This month: “Explaining non-monogamy” My take: “Should we [...]]]> Poly Means Many: There are many aspects of polyamory. Each month six bloggers – An Open Book, One Sub’s Mission, Polyamorous Parenting, Post Modern Sleaze, Rarely Wears Lipstick and Amanda Jones – will write about their views on one of them.

This month: “Explaining non-monogamy” My take: “Should we have to?”

Strictly speaking what you do with your private life should be, well, the clue’s in the name really! Whether you feel comfortable talking about sex and/or relationships is largely a function of your upbringing, your current environment, and the specific set of tacit rules you’ve agreed to follow with that group.

When it comes to non-standard relationship formats, this can become additionally tricky. Where you might happily mention in passing the mundane details of a monogamous relationship, mentioning similar with multiple partners or metamours, whilst possibly desirable, can sometimes seem more trouble than it’s worth.

There are a range of relationships which might not have easily expressible forms (let alone socially acceptable ones). It can feel difficult to casually mention a connection (“my boyfriend’s other girlfriend”, “my FWB”…) without feeling as if you should then launch into a long explanation of how it’s all okay and everyone knows, or that this is a long-term agreement – just a casual one. So, all too often, we don’t mention them at all.

Now, broadly speaking, I think it’s fair to divide up those interactions that are based on sex, and those that are based on love. Of course this isn’t to say that many wont have aspects of both, but most are clearly rooted in one or the other. And personally, I see no reason to tell you, my colleagues, or my family about my sex life; however exciting, interesting or unusual it may be! It can be tempting to drop salacious hints and almost brag about our uniqueness but frankly, if it wouldn’t be appropriate for a mono relationshipped person to mention a new sex position they’d tried that weekend, it’s also not appropriate for a poly person to mention a new sex partner they’d tried that weekend! It’s not complex here: sex is not family dinner conversation.

Love, though, is an entirely other matter. It is far more appropriate for me to mention my partner to my colleagues and my family, bordering on inappropriate if I don’t. It is a matter of public record what your relationship state is. I had to tell my mobile phone provider if I was single or not, my letting agent too… this stuff really is common knowledge.

Which is where this blog may get contentious…

Ethical non-monogamy is about open, honest relationships and I don’t believe that is restricted to one partner knowing about another. If you have two equal partners and you publicly acknowledge one and refer to the other as “your friend” or they go unmentioned, you’re still not being honest.

Sure there’s a difference between lying, lying by omission, and simply omitting. If you don’t want to talk about your relationships, don’t! Blanket omission is fine! Speaking about your girl/boyfriend as your ‘friend’, for any length of time or to anyone important, is a lie by omission and I feel is okay only in very certain circumstances. (Mainly only when, after informed discussion, it’s been mutually agreed as the least harmful course of action) If you’re telling outright lies, well, clearly I’d strongly counter the ethics of that.

Essentially you get to make a fundamental choice with regards to what you share about your life. You should never feel obliged to disclose the details of your sex / love life to anyone. However, if you’re going to speak about your relationship(s) you’re on dangerous moral ground if you start looking at that pair/group of people and revealing some and hiding others.

Mid-post disclaimer now, because clearly this is a far bigger topic than I, or a small group of bloggers, can ever tackle. I am not saying it’s simple or even that I am right. But I want to raise the question. As an ethical non-monogamist, is it still ethical and open to publically acknowledge one relationship but not another of equal value?

As a non-primary I can only imagine that being put in a position where you’d like to acknowledge your partner but their situation with their family, say, means you have to remain a secret; keep pictures off of facebook, be careful what you say in public etc, would feel an awful lot like the deceit of regular cheating.

Bottom line.
Talk about your life, or don’t, that’s your choice. But If you love someone and share your life with them lying about how much they mean to you, asking them to let that lie pervade and requiring other partners to be accessories to that is, in my likely-to-be-flamed opinion, not actually that open or ethical at all.

Discuss!

It’s tempting to begin by going through the most common misconceptions and clearing the air of any false assumptions. I am going to resist. Suffice to say, there are as many kinds of Buddhists [...]]]> This is the first in what will hopefully be a series of blog posts looking at Buddhism and Polyamory.

