|
POLYAMORY: WHAT IT IS & WHAT
IT ISN'T
by Derek McCullough and David S. Hall, Ph.D.
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there
is no path and leave
a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson
Polyamory - What it is..
"Your love is located within you. It is yours to nurture and
savor, to give to
others in any way you choose. Love must be without
qualifications or demands.
You must learn to find ecstasy in other peoples happiness.
Once you feel love
for yourself, it is quite normal to give it away." Wayne
Dyer Gifts from Eykis
Polyamory has been defined as the philosophy and practice of
loving more than
one person at a time with honesty and integrity. Synonyms
for polyamory are
responsible, ethical, and intentional, non-monogamy. Because
those descriptions
are somewhat clumsy, the term Polyamory was coined in the
late 80's by a pagan
Priestess, Morning Glory Zell, and defines a range of
different lifestyle
alternatives. In most cases, but not all, this involves some
sexual or at least
intensely intimate sensual behavior.
There have been various polyamorous communities and
communes, perhaps the most
famous being the Onieda Community in New York State in the
mid-1800's, but
generally they are isolated and keep their heads down, given
the prevailing
moral climate.
What do Polyamorists, in general, say they believe?
Polyamorists say that their philosophy is nothing more than
a straightforward
acceptance and celebration of the realities of human nature.
Polyamorists say that sex is not the enemy, that the real
enemy is the deceit
and betrayal of trust that results from trying to shoehorn
our natural selves
into a rigid, unnatural social system.
Polyamorists say that sex is a positive force if applied
with honesty,
responsibility and trust.
Polyamorists do not have to individually meet every need of
each partner; they
have help. If your wife loves opera and you dislike it,
maybe one of her lovers
will enjoy taking her to hear it. If he is also a computer
whiz, and helps fix
your computers when they don't behave, you are a very lucky
person.
Polyamorists say that love is an infinite, not a finite
commodity. An example of
this is with children. When my oldest daughter was born, I
loved her with every
ounce of my being. When my son was born, I found that I
didn't have to give them
half a love each, I could love them both fully. My third
child is loved as much,
if not more, than the other two.
This also applies to friends - when you meet someone new,
you don't have to
think about who you are going to drop off to make them fit.
As a woman said when
explaining why she chose polyamory - "I refuse to accept the
myth that I have to
stop loving one person before I start loving another."
Polyamorists say that loving someone does not give you the
right to control that
person's behavior.
Polyamorists say that jealousy is not innate, inevitable and
impossible to
overcome. But they deal with jealousy often, usually
successfully. There is a
new term for the opposite of jealousy. "Compersion" is the
feeling of joy that
comes from knowing that the one you love is well loved by
someone else.
Polyamorists say that love should be unconditional, rather
than the monogamous
proposition that "I will love you on the condition that you
will not love anyone
else" - "forsaking all others" is how it usually is put. And
as shown by
history, monogamy and marriage are no safeguards against
falling in love with
someone else.
Polyamorists believe in long term emotional investment in
relationships, and
while the goal is not always achieved in poly, it is also
not always achieved in
monogamy.
Polyamorists believe they represent true "family values".
They have the courage
to live an alternative lifestyle that, while condemned by
society, is satisfying
and rewarding. Children having multiple parents are more
likely to be better
cared for, and less likely to feel abandoned if someone
leaves the family.
The Contrast with Monogamy
One of the nearly universally accepted assumptions in our
society is the
assumption that the monogamous pair is the only valid
structure of human sexual
relationships, being so superior that it doesn't warrant
scrutiny. In fact, our
culture puts so much emphasis on it, through cultural norms,
modern literature
and films, that serious discussion on the subject of
alternatives is rare.
Monogamous marriage has even been incorporated into the law
of our land in the
section that specifies how money for sex education must be
spent. It is a focus
of the religious right when they talk about how to reduce
welfare, how to reduce
abortion, how to reduce single parent families, and many
other issues.
