The Walk-In Closet (Formerly Poly Filter now Open)
The question came up in the post regarding Collars on the BDSM and Leather filter regarding how one manages being openly or closeted polyamorous/non-monogamous but still maintain the integrity of an ethical set of relationships. Ok, so that's not exactly how it was phrased, but that was what was meant. Ultimately this is an entirely subjective set of choices, because what may be healthy and supportive in one relationship may be entirely the opposite in another.
Ultimately this sort of decision is determined by a couple of very real and concrete concerns. For example, Illinois is not only a "Right to Work" state (meaning that no union can monopolize any trade) but it is also a "Right to Fire" state. This means that an employer can terminate an employee at will, for no reason. They are not allowed to discriminate, so firing on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc. is not allowed and the burden of proof to prove this is essentially the former employee's in the event of a dispute. Furthermore, many positions in a variety of institutions may include a "morals clause" of some sort and if one violates this - POOF! You're out.
Trust me, non-monogamy is most likely going to violate a morals clause - and it's not a protected minority group either. The issue can also come up in discussions of many forms of licensure for professional practice (like, say, psychology for instance). After getting the license, a revelation of non-monogamy isn't going to get the license revoked, but beforehand it could easily be one of those things that makes life "complicated." If you want to live the life of an avant-garde artist, self-employed writer, etc. etc. etc. then this may not be as much of an issue - but questions of wages and trade-offs can be very important in a whole host of industries.
So, employment can be a big question.
Next, comes children. Issues of whatever your local equivalent of DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) aside, explaining why there is an extra person in the adult's bed in the morning is... complicated. I tend to come out on the side of maintaining a household that is as normative as possible. If we thinking about the question in terms of consent then it becomes much clearer. Children do not have the ability to give consent. Adults can choose to engage in non-monogamy but children have it imposed upon them. So, knowing how cruel other children can be in general regarding a whole host of non-heteronormative, non-Christian families, I advocate for the protection of children in a relationship by maintaining at least the basic appearance of monogamy.
Depending upon how the non-monogamy is structured, there is also question of confusion in the child's relationship with the biological parents - and that is something the courts will look at very, very closely (trust me, been there, done that). None of this is to suggest that children can't handle having extra adults who hang around, or deal with non-monogamy as a factor of their parents lives, but their ability to do this explicitly, increases the older they get. All of the research into non-"Traditional" (the basic heterosexual, Abrahamic religion-based, monogamous, and intact model) families (which are our best source of empirical data for this) strongly suggest, if not outright display, that children do fine in alternate family systems as long as they are stable and loving. And the closer to "normal" the better - they live in the same society as we do and don't have the emotional or intellectual resources to deal with a heterosexist, monogamist society like adults do. Related questions include, if you are divorced, what custody arrangements are and how your ex-spouse might view your non-monogamy.
So, children are an enormous complicating factor as well.
What comes next? What could possibly be more complicating than both of these issues?
How about the fact that the closet is toxic? This is pretty well established for all of the "hidden" minorities such as sexual orientation and religion, as well as less healthy aspects of life such as substance abuse and domestic violence. The sad fact remains that no matter how stressful being wide open and out would be, being completely closeted is highly stressful as well. So the trick is in balancing the need for secrecy in the face of a hostile dominant culture against a need to have a socially sanctioned union - because we are all ultimately social creatures. With very few exceptions, there is always someone we want to be be able to share our good fortune at having a lover, boyfriend, fuckbuddy, slave, hierodule, or whatever title you and your new partner have decided upon.
It's healthy, it's normal, and when we are denied this it is damaging. I think this last part is the key. When we are denied this, the decision to keep a portion of life private is very different than remaining in the closet out of fear or being told by a partner that they can't admit that you exist at work or with their family.
So, now I suppose I can discuss how we handle it. I tend to call it "standing in an open door" or, "the walk-in closet."
