Cohousing-L Mailing List: polyamory, family and cohousing

[Andrea (andrea]

I've been reading this list via the archive for some time. I've subscribed
to participate in this conversation. I find many of the comments
interesting, and a few disturbing. Everyone I have met associated with
cohousing has gone on about how they espouse diversity in all forms.
Although I fully expect varying opinions on different backgrounds, interests
and lifestyles, I never thought I'd hear anything like "I won't live next to
her because..."

This message will also pretty effectively "out" me on a subject I haven't
mentioned except to a few -- everyone in my group is so tied up with
construction that day-to-day living will still take a bit to settle down. I
consider myself a "poly person," my "other half" (two thirds?) are a married
couple who live in another state. They have been legally married for a few
years but together much longer; I have been around for about 8 years, from
various locations. Maybe it won't last, but I have been told that for a long
time now and plenty of other things don't last, either. I've seen more than
a few marriages come and go in the past decade. There are places I don't
bring it up (work) but otherwise I'm pretty matter-of-fact about it. Some of
my friends (and one ex-friend) don't understand or don't approve, but other
than the occasional "Are you sure this is what you want?" comments, it is a
non-issue. I have "agreed to disagree" with some, my romantic involvement
isn't particularly relevant to friendship with others as long as the mere
mention of it doesn't cause them to froth at the mouth. I broke off with one
friend after a dozen too many rude comments about my intelligence or lack
thereof.

What follows are some comments about various statements from the past few
days. I've left off attributions in the interest of space. It's not really
important who said what, only that there is an intelligent discussion of the
topic without finger-pointing.

>Swinging - the 60s term for polyamory/serial monogamy
>- isn't really romance.  It's an alternative lifestyle that can be
>destructive to relationships in the long term

Like in many other things, terminology is crucial. For example, I've heard
that I'm supposedly involved in "Satanism" for fantasy role-playing, living
history, rock music, paganism, and several other things. Similarly, there is
the incorrect notion that swinging, relatively impersonal casual sex, is the
same as polyamory. It is loosely associated, under the concept of
"responsible non-monogamy" but is significantly different, as many have
pointed out already.

There are many varieties of non-monogamous relationships, from swingers to
intimate networks (friends and lovers in a loose structure) to long-term
closed group marriages. I doubt many divorced and remarried people would
call themselves swingers, but that is what the above statement says, and
they would be considered to be non-monogamous although American culture does
not typically interpret it that way. (Some religious groups do, even here,
and it is significant in some cases.)

>BEsides, with kids and work and
>meetings and shopping and doctors appts. and piano lessons,etc. my husband
>and I barely have time to say hello to each other. Where would we find time
>to "say hello" to anyone else!!

Some people feel that poly is an answer to just such dilemmas. In a
multi-adult household, there are more people around to deal with everyday
maintenance. With children, one or more adults may be able to stay home
because of the larger income pool. This sort of thing happens without
romantic interests already -- a return to the extended family, biological or
not. In a romantic context, it allows different kinds of relationships
between different members so that one need not give up friends or activities
because the other is not interested. The concept of "my one and only" is
seen as limiting, or even oppressive.

>My feeling is that it is quite clear that no one really knows 'what works',
>in fact, we are probably hard pressed to agree on what a successful
>relationship is.  Simply staying together long term is NOT the only
>criteria...

Relationships of all sorts last for decades or fall apart in spectacular
ways, but the breakup of a two-partner relationship is rarely decried as
proof of it's futility. Someone who is committed to a monogamous
relationship gets overwhelming social support for a successful relationship,
or at least to maintain the image of one. Someone in a non-monogamous
relationship is often censured, and does not have support to maintain a
successful relationship or attempt to mend a troubled one. One is held up as
the standard, despite it's failings, the other is condemned despite it's
successes.

And that does not even address the subject of plural marriage in other
cultures, and there are women who are very happy with their plural
marriages. For those who are troubled by the idea of multiple partner
relationships, would you feel different about a family with one husband and
more than one wife who were legally married in another country? Or were
members of a religious group who practice plural marriage without benefit of
civil law? My own relationship much resembles these forms.

