Seven Forms of Non-Monogamy (Psychology Today)

[Wella]

From everything I'm reading on polygamy and poly marriage as a future issue, it seems DUers need a bit of an education on the subject. So, from a reputable source:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door

In contemporary US culture, monogamy means two people agreeing to have sex only with each other and no one else. Classical monogamy – a single relationship between people who marry as virgins, remain sexually exclusive their entire lives, and become celibate upon the death of the partner – has been replaced by serial monogamy – a cycle in which people are sexually exclusive with each other for a period of time, break up, and then re-partner in another sexually exclusive relationship with a different person.

Non-monogamies, in contrast, are more diverse and vary by degrees of honesty, sexual openness, importance of rules/structure, and emotional connection. People who have non-monogamous relationships in the United States range from religious practitioners of polygyny involved in Islam or the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (Mormons) who are often personally and politically conservative, to practitioners of polyamory or relationship anarchy who tend to be personally and politically liberal or progressive. Especially among the more liberal groups, there is significant overlap with other unconventional subcultures such as Pagans, geeks, gamers, science fiction enthusiasts, and practitioners of BDSM (previously known as sadomasochism, also termed kinky sex or kinksters).

...Polygamy

Alongside (and even predating) monogamy, cultures throughout the world have long practiced polygamy -- a form of marriage consisting of more than two persons. The most common form of multiple partner marriage is polygyny, a marriage of one husband and multiple wives who are each sexually exclusive with the husband. Worldwide, Muslims are those who are most likely to be polygynous, with the highest concentrations of contemporary polygyny in the Middle East and parts of Africa. Polyandry --a marriage of one wife to multiple husbands -- is far more rare, as marriages between one woman and multiple men have received less social, political, and cultural support than have polygynous relationships.

Open

Open relationships are varied enough to be an umbrella term for consensually non-monogamous relationships based on a primary couple who are “open” to sexual contact with others. The most common form of open relationship is that of a married or long-term committed couple that takes on a third (or sometimes forth or fifth) partner whose involvement and role in the relationship is always secondary. A couple practicing this relationship type might engage in sexual activity with the secondary partner together or separate, or they may each have independent outside relationships with different secondary partners—regardless of the specific parameters, the primary couple always remains a priority. Generally rooted in specific rules, expectations, and communication between those involved, open relationships may take a variety of forms and may evolve over time as needed to meet the needs of those persons involved. Swinging, monogamish, polyamorous/polyfidelitous, and anarchistic relationships can all be considered “open.”...

...Polyamory and Polyfidelity

Polyamory is a relationship style that allows people to openly conduct multiple sexual and/or romantic relationships simultaneously, ideally with the knowledge and consent of all involved in or affected by the relationships. Polyfidelity is similar except that it is a closed relationship style that requires sexual and emotional fidelity to an intimate group that is larger than two. Polyaffective relationships are emotionally intimate, non-sexual connections among people connected by a polyamorous relationship, such as two heterosexual men who are both in sexual relationships with the same women and have co-spousal or brother-like relationships with each other...

I encourage you to read the whole blog post. It's a real eye-opener.

[msanthrope]

1. Really? DUers who disagree with you need more of an "education?" nt

[Wella]

2. It's not about disagreement: it's about ignorance of the subject

There are many sexual minorities out there and many different ways to construe relationships. The remarks I have seen indicate a general lack of knowledge.

[msanthrope]

3. Oh, on your last thread, I did see a general lack of knowledge.....nt

[Wella]

15. There certainly was.

/

[The_Commonist]

4. I was a member of the group that...

...coined the word Polyfidelity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerista

And on another thread I just got called a bigot for advocating for (consensual, of course!) poly relationships.

[bobclark86]

6. Well, you do hate women...

That's what I read on the Internet, so it must be true...

[Wella]

21. You're a "bigot" because you think those relationships deserve state recognition, apparently

It reminds me of how people who finally get that full time college position after years of adjuncting suddenly start looking down on their formerly fellow adjuncts as dirt. Once they're in the club, they're special, and you're not.

[Mojorabbit]

5. Thank you. I am appalled at the name calling and all out attacks on some of these threads. nt

[Wella]

9. Me too.

I think a lot of it comes from not knowing enough.

