Modern Poly

Love.... And Marriage?

Angi — Fri, 11 May 2012 21:47:14 +0000

Three Rogues by Dale Gillard http://www.flickr.com/photos/dalegillard/1661931117/sizes/l/in/photostream/ When Obama excluded polyamorous and non-monogamous people from his support of gay marriage, it touched on a hot button issue for most of us. But should it even matter? How much? And what should we do about it?

As I’m sure is probably the case for a lot of polyamorous folks, I’ve long had complicated feelings about the legal institution of marriage. Though I’ve been legally married for just shy of ten years now, I’ve often said that—though I am still every bit as committed to a lifetime with my husband—if I had it to do over again, I would reject the legal marriage part. I’ve taken this position for a variety of reasons, from a belief that the state has no business legislating intimate relationships to a concern that marriage is central in upholding a fairytale of straight, monogamous romance. And though I am a vehement supporter of LGBTQ rights, I generally find myself feeling strongly aligned with radical queer activists who denounce the centrality of marriage equality to mainstream LGBTQ politics. I’ve often said that I support marriage equality, but would rather see a complete overhaul of the system, a deconstruction of legal marriage as we currently know it.

My feelings on the subject have become increasingly murky, however, as I’ve spent the past year developing another long-term, committed relationship. As I find myself planning a life and a future and a home with two men instead of one, it has become more and more difficult to stop myself from longing for the validation and the rights that accompany legal marriage. And while I’m still uncertain whether my boyfriend and I would choose legal marriage, I’ve come to feel deeply frustrated by the fact that such a choice is not ours to make.

This question of marriage, then, had already been weighing heavily on my mind when I heard about President Obama’s recent announcement of support for same-sex marriage equality. I was struck first by the lack of real weight to his words; Obama’s—in my opinion, extremely belated—statement of personal evolution did not contain a promise to actually do anything to create change. But what caused me more discomfort was the list of the virtues he has come to recognize as present in same-sex partnerships: incredible commitment and, of course, monogamy. With those words, I have been reminded yet again just how far outside the bounds of “normal” my life and my family are; as is so often the case, I am left feeling further disenfranchised by the very thing so many of my liberal friends are celebrating as a victory.

A lot of folks argue that we have to take these things “one step at a time;” in other words, I should be satisfied with the fact that this kind of acceptance for my family is still so far in the future, it’s not even yet on the radar. But even if one does accept that we should simply be patient, there is no reason why progress for one group of people needs to include actively upholding norms that harm others. As Kay Steiger eloquently put it, “on the way to marriage equality, we shouldn’t let politicians further dictate what all marriages should be. We should let couples decide on monogamy for themselves rather than setting the standard from on high, and same sex couples should have the same legal rights as straight ones, whether or not any of them are monogamous.” When monogamy is offered as a reason why same-sex marriage should be legal, it’s hard to see that as anything other than a reinforcement of the idea that relationships are legitimate only insomuch as they’re monogamous. And that doesn’t just leave us poly people out of the equation, it throws us under the bus. Even if multi-partner marriage is not on the “poly agenda” anytime in the near future—or even ever—I think we would all agree that we would like our relationships to be seen as more valid than they currently are, not less. When the President of the United States reaffirms monogamy as the one true marker of love and commitment, he does an inarguable disservice to us poly folks and our image in society.

But beyond these societal implications, what of the actual question of legal, multiple-partner marriage? Should we really view this as such an unattainable goal? And perhaps just as importantly, should we consider this goal a desirable one?

Polygamy has long been held up by the right wing as the inevitable result of gay marriage’s “slippery slope” (lumped together with practices like bestiality and pedophilia), causing most liberals to develop a knee-jerk impulse to dismiss the very notion of multi-partner marriage as absurd. But setting aside for a moment the complex legal technicalities, it is difficult to offer any ethical argument for same-sex marriage that denies the possibility of multi-partner marriage as equally valid. It has always seemed simple enough to me that the line should be drawn at consent—something cats and children cannot legally offer, but mature human beings, whatever their quantity, certainly can.

The question of whether or not we should advocate for poly marriage remains, at least for me, more complicated. A few years ago, before the experience of developing a relationship I considered equal to my marriage in every way, it was easy for me to shrug off multi-partner marriage as an unnecessary and excessively normative desire. But now that I find myself in two stable and hopefully lifelong relationships, it is difficult not to find appeal in the legal rights afforded to married couples. As we imagine our lives together, everything from home ownership to health insurance to having a child together will have to be navigated by my boyfriend and I without the legal and financial perks that my husband and I share. And while plenty of unmarried, straight monogamous couples manage to make all of this work just fine, they do so by choice, not because the possibility of legal marriage is denied to them.

Then, of course, there are the social values assigned to legal marriage. While I recognize these things are mere constructions that shouldn’t really matter, it’s still difficult to not want this kind of validation for my relationship with my boyfriend. Two of his siblings have married recently, and though his family has been nothing but welcoming toward me, I feel a pang when I think that in the absence of legal marriage, I will never truly be embraced as a new member of the family in the same way as his new brother- and sister-in-law. And perhaps understandably, I think that kind of validation is even more appealing to me because I know how many people dismiss this relationship as frivolous at best, if not downright unethical.

