Blog

Theory’s all well, but practice is different ¹

This isn’t the first time a genuinely queer voice has appeared in a book review on my bLog. And this is not the first time that Yaniv Barinberg has taken a seat in my “virtual living room” on the remote island of Oligoamory.
This time, however, I’d like to give his queer perspective – and him personally – a little more coverage, and write about his book “Mehr ist mehr – Meine Erfahrungen mit Polyamorie” ² (“More is More – My Experiences with Polyamory”).

In my last Entry, I made the bold claim that “the polyamorous book market in Germany is gradually becoming more diverse.” Yes – and no: because books that deal explicitly with the approach and relationship philosophy of “Polyamory” (and not just with broader categories such as “ethical non-monogamy [ENM]” or “open relationships”) are still not particularly common.

Yaniv must presumably have thought the same when, at the end of his blogging career in 2019, he published most of his collected blog entries in book form – for it is certainly true that “the internet never forgets” – yet at the same time, the bibliophile’s truth “whoever puts things to paper, endures” remains true, given that a website that is no longer actively maintained would otherwise soon be buried beneath the rapidly accumulating sediments of a still exponentially growing WWW.
In that sense, whilst it is still technically possible today to find Yaniv’s bLog pages via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, for example, I am extremely grateful – in terms of accessibility – that he has finally published his experiences for us all in print.

What’s more, his book – or rather, his preceding bLog, has a great deal to do with my own journey into polyamory – and since I began my series of reviews in my last post with a work published only in English, I’ll now continue with a challenge for my Anglo-American followers with a book that is (so far) available only in German [though most of Yaniv’s web pages are – just like my bLog – bilingual; those who can search will find!].
However, by now at the latest – in 2026, in the age of AI and powerful photographic, scanning and translation software – this should no longer be a serious obstacle for anyone who genuinely wants to know. Or, to put it another way, no one should use this as an excuse for not having obtained their own impression of the matter.

I hope Yaniv will forgive me for using his deadname on my bLog for the second time – but it was back in 2018, when I first got to know and appreciate him as “Inna” through his “Polyplom” bLog (“On the daily art of maintaining polyamorous relationships”). In fact, I valued his content so much that I posted one of his articles from back then on my own blog a while ago as the first guest post (Thanks again, Yaniv, for your permission and your encouragement!).

When I first came across Yaniv’s blog in 2018 – which had launched two years before my own – I had just become a moderator for the first time on the largest German-language Facebook group dedicated to the topics of Polyamory and Polyfidelity. German-language material on the subject was still scarce; bLogs, let alone vLogs, were few and hard to find. I was fascinated by her*his candid writing style, the numerous thoughtful reflections – but also the steadfast stance she*he took, reflected in the posts I came across.

Nevertheless, when I read it back then, I perceived it in much the same way as I do today when I binge-watch an American TV series: OK, so there are various characters of different skin colours, races and genders playing their parts and interacting according to the script…
As someone from Germany who is, generally speaking, pluralistic, liberal and cosmopolitan in attitude, I actually always tend to overlook the fact that a PoC or, for example, a resident of the US might view these series through a completely different lens – the Black senior physician, the Asian helicopter pilot, the Filipino dancefloor sensation.
After all, all too often these character roles still represent a kind of (intentional) “utopian avant-garde”, which, when shown in the media, present a society of people interacting without barriers, enjoying equal rights and equal status in an egalitarian on-screen world – a situation that, unfortunately, is still far from being a reality everywhere.

But that’s exactly how (naively) unbiased I was when I first read Yaniv’s bLog: I’d merely skimmed his biographical “About Me” section; I didn’t care whether he had a Jewish migrant background, that he was queer, whom he loved, that he had to cope with bouts of depression – and that, whilst blogging, he was also going through important stages of his transition.
I read his bLog primarily as a fellow polyamorous person who had (finally) met a like-minded soul who was already a few steps ahead on their own journey – and who, in this way, provided some guidance and encouragement, reinforcing my own views on ethical non-monogamy.
(For example, anyone who has been following my Oligoamory-bLog for some time will be able to see quite clearly in some of the earlier Entries how Yaniv’s post “That’s my freedom and I’m allowed to, right…?” shaped my understanding of oligoamorous responsibility and integrity – particularly as, in 2018/19, there were indeed extremely contentious debates in many polyamorous forums about the “Freedom of Love”, in which the individual’s entitlement to take precedence over existing partnerships was repeatedly demanded.)

What I, as a hetero–cis–vanilla–male–normative person, didn’t really notice – and that’s why I mentioned above those TV series that usually seemed so harmless to me – was that, in his everyday life, Yaniv was nonetheless constantly aware of the effects of intersectional discrimination (= the simultaneous overlap of different categories of discrimination against a single person) – and that this was, of course, inherently embedded in his view of the world.

And with these introductory remarks, I now finally come to the review of his book – for it is this latter point in particular that, for me, defines the special quality of “Mehr ist mehr”.
And it was not until I read his book – which I studied much more thoroughly and not just in such a selective manner as his monthly bLog posts – that Yaniv really emerged for me as the multifaceted person that he truly is.

Why, in my view, is “Mehr ist mehr” worth reading?
Whilst in my last Entry I described a 480-page guide to Polyamory, “Mehr ist mehr”, at just 140 pages, seems to be something of an “easy read”. In stark contrast to “More than Two”, however, this is neither a self-help guide nor a reference book; rather, as Yaniv himself wrote: »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.«

That’s why, personally, I’d think that “Mehr ist mehr” isn’t really a “beginner’s book”. The author expects the reader to know what ethical non-monogamy is – and also that this book will deal specifically with polyamory, that is to say “the practice or support of, maintaining committed, romantic, and/or sexual relationships with more than one partner, in parallel or concurrently, with the consent of all involved partners.” (Wikipedia)
However, this kind of categorisation is never meant to be the aspect that sets Yaniv’s work apart, with its 31 short chapters (plus a foreword and endnotes). Instead, the summary promises: “How do I navigate this New Relationship Energy? What do I do when agreements are broken? How can I come to terms with my jealousy? And how does one actually go about having children?”
And yes, all these topics are covered in this little book – drawn from real-life experiences – for others who might find themselves in similar situations!
Yaniv writes in it about assuming responsibility, about opening up one’s relationship, about the subtle differences between friendship and romantic relationships, about the purpose of boundaries, about the need for definitions, about the tyranny of the smartphone, about sex with new people, about plans for children, and about mental health issues.
What makes it so fascinating is that Yaniv consistently lives up to the subtitle of his book, “My Experiences with Polyamory” – he does not want to dictate anything, nor does he wish to set in stone any standards.
However, by adopting different perspectives, he succeeds in painting a highly nuanced picture of the various situations each time, particularly when he sets out his own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

So anyone hoping for a book promising “How to Make Your Polyamory Work” will find they’ve come to the wrong place. Yaniv’s strength lies rather in his numerous questions – in particular, his self-reflection and his examination of his own motives and motivations.
In this way, a thoughtful yet vulnerable personality gradually emerges, one who dares to reveal to readers both their uncertainty and their occasional contradictions. At the book’s most powerful moments, the reader is drawn right into Yaniv’s personal relationships, taking part, as it were, in his inner monologue, which gives voice to ambivalence, qualms and self-doubt.
When Yaniv writes, roughly halfway through the book: »The closer I get to someone, the closer I get to myself.«, this strikes me, in a sense, as the synthesis of my own idea of Oligoamory, whose most important core value is, after all, self-knowledge – which, for me personally, has always been the greatest adventure of ethical non-monogamy.
Yaniv, too, describes his experiences in many places as a kind of “inward journey” or psychological process – and how much more must this be true for him as a queer person with multiple intersectional aspects…

As you read the book, you gradually come to know more and more about the author’s „private“ side and the important relationships in his life. In this respect, “Mehr ist mehr” is almost like one of the TV series I mentioned, in which the (main) characters grow on you the more you learn about them – precisely because, over time, you come to see them as human and fallible – and you can identify with them through these qualities. In a way, it’s a bit like being allowed to spend some time inside the author’s mind – perhaps, to stick with the image from the TV series, like that of the (anti)hero J.D. (played by Zach Braff) from the hospital comedy “Scrubs” – who also lets viewers share in his thoughts, fears and daydreams.
For me, one of the most moving aspects was following along with Yaniv’s Polykule’s journey towards having children over the course of several chapters; a topic that will affect not all – but certainly some – multi-partner relationships time and again – one that continues to face legal and practical obstacles and limitations in the Federal Republic of Germany to this day.
In doing so, Yaniv consistently preserves the identity of his loved ones – whilst incorporating their perspectives into the bigger picture with respect and dignity.
Not least, his extremely self-honest reflections on the impact of his depression on certain perceptions have left a lasting impact on me.

So, by the end of the book, in fact, I actually felt just like a viewer who realises that their favourite series is ending prematurely after the second series. “What… what?” I thought, “What’s going to happen to all those loose ends now – how did the story turn out?”
At the same time, it may well have been a deliberate literary device on the author’s part to send the readers back to their own (romantic) lives at the end, with their own responsibilities awaiting them there. Bearing in mind precisely that real life rarely offers a definitive “happy ending” – no fanfare, no Sherlock Holmes-style resolution of all the mysteries, no cheesy sunset in CinemaScope format. Rather, it is something that, in Yaniv Barinberg’s understated words, might sound like this:
»I don’t generalise from my own experience to others, because I am me and you are you; that’s why I can’t tell anyone whether the wait will be worth it and whether, in time, something beautiful will come of it. What I can say, however, is that I consider the attempt to find out precisely that to be highly valuable, because if you’re willing to engage in that attempt, you’ll at least know what’s important to you in terms of relationships, and that way you’ll have learnt a great deal about yourselves.«

¹ For the heading here, I’ve borrowed a sentence – or, to be precise, a section heading – from Yaniv’s book, taken from Chapter 5: “Opening up relationships – where do I start?”

² “Mehr ist Mehr – Meine Erfahrungen mit Polyamorie” (More is More – My Experiences with Polyamory), by Yaniv Barinberg, edition assemblage 2020; Paperback, 144 pages, 140 x 205 mm, ISBN 978-3-96042-089-7 / 2-973, €18.00, current edition 26^th of February 2024, with illustrations by Carina Büker

In my own post on the topic of being queer, I note that, with my polyamorous queerness, I stand on the shoulders of LGBTQI+ giants who literally paved the way for me and my way of life.
People like Yaniv are beacons to me; through their very existence and activism, they make SUCH a difference. This remains true of Yaniv, who didn’t just stop at blogging and writing books, but who, together with like-minded people in Berlin, founded “Other Nature”, a queer-feminist, sex-positive, eco-friendly and vegan alternative sex shop.
Furthermore, on his own website, yaniv-barinberg.com he offers relationship counselling that is sensitive to issues of discrimination (including queer and polyamorous contexts), both in person in Berlin and online.

To valuable to toss!?

In the photo above, you can see my copy of the book “More Than Two – A practical guide to ethical polyamory” ¹ by Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert, published in 2014. It’s well-thumbed, scuffed at the corners, creased, and has at times been secured with a protective covering. Inside, it is full of bookmarks, sticky notes and countless pencil annotations between the lines and in the margins of numerous pages. A bit worn in the truest sense of the word…
And “More Than Two” is, let’s face it, pretty much “a bit worn” indeed. From my point of view, however, in a way that, as the saying goes, “throws the baby out with the bathwater“ – which is why I would like, here on my bLog, which is, after all, meant to discuss committed-sustainable multiple relationships, to provide at any rate a closer look and also a more nuanced assessment of this book, which was the first work I ever read myself on ethical non-monogamy – and which thus continues to be pivotal to my understanding of Polyamory (or more specifically, of course, of Oligoamory).

Although many people who identify as polyamorous are familiar with the book by name, very few have actually read it. The reasons for this are largely twofold:
Firstly, I usually hear that it’s “far too extensive” – and that some readers attempted to read it initially, but abandoned it soon after because of its length.
And secondly, well, secondly, in 2019 there was this scandal surrounding claims of abusive behaviour on behalf of co-author Franklin Veaux – which eventually resulted in the situation that, from then on, this fact alone was used by far too many polyamorous folks to regard “More Than Two” – without ever having read it – almost like Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, as “scorched earth” or “liber non grata”² – usually in the form of the statement “No, I’ve never read that… I mean, the author was a woman-abuser; you can’t possibly read something like that if you’re serious about being ‘ethical’ in an ‘ethical polyamorous relationship’…”

Okay. So before I can even begin to venture into writing anything resembling a review, I need to confront these twofold.

Concerning the first point:
Yes, at 480 pages, the book is certainly lengthy, something I still describe today as a “full-blown sweep” that never ceases to impress me. But as an avid reader, however, I don’t see this as a flaw but as a virtue, because in fact, in what was and is effectively the first proper book on the subject of Polyamory, there is virtually no aspect of this particular way of maintaining multiple relationships that isn’t addressed. In that sense, “More Than Two” is also a repository of useful information, a guidebook and even a bit like an encyclopaedia, with specific sections you can always refer back to from time to time later on in your polyamorous life in case the need arises.
I read the book aloud to one of my non-English-speaking partners and provided a simultaneous translation (into German) as I went along. It all happened as part of our joint study of the book, together with her and my wife at the time, a story I shared with you in my very first Entry here on the bLog. So, in a sense, I’ve actually read the book several times – however, I should point out that you don’t necessarily have to read every single word of it. For example, extensive appendices begin as early as page 452 (although, again, the glossary of technical terms is quite useful…) and both Chapter 20 on sexual health (20 pages) and Chapters 24 and 25 (just under 40 pages) on polyamorous networking and communities refer to the situation as it stood in 2014, meaning that the information contained here may be of limited use by now.
Nevertheless, there are still almost 400 pages full of explanations, descriptions, practical examples and the authors’ own accounts, which are well worth reading. Considering that ethical multi-partner relationships, in all their complexity, cannot be equated with changing a light bulb, I think it is perfectly understandable that one cannot expect a simple “quick reference guide” here: “More Than Two” is written in such a way that even someone who has never before dealt with the subject of ethical non-monogamy is guided through the topic from the very beginning – so that by the end the reader is left with a thorough understanding of the concept. In my view, this is one of the book’s greatest qualities.
That said – by now at the latest – in 2026, in the rising age of AI and powerful scanning and interpreting software – mere volume should no longer be a serious obstacle for anyone who genuinely wants to know. Or, to put it another way, no one should use this as an excuse for not having gained their own understanding of the matter first-hand.
For Rickert’s and Veaux’s writing itself flows smoothly, is entertaining and is repeatedly punctuated by accounts of their (and their partners) personal experiences. In terms of vocabulary, I found myself struggling most in the more technical chapters dealing with communication models or sexually transmitted diseases. At times, I also required the help of an online encyclopaedia to fully grasp the chapters dealing with different nuances of (multiple) relationship dynamics, the cultivation of commitment, rules and agreements, self-empowerment or transitions between relationships.
Then again, the book is, in this sense, a genuine field-specific text – and the more I immersed myself in it and followed its line of thought, the more I began to familiarise myself with the associated “technical terms” and the terminology of the polyamorous community. And this played a key role in enabling me, in turn, to express myself more accurately in polyamorous contexts – something from which I continue to benefit to this day. Furthermore, it was in this way an eye-opener regarding concepts I had never explored in such detail before – such as nurturing my relationships, self-care, empowerment, owning of agency and many more.

Concerning the second (and surely more important) point:
In 2019, a scandal erupted, although it unfolded almost exclusively on the internet.
Allegations against Franklin Veaux – co-author of “More Than Two” – came to light when several of his former partners, including co-author Eve Rickert, published detailed accounts in which they described emotional abuse, coercive behaviour and manipulation in their respective relationships with Franklin. These allegations were collected on victim-run websites such as polyamory-metoo.com (now archived) and itrippedonthepolystair.com – but were not brought before a civil court and, accordingly, were not prosecuted by the judicial system.³ However, the US polyamorous community in particular reacted with great sensitivity to these revelations, prompting a flurry of comments, analyses and discussions about the scope of abuse and misconduct across many of the well-known social media platforms.
SinceI remain a strong advocate of “More Than Two” as a cornerstone work on Polyamory, I felt it was my duty to engage with as much of this material as possible – so that I could form my own view of the events. I’d like to briefly share with you my conclusions following many hours of online research (while leaving aside the parties’ personal “mud-slinging” as much as possible) – as well as my reasons for nevertheless considering “More Than Two” to be, for the most part, well worth reading:

By the time the book was first published in 2014, Franklin Veaux was already an established “internet authority’”on the subject of Polyamory, having run a website on the topic since 1997 – initially under the name “xeromag”, and later as “morethantwo” – and was thus one of the very first (long-term) sources on the matter in general. On the one hand, this status generated coverage and reach, whilst on the other, it conferred an increasing degree of editorial authority that was difficult to assess from the outside. Furthermore, in 2012, he added his own personal bLog in a diary-style format on Quora (which still exists HERE today).
The reveals in 2019 uncovered that, from the very beginning, Franklin Veaux had described the events in his own polyamorous relationships on these online platforms in a predominantly subjective and one-sided manner. Whilst this might already seem borderline and controversial – though perhaps not yet particularly sensational in the context of a private bLog project – Franklin increasingly interwove his “first-hand accounts” with other impulses he had gathered on his pages regarding the growing polyamorous community – whereby he exercised no proper care in distinguishing between facts, assessments and personal evaluations of experiences. His largely unique status as one of the first web authors to write on the subject, combined with the resulting influence he wielded within the community, blurred the line for his readers to distinguish between factual information and subjective accounts – particularly because the women featured in his examples did not have an equal opportunity to present a counterstatement, neither in terms of online presence at the time nor in terms of their level of public recognition. When the book project “More Than Two”, was finally released in 2014 in collaboration with Eve Rickert, even the co-author had not yet had the opportunity to scrutinise Franklin’s “personal experiences” in a nuanced way to ensure their neutrality, with the result that some of them were ultimately included in the finished book – in some cases even listing the first names of those involved.
Eve Rickert and Franklin Veaux, for their part, also became romantic partners whilst working on their joint book project (in late 2012 or early 2013). As her relationship with Franklin continued, Eve began to increasingly notice certain instances of a lack of transparency on Franklin’s part; the relationship ultimately broke down in 2018 – also due to the fact that Eve had by then contacted some of Franklin’s former partners, who were able to give “their side” of past events and how they had unfolded. This networking amongst the affected women eventually led, in 2019, to five of them initially going public together with their revelations about Franklin’s deceits and “biased authorship”; Eve herself joined the initiative a few weeks later. Over the following months, this approach encouraged five more women to come forward and confirm that they, too, had previously fallen victim to Franklin’s manipulative narrative patterns and smokescreens whilst they were in a relationship with him.

What does that mean for me in terms of the book?
I would particularly like to appeal to those who say that, because of these events – especially as a woman – one shouldn’t even touch “More Than Two” with a ten-foot pole, pointing out that, at best, only about 50% of the texts in “More Than Two” were actually written by Franklin Veaux – and that a healthy half came from Eve Rickert, who primarily contributed her journalistic expertise. Furthermore, the “personal accounts” from both authors, which are scattered throughout the book in the form of short sections and anecdotes set in a different typeface, make up only a very small portion of the project – even if they lend the work a particularly lively charm (or would lend it such a charm, were one unaware of the background. I now read Franklin’s “Celeste stories” in particular in a completely different light).
However, the vast majority of the book consists of information, suggestions, tips and thought-provoking ideas. The substantial bibliography at the end of the book also demonstrates that Rickert and Veaux were able to take such a broad view primarily because they themselves were already standing on the shoulders of (literary) giants, who in turn had paved the way with specialist literature e.g. on communication, the self, relationship management and various forms of sexuality. Rather, the stroke of genius behind “More Than Two” was to finally gather all this diverse information in one spot and place it within the context of feasible ethical multi-partner relationships.
The unpleasant aftertaste – as the Englishmen would say – derives in my humble opinion from the fact that, unfortunately, one of the book’s co-authors wrote so many wonderful things about “informed choice” and “sincerity” and “transparency” without having applied these standards adequately to his own contribution… For, at the very least, once key sections of his website had reached a stage where they were prepared for publication in a book, he does not appear to have given any thought to how the anonymity and personal rights of his former partners could be safeguarded.
To me, Franklin Veaux is therefore, above all in his personal relationships, a corrupted individual who, in my view, is particularly guilty of behaviour that we nowadays refer to as “gaslighting”: a form of psychological manipulation designed to deliberately disorientate and unsettle those affected, and gradually undermine their sense of reality and self-awareness. Franklin used the undeniable influence he wielded within the community at the time to subsequently and publicly undermine the integrity of romantic partners without their knowledge, permission oder consent. And anyone who practises Polyamory has the destructive potential to multiply the harm caused. That is ignominious and disgraceful. Perhaps he should have read his own book beforehand, which contains so much good advice on how things like this could have been prevented – or rather, that this is a red flag indicating that one should extricate oneself from such a toxic relationship as soon as possible…

Hence, instead of a traditional review:
Janet Hardy, one of the authors of the book “The Ethical Slut” ⁴ (which addresses ethical conduct of open relationships, sex positivity and slut-pride), dedicated the following lines to “More Than Two” in her foreword: “Franklin and Eve are more like ‘wise neighbours’ – think of the guy on the other side of the fence on „Home Improvement, calm and wise and funny.” – I think it’s the most accurate description of all, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Because for me personally, “More Than Two” was an eye-opener, particularly already with regard to what Polyamory actually is – and what the word “ethical” in “ethical Polyamory” entails and what values it embodies.
From the very beginning, reading the book is a bit like following a tree up its trunk: there are large, supporting branches – the subject areas covered in the main chapters – from which numerous related sub-topics diverge like multifarious twigs, some of which are explored in great detail, almost like the veins of a leaf. Reading between the lines, it almost feels like a dialogue between the two authors, who seem to have bounced the various facets back and forth between them, until a topic that has been discussed at length – and usually concludes with a thorough list of questions for the readership.
Something that helped me whilst reading was that, a few years earlier, I had already explored certain methods of communication, such as Marshall Rosenberg’s “Non-Violent Communication” and Brad Blanton’s “Radical Honesty”, so that, for example, Maslow’s and Rogers’ hierarchy of human needs was not entirely unfamiliar to me.
However, without dwelling on scientific rigour for longer than necessary, Veaux and Rickert dive straight into the green reality of romantic intimate relationships in their book – not least the important intimate relationship with oneself.
Every term introduced is clarified and its meaning explained – the fundamental values of Polyamory are discussed: commitment, honesty, transparency, equality (and why it is better to strive for this), integrity and accountability. And, in a sense, all the other chapters sprout from this.

From today’s perspective, this approach to the issue of “jealousy” may seem somewhat ‘old-fashioned’: by working on oneself and assessing one’s own resources (both of which remain important considerations – though they have since been supplemented by Bowlby’s attachment theory).
Nevertheless, the book really shines for me when it deals with personal boundaries, rules, agreements and consent, with hierarchies (or the lack thereof), the right to veto and the individual right of privacy, as well as entitlement, participation and agency.
What follows are some very practical real-life situations relating to Polyamory: Whether you are the so-called “hinge” at the centre of a relationship involving several other people, whether you decide as a couple to “open up” to Polyamory (in detail!), whether a mono/poly relationship can work, or whether it’s about living in long-distance relationships – or what it’s like with our loved ones’ loved ones (metamour relationships) . All pending aspects are thoroughly examined and discussed.

Occasionally, “More Than Two” is criticised today for not focusing enough on “consensus-building” – thereby suggesting that Franklin’s exploitative style had influenced the book’s conception. I cannot confirm this – even though the word “consensus” is not, in fact, one of the most commonly used terms. Rickert and Veaux, however, employ the concept of “informed choice” instead, which is intended to be established at all times to empower all those involved, so that unanimous and equitable decisions may result from it.
In the worst-case scenario, one could accuse “More Than Two” – much like “Non-Violent Communication” – of placing a somewhat stronger emphasis on the well-established self-sufficiency of a personality that stands up for itself and negotiates on its own behalf. People with a less resilient psyche or who are at a disadvantage in purely verbal terms might be at a disadvantage here – though this applies to most interpersonal systems that are not completely safeguarded against deliberate, abusive manipulation in practice.

Additionally, it is at times claimed that some sections of the book are redundant (i.e. the repeated mentioning/repetition of information). If this is considered negative, I see it more as a “matter of taste”. To stick with my tree analogy above: when information is repeated, it is usually to remind you that you are still on a tree – or, to be precise, which main branches you have already passed on your way up. Personally, I find this method of explanation very helpful, as it usually serves as a positive reinforcement of the fundamentals I have already acquired – which is precisely why I used the image of a tree: from the basic to the detailed, with increasing sophistication. So, whenever I pick up “More Than Two” again these days, I realise that I’ve mastered the “trunk” and some of its major branches quite well – which then helps me very quickly to get my bearings amongst the twigs and leaves, the specifics of which I’ve, of course, gradually forgotten once again when I want to find my way around. As a result, even after many years, the book remains a source of information for me that never fails to provide a fresh insight.

Although the polyamorous book market is gradually becoming more diverse, I still come across far too many members of the community who have just read “The Ethical Slut” as their only book on non-monogamy – and now claim “to know everything there is to know about Polyamory from what’s been written”. However, “The Ethical Slut” wasn’t initially intended as a book about Polyamory – and, as I said above, it primarily encourages relationship-wise openness, sex positivity and promiscuity. It is therefore no surprise to me that some parts of the polyamorous community still tend to discuss and define Polyamory primarily in terms of these aspects.
Anyone who is looking for more subtle, nuanced and thoughtful insights – which, however, come with a fair bit of self-reflection and consideration for one’s partner – should definitely still read “More Than Two”.

