Is Polyamory Revolutionary?
The revolutionary breeze that ushered in the 60s carried with it a desire for sexual liberation and emancipation from the bourgeois, patriarchal norm. By calling into question the fundamental unit of society, the nuclear family, rebellious youth hoped to shake the foundations of staid consumerism.
The Sexual Freedom League, a student group at the University of California – Berkeley, organized nude parties and orgies. The Weather Underground tried to "smash monogamy" with bisexuality and rotating sexual partners. And in 1971 Andreas Baader, founder of the Red Army Faction, captured the sentiment of his generation, exclaiming: "The anti-imperialist struggle and sexual emancipation go hand-in-hand, fucking and shooting are the same thing!"
Now, four decades later, we can discern the faint stirrings of a return to the project of sexual liberation. This time, however, it is not under the flag of "free love" but of "polyamory" that the struggle will be waged.
Experiments in free love were not always a success and in retrospect some former participants now admit there was another form of coercion at work. Free love ceased being free and revolutionary the moment it became obligatory. In his 1971 dystopian sci-fi novel, The World Inside, Robert Silverberg conveys this point brilliantly.
Writing in the midst of the sexual revolution, Silverberg imagines a world where an exponentially growing human population lives in mile high sky scrapers. With limited space, their society adopts sexual norms that avoid tension: promiscuity is encouraged, and it is considered anti-social to turn down a sexual advance. Every night, men sleep with their neighbors wives and wives freely switch partners as well. The result is a world of greater apparent freedom – drugs are also legal – sustained by a severe form of social control: those who resist the free love culture disappear.
Sexual liberation as imagined in the 60s was heavily biased towards a vision where sexual energy was freely flowing, all partners essentially equal, and sex something that ought to be shared without restriction. Against this borderless, formless vision of sex another perspective is gaining traction: the "polyamorous" position that maintains it is the tight bounding of a group, whether it be three or four or more, that is revolutionary.
Polyamory is an outgrowth of the free love movement but instead of looking to the orgy as the model for rebellion it is the notion of a tribe that excites their imagination. There are many visions of polyamory, but the one that many find intriguing is a world where partners are not exchangeable, relationships are stable and promiscuity is often frowned on. Whether polyamory means two women and a man, two men and a woman or two couples who share the same bed, the nuclear, patriarchal family is no where to be found.
Can capitalism exist without its foundation of heterosexual monogamy? Is polyamory inherently revolutionary? To all these questions we must answer: capitalism is a master of recuperation. What first shakes it, soon motivates it, later strengthens it. We will never know which tactics bring it down until we try.
To rupture the consumer myth will take more than protests in the streets and boycotts of consumer goods. It'll require a fundamental shift in the structure of society, a revocation of our libidinal investment. Whether that'll take the form of polyamory or simply neighbors getting to know each other remains to be seen.
Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He lives in Berkeley and is writing a book about the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org
160 comments on the article “Is Polyamory Revolutionary?”
Displaying 51 - 60 of 160
Page 6 of 16
dennis_won
The remains of Sexual Liberation in the 60s are only left in the word "sexy",
It changed our way to see human beeings in a more skindeep way.
Nowadays you have to have clear skin, perfect teeth and a perfectly shaped body to be "sexy". It started the race for eternal youth. Another point is that the meant-to-be-liberation only brought some kind of sexual-self-constriction.
Today everyone is a pefect individual and in complete self-control, a result of the meant-to-be-liberation which ends up in the fact that we avoid the loss of control over ourselves. But truly liberated minds have to totaly loose control during sex, this is what defines the perfect sex.....
It's about time to liberate ourselves sexually the right way not as brackish as it the 60s-people did and to overcome the term "sexy" and all its restrictive ideas of perfectness. True beauty lies in the moment of orgasm !!!
dennis_won
The remains of Sexual Liberation in the 60s are only left in the word "sexy",
It changed our way to see human beeings in a more skindeep way.
Nowadays you have to have clear skin, perfect teeth and a perfectly shaped body to be "sexy". It started the race for eternal youth. Another point is that the meant-to-be-liberation only brought some kind of sexual-self-constriction.
Today everyone is a pefect individual and in complete self-control, a result of the meant-to-be-liberation which ends up in the fact that we avoid the loss of control over ourselves. But truly liberated minds have to totaly loose control during sex, this is what defines the perfect sex.....
It's about time to liberate ourselves sexually the right way not as brackish as it the 60s-people did and to overcome the term "sexy" and all its restrictive ideas of perfectness. True beauty lies in the moment of orgasm !!!