My boyfriend has said to me several times that we don’t need legal recognition in order to have a wedding and a marriage, and logically I know that he’s right. So much of my life is structured around rejecting official authority, why should a lack of state sanction prevent me from celebrating love and commitment in whatever way my partners and I see fit? Admittedly—and somewhat shockingly to me, after the years I’ve spent denouncing the whole kit and kaboodle of marriage—I’ve spent a fair amount of time daydreaming about what that wedding would be like. But in spite of those romantic fantasies, I’ve never quite been able to bring myself to take the idea seriously. Part of my hesitation is simple insecurity. I ask myself: Who would support such a decision? Who would even show up? As if only legal recognition of our union could force people to accept our relationship, whether they approve of it or not. But the bigger problem, for me, is a need to understand exactly where this desire for marriage is rooted within me. I consider my own motivations suspect. Wouldn’t I only be replicating everything that’s problematic about the narrow view of love and romance we’re offered by Western culture? In exchanging wedding vows, wouldn’t I really be saying to society “look how normal I am, look how similar this relationship is to yours, how much it deserves your validation and respect,” when what I really want to be able to say is “I don’t care whether you think this is normal or not”? And on a still deeper level, I know that my desire for marriage is not only about a plea for social acceptance, but about all of my internalized notions of love.

I’ve felt forced, lately, to confront and try to unpack these deeply entrenched views of marriage and commitment. Not long ago, I was lying awake next to my boyfriend, and was struck by the overwhelming desire to wake him up and ask him to give me some kind of guarantee that he would stay with me forever. Certainly I know, on an intellectual level, that marriage can offer no such ironclad promise. But on an emotional level, I’ve come to realize that at least a part of me still buys into the false sense of security that legal marriage has to offer. What I want—desperately and irrationally—is to ask for a kind of promise that I am not permitted to ask for. In spite of the 50% divorce rate, along with all of the lingering marriages we would hardly call a “success,” entering into a legally binding marriage contract offers the comforting illusion that we can speak with real certainty about “forever.” But the terrifying reality of love is that, whether or not we sign our names on some dotted line, we ultimately have to do it without a safety net. Deep down, I know it’s in the face of that fear that I long to throw myself down the aisle. But the question I’m unable to answer is whether that reason is inadequate, or if perhaps, on the contrary, it’s the only reason that has ever really mattered.

If this piece seems to be without clear conclusions, that’s because I have reached none. If asked to describe my ideal, I would certainly still favor a world in which the law has evolved to support all families (and individuals), from single folks to poly networks, from multi-generational families living under the same roof to non-romantically-connected adults forming intentional families in communes. Whether gay, straight, or something else entirely, I don’t believe that marriage as we know it today should be the sole path to legal protection of familial rights. Any notion of “marriage equality” which focuses only on extending marital rights to one more group of people—while leaving so many others out—is inadequate. And groups like the Alternatives to Marriage Project are doing important work in this area, fighting for legislation that meets the various needs of all people regardless of their legal marital status. This is the direction I would love to see the fight for “marriage equality” move in.

At the same time, however, I can hardly fault those who—in the context of our current imperfect system—long for the same rights as others around them. This system, at least for now, is what we are given to work with. And while I believe far more strongly in a revolutionary reshaping of society and the state, I recognize that sometimes reforms along the way can make real, tangible differences in people’s lives. The right to legally marry should not offer such a huge advantage. But at this current moment in history, it does.

If multi-partner marriage were legalized tomorrow, I still don’t know whether my boyfriend and I would marry or not. But I do hope a day comes when that choice is ours to make, for our own reasons, on our own terms. In the meantime, my own personal feelings about marriage—legally sanctioned or not—remain in a state of flux. And I am reminded continuously that we have abandoned all of the easy molds and patterns of love that have been offered to us by society—which is perhaps the most frightening and wonderful thing about living here, outside the bounds of “normal.”

Categories: Submissions Tags: poly, polyamory, marriage, gay marriage, poly marriage, plural marriage, marriage equality, marriage rights, legal rights, gay rights, poly rights, rights, obama, relationships, Featured

Polyamory Without Rules, and a World Without Hierarchy

Angi — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:54:32 +0000

'Amor,' by Daquella Manera http://www.flickr.com/photos/daquellamanera/447641921/ Franklin Veaux's recent post insists relationships with rules aren't "anarchy." But in a way, it is. And the social implications are bigger then you think.

Recently, Franklin Veaux posted an excellent and thought-provoking essay on rules in poly relationships, adding to his already impressive collection of what I consider some of the best poly writing that exists. I highly recommend that everyone read his piece in its entirety, but to summarize, his stance on rules is that they give us a false sense of being able to control others, and that we should be able to grant our partners autonomy and freedom and still trust that they will respect our feelings and needs. As Franklin says: “If a person loves you and cherishes you, and wants to do right by you, then it's not necessary to say ‘I forbid you to do thus-and-such’ or ‘I require you to do thus-and-such.’ All you really need to do is communicate what you need to feel taken care of, and your partner will choose to do things that take care of you, without being compelled to. On the other hand, if your partner doesn't love and cherish you, and doesn't want to do right by you...well, no rule will save you.”

I agree wholeheartedly with this position on rules. But to take the discussion a step further, I don’t think it’s any real surprise that most people approach polyamory with a focus on rules and regulations. After all, we live in a society that organizes itself around the basic principle that human beings are only able to treat one another with kindness and respect if we are forced to do so. The structures of our criminal justice system, our work places, and even our schools are all predicated on the notion that people must have the threat of punishment in order to behave properly. If we took away a rigid legal system, common opinion says people would simply be running amok and committing heinous acts of violence against one another. If we gave factory workers any real autonomy, they would be sleeping on the job. If we gave children the ability to make their own decisions, they would sit and watch TV all day and never choose to learn anything at all. In a world with such a dismally negative opinion of human nature, is it any wonder that many of us assume we also need rigid rules within our relationships in order to prevent our partners from behaving inconsiderately and irresponsibly?