Even though one of its authors tragically failed to live up to the core wisdom explicitly set out in the book on behalf of his his own love-life – which applies to all our relationships – and to quote both authors verbatim:

“Don’t be an arsehole!”

¹ Eve Rickert & Franklin Veaux, “More Than Two – A practical guide to ethical polyamory”, Thorntree Press, first published in 2014

A new edition, compiled exclusively by Eve Rickert and Andrea Zanin, is currently available:
“More Than Two, Second Edition: Cultivating Nonmonogamous Relationships with Kindness and Integrity”, Thornapple Press, 2024

² corresponding to “persona non grata” (Latin) “unwelcome person” – “liber non grata” (Latin) = “unwelcome book”

³ The archived pages of polyamory-metoo.com can best be accessed via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine (from June 2019 onwards).

The survivor-led platform itrippedonthepolystair.com continues to be active.

The US federal court databases (PACER) contain no references to any criminal proceedings, civil lawsuits or court judgements relating to allegations of abuse against Franklin Veaux. PACER allows for a nationwide search of federal court proceedings, and nothing in the available summaries or public comments suggests that such a case was ever filed.

⁴ Janet W. Hardy & Dossie Easton: “The Ethical Slut – a guide to infinite sexual possibilities”, Greenery Press 1997
German edition: “Schlampen mit Moral: Expanded New Edition: Warum es an der Zeit ist, Sex und Liebe neu zu denken – wie Polyamorie, offene Beziehungen und andere Abenteuer gelingen können”, mvg-Verlag 2020

Concerning appreciation

After more than 12 years of exploring the world of ethical non-monogamy for myself, after countless insights gained from online forums and even more articles on the subject, along with numerous conversations with those directly involved, I would say, as things stand today, that the most common source of conflict I have encountered throughout all these experiences stems from issues of interpersonal appreciation.
This is certainly not unique to multiple relationships only; I believe this challenge exists in all close human relationships, and it seems to me that especially those of a romantic and long-term nature are particularly susceptible to it – and it is my topic this time because, in my view, the dynamics tend to intensify the more people are involved in such relationships.

Vocabulary resources such as the Oxford Dictionary define “appreciation” in a somewhat dry and rather abstract way as “as the feeling of being grateful or the recognition and enjoyment of good qualities in someone or something”.
That’s all well and good, but we’d have guessed as much ourselves…
It is only upon looking at the more carefully crafted entry in the (German) Wikipedia om the subject that it becomes clearer that the interpersonal connotations of this term must be more significant:
“Appreciation refers to the positive regard one has for another person. It is based on an inner, general attitude towards others. Appreciation concerns a person as a whole, their very being. It is largely independent of performance or achievements, even though these do influence one’s subjective assessment of a person and, consequently, one’s appreciation of them.
Appreciation is linked to respect and goodwill, and is expressed through attentiveness, interest, attention and kindnessv”, the corresponding website explains.

I see: so it’s about both (personal) evaluation, in other words subjectivity, – as well as an independent, overarching perspective. When we reflect on this sentence for a moment, a contradiction seems to appear.
However, when we take a closer look at the humble details of our everyday lives, we can quite easily recognise ourselves in this contradiction. After all, issues of appreciation usually stem from a discrepancy in our perceptions: whilst we can, of course, almost always assess our own contribution to a relationship fairly accurately – and, in doing so, tend to place a particularly high value on those contributions that I have previously described here on this bLog as “walking the extra mile” (aptly, in my Entry on loyalty, number 66, by the way!): All those situations where we practise pushing our comfort zone in order to accommodate others, where we demonstrate tolerance for ambiguity (i.e. putting up with ambiguous situations and contradictory behaviour), and, in a sense, move away from the “comfortable middle lane” of our lives simply because there are other people to consider.
Our ability, on the other hand, to assess these contributions just as accurately in the people with whom we share our lives is, by its very nature, usually not as well developed – and this applies above all to our assessment of “how much” we perceive others to be willing – or unwilling – to push their comfort zones or to get off their beaten track, compared to ourselves…

As such, the discrepancy in such a subjective assessment often need only exceed a certain range – and conflict seems inevitable. We all know, moreover, that particularly ugly conflicts tend to escalate at such moments to an especially high degree when two (or more!) sides finally find themselves face to face, each hurling at the other the accumulated observations and imbalances regarding their own personal commitment and the alleged complacency of the other parties…
Often, the intensity of the energy released in the process can far exceed that of the trigger or precipitating event – which, at the point of the incident, is almost always a dramatic experience for everyone involved and an unpleasant situation to endure on top of that; at the same time, it is precisely here that the clue lies as to the deeper level from which the underlying problem originates – and where steps can be taken to resolve it.

In 1981, it was the “father of Nonviolent Communication”, Marshall Rosenberg (about whom I have written on this blog on several occasions), who specified the concept of interpersonal appreciation by introducing the term “mattering” instead¹ (roughly meaning “to be of significance”). In the course of his research into interpersonal conflict, Rosenberg had regularly observed the same pattern I described above – and, drawing on the principles of his needs-based “Nonviolent Communication”, had reflected on what personal factors might contribute to a conflict rooted in a perceived imbalance of appreciation.

[At this point, I would like to briefly mention the connection to ethical non-monogamous relationships, such as Poly- and Oligoamory in particular: I have already explained on this bLog on several occasions that Marshall Rosenberg was a student of the humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow. Maslow’s psychological lectures – in particular his emphasis on “self-actualization” – were closely followed at the time (1943 and especially from 1954 onwards), among others, by the young Timothy (Oberon) Zell (-Ravenheart), who made this aspect one of the cornerstones of his neo-pagan group “Church of All Worlds”– from which, in 1990, the outline of “Polyamory” was ultimately formulated through his partner Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart (see Entry 49).
The “polyamorous toolkit” therefore largely comprises a range of strategies I will outline below for addressing issues of appreciation; indeed, these strategies were already available here before they were later applied to monogamous relationships as well.]

Because, building on the theory of needs put forward by Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow (see Entry 118), Rosenberg highlighted the fundamental social human need for belonging. This social need would, in turn, give rise as well to the desire to “matter” and to “be noticed”. Rosenberg concluded that a person would therefore feel important or significant not only because they were contributing to others, but rather because they were valued and appreciated while contributing. By this approach, he linked Maslow’s concept of one’s personal self-image, self-efficacy and self-esteem with one’s personal needs: feeling valued and appreciated would positively enhance one’s psychological resilience – whereas the psychological well-being of people who felt they were only fulfilling a subordinate or minor function would suffer.

At this point, I realise that some readers might raise an eyebrow and think: “That all sounds rather needy…”
And indeed it is – but in a fundamental way that cannot be rationally compensated for or bypassed otherwise.

Abraham Maslow, for his part, had borrowed the social needs for belonging and appreciation from his colleague Carl Rogers, who had previously formulated the core attitude of “unconditional positive regard” in his conception of the person-centred psychotherapy.
Within humanistic psychology, to which Rogers and Maslow were committed, there are thus two important, interrelated basic impulses: one in the form of the aforementioned “self-actualization” (incidentally, the original concept did not derive from Maslow himself, but from the neurologist Kurt Goldstein). According to this view, “self-actualization” is the constant human aspiration to maintain, develop and realise one’s potential for personal growth, as well as to achieve independence and self-determination. However, in order to pursue this impulse within a social group in the best possible way, enabling the greatest possible development of one’s true self, we need the other impulse, the “unconditional positive regard” – a concept which, in my view, the American psychologist David Guy Myers has best described by saying: »This is an attitude of grace, an attitude that values us even knowing our failings. It is a profound relief to drop our pretences, confess our worst feelings, and discover that we are still accepted.«²

To those who still consider this to appear desperately needy, I would suggest going back to a time long ago in their lives. Way back! After all, the previous descriptions—which may occasionally have seemed a little cumbersome—are not based on some nebulous theory concocted by eccentric adults.
Rather, if we go back to the beginning of each of our lives, we have all found ourselves at precisely the point described: There was a time, first as babies, then as toddlers, and finally as children and teenagers, when we all wanted to unfold our growing autonomy as freely as possible, in line with our personal preferences and aptitudes. For the vast majority of this period, however, we were also completely dependent on a caring social environment – without which we would have perished sooner rather than later. From an evolutionary perspective, this dependence would most likely have persisted throughout our entire lives, particularly in an environment that was not particularly hospitable (at least from the perspective of Homo sapiens): without our social group, we would have been lost.
The fact that, even today in the 21st century, we still experience this dependence through our need for belonging is thus not a trivial attachment to be overcome, but a survival mechanism hard-wired into us from the outset, which we cannot deny as part of our human nature.

