These days, there is a certain ease with which polyamory is conflated with queerness. This is partly due to the collision of language and tactics between the two communities. Polyamorous people come out, they push for social recognition, they decry discrimination, and they see themselves in a struggle that is political as well as personal. In short, polyamory is using some of the strategies that queer activists have honed over the years. This is no accident: the polyamory movement is in many ways modeled on queer activism.
Unfortunately, this leads to a certain temptation to place polyamory under the queer umbrella. Poly people definitely form a sort of sexual minority, after all. And one of the enchanting things about the idea of queerness is its wonderful habit of including new forms of oppositional gender and sexuality as they arise. I have heard both queer people and straight polyamorous people say polyamory is queer. However, most queer poly activists (like myself) would rather that we kept the movements ideologically separate, for the following reasons.
First, we are really talking about two different struggles here. Heterosexist and “monogamist” forms of power are applied differently. Poly people do not get queer-bashed, or anything close to it; polyamory does not induce the same level of straight-out revulsion and violent response that is engendered by violations of gender or sexuality. On the other side, the poly movement can be seen as struggling against the cultural dictates around jealousy, and there is no equivalent to jealousy in queer struggles. Both movements are very important, and are addressing significant problems of power, but they are different sorts of problems. We can expect that the poly and queer movements will of necessity operate in very different ways towards their different goals. Sometimes the two movements will be in alignment (such as around alternative forms of marriage), but other times they will be at cross purposes.
Second, while there is a certain overlap between the two communities, poly people are not always queer. Certainly I have encountered straight poly people whom I could not describe as queer, and these people do form a significant portion of the mixed-gender polyamory communities I move in. There is a certain affinity between bisexuality and polyamory, because the culture tends to falsely associate bisexuality with nonmonogamy, and bisexuals therefore find polyamory to be a useful tool. I’ve elaborated on this elsewhere. But while polyamory is definitely queer when it is being done by queer people, that does not somehow make the whole community queer. Poly people also tend to be queer-friendly, largely because of the bi composition of the movement and because polyamory is ideologically descended from queerness. But this tendency does not hold true in all cases, and again does not make polyamory itself queer.
Third, conceptually combining the communities does a disservice to both. Queer activists tend to get a bit annoyed if we think that queer resources are being directed towards non-queer purposes. The right wing has tried to capitalize on this potential rift by claiming that the queer movement is engaged in an underhanded attempt to push polyamory on the masses. We should not listen to anything the right wing says: there is no shame in saying that we have two separate movements here, both of which have value.
Indeed, why would polyamorous people want to be put under the queer umbrella? As bisexual activists will readily tell you, being a part of a bigger movement is not always helpful. Polyamory is doing quite well on its own: we have numerous conferences, a network of social and support groups, a growing set of publications, and a certain amount of ideological mindshare. Polyamory is already a strong movement, and it will gain more visibility as a separate movement rather than clumsily shoehorned into the queer movement. As Elizabeth Emens pointed out in her groundbreaking paper on polyamory and the law, polyamory is accessible to the culture at large in a way that queerness is not.
So, please resist the temptation to push the poly and the queer together into one idea. Polyamory needs its own movement, which will hopefully be in constant alliance with queer movements, while at the same time remaining conceptually distinct. Also, poly activists can and should learn from the example that queer activism has set, which I have written about at length elsewhere.
freaksexual 
March 13, 2007 at 9:23 pm
this is a good post.
March 15, 2007 at 12:08 am
Huh. Thanks for this post— I have tended to think of poly people as a potential kind of queer, in that I don’t mind if my hetero-poly friends think of themselves as queer by virtue of being poly. But you make several good points.
I would say they’re both sexual minorities, and should be allied because of that.
There’s a separatism push about trans people and the LGB/T community, and while I can see where it comes from as a trans gay man I feel really strongly about having my transness and my gayness supported all in one place. It’s just so convenient, I guess.
March 15, 2007 at 1:45 am
I would say they’re both sexual minorities, and should be allied because of that.
