Steve Pavlina’s Take on Polyamory Causes Me to Re-think My Marriage
Image by: Kriss Szkurlatowski
Like many others with an eye on the “internet Personal Development scene” I was taken aback at the beginning of 2009 when the popular blogger Steve Pavlina announced to the world that he was ditching a traditional marriage with his partner of 15 years for the practice of Polyamory (“many loves”), meaning that he (and his wife, Erin) had decided to open up their marriage in order to prevent it from degrading even further into a possible divorce.
His announcement was followed by a lengthy and detailed defense of his intentions that has received quite a bit of attention over the past few weeks, both positive and negative. Many of his readers, whether they personally practiced Polyamory or not, wrote in to his forums and other blogs to support his intentions and applaud his courage for announcing it so publicly. Others have taken issue with his stance on the issue of Polyamory and marriage, while still others, like myself in a post here or Pure Doxyk in a post here found aspects of his rationalization disturbing, indicating hints of selfishness or self-absorption that seemed to run contrary to his previous track record of providing usuable personal development tools and pieces of advice on his blog.
Now that the dust has settled a bit on the whole affair, I am starting to realize that my response in this blog was a bit of a rant and may have indeed run contrary to my stated purpose of this blog, to: Quiet the Monkeymind, the noisy thing in our brain that judges the world and others in order to prevent us from achieving moment-to-moment consciousness.
Is Steve Pavlina Onto Something, Then?
Well, no, not at least as far as me and the Monkey are concerned. But the realization I have recently discovered is that his post, as it exists within my personal consciousness, is nothing more than any other person, event, or thing that we summon into our life experience for the purpose of doing one of two things:
1) Growing, or
2) Perpetuating a lack of consciousness.
In other words, I am now beginning to understand that this talk of Polyamory isn’t about the merits of Monogamy versus sleeping with multiple partners, Steve Pavlina’s ego, or the opinions of thousands of others. Instead, what this is is an opportunity, a Call to Action, for me to personally examine the intimate relationships in my life, particularly my marriage, and attempt to draw something of value so as to improve, modify, or disband those relationships, as a means to create greater happiness and a deeper connection to the Universal Mind.
I guess what I’m saying is that I took issue with many of the points that Steve had made about his realtionship, his thoughts on Polyamory, and his mission in life to expand his own consciousness. I made the focus of my blog post about Steve and my perception that he has been misguided by his ego. In short, I was taking his personal inventory as opposed to using his message as an opportunity to evaluate my own relationship. What I am finding is that I had a lot to criticize about Steve but I also objectively should have a lot of criticisms about how I am handling my own marriage.
Six-Year Roller Coaster Ride
I will spare the details of the ups and downs of my marriage perhaps for a later post, but will say this: my relationship, while rewarding and important, has not been a walk in the park by any stretch of the imagination. We have had to deal with a lot of external issues and crises (9-11, unemployment, unplanned pregnancy, career struggles, legal problems, substance abuse related issues) that have strained a relationship that probably could have been better served by emotional and economic stability. What I’m trying to say here is that my wife and I love each other very much, but our personalities are intense, our dreams are big, and we both embody the extreme manifestation of masculine and feminine energy, respectively. In other words, while we share many of the same tastes and values, our communication patterns often create the perception that our intentions and desires are polarly opposed. Where I am weak she is strong and her weaknesses are my strengths. We have, subconsiously perhaps, not chosen an easy path by selecting each other as our life partners, as we daily encounter multiple “opporunities for growth” in learning how to deal with each other’s strengths and weaknesses.
So why I am going on about this? Well, now I am understanding that Pavlina’s post and the introspection and discussion my wife and I have had on the issues of love, fidelity, sex, and marriage have surfaced to the forefront of my consciousness for a reason. I went off on Steve for his choice but perhaps should have instead used it as a wakeup call asking whether or not I am up to the task of deepening my intimate relationship. If I believe what I said in my response to Steve then my job now is to walk my talk. I realize that there is no better crucible of change than a marriage. Either you change and grow and live happily, or remain the same and live a life of misery. Hopefully if we chose the latter we have the strength and courage to distintegrate the unhealthy marriage. If monogamous marriage is a path to expanded consciousness then I am on the right path for me. But maybe I’ve been siting on the side of the path, pouting there with my arms crossed waiting for someone else to change, while I need to just get back up and keep moving forward with an open heart.
