Traditionally, nearly all world cultures practice some form of marriage. The most common form to western cultures take the form of a monogamous heterosexual pair bond. Recent times in the United States of America show an increase in people who feel that this model no longer works for them, especially in metropolitan areas. More and more there are people who feel that they cannot gain full satisfaction from one sexualoving partner alone. Many different systems have been organized around the central tenent of sharing of sexual partners and the creation of multiple emotionally and sexually loving relationships, and specific terminologies and protocols exist in this system to facilitate their goals. The name usually given to these systems is Polyamory, or to use the emic term the "poly scene" or "poly community." This practice is much larger than those that identify by the word polyamory. There are many with whom I've spoken about this practice who admit to having relationships that could be described as polyamorous but have never heard this word, that there was any form of system based around these practices or thought to look into literature on the subject.

A basic description of polyamory would be the potential of having multiple simultaneous emotionally and sexually intimate relationships, where each individual involved knows and consents to the others or chooses not to know. Some people see the apparent lack of restrictive rules in the relationships to be anarchistic, just as a form of indiscriminate sex or sleeping around. It is in fact quite far from anarchy, rather an amazingly complex set of systems of distinct interpersonal relationships. Descriptions of the practicioners vary from there being a "poly community" to a separate subculture distinct from mainstream monogamy.

This practice is also not of any single definitive style, and there are many discussions from within about the proper way to describe this lifestyle. The range of ways in which these styles of relationships exist are numerous, but this paper shall attempt to address the structures and systems within the more visible polyamorous systems. I shall also attempt to describe the patterns evident in how people subscribing to the inherent philosophies behave. The psychological, sociological, moral and philosophical aspects of the polyamorous community are important issues to address but are beyond the scope of this paper, and will be summarily avoided. A basic terminology will be defined to accurately describe the basic relationship styles these people enact, and a fairly structural approach will be undertaken to describe the interactions between individuals. This approach towards structuralism is not to depersonalize these individuals that are being symbolized in charts and diagrams, but rather to distill the essence of the structures and not to lose the defining characteristics in extraneous details.

What's been said before: Historiography.

Some research in human sexuality mentions this phenomena, but mostly from a moral or ethical perspective. There are a few attacks on modern marriage practices as they exist today, and as such an article titled "In Defense of Promiscuity" (Baker) worked its way into pubilcation. There are a few books on the subject, mostly in the "how to" form that I take much of my information from. The most notable of these would be two books written by and for the Poly community; Polyamory: The New Love without Limits by Dr. Deborah M Anapol, and The Ethical Slut: A guide to infinite sexual possiblities by Dossie Easton and Catherine A. Liszt.

Many of my personal social circles in the Bay Area intersect with polyamorous people, and as such my interest was piqued as to the workings of their systems. Over the past several years, conversations with friends and acquaintances led to a basic understanding of the workings of a polyamorous relationship for someone not participating personally. Not surprisingly, most of those whom I had contact with and had the opportunity to spoke with most commonly were usually females in open relationships. I've gotten into uncomfortable situations in the past where in the pursuit of information about this system I unfortunately strongly disappointed one such young woman who was hoping I might be personally interested. I did not want to repeat this event so I felt I must alter my research methods, but I still wanted a detailed source of primary information as reliable as the classical interview.

Luckily for the technophilic researcher many polyamorous people are also internet savvy, and as a result there are numerous online chat-rooms, weblogs, and message boards dedicated to the poly lifestyle. The Polyamorous communities on the weblog site LiveJournal (http://www.livejournal.com/community/polyamory/) and Tribe (http://sfpoly.tribe.net/)(http://polyamory.tribe.net/) were extraordinarily useful in ascertaining reliable information surreptitiously. People on these boards post information about their relationships, the problems they are having with them, advice for those having problems, theorizing on the morality nature of love and sex, and no small amount on the misconceptions of mainstream culture towards their lifestyle. I spent hours going through these sites and pages looking for patterns in the poly lifestyle. I was not surprised to find that the questions, thoughts and answers discussed here were no different in subject that everyone else outside the community would discuss, differing only in terminology and relative frequency.