Right, and I think there is space for a close alliance. But if there is a whiff of appropriation, that alliance seems to fall apart. Polyamory needs to be seen as bringing its own clout to the table, which it can certainly do. Also, the poly community needs to get its political shit together – we should not be allying with sexist Mormon fundamentalists, for example.
As for the trans v. lesbigay split, that’s much harder to call, since there is a long history of conflating non-normative genders and sexualities, all the way back to “inverts”. Arguably trans and lesbigay folks are actually facing very similar forms of oppression, due to this conflation.
March 15, 2007 at 3:57 am
“polyamory is accessible to the culture at large in a way that queerness is not.”
I’m curious why you say this – not that I disagree.
But in my own coming out process I’ve sensed a lot more general acceptance/understanding around homosexuality from my rather conservative parents (and others) than I have gotten from them around poly.
Thanks to the progress the queer movement has made, they have had enough exposure to the idea of same sex relationships that the idea is no longer shocking. But the idea of multi-partner relationships is still new and foreign – and it is a struggle for them.
– chris
March 15, 2007 at 4:35 am
I’m curious why you say this – not that I disagree.
I don’t actually mean that polyamory is more accepted than queerness – that’s debatable. The point that Emens make is that most people in our culture can either imagine themselves as somehow nonmonogamous, or can at least see some advantages. In other words, they can see how someone might want multiple lovers.
However, most of the normative people in this country have significant problems imagining the advantages of being queer. While I disagree with Emens in that I think most people can imagine queerness at least a little, I think she is right in the overall point that people see themselves in polyamory a bit easier.
Again, this is not acceptance. In fact, being more able to identify with polyamory probably provokes more negative reactions.
But in my own coming out process I’ve sensed a lot more general acceptance/understanding around homosexuality from my rather conservative parents (and others) than I have gotten from them around poly.
I’ve heard this from a number of queer poly people, and I want to add that family acceptance is not necessarily an indicator of overall societal acceptance. For example, I expect that queer v. poly acceptance might go differently if we were talking about employers’ reactions or the ease of adopting. As I stated above, poly seems to provoke less outright violence than queerness. This is all leading back to my main point – these are different systems of cultural power.
March 15, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“The point that Emens make is that most people in our culture can either imagine themselves as somehow nonmonogamous, or can at least see some advantages. In other words, they can see how someone might want multiple lovers.”
Interesting. I’ve gotten the exact opposite reaction many times over. I run into a lot of people who can see homosexual couples as “just like us, only same gender” and that makes it much easier for them to understand and accept. Though often still coupled with a “equal rights – just don’t call it marriage” stance…
But when it comes to poly in the context of long term major relationships (and not just “dating around”), the reaction has been one of “I can’t imagine at all how that could work…” or “why would anyone ever want to share a lover?”
But I do agree that when their is a negative reaction to queerness, it is often violent. Poly doesn’t provoke a violent response – just a perplexed one.
– chris
March 15, 2007 at 5:17 pm
But when it comes to poly in the context of long term major relationships (and not just “dating around”), the reaction has been one of “I can’t imagine at all how that could work…” or “why would anyone ever want to share a lover?”
Sorry, I am not being clear enough. While non-poly people usually find the idea difficult because of jealousy or just because it breaks their brain, they often simultaneously have a positive reaction to the possibility of having multiple lovers or sex partners. The overall reaction might be, “well it would be neat to have multiple lovers, but it would never work out”. Emens is addressing the first part, the positive reaction. There is rarely an equivalent “wow it would be neat to have sex with members of my gender” reaction to hearing about queerness.
March 15, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I think I would refine this further—because of the way sex is viewed, in our society at least, non-poly people, especially men, think they SHOULD find the idea of multiple sex partners appealing (because every guy and many women are supposed to have a high sex drive). Whereas, unless you’re gay, you’re not SUPPOSED to find sex with same-gender partners appealing to think about. (And if you are gay, you’re not SUPPOSED to find sex with other-gendered partners appealing to think about.) And regardless of what people actually feel (“Lots more sex than I have to deal with already? Meh.” or “Sex with a man/woman? Not my usual thing, but—Hot!”) their outward reactions are largely shaped by these expectations. And that process can be mostly unconscious as well, such that I think a lot more people think they have a really high sex drive than actually do, and a lot more people think they can only be attracted to one gender than are actually limited in that way.
