Polyamory: does it work?

Great Debates
1

I suppose the real question should be: does it work better than monogamy?

Someone sent me this article: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/05/26/free_love/index.html

…which goes on in the vein of, essentially, polygamous people got it good, are more open-minded, and enlightened. I’ve run across this attitude in the poly community a bunch, but most of them seem to be as grumpy and unsatisfied as the monogamous people I know.

I’ll buy the concept that the human heart has an infinite capacity to love, but human beings only have so much emotional energy, so it seems to me that splitting that up among a bunch of people means you get more superficial relationships the more people enter into the equation.

I guess what I’m wondering is if the charming ideas put forth by the likes of Robert Heinlein are really possible. Given the limitations of the average human in today’s society, I’m skeptical. I certainly don’t wish to limit anyone’s right to give it the old college try, but I wonder what the odds of success are vs. ol’ boring monogamy.

2

:slight_smile:

Hi Mielikke!

I don’t have time to really answer your post right now, but I’ll work on it later. There’s never one right answer when it comes to poly, so I can only give you my opinions, but I’m game for that. I’ll get back to you over the weekend. I know there’re some more polys around this board, so hopefully they’ll chime in too.

In the meantime, can you think about something? Why did this article give you the impression that poly people think they’re better than everyone else? I gave it a quick read and that’s not at all what I got out of it.

Did you also get the impression that hacker/computer geek types think they’re better than everyone else? Because a lot of the article talked about the sexuality choices of this community stemming from their hacker/geek-type personality.

You also say that you get this attitude a lot from the poly community. That makes me curious as to what type of contact you have with how large a community.

Anyhoo, be talking to you soon!

3

I don’t know about loving more than one person romantically at a time. I don’t see myself doing it. I think it is entirely possible - in fact, preferable - to have romantic relationships that are sexually non-restricted.

4

My personal experience has been that polyamory doesn’t work - not in practice anyways.

Maybe that’s because of the type of people I have seen getting involved in polyamorous relationships. To a one, they were emotionally immature, dishonest, and selfish - not qualities that are going to make any relationship, let alone a polyamorous one successful.

I have to agree Meilikki. People only have so much energy to expend in the course of a day, a week, or the rest of their lives. A monogamous relationship takes a hell of a lot of work. A polyamorous one even more. Pile on to that work, family, friends, and all the myriad hobgoblins we have to deal with in order to make life work, and we exceed our resources pretty quickly.

The only person I’ve heard of who successfully managed a polyamorous relationship is SingleDad, and he eventually left his group. I’d be interested in hearing his point of view.

5

I suppose it’s from the use of words like ‘open-minded’ vs. ‘selfishly hoard’, and statements like ‘They saw no need to constrain themselves to a sexual status quo just because the boring majority doesn’t know how to have fun.’ It would seem that geeks view themselves in the same way with ‘Likewise, many advocates of free and open-source software describe themselves as nonconformists, rebels or as just generally more open-minded than your average person’ and ‘…for him, free software is a moral imperative based on the principle that people who share code are ethically better people. His commitment to an unorthodox romantic life extends even into the realm of family.’ Basically, the theme seems to be poly/geeks are exciting/rebels/not constrained by society, which implies that the monogamists/guys who work for Microsoft or whatever are repressed and boring. The need for these stereotypes is probably the subject of another post; I was wondering about the actual practice.

I should state that I’ve never talked to a poly person who sneered at me; it’s more the tone I’ve seen in articles like the above. I can’t remember where I’ve seen them all; ‘Green Egg’ magazine comes to mind. I’m in the Pagan community and there is some overlap into the poly community, understandably. The poly people are all nice and don’t seem a bit depraved or weird, and none of them have really ‘proselytized’ (in the sense that ‘my lifestyle makes me a more enlightened person’), if you could call it that.

The articles do seem to sometimes. Now as a Wiccan I understand how they can get defensive. There’s an abundance of Wiccan articles that go beyond the ‘no we’re NOT Satanists!’ line and launch into attacking Christianity for being close-minded and horrible and all that stuff, and I wince whenever I read them.

