429 - Is Ambiamory Right for You?
What is ambiamory?
The term ambiamory can be defined as a sub-identifier falling under the polyamory umbrella, describing individuals who are content with either monogamous or polyamorous relationships. Unlike some polyamorous people who cannot fathom monogamy or monogamous individuals who cannot tolerate the idea of polyamory, ambiamorous individuals experience no distress or feelings of being trapped in either relationship structure.
“Ambiamorous is a term that typically refers to individuals who enjoy both monoamory as well as polyamory. Ambiamorous people generally have little or no preference between either one.”
Origins
According to Google Trends, there’s been a recent resurgence in popularity of the term ambiamory, though its true origins are unknown. Google shows peaks of interest in 2004-2006 and a significant increase in July 2020, mirroring the broader surge of interest in non-monogamy over the past five years. Despite limited information on the term's origin, it is clear that ambiamory has recently become a topic of discussion and curiosity.
Identity or preference?
As we’ve discussed before, the debate on whether polyamory and monogamy should be viewed as identities or preferences is complex. Instead of a binary perspective, some, like Page Turner from Poly.Land, argue that a spectrum exists between the two orientations. Ambiamory emerges within this spectrum, indicating that individuals can embrace both monogamous and polyamorous tendencies to varying degrees, just as the spectrum of sexual orientations spans beyond heterosexual and homosexual categories.
Turner also describes some potential reasons someone might want to identify as ambiamorous, pointing out that most of the time, “a person identifies as ambiamorous because it's important for them to signal to people that they are open to having either monogamous or non-monogamous romantic relationships.” This might be because:
Someone wants to acknowledging experience and/or comfort with polyamorous relationship systems but is also open to monogamy.
They are currently either in a monogamous relationship or a polyamorous relationship system and don't want the other side of their identity to be erased by their current status.
They want to be part of both polyamorous and monogamous social communities, while emphasizing that they don't consider either relationship structure to be "the one true way" for people to have happy relationships.
Discrimination towards ambiamory
There are anecdotal accounts from ambiamorous individuals on Reddit about experiencing discrimination from both monogamous and non-monogamous folks. For instance:
“Being ambiamorous is really hard because neither poly nor mono people trust us.”
“I am fulfilled single or with one partner but would not be fulfilled in expected monogamy. So it's doubtful I would create a relationship with someone ambi because of the risk they would "go mono" on me. Most people have that happen at some point and it is shitty.”
“I would tend to think ambiamory could only really work in a descriptive mono dynamic as opposed to a rule-bound relationship. That is assuming, of course, that many prescriptive mono relationships (or agreements) would not allow for partnerships outside the relationship unless they were managed.”
“Perhaps ambiamory is more a form of polyfidelity?”
Ambiamorous individuals may desire non-monogamy due to their openness to polyamorous relationships, finding deep connections with multiple partners, or valuing the network of relationships that can develop within a relationship system. Conversely, they may also opt for monogamy if their partner prefers it, if they lack emotional bandwidth for multiple partners, if suitable partners are scarce, or for the sake of simplicity and societal norms.
Some possible reasons someone who is ambiamorous might desire non-monogamy are:
They wish to be with somebody who has polyamorous relationships. Once more, this is certainly a rather common reason. While an individual who is strictly monogamous might ponder over it a big sacrifice to conform to dating a polyamorous individual, for an ambiamorous individual this might be typically not that big of the deal after all, particularly when they, too, have the ability to pursue relationships along with other individuals if they want.
They hit the love jackpot and discovered numerous individuals who they love and interact with on a deep level.
They take pleasure in the network of relationships that may form between metamours. Their relationship system frequently functions as a sort of chosen family.
They spot a quality upon enabling their lovers to truly have the freedom to see other individuals, even yet in circumstances where they on their own may date less frequently than their lovers (and on occasion even be functionally monogamous by themselves, every so often).
On the converse side, some reasons an ambiamorous person may want monogamy could be:
They would like to be with somebody who prefers a relationship that is monogamous. Despite the fact that they could enjoy being part of polyamorous relationship systems, sometimes an ambiamorous individual will choose to just date one person because that’s exactly just exactly what their partner wishes. While this may be a huge sacrifice for somebody who prefers polyamory, you can find ambiamorous people for whom this type of modification is not actually a problem at all.
They don’t really have the psychological bandwidth because they may be doing a bit of heavy psychological work, grieving somebody, or repairing from breakups. Numerous ambiamorous individuals will be functionally monogamous for very long stretches of the time when they don’t possess the psychological power for multiple or numerous lovers.
They are now living in rural areas or are otherwise finding too few suitable lovers.
They opted to simplify their romantic life to truly save time, power and hassle. Often it is because they’re busy with non-romantic issues (due to exert effort, caregiving, disease etc.). Others who typically enjoy numerous components of polyamorous relationship systems can transition to dating just one partner if they struggled using the organizational and/or time management challenges and substantial relationship talks that will come with a polyamorous life.
They are sick and tired of the stigma very often includes polyamorous relationships and now have consciously opted for a life that is conventional.
“The divide between monogamy and polyamory as it is often framed is a false dichotomy. You can be both, in different quantities and qualities, at different times and with different people. The labels of "monogamy" and "polyamory" are rough models to explain how we feel, but they are emphatically not the same for everyone and they are not the only options out there.”
Transcript
This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.
Jase: On this episode of The Multiamory Podcast, we're talking all about ambiamory. Ambiamory is having quite a moment and you may have heard the term floating around recently and wondered what it was about, or perhaps I just said it right now and you're frantically googling trying to figure out what this is. Don't worry, we're going to talk all about that on today's episode. We're going to talk about what it is, some potential challenges that people might face if they identify as ambiamorous, and continue the age-old conversation about identity versus preference versus orientation, all these different terms.
