Polyamory: Label or Process?
What does the label "polyamory" mean? Literally, many loves. And, some would assume, therefore many lovers.
In the popular culture, this term conjures up images of wife-swapping, anything-goes kinkiness. Somehow its true meaning has been perjoratively distorted into something resembling "polyfuckery." Asking people what they thought it meant, most snickered and said, "swingers," "sport fucking." Some confused it with polygamy or bi-sexuality. To distinguish polyamory from "swingers," one can characterize swingers as more physically available, whereas polyamours are more emotionally available.
Though the term polyamory is commonly used as shorthand for sexual openness, its core remains in the un-nameable poetry between souls as they recognize and honor the sparks they see within each other. What distinguishes the spirit of polyamory from more conventionally defined relationship roles is the suspension of fear, both of our selves and of others. To truly be free to love requires a deep trust in the resonance within oneself, and the discernment to recognize and honor that quality in others. A beautiful poem by Rumi captures this glimpse:
We have not come here to take prisoners,
But to surrender ever more deeply
To freedom and joy.
We have not come into this exquisite world
To hold ourselves hostage from love.
Run my dear.
From anything
That may not strengthen
Your precious budding wings.
Run like hell my dear
From anyone likely
To put a sharp knife
Into the sacred, tender vision
Of your beautiful heart.
We have a duty to befriend
Those aspects of obedience
That stand outside of our house
And shout to our reason
"O please, O please,
Come out and play."
For we have not come here to take prisoners
Or to confine our wondrous spirits,
But to expereince ever and ever more deeply
Our divine courage, freedom, and
Light!
In its essence, polyamory is intimacy. The human heart is quite capable, under the right conditions, of honoring multiple channels of intimacy. In contrast, the monogamous extreme would hold that intimacy is the product of an exclusive emotional and presumably sexual relationship.
Of course, the reality for many people is somewhere in the spectrum between these two poles. They may have a mosaic of different types and qualities of intimacy. For example, someone may cultivate brotherly love with buddies or co-workers, smoldering romantic tension at the taco stand, occasional flings with an old classmate, and a comfortable domestic sexual partnership at home. So what is it, then, that qualifies as polyamory?
The main feature is that all those involved would have full knowledge of, and consent for, what the others feel and do. This of course requires a deep respect for the need others have for additional meaningful relationships. A great deal of effective and honest communication is required to achieve this, and boundaries must be clearly and carefully established among all parties to prevent misunderstandings or disrespect.
For those to whom this concept is new, perhaps the most puzzling thing about the label of polyamory is that it is not a formula. Though conventional monogamous marriages may vary, there exists a general consensus about the conventional sets of expectations, entitlements, and compromises that most couples would expect to abide by.
In contrast, polyamorous arrangements are cultivated and clarified in an ongoing process. There is no particular guarantee about sex, quality time, income, and so on. These and many other factors must be addressed on a situational basis. Frequently, there is an arrangement of veto powers for the primary dyad of the polyamorous couple. So, polyamory exists in a rare paradox of brave experimentality and playfulness, while remaining rigorously "no-bullshit" in the open communication of the positions of its participants.
Mainstream cultural fears about such arrangements may be unfounded. Though most people in a committed relationship would describe themselves as monogamous, over time, many – if not most – of these relationships are terminated by breakup or divorce, on average at about 4 to 5 years. In contrast, a survey of committed polyamorous couples found their average duration to be twice that, at over ten years.
Advocates of monogamy-only relationships, such as the "Family Values" set, may pause to acknowledge that chances are quite good that they or their spouse are de facto in some continuum of what sexologist Betty Dodson terms "serial monogamy with cheating on the side." So looking at it that way, the monogamous program in many cases is just a truncated and more dysfunctional version of polyamory: less duration and poorer communication.
Many practitioners of polyamory are in long-term relationships. To do this sustainably requires participants to be highly functional, self-actualized and honest with themselves and about their interactions. In other words, this is not something that everybody can do. We all know that many lack the communication skills and ego security to even start an intimate relationship or maintain it, let alone add additional people to the equation. It requires an active and self-directed morality, one in which empathy for others' experience, personal responsibility, and raw honesty are ground rules. As someone who lives the poly lifestyle recently said, "What really seems important to me, in relationships these days, is not choosing monogamy, but choosing openness, authenticity, trust and communication."
To place this attitude in its proper context of psychology theory, we can draw some important insight from psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg's famous "Stages of Moral Development." He describes morality as a series of six levels that develop concurrently with reasoning ability. For example, young children and later young adults go through a typical progression involving: 1) avoiding punishment, 2) discovering selfish opportunities, 3) conformity with conventional attitudes, 4) law-and-order based on authority, 5) the consideration of the greater good of the society, and 6) acting from the principled conscience. With increased development, the social imagination allows insight into the experience of others and the broader society.
It is important to note a major distinction between levels 4 and 5. The social-order maintenance of level 4 operates from a fundamentalist belief that laws or social conventions are moral by virtue of simply existing as laws or traditions. Therefore they must be maintained to prevent some anticipated anarchy of further rule-breaking. In contrast, level 5 social contract orientation is based in the democratic idea that laws are malleable by the collective in order to serve the society and its individuals better.
