It seems that relationships are getting more complicated by the minute. Or maybe we’re just in an age of micro-definitions. Take the polycule. A concept I was happily unfamiliar with until I read about it last weekend. In case, like me, you didn’t know, polycules are a version of polyamory. Polyamory being of course, the juggling act of engaging in multiple romantic, typically sexual, relationships, with the consent of all the people involved.
New names, old behaviours
I’m pretty sure that the only thing that’s changed is that we’ve now got names for stuff that people have been at since Adam and Eve got chucked out of Eden. People experiment with all sorts of sexual combos. They always have. You only have to think ‘Mormon’ and ‘sister wives’. The practice of taking multiple wives or lovers goes back to the earliest of times—some anthropologists believe that up to 80 percent of early humans were polygamous. But it seems to be a thing now in a way it hasn’t been before, perhaps because of the predominance of social media in shaping or naming trends. As a consequence, there’s an emerging sexual zeitgeist with a growing vocabulary to define an increasing number of relationship variants meaning we can now choose our “lovestyle”, not just our lifestyle.
So we all know about throuples right? Three-way relationships where all three participate. Throuples—also known as triads—have been in vogue for some time as celebs open up about their non-conventional preferences. For example, in 2011, Charlie Sheen openly talked about living with two 24-year-old girlfriends, he called his “goddesses”. Throuples don’t necessarily live together, but they are in an acknowledged and sexual relationship. Imagine if Menelaus, Helen and Paris had the open-mindedness to form a throuple, instead of Paris stealing Helen away from Menelaus and the ten years of mayhem and destruction that followed. Troy might still be standing, as I’ve said before.
So, what is a polycule?
In a polycule, three or more people might be involved but don’t all necessarily have sex. Let’s put that in context. Priam is in a sexual relationship with Hecuba and Athena. Hecuba and Athena don’t shag each other. So this group is not a throuple. But they are a polecule because, like the atoms in a molecule, they are connected to each other through Priam, who functions as a “hinge”. The person in the middle. Hecuba and Athena are “metamours”. People whose lover has another lover but with whom they have no romantic relationship. .e., the partner’s other girlfriend or boyfriend or their lover’s spouse. So if you’re partner has another lover, they are your metamour, and you are theirs.
With me so far? I repeat, it’s complicated. The word polycule itself is a construct combining polyamorous and molecule. I’m sure all you chemistry lovers are familiar with the concept of molecules as groups of atoms that are bonded together. In polycules, it’s groups of people that get bonded.
But wait, there’s more…a one-sized polycule doesn’t fit all
Polecules vary in size and shape— some can be extensive. There’s the parallel poly when members of the group know their lover has another lover but don’t form any relationship with them. There’s also garden table poly, which means the various partners all socialise convivially together. The difference between your bog standard polyamory, as far as I can make out, is that polycules are largely a constellation of intimate connections that are not all about sex.
So if I were in a polycule (I’m not BTW), it could go something like this. I’m dating Hector and Paris. Paris also dates Helen and Cassandra. Hector dates Andromache and Hecuba. I’m not necessarily dating Helen, Cassandra, Andromache or Hecuba. Let’s face it: what woman wouldn’t feel her cup runneth over if it contained only Hector and Paris? But the others are nonetheless integral parts of my polycule, being my lover’s lovers and all. We’re all intimately connected. In the garden poly variety, we’d likely all pitch up at Trojan royal family feasts to listen to Cassandra’s latest doom-scrolling prophesies.
There are many more varieties—thanks to Cosmopolitan for this further insight. There’s V Polyamory (one person dating two who aren’t involved with each other), Quads, Comet Partners, and Platonic Polycules, as well as the different integration levels of metamours. Polycules can be open or closed (i.e. exclusive or permissive) and may be hierarchical with one person as the primary link between the others or ones where everyone is on equal footing. There’s also Parallel Polyamory—polycule members have other partners, but they don’t interact or have contact. It’s a parallel structure. This spawns teleamours— our partners’ partners’ partners. There are no rules as long as everyone’s consenting. Some polyculers go all in and share houses and bank accounts.
Is the secret to the polycule “authentic love”?
Feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1985), most known for her feminist novel, The Second Sex, was famously married to the even more famous Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980). The couple never married, but their lifelong open relationship, which saw each of them pursuing other sexual and romantic partners, lasted more than 50 years. They talked about their approach as “Authentic Love”. Originally Sartre’s idea, de Beauvoir was apparently game to “embrace all experience.” They claimed this approach succeeded because the sole condition was total transparency. Despite the relationship’s longevity, peers questioned how happy they were. It seemed to suit Sartre better as de Beauvoir was reputedly prone to jealousy and had far fewer affairs.
Which brings up a good point. How do you navigate any polycule variant without someone getting their nose (or other anatomical item) out of joint? Is everyone involved so secure that they don’t doubt their centricity to the melange? It feels as if the starting point is deciding what you want from any relationship. It must be just as crucial that three (or more) people have convergent expectations as two. And what happens if two of a triad are more into each other and even marginally neglect the third? Is there ever the possibility of love equity, or even such a thing?
It’s not all a bed of authentically scented polyamorous roses
Polyamory isn’t legally recognised in Britain or America, so you don’t get the sort of benefits monogamy brings, such as tax breaks, pension plans, sharing mortgages, child custody, and a clear inheritance plan. Come to think about it, we singletons don’t benefit from those either, but it’s not yet illegal to be single or childless (or a single, childless cat lover).
Polyamorous relationships seem to me to come with as many, if not more, hooks than monogamous ones. There are so many decisions to make, not least how you schedule your playtime. Equally, do you meet your partner’s other ‘squeezes’ or leave well alone? Does it help or start to erode the foundations of your relationship with them?
On the other hand, polycules could be the perfect antidote to giving too much or falling too deeply for one person and the anguish that can follow if it goes wrong. Perhaps sharing the love means fewer eggshells to walk on. If one person in the polycule doesn’t feel like it tonight, there’s a fighting chance someone else will, so could it be the answer to duty sex? In this world, Paris wants to watch the footie. Menelaus wants to watch the chariot races on the beach. Helen wants to bring back a bit of that loving feeling. Paris is happy to oblige. Menelaus is happy they’re both happy, and he gets to do what he wants. Perhaps it’s easier with your polycule posse taking up the slack when you’re not in the mood, or can’t be fagged to go out to see a play, have another baby … whatever.
The lovestyle choice for a growing number
I’ve always believed that pretty much anything goes between consenting adults. So, if a polycule or any variation on the them is what does it for you and your polyamours, good for you. In any case, you’re not alone. Polycules are growing in popularity. A recent YouGov poll found that about two per cent of adult Brits are in polyamorous relationships, and seven per cent say they would be open to it. Those numbers aren’t going to turn society on its head. However, it does mean that an increasing number of people are asking the questions differently and challenging norms that no longer work for them.
If you’re into a whole lotta love and not finding conventional couplings are doing it for you, perhaps a polycule might yield better returns for your labours of love. Less chance of love’s labours lost? As for me. Well, I’m too lazy. Or too old. Or both. If sticking with one person for the long haul has proven challenging, how on earth would I wrangle several? Eek. In any case, call me old-fashioned, but for me, “Be my teleamour” doesn’t cut it like “Be my Valentine.”