While elaborate rules and written agreements might not be the norm in monogamous relationships that they seem to be in many poly relationships, the only real difference is often that the rules are of monogamy are implicit rather than explicit. Monogamy itself is, after all, a form of regulation. If formal rules are unheard of in monogamy, it’s not because monogamous folks are more free-spirited. Rather, it’s because rules such as “don’t make out with anyone else,” “don’t develop romantic feelings for anyone else,” and certainly “don’t have sex with anyone else” are so culturally ingrained that for most folks, any official statement of such rules seems completely unnecessary. There is a basic expectation in many monogamous relationships that a person should not even spend too much time socializing with people of whichever gender they happen to be sexually attracted to (good luck with that one, bisexual folks!), lest they find themselves “tempted.” In other words, according to a common mindset, monogamous partners are not faithful because they are incapable of desiring anyone else. They are faithful only because they avoid the lure of others, and because of the consequences they would face if they were to stray. And while this mindset might not always mean the kind of micro-managing we sometimes see in poly relationships (though I believe it often does), it is rooted in the same pessimistic assumption that our partners are only as good to us as we force them to be.

The one small point where I do have to disagree with Franklin’s piece on rules is in his use of the word “anarchy.” Franklin points out that a lack of rules does not have to mean “anarchy and chaos,” a statement that reflects a common misunderstanding of what “anarchy” actually means. “Anarchy,” in fact, does not mean “chaos” at all. What it means is organization without hierarchy. I would argue that this is exactly the kind of relationship Franklin is advocating. And in fact, I would argue that “organization without hierarchy” is an ideal on which all relationships should be based.

My eight-year-old daughter has recently begun attending a democratic free school. The kids determine their own behavioral guidelines, via consensus, at all-school meetings. They are free to choose for themselves what they’re interested in learning, and how they’re most comfortable learning it. I’m a long-time believer in child-led education, and my daughter was unschooled prior to attending the free school, so it does not surprise me in the least that children learn well in this environment. What I find most striking, however, is their behavior. These kids have no threats of punishment. When a conflict arises, they can choose to talk it through with a peer mediator. Otherwise, they are governed only by their own mutual agreement to abide by community guidelines. And these children—given their autonomy and freedom—are kinder to and more respectful of one another than most people believe children are capable of being. It reaffirms my belief on a regular basis that human beings are basically good, that our natural impulses are to care for rather than harm one another, and that—even as small children—we do not need the threat of punishment in order to be good to one another. I believe that this little school is a microcosm for what the whole of society can potentially look like, in a world where all people are respected as equals and liberated from oppressive hierarchies.

When I embarked on actually living polyamorously, one of the primary things I wanted was more autonomy in my life, not less. My relationships have never contained anything I would consider “rules,” aside from mutually consented-to agreements about safer sex. But just as being non-monogamous doesn’t mean we have no commitment, being without rules doesn’t mean being without commitment, either. I am deeply committed to two men. They are commitments I maintain as a free, autonomous individual. I respect my partners’ needs and desires because I love them and want them to be happy and fulfilled, not because there is a system of rules in place forcing me to do so. For me, it feels inaccurate to label something as “love” if it is not freely, enthusiastically, and consensually given. I choose freely to treat my partners with love and respect. And it matters a great deal to me to know that their love and respect for me are given freely, as well.

Many of us who have made the choice to live this way feel as though we have been liberated from monogamy—an arrangement which works just fine for some, but for whatever reason feels artificial and restrictive to most of us who choose polyamory instead, and for many monogamy is never a “choice,” but a social norm we subscribe to without freely considering alternatives. But I think we have to ask ourselves whether we’re truly leaving behind the constraining aspects of monogamy—and of society as a whole—if we simply replicate constraining conditions in our poly relationships. It is difficult, certainly, to see beyond the negative view of humanity we’re constantly presented with. But it is worth considering that every hierarchical, oppressive social condition—from racism to patriarchy to imperialism, and so on and so forth—has thrived to a large degree on the argument that as a general rule, people must be constrained and controlled and repressed in order for society to function. If we want a path forward out of an oppressive society, we have to learn to trust that as human beings we are capable of being good and kind and loving to one another even when given full autonomy and freedom. And while it might be quite a long road to travel before we reach that point, our most intimate personal relationships seem like an excellent place to start.

Categories: Viewpoints Tags: Featured, poly, polyamory, Franklin Veaux, monogamy, Rules, relationship agreements, anarchy, poly and society, egalitarianism, structure, heirarchy

Thank You, Newt Gingrich

Mai Li — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:29:52 +0000

Courtesy of the Keel Calm o Matic http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/createPoster/ The impact of this scandal on the polyamory movement

Upon the recent press firestorm following the announcement of Newt Gingrich's alleged attempt at non-monogamy, I and my fellow board members at Modern Poly brought up whether to do a press release on the topic:

"Should we make a statement, guys?"

"Seriously, guys, this is just another Tiger Woods or Charlie Sheen. This does not need to gain any more traction than it already has. Newt Gingrich does not represent us. Let's just leave it alone."

"We should make a button with the polyamory symbol, an infinity heart, in the center, and the following words: NEWT'S GONE, NOW CARRY ON ...which should tell most of the internet community exactly how seriously we take Newt Gingrich's 'polyamory.'"

But all of this took a right turn the more media coverage this has started to receive. And it's little wonder: When you look at the plot points leading up to the Gingrich-related coverage explosion, the political landscape continues to become clearer. It's been invoked on the Senate floor in the 'slippery slope' arguement against legalizing gay marriage. In Canada, they're addressing it as part of an anti-polygamy case directed at the Bountiful (Fundamentalist Mormon) community in BC. Santorum brought it up on Glenn Beck's radio show. Now, it's stuck to Newt Gingrich, who is running for US President. It is easy to see this as the next evolution of the closeted, self-hating homosexual senator... yet for some reason, more socially unacceptable to the government's conservatives than homosexuality. Inexplicably so, might I add, since there is reference to non-monogamy extolled in the Bible so often quoted by the Christian right.