If you're interested in more tools to support your relationships and improve your communication, or if you want more information about some of the things that we reference frequently on this show, you can check that out in our book Multiamory: Essential Tools for Modern Relationships. You can find our book at any bookseller and get links to order it at multiamory.com/book, or you can listen to the first nine episodes of this podcast where we also cover some of those tools. Now, let's get into this.
Dedeker: The Ambies. Do you remember the Ambies?
Emily: The Ambies.
Jase: Yes.
Emily: Was that an award show?
Dedeker: It's the podcast awards.
Jase: It's awards for podcasts.
Emily: Oh, yes. Okay. That is what I thought it was. Cool.
Dedeker: We have yet to win an Ambie.
Jase: We have yet to submit for an Ambie.
Dedeker: We submitted ourselves for an Ambie. Maybe someday.
Emily: Now, over the last few months, we have been doing a lot of interviews for our book and I have said on those interviews many times that I am ambiamorous. Now, I think some of you may have thought, "What is that term?" Like Jase said, or you may have been like, "Yes, I identify as that too." Or you may have been in the totally other camp of saying, "Wow, that's not somebody that I want to be around in any way." Ambiamory, have the two of you heard of that before? I'm sure you have, but when did you start really getting into, "Yes, this is something that I'm hearing a lot about recently"?
Dedeker: I don't think I actually really encountered the term until maybe five or six years ago.
Emily: Still a while.
Dedeker: It's still a while. I'll be honest, I still don't see a ton of people using it, at least not in the circles that I move in. The Internet is vast, so I'm sure there is a corner out there where all the ambiamorous people or all the people using that label are hanging out.
Jase: We actually looked at trying to figure out how common is this term, how much is it used. One of the things that we looked at is the Google Trends, where you can see-- Unfortunately, the data only goes back to 2004 on Google Trends. You can't really search stuff farther back than that. It allows you to see how much was something trending versus other times in terms of people searching it, which helps work as a fairly good proxy for whether people are aware of the term, whether they're using it.
What we find is that around 2004 to 2007ish, 2006, 2007, there was a fair amount of searching, actually, for ambiamorous and also ambiamory. Clearly, this term goes back at least to 2004, if not before that.
Emily: That shocked me, by the way. I didn't know that anyone was thinking about this term back then.
Jase: Then more recently, it looks like since around 2020 up till now, it's gradually been trending again. It's gradually being searched a little bit more often. People are thinking about it, but compared to a lot of other stuff, it's still not a super popular term. Not a really common term, which is why if you're someone out there listening and you say, "I've never heard of this before," that doesn't mean you've just missed something obvious. It's still used in somewhat niche circumstances, but it's probably worth us talking about what does this even mean?
Dedeker: If we're going to get super linguistic with it, we have, of course, -amory at the end, which most people can recognize as the Latin root meaning love or loves. Then ambi-, not just a podcasting award, the Latin root means both. It also means around or about. For instance, the word ambiguous refers to something that could have two meanings or multiple meanings, or the word ambient, that sense of something being in the air, or amble is to walk around and to man about town, I suppose.
Jase: For me, ambidextrous is always what comes to mind.
Dedeker: Oh, yes.
Emily: Oh, yes.
Jase: If you can use both hands.
Emily: Yes, that's what my partner said. He was like, "You can use both hands while you're in love or something?" I'm like, "No."
Dedeker: You're very skilled in the bedroom, if you know what I mean.
Emily: There you go.
Dedeker: Functionally, this term refers to someone who can enjoy, accept, engage with both monogamy as well as non-monogamy or polyamory. Again, this is a term that isn't in any official dictionaries, at least not yet. We're scrabbling together a bunch of different terms or definitions that have been floating around in the community. The recurring theme you'll find is this idea that someone who is ambiamorous is someone who has little to no preference between whether they're in a monogamous relationship or a non-monogamous relationship.
We also have this definition from a Tumblr post, again, just scraping through the internet to see what we can find, that says, "Ambiamory is basically a sub-identifier that falls under the polyamory umbrella used for people who are fine with either monogamous or polyamorous relationships. They feel no particular need to pursue either and it causes them no distress to be in either situation. This is in contrast to some polyamorous people who could not and would never consider monogamy because it would feel like denying a part of themselves and leave them feeling trapped and unfulfilled."
"Similarly, some monogamous people cannot tolerate polyamory because it's not how they are wired. They could do all the therapy, follow all the steps, do everything right, and still feel like something is majorly wrong and distressing." As we love on this show, ambiamory presents us with a middle path or individuals who reside within this middle space.
Emily: I find that really interesting the way that they say that it is specifically a sub-identifier that still falls under polyamorous. I think I would have to agree with that, that it still is under that umbrella of non-monogamous because you're even okay with non-monogamy as something that you might be interested in doing at some other time in your life. Whereas there are clearly those, certain monogamous people would say, "Absolutely not, I'm never going to be okay with that." Therefore, they wouldn't call themselves ambiamorous.
I was fascinated by the conversation about this in general because I expected more people out there to identify in this way, but when I think of the two of you, I don't think that you'd say that about yourself at all. You're like, "No, this is more of a thing that I inherently am, which is polyamorous, and I wouldn't be okay in monogamy ever."
Dedeker: I would say that, but then I was chewing on this question as we were getting ready to record-- Jase and I did have this experience in what? 2022, where we just happened to be de facto monogamous, where literally for the first time in a decade that we have been together, we just happen to not have other partners. I was okay with that. I didn't necessarily feel this rush, like, "Oh my God, my nonmonogamous identity is being threatened. I need to go out and do something about that."
