Polyamory & Intimate Relationships
Below are some excerpts from an article on Wikipedia about Polyamory.
Polyamory (from Greek πολυ (poly, meaning many or several) and Latin amor (literally “love”) (and from polygamy) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, generally with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Polyamorous perspectives differ from monogamous perspectives, in that they reflect one or more partner's wish(es) to have further meaningful relationships and to accommodate these alongside their existing relationships.
The term polyamory is sometimes abbreviated to poly, especially as a form of self-description, and is sometimes described as consensual and/or responsible non-monogamy.
Polyamory is usually taken as a description of a lifestyle or relational choice and philosophy, rather than of an individual's actual relationship status at a given moment. It is an umbrella term that covers many orientations and modes of relationship. There is fluidity in its definition to accommodate the different shades of meaning which might be covered. Polyamorous relationships are themselves varied, reflecting the choices and philosophies of the individuals concerned.
Polyamory is distinct from polygamy, being closer to a personal outlook than a predefined bonding system. It is grounded in such concepts as choice, trust, equality of free will, and the more novel idea of compersion, rather than in cultural or religious tradition.
Because of its fluid nature, polyamory is sometimes loosely defined. Nevertheless, people who identify as polyamorous typically reject the view that sexual and relational exclusivity are always necessary for long-term loving relationships. Those who are open to, or emotionally suited for a polyamorous lifestyle, may at times be single, or in monogamous relationships, but are more typically involved in multiple long term relationships.
Polyamorous relationships, in practice, are highly varied and individualized. Ideally they are built upon values of trust, loyalty, negotiation, and compersion, as well as rejection of jealousy, possessiveness, and restrictive cultural standards.[1] Such relationships are often more fluid than the traditional "dating and marriage" model of long-term relationships, and the participants in a polyamorous relationship may not have preconceptions as to duration.
Sex is not necessarily a primary focus in polyamorous relationships. Polyamorous relationships commonly consist of groups of more than two people seeking to build a long-term future together on mutually agreeable grounds, with sex as only one aspect of their relationship.
Values within polyamory
Relationships classed as polyamorous involve an emotional bond and often a longer term intent, though these distinctions are a topic open to debate and interpretation.
Also note that the values discussed here are ideals. As with any ideals, their adherents sometimes fall short of the mark — but major breaches of a polyamorous relationship's ideals are taken as seriously as such breaches would be in any other relationship. Common values cited within such relationships include:
- Fidelity and loyalty: Many polyamorists define fidelity as being faithful to the promises and agreements they have made, rather than in terms of per se sexual exclusivity. Having a secret sexual relationship which violated one's negotiated agreements would be seen as lacking fidelity. Polyamorists generally base definitions of commitment on considerations other than sexual exclusivity, e.g. "trust and honesty" or "growing old together".[18]
- Trust, honesty, dignity and respect: Most polyamorists emphasize respect, trust and honesty for all partners.[19][20] A partner's partners should be accepted as part of that person's life rather than merely tolerated, and a relationship that requires deception, or where partners are not allowed to express their individual lives, is often seen as a poor model.
- Mutual support: This requires that each partner will support, and not undermine, the other, and will not deliberately use a secondary relationship to harm another party or relationship.
- Communication and negotiation: Because there is no "standard model" for polyamorous relationships, and reliance upon common expectations may not be realistic, polyamorists often advocate explicitly deciding the ground rules of their relationships with all concerned, and often emphasize that this should be an ongoing process of communication and respect. Polyamorists usually take a pragmatic approach to their relationships; they accept that sometimes they and their partners will make mistakes and fail to live up to these ideals, and that communication is important for repairing any breaches.[19][20]
- Non-possessiveness: Polyamorists believe that restrictions on other deep relationships are not for the best, as they tend to replace trust with a framework of ownership and control. They tend to see their partner's partners in terms of the gain to their partner's life rather than the threat to their own (see compersion). Poly relationships do vary and some can be possessive or provide for the primary partner's veto or approval, whilst others are asymmetrical—possessive one way, but not the other.
