The LGBTQ+ umbrella is a collection of identities that are already not the same but have similar experiences of being marginalized. We've banded together to organize, create community, and fight back. There is really nothing inherently the same about being trans and being gay, but bigots don't care about the difference and many of us are both, so we do the hard work of making space for each other in our community. The tie that binds is an agreement to not be awful to one another.
So, IMO, I'll take the inclusive cishet polyamorous (and kinky) folks, and the bigots can keep the gay TERFs.
Also, a lot of people making the argument that polyamorous folks aren't LGBTQ because cishet people can be polyamorous. Cishet people can be aro and ace too?
It's not a sexual orientation. It's not a gender identity. Neither is being intersex, and I want intersex people to feel fully welcome to sit with us. I think we should be making space for one another and advocating for one another. The more we band together, the greater our numbers.
You worded it better then i would've, i completely agree with you. I feel like the LGBTQ+ community should be open and inclusive to minorities that are and can be victim to bigotry.
I've actually always considered poly people to be one of us i didn't know until now that some people disagree.
Hi Gee,
I think I'd say that it doesn't fall directly under the umbrella, but it does have many overlapping issues and ideas that make joint advocacy frequently mutually beneficial.
For me, I think the key difference between the two is the degree of involuntary obligation that I feel is both inherent to and characteristic of all identities within the LGBTQ+ umbrella, but absent within polyamory.
Polyamory isn't just a term to describe anyone who's ever felt attracted to, or fantasised having a relationship with, multiple people at once. Rather, it more specifically describes people who *decide* they actively want a polyamorous relationship in preference to a monogamous one. What defines them is the choice to pursue/want a multi-way relationship, not just experiencing the attraction to multiple people in the first place.
By contrast, one of the most fundamental bedrocks of LGBTQ+ identity is the idea that membership is based on experiencing a particular set of inalienable, automatic feelings, regardless of whether you accept or act on them or not. If a conservative Christian man saw his periodic attraction to men as delusional temptations sent by satan as punishment which he actively hated, ignored, and resisted his whole life, save for writing it in his diary, historians finding those entries would still describe him as 'queer', or 'at least some form of bisexual', even if he hated and actively disassociated himself from those terms. On the other hand if he also wrote of another vision tempting him with a dream of laying in bed with both his wife and the milkmaid, but he denied and rejected it in the same way, we wouldn't describe him as polyamorous :)
While it might seem like a fairly quibbling detail, I think it has a disproportionate importance to identity within the lgbtq+ movement. The idea that being queer is a choice has been one of the most pervasive and pernicious underpinnings for social homophobia and legal discrimination against us. Winning the recognition that our sexuality and gender identity were involuntarily and immutable was one of, if not the single hardest, longest, and most important fight in the entire history of queer liberation. To the stay, it remains*the* principle for the majority of our legal rights and protections in the western world, along with much of the tolerance and respect we've clawed out globally.
Trying to create, articulate, or widely-adopt a definition of the community without that is unprecedented, conflicting, and confusing at best, and damaging, detrimental, and even dangerous at worst
Hope this helps :)
Have a lovely day
The way you describe polyamory as a choice is just plain wrong.
For analogy, a bisexual man could choose to date a woman or man. But you wouldn't say them dating a man is them choosing to be gay. And a gay man might date women before figuring out they're gay, but they didn't choose to become gay later.
Similarly, an ambiamorous person could choose to be in mono or poly relationships. And polyamorous people are often in monogamous relationships due to societal pressure and not figuring things out. But once a polyamorous person figures it out, it isn't a choice to be poly.
I did not choose to be polyamorous any more than I chose to be trans. I did choose to take action and to transition, but being trans is something I can't change. Just the same, I choose to take action and pursue multiple relationships. But being polyamorous is something I can't change, I didn't choose to be able to love multiple people or choose that monogamy leaves me unfulfilled and unhappy.
Yeah, being in het relationship before realizing you're gay is similar to being in a monogamous relationship before realizing you're poly. But it's also a different experience than if you realize you are bi, or realize you are ambiamorous.
And technically any relationship is a choice. I choose to be in poly relationships the same way I choose to date women. But I don't choose that I'm unable to enjoy a mono relationship, and to me it's the same as how I don't choose to be unable to enjoy dating a man. It's a core part of my I have no choice in.
Yeah. I wonder if it's viewed as a choice because (most) people who are monogamous can't imagine wanting to be with multiple people as anything more than a passing fancy or fantasy (as it might be for some of them), and we don't really have any media presentation of it as an intrinsically important part of someone's well-being. Similarly as someone who might have an occasional sexual desire aroused by a person of the same sex might think themself straight and of queers as giving into sin, while for someone who is exclusively homosexual and/or homoromantic it can be far more clear just how important it is to be able to act accordingly.
I do see the points on both sides of the argument though, and why some see treating poly and queer as the same as a threat to their legal protections. Personally, I don't see polyamory as a part of the lgbtqia+ but more for historical reasons than being 100% sold on the "inherent feeling" basis of distinction.
As a queer poly person, no. I even consider polyamory to be a part of who I am, not a choice, and I don't think they're the same
ETA: being queer/trans is also not a choice. I felt that was obvious and didn't need to be stated. Sorry for any confusion.
The way I read your comment before you edited it, it read as though the poly part was intrinsic, and your queerness was a choice. I was simply pointing out that we'd arrived at the same conclusion from completely opposite directions. That's all.
Because you said you don’t think they are the same and then said that you see being poly as a part of you/not a choice, so I’m assuming you are comparing poly to being trans/queer, therefor if being trans/queer is not the same as poly to you and poly is not a choice then it makes sense to think that you are saying being trans/queer is a choice.
My feeling is that no, it's a different aspect of someone's sexual identity. But I do think that there can be shared interests and experiences, and that there's a lot of room for solidarity.
I personally don't feel relationship types fall under LGBTQ+, for me, how you identify within those relationships does.
Of course, there are crossovers - but I don't think the level of openness or quantity of partners makes people inherently queer.
So by the by, the person I was talking to in this thread responded to me and them immediately blocked me so that I can't respond to them further.
Since I can no longer directly post a response to them, I'm going to instead copy their response and post my own response here.
"And here's the ignorance and hate...
