[Buddha-l] Is polyamory kilesa?

[Stefan Detrez]

Hi David,

2007/5/14, david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk <
david.r.webster at blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> "I'm convinced you can have sexual intimacy and emotional intimacy 'out of
> wedlock', without that threatening the love you feel for your primary
> partner and vice versa"
> - I am not convinced of this - - in practice.. - not that I have had that
> much practice at it...
>
> maybe it is more akusala than kilesa?


I think a lot has to do with the cultured mind set of monogamy. It demands
fallaciously that intimacy, sexuality and love should be channeled to one
person. It's almost like you would have to choose ONE best friend, with whom
you have to share everything you would otherwise do with the others,
*and*drop the others. This is clearly absurd. You can have many
friends with whom
you share different needs, joys and wishes. I don't experience jealousy
towards my friends meeting up with other friends. Those meetings don't
threaten our friendships, do they? Why should this be the case with
polyamory?

I guess it takes some detachment of traditional lifestyles or mind sets to
enable a person to give unconditionally. I saw my wife having intimate sex
with one of my best friends (in a trio). Honestly, it was beautiful to
witness her sharing intimacy with someone else. It didn't give me any
negative feelings whatsoever. Contrarily, I was filled with bliss from all
naturalness, the lovingness, the deepness of our 'wholeness' in that
situation. I think this experience was beneficial for our 'exclusive'
intimacy. And that's maybe where 'traditional' folks have a hard time: not
being able to distinguish between *exclusive *intimacy and
*different*intimacy. My opinion is that such folks are bound up in
some ego-bubble they
don't wish to see ruined: the security of sexual exclusivity, the comforting
thought of intimate exclusivity, emotional security, etc.

I think it's detrimental to one's emotional, sexual and personal development
to put boundaries on the do's and don't of your (primary) partner. It's
locking each other up in a cage of expectations, social conventions and
emotional insecurities. There's a lot of *atta* going on here. Plenty of
Zen-stories feature monks and nuns who selflessly and unconditionally care
for others. Their mind sets come close to what I experience: to strive to
make the world a less unhappy place/more happy place. That involves
emotional, personal and sexual freedom/letting go, too for your partner. I
don't mind my wife having sex, emotionality, sexuality with that particular
friend, because I feel that such experience enriches her emotional and
sexual life. If it would threaten me, it means I'm insecure and it means my
power to be possessive is declining. Is this what love is about? Owning the
body of the other? A sexual and emotional private property?

A lot of folks think I'm abnormal to even allow such behaviour. But I do not
care. I feel well and happy about the freedom. It's freedom that is keeping
people together, not a duty to love, to be sexually faithful (I wonder what
freak ever came up with that destructive idea). People love because they
feel free to do so.

Joanna says the sexual freedom ideology was among its more stupid ideas.
Maybe that's because some people fell back in their Judeo-Christian mind
sets. Maybe it because some people were too wound up in their craving for
security and exclusivity. Let's not forget that after the sixties
conservatives pushed their traditional agenda's thinking monogamy was
guaranteeing happiness. Well, let's face it: it's more honest not to swear
sexual faithfulness and leave it open, than to become a so-called adulterer,
deceiving and cheating, having to do a lot of sour explaining, etc, instead
of being informative and open about one's personal phantasies and wishes.
And that people should divorce over sex is the most pathetic thing I've come
to witness in my life. There's a sense of perversion attached to sexual
fidelity.

I believe this openness will guarantee a lot more happiness, than the
suffocating chains of monogamy., which doesn't allow intimacy, emotionality
and selfexploration with other partners. And this is not about sexuality
only, it's about emotionality and intimacy - two human needs which are
necessary for happiness. I think unconditional love (whether it be
hippie-style, Buddha-style or polyamory-style), egoless loving and giving
are beneficial for the well being of the world.

Would the Buddha dissapprove of such 'unconditional giving', if it made
people happy and loving?

Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20070515/6c100b08/attachment.htm