Friday Polynews Roundup: More poly TV coming. Why so many triads? New space for platonic romantic friendship, and more

●  A trend continues in TV land:  From the Los Angeles Times comes Open relationships are 'common' in Hollywood. ’Soulmates’ is helping TV catch up (Oct. 19). Soulmates is a new series on AMC that uses a science-fiction gimmick to explore "whether love is destiny or a choice." The show's creators tell how they were dazzled by the concept of poly.

By Sonaiya Kelley

AMC's new anthology series "Soulmates" imagines a world in which knowing one's fated love is only a test away. ...

...The show's third episode, "Little Adventures," which aired Monday [Oct. 19], follows Libby and Adam, a happily married couple.... After Libby's test results pair her with Miranda, she has to figure out which partner to choose — or if there's a possibility of making it work with both.

"It felt like a very relevant story to tell now about how relationships are changing," said [series co-creator Will] Bridges. "We wanted... an honest look on how (polyamory) affects the characters within that relationship."

...The writers drew on the experiences of people they know to inform their characters.

"I had a lot of friends, particularly in L.A., who [were a part of] throuples and dealt with all the different politics of open relationships," said [the show's other co-creator,  Brett] Goldstein. ... "I think there's something weird about how we always say 'It takes a village to raise a child,' but when it comes to our relationships, we believe in only one person to do everything," he added. "When you put it like that, that's mad."

"Remember like 20 years ago yoga was really weird? Now everyone does yoga and there's nothing weird about it," said Bridges. "And I feel like there's a world maybe where open relationships, or at least untraditional non-monogamous relationships, are much more acceptable and an option rather than, 'Oh, that's a weird thing you're up to.' "...

[Lead actor Shamier Anderson says,] "I did a bit of research but not too much, because my character was unfamiliar with it." ... 

"I think [open relationships] work when people are being open to the possibilities of it," said Bridges. ... "With the research that we did and all the people we spoke to, it becomes clear that it's not about sex," he added. "It's not about the tantalizing idea of what it's like to have another person to have a sexual relationship with. It becomes about what each person brings to the relationship and how that affects what you give to each person."

It's been 14 years since the very first polyamory-themed series was pitched to a TV studio, to the best of my knowledge. HBO "almost bought" Reid Mihalko's "Polly and Marie" series in 2006 after he and others filmed a pilot, he told the 2009 Poly Living conference, but HBO thought advertisers would be too scared of the topic. Now everyone in TV land seems to be trying to hitch a pull from this moving train, advertisers included.

●  However, a lot of the entertainment world's poly and CNM representation remains naive or superficial and fails to grasp the lived life. So of course there is a Facebook group: This IS the polyamory exposure I wanted. With 9,900 members. Have fun. 

Relationship Anarchy logo

●  The profoundly deep platonic romantic friendship flourished as a relationship style from the 1700s to the early 1900s, especially between women but also sometimes between men. It surely provided respectable cover for many closeted lesbians and gays. But at least as often, by all evidence, it was exactly what it seemed to be: a passionate romance entirely of soul to soul.

The passing of the romantic friendship as an understood thing has been a tragic loss for the modern world. Today "romantic" and "intimate" are so synonymous with "sexual" that many people can't imagine a working alternative. Unless they know about asexuals (aces) in their various varieties, who have self-identified and found each other only recently, or the very modern philosophy of relationship anarchy — the younger, wilder, overlapping sibling of polyamory.

And polyamory itself, with its freedom from rigid sexual assumptions and requirements, is giving old-fashioned romantic friendships new space to grow and thrive, as many have discovered and remarked. 

The Atlantic just published a long essay on the forgotten power of the platonic romantic friendship and its history in the western world: What If Friendship, Not Marriage, Was at the Center of Life? by Rhaina Cohen (online Oct. 20). “Our boyfriends, our significant others, and our husbands are supposed to be No. 1. Our worlds are backward.”

Go read it. It ends on a hopeful note of rediscovery:

Polyamory and asexuality, both of which push back against the notion that a monogamous sexual relationship is the key to a fulfilling adult life, are rapidly gaining visibility. Expanding the possible roles that friends can play in one another’s lives could be the next frontier.

Shawn Goldbert/Shutterstock

●  New book on the history of monogamy and its alternatives. Luke Brunning, a UK philosopher, published a shortish book this week Does Monogamy Work? A Primer for the 21st Century. He is interviewed in Mashable: Does monogamy work? This new book explores the controversial question (Oct 20). The interview ends with this:

...You discuss the concept of jealousy and compersion.... Is jealousy an inevitable part of non-monogamy, or if it's possible to get to a place of full compersion?

I've written about this recently [Imagine There's No Jealousy, Aeon, Feb. 27, 2019] and tried to think about it in more detail. What I've put in the book [is] based on this academic article I published [Compersion: An Alternative to Jealousy?, Journal of the American Philosophical Association, Summer 2020] where I'm thinking through those questions. 

...[Some] people think jealousy is inevitable and you can never get rid of it. Other people take a completely different view and think it's easy. The emotion is linked to two things. One is our sense of personal vulnerability. The other is our beliefs about what we're entitled to, what we expect from other people, what we deserve....

Luke Brunning

It's relatively easy... to change your beliefs about relationships. You might think, 'Well, I've had all these dodgy beliefs about what I can expect from a partner or what I'm entitled to or how they should behave.' And so, change your kind of attitudes in that way. 

At the same time, the fact that you've changed those beliefs — you feel less entitled, you don't think that you possess your partner, you don't think can claim their attention — doesn't necessarily mean that you can alter — or alter quickly — your personal vulnerability ... [or] the way you get attached to people. ...

I know lots of people who've thought about this a lot, and they've got a clear sense of what they think is justified or not justified, and they think jealousy is not justified ... but nonetheless they feel horrifically insecure and vulnerable. 

●  Speaking of books, remember Paul Dalgarno, author of the novel Poly that came out last summer?  He writes about his own poly life, and the competing plusses and minuses of both polyamory and monogamy, in Archer magazine in his native Australia: Polyamory and the mirror on the wall (Oct. 15)

Mirror on wall, by Suhyeon Choi

...For monogamy, some of the bad press comes from the assumption it’s the natural way of things, as opposed to a practice that’s long been promulgated and bolstered by patriarchy and land (read ownership over other people) rights.

But monogamy also has plenty going for it.

Even though the “one-and-only” approach to love is prone to abuse through hush-hush affairs and their fallout, even though it’s vulnerable, as we all are, to the monotony of life and the law of entropy, having an “other half” provides a reliable data point – a mirror, as it were....

