Read More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory Online

Authors: Franklin Veaux

Tags: #intimacy, #sexual ethics, #non-monogamous, #Relationships, #polyamory, #Psychology

More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory (5 page)

BOOK: More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory
6.23Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

For instance, your partners may tell you how they feel about your desire to start a new relationship, and you may listen to them and decide not to go ahead with it based on what they say; but the choice is yours, not theirs. You evaluate their concerns, and then you choose. The extreme end of free agency is called "relationship anarchy," or RA. It's an approach that rejects the need to categorize and rank relationships at all ("Joe is my friend; Mark is my boyfriend; Keyser is my husband") or to create rules or define roles. In particular, RA does not privilege sexual or romantic relationships over others.

On the opposite end of the scale is what some call a community-oriented model of polyamory. People who adopt this model focus on the interconnectedness of their relationships and their community. You might think the difference between free agents and community-oriented polyamorists is about independent action vs. consensus, but that's overly simplistic. Free agents, and particularly relationship anarchists, emphasize the need for negotiation and mutual benefit over the idea that there's a "normal" or "right" way to have relationships. It might be more accurate to say the difference is in the priority that's given to different factors in the decision-making process; community-minded poly folks tend to prioritize the impact of a decision on the entire group over the needs of the individuals in the group. This doesn't necessarily mean that community-oriented people must have their partners' permission to start a relationship. However, decisions are made with an eye toward how, say, a potential new partner might fit with the others.

The other axis, from solo polyamory to entwined poly, looks similar on the surface but reflects a completely different underlying set of values. People who embrace solo poly present to the world as single at first glance. They are off the "relationship escalator": the assumption that relationships follow a defined course. You meet, fall in love, move in together, share property, have children and grow old together. Solo poly folks may not want to live with any partner, or if they do, they may not choose to share finances or property.

By contrast, other people prefer relationships that are more entwined: practically, financially or both. These people value sharing living space, spending time in close proximity, sharing financial or household obligations, and so on. They may see themselves as part of a unit, a single family that shares responsibilities together and approaches life together.

So the scale from free agency to community, then, is about decision-making within a relationship, whereas the scale from solo poly to entwined poly is about the form that the relationships will take.

Few are on the extreme ends of these scales. It's more common to encounter people in the middle—for instance, who like living with a lover but still prefer to think of themselves as autonomous individuals, or people who pay close attention to how well potential partners fit together but still make relationship decisions themselves.

POLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIP STRUCTURES

On the surface, the simplest-seeming poly configuration is a triad (three people who are all deeply involved with one another) or a vee (one person, called the "pivot," with two romantic partners). Triads and vees may or may not live together, and may or may not be open to new partners. In many—perhaps most—cases, triads start out as vees, and then a companionship or a romance develops between the two partners of the pivot person.

A quad is a poly relationship involving four people. Quads often, but not always, form when two couples come together. They might also form when one person has three partners, when the members of a couple each start an independent relationship with a new person who's single, or even when four previously unpartnered people start a relationship. The connections within a quad can vary all over the map. There are quads in which every member is intimate with all three others; there are Ns, which often form when two couples come together with only one intimate relationship between the couples; and asterisks, where one person has three (or more!) partners not involved with each other. Like triads, quads may or may not live together, and they may or may not be open to new romantic connections.

An interesting pattern we have both seen with quads that form from two couples is that after a time, the two couples may swap partners, and the quad breaks up. Sometimes people in a couple know they have problems, but rather than deal with them directly, they try to start new relationships in a structure that is "safe." If, for example, the wife in one couple dates the husband in the other, while his wife dates the husband from the first couple, they may believe that nobody will ever feel left out and the other couple will have no reason to threaten them (because, presumably, the other couple wants to preserve their present setup too). In practice, the new relationships can highlight problems and unmet needs in both couples, with the result being a repartnering and breakup.

Larger configurations exist as well. Quite common are open networks, where each person may have several partners—some of whom may be involved with one another and others not. Relationship networks tend to be loosely structured and often don't have a defining hierarchy.

Members of some poly groups consider themselves married to one another. Plural marriage is not legally recognized in Western countries, but some people in poly relationships call each other husbands or wives, hold commitment ceremonies, exchange rings, or do other things that symbolize their serious relationship with each other. Franklin, for example, has exchanged rings with two of his current partners. Other polyamorous groupings don't consider themselves a single family.

Some groups have an internal hierarchy, in which certain relationships (often between a married couple) take precedence over others. This version of poly is often called "primary/secondary," and we talk about it in chapter 11. Other groups have no assumption of a power hierarchy. That does not necessarily suggest each person is treated the same as every other, but that no one relationship always takes precedence. Each is allowed to seek its own level, and new relationships are not necessarily expected to be subordinate. We talk about these in chapter 13.

Different groups have different expectations about agreements and rules. Somrathere polyamorous relationships are rules-based, with detailed prescriptions on behavior, including sexual behavior, between different partners. Others don't impose rules on their members. Some include a "veto clause," which permits one person to tell another to end a relationship with a third person…though as we discuss in chapter 12, these agreements can be difficult to implement and dangerous to use. Other relationships have no veto provisions, preferring negotiation and discussion instead. We discuss some common poly structures, with their pitfalls and benefits, in Part 3.

CONFRONTING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SEX

Polyamory makes few assumptions about sexual connections. In monogamy, a romantic partner and a sexual partner are, almost by definition, the same person. Emotional intimacy and physical intimacy are so tightly entwined that some self-help books speak of "emotional infidelity" and encourage married couples not to permit each other to become too close to their friends. Advice columnists and television personalities will speak gravely of the dangers that "emotional affairs" pose to a monogamous marriage and ask, "Is emotional infidelity worse than sexual infidelity?" Monogamy can leave surprisingly little room for close friendships, much less nonsexual romances. Your intimate friend and your sexual partner are presumed to be one and the same.