It’s tempting to begin by going through the most common misconceptions and clearing the air of any false assumptions. I am going to resist. Suffice to say, there are as many kinds of Buddhists as there are Polyamorists. There’s as much in the way of cringe-inducingly inaccurate press, wanky in-group language, easily as many One True Way-ers (and probably as many vegetarians!) So all I ask is that you approach with your assumptions on your sleeve and please feel free to ask questions. I’m no great authority on either subject, but I can point us both in the direction of those who are if the need arises.

Final bit of preamble: Flame not. All views are my own :)

And the sentence above: “Flame not. All views are my own”, is incidentally very Buddhist indeed! As a doctrine, Buddhism is pleasingly ‘live and let live’ about life. That’s not to say there’s no right or wrong, there are very clear definitions of both. Simply that unlike many theistic religions Buddhism cares more about your motivations and the outcomes than the action in between. Which means it is very difficult to look at a situation from the outside and judge whether it is ‘moral’. (Buddhists would probably use the word “wholesome” here, as I might later on, feel free to substitute for a word that feels comfortable to you).

The root of this ‘live and let live’ attitude is two-fold. Firstly, Buddhists don’t much care about your personal choices (within reason!). Your own misconduct causes your own suffering, your own ‘right actions’ cause your own happiness. Karma is probably best translated simply as “consequences”. It is all just cause and effect, so you go ahead and suit yourself! Secondly the Buddha wasn’t, and never claimed to be, anything but another average human. He was just a guy who was unhappy and took action to become happier. He tried a heap of things that didn’t work and then found something that did. So when he finally gave into peer pressure and explained his theories, he’d absolutely no reason to know if they would work for anyone else.

Which is why the Kalama Sutra exists. (“Sutra” just means “thread” in Sanskrit and literally refers to a ‘thread’ of teaching”.) It was supposedly told to the people of Kalama before the Buddha explained his newfound realisations about happiness. It is effectively a speech detailing 10 reasons NOT to believe him. Obviously if you read the sutras now the language and examples are laughable, but the content is very easily modernised. I have barely altered the below.

Over 2,000 years ago the people of Kalama were cautioned not to believe:
- just because something has been passed along and retold through the years
- just because some practice has become traditional
- merely because of gossip and news no matter how widespread
- just because something is cited in the scriptures / authoritative texts
- just because something seems to fit with the reasoning of your logic (assume nothing!)
- nor because something is ‘correct’ on the grounds of philosophical dogmatism
- just because something appeals to one’s common sense, which is merely snap judgements based on one’s habits and tendencies of thought
- nor because something stands up to or agrees with one’s preconceived opinions and theories
- do not believe just because the speaker appears believable
- nor because the speaker is our teacher

Now if you look at these in terms of non-monogamy, you’ll immediately see that to be monogamous by default, i.e. without questioning or choosing, is a trapping of very many of the above; an often unexamined, originally religious tradition which we are brought up to have a positive prejudice for.

Always one for clarity, the Buddha went on to tell us when we should believe:

When you yourselves know: These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them. But when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them.

Which touches in on what is, for me, the most fundamental aspect of Buddhism. It isn’t about a judging/guiding interventionist God. This isn’t a “computer says no” moral philosophy. There’s no superhuman to ask. There’s no human to ask. Just ourselves. And we already know. We are amazingly complex, sensitive creatures. When we are doing something ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’, on some level we always know. We can choose to ignore it, and it’ll come back to bite us in the butt, but that’s the thing – our morailty is our own responsibility.

That’s not to say there are no rules.. of course there are and we’ll get to those. It’s also not to say that Buddhism accepts polyamory as a moral or “wholesome practice” either, and we’ll get to that too..

But as a grounding, whatever we’re discussing, it will be within the framework of the Kalama Sutra that I speak. As the Buddha basically said, “YMMV”!

Well, maybe not exactly.. In the depth [...]]]> New Years’ Resolutions¹ are an odd thing on the face of it.
That we wait 365 days to think of ways to better ourselves seems foolish; the idea that something about an arbitrarily changing date means we’re suddenly capable of achieving these new, fantastic, things – unlikely.

