"I have no fear of losing you, for you aren’t an object of my property, or anyone else’s. I love you as you are, without attachment, without fears, without conditions, without egoism, trying not to absorb you. I love you freely because I love your freedom, as well as mine."

— Anthony de Mello (via my-wanton-self)

(via capricious-shenanigans)

thefinalmanifesto:

More positive coverage of real polyamorous relationships in the media! Yay!

This article's a really good summary of the history and future of legal polyamory in the US and Canada.

(via learningpoly)

Tags: polyamory

polylove-girls-blog:

kimchicuddles:

Multiple Relationships

Ugh, happens all the time. We’re never considered a ‘real’ or ‘worthwhile’ relationship.

polylove-girls-blog:

kimchicuddles:

Multiple Relationships

Ugh, happens all the time. We’re never considered a ‘real’ or ‘worthwhile’ relationship.

(via learningpoly)

Tags: polyamory

PSA FOR MONOGAMOUS PEOPLE:

sapphrikah:

People who are poly or otherwise non-monogamous PROBABLY DO-FUCKING-NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR MONOGAMOUS FEEFEES.

Like, actually.

Man, if I had a damn dime for every time someone goes “I could NEVER” or "Omg! I’m too selfish!" or "my boyfriend would KILL me if I suggested some shit like that!" or "I’m too jealous!"

Like, wow, really, tell me more about this scarce monogamy of which you speak. I have never heard of this before. I haven’t already been told a million times how you are not capable of such a lifestyle.

YOUR MONOGAMY IS NOT REVOLUTIONARY OR NEW. THIS SHIT GETS OLD. SHUT UP. SHUT UP. DID I ASK YOU IF YOU WERE POLY-FRIENDLY?

It’s like they don’t ask to genuinely know more, they ask so they can express their discomfort with it. It’s about as annoying as asking how lesbians have sex.

I want to stick a fork in your eye. Also, I’m not a zoo animal.

K, thanks.

Tags: polyamory

You know whats irritating?

thatnanda:

meowbox:

Your preconception that because an element of my open relationship didn’t work, that the problem was OBVIOUSLY my open relationship. 
Please, tell me more about how your monogamous relationships have all been perfect and lasted forever.

Preach!

(via april-polyverse)

Tags: polyamory

“Our relationship is open, and the open-ness is grounded in total honesty with one another. We’re very communicative with each other and we share everything. I think that’s the way you gotta do it. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, and there are a million ways to love and be in a relationship,” Palmer said. “But fundamentally, I think if you’re going to have a really, truly loving partnership, you have to be completely transparent, communicating and sharing everything. Neil and I fall more and more in love with each other every day, and I think part of that is because we encourage each other to say more, share more, to peel ourselves open to each other in the middle of the night when the day is done and the real talking happens. It’s not always easy, the peeling sometimes hurts, but the deep love it fosters is clear to see.”

(Source: tangledaxon, via xnotsuchalonelyplacex)

Tags: polyamory

FYI. “I’m polyamorous” does NOT translate to “I’m an android devoid of emotional requirements; please let me be your next fling.”

Tags: polyamory

crankyskirt:

miswritten:

your poly is only politicaly relevant to me if…

  • you center respect and love for women and femmes in how you do relationships.
  • you understand and care about how yr actions in relationships are directly connected to the well being of yr communities. (y’all…

(via grokkery-deactivated20121011)

Tags: polyamory

polyamorousporpoise:

[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: Picture shows eight piece background in blue, black, red, and yellow, the colors of the polyamory flag. In the foreground, there is a picture of a porpoise swimming with its mouth open. TOP TEXT READS: “Next thing they’ll be marrying multiple people or cows!” BOTTOM TEXT READS: “Wonder why nobody else is upset at the implication”]

polyamorousporpoise:

[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: Picture shows eight piece background in blue, black, red, and yellow, the colors of the polyamory flag. In the foreground, there is a picture of a porpoise swimming with its mouth open. TOP TEXT READS: “Next thing they’ll be marrying multiple people or cows!” BOTTOM TEXT READS: “Wonder why nobody else is upset at the implication”]

Tags: polyamory

polyamorousporpoise:

[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: Picture shows eight piece background in blue, black, red, and yellow, the colors of the polyamory flag. In the foreground, there is a picture of a porpoise swimming with its mouth open. TOP TEXT READS: “friend asks which boy she should date” BOTTOM TEXT READS: “tell her to date both”]
submitted by parakavka

People get frustrated with me because of this.

polyamorousporpoise:

[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: Picture shows eight piece background in blue, black, red, and yellow, the colors of the polyamory flag. In the foreground, there is a picture of a porpoise swimming with its mouth open. TOP TEXT READS: “friend asks which boy she should date” BOTTOM TEXT READS: “tell her to date both”]

submitted by parakavka

People get frustrated with me because of this.

Tags: polyamory

Tags: polyamory

"We have been taught by our culture that when our partner has sex with another, we have lost something. Not to sound dumb, but we are confused. What have we lost?"

