Blog

I, You, We

The Oligoamory will be seven years old in a few days! This means that the“Seven Year Itch” – which is known to be considered critical in relationship matters – has now been left behind us (after all, a birthday is, like a car’s odometer, a reliable indicator that a certain milestone has been passed).
Although… on closer inspection, the “unlucky seven“ is actually mainly a widespread scarecrow that suggests that marriages and relationships are particularly vulnerable after seven years and often fail at this point. This idea originally dated back to the ancient world, when philosophers such as Philo of Alexandria and Solon broke human life down into seven-year stages. This view shaped the idea that after seven years, a new phase of life would begin, which could also bring about change and a reassessment of personal relationships. However, the phrase ultimately became known worldwide through the American film “The Seven Year Itch“ (1955), starring Marilyn Monroe and Tom Ewell as lead actors: The movie is about a husband who, in the seventh year of his marriage, is tempted by an attractive neighbour.
However, although the myth is firmly entrenched, there is no clear scientific confirmation that the seventh year is statistically the most critical. According to the Federal Statistical Office¹, marriages in Germany, for example, lasted an average of 14 years and eight months before ending in divorce in 2020. As expected, the highest divorce rates occur in the first few years of marriage. Further long-term studies additionally revealed that – viewed as a whole (and also statistically) – relationship satisfaction very often reaches its lowest point after approximately ten years before rising again – which shows that crises can occur earlier or later depending on the individuals involved.

And while we’re on the subject of symbols and myths, I could also mention today’s Valentine’s Day in this context, which unfortunately often poses a challenge for many people in multiple relationships, as the predominantly normative couple-centred nature of its celebration causes organisational and logistical difficulties for people with multiple romantic partners. For which the good old priest Valentinus, who lent his name to this mini-celebration based on his Catholic saint’s and name day, can actually take very little credit. After all, he became a martyr in Roman times because, according to legend, he illegally united lovers who were forbidden to have a valid relationship under the law at that time (especially members of the army, for example). In a polyamorous and oligoamorous sense, Valentinus therefore acted in a downright “queer“ manner – and resisted by campaigning for minority rights, equality, thereby questioning governmental and societal normativity.

Incidentally, what I have just done with the two stories above is something that is of great importance in feminism and queer theory. The approach is called “deconstruction” (sometimes also “deconstructivism”, from the French déconstruction, “disassembly, dismantling”) and represents a (philosophical) method of critically examining and disassembling texts as well as narratives for the purpose of questioning meaning and exposing contradictions in their content.
In the many decades of feminist and queer debate, which has now continued for over a century and into the present day (see in particular my fourth part on the “History of Polyamory” in the political Entry 50), deconstruction has therefore always been and continues to be an important tool: Patriarchal myths such as “women are the ‘weaker sex’ and should therefore be restricted to household and family chores” had to be deconstructed – as well as anti-queer narratives, e.g. “…that expressions of queerness (including being lesbian, gay, bi or trans) are dangerous to ‘normal’ people, and that contact with such individuals is akin to a disease even contagious“.
As with our two opening legends, deconstructionism helps to dispel such haphazard nonsense (I am tempted to say “bullshit” or worse here!); it exposes the glaring errors in this way of thinking and the myth-making behind it.
In my 65th Entry on this bLog, I explained why I also consider a way of life involving multiple ethical relationships to be “queer” – and thus vigilant deconstructionism remains just as important and necessary in Oligo- and Polyamory – but in doing so, it sometimes also becomes a little en vogue.

“Oops, Oligotropos, did you just write ‘en vogue’ (approx. ‘trendy’ / ‘popular’)?“
I have – and I know that in doing so, I am venturing onto the slippery slope of philosophical debate that also dates back more than a century: how much “decomposition“ through deconstruction of an idea is truly effective and useful. The spontaneous answer – including mine – would be: “As much as necessary to avert damage and prevent further proliferation of absurd narratives and ‘perceived opinions’ (especially in today’s world, where this is very evident on a daily basis!).”

At the same time, when we venture into the realm of interpersonal relationships, from my oligoamorous perspective it is no less important to exercise due care when wielding the sharp scalpel of deconstruction – so that we do not end up lopping off an entire leg when a precise local intervention would have solved an existing problem.

Why is there a need for “deconstruction“ in the world of multiple relationships at all? Is this really necessary when we’re already talking about a norm-defying lifestyle such as non-monogamy? When those involved decide on such a concept, have they not already accomplished a great deal of deconstruction – which, as we read above, means “dismantling“ – of conventional restrictions and stipulations?
Certainly, yes – but depending on the situation, probably also no.
One of the most discussed issues of “deconstruction” in the context of ethical multiple relationships probably concerns the so-called “couple privilege” – specifically, the situation where a couple who is already in a relationship (or even married) with each other decides to open up to further relationships on the unexplored continent of non-monogamy. For if it is not just a predominantly sexually motivated broadening of horizons (for which a mere “casual open relationship” is usually sufficient), but rather a genuine desire for ethical (!) multiple relationships with the possibility of deep feelings and meaningful, long-term connections, then values such as equality, equal dignity, participation and mutual respect for all involved come into play.
This can pose a challenge for an established couple with a likewise established internal dynamic – even in the sense of a “blind spot“ – especially because potential new partners in this configuration are often only offered subordinate “add-on“ positions, like a spare seat, attached to a longstanding, functionally closed-off concept. Thus, in most cases, the “inhabitants” of the couple do not necessarily perceive this dynamic themselves, since for them “their world” remains largely convenient as before (and should remain so in their minds) – except that now optional additional “slots” have been created for further romantic partners. For potential future companions, however, such an offer is extremely unattractive in theory and practice (to say the least) and can have very painful consequences: This is because, from the outset, this creates a power imbalance and a hierarchy that contradicts the values cited above, with the new relationships merely serving as “junior partners“ to the already existing one.

This is where the required polyamorous deconstructivism comes in: a couple such as the one just described would have to deconstruct their “we”, their sense of “us“. The members of the couple would first have to become much more individual beings than the current “couple components“ that they are at present.
Appeals regarding the urgency of this process and tools for achieving it have long filled the pages of non-monogamous and polyamorous literature, from Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy’s “The Ethical Slut“ (1997) to Yaniv Barinberg’s “More is More“ (2020) and Jessica Fern’s “Polysecure“ (2022).²
The overarching and connecting core idea: people who navigate the world of ethical non-monogamy should take time for personal development, get to know themselves thoroughly first, and ensure they establish a solid basis for independence through self-guidance before facing the challenges (and occasional emotional triggers) of multiple relationships.

So far, so good – and, especially considering the “couple privilege” described above, undoubtedly necessary.
However, from my perspective as the “inventor of Oligoamory”, or “committed, sustainable multiple relationships”, there is a small, restless worm stirring in this otherwise fertile compost…
Not that I haven’t already devoted numerous lines to working on the self, especially to self-knowledge (at least since Entry 46…), on this blog, and that I consider this conceptually to be one of the most important – and personally indeed the most important – foundations of ethical multiple relationships.

However, the history of Polyamory, which dates back to 1990 by now, is itself not immune to producing independent narratives of its own, which in the worst case scenario could literally “throw the baby out with the bathwater“ (i.e., according to the proverb, inadvertently disposing of the very thing that was supposed to be kept).
The couple privilege is in every respect one of the most unfavourable preconditions for any polyamorous endeavours and desires, and should indeed be questioned by those affected and dismantled as far as possible – no question about it.
Meanwhile, though, a warning, or rather an imperative, is beginning to emerge in the community, suggesting that people should refrain entirely from entering into multiple relationships until they are “sufficiently prepared“. This applies to individuals in terms of their personal mindset, but even more so to couples, with particular reference to couple privilege.

From my position and based on my life experience, I, Oligotropos, consider this to be rather impractical, as in my view, human relationships, especially romantic ones, are not normally simulation exercises that we first work out on paper and then implement as precisely as possible in real life according to the parameters we have developed. In this sense, the chance for a relationships, falling in love, feelings, emerging trust and (hopefully) the eventual desire to commit remain something that “happens“ to you – and not something that can be subjected to a script or even a deadline.
Because in all our relationships (not just non-monogamous ones!), we regularly will find ourselves a little “adrift“, having to be flexible and tolerant, and very often we also have to patch up the messes we’ve created.
So rather than adopting a prescriptive approach along the lines of “All people who want to enter into polyamorous relationships should previously..“, it seems to me that it is more important to jointly cultivate other core values, yes, even if this is already part of the ongoing process of forming a relationship.
These are, in addition to the flexibility and tolerance mentioned above, honesty, integrity and commitment – but above all, the mutual desire for inclusivity and a shared sense of a “mutual we”, which I emphasise so often in my Oligoamory.

Because polyamorous literature is now increasingly focusing on the self, the ego and its individuation, the concepts of “we“ and “us“ are beginning to suffer damage, simply because the words themselves have become associated with abuse of power and hierarchical structures. But unless it is a straightforward case of couple privilege (especially if this is even intended by the “primary couple”), the “we/us” does not deserve this bad reputation.
On the contrary, with the increasing emphasis on the “self” since the 2010s and 2020s, I increasingly perceive the problem that we are moving closer again to what Scott Peck, the “father of community building”, once called “rugged individualism” – and the world currently appears to me to increasingly reflect this, not least thanks to Trumpism (*irony off*). There is a danger that we will develop into polyamorous ego shooters who are perfectly capable of entering into relationships in a highly autonomous and self-determined manner whenever we feel like it. But who are equally self-determined and inclined to quickly quote and implement the advice found in polyamorous self-help literature, to end a relationship when it no longer feels “easy” or when one’s personal set of needs has changed (see Entry 118).

I am by no means suggesting that anyone should endure a relationship in which they suffer in any way, where there are irresolvable (and/or hidden) abusive structures, or where icy seas of silence and living parallel lives have long since spread.
However, posessing the ability to endure is fundamentally a polyamorous virtue, because without some ambiguity tolerance (see Entry 64), neither we nor the other people involved in our relationships will ever be able to prove themselves to be reliable, honest, or loyal: with the ability to back down when necessary, to assume responsibility and causality for one’s own mistakes, and to resolve them with integrity. And for that, we need each other, so that we can (repeatedly) give us mutual opportunities to do so!
It is precisely in this regard that the world has become quite unforgiving these days: one mistake – and you’re out! Made a wrong move? – You’re kicked out and exposed with a nasty review…

For me, in Oligoamory, ethical multiple relationships spring primarily from a communal root and only secondarily from a process of individualisation. The latter is, as I already stated, important, even decisive – but it is literally not an “end in itself” as such; rather, its actual goal is to enable and empower a loving togetherness.
It’s a bit like the billiard ball at the top of this entry: in its closed, round spherical shape, it is virtually perfect, capable of rolling smoothly and travelling in a straight line. But only when it receives an impulse and interacts with others is it able to develop real dynamics and thus become part of a game.

On this Valentine’s Day, I will of course end with a declaration of love, this time written by singer-songwriter Drew Holcomb.³ One that beautifully expresses my view of what I call the “mutual we” . The same goes for my conviction that a solid “I/self” is a great thing, but that we can only achieve true fulfilment when being together:

You got to find your people
The ones that make you feel alright
The kind you want to stay up with all night

You got to find your people
The ones that make you feel whole
That won’t leave your side when you lose control
The ones that don’t let you lose your soul

You got to find your people
The ones that get the joke
Who understand what you’re saying before a word is spoke
You got to find your people
That put the needle in the groove
When you’re together, you got nothing to prove
When you’re together, you got nothing to lose

In a world of strangers you don’t know who to trust
All you see is danger, tryna find what you lost
You can’t go in alone, everybody needs help
You got to find your people, then you’ll find yourself

You got to find your people
That’ll call your bluff
Who’ll ride along when the road is rough
You got to find your people
The ones that make you feel equal
They pick you up and don’t put you down
Help you find your way in the lost and found

In a world of strangers, you don’t know who to trust
All you see is danger, trying to find what you lost
You can’t go in alone, everybody needs help
You got to find your people, then you’ll find yourself

The ones that understand you
The ones that lend a hand to you
The ones that don’t demand anything from you

You got to find your people
The ones that make you feel alright
That tell you the truth and wish you well
You got to find your people, then you’ll find yourself
You got to find your people, then you’ll find yourself

¹ for German divorce statistics, see HERE (German Federal Statistical Office)

² Janet W. W. Hardy & Dossie Easton: “The Ethical Slut – a guide to infinite sexual possibilities“, Greenery Press 1997
Yaniv Barinberg: “More is More – My Experiences with Polyamory“, edition assemblage 2020 (German version only);
Jessica Fern: “Polysecure: Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Non-monogamy“, Scribe UK, 2022;

³ The lyrics belong to the song “Find Your People” by Drew Holcomb & The Neighbours from their 2023 album “Strangers No More”.
YouTube-LINK to the official video
All rights belong to the artists!

Thanks to Eran Menashri on Unsplash for the photo!

Complete consensus? – or: “That’s not how I imagined it would be…“

Kitty and Tom are having breakfast when Tom enthusiastically tells her what is on his mind: “You know, Fritzi and Taylor told me about this new breakfast trend…Poppy seed rolls! It’s supposed to be the absolute hot thing for a healthy start into the day. They are really excited about it – and it would have completely changed their breakfast routine, yes, totally improved it – they both say. What do you think, shall we go for it too? The taste is supposed to be sensational; I’ve already seen lots of posts and videos on social media from users who can’t stop raving about it…”
Tom shares this with sparkling eyes – and it occurs to Kitty that she has actually thought about these widely praised poppy seed rolls herself. When some of her colleagues talk about them, they almost sound like a fountain of youth – which is why she doesn’t consider Tom’s suggestion completely absurd, even though none of them has ever tried a poppy seed roll anywhere before. But now she wants to find out and not be a spoilsport: “Okay, Tom, if you say so, let’s do it… Poppy seed rolls? Count me in!”

Already in the evening, Tom reports his achievement: “It was on offer at the hypermarket, a six-month supply – 750 pieces in a freezer box, so I jumped at the chance!” And so, nothing stands in the way of the new breakfast ritual the next morning. Tom gets up extra early and quickly prepares two rolls for each of them – and soon the two are sitting opposite one another, biting into the promised delicacy. “Hmm…”, says Tom, “it takes some getting used to at first – but I think I could gradually become a fan of it…” While Kitty struggles to suppress retching and thinks desperately: “THESE are poppy seed rolls??? If only I had known beforehand, they’re completely unbearable… How am I going to get out of this now – not to mention the half-year’s supply and Tom’s burgeoning enthusiasm…?”

So today’s topic starts with poppy seed rolls… Although you probably already suspect that I’m not really talking about poppy seed rolls, but rather about types of ethical multiple relationships – and especially the idea of “consensus” or mutual agreement – particularly as in the case of Kitty and Tom – on something that was previously mostly unknown to both of them.

