Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy With Multiple Partners

by Deborah M. Anapol

  Barash and Lipton, who are a male–female team, provide a more balanced perspective, putting to rest the outdated notion that females are naturally sexually exclusive. Instead, their data reveal that females, like males, are motivated to have more than one partner when doing so improves their access to resources and the quality of genetic material available to them.

  Barash and Lipton also pose the fascinating question of why monogamy exists at all in any animals, including humans, and even go so far as to compare the reproductive advantages of monogamy, polygyny, and polyandry. Their new book, Strange Bedfellows (2009), focuses on the reproductive advantages of monogamy for humans. The animal behavior studies are illuminating. But while genetic programming dictates much more of our behavior than most of us like to admit, there are at least two serious limitations to animal research—and Barash and Lipton’s analysis—for understanding human sexual behavior.

  The first is that there are basically no known precedents either in the animal world or in so-called primitive cultures for mating or family groups that include more than one member of both genders, unless you consider the whole tribe as the group. For example, the concept of two males and two females bonding to reproduce and raise young is conspicuously absent from the literature. And while polyamory does not have to include multiple partners of both genders, it certainly can.

  The reason for this, undoubtedly, is that while conflict between same-gender individuals competing to fertilize an egg, control territory, or obtain food and child care is generally present, when one male or female establishes dominance, he or she is able to assert him- or herself over the others more or less permanently, resulting in stable relationships where each individual knows how to behave.

  But imagine what would happen if the alpha male or patriarch is not only ruling his harem but also constantly competing with another male whom he can’t simply defeat and drive away but one with whom he needs to cooperate on an ongoing basis. A male who willingly submits to another becomes unattractive to females programmed to go for the male with the best genes. Similarly, an alpha female will generally not allow another female into her “home,” and a nonalpha female will not succeed in preserving her freedom to have multiple mates in the face of inevitable resistance from males who want the genetic advantage of fertilizing all her eggs.

  I’ve noticed these patterns in the cats I’ve lived with over the years. Recently, I adopted two female kittens whose mothers were sisters. They had been raised together since birth and were very bonded. Tillie is a very aggressive eater, gobbling her food as soon as it’s placed in her dish and nosing her cousin out of the way. If it’s something she especially likes, like fresh tuna, she makes growling noises while eating and guards the dish against intruders. Frances is quite content with this arrangement and patiently waits until her compatriot is finished eating to have whatever is left. They both love to sit with me and be petted. Tillie always sits on my shoulder or chest, while Frances takes the lower perch in my lap. When they play together, they wrestle and jump freely, but each knows her place when it comes to important resources, and there is never any conflict.

  Years ago, I had two other cats who were sisters and got along well until they both had kittens. As soon as the kittens were weaned, Kali, the more dominant of the two, started attacking her sister many times a day until she drove her out of the house. Astarte finally found refuge with a neighbor, and Kali guarded her territory ferociously, refusing to submit to the male cats in the neighborhood except for Sand, our older male cat who lorded it over everyone.

  Genetic programming is usually characterized as selfish. It’s said that it’s not interested in the good of the species, the happiness of others, or social justice but rather is ruled by Darwin’s infamous survival-of-the-fittest dictum. Competition and the struggle for dominance, whether at the level of determining which sperm cells will fertilize an egg or which male has access to a particular female or whether the male or the female is calling the shots, has been the basis for most interpersonal interactions throughout our recorded history. Polyamory, on the other hand, involves a conscious decision to act altruistically, that is, to put the well-being of others on an equal par with one’s own.

  Another issue is that, increasingly, the association of human sexual behavior with reproduction is being broken. While most nonhuman sexual behavior still is linked with reproduction, a smaller and smaller percentage of human mating is intended to produce offspring. With longer life spans and better health, women are continuing to be sexually active long after fertility ceases. Greater independence for both genders means that enjoyment of sex, shared values and interests, and common avocations play a greater role than basic survival in sexual choices.

  Meanwhile, many humans are deciding to have fewer children or no children at all, and when birth control pills and surgical solutions are used to control fertility and deodorants are used to control natural scents, our physiology is altered in such a way that genetic programming may be altered.

  LOVE AND THE BRAIN

  The effects of hormones and neurotransmitters have been increasingly well researched in the twenty-first century as the major mechanism by which genetic programming, as well as emotional reactions and environmental factors, exerts an effect on our sexual behavior. Hormones such as estrogen, testosterone, vasopressin, and dehydroepiandrosterone have long been known to influence our sexual desires and habits. Oxytocin is strongly linked to bonding. Neurotransmitters such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and phenylethylamine have been identified as mediators for infatuation or romantic love. Tiny molecules called pheromones, which enter our bodies through the nose, independently of our conscious awareness of odors, also influence our sexual attractions and choices.

