The collective imagination is built on the idea of monogamous relationships, of love as a couple, despite the fact that desire and affections actually function differently. Who has not been attracted to other people despite being in a relationship or has found it difficult to choose just one of those they liked? Statistics confirm that strict monogamy is a minority; Hence the need to understand the alternative of multiple infatuation from a scientific perspective.
Something is wrong in the almost universally widespread culture of Noah’s Ark, based on pairing, for other options to emerge, such as polyamory to polyamory , born in the USA in the 1960s. The followers of this current, constituted in a true movement with its theoretical principles and its leaders, believe that a relationship composed of more than two people is normal, inherent in human nature, as respectable as monogamy and that it has been present in many eras, although almost always in a hidden way, because social conventions sanctioned it. But even so, there have been famous and rebellious people, such as the English poet Shelley, the writers Anaïs Nin and Simone de Beauvoir and the philosopher Bertrand Russell, who dared to openly opt for a multiple relationship as a life option.
But can you love two people at the same time and not go crazy? According to the polyamorous, yes. Terisa Greenan, one of its promoters, lives with two men, who are in love with each other. This American director and actress is the author of the twenty-one-episode semi-autobiographical serial Family: the Web Series, where she explores the relationship of a trio of characters – two men and one woman – who live in Seattle. For Greenan, the key for this type of link to work “is that each of those involved has to know about the existence of the other –or others–. And there can be no ranks, that is, no one is the first, and no one is the second. Thus, rivalries do not occur, because neither is jealous of the other. Everyone knows that they bring different things to the relationship. “
A growing phenomenon
Another acquaintance who has publicly declared her polyamorous militancy is the English actress and model Tilda Swinton, who shares her bed and her heart with two men. But the movement is not just a celebrity thing. According to the latest research, at least 5 % of the American population is immersed in some type of non-monogamous love relationship; in Spain, the figures could be similar. This indicates that society is progressively opening up to links and coexistence options beyond the traditional couple.
Let us take the case of two real subjects that we will call Andrés and María, so as not to reveal their identity. Until a few years ago, they were a conventional couple, like so many others. Today, after many conversations and agreements, they define themselves as polyamorous. Maria proposed to open the relationship when she discovered that she was also in love with another woman. Andrés agreed to change the framework in which the couple developed and, shortly after, began to go out with an office colleague, a friend of María. This, for her part, ended the first relationship and has established a new bond with another man.
Andrés and María meet the other colleagues and, in fact, the relationship has been close to becoming a trio, since they have shared vacations and have come to consider living like this. For Maria, the success of the formula is communication: “Polyamory requires more words than the traditional relationship. We spend a lot of time explaining ourselves, telling others about our feelings. But it is worth it. Now I know what is happening in everything moment, whereas before, when I was alone with Andrés, I was not sure “.
Sincerity is key to avoiding the conventional couple’s modus operandi, in which infidelity may exist, but is hidden. In fact, monogamy, as already mentioned, is not as common as it is claimed. According to a survey carried out by Sondea in 2001 in Spain, a third of those interviewed, both men and women, had been unfaithful at some time. But when asked if they would have an affair outside the couple knowing for sure that they were not going to be discovered, the percentage of potential infidels rose to 50 %.
Two versions of the story
We believe that we are monogamous because of the ability to deceive ourselves about our incoherence. The materialistic anthropologists explained it on the basis of the discrepancies between the EMIC and the ETIC point of view. Marvin Harris (1927-2001), professor of Anthropology at the universities of Columbia and Florida and one of the scientists of the current of cultural materialism, thought that every social phenomenon has two versions: that of the protagonists (EMIC) and that of the external observers (ETIC). Obviously, these two points of view do not have to coincide. The members of the society agree on a way of seeing each situation that does not necessarily have to correspond to the real data.
On the subject of infidelity, a researcher who adopts the ETIC point of view will collect figures and come to the conclusion that it is a widespread practice. However, if you approach it from an EMIC angle, you will ask the members of a certain culture and come to the conclusion that monogamy is normal and that sexual encounters outside the couple are due to some problem in the relationship or in behavior. of the unfaithful person.
Why do we hold both points of view even though they are antagonistic? According to Harris, both can be explained by adaptive and cultural survival reasons at a given historical moment. Certain functions of the traditional close couple – ensuring sexuality, maintaining authority when spouses become parents, increasing the likelihood that inheritance will be passed on to people with whom genes are shared … – made a lot of sense in the past . But one wonders if they are still important today.
And what happens in nature?
On the other hand, in The Myth of Monogamy, David Barash, a psychologist at the University of Washington and an expert in animal behavior, and Judith Eve Lipton, a psychiatrist at the Swedish Medical Center in Washington, question the idea that fidelity is more than just a social issue. Both authors cite numerous examples showing that in nature, sexual exclusivity is almost non-existent. Although the apparent behavior of certain species has led some biologists to argue that fidelity exists, DNA tests say otherwise. There are animals, especially birds, that are socially monogamous, but none of them maintain full sexual fidelity. Even those most cited as species that live in stable pairs, such as geese and swans, are truly unfaithful, a study from the University of Melbourne proved. It is as if that difference between a monogamous behavior at the EMIC level and a promiscuous reality from the ETIC point of view was a constant in all of nature.
