More thoughts on polyamory

I wanted to talk more about polyamory, because there have been some talks recently in my circles about what it is and what it isn't.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can definitely give my opinion. To me, there are many things that can define a person, all related to polyamory. I'll explain what each term means to me.

I ) Amory

To me, polyamory is an orientation. It's something you identify as. It's not a sexual orientation, but it's an orientation of sorts, just like you can have a BDSM orientation of Dom, sub or switch. To me, you can have a relationship orientation of monoamorous, polyamorous, and a couple others that don't generally have a name formed along the same model but that I think deserve to be mentioned.

This identity defines how many people you can find yourself attracted to in a romantic manner, going further than sexual attraction. Not simply a crush you have no intention or desire to act upon, but actual desire to have a relationship with that person or these people.

• If you are monoamorous, that number is one. If you want a relationship with another person, you choose between the two, as you're not interested in having two partners at the same time.
•  If you are polyamorous, that number is superior to one. You might have your own number that is set in stone, or it can depend on the specific context. Either way, if you already have all the partners you can wish for, this is generally referred to as polysaturated. Even if feelings develop, you aren't interested in acting up on them. Some people use the specific "biamorous" for someone who specifically wants two partners, often one of each gender, but generally it's rare for polyamory to specify a number at all.
• If you can be happy with one or more partners, or you are sometimes monoamorous, sometimes polyamorous, I think your orientation is a third thing, similar to bisexuality or pansexuality on the sexual orientation spectrum. This is rarely named at all, and in my experience the people who fall into this category tend to be of the opinion that you can choose, while the people who are strongly mono or poly wouldn't agree that they could choose to be the other. I find that even a stupid name is better than none, so I will refer to them as "eitheramorous" until someone comes up with something that sounds better.
• Finally, you might not want any romantic relationships at all. This is typically referred to as aromantic, although it's generally used as a romantic orientation, which is about the gender of your partners, not their numbers. I think though that many people would agree that if the answer is "nobody", it applies for both types of orientations. I guess if you want to keep the suffix, you could use "zeroamorous" instead.

II ) Compersion

In polyamory, compersion is often used to mean giddiness or joy at your partner's love for others, his/her happiness with others, and so on. If you often feel compersion you are referred to as a compersive person. Although the word has its base in polyamorous contexts, it is independent on your relationship orientation.

Compersion is an important factor in polyamory because it can shed a light on how easy or hard it is for you to have polyamorous partners. Someone who is very compersive will prefer poly partners, delight in their various crushes, want them to date others. Someone who isn't might be as supportive as they can, but actually suffer from it, and have to deal with a lot of negative emotions, or they might want to date mono partners only. For that reason, it is absolutely possible to be monoamorous but prefer having polyamorous partners, or the other way around.
If I had to create levels of compersion for people to rank themselves (although I feel it's really a spectrum), I would use:

• Level 0: can't stand the idea of a partner having other partners. Out of the question. Would never consider a relationship with a polyamorous person, just the thought is painful.
• Level 1: can feel some compersion, but it's negated by the pain. Could consider a relationship with a polyamorous person in extreme circumstances, for instance an existing relationship they do not want to lose.
• Level 2: would prefer it if their partners wanted no other partners, but willing to have relationships with polyamorous people.
• Level 3: Doesn't care either way what their partners do, no preference.
• Level 4: would prefer it if their partners were polyamorous, but willing to have relationships with monoamorous people. 
• Level 5: strongly prefers a polyamorous partner. Would be willing to have a monoamorous partners, but in extreme circumstances, for instance an existing relationship they do not want to lose.
• Level 6: extremely compersive. Gets off the feeling of their partners being in love with others. Would absolutely not be willing to date a monoamorous person and give up that feeling.

III ) Gamy

Many people will disagree with my use of polygamy here, because they think it's a "bad word". But I want to reclaim it. To me, gamy is a relationship description. You can use it to describe your current relationship, or your ideal relationship. Unlike amory, I consider gamy to be a choice. It does not have to match your relationship orientation.
Note that gamy can be replaced by gyny for female partners or andry for male partners, while gamy is just partners in general.

