Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy With Multiple Partners (13 page)

The concept of friendship, rather than marriage or romance, as a basis for loving, nonmonogamous intimacy that could last a lifetime and enhance health and well-being seemed applicable to man/woman relationships as well as same-gender ones, and I’ve since found that this idea resonates with many people in the world of polyamory. More committed than a casual fuck buddy or friend with benefits but less all-consuming than a full-on partner, these relationships may represent the future of polyamory.

A fuller exploration of sexual friendship is beyond the scope of this book, but I certainly owe a debt of gratitude to Joseph for bringing this concept forward.

I first became aware of Dr. Brad Blanton when three different intimate friends of mine got excited about his book
Radical Honesty
.15 One of them invited Brad to offer his ten-day seminar in the San Francisco Bay Area where we lived, and another invited me to Brad’s Thought Leaders Conference many years later where I connected with many old and new friends and found one of the most loving and supportive poly-friendly communities I’d yet come across.

Like myself, Brad chose to use his training in clinical psychology to support social change, but his mission has been to support people in telling the truth and creating a culture where lying is not the norm. Truth and love are much more closely related than most people realize, and not just
T H E H I S T O R Y O F P O L Y A M O R Y

6 3

because most of us are in the habit of lying about our sexual attractions.

Have you ever noticed that whenever someone honestly expresses what they are feeling, with no blame, defensiveness, self-deception, or hidden agenda, you feel a surge of love? Even if what’s been said is not what you wanted to hear, the very act of vulnerable self-disclosure tends to create more intimacy.

While Dr. Blanton is neither for nor against nonmonogamy, he’s totally honest about his own polyamorous forays. His work has been enthusiastically embraced by many polyamorous people who recognize that since most of us have been trained to lie to ourselves and to others since birth, we need to learn how to tell the truth, especially when it comes to the sensitive area of sexual attractions and behavior.

Partly as a result of efforts by Dr. Blanton, myself, and other concerned professionals, some psychotherapists are starting to take a more realistic view of monogamy and become less judgmental about other options. As we discussed in the previous chapter, humans are not naturally monogamous, nor are we naturally polyamorous. If we are not honest with ourselves about our sexual desires, our jealousies, and our childish desire to have what we want when we want it, we’re not likely to find a way to negotiate this challenging territory harmoniously, with or without committed partner(s).

One step in this direction is to realize that the cultural programming that dictates that mating couples pair up and isolate themselves from others is a relatively recent invention. In the next chapter, we look at evidence from many different disciplines that suggests that bonding and family structures are not limited to dyads.

4

I
n many ways, basic ethical principles remain the same whether or not a relationship is monogamous. For example, honoring one’s partner by keeping whatever commitments you have made holds true regardless of the specific content of the commitment. But monogamous relationships are often more resilient when it comes to mistakes and ethical lapses than polyamorous ones. This is partly because polyamorous relationships are inherently more complex and partly because most people lack experience and models for relating in these new ways.

Those of us who were raised in a family where monogamy was the norm have a lifetime of conditioning as a guide. We know what’s expected of us. We know what to expect from a partner. We know when something is not as it should be. Consequently, if we find ourselves in a monogamous couple, our relationships may be able to survive on autopilot for a time without any major misunderstandings.

The situation is different for people choosing polyamory. Even if they already know others who are polyamorous, there are many different possibilities for how to structure a polyamorous relationship. In order to stay in integrity, everyone needs to consciously agree on how they will interact (or at least agree to disagree) and then keep the agreements they’ve made unless they are renegotiated with everyone concerned. Alternatively, if partners decide that their only rule is to behave in accordance with shared
6 5

6 6

C H A P T E R 4

values, the need for integrity and self-awareness becomes even more crucial.

Polyamory by its very nature constitutes a challenge to our age-old conditioning and frequently stirs up some discomfort. When these inevitable growing pains are intertwined with indignation arising from broken agreements or insensitive treatment by a thoughtless partner, it becomes much more difficult to trust the process and surrender to the valuable lessons polyamory can offer. The temptation to throw in the towel and try to return to what feels safe and familiar while blaming polyamory for one’s suffering can be overwhelming.

Many people, whether they see themselves as monogamous or polyamorous, mistake their partner’s lack of empathy, blind spots, or unskilled communication for an intention to be hurtful. We humans have a tendency to take it personally when another is simply acting out of ignorance or internal confusion, and this is especially likely when venturing into the unfamiliar territory of polyamorous relating. While I have seen people, consciously or unconsciously, using nonmonogamy as a weapon in a battle with a partner, this is not usually the case. Our legal system takes the position that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, but when it comes to intimate relationships, intentions
do
matter. Perhaps we could say that good intentions are necessary but not sufficient for ethical polyamory.

Those who wish to establish polyamory as a viable option for intimate relating would do well to begin by making it a priority to strive to be ethically impeccable. Ethical behavior starts with the intention to do what is right and then having the integrity and commitment to carry out that intention. This association between ethics, integrity, and commitment applies to any type of relationship imaginable, but some of the specifics of what is considered right or wrong will vary according to whether the relationship is monogamous and whether the relationship is grounded in the old or new paradigm. In order to get clear on what constitutes right behavior in a polyamorous relationship, we must first address the more general question of the morality of polyamory.

IS POLYAMORY IMMORAL?