In my case... polyamory has providing me with, at best, a glorious infinity mirror, at worst a nightmarish funhouse of reflections in which my sense of who I really am becomes as stretched and distorted as the bedsheets in a cheap motel.

...Of all the benefits of polyamory, the one I’ve found most invaluable is the growing awareness that my relationships and the self-esteem I derive from them are chiefly my responsibility. There actually is no house of mirrors, no magic mirror on the wall – it’s you and what you bring to those around you that matters.

●  The Independent, one of the UK's major papers, just republished online a basic, longish Poly 101 from 2017:  7 things people with multiple partners want you to know about what it's really like (Oct 19). Its main source is Elisabeth Sheff. The 7 things it lists are,

1. They don't really get jealous [some don't, anyway, or at least not so much]

2. It's not all about sex

3. Sometimes people just fall into the lifestyle

4. It involves a lot of communication

5. It's not always easy

6. Kids don't complicate things as much as you might think

7. It doesn't always work

 

●  People complain: Among those happy polyfamilies so relentlessly featured in the British tabloids, why always so many triads?? A fresh example: Woman in polyamorous 'throuple' explains how they organise bedtime (Daily Mirror, Oct. 12, among others. With video.)

Janie, Cody, Maggie (TriAdventures / Instagram)

...Maggie and Cody first met on Tinder in February 2016, but became a throuple after meeting Janie in November that year.

In a video on TikTok, Janie says that while they weren't planning to end up in a relationship "it just sort of happened."

Cody and Maggie married in January 2018 at a courthouse and held a ceremony in May, where Janie was the maid of honour....

Now they share their life on social media on YouTube, TikTok and Instagram, from their home in Chattanooga, southeastern Tennessee.

In a video, Janie says that meeting their pair was the "best thing that ever happened to me."

In one video, which has been seen three million times, she explains how they manage the bedroom dynamic.

Janie shows off their king-size bed and says that sometimes the couple do all sleep there together sometimes.

She adds: "I sleep in the middle and Maggie and Cody sleep on either end.

"But its not actually normal for all three of us to sleep together."

"And we don't have a sleep schedule. Usually we just decide whoever sleeps in the King by whoever hasn't been sleeping the best recently goes to sleep by themself."...

So why do the tabs seem crazy for "throuples" over other poly family structures?  

Surely it's just because triads are the most abundant. There are more triads than quads, more quads than quints, and polyfamilies of six haven't even earned a special name yet. The pattern is clear: The more complex the structure, the less often it "occurs in nature." ¹  

So when the tabloids' content agencies go beating the bushes for polyfamilies to hire and exhibit, triads are mostly what they find.

And maybe another factor: The bigger the family, the more people have to agree to tabloid exposure. And, the paycheck will be divided more ways.

--------------------------------------

1.  The exception to this rule is the extended poly network. Network poly seems to be the commonest form today, at least in densely populated areas. A large network can absorb and damp out perturbations among its links, to continue through internal breakups, re-formations, new additions, and dropouts. A poly network is an intimate form of community. But within a network you almost always see, again, tighter sub-units forming: primary-ish couples, triads and quads, in that same decreasing order of abundance.

This is why I predict that even in a future society that's totally poly-friendly and -accepting, couples of two will be the relationship that most people are in for most of the time. Couples are just the simplest structure.

_________________________
 Don't miss Polyamory in the News!
 SUBSCRIBE by a feed, or
 SUBSCRIBE by email
_________________________


[Permalink]

"Why you might want to rethink monogamy in 2018"

The Conversation is a nonprofit international webmagazine meant to foster quality journalism (slogan: "academic rigor, journalistic flair"). In three years it has grown to six editions around the world, and with its free Creative Commons licensing, it claims 35 million readers for its content per month.

It just ran an article by a relationship researcher who says that a marriage's survival can depend on the couple discussing and agreeing on — early — what is fidelity and what is cheating. Is play flirting okay? Having lunch with a friend of the opposite sex? Kissing? And full consensual non-monogamy gets favorable treatment as a possible marriage strengthener.

By Lucia O'Sullivan (Professor of Psychology, University of New Brunswick)

...Research makes it clear that our best intentions are often worthless in the face of a compelling, and possibly unexpected, attraction to another person.... What’s more, an act of infidelity is often understood as the “dealbreaker” in relationships. And few people are abhorred more than those known to have “cheated.”

Despite all this, studies show that most people have in fact engaged in some type of infidelity in the past or have experienced a partner’s infidelity.

The question arises then: Is it time to ditch, or rethink, monogamy as a standard?

"Proponents of polyamory march at the 2017 Toronto Pride Parade." (Shutterstock)

...Interviews with newlyweds in the United States indicate that many people expect they and their partner will remain monogamous, despite admitting to having [themselves] experienced a range of extramarital thoughts and behaviours already, such as flirting with another or feeling aroused in the presence of another. ... Studies show that infidelity remains, year after year, the primary cause of relationship break-ups and divorce.

Now, if you factor in the distress, distrust and discord that infidelity causes to those relationships it does not destroy, you begin to understand the weight of its consequences.

...These questions are more poignant in light of research indicating that intimate relationships are becoming less rewarding over time even as our expectations of what they should deliver steadily increase.

In most Western countries, belief in the importance of monogamy is strong, yet relatively few individuals actually discuss with their partner what monogamy must entail.

...A series of studies by psychologist Ashley Thompson makes clear that we are notably inconsistent in the monogamy standards that we hold for ourselves versus those we hold for our partners. For example, we are far more lenient and tolerant in explaining our own versus our partner’s behaviour.

Those who endorse alternative approaches — such as “consensual non-monogamy” which allows for romantic or sexual relationships beyond the primary relationship, with the partner’s consent — argue that monogamous relationships are far less stable because people use jealousy, monitoring and suspicion as tools to hold their partners to this difficult standard.

Individuals in supposedly monogamous relationships are also less likely to practise safe sex when they cheat (putting their primary partner’s health at risk) than are those in consensually non-monogamous relationships.

...To discuss dealbreakers in one’s relationship, it is essential for a couple to define what constitutes a betrayal, violation of trust or act of dishonesty. If a couple can plan ahead of time for the possibility than one or both partners might have an intimate moment with another person at some point, this can reinforce the flexibility, tolerance and forgiveness required to adjust if that happens.

It all depends on the circumstances, of course, but accepting that another person might offer something that we or our partners need can leave couples better-positioned to move forward and adjust or negotiate if necessary, without an entire and irreversible relationship disintegration.

This is key: If we can admit to ourselves that a fleeting attraction, or more meaningful connection, with another partner might not irreparably harm our primary relationship — and indeed might supplement it — then our relationships might survive longer and better.