[Wella]

46. By the way, have you read this? It's an old article but it still makes the point:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/why-are-gay-marriage-advo_b_155476.html

But what's a poly person to do if they want to enter into a committed relationship with the people they love? Polygamy - marriage to more than one person - is no more an option for conseting adults in the United States than gay marriage is in all states expect Massachusetts and Connecticut. If the rights of gay people are being trampled on, then it's two states worse for poly people.

If you follow the same argument template as many gay marriage advocates, anyone who opposes polygamy is a bigot and a hater. Rick Warren has made it clear that he opposes poly relationship, too. And even comparing consensual poly relationship to Jeffs is equating polyamorists with PEDOPHILES!

...There's no argument you can make against a poly marriage that wouldn't work just as well as an argument against gay marriage.

Aside from reasons of consistency, advocates of gay marriage should also be vocally in favor of polygamy since it allows bisexuals to be actively practicing married bisexuals. Bisexuals are the B in GLBT but they really get short shrift in the marriage discussion.

I'm in favor of real marriage equality. Love the one you're with. Love the two or more you're with, if you can work that out. Marry them if you're into that kind of thing. But until the gay marriage movement embraces polygamy...well, they are just acting like bigots and haters, aren't they?

[smiley]

7. Thanks for posting this...

I'm amazed at some of the comments I've seen regarding poly relationships.

[Wella]

12. There's a lot of fear and I'm surprised.

I guess you have to know people in a poly relationship to actually understand that it's not a threat.

[geek tragedy]

8. Sexual monogamy and legal monogamy are different things.

The government doesn't care about the sexual behavior, only the legal relationships.

People in poly amorous arrangements do not need the government 's blessing.

[Mojorabbit]

13. Certainly some may

A household could benefit from all manner of legal protections granted by the state involving family issues just as any other type of family would.

[geek tragedy]

14. They could, the question is whether it's worth it from society's perspective to

change the fundamental nature of marriage from a legal perspective in order to produce benefits for a vanishingly small portion of the population. It's one thing to stop excluding types of couples--that doesn't change the rules for everyone else. Extending benefits for poly arrangements would require changing the legal meaning of everyone else's marriage as well as upending the entire legal structure in all 50 states and at the federal level over myriad areas of substantive legislation.

A decision that the democratic process makes, not the courts.

There is no polygamy rights movement to speak of, so it would seem that there's no prospect for it to happen, and society is just fine with that.

[Mojorabbit]

16. You cannot speak for those in that type of relationship

nor make pronouncements of what is fine or not for the rest of us. I know several poly relationships that are long term and that could benefit from a widening of the definition of marriage and the protections that come with that. The legal issues could be worked out. I would make a bet that in the next twenty years it will happen.

[geek tragedy]

17. I would bet my life savings nothing of the sort happens.

Is there a single state that's considering whether to abolish monogamous marriage law and replace it with polygamous marriage law?

Is there any kind of lobbying or activist movement to argue for it?

You are right. People in monogamous marriages and those who have zero interest in forming a polygamous household cannot speak for , or on behalf of, those in such relationships, and will not, as your interests are directly contrary to ours.

So, who's going to push for that change? Where will it first happen?

The only reason it's being talked about is because anti-equality wingnuts used it as a red herring to troll supporters of marriage equality.

[Mojorabbit]

18. Why are the interests contrary? That makes no sense.

A poly marriage would not be at odds with your marriage. It will take one lawsuit to start the ball rolling. It will happen and I will cheer them on when it does.

[geek tragedy]

19. The lawsuit would be utterly frivolous.

There is no credible claim of a violation of constitutional rights. No discrimination. No violation of equal protection. Just a group of people seeking government benefits for behavior the democratic process has failed to recognize as worth incentivizing.

Nowhere near the same as same-sex marriage, which was a clear cut case of discrimination without a rational basis against people not for their behavior, but for who they were.

The Supreme Court is not there to second guess the legislature on policy decisions. It's there to make sure they don't violate the constitution.

