thank you for this article, Seth. there is so much here to reflect upon and discuss. I particularly appreciate how your disenchantment with what is lost through individuation's detrimental effects on human relationships is balanced by a positive assertion that this is all part and parcel to the greater ultimate good of human spiritual ev…
thank you for this article, Seth. there is so much here to reflect upon and discuss. I particularly appreciate how your disenchantment with what is lost through individuation's detrimental effects on human relationships is balanced by a positive assertion that this is all part and parcel to the greater ultimate good of human spiritual evolution (if I may clumsily summarize). as I am in an untraditional, though deeply committed, long-term family/partnership that is - by admittedly anecdotal evidence - generally more solid, content, loving and peaceful than the majority of my friends' marriages, I have many thoughts on this topic, too many to share in a comment. I will say this - there are many shades of polyamory, which has broadly taken on an almost sit-comical image of complex nuanced arrangements and drifty multiple commitments. not that you are presenting it this way, but it merits emphasis that traditional monogamy vs polyamory is not a stark binary.
I do foresee that some simpler shades of grey in this arena may persist beyond the "trend" of it all, and may also come with fewer detriments. for example, the agreement of ethical non-monogamy within marriages and longer-term partnerships. to me this reflects a move to update the old "French" model where it may be generally socially acceptable to have an extramarital lover, with implicit agreements that one does not abandon the primary partner nor humiliate them with public indiscretion. in the "poly" version, the clandestine and unspoken elements are replaced with clear agreements, transparency, open communication, and (in cases where it is desired) reciprocity. I honestly think many of the sexless, resigned modern marriages I see suffering through their externally honored original agreements would actually strive and be reborn through such limited freedoms. this does, however, require a significant level of relational capacity, commitment to shared ideals and inner work. I've known a few friends who have moved through such stages and returned to monogamy with less resentment, some who have stuck with the "open" model, and others who are full-on swingers (and still going strong, bless them!)
Hey Dan - great to hear from you. A couple things you said sparked questions for me: Can you say more about why you think that "traditional monogamy vs polyamory is not a stark binary"? It seems like there's a pretty clear line between being exclusive, or not, with one person. I can see some shades - for instance we often "cheat" on our partners in our hearts, as Christ said on the Sermon on the Mount "everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Is that what you mean?
Also, I'm wondering about your characterization of healthy and unhealthy relationships. It seems like you're pointing to healthy ones being loving and peaceful, and unhealthy ones being resigned, resentful, and sexless (and so, presumably, not so loving and peaceful). I guess I wonder what you think leads to unhealthy relationships? It seems like the main thing you're pointing to is that honoring one's original agreements, and not giving each other more freedom (by which I assume you mean the freedom to be romantically involved with others), can lead to resignation, resentment and sexlessness. Is that right? I guess I wonder if you think that anything is lost by giving up on those original commitments? Do you think there's anything that's only possible in a monogamous relationship, and that's not possible in a polyamorous one?
thanks for probing further, Seth. re the binary: I'm saying there is a spectrum here, and if for you the center point (or the hinge, or the crucial threshold is monogamy vs anything else) I still would not lump everything to either side of it into two categories. you may have one couple (good luck finding one) where both partners are physically monogamous and never look upon another person with lust or desire...that would be the extreme end of the monogamy part of the spectrum, and presumably Jesus' ideal. On the other end of the monogamists, a couple wherein either or both partners openly and unreservedly lust after others (through porn, fantasy, flirting) and yet never cross the line of physical monogamy...and in that group there may be couples who are deeply affectionate with one another and have active, satisfying sex lives, and others who are sexless with each other, unaffectionate and even resentful of their monogamy commitment. In some marriages I know, one partner thinks masturbation is a betrayal. For some masturbation is ok, but not porn. in some, there is a presumption that fantasy, whether in coitus or during masturbation, should in every moment exclusively involve the committed partner, and never stray to another. that strikes me personally as unrealistic, but maybe some people get something out of striving for that?
on the extreme end of the non-monogamy gang, you might have a couple who is married but actively, physically non-monogamous. (I actually know a couple who have been non-monogamous for the past 8 years of their 10 year marriage, happily having sexual relationships with other individuals and couples. They have a deeply loving and commitment relationship. It's not my cup of tea, but these are two honest, emotionally and psychologically balanced and compassionately communicative people with what seems to be a thriving relationship - including 4 kids from their respective previous marriages). Having been to a couple of polyamory "meet-ups" (essentially interest group cocktail parties) I spoke with a pretty wide variety of people and couples, some of whom just seemed to be finding ethically supportable ways of sustaining their own sex addictions (for example, people who expressed a "need" to have three or four lovers at a time).
