Sex In The Public Square - polyamory - Comments

I agree, but...

RC — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:32:03 -0700

This is a very positive vision and I applaud it. I think my partner and I have been lucky to find ourselves connected to a small group that includes other committed dyads and some ethical, respectful singles to engage in bdsm play and some sallies into non-monogamy. The size of the group matters, I think, and contributes to everyone's ability to assess the other's ethics. And I'd say that age is a factor but not a reliable indicator of maturity. Unfortunately, this is never a perfect game and it is risky. People's "issues" and relationship status changes over time and that's a wild card in the process. Of course, monogamous couples face the same uncertainty but I think the sex-positive do play with live ammunition. I'd like to throw in this little provocation: What do we think of kink's continued portrayal as an "exploration," a "voyage," or a "discovery?" The whole terra incognito metaphor seems to work for lots of people, but it isn't for me. Sure, it's a learning experience to get into poly or kink, especially the more challenging bdsm aspects, and I suppose the metaphor avails itself of the uncertainty of it all. But really, in my experience, "exploration" doesn't cover it. These are relationships, not continents. The terrain is affective and personal, not geographic. To make a new sexual relationship is a choice, an act, a creation, not a discovery of some preexisting condition or place. Isn't there a better metaphor out there? We aren't conquistadors, we're architects.

the myth

tracya — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:02:54 -0700

i agree with tom_paines comments about the term "love" and the phrase "i love you". as with any phrase the more its used the less meaning it carries. i(we) use it very sparingly in my(our) relationship, when we do use it carries greater meaning. if only people could say "i love myself" or "i love my life" with as much certainty and conviction as they seem to profess their love of another person...

on the subject of polyamory, i have long felt and argued that there is not "only one" perfect person in the world for each of us...and that our goal is to find "that" person. i strongly believe that there are emotional needs and emotional readiness that make a person "right". someone i met in my 20's may not be the person i would want to have a relationship with in my 40's. people twist themselves into all sorts of psychologically damaging knots trying to hold onto the myth that "til death do us part" is some kind of ideal goal...how about "to have and to hold as long as we are both content and able to give each other emotional intimacy"?

the myth of romantic love

tom_paine — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:42:52 -0700

Elizabeth, poly addresses this concept of "falling in love" with the descriptor NRE or "new relationship energy," that feeling of euphoria when we meet someone we're attracted to.

The problem in dealing with this topic is how poorly we understand the term "love," ascribing it to a variety of emotions. If one is intensely sexually attracted to another person, we assume it's love, rather than seeing it for what it really is. The term "love" is also hugely debased by our society, where we often use it to describe feelings that are transitory.

Finally, the young today are blurring the lines even more, telling their friends "I love you," instead of reserving that phrase for meaningful relationships that will last over time. As Snow Patrol sings in that song on "Grey's Anatomy" (a love fest for TV), "those three words/are said too much/and not enough."

Equality and polyamory

Elizabeth — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:04:17 -0700

it is so important to talk about equality when talking about rearranging society :)

RC, the questions you raise are all ones that I think would absolutely need attention in any reorganizing of family or rewriting of laws pertaining to households and chlidren and property, or in any changing of the culture around intimate, sexual relationships.

It's interesting that the concept of polyamory has developed as an alternative to to the concept of polygamy, not as a new word for polygamy. Part of this must be because of the assumpions about equality that seem to inhere in the discourse around polyamory. But holding those assumptions and actually creating institutional relationships that create equality are hardly the same thing! I don't think polyamory itself solves or exacerbates the problem. I do think that polyamory's assumptions tend to be more in line with creating equality in household and family relationships, than the nuclear monogamous household, though.

The myth of romantic love

Elizabeth — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:55:06 -0700

It's really remarkable how powerful that myth of romantic love as the basis for marriage has become, especially given how many people have the experience of "falling in love" and then falling back "out of" love again. I think that "romantic love" has power because it stands in opposition to more practical and less individualistic bases for marriage (e.g., marriage as an economic arrangement largely influenced if not determined by parents or other members of the community).

It's stunning, really, to think about basing what is, at least in the contract, expected to be a life-long commitment on an emotional state, given that emotional states are fluid. That said, there is no reason why polyamory couldn't also make use of some parts of the romantic myth while ditching others.

The romantic myth as currently held contains at least two parts: one is the "falling in love" part and the other is the "you're the only person for me" part. Poly culture could, I suppose, keep the first without the second, as many individuals already seem to do in practice if not in their belief systems.

I think my own hopes for a poly culture (not one that mandates polyamory but one that supports polyamory as a valid option and that incorporates poly households into its institutions) would be on that also challenged the romantic ideal and created new cultural understandings of love and intimacy, ones that blended individualism and community, and ones that blended emotions and pragmatism. I think such understandings of love would ultimately serve people as they try to negotiate and sustain committed relationships in a way that our current romantic myth cannot.

polygamy vs. polyamory

Tom Paine — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:47:46 -0700

Two points here: polygamy is often sexist in nature, and certain groups have forced young women into polygamous relationships.

Polyamory has social pressures of its own right, including the pressure to "get over" (i.e., suppress) issues of jealousy.

I think Elizabeth's point is valid (offering alternatives), though I think few people will take advantage of them, since the myth of romantic love is a powerful and long-lasting illusion, much like other social myths.

Is poly good for women?

