Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Polyamory, Buddhist-style
[B]Polyamory[/B]: the practice/lifestyle of being open to having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved
I went to a Buddhist study group last night that was held by a local Unitarian Universalist Church. Two women said they were involved in a polyamorous relationship with the same man, and they hoped that becoming part of a UU congregation would offer them spiritual support.
They certainly seemed happy and well adjusted, and of course I was at a loss. One woman identifies herself as a "spiritual seeker" (like me) and finds that Buddhist teachings enhance her lifestyle perfectly -- releasing attachments and desires, freeing oneself from possessiveness, etc.
I admit it. I don't understand these lovely women. I am thoroughly perplexed when it comes to these types of relationships. I guess what scares me is that these women gave so many reasons why polyamorous relationships are superior to monogamy. The main reason seems to be the belief that women are monogamous while men are polygamous. It's supposedly part of a man's nature to spread his "love" around. They believe monogamy equals heartbreak, as it leads to cheating. The heartbreak stems from jealousy and possessiveness on the part of the spouse/significant other. (I somewhat resent that last belief -- it seems like the "victim" is being blamed.)
I can certainly see their point in terms of the failure of many monogamous relationships. Infidelities occur all the time, the divorce rate is high, etc.. But I just cannot see sharing someone I love with someone else. Like most other people, I would be jealous, hurt, and yes, perhaps this stems from possessiveness on my part.
I have always been considered open-minded. I don't see where there is anything wrong with how someone expresses their sexuality, so long as they act in a responsible manner. I realize that my ill-feelings for polyamory stem from my insecurities about monogamy. I actually envy these people, to tell you the truth.
I find it interesting these three people are studying/practicing Buddhism. It makes sense.
What do you all think of polyamory, and do you think Buddhism offers a philosophy that would prove beneficial for those considering such a lifestyle? (Personally, I would have to chant until I turned blue to accept this into my life, but anyway.......):-/
I went to a Buddhist study group last night that was held by a local Unitarian Universalist Church. Two women said they were involved in a polyamorous relationship with the same man, and they hoped that becoming part of a UU congregation would offer them spiritual support.
They certainly seemed happy and well adjusted, and of course I was at a loss. One woman identifies herself as a "spiritual seeker" (like me) and finds that Buddhist teachings enhance her lifestyle perfectly -- releasing attachments and desires, freeing oneself from possessiveness, etc.
I admit it. I don't understand these lovely women. I am thoroughly perplexed when it comes to these types of relationships. I guess what scares me is that these women gave so many reasons why polyamorous relationships are superior to monogamy. The main reason seems to be the belief that women are monogamous while men are polygamous. It's supposedly part of a man's nature to spread his "love" around. They believe monogamy equals heartbreak, as it leads to cheating. The heartbreak stems from jealousy and possessiveness on the part of the spouse/significant other. (I somewhat resent that last belief -- it seems like the "victim" is being blamed.)
I can certainly see their point in terms of the failure of many monogamous relationships. Infidelities occur all the time, the divorce rate is high, etc.. But I just cannot see sharing someone I love with someone else. Like most other people, I would be jealous, hurt, and yes, perhaps this stems from possessiveness on my part.
I have always been considered open-minded. I don't see where there is anything wrong with how someone expresses their sexuality, so long as they act in a responsible manner. I realize that my ill-feelings for polyamory stem from my insecurities about monogamy. I actually envy these people, to tell you the truth.
I find it interesting these three people are studying/practicing Buddhism. It makes sense.
What do you all think of polyamory, and do you think Buddhism offers a philosophy that would prove beneficial for those considering such a lifestyle? (Personally, I would have to chant until I turned blue to accept this into my life, but anyway.......):-/
0
Comments
I'm pretty firm on this one.
Brigid
Nope. It has to do with choice.
And people choose, but then change their minds.
Man is one of the few animals on earth that is monogamous, but it's an imposed discipline, decided on man-created laws and implemented by society. But Man, as a mammal is a gregarious creature, and by virtue of the fact that virtually everyone who enters into a long-term relationship has had others beforehand, it's testimony to the fact that we all test the waters, and then plump for a long-term relationship.
But I bet that if Society didn't wield this big stick called monogamy and faithfulness, men (by their very nature) would be happy to play the field and spread thir genes, and females (by their very nature) would look for a strong dominant male or two to sire their offspring.
What these women are doing is both Buddhist and 'Natural'. they appear to have released attachment, desire and clinging, but are also behaving in a primordial mammalian fashion... and it goes so much against the grain it's shocking.
This is why Atzigara was so fazed by it.
