Differences?

I read on a Yahoo listserve for "Poly Researchers." It is, as the name implies, a list of and for those doing "serious" research into polyamory. The participants are almost all academics or "professionals" of whatever sort, who all have some sort of apparently valid credential qualifying them as a member of this "August" group. They mostly discuss research methodologies and research resources. They also tend to a fair amount of what seems to me to be "credential" one-upsmanship. A sort of academic version of "mine's bigger than yours." I had to talk my way onto the list because, as someone who ONLY lives a poly life, they were afraid that I'd just want to talk all the time about my experience, and detract from the serious "research" discussions they were engaged in. I promised to just read and not talk, and they let me join. Yeah.

Recently, there was a research survey that appeared on the list. The purpose, it seems, was to gather data from people (not necessarily poly people) who were engaged in "multiple partner relationships" of some sort. It did say that if you considered yourself "poly" you were welcome to participate, so I went ahead and completed it. One section of it got into asking for "definitions" or descriptions that would outline the differences between various types of multiple partner relating. Their list included:

• polygamous marriages


• open marriage


• swingers


• "players"


• serial monogamy

So, I went merrily through the list and gave some answers, and figured I was done...

Except that I've wondered ever since if there isn't something important to say about all those distinctions -- and if there aren't "gradations" of distinction even within the same category. I know that I look at other "poly" people, and see great variances in how we do what we all refer to as "polyamory."

I am of two minds about all of this.

On the one hand, I believe that words have meaning. We label the things we do, the roles we play, the dynamics we create, in specific ways (in part) so that we may talk about them and discuss them from a place of shared understanding. The vocabulary serves as our vehicle for moving information around in efficient ways. So, I do believe in finding accurate descriptions that make things clear. Just as (in this rainy springtime) we use a variety of descriptors for meteorolgical precipitative events (shower, flurry, downpour, etc.), it makes sense to distinguish the variety of relational styles where appropriate, so that we can talk about them reasonably.


However, I worry that, in dividing and categorizing and labeling each other, we play into the hands of those who would marginalize all of us who create relational patterns that are outside the "norm." That dividing up amongst ourselves leads us to create implied hierarchies of "better than," and "less correct than." We become "us" and "them." That's a very real risk when we are living, all of us, in a society that sees us ALL as "them."


Those are my disclaimers. Those are my misgivings at the point of embarking on this conversation. Still, even with some concerns about the whole business, I think that there is something to be gained from looking at the similarities and differences between us.

Let me begin with polyamory. It is what I (and we) live, and I feel most comfortable commenting about it as a relational model. One of the first things that I think needs to be made clear when talking about polyamory is that there is no ONE relationship pattern that IS polyamory. There are as many different ways of structuring poly relationships as there are poly relationships. I know that, when we meet new people, and decide to tell them about our life together, we end up going through a lengthy list of descriptors and defining terms. It goes something like this: "we are a committed (sometimes we say fidelitous), heterosexual, fMf, BDSM, poly triad, intentional family." So, if we say anything at all, we feel compelled to address issues of sexual orientation, issues of relational openess, issues of numerosity, issues related to power dynamics, the variance of our genders, the geometry of how we relate to one another, and even the business of our "intent" in being together in the first place. We also go to some length to define ourselves as "poly," and not some OTHER alternative relational style. Yikes!

We are not alone in that behavior. Most poly people run through similar litanies to make it clear how, exactly, they relate to their various partners. Polyamory is laden with all kinds of "code" words like primary, secondary, tertiary, quad, triad, dyad, vee, family, web, clan, nest, cloud, heterosexual, bisexual, omnisexual, committed, fidelitous, open, friend with benefits, fuck buddies, etc. We have this need to be able to recognize one another -- both as individuals AND as groups or clusters. I imagine that it is all driven by a desire to know who is "like us" and who is "not like us."

We also tend to explain what we ARE NOT... NOT polygamous, NOT swingers, NOT into poly-fuckery... On and on and on. There is something vaguely troubling about our penchant for defining ourselves in terms that are all couched in the negative; the absence of some affirmative declaration. I'm believing that it is an artifact of feeling estranged and marginalized and actively threatened by the social sanctions against our alternative relationship reality.

At the heart of our polyamory is our sense of ourselves as "family." We are in this together for the long haul, and that long view of our lives together creates a perspective that, I believe, is a very real part of our poly relatedness. It isn't entirely, or even mostly, about the sex or the BDSM or the comings and goings of those "multiple" partners posited by the idea of poly. For us, it is the very organic love and connection that binds us to one another; to our homes; to the life we share.

Those "other" modes of "multiple-partner" relating are far less familiar to me. I don't have personal involvement with them as lifestyle alternatives. What I know about them comes from acquaintance with people who are involved, or it comes from "academic" study.