I've known several married couples who have various types of "open" agreements - from "don't ask, don't tell, don't compromise my health and don't embarrasss me" to "you can do anything you want but I want to know every detail". Some of these have worked, some have not, though none have ended in divorce as yet. The most damage I've seen done is when there was clandestine infidelity that was discovered. There are also partnerships and families that are formed for different reasons. My own family and partnership was never based on an agreement of monogamy (neither physical nor otherwise), but on the commitment of raising a child together. We have clear agreements and have grown and thrived in this relationship for 10 years of living together (preceded by 12 years of being intertwined in various forms), including 5 years with a child. When most of my monogamously married friends compare their 10plus year relationships to ours, the vast majority characterize ours as more loving, more mutually respectful, more stable and "healthier". A few are in various stages of divorce. it's not a label we identify with, but our relationship would fit your definition of poly, and certainly non-monogamous.
There may be generational differences. I know many people/couples in their 30's who are doing more of a burning-man, free-love ethical non-monogamy thing with complex structures and terminology, some with good results and some not so much. I'm not in any way disparaging the old monogamy model. I strived and hoped for that kind of marriage into my mid 40's, and I was never physically unfaithful in any of several long term monogamous relationships to that point. I did find that that particular ideal is really hard to achieve in this day and age (for reasons you discuss, mostly). giving up on finding that for myself and the openness to other arrangements is what I have to thank for the great pleasure, challenge and privilege of being both a father and a devoted partner now, albeit with "new rules".
I do think it is easier to live with more open agreements if they are established from the beginning than to change them mid-stream, but everything is possible. some people make monogamy work and feel the sacrifices are worth it in the long run. Something is likely lost by giving up on a marital commitment of monogamy, but I think for some couples, what is gained may outweigh the loss. I think there may be levels of intimacy or ...safety?...trust? possible in monogamous relationships that are unique. on the other hand, the level of trust that those swingers friends I mentioned have had to summon to literally watch each other have sex with someone else and feel good about it is pretty extraordinary, too.
all this to say, I believe that this age of individuation is not only spawning increasingly individuated individuals, but also an infinite number of combinations and couplings of those individuals, and that therefore this stark line of this-or-that may not be as useful as the case-by-case analysis. I think the health of a relationship may be weighed not only by how loving and peaceful it is, but by the degree to which values and ideals are shared, mutually supported, clearly expressed, striven for and actually lived up to. you never know what situation karma will land you in. I was always a romantic (monogamy-idolizing) looking for an ideal, committed marriage. I found that life had different, deeply rewardingly unconventional plans for me, and this has opened my mind and heart to the consideration of emergent new forms in many realms...I appreciate the work you are doing to assess those and see what is worth supporting and what is worth questioning. I feel this is the dialogue of evolution!
Hey Dan - sorry to take a hot minute to get back to you. It's been busy over here. Just wanted to say thanks. There are a lot of rich pictures in here, and a lot to mull over.
One of the things that most struck me was your picture of a healthy relationship: "I think the health of a relationship may be weighed not only by how loving and peaceful it is, but by the degree to which values and ideals are shared, mutually supported, clearly expressed, striven for and actually lived up to."
That makes sense to me. I appreciate the emphasis on social process - on transparency, communication, and follow through. But I also really appreciate putting ideals and values at the center. Then it becomes a question of what are people working towards. I don't think there is one right thing to work towards, people are at varied points on the path, but I do think that the path leads to higher and higher ideals.
I remember studying Plato in college, and he had a vision of human development that led from discovering physical beauty (through sexual desire), and then to discovering it more and more in other things, in the forms of social life, the laws we create for ourselves, in philosophy, in pure ideas, in the spirit. I think this makes sense, and as we strive for higher ideals, the lower ideals also fall away, or can even, at times, actively hinder us.