Philosophical aspects
As with many lifestyles, there is considerable active discussion about philosophical approaches to polyamory.
In Echlin's article in The Guardian, five reasons for choosing polyamory are identified: a drive towards female independence and equality driven by feminism; disillusionment with monogamy; a yearning for community; honesty and realism in respect of relational nature of human beings; human nature; and individual non-matching of the traditional monogamous stereotype. Jim Fleckenstein, director of the Institute for 21st-Century Relationships, is quoted as stating that the polyamory movement has been driven not only by science fiction, but also by feminism: "Increased financial independence means that women can build relationships the way they want to." The disillusionment with monogamy is said to be "because of widespread cheating and divorce". The longing for community is associated with a felt need for the richness of "complex and deep relationships through extended networks" in response to the replacement and fragmentation of the extended family by nuclear families. "For many," Echlin writes, "it is a hankering for community …we have become increasingly alienated, partly because of the 20th century's replacement of the extended family with the nuclear family. As a result, many of us are striving to create complex and deep relationships through extended networks of multiple lovers and extended families". Others speak of creating an "honest responsible and socially acceptable" version of non-monogamy — "since so many people are already non-monogamous, why not develop a non-monogamy that is honest, responsible and socially acceptable? …It seems weird that having affairs is OK but being upfront about it is rocking the boat." "Polys agree that some people are monogamous by nature. But some of us are not, and more and more are refusing to be shoehorned into monogamy."[32]
A sixth reason, a couple's response to a failure of monogamy, by reaching a consensus to accept the additional relationship, is identified by other authors.[33]
Because of the heightened trust and self-determination required for a polyamorous relationship, somewho practice polyamory consider it a superior form of relating to people. Monogamist opponents of polyamory often claim that it weakens, or is a failure to adhere to, the values that others in society uphold. Many who practice polyamory would probably prefer not to philosophize, but simply hold that polyamory works for them.
Division of love
In The Ethical Slut, Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy (writing as 'Catherine Liszt') described an argument against polyamory to the effect that, when one's love is divided among multiple partners, the love is lessened. They referred to this as a "starvation economy" argument, because it treats love as a scarce commodity (like food or other resources) that can be given to one person only by taking it away from another. This is sometimes called a "Malthusian argument", after Malthus' writings on finite resources.
Many polyamorists, including Easton and Hardy, reject the idea that dividing love among multiple partners automatically lessens it. A commonly-invoked argument uses an analogy with a parent who has two children—the parent does not love either of them any less because of the existence of the other.[39]
A more common view is that since each relationship requires time and energy, most polyamorists do not simply acquire relationships open-endedly.
Another viewpoint is that the love from the third is just added to the total amount of the couple, and therefore, the amount of love is increased because all parties are providing it to all other parties
See whole article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
I'm curious to hear what people's views are on the subject of intimate relationships, attachment, jealousy and sexuality.
I can't help feel that polygamy is chauvenistic. This is because the only polygamist relationships I know of consist of one man with more than one woman. Now perhaps, if the females are bisexual it could be an equal symbiotic relationship. Otherwise, they're just waiting for their "turn."
On the other hand, when I was married, I often felt I could use a wife to carry some of the work load. Afterall, taking care of a husband, children, and a house is like having two full time jobs without the benefit of "clocking out."
Hi Noa,
Please forgive me but I just noticed that after saying that you feel polygamy is chauvenistic you describe a marriage setup that is totally chauvenistic..ie sounds like your husband doesn't help with the house work or taking care of the kids etc.....maybe chauvenism is it's own problem.....
L
Jez
What I sensed when I read your comment Noa (and this may very well be me projecting my own world view experiences to date) is some form of religious imprint. If there is any truth to that, one may find some psyche relief in realizing that religion, one of the most intoxicating forms of belief system, has been intentionally engineered over time by social engineers intent on keeping the sheep in line.