In an effort to present the most accurate portrayal of polyamory, I posted a working draft of this essay on my personal website, and invited people to read it and welcomed input and responses. This was invaluable, as having first hand contact again with members of this subculture gave me an insight into their minds and practices that is nearly impossible to gain from afar. I found that the personal contact I have had in the Bay Area poly crowd is not fully indicative of how this is practiced in other parts of the country. I also found that there was much more variation in practices that I was first led to believe, and that the contention even within the community over definitions is heated. This being said, I offer up the best description of this highly variable and personalized set of systems that I can.

How it works: Terminology.

Many authors on this subject seem to use the word polyamory to describe this lifestyle. Dr. Deborah Anapol in her book Polyamory defines the term as "responsible non-monogamy", [4] and holds to this definition throughout her book. Easton and Liszt in their book The Ethical Slut do not like this term as it places monogamy as the societal norm, and places polyamory as some sort of "other" on the periphery of society. The use of the word monogamy is in this case a bit misleading, as polyamory is not employed exclusively by married people by any means. The greek root -gamy refers primarily to marriage, although by extension it also takes on meanings of union, fertilization or pollination [Webster's 786].

Rather, both single people and people in committed dyadic relationships are quite common. In many of the online chat-rooms and books found, the word "lover" was used as a neutral term in regards to gender, sexual orientation, or level of formalized relationship. Nonetheless, the term responsible non-monogamy is useful to work with for the purposes of this paper, for it is the word "responsible" that puts this system into any kind of special category and separates it from cheating or simple promiscuity.

For the purposes of this paper, there is no suitable term in anthropological jargon nor in the emic documentation on this subject to define the basic unit of a non-married romantic unit. This is compounded by the fact that polyamory is an alternative lifestyle, and as such the individuals who would be drawn to one alternative lifestyle would also more likely be drawn to other lifestyles or actions. Bisexuality is not uncommon amongst the women, with less of a presence amongst men but is still known. Fetish, BDSM (Bondage-Domination/Sado-Masochism) and other non-mainstream sexual and social practices have a high amount of overlap within the poly scene. Within each varied subgroup, there exists a specific set of terms and titles for each individual depending upon gender, age, sexual orientation, social position, level of emotional attachment, and in some cases ownership of the person in question. This not to say that the average practicioner of polyamory is also queer and/or involved in BDSM (nor vice versa), but there is a very high amount of cross pollination within this community and others. Thus, the vocabulary of relationships can be confused by a spectrum of terms such as: wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, master, slave, lover, friends-with-benefits, fuck-buddy, and so on. The structures that exist within the poly community seem to be the same whether the individuals involved are heterosexual or bisexual, so as such the gender or sexual identity of the individuals is not important for the purposes of graphing in this paper. The basic form of these diagrams for the purposes of polyamory is derived from Anapol's Polyamory, although it is employed in a different manner for the purposes of this paper.

For the sake of clarity I will modify anthropological jargon and colloquial terminology in an effort to accurately portray the polyamorous community. The anthropological term dyad is suitable for this situation as it holds no bias towards gender, sexual orientation, age, or power position. Within the poly scene, their relationships are qualified numerically as one's "primary boyfriend" or "secondary girlfriend." Commonly the terms primary and secondary are deemed sufficient, so I will employ their use in this sense. I will use the term casual in regards to people meeting for sex with little or no emotional involvement expected. A committed dyad is two people who are both dedicated primarily to each other where one, both or neither may or may not have a secondary.

Multiple forms also exist within the boundaries of marriage for this system, be the marriages legally binding or not. Fidelity refers to a specific type of committed relationship which is akin to marriage. The specifics of this type of relationship will be discussed at a later time, in addition to diagrams illustrating the structural layout of these relationships.

