Polyamory

Regenerative Culture Relationships, Partnerships & Sexuality
#1

this is a subject that has come up a lot for me over the past few years. i did a google search for it the other day and accidentally hit the video search. i was pleasantly surprised to see that there are some youtube videos out there on the subject:

[ul][li]A Couples’ Guide to Polyamory -A Couples’ Guide to Polyamory By Joy Davidson, Ph.D. Sex Therapy, Relationships HSAB[/li]
[li]Rules of Polyamory- I [the vidoe poster] give a brief description on the rules that my husband and I adhere to in our unique marriage[/li][/ul]

#2

There is also a very large swinger movement here in the US. I don’t know if that qualifies as polyamory though.

#3

i am certain that to polyamorists, swinging does not generally qualify–unless commitment develops in the relationships. swinging would typically involve multiple sexual partners, whereas polyamory would involve multiple relationship partners–since it means “multiple loving”.

i realize that’s a pretty broad-stroke difference i’ve delineated, but i’m trying to be simplistic.

i found the wikipedia article on polyamory pretty informative.

#4

One time over at Ishcon.org (when it was still around) I logged on as one of my fake profiles and started arguing with people saying that I was a professor of sexuality and that all or most indigenous cultures practiced polygamy. That’s not really true… there was polyamory in some tribes and polygamy in some… but most I’ve read about were monogomous. Anywho, I did it cause I’m an asshole and find it funny to fuck with people (or I used to anyway). But then Willem told me to check out the latest question on the Daniel Quinn Q&A at Ishmael.com. And there it was, perhaps the funniest response to a question that Daniel Quinn has ever answered:

The Question (ID Number 700)... 
  What are your personal feelings about polygamy? On an Ishmael message board recently someone suggested that polygamy would chip away at the Taker worldview. My first reaction was that polygamy would be an irrelevant factor given what the Taker worldview actually is. But it was further suggested that polygamy means lack of ownership, more freedom, less control.

  ...and the response:
  I frankly can't see why "polygamy would chip away at the Taker worldview" or why it would mean "lack of ownership, more freedom, less control." As is my habit, I look at the whole of human history as a guide to what works for people. I can't claim to an exhaustive knowledge of the subject, but I know that the practice of polygamy (many spouses) has been very rare; rather, there have been a few societies that practiced polygyny (many wives)--all of them Taker societies as far as I know, and wives in these societies certainly didn't experience "more freedom" or "less control." For a single, simple act that would totter the Taker worldview, I'd nominate a law requiring all government officials, elected or appointed, and all corporate executives earning more than $200,000 to appear in public only when naked from the waist down.</blockquote>
#5

Sadly, I don’t think that thread got saved during the demise of Ishcon. I remember that like it happened yesterday. You called yourself ‘Professor Raymond’, which still makes me laugh my ass off. And you didn’t even spell ‘professor’ right half the time! Or ‘Raymond’! Or ‘polygamy’! And they still fell for it! Ahahahaha! And then someone asked Daniel Quinn! Ahhhhh! Crazies!

At least he can smell a joke. He never displays a sense of humor in those Q&A’s, and I can only explain his joking that way. Of course, I agree with the idea, as a single idea that would totter the Taker worldview. Ha ha!

Hilarious. I’ll take that professor raymond shit to my grave. heh.

#6

I have heard of this beinbg practiced in certain parts of India. Actually I think it’s pretty kool. People look at it different because it is subconciously taught that men should have more privaledges than women. There isn’t a great debate about men having multiple wives, bigamy, and even harems, but women, it’s actually unheard of, and in the amerikan religious spectrum it’s forbidden to do anything {think freely, enjoy life, ect} except blindly follow the book. Sex is great, and relationships even better. There’s so much diversity in the world if we’d just look. Thank you for the different view

#7

i was talking to a friend the other day and she said that she thought the courtesan system was ideal. men could sleep with whoever they wanted to appease their ego and the women got time together to form female-centric bonds which tend to be much stronger than male-female bonds.

i have experimented with polyamorous relationships but it never quite worked for me. i always thought i was polyamorous. because i’m bisexual, i experimented with having one female partner and one male partner, thinking it would balance me. the result was that it just seemed like A LOT of work. i’m not convinced that this means it doesn’t ever work, it just has to be the right combination of people involved, i guess. it’s hard enough to be good to one person.

m.

#8

Thanks for sharing your experience, margi.

I have a friend who decided to “go poly”. It really did seem like a lot of work from my perspective. In the end, she and her husband split. It seems like as an ideal, it takes a lot of understanding, individual strength for all the parties, and very clear guidelines.

I don’t think it works well to come from a western monogamously minded memeset to try to “become” poly–not that I think it can’t be done, just that the starting place brings a lot of difficulty to the endeavor.

#9

In a life far before this life now, before marriage,I had attempted numerous poly relationships,on and off for years.
It was a massive amount of work,for all involved.
I am really happy with my life now, regardless of how civ-based our family structure is.
I think it is possible to do the poly thing,but i dont know if IN THIS type of civ it can be all that functional or baggage free.

#10

I definitely think it would work best in a culture that had better defined gender roles–even down to the multiple partner level. To have the ability to say (based on tradition) “First Spouse has these responsibilities in the relationship and Second Spouse has these other responsibilities in the relationship” would definitely provide a framework to ease the tensions within the relationships.