The reasons given for monogamous marriage being the only
acceptable form of
couple relating, and the only place where sex is allowed,
generally fall into
two categories.
1. It is our natural state (i.e., hard-wired)
2. It is the only moral state, the one approved by God - all
other options are
inherently sinful.
It is interesting to note that these are essentially the
same reasons given by
the fundamentalist right for their condemnation of
homosexuality, namely that it
is unnatural and immoral, and explains the affinity of
polyamorists to the GLBT
community. There is an excellent Beacon Press book by E. J.
Graff, "What is
Marriage For". Graff's six reasons for marriage are: money,
sex, babies, kin,
order and heart. She provides an excellent historical review
of marriage and
convincing evidence that our view of marriage is a very
culturally determined
one, and not a "natural" condition of the human organism.
If intelligent life is about the free and responsible search
for truth and
meaning then it is apparent that unquestioned answers are
more dangerous than
unanswered questions. Therefore, questioning monogamous
marriage might be
thought of as obligatory. Are we hard wired for it? Is it
the only "moral" way
of relating sexually to others?
It's only Natural.
"The complexity of a system is limited only if the system is
rigid, inflexible
and isolated from its environment. Self-organizing systems
in continual
interaction with their environment are capable of
tremendously increasing their
complexity by abandoning structural stability in favor of
flexibility and open
ended evolution."
Erich Jantsch. Design for Living.
In examining the natural structure of things, the binary
system doesn't really
stand out. The atomic structure has three parts; proton,
electron, and neutron.
These then combine to produce a complex array of atoms and
thence molecules.
Architectural structures generally, from the pyramids
through to the geodesic
domes of Buckminster Fuller, are based on the triangle. In
music, a three-note
chord is more dynamic and powerful than one made up of two
notes. I know these
are not persuasive arguments, but the triad is also a very
common poly
arrangement.
The increasing evidence from animal research is that fewer
and fewer species
(once thought to be so) are really monogamous in the wild.
In the animal
kingdom, less than 5% of all animals are now thought to be
monogamous.
The evolutionary biologists posit that there are many good
reasons for
nonmonogamy, but their theories are difficult, if not
impossible, to test. The
anthropology argument for monogamy, that a man would only
protect his children
if he was sure of their paternity, is being questioned, most
recently in a book
called "Cultures of Multiple Fathers". In this study, the
authors found evidence
that showed that the children of women who had sexual
relationships with many
men had better survival rates - because of "potential"
paternity, they were less
vulnerable.
Of the 1270 human societies catalogued in Murdoch's
Ethnographic Atlas, about
85% indicate some form of multi-spouse relationships. Even
the few societies
that theoretically espouse monogamy, like ours, have trouble
showing any
evidence that it works. On the contrary, there seems to be a
lot of evidence
that Western humans don't do monogamy well in the high
divorce rates, high rates
of infidelity, the highest teen pregnancy rate in the
western world, high single
parent family numbers, and other indicators. We often see
people leave an
otherwise good marriage because they fell in love with
someone new, in what
might be called serial monogamy. In short, the argument that
the human animal is
"hard wired" for monogamy is difficult to support.
In any case, since we humans are so bad at monogamy, other
freely chosen
relationship structures should also be supported.
It is sinful - God doesn't like it.
"Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for
the curious
attractiveness of others." Oscar Wilde Chameleon.
"Confusing monogamy with morality has done more to destroy
the conscience of the
human race than any other error." George Bernard Shaw
The sinfulness and wickedness of sex is based on the
assumption that God doesn't
like sex. This poison has its roots in Ancient Assyria, and
the religions of
Mythra and Zoroastrianism, which first put forth the idea of
"the obscenity of
the flesh." The sex drive, being one that cannot be denied,
becomes a rich
source of implanted guilt and shame, used to manipulate and
degrade the
individual. Therefore any sexual (natural) feelings need to
be accompanied by
shame, and therefore kept secret.
