Having problems with message search?
Poly Wants a Crack-Up
I was never a fan of the
concept of polyamory. I understood that people did it, spent time around those
who did (and those who considered it a sacrament), and didn't hold it against
them because it really wasn't any of my business what they did behind closed
bedroom doors with consenting adults. Seriously, I don't want details. If I
started taking disapproving stances about the unconventional relationships I
see around me, I should find I had time to do little else; my issues with the
polyamorous lifestyle have nothing to do with the protestations of conventional
morality. People love who they love and that can be a beautiful thing.
I
regard polyamory as being a great deal like Communism: some people practice it,
swear it is a more enlightened way of doing things, usually wish to proselytize
their point of view to anyone who will listen so they can count you among their
ranks, and even go on how it is the obvious solution to current economic woes.
I also note that I have never seen it work especially well, and certainly never
in its unadulterated state, because people are essentially greedy. They want
what is theirs and they certainly would prefer not to share with you. Though, I
feel that the Cold War had nothing on some of the post-relationship poly
battles I have witnessed, more
It
is not an easy lifestyle, almost be its very conception. With each additional
person added to the mix, the number of relationships increases exponentially.
Consider how much time you spend managing your relationship with your
significant other (even if you enjoy it, and you should). Now, in all
likelihood, double that for each additional person you think you can add to
your relationship and then calculate how many hours are in each week (168, by
the way). I can barely stand to like
all my friends all the time, I shudder to think what would happen if they were
all required to have stated and agreed upon
roles with everyone else in the group.
For
a poly relationship to work -- if it can work -- all parties concerned need to
sit down and virtually draw up a contract, detailing what is acceptable
behavior, if there can be pairings-off, how exclusive they wish to be, what
should happen with any resulting children, if there is fluid fidelity, and so
on, in minor hope of forestalling future blow-ups. This planning is not
generally done that I've seen, because it is so legalistically unromantic and
the rutting polyamorists are in loooove
and you wouldn't understand because you restrict your romantic affection to one
person, you damned Puritan... Or, you know, something to that effect. I'm
certainly not quoting. It should
be noted that, whenever such rules are actually set down, it seems to be
largely for the guilty pleasure of shattering them to bits the moment on member
of the relationship has his or her back turned for five minutes (because you
are so eager to cheat on your spouse, with whom you have such a perfect
relationship that you can muse adding people to it). Nor is it remotely fair to
hand the other people your requirements and insist they are so without consent
and compromise. (I heard of a couple wherein the wife insisted she could have
sex with women and the husband could have sex with men, only he wasn't at all
bisexual; she told him this, in essence, because she intended to cheat on him
with women and wanted to let him know that he had no say in the matter. Last I
heard, they were divorcing.)
It
seems unfortunately easy to lose sight of the fact that you are dealing with
actual people and not fellow bonobos; rubbing genitals won't be enough to
justify the pain you are putting them through because your wife promised you threeways
to lure you into marriage and you will be damned if you let something like
basic compassion get in the way of having two women at the same time. In the
best of relationships, sex can complicate matters. I hate to pull an argument
out of the Born Again Virgin bag of tricks -- especially considering how they
use that bag in the absence of sex partners -- but most of us are genuinely not
programmed to distance sex from love. Neurochemicals that signal pair bonding
are released during orgasm (much, much more during orgasms that aren't
self-induced, because your body knows) owing to genetic prerogative; the genes
want to get passed on. We may see love as divine, but our bodies see it as a
way to remain with one person long enough to take care of any potential progeny
and carry on lineage. Yes, polyamorists, you are technically built for
monogamy, no matter if you choose to go against that. (And no, your
anacho-lesbian sex commune probably won't last long enough to raise children,
as lovely as the thought is. Even if it takes a village to raise one, it does
not take a village to conceive a child.)
I
am a guy, thus I do understand the objective appeal of having sex with two
women at the same time (though I am also a realist, so I consider the logical
puzzles and the limitations both of male anatomy and the fabric of space-time;
I can only be in so many places doing so many things at the time before I bump
into a version of me from five seconds ago and then have to ponder if this now
counts as a fourway). It is synergistic, far more than the energy of having sex
with two women individually or even in succession. Plus -- despite the general
lack of appeal when confronted with Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, or KD
Lang -- most men harbor lesbian fetishes and so think it would be thrilling to
see their partners with other women. (As a quick digression and to play devil's
advocate a bit, this actually makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint;
lesbians can't knock up your girlfriend and can still bring her to climax,
quite possibly better than you could hope to.) However, having found one woman
who truly and improbably satisfies me on all levels, I can't imagine that we
would have the slightest interest in any interloper for anything more than a
clothed group cuddle with no osculation or inappropriate petting. Snuggling
with a friend on a coffee house couch it hardly what the polyamorists seek.
Though
I wouldn't have any need to partake, I sincerely would love if polyamory
reliably worked as something other than a way to transmit STDs and heartbreak,
because the world shouldn't be simplistic. Dyadic monogamy doesn't have to be
the only way (though it isn't wrong simply because it is traditional). However,
our society is built toward the couple and not the cloud. The few cultures
where polygamy is allowed still are seen as more primitive and abusive (it is always that one man can have a harem and
I'm fairly sure the wives are not permitted to fondle one another if they wish
to keep their marriage and/or head). Property cannot easily be divided up among
all the people you were sleeping with when you dead (hopefully not literally when you died) without some
liberal lawyering that likely won't stand up in court and custody rights must
be handled quietly for fear Child Protective Services decides that the
household is a poisonous environment for your child. The girlfriend you and
your wife share will never get a legal wedding and that is a lot for a woman to
give up for very little to gain, no matter how you try to rush her into being
your live in concubine. I've seen the rare poly relationship detailed on
television or in a magazine that is successful through a great deal of work for
all concerned, but it wouldn't be worthy of the attention if it were any more
commonplace.
Humans
are social animals; we want a group of people to care for who will love us in
return. While polyamory seems like an elegant solution on paper -- sating our
need for companionship, sex, and more -- actual relationships are
three-dimensional and the elegance crumples too often at the first sign of
trouble.
Originally posted at
http://www.xenex.org/journal/20090330.php
Offline 
Send Email