How it works: Structure defined.

For clarity please allow a moment to define the charts that will follow. The symbols used here may look similar to traditional kinship diagrams of kinship. However, I will employ the shapes in a slightly different method. In this paper, the circles and triangles do not denote gender, but rather the position of ego in a particular situation. Ego will be a circle, and each specific term for that relationship will be defined from that perspective. The triangles represent those that ego is involved in a primary, secondary, or casual manner. Squares will stand for those on the periphery of ego's personal sphere, outside of direct personal contact but still part of the larger equation (IE: primary partner of one's secondary or casual). Polyamorous groups exist in heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual circles. Since the purpose of this paper is primarily structuralist in nature, the genders of the actors is nearly irrelevant. This is not to discount the importance of the people involved, but rather deletes the opportunity for confusion, because the structure would be the exact same if the persons were of either sex.

Letters will serve to identify the actors within each circumstance, while the position of ego (and therefore the shapes around them) may vary. Double lines will represent a primary relationship from ego's perspective, while a single line will represent a secondary relationship. Jagged lines will represent casual relationships, and dotted lines will represent the other relationships of ego's partners (two degrees of separation).

The typical monogamous dyad relationship consists of two people committed solely to each other. This is the most common structure in western society, and is the basis for comparison to and distinction from other systems.

Monogamous dyad

How it works: Structure explained... false leads

If polyamory is equivalent with responsible non-monogamy, then the term can be broken down into two main components. The first is the responsibility of the individuals to respect their partners, including being honest about when, how and who they are involved with. The details of this will be discussed later. The second main component is the multiplicity of partners. This is evident in people having the option to enjoy sexualoving relationships with more than one person. If either of these parts are not true in any given situation, then it is not true polyamory.

In order to further define what polyamory is, it may be helpful to illustrate what it is not. Serial monogamy, polygamy, cheating and swinging are oftentimes mistaken for polyamory. While they do indeed share a few characteristics in common with polyamory, the distinctions far outweigh the similarities.

Serial monogamy is a string of monogamous dyads in which two people are exclusively seeing each other for a limited amount of time. When one relationship would end another relationship usually identical in structure with a new person would fill it's place. Serial monogamy is therefore not an example of polyamory, because despite the multiple partners over time each relationship is monogamous unto itself.

Swinging or Wife Swapping as it is sometimes called refers to married couples engaging in recreational sex with other married couples, occasionally in a group sex situation. Emotional attachment is usually avoided, and contact is kept primarily sexual. The term "wife swapping" is falling out of favor, as it carries misogynistic undertones in its perception of women existing as commodities to be exchanged. Even though swinging is in theory consensual between both parties in the marriage, the focus on sex and avoidance of close emotional contact separates it from true polyamory. Some polyamorous couples may also attend swinger's parties and partake in that lifestyle, but as a convention they are considered to be different systems. The network of swinging is so casual that trying to ascertain any structure would be sufficient research as to warrant a separate essay unto itself.

Swinging, or Swapping

Polygamy is the phenomena of one polyfidelic individual having committed relationships with two or more monofidelic people. Polygamy usually takes two forms: polygyny as one man having multiple wives and polyandry as having multiple husbands. The Mormon form of polygamy which was outlawed in 1862 is also not a form polyamory; as the husband is indeed non-monogamous but his wives are each monogamous solely to him. This disparity negates any possibility for the term polyamory to be applicable. There are forms of polygamy which are not as exclusive, but they are inherently different than the Mormonoid form.

Polygamous Family

Cheating could be termed non-responsible non-monogamy in opposition to Liszt's definition of Polyamory. Cheating is when one person in a fixed relationship does not inform another of an outside relationship, and therefore breaks the trust. It is possible to cheat while in a polyamorous relationship, as if the veto power is not observed and/or respected. The use of veto power will be addressed at a later time. The structure of cheating is analogous to that of a secondary relationship, with the crucial difference being in the honesty and communication between the individuals. Now that we know what polyamory is not, we can proceed to more clearly define what it is and how it operates.

