Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy With Multiple Partners

by Deborah M. Anapol

  Footnotes

  *A line marriage is a form of group marriage that appears frequently in Robert Heinlein’s novels and in one of Robert Rimmer’s as well. In this form of group marriage, new partners who are a generation younger are added periodically, keeping the marriage “alive” and stewarding its assets indefinitely.

  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.

  Those of us who were raised in a family where monogamy was the norm have a lifetime of conditioning as a guide. We know what’s expected of us. We know what to expect from a partner. We know when something is not as it should be. Consequently, if we find ourselves in a monogamous couple, our relationships may be able to survive on autopilot for a time without any major misunderstandings.

  The situation is different for people choosing polyamory. Even if they already know others who are polyamorous, there are many different possibilities for how to structure a polyamorous relationship. In order to stay in integrity, everyone needs to consciously agree on how they will interact (or at least agree to disagree) and then keep the agreements they’ve made unless they are renegotiated with everyone concerned. Alternatively, if partners decide that their only rule is to behave in accordance with shared values, the need for integrity and self-awareness becomes even more crucial.

  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.

  Many people, whether they see themselves as monogamous or polyamorous, mistake their partner’s lack of empathy, blind spots, or unskilled communication for an intention to be hurtful. We humans have a tendency to take it personally when another is simply acting out of ignorance or internal confusion, and this is especially likely when venturing into the unfamiliar territory of polyamorous relating. While I have seen people, consciously or unconsciously, using nonmonogamy as a weapon in a battle with a partner, this is not usually the case. Our legal system takes the position that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, but when it comes to intimate relationships, intentions do matter. Perhaps we could say that good intentions are necessary but not sufficient for ethical polyamory.

  Those who wish to establish polyamory as a viable option for intimate relating would do well to begin by making it a priority to strive to be ethically impeccable. Ethical behavior starts with the intention to do what is right and then having the integrity and commitment to carry out that intention. This association between ethics, integrity, and commitment applies to any type of relationship imaginable, but some of the specifics of what is considered right or wrong will vary according to whether the relationship is monogamous and whether the relationship is grounded in the old or new paradigm. In order to get clear on what constitutes right behavior in a polyamorous relationship, we must first address the more general question of the morality of polyamory.

  IS POLYAMORY IMMORAL?

  As we discussed in chapter 1, polyamory doesn’t necessarily involve more than one partner, but because it allows for this possibility, it is often regarded with suspicion. As we enter the twenty-first century, social norms and values, particularly those regarding love, sex, and marriage, are still undergoing rapid transformation worldwide. Not only are we in transition, but in today’s global village many different cultures and religions with different customs and different perspectives on sexual morality may find themselves at odds. 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.

  In the Western world, many people believe that the Old Testament injunction against adultery automatically makes polyamory morally unacceptable because this assumption went unchallenged for centuries in the wake of the Inquisition and subsequent wave of witch burnings. Yet everyone knows that many of the biblical patriarchs had multiple wives and/or concubines. Father Abraham, warrior-poet King David, and wise King Solomon were all nonmonogamous. Were they committing adultery? Not at all according to anthropologist Helen Fisher, author of Anatomy of Love who asserts that in Mosaic law, only intercourse with a married woman was banned. The original intent of the commandment against adultery was to protect the property rights of men to their women, not to prohibit men or even unmarried women from having multiple partners. This is essentially the case with Islamic teachings as well, which allow men to have up to four wives but require women to be monogamous.

  In our modern world, people are as likely to question the morality of differential privileges for men and women as they are to accept the morality of age-old patriarchal traditions. Morality is sometimes viewed as a synonym for sexual sobriety, and commitment and fidelity are often assumed to imply exclusivity. It’s important to acknowledge that moral parameters involve judgments about what constitutes right behavior in many domains, not just sex.

  In many ways, the gap between values held in old- and new-paradigm relationships is far greater than the gap in values between monogamy and patriarchal polygamy. 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.

  OLD- AND NEW-PARADIGM VALUES

  Many observers have commented that our culture is in the midst of a paradigm shift in the realms of love, family, gender roles, sexuality, and relationship in general. Futurist FM Esfandiary1 often emphasized that the closer to home a paradigm shift is, the more we tend to resist it. People feel more threatened by a change in our understanding of love than a change in the way physicists understand atomic particles. Writing in the early 1980s, Esfandiary described the process as follows:

  “In today’s world, virtually all areas of our society are undergoing vast upheavals; the trend, especially in organizations, corporations, and businesses, is toward despecialization, decentralization, denationalization, and diversification. In the face of such significant change, it is crazy to think that the home will remain intact and somehow miraculously unchanged. Our homes, our social life and our interpersonal connections are undergoing precisely the same kind of evolution. In the 1950s, 75–80 percent of families in the U.S. were traditional (breadwinner husband, homemaker wife, two or more kids); today, that figure is less than 7 percent.”2

  In the old paradigm, the stability and longevity of a relationship are its most valued attributes. Dependency, both financial and emotional, serves the function of keeping spouses together and is not seen as a problem. As the twenty-first century dawns, stability is still valued by many, but dependency is more likely to be recognized as an impediment to deep intimacy and a source of conflict and dissatisfaction than a positive or necessary condition for a stable marriage. Nevertheless, the old-paradigm emphasis on maintaining the status quo is still strongly held.

