BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Polyamory

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
gotham island fae
13:56 / 04.12.03
Oh, and in the interest of my life-long fence-walking ways, I do recognize that my stance on LUVing relationships straddles an area somewhere between ipsamory and polyamory when examined closely. A number of my spiritual practices suggest a balance between selfless and selfish that fits nicely within that seemingly contradictory position.
 
 
cusm
16:29 / 04.12.03
what happens when one day they fall deeply in love and actually want monogamy when they are not dating and living single?

Well, I guess they have a somewhat lengthy conversation, don't they?

Anyways, my memetic agenda of absorbing "single" into a form of PA has more to do with giving a definition to what is otherwise an undefined state, so as to influence how that state might be viewed. Its a trick of words to encourage one to consider their actions in a way they might otherwise not, so as to assist in moving towards likely unattainable altruistic goals of enlightened society.

It is grounded in my noting the similarities between single and the #2 state. However, rather than telling the #2 poly person they are in fact single, suggesting to tell the single person they are instead #2 poly. I think by doing so behavior is better defined, and better defined is better understood, and better understood at least allows for better practice.

But even so, it would only be accurate to say one is in a poly state currently. This is different from saying you are a polyamorist, as this later term defines not just behavior but a belief structure. I think we might get further by examining this term and what it means. I understand it as one who remains open to the possibility of additional relationships in their life, even if they are currently involved in a close and meaningful relationship with someone (or several) now. As well, accepting that their partner(s) may also become involved in additional relationships, and showing a willingness to support this rather than attempting to impede it through jealous actions. By saying one is a polyamorist, one is ascribing to this belief system, which can be religious in nature. Especially when you rationalize it as a part of being in love with the world or similar altruistic ideals.

So while someone might be practicing polyamory in one form or another, the bits about enlightened social evolution have more to do with if the person involved is actually a polyamorist or not. It is the belief system that is "enlightened" (subjectively speaking), not the practice. The practice is simply that which follows when the belief system is embraced, though it can be used without it, with less than appealing results.
 
 
cusm
16:38 / 04.12.03
Just to wrap in the earlier argument: If the polyamorous belief system is considered "more enlightened", "better", or otherwise desirable, then by convincing one that they are practicing polyamory one is encouraged to adopt the polyamorous belief system, and thereby become "more enlightened" themselves. Yes, its outright religious conversion wrapped in sexual terminology, favoring one subjective state over another. I did present this idea as memetic gurella warfare, didn't I?
 
 
Papess
17:10 / 04.12.03
[ot]Quantum: I grok the meaning. Thank you! I have also been told to read Burgess, not Hienlien...so now I have to read both.[/ot]

Frater Fae: I was thinking about what I wrote last night while I was at work, and I realised my thinking was a little rigid, at least I am coming across that way. Let me explain:

In scenario #2, the person may be polyamorous, BUT they are not having polyamorous relations. Even that is a wrong in a way because the change is not something I can see or measure, I am assuming it is not there. Everything looks the same from the outside, because the evolution has taken place within the person. As you say, Frater Fae, you try to be loving to everyone, which is certainly an advanced and evolved way to be thinking and sounds to me like it is very "polyamorous" in the widest sense possible.

Now, let me play the devil's advocate again and mention that this is notion of "loving everyone" is indeed an ancient one and not exactly a new trend in human conciousness. This is the sought after ideal of most religions, even those of a more sinister nature make some claim of aspiration to this ideal. So let me ask, is it not possible to do this and still be in a commmitted relationship to one person? This is what baffles me. Obviously being polyamorous does not mean everyone one loves one has sex with, (but it is misconstrued this way) or share household expenses with, or even divulge ALL your personal intimacies with...so again, where is the new construct? I am so sorry, I do not mean to be tearing this apart because I find it is noble and beautiful...especially in theory, anyway. My point is I am finding the distorted peception of monogamy to be the basis polyamory. Is it not possible to achieve the "loving of everyone" and have a monogamous relationship with one person (Albeit, an open-minded and reasonably tempered "one person" who is not ridiculously jealous.) at the same time?

So, maybe there is an evolved scenario #2 that is more of a global-loving, state of mind. A type of polyamory that surpasses personal relationships and seeks to evolve the human race. I shall call it scenario #4! Fantastic, I say. Although, this isn't anything new, but the cognitive evolution aspect is definately present...that is, if everyone agrees that love (especially conscious global love) is evolutionary.

Dropping it back down to a inter-personal level though, I can see the potential for abuse if someone claim's scenario #4, (most major religions being a fine example of this abuse). The stretching of one's resources that actually creates the negation of loving behavior on a personal level.

Love is infinate, I believe. Loving behavior is finite and bound to the rules of time and space, (Or maybe I am the only one bound by these things, but being loving equally to everyone is a bit more than I can chew.). In the end, it is the good and loving behaviors we express to others that really matter, right? How else does one express "love"? By thinking about? I don't believe so. Love, IMO, is an active force, not a couch for emotional potatoes.
 
