Hoes, Whoremongers, and Collectors: On the Anti-radicalization of Polyamory

I will start by saying that the title of this article was inspired by and adapted from Cathy Cohen’s canonical essay “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens,” which was originally published in 1997. In the article, Dr. Cohen astutely critiques white gay and lesbian folks who frequently reproduce harms against other queer people even within supposedly radical spaces of LGBTQIA community building. She suggests that a more radical approach to community and resistance would include a more expansive and capacious understanding of queerness that includes everyone who holds a queer politic. For Cohen, queerness is about our political commitments as much as it is about who we sleep with. In this piece, I apply Cohen’s radical conception of queerness to polyamory and ethical non-monogamy.

Essentially, while many polyamorous and ethically non-monogamous people argue that poly and ENM are inherently radical (they aren’t), there are people within every community that move in ways that threaten the radical potential of our interpersonal choices and lovestyle.

Let’s start with a story.

I recently attended a “polyamory” event in Washington, D.C. that was orchestrated by a “queer” person who proclaims to have been polyamorous for 10 to 15 years. I am intentionally placing “polyamory” and “queer” in quotes because I fundamentally believe that they are both tethered to a set of politics and practices that folks rarely want to fully hold.

At the event, the organizer had the entire room of thirty or so queer and lesbian women, non-binary, and trans folks engage in a lively discussion about several scenarios in polyamory that would help us all connect. The scenarios included issues like a partner being jealous that their partner is posting other partners on social media, a partner canceling a date and trip plans last minute, and a partner starting a serious dialogue in a party environment and disrupting the larger polycule (e.g. the full collection of paramours and metamours in your polyamory ecosystem).

Share

The scenarios, in my opinion, were reflective of an orientation to non-monogamy that is all about centering everyone’s feelings and engendering codependency. The logic of “if my partner is sad, I should be involved in some way” reminds me of how I dated when I was in my teens and twenties. I articulated as much in the room and, while some folks agreed, others felt as though I was being “judgey” of how others poly. I’ll get to that more later.

During the dialogue about the various scenarios, heated tensions arose when some people in the room began arguing that polyamory requires that we hear our partners out whenever they are triggered and others (including me) explaining that these types of behaviors render us security blankets for emotionally stunted partners who believe that love and sex must also involve the labor of soothing everyone’s complicated emotions. Though the space was comprised of folks over 30 years old, many of the arguments in the room seemed more concerned about assuaging other people’s insecurities rather than navigating healthy, non-toxic dynamics where each individual is fully interdependent.

At 41 years old, I have evolved quite a bit on this sentiment. I, too, used to believe that polyamory required that I hold every partners’ emotions, acting as a rehabilitation center for other people’s children. However, I no longer situate myself as my partners’ therapist, mother, lover, best friend, and personal assistant. Instead, I have become more discerning about the types of people who I date and couple with. By stepping back from these toxic dynamics (many of which are steeped in a monogamy hangover), I have been able to assess several types of ethically non-monogamous and polyamorous characters who perpetuate codependency, toxicity, and the anti-radicalization of this broader community.

In my nearly three decades as a polyamorous person, I have witnessed many healthy, non-toxic dynamics. So, to be clear, this essay is not seeking to identify every kind of polyamorous person there is or to suggest that all poly and ENM folks fall into these categories. Nor am I interested in analyzing other people’s relationships. These characters (the hoes, whoremongers, and collectors) exist in every love style. Monogamous people embody these traits, too. I bring them up here to suggest that, when we bring these behaviors into polyamory and ethical non-monogamy, we threaten the radical potential of our dynamics.

First, the hoes. The hoes are those people who use ethical non-monogamy and polyamory as a cover for their emotional unavailability, stunted emotional maturity, and lack of desire or capacity to examine how their own choices often lead them into unhealthy dynamics. This term is neither gendered nor raced. It has nothing to do with sex, either. In many instances, the hoes are those characters who do not engage in true polyamory (loving multiple people simultaneously). Instead, they are strictly non-monogamous (ethically or non-ethically). They engage in intimacy with many people at the same time in order to avoid being intimate with themselves. Their avoidance shows up not only in how they relate to others but also in how they relate to themselves.