Somehow this shameful, sinful act is transformed into sacred
overnight if
accompanied by the right words by someone with the
appropriate qualifications to
marry people. It does not seem to matter how the marriage
was arranged, for what
reasons the people are marrying, or even if they want to be
married. The only
requirement is that they go through the legal process.
Without going into it too deeply, a perusal of most
mainstream religions show
that
1. Many of the ancient texts were written by polygamists,
and
2. Most of the rules were based on considering women as
property, rather than as
a result of a solemn promise between equals.
It is also worth noting that no matter how strict the moral
teachings, or how
severe the punishments, be it from the Taliban, the Bible
belt, Rome or
Washington, human beings persist in trying to satisfy their
sexual desires. A
recent news article reported that 40% of nuns had a history
of being sexually
abused, either before or within the Roman church. The data
on priests is slowly
becoming public. The data on the general public is harder to
obtain, given the
resistance to admit to being abused, or being an abuser. It
is clear that sex
crimes put a lot of people in jail.
There is historical evidence of religions that embrace our
sexual nature in a
positive way, found on temple carvings from Asia, pottery
from Europe and
elsewhere, but it is not a feature of current Western
mainstream religious
practice.
Serial monogamy is perhaps an unconscious compromise between
the cultural ideal
of monogamy and the facts of human nature - in other words,
we acknowledge that
you can love more than one person, but only one at a time.
The destructive
effects of serial monogamy on children are well documented,
with 8 million
single parent families in the US, infidelity-fueled
acrimonious divorces,
through to the spate of spouse murdering lately. Much of the
evidence seems to
indicate that human attainment of the cultural ideal of
monogamy is a myth.
The moral argument for monogamy is a weak position. A better
moral argument can
be made regarding what is best for each individual and for
society, that is, do
we make life better for each and all by insisting on sex
only in monogamous
marriage of heterosexual couples, or on letting individuals
find responsible
ways of relating that, in Pagan terms, "harm none". Liberal
religion has taken a
fine stance supporting homosexual and heterosexual couples,
and unmarried
couples as well. What is so hard about seeing the parallels
to the "more than a
couple" part?
It is a reality that there are many people now relating
sexually in groups
greater than two. The reason I keep referring to "relating
sexually" is that
this seems to be the stumbling block for many. If
polyamorists were to keep it
platonic, not be sexually involved with people they love in
numbers greater than
one, most would applaud their loving behavior. But when they
admit that they not
only love more than one, but have sexual relationships with
more than one, all
the red flags come flying out.
If you watch TV at all, you will know that polyamory is
getting a lot of play,
from episodes on Ally McBeal, talk shows like Montel
Williams, John Walsh,
Geraldo, and HBO's Real Sex. There are many poly friendly
films available from
Hollywood, and of course the Really Rich and Famous can do
what they please
about relationships and get lots of favorable press. What
has brought polys out
of the closet is the Internet, where people who thought they
were the "only
ones" find lots of company.
Polyamory - What it isn't..
"Current sexual practice can no longer be explained by the
old theories and we
do not yet understand it in the light of new ones. Racing
ahead of history, we
now find ourselves in a new territory." June Singer The
Energies of Love.
Polyamory as it is defined is frequently misunderstood.
Polyamory is not "The
Answer". If you are looking for a quick fix for relationship
problems, don't
look to polyamory. It is a choice, as is monogamy, that
needs to be taken
responsibly, and brings with it as many, if not more,
challenges. It is
definitely not a fix for a bad marriage or other
relationship problems.
The most widespread misunderstanding is with swinging.
Swinging is essentially
recreational sex, also known as wife swapping ( though
curiously not husband
swapping). Research has shown that swingers are largely
indistinguishable from
the rest of the population except that they are people who
would rather have sex
than play bridge on Saturday night.
