Polyamory
I've been writing this for more than a year, and I think I should post it now.
For those who don't know, polyamory is responsible non-monogamy. It's open and honest multiple relationships.
I can't abide secrets and lies in intimate relationships. I only have experienced about a thimbleful of jealousy in my life, and I prefer to avoid having to put up with jealousy (although I take the good with the bad, so I'm not completely intolerant of it). I don't see monogamy as much of a safeguard against risk. So, I gravitate toward poly.
Sharing
You can have one partner and be poly. Although I've practiced monogamy and always did so faithfully, there is no question I'm polyamorous, in that all the women I've been with had other partners. (The one mono relationship was only mono for part of the time.) I am extremely comfortable in that arrangement. Poly isn't about collecting a harem.
You'd think loving multiple people was the central concept, but no, if I had to pick one thing, it would be sharing. Any serial adulterer can love multiple partners. A giveaway signal to distinguish harem-collectors from a polyamorists is that polyamorists can abide to share. Poly can't exist without somebody being sincerely comfortable sharing their partner with another. That's why, as paradoxical as it may seem, you can have exactly one partner and be poly.
Does Polyamory Work?
A college buddy of mine constantly wonders aloud how polyamory can ever work. This is a question that never seems to die. I think the reason that we sometimes have difficulty in conversations about this question is that we don't know what we mean by it. The question is flawed. What does it mean for it to work? Work for what?
By silently adjusting the unspoken definition of working, you can play a game with words in which polyamory doesn't work. Redefine working again, and monogamy doesn't work. In fact, with another silent redefinition of working, you could say that there's no such thing as a relationship that works. But does celibacy work? Moving from mono to poly, if it's what you need to do, is done for pretty much the same reason as moving from celibate to monogamous. Or back, if you need to.
So what is "working"? The problem with deciding on only one definition of a successful relationship is that different people have different needs. The flawed question "which relationship structure is best" should be reformed "what do you want and what are you willing to sacrifice to get it?" Celibacy, monogamy, and polyamory are different tradeoffs.
You choose an arrangement because you've decided to choose the problems that come with that arrangement. All relationships have tradeoffs. When someone says "this relationship isn't working", they mean they have learned enough about themselves to re-prioritize what sacrifices they're willing to make and what benefits are worth the sacrifices. It's not a statement about all humans, it's a statement about them. My college buddy wants to have less drama, and to not have to fight his instinct of jealousy. So I told him to stick to serial monogamy. He'll still have drama, sadness, jealousy, and his marriages won't be permanent, but only one person at a time. So he'll undergo a major crisis less often. He'll also spend more time unhappy and less time happy. He can acclimate to misery.
So what do you want your relationship to work for? Work for preventing the relationship from ever ending? Work for minimizing drama? Work for minimizing insecurity? The list could go on and on. But here's the thing. There's no such thing as a relationship style that accomplishes any of that in and of itself. That only comes from being someone who is good at relationships, and choosing partners who are good at relationships. Your choice of arrangement does not determine success or failure.
The partners do.
Be Careful How You Define Success
Having gotten the question off of relationship structures and on to relationship goals, how do we pick our goals? There is such a thing as a goal that doesn't work. That is any goal that refutes and defeats itself, when pursuing the goal defeats the goal. I'll give my own example. When I first got into polyamory, my definition of relationship success was less nuanced. My goal was to not have to choose between those I love.
That goal led nowhere good. I was not just falling in love with people based on whether they're capable of good relationships. It turned constant emotional crisis into a lifestyle. I was willing to go through that for love, and at first it seemed like others would too, but most of the members soon tired of it. Eventually, I came to the realization that even in polyamory, you have to reject some people even if you love them.
Computer Network Metaphor
Polyamory is a lot like a computer network in some ways; not in others. All new nodes need to be checked for viruses. They need to set up trusts with all other existing nodes, not just the ones with whom they are interacting. They need copies of all expected processes, so that everyone's running the same revision, before one can consider the process of bringing that node online to be complete. Unfortunately, a lot of those networks are not formal and ceremonial the way marriage is ceremonial. When they're ad-hoc, they often have no agreed-upon protocol. Due to differences in expectations, the network starts dropping packets all over the place.
When you reject a lover, in my original naive view I thought you were crashing the system, creating a gap in the network. But if you don't, the network crashes anyway under a massive distributed denial of service attack.
