Posts
All Comments
This event will happen February 21-23, 2014, in Berkeley, California, USA.
This conference will explore issues related to monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships from an interdisciplinary perspective. This event will be devoted to presentations of scientific and academic research related to polyamory, open relationships, swinging, other forms of consensual nonmonogamy and related subjects. The conference does not take a position on whether any particular type or style of relationship is healthy or pathological. The intention of the event is explore the subject in as objective and unbiased a manner as possible. Presentations will cover various topics that offer some possible progress to a deeper and more complete understanding of the phenomenon of consensual nonmonogamy.This event will happen at:
THE CLARK KERR CONFERENCE CENTER, BUILDING #14, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
The street address of the event is:
2601 WARRING STREET,
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, 94720.
Those who feel the inclination to love many, have to learn by doing, and are often shunned and shamed whilst doing so, making the pursuit of their relationships a thousand times harder. Indeed the fact that the polyamorous community is growing at all in the face of constant opposition, is a true testament to the power of love... and marginalization. The power that the world gives polyamorists by vilification turns it into a cause, spawning Poly-pride, support groups like PolyLiving and not for profit organizations like Loving More.Polyamory has definitely been coming out of the closet, but with that come some issues.
Unfortunately despite all the good intentions, a minority's struggle for acceptance will always create a 'prisoners' dilemma' and this one is no different. In the non-monogamous community certain relationship configurations are more likely to be accepted if they align themselves to already existing precepts and/or paradigms. For example as the idealised Male-Female-Female triad slowly becomes more acceptable to the general public, it's no coincidence that it's also the most popular choice for many newly out-of the closet polyamorists; simply because it is the most familiar, comfortable and least controversial. To the outside world that is. Because poly-activists argue that this configuration still perpetuates male privilege (a bisexual female who gets it on with another girl, is no threat to the male ego - aka. One-Penis-Policy). Such a paradigm which is perceived to perpetuate the very patriarchy and notion of possession that polyamory tries to counteract in the first place, is one of the biggest hot potatoes.I support each person finding what is best for them. For some people, that may be living alone, even being celibate (as difficult as that is for someone like me to think of as enjoyable). For others, it will be a closed, monogamous relationship, living together or not. For others, some form of ethical nonmonogamy is best. If someone, regardless of their gender, truly prefers a closed polygynous relationship, and they've found the people who make a good match, good for them. I say the same for someone who needs or prefers an equal number of men and women in their polycule, or someone who prefers polygyny, someone who needs a same-gender polycule, and all of the other possibilities (cosleeping, fluid bonding, public dates, meeting family, ceremonial bonding, etc.) Just because something isn't for me doesn't mean it isn't for someone else.
Likewise, some proponents of polyamory like to distance themselves from promiscuity and/or swinging which are heavily frowned upon by mainstreamers - even if many polyamorists discover their inclination by through such sexual liberation in the first place. Promiscuity is harshly condemned (at least when it concerns women) and swinging is premeditated promiscuity. It is - gasp - sex for fun. Moral judgements and definitions divide the non-monogamous community because the harsh rejection by the world of the community as a whole, creates a desperate need in many to achieve acceptance at any cost.
Ethical non-monogamy by definition can include many different preferences, none more valid than the other. Of course it's worth listening to those who condemn (questioning values is what polyamorists are good at)... But know and trust that everyone's journey is different, including yours. Because when such a community is already small and despised by the outside world, it is doubly important to stick together.Yes! YES! I've long called for solidarity on this blog. It is important when it comes to Interracial-LGBT-Poly-Consanguinamory cooperation and it is important when it comes to cooperation within ethical nonmonomist communities, too. There are many colors in a rainbow and many waves in a ocean. Ever notice, when looking in-person or at an image of a natural panorama, there are many different things that comprise the beautiful whole?
Those who feel the inclination to love many, have to learn by doing, and are often shunned and shamed whilst doing so, making the pursuit of their relationships a thousand times harder. Indeed the fact that the polyamorous community is growing at all in the face of constant opposition, is a true testament to the power of love... and marginalization. The power that the world gives polyamorists by vilification turns it into a cause, spawning Poly-pride, support groups like PolyLiving and not for profit organizations like Loving More.Polyamory has definitely been coming out of the closet, but with that come some issues.
