The Arc of Love

by Aaron Ben-Ze'ev

  These restrictions make it harder for the secondary relationship to develop romantic profundity and intimacy. One may say that even with these restrictions, polyamorous people get more freedom than do most monogamous people. This may be true, but the insistence on such restrictions indicates the ongoing tension, insecurity, and jealousy that are present in polyamorous relationships.

  Working on Your Relationship

  I love you no matter what you do, but do you have to do so much of it?

  JEAN ILLSLEY CLARKE

  Falling in love is easier than staying in love, and we fall out of love more slowly than we fall in it. Staying in love—or more precisely, maintaining loving relationships—requires much conscious effort. While almost everyone should make a conscious effort to maintain their relationship, not everyone has to invest equally to keep their loving relationship alive. Furthermore, as Laura Kipnis tells us, “good relationships may take work, but unfortunately, when it comes to love, trying is always trying too hard; work doesn’t work. Erotically speaking, play is what works.” Kipnis mentions further that no one works at adultery.15 If love seems like work, you are clearly not in the right workplace. Nowadays, many types of work are fulfilling and have an intrinsic value. These jobs can hardly be considered “work” in the traditional sense of being unpleasant, instrumental chores, such as cleaning the house or paying bills. We certainly do not want to make love that kind of unpleasant work. However, not all romantic relationships start with love at first sight, and meaningful (often, but not always, enjoyable) work is required.

  Polyamorous relations are certainly not for everyone. However, for some people, currently about 5 percent of couples in the United States, polyamory is an optimal solution. This does not devalue monogamy; it just shows that monogamous relationships are not the only game in town.

  Can You Be Happy with Your Partner’s Affair?

  She says it’s really not very flattering to her that the women who fall in love with her husband are so uncommonly second-rate.

  W. SOMERSET MAUGHAM, The Painted Veil

  “Compersion” is a recently coined term that describes your happiness from your partner’s happiness with another lover. Is such an emotional experience possible, and how deep is it?

  Emotional Attitudes toward the Good Fortune of Others

  Sometimes, we evaluate someone’s good fortune in a way that conflicts with our evaluation, and we end up with emotions like envy and jealousy. At other times, the two evaluations meet, and we wind up with the emotions of happy-for and admiration.

  The root of envy lies in seeing ourselves in an undeserved position of inferiority. Since feeling this way hurts our self-esteem, we evaluate it negatively. Similarly, jealousy, which involves the fear of losing our partner to a lover, includes a negative evaluation of the partner’s good fortune, as such a loss can be a mighty blow to the lover’s self-esteem.

  Unlike envy and jealousy, the emotions of “happy-for” and admiration involve a positive evaluation of the other’s good fortune. Some people doubt that this is possible. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for example, argued that nobody can share anyone’s happiness—even one’s best friend—without envy. Only the friend’s neediness, which poses no threat to us, can bring out our generous emotions.16 This idea, which seems to reflect reality well, may not apply when someone is so close to us that we consider her success our own, and hence, it poses no threat to our self-esteem. This is known as “basking in reflected glory”; the other’s glory shines on us, enhancing our own self-esteem. We often see this in parental love and in the admiration of sport fans for their winning teams.17

  Happy-For in the Romantic Realm

  The emotional attitude described in compersion is then not a new emotion, but rather a kind of “happy-for.” Such happiness is said to occur in polyamorous relationships.

  There is no conceptual contradiction in being romantically happy for your partner’s happiness with another lover; however, there are various emotional obstacles in experiencing such happiness. Polyamorous thinkers, and others, tend to identify such obstacles with prevailing arbitrary social conventions that we can and should replace. There is no doubt that society and culture influence our emotions. However, the fact that our emotional repertoire is stable across various periods and societies indicates that emotions are more profound than mere social constructs. I believe that the widespread emotions of envy and jealousy are not arbitrary social constructs; they are, rather, profound psychological attitudes.

  The circumstances in which people are more likely to experience compersion than jealousy relate to the issue of self-esteem. Consider, for instance, the following reaction of a married polyamorous woman, upon realizing that her married lover, who did not see her for a few months, came back to her country to be with her, but also had sex with another woman: “I felt like I wanted to die—a kind of paralyzed fear and choking, the feeling of a knife in my heart.” This woman felt all right when her lover had affairs with other women in his country, but now his behavior is much more hurtful to her, as he had come for just a few days, and chose to divide his precious little time in her country with another lover as well. After this heartbreak, this woman and her lover agreed upon the following rules: when the lover comes to her country, she is only his and he is only hers. When they are far away from each other, each can do whatever he or she wants to do.18 The emergence of jealousy here has nothing to do with social artifacts, but rather with emotional damage to one’s self-esteem. It is such relevancy to one’s self-esteem that determines whether jealousy rather than compersion will prevail.