Wow, you really went off on Steve in that previous post. It seemed really defensive, and at the same time projecting a lot of stuff onto him that comes from your assumptions regarding the appropriateness of monogomy. I’m not a Steve Pavlina apologizer, and I too got the sense that Erin was being pushed a bit farther than she would choose to go (despite her commentary to the contrary). However, I think it was really telling how it got your so hot and bothered.
As far as gurus go, I think Steve does a pretty good job. He’s up-front about everything, including his sexual desires. Sure, maybe he wants to fool around with self-development groupies — who wouldn’t? He’s owning his desires, and it’s probably for the best that he doesn’t respond to criticism of those who obsess over his lack of restraint.
You obviously are becoming more aware of reasons behind your reaction, but I was surprised that you went on such a long rant with a seeming lack of self-awareness, or questioning where it was coming from. Anyway, I don’t mean to criticize you, and you are upfront about how you are evolving.
Back to Steve, I don’t think he should base his life on the possibility of harming Erin — sure, consideration is required (he obviously has that), but people just end up resenting people if they live their lives around not offending people, even significant others. I think the kids will be just fine too — if you can’t imagine that they wouldn’t be hurt, maybe it’s because you’re too deep within the monogamy mindset to see the possibility of a healthy alternative lifestyle.
Based on your description of your marriage, I would have a much harder time defending your declaration of lifelong marriage for you than defending polyamory for Steve (that’s poorly worded, but I hope you get the meaning). Personally, though I want to raise children with someone, I wouldn’t feel any desire to declare my love eternal, especially via legal documents or religious ceremonies.
Marriage to me seems to be a bit archaic in this age, but I think it probably suits some people just fine (though obviously a huge percentage of people do it because it’s the status quo, and spend the rest of their life in a cognitive dissonance justifying it to themselves and others — perhaps you are one of these). Sometimes it seems that if people would look with more clarity, they would see that they came to the decision for marriage wasn’t a natural progression of their inner desires, but happened because it was simply the thing that society dictates people do when they are in love.
The most common justification I see for remaining in an unhappy marriage is one you illustrate with your own marriage — “it’s a great path for growth.” The flaw here is obvious: Shall I cut off an arm, because the resulting daily challenges will also be a path to growth. Shall I join a Zen monastary? Yes, marriage is a discipline you can practice that can teach you patience, and at times it can be profound, but it’s a path that is manufactured by societal expectations, and for many people whose consciousness is expanding, it’s increasingly becoming a path that people are saying, “There’s another way that’s a little cleaner, happier, and has different (but not necessarily inferior) challenges to inspire growth.”
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the comments on this post and the original “rant” I made about Steve. As you can probably see from this post, many of the points you made regarding how critical I was of Steve are reasonably valid and I will be the first to admit (as I did in this post) that I was being judgemental perhaps to a fault.
I am assuming you’re not married, but if you are, you might agree that things from the outside look a lot different than they do on the inside. Marriages can be hard work and they can also be enormously rewarding at the same time. But the work part is important. Usually growth is required to remain happy as often marriages bring to the light many of our worst or most undeveloped qualities. And also let me say that I don’t declare my love to necessarily be eternal, either. It’s a contract, pure and simple, that two partners agree to participate in, and more than likely the partnership will have rules, guidelines, and stipulations. And in my particular contract one of those agreements includes monogamy, which may or may not be natural for the males of our species, but it is an stipulation I have willingly agreed to nonetheless.
Obviously sex is fun but marriage is more than just sex (again, obviously). It is natural for a married person to wistfully imagine a world in which he could retain the trappings of marriage: wife, kids, house, but get to screw anybody he wants. Why not just be honest and discard the whole marriage instead of trying to have it both ways (i.e. stay married but sleep with many people)?