Unfortunately despite all the good intentions, a minority's struggle for acceptance will always create a 'prisoners' dilemma' and this one is no different. In the non-monogamous community certain relationship configurations are more likely to be accepted if they align themselves to already existing precepts and/or paradigms. For example as the idealised Male-Female-Female triad slowly becomes more acceptable to the general public, it's no coincidence that it's also the most popular choice for many newly out-of the closet polyamorists; simply because it is the most familiar, comfortable and least controversial. To the outside world that is. Because poly-activists argue that this configuration still perpetuates male privilege (a bisexual female who gets it on with another girl, is no threat to the male ego - aka. One-Penis-Policy). Such a paradigm which is perceived to perpetuate the very patriarchy and notion of possession that polyamory tries to counteract in the first place, is one of the biggest hot potatoes.I support each person finding what is best for them. For some people, that may be living alone, even being celibate (as difficult as that is for someone like me to think of as enjoyable). For others, it will be a closed, monogamous relationship, living together or not. For others, some form of ethical nonmonogamy is best. If someone, regardless of their gender, truly prefers a closed polygynous relationship, and they've found the people who make a good match, good for them. I say the same for someone who needs or prefers an equal number of men and women in their polycule, or someone who prefers polygyny, someone who needs a same-gender polycule, and all of the other possibilities (cosleeping, fluid bonding, public dates, meeting family, ceremonial bonding, etc.) Just because something isn't for me doesn't mean it isn't for someone else.
Likewise, some proponents of polyamory like to distance themselves from promiscuity and/or swinging which are heavily frowned upon by mainstreamers - even if many polyamorists discover their inclination by through such sexual liberation in the first place. Promiscuity is harshly condemned (at least when it concerns women) and swinging is premeditated promiscuity. It is - gasp - sex for fun. Moral judgements and definitions divide the non-monogamous community because the harsh rejection by the world of the community as a whole, creates a desperate need in many to achieve acceptance at any cost.
Ethical non-monogamy by definition can include many different preferences, none more valid than the other. Of course it's worth listening to those who condemn (questioning values is what polyamorists are good at)... But know and trust that everyone's journey is different, including yours. Because when such a community is already small and despised by the outside world, it is doubly important to stick together.Yes! YES! I've long called for solidarity on this blog. It is important when it comes to Interracial-LGBT-Poly-Consanguinamory cooperation and it is important when it comes to cooperation within ethical nonmonomist communities, too. There are many colors in a rainbow and many waves in a ocean. Ever notice, when looking in-person or at an image of a natural panorama, there are many different things that comprise the beautiful whole?
They exhibit habits other than monogamy. They are polygamous and polygynous. And they are social monogamists as well as serial monogamists, even swans. Bonobos, for example, have multiple sexual partners at any given time in their life. And some species even engage in group sex. When red-sided garter snakes mate, the female is made the center of what is called a mating ball, where 100 males all attempt to mate with the female at the same time.
People exhibit habits other than monogamy. Although not always socially accepted, people partner in a variety of ways. Many of those ways have proved to be perfectly healthy.
They are homosexual as well as heterosexual. Marine birds, mammals, monkeys, great apes, dolphins, penguins, cattle, bonobos and rams are just a few of the many animal species in which scientists have observed homosexual behavior.
Humans are homosexual as well as heterosexual, obviously. And each is perfectly normal and absolutely biological. Once again, the only issue in human society is our lack of acceptance of both orientations.
There is an ongoing discussion among polyamory activists regarding a legal model of polyamorous marriage (i.e., the extension of the legal concept of marriage to include polyamorous families). One debate centers around the relative merits of an all-with-all approach to marriage (whereby three or more persons are all joined together at the same time within a single marriage) and dyadic networks (whereby existing laws against bigamy are revised such that people are perfectly free to be concurrently married to multiple other persons, provided that each such new marriage is preceded by a legal notification regarding the pending new marriage to all those to whom one is already married; failure to provide that legal notification would then constitute the updated crime of bigamy).
Dyadic networks would result in what might be thought of as a "molecular" family structure — one which might be best represented by the molecular diagrams commonly used in chemistry. In this way, marriage would remain a dyadic relationship (i.e., a relationship between two persons), thus minimizing any changes to the existing system of legal marriage, but the introduction of concurrency would provide access to legal marriage for polyamorous families.
Dyadic networks can correctly represent any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm, as well as many situations that the "all-with-all" paradigm cannot deal with. A "complete" dyadic network would take the form of a complete graph, in which every person is (pairwise) married to every other person, thus correctly representing any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm.What this is saying that if A, B, and C all want to marry as a triad, with a dyadic model that can be accomplished through A & B marrying, A & C marrying, and B & C marrying. However, the all-with-all model automatically does this with one ceremony and one piece of paper. All-with-all wouldn't be what every polycule would want, as detailed below. It would only be a desirable option for polycules in which every individual wants to be married to all of the others. It would only work for the triangle or the square below.
A dyadic network may also represent situations in which some persons are (pairwise) married to some members of the dyadic network but not to all of them ("V" and "N" geometries, for example) — these are situations that the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm is unable to accurately represent.