This is unlikely to be easy for most of us. ... But insisting upon a fairly unreasonable standard (lifelong exclusivity or else!) can in fact harbour the possibility of secrecy and betrayal.

The emphasis in relationships needs always to be on openness, caring and mutual consent.

This is not to say that you or your partner will ultimately connect intimately with another person in any way despite adopting a new viewpoint about exclusivity. It also does not mean you have to agree that “anything goes,” that your relationship becomes an open relationship in the broadest sense of that term, or that anyone at all can enter your private sphere.

It is wise to negotiate some guidelines with your partner — about who or what type of person might be invited to look in on that sphere, for a moment or longer, and what might be acceptable ways to connect with another person (e.g. lunch is okay, touch is out), should the need or want arise.

If you also discuss how best to talk about it, this approach can go far in keeping your relationship truthful, transparent and trusting — making the need for a dealbreaker that much less relevant altogether.

The whole article (January 1, 2018). The author has had lots to say on this over the years.

The article has been reprinted by Canada's National Post under the same title (Jan. 2); by the UK's lowbrow Daily Mail as Is monogamy bad for your mental health? Psychologist warns you should re-think fidelity for the sake of your relationship (Jan. 2); the UK's serious Independent as Why Monogamy May Not Be the Best Option for Your Relationship (Jan. 9); HuffPost Canada as Ditch The Fairy Tale Of Monogamy As The Standard For All Relationships (Jan. 3); Salon as Why you might want to rethink monogamy in 2018 (Jan. 6), and elsewhere.

O'Sullivan's advice to couples has been poly-movement doctrine from the beginning, and it may be the most important thing that we offer the wider public.

[Permalink]

The New Yorker, reviewing Esther Perel's new infidelity book, considers the poly option, skeptically

Esther Perel began to make her name with her 2006 book Mating in Captivity, a save-your-marriage guide that tackled the all-too-human incompatibility of sexual interest and long-term monogamy. The topic was a head-turner at the time. This fall she came out with a new book, The State of Affairs: Rethinking Infidelity. From the Amazon blurb: "What are we to make of this time-honored taboo — universally forbidden yet universally practiced? Why do people cheat — even those in happy marriages? Do our romantic expectations of marriage set us up for betrayal? Is it possible to love more than one person at once?"

This week The New Yorker devotes a 2,500-word feature (exquisitely written as always) to the book and its subject: "In Defense of Adulterers," by Zoë Heller. Toward the very end, the article finally gets around to the obvious solution for many: some form of agreed, mutually respectful openness. Perel herself also treats the obvious as something of an afterthought.

Exquisite New Yorker illo (Luci Gutiérrez)

...Might it not be better to stop fetishizing sexual exclusivity as the sine qua non of happy relationships?

Perel is not unsympathetic to this thought, and, toward the end of her book, she devotes a brief chapter to various forms of consensual non-monogamy. She writes about couples who swing, couples who have chosen to be, in the term coined by the sex columnist Dan Savage, “monogamish,” and couples who have expanded into “triads,” “quads,” or “polyamorous pods.” (Those interested in a more comprehensive taxonomy of such arrangements may wish to consult “It’s Called ‘Polyamory,’ ” by [our very own activists!] Tamara Pincus and Rebecca Hiles, a book that provides definitions of, among other things, “designer relationships,” “relationship anarchy,” and the polyamorous “Z.”) Perel praises the efforts of all these non-monogamists “to tackle the core existential paradoxes that every couple wrestles with — security and adventure, togetherness and autonomy, stability and novelty,” and she is careful to remind the squeamish that many of these “romantic pluralists” succeed in maintaining rather higher standards of loyalty and honesty than do their monogamous counterparts.

She remains, however, appropriately skeptical about whether any relationship construct, no matter how cunningly or thoughtfully devised, can offer permanent solutions to the dilemmas of romantic love. The polyamorist aspiration to replace sexual jealousy with “compersion” (a delight in one’s partner’s sexual delight with someone else) is just that: an aspiration. People often end up in open relationships out of a desire to propitiate restless lovers, rather than through any interest of their own — with predictably miserable results. And no amount of expanding or softening the boundaries of fidelity will ever outwit the human desire to transgress. The conventional bourgeois marriage invites adultery. The earnest polyamorous setup, in which every new lover is openly acknowledged and everyone’s feelings are patiently discussed at Yalta-type summits, invites some more imaginative trespass: not using a condom, or introducing the lover to your parents. “In the realm of the erotic,” Perel writes, “negotiated freedom is not nearly as enticing as stolen pleasures.”

Horseshit.

This — the impossibility of absolute romantic security — is the bracing moral at the center of Perel’s book. There is no “affair proof” marriage, she warns, whatever the self-help industry tries to tell you. To love is to be vulnerable....

Truth there, however.

Read the whole article (it's in the print issue dated December 18 & 25, 2017). Thanks to Dave Hall for sending the tip.

[Permalink]

Dan Savage on monogamy on PBS NewsHour

"Sometimes I 100% agree with Dan and sometimes I want to punch him in the face. This video is such an agree," writes OhMori on reddit/r/polyamory.

The 6-minute segment, aired on PBS NewsHour November 10th, doesn't mention the polyamory option. But it's serious mainstream exposure for perhaps the central idea of our movement (IMO), summed up in the segment's online blurb:

"Some people wind up making monogamous commitments because the culture says this is what 'good people' do," says Dan Savage. "But it should be a choice that each couple makes."

Which means discussing it, early — and understanding the many possible alternatives.

The video (6:15) is only on Facebook as best I can tell. Here's the link:

https://www.facebook.com/newshour/videos/1715245825215954/

[Permalink]

Cosmopolitan follows up: "7 Signs You Might Be Hard-Wired for Monogamy"

"Relationship choice" is the theme that the poly movement's activists, movers, and shakers firmly adopted several years ago as their guiding star. Poly is right for some, monogamy is right for others; no shame. The crucial thing is to figure out what's right for you, and look for partners who actually match.

Which means telling about yourself, and asking a new person about their feelings on the matter, very early. And explain exactly what you mean by polyamory, and what version of it draws you, because people often have their own assumptions and misunderstandings of the word.

But first you need to figure yourself out. Cosmopolitan, after its story "How My Poly Relationship Helped Me Make a Difficult Medical Decision" a few days ago, posts some twists to consider:

7 Signs You Might Be Hard-Wired for Monogamy

Viktar Salomin / Stocksy

There are no hard and fast rules, but there are some hints.

By Sophie Saint Thomas

From Broad City to Unicornland, open relationships are appearing more in pop culture. There are many forms of consensual non-monogamy (CNM), ranging from “don’t ask, don’t tell” sexually open relationships to polyamory.... According to Dr. Zhana Vrangalova, a sex educator and adjunct professor in human sexuality at NYU, interest in CNM across the board is rising, but Google searches have especially spiked for polyamory.