Rather than people being the tools of law, we have laws used as tools for the people. This idea is at the heart of the distinction that divides medieval fundamentalist thinking from the later humanist thinking of the Age of Enlightenment which revived democracy and its associated rights. From this perspective, we can approach level 6 and see that the humanist endeavor tends toward a goal of more integrated ethics. As microcosms of the society and its rules, interpersonal relationships are negotiable constructs much as laws are for the greater population.
It is not difficult, then, to see how the negotiable constructs of polyamorous relationships are naturally at home at the level 5 or 6 end of the moral spectrum. The ethical navigation is done from within, mindful of the individual and social drive for maximum harmony, justice, and happiness. Having said this, however, it must be acknowledged that such an ideal social container is rare, delicate, and maintenance-intensive. Predictably, importing a person who operates from the ‘lower' levels of moral development will almost certainly tangle the mobile of a polyamorous arrangement, interfering with factors of trust and communication.
Some fear that a relationship will self-destruct if it is allowed to be open to additional emotional or sexual connection. Maybe it will. A relationship, if opened to these possibilities, needs to base itself in a deeper connection, one that meshes at an unchangeable level, spark-to-spark, where the details of logistics and score-keeping cannot move the foundation. Such a suggestion may sound daunting or fierce, or even somewhat unattached. It is. If the connection is incompatible in its deepest sense, then it will likely fail, whether propped up over weeks or years, monogamous or otherwise. If it is doomed, something better may await.
If the connection is strong, it will be enriched by the combination and learning of new energies. The fierce soul wants to know. This is not a place for fears. This is a place where the lust for life honors the self and other equally, guided by the faith that deeper styles of the soul will find their proper fit and resonate more harmoniously, more playfully, and more indestructibly.
Polyamory can provide the opportunity for self knowledge, deeper expression and strong intimacy. The philosophy and psychology of polyamorous arrangements impose a rigorous honesty with oneself and others, requiring the withdrawal of our own projections and the relinquishment of the concept that another person holds the key to our happiness or we to theirs. We are in relationships to experience joy and resonance within ourselves and to discover it in others.
The author wishes to thank Martin Stensaas for his editorial counsel.
Image by Sunny Strasburg. More of her artwork can be seen at her website, www.sunnystrasburg.com.
- 2-6-08
- Sunny Strasburg's blog
- Login or register to post comments
ShareThis- Printer-friendly version
Comments
harmonic resonance of a collective soul
For Many Timers only?
If this life is one of many, we probably live among those we’ve known many times before. The expression: “I feel as though I’ve known you all my life!” may be more than just a passing acknowledgment of familiarity. In such cases of reciprocated recognition it would be wonderful to pursue and accumulate more of life’s unique experiences together, wouldn’t it?
How much greater would be the thrill of rejoining a whole group of others known to each other over many lifetimes? And how devastating to recognize the possibility, but be prevented from its pursuit by someone close whose consciousness will not expand enough to embrace the possibilities.
For twenty-five years I have known, and am known by, someone who cares, but does not care enough to recognize our many lives connection. Having experienced this pain of anonymity between us helps me to understand the possibilities of polyamory, and may also be indicative of its frequent failure.
"If only I could remember the future"
Label
The 60s all over again?
Will all them polyamorous partners also share the caring of the children ? or do they not have children through immaculate birth control ?
What is the point of this article? To say that polyamorous folks are morally superior or more advanced somehow? To theorize about Love?
Polyamory: Just another label.
Nice artwork, BTW
very nice article
I really enjoyed your article. I'm right in the middle of a painful adjustment in my own life involving emotional attachments and the article spoke to a lot of the issues that have been going through my mind. Strong attachments living on beyond any initial infatuation or affair present an undeniable reality. And having to discard these in the name of something like 'monogamy' seems to be a poor option in my opinion.
@ecolocal - I don't get your take on this at all; polyamory, a label? Yeah, it's a word, they're kind of like that.
All the best, food.
I was just answering the
Omniamory
Hey Sunny!
I love your artwork.
The unfortunate thing about labels and words is that they tend to hold their assumed meanings and connotations despite the good intentions of those who would elevate them to (or back to) more fullness and light. A classic example of this is the 40+ year push to use the word "bad" to mean "extremely good" or "cool." While this definition has stuck and is understood when the word is used in this manner... bad will still always mean bad. This juxtaposition of many definitions provides textured flavor and nuances to the words we use... some of which have over a dozen definitions.
So, in the case of polyamory, the word will always have the connotations of swinging and orgies. Despite the rather mature relationships that have evolved and been maintained under this aegis, the word will always have the definition (perhaps #2 or #3 on the list) of multiple sexual partners.
Cool thing about language though... you can invent new words. I propose that when refering specifically to the spiritual agape type love for all beings, we use the terms Omniamory, Omniamorous, and Omnigamous.
The type of polyamory you describe is actually, IMO, only the first stages of a true agape awakening. To have multiple emotional love affairs and to be emotionaly and spiritually available to random intense connections etc. is just a prelude to the full-blown "truly love everyone equally" thing that the great religions all praise but never practice.