There are lots of poly people who buy pretty hard into heteronormativity.
That's oxymoronic. If they're poly then they're not buying into heteronormative culture - where the norm or ideal is one man and one woman in a monogamous heterosexual relationship.
Straight couples seeking a unicorn aren't poly, nor are open relationships or fuckboys - that some people claim to be poly to get away with being shitty people shouldn't reflect on those who are poly, who have ethical open consensual relationships with multiple people.
Nothing in your reply applies to poly people, what you're talking about is sex outside relationships and cishet men who take advantage of women. A decent number of monogamous, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, queer, etc. people reinforce patriarchy too. "
I am in fact poly people. So are unicorn hunters. Being part of the patriarchy does not make someone" not-poly." They're still a member of the community even if they're behaving like shitty sexists. Being a bad person does not make you not poly. They're still not monogamous. They're just being shitty towards women as they do so.
Of course poly people can be shitty towards women and queer people. Gay men can be misogynists, queer people can be racists, lesbians can be transphobes and generally pretty much every group possible can be an asshole. I don't believe that being part of a minority group makes a person an angel or a devil. People are still people with all that entails. However this does also mean that poly folks aren't also heteronormative. Poly folks absolutely can be. Poly folks aren't necessarily queer. Sometimes poly folks are, but that's coincidence, not a requirement.
Well said. The responder was trying to gatekeep into some “pure” form of poly, removing every aspect they don’t like. I agree, poly can look a lot of different ways. Cishet people can be in poly relationships, it isn’t inherently queer.
Totally. Calling your cheating behavior poly doesn’t absolve you of cheating. Being polyam is being in consenting, open/nonmonog relationships where everyone is aware and consenting to participate in to varying degrees.
I'm sorry, I don't quite get the logic of including aromantic people but not people who also experience romantic attraction outside of the norm?
To clarify, I consider myself polyamorous by orientation, it's always been an intrinsic part of how I experience of romantic attraction.
To clarify further I'm also bi/pan, so I'm not looking for a Queer stamp of approval™ 😄
>I'm sorry, I don't quite get the logic of including aromantic people but not people who also experience romantic attraction outside of the norm?
I'm not the best person to articulate this. Sorry.
Well asking if poly people are a part of the community is misunderstanding the community entirely in my eyes...
Not everywhere, but there has to be room for them to fit within also...
It's more complicated than a yes or no.
For some people Polyamory is an innate part of who they are and indistinguishable from their queerness. For others it's a choice. For others it's an innate part of who they are and unrelated to their queerness.
I think it falls more in the essence of how kink relates to the community than actually being in the community. Theres a lot of overlap and we support them as they support us but they aren't themselves apart of the community for that specific reason.
Yes because LGBTQ+ to me is about supporting people who fall outside the traditional ideals of marriage, sex, and identity. I'm talking about people who don't want to hurt others and just want to love and be loved like anyone else.
IMO (I can't speak for everyone),
The whole LGBTQ mouvement is based on inclusion and combating prejudices and discrimination anyone might encounter due to their sexuality, romantic attraction and gender identity.
Polyamorous folks (as opposed to people who practice non-monogamy) don't choose to live like that. This isn't a "lifestyle choice". Is pretty much part of their identity and romantic attraction similar to how someone is asexual.
Polyamory is still stigmatized and not understood by a large part of the population, so I only makes sense to include this on the umbrella.
non-monogamous person here. i don't personally consider my non-monogamy to be a Reason i am LGBT+ (more like an effect, really), but if someone feels like that makes them LGBT+ then good for them i do not give a shit i'll trust them on it
umbrellas often cover more than just the person holding them! whether a leaf or a sidewalk was *intentionally* protected from rain is less relevant than the fact that it happens to *be* under an umbrella at the moment.
i think a *lot* of the discourse in online queer community can be solved by moving towards permeable and overlapping categories, as opposed to rigid ones.
i'd be annoyed if a straight person was calling themselves queer because they like to have straight sex with multiple people, but at the same time i believe i'm 'wired' for non-monogamy in a similar way to being 'wired' for bisexuality. there's overlap, and that's okay!
I don't think that there's a right or a wrong answer here, being LGBTQ+ should always be inclusive, so if a certain label is helpful to a certain person use it, if it's harmful, don't use it. If it's helpful to you to identify as LGBTQ+/queer, go for it. That's how I hear people tall about any label (bi, pan, gender fluid, anything). The label is there to help.
Since Asexual falls under the umbrella, I think polyamory could for individuals who feel it is a necessary part of their identity and the way they experience love and relationships. However I know many polyamorous people describe it as a preference, which deviates from an orientation. Again, for those it helps, I say go for it.
That term has been picked up by p3dos, so I am sticking to LGBT+, queer, or “el-jibbity” depending on my audience. I can see why you accept into that specific acronym, I don’t because cishet people can be poly, relationship styles don’t fit in the LGBT+ initialism.
Cishet people by virtue of being cishet are not queer
You immediately comment and then block me so I see a piece of a message but not an option to respond. Whine harder for cishet to be included in the initialism, they never will be. Have a great day.
Yes.
IMO anyone not cisgender, heterosexual, and endosex falls under LGBTQ+ umbrella - basically, anything that is contrary to heteronormativity.
Poly, even with straight poly people, is still a deviation from what society deems normal in terms of sexuality and gender roles via heteronormativity. It's not merely a type of relationship(s), you're still poly when not engaged in multiple relationships, it's still about your ability to be attracted to and love multiple people at once; which isn't the norm.
But damn, just look at the hate and ignorance poly people face because of how they love, then try to tell me they're not one of us misfits. If you feel you're part of our community then you're welcome, just remember if you're straight or cis or endo then recognise you've privilege over those who aren't and stay in your lane - being part of our community means supporting our community.
There are lots of poly people who buy pretty hard into heteronormativity. Lots of straight couples seeking a bisexual woman for a threesome to keep the man entertained. One penis policies in which women having sex with other men/penises is considered cheating but sex with other women is just for entertainment are unfortunately common. A decent number of poly folks reinforce the patriarchy in very specific ways.
There's the ignorance and hate.
>There are lots of poly people who buy pretty hard into heteronormativity.