When we saw that the New York Times was doing an article on how polyamory is slowly but surely stepping its way into the mainstream, it became apparent that this trend was gaining momentum. At that point, it also became important to explain exactly what our stance was on the entire Gingrich debacle, as one of the bigger voices in the poly movement, and especially since we knew people would find their way to our site from the NYT article and the surge of Googling of "polyamory" and related terms that were sure to follow it's publication. With all that increased traffic, and our commitment to modeling good values in a hip, modern, but practical voice, we couldn't let any misconceptions sit about our stance on the event.

Let us be clear. Newt Gingrich: We owe you a great debt of gratitude.

Before your ex-wives decided to tell the press about what you theoretically went to marriage counseling over, we were a fragmented subculture. Before this story broke, we were surprised when it came up in the Senate, and none of us expected the subject to be permissable in Hollywood or on network television anytime soon, or to be able to lobby for our rights. Before you made Middle America wonder, "...wait, didn't married couples experiment with that in the Nixon era, back in the 70s...?" ...to many people never exposed to the concept, cheating was wrong, monogamy was the only way, and everything else was bad.

But now that this has happened, you have set so many wheels in motion. Most kind hearted progressives see you for the hypocritical values you purportedly represent, and have a background in watching for charismatic, philandering politicians. I don't think ANYONE believes you would have had a successful open marriage after lying to your life partner for 6+ years, and then trying to 'save your relationship' by opening it up - something that experienced non-monogamists caution the inexperienced at regularly - because it's hard in the BEST of circumstances. So, instead of coming to represent us, you have come to represent the non-example: hypocrisy, lies, hiding, and misogyny. In that personification - which due to the current political climate, may in fact have cost you the election - it has presented an unprecedented number of people asking questions:

Since people can't trust what Newt Gingrich had to say about polyamory, or open marriages, what are they?
Are people doing those now?
How does that work?

The entire community is further coming out of the closet. There have been countless interviews in the past 2 weeks. More celebrities will start coming out about their relationships. Jon Stewart will have words about it, if he hasn't already. Saturday Night Live will start to make fun of you and of polyamory.

Some of that will get ugly. It will not all be positive. But with every backlash more and more people will come out, non-monogamy will become more and more normalized, more network television shows will be interested in exploring a non-monogamous plot arc, and then sitcoms, and eventually, things will change... And we owe a lot of that to you, Newt, for being the person in power to be scandalized by allegedly asking for a sexually non-exclusive relationship.

So thank you, Newt, for giving us the spotlight, so we can show people all the good ways to practice polyamory and non-monogamy... through honesty, compassion, responsibility, commitment, love, a sex-positive outlook, and a willingness to work through the hard things like boundaries and jealousy. Please--keep doing it wrong, so more people can find their way to us. Because the more you do, the more the movement is fed and ready to start making things better.

Categories: Viewpoints Tags: Featured, mainstream, activism, Newt Gingrich

Non-Monogamy: A Human Internet for Compassionate Payloads

maymay — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:42:57 +0000

Network by sjcockell http://www.flickr.com/photos/sjcockell/3251147920/ Biology, Social structures, & Technology: They have more in common than you think.

The Dalai Lama once said, “Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive.” But today, as environmentalist and author Paul Hawken observed, “goods seem to have become more important, and are treated better, than people.” Faced with the existential threat of this mounting tension, our species will be forced to shoulder the challenge political advisor Jeremy Rifkin imagines we can accomplish: “extend our empathy to the entire human race as an extended family, and to our fellow creatures as part of our evolutionary family, and to the biosphere as our common community,” or perish.

Thus, the urgent question is: how do we do that? As it happens, today’s polyamory movement is uniquely situated at an ideological and technological intersection illuminating a possible answer. Polyamory’s key tenet—that a relationship involving more than two individuals is a good and valuable thing—is so powerful because it is so simple. To understand why, we can look to the Internet.

In his seminal work, New Rules for the New Economy: 10 Radical Strategies for a Connected World, technology theorist Kevin Kelley wrote, “In the network economy, the more plentiful things become, the more valuable they become.” From a polyamorous perspective, one could say, “Love is not a scarce commodity,” or, even more generally, “the more, the merrier.”

A polyamory advocate’s core goal can be succinctly described as achieving equality in relationship choice. Like many polyamorous people, Angi, who “has one daughter, one husband, and one boyfriend,” sees compulsorily monogamous relationships, in which one person is “attached” to one and only one other person, as limiting. Instead, people may find more value when a person can be “attached” to more than one other person. In her own words, “we all deserve to live in a world where we are free to choose whatever relationship structure suits us the best, without being made to feel that we are some kind of freaks or degenerates.”

If you drew people as dots and the relationships between them as lines connecting the dots, the result would look remarkably similar to the topology of telecommunication networks like the Internet, wherein dots represent telephony devices (phones, fax machines, computers, etc.) and lines represent interconnections between them. However, a telecommunication network in which each device could only be connected to one other device—a compulsorily monogamous worldview—would not be very useful. Why buy a phone that can only call one other phone in the world?

This freedom to “connect” with whomever we choose, to exchange ideas with others regardless of geographic constraint, undeniably enriched our intellectual experiences. Is it so hard to imagine the same phenomenon holds true when we exchange bodily fluids or emotional adventures? Here’s how veteran web designer John Waters explained it:

"In the industrial economy, scarcity established value. Natural resources such as oil, gold, and diamonds were scarce and therefore considered valuable. […] Paul Romer and other theorists introduced the 'New Growth Theory'. In this model, the principle of scarcity is turned upside down.

"The new theory essentially divides the world into two productive inputs: 'things' and 'ideas'. Only one person at a time can use things such as a hammer, a telephone, a lawnmower, or a car. On the other hand, ideas can be used by many people simultaneously, i.e., recipes, blueprints, formulas, methodologies, and software. They can be used to rearrange things. They can be copied, shared, and connected, thereby leading to more ideas. 'Economic growth,' Romer says, 'arises from the discovery of new recipes and the transformation of things from low to high value configurations.'"

