>>>  Laatst gewijzigd: 2 februari 2024   >>>  Naar www.emo-level-8.nl  
Ik

Notities bij boeken

Start Filosofie Kennis Normatieve rationaliteit Waarden in de praktijk Mens en samenleving Techniek

Notities

Anapol - een klinisch psychologe uit de VS, gespecialiseerd in seks en intimiteit - is al sinds de 80-er jaren bezig met het schrijven van boeken, geven van lezingen, organiseren van symposia en zo verder over het onderwerp polyamorie.

Dit is tot nu toe het meest informatieve boek dat ik over het onderwerp las. De inhoud omvat zowel een geschiedenis als een thematische bespreking van onderwerpen die er een rol bij spelen zoals de mogelijke samenlevingsvormen, jaloezie, de invloed op kinderen, en zo verder.

Tegelijkertijd vind ik haar een beetje erg voorzichtig: een fundamentele (maatschappelijke) kritiek op exclusieve relaties en monogamie wordt niet gegeven, de nadruk ligt wel heel erg op persoonlijke groei en te weinig op veranderingen in maatschappelijke instituties, machtsverhoudingen, en zo verder.

Bovendien is het boek toch ook weer Amerikaans qua context en duiken woorden als religie, spiritualiteit, en zelfs de bijbel me iets te gemakkelijk op omdat de auteur daar zelf iets mee heeft.

Maar afgezien daarvan is het een bijzonder informatief boek over het onderwerp.

Voorkant Anapol 'Polyamory in the 21st century - Love and intimacy with multiple partners' Deborah ANAPOL
Polyamory in the 21st century - Love and intimacy with multiple partners
Lanham etc.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010, 271 blzn.
ISBN-13: 978 14 4220 0234

(ix) Introduction

"I have always characterized my position on polyamory as pro-choice rather than antimonogamy, but after thirty years as a participant observer in this strange new world, it’s more the case than ever that I really have no position on whether people in general 'should' be monogamous or not. The fact is that it’s extremely rare to find anyone who has had only one sexual partner for his or her entire life. These days, it’s increasingly unusual to find anyone who has only had one 'significant other' throughout his or her life. So the question is not so much whether to love more than one but rather whether it works better to have multiple partners sequentially or at the same time. There are definitely some people who are far better off taking it one at a time, and there are some situations that cry out for other possibilities. I’m continually amazed both by the ingenuity, courage, and vulnerability of people who have made their own bodies and hearts the center for an inquiry into the true nature of love and by the persistent self-deception, lack of integrity, and callousness that others justify by calling what they are doing polyamory." [mijn nadruk] (ix)

"The form can change at any time. What counts is allowing love to dictate the form rather than attempting to force love into whatever mold the mind has decided is right."( [mijn nadruk] ix-x)

[Opvallend: de boeken die ik tot nu toe las over exclusieve relaties, monogamie en polyamorie zijn allemaal geschreven door (Amerikaanse) vrouwen. Eveneens opvallend: Geen van die auteurs veroordeelt de exclusieve relatie, ze doen hun uiterste best om niemand voor het hoofd te stoten, iedereen moet het zelf weten, voor de een werkt dit beter voor de ander dat, en zo verder. Wat zijn we toch aardig voor anderen, wat zijn we toch tolerant. Alsof er geen duidelijke maatschappelijke redenen zijn waarom exclusieve relaties dominant zijn, alsof ze niet eindeloos veel ellende veroorzaken, alsof exclusieve relaties mens en maatschappij niet vergaand beperken in de ontwikkeling van mogelijkheden. Het is allemaal te slap voor woorden. Anapol's positie vermijdt ook harde kritiek op monogamie, dat zegt ze meteen al, maar haar opvattingen zijn wel redelijk genuanceerd.]

"With a few notable exceptions, most authorities, whether their influence is spiritually based or scientifically based, still maintain that monogamy is superior to polyamory, or, in some cases they express the conviction that polyamory is simply unworkable. Often, there is a refusal to acknowledge polyamory as a viable option, and instead the entire discourse is framed as monogamy and infidelity. This kind of cultural bias has been dubbed mononormativity and is just beginning to be questioned by academic researchers. I admit that there have been times when I’ve been in the midst of a particularly challenging relationship dilemma when I’ve doubted the viability of multipartner relating myself, and I’ve watched many clients go through similar passages. I’m sure some monogamists also find themselves questioning whether monogamy is possible, although they are far more likely to find fault with themselves or their spouse than with the institution of marriage.
The main point is that it is not a question of whether it’s possible to have one partner or two or many or none but rather a question of whether to allow love to lead and to surrender to the direction that love chooses rather than surrendering to cultural conditioning, unruly emotions, peer pressure, or social censure. I, for one, cannot imagine loving any other way.
The truth is that when love (and I don’t mean lust, although this also applies to sexual desire) is freed from restrictions determined by law, by society, or by immature personalities, it very often veers from the monogamous standard our culture has sought, mostly unsuccessfully, to enforce. And so a practical discussion about polyamory inevitably ends up addressing the many startling aspects of multipartner or open relationships because it is this aspect of allowing love to lead that is unfamiliar and often difficult at first, as well as being sensationalist, intriguing, and sometimes dramatic." [mijn nadruk] (x)

[Ook dat is zo'n ding. Een tegenoverstelling tussen liefde en lust neerzetten. Liefde mag je wel met meer mensen delen, seks niet, zo lijkt het dan meteen. Dat is niet wat Anapol vindt, maar het klinkt door haar formuleringen wel zo. Er is geen echte tegenoverstelling tussen liefde en seks zegt ze verderop terecht.]

"In the 1980s, after the sometimes wild abandon and recklessness of the sexual revolution had died down and AIDS and campaigns for teenage abstinence took center stage, those who refused to retreat to monogamy tended to be a serious, introspective bunch. Eccentric, extraordinarily creative, intelligent or idealistic, and shaped by traumatic or unconventional childhoods, near-death experiences, and spiritual awakenings — in those days choosing nonmonogamy meant swimming upstream in a cultural context that had turned suddenly fearful and hostile to anything remotely associated with free love."(xii-xiii)

"The idea that monogamy, which is freely and consciously chosen, is a totally different affair from monogamy, which is demanded as a condition for love or enforced by legal codes, religious strictures, financial considerations, or social pressure, has been put forth by a number of thoughtful individuals. Of course this is so, and while I am unconvinced as yet that this higher-level monogamy is superior to all other relationship forms, I don’t know that it’s not.(...)
However, I am fairly certain that only those who have first allowed themselves the freedom to explore a variety of sexual and intimate relationships are capable of completely embracing monogamy in a sustainable and responsible way."(xiii)

[De pretentie hebben dat je werkelijk kunt kiezen ... Vaak wordt door mensen die dat denken voorbijgegaan aan de maatschappelijke invloeden. Het verschil met 'doen wat moet' blijkt vaak erg klein.]

"While feminist writers had been critiquing monogamy and the nuclear family for decades, the only real integration I found of sexual relationships with the larger picture was in the work of renowned philosopher and astrologer Dane Rudhyar, who was born in Paris but spent most of his life in the United States. His 1971 book Directives for New Life addressed the central place of less rigidly constructed but still focused intimate relationships in the transition to a new society."(xiv)

"In all honesty, after twenty-five years as a relationship coach, seminar leader, and participant observer in the polyamory community, I’m not at all sure that polyamory can fulfill its potential for sustainable intimacy, as I hoped when I subtitled my 1992 book Love without Limits the 'Quest for Sustainable Intimate Relationships'. Nevertheless, as the twenty-first century rolls on, it’s increasingly apparent that lifelong monogamy is more myth than actuality and that the nuclear family is an endangered species. Now more than ever, it’s essential that we release our attachments to conditioned beliefs about love, sex, intimacy, and commitment and be willing to discover and embrace whatever works. The one thing that is abundantly clear is that what works may not be the same for all people or even for the same person at different points in life. In addition, while the health and happiness of the adults who are struggling to create all kinds of relationships while honoring their innate sexuality under very challenging conditions is vital, it is the well-being of the next generations that is of greatest consequence." [mijn nadruk] (xv-xvi)

(1) 1 - What is polyamory?

