I have never liked the idea of “sexual orientation.” The implication is that we were born desiring in a certain, irrevocable, unalterable direction and that our sexuality is fixed and rigid. Many advocates of the concept pragmatically argue that sexual orientation is not a choice. “Why would we choose to be this way?”

Why would we not?

Me, I like the idea of sexual preference—living life in a never-ending series of choices, exploring various configurations of beauty, love, attraction, body, and desire. Some might argue that my open-ended, flexible, and fluid relationship to sexuality is indeed a sexual orientation.

Ann Tweedy of the California Western School of Law in San Diego has recently published an article examining the idea that polyamory be protected through employment discrimination statutes by defining polyamory as a sexual orientation.

I like the idea of job protection from those wearing the ermine collar and the powdery wig and judging and punishing our queer lives filled with abounding love. The idea that the legal system confines my sexuality, a multidimensional compass exploding, into a limited, legalistic notion of sexual orientation makes me queasy.

Why? Simply put, many poly people find themselves shifting between open and monogamous contexts. If today I prefer to be mono and tomorrow poly, I would prefer my preference to be respected. If today I want to fuck a man and tomorrow a woman, I don’t want my place of employment questioning the veracity of my sexual orientation.

All nausea aside, Tweedy’s article opens up possibilities for policy makers to consider expanding employment discrimination laws to allow poly people to be safely out of the closet in the workplace without fearing retaliation. This idea sounds wonderful.