What's a girl to do?

It's been a long time since my last blog post so I figured that I would come on and show it some love. I think the reason I dont come on more is because I signed up for this account with a non-gmail account that I dont really check anymore, and since blogger is linked to google, it automatically signs in with my gmail address. The problem with this is that I dont have a blog with that email address. Well, C'est la vie.

One of the most pressing issues for me right now is what I'm going to do after college. I know that this is something that every new graduate faces, but for some reason I feel that my situation is unique. I was so sure that I would be going on to a PhD program, but recently found, through my own research of graduate programs, that a PhD may not be the best option for me. I want to help people directly, want to change peoples' lives, not just research. I love research, dont get me wrong. I am finding that I love it even more now that I'm involved in an independent research project. But it's not what I want to do for the rest of my life.

Thus, I'm beginning to think of a masters in social work. There is an abundance of jobs that an MSW is good for, and a lot of them are jobs that I can definitely see myself doing. I just wish the pay was better.

Well, maybe I'll figure it out soon. I have at least a year before I have to make any steadfast decisions, so hopefully I'll have at least some sort of direction to go toward by that time.

Essay on Polyamory: Bibliography

References
AFRICAN MARRIAGE (n.d.). AFRICAN MARRIAGE | Marriage | Life | Polygamy | Culture | History. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from http://www.africanmarriage.info/
Bergstrand, D. & Williams, J. B. Today's Alternative Marriage Styles: The Case of Swingers. EJHS 2000. (n.d.). Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.htm
Doctrine and Covenants 132Â . (n.d.). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng
FindLaw | Cases and Codes. (n.d.). FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/98/145.h
Haritaworn, J., Lin, C., & Klesse, C. (2006). Poly/logue: A Critical Introduction to Polyamory. Sexualities, 9(5), 515-529.
McCullough, Derek, Hall, David Polyamory - What it is and what it isn’t, Electronic
Journal of Human Sexuality, vol 6*, Feb 27 2003
Nanda, S. (2011). Cultural anthropology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage
Murdock, G. P. (1981). Atlas of world cultures . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Peabody, S. A. (1982). Alternative life styles to monogamous marriage: Variants of normal behavior in psychotherapy clients. Family Relations, 64, 906-920.
Ramey, J. W. (1975). Intimate groups and networks: Frequent consequences of sexually open marriage. The Family Coordinator, 24(4), 515-530.
Reichard, U. H., & Boesch, C. (2003). Monogamy: mating strategies and partnerships in birds, humans, and other mammals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, A. M., & Adams, J. R. (1986). Outcomes of sexually open marriages. The Journal of Sex Research, 22(3), 311-319.
Rubin, A. (1982). Sexually Open versus Sexually Exclusive Marriage: A Comparison of Dyadic Adjustment. Alternative Lifestyles, 5(2), 101-108.
Unitarian Universalist Polyamory Association. (n.d.). UUPA. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from http://www.uupa.org/
Weitzman, G. (1999, March 12). What Psychology Professionals Should Know About Polyamory. alt.polyamory home page . Retrieved April 28, 2011, from http://www.polyamory.org/~joe/polypaper.htm
Zeitzen, M. (2008). Polygamy: a cross-cultural analysis. Oxford etc.: Berg.

Essay on Polyamory: Intro

In the United States, we tend to think of monogamy as the only acceptable form of romantic relationships, as is evident by the Anti-Bigamy Act of 1856. This idea, however, is not the dominant view of the world in its entirety. At a time when monogamous marriage was more of a political strategy or a requirement for survival, individual pair-bonding may have been important to the reproductive fitness of an individual or family. However, with the rise of divorce and a new way of thinking about marriage and partnering, monogamy may not be the best choice for everyone. Polyamory is a unique way of establishing fulfilling relationships, as it allows for individual needs to be met by different people at the same time, and it is distinct from polygamy because it affords the same opportunities for multiple partners to both genders. As the main tenants of this relationship style are openness and honesty, it requires much communication and effort to keep the relationship running smoothly, but for those who engage in it, polyamory is extremely rewarding.
In doing research for this paper I sought out to determine why some people were discarding the idea of monogamy and instead, choosing to practice polyamory. During the course of research I found that poly people were no more poorly adjusted than those who practice monogamy, and there were essentially no differences psychologically between monogamous and polyamorous people. In addition, I found that many people practicing polyamory simply felt that monogamy was no longer necessary and find greater satisfaction loving and being loved by more than one person at a time. My main argument, thus, is that polyamory is a happy and healthy alternative to monogamy for those who choose to practice it. A change in the way we view marriage has caused people to reevaluate how they see themselves and their relationships and, with much communication and transparency, polyamory can be more rewarding to those who feel that monogamy is not for them.

