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

by Deborah M. Anapol

  Hindu spiritual teachers tend to look on the family as the major source of attachment and karmic entanglements and so favor celibacy or monogamy or, in the case of Osho, also recognize the merit of being single and poly-amorous as an option13 for dedicated spiritual seekers. Some might challenge categorizing Osho as a Hindu teacher despite his Hindu upbringing, but the elaborate sculptures of multipartner sexual activity adorning the walls at the ancient Tantric temples at Khajuraho and elsewhere suggest that Hinduism has a long history of recognizing the spiritual significance of eroticism, both metaphorically and otherwise.14

  While traveling in India, I visited the abandoned palace of the sixteenth-century Muslim emperor Akbar at Fatehpur Sikri in Uttar Pradesh. Within the palace grounds is the tomb of the Sufi saint Salim Chisti of the Chisti Order, which is known for its emphasis on love, tolerance, and openness. Chisti was the revered teacher and close adviser of Emperor Akbar. I learned that Akbar had three wives, one Muslim, one Hindu, and one Christian, and that each had her own wing in the palace artistically designed in the style of her own faith. I loved the creative use of polygamy to make this typically Chisti ecumenical statement.

  The nineteenth-century mystic Baha’u’llah, founder of the Baha’i faith, was a product of the Muslim culture, which continues to permit men to have more than one wife. As a staunch advocate of the rights of women and the importance of the family, Baha’u’llah had concerns about the ethics of multiple marriages. His position was that in an ethical and moral marriage, each spouse must be treated exactly equally. He condemned polygamous marriage on the grounds that this condition was rarely met. In so doing, he became perhaps the first Islamic spokesperson to articulate modern polyamorous ethics. More mainstream Muslims defend the practice of polyamory by pointing out that the second wife and her children have greater protection under the law than the unmarried mistress of a married man.15

  Buddhist doctrine, or dharma, focuses on the effects of our sexual acts rather than the acts themselves. The dharma teaches that those acts that cause pain and harm to others or disturbance in ourselves should be avoided. According the ancient Six Paramitas of the Bodhisattva, a moral person having sex with another must consider his or her own happiness, that of his or her companion, and that of the third person who will be most affected by the situation. If these three people are not harmed, then polyamory is not adultery and meets Buddhist ethical standards.16 Classical Buddhist teachings show no general preference for one form of relationship over another, except in the case of monks, who are required to avoid attachments. Instead, Buddhism considers what is most appropriate for particular people in particular places at particular times.

  Contemporary Buddhist teachers in the West from a variety of schools, including high-profile individuals such as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, tend to promote monogamy as a Buddhist ethical standard despite the absence of dharmic support and despite the acceptance of nonmonogamy in many predominantly Buddhist countries. Perhaps, like the Jews in Western Europe during medieval times, they are trying to adapt Buddhism to fit Christian society and make it more palatable to westerners.

  East–West psychology professor Jorge Ferrer suggests that the celibacy vows taken by Buddhist monks limit their direct experience of these matters and encourages Buddhists to go straight to the source, pointing out that the Buddha himself advocated polyamory over monogamy in certain situations. He relates a story told in the Jataka 200 of a Brahmin who asks the Buddha for advice on choosing husbands for his four daughters. The Brahmin says, “One was fine and handsome, one was old and well advanced in years, the third a man of family [noble birth], and the fourth was good.” “Even though there be beauty and the like qualities,” the Buddha answered, “a man is to be despised if he fails in virtue. Therefore the former is not the measure of a man; those that I like are the virtuous.” After hearing this, the Brahmin gave all his daughters to the virtuous suitor.17

  Ferrer concludes that from the Buddhist perspective of skillful means (upaya), the key factor in evaluating the appropriateness of any intimate connection may not be its form but rather its power to eradicate the suffering of self and others. He also favors the nondogmatic and pragmatic approach of historical Buddhism, which, like historical Hinduism, was not attached to any specific relationship structure but was essentially guided by a radical emphasis on liberation. These ethical criteria are found in many contemporary teachings as well from humanistic psychology to The Work of Byron Katie.

