads, or more people it takes that Duffy and ramps it up tenfold.
A triad, for example, isn’t just a relationship with 3 people. It’s 4 different relationships that have to be managed (AB, AC, BC, and ABC, are all distinctive relationships with unique needs). A quad, is 7 relationships. Going up to 5 people is something like 22 relationships to manage. So group relationships like this are pretty rare, even in the polyam world.
It depends on the person and the balance within a polycule. I do a lot better being able to spread out the amount and kinds of emotional support I need. I ask who has capacity to help me with things so nobody at any given time should be getting overloaded. When I was more monogamous if I needed emotional support and my partner was tapped at the time my choices were to strain the relationship or silently suffer.
The benefits like this are more than just emotional support too. I connect with people with physical touch even with friends. Monogamous people can get really jealous over that but being poly that jealousy has never happened. I feel more confident I can maintain friendships in a meaningful way for me because I'm poly.
Me and my nesting partner mostly just nest. I get to fill other needs with other people. If I were monogamous I'd have to decide if it was worth it to throw my living stability out the window so I can search for someone else who can be my everything.
It takes work for sure but I've found being poly a lot easier. The learning curve and finding boundaries can be wild and painful at times. A lot of that is because as a society we only really talk about relationships from a monogamous lens so anyone trying to explore being poly is usually going in blind and they don't have words to describe what they're looking for.
Monogamy assumes marriage is a natural thing people do. People are getting married later or not at all in increasing numbers.
I don't even think monogamous marriage is the main relationship style if you consider people that have affairs, divorced people, serial monogamist, etc., not part of monogamy. It's over represented in media but that norm has changed a bunch in recent years as well.
There are also tons of relationships that aren't marriage. FWB, poly, one night stands, etc.
I think the question could use a rework to clarify if you mean legally, socially, etc., as well.
It’s worth noting that polyamory and marriage aren’t mutually exclusive. Plenty of polyam people are married and even have non-legally binding marriage to multiple people. There’s a movement to make plural marriage legal because these people have the depth of relationship with more than one person that really should warrant the protections of marriage (like hospital visitation, legal protections re being forced to testify against a spouse in court, tax filing purposes, and child rearing, etc).
I'm married and poly. And yeah there are a lot of legal things surrounding marriage that I trust my nesting partner with. How to handle assets if I die suddenly, or what to do with me if I can no longer make decisions for myself, they're important things to have someone for.
I was going to ask one of my other partners to 'marry' me in the sense we'd have a celebration with partners, friends, and possibly family with the focus of the celebration being our partnership. They ended up very unexpectedly breaking up with me recently so that fell through but the thought was there :/
Here in the Pacific Northwest, the vast majority of people under 50 seem to be in polyamorous relationships. I'm fairly new to poly, but I've done a lot of reading and therapy, and it's working out pretty well for me.
I do tend to be people's anchor partner, so I've admittedly never experienced the pain that comes from being a secondary when you wish you were a primary. My anchor partner tends more towards relationship anarchy and doesn't like hierarchical relationships, but i made it clear that my expectation is to be the priority in her life. We've made it work, although it takes a lot of communication.
Poly can be such a wild learning curve and so much personal growth. There can be a lot of heartbreak in being poly (my polycule split in half a while back, I've gone from 5 to 2 partners this year, my anchor of several years broke up with me over text recently I'm pretty devastated over that one), but so much love too it is all worth it imo. And not having to rely on one person for everything is great for everyone's mental health. Breakups are a lot easier to manage because you don't have to seek romantic/physical comfort from strangers or the other side of the breakup, there are other partners around to help comfort you.
And yeah, so much communication, and introspection, and evaluating social norms to figure out what parts are toxic. You really have to learn about your partners and be really clear with boundaries for everything to work well.
It seems like one of my partners is about to be broken up with and I’m bracing to be there for them if/when it happens. I’m going to sardonically laugh my ass off if it happens next week because it’ll be nearly a year to the day that my wife and I broke up, and days before our anniversary. It was definitely surreal last year breaking up with my wife and celebrating my first anniversary with this partner 2 days later.
Some animals mate for life or mate exclusively, others don't. It's not "the main form of earth," it's the norm by which humans establish long-term romantic and sexual relationships and raise their young.
I don't think society will forget that any time soon, but it's hard to predict the future. Culture does change over time.
We have already seen a huge change as it's much more acceptable to be in more relationships and getting a divorce.
If people start to live a lot longer you will see people changing relationships more.
With AI there is already worry about people getting into romantic relationships with AI partners.
If we ever achieve long-term life extension, I could see monogamy being tossed. Being with a single partner for life can serve well if it's the ideal of both parties in the relationship. But extend that lifespan to multiple times the current one, and I can see it getting pretty iffy.
Very true… I love my wife (20 years together) and if we don’t split in the next ten then we’ll probably stick it out until the end. We’re not perfect but we love each other, share a ton of values and make a good team. I don’t think I would want to ever be back on the dating scene though, especially in my late 40’s and 50’s. I would probably enjoy spending my final years relatively alone, doing my own thing and living peacefully.
All forms of relationships will fluctuate as legal options throughout time. Polygamy is no different. Polygamy used to be common in certain parts of the developed world and is still common in places like the Middle East. Heterosexual monogamy is just the thing that it happens won't fluctuate, this is as it's like an axis mundi of relationships. That said, everything you describe is inevitable as a phase.
That said, I don't consider a relationship invalid or "less valid" no matter how many people are involved, their genders, their race, their creed, their medical history, how close they are, etc.