Abolishing monogamous marriage and replacing it with polygamous marriage means legally redefining the marriage of everyone in the country. It lessens the commitment people have made to each other--the commitment that there will be no others.

It also would mean throwing the entire legal system in chaos.

Sorry, not worth it to us.

[Wella]

20. Years ago, there was no "credible claim" of discrimination against gays

They were considered people engaging in "sin", not a group deserving civil rights protections. The same will come to pass for other sexual minorities, like those in poly relationships.

[kelly1mm]

36. I do not know if you are aware, but you are making the same argument that the state of Virginia

made when defending their anti-misogyny laws. Interracial marriage was a crime for both whites and blacks thus no discrimination. Similar to how some tried to argue that gays and lesbians were free to marry any non-same sex person as anyone else - see no 'discrimination'! What the Supreme Court recognized in both the Loving v. Va case as well as the recent marriage equality case is there is a right to both procedural due process (laws the same for all) as well as substantive due process (saying it is a crime to marry someone the state does not think you should be allowed to marry). Both are at play here.

[geek tragedy]

39. I am aware that there are no more oppressed classes being

excluded from marriage benefits.

Loving was about discrimination. This poly red herring does not.

People who cannot grasp this distinction tend to make fools of themselves.

[kelly1mm]

40. I forgot whom I was responding too. As in the past, discussion without insult is beyond the

capacity of some and ultimately futile.

Have a nice rest of the day.

[Wella]

35. Yes, there is a lobbying group

And there are some interesting academic papers on it.

Is There a Right to Polygamy? Marriage, Equality and Subsidizing Families in Liberal Public Justification
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1346900

Abstract:
This paper argues that the four most plausible arguments compatible with public reason for an outright legal ban on all forms of polygamy are unvictorious. I consider the types of arguments political liberals would have to insist on, and precisely how strongly, in order for a general prohibition against polygamy to be justified, while also considering what general attitude towards “marriage” and legal recognition of the right to marry is most consistent with political liberalism. I argue that a liberal state should get out of the “marriage business” by leveling down to a universal status of “civil union” neutral as to the gender and affective purpose of domestic partnerships. I then refute what I regard as the four most plausible rational objections to offering this civil union status to multi-member domestic partnerships. The most common objection to polygamy is on grounds of gender equality, more specifically, female equality. But advancing this argument forcefully often involves neglecting the tendency of political liberalism (by whatever name it goes in contemporary, complex, multicultural societies) to tolerate a certain amount of inequality in private, within the bounds of robust and meaningful freedoms of choice and exit. Properly understood, polygamy involves no inherent statement about the essential inferiority of women, and certainly not more than many other existing practices and institutions (including many expressions of the main monotheistic religions) which political liberals regard as tolerable, even reasonable. Arguments from the welfare of children, fairness in the spousal market, and the abuse of family subsidies are also considered and found insufficient for excluding polygamy.

[Wella]

37. Actually, there are polyamorous activist groups who've been waiting for this SCOTUS decision

http://www.vice.com/read/after-gay-marriage-why-not-polygamy

... “Kurtz was right for the most part,” Anita Wagner Illig, a polyamorous-relationships advocate who runs the Practical Polyamory website, told me in an email. “Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a legal precedent where there can be no valid legal premise for denying marriage to more than two people who wish to marry each other… We just disagree as to whether it’s a bad thing.”

...Many gay marriage advocates dislike that comparison—they don’t want the public to draw comparisons between gay relationships and “weird” potentially abusive multiwife setups. Back in 2006, Andrew Sullivan wrote, “Legalizing [polygamy] is a bad idea for a society in general for all the usual reasons (abuse of women, the dangers of leaving a pool of unmarried straight men in the population at large, etc.),” an odd mirroring of all those conservatives who’ve talked about how “bad for society” gay marriage would be.

“For as long as they could get away with it, [marriage-equality advocates] disingenuously denied that we polyamorists even exist and swore that it was and would forever be a nonissue,” Anita said. “This was all politics as usual, of course, but it was pretty disappointing for us to be thrown under the bus that way, especially since the polyamory community has always supported marriage equality.”

Polyamory has left-wing roots—it’s “intertwined with the rise of feminism,” as Slate wrote last year...