  The question is no longer whether sex hormones affect our behavior but rather to what extent we have any conscious choice about our sexual decisions at all. For example, high testosterone levels may incline some people to seek out multiple partners, while vasopressin may influence others to bond with only one. No doubt the degrees of freedom vary from person to person and involve relationships between hormone levels, consciousness levels, and environmental factors. The very extensive conversations on “free will” in spiritual, psychological, and philosophical venues are beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that many of our most respected and influential spiritual leaders say that free will is an illusion and that we only imagine we are making choices after the behavior has already occurred.2

  Scientific data strongly suggest that, as sex therapist and researcher Dr. Theresa Crenshaw puts it, “when you fall in love or in lust it isn’t merely an emotional event. Your various hormones, each with unique features to contribute, get in bed with you too.”3 Dr. Helen Fisher divides love into three categories that correspond to different hormones and brain systems. Her analysis of the data suggests that high androgen and estrogen levels generate lust, romantic love correlates with high dopamine and norepinephrine and low serotonin, and attachment is driven by oxytocin and vasopressin. To make matters more complicated, these three systems interact. For example, testosterone can “kickstart the two love neurotransmitters while an orgasm can elevate the attachment hormone,” according to Fisher. “Don’t copulate with people you don’t want to fall in love with,” she warns.4

  Scientists also tell us that the intensity of romantic love that many couples experience early on, which is fueled by endorphins, naturally diminishes after a couple of years. Oxytocin levels then support a few more years of attachment, rising with the birth of each new child, perhaps accounting for worldwide peaks in divorce rates after four and seven years of marriage as bonding between partners loses some of its biochemical boost. If affectionate touch, sexual activity, and orgasms also decline over time, oxytocin levels will further decline.

  Vasopressin, which has been called “the monogamy molecule” because it’s been identified as the cause of lifelong mating patterns in male prairie voles, has also been implicated in human bonding. Sw
edish researcher Hasse Walum5 reports that in a study of 552 pairs of male twins, those with a gene reducing the effect of vasopressin scored lower on a psychological test measuring bonding. The women they were married to also reported lower levels of marital quality. As a result, there has been speculation that vasopressin levels may play in a role in determining whether a man is monogamous.

  Marnia Robinson, author of Peace between the Sheets, advocates that both men and women withhold orgasm during sexual exchanges to short-circuit the brain circuitry, leading to a decline of interest in a partner once they’ve habituated to each other. She theorizes that the human brain, unlike the bonobo brain, is wired for pair bonding with a specific type of dopamine receptor that creates addictive-like cravings for one’s mate. But as with any physical addiction, the “fix” loses its potency over time. Robinson speculates that by withholding dopamine-releasing orgasms while increasing oxytocin-releasing touch and affection, bonding can prevail over the “craving” for new and different sexual stimulation.6 If Robinson’s hypothesis is correct, it goes a long way toward explaining why women, who are generally less likely than men to reach orgasm through intercourse or to reach orgasm at all if their lover is unskilled, are reputed to be more likely to remain attached, while their male partners seek variety.

  While love, sex, and relationships are clearly influenced by many factors in addition to genetic variations, hormones and neurotransmitters, and pharmaceutical and recreational drugs, most experts agree that we would be foolish to ignore the role of biochemistry.

  IS INFIDELITY MONOGAMY?

  Is infidelity monogamy? What about serial monogamy? These may sound like silly questions, but with as many as 70 percent of all couples experiencing extramarital affairs, monogamy has been redefined. Most of these couples consider themselves to be monogamous, as do couples who divorce and remarry others. Clearly, their behavior does not match their identities. As long our society stigmatizes people—and especially women—who tell the truth about their nonmonogamous desires and activities, it’s likely that people will choose more acceptable labels even if they are misleading to say the least.

  According to the 1999 U.S. Census, almost half of all marriages are remarriages for at least one of the spouses. While divorce rates are higher in the United States than in most other countries, serial monogamy is a worldwide trend. And one of the leading causes of divorce is infidelity. The original meaning of monogamy was to mate and be sexually exclusive for life. Divorcing and remarrying was originally called serial polygamy, not serial monogamy.

  We could argue whether all marriages should continue for a lifetime, but that’s not the issue I want to raise here. Rather, I am pointing to the false connection many people make between monogamy and fidelity. Monogamy and commitment are often considered synonymous as well. To me, faithfulness has more to do with honesty, respect, and loyalty than sexual exclusivity, and commitment is about keeping agreements. The content of the agreement is irrelevant as far as commitment is concerned. Somehow, we’ve really gotten confused when relationships that include secret extramarital affairs are considered monogamous and those that end in divorce are considered committed monogamous marriages.

  Of course, people who identify as monogamous have no corner on infidelity. Those who attempt to practice polyamory can also find themselves having secret affairs, which is all the more disheartening to partners who imagined that their couple relationship was based on honesty and consensual extramarital relating. Ellen and her husband Doug had been happily married for twelve years, and while they’d agreed from the beginning that their marriage would be open, neither had gone beyond the playful flirtation stage.

  Suddenly, unexpectedly Ellen found herself head over heels in love with William, a man whom both had been acquainted with for years. She’d kept the depth of her feelings a secret from Doug for several months, not wanting to upset him and afraid that he would interfere with her newfound joy. Meanwhile, William, knowing that they had an open marriage, assumed that Doug was fully informed. When Ellen finally confessed that she was in love with William, Doug predictably felt angry and betrayed, feared that she would leave him, and wanted to retreat to monogamy. The habit of keeping secrets can be deeply engrained, even when couples agree to have an open relationship.

