We're Doing It Wrong: How Poly Should Be

So it's only fair that since I praised Pepomint for his post "Respecting Sexual Identity" and his blog, Freaksexual, in general in the inaugural post of Sex and Television that I can take him to task without feeling too guilty.  Fact is, Pepomint is one of the few serious critical thinkers that the Boy and I have seen writing seriously about poly issues and how they intersect with queerness, feminism, and kink.  That's fantastic, but obviously I'm not going to agree with one person about everything, and while driving down the 101 with the Boy last Sunday, caught a discussion between Pepomint, Tacit, and Joreth (I don't know where they get these names either, folks) on "Polyamory Weekly" podcast about the concept of "Primaries" and "Secondaries" in polyamorous relationships.  And I hope the words below are understood as a rant and not as some sort of reflection on my opinion of those who spoke them.  Except maybe Joreth, she did the previous "Poly and Athiesm" episode on the podcast and has a lot to answer for!

Full disclaimer: we don't define ourselves as being polyamorous as an orientation (in fact, I question it as an orientation akin to sexual orientation but that's a subject for another rant) nor do we consider our relationship polyamorous.  This isn't by choice, exactly - in our years reading polyamorous communities extensively on the web, as well as a handful of books, it's become clear that the community consensus of how polyamory is defined excludes us, despite the fact that we're non-monogamous.  I'm okay with this, although I am often frustrated at how narrow-minded polyamorous communities can be regarding other non-monogamous types, whether it's swingers or people in open relationships that don't necessarily focus on multiple "romantic" relationships.  I think there's a lot of sex-negativity tied up in the poly community's response to these alternative relationship styles - oops, getting off track again.  Subject for yet another future post.

But the point is, poly already seems to have a fairly narrow definition.  For those who might be new to the concept, it's basically a relational style in which one is open to having multiple, concurrent romantic relationships.  It is stressed that this does not meant cheating, because it's open and honest, and that it's "not all about the sex," as in, these relationships probably usually involve sex but the primary focus is loving, romantic partnerships.  I think from the outset this is problematic, particularly in the somewhat naive focus on the bizarre medieval concept that is "romantic love" set apart from say, loving friendships.  Basically, if you're in an open relationship, but you have one say, "life partner" (what a terrible term that is!) and several "friends with benefits" that isn't polyamory, because while you may be genuinely emotionally intimate with your fuckbuddies, it's not a romantic relationship.

This is irksome to someone like me, who was told point-blank on a poly forum that fuckbuddies don't count because maintaining a friendship that is also sexual with someone is "easy" while romantic relationships are "hard."  I don't know about you kids, but dealing with everyone's emotions surrounding transitioning a years-long friendship into a sexual relationship while still remaining friends is one of the more challenging things I've done.  Are those challenges different than having two romantic relationships?  Absolutely.  But it's insulting, particularly given the idea that poly is supposed to be this super radical redefinition of the way that people love and experience relationships, to already have such a narrow boundary enforced.  But wait!  It gets even narrower.

In Polyamory Weekly Episode #232, the above-mentioned co-hosts took one of fundamental styles of a poly relationship - the hierarchical "primary/secondary" situation - took it out back, beat it, and totally forgot the safeword.  It wasn't just a critical examination of the concept or the copious issues that accompany it (namely, the fact that secondaries are often treated like shit) which would have been welcome, particularly on a podcast such as PolyWeekly that rarely engages in any serious critique.  It was an intelligent, interesting discussion that also managed to be entirely dismissive and judgmental.  As I shouted to the Boy, "It's like they're finally having the sort of conversation I've been dying to hear on this podcast, and being total dicks about it!"

A quick primer: some poly people have "hierarchies" of relationships in which they engage in a central, committed relationship with one partner, and then have one or more "secondaries" and while it's understood this is also a loving relationship, it will likely not have the same degree of real-world enmeshment as understood vis-a-vis kids, shared financial obligations, and so forth.  Other people people prefer to treat all relationships as different, but equal in importance and priority.

It also is particularly telling in light of my previous post about the "One Penis Policy" in poly relationships and not entirely ironic given the content of Pepomint's "Respecting Identities" post.  What we were told in this episode was that people who engage in heirarchical poly structures are:

• Doing so out of fear
• Inherently devaluing secondaries
• Engaging in a "little monogamy" despite obviously not being monogamous (respecting what identity wha? who?)

