Perhaps the most striking example of the primacy of the triad in Western civilization can be seen in the cultural icon of the Holy Trinity—the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Many have observed that the original Holy Trinity must have included not only the father and the child but also the Great Mother. The substitution of the genderless Holy Ghost for the female principle was one of many systematic changes imposed on a preexisting culture by patriarchal Judeo-Christian clergy as they molded a new mythology for our present-day society.
Another biblical triad of note is Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. Without the transformative role of the Serpent, whose challenge to patriarchal supremacy could be compared to that of Adam’s first wife Lilith,2 the history of humanity would be different indeed.
While mothers are often primary caregivers, to the extent that males take on the role of father and actively participate in rearing their offspring, even from a distance, humans experience a basic family unit of three. The infant bonds not only with the mother but also with the father. Each one of us imprints on at least two, not just one, significant others. The nature of these first nurturing relationships has great influence on all subsequent ones.
This early patterning may explain why family systems pioneers such as Dr. Murray Bowen have found that the triangle is the basic emotional molecule. Any emotional system can best be understood as a series of interlocking triangles. This is because a two-person system is inherently unstable. Where there is one bond linking two people, this sole bond must absorb any tensions between the two. When it snaps, the connection is broken. In a three-person system, there are three bonds. So the triad is potentially three times as durable. One bond can break without completely destroying the whole system, allowing time for repairs or renegotiation. If the bonds are of equal strength and flexibility, each one carries one-third of the stress, thus distributing the load and making the whole relationship more durable. This is why the triangle is the basis of structural design in engineering. In the nuclear family, a child is often pressed into service to balance the energies of the two parents. But another adult is far more appropriate for this role.
The usual portrayal of love triangles in our culture depicts strife, jealousy, and betrayal. This viewpoint is no doubt related to Greek and Roman mythology in which amoral gods and goddesses are forever cheating on their partners and hatching horrific plots for revenge. Another example of this phenomenon is Freud’s interpretation of the Oedipus myth, in which the hero murders his father and marries his mother, as the basis for all manner of psychosexual disorders. According to Freud, every child secretly aims for exclusive possession of his or her opposite-gender parent and jealously strives to eliminate the competition, the third leg of the triangle, the same-gender parent.
In chapter 6, we explored more closely the influence of the parental triangle in polyamorous unions. Healthy triangles generally are based on healthy dyadic dynamics between the parents, and unfortunately this is often not the case. For now, we can simply acknowledge that dysfunctional childhood triadic programming is likely to surface and repeat itself in triadic relationships. These archetypal conflicts are deeply rooted in Western civilization and can be either transformed through conscious effort or unconsciously reenacted when the triad brings these issues to the surface.
Alongside the archetype of the neurotic or conflictual triangle, we also find examples of healing or harmonious triangles. Esoteric writings from many sources stress the balancing qualities of the third force. Without the synthesizing energies of the third, we are left alternating between two irreconcilable polarities. For example, we have the state of excitement on the one hand and depression, its opposite, on the other. The synthesis of or balance between these two is a third quality called calm or serenity. In many traditions, the archetype of the eternal triangle is associated with the feminine. The inverted triangle is a universal symbol for the yoni, or vagina. The triangle pointing upward often symbolizes the masculine, and when they are superimposed, as in the Star of David, the two triangles represent the sacred union of the masculine and feminine energies. In Hindu and Buddhist mythology, happy triads are common. Clearly, the universal archetype of the love triangle is not inherently one of jealous struggle. It is up to us to select or create a mythology to live by that heals, not hurts.
THE MÉNAGE À TROIS
The dyad may be our cultural ideal, but the ménage à trios could be our most pervasive fantasy, judging by its frequent appearance in novels, films, and visual art as well as real life. This French term has come to suggest a purely sexual liaison, but its original meaning was that of three live-in lovers. In their book Three in Love, Foster, Foster, and Hadady3 tell the stories of dozens of famous and influential threesomes, from those of the eighteenth-century writer Voltaire to the nineteenth-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche to the twentieth-century French president Mitterrand. Their thorough research makes it clear that many of our most esteemed artists, writers, musicians, intellectuals—even politicians, royalty, and military heroes—found their sustenance and inspiration in triads.
THE SECRET DALLIANCE
One example of a healing mythology is found in the legends of the Secret Dalliance, which is the ancient Chinese term for sexual practices that extended beyond the couple. Such practices were viewed as a legitimate means of stimulating potent, even magical, powers in both men and women throughout Asia. Multiple-partner sex was also believed to rejuvenate the participants and promote longevity.
Knowledge of the sexual techniques associated with the Secret Dalliance was carefully guarded in the days of the great dynasties to enable the ruling classes to maintain their power over the common people. A man who spent himself with his first woman would be unable to satisfy the rest, so these techniques were very necessary in China, where three to twelve wives were the norm for the relatively large middle class.
