Dark Odyssey Winter Fire This Weekend

This Friday through Sunday the phenominal conference Dark Odyssey Winter Fire happens in Washington, DC. It's producers describe it as follows:

DARK ODYSSEY : A journey of sexual adventure, where open minded people gather to explore Tantra, Polyamory, Intimate Communications, BDSM, Alternative Lifestyles and more. With nationally known presenters, hands on workshops, intriguing lectures and exciting social events, experience a vacation you are sure to not forget.

DO is indeed a wonderful event with a top notch staff and programs (she says modestly.) For more information about Dark Odyssey, visit the DO website.

I will be presenting a new program on Sunday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. entitled The Pain and Pleasure of Poly/Mono Relationships, which I describe as follows:

Probably the greatest challenge in finding what works to resolve conflict in polyamorous relationships is working out the challenge that arises when one partner is polyamorous and the other is monogamous. How do people manage? Is it even possible to find mutual happiness under such circumstances? This workshop will explore the ways in which poly/mono relationships wither for some and thrive for others. Every effort will be made to present this workshop and conduct the discussion sensitively to the experiences of the monogamous partners as well as the polyamorous partners. Poly/mono couples and groups who have a story to tell are especially welcome. A useful handout and ample time for discussion will be included.

If you're attending DO, please come on by and check it out! And keep an eye out for the handout - it will be posted next week under "Downloadable Documents" on practicalpolyamory.com

Blind Devotion and Traditional Monogamous Marriage

On a poly/mono yahoogroup I manage, a subscriber wrote: "...it still amazes me that even among the most liberal, traditional marriage views tend to hold sway. This seems to be the last thing to change, and I wonder why?"

The idea of sharing one's partner with someone else scares the heck out of a lot of people, so much so that they dare not examine these issues too closely for fear that the monogamous marriage house of cards will come tumbling down. Many people would much rather choose denial and avoid picking at the scab of deeply-held beliefs around monogamy, even though there is considerable threat to their emotional health underneath. By this I am referring to:

-- Hypocracy in the form of cheating;

-- Reluctance to acknowledge that, especially in today's world, people and their needs can and do change, sometimes regardless of relationship situation;

-- The idea that monogamy gives right of ownership over one's partner's heart, body and soul;

-- A belief that despite the present state of monogamous marriage, it is still the only acceptable game in town and therefore the gold standard;

-- Questions around whether that fairy tale we often buy into that we'll find the perfect one for us and live happily ever after can really withstand the test of time.

For many people it feels much safer to rationalize to themselves that monogamy is the only legitimate option because choosing anything else challenges beliefs around possessiveness and that false sense of security that a marriage license often fosters. It may also open the door for their partner to express an interest on a polyamorous relationship, which is also frightening to many people.

At this time in history, traditional, unexamined, reflexive monogamy rises almost to the level of mass obsession and delusion. The European church leaders who several centuries ago set up the model of patriarchal monogamy as the only option and tied it to the soul's salvation were very crafty and understood human nature all too well. They set purity and virtue in women up as the only standard to which a woman could aspire and remain respectable. This was necessary in order to control women's sexuality, and thereby control paternity and inheritance rights. People were forbidden from thinking for themselves, and challenging church docrine was sacrilege. Any alternative relationship route was very effectively blocked with the belief that down any road besides lifelong monogamous marriage was nothing but destruction and ruin. These standards truly create the appearance of there being no way out of the monogamy trap and that monogamy is something people simply must accept regardless of its flaws. Like I said, very crafty.

Most people internalize those messages still today. They've been passed along, generation after generation, and today they are oft repeated on TV and other popular media. It feels a lot safer to go with what is considered acceptable so as to appear respectable and legitimate in one's community, and to one's family and friends. Primarily it's only those who are not especially invested in what other people think of them, who are willing to examine their own beliefs and societal messaging and stay independent in their thought processes, and who are able to step back and see what is real and what is illusion who escape the reflexive nature of committing to monogamous marriage.

DISCLAIMER: I realize that there are people who enter into monogamous marriages who are not blind to these issues and who have discussed them with their intendeds prior to marriage and chose a traditional monogamous marriage while aware that there are other legitimate options. I just wish there were more of them. These are NOT the people to whom I refer here.

As long as what's outside the walls of the house of monogamy looks like a dark forest with beasties hiding around every turn in the forest path, people are going to run screaming from it in anger and fright. It is my goal, as is that of other polyamory advocates, to shed light on those dark spots and help people understand that there is nothing to fear and that polyamory is merely another option.

The Secret of Polyamory

Here’s a secret: If you and your partner have a solid relationship and each is committed to and values the other no matter who else enters the picture, then giving your partner the gift of freedom to love others, too, frequently causes them to love you even more for giving them this gift. The abundance of love they receive as a result of your generosity is likely to secure your place in their life far better than fits of anger and jealousy ever could. This is how it works in my life and the lives of many, many other polyamorists I know.

I feel significantly more secure in my primary relationship with T than I ever felt in either of my supposedly monogamous marriages where cheating led to a lot of heartbreak. T doesn't have to cheat if he feels a strong connection to another, and neither do I. Knowing that we have this option makes us both very happy and appreciative of each other.

Jenny Block on Open Relationships in Huffington Post

Writer Jenny Block, author of the soon-to-be-published book Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage, has just made her first blog post to Huffington Post as a regular there. It's called Open Relationships: What the World Already Has. In it she challenges the sanctioning of cheating over the acceptance of honest and open relationships. In one part she speculates about why people have such negative reactions to the concept of polyamory.

.... there is nothing more terrifying than feeling like you're not strong enough to go out on a limb and attempt something that might actually improve your life. Better to yell, "Freak!" at those who are trying. And then everyone doing the yelling -- unhappy, cheating, or just plain judgmental -- feel themselves in the "right" and thus in the clear.

I have another theory about why so many people react so negatively to the idea of polyamory. What if their own spouse should find the idea of polyamory appealing, especially in light of increasing acceptance of this alternative to monogamy? How will they be able to continue to enjoy the illusion of security that monogamy creates? They LIKE having a sense of ownership of their spouse. It makes them feel secure. And if they feel jealous of their spouse's appreciation of another, society says they are entirely justified in crying foul.

Thank goodness there are rules about these things, right? Polyamory is particularly troubling to those who need rules that everyone is expected to following in order to feel safe. Trouble is, one person's sense of security is another person's cage, and a cage is no place to conduct a relationship.

Some say that the potential for upsetting the emotional teacart is evidence enough that polyamory is a bad idea. I see it as evidence that the time is coming when society will re-examine its extreme expectations around love, commitment, possessiveness, and sexual and emotional exclusivity. It seems to me that possessiveness and ownership of one’s spouse is self-serving and therefore more about love of self and avoiding uncomfortable feelings than it is about love for another.

It's true that polyamory demands a lot of self-examination, self-awareness and communication to work. It's also true that jealousy in even agreed-upon polyamorous relationships sometimes occurs. It's a part of being human, a part of our emotional make-up just as much is our apparent desire to pair bond but non-exclusively. The difference for polyamorists is that we own our jealous feelings, avoid casting blame, and we learn together how to effectively resolve jealous feelings instead of allowing them to derail the relationship.

Polyamory isn’t for everyone, true, and monogamy is a legitimate choice. It’s just not the only one. As long as the people who are together agree to the same choice, it’s all good.

Taking Marriage Private

There's an important Op-Ed in today's NY Times by the fabulous Stephanie Coontz called Taking Marriage Private in which she advocates for the ending government's role in marriage. Coontz is a well-known author and commentator on family matters in western society. She has testified before Congress as an advisor on family matters, and her opinion on this specific matter will carry a lot of weight.

In 2004, she received the Council on Contemporary Families first-ever "Visionary Leadership" Award. She serves as a marriage consultant to The Ladies Home Journal.

From her website:

"Stephanie Coontz teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, and is Director of Research and Public Education for the Council on Contemporary Families, which she chaired from 2001-04. She is the author of Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, (Viking Press, 2005), The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap (1992 and 2000, Basic Books), The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms with America's Changing Families(Basic Books, 1997), and The Social Origins of Private Life: A History of American Families.

One of her biggest contributions is the debunking of the nostalgia surrounding the concept of the "nuclear family", i.e. one man and one woman married for life with two kids and a dog and the white picket fence, as the ultimate form of family.

What has this to do with polyamory? I am convinced that it is the only way to even the playing field that at present unfairly grants benefits to couples that other committed partnerships are denied.

