But I’m not aware of any poly relationships where the rules are “we can’t date other people or have sex with other people at all but we can play board games with other people”
I agree, this is my point! If being poly means “my partner going on a date with someone else and my partner playing board games with someone else aren’t separated by a category distinction”, then I would expect there to be poly spectrum people (that is, people who understand these categories the same way you do and identify themselves as poly) who treat these things as if they’re in the same category; that is, who treat them both as a valid place to have a relationship boundary if there’s mutual agreement that this is the best way forward. But I’m not aware of any poly people who do this. A person who is fine with their partner dating others but maybe not going home with them is clearly some amount of poly, and a person who isn’t fine with their partner dating others but is fine with their partner having a board game night is clearly not poly, poly people would I think ~all agree with this, and this is obviously a category distinction! So it seems like while poly people might not care about the category distinction much, and might treat the categories more similarly than I would, they all recognize it and use it and in fact it’s impossible meaningfully be poly without recognizing and using it, so I’m a bit confused as to why you claim not to recognize it.
EDIT: Arguably this a minor point. I make it anyway because I think poly people are generally somewhat to largely mistaken about what polyamory is, and this causes (a) many poly people to try to argue that monogamous relationships are fundamentally flawed and (b) many people to try to be poly when it doesn’t actually work for them. The posts that Elizabeth is responding to exhibit (a) and your original comment reiterates them (you accept as valid reasons to not be polyamorous: physical/social/emotional deficiency, and this is all). And when the justification for being poly ends up being (b) (in this case, a claim I see as being obviously wrong about whether a certain category distinction exists), this makes me worry that some people are poly as a matter of matter of ideology rather than as a matter of preference, and so may try to convince themselves or others to be poly against preference, and in fact this is exactly what we see.
By “in the same category” I basically meant “both are OK”.
Like, “play boardgames with friends” is kinda obviously bad place for a relationship boundry (in general, by default, yes, we probably can invent some far-fetched scenario) and for me being poly is first of all that I and my partner treat “dating/being romantically involved/having sex with someone else” also as a bad place for a relationship boundry.
If I didn’t want to play boardgames with anyone else, I would still think that forbidding my partner to play boardgames with anyone else is Not OK. And if I didn’t want to date/be romantically involved/have sex with anyone else, I would still be poly.
And there are possible relationship boundaries around other partners that I think are OK, even some we don’t practice. But they are kinda “positive” and not “negative” boundaries. Like, “you have to give me X”, not “you have to not give X to anyone else”. Does it make sense?
(Also, yes, I’m sure some people try to be poly when it doesn’t actually work for them, but I think a lot more people try to be mono when it doesn’t actually work for them. But that’s offtopic.)
Sure, this seems more plausible. I’m sure I’d still object to your understanding of some moral and practical dimensions of monogamy, but I’m also sure you’re aware of that so talking about it is unlikely to be productive for either of us. I’d ask that you reconsider the use of the word “category” if you have this discussion with others in the future, this is just not what it means.
I’m aware. They are called “monogamous” :)
I agree, this is my point! If being poly means “my partner going on a date with someone else and my partner playing board games with someone else aren’t separated by a category distinction”, then I would expect there to be poly spectrum people (that is, people who understand these categories the same way you do and identify themselves as poly) who treat these things as if they’re in the same category; that is, who treat them both as a valid place to have a relationship boundary if there’s mutual agreement that this is the best way forward. But I’m not aware of any poly people who do this. A person who is fine with their partner dating others but maybe not going home with them is clearly some amount of poly, and a person who isn’t fine with their partner dating others but is fine with their partner having a board game night is clearly not poly, poly people would I think ~all agree with this, and this is obviously a category distinction! So it seems like while poly people might not care about the category distinction much, and might treat the categories more similarly than I would, they all recognize it and use it and in fact it’s impossible meaningfully be poly without recognizing and using it, so I’m a bit confused as to why you claim not to recognize it.
EDIT: Arguably this a minor point. I make it anyway because I think poly people are generally somewhat to largely mistaken about what polyamory is, and this causes (a) many poly people to try to argue that monogamous relationships are fundamentally flawed and (b) many people to try to be poly when it doesn’t actually work for them. The posts that Elizabeth is responding to exhibit (a) and your original comment reiterates them (you accept as valid reasons to not be polyamorous: physical/social/emotional deficiency, and this is all). And when the justification for being poly ends up being (b) (in this case, a claim I see as being obviously wrong about whether a certain category distinction exists), this makes me worry that some people are poly as a matter of matter of ideology rather than as a matter of preference, and so may try to convince themselves or others to be poly against preference, and in fact this is exactly what we see.
OK, that’s a misunderstanding.
By “in the same category” I basically meant “both are OK”.
Like, “play boardgames with friends” is kinda obviously bad place for a relationship boundry (in general, by default, yes, we probably can invent some far-fetched scenario) and for me being poly is first of all that I and my partner treat “dating/being romantically involved/having sex with someone else” also as a bad place for a relationship boundry.
If I didn’t want to play boardgames with anyone else, I would still think that forbidding my partner to play boardgames with anyone else is Not OK. And if I didn’t want to date/be romantically involved/have sex with anyone else, I would still be poly.
And there are possible relationship boundaries around other partners that I think are OK, even some we don’t practice. But they are kinda “positive” and not “negative” boundaries. Like, “you have to give me X”, not “you have to not give X to anyone else”. Does it make sense?
(Also, yes, I’m sure some people try to be poly when it doesn’t actually work for them, but I think a lot more people try to be mono when it doesn’t actually work for them. But that’s offtopic.)
Sure, this seems more plausible. I’m sure I’d still object to your understanding of some moral and practical dimensions of monogamy, but I’m also sure you’re aware of that so talking about it is unlikely to be productive for either of us. I’d ask that you reconsider the use of the word “category” if you have this discussion with others in the future, this is just not what it means.
Yes, sure! That comment was not very thoughtful.