Polyamory - why doesn't it surprise me?

[moonlite]

I've stopped to read Steve blog for some time, visiting it only occasionally.

Now I came to see a new thread of his path and I got interested in the reactions of people. They vary but many of the readers seem shocked even revolted by the idea as if it was something they didn't expected. Frankly, I wasn't shocked at all. The idea seems quite congruent with the most of Steve's writings here. In fact the monogamous relationship with Erin, his rather conservative lifestyle regarding family and marriage seemed out of tune with the rest of the stuff. After his post bashing religion and religious people I wondered how is it possible that he is maintaining his marriage and family in a quite ordinary way?

Yes, I think that the idea of monogamous relationship stems directly from monotheistic religions. Someone can argue that not all of them are purely monogamous, some allow polygamy like Islam for instance. But the idea in which most of us were raised - sold also by entertainment industry not only by preachers - that love means to love one person hopefully "till death do us part" - comes from idea of sacred marriage as a spiritual union of couple.
You don't have to be raised as a Christian to believe in monogamous relationship as it became part of culture and lost his obvious connection.

This is the first reason I wasn't shocked and sort of expected. Second reason is and it is also the reason I stopped to read Steve's blog for some time - that he became quite predictable for me. I was never eager to diagnose his issues because I agree with him that not knowing him personally makes any attempt hypothetical at best. However he presents symptoms so bold and paradigmatic that not naming them is a kind of silly restraint without any other real purpose than to avoid attacks from his fans. But why bother? For sure I'm not the only one who is telling this and I do not crave for any credits as symptoms are like a flashlights, hard to miss.

So - he most probably suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder. I have to admit that he is a very creative person who tries as much as he can use his highs for the greater purpose. But what he suffers from - is a chronic imbalance and I see all his personal development pursuit as a mean to overcome it. Heroic, sometimes successful but never reaching its real goal as he is avoiding to address his real issues.

This post about polyamory is a textbook example of deep denial and complex rationalizations, I'm not going to analyze it in details in this post because then it would become very long. But there is one thing in this word which can make you announce to whomever wants to hear that you live "consciously" and on higher level of consciousness that most of the people.
It is your defense against the harsh truth that your unconsciousness is leading your life instead of you leaving you less freedom than you ever realize.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by moonlite

....... Second reason is and it is also the reason I stopped to read Steve's blog for some time - that he became quite predictable for me. I was never eager to diagnose his issues because I agree with him that not knowing him personally makes any attempt hypothetical at best. However he presents symptoms so bold and paradigmatic that not naming them is a kind of silly restraint without any other real purpose than to avoid attacks from his fans. But why bother? For sure I'm not the only one who is telling this and I do not crave for any credits as symptoms are like a flashlights, hard to miss......

Moonlite, using words like 'diagnose' and 'symptoms' would lead one to believe that you are a professional in the field of psychology or medicine. Is this true? If it is not, then your opinion on the matter possess no more credibility than any other in these forums.

[moonlite]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

Moonlite, using words like 'diagnose' and 'symptoms' would lead one to believe that you are a professional in the field of psychology or medicine. Is this true? If it is not, then your opinion on the matter possess no more credibility than any other in these forums.

Yes, I am a psychotherapist, so that's why I use these words.

[Steve Pavlina]

Another classic case of Remote Diagnosis Disorder.

[JT]

Yes, I think that the idea of monogamous relationship stems directly from monotheistic religions.

actually it stems directly from patriarchy itself.

[SimonaRich]

I don't think it is possible to judge about the reason why Steve chose this way of living without even meeting him.

[Selene]

So - he most probably suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder. I have to admit that he is a very creative person who tries as much as he can use his highs for the greater purpose. But what he suffers from - is a chronic imbalance and I see all his personal development pursuit as a mean to overcome it. Heroic, sometimes successful but never reaching its real goal as he is avoiding to address his real issues.

This post about polyamory is a textbook example of deep denial and complex rationalizations, I'm not going to analyze it in details in this post because then it would become very long. But there is one thing in this word which can make you announce to whomever wants to hear that you live "consciously" and on higher level of consciousness that most of the people.
It is your defense against the harsh truth that your unconsciousness is leading your life instead of you leaving you less freedom than you ever realize.

