As we discussed in chapter 1, despite the unscientific but well-publicized explanatory fictions invented by some culture-bound twentieth-century sociobiologists that treat monogamy as an evolutionary mandate, the weight of evidence suggests that early humans were not monogamous.
Prominent evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis15 points out that the erect penis of the human male is about five times larger than that of a gorilla. Human testicles are also much larger than those of gorillas and orangutans. Among the great apes, only the wildly promiscuous chimpanzees have bigger testicles than humans. Why is this? Probably it is an evolutionary adaptation to sperm competition, which exists if two or more males copulate with the same female within a period of days. The one with the largest, best-timed, and deepest penetrating ejaculation will be most likely to impregnate her. Consequently, the genes for large penises and testicles are more likely to be passed on.
This theory is supported by the discovery that in species of monkeys and apes with the highest ratios of testes to body weight, the females often mate with many males. For example, with chimpanzees, a species that has one of the highest ratios, the troop is usually composed of genetically related males that hunt together and that are willing to sexually share rather than exclusively possess a female. And female chimps in heat are inclined to encourage as many males to have a go as they can round up. This could be viewed as a precursor for early forms of group marriage, in which a group of related males bonded with a group of related females.
Further evidence cited by Margulis for the existence of sperm competition in humans is the discovery that men who know or suspect that their mate has not been monogamous actually produce more sperm and more semen than those who believe that their wives have no other lovers. Jealousy, she concludes, is an aphrodisiac.
But jealousy can also function to motivate other behaviors, termed sperm competition avoidance. The huge gorilla with his one-inch-long erection and tiny testicles doesn’t need a big penis to gain an evolutionary advantage. The alpha male simply prevents others from gaining access to the fertile females in his “harem.” This pattern is more common in species where the male is significantly larger and more powerful than the female, a possible precursor to the form of polygamy practiced by biblical patriarchs and by patriarchs throughout the Arab world today.
Orangutans, which also have relatively tiny penises, are more likely to practice something called takeover avoidance. That is, the mated pair remain alone and isolated in the jungle. Sperm competition is not an issue because there are no other contenders. One might see this idiosyncratic development, without pushing the extremes too far, as a possible precursor for our honeymoon custom and the exclusivity of the nuclear family.
Anthropologist Robert Smith16 speculates that monogamous (takeover avoidant or sperm competition avoidant) Homo sapiens may have been better fighters than their promiscuous well-hung (sperm-competing) Homo erectus predecessors. Consequently, cooperative Homo erectus males, failing to protect their females from control by jealous and violent Homo sapiens, gradually disappeared.
Another perspective on evolutionary precedents for nonmonogamous behavior can be found in the observations of anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy.17 She points out that in primate species where the female mates with many different males, all the males in the troop are likely to be protective of her and her offspring. But in harem-type troops, males will kill nursing infants sired by another male. Thus, we could speculate that men and women have different evolutionary agendas. The female’s goal is to ensure the survival of all her offspring by enlisting the support of as many males as possible. The male’s goal is to protect only those offspring that he knows to carry his genes and to eliminate all others. We might call this postnatal sperm competition avoidance. This could be viewed as a possible precursor to genocide.
THE BONOBO WAY
Perhaps the strongest evidence of a biological basis for polyamory comes from observations of the bonobo chimpanzee. Bonobos, also known as pygmy chimpanzees, are found only in a small area of Zaire in central Africa. Nothing was known about their behavior in the wild prior to the 1970s. At first, they were thought to be juvenile common chimpanzees, but it turns out that they are a distinct species. Bonobos, unlike other chimps, frequently copulate face-to-face, and the females are sexually receptive throughout their ovulation cycle.18 Observers agree that bonobos have a propensity for sharing sexual pleasure with a variety of partners independently of reproductive purposes. In fact, genital play is used extensively both across and within genders as a means of bonding within the group and defusing potential conflicts.
Male bonobos may use sex to reconcile with each other after an aggressive encounter, and females use sex to reinforce social ties or relieve tension. Bonobo females also build powerful alliances with each other through sexual sharing, a strategy that is thought to explain the peaceful and egalitarian relations between bonobo males and females. Unlike other primate species, such as common chimpanzees or baboons, bonobo females aren’t afraid of males and live in mixed-gender groups. Although the males are physically larger and stronger, they don’t dominate the females sexually or in any other way.
This discussion of primate mating patterns should not be interpreted as support for the notion that human sexuality is merely an extension of our genetically determined animal natures. However, it should be apparent from this brief discussion that the argument that monogamy is the only natural form of bonding has little basis in the study of primate sexual behavior—quite the contrary, as humans are genetically closer to bonobos than any other species and bonobos are happily polyamorous. They are also on the verge of extinction, but this does not appear to be a result of their mating patterns. In fact, we could speculate that it is their mating patterns that have allowed them to survive this long.
POLYAMORY AND THE PRE/POST FALLACY
Transpersonal psychologist Ken Wilber19 draws our attention to an error that many of us make when looking at the evolution of human consciousness. He observes that we confuse the undifferentiated consciousness typical of primitive peoples, young children, and psychotics with the transcendental unitive consciousness of the mystic or saint. In other words, we mistakenly equate the undeveloped state with the highly developed state that it superficially resembles.
