Polyamory

[christopher]

For organizational purposes, new thread on polyamory.
While I'm sure the discussion can take off from here, I'd just like to pose a question to everyone, especially those who practice or are advocates of polyamory: What are it's benefits? What does it accomplish?

[Rob A]

While I am not a proponant of polyamory (especially for those who claim to follow Christ), for informational purposes I offer a recent report in Newsweek Magazine on the recent push to make polyamory socially acceptable in the United States- Only You. And You. And You.
Polyamory—relationships with multiple, mutually consenting partners—has a coming-out party.

[BackAlleyRadio]

The benefits of poly are many. It allows you to give your love to more than just one person at a time. Our culture tells us that it is cheating to love more than one person, but exclusivity may also be seen as cheating yourself and others, as it limits the amount of love you are allowed to give. It's more complicated than that, but that's kind of the premise. It doesn't work for everyone and shouldn't. There is obvious value in exclusive relationships, and obvious complications with polyamory.

Another idea is that it is too much pressure to put on one person to think that they could provide all your needs for you. It leaves space for imperfection. Instead of just breaking up with someone because they are not the ONE, it allows you to let them be who they are and cherish that, as well as fulfill all your unmet needs with someone else.

I am in a poly relationship and it's hard. It really challenges my instinctual feelings of possessiveness and jealousy. It teaches trust and requires open communication. It's been by far the most healthy relationship I have been in, in terms of communication.

There is a really good book that has helped me out a lot. It is written by a radical anarchist woman who has been in a successful poly relationship for 13 years.

Redefining our Relationships: Guidelines for Responsible Open Relationships.
By Wendy O Matic


I can't see any reason why poly would be immoral from a christian perspective. But if anyone can, i'd love to talk about it.

[Pigmalia]

How is having sex giving out love? What do you mean by unmet needs? Do you see this as enhancing your sense of family and connection to others in old age? What do you think the NT teaches regarding sexual immorality?

[Andy Alexis-Baker]

Much agreed pigmalia. This is not Christian at all.

[Mark Fish]

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

The benefits of poly are many. It allows you to give your love to more than just one person at a time. Our culture tells us that it is cheating to love more than one person, but exclusivity may also be seen as cheating yourself and others, as it limits the amount of love you are allowed to give. It's more complicated than that, but that's kind of the premise. It doesn't work for everyone and shouldn't. There is obvious value in exclusive relationships, and obvious complications with polyamory.

Another idea is that it is too much pressure to put on one person to think that they could provide all your needs for you. It leaves space for imperfection. Instead of just breaking up with someone because they are not the ONE, it allows you to let them be who they are and cherish that, as well as fulfill all your unmet needs with someone else.

I am in a poly relationship and it's hard. It really challenges my instinctual feelings of possessiveness and jealousy. It teaches trust and requires open communication. It's been by far the most healthy relationship I have been in, in terms of communication.

There is a really good book that has helped me out a lot. It is written by a radical anarchist woman who has been in a successful poly relationship for 13 years.

Redefining our Relationships: Guidelines for Responsible Open Relationships.
By Wendy O Matic


I can't see any reason why poly would be immoral from a christian perspective. But if anyone can, i'd love to talk about it.

Are you saying this 'tongue in cheek' or as the devils advocate? This statement has colored everything I've read from you. I am more apt to pass over your posts from now on.

I'm suspicious of your choice of reading material. Who is Wendy O Matic? Sounds like something coin operated and full of blowing air. I think you should return to the NT.

[glasshaus]

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

Another idea is that it is too much pressure to put on one person to think that they could provide all your needs for you. It leaves space for imperfection. Instead of just breaking up with someone because they are not the ONE, it allows you to let them be who they are and cherish that, as well as fulfill all your unmet needs with someone else.

You do understand that the Christian believes that no one's need are met wholly by another person or group of people, right? The Christian believes no one's needs are met without Christ.
-Claven

[Porter Doran]

Someone's being "the one" isn't a gift she gives you: it is a gift you give her, and that God gives you together.

"I and my father are one," said Jesus. There are those who believe that his teaching that those in heaven are not married means we shall all be more-than-married there. In short, marriage is not pragmatic but problematic, paradocic, mystical. Pregnancy too is not sensible selfishly -- it is (as a bland-looking young woman once pronounced in my hearing) parasitical, hampering, draining. These are lessons in one-souledness, in one-ness with the Father. Dying will be our greatest such lesson, and nobody looks for practical advantages in it.

We must grow out of this small skin.

[BackAlleyRadio]

Originally Posted by Pigmalia

How is having sex giving out love?