"More and more people find themselves facing the discovery that life-long monogamy is more of a mirage than a reality. At the same time, most experts on marriage, family, and sexuality continue to write and speak as if all extramarital sex falls into the category of infidelity. Sometimes it’s acknowledged that an affair may inadvertently have a positive impact on a troubled marriage, but as far as the authorities are concerned, polyamory or consensual inclusive relationships do not exist. End of conversation."(2)

"It’s often been noted that changes in belief systems frequently lag behind changes in behavior, and nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of erotic love."(2)

"The Oxford Dictionary defines polyamory as '(1) The fact of having simultaneous close emotional relationships with two or more other individuals, viewed as an alternative to monogamy, esp. in regard to matters of sexual fidelity; (2) the custom or practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the knowledge and consent of all partners concerned.' These two alternate definitions are themselves a source of confusion for many. Jenna had the impression that polyamory refers to the 'simultaneous close emotional relationships with two or more others' and, when she got involved with Gary, was intrigued by the prospect of exploring how this worked. But when Gary described himself as polyamorous, he had the second definition in mind and was intent on engaging in multiple sexual relationships regardless of the degree of emotional closeness. Neither was aware that they had very different expectations about their relationship, and both were shocked and dismayed when they discovered they were operating according to different game plans. Resentment toward the other for having a different agenda was quick to undermine their budding romance."(2-3)

"To me, the most important aspect of polyamory is not how many partners a person has. Rather, it is the surrendering of conditioned beliefs about the form a loving relationship should take and allowing love itself to determine the form most appropriate for all parties. If the truth is that two people freely embrace sexual exclusivity not because somebody made them do it or because they’re afraid of the consequences of doing something else, I would still consider that couple polyamorous.
The intention of polyamorous pioneers was not substituting one 'should' for another. And yet that’s exactly what many people are doing in communities where polyamory has become trendy. Instead of struggling to conform to a monogamous ideal and ideology, they find themselves struggling to conform to a nonmonogamous ideal and ideology. Meanwhile, young people who find polyamory either 'too mainstream' or 'too difficult' rejecting the whole legacy and creating their own concepts, like relationship anarchy and friends with benefits, as we shall see in chapter 8. Labels, definitions, and organizations are useful insofar as they help us understand our experience and communicate about it, but what’s the point of trading one rigid belief system for another?" [mijn nadruk] (4-5)

[Als je dat al 'polyamorie' noemt ... Erg verwarrend. Het punt is natuurlijk in hoeverre er sprake is van 'freely', van in vrijheid gekozen. Ik wantrouw wat mensen daar zelf over zeggen. Mensen zeggen wat ze denken dat iedereen wil horen, ze doen zich zelfstandiger voor dan ze in werkelijkheid zijn, ze worden veel meer gestuurd door de maatschappelijke ideologie over exclusieve relaties dan ze door hebben, ze kennen hun eigen motieven vaak niet. Het is natuurlijk heel stoer om te zeggen dat je een open relatie hebt maar helaas niemand anders tegen komt met wie je ook iets zou willen, maar dat kan simpelweg ook betekenen wat het zo vaak betekent: de behoefte aan zekerheid is zo groot dat er niet eens een nieuwsgierigheid bestaat naar anderen. Tja, zo kan ik ook een open relatie hebben.
Tegelijkertijd is er - juist vanwege de gevestigde maatschappelijke belangen die met exclusieve relaties en monogamie verbonden zijn - een hoop te zeggen voor een harde maatschappelijke strijd tegen exclusieve relaties en monogamie, al zal dat waarschijnlijk wel nooit gebeuren. Anapol ziet die benadering niet zitten, zo blijkt. Ze is ergerlijk tolerant. Of is het neoliberaal gemakzuchtig? Het mag best wel meer principieel, vind ik.]

"We’ll look more closely at these variations later, but for now let’s just say that polyamory implies an alternative to both serial monogamy and monogamy with secret affairs, which are the two most common relationship choices in the Western world.
To those of us who coined and popularized the term polyamory, the form the relationship takes is less important than the underlying values. The freedom of surrendering to love and allowing love — not just sexual passion, not just social norms and religious strictures, not just emotional reactions and unconscious conditioning — to determine the shape our intimate relationships take is the essence of polyamory. Polyamory is based on a decision to honor the many diverse ways loving relationships can evolve. Polyamory can take many forms, but as it was originally conceived, if deception or coercion is involved or if the people involved are out of integrity in any way, it’s not polyamory no matter how many people are sexually involved with each other. These more subtle qualities have often gotten lost in the excitement and glamour of embracing sexual freedom, but they are crucial to understanding the deeper significance of polyamory." [mijn nadruk] (5)

"The guilt and shame associated with premarital or extramarital sex and love is not quite a thing of the past, and neither is the lying and hiding that have accompanied these behaviors for centuries. Unfortunately, many old habits and patterns of relating have been translated into the polyamorous arena despite our idealistic vision for a future in which humans love each other unconditionally with passion and transparency and without possessiveness and control. Deep cultural change is a long-term affair. The increasing visibility of and acceptance for variations on the 'one man, one woman, till death do us part' scenario has certainly decreased the shock value and threat that alternative choices once elicited, but we are still a long way from a true paradigm shift. In fact, few people believe that it’s even possible for unconditional love and erotic love to coexist.
Those of us who are passionate about articulating a new paradigm for love and creating more tolerance for diversity in lovestyle choices agree that while monogamy is a wonderful option for some people some of the time, it’s not the only valid possibility. The reality is that humans are not naturally monogamous. If we were, we would mate once, for life, and never for a moment consider doing anything else. " [mijn nadruk] (5-6)

"Polyamory is a uniquely human phenomenon. Perhaps this is why conscious and consensual love-based intimate relating is generally left out of academic conversations on marriage and family."(7)

[De bespreking van Barash en Lipton die volgt is kritisch, maar naar mijn smaak nog lang niet kritisch genoeg waar het gaat om de evolutionaire insteek. Mensen zoeken geen partners vanwege de 'reproductive advantages', dat is gewoon nonsens. Zelfs de volgende paragrafen zijn nog veel te voorzichtig, al liggen die meer in de lijn van hoe ik er zelf over denk:]

"Another issue is that, increasingly, the association of human sexual behavior with reproduction is being broken. While most nonhuman sexual behavior still is linked with reproduction, a smaller and smaller percentage of human mating is intended to produce offspring. With longer life spans and better health, women are continuing to be sexually active long after fertility ceases. Greater independence for both genders means that enjoyment of sex, shared values and interests, and common avocations play a greater role than basic survival in sexual choices.
Meanwhile, many humans are deciding to have fewer children or no children at all, and when birth control pills and surgical solutions are used to control fertility and deodorants are used to control natural scents, our physiology is altered in such a way that genetic programming may be altered."(10)

"The question is no longer whether sex hormones affect our behavior but rather to what extent we have any conscious choice about our sexual decisions at all. For example, high testosterone levels may incline some people to seek out multiple partners, while vasopressin may influence others to bond with only one. No doubt the degrees of freedom vary from person to person and involve relationships between hormone levels, consciousness levels, and environmental factors. The very extensive conversations on 'free will' in spiritual, psychological, and philosophical venues are beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that many of our most respected and influential spiritual leaders say that free will is an illusion and that we only imagine we are making choices after the behavior has already occurred." [mijn nadruk] (10-11)

"While love, sex, and relationships are clearly influenced by many factors in addition to genetic variations, hormones and neurotransmitters, and pharmaceutical and recreational drugs, most experts agree that we would be foolish to ignore the role of biochemistry."(12)

[Zeker, maar toch jammer dat Anapol geen fundamentele kritiek levert op die zo aanvechtbare biologische en evolutionaire insteek.]

