Polyamory on Parade
This article was written with Coyote Marie and other friends.
baton twirler: Sitting on my gramma's porch last Friday, a voice came into my head clear as day -- which is not something I'm used to, let me tell you! -- and it said, simply, "Love means you have to share it."
snare drum: Polyamory: participation in multiple and simultaneous loving relationships, The term dates from the 1960s or earlier, a hybrid of the Greek poly ("many") and the Latin amor ("love").
tenor drums: Polyamory is monastic -- turning the world into a church: a self-aware, perpetually evolving, erotic church, one through which Love constructs relationships hindered neither by egoic fear nor the machinations of culture.
tympanis: Love passes the polyamorist from one partner to the next.
bass drum: Therefore, let desire not interfere with the machinations of Love.
cowbell: Communism's great mistake was misapplication. Polyamory makes us "communionists." Love governs all.
triangle: The breath of polyamory is self-awareness.
cymbals: The blood of polyamory is freedom.
gong: The soul of polyamory is dignity.
tambourine: When monogamy is the status quo, the first polyamorists seem freakish, but then it is like a contagion.
maracas: For me, it's so much more real and true than the cage of monogamy.
trumpet: I cheated, but it wasn't even sexual for me. It happened in a moment of compassion for my friend. I somehow spontaneously channeled a higher-worldly force that moved through me to sexually heal her. I couldn't stop saying, "There's enough of me to go around." It was beautiful and amazing. How can this be wrong? Is this "cheating"?
To think you own your partner -- to think you have more of a stake in his/her body than anyone else: this seems tragically wrong, to me.
And the presumption that Love is finite and to be hoarded! Have mercy!
bassoon: "Polyamory" means "love of many" -- not "sex with many." And monogamy doesn't mean "sex with one." It means "marriage to one."
tuba: I don't think he really understood what I mean by "polyamory." He saw it as increased sexual opportunity.
sousaphone: Monogamy provides protection against people like this guy -- and people like him necessitate monogamy.
tuba: Frankly, he found the honesty part of polyamory as a major hurdle. He said, "People will think it's freakish. You just can't be that honest."
Sure, it is easier to be manipulative, and more ego-gratifying if people are competing for you -- but honesty and trying to find a way to be wholly myself in this world is everything to me.
sousaphone: If people were competing for me, it would not be ego-gratifying. I would be humbled and grateful, and I would not manipulate them. I would share myself polyamorously and conscientiously, following my heart. We are meant to be gifts to each other, so it's wrong to be manipulative.
tuba: In the end I told him, "Love who you want, but don't pit other women against me or try to pit me against them, I will not cooperate. I will just let you go to find what you really want and need in life, because I'm not about lying. I'm not there anymore. I don't have to be like that -- I'm a lova in a good way."
sousaphone: The more we understand about where people like this guy are coming from, the less power they have, and the less they exist. Such people are the impetus for exploration into our own unresolved issues, so we have that to thank them for. Their ignorance is a gift when it serves knowledge.
euphonium: I had a dream that Rose Mary makes love to everyone in the world. Rose Mary is my soul -- the divine feminine. In making love to everyone in the world, she sees past ignorance to the essence within people, and they feel her feeling them. For her, lovemaking and sex are most often exclusive of each other.
In a vision I had, Rose Mary humbly bowed her head and said, "Making love."
mellophone: Intercourse is the zenith of lovemaking, balanced atop a colossal pyramid of compassion.
marimba: In my dream I was sitting between Coyote Marie and Mary Peacock, an artist friend of mine in high school. We were in a high school classroom -- a big shop class that was really nice. The window was open and it was a gorgeous sunny day. You could see the ocean off in the distance. The room was on the 4th floor of this really nice high school. It was the first day of school.
I'm sitting there grumbling, but Coyote Marie and Mary Peacock are in a good mood. I say, "But I don't wanna take ‘Introduction to Polyamory'! This class is gonna suck! I mean, no offense, guys, but I don't know if I wanna take this class with you."
They were really into it and just pshawing my reservations, saying, "C'mon, Marimba, dude. Lighten up. It's gonna be fun."
Then I was like, "Jesus, look at these little construction paper name-tag things we each have: they can't even spell ‘polyamory' right! it's spelled ‘polyamery'! How can I take a class they misspell the name of?"