The deepest wisdoms and highest spiritual traditions all teach that we are one, that love is the universal constant etc. Jesus said to love thy neighbors as thy self... to love thy enemies even... and yet these religious traditions continue to push people to establish monagamous "special" relationships that preclude the ability of people to share their divine love with each other. Should your emotional, spiritual, or physical (not seperate things mind you) connection to someone outside of your "special" relationship get too strong or breach an undefined intensity level, your mate will react with jealousy, vitrol, and ultimately vengence... and be supported in this reaction by the religious structures of the community.
Anyone who has studied relationships and their dynamics with any attention should see that the typical monogamous relationship is a sick and twisted entity. There is a good reason why most relationships end in such short order. Not only that, but they tend to crash & burn in such a way that the participants end up hating each other, and one or both of them are usually left as emotional wrecks. This is a huge blind spot on our cultural awareness in the sense that everyone knows the divorce statistics, everyone has been through a psychotic break-up, everyone has watched a friend self-destruct over this shit... and yet no one seems to think that there is something wrong with the system & institution itself. [can anyone say square peg into a round hole?]
The issues that our friend ecolocal brings up tend to be the major sticking points here. People assume that if they allow themselves to love openly and be loved by all who would love them, that A) it would degenerate into its lowest common denominator... the free love orgy & B) raising kids would fall upon the few "responsible" single mothers... or simply be unfeasable. In response to these feelings I would say that we should look to the way that many Native American societies dealt with these issues... successfully and for millenia I might add.
Native tribes tended to support polyamory and marriage by raising the children communally. The children were raised by the tribe. They were free to learn from and attach themselves to whoever could give them what they needed at that stage of their development. This allowed children to "apprentice" themselves to the people that they felt most comfortable with, and who could teach them to make the most of the skills that they were naturally gifted at. Unlike in our society, a doctor's son was not pushed to follow in the family tradition. Children who had no aptitude for what their parent did were not pressured to remake themselves in their parent's image. Look at the current political dynasty for a good example of this...
Furthermore, young tribal women were encouraged to come home from Pow-wows pregnant. While not necessarily "free love orgies," such Pow-wows were gatherings of tribes from far & wide with the intent to share knowledge, make agreements... and expand the gene pool. Babies conceived this way were considered holy, and were the property of the mother's tribe. When someone absolutely felt compelled to marry, they were instructed to only marry someone from a tribe at least across the nearest river. One could not even marry someone from one's own tribe. And in these cases, usually the woman would go to live with the man's tribe. This was obviously another way to avoid inbreeding.
I'm not saying we can go back to tribal lifestyles, or that we even should. I'm just saying that there are other ways to deal with sex, love, and child-rearing. The fact that most murders happen inside of nuclear families suggests that the current model is not all that effective... and I feel that it has seriously stifled the spiritual growth of the people who sacrifice and sweat to try and make it work.
IMHO
sex is great
A) sounds great - nothing degenerate about that - B) is what i was talking about . There is nothing liberating about single mothers, even if they tell themselves they are liberated. It's no good for the children, and its worse than a nuclear family .
Single Mothers
I would like to say for the record that I have nothing against single moms... they are generally heroic and laudable figures doing the very best they can. Many fine souls have been raised by single mothers.
That said, there is no reason in this day and age for people to have unwanted pregnancies. I don't like abortions, but birth control and morning after pills have made it so that a woman should only find herself pregnant if she actually wants to have a child...
Personally, I think the tantric/ taoist methods of turning off a woman's period yogically are the best methods around. All the energy normally expended for a pointless cycle that the woman knows she will not avail herself of can be used for other things... and when she does choose to procreate, she can simply turn the menstruation back on. No need to waste eggs and uterine linings. [note: this method does require some time investment and a reasonable skill with the relevant yogic exercises like the Deer exercise]
But eco... you sort of neglected my direct response to the B issue. The communal raising of children by the tribe. I've seen this model working in Hawaiian Hui's, California Communes, and Israeli Kibbutzes in this modern age... so I think it is not simply a historic or ethnographic observation.
Anyway. Cheers.
Yes
Communal child rearing is certainly the way to go... this was neglected in the article too. Many women in this scene seem to have decided men are not wanted around THEIR children, and this generates much grief... leading men to think they are used as sperm donors and then discarded...
60's free love
Total unobjective bias
Hi Sunny and related Sandwich Heads,
First, allow me to disclose that Sunny and her husband Martin are good friends, and I also worked on the first draft of this piece with Sunny when I was working as an editor for RS.
That being said, I consider Sunny and Martin's polyamory the exception to the rule.
Moreover, Sunny, your piece has no objectivity whatsoever. It's a reactionary defense of polyamory which uses as its central tactic an attack on monogamy as an inferior and malicious institution. This is disingenuous and intolerant of personal choice.
Furthermore, it creates a polarized, oppositional dynamic which attempts, though the invocation of only one source, Kohlberg's "Stages of Moral Development," to posit that one side of this dynamic--polyamorous people--are more morally developed and socially evolved than the other side--people who engage in monogamy.
You'll pardon my characteristic terseness, but that's a load of crap, and Kohlberg would most likely agree. I mean, I could say that most of the so-called "polyamorous" people I know personally are using it as a smoke screen for a profound fear of intimacy and an almost compulsive need for promiscuity. But that would be unfair, wouldn't it? It's equally unfair to claim that people who choose monogamy only do so out of deep-seated insecurities and a malicious desire to control and dominate another person.