Then at the same time, it's not like Jase and I sat down and made any formal agreement of like, "Okay, we are monogamous now and so shall we be for the next 12 months." There was still, of course, always the potential, right? We still talked about dating other people, our attraction to other people, or when we might want to start dating again individually and things like that. I don't know, where I'm like, is that like a sprinkle of ambiamory in the sense that at that time it didn't feel, "Oh my God, this is just like horrible and oppressive and I'm stifling a part of myself"? It didn't feel that way, but maybe it's because there wasn't any formal agreement around monogamy at that time.
Versus if I think I truly was ambiamorous, we could be like, "Great, we're monogamous now," and be like, "Okay, cool." I'm comfortable with either, I think.
Jase: I think that all of what you just said really gets to a core question about it of what makes a person polyamorous or what makes a person non-monogamous. It's, at least to my mind, and we've talked about this a little bit before on the show, but to my mind, it's about what you expect of your partners, not about how many partners you have. In that case, even though at that time, the pandemic was part of it, but at the time neither of us were dating anyone else and our other relationships had ended and we hadn't started other ones; but at no point in that did either of us come to the other and say like, "Hey, I want you to not date anyone else."
To me, that's the core. The analogy would be if you said, "Oh, I'm monogamous, so if I'm ever not with a person, I feel this desperate need to be with someone." While we can experience that sometimes, I think that people wouldn't say that's what defines monogamy, is like, "I need to be with someone." It's more, "If I am with someone, I want to be with them in this way."
I guess I would just say that as far as whether you're polyamorous or non-monogamous, it really doesn't have anything to do with how many people you're dating, but more what the expectations are that you would put on anyone else that you were dating. I guess I'll call it restrictions because that's just what it is, but what kinds of restrictions would you want them to make on their behavior in order to be in that relationship with you? I think the key ambiamory thing then is what you're okay with being put on yourself by someone else.
Emily: That's an interesting distinction as well. Fascinating.
Jase: To say that an ambiamorous person could be equally happy in either type of relationship is in a way saying an ambiamorous person would be okay with someone else saying, "Hey, I don't want you to be with anybody else." I can say yes to that and make that limitation for myself and I'm okay with it and I can still be happy. Versus another person like myself who if it was like, "Hey, I want to be with you, but I want this limitation from you. I want you to agree not to be with anybody else." For me, I would say, "No, I don't want to do that."
We talked about that a little bit in that quote from the Tumblr post where they were saying that non-monogamous person who says "I wouldn't do that because that would be cutting off a part of myself," or limiting this part of myself and making me feel trapped and unfulfilled. I think that's an interesting side to the question to maybe put it more on what you're okay being put on you rather than what you'd want to put on someone else because it seems like the ambiamorous person is saying, "I don't really need to put either of these on you, but that's up to you what you want to choose, what type of relationship you want to have."
Emily: I like that a lot. I think that's a specific nuance that was not in the research that I did here, so that's just another layer to add to all of this, which I think is really cool and something for all you listeners out there to think about as well in terms of whether or not you identify this way. Yes, at this point, sure, I'm in a monogamous relationship. My monogamy may look different than other people's. I definitely know that in my relationship we talk about other people in a sexual way or say that person on TV is hot or that person in real life is hot and we're able to speak about that in a way that maybe a lot of monogamous people wouldn't want, for instance.
It is such a big spectrum of the way in which you operate in a monogamous or a polyamorous relationship. Like you, Jase, haven't had another relationship for a while, and yet you still so strongly identify as polyamorous because you know that those restrictions, as you say, aren't placed on you by your partner in a way that they might be in a monogamous relationship.
Dedeker: Something I want to bring in here because I could see if we set up ambiamory to have too narrow of a definition that could be difficult for some folks to feel like it's okay for them to apply that label to themselves because I'm just thinking if we're really trying to split hairs and to truly make it about, you have zero preferences at all about whether or not your partner is monogamous or whether or not they're dating other people or whether or not they ask you to not date other people or to date other people or things like that. I'm sure that person exists out there, but I bet you they're rare.
I bet you the person who truly is just like, "I give no fucks about whether or not you're monogamous, whatever," I have a feeling that's rare because I think I could see that kind of thing as something that could shift just slightly over time, right?
Emily: Based on circumstance, for sure.
Dedeker: Yes, based on circumstance. Based on emotion. You talk about all the time, Emily, where you and your partner eventually reached a point where it's like, "Well, no, monogamy is the best fit for this relationship," but I've never known you to be someone who's just like, "I'm so enlightenedly blissed out that I just like do not care."
Emily: Yes, I hear you.
Dedeker: Maybe that's a little bit of a harsh definition, right? I do think it's like I think there's some wiggle room around this. There's room to massage this so that I think that you can be ambiamorous without having to be so smack dab in the middle of this spectrum.
Emily: Yes, 100%. To move on from this specific conversation, which we're going to get more into, I did want to just yet again ask the question of is polyamory or monogamy an identity, a preference inherent trait that we have as individuals. How do you even determine all of that? We did look at a Paige Turner article. There's a lot that Paige Turner, by the way, has written about ambiamory, because they identify as ambiamorous. I really appreciate all the nuance that Paige brings to this conversation.
Paige says that polyamory and monogamy exist on a relationship orientation spectrum and say monogamy and polyamory are often seen as a diametrically opposed binary. One can be either or, but if we view the relationship between monogamy and polyamory as a spectrum rather than a binary, ambiamory can exist within that spectrum. Yes, I agree with that. Relationship orientations can really overlap in a bunch of different ways. Also, sexual orientation is thrown in there, romantic orientation, just so many different things.
