The Many Faces of Polyamory

Longing and Belonging in Concurrent Relationships

Magdalena J. Fosse

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781351381130
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Psychologie expérimentale

The Many Faces of Polyamory: Longing and Belonging in Concurrent Relationships provides new perspectives on polyamory and the longing to belong in the relatively uncharted territory of nonnormative relationships.

This volume offers a valuable and compelling account on how to approach polyamorous relationships from the clinical perspective. While there is no uniform answer, Dr. Fosse's compassionate and discerning approach that combines relative neutrality, an open-minded embrace of nontraditional lifestyle choices, and skilful attention to countertransference dynamics is likely to be inspiring. Dr. Fosse exposes the dynamics of love, sex, jealousy, and compersion as they play out in lives of those interested in polyamory, and more broadly, consensual nonmonogamy. Her focus is on relationships worth having.

With its nuanced clinical focus, The Many Faces of Polyamory will be an essential resource for psychotherapists, educators, students, and anyone inside and outside of the mental health field drawn to the intricacies of sexuality, intimacy, and how they are intertwined with relational satisfaction

Part I

Charting the Map of Polyamory

1 Polyamory: Bewildering and Evolving

The Polish language has a wondrous, slightly surreal expression Jak to się je?, which roughly translates to How do you eat it? Contrary to how it sounds, it is not used with reference to novelty food, but instead serves to exclaim curiosity and bewilderment when encountering something unfamiliar and confusing. When I first conceived this book, there was but one definition of polyamory. Poly conveys multiple, and amory denotes love. Polyamory implies the possibility of being involved, sexually and romantically, with more than one person. As straightforward as this definition was by yesteryear’s standards, it nonetheless perplexed the lay public and the majority of clinicians. At the time of this book’s publication, it is no longer necessary to spell out the term, but the bewilderment regarding this lifestyle is far from diminished. There are so many extensions of the original definition and notion of polyamory that it can be hard to know what is talked about. By some characterizations, love in polyamory could be for almost anything—partners, lovers, nonromantic involvements with dear friends, lifestyle, families of choice, communities, even the planet (Anderlini-D’Onofrio, 2009; Barker & Langdridge, 2010). How do we eat that?

We are dealing with an ever-expanding universe with ambiguous boundaries. From being a relatively specific phenomenon, polyamory is undergoing diffusion rather than consolidation. Polyamory is a lifestyle; it might be a sexual orientation, and it is also a social and cultural movement. In the widest understanding, almost any kind of openness and embrace of nonnormative relational expression and life strategy could be considered poly.

What is polyamory then? The prevailing understanding is that there is no one definition of polyamory. Poly structures can be complex and immensely varied. A few years ago, the dominant polyamorous constellation was hierarchical in nature. At its core there was a couple, oftentimes a married one. The spouses adopted the name of primary partners. When a primary partner got involved with somebody else, this new person became a secondary partner. If more people were involved, they were considered tertiary or, alternatively, they got assigned the designation of orbits, implying casual, consensual lovers. Since then, the discourse has shifted toward nonhierarchical polyamory, in which all partners involved are considered to be equal in status. Hierarchical or not, polyamorous constellations fluctuate; examples of common arrangements include triads, quads, and polyfidelious families, to name a handful of the more familiar ones (for definitions, consult the glossary at the end of the book). For clinicians working with poly clients, keeping track of who is involved with whom can be baffling. Similar to genograms depicting family ties, poly relationships are often presented visually. The common strategy is to represent each person as a sphere and then draw the lines connecting the globes. No graphic distinction is given to males, females, or gender-nonconforming individuals. Portrayed this way, poly configurations look like chemical molecules, which earned them the name of polycules.

Sexual orientations, relational preferences, and lifestyle realities can be intertwined in highly intricate ways. A person identifying as poly may or may not be in a polyamorous relationship. An individual whose preference is for monogamy may be intimately involved with someone who is poly. Relational status provides a lot of information about lifestyle orientation, but they are not one and the same. Many individuals navigating this complex relationship landscape are choosing, or staying with, partners based on availability and commitment rather than personal preference, sometimes alternating between monogamy and nonmonogamy. The cases of mismatched relational preferences and actual relational status are characterized by considerable vulnerability, oftentimes sending these individuals and couples to therapy. It is not uncommon for these clients to face judgments on all sides, from their monogamous families and friends, from their poly peers, and from mental health practitioners whose help they seek.

My introduction to the complexities of polyamory from the therapy perspective was full of qualms and surprises. One spring afternoon, a man I will call Nick left me a vaguely hesitant message wondering if I would be fine working with someone who has an interest in polyamory. His voice trailed off: “Anyway, I hope to hear back from you …” I then listened to the next message. It was from Sophie. She inquired about my availability, adding that she was in a somewhat unusual relational situation. “I’ve read that you work with consensual nonmonogamy,” she said, “and it seems like you’ll be a good match.” I scheduled Nick for a Wednesday the following week and Sophie for the day after.

