Jump to content

Acceptance of non-monogamy


non-monogamist

Recommended Posts

In fact, I was interviewed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission today because I am the person who deals with this type of issue for thousands of employees. It was a first for me as I'm usually managing the proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wraith
  • Law Student

I was watching a movie that reminded me of the discussion in this thread: Philadelphia

Quote

Hard-working, meticulous, and above all, devoted, the young attorney, Andrew Beckett, sees his efforts pay off, as he rises through the ranks of a prestigious and powerful law firm in Philadelphia. However, right after earning a promotion, the shocking early signs of AIDS will lead to his ignoble dismissal, on account of alleged incompetence. Suspecting that the deadly disease and homosexuality are the only reasons that got him fired, Andy summons up the courage to sue his cruel former employers, enlisting the help of an improbable and reluctant ally: the homophobic African-American lawyer, Joe Miller. Now, two men alone struggle to crush ignorance--the root cause of injustice and prejudice. Can they make a difference?

 

Edited by Wraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

epeeist
  • Lawyer

Is polyamory purely in the LGBT etc. realm? Or is it also a numbers/dollars issue with e.g. employee and government benefits thus distinguishing it?

I mean, in Islam for instance (and some strains of Mormonism, though not mainstream/official) polygamy has been allowed since the start while same-sex behaviour has very much not been, at least officially/religiously. So someone might identify as purely straight not LGBT and still be in a polygamous (for Islam, only one husband + wives) relationship. If someone is in a relationship with only one other person, regardless of sex, gender, orientation, etc. fairness and treating them equally is more important than negligible financial impact of expanding relationships. But if someone is in a poly relationship, and there are issues about e.g. survivor rights in pensions, family discounts for things, how many people receive benefits when one person is an employee, etc. then that is a different thing with a financial impact (I think there's been some discussion of this re e.g. Mormon unofficial polygamous relationships but would have to look it up).

Even if the percentage of people in poly relationships is low, what happens when e.g. if one person can have employment benefits for multiple partners and other employees assert that their family includes all their adult children (including some living at the same address as their parents?) regardless of how old they are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do annual surveys on this issue, and I just got the number, which is that 60% of people who are LGBQ2+ don't feel comfortable being "out" at work. I don't think we're any different than any big company (in fact, it's likely we're slightly better than most), but that's a lot!

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SNAILS
  • Law Student
On 5/15/2023 at 7:05 PM, BlockedQuebecois said:

Comparing someone’s sexual orientation to a hobby isn’t respectful and inclusive, nor is suggesting OP hide in the closet if they want to be accepted (both things SNAILS did). 

To make this very simple for you, I'll restate my point in one sentence (admittedly with comments to follow):

If a person's personal life includes factor X, and if factor X is likely to cause controversy at work, do not emphasize factor X at work if you do not want to cause controversy.

Here are some examples of what factor X might be:

  1. A monogamous relationship involving three people
  2. A monogamous relationship involving the marriage of a man and a woman
  3. Spending time hunting (as was my example)
  4. A non-monogamous one night stand a person might have had with a woman with especially big breasts that he met in a bar he met the night previously
  5. Deeply held religious views, including a strong anti-abortion political stand

Some people in this thread might hold the position that #1 above is not controversial. Is so, then it falls outside of the point I was making.

Some people in this thread hold the position that promoting LQBT rights is important enough to risk causing controversy at work. I would counter that the OP in this thread needs to consider whether it is worth it to them to cause controversy. 

It is fairly plain to everyone, I think, that the amount of controversy caused by "factor X" increases with the amount that you discuss/emphasize it at work.

Going specifically to @BlockedQuebecois, you assume, without articulating the reason for your assumption, that "factor X" should be emphasized at work where factor X is part of the persons core identity. Therefore, by labelling hunting a mere hobby and labelling a three way relationship as a form of sexual orientation, you feel you have distinguished between the two. 

This raises two issues:

  1. Where is the divide between hobby and "core identity"?
  2. Should matters going to "core identity" be emphasized at work, whereas matters that are mere hobbies be "kept in the closet?" 

Where is the divide between hobby and "core identity"?

In the five examples of Factor X above. It seems to me that #2 and #5 almost certainly go to "core identity." (And this is supported by enumerated and analogous grounds in the Charter; ONHRC).

#4 does not appear to be "core identity" when it comes to that particular one night stand, though a sexual attraction to women with big breasts is a form of sexual orientation, in my opinion.

#1 may go to core identity depending on whether it is a person's "sexual orientation" to be in a three way relationship, or whether that person might equally be likely to be in a two-way relationship. 

#3 was labeled as a "hobby," but some hunters who take hunting very seriously might disagree. Hunting has been a part of human nature since the dawn of humanity. There is certainly an argument to be made that the desire to hunt is an immutable characteristic.

Should matters going to "core identity" be emphasized at work, whereas matters that are mere hobbies be "kept in the closet?" 

For simplicity, let's keep #3 out of it (Hunting may very well be considered a mere hobby by many people).

