Poly Is Not Less (Poly Is Not, Part XVIII)

Poly Is Not Less (Poly Is Not, Part XVIII)

Not inherently so, anyway.

Let me explain.

Also, before I explain, let me say that I am not proselytizing. I have no desire to convert you to the cult of poly. IDGAF if you are poly or mono or decidedly alone. I post these “Poly Is Not” writings to combat some group-think and stereotypes that often hold little basis in reality. If you are completely unwilling to share a partner’s sexuality and love, that’s fine. You do you.

Ok, that all said, let me say clearly: Poly is not necessarily less of someone than monogamy.

Because in polyamory or monogamy, you could be with a partner who you adore in every way. Who is responsive to you, who meshes with you wonderfully in non-sexual ways.

They could be naturally monogamous, and not open to other options.

You could have the same partner, who is open to sharing, and enjoying time with others.

In either case, you could ruin the potential because you would “want more,” rather than enjoying what you and they have, and taking pleasure as it comes to you.

Which, is, of course your right. Especially if you are monogamous.

I’ve lived monogamously for 15 years. I did it again for 4 1/2 years.

Neither of those partners got more of me emotionally than my current Pet, and we are polyamorous.

They got less.

Partially because they offered less. Partially because I wasn’t as “into” them as I am with Pet.

The question to ask yourself is: What do you want more of?


Do you want more time, or more quality time? Both?

For me, I prefer quality over quantity. There is a balance. Living monogamously for nearly 20 years of my life, I swapped a lot of quantity for quality.

AND THAT WAS OK. I chose that.

However, I also took a lot of free time for me. Several evenings a week, I created “On Your Own Nights,” so I/they could go out with friends or just be alone and master of our own destiny for a while.

Were I poly then, those might have been date nights with others. Now, they are.


Well, I’m in this camp. I do love sex. The challenge is, not just ANY sex.

As a Virgo, I approve this message.

But I digress.

For some, having more sex makes them want more sex. The sexual tension with others spur them on with their partner.

Emotional Depth

There are people who play in the shallow end and the deep end of the emotional pool as monogamists and in polyamory.

I know that people I’ve interacted with are often surprised at my capacity for depth, especially considering the people I already have in my life.

Some people will never reach that with one person. I’ve even had friends tell me that they don’t want the depths I enjoy—they would be too intense.


Some people are naturally attentive. Some are completely oblivious. Polyamory doesn’t determine this one way or another.

I can spend more attention—and good attention—on people I love than most people, event though I have others in my life.

I’m always there for my people, and I like to check in regularly and connect.

I’m NOT trying to tell you what’s right and what’s not.

I don’t care if you poly or don’t, unless you’re tryna get with me. And even then, I’m poly, you don’t have to be, you just have to understand I am.

I post these things to show ONE perspective on polyamory. Mine.

Your perspective may be different/better/something, and THAT’S OK.

I’d still like to hear it, and maybe your comment might make a difference to someone.

What are your thoughts?

What do you want more of? Are you poly, and is this a challenge, or have you figured it out?

Are you monogamous, and what about “less” of a partner (if anything) might keep you from being poly?


More Posts

Communicate 1-on-1 for nonmonogamy!

On April 25, 2015 Nookie presented the topic Communicate It! for a private group. The original presentation was audio recorded, and has just recently been

Happy No Pants Day!

I feel like this would have been a better holiday to know about BEFORE the pandemic. LOL! However, it is a great excuse to spend

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.