• Monogamy: one partner, and the relationship doesn't allow for others/neither partner is interested in having other partners, so it's understood it won't happen.
• Monogamishy: one official partner, and the relationship allows for others in specific circumstances, which are the exception, not the rule. Usually comes with emotional exclusivity.
• Polygamy: more than one partner, or one partner with the expectation that more will be added once you meet them.
• Sologamy: subcategory of polygamy similar to dating around, but without the expectation of exclusivity, moving in together, having children and so on if a relationship is serious. Sologamists are also called solopolys.
• Zerogamy: chosen celibacy. No partners at all, by choice, for whatever reason.

IV ) Openness- Exclusivity

We all know what exclusivity is. In our mono-dominant society, exclusivity tends to be seen as the point when the relationship becomes "serious". Monogamous people are always exclusive, at least in some way. Some people might consider themselves monogamous without sexual exclusivity, but then they'll want emotional exclusivity. To some others, it will be the other way around. I have yet to meet someone who would say "We can have sex with others, we can be in love with them, but we're monogamous", although who knows, it might happen.

Some people seem to think that non-monogamous people are never exclusive. That's not true. Polifidelity is a situation in which there are more than two people involved, but they are all exclusive together, and no more people can be involved.

Without having an exclusive arrangement, someone might also simply not want additional partners, in which case they wouldn't consider themselves open to more relationships.

I would create a scale, but there are too many categories. From completely closed (no new partners allowed under any circumstances) to completely open (anything goes, no need to check with anyone beforehand), with many different branches in the middle (only if it's purely sexual/only if it's NOT purely sexual; I want to know nothing about it/I want to know everything about it), it just becomes extremely complicated, and someone everyone should talk about until they're sure they know what everyone's comfort zone is.

Final thoughts:

Why this long article about all of this? Because I think people need to understand that all of these things can matter. If you are not a compersive person, that doesn't make you a bad person. But it does mean that it will be more difficult for you to have polyamorous partner... or to deal with mono people being interested in someone else rather than you. Seriously, people don't understand it, but after being rejected by someone, I'm happy if I see them fall for someone else, not crushed by it.

I used to think everyone worked this way, and I ended up needlessly cruel entirely by accident. It's good to learn that if you reject someone, talking about how in love you are with someone else does not make the rejection easier for them if they are not compersive. It makes it harder. So it's good to be aware of how compersive other people are, and that different people will react differently to different situations. Always be considerate towards their feelings, and not the ones you would personally have. People deserve your compassion even if you don't understand why you have hurt them/are hurting them.

Interestingly, what many people don't seem to think about is that if you are very compersive, having a mono partner can be challenging as well, as the feeling you get from someone you love falling in love is pretty amazing, and you'd have to do without. Similarly, the relationship with metamours can be very rewarding for a compersive person, and one can suffer from missing out on it. There really isn't a monogamous equivalent.

On cheating. A lot of people say "if you're cheating, it's not polyamory". I disagree. With my definition, if you love two people, and want a relationship with both, it's polyamory, even if you use deceit. But you can also be monoamorous and a cheater, either loving only you spouse/official partner, and sleeping around with no feelings involved, or not loving your spouse/official partner anymore and loving the person you're cheating with.

I dislike the idea of rejecting everything you don't like as not polyamorous, because the people are dishonest, or because the rules are gender-based, etc. I think it's an orientation, and therefore, just like cheating doesn't make you suddenly not straight, even though ideally straight people want their partners to be honest, the same holds true for polyamory. We're not more enlightened and we're not perfect.

TL;DR:

I think there are several axes that are relevant to someone's relationship type:

• Amory defines the number or romantic bonds you want or can create, from wanting/loving no partners at all to wanting/loving many.
• Compersion defines how comfortable you are with your partner(s) having other partners, from absolutely requiring they do to absolutely not accepting it.
• Gamy defines how many partners your current relationship allows for, from zero to many.
• Openness defines whether more partners can be added to the relationship or not.

For instance, I am polyamorous, fairly compersive (somewhere between 4 and 5), and my relationship is polygamous and slightly open (new partners are encouraged, but it's expected they'll meet everyone and get along before being asked out).

Are labels needed? Hell no! Can they be useful? Sure. But if it only confuses you more, then just ignore the whole thing. None of it is meant to try and rule your relationship. I just like being able to define my relationships in as much detail as possible. You don't have to be like me.