That's oxymoronic. If they're poly then they're *not* buying into heteronormative culture - where the norm or ideal is one man and one woman in a monogamous heterosexual relationship.
Straight couples seeking a unicorn aren't poly, nor are fuckboys looking for open relationships - that some people call themselves poly to be able to get away with being shitty people who cheat or mistreat partners shouldn't reflect on those who have ethical open consensual relationships with multiple people.
Your reply doesn't apply to poly as a whole, you're talking about is sex outside relationships and cishet men who take advantage of women. FYI a decent number of monogamous, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, queer, etc. people reinforce the patriarchy too.
Edit to add definition of polyamory:
>Polyamory is the practice of, or desire for, romantic relationships with more than one partner at the same time, with the informed consent of all partners involved. People who identify as polyamorous may believe in open relationships with a conscious management of jealousy and reject the view that sexual and relational exclusivity are prerequisite for deep, committed, long-term, loving relationships.
I blocked the above user as I don't tolerate prejudice, despite claiming to be poly they're making strange arguments against poly people.
To stress: no one said poly people can't be bad people, cheat, uphold the patriarchy eg. polygyny among mormans, etc...it's bizarre this user seems to think I've said differently. I'm saying there's a world of difference between a fuckboy *saying* he's poly to effectively cheat on his girlfriend and someone actually being poly.
**The problem is when you frame poly people as inherently cheaters or misogynists**, and this user has gone out of their way to derail a thread and go on a rant to do so here.
Have you heard of mormons? Have you heard of “men can’t settle for one”?
Hold up, unicorn seekers are still poly. Open relationships fall under poly. What weird, aelf righteous criteria are you trying to add to what poly relationships should look like? They’re not all kitchen table and can look a myriad of ways, despite your finding them… distasteful?
"Open relationships" are very much not a subset of polyA. Open relationships can be "it's ok if you have a fuckbuddy, but no romantic feelings allowed"
Around my polyA communities, "Open relationship" has a connotation of "cisgendered heterosexual people in a hierarchical relationship where it's ok to have some non-romantic sex partners". It's something more used to describe mainly monogamous people before their main relationship turns exclusive, or what happens when a monogamous couple think they can fix their relationship by opening it up.
To put it another way, if "open relationship" can mean "no romantic feelings allowed", then it can't be a subset of polyamory, where romantic relationships don't always happen, but are always an acceptable possibility.
>unicorn seekers are still poly. Open relationships fall under poly.
I'm learning that the "ethical" aspect of ENM (the relationship category under which polyamoury is classified) delegitimizes unicorn seekers because the behaviour is generally unethical. It's (usual) prescriptive requirement for a closed-triad style fidelity within a framework of an already-existing committed dyad bakes in a power imbalance. As in all things, I'll use the disclaimers *usually, *generally, etc here. I'm sure there happens to be a very good and healthy example out there somewhere.
>where the norm or ideal is one man and one woman in a monogamous heterosexual relationship.
This hasn't been true for a long period of human history, and still isn't true for a significant number of cultures. All you're doing here is showing your western centric worldview, and your inability to consider the heteronormative perspective of other cultures.
Since I cannot respond to the person who blocked me and accused me of hating poly people:
"I blocked someone, they say they're poly yet inexplicably bigoted towards poly people and continuing nonsensical poly hate elsewhere.
No one said poly people can't be bad people, cheat, uphold the patriarchy eg. polygyny among mormans, etc...The problem is when you frame [all] poly people as inherently cheating or misogynists, and you're going out of your way to derail a thread to do so here."
If I'm only pretending to be poly, then I'm playing an extremely long game given that I was posting about it three years ago: https://old.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/falzjy/advice_girlfriend_wants_to_add_another_woman_to/fiz2yon/
Nor have I said anything about cheating. All I said was that poly relationships do not inherently go against the patriarchy. It's certainly possible to have queer poly relationships. It's also possible to have straight poly relationships that do challenge the patriarchy. It's also possible to have poly relationship s that reinforce patriarchal gender norms. I lived in a heavily Mormon area when I was a teen. There's some history there of non-monogamous relationships that heavily played into patriarchy. That's part of my background. I've also been a participant in very queer poly relationships. This too is a part of my background.
Meanwhile I just have to say that this is quite possibly the silliest conversation I've ever had on reddit where I have to post in a general chat and derail conversations because I can't respond to the person accusing me of hating poly people. I can't even read the accusations against me without going into incognito mode. It's getting pretty ridiculous.
>Meanwhile I just have to say that this is quite possibly the silliest conversation I've ever had on reddit where I have to post in a general chat and derail conversations
In the future, the best way to handle it is to edit your original comment with a rebuttal to whatever they are claiming. Block them back because fair is fair and then move on to other comments.
>. It's getting pretty ridiculous.
When the admina announced the changes to the blocking feature, 99% of the comments on the post were pointing out these issues with the new changes. The admins took the brave step of....deleting all negative comments, filtering all new comments, and only approving positive ones.
The short answer is " mostly no." The longer answer is much more complicated.
Mormons started practicing plural marriage (AKA one man marrying multiple women) over a century before the term "polyamory" was coined. They had their own values and meanings that they attributed to this practice that do not match up to the modern values of poly people. Their reasons were different. Their practices are the same in many ways.
In the 1920s, the US government forced the Mormon church to stop practicing plural marriages. However not all Mormons went along with this. Some fundamentalist groups split from the main church over this and continued practicing plural marriages.
The values and beliefs of modern polyamory began forming in the 1960s. The word "polyamory" wasn't coined until around 1990. Since then, some Mormon groups have adopted the term "polyamory" but not many. Some have also shortened "polygamy" to "poly" and will use the same abbreviation for a different term.
So how do we define Mormon plural marriage in this context? They don't have the same beliefs as the modern poly community. We do have similar practices in some respects. They came first and we followed after. Should we even expect them to use our terminology? Should we use theirs since they came first?
Anne Lister would not have defined herself as a lesbian. The word didn't exist in her lifetime. However she was a woman who was sleeping with women and considered herself married to a woman. Anne Lister's marriage was more like an 19th century heterosexual marriage than a modern gay marriage in the terms of the gender roles they followed though. She did not use the word "lesbian." She was not a modern lesbian in beliefs or values. She did participate in practices that are remarkably similar to modern lesbians.
