Polyamory (Blog)

[Discoverer]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Our marriage and our relationship are two different things, so try not to confuse them. Even if Erin and I ended our marriage, our relationship would surely continue, albeit perhaps in a different form. I can't imagine ever not being in love with her.

Thanks for the reply Steve!

Like I said in my earlier post, I try to keep things in perspective.

Many of the posters on this forum seem 'hip' to this whole poly thing. There appear also to be the polar opposites as well. For the most part, I fall into the latter category... but I'm trying hard not to be.

Because truth be told - in matters of the heart - there really isn't a big difference between you and me - and for all married men, for that matter.

No one knows what they are getting into when they make a life long commitment like a marriage, or parenthood, or a career. All you can do is act on the present, which is why day in, day out - we must make a decision. My wife told me when we first met that I had no idea what love is. Because I wasn't romantic, because I didn't know how to show my emotions. Call me stubborn, call me old fashioned - but I knew then as I know now - that love is a choice.

Having said that, perhaps not a year goes by that I don't 'fall in love' with a different woman. But I keep it to myself. I steal a glance now and then. I hold onto a conversation a little bit longer. Then something or someone else comes along and I forget about it. And then I think about how I am so glad for not acting on those fleeting impulses.

In my view, like all 'things' - if we treat relationships and people as 'things' - one is not enough.

Above I've tried to summarize what I believe to be the ideals of my framework of reality for purposes of juxtaposition with what you, Steve, have eloquently presented. Not for purposes of judgement or argumentation. You've been a married man for 15 years, which is longer than me. I genuinely admire your honesty and openness. Best of luck to you.

[Silent Lucidity]

Originally Posted by Byron

Why all of these negative and self-limiting beliefs?
None of this is ultimately true, even from an objective point of view.

And, if you really subscribe to subjectivity 100%, then why are you putting these limiting things into your belief system, and teaching it to others as well?







The overall tone and energy of this article feels lower than normal, like you are speaking from your mind or lower energies rather than higher source. Did you eat something cooked? Or not get enough sleep?

I tend to agree with this... shifting into alightment is difficult, but should feel 'right' on some level... take the ego-barriers down, do the 'Power of Now' thing... and try to imagine if this is -truly- alignment?

[Sfreedman]

Monogamy is a moral issue for many people, and some of those people may choose to stop reading StevePavlina.com if they feel it goes against their moral compasses (non-open minded people, you might say). This was not the case with Steve's previous growth experiments. There may be people so attached to flesh-eating that they can't read this blog, but if such people exist their numbers don't compare with those who intensely support monogamy.

At the same time, obviously the blog will attract new readers from people who practice non-mainstream lifestyles.

I think Steve has said in this forum that the introduction of polyamorism into his life and the blog will impact virtually every aspect of his life. I suspect one impact is that he has chosen a completely new readership.

[harcerz]

You are making big mistake with that article, Steve !

Listen, I have been reading Your posts for some time now...not reacting to the controversial content... until today !



Well... in closing sentences, there is "I’ll need to cultivate new connections with people are happily polyamorous." - shouldn't it be "I’ll need to cultivate new connections with people who are happily polyamorous." ?

That's all I've got

I won't comment on content, You surely know how to follow Your heart without any of my advice. It's very interesting where it will lead You. Keep us posted !

And that's my first post here, so - hi all!
Michal

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Discoverer

Having said that, perhaps not a year goes by that I don't 'fall in love' with a different woman. But I keep it to myself. I steal a glance now and then. I hold onto a conversation a little bit longer. Then something or someone else comes along and I forget about it. And then I think about how I am so glad for not acting on those fleeting impulses.

That's largely selfish though, isn't it? Each time you're robbing someone else of the chance to have interesting experiences with you. You're forcing others to be lonelier and more disconnected. If everyone behaved that way, we'd all be worse off for it.

If it isn't selfish, then it's probably a fear-based reaction -- i.e. worrying about how others in your life might react to your decision to follow your heart.

My thinking is: Maybe those impulses are there for a reason. What would happen if I acted on them from time to time? Where would they lead? Let's try it and find out.

In other areas of my life when I've acted on similar feelings, amazing synchronicities occurred.

Erin's willingness to act on one of those impulses is basically how we met in the first place. So it seems silly to subvert such feelings later in life.

[hopena]

Originally Posted by CUerr132

Or maybe I'm such a low consciousness, (whatever that's supposed to mean exactly), I cannot see the great new-agey nobleness in all of Steve actions and ideas.

I doubt that's the case.

