Laeviss, it must be said, advocates *for* polyamory, in general theory, if not always in practice. It is Laeviss' belief that the sexual subjugation of people in general, and women, especially, is the result of an unfortunate adherence to a patriarchal, dualistic worldview. Many, if not most, polyamorists say they believe in equality of the genders. However, Laeviss knows that there is a Fantasy Realm, in which most people spend a great deal of their time (and may actually believe that this is where they truly are), and there is Reality World, where the objective truth dwells eternal, and where most people would rather not believe themselves to be.
Awhile back, Laeviss joined several polyamory online groups in order to discuss issues related to polyamory with other like-minded individuals. Although the discussions were always interesting, and presented several viewpoints, the subject of "unicorns" kept coming up. Mostly these were posts by one or both members of an established couple, who were looking for "their" unicorn, or bemoaning the fact that unicorns are so hard to find.
Now, let's define "unicorn" in this context. From Laeviss' perspective, the polyamorous "unicorn" appears to be "a bisexual female, unattached sexually to a primary of her own, who is willing to entirely devote herself emotionally and sexually to both members of an established, usually legally married, couple without receiving any of the rights or social benefits of a legal marriage partner." (This "unicorn" has a close polyamorous cousin in the "second wife" sort of polyamory, where a straight female attaches herself to the household of a legally married couple, as a sort of "junior wife" to the husband, but with neither legal nor social status.)
Now, before you say, "Whoa, there, Laeviss, that's a bit harsh, isn't it?" Laeviss will justify the definition of this mythical "unicorn" by quoting some of the very posts these unicorn hunters place online. One of the more common phrases used by unicorn hunters is, "We're looking for that special female to complete us!" Now, no matter how you slice it, it comes up as an "Us" looking for a "Them." Notice the use of words here. There is an "in group" (the established couple, the "us") and an "out group" (which is everybody else, including that "special female" who is out there, somewhere, amongst the unwashed masses.) It's as if they are searching for a pet dog. The "Us" can always give it back to the shelter if it doesn't work out.
How about this gem of a meme, from a polyamory post: "Don't know what to get your wife for her birthday? Get her a girlfriend!" Again, a family group is defined (a wife must have a husband) and the "girlfriend" that is being looked for is being described as an object that can be given as a gift (the "birthday present." Brings Gollum to mind, if one is a Lord of the Rings fan.)
When Laeviss honestly asked about the realities of this sort of arrangement, and whether or not the unicorn (or the second wife, for that matter) has any issues about being relegated to a primary partnership in which they have neither legal nor social standing, most of the respondents were miffed that the question was even asked. "Of course not!" they exclaimed. "We treat our unicorn/second wife equally as well as we treat our legal wife!"
Yet Laeviss noted that the unicorns and second wives (assuming that there are any in the polyamorous online groups) were conspicuously silent on the matter.
Laeviss suspects that there are some uncomfortable similarities between the dualistic worldview presumed to be "normal" by most westerners and the sort of hierarchical polyamory discussed above. Laeviss would add that there appears to be a large sub-grouping of polyamorists who have what they term a "one penis policy" or OPP, for short. This means that the "one penis" (probably similar to the One Ring to Rule Them All in the Lord of the Rings) has the right to dictate that the vaginas involved in the relationship must belong only to the owner of the one penis! (Laeviss does not consider this sort of relationship rule to fall under the category of true polyamory. In Laeviss' belief, this is a man fulfilling his domination/sexual control fantasies and his lesbian sex fantasies at the same time, with the kind cooperation of his wife and girlfriend.)
Laeviss would prefer, in his Fantasy Realm, to find a happy place, where all could be equally happy, equally sexually fulfilled, and equally emotionally cherished, but Reality World bites like Garmr at the gates of Hel.
He offers alternatives, such as forming primary partnerships with one spouse only, and, if one desires, having meaningful secondary or tertiary relationships on the side. Or, if one likes the concept of a big, happy polyamorous primary family, then Laeviss suggests legally marrying none of them, yet forming an equal family grouping of them all through legal paperwork.
.
(Laeviss subscribes to one polyamorous blogger's definitions of levels of polyamorous partnerships, as below. Laeviss wishes he could remember whose definitions these are, Laeviss didn't compose them:)
Primary: You live with this partner and your finances are intertwined. You make joint decisions on life-altering matters. You may share children, a mortgage, etc. If your primary gets a great job in another state, you say, "When are we moving?"
Secondary: You do not live with this partner, your finances are separate, you do not consult with this partner over life-altering decisions. If your secondary says, "I am moving to another state" you say, "When can I visit?"
Tertiary: Similar to a secondary, but when you move, they say, "It's been nice knowing you."
Now, some polyamorists would have you believe that their sexual and emotional relationships are *all* equal, (and they will vociferously complain when their opinion is contradicted) and that there is no hierarchy involved in polyamory. That is indeed their belief, but it is grounded in the Fantasy Realm. However, a quick glance at the above definitions will show you exactly how this can't possibly, in Reality World, be true.
We simply can't all be primaries to *all* of our lovers unless one makes the choice to live with them all equally, with everyone having equal legal status and equal rights and equal social benefits. (Don't try to tell me you treat all of your partners equally and that there is no hierarchy in your relationships when you bring your legal wife to the high school reunion, and leave your girlfriend at home to take care of the pets. Honestly, one guy in one of the online groups insisted that there was no hierarchy in his polyamorous family triad of himself, his wife and their girlfriend. But then I saw an ad he posted for his business. It featured a picture of himself and his legal wife, and mentioned them both and clearly omitted the girlfriend. As if she didn't exist!)
The point is, there *is* hierarchy in relationships. It's a reality. This isn't Fantasy Realm. If you're going to be polyamorous, you need to deal with that in Reality World.
Now, Laeviss will here be quite truthful, and state that he not only has nothing whatsoever against the hierarchical relationship style described above, he will state that it appears to be his own "default setting," and (should the situation ever arise) Laeviss would, quite enthusiastically, take up residence as one of any number of spouses, with any manner of restrictions, should the Client ever desire it. The key here is truthfulness. Laeviss isn't going to spend a lot of time pretending that a hierarchical relationship is a level playing field.
(Laeviss will here make the disclaimer that although he is pro-polyamory, he is also interested in the realities of polyamory in everyday life, and does not view it through rose-colored lenses.)
No comments:
Post a Comment