Then there was more eye-rolling from the girls.
congas: The misspelling suggests that polyamory has not been clearly spelled out for you, it's a little sloppy; the rules are not clear.
I have to take the class. I need it for graduation; and then I will be able to spell it out correctly for my students.
saxophone: She talked about how some of her jealousy issues are that new kind of jealousy: seeing people living from their true selves making her jealous of them, but for her own true self.
Also it turns out her boyfriend is giving her major traditional jealousy problems over some boy she is friends with, and she feels sad to be trapped in a situation all over again where monogamy is lording over her feelings.
trombone: The bulk of our conversation centered around the fact that she and her man are talking about opening up their relationship to other sexual partners -- after a surprise makeout she'd had with a friend of a friend. Actually, it's a similar story to my experience with the Drum Major: the suddenness of it and the intensity, even the same qualities having attracted us both.
oboe: I was totally not expecting to meet someone who could talk so openly and heartfully with me about polyamory and how it might work; how to navigate it within a deep partnership, and what's scary about it -- yet how good it feels.
clarinet: He's gone through a change similar to mine since I last saw him. I was expecting a chubby grungy boy hiding behind his long hair and pipe. Instead I met a slender, self-possessed clean-cut boy with nothing to hide. It was like a mirror! We talked for a long time about a lot of stuff -- art, family -- but then I found myself, again in the same day, hearing "Oh, I experimented a lot with polyamory and rather swore off it, but am forced to reconsider it lately." So, another good long talk about polyamory and joy and fear and wholeness and pitfalls and variations.
bass drum: I've not met a man so articulate and versed in his own processes, or in touch with the waking dreams that run between us all. We didn't touch at all there on the beach. We sat and moved our hands in the sand and felt the electricity between us and talked. At one point he said, with deep realization, "You're making love to me right now," which was true. But what man feels that, and understands it, and says it, and can let it be? Amazing.
bass guitar: My first response is, "Wow. That's really neat." My second is that my male self would have felt the same thing, and then seen it as a rung toward sex.
bass drum: He was clearly fighting it being a rung toward sex. I'd never seen a guy be like that before.
I have a very clear feeling that that's the proper stance to take. That my beeing [sic] with him is partly about him doing that dance, the dance of learning not to use emotional intimacy as an excuse for sex.
bass guitar: Last night, I was checking out what it might feel like for me to be with him. It was like giving myself to the love you receive. Receiving him with you holding me feels like receiving you through him.
I see a day where we won't have to process so much in pairs with the door shut behind us. We all will be so present in each other that if one meets two, then the three may go forth.
bass drum: This feels like my dream, the warm open tropical kitchen of produce and lovers spilling over into each other, the dream I want to portal through my space, a dream I would give to you.
vibraphone: I don't want to be emotionally dependent on you. And I want to give you my heart purely. I think that is key to polyamory for me. Polyamory for me is being way more self-aware and honest than I can be as a monogamist.
flugelhorn: In the future if there should be a time to dance away from each other, we will never be distant. The purest love knows no distance. The purest love knows all.
xylophone: In future relationships -- sexual or not -- I will share myself, and receive what others share with me, and hope my needs do not ask for too much and that I can keep from granting too much. Polyamory cannot function without a high degree of self-awareness.
glockenspiel: I want to share some dreamwork from last night's dream: the line "I can be a footsoldier too," offered as an invitation to gentle waking love. The "footsoldier" part was bugging me, so I looked it up and went, "Oh!" and then, "Oh wow!"
Footsoldiers are infantry, the ones who fight their fight on the ground, face to face. Also, historically they sustain the brunt of the casualties.
I think dreaming "I can be a footsoldier too" is in regard to part of my conversation with Claves, where he kept saying how he couldn't see how polyamory, or just us making love, wouldn't lead to terrible pain. I said that the pain I'm done with is the pain of giving myself away to another person, the pain of loneliness for my self -- or anything else in this new world. And the subtext I couldn't quite voice was that avoiding future pain is a terrible reason to deny present love. If pain for the cause, then yes, pain. I am a footsoldier for Love.
cornet: This is what polyamory looks like: when you enter into relationship with me, you navigate relationship with those I love.
piccolo: Polyamory reconstructs identity purely from Love.
flute: Love melts us all into one, dissolving all marriages into marriage with itself.
electric guitar: In my world there is no sacrifice or compromise -- and I don't believe there is in evolved polyamory, or in Christ -- his was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. In my world there is only the heart's desire balanced with the mind's wisdom, which gives everyone what they need.
band director: I dreamed we are at Gretchen's -- a group of 6 or 7 of us, different ages. It's a powwow. Gretchen tells us of her visions, and is frank open vulnerable loving questioning, about this work we're all doing for the future. The dream takes a long time, in real time. The energy is huge, but not at all rushed. We sit on the floor.