It is interesting because I do often land in the middle of a lot of those. I consider myself bisexual, but then also in terms of this, non-monogamous or monogamous, I definitely feel like I am in the middle there as well. Although I've had great relationships on both ends. It is a spectrum, for sure. What do you two think? Do you feel like it's an identity or a preference or what?
Jase: Every time this comes up, I really struggle with it because it's like one thing to talk about how each of us feels about it, but there is a bigger implication to that, right? I've talked about this when we've been interviewed on other people's shows, but it's worth talking about it on this show a little bit too. This idea that when we are fighting for gay rights, one of the arguments there is this is an orientation, which means if someone is gay or bisexual or whatever, that this is an innate quality of them. Therefore, it would be immoral to make a law that would limit them from being something that they just naturally are.
The implied meaning there would be, if they did have a choice, then it might be more okay for you to restrict their behavior because they have a choice. That's for a long time been used as an argument. I think it's gotten to the point now where--
Emily: I think it's kind of a shitty argument.
Jase: Yes, there's a lot of levels to it that's shitty, right?
Emily: Yes.
Jase: It's like the idea that "Oh, well, if you could have a choice, then you should make a different choice to conform to what everybody else does, so legally, we should be able to limit you from doing that because it makes us uncomfortable."
Emily: Exactly.
Jase: It's like the extension of that logic, and it sucks, right? It's a shitty argument like you said. My fear when it comes to talking about non-monogamy is if we stray too much away from this idea of thinking about it as an orientation, then people can go, "Ah, well, it's just a choice of a thing you do." Oh, it's a lifestyle. People love to use that term lifestyle to talk about non-monogamy or polyamory, rather than an orientation.
I think they do it just because we don't have a good way to describe what relationship style, relationship practice, relationship ruleset, template. It's like we don't really have a good term, so people use lifestyle, but the problem with lifestyle is it has this connotation of, one, that it's more easy to say it's a phase; two, it's easy to just discount it as like, "Oh, this weird thing these people do, but it's not really important." It's like there's a lot of implications that go along with it. It just makes me very anxious to talk about this and to come down hard on either side because of all this, because of all that cultural shit that comes along with it.
Dedeker: Yes, I would agree. I think when we look at the argument for "Are these things innate?" Is it a baked-in identity for some of us? That in itself opens up a can of worms and it's like, "Okay, so if we're going to make that argument, what are we tracking there? Are we looking for a lack or a presence or absence of a possessiveness gene and that's how we know someone's innately-
Emily: Yes, it's a good point.
Dedeker: -non-monogamous or not?" I know there has been research that ties a likelihood to be more comfortable with non-monogamy to certain personality traits to falling in particular areas on a personality spectrum, but personality in itself is also a weird combination of nature and nurture. Then also just the reality is that as far as looking at people who exist in the world today, the ambiamorous people, the monogamous people, the non-monogamous people, I think that there are going to be some people where this feels more innate to them. Then it's going to be some people where it doesn't feel as innate to them, and yet they choose to practice in a particular way anyway.
That doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. It's maybe less of a what? Maybe less damaging than maybe someone who is queer having to choose to date or sleep with someone who's they're opposite sex where I think we see that as something that's maybe potentially damaging or something they're doing because they have to be in the closet or they need a beard or it's not safe for them to be out. We can maybe have some proxies for people in relationships, but-- I don't know. I think it's because of the fact that this goes beyond just these clear lines of identity or genetic versus preference or lifestyle or things like that. What do you think?
Emily: Well, if I'm believing in ambiamory, I guess I do--
Dedeker: Do you believe in it?
Emily: If I'm identifying as ambiamorous, I feel like that means that non-monogamy or monogamy is a little bit more of a choice or-- I'm not sure. I hear you. I hear what you both are saying. Maybe it's just an ability to look inward and try to find the ways that can make you happiest. In some people that is, "I'm going to try to expand my horizons through meeting and having sexual interactions and really deep personal connections with multiple people and that makes me the most fulfilled person that I can possibly be." I think that I've had those times in my life where definitely that is the case. That's not currently what I'm doing, but that's okay too. I'm finding other avenues for that, I guess.
Jase: Again, to go back to that concept of both, if you think about someone who is bisexual and monogamous that there is also that sense of like, "I'm attracted to both, but at some point, I will choose just one of those, just one person to be with. Whatever their gender is, that's the one that I'm going to choose." There is that thing of like, "Well, does that mean that once you've chosen that you're no longer bisexual?"
Emily: Yes, exactly.
Jase: I think most people would say, "Well, no, that's not how it works. It's about how you feel, what you're attracted to, who you are." Again, we're getting into that identity orientation type thing. I think that's an interesting proxy for both the good and bad of what I said before. On the one hand, if you say I'm bisexual and so I can be equally happy with either, someone could say, "Ah, well, you have a choice. Therefore, you should choose the choice that's better for society," or whatever, or for family values. "Do the other, because you have a choice. Look, great. Just don't do that other one."
Then, on the other hand, it does show us, just because someone chose to be with a person of one gender doesn't mean they're not attracted to the other. I guess in ambiamory you could look at it that way like you're talking about, Emily, of "The ideas of non-monogamy could appeal to me even if I'm in a monogamous relationship. If I'm in a non-monogamous relationship, I could see some value in monogamy and could see myself potentially enjoying that." It is such a tricky, nuanced thing, though.
Emily: I'm not saying either that somebody's best version of self wouldn't only lie in one of the two. Clearly, that is also the case. I don't know if that is an innate part of self or if that is just, "This is where I have found the best version of myself to lie in," because I think they're both valid. Go nuts, whatever you want. That's why I'm not sure how helpful that question even is. We all should just do what makes us happy, I guess.
