@unwisdom -- some poly people struggle with issues of jealousy and insecurity. I don't so much. I have insecurities, sure. Those emotions are for me to work with, though. Confronting them has led to great personal growth over the years. The insecurities I sometimes feel have nothing to do with my feeling insecure over hubby's bright and shiny new lover. Instead, they come from other places in my personal history.

Instead, imagine that it is possible to TAKE JOY in my husband's happiness that he has found not one, but TWO awesome, rockin' women to date. I know both of these women, and I fully approve. I don't feel a need to rush out and have a date of my own if he's with one of them. Instead, I use that time to pursue my own interests, like going dancing. I don't spend time wondering what he's doing with them or worrying about things being equal between us. He gets things from each of these women that he can't get from me. And to that, I say, "Yay!"

I want my man (actually, my "men") to be happy and fulfilled. That makes me very, very happy. I've been non-monogamous for almost 18 years now. That's all I have ever wanted for my partners. This taking joy in another's happiness is sometimes called "compersion" in poly circles. What a horribly inelegant word!

I love sex, but incidentally, poly isn't just about sex to me. I learn so much about myself from meeting and dating other people, all of whom are very different than my husband. I get things from them that he can't or won't give me, and that's just the way that it is.

@Unwisdom @99

Monogamy is a specific relationship structure with mandated limits. There are two. Two is the number of the counting, and one is the number of the fucking. To three shalt thou not count, to say nothing of five.

Here's where it gets difficult. There are types of polyamory which are just "super-sized" monogamy. In other words, it has all the features of monogamy except that it has a larger number of people in the relationship.

This form of polyamory (often called "polyfidelity") is much more like monogamy than it is like the form of polyamory where the number of partners is left an open question (and even 2 could be valid in the "open" form of polyamory, if the limits of the relationship were negotiable).

I'm opposed to monogamy because I think it's fundamentally incompatible with human sexual happiness, especially in a culture absent the oppressive enforcement of a norm towards monogamy. I think polyfidelity generally has everything wrong with it that monogamy has, and even more opportunities for failure, because there are more opportunities for conflict.

I think once you make this distinction, the "spectrum" argument you advance isn't really viable.

There are many here who want to blatantly deny others the right to identify as poly. Those who claim it's just bad form or immoral or a way to justify cheating. I can imagine many on this thread saying "I love you, I just hate your lifestyle choices." Sound familiar?

I've spent a lifetime trying to fit into a monogamous world. I've dabbled in poly. For a long time, I assumed we must all be poly at the core, but that we're overrun by cultural norms.

But then I took a step back from it all. Clearly, a lot of people are oriented to monogamy, or it wouldn't be as dominant as it is.

That's not my orientation, and I now recognize that I am "other." It's not about cheating; I've been faithful in all of my monogamous relationships. I refuse to cheat, and have therefore decided that I can't be in such a relationship.

And, that decision hasn't been easy. As much as Dan would say "just find a compatible partner" the pool is tiny.

What I don't get is the desire to deny anyone their identity here; and if you're trying to deny that, you're the very problem that's being discussed. Those of you who think that monogamy is just morally superior, just because, are generally assholes on this thread.

But, Dan, what should I think of African Americans who would deny you the use of the term "civil rights" when discussing gay rights? Why do you feel the need to "own" the term orientation? What do you lose by expanding it rather than shrinking it.

We're all in the closet about something or other. Come out, come out, wherever you are. Today's battle is not the last to be fought.

@quinkygirl @103

"I love sex, but incidentally, poly isn't just about sex to me."

I like the way you put this. The tendency for poly people to say "it's not about sex" drives me batshit. Were it not for sex, no one would care about how many people you had a "relationship" with, so long as you were only sharing physical intimacy to your "official" partner.

But, it's certainly not just about sex. This is why I advance the idea that poly is an orientation, just not a /sexual/ one.

I would describe Polyamory and Monogamy as "Relationship Orientation." They are descriptors of relationship state and style, not sexual state and style.

I am a thoroughly non-monogamous person, that's a definite part of my sexual behaviour and identity - and has always been - but I can only love one person at a time. I would therefore never categorize myself as poly. Most of these letters appear to describe a similar situation. (Besides, the whole primary/secondary thing intrinsically establishes an emotional distinction between the two levels... just like old-fashioned terms such as "spouse" and "lover").

I get the impression that the LWs just aren't really good at definitions. They only seem to use the term poly because it's become the acceptable way nowadays to explain and justify their non-monogamy... as if it needed explanation or justification.

I'm not saying that real polys don't exist, just that the most impassioned defenders of poly identity seem to be people who actually aren't.

@Ricardo

I've been in love with more than one person at once. That's actually the case at this point in time, but the second person I'm in love with is neither a romantic nor sexual partner, and doesn't want to be one, so I'm having to let that go. (I fell in love over a long period of time as we became closer and closer friends.)

Also, I view the "primary" issue as being like having many friends I love, but then one friend I'm closest to. It doesn't mean I only love that one friend though.

Unfortunately you see examples of uneven affection even when there most definitely shouldn't be, such as with parents or grandparents and their children/grandchildren. My ex's mother pretty clearly loves my daughter more than her cousin even though she loves them both. Unlike in adult friendships or romantic relationships, where uneven closeness can be okay, I don't think such unevenness is reasonable when it's about two very young grandchildren, and yet it happens. But it still disproved the idea that uneven closeness means some of the beloved group actually aren't loved.

@cpkcpkcpk

I think I understand your point: you're arguing that polyamorous behavior, or polyamorous relationship models, can differ in kind as well as degree, and so it is an oversimplification to place it on a continuum. Is that right?

I'm sympathetic to the point, but I feel that matters are getting a bit confused; with your discussion of polyamory, polyfidelity, and monogamy, you are talking about behaviors rather than desires. But the whole "orientation" line of discussion has been about individuals' preferences and desires, rather than their actions.

I'd be open to a line of argument suggesting that this behavior/desire distinction is a false dichotomy, but I'm not sure that that is where you're going.

In fact, I suspect that you are fighting the wrong battle. When you write: "I'm opposed to monogamy because I think it's fundamentally incompatible with human sexual happiness", it seems to me that you are denying the idea that monogamy can be satisfying, and therefore denying that idea that it can be an orientation. And I don't see how polyamory can be an orientation if monogamy is not.

Rather, it seems to me that your goal is not the acceptance of a polyamorous orientation, but the recognition that no one is innately monogamous, and therefore that monogamous relationship models are intrinsically flawed.

