Polyamory

=**Polyamory in the United States**= toc

Introduction
Polyamory is a form of consensual non-monogamy that generally emphasizes love, intimacy, and commitment and de-emphasizes sex (unlike swinging, for example, which tends to be more sex focused). Polyamory usually has ethical underpinnings of honesty and consensus (Klesse, 2006). Taormino (2008) defined polyamory as "the desire for or the practice of maintaining multiple significant, intimate relationships simultaneously" (p. 72). Anapol's (2010) definition also suggested that polyamory was more like a relationship orientation than a lifestyle: "polyamory has more to do with an internal attitude of letting love evolve without expectations or demands that it look a particular way" (p. 1).

Writers on the topic of polyamory have emphasized traits commonly possessed by polyamorists rather than specific relationship forms. Anapol (2010) argued that polyamory requires an ability to allow love, not social conventions, momentary passions, or other forms of unconscious conditioning, to govern our intimate relationships. Veaux & Rickert (2014) expressed a similar sentiment: "We believe relationships that are deliberately, intentionally constructed are more satisfying, and more likely to lead to happiness, than relationships whose shape is determined by default social expectations" (p. 12). Polyamorous relationships take many forms, and polyamorists have many of the same emotional struggles as monogamous people do, including insecurity, possessiveness, and jealousy. However, the feeling of //compersion//, taking pleasure in a loved one's pleasure, is said to replace the feeling of jealousy for many polyamorous people (Easton & Hardy, 2009).

Forms of non-monogamy that can be seen as precursors to polyamory have existed in Euro-American culture since at least the 19th Century, when members of the Oneida community practiced a form of complex marriage in which all members of the community were spouses to one another. The 19th Century free love movement was carried forward into the 20th Century by feminist and anarchist activitsts, reaching its apotheosis in the United States during the countercultural revolution of the 1960's. In the late 1970's and 1980's, members of the Kerista commune were practicing polyfidelity, and Loving More, one of the United States' largests polyamory education and advocacy organizations, was founded in 1994. The creation of the word //polyamory// is credited to Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, who combined the roots // poly // (Latin: many) and // amor // (Greek: love) in a 1990 article entitled "A Bouquet of Lovers." Modern polyamory emerged from a larger late 20th Century movement toward non-monogamy which Anapol (2010) linked to a cultural paradigm shift brought about by the philosophical, political, and social upheavals of postmodernity.

There are almost as many ways to practice polyamory as there are polyamorists, but three main types of poly relationship structures are common: polyfidelity, open (couple-centered) polyamory, and networked polyamory. It is also possible to practice polyamory as a single person (solo poly).

[[image:crossculturalsexuality/group.jpeg width="283" height="211" align="right"]] **Polyfidelity**
Polyfidelitious relationships involve more than two individual s and are generally closed relationships. The members of polyfidelitous triads, quads, etc. (somtimes the term // tribe // or // family // is used to denote a closed, polyfidelitous group) generally only date people within the group. According to Taormino (2008), "polyfidelitous groups often, but not always, live together, and may do things that many committed couples do: they are fluid-bonded, make important decisions together, share resources, raise children, and otherwise behave as a family unit" (p. 96). Polyfidelitous relationships often function similarly to polygamous relationships but without legal recognition of the commitment. This can complicate child care/custody, economic entanglement and disentanglement, and even housing (Sheff, 2014).

**Open (Couple-Centered) Polyamory**
Another common polyamorous relationship configuration involves a primary (usually heterosexual) couple in which each partner is free to engage in other romantic and/or sexual relationships, which are usually considered to be secondary. In open poly structures, a partner's partners ( // metamours // ) are not typically involved with each other romantically. Open poly structures are often referred to by letters that represent the points of connection between partners and metamours: V, W, Z, etc. (Taormino, 2008; Anapol, 2010; Veaux & Rickert, 2014). Though open poly relationships often allow participants a great deal of autonomy and freedom, they may also be goverened by rules and feature the ability of one partner to "veto" another partner's actions, potential partners, etc. In addition, many open poly relationships are hierarchical, which has led to the criticism that practitioners benefit from couple privilege. (Veaux & Rickert, 2014).





Networked Polyamory
Some polyamorists endorse non-hierarchical structures that do not privilege one type of relationship over another. All parties are free to engage in freely-chosen relationships with as many other people as they desire to. Rules are minimal; autonomy is emphasized. J. Fairfield (2012) calls this model “rhizomatic intimacy" because connections between participants in these types of relationships resemble the branches and nodes in a rhizome rather than the more linear, arboreal structures common in other relationship models. Some polyamorists have adapted the principles of anarchism to their relationships and have arrived at anarcho-amorous models (the most well-known is A. Nordgren's relationship anarchy). These models tend to function as highly egalitarian, low power distance micro-cultures.

