Polyamory & Intimate Relationships

Below are some excerpts from an article on Wikipedia about Polyamory.

Polyamory (from Greek πολυ (poly, meaning many or several) and Latin amor (literally “love”) (and from polygamy) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, generally with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Polyamorous perspectives differ from monogamous perspectives, in that they reflect one or more partner's wish(es) to have further meaningful relationships and to accommodate these alongside their existing relationships.

The term polyamory is sometimes abbreviated to poly, especially as a form of self-description, and is sometimes described as consensual and/or responsible non-monogamy.

Polyamory is usually taken as a description of a lifestyle or relational choice and philosophy, rather than of an individual's actual relationship status at a given moment. It is an umbrella term that covers many orientations and modes of relationship. There is fluidity in its definition to accommodate the different shades of meaning which might be covered. Polyamorous relationships are themselves varied, reflecting the choices and philosophies of the individuals concerned.

Polyamory is distinct from polygamy, being closer to a personal outlook than a predefined bonding system. It is grounded in such concepts as choice, trust, equality of free will, and the more novel idea of compersion, rather than in cultural or religious tradition.


Because of its fluid nature, polyamory is sometimes loosely defined. Nevertheless, people who identify as polyamorous typically reject the view that sexual and relational exclusivity are always necessary for long-term loving relationships. Those who are open to, or emotionally suited for a polyamorous lifestyle, may at times be single, or in monogamous relationships, but are more typically involved in multiple long term relationships.

Polyamorous relationships, in practice, are highly varied and individualized. Ideally they are built upon values of trust, loyalty, negotiation, and compersion, as well as rejection of jealousy, possessiveness, and restrictive cultural standards.[1] Such relationships are often more fluid than the traditional "dating and marriage" model of long-term relationships, and the participants in a polyamorous relationship may not have preconceptions as to duration.

Sex is not necessarily a primary focus in polyamorous relationships. Polyamorous relationships commonly consist of groups of more than two people seeking to build a long-term future together on mutually agreeable grounds, with sex as only one aspect of their relationship.

Values within polyamory

Relationships classed as polyamorous involve an emotional bond and often a longer term intent, though these distinctions are a topic open to debate and interpretation.

Also note that the values discussed here are ideals. As with any ideals, their adherents sometimes fall short of the mark — but major breaches of a polyamorous relationship's ideals are taken as seriously as such breaches would be in any other relationship. Common values cited within such relationships include:

  • Fidelity and loyalty: Many polyamorists define fidelity as being faithful to the promises and agreements they have made, rather than in terms of per se sexual exclusivity. Having a secret sexual relationship which violated one's negotiated agreements would be seen as lacking fidelity. Polyamorists generally base definitions of commitment on considerations other than sexual exclusivity, e.g. "trust and honesty" or "growing old together".[18]
  • Trust, honesty, dignity and respect: Most polyamorists emphasize respect, trust and honesty for all partners.[19][20] A partner's partners should be accepted as part of that person's life rather than merely tolerated, and a relationship that requires deception, or where partners are not allowed to express their individual lives, is often seen as a poor model.
  • Mutual support: This requires that each partner will support, and not undermine, the other, and will not deliberately use a secondary relationship to harm another party or relationship.
  • Communication and negotiation: Because there is no "standard model" for polyamorous relationships, and reliance upon common expectations may not be realistic, polyamorists often advocate explicitly deciding the ground rules of their relationships with all concerned, and often emphasize that this should be an ongoing process of communication and respect. Polyamorists usually take a pragmatic approach to their relationships; they accept that sometimes they and their partners will make mistakes and fail to live up to these ideals, and that communication is important for repairing any breaches.[19][20]
  • Non-possessiveness: Polyamorists believe that restrictions on other deep relationships are not for the best, as they tend to replace trust with a framework of ownership and control. They tend to see their partner's partners in terms of the gain to their partner's life rather than the threat to their own (see compersion). Poly relationships do vary and some can be possessive or provide for the primary partner's veto or approval, whilst others are asymmetrical—possessive one way, but not the other.


Philosophical aspects

As with many lifestyles, there is considerable active discussion about philosophical approaches to polyamory.

In Echlin's article in The Guardian, five reasons for choosing polyamory are identified: a drive towards female independence and equality driven by feminism; disillusionment with monogamy; a yearning for community; honesty and realism in respect of relational nature of human beings; human nature; and individual non-matching of the traditional monogamous stereotype. Jim Fleckenstein, director of the Institute for 21st-Century Relationships, is quoted as stating that the polyamory movement has been driven not only by science fiction, but also by feminism: "Increased financial independence means that women can build relationships the way they want to." The disillusionment with monogamy is said to be "because of widespread cheating and divorce". The longing for community is associated with a felt need for the richness of "complex and deep relationships through extended networks" in response to the replacement and fragmentation of the extended family by nuclear families. "For many," Echlin writes, "it is a hankering for community …we have become increasingly alienated, partly because of the 20th century's replacement of the extended family with the nuclear family. As a result, many of us are striving to create complex and deep relationships through extended networks of multiple lovers and extended families". Others speak of creating an "honest responsible and socially acceptable" version of non-monogamy — "since so many people are already non-monogamous, why not develop a non-monogamy that is honest, responsible and socially acceptable? …It seems weird that having affairs is OK but being upfront about it is rocking the boat." "Polys agree that some people are monogamous by nature. But some of us are not, and more and more are refusing to be shoehorned into monogamy."[32]

A sixth reason, a couple's response to a failure of monogamy, by reaching a consensus to accept the additional relationship, is identified by other authors.[33]

Because of the heightened trust and self-determination required for a polyamorous relationship, some who practice polyamory consider it a superior form of relating to people. Monogamist opponents of polyamory often claim that it weakens, or is a failure to adhere to, the values that others in society uphold. Many who practice polyamory would probably prefer not to philosophize, but simply hold that polyamory works for them. 