>We have been living together in cohousing
>since 1993.  We've raised each other's kids.  I think that we feel like
>family, I think the concept of polyamory in an established cohousing
>community violates the incest taboo.

Some of the comments seem to express the fear that "some horny polyamorist
is going to steal my spouse" or that the common house will be used for
orgies. Maybe there are people who are interested in that sort of thing, but
not anybody I know. There is still the notion of who is an appropriate
potential romantic interest and who is not. It is poor form for a poly
person to become involved with another who is cheating on an unknowing
partner.

>The changing nature of relationships in society is one of the most
>fascinating things about living in this period of history.  Contraceptives
>have totally changed the old basis on which relationships were predicated,
>and it's still really unclear where it's going to end.  I can't tell if
>polyamory is going to be important in the future or not.

While there are a few who will blather on at length about how poly
relationships are "more evolved," this is not the normal poly opinion. It is
an option for those who choose to explore it. Technological change is
changing society, and many other things face change along with that. The old
plural marriage became the extended family, the 50's nuclear family and now
the two-earner couple as mobility increased and the need to be "on the land"
decreased. Where will we go from here? Who knows. I am even more mobile
still, and my relationship allows me to go off without worrying that there
is someone sitting home alone waiting for me. If I meet someone who enjoys
the same hobbies as I do, my partners are not threatened. If I were
interested, there is the possibility it could lead to romance (rarely does
it, actually) but there is not that overhanging threat of impending doom in
infidelity.

>This dichotomoy, between the public arena, and the private arena is very
>interesting to pay attention to, you can learn a lot about a community when
>you examine the difference between the two.

This is where the real community is, not in committee meetings and bylaws.

>In my experience a lot of people become interested in polyamory for some
>of the same reasons people become interested in cohousing -- a sense of
>wanting a closer community, an extended family, and so on.

This is exactly why I am interested. I enjoy being around people, but not
sharing everyday living space. I have often been involved with loose groups
of friends who share meals, resources and occasionally homes, effectively a
non-biological extended family. There were couples, kids, single folks, gay
and straight, and the occasional multiple relationship. It was all
considered normal. The goal, if there could be said to be one, was to have
happy, healthy people in supportive and positive relationships of whatever
flavor.

>it's not an individual's choice to be brown or gay, but it's a choice
>to be poly.

Many poly people feel that it is an inherent trait, much like sexual
preference, and argue that the relatively modern idea of "till death do us
part" associated with Christianity has made poly relationships
unfashionable. I do not believe it is possible to determine if a particular
behavior is "normal" or not in an environment where it is artificially
supported or suppressed by social pressure. There is a much stronger
biological purpose to multiple partners than either homosexuality or
monogamy. A number of scientific studies have shown that humans do not
appear capable of absolute monogamy, and so are in the same category with
the vast majority of species on this planet. That which is held up as the
ideal is far from the norm in practice. Is it "better" to choose to be
monogamous and repress any interest in other relationships? That is a moral
judgement, colored by societal mores, not biology. Is it a good thing? Well,
that depends.

>according to feminist theory, monogamy exists solely to control and exploit
>female labour, fertility, and sexuality.

This is the idea that women are owned as property, and that uncontrolled
sexuality "damages" her worth. Tied up with this is the idea that there is
only one kind of relationship between men and women: sexual. We are starting
to get beyond the first, but the second is still very much the entrenched.
This becomes the basis for moral judgements on what is right and wrong
concerning relationships. Many discussions of poly focus on who is sleeping
with whom and other bedroom gymnastics -- there are a wide range of
relationship possibilities and not all involve vast quantities of kinky sex.
And then there is the sexual double standard: a man with two women is called
lucky; a woman with two men is called a whore.

>I'm finding the discussion interesting, yet there's an element here
>reminding me of people who go on daytime TV

There are activists everywhere, and American culture is so obsessed with sex
that anything other than man-woman-marriage license-lights off is
titillating. Is this so different than a homosexual man or woman? Some
people don't want to go out and tell the world, but few will sit idly while
the world disparages them. I consider myself a reluctant activist, on this
and other issues. I would rather live my life quietly, but I do not wish to
support a view that denies my right to do so by my inaction.