Serena Anderlini
interesting article. i would object to the idea that today's polyamory and the 'orgy' or group sex don't get along, perhaps it's the very sense of what group sex is or can be that has changed, because we are more aware of the arts of loving via tantric practices and teachings, and because we have reactivated more sophisticated ways to be erotic, and affectionate, and sensual due to safety and health and the awareness that a free exchange of fluid is not healthy for people, especially when partners are multiple. we are also more familiar w queer sexualities, and everyone is more in tune w being a bit bi and fluid. this has resulted in a sexuality or practice of the arts of loving that is more energetic and nurturing, with more emphasis on pleasure and less on release, and in general more attuned to the yoni, the ying, and what women typically enjoy. in my Gaia and the New Politics of Love i offer a section on "Navigting the Orgy." on Amazon.com:http://www.amazon.com/Gaia-New-Politics-Love-Planet/dp/1556438214/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280656118&sr=1-1 see also Poly Planet GAIA, http://polyplanet.blogspot.com
Serena Anderlini
interesting article. i would object to the idea that today's polyamory and the 'orgy' or group sex don't get along, perhaps it's the very sense of what group sex is or can be that has changed, because we are more aware of the arts of loving via tantric practices and teachings, and because we have reactivated more sophisticated ways to be erotic, and affectionate, and sensual due to safety and health and the awareness that a free exchange of fluid is not healthy for people, especially when partners are multiple. we are also more familiar w queer sexualities, and everyone is more in tune w being a bit bi and fluid. this has resulted in a sexuality or practice of the arts of loving that is more energetic and nurturing, with more emphasis on pleasure and less on release, and in general more attuned to the yoni, the ying, and what women typically enjoy. in my Gaia and the New Politics of Love i offer a section on "Navigting the Orgy." on Amazon.com:http://www.amazon.com/Gaia-New-Politics-Love-Planet/dp/1556438214/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280656118&sr=1-1 see also Poly Planet GAIA, http://polyplanet.blogspot.com
Anonymous
Polyamory won't work. We are becoming a matriarchical society. Women are out earning men, they are getting more degrees, and they are wielding all the power in the relationships nowadays. Just turn on the television, watch a few sitcoms and commercials and tell me I'm wrong. Men are now the new dependents. Women feeling their increased sense of power will not use that power, like men, to have as many mates as possible; rather, they will use that dominance to land a good man and then control that man as much as she can. This whole polyamory debate, therefore, is completely irrelevant. It fails to ignore the basic reality of the modern day relationship and what it has become in the year 2010.
Anonymous
Polyamory won't work. We are becoming a matriarchical society. Women are out earning men, they are getting more degrees, and they are wielding all the power in the relationships nowadays. Just turn on the television, watch a few sitcoms and commercials and tell me I'm wrong. Men are now the new dependents. Women feeling their increased sense of power will not use that power, like men, to have as many mates as possible; rather, they will use that dominance to land a good man and then control that man as much as she can. This whole polyamory debate, therefore, is completely irrelevant. It fails to ignore the basic reality of the modern day relationship and what it has become in the year 2010.
Anonymous
Masculinity is under fire in this decade.
Masulinistic movements are forth coming.
soon Peter Griffin (the stupid incapable male role model) will join the minstrel as an symbol of oppression
However, never forget:
to be tread on you must first lay down.
also, read Bertrand Russells: 'of Marriage and Morals' if you want a clearer idea of the differences between a patriarchy and a matriarchy. unless you wanna start some arguments dealing with terminology rather than ideas
as for the polyamory debate, all us young people are doing it. All us young people will soon be the old people. the norm. The old lamies.
sounds pretty relevant to me.
polyamory is a great system as long as everybody's good at not falling in love.
which most people are these days.
but these "open relationships" still tend to have the oppresser and the oppressed. Since the sleeping around usually strengthens this dichotomy, it just fucks with people more.
assuming that emotional attachment gets involved
which it often does
Anonymous
Masculinity is under fire in this decade.
Masulinistic movements are forth coming.
soon Peter Griffin (the stupid incapable male role model) will join the minstrel as an symbol of oppression
However, never forget:
to be tread on you must first lay down.
also, read Bertrand Russells: 'of Marriage and Morals' if you want a clearer idea of the differences between a patriarchy and a matriarchy. unless you wanna start some arguments dealing with terminology rather than ideas
as for the polyamory debate, all us young people are doing it. All us young people will soon be the old people. the norm. The old lamies.
sounds pretty relevant to me.
polyamory is a great system as long as everybody's good at not falling in love.
which most people are these days.
but these "open relationships" still tend to have the oppresser and the oppressed. Since the sleeping around usually strengthens this dichotomy, it just fucks with people more.
assuming that emotional attachment gets involved
which it often does
Anonymous
I still think that we (women) have a long way to go in becoming equal, You stated that women are out earning men, well that's simply not true, How many women do you honestly see in the upper echelon of politics, or CEOs earning the real big bucks? Women still make on average about 7% less then men, If you are Canadian you can access the Candian Census data and see for youself Men are still making significantly more then women. Women also have a harder time finding a job after obtaining thier degrees that you speak of, and often have to start in lower postions then men. Do yourself a favor and double check before posting.
Cheers
Anonymous
I still think that we (women) have a long way to go in becoming equal, You stated that women are out earning men, well that's simply not true, How many women do you honestly see in the upper echelon of politics, or CEOs earning the real big bucks? Women still make on average about 7% less then men, If you are Canadian you can access the Candian Census data and see for youself Men are still making significantly more then women. Women also have a harder time finding a job after obtaining thier degrees that you speak of, and often have to start in lower postions then men. Do yourself a favor and double check before posting.
Cheers
Pages
Add a new comment