A psychiatrist diagnoses people after they come into their office, voices their concerns and possibly answers questions for a session or maybe a few.

Somebody who has written thousands and thousands of words about their personal viewpoint, their lives and opinions, even recording with their partner on the issue of concern...I don't see how this isn't as in depth as sitting in a chair and listening to them for fifty minutes. We heard how Steve and Erin interact.

The sheer amount of material Steve has presented is a searchlight into his personality, particularly as he talks about family dynamics and his past, etc.

Reading thousands of words directly from Steve's head and even his emotional reactions to various posters can allow a professional a better guess than one would give after listening to a stranger talk about their concerns for fifty minutes ...which is what medical professionals do all the time. BPD has a certain feel or tone as do other mental disorders.

Steve seems to make decisions only based on what he wants and his perceived needs.

Right now all this hoohah is simply to rationalize his desire to have sex with other women (otherwise I don't see why intimate friendships and activity partners have to be attractive, of the opposite sex, and provide sex also).

It's very good that Erin is always so fine with whatever Steve wants to do. Otherwise Steve might decree that she was impeding him meeting his needs and abandon the relationship.

Relationships with character disordered people tend to be challenging. They are often capable of seeing things from only one point of view, theirs.

(I decided no need for credentials, it's take what you want of this opinion and leave the rest)

[moonlite]

Originally Posted by SimonaRich

I don't think it is possible to judge about the reason why Steve chose this way of living without even meeting him.

I agree it's impossible to diagnose that's why I suggested it as a merely hypothesis. What is really funny - that my hypothesis allows me to predict certain behavior. Again I'm not surprised

There is no point in diagnosing me with "RDD" Steve, as it only shows how accurate my hypothesis could be - the wish to denigrate me, suggesting that I must be wrong or even mentally ill (with a nice set of accompanying conditions) - is a purely defensive act - I know that you love the paradoxes - so you must have fun in this one. It doesn't matter that you think you were attacked - defense is defense

I bet you've heard this diagnose long long time ago. But in fact it isn't denigrating - many really great people suffered from BPD - and it's a real dilemma: would they be as creative if they had worked through their issues with the help of some therapist??

Relax, I'm not going to offer you any treatment you will find one when you will feel the need to do it not earlier.

BTW - I think that it's fascinating in general - how much really we can get in touch with people through their writings, well, I think it mostly depends on who reads.

[pyrogen]

Would all of y'all be so up in arms about Steve Pavlina and his choice if he were just some other forum contributor?

You're treating him as a guru. He is not a guru. If I had the time to look over every single of his posts, I could find the posts where he's said not to follow gurus or religions.

You do not have to do everything Steve does. Where's the power in that? You're just being a lemming. Stop it.

How would you react if you simply decided that Steve is a human being entitled to his own journey of discovery?

I don't agree with the poly thing. FOR ME. Know what? That's ok. I am not Steve, Steve is not me, and his polyness has nothing to do with me.

For every polyamorist in the New Thought/New Age subculture there is probably one subscriber to the other New Age relationship model... which is the conscious monogamist, new age ideal life mate, business partner, co author, co lecturer, conscious couple.

I'm guessing that those of you disappointed in him probably were conscious monogamy subscribers who upheld Steve and Erin as one of your 'New Age Soulmate Business-partner co-author Conscious Couples' as an example for you to follow and now you have lost one of your role models.

If Steve and Erin had been poly, and they suddenly closed their relationship, the other half of you would be just as weirded out by it.

When I was a kid, I went to the snow with my dad, and walked in the pre-made footprints of other people. I wanted to follow him up the hill, but there weren't any footprints heading that way. I said, "I have to walk in the steps."
He said, "make your own steps".

That stuck with me. MAKE YOUR OWN STEPS!

I think Steve has some good ideas. I don't agree with everything he writes. That's fine. I don't have to. I'm not going to project my own ideas of perfect guru behavior onto Steve. He's not blogging about YOUR polyamory, he's blogging about his. Stop it.