With all the hubbub, if you’re monogamous, you may be wondering if you’re missing out. ... There are some personality traits that may point to the right relationship style for your needs. We spoke with some of the leading sex researchers to talk about indicators that can help you decide. Of course, as all interviewed were quick to add, often exploring is half the fun. ... Just remember to check in with yourself and your partner(s) as you go, and don’t feel bad if regular ole’ monogamy is what you want. I promise you can still be cool. ...

1. A lot of change makes you uncomfortable. Change is inevitable in any relationship. However, in polyamorous relationships, the dynamic between you and your partners is more likely to ebb and flow.... If too much change makes you uneasy, you may be better suited for monogamy. ...

2. You aren’t the best with jealousy. Most people get jealous.... However, the ability to cope well with the emotion, and regulate it rather than lashing out, is a crucial factor in successful polyamorous relationships....

3. You’re not huge on relationship talks. Polyamorous relationships require constant communication around often uncomfortable topics. ...

4. You have stable attachment patterns. This one is a trick; stable relationship patterns are helpful for both polyamorous and monogamous relationships. ... What can mess up any relationship are anxious attachment patterns, when you tend to be clingy and constantly assume your partner’s going to leave you. ...

5. You’re not super organized. ...Most poly problems take place in calendars rather than the bedroom.

6. You prefer living in rural areas. “It’s easier for people who don’t have stigmatized relationships to find belonging and community,” Dr. Zhana says. ... Supportive friends are important for your mental health (and therefore successful romantic relationships). You need someone to bitch to. If you prefer life in rural areas where traditional relationships are the norm, you may be better suited for monogamy.

7. You’re simply uninterested in consensual non-monogamy. ... Go for the relationship style you desire.

Dr. Zhana teaches a webinar that can help people decide if polyamory or monogamy is right for them. Learn more about it here.

The whole article (September 25, 2017).

[Permalink]

Dan Savage's devastating reply to Helen Fisher

That New York Times story a couple days ago? The Secrets to an Open Marriage According to Mo’Nique? Which quoted the once-respected anthropologist Helen Fisher saying she just somehow knows these things "never end up working long-term"?

Dan Savage just published a takedown:

Dan Savage in 2013

...The Oscar-winning actress [Mo'Nique] and her husband [Sidney Hicks] are double rarity: not just a straight couple who aren't in the closet about their open marriage, but a famous straight couple in an openly open marriage.

...[Writer Tammy] La Gorce gets a few quotes from someone who comes across as pretty sane about open marriages — Douglas LaBier, a psychologist and the director of the Center for Progressive Development — but La Gorce pretty much hands the rest of the piece over to someone who has clearly lost her mind: Helen Fisher, author, "biological anthropologist at the Kinsey Institute" (RIP Kinsey Institute), and shill for a dating website, where Fisher has been doing important research on the best strategy for getting a second date (take 'em out for sushi) and what it means when a person uses a lot of emojis (they're horny as fuck).

...Where to start?

With Fisher's insulting claim to know better than Mo’Nique and Hicks how Mo’Nique and Hicks really feel about their marriage? (They only think they're happy, those deluded human animals!) With Fisher's yanked-from-her-ass assertions about evolutionary pressures that supposedly endowed all modern humans with genes that allow for just one type of romantic "bond" (only pairs, always sexually exclusive!) and just one successful "mating process" (only pairs, again, and it's all about the kids!)? With Fisher's assertion — offered without any data to back it up — that open marriages "never end up working long-term"?

Let's start with that.

"Just because there is a lack of good data on the longevity of open relationships does not mean that 'they never work out,'" said Dr. Debby Herbenick, a research scientist at Indiana University. "Saying 'they never work out' goes beyond any data she has; I would ask her to prove it. Where are her data? I know of none to support that."

Dr. Herbenick has data that contradicts Fisher's "they never work out" and "all people in non-monogamous couples are secretly miserable" bullshit.

"Similar proportions of men in monogamous and open relationships say they are happy in their relationship and sexually satisfied," said Dr. Herbenick, citing ACTUAL FUCKING DATA from the IU School of Public Health's 2014 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. "For women, more women in monogamous relationships say that they are happy in their relationship and sexually satisfied. But that doesn't mean none are happy or satisfied, as plenty are."

...On a personal note/anecdote: my husband and I recently celebrated our 21st anniversary and our marriage has been open for 17 of those years. Hey, maybe Terry and I need Helen Fisher to swing by the house and explain to us how we're really secretly miserable, just like Mo'Nique and Hicks....

Moving on...

Fisher's bizarre theory of brain adjacency: the chunks of our brainz involved in romantic love are located near the chunks of brainz that "orchestrate" thirst and hunger and that's why there's no such thing as a successful open marriage. CASE CLOSED!

That sounded like complete bullshit — and not just to me.

"It is a rather odd claim to say that the reason a phenotypic trait will operate the way it does is because a particular brain region responsible for it is adjacent to other brain regions which do something else," said Dr. Qazi Rahman, King's College London. "That kind of model of brain-behaviour relationships would generate all sorts of very odd predictions which most neuroscientists or neuropsychologists would find strange. But then all behaviour and mental activity is 'in the brain' and so I'm not clear making these sorts of claims does any useful explanatory work for behavioural scientists."

"There is an entire network of the brain involved in romantic love," said Dr. James Pfaus.... [Fisher] doesn’t get it. She has never gotten it. Her view of the brain is a neurochemical phrenology."

..."I spoke with Helen at a conference once," a researcher who did not wish to be identified told me in an email. "Helen said there is a single gene that will determine whether a man cheats or not. We carefully explained why this couldn't be so.”

Fisher, like so many other hacks in the love-and-relationship racket, wants sex and love and marriage to work in a certain way — they insist it only works this one way — and this monogamist bias informs and distorts Fisher's work.

"I enjoy Helen's stuff, but think she's blind to her cultural bias on this one," said Dr. David Ley. "I'd be interested in whether she truly thinks monogamy 'works' long-term, given divorce and infidelity rates. I think the most damaging piece of Fisher's approach is her generalization of her beliefs to all humans. The valuable thing about modern relationships is the ability to individually negotiate a relationship, based upon each partners' needs, strengths and deficits."...

Those are highlights; see the whole article (March 11, 2016).

[Permalink]

Time magazine asks: "Is Monogamy Over?"

That's the top question on the cover of Time for its "Question Everything" issue this week.

What's inside is no great shakes. Time asked ten supposedly interesting people whether monogamy has a future. Most of their replies seem off-the-cuff and are only mildly entertaining. Not one mentions "ethical non-monogamy", "open relationships" or "polyamory." It's mostly about cheating. With jokes.