Therefore, let us continue to focus on impulse two: For our optimal personal development, we would have needed a pronounced degree of “unconditional positive regard” whilst growing up, in order to become “ourselves” undiminished. For example, in terms of support, guidance and help from those caregivers who would have equipped us with the famous „roots and wings“. Caregivers who would have accepted us just as readily in the face of our failures in certain endeavours – and to recall once more the Wikipedia definition of appreciation from the beginning of this Entry: with an inner, general attitude that is independent of performance or achievements.

Is it dawning on you? Let’s work toward the finish line…

For, however, the vast majority of us know that our own upbringing did not always unfold in such undisturbed, supported and unconditionally valued circumstances. Many of us have had to cope, to a greater or lesser extent, with conditions that Carl Rogers described as follows: »Under unfavourable circumstances, a person has many ways and mechanisms at their disposal in a given situation to preserve their existence, including their self-respect. This can lead to psychological blockages, mental disorders and inhibitions, or to destructive, irrational and antisocial behaviour.« (This sounds rather gloomy towards the end, but please bear in mind that the speaker was a clinical psychologist and had therefore witnessed some truly harrowing incident reports in his career…).

In other words, self-development and appreciation / mattering form a feedback loop that has been in effect since our birth, so to speak.
If, as attentive observers on the research on multiple relationships, we also take Bowlby’s attachment theory into account (which Jessica Fern draws upon in her recent books “Polysecure” and “Polywise” for example ³), it soon becomes thus clear to us that behind the explosive energy of conflicts concerning appreciation, there is often a biographical emergency response stemming from deficiency and counterproductive compensation strategies.

Nevertheless, conflicts regarding appreciation cannot be solely explained by shortcomings we have experienced in the past. As “lifelong learning beings” with the plasticity of our fascinating brains, the potential for our self-fulfilment is also active“for life”.
And therefore, if the impulse for self-realisation or self-actualisation persists, we all remain, to a significant extent, dependent on the continual appreciation of our social environment, ideally expressed as unconditionally and positively as possible.

The good news is that, in this sense, “the train hasn’t left the station yet”. What we may not have experienced earlier in life, we can still experience – and provide – in our relationships today!
Care for a few simple, practical examples?

• Listen actively without immediately correcting the other person. Let them finish speaking, ask questions, and demonstrate: “I’m taking you seriously.”
• Acknowledge their feelings, even if you don’t agree with them. For example: “I understand that this has hurt you.”
• Express gratitude for the person, not just for their achievements. For example: “It’s great to have you here” or “I’m glad we know each other.”
• Use respectful language and a respectful tone of voice. This shows that the person is valuable to you, regardless of their current behaviour.
• Accept boundaries. If someone doesn’t want a hug, a chat or to share their opinion right now, this shouldn’t be taken personally.
• Don’t belittle others in challenging moments. Instead of “You’re being difficult again”, try: “This is tough right now, but I’m still here for you.”
• Highlight strengths without attaching conditions to them. For example: “I appreciate your sense of humour” or “You’re easy to talk to”.

With their concept of unconditional positive regard, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow planted a seed in the 1960s that later blossomed into a green shoot in Morning Glory Raven-Zell’s idea of “Polyamory” – without which, in my view, a relationship between several romantically attached partners cannot be sustainable, if at all, possible.
After all, unconditional appreciation is usually reflected in the fact that people feel secure, accepted and not constantly under evaluation. And this is particularly evident when someone is allowed to make mistakes without losing love, respect or their sense of belonging. So, if in our relationships with one another we can express sentiments such as “I like you not only when everything is going smoothly”, “You matter to me, even when we have a difference of opinion right now”, “I can see that you are having a difficult time at the moment”, “I want to understand you, not judge you”, and also “Thank you for simply being you”, then we are conveying a general attitude: For us, first and foremost it is the relationship that matters, and our subjective assessment is secondary and subordinate to that – and thus the apparent contradiction I mentioned at the start of this Entry becomes also resolved.

And when relationships are prioritised in this way, before any pre-emptive assessments comes into play, intimacy can grow without sacrificing individual freedom. This means that appreciation becomes not just a pleasant feeling, but a solid foundation for love, trust and mutual growth.
Perhaps this is precisely the unspoken promise of successful (multiple) relationships: being able to recognise one another without the urge for suppositions and prerequisites.

¹ M. Rosenberg, B. C. McCullough: “Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health” in: “Research in Community and Mental Health”, Band 2, 1981, S. 163–182 (Quelle nur englisch)

² Myers, David G. “Worth” (2007), from Psychology (8^th ed.), New York

³ Fern, Jessica: “Polysecure -Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Non-monogamy“, Thornapple Press 2020; “Polywise – A Deeper Dive into Navigating Open Relationships” (with David Cooley), Thornapple Press 2023

Thanks to Count Chris on Unsplash for the photo!

Once upon a time

The narratorial treasure trove of the Oligoamorists is teeming with heroes and monsters, idols, mythical figures and chimeras.
But the best stories are written by reality itself – or rather: it is reality that finds its expression in stories, absorbs impulses from them and finally weaves them into an incredibly colourful carpet.

It is 1773 – and a sense of freedom and hope for greater personal autonomy is in the air.
This is evident even in the border regions near the university town of Göttingen, which belong to both the Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel as well as the Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg – an area we would today refer to as “rural South Lower Saxony”. Just a year ago, and thanks to an old friend’s connection – nowadays we’d probably call it “by pulling some strings” – the young 25 year old Gottfried August Bürger, who had only recently been appointed as a judicial clerk, seized the chance to pick up a job in the small village of Gelliehausen. Legal work in the countryside, disputes among landowners, inheritance matters, boundary demarcations, and adjudicating minor offenses aren’t exactly the kind of things that challenge a sharp mind – and even socially speaking, such places are far removed from any kind of sophisticated society…
Despite all these obvious limitations, Gottfried is generally quite satisfied with this development, because his true passion lies in art – specifically, in literature and poetry.
For at this point, Gottfried had already put several years of discord with his family behind him, particularly with his domineering grandfather Jakob Philipp. Initially pressured into studying dreary theology in Halle (Saale), he subsequently devoted himself, as a compromise, to the study of law in Göttingen – a decision, however, that also opened the door for Gottfried to quickly become part of a circle of art-loving, liberal-minded, kindred spirits.
For at that time, the educated world looks to the newly formed colonies beyond the antlantic (what we know today as the United States), where landowning settlers are just beginning to rise up against the British rule of their colonial masters. And the world is looking even more intently toward neighboring France, where tensions are running high among the peasantry and the middle classes – due to excessive oppression through taxation and the heavy-handed rule of the French monarchy.
This kind of oppression is also present in what is still known as the “Holy Roman Empire” – that patchwork of numerous territories and principalities where Gottfried lives: Absolutist rulers haggle with their territories, are locked in conflict with one another, and are currently watching with suspicion the most powerful military figures of the time: Frederick II., King of Prussia, and Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria. After all, it is the regional authorities who have complete control over the welfare and misfortune of their inhabitants—from the choice of profession, place of residence, family, and social interactions appropriate to their station, to services and taxes, and even down to their religion.
While peasants and working-class craftsmen have been virtually at the mercy of these conditions for centuries, a new way of thinking is beginning to spread among the increasingly educated middle classes, a phenomenon that has recently come to be known as “Enlightenment”: A reform movement that seeks – by invoking reason as the universal arbiter – to free society from such age-old, rigid, outdated concepts and ideologies, despite resistance from tradition and customary law.
These ideas also spread to young Gottfried and his creative friends—hoping to make the light of the “Enlightenment” accessible even to less educated circles, to elevate the songs and stories of the “common people” by collecting and recording them, and—keyword “patchwork” – finally bringing together, through language and literature, what would be culturally unique concerning a “unified German nation” (which, in its current fragmented state, does not yet even exist).
Grand ideals, therefore – in a young, starry-eyed mind.