Gretchen holds a circle. She wants to know if we have questions. My hand shoots up immediately, I know my question will be: "Is polyamory real?" It's not my turn. I wait.
Gretchen speaks to my brother. With him she sits straight and speaks straight, firm and clear, directive.
She's in throes of some kind, moved more and more by the love moving through her in her work. It nears my turn. She moves toward me; she is languid with the process, dissolved into love. My question dissolves into our communication, moot in the face of such appreciative, mutually instructive sharing. These meetings are rare, but so important.
I hold her as it's my turn. She moves more and more to me, laying-sitting with me, her head laid on my heart. She looks in my eye and says to me, "Excalibur."
"I have to tell you!" I say, so full of love and wonder, as is she.
"Tell me," she smiles.
I say -- about laying with a lover -- "Like this," and I speak with my body, emphasizing touching her, one hand at the back of her head and one holding her body. She smiles, knowing, but knowing now, because I tell-touch her. "Mmmm," with the meaning.
I am telling her about Amy and love in the new world and art and color and purpose and all of our work and I'm not using words so much as feelings; word-feelings, communication so deep and lucid it's word-form is indiscernible from its felt-meaning, spoken and passing between our bodies. I say, "I am a knight," and I feel her response: "Yes. Yes. Yes, this is a crucially important revelation."
The dream was all dialogue, but now in waking-life the words are feelings, I can't transcribe them 1 to1.
Such intense love, whole love, accounting for everything. She asks if I have visions and I do, I do; I yearn to share them. I'm telling her about Amy and show her a picture.
Is there such a thing as peaceful urgency, fullness flowing into the now, through body-minds in work-love-preparation with each other? Powerful. A room full of people learning sharing praising their/each-others' power. Art power. A powwow for Kingdom come, as it does, in life. Like what's your flavor? What's your flavor? Holding Gretchen, she is as loving of me. She responds gently warmly to my story, about me and Amy, it's a right story, right work, bathes her in love.
She is asking us questions not as a shrink but a woman genuinely needing to know; all of us kneading needing each others' reflection to support us in our love-work. She is so eager. I am too, so excited energized by this communication.
Amy: You don't even have to verbalize your question, "What is polyamory?" Just holding it in your mind and waiting for your turn dissolves the scene into mutually instructive love and sharing; deep communication. Communication is touch -- being in touch with, a communion.
Image by peasap, courtesy of Creative Commons license.
Tweet- 11-4-09
- Amy George's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version










Comments
Society's Modern Sexual Psycho Babble? Forgive Me.
I will try not to be critical, I will try to be honest, which of course is my subjective view only. Much of this sexual psycho babble I simply don't understand, but more importantly--- I simpy don't believe it. When that happens I return to my trusted fundamentals. Darkness. I can't believe that much of the article's "dialogue" is conducted via musical instruments, and is creative and well written. Well Done! So in that sense we have something in common. I also refer to meaningful music for inspiration. Nile's--- Those Whom The God's Detest, and ISIS's---Wavering Radiant/ Tool's Adam Jones is involved with this album. Both brand new Blackened Death Metal Albums. Both these are exceptional examples as well as Authentic views of the Modern World as it truly is--- a lie. I simply deny this entire illusion of God, Love, Light, merging oneness, evolving society's etc. The World is nothing but darkness and pain, these are the forces that must be mastered, and self sacrifice is in fact essential to this formula. To open one's spiritual/psychic self up to this modern view of sexual healing and sharing is dangerous. One must ritualize the primal fears--death and sex--- and not only survive them, but learn to command/control these demons within ones's self. This is the only way to point our terrified selves forward. DEFY and DENY the Light, there is no Light! This is the only genre of music that speaks the truth the world apparently doesn't want to hear. Pity! Let's be honest, The world has always been horny--- our very purpose is genetically imprinted--Multiply, and with nearly 7 billion simians crawling all over each other, with nearly 56% of the global population female, naturally you will have a lot of tactile stimulation --- but Love Goddess's and Sharing and Light and Healing--- False, Denied! Illusions of the mad monkey. Peace.
detailed response
Hello highryder,
If you are not familiar with my other work, I write a dream interpretation blog – Ask the Dream Queen. It turns out I was dreaming in anticipation of what my response would be to your thoughtful response. The dreams I had about this were so rich that I could not resist writing a longish and detailed reply to your comment, which I am posting to “Ask the Dream Queen” today.