As we discussed in chapter 1, polyamory doesn’t necessarily involve more than one partner, but because it allows for this possibility, it is often regarded with suspicion. As we enter the twenty-first century, social norms
T H E E T H I C S O F P O L Y A M O R Y

6 7

and values, particularly those regarding love, sex, and marriage, are still undergoing rapid transformation worldwide. Not only are we in transition, but in today’s global village many different cultures and religions with different customs and different perspectives on sexual morality may find themselves at odds. Any valid discussion of morality in the realm of intimacy must address differing values over the centuries and also in different religious or spiritual groups.

In the Western world, many people believe that the Old Testament injunction against adultery automatically makes polyamory morally unacceptable because this assumption went unchallenged for centuries in the wake of the Inquisition and subsequent wave of witch burnings. Yet everyone knows that many of the biblical patriarchs had multiple wives and/or concubines. Father Abraham, warrior-poet King David, and wise King Solomon were all nonmonogamous. Were they committing adultery? Not at all according to anthropologist Helen Fisher, author of
Anatomy of Love
who asserts that in Mosaic law, only intercourse with a married woman was banned. The original intent of the commandment against adultery was to protect the property rights of men to their women, not to prohibit men or even unmarried women from having multiple partners. This is essentially the case with Islamic teachings as well, which allow men to have up to four wives but require women to be monogamous.

In our modern world, people are as likely to question the morality of differential privileges for men and women as they are to accept the morality of age-old patriarchal traditions.
Morality
is sometimes viewed as a synonym for
sexual sobriety
, and commitment and fidelity are often assumed to imply exclusivity. It’s important to acknowledge that moral parameters involve judgments about what constitutes right behavior in many domains, not just sex.

In many ways, the gap between values held in old-and new-paradigm relationships is far greater than the gap in values between monogamy and patriarchal polygamy. Let’s review the ethical guidelines for old-and new-paradigm relating before going on to explore the perspectives of some contemporary religious and spiritual leaders and their teachings relevant to monogamous and nonmonogamous unions.

Many observers have commented that our culture is in the midst of a paradigm shift in the realms of love, family, gender roles, sexuality, and
6 8

C H A P T E R 4

relationship in general. Futurist FM Esfandiary1 often emphasized that the closer to home a paradigm shift is, the more we tend to resist it. People feel more threatened by a change in our understanding of love than a change in the way physicists understand atomic particles. Writing in the early 1980s, Esfandiary described the process as follows:

“In today’s world, virtually all areas of our society are undergoing vast upheavals; the trend, especially in organizations, corporations, and businesses, is toward despecialization, decentralization, denationalization, and diversification. In the face of such significant change, it is crazy to think that the home will remain intact and somehow miraculously unchanged.

Our homes, our social life and our interpersonal connections are undergoing precisely the same kind of evolution. In the 1950s, 75–80 percent of families in the U.S. were traditional (breadwinner husband, homemaker wife, two or more kids); today, that figure is less than 7 percent.”2

In the old paradigm, the stability and longevity of a relationship are its most valued attributes. Dependency, both financial and emotional, serves the function of keeping spouses together and is not seen as a problem. As the twenty-first century dawns, stability is still valued by many, but dependency is more likely to be recognized as an impediment to deep intimacy and a source of conflict and dissatisfaction than a positive or necessary condition for a stable marriage. Nevertheless, the old-paradigm emphasis on maintaining the status quo is still strongly held.

In the new paradigm, the presence of acceptance and unconditional love tends to take precedence over everything else. What this means in practice is that allowing the form of the relationship to shift—for example, from romance to friendship or from a closed marriage to an open marriage or marriage to divorce while maintaining positive regard, caring, and support for all those involved—is the primary ethical standard in the new paradigm. Staying married while quietly hating each other and remaining stuck in destructive patterns would not be seen as desirable in the new paradigm but could be perfectly acceptable in the old paradigm.

Some people seem to interpret the new paradigm’s appreciation for impermanence as permission to duck out the back door when fear, conflicts, or what seems to be a more desirable partner come along. Allowing avoidance, cowardice, and opportunism to determine one’s actions is no more ethical in the new paradigm than in the old. With the freedom to ask that relationships be allowed to shift comes the responsibility to listen to your inner voice for guidance as to what constitutes loyalty and commitment,
T H E E T H I C S O F P O L Y A M O R Y

6 9

which are no less important in the new paradigm than in the old even though their focus may broaden.

In the old paradigm, loyalty and commitment to spouse and blood family are an important moral code. In the new paradigm, the sphere of commitment sometimes expands to include all of life. FM Esfandiary expresses it this way:

The single individual who is relatively free of imprinting can function with versatility, freedom and autonomy, and can begin to express a new kind of commitment—commitment not to a specific individual, not to an attachment figure, but to a much greater environment. If it is possible for us to identify with and be committed to a specific person or group, it ought to become possible for us to reprogram so that we can begin to
identify with
and be committed to ALL HUMANITY!
If we can transcend imprinting, it is possible to empathize with
everybody
. . . Individuals who are committed to their creative work, to causes, jobs and movements, are already moving in this direction of greater commitment. Ultimately, commitment to planet and all humanity will replace commitment to clan, family, or nation.3

Another important value difference between old and new paradigms is in the area of disclosure. In the old paradigm, with its emphasis on stability, it’s considered appropriate to keep secrets, withhold information, or say things one knows to be false if speaking the truth might rock the boat. The norm for the upper classes in much of Europe and parts of the United States has long been to tolerate extramarital affairs as long as they are kept discrete and don’t interfere with family obligations.4 In the new paradigm, a higher value is placed on being totally honest or transparent toward the goal of creating more authentic and growth-producing relationships. In the old paradigm, controlling your partner’s behavior, by lying about your own actions if necessary, is valued over telling the truth and accepting the consequences.