In the real world, Gottfried oscillates in this way between work for his circle of intellectuals in Göttingen and the homes of the administrative officials in the countryside who are of a similar social standing to himself. A regular guest in the large family of a neighboring district official (the Leonhart family in Niedeck), he gradually falls in love with the second-eldest daughter of the house, 17-year-old Dorothea, whom everyone affectionately calls “Dorette”. But his gaze also lingers from time to time on her pretty, two-year-younger favourite sister, Augusta, who is affectionately known as “Molly”… Henceforth, Gottfried becomes an increasingly frequent visitor to Niedeck – and in July of the following year, 1774, the time has come for him and Dorette to celebrate their wedding with great rejoicing.
But is it mere piquancy or a peculiar quirk of fate? When her father-in-law, Johann Carl, jokingly mentions in his wedding speech that he himself had been married to two sisters in succession and that marriage is thus an institution that serves to uphold family connections, it becomes clear that even on this day of celebration, hidden romantic ties of considerable significance have long been sprouting. For Molly and Gottfried, too, have begun to fall in love with each other – and as amusing as the old gentleman’s speech may be, the consequences thereof seem daunting, even in the light of this bright summer’s day…
And so the inevitable happens: The impassioned Gottfried, who will later be classified by literary historians as “Stürmer und Dränger” (a proponent of”storm and stress”) on account of his literary achievements, continues to date secretly with Molly, mostly in a secluded grotto in a cliff beneath her family home in Niedeck, whilst in the spring of 1775 Dorette is already at home in Wöllmarshausen busy with her first child, Antoinette.
But the social and family dynamics are closely intertwined – and Dorette is neither blind nor stupid – she soon realises that her husband’s “friendly admiration” for her dear sister was quite obviously, right from the start, more than just cordial companionship. As her father, Johann Carl, has meanwhile fallen ill and is dependent on Molly’s care, she finally confronts the two conspirators, leading to a long conversation filled with accusations, confessions, tears and remorse – but ultimately also with forgiveness, understanding and, in the end, an unprecedented mutual agreement. History does not record which of the three it was who ultimately uttered that fateful phrase, which was not written down until over 200 years later in the poem “Triad” by the poet David Crosby, where it serves as the preamble to the first text on modern Polyamory: “Why can’t we go on as three?” ¹

And so the three of them come to a decision together, unbeknownst to the outside world: just before one another and before God, they resolve to live from now on as a “marriage of three” – in which Dorett and Molly are by nature already bound as sisters and each romantically attached to Gottfried.

A little more than a year later (1777), this arrangement, which had initially remained hidden, takes on a much more visible shape as a result of another twist of fate. The father-in-law, Johann Carl, dies after a brief but severe illness – Molly is thus freed from her family obligations and, without further ado, moves in with Dorette and Gottfried at their shared house in Wöllmarshausen – the “ménage à trois” is thus complete!
What ensues is a time of what is likely to be great joy, but also of assured suffering.
First, it is the domestic servants who – because they live in close quarters in the same house – draw their own conclusions and start chatting amongst each other. Yet whilst Gottfried can speak more freely about his personal circumstances in Göttingen, amongst his circle of literary liberal friends, wich half jestingly, half enviously compare him to the patriarchs of the Bible, from Abraham to King David – the public opinion in the provincial, conservatively minded court district of Gleichen, particularly in Niedeck and Wöllmarshausen, soon turns to utter alienation. Especially the young wives feel the full force of this, as it is made bluntly clear to them after only a short time that word has got round “how they are living in shame with Mr Bürger” – people gossip about them behind their backs, or even spit in their direction, with little attempt at discretion; the farmers’ spouses in the market square turn their backs on them when they arrive, or sidestep them in church. Molly, in particular, has to endure the worst humiliations when red-faced farmhands shout “bit-on-the-side!” or even “strumpet!” after her.
When, during the bitter winter of 1777, little Antoinette, barely three years old, dies of a fever, this seems to be yet another manifestation of the malevolent glances from all sides with which the trio now has to cope wherever they go. Living in an age that has yet to discover effective contraceptives or find a medical way to ensure the survival of infants or their mothers, the grieving Dorette is, however, pregnant once again; in the summer of the following year, she gives birth to her daughter Marianne (who will reach the remarkable age of 84 at that time!). Marianne’s birth is a brief, long-awaited ray of hope that can at least restore a touch of happiness at home, whilst outside, too, the dark clouds appear to have receded somewhat, if only for the moment.
But whilst the arrival of Marianne seems to reaffirm the legitimacy of Dorette and Gottfried’s marriage in the eyes of the outside world, the gossipmongers now turn their attention even more fiercely upon Molly, who, after another year of such social pressure, gives in and flees in 1779 to the home of an older sister in Bissendorf near Hanover (Wedemark). Not until more than a year later, after numerous carriage journeys north and even more negotiations, Gottfried and Dorette manage to convince her to return: To escape the evil tongues in Wöllmarshausen and its vicinity, at least for a while, Gottfried has, despite the family’s notoriously tight budget, leased a humble place in the somewhat remote village of Appenrode, to which the family members can now retreat whenever they need a place of refuge. And this arrangement finally seems to be providing the much-needed peace of mind and a return to something resembling normality, for the chronicles have virtually nothing to report for a few harmonious years in the story of our proto-polycule² (which, historically speaking, is usually a good sign). In 1782, it is Molly herself who completes this small, unusual patchwork family with the arrival of their first son, Emil. However, the happiness that has finally taken shape in this way lasts for only two more years, even though everything now seems to be gradually falling into place – it is 1783 and Dorette is expecting her third child, a sibling for Marianne and little Emil.
For, of course, the voices of disapproval have never truly fallen silent; the target that Gottfried Bürger provides with his unconventional household is simply too easy to hit. Thus, a critical remark here and a pointed rebuke there eventually cause Gottfried’s superiors, the presiding officers of the relevant administrative chamber, to launch an investigation against him “due to negligent conduct in office”. In particular the ever-tight finances and high expenditure of their employee have aroused the suspicion of the senior authorities (which is hardly surprising, given the leased estate in Appenrode and regular literary activities in Göttingen, both of which clearly exceed the scope of a dutiful local judicial official…).
But life strikes even harder on another front: Dorette’s birth in July ’84 is fraught with complications and ultimately proves fatal. The mother and her baby (who was to be named Auguste) perish during childbirth as a result of physical exhaustion – a fate commonly experienced at that time – which shatters the barely etablished rainbow with a single blow. Dorette passes away at the age of 28.
Whilst Molly and Gottfried are devastated with grief for their sister and companion, this is of course just more water on the millstones of the gossipmongers. And even though Gottfried is acquitted of the charge of abuse of office shortly afterwards, at this point the survivors are finally fed up with Wöllmarshausen, with Niedeck, with Gleichen, and with all the small-minded villagers, slanderers and petty rumour-mongers.
Gottfried resigns from his increasingly precarious post as civil servant, and the grieving family moves lock, stock and barrel to Göttingen – which, compared to Wöllmarshausen, seems almost cosmopolitan – and which, in any case, has for a long time been the main centre of Gottfried’s literary career. Given the need to provide for his remaining family, he swiftly takes up the position as a private lecturer there later that same year.
Molly and Gottfried are deeply shaken by these recent events – yet, in a way, Göttingen also offers them the chance of a fresh start. The following spring, it becomes clear to the couple that Molly is already with child again – and in July 1785, Molly and Gottfried are officially married in a small, beautifully arranged ceremony, largely organised by Gottfried’s friends in Göttingen. Uplifted, Gottfried is now ready to tackle one of his most important contributions to German literature – the little family is starting to get back on its feet, and Molly, who is soon heavily pregnant, has her hands full getting the household back in order. Her delivery in August, nevertheless, is anything but easy, which reminds Gottfried and the weakened Molly in a terrible way of the fate of poor Dorette. Whilst she is still in confinement, the couple agree to name their daughter, who was brought into the world after agonising labour, “Auguste” as well, in memory of Dorette and her stillborn baby – and so it is done.
But while Auguste, contrary to past experience, is thriving and in perfect health, brave Molly is not recovering from her difficult labour as the doctors would prefer. Christmas and New Year’s celebrations she can only enjoy from her bed, whilst Gottfried and the children scarcely leave her side anymore. In January 1786, she is finally struck down by a severe fever from which she does not recuperate. Molly dies, never having reached her 28th birthday.