The "all-with-all" marriage paradigm assumes that everyone is equally involved with everyone else in the group — one global marriage agreement has to fit every participant at the same time. But dyadic network marriages separately define the terms of each specific 2-person relationship, and these dyadic marriages do not typically happen at the same time (A marries B, B marries C ("V" structure), C marries D ("N" structure), etc. — thus, the shape of the dyadic network dynamically changes over time). Participants in a dyadic network need not even be aware of the specific terms of marriage agreements existing elsewhere within the same dyadic network.
Under the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm, when irreconcilable differences arise there can be no alternative to a complete separation — one person cannot divorce another without ending the entire marriage agreement for everyone involved.
But dyadic networks can function in much the same way as watertight compartmentalization functions in naval vessels, i.e., to limit and contain damage. An intense disagreement between two persons takes place within the context of their marriage, and need not greatly involve (or threaten) the relationships between other participants. Within a well-connected dyadic network, a divorce between two persons need not result in a complete separation of the network — for example, a dyadic network with triangle geometry would simply turn into a dyadic network with "V" geometry.
An "all-with-all" marriage can only exist or cease to exist. In contrast, the shape of a dyadic network can dynamically change over time. Divorces subtract connections, and marriages add connections. The dyadic network itself either changes shape, separates into two dyadic networks, or merges into another dyadic network, depending on the precise nature of the newly added or subtracted connection.
The maximum size of an "all-with-all" marriage is limited by the fact that every participant must be aware of the existence of every other participant (otherwise the global marriage contract would be invalid, because it could not satisfy the legal condition known as a "meeting of the minds"). But since a dyadic network relies only upon every participant's local knowledge of his or her own direct partners, its size is theoretically unlimited. The dyadic network paradigm is so powerful that it is theoretically capable of managing a situation in which every adult on earth is legally joined together in a single enormous dyadic network. Thus, with the dyadic network model, the idea of "many loves" is directly translated into a practical reality, and the "infinity" symbol (representing love without limits) is directly matched by a marriage model capable of handling an infinitely large number of participants.
Implementing Dyadic Networks
Within the United States, 41 states (82%) use the "equitable distribution" financial model, which is highly compatible with dyadic networks. But there are also nine other states (18%) with a financial model that is incompatible with dyadic networks - these are collectively referred to as the "community property" states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin).
The implementation method for the "community property" states is that the dyadic networks model will simply coexist with the old "community property" monogamy model. New marriages will automatically default to the dyadic networks model, but if the couple prefers the monogamous "community property" model then they have the option of selecting that model instead.
Consider, for example, the existing marriage laws of Alaska. Alaska is an "equitable distribution" state, hence couples who marry in Alaska will marry under the "equitable distribution" model by default, but these couples can instead elect to marry under the "community property" monogamy model if they wish (they do this by executing either a community property agreement or a community property trust).
Alaska thus constitutes an existence proof that both financial models can peacefully coexist within the same U.S. state's legal system. Alaska's example shows that even community property states can easily be modernized to accomodate dyadic networks.
Polyamorous Committment
The Dyadic Networks model of polyamorous marriage raises important questions related to marital commitment. With a single dyad, the situation is simple; each spouse commits to support and protect the other, and the logic of conventional monogamous marriage applies. However, when multiple dyads intersect in a dyadic network, how exactly does the commitment process work?
To understand this, let us consider the parent-child relationship. In the parent-child situation, the support commitment exists only in one direction - from parent to child. When there is a single parent, the child has a single source of commitment, and all protection must come from that source. However, when there are two parents, they are jointly responsible for meeting the child's needs. The precise arrangement is worked out somehow, and provided that the child's needs are being met the law has no need to intervene. If the child's needs are not being met, then debt collection methods such as garnishing wages, seizing assets, etc. can and do occur in order to ensure that child support takes place. These actions are typically proportional to income and/or wealth, so the wealthier parent will pay more. Where a parent has commitments to multiple children, the parent must faithfully carry out his or her responsibilities to each and every child. Although it may sometimes seem that the needs of children are unlimited, this is not actually the case, and once a child's needs are satisfied (a certain amount of food, shelter, medical care, etc.), all parents of that child may regard their commitments as being satisfied with respect to each need for which adequate provision has been made, regardless of which parent(s) actually did the work of satisfying that need.
Turning now to commitment in the dyadic network model, this can be understood as a bidirectional version of the parent-child model. Each dyad represents a commitment of each spouse to the other. Thus, in a V configuration, the two partners at the ends of the V each rely upon commitments from the single partner at the center of the V (the "pivot") - each of them has one spouse. The "pivot" partner can rely upon two commitments, one from each of the two partners at the two ends of the V - the pivot partner has two spouses. If the pivot partner is incapacitated, he or she is in a position comparable to that of a child with two parents - two people are committed to assist him or her and must do so up to the point at which the pivot partner's needs are satisfied. If one of the partners at the end of the V is incapacitated, he or she has only one spouse to rely upon - the pivot partner, who is fully responsible for meeting the incapacitated partner's needs up to the point at which that partner's needs are satisfied. If both partners at the end of the V are incapacitated, then the pivot partner is in a position comparable to that of a single parent with two sick children - he or she must meet the needs of both.