(If I were a man, I might be a bit insulted by the implication that I have no self-control, that I can't make a choice, and that I only care about mating with as many women as possible.)
I've always seen this as Brigid, but I have to admit that it might be because I don't understand it well enough (or maybe not at all).
There are many monogamous species other than humans, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the issue since it is humans we are discussing, not Puffins, for example.
This has been proven wrong a number of times. I'll look up some of the anthropological studies on this to prove this point later. I need to get some sleep now, or soon. But one point I can make here with some certainty is that there is no such thing as our "very nature". Human nature is not static, it is ever evolving, ever changing. There is no "one way" that humans are, have been and always will be.
I really disagree with this statement. If these women had truly "released attachment, desire and clinging" they wouldn't be in a romantic relationship. And I don't really think they're "behaving in a primordial mammalian fashion..." at all. I think they're behaving in a modern, fashionable and immature fashion.
I'm off to bed with my two husbands. (I only said it was immature, not that I was mature. And I'm not expecting it to last. That's why I insisted on the prenup.)
Brigid
I have to agree with Fede on this.
I've seen a number of shows and read a number of articles (for what that's worth!) about how we're dealing with sexuality in the last 200 years compared to the 20,000? 30,000 years it took us to get here.
The last show I saw was on how sexuality has changed in humans from our rise as primates. How women's hips have changed and moved, why males don't have penile bones, how the desire for a larger penis has changed us from our primates beginnings, why females are so jealous of their numbered eggs that they look for the right man and how a man doesn't worry about this because he creates enough sperm in a day to fertilize enough eggs to populate the US.
I don't know that this really has anything to do with the topic at hand, but I think monogomy is a relatively current social norm. I think it works for most people and works just fine for me. If something else works for others and they're cool with it - it is really of no importance to me.
-bf
Hmmmm...I'm not so sure I agree with that statement about men being happy by continually playing the field to spread their seed everywhere. I think it depends on the man. There are men out there that are perfectly happy in a monogamous relationship. In fact, there are some animals that stay as mates for life as well. But..maybe you are right...maybe it's because society has told us that is the way it should be.
But I do agree with Buddhafoot...if being in a polygamous relationship works for some people..I don't care. It doesn't bother me. I could never do it, but that's just me. I think there are still quite a few mormons that still follow this lifestyle.
Ditto.
HH
Hey I think you may be meaning, to Plumb for a relationship-meaning to seek the depths as in "Plumbing"? Is that what you meant?
I think if we PlumP for a relationship-it would mean that we stack on the pounds-which is true for some of us-OHH That Was NASTY!
Quick History Lesson(for the benefit of our local sangha historian-Brigid)
"Plumbum" is the Latin term for Lead and for the installation of the lead pipes used by the Romans as well-Plumbing.
this is also why Lead on the Periodic table has the symbol Pb.
regards,
Richard.
I should probably check this out for myself first, before posting. But I wouldn't want to deprive anyone from having a good laugh.
But it sounds right. I only had 1 year of Latin, grade 8 (13-14 years old).
But I'm going to check it out anyway.
Hey, you know what, Xray? This'll be a good chance to find some good sites on Latin!
Thanks, dude.
Brigid
• verb 1 set or sit down heavily or unceremoniously. 2 (plump for) decide in favour of (one of two or more possibilities).
• adverb informal with a sudden or heavy fall.
— ORIGIN probably imitative
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/plump_2?view=uk
I know what I meant.
What a smartie you are, Xray!
Thanks again.
(Sorry for interrupting, again.)
Brigid
Desmond Morris is a world renowned Zoologist and ethologist.
It was he who put forward the theory of man as an animal, not me.
I'm just taking from the expert....
('The Naked ape' published 1967 and 'The human Zoo' published 1969.)
Controversial or not, there's a lot of sense in what he says.....
One of the things I understand from this is that humans have the opportunity to overcome and transcend their animal-like instincts through experiential spiritual understanding. If this is the case, why would we choose to believe that we are only animals and that our behavior is based solely on animal instinct rather than thorough reasoned thought and hard won experiental understanding?
As Buddhists don't we believe that humans are capable of transformation?
Love,
Brigid
This is what sets us 'above' animals. This is why we're at the top of the food chain.
This is why we are capable of immeasurable acts of compassion and love, and extraordinarily dreadful acts of cruelty and hate.... Our Minds define who we are....
I was merely trying to illustrate that like it or not, we are, nevertheless, still a mammal.
We display traits of 'animal' behaviour, precisely because we have evolved along those lines.
