Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy With Multiple Partners (39 page)

Spiritual teacher Leslie Temple Thurston has put forth an elegant tool for transcending polarities of any kind that relies on the square.9 When thinking about any polarity, we can always look at it from two perspectives: that which we desire and that which we fear. So the basic polarity,
polyamory
and
monogamy
, for example, can be conceptualized as oc-cupying four quadrants
:
desire for polyamory, fear of polyamory, desire for monogamy, and fear of monogamy. Usually, at least one of these quadrants is unconscious. When we become aware of the feelings and
2 2 0

C H A P T E R 1 0

motivations associated with the blank square, the graceful resolution of completion often occurs as if by magic.

When it comes to gender, a similar quadratic equation exists. Gina Had-don10 brilliantly describes the existence of active and receptive expressions for both masculine and feminine that she links to the functions of different sexual organs. She argues that
active
and
receptive
are the basic polarity and that these are
not
gender linked. Our culture tends to recognize only the active masculine, or phallic masculine, as symbolized by the erect penis. We overlook the receptive masculine, or testicular masculine, whose qualities include protection and constancy, even though the testicles are far more enduring than a fleeting erection. In studies of mythology, these are sometimes referred to as the solar masculine, represented by gods such as Apollo, and the lunar masculine, represented by Poseidon, god of the oceans and the underworld.

Conversely, our culture has exclusively identified the feminine with the receptive as exemplified by Mary, Mother of Jesus. This gentle, nurturing aspect of the feminine is linked with the breasts. But the feminine also has its active expression as evidenced by the birthing womb. Anyone with direct experience of childbirth knows that this quintessential aspect of the feminine is anything but soft and yielding. Fierce goddesses such as Kali and Durga in India or Pele in Hawaii are known for their sometimes violent anger. In Western civilization, we have Joan of Arc and Deborah, the female warrior and judge in the Old Testament. Mary Magdalene, who many now believe to be the consort of Jesus and mother of his child, has been presented in the New Testament as a prostitute rather than a priestess of the reigning active female deity.

With the active feminine and receptive masculine genders written out of our foundational myths, the four genders are reduced to two. Of course, just as both women and men have masculine and feminine qualities, we all have both active and receptive qualities. Nevertheless, in most people, one type predominates, and in the dyad, only two of these types are present. Is it any wonder that couples often have a sense of something missing?

Polytheistic cultures around the world, including Native American, African, and Celtic cultures, have also honored the power of sexualove and lack the
M Y T H , A R C H E T Y P E S , A N D H U M A N E V O L U T I O N

2 2 1

Christian bias toward monogamy. It is beyond the scope of this book to explore all these traditions, but brief mention of a few specifics will suggest the dramatically different perspective on monogamy found in other cultures.

Native American teacher Harley Swiftdeer describes the talent for sexualove as a special gift, similar to a gift for music or for athletic ability.

Such a gift may be chosen as a person’s
giveaway
, or contribution to society. This lover archetype is very different from our culture’s image of the driven nymphomaniac or the irresponsible Dionysian lady’s man. Furthermore, the Native American archetype of the healer encompasses the use of an abundant erotic energy for healing. A similar archetype is known in Tibetan mythology as Sky Walking Woman. She is the free spirit who will not be possessed by any individual but whose life energy has the power to revitalize those who become intimate with her.

In the West, one of the most pervasive polyamorous archetypes is Aphrodite, Greek goddess of love and beauty. To the Romans, she was Venus. In earlier times, she was known as Inanna, Astarte, Ishtar, or Isis. The Hindus call her Parvati, and she is sometimes described as the wife of Shiva. She is the feminine essence before being divided into madonna and whore.

Jungian analyst Jean Shinoda Bolen11 calls Aphrodite the
alchemical
goddess
because she alone among the Greek gods and goddesses had transformational power. She was also unique in that, while she had more lovers than any other goddess in Greek myth, she was not victimized and never suffered from her numerous love affairs as did most of the other goddesses. Neither was she jealous or possessive. Unlike her counterparts, she was allowed freely to choose both her husband and her many lovers.

Aphrodite inspired poetry, communication, and creativity as well as love.

She is still renowned for her powerful magnetism. Some modern women who’ve embodied this archetype are Isadora Duncan, the inventor of modern dance; Emma Goldman, the early feminist anarchist and free love advocate; and the pop music star Madonna.

Aphrodite’s liaison with Hermes, god of communication (called Mer-cury by the Romans), produced the bisexual, androgynous Hermaphro-ditus. Her long-term union with Ares, god of war (Mars to the Romans), produced a daughter, Harmonia. Thus, love and war combined to give rise to harmony. The six-lobed Flower of Aphrodite is an ancient symbol found all over the world. It symbolizes the power of this archetype to generate growth and produce new life, and there is nothing remotely dyadic about it.

2 2 2

C H A P T E R 1 0

Classical Greek civilization is often cited as the primary root of today’s Western cultures. Interestingly enough, neither monogamy nor romantic pair bonding was emphasized in Greek mythology or in everyday life in ancient Greece. While customs varied among the different city-states, marriages were arranged for financial and political reasons, and love was not part of the equation.12 Unlike the contemporary arranged marriages still common in India, for example, where attention is given to the likelihood of compatibility between the betrothed and where it is hoped that love will develop over time, love between husband and wife was not even considered desirable in classical Greece. The wife’s role was to provide heirs for her husband and manage his household while he enjoyed affection, sex, and companionship with a variety of women courtesans and hetaerae and perhaps men and boys as well.