 
Papess
17:16 / 04.12.03
In scenario #2, the person may be polyamorous, BUT they are not having polyamorous relations.~me

Cusm: Maybe that is closer to your argument for scenario #2?
 
 
Z. deScathach
18:33 / 04.12.03
I'm not sure what I see here as special, except for the fact that there are major societal taboos on polyamorous relationships above two persons, and among same sex couples. When you look at it, so called monogamous elationships are polyamorous, "poly-" meaning more than one. The only thing that even produces distinction is the taboo. One could argue that the only truly monogamous relationship is with one's hand. Previously, it was felt necessary to enforce this taboo due to the necessity to determine bloodline. In terms of today's society, where one can will all or nothing of one's assets, the polyamory taboo does not make sense in many terms, except for the instance of disease. The danger there can be ameliorated through personal responsibility, as there are tests for most diseases. There is one thing that has to be said here, though. You can be sure that if polyamory becomes the rule, there will be a microorganism that will capitalize on this. Viruses are very simple, but efficient predators. Polyamory would inrease the spread patternof a virus MANY times over. The only thing that could really make such a situation safe would be to have testing methods capable of detecting DNA that is alien to the body, a technology that we don't yet possess. To say that there couldn't be another outbreak on the level of the HIV one is folly. How deadly it would be would be up for grabs, but the fact that sooner or later there WOULD be one is not in dispute among virologists. This of course is rendered a safe condition if people continue to use condoms, even if HIV is defeated. Still, it's hard to get people to use them even WITH HIV being a possibility. IMO, in order for polyamory to really take off, we would need a way to make sex truly safe.
 
 
Z. deScathach
18:39 / 04.12.03
One thing about the above, though. The spread of the organism would be much less if people had closed polyamorous relationships. If there was open polyamory things could get very bad very fast. In this sense, closed polyamorous relationships are safer to the species that open polyamory. Therefor it would seem that relationship boundary would be what determines the spread of any organism. In closed boundary relationships, the spread of the microorganism is contained by the unit. I know that sounds awful cold, but that's the nature of it. I hope I didn't rot this thread.
 
 
gotham island fae
19:43 / 04.12.03
Quickly, I have often heard amongst poly-chats that "there are no poly-people, perse, only poly-relationships". Looking at the matter in this way helps solve a number of the issues in contention. In a very real way, it was rather erroneous of me to lay claim to the title, even though I was actively seeking poly-relationships, not just flitting from flirt to flirt. The fact of the matter is that loving as many people as possible in the sense that I and others attempt to do isn't any different than building numerous close relations, some intimate. I've just chosen to include as many strangers and... uncomfortable acquaintances as is Frater-ly possible. So, while I can hear what you're saying, cusm, I disagree with the idea of forcibly enlightening people. Besides, I don't think that using a loaded term like PA is the best way to do it, anyway. There is the need to shift the understanding of PA from the swingin' loose lifestyle that it is perceived as now, before your guerilla meme attack has a chance of succeeding.

And don't worry, May. I understand what you're saying and why. I don't take it as an attack.

Gosh, it's nice to have HeadShop thread I can constructively contribute to...

More to come.
 
 
Papess
19:45 / 04.12.03
I don't think you are giving this thread a proper rot, Z. deScathach, but you seem a little sidetracked with the virus thing.

It is a valid issue for this subject, but leaning too heavily on the sex aspect of polyamory is missing the point. Polyamory is about having many loving relationships, that may or may not include sex. (Just a note: I am not sure if "poly" means "more than one" or actually means "many". Maybe this can be cleared up for semantical purity...thank you). Love and sex are not the same. ONe doesn't need love in order to have sex, (even if it is their personal preference to combine the two) and likewise, one does not need to have sex in order to have love.

Where I find your point about viruses relevant to this discussion is the with the issue of responsibility in PA relationships. I believe everyone agrees that responsibility in any relationship is necessary, but in discussing PA there are some other concerns that arise for me. One of these being the comfort or casualness of "libertine" ethics that may cloud judgement. This is part of my trust issues becoming apparent with developing long term intimate ties with several people. Even if a close polyfidelous group develops, given the nature of polyamory, the chances of someone being overcome by their desire (for another outside the group) and being able to justify their actions with polyamory seems more likely, to me anyway. If they then practice unprotected sex, where does that leave everyone? Possibly dead. Being libertine and being dead do not support one another.

Infidelity is not just for the monogamous, and the dangers are real. Some might even compare this possible viral side effect to social eco-system's reaction to the "sexual revolution", if one were to support such a theory. However, this is simply conjecture.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:22 / 04.12.03
Quick bit of etymology, because there is a misapprehension here that threatens to distract.

Polyamorous (nasty Greek-Latin hybrid) - polys means "many" )usually in contrast to "oligos", "few"), amor "love".