And if you take Buddhism as a means of elevating ourselves from the swamp, remember that Buddhism also says that we are all inseparable... we are all connected... right down to the amoeba....
I'm not suggesting the 'Rightness' or 'wrongness'... I was merely introducing an aspect that is widely held as respectable and probable.
Neither am I suggesting we are 'only' animals.
"Culture is, roughly, everything we do, and monkeys don't."
Lord Raglan (1927-1964)
Our Education and development have elevated us to a status higher than any other creature on Earth.
Whether that is a "good" thing or not, is yet another topic for discussion.....
Anyway, in response to the original post, I don't think there is anything particularly buddhist about polyamory, though buddhism may be used to inform individuals who engage in polyamory. The closest relationship I can see between the two is the precept of refraining from sexual misconduct. I have heard this generally means between consentual adults (usually in the context a loving and committed relationship) and sexual contact is to be limited the areas intended for procreation. It really doesn't apply directly to how many consential partners are involved. In this sense, polyamory is no better or worse than monogamy. Here, the measure is simply in cause/effect.
Anyway, having briefly explored this lifestyle with my wife, I can certainly say it is not for everyone (especially myself) I consider one partner to be difficult enough. Additionally, while the idea of not closing the relationship off to new love is theoretically a good one, these relationships ultimately involve humans who tend to not be fully enlightened. In other words, jealousy, uncertainty and many other undesirables are involved in such a lifestyle. Additionally, many polyamorous partnerships tend to involve lust more than love. This can create a quite unstable environment which can leave those involved wondering why they even got married in the first place.
Now, while most people I have met who are involved in this lifestyle are doing it for the wrong reasons, I do know of 2 successful polyamorous relationships which cannot be described as immature in any significant way. While many are just swingers, there are a select few who really do have a mature, deep & meaningful relationship within the context of polyamory.
anyway, just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.
_/\_
metta
Great post! Experience is, of course, the best teacher.
Thank you.
Brigid
Good article.
have saved it for more thorough perusal.
del
Of course we are still part of the biological / physical world being humanly embodied. But to look at the nonmonogamous nature of most animals as a rolemodel for human behavior is pretty much negating the opportunities ( and the challenges ) for engaging wholeheartedly our spiritual growth which can expand beyond the blindly instinctual or sexual tendencies or nature of most animals behaviors.
It also seems, to me at least, that rationalizing human philandering or nonmonogamous sexual behaviors by suggesting it has something to do with biological urges connected with propogating as many children or sustaining the human species is again missing the reality that we have the capacity to recognize that for one there are too many people on this earth in most places for the way we live on it. And especially in relationship to other species, we have pretty much taken over the planet and pushed many animals and ecosystems into little corners of land and near extinction in some cases.
Though some people are still blinded or motivated more by their impulsive urges & instincts rather then using the universally given opportunities for deeper responsability, growth, awareness & more conscious channeling of instinctual, sexual and primordial urges.
This planet does not really need the exponentially increasing human population explosion, that the denial of our potentials for more conscious rechanneling of the instinctual urges to engage in sexual expression with multiple partners or sire as many offspring as possible contributes to, to other forms of love and harmoniously respectful living on this earth.
Then there is also the absence of awareness in most animals of the spreading of diseases through intimate and sexual contacts among themselves. Case in point, the recent revelation that among the vast population of apes in the wild AIDS and similar sexually transmitted diseases is rampant and spreading due to their sexual relations with multiple "partners". That and likely eating each other at times through blood transmission.
Another relevent consideration is the capacity for a mediational, devotional love for all beings that can be enriched and expanded through sexual loving devotion through monogamy in manifesting, regenerative respect and appreciation of the fundamential equality and universally vast, eternal nature of ourselves and a specific compatible love partner / best friend / spiritual companion. Though we may feel love for all beings, it is useful to reflect that we are not physically able to have quality, genuinely loving and deep sexual love with all people. Though we do have some play room to spread ourselves and sexual affection around to an extent. To learn our own lessons as we choose. Though I'm not sure how well i could be monogamous right now, partly just jaded a bit and recognize a certain joy as well in sharing sexual love spontaneously with loved people.