In India, the Tantric Union of Three was believed to release energies more powerful and potentially more dangerous than those experienced by a couple. Texts offering special techniques for the proper channeling of these high-voltage energies warn against proceeding unless jealousy and egotism are absent.4 Again, this knowledge was the province of adepts and nobles and was deliberately kept from the lower classes. Perhaps the sentiment that triadic relationships were not suitable for the masses partly explains why these kinds of relationships are considered so unacceptable in today’s democratic West.
Surviving Taoist and Tantric texts emphasize the lovemaking of one man with two or more women, but it’s likely that these reflect the imposition of a patriarchal culture on the earlier goddess-centered one, where both men and women enjoyed multiple partners. For example, dancer Muna Tseng was able to visit one of the Duhuang caves in northwestern China, Cave 465, the Secret Ancestry Cave, dating back to the eleventh century.5 This cave, which is generally not open to the public, depicts the story of Ming Fei, a manifestation of the Taoist immortal known as Queen Mother of the West. Tseng reports that one panel shows Ming Fei holding a cup of semen saved from the height of sexual union with many men. This elixir is said to have enlightened her and given her immortality.
There is also evidence that polyandry has been practiced in the Himalayan foothills. Draupadi, the heroine of the great Indian epic the Mahabharata, had five husbands, all of whom were brothers. Even today, there are reports of women with more than one husband in Tibet and Sri Lanka.
Archaeological discoveries have established that even in the Middle East, where the status of women today is abysmally low, women were formerly polyamorous. Tablets dating from about 2300 B.C. that describe so-called reforms in ancient Sumer (now southern Iraq), known as the reforms of Urukagina, state that “women of former days used to take two husbands but the women of today would be stoned with stones if they did this,” according to Merlin Stone in When God Was a Woman.6
TWO GENDERS OR FOUR?
Some might argue that the dyad is the primary unit because it allows the two genders to come together to ma
ke a whole. Plato, for one, wrote that in the distant past, male and female were found in a single body, but now it takes two separate individuals, and this is why we so long to find our soul mates. Rather than digressing into questioning the desirability of a belief system that teaches that we are incomplete without our “other half,” let’s take a look at the assumption that humans come in only two genders.
Some Native American cultures perceive that there are seven genders, not two. Likewise, twenty-first-century “gender queers” challenge the male/female dichotomy. Swedish poly activist Andie Norgren describes it this way: “My strongest alternative identity is gender queer, where I am female bodied but present in clothing, body language and appearance pretty much male, but I have no plans or desires to change my body or official sex. I’m just there in the middle, not sexualizing that or making it a big identity transition thing, just being me.”7
One male, one female seems to be sufficient for reproduction in most cases, provided that they are genetically compatible but not overly similar genetically,8 but in terms of completion, several astute observers have noticed that 4, not 2, is the magic number. The quadrinity is the archetypal number of completion in the natural world. We have four directions: north, south, east, and west; four elements: earth, air, water, and fire; and four seasons: winter, spring, summer, and fall, just to name a few examples.
Spiritual teacher Leslie Temple Thurston has put forth an elegant tool for transcending polarities of any kind that relies on the square.9 When thinking about any polarity, we can always look at it from two perspectives: that which we desire and that which we fear. So the basic polarity, polyamory and monogamy, for example, can be conceptualized as occupying four quadrants: desire for polyamory, fear of polyamory, desire for monogamy, and fear of monogamy. Usually, at least one of these quadrants is unconscious. When we become aware of the feelings and motivations associated with the blank square, the graceful resolution of completion often occurs as if by magic.
When it comes to gender, a similar quadratic equation exists. Gina Haddon10 brilliantly describes the existence of active and receptive expressions for both masculine and feminine that she links to the functions of different sexual organs. She argues that active and receptive are the basic polarity and that these are not gender linked. Our culture tends to recognize only the active masculine, or phallic masculine, as symbolized by the erect penis. We overlook the receptive masculine, or testicular masculine, whose qualities include protection and constancy, even though the testicles are far more enduring than a fleeting erection. In studies of mythology, these are sometimes referred to as the solar masculine, represented by gods such as Apollo, and the lunar masculine, represented by Poseidon, god of the oceans and the underworld.
Conversely, our culture has exclusively identified the feminine with the receptive as exemplified by Mary, Mother of Jesus. This gentle, nurturing aspect of the feminine is linked with the breasts. But the feminine also has its active expression as evidenced by the birthing womb. Anyone with direct experience of childbirth knows that this quintessential aspect of the feminine is anything but soft and yielding. Fierce goddesses such as Kali and Durga in India or Pele in Hawaii are known for their sometimes violent anger. In Western civilization, we have Joan of Arc and Deborah, the female warrior and judge in the Old Testament. Mary Magdalene, who many now believe to be the consort of Jesus and mother of his child, has been presented in the New Testament as a prostitute rather than a priestess of the reigning active female deity.
With the active feminine and receptive masculine genders written out of our foundational myths, the four genders are reduced to two. Of course, just as both women and men have masculine and feminine qualities, we all have both active and receptive qualities. Nevertheless, in most people, one type predominates, and in the dyad, only two of these types are present. Is it any wonder that couples often have a sense of something missing?