Such “transformation of things from low to high value configurations” is what the polyamory movement does with regard to relationships. The most obvious limitation with the often-monogamous notion of “true love” is that it creates a scarcity model, and free distribution is anathema to maintaining scarcity. Polyamorous people understand that “free love” is not just a hippie slogan, it is a way to create real-world emotional value.

Further, the “emotional value” derived from a polyamorous culture is not ambiguous. It can be accurately valuated, albeit not in any currency currently recognized. Instead of dollars and cents, the value it creates is of social capital, intimacy, degree of connectedness, and love. Its “currency” is none other than empathy itself; its payload isn’t digital data, but empathic experiences that cultivate shared joy. There’s even a word for this experience: compersion.

Polyamorists also developed discrete ways to “packetize” empathy and emotional communications. Conversational techniques such as “mirroring” (what Non-Violent Communication calls “reflecting”) in which a listener rephrases what they heard a speaker say, act as a kind of cyclic redundancy check, or an error-correction protocol, for emotional information transmission. It ensures that what one meant to say is what was heard, avoiding misunderstandings.

The introduction of new language—both terms and techniques for communication itself—is a profound change. In the words of asexuality activist David Jay, “By finding new ways to talk about relationships we can greatly increase our options for forming them.” In addition to the value offered by transforming the topology of relationships, there is value in having a diversity of relationship types; even healthy monogamous people have strong friendship, co-worker, familial, and other kinds of social networks that look similar to polyamorous people’s more intimate networks.

It is now our words, in the form of programming languages, that are driving the evolution of technology. Meanwhile, technologies like online social networks offer fertile soil where non-mainstream perspectives—and new languages—can take root. As Wired columnist Regina Lynn wrote, “Beyond the obvious benefits of online community, the language's Internet-speed evolution continues to give polyamory a boost. When poly or poly-curious people stumble across the polyamorous lexicon, the discovery can help validate their worldview.” This marriage of polyamorous culture with the Internet thereby accelerates the distribution of the Dalai Lama’s prophylactic prescription for humanity.

In the early 19th century, American railways were a transportation infrastructure for commerce—a network of matter-moving devices. In the early 1990’s, the World Wide Web emerged as a general purpose infrastructure for communications—a network of idea-moving devices. Today, polyamorous and non-monogamous culture is a peer-to-peer infrastructure for the transmission of information about human relationships—a literal social network of compassion-moving devices.

As Harvard professor Nicholas Christakis observed, your structural position in a social network, and the topology of the network itself, influences many things in your life:

“[I]f you imagine social networks as a kind of vast fabric of humanity—I'm connected to you and you to her, on out endlessly into the distance—this fabric is actually like an old-fashioned American quilt, and it has patches on it, happy and unhappy patches. And whether you become happy or not depends in part on whether you occupy a happy patch.”

In other words, the success or failure of that quintessential American Dream, your “pursuit of happiness” is, at least in part, intertwined with others’ similar pursuits. Christakis continues:

“If I were always violent towards you or gave you misinformation, or made you sad, or infected you with deadly germs, you would cut the ties to me, and the network would disintegrate. So the spread of good and valuable things is required to sustain and nourish social networks. Similarly, social networks are required for the spread of good and valuable things, like love and kindness and happiness and altruism and ideas. I think, in fact, that if we realized how valuable social networks are, we'd spend a lot more time nourishing them and sustaining them, because I think social networks are fundamentally related to goodness. And what I think the world needs now is more connections.”

If our “civilization,” as our dictionaries insist, truly is “the most advanced stage of human social development and organization,” why then is humanity the only species in the world without full employment? Why are we so poorly trained in the principles of peaceful social development and organization? Accepting the polyamorous tenet, that goodness is inherent in social connectedness, is therefore fundamental to realizing our dictionaries’ aspirations.

After all, as Jeremy Rifkin said, “To empathize is to civilize. To civilize is to empathize.” If this is true, then cultivating the skill of empathy across the planet’s populace, as polyamorous culture actively endeavors to accomplish, is a prerequisite not merely for one’s own individual happiness, but also for the very survival of civilization—and our humanity.

Categories: Submissions Tags: Technology, polyamory, relationships, love, empathy, Non-monogamy, society, network, social network, the internet, compassion, organization, humanity, social theory, economy, happiness, civilization

Why I'm on the Poly Soapbox

Angi — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0000

Frisbee by Daveybot http://www.flickr.com/photos/davemorris/14113286/sizes/o/in/photostream/ There is always the risk that being open about my life might lose me some friends, and the near certainty that it will make plenty of people think I’m crazy or immoral or both. But there’s also always a chance that it will make even a small number of people realize that happy, healthy relationships can take a variety of forms.

After almost nine months in a polyamorous relationship, I’ve found myself increasingly interested in being a poly advocate. Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about what it means to advocate for an “alternative lifestyle,” and how people tend to misunderstand the motivation behind such advocacy. As someone who has had plenty of confrontational conversations in the past on topics ranging from vegetarianism to natural childbirth, I’m well aware that those of us who choose to be outspoken about our unconventional choices are often accused of “shoving it in everyone’s face,” or of thinking of ourselves as more enlightened or more highly evolved. Sometimes, I question whether it’s worth opening myself up to personal attack. Sometimes, it seems like it would be easier to just quietly go about the business of living my own life.