Swinging does share a lot in common with polyamory in that
it is nonmonogamous,
intentional and responsible. Both lifestyles share the idea
that sex is a
positive, pleasurable and natural part of being human, and
not a synonym for
love. The main difference is that swinging focuses on casual
sex and tends to
prohibit other intimacy, whereas polyamory is more concerned
with enduring
intimate relationships that include sex. There is however
some crossover, with
people arriving at one via the other and vice versa.
Unfortunately, in our
society obsessed with promoting the cultural myth of
monogamy, the salacious
aspects of swinging are often used to reputationally smear
both swingers and
polyamorists. Examples include the Wyoming politician who
withdrew his candidacy
in the 2002 election when his lifestyle was exposed, the
attempt in 2002 to
disqualify Jack McGeorge as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq
because he teaches
S&M and espouses sexual freedom, and the effort to blame the
parents in the 2001
child killing in San Diego because they were swingers. Many
polys wished Bill
Clinton had said he loved Hillary and Monica, and that
Hillary was supportive of
that relationship, but it looked more like cheating than
loving.
Swinging and polyamory are not "free love" in the 60's sense
of the term. (This
seems to be one of the objections of those who survived, or
were wounded, in the
sixties.) In a lot of cases, free love in the 60's was a
response to the
enormous freeing up of taboos against sex that occurred at
that time, and often
was not accompanied by honesty or responsibility, but used
as an excuse to have
a lot of sex. It was frequently grouped together with drugs,
(as in the mantra
of "sex, drugs and rock-n-roll") which allowed it to be
discounted as "a phase,"
facilitating a return to the "traditional" values that were
reestablished in the
80's and 90's.
The challenges besetting the putative polyamorist are:
Sex.
"If W.H.Auden is correct when he observes that 'As a rule it
was only the
pleasure haters who became unjust', then only a civilization
that fosters erotic
celebration can usher in a new era of justice-making"
Matthew Fox Original
Blessing.
This is the bit that trips most people up. When you cite the
example of infinite
love regarding children, people can understand the concept,
but somehow sexual
love between consenting adults is seen as different. We
confuse sex and love too
easily, often employing sex to do the work of love and love
to do the work of
sex. For a long time adultery was the only grounds for
divorce, yet in reality,
it was the deceit and betrayal that were the problems, not
the sex itself.
As the Chinese proverb says "The beginning of wisdom is to
call things by their
proper name." Understanding the difference between sex, love
and intimacy will
go a long way to solving relationship problems.
The more we study sex, which has only been done
scientifically in the last
century, the more we realize how complex, variable and
universal it is. As
pointed out earlier, enjoyment of sex was considered evil,
particularly in women
(witches). Then, after Freud, it was often considered a
sickness. For many
years, nymphomania was considered a disease of women who
liked sex. (See
Groneman.)
To top it off, sex has become politically incorrect,
attacked from both the
left, the radical feminists who equate sex with the
degradation of women, and
the right - well, we should all know about their attacks on
comprehensive sex
education and medically correct sexual health information.
Either way, sex is seen as sinful, sleazy and best kept
private. And the ACLU
help us if we have any visual depictions of sex. Of course,
violence is
entertaining for the public, only sex is rated X.
We have become crippled by our fear of sex, allowing it to
become a trigger for
all kinds of hysteria. Think of the knee-jerk reaction to
the term "Internet
porn". Several recent books focus on this hysteria born of
sexual fear,
including Lynley Hood's outstanding book "A City Possessed"
and Judith Levine's
"Harmful to Minors - The Perils of Protecting Children from
Sex", a volume that
provoked substantial hysteria of its own when published
recently. And yet,
despite all the dire warnings, we find that humans continue
to explore their
sexuality in a rainbow of ways - the sex drive will not be
denied. Tom Robbins,
in "Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climates", cites erotic
celebration, as
opposed to mindless procreation, as one of the six things
that make us different
from the rest of the animal kingdom.
