Is polyamory more evolved? No. No, it isn’t.

I’ve been blogging a great deal about polyamory lately, but I’ve been doing it over at the More Than Two blog rather than here. And, in typical fashion, I’ve been so overworked that I haven’t been posting the links here on Livejournal. Sigh.

Today’s blog post is about poly “evolution.” If you hang around the poly community long enough, sooner or later you’ll run into someone who says that polyamory is more evolved than monogamy, either in a positive way (“Wow, polyamory is the next stage of spiritual evolution of humanity!”) or a negative way (“Polyamory sounds nice and all, but we just aren’t evolved enough to make it work”).

Either way, it’s rubbish. Polyamory is not more evolved, spiritually or otherwise, than monogamy. This blog post talks about why. Feel free to respond over there or here.


Also, in case you’ve missed them, there are other good blog posts as well:

Eve Rickert talks about being married and polyamorous.

I talk about growing up alienated in rural Nebraska, and how that helped me learn skills useful in polyamory.

I ask the question, are relationships work?

Eve talks about coming out poly.

Eve talks about what integrity is to her.

Eve talks about being a grownup.

I talk about having compassion in tough times, making tough choices, and why some of the things we might think are good ideas in poly relationships are really terrible ideas.

Eve and I have a dialog about using rules as “training wheels” in polyamory and what “Utopian poly” means.

I talk about the difference between moving toward and moving away: relationships where you move toward joy, rather than moving away from fear.

Again, please feel free to comment over there or here.

4 thoughts on “Is polyamory more evolved? No. No, it isn’t.

  1. I think…choosing your relationship orientation is…better, for some value of better. More evolved…that’s a little weird, but I can see how people think that way. If people choose monogamy, after knowing there are other options, that’s good. If they don’t know there are any other options…I would see that as less well-thought-out, I guess? I dunno. Ascribing ‘evolution’ to a human decision is almost as bad as saying god said so.:P

    K.

  2. I think…choosing your relationship orientation is…better, for some value of better. More evolved…that’s a little weird, but I can see how people think that way. If people choose monogamy, after knowing there are other options, that’s good. If they don’t know there are any other options…I would see that as less well-thought-out, I guess? I dunno. Ascribing ‘evolution’ to a human decision is almost as bad as saying god said so.:P

    K.

  3. “No relationship ever really ends”? I suppose that’s true in some sense, but there are some situations where that ‘sense’ is so abstract as to be virtually meaningless.

    For example, all of my grandparents are long dead. I’ve made peace with that to the point where I don’t even think about them anymore. Even saying “my grandparents are long dead” doesn’t cause me to think about them all that much. Short of time travel, there’s no way of meeting them ever again. The relationships between me and them have, for all practical purposes, ended.

    And even if someone doesn’t accept that as “ended” (they consider it, I dunno, drastically muted or something), how about when I’m also dead? How about when there are no living witnesses to have seen, indirectly experienced, or heard about the relationship outside of its appearing on a family tree? How about if civilization collapses and even the family tree is lost forever? (I was tempted to escalate that further, ending with “the universe spontaneously suffers a total existence failure”, but that would be going ridiculously overboard.)

    Don’t know why, but the statement “no relationship ever really ends” feels overly simplistic and silly to me.

  4. “No relationship ever really ends”? I suppose that’s true in some sense, but there are some situations where that ‘sense’ is so abstract as to be virtually meaningless.

    For example, all of my grandparents are long dead. I’ve made peace with that to the point where I don’t even think about them anymore. Even saying “my grandparents are long dead” doesn’t cause me to think about them all that much. Short of time travel, there’s no way of meeting them ever again. The relationships between me and them have, for all practical purposes, ended.

    And even if someone doesn’t accept that as “ended” (they consider it, I dunno, drastically muted or something), how about when I’m also dead? How about when there are no living witnesses to have seen, indirectly experienced, or heard about the relationship outside of its appearing on a family tree? How about if civilization collapses and even the family tree is lost forever? (I was tempted to escalate that further, ending with “the universe spontaneously suffers a total existence failure”, but that would be going ridiculously overboard.)

    Don’t know why, but the statement “no relationship ever really ends” feels overly simplistic and silly to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *