Concept of Polyamourism Challenged
Posted on Jan 22nd, 2008
by 
asecondlifediary
asecondlifediary
DESPITE US TALKING about polyamourism at our first meeting, and my delight in discovering just how open and loving and trusting Cal was, his steadfast holding up of polyamourism as the ideal relationship model was sometimes an issue for me.
His conclusion that exclusive, monogamous love wasn't the answer, and his desire to share and experience love with others, niggled at my self-confidence. While I appreciated polyamourism as an 'ideal' - an ever-expanding, loving, secure circle - I wasn't entirely sure I could embrace it on a personal level.
A lot of my hesitation and anxiety came from my own ego and need to feel 'special' and "the one and only" to him. What if he preferred one of his 'newer' partners to me? Wasn't it just asking for trouble, to continue to look for 'more' love when we already had it with one another? Could I really trust Cal to treasure me?
I knew that what I loved most about him was his willingness to love - to give completely, without any holding back. That's how I love and it's so rare to find it in a man. I wanted to completely abandon myself to these delicious feelings of TOTAL giving.
I had two thoughts running through my mind. (1) "We'll fall in love and he won't need that polyamoury" and (2) "What happens if I totally fall in love with him, and next month he finds someone 'better' than me?"
IF polyamoury IS the ideal way to love, why hadn't the world embraced it? If it was so good, why weren't we all living that way already?
Naturally, those people I confided in about this new, developing relationship and Cal's desire to have it as a polyamorous relationship, all expressed concern that in the end, I would be the one who would get hurt by it.
One has to wonder about a relationship model that is held up as an ideal by men! They are not normally acknowledged as responsible custodians of relationships.
Ironically, I sometimes found myself defending the concept because, despite my own hesitations and insecurities, I do believe, in theory, it COULD BE the ideal way to have relationships.
Typical is this conversation with a female friend who is determinedly anti-polyamorous. I had been showing her around the island that Cal and I have bought (for ourselves and eventually for the establishment of the Polyamorous / Intentional community):
HER: So is all this land just for the two of you?
ME: Well, yes. Although eventually, we will be establishing a community here.
HER: What sort of community?
ME: A Polyamorous / Intentional Community
HER: I noticed from his profile he says he is available and doesn't believe in exclusive relationships. Is that what you mean?
ME: For the time being though, we just want to focus on our relationship.
HER: But how will it feel when you see him have other relationships?
ME: I think it's easy for people to misinterpret ... everyone just thinks "sex" when they hear the word polyamourism.
HER: Well, it sounds like someone I know, so I think I understand.
ME: It's not a matter of him having other relationships, but the two of us including others in OUR relationship ... so it belongs to all of us.
HER: But if it's how he describes it. That each of us should be able to love a number of people. Each of those relationships would be special.
ME: Him loving someone else doesn't take anything away from me.
HER: Then why is one more special than the others?
ME: It expands love. All bringing something different to the whole person.
HER: But surely all the relationships are equal? The other women are just as important to him as you. If that's the case, why do you call it "including people in YOUR relationship"?
ME: Well, the concept of polyamoury is new to me ... it's just that ... a concept. I see it as a social experiment.
HER: I've known people with this view. And one relationship isn't more important than the others. I wonder how that will feel to you?
ME: It may not be possible for me to embrace it .... but I want to see if I can. Emotionally, I know, I will always need to feel that I am the woman be began this with. I like the fact that we are starting this up and building it together.
HER: Well, he will have begun it with other women. He's building this with you on Second Life, but he will have been living like this. The others will have other things that they share with him in other ways. I can't embrace it. I'm going through this myself at the moment with a man who believes in multiple relationships, so I'm curious about how you think you will feel.
ME: I believe Cal's motives are loved-based, not just getting all the sex he can get.
HER: So is the guy I'm talking about. He loves them all.
ME: All I know is that I have to feel important to him. As long as he can maintain that special bond with me, I feel I will be able to accept other attachments. But he has to also accept me having other close attachments to others as well.
HER: It feels strange to talk to somebody else about this, as the guy I know has been saying exactly the same things too. And doing exactly the same things.
ME: Well, we have made an agreement not to proceed with this until we both feel comfortable with it, which I guess, translates as me feeling good about it. He has been theorising about this for a long time. I'm only new to it. But I've always felt that love should be ever-expanding. I think it's only our egos and self-esteem that prevent it.
HER: All I know is that I find it too upsetting. I've known people like that, who have the same views as Cal's. It's always upsetting for the woman, when you love one man and he feels the same way about a number of other women as he does about you.
It depends on if you feel you can have love relationships with a number of men too.