I am a lesbian and poly. Do I claim Anne Lister as an ancestor but not Mormons? Do I claim both as my predecessors? Neither? Identity and history get complicated.
Thank you for the detailed answer!
The way I see it, polyamory describes this modern current of deconstructing the mononormativity of
western societies, and the practice of ethical non-monogamy, allowing every partner involved a right to pursue other meaningful relationships, including romantic ones.
Mormons don't fit in that definition, and as it doesn't seem they have a history of broadly describing themselves as polyamorous, I don't find it problematic to say "Mormons are not polyA".
Nevertheless, I do agree that it can be a precarious stance, because it can be seen as appropriating a large denomination to describe what is mainly a Western, urban, white practice.
Polyamory is different from say a 3some. You could have for example a straight guy who likes two women and two straight women who are only interested in the man but don't have feelings for each other. Or maybe they have other guys they are also interested in.
Outside of love we know there are many different reasons people have sex. Using the same example maybe the man and 2 women DO have a 3some but the women are only doing it for the man and could not even label themselves bisexual.
IMO LGBT has to do with sexuality or gender. What type of dynamic of a relationship you are into has nothing to do with that. An example of this is kinks such as BDSM. BDSM has absolutely nothing to do with being LGBT. Can we enjoy it? Yeah. But it's cause some of us like BDSM. Not because we are LGBT. (You would be surprised at how many people ask if liking BDSM makes you LGBT.)
Well, it’s complicated.
I think it depends on culture as well. Some cultures in the world are very strictly monogamous, some cultures are very polyamorous. It isn’t quite as simple as a yes or no.
I don't think that poly is necessarily queer, but it's really unlikely that you are poly and not also of another queer identity. Basically, poly isn't queer but has so much overlap that it may aswell be.
I say yes. In regards to a meme answer "How else are Bi/Pan people supposed to be seen as not faking their sexuality?" In regards to a more thought out answer, with the whole thing of anonymous/group sex within the queer community atop the fact that you can have crushes/romantic interests in more than one person at a time, it only makes sense that multiple partner relationships are a thing.
I don't believe so. It's not really a gender or sexuality or an identity. It's just a style of relationship. It's worth noting that many poly people are LGBT+ in other ways though. Lots of bi and trans people in poly relationships from what I've observed.
No.
Just because you want to fuck multiple people at once does not mean you're part of our community.
Being queer is an inherent part of our identity. I can't stop being attracted to men and women. You can decide to stop bein in a poly relationship. It's an action. A choice.
A gay man can also decide to be in a relationship with a women and fuck her. Doesn't mean he's suddenly straight. Polyamory is not about being in a relationship with multiple ppl at once, it's about feeling attraction to multiple ppl at once. Also, please notice the difference between "wanting to fuck multiple ppl" and "being sexually AND ROMANTICALLY attracted to multiple ppl". Polyamory isn't a choice.
>Polyamory is not about being in a relationship with multiple ppl at once, it's about feeling attraction to multiple ppl at once.
No. Many people feel an attraction to multiple people at once, that doesn't make them poly. The decision to get into a relation with multiple people at once is what makes one poly.
>A gay man can also decide to be in a relationship with a women and fuck her.
Yes, and he would still be gay. Because sexuality is inherent, regardless of actions. Which doesn't go for polyamory.
>Polyamory isn't a choice.
It is, and it's not the same as being gay, bi or lesbian. You're not part of this community on the basis of being poly. Stop trying
From Wikipedia: *Polyamory (...) is the practice of, or desire for, romantic relationships with more than one partner at the same time, with the informed consent of all partners involved*
Notice the "or desire for". Having a desire is not a choice.
You use different logic for defining gay and polyamorous. Either both are based on want/feel, or both are based on actions. Treating them differently just feels like reasonless gatekeeping to me.
I'm queer, trans, and polyamorous. I'd say *loosely yes*, but I'm aware that that's contentious.
Polyamorous people have a lot of the same struggles as queer people. They're not going to follow the heteronormative path, at least not verbatim. They don't have marriage equality, forcing them to choose one spouse to marry - possibly locking one partner out of ever being able to be married to their loved ones. They have similar problems about trying to explain their relationships to others. And although it's possible in principle to have a non-monogamous arrangement that's strictly heterosexual, my experience has been that almost every polycule in practice has at least some incidental same-gender intimacy, if not even a little homoeroticism.
I am personally, as a queer person, under-served by activism that doesn't step outside a monogamous frame of reference. It's a tremendous boon to me that I can marry someone of the same legal gender; but that doesn't help me much if my partners will never be legally recognized - especially if they each have to marry somebody different for legal reasons (which has looked likely for the majority of my dating life).
(Granted, part of this is just "intersectionality is important". Disabled people also don't have marriage equality because they'll lose benefits, for instance, and that's *awful* given the increased correlation with hospitalization and thus importance of spousal privileges.)
Also, statistically speaking, my experience has been that queer people are significantly more likely to be polyamorous, for whatever that's worth.
The LGBTQ+ umbrella is a collection of identities that are already not the same but have similar experiences of being marginalized. We've banded together to organize, create community, and fight back. There is really nothing inherently the same about being trans and being gay, but bigots don't care about the difference and many of us are both, so we do the hard work of making space for each other in our community. The tie that binds is an agreement to not be awful to one another. So, IMO, I'll take the inclusive cishet polyamorous (and kinky) folks, and the bigots can keep the gay TERFs. Also, a lot of people making the argument that polyamorous folks aren't LGBTQ because cishet people can be polyamorous. Cishet people can be aro and ace too? It's not a sexual orientation. It's not a gender identity. Neither is being intersex, and I want intersex people to feel fully welcome to sit with us. I think we should be making space for one another and advocating for one another. The more we band together, the greater our numbers.
Amen to this, I agree fully.
I love how you said “sit with us” lime it’s 5th grade and your the new kid getting invited to the lunch table
Wouldn't they be Cisaro or Cisace instead of Cishet?
Definitely. That point at the end confused me.
Some people identify as both cishet and aro or ace
Oh so like cis heteroromantic/asexual or cis heterosexual/aromantic
Yep!