This same error is prone to occur when we look at the mating behaviors and family structures of primates and early humans. Evolution tends to follow a spiral, repeating a cyclic pattern that constantly brings us back to the same place but at a higher level. Consequently, group marriages in prehistoric times may resemble the group marriages of the twenty-first century in that they include the same number of partners. But the dynamics of the relationships are likely to be very different. Similarly, the image of polygamy as male-dominated harems of females has little in common with the voluntary multiple-partner relationships that men and women choose today. Neither does forced monogamy directly correspond with a conscious choice of limiting oneself to one life partner.
Polyamory is not a throwback to more primitive modes of sexual relating. Neither is cosmic consciousness a kind of schizophrenic regression. Instead, polyamory may be a more complex form of relationship for men and women who have already mastered the basics of intimacy and are prepared to evolve into more complex social organisms. By the same token, to regard polyamory as the end point of evolution would be the height of arrogance. No doubt, the evolutionary spiral has many more turns yet to come.
Science-fiction writers Spider Robinson and Jeanne Robinson explore the idea of polyamory as a contributing factor to an evolutionary leap in human consciousness in their novel Stardance.20 The story revolves around the founding of the first zero-gravity, off-planet dance troupe and the subsequent use of dance to communicate with extraterrestrials. The requirements of weightless dancing soon led the group into a transparently intimate and synergistic group marriage that appears to be the ultimate manifestation of renowned futurist Teilhard de Chardin’s prophetic observation
that “we see Nature combining molecules and cells in the living body to construct separate individuals, and the same Nature, stubbornly pursuing the same course but on a higher level, combining individuals in social organisms to obtain a higher order of psychic results.”21
THE FUTURE OF LOVE
Biologists find that some species respond to environmental threats to their survival by gathering into highly interdependent groupings. A bonded group is able to thrive under conditions, such as those found in outer space, that would be fatal to isolated individuals or mating pairs. Using group synergy, a bonded group can increase the efficiency with which the basic functions, such as the input and distribution of nutrients and the coordination of activities, are performed. In the case of humans, functional multiadult families have the capacity to share essential items, such as food, shelter, and information, while assisting in the creation of valuable products and services. The family’s reproductive and child-rearing capacity can also be enhanced; this has been a major consideration for centuries by those advocating patriarchal-style polyamory.
Philosopher Dane Rudhyar was among the first twentieth-century writers to emphasize the transformational role of polyamorous relationships in human evolution. Rudhyar acknowledges that the deep love and bonding required for a group to effect core changes among individuals can occur in the presence of an authentic guru or spiritual teacher as well as in closed monastic contexts. Without these supports, he asserts that sexualove, which is “polyvalent” but still focused within a small group, can also serve a transformational purpose. Writing in the earliest days of the twentieth-century sexual revolution, Rudhyar saw it this way: “What is needed now . . . is a new type of group relationship in which the individual ego-patterns, and the conjugal tensions can be absorbed, smoothed out and harmonized by a sense of common dedication to a vital social-cultural and spiritual purpose—a transforming purpose. What is needed is a group of a few adults, perhaps from four to ten, which can provide a varied and loving, but not possessive and complex-ridden environment in which children may grow up in multiple interplay. . . . The seed group should not be conceived in terms of ‘hedonistic’ purpose—i.e., for the sake of pleasure and comfort—but rather in terms of what I would call a heroic determination to help create a new type of social consciousness based on an open, unpossessive and polyvalent love.”22
Whether humans as a whole are ready to make the evolutionary leap to love beyond the couple is another question, as we have seen in previous chapters.
THE COSTS AND BENEFITS
OF POLYAMORY
While polyamorists have often been accused of being irresponsible and selfish hedonists, the reality is that the potential benefits of practicing polyamory extend far beyond the personal to encompass transformative impacts on our whole culture. The difficulties associated with polyamory affect primarily the individuals directly involved. Despite the fears of fundamentalist religious groups that have concerns about morality and family values, when polyamorous relationships succeed, they strengthen families and instill a greater sense of responsibility and integrity in those concerned. These gains have often exacted a cost from the pioneers who sacrifice their sense of personal control, their familiar conditioning, and perhaps the acceptance of family and social institutions when they challenge the status quo. When polyamorous relationships fail, those caught up in them pay the same price as those in successful relationships but without reaping the same rewards.
I admit I have a bias. Based on my understanding of the critical challenges facing humanity at the dawn of the twenty-first-century, which include environmental pollution, global warming, impending shortages of fossil fuels, clean drinking water, nontoxic food, overpopulation, economic crises, and the threat of war, epidemics, and natural disasters, I have a hard time seeing how polyamory could make any of these difficulties any worse. Quite the contrary, there are many reasons to think it might help.