The darkness of the womb is peaceful beyond understanding. Peace to you.
Peace to your honesty,
Peace to your honesty, Highryder. I appreciate that the theme touches something in you so deeply. You talk about the Modern World, and a "modernized view" being expressed here. My experiences of love reflected here do not partake of the lie of the Modern World, and I wouldn't call anything expressed here either modern or a singular "view" at all. Just music. My experiences of love reflected here were and are experiences -- not some thing to be believed in, but living moments. Just life -- a life I want to live. In terms of "ritualizing the primal fears," check out this recent article about ritual, I found it really helpful: http://www.realitysandwich.com/rituals_lover_earth
One monkey to another,
Coyote Marie
The Garden of Earthly Delights
“To whom do we tell what happened here on earth, for whom do we place everywhere huge mirrors in the hope that they will be filled up and will stay so?”—Czeslaw Milosz
Hi Amy,
While I have the greatest of respect for the vision states that give rise to your concept of “polyamory,” on the more ambiguous level of day to day relationships, I do have some doubts about whether this approach is practical. But first, a confession: except for one situation in which I was accidentally going out with two women at the same time—because I was not sure if one of the relationships was on or off—I have always been a “monogamist,” and have never “cheated” on the person with whom I was involved.
This was not due to any desire to defend “traditional moral values” against the incursions of the modern world, not did it have much of anything to do with some philosophical superstructure. Very simply, I like clarity and have a horror of melodrama. To stay wide open creatively I—somewhat paradoxically—feel the need for a certain “bourgeois” predictability.
Through the years, I have had many friends who have experimented with various types of “open” relationships. After brave beginnings—and even with the most clear cut of mutually agreed upon contracts put in place—such experiments almost inevitably veer off towards disaster.
As is perhaps more clearly seen in politics, there is a shadow side to much utopian energy; exactly because this energy is so luminous, it can take time for our eyes to adjust, and for our minds to take stock of the contradictory things that are at one and the same moment going on. The mind may be saying one thing while the emotions are saying something very different. A gulf may open up between imagination and reality that only becomes apparent somewhat later.
If two people could participate in a shared state of “enlightenment,” and if their understanding of the implications of this state were the same, and if their relationship to this state remained constant over time—then there would not be any problem. This description does not correspond, however, to any actual relationships that I have seen.
For even the most self-possessed, it is very difficult to predict how one will feel when one’s partner becomes infatuated with another. The drug-like euphoria of the new romance can easily make the subtler but perhaps deeper love of the older relationship appear to be inadequate in comparison. And if both partners are equally transported by their new encounters, then both may wonder if there is anything of the original bond left. This type of dynamic is inherently unstable; it is like a spinning top that is waiting for the right moment to tip over.
In spite of these reservations, I do see enormous value in your exploration of “polyamory”; if the concept is not firmly grounded in our immediate social reality it is nonetheless grounded in the larger reality of the spirit, and your intuitions may prefigure a shift in the relationship between Self and Other—even if this shift is not specifically “romantic”—in which the Self is perceived as only one among many points in an infinite web of relationships, with each point acting as a “mirror” as well as a “doorway” to all others.
Such a web exists in and of itself, of course; it coheres in a state of omnidirectional transparency. The question is rather one of access; how does the limited self get from here to there—from the center to the circumference of the web, and then back again to the center—if it must drag the whole of the Body Politic along with it on its voyage; how do we translate our experiences of illumination into a form that is available for public use, while at the same time doing justice to the radical complexity of our vision.
In the arts as in politics, we must again create a meeting place in which the utopian imagination is free to play—with the full knowledge of how easy it can be for our projects to go haywire.
A concept such as “polyamory” can allow us to view our habitual ways of doing things as by the light of an alternate sun. I would only ask that we should accurately take stock of our weaknesses as well as our strengths, and that we not fall prey to wishful thinking—in assuming ourselves to be more “evolved” than we actually are.