It’s that business of living my life, however, that brings me back to the importance of advocacy. Yesterday, I was watching my husband and my boyfriend play Frisbee at my daughter’s birthday party, and I stopped and thought: my life is pretty amazing. A year ago, I wouldn’t have said that. Don’t get me wrong, I had a lot to be thankful for. I had my totally awesome kid, great friends and family. I was entering my last year of undergrad after finally going back to school at 26, and I was starting to publish my fiction frequently. At the same time, however, I was also feeling confused and uncertain about the future of my marriage, aware that monogamy was never going to feel right for me but convinced I had no real alternative. Even though I knew about polyamory and knew that it was what I desired, it seemed like a pipe dream: some crazy, fringe thing that some other people out there in the world did. I did not believe it would ever be my life. In the time since, my marriage has become happier and stronger than it ever had been before, and I have developed a relationship with my boyfriend that far exceeds any daydream I ever had of what an additional relationship could be like. I am grateful for both of these men every single day. A year ago, I was ambivalent about so much in my life. Today, while I won’t claim there are never any ups and downs, I am the happiest and most fulfilled I’ve ever been. And yet, while watching these two smart, funny, loving men toss a Frisbee back and forth, the other thing I couldn’t avoid thinking was that most people would find my life utterly bizarre.

I’m not one to spend much energy dwelling on the past; I’m where I want to be now, and that’s what matters. But still, I can’t help thinking that I would have gotten here sooner if we did not live in a world where monogamy is presented as the only viable option. If we had more real-life, everyday, ordinary examples of people who are happily living with poly arrangements. And I also can’t help but think about the countless others who must be feeling stuck where I once was, knowing they want something different but not believing that anything other than monogamy is truly possible. I think about how different life could be for all those people if they realized that monogamy was just one possible choice among many, not the only or necessarily best way.

I don’t want to paint a picture of poly that’s all rainbows and sunshine or say let’s all go hold hands and frolic in a field of wildflowers together. Poly relationships have their highs and lows just like any other relationships. I don’t feel like I’m living in any kind of utopia. I feel, simply, like I’m living an ordinary life. It just happens to be a life that’s markedly better suited to me than the one I was trying to live a year ago. Some people find that monogamy suits them just fine, and that’s fantastic. But we all deserve to live in a world where we are free to choose whatever relationship structure suits us the best, without being made to feel that we are some kind of freaks or degenerates.

At the end of the day, that’s why being outspoken about poly matters to me. Not because I want to bash monogamy, but because I want to refute the notion that monogamy is the only appropriate way to live. I think that we all have some responsibility to do our best to create the world we wish to live in, even if we’re only able to do so in seemingly small ways. There is always the risk that being open about my life might lose me some friends, and the near certainty that it will make plenty of people think I’m crazy or immoral or both. But there’s also always a chance that it will make even a small number of people realize that happy, healthy relationships can take a variety of forms. I saw a button not too long ago that said “I’ll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.” And I guess that pretty much sums up how I feel about being outspoken and confrontational when it comes to advocating for acceptance of poly relationships. If we reach a point where the social institution of compulsory monogamy has been deconstructed, where choosing a poly relationship raises no more eyebrows than choosing a mono one, I will happily step off my soapbox and go quietly about my wonderful-but-rather-ordinary life. As long as the sentence “I was watching my husband and my boyfriend play Frisbee” is still shocking and controversial, however, I think there’s a lot of work to be done. And if having the audacity to be honest about my romantic relationships is considered “shoving it in everyone’s face,” then I guess shoving is exactly what I’ll continue to do.

Categories: Submissions Tags: coming out, advocacy, activism, husband, boyfriend, poly polyamory, daughter, Frisbee, controversial, acceptance

Hey Annie: Issue #22

Annie Ory — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:58:15 +0000

<p>Swingers with iPhones by Incase</p> http://www.flickr.com/photos/goincase/3772008969/ Solo or No...

Hey Annie:

My wife and I have had a happily open relationship for several years. The only problem is that we mostly play with other women together and she, being bisexual, sometimes goes solo. I also would like to go solo but she tells me she would rather give up doing it than let me. I don’t want that, I enjoy her having sex with other girls. We have been with couples, swapping, which can be fun because she can keep the guy occupied while I have fun with the woman. I don’t really see what the difference is if she’s in the room or not. What gives? How can I get her to let me have sex with other women while she’s not around?

Fair Is Fair...

Hey Fair:

You didn’t say so in your letter, but I can surmise that you are not bisexual and your wife is, and furthermore, that your wife is “going solo” only with women, not with men. I hate to tell you this, but when your wife swaps with you she isn’t “keeping the guy occupied” so you can play with his wife, she’s having sex with another man. Cute euphemisms aside you will need to deal with the idea of that, as will she, if you want to get past this stage in your open relationship. The two of you have apparently had enough experience with having sex with others to be clear that it doesn’t mean the end of your relationship, but you both seem to draw the line at opposite sex relationships outside your presence. The theory being that I can trust you with other wo/men as long as I can see you. I imagine that if you were bisexual too your wife might be OK with you having sex with men on your own, though that’s really anyone’s guess. Your mistake is likely equating you having sex with women, with her having sex with women, which arguably isn’t the same thing.

I always laugh a little when people write to me and say, “How can I get my partner to...” You can’t “get” someone to do anything they don’t want to do. You can negotiate with your wife, but until you are both willing to put it on the table that your wife might have sex with other men on her own then what you’re asking her, at least in her mind, is not equal to what you’re offering her. You need to decide what feels safe and comfortable for you, and she needs to decide what feels safe and comfortable for her, and then together you need to decide what is healthy for your marriage. Negotiations like this are not permanent, they are ongoing, and they are not always “fair” because everyone gets something different from each transaction. You say that it excites you to imagine your wife having sex with other women and I assume she doesn’t feel the same. Unless and until either of these situations change, you’ll have to decide if you want that excitement more than you want fairness, and if you find fairness more important, then accept her offer to stop seeing other women on her own...

Annie Ory

Certified Whole Life Coach

Dating, Relationship & Grief Coach

Questions for Annie on your polyamorous relationship? Write to Annie here: annie@mappinglove.com

Categories: Advice Tags: poly, polyamory, Jealousy, bisexual, boundaries, negotiation, bi, fairness, open marriage, open relationship, play, playing, solo, going solo, voyeurism, swinger, swingers

Hey Annie-- Issue #24

Annie Ory — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:44:19 +0000

Don’t Call Me Baby...