*Edit: Talking to Erin about it was a great thing to do - there's nobility in dealing with something that difficult, and trying to find a solution, rather than sneaking around. I just see nothing more noble about polyamory in general; I don't see it as the path for the more enlightened.

[lemuria]

just read steve's latest articles and my reaction to them are *laughingelfman.jpg(i lol'd)

anyway, you mentioned that you're 100% straight (at least for now ) so you only pursuit intimate relationship with girls... you go, viagraboy!!
the question i have now is... let's say that you're 18 years in the future, will you have intimate relationship with your own daughter?
also, don't the girls in your family play halo 3?
as for me, i can accept polyamory; but, i don't think my gf going to be happy when i tell her i want to go out with other girls


tldr: will you support incest?

in b4 thouartdoomedinhellforever-guy

[mindfulconstruct]

It seems that I started reading the blog at the start of some controversy (but it sounds like that’s not out of the ordinary here). I think these recent blog posts have been a great forum for discussing this issue, bringing people from both sides to talk about it. This very discussion helps break away the polarization on this issue, and any type of polarization usually follows fear.

I have to say that I respect Steve’s willingness to make this public and to leave these threads open for honest discussion – that is real courage. And it’s great to see, Steve, that you are actually reading the discussing and addressing points raised here in your entries.

---

I’ve given polyamory a lot of thought in the past. And of course, I experienced my own share of polarized thinking when trying to process all that comes when “stepping outside” of your culture for a moment.

I now view the issue with less polarization as one of the two having to be “right,” and instead see the issue such that a person’s decision one way or another does not affect what I believe, my own personal truth, what I need personally, and what feels right to me. If someone wants to go poly or mono, it is their personal choice, and I don’t see anything wrong with choosing your own relationship style so long as adults are consenting and there is no intentional harm done to those affected by the relationship.

It is about personal choice, it is not about what is more “right,” “natural,” “loving,” “righteous,” “courageous,” or “spiritual.” That lingo is veiled attack on the other side, and attack is done for fear that one’s own side is not any or all of the previously mentioned. Those judgment terms are meant to invalidate the other side as being inferior and less worthy of human attention. If we are really tolerant, then we accept people’s choice and respect them for doing what they need to do for themselves, not for anyone else or for any group standards.

With that said, I think it’s much more honest to flat out say that you are bored with [even if in simplistic terms (though perhaps with tact)] your current relationship and want to start new ones because of that, and say that your current relationship style is not up to growth standards *for you personally* -- instead of taking indirect jabs at monogamy and making it all about choosing a more “enlightened” path.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

In practice marriage serves as more of a barrier to intimacy than an enabler of intimacy.

^This statement is neither substantiated with empirical evidence sufficient to speak for Earth’s human population, nor is it even logically sound as a philosophical argument, mainly because personal context plays a huge role in determining whether any situation serves as a barrier or invitation to intimacy.

We cognitive-affective humans are endowed with the gift of reappraisal, and we can transmute virtually any situation into one of greater growth, self-awareness, and compassion. So – it’s not the relationship or what’s beneath the spice that is the issue, it is how you respond to and relate to it.

Originally Posted by jawillie

You can't blame anyone or any thing outside of yourself for your own inability to grow. Everything you need is within yourself. It's not the job, it's not the marriage, or the financial issues. It's YOU. If I am stuck, spiritually, it is not Dave's fault.

Marriage CAN BE a wonderful way to lead to growth. Just like polyamory CAN BE. It is all in how YOU use it, though. It's not the situation itself, it's YOU.

^Exactly! A huge aspect of personal development is realizing how important your relationship with your self truly is. And both mono and ply relationship styles are equally valid for an array of different growth experiences…but it is up to the person and how willing to grow they are – it’s not that one relationship style is more growth-conducive than another.

Originally Posted by jawillie

Some readers still want to act like this is something necessary in order to be "conscious" and living with truth, love and power.

You do NOT need to explore polyamory in order to "prove" you are "conscious."

Just because a couple chooses monogamy does NOT mean they are living a lie. And every couple who chooses this does NOT end up cheating on their spouse in private. But those for polyamory seem to hold on to that justification with all their might.

I don't care that Steve is going down this road, I just don't want readers automatically assuming this is a "higher level of living" or some other junk like that. I realize some of you have not seen a normal, loving monogamous relationship. They do exist. They do NOT all end up with someone cheating.