Coming closest is porn actor and producer James Deen, who observes,

...The beauty of sexuality is that it’s open-ended. There’s no right, there’s no wrong. [Cringe. –Ed.] It’s based on the individual. The beauty of it is that just because one person, or two people, or three people, or however many people are involved in a relationship structure that works for them, that doesn’t mean that’s the right way. All that needs to happen is that when people enter into relationships, and while they’re in these relationships, they need to have open discussions about their emotions, feelings and boundaries, and then they need to respect each other. I’ve been in relationships where anything went; I’ve been in relationships where I didn’t have sex off camera at all. The interest of the youth doesn’t seem to be the consistent with the old format of relationships.

So, is it monogamy obsolete? Absolutely not. Is it something that’s in the future we’re going to see less of? Yes.

But that first paragraph didn't make it into the print edition (Time still has a paid circulation of 3.2 million).

David Barash, co-author of The Myth of Monogamy, says it's unnatural but do it for the kids. Nathan Collier of Montana argues for legalizing polygamy; he and his two wives, you'll remember, just filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana that could become a test case. Miss Piggy huffs about her breakup with Kermit.

You might write a letter to Time pointing out their glaring oversight on the topic: letters@time.com .

The interesting thing here is that Time's marketing experts chose this question as the one that would grab the most people's eyes.

[Permalink]

"When I Say I Hate Monogamy, What I Really Mean Is..."

This morning comes a reminder that you display poor values and an unevolved mind when you diss people who choose monogamy as their preferred relationship style. The key word, of course, is "choose."

Louisa Leontiades is a prolific writer on life issues, poly, and feminism and is working on a new edition of her memoir The Husband Swap for Thorntree Press. Her newest piece just made it onto HuffPost/ U.K.:

When I Say I Hate Monogamy, What I Really Mean Is...

Actually I've never come right out and said I hate monogamy. But through viral articles like 'My Problem with Monogamy', it's easily inferred.

But monogamy is not something I hate.... I hate that it's more or less an enforced binary structure — to be single and dating, or together and exclusive. I hate that there are plenty of people who don't actively consent to monogamy, who are not happy in monogamy, but through society pressure and lack of information, unwittingly follow the prescribed norm hoping for that elusive happy ever after. I hate that so many monogamous people think I am, and treat me like, a second class citizen just for choosing polyamory. I hate that blinded by their own prejudices, they choose not to educate themselves in alternatives or believe me when I say that monogamy is not for me. That they think they know best for me, or view me as someone to be fixed....

I know several happy couples who are monogamous and are also my very good friends... they treat me with respect. I like them because they discuss with me for hours on end, the complexities of my lifestyle trying to learn what implications my choices might have for them as I learn more about why they choose monogamy. I like them because they teach their kids that freedom, voice and consent is important. I like them because they examine their own motivations for their actions....

When you first enter into the world of polyamory, you meet many people who have thought carefully about issues like gender, break-up, sexuality and conflict.... In general, polyamorous people have been forced to consider these things much more than your average monogamous person because they're questioned about it, time after time....

There are some activists who elevate polyamory by bashing monogamy. I don't like that.

I dislike even more that I've done it myself....

Read on. (Article published December 12, 2014).

[Permalink]

"Questioning the Cult of Monogamy, One Study at a Time"

Nearly everybody in the poly movement will tell you that poly is not for everyone, monogamy suits some people best, and what we're about is "relationship choice." That's the key phrase in the mission statements of Loving More and the Polyamory Leadership Network, for instance. Know your own philosophy or orientation and your true wishes, choose mindfully, and have the conversation with potential partners early. What we oppose is compulsory monogamy for all.

The October issue of Psychology Today, now on newsstands, is more aggressive with a headline and teaser in its newsbriefs about "Happily Never After" and "the cult of monogamy." It handily sums up research refuting four mono myths that most people assume are facts.

It's not online (yet), but click this image for a high-res version. Save to pass on.

Thanks to yeahthatchic at reddit/r/polyamory for the tip.

[Permalink]

"Polyamory for Monogamists"

SexIs ("what you want it to be")

The new online and print magazine SexIs ("taking sex positivity to a whole new level") is getting a lot of notice, judging from my Google Alerts. It's published by EdenFantasys, "the sex shop you can trust," a woman-oriented distributor of adult toys that also provides "education about topics of healthy sexual activity. We believe that the safe, consensual expression of sexuality is a wonderful and crucial part of human life."

The magazine looks serious; it has a lot of professional content and has brought in some of the sex-positive world's name writers. It just published this:

Polyamory for Monogamists

By Kal Cobalt

Whether you're the one excited about trying poly or the partner who's been approached to open up the relationship, you don't have to just guess and hope about the outcome of this venture....

There are all kinds of types who get interested in exploring polyamory, but the same few hurdles keep catching folks who give it a try. Armed with a few specifics, you have a better chance of successfully navigating your way past them into polyamory — or figuring out early on that it's not for you and your partner....

Ask Yourself: Why Do I Want This?

If your reason for wanting to try poly runs along the lines of "I can understand how I could love more than one person at a time" or "It would be interesting to watch my partner fuck someone else or hear about it afterward," you have a reasonable likelihood of moving toward poly.

If, however, your reason is something like "My partner wants to give it a try and I don't see why not," "Sex without strings attached could be cool," or "I love the idea of fucking whoever I want," you may not be as likely to succeed as you think. Polyamory, unlike open relationships or swinging, is not about freewheeling sex. Your relationships will often depend on how your other relationships feel about them.

Going poly because it doesn't seem like a big deal is a recipe for disaster — it is a big deal. Think of your mono or poly orientation as similar to your sexual orientation: you can experiment with it, but going against your historical orientation just because your partner wants it is unlikely to turn out well....

Ask Your Partner: Why Do You Want This?

Here's a common scenario: You read something about poly and you realize you're interested. You read more, think about it for a few days, and decide you want to try it.... You approach your partner with the great idea... and when your partner doesn't immediately respond favorably, you feel trapped by your jealous, controlling partner.

Meanwhile, from the other side, it feels like this: You feel that your relationship is going pretty well. Suddenly, your partner blurts out that they want to date other people — while still being with you, of course. You sit quietly for a moment, trying to figure out whether this means your relationship is falling apart....

...Polyamory to placate one partner doesn't work, which should come as no surprise; doing anything solely to placate one partner usually results in peace for a limited time followed by a great big blowout...

...Here are a few things you'll want to think about in advance and watch out for.

Jealousy. If this is not a problem for you, you aren't out of the woods. Polyamory means you have at least two other people's potential jealousies to take into account....