For a more detailed treatise on this subject, see the 2006 visionary statement entitled Beyond Same-Sex Marriage - A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships which advocates for:

Ø Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status.

Ø Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.

Ø Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.

Ø Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.

NCSF Media Update

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Poly Pride in NYC this Weekend!

I'm really looking forward to once again attending Poly Pride activities in NYC this weekend. The weather is predicted to be sunny and 80 degrees - perfect! There will be lots of friends to get together with and catch up. I'll have the honor of addressing those present on poly activism topics as well. They're brave folks indeed for giving me mic time! (Smile)

Many thanks to Justen Michael, Birgitte Philippides and the rest of the organizers for all their hard work. They've lined up a huge cuddle party Friday night and a great party on Saturday night, along with the main event, the Poly Pride Rally in Central park Saturday afternoon. Several of us who are poly activists will be pimping for LovingMore while there, including LovingMore executive director Robyn Trask.

I'm especially looking forward to seeing the Wet Spots perform - their witty and very adult compositions are not to be missed. I'm also looking forward to hearing Australian singer and poly-themed songwriter Penelope Swales whose local DC area performance for Chesapeake Polyamory Network I missed this last weekend - how great that I get a second chance!

Here's the lineup of speakers and entertainers - hope to see you there! It's going to be an experience like no other in terms of meeting cool polyfolk. And if you do attend, please introduce yourself and say hello.

Speakers:

Robyn Trask, from Loving More Magazine
Nan Wise (Poly Expert and Poly psychotherapist)
REiD Mihalko and Marcia Baczynski (Sex Educators/Relationship coaches, founders of Cuddleparty)
Ken Haslam, from the Kinsey Institue
Stephanie Sellars (NY Press sex columnist)
Diana Adams, Esq., Polyamory lawyer
Anita Wagner (Polyamory/Sexual Freedom Activist)
Barbara Foster, Letha Hadady, and Mike Foster (authors of Three In Love)
Julio Cortes


Entertainers:

Hedda Lettuce, Drag Comedienne
The Black and White Cookies, acoustic duo
The Wet Spots
Sean Graham, Comedian
Stephanie Sellars
Robin Renee and Jasmine
Shawna Hamic
Penelope Swales(polyamorous singer/songwriter from Australia)

22 September is Polyday in the U.K.

Our poly cohorts in the U.K. are holding their third annual Polyday celebration on 22 September in London. So here's your chance to hang with UK polylads and polylasses. Maybe you'll meet a potential partner, and their partners (which could become your "metamour(s)") and get all "frubbly." It's a bit of an LDR (Long distance relationship) from the States, but I've heard of worse.

When
Saturday 22 September 2007, from 10:30am. Discussion sessions will run until 6:45pm, with a disco in the evening from 8pm to midnight.

Where
Doggett's Coat and Badge, a large pub at the southern end of Blackfriars Bridge, London SE1 9UD. Nearest Tube: Blackfriars. (map and venue info)

How much
£10 for waged people and £5 for unwaged. There are no advance bookings; simply turn up and pay on the day.

See workshop and presenter details here.

Media Alert for the Polyamory Community

LovingMore is doing its best to get this message out to as much of the poly community as it can, and we appreciate your giving it your attention. As you can imagine, this incident is one of great concern in terms of how it may color public opinion about polyamory.

Anita Wagner
Member, LovingMore nonprofit Board of Directors

Robyn writes:

I thought this was important news that the poly community should know about. I was contacted by a reporter this week who is doing a story on a murder/suicide in North Carolina involving a poly triad. I have no idea what spin the media will put on this because, of course, these kinds of things never happen in monogamous relationships. I want everyone to be aware of this tragic news. It involved a married couple who, according to the wife, were living together with a woman for five years in a triad. The young woman who was 20 left the couple last week. The man, who was 34, went after her over the weekend, killed her and himself.

See the article in the Raleigh News & Observer.

This is a real tragedy that will most likely be played out as polyamory gone wrong. If what the wife is saying is true then they moved this girl in when she was 15. I pointed out to the reporter this was not your typical polyamory triad and did my best to give him information about polyamory and what it is about. I also let him know that Loving More does not condone 29 year old adults dating 15 year olds. I did point out that it can be a challenge to find therapy and help for poly people in rural areas with no support, especially when there are no therapists familiar with this relationship style.

