What exactly is polyamory?
The truth is that it could be a number of things, rather like love. It does not have one single definition or one particular mode of practice. Clearly, there is something in the main definition of it, that people are involved in more than one intimate relationship.
But the agreement on what exactly polyamory is somehow stops there.
Wikipedia says that polyamory is “the practice, desire or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved”; an interesting statement that brings forth a number of key points.
For instance, does this statement suggest that you can have polyamorous thoughts and “desires” without actually practising it? Does that mean that any partners who enjoy looking at porn together are polyamorous? Bit tame!
And there is that phrase within this that makes me think – “the knowledge and consent on everyone involved”. Does that mean you cannot have a truly polyamorous relationship if one of the people involved is not aware of their partners’ other intimacies? That statement in itself suggests that if polyamory is going to work, then there must be a complete openness.
And what about that word “acceptance”? Is acceptance really enough to make a polygamous relationship work? Surely, if it is to be truly successful one needs more than mere acceptance, otherwise there is an underlying current with a potential for the most disturbing and destructive eruption.
One definition comes with a health warning. “No single definition of polyamory can entirely satisfy every person who thinks themselves as polyamorous. The poly community tends to be very diverse, and the amount of variation in the term reflects this diversity”.
According to this site there is the “Great Polyamory Definition Debate”; those who interpret polyamory literally: loving many or those who want to add a “crucial component”; loving many ethically. (What on earth does this mean?)
It goes on to say that the former camp would suggest that cheating and infidelity are kinds of polyamory, while the latter would not. This obviously goes back to that consent and openness.
Another definition simply says, “pertaining to participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships”. Interesting! Does that mean you have to ‘love’ all partners rather than just having fuck buddies?
But mainly, having searched through a variety of websites there is something consistent in the “ consensual, ethical or responsible non-monogamy.
So at its rawest definition, polyamory means having more than one intimate relationship whereas monogamy means having just one.
So I find it most interesting that the Guardian decided to choose a polyamorous writer to suggest the positives of monogamy, even though I think that by the end of the article it is clear that she sees monogamy as unworkable and unnatural.
Or maybe monogamy is workable as long as people recognise that a dose of polyamory is always on the cards, is always feasible and should just be accepted within the norms of any relationship and the make-up of any human being.
In this document the writer, Clarisse Thorn suggests that there are some positive aspects of monogamy that those of us who are in a multiple ‘partner’ situation (please note that I think this is quite different from polyamory – consent, agreement etc) ought to at least consider.
She starts with the ‘big’ one; jealousy management.
Another aside – isn’t it interesting how people do not go to the trouble of differentiating between jealousy and envy?
Another aside – isn’t it interesting how people do not go to the trouble of differentiating between jealousy and envy?
So jealousy then?
Clarissa states quite clearly that there is plenty of jealousy within polyamory but it is up to the individuals within it to be able to manage it carefully and compassionately. She also states that there are clearly some people who do not have the “jealousy chip” and therefore they might find it slightly more difficult to empathise with those of us who do. But she goes on to argue that jealousy is probably best managed through monogamous relationships, i.e. that you remain monogamous to counteract the jealousy? How honest is that?
Aside from discussing polyamory, this is a really interesting commentary on jealousy and one that I think I might need to return to later. For instance, she says that “Jealousy has a reputation for being an irrational emotion, and sometimes it genuinely is an unreasonable, cruel power-grab. But I think jealousy is often quite rational, and often arises in response to a genuine emotional threat...... or deliberate manipulation”.
This statement is a blog in itself and really needs unpicking.
Her next possible reason for monogamy has something to do with “focus”.
She argues that focusing on one relationship could be the best thing. My argument would be that is still feasible within polyamory and I am not sure her argument stands its ground on this one. Of course, one should be focused on the most significant relationship(s) in your life but do you have to be monogamous to do so? She says that she has no problem with partners looking at porn or wanking but perhaps, for some, it might be easier to ‘cope’ with a person’s sexuality within a monogamous relationship. Mmmmm – just doesn’t really wash. Ultimately, she is just making the point that monogamy is less complicated (or more dishonest?).
She argues that focusing on one relationship could be the best thing. My argument would be that is still feasible within polyamory and I am not sure her argument stands its ground on this one. Of course, one should be focused on the most significant relationship(s) in your life but do you have to be monogamous to do so? She says that she has no problem with partners looking at porn or wanking but perhaps, for some, it might be easier to ‘cope’ with a person’s sexuality within a monogamous relationship. Mmmmm – just doesn’t really wash. Ultimately, she is just making the point that monogamy is less complicated (or more dishonest?).
Social acceptance is her next suggestion for maintaining monogamy but surely the anarchist within me and others want to dismiss this one from the outset. She states that western monogamy is the accepted norm and a lot easier for everyone within and looking on at the relationship to understand. But is this really a reasonable answer when so many people feel restricted by this mode of relationship? Is monogamy really natural? Have we not adopted it for economic rather than social reasons?
She ends with “some people just like it” and indeed some people do. Some people like serial monogamy. Some people like monogamy with a little kinky thoughts going on. Some people feel that monogamy can be maintained with a kiss and a cuddle here and there, and that as long as there is no penetrative sex, it is still ultimately a monogamous relationship.
All in all, I am not sure that she has made any argument for monogamy whatsoever.