I also agree with those that pointed out "oneness" doesn't mean having sex. I just don't buy any of the justifications for this way of life. I think the REAL truth is that it feels good. Period. It feels good to be wanted and lusted after by someone new. It feels good to have someone new interested in you and want to get to know you like your wife can't anymore because she already knows you. It feels good ~ it's not about "spreading love" or "oneness." Nothing wrong with doing what feels good, but lets not paint it like it's some grand thing about oneness and living consciously.

^My sentiment exactly. “Oneness” and “love” are very loose terms (no puns intended)…and neither polyamory nor monogamy can trademark either one. Love really has nothing to do with sex, so you can love someone without having to have sex to prove it.

If anyone claims that having more physical intimacy is synonymous with being more loving and sharing more love in and of itself…it is a form of polarizing poly as “more conscious,” “higher of a power” at the expense of monogamy. It is not synonymous – it may be conducive for love to mature or may be an expression and extension of love given the circumstance, but the act of physical intimacy alone does not qualify for spreading more love in and of itself.

If that were the case, the “most conscious” thing to do would to become emotionally and physically intimate with as many people possible, ideally unbound by barriers of gender, race, geography, compatibility, etc. etc. etc.

But then, we get into the quantity versus quality comparison, and we see how easy it is to lose sight of any personal boundaries on time, space, energy, or other resources all in the name for spreading more love – when ultimately, we need to have clearly defined personal boundaries because those are our expression of SELF-LOVE, from which other-love is even made possible.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

That's largely selfish though, isn't it? Each time you're robbing someone else of the chance to have interesting experiences with you. You're forcing others to be lonelier and more disconnected. If everyone behaved that way, we'd all be worse off for it.

This is where I don't follow the logic. You need to have personal boundaries in place protect the self – you have physical, mental, psychological, and emotional limits because you are by nature bound in human form. These personal boundaries mean sometimes you have to turn others down, sometimes you have to disappoint, and sometimes you have to say no – not in the catchall sense of being "in fear" but in the practical sense of having to take care of yourself and recognize your limits (that are there to preserve you). You have to have personal boundaries in order to be on the path of self-actualizing, and yes personal boundaries are "selfish," but they have to be – they are an expression of SELF-LOVE.

So the use of the word "robbing" sounds more like a rationalization than an accurate framing of human relations. If what you say is true, then Erin is "robbing" you of something, "forcing [you] to be lonelier and more disconnected" whenever she refuses further physical contact, when you still want to express your love for her physically. But that is not the case, it is simply a matter of personal boundaries and Erin is not trying to rob you or make you lonely or disconnected. Do you see how your wording attempts to place guilt on someone for not acting on impulse to start a new relationship with someone because of other boundary-related issues that are higher up on the hierarchy for personal growth – because they allow that person to remain a healthy and functioning person?

[Michael Chui]

Heh. I was polarized on this issue years ago, so it's not like anything I say won't be biased. Just putting in a general Hurrah for the step you're taking; only found out about it today, but I'm going to start reading the blog itself again, now.

A note to everyone else:

I suggest searching the forums (under Social & Relationships) for polyamory. It's been discussed a half-dozen times or so over the past few years, and it would be interesting to see some of the old qualms resurrected.

[JC Shakespeare]

What a place to dive in with my first post . . . OK:

It's interesting that so many people defending Steve's decision accuse those against the ideas he's exploring of "projecting" their own perceptions onto Steve. Isn't that how we all learn from new material? It either syncs up with our own views, in which case we file it away as being similar to stuff already in our brains, or it jangles harshly on the old neurons, in which case we hammer away at it for a while to see where it fits.

My "filters" come as a married person who also counsels other married people. I believe that a single, committed relationship is far from a "bugaboo of lowered consciousness;" in fact, I think it's a loving path to healing childhood wounds and growing more conscious with another person who can also be healed in the process. After the romance stage of a marriage, the process of negotiating the troubled waters that follow is an opportunity to bring a great deal of unconscious pain, which has been driving our relationships for years, into the light of consciousness where it can be healed. Many people give up on this stage, because it's much less painful to simply find another honeymoon partner and try again.

I'm working on keeping an open mind, but a lot of what I've read from Steve over the past few days sounds a lot like justification. I don't think this is so much about having too much LOVE to share with one person, I think it's more about feeling like one doesn't have the POWER that all these enlightened pickup artists seem to be enjoying. It feels to me like Steve's out of alignment with truth -- this is ego talking, nothing more.

That's my initial take. Kudos for the "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach, but I think many of the concerns expressed in this forum have been valid, and shared in love, not fear. I'll be interested to see how this plays out . . .