Some interesting analogies present on this thread…

"If gay people would just stop talking so much about sex all the time!"

"I just hate your lifestyle."

"Gay people are just over-sexualized."

"Sure, I dabbled in college, but that doesn't make me gay"

"What's next, marrying your pet?"

…and of course, there are the ever-present "thou doth protest too much" people on this thread. You know, those self-haters who work too hard to deny poly? As we've learned in the gay world, those who fight hardest…

;-)

This is why I just identify as "me". There are so many subtleties to sexuality that it's difficult to put yourself in specific categories. I was having a conversation with several friends about poly/mono, gay/straight/bi/queer, etc. and it came up that there are so many different interpretations to terms that stating "I'm this" may mean one thing to you, and something entirely different to the person you're telling it it. I've found the closes terms to what I believe to be so that if it does come up I can explain it without having to spend 3 hours discussing it (ie "I'm heteroflexible with poly leanings") but while that gets most of the point across, that's not who I am. I'm just me.

Here's the thing: pretty much EVERYONE is capable of being attracted to multiple people. It's just how humans are. Poly people have just decided to do something about it, have made a conscious choice to structure their relationships a certain way. So no, I would not consider that an orientation (and I do consider myself poly).

I'm a poly, poly doughnut lover love all types of doughnuts this subject is a load of BS it comes down to getting off or feeling wanted be it one, two, m/f. Hope next week is not boring like this week this was a total yawn-er.

Regarding the notion of primaries and secondaries, I don't see how this can be avoided if a person is to have any fluidity in their relationships.

But surely the point is that a polyamorous person (or, if we accept the idea of a spectrum, a "mostly polyamorous person") would have a number of simultaneous romantic and/or sexual relationships, and that these relationships would take on their own characters and own trajectories. Some would be brief, some would be long lasting. Some would be more sexual, and some would be less so. And as the natures of these relationships change over time, both in absolute terms and relative to each other, the identification of the "closest relationship" would also change (possibly to the extent that the concept lost meaning).

Fitting such a life around the notion of marriage is difficult; marriage is an intrinsically monogamistic institution, and doesn't seem like a very good fit for the relationship model I mentioned above.

But again, if we accept the spectrum idea, it is quite believable that many polyamorous people are really midway on the spectrum, and that for such people it is possible to find a long term relationship which remains the "closest relationship" for an extended period. For such people, it would seem that marriage is compatible with polyamory.

And disputing that such people are truly polyamorous as @Ricardo (107) suggests, is a bit like saying that bisexuals aren't gay; it's sort of true in a narrow sense, but when viewed more pragmatically, it misses the point.

@ ho-hum, new topic please.

I tend to judge people on their actions, so my definition of Poly is someone who loves to bitch about sexual identity online.

"Sexual orientation" is a politically powerful term for gays because it replaced "preference" and legitimized (for lack of a better term) same-sex desire and social recognition of gay relationships. Some gay people may view the poly community's use of the term as co-opting "sexual orientation" in their own search for social legitimacy.

@111 Timothy - who do you think is denying you rights/persecuting you, and why did you feel the need to make up accusations and put them in scare quotes?

@116

So that would also include every other single person whose sexual identity is dismissed. Gay people, bi people, people intensely into BDSM, asexual people -- ALL of them complain mightily online when their identity is dismissed. Big surprise, people complain when they're told their identity isn't legitimate. Who would have guessed?

@Unwisdom @110

>>> Rather, it seems to me that your goal is not the acceptance of a polyamorous orientation, but the recognition that no one is innately monogamous, and therefore that monogamous relationship models are intrinsically flawed. <<<

Not exactly. There might well be people who /are/ innately and successfully monogamous. They may not be as susceptible to things like the "Coolidge Effect", or they may not consider sexual fulfillment the most important thing in their lives, or whatever.

What I am against is monogamy as a political and social norm, not as an option. In a political/social system where it was up to the participants to determine how many partners were in the relationship, people could still be operationally monogamous. But their relationship model wouldn't be coercively established as a norm in society.

I was natural born wired to wear a lot of black clothing. Even if I hypothetically wasn't born with this orientation, it is me, I can't be brainwashed into wearing other colors, I don't want to wear other colors, I feel sick to my stomach when I try to wear other colors and I've come to realise screw people who think I should. I like it, it is what I want to do, it's what I WILL do. THAT IS ALL.

@chalgato

Though it's clear you meant to make fun of poly people, it's not actually that clever. All sorts of things can be in someone's wiring. Some people with neurological issues really are sensitive to various colors and textures... so if something so trivial can be a brain issue, I'm pretty sure that many other things can be as well.

Brains are weird. They do different things.

Huh, now that I think of it, a study on brains of poly-identified people vs. mono-identified people would possibly be interesting...

@ 108/109 - Sorry if this is long-winded...

I don't think that you (personal and impersonal you) can't love two or more people at the same time; I merely stated that I can't. I do believe in a polyamorous identity - it's just that I haven't experienced it myself so far (which is why I describe my identity as non-monogamous). And since I also believe that people are born that way, it most likely won't.

My point is that people create categories (and words to describe them) that reveal the distinctions they themselves apply, simply because our moralistic culture is never far behind in the way we apprehend the world, no matter how much of a free-thinker we might think we are. So self-identifying polys who feel the need to label their love (primary/secundary) might unconsciously be transferring older notions to their new arrangements... which thus reveal themselves to not be so new after all.

To use your analogy: if you introduce your best friend as such to another friend, you are in effect making a distinction between the two, but it's a socially acceptable one (more so, I'll concede, than talking about your favorite grandson in front of the whole family). The same applies to polys when they talk about their primary and secondary/ies in such or similar terms. There is a distinction being made. And it appears to me rather close to the concept that we used to call "having lovers".

That doesn't mean that there is no love or affection in those relationships, but it is graded by the people involved themselves, perhaps in an unconscious attempt to conform to a culturally ingrained moral sense that they are supposedly rejecting. But if polyamory is just the equivalent of having lovers (without feeling guilty about it), then we already have the term "non-monogamy" to label it. Its definition is wide enough to encompass all sorts of sexual relationships of all different levels of affection.

Conclusion: If we need a term like polyamory because there is indeed a polyamorous identity that is different from non-monogamy (as I believe there is), then I think words and concepts like primary and secondary are not really useful, as they establish by their very nature an order of preference which other terms already describe quite well. It seems to me that polyamory and all its derived terms should be used instead to define the capacity to love different people at the same time, differently perhaps , but without involving a notion of degree.