With polyamory so much in the media there is the possibility this will be picked up nationally, especially to those who condemn polyamory. We all know this kind of tragedy happens in monogamous relationships, too.

If anyone is contacted about this by the media please let us know and feel free to call if you need help in answering them.

You are welcome to copy this message and pass it on to others.

Warmly,

Robyn Trask
Loving More
robyn@lovemore.com
303-543-7540

Am I poly or mono if I am in a monogamous relationship?

Someone on the LiveJournal polyamory community posted this common question, as follows:

As my currently monogamous relationship grows, I am wondering how this affects my poly identity. My current partner is not poly, and that's not a problem for me. I'm trying to figure out [how] to negotiate my own identity. Because poly is something I can enjoy and grow from, I do see it's value and don't eliminate it as an option... but it isn't intrinsic to who I am or what I need. Does that mean I'm not poly? Am I a poly poser? :) Does anyone else shift between poly and mono relationships and if so do you always identify as poly?

I don't think this person is a poser at all. There is nothing inauthentic about her situation from what I can tell.

Indeed, many poly people see polyamory for themselves as an identity. I believe that being a poly person is not about what (or who - *g*) we are doing at any given time, but instead think it's more about what matters to us and what we are open to.

My personal definition of a polyamorist is a person with the desire and ability to love more than one person at at a time with openness and honesty with all involved. I don't consider a failure to embrace polyamory as essential to one's life to equate to a de facto monogamous identity. I can identify as a polyamorist and still choose under some circumstances to be in a monogamous relationship. A polyamorous nature and a monogamous relationship are not mutually exclusive.

Over the 12 years I've been a poly person, for a variety of reasons I've been through periods of time where I had only one partner. I'm not someone who collects partners simply because I'm a poly person. I approach my relationship configurations primarily from a perspective of what needs are or are not being met by the relationship or relationships I already have. If an important need arises and is going unmet, it is important to me that I be free to connect with others who might meet it.

It's also important to me to be able to act on a strong attraction if one comes along, since from my perspective, that person's entry into my life is a gift from the universe. But that doesn't happen all that often. If my needs are being met with my relationship(s) as they exist at present, I don't tend to go around looking for new partners.

Another way of putting it I've seen is that just like people who are gay don't stop being gay just because they aren't in a relationship with a same-sex partner, neither do poly people stop being poly people merely because they only have one partner, or none at all. I suppose this analogy works for me because I do identify as a poly person in terms of polyamory being an essential component of who I am. But I think it also applies to people who don't see themselves this way, so long as they still appreciate the benefits of polyamory and consider it an option.

Sugasm #88 - Great Issue!

I'm in Sugasm #88. See below. No, it's not a great issue because I'm in it - it really IS a great issue, lots of steamy stuff, along with a fair amount of intellectual foreplay.

To see all the great sex blog entries in a variety of categories, go here.

Mon 16th Jul, 07

This Week’s Picks

Kinky To Vanilla“Now, each time we play with others, it’s a gift that further cements our closeness and shows us the value of our love.”

One For The Guys“Get into the habit of building your sexual pleasure and indulging in it fully.”

When A Client Dies-Part 2
“As I drank my morning coffee I googled his name and “obit”. Up popped his obituary.”

Mr. Sugasm Himself
A Porn Store Clerk Speaks

Editor’s Choice
Love at First Sight

More Sugasm
Join the Sugasm

See also: Fleshbot’s Sex Blog Roundup each Tuesday and Friday.

Thoughts on Sex and Relationships
Bald = hot
Kinky Vanilla
On abandon
The Origins of Monogamy and Jealousy
Pretendy Sex
Seduction - from the eyes of my spouse
Three years

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.

So the polyamorist says to the monogamist “POLYAMORY IS NOT BETTER THAN MONOGAMY.”

Someone who wished to remain anonymous recently sent me a response to my June 7 post, Identity Poly-tics in which they accused polyamorists in general of "trying to foist their opinions on other people." This person, who I’ll call Jo (gender neutral) said, “In another blog post, dated June 7th, Anita compared polyamory, once again, to gay marriage.”

I’m a bit confused, since I said nothing in that post about gay marriage. Jo went on to say,

“ I am so, so sick of hearing this. It really makes me mad. You aren't gay, so quit comparing yourself to people who are.”