Any kind of successful loving relationship is a boon to those directly involved in it. The main difficulty with polyamory is that it’s hard to do it well. In fact, for some people, it’s probably impossible, but the same could be said for monogamy. In a recent interview, psychiatrist Judith Lipton, coauthor of The Myth of Monogamy, commented, “It’s realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language.”1
The social and ecological problems associated with monogamy are problems not so much with monogamy per se as with a grudgingly tolerated monogamous union embedded in the nuclear family and precariously held in place by religious and civil institutions. The nuclear family is a relatively recent social experiment and is quickly becoming a relic of the past. Numerous critics from many disciplines have thoroughly exposed the dysfunctions of the nuclear family, but no one is talking about what will take its place. It would benefit us all to encourage experiments with other possibilities, and polyamory is certainly one candidate.
Lest we rush blindly into this exploration, let’s begin by taking a brief look at some of the problems associated with polyamory. Most people have been overexposed to criticisms of polyamory. Unfavorable comparisons with monogamy are still the norm in our culture even when accusations of immorality are withheld. Consequently, the downside of polyamory requires less elaboration than its benefits, but this should not be seen as a dismissal of the very real liabilities associated with polyamory. After a mention of these, we’ll take a look at how polyamory can make a contribution to the planet as a whole before considering its personal and social benefits.
THE PRICE OF POLYAMORY
While polyamory offers many advantages over enforced monogamy,* polyamory presents numerous problems of its own. Some of these, such as social disapproval and discrimination, are artifacts of old structures and institutions that may well diminish in coming years. Others, such as a dearth of positive role models and perhaps even the prevalence of jealousy, are also likely to be temporary. But other difficulties with polyamory, such as the time demands and the emotional complexity of interacting intimately with more people, appear to be inherent to this lovestyle. Let’s consider each of these potential costs and detrimental impacts in turn.
For many people, the risk of rejection by family, neighbors, friends, and coworkers leads them to reject polyamory. For those who are strongly motivated to be seen in a positive light by others, this consideration alone is a deal breaker. I was once married to a man whose personality was a near-perfect fit for polyamory. He had no particular desire for sexual exclusivity, he had strong interpersonal skills, and he was generally adventurous, but because being respected and admired in his community was of primary importance to him, polyamory was not at all attractive to him. Polyamory was very attractive to Jonathan, a man with similarly appropriate personality traits who consulted me about his concern that if he were inadvertently “outed,” it would reflect badly on his wife, Victoria, who was beginning a new career as a pastor. Jonathan and Victoria had successfully opened their marriage over a decade ago, and now he was conflicted about her request that he return to monogamy. I had to advise him that their fears were realistic: monogamy would be a far safer choice at this juncture in their lives.
Social sanctions serve to keep couples such as Jonathan and Victoria, who would be potentially excellent role models, safely out of sight. I know of several group marriages and open marriages whose highly functional partners have chosen to keep their intimate lives private because they did not want to jeopardize other important work they were doing in the world by exposing themselves to criticism of their preferred lovestyle. Politics is one field in which polyamory presents an ever-present danger, particularly in an era where strategists desperate to win an election will publicize personal information that was once off limits to journalists. For example, former presidential candidate John Edwards was forced to withdraw from his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2008 after his extramarital affair made he
adlines, as was front-runner Senator Gary Hart in 1987. President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted by the Senate in 1998. In European countries, nonmonogamy is less of a political liability, but the prudent politician is still unlikely to announce that he or she is a supporter of polyamory. With so many politicians being exposed as nonmonogamous, those whose extramarital activities are consensual are easily lumped together with those who are cheating. Some have speculated that it might even be less politically damaging to apologetically admit an affair than to come out as polyamorous.
Nonmonogamous relationships have a reputation for creating emotional chaos and drama that is only partly a result of broken agreements and dishonesty, which are no more characteristic of polyamory than of monogamy. As we discussed in chapter 4, if partners are able to relate with self-responsibility and integrity, drama need not be part of polyamorous relating. But as long as our culture endorses monogamy and socializes our young people to expect sexual exclusivity, we can expect jealousy to be a major obstacle. While polyamory has the potential to reduce stress, it also has the potential to increase stress. When a stressful moment in a polyamorous relationship coincides with other stressors, an emotional meltdown may result and is often attributed to polyamory even though the relationship issues are only one factor.
Emotional upheaval, on the other hand, may well go with the territory, at least until our brains have been rewired. Even when people think they have grown beyond jealousy and fear of abandonment, they can be surprised by a new situation that reactivates old issues. Some might see this as a wonderful opportunity to clear up emotional baggage they didn’t know they had, but others would prefer to avoid these painful reminders. For example, Cheryl was relieved to have found a sense of peace and stability in her triadic relationship with Paul and Leslie after the year of emotional ups and downs that ensued when Leslie told Cheryl she wanted a sexual relationship with their friend Paul. When Paul asked if his former partner Harry could join them for dinner, Cheryl found herself enraged for reasons she couldn’t understand but soon realized she was afraid this dinner might be the start of another roller-coaster ride. She wasn’t sure if she was more afraid that Paul might leave her and Leslie to go back to Harry or that Harry might end up expanding their threesome to a foursome. She liked her life just as it was and didn’t want any more changes. Living in the moment was a challenge for Cheryl, who found it hard to trust that change might make a good thing even better.
Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy With Multiple Partners Page 29