I would like to share my thoughts on this step by step – and ask you, my dear readers, to accompany me on this journey of discovery, in the hope that we can all shed some light on the mechanisms of consensus and consensual behaviour (for those in a hurry: I will differentiate between the two in more detail at the end of this Entry).

Looking at the story of Kitty and Tom (especially Kitty’s struggle for a way out), the first question that comes to my mind is whether it would even be legally possible (in my case: in Germany), to give consent to something whose exact nature is not fully known.
This issue obviously touches on fundamental principles of contract law and the law of intent.
The main principles are as follows:

• For a declaration of intent to be binding, a valid consensus is required. This means that the parties must agree on the essential elements of an agreement (which lawyers refer to as “essentialia negotii”).
• Consensus requires that those making the declaration know or at least understand the content of their declaration. A “blind” consensus on unknown content is problematic. (see below)

Legal situation and important considerations

1. Clarity of intent and knowledge of content:
   According to Paragraph 116 of the German Civil Code (BGB), a declaration of intent made while unconscious or in a state of temporary mental incapacity is null and void. Therefore, the declaration must be based on a certain level of clarity of intent.
2. Error regarding content (Paragraph 119 BGB):
   If someone is mistaken about the content of their declaration, the declaration can be contested. This shows that the content at least plays a role and must be known in order to be effective.
3. Concluding a contract with incomplete information:
   There is no obligation to know everything perfectly, but agreeing to completely unknown or unclear terms and conditions is risky. Parties are often required to inform themselves to a reasonable extent. (!!! You are familiar with this, for example, from the infamous GTC, which you should not simply tick or sign without reading !!!)
4. Information requirements and transparency:
   In certain areas of law (e.g. regarding consumer protection), there are information requirements designed to ensure that consent is given on an informed basis.
5. Tacit consent or consent to unknown content:
   If the content is unknown but the declaration is made nonetheless, this may be regarded as a lack of intent, rendering the declaration contestable or void.

Okay, so it is not absolutely necessary to have complete knowledge of every detail, but a basic understanding and the ability to express oneself clearly are essential. However, a “consensus” on completely unknown or incomprehensible content is apparently legally problematic and can lead to contestability or nullity. In practice, though, it seems advisable to obtain information about essential content before giving consent in order to avoid disputes later on.
In our example, a lawyer would probably ask whether both Kitty and Tom had sufficiently informed themselves in advance about “poppy seed rolls” – and what the purchase of a six-month supply would entail. We see that the responsibility here is placed rather substantially on the side of those who agree, in that they would have to prove that the aforementioned “informed basis” (without precise detailed knowledge, mind you!) was completely lacking – or that someone had been intentionally deceived.

“Poppy seed rolls! Oligotropos, really; ethical multiple relationships are not commodities that you buy in a shop and then discover you have made a contractual error. Such relationships are rather a process, a course of events…” – one could reproach me at this point…
All right, then perhaps it would be better to look at “intangible issues” that one can agree on, such as an event or a holiday, where I might be dissatisfied with how things turned out because I had anticipated something different beforehand:

1. Context: Event or holiday trip

• When you attend an event or book a holiday trip, you usually enter into a contract that specifies certain services and a schedule.
• The basis is usually a description of services (e.g. programme, accommodation, benefits) which you agree to.

2. Dissatisfaction vs. non-compliance with contract

• Dissatisfaction alone is not a sufficient reason to take legal action.
  Everyone has personal expectations that cannot always be met.
• The decisive factor is whether the organiser has breached essential contractual obligations or whether there is a genuine defect, i.e. whether the actual service deviates significantly from the agreed or advertised service.

A) Example: Holyday

• If, for example, the accommodation does not match the description (e.g. rooms are very dirty, promised services are not provided), this constitutes a genuine defect. You then have the right to complain about the defect and, if necessary, demand a price reduction or compensation.
• If you are “only” annoyed about the schedule, programme or circumstances (“It was so hot every day in Kenya…!”), but this was contractually agreed or foreseeable, this does not constitute a legal defect.

B) Example: Event

• If, for example, a concert or event is significantly shorter than advertised or important parts of the programme are cancelled, this may constitute a defect.
• However, if you simply had different expectations (e.g. regarding atmosphere or intensity), this does not count.

A subjective feeling of disappointment about the possible outcome is therefore not sufficient… Legal claims only exist if the actual result deviates significantly (through deception or wilful negligence) from what was agreed.

Interim conclusion: Indeed – we can actually agree to a matter or course of events in advance, even if we are not fully aware of every single aspect of its content or how it will unfold!
As it turns out, this is even quite common in everyday life, because it is often impossible to know all the details in advance. Agreements (and contracts) are therefore usually based on relevant key points, not on every single item. And even the legislator does not require that one must be perfectly informed, but rather that there is a fundamental consensus on the essential points (!). Plus: There is a certain degree of reasonableness, i.e. you have to inform yourself to a reasonable extent and understand what you are getting yourself into. However, the limit of this is reached when important information is deliberately withheld or the reality differs significantly from the description.
The following therefore already applies at this point:

• Read contracts, GTCs and service descriptions carefully (…what are poppy seed rolls? What means “open” concerning multiple relationships…, what can I expect…?)
• Ask if anything is unclear (Poppy seed rolls? The ones with poppy seeds on them? Multiple relationships? Meaning with several partners? )
• Check out reviews, experience reports, or independent sources (e.g., in poppy seed roll forums or at regulars’ tables and workshops on open relationships).

So much for our excursion into the world of our rights and obligations – but could something like this possibly be transferred to a mutually agreed type of relationship? For example, if I want to agree on an “open relationship” or even “Polyamory” with a partner, and I may have read a book or watched a YouTube video about it, but I don’t know exactly what to expect or find it difficult to assess the consequences for our relationship?
This is a rather sensitive issue that addresses the tension between the legal, emotional and social aspects of a shared relationship model:

1. Relationship models such as open relationships or Polyamory are no legal ‘contracts’ in the traditional sense.
   Such relationship agreements are, as you’d expect, not legally binding contracts like purchases or service deals. [Exception¹] Instead, they’re based on mutual understanding, trust, and communication.
   
   
2. Principle: Informed consent and communication
   However, as with contracts, it is also essential in relationships that all partners are as informed as possible and give their deliberate consent.
   If the parties involved have only explored the topic superficially (e.g. through social media posts or a podcast) but do not know exactly what to expect or what emotional consequences it may have, this is comparable to incomplete information.
   
   
3. Consequences of unclear expectations
   • Emotional harm, misunderstandings or conflicts can arise when expectations and boundaries have not been clearly communicated or understood.
   • However, unlike in contract law, there is no possibility of formally “contesting” or “reversing” a relationship agreement.
     
     
4. (Joint) responsibility
   • Similar to contracts, each person in a relationship has a responsibility to consider the consequences and talk honestly about uncertainties.
   • If one has not gathered sufficient information or is not yet aware of one’s own feelings and boundaries, this can put a strain on the relationship, but it is not a legal concern, rather a matter of trust, mutual respect, and communication.
     
     
5. Recommendations regarding relationship models to be agreed upon
   • Active, open discussions about expectations, boundaries, fears, and desires are essential.
   • Shared learning, e.g. through literature, workshops or counselling, can help to develop a better understanding.
   • Flexibility and regular reflection of the agreements are advisable because feelings and needs can change.

Therefore, when planning or agreeing on a type of relationship that one has not yet experienced oneself, it is understandable that it is difficult to fully guarantee all of these aspects. Nevertheless, there are now some noteworthy approaches that can help with implementation.
The English-speaking world has also seen the emergence of the concepts of “enthusiastic consent” (eager, voluntary consent) and “mutual intent” (mutual intention/shared goal), which are (or should be) central to relationship structures such as open relationships or Polyamory in order to ensure clarity, trust and dignity for all involved [I will address the origins and fundamentals of these two concepts in the final paragraph of this Entry!].

1. Conscious and open communication as a basis

• Be transparent about your own level of knowledge:
  Be honest with yourself and your partner about the fact that you have not yet lived the model and are still learning what it means in practical terms.
• Regular dialogue:
  Agree that you can discuss feelings, needs, and boundaries at any time, even if these change during the process.
• Ask questions and listen:
  Encourage mutual question-asking to ensure that all aspects are being understood.

2. Gradual engagement with clear options for backing out

• Instead of agreeing to “all or nothing” right away, you can experiment with small steps and observe how it feels.
• Agree that anyone can say “stop” at any time if something does not feel okay.

3. Learning together and sharing resources

• Read books together, watch videos or attend workshops on your planned kind of relationship.
• Consider seeking counselling services, such as relationship therapy or specialised coaches, to address any uncertainties.

4. Promoting “enthusiastic consent”

• Enthusiastic consent arises when all parties involved feel secure, respected and free (only a genuine, unambiguous “yes” really means “yes!”).
• Avoid pressure, expectations or implicit obligations (“Okaaayyyy…” / “Well, if you say so…” / “I don’t want to be a spoilsport…”)
• Pay attention to non-verbal signals and emotions, not just the spoken word.

5. Establishing “mutual intent”

• Clarify together what you want to achieve with this kind of relationship (e.g. more freedom, honesty, closeness, experiences, companionship).
• Make sure that the aims and boundaries are clear to everyone and shared by all.
• If necessary, document your agreements in writing or in the form of shared guidelines to prevent misunderstandings.

“Enthusiastic consent” and “mutual intent” are therefore not conditions that can be created once and for all, but rather ongoing processes of communication, trust and reflection. After all, “trying things out” or “taking a step-by-step approach” is not as easy in these types of relationships as it is with factual contracts or booked events, because there are always real people with feelings, needs and expectations involved.
Nevertheless, even in the best-case scenario, a new (romantic)
It is important to consciously take this development slowly and carefully – this is precisely what “step by step” means in an emotional sense.relationship usually does not develop overnight, but often evolves in stages: getting to know each other, building trust, regular contact, emotional closeness.
“Enthusiastic consent” therefore also means that all parties involved always agree voluntarily and willingly, because every (individual) relationship deserves respect and attention. The aim here is not to define or expect everything immediately, but to allow space for relationships to develop organically. And under no circumstances should anyone be pressured into a relationship before they feel truly ready for it.
It remains important here that everyone involved communicates honestly when needs change or when someone requires a break, because relationships can change, grow or even end.

Keyword “ending”: Indeed, because this is also a realistic and common challenge in open or polyamorous relationship models:
If partners experience difficulties or severe stress with the agreed kind of relationship, it may indeed be necessary to end or postpone a new relationship – at least temporarily or even permanently – in order to protect the safety and well-being of everyone involved. Open relationships thrive on a sensitive balance between the needs and boundaries of all parties involved. If someone feels overwhelmed or hurt, this is a serious signal.
Sometimes this means accepting compromises in favour of an existing relationship, taking things more slowly with new romantic partners, or even ending relationships if they lead to serious conflicts. It is important that this is done as respectfully and honestly (and timely!) as possible, and with consideration for everyone involved.
Ethical, open relationship models are no “blank approvals”; they require mindfulness, communication and sometimes difficult decisions – just like any other interpersonal arrangement that relies on balance and adaptation.

My already lengthy Entry would usually come to an end at this point. However, I would like to conclude by sharing two sources with you that could be important in discussions with your loved ones on these topics. This concerns, to begin with, the clear distinction between “consensus” and “consensual behaviour”, which is often confused in heated discussions – but unfortunately also in order to enforce personal claims:

► Consensus / consent

• Definition:
  Consensus means that all parties involved agree to and accept a decision or arrangement. It is a mutual accord in which no one objects.
• Characteristics:
  • Consensus is often understood as “everyone says yes”
  • It may also mean that everyone can live with the solution, even if it is not everyone’s first choice.
  • In practice, this can lead to decisions being discussed until everyone agrees or at least no longer objects.
  • Often used in group decisions, negotiations or when concluding contracts.
• Challenges:
  • Reaching consensus can require time and energy because all parties involved must be included.
  • Sometimes agreement is given out of politeness or social pressure, without really being “enthusiastic” about it.

► Consensual behaviour(Consent Culture / Enthusiastic Consent)

• Definition:
  Consensual behaviour means that consent is given actively, voluntarily, knowingly and enthusiastically. It is not just about the absence of refusal, but about genuine, positive agreement.
• Characteristics:
  • Consent is given consciously and with full understanding of the situation.
  • There is scope for questions, doubts and expressing boundaries.
  • Rejection or uncertainty are respected and do not lead to pressure to agree.
  • Is particularly emphasised in aspects involving sexuality, relationship models, or ethical communication.
  • Promotes a culture of respect, openness and mutual understanding.
• Challenges:
  • Requires a great deal of self-reflection, communication and sensitivity.
  • It is an ongoing process, not a once-off consent.

Aspect	Consensus	Consensual behaviour (Enthusiastic Consent)
Basic idea	everyone agrees, or at least no one disagrees	active, voluntary, conscious and eager agreement
Focus	mutual agreement	quality and voluntary nature of consent
Dealing with doubts	sometimes doubts are ignored	doubts are taken seriously and respected
Application	group decisions, contracts	interpersonal relationships, ethics, (including sexuality!)
Challenges	time-consuming, risk of passive consent	requires openness and continuous communication

And last but not least, the fundamentals of “enthusiastic consent” and “mutual intent”:
Like Polyamory and Oligamory themselves, both concepts have their roots in feminist movements and critical discourse on sexuality, power relations, and interpersonal communication. They arose from the desire to make consent and agreement more conscious, voluntary and equal – as a reaction to power imbalances and a lack of clarity in traditional models.
Here’s an overview of the early sources and origins:

♦ Enthusiastic Consent (“eager, voluntary consent”)

• Origin:
  The concept of “enthusiastic consent” developed in the 1980s and 90s in the context of feminist and sex-positive movements that opposed traditional, often patriarchal notions of consent in sexual relationships.
• Important early sources and influences:
  • Feminist sex educators and activists such as the Sex-Positive Feminists emphasised that consent must not merely be the absence of a “no”, but rather a clear, positive and joyful “yes”.
  • The term was promoted through workshops, pamphlets and feminist literature, for example in the work of groups such as “SlutWalk” and activists such as Annie Sprinkle and Joanna Macy.
  • In the anti-rape movement (#metoo), “enthusiastic consent” was also established as a counter-model to “tacit consent” or “non-resistance”.
• Literature example: “The Politics of Pleasure” (1998) by Carol Queen, a feminist collection that addresses the topic of consent and sexuality from a sex-positive perspective.

