Polyamory and Its Many Forms (or How Horse Words and Robert Heinlein Made Me Think Plural Relationships Are Based) · 10:38pm Nov 11th, 2021
Assuming you're a local resident of the horse words community, you're no stranger to several different ship arrangements. The most popular, of course, is one horse paired with another horse. Or a horse paired with a non-horse creature, who knows? But the point is that, even in a community where we can find ships of every shape and size, monogamous ships are still the most common. Not a bad thing, of course. I don't have anything personal against pairings, God knows all the ships that I've written have been monogamous, or at least implied to be such.
But there are... other options.
When I was in high school, about a decade ago, much younger, much dumber, much less cultured, I was introduced to monogamy's biggest rival in the game of love: polyamory. And surprisingly, given my youth and much less open mind, I took to it pretty much immediately. Of all my opinions, most of which have changed over the years, one of my few views to have remained virtually unchanged (albeit with some refinements) is that polyamory is a very legitimate alternative relationship style to monogamy. How did this happen? Because this was the early 2010s, and the question of non-monogamous relationships didn't seem to litter the internet as often as nowadays. The word "polyamory" wasn't even coined until the early 1990s, but put a pin that one.
The first explanation is, incidentally, the thing that I'm partaking in right now: My Little Pony fandom. Specifically My Little Pony fanfiction, much of which was (and still is) very bad. Even so, my 16-year-old dumb ass ate up what were then some of the biggest HiE stories on FiMFiction. Again, not only were these stories mostly very poorly written, but they tended to exhibit non-monogamous relationships of the "harem comedy" variety, wherein a dim-witted and weak-willed male lead is terrorized by inexplicably attractive FEMOIDS, harpies with questionable morals who would almost force our hapless protagonist into DEBAUTCHED situations.
Remember that I was a horny teenager, as opposed to a horny twenty-something.
There was, however, a major exception to all the F-tier waste cluttering the Featured box, and if you have any experience with HiE fiction (especially HiE clop) then you know what it is. Yes, there was a time in my life when I was obsessed with Xenophilia. The base story, Side Stories, some third party contributions, all that. And while yeah the base story is now showing its age, it was its dedication to worldbuilding and developing a logical justification for polyamory (well, polygamy too) within the context of that version of Equestria that really knocked my socks off. It seemed to answer questions about this weird and new but very enticing alternative to monogamy that I didn't even know I had, and from then on I was hooked.
Polyamory makes sense, you know. It's not necessarily natural or unnatural (appeals to nature are cringe), but you won't have a hard time figuring out why certain people would do better in networks (some more tightly knit than others) than pairings. God knows monogamy is not for everybody, even though it's enforced both socially and legally. I myself started a potential network recently with a very lovely woman (thanks, BananaSweet ^_^), both of us being poly enjoyers. And why not? It's better for likeminded individuals to form the kind of relationship that suits both of them, as opposed to a person who favors polyamory over monogamy hunkering down with a strict monogamy, for the sake or decorum or something. Nothing is guaranteed, and it's not what you would call "simple," but different strokes really are for different folks.
Rewinding the film slightly, thought, the word "polyamory" didn't even exist prior to the 1990s. More accurately, "polyamorous" was coined in 1990 by author and massive neo-pagan Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, High Priestess of the Church of All Worlds. And the Church of All Worlds is an actual neo-pagan organization heavily inspired by a fictional "church" of the same name, from a certain infamous science fiction novel: Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. Now, when I first read Stranger in a Strange Land many moons ago, I must confess that I couldn't finish it at the time. A very long and chatty book, not to mention some very sus in-text moments resulting from the fact that this is a novel written in the '50s. All that aside, the protagonist forming a sizeable network of partners (plus nudism, Heinlein loves nudism) appealed to me, and it didn't surprise me even at the time because it wasn't my first dance with Heinlein's more poly-happy fiction.
About a year earlier, quite shortly after I had been introduced to horse words and all the debauched nonsense therein, I had read Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, to this day one of the finest science fiction novels, and arguably Heinlein's final masterpiece. Polyamory plays a major role in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, more specifically in the form of "line marriages," wherein people would have co-husbands and co-wives, with these extended families having senior and junior members. Not all these members would be sexually or even romantically involved with each other, but they would form close social networks in no small part to help with raising children. Polyamory (or polygamy) as a superior framework for child-rearing compared to monogamy is perhaps Heinlein's biggest reason for backing it, and it's a pretty good justification. If you've just heard about polyamory then you might think it's just for the extra amounts of sex. Which sure, plural relationships presumably involve more sexual activity (even Xenophilia implicitly argues that polyamory is cool because you get more sexy horse sex), but a much better justification would be the sense of community that such a relationship provides.