Speaking excessively about #4 could easily cause controversy. It could even result in a complaint to HR a sexual harassment lawsuit if female employees feel objectified by open discussion of a desire to have sex with women with big breasts. It is fair to say that speaking about heterosexual desires should be kept to a minimum in the workplace.

#5: Emphasizing ones pro-life views in the workplace could easily cause controversy. To be specific, saying "abortion is murder" should be discouraged unless the person wishes to cause controversy. Clearly, however, #5 is not a hobby.

#2 can probably be openly spoken about because its not likely to be controversial. However, let's say I change the facts a little bit where the type of heterosexual marriage is not accepted in a certain, very specific, workplace. Say, for example, a person married outside the faith in a devoutly Jewish law firm. Or let's say a 55 year old lawyer married a 22 year old woman he met in Thailand.

In summary,  the question of whether #1 should be discussed at work is not one of blind adherence to promoting LGBT rights and values. There is also a huge difference between casually mentioning your three way relationship, when the topic comes up, and deliberately making it controversial by over sharing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rashabon
  • Lawyer

Anyone who reads all of that is a chump. Clear that BQ was right characterizing it though.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yogurt Baron
5 hours ago, SNAILS said:

f a person's personal life includes factor X, and if factor X is likely to cause controversy at work, do not emphasize factor X at work if you do not want to cause controversy.

 

I think the only place where anyone disagrees with this is in the notion of who's "causing controversy".

If someone says, "Hey, it's rainy outside," and I don't like rain, so I punch them in the face, they don't get arrested for causing an assault; I get arrested for committing an assault.

Polyamory and bisexuality do not, do not, do not, under any circumstances, ever, "cause controversy". Bigoted reactions to polyamory and bisexuality do. If you say, "I'm bisexual and polyamorous" and it ruffles my feathers, I am the one making the problem.

Of course we're all broadly agreed that when Junior Associate A mentions Immutable Quality X to Homophobe Partner B, we're still at a point as a society where B can get away with causing trouble for A. Where you're getting pushback is where you're localizing the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GoatDuck
  • Law Student
16 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

Polyamory and bisexuality do not, do not, do not, under any circumstances, ever, "cause controversy". Bigoted reactions to polyamory and bisexuality do. If you say, "I'm bisexual and polyamorous" and it ruffles my feathers, I am the one making the problem.

You’re loading the dice. Saying that to cause controversy requires doing something that’s in some way objectively reprehensible doesn’t capture the public meaning of the expression. All it takes to cause a controversy is to do something that people find controversial, period. Causing controversy also has nothing to do with blameworthiness. The abolitionists caused controversy by suggesting that we abolish slavery, but they clearly weren’t to be blamed for the negative reactions of the pro-slavery folks. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yogurt Baron

Yeah, I do that. The dice thing.

I think we're all agreed that if you admit to being different from the norm, some people are going to have problems with that, and that one way to avert people having problems with you is to try to present as normatively as you can. I don't see anyone here disagreeing about that. "Stay in the closet when you need to for the sake of self-preservation" can be good practical advice, and that basic advice to the OP doesn't really change depending on whether your views are closer to SNAILS's or Barry's. At this point, we're just arguing, "Are the barriers you're going to face good barriers or bad barriers?"

Going back to the OP for a second---they note that colleagues are inevitably bound to find out about their relationship from social media. My first thought on reading that is that, as a queer person who's very candid on social media about my personal life and doesn't talk about personal stuff at work at all, there is simply no fucking way that I'd ever let anyone from work see my social media. There's no way I would have the kind of relationship with anyone at work that they would ever know anything about who I am off the clock. That is the very last thing in the world I would do. The OP's casual reference to wanting to let people into their world, I think, is making some of us want to remind them, "Hey, when you get a bad response, that's because the people responding badly are assholes, not because you're wrong to be who you are."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QueensDenning
  • Articling Student
22 hours ago, Yogurt Baron said:

At this point, we're just arguing, "Are the barriers you're going to face good barriers or bad barriers?"

I think all are agreed that any potential barriers which OP might face are not good barriers. 

It seems some are offended by the acknowledgement of those barriers in the first place. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
non-monogamist
  • Law Student
On 5/12/2023 at 6:15 PM, Yogurt Baron said:

Is that...is that something? I've noticed that some of the lawyers I work for are less open about their personal lives than people in other industries, because they're more focused on the job at hand---but by "some", I'm talking "only 90% of my straight married lawyers talk about their families as opposed to 95% in other workplaces". Probably five lawyers today said to me, "Oh, this weekend my husband and I are doing ____".

I'm with Blocked here---there's some big heteronormativity going on upthread, even if well-intentioned. It's the oldest story in the book---"If Bob tells you he went antiquing with his wife, that's just a normal guy making normal conversation, but if Bob tells you he went antiquing with his husband, he's FLAGRANTLY SUBJECTING YOU TO PRIVATE SEXUAL SEX INFORMATION ABOUT ALL THE SEXY GAY SEX HE HAS, AND CAN'T WE JUST KEEP OUR PRIVATE LIVES PRIVATE INSTEAD OF FLAUNTING OUR DEVIANCY." Someone who's not straight should be able to talk about their personal lives to the same degree that a straight person can. I wish you luck, OP.

