Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
This is my essay on polyamory, for philosophy class.
We have read of multiple philosophers, and dogmatic followers of said philosophers, stating their belief that relationships must be between one man and one woman, (or for more modern interpretations - simply monogamous,) in order to be healthy and fulfilling. It is my goal in this essay to show that, not only can relationships with multiple partners be healthy and fulfilling, but possibly more so than monogamous relationships.
The term Polyamory was coined in the mid 1990’s by authors Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy, who later worked together again to write the book The Ethical Slut:: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities. In truth it is a guide to healthy polyamorous and poly-sexual relationships.
There are a lot of misunderstandings about Polyamorous relationships. Most common among them being that it is “just an excuse to cheat.” I would like to start by clarifying this concept. In any relationship, whether it be one of friendship, romance, or erotic nature, certain rules are established in the forming of the relationship. Some of these rules are spoken and agreed upon, others are agreed upon without ever having been spoken - they are “simply understood” - while yet others are assumed (these are the most dangerous kind.) In a polyamorous (open) relationship all parties involved must work together to form the rules of each relationship. These rules must be openly discussed and agreed upon. Assumed rules will ruin the dynamic of the relationships. If these rules are broken, then the one who broke them is in fact cheating. Along with the rules, appropriate consequences must be established for if someone breaks the rules. Rules are not necessarily engraved in stone. The most viable of open relationships take into account that people evolve, their desires evolve, love evolves. Therefore the rules must evolve as well. Thus, constant open communication about ones feelings is a must.
Another misconception that I would like to dispel is the concept that polyamory is based on a person not wanting to actually commit to a relationship. In actuality, there is much more commitment involved in a polyamorous relationship than there is in most monogamous relationships. On top of the open communication that I have already discussed, in a polyamorous relationship, one person is committing to loving each of his or her partners - building each partner up to their greatest potential, ensuring mutual health and satisfaction in ALL things. If there is something, some need, that can not be satisfied by one, there is another partner committed to fulfilling that need. This helps to reduce, and sometimes eliminate the potential for resentment for unmet needs and desires.
There is often the question of how can you love more than one person? Doesn’t giving your love to a second person detract from the amount of love that you can give to the first? To that I often ask, “If you have a child, you love that child with your whole heart. Correct? If you then have another child, do you have to kill or by some other means get rid of the first child in order to love the second? Do you love the first child any less by loving the second child? Or the second child any less than you love the first? So by what measure would my love for my wife be reduced by me having a girlfriend?”
Finally, I would like to disband the belief that polyamory is a sex based concept. In actuality, there are many polyamorous relationships that are NOT sexual in nature. Again, as stated above, polyamory is intended improve the quality of life and living for each individual involved. Poly-sexual relationships, e.g. “swingers” and “partner swappers” on the other hand generally consist of committed couples that seek purely sexual pleasure from people outside of their relationship, or single people that look for purely sexual relations from one or more members of a committed relationship. Poly-sexual relations would be consistent with Utilitarian Sexual Freedom: “Sexual freedom consists of actions which achieve the happiness of the actor and are not inconsistent with the happiness of other affected persons.” Utilitarian Sexual Freedom would, by the same standard, support polyamory.
Polyamory could also be considered a pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge of individuals on a deeper level than experienced through simple friendship. In a polyamorous relationship, depending on how it is set up, you have multiple people working together to learn and fulfill the emotional, mental, and physical needs and desires of each partner. I feel that Audre Lorde’s argument for erotic as knowledge: “Our erotic knowledge empowers us, becomes a lens through which we scrutinize all aspects of our existence, forcing us to reevaluate those aspects honestly in terms of their relative meaning within our lives.” Also, “We have been raised to fear the yes within ourselves, our deepest cravings… When we live outside ourselves… when we live away from those erotic guides from within ourselves, then our lives are limited by external and alien forms, and we conform to the needs of a structure that is not based on human need… But when we begin to live from within outward, in touch with the power of the erotic within ourselves… then we begin to be responsible to ourselves in the deepest sense.” While, again, not all polyamorous relationships are erotic, I would have to argue that even the functional and healthy non-erotic forms would still find arguments to be true.
In order to work, both monogamous and polyamorous relationships require commitment. Both require communication. Both require honesty. Only one of them requires that ALL of an individuals needs and desires be fulfilled by ONE person. For life. What happens when that one person is not able to satisfy every need and desire? Often times the unsatisfied party looks elsewhere for what is missing. Often without discussing the problem. Sometimes, when there is discussion, there is still no satisfaction - for a multitude of potential reasons. This may lead to “cheating” or separation. In a polyamorous relationship, by comparison, if one party is not receiving the fulfillment they need, it is openly discussed and relationship alternatives can be worked out. These alternatives lead to greater happiness for all parties involved. No “cheating” is necessary. Separation is not necessary.
By both Liberal Kantianism and Utilitarianism, I would argue that not only is polyamory morally good, but morally superior to monogamy, as shown in the following arguments from presentations in class:
Liberal Kantianism
Must be fully consensual – fully informed, fully rational, fully free
Must not involve use/objectification/instrumentalization of a person
Must be loving (each partner must desire the objective rational good of the other/others)
Must be characterized by mutual emotional depth
Might be polyamorous (though not merely polysexual – must be love among all participants)
Utilitarianism
Willingness to participate is needed. Must result in happiness for all persons involved in the act.
Might be polyamorous or polysexual
Hook-ups are okay!! Yay!! Let’s instrumentalize each other baby!!
The extreme honesty and consent required in functional polyamorous, and some poly-sexual, relationships bring the parties involved greater understanding of themselves and all partners involve. Therefore, again, I state that - while not for everyone - polyamory can be at least as healthy and fulfilling, if not more so, as monogamous relationships are intended to be.
What Girls & Guys Said
0 1Well this was interesting and thought provoking.
I have met a girl who was openly polyamorous and it was a pleasure to have met her.