Monogamy - "monos" means "only", "gamos" means "joining, marriage". "monogamos" is an Ancient Greek word meaning "marrying one wife".

So, Zathath's statements about polyamory and monogamy are simply incorrect. Monogamy is a joining to only one other person, not a relationship involving one person only.

I wouls also question the idea that monogamy has been a default state, with polyamory as its antithesis. Polygamy has a reasonably well-storied history, although one could certainly say that this is generally resolved by having one husband and several wives, so paternity and maternity remain unambiguous. However, I can think of civilisations in which it was possible to apportion one's inheritance acccording to stipulations other than bloodline occuring over the last several millennia, so this does not seem in itself to explain why suddenyl polyamory might be more acceptable.

The disease argument seems pretty much a false trail. People who are not identifiable as polyamorous are still more than able to be promiscuous, after all, and promiscuity is certainly nothing new...


Quickly, I have often heard amongst poly-chats that "there are no poly-people, perse, only poly-relationships".

This is an interesting one. On one level, it seems to be making the reasonable claim that polyamory is defined by action - that is, one cannot be in a polyamorous relationship unless one is involved intimately (by which we probably mean sexually) with more than one person. However, is it not also a bit like saying that there are no bisexual people, that is that one is either in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship at any given time. Can one not be constitutionally polyamorous?
 
 
gotham island fae
00:17 / 05.12.03
Can one not be constitutionally polyamorous?

One can. If one is only capable of having more than one intimate LUV. I think. And if they do, how do they live when they have none?

Thinking about polyamory (ugly?) vs. monogamy should keep me busy for hourz.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
06:06 / 05.12.03
Yes, polyamory and monogamy is a curious one. Monogamy, it seems, has come to described a set of actions (or omissions of actions), and might reasonably be taken to mean "fidelity with one partner". Polygamy, meanwhile, retains both a descriptive and a legal sense, which may be one reason why it has not stood as an antithesis.

On:

One can [be constitutionally polyamorous]. If one is only capable of having more than one intimate LUV. I think. And if they do, how do they live when they have none?


I don't think this washes. One can be homosexual even when one is not having sex with somebody of the same sex, both iteratively and specifically. By the same argument, it woudl be impossible to be bisexual and monogamous, as one could only be bisexual if one was incapable of having sex unless it was with both women and men simultaneously. Why should the same not apply? The instinctive argumetn seems to suggest becasue gender is an absolute conditional on the existence of sexuality (or affection), whereas number is not.
 
 
Quantum
09:35 / 05.12.03
Constitutionally Polyamorous- there's an easy way to decide if it's a legitimate trait equivalent to other orientations. Thought experiment- can you imagine a celibate polyamorist? A celibate homosexual would still be homosexual, can you imagine someone who was by nature polyamorous but for whatever reason (guilt, cultural approbation) had no sexual relation at all? If they could be considered polyamorous then it's an orientation, if the idea doesn't make sense then it's a practice.
Personally I come down on the side of practice rather than orientation, polyamory is something people do, not something they are.
 
 
cusm
16:37 / 05.12.03
polyamory is something people do, not something they are.

I'm going to have to disagree, on the same ground as for the bisexual example above. One can be a polyamorist, but not practicing polyamory, just as one can be bisexual by nature but be involved in a monogamous relationship or several but of the same gender. The title isn't about what you are doing, its about what you would do. That's how it defines your beliefs.

Of actions, one can only say what sort of relationship one is in at present. You can be a polyamorist but be involved in a monogamous relationship. Your actions do not necessarily change what you believe in. So, it might not be the ideal situation for you, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. You're just not practicing polyamory at the moment.
 
 
Papess
17:28 / 05.12.03
Thank you Haus for the etymology lesson.

I do kind of agree with you Cusm. I think it is about one's belief system but I think it certainly helps to affirm one's beliefs by practising them.


[slighty off topic] Why is monogamy always associated with a sexually exclusive relationship? Being committed to another person is not about the sex. Isn't it possible to be committed to one person and have sex with others, if it is mutually agreed upon as not a threat to the relationship? I just don't think the bond of long term commitment thing has to be located in the groin area. Sex has nothing to do with long term love, it is just sex and may only take a few hours if you are lucky. It sure isn't long term, anyway.[/slightly off topic]
 
 
gotham island fae
19:02 / 05.12.03
I just don't think the bond of long term commitment thing has to be located in the groin area. Sex has nothing to do with long term love, it is just sex and may only take a few hours if you are lucky.

JA! The trend to only equate sexual relationships across these mono-, poly-, bi-, homo-, hetero-lines nags at me. I know many LUVing, much-more-than-just-friends relationships where the sex is on a separate shelf from the core LUV. To define these relationships in terms of sex (who's boinkin' who and how many of them are there?) is limiting them to a type of relationship interaction that is not all inclusive of the LUVing relationships I try to foster in myself and others. Course, I'm kinda hung-up on sex personally, so that's my crotch to bare.