The Ethical Slut by Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy (via lawsome-101)

lawsome-101:

sexisnottheenemy:

“Heterosexual, monogamous marriage simply doesn’t work for everyone, but society all but demands that we live in one - or, at the very least, in the illusion of one. If open relationships were seen as an equally viable and acceptable option, I’d like to think that people would be able to make choices that really work for them, choices that actually are choices as opposed to simply doing something because that’s what everyone else is doing.”

Polyamory in practice: An open discussion with Tristan Taormino and Jenny Block | Briarpatch Magazine

gregsblog2:

jiffysquid:A response to the article “The New Mongamy” by Deborah Anapol, Ph.D.Created Aug 2 2010 - 7:05pm

The current issue of the journal Psychotherapy Networker has an article titled “The New Monogamy.” Author Tammy Nelson says she wrote this piece in response to statistics suggesting that over half of married couples were not strictly monogamous, and the growing number of clients she was seeing whose extra marital affairs couldn’t be explained away as symptoms of a dysfunctional marriage.

Ms. Nelson observes that “One major impediment to the view that an affair indicates that something is profoundly wrong in the marriage, however, is that 35 to 55 percent of people having affairs report they were happy in their marriage at the time of their infidelity. They also report good sex and rewarding family lives. So how can we continue viewing affairs as symptoms of dysfunctional marriages when apparently so many of them seem to happen to otherwise “normal,” even happy couples? The one-size-fits-all view of infidelity never questions the standard model of monogamy, much less helps a couple explore a new model of monogamy that might work better for them and their own particular marriage. Furthermore, a therapist who takes sides, implicitly vilifying one partner as “bad,” endorsing the other as “good,” is much likelier to lose the couple early on, since infidelity is rarely a black-and-white issue.”

One might think her points are obvious, and to most people identifying as polyamorous, they are hardly earthshaking, but in the world of mononormativity, these are radical notions. Question the standard model of monogamy? No way. No matter that Dr. Robert Francouer and his wife Anna presented a very similar idea and argument which they called flexible monogamy way back in the 1970’s in their book Hot and Cool Sex. It seems to have taken forty years for much of the world to begin noticing that the concept of lifelong fidelity is just not realistic for most people. And many still seem to take it as a personal affront when someone insists upon grappling with the facts.

“The new monogamy is, baldly speaking, the recognition that, for an increasing number of couples, marital attachment involves a more fluid idea of connection to the primary partner than is true of the “old monogamy.” Within the new notion of monogamy, each partner assumes that the other is, and will remain, the main attachment, but that outside attachments of one kind or another are allowed-as long as they don’t threaten the primary connection.”

“The key to these arrangements, and what makes them meaningful within the framework of emotional commitment, is that there can be no secrecy between partners about the arrangements. The fidelity resides in the fact that these couples work out openly and together what will be and will not be allowed in their relationships with Party C, and maybe Parties D, E, and F. To couples engaged in the new monogamy, it isn’t the outside sexual relationships themselves, but the attendant secrets, lies, denial, silences, and hidden rendezvous that make them so destructive to the marriage. Rightly or wrongly, today, many couples consider that honesty and openness cleanse affairs, rendering them essentially harmless.”

Ms. Nelson’s excellent article goes on to define “the new monogamy” as follows:

Sounds an awful lot like polyamory to me, but when I spoke with Ms. Nelson, she assured me that it was not. In the new monogamy, the focus is on the marriage, she asserts. They’re not trying to include other sexual partners, they’re just acknowledging that other attractions happen and an affair, especially if it’s above board, doesn’t have to meandivorce. She feels that the primary role of the therapist is to facilitate a conversation in which the couple make their implicit assumptions about the rules of their marriage explicit and then negotiate any differences in assumptions to a win-win conclusion. Hmm. Great idea. In fact, I’ve been doing this for years.

It still sounds like open marriage to me, and open couples are by far the most common form of polyamorous relationship. But if people want to call it new monogamy, that’s ok with me so long as they understand what they mean by that.

In fact, I think it heralds the acceptance of non-monogamy as a new norm in the culture. Back in the 1950’s serial monogamy was called serial polygamy. It was only when it was renamed serial monogamy that it became accepted as the most common style of marriage. So let’s hear it for the new monogamy.

As Christopher Ryan points out in his Sex at Dawn blog, we often confuse sex and love. Long term “social monogamy” is common both in humans and other species, but it doesn’t always translate into “sexual monogamy” or exclusivity. This doesn’t mean everyone should have an open marriage, and it doesn’t mean that they should have secret affairs. These only two of many possibilities.

To me, the whole point of polyamory is to recognize that we’re not all the same and we need different relationship options at different times in our lives.

The best thing our society can do right now is to open up the conversation on marriage and family to as many different points of view and types of life experience as possible. Those who’ve been openly exploring non-monogamy for decades have a wealth of knowledge but are often marginalized. Thank you Tammy Nelson and Christopher Ryan for bringing this conversation into the mainstream!