......................................................................................................
But within this commentary there is a classic link to a couple who do practice polyamory. In order for it to work for them, they have developed a contract for the polyamorous relationship! It all sounds rather formal to me, and hardly embraces the ‘go with the flow’ or ‘spreading the happiness’ theory on life. I mean, isn’t half the problem with monogamy that there is this marriage contract that people feel obliged to comply with rather than following their instinct or their natural inclination to touch as well as look when another person comes into their life?
And should we really have to have a piece of paper to determine and define the essence of intimacy? It all smacks of some sort of pre-nuptial contract.
However, having read through these sometimes hysterical statements of intent, there are some important aspects to what they have considered, irrespective of whether it ultimately manifests itself as a contractual obligation.
Here are some of the key points from this contract which can be seen in full in the above link.
1. Affirm a primary relationship. All other relationships will be no more than secondary in priority, regardless of the level of love, lust and infatuation involved.
2. The primary partner will have first claim on the other partner’s time, energy and attention.
3. The primary partner’s feelings about the situation takes priority – if one of us thinks something is wrong, something is wrong.
4. Communication is important – we promise to bring up and discuss reasonably and rationally any feelings of insecurity, abandonment, loneliness, unfairness as soon as we can articulate them.
5. We will not ridicule the partner’s feelings
6. We will agree to put forward constructive suggestions before paranoia or accusations.
7. We agree to change our behaviour when necessary to make the other partner feel valued and loved
8. It is the responsibility of the lover who is hurt to bring “it” up. It is the responsibility of the others involved to listen.
9. We affirm that non-primary partners are not therapists to complain about the primary partner to.
10. Any anger venting should be done with non-sexual friends.
11. Non-primary lovers should not act as a go-between or messenger, should not be used as a weapon between primary partners or put in the middle of a primary partner argument.
12. We promise to be honest about our feelings at all times.
13. We will never dismiss a feeling on the basis of irrationality.
14. We will never give in to “shiny new love” syndrome.
15. If either of us wants a new sexual/romantic relationship they must bring that person to be interviewed by the other primary partner before sexual relationships have occurred.
16. The potential lover must affirm they are fully aware of the situation and have no illusions about the nature of the relationship, including their place in the priority list.
17. The potential partner must convince the primary partnership that they are indeed polyamorous.
18. If you are polyamorous, don’t date monogamous people.
19. The polyamorous lover must be ok with kids.
20. If the potential lover has a partner of any serious commitment that partner must also speak to us giving consent.
21. Each primary partner has the right to an irrevocable veto of any partner at any time. The vetoer is required to provide an explanation but the veto is not open to argument.
22. If a long-standing relationship is suddenly vetoed, arguing is allowed and consensue must be reached.
23. Any and all emotional misunderstanding must be settled by consensus.
24. Repeated inability on the part of the non-primary lover to talk through misunderstandings will result in disqualification due to immaturity.
25. If genetic male-identified males want to date the female partner they must have permission from the male primary partner.
26. Although the secondary lovers do not have to have a separate friend-type relationship with the other primary partner, it is a definite bonus.
27. The following nights must be spent with the primary partner; anniversaries, birthdays, rebirthdays (!!), eight religious high days (oh yes, they must be of the Morman tendency!), graduations and any other specific and important day.
28. As soon as the partner falls asleep, the duty is considered fulfilled!
29. Use of the words, “wife”, “husband”, “Spouse” and “partner” are restricted to the primary partnership only. “boyfriend”, “girlfriend”, “fuck-buddy”, “lover” are fine for all other contacts.
30. Body fluid monogamy at all times with non-primary lovers.
31. Exceptions to the above if they have been lovers for over six months – and all out body-fluid relationships can be discussed.
32. The woman will only have penetrative sex with the primary male partner
33. If S/M is taking place the primary partner has the right to demand to be present in order to ensure the other partner will be safe.
34. Beds are for sleep. If loud sex with a secondary partner is keeping the other primary partner awake, they have the power of eviction.
35. Hunting licences allow the primary partners to have sex away from home without the interview process
36. Sexual contacts picked up on hunting licence must be one-offs
37. The sexual contacts during the licence period must be made fully aware of the polyamorous situation.
38. The first free time after the end of a hunting licence must be spent with the primary partner.
..................................................................................................................
I will look at these during the next blog in greater detail but it has amused me so much to read this. It has also, with my own form of quirkiness, made me feel a whole lot better about my own situation knowing that even the most practised of poly’s demonstrate some of the issues that I do, so much so that they feel the need to draw up this bizarre contract.
But is it bizarre? Yes there are elements that are frankly ridiculous and I have a sneaking concern about a few statements that imply an element of misogyny or certainly the male-dominant. The whole notion of having a contract still makes me squirm but there are some really interesting talking points in this list, and there is the whole notion of there being a primary partnership that also needs further discussion.
Of course, I might like to add a few of my own regarding my panties, the sartorial nature of my partner when he is fucking others, stipulations on voyeurism, sharing of photographs, minimum amounts of fucking that I require, appreciation of privacy and the levels of openness.
In fact, having read all of this I am rather excited about the prospect of a truly open and viable polyamory......... in a couple of years time – hee, hee!
And please note, specific reader, that does not mean that elements of polyamory cannot happen immediately!
No comments:
Post a Comment