Greetings. I’m here to seed Google and your mind with an idea. I just finished the description for my presentation at Poly Living 2010, one of the few East Coast regional polyamory conferences. This link in bold will take you to a page on the Book of Blue website that describes the presentation. My theory is that the terms ‘monogamous’ and ‘polyamorous’ are not actually descriptive of most people’s real experiences of relationship, which are a morph of both.
These words, so commonly used and also so rarely questioned, present a false dichotomy that we need to get around in order to see the solutions to the seeming controversies that surround them. I am basically saying that what we think of as monogamous relationships are also polyamorous and what we think of as poly relationships are really monogamous. Deeper in is the idea that all relationships with others are expressions of our relationship with oneself; that the love of other is an extension of love for oneself; which is parallel to the idea that sex is an extension of masturbation.
Have a look at the workshop proposal and please share what you think. If you comment on the Planet Waves blog, more people will see your thoughts than if you comment on the Blue Diary; but you might be the first to ever leave a comment on the Book of Blue site. Looking forward to your ideas.
Amanda writes: “I don’t mean to be as flippant as that must sound. I bring it up because the relationship to self is being mentioned here as a singular, unified thing, yet we all have many facets to ourselves and we relate to them with varying degrees of awareness and sense of unity.”
She shoots, she scores! Each of us is a *very* crowded house, and it has always seemed to me that monogamy was a short-cut (through the putative ‘singular’ other) to a personal cohesiveness of all of those parts.
In very rare cases — I’d say less than 10% — monogamy is a natural fact, and a (putting ‘fun’ back in to) functional pathway to that integrity.
But most people don’t have any sense of how many primates are loose in their monkeyhouse, and have therefore, no way to call roll on ’em. Almost any life-discipline asks that we take an accounting of the angelmonkey inmates and train them to work (and play) toward the ongoing process of reveille. Hence the reverence for ‘career’ in this culture. But without the primal stuff of sex included, the primates just won’t quit singing out in that scratchy laughter of theirs.
My personal aphorism on this score is : There’s one of us for each of us. Which means a whole lotta YOU. The question is, how do you get them to split up into rowdy, balanced, creative teams?
Hint: It starts with a T.
xo
M
Amanda, you are onto something here. There are so many facets of who we are, and I understand from experience that we contain every sexual polarity within ourselves. And these, we explore in relationships to others and to ourselves. That person looking back at us, or the one looking back in the mirror, change constantly, shift in identity and gender and represent different emotional expressions of who we are.
I too understand the need for context…much of our language may well be useless without it.
However I agree than within the broader context of Me MySelf and I needing new words to describe new ways of being. Just like we have not enough words in english to describe the many ways of “love”, certainly we seek the language of “sex” and “relationship”.
I have every faith that Eric will inspire and be inspired to continue creating new words, new dialoge new language …. I’m in line to follow where u lead on this, Eric. Thx.
Ok, so in terms of one’s relationship with oneself, can one still use the terms “monogamous” and “polyamorous,” or are they just as useless/inaccuate there, too?
I don’t mean to be as flippant as that must sound. I bring it up because the relationship to self is being mentioned here as a singular, unified thing, yet we all have many facets to ourselves and we relate to them with varying degrees of awareness and sense of unity.
I was thinking about this tonight because I experienced my masculine side from a slightly different angle this weekend, compared to how i’ve usually conceived of it/expereinced it/thought i’ve experienced it.
so… do we have discrete relationships with our facets of self, or are these facets in relationship to each other, too? Do we actually relate to these facets as incomplete pieces, or do we have “monogamous” relationships with multiple whole selves?
I think perhaps I’ve just confused myself…
hahahahahahah oh god. I thought I said tell “someone.”
well then. the good part is, I am sure NOBODY is shocked. I am not sure that this is appropriate daytime content for Planet Waves, so I propose that we take the discussion the Blue Room right around daylight Eastern Time.
Maybe.
My masturbation workshops started at Loving More. That’s been my “role” in the community since the second year I was involved. Since then I have facilitated at swing conferences and other places; but LM is where I began, with inspiration from Betty Dodson (who did not use mirrors as a structured part of groups, and I added them a little bit later on). Many of these events were chronicled on the old Compersion.org website — a copy must exist somewhere…tho it doesn’t really matter. After about 15 years of working with this process, my sense is still that liberating masturbation is the key to the next sexual revolution: a revolution of self-awareness, authenticity and casting off personal reticence. And a revolution about the one thing I think most people are the most afraid of admitting, which is the content of their phantasy life; because when we say the word “masturbation” what we mean is, everything we think and feel as well as do when we’re having sex with ourselves.