There's an old adage that the internet perceives censorship as damage and routes around it. I used to think a polyamorous network could just perceive monogamous nodes as damage and route around them. It did not happen that way. Monogamy spreads like a computer virus. Sure, you, alone, can choose to date only polyamorous people. But you can't control whether they will develop powerful and compelling feelings for someone who wants monogamy. The monogamy then spreads like a computer virus to your partner. If a metamour (the partner of your partner) constantly complains about poly instead of breaking up, the monogamy can spread because of the partner's powerful feelings for them.
Sometimes when you say someone is a threat to your relationship, it's because you're irrationally jealous and insecure. Other times, it's because there is evidence that, from an objective point of view, there is a threat to your relationship. Honestly, maybe I should have considered the latter possibility from time to time. If you have no reason to believe the partner of your partner wants to cut you out, but you still feel threatened, your reactions are probably out of alignment with reality. On the other hand, if the partner of your partner is voicing the idea that your partner should dump you and only be with them, and yet you don't feel threatened, maybe you are the one whose reactions are out of alignment with reality. Just because you're not freaking out doesn't mean your reactions are screwed on straight.
Primaries and Secondaries
The solution to fix this phenomenon is not all that different from the solution to the equivalent problem in monogamous dating. In monogamous dating, when someone breaks up with you, stop talking to them and don't let them make you a yo-yo. In poly it's a slightly more complex version, because half the time it's not your loved one who's breaking up with you, it's his or her Primary partner exercising "veto power" to exclude you. When your partner's spouse tries to turn on and off your relationship status like a water faucet, the spouse is obviously too conflicted. You must refuse to get back involved. A spouse has an uncomfortable level of power over their spouse's Secondary partner. When you're a Secondary, you have given part of the control over the relationship to a third party. At the beginning, you must risk, and give the spouse the benefit of the doubt. You must trust that if and when they ever decide to "veto" you, they will make up their minds once and for all. When you start feeling like you should turn on the radio for a report of news, traffic, weather and relationship status on the eights, your partner's spouse is abusing the power. Take it away from them by walking away.
Natural Selection Metaphor
No matter what diverse or idiosyncratic relationship goals you have, no matter which relationship structure you have, success and failure at any relationship goals depends simply on choosing the right partner or partners, and being the right partner. I wish I could offer the advice to take your good sweet time choosing them to make sure you get the right people, but I'm the most patient guy in the world, and I found it's not exactly a guarantee. The public face provides very limited knowledge. The only way to really know someone is to open yourself to risk, find out the hard way, and grow a thick skin for losing people you love. Relationship stability arrives through lots and lots of breakups of unstable relationships until you get the ones that can be stable. Improve your skill at ending relationships in ways you can be proud of later.
Conclusion
This is just the latest revision. I expect I'll keep making corrections to it as I learn more. To sum up, what I've learned from my mistakes is:
Accept change. Get out there and make a wide variety of opportunities for yourself, and you'll improve your circumstances.
Accept loss. When it's over, end it for real.
Accept growth. Don't just look for the right person, learn to be the right person.
Comments
dbvanhorn on May. 30, 2008 4:49 AM
Well! I always knew you were above average! :)
atdt1991 on May. 30, 2008 5:09 AM
I'm quite pleased to read this. I have come to many of the same conclusions, though I don't consider myself either inherently monogamous or polyamorous. Particularly your conclusions, I think they are sound and essential.
matt-arnold on May. 30, 2008 10:12 AM
I don't consider myself either inherently monogamous or polyamorous.
That makes sense. If this were sexual orientation instead of relationship style, it would be equivalent to the term "heteroflexible". You don't love systems, you love specific people. Sometimes you're in love with someone who needs monogamy. You either break it off, or decide that you can forsake all others. The key is to make up your mind and honor that. At least make a commitment one way or another that lasts long enough to build a rewarding relationship. Don't you think?
atdt1991 on May. 30, 2008 12:36 PM
That is a fair part of it. I find that, as I get older, if someone has the forthrightness, communication skills, honor and empathy (among other things) that I crave in a partner, they already have the tools to be a 'good poly'.