As I point to in the article, there's a distinction between entering into relationship for one's own gratification vs entering into relationship out of an interest in the other. Of course there's all sorts of gradations in there, but the striving towards the higher, towards selflessness, ultimately nourishes us in a far greater and healthier way than constantly striving for the satisfaction of our sexual desires, which ultimately just kind of leaves us feeling lonely and hollow...
thank you for this article, Seth. there is so much here to reflect upon and discuss. I particularly appreciate how your disenchantment with what is lost through individuation's detrimental effects on human relationships is balanced by a positive assertion that this is all part and parcel to the greater ultimate good of human spiritual evolution (if I may clumsily summarize). as I am in an untraditional, though deeply committed, long-term family/partnership that is - by admittedly anecdotal evidence - generally more solid, content, loving and peaceful than the majority of my friends' marriages, I have many thoughts on this topic, too many to share in a comment. I will say this - there are many shades of polyamory, which has broadly taken on an almost sit-comical image of complex nuanced arrangements and drifty multiple commitments. not that you are presenting it this way, but it merits emphasis that traditional monogamy vs polyamory is not a stark binary.
I do foresee that some simpler shades of grey in this arena may persist beyond the "trend" of it all, and may also come with fewer detriments. for example, the agreement of ethical non-monogamy within marriages and longer-term partnerships. to me this reflects a move to update the old "French" model where it may be generally socially acceptable to have an extramarital lover, with implicit agreements that one does not abandon the primary partner nor humiliate them with public indiscretion. in the "poly" version, the clandestine and unspoken elements are replaced with clear agreements, transparency, open communication, and (in cases where it is desired) reciprocity. I honestly think many of the sexless, resigned modern marriages I see suffering through their externally honored original agreements would actually strive and be reborn through such limited freedoms. this does, however, require a significant level of relational capacity, commitment to shared ideals and inner work. I've known a few friends who have moved through such stages and returned to monogamy with less resentment, some who have stuck with the "open" model, and others who are full-on swingers (and still going strong, bless them!)
Hey Dan - great to hear from you. A couple things you said sparked questions for me: Can you say more about why you think that "traditional monogamy vs polyamory is not a stark binary"? It seems like there's a pretty clear line between being exclusive, or not, with one person. I can see some shades - for instance we often "cheat" on our partners in our hearts, as Christ said on the Sermon on the Mount "everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Is that what you mean?
Also, I'm wondering about your characterization of healthy and unhealthy relationships. It seems like you're pointing to healthy ones being loving and peaceful, and unhealthy ones being resigned, resentful, and sexless (and so, presumably, not so loving and peaceful). I guess I wonder what you think leads to unhealthy relationships? It seems like the main thing you're pointing to is that honoring one's original agreements, and not giving each other more freedom (by which I assume you mean the freedom to be romantically involved with others), can lead to resignation, resentment and sexlessness. Is that right? I guess I wonder if you think that anything is lost by giving up on those original commitments? Do you think there's anything that's only possible in a monogamous relationship, and that's not possible in a polyamorous one?
Thanks for your thoughts. Hope all's well!
thanks for probing further, Seth. re the binary: I'm saying there is a spectrum here, and if for you the center point (or the hinge, or the crucial threshold is monogamy vs anything else) I still would not lump everything to either side of it into two categories. you may have one couple (good luck finding one) where both partners are physically monogamous and never look upon another person with lust or desire...that would be the extreme end of the monogamy part of the spectrum, and presumably Jesus' ideal. On the other end of the monogamists, a couple wherein either or both partners openly and unreservedly lust after others (through porn, fantasy, flirting) and yet never cross the line of physical monogamy...and in that group there may be couples who are deeply affectionate with one another and have active, satisfying sex lives, and others who are sexless with each other, unaffectionate and even resentful of their monogamy commitment. In some marriages I know, one partner thinks masturbation is a betrayal. For some masturbation is ok, but not porn. in some, there is a presumption that fantasy, whether in coitus or during masturbation, should in every moment exclusively involve the committed partner, and never stray to another. that strikes me personally as unrealistic, but maybe some people get something out of striving for that?
on the extreme end of the non-monogamy gang, you might have a couple who is married but actively, physically non-monogamous. (I actually know a couple who have been non-monogamous for the past 8 years of their 10 year marriage, happily having sexual relationships with other individuals and couples. They have a deeply loving and commitment relationship. It's not my cup of tea, but these are two honest, emotionally and psychologically balanced and compassionately communicative people with what seems to be a thriving relationship - including 4 kids from their respective previous marriages). Having been to a couple of polyamory "meet-ups" (essentially interest group cocktail parties) I spoke with a pretty wide variety of people and couples, some of whom just seemed to be finding ethically supportable ways of sustaining their own sex addictions (for example, people who expressed a "need" to have three or four lovers at a time).