Jase: Yes. Whenever that question of orientation versus choice comes up, my question is always that "Why do you ask?" What's really the reason behind asking? Is it because of that thing of like, "Well, if you have a choice, then don't do it" or is it--
Emily: Because that’s dumb. Yeah.
Jase: Yes. It's like, "Why are you asking? What is it that you're actually trying to get at that matters?" I think to take this back to ambiamory, the question then is if we're going to say that whole question of orientation and identity versus choice is maybe not actually the important part of the conversation. Maybe that's important for us to be aware of for legal and political reasons down the line, but in terms of understanding ourselves, maybe that's not the question. The question is, why would someone want to identify as this? What is the use of this term?
Again, we're going to turn to Paige Turner for this. Paige Turner wrote an article for Kinkly titled "You've Heard of Polyamory, but Have You Heard of Ambiamory?" in 2019. In it, the definition or an explanation of why someone would identify as ambiamorous is that most commonly a person identifies as ambiamorous because it's important for them to signal to people that they're open to having either monogamous or non-monogamous romantic relationships.
This can happen for several reasons. It could be acknowledging the experience or comfort with polyamorous relationship systems, but they're open to monogamy as well. Like we talked about earlier with Emily. Is it that they're either in a monogamous relationship or in a polyamorous relationship system and don't want the other side of their identity to be erased by their current status?
Emily: That's an interesting one.
Jase: It's very much a bisexual thing. A lot of bisexuals are like, "Just because I'm monogamously with this person, do not say that I'm now just gay or just straight. I'm still bisexual. That's still part of my identity." Or that they want to be part of both polyamorous and monogamous social communities while emphasizing that they don't consider either relationship structure to be the one true way or the only way that people can have happy relationships.
Emily: I have a question regarding that one. Do we feel as time goes on, and I think that this applies to our journey on this show, that communities at large are starting to move more in that "ambiamory way" or spectrum, that they're allowing for the opportunity of more people from either side to be involved in community, that it's not such a, "Okay, it's an us versus them mentality, but let's all live in harmony together and we can love each other even though some of us may be non-monogamous and some of us may be monogamous"?
Dedeker: I don't know. My stance on these things for any fringe community or even a marginalized identity or anything like that, I think it's always going to be important for us to feel like we have access to spaces with people who get us and who can share our experience. Whether it's feeling like you're getting recharged or having your life energy restored by walking into a room of all people who share your same gender identity or racial identity or sexuality, there is something really special about that where you just know, "Yes, I know we're all different and we all come from a little bit of different backgrounds, but we do have this in common where we can get each other right away."
I think there's something really special to that. I think that all of us need access to something like that. Yes, I include all you straight, cis guys, white guys in that too, honestly. No, no, seriously though. Sure, I know you're the universal bad guys, but I think having access to that is also really important to just having that sense of like, "Okay, I'm around people who at least share my background and I can feel into that and feel understood in a particular way." Also, we need access to spaces that are more heterogeneous, that are welcoming of people from a very wide variety of backgrounds and lived experiences.
I think that those spaces can be challenging but also shouldn't be just challenging. I do think we should be striving for creating spaces where people do feel welcome even if they're not walking into a room with people who are all of the same background or lived experience necessarily. I think that's my thing. I know to bring it specifically to relationships and relationship choice and orientation, I'm always excited by the idea of creating more resources, more spaces, more workshops, more events where people from the wide spectrum of relationship diversity feel comfortable and welcomed and not othered. Also, we're always going to need the polyamory potluck.
Emily: For sure.
Dedeker: We're always going to want that. I think it's something that we should also be hanging onto, but that's just my opinion.
Jase: I don't think I'm seeing this happen a ton yet, Em, but I do think I see it happening in our community, so I think--
Emily: Yes. Maybe that's why I asked. Because that's the one that I am so tied to now in a way that I maybe was tied to other communities surrounding polyamory when I was polyamorous, but I'm not really in those communities anymore. To me, I'm like, "Oh, we're moving in this sort of more kumbaya." Yes, all of us can love and-
-be together and be okay with one another and live in harmony, but I know that that's clearly not the case for so many communities. It is super important to keep those more, I guess, homogenous groups of we all share a common identity in some form or fashion.
Jase: I think the balance that Dedeker mentioned makes a lot of sense, that there is a value in having people who share that, so you can have that, "I relax and these people get me," but there's also that danger that we all get together and talk about how much better we are than everybody else.
Emily: Sure.
Jase: Or how everyone else is out to get us. That's an easy one to go to. You see that across the board. You see that in polyamorous communities, queer communities, but you also see it in those communities of straight, cis, heterosexual, monogamous white guys, where it's like, "Ah, everyone else is out to get us."
It's easy to fall into that temptation, and there may be more or less truth to that in certain communities than others, but I think that balance is really important because otherwise, we can end up doing that thing like we see in some of the polyamorous communities where people are doing a lot of gatekeeping being like, "Oh, you say you're polyamorous, but what you do is a little bit more like swingers, so you're not welcome here."
That's something that I do really enjoy about our community, is that we have people who do things a lot of different ways, but it's not that thing where the cultural dominant thing of monogamy and heterosexuality is the norm and other people are like, "Yes, we'll tolerate you." That it's almost flipped around where it's like, "Most of the people here are some kind of queer and some kind of non-monogamous, but also there are monogamous people and straight people and they're also welcome."