As I began to really get the core gist of this fact I found a very natural and guiltless distancing from former strongly held religious beliefs that were, in essence, irresponsible displacement of my divine sovereignty. Transcending the saviorship model will most definitely be on the human evolution menu.....
Until then we will see what we have been seeing for so long now. Emotional polarization based almost or entirely upon trained illusion. Much like two people on acid debating which illusory experience is infallible truth for all of mankind, LOL
Chris, that was a priceless allegory! (or is that a metaphor?) :)
As a woman, I'll chime in.
I think the world could do much better if people didn't hold a sense of ownership over one another as in our current world view. I have a rich array of friends - both male and female, that feed me in different ways. I have much love in my heart for each of them. If I were married in a traditional sense, I believe (and know, based on my history) that my partner would not be comfortable with the interactions I have with my male friends, and I would not be free to have lunch with them, or have much more in the way of conversation, than chit chat with them. That caused either a gap in my own sense of wholeness, or feelings of guilt for spending time behind the back of my then spouse. Likewise, a married or "attached" man (what a telling idiom!) will have his own guilt in just sharing a meal and conversation with a woman that he cares for. Ugh! All unhealthy stuff.
I think if we could release our sense of ownership of another person, jealousy would cease. We would come home to a partner who wants to be there, and is whole and fed by their rich and meaningful friendships with all types of people. Does this mean sex with a whole bunch of men? Not necessarily. Could it? I suppose so... though that's not really what I'm getting at. It does strike me as interesting that there is no time in the male / female life cycles in which their respective sex drives are equal. Maybe that could help us understand how partnership could work. Maybe in the coming times, people will congregate in more communal living and it will be easier to work through what all that might look like.
We're ruled by guilt and "shoulds" in a lot of ways in the Western world (not really sure about other places). The thing is, I'm not sure any of that really serves us all that well.
Just my two cents...
Lots of love,
Kathy
Patriarchal social constructs and Matriarchal social constructs. The former has an endless gauntlet of controlling mechanisms/dictates/statutes and the latter, no property lines, states, countries, marriage contracts, etc...
It is refreshing to see that we are coming to the end of this present dogmatic despotic Patriarchal mood swing. If I understand the cycles correctly, they go yin and yang, back and forth, every 13,000 years. One truth I find great solace in is that we are all a blend of male and female. This particular incarnation I am more male than female, while you may be more female than male in yours, but none is ever completely male or completely female.
This understanding dispels/diffuses so much needless illusory polarization. The Patriarchal mood swing holds for so much of this needless illusory nonsense, but obviously has its place as catalyst for evolving, in spite of the presumptuous insanity it seems to invoke. I for one am very much looking forward to a bit of serene relief with the first part of the next cycle.....
No, my comment was not based on religious teachings or guilt. For me, it's about equality. I could see myself living in a loving communal environment given the right circumstances.
More to the point, I do not know of any instances of one woman living with several "husbands," do you?
Noa
Makes perfect sense to me now Noa. I must have been projecting my own something or other (as I suspected in former post). Women have definitely received the "short end of the stick" in this particular segment of this present cycle... As I said in post above, I am looking forward to a much better sense and exercise of equanimity/balance soon....
JSTOR: American Speech, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 96-101
Yes, Chris. That was the word that came to my mind, too, but I didn't want to say it.
Thanks for your humble admission.
Noa
Interesting subject, I did a google search,
Heres the wikipedia link, the whole thing is actually really interesting but I'll just copy the first bit here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
Polyandry (Greek: poly- many, andros- man) refers to a form of marriage in which a woman has two or more husbands at the same time. The form of polyandry in which a woman is married to two or more brothers is known as "fraternal polyandry", and it is believed by many anthropologists to be the most frequently encountered form.