And Haus, I was just thinking while walking home how my recent definition fell flat. Still not enough time to craft these wordz...
 
 
cusm
19:27 / 05.12.03
Yea, but loving people doesn't need names, rules, procedures, and belief systems. Sex does. Humans react differently to sex and love. Love is easy to accept in any circumstance where sex isn't involved. Sex however, is where we always want to put the limits. So while its noble to talk about poly and such in terms of love, its really the terms of sex that are the ones that matter.
 
 
diz
20:25 / 05.12.03
Sex has nothing to do with long term love, it is just sex and may only take a few hours if you are lucky. It sure isn't long term, anyway.

i want to agree here, but i can't entirely. i really dislike arguing from biology when it comes to complex human relationships, but sex does have biological consequences, and i'm not talking about pregnancy. i'm talking about hormones and pheromones and instincts and evolution.

sex has an important role for many primates outside of reproduction for pair bonding and the maintenance of other social relationships. it's kind of like grooming in some other primates, and there's some overlap there. it's also like the emotional bonds that develop between breast-feeding mothers and infants, or, on the flip side of the coin, the developmental defects that occur in babies who don't have sufficient physical contact with their mothers and others.

simply put, some physical social behaviors have really profound effects on us on some biochemical level. babies who aren't cuddled and aren't breast-fed generally have developmental issues tied to that, ranging from minor to severe. chimps who groom each other bond much more tightly.

similarly, people who have sex with each other on a regular basis have strong biochemical responses to their partners and pair bonding happens. what we call "love" or a feeling of closeness, intimacy, and connection to someone is as much hormonal and biochemical as it is anything else, if not moreso.

basically, like many other primates, we're more-or-less biologically coded to develop affection responses and sense of closeness towards people we fuck on a regular basis, just like chimps feel close to other chimps who groom them and babies feel close to women who cuddle and nurse them. it's an evolutionary thing to reward social netowrking. we're furry group animals that need to touch and be touched.

if you want to look at it from a more Reichian perspective, orgasm is an experience of emotional vulnerability, a letting go of the armor, so to speak, and sharing those moments of vulnerability with someone forges bonds.

or, to quote Suzanne Vega, "if you lie on the ground in somebody's arms / you'll probably swallow some of their history"

none of this is to argue that people can't and don't have casual sex, or that people don't develop deep bonds with people they don't sleep with, but i think physical intimacy and emotional connections are deeply and thoroughly linked for a lot of reasons, and i think that anyone who seriously wants to deal with polyamory needs to accept that.

simply put, if you keep fucking someone, you're going to fall in love with them. it may take time, but it will happen.

this has really been backed up in my personal experience. a long-term polyamorous relationship of mine went straight to hell in a handbasket for many reasons, but one of them was that we both maintained the fiction that ongoing sexual relationships didn't lead to emotional attachments, which in turn can and generally do create powerful, primal feelings of jealousy and abandonment which need to be acknowledged and addressed.

Love is easy to accept in any circumstance where sex isn't involved.

i don't know that i believe that either. witness a pair of really, really close platonic friends when one of them gets into another close friendship or a romantic relationship.
 
 
Papess
20:51 / 05.12.03
simply put, if you keep fucking someone, you're going to fall in love with them. it may take time, but it will happen.
~dizfactor

Thank you, I actually agree with you on this, to certain degree. Which might be a bit of a contridiction to my earlier statement/question but I will say, I didn't mean a long term affair within a monogamous relation, unless it has the potential of polyamorous relations.

this has really been backed up in my personal experience. a long-term polyamorous relationship of mine went straight to hell in a handbasket for many reasons, but one of them was that we both maintained the fiction that ongoing sexual relationships didn't lead to emotional attachments, which in turn can and generally do create powerful, primal feelings of jealousy and abandonment which need to be acknowledged and addressed.

Yes, I have this same experience. Once again, it is not just important to be honest with your partners, but also yourself.

I want to say that I think I have strayed the topic a bit, although I do appreciate the responses to this. I think I will start a new topic on sex and emotional states (or some suchness) tomorrow and we can continue it in there and move these posts to it, if that is alright with HS mods. I am not up to writing this tonight though.
 
 
gravitybitch
03:05 / 06.12.03
Thank you, diz! (I figured it was about time for part of the San Francisco poly contingent to weigh in...)

Anyway, I strongly agree with:

basically, like many other primates, we're more-or-less biologically coded to develop affection responses and sense of closeness towards people we fuck on a regular basis, just like chimps feel close to other chimps who groom them and babies feel close to women who cuddle and nurse them. it's an evolutionary thing to reward social netowrking. we're furry group animals that need to touch and be touched.

with the usual caveat that "it's a little more complex than that..."