That's also part of the conversation and I think helps us all to avoid that temptation to just badmouth people who are monogamous or to badmouth people that are straight or something like that, because it's like, "No, these are our community members too. These are people that we want to support and who support us." Yes, it's a fine line, a fine balance to find, but I love that kumbaya that we can get sometimes. It is really nice.
We want to go on to talk a little bit about the tiniest amount of research that exists on ambiamory, and then also looking at some of the challenges with identifying as ambiamorous. Before we do that, we want to take a quick break to talk about some ways that you can help support this show. We love the fact that we get to put this show out there into the world every week for free. Anyone who has access to the internet around the world can get it. We love hearing people's messages about how it's helped them.
The way we're able to do that is through our advertisers, as well as through our Patreon community. Please take a moment to check out our ads. If any are interesting to you, go check them out. It really does directly help support this show and keep us going. If you want to join our community, we would love to have you there.
Dedeker: Not a ton of research that's directly about ambiamory out there, at least not yet, who knows what's on the horizon, but we have data pulled from a 2016 YouGov survey, basically asking people to imagine a spectrum of relationship orientation. It's like the Kinsey scale. If a zero is completely monogamous and then a six is completely non-monogamous, asking people where would they place themselves on that scale as far as what their ideal relationship would be.
It had close to 1,000 participants, slightly more women than men. The racial makeup is actually fairly representative for the racial makeup of the US. They're a little bit underrepresented on Hispanic, but 61% of people responded with completely monogamous, so a zero. 7% responded with completely non-monogamous. 9% of people responded with a 3%, so like right in the middle of the spectrum. Then the rest of it was all distributed through the middle of the spectrum.
Then I think when we had Diana Adams and Heath on the show, Heath was mentioning that more recent survey that indicated that at least 30% of people within this representative sample from the US suggested that their ideal relationship format was something other than complete monogamy. While, of course, complete monogamy is still the majority, the cultural default, there's a lot of variation within there. There's a lot of people who fall within this sort of ambiamorous spectrum, maybe leaning more towards one side or leaning more towards the other. This 9% of people responding with right in the middle, that's actually a bigger chunk than I would be expecting.
Jase: If you think about these numbers, if 61% of people said completely monogamous, you could say 39% of people wanted something other than strict monogamy in their relationship.
Emily: Yes, exactly.
Jase: Those are your numbers right there.
Dedeker: Yes. It tracks.
Emily: That's a lot.
Jase: They're somewhere along that spectrum. Yes, that's a lot. That also goes back to what Heath and Diana were talking about of rather than trying to completely isolate ourselves in terms of who do we work together with when it comes to changing legislation or fighting for more acceptance of non-monogamy, things like that, if all 39% of us can get together, that can really do something much more so than the 5% or whatever that might actively be-
Emily: That's true.
Jase: -identifying as polyamorous.
Emily: Yes, for sure. Now, I wanted to move on to something that I really didn't even think about when I started looking into this subject, that's that there is, I guess, a bit of, maybe you can call it discrimination towards ambiamorous people on the internet. I get it. Especially when we look at people who do identify more as "I am non-monogamous and I could never be anything but that." That looking at somebody who could maybe be something other than that might be a little bit scary or threatening or this person may leave me or something along those lines.
As I was looking this up as well, I guess I wanted to pose the question first. Can we think of any ways that ambiamorous people might practice polyamory or monogamy differently than those who identify strictly with one or the other? Does it change the way in which your non-monogamy or monogamy is practiced because you are ambiamorous?
Dedeker: Well, I want to switch it around and ask you that, Em, because you're the ambiamorous representative.
Emily: That's true.
Dedeker: I can theorize, I can speak from my experience of watching clients who I would say probably fall somewhere close to that ambiamorous side of things, but what do you think?
Emily: I think it's definitely important to me that the ability to talk openly about my sexual or interest in other people with my partner that that's allowed, I guess, at all, is an important thing to me. That's something that a lot of, as I said before, monogamous people may not be comfortable with or okay with. Even the fact that sometimes my partner and I talk about, "Well, yes, we would perhaps be involved in threesomes again at a time in our relationship if that were a thing that might be interesting in the future." Things along those lines, which I think, again, not everybody would be comfortable with speaking about that openly.
Really, maybe even going there at some point. People theorize about threesomes or fantasize, but they don't actually do it kind of thing. That's definitely been a part of our relationship in the past and I could see it being a part of our relationship again in the future. Yes, I think from that standpoint, maybe that is different than some ways that monogamy plays out in other relationships. However, monogamy for some people may also mean you go have sex with somebody on your business trip and don't talk to me about it, but you're still allowed to do that, you're allowed a hall pass.
Monogamy is still such a big spectrum, and non-monogamy is as well. Non-monogamy may just be, "I'm a little monogamish in this specific way. Maybe I flirt with other people and that's my non-monogamy and that's it."
Jase: Yes. You just touched on all of it there, that monogamy covers this huge range, to say that there's this assumption that monogamous people wouldn't be as comfortable with that just really depends on the monogamous person. It's the same as-- I know lots of guys who are like, "I'm straight. I'll occasionally give or get a blow job, and that's cool, but I'm straight. That's how I identify."
Emily: Exactly.
Jase: It's really though with the monogamy thing, the same as what you just mentioned. "Oh, I'm monogamous. Sure, we have threesomes now and again, but we're monogamous." I think goes a little bit to this idea of, "Well, that's because that's the community that I want to identify with and the people that I surround myself with, so I want to identify that way even if I'm practicing a little bit outside of what is standard," or whatever, in that community.
Emily: Maybe that's the kicker there though. For me, yes, okay, I identify as ambiamorous and I'm currently in a monogamous relationship, but I really want to be able to exist within both communities, if that makes sense.