ME: Well, I have in the past. When I first came to SL I had four lovers who all knew that I had other loving relationships, and it was fine. I'm still friendly with them all. But when I met someone I formed a deeper bond and he asked me to his partner in Second Life (the same official recognition as a marriage really in SL), I thought I could continue with the other relationships, but I couldn't. It seems that I am monogamous in Second Life, as well as First Life.
HER: But what happens is that these men who want a polyamorous relationship, they just say, "Love doesn't have to be possessive, so we shouldn't get upset."
ME: But why do we need to feel as though we 'possess' that love though?
HER: I don't. But if I love very deeply, it just happens naturally that I don't need anyone else in that way.
ME: I don't expect that I will satisfy every aspect of him.
HER: Yes, I suppose in that case ... if I don't love someone enough ... But if it's really love, being with someone else is so much worse that there's no point.
ME: It's not a case of "not loving him enough". My definition of love is: "If you love someone, you want them to be happy. If they love you, they want you to be happy. You each want the other person to be happy."
HER: Yeah, that's what my guy said to me. "If you love someone you should want them to be happy and if having another relationship makes them happy, you should go along with that."
ME: Not if they know you are not happy about it. I trust him to cherish me and want my happiness.
HER: But if polyamoury is his philsophy ... I know one thing - when men like that fall in love, suddenly they're happy with just one woman!
ME: This concept of a Polyamorous Community has been something Cal has been thinking about for quite awhile. I think it's a good concept - the spreading and sharing of love - but whether the reality is possible, I don't know.
HER: Men with that idea often have a reason. A need. Sometimes they can't take the risk of putting all their eggs in one basket. They like to know they have more relationships to fall back on, if one person leaves them.
ME: At this stage, we are so wrapped up in one another, that's all we are thinking of ... just the two of us.
HER: Maybe YOU are focusing on the relationship, but it sounds as if he's focusing on a future with multiple relationships.
ME: Maybe I shouldn't have pre-empted what our future plans might be. As I keep saying, it's just new to me ... but I want to give him the opportunity of at least taking it from a theoretical concept to a reality, if that is going to be possible.
HER: I'm not joking about the eggs in one basket philsophy. One man I know did this for that reason - he said it was scary to depend on just one woman. That he could get hurt and be left alone. Polyamoury is a very 1970's concept. I suppose that's why some of the me in their 50's here, still follow it. We were all trying it then. But this is really interesting and I'll be curious to hear from you how it works out.
My friend and I were then joined by others and ended our conversation, but I thought she had made several valid points, which I passed on to Cal. (He will address these himself in a later posting).
These were:
1. The suggestion that polyamoury was a safety buffer for men who want to make sure they always have a woman in reserve in case things don't work out.
2. That polyamoury is a 1970's concept that some ageing hippies (mostly males), were still clinging to.
3. Polyamoury could be the refuge of men who just wanted to get as much sex as they could get.
I'd be curious to know how many Polyamoury Communities have been started by women.
Why is it that men have such a need for polyamoury?
I'd be very interested to hear from others on this. Have you tried it? What were the issues for you, and your partner? What do others think of the concept?
Access: PublicTagged with: Second Life, Polyamourism, Anxiety, Insecurity, Defending Polyamoury, Intentional Community
anxiety
July 2008
I'm going to respond in more detail soon, but just to get the conversation going, here are my quick responses to the three comments at the end of Mia's post:
1. Yes, polyamorism is a safety net, a buffer/protector when one relationship fails for some reason (perhaps because too much is expected of one exclusive relationship)! But it can be that for women as well as men.
2. From my study of anthropology, polyamorism dates back to before civilization, and is accepted and even widespread in many 'uncivilized' cultures even today. It's more than a concept; it is, I believe, the nature way to live, one that offers stability and security not found in fragile monogamous societies. The most successful one I knew comprised a woman and five men, and the six of them practiced polyfidelity (no loving relationships with outsiders). And if success if the measure of a social construct, the high rate of divorce, domestic violence and psychologically damaged people in monogamous relationships is surely an indication that another model is worth exploring.
3. OK, I'll bite on the third comment. What is wrong with men (or women for that matter) wanting to get as much sex as they can get? That's not my only (or even main) reason for wanting to explore a polyamorous lifestyle, but I won't deny it's appealing! Practicing safe sex, is, of course, absolutely essential, in any lifestyle.
What's interesting to me is that, when I've written about this on my blog, response has been about 50% pro/50% con, but a majority of responses have been from women (unusual for my blog posts) and of those, women seem slightly more disposed to polyamorism than men. It really does have a lot to offer, and sex is only a small part of it. A lot of women seem to 'get' this.
Cal