Let us now consider whether the commitment relationship is "transitive" - if A is committed to B, and B is committed to C, does this mean that A is committed to C? No, this is not the case. C can legally rely only upon the commitment of B and has no legal basis to expect or receive a commitment from A. Nor can A rely upon the commitment of C - that could happen only when and if A directly married (mutually committed to) C. However, suppose that C's needs are so large that B is thereby driven into bankruptcy and becomes destitute. Then B can rely upon A's commitment to provide B with a certain minimal level of support (food, shelter, medical care, etc.). Thus C's needs can have an effect on B that causes A to provide more support to B than would have been the case had C not needed to draw heavily upon B's commitment.
Hence, under the dyadic networks model, positive effects arise as a result of multiple commitments. When there is only a single dyad, there is a substantial risk that the size of the commitment will exceed the capacity of the committed. However, when each person is linked to multiple other partners in a dyadic network, this has the effect of bringing in additional capacity to meet any needs that may arise. Three or four spouses may be easily able to carry a commitment load that would have quickly driven a single spouse into bankruptcy.
The analogy to parent-child relationships carries over into other situations as well. Just as it would be improper to discriminate against a parent for having too many children (or too few children), so it would be improper to discriminate against a person for having too many or too few spouses. But with each additional child comes an additional commitment, and the same is true of an additional spouse. Adding another child to one's health insurance coverage will usually result in an increased monthly charge for the insurance, thus adding another spouse would probably have a comparable effect. But a child, or a spouse, only needs to be covered once, regardless of how many parents, or spouses, are available to provide that coverage. Also, a spouse may be economically self-supporting and thus able to pay for his or her own health insurance, so in this respect the total support cost for an additional spouse would then be zero.
Having drawn lessons from the parent-child relationship and applied them to dyadic networks, let us now draw a lesson from dyadic networks and apply it to the parent-child relationship.
Just as there is no inherent reason why a person should not have more than one spouse, so there is no inherent reason why a child should not have more than two parents. When the law of marriage is updated to legally support dyadic networks, the existing adoption mechanism can be used as a means by which additional commitments to children can be created. For example, a single dyad may have already produced two children when each member of the dyad marries a third partner, thus creating a triangle. The newest member of this dyadic network can then execute two adoptions to become the third parent of each of the dyad's two children. Hence, in this situation, each of the three adults now has two spouses and two children. To the extent that any legal barriers might hinder the use of adoption in this manner, such legal barriers would also need to be direct targets of polyamory's legal activism (in addition, of course, to updating the law of marriage to support dyadic networks).
This N-parent situation has already been raised in the New York Times (When 3 Really Is A Crowd, July 16 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16marquardt.html): “On April 30, a state Superior Court panel ruled that a child can have three legal parents. […] Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School, observed, 'I’m unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child’s support and are also entitled to visitation.' […] As one advocate of polygamy argued in Newsweek, 'If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.' If more children are granted three legal parents, what is our rationale for denying these families the rights and protections of marriage?” Our firm answer: there cannot be any legitimate rationale for the unconstitutional denial of this legal protection to polyamorous families
The New York Times op-ed raises a question: “Conflicts will undoubtedly arise when three parents confront the sticky, conflict-ridden reality of child-raising, often leading to a nasty, three-way custody battle. Even if they part amicably, they may still want to live in three different homes. In that case, how many homes should children travel between to satisfy the parenting needs of many adults?” The legal answer has been provided by New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard (Pennsylvania Court Finds Three Adults Can Have Parental Rights, May 01, 2007, http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/05/pennsylvania_co.html): “[...] the court gave Jennifer primary custody of the one nephew who was living with her, and partial custody (visitation rights) with the other three children; Jodilynn got primary custody of the three children and partial custody (visitation) with the one nephew, and Carl was awarded partial custody (visitation) of one weekend a month with his two children.” In the event of divorce, family law judges will calculate child support obligations and distribute visitation rights in accordance with the best interests of the child(ren).
There is an ongoing discussion among polyamory activists regarding a legal model of polyamorous marriage (i.e., the extension of the legal concept of marriage to include polyamorous families). One debate centers around the relative merits of an all-with-all approach to marriage (whereby three or more persons are all joined together at the same time within a single marriage) and dyadic networks (whereby existing laws against bigamy are revised such that people are perfectly free to be concurrently married to multiple other persons, provided that each such new marriage is preceded by a legal notification regarding the pending new marriage to all those to whom one is already married; failure to provide that legal notification would then constitute the updated crime of bigamy).
