“That’s just getting permission to cheat.” The explanation here is easy, its not cheating if you have permission and comparing a person in happy healthy relationship to a cheating scumbag is cruel.
“That’s so greedy.” Greed implies that someone is hoarding something, however you’ll notice, in polyamory people are allowed to date others. All comments of the greedy variety, even as jokes, come off as mean spirited and insulting.
“You’re such a slut.” Even as a joke or a compliment, using slut shaming language about the way that someone experiences their own romantic and sexual attraction is mean. Even if you’re using it to be friendly, nobody else ever is, and the majority of people will not enjoy being called a slut.
“Why isn’t one good enough?” Polyamorous people do not feel devalued by having their partners take on more partners. We do not feel as through we are being treated as not good enough. That’s not what its about. And if you’re not dating us, why should we explain our romantic experience to you?
“Don’t get used to it, you can’t marry both.” Mean. This is mean. You’re not being brutally honest or preparing them for the future. You’re being mean.
“I’d never date a guy with two girlfriends.” Any variety of the “well Iwouldneverdo that” isn’t kind. First, if you’re monogamous, they know already. Second, they don’t want your opinion on their relationship.
“Do they know about each other?” If someone says they have two partners, this cannot be your first response. You are assuming right off the bat that they are cheating, a terrible thing to do. Assume their partners know. If they were cheating, they probably wouldn’t tell you.
“I’ve cheated before too, I get it.” Your experience in monogamous relationships is more similar to polyamory than cheating is. Don’t compare cheating to polyamory, ever.
“Well as long as they know about each other that’s okay.” First, they’re not looking for your approval or for you to tell them it’s okay. Second, this is another example of treating polyamory like its similar to cheating. Assuming that cheating is the baseline and polyamory is just “okay cheating” is both incorrect and mean.
When people try to devalue polyamory they’ll bring up stories of people who had bad abusive polyamorous relationships. They take stories of cults, people who forced their partners to accept live in mistresses, and people without sexual boundaries and show them as proof that polyamory is dangerous, sexually deviant, and unsafe to be around kids. However each of these examples isn’t evil because its polyamorous. They’re bad for other reasons. They include abuse, lack of communication and consent, double standards, brain washing, bad relationship rules, and lack of basic human decency. These things exist within bad monogamous relationships too.
Bad relationships will be bad whether they’re monogamous or polyamorous. Abusive isn’t intrinsic to either group. People being abused in polyamorous relationships shouldn’t be encouraged to become monogamous, they should be encouraged to escape.
My two cents on non-monogamy. I’m neutral. It’s not any better or worse than any other relationship configuration involving men. Different relationship styles are just part of human diversity. If polygyny is treated as a man owning multiple objects, and polyandry is treated as one object being shared by multiple men, then the problem is women being viewed as objects — which definitely happens in monogamy too, the root problem being heterosexual relationship dynamics molded by the hierarchy of patriarchy. Which is why open relationships seem to be working fine for gay men.
I think in radfem circles a lot of the opposition to non-monogamy is reflexive due to its association with the whole liberal sex pozzie stuff, which is understandable because men have proven they will pursue more pussy at the expense of women’s wellbeing. But things must stand and fall on their own merit and not merely be deemed guilty by association. After all, abortion and birth control are things the liberal patriarchy has co-opted to increase male sexual access to women with less responsibility, but no radical feminist would argue that these reproductive rights our foremothers fought for are therefore intrinsically oppressive and anti-feminist.
As a matter of fact, it actually was radical feminists in the second wave who postulated that non-monogamy could be liberating for women. The origins of enforced monogamy aren’t very feminist either. It literally originated as affirmative action for low value men, a “pussy redistribution” so that a few men don’t take all of the women and leave the rest with no wives. The societal evolution away from polygamy wasn’t for women, it was for men. Either way, women are viewed and treated like objects with no will of their own, properties to be passed around and handed out for the sake of men and a supposed “greater good” of society.
And a lot of the “(radical) feminist” rhetoric around and critique of non-monogamy just comes off as condescending, presumptuous, and patriarchal. Open relationships are not infidelity — by definition consensual non-monogamy isn’t cheating. And yes, it’s true that said “consent” can be manipulated and coerced, but the same applies to just about any other relationship or action under the sun. Saying that polyamory is simply cheating because women be pressured into it is like saying that anal is automatically rape because women be pressured that. The problem is the pressure, which is by no means inherent nor exclusive to the practice. Somehow someway, some women are ok with these things and that’s fine! The personal preferences of particular women is not the hill that feminists should be dying on, so as long as they’re not immediately harmful. Don’t mistake “class analysis” as an excuse to invalidate people’s reality and act like you know them better than they know themselves. You sound like an ass.
Insinuating or straight up stating that women can never desire multiple partners or must have low self-esteem to be non-monogamous or anything along those lines is just mirroring the same traditional regressive notions around women’s sexuality. The old “women mono men poly” thing. Why wouldn’t women be able to be polyamorous? Why can’t women just desire sexual stimulation? And how would such an arrangement be “benefitting men” anymore than monogamous heterosexual unions are already generally benefiting men? As feminists we should be criticizing the harm these things can do to women without contributing to patriarchal or other oppressive narratives. Like how we must critique the hijab without increasing the burden of racist misogyny on those wearing it, or being condescending and presumptuous towards hijabis. It comes across as an arrogant savior complex that doesn’t have the best interests of women at heart, like talking at and about them rather than to and with them.