[Wella]

22. A "fundamental nature of marriage" argument? That's a RW talking point.

The fundamental nature of marriage was to protect the naturally occurring offspring of inevitable sexual relations. That has gone a drastic overhaul in the past century. The fundamental purpose of marriage seem now a garbled combination of civil rights (marriage being a fundamental right), equality of tax breaks/benefits, and having a (usually) temporary situation in which children are produced but in which they do not necessarily stay due to divorce. In other words, the only thing that distinguishes marriage from other relationships is the whims of the individuals and (legally) their civil right to live out those whims and get tax breaks for it.

Why shouldn't other sexual minorities get those benefits?

[Wella]

23. Marriage and (down low) homosexuality are different things too

Through history, men have married women to have children and have had a guy on the side. In the 20th century, SCOTUS decided that these socially gay relationships should have legal recognition. The same thing will happen with polymarriage. The government will be forced to "care" about the legal recognition of the polyamorous.

[KittyWampus]

10. a poly relationship is not a poly-marriage. Human society has mostly evolved past polygamy-

with the exception of some very regressive areas.

[Wella]

11. ACtually, there is an argument that more advanced forms of polymarriage are an advance

Look at the last definition in the OP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. So your eyes have been opened to what polygamy is usually like?

Good. Now maybe you'll understand why people don't like you advocating legal support for it. Read that paragraph on polygamy again, if it hasn't quite got through to you.

[Wella]

26. Thanks for playing "Missing the Point Entirely."

You should read the Psychology Today blog all the way through. There are also some great online blogs in which women talk about their experiences in poly relationships.

http://polyamorydiaries.com/

http://polymomma.com/

Today's poly relationships are voluntary and work out well for many reasons. I understand you're not open to it: you'd rather stereotype all poly relationships as some kind of Muslim misogynist institution. They are not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Your point, then, wasn't about polygamy, but about the other situations?

OK; but why did you excerpt the paragraph about polygamy, if you didn't want us to read it?

[Wella]

33. My point was to educate people about the options that are actually out there. Polymarriage would

not necessarily be old-school Mormon/Muslim polygamy. You seem to think that the only polymarriage option is some kind of Branch Davidian cult situtation: it's not.

Get a feel for some of the blogs. Talk to some of the people in polyamorous situations on this board. There are polyamorous trios (or more) raising children and living productive lives. The women in these situations are often driving them: they want to explore their sexuality but still have the stability there to raise their kids, since kids do require stability.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. But your earlier thread was about polygamy, not 'the options'

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6940256

You remember - the one in which you tried to pass off a quote from a right wing source as being from NBC, 3 times? That one. So, when you quote the paragraph about polygamy, I assume you think that paragraph is important. And since it says, like many people told you, that polygamy in practice has been about men controlling women, I was hoping this meant you've now realised why other people understood it better than you did.

[Wella]

41. My earlier thread and my current one is about POLYMARRIAGE--polygamy is one of those types

But it doesn't have to be Mormon or Muslim style polygamy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. The only form of multiple marriage in that article is polygamy

The other ones are about relationships (including cheating and adultery), not a legal status.

[Wella]

43. The article is about different options: only one of them has ever been recognized legally (polygamy)

Polyamory and polyfidelity are the ones that would be fighting for legal status.

[Wella]

30. From one of the bloggers:

http://polyamorydiaries.com/

...The problem is, fires don’t burn indefinitely unless you keep adding more wood. They start with a spark, work their way up to a roar, then calm back down to a crackle. When the crackling gets too quiet, someone throws another log on, and the flames flare back up. The cycle repeats over and over again, as long as there are more logs, more fuel.

Our fuel is running out. Brad and I have tried all the tricks. We’ve fanned the flames. We need more logs—new energy, a fresh perspective. It doesn’t mean we don’t love each other, or that we are done with each other. It just means we need something new.

Enter polyamory. Polyamory means “many loves.” It is the practice of engaging in several emotionally and possibly sexually intimate relationships simultaneously, with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. It differs from polygamy, which means “many marriages”—usually “many wives.”...

And

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/30/polyamory-is-next-and-im-one-reason-why/ (Yes, this is a libertarian source. The woman is an atheist libertarian.)