Essay on Polyamory, cont: Definitions

Before moving onto the topic of alternatives to monogamy, it’s important to establish what it is that we mean by monogamy in the first place. There are at least two distinct forms of monogamy that scientists recognize. Social monogamy refers to the type of monogamy that we think intuitively when we think about life-long marriage between two people: the shared living arrangement and the pair-bonding. This is distinct from sexual monogamy, however. Sexual monogamy comprises sexual exclusivity between 2 partners, which may or may not be combined with social monogamy. Thus, it is possible for animals or humans to engage in social monogamy without sexual monogamy and sexual monogamy without social monogamy (Reichard, 2003). The term “monogamy” then, can vary widely in exactly what it means and the discourse that surrounds it. According to Murdock’s Atlas of World Cultures, only approximately 18% of human societies engage in monogamy (Murdock, 1981).
Polygamy is a common form of non-monogamy that is distinct from yet related to polyamory. The literal translation of the word ‘polygamy’ means “often married” (Zeitzen, 2008), which broadly refers to two separate camps of multiple partner marriages, polygyny and polyandry. Polygyny is the most common form and is what we typically call upon when we think of the word “polygamy”. In this form a man has more than one wife simultaneously. This is fairly common among some non-western societies and is often related to religion. Polygyny is very common in West Africa where children are seen as a form of wealth and families are therefore encouraged to produce as many as possible (African Marriage, 2011), and polygyny is a very efficient way of producing many children. Polyandry, by contract, is not as prevalent and involves a woman taking multiple husbands. This practice occurs in parts of Nepal, China, and Northern India where it is believed that scarce environmental resources cause brothers to share a wife in order to prevent the division of their property. This practice allows equal sexual access to the wife by each of the brothers, and limits the population growth, which enhances the child’s chance of survival. In addition, it increases the probability that the land will be passed in its entirety onto the next generation of brothers, who will then in turn choose a wife together (Nanda, 2007). Among all common forms of polygamy, however, sexual access is highly regulated by marriage, and sex and romance outside of the relationship is not widely accepted.
Many people believe in the idea of social monogamy but may not necessarily like the idea of giving up their sexual freedom. ‘Swinging’ is a practice that is becoming more widespread among western countries that involves a socially monogamous couple who, consensually, do not ascribe to sexual monogamy. Often called “Wife swapping,” this may take place at a sex-club, a swinger party, or partners are arranged in an online forum and involve casual sex with partners outside of the relationship. Generally within the context of swinging, emotional intimacy is discouraged outside of the primary relationship, which distinguishes it from polyamory (Bergstrand & Williams, 2000).
Just as polygamy and monogamy have several varieties, so too does polyamory. The word ‘polyamory’ is a combination of Greek and Latin origin which, when translated literally, means “many loves”. The term was developed in the late 1980s and encompasses many alternatives to monogamy but in general, it is the “philosophy and practice of loving more than one person at a time.” This is done ethically and intentionally through agreements of all parties involved (McCollough & Hall, 2003). There are many different organizations to this principle: a couple may choose to become intimately involved in other parties separately, and while the primary partner may know of the third (or fourth or fifth, etc.), they may not be intimately involved with their primary partner’s other partner(s). A couple may mutually decide to bring another person into their relationship that is now called a ‘triad,’ where the intimacy may be equal among the three parties or unevenly distributed. One partner may have multiple primary relationships, formulating a “V” of intimacy. There may also be a group marriage or “poly family” in which three or more people form a tightly knit intimate relationship system. A single person may choose to date polyamorously, engaging in intimate relationships with multiple people simultaneously without the goal of “settling down” to “find the right one.” Although there is no single, formal way to work out the arrangements of polyamory, the one thing they have in common is transparency and honesty. Within a polyamorous relationship, all partners are aware of the arrangement and negotiate accordingly (Weitzman, 1999).

