Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: poly vs gay, poly & coho

[Howard Landman (howard]

I apologize in advance that my first posts to this list are somewhat
argumentative in nature, and also (in this case) rather off-topic
from cohousing.  It's not what I would have desired; but, this is a
core issue for me and one on which I have read and thought quite a lot.

Deb wrote:
>       What I mean by "being" is something that's hard-wired
>       to our physical circuits, is inescapable and over which
>       we have no choice.

Would this include, say, whether someone like the taste of cilantro
or not?  Would it include "falling in love with a person" (of either
gender)?  Would it include "falling in love with person B while I'm
already involved with person A"?

>       Race fits here.  So does a disability.
>       Polyamory does not fit here, in my opinion.

I actually wouldn't have much of an issue with this - you have to
draw a line between nature and nurture somewhere, and it's a bit
fuzzy where - except that you specifically stated that homosexuality
*does* fit into "being", in your opinion.

We have to distinguish the various lifestyles which might be categorized
as polyamory from the underlying biological drive to have more than one
sexual partner.  It is this latter which needs to be considered as a
candidate for poly's "being"ness.  Thus all adultery, "cheating",
etc. should also be considered as supporting the existence of a built-in
poly drive, even though they're unethical and pathological forms of
expressing it.

There's at least as much evidence for a biological basis for poly as
there is for gay - there's even some research with two closely related
species of voles (prairie voles are mono, montane voles are poly)
which seems to indicate that vasopressin receptors control the difference.
There are countless studies of mono vs poly mating behavior, and theories
of why polygyny or polyandry confers an evolutionary advantage in some
circumstances.  I don't believe there are any theories which posit that
homosexuality confers an evolutionary advantage.

Most other primates, including at least chimps, gorillas, and bonobos,
are quite obviously poly of one flavor or another.  Our genome is 98%
identical to a chimp's or a bonobo's.  Of course, that other 2% is *very*
important ... the difference between prairie and montane voles is only 1%
.. but the presumption in absence of evidence to the contrary ought to
be that the similarities outweigh the differences.

And there isn't much evidence to the contrary, but there's lots of
evidence in favor.  I won't quote it here, but merely refer interested
parties to my poly website: http://www.polyamory.org/~howard/Poly/

"Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny
(some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850"
        - T. C. Bergstrom, "On the Economics of Polygyny", 1994

Many ancient religious texts, including the Torah and the
Upanishads, are strongly pro-polygyny.  Polygyny was only wiped out,
in Europe, after a thousand years of bloody suppression (roughly
from 400 CE - 1492 CE) by the Roman Catholic Church.

For a millenium, the single biggest reason for anyone not to be poly was
"If you do that, we'll kill you".  Despite that, it kept reoccurring
in every generation, mostly as hidden adultery, but also sometimes more
openly.  If there wasn't a biological basis, how could it possibly survive
like that?  Why do so many people commit adultery when they know there
can be horrible consequences?  (In America, adultery was punishable by
death until Thomas Jefferson co-authored a law reducing the punishment
to castration for the man and having a large hole punched through her
nose for the woman.  Yet it still happened, frequently.)

Now, after all that, you may still decide that poly isn't "being" by
your definition.  But if so, on what possible grounds do believe that
being homosexual *is*?  There's some evidence, sure, but it's quite a
bit weaker.

Another aspect of poly is the "poly social urge" - wanting to be part
of a larger entity than a couple - as opposed to the "poly sexual urge"
emphasized above.  That too has deep biological roots, but it's another
topic - one more closely aligned with the purposes of cohousing.

        Howard A. Landman
        howard [at] polyamory.org