Polyamory

Who says monogamy is the only way to go? with thanks to 'New Scientist' July 8 2006

'Polyamory' as a term was coined by internet news groups in the early 1990's. The Ethical Slut, a 1997 book by Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt that some call 'the bible of Poly', has sold more than 50,000 copies and is about to go into its second edition.
New scientist quotes;

'For psychologists and evolutionary biologists, polyamory is a rare opportunity to see, out in the open, what happens when people stop suppressing their desire for multiple partners and embrace non-monogamy. Proponents say the poly brand of open but committed relationships may be a way around infidelity because it turns an age-old problem into a solution: polyamorists are released from the burdens of traditional marriage vows, yet they seem to keep their long-term relationships intact. What makes poly enticing is the possibility of reconciling long-term stability and romantic variety' (pp.45)

OK. Well (deep breath) what scant evidence there is ( about 3 studies) shows that poly couples (?) stay together as long as monogamous ones. Maybe it's more realistic than monogamy, -having multiple partners frees people from the process of trying to find "the one" who is perfect for them in every way. In the wonderful world of Poly, even my schizophrenic brain might be satisified (we're talking hypothetically here people, -Brett,-dont' worry!), technically I could find man (a) who is very 'masculine', he is of large build, is protective and strong, he loves sex, and wants to fulfill the traditional role of 'man', -bringing home the bacon and providing security for his wife and children. Man (b) is sensitive and artistic and somewhat more 'refined' physically. With this man I can share musci, poetry and philosophy,-he won't be embarassed by my feminine functions but will cuddle me when I have a cramp and support my 'taking a sickie' on bad days, he may also love animals, be a vegan and cry during sensitive foreign films. Man (c) is active and sporty and loves nothing more than to suprise me with spontaneous abseiling jaunts or parasailing weekends. he's got the 'ideal' body, and adores all things active and outdoors. Staying in to play computer games is an anathema, he is fun and outgoing, very sociable and suggests we go to parties! He organises them for us too! Man (d) is a cool, aloof mystery man who communicates little but passionately. He does not wish for anything traditional or even comprehensible but maintains a steady brooding presence in my life. He is Heathcliff, Mr Rochester, the man of pain that adores me to bits. The man that understands that I would rather be taken out to a misty mountain on a cold cold day than any other entertaiment that can be devised. This man not only knows that my favourite flower is a jonquil, but goes out of his way to find a field of them for my birthday.

Dossie Easton says, biology is not the point (to all those who immediately think "But what about raising children!"), "In middle-class urban cultures, people aren't marrying for survival anymore. They can get divorced, and the kids won't starve. This means we're having marriages and relationships for very different reasons than our ancestors did. We're doing it for emotional gratification". Easton sees poly as a break from the "survival strategy" traditions that created both polygamy and monogamy.

The 'rub', is of course, that I'm not the only one in this hypothetical that is free to skip between partners, -so is 'he/s'. Call me simplistic, but my life is already timetabled to a ridiculous degree, how on earth would one manage fitting in time with 4 men? Also, what if one night (say, 1st day of menstruation), I really want to see (b) but (c) is the only person available? WRONG. And what if I want to watch a stupid brainless American fluff-flick (Legally blonde) and Heathcliff drops over for a quickie?

I guess my final conlcusion is that I'm naturally inclined toward monogamy with a healthy 'fantasy' life. I can 'love' a numer of different people (men and women) in my world that are all important to me in different ways and for different reasons, but I have no real need to express that love sexually. I strongly believe that true intimacy between people (sexually) is only possible in a monogamous situation. It takes time and care to learn about the other, and like most arts (yes, I do believe sex is an art), it takes time and patience to create a masterpiece. Few artists create multiple masterpieces simultaneously.
Maybe the idea is more attractive to men than to women? Maybe I am still quite 'biologically determined'. Many have said that the desire for multiple partners is not gender specific,-that women have just as strong urge as men to taste the varieties of life.
Is it too simplistic to posit that this particular need is generally fulfilled in your 'dating' years? Before you find someone that you'd like to settle down with? Or is polyamory the only enlightened way forward?