Dedeker: Sure. No, that does make sense.
Emily: I don't want to be shunned, I guess, by either. I want to be able to have friends who are okay with both, for instance.
Dedeker: Yes. I think that is a nice segue to start talking about the stigma piece because I think that it falls along the same lines as biphobia or bi-erasure, that we for so long have looked at bisexual people or pansexual people and have sometimes said, "Oh, well, they're just confused. They just haven't figured out yet what it is that they actually want," or "Oh, they're just scared to pick one. They're scared to commit to one side of this, or they're scared of giving up some of their privilege." I think we can see the same things reverberate towards people who are ambiamorous, this idea of, "Oh, they're just confused. They just haven't figured out what kind of relationship style they want."
I know I've had a lot of clients who have that experience when they're dating, when they truly are somewhere in the middle here, right? Feel like they could be open to monogamy, non-monogamy, whatever, but they're currently single and trying to date people, running into that weird thing because people are always like, "What do you want? What are you here for? What kind of relationship do you want? What are we doing? What is this? We got to define it." When you're a little more fluid, that's hard, and it's easy to have people think, "Oh, you're just confused and you need to figure yourself out."
Emily: Absolutely. On Reddit, when you go to r/polyamory and look up ambiamory in there, people have a lot of things to say.
Dedeker: People always have a lot of-
Jase: It's Reddit.
Dedeker: -things to say on Reddit.
Emily: It's Reddit. Yes.
Who knew that people would have a lot of things to say? One person on there said, "Being ambiamorous is really hard because neither poly nor mono people trust us."
Dedeker: Sure.
Jase: I think that's one that's worth talking about. Again, it's like with the bisexual thing. I think there's a similar deal of, "I might be afraid to date someone who's bisexual because there's that fear that maybe really what they want is the thing that's not me." There's that fear, or "Oh, well I know that I'm never going to be able to give them that, so I don't know if I want to get in this relationship because it just seems too risky."
It's hard because it makes sense in a way, even though it sucks to limit people that way, but if you think about this ambiamory thing, it's like if I'm non-monogamous, if I'm polyamorous and I've been doing it for a while as I have, chances are good that I've had an experience of dating someone who's like, "Yes, I'm okay with this polyamory thing." Only for them to eventually date someone else who wants to be monogamous, and they go, "Great. Cool. I'll be monogamous with you. Bye, Jase." That's happened to all of us before.
Dedeker: Yes, that has happened to all of us.
Emily: That's what the next Reddit user they said right here, "I'm fulfilled single or with one partner, but I would not be fulfilled in expected monogamy, so it's doubtful I would create a relationship with someone ambi because of the risk they would go mono on me. Most people have that happen at some point and it's shitty." Yes, I agree, that is shitty. I've unfortunately done that to someone, and it was really shitty. I get it. I get it that people would be scared of that and just not even want to go there.
Jase: I could see the fear on the other side too. Say, I'm a monogamous person and you say you're ambiamorous, it's like, "Okay, that could work," but, "Oh gosh, what if at some point they're unsatisfied by that and they want this other thing?"
Emily: I've had that too, that conversation as well. Definitely.
Jase: It's tough because you can understand where the people on either side of that are coming from. It's from real experiences, from real legitimate fears. It's not just like, "Oh they're catastrophizing or making their story out of nothing." It's like, "Yes, this is based on real stuff that's happened." I think that maybe something worth looking at with this is the idea of, and bisexual people have been fighting this for a long time, this idea that just because I'm bisexual if I'm monogamous doesn't mean I'm more likely to cheat or to not want to be in this relationship or to be unsatisfied by it.
That's something that bisexual activists have been having to fight and still have to fight for a long time. I think it's that idea of how I choose to be respectful to my partners is different from this orientation or this identity. To say that "Even though I'm ambiamorous, if I'm in a non-monogamous relationship with you, I'm going to honor that and not just break up with you because someone else wants to do something else. I still might break up with you just because that's what humans do. We might not be together forever." I think that's the hard part though.
It's easy to then point to that and blame it on that and say, "Oh, that's the thing that happened. It's because they were ambiamorous that they broke up with me." Whereas they might have done that anyway, but it's easy to point the finger at that thing, especially if they go on to be in the other type of relationship. It seems like in these situations that might be something worth being clear about, of like, "Just because I'm interested in both doesn't mean I'm going to flip on you. I'm not going to change that suddenly." Might be worth, I guess, being aware of that fear.
Emily: For sure.
Jase: One of the comments on this Reddit thread that I thought was interesting was this one that says, "Perhaps ambiamory is actually a form of polyfidelity." I thought that is an interesting question because if we think about non-monogamy, if we think about polyamory, then you have three people, say, who are in a relationship and they say, "We're going to be polyfidelitous."
Which means the three of us are all in a relationship together, but we've all agreed we're not going to date anybody else outside of these three. I think pretty much anyone in the polyamorous community would go, "Yes, they're polyamorous," even though they've decided to put this restriction on themselves and on each other that's exactly the same as the monogamous one, it just happens to have one other person before that loop gets closed.
That's an interesting question there to be like, "Oh, I'm just polyfidelitous with just one other person." That's an interesting way to look at it too, because when I try to think about it, I'm like, "Functionally that's not any different." Is it?"
Emily: Yes, I guess. I think a lot of people probably who are ambiamorous just think of themselves as I'm polysaturated at one right now in this relationship that I'm in.
Dedeker: Right. Yes, possibly. I'm getting a little lost in the weeds here because I feel like I want to get back to "Why adopt this label at all?" Why adopt this label when you are currently in a monogamous relationship? Why adopt this label when you're currently in a polyamorous relationship?