Of course! Context! It is so easy to become parochial. Hopefully, you will be successful in coaxing them away from their sacred cow.. It would be very interesting if you were able to record and broadcast as you did with the psychology conference in Canada where you applied B.O.B. and mirror work to the question of self.
Keep up the great work, Eric.
It’s worth mentioning the context – which I did – that this is at a polyamory conference. I am, in theory, on “one side of the issue” — which is not true; and proposing that polyamory get over itself, and also embrace the essentially one-on-one nature of relationships, is fairly radical in this community. I use the terms as conversation starters, since in theory everyone has an opinion on the matter.
I love what you’ve been doing on YouTube, by the way, Eric.
Well yes I am saying that. However, it is more than that. It is a mistake to suggest that hackneyed theoretical constructs and language that people have used as reifications, discredits theory per se – that could be perceived as an implication of part of your pitch. By all means be unfettered by ‘thinking as language game’ (I entirely agree by the way) but don’t suggest that this is about something truer or more essentially real than theory per se.
All reality is mediated by theories, whether we like it or not. If you wish to approximate some ‘more pristine’ form of disclosure of authenticity as ontology (relational or otherwise) use dramatisation in preference to language-based discourse (although people will still decode according to their pre-existing theoretical architecture).
Getting bogged down with monogamy/polyamory descriptors would polarise matters and that is why passing reference is preferable – a neologue (Urban Dictionary) would help heal rather than replicate the cognitive split.
Half, you’re saying: don’t expect reality to match the linguistic descriptions that we were given in the past. Reality does not match labels; go forward, and describe what I see in real life, in clear language.
Eric, your pitch is short; so although it is good and suggestive of what is to be expected, it may be too conversational. Overall it serves as a workable introduction to what you are aiming to communicate. Of course, the ideas you are getting across are, per se, timely and important. The whole project is worthwhile in my opinion and it is great to see you taking it on. I think you will do a great job because you have an accessible, yet erudite, style.
One note of caution (extracted quote): “Our prior dichotomy between relational styles, i.e., ‘monogamous versus polyamorous’, is neither descriptive nor useful at describing how real-life relationships…” You need to be aware of the category mistake of comparing or contrasting relational styles of monogamy/polyamory as theoretical constructs (applied as descriptors of reality) with some essence of ‘real-life relationships’ deemed to be somehow unmediated by any descriptors/theories other than some pure essence of said relationships.
Whenever there is assessment, there is theory. Just because we suggest that one approach represents some traditional dichotomy borne of labelling while a truer one, unfettered, amounts to some direct, unmediated access to a core experience, we have not established anything other than a category error – we have merely exposed our OWN dichotomy in terms of a false juxtaposition. The solution is not to wade through the philosophy of language so much as to be careful not to give ‘real-life’ relationships some sort of trans-theoretical validity.
The best way to do that imho is not to get bogged down with debates about the true essence of things; rather work it the other way, refraining from maligning theory as some form of second rate praxis. Which is probably to say don’t fall into the language trap of making monogamy/polyamory limiters. Instead create a new term and use that as a basis for your reflections – much like you did with compersion.
Thank you for initiating the dialog, Eric. i like your idea (reductionist?) of stepping back and considering how one relates to oneself. The old saying “get ahold of yourself” is really quite deep and profound. Anyone who has explored poly relationships finds out that it gets complicated quickly largely because of the respective parties failing to come from a place of taking responsibility.
As regards to dichotomy (and dualism?) in general it’s interesting that mathematics has no trouble moving beyond it. other fields of human thought are so deeply invested as to not see anything else. Susan Bordo did some interesting work in this area that opened up a field of hope that has been closed off since Plato.
I have found that “these words” — polyamorous and monogamous, have not done much in creating a sense of unity, at least for me. In the same sense that any sort of segregation hasn’t. I can grasp the concept that people can identify themselves with certain groups and cultures, but it has been my own experience where identifying myself in any labeled anything has caused more walls to go up, when I am really trying to breakdown compartments and let the light bleed through. I hold my relationship to myself the most important the “primary” if you will, any extension of that, in turn, is really an extension of myself. Any realationship (ya sp., but I will leave it) that forms with another is the experience of myself — where I have allowed others in to hold a space sans judgement or vica versa. When my self and the ones who surround me feel trusted and safe to hold that space — allowing me to be me KABOOM! Relationship is formed. If I had to label myself as anything, I would probably go with human. I refuse to ever get tattooed, and if you think about it there is good reason to this. We are always changing, as humans we will always be evolving. We owe it to ourselves and the world to be honest with ourselves and each other in the present moment, take the cardboard boxes off of our heads and let the basket cases leak onto the mirrors and each other. I’ll take the basket cases any day, there’s more breathing room in those weaves…