When I first started reading about poly, non-hierarchical structures were presented as a way to be poly, along with hierarchical structures.  This has now clearly shifted to the former being accepted as "real poly" by a large segment of the community  and the latter being completely shit upon.   It doesn't matter if everyone within your poly relationships are happy with hierarchical structures or if it works for you: you're doing it wrong.

There's a term in poly for this kind of bullshit: One True Way-ism.  And that's exactly what this is.  As I said before, I'm down with a serious look at the problematic elements and pitfalls of a poly hierarchy.  Hell, I welcome it!  But it's profoundly insulting to tell people who have made commitments or set boundaries with their partners that work for them that they are doing so out of fear and jealousy, and are basically just as bad as those (boo, hiss) monogamists.

I think it's pretty obvious why this one-true-wayism is ridiculous, but let's break it down anyway.  For starters, the discussion on the podcast never mentioned the possibility that rules/boundaries evolve over time.  Most people are introduced to poly when they are already in a romantic, previously monogamous relationship.  Transitioning from monogamy to polyamory is obviously a process.  This was given absolutely no weight by the PolyWeekly crew, who apparently think it's entirely reasonable to expect a couple, married and mono for 16 years, to jump straight into a style of poly that gives no partner veto power over what the other partner is doing with other people, no room or time to become accustomed and comfortable with going from security in knowing you are the primary focus in your spouse's life to  being "equal" in importance and priority to some 10-years-younger hottie your spouse is banging and totally infatuated with.  This is a great way to be burnt by a poly experience, not to develop an open and honest poly relationship.  It is extremely typical for people in non-monogamous relationships have used rules and boundaries to establish a comfort zone that enables them to later leave behind most, and even sometimes all of those rules eventually, because the trust you've established with your partner in that sort of relationship evolution creates a strong foundation.  Shoving people into the deep end of the pool without water wings does the opposite.

And since I mentioned priorities, can we get over the pollyanna-ish refusal to acknowledge that human beings have limited time and resources which necessitates prioritizing events, and horror-of-horrors, even people.  We don't find it problematic if a mother prioritizes the well-being of her children over a bum of a romantic partner, or if a spouse prioritizes the needs of his partner over his crazy, demanding parents.  It is profoundly difficult to keep everyone happy all of the time, and part of life is having to make choices.  I'm not saying it's not possible to have a truly non-hierarchical poly structure in which all participants are equals, but that it's an extremely advanced relationship skill in a model that already requires better-than-average patience, communication, and emotional regulation.  I'd be willing to wager it's far easier to have a non-hierarchical model in which there is not an established, long-term relationship in the background that was previously monogamous. 

I can think of a million tedious examples of a situation in which partners in a non-hierarchical model could have relationship-ending dramas unfold due to issues that can't be solved with the "poly expert's advice for every problem ever": communication.  Sometimes people just have different needs that cannot be reconciled.  In such a case, people are forced to make choices, and those choices are generally based on - you guessed it! - priorities.  As someone who might have read a bit too much self-help in her time, I find the implied notion of the discussion regarding boundaries deeply troubling.  Fact is, we all have fears and insecurities.  Some people are better than others at understanding their own baggage, and thus articulating what it is they need to feel safe.  The basic poly approach to dealing with troublesome emotions, first articulated in tripe such as "The Ethical Slut" and then repeated endlessly ever after, is to figure why you feel shitty, then take a bubble bath and eat some chocolate.  Problem solved!  Oh, and I left out "communicate."  My bad.

In reality, emotionally healthy and in-touch individuals can know why they are triggered by a behavior or situation, understand that it's "irrational" and still decide they'd rather not deal with that emotion if they can help it: by establishing boundaries with their partner that they both agree upon.  Maybe eventually they'll be able to get past whatever thing it is that triggers their fear of abandonment or seething rage or whatever, but maybe not, but at least they're dealing with it grown ups in taking responsibility for their own emotional state by clearly articulating those needs.  If one of those needs is, "In order to feel comfortable sharing a mortgage/children/a life with you, that I will take top priority ultimately in your decision making as it relates to other partners," that does not make a person less poly, or less evolved, or any other high-horse bullshit.  It just means they're communicating honestly which is exactly what I keep being told being poly is all about.

The point of view expressed in the episode certainly seemed to come from a bunch of burned secondaries who had been treated as disposable or unimportant in a situation where their partner had a primary relationship, and that is certainly understandable and deplorable.  But that doesn't negate or remove the clumsy and offensive armchair shrinking, identity policing, and boundary dismissing tactics employed in what was frustratingly, the podcast's best and yet worst episode to date.