Emily: Are we signaling something here? I don't know. Yes, that's what Paige Turner said.
Dedeker: Yes, because that's the whole point. Again, like that wonderful thing that Martha Kauppi said a few episodes back, the label is a thing we put on ourselves that maybe invites assumptions from other people that we can tolerate.
Jase: Right. I think Paige also makes a great point in talking about the label might be to honor the fact that even though I'm doing one of these two ways of doing a relationship, I'm not someone who thinks the other is invalid. It could be more of just a personal statement of I still see value in this other thing in the same way that a bisexual person might be like, "No, no, I'm still attracted to people of multiple genders even though I'm monogamous with this one person." I think there's that part of it for people of like, "I want to be clear that this isn't my only identity." Maybe that's a way to think about it.
Emily: Yes, that's true.
Jase: Now, this may be a little bit surprising or controversial, perhaps, but just to, in a weird way, defend a little bit this idea of "I'm dating someone non-monogamously who decides to be monogamous with somebody else," maybe because they're ambiamorous, "then I feel sad at the loss of that relationship." I guess just to speak a little bit in defense of it, I mentioned before it's the idea that, "Yes, someone also might just choose not to be with you." That's also fine. You're not entitled to any guarantee of that from any person ever. That's just not how humans work.
I did want to share a personal experience of that, that I had a partner years ago who was polyamorous when I met her, and that's how we were for several years. Then I knew that for her, part of more of this ambiamorous switch came about because she really wanted to have kids and she was finding a hard time finding someone who is polyamorous and who also wanted to have kids within her community. Who wanted to have them when she wanted to have them, and, of course, all the other pieces, that she's attracted to, that she gets along with. All those other things that are important.
I remember there was a point where she started talking to me about like, "I am open to monogamy if that makes it easier for me to find this thing that to me is more important than maybe my particular attachment to non-monogamy. Even though I do like it and I think there's a lot of value in it, this other thing of starting a family is what matters more to me than this, so I'm open to finding that." Then fast forward maybe a year or two after that, she did end up finding someone like that.
We'd had more of a comet-type relationship at that point because I was traveling a lot and we weren't always in the same place. She called me and we talked on the phone and she told me basically, "I found this and I want to do this monogamy thing because I want to start a family like you know and all that." That was officially the end of our relationship in that sexual way, in the sexual romantic way. It was this weird experience on the receiving end, I guess, you could say of that, where I understood it and respected it and also cried for a while after that phone call.
It was like I was sad, but also it wasn't like, "Ah, see. That's why I'll never date someone like that." It's like, "No, I still felt like there was a lot of value in that relationship." It's still one that I look back on very fondly and think about a lot. It doesn't have to be just this, "Oh, I just got dropped and she was shitty to me because of this ambiamory thing." I think there's a little bit of that if we can step back from, I guess, maybe some of our ego or our fear about these things. Also, just respect that, yes, people can make that choice. Even if they didn't say they were ambiamorous, they could still make that choice to be with someone else that's not you or to be monogamous or something else.
That's not because of that thing, that's just because of who they are. We all just are people who have different values and different paths in our lives. That's my long -
Dedeker: I can feel that.
Jase: -in defense of that.
Dedeker: That reminded me of a situation that I was in. I've gone through the whole, oh, someone is non-monogamous and then suddenly decides to be monogamous with someone else, and then you get dumped situation a few times, and it sucked. I will say the one time that it, I'm not going to say that it didn't suck, but the one time it sucked less, I think was that when someone was very clear about what was going on and their reasons for it. Also, acknowledged the impact it would have on me versus often the way that it's gone. I think the way that it goes for a lot of people is there's a lot of bullshit and drama leading up to it. Often there's a bad hinge not being a very good job of being a hinge.
I think I can relate to that experience of where, yes, it sucked to be in that position. I felt very sad and I mourned the loss of that relationship, but it didn't feel like, "Ugh, this asshole, he was jerking me around the whole time. I should never have trusted him. I should have known." I didn't quite come away with that same narrative. I guess the moral of the story is if you've got to break up with someone because of who you are or wanting to be in a particular type of relationship with someone else, be nice about it to the best of your ability, and be honest as early as possible rather than trying to do some shady stuff.
Jase: Something maybe to consider, just for those of you out there who may have those fears about people who identify as ambiamorous, is that I'd actually bet there's a chance that someone who identifies as ambiamorous might be more likely to communicate and to be aware of that impact that it would have on you like you were just saying Dedeker versus someone who doesn't use that label. It still could happen, I guess this is what I'm saying. That at least if someone is aware enough to identify as ambiamorous, hopefully, that also comes with it an understanding of that impact and the understanding of that.
Maybe actually you'd be better off with someone like that versus someone who's even new to polyamory who isn't sure if it's their thing yet. Not to say that it's like, "Well, one has to be better than the other," but just to maybe say that rather than being a thing to cause fear, maybe it could actually alleviate some of it.
Dedeker: Yes, that's a good point.
Emily: Yes. I think something you said a couple of episodes ago, Jase, was that there are seasons for everything in our lives and that sometimes those seasons may involve functional monogamy or actual monogamy, a decision-based monogamy, or non-monogamy. I definitely had seasons in my life where non-monogamy was basically the biggest part of my life. There was little else that I was thinking about or doing much of. Now at this particular season in my life, monogamy is more of a bigger part of it. My seasons may change and my experiences may change. I think if we're open to all of that, then that can be really great for us and for the relationships that we enter into.
Dedeker: Your seasons may change and your reasons may change.
Emily: Yes.
Dedeker: I'm going to stitch that on a pillow.
Emily: There you go.
Jase: Yes. Love that.