Both romantic proclivities are personal choices, and they correspond to personal needs and desires. Both involve love, lust, trust, commitment, transgression, and disappointment. One is not better than the other. There really is no place for judgment here.
And I guess some of us are just old fashioned.
Charles Shaw
Chicago
Agreed
I agree with what Charles wrote here, on the whole.
The article reads to me like a defense and a theory to excuse lack of commitment and fear of getting close and giving something of one's self in a relationship. Something many modern , "liberated" women have work to do on.
It seems immature and spoiled, like wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. And yes, it does read like a reaction against "traditional" possessive relationships. Women in this scene have led themselves into a blind alley where they seem unable to deal with Love and what it involves, and , like little girls, often run away from love thinking men want to possess and dominate them, when in fact domination and power is what they are after .
But really, what's the point of theories about Love, other than to give ourselves some consolation and excuses for not really wanting to feel it? Love isn't all roses , there's thorns too.
homogeneity is not the key
It's true that this article suggests that polyamory is more evolved, which I think can be just as negative as saying that "traditional" monogamy is more ethical. But I also suspect that polyamory gets ripped on a lot, and Sunny made some very good points. Like she said, polyamory isn't for everybody. I think what counts is that everyone gets a choice. Not everyone feels the need to express their love for other people sexually, even though they feel a deep love for others. (For example, I have a group of friends I love very dearly, and we will often express it verbally to eachother. My boyfriend is one of them, but neither of us have expressed a need to love our other friends sexually. This is just the current situation.)
I have considered polyamory for myself on and off, but when it is suggested that polyamory is morally evolved, I feel uncomfortable. Doesn't that seem to suggest that, in a utopian culture, everyone would be doing it? I think that variety is the key in approaching a truly utopian culture. When everyone does the same thing, there is less innovation, exploration, and growth. Since it is not currently the social norm, truly functional polyamory is an innovation! But not everyone needs it.
Namaste. --EB--
Old Fashioned
“...I guess some of us are just old fashioned”.
Which part of “old fashioned” are you referring to, Charles?
The old fashioned notion of faithful monogamous relationships?
Or the old fashioned notion that people like Sunny shouldn’t have the freedom to express themselves in an open forum, using whatever argument they care to choose?
If I am to benefit from the view of others (from my perch atop their shoulders), the taller they stand, the farther I can see, right?
It truly baffles me when someone calls me down from the shoulders of someone else: “Can’t you tell that you can’t see anything important from up there?”
Can it be that I’m up here for a reason you may not have considered?
Perhaps, when my view from her shoulders is satisfied, I may decide to climb atop yours for a look-see. But not after you’ve attempted to topple me from my present position.
"If only I could remember the future"
wha?
Sorry...
Just a knee-jerk reaction. I've been having a bit too many of those lately. And after re-reading it myself, it sounded a bit hypocritical, so... Nevermind.
"If only I could remember the future"
the issue of relationship
my reading of this article, is that it brings up some very obvious situations that people either run from or run toward,the way is frought with personal and social blocks.I thought the article brought up some very thoughtful considerations as to the underpinning of how we got into this situation.It doesn't argue for one against the other so much as show the alternate in its light of the whole forced moral hypocrisy that creates the fractured views that make almost any relationship nothing more then "family values"And this just opens up the whole can of worms.
Did the "sexual revolution" make any inroads into the this whole need to break out of the mold of monotheism and monogamy and monotony as Terence Mckenna described it? well perhaps it is high time to attempt to sort the way we live with these conditions of the other possibilities out, and of course the situation will not be remedied simply by sleeping with every one, nor will it be by becoming just another dysfunctional family unit, that cranks out the next generation of cannon fodder and McDonalds workers. this is a very tricky subject,nuff for now,
Moral Challenge
Anya
Arguing as the author does that poly is a huge moral challenge and not for everyone, is not to say that in theory or practice it's restricted to the morally developed or socially evolved. Observant Judaism (another lifestyle with which I am somewhat personally familiar) is a huge moral challenge and not for everyone, but observant Jews as a group are not morally or ethically superior (although they may cultivate an internal belief that they are, which helps to justify the difficulties of the lifestyle). As human beings we join all types of tribes and try all types of practices to express who we are and become better people. It doesn't always work, but we can learn from the obvious mistakes of those who came before and rejoice in the support of others on the path.if i understand you
you said that the belief of some moral superior position is at once its own justification and its own detractor, that in turn again self justifies its own self abnegation, which in turn justifies moral superiority, ad infinitum, ad nauseam?
is this a prerequisite of moral superiority, and or is the particular "chosen one" version, have that odd self depreciation that miracluously allows for this chosen status? sure a brain twister.
truly it is a challange to even bring up the issue .
Love & Morals
You seem to know Sunny better than I do, but the impression that I got from this article is that what is being criticized here is NOT the institution of a single sexual or emotional partner, but the domination and possessiveness that we have CONFUSED with that institution. And that what is being advocated here is NOT a particular format of relationship, but a new level of communicative depth and transparency in whatever form it might take.
