I have always been a sort of loner. Whether that was balking the fist fight for clarifying words, or refusing the cool jeans, or going shaggy instead of shaved; whether that was birthing choice or parenting styles or dietary decisions; whether it was speaking out or staying quiet, preferring home-with-the-kids to out-with-friends, honesty to norms. I suppose this is part of why i'm looking down my second divorce now after swearing off marriage before the first one.
So how did i end up institutionalized twice then, if my trajectory aimed me for more wide open freedom? the first time was trying to beat fate. or maybe working to meet fate. otherwise known as trying to fit in. but the mold didn't quite fit. i didn't really know why until the end of that marriage, when i stumbled upon that tome of loving wisdom Stranger in a Strange Land and the idea of open relationships. there in print was what i had always known about myself. fiction or no, i felt validated and real. as though my attempts at description, my internal strife, my mistakes had not been for naught.
I suppose in some ways my second stint inside was also about fitting in, beating destiny, working against myself for something i wanted in spite of needs pointing elsewhere. well... all that plus love. the second time around maybe i could just blame love. that intense body-hold, mind-boggling, earth-stopping utopia. and as a utopia, existing only in its own plane, and only fleetingly even there.
oh, but i was so in love with him! my soul a piece of him. if ever i needed someone else, it was him. he taught me to give over some of my needs, to share the burden of filling those needs so that resting would be more relaxing.
but still, it was my need for an open relationship that ended that marriage, as it was with the first. or his need for singular emotional attachments, as with the first. either way. perspective matters, i suppose.
open relationships - polyamorous relationships with emphasis on 'amory' not emphasis on sex (which i don't see in that term at all) - are part of me. it is not something i have chosen, not the latest fad or hip thing, just something that i am. as i am a woman, bi-curious, a 6, a mother, a virgo, a horse, a sister, a friend - so am i polyamorous. i cannot wake tomorrow and be monamorous, which is so often confused with monogamous* (which itself is still up in the air for me). Being polyamorous is different than choosing polyamory, and so i find that i am a loner again, the one on the fringe, the one ignored or talked about, but not the one talked to.
in spite of my ability to love multiple partners simultaneously, or perhaps because of it, i find myself a wreckage of heartbreak now that my second husband - my lover, my friend, my partner - is gone. incompatible. too beat up himself to even abide a friendship, though that is my general leaning after a break-up...turn it into a change up. this heartbreak leaves me scattered and pained, flighty and wary, afraid of love but knowing that i will one day stumble upon it unbeknownst, and have the joys and sorrows tossed about like spray on a windy day at the lake. that knowledge may one day make me smile: right now it just makes me weary. for a truly broken heart is not something someone did to me, it is a self-inflicted wound. thus, it is not simply a removal of the thorn to heal the prick, but an eye-opening to the briar parch and a new path to forge out of the stickers that must be accomplished in order to alleviate the pain.
*polyamory/monamory is about how many people an individual is able to be in love with simultaneously (eg, multiple spouses or significant others). poly/monamorous does not refer to how many people can be loved generally (eg, spouse, parent, children, friends). it is a term to encapsulate the idea of being in-love with more than one person at a time (poly) versus one person at a time (mono). in contrast, monogamy/polygamy refers to how many people are in a marriage -- 2 or more than 2. for the sake of my own reference (not believing that marriage is necessary or even workable as a government institution), i broaden monogamy/polygamy to include sex, as well as marriage. that is, 1 primary sexual partner at a time versus multiple primary sexual partners at a time.
Showing posts with label polyamory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polyamory. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Signs
i think that maybe it would be wise to give some warning to strangers approaching the door. or even to people who think they know me, since there seems to be some misconceptions floating around.
i could start with the infamous 'you're not welcome if...' type signs, and it would look something like this:
you're narrow-minded, racist, don't see your own white supremacy, don't understand the debilitating power of patriarchy or heterosexism, you think that bottles are equal to breast or that hospitals are just as safe (or safer) for birthing than home or that a stroller/car seat is equivelent to holding your child, you don't understand what it means to hug or cry or be practical, you can't make time to clean up, you aren't interested in sharing, you think that there is nothing wrong with the public school system, or you think that our 'black' president means we're in a post-racial society, you don't understand the importance of sunshine AND vitamin d, you're happy with the status quo, you think that children aren't worthy of conversation, and that as americans of course we are the best people on the planet - god says so, that's why he kills other people. you're ok with vaccinations and other forms of mass control by government, you think that 'god' is a man (or references a male or a single entity), you have more time to critique than to help, you think there is only adam and eve (not adam and steve) and that monogamy refers to a way of loving rather than a way of sexually orienting yourself, or if you find that you are so terrified of rejection that monomory is the only way to protect yourself from looking in the mirror, you think that your music taste (or movie taste or art taste or fashion taste) is better than someone else's, you think that slathering on the praise is what makes people secure or if you find dale carnegie is worth the paper that he is printed on, or you think that education/health care/living wage ought not be considered a human rights and you think that the u.s. doesn't have to listen to international law anyway, or you find the city an adequate substitute for actually living.