As I said in this post, I am backing away from talking in detail about Steve’s situation because that type of commentary belies the purpose of this blog, which is to dismantle the critical monkey mind and all of its judgements and shortcomings. And yet, my original feelings about Polyamory still stand, that it very much seems to be more about bedding down with multiple people than it does appear to be about love itself. If it were truly about “many loves” and not many sexual partners, sex wouldn’t even be a part of conversation would it? But it is and therefore the term is a euphemism, a way to make something unsavory for many appear to be palatable or acceptable. There are many ways to express love and sexual intercourse isn’t a necessary component of that expression as far as I am aware. Wouldn’t it just more accurate to call one’s self “polysexual?”
Again, thanks for calling me out and thanks for your comments.
Thanks for the great response. You probably don’t want to debate this endlessly, but I’ll respond because I find it so stimulating.
I don’t see why sex should be absent from the equation in polyamory. Sex is one way to express love — I feel that when I make love to my girlfriend. To many, sex can also be a recreational activity that adults who don’t necessarily love each other engage in. Yes, polyamory literally means “multiple loves,” but I don’t think anyone claims that true love (whatever that is) has to be present between all parties. The term is probably used because “polygamy” is already taken, referring to multiple wives.
The idea that love — and not just fondness, affection, passion, etc. — has to be present for sex is perhaps a good principle for some, but it’s certainly not a given that everyone feels this way. If you feel that love should always be present for sex, is that because of your circumstances, or would you feel differently if you were unmarried and had sexy, open-minded, intelligent women expressing the desire to be sexual with you?
It’s dangerous to dismiss the interest in multiple partners as a whimsical male fantasy — the desire certainly isn’t exclusively male, and when one partner cheats, it becomes a powerful display of how pronounced that desire is. Most couples deal with the issue on the back end, during the fallout of infidelity. Yet we disparage couples who deal with it on the front end, by getting over issues of jealousy and making allowances for themselves and their partners.
You definitely have a point that people may tend to disguise they’re pursuit of polyamory as something more than sex when it’s not, as if they’ve achived a higher spiritual state. I’m too young to know the whole free love thing first hand, so maybe I’m too idealistic in saying that it might be OK to incorporate “just sex” into one’s lifestyle.
Regardless, you seem to be saying that polyamory is a cover for living an unprincipled, hedonistic life, and that’s true, but only if you personally define having more than one partner as such. In the West, monogamy is linked so strictly with approved, moral behavior that I think it’s too big a mental hurdle for many to see the alternative with any objectivity.
As for why someone might not just discard the whole marriage? If there conception of marriage can include multiple sexual partners (even if it didn’t at the outset), why should they? Neither of us have a monopoly on how a marriage should be defined. But when you define having multiple sexual partners as inherently “unsavory,” it tells me you might be open-minded in the matter.
Hi Mike,
I actually appreciate this “debate” because it’s pretty reasoned and respectful…
I think you kind of agreed with me when you mentioned that that the name “polyamory” might not be accurate, which is part of my problem with the term. It’s a misnomer that belies an essential aspect of the practice.
I don’t neccesarily feel that love has to be present for sex, but if one is operating under the guise of “many loves” shouldn’t love be inherent in the sex? Again, it’s more about the name and the “dressing” up of the practice that might simply be more accurately described as “sex with many people.”
Before I was married I would say that I might have practiced something akin to what people call polyamory, and sometimes there were even more pronounced and intimate emotions involved. Now that I am a parent, my inner parenting wisdom tells me that such a lifestyle shouldn’t necessarily be paraded around young children, which was the genesis of some of my criticisms of SP. People might disagree with that, but I would argue that the consensus of belief indicates that children require a stable household, which doesn’t necessarily involve either mommy or daddy coming home with lots of special friends, which was the exact scenario that SP described would take place when he consummates his poly desires.
And perhaps I should rephrase what I said a little in my response about contrasting a monogamous and poly lifestyle. I don’t believe that having multiple partners is necessarily unsavory or unprincipled. I believe I said that such behavior, especially when one is married, is considered to be or appears to be unsavory by most of society. And I think the Poly movement recognizes this, otherwise they might have chosen a less euphemistic term to describe their behavior…(like Polysexual).