How it works: Structure explained... My Best Shot

The caveat must be mentioned, that it has been said that there are as many ways of practicing polyamory as there are people practicing it, and that there is no one single way to do it correctly. Thus, the description of these terms is variable and is open to discussion. I will attempt to define these terms in a more absolute, structural manner so as to get the generalist fashion. These will not apply universally to everybody, but will be the as close as this essay can afford to provide.

Polyamory or responsible non-monogamy would best be defined as a system consisting of consenting adults choosing to share partners for intimate emotional and sexual contact with others while containing a structure of a formalized relationship within these freedoms. These groups are occasionally called families by people participating in them, and indeed tend to share domestic responsibilities such as child care, food preparation, yard work, household chores, and anything else any other relationship would denote.

One of the most common forms of polyamory is the open relationship (which would include open marriage). This is a committed dyad where one or both members is allowed to have relationships with people outside the relationship. This may be purely for sex, or may be part of a deeper relationship. Some people prefer to keep outside relationships purely sexual and to limit emotional involvement to only their primary, but this form of emotional distance has more in common with swinging that with poly theory as is most commonly agreed upon.

Open Relationship

Three of the key defining terms used in the poly community are primary, secondary, and casual. They each refer to a committed dyad, but differ in intensity. Amongst the various forms of these systems, these terms seem to be hotly debated. One camp interprets these terms as purely egocentric so that occasionally within a relationship two people may each perceive the other to qualify as different terms. A primary relationship is analogous in commitment to it's monogamous counterpart. Often times people in primary relationships will live with their partners, and from all outward appearances would behave in public as would a monogamous couple. A secondary dyad would also have a strong emotional as well as sexual bond, but not as strong as a primary. This may be due to pure logistics such as distance or scheduling, but would operate according to the same general rules as would any couple. Another camp interprets these terms as varying levels of "life entanglement" as one informant called it: "say you've got a job offer across the country. A primary says, 'When do we move?' A secondary says, 'When can I visit?' A tertiary says, 'I'll miss you.' Not a description of relative importance, but of life situation." A casual relationship is usually primarily a sexual relationship. Colloquially the term "fuck-buddy" could be used.

The majority of relationships in this system are purely non-marital, where unmarried people have multiple simultaneous relationships with other unmarried people. This group of unmarried people may be composed of committed dyads or singles. All relationships (be they primary or secondary) are supposed to be public knowledge so as to help eliminate potential jealousies before they start. Just as in monogamous relationships, all current and recent relationships and break-ups are usually brought up to potential new partners as a way of starting with a clean slate, and a way of getting to know the other person and where they are coming from.

The system in which three people share a committed relationship is termed a triad. This may be a committed dyad sharing a third as each person's secondary, or all three equally committed in a primary way to each other. It is not impossible in this system to have more than one primary relationship, although not very common. One of the more common proportions in this system is for one heterosexual man to be involved with two bisexual women, each with sexual access to the others. Triads can either be exclusive within itself, or can allow the members to persue outside relationships.

Triad

Another form can be termed Polyfidelity, where a group of people all decide to form an exclusive dedicated bond with every other member of the group, effectively marrying everybody else. Group Marriages are another variant which looks quite similar to a polyfidelic family, but each member is allowed to have outside relationships as well. The rules of exclusivity within a polyfidelic family are nearly identical to that of the more common heterosexual marriages with only the number of people involved changed, while within group marriages there is more often the