A thought exercise to illustrate the difference between Sexual orientation and Polyamory.

Imagine two people have been sent on a remote expedition to antarctica to study penguin farts (With the Green initiatives, we're looking for ANY form of alternative fuel). The two people will be there alone for a full year and because of the remoteness they will have no visitors or be able to communicate with the outside world. Both are single (The Penguin Fart game requires a lot of work hours, making dating tough).

If the two scientists are, for example, straight males, they will not fall in love, they will not date, and they will not have sex (is it possible horniness/loneliness would drive them to, say, blow each other sometime? Sure, but truly straight, non-closet-case straight men would probably stick to masturbation since it's only a year). The reason they wouldn't date/love/sex is that the other is not the thing that arouses a straight male - a female. Sexual orientation, at it's most basic definition, is about which gender arouses you - the same, the opposite, or both.

Now let's imagine the same scenario but with, just as an example, a straight man and a straight woman and both are poly. Not saying they definitely would, because they might not be attracted to each other, but over the course of the year, this couple COULD date/love/sex, despite there being no physical way for them to act on their polyamory (because, remember, no one else can/will be there). Despite being unable to act on their polyamory, they COULD still be aroused by each other, even though there is no chance of multiple partners.

To me that is the difference - sexual orientation is about physical arousal, while polyamory is about much more. A lot of this argument is about whether the word "orientation" should be used, but to me the trick word is "sex". Polyamory, as most poly's I think would agree with (I'm not one), is not strictly about sex. If it were, being polyamorous would mean one who could only be aroused by group sex. To me, perhaps a correct term would be to call polyamory a "love orientation". I still think "orientation" is proper, as I do believe polyamory is innate and compelling, just like sexual orientation, but Polyamory is about who/how you love more then it's strictly about who arouses you, which is what sexual orientation defines. Sex is a part of love, but it's not the whole thing (A non-manogomous person isn't necessarily poly and a poly doesn't have to be non-monogomous).

All of this is by no means intended to unsubstantiated being poly or say they deserve less respect or imply that it's a "choice". Fuck who you want, as many people as you want, how you want, and screw anyone that gives you flack for your choice.

@ 115 - In my experience, in terms of identity, bisexuals are bisexuals, not gay. You might wish to view them pragmatically as gay, but in concrete terms, I find them rather different, just as I find lesbians different, and hetero males and females. In the end, our notion of identity is shaped by what differentiates us from a larger group, not about what we have in common with its members.

@Ricardo

I don't think it's quite the same as having lovers. Even with a primary, all partners might be, say, introduced to one's parents. Sometimes there certainly might be "just" lovers, but all the partners are that -- partners. Even if there may be a bit of unevenness. And even when my partner had a primary and a non-primary before I met him, they were both mothers to his child. (I'd never call myself the child's mother, he's too old for that to ever be the case now, but the kid is in my will.)

@124 - I'm a mono het female currently dating a poly-minded man. This is something that he's just discovering about himself, and something that I'm struggling to come to terms with. As such, I need that "primary" label. I want the other people in his life to *know* that I am his main focus, and that if anything is going to happen with anyone else, it's with my full knowledge of the situation. Right now, that's my security blanket. Perhaps that label is something I'll be able to reject or not even care about in the future, but for right now, it's a very real part of our relationship.

I think too many people are trying to break it all down into simplistic terms, and it just doesn't work that way. Humans are complicated, and so are our relationships. What works (or doesn't work)for me isn't going to be the same thing that works for the couple down the street. Why do we need to label it at all?

For the love of all that is banging, can we move on to more interesting topics?

Disclaimer: I don't give a flying fuck about poly or mono or crackers or kissing disease. I want advice columns to be about ADVICE. I don't know what the fuck the past few poly columns have been about, but they sure as fuck aren't "advice columns" and they have the entertainment value of dog shit, which is to say, "none." (you scat lovers should all hide your faces anyway)

@ 127 - I'm not discussing your experience. The real world is far more varied than the concepts we sometimes try to reduce it to. I'm talking about the words we use to this end, which often, as I believe is the case with primary/secondary, transform a distinct experience such as polyamory into something that better fits the general moral culture we live in, from which few people can truly escape. In this instance, the primacy of one relationship over others is valued, even in polyamorous arrangements. It's reductive (as Madonna would say), but it suits some people for a variety of reasons (see 128 for an example). It also makes it a lot closer conceptually to run-of-the-mill non-monogamy.

If, as in 128, the two partners are gamo-discordant (just made that word up), then I can see how this is useful. But if all partners are poly, to paraphrase sanguisuga : why do we need to label them at all? There will obviously be variations with time and according to the personalities involved, but comparing and ordering feelings hardly seems to be genuinely polyamorous in spirit, in my opinion.

I think this is all BS. People who want to cheat on their monogamous relationship by saying, "It's okay, I'm just POLY."

I think most human beings would like to date, fall in love with, and sleep with, anyone they happen to be attracted to. That ain't an orientation.

If you're going to pro-create, then monogamy has a very useful purpose of creating a stable environment for the young-uns to grow up in. It takes sacrifice, which means you can't run off and fall in love and sleep with all those other people out there that you are attracted to. Grow up.

Just my 2¢ worth.

@Timmyjoe

Do you think it's cheating if everyone is aware of what's going on? Because I am baffled by why people think poly is an excuse for cheating. Cheating involves dishonesty and lying. If my partner sleeps with someone else and I'm cool with that, do you think that's cheating? If it is, then the term "cheating" has apparently become meaningless.

Venomlash: SPECTRA, NOT SPECTRUMS.

SPECTRE, NOT SPECTRA

Wow... polyoutraged people sure are polite!

@Hyancinth:
Thanks, hon. I have to confess, I kind of already knew the answer to my question. I was just seeing if I could get a fresher and more salacious variation of this conversation started.

Thank you, Mister Savage, for being gracious, clarifying your position, and giving some space for people with an alternate point of view to be heard. This is one of the reasons I enjoy you and your column.

@quinkygirl: tell me that who I am doesn't fit your neat little comfortable ideas of what "orientation" is.

As I see it, Dan (bravely) took at shot at sorting out the similarities/differences between poly and homosexuality, and then, having received some critical feedback, opened the floor to poly LWs and commenters to voice their views and experiences. I haven't seen anything from Dan to suggest he considers his word final, or that he's not open to influence.