All that remain are the three children, Marianne, Emil and Auguste, as well as Gottfried, to whom everything seems lost. Although he is able to find homes for the children within the extended family (including in Bissendorf in Westphalia, with Dorette and Molly’s sister), he himself falls into a deep creative crisis that sets his progress back by three years. By the time he finally gets around to publishing the “Campaigns and Adventures of Baron Munchausen” in 1789, he is barely his old self at all.
Yet a final spark still glows within him, whilst in France the French Revolution is in full swing following the Third Estate’s proclamation as the National Assembly and, shortly afterwards, the Storming of the Bastille – reminding him of the freedom that means so much to him.
He receives a passionate, poetic reader’s letter from a female admirer in Stuttgart – and, just as impulsively and impetuously as he had been a decade and a half earlier, Gottfried throws himself into a carriage bound for the south. Indeed, he encounters his admirer, Elise Hahn, who is herself a writer – and rashly decides to propose to her – perhaps in the hope of finally finding that long-awaited happiness within the confines of established monogamy after all. Elise says “Yes!”, the couple moves to Göttingen, marries in October 1790 – and by the following August, their son (Agathon) is born – Gottfried tries everything in his power to finally achieve “a normal life” this time.
However, the attempt fails miserably. Elise, who is 22 at the time (and 21 years younger than Gottfried himself), cheats on him on several occasions, including an affair with a local nobleman of far higher social standing than Gottfried. When he finally discovers her having sex with one of his own students in Göttingen, things reach breaking point: a sordid, highly publicised divorce ensues, in which Elise is found at fault in 1792 – but which also provides the final, decisive blow to Gottfried’s already tarnished reputation: For it was none other than one of the very greatest stars in the German literary firmament of the time, Friedrich Schiller – who once in his youth admired Gottfried Bürger and even imitated him in some respects at the start of his career – who, a year earlier, had savaged Gottfried’s literary life’s work in one of the most important publication of the contemporary literary scene in a manner that now seems to be confirmed once again – and for all the world to see. Schiller, of all people – who in his own youth also had his fair share of parallel relationships with the fairer sex – writes there, among other things, in rather disparaging tone, “that only a man of moral integrity can be a good poet”.
Gottfried is annihilated, the accumulated pressure more than he can bear. His voice fails during a lesson – and never returns. He is forced to give up his post as a university lecturer. Impoverished, supported by nothing more than a one-off lump sum from the university, broken, defeated, emaciated – and above all, lonely – he dies two years later, in June 1794, at the age of just 46, succumbing to consumptive tuberculosis.
As for Polyamory, which had brought him so much happiness and so much suffering, it was still 200 years too early.

An afterword and a disclaimer, so to speak:
As the author of this blog, I have focused here primarily on the personal relationships of the German poet Gottfried August Bürger, who lived during the period of our history now referred to as the “Age of Enlightenment”.
Whether the events described above can indeed be characterised as an early example of “Polyamory” is, strictly speaking, a matter I shall leave to the readers of these lines to decide. Personally, I nevertheless consider Dorette, Molly and Gottfried to be incredibly courageous individuals who, at a pivotal moment in European history – one that focused on both national liberation and the pursuit of greater personal freedom – chose to follow a bold, unconventional and non-conformist path.
From today’s perspective, sexual relationships with teenagers (who, under current law, are simply children!) are to be condemned (in most parts of the world, such relationships are now indisputably a criminal offence). At that time, entering into relationships at a young age and getting married early were commonplace, as was the often relatively large age gap between an older husband and his younger wife. All these measures were generally intended to ensure that a young and healthy woman, despite the poor medical conditions at the time, would hopefully be able to endure the risky process of childbirth and thus preserve the family line. Individualistic considerations were always subordinated in the pursuit of this objective. Furthermore, by the end of the 18th century, European women were almost entirely dependent on a male patriarch as the head of the household within the social order.
So, as for “how” things actually played out in the Bürgers’ household – whether the people there were truly happy together, or whether it was merely an odd arrangement, or even just the realisation of a “male fantasy” – I cannot, of course, say with absolute certainty. Many reference works describe the marriage between Gottfried and Dorette as “unhappy” – though this is usually attributed solely to the fact “because Molly existed”.
As an oligoamorous person myself, with (only) documentary sources, historical sites, correspondence, biographical details, obituaries and literary texts at my disposal today, I do, however, view these matters through my “own lens” – which has led me to my own individual assessment of the circumstances in those days – and I interpret them differently.
Just a few weeks ago, I was sitting in the so-called “Bürgergrotto” in Niedeck, where Gottfried once used to meet Molly in secret. Attached to it is a board which, full of convoluted phrasing and roundabout descriptions, winds its way around the fact that this place is a reminder of a triangular relationship that ultimately lasted seven (!) years. Now in 2026 (ok, the board may have been around for a few years) I deemed it to be both embarrassing and discriminatory. And that’s why I’ve now posted this Entry on my bLog, which is intended as a tribute to Gottfried – but above all to Dorette and Molly.
During his first creative peak (at the time he met Dorette and Molly), Gottfried August Bürger, as a renowned writer, gave the world the sombre ballad “Lenore“, which was well ahead of its time and reminds me of the later works of Edgar Allan Poe (who was also inspired by it). As a highly educated man, Bürger was fluent in many languages and provided the first German translation for Shakespeare‘s tragedy “Macbeth”, for example. His further poetic and literary works are extensive; if in doubt, please refer to the relevant Wikipedia entry under his name.
However, Bürger is actually best known to most readers for his “recovery” of the German Baron Münchhausen stories, which were first published in England in 1785 by Rudolf Erich Raspe as “Baron Munchausen’s Narrative of his marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia”. Bürger translated and expanded the material back into the German language as “Feldzüge und Abenteuer des Freiherrn von Münchhausen”. This material was very close to his heart because it originated from his home region (Bodenwerder in South Lower Saxony). But above all because this initiative fitted in with his overarching intention of uncovering and preserving a “German narrative heritage”, through which he hoped to contribute to a German liberal uprising that, much like in America or France, would lead to increased empowerment, greater personal freedom and an improved sense of equality amongst his fellow citizens [objectives of the Enlightenment and objectives of Sturm und Drang].

¹ When Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart published her essay “A Bouquet of Lovers” in the 23rd issue of the Green Egg magazine in May 1990 – in which she used the word polyamorous for the first time in the modern era – she prefaced it with the first verses of David Crosby’s poem Triad:

You want to know how it will be
Me and her or you and me
You both sit there with your long hair flowin’
Your eyes are alive, your minds are still growing
Saying to me
“What can we do now that we both love you?”
I love both of you, too
And I don’t really see why can’t we go on as three?

² “Polycule” is a humorous portmanteau of the terms “polyamory” and “molecule”. Because some polyamorous relationship configurations, when sketched out in two dimensions for better illustration, occasionally begin to resemble a molecule with its multiple bonds to various individual atomic components, this word has established itself as a tongue-in-cheek term for multi-partner relationship networks.
In the case of Dorette, Molly and Gottfried, I wrote “proto-Polycule”, meaning “pre-polycule”, because neither the concept nor the term existed in their time.

And this time, my thanks goes to Maria Christina of Austria, who painted the illustration that heads up this Entry. It does not, of course, depict the household of Gottfried, Dorette and Molly with their children, but shows the family of Maria Theresa on the Feast of St Nicholas (1762). I have used it nonetheless to show the way people of that time dressed and lived at home. The painting is now public domain and has been kindly made available by the Schönbrunn Palace Cultural and Management Group.

Concerning gratitude

One-two-three, in hasty race, time is running, we keep pace. The number of today’s Entry reminds me of this quote¹ – and that’s what often happens with one’s sense of time at the start of a year, when short February has rushed by and the advancing date makes it feel as though we’re already halfway through 2026…

Meanwhile, we go about our daily lives and maintain our relationships (or at least try to), so that we almost imagine ourselves being like Napoleon Bonaparte, who was said to have the gift of fighting a battle with one hand, ruling Europe with the other, while dictating a letter to his mistress and presumably planning a banquet at the same time (which makes him one of the first recorded male multitaskers…). And when we see that others have already spruced up their gardens for spring, cleaned all their windows and even figured out their holiday plans, that’s the final nail in the coffin for our peace of mind: we’ve been dawdling about in our winter slumber for far too long again – stress, ease up!

Very quickly, the “hasty pace“ mentioned above turns into the world-famous German goose step, with which we then hurl ourselves into the fulfilment of our duties – which we had evidently been neglecting until now – and the likelihood that, in this manner, we will be unable to tear our downcast glances away from the dirty floor, the shopping list or the deadline, rises exponentially.

What usually falls by the wayside is what Marshall Rosenberg, the originator of “Nonviolent Communication“ [NVC] (which, particularly in the context of ethical multiple relationships, is often recommended as part of the general toolkit), referred to within his philosophy as the “Celebration of Life“. After all, even NVC (which I briefly introduce in Entry 20) has always been, and continues to be, a rather challenging concept for both beginners and experienced practitioners alike. Marshall Rosenberg himself was well aware of this, which is why – to counter a sense of exaggerated seriousness – he regularly called for occasions to perform a “Celebration of life“. By this, he didn’t mean complicated events that had to be planned in advance, but simply taking a moment in our daily lives to reassure one another about all the things that were currently going well. A Buddhist probably would call it something like “practising gratitude“.

These days, “practising gratitude“ seems to be something that’s mostly limited to a spiritual or religious sphere. Yet in fact, the expression of gratitude has a firm place within the ritual structure of almost all religions across the globe, whether, for example, in the context of Christian worship as prayers of thanksgiving or through symbolic offerings at Shinto shrines.