Kohlberg's work could have used a bit more support in this article, but the support exists. Kohlberg was describing increasing waves of inclusivity in moral structures that are now well-accepted in the developmental psychology community at large. We're not talking about absolute moral universals here, but a gradation of the levels of maturity a person has - their ability to recognize and account for the perspectives of other people. Unless you have a problem with saying that the richest and most well-informed, compassionate moral judgments are the best, you have no solid position from which to attack the normative claims that Sunny is putting forth: That clear communication, acceptance, and the recognition of each person's partiality and diverse needs ARE, in fact, morally superior to delusions of ownership, confusions of displaced and unsatisfied yearning, and the suffering created by the cognitive dissonance between what we say (one love, one partner) and what we do (many loves, many different styles of relationship).
This is a major project of shadow work, to recognize that we are in many ways living contrary to our biologies. And to make conscious, to explicate our complex systems of need and desire - to knowingly and intentionally engage these patterns, rather than allowing them to own us through our unconscious behaviors - is an immense challenge.
It seems to me that you have confused/conflated the way that Sunny is using these words with the way that you use them. I got no sense from reading this article that she's suggesting that we forbid people from entering into the crucible of exclusive emotional-sexual partnerships, only that we have to widen the scope and depth of our discourse if ANY relationships are to heal from the pathologies currently woven into them by our unexamined assumptions about intimacy.
"There's no time for hatred - only questions..." - Jeff Buckley
Zaadz Visionary Music: michaelgarfield.zaadz.com
Morass of morals
The problem with Sunny's writing and many American communications in general is the "morality" issue that pops up , a lot . It signifies a confusion and dissociation from any simple being with one's nature , feelings and thoughts , and those of others. It boils down to that should word, what everybody should be doing ... and points to childish desires to be superior to others in the eyes of -God/dess/parents/peers/society/the world etc... as one who follows the rules of the game.
Morality is quite a way down the ladder of things we come up with to substitute for the Tao, or our innate wizdom and natural state of being and communing, which we apparently have problems locating.
Moral judgments shouldn't (ha ha) even enter this subject, and only do so because people are still hung up on old-school paradigms of marriage and social taboos of the last century.
I've judged you all as guilty, lowly , fornicating $laves, in bondage with Fear!
Faulty Logic
Ecolocal, please, are you truly so immersed in the formless and quality-less purity of the Tao that you are superior to the rest of us fearful and judgmental "should"-ers? You're committing a classic hypocracy - and you seem to know it: that nobody SHOULD make moral judgments (implying that not making moral judgments is morally superior). It's this kind of thinking that allows us to turn a blind eye to moral atrocities - so long, of course, as they are not happening to US.
You may also be projecting your own desire to be superior on other people when you say that normative claims are a fancy game of one-upmanship. As I said in my first post, and as I believe Sunny is maintaining, the greater breadth and depth of more advanced moral systems are more INCLUSIVE AND ALLOWING, and do NOT attempt to make everyone else conform to their behavioral vision. Take for example, the concept of free speech, which emerges at Kohlberg's moral stage five - it doesn't DEMAND that everyone accept what everyone else has to say, just that nobody has the right to tape someone else's mouth for it.
Your own position is more evolved than a moral stance that there is one right way and that everyone who disobeys deserves to die. You owe your moral stance to a greater inclusivity only possible because of its advanced location along a developmental continuum, one that stretches from care and justice for only me, to only us, to all of us. And even if you're embarrassed to admit it (even to yourself), your stance is in fact a BETTER stance than those more constricted, narrow, judgmental, and oppressive than your own. It's not a BAD thing to discern the difference between right and wrong.
In saying this, I am NOT saying (nor is Sunny, I don't think) that any particular behavior is absolutely right or wrong. Absolutes are left for the Tao - which does not exist at some endpoint as you seem to say, but underlies this entire continuum of moral growth as the infinite context of every moment. So it's useless, by definition, as any kind of moral compass.
"There's no time for hatred - only questions..." - Jeff Buckley
Zaadz Visionary Music: michaelgarfield.zaadz.com
-
------------------------------------------------------------
My default mode of writing is irony. I find most philosophy and high-brow discussion - and myself- worthy of ironic mockery. . .
One translation of the verses i referred to goes:
18. HypocrisyWhen the Way is forgotten
Duty and justice appear;
Then knowledge and wisdom are born
Along with hypocrisy.
When harmonious relationships dissolve
Then respect and devotion arise;
When a nation falls to chaos
Then loyalty and patriotism are born.
19. Simplify
If we could abolish knowledge and wisdom
Then people would profit a hundredfold;
If we could abolish duty and justice
Then harmonious relationships would form;
If we could abolish artifice and profit
Then waste and theft would disappear.
Yet such remedies treat only symptoms
And so they are inadequate.
People need personal remedies:
Reveal your naked self and embrace your original nature;
Bind your self-interest and control your ambition;
Forget your habits and simplify your affairs.
-------------------------------------------------------
Morals are personal issues , there's no better or worse in theory, only in practice.
As i see it , and i am no master, tantric work seems to work best when done by a couple. It takes time to cultivate and develop. Sleeping around would just dilute it, unless all partners are part of the tantric working.
Good Luck!
More to the topic, it's absurd to even imply that "polyamory" is something new or advanced or superior to any other forms of love. There's no inferior or superior love, it's just love - isn't it?