Mixing polyamory and monogamy. Sometimes, when one partner is interested in polyamory and the other is not, this solution comes to mind: Partner A will be polyamorous, and Partner B will be monogamous to Partner A, and everyone will be happy. I am here to tell you that this works only once in a blue moon....

Mixing priority levels. Most often, polyamory ends up existing in a hierarchy.... While this isn't how all poly is structured, it's the most common way. Mixing happens when, for example, Partner A is your primary...but you're Partner A's secondary....

Don't Give Up...Until It's Time

I'm not trying to scare you off polyamory. It's the best thing that's ever happened to me, and I couldn't imagine my life any other way....

Read the whole article (May 2, 2011).

P.S.: Two relevant Yahoo discussion groups:

Livingpolymono, which "exists primarily to provide support to polyamorous people with monogamous partners," and

PolyMono,"a support group for monogamous people in a committed relationship with someone who is polyamorous."

Both have been active since 2002.

[Permalink]

Poly-Mono advice from Sex At Dawn author

The Stranger online

A new book is getting a lot of buzz: Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, by Christoper Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. Their most talked-about point is that our accepted beliefs about monogamy are built on falsehoods and are a recent and unnatural social construct.

I'm getting the book and will have more to say about it later. Meanwhile, from the publisher's blurb:

Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is. Human beings everywhere and in every era have confronted the same familiar, intimate situations in surprisingly different ways. The authors expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.

Sounds like my version of poly. Here's a review in Seed magazine.

Dan Savage, of "Savage Love" column fame, has been touting the book (in his hyperbolic style) as "the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948." And he invited Ryan to guest-host some advice columns on the website of The Stranger, the alternative newspaper that Savage edits in Seattle. For example:

Letter of the Day: More Advice From Sex At Dawn Coauthor Christopher Ryan

July 7, 2010

Q: I'm a 29-year-old straight male. My girlfriend and I have been together for four years... We are very much in love. However, since the beginning of our relationship, my girlfriend has told me that she is not interested in being monogamous for her entire life.... Over the course of our relationship, she has made it very clear that I am her man, her #1 priority, BUT she knows that in the future she's going to want to sleep with other guys. She also has said that I would be free to sleep with other girls.

My question is, how do I get over this terrible feeling that I get whenever I think about my girlfriend having sex with another man? I try to be open-minded, but every time the idea is presented, I get a sick feeling in my stomach....

...Am I making too big a deal out of this? I am very happy with our relationship, and our sex life. And she has told me on numerous occasions that sex with me is the best she's ever had, but also that variety is the spice of life. Which then makes me think, “Why would she want anyone else if I'm the best?” And honestly, it makes me feel as if I'm not enough.

—When The Best Isn't Enough

Christopher Ryan: Whether or not you’re making “too big a deal out of this” depends on several things. First, assuming you could overcome this sick feeling you get when the issue comes up, would you want a long term (possibly life-long) relationship with this woman, on these terms? In other words, is your reaction something you see as a weakness in yourself that you’d like to overcome, or does it represent a fundamental difference in how the two of you understand and experience sex and intimacy?

You sound like a sincere, thoughtful, self-reflective guy, so I’m going to assume the woman you love is similarly evolved, psychologically. She’s not going to change, and even if you could find a way to make her, that would only lead to resentment and disaster. Our greatest ambition for Sex at Dawn is that it will encourage young people like you to clarify their sexual nature before signing on to long term commitments they can’t get out of later without making a huge mess. [Ed. note: basically the same ambition as the whole poly awareness movement.] It sounds like she’s very clear on who she is and what kind of relationship can/cannot work for her long term, so it’s up to you to try to take it or leave it.

As to your insecurities, since she’s already risked losing you by being up-front about her unwillingness to sign on to long-term sexual monogamy, I see no reason to doubt her when she says she loves you and that her intimacy with you is far more than she has with anyone else. One of the advantages of sexual experience (which she seems to have) is that you realize that sex isn’t magical. She’s never going to leave you because another guy has a bigger Johnson or screws her better. She already knows what’s out there, and she’s found what she likes best with you. It sounds like she’s offering you emotional, but not sexual monogamy. So now you’ve got to decide whether you want to try to disentangle those two issues in your own experience.

If you do, I’d suggest seeing this as a way to deepen your connection with her. Explain that you want to really understand her experience and share yours. Ask her to tell you about her experiences with other men and notice your feelings. Are you disgusted? Turned on? Afraid? All of the above? Tell her about some of your experiences with other women and explore her reactions....

If you can develop a relationship in which sex becomes something the two of you share — even when it involves other people — you might end up with something very special. But if this sounds like more trouble than it’s worth, you might want to seriously consider looking for someone whose views on monogamy are less challenging for you.

Read the whole article (July 7, 2010).

Here's another Dan Savage column, drawing on the book to explain the unexpected reactions that a reader and her husband had to an experience of group sex.

And here's more from Savage on these themes.

[Permalink]

"The Future of Marriage and Non-Traditional Relationships"

KPBS Public Radio (San Diego)

A public radio station presents an intelligent, 34-minute discussion of the future of polyamory, featuring three guests: Ethical Slut co-author Dossie Easton, family therapist David Peters, and family-law expert Janet Bowermaster.

Polyamory comes off in the discussion as a serious and promising, though difficult, new social institution — for the minority of people who are suited to it and willing to face up to the work.

The segment aired March 18, 2010, in mid-morning. You can stream or download the audio, or read the transcript. Here are pieces of it:

MAUREEN CAVANAUGH (Host): I'm Maureen Cavanaugh, and you're listening to These Days on KPBS. The big news about marriage recently is how many more people want to give it a try. Many gay and lesbian couples are working hard to achieve the right to marry in California, a right same sex couples have already achieved in five states and the District of Columbia. In addition to being part of a struggle for equal rights, the move toward same sex marriage might also be seen as a validation of monogamous relationships.

But not everyone agrees. At the same time that some are working for marriage, the polyamory movement is gaining strength in some urban areas and on the internet. Polyamorists believe in ethical non-monogomy by openly engaging in intimate relationships with more than one person at a time. And if that sounds like old fashioned hippie free love to you, you may not be so far off the mark. Joining me to discuss what place polyamory may have in the future of relationships are my guests....

------------------

DAVID PETERS: ...Well, monogamy in human history is the dominant form of bonding. Most of the animal world does not pair bond monogamously, 90% does not. But humans, through almost all of human history, have had a proclivity to monogamy and pair bonding. You have exceptions, of course....

CAVANAUGH: And many people live, in a sense, polyamorous lifestyles without being honest about it. I mean, spouses cheat and... does that sort of knock down the idea that monogamy is what most people sort of go towards?