[ChaosKiwi]

Steve there is something wrong with this solution isn't there? You feel it don't you?.

Its not personal development.

Its the dark side of intuition. Blind emotion. You've lost the logic.

You need both.

I think this is a very personal thing. Will you blog about it if the chances of it positively influencing anyone are slim?

On a side note what has been the current effect of these new posts on the stats (number of visitors, links etc) of your blog?

[raam]

Firstly Steve, a big thank you for bringing up this topic and making it your focus for 2009. I've read with interest most of the postings on this topic and noted that very few have addressed the issue of love in the discussion.

From my perspective, the first concept we need to address is our understanding and attitude to love with respect to relationships. Most people never question this and therefore never question the philosophy of monogamy and marriage.

In my research on love I've come up with some interesting experiments, one of which I'll share with you here.

See if the following statements reflect your view of love.

Is this love?

I can't live without you
I love you more than life itself
If I can't have you, nobody will have you
Please don't leave me - I need you so much
I want you to depend on me for all your needs
I'm so jealous if someone looks or talks to you
I'd rather kill you than let you go
You're mine
Only you can make me happy
You make me whole

Ok, now try this one.

Is this love?

I want you to be as happy as you can be
You're free to do whatever makes you happy
When I see you happy I feel happier
I'm so grateful to share my life with you
I want to help you to be independent
May I share my joy with you
Freedom is your right
I value your contribution to my life
Don't ever be afraid to be honest with me
I love you enough to let you be yourself


By default (unconsciously) most people follow the first set of statements (following from their mostly unconscious beliefs and value systems). When forced to confront them they become uncomfortable and most admit that they do not think the first set reflect what love means and that the second set is more like what love should be.

The first set fits quite nicely with the philosophy of monogamy as a default. The second set can fit the philosophy of monogamy as a conscious choice but it's much more difficult to make workable. The second set is much more adapted to the philosophy of polyamory. The first set come from a scarcity model of love while the second set come from an abundance model of love.

I'm a male, 48, never married - mainly because I've always questioned the conditioning from society. To me the successful practice of polyamory must include honesty, choice, communication, love, respect, courage, integrity, communication, compassion, and communication.....eh, did I say communication to often?!!!!!!

To Erin, I think you are an absolute gem, your response to the poly thing in the blog brought tears to my eyes. You are obviously a highly conscious being and need none of the (what about Erin nonsense)

Way to go Steve, I look forward eagerly to your blogs for this year.

Warm Regards
Raam

[danas]

What Ive written here has a lot of contradictions. But I guess my opinion isnt black or white.

I think what surprised me most about this whole move was not that it wasn't mainstream, but that it was.
Just the night before last (Friday) I had to order a plumber at 11pm b/c a pipe had exploded. I live alone. He threw me glances every now and then (while I was on the couch reading all the posts here BTW) and after finishing his 2 hour job, basicly he told me that he would go with other women besides his wife if the right women came along. The right women like... me...and it wouldnt be cheating b/c he and his wife have an open relationship. I course I didnt even get into a conversation about this, I told him no, paid him and said goodbye.
But I wasnt even surprised. Why? This is a typical mainstream suggestion.
From what I've seen, the mainstream of people get married young, have kids, than go with other partners, openly or not, if they dont get divorced.

Im not comparing Steve to the plumber, I doubt the plumber would really tell his wife (let alone write about it on a blog), but in general I think polyamory is much more mainstream then monogamy.
From my experience I found that restricting takes more awareness (and is more benificial) than not restricting (like the raw food diet in comparison with eating everything you desire).

On the other hand what isn't mainstrem here is Steves transparency, and for this reason I highly respect this move.
Steve's being honest with himeself, with the world and with Erin, and is giving her the choice whether to accept this or not.
If he didn't take this step he would be betraying himself, which, I believe, is the worst kind of betrayal there is.
I completely understand this step. Steves been with Erin since he was 22. He still loves her, but he's grown a lot since then (& so has she) and now wants to explore his sexuality with others. I would probably want to do the same if I was with the same bf I had in 1994 when I was 20.
In fact everyone in my family is divorced (parents, siblings grandparents). They all married in their early 20s and were divorced before they were 40.
(and all happily monogomously remarried after they fooled around a bit).