[moonlite]

Originally Posted by pyrogen

You're treating him as a guru. He is not a guru. If I had the time to look over every single of his posts, I could find the posts where he's said not to follow gurus or religions.

You do not have to do everything Steve does. Where's the power in that? You're just being a lemming. Stop it.

How would you react if you simply decided that Steve is a human being entitled to his own journey of discovery?

Hey, if he is not a guru - does it matter what he said about gurus? Anyway - I don't understand why you think it's wrong that some people look up to him and wait for answers instead of finding their own. Maybe they are just young and in need of some father figure? When they'll be ready to abandon this path - they will do it. Now they are a kind of source for Steve, source of supply of various goods like - traffic on his site, admiration, feedback about importance of his mission and so on. And even when they are disappointed his heart can rejoice - cause there is still so much work to do, so many people live not consciously enough...

[yossarian]

Here's the thing about diagnosing people... isn't it sort of impossible without their cooperation?

I mean when you don't have their active co-operation and their sincere responses to probing questions, how can it really mean anything?

And then of course-

"It is no measure of health to be sane in an insane world."

There is nothing necessarily wrong with fitting the criteria of a mental disorder. The big question is whether it is maladaptive in the person's life - and this depends on subjectivity - ultimately coming down the patient's own hopes and desires.

[yossarian]

Check out this sweet sugary irony I dug up when reading about Borderline Personality Disorder:

The features of BPD include emotional instability, intense unstable interpersonal relationships, a need for relatedness and a fear of rejection. As a result, people with BPD often evoke intense emotions in those around them. Pejorative terms such as “difficult”, “treatment resistant,” “manipulative,” “demanding,” and “attention seeking" are often used, and may become a self-fulfilling prophecy as the clinician's negative response triggers further self-destructive behaviour.[126] In psychoanalytic theory, this stigmatization may be thought to reflect "countertransference" (when a therapist projects their own feelings on to a client), as people with BPD are prone to use defence mechanisms such as splitting and projective identification. Thus the diagnosis "often says more about the clinician's negative reaction to the patient than it does about the patient ... as an expression of countertransference hate, borderline explains away the breakdown in empathy between the therapist and the patient and becomes an institutional epithet in the guise of pseudoscientific jargon" (Aronson, p 217).[9] This inadvertent countertransference can give rise to inappropriate clinical responses including excessive use of medication, inappropriate mothering, and punitive use of limit-setting and interpretation.[127] People with BPD are seen as among the most challenging groups of patients, requiring a high degree of skill and training in the psychiatrists, therapists and nurses involved in their treatment.[128] People labeled with "Borderline Personality Disorder" also often feel it is unhelpful and stigmatizing as well as simply inaccurate, supporting and adding to calls for a name change.

In light of Steve's post about RDD, that is some AAA-grade irony.

[moonlite]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Here's the thing about diagnosing people... isn't it sort of impossible without their cooperation?

I mean when you don't have their active co-operation and their responses to probing questions, how can it really mean anything?

And then of course-

"It is no measure of health to be sane in an insane world."

There is nothing necessarily wrong with fitting the criteria of a mental disorder. The big question is whether it is maladaptive in the person's life - and this depends on subjectivity - ultimately coming down the patient's own hopes and desires.

I will repeat again - yes, it is rather impossible to diagnose anyone over Internet. But also why not put some hypothesis that fits? When we have so much of material we don't need even cooperation. And yet more correctly - it is a hypothesis about the image of person presented here. I don't know even if the information about his life is true!! Maybe he never was imprisoned? Or Erin is not his wife but remote cousin or only business partner who agreed to play the role of his wife?? Who knows? Maybe he visits gay-bars frequently, has no children and so on? Maybe he is a woman?

I agree it's nothing necessarily wrong with fitting the criteria of some disorder. What does it mean exactly? It means basically that a person has certain difficulties and needs a great deal of effort to overcome it. It can be said about so many people! My teacher told me once that to become a really great person there must be some deep wound hidden in the heart, it's a powerful motivator, a powerful engine to grow, expand, conquer new lands and write beautiful poems. There must be also some gift, the wound only will not be enough, but still is essential.

