Is two (or more) better than one?

In his famous novel The Manuscript Found at Saragossa, Polish Enlightenment figure Count Jan Potocki has one of his characters offer a criticism of chivalry, a practice of medieval origin whereby young noblemen offered homage to a (usually) married noblewoman in an exclusive arrangement.

Potocki’s character says: “These exchanges were indeed in no way guilty, but their effect was to interest the female heart in a man who was destined never to possess her, and to weaken feelings for the man to whom her person and heart belonged.”

In an age and setting in which many marriages were arranged, often for political purposes, this practice recognized one important thing: that the human heart was capable of romantically loving more than one person at a time.

However, according to the philosophy of polyamory, this system, despite its intentions, fell short because it would not allow those loves to ever become fully realized. It still demanded
institutionalized limitations on expression.

Society is long past the age of chivalry, but, at least in the West, monogamy is still by and large the norm. Some couples may allow each other a distant celebrity crush or joke about extramarital attractions, but actually acting on such desires would still be taboo. Indeed, it would be tantamount to cheating.

So what is polyamory all about? Why does it claim to be an ethical alternative to monogamy? How does it allow multiple loves to coexist in a fully realized state?

The long answer is complex. The short answer is simple: Polyamory is predicated on both communication and permission. In polyamorous relationships all parties are on board, and that’s what makes it ethical.

Practitioners of polyamory eschew the notion that there is only one true love for any one person.

According to the website morethanone.com: “This is the ‘scarcity model’ of love—the notion that love is rare, that we can only have one true love, and that once we meet that one true love, the part[s] of our brains which take notice of other people suddenly and mysteriously shut off.”

On the other hand, “Being polyamorous does not give you license to make like a bunny in heat,” the website continues. “A polyamorous relationship isn’t about sex; it’s about building a romantic relationship with more than one person at a time.”

So what about the sex? If that doesn’t matter, couldn’t any emotional bond of love be considered polyamorous?

The website states that “if no sex is involved, then what you have is a monogamous
relationship where the couple has other friends. It is, in a sense, the fact that sex is involved that defines polyamory as distinct from monogamy.”

It is the full spectrum of romantic involvement that makes polyamory different from friendship, and the multiplicity and equality of partners that sets it apart from monogamy, polygamy, bigamy or just plain cheating.

Polyamory can take many forms. In some cases it may resemble polygamy, to which it is often erroneously compared. In others it might be two or more couples who choose to open their relationship(s) to the other(s).

Marriage may or may not be involved in these situations. And while polyamory may involve group sex, it certainly doesn’t have to. Individual relationships still matter—perhaps they matter the most.

The form polyamory takes is essentially defined by those involved in the situation.
Etymologically, the word polyamory is a combination of the Greek “poly,” meaning “many,” and the Latin “amor,” meaning “love.” That leaves the definition fairly ambiguous.

The most important part of polyamorous practice is setting rules. That doesn’t mean a strict, regimented lifestyle like the military or the cloister. It only means that everyone involved in a polyamorous relationship understands the parameters. It means that everyone is consulted when an issue arises or when a new partner is being considered.

Naturally, emotions and jealousies can be part of the package. The website cautions: “If you treat your lovers as though they are interchangeable, they’ll be jealous. If you don’t take care to make your lovers feel wanted or needed, they’ll be jealous. If you aren’t careful to make it clear to all of your partners that you value them, you won’t keep any of them for long.”

If that sounds like a lot to deal with, understand that people who practice polyamory don’t claim that it is superior to monogamy, just that it is an ethical alternative to it, one that solves many problems, such as cheating, by demanding communication and permission. It’s not for everyone but is rewarding for those for whom it works.

Portland has an active poly scene. One website, portlandpoly.org, has resources for practitioners and the curious alike. Some groups are for general interest, others for the under-35 crowd, and others still for appetites for fetish and BDSM. One can attend potlucks, “munches,” meet-ups and info sessions—whatever seems the most comfortable.

Polyamory may not have been a term Jan Potocki had in the late 18th century, but one of his other characters more or less describes it when speaking longingly to two women: “It is always claimed that one can only truly love one woman. This is indisputably false, because I love the two of you equally. My heart does not distinguish in any way between you. You both reign there in common.”