Im now in my 30s and only now, after Ive had enough intimate relationships for this lifetime, I desire to be in a long term monogamous relationship and start a family.
IMO there's no right path, as long as you're being honest yourself and with those involved.
Also, regarding the kids: As someone who went through alot of drama when my parents got divorced when I was 15, I still think parents must do whats right for them, and not do things for the childs sake if it contridicts the parents own desire.
Today Im so grateful to have parents that live a life they fully chose, and not one they felt they settled for because of me in any way.
Its all part of the growing process.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Byron

And, if you really subscribe to subjectivity 100%, then why are you putting these limiting things into your belief system, and teaching it to others as well?

Steve has shown he doesn't subscribe to subjectivity 100% by his belief that eating a totally raw food diet makes a concrete objective difference.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

That's largely selfish though, isn't it? Each time you're robbing someone else of the chance to have interesting experiences with you. You're forcing others to be lonelier and more disconnected. If everyone behaved that way, we'd all be worse off for it.

.

So, you will be saying yes to every woman who comes along and craves experiences with you, even if you aren't attracted to her?

This is where I don't follow anymore, either.

[Tam9]

@danas

I find this one of the most sensible responses to this issue!

We all need to experiment and grow by means of a variety of relationships, sexual and otherwise, when we are young. If we miss out, then we often need to play it out when we reach a certain age (sometimes middle-age crisis) or personal awareness. One of the things we discover when we experiment is that even though we may be hot after someone sexually, that person would be a poor lifetime partner. Heck, there are many we may lust afer, but it usually stops there. Monagamy or a life-time partnership requires compatibility in many areas not just in sex, intellect, values or interests. It has to be a blend and balance of all of these. A tall order for some.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

That's largely selfish though, isn't it? Each time you're robbing someone else of the chance to have interesting experiences with you. You're forcing others to be lonelier and more disconnected. If everyone behaved that way, we'd all be worse off for it.

How in the world am I "forcing" others to be lonelier and more disconnected if I don't begin an intimate relationship with them? There are millions of people in this world; surely they have plenty of other opportunities.

I've been trying to figure out why this topic bugs me, and I think it's the implied, perhaps unintended, and also perhaps inevitable way it comes across as this is the best way to be, and everyone who disagrees is less than enlightened.

It is similar to the raw food discussions, which sometimes are annoying to me even though I'm interested in the subject. There's a snootiness and exclusivity about it much of the time. Most of the raw foodists here seem to truly believe this particular diet is perfect for everyone and they go about with a mission-like zeal telling people that eating cooked food is poison and so on.

Now we have this, polyamory, and when somebody says he chooses not to act on attractions to other women because it would harm his most important relationship, you tell him he's being selfish and forcing others to be lonely and disconnected. What would be wrong with praising him for his decision, even though he disagrees with you? Perhaps if he acted on his attractions, everyone involved would wind up feeling lonely and disconnected. You know often that's exactly what happens.

In practice marriage serves as more of a barrier to intimacy than an enabler of intimacy.

Again -- you state this as a fact for everyone, which is false. It may be a barrier to you. It's not a barrier for everyone. I know people who have the most amazing marriages. It makes me so jealous, and also hopeful.

[lemjau]

I have been in a polyamorous relationship/s for 5 years now, with 3 men. And no matter how mature and giving, loving and conscious they are if they feel that they are number 1 in my life, that THEY are special, exciting and exceptional, it works. If any of them does not feel that HE is the ONE it becomes complicated. This is a pretty difficult juggling act.

It is specially tough when a new person would appear on the horizon. We can't always control to the utmost our feelings of joy and elevation, our endorphins, when someone new and interesting is coming into our lives. And it is absolutely natural that we want to spend more time with them, we talk about them, be live and breath the new feelings, the new person. No mater how god you are at controlling this, the people already in you life feel it.

2 of the 3 men have other partners too. And sometimes I catch myself wanting the same thing, to be the one special women in their lives. I know I am but still my ego likes to be fed from time to time.

One thing I learned, I don't talk about the other 2 to anybody! And I don't like to talk about the other women either. It is not a denial thing, it just does not feel right. I don't want to gossip about anybody.

I feel that you don't share love but multiply it. I love each man in a totally different way. One is my husband who is now my best friend, I am devoted to him and will always be there for him, much older than I am. He is not ready to follow me in all of my endeavors. The second one is a real alpha-mail, but has a very complicated life and the third one I call my intellectual lover - he is a university professor ready to talk for hours.

Even the physical part of every relationship is different to that extent that I sometimes think I am not the same women. And I suppose I am not.

My mother, who married the first man to hold her hand, always said that a real women has to have 3 men. Each one having a different role in life - one for taking out - good looking, intellectual, one a handy man for around the house good in bed, and one to have a shoulder to cry on and cuddle.

