![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Let's get a few things straight about "orientation" vs. "choice", specifically from a poly standpoint.
First:
A person is polyamorous if they have OR WANT multiple, loving relationships, regardless of their current relationship configuration or experience. This is "orientation".
A relationship is polyamorous if the relationship agreements allow for multiple, loving relationships, regardless of how many people are currently involved or have ever been involved. This is "choice".
A person can have or want multiple, loving relationships without ever calling himself "polyamorous".
A relationship can be open to multiple, loving partners without the participants using the word "polyamory".
What all this means is that people can both BE polyamorous and can be IN polyamorous relationships. It is both an orientation, when we are talking about what people feel, and a choice, when we are talking about people's behaviour. Some people may have only one or the other and not both, where a person might feel polyamorous but not actively engage in polyamorous relationships (or may even deliberately refuse polyamorous relationships), or where a person might participate in a polyamorous relationship but not have the feelings or desires for polyamory.
We can talk about nature vs. nurture 'til the cows come home, but in the end, EVERYTHING we do is a product of our environment, which happens to be "nature". Whether it's because our genes code for it, or the mix of hormones in our mothers' wombs directed it, or we were programmed by society, in the end, we are all a product of our biology, and our biology is influenced by the world around us. We know that doing certain activities can actually change the pattern of our brains. We know that being told something often enough can take advantage of something that's pre-wired into our brains so that the belief takes such a strong hold that it cannot be undone.
While many people can consciously choose to change things, such as unlearning social rules and picking up new skills, it is a false dichotomy to argue "nature vs. nurture". I do not believe it is even possible to disentangle "pure" biology from social programming completely in any given individual (although it *is* possible to identify which put the most pressure on a *group* of people because we can compare different groups with different influences and see how they're similar and how they're not). There is no way to know if I would be this confrontational against men and their power if I grew up in a less sexist society. There's no way to know if I would be more or less confident and aggressive if my mother ate more fruit while she was pregnant with me. Maybe someday we'll have all this sorted out, but not today, and most likely not within my lifetime.
And, in my opinion, it's irrelevant anyway, except as a curiosity. At least when the debate takes place in societies that value freedom, independence, and democracy. Sure, we can argue that our country only pays lip service to those concepts, but that's not the point either. If we *say* that freedom, independence, and democracy are important, then whether or not someone does something because it's his "orientation" or his "choice" should be nothing more than categorization; certainly not anything to base policy on!
And this doesn't even have to go all the way up to lawmakers. Certain poly groups and poly people like to claim that it's not poly if you're not actively engaged *in* polyamory for some arbitrary amount of time. They make up a minimum number of people you have to be in a relationship with, they make up a minimum amount of time you have to be with them, and they make up a specific structure that you have to be in, such as live-in relationships only. And these groups, and these people, like to pass rules that say you can't play in our clubhouse unless you show proof that you are "poly".
Bullshit.
I argue semantics all the time, so I understand the value of having clear definitions so that we can see when something definitely IS and when something definitely ISN'T. I know it's all PC to say "there's no One True Way of polyamory" but I stick by my assertion that there ARE "wrong ways" to do poly. And declaring that you're only poly if you have participated in a poly relationship for a minimum time limit is a WRONG WAY.
By that logic, no one can call themselves straight or monogamous either, unless they have been in a heterosexual monogamous relationship for a certain time limit too. And how do you know it was heterosexual? Are you watching to make sure they're both having and enjoying sex? How do you know one of them isn't "faking it" or making excuses to avoid sex or cheating?
I am polyamorous whether I have 5 boyfriends, 1 boyfriend, or no boyfriends. That is my orientation. Simultaneously, I am *in* polyamorous relationships, whether there are 2 of us or 20 of us. That is my choice. Just as I am straight whether I have any male sexual partners at any given time or not. Just as I am female whether I am shopping at the mall and wearing dresses or incubating babies, or not. Just as I am a stagehand even when I'm not currently at work, or even when I'm out of work. Just as I am a LOT of things, whether I am actively engaged in whatever activity people associate with those things, or not.
People are what they are and people do what they do, and sometimes these things line up, but sometimes they do not. Now, if you want to run a group that has a specific purpose, such as "Poly Support Group For People In Poly Relationships", that's one thing. I get the need to have specific niche groups with specific missions and goals. Not everyone has to have a clubhouse that allows everyone. But there is a difference between "This Club Is For People Who Do X" and "This Is Club X - but you're not *really* X unless you do it this way. In other words, a poly club for people who are actively in poly relationships is fine. A club (or a person) that says *you're not poly unless you are actively in a poly relationship* is not fine. Ur doin it rong.
First:
A person is polyamorous if they have OR WANT multiple, loving relationships, regardless of their current relationship configuration or experience. This is "orientation".
A relationship is polyamorous if the relationship agreements allow for multiple, loving relationships, regardless of how many people are currently involved or have ever been involved. This is "choice".
