CARAS Con Addresses Polyamory Community Needs

Yesterday was a great day.  I had the privilege of mixing and mingling with about 50 people, a great mixture of academics, students, researchers and community advocates, who gathered together in Washington, DC, to learn about and discuss issues and methods around meeting the therapeutic and informational needs of alternative sexuality communities, including polyamorists, at the 5th annual conference of the Community-Academic Research Consortium for Alternative Sexualities.

The day started with a plenary address by author and sex therapist Gloria Brame who spoke about many things, including the need to correct misunderstandings about what constitutes sex addiction and the continuing effects of sex negativity in the United States.  Gloria is a well known and highly respected champion of the BDSM community, and after our having become friends on Facebook, it was delightful to finally have an opportunity to meet her in person.  I am very much looking forward to reading her new book, The Truth About Sex, A Sex Primer for the 21st Century Volume I: Sex and the Self.

Some of the poly-related programs included the presentation of research results around polyamory and bisexuality, and about polyamory in the context of personal freedom.  I facilitated a discussion at lunch time about what alt sex communities need from researchers.  There were many good suggestions, including emphasis by three attendees who were college students who spoke about the lack of options to gather with other non-monogamous and/or kinky people on their campuses.  NCSF's Judy Guerin spoke on behalf of that organization, and we both encouraged others to establish their own groups but to also reach out to those of us who can advise them along the way.

Programming continued in the afternoon with great choices for an advocate like myself - I had no problem deciding what to take in, there was always at least one session I wanted to attend. 

Networking opportunities abound at this conference.  I connected with people I hadn't seen in many years who had traveled to Washington to attend the conference.  It was great to have the opportunity to see and meet CARAS board members who live elsewhere.  I was delighted to see the awesome Catherine Gross, and to finally meet Kink-Aware Professionals founder Race Bannon. 

It is CARAS's tradition to present a case study as it's closing plenary, and my partner, who is a recovering sex addict, and I were the case, with a focus on healing sex addiction/compulsion and sexual sobriety in a polyamorous context.  We told our story of closing and then rebuilding our relationship after my partner revealed his addiction to me about nine months ago, our journey in therapy both together and separately, and how it was necessary to find our own path to wholeness again since the traditional prescription for sex addicts/compulsives and their partners doesn't work for us, at least not for me as a sex-positive advocate.  A local employed psychiatrist (whose name I can't use for fear of career repercussions for him) answered questions from the audience from a clinical perspective.

We were told that it is highly unusual to have a case presented where more than one partner participates.  That my partner and I were both there to tell our story together is a credit to my partner, who has made serving others who struggle with sexual addiction/compulsion and serving those who help them a part of his own recovery journey.  Today we are doing well together, and I couldn't be prouder of him.

I'm hoping that the CARAS conference will be a longer one in the future.  This one day meeting was scheduled the day before the American Psychological Association conference that is now going on in Washington, D.C., and the polyamory and bisexuality program I reference above will be presented there as well.  I learned that this is the second year that polyamory appeared somewhere on the APA conference program, and that is a big development indeed.  For years we couldn't get any mainstream organization that serves the psychology community to touch the topic.  The times, they are a'changing, and CARAS gets a good sized piece of the credit.

Update - Sheraton and Starwood Censorship of Robyn Ochs Website Ends

Since I wrote this, bisexuality activist Robyn Ochs heard back from the Starwood Hotels who had taken under consideration her insistence that her website not be blocked by public computer in the Starwood chain (Sheraton, W, Westin, and many others). The issue is that the term "bisexual" was being screened out by the software they use which was created by "family-focused" interest groups to offer a "family friendly" hotel atmosphere.

As I've already said, in no way do I advocate for public computers being free of all blocking software - some material *isn't* appropriate for children - but I believe the users of such programs must act responsibly and, as apparently Starwood has done, at minimum make accommodation for non-sexually focused websites like Robyn's, so people using these computers and wishing to contact her, link to her, or find the valuable information she furnishes will be able to do so free of cencorship restrictions. Here's what Robyn has to say in response to Starwood's latest and then the details of Starwood's answer. Woohoo Robyn!
____________________________________

Robyn's update:

UN-censored (follow-up about Starwood Hotels blocking my website)

Dear All,

I received this response today from Starwood Hotels. Good news, I think.

I have a favor to ask of all of you. When you visit public libraries, hotels, cafes, etc., try going to my website. Please let me know if you find access blocked. Send me as much detail as you can (where, when, what message you received).

Warm regards to all,
Robyn

*************************************

Dear Ms. Ochs,

Upon further review by our IT team and Legal Department, we have concluded that your website will not be blocked by the filter. In return for lifting the restriction; we ask that you include this follow up on your website.

Ms. Ochs, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to better respond to our clientele. It is our sincere hope this act renews any lost faith with Starwood Hotels & Resorts and wishes you safe travels in the future.

Andrew Walker
Consumer Affairs Executive Division
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc.
andrew.walker@Starwoodhotels.com

**************************************

(No More) Call for Boycott - Sheraton and all Starwood Hotels

OTE: Since I first posted this article, there has been big news as to this situation. NO BOYCOTT is needed any longer. See here for details.

--------------------------------------------------------

Robyn Ochs is a tireless, well-known activist for the rights of bisexuals, and she recently posted to Facebook the story of how a Sheraton hotel blocked access to her non-adult not-porn website because a blunt instrument, conservative-agenda-focused software blocking program blocks words like lesbian and bisexual as inappropriate content. Based on what Robyn has written, I'm joining with her in boycotting Sheraton and all Starwood Hotels until Robyn tells us the problem has been satisfactorily resolved. Note that the blocking in question is in place in the hotel's lobby internet facilities, not its in-room service.

Robyn wrote compellingly in response to the Sheraton hotel manager's BS response - the entire story is below. The current status of the matter is that the hotel manager has forwarded her email to the Consumer Affairs Executive Division of Starwood Hotels and Resorts for further consideration.

As a self-identified bisexual female, I say BOO SHERATON! BOO STARWOOD! In intend for none of it to have the pleasure of my company until this is resolved. Specific hotel brands to avoid are

- Meridien

- Four Points

- Westin

- The Luxury Collection

- Loft

- Sheraton

- Element

- St. Regis

- W Hotels

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robyn writes:

Dear All,

Here is my email to Starwood/Sheraton, the response I received from the hotel in Milwaukee that uses SiteCoach to block content in their hotel lobby Internet, and my own response to them:

MY FIRST EMAIL: I stayed in one of your hotels on October 7-8, 2008. When I went to my own website, www.robynochs.com, I was denied access, with the following message: The requested site could not be loaded. 451 The access to the address above is restricted. According to our harmful content database SiteCoach does not allow you to visit this page! An error has occurred while trying to open the page http://www.robynochs.com/ ." From what I now understand, SiteCoach is a right wing company that considers words like "lesbian" inappropriate content. Please tell me that you will stop using this service so that I can continue staying at Sheraton Hotels.

Sincerely,
Robyn Ochs
Boston, MA

THE CENTRAL OFFICE REFERRED ME TO THE LOCAL HOTEL AT WHICH I STAYED, AND HERE IS THEIR RESPONSE:

Dear Ms. Ochs,

Thank you for feedback regarding the Sheraton Link. This program has been met with much success since its launch by Starwood Hotels and Resorts.

I have fully reviewed your concerns over having your site and the Sheraton Link in the lobby. The company that installs and maintains the systems have promoted these systems to a kid friendly, family friendly environment. I am sure you can understand that there are several sites on the internet that are viewed as offensive by the general public and for that reason, programs have been developed to ensure that the majority of viewers are met with non-offensive material. Your site in particular isn’t what I would call “offensive” but certain words must have been picked up within the filter that restricted public access to your site; I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.

Regrettably the system will not allow us to change the filters to allow your site to be viewed at the Sheraton Link. I appreciate your efforts to educate the public on your views and wish you continued success in doing so. We appreciate your loyalty to Starwood and hope this unfortunate scenario has not altered your opinion of an award winning company and hope to see you in our hotels in the near future.

Sincerely,
Peter

FINALLY, HERE IS MINE TO THEM:

Dear Peter,

I appreciate your attempt to "put lipstick on this pig" as well as your personal support of my work, but unfortunately there is a false logic underlying the use of a block that considers words like "lesbian" and "bisexual" offensive to the "general public." These words connote identities. There is nothing inherently offensive about them. And the "general public" that you seek not to offend includes many people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, including many youth. In fact, much of my own work involves work with youth aged 14-21. When you add our families and friends to our numbers, we ARE the "general public" to which you refer. If someone else finds the words with which I describe my own identity offensive, that is their business. No one is being forced to visit sites that contain these words. Finally, your letter makes me wonder by what measurement has this program "met with much success"? I'm afraid that your company's use of SiteCoach IS sufficient reason for me to stop doing business with your hotel chain. I should also forewarn you that I will be publicizing this incident on Facebook and encouraging others to boycott Starwood/Sheraton hotels as well. I hope that your company will come to its senses and cease acting as censors.

Sincerely,
Robyn Ochs (a.k.a. Jane Q. Public)
http://www.robynochs.com

Polyamory and Lesbian Views About Bisexual Women

A recent post to the Bisexual Forum at AfterEllen.com, When You Want Both, brought to mind my feelings of ambivalence as an out bisexual polyamorous woman and my sometimes discomfort in the past at feeling like my polyamorous side wasn't welcome in my local bisexual women's community. The AfterEllen post in question addresses lesbian community shyness about dating bisexual women for fear of being left for a man and suggests that maybe bisexual women who want relationships with both a woman and a man are polyamorous. What a concept!

There was a time in my local community when I heard more than one bisexual woman insist that she wasn't polyamorous but was instead "duogamous". As best I could tell, this term basically was intended to communicate a monogamous nature but with, um, more than one person. As a woman who embraces her poly side, I always felt it was hair-splitting and sensed that the term "polyamory" made some bi women uncomfortable.

Lesbian stereotyping bisexuals as at best unreliable, worse as fickle, and at worst as promiscuous is such an unfair burden. And the difficulty is obvious for monogamously inclined bi women who would like to be accepted by the lesbian community as potential monogamous partners.

Stereotyping polyamorists as promiscuous also creates problems for polys who aren't and don't like being portrayed as such. And we bi polys, well, we're the sleaziest, sluttiest of all - or so some assume. As a polyamory advocate I often find myself making the point that for many polyfolk, polyamory is no more about sex than monogamy is about sex. When I do, I'm usually rebutting the stereotype that polyamory is just an excuse for promiscuity - just as bi women are similarly stereotyped. The reason we feel a need to defend ourselves, whether bi or poly or both, is the same - we are all victims of a highly sex-negative culture.

What if we - both bisexuals and polyamorists - were to take a more sex-positive approach? Rather than buying into the age-old societal stereotyping of anyone who has a sexual relationship with more than one person at a time, what if we were to stand up for ourselves and challenge the stereotyping instead of bending over backward trying to convince others that we're really virtuous? I often think that virtue is overrated.

The term sex-positive is often misinterpreted to mean promiscuous, but it's really more about refusing to be shamed and choosing to see sexuality as a wholesome, healthy, positive part of life, no matter what form of sexual expression we choose or prefer, as long as it is among consenting adults. It surely would be nice if we could do so, especially within the bisexual and polyamory communities where there is so much crossover.

I get that some bi women who have both a male and a female partner don't like the idea of being labeled as polyamorous, but I also very much regret that there is such bias from one sexual minority against another. I wonder whether that was because they didn't want to be doubly saddled with the slut label. I am always hesitant to apply the polyamory label to anyone who doesn't want it, yet from a behavioral point of view, if a bisexual person has two partners with whom they are engaged in loving relationships, there is no difference between polyamory and duogamy, at least not that I can tell. Bisexuals in the polyamory community do exactly that all the time. Yet I can also see how some may think that being stereotyped as a slut simply for identifying as bisexual should be burden enough.

As a bi poly woman this has at times represented quite a conundrum for me. Sometimes as an out bi poly woman I felt a bit like the elephant in the local bisexual women's community living room. I perceive that some bi people can be uncomfortable because I raise by my very presence uncomfortable questions for them and am perhaps a reminder of the outside discrimination and stereotyping to which bisexuals are subjected both from the mainstream and from the queer community. I can see huge value in bi community as a safe haven where one can find respite from being misunderstood - at least if you don't also identify as polyamorous.

As to the lesbian stereotyping of bisexual women as more likely to leave them, ostensibly for a male partner, it seems to me that this may be an understandable but unreasonable fear. People leave relationships for all kinds of reasons. Is it really that much more likely that a monogamous bisexual woman partnered with a lesbian will leave her lesbian partner for a man than it is that the lesbian partner will leave the relationship for another lesbian? I get that the odds may seem greater simply because people attracted to both men and women have twice the options, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily more likely to want to exercise them. And I get het privilege and the resentment surrounding that issue.

Once again I have to wonder whether it's not time for monogamous and polyamorous bisexual women to stand together in solidarity and say this is who we are. We are as ethical and reliable as any other partner regardless of gender, and we are easily as capable of making a commitment - whether we are monogamous or polyamorous - as anyone else. If we prefer to have one of each (or more), we'll say so up front and not split hairs over what to call it. That's who some but not all bisexuals are. The women we date deserve to know where we stand on this subject, and whether monogamous or polyamorous, we ALL deserve first and foremost to be treated with respect as ethical, honest, sexual individuals.