So sex is not the enemy. When accepted with honesty and
responsibility, it could
well become part of the solution, as Fox outlines in the
quote above.
Jealousy.
"The only way out of jealousy is through it. We may have to
let jealousy have
its way with us and do its job of reorienting fundamental
values. Its pain
comes, at least in part, from opening up to unexplored
territory and letting go
of old familiar truths in the face of unknown and
threatening possibilities."
Thomas Moore Care of the Soul.
This is the other big myth - that jealousy is innate,
inevitable and impossible
to overcome. Indeed, showing jealousy is even taken as proof
of love, and is
used a valid excuse for violent and aggressive behavior.
Until recently,
catching your wife in bed with a lover was a defense for
murder in some places.
Jealousy, possessiveness and control are also at the core of
domestic violence,
which thrives in the privacy of monogamy.
Our culture seems addicted to three core beliefs about
relationships that are
almost guaranteed to create jealousy in even the most well
adjusted people.
Identifying and dismantling these beliefs is the most
effective way of dealing
with jealousy.
Core belief #1
If my partner really loved me, there would not be any desire
for an intimate or
sexual relationship with anyone else.
This is based on the scarcity model of love, in which a
partner's emotional or
love interest in somebody else means that I will be loved
less. It is as absurd
as the idea that to have a second child is an indication
that you don't love
your first child enough. It also presumes that sex and love
are the same thing
and meet the same needs.
Core belief #2.
If I were a good partner/spouse/lover, my partner would be
so satisfied that
they wouldn't want to get involved with anybody else.
This belief is even more insidious. With the first belief
you can at least blame
the problem on your partner. This belief makes it your fault
for not being the
perfect lover. This is also the basis of the widespread
romantic myth of the
"one and only person on the planet". This is also guaranteed
to cause serious
self-esteem problems, which is fertile ground for jealousy.
Core belief #3.
It is just not possible to love more than one person at a
time.
This again is based on the scarcity theory of love, that I
only have a finite
amount to give.
\
All of these beliefs are connected to a primal fear of loss
and abandonment,
however unfounded. Neale Donald Walsche, in his series
"Conversations with God"
described fear as "False Evidence Appearing Real". I prefer
"Fantasy Existing As
Reality", in other words, we imagine the worst possible
outcomes and then
believe that these are our "real" feelings.
Polyamorists replace these core beliefs with three new core
beliefs.
New Core Belief #1
My partner loves me and trusts me so much that we can allow
our relationship to
expand and be enriched by experiencing even more love from
others. There is an
abundance of love in the world and there is plenty for
everyone. Loving more
than one person is a choice that can exponentially expand
the potential for
giving and receiving love.
New Core Belief #2.
My partner is so confident in me and our relationship that
having other partners
will not create jealousy that will destroy our love.
New Core Belief #3
Whatever socially unusual
arrangements we have set up in our love lives, they
have been agreed to consciously and responsibly by everyone
involved. We insist
on integrity in our relationships.
Once you can get away from the "either/or" polarity, and
accept an "and/both"
approach, or as some Polys say, having your Kate and Edith
too, many of the
accompanying demons associated with jealousy will disappear.
Practicalities.
"Eccentricity has always abounded where and when strength of
character has
abounded: and the amount of eccentricity in a society has
generally been
proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor and moral
courage it
contained. That so few dare to be eccentric marks the chief
danger of the time"
John Stuart Mill
We live in a culturally monogamous society, so to espouse
polyamory certainly
puts you in the eccentric category, "the lunatic fringe" so
to speak. In the
current political climate, this also brings with it dangers.
This is illustrated
in cases where children have been removed from their parents
because they were
not living in the mandated norm of mum, dad and the kids. To
come out as poly is
a vulnerable thing to do, given all the misunderstandings
and all the sleazy,
sinful innuendo. It is also the reason why poly people
relate to the gay and
lesbian community, who have been through, and in many cases
still are going
through, the same process. Polyamorists are certainly viewed
by the societal
majority with the utmost suspicion.