"We could argue whether all marriages should continue for a lifetime, but that’s not the issue I want to raise here. Rather, I am pointing to the false connection many people make between monogamy and fidelity. Monogamy and commitment are often considered synonymous as well. To me, faithfulness has more to do with honesty, respect, and loyalty than sexual exclusivity, and commitment is about keeping agreements. The content of the agreement is irrelevant as far as commitment is concerned. Somehow, we’ve really gotten confused when relationships that include secret extramarital affairs are considered monogamous and those that end in divorce are considered committed monogamous marriages." [mijn nadruk] (12-13)

[Zo heb ik 'trouw' zelf ook geformuleerd, als eerlijkheid en loyaliteit, en niet als 'niet met een ander vrijen'.]

"The habit of keeping secrets can be deeply engrained, even when couples agree to have an open relationship."(13)

"The intimate network is similar to what futurist F. M. Esfandiary called a mobilia in the 1970s and what young Swedish activist Andie Nordgren calls relationship anarchy in the twenty-first-century."(17)

(19) 2 - Who chooses polyamory, and why?

De motieven van waaruit mensen voor polyamorie kiezen zijn zeer uiteenlopend. Dit hoofdstuk geeft allerlei voorbeelden.

[Soms worden er vrij gemakkelijke oordelen gegeven die ik niet kan volgen, zoals die over 'seksverslaving' waar het pagina's lang over gaat. Ik vermoed dat Amerikaanse achtergronden hier een rol spelen, maar weet het niet zeker. Hoe vaag het blijft blijkt bijvoorbeeld uit de volgende paragraaf:]

"While I’ve seen too much evidence that sexual addiction is as real as any other addiction to deny its existence, I’ve also observed that those who are the quickest to point the finger at others often have a tendency toward sex addiction themselves. I usually tell people that if they must have an addiction, sex, along with meditation, hatha yoga, and jogging, are relatively healthy ones in which to indulge. Sex itself is good for you, and great sex is very good for you, but the more euphoric and ecstatic the experience, the more temptation there can be to sell one’s soul to the devil."(31)

"I began to suspect that a significant minority of people choosing polyamory have Asperger’s traits if not the full-blown syndrome."(33)

"Because Aspies [een 'nickname' voor mensen met Asperger's Syndroom - GdG] are fairly clueless about social norms and prone to misread or overlook negative reactions to social deviations, they are less likely to be bound by mononormative relationship expectations and more willing to experiment with out of the box arrangements. They don’t automatically reject polyamory as socially incorrect as some might do. Instead, they take an unbiased, objective look and decide it may meet their needs. And then they’re not bothered by social ostracism because they either don’t notice or are used to it because of their other odd behaviors. Additionally, polyamory may make intimate relationships more manageable for them if their partners can meet their own needs for empathy and emotional closeness, which the Aspie may find bewildering elsewhere."(34)

"While there are no data to support the common assumption that polyamory impairs attachment or is risky to the longevity of a pair bond — and, in fact, Perel and others acknowledge that it may be just the opposite — I suspect that whether polyamory or monogamy does more to stabilize a relationship depends on the individuals involved and their life experience. When two or more people are well matched, opening their relationship usually makes it stronger. When they’re not, opening up can be destabilizing. Neither monogamy nor polyamory has a corner on immaturity, and people can gravitate toward both from a position of maturity or its opposite. " [mijn nadruk] (37-38)

"Psychologist David Ley has studied couples in which the wives are nonmonogamous with the approval and encouragement of their often monogamous husbands. His 2009 book Insatiable Wives offers evidence that those who practice nonmonogamy tend to have extremely effective communication skills and relationship skills and are no more or no less pathological than any other group."(40)

[Volgen belangrijke opmerkingen over onderzoeken opt dit vlak: ]

" My impression is that neither the more socially conservative nor the more socially radical individuals are well represented [in onderzoeken naar - de omvang van - de polyamory-gemeenschappen - GdG]. In addition, people of color, those of lower socioeconomic status, young people, gay men, and, to a lesser extent, lesbian women are underrepresented in the self-proclaimed polyamory community, although I find abundant evidence, both direct and indirect, that these groups are at least as likely to be involved in polyamorous relationships."(43)

"We still have very little data on the demographics, motivations, and concerns of polyamorous people, not to mention the incidence of polyamory in the general population, although extrapolations from the Loving More data estimate that one out of every 500 adults in the United States is polyamorous. Others have speculated that something like 3.5 percent of the adult population prefer polyamorous relationships, which would put the figure at about 10 million, but I predict that by the time a large-scale survey is undertaken, this figure will be found to be much higher."(44)

(45) 3 - The history of polyamory

"There is little question that while nonmonogamy has been prominent in most cultures throughout time, polyamory in its modern form emerged in the United States. Although its roots go back to the utopian communities of the nineteenth century, responsible nonmonogamy began to grow vigorously in the turmoil of the sexual revolution of the 1970s. Twenty-first-century polyamory is quite different from these early experiments, but we can understand its origins and evolution by examining its history." [mijn nadruk] (45)

[Ik weet niet, hoor. Het is zeker dat de auteur goed is ingevoerd in wat er in de USA op dat terrein gebeurde, dat blijkt uit het vervolg. Maar is ze ook zo goed op de hoogte van wat er in andere werelddelen gebeurde? Ik zie niet in waarom deze ontwikkeling nu net in de USA dominant zou zijn.]

"The best known of the nineteenth-century utopian communities is the Oneida Community, founded by John Humphrey Noyes in 1848. Oneida grew to 300 members in its heyday before abandoning the doctrine of complex marriage under legal pressure.(...)
The Oneida Community was a spiritual community that, following the example of the earliest Christians, held all property in common and attempted to overcome traditional gender roles. The most controversial aspect of the whole infamous project was the doctrine of complex marriage. In complex marriage, all the men and all the women within the community were considered married to each other. Even couples who were already married when joining the community were required to have separate rooms and open their marriage to others. No two people could have exclusive attachment with each other and would be separated and not allowed to see each other for a certain length of time if this were suspected. Men were required to withhold ejaculation during intercourse unless conception was intended, and more mature members of the community were given the task of initiating the younger ones into sexual and spiritual practices.(...)
In theory, complex marriage eliminated jealousy and possessiveness by marrying all the men of the community to all the women and encouraging members to enjoy frequent lovemaking and multiple partners. The strategy of managing jealousy through creating an abundance of partners has continued to be used into the twenty-first century with varying degrees of success, as we will see in future chapters. Oneida men took responsibility for birth control by withholding ejaculation, which was intended to provide Oneida women with greater sexual satisfaction and fewer pregnancies than their contemporaries. This in itself was a huge departure from Victorian standards, which did not support women taking pleasure in sex at all. Although I have not been able to discover a direct link between Noyes and Tantric teachings, it’s interesting to note that his spiritual doctrine of perfectionism, his emphasis on the sacredness of sexuality, and the sexual practice of nonejaculation for men can all be found in ancient Tantric teachings. Is it a coincidence that many modern-day American polyamorists also mix inclusive love with Tantric teachings?"(45-46)

"New England in the early 1800s was a hotbed of social, philosophical, and cultural dissent. The downside of the industrial revolution was becoming apparent to the intelligentsia, who were eager to explore healthpromoting lifestyles. In addition to the previously described communities, New England spawned the Transcendentalist movement, which involved well-known literary figures such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Walt Whitman and was closely linked with another utopian community named Brook Farm." [mijn nadruk] (47-48)

"In 1844, Albert Brisbane, who translated the works of French utopian philosopher Charles Fourier into English during his frequent visits to Brook Farm, convinced the directors to become a Fourierist community.(...)
Fourier also took a strong stance on the importance of pleasure and sexual gratification and was an advocate of women’s rights, gay rights, and sexual freedom long before the sexual revolutions of the twentieth century dawned." [mijn nadruk] (48)

"Emma Goldman was one of my earliest heroines. A feminist anarchist who devoted her life to organizing support for the independence of women at a time when women in the United States had not yet won the right to vote and when advocating access to birth control was grounds for imprisonment, she was also a passionate supporter of free love. While the scope of her work was not limited to women’s issues, Goldman is often credited with bringing sexual liberty and reproductive rights into serious political conversation." [mijn nadruk] (48-49)