Division of love

In The Ethical Slut, Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy (writing as 'Catherine Liszt') described an argument against polyamory to the effect that, when one's love is divided among multiple partners, the love is lessened. They referred to this as a "starvation economy" argument, because it treats love as a scarce commodity (like food or other resources) that can be given to one person only by taking it away from another. This is sometimes called a "Malthusian argument", after Malthus' writings on finite resources.

Many polyamorists, including Easton and Hardy, reject the idea that dividing love among multiple partners automatically lessens it. A commonly-invoked argument uses an analogy with a parent who has two children—the parent does not love either of them any less because of the existence of the other.[39]

A more common view is that since each relationship requires time and energy, most polyamorists do not simply acquire relationships open-endedly.

Another viewpoint is that the love from the third is just added to the total amount of the couple, and therefore, the amount of love is increased because all parties are providing it to all other parties


See whole article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory


I'm curious to hear what people's views are on the subject of intimate relationships, attachment, jealousy and sexuality.

davelambert's picture

...but it isn't the only working model. For myself, a serial monogamist, it works because I am basically a very loyal sort, sometimes foolishly loyal it's true, and I have a few scars to remind me. I'm presently married for the third time, and for the first time in either of our lives, my mate and I share a belief and knowledge that we are soulmates, known to each other many times in the past.

On the other hand, I have considered many of the issues you bring up. My wife is older than I, and her health is not good. The temptation is often there to find some "special friend" who could take care of certain things that my Princess cannot. I do not go there, and the reason is that an unsullied relationship is worth more to me at this stage of my life than any other kind.

And I know discussion could be undertaken about the word sullied. Her reality is also mine, because I make it so. Whether or not I would consider the relationship sullied by an affair is immaterial. And the effort of loyalty repays me well, in all ways save one. Even though it was not so when we first married, and I have watched her health fail gradually over the years, the changing dynamic of our dedication to each other has brought us both to places that we both yearned a lifetime for and never gave up the heart's belief in.

Honestly, it hasn't always been easy. I'm so short I've been compared to a leprechaun my whole life, but I must have a certain je-ne-sais-quoi judging from the number of phone numbers I could have if I wanted them. But when I feel the chemistry start to flow, I say something about my wife. I don't stop smiling, and I don't drop my eyes. There is seldom an awkward moment.

Before I met Nafetah, and after my previous wife left me, I was lost for a while in a dark place where I had very little use for women. Only one in fact, and I preferred to pay for it. My wife and I have talked openly about this, there is no judgment between us. That was then, this is now: I have never seen any need to apologize for it.

I have no judgment whatsoever of those who pursue a different path. It's not my job. I was around during the 60s and 70s, and there were plenty of ad hoc experiments in various ways of pursuing relationships. I've tried a lot of things, and seen more. The way I've chosen is the right one for me. Those are my own thoughts on the subject - my current ones, anyway.


UrsulaD's picture

I think that if it works for you, that is great. I have no judgment on relationships as long as they are honest and open. I think these sort of relationships need to be initiated when one is fairly young and you can then all 'grow old' together. I somehow cannot see it working for us 'older' people as there are too many ingrained belief systems involved. I was only married once and when my husband died 12 years ago, I chose to stay on my own. Most men of my age group - and I can only speak of the men here in S.A. - are looking for a 'mommy' to cook, wash, clean, etc and I really don't chose to do that anymore for somebody else. Then of course there is my belief system. To find open-minded older men, well that is not easy either, so while it would be great to have somebody on a similar wavelength, I would rather stay on my own than compromise myself.
So, all I can say, whatever blows your hair back, go for it and do harm to none!!
Love U

Noa's picture

I can't help feel that polygamy is chauvenistic.  This is because the only polygamist relationships I know of consist of one man with more than one woman.  Now perhaps, if the females are bisexual it could be an equal symbiotic relationship.  Otherwise, they're just waiting for their "turn." 

On the other hand, when I was married, I often felt I could use a wife to carry some of the work load.  Afterall, taking care of a husband, children, and a house is like having two full time jobs without the benefit of "clocking out."

Hi Noa,

Please forgive me but I just noticed that after saying that you feel polygamy is chauvenistic you describe a marriage setup that is totally chauvenistic..ie sounds like your husband doesn't help with the house work or taking care of the kids etc.....maybe chauvenism is it's own problem.....




ChrisBowers's picture

What I sensed when I read your comment Noa (and this may very well be me projecting my own world view experiences to date) is some form of religious imprint.  If there is any truth to that, one may find some psyche relief in realizing that religion, one of the most intoxicating forms of belief system, has been intentionally engineered over time by social engineers intent on keeping the sheep in line.

As I began to really get the core gist of this fact I found a very natural and guiltless distancing from former strongly held religious beliefs that were, in essence, irresponsible displacement of my divine sovereignty.  Transcending the saviorship model will most definitely be on the human evolution menu.....

Until then we will see what we have been seeing for so long now.  Emotional polarization based almost or entirely upon trained illusion.  Much like two people on acid debating which illusory experience is infallible truth for all of mankind, LOL

ksaulino's picture

Chris, that was a priceless allegory!  (or is that a metaphor?)  :)

As a woman, I'll chime in. 

I think the world could do much better if people didn't hold a sense of ownership over one another as in our current world view.  I have a rich array of friends - both male and female, that feed me in different ways.  I have much love in my heart for each of them.  If I were married in a traditional sense, I believe (and know, based on my history) that my partner would not be comfortable with the interactions I have with my male friends, and I would not be free to have lunch with them, or have much more in the way of conversation, than chit chat with them.  That caused either a gap in my own sense of wholeness, or feelings of guilt for spending time behind the back of my then spouse.  Likewise, a married or "attached" man (what a telling idiom!) will have his own guilt in just sharing a meal and conversation with a woman that he cares for.  Ugh!  All unhealthy stuff. 

I think if we could release our sense of ownership of another person, jealousy would cease.  We would come home to a partner who wants to be there, and is whole and fed by their rich and meaningful friendships with all types of people.  Does this mean sex with a whole bunch of men?  Not necessarily.  Could it?  I suppose so... though that's not really what I'm getting at. It does strike me as interesting that there is no time in the male / female life cycles in which their respective sex drives are equal.  Maybe that could help us understand how partnership could work.  Maybe in the coming times, people will congregate in more communal living and it will be easier to work through what all that might look like.

We're ruled by guilt and "shoulds" in a lot of ways in the Western world (not really sure about other places).  The thing is, I'm not sure any of that really serves us all that well. 

Just my two cents... 

Lots of love,



ChrisBowers's picture

Patriarchal social constructs and Matriarchal social constructs.  The former has an endless gauntlet of controlling mechanisms/dictates/statutes and the latter, no property lines, states, countries, marriage contracts, etc...

It is refreshing to see that we are coming to the end of this present dogmatic despotic Patriarchal mood swing.  If I understand the cycles correctly, they go yin and yang, back and forth, every 13,000 years.  One truth I find great solace in is that we are all a blend of male and female.  This particular incarnation I am more male than female, while you may be more female than male in yours, but none is ever completely male or completely female.

This understanding dispels/diffuses so much needless illusory polarization.  The Patriarchal mood swing holds for so much of this needless illusory nonsense, but obviously has its place as catalyst for evolving, in spite of the presumptuous insanity it seems to invoke.  I for one am very much looking forward to a bit of serene relief with the first part of the next cycle.....

Noa's picture

No, my comment was not based on religious teachings or guilt.  For me, it's about equality.  I could see myself living in a loving communal environment given the right circumstances.

More to the point, I do not know of any instances of one woman living with several "husbands," do you?


ChrisBowers's picture

Makes perfect sense to me now Noa.  I must have been projecting my own something or other (as I suspected in former post).  Women have definitely received the "short end of the stick" in this particular segment of this present cycle...  As I said in post above, I am looking forward to a much better sense and exercise of equanimity/balance soon....

JSTOR: American Speech, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 96-101

Noa's picture

Yes, Chris.  That was the word that came to my mind, too, but I didn't want to say it.

Thanks for your humble admission.


Interesting subject, I did a google search, 

Heres the wikipedia link, the whole thing is actually really interesting but I'll just copy the first bit here....


Polyandry (Greekpoly- many, andros- man) refers to a form of marriage in which a woman has two or more husbands at the same time. The form of polyandry in which a woman is married to two or more brothers is known as "fraternal polyandry", and it is believed by many anthropologists to be the most frequently encountered form.

Human polyandry

According to inscriptions describing the reforms of the Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash (ca. 2300 BC), he is said to have abolished the former custom of polyandry in his country, on pain of the woman taking multiple husbands being stoned with rocks upon which her crime is written.[1]

Polyandry in human relationships occurs or has occurred in TibetCanadian Arctic, northern parts of NepalNigeria,[2] Bhutan, parts of India (Ladakh,Zanskar), the Nymba, and Sri Lanka,[2] and is known to have been present in some pre-contact Polynesian societies,[3] though probably only among higher caste women.[4] It is also encountered in some regions of Mongolia, among the Mosuo people in China, and in some Sub-Saharan African such as the Maasai people in Kenya and northern Tanzania[5] and American indigenous communities. Polyandry has been practised in several cultures — in the Jaunsar region in Uttarakhand, among the Nairs, Theeyas and Toda of South India,[2] and the Nishi of Arunachal Pradesh.[6] TheGuanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, practiced polyandry until their disappearance.[7] In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law. Saskatchewan Canada is the only jurisdiction in North America to have "judicially sanctioned" polyandrous unions at a family law court level.[citation needed]

[edit]Differences of interpretation

Polyandry is a controversial subject among anthropologists. For instance, Pennsylvania anthropologist Stephen Beckerman points out that at least 20 tribal societies accept that a child could, and ideally should, have more than one father, referring to it as "partible paternity".[8] On the other hand, in Tibet, which is the best-documented cultural domain within which polyandry is practised, the certain polyandrists themselves testify that the marriage form is difficult to sustain.[citation needed]

In Tibet, polyandry has been outlawed since the Chinese takeover of the area, so it is difficult to measure the incidence of polyandry in what may have been the world's most "polyandrous" society.[2]

In other parts of the world, most traditional societies have been drastically altered or destroyed, so the incidence of polyandry in the past may not be accurately known. In India, among Tibetan refugee groups who fled the Chinese takeover of their country, polyandry is seldom encountered.[citation needed]

The Zo'e tribe in the State of Pará on the Cuminapanema RiverBrazil, also practice polyandry.[9]


The article also talks of it in the animal world and lists this as the advantages of it....

  • It is easier to ensure reproductive success (i.e. it is more likely that the female will have offspring)
  • Females may be encouraging sperm competition between males post-copulation
  • Multiple sperm lines may confer more variation in traits to female's offspring, this seems to be the case in the honey bee where bees from different sperm lines excel at different roles within a single hive, benefiting the health of the hive as a whole.
  • Females may receive food offerings from prospective mates inciting copulation
  • Offspring paternity is unknown and this can be beneficial in encouraging parental care and discouraging infanticide by males[citation needed]

Polyandry also occurs in some primates such as marmosets, mammal groups, the marsupial genus' Antechinus and bandicoots, around 1% of all bird species, such as jacanas, insects such as honeybees, and fish such as pipefish. In effect polyandry will reduce the effective population size of a given closed population.


tscout's picture

I loved the comment "2 people on an acid trip...etc", that was great, I liked "endless gauntlet" better, as I feel it sums things up better...Anytime we discuss how we humans treat or see each other, You can paste "endless gauntlet" diagonally across the conversation, because our opinions are infinite..I have started to notice over the last several years though, that as we slowly learn to love ourselves, and open to who we are becoming, our opinions align in a generalized open minded way....I guess that is us "aligning" in a sense , letting go of all the whys and whos, and boiling it down to the facts..This subject, "sexual preference" could go on until this time next year, and it would be fun to read,,,,,,But I believe that as you love yourself more, until the point that  you no longer "need" anyone else to "compliment you", or "be your other half",, Then you are much more likely to find ,or discover, your true preference, and will kindly accept any others beliefs without trouble... About 20 years ago, A channeler from the Cayce Institute,who was good friends with my mother , while channeling, told me that marriage would become, here anyways, a contract, of sorts, sometimes for just a few years, and the acceptance of it that way would become the norm..As religions break down, it would be quite easy to see that, I think...Personally, I have heard a couple of comments comparing "making love" to what it feels like to be a god, or at least, in spirit form...I agree with those, as i have been lucky enough to have a couple of partners in my life where neither of us could tell which one of us we were after a point..After experiencing times like that, "just sex" seems a waste....I wish I knew where they were now ! ha!,,Happy holidays everyone ! Peace, love , and whatever kind of sex you like !,,,,,T

Wendy's picture

I'll take a conservative viewpoint here - I'm not sure if I'm right, just feeling like another point of view could be called for. First off I agree, that as long as all are consenting and birth control methods are strictly employed, then live and let live, I'm happy for anyone who finds a way to find happiness in this world. I'm a person who feels like I got gyped by the woman's movement. In the name of women's "liberation" I was conned into persuing a carreer when I would have been much happier staying at home with the kids. I can't tell you how much I feel like the women's movement is actually all about taking feminism out of our culture and making us women into men. There's been another form of social engineering going on outside of religion that began with the women's liberation movement- it's been about break up of the family unit, taking women away from the family and the home in order to better bring about new social values. Children are more easily manipulated by schooling and forces outside the family with the break up of the family when women don't have more time to spend at home.

I wouldn't dare speak for all women, but I consider femine values to be about family values - stable relationships that make for good rearing of children. All this experimentation with more open relationships - well if it works and children have a sense of stability in their lives then it's fine in my book. What I know is that most people have a hugely difficult time with just making a relationship work with one person, nevermind more. And I don't think it's good for children to have people coming and going in there home. They need to know that parents will always be there for them no matter what.

Also, making a reletionship work with one person for a lifetime can be one path toward spiritual growth. This is a divorced person speaking so I'm not saying there isn't a time and place to change partners. But making ourselves work through the bad times with someone else certainly teaches maturity.

These are just my disjointed thoughts.... Perhaps I'm being narrow minded.


Noa's picture

Interesting.  Thanks!

ksaulino's picture

Hi, Wendy.

I think maybe you've hit on a whole new post here... I had heard a while back that the Rockefellers actually funded the "women's movement" to create more demand for consumables, and also put children in the hands of the government (in the form of daycare) for more hours per day, and at an earlier age.  I came from a very large family in which my father had a solid job as an engineer, and my mom didn't work.  Nevertheless, we all went to private school, we had only one car but it was only an inconvenience on occasion.  Maybe its my own niavite of childhood, but I never felt like we did without anything.  Now, I earn a salary that's nearly doubled the salary my father retired at, have only one child, but still tend to feel stretched and stressed over money.  How did things get this way?   Well, I truly think it was planned out.  I don't necessarily think that going back to a time where women were treated as possesions is the right answer, either, but I think there is something more positive that can come out of what we've learned.   I love being able to work... I don't necessarily love that I am required to spend so many hours away from my son every week.  By the time I get home, finish cooking, finish with the  homework machine, it's nearly time for bed.  Then we get up and do it again.

This is where we get back to the original post... so wouldn't it be kinda cool to live in a home where there are a few moms and a few dads?  Some folks work at 9 - 5 kind of jobs... some are natural nurturers and are able to do things that we traditionally see as "mom stuff".  Everyone has more time to relax in the evening, there's less stress over bill paying, more time for home cooking, so everyone's healthy from eating real food.  Maybe this is more like communal living at its heart, and not really about multiple partners.  I also don't see this as an unstable environment if everyone truly cares for one another, and lives a peaceful existance of interdependance.  Maybe that's way too utopic to even bring up.  I just have this feeling that communities will become more important in the coming years, and maybe this is how they will manifest - maybe not for all, but for some.

Lots of love,




Noa's picture

Dear Kathy:

I have been researching Ecovillages for the reasons you stated and for the sustainable ideals they usually embrace.  I have found large differences between each of them as far as primary goals and philosophies, structure, lifestyle, housing, economics, diet, etc.  I'm still looking for the right fit for me.

I think we're already seeing a trend back to the concept of community.  (Small enclosed subdivisions are a perverse example of this.  They give people a sense of belonging, though they're usually lacking in real cooperation.)   Land coops, ecovillages, and communes are not new, but they're becoming increasingly popular.  People are starting to realize what can be gained by pooling resources.

It's a good thing.




ChrisBowers's picture

and I quote,

"But I believe that as you love yourself more, until the point that  you no longer "need" anyone else to "compliment you", or "be your other half",, Then you are much more likely to find ,or discover, your true preference, and will kindly accept any others beliefs without trouble..."

that instantly struck me as a conclusion one may come to only after allowing all presumed rules and regulations, religious and otherwise, to be stripped away by honest life experience.  I always appreciate your developed world view Todd...

It sure seems humanity spends much time looking for established structures to fit into and boundaries to be set before finally returning to divine sovereign Self response ability...

evolution of the species...

to be continued...

Brian's picture

So what if people start using distance-connected human-shaped robotic assemblies for physical contact? Maybe an extension of Wii based technology or something. So you have this "doll" thing that has motorized appendages and is warm and soft. Then you hook it up via Internet with whomever-to a distance boy or girl friend and they have sensors that detect their body movements (and perhaps it's done thru their own "doll" at their house). So you have a physical partnership via technology. Of course you might then have multiple partners...and no need for proximity....sort of the ultimate phone sex/love/affection. Have I been reading too many scifi novels?

tscout's picture

 Friend, I only repeated what you have already said beneath your photo,,"determining nothing and enjoying all the wonderous possibilities",, I can t think of a better place to apply that than in making love,ha!..No really, I am kind of "stuck in", and enjoying being stuck in that "forget everything we know and start over" mode...and it feels good,refreshing, especially when I am with my son...I think about how my dad always had the answer, or "an answer" for all my questions when I was a kid,,and how much damage he was doing. (unknowingly of course)...Now I try to offer up "possible scenarios " in response to his questions..always reminding him that there could be a million answers...Of course, I don t do that with math, but anyone with a kid knows what kind of questions I am talking about...My favorite answer is, "What do you want it to be"?..................And Brian, If you see one of those dolls on the market, post it ! ha!...........And about the "equality" issue Noa and Chris spoke of earlier,,I have to say,,I have been making some friends in China since last summer,,Yes, women, through one of the more legit websites,,All the women have to verify,work,phone,address, logistics,blah blah,,and I was amazed ..These women will speak very openly if you spend a little time with them(and be honest with them),and they are mostly trying to get out of their society to find equality with men..That is all they want..I have met,doctors,lawyers,upper management,scientists, willing to give up everything just to have a husband,lover,etc., that will treat them as an equal....The part I am having trouble with is that so many of them think that they are seeking their other half...thinking that I, or some other man,can make them whole...I think that many of them would also do good in a new communal setting,maybe not in a communal sex setting, as I have found most to be quite traditional, but they seem to be very good at working together..I think they are better at seeing the value of helping another as helping oneself than we are here in America, as they are schooled that way, in groups..If one of the group fails, everyone fails,so they halp each other...Reading about the 130 million migrant workers there, and why they come from the country , and go back,has changed everything I have ever heard about China..and the people,which has become a big lesson in "forgetting everything we know about something,and starting over"..I couldn t begin to count the wisecracks I have heard about China, just since our recession kicked in,,and now I know that 99 percent of all that people talk about is unfounded, or biased at best...If I am lucky enough to go there this year, I will go with a clean slate.....Hope 2011 has been kind to all so far, and don t forget, their is a partial solar eclipse tomorrow on the new moon, and meteor showers,this is actually the time to start anew,if you are so inclined !

Wendy's picture

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for your thoughts. I can totally relate, this crazy dayly grind society expects of us now is what I'm talking about. Hope you find a way to get more relaxation time with your son. I agree that communal living is a good idea, I just don't think it usually works well where multiple sexual relationships are involved. I think it's interesting how this post has turned into a dialogue of women talking to women and men talking to men, so I'll break it up a bit - Brian, you're a hoot!


Noa's picture

Dear Brian:

I believe you can find a prototype for your robotic love in Woody Allen's movie, "Bananas."  He calls it the "orgasmatron."