Hey Annie:

Recently my husband developed a relationship with his first girlfriend in our newly polyamorous relationship. We have each had casual sex, he’s had flirtations, I’ve had some experiences with other people, though nothing lasting or serious. Now that this girl is a part of his life I am struggling with something that feels really bad to me, though I know it shouldn’t be a big deal. I had to check on an email for him and inadvertently saw one he’d written to her. I didn’t open it or read it, but I could see that he called her “babe”. This was deeply disturbing to me. This term of endearment is something he uses in reference to me. I want my partner to be with someone he cares for, and I want to be supportive, but I also want to be special to him. The term “babe” is very common, it isn’t personal to me, so why did it bother me so much? We have special things between us that we say, and he doesn’t say those things to her, so I feel that I should be satisfied with that. Still, I find myself having to hold back from talking to him about it and asking him not to say that to her, but if he can’t call her a relatively innocuous “babe” then what can he call her? If it’s OK with me for him to care about her, why isn’t it OK with me for him to show her that?

Feeling Petty Poly...

Hey Petty Poly:

It is OK for him to show her that, it’s just not OK for him to show YOU that. The way you felt when you saw that greeting to your lover’s lover is the reason that so many couples do open marriage with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. It’s easier for them not to know. That way, some small part of them can pretend that it isn’t really happening. I understand this approach, though I don’t really buy into it. I think healthy people can, and should, face the truth with an open mind and heart, and manage the feelings that come with that truth. That said, there’s no need to rub your own nose in it. Your partner didn’t say it in front of you, you saw it accidentally, you didn’t go looking for more. My advice is that you and your partner make a choice about what he will call you, and that “babe” - which I’ve always found a bit infantilizing any way - be off the list. He can call you “pookums”, “lovey” or “my little honey pot” and she can be “babe”. I imagine that once you’ve let this stew for a while it won’t matter to you any more, though you should feel safe talking with your partner about it, not to tell him not to say it, but just to let him know you want to feel special. Let him tell you that you ARE special to him. It takes time to get comfortable with all the changes that come when a once monogamous relationship becomes polyamorous. It helps to be able to ask for reassurance from your loving partner. It also helps to have a mantra that comforts you in moments of doubt and insecurity. The mantra that works for me when I’m feeling insecure in my relationship is: My partner loves me, and wants me to be happy. This is true of my partner, so it’s easy to say. If it’s true of yours, it can be a balm to soothe yourself in moments of doubt until you can resolve the issue at hand and let it go...

Annie Ory

Certified Whole Life Coach

Dating, Relationship & Grief Coach

Author, Authentic Dating

Questions for Annie on your polyamorous relationship? Write to Annie here: annie@mappinglove.com

Categories: Advice Tags: poly, polyamory, relationships, love, Jealousy, boundaries, baby, trust, special, respect, petnames, babe, pookums, lovey, honey pot

Hey Annie-- issue #23

Annie Ory — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:53:24 +0000

Dirty Sexy Things...

Hey Annie:

I am married. My wife and I have an open relationship. I am attracted to a woman who was hired in the department I work in several months ago. We have been flirting since we both met and she openly pursued me, even though she knows I am married. Things were moving along and we had lunch together one day. Over lunch, we really turned up the heat on the flirting, touching each other and even kissing. At one point she asked me what my wife would say if we were caught together. I told her my wife would give me a wink and a smile, that we had an open relationship and she would condone our being together. Her entire demeanor changed and for the 2 weeks since she’s been very cold to me. This is not the first time this has happened. What gives Annie? Why do these women seem to want me, then lose interest when they find out my wife wouldn’t be upset? Are they sadists who want to hurt someone? I don’t understand...

Here For the Taking...

Hey Here:

Some people get off on being bad. They like the secretiveness required of illicit sex. They also feel deeply flattered by the attention of a man who is risking his marriage, risking hurting his wife and destroying his life for them. It’s a huge ego bump to have someone put their whole life on the line for you. When you tell them that what you’re doing is not illicit, that you are actually risking nothing, all of that is instantly taken away. These women may not even know why they lose interest in you, because they may not know that the illicit nature of your flirtation is what attracts them to you in the first place. If they do know, they likely can’t help it. Most of us are sexually excited by things without any real intellectual basis. It’s inexplicable and that’s a part of what makes sex so mysteriously wonderful. The solution for you is to come out of the closet. I respect that some people can’t do that, and, you don’t really seem to be one of those people. You were after all openly seeing someone from your place of employment so I assume you are “almost out” anyway. Once you’re out of the closet about your open relationship these thrill seeking home wreckers won’t be interested in you and you won’t have to face the disappointment of learning that they only liked you because you were dangerous and wrong....

Annie Ory

Certified Whole Life Coach

Dating, Relationship & Grief Coach

Author, Authentic Dating

Questions for Annie on your polyamorous relationship? Write to Annie here: annie@mappinglove.com

Tags: poly, polyamory, relationships, honesty, infidelity, marriage, cheating, open marriage, fidelity, flirting, office, coworker, affair, sadist, open relationship, interest

Hey Annie-- Issue #21

Annie Ory — Fri, 13 May 2011 23:59:45 +0000

Too Much, Too Soon...

Hey Annie:

I am in a committed poly relationship with my love of 4 years. We are happy and secure together. We are generally relaxed about other partners be they casual or more serious. Recently I dated a younger woman who had never been sexually intimate with a woman before. We met on a casual basis, she just wanted to have sex with a woman and see if she liked it. She said she fantasized about it all the time. We drifted into seeing one another more seriously, spending more and more time together. She said often that she had never had a more fulfilling sexual experience. As we grew closer she began to fall in love with me and without any warning sent me an email telling me she couldn’t see me any more. She said she was jealous of my boyfriend, that she didn’t have any “rights” and he did, that she didn’t want to fall in love for the first time with someone she couldn’t have to herself. I am sad and I miss her. If she had only talked to me she could have negotiated rights for herself in our relationship, I certainly felt she had rights. I would gladly have talked to her, we would gladly have talked to her, had she told us she was struggling. I have accepted that she is lost to me, but I wonder what I could have done to keep this from happening?