Dyadic networks would result in what might be thought of as a "molecular" family structure — one which might be best represented by the molecular diagrams commonly used in chemistry. In this way, marriage would remain a dyadic relationship (i.e., a relationship between two persons), thus minimizing any changes to the existing system of legal marriage, but the introduction of concurrency would provide access to legal marriage for polyamorous families.
Dyadic networks can correctly represent any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm, as well as many situations that the "all-with-all" paradigm cannot deal with. A "complete" dyadic network would take the form of a complete graph, in which every person is (pairwise) married to every other person, thus correctly representing any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm.What this is saying that if A, B, and C all want to marry as a triad, with a dyadic model that can be accomplished through A & B marrying, A & C marrying, and B & C marrying. However, the all-with-all model automatically does this with one ceremony and one piece of paper. All-with-all wouldn't be what every polycule would want, as detailed below. It would only be a desirable option for polycules in which every individual wants to be married to all of the others. It would only work for the triangle or the square below.
A dyadic network may also represent situations in which some persons are (pairwise) married to some members of the dyadic network but not to all of them ("V" and "N" geometries, for example) — these are situations that the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm is unable to accurately represent.
The "all-with-all" marriage paradigm assumes that everyone is equally involved with everyone else in the group — one global marriage agreement has to fit every participant at the same time. But dyadic network marriages separately define the terms of each specific 2-person relationship, and these dyadic marriages do not typically happen at the same time (A marries B, B marries C ("V" structure), C marries D ("N" structure), etc. — thus, the shape of the dyadic network dynamically changes over time). Participants in a dyadic network need not even be aware of the specific terms of marriage agreements existing elsewhere within the same dyadic network.
Under the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm, when irreconcilable differences arise there can be no alternative to a complete separation — one person cannot divorce another without ending the entire marriage agreement for everyone involved.
But dyadic networks can function in much the same way as watertight compartmentalization functions in naval vessels, i.e., to limit and contain damage. An intense disagreement between two persons takes place within the context of their marriage, and need not greatly involve (or threaten) the relationships between other participants. Within a well-connected dyadic network, a divorce between two persons need not result in a complete separation of the network — for example, a dyadic network with triangle geometry would simply turn into a dyadic network with "V" geometry.
An "all-with-all" marriage can only exist or cease to exist. In contrast, the shape of a dyadic network can dynamically change over time. Divorces subtract connections, and marriages add connections. The dyadic network itself either changes shape, separates into two dyadic networks, or merges into another dyadic network, depending on the precise nature of the newly added or subtracted connection.
The maximum size of an "all-with-all" marriage is limited by the fact that every participant must be aware of the existence of every other participant (otherwise the global marriage contract would be invalid, because it could not satisfy the legal condition known as a "meeting of the minds"). But since a dyadic network relies only upon every participant's local knowledge of his or her own direct partners, its size is theoretically unlimited. The dyadic network paradigm is so powerful that it is theoretically capable of managing a situation in which every adult on earth is legally joined together in a single enormous dyadic network. Thus, with the dyadic network model, the idea of "many loves" is directly translated into a practical reality, and the "infinity" symbol (representing love without limits) is directly matched by a marriage model capable of handling an infinitely large number of participants.
Implementing Dyadic Networks
Within the United States, 41 states (82%) use the "equitable distribution" financial model, which is highly compatible with dyadic networks. But there are also nine other states (18%) with a financial model that is incompatible with dyadic networks - these are collectively referred to as the "community property" states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin).
The implementation method for the "community property" states is that the dyadic networks model will simply coexist with the old "community property" monogamy model. New marriages will automatically default to the dyadic networks model, but if the couple prefers the monogamous "community property" model then they have the option of selecting that model instead.
Consider, for example, the existing marriage laws of Alaska. Alaska is an "equitable distribution" state, hence couples who marry in Alaska will marry under the "equitable distribution" model by default, but these couples can instead elect to marry under the "community property" monogamy model if they wish (they do this by executing either a community property agreement or a community property trust).
Alaska thus constitutes an existence proof that both financial models can peacefully coexist within the same U.S. state's legal system. Alaska's example shows that even community property states can easily be modernized to accomodate dyadic networks.
Polyamorous Committment
The Dyadic Networks model of polyamorous marriage raises important questions related to marital commitment. With a single dyad, the situation is simple; each spouse commits to support and protect the other, and the logic of conventional monogamous marriage applies. However, when multiple dyads intersect in a dyadic network, how exactly does the commitment process work?