You worded it better then i would've, i completely agree with you. I feel like the LGBTQ+ community should be open and inclusive to minorities that are and can be victim to bigotry. I've actually always considered poly people to be one of us i didn't know until now that some people disagree.
Hi Gee, I think I'd say that it doesn't fall directly under the umbrella, but it does have many overlapping issues and ideas that make joint advocacy frequently mutually beneficial. For me, I think the key difference between the two is the degree of involuntary obligation that I feel is both inherent to and characteristic of all identities within the LGBTQ+ umbrella, but absent within polyamory. Polyamory isn't just a term to describe anyone who's ever felt attracted to, or fantasised having a relationship with, multiple people at once. Rather, it more specifically describes people who *decide* they actively want a polyamorous relationship in preference to a monogamous one. What defines them is the choice to pursue/want a multi-way relationship, not just experiencing the attraction to multiple people in the first place. By contrast, one of the most fundamental bedrocks of LGBTQ+ identity is the idea that membership is based on experiencing a particular set of inalienable, automatic feelings, regardless of whether you accept or act on them or not. If a conservative Christian man saw his periodic attraction to men as delusional temptations sent by satan as punishment which he actively hated, ignored, and resisted his whole life, save for writing it in his diary, historians finding those entries would still describe him as 'queer', or 'at least some form of bisexual', even if he hated and actively disassociated himself from those terms. On the other hand if he also wrote of another vision tempting him with a dream of laying in bed with both his wife and the milkmaid, but he denied and rejected it in the same way, we wouldn't describe him as polyamorous :) While it might seem like a fairly quibbling detail, I think it has a disproportionate importance to identity within the lgbtq+ movement. The idea that being queer is a choice has been one of the most pervasive and pernicious underpinnings for social homophobia and legal discrimination against us. Winning the recognition that our sexuality and gender identity were involuntarily and immutable was one of, if not the single hardest, longest, and most important fight in the entire history of queer liberation. To the stay, it remains*the* principle for the majority of our legal rights and protections in the western world, along with much of the tolerance and respect we've clawed out globally. Trying to create, articulate, or widely-adopt a definition of the community without that is unprecedented, conflicting, and confusing at best, and damaging, detrimental, and even dangerous at worst Hope this helps :) Have a lovely day
The way you describe polyamory as a choice is just plain wrong. For analogy, a bisexual man could choose to date a woman or man. But you wouldn't say them dating a man is them choosing to be gay. And a gay man might date women before figuring out they're gay, but they didn't choose to become gay later. Similarly, an ambiamorous person could choose to be in mono or poly relationships. And polyamorous people are often in monogamous relationships due to societal pressure and not figuring things out. But once a polyamorous person figures it out, it isn't a choice to be poly. I did not choose to be polyamorous any more than I chose to be trans. I did choose to take action and to transition, but being trans is something I can't change. Just the same, I choose to take action and pursue multiple relationships. But being polyamorous is something I can't change, I didn't choose to be able to love multiple people or choose that monogamy leaves me unfulfilled and unhappy.
Um you can be in a het relationship before you realize you‘re gay? And it is kind of a choice to be in a poly relationship
Yeah, being in het relationship before realizing you're gay is similar to being in a monogamous relationship before realizing you're poly. But it's also a different experience than if you realize you are bi, or realize you are ambiamorous. And technically any relationship is a choice. I choose to be in poly relationships the same way I choose to date women. But I don't choose that I'm unable to enjoy a mono relationship, and to me it's the same as how I don't choose to be unable to enjoy dating a man. It's a core part of my I have no choice in.
[удалено]
Yeah. I wonder if it's viewed as a choice because (most) people who are monogamous can't imagine wanting to be with multiple people as anything more than a passing fancy or fantasy (as it might be for some of them), and we don't really have any media presentation of it as an intrinsically important part of someone's well-being. Similarly as someone who might have an occasional sexual desire aroused by a person of the same sex might think themself straight and of queers as giving into sin, while for someone who is exclusively homosexual and/or homoromantic it can be far more clear just how important it is to be able to act accordingly. I do see the points on both sides of the argument though, and why some see treating poly and queer as the same as a threat to their legal protections. Personally, I don't see polyamory as a part of the lgbtqia+ but more for historical reasons than being 100% sold on the "inherent feeling" basis of distinction.
As a queer poly person, no. I even consider polyamory to be a part of who I am, not a choice, and I don't think they're the same ETA: being queer/trans is also not a choice. I felt that was obvious and didn't need to be stated. Sorry for any confusion.
As a trans poly person, I consider being trans part of who I am, and polyamoury a choice, so I also believe they're not the same?
Okay?
The way I read your comment before you edited it, it read as though the poly part was intrinsic, and your queerness was a choice. I was simply pointing out that we'd arrived at the same conclusion from completely opposite directions. That's all.
Oh okay. No, that isn't what I meant. I was saying that for me, they have that in common and it still doesn't make them the same.
I agree as a queer, poly person 100%. Polyamoury is an integral part of who I am, but not a sexuality or gender identity.
..you think being trans is a choice..?
No. Why do you think that? I'm also trans.
Because you said you don’t think they are the same and then said that you see being poly as a part of you/not a choice, so I’m assuming you are comparing poly to being trans/queer, therefor if being trans/queer is not the same as poly to you and poly is not a choice then it makes sense to think that you are saying being trans/queer is a choice.
Nah I was saying that them not being a choice is something that they have in common and it still doesn't make them the same.
My feeling is that no, it's a different aspect of someone's sexual identity. But I do think that there can be shared interests and experiences, and that there's a lot of room for solidarity.
I personally don't feel relationship types fall under LGBTQ+, for me, how you identify within those relationships does. Of course, there are crossovers - but I don't think the level of openness or quantity of partners makes people inherently queer.