Such relationships exist, they're just not very common
Brian,
You say, "If two people could participate in a shared state of “enlightenment,” and if their understanding of the implications of this state were the same, and if their relationship to this state remained constant over time—then there would not be any problem. This description does not correspond, however, to any actual relationships that I have seen."
Well, there are such relationships out there. I'm in one, as I describe in this comment:: http://www.realitysandwich.com/love_detachment#comment-33401
And things don't even need to remain constant over time. So long as all parties are committed to show up and stay in the room (and they have the necessary dialogue tools), pretty much any issue can be addressed.
A single connection is the quantum unit of the sacred.
irresistible
Brian, all I can say is polyamory is not for everyone. I feel belittled at the implication that I may be a person who is not as evolved as she thinks she is.
I do not feel that the voices of the piece are naive utopians; more guided by idealism than impersonal, irresistible forces.
I do not believe the ruthlessness of wholeness on humans and their relationships can be underestimated, or predicted in view of historical precedent.
"The Earth will assume the shape of our living bodies"
Hi Amy,
1) The comment at which you take offence was not directed at you, any more than it was at me, or at any of the other friends whose experiences were in my memory as I was turning over in my mind the concept of your piece; nor do I anywhere accuse the instruments in your band of being "naive utopians."
This sentence referred rather to the difficulty of translating an expansive state of vision into the more limited context of our practical actions in the world. My request was that we "accurately take stock," in the sense of not being taken over by the images that we project.
Most certainly, this applies to all of us--writers, artists, spiritual theoreticians--who are attempting to move back and forth between dimensions, but it also applies to almost anyone who has been picked up and swept away by love, and who must then determine how this experience of ecstasy fits in with day to day complexity of a relationship.
In this four or five hours that it took to write this comment, I took your vision seriously, as I attempted to test its implications against what I have actually seen, heard, felt, and intuited, in order to dethermine whether or not and/or to what extent I agreed with the concept of "polyamory" as you presented it, since I was not sure just what my attitude might be at the beginning.
Out of all of this, you have somehow singled out a line at which you have chosen to take offence.
2) I tend to see "polyamorism" in a historical as well as a contemporary context. The halluncinatory eroticism of French Surrealism is one of the things that first comes to mind. Here are two brief excerpts from a poem called "Of No Age" by Paul Eluard:
"a)The Earth will assume the shape of our living bodies
We will force ourselves on the wind
The sun the night will pass into our eyes
And never change them
Our sure space our pure air will suffice
To close the hiatus habit wedged in time
We shall enter upon a trackless memory
Together we shall speak a sensitive language"
b) "And I'm not alone
A thousand images multiply my light
A thousand similar glances soothe the flesh
It's the bird the child the rock the plain
Becoming one with us
The gold laughs to find itself our of the depths
Water and fire go nude for just one season
The brow of the universe bears no eclipse."
belly of the mystery
My apologies, Brian. I know how obnoxious it can be when someone takes one sentence out of an essay of mine; dismisses all else and twists the sentence apart to suit their issues. I always take issue at this slightest implication that someone knows my business better than me; and I invent that implication sometimes.
For me, polyamory ultimately defies the projection that accompanies romantic attraction because of the honesty and self-awareness it demands. I am aware that Utopians' desires excede what is realistically possible, and do not consider myself a Utopian..I am not young in years either. And I have traveled the world inside and out.
I rest in the belly of mystery because it swallowed me, and someday my flesh will be mystery itself. Then I will let them mock and belittle me to their hearts' content and not utter a word in response.
"Thus we will walk on the ruins of a vast sky"--Yves Bonnefoy
Hi Amy,
You wrote, "I always take issue at this slightest implication that someone knows my business better than me."
I'm afraid that my comments were not really about you at all; I was attempting to make sense of the concept of "polyamory" in terms of the complexities of my own experience.
My sense is that a person's erotic multidirectionality is determined more by his/her nature and biology and early background than by any philosophical overview.
For example--I grew up with grandparents who were happily married for more than 50 years. Even when they were in their 70s there was still a romantic charge to their rapport. On some unconscious level, it is possible that their relationship has been set up as a model.
In this, as opposed to a great many other areas, it would seem that my attitudes are all too boring and conventional; they would not raise any eyebrows at a church social in Kansas.
where she stops nobody knows
Hi Brian, Let's say my neurosis caused me to see the slightest implcation where there was not any. Mea culpa.
