Re: [UUPoly-L] definitions again; my 2 cents

["Earth Father" <earthfather@cfnc.us>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Ullman
 
> What I think is not only not useful, but destructive to our
> conversation, is to talk about who is or isn't polyamorous. In
> colloquial speech many of us, myself included, use "I am polyamorous"
> when we really mean "I have polyamorous relationships." This is like
> "I am a guitarist" which can be true even if one also plays the
> trumpet, and you can certainly say it even when you are not playing
> the guitar, but is never taken to sum up everything one is in life.
> 
> If "I am polyamorous" is said in the same sense that "I am Christian"
> is said, then we can have communications breakdowns. I see polyamory
> as relationship technology, not as a moral/spiritual high ground. In
> a lot of the definition discussions, I think there are often people
> who get wigged out because they don't distinguish between an abstract
> model that is useful for discussion and some sort of metaphysical
> definition of ones essence.

"I am polyamorous" can be shorthand for someone who happens to have a
polyamorous relationship structure.  It can also be used in the same way that
someone might say "I am homosexual" or "I am male"-- that is, it is a
"hard-wired", unchanging aspect of their personhood.

I'm sure there are people who can be happy either in a monogamous relationship
structure or a polyamorous one; but there are those of us who are "wired" poly,
and for whom monogamy would be as unnatural and unsustainable as trying to
maintain a heterosexual relationship for a Kinsey 6 gay man, or trying to nurse
a baby for a fully genetic male.  

(Note:  the above analogies are carefully chosen-- I'm aware that both are
possible, but require *extraordinary* measures to make them happen.)

A good example of being "wired" poly, is my own situation:  when I first fell
in love and started dating, I made it clear from the start that I would not be
monogamous, and I was in a multiple relationship situation within a few weeks
of my first date-- and have been that way ever since.  This occurred in 1964,
at a time when I had never even heard of the possibility of multiple
relationships; yet I knew even before I started dating that I would not ever be
monogamous.  A monogamous relationship was literally inconceivable to me.

My current nesting partner's story, while different in many details, shows a
similar pattern:  despite all attempts at conforming to a monogamous pattern,
nothing was sustainable, to the point of wondering whether she was
fundamentally flawed and incapable of being in a long-term loving relationship.
When she entered a fully polyamorous relationship, all those issues that
plagued her for nearly two decades seemed to evaporate.


Michael Rios