[Buddha-l] {Buddha-l] Being in Love ... "& its only end is loss" (Franz Tue, 19th Feb 2008

[Stefan Detrez]

Hi Joanna,

> Inspiring, because it reminds us of anicca despite the wonderful memories. 
> The poem also refers of course to monogamous love, or love of a child or
> other kin--not to polyamory "love". 

I've been following this thread on 'being in love' with quite an intrest. There's being in love in a monogamous context and there's being in love in a polyamorous context. However, polyamory seems to be met with suspicion and even with condescension. I think this has to do with popular conceptions of polyamory, being a new style of hippyish free love or just a fancy term for sexual promiscuity. 

I have to clarify what really is polyamory. It's a state of mind of believing that romantic love is possible with more than one partner. Romantic love as we in the West and in other countries understand it, is defined within a monogamous context. But, as polyamorists say, limiting romantic love to one person goes against the human capacity to love a multitude of partners (romantically). Polyamory does not necessarily mean sexual activity (if ever there is something wrong with two adults agreeing to have sex, whether in or outside of marriage; it's the cheating which is immoral), and this is where a more workable definition of polyamory can help: polyamory is friendship love with a possible sexual aspect. I say possible because some relationships rest platonic, other develop to romantic relationship with a sexual content. Polyamory says that the either him/her OR me dilemma is counterintuitive; it's possible to have both. 

The redefining of polyamory as a 'special friendship' helps to understand how exclusivity in a friendship is incomprehensible. Whereas monogamy claims emotional, social and sexual exclusivity, polyamory says that each relationship has unique characteristics which do not fit in the either/or-way of monogamous thinking. As an illustration, you can try to imagine all of your friends, and then drop the others to form an exclusive friendship with one person. We might call this monofilia - friendship or love for one. As you might assume, dropping the rest of your friends to form an exclusive friendly friendship with one person is absurd; there is no exclusivity in the sphere of friendship. Then, on what basis can a lover be exclusive? Is it sexually? Is it socially? Is it emotionally? What makes monogamy with its claims to sexual exclusivity more rewarding or a better set-up than polyamory is an interesting question. What would monogamy have served in the end of one's life? Would monogamy be, in contrast with polyamory, emotionally crippled, because it doesn't allow that one develops oneself within other relationships?

Well, one can say that the spiritual bond between lover's is exclusive; a bond which is hard to break. This is where the emotional intelligence of Buddhism comes in dramatically: monogamy as a form of attachment to the idea of (any) exclusivity and yearning for security, where in real life no security can be given for sustained love, nor sexual faithfulness. Polyamory understands this and accepts that the humanity of a human being (to love, to care for, to sexually love) should not be denied., but accepted and channelized for the better.

In love, as a polyamorist would say, there are no conditions. If, like there are in monogamy, there were conditions, then 'love' itself would become conditional and therefore an instrument of power to control the emotional, sexual and social life of the lover involved. This must surely be a destructive approach of the practice of love. You might say that in love there is no force, and if force is involved then love is absent. People stay with each other because the want to (love to), not out of obligation to love. Imagine being obliged to love a singular person - how would one do that?

Polyamory is emotionally pretty demanding, but the process of letting go (of expectations, claims to the possession of one's lover's body, the duty to love a singular person, to keep giving even after break ups) is one which I'm sure the Buddha would have approved of. It is liberating and rewarding, if one develops one's Buddha mind.

That however is no easy task, especially in a culture where we are breastfed with the idea of monogamy and where we are educated to become jealous as a weird 'proof' of love for one's partner. I had the courage to leave such thoughts behind and my absence of a compulsion to fit in a socially approved standard relationship model has made me more aware of what I really want with my life and how limitless it is possible to love unconditionally. I can imagine it is an interesting exercise for the people around the forum: what is wrong with polyamory from a monogamous perspective? What am I so attached to, to not want to let go this conception of love guaranteed? 

It's important not to hurt others, to do good, and to have pure thougths. This is how one can become a happy person...

Cordial greetings,

Stefan

_________________________________________________________________
Update vandaag nog in één klik je hele online leven!
http://get.live.com