I didn't say anything about having sex. Poly gets a completely unfair stigma. I would think that people on this site, if no one else, would be apt to question stigmas perpetuated by the media and popular society. I am kind of playing devil's advocate, but I think all of your (all who have commented) assumptions and pre-conceived ideas are wrong and dismissive, which is why I like playing devil's advocate on this site. Some of you (and me often times) need to dig a bit deeper and stay away from quick "unchristain" labels to slap on things out of our comfort zones and experiences.

I am talking about having an intimate relationship with more than one person at a time. Another christian anarchist friend of mine defines poly as "friendships that are free from the usual boundaries society puts on relationships, letting the natural process of attraction and intimacy happen." In other words, one way to 'be poly' is to be close (sexually or not) with more than one person. WE ALL DO THIS; we just don't call it poly cause then it would be sinful. I have more than one friend that I share my life with and call when I need a hug and someone to cry with, or when I want to share my joys. Love, even intimate love is to be boundless. That's christian. It's the puritan in us all that wants to stay far away from anything sexual that leads us to be dismissive of poly. Sex is the issue here, it seems.

[BackAlleyRadio]

Originally Posted by glasshaus

You do understand that the Christian believes that no one's need are met wholly by another person or group of people, right? The Christian believes no one's needs are met without Christ.
-Claven

I'm not speaking metaphorically. Of course all my needs are met though God. A relationship with someone I love is how God has met that need. Kale growing in my garden is how God has met my need for food.

[Porter Doran]

You talk about our giving in to the "media and popular society", but your own posts are chock-full of lingo and buzzwords that you can't have analyzed. And do you really think sex is never addressed in the Gospels or Apostles? You say of "boundless" sex, "That's Christian," and move on, as though you have not just been historically, hermeneutically, and logically extraordinary.

I'd say you need to stop all the talk, and stop your lifestyle -- perhaps in the spirit of what Jesus and his followers call a fast (yes, forms of abstinence are integral to their message) -- and start thinking, hard. The lingo that satisfies you is a mess, to me. Pondering and self-scrutiny, friend -- not to mention self-abnegation -- these "are Christian".

[christopher]

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

In other words, one way to 'be poly' is to be close (sexually or not) with more than one person. WE ALL DO THIS; we just don't call it poly cause then it would be sinful.

I would argue that most people who practice polyamory would say that engaging in sexuality with multiple partners is inherent to polyamory, which is why most users here disagree with it. Polyamory is not loving more than one person at the same time, it is sexuality with more than one person at a time. Remember, definitions come about by how society uses them. People do not conform to the definition of a word or term; the dictionary conforms to people's use of it.
I do not have the right to judge you if you agree with polyamory or not, but do not try to redefine it - it's definition has been made clear by the English speaking collective.

[Rob A]

Excellent point christopher. I think it's a tragedy that in this culture we confuse "loving" and "having sex" so commonly.

[BackAlleyRadio]

Hmm, so much to say. I first want to say that at times the language used on this forum can be harsh and accusing, which is common to all forums due to the impersonal nature of computers. I just want to point that out so that it is acknowledged. I know that if I met some of you in person, I would be much more comforted by your personalities and tones of voices than I am here.

Ok, thats out of the way...

So I hear you all saying that poly is inherently sexual. I would say that you are correct, but that is because sexual behavior is the nature of intimate relationships (for most people). Sex is not exclusive and definitive of poly. Most people would say that sex is inherent in monogomous relationships too, and if you dont think so, leave your christian bubbles once and a while. It's definition has also been made clear by the English speaking public. Poly can be practiced sex free. Friendships can be sexual or sexless, regardless of the terminology used to describe them.

And about sex, there are PLENTY of christians out there who do not consider pre-marital sex sinful. There are denominations who are sex positive. So please do not slap an "unchristian" label on the idea, or on me for thinking it. It's like a fundamentalist church saying that the bible is clear on the fact that the rapture is going to take us all away. It may seem clear to them in their reading of the bible, but there are countless others who see no evidence of such things in the pages of Scripture. Sex is feared, and such fear about sex can be traced historically back to the church's rise to state power. If you can suppress someone's sexuality, you can control them. Pagan holidays honored the sexual (with some practices that are obviously sexist and immoral, but...) The new moral government of church and state used their power to hit people where it hurt, if you know what i mean. The first story in history about sexual shame is in our Hebrew-Christian Scriptures. The tale of adam and eve gives us a glimpse into a perfect world, the one that g-d intended, in which our bodies were honored and beautiful and we were not ashamed. It's a story about sexuality as much as it is about anything else.

I used to think pre-marital sex was wrong too. I know all the reasons that you all are convinced that it is wrong, or destructive, or unwise. let me challenge you by saying that there are other ways to think about it. Don't let your minds be kept in a box. I also know people who abstain for spiritual reasons, or because it just makes the most sense for them. That's cool too. But let's not fault those who have different ideas about sexuality, morality, or different interpretations of scripture.

[Porter Doran]

I would say the same things to you as I've said.

That is, if the subject were under discussion as clearly as it is here. I would not volunteer it to you over soup -- I would be trying to learn about you. But you see, while it is good to stand up for persons and comfort them, who is going to stand up for truth and ideas? There are things bigger than you and me.

You may feel stung by my speaking up to you, but if a thousand young persons are going to spend miserable days never knowing true sexual love in a marriage Jesus has blessed, if I were silent, then for which shall I shed my tears?

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

I know all the reasons that you all are convinced that it is wrong, or destructive, or unwise.

I think you don't. I hope you don't.

[BackAlleyRadio]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

I think you don't. I hope you don't.

Good point. That was a bit of an exaggerated statement. I'd be interested in hearing people's reasons for abstinence.

...also, if I refrain from magnified generalizations, can you please refrain from accusatory language? It really does bother me. Thanks...

[BackAlleyRadio]

Wait, I think you edited something. I didn't read your post addressing language til just now. Thanks for that. I understand.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

Wait, I think you edited something. I didn't read your post addressing language til just now. Thanks for that. I understand.

What is this?

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

I'd be interested in hearing people's reasons for abstinence.

The matter to be understood is not abstaining, but loving.

Romantic love is no love that is not monogamous and uxorious.

This Jesus taught (Mar x.6ff et al.) and Paul taught (e.g. Eph v.25) -- and this the fourteen-year-old instinctively knows -- and when you have got the time, I'd like very much to hear the story that can answer: How have you trained yourself otherwise?

[Porter Doran]

In America, half of marriages end. Does love end? The matter of romantic love is urgent to be plumbed and fathomed.

[Marja]

Fifteen years ago, I fell in love. I didn't understand what I was feeling at the time. I was before puberty, and besides, there were other problems. We were very good friends and were never sexual. We got separated. I missed her. Each year I missed her more. Less than three years ago, we crossed paths online and got back in touch, although it has been on-and-off since then.

I love her. I can't stop loving her.

Last I heard, she loves someone else as deeply as I love her.

I really don't know if she's fond of me too, but I know that she's aware of the barriers to any meeting.

The point is that we don't have any choice about who we fall in love with. I think that cutting ties is likely to lead to very real pain, and is going to make it hard to express agape as well as friendship and romance. I think that we need to learn to express the friendship and/or romance we feel with the people we feel it for. Of course, it gets very complicated when one person feels purely friendly affection, and no sexual affection, and the other person feels intensely sexual affection, or if both feel intensely sexual affection but both want to avoid sex.

And anyway, marriage as we know it is rooted in the inheritance system as much as anything else. I don't know whether a truly Christian community would have an inheritance system.

[Pigmalia]

You don't have to make it up as you go. The NT actually speaks to these kinds of things. And what do we show witness to as followers of the Way in suggesting sexual relations that most non-Christians would wince at?

If the Bible is a reliable witness we ought to be cognizant of the wisdom therein. These people were like us, and I'm sure if they could have attained a higher spiritual community through one big ongoing orgy they would have been glad to pass that on to us.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Pigmalia

You don't have to make it up as you go. The NT actually speaks to these kinds of things. And what do we show witness to as followers of the Way in suggesting sexual relations that most non-Christians would wince at?

If the Bible is a reliable witness we ought to be cognizant of the wisdom therein. These people were like us, and I'm sure if they could have attained a higher spiritual community through one big ongoing orgy they would have been glad to pass that on to us.

Hear hear!

For fear of diverting the thread (not to mention hogging screenspace), I am going to link to a couple of letters I wrote a young friend (these are PDF files):

Friendship
Marriage

In them, I attempted to lay out (using parts of conversations I'd had in an ultraconservative Christian forum) what I think is the tenor of the Gospel upon romantic love. The letters are rambling -- be forewarned -- and the topic they attempt is too deep and vast. But their novelty may spark something in you -- even if that something is re-reading the New Testament in parts.

[Patrick]

Any loving, sexually intimate relationship, should start monogamous and the benefits of remaining as such are obvious and numerous. STD's are more mostly avoided, and matters of jealousy and openness are easier to deal with as well. However, if someone starts to feel the same strong feelings towards another person both partners should be able to be open enough to the other person to at least allow discussion about it, if after talking and feeling it out with who you are already involved with it is not going to work then that should be honored and you just focus even more on the relationship you are already in. If both parties feel it could work after talking and feeling it out then it should be pursued and dealt with honestly, open and maturely. But if someone feels even an inkling that they might not be able to deal with it in those ways, then forget about it ever working.