Many years ago, I was introduced to the concept of polyamory, which seemed to involve open multiple loving/intimate relationships. I respect and love the people involved, so I listened to their explanations with my inner skeptic firmly throttled down. It seemed to work for them, but the operative word was WORK. Lots of communication, lots of checking in, lots of loving negotiation. Also, lots of people who really didn't get the concept, but just wanted to sleep around without repercussions.
I decided that it wasn't for me.
Fast forward to 2012, when I moved to New Mexico. I met a gent who invited D and me to a potluck with "unconventionally-thinking people." After we accepted, he expanded the description: it was the Santa Fe Poly group. As he described it, it was a way of including sex in the friendship mix. Friends fulfill your social, financial, cultural, and sexual needs, but not usually all four at once. So, you have a friend with whom you go to plays, and you have sex afterwards. You have another friend who is a domestic partner (shared finances and sex implied.) You have other friends with whom you are social, and maybe sexual. In some cases, there is no sex at all. Etc etc. The common denominator is that everyone knows about everyone else. And, there are discussions about that.
I was a bit confused: it sounded to me like he was describing the basic rule of thumb: you can't get every need met by a single person. But, how is polyamory different from having a lot of different friends and sleeping around?
It was the beginning of a whole new exploration of the phenomenon. There's the vocabulary: metamour, compersion, primary partner, unicorn hunters, cuddle parties, solo Poly. There's the etiquette: asking if it's okay to hug, for example. I discovered that there are groups that meet to discuss issues (what do you tell the kids?, how do you handle jealousy? what do you do if your primary partner does not want to meet your other partners?) Afterwards there's a potluck. It's surprisingly innocent. Of course, some of the groups are loosely-veiled swinger clubs, but most differentiate between swinging and Poly. There's a book that describes the various forms of Poly (a W is five people, whose connections form a W, a V is 3 people, etc etc). The author is the doyenne of the movement, and is also a couples counselor. I'd say she has lots of business amongst the Poly crowd.
Being fresh from a disastrous stint of monogamy, I was open to the possibilities. I wanted a loving relationship that would allow me to pursue my own interests and friendships, with none of the control and claustrophobia that characterized my failed marriage. My OKCupid profile indicated that, and I began finding that my best matches were Poly. I checked in with them, and discovered that Poly means different things to different people. One man wanted nothing to do with the negotiation and communication (one might say over-communication) of the Poly community. He didn't attend meetings or meet his partners' other partners. He wanted the openness of dating and sleeping with a number of women, but didn't want any of the other connections. He was totally open to basic non-sexual friendship, too, which was what we had for many months. Another wanted the connection (triple dates, for example), but his form of Poly was hampered by his inability to honestly connect, and I don't think he really liked independent, thinking women. Certainly, he did not like discussion or compromise. Any confrontation was met with, "I don't feed the drama lama." There was a kink element too, which is often the case with failed Poly attempts. For example, I chatted with another gent who was mostly interested in finding a "slave." Loving relationships were not what he was looking for.
There's the more insidious type. This man discusses the whole thing up front and is very much into meeting other partners, but he doesn't know how to handle ex-intimates. Part of his problem is the hierarchy of primary and secondary partners. People who emphasize the hierarchy are suspiciously like non-monogamous marriage partners: you can sleep with other people, but the real caring and commitment is with the primary. There's a truly gag-producing term for one aspect of this: fluid bonding. Basically, it means non-protected sex.
I met a woman who exemplified the hierarchy gone wrong: she got involved with a couple and then tried to detach the woman of the pair. It ended badly: she said the male partner was a chauvinistic misogynist with control issues, and he said she went into a screaming fit when he and his partner confronted her about her divisive behaviors. I'd guess the honeymoon was over, and they had not been honestly Poly from the get-go.
I only met one person who seems to actually walk the talk. He attends conferences and potlucks and discussion groups, mans booths at festivals, and is generally immersed in the lifestyle. I think he is an anomaly, though. He sincerely wants loving relationships, not just sex, and he wants the same for his partners, whom he thinks are awesome women (he is not bi.)
The awesome people don't, for the most part, seem to be Poly, though. I met a Colorado group and I've attended two sessions of the Santa Fe Poly, and it seemed to me that a disproportionate number of the attendees were misfits. They were breathtakingly homely, or exceedingly obese, or socially awkward or all three. There were a large number of sexual deviants, aka kinksters. Trans-gendered and bi individuals were the norm. Those who were most conventionally attractive seemed to be Poly-curious, not actually Poly. One man in Santa Fe had fantasies of a fivesome: 3 women and 2 men. He was very specific about that. So, there was a lot of variety in motivation and understanding. However, the common denominator and saving grace was an attitude of inclusiveness. Members were truly kind and thoughtful of each other. They had interesting jobs or obsessions, they liked to discuss many of the things I like to discuss. They seemed, despite some personal unawareness, to be genuine in their desire to create community. Surprisingly, there was a reasonably even distribution of gender and age, and hooking up did not seem to be the main emphasis of the get-togethers. I get the impression that other Poly groups are not like that, however. The groups I attended are organized under the umbrella of Loving More, which is a political and convention-planning entity. I found the leader in Colorado to be thoughtful and even-handed in her approach, and, if she has demons of her own, they are not in evidence. The leader probably sets the tone: there was some discussion of a gent in Denver who seemed to use the group as his personal dating pool.
Anyway, I was comfortable spending time with them, but I was not attracted. Community for the sake of community is not enough for me. And sex without commitment isn't either. There is an inevitable emotional connection that comes with the physical connection, and people who deny that are lying to themselves and their partners. I don't know the answer to my desire for connection, but polyamory is not it. The recent encounters with Poly folk netted some friendships and an insight into the ways other people deal with the inherent loneliness of the human condition. But that's it, even though I like the honesty and the sincerity exhibited by many of the pilgrims, and I do believe that people should be free to pursue love and friendship in a variety of ways. Diversity should not be a buzz word, applicable only to the politically correct few.
Still, friendships are not soul mates, and increasingly I find that's what I want. Do I seek for one, or do I table that longing and attend to living a meaningful life? Can I do both?