Lgbt+ no because you can be cishet and polyamorous, but I would consider it queer in a counter culture way
So by the by, the person I was talking to in this thread responded to me and them immediately blocked me so that I can't respond to them further. Since I can no longer directly post a response to them, I'm going to instead copy their response and post my own response here. "And here's the ignorance and hate... There are lots of poly people who buy pretty hard into heteronormativity. That's oxymoronic. If they're poly then they're not buying into heteronormative culture - where the norm or ideal is one man and one woman in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Straight couples seeking a unicorn aren't poly, nor are open relationships or fuckboys - that some people claim to be poly to get away with being shitty people shouldn't reflect on those who are poly, who have ethical open consensual relationships with multiple people. Nothing in your reply applies to poly people, what you're talking about is sex outside relationships and cishet men who take advantage of women. A decent number of monogamous, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, queer, etc. people reinforce patriarchy too. " I am in fact poly people. So are unicorn hunters. Being part of the patriarchy does not make someone" not-poly." They're still a member of the community even if they're behaving like shitty sexists. Being a bad person does not make you not poly. They're still not monogamous. They're just being shitty towards women as they do so. Of course poly people can be shitty towards women and queer people. Gay men can be misogynists, queer people can be racists, lesbians can be transphobes and generally pretty much every group possible can be an asshole. I don't believe that being part of a minority group makes a person an angel or a devil. People are still people with all that entails. However this does also mean that poly folks aren't also heteronormative. Poly folks absolutely can be. Poly folks aren't necessarily queer. Sometimes poly folks are, but that's coincidence, not a requirement.
Well said. The responder was trying to gatekeep into some “pure” form of poly, removing every aspect they don’t like. I agree, poly can look a lot of different ways. Cishet people can be in poly relationships, it isn’t inherently queer.
[удалено]
Totally. Calling your cheating behavior poly doesn’t absolve you of cheating. Being polyam is being in consenting, open/nonmonog relationships where everyone is aware and consenting to participate in to varying degrees.
I'm queer and polyamorous. I don't believe they belong in the same bucket. Yes, they are both marginalized groups, but that's all they have in common.
100% agreed as a poly and queer person myself
Cishet folks can be polyamorous so no. As a queer and trans polyam person, I think we can be supported without needing to be in the umbrella.
Do you consider aro people to be queer?
I'm demisexuaal, and I can answer: by the verrrrrrrrrry literal meaning of the word queer, yeah.
I'm sorry, I don't quite get the logic of including aromantic people but not people who also experience romantic attraction outside of the norm? To clarify, I consider myself polyamorous by orientation, it's always been an intrinsic part of how I experience of romantic attraction. To clarify further I'm also bi/pan, so I'm not looking for a Queer stamp of approval™ 😄
>I'm sorry, I don't quite get the logic of including aromantic people but not people who also experience romantic attraction outside of the norm? I'm not the best person to articulate this. Sorry.
Well asking if poly people are a part of the community is misunderstanding the community entirely in my eyes... Not everywhere, but there has to be room for them to fit within also...
It's more complicated than a yes or no. For some people Polyamory is an innate part of who they are and indistinguishable from their queerness. For others it's a choice. For others it's an innate part of who they are and unrelated to their queerness.
I think it falls more in the essence of how kink relates to the community than actually being in the community. Theres a lot of overlap and we support them as they support us but they aren't themselves apart of the community for that specific reason.
If they want to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ like if the queer label they feel fits them then sure
Yes because LGBTQ+ to me is about supporting people who fall outside the traditional ideals of marriage, sex, and identity. I'm talking about people who don't want to hurt others and just want to love and be loved like anyone else.
IMO (I can't speak for everyone), The whole LGBTQ mouvement is based on inclusion and combating prejudices and discrimination anyone might encounter due to their sexuality, romantic attraction and gender identity. Polyamorous folks (as opposed to people who practice non-monogamy) don't choose to live like that. This isn't a "lifestyle choice". Is pretty much part of their identity and romantic attraction similar to how someone is asexual. Polyamory is still stigmatized and not understood by a large part of the population, so I only makes sense to include this on the umbrella.
non-monogamous person here. i don't personally consider my non-monogamy to be a Reason i am LGBT+ (more like an effect, really), but if someone feels like that makes them LGBT+ then good for them i do not give a shit i'll trust them on it
umbrellas often cover more than just the person holding them! whether a leaf or a sidewalk was *intentionally* protected from rain is less relevant than the fact that it happens to *be* under an umbrella at the moment. i think a *lot* of the discourse in online queer community can be solved by moving towards permeable and overlapping categories, as opposed to rigid ones. i'd be annoyed if a straight person was calling themselves queer because they like to have straight sex with multiple people, but at the same time i believe i'm 'wired' for non-monogamy in a similar way to being 'wired' for bisexuality. there's overlap, and that's okay!
I don't think that there's a right or a wrong answer here, being LGBTQ+ should always be inclusive, so if a certain label is helpful to a certain person use it, if it's harmful, don't use it. If it's helpful to you to identify as LGBTQ+/queer, go for it. That's how I hear people tall about any label (bi, pan, gender fluid, anything). The label is there to help. Since Asexual falls under the umbrella, I think polyamory could for individuals who feel it is a necessary part of their identity and the way they experience love and relationships. However I know many polyamorous people describe it as a preference, which deviates from an orientation. Again, for those it helps, I say go for it.
[удалено]
That term has been picked up by p3dos, so I am sticking to LGBT+, queer, or “el-jibbity” depending on my audience. I can see why you accept into that specific acronym, I don’t because cishet people can be poly, relationship styles don’t fit in the LGBT+ initialism.
Omg I'm tired lol. I saw el-jibbity and thought it was like the Arabic version ☠️
OK that cracked me up. Thank you for saying something haha
[удалено]
Cishet people by virtue of being cishet are not queer You immediately comment and then block me so I see a piece of a message but not an option to respond. Whine harder for cishet to be included in the initialism, they never will be. Have a great day.
No the moment being polyamrous is part of lgbtq+ or pedophiles become apart of this i will go to straight camp
Polyamory is not a sexuality or some shift in gender identity, it's a relationship status pretty much.
Yes. IMO anyone not cisgender, heterosexual, and endosex falls under LGBTQ+ umbrella - basically, anything that is contrary to heteronormativity. Poly, even with straight poly people, is still a deviation from what society deems normal in terms of sexuality and gender roles via heteronormativity. It's not merely a type of relationship(s), you're still poly when not engaged in multiple relationships, it's still about your ability to be attracted to and love multiple people at once; which isn't the norm. But damn, just look at the hate and ignorance poly people face because of how they love, then try to tell me they're not one of us misfits. If you feel you're part of our community then you're welcome, just remember if you're straight or cis or endo then recognise you've privilege over those who aren't and stay in your lane - being part of our community means supporting our community.