With love, in all its forms,


ChrisBowers's picture

I think that was Sleeper from 1973 Noa, and doesn't adequately address the proximity issue (the Orgasmatron), but remains a great ad for Volkswagon (remember the VW Bug he finds in the cave and it starts right up?), LOL.  Robots, robot lovers, surrogates, like the movie "Surrogates" with Bruce Willis wherein the actual people were at home laying prostrate and motionless in the device that connects their minds to the robot surrogates.  Great movie with a bit of a subtle warning!

Robot pastors and priests complete with return of robot Jesus...  Talk about upgrades in social engineering!

And well said Todd, such a fine liberating feeling when the mind is given a bit of abstract relief by not looking to determine anything at all for short spells in "Now" Land.  I would do well to make those "spells" last longer and longer by design....

Noa's picture

Of course, now I remember, Chris.  (Reference to Brian's post.)  I believe there are already cyber Avatars in sexual scenarios available now.  The tactile technology could soon be on its way.

Another layer to isolate and distract us from real life, perhaps?  Gives new meaning to internet dating.


Open relationships require a high level of unity consciousness.  Honesty and respect, Love and acceptance are essential.  Many males are unable to commit to an open relationship.  Often they will say they are all for it and then descend into Alpha male behavior. (ownership and male privledge behavior).


Group marriages in all its forms are not for the faint hearted.  Plan on high levels of inner work to make it work!  Often it does not or does for a time.  Often this type of scenario attracts what I call feeders. The like to play a game:  the game is this:  pit them all against each other and watch the fireworks.  Then claim innocence.  A group marriage is often a manipulators wet dream. 

Feminism for me as a mother for many years succeed in getting me to feel guilty that I could not be the "super" mom.  I simply lacked the energy to work 60 hours a week at a dead end job, watch my child be parented by day care providers who had completely different values than I, and barely make ends meet.  The frequent question was :  "Gee do I pay the electric bill or feed us?  Gee do I feed my child corn syrup laden cheap GMO foods or do I not pay my bills and feed my child good food.?" 

To me this is the legacy of feminism.  Latch key kids, poverty, and children who are raised by a technocracy.    I see nothing in Feminism that speaks to Polyandry.  It instead speaks of how a woman should be just like a man.  Yep.  Just like a Man. 

Equality on the other hand is about seeing all as Equal.  All as capable with infinite gifts and skills that are valuable to  the World.  Equality is about supporting others in their sacred tasks such as childrearing. 

I am sorry I just can not buy the load of bull that birth control is nefarious PTB plan to do us all in.  I for one am very happy I am not continuous impregnated everytime I choose to have sex and am not already pregnant.  I for one am very delighted that I can plan when I have my next child with a birth control method that fits my body type and lifestyle.  I for one see birth control as a way to liberate me from the continous cycle of pregnancy and birth.  Excessive childbearing is one of the greatest obstacles to female equality.  It simply is not possible to commit to a spiritual practice when you are continous nursing children, feeding children and clothing children.  It is not possible. 

I laugh everytime I see the whole conspiracy thing concerning birth control.  Give me a break!  How many of you have used condoms during sex?  How about the ohhh sh#t feeling when one breaks.  HAHA!  Take that you nefarious PTB.  "Every sperm is sacred."    Riiiight.

I remember seeing a documentary on Polyandry in Tibet.  Tibetan Marriages are usually arranged.  If a man and woman falls in love and rejects the arranged marriage.  The woman as payment must be "wife" to each male in the man's family.  It takes years before it is his turn to have his love as his wife.  To me this is just another form of perverse patriarchy.  It in no way elevates or even satisfies the wants, needs or aspirations of a woman. 


Trish's picture

Hello everyone,

I'm coming in three years late on the topic, but given that we 'resurrected' the post about the illusion of time six years later, I figured it would be ok. Laughing

Reading the description of polyamory, I believe I could reasonably describe myself as polyamorous, although I have only ever had sex with my husband and partner of fifteen years, and he with me.

I find both males and females attractive, and I have identified with stories where the character realizes he/she loves multiple people equally, and they decide mutually to be in a polyamorous relationship. I deeply agree with the values listed in the first post, in my marriage and in my various friendships with people.

I have no idea whether these ideas and attractions will ever play out in my lifetime, because I am very happy with my husband and I haven't met anyone else with whom I have had the same level of intimacy, openness, and enjoyment.

Just a few months ago, I met someone who said he was staying with a married couple that I used to know from church days; after talking for a bit and seeing that I was friendly and open, he said that he is actually in a polyamorous relationship with them, and they chose to all live together. I was very surprised, because I knew them from church days, but I found that knowing that didn't change my impression of them as very kind and loving people.

We got together at their place and had a great time chatting over coffee. I could see that the three of them had a very loving dynamic, and it seemed apparent to me that the three of them all loved each other equally. There are two sets of children, and they all live in the same house together. I haven't heard their story yet, but I believe they have been through some hard times with their respective extended families over their choices.

I think it's beautiful that humans can express and explore their sexuality in a variety of ways, especially when each holds a deep respect and acceptance of the other, including themselves. <3

With love,


Starmonkey's picture

great example of one female and two males!  although they couldn't all live together indefinitely, the males made her choose (or they did, i guess).  all of the info regarding pleiadean relationships takes it to those levels, as well.  good stuff.  another great example (although "fiction") is in cat's cradle by kurt vonnegut jr. & the shared act of "boko-maru" where the participants sit face-to-face with the soles of their feet touching.  no sex involved.  it's funny that people are so programmed into the association of sex with love.  that's where all the possessiveness happens.  we're exchanging that energy all the time, and if people would just be more free with it, wonderful things would happen.  it's also why people get so crazy about controlling children and adolescents...  they have to be taught to be selfish with their energy...  after all, sex is for making babies!  but orgone energy makes it possible for all of us to even BE here.