♦ Mutual Intent (“mutual intention / shared goal“)

• Origin:
  “Mutual intent“ is a term that already originates from legal philosophy, communication and relationship research, but has also influenced feminist theories on the importance of mutual consent and shared intent in relationships.
• Important early sources and influences:
  • In feminist theory, “mutual intent” has been discussed as a counter-model to one-sided power relations and “tacit agreements”.
  • Philosophers such as Jürgen Habermas (“The Theory of Communicative Action”, 1981) shaped the understanding of “mutual agreement” as the basis of rational communication and social interaction, which feminist theorists applied to questions of relationships and consensus.
  • Feminist relationship models (e.g. by bell hooks or Adrienne Rich) emphasise conscious, mutual consensuality as the basis for healthy relationships.
• Literature example:
  • “The Ethics of Ambiguity” by Simone de Beauvoir (1947) – early feminist reflections on freedom and mutual respect.
  • “All About Love” by bell hooks (2000) – discusses love as a conscious, mutual practice.

¹ Caution should be exercised here with regard to monogamous marriage, which is also often referred to as a “relationship model”. Of course, all of the quality tips outlined here can also be applied to this type of relationship – and it would be nice if monogamous relationships also benefited from a stronger culture of awareness, especially with regard to “what” the specific (or expected) content of such an arrangement is (or should be).
However, a secular marriage concluded before a civil registrar is primarily a binding civil contract between individuals, which establishes enforceable legal obligations with regard to shared property, provision/care, alimony, possible offspring (custody) and inheritance law.

Thanks to my fellow blogger Sacriba Schmied from sacriba’s Blog for the inspiration for this Entry – and to Leopold Böttcher on Pixabay for the photo!

Storm from the depths

December is here – and I suppose I should be blogging about something harmonious now, like tranquil snowy landscapes, hours spent by the fireplace and the sound of jingling bells.
But the world is not particularly harmonious these days, it seems to me – and above all: even at the end of the year, it certainly doesn’t come to a standstill, but rather continues to spin merrily on into the next cycle, whatever that may hold.

The same is true of Polyamory, which is constantly evolving and becoming more differentiated; sometimes in less fruitful directions, which challenge even me to take a clearer stance, as happened in the penultimate Entry – but sometimes there is also a remarkable synthesis of insights – gained in different places – that help to provide greater perspective in the colourful universe of multiple relationships.

Such an event of the latter kind has occurred in such a way that I would like to update my bLog-book, which I have been faithfully recording here for almost seven years now – for your support out there and for even better conversations with each other.

One of the perennial topics in the context of Polyamory is certainly the issue of jealousy: whether it should even exist in polyamorous contexts, how to deal with it – if it does anyway –, and how those affected can find help, etc. pp….
And because it is such a perennial topic, I have already written two posts about it on this bLog, one on jealousy itself and one on envy, in order to more clearly differentiate certain feelings of rejection and competition from “classic jealousy“.

And then there is the notorious “attachment theory“ devised by J. Bowlby and M. Ainsworth, which, since the publication of Jessica Fern’s book “Polysecure – Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Non-Monogamy“ in September 2022¹ once again had a significant influence on the way (romantic) ties in multiple relationships are perceived. This was a relevant and necessary step, because there had already been rumblings about this in the (multiple) relationship background for quite som time – to the extent that even on my bLog, Bowlby’s ideas had already been mentioned in June 2019 in Entry 14 on the quality characteristics of committed romantic relationships.

In order to gather these ideas in one place, I wrote the somewhat lengthy Entry 112 in April of this year, in which I briefly and comprehensively outlined the main tenets of the attachment theory – as Jessica Fern had done in her book as well.
And in this Entry, I would like to refer to this – which, in the worst case, should prompt you, the readers, to click back and forth between the two Entries – but at least it should spare me from having to explain it all again here in the same depth as I did there.

So let’s move closer to the synthesis:
In my Jealousy-Entry 36, in agreement with Swiss psychologist Verena Kast, I use the word “resentment“ (from the French re-sentir, “to feel again“) for the first time on my blog to describe “the repeated reliving and reminiscing of certain relationship experiences“, to which Mrs. Kast adds: “The powerlessness to act, which has led to the development of a resentment, becomes clearly visible. People feel helpless, trapped, defenceless.“

According to Bowlby and Ainsworth’s attachment theory, these two researchers postulate in turn that the “relationship experiences“ cited by Mrs Kast are, however, already made (and memorised!) at a very early stage, namely at the beginning of our childhood in regard to our closest caregivers at that time. Bowlby and Ainsworth were able to prove, using their 4-factor matrix of attachment styles (see Entry 112 or “Polysecure“ or Wikipedia – HERE), that as a result, probably only a few adults have what is known as “secure attachment“, but many of us probably walk through everyday life and our relationships with “dismissive/avoidant“, “anxious-preoccupied“ or downright “fearful/disorganised“ attachment styles.

In agreement with Bowlby/Ainsworth and Jessica Fern… – but what does that mean again?
Nothing less than the fact that we carry early childhood experiences within us, according to which our former caregivers either acted dismissively/distantly at a moment when we needed them most (e.g. by simply not being physically present or downplaying a situation [“Stay calm, it’s not that bad…“]), or they were merely ambivalent and therefore unpredictable, sometimes offering praise, sometimes reprimands or “conditions“ for their affection (often: demands regarding appearance, behaviour, performance), or they even (ab)used their position of power as the only available source of love to inflict traumatic distress on us beyond what a small child’s mind could comprehend.

According to further research by psychologist and psychoanalyst John Bowlby, we carry the effects of the attachment experiences listed above – including their possible injuries and limitations (listed in the second part of my Entry 112 or also in “Polysecure“) – into our adult lives, when we eventually set out to find one (or more) “attachment figures“ of our own with whom we want to share our lives. The general definition of “attachment figure“ is fairly concise: »An attachment figure is a person with whom another person has a special personal relationship. Trust, identification, love and affection characterise such a relationship. Physical contact, such as stroking or cuddling, can also be part of it.« But even the group of people with whom one would share these prerequisites within a monogamous model would certainly be rather small.

Hence, when it comes to Polyamory, it is once again Ms Fern who has recognised the crucial importance of the topic of the “attachment figure”. She introduces the third main section of her book in Chapter 7 with the following important differentiation:
»Up until this point I have predominantly used the umbrella term non-monogamy when talking about people with multiple partners, but as we saw in Chaper Four, people who are non-monogamous can be quiet varied in the ways they practice having multiple partners. As we move further in the disvussion of how to be polysecure, I talk specifically about people who are practising polyamory. Polyamory is commonly defined as being the practise of having romantic love based relationships with more than one person, and we can add that it is also the form of non-monogamy where people have multiple romantic attachment figures.«

And now some of my more avid readers may already be beginning to grasp the significance of applying Bowlby’s attachment theory to the multiple attachment figure model of Polyamory in this way.

So let’s play it out in relationship situations:
– when my favourite person turns to someone else
– when another person joins a group of people who are already connected/attached (and ‘group’ can even mean two people).

Suddenly, they burst forth with incomprehensible intensity – the “resentments“ mentioned at the beginning: overwhelming feelings (and please remember: on this blog, I use “feeling” as a combination of “triggering emotional stimulus“ plus “evaluation in the mind“) of insecurity, anger, sadness or fear. Harrowing impulses that can manifest themselves as feelings of rejection, resentment, humiliation, hurt, inferiority or loss. These can even extend to somatic (stress) reactions, including the sensation of physical pain. Some feel like punching a hole in the wall, some want to run away, while others just wish to hide under the covers and cry…

Does any of this sound familiar?
Exactly! These are the ( behavioural) effects described by Bowlby and Ainsworth regarding unreliable caregivers.²
So even though we may have consciously agreed to consensual ethical non-monogamy in a relationship network (which can also only consist of two people), our somatic system may unconsciously switch to the highest level of emergency alert when a further “relationship incident“ occurs, signalling: THIS is exactly like back then, when our caregivers a) were not available to us, b) acted inconsistently/unpredictably, c) caused us to suffer, even though they were our source of love!
And in its wounded logic, this mechanism is to a large extent justified: although we are adults today, we may literally experience a beloved person turning to someone else, previously established routines are being disrupted, and perhaps we are having to temporarily cope with less one-to-one love/attention than before.

Insertion ( and to avoid the Entry becoming too long again):
What I consider so remarkable about this “cross-linking of findings and ideas“ is that there will probably be jealous (possessive) and envious (spiteful) people out there. But presumably to a much lesser extent than has previously been assumed; and if so, then likely in numbers roughly equivalent to, for example, narcissistic (self-centred [not used pathologically here!]) individuals.
However, the significantly larger proportion of “jealous“ or “envious“ resentments, especially those experienced in romantic relationships, is much more likely to be attributed to impaired attachment behaviour; the unfavourable mechanisms that we have carried over into our adult lives for further (intimate) attachment forming – as well as the weaknesses that these unfavourable – i.e. “insecure“ – mechanisms entail (meaning that even a single “trigger“ can very quickly lead to severe emotional distress).

Oh dear, so here we are with our “new insight”…
But what can we do?

The most important thing, in my opinion, is that we all treat each other with even greater understanding based on this realisation. In polyamorous contexts, jealousy and envy (often referred to as “being unable to let others have what they want“) are already very sensitive topics. Pages upon pages of advice have been written both online and offline, and even I have contributed to this.
However, this insight proves once again that this is not a case of deliberate, malicious, destructive mastermind-like behaviour on our part or that of our loved ones.
In fact, quite a few of us are simply poor sods when it comes to love and relationships – and unfortunately somewhat broken.
And those affected are the least to blame for this – which is why the pitiless phrase “That’s your problem – YOU need to work on it“, which is still too often wielded in polyamorous contexts, regularly frightens and saddens me.

For in fact, there is something we can do together. And I already hinted at this in Entry 112 on attachment types: we can stabilise deficient attachment styles, perhaps even change them, by gaining different relationship experiences today than those we had in the past.

Jessica Fern herself identifies two important characteristics that “secure attachments“ should feature: the concepts of “safe haven“ and “secure base“.
A “safe haven“ is a relationship when it is a place of refuge for us “just as we are“. It is a place where we are loved, comforted, where we can speak our minds and receive reassurance, where we can let ourselves go (and are held), where our nerves can calm down, where we are not judged and where we are told: It is wonderful and important that you exist!
A “secure base“ is a place where we are encouraged, for example, by having our visions and projects supported, where we can talk about our plans and receive positive input, where people tell us what skills and options we have – perhaps also where they spur us on or slow us down according to our abilities, without making a big deal out of it…

With “safe haven“ and “secure base“, Mrs. Fern is referring to what I have been calling “reliability” and “predictability“ in my Oligoamory since the beginning of this bLog.
Because, to repeat: the goal should be the characteristics of secure attachment, in which a person (see Entry 112) can say about themselves:
“It’s relatively easy for me to get emotionally close to others.”
“I feel comfortable relying on others and having others rely on me.”
“I don’t worry about being alone or others not accepting me.”
Assuming the existence of a reliable ”safe haven” and a predictable ”secure base”, such a person will not doubt their self-worth (or even their ability to survive), even if a attachment figure turns away for a certain period of time. S*he will not doubt the information given to her in good faith, s*he will not constantly overthink it, and thus will not resort to micromanagement. And if something unpleasant does happen to her, s*he can address it directly, identify the source, and stand up for her*himself.

At this point, that may sound rather idealistic to some of us. And believe me, as an anxious preoccupied person myself, I know that it truly is.
However, our brain is something truly remarkable: researchers are now quite certain that some of the “dents“ that have become ingrained there will unfortunately never go away; nor can they really be “overwritten“, as some teachings promise. But thanks to neural plasticity and our lifelong ability to learn, alternative experiences can be reinforced until our last breath, until they easily surpass the intensity of old scars in terms of scope and potential (in Entry 36, I use the image of different “paths“ that are either no longer used or are traced for the first time).

If anyone has been paying close attention up to this point, they might now ask the question: “But what about the other people and the fulfilment of needs in Entry 118? Surely it can never be truly credible for our system if (only) the other people in our relationships are supposed to be our ‘safe haven’ and ‘secure base’ – don’t we have to find this strength within ourselves?“

Then I say, “Of course!“ That’s why Jessica Fern is already talking about how the relationships – in which we have a stake! – should manifest this characteristic, which would make us active and responsible co-creators of the havens and bases that need to be established there ( after all, the other participants also want to “call in“ or “take off“ from us as well…!). [In the third part of her book, she also provides a number of helpful ideas on this topic, which I don’t want to spoil here on the bLog.]

Yes, and ultimately… …there is, of course, a somewhat wistful part of the task that only each individual can actually perform on and with themselves. This is what I mean by the term “inner self-guidance“, as described by trauma therapist Maria Sanchez in Entry 98³. It is the path to gradually making peace with one’s own little orchestra of inner critics, dictators and seducers, despite the damage suffered in our childhood due to inattentive or self-centred caregivers. Just like with long-time neighbours who still live on the same street as you – but today we leave our bike wherever we want to. And since we weren’t wrong back then (either!), it’s definitely spot on today…
It is precisely this kind of inner peace that we need to strengthen, especially now that we understand even better how closely our ability to create attachments “inwardly“ is linked to our ability to create attachments “outwardly“ – above all, to our loved ones.

I wish you a peaceful conclusion to 2025 – hopefully surrounded by your loved ones (however large or small that circle may be).

Best wishes,

Oligotropos

¹ Jessica Fern: “Polysecure: Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Non-monogamy“, Scribe UK, 2022;

² Observations by Ainsworth and Bowlby showed that a baby or toddler, for example, has more or less only two possible reactions: freeze/flight – i.e. to cease their efforts and ‘freeze’, or become catatonic (since ‘escaping’ from the situation is usually physically impossible) in order to preserve (survival) energy, or fight/intensify (and ‘fighting’ is again physically impossible) in order to increase the chance of being noticed after all [intensified calling / wailing)].

³ From: YouTube: “Transgenerational Trauma, Maria Sanchez in an interview with Simon Rilling“ (25 October 2022) [only in German language]
Additional thanks to Mrs. Sanchez for her online therapy services, from which I quote excerpts in my Entry (my household has duly paid for access to the relevant content).

Other authors also emphasise empowerment through „inner child work“, currently well known in German-speaking countries is Stefanie Stahl’s “The Child In You: The Breakthrough Method for Bringing Out Your Authentic Self“, Penguin Life 2021

Thanks to Jason Hudson on Unsplash for the photo!

That’s my freedom, and I’m allowed to… right?

There’s nothing new anymore in November? Not at all: hashtags such as #NoShaveNovember, #Movember, #NovemberRain, #NovemberNights and (especially) in the USA and Canada #ThangsgivingNovember prove that this is not the case.
So it’s time to stage something new on Oligoamory.org in November as well: my first guest post! And since I, Oligotropos, am already a little more mature, this text is also a few years older, at 6 years old, in a sense, a fully-fledged polyamorous schoolchild – but above all, one from whom I can still learn myself and one from whom I hope we all may still be able to benefit.
Therefore, I also see this guest contribution as a kind of “rescue mission“ and “recalling“ of the pending text, as the thoughts expressed in it are among the famous “shoulders” on which my own Oligoamory actually rests today.

