Polyamory and Human Rights

Polygyny occupies that space in international human rights law, and with pressure to apply it in the same way to Canada's legal interpretations as well. The basis of the argument is that polygyny puts women in a risky situation without equitable marriage rights (Kelly, 2007), even in Canada's more friendly legal structure.

So, what does this have to do with polyamory? Well, the knee-jerk reaction from the rest of the world would be to see the superficial similarities between polygyny and polyamory: multiple partnerships. Though the distinctions are quite limited, with polyamory identifying with a much more egalitarian and equitable gendered framework than polygyny. This goes as far as to even identify critiques of monogamy as having some similar women-repressive characteristics that polygyny has (Kelly, 2007), though to a lesser degree.

So then, if polygyny is on the far end of the misogynistic scale, monogamy somewhere in the middle, and polyamory on the equitibility end, does that mean there's a legitimate human rights argument in favor of state or national-level endorsement of polyamory?

I hate to say this, but I believe the answer is ultimately 'no.'

The human rights angle is informative, but doesn't address root-problems, it just takes a historical and, honestly, a stereotypical sample of the intention behind a relationship form, and attempts to put a human rights value judgement on it. Consider that some polygynous arrangements could be more egalitarian than some monogamous or polyamorous arrangements. There's an individual character of the relationship itself that is lost when assessing at a simply structural level when family is involved.

It's important to allow room for a multitude of configurations, however opening up the law to just simply allow whatever kind of partnership is just as problematic. The issue boils down to this: Policy, group narrative and individual behavior are co-reinforcing. The narrative of monogamy, polyamory, polygyny/polygamy is already present, people are forming their relationships around these structures.

In the case of monogamy it's fairly cut-n-dry, tons of laws and structures in place to support a monogamous couple, and TONS of social, policy, and other resources available to direct the couple towards particular behaviors, ideally behaviors that encourage equity. This is despite being based on an ownership-orientation structure, where the man owns the woman, exampled partially by how the woman takes on the man's surname, a changing custom.

Polyamory is similar in how the internal culture treats it. Polyamory lacks the support of policy and the larger cultural narrative, but it's structural foundation is based on very modern ideas, including human rights equality. In a lot of ways this is why polyamory is able to continue operating, because it's based in modern concepts of relationship polyamory is able to 'blend' with the modern-day norms.

Polygyny, on the other hand, is very strongly rooted in an ownership-orientation structure, and it also lacks the support of the culture at-large, to the point of laws being made to specifically counter it.

Yet we're back to the original problem, how can structure be a factor in relationship equity? Well, it can and it can't. Again, it depends on the individuals. There is, however, a relationship between the larger social structure and policy to help frame individual's relationship to being in relation.

One of the interesting balancing points between human rights and multiculturalism is where belief is differentiated from practice. I.E. Multiculturalism can only be accepted to the point where one person's right to multiculturalism doesn't infringe on another person's right. Things such as safety can interfere in individual's multicultural rights (Kelly, 2007).

This all puts polyamory on a very precarious edge. On one side, polyamory has a strong, and modern, human rights foundation to fall back on, polyamorous individuals have a great many internal resources that have been built from modern ethical frameworks to construct their relationships by. Yet on the other hand, the potential comparison's between polyamory and polygyny make it unavoidable to accuse polyamory as having the same potential issues that polygyny has.

Yet on the other end of the spectrum we have monogamy, which consists of an ownership-oriented foundation, covered by modern ethics.

So what happens now?

References: (Author Note: I kept the references light tonight, law and policy are still fresh turfs for me, so I don't have much to work with)

Kelly, L. (2007). Bringing international human rights law home: An evaluation of Canada’s family law treatment of polygamy.University of Toronto Faculty Law Review, 65(1), 1-38. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from OmniFile Full Text Select database.

Anthropology and Non-Monogamy

The allowance of multi-partner marriage, as well as the creation of social support services for these arrangements in addition for current monogamous heterosexual marriage support services has the potential to create a greater social bond, stabilize population growth, and improve women's rights.