Join Me at Dark Odyssey Summer Camp!

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN FOR
DARK ODYSSEY: SUMMER CAMP '07

Hey everyone! I will be at Dark Odyssey: Summer Camp 2007 this year and you should, too! It's an incredible experience like no other I've ever had in terms of exploring freedom of sexual expression in a safe, sex-positive, clothing optional environment.

Below are all the details. Hope to see you there.

Smiles,
Anita

------------------------------------------------

Imagine a vacation which brings together sexuality, spirituality, education, and play in a fun, diverse environment where fantasy becomes reality.

Dark Odyssey: Summer Camp 2007, a journey of sexual exploration for the spiritual and creative sex-positive communities returns for its fifth year. It will be held at a secluded, two hundred acre retreat in Northern Maryland. Our mission is to cross-pollinate ideas and concepts between diverse groups of individuals who desire to explore different areas of sexuality. The Dark Odyssey Community is truly multi-sexual, welcoming people of all genders and sexual orientations. We welcome people interested in everything from sex, Tantra, and BDSM to polyamory, swinging, Paganism, and spirituality; attendees come from all over the world and identify as sex-positive activists, nudists, LGBT, shamans, Masters, slaves, leatherfolk, genderqueers, sex bloggers, crossdressers, body modifiers, radical faeries, and perverts.

The event, from September 12-17, 2006 will feature top-notch sex educators, relationship experts, SM masters, and spiritual teachers from around the world, including:

Barbara Carrellas * Bear * Beth and Preston
Bobby * British "Lucky" Paul * Captain Beatrice & Benedick
Del * Dossie Easton * Felice Shays
Fräulein Rottenmeier * Helen Boyd * Jacq Jones
Jefferson * Jim Deuder * Jon and Carin * Lee Harrington
Levi Halberstadt * Lolita Wolf * Marcus
Margo Eve & Elkor * Mark Michaels & Patricia Johnson * Michelle Zee
Nina Hartley * Reid Mihalko & Marcia Baczynski
Sarah Sloane * Scherzoid * Sir C * Susan B
Suzanne SxySadist * SwitchMe
Tristan Taormino * Whittney Matlock

Go HERE to browse the complete list of presenter's bios.

And over 75 of the most unique, exciting workshops anywhere, with an emphasis on hands-on demonstrations, including:

The Art of Partnership: Creating Partnership within Relationship
Beyond Bowed Heads: Rituals for Dominance and submission
Binding Intentions: The Art of Rope Magic
Border Crossing: Challenging Boundaries, Connecting Bodies
Bridging Romantic Differences
Delight in Difficult Dominance
Designing your Poly Lifestyle
Discipline and Awareness: How To Enhance Life And Play With Body/Mind Techniques
Japanese Rope Harness
Making Your Move: a Flirting Class
Making Poly/Mono Relationships Work
Pain: Plight-Punishment-Pleasure
Playing in the Dark: Journeys Through Humiliation
Radical Ecstasy
Spiritual Body Modification
Trans-Sex & Identity
Uneven Libidos: When Your Partner Isn¹t as Sexual as You
Urban Tantra

PLUS, LOTS MORE ON...

Sex: Lick her, Cocksucking, Anal Play, Fisting, G-spot, Threesomes
Identity: What Labels Give Us, What Labels Take Away
Relationships: 'Ethical Sluts' Workshop by author Dossie Easton
BDSM: Ecstatic Caning and Pick-Up Play for Bottoms
Spirituality: Energy Pull Ritual and Walking the Path of Ordeal
And An Entire Track of Classes & Events Devoted to Fireplay

Go HERE for classes and descriptions.

In addition to workshops, Dark Odyssey features creative social activities, nightly special events, erotic rituals, lakeside bonfires, the Sex-O-Rama playspace, and a 10,000 square foot fully equipped dungeon open for play around the clock. Legendary special events include:

Body Beautiful * PT for Perverts * Night in Flames
Energy Pull Ritual * Garden of Carnal Delights * Cupid's Gambit
Fucking Machines Show * Cigars & Chocolate * Cuddle Party
Perverts' Potluck * Fire Spinning * Petting Zoo * Pajama Party

All this happens in a fun camp environment at a retreat with great accommodations: forty cabins with real beds, full bathrooms, hot water showers, and electricity; two swimming pools, canoeing, and hiking; plus, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a midnight snack included.