My kids are grown up so I don't have this dilemma. My daughters know about all the men in my life and support me.

Steve and Erin have a lot to deal with. I personally wouldn't bring the third, fourth person home. But that is just me.

I consider myself very fortunate to be loved by so many people so deeply and with devotion. I had 2 rules when entering a new relationship - never take me for granted or expect anything you didn't ask for. I follow these rules too.

This is my first post and English is not my mother tongue. Hope I came across the way I intended. I am psychologist who is always afraid that will slip into too much psyco jiber jaber.

[Murphy]

Hey Steve.

I've been in the seduction community for 3 years now because I love improving myself as a person and I see success with women as one of the most important ways to do that.

So me and my friend Aamir have always held back a lot of respect for you because you were seeming to not care about this part of your life.

Literally we would say to eachother
"Steve is cool, but he has a fat wife."

I know that sounds offensive to Erin and I apologise if it is. I've been v. fat myself and all I can say is I'm sure she'll get thin if she wants to.
But no one really wants a fat wife.

I'm not saying Erin's not great but you've probably had few other relationships. You said you never dated anyone in college.

So I have to fully congratulate you on your decision. I think its the bravest you've ever made and I'm now a life long Steve Pavlina fan. I'm also going to read all your old posts with a totally new respect.

I have to take issue with something you said.

I love sex. Nothing beats a good shag. But would I want to center my whole life around meeting Titan’s needs? No… elevating sex as my highest need would be a huge step backwards. It would be dropping all the way back to eating cooked animal flesh, something I haven’t done since 1993.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt you have that much experience with lots of women. So how can you know it would be a step backwards? You've never tried it.

Thanks

[PringlesAreVegan]

Wow, I was stunned when I read your post, but realize I may have romanticized your family life like someone does a celebrity in a tabloid.

Overall, it's wonderful to see this topic being discussed so openly. Messing with the institution of marriage or should we say 'sacrament' is all but taboo in Western culture, but can you think of anything else failing to such a degree as the idea 'to death do us part'? We've become a world more transfixed on GDP then on happiness and it's showing - BIGTIME!

First, I can't help think of the movie, When When Harry Met Sally or The Beach. Men and women can hardly keep the sex elephant out of the room in just maintaining friendships with each other, so keeping multiple intimate relationships from gobbling up your life energy is going to be an interesting read, it might even add a Jerry Springer like dimension to your life, god forbid.

Some questions:
It sounds high minded to be so transparent with this Polyamory concept (certainly better than cheating), but how practical will it be to introduce Erin and your kids to a new love interest? Isn't Polyamory simply a lighter door to push through on the way to divorce? Do you test for STD's each time a new partner comes into the love network? And sharing every thought and impulse with our loved ones seems a fine line between driving others mad and narcissism.

One can understand how writing and thinking as deeply as you do, it is easy to become all consumed with thinking and the mind and mistake oneself for it - identifying with the ego and so going to great lengths to satisfy it...the more creative and rational sounding the solution, the better it will sit with your conscious. Yes?

On the spiritual plane, if we are already 'whole' beings, then adding or taking away experiences, relationships, objects, etc. can not bring higher consciousness or enlightenment. In fact, it will probably just create more needs and attachments, which ultimately cause pain to oneself and others when it comes time to severing ties.

As for my own learning through relationships odyssey, my wife and I will probably be divorced within a year...our relationship has run it's course and I've started being honest with myself about it, I only hope she finds more peace with this in the months ahead as it pains me to see her hurt, but we are lucky we don't have children to involve in this.

When I'm single again, I've vowed to go a different tack and not be intimate for a number of years or indefinitely, to work on my own happiness without looking to derive this from other intimate relationships and to not look for it by living up to some image I conjure up of the future - of course all easier said than done, but I'm simply looking to live with less so I have more time to go deeper into being present - to catch myself when I'm trolling through the past or when I'm looking to plan for future happiness by obtaining some far off goal. I remember being lonely at times when I was single in my early twenties and know the loneliness bug will hit from time to time, but realize this too is just a function of being caught in the past or pining for some future event or person to make me whole, when I am already.

I'm hopeful to hear more experiences of how people found deeper love and comfort with oneself and then how this changed their relationships with others.

[mindfulconstruct]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I've been trying to figure out why this topic bugs me, and I think it's the implied, perhaps unintended, and also perhaps inevitable way it comes across as this is the best way to be, and everyone who disagrees is less than enlightened.