Demographics
Because polyamory is non-normative, the exact number of polyamorists in the United States is difficult to know with certainty. E. Sheff (2014) estimates that between 1.2 and 9.8 million American are polyamorous and/or non-monogamous. The demographics of self-identified polyamorists are better known. Frank and DeLameter (2010) surveyed 200 polyamorists and found the following demographic breakdown:
 * Race: 89% White, 4% Black, 3% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian, 2.5% Other
 * Socio-economic status: 47% Upper middle class, 27% Lower middle class, 9% Upper class
 * Education: 30% High school/some college, 27% Bachelor’s degree, 27% Graduate/professional degree
 * Religious attendance: 35% Less than once/year, 34% Several times/year to several times/month, 30% Weekly or more often

Other studies have revealed similar socio-cultural characteristics of polyamorous Americans. Sheff (2014) noted that "in mainstream poly communities there are mostly heterosexual men and bisexual women, with a significant minority of heterosexual women and a smaller minority of bisexual men" (p. 30).

Criticism
M. Noel (2006) was one of several voices calling for more cultural awareness and attention to intersectionality when studying polyamory, noting that “the literature promotes the idea that polyamory can be an effective and revolutionary relationship choice for anyone while simultaneously focusing on a particular type of person in American culture, namely an individual who is of ‘European stock,’ middle-class, college educated, and...probably also able-bodied” (p. 606). Sheff (2014) also observed that people of color are often missing from the mainstream poly community. Since polyamory is often couched in the language of self-actualization, it can be seen as a convenience for the privileged classes. In addition, the media's coverage of polyamory and the homogeneity of many of the most visible and vocal polyamorists have led to concerns about polynormativity.

Additional criticism of polyamory comes from the sex-radical movement. Klesse (2006) argued that "the promotion of polyamory as an ethically advanced style of non-monogamy creates divisions within the movement and undermines sex-radical politics" (p. 576). Heckert (2010) challenged polyamory from an anarchist perspective: "I want to stretch the concept of polyamory potentially even to its own undoing...What happens when romantic love is separated from love for family or friends, for plants, animals and land, for oneself and for life itself?" (p. 265). Shannon & Willis also (2010) advocted for a //theoretical polyamory// that incorporated elements of queer theory and anarchism, believing that such a polyamory would be more inclusive and liberatory.

Polyamory Resources on the Web
Freaksexual - Poly pioneer Peppermint's blog. Journals of a Polyamorous Triad - A blog by a polyfidelitious group located near Portland, OR. Love Without Limits - Deborah Anapol's blog for Psychology Today. Loving More - A polyamory advocacy non-profit, founded in 1985. Modern Poly - A non-profit polyamory advocacy group headquartered in Minneapolis, MN. More Than Two: Polyamory Resources and Guidelines - Companion site to Veaux & Rickert's (2014) book. Opening Up - Companion site to Taromino's (2008) book. Poly in the News - Alan M.'s site devoted to the media's coverage of polyamory. Polyamory Weekly - One of the oldest, and most popular, polyamory podcasts. Practical Polyamory - Poly pioneer Anita Wagner's blog. Solo Poly - A site devoted to the solo poly experience. The Journal of the Innkeeper - Poly pioneer Joreth's blog. The Polyamorists Next Door - Elisabeth Sheff's blog for Psychology Today. The Thinking Asexual (Polyamory) - Posts on the intersection of asexuality and polyamory.

**References**
Anapol, D. (2010). //Polyamory in the twenty-first century: Love and intimacy with multiple partners.// Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Easton, D. & Hardy, J. (2009) //The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open relationships & other adventures//. Berkely, CA: Celestial Arts.

Fairfield, J. (2012, June). //Poly theory: Making meaning and re-making culture through rhizomatic i// //ntimacy//. Paper presented at Open SF, San Francisco, CA.

Frank, K. & DeLameter, J. (2010). Deconstructing monogamy: Boundaries, identities, and fluidities across relationships. In Barker, M. & Langdridge, D. (Eds.), //Understanding non-monogamies// ( pp. 9-20). New York, NY: Routledge.

Heckert, J. (2010). Love without borders? Intimacy, identity and the state of compulsory monogamy. In Barker, M. and Langdridge, D. (Eds.), // Understanding non-monogamies // (pp.255-266). New York, NY: Routledge.

Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. //Sexualities, 9//(5), 565-583. doi:10.1177/1363460706069986

Noël, M. (2006). Progressive polyamory: Considering issues of diversity. //Sexualities, 9//(5), 602-620. doi: 10.1177/1363460706070003

Sheff, E. (2014). //The polyamorists next door: Inside multiple-partner relationships and families//. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Shannon, D. & Willis, A. (2010). Theoretical polyamory: Some thoughts on loving, thinking, and queering anarchism. // Sexualities, 9 // (5), 433-443. doi:10.1177/1363460710370655

Taormino, T. (2000). //Opening up: A guide to creating and sustaining open relationships//. San Francisco, CA: Cleiss Press Inc.

Veaux, F. & Rickert, E. (2014). //More than two: A practical guide to ethical polyamory//. Portland, OR: Thorntree Press.