Human polyandry
According to inscriptions describing the reforms of the Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash (ca. 2300 BC), he is said to have abolished the former custom of polyandry in his country, on pain of the woman taking multiple husbands being stoned with rocks upon which her crime is written.[1]
Polyandry in human relationships occurs or has occurred in Tibet, Canadian Arctic, northern parts of Nepal, Nigeria,[2] Bhutan, parts of India (Ladakh,Zanskar), the Nymba, and Sri Lanka,[2] and is known to have been present in some pre-contact Polynesian societies,[3] though probably only among higher caste women.[4] It is also encountered in some regions of Mongolia, among the Mosuo people in China, and in some Sub-Saharan African such as the Maasai people in Kenya and northern Tanzania[5] and American indigenous communities. Polyandry has been practised in several cultures — in the Jaunsar region in Uttarakhand, among the Nairs, Theeyas and Toda of South India,[2] and the Nishi of Arunachal Pradesh.[6] TheGuanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, practiced polyandry until their disappearance.[7] In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law. Saskatchewan Canada is the only jurisdiction in North America to have "judicially sanctioned" polyandrous unions at a family law court level.[citation needed]
[edit]Differences of interpretation
Polyandry is a controversial subject among anthropologists. For instance, Pennsylvania anthropologist Stephen Beckerman points out that at least 20 tribal societies accept that a child could, and ideally should, have more than one father, referring to it as "partible paternity".[8] On the other hand, in Tibet, which is the best-documented cultural domain within which polyandry is practised, the certain polyandrists themselves testify that the marriage form is difficult to sustain.[citation needed]
In Tibet, polyandry has been outlawed since the Chinese takeover of the area, so it is difficult to measure the incidence of polyandry in what may have been the world's most "polyandrous" society.[2]
In other parts of the world, most traditional societies have been drastically altered or destroyed, so the incidence of polyandry in the past may not be accurately known. In India, among Tibetan refugee groups who fled the Chinese takeover of their country, polyandry is seldom encountered.[citation needed]
The Zo'e tribe in the State of Pará on the Cuminapanema River, Brazil, also practice polyandry.[9]
The article also talks of it in the animal world and lists this as the advantages of it....
- It is easier to ensure reproductive success (i.e. it is more likely that the female will have offspring)
- Females may be encouraging sperm competition between males post-copulation
- Multiple sperm lines may confer more variation in traits to female's offspring, this seems to be the case in the honey bee where bees from different sperm lines excel at different roles within a single hive, benefiting the health of the hive as a whole.
- Females may receive food offerings from prospective mates inciting copulation
- Offspring paternity is unknown and this can be beneficial in encouraging parental care and discouraging infanticide by males[citation needed]
Polyandry also occurs in some primates such as marmosets, mammal groups, the marsupial genus' Antechinus and bandicoots, around 1% of all bird species, such as jacanas, insects such as honeybees, and fish such as pipefish. In effect polyandry will reduce the effective population size of a given closed population.