Hooey
This is pretty barely disguised contempt for monogamy, and should probably be referred to as poly-arrogance. If you apply the barest minimum of rigorous honesty that the author is so in favor of to these claims, they all fall flat and can be applied to monogamy as well as polyamory. The author is clearly not merely portraying polyamory as "an option" but as the "better option", and says as much about 2/3 of the way through.
Polyamorists would do themselves a favor if they just came out and said "Look, I want to sleep with whoever I want, on my terms, and that's a condition of being in relationship with me" rather than trying to cloak some melodramatic Great Advanced Holiness around themselves.
"In its essence, polyamory is intimacy."
"The main feature is that all those involved would have full knowledge of, and consent for, what the others feel and do."
"a great deal of effective and honest communication is required to achieve this, and boundaries must be clearly and carefully established among all parties to prevent misunderstandings or disrespect."
Well, duh. These are not some special qualities or privileges belonging to polyamory that no other forms of relationship have. These are also fundamentals in a healthy monogamous relationship. The author is describing basic good communication skills in jobs, with parents, everywhere. And in no sense does polyamory advance this kind of communication over any other type of loving relationship.
"There is no particular guarantee about sex, quality time, income, and so on. "
Isn't guaranteed in monogamy, either.
"So, polyamory exists in a rare paradox of brave experimentality and playfulness, while remaining rigorously "no-bullshit" in the open communication of the positions of its participants."
I am trying very hard not to fall over laughing. The poly-arrogance in this statement is pretty clear. There is just as much bullshit in poly relationships as there is in monogamous ones, and to claim otherwise is foolish.
"So looking at it that way, the monogamous program in many cases is just a truncated and more dysfunctional version of polyamory: less duration and poorer communication."
Profoud poly-arrogance, based on specious arguments and incorrect assumptions.
"Many practitioners of polyamory are in long-term relationships. To do this sustainably requires participants to be highly functional, self-actualized and honest with themselves and about their interactions. In other words, this is not something that everybody can do. We all know that many lack the communication skills and ego security to even start an intimate relationship or maintain it, let alone add additional people to the equation."
Wow. Words fail. But thank goodness the author is so enlightened and can explain to the poor monogamous sots how incapable they are of handling the exceptional psychological brilliance of polyamorists.
And before the replies begin, let me state that nowhere have I said that polyamory is a bad thing. It's one wise option among many, and I'm merely taking this author to task for her poor arguments and half-truths.
Agreed
Am I loony, or...?
Grinder, it sounds to me like you actually AGREE with Sunny's central argument, even if you disagree with her semantics.
"There's no time for hatred - only questions..." - Jeff Buckley
Zaadz Visionary Music: michaelgarfield.gaia.com
No, it's more than
No, it's more than semantics. Her genuine central argument is that polys are better, wiser, deeper. Which is just wrong:
"To do this sustainably requires participants to be highly functional, self-actualized and honest with themselves and about their interactions. In other words, this is not something that everybody can do. We all know that many lack the communication skills and ego security to even start an intimate relationship or maintain it, let alone add additional people to the equation."
This summarizes what she's *really* getting at: that if you're good enough, you too can have a poly relationship.
Her discoveries about the basic nature of intimate relationships, while I'm very glad for all involved that she has figured them out, are nothing new under the sun. The way she uses them as a way of trumpeting polyamory shows a lack of insight parading as wisdom. And that should be pointed out.
polys vs. "polys"
Hmmm. Consider for a moment that taking into account the needs and desires of multiple people and effectively navigating them does in fact require more cognitive depth and emotional sensitivity. As you quoted, she does discuss this within the context of "sustainability," which implies to me a hardline distinction between polyamory as merely a categorizable pattern of behaviors and polyamory as a broader, more inclusive capacity to relate in a mature and modern way, situationally and contextually, with multiple companions of whatever variety (which is what I think she was trying to get at in the title of this article).
Look - I agree with several of the other commentators here that polyamory is a difficult word to properly reclaim. It's clear to me that there's a massive amount of confusion around this point.
But I think it's safe to say that if we look at it along a developmental continuum, what she's talking about - whatever you want to call it - demonstrates a deeper level of
emotional intelligence (in the same way that being able to juggle five balls demonstrates more kinesthetic intelligence than being able to juggle three). Being able to juggle multiple partners doesn't mean you WILL, or that you will WANT to, but it DOES in fact put you above the herd in terms of emotional maturity. IF - again - you really can do so sustainably.
And THERE'S the rub.
Consider for a moment that
Consider for a moment that taking into account the needs and desires of multiple people and effectively navigating them does in fact require more cognitive depth and emotional sensitivity.
Not by definition. Which situation gives you the most depth and sensitivity:
a. spending 10 years in a poly relationship, but never having the time to really get to know any of the partners truly well, and leaving when it gets tiresome to you, or asks you to be more selfless than you are willing to be.
b. having a child with serious developmental disabilities who you will be responsible for for the rest of your life, and not having a partner for help.
c. growing up in a war-torn, violent country where you will never be given the chance to be in a sexual relationship.
d. leading a monastic life, in which you spend many, many years alone.
There's no saying. You can't say, I can't say. Emotional wisdom is not a numbers game, or inherent in how many people you have sex with on a regular basis. The monk might be 1000 times more aware and wise and giving than the polyamorist. Or not.