"It is this meaning of freedom from legislation or mental constructs, as well as equality for all genders, that inspired my own vision for polyamory as a more heartfelt way to love. It seems ironic that some polyamorous people, as well as monogamous nonheterosexuals, are now clamoring to have their marriages recognized by church and state."(49)

"Emma Goldman, like Victoria Woodhull, another early feminist and free love advocate, did more than theorize about free love. Both women boldly exercised their right to love whomever they pleased at a time when even monogamous sexually active unmarried women were considered sluts."(49)

"If there is any one book that can be said to have kicked off the present-day evolution of polyamory, that book would have to be Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land. This novel, with a Martian-raised human hero who finds the concept of sexual possessiveness very peculiar and starts a religion based on sharing, struck a deep chord with the millions who’ve read it since its publication in 1961." [mijn nadruk] (50)

"Polyamory as a model or support system for creating transformation in the larger culture has been a popular topic with many science-fiction and fantasy writers, such as Thea Alexander, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Ernest Callenbach, Spider Robinson, Starhawk, and John Varley. Consensual multipartner relationships have also figured prominently in the books of literary giants such as Anais Nin, Doris Lessing, and Alice Walker." [mijn nadruk] (50)

"Robert Rimmer is another author whose novels played a huge role in inspiring modern-day polyamory. His best-selling Harrad Experiment was first published in 1966 and, along with Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land, influenced a whole generation of young people to question monogamy as an ideal and to create their own experiments in group marriage." [mijn nadruk] (52)

"Harrad was followed by a series of other widely read novels, including Proposition 31, which explored group marriage and its legalization; Thursday My Love, which addressed extramarital sex; and Come Live My Life, which bears an uncanny resemblance to a recent reality TV show about mate swapping (as in living in another household, not a sexual one-night stand). All of Rimmer’s writing emphasizes the importance of integrating sex, love, and spirituality and maintaining high ethical standards even while struggling with typical human fears and difficult emotions." [mijn nadruk] (52)

"I came of age in the midst of the sexual revolution heralded by Time magazine in 1964 and pronounced dead by Time in 1984, a casualty of AIDS, an economic downturn, and/or the radical right, depending on whom you ask. The year 1984 happens to be the same year I found myself beginning the work of organizing today’s polyamory movement.
The increasing acceptance of consensual nonmonogamy, open marriage, and other experiments in loving more than one are only one manifestation of the many shifts in sexual values and cultural norms that occurred during those tumultuous twenty years. The sexual revolution as a whole created a climate in which the behaviors that have come to be known as polyamory were able to be seen and experienced by large numbers of people in the Western world for the first time since the rise of the Catholic Church.
Although many people today think of polyamory as a hedonistic, self-centered, and godless approach to love, Christian clergy have been instrumental in breaking the cultural monopoly of monogamy during both the first and the second sexual revolution. As we have seen, many of the nineteenth-century nonmonogamous utopian communities were founded by Christian preachers, and in the mid-twentieth century, Christian clergy again provided much of the spiritual and intellectual underpinnings for validating alternatives to monogamous marriage. "(53)

[Veel voorbeelden daarvan volgen en blijkbaar maakte de auteur deel uit van die christelijke sprituele beweging voor 'meer liefde'. Alsof de spirituele dimensie en de nadruk op liefde het allemaal moet rechtvaardigen, alsof het eng en verkeerd is om gewoon over seks met meer mensen te praten.]

"Dr. Robert Francouer is among the most prolific academic authors to advocate a greater range of sexual and marital choices.(...) He and his wife Anna were among the first to write about changing attitudes toward love and sex as an evolutionary imperative. In their 1974 book Hot and Cool Sex, they reexamine the concepts of fidelity, jealousy, and postpatriarchal sex and convincingly portray open marriage as a path to growth." [mijn nadruk] (53-54)

"Maslow, one of the giants of the humanistic psychology movement, is well known for his theories of human need hierarchies, eupsychian management, and group synergy. Maslow was a fan of Bob Rimmer, and the two enjoyed a long-standing friendship. Maslow, along with Dr. Rollo May, Dr. Carl Rogers, Drs. Nina and George O’Neil, and many other figures in the human potential movement of the 1970s, was an advocate of loosening the rigidity of monogamous marriage in the interests of supporting greater growth and fulfillment for individuals as well enhancing the depth and quality of marital relationships." [mijn nadruk] (55)

"At the same time, the sexual revolution of the 1970s left in its wake the widespread belief that open marriage doesn’t work.(...) While the necessary research to conclusively answer the question of whether monogamous marriage 'works' any better than open marriage or group marriage has never been done, the data we have indicate that there’s no significant difference. I strongly intuit that each works some of the time for some people, with no one option being better than any of the others when it’s a good fit for the people involved. We’ll explore this topic more thoroughly in future chapters."M(56)

[Ik mis toch wel heel erg een maatschappijkritische veroordeling van de exclusieve relatie. Tot dusver is het allemaal erg pseudotolerant.]

"Dr. James Ramey was another first-wave proponent of alternatives to monogamy whose work is still amazingly contemporary. Jim sought me out in the mid-1980s, and his generous encouragement, advice, and networking until his death in 1995 helped build today’s polyamory movement. His book Intimate Friendships is still an important resource for researchers and therapists alike, and he and his wife Betty participated in the Kirkridge Conferences described previously." [mijn nadruk] (56)

"The late twentieth-century Kerista commune, based in San Francisco, California, seems to have been profoundly influenced by Oneida, although the Keristans, as they called themselves, were more inclined to trace their lineage to the Israeli kibbutz movement. However, they were well known for creating the 'balanced rotational sleeping schedule', which was designed to prevent pair bonding, and for encounter-style 'Gestaltorama' groups, which paralleled Oneida’s intense group process. They used vasectomies rather than nonejaculation to prevent unplanned pregnancies, held all property in common, and created their own religion that preached polyfidelity (another term they invented) as a pathway to worldwide utopia." [mijn nadruk] (57)

[Wat noem je nog religie hier, vraag ik me af.]

"No history of American polyamory would be complete without mention of Stan Dale, who founded the Human Awareness Institute (HAI) in 1968 after a successful career as a radio personality." [mijn nadruk] (58)

"I first became aware of Dr. Brad Blanton when three different intimate friends of mine got excited about his book Radical Honesty." [mijn nadruk] (62)

"Partly as a result of efforts by Dr. Blanton, myself, and other concerned professionals, some psychotherapists are starting to take a more realistic view of monogamy and become less judgmental about other options. As we discussed in the previous chapter, humans are not naturally monogamous, nor are we naturally polyamorous. If we are not honest with ourselves about our sexual desires, our jealousies, and our childish desire to have what we want when we want it, we’re not likely to find a way to negotiate this challenging territory harmoniously, with or without committed partner(s).
One step in this direction is to realize that the cultural programming that dictates that mating couples pair up and isolate themselves from others is a relatively recent invention. In the next chapter, we look at evidence from many different disciplines that suggests that bonding and family structures are not limited to dyads." [mijn nadruk] (63)

(65) 4 - The ethics of polyamory

"In many ways, basic ethical principles remain the same whether or not a relationship is monogamous. For example, honoring one’s partner by keeping whatever commitments you have made holds true regardless of the specific content of the commitment. But monogamous relationships are often more resilient when it comes to mistakes and ethical lapses than polyamorous ones. This is partly because polyamorous relationships are inherently more complex and partly because most people lack experience and models for relating in these new ways." [mijn nadruk] (65)

"Polyamory by its very nature constitutes a challenge to our age-old conditioning and frequently stirs up some discomfort. When these inevitable growing pains are intertwined with indignation arising from broken agreements or insensitive treatment by a thoughtless partner, it becomes much more difficult to trust the process and surrender to the valuable lessons polyamory can offer. The temptation to throw in the towel and try to return to what feels safe and familiar while blaming polyamory for one’s suffering can be overwhelming." [mijn nadruk] (66)

"Any valid discussion of morality in the realm of intimacy must address differing values over the centuries and also in different religious or spiritual groups.(...)
Let’s review the ethical guidelines for old- and new-paradigm relating before going on to explore the perspectives of some contemporary religious and spiritual leaders and their teachings relevant to monogamous and nonmonogamous unions. "(67)

[Pardon? Waarom zouden we ons ook maar iets gelegen laten liggen aan wat religies dan wel religieuze en spirituele groepen aan opvattingen hebben? Religies hebben geen gezag op het terrein van de moraal zoals ze zelf zo graag denken.]