So there’s pressure to be partly positive about poly, whereas there’s pressure to be totally negative about homosexuality. (Alliteration unintentional.)
March 15, 2007 at 10:42 pm
So there’s pressure to be partly positive about poly, whereas there’s pressure to be totally negative about homosexuality.
Exactly. Which leads us to a secondary conclusion that our overly sex-obsessed culture might be inadvertently pressuring people towards polyamory and other forms of nonmonogamy.
March 16, 2007 at 8:11 pm
RAWK! ;) Now all we have to do is factor in the fact that the Christian Right, with their anti-sex fixation, is actually synergistic with this current, not a countermovement.
It’s a slippery slope, people. A slippery slope. If we allow people to relax and not be judgmental about their own sex drives, after marrying multiple people, next they’ll be wanting friendly, caring, sexless marriages, marriage for financial or other practical purposes, or even to MARRY FUNDAMENTALISTS. It will be the end of The Family As Ged Intended!
March 19, 2007 at 5:34 pm
The overall reaction might be, “well it would be neat to have multiple lovers, but it would never work out”.
Ah – yes, now I see the angle you are taking.
The “multiple girlfriends – that must be cool” reaction is common, particularly from males. But there is often a huge negative reaction around “how could you ever SHARE a girlfriend with other men?”
Society seems to say it is ok/cool to have multiple partners, as long as all of those partners do not have multiple partners of their own.
I’ve personally gotten a lot of negative reactions because I tend to be the end of the V, not the hinge. In particular sharing that “my girlfriend has a fiance” really seems to break people in a negative way.
I actually think some “conservative” males are personally more squicked at the thought of “sloppy seconds” than they are at the thought of homosexual sex…
September 29, 2007 at 4:14 pm
As a single lesbian who has adopted, I can tell you that here in California, me being lesbian was not a problem, but me ‘not believing in monogamy’ certainly raised the social workers eyebrows. I reassured her that I am very slow to find partners, and had no intentions of having lots of partners, just that, for me, it’s possible to love more than one person… I compared myself to someone who believes in monogamy, but has lots of short-term lovers, and how destructive that can be for a child. This seemed much more of an issue in adoption, than being queer, which is officially accepted in this area.
(In Michigan, being a single pagan lesbian stopped me from adopting, which is why I moved back here. I never would have mentioned the poly issues there…)
September 30, 2007 at 1:27 am
Sue: Thanks for relating your experience. Glad to hear you were able to adopt.
I’ve heard stories in various forums from LBGT folks who were surprised when negative reactions to their nonmonogamy outstripped negative reactions to their LBGT membership.
I think to some extent this is due to differing expectations: we expect foaming-at-the-mouth reactions to queer people, but we don’t expect that kind of reaction to nonmonogamy as much, for some reason. Perhaps we underestimate the extent to which compulsory monogamy is entrenched in the culture, and the amount of power surrounding it.
You bring up another important point, which is that stuff around children is especially dangerous for poly folks. If I were to list the top political concerns for poly activists, the first two would be:
1) Child custody and adoption.
2) Employment discrimination, especially in jobs like teaching.
This is familiar territory for LGBT folks, and is perhaps the primary reason there should be an alliance.
November 12, 2007 at 1:03 am
A great post, but there are some assumptions in the third paragraph that I take issue with. Small issue with :). It’s simply not the case that polyamory has never induced as much, if not more, outright revulsion than other forms of queer existence have – I see this in my personal life and in my academic life as a researcher studying polyamory. Apparently Sue sees the same. For some, the idea of polyamory bothers them to the core, and I don’t think this is something to ignore, per se. There’s still the fear of leaving the closet on both ends, the fear (and reality) of family retreat from your new existence, the grounds for being fired or losing custody of your children. This is *not* to argue for a conflation of polyamory with queerness on these grounds, only to say that reactions to the two – with the exception of those that are outright violent – can overlap.