PETERS: Well, we, as a species, attempt monogamy and then because we have emotions and drives that lead us by our nose sometimes, we fail at monogamy.... Affairs in marriage, you know, some 30% of men and women, statistics vary depending upon what you read, but most of those people who do have affairs would also say, well, they’re not happy about it, they would prefer that they had one love in their life and – or one love at a time and that they could be open with that one love. So many people who are having affairs feel caught....

EASTON: ...There’s no reason to think that having an affair or a relationship with another person needs to detract from a life partnership or any other relationship that you have. You don’t have to kind of subtract the one from another.

CAVANAUGH: Yes, I understand exactly what you’re saying....

------------------

PETERS: I’m going to quote a little bit from the work of a well known anthropologist, a Dr. Helen Fisher, who is out of Rutgers State University. And she’s done some remarkable research on the level of brain neurology and brain chemistry in terms of studying love, lust, attachment, and romance. She’s pointed out that we actually have three different brain systems within our heads that promote the mating and reproductive behavior among humans.

The first one is commonly known as lust. It’s merely that urge to have sex with someone. It’s impersonal, it doesn’t require love, it doesn’t require attraction even....

Another brain system is romantic love, and this is the very familiar human trait which is that attraction. You get this euphoric feeling. That’s marked by a rise in dopamine levels in the brain and it causes the sense of excitement, and then a lowering of serotonin in the brain which causes the obsessive love where you just can’t get the person out of your mind. And we really enjoy this romantic love. You know, poetry’s written about it, movies are written about it, music is composed about it. And this is really uniquely human and it makes our mating and partnerships so wonderful.

A third brain system, in this full human behavior, is attachment. And with attachment, you see the longterm bond between humans. This is the marriage that’s lasted for years. You have your best friend there. It may not be hotly romantic anymore but it’s very comfortable. You’re good friends. You trust one another. You stick together....

What’s interesting here is that these brain systems can act independent from one another... and cause confusion if your goal is monogamy. You have to really work to manage it. What’s interesting here is in the polyamorous community, they’re attempting to have a primary attachment with one partner, or sometimes two partners, while allowing romantic love or allowing lust to be explored with others. And this is all by open agreement. Everybody has to know what’s going on. Most people would not prefer this, but this is what’s being attempted.

...EASTON: Some people – and when my daughter was young, this was what I was doing and sort of still do – see their polyamorous connections as one kind of big, extended family, the equivalent of a neighborhood or a village. And extend things out like, you know, sharing raising kids and keeping houses going and all that, in one larger system that distributes a lot of the work in that system. I would simply add that there is room for attachment as well as lust and romance. My own experience is that sexual connection is kind of an amazing intimacy – I think of it really as sacred, a wonderful way of connecting, so I don’t think of it as just lust, or just romance. I think of it as a truly profound connection and I want to honor that connection.... So I sort of expect people who are present in my and my partner’s lives as lovers to, you know, have profound connections.

CAVANAUGH: Dossie brings up a point....

------------------

CALLER: I had a question for the author of “The Ethical Slut.” You know, I know that at least Christianity and Catholicism believe that when a couple get married and have intimacy, there’s a bond, a divine bond that’s created there. I know they were talking a little bit about spirituality before but in terms of that religious morality and divine connection between married people, monogamous married people, what is the polyamorous perspective on that?

EASTON: I think that the polyamorous perspective is largely that spiritual connection can exist beyond marriage and that the connections, that the love connections that we make are sacred, whatever rituals or whatever commitments involved in those relationships are. Certainly, marriage is a very special relationship, but the notion that love can only occur in marriage or that sexual love can only occur between two people in one particular kind of relationship, is, in my experience, really just plain not true. And that the kind of love that indicates a spiritual connection - loving, caring, concerned about each others' wellbeing, all that other good stuff - is something that can be more widespread.

------------------

PETERS: ...Well, jealousy is certainly going to be the biggest challenge if you’re attempting a polyamorous relationship. And, you know, when you hear people casually talk about this, they’ll say, oh, these people just want it easy to just get whatever they want. And, in fact, it’s not quite easy. What they’re attempting does require a lot of work because one has to take full responsibility for one’s position. You go in consciously knowing what’s going on, no one’s being fooled, and so if you do have feelings of jealousy or insecurity then you’re responsible for them. So there’s a deep personal challenge to own up to, you know, what you’re doing there.

And that can be growth enhancing, one could say, but clearly the majority of people, you know, are not wanting to be challenged in that way. We want the security of marriage. And so, you know, this is certainly not a route for everybody; this is a route for people who have really thought about it very seriously. And I wouldn’t recommend anybody get into such a thing casually.

------------------

PETERS: If you read much of the polyamorous literature, it is not male-centered. Much more of it is female-centered. They tend to - Dossie has mentioned several times the spirituality of sex and there tends to be – you can kind of find it in the literature as you read around a certain feminine-feminist-spirituality-sexuality, you know, flow here, where sex is celebrated in a spiritual encounter, and that’s definitely the trend in the polyamorous community....

Read the whole transcript (March 18, 2010).

[Permalink]

Jenny Block on Tiger Woods and unchosen monogamy

Newsweek online

"First they wrote about me. Now I've written for them," e-mails Jenny Block. The author of Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage got an opinion piece accepted at Newsweek online (with a headline on the magazine's homepage), on the elevated subject of Tiger Woods.

In case you've been living under a rock, the champion golfer got caught cheating on his wife; she apparently chased him with a golf club, he took off from home and crashed his SUV into a fire hydrant and a tree just outside, and she used the golf club to smash out its windows.

Utterly stereotypical unevolved mono/cheater drama, yeah; a New Yorker cartoon from the 1930s. The whole world is gossiping — but do people even imagine there might be another way? This begs for a poly perspective, and Jenny provides it:

The Case Against Monogamy

Why is everyone so surprised about Tiger Woods? When it comes down to it, monogamy doesn't always work.

By Jenny Block | Newsweek Web Exclusive

...I'm not saying cheating is OK. I'm saying it shouldn't be a surprise. I was a cheater myself once. Three years into my marriage, I had an affair. She was blonde and freckled and made me blush. Yes, she was a girl — but that was beside the point; I'd been open about my bisexuality for years. My husband, meanwhile, was crushed when I told him — and I hated myself for not being strong enough to say no. I figured surely this must have meant I'd married Mr. Wrong: why else would I have the desire to step out?

As it turns out, desire is exactly what's at issue here. Human beings desire variety. We desire multiple partners. It's a simple fact that's built into our biology. And while some choose monogamy simply because it feels right, I think many more of us choose it because we think it's what we're supposed to do. You don't want to end up an old maid or a lonely bachelor, do you?