  NONDENOMINATIONAL SPIRITUALITY AND HUMANISM

  Byron Katie stands out among contemporary spiritual teachers in many ways. An ordinary California housewife who spontaneously awakened in the midst of a personal crisis, she is not beholden to any traditional lineage, and her teachings are completely content and culture free, similarly to the Advaita of the venerated Indian sage Ramana Maharshi. Arguing with reality is a lost cause, Katie tells us. Instead, questioning our thoughts while taking actions that support ourselves and those we care for is her prescription for a happy and ethical life.18 She is one of the few spiritual leaders who is willing to openly discuss her own reasons for choosing monogamy while refraining from advocating one form of relationship over another.19

  Dr. Carl Rogers is one of the most respected and influential of all the gifted therapists to emerge from the humanistic psychology movement. In the early 1970s, Rogers predicted that the “attitude of possessiveness” in marriage would be greatly diminished by the twenty-first century.20 Like many of his humanistic colleagues, Rogers refused to make judgments about people’s lifestyle choices and instead sought to understand and evaluate their experience according to whether it was growth producing for all involved or, in the case of couples, whether it deepened their connection and enhanced the quality of their relationship.

  Nobel Laureate Bertrand Russell is perhaps the most illustrious of a long line of philosophers and ethicists who have argued that sexual morality is too important to the happiness and well-being of us all to be determined by tribal traditions, superstition, politics, economics, and religious taboos. The famous mathematician urges that logic and rational thought be applied to determining what sexual ethics are appropriate in modern life while citing functional examples from other cultures to expand the universe of possibilities.21

  Writing in the early twentieth century, Russell accepted premarital and extramarital sex on the grounds that they contributed to love, happiness in marriage, and great art, creating a storm of controversy. Today, his analysis offers a framework for a new sexual ethic.

  TOWARD A NEW SEXUAL ETHIC

  The contemporary religious and spiritual perspectives summarized here suggest that in evaluating the morality of any lovestyle, it is less important to blindly follow a particular rule or custom than it is to ask the following:

  Does this relationship have a positive effect on those who are in it, on any children produced by it, and on the rest of the world?

  Does this relationship effectively serve the basic functions of family life?

  Does this relationship support the continued evolution of humanity, the plant and animal kingdoms, and the planet?

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

  Honesty

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

  Hiding your polyamorous nature from prospective partners who may reject you out of hand may be tempting, but it is not honest. In the long run, it will backfire. Honesty includes being clear with your partners about your intentions and priorities. Of course, you must use good judgment about when to disclose something that may be difficult for your partners to hear, but letting fears about hurting someone’s feelings serve as an excuse for keeping secrets is not ethical. Withholding your true thoughts and feelings does just as much damage to you as to your partners by replacing intimacy with alienation and blocking the free flow of loving energy. Sooner or later, you will find that the emotional withdrawal and resentment that invariably follow from not speaking your truth are deadening your love and your sexual response. Sustainable intimacy requires total honesty.

  Nonmonogamy is often associated with scandals such as the revelations that conservative South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford used private and state planes to secretly visit his mistress in Argentina in 2009.22 Newspapers made the most of reports that Sanford told his staff he was hiking the Appalachian Trail to cover up his trip to Argentina to see his “soul mate.” Meanwhile, Sanford’s wife and four sons moved out of the governor’s mansion and were said to be struggling to reconcile. Some Republicans called for impeachment and said that Sanford had brought “extreme dishonor and shame” on the state, but Sanford’s lawyer said he believed that the governor would be exonerated. Too many people still think of cases like this when they hear the word polyamory, and only consistent adherence to a standard of honesty will establish a distinction.

  Commitment

  The type of commitments made depends on the form a relationship takes and whether you are working from an old- or a new-paradigm model. However, all grounded relationships involve some kind of commitment. Regardless of the specifics, meaningful sex creates a lifelong bond. It is simply not ethical to thoughtlessly discard lovers like yesterday’s garbage. In an ongoing polyamorous relationship of any kind, all partners need to know that their beloved will not duck out of the relationship on a whim because they got scared or because they found someone else who wants them to be monogamous. Without a commitment to working to strengthen and enhance existing relationships, adding new partners can result only in jealousy.

  If your partner is not satisfied with the quality of your interaction, he or she is probably not going to be happy about someone else getting what he or she wants. Not all relationships can last a lifetime, and there are many good reasons to create some distance, but commitment means making an effort to resolve conflicts. Commitment doesn’t have to mean promising to stick around forever no matter what. It does mean having a lifelong intention to support each other in whatever ways seem appropriate. Marking time until someone you like better comes along is not ethical, especially if you don’t make it clear that this is what you’re doing. The easiest way to avoid this dilemma is not to engage in marginal relationships. Should you find yourself involved with someone who doesn’t feel “right” to you, it’s best to be honest about your lack of commitment. Give him or her the option to end the relationship if she or he is looking for something deeper. If you have agreements with any of your partners that you will end other sexual relationships at their request, this also needs to be communicated to new partners.

  Single people who don’t intend to create a primary relationship with anyone can clarify the extent and limitations of the commitment they are willing to make. A single person can let partners know about their commitment to remain single and nonmonogamous from the start so that there is less room for misunderstanding and disappointment later on. Whether or not you intend to remain single, keep in mind that a commitment to something higher than yourself or your partner, whether that be truth, the Divine, higher self, integrity, or whatever you hold sacred, is a good way to anchor a relationship within a larger context.

  Agreements and Decision Making

  Couples have many areas of life where they need to reach agreements about how they will handle things that impact both of them. However, when it comes to agreeing about whom they will have sex with, it’s fairly straightforward in a monogamous relationship: both partners are agreeing to forsake all others. In polyamory, everyone must decide which, when, how, and to what extent multiple partners will be included. There are literally thousands of different agreements that people can make about how they will conduct their intimate relationships. There are also different decision-making processes that can be used by two or more people. It’s important to learn about the different options that are possible and to discern which may be appropriate for your situation. Polyamory is a lot like democracy—it works best with educated and involved citizens.

  As we enter the twenty-first century, models for successful polyamorous relationships are increasingly visible, but there is no getting around the fact that there is more than one right way to do it, and no one model works for everyone. Self-knowledge is again an essential prerequisite in knowing what kinds of agreements you want. Making agreements you don’t think you can live with in order to keep the peace usually doesn’t work. It’s far better to let your conflicts surface early on than to feel constrained, coerced, or victimized later on.

  Marvin and Sheila are a new couple in their early sixties who have decided to marry after dating for nearly a year. Sheila, who was divorced after twenty-five years of marriage to a possessive and demanding husband, is clear that she does not want to make a monogamous commitment. She loves Argentinean Tango and usually goes out dancing several times a week. She wants to share her life with Marvin, and she also wants the freedom to flirt and to explore sexually with other men if the situation presents itself. After Marvin’s wife died, he had a relationship with a woman who was in an open marriage for many years. Because of this experience, he’s fairly comfortable with Sheila’s desires, and he’s clear that he doesn’t want the distraction and complication of more than one relationship for himself.

  In his previous marriage, Marvin had also discovered that he preferred to allow his wife to be the boss. “We were both dominant personalities, and in the beginning we fought about everything all the time. It was pretty unpleasant,” he told me. “After a while I decided to try letting her decide if we disagreed on something. To my surprise, I found that I liked being more submissive in our relationship, and she liked this too. We got along very well from then on. I would do this again in any intimate relationship.”

  Marvin came to me for help in drawing up a set of agreements that would be acceptable to both of them. Marvin trusted Sheila’s commitment to their relationship and didn’t feel the need for sexual exclusivity, but he didn’t want his comfortable, predictable, and fairly conventional lifestyle disturbed. He already knew that there were two situations he’d find difficult. He didn’t want Sheila to have sex with other men in their shared home, and he didn’t want Sheila to get involved with anyone who was part of their social circle. Sheila was fine with these conditions. I asked how he felt about Sheila spending the night elsewhere, which was something he hadn’t thought about but quickly decided that this would be okay for him as long as he knew she wasn’t coming home.

  “Do you want Sheila to phone you at midnight if she suddenly realizes she wants an overnight that wasn’t planned on? Or does she have to tell you before she goes out?” I asked. Marvin wasn’t sure at first, but after some conversation with Sheila, they found a solution. She would text him to keep him informed of her plans as they evolved.

  Marvin was reluctant to meet any of Sheila’s potential lovers, something that Sheila wanted. When I pointed out that he might be missing an opportunity to make some new male friends as well as sending a clear message to any suitors that Sheila already had a primary partner, Marvin agreed to try this out and see how he felt about it before rejecting it out of hand. This led to his realizing that he wanted Sheila to agree to tell any prospective lovers that she was already “taken” and to reserve two nights a week for him. She
ila again agreed with these requests and wanted Marvin’s okay for occasional vacations with other men. I suggested that they get more specific about how often and how long she might be gone. Marvin’s favorite part of their agreement was his promise to Sheila that he would remain monogamous. She was quite willing to offer him reciprocal privileges to see other women, but he was clear that he wasn’t interested. He wanted to keep it simple, and he knew he didn’t have the sex drive he’d had in his youth. One woman was enough for him. Sheila was quite touched by Marvin’s devotion, and he delighted in freely giving her this gift.

  With a less mature couple, I might have been skeptical about whether all these agreements could be kept and whether they might create some resentment. However, Marvin and Sheila knew themselves well, and knew what they wanted and what they could deliver. They had overlooked a few potential problem areas but were able to easily reach agreement on how their open relationship would work.

  Integrity

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