And to your second post - as far as diagnose is next to impossible over Internet - countertransference is totally nonexistent without therapeutic relationship

[Selene]

The exercise of conjecture is meaningless...other than offering up one opinion out of many others.

Why can't posts that might not be wholly supportive or positive be taken in that manner? Not everyone who bothers to stop and think about a certain situation, particularly if it delves into private and family matters, is going to be positive about it.

As far as Steve and Erin, I'm sure reading about their continued journey will be fascinating.

I wish them the best and hope their choices are the healthiest for all involved as much as I wish the same for Britney and Kevin or whomever others I don't personally know.

[yossarian]

I guess when you hear someone diagnose a mental disorder you sort of infer that that person thinks something should be done about it.

Are you advising Steve to go to therapy? Odds are it would be a waste of time.

What do you expect to be done with this information, with your credentialed hypothetical diagnosis?

Or is it just something fun to do on a Sunday? :P

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by moonlite

And to your second post - as far as diagnose is next to impossible over Internet - countertransference is totally nonexistent without therapeutic relationship

Oooh, sounds like a defense mechanism.

After reading 100,000 words of Steve's writing, you don't think it's possible that you could project your own issues onto him? He's already shown himself to be a difficult patient, including directly rebuffing your own therapeutic efforts! Very resistant to therapy! This must be an aspect of his disorder - failing to submit to the authority of the therapist!

Perhaps you should get a second opinion from a colleague?

[Angela]

Hmmm, very interesting. I just looked up symptoms of BPD and read that:

A person with this disorder will also often exhibit impulsive behaviors and have a majority of the following symptoms:

• Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment
• A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation
• Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self
• Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating)
• Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior
• Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)
• Chronic feelings of emptiness
• Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)
• Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

I can't find ANY of these symptoms in Steve, and unlike you, doctor, I've actually met him. Not that I can see into the depths of his soul, but I can't see even a TRACE of any of these indicators in anything he's said or done. But you can? Where?

[moonlite]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I guess when you hear someone diagnose a mental disorder you sort of infer that that person thinks something should be done about it.

Are you advising Steve to go to therapy? Odds are it would be a waste of time.

What do you expect to be done with this information, with your credentialed hypothetical diagnosis?

Or is it just something fun to do on a Sunday? :P

Well, I don't advise anything to Steve as I know that any therapy would be productive only in case he is convinced it will help him/them. Also - it's rather doubtful that he would consider any advice from a complete stranger. (why should he?)

I try to figure out my motivation now - at least a conscious one Forgive me but my unconsciousness is still not fully available for me. So I think that I wanted to share my point of view with others, to add something to discussion - mostly because some people seemed shocked when I had only experience of adding one more proof to my hypothesis. I debated for some time about futility of using my knowledge in this case but at the same time I yielded to a powerful temptation... Out of compassion maybe?

when my explanation becomes so intricate I start to think that some unconscious motive played the important role. So, there is still some insight about this waiting out there for me probably...

[yossarian]

Do you have any strong feelings that surface when you ponder the avant-garde way that Steve approaches life?

Seems a lot of people have an unconscious animosity to people who are willing to push social boundaries. And Steve doesn't just push them, he stomps all over their face. That is his schtick.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by moonlite

Out of compassion maybe? .

Compassion for whom? For Steve, like you would be helping him by telling him? Or all of us, who are in danger of buying in to a manipulator's lies?

(Or maybe Erin, who may or may not be Steve's cousin, posing as his wife. That part of your post I really liked.)

[Selene]

Or is it just something fun to do on a Sunday? :P

Basically. Definitely nothing to be argued over or to bother to defend fiercely, I'd venture, other than as an opinion offered. Why all the upset when Steve is criticized?

IMO Steve would be an extremely poor therapy candidate, as judged by his writing and responses. If he's satisfied with his life as he says he is, what would be the point anyway?

It's when a client seeks help and is motivated to do the work is therapy worthwhile.

[brandongilbert]

why do we care so much about what steve does?

it seems like we could just respect and support him and then learn from his experiences, rather than trying to criticize and bring him down.

do we value freedom and choice? if so, then can we allow each individual to choose for themselves?