In India, among the Gonds people, who are an indigenous tribe still living in the forests of modern-day Maharashtra in central India, young people live together in a coed youth house where boys and girls are given total sexual freedom and encouraged to experience intimacy with everyone in the group. Pairing up is forbidden until adulthood, at which time monogamy is the rule. This custom is thought to be very ancient. Verrier Elwin, an anthropologist who lived among these people for many years and eventually married into the tribe, once said that their message is “that youth must be served, that freedom and happiness are more to be treasured than any material gain, that friendliness and sympathy, hospitality and unity are of the first importance, and above all that human love—and its physical expression—is beautiful, clean and precious, is typically Indian.”13

In Hawaii prior to the arrival of westerners, the ancient
’ohana
, or extended family, was—and still is—central to the lives of Hawaiians. Prior to the influence of Christian missionaries and, before this, settlers from Ta-hiti, the Hawaiian culture was one in which men and women were equals.

Both genders sometimes took more than one mate, and all shared responsibility for the children regardless of biological parentage. This custom was common among both royalty and commoners. If partners separated, all remained part of the same
’ohana
. In the Hawaiian language, the same word,
punalua
, applies to multiple spouses, the unrelated spouses of siblings or cousins, or to former and current mates.
Punalua
were recognized and treated as family, and while jealousy sometimes arose, it was not frequent, perhaps because it was considered disgraceful and contrary to the spirit of
aloha
, which is roughly translated as “love.”14

M Y T H , A R C H E T Y P E S , A N D H U M A N E V O L U T I O N

2 2 3

Speculation about the mating habits of prehistoric humans as well as observation of present-day nonhuman primates are other sources of data often called on to validate our current conjugal practices. It’s interesting to note that most scholars don’t bother to ask whether males prefer or will accept multiple mates. It’s assumed that the male will gladly take on as many females as he can gain access to. The big question is always whether females will accept more than one male or, sometimes, whether her consorts are willing to share her with other males.

As we discussed in chapter 1, despite the unscientific but well-publicized explanatory fictions invented by some culture-bound twentieth-century sociobiologists that treat monogamy as an evolutionary mandate, the weight of evidence suggests that early humans were not monogamous.

Prominent evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis15 points out that the erect penis of the human male is about five times larger than that of a gorilla. Human testicles are also much larger than those of gorillas and orangutans. Among the great apes, only the wildly promiscuous chimpanzees have bigger testicles than humans. Why is this? Probably it is an evolutionary adaptation to
sperm competition
, which exists if two or more males copulate with the same female within a period of days. The one with the largest, best-timed, and deepest penetrating ejaculation will be most likely to impregnate her. Consequently, the genes for large penises and testicles are more likely to be passed on.

This theory is supported by the discovery that in species of monkeys and apes with the highest ratios of testes to body weight, the females often mate with many males. For example, with chimpanzees, a species that has one of the highest ratios, the troop is usually composed of genetically related males that hunt together and that are willing to sexually share rather than exclusively possess a female. And female chimps in heat are inclined to encourage as many males to have a go as they can round up. This could be viewed as a precursor for early forms of
group marriage
, in which a group of related males bonded with a group of related females.

Further evidence cited by Margulis for the existence of sperm competition in humans is the discovery that men who know or suspect that their mate has not been monogamous actually produce more sperm and more semen than those who believe that their wives have no other lovers. Jealousy, she concludes, is an aphrodisiac.

2 2 4

C H A P T E R 1 0

But jealousy can also function to motivate other behaviors, termed
sperm competition avoidance
. The huge gorilla with his one-inch-long erection and tiny testicles doesn’t need a big penis to gain an evolutionary advantage. The alpha male simply prevents others from gaining access to the fertile females in his “harem.” This pattern is more common in species where the male is significantly larger and more powerful than the female, a possible precursor to the form of polygamy practiced by biblical patriarchs and by patriarchs throughout the Arab world today.

Orangutans, which also have relatively tiny penises, are more likely to practice something called
takeover avoidance.
That is, the mated pair remain alone and isolated in the jungle. Sperm competition is not an issue because there are no other contenders. One might see this idiosyncratic development, without pushing the extremes too far, as a possible precursor for our honeymoon custom and the exclusivity of the nuclear family.

Anthropologist Robert Smith16 speculates that monogamous (takeover avoidant or sperm competition avoidant)
Homo sapiens
may have been better fighters than their promiscuous well-hung (sperm-competing)
Homo erectus
predecessors. Consequently, cooperative
Homo erectus
males, failing to protect their females from control by jealous and violent
Homo sapiens
, gradually disappeared.

Another perspective on evolutionary precedents for nonmonogamous behavior can be found in the observations of anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy.17 She points out that in primate species where the female mates with many different males, all the males in the troop are likely to be protective of her and her offspring. But in harem-type troops, males will kill nursing infants sired by another male. Thus, we could speculate that men and women have different evolutionary agendas. The female’s goal is to ensure the survival of all her offspring by enlisting the support of as many males as possible. The male’s goal is to protect only those offspring that he knows to carry his genes and to eliminate all others. We might call this
postnatal
sperm competition avoidance.
This could be viewed as a possible precursor to genocide.

Perhaps the strongest evidence of a biological basis for polyamory comes from observations of the bonobo chimpanzee. Bonobos, also known as
M Y T H , A R C H E T Y P E S , A N D H U M A N E V O L U T I O N

2 2 5

pygmy chimpanzees, are found only in a small area of Zaire in central Africa. Nothing was known about their behavior in the wild prior to the 1970s. At first, they were thought to be juvenile common chimpanzees, but it turns out that they are a distinct species. Bonobos, unlike other chimps, frequently copulate face-to-face, and the females are sexually receptive throughout their ovulation cycle.18 Observers agree that bonobos have a propensity for sharing sexual pleasure with a variety of partners independently of reproductive purposes. In fact, genital play is used extensively both across and within genders as a means of bonding within the group and defusing potential conflicts.