To understand this, let us consider the parent-child relationship. In the parent-child situation, the support commitment exists only in one direction - from parent to child. When there is a single parent, the child has a single source of commitment, and all protection must come from that source. However, when there are two parents, they are jointly responsible for meeting the child's needs. The precise arrangement is worked out somehow, and provided that the child's needs are being met the law has no need to intervene. If the child's needs are not being met, then debt collection methods such as garnishing wages, seizing assets, etc. can and do occur in order to ensure that child support takes place. These actions are typically proportional to income and/or wealth, so the wealthier parent will pay more. Where a parent has commitments to multiple children, the parent must faithfully carry out his or her responsibilities to each and every child. Although it may sometimes seem that the needs of children are unlimited, this is not actually the case, and once a child's needs are satisfied (a certain amount of food, shelter, medical care, etc.), all parents of that child may regard their commitments as being satisfied with respect to each need for which adequate provision has been made, regardless of which parent(s) actually did the work of satisfying that need.
Turning now to commitment in the dyadic network model, this can be understood as a bidirectional version of the parent-child model. Each dyad represents a commitment of each spouse to the other. Thus, in a V configuration, the two partners at the ends of the V each rely upon commitments from the single partner at the center of the V (the "pivot") - each of them has one spouse. The "pivot" partner can rely upon two commitments, one from each of the two partners at the two ends of the V - the pivot partner has two spouses. If the pivot partner is incapacitated, he or she is in a position comparable to that of a child with two parents - two people are committed to assist him or her and must do so up to the point at which the pivot partner's needs are satisfied. If one of the partners at the end of the V is incapacitated, he or she has only one spouse to rely upon - the pivot partner, who is fully responsible for meeting the incapacitated partner's needs up to the point at which that partner's needs are satisfied. If both partners at the end of the V are incapacitated, then the pivot partner is in a position comparable to that of a single parent with two sick children - he or she must meet the needs of both.
Let us now consider whether the commitment relationship is "transitive" - if A is committed to B, and B is committed to C, does this mean that A is committed to C? No, this is not the case. C can legally rely only upon the commitment of B and has no legal basis to expect or receive a commitment from A. Nor can A rely upon the commitment of C - that could happen only when and if A directly married (mutually committed to) C. However, suppose that C's needs are so large that B is thereby driven into bankruptcy and becomes destitute. Then B can rely upon A's commitment to provide B with a certain minimal level of support (food, shelter, medical care, etc.). Thus C's needs can have an effect on B that causes A to provide more support to B than would have been the case had C not needed to draw heavily upon B's commitment.
Hence, under the dyadic networks model, positive effects arise as a result of multiple commitments. When there is only a single dyad, there is a substantial risk that the size of the commitment will exceed the capacity of the committed. However, when each person is linked to multiple other partners in a dyadic network, this has the effect of bringing in additional capacity to meet any needs that may arise. Three or four spouses may be easily able to carry a commitment load that would have quickly driven a single spouse into bankruptcy.
The analogy to parent-child relationships carries over into other situations as well. Just as it would be improper to discriminate against a parent for having too many children (or too few children), so it would be improper to discriminate against a person for having too many or too few spouses. But with each additional child comes an additional commitment, and the same is true of an additional spouse. Adding another child to one's health insurance coverage will usually result in an increased monthly charge for the insurance, thus adding another spouse would probably have a comparable effect. But a child, or a spouse, only needs to be covered once, regardless of how many parents, or spouses, are available to provide that coverage. Also, a spouse may be economically self-supporting and thus able to pay for his or her own health insurance, so in this respect the total support cost for an additional spouse would then be zero.
Having drawn lessons from the parent-child relationship and applied them to dyadic networks, let us now draw a lesson from dyadic networks and apply it to the parent-child relationship.
Just as there is no inherent reason why a person should not have more than one spouse, so there is no inherent reason why a child should not have more than two parents. When the law of marriage is updated to legally support dyadic networks, the existing adoption mechanism can be used as a means by which additional commitments to children can be created. For example, a single dyad may have already produced two children when each member of the dyad marries a third partner, thus creating a triangle. The newest member of this dyadic network can then execute two adoptions to become the third parent of each of the dyad's two children. Hence, in this situation, each of the three adults now has two spouses and two children. To the extent that any legal barriers might hinder the use of adoption in this manner, such legal barriers would also need to be direct targets of polyamory's legal activism (in addition, of course, to updating the law of marriage to support dyadic networks).
This N-parent situation has already been raised in the New York Times (When 3 Really Is A Crowd, July 16 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16marquardt.html): “On April 30, a state Superior Court panel ruled that a child can have three legal parents. […] Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School, observed, 'I’m unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child’s support and are also entitled to visitation.' […] As one advocate of polygamy argued in Newsweek, 'If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.' If more children are granted three legal parents, what is our rationale for denying these families the rights and protections of marriage?” Our firm answer: there cannot be any legitimate rationale for the unconstitutional denial of this legal protection to polyamorous families
The New York Times op-ed raises a question: “Conflicts will undoubtedly arise when three parents confront the sticky, conflict-ridden reality of child-raising, often leading to a nasty, three-way custody battle. Even if they part amicably, they may still want to live in three different homes. In that case, how many homes should children travel between to satisfy the parenting needs of many adults?” The legal answer has been provided by New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard (Pennsylvania Court Finds Three Adults Can Have Parental Rights, May 01, 2007, http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/05/pennsylvania_co.html): “[...] the court gave Jennifer primary custody of the one nephew who was living with her, and partial custody (visitation rights) with the other three children; Jodilynn got primary custody of the three children and partial custody (visitation) with the one nephew, and Carl was awarded partial custody (visitation) of one weekend a month with his two children.” In the event of divorce, family law judges will calculate child support obligations and distribute visitation rights in accordance with the best interests of the child(ren).