We like our privacy. But at the same time we also try to be as sex-positive as possible, not to mention the fact that we're both queer and we're both polyamorous. We don't happen to think that what we do (or with how many people) in the bedroom is anyone's business without a good reason - and being a member of the general public is not a good enough reason. Sure, at one point we both had a certain vicarious thrill out of shocking the mundanes, but at this point in our lives (and with a SmallPerson, and two professional careers on the line) that has lost a great deal of it's appeal. Plus, engaging in a long drawn out court battle (and the promise of more) where being polyamorous was a factor took a fair amount of shine off it as well. So, sharing the fact that we're polyamorous tends to come up in three situations.
1- If one of of us is interested in someone. Then the matter is going to come up pretty quickly.
2- One of us is choosing to engage in the limited activism that we get involved in. I talk with non-monogamous folk all over the place for example. People come to me for advice under my Scene-name all the time. I also will speak about being non-monogamous in the context of discussions of family systems or personal diversity at school the same way I would talk about my being NeoPagan or Queer.
3- When we're around other people who are are polyamorous or poly-friendly, then we can (if we choose) share that about ourselves and get some of that social support that we all enjoy. This is especially true when we're with all our partners at the same time.
We're also not interested in providing people with more information than they're really interested in. That's why it's the "walk-in closet" - we feel like the people who need to know are the people that we invite into our lives - rather than people who invite themselves in. The SmallPerson's godparents know we're polyamorous, all of our close friends know we're polyamorous, a certain number of my peers at school know (both professors and students), a couple of sekhmetdancing's friends from her social circle and both our birth families know that we were "actively" polyamorous at one point - the only reason that they don't know more now is because they aren't that close a part of our lives. My practicum sites haven't known, sekhmetdancing's place of employment doesn't know either. But if there's a reason for you to know, and you're part of our social circle, you would.
We often get asked about how we would handle things like invitations to parties and the like. This is so rarely an issue unless we wanted to make it an issue. Put simply, you respect the wishes of your hosts and bring the people who are on the damn invitation. (and "and guest" does not mean "and guests) If people who should know better snub the people you care about too often - talk it over with them. If they blow you off, or continue to snub you and yours, then they aren't much of a friend are they? And for those events where it doesn't seem to matter who you bring, then figure it out between the three or four or whatever of you. A date is a date is a date - people really don't care who you bring. At worst, you provide a bit of gossip.
Ultimately this sort of decision is determined by a couple of very real and concrete concerns. For example, Illinois is not only a "Right to Work" state (meaning that no union can monopolize any trade) but it is also a "Right to Fire" state. This means that an employer can terminate an employee at will, for no reason. They are not allowed to discriminate, so firing on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc. is not allowed and the burden of proof to prove this is essentially the former employee's in the event of a dispute. Furthermore, many positions in a variety of institutions may include a "morals clause" of some sort and if one violates this - POOF! You're out.
Trust me, non-monogamy is most likely going to violate a morals clause - and it's not a protected minority group either. The issue can also come up in discussions of many forms of licensure for professional practice (like, say, psychology for instance). After getting the license, a revelation of non-monogamy isn't going to get the license revoked, but beforehand it could easily be one of those things that makes life "complicated." If you want to live the life of an avant-garde artist, self-employed writer, etc. etc. etc. then this may not be as much of an issue - but questions of wages and trade-offs can be very important in a whole host of industries.
So, employment can be a big question.
Next, comes children. Issues of whatever your local equivalent of DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) aside, explaining why there is an extra person in the adult's bed in the morning is... complicated. I tend to come out on the side of maintaining a household that is as normative as possible. If we thinking about the question in terms of consent then it becomes much clearer. Children do not have the ability to give consent. Adults can choose to engage in non-monogamy but children have it imposed upon them. So, knowing how cruel other children can be in general regarding a whole host of non-heteronormative, non-Christian families, I advocate for the protection of children in a relationship by maintaining at least the basic appearance of monogamy.