In the spring of 2016, Yaniv Barinberg (then still going by his deadname, “Inna”) started a blog called »POLYPLOM – From the daily art of managing polyamorous relationships«.
Yaniv is an author, trained systemic relationship coach, couples counsellor and also holds a master’s degree in philosophy. He writes from the perspective of a queer, white person with a Jewish migration history.
On his blog, he wrote in the »About me« section:
“I live in two loving relationships and want to share my intimate, funny, sometimes absurd and sometimes enriching experiences from my live as a polyamorous person with you.
Alas, I don’t have all the answers and wouldn’t describe myself as an expert on polyamorous relationships. For this reason, you won’t find any ‘I know everything better and want to teach you a lesson’ posts here. Instead, you will find honest, funny, angry, euphoric, sad and hopeful texts here. I write about open relationships, jealousy, kids in poly families, outing, antisemitism and a lot more.”
Yaniv’s online project was active for almost five years, with his last anglophone blog entry appearing in February 2019.
However, Yaniv did not quietly fade away from the polyamorous stage at all: in September 2020, his book entitled »Mehr ist Mehr – meine Erfahrungen mit Polyamorie« (More is More – My Experiences with Polyamory) ¹ was published, which has become a great compendium of previous blog posts and further supplementary texts. You can find more information about it on the edition assemblage website.

Yaniv personally gave me permission to use this earlier blog entry from January 2019 for his guest post, which you can also find as a distinct chapter in his book.
As a blogger, I deeply appreciated Yaniv for his broad, intersectional perspective, as well as – and almost more so – for his questioning, personal and thoughtful writing style, which has always been guided by the small but important word ‘ethical’ in ‘ethical multiple relationships’ such as Polyamory.²
So. And now it’s high time to get started:

The topic “freedom and polyamory” has occupied me again and again in the last months. Especially after I was on the road a lot, gave lectures and workshops. Again and again people have approached me who had the feeling that they were failing polyamory because they didn’t process their feelings well enough or fast enough or simply didn’t know how to deal with a situation. Often the fear of losing a relationship person or overwhelming them with their own feelings was in the foreground. And again and again such conversations revolved around a concept of freedom, which I can’t understand well or where I find it difficult to understand why this is used as an argument in polyamorous relationships. Very often these concepts were expressed in sentences like “You restrict my freedom”. This means that someone wants to feel free to have relationships and/or sexual contact of any form with others at any time.

I would like to try to explain why I have my difficulties with this.

On the one hand it was very often cis women who came to me and told me about their dilemma. Their relationship persons, very often cis men, were the ones who pronounced the sentence in various variations. Why does gender play a role here? Because to be socialized as a woman constantly means to be educated in relationship and emotional work. I get angry at such moments because the sentence leaves no alternative but for the Cis women to take on exactly this role and emotional work. Sentences that allude to the fact that someone has a fundamental right or claim to something are often paralyzing in a certain way. After all, they leave no room for discussion or confrontation. Instead, they create a great deal of room for guilt, because the participants usually remain alone with their feelings or no longer dare to talk about them with their relationship person. Introducing a freedom argument can only work for one person at a time, because if it were introduced by two or more people at the same time, it would be unnecessary. This makes it a one-way street for one person.

On the other hand, freedom as an argument does not give the possibility to actually allow feelings. Instead, any feeling is branded as bad and undesirable. I find this quite unfair, because after all – at least frequently – it should not be a question of forbidding an action, but of having a discussion about different needs. This argument can be tricky, I admit. Sometimes one person has to take more distance than the other, sometimes someone feels disadvantaged and sometimes one or more people are afraid that responding to feelings might mean practicing monogamy for an indefinite period of time because there is no room to live polyamorously/openly. Ultimately, however, it is a question of negotiation and rapprochement.

For me, having open/polyamore relationships does not mean being able to do what I want to do at all times. Says: “If my relationship person(s) should have difficulties with this, it is their problem, I am not considering stopping whatever.” This kind of relationship is not mine. And I also find it hard to give people any form of advice or tip when they ask me what they can do when their relationship person refuses to listen to their feelings. I find it unfair and selfish, in a negative way, that only a person’s needs remain in the foreground. For me, a relationship of any kind means a joint project, something that two or more people create together and develop out of and together with these people. That is why it is so difficult for me to understand that people use this knockout argument. For me, that no longer has much to do with mutual shaping.

I do see the difficulty(s) when it comes to negotiating and reconciling different needs. When my relationship person and I opened our relationship from monogamous to open for physical experiences with others, I refused for a long time. I was afraid that everything would change between us, I was afraid of rejection and I did not (yet) want to face this new experience. That’s why I kept putting it off, giving her the feeling that I needed more time, but time wasn’t the problem.

That’s why I know very well that sometimes it can be difficult to talk about needs and find negotiations or compromises, because sometimes it doesn’t seem clear from what feeling or motivation someone is asking for more time. Sometimes it also means that one or more people will be dissatisfied for a while, but that’s how compromises are, they’re not always fun. I think it’s important not to forget that compromises are a small “sacrifice” for everyone involved, sometimes more, sometimes less, and often nothing they would decide for themselves if it were just their needs. This means that everyone has to take a step towards each other. If, for example, I agree to call my relationship person after a date with another person, then I do so because I know that it is important for them to hear my voice and thereby experience security and affection. For me, it’s no big deal to make a call, but maybe this seemingly small thing means a lot to my relationship person. Depending on the situation, the call may even be a compromise between “see you right after the date” and “don’t hear you at all”.

By this I mean that I like to make compromises and try to take the feelings of my relationship person(s) as seriously as possible. For me, this does not mean that I immediately take every one of my needs into account instead of or only the needs of my relationship person(s). But it can mean that I don’t want to go from 0 to 100 immediately. For example, if I would like to sleep at my date’s place, but my relationship person(s) do not feel so comfortable with it, it may mean that we are slowly moving towards it. Step by step we would get closer to staying overnight. So my original need is not rejected, its satisfaction is simply adapted to our common pace.

In the end, I think it is clear that a person can theoretically (I’m choosing theoretically because practically people can’t do everything they want considering capitalism and all sorts of inequalities in our society) do everything they are able to do. This is not a question of freedom. It is not at all about the sentence “This is my freedom and I am allowed to do this”, but about the addition that is not pronounced, namely “and you can’t do anything about it”. And that’s what I find so difficult to understand, because it just doesn’t fit with my understanding of polyamory (and relationships at all) and often Cis-woman – as described at the beginning – are confronted with the emotional work behind it. I’m not saying that people of any gender can’t make this argument. I have only noticed recently that many Cis women approached me with this problem. I don’t want to have the right to something in a relationship, regardless of the consequences. It is not a matter of winning or being right on principle. I want to find solutions and ideas together, at least that’s how I understand relationships. And for me, a knockout argument is anything but constructive or helpful.

¹ “Mehr ist Mehr – Meine Erfahrungen mit Polyamorie”, German language only, by Yaniv Barinberg, Paperback 144 pages, 140 x 205mm, 978-3-96042-089-7 / 2-973, 18,00 Euro, Publication date of current edition: 26.02.2024, with illustrations by Carina Büker

² I refer to the above blog post in my own related Entry 28 on the topic of freedom in ethical multiple relationships.

Special thanks to author Yaniv Barinberg for granting personal permission to use his former blog post and current book chapter.
Also thanks to Ankush Minda on Unsplash for the cover photo, which also adorned the original post!

Yaniv, – I miss you in the blogosphere! ♥

Need-ful Things

In my previous Entry, I expressed my regret – as I have done several times before on this bLog – that, in my view, a “misaplied model of needs“ is too often utilised to support one’s own desire for a life of multiple relationships and Polyamory. That is why I have also addressed the underlying interpretation of needs from time to time in various Entries in this bLog.
However, since this complex seems to me to be a recurring and central topic in Polyamory, I would like to use this entry to summarise my opinion on the matter once again.

First, I would like to take another look at what specifically is meant by “needs“ – and how they have found their way into the concept of Polyamory.

According to the English Wikipedia, “A need is a deficiency at a point of time and in a given context. Needs are distinguished from wants. In the case of a need, a deficiency causes a clear adverse outcome [….]. In other words, a need is something required for a safe, stable and healthy life while a want is a desire, wish or aspiration.“

Scientifically, however, “needs“ first became a substantial focus of psychological research in the first half of the 20th century, when American psychologists and psychotherapists Abraham Maslow and Carl R. Rogers addressed the self-concept and associated inner motivations, drives and inclinations of their patients in the development of modern Humanistic and Positive Psychology (Maslow since 1954) as well as genuine, Person-centred therapy ( PCT – Rogers since 1957).
Abraham Maslow ultimately structured the findings from this research into what later became known as “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs“, through which he was able to demonstrate that there are certain degrees of necessity within human needs – for example, that essential basic needs for sustaining life must first be met (breathing, warmth, water, food, sleep, shelter) before a person could aspire to fulfil its social needs (e.g. belonging, communication, community, etc.) or even those of self-actualisation (e.g. independence, freedom, creativity, etc.).

In cooperation with a student of Carl Rogers, the psychologist and communication researcher Marshall B. Rosenberg, this approach ultimately revealed the quality of human needs to be universal (common to all), independent of time (epochs/ages), place (regions, cultures) and persons (subjectivity).
Needs thus appeared as the expression of underlying, fundamental feelings which indicate that needs are being met or rather feelings indicating that this is not the case.

During the second half of the 20th century, no one was probably as consistently concerned with this identified source of needs and its effects on human coexistence as the aforementioned Marshall Rosenberg¹. Rosenberg noted that the communication of needs plays a fundamental role, particularly in interpersonal interaction, but that individual attempts to express these needs often contributed to misunderstandings and crises due to unfavourable, socially established patterns (e.g. language use).
As a possible approach to resolving and potentially preventing such crises, Rosenberg developed his life’s work from 1963 onwards: the concept of “Non-violent communication (NVC)“ – A communication process based on mutual consent, aiming to develop human relationships in such a way that those involved spontaneously and willingly contribute to each other’s well-being.

With that last sentence in mind, the path from there to Polyamory was relatively straightforward. From the 1980s onwards, numerous community- and cooperation-oriented initiatives increasingly turned to ‘non-violent communication’ as a tool to support participants in their personal development. Through its use in educational institutions, counselling, therapy, mediation and coaching, it eventually became also a part of the “polyamorous toolbox“ in the mid-1990s – particularly as an element of a conversational culture based on equality and respect concerning multiple romantic relationships.

So far, so good.
At this point, I would like to add a brief disclaimer on my part: several decades later, there emerged justified criticism of both the methodology of NVC itself as well as on the personality of Marshall Rosenberg himself. In detail, he was certainly not a saint above reproach, nor was he free of own pretensions. As a tool, NVC is a mode of communication that, like any psychological-interpersonal medium, requires attention, training and practice – otherwise it may allow for manipulation and abuse. I am fully aware of this, having studied the approach myself over many years. However, the scientific principles of the underlying theory of needs according to A. Maslow and C. Rogers are valid, as is the inherent consistency when applied mindfully.

OK. So, already with the blossoming of Polyamory in the last decade of the 20th century, we thus have the notorious “needs“ involved – as well as engaged in our conversations with one another…
Which is actually good news, when – as mentioned above – we realise that we all share the same needs and can communicate our feelings through them. Rosenberg himself once said, “Needs are the life seeking expression within us“.

However, two basic aspects are very important here:
Firstly, we must understand the difference between preferences, wants, desires and strategies on the one hand, and needs on the other.
And secondly, we have to understand how needs are the “smallest common denominator“-building blocks of our own self-expression.
These two key points are extremely important if you want to fully comprehend what I mean by the “misunderstood or misapplied needs model“ that I mentioned at the beginning.

Thus, when we sense an intention, a desire, or even a strategy (i.e. an approach) within ourselves, it is of utmost importance for the viability of the process – and in order to avoid being manipulative – to determine what lies beneath it at the most fundamental, genuine level of need(s).
Take the example from my last Entry (which I seemingly like to use…) “kitesurfing“.
But of course there is no such thing as a “need for kitesurfing“… However, “kitesurfing“ fulfils a whole range of related, genuine needs², which could include, for example “Movement“, “freedom“, “strength“, “courage“, “spontaneity“, “happiness“, “empowerment“, “passion“, “activity“, “self-confidence“, “heedfulness“, “lightness“ and “pleasure“. And if we even practice it together with others, it may also fulfil “belonging“, “company“, “friendship“, “community“, “trust“, “tolerance“, “understanding“, “openness“, “open-mindedness“, “reassurance”, “enthusiasm”, “support“ and “cooperation“…
Wow! Kitesurfing can do all that for us???
Quite right – correctly phrased: kitesurfing can contribute to all of this on your part.
Or to put it yet more precisely: you can accomplish all of this for yourself when you go kitesurfing with your friends!

And this is exactly the point why I have been virtually annoyed with authors Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy since 1997, who, in their otherwise quite useful book on sluthood³, were the first to spread that unfortunate as well as misguided narrative on a large scale, …that nooooooo single other person (as in the pooh-pooh exclusive monogamy) would ever be sufficient to fulfil one’s own needs… A narrative that, with its unbearably stereotypical redundancy, has since found its way into even the latest publications and guidebooks on the subject of Polyamory (most recently also in Jessica Fern’s “Polysecure“ ª) – and which is also frequently used in interviews and online videos because it seemingly appears to be so coherent (also adopted by Esther Perel in several of her relationship-talks, among others).

“All right, Oligotropos…“, one could argue. “it may well be that we are able to fulfil some of our needs regarding individuality and self-realisation while kitesurfing. But surely Polyamory is about people and their relationships with each other. What about all those social needs you listed? For this, we need the other people (and relationships) when kitesurfing, so that they can fulfil our needs that you mentioned, such as belonging, company, friendship, community, trust, tolerance, understanding, openness, reassurance, support and cooperation – after all, we couldn’t do that on our own, could we…?”

Yes and no. Which in turn brings us back to strategies. Because, as we can conclude from the sum of the individual needs it serves, kitesurfing is definitely such a strategy. Instead, we could have gone to aunt Fanny for a cup of coffee and experienced company, friendship and reassurance there. Or attended a meeting at the local library dedicated to tolerance, openness and open-mindedness. Or simply have a chat with the guy next door to ensure at least a sense of belonging in our neighbourhood.
Fun fact: For this reason, by the way, “sexuality“ (which is often invoked in many discussions as an absolute basic need!) is also considered a “strategy“. That’s because sexuality also fulfils a whole range of needs that may be involved, such as “liveliness”, “closeness“, “affection“, “warmth“, “tenderness“ and “love“. And since the keyword “basic need“ was mentioned, it would be more appropriate to look at its baseline function and admit: “Okay, the underlying, initial basic need was originally ‘reproduction/(genetic) legacy‘…“.