Anyway, I’m trying to get past that and understand where the poly types are coming from.

Cheers,

Mielikki

6

I think that pointers to several polyamorist resources have been given in the Separation of church and state: the Mormon Supreme Court? and Polygamy… threads.

7

Good point, Akatsukami. I’ll try to repost the links here too, but until I get a chance… Thanks!
Mielikki et al: Another question. What is required for a relationship to be “successful”?

If you’re going to define ‘successful relationship’ as one between two people that lasts forever (i.e., the same as permanent monogamy), then obviously there could never be a ‘successful’ polyamorous relationship. Many poly folks use different criteria for ‘successful’ then y’all seem to based upon your statements here. So, to answer your questions about the possibility of ‘successful polyamorous relationships’, I’ll need to know what’s required for a relationship to qualify as successful.
I’d like to see SingleDad and some of the other poly people get in here too. Where are you guys??? I know you’re out there, I can hear you breathing! :slight_smile:

(Redtail MUST get some work done in order to continue to feed, house, clothe and support Clan Redtail. Later, y’all!!)

<100 times: no more SDMB today, no more SDMB today, no more…> yeah, right. :stuck_out_tongue:

8

In response to the OP, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t work for me. Would be bad for my insecurity.

But I think it could work for some people.

-VM

9

phouka sed:

(my bolding)

In answer to the OP, yes, polyamorous relationships can work, but very few people in the world are emotionally mature, honest, and unselfish.

There are far too many out there who want to have sex with other people, or watch their partner with another person, or swing or whatever and think that’s what’s required for a relationship. And that’s fine by me, I think sex is great, even if it’s just for its own sake. But it’s never the sole basis of a “relationship.”

I know plural marriages/relationships can be successful, but they only become possible when all participants understand themselves, understand each other, and most importantly are committed to continual and honest communication. And that’s exceedingly rare in any relationship.

(gee, you’d almost think I’d been involved in a poly relationship, huh? ;))

10

Alternative sexuality is a relatively new concept in civilization. Even cultures that tolerated or encouraged homosexuality had very strict sex roles for individual homosexuals. Even in this century, people who practiced alternative sexuality have been persecuted, imprisoned and killed. When people are defending an alternative lifestyle that is just emerging from oppression they have an understandable tendency to deprecate conventionality. It is a measure, I think, of my self-comfort in pursuing a relatively conventional lifestyle, to look on such comments with tolerant and understanding amusement.

Whether or not poly relationships “work” really depends on your definition of “work”. About fifty percent of marriages end in divorce; does this statistic deprecate monogamy?

Keep in mind also that people are, by and large, neurotic and unselfaware. They frequently look to sex for validation of a number of non-sexual needs, including social approval or the fulfillment of negative ideals of themselves or others. Whatever lifestyle they happen to practice doesn’t cause their neuroses. For such people, no particular lifestyle will bring them happiness; it is a lack within themselves that must be filled, not the presences of one or more specific others. Although low self-esteem does sometimes impel a person to promiscuity, the promiscuity doesn’t directly cause their lack of self-esteem.

I think it is impossible to generalize about whether a particular lifestyle “works”. Rather, each person should look into his or her own heart and decide what he or she wants, and then go find partners who feel similarly. Other than avoiding lies, deceit and coercion, I think all lifestyles are equally respectable, from boundless promiscuity to complete asexuality.

How seriously you want to take relationship advice from a 37 year-old single man is up to you. :wink:

11

Good point re. what the heck do I mean by ‘work’? I mean that a relationship is healthy. OK, what’s healthy? I suppose it’s when two people love each other. What’s love? (Sheesh!) Let me run and get a quote from a book… all right, it’s from ‘The Road Less Traveled’ by M.Scott Peck (I was raised by a pack of therapists) and he defines love thus: ‘The will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.’ He;s trying to distinguish this from having a crush, or needy love, or love that has strings attached, or obsessive love. It requires effort, and does not guarantee that the relationship lasts forever; in fact, if you help your parter grow in such a manner that you become incompatible with him, it may be an act of love to leave him.