Occasionally three or more people all join together into one formal committed relationship. This would then fall under polyfidelity, or colloquially a group marriage. There may still be primary dyads within this polyfidelic system, but they each share partners only within the defined collective. To be part of a polyfidelic family is to forbear sexual contact with anybody not part of that collective. The balance of harmonious love and passionate love mentioned by William Jankwiak in his essay on Mormon polygamous communities fits perfectly into this equation. The number of individuals may vary over time, and usually there is a period of adjustment or initiation. Couples and singles may join these families, but only if agreed on by the family members to begin with. For one to leave this system is analogous to a divorce in emotional turmoil, although the economic ramifications are as yet unclear. These systems are less common than open relationships, and as such less information is available on them. Whether these families suffer more or less from long term jealousy and conflict than Mormon polygamist families due to the added leeway for intimate contact on behalf of the women would be an interesting topic for further study. Occasionally members of these networks may be legally married to another in these networks, but the greater group would of course not be legally sanctioned under the laws as of the writing of this article.

Polyfidelitous Network

The final form of polyamory, which again is one of the more common forms is similar to polyfidelity in size, but is less structured. An intimate network is a group of individuals or couples. This is in effect a way of analyzing a large number of primary and secondary relationships at once. Graham Allan describes social networks in his article Social Networks and Informal Ties, and his model of interpersonal connection serves as a good method to analyze the structures at hand here. A form of generalized sexual reciprocity exists in addition to the generalized emotional and economic reciprocity that is common amongst most groups of friends.

Intimate Network

How it works: Emotionally.

One of the most visible characteristics of this community is the high instance of sex which differentiates polyamory from any other system of pairing. It is undeniable that it is a product of recreational sex, and that sexuality is a large defining factor in this community. It is arguable that the polyamorous community would not exist as we know it today if modern advances in birth control and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases had not been developed. This is not to say that the relationships formed out of this philosophy do not hold legitimate loving bonds, but rather that a sexual relationship is an integral part of this equation. Without the sexual bond, there would be no reason to differentiate these relationships from normal friendships.

There is of course the risk of pregnancy and STDs. If precautions were not taken under consideration diseases could spread with abandon, and even if the initial open dyad or triad were solidly founded and everything were to work beautifully, even the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy could throw the whole balance of the relationship into disorder. This has been the cause for break-ups and divorces due to unplanned pregnancies, and questionable paternity suits in court.

However, the vast majority people I've had contact with are emotionally responsible enough to be discerning enough to choose their partners carefully and to take the appropriate precautions. This surprises many people, and as Easton and Liszt say in their seminal book The Ethical Slut with tongue firmly in cheek, "We've also been called 'indiscriminate' in our sexuality, which we resent: we can always tell our lovers apart." [ibid] (Easton 25).

The drive for sexual contact with new and exciting people is in theory matched equally with the desire for the close friendships that can develop as a result of sexual contact. However, there are quite a number of purely sexual encounters for the sole purpose of sex with little or no expectations of anything emotionally intimate. One person told me that in sheer numbers, the amount of people involved sex-only encounters probably outnumbers those in long-term relationships just by sheer statistics, although they don't count those as dearly as the fewer relationships she has had with men and women over a period of years. As stated previously many people have at least experimented with bisexuality, although in this researcher's sample nearly all tend to prefer one gender over the other and pursue that chosen gender for primary relationships.

How it works: Social dynamics and Complications.

It has been said since time immemorial that communication is the key to any lasting relationship. That is doubly true when one has two relationships with two separate partners, and compounds as much as one has more partners. All verbal and written sources state that jealousy is a part of the human experience and that regardless of how much we may want to ignore it, jealousy will find a way in if allowed to. In order to ensure that feelings don't get hurt, people feel abandoned, and jealousy upset the status quo, absolute honesty amongst all lovers about each and every one of their subsequent lovers must be maintained. In order to achieve this, a particularly interesting set of protocols have developed. Many of these relate around letting one's partner know that one will be spending time with another lover, but not how that time is or was being spent (unless those details are interesting).