Monogamy just isn't always realistic. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. It simply doesn't work for some. And just as people choose different religions, eating habits, and places to call home, I believe we should be able to choose different ways to live out our relationships.

Several years after my affair, my husband and I jointly decided that monogamy just wasn't for us. We love each other and want to be together, but monogamy is not the cornerstone of our partnership — trust is. So we decided to open up our relationship to other people.

First we both dated the same woman. Then my husband dated her and I saw other people. And then they broke up and I dabbled until I met a woman who, like my husband, I cannot imagine being without. And so now it's her and me and him and me, and we are all fabulous friends. Everyone gets their needs met. No one feels left out or guilty, and the only time any of us questions our lifestyle is when we let those Disney movies come creeping back into our heads.

Let me be very clear here: I have no problem with monogamy. I think conscious, honest, true monogamy can be a wonderful thing. What should not be tolerated is hypocrisy — and that's where Tiger’s vow of marriage got him into trouble. If you want to be monogamous, great — but don't think you can claim it while you sleep around. It's not fair and, quite frankly, it's exhausting.

Monogamy is a choice. But until it's treated like one, cheating scandals will continue to pop up and the public will continue to eat them up. Because misery loves company. And in the end, that's the only thing cheating will bring you.

Here's the whole article (Dec. 10, 2009). Near the beginning Newsweek has put in a big video insert of its film of Terisa Greenan's poly family in Seattle — great stuff, watch it if you haven't already. And there are links to Newsweek's online feature article about polyamory as "America's next romantic revolution" that appeared last July 29.

Also: see Anita Wagner's take on the Tiger affair on her Practical Polyamory blog (two posts):

Whatever way people arrange their intimate lives, committing to monogamy by rote because it's what we are "supposed" to do is clearly a bigger risk than most people realize....

Though we polyamorists are often vilified for our choices, I am proud to say that I will never cheat on a partner, and neither are any partners likely to cheat on me, because none of us has to. We make relationship agreements we can stick to, and if we find we no longer can, then we talk with our partners and renegotiate the rules of the relationship. In this way trust is maintained.

Also see Jay Michaelson's commentary at the Huffington Post: "It's Not Just Tiger: Monogamous Marriage Is An Anomaly".

And here's a cute post at an adult sexuality education website on honest poly as the way to do non-mononogamy.

This requires a very high level of relationship skills, as it takes an ongoing commitment to clear communication and the ability to negotiate to discover win-win solutions, often including compromises. Conscious relationships are not for cowards. To do it well takes balls! (And great skill if you’re going to use your putter properly and safely.)

The argument always goes that a sports star with lucrative corporate sponsorships, or a politician who has to appeal to voters, can't afford to be openly poly. I think the day is coming (or could be here already?) when being forthrightly poly would be less detrimental to careers and public images than getting caught cheating.

-------------------

¹ The reported statistics for cheating in marriage are actually all over the map, so I don't believe any of them. Except I suspect that the higher numbers are more likely true — because I bet more people will lie to a pollster and say they're faithful when they aren't, than will lie to a pollster and say they're cheating when they aren't.

[Permalink]

CNN on monogamy and the poly alternative

CNN online

It's as mass-market an outlet as you can get. CNN published an article on its website this morning about the difficulty of monogamy (despite its alleged benefits) and its apparent unnaturalness (while stressing that it can be achieved). The article describes the polyamory alternative for eight paragraphs, and manages not to screw it up.

More and more, the mainstream is starting to grasp poly and recognize that it's a genuine, happily workable possibility for certain people — one that's important and worth discussing. We're winning.

Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic?

By A. Pawlowski, CNN

..."It's realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language," said psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton.

Added [her husband] evolutionary biologist David Barash, "It's within the realm of human potential, but it's not easy."...

Possibilities in polyamory?

...The 1970s introduced the concept of "open marriage" in which couples stayed married but were free to date other people.

More recently, polyamory -- the practice of having romantic relationships with multiple people at the same time with the full knowledge and consent of all involved -- has been getting a lot of attention.

"We found the expectation that one person should be our everything seemed unrealistic given our day and age.... It's oddly pressuring to set up that scenario," said Mark, who lives in Springfield, Missouri, and is in a polyamorous relationship. (He asked that his last name not be used for privacy reasons.)

Mark, 42, has been married for five years. He and his wife tried different things to spice up their marriage, including swinging, or having casual sex with other people, he said. But they found the experience unfulfilling and decided what they really wanted was to be able to fall in love with others while staying together.

Mark dates another woman, and his wife, who declined to be interviewed for this article, is dating another man. The four of them frequently get together to have dinner or watch movies.

"People describe polyamory as 'poly-agony' because of all the work you have to do to maintain things," Mark said. "It's just not normal to look over and see your wife with another man. I know a lot of people would have a real problem with that. I really don't."

The ultimate goal is for everyone in the group to live together, Mark said.

"This isn't about having affairs, it's really about being able to be open and loving," he added.

Researchers studying polyamory estimate there are more than half a million polyamorous families in the United States, according to Newsweek.

I just wish the subject had been treated more as a positive expansion of love in its own right, rather than as a workaround for monogamy's failures.

Also, I was glad to see the "poly-agony" warning — for people who might get the notion that this is something you can just run out and do without a lot of conscious mutual relationship work. Some people seem naturally born to polyamory and swim in it as easily as fish in water. Most people aren't, and have to do more relearning and self-training than they may expect. (Of course you never have to; don't let anyone bullshit you into poly against your better judgment.)

The article goes on to quote an interesting extreme statement:

...Many people believe monogamy is completely on its way out. French author Jacques Attali in recent years wrote [in Foreign Policy magazine], "Monogamy, which is really no more than a useful social convention, will not survive. It has rarely been honored in practice; soon, it will vanish even as an ideal."

I doubt it. For one thing, consider some statistics of poly relationships. Although I don't know hard numbers, there certainly seem to be more vees than fully interlinked triads; more triads than quads; more quads than quints. The trend is clear: the more complex the setup, the less often it occurs in nature.

Extrapolate this trend backward, and the simplest arrangement is a couple (which has only 1 person-to-person relationship, compared to a vee's 2, a full triad's 3, a quad's 6, and a quint's 10). So for this reason alone, I think that some form of monogamy will always remain the most common relationship choice — even in a completely poly-aware and poly-accepting future.

Read the whole article (Oct. 28, 2009). And join the comments. Remember, late comments are important, because in a most-recent-first ordering, they will stay on top for a long time if the fuss has died down.

A condensed version of the article appeared a day later on the website of a TV station local to the Missouri man quoted.

[Permalink]