Polyamory
 

In the first part of this series we began examining new terminology and categories for non-monogomous relationships.  Here’s a review from an article quoted in Part I:

Polyamorous people sustain multiple intimate, loving, committed relationships at the same time. These relationships can be romantic (or not), sexual (or not), long-term, or intermittent. They can involve cohabitation, marriage, and child-rearing — or none of those things. Part of the appeal of polyamory is the ability to choose which elements are part of your partnership, rather than defaulting to the “relationship escalator.”

“The relationship escalator is where you’re dating, get serious, become exclusive, live together, get married, and have children,” Labriola says. “Somewhere along the line, you merge finances.” Many polyamorous people, in her experience, want to jump off the relationship escalator and not assume any steps are necessary to have a committed relationship. But that doesn’t mean poly people don’t want any of the trappings of a traditional domestic partnership — which is where nesting partners come in.

The concept of poly people living with one or more of their partners isn’t new, by any means, but that time five or six years ago when Labriola started hearing the actual term “nesting partner” coincided with the rising popularity of “relationship anarchy.”

While some polyamorous people refer to their long-term, committed partners as “primary partners,” relationship anarchists reject the hierarchy implicit in a model that characterizes relationships as primary and secondary. By referring to a live-in partner as a nesting partner instead, polyamorous people deconstruct that hierarchy. “Amongst young 20- to 40-year-olds doing polyamory, the idea of hierarchy seems to be a dirty word,” Labriola says.

For her part, Labriola thinks the term “nesting partner” obfuscates what actually is the primary relationship. “If you’re living with someone for 20 years and share finances and a home, you make decisions based on that relationship more than any other,” she says. “[I find that] those relationships are much more likely to succeed long-term.”^[1]

Gotta love that last paragraph.  Wild how acting in a committed way leads to relational success. 

The underlying principle of “relationship anarchy” is prominently featured on the OPEN website.  If you’ll recall, OPEN is the “Organization for Ethical Non-Monogamy and Polyamory,” and under the heading of “Our Organizational Values” we find the following:

Anti-oppression

We believe that sexual and romantic freedom is part of the broader project to liberate humans from oppression of all types such as systemic racism and patriarchy.

Impact-oriented

We strive to produce measurable, concrete change with a focus on substantively transforming systems of power.^[2]

This organization is operating from a framework of liberating people from oppression and “transforming systems of power.”  They find opposition taking the form of discrimination.  Here is another excerpt from the OPEN website:

Do non-monogamous individuals really face discrimination?

Almost two-thirds of non-monogamous adults reported experiencing some form of discrimination based on their non-monogamous identity or relationship style/structure (2020). Examples include family rejection, difficulty accessing supportive mental health care, housing discrimination, and workplace discrimination. Additionally, non-monogamous partnerships are denied access to a range of benefits that married spouses receive related to inheritance, immigration, parental rights, taxation, and more.^[3]

The evidence linked to was a paper entitled, “Exploring Minority Stress and Resilience in a Polyamorous

Sample” by Clinical Psychologists Ryan G. Witherspoon & Peter S. Theodore.^[4]  This work cost $39.95 to access, so I was only able to read the Abstract.  From this we find the psychologists testing their hypothesis that according to the “minority stress theory,” “…stigma and discrimination will lead to negative mental health effects for polyamorous individuals.”  From a sample of 1176 polyamorous American adults, they found “…CNM-related minority stress was positively related to increased psychological distress, such as higher selfreported depression and anxiety symptoms.” 

Once again, we’re looking at a small sample size, relying on their self-report for evidence of discrimination and the impact, which is recorded here as “depression and anxiety symptoms.”  Unfortunately, I did not read details of the questions asked in their survey, nor how they defined their terms.  Notably, in their discussion of their findings in the abstract, the authors emphasized:

“expanding understanding of how anti-CNM stigma affects practitioners and improving clinical cultural competence with this unique and under-served population.”

The authors have used the weighty term “stigma,” which has come to mean, according to Miriam Webster:

“a set of negative and unfair beliefs that a society or group of people have about something.”^[5]

That is a very subjective idea – is it “unfair” for society to exercise caution about these new ideas about identity and relationships?  Is this actually a stigma, or the rejection of the categories and concept? 

In my reading of the evidence provided by OPEN, what I could access of it, I found no concrete, verifiable examples of discrimination. 

Another emphasis on the OPEN website is personal rights, including the “right to choose non-monogamy:”

Ethical non-monogamy is not…

·       Prescriptive. Non-monogamous people are not out to “abolish” monogamy. However, we do challenge the assumption that monogamous relationships are the ideal, and that monogamous romantic relationships should take priority over other forms of relationships. While everyone has the right to choose monogamy, they should also have the right to choose non-monogamy!^[6]

Currently, adults in the US do have this freedom. Yet OPEN makes it clear they are advocating for legal benefits for those who identify as polyamorous.

Parallels to “Celibate Partnerships”

Working through the lens of identity, rather than behavior and desire, we can see how a similar train of thought underlies those looking for approval of “Celibate Partnerships,” as covered in the recent R4R summer series. (See “Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part IV Lost the Plot” Jul 18, 2023 and “Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part V Family Confusion” Jul 27, 2023.). The work of OPEN carries echoes of wanting others to recognize the importance of the relationship as the individuals involved define them (see “Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part II”). “Asexuality” is often included in their lists of sexual orientations – which are the equivalent to “celibate partnerships,” otherwise known as friendships.

OPEN’s mission statement includes:

OPEN is a nonprofit organization dedicated to normalizing and empowering non-monogamous individuals, relationships, and communities. More than that, we’re a movement of people working toward a future where romantic and intimate relationships between consenting adults are accepted and protected regardless of relationship structure, gender identity, or sexual orientation.^[7]  [Emphasis theirs]

Attempting to use the power of the government to gain acceptance of polyamory is not a good tactic.  There are obvious concerns about the instability of these relationships, about STD’s, the raising of children, and confusion regarding ownership of and responsibility for property, businesses, etc. that are valid questions to raise. 

Instead of finding identity and security in Jesus, people are looking for recognition and approval of their relationships, regardless of the depth of commitment and sex of the person involved.  The truth is only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can create life, and the state therefore has an interest in protecting and encouraging a mother and father’s investment in raising their children. 

These new experimental relationships are a recipe for disaster in creating confusion for adults and kids, and exposing children to abusive home situations.  For more on this, please review R4R’s muti-part series on Them

Before Us.  (Starting with “Them Before Us – Part I – How the Biological Family Provides the Best Environment for Children to Thrive” Apr 26, 2022.)

In the next part of this series, we will see how organizations such as OPEN are quite literally writing laws to promote their ideas, gaining legal protections for polyamory in the US.