The poly community – part 2/4: The polyamorous fallacy

The poly community

The heteronormative mainstream generates and reinforces the monogamous fallacy. Its main idea is that sex and love are to take place only between two people in a romantic relationship. As a consequence, if a couple enters a romantic relationship together, it is automatically sexually and romantically closed. This is a stop sign to other individuals who feel attracted to a person of this couple, sexually and romantically.

The poly community, however, has emerged from a rebellion against the mainstream. All rebellious movements start with a particular psychodynamic: When the conforming mainstream goes to the right, the rebellious subculture goes to the left under all circumstances. So, if the mainstream persists to uphold seemingly pointless limitations against most forms of sex and love, and only accepts a tiny fraction of the possibilities, the strategy of the subculture is the exact opposite: No Limits! Free love! etc.

This is why the poly community does not reject only the problematic ones, but rather all ideas whose origin can be traced back to the heteronormative mainstream.

They got one thing right, though: The mainstream definitely enforces many pointless limitations on sex and love, for example:

  • to regard many sexual desires and varieties as “no sex” or “no real sex”,
  • that only a woman, a man and their children are “a family” or “a real family”,
  • to reject homosexuality, which has only recently been recognized as pointless by a majority in only a few parts of the world.

In the heat of the battle, however, the poly community, like almost every other rebellious subculture, has overlooked the fact that not all social limitations are pointless or harassment in nature. Everyone who seriously questions the purpose of constraints and limitations, will arrive at some sensible limitations and rules that are essential for healthy social relationships. The most important example of this are the codes of conduct for negotiating consent and fairness, in order to avoid abuse and violence.

The same is true for romantic relationships: Making a relationship sexually closed as a default setting is a pointless limitation, as it suppresses the sexual level, which always produces a problem because sexual suppression fuels and perpetuates every patriarchal construct in existence. The automatic preference of romantically closed, however, is a sensible limitation, since every new couple can thereby keep to themselves at the romantic level, so that they have the emotional security, the time and energy to develop and maintain mutual trust and bonding behaviour, which is the basis of a loving and stable, i.e. healthy, romantic relationship.

As a consequence, the poly community has generated a completely new patriarchal construct – which I have termed the polyamorous fallacy. It is only a slight change of the monogamous fallacy – which is interesting due to the observation that poly communities all over the world consider monogamy to be their nemesis.

The monogamous fallacy, for comparison:

  1. Desires and wishes at the sexual level and the romantic level are the same thing.
  2. If someone is sexually attracted to another person, a desire for intimacy at the romantic level will always be a part of this attraction.
  3. As long as the romantic relationship is healthy for both individuals involved, it is not possible to fall in love with someone else.
  4. As long as the romantic relationship is healthy for both individuals involved, it is not possible to desire another person sexually.

The polyamorous fallacy and its monogamous counterpart have the first two beliefs in common. Only the third belief is a new invention:

  1. Desires and wishes at the sexual level and the romantic level are the same thing.
  2. If someone is sexually attracted to another person, a desire for intimacy at the romantic level will always be a part of this attraction.
  3. If someone falls in love with a new person, while in an existing romantic relationship, a new, additional romantic relationship must be pursued due to these feelings. The romantic partner in the pre-existing romantic relationship has to approve of and support this development under all circumstances.

If the polyamorous fallacy is applied in real life, its consequences look like this:

  1. Desires and wishes at the sexual level and the romantic level are the same thing.

One person within a romantic relationship is sexually attracted to another person and would like to act on sexual desires with him/her – the respective person is recognized as sexy, hot or very beautiful.

  1. If someone is sexually attracted to another person, a desire for intimacy at the romantic level will always be a part of this attraction.

This person confuses – mostly unconsciously (!) – his/her own wishes according to the above fallacy:

“Just sex” cannot be the case, since a sexual attraction to another person will automatically be linked to a desire for romantic intimacy with this respective person. Moreover, the constant necessity for secrecy gets more and more annoying. Why can’t we just  … ?

After that, the person starts to develop a crush on the individual who he/she is sexually attracted to at the time. The justification of this sub-fallacy is more creative than the one in the heteronormative mainstream:
Casual sex (= swinging) is supposed to be not just “eww”, but an “emotionally cold” and “mechanic” experience. Only sex together with romantic activities such as kissing and cuddling, like in a romantic relationship, could be really fulfilling.

The third belief, however, is different from the monogamous fallacy:

  1. As long as the romantic relationship is healthy for both individuals involved, it is not possible to fall in love with someone else.

This belief has been deconstructed: It is entirely possible for someone in a healthy romantic relationship:

  • to be sexually attracted to someone else (what every person who watches porn or sex scenes or reads erotica is doing all the time),
  • to fall in love with someone else.

These feelings have nothing to do with the raison d’être or health of the existing romantic relationship – they simply indicate that there is another (possibly!) compatible person in the vicinity  – just as if the person with these feelings were single.

However, instead of developing a healthy, non-patriarchal idea about falling in love, the deconstructed belief has been replaced by a new patriarchal construct:

  1. If someone falls in love with a new person, while in an existing romantic relationship, a new, additional romantic relationship must be pursued due to these feelings. The romantic partner in the pre-existing romantic relationship has to approve of and support this development under all circumstances.

The basic tendency is thus – contrary to the mainstream – “romantically open”: Everything is possible; new people can be added to any romantic relationship or polycule just because one person has fallen in love. Some poly people consider only their leisure time as a limiting factor for new relationships, while others believe in “the more, the better” and add every new crush as a relationship to their pre-existing couple / polycule.

A further expression of this “romantically open” space is the so-called cuddle pile: Several individuals, who have just met, lie down on the – at poly events obligatory – large carpet or mattress, and begin exchanging romantic activities. They position themselves side to side, or spoon, and they embrace, cuddle, caress and kiss each other. After a short time, everyone sinks into a quiet relaxing condition. From time to time, the people in the cuddle pile carry out a rotation, so that everyone can cuddle with all individuals involved. This can last for hours, because it is not uncommon for everyone to fall asleep on one another. Often, new people come along, and lie down next to or on top of the existing ones.

These activities (including falling asleep together), convey at an unconscious level the largest intimacy between the individuals involved – the intimacy of a trusting and loving romantic relationship. However, as already mentioned, most of these individuals have just met or they are only acquaintances. Thus, at a conscious level they are almost strangers, but at an unconscious level they communicate the deepest intimacy possible.

This incompatibility., however, does not immediately become apparent. All individuals involved describe a state of happiness during and immediately after being part of a cuddle pile – as I have experienced myself, a few hours later, these feelings change into a massive emotional hangover with symptoms of a depression. This hangover is of course easily cured with the next shot…uh…cuddle pile. Interestingly, people who took MDMA describe a similar pattern of emotions. As a consequence, regulars at poly events who take part in one cuddle pile after the next, have a higher risk for developing mental health issues and addictive behaviour.