Non-monogamy has been shown, anthropologically, to strengthen the social bonds between individuals and a society. These increased social bonds also help to promote a more communally-oriented sharing arrangements, where resources, workload, and even parenting, is distributed (Ryan & Jetha, 2010). This kind of arrangement has many similarities to polyamorous families of today. From a familial level, the family has more resources, and a distribution of workload, including child care (Sheff, 2010; Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010; Easton & Hardy, 2009).

In addition, non-monogamous cultures tend have less of a power struggle amongst males of the group. When sex is freely available for men, they tend to 'make love, not war' (Ryan & Jetha, 2010). This improves women's social influence, and when women have a stronger place in society the national replacement rate gets closer to the optimal 2.1 children per women (Goldberg, 2009).

As we live in a mono-normative patriarchal western world, it's not like we can just flip a switch and say "Ok everyone, you can be poly now." and it will all change overnight. Existing in a mono-normative society means that the general population will still see monogamy is the 'normal' and 'natural' option for relationships. The goal, then, should be to normalize multi-partner relationships to be at the same level as monogamous relationships. This requires many of the same services and legislation that the LGBT community has, anti-discrimination laws, community and support services, legal allowance for multi-partner marriage for taxes, insurance benefits, visitation rights, parenting, etc.

It's one of those things that'll take a long time, but will have an impact.

References:

Easton, D. & Hardy, J. (2009). The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open relationships & other adventures. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts.

Goldberg, M. (2009). Skirting the issue; Debates about population growth are missing the point: Women need more control over their fertility and lives. Los Angeles Times, A-34. Retrieved from ProQuest Database on June 19, 2010.

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). 'To pass, border or pollute': Polyfamilies go to school. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 182-187). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ryan, A. & Jetha, C. (2010). Sex at dawn: The prehistoric origins of modern sexuality. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Sheff, E. (2010). Strategies in polyamorous parenting. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 169-181). New York, NY: Routledge.

Politicizing Polyamory

What if polyamory were a political ideology? What if non-monogamy was a civil and human liberty? How would polyamorous people act, in regards to their partners, their government, their families, and themselves? What would be the challenges, the losses and the victories that would happen?

This is a hard question to get an answer for, and one that the polyamory community is reluctant to step in to. Polyamory has been sold as a 'personal development' trend, de-politicized and about the self. Polyamorous people tend to favor a 'get the state out of my hair, I'll handle it myself' approach, looking to minimize the spotlight cast on them (Wilkinson, 2010; Aviram, 2010). When poly families have children this is over-emphasized to the point of sometimes deceiving and hiding their lifestyle from their children (Pallota-Chiarolli, 2010).

Yet the vitalness of political involvement is growing, as more people take an overt approach to being polyamorous (Pallota-Chiarolli, 2010),and as academic scrutiny on this badly neglected topic begins to rise (Barker & Langdridge, 2010; Frank & DeLamater, 2010; Anapol, 2009; Easton & Hardy, 2010) the political ramifications are unavoidable. Counter-political opinion is beginning to strongly come forward (Kurtz, 2003) and will need to be responded to. Polyamory is becoming political whether the community likes it or not.

This doesn't have to be a contentious move however, and indeed the possibilities for migrating polyamory from just being a personal development philosophy and practice, to being a political ideology, and even a larger ethical philosophy, has tremendous benefits. Firstly, there is an opportunity to really dialog on the mono-normativity that underpinns our relationships. There's ample evidence out there showing how monogamy is *not* a human predisposition but instead a statistical rarity (Ryan & Jetha, 2010; Walsh, 2006). Additionally there's ample evidence that polyamorous families are more economically viable and provide more resources for raising children (Sheff, 2010; Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010; Riggs, 2010). With the state of the world economy in the kind of crisis it is, for economic reasons alone polyamory makes sense. Why then, truly, is our society holding on to this monogamous norm? Bringing polyamory in to the political sphere allows for a discussion on that very thing.