since wording is important, though, and people tend to prefer inclusion to exclusion, maybe it could just read like this:
all are welcome who are ready to come out of the cave and give up the smoke and mirrors - no matter the pain, no matter the loss, no matter the confrontational truth, no matter the momentary blindness by the sun.
i could start with the infamous 'you're not welcome if...' type signs, and it would look something like this:
you're narrow-minded, racist, don't see your own white supremacy, don't understand the debilitating power of patriarchy or heterosexism, you think that bottles are equal to breast or that hospitals are just as safe (or safer) for birthing than home or that a stroller/car seat is equivelent to holding your child, you don't understand what it means to hug or cry or be practical, you can't make time to clean up, you aren't interested in sharing, you think that there is nothing wrong with the public school system, or you think that our 'black' president means we're in a post-racial society, you don't understand the importance of sunshine AND vitamin d, you're happy with the status quo, you think that children aren't worthy of conversation, and that as americans of course we are the best people on the planet - god says so, that's why he kills other people. you're ok with vaccinations and other forms of mass control by government, you think that 'god' is a man (or references a male or a single entity), you have more time to critique than to help, you think there is only adam and eve (not adam and steve) and that monogamy refers to a way of loving rather than a way of sexually orienting yourself, or if you find that you are so terrified of rejection that monomory is the only way to protect yourself from looking in the mirror, you think that your music taste (or movie taste or art taste or fashion taste) is better than someone else's, you think that slathering on the praise is what makes people secure or if you find dale carnegie is worth the paper that he is printed on, or you think that education/health care/living wage ought not be considered a human rights and you think that the u.s. doesn't have to listen to international law anyway, or you find the city an adequate substitute for actually living.
since wording is important, though, and people tend to prefer inclusion to exclusion, maybe it could just read like this:
all are welcome who are ready to come out of the cave and give up the smoke and mirrors - no matter the pain, no matter the loss, no matter the confrontational truth, no matter the momentary blindness by the sun.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Polyamory
Well, i thought i had a lot to say about this topic, but Wikipedia, for once, seems to have summed it up rather nicely:
"The defining characteristic of polyamory is belief in the possibility of, and value of, multiple romantic loving relationships carried out "with the knowledge and consent of all partners concerned."[1] What distinguishes polyamory from traditional forms of non-monogamy (i.e. "cheating") is an ideology that openness, goodwill, intense communication, and ethical behavior should prevail among all the parties involved. Some consider polyamory to be, at its root, the generalization of romantic couple-love beyond two people into something larger.[2]
"Polyamorous relationships, in practice, are highly varied and individualized. Ideally they are built upon values of trust, loyalty, negotiation, and compersion, as well as rejection of jealousy, possessiveness, and restrictive cultural standards.[3] "
Which means that the only thing left to ask is why is this such a problem? why are people so upset with the notion that love grows, rather than constricts? why do people grasp so greedily at those they care about or are attracted to, shutting the door to the possibility of being loved by more people?
i can't help but come back to the poem by Marianne Williamson:
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
...Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be?"
and as she concludes, it is when we finally open our eyes to our own possibilities, let go of our fear of ourself, that we begin to free not only ourselves, but everyone else around us:
"...And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
it's a shame that liberation is seen as a cause for alarm and a signal to run to gather up arms. liberation is a celebration, and should be welcomed with open arms.
"The defining characteristic of polyamory is belief in the possibility of, and value of, multiple romantic loving relationships carried out "with the knowledge and consent of all partners concerned."[1] What distinguishes polyamory from traditional forms of non-monogamy (i.e. "cheating") is an ideology that openness, goodwill, intense communication, and ethical behavior should prevail among all the parties involved. Some consider polyamory to be, at its root, the generalization of romantic couple-love beyond two people into something larger.[2]
"Polyamorous relationships, in practice, are highly varied and individualized. Ideally they are built upon values of trust, loyalty, negotiation, and compersion, as well as rejection of jealousy, possessiveness, and restrictive cultural standards.[3] "
Which means that the only thing left to ask is why is this such a problem? why are people so upset with the notion that love grows, rather than constricts? why do people grasp so greedily at those they care about or are attracted to, shutting the door to the possibility of being loved by more people?
i can't help but come back to the poem by Marianne Williamson:
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
...Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be?"
and as she concludes, it is when we finally open our eyes to our own possibilities, let go of our fear of ourself, that we begin to free not only ourselves, but everyone else around us:
"...And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
it's a shame that liberation is seen as a cause for alarm and a signal to run to gather up arms. liberation is a celebration, and should be welcomed with open arms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