Look - I agree with several of the other commentators here that polyamory is a difficult word to properly reclaim. It's clear to me that there's a massive amount of confusion around this point.
She's not trying to reclaim the term, she's trying argue that it's something that it's not. Polyamory means "I have more than one committed sexual partner". That's all. If you aren't sexually active with your partners, then you aren't polyamorous. You're a friend, a parent, a cousin, a co-worker. Etc.
Being able to juggle multiple partners doesn't mean you WILL, or that you will WANT to, but it DOES in fact put you above the herd in terms of emotional maturity.
Snobbery. Juggling the emotional needs of others is a fudamental skill of life. You don't have to be having a sexual relationship with that person to have their needs be important to you. There's no special emotional skills that you get from openly having many sexual partners that make you wiser than anyone else.
the numbers game
Again, we're talking capacities of an individual, not behaviors (murder does not necessary equal bad - it's the intent/motivation/consequences that determine these things), and it's a mistake to confuse them, as you seem to have done in your response. The monk might easily be taking more of other people's emotions into account than the behavioral polyamorist here (although many monks enter the monastery as a way of escaping social failure). Taking care of a disabled child without a partner's help requires conviction, but not emotional maturity (powerful love for one person doesn't guarantee that that single parent isn't a jerk to everyone else). The war-torn life example is entirely irrelevant, because - again - we're not talking about the opportunities that people are handed but what they are capable of knowing and feeling, how they act with what they have.
And lastly, Strassburg IS in fact attempting to restore some kind of etymological purity to the term, and to address her essay by stubbornly refusing to engage her within the linguistic context that she has set, you are intentionally confusing the discourse.
"There's no time for hatred - only questions..." - Jeff Buckley
Zaadz Visionary Music: michaelgarfield.zaadz.com
well as an ethics class
argument, perhaps we need the usual ripping the author's argument to shreds.But as an in depth approach the underlying issue, that this whole flap rises we are no further along. but hey i got a free lesson in how to tare a new hole in the hole.What did you say your name was? hip grinder?
but seriously, i think almost all these issues are just an excuse to have more sex on the deck of the Titanic, don't you agree?
Taking sex seriously
This is a great thread! Classic Reality Sandwich!
On sex and the titanic: cj has a humorous yet profound point to make. While one might assume that soldiers rape their conquered because they’re away from home, and just plain horny... Studies I've read show that there is an underlying expectancy of immediate certain death on the part of the soldier, which creates an above normal drive to procreate.
Personally, I think that terms such as sport fucking don't even begin to reflect the tenuous and troubled state of the contemporary collective psyche, as it reacts to the real possibility of a massive die-off.
"If only I could remember the future"
my big dick
spam-mail told me so, and hey they are getting more creative, one had the title " ram it down your girl friends throat"
well it least i could put that in the trashcan with out being fooled this time.
as they never tire of, sex sells, and i can't afford it, i mean i can't afford to upgrade my e-mail.I'm just payin off this new iMac.
and speaking of biological urges, and sexual revolutions, notice how AIDS sort of screwed that up? but i got my yaya's out before AIDS came down the pike.
also learning about sex magick was a great way to explore a relationship, i had the best experiences in my love life after performing the gnostic mass ritual.
it helps to sing the love song.
Clarity
I have been surprised by the emotional intensity this subject brought up for many readers. Also surprising for me is how the comments primarily focused on the sexual aspects of polyamory. The intention of the article was to shift focus from the sexual aspects to the emotional aspects of polyamorous intimacy.
Though the term polyamory is commonly used as shorthand for sexual openness, its core remains in the un-nameable poetry between souls as they recognize and honor the sparks they see within each other.
Of course, it is easy to magnetize to sex. It is titillating, particularly in a patriarchal culture which continues to suppress ‘feminine’ cultural qualities such as non-hierarchical social deepening, female sexual expression, and playfulness in social roles. The overall response is to shroud sexual and intimate openness with fear.
Also, (and I apologize if I failed to be clear) rather than asserting that polyamorous love automatically rates higher on the Kohlberg morality scale than monogamy, I hold that in order to engage with polyamory in an emotionally healthy and sustainable way, a more fluid level of moral development and communication is required.
Having said this, however, it must be acknowledged that such an ideal social container is rare, delicate, and maintenance-intensive. Predictably, importing a person who operates from the ‘lower' levels of moral development will almost certainly tangle the mobile of a polyamorous arrangement, interfering with factors of trust and communication.
Of course there are many pitfalls to navigate in a polyamorous relationship, and it would be pointless to go into the myriad ways that a relationship might fail. The intention of the article was to offer some way of grounding unconventional intimate relationships in a humanistic social philosophy that has some basic operating principles that will increase the success of the arrangement.
Perhaps because we do live in a hierarchically-driven, moralizing culture it is easy to mistake the terminology of “higher moral levels” with a more moral morality. (In the excerpt above, please note the quotes around the phrase “’lower’ levels”). Kohlberg’s progression of levels 1 to 6 did not necessarily advocate for the “upper” levels, but rather point out that there are separate systems based around a spectrum of social relatedness, ranging from selfish to idealistic. Each realm has its pitfalls and strengths.
Sunny Strasburg
www.sunnystrasburg.com
was your polyamorous writing intrest
The intention of the article
The intention of the article was to shift focus from the sexual aspects to the emotional aspects of polyamorous intimacy.
