Harem?

"When did being poly become having a harem?"

That's the question that someone asked at Fetlife recently. The original post to the topic thread said:

"I seem to have missed this memo.
I mean, don't get me wrong, having a harem is kind of a cool thought, and if it happens, I'm not gonna cry about it, but it seems that there are a lot of men (and some women) that adopt the moniker of being poly to justify this sort of behavior... Polyamory comes from Latin/Greek roots meaning "loving many". This implies that those who would be poly would be in favor of keeping and maintaining many relationships ...When a Master is ok with keeping three women in his household but is not ok with any of them looking for other relationships, it isn't poly, its a dynamic of the relationship they've built and should be labeled as such."


Discussion ensued, and I was a little surprised to see how many believe that when you combine BDSM with "poly," that it really ends up being something else and not poly at all... maybe its a harem, and maybe it needs some other label -- someone proposed poly-mastery -- but it isn't poly if some parties to the relationship are "unavailable."


As time has passed, and the conversation has meandered, I've moved from surprise and bemusement to some emotional position that feels like it is wedged between frustration and fury. Can these idiots spell, "WTF?"


I asked the question, "Since when did being poly become synonymous with being available?" It was perhaps rhetorical, but that doesn't mean that I don't actually seek an answer. I understand that there are non-poly and vanilla people who really don't understand; who don't have a lot of information about this relationship style, and I've sort of gotten used to working my way through the assumptions and misconceptions. I am, however, much less patient with what feels like deliberate stupidity, or personal bias, or some evil combination of both when I encounter these attitudes within the poly/BDSM community. I just don't think I ought to have to explain or justify myself or my choices or my committments to other kinky folks.


But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe an explanation would be helpful. Maybe it really is necessary. So, here it is:

• I am a slave.
• I am owned by Master, and He is poly.
• Our family is a triad-V, and that is outside the boundary defined by the social construct of monogamy.
• That family structure is driven by our shared love for one another, by our various orientations to life and BDSM, and by Master's desires and vision.
• And we are an entirely heterosexual family.
• Some might call our orientation poly-fidelitous. We are surely committed to one another.
• Poly, for us, does not connote "promiscuous" or "indiscriminate," or "bisexual," and I don't understand when those orientations to sexual interactions became the standard, or the requirement, in poly circles.
• Master does actively and openly seek out other partners for BDSM play and relatedness.
• He does not expect His property to be seeking out other partners.
• It may not look "fair" to outside observers.
• Power-exchanges are often constructed in ways that are deliberately "not fair," especially by outside standards.
• What we do is consensual.
• We'll be happy to explain the dynamic in whatever detail is necessary to make it as clear as possible if that will help those who are curious to understand.
  

There. Does that help? It is what it is. We call it poly. We call it M/s and D/s. We call it love. If you wonder about who we are or how we are or who is and is not available for whatever, just ask. Better yet, build a relationship with us -- start with "hello," and you will figure it all out. Just stop making assumptions; stop trying to make us fit into your preconceived little boxes; stop bringing your biases and your predjudices into my world and slapping me up alongside the head with it. Because, the truth is, that when I see people go on and on like that, I tend to get to a point where I just assume that they are stupid. Enough said.

swan