"After considering the accumulated wisdom of today’s twenty-first-century global village, I suggest the following values as a basis for a new sexual ethic. In addressing each one, examples are given of how it would apply in a polyamorous relationship."(76)

Eerlijkheid wordt als eerste waarde genoemd.

"It’s hard to trust a person who lies, deceives, or withholds information unless we are speaking about trusting that someone may not be telling the truth. Being scrupulously honest with yourself and your partners is especially important in polyamory because honest communication is the best way of handling the fears and jealousies that inevitably arise from time to time. Trust can then be based on the certain knowledge that your partners are giving you their unedited truth about their feelings and behavior. This gives your relationships the secure grounding they need to remain comfortable when exploring polyamory and allows you to distinguish imagined threats from reality."(76)

De tweede waarde is betrokken bij elkaar, zorg en verantwoordelijkheid voor elkaar, solidariteit ('commitment' is niet goed te vertalen).

"Regardless of the specifics, meaningful sex creates a lifelong bond. It is simply not ethical to thoughtlessly discard lovers like yesterday’s garbage. In an ongoing polyamorous relationship of any kind, all partners need to know that their beloved will not duck out of the relationship on a whim because they got scared or because they found someone else who wants them to be monogamous. Without a commitment to working to strengthen and enhance existing relationships, adding new partners can result only in jealousy."M(77)

[Dat eerste punt is nogal een waardeoordeel. En wat zegt het. Het tweede punt heeft niets met seks te maken, je kunt nooit wie dan ook met wie je te maken hebt gehad zo maar aan de kant gooien lijkt me.]

De derde waarde is het maken van en je houden aan afspraken. De vierde waarde die Anapol uitwerkt is integriteit.

"Integrity involves doing whatever you’ve agreed to do, whether it’s as mundane as doing the dishes or as central to your relationship as keeping an agreement to practice safe sex with other partners. Without integrity, commitments and agreements are worse than useless. You can make hundreds of agreements and break every single one of them. In fact, the more agreements you make, the more likely it is that some will be broken."(80)

De vijfde waarde die uitgewerkt wordt is gelijkwaardigheid ('equity').

"Equity is characteristic of what Riane Eisler has called 'partnership culture', as contrasted with 'dominator culture', in which it is assumed that one gender has the right to control the other gender, with violence if necessary. Where equity is present, one person may still assume more leadership than the other(s), or different people may assume leadership in different arenas or decide to rotate responsibilities, but the process of making decisions is one that is mutually agreed on as beneficial for everyone. This style has sometimes been described as 'power with' rather than 'power over', or mutually empowering."(80-81)

Hierna volgen een paar voorbeelden van hoe die waarden kunnen doorwerken in relatievormen.

[Ikvind het een heel representatieve keuze van waarden en ben het er erg mee eens dat dat de essenties zijn. Maar dat heeft allemaal niets met religie en goeden en heilige boeken te maken, maar met het samenleven van mensen.]

(87) 5 - The polyamorous personality

"While heterosexual monogamous marriage is still the ideal in much of the world, subcultures where polyamory, bisexuality, or homosexuality are the norm are increasingly visible and gaining in respectability. More and more people are deciding to remain single or to live together without getting married, especially if they don’t plan to have children. Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, there is a new generation who grew up in nontraditional families where gender roles, sexual orientation, and/or relational orientation were much more fluid than in the past. While the lifestyle choices of these young adults have not yet been studied scientifically, it’s my impression that in general they are much more comfortable with themselves and their sexuality. As we will see in chapter 8, many of them still gravitate toward heterosexual and/or monogamous relationships, but they are more willing to experiment with different kinds of relationships and have many of the skills and personality traits that contribute to successful polyamorous relationships." [mijn nadruk] (88)

"Polyamory can be a complex and demanding lovestyle. I often tell people that it requires a higher level of self-awareness and interpersonal skills than monogamy. Research on the personality traits shared by most polyamorous people has yet to be conducted, but many observers have noticed that certain characteristics are common among those choosing polyamory. Many of these traits are apparent in all the personalities profiled in this chapter." [mijn nadruk] (99)

[Je ziet aan beide alinea's dat er maar weinig systematisch wetenschappelijk onderzoek gedaan is / wordt naar afwijkende relatievormen. De exclusieve relatie is zo dominant en de andere relatievormen zijn zo taboe dat het niet eens in de hoofden van mensen opkomt om daar onderzoek naar te doen.]

"Perhaps the most basic trait found among those attracted to and successful in polyamorous relationships is that they have a talent for intimate relationships. Some people have a gift for music, and others are natural athletes. If you have a gift for connecting with others, for giving and receiving affection, and if you’re empathic and compassionate and enjoy sharing life’s pleasures and sorrows with a group of people, then you have a talent for relating intimately. Without this talent, it can be a struggle to handle even one meaningful relationship." [mijn nadruk] (99-100)

"Any intimate relationship is difficult without a sense of self-worth, which is not dependent on validation from someone else. Relying on a partner to make you feel desirable, special, or lovable inevitably leads to wanting to control and possess this source of positive regard. A partner’s attraction to someone else, whether or not it’s acted on, will be perceived as a threat if you need constant reassurance that you’re okay. It takes plenty of self-confidence to be willing to share your lovers with others, secure in the knowledge that you won’t be found lacking in some essential quality. High self-esteem makes it possible to face the unknown without excessive fears." [mijn nadruk] (100)

[Belangrijk punt, lijkt me. Maar wie kan van zichzelf zeggen dat hij of zij dat gevoel van eigenwaarde en dat zelfvertrouwen heeft?]

"People who can juggle tasks, projects, and quickly changing priorities usually have the ability to juggle several intimate relationships as well without dropping the ball."(100)

"Polyamory often means more activity, more interaction, more energy, more interests, more change, more obligations, more communication, more coordination, more time, more everything. " [mijn nadruk] (101)

"Communication skills can make or break any intimate relationship, and they are not limited to the ability to use words well (although that helps). Awareness of nonverbal cues and body language is just as important in navigating the complexities of out-of-the-box relationships as the ability to express desires, needs, resentments, appreciation, and hurt feelings and to effectively negotiate win–win solutions to conflicts."(101)

"I certainly wouldn’t characterize all polyamorous people as geniuses or monogamous people as being unintelligent, but numerous observers have commented that polyamorous people tend to be far above the norms on many dimensions of intelligence, including but not limited to emotional intelligence. Perhaps those who are more inclined to think for themselves and are better able to assess each situation on its own merits are more likely to end up polyamorous, or perhaps one needs the extra capacity to handle all the complexities polyamory can present. Whatever the explanation, there’s a strong correlation."(103)

(105) 6 - The challenge of jealousy

"Jealousy is not unique to polyamory, nor is it the only emotional challenge encountered in polyamorous relating, but it is certainly the number one difficulty for most people who venture beyond monogamy." [mijn nadruk] (105)

"Despite its pervasiveness in human experience as reflected in literature and film, jealousy has been one of the least studied of all human emotions. It doesn’t even appear in the index of Daniel Goleman’s groundbreaking book on emotional literacy Emotional Intelligence. Let’s begin by exploring the nature of jealousy before moving on to consider where it comes from, what messages it brings us, and how it can best be managed." [mijn nadruk] (106)

[Is het niet erg? Ik vind het onbegrijpelijk dat er geen studie gemaakt is van allerlei gedrag dat zo intens met relaties verbonden is. Vanuit de stiekeme vooronderstelling dat we allemaal weten hoe het zit? Zoals met seks? Wetenschappers die nog steeds liever met ratten en duiven bezig zijn? De vraag is in hoeverre Anapol de maatschappelijke kant van de zaak zal bespreken.]

"My own clinical observation based on working with thousands of people struggling with jealousy is that jealousy most often arises when a person’s need for control is threatened. This may or may not coincide with dependency and low self-esteem.(...)
While different people become jealous for different reasons and in differing circumstances, the actual physical feelings are remarkably consistent from person to person, although they may vary in intensity. Even a low level of jealousy is usually uncomfortable enough that most people will try to distract themselves or take some action to eliminate the perceived cause of their jealousy." [mijn nadruk] (107)

[Dat lijkt me logisch.]

"Evolutionary psychologist David Buss argues that sexual jealousy is healthy, necessary, and useful. Buss claims that jealousy not only helped ensure that our male ancestors were the biological fathers of their women’s offspring and that our female ancestors could rely on the ongoing support of their men but also that it continues to serve the purpose of maintaining sexual exclusivity, igniting sexual passion, and becoming aware of a partner’s infidelity."(108)

[Wat een onzin toch weer. Die hele evolutionaire pschologie zit vol met allerlei vage en oncontroleerbare beweringen die meer zeggen over de onderzoekers dan over wat onderzocht wordt. Ik begrijp niet dat Anapol beweringen van dit soort niet meteen keihard afschiet.]

"Most significantly, what about all the ancestors who either didn’t know or didn’t care about biological fatherhood? Many experts believe that until the rise of patriarchy about 4,000 years ago, biological fatherhood was not of much interest to humans(...)
Among many indigenous people, children are still regarded as belonging to 'the village' rather than either biological parent. In Hawaii, in premissionary times it was customary to accept as kin the children your partner previously or subsequently conceived with another partner. In the old days, jealousy in these situations was rare, but today it is expected. Adoption of children on the basis of affinity, regardless of blood ties, was common and is a tradition even now. Far from being the utopian fantasy that Buss suggests, disregard for paternity, not to mention an absence of lifelong sexual exclusivity, has been the norm throughout most of human evolution, casting doubt on his Darwinian theory of the evolutionary value of jealousy." [mijn nadruk] (110)

[Hèhè ... Eindelijk de kritiek die zo voor de hand ligt op de stellingname van Buss.]

"Science has been invoked many times in the past to defend beliefs — and laws — that are now recognized to be not only unsupported by objective evidence but also harmful and dangerous to individuals and to society as a whole. If jealousy is indeed 'hardwired', does this mean it’s an evolutionary advantage and that it’s inevitable? And if it is inevitable, does this mean that monogamy is the best solution, or are there other ways to manage jealousy? We’ll address all these questions later on, but for now let’s take a look at whether jealousy is genetically or culturally programmed." [mijn nadruk] (112)

[Ze heeft het antwoord al gegeven in haar kritiek op Buss. Waarom nu weer opnieuw de vraag stellen? Jaloezie is niet 'hardwired', zelfs die neurologische onderzoeken die ze eerder noemde zeggen alleen maar dat er culturele invloeden zijn die herkenbaar worden in hersenactiviteiten. Goh, schokkend.]

"Nearly everyone in our monogamous society learns early in life that spouses have exclusive rights. We are conditioned to believe that if our beloved is interested in someone else, we may be replaced. But this expectation of loss is learned, not hardwired, in both men and women. Imagine a culture in which your partner’s attraction to another signified opportunities for greater pleasure, intimacy, and support. Would jealousy occur in this context? As we saw in the previous section, people who are raised in cultures, such as premissionary Hawaii, or subcultures, such as post–Summer of Love San Francisco, where sexual inclusivity is not necessarily a threat and jealousy is not expected, may have different programming than those raised in an environment where an affair is considered an excuse for murder." [mijn nadruk] (113)

"Nevertheless, humans have such a long history of accepting sexual jealousy as inevitable that it’s difficult to simply talk ourselves out of it. Cultural programming may not be in our genes, but it operates at an unconscious level that cannot be easily shifted by rational thought. Still, by choosing a belief system that considers jealousy to be an inescapable part of our nature, we resign ourselves to allowing jealousy to control us. If instead we choose to believe that jealousy is learned, we open up the possibility of freeing ourselves from its tyranny." [mijn nadruk] (114)

"The primary issue in jealousy is fear of losing something, whether that’s exclusive sexual access, love, attention, reputation, self-esteem, or any of the jealousy triggers we’ll talk about later in this chapter. This threat of losing something important to the ego is scary enough for most people without mixing in an overlay of lies, withholds, and half-truths. Feelings of betrayal arise when trust has been shaken because of broken agreements, deception, or a perceived breach of faith. Because so many people are dishonest about their attraction to others or unilaterally break monogamous commitments to have secret affairs, jealousy and betrayal are often linked together." [mijn nadruk] (114-115)

"Compersion is a word created by the Kerista Community to describe an emotion that is the opposite of jealousy. Compersion means to feel joy and delight when one’s beloved loves or is being loved by another. Compersion is especially strong and accessible when all the people involved have feelings of love for each other, but that’s not a necessary precondition.
Some people have spontaneously had the experience of compersion, much to their surprise, when they were anticipating feeling jealous. Some find compersion as natural and inevitable as jealousy seems to be for others. People like this instantly recognize their feeling as compersion as soon as they hear the new term.
However, since most of us have been raised with an expectation of jealousy, compersion is an alien concept."(121)

(127) 7 - Polyamory and children

"Many people assume that it’s harmful for children to have more than two parents."(127)

Maar dat is moeilijk vol te houden wanneer je wereldwijd alle mogelijke variaties in samenlevingsvormen-met-kinderen ziet.

"As extended families who live together become increasingly rare, especially in the affluent West, polyamorous families are one way that some people are counteracting the isolation of the lone nuclear family and finding ways to provide at-home caretakers for children. Others gravitate toward cohousing or intentional communities that may or may not be monogamously oriented but where adults share some responsibility for child rearing. Several studies have been done on stepfamilies and children reared communally, but there is still a dearth of research investigating the important question of how polyamory affects children. At the same time, the impact on children is one of the most commonly asked questions whenever the subject of polyamory is raised."(127-128)

[In feite een defensieve stellingname. Mensen met exclusieve relaties stellen dat soort vragen, verschuilen zich achter het hebben van kinderen om hun pseudo-zekerheden veilig te stellen. Je kunt net zo goed de vraag stellen wat de invloed is van exclusieve relaties of het monogame huwelijk op de kinderen die er geboren worden en opgroeien. Als je ziet hoeveel ellende er binnen dat soort relaties bestaat, is het ook niet moeilijk te begrijpen dat ze kinderen schaden. Ik denk niet dat ze een vechtscheiding zo leuk vinden bijvoorbeeld.]

"Dr. Sheff has found that some polyamorous parents are reluctant to talk to anyone 'official' because they are concerned about losing custody of their children. The common perception that children in poly (and nonheterosexual) families are at higher risk for sexual abuse than those in monogamous families, which appears to be completely unfounded according to Dr. Sheff, also makes people nervous about talking to her."(129)

[De vooroordelen zitten namelijk net zo ingebakken bij gewone mensen als bij overheidsdienaren / bureaucraten, zeker in de USA. En natuurlijk kan het heel goed zijn dat kinderen in polyamoreuze relaties en situaties veel meer gepest worden, zoals alle kinderen van minderheidsgroepen altijd gepest worden door de zelfverzekerde dominante groep. Maar dat betekent niet dat je je maar moet conformeren aan die dominante groep, integendeel. ]

"Dr. Sheff reports that in the United States, the majority of the children she’s talked to have been pretty relaxed about their parents’ relationship orientation. Most say that it’s fine with them, that they have no problems with it, or that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but this might not be the case in families who are less openly polyamorous or live in more conservative areas. Some of the advantages mentioned are that they get more attention, more help with homework, and more people to give them rides. They have other adults to go to if they have a problem they don’t want to take to their parents. Sheff found that the poly family is often a resource for tween and teen friends of the family for sex education. They tend to be comfortable with and available for discussing sexual issues and are a source of reliable information — not having sex in front of them or with them, Dr. Sheff stresses. "(130-131)