Lucy and I have tried it both ways. We're happy with our relationship as is, with no current intention to change it. That said, we're not afraid of those kinds of changes, and I really like that, that we're close enough that we know that we want to be together, whether other people are involved or not.
thatguychuck on May. 30, 2008 6:58 AM
"Get out there and make a wide variety of opportunities for yourself, and you'll improve your circumstances."
This is true in the majority of things in life, not just relationships.
"Don't just look for the right person, learn to be the right person."
Long ago it was suggested to me to spend a lot of time and figure out what the ideal mate for me would be. Determine what qualities this person needed to have (and not), and then what things would be nice but not deal breakers. Write it down on paper. Then ask yourself - "Is this person the type of person that would fall in love with me?" If the answer is no, change to become the type of person your ideal mate would fall in love with.
It's easy to say, "Oh, I don't won't to change myself for anyone." I wanted to meet that person that was my ideal. It's one of the reasons I made some changes, going back to school being one of them.
fromrain2smiles on May. 30, 2008 8:46 AM
Wow Matt you summed up how I feel polyamory, would you mind if I referenced this? Well wrote!
matt-arnold on May. 30, 2008 10:16 AM
I wouldn't mind at all. Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.
dbvanhorn on May. 30, 2008 1:17 PM
Karen and I were talking about the idea of a con panel along these lines, playing with ideas for love in future settings. Do you think that could be a workable idea? I wonder if con committees would find it too risky.
users on May. 30, 2008 1:28 PM
I think we should absolutely have a panel on this exact topic. It would have to be moderated to prevent its winding out of control, but I love the idea.
dbvanhorn on May. 30, 2008 1:43 PM
I've been working on an outline. So far, it looks like it could go all weekend.
users on May. 30, 2008 1:44 PM
There is an obvious joke here... but I'll leave which one to use to the reader! :P Awesome, though. Thanks for doing the leg-work! It is truly appreciated.
dbvanhorn on May. 30, 2008 1:50 PM
Kardia, my OSO is interested, and she's done similar things at cons in the past. I've never moderated anything at a con, but I'm willing to learn.
My basic premise is that SF is afterall about the interactions between people (for all definitions of people), and that love and sex and all that goes with that, is a major player in the interactions of humans. It might be different with others, maybe even unrecognizably so. It might be nonexistent. Relationship styles are likely to change as we move forward.
I'm also making the point that if we don't create the future we want, then someone else will.
For myself, I want to see a future where any relationship between consenting partners is acceptable. Even exploring the limits of what defines a consenting partner is food for discussion.
tlatoani on May. 30, 2008 4:02 PM
It isn't too risky for ConFusion or Penguicon, that's for sure. Sounds like a great panel.
dbvanhorn on May. 30, 2008 5:03 PM
:) ConFusion is where my wife and I met Karen for the first time. Fond memories.
fromrain2smiles on May. 30, 2008 4:47 PM
I'm happy I found someone who has the same opinion as me yay!
rmeidaking on May. 30, 2008 1:38 PM
Very nice essay.
I am theoretically poly; in practice, I find it doesn't work so well. It's like a person who *wants* to be a juggler, but doesn't quite have the dexterity for it. :-)
The amusing people are the folks in regular society who have a marital partner, and a string of secret affairs, but are outspoken against having multiple partners. Huh? It's like they're saying they can have the affair, as long as they acknowledge that they're sinning. What? My thought: If you think you're sinning when you do something, you should stop doing it. If you think what you're doing isn't sinful, maybe you should just OWN the polyamory. Maybe it's something like, "Hippie freaks are into polyamory. I'm just swinging a little."
artemisia-starr on May. 30, 2008 3:18 PM
Being in the hotel industry, I see the rationale that they WANT to know they're doing something wrong which must be hidden at all costs. Some of the "cheaters" come in totally terrified every time you speak to them to place them in a suitable room.
It's sad that they're not able to have functional and comfortable relationships but, at the same time, their poor self opinions help to fill my sales quotas and pay my bills.
marahsk on Jun. 1, 2008 3:07 AM
They're cheating either because their spouse wants them to be monogamous, They're against polyamory because they are jealous of other having what they don't.
rbradakis on May. 30, 2008 2:06 PM
Nicely written. And deeply true, from what I've seen.
uplinktruck on May. 30, 2008 2:24 PM
I know two self proclaimed Poly-People. With each of them it seems they are allowed to be as Poly as they want to be. But if any of their partners find an interest elsewhere, all of the sudden there are all kinds of problems.
