Polyamory Dorothea Ledinek About me • • • • • • • • Polyamorous relationship anarchist Pansexual (humans!) Radically slutty Sex positive feminist Universalist and individualist (New) Atheist and secular humanist Left-libertarian PhD researcher in engineering physics at UU, thin film solar cells Polyamory • Greek poly (many) + Latin amor (love) – Multiple loving relationships at the same time by mutual agreement and honesty – Includes: • all polyfidelity (group of people that excludes romantic or sexual relationships with people outside the group) • some open relationships (the ones where love is allowed) • some BDSM play • some D/s non-monogamy • some don‘t ask don‘t tell relationships • some poly-mono relationships Closed vs open relationships Fenced vs unfenced (JJ Roberts) • Closed/fenced relationships: exclude the possibility of sexual or romantic connections with people outside the primary/core relationship(s): monogamy, polyfidelity (closed polygons) • Open/unfenced relationships: include the possibility of sexual connections, some include even romantic connections: open polygons, open marriage, open primary relationships • Possibility =/= practice: one can be monogamous in an open relationship; closed-polygons are non-monogamous, but not open • Only open/unfenced relationships agree with my core values, because the closing of a relationship is a rule. Relationship practice and identity • People can be polyamorous (identity), but be in a monogamous relationship (practice) or be single. • Compare: People can be pansexual (identity), but only have same-sex or different sex relationships or be single (practice). • Relationships between a poly and a mono person can be polyamorous or monogamous, depending on their mutual agreement. Even a poly-poly relationship can be practically monogamous. Franklin Veaux Non-Monogamy Chart Breaking norms grounded in sex-negativity • Sexnegativity Assumption that sex is inherently bad. Society sanctions which sexual practices between which sets of adults are acceptable/wanted. • Tvåsamhetsnormen/couple privilege (mostly used in the solopoly and non-hierarchical community) The presumption that socially sanctioned pair-bond relationships involving only two people are inherently more important, “real” and valid than other types of intimate, romantic or sexual relationships. Even in many non-monogamous communities, primary-style couples are widely considered to be the only type of relationship worth significant effort or “saving.” They warrant more recognition and support than other types of intimate relationships. (Aggie Sez) • Amatonormativity (mostly used in the aromantic community) – A central, exclusive, life-long romantic relationship is the social goal of ones life and should be preferred to other relationship types – Prioritizes romantic relationships automatically over platonic or sexual relationships – Prioritizes the romantic partner(s) over oneself (codependency, abuse) – Friendships are not even seen as relationships. – Friends are left for romantic partners. – Intimacy, sex and sensuality are linked with romance. Beyond polyamory • Non-hierarchical polyamory – Against tvåsamhetsnormen/couple privilege – Against hierarchies • (A poly hierarchy exists when at least one person holds more power over a partner's other relationships than is held by the people within those relationships.) • Solopolyamory – Against tvåsamhetsnormen/couple privilege – Puts the relationship with oneself over all other relationships • Relationship anarchism – Against tvåsamhetsnormen/couple privilege – Puts the uniqueness and individuality of people and their connection to each other at the center and thereby puts all relationships (sexual, romantic, platonic) on inherently equal footing. For the discussion round afterwards Do you agree? Monogamous marriage – sexually open couple relationships – hierarchical polyamory – nonhierarchical polyamory – solopolyamory – relationship anarchism Decrease in rules Increase in autonomy and authenticity Increase of questioning of social norms Less inherent hierarchy My path to polyamory and relationship anarchism • I had a life crisis: the people I loved most were afraid of me • I read lots of books and blogs about – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Controlling behaviour Abusive behaviour Co-dependency Perfectionism Buddhism Radical acceptance Emotionally focused (couple) therapy Mindfulness Mentalizing Empathy Non-vioent communication Differentiation Consent Attachment theory, attachment parenting My path to polyamory and relationship anarchism • The books had a huge diversity of perspectives, did not agree on everything and never talked about polyamory. • A few messages became clear and I re-examined every inch of my life philosophy and changed deeply. • I enjoyed „casually“ dating multiple people at the same time without every having heard poyamory or relationship anarchy. A date was dating a relationship anarchist. • • I read the relationship anarchist manifesto by Annie Nordgren and could not agree more. • I came to the RA-/polyfika in Uppsala the next day. • Later I heard and read about rules and hierarchies. Value based relationships My values Which values? • • • • • • Self-determination: both my partners and me determine our own lives Authenticity and integrity: we can truly be who we are in our relationships (no rules and promises!) and our relationships can develop authentically Acceptance: we accept incompability, diversity, feelings and not being perfect as realities and do not take them personal Abundance: love is abundant and even people compatible for customized, authentic relationships are Flexibility and growth: we do not blame each other and ourselves now, when we can not realize what we intended to do some time ago. An existing couple wants to open up their relationship – – • Feeling: – • Preserve the old relationship Tool: – – – – • Fear, jealousy Goal: – • For further sexual connections (not polyamory!) For further romantic connections Relationship agreements Rules Veto power Prescriptive hierarchy Lots of „poly problems“ have nothing at all to do with polyamory, but with a possessive, controling and co-dependent mindset. Self-centeredness, selfishness and empathy • To be the center of one‘s own life is not selfish, but healthy. • To try to make oneself the center of another person‘s life is selfish. • Own your shit. Do not try to own another persons shit. • Owning one‘s shit is hard. Have empathy with yourself and others. Core values, needs, preferences, boundaries and compability • Know who you are (core values), what you need (needs) and what you want (preferences) and the difference between those. • Know what you you cannot live with (boundaries) and what you do not want to live with (preferences). • If your boundaries do not fit, you are not compatible. • Do not battle about the incompability, but adjust the form of your relationship accordingly. • Choose battles about preferences wisely. • You can be in love with a person, but totally incompatible within a certain relationship model. • Compability is about who you are, i.e. your and the other person‘s integrity. • Incompability is not about being more or less ethical. • There is no moral high ground in incompability. Conflicts Boundary conflicts and consent • The conflict is about a persons body or mind. – Example: you want to go out with your partner but they don‘t or the other way around. • You do not have any right over their body or mind. You can ask, you can talk about your feelings, but you can never demand consent from a person. • This conflict is never on equal terms. • Just apply the principle of consensual sex on the whole person. • Do not compromise on your mental and bodily autonomy and integrity! Preference conflicts • The conflict is not about a person‘s mind or body. • Example: you do not agree which set of cuttlery to buy. • You are on equal terms. • Negotiate. • Compromises are possible. Boundaries • Are about oneself – „If I have penile-vaginal sex without condoms with you, I want to stay informed about your safer sex practices with your other partners. You are free to do whatever you want with other partners, but you have to inform me and I will change my behaviour accordingly“. – „I do not have relationships with people who confine a free development of our relationship with rules between them and a third partner.“ Rules • Are about the other person – „You are not allowed to have penile-vaginal sex without condoms with another person. If you do, you have cheated on me.“ – „You are not allowed to go on a date in our favourite coffee shop“ – „You are not allowed to have rules with your other partners that have an impact on me“. Boundaries Rules • • • • The specific situation can be discussed and a solution be found. To not keep your partner informed is a consent violation! There might be incompabilty. – I am just not compatible with people who have relationship rules. – To acknowledge incompability can be painful, but nobody has done anthing wrong! – Incompabilty can arise during a relationship as people change. This does not mean that anybody has done anything wrong, as long as they have always been honest. • There is no moral high ground. Your partners does not do anything wrong, as long as there is informed consent (i.e. they tell you that one of your boundaries is in danger). • Are unneccessary as long as everybody agrees. Create a lose-lose situation when disagreement arises: – If your partner breaks the rule, • • • – • • • • they will experience unnecessary shame You will be hurt, because they did something you do not like You will be unnessary hurt because they broke the rule and your trust. If your partner does not break the rule they are giving up their autonomy are forced into being unauthentic. Are unflexible and hinder change and growth. Create a debate about the rule instead of the specific situation. Create a moral high ground and entitlement. The person who wants to renegotiate the rule has a disadvantage. Casual love (Carsie Blanton) • • • Romantic love is a feeling. We do not have to act on our feelings. Acting on our feelings is a choice. We have so many options: – Doing nothing, platonic relationship, dating, marriage, cuddling, sailing around the world, double suicide, dancing, … • • • • Just like sex, we can explore love outside the boundaries of a central, exclusive, life-long romantic relationship. Love is not a sufficient reason to commit to another person (compability, mutality and availablity are necessary). Love does not need to be life-changing or a major life event. Love does not justify abuse and neglect and lies and bickering and frustration and mutually-assured destruction. • • • We do not need to put expectations on the beloved, just because we love them. Love without expectations does not feel like an attack, and more like a gift. It would not be longer uncomfortable to be loved without loving back. We would not have to fight against being loved and to get distant. We are not averse to love, or to the lover but the attachment and expectations. If love was casual, we could take it as a high compliment, say “thanks!” and be compassionate. • • • Casual love does not feel so personal. If it’s not mutual, so what? If it doesn’t turn into a relationship, so what? I have feelings and desires all the time that go unsatisfied. Sometimes I want Chef’s Perfect Chocolate ice cream, but Creole Creamery closes at 10pm. Do I panic? Do I call Creole Creamery and leave a series of desperate messages? Do I curl into a ball and lament that without Chef’s Perfect Chocolate, I am a broken person who is not worthy of ice cream? • And here’s my favorite part: if love is casual - not something rare and dramatic and potentially painful, but something common and easy and mutually enjoyable - we all get to feel more love, and share more love. • “I love you. It’s no big deal. It doesn’t mean you’re The One, or even one of the ones. It doesn’t mean you have to love me back. It doesn’t mean we have to date, or marry, or even cuddle. It doesn’t mean we have to part ways dramatically in a flurry of tears and broken dishes. It doesn’t mean I’ll love you until I die, or that I’ll still love you next year, or tomorrow.” (Carise Blanton) Self-determination, integrity and authenticity • None of my partners is bound by rules or promises, neither am I. I meet/date people freely, but return if I want to. They do the same. • I can be sure that they are with me because they want to and I can be sure that I am with them because I want to. • Self-determination leads to authenticity. • I know who they really are and they know who I really am. Manifesto for relationship anarchy • „Don’t rank and compare people and relationships — cherish the individual and your connection to them. (…) Each relationship is independent, and a relationship between autonomous individuals.” • „Explore how you can engage without stepping over boundaries and personal beliefs. Rather than looking for compromises in every situation, let loved ones choose paths that keep their integrity intact, without letting this mean a crisis for the relationship. Staying away from entitlement and demands is the only way to be sure that you are in a relationship that is truly mutual. Love is not more “real” when people compromise for each other because it’s part of what’s expected.” • “Being free to be spontaneous — to express oneself without fear of punishments or a sense of burdened “shoulds” — is what gives life to relationships based on relationship anarchy. Organize based on a wish to meet and explore each other — not on duties and demands and disappointment when they are not met.” Andie Nordgren The common ground for LGBT and polyamory/RA • I do not see any substantial difference between the aims of the LGBT community and the polyamorous/RA community. • Our aim: Self-determined and authentic people and relationships. Thank you for listening! Discussion questions. • • • • • • • What do you think about the difference between boundaries and rules? Is it just semantics? Which overlap of ideas do you see between relationship anarchism/polyamory and multisexuality? Why do so many couples that open their relationship use rules to limit the interaction with the new persons? Can rules be justified? Do you see your romantic relationships automatically as more important compared to your purely sexual or your platonic relationships? Do you for example ask your friends before you move to another city? Do you „forget“ about your friends when you just have falled in love? I assume that you appreciate your friends in different ways for the unique people they are. Can you imagine doing the same with your romantic or sexual partners? Why? Why not? Should the polyamorous community become a part of the LGBT movement? Should we coin a new term, for doing consensual relationships and sex in an authentic and self-determined way, instead of putting more and more letters to LGBT? Jealousy • Is a secondary emotion. • The primary emotion is often the fear of being left due to being „not good enough“. • If you experience jealousy at the very moment: – – – – Stop and breath Curiously examine the emotion What is the cause of the primary emotion? Let the jealousy go. • Talk to your partner about the cause of the primary emotion: – – – – What kind of assurance do you need? Do you need that they just listen to you? Do you want advice? Do you want that they just acknowledge that jealousy can be hard? • Never ever create rules to tackle your jealousy, but tackle your feeling