  Similar considerations are evident in the testimony of polyamorous people that jealousy, rather than compersion, is more likely to emerge in the infatuation stage. Infatuation, as one polyamorous scholar writes, “is a pretty much a monogamous stage. The person with whom we are in love fulfills all good parts of us, and there is no wish or ability to share him with others.”19 Jealousy, rather than compersion, is also more likely to emerge toward a new partner. Indeed, a new partner for one’s spouse poses the greatest risk of one losing one’s uniqueness. Time, which enhances profundity and decreases intensity, is crucial here. This is one reason for the rigid temporal restrictions on meeting with the secondary partner.

  Differences between the two partners reduce the comparative value and protect self-esteem in a way that makes compersion more likely. Indeed, it was found that jealousy is greater when the domain of a rival’s achievements is also a domain of high self-relevance to one’s self-esteem. Thus, women who consider external appearance to be of great relevance to their self-esteem are more jealous if their spouses have an affair with a good-looking woman than with a wise woman.20 Having your own affair will also decrease jealousy toward your partner’s affairs, as the risk of hurting your self-esteem is less.

  We can distinguish three major attitudes toward the happiness of your partner when having an affair with another person: (1) jealousy, (2) nonemotional acceptance or rejection, and (3) compersion. Jealousy seems to be most common, while compersion can be found in some specific circumstances, which are more common in polyamory.

  Consider the following honest claims made by a married woman in a traditional relationship: “I will be happy for my husband if he finds a lover; I will also be pleased if my young lover finds a woman his age. However, I want my profound lover only for myself completely. For whatever reason, I think he has been my only true love.” This woman cares about her husband, but since there is no romance between them, she would be happy if he had a lover as well, for it would be easier for her to carry on her affairs. In a sense, she loves her young lover, but her love is no deeper than pleasurable sexual experiences, which often bore her. Hence, she encourages this lover to find a young woman his own age. Concerning her profound (married) lover, with whom she sees prospects for a deep future relationship, she vehemently rejects sharing him with anyone else (except, of course, his wife, who is a given fact of his life); she would be quite jealous if h
e had an affair with another woman.

  Another real dilemma that is common in polyamorous relationships concerns the location of sexual activities in secondary relationships. One woman said that her husband does not want her and her lover to have sex in their house (even if no one else is at home), claiming that it will stain his house. The wife argues that it is her house too. The wife’s request to have sex with her lover in their house seems reasonable, since the alternative is for them to have sex in a hotel room, which would accentuate the transient nature of the relation, the sense of being a guest. It would be more reasonable for the husband to require that the sexual encounters not be in the bed where he and his wife have sex. The above considerations, including the husband’s harsh claim that his wife’s sex with her lover may stain his house, clearly imply that although the husband accepts his wife’s affairs, he is not happy about them. All these subtleties indicate that even if the husband accepts his wife’s affairs, he is not happy about it, and is sometime jealous.

  The case of the painter Frida Kahlo is a particularly interesting one. Frida and her husband, the painter Diego Rivera, believed that the many lovers each of them took did not affect the great love they felt for one another. When Rivera had an affair with his wife’s younger sister, Christina, however, Frida was devastated and did not paint for a year. And, while Rivera expressed acceptance of Frida’s affairs with other women, he was not okay with her sleeping with other men. Thus, while neither Rivera nor Kahlo upheld exclusivity norms, considering them social artifacts, they nevertheless experienced jealousy when the comparative concern was dominant enough to hurt their self-esteem.

  Although polyamory requires the reduction of the comparative concern, this is often not the case, as comparison is quite natural in polyamorous relations. Such an enhanced comparative concern makes these relationships less likely to be calm, a trait that is quite valuable for long-term relationships. It is true that greater openness, sensitivity, reasoning, and self-awareness can help reduce the tension in polyamorous relations, but the tension is still emotionally genuine and not merely a social construct.

  Jealousy and polyamory are a lethal mix. Eliminating, or at least reducing, jealousy is essential for polyamorous relations. It seems that even if jealousy is not completely absent, as is the case in many polyamorous relationships, its intensity is reduced—leading to behavior that is less hostile than that of a typical romantic jealousy. The fact that jealousy is not eliminated in polyamory indicates that the presence of compersion, in both polyamorous and monogamous relations, is due to the nature of jealousy and happy-for, rather than to the relational structure of the given relation.

  To sum up, compersion can be a significant step in enabling the partner to cope with the basic difficulties of a dull relationship. One might say that in such a case one should enable, and even encourage, these experiences, provided that they are not harmful in other ways. Making our partner happy is, after all, what underlies profound love.21

  Concluding Remarks

  I think we can all agree that sleeping around is a great way to meet people.

  CHELSEA HANDLER

  No need for coffee; my lover keeps me awake all the time.