In the ethical nonmonogamy (ENM) circles, the form of polygamy is usually frowned as it is a form of power over others. However polyamory and other forms of non monogamy are much practiced and common.
Monogamy has never been the main thing. However, with the equalizing of sexes in marriage according to the law, I don't see how anything but monogamy can be legally until a lot of work is put into defining how three equal people can be married.
A form of polygamy is available to the upper class; it is called having a mistress. However, the mistress has no marriage rights; any rights would come from being the parent of a joint child.
I think you are talking about marriage and family, more than just sex, right? Because sex-wise, you can do what you want already.
Polygamy no. I don't think that's what most people want, the sister wives thing. That's a system used when men are scarce and you are trying to increase the population quickly, neither of those conditions exist now, and polygamist systems are often dead patriarchal and nasty.
Polyamory? The make your own family, whatever configuration, more than 2 people? I think we are closer to that, yes. In a time when you are trying to decrease birth rates, yes families with more than just a couple might become popular. More parents to love and care for each child would be handy.
Polyandry, two or more husbands? That would work in a world where there were more men than women - but most of those places in the world right now are not places where a woman would have the freedom to do that.
@Violett_Queen I don't think it's already the case and we already generally do just do whatever we want, but are afraid to admit it to ourselves.
Also, are you talking about *gamy or *amory?
There's distinction.
Polygamy is about just sex pretty much. Polyamory is about romantic relationships.
If the former, then, a lot of married people have sex outside marriage. It's debatable how honest this is, most of it just cheating - but that already counts as polygamy.
If the latter... Unfortunately, we're ways off universally recognizing this type of relationship. For shame.
There's also the factor of polyamorous relationships being harder to maintain, requiring a lot more work to do properly. Despite what conservatives might say, this type of relationship demands MORE responsibility from all involved, not less. So, it's not everyone's cup of tea, and probably monoamory will be the default in most of the cases. But if you are willing and able pull it off, there's nothing quite like it.
I see a future where you'll need a contract to have a child and it will include support for 21 years between both DNA donors. Most people will lack the financial availability and would not qualify for parenthood. Illegal pregnancies would result in 21 years minimal prison sentence for both DNA donors.
With that, two person contracts will replace the religious concept of marriage. It will require an equal support for both partners financially. The contract would allow separation for domestic violence or failure to produce a human child. No Divorce would be authorized under any other circumstances. No new contracts would be authorized for a new partner if a DNA donor child is under the age of 21.
So yes, if you enter into a contract to produce a child, your stuck with that choice for 21 years.
Currently in most of the Western world we have very stringent standards that have to be met in order to adopt a child (and quite rightly too in my view). But in order to conceive a child naturally? Nothing, nada, zilch. Full blown neo-nazi? Meth addict? Huge track record of violence? Rapist? Paedophile? All of the above? Find a partner of the opposite sex and you're good to go! This is a massive inconsistency that I can see we will have to face up to sooner or later, maybe not to the extent you propose, but some sort of minimum standard needs to be put in place for being able to reproduce, for the sake of those children that will otherwise be brought up in horrific, abusive nightmare environments if nothing else.
@waterbogan@YoBuckStopsHere Genuinely curious, how the fuck would we enforce such a law? How many children will be hidden and illegitimate because they were born to someone not allowed to conceive?
I suppose child protective services or your local equivalent exists for this reason - you could expand their ability to take kids away from birth onwards if the parents meet those definitions.
What a wonderful dystopian future where rape victims (of any gender, mind you!) get punished.
And no divorce either, because humans are very well known for doing well-calculated and all around perfect long-term decisions.
Look, I know why would you want to have something like this in place. But what you have written won't work (and for several reasons, yes there are more that I just stated above), and more so - it will backfire massively.
I would have thought that in the instance of rape the burden of punishment would fall entirely upon the perpetrator, i.e. the rapist. Fair point about divorce though
I mean, mormons are a thing (in the US at least idk how far they've spread) and polygamy isn't that uncommon in patriarchal religions. Polyamory on the other hand tends to be more about personal freedoms and flies in the face of a lot of hierarchies.
Polygamy Polygyny, in particular, is a largely religious institution. In no small part that’s due to the fact that polygamy polygyny is inherently patriarchal, and nearly all modern religions are too, so it makes sense that it would be found predominantly in religious communities and histories.
Polyamory, however, is neither patriarchal or matriarchal. It is freedom for everyone involved to have relationships in any capacity they want, including women and other non-male gendered people to be with whoever they want. Patriarchal societies will never accept something that gives women that type of freedom and power over their own lives.
Edit: I got some terminology wrong and thought polygamy was one man multiple women, but the term just refers to having multiple spouses. Polygyny is one man multiple women. Which def means I took the conversation down a weird hole.
other non-male gendered people to be with whoever they want
right, thanks for enlightening me where your opinion comes from. Not that the constant mention of patriarchy in places it has no relevance wasn't already a red flag.
I'd still like to highlight the inherent sexism in excluding a single group, in this case males, from your supposed Polyamorous Utopia. If it really was independent of the "patriarchy" or a "matriarchy" there would be no need to single out any gender or sexual orientation no? To me it seems like you are simply trying to invert a perceived victim status instead of abolishing victims entirely. Inverting your ideals from time to time helps illustrate inherent flaws or discrimination, helped me get out of the feminism-hate section of the internet, might help you get out of the all-men-are-evil section.