Depending upon how the non-monogamy is structured, there is also question of confusion in the child's relationship with the biological parents - and that is something the courts will look at very, very closely (trust me, been there, done that). None of this is to suggest that children can't handle having extra adults who hang around, or deal with non-monogamy as a factor of their parents lives, but their ability to do this explicitly, increases the older they get. All of the research into non-"Traditional" (the basic heterosexual, Abrahamic religion-based, monogamous, and intact model) families (which are our best source of empirical data for this) strongly suggest, if not outright display, that children do fine in alternate family systems as long as they are stable and loving. And the closer to "normal" the better - they live in the same society as we do and don't have the emotional or intellectual resources to deal with a heterosexist, monogamist society like adults do. Related questions include, if you are divorced, what custody arrangements are and how your ex-spouse might view your non-monogamy.
So, children are an enormous complicating factor as well.
What comes next? What could possibly be more complicating than both of these issues?
How about the fact that the closet is toxic? This is pretty well established for all of the "hidden" minorities such as sexual orientation and religion, as well as less healthy aspects of life such as substance abuse and domestic violence. The sad fact remains that no matter how stressful being wide open and out would be, being completely closeted is highly stressful as well. So the trick is in balancing the need for secrecy in the face of a hostile dominant culture against a need to have a socially sanctioned union - because we are all ultimately social creatures. With very few exceptions, there is always someone we want to be be able to share our good fortune at having a lover, boyfriend, fuckbuddy, slave, hierodule, or whatever title you and your new partner have decided upon.
It's healthy, it's normal, and when we are denied this it is damaging. I think this last part is the key. When we are denied this, the decision to keep a portion of life private is very different than remaining in the closet out of fear or being told by a partner that they can't admit that you exist at work or with their family.
So, now I suppose I can discuss how we handle it. I tend to call it "standing in an open door" or, "the walk-in closet."
We like our privacy. But at the same time we also try to be as sex-positive as possible, not to mention the fact that we're both queer and we're both polyamorous. We don't happen to think that what we do (or with how many people) in the bedroom is anyone's business without a good reason - and being a member of the general public is not a good enough reason. Sure, at one point we both had a certain vicarious thrill out of shocking the mundanes, but at this point in our lives (and with a SmallPerson, and two professional careers on the line) that has lost a great deal of it's appeal. Plus, engaging in a long drawn out court battle (and the promise of more) where being polyamorous was a factor took a fair amount of shine off it as well. So, sharing the fact that we're polyamorous tends to come up in three situations.
1- If one of of us is interested in someone. Then the matter is going to come up pretty quickly.
2- One of us is choosing to engage in the limited activism that we get involved in. I talk with non-monogamous folk all over the place for example. People come to me for advice under my Scene-name all the time. I also will speak about being non-monogamous in the context of discussions of family systems or personal diversity at school the same way I would talk about my being NeoPagan or Queer.
3- When we're around other people who are are polyamorous or poly-friendly, then we can (if we choose) share that about ourselves and get some of that social support that we all enjoy. This is especially true when we're with all our partners at the same time.
We're also not interested in providing people with more information than they're really interested in. That's why it's the "walk-in closet" - we feel like the people who need to know are the people that we invite into our lives - rather than people who invite themselves in. The SmallPerson's godparents know we're polyamorous, all of our close friends know we're polyamorous, a certain number of my peers at school know (both professors and students), a couple of sekhmetdancing's friends from her social circle and both our birth families know that we were "actively" polyamorous at one point - the only reason that they don't know more now is because they aren't that close a part of our lives. My practicum sites haven't known, sekhmetdancing's place of employment doesn't know either. But if there's a reason for you to know, and you're part of our social circle, you would.
We often get asked about how we would handle things like invitations to parties and the like. This is so rarely an issue unless we wanted to make it an issue. Put simply, you respect the wishes of your hosts and bring the people who are on the damn invitation. (and "and guest" does not mean "and guests) If people who should know better snub the people you care about too often - talk it over with them. If they blow you off, or continue to snub you and yours, then they aren't much of a friend are they? And for those events where it doesn't seem to matter who you bring, then figure it out between the three or four or whatever of you. A date is a date is a date - people really don't care who you bring. At worst, you provide a bit of gossip.