Well, maybe not exactly.. In the depth of winter, huddled against the dark and the cold, off work, with time to reflect, traversing the cultural pressure to spend money and over indulge, surrounded by family and/or loved ones, engaging in more of the simple things; group meals, games, reading, conversation..
Maybe these conditions are, in fact, perfect for making a few goals?

And, because I like having goals and I enjoy a to-do list more than I ought, I have made some.. but as anyone who has has the dis/pleasure of working with me knows, you have to do them right. So here are the rules for New Year’s Resolutions ;)

1.) Things that can never be completed ARE NOT ALLOWED.

“get fit” <-- NOT ALLOWED
"be less stressed" <-- NOT ALLOWED
"read more" <-- NOT ALLOWED

As a general rule, I subscribe to that terrible 'SMART' mnemonic of specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely. If your resolution isn't all of those things, how can you do it, and will you even know if you have?!

For example, the non-goal "get fit" is vastly improved by adding specific, measurable and time-bound qualities e.g. "do 30+ mins of exercise 3x a week". It's up to you if it is attainable or realistic, of course. For me it wouldn't be, so I would add to that with "do 30+ mins of exercise 3x a week, on average / most weeks". NOW it is a permitted goal!

2.) No do-overs.

If it has been on a previous year’s list and you didn’t manage it – has something changed? Because if you haven’t prioritised it for the last 365 days, unless there is a very good reason you’re about to start, it doesn’t belong back on your list..

3.) Listen to SCIENCE

It’s been fairly well established that certain things can increase our liklihood of meeting goals. For example, it’s important not to have an inbuilt “failure point” – e.g. a goal that says: go for a run three times a week fails the first week you get ill and you only manage to go out once. Once ‘failed’ it is immensely difficult to keep motivated towards the goal, hence buffers such as ‘on average’ or ‘most weeks’ (do decide how you measure that, though. Is ‘most weeks’ 3 in a month, or 27 out of the year?..)
It has also been fairly consistenly proven that making goals public and having peer support increases your chances of success, particularly for women.
And, for all, not over-taxing is essential. Comfortably setting and keeping three resolutions is psychologically far better for your motivation than setting 10 and breaking 7.²

4.) Understand your motivations.

So you want to get out of debt, you’ve made a plan and it’s a SMART goal. Great! But why? “Because I should” won’t work for long³ but “because the stress is making me miserable” or “if I repair my credit I can look into buying xx next year” might. They’re very different too, those examples. Do you know if you’re usually positively or negatively motivated? For me avoiding upset works far better than chasing gain.
Being clear about your motivation means that when you’re tempted to cheat you can focus on the misery you’re trying to spare yourself / look forward to the outcome. Basic Buddhist theory straddles this neatly. Bad habits bring you and others misery, whilst external good creates internal good. A kind of micro-Karma affecting only you which you can witness day in day out. c.f hangovers! But whatever it is, being clear in your own mind about your motivations now means you wont find yourself suddenly struggling for reasons when it comes to the inevitable point of temptation..

5.) Measure it!

Tracking your progress isn’t just a nice-to-have for motivation – it actually statistically increases your chances of success. Observation changes things. This might be as simple as tracking the balance of your savings account, making a chart with your running time/ distance/ recovery period, or gold stars on the calendar *ahem* ;) But measuring your progress ensures your tasks wont be forgotten, gives early warning to slippage, reinforcement when things are going well, and means that this time next year you can look back and say, with evidence, 2012 was the year I made that change.

So, yes.
Jan 1st might seem an arbitrary time to start, but all it takes is a beginning and this one’s as good as any other. To a happier, Happy New Year. xx

(Part II, coming soon, my resolutions)

¹ I was going to blog about my Christmas and New Year but I figured I could let slide a blog post consisting exclusively of “Squee! <3 <3 <3" in 36pt caps ;)
² There are some REALLY interesting psychological studies about will-power and over taxing. I didn’t want to add them here necessarily, but if you’re intrested let me know in the comments and I’ll elaborate.
³Note to self re: draft blogpost about the word ‘should’ – finish and post it