People tend to at least try to have affectionate emotional relationships with folks that they're in frequent close proximity to, tend to have at least fleeting sexual thoughts about those people in close proximity who fit the general forms of potential sexual partners (very dependent on socialization!), and tend to need to find a person not repugnant on an emotional level before having consensual sex with them. Emotional attachment, physical intimacy/contact, social training, sexual desire, and sexual behavior are all connected and conflated and really difficult to separate... but I'm not arguing with anything diz said.

On the subject of monogamy and whether exclusivity has to be sexual or not... I don't quite know where to start (and there's a vodka martini getting in the way just a little bit), but sexuality does have to figure into it somehow. If you take the example of an archetypal nuclear family, both Mom and Dad Stepford will be very committed to their children, but there is no sexual component between parents and offspring and nobody will hold that family up as an example of anything but monogamy... Commitment is not sufficient to disprove monogamy, and I think one can have strong emotional commitments to non-familial adults without disrupting monogamy, if you consider bonds to co-workers and church members etc...

I don't quite agree with Jimmy Carter in finding that adultery can exist solely in the heart, so there also has to be some sort of physical element in non-monogamy (in my opinion). (I know, sort of, what he was getting at, but for some reason I find that I can have deeply erotic and involved sexual fantasies about people other than a primary partner, and not have this produce massive amounts of guilt. This may just be a cultural difference of several decades or it may be what makes me polyamorous. Please discuss...)

So, if one expands the definition of monogamy from "one wife," out of gender restrictions to mean a committed relationship to one and only sexual partner; and adultery to mean a breaking of commitments within a commited relationship; and polyamory to be having committed relationships of a sexual and emotional nature to more than one person; then it's possible to be adulterous whether or not one is monogamous...
 
 
gravitybitch
03:41 / 06.12.03
Damn that vodka martini!

I neglected the case of "monogamous non-exclusivity".... I'm not sure I'm going to get this right. One has a "partner" to whom one is emotionally committed and involved with sexually, but one also has sexual relationships with other folks as well without any kind of emotional commitment?

If I didn't get that right, please correct me and ignore (or correct) what follows.

The usual cultural definition of monogamy has been one of sexual exclusivity - pretty much equivalent to Bush's definition of marriage - one woman and one man. Having a queer sensibility, I'll expand that to mean an exclusive sexual arrangement between two adults without gender restrictions. Being at least a little romantic, I'll include emotional connection - a sense of connection and responsibility and "love" so as to exclude fuck-buddies who do not acknowledge a long-term relationship.

So, we have two adults with a sense of commitment to each other and a sexual relationship - can monogamy expand to include other sexual partners?

Personally, I don't think so. Seems to me that if you have other sexual partners, either you are reneging on an agreement/assumption of exclusivity (see adultery, above); or you have some form of "open"/nonexclusive relationship that may include casual flings with no emotional commitment or be polyamorous with agreements with/about these other sexual partners, but in both cases involves the a priori consent of the original/primary partner.

Please feel free to argue with me - this one is important!
 
 
Z. deScathach
15:14 / 06.12.03
Iszabelle: So, we have two adults with a sense of commitment to each other and a sexual relationship - can monogamy expand to include other sexual partners?

I would think that it can, actually, due to the differences between the suffix -gamy, as denoting marriage, and amory, meaning love, (yes, I got the two confused above, an enlightening experience). The suffix -gamy refers to the female component of the relationship. Thus, polygamy, "having more than one wife at a time". polyandry, "having more than one husband at a time". Monogamy, "Having one wife at a time". This also denotes the legal relationship of marriage, or at least a cultural one. Has anyone noticed how sloppy western culture's semantics is on this? So what the hell is "being married to more than one wife at a time, and more than one husband at a time?" OOOOPS! Therefor, since the marriage still exists barring divorce, it has survived with it's integrity intact.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
02:03 / 07.12.03
iszabelle brought up the point I'm after but I'm going to quote diz: basically, like many other primates, we're more-or-less biologically coded to develop affection responses and sense of closeness towards people we fuck on a regular basis, just like chimps feel close to other chimps who groom them and babies feel close to women who cuddle and nurse them. it's an evolutionary thing to reward social netowrking. we're furry group animals that need to touch and be touched.

I agree, but it makes me wonder about the converse statement. Is "we're more or less biologically coded to fuck people we've developed affection responses and a sense of closeness to" also true, but has been strongly socialized against? I'm thinking of those damn bonobos again, and of stories of locker room circle jerks among guys who'd clock you if you implied that was in any way homosexual, and of the apparent prevalence of usually straight women willing entertain the idea of a same-sex encounter (my thought here being that it's less stigmatized, so perhaps with women we're seeing something closer to the biological norm).

To bring in personal experience: My previous girlfriend and I decided to try a more casual, see-other-people relationship. But then she snogged a long-term friend of hers, who she had not previously consciously considered a sexual prospect. And since love plus snoggability added up to 'in love', we didn't really know how to handle it and ended up in a shouty break-up. We've since repaired our friendship, and I think we're flirting with each other despite both of us casually dating other people, so I don't know the end of the story yet.