Let us create a fictitious situation to illustrate some of the common dynamics involved with multiple people. Persons A and B are in a committed dyad, and each considers the other to be their primary. Each of them in turn has their own secondary relationship that they see four to five times a month. Sometimes the schedules of their secondaries line up so A can see C the same time B is with D. If this is so then A and B can decide who is going where, what hotel rooms might be needed, which car is being used, or whatever the case may be. Sometimes this decision may be made over the space of a couple hours, where person A might know someone from school or work and decide to go home with them that night. A phone to B call detailing where A is going and why A's not coming home is usually sufficient, provided that this sort of happenstance has been previously discussed and approved of ahead of time.

Multiple Relationships

If however, A has a set time to spend with C, but D is unavailable for B so see, then a compromise may be made and these compromises vary from family to family. Easton and Liszt mention a list of ÒDo's and Don'ts of Ethical SlutteryÓ for spending time with secondaries, which basically is a list of guidelines for A to enjoy time with C without making B feel left out, abandoned and jealous.

Commonly A and C will leave to spend the night in a hotel to give themselves and B some privacy. If space permits, then sometimes C and A will share a guest room while B stays in the main bedroom out of courtesy. Sometimes B will sleep on the sofa in the living room in deference to the guest. If the balance works out, all three may opt to go to bed together. Since a large number of poly women also are bisexual, this is apparently not uncommon.

Provided that everybody involved agree who is primary to whom, this system works very well on paper. However, it gets much more complicated when an emic perspective is taken. Person A may consider person B to be their primary, and C to be a secondary. If person C does not have any other relationship with anyone besides A, then C would consider A to be their primary. This is not uncommon, nor is it considered to be bad so long as everybody agrees upon it.

Sometimes, the balance of power changes, and what was before a primary or secondary relationship may change to the other. This very rarely goes well. Personal experience of knowing friends undergoing these dynamics can attest to the heartache known to these changes. Jealousy is still usually felt, but those feeling it have less of a righteous zeal about it, since they initially agreed to allow their lover to become emotionally involved with this person. This being so, the rejected former-primary may choose to leave that group completely or may stay in a secondary relationship.

However, the primary partners are hardly powerless to control their lovers in the case of getting involved with new people. Nearly every relationship I've been able to perceive employs something akin to a veto power. This is effectively where if Person A chooses to become involved with person E, and person B does not approve to a sufficient degree then B can veto A's decision to see E. This power is rarely used, and is only used when absolutely necessary. Both Anapol and Eston/Liszt say that one should not always expect to like one's partner's lovers, and that certain things may not be the way one would wish. However, those who participate in this system should have already considered how much they trust their partners enough to respect the other's wishes regarding choice of lovers.

Conclusion:

Although the act of having simultaneous romantic relationships statistically would increase the risk of emotional heartbreak exponentially, many people feel that the benefits of such a lifestyle overcomes any potential hardships to come. Enough people feel that having multiple romantic partners is important enough for them to create an entire subculture with it's own methods of operation and negotiation.

This lifestyle has been cataloged for quite some time, both in personal diaries and novelization. Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (1961), Robert Rimmer's Harrad Experiment (1966) and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) all portray a culture in which people share romantic partners with others and characters employ a sharing love style. In World, the mantra of "promiscuity is a citizen's responsibility" rings a bit too urgent to accurately describe the world in which these people live, but still moves generally in the right direction.

This phenomena is getting common enough that online dating services are taking advantage of it. On the sign-up page for the Friendster Network (www.friendster.com) in the box marked for marital status, the pips are marked for "Single", "In a relationship", "Married", and "Open Marriage" with options open to either be looking for people to meet for friends or for dating in any of the four previous options. It is hardly common or widely accepted as a viable lifestyle outside of progressive areas like the San Francisco Bay Area, and those who practice it usually feel the need to at some point "come out of the closet" about being polyamorous.

It is an interesting example of cultures and societal expectations changing in regards to technological and political stimuli. It will be interesting to see how this population continues to grow and evolve in response to future events.

The Abstract
Personal Feedback

Back to the main page