jump to navigation

A few ruminations about Polygamy November 23, 2005

Posted by Matt Hurst in Uncategorized.

As you may have noticed, last night I made a few obeservations about the nature of love, and what makes a loving relationship between people, without having experienced it subjectively. Well then, I made a few presumptions under the influence of Woody Allen movies, but I stand by these minor glimpses of what romantic interaction work. Love is a phenomenom, and any phenomenom must be repeatable imperically to be certain of its existence.
I stand by those words, including the clause that monogamy is not a necessary model for romantic relationships between people.
Polygamy is a perfectly functional romantic model between people. It allows a larger permisable gamit for sexual interaction and personal development. Unfortunately many people have misconceptions of its downfall, in part because of issues of trust that polygamy is actually perfect to resolve for some people. Polygamy is a possibile model for many MATURE people, who are secure in themselves, for romantic relationships.

For one thing, polygamy offers the acceptance of more than one person romanticly where monogamy restricts. In this understood environment, permission is offered for exploration, allowing a trust between people. The seperation of sexual favors and romantic efforts is rendered null, because it allows love to come freely rather than compulsively. In that way, seperate from monogamous “swingers”, real love is possible because it is continuously percieved. Everyone wants to feel like a blessing, not a burden – and the return of romantic feelings is understood on a regular basis.

A friend of mine found themselves in a percieved polygamous relationship today. They really have issues with the concept of dating or the term “relationship”, because it usually holds the implication of possesiveness. They did so with a friend of theirs with a similar disposition, who celebrates the seperation of sexual gratification and romantic interest (as do they). The two met a third, none of them romanticly involved with others or between themselves, but my one friend felt awkward. Could be for a lot of reasons, but I have this suspicion that possesiveness was at play. Though they revel in the air of freedom of not being possesed themselves, they may have felt a posession for the third party (or second) in common. I’m not calling it a double standard, but I think they have a misunderstanding. Their idea of posessiveness is an environment of social suffocation, where a person is unable to seperate the sexual with romantic interest. Polygamy would seem the solution, but they wouldn’t give it the chance without some of these garentees – an establishment of trust would seem necessary.
Then again, I wasn’t really able to get a good, straight answer about why they felt awkward. But I can speculate within a certain deviation.

Do not confuse the polygamous relationship with a love triangle. Polygamy is workable specificly because of the love shared between 3 or more people. In a love triangle for instance, the same problems of trust arise that occur in monogamous relatioships, because the interest is unidirectional (rather than omnidirectional). This creates an environment of competition for the same availibility. The perception is formed where some party who loves only one in the triangle, that they love one party more than the other. It is a continuous flux where trust is impossible to form because investment is percieved as divided where one party’s love is united.

True polygamy is a romantic relationship between people who are in love with all of the people involved. Most people put this idea out of mind because the perception is that most people are heterosexual, and if they aren’t entirely they “must be gay”. Actually, the opposite is true – the vast majority of people prefer people of both sexes. If you mapped it out on a graph from completely straight and gay, it would look like a bell curve in sexual preference.
In the ideal polygamous relationship, all partners involved are in love with each other in the same ways a monogamous relationship involves people in love. Jealousy is impossible between multiple partners who appreciate each other equally. Trust can be formed more easily where love is expressed interchangibly, allowing an open expression of experience. The parties should be equally capable of appreciating the same sex partner as much as the opposite sex partner (except in the occurence of homosexual polygamy). Then the seperation between sexual and romantic interest is erased because trust is omninamous.

And what is love if not an ideal. It isn’t a prescribed phenomenom for most of us, but we ought to be able to recognize it when it works. Polygamous relationships require the same things to establish a loving relationship that monogamy must. So why do people almost automaticly rule it out? Sure it’s difficult to persue in practice (especially in this society), but it offers love just the same. Polygamy is a functional model of a romantic, loving relationships.



1. sweetdagger - November 23, 2005

Hey, Matthew…Andrea and I are not together. Even in a polygamous relationship….
You too often distort information provided.

2. eazymeat6969 - November 24, 2005

mark from the lemp and i were having a discussion about this earlier tonight…we both agreed, principally, that in a truly committed relationship, monogamy doesn’t have to be brought it. it already should exist and be an unspoken bond. there are a few reasons for this…one, people who keep things ‘open’ by and large never learned how to grow up; two, love for a life partner exists in DIAMETRIC opposition to the notion of love between ‘other people;’ three, if honesty and trust are central tenants to a fully mature relationship, then a polyamorous relationship couldn’t exist for more than a brief moment. i’m not trying to speak for everyone, mind you, but i think it’s a fair generalization.

like they say in Auntie Mame, life is a massive buffet, and most folks are starving at the door. many people haven’t got this metaphor figured out, alas, but it seems to have a lot to do with mental, rather than physical, communication. and it applies to relationships just as well.

so i’ll respectfully disagree with you….maybe!

3. skewgee - November 26, 2005

i never said you were. but you could be (if you both wanted to). and so could a third party (if you 3 were open to that)

4. skewgee - November 26, 2005

should i try proving you wrong? because that might be difficult. i have enough trouble finding one other person to be in a loving realtionship with…

5. sweetdagger - November 26, 2005

as could anyone if they wanted.

6. skewgee - November 26, 2005

glad you see my point. do what you want to

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: