Forms of Poly and Nonmonogamy

While I’m thinking of the topic, I think I am going to do something of a live review of Opening Up, by Tristan Taormino.  I'm about a third (ish) of the way through the book, but having just read about different forms of nonmonogamy, I would love to share them and not have to wait until I finish the book.

This is a book that I immediately connected with on a level which I did not connect with The Ethical Slut.  It is more of a how to guide than the other book and, most importantly to me, provides me with information on different forms of nonmonogamy.  The book has an entire section devoted to different styles of poly/nonmonogamy; six whole chapters detailing what they are and how they work.

I'm going to talk about the six different broad styles of nonmonogamy that Tristan talks about and then add some personal thoughts to them.

Partnered Nonmonogamy:

This is a situation where you already have a primary partner and are not looking to add a secondary partner or secondary relationship.  Instead a committed couple is looking for something exclusively sexually nonmonogamous.  For instance, a couple goes to a BDSM party and partners off with someone else while at that party.

This is a style which somehow never occurred to me.  Part of that is that I'm not sure I'd ever be able to have casual sex with someone and not let emotions enter into it.  My emotions are very tied into who I am and I suspect I would have a hard time separating sex purely for pleasure from my emotions.  Nevertheless, this seems like a great way to expand your sexual experiences, meet new people, but still not lose your partner by doing so.

Swinging:

Swinging is a style of nonmonogamy that is more known by the general public.  It's also a style of which I have never been able to grasp the appeal.  Swinging is similar to partnered nonmonogamy, but it carries with it a greater attachment to community and socialization.  It can be used to get to know other couples better and become more comfortable with each other.  There is a large swinging community, which is generally very welcoming.

However, swinging (particularly in the past) generally is not as friendly to lesbians or (particularly) bi/gay men.  The general dynamic is either two heterosexual couples or a heterosexual couple and a bi/lesbian woman.  And while their are situations where bi/gay men are beginning to be welcomed, it is still a fairly blocked off lifestyle for them.

Polyamory:

This is the style of nonmonogamy that I practice and it is one of the more complex ones to understand because it is such a broad topic.

Hierarchical Polyamory- This style of polyamory seems to be more common than its sibling (nonhierarchical poly).  As the name implies, this style relies on a hierarchy.  People have primary and secondary or tertiary partners.  The primary partner is central and secondary (etc, etc) relationships are considered less of an importance.  A relationship might be primary for various reasons: you're cohabiting, your finances are mingled, you're raising children together, you've been with that partner longer, etc.  Also, Sue could be Jane's primary partner, but Jane considers Brad her primary partner.  There can be many different combinations.

This is an incredibly practical way to handle and prioritize relationships, but for me, it's far to clinical, unrealistic, and limiting.  I've never been particularly good with hierarchies in general.  When everyone else in elementary school was saying: "my best friend", I was saying: "one of my closest/best friends".  I really really dislike saying: "You are more important to my life" because both emotions and importance are not quantifiable.

Nonhierarchical Polyamory- I identify more as practicing nonhierarchical polyamory.  I have been with Boyfriend a great deal longer than Lana, that's true, but I also am not going to neglect her.  They both make me happy.  I enjoy being with both of them.  That's all I can really say.  (As for a description of this, the name of the style pretty much says it all).

Solo Polyamory:

This is another style of polyamory/nonmonogamy that I'm not sure that I would ever do, again because I'm not sure I could handle casual sex (/be able to keep casual sex casual).  In this style, a person does not have a primary partner but generally has many partners who they have sexual, casual, less serious relationships.  The word single can mean many things (anywhere from: not married to not in a relationship) so the author prefers the terms solo.  This is a great way to not immerse/submerge yourself in a relationship, but instead be able to keep track of who you are.

Polyfidelity:

Polyfidelity is fascinating to me, so I read this chapter out of order (a couple weeks ago, so I had to go back an review it).  In essence, polyfidelity is where you are dating multiple people but your relationship is essentially closed and you are not actively looking to other people to be in a relationship with.  There are so so many different configurations that this can take, and these formations also apply to polyamory in general.  Here are some of the most basics configurations that he mentions.

Triad- This is when three people have sexual and romantic relationships with each other.

V triad- In this situation, one person is dating two people, but the other two people are not dating each other.  Think of the Meeting point of the V as the person with two partners and the two end points of the V as the other two partners.

Quad- This can have many different gender and orientation configurations, but it is where four people are all dating each other.

Poly circle/Poly family- This is essentially a situation where more than four people are all (or mostly all) dating each other.

W- a fivesome.  Think of it as an unconnected poly circle or two connected V triads.

I currently am in a V triad situation, where both Boyfriend and Lana and myself are allowed to see other people if we wish (so the relationships are still open).  I think at the moment two relationships is all I want.  That may change, I suppose we shall see (at the very least I'm currently not interested in anyone else).  I think, somewhere in my mind, secretly, I would love to see what a non-V triad is like some day.

Mono/Nonmono and Poly/Mono Combinations:

I didn't realize what this was from the chapter title, but it made infinitely more sense once the author explained.  By the title, he meant a situation where one partner is nonmonogamous/poly and the other is monogamous.  He mentioned that this is a style that is rarely talked about or mentioned, but is far more popular than you might expect.  I suppose, to some extent, I am in this situation since both of my partners are currently monogamous, though they have the option to be nonomongamous if they are interested in someone.  In this chapter, Tristan spends a good (and worthwhile) amount of time explaining that this is a valid lifestyle and can be the right choice for people.  The relationship does not have to be inherently unequal if both partners are okay with the situation.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

I think that's all I have to say at the moment.  I'm certain I will write more about this book as I get further into it, but that being said, I highly recommend it and suggest buying it because the author deserves the money for putting together this wonderful book.

Note: Some time when I am not exhausted (maybe tomorrow) I will add these terms to my terminology post, which is something I have been doing as I learn/think of new terms.

The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo- My Thoughts

Yesterday night I went to A Girl with a Dragon Tattoo with Lana (the theatre was incredibly crowded (ie completely full) on a 9p on a Tuesday night).  I have been meaning to read the book for ages, but just have never quite gotten around to it, which means I have no idea how the book reads.  I want to talk about the women in the story for a moment and I think I can do it without spoiling you anymore than a summary would, but be warned spoilers and very very possible triggers (I was ahoy.

The movie itself played out like a book, which I didn't know was possible for a movie to do.  It was one of the best movies I've seen in a long time (though I don't actually watch many movies), but it also was the most triggering and difficult to get through that I have ever seen.  The movie features two scenes where a women is forced into sexual situations and is raped and one seen where the woman takes vengeance against her attacker in the form of both rape and violence.  And all three of the scenes made my grit my teeth, tense up, squeeze Lana's hand and just try to get through it.  I'm not sure I ever

The movie features one of the most independent and strong woman I have ever seen depicted in literature, television, or film.  The audience is made aware that she has been abused multiple times throughout her life if they can do a little reading between the lines.  And she certainly is traumatized by this, but she is shown, despite being quite young, as being completely able to handle herself.

Though the movie is primarily populated with men, it does pass the Bechdel Test (a movie passes if it has two named female characters who have a conversation which is not about a man).  And the women who are not the protagonists are also frequently portrayed as strong.  It is movie about the victimization and assault of women, so the strong contrast between women in vulnerable positions and women rescuing themselves from those situations is a strong and unusual one.

Always in movies the women are rescued by men or, very very occasionally, but other women.  I'm not sure I have ever seen a woman who was able to deal with a situation by herself.  Now, I want to be very very clear, many women in situations like the ones in this movie do need help.  Situations can easily get beyond one person's ability to handle the, and so they should be encouraged to ask for help.  What just struck md most was movies always portray men as the knight in shining armor and this time is was the women, both for themselves and others, who were the "knight in shining armor"

A Review: The Ethical Slut

One of the very first things I did when I realized I was poly was locate good books on the subject. Will recommended The Ethical Slut by Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy to me and I also bought Opening Up by Tristan Taormino, which I will review when I finish.

I started The Ethical Slut right away and I liked the tone Janet and Dossie took immediately: accepting, personal, open. And I want to cover what I disliked now because I liked a lot more than I disliked. My three problems with book were that it was so general that I didn’t feel it ever related directly to my situation, I felt like I already knew the vast majority of the information, and the authors spend great length on defining an ethical slut and I’m pretty sure I don’t fit the definition of slut.

In regard to the first problem, I fully admit, the book is intended as a general overview, which is very very accepting of everyone. It does its best to assure  us that as long as everyone is equal in the relationship that you’re doing just fine. And these are wonderful messages, but I just wanted more specific information. In relation to the second issue, I have done a lot of reading online about polyamory already, so the repeat of information is not particularly surprising. Finally, I don’t think being a slut is a bad thing. I think it’s a fairly awesome lifestyle but I have spent most of my latest years being monogamous and so have slept with very very few people. Dossie and Janet’s point is that being a slut is more a lifestyle than an action, but I’m just not entirely sure I agree. I am sex-positive, I think people should be allowed to have whatever and however much sex they would like as long as everyone is consenting, I just didn’t identify as a slut and thus every time the word was used I felt a weird dichotomy.

Really quickly, while I’m on the topic of disagreeing with the authors, their views on cheating were strange to me. While they did acknowledge that cheating in a closed, monogamous relationship was a major breach of trust, they professed that the partner who was cheated on should forgive their partner and that the relationship should be open. They stated that they believed this would be the best solution to solving the cheating problem. However they did not address that maybe the cheated on partner didn’t want to be nonmonogamous. They never really acknowledged that perhaps breaking up would be the best solution to this size of breach of trust and betrayal. And while I’m not positive that breaking up is warranted every single time a person is cheated on I think it certainly should at least be a very possible option (I can think of a few friends who may disagree with this statement).

Moving on: I have no intention of reviewing the book in order or chapter by chapter (mainly because I let someone else borrow the book and I don’t have it with me right now). I will however talk about things as the occur to me.

I greatly appreciate that the book addresses problems that happen in both “traditional” and “nontraditional” relationships. Janet and Dossie discuss jealousy, communication, break ups, and several other types of issues. The advice they give is solid (though I felt like skipping the chapter on jealous since it has never really been a big issue for me).

They also spend in depth time discussing terminology and defining what sex is (uggh hanging preposition again…I should fix that…). “What do you mean?” You say, “Sex is intercourse between a man and a woman” (penis-in-vagina sex). But that is an incredibly heteronormative point of view. Most of my friends, the authors of this book, and myself would say that sex can be considered any sexual act that you feel like qualifies.

In the beginning of the book, the authors talk about how and why monogamy is so common and valued in our society. They talk a great deal about Puritanical values and everything they say agrees with every history class I’ve ever taken. Apparently many other reviews of this book disagree with their statements about Puritans? Or something? I personally didn’t have problems with this section, nor did I believe they require citations.

As you might have noticed by now, I haven’t talked much about nonmonogamy/polyamory. It’s interesting, but the sections of these topics didn’t stick in my mind as much as the other parts. Again, I think this is because the book was so general; more of an overview of polyamory than a how to guide.

Overall, it’s a great book. I keep meaning to try the writing exercises they include throughout the book. Many of them seem like they could be extremely helpful. Even if know a fair amount about polyamory, I do recommend it, I just didn’t connect with it quite as much as I could have.

Torchwood

Firstly, this post contains major spoilers for Torchwood, particularly Children of Earth (but not Miracle Day).  It also contains very minor spoilers about Joss Whedon's works and Doctor Who.  The rest of the post is after the breal.

Note:  If you are going to give spoilers in any comments you make, please do so with an easy to see spoiler tag at the beginning of your comment.  Also, if you are reading using "View Post" as opposed to "View Blog" their will not be a jump break, so beware (stupid Blogger).

*~*~*~*~*~*

Caprica

First of all, this is not a post detailing why Caprica is awesome.  I firmly believe it is/was and that it shouldn't have been cancelled, but it isn't really something I want to debate.  What I would like to discuss is Caprica's view of sexuality.

Inside the world of Caprica there seem to be no laws dictating that x person cannot marry x person.  There are heterosexual marriages, homosexual marriages, group marriages and all of this is not treated as novel or exciting but simply matter-of-fact.  Within the Caprica universe any adult consenting person can marry whoever they wish.

I was discussing this with a friend a while back and we decided that well sexuality was handled quite well, gender was hardly addressed at all.  And, I think I still stand mostly behind this opinion, but I was thinking about it more and realized that gender is addressed in at least small subtle ways.  Firstly, within the work force, women are fairly likely to be in any position (simple employee to management).  I would say that their workforce is still leaning toward androcentric, but I think it's more balanced than our own society.  Secondly, gender roles do not seem to exist.  Children are raised (what seems to be) equally by both/all parents, both/all parents generally work, and the person who cooks in a family appears not to be gender based.  So, even though Caprican society is still largely heteronormative, there are little improvements that made me happy.

Finally, what interested me most about Caprica (which I mentioned earlier) were the group marriages.  This is a topic that is not addressed by any (that I can think of) media source.  Within the show it was a fascinating dynamic.  Within the group marriage everyone had (relatively) equal standing and everyone was expected to pitch in with chores and raising the children.

Group marriage interests me because it addresses a question I have always wondered about: what would it be like to raise a child with more than two parents.  The traditional statement is: children should be raised by one monogamous, heterosexual couple.  But, a homosexual couple is just as likely (some statistics point to more likely) to raise a child well than a heterosexual couple.  That raises the question, why would one monogamous couple raise a child any better than four polyamorous people or two monogamous-to-each-other couples.  Traditionally throughout history, children have been raised in a group setting.  When raised by only two people, a child gets only those two (generally just one) perspectives.  However, if you were raising a child in a group setting then you would have so many more opinions and I honestly believe this would help teach a child open-mindedness and flexibility.

Certainly there would be some issues when raising a child in a group setting.  You would have to set out strict guidelines between all members involved in the raising before having a child.  If not, you would be fairly likely to get the: "no, she's my biological child so my opinion should have more sway" or I have more children, so my opinion should have more sway".  You would likely still get these issues even with agreed upon rules.  However, I do think it would be a fascinating and possibly positive way to raise a child.