Does being bisexual count? (Small grin.)

“The other day, I attended a gay rally, and a goth girl showed up wearing a collar with spikes 2 inches long. She was riding a bike (I wonder if you know her?) “

Wait! Is this one of those assumptions people make along the lines of, "Hey, you're from Tennessee? (Population 6,000,000) My uncle lives in Tennessee - do you know him???"

The visible polyamory community is pretty small and incredibly far flung, so I very much doubt that I do. Also, many people live poly lives whose social circles do not encompass the polyamory community itself, especially polys who are gay, lesbian and/or kinky. Some of their communities make space for them as poly people and as a community subset, and they are content with that.

“On one side was a sign that read, ‘Lesbian bed death - in your face – Polyamory’ and the other side read, ‘Queer as f* - High Femme - Kiss my a**’ It ticked me off, but it was nothing I hadn't seen before!”

“When polyamorists direct such offensive language to 'monogamists' as you label those of us who believe in two-person relationships- the first time I've ever actually been offended by a label- can you guess what the reaction is?”

How horrid of me! How dare I?!?! (Sorry, but I just can't help poking a little fun at Jo's assumptions - s/he speaks as if s/he really believes that all polyamorists are determined to make sure same sex couples can't marry.)

As to the term "monogamist", Microsoft Word’s spellcheck doesn’t even blink at it – I think that means it’s a common term and mine was fair use of it. Mirriam-Webster agrees:

mo•nog•a•mist
Function: noun
Date: 1651 : one who practices or upholds monogamy

“Can you guess what I wanted to scrawl on her sign with the cans of spray paint sitting so temptingly nearby? It's incredibly offensive, and 'lesbian bed death' is also completely untrue. It makes me mad. I don't know why 'polyamorous bed death', 3 or 4 people who are bored with each other, isn't an equally possible scenario, or how poly is somehow a 'cure' to a bad 2-person relationship. It's utterly ridiculous.”

No poly activist I know says anything remotely like what is assumed here, i.e. that polyamory can be a cure for a troubled dyadic relationship. I would never and have never recommended such a thing. I've never heard of poly bed death, but I expect that it exists for some poly people, just like it does for the rest of the population, gay, bi, trans and straight.

I did use the term “monogamist” in the Identity Poly-tics post, in which I was discussing how some polyamorists don’t want to be referred to as such. I said that *to me* the term “polyamorist” is a simple term which I use to describe one of the two sorts of people who engage in long-term, committed intimate relationships. The others are indeed monogamists, and the dictionaries clearly agree. I didn’t imply that one is better than the other, but that’s what Jo heard nevertheless. And Jo is certainly not the first person I’ve encountered who gets hot under the collar at the perception that someone is trying to label them.

What I don’t think I said but will happily say now is that I do not consider polyamory to be any better than monogamy – it’s just different. Monogamy works for many people, and so does polyamory.

“To my mind, this little goth girl's definition of polyamory is polygamy, or "swinging". I'm sort of thinking it is your definition, too.”

I've not had much luck with trying to get an accurate impression of someone's personal definition of polyamory as they practice it by reading their t-shirt and noting their style of dress. And though I don't identify as a swinger, I fully support swinging as a legitimate form of sexual expression, and I've spent enough time socializing with swingers to have a pretty good idea that there aren't too many goth girls hanging out with them. Neither have I noticed signs of goth culture invading mormon polygamous compounds - if it has, it's their secret! We do see a bit of gothness here and there in the polyamory community, and lots more of it in the BDSM/kink community, where there are also lots of polyfolk.

I do make references to being sex-positive in my 6 June post, which some people hear as code for promiscuous. For the record, I do not identify as a polygamist nor a swinger. I support polygamists (when all partners are adults and have equal power of choice) and as I said above, I also support swingers as well, each in their preferred method of partnering. I believe that theirs are valid forms of intimate relationships, too.

“Anyway, everyone in the Universe now except for most gays is lumping polyamory in with gay marriage, and it has me steamed. Do me a favor and quit trying to tie yourself to me and drag down my chances of getting gay marriages formally recognized in the US as they should be under our Constitution.”

Ah, so now we get to the heart of the matter and what has Jo so steamed. In my next post I’ll elaborate on the history of the conflation of same sex-marriage and polyamory, by whom, and how hostility between same-sex marriage proponents and polyamorists is exactly what the enemies we share hope will happen.