Polyamorists also fully support the right of anyone to
select monogamy as a life
choice, and believe it is the right choice for many people.
The key here is
choice.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the
established authorities are
wrong." Voltaire
Given all the hassle, why bother to be polyamorous? It is
certainly not to be
able to have more sex. If that is what you are after, you
will probably have
much more success operating under the widely accepted model
of "It is OK if
nobody knows." To be open is to be too weird for most
people.
But to realize that you are polyamorous in a monogamous
world can often mean
going through life with the sense that you are harboring a
dirty little secret.
It can cause isolation, alienation and an inability to be
intimate with people -
you are hiding a core part of yourself.
For Polyamorists, the rewards are simple. One of the best
gifts you can give
yourself is the permission to be yourself. By loving
yourself unconditionally,
and respecting all your qualities and inclinations, you
allow yourself to be at
peace. This becomes part of a larger process of
self-differentiation - of
determining who you are and what is important to you. To
live as a poly requires
the same value base as living morally, ethically, honestly
and responsibly.
Questions for you to answer.
"A free and responsible search for truth and meaning"
Unitarian Universalist
affirmation.
If my partners' happiness is important to me, why should I
get upset if others
can make them happy? What is more important, my partners'
happiness or who gets the credit?
If I find my partner attractive, sexy, and lovely and
desirable, why should I
feel surprised and threatened when someone else does? In
fact, should it not
give us something more in common - a shared interest? (In
the same way that we
like the teachers who like our children.)
If monogamy is so natural and hardwired, why is there such a
large relationship
industry - the "How to make it right" of magazines, books,
TV shows, marriage
guidance, etc.?
Acknowledgement:
This started as a Sunday message by Derek McCullough, a UU
from NZ. It evolved into a presentation to other UU folks,
and finally to this article. Thanks to
the Journal editors who carefully reviewed and edited this
work.
References:
www.uupa.org
www.lovemore.com
www.lovethatworks.org
www.lovewithoutlimits.com
Anapol, D. "Polyamory: The new love without limits"
Available through Loving More, POB 1658, Loveland, CO 80539
Beckerman, S. and Valentine, P. (Eds.) "Cultures with
Multiple Fathers" U.
Florida Press, 2002
Foster, B., Foster, M., and Hadady, L. "Three in Love"
Harper Collins, 1997
Francoeur, R., Cornog, M., and Pepper, T. (Eds.) "Sex, Love
and Marriage in the
21st Century: The next sexual revolution" To Excell Press,
1999
Graff, E. J. "What is Marriage For?" Beacon Press, 1999
Groneman, C. "Nymphomania" W. W. Norton, 2000
Hood, L. "A City Possessed - The Christchurch Civic Creche
Case" Longacre Press,
2001
Lano & Parry (Eds.) "Breaking the Barriers to Desire: New
approaches to multiple
relationships" Five Leaves Publications, Nottingham, 1995
Lessin, J. "Polyamory: The Poly-Tantric Lovestyle, A
Personal Account" Author
House, 2006
Levine, J. "Harmful to Minors - The Perils of Protecting
Children from Sex" U.
Minn. Press, 2002
Lizst, C. and Easton, D. "The Ethical Slut: A guide to
infinite sexual
possibilities" Greenery Press, 1997
"Loving More" magazine, a publication for the polyamory
community.
Available through Loving More, POB 1658, Loveland, CO 80539
Mazur, R. "The New Intimacy" To Excell Press, 1973, 2000
Murdock, G. P. "Ethnographic Atlas" World Culture, Vol. 2-4,
1986
Nearing, R. "The New Faithful: A Polyfidelity Primer"
Polyfidelity Educational
Productions |
World Polyamory Association 