Cheers,
PWD
Oops, didn’t mean to imply that you necessarily think it’s unsavory yourself.
Regarding the name, I don’t necessarily think it’s a misnomer. I may be looking to hook up with a nice gal if I’m in an “amorous” mood — I’m not a hypocrite because it’s not technically love. “Polysexual” would fixate too much on the sexual aspect, even if it’s accurate for some. In most cases it’s probably some combination of admiration, lust, love, etc., so I think polyamorous is about the best they can do (besides “non-monogomous,” which is a little clinical.) But let’s forget about semantics.
I doubt that SP, for example, would be recklessly parading sexual partners in front of his kids. I’m sure you can imagine that it could be done discreetly. The “OMG, think of the children” reaction strikes me as the type of knee jerk response that many have to same-gender parents. Sex is the realm of adults, and as long as it’s practiced discreetly and not in a way that exposes children to too much too soon, I think children are better off with adults who have a high degree of sexual health and satisfaction, however its expressed. Or is it better to have a father who never gets any and a wife who has little interest in sex (or vice-versa — both common scenarios)?
What if mom and dad like porn? What if they’re into BDSM or swinging once a year? Is the only stable environment one that demands vanilla sex between two exclusive parnters? Regardless, I respect that your intuition is right for you.
Like most, I want my relationship with the parent of my (unborn) children to be one that endures, and I don’t want to keep it tied up with exclusive romantic feelings, which are finicky and can be fleeting. To base it on romantic love seems short-sighted — the results of that mentality is a divorce rate that is through the roof, and a high level of disatisfaction among the remaining married folks. I’m looking for a better way. Yes, I’m naive
Hello to the Monkey!
Your follow-up posting on your take on Steve Pavlina’s polyamory experiments is like an semi-apology towards the man while shedding light on the problematic implications of living life married – at least from your point of view.
Marriage is a form of relationship that has not become obsolete in modern times, I firmly believe. Marriage is the promise of two people, who have found their conscious vibrations to match, to love and support each other through highs and lows as well. Marriage is a form of relationship that is not only founded on love but also on creation. Marriage is like an oath to grow by the virtue of the partner’s attributes. Last but not least, marriage is the foundation of new life. While it may seem archaic to associate marriage to having children, it is still the strongest sign of binding two entities – forming a new entity that consists equally of elements of both. My girlfriend once told me that the difference between friend- and partnership is that partnership is something that has the potential to give rise to new life – whereas friendship is a loving connection only.
Polyamory is a part of everyone’s reality. Forming intimate friendships with people other than your partner has always been a normal thing and polyamory is not different from this. Steve Pavlina talks about people who go further in their quest to ’spread love’ but I do not believe that this is the way that relationships are intended to work. Partnership has always stood out of the crowd of friendships that accumulate throughout life. It is a paramount experience, built to last.
How much love can a man share without becoming physically intimate with a person? I believe that history has taught us lessons of relationships so rich in love and yet platonic that this question is easily answered. The amount of love two entities can share is not determined by their level of physical intimacy. It emphasizes on an ever strengthening band of vibrational matches.
Therefore, polyarmory has to be thought farther. For those who believe that partnerships are not limited to one person, odds are that they have never had the seminal experience of true partnership. What they experience are emotionally intimate friendships with the addition of physical intimacy.
Additionally, physical intimacy can be isolated from emotional intimacy. Kissing, touching and sexual intercourse do not require an emotional emphasis but still they can be extensions of existing emotional connection. There are light years between a kiss between mere friends and a kiss between true partners, nonetheless.
In conclusion, partnership and friendship have commonalities and still they are of entirely different nature. Those who experience the joy to live a real partnership with another entity will most probably agree.
Polyarmory is highly recommended. It is always a good thing to share one’s love – it is the only energy that becomes more by spending it. Nevertheless, be aware of the differences between vibrational matches and physical intercourse and apply them adequately.
In love for life
Simon
Try the book “Sacred Marriage” by Gary Thomas. The full title and subtitle say it all: “Sacred Marriage: What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy by Gary Thomas”.