RC — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:52:59 -0700

To preface: It's always fun to decry others for "thinking" for others, but the fact remains that we live within legal structures that do such "thinking" for us all the time. To critically engage those structures--I'll rename them discourses--we have to put forth an alternate discourse which is what we're doing here. Not all alternate discourses are millenarian thinking and by my reckoning an attempt to seriously discuss them definitely isn't. Now I'll post my contrarian idea. I can see an argument for continuing a legal regime that privileges monogamy for the simple reason that there are regressive forces that support polygamy as a means to subjegate women. That has been the historical use of polygamy in most cases we know. I know it isn't *necessarily* so - modern polyamory is envisioned as equal opportunity - but I have no faith, given the play of power in the wider social field, that poly wouldn't be turned to predominantly regressive uses. I realize that the monogamy-based legal regime hasn't been good for women for much of history but the legal protections of monogamy have been important in establishing protections and providing foundations of equality that are still being sought. Does legal polyamory undermine or support those advances? A few areas to think about: economic domination, paternity/maternity rights, health care provision, dispute resolution and property rights. These are areas that women routinely get short-changed and a poly-centered legal regime would have to deal with them. In short, it's still a misogynistic culture. Do you think poly would help solve that problem, or exacerbate it?

Since I raised the question...

Elizabeth — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:29:44 -0700

This is probably a good place to say "wow, I certainly should not have used the words 'the ideal' but should have used the words 'an ideal' instead."

I agree that there is not one ideal system that will work for everyone. A different way to express what I originally intended might be this way:

First, by "ideal" I mean a cultural belief that something is good and valuable and right.

Second, I would propose that openness, honesty, flexibility, sharing, community, compassion, and growth would be good "ideals" to espouse in a culture.

Third, those values can support monogamous sexual relationships or polyamorous sexual relationships. I would love to see our culture develop in a way that supports a range of alternatives to the monogamous nuclear family household. Such a culture, and such a society, might support extended family households, communal households (which might contain monogamous pairs or people living in a range of nonmonogamous relationships), individuals in their own households who link together in looser or tighter networks...

Now, could we do this while still giving legal privilege to the monogamous nuclear family household? I suppose so. But I hope we wouldn't.

It's hard to know if it would work...

Elizabeth — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:17:46 -0700

I wonder if one reason it is so difficult to make polyamory work is that we are so ill-prepared to try it. What I mean is that all of our cultural training is for monogamy. Our institutions support monogamy rather than nonmonogamy, so it isn't any wonder that monogamy works for more people. I wonder how many people polyamory or other nonmonogamous options would work for if those were also supported culturally and by our institutions.

(I'm headed over to the thread Tom_Paine just started to take up the question of replacing one limiting ideal with another.)

polyamory as an ideal

tom_paine — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:59:16 -0700

Polyamory is a poor choice for an ideal, since it barely works for its tiny number of adherents. Monogamy, for all its problems, has a long track record, with huge segments of the world successfully following it. Polyamory is like any other alternative lifestyle, it works for a minority of people and should be encouraged, but it hardly qualifies as "the answer."

There is no single ideal

Ruby — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:45:34 -0700

I'd have to agree that there's no need to promote any particular arrangement as the "ideal," but instead allow people to explore whatever solution is best for them.

Monogamy has always come easy to me. Now that I'm married with children, my biggest concern is not whether or not my husband is sexually faithful to me, but negotiating a balance regarding childcare, housework, social life and family income. Sometimes I'd be happy to let my husband get sex elsewhere once in a while just so I can catch up on my sleep;) But if he were to be spending his time outside the home with someone else, I would have to pick up the slack at home and that's what would make me resentful.

I love the idea of polyamory in theory, but I think that in practice it would be very challenging. It's taken me years to find one man that I'm compatible with on every level. I feel incredibly lucky to be so well-matched, and I'm a little doubtful that I'm going to run into many other people who could fit that bill. AND taking on another lover would mean that person would have to be compatible with both of us, which narrows the field even further.

Still, I'd like to be open to that possibility. The idea of a sister-wife actually has some appeal, and so does a brother-husband:) It's just that my standards are very high and we have a lot of family obligations already. It wouldn't seem fair to expect a third lover to take on the responsibilities of our family, nor would it be fair for either myself or my husband to divert our energies outside the home anymore than we already do. It's already a delicate balance but we manage it remarkably well.

Playing Mono-poly

Visitor — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:22:22 -0700

I agree that it's the universal application and expectation of monogamy that's a problem. There are circumstances that I can see monogamy as a good choice. Poly, in my very limited experience, does take an enormous amount of effort and commitment. Not just from you, but the group together, which is hard. It's like being in a rock band or something. When you have a demanding career or kids (or both) the effort you'd apply to being in poly tribe, for all of its appeal, can seem like too much.

Mongamy as an Ideal

Chris — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:59:11 -0700

I think that it's a bad idea to replace one default model with another. The problem with our current mono-focused society is that monogamy is presented as THE one-size-fits-all solution to relationships, and it's so obviously not. But poly takes a lot of balancing and juggling, too, and doesn't suit everyone at all times. It's important to be able to look at the different needs of relationships through their evolution and be able to have more than one solution.

Why not teach polyamory as an ideal?

Peach — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:47:52 -0700

I go back and forth about this all the time!

I think monogamy is a kind of... artificial (?) condition. I've been trying to maintain an open relationship for about two years based on that principle: it's natural for us to be attracted to other people and it's not wrong to act on it, but in a relationship our sexual decisions necessarily affect both partners, so that has to be taken into consideration.

Sometimes it works, but working out the details takes a lot of discussion, sometimes argument.

So we're trying to train ourselves in the ideals of openness, but we're no more equipped for that than we are to be exclusive, and I often ask myself whether it wouldn't be easier to default to monogamy just to minimize the conflict. ; )

I'd love to hear from others who have more success maintaining variations on conventional relationships!