Polygamy is multipartnered marriage (except, of course, that there is no legal grounds for marriage to more than one partner in the U.S.). Polygamy breaks down, sociologically and anthropologically, into two forms: polygyny (multiple wives), and polyandry (multiple husbands). Across time, and across cultures, it is possible to track down societies that have incorporated each of those forms. In this country, the most prominent polygamists were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). That organization abandoned the practice a good long while back, although there are still pockets of dissidents who cling to the "old" ways. It surely makes for some sensational television programming when the whole subject comes up. Elsewhere, around the world, I understand that the Muslim Qu'ran makes provision for a man to take multiple wives under certain defined conditions. The Muslim people that I know personally, express skepticism about the practical realities of really doing that in today's world.

The concept of "open marriage" dates to the 1972 book written by Nena O'Neill and George O'Neill. It connotes a marriage in which each partner is free to enter into extraneous sexual relationships without guilt or jealousy from the other partner. Open marriage is predicated on the idea that sex is healthy, and that no single partner should be expected to provide everything that their mate may want or need in a relationship. I would say that, depending on the structure of this kind of relationship, it may tend more toward a polyamorous model where each member is aware and in accord with the partnering that may come to pass. Another style of open marriage has the flavor of swinging in the sense that partners may create somewhat casual alliances that are not intended to be permanent or emotionally laden. From my perspective, the "open marriage" model begins with the assumption that there is a marriage relationship in place, and that other connections are "outside" the marriage -- hence the need to become "open." Those connections may be "allowed;" they may be sanctioned; there may be some level of knowledge; there may be the effort to disavow or deal with potential jealousies, but there is no pattern for allowing "equal" relating with partners "outside" the marriage.

Swinging, another form of multiple partner relationship, is defined (Wikipedia) as the practice of engaging in non-monogamous sexual activities. I've known swingers. Those of my acquaintance who follow this model are often very happy in their "couple" relationships, and simply like sex. The swinging model seems, from my limited experience, to recognize and support that there are those who like and appreciate the more casual and light-hearted sexual playing that swinging allows. It isn't about long-term relating; not about forming families or committed groupings -- it is about taking charge of sexual choices in an affirmative way, and then enjoying the connections that are possible within that framework. Some people play bridge, others swing. I know that many "poly" people go to pains to avoid the label of "swinger." It is as if there is a sense that "swinging" is somehow down the emotional and ethical ladder from polyamory. I don't see that. I really do believe that this is a perspective variance. I can't say that one of these approaches is "better" than the other. They are different. The people who use these relationship models are different.

In the bestiary of those who engage in multiple partner relationships, the "player" is the only "predatory" creature. Players may be male or female, but their goal and objective is conquest and capture. This is a social construct in which the potential target is not really viewed as a "partner." Players see the object of their interests as a challenge and a feel themselves to be entered in a sexual/relational contest to be won or lost. It is, in fact, objectification of the man or woman on the receiving end of the equation. It's a stretch, I think, to put this sort of activity into the "relationship" category with the others. There is very little in the way a player approches this business that seems relational to me. "Playing" in this context, is more akin to satisfying an appetite, and, beyond that "counting coup" in a game of status based on prowess.

Finally, there is the kind of relating that has come to be known as "serial monogamy." It is a pattern in which an individual forms relationships that are monogamous for the run of the connection, but which are limited in duration. These limited-life monogamous relationships are then strung together over the lifetime of the serial monogamist, much like beads on a string. While polyamorists might speak in terms of "primary" and "secondary," the serial monogamist will, typically have a history that includes the first wife, second wife, third wife, ... This kind of multi-partering is almost never "intentional." Unlike some of the other models which incorporate multiple relationships with conscious and deliberate intent, serial monogamy is frequently driven by repeated cycles of "euphoric bliss" followed by "catastrophic failure." In theory, at least, the serial monogamist does not deal with most of the relational issues that may confront others engaged in multiple-partner relationships. If the process is truly "serial," then there should be no occassion for jealousy or dealing with competing needs or demands or managing schedules and conflicting calendars. It quite likely doesn't always turn out that way. There is probably, frequently, the kind of overlap that creates those spectaclarly scandalous "celebrity" gossip headlines where the end of one "monogamous" relationship overlaps the beginning of another. Still, conceptually, this is probably the variety of multi-partnered relationship that most people are familiar with and understand best.

So, there's my best shot at describing and discussing the varieties of multi-partnered relationships that I am (even marginally) aware of. Clearly, there is much, much more that could be said about each and all of these. People write entire books on these subjects. I'm not up for book writing this morning...

swan