I’d also say that the fact that “heterosexist and ‘monogamist’ forms of power are applied differently” is a subjective one. I’ve read my fair share of feminist arguments for viewing compulsory monogamy as an aspect of heteronormativity (and given the tone of some of your other writing, you sound like you’ve read the same), though whether you believe that or not is your prerogative – I’m still only partially convinced :)
With regard to your fourth paragraph, what, then, do you take as your definition of “queer”? Is kink queer? BDSM? Are asexuals queer, intersexuals queer? Is it just the classic LGBT that are referenced through the label “queer”? To say that polyamory isn’t queer is to have a very specific (though likely prevalent, of course) definition of queerness, but there are definitions of queerness that throw polyamory into the nex big acronym on the LGBTQAATSI alphabet soup.
November 12, 2007 at 7:55 pm
For some, the idea of polyamory bothers them to the core, and I don’t think this is something to ignore, per se.
Right. I would never say that polyamory does not inspire revulsion. However, it is perhaps a different sort of revulsion than the revulsion that queerness can inspire. Emens’ argument is that mainstream people who heard of polyamory are more likely to see it as something they would desire, as opposed to queerness, which is more alien to them. This could mean that polyamory provokes a more vicious reaction. But, I think Emens is right and we are dealing with two kinds of revulsion here, where queerness is at a whole different level of Othering than polyamory.
But, there’s also an argument that people’s reactions to queerness are directly related to their own insecurities about their own gender and desires, so we are talking in shades of gray here. Still, I think the overall generalization holds: polyamory is more accessible to the mainstream than queerness, even if not more accepted.
I’ve read my fair share of feminist arguments for viewing compulsory monogamy as an aspect of heteronormativity
I have actually read not very much on this, so if you have any choice examples, please let me know.
That said, I do not think that we can subsume compulsory monogamy into sexism or even heteronormativity. Certainly, the history of monogamy would lead one to think that its primary purpose is the control of women’s sexualities. However, the pendulum has swung both ways and the intensification of monogamy in the late 20th century was arguably a feminist undertaking, because the primary change was that monogamy now strongly applies to men as well (though the double standard is not by any stretch dead). In other words, feminist advances have already taken on compulsory monogamy, starting to level the playing field by intensifying monogamy for men.
We can see this in the culture-wide assumption that men are more likely to cheat, the various websites for women that cover men’s cheating, the self-help industry around cheating targeted at women, etc. Cheating discourse is a manner of taking relationship power and specifically of promoting monogamy, and currently at least it is largely the domain of women.
My point here is that solely analyzing monogamy in terms of sexist or heteronormative power will impoverish one’s analysis. Compulsory monogamy should be considered as an independent power system (though perhaps not at the same level as the paradigmatic oppressions), one that is generally available for interpersonal power. It is most likely to be used in a sexist and heterosexist manner, but there are significant exceptions.
With regard to your fourth paragraph, what, then, do you take as your definition of “queer”?
The definition I’m using is “non-normative sexual orientation or sex/gender identity”, which is the prevalent definition, though as you state not the only one. Including polyamory under the definition of queer would involve changing this definition to include “non-normative relationship structure”, which is kind of a stretch. Relationship structure, while very very important, is not as incorporated into one’s sense of self in the same way as sexual object choice or sex/gender.
And indeed, this essentialized line seems to be what separates the queer movement from the non-queer movement. Intersex, queer. BDSM, not necessarily queer, because kink is not essentialized. Asexuals, also not subject to essentialization by the larger culture, and therefore of questionable queer status.
Now we could try for a different definition of queer, but I think we get the same results. For example, someone recently described queer to me as a certain sensibility in action, one that undermines normative sex/gender/sexuality. By this argument, many heterosexual poly people would be queer. But at the same time, there are a lot of poly people (probably a majority) who would not be queer, and arguably a certain percentage of LBGT folks would also not qualify.