In order to meet our needs, we can therefore choose different strategies, several of which can help us achieve our goal in different ways. And especially this, too, is of great significance with regard to the aforementioned “unfortunate and misguided narrative“.
Rosenberg himself commented on the subject: “Even we ourselves never know what we exactly want – until we get it.“ A highly important statement – because he also added on another occasion that all other fellow human beings would otherwise “need a magical mind-reading ruby in their foreheads“ to know exactly what we would require. But they don’t have that – accordingly even we ourselves must wait and see what effect our own preferences and strategies have on us before we can determine whether we have chosen correctly, whether they truly contribute to our needs – or not.
That’s precisely why no one but we ourselves can choose whether we’d rather visit aunt Fanny or go kitesurfing with our friends – we weigh up for ourselves where we assume we’ll meet the best possible fulfilment-balance regarding our inner needs – and then cheerfully plunge into the wet and windy adventure.
And when we’ve finished kitesurfing, we would have to return to our emotional level to assess whether our needs were actually met or not: How do I feel now? Happy? Euphoric? Annoyed? Sad? Or even ashamed? Don’t think! Feel!!!

For Marshall Rosenberg, it was therefore important to be able to express needs in terms of requests. He called this “drawing attention to our needs“. It was likewise important to him that, ideally, such a consultation would normally enable the needs of all parties involved to be met.
He therefore identified the biggest pitfalls in how we receive from other people what may be beneficial to our own needs. In a moment of neediness, the underlying, unspoken message would often be, “I am suffering because one of my needs is not being met.“ However, because no one but we ourselves can actually feel our true emotional deficiency, other individuals present would usually only develop an involuntary urge to “fix that person“ – which would often result in misinterpretations, misunderstandings, as well as unfavourable strategies of contributing.

Unfortunately, especially in the latter case, I regularly experience in discussions and conversations among polyamorous people how this emotional pain is exploited to induce the other participants involved in the process to contribute. Suddenly, the desire for certain sexual practices and even the pursuit of Polyamory itself become turned into a “need“ (like “kitesurfing“…) – unfortunately, usually with the intention that by presenting one’s own request as a “need“ in the manner of an inalienable fundamental right, it becomes an indispensable obligation for the other parties to fulfil it. What – if you have followed my lines of argument thus far – is precisely a violent reversal of the actual responsibility concerning the fulfilment of needs. At the same time, however, this clearly shows what unconscious, emotional pain carried into a relationship might provoke.

And there is one more thing that is triggered by the Hardy-Easton narrative. A phenomenon that unfortunately fits very well into our present day – but which I, as Oligotropos, creator of “committed, sustainable multiple relationships“, also consider worrisome.
By putting forward the responsibility-reversing thesis that nooooo one person can ever be sufficient to fulfil all our needs, we are indirectly encouraged to engage in what I have been calling “Pokémon Polyamory“ since Entry 2: To seek for “one companion for each occasion“ in order to ensure that the contributions of different individuals can cover the widest possible range of our needs.
I have criticised this behaviour several times on this bLog because I regard it as a risk for utilitarianism (purpose-oriented ethics of utility) and compartmentalisation (splitting into separate [pleasure-oriented] aspects) of our lovers and loved ones.

However, I perceive another problem – and this concerns precisely the criterion of oligoamorous sustainability: As we have seen, there is no universal human need for kitesurfing. Nor is there a universal basic need to “drive through Paris in a sports car with the wind in your hair“. There is just as little of a “need for BDSM“ as there is one for “winning the Nobel Peace Prize“. Thus, there is also no entitlement concerning the fulfilment of such ‘needs’, if only because it would otherwise be deemed utterly unacceptable to lead a decent, humane life… Because needs are (only) a living expression of our inner emotional landscape, not vouchers of entitlement.

The narrative of misapplied need fulfilment seduces us to an extremely consumer-oriented thinking – precisely because of the reversal of responsibility described above – and the conviction that this existence, the world in general and all other people in particular ( especially, of course, those who claim to be closest and dearest to us!) somehow owe us the realisation of these things. That it would therefore only be a question of finding the right combination of getting our needs met, that all these possibilities would lie within our reach…
Hogwash!
That is simply not the case. As has been shown, such entitlement thinking is wrong both in terms of the basic approach and in terms of the allocation of responsibility – and for our planet, it is precisely the catastrophe that has begun to unfold.
Nevertheless, it is true that we all in our human family have the same needs, yes. But that we all usually will be able to have each of them completely met is (apart from the basic needs, hopefully) as unlikely as it is unrealistic – and also in no way feasible for Mother Earth.

For the sake of all our wellbeing, for ourselves, our loved ones and all the rest of this wonderful world – I appeal to all of you out there: Allow yourself to feel your feelings. Feel them fully. Recognise the needs that arise from them and face up to the responsibility of taking care of yourself and those needs. Also draw attention to your needs – because only you can truly perceive them, both in terms of their nature and their extent. Then mutually contribute to their fulfilment, by means of trial and error – to the best of your abilities.
But please choose strategies that are sustainable; not those that project an insatiable desire into an infinite outside – but those that are based on inner growth and understanding, that strengthen the ties to yourself and others and bring forth harmonious coexistence. Approaches that aim at finding inner contentment and self-acceptance within yourselves. Choose opportunities that create genuine connections and – instead of satisfying material needs – keep focusing on communication and empathy.

¹ One of Marshall Rosenberg’s best-known live lectures on ‘’Nonviolent Communication‘’ is available on YouTube, divided into short chunks. Rosenberg talks about needs in the NVC system from part 2.1 onwards. I have linked some excerpts here:
2.1 – Needs Part 1
2.2 – Needs Part 2
3.1 – How to receive
3.2 – What is alive?
4.3 – The urge to fix a person
4.4 – The shift of responsibility
4.5 – How to contribute

A short description regarding the concept of Nonviolent Communication is already available on this bLog in Entry 20

² A more detailed list of feelings and needs for self-description can be found HERE, for example (NVC Academy).

³ Sluthood: The queer community has embraced this word, which originally carried negative connotations (in the sense of ‘’immoral behaviour’’). Today, it is used as a (self)description by individuals who do not fit into the heteronormative, monogamous, gender-stereotypical spectrum, in particular promiscuous, sex-positive folk who decide autonomously on their sexuality.
Janet W. W. Hardy & Dossie Easton: “The Ethical Slut – a guide to infinite sexual possibilities“, Greenery Press 1997
German edition: “Schlampen mit Moral: Erweiterte Neuausgabe: Warum es an der Zeit ist, Sex und Liebe neu zu denken – wie Polyamorie, offene Beziehungen und andere Abenteuer gelingen können“, mvg-Verlag 2020

ª Jessica Fern: “Polysecure: Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Non-monogamy“, Scribe UK, 2022

Thanks to TANYA LAYKO on Unsplash for the photo and Mike Oldfield for his iconic song „(Never going to get) To France“ (1984)

How was that about Polyamory? – or –
Why Oligoamory was created

Sitting on the beach of the remote island of Oligoamory, I regularly gaze out at the tides of the vast ocean of relationships that wash around the numerous isles of the versatile archipelago of Polyamory. Boat traffic out there has actually increased a little lately – I now regularly spot rafts, canoes and entire ships bearing the identification “CNM“ or “ENM“ under their nameplates. It took me a little while to figure out that these abbreviations, which usually indicate where the vehicle is registered – essentially “under which colours“ it is travelling – stand for “Consensual Non-Monogamy“ and indeed even for “Ethical Non-Monogamy“.
“There you are“, I think to myself, “here’s a development in the making – more guests in the archipelago!“
Curious as I am – and blessed with quite a bit of leisure time on my island – I observe the colourful crowd of new arrivals with my usual inquisitiveness. After a while, however, I begin to notice patterns that make me wonder whether the crews of these little crafts have really consciously set course for the waters of Polyamory – or what the actual reason for their presence here might be. For there is something so peculiar about their vessel’s movements that, although it is still discernible that what is happening on board is more or less explicitly a form of “open relationship“, the situation appears to be significantly less certain in terms of consensus or even ethics – at least from my perspective as an observer.
For a while, I keep thinking: “Hey, these are modern times, and they’re young people in the prime of their lives. It’s understandable that they need to ride the polyamorous wave in their own way.“ And, after all, I’ve written often enough on this bLog that multiple relationships should also fit into one’s own day-to-day life…

But then again, when the first near-collisions and injuries inevitably occur out there, I am actually tempted to light a beacon, perhaps improvise a few buoys from some canisters, to at least give the people out there some indication of how they could better stay on course. And then it occurs to me that I possess hardly any maritime training myself and have primarily come to this placed to be a researcher and observer, which limits me to what I have been doing with some tenacity for over six years now: calling attention to the island of Oligoamory and entrusting messages in bottles with Entries from this bLog book to the high seas.
Well, so be it.

Two styles of travelling that I am increasingly observing – and why I consider them to be an unfavourable course to follow:

1) ‘Serial Polyamory’
The phenomenon of serial Polyamory was already described by E. Rickert and F. Veaux in their 2014 book on Polyamory, ”More than Two” ¹. Actually, the two terms already seem to sound paradoxical when used in context with each other. Couldn’t serial relationships also be pursued within a monogamous environment? Or rather: that’s practically more or less monogamish, isn’t it? Yes and no. Rickert and Veaux refer to this type of non-monogamous relationship in the chapter where they discuss the termination of relationships. Which, after all, can also happen within multiple relationships, since everything in life is ultimately finite.
However, personal identification with a lifestyle of ethical multiple relationships now theoretically allows for an approach that would enable all romantic relationships one has ever entered into to continue to exist side by side ad infinitum (in contrast to “serial monogamy“ which would essentially represent a chain of individual relationships ‘strung together’ one after another).
But (unfortunately), this would also make it possible to never really deal with the end of a relationship once it has been entered into!
Such “circumvention“ is often justified to one’s own conscience by combining it with the misapplied “needs model“ that I have so often criticised, thereby easing one’s conscience: Since loving relationships are added to fulfil various needs (…because no one single person can eeeeeeever fulfil all your needs… [my criticism of this approach runs throughout this entire bLog!]), you never know when you might be seized by a longing for trips to East Africa, kitesurfing, fusion cuisine or BDSM – so even if your own interest in one of these areas (and the attached loved one with whom you pursued it) is currently waning: Stick it on the shelf, in case you ever feel the “need“ for it again at some point in your life – after all, such a waste – and you’d be pretty stupid to banish that person from your life entirely. “We’ll stay in touch, you know we’re in a polyamorous relationship, but right now I’m deepening my relationship with XYZ (insert current interest and associated accomplice here), so it’s cool that you’re still one of my favourite people, remember…?“ is what it says at the end – which, cleverly played out in this way, doesn’t represent a straightforward ending – even though that’s most likely what it is in reality.
Additionally, you can skilfully manoeuvre your way around treating your partner, who has been “put on the shelf” in this way, with respect and as an equal – and also, what is even more important for the psyche of those involved, around the oh-so-annoying grieving process when times, things and commonalities come to an end.
Speaking of “shelves“… Incidentally, this phenomenon already has a name, which was ironically diverted to describe a certain monogamous dating behaviour: It is called “benching“ and means something like “to send someone to the sidelines” / “to put something/-one on the back burner“ (the metaphor originally stems from the sporting world). Because, honestly, that’s just what it is: “Before you commit yourself forever, check whether you can find something better“, as the saying goes – and “benching” is precisely the tactic of sticking a (merely) reasonably interesting person “into the penalty box” or rather “on the shelf“ (and keeping them there “in store“) while hopefully continuing to search for someone even more compatible. Serial Polyamory is exactly the same approach, translated into the world of not-so-ethical multiple relationships, a place where the “many loves“ never have to end…

2) ‘Parallel Polyamory’
Even more frequently than vessels travelling on the serial course, I have recently encountered an increasing number of crafts navigating on parallel courses. There, too, I repeatedly encounter the aforementioned ”(pseudo)needs model” as justification: “Why take Fritzi along kitesurfing when Fritzi doesn’t like kitesurfing? I go with Skylar, have a good time – and Fritzi can pursue other interests during that time – it’s basically a win-win-win situation…“
However, that is not where it ends:
“And Fritzi doesn’t nag me and Skylar about our kitesurfing in this way – and when I hang out with Fritzi in the basement later, tinkering on our model railway project, Skylar in turn knows that there will be a few hours of radio silence because it’s not really any of his*her business what we’re doing in there.“
Inquiering into this status quo the answer often sounds somehow like that: “Well, if Skylar would really try to impose herself during model railway time, that would be a severe sign of some kind of jealous power play…“ “Yeah, quite needy and a distinct touch co-dependent…“
But no problem – parallel Polyamory can take care of that too: to nip something so unnecessary in the bud, the people involved simply don’t even need to know each other! A quick check at the Wikipedia page on Polyamory to ascertain whether this would still be hunky-dory: Cool, yes, it just states something about “mutual agreement” (i.e. “consensual”) and a bit about „communication“, “honesty”, “non-possessiveness” and “compersion”.
Great, so everything done right: I had agreed with Skylar at the time that we wanted to open up our relationship to other romantic partners (✔️Check: consensual!).
AND when I started my romantic relationship with Fritzi, I informed Skylar that I was now in a romantic relationship with Fritzi as well – and of course, when I fell in love with Fritzi, I immediately told him*her that I was already in a romantic relationship with Skylar (✔️Check: communication, honesty, and a first-rate chance to express non-possessiveness and compersion!).

Indeed, just recently, one of the boats that came dangerously close to a reef off the coast of the oligomeric island – and whose crew I urgently advised that, for heaven’s sake, all crew members should get to know each other for the benefit of better communication – that very crew yelled back at me: “Where does it say that everyone has to know each other? Nothing dictates that…!”
And, blimey: they were right, as they turned into the increasingly blustery gale – and I stood on the beach, wringing my hands, studying the confirming facts on my rain-dripping tablet – even still desperately calling up Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart’s polyamorous debut manifesto “A Bouquet of Lovers” ª from 1990, where – how could that be true??? – as it happens there was nothing about it either…

I had to sit back in my biosphere with a hot cup of Earl Grey in my hand and a towel wrapped round my shoulders (and surrounded by my loved ones) before I could sort out my thoughts.
Because, of course, there was nothing about it there.
Because Morning Glory and Oberon Raven-Zell would not have considered it necessary to lose a word about it.
For throughout their lives, they were surrounded by community, by their loved ones and cherished people. Everything they thought, did and implemented took place within a context of togetherness, belonging and community – that in their minds dated back much further than the concept of Polyamory itself.

