Worldcon panel: Polyamory

Polyamory is a popular topic at science fiction conventions because fans tend to consider themselves somewhat more liberal and experimental than most. True though that is to some extent, it's worth noting that such relationships have a long history, dating back to at least Old Testament times in the West and probably much longer in the East. Just to get our terms nailed down before we begin, let me attempt a few working definitions (in the recognition that many will quibble with them):

Polygamy is the practice of allowing multiple marriages within a family-like group. Though it's most familiar to modern Westerners as polygyny (a single husband with multiple wives), polyandry (a single wife with multiple husbands) has also occurred throughout history, most familiarly with pre-Western-contact Polynesian culture. We don't hear much about polyandry these days because in our male-dominated culture, that seems somehow threatening to male privilege. In many cultures (perhaps most), formal legal marriage sometimes devolves into being more about control of a resource (the woman) than it is about the relationship between the two people.

Polyamory is the practice of engaging in two or more loving relationships simultaneously, with the presumption that these relationships may also be sexual—though this is not, in fact, required. Because polygamy is not legal in Western culture, marriage is not the defining feature of a polyamorous relationship, but some form of personal relationship is. Note that polyamory is emphatically not primarily about sexual "threesomes" or "orgies" or other aspects of sexuality, though obviously it can be.

Swinging or promiscuity is about having multiple sexual partners, often based on the assumption that no emotional attachment or relationship is required. For this reason, it's often referred to as "recreational" sex.

Unofficial or semi-official polygamy has existed pretty much forever. Most familiarly to modern Westerners, this has taken the form of a secret "mistress" (there appears to be no male-equivalent word, which says much about the cultural background of the English language). But often, particularly in some European cultures, there has been an official or semi-official or publicly acknowledged and socially sanctioned lover who is not one's legally defined spouse.

Clearly, there is room for overlap in these definitions, particularly since we humans are uniquely good at self-deception about what we're actually doing, since sexual relationships can be important parts of all these forms of "poly", and since (as a culture) we're awfully messed up when it comes to anything related to sex. Also, we tend to be harder to pin down than such simple categories allow for. There are also many flavors of "love". I know of polyamorous relationships in which everyone loves (emotionally, physically, or both) everyone else, relationships in which one person loves two people who don't love but do like each other, tangled emotional triangles that don't really fit my definition of love, and various other permutations of these possibilities. And needless to say, such relationships evolve over time, just like non-loving relationships.

In science fiction, the examples of polyamory most familiar to most readers are probably Robert Heinlein's Lazarus Long stories, most notably Time Enough for Love. During this panel discussion, Candas Jane Dorsey set the record straight by noting that pace Heinlein, who got many things right, he also got many things wrong. Polyamorous relationships suffer from all the same drawbacks (selfishness, boredom, stress, fear, resentment, unspoken and incorrect assumptions) as relationships between couples, and enjoy all the same advantages. In short, they are human relationships like any other, and must be treated as such in fiction, as well as in real life.

One thing that polyamory can potentially do well is to bring to the foreground a lot of things that often remain implicit or explicitly backgrounded in monogamous relationships. Clearly defining one's personal space, dealing with issues of jealousy, and coping with the many details of juggling multiple relationships require ongoing discussion and negotiation. All these details must be dealt with in a monogamous relationship too, and many such relationships fail from a failure to deal, but polyamorous relationships are more difficult simply because you add one or more people to the mix. Relationships take time, and many people have difficulty finding enough time to manage one relationship, let alone two or more. When time is lacking, this creates an additional layer of strain because one or more partners may feel their needs are being neglected; feeling that you're not getting your share of face time increases the jealousy factor, and jealousy that isn't dealt with rapidly and well can become a relationship killer. Jealousy can be about fear ("they like the other person more than they like me, so they could dump me and still be happy") or need ("I barely see you enough as it is, and now you want me to share you with someone?"). Dorsey provided good advice for any relationship: "if you don't ask, you don't get". That is, you need to make your needs and fears known, and find ways to resolve them.

She and other panelists noted that Donald Kingsbury's novel Courtship Rite does a decent job of handling polyamory. I haven't read it, so I won't comment further, other than to note it's on my ever-growing "must read someday" list. I can say that Ursula Leguin has done a universally excellent and often brilliant job of examining the many possible permutations of how men and women can live together well, and I can thoroughly recommend her later works if you're interested in exploring the matter further. Farah Mendlesohn noted that as far as she knew, there were no "young adult" stories about polyamory, so if you think you understand both human relationships and adolescents, perhaps there's a whole new market niche for you to explore.

So that's the theory of polyamory. Does it work in practice? You might as well ask whether marriage or "living together" work, because the answer is the same. Adult relationships require maturity and an ability to avoid deceiving yourself or your partner(s) in the relationship. As a result, some people fail at both monogamy and polyamory; the divorce rate hovers around 50% in most parts of North America (old statistics, so don't quote me on this), so if you want to abuse statistics, you could say that at least 50% of polyamorous relationships are destined to fail. (You could also state, with some justice, that people who are willing to attempt polyamory are less likely to fail because they're more aware of the issues and more open to discussing them. Having seen no statistics, I won't pursue this line of argument any further.)

My experience with polyamorous folk is mixed. I've seen some who convince themselves they're successfully polyamorous when in fact they're just interested in sleeping around. Nothing wrong with that, so long as everyone's in agreement. I've also seen a couple turn to polyamory because of unresolved issues in their own relationship, and it probably won't end well. But some people really do have the maturity and dedication to make polyamory work very well indeed. I find the last of the three categories to be in the minority—but please note that I'm working from a very limited sample size and, my occasional misanthropy notwithstanding, I make no claims to statistical reliability in that claim.

Personally, I'm not sure I have the necessary maturity to enter into such a relationship—not that I've sought or been offered such an opportunity—nor am I sure how I'd respond if the issue arose. This is the kind of question that most people are quite clear they know the answer to—and not having actually had to answer the question, are lying to themselves about just how well they understand their own feelings. I'm honest enough to include myself in this group.

If you're interested in learning more, Beth's polyamory page has some thought-provoking material on the subject, as does the alt.polyamory FAQ on the subject.