Personally, I've gained a much more informed and refined understanding of poly, monogamy, and everything in between from the letters and comments of the past few weeks. If there's another forum besides Savage Love where you can find such a rich array of anecdotes and thoughtful discussions on this and so many other relatively unexplored areas human sexuality, please tell me where it is.

Thanks, Dan!

The third letter sounds like someone who's been in jail, had someone get him/her get off or the other way around.
Now thinks this 'having no choice BUT because being in jail' doesn't mean anything.
Well it does. It means that there is this HUGE HUGE HUGE gray area when it comes to sexuality.
The Homo/Bi/Hetero is indeed one spectrum. These are fairly commonly recognized identities in that ONE spectrum.
There.are.so.so.many.others.it's.hard.to.explain.

Yes, getting yourself off in jail or a submarine (or wherever it is you are or imagine yourself to be) is in that same spectrum.
Go figure.

Ms Hyacinth@133 - While I cannot speak for everyone who has mentioned cheating, some of them might be looking at it the other way round from you. It's not necessarily that they are looking at your arrangement and calling it just embellished cheating (and we have clear examples on hand of cheating within non-monogamous relationships, so that there's a clear framework for what that looks like and how that differs from yours). What some of them probably want is a framework in which a person caught cheating can't just play the Poly Card and skate on the grounds of its being discriminatory or bigoted to hold a poly person to a non-poly standard, even if (s)he agreed to that standard.

There's a similar possible explanation for having and eating cake, but my congestion appears to have receded just enough that I can finally get some sleep, and anyway I'm probably too exhausted to do that one justice now anyway. Dormez bien.

for anyone who skipped the letters, but somehow has read this far in tyre comments, the letter from hetero/poly guy is worth it.

Being monogamous is not about being oriented toward monogamy; it's about having the self-discipline to resist the natural and universal urge to engage in intimacy with anyone besides your committed partner.

I have no problem with open or poly relationships, and support poly marriage as soon as the legal angles can be sorted out.

I do have call out those individuals who insist that they have to cheat because they develop crushes on other people. Guess what? Everybody does!!! Acting on these feelings doesn't make you "poly-oriented," it simply makes you a cheater if your spouse isn't consenting.

If you're attracted to the opposite sex, you're hetero-oriented. If you're attracted to the same sex, you're homo-oriented. If you're attracted to both, you're bi-oriented. If you want to have relationships/sex with a number of people, you have one of the above orientations with a lack of desire for monogamy--not a separate orientation.

@142 "What some of them probably want is a framework in which a person caught cheating can't just play the Poly Card and skate on the grounds of its being discriminatory or bigoted to hold a poly person to a non-poly standard, even if (s)he agreed to that standard."

OK. Once A agreed to a standard with B on which to base their relationship, whatever the standard was, cheating is breaking that standard while simultaneously preventing B from leaving the relationship. Common way : hiding and lying.

Polys can be cheated on, too. "Having sex" is not the ultimate cheating act. Cheating is not about an act, it's about unilateraly destroying what was the pre-agreed basis of the relationship.

Example : a poly person within a poly arrangement who suddenly elopes to be monogamous with an outsider is cheating.

A man is born gay. That means he's attracted to having sex with men. If he's brought up in a culture that's accepting, he's attracted to men. If he's brought up in a culture that's not accepting, he might choose not to have sex with men (because he'd be put to death), but he's still attracted to men.

But I'm not sure that's the case with poly/mono. I can think of instances where a straight woman is attracted to a man who's not her husband but chooses not to act on that attraction because she knows she'll be put to death (or believes it's wrong, or will lose her social standing, or get thrown out of the house). But it would seem to me that her basic desires have a lot to do with what she's exposed to and how she's brought up.

It seems like this whole column is a debate about semantics.

@140 To be clear, I have absolutely zero problem with Dan Savage. The conversations that he's started over the years? They really needed to be started! The fact is that I greatly admire the work that he has done. That doesn't mean, though that I agree with every position he's taken over the years.

Incidentally, congratulations to Dan and his long-time partner Terry on their upcoming wedding in the state of Washington.

I had two points -- first of all, were any of us really "born" one way or another when it comes to our sexuality? That's a big unknown. We may have certain hormonal or genetic influences in our makeups, but we don't really know at what point someone becomes "gay" or "poly." It's kind of taken as a given in certain circles that someone is "born gay." Is that really true? We kind of skipped over scientific proof or consensus on this question, I do believe.

Does it matter? Not to me. It seems strange to me, though, that we are supposed to take the word of gay folk on the "born this way" issue but not take the word of poly people on the same question. With me, you are supposed to take my word on it that I was born bisexual, but call bullshit on my feelings of being born poly.

Whether I was born bi and poly or not, I should still have the right to live my life as I want to live it without State denial of the same rights everyone else (read straight, nominally monogamous America) has.

My other point was that there is an elephant in the room in this discussion, the (possibly) perceived attempt by poly people to ride on the coattails of gay activists into mainstream acceptance for our own way of living and loving. Are poly people attempting to co-opt "sexual orientation" in order to make it easier for us one day to get our own legal rights? I do think that this question probably feeds into Dan's original response and position and emotions on the issue. He FEELS that poly isn't an orientation. So, where does that emotion come from?

apples and oranges! monogamy/non-monogamy is not the same as hetero/homo/bi-sexual.

I had two points -- first of all, were any of us really "born" one way or another when it comes to our sexuality?

Does it matter? Not to me.

Maybe not to you, and maybe not to a lot of people, but, in fact, it makes all the difference to a lot people. I work with a lot of otherwise somewhat progressive people - African Americans - in a political context who are strong on protecting civil liberties and economic justice until you run up against their reactionary religious beliefs, particularly regarding homosexuality. They will tell you that gay and inter-racial marriage have nothing in common at all, because the color of your skin is beyond your own control, while your sexuality is within your control. And lest you doubt the earnestness of this position, reflect on numbers who attempted to escape racial discrimination by "passing" - it's living in the color closet.

Really, what this leads to is an implicit assumption that ones chooses to be gay - if it is not intrinsic or inherent, then it something which can be altered - either by nurture or by free well (choice). So, all those straight gay-haters could simply choose to - as Dan says - "s*ck a d*ck", or would remember when they chose to be straight (this only works if they are intellectually honest).

And I think it's still a red herring to say that this question of 'inherent' or 'conditioned' has any bearing: perhaps being Poly is indeed a hard-wired trait for some people. It's still not a sexual orientation.

I feel pretty excited that this comment thread has been so intense. I've never done any neurological or cognitive research (or even thought to look for such research) in these issues before. It would be interesting to monitor brain activity during things like "Imagine your partner having sex with someone else" etc.

BTW, I think cheating is cheating. I don't always judge cheaters particularly harshly since I know humans are flawed, but I don't think being poly is a good excuse for cheating. I also don't think being a closeted gay man (or lesbian) in a hetero relationship in the U.S. (in Saudi Arabia it might be different) is a good excuse for cheating, though it's a damn good reason to break up. There are reasons for cheating that range from quite understandable to not very understandable, but grown ups shouldn't use excuses for any of their behavior, ever, unless maybe you had a brain tumor that caused you to not be yourself (or something equally uncontrollable). Reasons and excuses aren't the same. Reasons are just "This is why I did it" and excuses are "This is why you should be okay with the fact that I did it."

I believe that "poly" is neither an orientation nor an identity. I think it is a style of living one's life that one adopts or not. Many people in monogamous (or even monogamish) relationships fall for another but choose not to make a long-term triad or quad. Many people who like the variety may look for others who similarly like the variety to make groupings of more than two. But this is a choice of how to live one's life. A poly gay man still looks for other gay men to share his life. A poly straight man still looks for multiple women to share his life, or other women and men. It is how they choose to live their life and how to express their sexuality. But loving multiple people at once is not the same as loving same sex or loving opposite sex. It may be a WAY of loving others, but it is not the WHY.

@Afinch

I know I'm an idealist. Guilty! But it SHOULDN'T matter. The world needs more love, not less. I respect your opinion, but it doesn't vibe with me that (only) one thing about our incredibly complex sexualities should receive the legitimization of being deemed "innate" -- namely which set of genital we're attracted to.

@153: Don't people feel that just about everything about their sexual desires is "innate"? I don't believe people who enjoy feet or bondage, to take two common kinks, experience that as a choice they make: "I think I'll start liking feet." And people for whom those are really unappealing don't experience it as "I could really enjoy being whipped, but I've decided to not enjoy it instead." Sexual desire, in all its variations, tends to feel pretty hard-wired and not a conscious choice.

There are things that people might decide they don't feel strongly pro or con and can make a case-by-case decision on whether it's included. Other things are a hard line, like the initial LW's girlfriend's very clear "monogamy is important, and if it's off the table then so am I." (Whereas his innate and undeniable identity turned out to be pretty flexible if it turned out he could get laid.)

I think 153 makes a good point about reasons versus excuses. Relatedly, desires can't usually be helped by sheer willpower. What you do about them, that we do expect adults to modulate using self-control. Is the object of your lust in your military chain of command? Your summer intern? A hundred other people off limits by some sort of social convention, whether societal or personal? Then you restrain yourself. If it's a personal convention (e.g. in a relationship considered monogamous) you can try and negotiate changes. (It's fair for partners to expect this to come up earlier rather than later.) Breaking the convention and then lying about it is wrong, and unilaterally changing the rules without giving the other people involved a choice is wrong. Explaining why your partner is supposed to be okay with it, to borrow Hyacinth's excellent wording, is just trying to shift blame.

@hyacinth That sort of research has long been an interest of mine. If it hasn't been done, we'll get there eventually.

All I know is that a few months ago, I was sitting at a party in between my boyfriend and my hubby. My boyfriend's partner was there with HER boyfriend, and my hubby was there with his girlfriend. Nothing sexual about it. Just easy friendliness.

I had a moment of almost religious ecstasy -- there was no drama. No weirdness. Just lots of smiling faces. And I thought to myself

"Yes!"

@152

I think identity is a looser thing than you realize.

Maybe not though -- I mean, I'm a writer (in addition to the cog sci I mentioned), and if I were never allowed to have own or paper again, I guess I'd no longer be a writer, but I'd write in my head, and a part of who I am would become weak and painful. I started writing when I was five and it's actually been the only consistent thread in my entire life.

Yet people still aren't upset when I call myself a "writer" even though it's "only" a thing I do.

And I'd DTMFA if anyone ever asked me to stop writing.

I hope that analogy makes sense.

I appreciate the intelligent discourse that both Hyacinth and quinkygirl bring to the discussion. Others not so much. Some of you find the topic boring but I find it fascinating. I'm 60 and came of age in a time where a lot of people just fucked, male and female, and revelled in the freedom to do so guilt free ( not everyone, but a lot), and being a sexual liberationist I see forums such as this progress. I hate the word cheating, it sounds so puritanical. I do have to agree however, that if you are in a relationship where your partner is expecting fidelity and has a healthy appetite for sex you are being at the very least dishonest. So everyone should be honest and open. What I have been able to ascertain poly is emotional as well as physical. The concept that you can only love or emotionally bond with one person at a time always seemed absurd to me. That said, some people are wired(?) that way and if you aint and you're in a relationship with someone who is, there is going to be two(or more) unhappy campers.
Personally I've realised that I have always been poly just never practising. Like gays being able to come out and eventually marry(depending on where you live. I'm Canadian), these things happen in increments. I'm married and in a monogamous relationship. My wife is very old school, has had sexual trauma in her past and would be devastated if I did anything that was considered untoward. So if you are involved in the poly "lifestyle" go with it and in time hopefully there will be no need for forums such as this and for people such as myself to be closeted. Living in a small, conservative, military based community can do that to ya.

I couldn't even finish the column, what a bore. I'm poly,tuesday dick, wednesday clit, top, butt sensitive...blah, blah, blah.

Have fun with your pigeon holing and let me know when the sex begins.

@145: "Example : a poly person within a poly arrangement who suddenly elopes to be monogamous with an outsider is cheating."

Really? I would call that "breaking up."

@153 But it SHOULDN'T matter.

No need to apologize, nor are you being an idealist: I concur completely. I'm just pointing out that the construct upon which "inalienable rights" are built is one of natural law and concepts like "innate" - that is, certain rights are innate to human beings. It really actually does matter under our system of law.

but it doesn't vibe with me that (only) one thing about our incredibly complex sexualities should receive the legitimization of being deemed "innate" -- namely which set of genital we're attracted to.

With whom and how many we have sex or a relationship, is, IMHO, an innate personal right, and I'm not really arguing with you about that. My quibble was with trying to equate "which set of genitals we're attracted to" with a conditioned, optional choice.