  In the new paradigm, the presence of acceptance and unconditional love tends to take precedence over everything else. What this means in practice is that allowing the form of the relationship to shift—for example, from romance to friendship or from a closed marriage to an open marriage or marriage to divorce while maintaining positive regard, caring, and
support for all those involved—is the primary ethical standard in the new paradigm. Staying married while quietly hating each other and remaining stuck in destructive patterns would not be seen as desirable in the new paradigm but could be perfectly acceptable in the old paradigm.

  Some people seem to interpret the new paradigm’s appreciation for impermanence as permission to duck out the back door when fear, conflicts, or what seems to be a more desirable partner come along. Allowing avoidance, cowardice, and opportunism to determine one’s actions is no more ethical in the new paradigm than in the old. With the freedom to ask that relationships be allowed to shift comes the responsibility to listen to your inner voice for guidance as to what constitutes loyalty and commitment, which are no less important in the new paradigm than in the old even though their focus may broaden.

  In the old paradigm, loyalty and commitment to spouse and blood family are an important moral code. In the new paradigm, the sphere of commitment sometimes expands to include all of life. FM Esfandiary expresses it this way:

  The single individual who is relatively free of imprinting can function with versatility, freedom and autonomy, and can begin to express a new kind of commitment—commitment not to a specific individual, not to an attachment figure, but to a much greater environment. If it is possible for us to identify with and be committed to a specific person or group, it ought to become possible for us to reprogram so that we can begin to identify with and be committed to ALL HUMANITY! If we can transcend imprinting, it is possible to empathize with everybody . . . Individuals who are committed to their creative work, to causes, jobs and movements, are already moving in this direction of greater commitment. Ultimately, commitment to planet and all humanity will replace commitment to clan, family, or nation.3

  Another important value difference between old and new paradigms is in the area of disclosure. In the old paradigm, with its emphasis on stability, it’s considered appropriate to keep secrets, withhold information, or say things one knows to be false if speaking the truth might rock the boat. The norm for the upper classes in much of Europe and parts of the United States has long been to tolerate extramarital affairs as long as they are kept discrete and don’t interfere with family obligations.4 In the new paradigm, a higher value is placed on being totally honest or transparent toward the goal of creating more authentic and growth-producing relationships. In the old paradigm, controlling your partner’s behavior, by lying about your own actions if necessary, is valued over telling the truth and accepting the consequences.

  Riane Eisler has written extensively about the paradigm shift in attitudes toward love, sex, and the family, which she characterizes as a shift from domination of the feminine by the masculine to partnership and equality between men and women.5 In the old dominator paradigm, pain and fear of punishment are the primary motivators, she says. In the new paradigm of partnership, pleasure is a core value. Those actions that contribute to shared pleasure are considered right and good. Violence and coercion are not condoned for any reason and are especially anathema when used to subjugate others.

  In my 2005 book The Seven Natural Laws of Love,6 I discuss the nature of love in the new paradigm at length. The brief summary of the differences between the old and new paradigms for love mentioned previously merely highlights the major differences in values and beliefs. Now let’s see what some contemporary religious leaders have to say about the ethics of polyamory.

  CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINTS

  In chapter 2, we discussed the important role that progressive Christian clergy have played in challenging the monogamous standard since the nineteenth century. Twenty-first century Episcopalian theologian Carter Heyward7 takes a more neutral stance by emphasizing the familiar old-paradigm value of fidelity or faithfulness while giving it a new-paradigm twist. Her interpretation of faith involves “trusting that each of us is being honest with the other; that each knows and cares about the other on the basis of who [they] really are, rather than on the basis of who we might wish [them] to be; and that each desires the other’s well-being.” In other words, she is emphasizing unconditional love and honesty rather than form as the foundation for the ethics of intimacy.

  Dr. Heyward asserts that fidelity does not require monogamy, but it does require that we be honest with each other and honor each other’s feelings. In her view, any sexual option, including monogamy, can be chosen in alienation or in fidelity. Heyward warns that monogamy can easily be used to shield spouses from their real feelings, fears, and yearnings and so prevent growth in a relationship. An “unexamined, static commitment to monogamy” can just as easily be used to destroy fidelity as to preserve it, insists Heyward.

  In Dr. Heyward’s contemporary Christian viewpoint, both polyamory and monogamy are morally neutral. Morality is a matter of how we conduct ourselves within our chosen lifestyle rather than adhering to any particular form. She believes that while historically monogamy benefited women and children by providing some measure of economic security by obligating men to provide for their families and also served to protect women from unwanted sexual advances from other men, it is no longer necessary. Today’s women have achieved sufficient equality to provide for themselves. Both monogamy and polyamory are moral options if chosen with the intent of building and sustaining trust in a relationship where extraordinary love is present, according to Heyward.

  At the height of the sexual revolution, Dr. Robert Francoeur, a married Catholic priest, proposed the concept of “flexible monogamy,” in which sexual relationships with partners other than one’s spouse could be permitted within the context of a lifelong marriage. A similar concept was proposed by Christian laymen Rustum and Della Roy in their 1968 book Honest Sex8 and later popularized by George and Nena O’Neill as Open Marriage.9

  Dr. Francoeur’s position is that a long-lasting marriage that allows for outside sexual partners is more stable and better suited to the pressures of modern life than a series of short-lived monogamous marriages. Thus far, what little data we have suggest that there’s no difference in longevity between open marriage and closed marriage, but I strongly intuit that overall monogamy is not a significant variable in predicting longevity. Nevertheless, Dr. Francoeur is clearly placing a higher moral value on stability and longevity than on sexual exclusivity. In other words, he is suggesting that the moral litmus test for relationship ethics be “does it preserve the relationship or destroy the relationship?” This is an interesting blending of paradigms that marries the old-paradigm value of longevity to the new-paradigm acceptance of allowing greater flexibility of form while continuing to give greater weight to longevity.

  CONTEMPORARY JUDAISM

  Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a respected leader in the movement for Jewish Renewal, points out that while the asserted norm for most modern Jews is sexual monogamy, the norm is often disobeyed in practice because it’s untenable for many couples. His recommendation is that couples make their own decisions about whether to be monogamous and that sexual relations outside of marriage be considered adultery only if one of the partners betrays a commitment to monogamy.10

  Dr. Waskow also suggests that in some circumstances, the decision to engage in extramarital sex may be the most caring and loving course of action. He gives the example of a man whose wife had been institutionalized for a number of years with an incurable and debilitating illness. The man was very devoted in his emotional and financial support of his wife, but he was also lonely. Years passed, and he became involved with another woman. He didn’t want to divorce his wife, but he wanted to include his new partner into his life as completely as possible. Rabbi Waskow’s view is that the man was operating in full integrity and should be supported by his religious community. He believes that “the new sexual ethics emerge not from a commander outside and above us, but from the need to make worthy, honest, decent, and stable loving connections among ourselves.”

  Dr. Waskow reminds us that up until 1,000 years ago, Western Jews could legitimately have more than one wife
, and the same was true for Eastern Jews up to the late twentieth century. This practice was abandoned partly for the protection of women and partly because of the judgments of Christians who found polyamory to be one more excuse for anti-Semitism. Perhaps it would be preferable, he asserts, to end the prohibition against nonmonogamy and allow both men and women to take more than one mate. The question, he concludes, is one of whether de facto adultery is less dangerous than de jure polyamory.

  Rabbi Gershon Winkler, author of Sacred Secrets: The Sanctity of Sex in Jewish Law and Lore,11 also cites the old Jewish practice of pilagshut, which literally means “half marriage.” Similar to the pagan custom of handfasting or today’s domestic partners, this was a legitimate alternative to marriage for thousands of years that allowed men and women to declare themselves partners, live together, and have children if they wished with no social stigma. Neither government nor religious institutions were involved, and the pilagshut could also be dissolved at will. Because it was not technically marriage, women as well as men could have more than one pilagshut without committing adultery as long as they refrained from institutionalized marriage.

  Ancient commentaries on pilagshut address its wholesome and beneficial use while condemning circumstances in which it might be detrimental to those involved. Winkler cites many rabbinical sources and sacred texts blessing nonmarital sex and concludes that while some rabbis condemned the practice, they are in the minority. Traditional Jewish law regarding sex is not what most people today assume it to be, he concluded.

  EASTERN RELIGIONS

  Hinduism, like Judeo-Christian theology, finds itself facing the paradox of advocating monogamy as an ethical standard while immensely popular mythologies, such as the Mahabharata, feature wives with multiple husbands. Lord Krishna, one of the most beloved of all Hindu figures, is said to have had 16,008 wives. In ancient India, multiple wives were permitted depending on one’s caste and ability to support them, and it was not until 1955 that the Hindu Marriage Act made polygamy illegal.12 Prior to this, Hindu law sanctioned polygamy if it served to strengthen the family but not for purely hedonist purposes.