I do not think your attitudes are boring or conventional at all. Perhaps someone who sees boring and conventional as the opposite of freedom would. I do not find polyamory exciting and uncomventional. I find it true for me.
I guess you were not implying that my attitudes are exciting and unconventional by saying yours are boring and conventional. They might raise eyebrows in the Land of Oz.
my revolver
had rubber soul, I wanted to love all the people, Bassooner then later.I took a detour through Illuminations.Now, all my secret meetings in ruins of flowers became a hide and seek game with a thousand and one starry nights.I followed the many shapes through the house of mirrors, her reflection like the Bride stripped bare.the shiny shinny glass becoming a Dali Tyger bright.A thousand rooms to live in and stack with used books.I write, but what is this that i write, all i can think of is Lamia, Lamia.I'm connected to the funhouse from a passage in some old novel she left on the table.Now she walks naked through distant halls, with red hair that looks like seaweed.I'm standing on a cliff now, my face looks like Maldoror, as i stand here dreaming of Lovecraftian ships out on the sea, a vision of a goddess mermaid rises out of the dark water, I have been wandering through visions for centuries, as i stand here the wind blowing through me like circus knives, she transforms into a christ like figure, a mary jane whore, a candy stripe, a grade B actress, a Egyptian Nun, I'm floating in a floatation tank, and my wife is whispering her name to me from lifetimes of DNA spirals.
revolutionrabbit.blogspot.com
social conditioning
Jealousy
I'm doing my research on polyamory and working from an evolutionary psych perspective which posits that, as humans, we're programmed to form multiple attachments to one another. Attachment researchers suggest that our earliest, pre-Oedipal relationships with primary caregivers affect the way we behave in adult romantic interactions, and that insecurely attached people engage in dismissive, fearful/avoidant or preoccupied patterns depending on social conditioning and parental behavior. Securely attached people tend to be monogamous, which brings into question the perceived "evolved" status of polyamorous people. I'm hypothesizing that a lot of people who engage in polyamorous relationships are motivated by unconscious conflicts about the reliability of their love objects.
The things I've read in forums like these seem to suggest otherwise. If I take what people are saying at face value, polyamory is more about sharing one's soul with others through a network guided by principled love. Jealousy doesn't play a role, which seems unrealistic to me given the body of infant research indicating that jealousy is discernable at 6 months of age. Evolutionary theorists suggest that jealousy plays an adaptive function in our mating strategies, and perhaps non-jealous, polyamorous behavior is part of the evolutionary shift in consciousness associated with 2012, but if that's the case then my research hypothesis isn't adequately capturing polyamory as a construct.
I guess my main question for those who are polyamorous is: Do you feel jealous? Do you think that on some level you might be jealous but are successful at keeping your jealousy out of conscious awareness? If your jealousy is conscious, do you use strategies to counteract it? If so, what are they?
Getting past jealousy is generally a learned trait.
I haven't felt much jealousy since I decided to abandon it in the crucible of my first marriage almost 40 years ago. For me, the response to a twinge is to acknowledge it, sit with it, feel it and let the insecurity at its core slowly reveal itself. The healing mantra is, "I love you, I do not possess you. Only in liberty is there love."
I have found that as I progress on my path, working to become less reactive and less "attached" in a Buddhist sense, my love for all beings, including people, grows. So does the joy I feel whenever others feel joy. Since love brings joy, I feel my greatest joy when those I love, love in their turn. The way their love is expressed, or the object of it, is not the issue.
If the feeling of love cannot be put in a box, neither can its expression.
Your language suggests you are on the outside looking in. I humbly submit that this is a Heisenbergian situation where the observer must become part of the experiment in order to obtain valid results.
Bodhi
A single connection is the quantum unit of the sacred.
Jealousy is a natural
Jealousy is a natural response to many situations - polyamorous or not. However, there are healthy and unhealthy variants on it, and like any emotion, we can choose how we want to react to it- at least up to a point.
An analogue that comes to mind is in yoga- you need to discern between a stretch that is providing a great deal of "sensation" (most of us call this pain), and something that is actually causing damage.
Communication with your partner(s) is part of this in relation to jealousy. There's nothing at all wrong with saying "X is making me jealous, let's talk about it." There are times when we come to an impasses between the needs of a partner and our own needs. Relationships change, sometimes they end. That's life. But more often than not the right course to take is pretty clear, and it always begins with communication.
http://joinmycult.blogspot.com
Compersion, not jealousy
Amy, your orchestra needs an audience. Every standing ovation begins with one lone fool standing up. I'm your fool.