Essay on Polyamory, cont: Recent History of Marriage

Prior to the Enlightenment period, marriage was a lot different than it is today; individuals had very little say in when they married and to whom. Among the elites, marriage was a means of forging political alliances and consolidating resources and inheritance. Peace treaties were negotiated through marriage between enemies as a form of diplomacy, and children were basically at the will of their parents in regards to who they married. Among commoners during this time, it was a means by which to expand a kinship network in order to access resources that their new in-laws may have. During this period, having a husband to provide economic security was essential for the woman, and a wife was necessary to men the success of home production. Because it was men who inherited their fathers’ wealth and took part in the public sphere, the institution of marriage confirmed the authority of men over their wives.
With enlightenment brought a new way of thinking about marriage. At this point, the rights of the individual in choosing their life partner and the idea of the private family became more important. In this frame of thought, it became more of a requirement to find joy in the love of your partner and family than an obligation to the family that raised you. There were a lot of worries during this time that the ability of people to choose their own partners would lead to the destruction of the institution of marriage, but this did not end up being the case.
During the period of sentimentalization in the 19th century, men were seen more in terms of the public realm of life, whereas women were seen as responsible for the private spheres. With the shift from household production to industrialization, women became more dependent on men for their economic wellbeing as it was seen as unbecoming for a woman to be in the work and public sphere of life. It was only under extreme circumstances that women worked outside the home, as their labor in the home was more valuable than their work for wages.
There was a crisis of sexuality during the 19th century as well. There was an emphasis on women’s chastity as a necessary entity, as women during this period of time were expected to appear without sexual urges. There was a surge of births out of wedlock in the 1800s, which may have ruined the lives of many women of this time. Women would turn to prostitution or abandon their babies completely because having a baby made a woman no longer marriageable, and if a woman were unable to get married, she was economically doomed. Contraceptives soon became available, although considered obscene and formally only available to married women, in the early 20th century, which revolutionized the way we think about sex forever.
Beginning in the start of the 20th century, sex became something to speak about. Freud’s psychosexual theories became a point of controversy but at the same time, sex was seen to be a healthy part of marriage as a means to provide emotional intimacy that was sought after. The evolution of sexual thought, and the increase in working women after World War II changed the framework through which people viewed the genders and sexuality. Marriage during the 1940s and 1950s was still an obligatory rite of passage that allowed for socially sanctioned sexual access and people were ascribed rigid gender roles. Women began entering the work force and taking the steps toward self-sufficiency. In the 1960s, though, everything changed.
The 1960s brought a sexual revolution and liberal feminism among other things. Opportunities for women expanded and more women were offered the opportunity for educational and career advancement, making them less dependent on men for financial support. In addition, Kinsey’s reports of sexuality brought sexuality into the public eye and some of the misconceptions of sexuality were debunked. Media became more sexualized, through Playboy and Cosmopolitan magazine for example, and rules governing marriage and sex became more relaxed. People became cohabitating more often, and readily available birth control allowed for more premarital sex and love without major consequences. Sexual positivity was still long in the distance, but marriage became more of a personal choice and less of a requirement for a fulfilling romantic or sexual life.
The feminist movement paired with the new expectations of marriage and reformed divorce laws, contributed to a rise in divorce rates. Marriage became an institution that was rejected by some liberal feminists as an oppressive institution that women should avoid succumbing to, and to others it became a source for individual fulfillment. If an individual were not completely fulfilled in their relationship, it became warranted grounds for divorce. It was necessary, then, for marriage to fulfill emotional needs and to provide a satisfying sexual outlet. What happens, then, when someone provides a stable home and perhaps meets emotional needs, but not sexual needs? Generally, this is when a break up of the monogamous relationship occurs, and each partner may move on to a new relationship in hopes that this new one will satisfy them more.