^I've not yet come across an online polyamory writing stating the relationship style for what it is, without the spiritual fluff, that again, doesn't hold as logical. Perhaps the same could be true of monogamy writings, I haven't really read up on such writings, because most of it is cultural subtext.

Bottom line is, mono and poly are *different* relationship styles -- there is not need to construct a religion around either one. Each person has a style that is right for them. Anyone trying to say otherwise is avoiding the truth...that human nature as a whole cannot be reduced to one style or another. That's what makes humans so unique, the diversity and the personal choice.

[dino2]

Mindfulconstruct, thanks! You expressed what I was thinking better than I could have.

Also, while I don't feel sorry for Erin or anything, as it seems she likes being married to Steve, I certainly have never been one to romanticize or envy their marriage. I've always thought it was strange that Steve was married in the first place. The way he presented this, it sounded like an ultimatum. Either he gets to try polyamory, or they're getting divorced. What kind of commitment is that? To me, whether you're monogamous or not, marriage implies a commitment to each other to work things out together. And it's not the first time I've read that sort of language from him. There was a post on Problogger about how to get your spouse on board with quitting your job and start your own blogging business. If I remember correctly, in the comment section he said if his spouse didn't support him in quitting his job he'd leave her. And almost getting divorced over whether your kids will be raised vegan or not? Great that it works for them, but that's how all of my relationships were BEFORE I got married. For me, the spirit of marriage implies a commitment to stay with each other and work things out, together, unless there's some sort of abuse or infidelity. Otherwise, what's the point? I suppose some people here would call that codependency or taking away your spouse's freedom.

That being said, I think he's got great insights in a lot of matters, especially employment! But I'll take anything he says about intimate relationships with a grain of salt!

[SimonaRich]

Each person has a different personal development path to experience. Therefore judging and being opposed to someone else's growth is very stupid.

Marriage is the law created by people, therefore it is not necessarily right. It is just a tradition we follow. I do believe that you will fully experience personal growth only by following universal laws rather than limited laws created by people.

Although I never considered marriage, I believe that some people will experience growth once been on this route.

If people are completely closed to new experiences, it means they are not ready to explore new paths. Their egos are bigger then themselves. There is no way such people will shift their comfort zones to experience growth. But that is also okay as they will, at some stage, gradually grow out of such stagnation.

[HealingMaven]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

I think we need to all take a deep breath here. I'm seeing a lot of conclusions being drawn on false assumptions.

Sigh. Get used to it, Erin. As the female half of a heterosexual couple where the man initiated the move to poly, you're going to spend a LOT of time on the defensive on Steve's behalf for the next couple of months, if not years. (Actually, even if you'd started it rather than Steve, you'd be getting this reaction, just not *quite* as much.) Though... a little of it looks to be trolling. I wouldn't have expected that of people reading the Pavlina blogs.

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

3. We're not saying you have to be polyamorous to be high awareness. We're interested in exploring polyamory to see what it's all about. Neither one of us has drawn any conclusions about it because we haven't experienced it yet.

THANK YOU. A lot of people are going to hear it that way -- largely I think because of Steve's personal development bent implies that EVERY major change he makes is enlightened.

And I thank you a second time -- because some people IN THE POLY COMMUNITY do posit that. That being poly and open is a more civilized way of being. And honestly, I think it's more civilized than CHEATING, but otherwise, the "free love is more enlightened" sentiment is a load of BS. (And a dangerous sentiment -- puts the wrong kind of pressure on people. Not everyone SHOULD engage in poly relationships.) In my experience, it's an orientation. Gay, straight, bi- & poly are just various orientations. For some people it's fixed, and some it's flexible.

[Erin Pavlina]

Exactly, HealingMaven. I know people are going to have their reactions. I'm always bothered when people assume something that is not correct and then draw conclusions based on those false assumptions. Because then they act on false information which means they may be missing out on something.

I don't believe in compromising so much of yourself to a relationship that neither partner is happy. I learned this at the video store. In the olden days, when Steve and I first got together we'd go to the video store. "Oh honey, let's get this chick flick." "Uh, no, I don't want to see that. Let's get this war movie." "Eww, no way I want to watch blood and guts flying all over the place." Then we'd settle for something both of us were willing to watch but which neither of us were dying to see.

After a while I realized that was ridiculous because then neither one of us was happy. So we started renting the movies we wanted and inviting our partner to watch with us if they wanted to. We don't have to do everything together. "Let there be space between you." - Kahlil Gibran.