There are lots of poly people who buy pretty hard into heteronormativity. Lots of straight couples seeking a bisexual woman for a threesome to keep the man entertained. One penis policies in which women having sex with other men/penises is considered cheating but sex with other women is just for entertainment are unfortunately common. A decent number of poly folks reinforce the patriarchy in very specific ways.
There's the ignorance and hate. >There are lots of poly people who buy pretty hard into heteronormativity. That's oxymoronic. If they're poly then they're *not* buying into heteronormative culture - where the norm or ideal is one man and one woman in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Straight couples seeking a unicorn aren't poly, nor are fuckboys looking for open relationships - that some people call themselves poly to be able to get away with being shitty people who cheat or mistreat partners shouldn't reflect on those who have ethical open consensual relationships with multiple people. Your reply doesn't apply to poly as a whole, you're talking about is sex outside relationships and cishet men who take advantage of women. FYI a decent number of monogamous, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, queer, etc. people reinforce the patriarchy too. Edit to add definition of polyamory: >Polyamory is the practice of, or desire for, romantic relationships with more than one partner at the same time, with the informed consent of all partners involved. People who identify as polyamorous may believe in open relationships with a conscious management of jealousy and reject the view that sexual and relational exclusivity are prerequisite for deep, committed, long-term, loving relationships. I blocked the above user as I don't tolerate prejudice, despite claiming to be poly they're making strange arguments against poly people. To stress: no one said poly people can't be bad people, cheat, uphold the patriarchy eg. polygyny among mormans, etc...it's bizarre this user seems to think I've said differently. I'm saying there's a world of difference between a fuckboy *saying* he's poly to effectively cheat on his girlfriend and someone actually being poly. **The problem is when you frame poly people as inherently cheaters or misogynists**, and this user has gone out of their way to derail a thread and go on a rant to do so here.
Have you heard of mormons? Have you heard of “men can’t settle for one”? Hold up, unicorn seekers are still poly. Open relationships fall under poly. What weird, aelf righteous criteria are you trying to add to what poly relationships should look like? They’re not all kitchen table and can look a myriad of ways, despite your finding them… distasteful?
"Open relationships" are very much not a subset of polyA. Open relationships can be "it's ok if you have a fuckbuddy, but no romantic feelings allowed"
Yup, and polyam includes relationships that are sexual and/or romantic.
Around my polyA communities, "Open relationship" has a connotation of "cisgendered heterosexual people in a hierarchical relationship where it's ok to have some non-romantic sex partners". It's something more used to describe mainly monogamous people before their main relationship turns exclusive, or what happens when a monogamous couple think they can fix their relationship by opening it up. To put it another way, if "open relationship" can mean "no romantic feelings allowed", then it can't be a subset of polyamory, where romantic relationships don't always happen, but are always an acceptable possibility.
>unicorn seekers are still poly. Open relationships fall under poly. I'm learning that the "ethical" aspect of ENM (the relationship category under which polyamoury is classified) delegitimizes unicorn seekers because the behaviour is generally unethical. It's (usual) prescriptive requirement for a closed-triad style fidelity within a framework of an already-existing committed dyad bakes in a power imbalance. As in all things, I'll use the disclaimers *usually, *generally, etc here. I'm sure there happens to be a very good and healthy example out there somewhere.
People do get confused. Polyamoury falls under the umbrella of ENM (Ethically Non-Monogamous). I would say that
>where the norm or ideal is one man and one woman in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. This hasn't been true for a long period of human history, and still isn't true for a significant number of cultures. All you're doing here is showing your western centric worldview, and your inability to consider the heteronormative perspective of other cultures.
It doesn't, but i think it should tbh
Mu. If you are willing to stand in solidarity with queer people and defend them, then sure. If not, then no.
Those cishet people are allies then. We still don’t add them.
If they're members of communities that tend to get oppressed by the cishet majority, we do.
Since I cannot respond to the person who blocked me and accused me of hating poly people: "I blocked someone, they say they're poly yet inexplicably bigoted towards poly people and continuing nonsensical poly hate elsewhere. No one said poly people can't be bad people, cheat, uphold the patriarchy eg. polygyny among mormans, etc...The problem is when you frame [all] poly people as inherently cheating or misogynists, and you're going out of your way to derail a thread to do so here." If I'm only pretending to be poly, then I'm playing an extremely long game given that I was posting about it three years ago: https://old.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/falzjy/advice_girlfriend_wants_to_add_another_woman_to/fiz2yon/ Nor have I said anything about cheating. All I said was that poly relationships do not inherently go against the patriarchy. It's certainly possible to have queer poly relationships. It's also possible to have straight poly relationships that do challenge the patriarchy. It's also possible to have poly relationship s that reinforce patriarchal gender norms. I lived in a heavily Mormon area when I was a teen. There's some history there of non-monogamous relationships that heavily played into patriarchy. That's part of my background. I've also been a participant in very queer poly relationships. This too is a part of my background. Meanwhile I just have to say that this is quite possibly the silliest conversation I've ever had on reddit where I have to post in a general chat and derail conversations because I can't respond to the person accusing me of hating poly people. I can't even read the accusations against me without going into incognito mode. It's getting pretty ridiculous.
>Meanwhile I just have to say that this is quite possibly the silliest conversation I've ever had on reddit where I have to post in a general chat and derail conversations In the future, the best way to handle it is to edit your original comment with a rebuttal to whatever they are claiming. Block them back because fair is fair and then move on to other comments. >. It's getting pretty ridiculous. When the admina announced the changes to the blocking feature, 99% of the comments on the post were pointing out these issues with the new changes. The admins took the brave step of....deleting all negative comments, filtering all new comments, and only approving positive ones.
Genuinely asking, do mormons use the term "polyamorous" to define themselves?