Starmonkey's picture

by the by...  i've been with my current partner for nine years and we've been married since 6/9/12.  we enjoy expressing our attraction to other individuals and even flirting with the idea of more...  but all of the levels of programming and beliefs don't allow for that to be a healthy endeavor at this time.  but we are both open enough to the point that she has male and female "crushes" and so do i.  we're attracted usually because of the way a person carries themself or their "stilo" (style).  i'm attracted to good form and posture because i was raised around dancing and gymnastics as a child...

but those are by no means limits or definitions of someone having their "love-light" on.  any age or sex or race can be open to sharing that energy.  it's in the eyes!  and the rest of the face cues you in to what's going on with the person, as well...  just keep your focus "higher" (solar plexus/heart and above) and disregard the lower energies based in the physical.

Trish's picture

Thank you, Starmonkey, for your insights. Yes, I see how exchanges of energy and attraction are happening all the time on many levels; I seem to be very sensitive to that, and so I developed a fear of the vulnerability and melding of identity that can occur without warning. I close myself down very tightly in social situations, but I am slowly learning to open up again and allow myself to experience the wonder of those spontaneous, uncontrolled exchanges of energy and emotion.

I seem to be afraid that if I let go and become completely immersed in the flow of energy or emotion, that I will lose self-consciousness and humiliate myself in some way... interesting.

So, my priority above else is to be conscious and in control over my actions at all times. This is a great insight! This priority served me when I was trying to stop getting bullied, but it doesn't serve me anymore.

This is great food for reflection and transformation, thank you!


Starmonkey's picture

thanks for your open sharing and vulnerablility, trish.  it is so confusing out there with energies, and you can't trust everyone.  and, unfortunately a big reason for that is because of how we see ourselves.  if people would associate with the higher concepts more and more, they would become that.  but they've been led to believe they are imperfect and "making do" and failure are their lot in life.

try this concept on for size to further complicate things.  the ancient egyptians and i'm sure some others believed we had several archetypical personas each (most systems range from 7-9) and that the trick was getting them all to communicate effectively.  and they will be slightly different for every individual.  i wouldn't know how to exactly designate them (anyone?), but there are opposite sexes and perspectives for different situations.  so, superficially superimpose child, adolescent, adult and elder with the sexes...  and you can begin to see...  we aren't just one solid personality.  different parts are needed for different situations.  ultimately, in the presence of those you can trust and count on, the most wonderful (especially for us "gettin older" types) expression is to be able to let your inner child out to play and wonder at the magnificence of it all...  and, as humans, with the ability to choose what we identify with or want to explore, sex and age don't matter.  i love being in touch with my emotions and my more "feminine" side, and to hell with conventional concepts!  that ended long ago.

it supports our endeavor to become whole beings.  the merging of what was split.  squaring the circle.  balancing our halves/quarters/eighths...  and then we can become benevolent oversouls of our universes.

and the trick is to be ourselves, not who others might want us to be.  we see reflections of self and can choose attributes we admire and vise versa.  but it's how to find those for (and in) ourselves and use them.  and finding others who are aware of such is empowering.  and there is power in numbers.  what two people can accomplish working together is exponentially "more" than the sum of two working separately.  makes you wonder about this system we've been struggling with for ages, huh?  puts way to much pressure on the individual.  here, let me help you with that load!  :)

fredburks's picture

Those who have been a part of this online community since 2008 may remember that I made a post back then about my choice to live an open relationship style. I've been in a wonderful variety of rich and loving open relationships for many decades now. Though I very much support all who choose monogamy, I very much enjoy being able to open and share my heart, body, mind, and soul with those who are open to doing this in a fully conscious and supportive way.

The long post I wrote about this back in 2008 initially was very well received by our community here. Numerous members shared vulnerable, personal stories about their challenges and successes with sexuality. Yet eventually, several in the group accused me of an agenda of promoting polyamory and corrupting family values. Some even speculated I might be part of a secret elite out to corrupt and control our world and find lovers through this portal. It was extremely sad and disheartening for me. Eventually we had to remove that post as it became so divisive and disempowering.

So it feels a little scary to even write this now, but I do want to be open and vulneable with you. I want to be very clear that I fully support those who choose monogamy, yet I also support those who want to explore being able to share in great depth even sexually with more than one person. I can tell you from personal experience that when it is done with great integrity and vulnerability, it can be very rich and lead to much personal and spiritual growth. And whatever path you choose, I invite you to open to your spiritual guidance and choose what most serves all involved.

With much love and warm wishes,

P.S. Just a note that I have a number of friends who have been in successful open relationship with their primary partners for many decades.

Bob07's picture

First, just want to say that I wrote the below response apparently while you, Christopher (Starmonkey) were writing your third one... and so mine will be posted after yours.  I resonate very much with what you've said on this topic and find myself in tune with you.  Trish, your candor and thoughts on this subject are refreshing and are the main reason I posted the below.  Thank you both.   -AND I notice after having posted this, that Fred has posted a response that he was apparently writing while I wrote this!


This subject is interesting to me, although I have no desire to have an open or poly-amorous relationship.  Here are some thoughts that come to mind:

Sexual energy (especially combined with love energy) is wonderful and very powerful, as we all know.  And that can be enlivening and exhilarating.  It can also be dangerous and destructive, ultimately (although it probably need not be... don't know.  More on this below.).  And so it seems that consciousness is important -- although consciousness can go out the window pretty fast.  (I sometimes joke that when sexual energy takes over the blood leaves people's brains because it's needed elsewhere).  But still, Trish, is it necessary to get rid of consciousness along with the need to be in control of your actions at all times (which kills spontaneity, of course)?   Maybe I misunderstood.

The Buddha's main game was consciousness (as it is with all spiritual masters).  He also said, "At the very least, cause no harm."  There has been a lot of harm done in the name of love, which often means sexual energy, including in the cases of a number of spiritual teachers, ironically.  Apparently consciousness can often be selective.

I feel that open relationships are a possibility for some people.  But I know no one who has had an open relationship where that relationship has lasted; in these (few) cases the original monagamous relationship was destroyed, except in one case: a thee-some who were in a polyandric relationship, which lasted for some years, with one child per each man.  But eventually one man left.  I think the remaining couple-relationship is still going but I'm not sure. 

Of course, lots of monagamous relationships fail, too.  I wonder if, in all of these cases, there wasn't a felt lack or weakness of some kind in the original relationship that impelled these folks to "look elsewhere", but that some devoted attention would have "cured" the lack or weakness.  ...Of course, we know that all things are impermanent, and some relationships are probably better ended... so I don't want to hold any relationship up as sacrosanct.

My wife and I have shared, at times over the years, that we both have felt a pull toward someone else and have played with that energy (only the energy).  And in all instances we sensed that this could go nowhere utimately but to damage our relationship.  Allowing and even inviting that energy in was so beautiful and exhilarating, resulting in some beautiful exchanges with those other people.  However, at a certain point we (each) had the sense that we had to pull back... sort of like standing at the edge of a precipice taking in a breathtaking landscape, but realizing that our toes were just a bit too far over the edge -- for our taste, for our relationship.

So I guess I'm doing my best to be open and relativistic about this possibility, although I confess that in my heart I don't know that I can unreservedly support the idea of open or poly-amorous relationships.  I'd really have to see evidence that it works out and "does no harm" as often as monagamous relationships do -- which, these days, is only about 50%.

Starmonkey's picture

thanks to bob and fred for their additions.  what a multi-headed topic!  anything is possible...  i think it interesting that the school we are all attending utilizes mainly emotional energy and lessons, and our issues are centered around the heart/solar plexus and involve the whole lot.  also intriguing is the crux point (stuck to that cross!) where the lower drives meet the higher and most people hit the wall/ceiling.  the chakras associated with LOVE and WILL hanging out right next to each other and right under creativity and expression...  i think a big reason people are so mixed up about sharing that energy is because they are unsure how to creatively express themselves with one another.  we've been taught to be consumers and live off of others creations (which enhance the paradigm) and have lost our feeling of self-worth.  but if there is no agenda and the act is a meeting/sharing/exploring where all involved are aware of each other's experience and respectful of such...  poles and holes (sorry, couldn't resist).  MEANING our polarities and chakras, of course.  throat/mouth needing to balance the sex region and chakras/energies all flowing and exchanging properly...  ALCHEMY

but, i've gotten the reference several times from several sources that a couple properly balanced can help to balance an entire neighborhood or even city.  so, multiple individuals sharing such balance without conventional belief systems or "morals" or "ethics", but for the good and benefit of all beings and their unfoldment...  takes it to the next level, for sure.  there's just so much fear of the unknown out there!  and it's why we signed up for this adventure!  yee-haw!  i'm in!

Trish's picture

I really appreciate everyone's feedback.

> But still, Trish, is it necessary to get rid of consciousness along with the need to be in control of your
> actions at all times (which kills spontaneity, of course)?   Maybe I misunderstood.

I was kind of sidetracking on self-analysis; Starmonkey got where I was going with my ramble :-). It was somewhat related in that I was reflecting on how people exchange energy all the time, not necessarily in a sexual way - even just randomly at the grocery store - and how I've shied away from being open to people unless I know them very well.

I was recognizing that at some point as a kid, I would completely lose myself in the moment, and I would jump about and display all my emotions. But over time, I learned to shut myself down - both because I realized that I might get made fun of if I wear my emotions on my sleeve, and because I felt uncomfortable with the intensity of sensing another's raw emotions and not being able to distinguish them from my own. So in my earlier post I was just realizing that deep in my psyche, I've made being aware of and in tight control over my emotions more important than being myself, wholehearted and fully engaged in the moment. 

I think I'm somewhat in the same boat as you, Bob, when it comes to exploring other intimate relationships - at this point, I don't see it going beyond cliff-edge-peeking for me either, but I don't know the future!

Fred, thank you for openly sharing your personal views and the history of this topic in the community. I also want to make it clear that I fully support those who choose monogamy, and also those who choose other varieties of adult consentual relationships.

Peace and love,

The Gathering Spot is a PEERS empowerment website
"Dedicated to the greatest good of all who share our beautiful world"