And indeed, in Canada the discussion has begun. On April 13, 2011, attorney John Ince, representing the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, delivered closing arguments to the supreme court of British Columbia in the case testing Canada's anti-polygamy law. This presents a historical breakthrough in challenging the validity of law built around mono-normativity.

Yet, it's still a terrifying thing to truly consider the full range of consequences that could come of public action. One doesn't have to look far into the past to see the layers of persecution that the civil rights, feminist, and LGBT movements have suffered from in order to get the rights they have. I would challenge those fears however. For as long as polyamorists remain de-politicised we run the risk of having our liberty taken from us and our families. Situations such as the Divlbliss's case (Melby, 2007) run the risk of being rampant.

Polyamorists have a long, hard road towards equity, however in embracing the now-growing political nature of polyamory there remains the possibility of social transformation and the redefinition of a core social value (monogamy) to something more egalitarian.

References: (Author side-note. If anyone can double-check my APA here, it would be appreciated.)

Anapol, D. (2010). Polyamory in the 21st century: Love and intimacy with multiple partners. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Aviram, H. (2010). Geeks, goddesses, and green eggs: Political mobilization and the cultural locus of the polyamorous community in the San Francisco bay area. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 87-93). New York, NY: Routledge.

Barker, M. & Langdridge, D. (2010). Introduction. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 3-8). New York, NY: Routledge.

Easton, D. & Hardy, J. (2009). The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open relationships & other adventures. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts.

Frank, K. & DeLamater, J. (2010). Deconstructing monogamy: Boundaries, identities, and fluidities across relationships. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 9-20). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kurtz, S. (2003). Beyond gay marriage: The road to polyamory. The Weekly Standard, 8(45). Retrieved April 21, 2011, from LexisNexis Academic.

Melby, T. (2007). Open relationships, open lives. Contemporary Sexuality, 41(1), 1, 4-6.

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). 'To pass, border or pollute': Polyfamilies go to school. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 182-187). New York, NY: Routledge.

Riggs, D. (2010). 'Developing a 'responsible' foster care praxis: Poly as a framework for examining power and propriety in family contexts. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 188-198). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ryan, A. & Jetha, C. (2010). Sex at dawn: The prehistoric origins of modern sexuality. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Sheff, E. (2010). Strategies in polyamorous parenting. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 169-181). New York, NY: Routledge.

Walsh, A. (2006). Polygyny. In E. J. Haeberle, V. L. Bullough & B. Bullough (Eds.) Human sexuality: An encyclopedia (pp. 468-469). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Wilkinson, E. (2010). What's queer about non-monogamy now?. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 243-254). New York, NY: Routledge.

Normative Pathologization of Non-Monogamy

As most people who've lived a ploy lifestyle and have gotten traditional psychotherapeutic help will attest to, non-monogamy is not looked well on in the medical profession. There's a normative assumption that non-monogamy is a pathology that's connected to intimacy and relational issues (Samuels, 2010). Yet the larger issue is the research that therapists use to back their assumptions about sexual exclusivity. Most classic research is based on mono-normative concepts such as monogamy and traditional fidelity. If the underlying basis of the research is founded on the normative 'naturalness' of monogamy, then there's really no other conclusion than to pathologize non-monogamy.

So, how accurate is the norm that monogamy is natural for humans? There's plenty of contention towards that idea, firstly because only about 16% of cultures have been monogamous through history (Walsh, 2006), secondly because there are cultures in modern times that openly practice non-monogamy, and there's evolutionary evidence correlating human behavior to bonobo behavior, a non-monogamous species (Ryan & Jetha, 2010).

The end result is we have norms that are based on concepts about human nature that are, if not invalid, certinently up for stronger scrutiny. These norms then inform scientific studies that use mono-normativity as the basis for their conclusions.