This creates problems when the couple are no longer sexually attracted to one another or have mismatched libidos. It also creates problems for people who identify as asexual. If our romantic partner is also expected to be our only sexual partner, what happens when sexual compatibility isn't there? What do we do when one person is unwilling or unable to be sexual with the other? In cases like this, monogamy struggles. It seems on the face of it absurd to tell another person "I forbid you to have your sexual needs met by anyone but me, and I won't meet your sexual needs," but that's precisely what happens. The person with unmet sexual needs faces a choice: pressuring, coercion, cheating on the sly or celibacy.

Even when a good monogamous relationship is nonsexual through mutual choice, it is often treated dismissively, if not derisively. "You and your wife haven't had sex in two years? Oh, I'm so sorry. That must be awful! What's wrong?"

One of the advantages of polyamory is that it does not mean hitching all your sexual wagons to a single star. It allows room for change that would threaten the existence of many monogamous relationships. An emotionally satisfying, deeply committed, loving open relationship between two people who are, or have become, sexually incompatible can flourish without being sexually thwarted for the rest of their lives.

Now, of course, needs aren't necessarily transitive. What you need from one partner can't necessarily be given by someone else. We're not saying polyamory is an easy solution for mismatched or missing desire. For some people, sexuality is an expression of romance and love; such people may need to be sexual with all their romantic partners, and if that sexual expression isn't available, it may damage the relationship.

Many polyamorous people, including both of us, have deeply connected romantic relationships in which sexuality plays little or no role. We have also both spoken to people who self-identify as asexual who find polyamory attractive because it allows them to form intimate, loving bonds without the fear that they are depriving their partners of the opportunity for a happy sex life.

EVE'S STORY
Peter and I had been together for over ten years when we married. On our wedding day, we hadn't had sex in close to a year and a half.
We started out like most couples do, horny as hell, experimenting and fucking like rabbits. And like many couples, our sex life declined over time—though our decline may have been quicker than many, due to stress, my poor body image, medications I was on, and several long separations due to my graduate program. It was, in fact, a need for more sexual variety—and more sex—that initially prompted our choice to explore first swinging, and later polyamory.
When I became lovers with Ray, my sex life with Peter improved dramatically for a while, then plummeted again. After he had been with Clio and Gwen for about a year, we finally sat down and had The Talk. I had realized that I no longer felt any sexual interest in Peter and hadn't for a long time. The guilt from not being able to give him the intimacy I thought he deserved, and his frustrations when I rebuffed his advances, were too much for me to carry. If we were to stay together, I needed a formal, mutual recognition that the sexual component of our relationship had ended. I realized, I told him, that he might not want to remain my partner, and I would accept his decision.
The conversation hurt, for both of us. Peter had to take some time to think my proposal over. Eventually, he came back to me and told me he still wanted to be my partner. The transition wasn't easy—but it was much easier than trying to maintain or revive a sexual relationship that wasn't working anymore, or for me to continue carrying the guilt of not providing what I thought Peter deserved. Ultimately, the conversation did not actually institute a new change: it made what was already happening transparent and consensual. It was
after
this agreement that we decided to get married.

To come to terms with their new agreement and forge a relationship that was loving, mutually supportive and happy, Eve and Peter had to confront a number of deeply ingrained, toxic beliefs about sex and relationships:

 
  • You owe sex to someone you're in a relationship with.
  • Sexual desire is something that can be offered or withheld at will.
  • A lack of sexual desire is, at best, a sign of something wrong in the relationship. At worst, it's a sign of malice.

Desire isn't a button you can push. No matter how much you may care for someone, no matter how much you may want to meet their needs, if sexual desire is not there, it's not there. Yes, some people can work on it, and many couples can work through reduced desire—but many can't, and there's nothing wrong with them. Sometimes you just don't want it—and sometimes you just don't want the person you're supposed to want.

You should never have to have sex when you don't want to. We don't think it's something you should have to do to save a relationship, to show you care, or to get any of your other needs met—financial, emotional or social. Not desiring someone physically isn't a sign that you don't love them. Or that you want to hurt them. Or that there's something wrong with you. It's not even a sign that you're not a compatible partner with them. It just means that, for whatever reason, your body isn't responding to them. And if you don't want it, for heaven's sake, don't do it.

Many deeply loving, lifetime relationships eventually become platonic. When we went looking for
statistics
, we found that between 20 and 30 percent of relationships are "sexless," with partners having sex less than ten times per year. Around 5 percent of married men under forty are completely celibate; by age fifty that increases to 20 percent, and that percentage keeps going up with age.

We found
statistics
about "sexless marriages" in papers and books with titles that make it quite clear how such relationships are viewed: "The Decision to Remain in an Involuntarily Celibate Relationship,"
Rekindling Desire, A Tired Woman's Guide to Passionate Sex
, "Couple Therapy and the Treatment of Sexual Dysfunction." It's unfortunate that we pathologize something that is so normal, and that we assume nonsexual relationships must be broken. Polyamory allows for the possibility that we can remain in relationships that matter to us and have sex when (and only when) we want to, because we want to, and not because we have to because we fear losing someone we care for.

BOOK: More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory
6.23Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

The Grimjinx Rebellion by Brian Farrey
The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann
Dragon's Winter by Elizabeth A. Lynn
Champagne for Buzzards by Phyllis Smallman
Timeless by Patti Roberts
Hearths of Fire by Kennedy Layne
The Hardest Hit by Jennifer Fusco