The other thing that I think about is that it's possible to become jealous of your partner spending lots of time and intimacy with someone of either gender that they're not having a sexual relationship with. That's obviously something that must, and can be, dealt with. This implies to me that even if you have a partner having an emotional and sexual relationship with someone, it will cause jealousy, but a jealousy that can be handled. (This, incidentally, is why my skim through The Ethical Slut made me think it might be worth reading in full... the authors point out that polyamory is not a matter of believing that jealousy doesn't happen, but knowing that jealousy will happen and figuring out how to handle it properly.)
 
 
CaseK
02:08 / 22.12.03
Wait -- May, I read through all of this, hoping that someone would ask you about your "fall deeply in love & want monagamy" claim. Is that what's supposed to happen when you really love someone? Is there a presupposition that people with multiple partners don't "really" love those partners?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:59 / 22.12.03
The other thing that I think about is that it's possible to become jealous of your partner spending lots of time and intimacy with someone of either gender that they're not having a sexual relationship with.

I think that's a very interesting avenue - as Tommy says later, quoting The Ethical Slut, jealousy happens. It can happen with people the other party is having sex with, or with people the other party is not having sex with. Which sort of comes back to the question of whether polyamory is something you do or something you are, or more precisely whether it can only be one of the two possibilities. If polyamory is an action, then it stands to reason that if one is not having sex with more than one person, one is not polyamorous. This still strikes me as an awkward stretch - after all, you can not be having sex with a person of the opposite sex and still be heterosexual; some people, such as observant Christians, have relationships without a sexual component. But anyway - story for another day.

In the meantime, does this locate polyamory as something on a behavioural slide? Where having close emotional relationhips without sex with people who are not your partner is another part? I read about relationships in which the parties are expected not to associate with their former partners, or even not associate with people of the same gender as their partner. Are these atttempted at cautery of a wound that has not yet come into being but threatens dehiscence at the intervention of a potentially sexualised, parasexualised or emotionally encroaching relationship outside the pair bond?
 
 
Caleigh
19:16 / 22.12.03
Speaking as someone who has been in an open but committed relationship for 5 years now I have to say that though we don't exactly have polyamory, we have a nice balance.

My partner and I are very committed to each other but we also understand that either of us, at any time, can engage in sexual activity with anyone of our choosing. We don't have to warn the our partner beforehand (though if we have a notion something might happen it is polite to). We DO have to let our partner know what transpired afterwards. We both OF COURSE take precautions regarding STD's and contraception.

The issue of our partner spending more and more "quality" time with someone else is I think of more concern than whether they had sex with them. Sex is a one off, or can be. But when you see your most intimate other diverting their attention and energy out of your relationship and into one with another person... THAT can get you jealous. Communication is the most important thing.
 
 
Papess
18:27 / 23.12.03
Casek: I was making an example for the purpose of discussion. I, in no way meant that was the only possible schema. I simply proposed that situation for the sake of one point in a discussion.

Sex is a one off, or can be. But when you see your most intimate other diverting their attention and energy out of your relationship and into one with another person... ~Caleigh

THIS is precisely what I do not get with polyamory on a personal level. Why would anyone put their time and energy into a relationship where the other person may or may not put in equal effort and energy, because of course, they don't really have to? Since the polyamory paradigm seems to suggest that 1.) It is not the other person(s) responsibility to mind your needs...and 2.) If you really desire to be with someone else, anyone is just as good as anyone else. (I know that is a bit of an assumption and generalizing, but bear with me.)

What I mean is, PA seems to me to take away "specialness". It works effectively for deconstructionists because it holds no pretenses in the model about one being unique...ok, only in a sense. Perhaps the claim from "polyamorists" (oh, messy word) would be that because everyone is so unique and "special", they feel the desire to be free to experience everyone they fancy in a most intimate way. BUT, this leaves their partners in a position where they must recognise how special or unique they are not because they can be replaced very easily, as their lover can get their needs met elsewhere.

I think I am going to get slagged for that....so let me follow that up by saying: If one is truly special and or unique and a universe unto themself, then couldn't one spend a entire lifetime learning about that other person? I think this is part of the reason humans have gravitated toward coupling (I do not want to use "monogamy" in this case). It takes a lot of energy and commitment to truly know someone and their needs and desires AND actually meet them. I know I would get terribly confused and rundown trying to anticipate the needs of more than one lover...not to mention family. Yet, I hear many polyamorists state how the model is thus, because what one person cannot offer, they can always find in someone else. In other words...no one can be everything to another....or is that largly possible and does not happen often because of lack of commitment to be that to the other?

This also leads me to suspect that polyamory is a great tool for ego dismantling (hmm, thread in Magick?) and therefore, it is in a sense an evolutionary tool, I suppose. But, is the polyamory model in and of itself actually a more evolved model than, let's say...monogamy/coupling? (I would rather call current practices "coupling", because "monogamy" is much too loaded and misunderstood in certain contexts.) The theory is that PA allows for many loving relationships, which would seem to be a very good idea, as it reflects to a certain degree, many of the philosophies of various religious doctrines, including even Christian values, (once again, only to a certain degree). Basically, that doctrine is, love one another.