  A MARRIED MAN

  Today’s abundance of romantic opportunities makes it difficult for people to be romantically happy with their lot, and they often envy those whose lot seems different from their own. In this regard, many married people envy singles for their romantic freedom. Most singles, however, are seeking serious relationships, while also being interested in romantic and sexual diversity.

  As modern society’s approach to love evolves, important questions are emerging about the scope of romantic exclusivity, including how to keep it usefully flexible but still practically limited. Social norms govern our understanding of romantic love as an emotion that ought to be directed toward one person at a time. However, loving more than one individual simultaneously is not a logical contradiction. It does, however, raise significant psychological difficulties.

  In polyamory, this type of love is embraced, and instead of the typical notions of jealousy in response to a partner’s love for other partners, some members of this community can appreciate any source of their lover’s happiness and fulfillment, including other people. This can lessen the demand for romantic compromises, as different partners can adopt distinct romantic roles, depending on their preferences and the nature of their connection.

  Adding a third person to an existing marriage (or other committed relationships) typically generates emotional discomfort that is expressed in jealousy, which is ignited by the fear of losing the partner to a third party. However, sometimes adding a third person to the relationship can help to better address the needs of the existing partners. This is true not merely in polyamorous relations, where such an addition is obvious, but also in extramarital affairs.

  Open sexual marriages are similar to polyamory in being a consensual nonmonogamous relation. However, while open marriages focus on additional sexual experiences, polyamorous people seek an additional intimate, loving relation (to which sexual experiences can be added). Hence, polyamory is both more complex and more profound than open marriage. This does not imply that its impact upon the primary relation is more beneficial than that of open sexual marriage; often it is not.

  Compersion, which refers to the case when a partner’s happiness with another lover elicits happiness in the individual, is not a new emotion, but rather a type of the happy-for emotion. Its presence indicates the greater acceptance of polyamory these days.

  13

  A Balanced Diet Is the New Romantic Feast

  I want to caution you against the idea that balance has to be a routine that looks the same week in and week out.

  KEVIN THOMAN

  I definitely need to date someone who is calm.

  FREIDA PINTO

  Alongside greater romantic diversity and flexibility, there has been another, somewhat surprising, development in romantic relationships: the increasing presence of romantic profundity. No doubt about it—tempestuous romantic experiences are certainly valuable. However, our high-paced society floods us with superficial excitement. Slow, profound, or older people often fall victim to this rapid pace; fast and superficial people have the edge. Social networks make connection between people faster and less profound, decreasing romantic profundity and increasing loneliness, which stems not from a lack of social connections, but from a lack of meaningful, profound connections. As we live longer and our society offers ever more superficial experiences, romantic profundity has taken on even greater value. These days, it is not more brief, exciting experiences that we need for a happiness upgrade but rather the ability to establish and enhance long-term robust romantic relationships.

  In this chapter, we will consider some ideas that may help enduring profound love to flourish today. These ideas will modify the strict notions underlying romantic ideology. Although I believe that the traditional ideas still have a guiding value as ideals to which we can aspire, the emphasis should be on more moderating views that facilitate profound love.

  Romantic love is often understood as an uncompromising, extreme attitude involving great sensitivity, significant closeness, and intense excitement. The main thrust here is protective (and preventive). I propose to supplement this with contextual moderation involving a limited, yet significant, amount of indifference; an appropriate amount of distance; and calmness. In this view, profound romantic love is essentially a nurturing attitude.

  I am not suggesting that we toss out the traditional ideas in favor of new ones. What I am proposing is that we temper the old with a mix of the new in trying to achieve a more balanced diet, leading us to the new romantic feast.

  Mild (Not Wild) Intensity Is the New Romantic Gratification

  Could I love less, I should be happier now.

  PHILIP JAMES BAILEY

  Idle youth, enslaved to everything; by being too sensitive I have wasted my life.

  ARTHU
R RIMBAUD

  In this section, I argue that although the occasional experience of wild, intense, romantic love is desirable and stimulating, this is not what enables romantic love to endure. Romantic profundity is not limited in this sense; increasing romantic profundity is always beneficial. Given that it is possible to enhance such profundity, the main task in seeking moderation here is the lover’s ability to accept a good-enough partner, who offers the chance of a moderately profound relationship, although this lover might not be the hottest.

  For Aristotle, it is the pursuit of excess—of too much—that is bad. Excess, which is typically associated with intense emotions, can be harmful. And it is not only emotional excess that is harmful, said Aristotle, but also emotional depletion. So, too much and too little are not good for a person. The ideal situation is that of emotional balance. Aristotle went on to explain that the real measure of something is if it is appropriate, that is, how suitable it is to the given circumstances. With younger people, the appropriate romantic attitudes might be those of greater intensity. Similarly, in moments of extreme danger, one’s reactions need to be extreme. There are some activities in which the issue of being excessive hardly arises. The doctrine of the golden mean does not apply to intellectual virtues, but only to moral ones, in which appropriateness and balance take top priority.1