...Government incentives for marriage—gay or straight—discriminate against single and polyamorous individuals. Part of the reason gay people are so exuberant about the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage—aside from the symbolism of wider cultural acceptance—is the bribes government gives people for committing to a lifetime of coupled monogamy.

From income-tax breaks to estate planning benefits to Social Security and insurance benefits to the right to make medical decisions for one’s spouse, there are all kinds of carrots dangled in front of Americans as rewards for getting hitched. Instead of putting unmarried individuals on equal footing with married people, the government has chosen to appease the masses by blessing another category of monogamous couples with the privileges of marriage—those of the same sex.

This is discrimination, plain and simple. It discriminates against single people who have no formal romantic relationships and a growing number of people who identify as polyamorous, who maintain multiple romantic relationships at once. The government has no business incentivizing any type of romantic or non-romantic behavior. It has no business rewarding us or penalizing us based on our relationship status.

By granting gay couples the same “privileges” as straight couples, we are widening the gap of inequality between coupled and non-coupled individuals. The only way to have real equality in this country is to treat everyone as individuals with equal rights, not unequal privileges. Otherwise, we open the doors to social conservatives’ worst nightmare—polygamy! Not long after that, single people, vying for the same entitlements, will surely fulfill former Sen. Rick Santorum’s prophecy by requesting to marry their dogs!

[snooper2]

25. In contemporary US culture, monogamy means two people agreeing to have sex only with each other and

no one else.



Um, so what about having sex with yourself? Some "educated" write-up

[Wella]

27. Thanks for the non-sequitur!

Always fun to respond to those.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. What about it?

I've never heard anyone refer to masturbation as 'monogamy'.

[Wella]

29. Isn't it amazing how illogical and unrelated things arise when people get threatened?

And no, can't say that I've ever heard masturbation referred to as any kind of relationship preference. Rick Santorum has never talked about wanting to "marry your hand".

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. It is NOT a future issue. Fucking hell.

This is some brain-damaged bullshit thought up by stupid-ass right-wingers who are all "but but...slippery slope! if you legalise gay marriage, what's next? Polygamy? Bestiality? INCEST?" And apparently there are a lot of incredibly stupid people around here. (Funny thing; same-sex marriage has been legalised in a LOT of other places, prior to the USA. In none of them, so far, has anyone suggested that polygamy is any kind of "logical next step for reforming our marriage laws".)

[Wella]

34. Since when has "Psychology Today" been right wing?

Honestly, I think you need to step back and stop seeing every mention of polymarriage as some black and white battle between gays and Right wingers. It's not. There's a whole world out there of people who are in polyamorous relationships and many of them feel they deserve recognition.

[Blue_Adept]

44. It'll happen

but I doubt it will until we get off this planet and start living in the real future.

Arrangements such as these have been common explorations in science fiction for a long time and there have been some great workings done within it to work through how such societies would work.

I spent quite a few years in both an open and polyamorous relationship and had some of the best experiences of my life. If the ability to legally cement the relationships existed, I suspect some of them might have lasted even longer.

[Wella]

45. Slate's article "Legalize Polygamy" makes some good points:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

...While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families...

...Right now, all polygamous families, including the healthy, responsible ones, are driven into hiding (notwithstanding the openly polygamous Brown family on TLC’s Sister Wives, that is). In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation. In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows—making it easier for authorities to zero ..

...It’s also hard to argue with the constitutional freedom of religious expression that legalized polygamy would preserve. Most polygamous families are motivated by religious faith, such as fundamentalist Mormonism or Islam, and as long as all parties involved are adults, legally able to sign marriage contracts, there is no constitutional reason why they shouldn’t be able to express that faith in their marriages. Legalized polygamous marriage would also be good for immigrant families, some of whom have legally polygamous marriages in their home countries that get ripped apart during the immigration process. (It’s impossible to estimate exactly how many polygamous families live here, since they live their religious and sexual identities in secret. Academics suggest there are 50,000 to 100,000 people engaged in Muslim polygamy in the U.S., and there are thousands of fundamentalist Mormon polygamist families as well.)....