FWIW, as I said above: it is also pretty innate for men and women to be "innately" drawn to having sex with more than one person, just as humans (and some other primates) are hardwired to have sex for more than just procreation and not just when our monthly hormone cycles put us in heat.

I too think this is a quibble over semantics, but I appreciate clear meaning in concepts and I do not believe the poly<->mono spectrum is on the same axis as the hetero<->bi<->homo spectrum. They may both be innate characteristics, but they remain orthogonal.

@Sam the Man

Cladding transgendered people as those you don't want to hear from -- that really shows who you are. "Man, I just hate hearing from the oppressed -- wish they'd shut up already, they bore me."

I meant classifying* not cladding... Damn iPhone.

@160 You're right, of course. I'm a poly wannabe, not an actual poly, so I couldn't come up with plausible examples of cheating in the poly world.

As for the semantics, I agree with #161 : whom you're attracted to is orthogonal to how you're making relationships based on this attraction. There would also be a third orthogonal plane, describing what kind of sex acts and fetishes you're into - and one's sexual definition/identification/orientation could be plotted on this 3D space.

How amazing that what we've been culturally taught as normalcy is just a tiny point in this 3D space : monogamous, heterosexual, missionary PIV sex.

I dream of a more accepting society, where nobody's judged on what point(s) her/his sexuality occupies in this continuum of possibles. What happens in the bedroom between consenting adults should not be of interest to religious nor political forces.

@ 144: To quote you:

"Being monogamous is not about being oriented toward monogamy; it's about having the self-discipline to resist the natural and universal urge to engage in intimacy with anyone besides your committed partner."

Thank you. It's a choice.

Maybe some people don't tend to feel things that deeply or something.. Maybe some people could handle being in love (or 'in love') with more than one person at a time. Maybe some of these people have yet to encounter one of their lives' first great loves.. Finding that can change your whole world, or what you thought your world was before it happened to you..

It's a combination of choice and temperament, I think. Whether anyone is mono, poly or just an all-around clusterfuck comprised of many different variables, the important thing is knowing who you are, what you want, what you desire most and seeing it come to fruition with likeminded souls.

In a way, the polyspeak for some reason reminds me of someone who quits smoking then takes to the dais or pulpit and spouts off for eons about the hazards of smoking.. It's always something.

I do think it is about how you're wired, too. Some people cringe at the idea of a secondary romantic, etc. relationship: some lick their chops like a buzzard swooping down towards the gutwagon. It's all a matter of choice and personal preference.

I wouldn't rule out anything ever, but I barely have enough time to get one relationship sorted out and going well. Who TF would wanna take on additional drama? They best better make yer heart and loins flutter for all that duress!

To each their own, as the good saying goes.

:-)

Maybe because today is Dec 6, but it seems like the use of the term "orientation" is decidedly political, as a few people have mentioned. If you'll recall from the Savage vs Brown debate, homophobes use the slippery slope of gay marriage to polygamy as a way to persuade voters. Dan said that is BS logic, and that polygamy would need to be decided on its own merits.

The political problems of calling poly an orientation is that this attempts to (1) leapfrog the process of gaining social acceptance on its own merits, and (2) endangers the cause of gay marriage by essentially proving NOM right.

I think poly is a fine thing to be and do, but the debate on whether/how it interacts with society would need to happen, and trying to leapfrog it would (I strongly suspect) backfire politically, not just for the poly folk but for the LGBTQ folk as well. Proceed with caution.

@166

"Maybe some of these people have yet to encounter one of their lives' first great loves.. Finding that can change your whole world, or what you thought your world was before it happened to you.."

I think this is sometimes true. Not always though, so I agree that it applies to only "some of these people." If someone claimed it applies to all of us, that would imply that our relationships are inferior and less passionate and loving. I know that's not what you claimed at all, but I thought I'd just point this out. 

not been posting, interesting to read, but feel i've said what i've got to offer...

however :-) for what it's worth, i really don't orient on genitals. not that i'm not interested, but it has no bearing on my attraction. and i don't think that makes me bi - it definitely doesn't make me pan-sexual, or anything like that. there are certain specific genders i find attractive, certain... energy/vibes. also, i'm not that interested in people i don't know, and know well. another thing - straight people just don't register as sexual beings on my radar - i'm only attracted to/notice queer folks.

so... i really don't buy that 'sexual orientation is the fundamental / underlying / unchangeable sexual wiring. being poly / building family is much more fundamental to my sexuality than what sex my lovers are, or what sex i am.

at the risk of being blunt (yay EricaP :-) ) i think of it as a cross-species issue. i try to only mate with my own tribe, other species are a bit... yuck? unappealing? how would that even occur to me...?

I'm inclined to go with "it's not an orientation," but the multiple spectrums of sexuality idea brought up is intriguing. Ever heard of the vasopressin receptor gene?

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/geno…

There may be some legitimate scientific evidence supporting the notion that poly is a biologically-rooted identity.

@crackersnap

I'm familiar with it.
Virally induced monogamy. Interesting stuff.

avast@160: It's not just breaking up if the person suddenly disappears without warning in order to be with someone else, which is what I took "elope" to imply. "Breaking up" implies that you have done some kind of discussion about the relationship(s) ending. Also, depending on the terms of the relationship(s), not previously having mentioned any connection with the person one was eloping with might be cheating.

sappho@169 thanks for the shout out :-)

But don't get me started on the ever expanding term "queer" -- didn't we have that discussion just a little while ago?

Yes, but one is not a vole.

@Eirene

Whether or not one is a vole has nothing to do with the genetic facts voles may suggest to us. We share a shitload of genes with bacteria, and a fucload more with voles. We are animals too. Genes in common can suggest ideas that turn out to be relevant.

Ms Sappho - That's quite a talent, not registering straight people on your radar. It reminds me of Wally's mentioning a friend in Loitering with Intent who got a job as a wine taster because drinking inferiour wine made her sneeze.

You should hire yourself out as an Orientation Prover. Nervous women or their concerned friends and families could introduce you into parties where you would meet doubt-inducing boyfriends/fiances/even husbands and you could provide the definitive Yea or Nay.

I can almost visualize the little flyers with the kind of spoof of bi/homophobic concerns you could distribute that some straight people take seriously. And, if you didn't like a particular client, you could tell her that her (really straight) significant other hadn't become aware of being attracted to men yet, and who could contradict you by proving a negative? (Unluckily that one wouldn't work the other way, but one can't have everything.)