#11

I would agree that polyamory needs “first spouse”, “second spouse” guidelines, though I prefer using the terms secondary, and primary partners. I think it works very well for certain people that are able to fully trust and be fully trust-worthy, no small feat. My partner and I are in an open relationship, and I wouldn’t call it polyamorous though it is pretty close. Lots of work, totally worth it. The funny thing is, once we move out to our land, we both think we will want to be monogamous again (this could have more to do with our baby plans I guess).
Polyamory seems to work well in civilization, I would be intrested to see it in action in a smaller “tribe” community. I would guess it would be even more work, but even more rewarding when successfull.

#12
Polyamory seems to work well in civilization, I would be intrested to see it in action in a smaller "tribe" community. I would guess it would be even more work, but even more rewarding when successfull.

I think the everybody-knows-everybody-else’s-business aspect of tribal life might help with the trust aspects of polyamory. Like Martin Prechtel says, “In the village, everybody knows the color of your pee before it hits the ground.”

When everyone’s actions sit out in the open for everyone to see, then you have less to wonder and worry about in terms of trust.

#13

Well, having been intimately involved in Polyamory for most of my adult life and having a very successful and happy polyamorous marriage for several years now, I have to agree that it’s alot of work… but that it can work out great for everyone and be a very happy and healthy relationship dynamic.

I TOTALLY disagree about first and second (or primary and secondary) spouses. Anywhere you start designating static roles in relationships you are in for a world of trouble. It may provide seeming stability to begin with, but it usually falls apart. It does of course totally depend on the individuals, I can only tell you what’s worked for me.

I like the term polyfidelity, which is a committed and exclusive relationship between more than two partners. It seems to work best to me in a polyamorous relationship for everyone to have equal standing, there’s already going to be automatic insecurity and for everyone to be equally involved can eliminate some of the competition that tends to happen.

In my experience, having an open relationship can be very workable but way more stressful to me than a polyamorous marriage, but that’s just my experience.

I don’t find that the polyamorous aspect is any more work now that I live in the boonies in a small tribe like environment, if anything it’s easier because it’s easier to focus on us and our family without civ distractions.

Our child seems to benefit greatly as well, by having multiple role models and supporters.

I’ve seen the courtesan thing too, and to me it seems like such a civ construct and lends itself greatly hierarchy and other unpleasantness. Not to mention, that having a relationship (or even sex) to appease one’s ego (or rather, insecurity) seems less than healthy to me.

Honesty, openness and a willingness to let go of your preconceptions seems like some of the most useful tools to me.

#14

Sexual relationship patterns in tribal societies vary greatly. There’s really no correlation between sexual relationship patterns and tribal vs. civilized life. The majority of cultures on earth are polygynous, both tribal and civilized; a tiny handful are polyandrous, and a vanishingly small number of societies have successfully operated with polyamory. A lot of the utopian communities of the nineteenth century were polyamorous, and that usually had a good deal to do with their eventual breakdown. Could it work in a tribal setting better? Maybe. But the fact that it never really worked out seems to say something, too.

By the same token, monogamy isn’t one of the things wrong with civilization, either. For one thing, it’s as rare in civilization as outside of it; most civilized cultures have been polygynous, too. But there’s about 16% of culture that practice monogamy, and it doesn’t change much from civilized or not. About 16% of tribal societies practice monogamy, too.

#15

hmmm I can only speak on my personal feelings on this, and I’d have to say I usually feel strongly monogamous. I don’t think I would really care for a poly sexual relationship, but certainly strong personal friendships, but I don’t think sexual relations are necessary to facilitate that. But that just the way I feel.

#16

Some people can do it, and some people can’t. I’m fairly polyamourous, have been my whole dating life. I’ve never seen why loving one person should prevent you from loving another.

My wife, on the other hand, is not. So out of respect and love for her, I practice manogomy. This is one of the things I figured out really early in our marriage. It doesn’t matter how often she justifies it to herself or how often she jokes about it. She simply doesn’t handle it well in reality. And I care for her and for our marriage more than any theoretical other relationship I might have.

#17

That kind of individual variation could well explain why it so rarely (never, to my knowledge) works out on a social level. While some individuals might not have any problems with it, when you get to a sufficiently large group for a functional society, you just have too many people who can’t.

#18

That, and the more people you introduce into such a relationship, the more complicated the relationship gets. From an engineering perspective, it introduces complexity without redundancy, increasing potential points of failure. 2 people have a single relationship. 3 people have 6 relationships. The marriage now has 6 fault lines instead of one. It gets worse the more you add.

#19

I think a poly relationship would be so perfect (tho, other than a couple teenage disasters, I haven’t had one).

In my perfect poly tribal world I’d live in a little circle of sleep dwellings, with a big central cooking area, and we’d all go back and forth to each other’s beds and areas for talking and sex and snuggles, and it would all be very fluid and not at all hierarchical. Also, it wouldn’t be as demanding as a monogomous relationship, cause everyone would have other people to want things from besides me.

#20

I am certainly in love with more than one woman, but I find it pretty much impossible to honestly make love to more than one woman. They just don’t want to hear about that. Who wants a wife that doesn’t want to listen about the best part of your day; when you have sex with your wife best at making love?

You can attempt things like perfect trust, but unless they were girlfriends first (which is AWESOME, btw), you can’t find a comfortable place between the truth and lies of omission.

I think wild carrot dance’s vision is pretty close to how I see things going down for myself. Luckily for me, it isn’t a vision I wrote for myself, but has come out of the suggestions of ‘what-to-do’ about my ‘predicament’ from my more understanding partners.

There are four women right now I’m sharing my mind with, and one I’m sharing a bed with. And it all works out, that is, until someone out of town comes to visit for the weekend…