Now, poly people do share a lot of stuff in common with queer folk. For example, both end up tearing down and rebuilding relationship conceptions. But it happens for very different reasons. And again, we come back to sex/gender versus multiple relationship structure. Both important, but very different things.
February 15, 2012 at 11:54 am
“The definition I’m using is ‘non-normative sexual orientation or sex/gender identity’, which is the prevalent definition, though as you state not the only one. Including polyamory under the definition of queer would involve changing this definition to include ‘non-normative relationship structure’, which is kind of a stretch. Relationship structure, while very very important, is not as incorporated into one’s sense of self in the same way as sexual object choice or sex/gender.”
My polyamory is completely incorporated into my sense of self. If I had no or only one partner(s), I would still be polyamorous to the core. I realised this upon discovering that hearing people talk about being happily monogamous, while it is something I can intellectually be happy for them over, it is not something I understand (just like I don’t understand women being attracted to other women, because my sexual orientation is technically androphiliac [hetero is not broad enough, but bi/pan is not specific enough] – I am attracted to male gender presentation [whether that be cis-gendered males or trans/genderqueer/intersex] because whenever I have tried thinking of what it would take for me to want to get naked with my fantastic female-gendered friends, I keep finding myself wishing that they had narrower hips and flatter chests etc), which is the way I expect it is when I talk to my monogamous or homosexual friends about how happy my relationships make me – while they are objectively happy and supportive, it is not something they can subjectively empathise with. For me to be monogamous would require an active conscious choice, while being polyamorous is barely something I think about and feels like the natural default setting. So if I ever did enter into a monogamous relationship, I would be a polyamorous person choosing to be in a monogamous relationship for a period of time (my mind would be polyamorous even if I controlled my behaviour to match outwardly with monogamy).
I’m happy to agree that my polyamorous orientation is possibly not as hard-wired and significant as someone’s gender preference … but I would identify as polyamorous regardless of whether or not I was in a polyamorous relationship structure, or even if I was just dating one person and we had a closed relationship, I would describe myself as “A polyamorous person who agreed to respect a monogamous relationship structure”. I have always interpreted books and movies in light of polyamorous thinking, long before I knew it was allowed or a valid option (I didn’t even know of the word polyamory until last year, and genuinely thought for most of my life up until last year that I was the only person who had been built this way and that there was something wrong with me), and I have always had to actively strive to try to try to convert my natural thoughts into a form that would fit with the monogamy that everyone else was doing.
Anyway, interesting post. I’m glad that while polyamory is being met with revulsion and disdain, at least I haven’t come across any violence yet (though it is still so closeted, so its hard to know what other poly people’s experiences are if they’re not able to talk about them or even identify themselves publicly as a poly person). I don’t identify as queer mostly because I’m not clear on what the word does and doesn’t mean. But it is always good to have my eyes opened further about the degree of discrimination the queer community has to endure on a daily basis.
February 15, 2012 at 6:37 pm
My apologies if the above comment made it seem like polyamory could not be inborn. I’ve known plenty of poly people who were called to nonmonogamy from a very young age, much like you describe. In my own case, I consider my nonmonogamy to be inherent in myself, though I clearly came to it through acculturation – my parents had an open relationship.
While there are plenty of people who are flexible on this score, it may well be that polyamory is actually just as hard-wired as certain sorts of queerness, though if that’s the case I would guess it is because said queerness is less hard-wired than everyone currently thinks.
My point in the above is that mainstream culture certainly does not consider nonmonogamy to be biological in the same way that queerness (or at least homosexuality) is viewed. Nonmonogamy is more considered a moral failing, ironically similar to how homosexuality (gender inversion, etc) was viewed a century ago.
Because of this mainstream attitude, a political effort to shoehorn polyamory into the queer universe is likely destined to fail, since the two identities are both disparate (sexuality versus relationship structure) and in very different places politically.