Hoes (in this context) are anti-radical because they frequently reproduce harmful ideas and stereotypes about desire, sex, and intimacy while failing to do the deeper analysis of their own positionality and how they show up in their interpersonal dynamics. Now, to be clear: this is not about slut-shaming and regressive sexual politics because, again, this is not about the sex. Rather, polyamorous and ethically non-monogamous hoes frequently build shallow connections with many people that fail to push past the rigid rules and expectations of romantic and platonic coupling.

Second, the whoremongers. These are your standard issue pimps. They are often masculine people (either men or masculine of center people). They frequently treat women and femme-of-center folks as interchangeable, disposable, sex objects meant for something “casual” or “fun” or “no strings attached.” The whoremongers are also interesting because many of them are interested in “mono-poly” or a dynamic where they are polyamorous but their partners are not. The key to these characters is a relationship predicated on possession and authority. These types of dynamics are often breeding grounds for hierarchy and inequitable relating.

The whoremongers are anti-radical characters in polyamory and ethical non-monogamy because they rarely center the emotional needs of everyone in the dynamic. Not only that, they perpetuate a dynamic which often leaves partners’ needs unmet, unaddressed, and under acknowledged.

Third, the collectors. The collectors amass partners and more partners often beyond their capacity to fully show up in each of their dynamics. In polyamory, we refer to our max capacity in partnerships as “poly-saturation.” While saturation might be our maximum capacity for dating and coupling, it isn’t necessarily a goal. In fact, many of us work hard not to reach saturation at all. On the other hand, collectors often seek to date as many people as possible to assuage their own insecurities or boast about how many people desire them. Like the hoes and whoremongers, they have little investments in actual people and treat many of the people they engage with as conquests and possessions.

It should be obvious how collectors move in anti-radical ways. Namely, they frequently see poly and ENM as a personal accomplishment rather than a love style. In relating, collectors frequently make others into the collateral damage of their own personal problems and insecurities.

What, to me, represents the most subtle and diabolical character in polyamory and ethical non-monogamy is the mean girl. Mean girls take on many forms (and they are not only women). Mean girl-ing in polyamory can look like “cowgirling/cowboying” (excuse the binary) by trying to lasso your partners into an unwanted monogamous dynamic. This goes beyond jealousy and involves intentional efforts to derail your partner’s other relationships so that you can have them all to yourself. Mean girl-ing also shows up in violating agreements and boundaries and disregarding the needs of others in the poly dynamic. It shows up when folks struggle to navigate their own jealousy and, instead, intervene in the health of the overall polycule.

Share

You’ve met these folks. They are the ones who treat metas/metamours (their partner’s other partners) as competition within polyamory and non-monogamy circles even though we are all (supposedly) poly. These are the folks who intentionally monopolize their partners’ lives so that they have no time left for their other paramours. Mean girls sour polycules from the inside out and their ongoing violations often result in harm for their broader poly community.

To be clear: these folks show up in monogamous and platonic dynamics, too. These are the friends who hate to “share” their friends with anyone else. These are the partners who refuse to let their loved ones out of their sight. Mean girl-ing shows up everywhere and polyamory is not immune. When people lead with their insecurities, they are bound to slip into this character trait at some point or another.

I have heard many times from monogamous people that polyamory needs better marketing and perhaps a whole new ad campaign. At the time, I felt defensive about that and sought to explain how so much of what people think they know about polyamory and ethical non-monogamy is projection and myth. I worked desperately to convince this person that so much of what we already do is polyamory aligned. But, over the past few years on my solo, abstinence journey, I have so much more clarity.

I say all this to say: polyamory and ethical non-monogamy are not catchalls for bad behavior. They are not containers to rehabilitate problematic people or rescue anyone from their refusal to work on themselves. When we call any and everything “ethical,” we invite exploitation, gendered harm, and other forms of emotional abuse into our dynamics. And, while it may seem “judgey” to say so, we have a responsibility to be critical of behaviors that leave people within our community vulnerable and exposed to unwanted dynamics.

We cannot profess that poly and ENM are inherently radical if we don’t want to do the work of grasping at the roots of our conflicts and traumas. And, if we aren’t willing to do that work, what even is the point?