I like this much better than the idea I once floated - not seriously - that Ms Erica (who quite rightly disliked the idea) flirt with gay men so that their boyfriends could be assured they weren't bi. There's much less of entrapment here, and anyway I'm less scrupulous about those who hold Straight Privilege. Besides, anyone who would take your word for it over her own instincts and judgment is ripe prey for someone. And it would give you interesting opportunities to put a finger on the scale - it's really almost like "Lord Arthur Savile's Crime".

I am so tempted to plot out a novel along this course. With any luck, I'll have forgotten the idea by morning.

I first want to warn you Dan. The slate comment Nazi's have been out in force on the Dear Prudie comments. There has been a suggestion that we all just come here. If it happens be prepared for a drinking game and general silliness

Does this mean I'm poly-unsaturated?

@172: It might be "dumping," or maybe even "abandoning," both of which are is variously odious flavors of "breaking up" -- but you can hardly be said to be "cheating" on a person with whom your relationship has been terminated.

"Cheating" is when you violate the established rules of a relationship without terminating it.

@144: "Being monogamous is not about being oriented toward monogamy; it's about having the self-discipline to resist the natural and universal urge to engage in intimacy with anyone besides your committed partner."

Fweeeeeet! Penalty: begging the question. (How do you _know_ it's "universal?" You've assumed that conclusion in your proposition.) Five yards, take the down over.

@144:
I am monogamous.
That doesn't mean I have any self-discipline. I don't.
It doesn't mean that I don't have crushes and lust for more than one person at a time. I do.

It just means that I am unable to handle more than one intimate relationship at a time.

In fact, I assume to do polyamory well you need MORE self-discipline than to do monogamy well.

@sappho:

When you write about your different relationships, why you need them, what you get out of them, etc., that sounds pretty much like the role my friends play in my life (apart from sex and co-parenting).

I agree with "I Am How I Am", that there are multiple spectra of sexual attraction, and that, like the Kinsey Scale for gender attraction, there's something similar for other forms of sexual expression.

I say that as someone who has experience at seeing her own personal spectra collide, and the difficulties it causes with expressing my sexual identity.

I am really only attracted to women. I think guys are gross, physically. They simply are not sexual beings to me. It's like contemplation sex with children. Kinda disgusting. So, I should identify as a lesbian, right?

Wrong. I have and do enjoy sex with men, under the correct circumstances. Because as a submissive, and a masochist, I don't really care who I'm fucking, as long as they're taking the power in the situation, and using it to tie me up and hurt me. Because if "0" is Dominant, then I am definitely a "6" submissive.

I've tried to say I'm not a lesbian, and I'm not bisexual, and I'm not straight. Because in the face of my D/s spectrum, those are meaningless to me. The D/s spectrum "trumps" my gender attraction. Does that mean that I am bisexual? I don't think so, because I'm *not* attracted to men. But am I a lesbian when I fuck men? Seems doubtful.

So, while I'm largely ambivalent towards the mono/poly spectrum, I can see how for some people, it'd be the most important part of their sexuality. (I prefer poly relationships, because I think they're healthier over all. It just seems to make sense to spread out one's needs, so no one person is too dependent on the relationship. However, I don't mind being in mono relationships - I'd probably be a firm "3" on this particular spectrum.)

@2 - "Orientated" is a word. It's the same as "oriented", but just used in a different dialect. I'm not sure about the rest of the English-speaking world, but the way it tends to break down between the US and the UK is that "orientated" is a USism, and "oriented" is a UKism. (Which is funny, because I use "oriented", but a friend of mine in the UK uses "orientated".)

Also, in most of the North American dialects, "vaginal" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable.

@62 - That's an old and lame joke. Update your joke inventory.

--------------------

Fail pendants are fail.

@170 - Yes, I've heard of it, and I think, whether we are voles or not, that it is pretty much evidence that mono/poly has a "hard-wired" (in our DNA) physiological basis, in much the same way orientation does (whether gender or genital - the former being a sort of proxy for the latter, allowing for chameleons). I also think it's what makes the holier-than-thou "self discipline" types absolutely insufferable: it's easy to preach self-control when certain behaviors come easy to you and demand no self-control of you.

"it's easy to preach self-control when certain behaviors come easy to you and demand no self-control of you"

Even if someone isn't naturally inclined towards monogamy, how fucking hard is it to break up with someone before fucking someone else? Literally all that not-cheating requires is phone call, or damn, a text if you're really heartless.

@mydriasis:

If you've been married for 15 years, especially with kids, I think it is easier to cheat than to break up. The divorce attorney, splitting assets, visitation agreements: that's a lot of stuff to sort through.

Lots of things that are ethically wrong are easier than things that are ethically right.

Your point?

I haven't read any of these comments, but I want to thank you all for your thoughts on this subject.

@188 - I'm not sure if you have a bee in your bonnet or what, but you seem to regularly find a reason to disagree with or be contrary about whatever I post - even when I am agreeing with you.

I didn't say word one about cheating - I said the drive to mate with a lot of other people and not pair bond in permanent monogamy might have a physiological basis. It's not a black and white thing, nor is it an excuse or get-out-of-jail-free-card for cheating, nor is it permission to give into every single urge that strikes.

What I said was, gee, it's very easy for someone who is straight to say to a gay person that they should just suck it up and sleep with someone of the opposite sex. I think it is similarly difficult for some people to contain their urge to have a lot of random sex - that doesn't mean it's OK to do it. Sanctimonious people often aren't similarly tempted, however, strike me as either incapable of empathy or insensitive.

It gets very complicated to just dump a partner every time you have the urge to have sex with someone different - it is often not nearly so trivial as simply saying "gee, I wanna go have sex with so-and-so, let's just call it all off". Having a quick romp, on the other hand, is much less complicated. That's not a justification, but your solution is facile.

There are things like divorce filings, leases or mortgages to be broken, houses sold, joint assets to divide, pet and child custody issues to sort out, and all the other associated collateral damage. Maybe it's changed since I got divorced a decade ago, but I seem to remember having to file shit at the courthouse - it was a good bit more involved than a heartless text message. IIRC, though, you are kind of young and probably haven't had the pleasure of this kind of experience yet, so I guess you don't have a clue. I similarly suspect that you didn't have the pleasure of having to actually live with your Borderline Boyfriend who you had wonderful feelings about - you weren't trapped in the same house with him and he didn't have access to your bank account.