Essay on Polyamory, cont.: Religion, Polygamy, and Polyamory

Polyamory and polygamy, specifically polygyny, are not synonymous and it is appropriate to address this before moving on. As mentioned earlier, polygyny is practiced in Western societies primarily in the context of religion. Although polygyny is also practiced by some Muslim sects, most famous in the United States is notion of polygyny in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). The LDS church was founded by Joseph Smith who claimed to have received a message from God in 1831 that select Mormon men were commanded to engage in plural marriage, or polygyny (Doctrine and Covenants, 2011). Soon after this doctrine was practiced, however, it became condemned by the Church at large and was only practiced by smaller, fundamentalist sects of the LDS church. In 1856, one of the Republican Party’s key platforms was to prohibit polygamy, and in 1862 they were successful in issuing the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which prohibited polygamy in the United States. Mormon fundamentalists believe in 3 separate heavens, the highest of which can only be reached by practicing polygyny (Doctine and Covenants, 2011). Thus, polygyny is an important aspect of their religious practices. As such, believing that their religiously-practiced plural marriage ought to be protected under the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the LDS Church brought the case to the US Supreme Court who voted unanimously for the prohibition of polygamy in 1878’s Reynolds v. United States (Cases and Codes, 2011). As the news and popular culture has shown us, the practice of polygyny did not end with the 1878 verdict. Instead, the anti-polygamy legislation ran many members of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) who still practiced plural marriage into hiding.
There are very clear distinctions between polyamory and polygyny as practiced in the FLDS Church. For one, members of the FLDS Church reside primarily in compounds where several families live, separated from the rest of the world. Because of the lack of outside influence, many female children who are raised in the FLDS church may believe that polygyny is their only option and are entered into it forcefully. In addition, the church practices polygyny exclusively and does not permit women the same freedom of plural marriage as men, which could be perceived as a problem by feminists because it condones male dominance and, in essence, ownership of women by men. Also, because of the strict Judeo-Christian based beliefs, the view of sexuality is not a positive one and the prospect of polygyny is compulsory, rather than an option that individuals or couples may engage in or explore should they so choose. While FLDS polygyny is encouraged for the reason of reaching a higher level of heaven in the after life, people engage in polyamory because they feel that their lives will be more satisfying because, of it rather than in spite of it.
Separating the idea of religious polygamy and polyamory is not to discount the role of religion in polyamory entirely. Many polyamorists consider themselves religious, though primarily in the Unitarian Universalist church (Unitarian Universalist Polyamory Association, 2011) and Paganism. Within these organizations, polyamory is seen as a valid alternative in the institution’s eyes, though not seen as a prerequisite for any kind of special treatment by the church or the divine. In Paganism specifically, which involves the acknowledgement and worship of multiple deities, the idea of loving only one person is as restricting as worshiping only one divine essence, which is contrary to Pagan belief. Associated with new age spirituality, pagan religions reject mainstream monotheistic doctrine in favor of a polytheistic belief in much the same way of rejecting compulsory monogamy for the option of polyamory (Haritaworn & Klesse, 2006). The critical differences here are that these religions do not require polyamory for any special privileges, and that the ability to love more than one person is not restricted based on gender.