If I gave the impression that monos have cornered the market on healthy relationships, well, I didn’t intend to. Love as defined above is a lot more rare than marriage, IMHO. It takes a lot of work, and sometimes people prioritize things in such a way that being in a vibrant, healthy relationship with one person is beyond their abilities. As busy as most people’s lives are, it’s no wonder. Having that sort of relationship with more than one person would, it seems, be that much more difficult.

So I guess it boils down to priorities.

12

For more on this subject, please visit my thread Ask Bi Guy. In addition to a lot of frank, fascinating discussion of bisexuality, there are a cluster of practitioners of polyamory who have posted to discuss their lifestyles. It’s an enlightening read.

Oh, and while you’re there, be sure to post any questions you have. “Ask Bi Guy” needs to be bumped up again.

13

Hi all. Interesting subject, Miellike! First of all, I must respond to phouka.
“Monogamous relationships take a lot of work … you run out of resources fairly quickly.”
Good point, phouka. Relationships are hard and those who don’t think so are not in a real relationship! BUT. When you are with your spouse, you are “getting back” something from him/her. When with your kids, friends, parents, etc, same story. And in each case, the resources you have to give out … and those you take back from the other person …are different. Case in point: my husband and I have a very cloe girlfriend who has been my best friend for years. I love girltalking with her, watching movies, talking about books we’ve read, etc. These are activities my husband is not interested in. Meanwhile, the two of them enjoy role-playing games, science-fiction, and deep scientific discussions … things I am not interested in. Therefore, certain personality traits of mine and my husband’s that WE don’t stimulate for each other, SHE does. Wow! All of a sudden, we are more well-rounded people!

That said, I have to also state that the only real-life example of polyamory turned out a horrendous mess, so I’m not totally sold on the lifestyle yet. But I do think it has possibilities. I think the key (as with ANY relationship)is to be totally honest about your expectations of the relationship, and if they are different, move on.

14

Haven’t all the variant forms of “marriage” worked for human beings at one time or another? When it is a part of the culture there are safeguards built into the system and established rules to help things run smoothly. When a few people from our society/culture/backgrounds get together and say they will live in one of the poly forms, failure has to be built in: the ground rules are missing, the support of the society is missing, the economic factors that made the poly format viable in the first place is missing, too.

Does it work? It can’t.

15

Kant’s categorical imperative (if I’m remembering it properly) states that you must always view others as ends unto themselves (inherently valuable) and not merely means to achieve your own goals. “Sex for sex’s sake,” while not necessarily a de facto violation of the imperative, tends toward that end of the spectrum. Cool as it is to contemplate, it is a notion that runs a risk of dehumanizing the participants (not that this isn’t a risk within a monogamous relationship).

So, the “I’ll be romantic with one but sexually active with many” philosophy appearing at points in this thread is at least a bit problematical from an ethical perspective. Can one have multiple partners, each of whom is held in a deep and spiritual esteem? I guess. Personally, I don’t think I could pull it off; somebody would end up getting short-changed emotionally. Good luck to anybody else giving it a go…

16

The problem with the categorical imperative is that it is, basically, stupid. You can’t hold everyone you meet in deep spiritual and mental esteem. There aren’t enough hours in the day. I have to treat the checkout woman at the supermarket as a means to an end because I don’t have the time to get to know her personally, and I suspect she would object if I tried. That doesn’t mean I don’t treat her ethically; I try to treat everyone ethically, including those I have sex with. But it’s not because I know someone personally that I treat them ethically.

The following is from a letter about casual sex I wrote to a student newspaper on my campus.

17

Matt_mcl, Kant’s going to be pissed when he reads your post.