"What’s interesting to me is that most of the young adults I know who were raised in child-centered polyamorous families seem to end up giving a higher priority to bonding and sustained intimacy than to freedom, whether they are male or female. While they often attempt both, they seem willing to go for serial monogamy because its continued cultural dominance provides greater ease in intimate connections with partners raised to believe in monogamy. Those who are more determined to pursue radical multipartner lifestyles whatever the cost or who are hungry for sexual variety to make up for a sexually repressed adolescence seem to have a greater need to rebel against the culture norms than the children of the last generation of polyamorous pioneers. This pattern also seems to hold true for the children of more mainstream families who are open with their children about their polyamorous relationships."(140)

"Kelly recalls that 'the whole issue about kids was a big one for us. The kids were two, nine, and ten at the time and never exposed to anything other than normal family life. We were very proactive in preparing a context for them to be comfortable with what we were doing so they wouldn’t have any surprises. We were aware that the picture of extramarital relationships they would get from films or TV was a negative one, all about secret affairs, drama, and unhappiness. It’s always a bad thing, it’s ugly, that’s the dominant picture kids get. So while we never sat the kids down and directly talked about what we were doing, we made sure they knew there were no secrets going on between Mom and Dad and no hiding.'"(141)

[Dat is een mooie samenvatting van hoe de media aan beeldvorming doen over relaties.]

"Although it’s quite rare, there have been some well-publicized cases in the United States in which poly families or communities have had their children taken away either temporarily or permanently, but even a temporary issue can have long-term repercussions."(147)

"While the simple fact of polyamory can be alarming to those raised to believe in monogamy, polyamorous communities with children can easily be seen as an even bigger threat to society. Even though few have been as controversial as the Finders, these communities sometimes have challenges interfacing with the outside world, but still the children seem to do at least as well as those in the average nuclear family." [mijn nadruk] (150)

"advanced communication skills is one trait that keeps popping up as I talk to polyamorous parents about their children."(155)

"One of the things that intrigued me about this community was that the women tried to conceive around the same time so that they could breast-feed each other’s babies. I’d been a breast-feeding mom myself not so many years before, so I immediately understood the practicality of this custom, which made caring for another mother’s infant or toddler in her absence much easier and more natural. But there was more to it than convenience. Part of their philosophy was that our cultural obsession with monogamy begins at our mother’s breasts. Either literally or figuratively, we learn that one person — usually Mommy — is the source of love, nourishment, nurturing, and safety — all those things we later seek in a romantic partner. They theorized that if they instead conditioned their children to receive love — and mother’s milk — from more than one nurturing caretaker, they would be conditioning their children to bond with more than one beloved or 'multisource' later in life. It’s too early to know whether these children will grow up to be jealousy-free polyamorous adults, and, in any case, it’s certainly not a controlled experiment, but I found it an interesting concept." [mijn nadruk] (155)

"My impression, after examining what little evidence we have, is that it is not polyamory per se but rather the extent to which the family and the culture it’s embedded in are child centered (or not) that influences the health and well-being of the children."(156)

(159) 8 - Coming-out issues

"Polyamorous people are perhaps the last sexual 'minority' to come out of hiding. In an age when homosexuals demand church weddings and some cities have passed domestic partner ordinances that extend spousal privileges to same-gender or unmarried couples, polyamory is still beyond the pale, although it is increasingly recognized as a valid choice. This may be because variations in relationship orientation are perceived as more of a threat to the established social order than are variations in sexual orientation."(161)

[Ik hoop dat ze die bedreiging voor de maatschappij ergens uitwerkt. Ze heeft dat punt al eerder genoemd, maar tot nu toe nog niet toegelicht.]

"In other words, polyamory challenges the whole notion of normative sexual and relational identities, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual, monogamous, or nonmonogamous. In fact, this was the original intent of the polyamory movement, although it now is at risk for being seen as either a purely sexual diversion or a new normative standard that people may try to conform to, reject, or experience as a crisis of identity."(166)

"Six states in the United States now recognize same-gender marriage, as do some European countries. Many municipalities have adopted 'domestic partners' regulations that allow any two people who share a domicile and income share, for a specified length of time, access to the same benefits given to spouses, but resistance to allowing more than two domestic partners to register together seems just as high as expanding the definition of marriage to include polyamorous as well as same-gender unions. Tampering with the current 'one man, one woman' definition of marriage triggers incredibly strong emotional reactions, particularly among conservative Christians, who have demonstrated political clout well beyond their numbers. However, polls show that age is strongly related to people’s positions on marriage, and as the twenty-first century progresses, marriage laws may well come up for review, and some poly activists are preparing for this eventuality." [mijn nadruk] (181)

(183) 9 - Cross-cultural perspectives

"One of the many paradoxes of polyamory is that while today’s polyamory movement clearly arose in the United States and while the United States gave birth to many nineteenth-century communities that enthusiastically explored nonmonogamous relationships, not to mention countless twentieth-century hippie communes, all the major openly polyamorous communities of the twenty-first century are outside the United States to the best of my knowledge." [mijn nadruk] (184)

"American polys tend to avoid the language of free love because of its association with promiscuity in the days of the sexual revolution. The notoriously individualistic Americans generally prefer open couples or intimate networks to group marriages or communal living, but there are long-standing intentional communities in the United States where polyamory has been quietly practiced, openly or closeted, along with old-fashioned infidelity on occasion amidst considerable drama and processing.
Another noteworthy difference between North American and continental mores is that even though a probable majority of Americans who call themselves monogamous are not sexually exclusive, Americans take monogamy much more seriously than Europeans. While much of the civilized world espouses monogamy but takes discrete affairs for granted, Americans tend to believe that extramarital sex is wrong and are prone to tremendous guilt and shame when they fail to honor their monogamous commitments. Perhaps polyamory’s appeal to Americans — and Australians as well — is that in these cultures, a combination of sexual repression, boring sex, and the taboo on extramarital sex as a solution to marital monotony create an unmet need for a pragmatic, direct, egalitarian means of spicing up a marriage. In Europe and the United Kingdom, polyamory seems more of interest to those with a political bent who appreciate the anarchistic appeal of free love as advocated by Emma Goldman and who are as moved by the ecological considerations and the moral high ground as juicy sex. Europeans who want more or different sex simply have an affair. Of course, plenty of American couples have affairs too, or they turn to swinging for sexual variety but sometimes end up falling in love with their sexual playmates."(185)

[Is dat nu waar / historisch juist, dat van het ontstaan van die beweging in de VS? Of schreeuwen ze daar harder zoals gewoonlijk? Ik heb mijn twijfels over veel van wat hier beweerd wordt. Denk aan de 60-er jaren in Europa waar ook veel communes uit voortkwamen. En zo verder. Ik vind ook die karakterisering nogal typisch: waarom wordt dat christelijke van de VS nu niet genoemd als een oorzaak van al die seksuele repressie? Het feit dat een paar dominees een polyamorie voorstonden doet daar tenslotte niets aan af. Nee, ik heb mijn twijfels bij de vergelijking van de VS en Europa hier, het is te generaliserend en te positief voor de VS waarover ze kritiekloos zegt dat vrijheid en democratie er de standaard zijn. Yeah, right.]

"Dossie Easton, therapist and coauthor of The Ethical Slut, gave the key-note address at the First International Conference on Polyamory and Mononormativity held at the University of Hamburg, Germany, in 2005. Scholars from all over the world gathered to discuss the variety of ways that people in many communities structure their relationships. Organizers Robin Bauer and Marianne Pieper, who originated the term mononormativity, say that they wanted the conference to combine activism and academia. Dossie reports that 'the German academics were concerned that I did not present a unified economic theory that addressed socialism, capitalism, class issues, and the potential for polyamory to create economic and political equality for all. They wanted to know how polyamory will help solve social problems beyond individual relationships, and I suspect they thought I was remiss in not developing such theories.'
Many organizers and researchers outside the United States have echoed this observation, confirming my own impression that in Europe and the United Kingdom, the polyamory movement is less focused on personal growth and more focused on the political and ecological implications of relationship choices. It also appears that the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and queer community in Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia are more likely to have embraced polyamory in their activism and research than their counterparts in the United States, resulting in a stronger presence abroad for polyamory within academia." [mijn nadruk] (197)

[Precies dat bedoel ik. Ook ik mis dat de hele tijd. Ik geloof niet in persoonlijke groeimodellen zonder aandacht voor de maatschappelijke kant van de zaak.]