This right here is exactly what i was getting at.

By “getting out in front of it” I thought that other people should know beforehand in case they got weirded out. Maybe it’s not the best strategy, but if someone casually asks me what I did over the weekend I would either have to a) lie about not having multiple partners or b) be honest and risk the chance that they’re a hateful POS and destroy all the good will I built up with them. 
 

This isn’t about me not having social skills, if my partners and I decide to have/attend a play party and invite other guests I sure as shit won’t get into that with colleagues when asked “what did you do this weekend” I obviously won’t go into graphic detail. It’s more so about the fact both my partners are important to me and people I spend a lot of time with. What happens if one or both them decide to show up to work and take me out to lunch or whatever? Or if a colleague sees the 3 of us out on a date at restaurant? 
 

Working at law firm sounds hard enough without the stress of hiding who you are/your relationship status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

non-monogamist
  • Law Student
On 5/14/2023 at 12:11 PM, Jaggers said:

Obviously nobody is talking about sex at work, but it's completely, totally, obviously normal to say things like "I went with my wife to Niagara Falls" and really not common to say something like that if it's not your monogamous partner unless you just say it was "a friend".

A lot of people will still judge you for the second, unfortunately.

This! Let’s say I’m out on a date partner A and a lawyer from my firm just happens to be out and sees us holding hands. This colleague met Partner B and was under the assumption that I’m in a monogamous relationship with them. 
 

In this scenario, whether I decide to come clean about our poly dynamic or lie and say that Partner A is just a friend, I run the risk of being judged because I’m perceived to be a cheater. 
 

Yes the odds of this happening on any given weekend are low, but over time there’s a good chance that you’ll eventually bump into someone you work with outside of the office at a restaurant, café, sporting event, concert etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

non-monogamist
  • Law Student
On 5/17/2023 at 11:02 AM, epeeist said:

Is polyamory purely in the LGBT etc. realm? Or is it also a numbers/dollars issue with e.g. employee and government benefits thus distinguishing it?

I mean, in Islam for instance (and some strains of Mormonism, though not mainstream/official) polygamy has been allowed since the start while same-sex behaviour has very much not been, at least officially/religiously. So someone might identify as purely straight not LGBT and still be in a polygamous (for Islam, only one husband + wives) relationship. If someone is in a relationship with only one other person, regardless of sex, gender, orientation, etc. fairness and treating them equally is more important than negligible financial impact of expanding relationships. But if someone is in a poly relationship, and there are issues about e.g. survivor rights in pensions, family discounts for things, how many people receive benefits when one person is an employee, etc. then that is a different thing with a financial impact (I think there's been some discussion of this re e.g. Mormon unofficial polygamous relationships but would have to look it up).

Even if the percentage of people in poly relationships is low, what happens when e.g. if one person can have employment benefits for multiple partners and other employees assert that their family includes all their adult children (including some living at the same address as their parents?) regardless of how old they are?

I am but one person, so take this with a grain of salt. There are straight people who practice polyamory, but they tend to be predominantly men and almost exclusively in situations with a “one penis policy”. Ex: A straight man and bisexual woman both agree to see other women. The type of men who participate in this are your typical insecure cringey toxic men, because rather than let their partner be happy, they feel the need to control her because of HIS insecurity (usually due to him having a smaller penis). Most guys who are packing heat don’t fear the competition as much just because they know that very few men actually have what it takes to compete with them.
 

This tends to be incredibly rare. Most poly people are somewhere along the sexuality spectrum. Maybe they’re more attracted to one sex more than the other, but usually pretty fluid. Ex: a man may generally prefer women, but will participate in group sex with both, kiss men, or even occasionally sleep with a smaller subset men than he would women.
 

The reason straight poly relationships are rare is because compartmentalizing can be very tough. Having 2 different exclusive relationships is much harder than being in a throuple where each partner loves and cares for the other 2.  
 

Again, I am not pretending to be an expert on this, but these just my thoughts. 

On 5/17/2023 at 1:02 PM, Jaggers said:

We do annual surveys on this issue, and I just got the number, which is that 60% of people who are LGBQ2+ don't feel comfortable being "out" at work. I don't think we're any different than any big company (in fact, it's likely we're slightly better than most), but that's a lot!

Sad to hear this, but happy I know what to expect I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I think the practical advice on a career advancement front is that you probably have to downplay it as much as possible and reveal it when it can no longer be downplayed without a major lie. At that point, hopefully you have enough internal reputation and political capital that it won't have any impact on your career. 

I think alot of people will be accepting actually and most people will not have an issue. But there are some and there is a chance those people will be in a position to affect your career.

It shouldn't be this way but if we wanna focus on the practical implementable advice on individual level instead of a societal perception shift that is needed, this is likely the business advice course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By accessing this website, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT CONSTRUE ANY POST ON THIS WEBSITE AS PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE EVEN IF SUCH POST IS MADE BY A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE A LAWYER. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.