Tell you what, let's just agree to pretend there is an "ignore" button and ignore one another from now on. When you're about twenty years older little girl, I'll buy you a drink and you can lecture me then.

@mydriasis:
You were asking "how fucking hard can it be".
I answered how fucking hard it can be, that was my point.

I didn't comment on the ethics of it, even though they are not as clear-cut in every case as you seem to think.

The first letter is absolutely idiotic, and shows the LW's inability to get into the head of any other person in any way. The vast majority of people have the "ability" to love and fall in love with and be sexually attracted to multiple people. Most choose not to act on it. If "Poly" is a sexual orientation in the way the first LW described it, then nearly all people are at Poly. Most of us just don't act on it.

This isn't an indictment of the first LW's decision to act on it. If that's what makes him happy and he finds agreeable partners, that's totally what he should do. But the fact that he chooses to act on his polyamorous desires while many others do not does nothing to establish poly as an orientation.

The first letter is absolutely idiotic, and shows the LW's inability to get into the head of any other person in any way. The vast majority of people have the "ability" to love and fall in love with and be sexually attracted to multiple people. Most choose not to act on it. If "Poly" is a sexual orientation in the way the first LW described it, then nearly all people are at Poly. Most of us just don't act on it.

This isn't an indictment of the first LW's decision to act on it. If that's what makes him happy and he finds agreeable partners, that's totally what he should do. But the fact that he chooses to act on his polyamorous desires while many others do not does nothing to establish poly as an orientation.

@170: "There may be some legitimate scientific evidence supporting the notion that poly is a biologically-rooted identity."

Read "Sex At Dawn" by Ryan and Jetha. It supports your hypothesis of the biological basis.

@60: You make some good points. Multiple hooking up when one is single is called dating. You may find "the one" for a LTR, or move from one relationship to the next. Or you may even overlap relationships. This is what many refer to as polyamory.

However, there is also the possibility that you will dedicate all (or the bulk of) your emotional energy to that "one true love" but continue to hook up on the side*. Some refer to this as polyfuckery (I miss Mistress Madison's column). That avoids the inevitable circus of figuring out how much attention each partner owes the others and who ranks where in a group. The "primary" doesn't change (no more so than a divorce in a monogamous pair) and the needs of secondary hookups always defer to those of the primary.

*No cheating. I'm with Dan on his definition of cheating as having failed at poly-whatever.

@188: Why must there be a break up?

Most people invest quite a bit of time and energy into their 'primary' relationship. Houses, kids, circles of friends, etc. On the other hand, the novelty (some call New Relationship Energy) inevitably wears off. And there are some of us who have a need for that. So, why destroy years of companionship and investments that may still be quite satisfying just to get some 'strange'? Because society demands it? F* that. Society is run by some virgin Pope or whack job Imam and if they tell me that my wife has to wear a burqa, they are going to have to pick pieces of their holy book out of their nether regions.

People fool themselves into thinking that an entire relationship has to be over just because one part of it doesn't work the way it used to. The sex drive is a powerful thing and it plays tricks on one's mind in order to be satisfied. As long as I protect my marriage (or whatever) by being honest, negotiating terms and getting prior approval, I can put that urge to rest. And when I'm done, I can put the value of each kind of relationship (physical vs emotional) into perspective and not risk everything for what is in reality just a little recreation.

@ 168: Not to worry, I get what you're saying :-) .

It's like anything: some people are wired to be able to enjoy and entertain multiple relationships, some others aren't. That's neither a bad or a good thing: it just is what it is.

I guess what I was getting at is that sometimes love finds you, and it's a bit more than you ever imagined to be possible.. In light of that, what happens if you somehow found what you always were looking for and/or wanted and you never saw it coming? That's what I mean about the first great love thing..

I've learned a lot about polyamory through this site (Thanks to you all for that.) . I also realized that I tend to be monogamous by default: 1.) I'm really happy and in love with who I have in my life and... 2.) I feel no need to wish for or ask for anything more than that. My cup is fulleth, there :-) .

What matters most is knowing what makes you happiest and most fulfilled, I think. Some people need several different relationships, some people need only a primary one. It's all relative.

I love who I'm with enough to keep an open mind, but I've no need for anyone else. If he wants that, then all he would need to do is be upfront and honest with me. The truth is what people give a shit about. The truth heals. And all that good stuff ;-).

@ 197, to quote you, if I may:

"People fool themselves into thinking that an entire relationship has to be over just because one part of it doesn't work the way it used to. The sex drive is a powerful thing and it plays tricks on one's mind in order to be satisfied. As long as I protect my marriage (or whatever) by being honest, negotiating terms and getting prior approval, I can put that urge to rest. And when I'm done, I can put the value of each kind of relationship (physical vs emotional) into perspective and not risk everything for what is in reality just a little recreation."

Well said. I like your style. Peace!

so boring. who cares if you can't decide , don't want to choose, and want to have sex with whom ever you can bag. It's so much work doing that crap. My room mate was poly and she was on the phone 24/ keeping her relationships in order. I had to get my own phone.

Everything is a choice. Weighing your options and what you have to gain and/or lose, depending on how you go about anything.

I get it that some people need and employ variety of partners out of individual necessity, or preference.

It's just as well I'm this side of monogamous: I don't have the need or the constitution really to open up my relationship to other people, but that's just me.

Whatever works for anybody, I'm cool with. As long as no one is being unduly dishonest, cruel or disrespectful to anyone else's feelings. Life's too short for that sort of thing.

It's not for everybody, polyamory is. The same can also be said for monogamy. Knowing who you are and what your truest wonts and desires are is crucial. That, and being on the level/upfront about it all, so no one is being deceptive about anything. Easier said than done sometimes, but there you go then :-) . Have a great weekend, everyone. Thanks for some good reads in here. Peace!

"Cheating" is when you violate the established rules of a relationship without terminating it.

But that's exactly it. If I'm in a poly relationship with A and B, and WITHOUT TELLING THEM take up with C and make plans to elope with C to embark on a monogamous relationship with C, heck, yeah, that probably violates previously established rules of my relationships with A and B.

Basically any abandonment that involves dumping a partner or partners FOR SOMEONE ELSE implies that you were already cheating on them with the someone else, during the time when they at least thought that the relationship was still in force. Just because the older relationship SUBSEQUENTLY ended doesn't mean you didn't cheat.