Whole Lotta Love in Salon.com

I am delighted with the article on polyamory published on Salon.com yesterday entitled "Whole Lotta Love". As it happens, I and several other polyamory spokespeople have been working with the journalist who wrote it for several months. (I am quoted in the beginning of the article.) She did a wonderful, even-handed job with it, something we haven't always gotten from the media. In the bad old days, mostly we were sensationalized via the open sexual component of polyamory, which is just one of the aspects of it that bear examination in order to fully understand the concept of polyamory. So to Liz Langley and the folks at Salon.com, I again say a big thank you!

The comments following the article are very interesting. There is a lot of harsh negativity, some more tolerant voices, and then there are the polyfolk who are doing an excellent job of explaining in detail the more subtle but no less vital parts of the polyamory concept that are impossible to convey in an article in soundbites. And then there's the emotional underpinning that I believe is largely responsible for the strongest and more defensive negative reactions. Here is the response I posted.

When polyamory is the subject of a news article, certain assertions are invariably quickly made, i.e. that polyamory is just an excuse for cheating, it's bad for the kids, it's bound to result in the spread of STDs, and so forth. Polyamory as a concept clearly evokes fear in some folks. This is understandable. It scares we polyamorists, too, sometimes, and we want it, so it isn’t difficult to imagine how someone not so inclined might feel if their partner came home one day and said “Honey, I’m interested in polyamory, would you consider giving it a try?”

We are all subject to the fear of loss those words inspire because we’ve all been marinated in the same culture that has told us since we were born that love is scarce and must be hoarded. When you add to that the anthropological fact that possessiveness was once a useful behavior for perpetuating the species, the urge for which still exists in the reptilian part of the brain called the amigdula, no wonder the idea is very unsettling.

What there wasn't room to elaborate about is that though we polyamorists sometimes feel the same fear of loss and so forth, we choose to work through those emotions, be great poly parents, etc. In other words, we work hard to transcend the challenging parts because we know others who have done it, that we can succeed at this and in doing so satsify both the human need to pair bond as well as the human need for sexual variety.

One of the posters expressed resentment at their perception that polyamorists give the impression that they believe they are more highly evolved than monogamists. Over the course of eleven years I've only heard a small number of comments from polyfolk I would consider to rise to the level of snottyness being perceived, so I'm a bit bemused by how often I encounter this accusation from non-polys. Some of it comes from general resentment toward us over what they perceive is our shaking up their seemingly safe monogamous world. I also wonder whether to mono folk it seems that when we talk about what we have to do to deal with our emotions and other challenges of being good at polyamory, we are automatically perceived by some to be raising the bar without their consent in terms of relationship skills required to be competent relationship partners of any sort. I'm definitely going to make further inquiries about this as I'm always looking for better ways to craft our public message so that it resonates and doesn't put people off. Comments on this especially welcome.

Monogamous Privilege

Sunday I was sitting in my local Unitarian Universalist church listening to our co-minister's excellent sermon entitled, "Solidarity - A Compelling Quandry", during which he spoke at some length on the concept of privilege and how it prevents solidarity. He defined privilege as "unearned and often unconscious advantage that can lead to a sense of entitlement" and added that "some groups benefit from unearned advantages in our cultural system, meaning that their members acquire what’s been called 'an invisible package of assets' [P. McIntosh] without doing anything, per se, to deserve it. These groups might include those with male privilege, white privilege, heterosexual privilege, wealth or class privilege, Christian privilege, ablebodied privilege, etc."

To this list I would add monogamous, or "mono", privilege.

So how does mono privilege impact polyamorists? Alas, contradictory as it may seem to other UUs, I need look no further than my own UU church. Though my primary partner and I have had preliminary discussions with our co-ministers about the subject of polyamory and our desire to feel that our relationship orientation, if you will, is welcomed and supported by our church congregation, there is a lot of work to do in order to educate church leaders and help them overcome their discomfort with the subject. (Fortunately we do have support and help from Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness.)