[Lauxa]

Well, it doesn't surprise me either, because of this post:
Ask Steve - Sex

And I think there may have been some other posts in 2006 as well that alluded to this shift, although I can't seem to find them.

It's so different, so difficult, so radical... so Steve. I'm looking forward to seeing where this leads.

One thing that interests me about this is that in HS I really admired Ayn Rand. Then I saw "The Passion of Ayn Rand" and was a bit turned off as to how her Objectivist philosophy applied to her sex life. Basically, she got her husband to agree to allow her an affair with her brilliant student, then in turn got dumped by him for one of his brilliant students. It seemed like a mess. So I want to see how Steve does this, if it can be better managed through his Subjectivist philosophy, if it can be done without hurting him or his family.

@Angela: Well, Steve did say he had some pretty intense mood swings and anger during his juice feast. Obviously BPD.

[moonlite]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Do you have any strong feelings that surface when you ponder the avant-garde way that Steve approaches life?

Seems a lot of people have an unconscious animosity to people who are willing to push social boundaries. And Steve doesn't just push them, he stomps all over their face. That is his schtick.

For me what Steve does is not an avant-garde way at all. As I said before he seems heroic in overcoming his condition and I think that at least part of the admiration he receives is really deserved. Also he uses different means (to what was available let's say 50 years ago) to convey his message what can make it seem new. Do I feel animosity because he pushes social boundaries? Social boundaries in a contemporary society are pushed so much that in that case I should wake up angry every day Actually pushing social boundaries makes him sort of conformist - it's a one of the favorite leisure time activities nowadays.

[cacheborn]

Oh! So all this is because Steve has got BPP!
I want one, too! Please, please tell me where I can get it!

[moonlite]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hmmm, very interesting. I just looked up symptoms of BPD and read that:
I can't find ANY of these symptoms in Steve, and unlike you, doctor, I've actually met him. Not that I can see into the depths of his soul, but I can't see even a TRACE of any of these indicators in anything he's said or done. But you can? Where?

I was hesitating between NPD and BPD, but eventually I decided that BPD fits better, especially concerning his juvenile experiences. In one of the podcasts he describes himself then as a total mess - and NPD use to function much better overall.

In any case I didn't write only that he is a BPD - I also wrote that he constantly makes a huge effort to fight his condition without external help. His selftreatment included severe sleep deprivation, strict diets and several other experiments on himself and for some time - was at least partially successful. This blog and organized, orderly life help him a lot, there is no doubt. Also it seems that his relationship with Erin was greatly stabilizing so far but as we see - is not anymore. Sometimes he mistakes change for growth as if remaining stable was a kind of threat This is expression of his instable identity - but obviously he believes that this instability is his own choice.

Originally Posted by Angela

Compassion for whom? For Steve, like you would be helping him by telling him? Or all of us, who are in danger of buying in to a manipulator's lies?

I'm definitely not a savior of the lost souls. My compassion (if anybody can believe in his feelings) was of some ordinary kind - I've read his last posts about intimate relationships and polyamory and found some information about how he considered divorce for some time (and the reasons why he doesn't divorce seem rather awkward), felt that his love is not fully expressed etc. You don't have to be a mental health professional to see internal struggle and then a desperate attempt to overcome it even if someone would get hurt (including his own children). It seems that old system of defenses is not working well anymore and is slowly deteriorating. That was probably shocking for some longtime readers. I see it, I can describe it - I could predict it as usually BPD goes through his/her life surfing on the waves of crises. And I can't do anything about it. Is this sad? Not really, I feel fine with my limited power

[carenkh]

Steve wrote a beautiful response here.

[ScottLee]

As someone who was previously in a polyamorous relationship, I take offense to this. I am offended that you see Steve pursuing polyamory as something worthy of a "disorder." Basically, yes - he IS thinking rationally. A guy wants to support his family and keep it together. His wife accepts his wishes and wants to do the same thing so they agree to carry out a poly system. Results? Family gets to stay together, Steve gets to be happy, Erin is too. Everyone wins. Omg...sounds pretty rational and sane to me.