I see a rather large inequity and discrimination issue here.

References:

Ryan, A. & Jetha, C. (2010). Sex at dawn: The prehistoric origins of modern sexuality. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Samuels, A. (2010). Promiscuities: Politics, imagination, spirituality and hypocrisy. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 212-221). New York, NY: Routledge.

Walsh, A. (2006). Polygyny. In E. J. Haeberle, V. L. Bullough & B. Bullough (Eds.) Human sexuality: An encyclopedia (pp. 468-469). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Diversity Within Non-Monogamy

There's an uncomfortable normativity that exists within non-monogamy, and it's eerily consistent with the mono-normative culture. Non-Monogamy can project an image consistent with mono-normativity in many ways, with the exception of being non-monogamous (Willey, 2010). This is understanding for the community projecting themselves outward, but the internal dialog within the community exists as surprisingly white, straight or bi, and without distinction for other lifestyle choices (ex. BDSM, religion, etc).

Yet there's a phenomenal range of non-monogamous individuals with, sometimes exceptionally surprising, backgrounds and experiences. Among these are also different individual needs in terms of discrimination (policy issues, community support needs, ideal relationship structures, etc. To touch on a few, there are populations of transgendered polys, who's sexual identity is as fluid as their relationships (Richards, 2010), gay and bisexual Mormon non-monogamists who experience non-monogamy as a strictly sexual and desire-fulfilling behavior (Montenegro, 2010), Queer BDSM non-monogamists, who's interaction with non-monogamy works with their BDSM practices (Bauer, 2010), individuals with disability who are poly, who's disabilities create unique practical and cultural challenges for their lifestyle (Iantaffi, 2010), even asexual polyamorists, who clearly delineate between sexuality and love/intimacy (Scherrer, 2010).

Looking within the non-monogamous community, there's another exceptional level of variation in terms of practice and style. Gay men, who tend to focus more on dyadic coupling with sexual non-monogamous relationships (Adam, 2010), Swingers, who largely consider themselves monogamous despite the non-monogamy sexual interactions they have (McDonald, 2010; Phillips, 2010), San Francisco bay area polyamorists, who basically wrote the manual on totally opening up to non-monogamy (Aviram, 2010; Easton & Hardy, 2009; Anapol, 2010). Even in how young women frame their sexual relationships fits into the non-monogamy framework (Lavie-Ajayi, Jones & Russell, 2010).

Yet none of the unique features of any of these communities is really all that unique, they are just more prevalent. Yet the internal polyamorist dialog is still normative. This is an unfortunate consequence of straddling the dual-culture line. Between an overwhelming mono-normative culture and an upstarting poly-normative culture. There's a strong desire for individual assimilation, especially in cases where children are involved. With children involvement, poly parents have a great concern on how the stigma and discrimination (both individual and cultural) will affect their children, and also their relationship to their children (Sheff, 2010; Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010). This is extremely understandable considering the power that the current mono-normative culture possesses, fears such as having one's children taken away (Anapol, 2010; Nearing, 2000; Melby, 2007).

However, it seems that the community takes normative assimilation a bit too far in the level of acknowledgement that other variations on polyamory, and non-monogamy in general, face. (Willey). It strikes me rather profoundly that maybe the community is trying a little too hard to conform and fit within the mono-normative culture for acceptance, and may risk loosing not only their identity as non-monogamists, but also risk setting the bar so high on non-monogamy that it will burn us into exhaustion.

References: (Yes I know, I cited a LOT)

Adam, B. D. (2010). Relationship innovation in male couples. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 55-69). New York, NY: Routledge.

Anapol, D. (2010). Polyamory in the 21st century: Love and intimacy with multiple partners. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Aviram, H. (2010). Geeks, goddesses, and green eggs: Political mobilization and the cultural locus of the polyamorous community in the San Francisco bay area. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 87-93). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bauer, R. (2010). Non-monogamy in queer BDSM communities: Putting the sex back into alternative relationship practices and discourse. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 142-153). New York, NY: Routledge.