>Let's not simply leave it to the subjects of prejudice to defend
>themselves. I would hope cohousing communities are, in general,
>open-minded enough to question the dominant paradigm, honor diversity,
>and to respect consenting adults'  private lifestyle and sexual choices
>and orientations in both the public and private arenas.

I often support positions I do not myself hold, but do not wish to deny
others the right to express. I may not directly benefit from it, but
anything that fosters "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a net
gain for everyone. That does not mean that I support any wacko cause that
comes along. I believe that every person should be allowed to practice his
or her religion, but I do not want it forced on me involuntarily or used to
deny me the right to practice mine or to live in peace. I do not agree with
what some groups have to say, but they have the same right to express
themselves as I do. I work to overturn laws that deny some the right to live
freely based on the moral standards of others.

>The second is whether adultery (let's call a spade a spade folks) is likely
>to lead to increased closeness and community....
>I know from experience that this kind of philandering (as opposed to
institutionalized
>polygamy or polyandy) leads to a break down of trust and withdrawal of
>closeness in a community more often than not.

This is back to a terminology issue. The word "adultery" presumes a
particular commitment to sexual fidelity. It is a highly charged word that
comes with a lot of baggage. It is much like how various sides of the
abortion debate call each other names to increase the hostility. If we are
to have a reasonable discussion, we need to do it on neutral ground.

The behavior you describe is generally called "cheating." It is based on the
idea that sexual exclusivity is paramount  and often involves sneaking
around and lying to the one you are supposedly committed to. It cannot be
separated from the idea that if your partner loves another, he loves you
less. Of course it creates stress and damages relationships. In a poly view,
there is no "Law of Conservation of Love," there is nothing to lose when
your partner loves another. (And I don't just mean sex.)

>Sometimes it appears that people these days imagine all those changes 'just
>happened', or came about in spite of, rather than because of, the struggles
>of those whose efforts are so easily dismissed in one-liners today.

Exactly. If I don't, who will? There are many things that I am not willing
to sit by and let happen. So I educate and advocate and try to understand
why so I can understand how to change it. I am a woman in a "man's" career.
I am bisexual. I am poly. I am pagan. I am all that and more. I have never
accepted the status-quo without determining if it is, in fact, the way I
want to be. I believe others should be able to do the same and feel obliged
to bring that about in whatever small manner I can.

>If we believe in our love strongly enough, we'll endure

True, maybe. It is the extraordinary  person who is able to persevere
through the disapproval, discrimination or outright persecution. The civil
rights activists that stood up for their rights are lauded as heroes now,
but were spit on, arrested and murdered then. So, too, with gay rights. I
would like to think that it will not happen again, but I do not have much
hope if there is really a fight over non-monogamy. There have been heated
battles in Utah over Mormon plural marriages, most of which are not even
attempts at legal civil marriages. "Why don't you just go away and practice
your immoral lifestyle elsewhere?" "We, did, it's called Salt Lake City."

>I feel as though polyamory is a social experiment populated by naive though
>well-intentioned idealists...

The same thing can, and has, been said of public schools, environmentalism,
religious diversity and... cohousing. Is idealism a bad thing? All change is
resisted by someone.

>I feel the ideal of polyamory has yet to be realized by most poly people,
>just as the ideal of monogamy escapes most married couples.

Few people are suggesting we abandon monogamy, and based on sheer numbers
there are far more people who fail in monogamous relationships that poly
relationships. Is poly the answer? It's hard to say, because we really don't
know what the question is. My question is "What relationship is right for
me?"

And, finally, here are some of my "feeling" statements:

I am afraid that I may be ostracized by my neighbors for sharing my love
with more than one person. I would like to think that they would be open
enough to recognize that I am happy and be happy for me, but I cannot be
sure until someone says so.

I am frustrated that I try to understand another's way of life and thinking,
for I may learn something from it, but that many do not care to understand
or learn from me.

I am afraid that social pressure to conform will make me miserable. I have
tried to be open and honest about many things, with mixed results. But I am
not willing to give in and "be normal."