I've known several married couples who have various types of "open" agreements - from "don't ask, don't tell, don't compromise my health and don't embarrasss me" to "you can do anything you want but I want to know every detail". Some of these have worked, some have not, though none have ended in divorce as yet. The most damage I've seen done is when there was clandestine infidelity that was discovered. There are also partnerships and families that are formed for different reasons. My own family and partnership was never based on an agreement of monogamy (neither physical nor otherwise), but on the commitment of raising a child together. We have clear agreements and have grown and thrived in this relationship for 10 years of living together (preceded by 12 years of being intertwined in various forms), including 5 years with a child. When most of my monogamously married friends compare their 10plus year relationships to ours, the vast majority characterize ours as more loving, more mutually respectful, more stable and "healthier". A few are in various stages of divorce. it's not a label we identify with, but our relationship would fit your definition of poly, and certainly non-monogamous.
There may be generational differences. I know many people/couples in their 30's who are doing more of a burning-man, free-love ethical non-monogamy thing with complex structures and terminology, some with good results and some not so much. I'm not in any way disparaging the old monogamy model. I strived and hoped for that kind of marriage into my mid 40's, and I was never physically unfaithful in any of several long term monogamous relationships to that point. I did find that that particular ideal is really hard to achieve in this day and age (for reasons you discuss, mostly). giving up on finding that for myself and the openness to other arrangements is what I have to thank for the great pleasure, challenge and privilege of being both a father and a devoted partner now, albeit with "new rules".
I do think it is easier to live with more open agreements if they are established from the beginning than to change them mid-stream, but everything is possible. some people make monogamy work and feel the sacrifices are worth it in the long run. Something is likely lost by giving up on a marital commitment of monogamy, but I think for some couples, what is gained may outweigh the loss. I think there may be levels of intimacy or ...safety?...trust? possible in monogamous relationships that are unique. on the other hand, the level of trust that those swingers friends I mentioned have had to summon to literally watch each other have sex with someone else and feel good about it is pretty extraordinary, too.
all this to say, I believe that this age of individuation is not only spawning increasingly individuated individuals, but also an infinite number of combinations and couplings of those individuals, and that therefore this stark line of this-or-that may not be as useful as the case-by-case analysis. I think the health of a relationship may be weighed not only by how loving and peaceful it is, but by the degree to which values and ideals are shared, mutually supported, clearly expressed, striven for and actually lived up to. you never know what situation karma will land you in. I was always a romantic (monogamy-idolizing) looking for an ideal, committed marriage. I found that life had different, deeply rewardingly unconventional plans for me, and this has opened my mind and heart to the consideration of emergent new forms in many realms...I appreciate the work you are doing to assess those and see what is worth supporting and what is worth questioning. I feel this is the dialogue of evolution!
Hey Dan - sorry to take a hot minute to get back to you. It's been busy over here. Just wanted to say thanks. There are a lot of rich pictures in here, and a lot to mull over.
One of the things that most struck me was your picture of a healthy relationship: "I think the health of a relationship may be weighed not only by how loving and peaceful it is, but by the degree to which values and ideals are shared, mutually supported, clearly expressed, striven for and actually lived up to."
That makes sense to me. I appreciate the emphasis on social process - on transparency, communication, and follow through. But I also really appreciate putting ideals and values at the center. Then it becomes a question of what are people working towards. I don't think there is one right thing to work towards, people are at varied points on the path, but I do think that the path leads to higher and higher ideals.
I remember studying Plato in college, and he had a vision of human development that led from discovering physical beauty (through sexual desire), and then to discovering it more and more in other things, in the forms of social life, the laws we create for ourselves, in philosophy, in pure ideas, in the spirit. I think this makes sense, and as we strive for higher ideals, the lower ideals also fall away, or can even, at times, actively hinder us.
As I point to in the article, there's a distinction between entering into relationship for one's own gratification vs entering into relationship out of an interest in the other. Of course there's all sorts of gradations in there, but the striving towards the higher, towards selflessness, ultimately nourishes us in a far greater and healthier way than constantly striving for the satisfaction of our sexual desires, which ultimately just kind of leaves us feeling lonely and hollow...