Considering Unitarian Universalism's strong commitment to social justice, one would think that gaining acceptance and support for polyamorists would be relatively easy. Not so, or usually not so, despite that numerous "show of hands" polls at polyamory conferences have revealed that about one third of polyamorists identify as UU. Yet we are not assured that, like all the mono folks in attendance, we can sit in church with more than one significant other and hold hands without fear of notice. Mono couples, be they opposite sex, same sex, or interracial couples, can do this - but not we polyfolk.

One Sunday during the "sharing of joys and concerns" segment of the service, a married member of our congregation shared the following as her concern. One of her church friends has revealed that they are polyamorous. She finds this to be so troubling that it warranted her sharing it with the entire congregation.

I don't mean to attack Unitarian Universalism but instead mean to use my experience there as an example of just how widespread mono privilege really is. Throughout our larger society, examples of mono privilege are so numerous as to boggle the mind, but here are the big ones:

• Child custody - very risky for poly parents who are at the mercy of family law judges and child welfare agencies who assume without proof that poly families are poor environments for raising children; the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) reports that in one 12 month period it fielded calls for assistance from 600 poly parents facing child custody challenges. Mono couples face no such challenges;
• Marriage laws - For all the same reasons that same-sex couples are also discriminated against, only in this instance polyfolk in relationship with two or more partners are condemned by those who embrace same-sex monogamy;
• Job security - Polyfolk who are out at work have reported, again according to NCSF, having been terminated or denied promotions purely on the grounds of their relationship orientation. No such problem for monofolk.
• Acceptance by friends and family - Polyfolk and their loved ones often meet with condemnation and rejection when coming out as poly to friends and family, while mono couples are congratulated and celebrated upon their engagement, marriage, etc.
• Public displays of affection - polyfolk are often hesitant to exhibit PDAs even when in public with only one partner for fear that someone they know will see them and assume they are cheating on another partner. Monofolk have no such concerns, assuming they are not cheating.
• Zoning laws - Poly families can encounter difficulty in finding housing that permits more than two adults to occupy the same dwelling. No problem for monofolk.

I've certainly enjoyed mono privilege at times in my life - when I was married and before I became a practicing polyamorist. Though now avowedly polyamorous, I sometimes still do benefit from it owing to the form of poly relationship I prefer, i.e. an open primary dyad, (or couple). Evenso, I am committed to working to eliminate mono privilege and every other kind of discimination against polyamorous persons, largely via NCSF, UUPA, and the Institute for 21st Century Relationships (ITCR).

National Headquarters of Polyamory

I got a laugh today when someone I know sent me this and asked when the national headquarters had been opened! Too bad it's not what it looks like.

In the beginning, or how I got here.

Hello, and welcome. Some of you may have seen me around polyamory and other alternative lifestyle events. I sometimes give programs on polyamory relationship skills, and I've been living a polyamorous life for 11 years now.

I have been married and divorced twice, the second time over 20 years ago. The second divorce hit me hard. I loved my husband, and leaving my "second chance" marriage behind left me with a sense of failure, ineptitude, and disillusionment. Where was the fairy tale love they promised me? Instead what I got was a mixed bag, part happiness, part misery, and the eventual realization of just how hard it is to be all things to one person over the long term.

Oh, and of course what contributed to my disillusionment was cheating. I saw how much crushing pain and suffering it caused in the marriages of friends, of family, and yes, in my own.

Two things I knew - one, that I was very afraid of falling in love only to have it all go to smash with all the pain and suffering again, and two, that I wanted nothing whatsoever to do with cheating - ever.

With the love cards seemingly stacked against me, I told myself that love just wasn't meant for me, even though I'm a very loving, open-hearted person in general. I believed that I wasn't good at it and should just save myself and others the inevitable hard landing.

For years I avoided becoming romantically involved, choosing instead to concentrate on raising my daughter and excelling in my career. But, as time passed and my daughter was due to leave the nest fairly soon, I came to recognize that no matter how much fear I felt about falling in love again, continuing to deny myself the very human need for emotional and physical intimacy had its price - and it was a big one. Thus came my moment of clarity when I realized that the first thing I had to do was to learn to overcome my fear of being hurt again. The second was to come to terms with the lessons I had learned about what poisons relationships and what helps them flourish.

Until a bit after that point in time, I had never heard the term polyamory and had never imagined that I would want this way of life for myself, even actually embrace it with great enthusiasm. In my next post I will tell you more specifically what I did next and how what for over 40 years had been a monogamous life was transformed into a polyamorous life.