This is a short thought-ramble about the practice known as polyamory, to the few people who actually know about it. It is something of an analysis, and something of an essay, and something of the ramblings of someone who's not had anywhere near enough sleep. These thoughts are largely written to the audience of a person unfamiliar with polyamory, but the views contained may be valuable to those who wish to get a tack on my own particular viewpoint on poly.
The generally held definition of this strange word is "resonsible non-monogamy." This, of course, leads to vast numbers of debates about what monogamy is, what, if anything, might be the meaning of nonamory, if such a thing exists, and any of a number of other things. This is something of my tack on the subject, for the moment (and my opinion may change by the hour - and then again may not).
The most simplistic statement of poly is that a polyamorous person may have more than one lover. This, of course, is a concept difficult for many people to comprehend - "But that's cheating!" is a common complaint raised to this explanation. "That's swinging" is another statement.
Some polyamourous people may in fact, or may have in the past, cheat - and some may be swingers. This is not, however, what it means to follow the practice of polyamory.
To address the difference between this "poly" and that "cheating," one must contemplate the concept of fidelity. To some people, it is by necessesity and definition infidelitous to engage in sexual behaviour with a person who is not the partner in a committed relationship, should such a relationship exist. (In the event of no relationship, there are, of course, a range of opinions on what is "moral" to do.) It may be infidelity to have a deep (particularly romantic) emotional connection to another individual when there is an existing relationship.
The term fidelity means, from its etymology, "keeping faith." In the situation where there is a relationship, there is, more often than not, a pledge of some sort implied, whether explicitly spoken or otherwise assumed. The societal pledge is one of monogamy, presumed lifelong in the case of marriage. Therefore, this is the assumed unwritten meaning of the 'fidel' to which most relationships subscribe.
It is, however, possible to make a pledge of love without including that exclusivity clause to the contract. It is possible to decide to remove that clause, as well, where it was vowed in the past. While many will see that as violating 'fidel' - if there is not, in the pledge between these people, the pledge of exclusivity, then their own 'fidel' is not broken. And, if the ones party to the oath do not consider it broken, there can be no reasonable argument from anyone else to claim that it is.
However, arguments do and will arise. Polygamy - institutionalized polyamory - has been illegal since an attack against the Mormon religion made that prejudice the law of the land. Institutions that will not recognize monogamous same-sex partners are hardly likely to recognize partners in larger family arrangements, no matter the gender. Like any other group at odds with the expected, these groups are shoved to the side and, for the most part, ignored. Racial minorities, religious minorities, all of these are far more likely to be heard than the gay and poly communities, because of the dangerous and taboo involvement of sex into the picture.
Beyond, however, the institutional problems, are the problems of understanding with individual people. Primary among the misunderstandings inherent in the translation is that qustion of jealousy. "Don't you get jealous?" they ask.
Sexual possessiveness is deep-rooted in much of the way we think, and it is often difficult to express why one is not, in fact, jealous - or to separate the questions of the jealousy that does exist and certain forms of envy from the jealous that is meant. I see no reason to resent the attachment of anyone I love to another person. If something makes a beloved one happy, how can I be upset about that happiness?
I do, occasionally, have fits of jealousy - not over the loved one, but over time and attention. Since my long-term relationships, as of this writing, are long-distance, I do not get to spend as much time with them as I would like, and I occasionally resent that the time I might have is occupied with other activities or other people. Other times, I regret that the joy a love gets from someone is not something that I can myself provide - a quiet sort of envy.
The metaphor most often used to express how it is possible to love more than one person deeply is that of a family with multiple children. Parents love (or ought to) all of their children, not one at a time. There is, to the poly mindset, no reason that a person cannot develop more than one romantic love, preserving the knowledge that each person loved thus is as individual as a child, and that the growth of other loves does not and cannot truly change the nature of loves that are already there.
There are varying levels of this form of romantic relationship - from marriage-level or -equivalent bonds to casual friends who occasionally share sex. Some polyamorous relationships are pure romance and affection, having no actual intercourse involved at all. The common words - which I use solely because I have no better terms for them - are "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary."
A primary relationship is, perhaps, the easiest to define, because it fits most effectively into the cultural expectations of what a relationship is or ought to be. A primary relationship might be a marriage or equivalent to one - two or more people bonding on a permanent or semi-permanent level to form a family. Sometimes the primaries are all primary to each other; another situation might have a person having two primaries, say, who have no such relationship to each other (a 'V' relationship, in the parlance).
A secondary relationship has a fuzzier definition, and this one is purely my own. Secondaries are, to me, committed friends first and foremost, but ones who share no legal, financial, or other ties aside from, perhaps, the occasional gift - a person who I would have to call a secondary (I am also his secondary, though I doubt he would use the term at all, unlike my own unhappy resort to the word) and I occasionally go out to dinner, or cover a meal for the other, on the pure basis of friendship. Secondaries may or may not be sexually involved, but are still emotionally close.
Tertiary relationships and beyond are things that are beyond my comprehension. Because of my own history, I do not call a bond less secure than what I called secondary above a relationship at all - it may be a friendship, whether close or distant, an acquaintanceship, etc. As such, my definition for this realm of interaction is frightfully sketchy - my subconscious doesn't work out definitions for things that I will never have to think about. However, a tertiary (or lesser than tertiary) level relationship, to me, is a relationship in which sexual interaction is more important than the affection and friendship. I would count swinging, one-night stands, and other things of that nature as tertiary - my lump default term for "things people do with relationships that I cannot/will not do."
For some individuals, the sexual aspects of a polyamorous relationship are deeply significant. Some are bisexual - and the desire to have lovers of both genders is strong in them. Others have other reasons, about which I will not speculate, for they are not my own.
My own reasons to choose poly are difficult to place into words. I naturally form deep and loving bonds with people when I come to trust them - a process neither common nor easy, but very profound when it happens. The ability to allow those deep bonds to proceed to the depth at which they are fulfilled to the completion of their potential is important to me, and it is one that I have chosen to embrace.
This ability and choice - an extension of my natural tendencies - has made my solid family a secure relationship, and has also preserved the friendships and connections among my family and my family of the heart.
For more information about poly - and a viewpoint not my own - try the Poly Web Page.