I think that Kant’s imperative (I often speak for philosophers of renown when they’re unavailable) recognizes that there are interactions where a deep, spiritual connection is simply not possible. So we needn’t hold up the line at the toll booth trying to get to know the collector as a person, and we shouldn’t feel guilty when we drive on through. But if you do treat the collector like a piece of crap because he hasn’t handled your transaction quickly enough, you have reduced him to a piece of faulty equipment and that’s wrong. So I think Kant’s philosophy is still relevant in any dealings we conduct.

This level of respect may not be enough, though, in other circumstances. Other types of interactions–say those of great physical intimacy–if deliberately divorced from any sort of spiritual and emotional intimacy, at least run the risk of reducing the participants to objects. As I said in my last post, while these unions may not be unethical by definition, they are at least problematical in this respect. And, by the way, this concern is not in my mind specifically symptomatic of either heterosexual or gay relationships.

18

Bob, I don’t really care what Kant thinks, but that’s for my own reasons. I am in perfect agreement with you that you do not treat the toll booth guy like shit because he does something wrong, but I don’t need Kant to tell me this. The same goes for sex: I treat my sex partners with the same consideration I treat everyone with.

Finally, I didn’t mean to infer anything from your post about gay vs straight relationships; it just so happened that the text I quoted was about gay relationships. It is equally applicable to straight ones.

19

Hmm…well, polyamory has worked for me so far. It does take work; I find a lot of people who think “wow, I would love to be poly” as a surface thought. It is cool, different, wild, whatever. These people would probably not have successful poly relationships.

For any relationship to work, trust and communication have to be forefront; emotional baggage has to be dealt with when it arises, rather than letting it fester and build up. For a poly relationship, all these things are true, but more so. A poly relationship, IMO (not humble, Shayna :slight_smile: ) can NOT be successful without everyone involved making trust and communication very important in the relationship. With trust, you minimize or eliminate that nasty green-eyed monster. With communication, you air the potential problems we all have crawling within our psyches before it does the relationship damage.

Polyamory is not for everyone. I have hypothesized that you can be inherently poly, just as you can be inherently gay. I know that personally I tried monogamy and was miserable; I found that I need to be able to “love many”. I seem to have a different mindset than most other people I know. I do not get jealous; I am very laid back and easygoing (not a “high maintenance girl”); when I am in a relationship with someone, I give my love and myself to that person. I find that I can do this with more than one person at a time. I am currently with two men, and love them both deeply. I do not feel my resources are lessened, or that they get a more superficial love from me, nor have they expressed this concern to me. I fully recognize that not everyone is able to do this, nor should they be. Variety is beautiful.

I should probably state here that my definition of polyamory is based on relationships, not sex. While sex is often a part of relationships, it does not define it (in terms of intimacy on all levels). I know of some polyamourous people who do not have sex as a part of their poly relationships at all. I personally do not include swinging, spouse-swapping, etc. as polyamory as those are relationships with sex as the defining factor. From my personal experience, I have noticed more of the “emotionally immature, dishonest, and selfish” behavior in the latter categories. You’ll find a range of people in all types of relationships; there are plenty of monogamous folk out there who demonstrate that behavior quite well, along with polys, swingers, and others.

So anyway, not trying for an antagonistic tone in my post, just simply voicing some thoughts from a person who considers herself successfully polyamorous (since redtail asked for our input) :slight_smile: . I’ll field questions if anyone has them.

Eposia

20

Bob Cos:

Personally, I’m a very nice person. However I find that I am much more likely to lose my niceness the more “trivial” the interaction. I am much more likely to treat as an object the driver of another car (who should stop screwing around and get out of my way) than a clerk at a store. In the non-mongamous times in my life, I always treated my lovers with respect and consideration.

Yes, of course it is possible to treat one’s sex partners as objects. But, based on personal experience, I have found openly poly people to be much more responsible and personal, not only in their sexual dealings, but in their dealings with clerks, toll-booth attendants and other people with whom they have “trivial” interactions.

There are exceptions of course, but such people tend to be assholes by nature; they would be assholes regardless of their lifestyle.