Just because something is upsetting to someone or even to mass societal norms does not make that someone or society correct. Just because something might be disturbing does not change it from being true. I actually find the inside of a human being really gross and disturbing, as I probably could or should, but it's there. People get divorced all the time because of infidelity and the rates are still incredibly high - most people ARE poly by nature. That might disturb you, but it doesn't change it from being true.

Polyamory is about allowing love to come into your life. I've met people that do not care about sex at all, and I've met people that seem like they HAVE to have it. I'm one of those people that sex is very important to them. So if I'm not getting sex from my ONE girlfriend, just what am I supposed to do? Funny, I'm starting to sound like Steve talking about needs.

Maybe he does want better sex, and that's what it's all about. Sorry, but that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Sex IS IMPORTANT. American culture teaches us that we shouldn't think about sex that much, and religious conservatism makes it out to be wrong when it's not. The mantra has to be repeated here: we're sexual beings.

Sex is a very important part of many people's fulfillment. Tantra and other sexual practices show that sex can be an extremely spiritual experience, not just a "physical" or "emotional" one. The same way that humanity has need for ritual and routine, it also has need for sex.

For the short period of time I was able to sustain a happy poly relationship, it was COMPLETE bliss, for a number of reasons. The experience of going to sleep with girlfriend #1 to wake up and spend the day with girlfriend #2 was a trip! I'd have a deep intimacy with #1 and then would go to school. In between classes, I'd sit down and cuddle a bit with #2. We'd eat cheese crackers, drink tea together, and talk about whatever. It was the kind of experience that poly interested people dream of.

Having two different people to share everything with was easily and logically twice as good as one. It was mind expanding; I was able to get two viewpoints on everything. When one girl didn't want to go do something, I'd ask the other. It was variety in every sense of the word. Polyamory is not about cutting out those you once cared about or dividing anybody. If it's for real, love cannot be divided, only MULTIPLIED!

I'm back to being monogamous now, and it was a big step to do so. To this day, I am monogamous while going against what I believe.

It's often said that insanity is determined by how well one can function in society, and I'd say both Steve and Erin are functioning quite well. So even if it IS pointless you have an "opinion" such as that one, it's an opinion you shouldn't have, because the reasoning for it is wrong. You make it sound by both the original post and the topic title that he choosing polyamory is representative of some "disorder" in his personality.

Polyamory is sanity and logic. It's monogamy that is nutty and should be deemed with many people a personality disorder. Monogamy might be right for some, but there are TONS of people who are trying to force it in their lives when it really has no place with who they really are and what fulfills them.

[pyrogen]

So, let's imagine Steve and Erin do what most monogamous Americans do, when they reach the point they're at - where their marriage is more like platonic best friends who do great as economic partners and co-parents, then have an affair outside of the marriage. Or they get a divorce and split up the family. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Poly as Steve and Erin conceive of it seems more like the European model where husband and wife stay husband and wife but each have lovers.

Being a lover is a completely different skillset from being a spouse. I think about half of us are insane trying to find it in the same person.

Steve and Erin seem to be doing something a lot saner.

[moonlite]

Scott Lee

It's not a polyamory in itself that brought me to my hypothesis. Whether people engage in non-monogamous relationships, stay single or live in a monastery it can't be explained so simply cause their motives can be various. And this is true regarding any kind of human behavior. I said that his current choice and more so - the explanation he offered for this choice are consistent with what came to my mind few months ago already. And made him predictable and somewhat boring.

I don't want to argue with you about what is sane or what isn't. For sure it is still debated and anyone who claims that he has definite answers lives in an illusion of his omniscience. Nevertheless anyone can have his opinion no matter how insane it seems for another. So please don't tell me what I should or I shouldn't think, because by no means you can prove that I'm wrong

pyrogen

For me it's not enough that something seems rational or sane. I will spare you examples of how many horrifying things people did and they seemed purely rational and sane for them. Also they say that there is some connection between insanity and genius. BPD actually doesn't mean that someone is insane. A person suffering from BPD is insane only sometimes and even then sadly it's not this romantic type of madness so rare in these days...