Polyamory is defined by its sexual aspects. That's what makes it polyamory.
The skills needed to have a healthy poly relationship are no different than those needed for healthy monogamy.
a more fluid level of moral development and communication is required.
More fluid than *what*? You can be poly and have terrible ethics and emotional insight. You can be celebate and have profound wisdom.
The intention of the article was to offer some way of grounding unconventional intimate relationships in a humanistic social philosophy that has some basic operating principles that will increase the success of the arrangement.
The intention of the article, which most posters picked up on, whether they agreed with you or not, was to prove the higher wisdom of polyamory. Which is false.
well dagnabit
what is true?
dig the poly, poly wanna?
the thang about faeries is that they don't care about making bein accurate within a centimeter of your litmus text of watt is false or not!
even is the implied intent is obvious or not.I mean to say that the author is flexing some part of need to become visible to the invisible meaning of discursive thought.
the faery will flit between yer catagorical emperative, and antithetical yer high-pot-noose.
sex, hex, vex, poly wogs and waly pogs. madmen and english dogs.
refusing common ground
Grinder, we could all do so much better than to quibble over semantics. Structurally, you and Strassburg seem to be in agreement. Don't get so stuck on a word.
"There's no time for hatred - only questions..." - Jeff Buckley
Zaadz Visionary Music: michaelgarfield.zaadz.com
well obviously
Nice Aspirations
Over the past several years, I've been around many who describe themselves as polyamorous. I've seen few people do it well. I attribute much of this to the bible of polyamory, "The Ethical Slut." While it has some excellent information about communication and relationships, there is one central tenet that seems to attract the insensitive, selfish and unethical: that of emotional self-sufficiency. The authors have said that in poly relationships, each person is responsible for his or her own emotions. This seems to be frequently translated to "I get to do whatever the fuck I want, and if you don't like it, that's not my problem." To me, this lack of responsibility, understanding and compassion is very devolved, and the exact opposite of intimacy and morality. (I'm talking about caring for others and trying to be kind and fair, not co-dependency.) Clearly, this is a lower level of development, and I've come across many more poly folk who operate at this level than at the higher level.
This is not to say that monogamy is perfect, because clearly it's not working for many. But I would ascribe this more to people not working on their own healing, and watching the fruits of unresolved issues blossom in their relationships. I know more than one person who has turned in their poly membership card when s/he got into a solid, stable, emotionally intimate monogamous relationship that included lots of hot sex.
Intimacy is not supposed to be easy. When you are with one person in a committed relationship, you have an incredible opportunity to work through your own shit. I'd say that often monogamous relationships fail not because of the nature of the relationship, but rather because one or both partners are not willing to do their work.
I recently finished reading David Schnarch's "Passionate Marriage," and believe it to be one of the best models of why mongamy goes right, and why it goes wrong. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to get more out of their monogamous relationship. (A lot of it is applicable to poly relationships as well.) I believe in everything. Nothing is sacred. I believe in nothing. Everything is sacred. -- Tom Robbins, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues
Longevity in Poly Relationships
"Though most people in a committed relationship would describe themselves as monogamous, over time, many – if not most – of these relationships are terminated by breakup or divorce, on average at about 4 to 5 years. In contrast, a survey of committed polyamorous couples found their average duration to be twice that, at over ten years."
I wonder if this longevity is because poly relationships are actually healthier, or if a relationship is on the verge of breaking up and the individuals decide to try to "fix" it by seeing other people. I know more than one poly couple who have fit that description, and their relationships last - yes - on an average of five years longer prior to breaking up.
While opening a relationship to others may distract the individuals from the issues of their own intimacy and their own relationship, it does little or nothing to resolve those issues.
I believe in everything. Nothing is sacred. I believe in nothing. Everything is sacred.
-- Tom Robbins, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues
blending of sexual energies....
I have read this entire thread with great interest. Having been involved with men who believe the polyamorous way is indeed a more 'evolved' way, I have grappled with this issue ad nauseam - partly because I understand the evolutionary mind leap it takes for most to be secure enough to be able to experience polyamory in a high form - with honesty and openness and sheer self-confidence. Yet what I keep returning to is the thought that committing to one sexual partner allows for the greater experience in the long run.
When we are consciously sexual with another, we are sharing our energy on a high level, blending our energies - energies of intimacy and acceptance, insight and trust. Can we truly do that on the highest level when we are also sharing those energies with others?
I get the "one love" concept, and agree with it. I get that we are multi-dimensional beings. I also acknowledge that we are here to learn soul lessons in our human forms. And it seems the human construct is more to mate/commit with one other - at least one other at a time. It's not a religious thing - even some other animal species mate for life. Part of the glory of being in human form is the choice we have. Thus, this whole conflict...
I'm questioning whether sharing the love, so to speak, actually dilutes or fragments the energy that can be used to reach intensely powerful levels when focused with one other committed and conscious person. I'd love feedback on this, as I continue to grapple.......
Hooey hit it on the other head that thinks...
It's simple... be who you are. Adults free to make their own sexual decisions. If it works it works. If it don't then it don't. If everyone agrees then why make it so complicated. I guess that's just the way we like our relationships.
Today is part of forever.