I loved the comment "2 people on an acid trip...etc", that was great, I liked "endless gauntlet" better, as I feel it sums things up better...Anytime we discuss how we humans treat or see each other, You can paste "endless gauntlet" diagonally across the conversation, because our opinions are infinite..I have started to notice over the last several years though, that as we slowly learn to love ourselves, and open to who we are becoming, our opinions align in a generalized open minded way....I guess that is us "aligning" in a sense , letting go of all the whys and whos, and boiling it down to the facts..This subject, "sexual preference" could go on until this time next year, and it would be fun to read,,,,,,But I believe that as you love yourself more, until the point that you no longer "need" anyone else to "compliment you", or "be your other half",, Then you are much more likely to find ,or discover, your true preference, and will kindly accept any others beliefs without trouble... About 20 years ago, A channeler from the Cayce Institute,who was good friends with my mother , while channeling, told me that marriage would become, here anyways, a contract, of sorts, sometimes for just a few years, and the acceptance of it that way would become the norm..As religions break down, it would be quite easy to see that, I think...Personally, I have heard a couple of comments comparing "making love" to what it feels like to be a god, or at least, in spirit form...I agree with those, as i have been lucky enough to have a couple of partners in my life where neither of us could tell which one of us we were after a point..After experiencing times like that, "just sex" seems a waste....I wish I knew where they were now ! ha!,,Happy holidays everyone ! Peace, love , and whatever kind of sex you like !,,,,,T
I'll take a conservative viewpoint here - I'm not sure if I'm right, just feeling like another point of view could be called for. First off I agree, that as long as all are consenting and birth control methods are strictly employed, then live and let live, I'm happy for anyone who finds a way to find happiness in this world. I'm a person who feels like I got gyped by the woman's movement. In the name of women's "liberation" I was conned into persuing a carreer when I would have been much happier staying at home with the kids. I can't tell you how much I feel like the women's movement is actually all about taking feminism out of our culture and making us women into men. There's been another form of social engineering going on outside of religion that began with the women's liberation movement- it's been about break up of the family unit, taking women away from the family and the home in order to better bring about new social values. Children are more easily manipulated by schooling and forces outside the family with the break up of the family when women don't have more time to spend at home.
I wouldn't dare speak for all women, but I consider femine values to be about family values - stable relationships that make for good rearing of children. All this experimentation with more open relationships - well if it works and children have a sense of stability in their lives then it's fine in my book. What I know is that most people have a hugely difficult time with just making a relationship work with one person, nevermind more. And I don't think it's good for children to have people coming and going in there home. They need to know that parents will always be there for them no matter what.
Also, making a reletionship work with one person for a lifetime can be one path toward spiritual growth. This is a divorced person speaking so I'm not saying there isn't a time and place to change partners. But making ourselves work through the bad times with someone else certainly teaches maturity.
These are just my disjointed thoughts.... Perhaps I'm being narrow minded.
Wendy
Interesting. Thanks!
Hi, Wendy.
I think maybe you've hit on a whole new post here... I had heard a while back that the Rockefellers actually funded the "women's movement" to create more demand for consumables, and also put children in the hands of the government (in the form of daycare) for more hours per day, and at an earlier age. I came from a very large family in which my father had a solid job as an engineer, and my mom didn't work. Nevertheless, we all went to private school, we had only one car but it was only an inconvenience on occasion. Maybe its my own niavite of childhood, but I never felt like we did without anything. Now, I earn a salary that's nearly doubled the salary my father retired at, have only one child, but still tend to feel stretched and stressed over money. How did things get this way? Well, I truly think it was planned out. I don't necessarily think that going back to a time where women were treated as possesions is the right answer, either, but I think there is something more positive that can come out of what we've learned. I love being able to work... I don't necessarily love that I am required to spend so many hours away from my son every week. By the time I get home, finish cooking, finish with the homework machine, it's nearly time for bed. Then we get up and do it again.
This is where we get back to the original post... so wouldn't it be kinda cool to live in a home where there are a few moms and a few dads? Some folks work at 9 - 5 kind of jobs... some are natural nurturers and are able to do things that we traditionally see as "mom stuff". Everyone has more time to relax in the evening, there's less stress over bill paying, more time for home cooking, so everyone's healthy from eating real food. Maybe this is more like communal living at its heart, and not really about multiple partners. I also don't see this as an unstable environment if everyone truly cares for one another, and lives a peaceful existance of interdependance. Maybe that's way too utopic to even bring up. I just have this feeling that communities will become more important in the coming years, and maybe this is how they will manifest - maybe not for all, but for some.
Lots of love,
Kathy
Dear Kathy:
I have been researching Ecovillages for the reasons you stated and for the sustainable ideals they usually embrace. I have found large differences between each of them as far as primary goals and philosophies, structure, lifestyle, housing, economics, diet, etc. I'm still looking for the right fit for me.