OK, that might all be well and good… But what’s the point of all this in relation to ethical non-monogamous relationships, particularly Poly- or Oligoamory?
It is closer than it seems at first glance – and the hasty pace of time may also be the reason why we, who consider ourselves part of such concepts of multiple relationships, occasionally rush past them too quickly.
Not every post I publish here on this bLog is groundbreaking or of fundamental importance in terms of content – sometimes I just talk, point out a connection here or share an insight there that strikes me as relevant. However, there are certainly Entries here without which my Oligoamory wouldn’t be the Oligoamory; the ones that are part of its very “DNA“, to use a popular expression.
One of these Entries is number 79, in which I describe “seven roots“ of this relationship philosophy, which, in my view, sustain its essence. The final root I mention in Entry 79 is spirituality, particularly in the sense of sharing in something and experiencing meaning in ways that transcend oneself.

Let me give myself a pat on the back: Entry 79 is well written; in this way, it also reveals a great deal about me – and as for the described “essential components“ of Oligoamory, even today, almost four years later, I wouldn’t change a single word; not at all.
However, I could have emphasised more clearly back then that spirituality was, strictly speaking, already a significant component in the original Polyamory (especially since I had already written my “History of Polyamory“ [Parts 1 | 2 | 3 | 4] , particularly Part 2 (Entry 48) and Part 3 (Entry 49), which are imbued with spirituality).
For the individuals among whom a need for guidelines regarding ethical multi-partner relationships arose in modern times – and for whom the neo-pagan high priestess Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart first wrote her article, in which the word “polyamorous“ was first used, for the scene magazine “Green Egg“ in 1990² – were part of a circle of people practising spirituality together.

Without going into all the stories and reasons that led to the emergence of polyamory here (you’re welcome to read about them in the Entries linked above): Polyamory emerged within a circle of spiritual gathering and celebration.

Personally, I’ve been very fortunate in my life to have been an active participant in such circles of spiritual, neo-pagan celebration on two separate periods lasting several years – to enjoy something similar to what Morning Glory herself has experienced. In this way, it was not only Polyamory that eventually came into my life – above all, I was able to gain “first-hand“ experience of the spiritual underpinnings, which I consider to be significant precisely for the polyamorous (and, of course, oligoamorous) DNA I mentioned.

One such experience is the expression of gratitude. And – particularly with regard to the current state of the world – a gratitude that is almost basic, naive, and in a sense radical (if one understands the word “radical“ here in its etymological sense, derived from the Latin word “radix“ meaning “root“). As we stood in a circle, celebrating and practising together, we felt and expressed gratitude for things that were seemingly obvious: that the earth carried us; for the air we breathed; for the clarity of the water with which we cleansed ourselves; for the fire in the centre, which warmed us and gave us energy.

Now, every Buddhist would again surely nod in agreement: gratitude, expressed time and time again – particularly in a recurring, ceremonial form – gradually became an attitude, a personal mindset. We became grateful for the community we kept coming together with. We were grateful for the people within it, with whom we shared our experiences there. We became grateful for being part of it all, for having discovered something that many other folks might never come into contact with in their lives.

Which brings me round to Polyamory. Because, in my eyes, the last sentence of the previous paragraph in particular captures the essence of why I now feel confident in saying that I identify as part of a way of life characterised by ethical multiple relationships.
And this is true regardless of how many loved ones or partners I currently have in my life. Or whether luck is on my side when it comes to dating. Polyamory – or, in my case, more accurately: Oligoamory – has become an inner attitude for me, a philosophy of life through which I view the world and interact with it. I don’t need any “external circumstances“ for this from which this can be deduced or recognised. All I need is myself and my inner conviction (though in my case I find that “conviction“ sounds a bit too harsh, a bit too intellectual; for myself, I’d rather choose something like “individual nature“).
Although… in light of the above, it doesn’t quite add up that I need only “myself“ for this. I still need my “spiritual connection“ to something that is difficult to describe, something greater than myself – or at least something that extends significantly beyond me.³

It is precisely this indescribable quality that forms the basis for my enduring sense of gratitude of having a share in this experience.
Which means that, when it comes to ethical multiple relationships, “gratitude“ also plays an important role as far as I’m concerned. And this applies first and foremost to the very privilege that I have earned for myself and now enjoy – a privilege that many other people in the world today deny themselves: the sheer possibility of being able to enter into (additional) fully committed (romantic) relationships with other people at any time, yes, indeed, of even having that scope of possibility at my disposal.
Simply by tapping into the potential of this scope changes every single day of my life (…but then again, sometimes I just think about shopping lists and deadlines myself and have a perfectly ordinary wek…).
And I see it as a privilege, because to me that is exactly what a privilege entails: “something you own – but rarely realise you actually possess it“.
In my view, that has less to do with who grants it. For example, in the sense of “My (long-term) partner grants me the privilege of being allowed to pursue other romantic relationships…“ This would be a difficult statement for some members of the polyamorous community to accept, as it might suggest that the person in question has not yet truly embraced Polyamory and is still, beneath the surface, acting as a couple-bonded entity. And for some people, that may well be the case.
But for me personally, that doesn’t make sense. Because it isn’t other people who grant me such a privilege; rather, I have to strive for it on my own – questioning norms, getting to know myself better and better, shifting viewpoints – until I can finally grant myself such a thing based on my own altered mindset. So whenever my favourite beloved people say to me: “Hey, Oligotropos, you should go to that speed-dating event – and good luck and all the best…!”, I am nonetheless grateful – specifically for being with these special people with whom I have built a trusting atmosphere in which such freedom of choice exists.

And when I say, “I am grateful” or “I am privileged”, I am, for the most part, speaking of my own process of self-initiation, which I would not have been able to achieve (and still would not be able to accomplish) without a “greater whole” and without other people on this journey.

To all you readers out there: I must admit, I too sometimes feel a touch of cynicism when faced with certain expressions of gratitude – especially when they come my way in the guise of various memes on social media. I suffered from moderate depression for two years, and during that time in particular, I experienced such empty platitudes – which so cheerfully and intrusively propagated gratitude for every little thing in daily life – as downright painful and condescending. And especially when we consider the state of the world, events in other countries, the hardships faced by so many people, and the impact this has on us, such “gratitude“ regularly seems to border on the absurd.
In this regard, I would like to emphasise that “gratitude” should not be confused with “connivance”. When Morning Glory stood beneath the stars with the members of her nest in the late 1980s, she was surely well aware that every day part of the earth was being paved over, the air polluted and the water poisoned. That fire was often used in a destructive manner and for aggressive purposes. Spiritual gratitude is therefore not a passive submission to the status quo, but rather the highlighting of a moment of appreciation – an appreciation that emphasises a fleeting treasure, one that instead calls for action, conscious enjoyment, sustainability and preservation.
So when I look at the world in this way again – at its crises, at the people who are unable to think outside the box – I eventually start to realise my own privilege once more.
But also that I cannot simply hold on to it as a guaranteed permanent subscription. Instead, as I described when talking about my journey towards multiple relationships, I have to actively maintain it.

Ethical multiple relationships have emerged within a context of freedom. Among free people who, as a result, had the opportunity to perceive the extraordinary in what might otherwise seem mundane – and who were willing to acknowledge this in and with one another.

For some of us (as I described in the example above with regard to myself), the implicitness of romantic multi-partner relationships have become an integral part of our sense of self. And that is a very good thing, because in this way identities can heal and, at the same time, the world becomes a more diverse place.
Yet, in the grand scheme of things, it still remains “extraordinary“ – a fact that is all too often brought home to us in a painful way from the outside. Therefore, let us ensure from within that we are repeatedly made aware of our privileged extraordinariness in a spirit of gratitude: grateful to ourselves for having chosen this path, for having continued along it, and for identifying with it today. Grateful for each other, that we are with loved ones who allow us to be ‘us’ in this way. Grateful that we are part of this game in this way – but that it must also continued to be played in order for it to exist – and for others still to be able to join in in the future…

¹ Quote: Wilhelm Busch, “Tobias Knopp Trilogy”, 1874–1877

² The text of “Bouquet of Lovers” from the magazine “Green Egg” (1990) by Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart HERE.

³ PS: “Oh, Oligotropos. Sometimes you can get on one’s nerves a bit with all this talk about ‘greater than ourselves’…”
“Really? How about a quote: ‘Every gaze at the stars is also a gaze at our own origins. We observe the universe with eyes whose atoms were once forged in the hearts of dying suns.’
Where did I get that from? HERE” ?[Source: German newsportal, German language only; it’s worth using DeepL to translate it!]

Thanks to JOHN TOWNER on Unsplash for the photo!

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)