A frequent topic of some debate on this sub is whether nonmonogamy is a sexual identity and/or deserves to be included in/connected to the LGBTQIA community. I wanted to share my thoughts on why I think that while nonmonogamy can be part of one's sexual identity, it is not a sexual orientation and is distinct from being LGBTQIA .

Identity vs orientation, or attraction vs expression

First, I want to clarify that I am talking about sexual identity, not sexual orientation. Sexual identity is a broader category that includes many aspects of one's sexuality, including sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is mostly about attraction. Sexual identity encompasses not only attraction but also expression. Nonmonogamy is a sexual expression - that is, it is defined primarily in terms of doing something, as opposed to feeling something. That doesn't mean that you have to have multiple partners to be non-monogamous, but generally speaking you have to engage with the concept of partnership in a way that includes an openness to multiple partners.

Attraction and expression are often closely or even inextricably linked. This can be seen perhaps a bit more clearly in another category of sexual expression - kink. Lots of people identify strongly with kink, to the point where some consider kink to be a more integral part of their sexual identity than their sexual orientation. Kink can inform their attraction and who they seek out connections with - someone who identifies as a sub will tend to be more attracted to someone who identifies as a dom than someone who doesn't. However, kink is still primarily about doing - the attraction is increased because of the possibility for certain activities to be part of the expression. In the same way, nonmonogamy can be strongly linked to attraction, but it is primarily about expression. As such, I would not consider nonmonogamy a sexual orientation.

The myth of the gender binary

However, LGBTQIA is about more than just sexual orientation. It also includes identities that tend to be more centered around gender and/or sex, such as trans, nonbinary, and intersex. There are also many sexual expressions that are integrally tied to being part of LGBTQIA , such as stone butch/femme dynamics among lesbians or top/bottom dynamics among gay men. (There are also a-spec identities such as asexual and aromantic, which I will confess I am not familiar enough with them to accurately talk about their relationship to attraction and expression, but I don't want to omit entirely from the conversation.) If being LGBTQIA can include aspects of sexual expression, why can't it also include non-monogamy?

My answer is because, despite the variety of identities within the LGBTQIA umbrella, they all share the commonality of existing in contradiction to the gender binary. The gender binary is the idea that there are only two genders, each corresponding to one of two biological sexes, and that these genders are immutable and dictate other characteristics such as sexual attraction or even roles within society. Most societies ascribe to some version of this idea and enforce it to varying degrees of strictness and pressure. We refer to this pressure as cis-hetero-normativity.

This is what makes nonmonogamy a distinct concept in my mind. Nonmonogamy does not inherently exist in contradiction to cis-hetero-normativity. Non-monogamy is instead a contradiction to mono-normativity - the concept that a long term, monogamous, romantic relationship is both the default and the ideal expression of human connection. Mono-normativity and cis-hetero-normativity are often closely linked in societies and tend to reinforce each other, so you will often see overlap both in those who promote them and those who reject them. Most of the strongest opponents of LGBTQIA rights are also strong proponents of monogamy. Likewise, many LGBTQIA people tend to be more open to nonmonogamy than the general population, and many nonmonogamous straight people are strong LGBTQIA allies.

But these categories are distinct nonetheless. You can reject one without rejecting the other. A monogamous gay man may reject cis-hetero-normativity while fully accepting mono-normativity, and a straight swinger may reject mono-normativity while fully accepting cis-hetero-normativity. This means you can have people who are open to various forms of nonmonogamy while being strongly against gay rights, and vice versa. Membership in one group does not imply support of the other group. It is for this reason that many people find comparing nonmonogamy to LGBTQIA to be at best unhelpful, and at worst offensive.

A note on queerness

You may have noticed that throughout this post, I used the acronym LGBTQIA to refer to those who contradict the gender binary, despite their being shorter umbrella terms, such as queer. This was intentional, as queer as a descriptor contains additional connotations that I feel would muddy the discussion. To me, queer goes beyond mere contradiction of the gender binary, and is about active rejection and opposition of the gender binary. As such, queer is inherently intersectional and entails the rejection of other aspects of normativity, such as mononormativity (and white supremacy, and ableism, and so forth). In this context, being nonmonogamous can absolutely be queer, in that it is part of a holistic rejection and deconstruction of normativity of all types, including rejection of the gender binary. I still would hesitate to say a cishet nonmonogamous person who opposes all forms of normativity should use the term queer to describe themselves, but at the very least they are living in alignment with the concept of queerness.

TL;DR/why should I care?

The biggest thing I want people to take from this wall of text is the idea of normativity. There are many aspects of normativity that a society enforces on its members. They often overlap and reinforce each other, but they are distinct nonetheless. Just because a person is affected by one aspect of normativity does not mean that they can claim membership in a group that is affected by a different aspect of normativity.

In terms of practical applications for this subreddit, I would say that these ideas come into play in two ways. First, try to avoid gatekeeping or prescriptivism when it comes to practicing non-monogamy. While I think there is definitely a place to ask people to reconsider their approach to non-monogamy, I don't think it is helpful to say "nonmonogamy isn't for you" or "you just aren't nonmonogamous".

Secondly, I think it's important to avoid idealizing nonmonogamy. The point of being anti-normative is not to set up a norm that is opposite to that of society, but to allow for a variety of expressions without saying one is better or worse than others. Presenting nonmonogamy as being somehow better or more evolved is not helpful - there are many people who come here because their partner is pressuring them to try nonmonogamy, and I think one of the kindest things we can do is to make sure they know it's ok to remain monogamous if that's what they want.

Ultimately, it all comes down to respecting people's agency and allowing them to make their own decisions without judging them. I think if we keep doing that, this will continue to be a great resource and community for people.