A person can have or want multiple, loving relationships without ever calling himself "polyamorous".
A relationship can be open to multiple, loving partners without the participants using the word "polyamory".
What all this means is that people can both BE polyamorous and can be IN polyamorous relationships. It is both an orientation, when we are talking about what people feel, and a choice, when we are talking about people's behaviour. Some people may have only one or the other and not both, where a person might feel polyamorous but not actively engage in polyamorous relationships (or may even deliberately refuse polyamorous relationships), or where a person might participate in a polyamorous relationship but not have the feelings or desires for polyamory.
We can talk about nature vs. nurture 'til the cows come home, but in the end, EVERYTHING we do is a product of our environment, which happens to be "nature". Whether it's because our genes code for it, or the mix of hormones in our mothers' wombs directed it, or we were programmed by society, in the end, we are all a product of our biology, and our biology is influenced by the world around us. We know that doing certain activities can actually change the pattern of our brains. We know that being told something often enough can take advantage of something that's pre-wired into our brains so that the belief takes such a strong hold that it cannot be undone.While many people can consciously choose to change things, such as unlearning social rules and picking up new skills, it is a false dichotomy to argue "nature vs. nurture". I do not believe it is even possible to disentangle "pure" biology from social programming completely in any given individual (although it *is* possible to identify which put the most pressure on a *group* of people because we can compare different groups with different influences and see how they're similar and how they're not). There is no way to know if I would be this confrontational against men and their power if I grew up in a less sexist society. There's no way to know if I would be more or less confident and aggressive if my mother ate more fruit while she was pregnant with me. Maybe someday we'll have all this sorted out, but not today, and most likely not within my lifetime.
And, in my opinion, it's irrelevant anyway, except as a curiosity. At least when the debate takes place in societies that value freedom, independence, and democracy. Sure, we can argue that our country only pays lip service to those concepts, but that's not the point either. If we *say* that freedom, independence, and democracy are important, then whether or not someone does something because it's his "orientation" or his "choice" should be nothing more than categorization; certainly not anything to base policy on!
And this doesn't even have to go all the way up to lawmakers. Certain poly groups and poly people like to claim that it's not poly if you're not actively engaged *in* polyamory for some arbitrary amount of time. They make up a minimum number of people you have to be in a relationship with, they make up a minimum amount of time you have to be with them, and they make up a specific structure that you have to be in, such as live-in relationships only. And these groups, and these people, like to pass rules that say you can't play in our clubhouse unless you show proof that you are "poly".
Bullshit.
I argue semantics all the time, so I understand the value of having clear definitions so that we can see when something definitely IS and when something definitely ISN'T. I know it's all PC to say "there's no One True Way of polyamory" but I stick by my assertion that there ARE "wrong ways" to do poly. And declaring that you're only poly if you have participated in a poly relationship for a minimum time limit is a WRONG WAY.
By that logic, no one can call themselves straight or monogamous either, unless they have been in a heterosexual monogamous relationship for a certain time limit too. And how do you know it was heterosexual? Are you watching to make sure they're both having and enjoying sex? How do you know one of them isn't "faking it" or making excuses to avoid sex or cheating?
I am polyamorous whether I have 5 boyfriends, 1 boyfriend, or no boyfriends. That is my orientation. Simultaneously, I am *in* polyamorous relationships, whether there are 2 of us or 20 of us. That is my choice. Just as I am straight whether I have any male sexual partners at any given time or not. Just as I am female whether I am shopping at the mall and wearing dresses or incubating babies, or not. Just as I am a stagehand even when I'm not currently at work, or even when I'm out of work. Just as I am a LOT of things, whether I am actively engaged in whatever activity people associate with those things, or not.
People are what they are and people do what they do, and sometimes these things line up, but sometimes they do not. Now, if you want to run a group that has a specific purpose, such as "Poly Support Group For People In Poly Relationships", that's one thing. I get the need to have specific niche groups with specific missions and goals. Not everyone has to have a clubhouse that allows everyone. But there is a difference between "This Club Is For People Who Do X" and "This Is Club X - but you're not *really* X unless you do it this way. In other words, a poly club for people who are actively in poly relationships is fine. A club (or a person) that says *you're not poly unless you are actively in a poly relationship* is not fine. Ur doin it rong.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/13/11 02:04 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 7/13/11 05:41 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 7/13/11 02:54 pm (UTC)From:"There is no way to know if I would be this much of a ball-buster if I grew up in a less sexist society."
Having seen you go thermonuclear many times over issues not related to sexism, I think I can confidently answer this one "yes". If I learned that you'd burned down a grocery store because you bought a box of corn flakes and found out that it was beyond its expiration date, I wouldn't be surprised by your arson. I'd be worried that you'd feel compelled to kill me because I "knew too much". ;-)
Just sayin'...
no subject
Date: 7/13/11 05:42 pm (UTC)From: