My definition of polyamory is "the open, honest and ethical belief structure and/or practice of multiple simultaneous romantic relationships".
So no, I do not believe serial monogamy is a form of polyamory. I think it's a travesty when people feel the need to toss aside otherwise-functional relationships simply to move on to the next person. I do see it as "proof", however, that humans are not "monogamists" in the sense that we, as a species, are capable of loving more than one person in our lifetimes.
I agree that one can take the root of the word "polyamory" meaning "many loves" literally, which could include serial monogamy since there are many loves over a lifetime but not overlapping. But this is, IMO, serial monogamy, not polyamory - it has its own term for a reason. This is a situation where two individuals suppress their desires for other people for the sake of fidelity, and/or "overlap" relationships, and/or they throw away existing relationships in order to experience the next new relationship. All of this negates the "open, honest, and ethical" part of my definition.
Yes, it is also true that some individuals seem to be hardwired for monogamy, in the sense that they genuinely don't seem to have any desire for romantic connections once they have already made one. But my version of polyamory is not limited to only how many partners one has for oneself. In the "multiple relationships" part of my definition, I believe an important element to being poly is that one also desires/is open to one's PARTNER having multiple relationships.
It is my opinion that monogamous hardwiring is rare but existing. Most of what we think of as "monogamous" people include a very tangled mix of social programming and personal insecurities that they are unwilling to examine and let go of. And even more rare is the person whose attaction-switch gets turned off with only one focus and yet allows/encourages/desires/accepts their partner having other partners. I think one of the true tests of polyamory is not how many partners one has, but how one handles one's partner having other partners.
So, a serial-monogamist, in addition to suppressing his own desires/overlapping/throwing away, thereby negating the open/honest/ethical part, typically is also not open to their own partner having other partners. That does not meet my criteria for "polyamory".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 9/13/07 10:01 pm (UTC)From:So no, I do not believe serial monogamy is a form of polyamory. I think it's a travesty when people feel the need to toss aside otherwise-functional relationships simply to move on to the next person. I do see it as "proof", however, that humans are not "monogamists" in the sense that we, as a species, are capable of loving more than one person in our lifetimes.
I agree that one can take the root of the word "polyamory" meaning "many loves" literally, which could include serial monogamy since there are many loves over a lifetime but not overlapping. But this is, IMO, serial monogamy, not polyamory - it has its own term for a reason. This is a situation where two individuals suppress their desires for other people for the sake of fidelity, and/or "overlap" relationships, and/or they throw away existing relationships in order to experience the next new relationship. All of this negates the "open, honest, and ethical" part of my definition.
Yes, it is also true that some individuals seem to be hardwired for monogamy, in the sense that they genuinely don't seem to have any desire for romantic connections once they have already made one. But my version of polyamory is not limited to only how many partners one has for oneself. In the "multiple relationships" part of my definition, I believe an important element to being poly is that one also desires/is open to one's PARTNER having multiple relationships.
It is my opinion that monogamous hardwiring is rare but existing. Most of what we think of as "monogamous" people include a very tangled mix of social programming and personal insecurities that they are unwilling to examine and let go of. And even more rare is the person whose attaction-switch gets turned off with only one focus and yet allows/encourages/desires/accepts their partner having other partners. I think one of the true tests of polyamory is not how many partners one has, but how one handles one's partner having other partners.
So, a serial-monogamist, in addition to suppressing his own desires/overlapping/throwing away, thereby negating the open/honest/ethical part, typically is also not open to their own partner having other partners. That does not meet my criteria for "polyamory".