Clearly I take issue with a lot of the radfem hostility to non-monogamy, but also I obviously side eye the pro-poly crowd. It’s like a lot of them are willfully ignorant towards context and act like choices are desires are formed in a vacuum. Under a patriarchal society where sexual access to women is seen as a status symbol, isn’t it a bit suspicious for a man to leap at the chance to bed as many women as possible? As a matter of fact, I remember seeing a study claiming that monogamy in men is correlated with intelligence, same deal for atheism — the common theme is rejection of baser instincts and impulses. I don’t even like to call harems “polyamory” because 9/10 there’s no love in that, only hoarding women like resources. Of course these trends don’t apply to every single individual and relationship, we shouldn’t generalize, but it’s something to keep in mind.
And another thing, a lot of poly people are hyper “woke” and fancy themselves and their lifestyle the epitome of progressive, which is a bit… flawed. Preaching polyamory as inherently more “enlightened” and “forward” is also rather condescending and patronizing and naive. I’ve recently seen some claim that polyamory is a threat to capitalism, and that’s just a reach. I guess if you squint you can see where that conclusion comes from, because criticism of the (monogamous, heterosexual) nuclear family has been part of anti capitalism since Engels wrote On The Family. But private property existed back when polygamy was the norm. I believe it’s that capitalism produces monogamy (at least in women), rather than vice versa or non-monogamy necessarily subverting capitalism today. Capitalism is based on private ownership, so it fosters possessive mentality — women became the first private property because men needed paternity assurance for heirs. I’ve heard that certain tribes with a more communal style of living had more open relationships because they weren’t obsessed with guarding property and paternity, which is something that warrants more research. But now that capitalism is already established, it can’t simply be “undone” by popularizing polyamory. What is a threat to capitalism is communal living and strong networks of mutual aid, and it’s not necessary to fuck multiple people to have that.
Gender politics aside, I don’t think polyamory will ever be as common as monogamy for some good reasons, humans apparently tend towards monogamy. I did a poll on my Instagram stories (yes very scientific I know) on the topic of non-monogamy and most of the people who answered, like over a hundred, said it was terrible. Only a handful said it was good and they like it. So the minority who are “naturally” polyamorous should feel free to be so instead of making themselves and their partners miserable by repressing themselves, forcing themselves into monogamy. I’m supportive of polyamorous women, especially my fellow bi babes, but I remain very skeptical of (straight) men who want to be poly. Seeing a man with multiple women provokes my fight or flight response (lmao) because it gives patriarchal harem vibes, but if said man is respectful towards women and treats his partners like humans rather than objects, if there are no double standards, fine. Coincidences and unfortunate implications happen and I don’t think it’s right nor fair to demand individuals change something fundamental and inherent to themselves just to avoid bad optics or fitting stereotypes. Quality not quantity — if they’re not misogynistic shitpiles then a woman having three boyfriends isn’t more concerning than her having one.
I’ve had some really interesting discussions in my irl radfem group about this! Definitely agreed about being reflexively negative towards polyamory due to the association with libfem sex positivity (as well as most poly people I’ve met being insufferable lol), but imo there’s nothing incompatible with radical feminism and, say, three women in a truly consensual polyamorous relationship.
Because we live in a patriarchy, I think it’s difficult/impossible to have a male-female relationship free of inequality (ref: all the studies showing that marriage/LTRs are bad for women but good for men), and whether it’s a man with multiple girlfriends or a woman with multiple boyfriends, the more people you add, the more skeptical I am that it’s a mutually beneficial relationship free of coercion.
That said, I do like that it challenges the traditional nuclear family, especially the idea that there’s one person out there who can meet your every social/sexual/emotional need, but like you said, there’s more ways to break down the nuclear family than dating additional people.
Basically I think I’m probably neutral as well; I know I have a knee-jerk negativity towards it, but don’t think arguing against all of polyamory as a concept is a helpful battle for feminists. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and I’d be really interested to hear what other women think!
I will be honest, I have a personal bias against polyamoury because the (much older) male got me into the relationship and doing things with him I wasn’t into via his girlfriend (he’d teach his girlfriend things and she’d teach me). But I’m also not into men and so that relationship was generally miserable for me. I was the addition and felt very much used when it was all over. But, that was probably more the result of a) my sexuality not being compatible with men and b) him being so much older than me. And what I’ve experienced in polyamoury is a man using a younger girl to draw out an even younger girl and groom them both into kink and shit like that. And so when I see a poly couple looking for a third, my go to is the extra potential for grooming.
And I think it’s something to be aware of and acknowledge that it happens but also acknowledge that grooming and abuse can happen in any relationship. It’s just a very specific grooming tactic that can be used by men.
So I guess all that to say, my criticism of polyamoury really is an extension of my criticism of PIV and male/female relationships as a whole. And how polyamoury opens up new dangers for women and things to watch out for in relationships.
Does any of that make sense?
So I’m not against it, but I’m critical of the way men may use poly to be abusive in ways that are specific to these types of relationships. But women aren’t stupid for entering these relationships, just like monogamous relationships with men. And they can be okay if specific conditions are met (like female dating strategy for straight women, we could create a dating strategy for poly women). And these relationships can even be good. As long as we’re safe.
I am not exactly romance repulsed, but I tend to get deeply uncomfortable when people have romantic feelings for me and want to engage in a romantic monoamorous dynamic with me… I have all this love and affection inside of me and I want to share it with anyone I think deserves it…
