Polyamory book review

[flexagon]

I have to write a book review of Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits so that I can lend the actual book to a friend.

Before getting into it, I'll say that I did find this an enjoyable and interesting read. I mostly liked it. I know for sure that I would have felt threatened by it when I was younger, but these days it's much easier for me to feel that what works for some people may not work for me, and that's okay... no really, like that's actually just fine. I know a fair number of people who are poly and thought this would be an interesting read, and it was.

It was funny at times, like the cartoon where a guy says "Did you say responsible nonmonotony"?

It was sane at times, like this: Being committed to a relationship doesn't have to mean sticking around forever, no matter what. It does mean having a lifelong intention to support each other in whatever ways seem appropriate.

I also give this one props for encouraging responsibility. If you are in an ongoing polyamorous relationship with one or more people, your partners need to know that you will not duck out of the relationship on a whim, or because you got scared, or because you've found someone else who wants you to be monogamous. That last point is interesting -- there's some discussion somewhere of the idea that one can be more secure in a poly relationship than a monogamous one, because in polyamory there's no concept of "trading up". If your partner finds someone else who is incredibly attractive to them, they won't leave you, they may just try to add the other person. (Of course, some versions of monogamy would also say that they won't leave you, they will ignore their attraction and wait for the other person or attraction to go away. But I digress.)

On that topic, though, The unspoken assumption here is that engaging in sex makes falling in love more likely, and that falling in love with a new person means falling out of love with an existing partner. In fact, some people routinely operate this way, while others do not, irrespective of their identity as polyamorous or monogamous. Sigh, now we're getting irresponsible. I'd actually say that a person who falls out of love with an old partner upon falling in love should not be polyamorous -- that is, if there's a commitment to staying in love in that first relationship, one shouldn't purposely do things that will destroy that state, because under those circumstances falling in love with a new person is breaking a commitment, even if sex was explicitly allowed. Bah.

I also really have a hard time buying polyamory as a sexual orientation. Somewhere in the book it says that someone in a "closed" poly group, or polyfi, may be less likely to cheat on the group than someone in a monogamous relationship. I don't buy that at all... it makes more sense to me that either you're willing to channel your sexual expression into, well, channels, in order to harness it for the good of a family-type thing, or you're not. I can certainly see being too exhausted by the constant relationship-work to even think about it... but that's different in theory, right? :)

You apparently have to be a saint to practice successful polyamory. The eight steps for successful polyamory recommended here are pretty amusing... optimal health and mastering communication are only two of them, with little things like loving yourself and conquering any addictions being minor things mentioned in those sections. You also have to have the free time and energy to handle dating two or more people at once (and here is another area where there's just no way, in my life.)

Here's the quote that made me laugh hardest, though: The mix of emotions generated by sharing a sexual partner are similar in many ways to the emotions generated by parenting children. Rage, frustration, feeling out of control, pushed beyond your limits, isolated... OMG, I have every belief that this is indeed an apt comparison. Count me ouuuuuuut! Even if the majority manage somehow and almost always learn a great deal about themselves in the process.

So, no news here: as you knew already, I'm not poly when it comes to sex. I like the honesty part, and I'd rather wind up poly than being straight-up cheated on, yes, but I'd rather continue in happy monotony, or whatever. ;) Here are two questions for the poly people out there, though (or those who know a lot about the culture):

1) Is "poly" really an orientation, distinct from bisexuality or whatever? I can imagine being bisexual in a way that I wouldn't be happy without both a male and a female lover. But if you were straight (or 100% gay) but poly, could you really not be happy being faithful to one person, but be happy being faithful to two? If so, any idea why two would be the magic number?

2) Compersion is the opposite of jealousy, "when we take delight in a beloved's love for another". This book stumbles on that definition a bit when trying to describe it to people who haven't felt it, but... does it have to be about sex? Don't a lot of people feel a weaker form of it when seeing their partner with a child, or with a pet, or seeing their parents together, etc?

In closing: I'm obviously already poly when it doesn't come to sex. In a way, when you get down to it, there are too many excellent nonsexual things in the world to spend that much of my life on sex and people. I love my bug, and my kitty, and his kitty, and Boston, and coffee, and books, and yoga, and knitting, and being upside-down, and engineering, and my friends, and juggling, and roller coasters... I love the whole world, and that's why I'm usually exhausted, boom de yada, boom de yada. :)

Comments

[soong.livejournal.com]

1. uh, possibly. It probably is as much an 'orientation' (whatever that is) as introversion or extraversion. I like working alone or in small groups and don't social butterfly around the room at large parties, other people have other ways. I've heard some people say "I've always known" or had stories of when they realized it as something about themselves which they feel is integral and instinctive. In that sense it's every bit the orientation as straight, bi or gay. But I think it's not only that and in some people it's arrived at or learned or constructed. I think this is also the cue for some song in the style of Avenue Q which can wax poetic about how "everyone's a little bit poly" and sometimes you don't want to stop with just one.

2. 'Compersion' as I've heard it used applies to when A is dating* B and B is dating C and B and C are doing some awesome mushy dating couple thing and A thinks it's awesome and is happy for them. (* 'dating' filling in here for a wide variety of relationship dynamics) You are correct that any time you might honestly feel or say "I'm so happy for you" that is a similar experience. I think compersion might also be notable as the opposite of jealousy. I just made up that last bit, but I stared at it for 20 seconds and it still sounds right.

boom de yada

[flexagon]

Re #2: The book says, Compersion is a term invented by the now defunct Kerista community to describe an emotion which is the opposite of jealousy. So, you're absolutely right. Also, I happen to love this idea (it's so damn nice!) and I wish the term would come into more common, sometimes-nonsexual usage, the way the word "jealousy" has.

"Everyone's a little bit poly" would have made a great Avenue Q song.

[perfectbound.livejournal.com]

1. some say so. i don't, but i haven't liked being monogamous in serious relationships once they get long-term. two isn't a magic number; it's allowing for the possibility of >1 that is important.

2. yes, you're right.

[flexagon]

i haven't liked being monogamous in serious relationships once they get long-term.

I have to allow for the possibility that I could feel like that too; I only really know how relationships go for the first 9.5 years. :)

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

1) i know people who consider themselves poly-as-an-orientation (i tend to think of it as "obligate poly"), but by no means do all polyamorous people do so.

side note: i first ran across the idea of polyamory in robert heinlein and spider robinson's books, which had characters who just didn't ever get jealous. i've come to think of this as the "jealousy centers excised with lasers" model of polyamory. i've always known that wasn't me, and it led me to think "ok, there are poly people and monogamous people and i'm not poly." hearing "obligate poly" friends talk about dealing with jealousy went a long way towards humanizing the idea for me. they still talked about jealousy in subtly different ways than monogamous culture tends to frame it; but they clearly did experience and deal with it.

i don't have any reason to think that 2 is a magic number in general. however, i do hear people talking about having discovered that they have a fairly well-defined pool of emotional attention which can only effectively cover n major relationships. different people seem to have different ns.

in some ways, having a well-defined n seems to return many of the problems of monogamy: fears about "trading up" return, for instance, if your partner is already dating his or her n people. not all the poly folks i know seem to buy into the n model, though.

2) i agree with soong about compersion. i also note that poly culture seems prone to awkward-sounding neologisms like that one (however useful a concept i find it...) alas.