I think we're already seeing a trend back to the concept of community. (Small enclosed subdivisions are a perverse example of this. They give people a sense of belonging, though they're usually lacking in real cooperation.) Land coops, ecovillages, and communes are not new, but they're becoming increasingly popular. People are starting to realize what can be gained by pooling resources.
It's a good thing.
Noa
and I quote,
"But I believe that as you love yourself more, until the point that you no longer "need" anyone else to "compliment you", or "be your other half",, Then you are much more likely to find ,or discover, your true preference, and will kindly accept any others beliefs without trouble..."
that instantly struck me as a conclusion one may come to only after allowing all presumed rules and regulations, religious and otherwise, to be stripped away by honest life experience. I always appreciate your developed world view Todd...
It sure seems humanity spends much time looking for established structures to fit into and boundaries to be set before finally returning to divine sovereign Self response ability...
evolution of the species...
to be continued...
So what if people start using distance-connected human-shaped robotic assemblies for physical contact? Maybe an extension of Wii based technology or something. So you have this "doll" thing that has motorized appendages and is warm and soft. Then you hook it up via Internet with whomever-to a distance boy or girl friend and they have sensors that detect their body movements (and perhaps it's done thru their own "doll" at their house). So you have a physical partnership via technology. Of course you might then have multiple partners...and no need for proximity....sort of the ultimate phone sex/love/affection. Have I been reading too many scifi novels?
Friend, I only repeated what you have already said beneath your photo,,"determining nothing and enjoying all the wonderous possibilities",, I can t think of a better place to apply that than in making love,ha!..No really, I am kind of "stuck in", and enjoying being stuck in that "forget everything we know and start over" mode...and it feels good,refreshing, especially when I am with my son...I think about how my dad always had the answer, or "an answer" for all my questions when I was a kid,,and how much damage he was doing. (unknowingly of course)...Now I try to offer up "possible scenarios " in response to his questions..always reminding him that there could be a million answers...Of course, I don t do that with math, but anyone with a kid knows what kind of questions I am talking about...My favorite answer is, "What do you want it to be"?..................And Brian, If you see one of those dolls on the market, post it ! ha!...........And about the "equality" issue Noa and Chris spoke of earlier,,I have to say,,I have been making some friends in China since last summer,,Yes, women, through one of the more legit websites,,All the women have to verify,work,phone,address, logistics,blah blah,,and I was amazed ..These women will speak very openly if you spend a little time with them(and be honest with them),and they are mostly trying to get out of their society to find equality with men..That is all they want..I have met,doctors,lawyers,upper management,scientists, willing to give up everything just to have a husband,lover,etc., that will treat them as an equal....The part I am having trouble with is that so many of them think that they are seeking their other half...thinking that I, or some other man,can make them whole...I think that many of them would also do good in a new communal setting,maybe not in a communal sex setting, as I have found most to be quite traditional, but they seem to be very good at working together..I think they are better at seeing the value of helping another as helping oneself than we are here in America, as they are schooled that way, in groups..If one of the group fails, everyone fails,so they halp each other...Reading about the 130 million migrant workers there, and why they come from the country , and go back,has changed everything I have ever heard about China..and the people,which has become a big lesson in "forgetting everything we know about something,and starting over"..I couldn t begin to count the wisecracks I have heard about China, just since our recession kicked in,,and now I know that 99 percent of all that people talk about is unfounded, or biased at best...If I am lucky enough to go there this year, I will go with a clean slate.....Hope 2011 has been kind to all so far, and don t forget, their is a partial solar eclipse tomorrow on the new moon, and meteor showers,this is actually the time to start anew,if you are so inclined !
