Compartilhe esta publicação
Polyamory and the trap of language
Sharp tongues with sharper meanings
(To the Brazilian readers: eu sei, eu disse que as próximas newsletters iam ser em português, mas eu queria registrar esse pensamento que compartilhei na rede social de gente sem vergonha e que, por razões óbvias, não fica público. Mete o google translate e seja feliz)
To be or not to be
English is a fun language. It has some weird ways of conveying information; sometimes, you must use specific words to avoid ambiguities.
One of the most common ambiguities I see in English is the verb "to be". For instance, when I say:
"I am hungry": I have this feeling right now, at this moment, and it's fleeting: it will go away soon, hopefully.
"I am strong": Even though you can feel strong or weak, in this case, this feeling is not fleeting. It won't go away tomorrow, but it might change after some time — but not today or tomorrow.
"I am white": I have to live with this. It's permanent, unchangeable, and without discussion. Even though I found that, out of Latin America, I'm not only white, but Latino, I'm still white as fuck in my home country.
This issue comes up when I hear people talking about polyamory. "I am polyamorous" can mean, to some people, something fleeting like having two boyfriends and knowing it can end at any time, or it can mean they have this as part of their life in a deep, rooted way.
I think everything is fluid. Gender, sexuality, musical taste, the feeling of belonging, friendships, health, etc. Everything, regardless of the topic, can change and will change — at least slightly — through life.
Non-monogamy vs polyamory
This is a common debate. In my mother language, Brazilian Portuguese, we differentiate clearly between polyamory and non-monogamy.
Polyamory: the perception that loving more than one person is possible.
Non-monogamy: an umbrella term for a plethora of relationship frameworks that differ from the default "monogamy".
In my language, a person can be fully non-monogamous and still not be polyamorous: they can have affection for multiple partners and know that whatever they call "love" is just for one of them. Someone can be polyamorous and monogamous: they know love is infinite, but they decided to have an exclusive relationship with all the monogamous dogma around it.
Some non-monogamous people decide they only want to be with one partner now — the so-called dyadic relationship.
In English, polyamory and non-monogamy are terms widely used as if having the same meaning. I will be a little arrogant here: they are not the same thing — and, for me, this is not a discussion but a fact. We must stop using them as if they were the same.
I quit
Whenever I see people discussing not being polyamorous anymore, I ponder 🤔: how did they get to that point in which they used to love multiple people, and now they are sure they will love just one? Where can I take "control who I love" classes? Honestly, I missed those, and my love runs wild.
Then I think: oh, they are not talking about polyamory, but about not being non-monogamous anymore. That's a different subject. It's completely possible to have an exclusive partnership and close your relationship to new people.
But, again, I ponder 🤔: is that really quitting non-monogamy? Because one of the most important lessons a non-monogamous person has to learn is that — apart from the "it's not about the orgies" thing — non-monogamy is absolutely political.
Oh, no, politics!
Non-monogamy is about breaking the monogamous dogma and building a humane and safe relationship with people, having affection and communication before possession and jealousy. Monogamy is based on patriarchy, capitalism, and control — don't come with biological arguments against this; I can counter them all. Monogamy is cultural, and the way it's intertwined into our culture makes it another facet of late-capitalism failures.
So, when someone says they are quitting non-monogamy, are they returning to the monogamous framework, with all its flaws and issues? If not, they are not quitting non-monogamy; they are just doing it differently.
There are many ways to do NM, and there are multiple ways of doing it without having many partners. I'm sure there's a name for a "single partner relationship but without monogamy's bullshit", but it's still under the non-monogamy umbrella.
Language
In conclusion, we need to discuss wording and meanings even more, exactly to know we are talking the same language and expressing the same feelings — after all, we're all in for inclusion, right?
In my take on life, one does not stop being polyamorous from night to day: yesterday, I believed love was infinite and that I could love multiple people; today, I woke up knowing I have enough love for just a single individual.
In my take on life, one can stop being non-monogamous from night to day. Still, it takes enormous energy to change their political beliefs: yesterday, I believed there's no ownership in affection and that I have no control over my partner(s) body(es); today, I woke up being yours and having you as mine.
It's ok to change the way you see your relationships, but let's try, together, to find a better way to convey that to our peers.
What else?
Feel free to disagree or discuss this in the comments. I'm all in for discussing this further.
Also, I've not yet talked about two 😖 subjects: solo-polyamory and "ethical" non-monogamy.