CouldaShouldaWoulda...

Hey Coulda:

It’s possible that there is nothing you could have done. In a sense you got what you bargained for. You got to spend some time with someone you enjoyed, she got to have a sexual experience she apparently really enjoyed. It was a lot to expect of her really. One day she is young, basically straight and monogamous, then in one fell swoop she is a polyamorous lesbian, and a secondary no less? There are some poly people who only date other poly people to avoid just this sort of thing. That does limit your pool of available partners significantly and it does not guarantee that no one will break your heart but it could keep this exact thing from happening again.

I wonder if it would be more helpful not to build relationships up so quickly in your mind. After all, you say you hadn’t known her long, that basically you hadn’t even time to have any meaningful conversations with her about who she was to you. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t feel sad that someone you cared for left you, it just means that her leaving or staying wasn’t ever a foregone conclusion. In this situation a Buddhist perspective is useful. One where you choose to stay in the moment, seeing what unfolds. That part is easy, you did that part. The last part is harder. Stay in the moment, see what unfolds, and accept it, whatever it is. The right words said at the right time are no guarantee that you’ll never see the end of what appeared to be a good relationship again. Rather than finding the perfect words, said at the perfect time and getting the perfect result, focus on accepting the result you got as perfect...

Annie Ory

Certified Whole Life Coach

Dating, Relationship & Grief Coach

Author, Authentic Dating

Have questions for Annie on your polyamorous relationship? Write to Annie here: annie@mappinglove.com

Tags: communication, poly, polyamory, relationships, Jealousy, bisexual, boundaries, feelings, lesbian, responsibility, trust, first time, heartbreak, new to poly, rights

Hey Annie-- Issue #20

Annie Ory — Tue, 03 May 2011 18:56:43 +0000

The Secondary Blues

Hey Annie:

I've been dating D for a couple years and we consider our connection long-term. We live in different cities a day's travel apart. We don't expect to change that or fully partner up. I've been on the lookout for a "primary" partner this whole time, with D's support. However, in the absence of either of us dating anyone else, our relationship has become fairly "big" in both our lives. We typically talk every day or two, spend about a week a month together, and he's become a central contributor to a volunteer/work project I started with others.

Recently he met someone who lives near him, and I'm having trouble adjusting. I'm genuinely poly and at first I was happy for him, but when he told me after they'd had just a few dates together that he considered their relationship equally important as his relationship with me and expected to give it equal time, I felt taken aback. Then she decided to join him on a trip abroad he already had planned, so they are spending 3 weeks together halfway around the world, and we're hardly talking. It all feels too much, too fast for me, but I don't know what to do about that other than tell him (which I have), since it's not within my control and they are free beings.

I've tried to reach out to her, because based on past experience I think if I like her (I'm assuming I will, from what he's told me about her) my attitude about this will improve. She seems to feel ambivalent about talking with me; a few times she's said she would, then backed off from actually doing it. I believe that a poly V where both relationships are fairly significant requires the “poles” to establish some basic trust and communication with each other, without necessarily having to be close friends. She never heard the word polyamory until meeting him, and he's tried to explain it to her, but he also has no other poly experience or social context. Not like there's a poly rule book to follow anyway!

So I'm feeling run over, and I’m not sure what to do. He keeps telling me to trust him that it will all work out OK. I guess I need more than idealism to get through this. He says he wants our relationship to stay just the way it is; realistically I think it's already being impacted by this new relationship and will continue to change in light of it, so his naivete scares me. I have deep-seated abandonment buttons and they're getting pushed big-time. I get so upset that it's hard for me to think positively, and furthermore I judge myself for that upset (how pathetic) and that compounds it.

Thanks for any help you can offer,

"How to Adjust”

Hey How To:

The reality of having someone we love actually fall in love with someone else is one of the great challenges of this poly life. While you knew you were never going to be his primary because you don’t live in the same place - or just because you aren’t what he’s looking for in a primary - or because he isn’t what you’re looking for - or all the above, it’s understandable why you’re struggling watching your lover fall in love with someone else.

It sounds like you have several good reasons to believe your relationship is going to change in the coming weeks and months as this new relationship is growing.

D is not experienced in Polyamory

D’s new lover isn’t either

Within a few weeks their relationship has become as meaningful to him as yours is

D is responding to your concerns with platitudes and meaningless promises of sameness he can’t deliver on

The best path for you is to accept that these changes are coming and rather than trusting D’s promise that “everything will be OK” rely on your own deep understanding that YOU will be OK, no matter what happens. One of the reasons I dislike the language of “primary” and “secondary” is that it sounds like ranking. The biggest mistake I think you can make in relationships of any kind is “ranking” people in terms of importance. Moreover you compound this by allowing yourself to be “ranked” by anyone. You need to decide what you want from the relationship with D and ask him for that, listen to what he has to give and interact with him independently of what he is giving to anyone else. If you come to a time where you aren’t getting what you want from the relationship address that. Comparison is the road to hell...

Annie Ory

Certified Whole Life Coach

Dating, Relationship & Grief Coach

Author, Authentic Dating

Have a question for Annie on your polyamorous relationship? Write to annie here: annie@mappinglove.com

Tags: communication, poly, polyamory, relationship, Jealousy, feelings, primary, secondary, responsibility, trust, commitment, long distance relationships, LDR, naieve, naievete, change, expectations, inexperience, newbie