"The ZEGG community hasn’t embraced the word polyamory either, but they are a good example of the way in which many Europeans seem more inclined than Americans to place polyamory in the context of a wider movement for social change."(198)

[Dit is niet zo'n goed hoofdstuk. Het is te oppervlakkig, te anecdotisch, ik mis echte vergelijkingen en analyses. En ik proef een stiekem chauvinisme en zie weinig begrip voor de maatschappelijke kant. Anapol is toch wel erg klinisch psycholoog en erg veilig gericht op persoonlijke groei.]

(213) 10 - Polyamory in myth, archetypes, and human evolution

"As our expectations for family life shift from the bare essentials of producing offspring to fulfilling the myriad psychological and spiritual needs of highly developed human beings, the primacy of the couple is being challenged.
There is something very special, very romantic, about the notion of two starry-eyed lovers locked in a close embrace. There is a yearning in our hearts for union with a twin soul or soul mate. But most often, the dream of happily ever after turns out to be a fantasy that is almost the polar opposite of the reality. While most of us long for that perfect mirror, few can tolerate the reflection."(213-214)

"If we insist on limiting love to two partners, we risk irreparable damage to fragile human ecosystems that thrive on diversity and complexity. Conversely, a variety of relationship niches allows everyone to find a place that fits their individual needs and desires. This kind of diversity is the hallmark of the natural world."(214)

Volgen allerlei voorbeelden van liefde tussen drie en vier mensen, en in andere samenstellingen.

"Speculation about the mating habits of prehistoric humans as well as observation of present-day nonhuman primates are other sources of data often called on to validate our current conjugal practices. It’s interesting to note that most scholars don’t bother to ask whether males prefer or will accept multiple mates. It’s assumed that the male will gladly take on as many females as he can gain access to. The big question is always whether females will accept more than one male or, sometimes, whether her consorts are willing to share her with other males.
As we discussed in chapter 1, despite the unscientific but well-publicized explanatory fictions invented by some culture-bound twentieth-century sociobiologists that treat monogamy as an evolutionary mandate, the weight of evidence suggests that early humans were not monogamous."(223)

[Let op het voorzichtige taalgebruik. En weer besteedt ze aandacht aan al die onzin over 'sperm competition', terwijl ze zelf al alle argumenten heeft gegeven tegen dat idee. Er volgen er weer een paar. Maar weer wordt het principiële probleem aan dat soort opvattingen niet aangepakt. Al die vergelijkingen met dieren en hun gedrag zijn ondoordacht, vind ik.]

(229) 11 - Costs and benefits of polyamory

"While polyamorists have often been accused of being irresponsible and selfish hedonists, the reality is that the potential benefits of practicing polyamory extend far beyond the personal to encompass transformative impacts on our whole culture. The difficulties associated with polyamory affect primarily the individuals directly involved. Despite the fears of fundamentalist religious groups that have concerns about morality and family values, when polyamorous relationships succeed, they strengthen families and instill a greater sense of responsibility and integrity in those concerned."(229)

"I admit I have a bias. Based on my understanding of the critical challenges facing humanity at the dawn of the twenty-first-century, which include environmental pollution, global warming, impending shortages of fossil fuels, clean drinking water, nontoxic food, overpopulation, economic crises, and the threat of war, epidemics, and natural disasters, I have a hard time seeing how polyamory could make any of these difficulties any worse. Quite the contrary, there are many reasons to think it might help.
Any kind of successful loving relationship is a boon to those directly involved in it. The main difficulty with polyamory is that it’s hard to do it well. In fact, for some people, it’s probably impossible, but the same could be said for monogamy." [mijn nadruk] (229-230)

"The social and ecological problems associated with monogamy are problems not so much with monogamy per se as with a grudgingly tolerated monogamous union embedded in the nuclear family and precariously held in place by religious and civil institutions. The nuclear family is a relatively recent social experiment and is quickly becoming a relic of the past. Numerous critics from many disciplines have thoroughly exposed the dysfunctions of the nuclear family, but no one is talking about what will take its place. It would benefit us all to encourage experiments with other possibilities, and polyamory is certainly one candidate.
Lest we rush blindly into this exploration, let’s begin by taking a brief look at some of the problems associated with polyamory. Most people have been overexposed to criticisms of polyamory. Unfavorable comparisons with monogamy are still the norm in our culture even when accusations of immorality are withheld. Consequently, the downside of polyamory requires less elaboration than its benefits, but this should not be seen as a dismissal of the very real liabilities associated with polyamory. After a mention of these, we’ll take a look at how polyamory can make a contribution to the planet as a whole before considering its personal and social benefits."(230)

[Een uitwerking van alle nadelen aan monogamie ter vergelijking zou toch werkelijk handig zijn. Maar nee, ze durft het niet aan, de kritiek is er wel, maar zo vaag en indirect als maar kan.]

"For many people, the risk of rejection by family, neighbors, friends, and coworkers leads them to reject polyamory. For those who are strongly motivated to be seen in a positive light by others, this consideration alone is a deal breaker."(231)

"Politics is one field in which polyamory presents an ever-present danger, particularly in an era where strategists desperate to win an election will publicize personal information that was once off limits to journalists."(231)

"As we discussed in chapter 4, if partners are able to relate with self-responsibility and integrity, drama need not be part of polyamorous relating. But as long as our culture endorses monogamy and socializes our young people to expect sexual exclusivity, we can expect jealousy to be a major obstacle. While polyamory has the potential to reduce stress, it also has the potential to increase stress."(232)

"Challenges with time management and coordination are probably an inevitable part of polyamorous relating."(232)

"Dr. James Prescott is a developmental neuropsychologist and former researcher at the National Institute of Child Health. On the basis of extensive laboratory research with animals, he theorized that the deprivation of physical sensory pleasure is the principal root cause of violence. "(235)

"Polyamory breaks down cultural patterns of control as well as ownership and property rights between persons and, by replacing them with a family milieu of unconditional love, trust, and respect, provides an avenue to the creation of a more just and peaceful world. By changing the size, structure, and emotional context of the family, the personalities of the children developing in these families naturally change. Children learn by example. We cannot teach our children to share and to love one another when we jealously guard and covertly control our most precious possessions — our spouses. By making the boundaries of the family more flexible and more permeable to the outside world, we set the stage for a new worldview in which we recognize our kinship with all of humanity."(239)

"Because multiple-partner relationships are inherently more complex and demanding than monogamous ones and because they challenge the norms of our culture, they offer other valuable learning opportunities. Lessons about loving yourself, about tolerance for diversity, about speaking from the heart and communicating clearly, and about learning to trust an internal sense of rightness and to think for yourself rather than blindly relying on outside opinion are only a sampling of the lessons. These qualities are earmarks of an emotionally and spiritually mature person — the kind of person who makes a good parent and who can contribute to his or her community."(241)

"One of the most common concerns about polyamory is that it’s harmful to children, but nothing could be farther from the truth. As we saw in chapter 7, multiple-adult families and committed intimate networks have the potential of providing dependent children with additional nurturing adults who can meet their material, intellectual, and emotional needs. While parents may end up focusing less attention on their children, children may gain new aunts, uncles, and adopted parents." [mijn nadruk] (241)

"Polyamory can mean a higher standard of living while consuming fewer resources. Sexualoving partners are more likely than friends or neighbors to feel comfortable sharing housing, transportation, appliances, and other resources. Even if partners don’t live communally, they frequently share meals, help each other with household repairs and projects, and vacation together. This kind of cooperation helps provide a higher quality of life while reducing individual consumption as well as keeping people too busy to overconsume. Multiple partners also help in the renewal of our devastated human ecology by creating a sense of bonded community."(242)