There does seem to be a certain potential for a deeper and more expansive, clear love for all beings in ways through loving all being balanced, grounded & enriched by & while being sexually lovingly devotional to the eternity, equality, love and respect for the health and safety of one specific, compatible bestfriend / intimate love companion through the brief journey we have on this earth. Even the Dali Lama when asked about the subject of loving all people equating to having multiple sexual partners, said if someone relating sexually lovingly can't fully and devotionally love one specific being through an ongoing & monogamously committed relationship and evolve beyond instinctual and sexual urges for being sexual with multiple people in order to protect the health, appreciate the "enoughness" and equality of one specific love companion through being sexually monogamous, that ones "love" for others will ultimately be watered down and more motivated by selfishness, lust or a certain type of sexual or emotional greed under a slightly or overtly confused idea of freedom and love. He also felt that when we are sexual with someone our bodies make a promise to be sexually faithful and monogamous with that one person, even if our desires, emotional or sexual excessiveness compels us to want more, more, more. Greed under guise of love. Though I would say with love, its a learning process which some stay in and idealize as more "liberated", "free" or "loving", though in reality being nonmonogamous is none of those things, it is simply being bound and controlled by a subtle or overt inner discontent and underappreciativeness at some level of the equality, vast underexplored inner and outer universe, soul & love of another compatible soul as well as our own. Of getting so attracted to all the pretty, shiny and glistening myridad manifestations that we feel we want to spread ourselves among multiples in that way rather then appreciating the natural ebb and flow of a fully loving, spiritually sexual relationship with one equal soul. We can still love all beings without having sexual relations with all beings. Thus, may as well love one other equal being as fully as possible in the personal & sexual relational realm so that the eternal depth, wisdom, revelations, evolving love and respect we nurture through this can be shared more richly & truly with all beings. By respecting one completely we offer the best expression of discerning love, that of example.
Like children some will still want whatever they want, such as more food for instance when they want it even though they already have all the food they really need, and like children it is up to those with a more comprehensive perspective to not always give children everything they think or feel they want, but to also withhold some desires in order to rechannel their wants to more healthy and ultimately more fulfilling and respectful needs and love expressions. To guide them back,if only through example, to appreciating the equally vast garden of food that already exists in themselves and a partner. The qualities and experiences that really matter in a quality relationship and sexual loving can be fullfilling enough with one person, the factor is our and our partners willingness to be regeneratively appreciative, loving, self-fullfilled and affectionate enough. To do our own inner work that enhances appreciation while releasing the burden and attachments of excessive feelings of need for more than the equality of another being in these personal sexual loving realms.
An interesting exploration of this realm of attachments, love, sexuality and desire is authored by Stephen & Ondrea Levine in their book "Embracing The Beloved".
Another one, though not Buddhist specifically, is called "Creating Union", by Eva Pierrakos & Judith Saly, published by Pathwork Press.
At the same time, as long as we are totally upfront, honest about our lifestyle and sexual love choices with ourselves and whoever we relate with, then we can still enjoy and learn in ways from what we choose to do. Whatever we are doing, upfront, forthcoming honesty with ourselves and whoever we are relating with really helps to keep our choices clearer, cleaner & more respectful than being deceitful, sneaky, manipulating others through withholding honesty and truths that another might make a different choice in relation to us if they knew the full truth of who and what they are relating with which is of course their / our right. Freedom also includes the balancing element of accountability and honesty to be truly healthy. Otherwise we are mostly being self-absorbed & narcissisticaly halfhearted in our relations, revealing only some of ourselves and not the whole truth of ourselves to another and to a relationship. To be fully forthcoming, honest & revealing of our choices, attitudes, feelings, behaviors of who we are totally as much as we know reveals to ourselves and the relationship its fuller potentials for being in wholistic truth & being used as a devotional meditational practice and manifestiating of truth in love.
I agree wholeheartedly, Fed (he muttered, jumping in at the last minute). As I was trying to point out in the other thread on violence, humans are at their core mammals, and more than that, killer apes. That doesn't mean that we can't change and evolve in this life, but it's where we're starting from. Often we behave in very ape-like ways without ever realizing it. The whole dating thing is very like that, the rituals we go through, the mating displays we put on. I remember as a teenager just marveling at my fellows who were into that sort of thing. Either they couldn't see what they were doing, or they didn't care. Perhaps I shouldn't have either! But I didn't...
Palzang
If a multiple relationship causes no harm and is with the informed consent of those involved in the relationship, there would appear to be no restriction according to the precept. That said, it is extremely uncommon to find a multiple relationship in which none of the parties feels jealousy, wounded self-esteem, exclusion or other harm.
Is it possible to have a multiple relationship without harm? Yes.
Is it likely given the norm of human behaviours and emotions? No.
Namo Amitofo
-fd-
TexZen,
When you say "it is extremely uncommon to find a multiple relationship in which none of the parties feels jealousy, wounded self-esteem, exclusion or other harm", is it not also apparent that this could be applied to many (if not a majority) of one-to-one relationships?