By my count, this is the twentieth ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied by prejudices from being open and honest about who they are and who they are to each other, even though these lovers have a spousal relationship.
By my count, this is the twentieth ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied by prejudices from being open and honest about who they are and who they are to each other, even though these lovers have a spousal relationship.
I sure would like to see advice columnists get more progressive when it comes to consensual adult relationships and sexuality. "HEARTBROKEN MOM IN FLORIDA" wrote to Dear Abby...My daughters are attractive young women, both doing well in their professional careers. "Melanie," who is 27, is married to "Sam," an extremely attractive and successful man.Is that the letter writer's assumption? Some people assume that if a polyamorous couple or a couple in an open relation breaks up, it is because they aren't monogamous. However, many monogamists break up without cheating being the cause, and many polyamorists break up without cheating nor what has been mutually agreed being the cause.
My 30-year-old daughter, "Alicia," has been divorced for a year. Her marriage failed two years ago because she and her husband had an appetite for sex outside their marriage.
While I was disturbed about that, I was horrified to learn that Melanie allows her sister to occasionally have sex with Sam.Horrified to learn that one of her daughters "allows" the other daughter to have sex with her husband? Why is that something to be horrified about, if all three of them want that and have agreed to that? Be horrified if someone abuses people or animals, or commits arson. But horrified over consensual sex?
Melanie's argument is that Sam is less likely to cheat given this situation. When I asked her and Sam about it, he said it wasn't his idea.
My current husband says any man who would refuse this "set-up" would be nuts.Well, we know what he wants! Seriously, there are probably men who are entirely sane who wouldn't want this, for any number of reasons, but it is a common fantasy.
Alicia claims she "doesn't have time" to date right now, and after she finishes her MBA, she'll seek out a more normal relationship.
I am distraught about this mess.
Melanie says she wants to start a family soon. She says she loves Sam, who can "handle everything," and she enjoys seeing "everyone happy."
She says Alicia won't sleep around now and, maybe, one day she'll marry a handsome man like Sam who will "return the favor"!Sounds like her daughters may be into swapping. I'm curious as to what is really going on, since I doubt the daughters are telling their judgmental mother everything. Did Alicia's ex have sex with Melanie? Did they get together as a group? Is it that Sam & Alicia have sex while Melanie is elsewhere? Or does Melanie watch, or make love to Sam at the same time, or do they do threesome sex? Those are all possibilities. If their mother is so distraught at the idea that Sam has sex with both of them, they certainly wouldn't tell her if they are all three involved at the same time.
Should I continue to protest or let it go?
Is this relaxed attitude about sex prevalent in young people today?Adults of all ages are more sex-positive these days.
I cannot understand Melanie's lack of desire to defend her turf.
Your daughters appear to be into the concept of open marriage. Clearly, they do not view marriage and relationships the same way you do.
Melanie is naive to think that encouraging Sam to have a sexual relationship with her sister will discourage him from seeking other partners. Far from it.
Are you right to protest? You certainly are. That's what mothers are for -- to inject a dose of sanity when everyone around her is losing theirs.She would have told the writer to MYOB instead of implying that her daughters are not sane.
I sure would like to see advice columnists get more progressive when it comes to consensual adult relationships and sexuality. "HEARTBROKEN MOM IN FLORIDA" wrote to Dear Abby...My daughters are attractive young women, both doing well in their professional careers. "Melanie," who is 27, is married to "Sam," an extremely attractive and successful man.Is that the letter writer's assumption? Some people assume that if a polyamorous couple or a couple in an open relation breaks up, it is because they aren't monogamous. However, many monogamists break up without cheating being the cause, and many polyamorists break up without cheating nor what has been mutually agreed being the cause.
My 30-year-old daughter, "Alicia," has been divorced for a year. Her marriage failed two years ago because she and her husband had an appetite for sex outside their marriage.
While I was disturbed about that, I was horrified to learn that Melanie allows her sister to occasionally have sex with Sam.Horrified to learn that one of her daughters "allows" the other daughter to have sex with her husband? Why is that something to be horrified about, if all three of them want that and have agreed to that? Be horrified if someone abuses people or animals, or commits arson. But horrified over consensual sex?