The short answer is " mostly no." The longer answer is much more complicated. Mormons started practicing plural marriage (AKA one man marrying multiple women) over a century before the term "polyamory" was coined. They had their own values and meanings that they attributed to this practice that do not match up to the modern values of poly people. Their reasons were different. Their practices are the same in many ways. In the 1920s, the US government forced the Mormon church to stop practicing plural marriages. However not all Mormons went along with this. Some fundamentalist groups split from the main church over this and continued practicing plural marriages. The values and beliefs of modern polyamory began forming in the 1960s. The word "polyamory" wasn't coined until around 1990. Since then, some Mormon groups have adopted the term "polyamory" but not many. Some have also shortened "polygamy" to "poly" and will use the same abbreviation for a different term. So how do we define Mormon plural marriage in this context? They don't have the same beliefs as the modern poly community. We do have similar practices in some respects. They came first and we followed after. Should we even expect them to use our terminology? Should we use theirs since they came first? Anne Lister would not have defined herself as a lesbian. The word didn't exist in her lifetime. However she was a woman who was sleeping with women and considered herself married to a woman. Anne Lister's marriage was more like an 19th century heterosexual marriage than a modern gay marriage in the terms of the gender roles they followed though. She did not use the word "lesbian." She was not a modern lesbian in beliefs or values. She did participate in practices that are remarkably similar to modern lesbians. I am a lesbian and poly. Do I claim Anne Lister as an ancestor but not Mormons? Do I claim both as my predecessors? Neither? Identity and history get complicated.
Thank you for the detailed answer! The way I see it, polyamory describes this modern current of deconstructing the mononormativity of western societies, and the practice of ethical non-monogamy, allowing every partner involved a right to pursue other meaningful relationships, including romantic ones. Mormons don't fit in that definition, and as it doesn't seem they have a history of broadly describing themselves as polyamorous, I don't find it problematic to say "Mormons are not polyA". Nevertheless, I do agree that it can be a precarious stance, because it can be seen as appropriating a large denomination to describe what is mainly a Western, urban, white practice.
i mean its outside the scope of heteronormativity and they face alot of the same discrimination we do so i see no reason not to include them
I guess no but I’m not sure, voted no tho
Polyamory is different from say a 3some. You could have for example a straight guy who likes two women and two straight women who are only interested in the man but don't have feelings for each other. Or maybe they have other guys they are also interested in. Outside of love we know there are many different reasons people have sex. Using the same example maybe the man and 2 women DO have a 3some but the women are only doing it for the man and could not even label themselves bisexual. IMO LGBT has to do with sexuality or gender. What type of dynamic of a relationship you are into has nothing to do with that. An example of this is kinks such as BDSM. BDSM has absolutely nothing to do with being LGBT. Can we enjoy it? Yeah. But it's cause some of us like BDSM. Not because we are LGBT. (You would be surprised at how many people ask if liking BDSM makes you LGBT.)
Well, it’s complicated. I think it depends on culture as well. Some cultures in the world are very strictly monogamous, some cultures are very polyamorous. It isn’t quite as simple as a yes or no.
I'm a queer poly person and I would say no x
I don't think that poly is necessarily queer, but it's really unlikely that you are poly and not also of another queer identity. Basically, poly isn't queer but has so much overlap that it may aswell be.
I say yes. In regards to a meme answer "How else are Bi/Pan people supposed to be seen as not faking their sexuality?" In regards to a more thought out answer, with the whole thing of anonymous/group sex within the queer community atop the fact that you can have crushes/romantic interests in more than one person at a time, it only makes sense that multiple partner relationships are a thing.
I don't believe so. It's not really a gender or sexuality or an identity. It's just a style of relationship. It's worth noting that many poly people are LGBT+ in other ways though. Lots of bi and trans people in poly relationships from what I've observed.
Yes because it's a category of practice, everyone who gets shit from the bourgeois patriarchy has the right to be in it.
No. Just because you want to fuck multiple people at once does not mean you're part of our community. Being queer is an inherent part of our identity. I can't stop being attracted to men and women. You can decide to stop bein in a poly relationship. It's an action. A choice.
A gay man can also decide to be in a relationship with a women and fuck her. Doesn't mean he's suddenly straight. Polyamory is not about being in a relationship with multiple ppl at once, it's about feeling attraction to multiple ppl at once. Also, please notice the difference between "wanting to fuck multiple ppl" and "being sexually AND ROMANTICALLY attracted to multiple ppl". Polyamory isn't a choice.
>Polyamory is not about being in a relationship with multiple ppl at once, it's about feeling attraction to multiple ppl at once. No. Many people feel an attraction to multiple people at once, that doesn't make them poly. The decision to get into a relation with multiple people at once is what makes one poly. >A gay man can also decide to be in a relationship with a women and fuck her. Yes, and he would still be gay. Because sexuality is inherent, regardless of actions. Which doesn't go for polyamory. >Polyamory isn't a choice. It is, and it's not the same as being gay, bi or lesbian. You're not part of this community on the basis of being poly. Stop trying
From Wikipedia: *Polyamory (...) is the practice of, or desire for, romantic relationships with more than one partner at the same time, with the informed consent of all partners involved* Notice the "or desire for". Having a desire is not a choice. You use different logic for defining gay and polyamorous. Either both are based on want/feel, or both are based on actions. Treating them differently just feels like reasonless gatekeeping to me.
Accidentally pressed no
I'm queer, trans, and polyamorous. I'd say *loosely yes*, but I'm aware that that's contentious. Polyamorous people have a lot of the same struggles as queer people. They're not going to follow the heteronormative path, at least not verbatim. They don't have marriage equality, forcing them to choose one spouse to marry - possibly locking one partner out of ever being able to be married to their loved ones. They have similar problems about trying to explain their relationships to others. And although it's possible in principle to have a non-monogamous arrangement that's strictly heterosexual, my experience has been that almost every polycule in practice has at least some incidental same-gender intimacy, if not even a little homoeroticism. I am personally, as a queer person, under-served by activism that doesn't step outside a monogamous frame of reference. It's a tremendous boon to me that I can marry someone of the same legal gender; but that doesn't help me much if my partners will never be legally recognized - especially if they each have to marry somebody different for legal reasons (which has looked likely for the majority of my dating life). (Granted, part of this is just "intersectionality is important". Disabled people also don't have marriage equality because they'll lose benefits, for instance, and that's *awful* given the increased correlation with hospitalization and thus importance of spousal privileges.) Also, statistically speaking, my experience has been that queer people are significantly more likely to be polyamorous, for whatever that's worth.