Essay on Polyamory, cont.: How Does Polyamory Work and Why

There are a number of possibilities as to why polyamory has become an acceptable alternative to monogamy for some. For one, longer life-spans mean that the commitment to an individual person is much longer than it has been in the past. In addition, divorce and infidelity rates have risen since the turn of the century and many couples and individuals are trying to navigate a way to reduce the damage of this for themselves. The move toward economic and social equality for women has increased the choices that women are able to make for themselves now that they are no longer fully reliant upon men for their wellbeing. The popularization of the internet has increased visibility and provided an outlet for those pursuing alternative lifestyles to find accessible avenues by which to do so. Finally, a large group of people may simply be dissatisfied with the practice of serial monogamy, which involves the “trading” of one partner for another if the first partner cannot meet all of their needs. Thus, people are beginning to seek alternatives and often do not have to sacrifice satisfaction in order to do so.
Many studies have shown that polyamory is no more risky psychologically than monogamy. Based on a sample of over 3500 married couples, 15-26% of them allow non-monogamy under some circumstances, and this percentage is higher among cohabitating, lesbian, and gay male couples (Rubin & Adams, 1986). People in sexually open marriages were found to be no more poorly adjusted than sexually exclusive marriages (Rubin, 1982). Couples in open marriages in the Netherlands were found to have normal levels of satisfaction, self-esteem, and neuroticism (Buunk, 1980). It was found that there was no significant differences in marriage stability between sexually open and sexually closed relationships (Rubin & Adams, 1986) and the end of a relationship usually came about because of the growing apart of interests or unequal levels of attraction to each other (Ramey, 1975). In addition, a survey found that most people were satisfied with their partner and felt positively about the relationships of their partner(s) with other people (Peabody, 1982). In fact, there is a name for this phenomenon: “Compersion.” This is said to be the opposite of jealousy, perceived as the feeling of joy that comes from knowing that someone you love is loved by someone else as well (McCollough & Hall, 2003).
Jealousy is no doubt a concern for those interested in pursuing or studying polyamory, nor is it the only concern. It takes time to uncondition oneself from the lessons that have been taught to us through mainstream society. During the transition from monogamy to polyamory, some jealousy is common but tends to diminish over time (Weitzman, 1999). Despite the popular notion that polyamory is a hedionist’s playground, this form of relationship takes a lot of time and energy. Since communication is a key element, inadequate communication or problem solving skills can prove fatal to the positive flow of the relationship. In addition, time and energy are required to be put forth in the negotiation of alone time, obligations, and nature of sexual activity. Problems may arise from feelings of possessiveness, fear of abandonment, disapproval from or of significant others, as well as guilt about the lifestyle and its effects on others and the lack of external support. Those who choose polyamory are often discriminated against by mainstream society, which creates a requirement of secrecy for some. Families may disapprove and there is a lack of legal protection regarding property, inheritance, parenting, and child custody. A study of polyamory in 1982 found that, while 75% of poly people wanted their children to know of their lifestyle, only 21% had disclosed it. A follow up study in 2000 found that 45% of the people in the previous study who had not disclosed their lifestyle to their children had still failed to do so after 20 years (Weitzman, 1999). So, then, with the amount of difficulty that lay before those choosing to pursue polyamory, what about it makes it so worthwhile that people are willing to go through these lengths in order to practice it? To answer this question, I interviewed a friend of mine, Ashley* (all names changed for privacy) who actively lives in a polyamorous triad and asked her the simple question, “Why poly?”
“There is something magical about having an intimate relationship with 2 people who are also in love with each other. In our situation, we are a closed triad, which means that the three of us are in a relationship with each other but we do not see other people outside of the triad. So it’s not like we’re all sleeping around or anything, not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just not for us. At beginning of the relationship, and I wont get into how we got into the relationship because that’s a really long story, we were required to truly investigate our feelings, emotions, and thoughts. We had to force open the lines of communication to a point that I don’t think monogamous couples have to do. Because of the amount of communication we’ve had regarding our feelings, I feel that we really understand each other at a very deep level, a level that I don’t feel many couples have the need to do so.
“First of all, I like not being ‘owned’ by anyone. I feel that, if you love someone, it does not give you the right to dictate what they can and cannot do. While we do have limitations on our relationship for now, the lines of communication within our relationship are open to the idea of introducing new people into the equation should it become desired or necessary, but so far it seems that everyone’s needs are being met. We each have different strengths as people and as partners in the relationship. I am fairly spontaneous and carefree, love to have a good time and love to plan activities for us to do as a triad. Jessica* is a very nurturing soul who goes out of her way to make sure that everyone is taken care of physically and emotionally. Seth has a very protective and pragmatic nature and wants to make sure that everyone is safe and is often the voice of reason.
“I love both Jessica and Seth equally for different reasons, but each of our relationships don’t feel complete without the third party. Seth can be fairly rigid in his ideas of fun and doesn’t seek exploration as much as I do, so I bring that. At the same time, I’m not one who likes to take care of the family and home as much as Jessica does, so she brings that. Jessica enjoys adventure but is often so preoccupied with taking care of her family that she doesn’t have the energy to bring in the excitement, so that’s where I come in. But without Seth, Jessica would feel a lack of stability since I have a tendency of being frivolous at times. See? We all are complementary and bring things to the relationship so that, as a triad, we are stronger than we would be as individual couples.
“I haven’t mentioned the fact that there are 3 instead of 2 people helping with the household chores and bills. This is huge. We have been together for 4 years now and I can’t imagine the amount of work at home that would be required of each person if there were only 2 people in the relationship. We have been discussing the idea of having children and how we plan to do that. We have considered doing in-vitro fertilization so that Seth’s sperm fertilizes my egg, which Jessica carries to term. That way, we each have an equal investment in the child and will care for it evenly. The fact that there are 3 of us instead of 2 means that the child will get more love and more attention since there will be more time distributed between the 3 of us. I see this as being a benefit to the child rather than a hindrance.”