Polyamory in fiction is, of course, by no means restricted to the examples I've provided. There's a lot more to contend with. Science fiction and fantasy in particular tend to host a disproportionate amount of non-monogamous relationships than anywhere outside those genres, probably because when given the playground of a far-future planet or a flamboyant fantasy setting the author feels less obligated to present lifestyles that adhere to current social norms. Even more conservative genre authors like David Weber and the aforementioned Heinlein (but not Orson Scott Card, the rat bastard) are not opposed to presenting characters in group marriages with a certain air of favorability.
Does this mean we're all secretly polyamorous and that we'd be better off with two or five partners? Probably not. People, for the most part anyway, seem naturally attuned to monogamy, but then the same could be said for heterosexuality and that hasn't stopped us, has it? Polyamory doesn't need to be the norm—it just ought to be allowed to have a seat at the table.
How many love triangles in fiction would be resolved if the characters put aside their jealousy and agreed to share each other? Isn't sharing supposed to be caring? I'm reminded of a very old and very obscure movie titled Design for Living, a pretty great movie that's also deliciously subversive. The movie is a romantic comedy that naturally revolves around a love triangle between two men and a woman, but... there's a twist. Not only does the woman say that she loves both men pretty much equally, but she refuses to compromise on these feeling. Incidentally the two men are such close friends that, even at their lowest point during the bridge between the second and third act that happens in every goddamn movie, they quickly make up and put aside their differences. The movie ends with the woman ditching her would-be fiancé (who himself is shown to be a gaping asshole) and running off with her boys, one for each arm.
Not bad for a movie that came out in 1933.
What I'm saying is that romance writers ought to embrace THROUPLES for God's sake. Love triangles are such a tired romance cliché, but you know what would be based? Picking "all of the above" as an answer, and it doesn't happen often enough. Don't entertain jealousy, it's a fuck-ugly emotion that doesn't deserve anyone's support. You have the potential to be better.
Poly gang gang! I have a boyfriend in Illinois, a girlfriend in Colorado, and a friends-with-benefits who's aromantic and asexual (she doesn't experience sexual attraction but she still loves sex) but I still hope I can ask her to be my girlfriend at some point I don't know, things are complicated but we both love cuddling and both vanilla and kinky sex and she's the only person I've ever actually successfully met on OkCupid anyway she lives in SoCal so we actually get to hang out on a semi-regular basis and she's really cool and weird and I'm glad she's in my life. And when my girlfriend came to visit from Colorado last month, I got to have my first threesome with the two of them which was their first lesbian experience and I was so happy for them to experience that Joy.
plus I have flings here and there but not too many.
As a brony, a musician, and a communist, most of my friends are queer as fuck. I don't think I've actually had any sex with anyone who is completely straight and cisgender.
Also Shakespearcles and his wife apparently have a girlfriend. He's written a blog post about it
Most people aren't capable of poly because they aren't (in their minds) capable of a romantic relationship with a friend in the first place. They see the same sex as "potential friend" and the opposite sex as "potential sex interest" and anything crossing these categories makes no sense to them. The person they marry wasn't their friend to begin with. If they get lucky, they learn to be friends with their partner; otherwise, they divorce.
Seriously, some straight people "date" to "get to know" somepony, because they'd never be interested in a friendship with them in any other circumstance. It's bizarre, but I think it's the norm in society.
5606576
Ech, I don't like the vibe of that. Big unicorn vibes, skin's crawling.
5607248
I mean, potentially, but if everyone in the situation is happy, more power to them. I don't really remember any of the details, and beyond what Shakes has shared, it's his business not mine.
(I don't mean to come across as aggressive or argumentative.)
5607286
I do find it weird that Shakes would post a blog about how incest should be legalized, but has never written the same kind of blog for polygamy despite being in a poly relationship (last time we checked). Getting a bit sidetracked here, though.
5607304
Shakespearicles is not related to his girlfriend in any way. I don't think it's appropriate to imply that he is.
He probably posted on the topic because he writes fiction in that domain and consenting adult incest is still highly taboo despite it not necessarily involving objectionable ethics—I have no interest in policing what two consenting adults do in private provided it doesn't hurt anypony.
By comparison, polyamory doesn't need a defense on Fimfiction. I've never seen people call for an author to be attacked for writing a poly story, for one. I've seen people say and do some pretty horrible shit to Shakes, though. I'm not sure why that isn't obvious.
5611269
I don't think it's appropriate to put words in someone's mouth and say they implied something when even an uncharitable reading of what they said fails to support the implication. Can you try to not do that again, please?
5611286
The confusion on my part is that you replied to a post discussing the likelihood of Shakes having incest with his girlfriend with anectodal information regarding his blog posts that seemed (to me) intended to support that hypothesis.
I apologize for the suggestion. I agree I read (past tense) too much into your comment.