When we want to make a decision we discuss it, share our viewpoints, and see if either one of us has any false assumptions so that we clear those up. Like going vegan. I had this idea that I'd be eating tofu and sprouts and that I'd never have an ice cream cone or a burger again. I was wrong, so I was arguing from a place of false assumptions. Once I became clear about what veganism was really about, I agreed with it totally, but I never would have known if I hadn't tried it or challenged my beliefs about it.

It's the same with polyamory. I cannot possibly say I'm against it without trying it. It may come to pass that I don't like it. If that happens, I'll tell Steve, ask for what I want, and if we're not on the same page, we'll separate. Conscious choices along the way, in addition to having all the appropriate and true information, is how I determine what I want and don't want. This will be no different.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

It's the same with polyamory. I cannot possibly say I'm against it without trying it. It may come to pass that I don't like it. If that happens, I'll tell Steve, ask for what I want, and if we're not on the same page, we'll separate. Conscious choices along the way, in addition to having all the appropriate and true information, is how I determine what I want and don't want. This will be no different.

That's great

Really strange how some people keep seeing you as a victim. I don't know you personally, but to me it looks like you're being far away from that!

This polyamory thing triggers many fears and goes against many beliefs. I guess there are many different reasons why some people may react negatively.

I too felt threatened by it. I have no problem with polyamory. I've been polyamorous in the past, I totally liked it and I will probably be it in the future again. I even wrote to Steve that I totally understand him. Yet you going polyamorous really bugged me (and it bugged me that it bugged me). After reading his first post about it, I felt shaken to the ground and very nervous for several hours, without knowing why.

Turns out I was scared by the serious possibility you two could separate. It reminded me of my parents's divorce! Maybe I was seeing you as some kind of parents in some way. I've often thought things like "I wish I had had parents like Steve and Erin! Their kids are so lucky." "SteveandErin" has been an important constant in my life in the last year and a half, and this polyamory thing was suddenly threatening it. I was afraid Steve could end up leaving us like my father left my mother and me.

LOL

Many people project, like I did, all kinds of their personal issues, personal fears, personal old pain, etc., on Steve and you. Don't let it bother you.

Love.

[evpaps]

Damn I wish I never read that. I really didn't want to know what Steve calls his penis

Basically I think Steve has just turned his network marketing prowess towards relationships and, as I can see by some of the posts, he has already scored several dates.

I am very wary of this strategy as I have had personal experience with the heartache it can cause entire families. Saying that you should let go of fear and that it is all about personal development does not change the reality of the situation. Beware.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dino2

For me, the spirit of marriage implies a commitment to stay with each other and work things out, together, unless there's some sort of abuse or infidelity.

Conditional commitment. Right. Any other reasons to be non-committal, or is that it?

Originally Posted by dino2

But I'll take anything he says about intimate relationships with a grain of salt!

If you haven't been taking everything he says with a grain of salt, you're not thinking critically enough. But baby steps are good.

[davidclare]

"What you may not realize is that the most effective advice on how to connect with women almost invariably comes from men, not from women themselves." -- Steve Pavlina


30 years of "learning about women from women" proved emotionally and financially disastrous. I love my mother, but her advice about women sucks.

1 year of learning about women from men taught me how to connect with women and how to screen women for the kind of relationships I want. I now have a stupendously cool girlfriend who is supporting my effort to reach out to other men, to teach them about how women really are.

In the general area of relationships, women just don't have any credibility with me at all. 80% of divorces and breakups are initiated by women. If they are so good at relationships, and men so bad, why are women leaving men in droves?

Makes no sense. None at all.

What I find most laughable about this thread is how so many women are just assuming Erin is a victim. Polyamory could work very, very well for her. Not just men get bored in stale relationships (that 80% thing I mentioned).

I should finish my book...

[lasti]

@Davidclare: Seems like you have some heavy prejudices...

Originally Posted by davidclare

In the general area of relationships, women just don't have any credibility with me at all. 80% of divorces and breakups are initiated by women. If they are so good at relationships, and men so bad, why are women leaving men in droves?

Why should the one who leaves a relationship be the "evil ones"? Why should somebody who leaves a relationship be "evil" at all? What are you trying to say anyway? That you are afraid of being in a relationship because you could be left?

What I find most laughable about this thread is how so many women are just assuming Erin is a victim.

Why do you assume that's just women who consider Erin as victim?
Read Steve's statement on the positive feedback he received because of his poly-postings:

It might interest you to know that this feedback came from men and women about equally — if we compensate for the demographic split of my readership (which is about 65% male).

By the way: Does your girlfriend know that you don't have credibility in her concerning your relationship?