Last time on here I promised a consideration of polyamory as a concept, so here it is. Before starting I think it probably best to put my own position forward - I consider myself a polyamorous person in a monogamous relationship. Happily so, too. I'm not looking for a lover or anything (it'd be nice to have the energy!)
On the other hand I do want to see if I can shed a positive light on polyamory as a viable lifestyle choice for many people. Not for everybody by any means, but probably for a lot more than there are now.
History
Polyamory simply means, in its mixed-up Greek/Latin way, "many loves". By dictionary definition, a polyamorous person finds that they have the ability to love more than one person in an intimate and sexual way. I'm going to question why it needs to be sexual later, but for now I'm going to look at the historical and cultural precedents for polyamory.
The next word in our new poly- collection is polygamy, closely followed by polygyny and polyandry.
Polygamy means a marriage between one person and several spouses, although it's often confused with polygyny, which means a man having more than one wife. Polyandry is the gender-opposite: one woman, several husbands.
In our nuclear-family, montheistic and monolithic western culture we are conditioned towards monogamous and possessive relationships, but this hasn't always been the case and in many cultures polygamy is accepted as normal.
Sadly polygyny is often the result of a male-dominated, competitive and possessive culture. It is, therefore, the most common form of polygamy. Where women are seen as property and second-place citizens, it is not unusual for a rich man to show his status by "owning" several wives in the same way that he owns several cars or houses. This was the case in China until about a century ago, and is still the case in certain middle-eastern countries.
Having said that, in cultures where men would often go out to fight and die in battles, many women would be left widowed or remain a spinster indefinitely. In such a culture an unmarried woman would have no security, or in extreme cases any life of her own at all. Polgyny made sense, then, for a culture with few men and many women.
Many people also consider Mormons polygynous too, which is true up to a point. In most western countries it's illegal anyway and even then not all Mormon men can have more than one wife. The founder, Joseph Smith had several wives who also had other husbands themselves, which seems more fair to me.
Polyandry is rather rarer but still exists, most famously in Tibet. This is usually a form of fraternal polyandry, where a woman marries a whole stack of brothers, although not always. Polyandry makes a certain amount of genetic sense in harsh lands like Tibet, where resources are scarce (a man with eight wives can have eight children a year, a woman with eight husbands can only have one) and a child has a greater chance of survival with little or no competition and two or more dads bringing in food.
Even though Hindus do not generally practise polyandry there is a precedent in the Mahabharata where Draupadi becomes the wife to all five Pandava brothers.
Here and Now
Those examples are very much distant from our normal lives. In the western world monogamous relationships between a man and a woman are considered the norm. This has been borne out recently by the bizarre Proposition 8 ruling in California and the Christmas speech by "His Holiness" the Pope.
Yet, at the same time, old patterns are being broken down. In the space of my own lifetime (and I'm not especially old) the UK has gone from homosexuality being illegal to allowing same-sex marriages. Yes, I know they're really civil-partnerships, but they've been accepted as marriages regardless of the technicality of the law.
Standard monogamy is also breaking down as can be seen by hugely increasing instances of adultery and divorce in the last 30 years or so. Many people worry that such is a sign of the breakdown of society. I see it as a good sign. It's dreadful for those individuals going through it (been there, done that, still have the t-shirt!), but so is surgery!
Just as an example, I used to have a neighbour who was a very old widow. This was 15 years ago and she was pushing eighty then. She had spent more than forty years married to the same man and yet the only good thing she could say about him was, "Well, at least 'e never 'it me!"
If someone can explain to me why that was a good life, I'm listening!
The dissolution of highly defined marital patterns also means an increase of tolerance for and experimentation in "alternative" lifestyles. I see it as the caterpillar's physical breakdown and rebuilding as a butterfly. At the moment we're in the chrysalis, but eventually we will become transformed and be able to emerge.
Modern Polyamory
The wonderful thing about modern polyamory is that it is ultimately indefinable. There are so many forms that the term itself almost becomes a nonsense. There are, for instance, open marriages where two partners take lovers; triple or other number partnerships which are entirely exclusive and closed; amorphous communal group marriages where people come and go as they please. The variations are endless and, wonderfully, also don't define themselves in terms of simple gender. The two things they do have in common, and which define the relationships entirely, are honesty and love.
I don't consider swingers to be polyamorous. That's not to say that swinging is a "bad" thing, simply that casual sex does not require love. It's lustful rather than amorous. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, it simply doesn't work within even this loose definition. Adultery, also doesn't fit, because it is, by nature sneaky and dishonest.
"Friend sex" does fit, as an extension of the definition of love. Loving one's friends can be extended into physical expression. I may write about the joys and pitfalls of friend sex at some future juncture, the point now is that it involves love
In the same way as sex need not involve love, love (and intimate partnerships) need not involve sex. There are rare couples (and I understand that my adoptive grandparents were of this nature) who love each other and marry, and stay married until death, yet never have sex. Who's going to say they're not really married? Not me!
To the polyamorous monogamist like me, love does not divide, it multiplies. I can love my wife with every fibre of my being and still love my friends almost as much. I can be totally turned by my wife but still fancy most of my friends and cuddle them all. Most people probably feel the same, even if they don't admit it.
Aye, but here's the rub!
Polyamory isn't for everybody, but then again, neither is monogamy. That's the whole point. Ideally we should have no alternative lifestyles, because there should be no norm from which to deviate. It's going to take some doing, though. (We need to stop bombing each other first, I think.)
There's also the fact of individual social conditioning. I flatter myself that I'm an enlightened and relatively free individual who can see the fnords and thinks before he reacts, but at the same time I have been brought up in a society which expects me to be possessive and insecure. I try not to be, but mud like that sticks. I've got the greatest admiration for those who have enough confidence to be open about their own forms of polyamory in the face of a disapproving public.
I suppose the test would come if my belovèd chose to take a lover. I wouldn't dream of trying to stop her, her will is equal to mine, but I wonder if I could cope emotionally. Am I mature, free and secure enough, or do I still harbour the demons of possessiveness and jealousy?
The polyamory movement has taught me another new word as well - compersion. Frankly, I had to look it up, but I'm glad I did. It's a beautiful concept.
Compersion is the state of happiness in knowing that someone you love is happy in loving someone else too. It's not voyeurism or cuckolding, because it's not necessarily sexual and they are exclusively sexual practises. It's love that goes entirely beyond expected confines.
What would a society be like if, instead of its marital ethics being based on ownership and exclusivity, it was based on compersion?
That would be truly enlightened.
Love,
Seán