I have to admit that I don't understand Poly. I have enough trouble keeping one happy. Keeping two happy may be beyond my capacity. But if it works for you and others, go for it!
In my experience, if another comes on to the scene in one of my relationships, I'm pretty much on my way to being traded in.
brendand on May. 30, 2008 10:53 PM
I'm hoping this can be re-written: "Sometimes when you say someone is a threat to your relationship, it's not because you're irrationally jealous and insecure, it's because there is evidence that it's true. I never did this, and honestly, maybe I should have. For instance, if a metamour is voicing the idea that your partner should be only with them, that's a clue." It's a little bit off, methinks. Just for clarity's sake, I mean.
Not bad, overall. I just need more processing time.
matt-arnold on May. 31, 2008 5:40 PM
Yeah, now that I re-read it, you're right, it is awkward. Here is my re-write:
Sometimes when you say someone is a threat to your relationship, it's because you're irrationally jealous and insecure. Other times, it's because there is evidence that, from an objective point of view, there really is a threat to your relationship. Honestly, maybe I should have considered the latter possibility from time to time. If you have no reason to believe the partner of your partner wants to cut you out, but you still feel threatened, your reactions are probably out of alignment with reality. On the other hand, if the partner of your partner is voicing the idea that your partner should dump you and only be with them, and yet you don't feel threatened, maybe you are the one whose reactions are out of alignment with reality. Just because you're not freaking out doesn't mean your reactions are screwed on straight.
brendand on May. 31, 2008 5:57 PM
Much better. Thank you.
flutterby68 on May. 31, 2008 9:54 PM
Very well written and interesting. Do I agree? well, yes and no. I am definitely not the type of person who can be involved in a poly relationship. I've been involved in a couple of them for a relatively short time, and they were train wrecks for various reasons. Part of the reason for the train wreck is likely due to the fact that I am not the proper type of personality that can or will function well in a relationship that is not monogamous.
Of primary interest for me is your section about primary and secondary partners. To me, the term "secondary" translates to "second best." In my experience (and I have a lot of it), that involves consistently playing second fiddle to someone else, whether that is within a poly type relationship or within a monogamous relationships (i.e., being second best as compared to someone's memory of an ex-partner or the like). I've spent enough time as the person who isn't the one desired but the only one who is actually available. I was a secondary partner in a triad for a while, and the other female partner made him terminate the arrangement because she was worried that he'd love me more than he did her - and he said that it was a very valid concern. I understood that, because I could agree with her in a way. If the man I was involved with decided to have another partner, I'd feel like his relationship with her would diminish ours by taking time and attention away from OUR relationship. If I were ever involved again in any relationship where I felt there was a potential for a "take a number" situation, I'd have to extricate myself immediately.
I'm at a point now that I refuse to be the primary partner, I will be the ONLY partner. When I got involved with Jeff, I had to deal with being second best to his ex-wife and it took a long time for that to change. The sad thing is, because of the fact that I WAS second best I still have a hard time trusting that I no longer am. I married him in spite of this, and it's truly working very well with us. The problems we have now are more related to his being unable to work due to his health, which affects our finances and his self esteem.
I honestly have wondered in recent years what makes a person believe that he/she is poly, and what makes a person wired that way. I've known people who have cheated in monogamous relationships who then decided they must be poly and got involved in poly relationships and STILL couldn't remain faithful and broke the rules. They aren't poly, they are just assholes. I've known others who aren't truly poly but tried to convince themselves they were because their partner wanted to be. I think I was in that category. Then there are those who truly seem to have no jealousy issues and who truly seem able to make a poly relationship work.
The one thing I've learned about the subject is that there are as many definitions of polyamorous relationships as there are people you ask. The more you ask, the more definitions there are.
tenacious-snail on Jan. 8, 2009 8:03 PM
I was pointed here by a friend who is also a person with whom I share a lover. Excellent, excellent post. Thank you.
matt-arnold on Jan. 8, 2009 8:26 PM
Wow, I wonder how they found it? I hope it gets around even more. I'm glad you like it!
tenacious-snail on Jan. 9, 2009 6:41 PM
I'm guessing she found it because she's on your flist
tigii90 on (None)
Leave a Comment