Melanie's argument is that Sam is less likely to cheat given this situation. When I asked her and Sam about it, he said it wasn't his idea.
My current husband says any man who would refuse this "set-up" would be nuts.Well, we know what he wants! Seriously, there are probably men who are entirely sane who wouldn't want this, for any number of reasons, but it is a common fantasy.
Alicia claims she "doesn't have time" to date right now, and after she finishes her MBA, she'll seek out a more normal relationship.
I am distraught about this mess.
Melanie says she wants to start a family soon. She says she loves Sam, who can "handle everything," and she enjoys seeing "everyone happy."
She says Alicia won't sleep around now and, maybe, one day she'll marry a handsome man like Sam who will "return the favor"!Sounds like her daughters may be into swapping. I'm curious as to what is really going on, since I doubt the daughters are telling their judgmental mother everything. Did Alicia's ex have sex with Melanie? Did they get together as a group? Is it that Sam & Alicia have sex while Melanie is elsewhere? Or does Melanie watch, or make love to Sam at the same time, or do they do threesome sex? Those are all possibilities. If their mother is so distraught at the idea that Sam has sex with both of them, they certainly wouldn't tell her if they are all three involved at the same time.
Should I continue to protest or let it go?
Is this relaxed attitude about sex prevalent in young people today?Adults of all ages are more sex-positive these days.
I cannot understand Melanie's lack of desire to defend her turf.
Your daughters appear to be into the concept of open marriage. Clearly, they do not view marriage and relationships the same way you do.
Melanie is naive to think that encouraging Sam to have a sexual relationship with her sister will discourage him from seeking other partners. Far from it.
Are you right to protest? You certainly are. That's what mothers are for -- to inject a dose of sanity when everyone around her is losing theirs.She would have told the writer to MYOB instead of implying that her daughters are not sane.
Guy and his wife tried to prep me as best as they could. He talked to me about what the physical layout would be (i.e. social area, public area with toys laid out, private bedroom), gave me a run down on who he expected to be there, even tried to help with my most worrisome question – what to wear.What did she wear?
After careful consideration and an unplanned shopping trip, I found something that was cute, fashionable and had my daughter’s seal of approval, “Oh, mom you could so wear that clubbing!”
I staked out a spot on a futon in the social area and watched while people arrived. I was introduced to all of them either by Guy or by simply being in that area. Everyone was extremely friendly. It was in that moment that I had my first epiphany of the evening (yes there were several), “It was all so NORMAL.” It was absolutely normal party behavior; a group of people getting together and being social. It was almost as if they could have flipped on a movie or fired up a barbeque.Yup. Polyamorous people and swingers are the people next door, the people at the PTA meeting, the people delivering your mail, the people stuck in traffic next to you. Dear reader, you know some poly people and some swingers whether you know it or not.
All in all there were about 10 couples there as well as 2 single females and me.In part two which is definitely NSFW, she wrote...
They were dressed nicely. Many of the women wore stockings. Guy’s misses was the only one in what could be considered fetish wear (corset). But it was not so much as them dressing to look sexy so much as wearing something that made them FEEL sexy (epiphany number 2).
After awhile, many people went downstairs, something about knot tying instructions.
After gathering my courage, I crept downstairs; my heart pounding, my fingernails digging into the palms of my hands; turned the corner and saw a bunch of people fully clothed sitting around talking. All so freaking NORMAL; normal except for the table laid out with a spread of sex toys of all shapes and sizes along with a large pile of towels and condoms, but Guy had shown me that anyway and we had played “show and tell” with most of them on a previous date.So how does that all move on to something more exciting?
When his co-host came up and started talking, I realized that he was actually interested in me. Perhaps he was just being the good host or wanting everyone to be comfortable, but I went with it and took Guy’s suggestion about having his co-host give me a massage.Her recounting of the evening goes on to get quite graphic and hot. It has a happy ending... so to speak. Swinging is obviously not for everyone, but some people enjoy it. Consenting adults should have that freedom with their own bodies.
Wow. I have heard people boast that they are good at massages but I swear this one has magic fingers. Magic fingers that began to drain the nervousness and tension right out of my body; or would have if the lace on my fancy new shirt wasn’t rubbing into my skin. That had to be rectified. My shirt came off with little thought. I am not modest and finding myself face down on a bed in the public play area sans shirt, seemed about as natural (and necessary) to me as nursing my daughter while walking the aisles of Sam’s Club. I would like to interject here that I was not the only one in a state of semi-undress but if I recall correctly (which I may well not), I was.
Closing my eyes, I let his fingers wander my back and shoulders. He was using an oil that smelled nice and made his fingers glide over my skin. We visited while my body turned into butter. At some point he asked if he could remove my bra. And at some point he kissed me.
2:30 PM
Unknown
Posted in: 