Since my 26th Entry, I have been lamenting, along with anthropologist Jean Liedloff² and educational scientist Daniel Hess³, the modern “Reality of Separation” in our Western industrial society. In which we “compartmentalise” our essentially comprehensively constituted existence, i.e. divide it into individual aspects, in order to make it more manageable for us in everyday lives. But already in Entry 6, I attempt to use a symbolic story to illustrate that in the realm of romantic loving relationships, we repeatedly encounter the threshold of the original “continuum”, which reveals that there are aspects of being human that simply cannot be readily subjected to such kinds of “splitting”.
Morning Glory and Oberon Raven-Zell were well aware of this. Morning Glory had experienced this in her spiritual, neo-pagan ritual circles, Oberon through the books of science fiction author Robert Heinlein (see in particular my Entry 49 on the “History of Polyamory”): People in relationships are no longer autonomous islands or solo instruments. They unite to create a consonance, stepping back from their individuality to work together to achieve something that ultimately exceeds the sum of its parts.
For Morning Glory, this experience came from activities in her witches’ covens, where the generated group energy could literally change (existing) reality under the words “Perfect Love and Perfect Trust” (even in very practical ways, such as campaigns for women’s freedom or the blockade of a nuclear facilities).
For Oberon, it was Heinlein’s compelling descriptions of how living beings in adverse environmental conditions put aside trivialities such as ethnic origin, privileged upbringing or level of education in order to grow together in the face of shortages and obstacles, to develop a sense of belonging and affiliation – thereby generating astonishing added value.
When he and Morning Glory finally founded their first own kind of collective in 1962 with the “Church of All Worlds“, they even adopted some of Heinlein’s phrases from his novel “Stranger in a Strange Land“ (1961): The “water brothers” (a quasi-family of choise, with whom one literally shares the necessities of life), for example, and the “nests” as a generic term for the emerging group structures. And in general the word “nest” is usually associated mainly with a reasonably secure and cosy structure containing some cute chicks – but it’s verb form “to nest / being nested” it goes much further, as it means something like “interwoven/intertwined”.
Which brings me full circle back to the idea that we connect and intertwine our lives with each other in romantic relationships. How much more true is this with regard to Oligo- and Polyamory, those truly “ethical” multiple relationships, if they deserve to be called that?

Anyway, when Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart (see also Entry 113) therefore eventually used the word “polyamorous” concerning multiple relationship contexts for the first time, “connectedness”, “belonging” and “knowing each other” were already inherent characteristics. For Polyamory was intended to be a “facilitator” precisely for such cases – as I have already mentioned on this blog – when, in circles, groups or “nests” – in which all participants already knew each other and acted collectively – romantic relationships began to blossom between “more than just two” participants (or between more than those who were perhaps already legally bound).
Thus, in my interpretation and understanding, “knowing each other” or at least “getting to know each other” is – and always has been – another cornerstone of Polyamory, closely linked to the aforementioned mutual consent, compersion, trust and, therefore, honesty.

In my view, parallelism is therefore a hapless substitute: on the one hand a surrender to the fate of our (separative) present – but on the other hand also often an unconscious complacency towards the call to improve our self-concept, which, according to Morning Glory and Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, was actually meant to be part of their Polyamory by means of self-actualisation as described e.g. by Abraham Maslow.
Equality, mutual respect, tolerance, empathy and solidarity? Those are important polyamorous virtues that need to be applied to our loved ones as well as reflected back on us as part of the same (multiple) relationship, so that everyone involved benefits from them. Originally incorporated into the polyamory framework incidentally as values of humanistic psychology with the recognition that in striving for the ideal self, everyone needs help to achieve their full potential (Carl Rogers: “On Becoming a Person”, 1961).

And it is precisely this help that is provided to us in the shape of our loved ones, who bring out the best in us.
For it is only together that we can surpass ourselves and create a world full of love and understanding for us all.

¹ Eve Rickert and Franklin Veaux: “More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory”, Thorntree Press 2014

² Jean Liedloff: “The Continuum Concept: In Search of Happiness Lost”, Penguin 1989

³ Daniel Hess: „Glücksschule – Glücklich leben & freudvoll lernen“ (“School of Happiness – Live Happily & Learn Joyfully”), [German version only] Novum Verlag, 2014

ª The text of the “Bouquet of Lovers” is available HERE.

Thanks to Eila, Rosalie and Stefan for the inspiration – and to Elsemargriet on Pixabay for the photo!

Performance and Participation

About 5 years ago, in November 2019, I recorded my 33rd Entry in this bLog book, which centred on the “inclusivity“ of ethical multiple relationships.
At that time, Mrs Angela Merkel (CDU) was still German Chancellor, having formed a so-called “grand coalition“ with the CSU and the SPD; the AfD had entered the Bundestag for the first time with a share of 12.6% of the total vote.
That is why the aforementioned entry also dealt with politics, precisely because at the time it served as an extremely fitting example of the limits of the “willingness towards inclusivity“… But today, five years and a pandemic later, I am tempted to say, “If I had only known what was to come…“ (and I sincerely hope that I will not have to reaffirm this in another five years).

Because I don’t really fancy turning political again, as this blog is supposed to be about (multiple) loving relationships; but our loving relationships don’t exist in a virtual environment, they are part of this world, which means that – as has been mentioned several times before on this blog – the famous quote by feminist theorist Carol Hanisch still applies: „The personal is political and the political is personal“. The connection between personal experiences and political structures simply cannot be dismissed – or, more precisely, that political structures have the power to influence our personal experiences.

The late Scott Peck, the “father of community building (processes)“ had already recognised this in an almost prophetic way in the late 1970s. Especially in his two pioneering books, which later became fundamental literature for numerous small-scale collectives, communes and ecovillages, notably “The Road Less Travelled“ from 1978 and, in particular, “The Different Drum“ from 1987, he impressively phrased the ‘‘question of inclusion“and therefore the very idea of inclusivity, in the following way¹:
“Is there any reason why someone shouldn’t participate?“

This approach to inclusivity was and remains somewhat revolutionary because it reverses the burden of proof, as the non-inclusive form of the question is usually phrased as, “For what reason should someone be allowed to participate?”.
Which brings me to the present day, where it seems to me that inclusivity is in a much worse state than it was five years ago.

As ever, I still read complaints in many forums where polyamorous people discuss why we continue to encounter such strong resistance to our lifestyle and relationship philosophy. On top of that, people often lament how monogamy is still seen as the desirable norm and ideal state of relationship life – to the point that even in long-term romantic relationships, it is considered entirely untouchable.
Then I often sigh inwardly and think that, strictly speaking, it is unfortunately not just a problem of communication or agreement between the ‘relationship inmates’ affected, but that, in order for this view to really change significantly, we would obviously also have to rethink our mental entanglement with our economic practices and our social system in the Western world. Yes, even on a truly personal level.

This is because the general trend is currently leaning increasingly towards “non-inclusivity“. Or, at best, towards “conditional inclusivity“.
And that is, to put it mildly, somewhat bizarre – and, at worst, worrying – because Homo sapiens, in other words: all of us, are genetically and epigenetically (i.e. in terms of our conditioning, which in turn influences our genes) wired for togetherness and community.
Thus, Stefan Fritze, senior physician at the Central Institute for Mental Health in Mannheim, even emphasises this in an article published this year by the German news programme “Tagesschau“ on “World Friendship Day 2025“²: »In prehistoric times, it was almost impossible to survive without close contacts. Short-term loneliness (as stress) therefore seems to be a warning signal from the body that something needs to change.«

However, in order to become part of a community and be allowed to participate in it, a “performance component“ is increasingly being added to the equation, which is intended to provide an answer to the non-integrative form of the question of inclusiveness:
“Why should anyone be allowed to participate?“ “Because he*she*it contributes something!“
And this principle applies to everything – beginning with the citizenship in our state and our economic community and ending within our smallest private units, our (romantic) relationships, especially when these are based on a literal mini social contract like a marriage (in Germany since 2017 also available to same-sex couples).

In the magazine Max Planck Research (issue 2|2025), science journalist Tobias Beuchert (on the occasion of the book presentation of Petra Pinzler’s current political assessment “Hat das Zukunft oder kann das weg?“ [“Does it have a future or can it be discarded?“], campus 2025) issues, that »Every (political) measure has a social component and therefore needs to be supported by people.«
However, such social components also have a repercussion in that we, as “those affected“, will orientate ourselves accordingly along the larger context:
When, as is currently the case in Europe, more and more doors are closing to new arrivals and barriers to the cross-border movement of goods, services and people are increasingly being raised – and at the same time, new arrivals and long-established residents alike are being asked to contribute more and more in order to be allowed to continue participating fully in the greater whole – then this has an impact on our view of the world – and thus also on our private conditions.
Because we experience it in our everyday lives: the “outside world“ sets the tone. The answer to the question of how and why someone should be allowed to join in and participate is increasingly being answered with: “Performance first – then participation!“.
That way, we are gradually subjecting even our romantic relationships to this dictum, whereby ‘love’ or ‘relationships’ must increasingly be thought of in terms of progress, success and gain, a principle that Eve Rickert and Franklin Veaux in their 2014 book on Polyamory, “More Than Two“, referred to as the “social escalator“³ – on which one should always move forward and, above all, upward.
And this is an increasingly critical situation, because Scott Peck’s originally integrative, community-promoting question of why someone should NOT participate is increasingly perceived as unreasonable: ‘‘How so? Just like that?’’

In his aforementioned review, the journalist Tobias Beuchert uses a maritime metaphor in light of this growing reluctance both in society as a whole and among individuals, stating: »Nevertheless, there have been ships that set sail into rough waters with courage, hope, and ideas, and reached their destination. Perhaps it was because on board, things were fair, everyone took responsibility, and felt involved in decisions.«
Accordingly, we currently seem to lack courage, hope and ideas. We do not feel that we are trusted to take individual responsibility, but rather experience that we are often patronised. And we don’t perceive ourselves as being involved as a result – which is a vicious circle, because in order to be involved, we first are expected to contribute something…

In accordance with this pattern, our dating profiles are beginning to resemble “purchase order reports“. The space that other people could occupy in our hearts is gradually becoming more limited – and, in any case, distinctly outlined.
And this also applies to our existing relationships – the question of the respective contribution and overall benefit is increasingly pushing itself loudly to the foreground, becoming the yardstick for the ‘quality’ of the underlying relationship – and a constant source of thoughts regarding comparison and competition.

This is, of course, extremely detrimental to the quality of our external and internal relationships, because by shifting the legitimacy of atachment to the performance level, we lose sight of the actual significance of interpersonal connections for us.
And please don’t get me wrong: I’m not advocating arbitrariness here either. Personally, I don’t believe at all that we can enter into a relationship with just anyone, especially a friendly or even romantic one (otherwise I wouldn’t be Mr. Oligoamory, arguing here at length for “relationships with a select few participants“). What I am actually referring to are the famous “meaningful (personal) relationships“ that I have already written a three-part series about on this blog ( 1 | 2 | 3 ).

I would like to reiterate to the above statement made by Stefan Fritze from the Central Institute for Mental Health in Mannheim. He adds: »It is not the sheer number of relationships that matters, but their depth. At its core, loneliness is based on a lack of meaningful social relationships. Authentic friendships, on the other hand, which are based on trust, reliability and mutual interest, can compensate for this lack and act as an emotional safety net.« In the corresponding interview, he also specifies that the value of these relationships is based specifically on aspects that cannot be quantified according to performance standards: »High-quality friendships are characterised by prosocial behaviour. This includes things such as encouragement, support in difficult times, reliability, emotional closeness and loyalty.«²

So what can we do? Especially in times when the political ‘outside world’ increasingly wants to link participation in such an ominous way with performance, making it increasingly difficult for us to remain sufficiently receptive even in our private lives – and thus to treat our loved ones with an oligoamorous anti-performance attitude of solidarity, equality and appreciation?

Recently, I came across an inspiring text on social media by author and yogini Moksha Devi (Verena Maria Rottmar), which seems to offer an initial answer to how we might find our way back from the current “rugged individualism“, as Scott Peck once called it, towards a “gentler individualism“ – and which I would like to share with you today, at the end of this Entry:

We live in an era of withdrawals.
Not out of calmness – but out of caution.
Not out of clarity, but out of fear of imposing ourselves, being too little, or too close to something that could bring change.
“No“ is on the rise.
Not the gentle, honest, tentative “no“. Not the “no“ that is essential to life and healthy.
But the reflexive “no“. The one that wants nothing more to do with anything.
No conversation. No encounter. No deviation from one’s own course, however narrow it may be.
“That’s not my way.“
“I don’t feel any impulse there.“
“Thanks, but no.“
And that’s okay. Of course it’s okay.
But sometimes – this “no“ is a protective shield against closeness, against the risk of discovering new paths together with someone and allowing yourself to be surprised.
People who dare to build bridges know this feeling:
You offer something, not to change someone, but to invite them.
A shared experience.
A conversation.
An evening full of possibilities.
An experience that promises no certainty.
An opinion that is not set in stone.
And instead, you get a clear, impenetrable, cold “no“, or a passive-aggressive explanation that tries to pull the wool over your eyes.
Not out of malice.
But out of a strange logic: “I’ve got to protect myself.“
And don’t get me wrong… often that is exactly what is needed!
But sometimes we forget that genuine connection doesn’t just happen on its own.
It happens when someone takes a step, even if the ground is still shaking.
When someone says:
“I don’t quite understand. But I’ll go along with it.“
“I don’t want to shut myself off from this, just give me a little more time.“
The world doesn’t become richer when everyone only does what they already know.
It becomes richer when people allow themselves to be surprised by the lives of others.
Not to lose themselves – but to remember more deeply who they could still be.
And sometimes the greatest gift is:
A small, hesitant “yes“.
Whoopee…
And then, boundaries shift – bridges are built.
In small ways.
In human ways.
In the courage not to immediately dismiss everything that doesn’t fit in 100%.
Because sometimes the miracle lies not in the perfect match,
but in the willingness
to be present anyway.

¹ Scott Peck, “The Road less traveled – A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth“; Arrow Books 1990 and “The Different Drum – Community-making and peace“, Arrow Books 1990

² The complete article (and interview) on World Friendship Day 2025 can be found in the Tagesschau archive HERE (German language only)

³ Eve Rickert and Franklin Veaux: “More Than Two: A Practical Guide to Ethical Polyamory“, Thorntree Press 2014

Thanks to Markus Spiske on Unsplash for the photo!

And above all, thanks to Moksha Devi (Verena Maria Rottmar) and her personal permission to use her touching text “We live in an era of withdrawals“ (found on her facebook page).
All rights remain with the author!

Longingly

»Imagine if the sober just once took a taste, they would leave everything and sit down with us at the table of longing, which will never be empty.«¹

Someone recently wrote to me that “…there is far too little talk about longing in Polyamory”. I actually think so too – and would therefore like to dedicate this month’s bLog Entry to this emotional state.
I say “emotional state” – and thus immediately confess that our “longing” is one of those famous “curry mixtures”, i.e. a “multi-component feeling”, as I had already phrased it some years ago, for example, for jealousy and envy, which are not only related in terms of terminology, but also in implications – as we will see.
After all, in longing, too, there is not just one main predominant emotion, but depending on the occasion, it consists of different proportions of feelings such as melancholy, yearning, sadness, hope, devotion, renunciation and even pain, delicately seasoned with personal wishes, dreams and projections.