Bravo, bravo, bravissimo. I have never seen polyamory described so lyrically or so well before.
I've been poly since 1970 (though not all my partners have shared that view, unfortunately). I've seen its highs and lows. I have been transcendentally freed by shared love, and I've been crushed as it has run up on the reefs of human frailty. I have never lost the conviction that it expresses a deep truth, both about people and about the way the universe itself works.
You hit the nail on the head when you say "The breath of polyamory is self-awareness." It requires a great deal of self-awareness, a commitment to inner work and a willingness to face one's shadows. Of course that path is not one most people are drawn to. And that's too bad, because its rewards go so far beyond polyamory and compersion. They also encompass more prosaic qualities like compassion, loving-kindness and gratitude. These are the qualities that turn mere existence into full-throated living, that let us reach up from the mud and touch the sacred.
Love for all beings includes love for all people, and whether there is sex involved or not, that's what it will take to save this troubled world.
You have touched me very deeply today. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Bodhi
A single connection is the quantum unit of the sacred.
the self-begetting
Namaste, Bodhi. Thank you kindly for your appreciation.
Hi DiAmbrosio,
For many polyamorists, polyamory prompts partners to discuss jealousy issues openly and honestly.
I had a dream many years ago - before polyamory was possible for me – that said, “Jealousy is a choice,” which is something I firmly believe. It is a craving that may be turned away from or released. In its place, one is likely to feel sorrow. Such sorrow is ultimately because of a lack of wholeness and self-awareness. I manage such sorrow by feeling it, and letting it move through me without blaming anyone for it. I take responsibility for it, which can only enhance self-awareness and the ability to flow with the currents of polyamory.
Though jealousy may have served evolution, it does not today. I wonder if this related to increaeed rates of autism – autistics by definition seemingly being incapable of jealousy.
Whether in an infant or adult, jealousy is saying, “I am not me without you,” which is false. Each of us has a whole self that exists independently of those around us. To deny this is a kind of suicide: “I can’t live without you.” There is hardly any self-awareness in such a statement except for an infantile awareness of separation from the whole.
Jealousy is deep and primal, while the wholeness of polyamory is deeper and more primal; asking the polyamorist for the optimum honesty and self-awareness, which a child falling into the world of experience must forgo.
I believe that polyamorous behavior is part of the evolutionary shift in consciousness associated with 2012. The soul is no longer satisifed with projecting an absent parent onto a partner, and going from one to the next looking for that parent - necessitating committment. Instead, one must become one's own Mother & Father & Child.
Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}Thank you for the responses.
Thank you for the responses.
Bodhi, I am indeed on the outside looking in. Perhaps someday this won't be the case. Jealousy is still something I need to unlearn before polyamory will be an option for me.
Amy, it's interesting that you bring up autism. I've worked as a behavior therapist with autistic children for the last five years. I don't completely agree with you that people on the autism spectrum are free of jealousy--I've seen it in some of my higher-functioning cases. I think jealousy with autistic people expresses itself in less obvious ways, possibly as a function of language impairment but moreso related to theory of mind deficits. Autistic "mindblindness" and the difficulty understanding that one's own thoughts are separate from those of others manifests in an inability to understand personal pronouns. "Me" is used interchangeably with "you," and I've always wondered if this difficulty differentiating between self and other is part of a growing collective consciousness. The increasing incidence of autism would seem to suggest so.
Anyway thanks again for your responses. They do clarify some things for me.
revolutionrabbit
Amy
I don't get it.
Ok, first of all, I am poly. I have been for about five years.
With that said, I have been trying to make some sense of this for the past half hour and it makes absolutely no sense at all.
What is it, exactly? What are you saying?
Would he were fatter! But I fear him not:
Yet if my name were liable to fear,
I do not know the man I should avoid
So soon as that spare Cassius. He reads much;
He is a great observer
my take
It is a genral overview of polyamorous experience and perspective presented through a number of voices remarking on their association with polyamory . It is parading their experience and perspectives; making music of them. The non-traditional presentation reflects the non-traditional nature of polyamory; as well as the importance of listening/music/celebration in spiritual evolution. That's my take.
Growth