Somehow though, the more I look into this, the less I am convinced that polyamory is in fact about love. Committed coupling is currently being scrutinized for being a selfish endeavour, but somehow, I don't think that polyamory is quite the solution to the ego-grasping perceived in monogamy, as I had thought it would be.

One more... I think "polyamory" better describes a relationship rather than the person. Just as one would not say "I am a monogamist" if they are not in a monogamous relationship, if one is not having a polyamorous relationship with anyone at all, it seems a bit de trop and irrelevant.

Go on...rip it up.
 
 
Caleigh
21:01 / 24.12.03
I think one of the dangers in all these discussions in the gravitational movement towards generalizations. Every relationship
is unique, both in that the two individuals are unique and the way
in which they relate to each other is unique.

Speaking again from personal experience, and thus the specific, I have
to say that my partner is THE MOST IMPORTANT person in my life and I am THE MOST IMPORTANT person in their. That said, forgive the emphasis, why would I mind if they spend time sexually with other people and why would they mind if I spend time with other people sexually. We still prioritize each other in our lives and make sure
that each other KNOWS this and FEELS this on a daily basis. I am so
sure of their love and committment to me that I have no worries if they have sex with someone else, even if they do it more than once. If that was happening I would probably want to get in on the action and because of the way WE tend to approach this polyamory thing a threesome (gah that word has an awful set of connotations) is usually promoted.

Despite all romantic ideas, and i have some myself, I think it's very hard for people to only have sex and be intimate with one other person for an extended period of time. I just don't think it's the way we are. People "cheat" in relationships because of this. If "cheating" = having sex with another person besides your S.O. then isn't it good to accept this from the outset and make "cheating" part of the relationship? Then it's not cheating, it's just having some fun. It doesn't necessarily take away from the main relationship, it just brings in some new flavours, scents, engery one in a while.

How many long term relationships last for 10 or more years without
a) "cheating" by one or more of the participants
b) dissatisfaction and/or a feeling of being restricted in the relationship
c) a lowering of the physical attraction that is felt between
the participants

few, very few.

The longest relationships tend to in one way or another accept these as part of the package and deal with them in some way or another. You can eliminate a) but just not making it an issue. no guilt, no resentment. You can eliminate b) by making sure the other partner is free nay.... encouraged to expand their horizons in every way.
 
 
CaseK
10:16 / 25.12.03
About this, from May:

"If one is truly special and or unique and a universe unto themself, then couldn't one spend a entire lifetime learning about that other person?"

I would say yes, but why must I only learn about that one person? It's not that my partners suggest to one another that they're some kind of lurker in the wings -- they're not, neither of them is any kind of "replacement" for the other. They're both infinitely dear to me, and very different. I could have dedicated my life to scrutinizing one of them , I suppose, but instead we all have a life together, like a little family. I don't see how that's troubling. And I would say it's about love. As to whether it's "more evolved" I think that's just divisive -- does it have to be framed like that? Why can't people just do what they do, without looking over there and saying "Meh. Bleah. That's defective."?
 
 
Papess
11:56 / 25.12.03
I would say yes, but why must I only learn about that one person?~CaseK

I fully anticipated that anwser. My reply is simply one of practical consideration. Yes, we my love infinately, but our lifeline isn't infinate...it is finite. Hours in a day...finite. Human stamina...finite...anyway, I am sure you can see my point just a little bit.

The issue for me is the quality of initmacy. Is it really an intimacy if it one's resources are spread thinly? For myself, personally, what I am attracted to with polyamory is that I really do not have to be emotionally intimate with anyone too deeply because no one I am poly with has the time or energy for getting too deeply involved individually...it is more love of convenience. It doesn't mean I do not love, but not one of my lovers ever gets inside me deep enough because they are too distracted by other lovers to even bother....at this point in my life, I am fine with that, but as you can see I use the poly model because I find it keeps intimacy levels at the shallow end rather than the reverse. No one seems to be bothered by this either, as I don't think anyone of them is too intrested in very close intimate ties either.

There is a question of "sexual energy" here too for me, that is very hard to address. I think I need to do some research on Reich's work and associate it's relevance to having multiple emotional and sexual partners. This seems to be more of a topic for the Magick forum, unless someone can find a way to address this here. I just have this feeling they will beat me about my magickal cajones if I start with the poly stuff in there...still I can't help but see the magickal relevance, especially in a tantric, or a thelemic context.

...I could have dedicated my life to scrutinizing one of them , I suppose, but instead we all have a life together, like a little family.

This is quite a lovely arrangement. I am sure the whole intimacy thing gets easier in closer quarters with having two or moe partners. It is certainly less troubling that way for all concerned.