  SWINGING

  For many people, polyamory is just another word for swinging. In fact, prior to the invention of the word polyamory in the early 1990s, the word swinging, when it came into use in the 1970s, did mean much the same thing polyamory now implies. Like polyamory, the definition of swinging and swingers has evolved through the portrayal of these lifestyles in the popular media.

  I know this because shortly after the publication of my book Love without Limits in 1992, I gave a talk at the annual Lifestyles Conference to promote it. In my talk, I discussed my impression that while swinging shares the values of honesty and consensual decision making with polyamory, it differs from polyamory in two ways. First, swingers generally had sex first and perhaps became friends later, whereas polyamorists became friends first and maybe had sex afterward. Second, swinging, while allowing for sexual non-monogamy, demanded emotional monogamy. That is, in swinging, falling in love with a partner other than your spouse is forbidden. In polyamory, the word itself suggests that loving all of your partners is appropriate.

  While my description is certainly true for some swingers, when my talk concluded, I was surrounded by polite but angry swingers, including many leaders in the swing movement who informed me that their way of practicing swinging had always been identical to what I was now calling polyamory. In fact, some of them were involved in intimate networks that were almost as old as I was at the time. The media, they said, were responsible for sensationalizing the lifestyle and presenting it as shallow and coldhearted.

  The same could now be said of polyamory, but in all fairness, I have to admit that some people who have adopted the polyamory label have sex instead of developing lasting friendships and don’t always treat their partners in a loving way. And there are many people who call themselves swingers but who have committed relationships with a circle of people beyond their primary partner. In addition, I know of many people who have ongoing sexualoving relationships with several people and also have a series of casual sexual encounters with new people. Others troll for prospects for polyamorous relationships by attending swing conventions that are generally held at more upscale locations, more entertaining, less introspective, and better attended than polyamory conferences.

  Another difference between polyamory and swinging is that at least in present-day swinging, it’s all about couples. In order to attend most swinging events, you have to be a male/female pair. Honestly, I’m not sure to what extent the “couples-only” policy is an effective way of discouraging single men from swarming to these events and to what extent it is a strategy for managing jealousy by eliminating, at least in theory, participants who may be seeking a new mate. Polyamorous gatherings, because they are less sexually oriented, are less attractive to people who are primarily seeking sex. Additionally, in polyamory there is usually a conscious choice not to support the culturally pervasive emphasis on coupling up.

  Clearly, there is no sharp divide between polyamory and swinging, with some people practicing or identifying with both lifestyles and others choosing labels according to their circumstances or their history or for no apparent reason at all. The distinction may be helpful to some, but it’s not something you can rely on to be meaningful.

  Nora and Jim’s story is a case in point. Nora recalls, “When the kids went off to college we realized we’d bankrupted our marriage. That’s a dangerous time for marriages breaking up, and Jim and I decided we needed to spend more time together and focus on each other after all these years of being in the polyamorous community and having other lovers. We’d drifted apart. His needs were being met by Andrea, his girlfriend of seven years, but my other partners weren’t working out for me, and I stopped seeing them.”

&nb
sp; At that time, Nora told Jim, “If you’d rather be with her, there’s the door. I only want you to be here if you want to be.” They spent a year in counseling together, and Nora invited Andrea to join them, but Andrea declined and “wrote herself out of the script.” Nora says she hadn’t planned to exclude Andrea but did want to reclaim her connection with her husband and feels badly about how that relationship ended.

  “I’ve always been kind of a tribal person,” Nora explains. “I still have a circle of close friends from childhood. I liked the idea of having more friends around who we could also have sex with, but it really hadn’t worked out for me. Jim’s and my sex life had always been good, there was nothing lacking in our relationship, we just started wondering what more there could be to life. At first it felt very inclusive, very spontaneous, we were doing it together with the first couple we dated. And I was always ‘open’ with my other lovers, but Jim was in a closed relationship with Andrea, who didn’t want him to see other women besides me.

  “After we got our marriage back on track five years ago, Jim wanted to try swinging, which was something we’d never done and which he couldn’t do with Andrea. I wasn’t really interested, but I was a good sport, so I went along with it. I didn’t like it much, but after a couple months we met a couple at a swing club who we now see every weekend. It’s turned out to be the way I always imagined polyamory could be but never was. No stress, no strain, no drama. There’s a lot of trust and comfort. We have a great time with them, and there’s a lot of love and support. The first year it was mostly just great sex. They’d been swinging for a long time and were a very happy, stable couple. Polyamory just wasn’t on their map. They’d never heard of it. I was cautious after my previous experiences and wanted to go very slowly. I think they were open to more with us before we were. In the second year we expanded to dinners, sleepovers, meeting each other’s kids, and taking vacations together. They’ve become our best friends, we’re in love with each other, we’re bonded. Our kids love them, and their kids like us too. Their nineteen-year-old daughter recently asked them matterof-factly if they were swingers and if they had sex with us. When they said yes and yes, she simply nodded and said, ‘Cool.’”