The Precept is not fulfilled by any particular relationship cohort but by its mindful implementation, however many or few our sexual partners.
No argument now -- or previously. Theoretically, the depth of a given relationship is not dictated by either the singularity or the multiplicity of the feelings.
If 50% of relationships end in divorce and one is involved in a dual relationship, what are the odds of the multiple relationship standing?
None of which, however, will lead me to blindly judge a given relational paradigm based upon a theoretical question. I will stand with the third precept as I understand it -- and the only intimate relationship I presently have or desire is with my cat.
Namo Amitofo
-fa dao-
When marriage has ceased to be another method by which the male human reduces the female to a secondary position, it may meet the strictures of the Precept.
As for your relationship with your cat, I would hesitate to suggest that it falls under the conditions of any suggestions anent sexual behaviour - but that is your own business!
I can only assume from your last response that you are not capable of comprehending the difference between intimate relationships and sexual relationships.
The mature individual can easily comprehend that not all intimate relationships are sexual and not all sexual relationships are intimate. The immature do not understand this distinction -- which comprises 90% of western civilization. You are not alone.
FWIW- there are sutras that discuss how a householder should treat concubines -- which would indicate that Buddhism did indeed comprehend the concept of multiple relationships.
Namo Amitofo
-fd-
TexZen,
I fear your assumption is wrong, although I admit to having wandered in the shadowlands in which they get confused.
My point was not meant to be argumentative. I was suggesting that marriage per se is no guarantee that the precept will be observed. Indeed, I would go further and say that no social, legal or religious rutual which can be any such guarantee. It is not a matter of how many form the relationship group, it refers to the interpersonal process.
We had an interesting case here in the UK some time ago where a sado-masochistic group, taken to court, claimed that they were a private and consensual group. Legally, we grant the individual the right to make decisions about sexual behaviour beyond a certain age ('age of consent'). Beyond that age, how do we apply our understanding to the Precept on sexual behaviour?
I have argued in the past that the form of marriage which is advocated in US/European culture is oppressive to women and institutionally sexist. But this would take us into wider areas.
I was not trying to contradict or challenge your points, simply to add to them.
I think you'll further find it was just a little bit of humour..... we knew exactly what you meant, we just chose to look upon it funnily. I thought it amusing, but didn't take the opportunity to respond.....
Ease up, my friend, we're all chums on here, and sometimes, British witicisms can be lost when they sail across the Pond.....
Main points:
1) "Polyamory" is relational, not merely sexual.
2) The third precept does not specifically bar TYPES of relationship. It speaks only to the NATURE of the relationship and the behavior therein.
3) Given cultural and behavioral tendencies in the west, multiple relationships are statistically less likely to be successful than are monogamous relationships -- and monogamous ain't no guarantee of success either.
4) Buddhist Canon does indeed contain sutras dealing with plural relationships.
As to S&M relationships -- I believe the "cause no harm" aspect of the 3d precept would probably discourage such relationships given their emotional, mental and spiritual foundations.
Good to "see" you too Mermaid
Same to Gen and everyone else.
Namo Amitofo
-fd-
I used to think that, until I ran into a large group of people who practice bdsm. I am sure there is some harm for some people, but frankly, their ideas on sex seemed a lot more consensual than most "normal" sexuality I encountered.
I can't think of a relationship one person has with another that does not cause some pain - whether that pain is intentional or not.
So - does one refrain from engaging in relationships altogether?
Just an odd bit of logic for ya all.
-bf
Is there not a difference between having compassion and not hurting? Granted, often compassion means not hurting, but there are times when true compassion can cause pain in others. (When I deny my youngest son immediate and unlimited access to candy, he claims to suffer greatly, but compassion dictates I let him suffer this pain, so that he will have teeth when he is 21.)
Works for me...
Palzang
There are times....
but on the whole, I am pretty relationship friendly. Mostly.
Palzang
Hello Arctic...don't know if we've been formally introduced....! Nice to meet you!
The only way I have personally found to practise anything skilfully is to measure it up against the Eightfold path.
if it feels good, do it.
When in doubt, don't.
Or, as a parent:
In matters of taste, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.
The great teacher and writer Aelred of Rievaulx addressed this with kindness and wisdom, seeing deep friendships as a blessing. My own novice master was far less certain. The tradition in which I was being trained had an old rule that we were not to walk alone or in pairs but in threes, in order to avoid too much closeness.
Once again, the monastic life, as offering the most 'complete' way of practising, sets the question before us as laypeople without necessarily answering it for us.