As to whether it's "more evolved" I think that's just divisive -- does it have to be framed like that? Why can't people just do what they do, without looking over there and saying "Meh. Bleah. That's defective."?

I guess I am responding to the overwhelming arrogance I detect from quite a few poly-people, that if someone desires monogamy they are limited and selfish, jealous, and cannot transcend the ego, not to mention the assumption that those whom prefer monogamy are seen to be as basically "non-loving".
 
 
Papess
16:22 / 30.12.03
As to whether it's "more evolved" I think that's just divisive -- does it have to be framed like that? Why can't people just do what they do, without looking over there and saying "Meh. Bleah. That's defective."?

One good reason is just plainly because this is the Head Shop and this is where we come to analyse, discuss and debate controversial issues. Divisive or not, the issue of evolution is a primary one when shifting the social paradigm of so many generations. (pardon the primary pun)

One issue that nags at me in regards to polyamory is social evolution. Is this trend in human social interaction produced by a transformation or in our memetic coding or is there reason to believe that it is genetically significant? I am in a bit over my head here, but I am curious and I am sure I can follow along if we actually begin to discuss polyamory's relationship to our evolution as a species.

This nags at me because many people who attempt this lifestyle have the notion that they are overcoming something in themseves that was unnecessary or cumbersome - something that may have been flawed, like jealousy, dependance, selfishness...ego. These are things we look to in our religions and the "enlightened beings" of our species to signify evolution. This notion is so very common amongst the PA's that some even claim the reason they choose this way is because of spiritual beliefs.

This is turning out to be a good segue to the thread I want to start in the Magick forum.
 
 
Aertho
19:30 / 30.12.03
I just wandered into this now. Seems like a conversation I should like to involve myself in. I'm 25, and so far, a pretty successful bisexual. I recently broke up with a boyfriend(he's 34 y/o) of eight months and he introduced me to the most interesting people.

Not only was he involved in a three year relationship with two other men, and they played... meaning the three of them had sexual relations with others while still being together. That was eight years ago and each of the three grew-out-of-it. Two of them, (one was my ex) remained as roommates.

I was also introduced to three other gentlemen in their forties who have pulled off the threesome thing for fifteen years. The three of them DON'T play, and own jointly a VERY successful gay resort.

Now, I personally feel I have the capacity to love several people simultaneously, but I also have a relentless desire for syzygy. I completely understand what May Tricks was talking about in terms in "evolution" and the memetic zeitgeist, but I'm gonna go back and read more to fully understand where everybody's at. I think I'm pretty solid when it comes to offering subjective and educated ideas on the subject of polyamory, so ask me questions either of myself or the scenarios I've supplied above and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:00 / 30.12.03
Might I politely suggest that, having read over the thread, you instead offer a subjective and educated response *to* it? If we just talk about the two instances of polyamory you have come into contact with, we're going to have a pretty limited discourse...

Two broader questions that may emerge from Chesed's accounts so far, that may be worth looking at:

1) Polyamory and sexuality. This is a pretty obvious one. Is monamory (to coin) fundamentally an excrescence of how commonly accepted ideas of heterosexual relationship conduct have developed, and as such do non-straight relationships have an easier time working around the concept? After all, "monogamy" is an interesting and politically charged word in the context of relationships whose ability to marry (the traditional resolution of the heterosexual romantic narrative) is a matter of moral and legal controversy.

2) "They grew out of it". There are two teleologies currently operating here. One where polyamory (or more precisely the open relationship) is "grown out of", where the mature relationship precludes that sort of rite-of-spring freedom. The other teleological narrative sees monogamny as something needing to be transcended or "grown out of", to get rid of the associations of property, ownership and limitation that have been bred into relationships as a way to exercise control and serve the needs of capital and property. Is there any power in either or both of these teleological constructs?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:28 / 30.12.03
do non-straight relationships have an easier time working around the concept?

But then that opens up the question of culture further. If straight relationships expect monogamy than do non-straight relationships within a non-straight culture expect polyamory? Is it simply a different type of expectation and cultural pressure and thus are these relationships working inside something else rather than outside the usual concept?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:11 / 30.12.03
Very good question. I'd suggest as a starting point examining what we mean by "non-straight culture". Some would argue that any non-straight culture, existing as it does in a straight dominant culture, is a subculture. Or are we looking at cultures with entirely different sexual mores to our own? Islamic cultures are sometimes polygamous, although not polyamorous in the wider sense, and isolated cultures (the South Sea Islands, say) might have very different methods. One of the arguments of the polyamorous is that monogamy is a reasonably recent invention, or at least was reasonably recently popularised globally.

If we're talking about non-straight cultures operating within straight dominant cultures (if that's a viable description), then maybe we're looking at a tension between status as other than the dominant culture, and thus pressure to create modes of sexual behaviour also other, and the pressure from within and without to identify as mapping to and thus not threatening towards the dominant culture...
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply