Originally published at Apollo Lemmon. Please leave any comments there.
Today, over at Integral Options Cafe, William brought my attention to “Polyamory in the News“. As he pointed out, polyamory is often viewed as very weird. The article and many opponents of the practice of polyamory become caught in a tangle.
Polyamory (from poly=multiple + amor=love) is a tricky subject, often because of a pre/trans fallacy. There are at least two approaches that accept polyamoury, one coming from “fuck you, I’ll sleep with anyone I want” and the other “these relationships we enter into are beneficial to us all and brimming with genuine love.” The two can easily be confused if one doesn’t know how to discern the difference in intent.
I experienced the feeling of and desire for polyamory with my first romantic and sexual stirrings. My first crush was on two best friends and ever since then my affections and tenderness were always twinned. Kira and Becky, Alicia and Jenna, and on my school crushes went. When I fell in love and had relationships later, I found that any love I felt did not diminish as I moved forward with new loves. Though the context changed, I have been blessed with loving friendships in the wake of romantic relationships. I thank my polyamorous tendencies for facilitating that, in part. Having an openness toward loving has become included as a vital aspect of my personality.
I’ve never actually practiced polyamory by having two intimate relationships at once, and it becomes a more challenging prospect as my moral understanding deepens. When we are taking into account everyone’s well being, stepping into multiple perspectives, avoiding harm and ensuring benefit for everyone is incredibly challenging. I have never been in a situation where I could say with certainty that being in relationships with two women would be best for us all, and so have remained, happily, in monogamy.
The openness to that happening remains. As Gary of Integral in Seattle pointed out in “Sacred Marriage“, higher levels of relationships are facilitating transformation and growth through intimacy. If the union of two people committed to that intimate evolution is so beautiful and beneficent it leaves us shattered in awe, what of more than two? Love becomes without boundary, and that includes both span (who we love) and depth (how deeply we love). Being in service of love then becomes about being skillful in how we act from love. I can only hope to be up to the challenge of love, however it arises.
a Goddess,
a Woman,
a Friend,
a Lover,
a Poem.The Universe smiles her name.
She lives within me.
In every star,
in every flower,
every breath of a breeze,
in everyone I meet.She is the essence of Love,
the BE-ing of Buddha,
the Salvation of Jesus,
the Glory of the Goddess.I am the Consort of the Goddess.
I am the one who adores her.
I am that she is.
– Gary Stamper, “Consort of the Goddess“
3 comments on “Polyamory”
Thanks for the link to that blog. I have to say it’s been a long time since I’ve looked at anything “integral”.
You know, the polyamory thing … and I /never/ talk about my Vajrayana / tantra stuff (except to once in a while say I’m still looking for a consort. My X spent some time in the monastery and met someone else there … what I consider very poor judgment.) … there’s something about monogamy that really empowers stuff. From my Zen training I’m very suspicious of my ability to weasel out of tight situations … “the builder of the house of ego” and all that. To /need/ to work through things is, I think, a very substantial support.
Yeah, the ego can be a nasty influence in any relationship, monogamous or not. I don’t see my theoretical approach to polyamoury as lacking structure or support; I’m not one to enter into a relationship frivolously. I believe I would approach any relationship with that same level of commitment.
I’ve been mulling over trying to find a teacher in Halifax for a while now. Is there any group or individual you’d recommend looking into? I’ve been feeling I could really use some structure and guidance in my practice.
I think we’re a bit out of sync here. I didn’t mean “ego” that way … I mean that when there’s a more complex situation there’s more opportunity for me to slip and slide and shuck and jive and dissemble and prevaricate and obfuscate and &tc &tc &tc. But in monogamous, energy stuff is more directed … much the dynamic of a student and a teacher … which is core to “consort”.
Well, you know about the Shambhala Center … we won’t revisit that, ok? But bottom-line: it’s solid dharma.
As an alternertive, my own teacher (the Dzogchen Pönlop Rinpoche) has a study group in Hali … rifling my Inbox I found the mail list … Mike Munroe has a yoga studio on OMG what’s that street’s name, but main one running west from the south corner of the Commons huh huh … got it ! http://www.nbhalifax.org/
Really … I could tell you stories of him. Like at Gampo Abbey when I showed him the slides of fractals I got from the guy I was working with at the Hubble SuperComputer Center and huh huh he didn’t miss a beat. Or in one audience when I came into his room heehee he was sitting cross-legged and noble/aristocratic with a laptop on one knee and the TV remote in his hand haaaaahaha “born in Tibet” yup yup. *beam* (He was actually born in Sikkim, Rumtek.)
So … thar ya go.
BTW: did you ever read anything by Herbert Guenther? The venerable old gentleman was translating texts in India and Tibet way back in the 50s … a Sanskritist at USaskatoon, if you can believe it … he passed away last year. KyeHo, we lost a great one. Fabulous old-school conversationalist he was.
And BTW: the MicroCredit conference was in Halifax last year … did you catch news of it? peek my (always eccentric) http://mozdawg.blogspot.com for a coupla links to Grameen stuff.
stay well
Comments are closed.