Over the last year or so, having been involved in the “polyamory” community in the Boston, MA area, I have made some observations about the use of terms commonly used to describe non-monogamy. I have looked up some definitions (below) on Wikipedia, just so that we’re all on the same page:
Non-monogamy- “a blanket term which covers several types of interpersonal relationships in which an individual forms multiple and simultaneous sexual or romantic bonds.”
Polyamory- “the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.”
Swinging- “a non-monogamous behavior, in which singles or partners in a committed relationship engage in sexual activities with others as a recreational or social activity.”
According to these definitions, polyamory and swinging are two different forms of non-monogamy. The main difference between polyamory and swinging is in where the emphasis is placed. In polyamory, the emphasis is on building loving, romantic relationships with each other. In swinging, the emphasis is on recreational sex, often with little or no relationship between the participants in other ways.
I was noticing recently in conversation with a friend that it seems, in the Boston area at least, many people identify themselves as “poly” when what they may really be engaging in is swinging, or some other form of non-monogamy, which appears to be a combination of the two. We decided that this practice is an attempt at “the purification of swinging”.
Let me be clear about this: I personally make no judgments about one of these choices being “better” than the other. Some may be happiest choosing polyamory. Others may be happiest being swingers, or hybrid non-monogamists (I just made that term up, ya like it?), or monogamists.
However, I suspect that the reason so many local non-monogamists are calling themselves “poly” when that may not be the most accurate description is that there are certain stigmas attached to the term”swinger”, the biggest of these being the negative connotation attached to the promiscuity aspect of swinging. There is a general belief that someone who has had many sexual partners is morally inferior to someone who has had few.
Many of us have grown up in a society that generally believes this to be true- again, rooted in the religious doctrines that prohibit sex before marriage, etc. Unless we have made a conscious effort to think about things differently, the tendency to judge both ourselves and others for being promiscuous is there.
At this point, you may be wondering- so what? What is the point of all this?
I think there are two:
1. First, it is confusing for those in the non-monogamous community to use these terms inaccurately. It can create misunderstandings.
2. More importantly, it can perpetuate the non-acceptance of whatever kind of non-monogamy someone chooses to practice.
My suggestions are these:
1. We start thinking about using a more general term like “non-monogamy”(although I realize that even with that there is the disadvantage that monogamy is the “right” way to do relationships, and that anything else is a deviation from that) to describe all choices other than monogamy.
2. We re-think the negativity associated with having had many sexual partners. So what? Perhaps it is a good thing. For example, maybe the person who has had lots of partners has practiced so much that now they’re really good in bed! 😉 Or, it may indicate that the individual has a healthy sex drive and is relatively free of the stigmas imposed on them by society. After all, the point of sex is pleasure. The “sluts” (and I use this term in the most affectionate way) among us may have had more of that!
And speaking of sluts, perhaps that’s a better term than “non-monogamists”. It’s shorter, and much cuter. 🙂 And it’s empowering to use a term that once had only a negative connotation to mean something neutral or positive.
I would love to hear your feedback about this. What questions or comments come to mind? How do people in other areas of the country/world use terms like these to describe their behavior, and what do you think it indicates?
I think more generic terms give more freedom. I like the idea of using the terms inclusive relationships or exclusive relationships. Trying to define a person’s emotional and physical relationships in one term, seems very difficult.
I think it is between the people involved to work out the level of emotional intimacy, I would guess it would be difficult to find any two of either kind that were exactly the same.
Hi Susan,
I love this: ” I like the idea of using the terms inclusive relationships or exclusive relationships. ”
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and insights.
Maria
There’s often a difference between one’s love orientation and/or desires, and one’s (visible) practice or activity. Just as with sexual orientation (even if we only look at “which wabbly bits get my wabbly bits going?”).
I’m wired polyamorously. I love more than one at a time, and like to have more than one ongoing, committed, romantisexual relationship. Always have, presumably always will. I haven’t been visibly engaged in such for some years, but that doesn’t change my internals.
I also enjoy more casual physical encounters, though I generally prefer friends-with-benefits or other ongoing playmates to one-night-stand bar pickups or the like.
I don’t use the term “swinging”, because there’s a distinct culture commonly associated with that term, which is not in line with my thinking, feeling, or acting. For me, this has nothing to do with promiscuity, per se — I have had more partners, both casual *and* committed, than many (most?) of my age peers, and I’m not ashamed of that. It has to do with perceived attitudes, and styles, and behaviors — which may have no current basis in the *actual* swinger culture! — but which nonetheless flavor how others deal with people who identify themselves so.
“Polyamory” is not too far removed from “non-monogamy.” There’s more than one way to do both — and there are competing definitions all over the web, and elsewhere. One of the first things two polyamorous people tend to do is compare their own definitions — because we don’t tend to assume that anyone else has exactly the same interpretation of how things work. A clear sign of someone new to the concept is that they think there is only one definition, only one way to do it, etc. Much as in many other areas. The most zealous are usually the newest to the scene…
Now I’ve written much more than I started out to say, but there’s nothing I particularly want to cut, so… there you go. 🙂
Thanks for your thoughtful response. And it’s a very good point you make that there’s a difference between one’s love orientation and their actual practice. One could identify themselves as polyamorous, and not actually be involved in any relationships at all.
And you also offer a different perspective/reason why people may not use the term “swinging” to identify their behavior, other than fear of being seen as promiscuous.
I also fully recognize that there are many ways to do all types of relationships- monogamous, polyamorous, or otherwise. However, I do still think there is some benefit in having clarity and agreement about what terms we use for what…although realistically, I know that may never happen. 🙂
I like the suggestion of one of my readers to use the word “inclusive” rather than “non-monogamy”.
One place where things can go a bit off the rails is the tacit, unexamined assumption that a person can only be one variety of non-monogamous.
I know people–many people–who are both polyamorous (they have multiple long-standing, stable romantic relationships) AND ALSO swingers (in addition to having multiple romantic relationships, they also have recreational sex partners in a swinging context). When they say, quite truthfully, “I’m poly,” other people look at them and say “Wait a minute, how can that be? You go down to the swing club on Thursdays!”
Sexual and romantic behaviors aren’t exclusionary. There’s no contradiction between polyamory and swinging, any more than there is between liking pizza and driving a Ford; it’s absolutely possible for a person to do both.
Thank you for making that point. I can certainly see the validity in acknowledging that the two (or other choices as well) are not mutually exclusive.