Why is it important to also focus on longing when it comes to ethical multiple relationships?
Now, looking at the above list, almost most of its components – or, strictly speaking, all of them – belong to the great, wide contextual field of romantic love. With the important restriction, however, that longing, explicitly considered, very often represents a kind of “meta-stage”, since it does not necessarily require a real, currently existing interpersonal connection – and thus also arises to a certain extent “one-sidedly”, as can also be the case with infatuation, desire, grief or envy, for example.

Thus, we have to sort things out a bit if we want to approach the role of longing in oligo- or polyamorous matters – and that is not so easy, because, excitingly, there have been very few attempts at an approach at all from the scientific side, to date. And this despite the fact that people all over the world can experience longing for people, places, things, yes, even periods of time and accompanying circumstances.

At least Paul B. Baltes, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin², for instance, identified the phenomenon of “threefold-temporality” as an important characteristic of longing.
What is meant by this? Well, nothing less than that we can experience longing for something lost in the past, something consistent in the present or for something not yet fulfilled with regard to the future. So I can mourn a Polycule that I was once part of (past), miss my current romantic partners because they might be currently in a different place than me (present) – or long for another favourite person for a multiple relationship that I still hope to encounter (future).
What all three time levels have in common with regard to longing is that they all deal with a state that is felt to be currently unattainable: I cannot regain the past, I lack something specific in the present (of which there is no lack under “normal conditions”), I still have unfulfilled wishes and ideas concerning my future.

With specific reference to this, the group of researchers led by Paul Baltes² defined another inherent characteristic of longing, which is that of “bittersweet feelings”. We can already conclude from the expression “curry mixture” above that longing contains both positively and negatively connoted sentiments. In other words, ”longing” has the peculiarity that in it we can experience joy and pain at the same time: For although the past is over (painful), longing as a reminiscence brings us into contact with the experienced or remembered joy of that time (joyful). This is also the case for the present, because longing makes us aware, for example, of the just-not-present (painful) nature of a circumstance, because in comparison we know exactly how its presence (joyful) feels. And it is the same with the future, for in our projection we dream of an enriching state (joyful), which is not realized at the present time (painful).

And even after these few paragraphs, almost all the relevant parameters for the ambivalence of longing in multiple relationship contexts are already included – and further surprising parallels to jealousy emerge:

Similar to jealousy, longing can reach a level that may become unhealthy for the individual and its relationship(s). In the English language, for example, there is no direct equivalent to the German concept of “Sehnsucht” (like “Weltschmerz” or “Leitmotif”…). The most closely related terms “desire”, “craving”, “yearning” and “longing”, on the other hand, emphasize a lack or respectively a want. However, the step from “I have a want of fresh rolls…” to “I want fresh rolls…!” is not only small in terms of language – but changes the energy and strategy of the pursued endeavor (especially for the bystanders) quite significantly…
When it comes to “emotional tempering”, we humans are therefore often a little shaky, especially when hormonal (self-)rewards are also involved. This applies above all to any bygone past, in whose retrospectively evaluated “ idyllic world” we can lose ourselves unrestrainedly, and also to the future, for which we conjure up one unattainably over-idealized castle in the clouds after another – and both projections thus keep us as reliably as tragically from our present existence in the oh-so-banal present.

Which immediately brings us to another characteristic that longing and jealousy (and also envy) share: the (downward) comparison.
Especially because longing contains the component “subjectively perceived”, it can unfold so much power that we sometimes feel it almost like a tug in our chest. But the comparison with the present need not be realistic at all – either “everything was better” in the past anyway or what is yet to come will easily surpass the present – at least in our imagination… And according to the proverb “What you feel is always right – but not always true…” ³ we unfortunately also might loose ourselves in such a labyrinth of comparisons if we are no longer able to return to a realistic assessment of the situation on our own.

In the previous two paragraphs I spoke particularly of the past and the future – but what about the present ?
In my opinion, this is where the real potential of longing lies – just like that of jealousy. In my Entry at the time, I referred to the latter as the “engine control light of a relationship”: A (rather) general warning signal, whose precise cause must be determined more thoroughly in case it blinks on.
In my opinion, this role is also attributed to longing when we feel it in our everyday lives – but not so much in respect of our outward relationships, but above all with regard to the relationship with ourselves. Especially when applied to the state of our awareness in terms of our own reality compared to our expectations – thereby generating a kind of “self-care-inventory”: Am I actually on the right path? What is missing in my life? Where do I want to go? Are my life goals still in alignment with my needs?

So it is in the present that longing really comes into its own, because there it serves as an impulse for increased attentiveness, from which our emotional intelligence can benefit – and that in turn would actually be a real bonus in terms of our interpersonal relationship skills.
Which could turn the multi-component feeling of “longing” into a really strong curry, as a drive to really get closer to our innermost desires on this level.

Personally – and as the author of this bLog – I would also like to point out another component of any longing, which is the awareness of transitoriness contained in it (which is also what made it once so attractive for Romantic literature…).
And this again contains both aspects, because of course transitoriness and the constant reminder that some proceedings are finished forever and the realization regarding our temporal finiteness are painful.
At the same time, however, this is precisely another joyful strength of longing, because in this way it can become a strong incentive for us to seize potential opportunities in time.

More than six years ago, when I conceived this bLog, I wrote the following lines on my main page about the description of the Oligoamory symbol, which I am still deeply convinced of in connection with the hopeful aspects of longing in reference to multiple relationships:

»Human beings like us are existing spatiotemporally in a both finite as well as transitory world. Our resources and our energies, our sensory perceptions, our time, and therefore also our relationships and even our lifespan is limited and finite.
Exactly this finiteness – and the dawn of the 21^st century makes it quite obvious in so many ways – immediately suggests a more attentive and sustainable husbandry regarding our available treasures of substantial as well as ideational nature.
Our awareness in respect of the ubiquitous finiteness has always evoked in human groups the fascinating aptitude of distribution, shared use, and optimisation of the available.
In the course of this, it becomes globally as well as in the smallest companionship apparent that we have always been particularly successful, if we thereby moved from mere distributional justice towards individual needs-based justice.
Oligoamory wants to invite to a mindful adoption of these vital values into ethical and loving multiple relationships.«

Bearing this in mind, my overall conclusion today is still positive – which is hardly surprising for a romantic and idealist like me:
Longing is an extremely intense mixture of emotions that often reminds us of our innermost wishes and dreams. It can both hurt and inspire us, spurring us on with both impulses to explore new paths and experience life in all its fullness. By ultimately recognizing and acknowledging our longings, we open ourselves up to the possibility of finding what we are looking for in different ways – and remaining flexible in our strategies.
Because ultimately, it is the journey through longing itself that teaches us to appreciate the here and now and to embrace the present joys of life.

PS: Try putting “being polyamorous” or “being oligoamorous” in this last paragraph instead of “longing(s)”…

¹ from “Hymne”, written in 1800 by Friedrich von Hardenberg (1772 – 1801), known as Novalis, published in Geistliche Lieder, as No. VII, first printed by Friedrich Schlegel and Ludwig Tieck in 1802 (all gentlemen were Romantics, of course…)

² Scheibe, S., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2007). “Toward a developmental psychology of Sehnsucht (life longings): The optimal (utopian) life.” in Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 778-795.
The “6 core characteristics” of longing were again specifically named in this article by Baltes’ colleague Prof. Dr. Alexandra M. Freund from the Psychological Institute of the University of Zurich (German language only).

³ Incidentally, this quote comes from the author and coach Tim Schlenzig, who founded the personality development platform myMONK.

Thanks to Muse Nina for the inspiration behind this Entry and also thanks to Smiln32/Carla Bosteder on Pixabay for the AI-generated photo!

Wait a minute!

When it comes to multiple relationships such as in Poly- and Oligoamory, there is a phenomenon that we are confronted with surprisingly regularly: Waiting. Waiting, for example, for our loved ones (regardless of whether they are currently travelling to us or, as usual, three people are in each other’s way in a far too narrow cloakroom corridor when we set off…), having to wait and see how our relationships with each other will develop and hopefully strengthen – but of course also often: waiting to discover whether a multiple relationship situation will ever occur in our lives.

A few years ago, on the subject of the podcast “Zeitfragen” on Deutschlandfunk Kultur, the authors Andrea and Justin Westhoff have created a contribution¹ in which they address many relevant aspects of waiting and show how the associated patience, endurance and perseverance have very different sociological and psychological dimensions. Among others, they quoted the sociologist Dr Andreas Göttlich from the University of Constance, who explained in detail: »Waiting is an “experience of time” – and of course depends on external circumstances, on how and what you are waiting for. In general, we can say that it is a phenomenon or a form of behaviour that is rarely actually value-neutral. So waiting is often emotionally charged, and “hoping” and “fearing” describe just such emotional charges of waiting, which of course depends on how we subsequently evaluate the expected.«

With regard to multiple relationships, I consider the keyword “the expected” to be particularly worth mentioning here. After all, in interpersonal contexts involving poly- and oligoamorous relationships, people now often talk at length about those famous individual needs for which entering into several relationships with different people could possibly help to hopefully fulfil them better. This narrative is heard and read so regularly in multiple relationship settings that it has long since become a regular “expectation” in itself being embedded in the overall approach.
And “expectation” is actually a rather amusing objective, as we humans are trying to actively gain the upper hand over a circumstance to which we are in reality passively at the mercy of. “Expecting”, that almost sounds like “executing” – to realise a longed-for state that we strive for by waiting, that we want to make sure to bring it about in this way…
The problem? We all know it: when people don’t fulfil our expectations, it’s almost the worst thing they can do to our minds, because high personal expectations almost inevitably lead to the experience of frustration, which I already define in Entry 22 with the help of the Brockhaus dictionary as an “experience of (actual or perceived) disadvantage or denial that arises as an emotional reaction to an unfulfilled or unrealisable expectation (disappointment), e.g. as a result of the failure of a personal plan or the partial or complete lack of satisfaction of primary and secondary needs.”

In this day and age, and especially in Western industrialised nations, this is mostly due to the fact that we have difficulties with the passivity of waiting, which is often perceived as being externally imposed. After all, we live in a society in which individuality, independence and autonomy are strongly emphasised characteristics, almost internalised basic values. Thus, “having to wait” – even for our loved ones – is something that we quickly perceive as a power imbalance to our own disadvantage. This is a delicate circumstance for multiple relationships, because nowadays we mainly experience “having to wait” in public spaces where hierarchies exist, for example: At work, at government offices – or when it comes to specialised personnel (e.g. in healthcare or the employment of skilled craftsmen). And – on the other hand – no matter how equal we would like our personal relationships to be: They will probably never be completely free of delays and waiting.

However, when we engage in romantic relationships – and possibly even in more than one – there may well be times when “waiting for each other” does not necessarily have to do with mere impatience or even power issues. Sometimes it’s simply the case that you don’t know what’s coming and you can’t influence it – and then you start to worry as a result of the fear of the unknown; a state that the psychologist Kate Sweeny, professor at the University of California in Riverside, has even termed “toxic waiting” ².

The extent to which each of us suffers from such situations – or copes with them with a relatively pronounced composure – depends on our individual “waiting ability” to varying degrees.
The most famous experiment is probably the world-renowned psychological “marshmallow experiment“, which the US personality psychologist Walter Mischel conducted in many variations with preschool children at Stanford University in California between 1968 and 1974. Mischel actually wanted to research free will, and impulse control via ”reward deferral” seemed to him to be a good measuring instrument for this. In fact, it became a multi-layered waiting experiment, because it not only recorded the time that each individual child was able to resist the temptation – alone in a room with a marshmallow (!) – but also documented their waiting strategies. The children were also promised that they would receive an additional marshmallow if they waited successfully, thus doubling their reward. The little ones were left alone with the coveted sweet treat for a maximum of 15 minutes and were kept under (covered) observation: One in four ate the sweet immediately, 30 per cent managed the full time. Each of them tried to distract themselves somehow; some ran around, some tried to cheat.
What was more fascinating, however, were the results of follow-up observations of the successful test subjects decades later: those who waited patiently proved to be more stress-resistant overall in their later lives and, above all, showed greater social skills.

In 2014, sociologist Bettina Lamm from the Lower Saxony Institute for Early Childhood Education and Development at the University of Osnabrück repeated the experiment with children from Germany and a comparison group of children from Cameroon, in which she confirmed Mischel’s result of 30% “test winners” for Germany – whereas the Cameroonians, however, scored a sensational 70% of “patient” children. How did this come about?

The German children reacted in a predominantly “normal-squirrelly” way while waiting – just like we adults probably would. The children from Cameroon, on the other hand, all started with an additional social restriction: Due to their adult peers, they were used to the fact that promises were usually not kept. Therefore, they should have internalised that “it’s not worth waiting (anyway)”. However, when they were shown the second marshmallow before the test, the aforementioned high percentage waited patiently, playing, singing or chattering until the test was over, promising success.
Evaluations showed that the small gesture of “previous marshmallow showing” had obviously demonstrated enormous reliability on the part of the experimenters, to which the children responded with a high level of pre-confidence.
Socially speaking, this is actually an impressive promise of commitment: Look, I am prepared/ready and willing to contribute to your needs in a moment. If I am worth your time, we both gain something.

Interestingly, Bettina Lamm was thus able to underpin Walter Mischel’s findings on stress resilience and social competence with a further level, which in my view also establishes an important correlation for multiple relationships: In a way, “being able to wait” is already a preliminary stage of trust towards our attachment figures and loved ones!
In the words of Bettina Lamm:
»If you think about it, this ability to postpone a momentary need and resist the temptation to work on longer-term goals is definitely a skill that you need at many points in your life. When it comes to studying for an exam instead of pursuing a leisure activity or perhaps encountering problems in a relationship: dealing with them and not immediately breaking out of the situation. That means it’s definitely plausible.«

Personally, especially for romantic contexts, I would even go one step further based on this result.
In its passive quality, ’waiting‘ also has something to do with ’serving‘, which – for example – we can still recognise in the English language when using the words “waiter” or “waitress”.
And for me, this represents the beneficial counterpart to the somewhat active-aggressive ‘expectation’ mentioned at the beginning: When we “serve” a cause, we make ourselves a little smaller, become a little more dedicated, more receptive and softer than before. Yes, this also echoes the aforementioned hierarchy (which used to be a very real one when in the old days servants “waited tables”). In this case, however, it is a freely and willingly performed “service” for our loved ones, just as I already explained in Entry 34 that, in my view, »the core of the “romantic narrative” is the voluntary self-sacrifice performed for the community.«

And since “waiting” is about personally invested (life) time, this brings me full circle to the fact that the invested waiting time is a trusting gift in return for the demonstrated reliability, constancy and commitment of our other relationship partners.
The absolutely decisive key here is precisely the applied amount of free will that even Walter Mischel originally wanted to reveal with his “marshmallow experiment”.

Incidentally, Dr Andreas Göttlich from the University of Konstanz calls this the “gift exchange”, an important form of interpersonal synchronisation and therefore a social ability with an extremely positive dimension: »This is the only way to build trust, because if I immediately reciprocate every gift that is given to me, then there is actually no social bond. In this respect, it would be an example for a kind of social relationship that can only last if a certain amount of time is involved and if the people who are engaged in this social action can also wait, otherwise it is not a gift, but simply a transaction.«
This alone is certainly worth considering because, unfortunately, in the early stages of polyamorous relationships, events frequently occur too quickly or in too rapid succession, which often puts undue strain on the potential long-term development of trusting relationships – to the detriment of all parties involved.

Thus the German aphorist Georg-Wilhem Exler once stated quite appropriately that “waiting means that what you are waiting for is more important than what is now.”
In these words I recognise a lot of precisely the oligoamorous added value that I always refer to on this bLog as “more than the sum of its parts” – and which I describe in Entry 9 as the concentrate of a joint emotional contract, the “Implied acknowledgement and agreement – as a result of a mutually established emotional close-knit relationship – regarding the totality of voluntary yielded obligations, self-commitments and care which have been reciprocally contributed and are potentially enjoyable by all parties involved.”
After all, these “voluntary yielded oligations, self- commitments and care” are not something that you can put straight into your shopping trolley and consume immediately, as if you were buying them from a supermarket shelf. They are more like seeds and sprouts for a vegetable patch that need to be tended, nurtured, watered and regularly cleared of weeds by everyone involved so that the result ultimately provides sufficient nourishment for all those involved. Until that point is reached, we have to wait time and again, investing mutually and devotedly our time, thereby trusting (in advance) that there will literally be a fruitful, shared reward.
This is precisely what makes the ambivalent virtues of patience and the ability to wait so valuable for a polycule, especially when it comes to several participants gradually gaining confidence in a new, previously unfamiliar situation with each other.

In my opinion, the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer provided the most beautiful summary of today’s topic with another harvest metaphor, which I would like to share with you in conclusion:

»Waiting is an art that our impatient age has forgotten. It wants to break the ripe fruit when it has barely set the sprout; but greedy eyes are all too often deceived by the fact that the seemingly delicious fruit is still green on the inside, and disrespectful hands ungratefully cast aside what has brought them such disappointment.
Those who do not know the bitter bliss of waiting, that is, hoping while being deprived, will never experience the full blessing of fulfilment.
He who does not know how one feels, who anxiously wrestles with the deepest questions of life, of his life, and waits, longingly watches until the truth is revealed to him, can dream nothing of the glory of this moment in which clarity shines forth, and he who does not want to court the friendship, the love of another, waiting to open his soul to the soul of the other until the latter arrives, until it finally arrives, to him the deepest blessing of a life of these souls in each other remains eternally hidden.
We have to wait for the greatest, deepest, most tender things in the world, things do not come in a storm, but according to the divine laws of germination and growth and becoming.« ³

¹ Deutschlandfunk Kultur: Soziales Alltagsphänomen – “Über das Warten” 04.08.2016 (Link only in German language!)

² ‘Two definitions of waiting well’ ; February 2016; Kate Sweeny, Chandra A Reynolds, Angelica Falkenstein, Sara E Andrews, Michael D Dooley

³ Dietrich Bonhoeffer: ‘Advent’ from ‘Barcelona, Berlin, America 1928-1931’, DBW Volume 10, page 529

Thanks to Maxim Abramov on Unsplash for the photo!

Ideal for what?

The protagonist Robin of Loxley roams exasperated through the dense forest in the 1984 TV series “Robin of Sherwood” (Season 2, Episode 2 “The Children of Israel”). He has quarreled with his companions and their current adventure does not seem to be progressing well. And because he is so preoccupied with his own thoughts and not paying attention to where his path is taking him, he suddenly encounters in a gloomy ravine a manifestation of his current spiritual advisor – the forest and hunting god Herne. Herne asks him why he has come – and the frustrated Robin admits that he has actually had quite enough and would almost like to break faith with him. After a short dialogue, however, the wise Herne dismisses Robin with the following words:
Herne: “Your arrows must be ready!”
Robin: “The target is to far – my aim is lost!”
Herne: “Then aim again.”
Robin: “To what purpose? To what end?”
Herne: “There is no end and no beginning. It is enough to aim.”

Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, the godmother and originator of modern Polyamory, was an idealist. She drew her ideals from her belief in the socially transformative power of love – as perhaps only those who experienced her youth and young adult phase in California in the 1960s could have imagined –, from her neo-pagan, natural-religious world view – on which she orientated herself throughout her life – and from literature, especially the work of the American science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein.

Morning Glory, who at her beginning was still simply called Diana Moore, regarded love as the great changer and questioner of circumstances of which most other people assumed that they “simply had to be that way because they had always been that way”. And at the same time, love was also an incentive for her to always approach such circumstances with a measure of compassionate appropriateness and attention to the inherent dynamics of real life. For all the endeavours that Morning Glory later pursued on this basis, this was an important, both mindful as well as down-to-earth foundation, from which her new organic concept for ethical multiple relationships (yes, Polyamory!) benefited in particular in 1990.

However, Morning Glory originally encountered the topic of love as early as 1965, when she embarked on her own spiritual quest and thereby turned to neopaganism and the new witchcraft movement, both of which sought to emphasise the words “Perfect Love and Perfect Trust!” in their core beliefs and ritual circles. Nature-spiritual neopagan witchcraft of the late 1960s combined a view of the earth as a living, energetic organism with feminist ideas that propagated an independently feminine, emotional-psychic and creative-empowering spiritual existence – and with this as a background, celebrated a world-connecting holistic concept of creation with a strong emphasis on responsibility for one’s own actions. The witches’ covens of her time constituted themselves autonomously, without hierarchical super-organisations, and aimed to be internally free of class conceit, social status or gender boundaries. Concepts such as “community”, “integrity”, “consistency”, “responsibility” and the aforementioned “trust” among each other were of great importance to them – as the key to a targeted and personally effective transformation of the existing reality by means of one’s own will.
Those familiar with the subject will easily recognise some of the elements that were incorporated into the formulation of Polyamory 25 years later…

Finally, in 1973 – Morning Glory had already experimented with an open marriage herself – she met during a neopagan convention her later long-term partner Timothy “Otter”/”Oberon” Zell, a member of the group “Church of All Worlds” (CAW), who ultimately introduced her not only to the self-actualising ideas of “humanistic psychology” according to Abraham Maslow, but also to the progressive ideas of the above-mentioned US science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein. In particular, two works of the latter, “Stranger in a Strange Land“ and “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress“ (see also Entry 47, last third), outlined fictional but plausible alternative models of society, characterised by equality, diversity, interdependence, inclusion and liberal sexual morals – mostly practised in small, accessible social units.
As the CAW tried to align their own local groups with this literary model, the nucleus of “Polyamory” ultimately emerged from a participation of this kind (since 1984 there was a “throuple” relationship with Oberon Zell and another woman, Diane Darling), from which Morning Glory finally gained the experience for her breakthrough with an article published 1990 in the CAW members’ magazine.

Having written these last three paragraphs for you to read, Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart almost seems to have been a kind of “Holy Hippie Mother Mary” of multiple relationships: Spirited, self-contained, full of ideals, passionate, yet determinedly on the path of becoming-self-realised (the “self-actualization” according to A. Maslow).
I suppose she was all of these things in a certain way. And at the same time, she wasn’t, because she was also simply “one of us”, which is always cheerfully recognisable in the interviews and stories by and with her.

Curious? Here are two better-known examples:
When she was about to become a member of a Dianic (i.e. dedicated to the goddess Diana) and therefore all-female witches’ coven at the age of 20, she rebelled against the requirement to practise celibacy – i.e. chastity – for the duration of her affiliation with the group. She expressed her protest as a sexually active and self-determined woman by choosing the name “Morning Glory” for herself – which indeed is also the term for the plant of the same name (and botanically derived witch names are not uncommon…) – but also the somewhat bawdy description for a well-known masculine phenomenon… She nonetheless proudly identified with this name from then on and kept it until her death in 2014.

In 1985, when she had already been married to Oberon Zell-Ravenheart for 10 years, they jointly developed a process for transforming goat kids into unicorns (yes, you read that right) – a technique that was successfully carried out several times on various kids thanks to the interweaving of the initially still very malleable keratin strands of the budding horns. Although the approach was even patented, Morning Glory eventually turned away from this form of “growth manipulation” after a few attempts, as she was ultimately unable to reconcile it with her nature-based religious values.

So Morning Glory was definitely someone with ideals, but she was certainly not a “saint” – if this is to be understood as a metaphor for a person who is “above all things”. How could she be, since from 1984 until her death she shared in a highly dynamic multiple relationship that fluctuated between at least three and a maximum of six participating loving partners over a period of 30 years.

Will one always be true to one’s ideals during such a long time? Never argue? Never feel inferior or neglected at some point? Never succumb to the temptation to dress up the truth in a more colourful cloak for one’s own benefit (to quote Walter Moers¹ at this point)?
I think that would be superhuman – and in my opinion especially and most of all Morning Glory’s “gift of Polyamory” proclaims to the world how much in particular profound humanity must have shaped a significant part of her values and ideals.

After all, the text “A Bouquet of Lovers” ², in which she used the word “polyamorous” for the first time in 1990 in the magazine “Green Egg“, is not intended as a manifesto of principles and rules – and it doesn’t read like one at all. It is rather a…, I would say, a written “enabling” of how a multiple relationship could be practised in an ethical way for all those involved.
For as I wrote already in Entry 49, Morning Glory was first and foremost a practitioner who was acutely quite aware of her own weaknesses and those of her fellow human beings. From her own observation and experience, as well as from Abraham Maslow’s humanistic psychology, she knew that people were perfectly capable of acting altruistically, consciously and intentionally (purposefully); but that they were also capable of exactly the opposite in terms of selfishness, thoughtlessness and impulsiveness – the latter in particular, the less pronounced their own degree of self-actualization would be, whereas the pressure of their own perceived neediness would be intense.
This is precisely why her polyamorous legacy contains no “Thou shalt…!” but all the more “Golden Rule” – which in itself is actually more of a golden “It would be best…” : “Treat others as you would like others to treat you.”

This is why e.g. jealousy and self-doubt also have a place in Polyamory. And that is why insincerity, lack of confidentiality and disloyalty can also occur in Polyamory – because those who want to pursue ethical multiple relationships are (only) human beings themselves.
Otherwise, Polyamory would also be a dogmatic and rather tyrannical relationship philosophy if its ideals were imposed in such a rigorous way that its sympathizers would regularly despair at the uncompromising and inflexible nature of its demands…

Ideals however, according to the US psychologist and psychotherapy researcher Stephen Hayes, who has already been quoted several times on this bLog, are rooted in our personal values. Values that are aligned with social standards, for example, or we hope that they will improve our quality of life, promote inner enrichment or even mature our personality.
Thus, in order for values to become ideals, we must take precisely that step in which we separate mere personal utilitarian thinking from an inner striving for meaning.
Because – in very practical terms in terms of Polyamory – I could otherwise lie to my partners in complete agreement with myself because I would be able to gain an advantage or quickly satisfy a need – whereby I agree to accept collateral damage, e.g. potentially causing suffering to other people involved.

However, Polyamory is also idealistic. It is – thanks to Morning Glory! – about a deeper meaning, an inherent ethic: How do we maintain a loving relationship with several people without inflicting involuntary or even arbitrary suffering – in which all participants are instead granted an extended relationship framework where they can benefit from jointly provided resources and shared joy?

Therefore, if we still keep bumping our heads against the ideals of Polyamory, there may be two reasons for this.

• On the one hand, it could be that our own values at the moment are honestly not in line with those of Polyamory. For example, we may place less emphasis on truthfullness, personal integrity and accountability in our path of need fulfillment than is desirable and necessary in a more complex, ethical multiple relationship philosophy.
At this point, we would have to put our current personal values to the test and adjust them if necessary – or admit to ourselves that we (for whatever good reason) have so far given our utilitarian thinking a more important priority over the above-mentioned gain in meaning. This is not necessarily a fault of Polyamory or of us – but perhaps we are simply not suited to each other at this particular moment.

• On the other hand, it may be possible that – without actually realising it – we have elevated our ideals so far above the values of our self-image that we regularly experience ourselves as failing to live up to them. And this is neither good for us, because we increasingly experience our own actions as deficient and/or inadequate (and this is considerably detrimental to our self-assessment in terms of relationship management) – nor for Polyamory, which at some point must seem to us to be such an ambitious and far-fetched endeavour that it leads to the familiar admission : “I tried, but it was too difficult…”.

Yet both of the above points unite in a much friendlier synthesis in which we and Polyamory can perfectly coexist, I would even say thrive:
Because it is allowed to fail! A bit like in the proverb falsely attributed to Albert Einstein: “It is allowed to fail. Only those who have never tried have really failed.” But it is actually meant to be even more gentle, much more human: not being able to manage everything properly (straight away) is an indispensable part of the experience of ethical multiple relationships.
At the same time, a certain amount of selflessness is expected at any rate. Remaining on the ground after the fall and either blaming “the others” and/or instead indulging in self-pity are not exactly ethical options. Instead, the visionary words of the Austrian writer Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach (who has also been featured on this bLog on various occasions) – which can currently be found a thousand times as a meme on the social networks – apply: “Stand up, straighten your crown, move on!” Because no matter how they turn out, experiences require our courage to want to make more of them based on the surplus insight we have just gained.

Which brings me full circle (oh, how fitting!) to Robin Hood in my opening scene. Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart conceptualised her Polyamory in such a way that it is not (only) about hitting and achieving a particular goal, but above all about our intentions and the path we take in doing so.
In particular, the tiny word “ethical” in “ethical multiple relationships” emphasises that the process and the effort behind our actions are, strictly speaking, almost more important than the desired or hoped-for result.

To always want to exist in an ideal state, on the other hand, is simply unrealistic – it was also Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach who once reassuringly said “Ideals are guiding stars; they light our way and give us the strength to achieve our goals.”
The Oligo- and Polyamory would be – to stay with this image – orientation aids, signposts or maps for such a way, in other words, practical enablement.
But of course we still have to decide, choose the route and walk it all by ourselves.
In the words of Erich Kästner: Let it be love! ³

¹ Walter Moers “The 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear“ (Volume 1 + 2), The Overlook Press 2006

² The text of “Bouquet of Lovers” is available HERE.

³ The quote “Let it be love” derives from the novel “The Flying Classroom“ (1933) by the German writer and publicist Erich Kästner and is spoken by one of the main characters, “Martin Thaler”.

Thanks to Sam from DGSstudios on Pixabay for the AI-generated image!

And thanks again to Oberon Zell-Ravenheart for personally providing the private photos of him and Morning Glory. All rights reserved by Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, CAW.