Unlike a typical conference event, where you have to pay for registration fees, hotel room costs, plus meals, Dark Odyssey is an all-inclusive event.
Current registration rates are good through August 20 (then prices go up), but you can register up until September 12. When you register, don't forget to check to see if you are a member of any of our Participating Groups which entitle you to a group discount on the registration rate!

Dozens of community organizations have signed on as participating groups in Dark Odyssey, and we add new groups every day. Check the website to see if your group is one of them, and you'll be entitled to a registration discount. If your group would like to be added to this list, please contact greg@darkodyssey.com

Visit the DO website for more details. We hope you will join us for this exciting event!

Best Regards,

The Producers of Dark Odyssey:
Tristan, Greg, Karri, and Colten

The Origins of Monogamy and Jealousy

Someone wrote the following to me yesterday.

You obviously have approached this subject with a scholarly bent and seem to know quite a bit. I have thought a lot about it too and I have, from time to time, dabbled in Sociology and Social Psychology. I have a sort of negative, flip-side question for you: what do you think the origins and purposes of monogamy are? For the life of me, I cannot see how monogamy serves any real purpose except to guarantee mates for the less-advantaged males. What do you think?

Well, certainly your observation about monogamy serving to guarantee mates for less-advantaged males is accurate according to Psychology Today.

Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy.

When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

Once upon a time when there were certainly no DNA tests to confirm paternity, monogamy was intended to guarantee blood lines so that wealth and property was kept in the family. How well that worked in reality is likely another story, but it did give (or was at least was intended to give) men control over who inherited property, since the right of women to own property is a much more recent development.

Monogamy's origins are also firmly rooted in Europe and the Catholic church. The church enforced monogamy as an aspect of virtue according to the gospel of St. Paul and other biblical sources who believed that Eve seduced Adam into sin and so women needed to be dominated and controlled to save them from sin. This also served to help men avoid feelings of jealousy by keeping their women to themselves, and women bought into it as well, perceiving that they preferred to keep their men to themselves, even as they were attracted to other men and tempted to stray - just as, in reality, were their men. The church declared that temptation to stray was a sin, and that monogamy was divinely mandated. Again, this was the church's way of controlling its parishoners and maintaining it's own power and authority.

From an evolutionary biological standpoint, humans are programmed to pair bond for the raising of children, though anthropologists believe we have never done so entirely monogamously. There is a reproductive advantage to spreading one's reproductive resources around to others, generally others perceived to be healthy - which explains why men in particular are so attracted to women younger than they. We women have a finite number of eggs and a finite number of years in which to put them to use - not so for men.

Next we throw into the mix the matter of sexual jealousy. This is not even remotely new in evolutionary terms and is believed to have developed as a further means of keeping parents together for the raising of children, especially in order to see that children are protected and provided for at least until they are out of the cradle. Some anthropologists assert that this explains why biologically limerence, that "in love" rush of emotions, eventually wears off, preparing us to then be attracted to others so as to continue to spread reproductive resources around to other attractive, i.e. reproductively viable, partners.

For more on all this, see the book references on the website for the Institute for 21st Century Relationships, specifically here and here.

I recommend the works of anthropologist Helen Fisher, especially her book "Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray", as well as the book "Christianity and Sexuality in the Early Modern World: Regulating Desire, Reforming Practice" by Wiesner-Hanks.

Sexual jealousy makes monogamy seem like a good idea, yet we are just as biologically programmed to stray outside the pair bond to further guarantee perpetuation of our species. In other words, it is normal to want to keep our partner to ourselves while we decline to remain monogamous ourselves. It seems that human evolution is entirely focused on outcomes and is not concerned with the internal conflict it may create in attaining them.

In my work with polyamorous people on resolving jealousy, I have encountered a few who are honest enough to fully admit that they want to be with others but are not willing to share their partner with others while admitting that it is unfair. A very few bisexual folks with straight partners take this approach as well, pointing out a need for one of each as justification for being with more than one while their straight partner has no such right or imperative. In both cases the motivation is to avoid feelings of jealousy while getting their need for variety met. These folks are definitely in the minority, at least as to their willingness to admit to these rationalizations. The vast majority of non-monogamous people share these feelings but are much more philosophically egalitarian. They choose to deal with concerns about jealousy more directly, by doing internal emotional work, communicating with their partner(s) about their feelings, and in so doing finding ways to minimize or resolve their feelings in a way that is fair to everyone.