Easton, D. & Hardy, J. (2009). The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open relationships & other adventures. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts.

Iantiaffi, A. (2010). Disability and polyamory: Exploring the edges of inter-dependence, gender and queer issues in non-monogamous relationships. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 160-165). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lavie-Ajayi, M., Jones, C., & Russell, L. (2010). Social sex: Young women and early sexual relationships. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 94-105). New York, NY: Routledge.

McDonald, D. (2010). Swinging: Pushing the boundaries of monogamy?. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 70-81). New York, NY: Routledge.

Melby, T. (2007). Open relationships, open lives. Contemporary Sexuality, 41(1), 1, 4-6.

Montenegro, J. M. (2010). 'Many partners, many friends': Gay and bisexual Mormon men's views of non-monogamous relationships. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 134-141). New York, NY: Routledge.

Nearing, R. (2000) Polyamory demography: The 'loving more magazine' study. Retrieved from http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/nearing.html.

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). 'To pass, border or pollute': Polyfamilies go to school. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 182-187). New York, NY: Routledge.

Phillips, S. (2010). There were three in bed: Discursive desire and the sex lives of swingers. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 82-86). New York, NY: Routledge.

Richards, C. (2010). Trans and non-monogamies. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 121-133). New York, NY: Routledge.

Scherrer, K. S. (2010). Asexual relationships: What does asexuality have to do with polyamory?. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 154-159). New York, NY: Routledge.

Sheff, E. (2010). Strategies in polyamorous parenting. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 169-181). New York, NY: Routledge.

Willey, A. (2010). 'Science says she's gotta have it': Reading for racial resonances in women-centered poly literature. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 34-45). New York, NY: Routledge.

A Shifting Sexual Identity Within Non-Monogamy

Polyamory creates one of the most unique and innovative opportunities for individuals to create their own way of relating to their gender, and the gender of others. A polyamorous individual has more opportunity and option to break out of the binary masculine/feminine gender norms of today's world and allows for a more dynamic, nuanced, and individual understanding of gender. As Richards (2010) identifies within Transgendered communities, Trans people are able to develop more dynamic and unique gender interactions that allow for a much larger range of gendered experiences for these individuals. I would argue Richards point a step further and say that non-monogamy allows space for traditional gender roles to cease applicability all together.

In a traditional monogamous dyad, it is almost intuitive to fall into dyadic binaries (male/female, masculine/feminine, career-oriented/family-oriented), especially since in many cases *someone* in the relationship still needs to cover one aspect of the binary. In polyamorous structures there allows for more variation on this. For example, as a man if I were in a triad relationship with another man and woman I would be able to, as a man, experience my sexuality in relation to another man AND/OR another woman. I would not be monogamously linked to a static concept of gendered interaction.

Expanding this example farther, if I was in a 5-person relationship (a pentad?) with two men and two women, and I was gender fluid I could experience my sexuality as either male or female, and match it to different experiences with different individuals. Expand on this even more and assume that everyone has the possibility for gender fluidity, just imagine the possible combinations that could exist, that could NOT exist in monogamous society.

Yet there's still the issue of social acceptance. Polyamory is clearly not accepted by the larger society, and transgendered is barely reaching acceptability. Richards identifies a dynamic between the individual and the culture as being self-reinforcing on identity issues. Richards puts this in context to the level of acceptance to fluid sexuality that polyamory provides for trans individuals. Richards also implies that this can be expanded (and reversed) to identify ways in which sexual fluidity is stifled in the larger society, as well as how that can create identity issues within trans individuals. It's easy to see how Richards assessments can be expanded to polyamory in general.

References:

Richards, C. (2010). Trans and non-monogamy. In M. Barker & D. Langdridge (Eds.) Understanding non-monogamies (pp. 120-133). New York, NY: Routledge.