POLYAMOROUS ARCHETYPES
Polytheistic cultures around the world, including Native American, African, and Celtic cultures, have also honored the power of sexualove and lack the Christian bias toward monogamy. It is beyond the scope of this book to explore all these traditions, but brief mention of a few specifics will suggest the dramatically different perspective on monogamy found in other cultures.
Native American teacher Harley Swiftdeer describes the talent for sexualove as a special gift, similar to a gift for music or for athletic ability. Such a gift may be chosen as a person’s giveaway, or contribution to society. This lover archetype is very different from our culture’s image of the driven nymphomaniac or the irresponsible Dionysian lady’s man. Furthermore, the Native American archetype of the healer encompasses the use of an abundant erotic energy for healing. A similar archetype is known in Tibetan mythology as Sky Walking Woman. She is the free spirit who will not be possessed by any individual but whose life energy has the power to revitalize those who become intimate with her.
In the West, one of the most pervasive polyamorous archetypes is Aphrodite, Greek goddess of love and beauty. To the Romans, she was Venus. In earlier times, she was known as Inanna, Astarte, Ishtar, or Isis. The Hindus call her Parvati, and she is sometimes described as the wife of Shiva. She is the feminine essence before being divided into madonna and whore.
Jungian analyst Jean Shinoda Bolen11 calls Aphrodite the alchemical goddess because she alone among the Greek gods and goddesses had transformational power. She was also unique in that, while she had more lovers than any other goddess in Greek myth, she was not victimized and never suffered from her numerous love affairs as did most of the other goddesses. Neither was she jealous or possessive. Unlike her counterparts, she was allowed freely to choose both her husband and her many lovers. Aphrodite inspired poetry, communication, and creativity as well as love. She is still renowned for her powerful magnetism. Some modern women who’ve embodied this archetype are Isadora Duncan, the inventor of modern dance; Emma Goldman, the early feminist anarchist and free love advocate; and the pop music star Madonna.
Aphrodite’s liaison with Hermes, god of communication (called Mercury by the Romans), produced the bisexual, androgynous Hermaphroditus. Her long-term union with Ares, god of war (Mars to the Romans), produced a daughter, Harmonia. Thus, love and war combined to give rise to harmony. The six-lobed Flower of Aphrodite is an ancient symbol found all over the world. It symbolizes the power of this archetype to generate growth and produce new life, and there is nothing remotely dyadic about it.
Classical Greek civilization is often cited as the primary root of today’s Western cultures. Interestingly enough, neither monogamy nor romantic pair bonding was emphasized in Greek mythology or in everyday life in ancient Greece. While customs varied among the different city-states, marriages were arranged for financial and political reasons, and love was not part of the equation.12 Unlike the contemporary arranged marriages still common in India, for example, where attention is given to the likelihood of compatibility between the betrothed and where it is hoped that love will develop over time, love between husband and wife was not even considered desirable in classical Greece. The wife’s role was to provide heirs for her husband and manage his household while he enjoyed affection, sex, and companionship with a variety of women courtesans and hetaerae and perhaps men and boys as well.
In India, among the Gonds people, who are an indigenous tribe still living in the forests of modern-day Maharashtra in central India, young people live together in a coed youth house where boys and girls are given total sexual freedom and encouraged to experience intimacy with everyone in the group. Pairing up is forbidden until adulthood, at which time monogamy is the rule. This custom is thought to be very ancient. Verrier Elwin, an anthropologist who lived among these people for many years and eventually married into the tribe, once said that their message is “that youth must be served, that freedom and happiness are more to be treasured than any material gain, that friendliness and sympathy, hospitality and unity are of the first import
ance, and above all that human love—and its physical expression—is beautiful, clean and precious, is typically Indian.”13
In Hawaii prior to the arrival of westerners, the ancient ’ohana, or extended family, was—and still is—central to the lives of Hawaiians. Prior to the influence of Christian missionaries and, before this, settlers from Tahiti, the Hawaiian culture was one in which men and women were equals. Both genders sometimes took more than one mate, and all shared responsibility for the children regardless of biological parentage. This custom was common among both royalty and commoners. If partners separated, all remained part of the same ’ohana. In the Hawaiian language, the same word, punalua, applies to multiple spouses, the unrelated spouses of siblings or cousins, or to former and current mates. Punalua were recognized and treated as family, and while jealousy sometimes arose, it was not frequent, perhaps because it was considered disgraceful and contrary to the spirit of aloha, which is roughly translated as “love.”14
AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE
Speculation about the mating habits of prehistoric humans as well as observation of present-day nonhuman primates are other sources of data often called on to validate our current conjugal practices. It’s interesting to note that most scholars don’t bother to ask whether males prefer or will accept multiple mates. It’s assumed that the male will gladly take on as many females as he can gain access to. The big question is always whether females will accept more than one male or, sometimes, whether her consorts are willing to share her with other males.
Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy With Multiple Partners Page 28