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for your thoughts. I can totally relate, this crazy dayly grind society expects of us now is what I'm talking about. Hope you find a way to get more relaxation time with your son. I agree that communal living is a good idea, I just don't think it usually works well where multiple sexual relationships are involved. I think it's interesting how this post has turned into a dialogue of women talking to women and men talking to men, so I'll break it up a bit - Brian, you're a hoot!
Wendy
Dear Brian:
I believe you can find a prototype for your robotic love in Woody Allen's movie, "Bananas." He calls it the "orgasmatron."
With love, in all its forms,
Noa
I think that was Sleeper from 1973 Noa, and doesn't adequately address the proximity issue (the Orgasmatron), but remains a great ad for Volkswagon (remember the VW Bug he finds in the cave and it starts right up?), LOL. Robots, robot lovers, surrogates, like the movie "Surrogates" with Bruce Willis wherein the actual people were at home laying prostrate and motionless in the device that connects their minds to the robot surrogates. Great movie with a bit of a subtle warning!
Robot pastors and priests complete with return of robot Jesus... Talk about upgrades in social engineering!
And well said Todd, such a fine liberating feeling when the mind is given a bit of abstract relief by not looking to determine anything at all for short spells in "Now" Land. I would do well to make those "spells" last longer and longer by design....
Of course, now I remember, Chris. (Reference to Brian's post.) I believe there are already cyber Avatars in sexual scenarios available now. The tactile technology could soon be on its way.
Another layer to isolate and distract us from real life, perhaps? Gives new meaning to internet dating.
Noa
Open relationships require a high level of unity consciousness. Honesty and respect, Love and acceptance are essential. Many males are unable to commit to an open relationship. Often they will say they are all for it and then descend into Alpha male behavior. (ownership and male privledge behavior).
Group marriages in all its forms are not for the faint hearted. Plan on high levels of inner work to make it work! Often it does not or does for a time. Often this type of scenario attracts what I call feeders. The like to play a game: the game is this: pit them all against each other and watch the fireworks. Then claim innocence. A group marriage is often a manipulators wet dream.
Feminism for me as a mother for many years succeed in getting me to feel guilty that I could not be the "super" mom. I simply lacked the energy to work 60 hours a week at a dead end job, watch my child be parented by day care providers who had completely different values than I, and barely make ends meet. The frequent question was : "Gee do I pay the electric bill or feed us? Gee do I feed my child corn syrup laden cheap GMO foods or do I not pay my bills and feed my child good food.?"
To me this is the legacy of feminism. Latch key kids, poverty, and children who are raised by a technocracy. I see nothing in Feminism that speaks to Polyandry. It instead speaks of how a woman should be just like a man. Yep. Just like a Man.
Equality on the other hand is about seeing all as Equal. All as capable with infinite gifts and skills that are valuable to the World. Equality is about supporting others in their sacred tasks such as childrearing.
I am sorry I just can not buy the load of bull that birth control is nefarious PTB plan to do us all in. I for one am very happy I am not continuous impregnated everytime I choose to have sex and am not already pregnant. I for one am very delighted that I can plan when I have my next child with a birth control method that fits my body type and lifestyle. I for one see birth control as a way to liberate me from the continous cycle of pregnancy and birth. Excessive childbearing is one of the greatest obstacles to female equality. It simply is not possible to commit to a spiritual practice when you are continous nursing children, feeding children and clothing children. It is not possible.
I laugh everytime I see the whole conspiracy thing concerning birth control. Give me a break! How many of you have used condoms during sex? How about the ohhh sh#t feeling when one breaks. HAHA! Take that you nefarious PTB. "Every sperm is sacred." Riiiight.
I remember seeing a documentary on Polyandry in Tibet. Tibetan Marriages are usually arranged. If a man and woman falls in love and rejects the arranged marriage. The woman as payment must be "wife" to each male in the man's family. It takes years before it is his turn to have his love as his wife. To me this is just another form of perverse patriarchy. It in no way elevates or even satisfies the wants, needs or aspirations of a woman.
fairyfarmgirl
Location