Barash and Lipton say that, in evolutionary terms, males of any species should spread their sperm as much as possible to ensure the transmission of their genes. Therefore, their bodies – hormones and the brain, the basis of behavior – are designed for promiscuity and are easily excitable by novel stimuli. And according to both experts, something similar happens to the females of some species, for example, to women; if not, certain physical traits that seem destined for them to have many sexual partners would not be explicable.
So why is this biological tendency to erotic variety so hard to pull out of the closet? The answer is simple: sexual jealousy. For Barash and Lipton, “the instinct that leads to being promiscuous is natural, but the tendency to hate that your partner does the exact same thing is also natural.” And that’s the main argument against the real possibility of polyamory: the difficulty in controlling jealousy.
Swedes are made
In 2005, the mobile phone company Halebop conducted a survey on respect for the privacy of communications between Swedish couples. The researchers were surprised to find that 64 % secretly read SMS or spying on messages from their spouse’s mailbox when they went to the bathroom, while they slept or if they forgot their mobile, and almost always at night. In short, Swedish lovers, despite belonging to a culture scrupulously respectful of freedom, act like those of any other country and are carried away by jealousy. In addition, with treachery and nocturnality, because it is assumed that that feeling does not belong to his repertoire. In fact, when asked why they violated the privacy of others, the most common answer was that they did so out of curiosity. Only a quarter confessed that they were motivated by jealousy.
In southern Europe, the phenomenon is more readily admitted. In a survey by the Complutense University of Madrid directed by the professor of Psychology Florencio Jiménez Burillo, the 40 % of the interviewees confessed to feeling a lot of jealousy; the 30th %, quite a few; a 20 % said that some; and only one in ten people claimed to be free from the sin of suspicion. In sum, this possessive instinct is an obstacle to the multi-love relationship.
Another difficulty for polyamory is how difficult it can be to manage the organization of daily life. If the coexistence between two is complex – it is said that “a couple is two people who come together to dedicate all their time to solving problems that they would not have if they were not together” -, when it is three, organize agendas, distribute responsibilities –For example, taking care of children– or deciding what to do with free time requires making bobbin lace.
It is hard but not impossible
Despite everything, there are people willing to face obstacles in order to move forward with the relationship. Controlling jealousy requires a great deal of self-control, as we learn from the English philosopher Bertrand Russell and the aristocrat Lady Ottoline Morrell, who formed one of the most interesting couples of the early 20th century. Their relationship was always complex and passionate, and they tried to find a balance between their possessive instinct and their rational convictions of freedom.
Morrell was married and maintained an intense social life with the artists of the so-called Bloomsbury group, with Aldous Huxley, with Winston Churchill … When she started dating Russell, he asked her to leave sex with her husband, to distance himself from the writer Lytton Strachey and getting involved in fewer projects – she was a very active and dynamic woman – so as not to take time and energy out of their relationship. But, little by little, the philosopher realized that his jealousy was in contradiction with his ideas. In Marriage and morals he wrote: “A life cannot be founded on fear, prohibition and the mutual interference of freedom. There is no doubt that mutual jealousy generates more misfortune in the couple than trust in the ultimate force of an affection deep and permanent “. So he decided to use the zealotry force to become a better person. In his letters we see that he avoided comparison and instead tried to accentuate his own qualities in order to become more and more autonomous and creative. He used the jealousy he felt as a driving force to write and thus become an irreplaceable being for Morrell.
The correspondence reflects that his instinct for possession drove him to be more authentic. It was his tactic for becoming someone special: the more he felt himself, the more he knew he was unique to the other person. Thus the danger of being replaced by potential rivals transcended. The feeling of alarm acted as a stimulant to explore her own personality.
As for the logistical problem posed by daily three or four-way life, the essential thing is that those involved are able to negotiate and reach agreements. You need the ability to resolve conflicts assertively, that is, communicating without trying to impose yourself on the other, without aggressiveness but also avoiding submission.
Various formats
Starting from this communication base, there are those who mark specific days to be all together and others who alternate to live in pairs equally. Or they leave it to chance but knowing that the distribution will be fair. Some share a flat, others live in separate houses and there are those who only get together to travel.
Of course, the management of jealousy, the stress of more complex logistics and the marking of society always weigh, but that happens with minority movements. The studies of the French psychologist Serge Moscovici , director of the European Laboratory of Social Psychology, on people who defend non-majority positions show that, if they resist the climate of pressure towards different people, they can turn their option into something accepted when this part of coherence and the trust. Will there be, in the future, many subjects who openly live polyamorous relationships?