November 13, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Any chance your blog will ever have that nifty feature where there’s a running log of new comments on the sidebar? I love reading the commentary but hate to go hunting through old posts to find new comments. Of course, I suppose it could be character-building.
November 13, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Katie: Good point. I just added a recent comments section to the left sidebar. Character-building should be avoided at all costs.
November 14, 2007 at 3:30 am
Yay! Personal growth avoided once again.
February 23, 2008 at 10:00 pm
[…] https://freaksexual.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/polyamory-is-not-necessarily-queer/ […]
February 24, 2008 at 7:17 pm
[…] Polyamory is not necessarily queer (tags: polyamory sexuality relationships mlf) […]
November 19, 2008 at 9:49 pm
As someone who identifies as kinky first, queer (bi and genderbent) second, and poly most publicly, I’m big on the separate but allied movements thing.
It’s my impression that the attempt to put things under the queer umbrella is because (1) so many things are linked in complex ways under gender and and orientation, and (2) it’s clear that there should be some kind of umbrella for sexual minority issues. Adding the “and Allies” on the end has always seemed kind of… well, like a psychological sop to people who are offended if they don’t get to be in the secret club. But that’s a separate issue, except for observing how it broadens the umbrella indefinitely.
I’m in Seattle, where the Center for Sex-Positive Culture has been an excellent public-facing organization for several years now. It started out focusing mostly on kink, with poly and queer basically coming along for the ride. That’s still its order of priorities, as judged by number of events, but it’s definitely waving the flag for *everyone’s* bedroom choices being okay. Therefore, when I think of sexual minority umbrellas, the label I think of is “sex-positive.”
But that’s not quite fair either. It’s perfectly possible to advocate for monogamous vanilla same-sex relationships that are chaste until marriage, and someone who supports conservative sexual mores but happens to be gay (or appreciates that people can make commitments in same-sex relationships) wouldn’t want to be lumped in as “sex-positive.” Perhaps “sex-positive” is its own movement as well, that just usually happens to line up with these sexual minority issues a lot of the time.
I’m still chewing on the umbrella idea. I continue to instinctively seeking an umbrella term, though I suppose “sexual minorities” is good enough to be getting on with. Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
(I’m here from polyinthemedia.blogspot.com, by the way.)
November 19, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Mana Gement: Welcome!
It started out focusing mostly on kink, with poly and queer basically coming along for the ride.
I’m a big fan of this sort of polyglot endeavor (and I’ve heard very cool things about CSPC). NCSF covers kink, polyamory, and swinging, though they are not shy about issuing pro-queer press releases. Here in San Francisco, the Center for Sex and Culture seems to be including kink, sex workers, people who go to sex parties, and queer folks.
Therefore, when I think of sexual minority umbrellas, the label I think of is “sex-positive.”
Certainly, there are lots of poly, queer, and kinky people who are not sex-positive, but I still think that the term “sex-positive” is a good umbrella term, because anyone organizing across these communities tends to be sex-positive. So it may not be entirely accurate for the whole communities, but it is usually accurate for the people in those communities who are willing to form alliance with other sexual minorities. I’m okay with calling polyamory a sex-positive movement, much as that might send some other poly people into conniptions. =)
For a (very long) discussion on issues of sex-positivity and sex-negativity and alliance inside the polyamory community, check out my post on polyamory and the sex/love dichotomy.
April 24, 2013 at 9:24 pm
I think the key thing is that “the queer” is whatever deviates from the (sexual) norm and if we are honest, nonmonogamy is very normative for straight men. But we shouldn’t hold straight (cis, white) men as the default. Nonmonogamy/ polyamory in women, however else they identify sexually, is very deviant, maybe even more deviant in heterosexual women than lesbians and bisexual women. I’ve identified as bisexual and currently usually call myself a lesbian or gay, but honestly saying that I’m nonmonogamous/ poly attracts much more negativity. People find it offensive in a way that they don’t find my attraction towards women offensive. People even find it more offensive than my rejection of men as sexual and romantic partners. If there’s one thing worse than not wanting any man, apparently, it’s wanting too many.