Nick’s open face and mild manner made him instantly likeable. He explained that polyamory intrigued him and he wanted to explore his feelings about this lifestyle. Nick was married and concerned about his marriage not surviving if he were to suggest opening up. He loved his wife and had no intention of ending the marriage, but he was struggling with his conflicting desires. As we were nearing the end of the session, Nick looked at me and asked, “Would you have any problems working with me if you’re going to work with Sophie as well?” I was mystified. Was it the same Sophie who I was supposed to meet the next day? If so, how did he know? Seeing my bewilderment, Nick elaborated that he and Sophie knew each other, but had not known until a few hours earlier that each had scheduled a session with me. I learned that they were postdocs in the same lab on the brink of developing a relationship. Collaborating on a project, their work relationship had morphed into friendship, and, soon enough, they discovered their mutual interest in polyamory. Both were married and, upon realizing their attraction toward each other, they decided to seek therapy “to do things right.” Armed with this decision, each set off to search for a suitable therapist. Unbeknownst to each other, they happened to find my qualifications and approach appealing, leading to their respective inquiries. The revelation of this parallel experience felt like a confirmation of their spiritual connection. Hurriedly exploring their feelings about this coincidence, they concluded that, as long as I agreed, it might be helpful if they both worked with me.

If the sequence of events was less unexpected, I might have hesitated more. If it happened now, rather than several years ago, I might have suggested they inquire with other therapists before making a decision. But back then, polyamory was terra incognita to the absolute majority of clinicians. Nearly every client told me about their difficulty finding a therapist who knew what polyamory was, and how relieved they were to work with someone who would not be judgmental about their lifestyle. As it stood, I scheduled a follow-up session with Nick, giving both myself and him time to process this unusual situation.

In my meeting with Sophie on the following day, I received similar reassurance that she was eager to work with me. Bright and engaging, Sophie described her marriage as committed and, overall, highly satisfying. She had friends who were polyamorous, so she knew about potential pitfalls if she and her husband were to open up. She also knew that it was possible to transition to nonmonogamy without upending the marriage. Coming from a blended family, she saw the value of being intimately involved with more than one person. Just as with Nick, I scheduled a follow-up session, giving Sophie and myself more time to reflect.

Given the relatively small size of the poly community, I anticipated that, sooner or later, I might be facing the dilemma of needing to disclose a potential conflict of interest. What I could not imagine is that this conflict would present the way it did. It made me wonder—how can a therapist maintain clear boundaries and avoid breaches of confidentiality when working with polyamorous clients? How can she handle countertransference? Countertransference issues may arise even before an individual or a couple walks through the door. In traditional therapy, there is virtually no need to clarify the boundaries of coupledom; transgressions and betrayals are easy to locate within the system. Furthermore, the therapist’s boundaries regarding ethics are clearly delineated; the limits of confidentiality are routinely espoused, and dual relationships are carefully avoided. As I was learning, therapy with people in polyamorous relationships was going to test this familiar known on multiple fronts.

Working with Nick and Sophie on parallel tracks helped me refine my rules. They did not seek my services as a couple, but their goals and motivations were tightly intertwined. Because of their connection and shared focus, I found it helpful to think of their burgeoning relationship from an individual as well as a couple’s therapy perspective. From the beginning, I told Nick and Sophie about my rules of privacy and confidentiality—I was not going to share any information, privileged or mundane, about the other person, unless something was common knowledge or I had explicit permission from both to talk about it. They could talk about their therapy experience as much as they wished, or not at all—that was their line to establish. If something came up in a session that I had a sense would be important for them to discuss, I would encourage them to bring it up with the other person for further exploration, but I would not mention any of it unless they did. Periodically, I checked in with each to see how they felt about working in this fashion and was reassured that the parallel format felt enriching rather than limiting.

Nick and Sophie’s therapeutic journeys overlapped a lot. Both were in what might be called mono-poly marriages, struggling with similar issues in their respective relationships. Early on it became apparent that their spouses, without being physically present, played significant roles in the treatment process. Meghan, Nick’s wife, and Damien, Sophie’s husband, had no interest in polyamory but felt powerless to stop this already-moving train. Although I came to know that Meghan and Damien never talked in person and only knew about each other’s preferences from what their spouses conveyed to them, they felt more confident knowing that they were not alone in their desire to prevent, or at the very least delay, the process of opening up.

With time, both Nick and Sophie agreed that it would be helpful if their individual therapy courses shifted to couple’s counseling. Meghan joined Nick in his treatment, and Sophie came in together with Damien. With this shift in emphasis, each couple was able to focus more directly on what opening up would mean to them. The couples talked with greater honesty about the pain and doubts they were experiencing. It was not an easy process. There were tears, anger, guilt, shame, fear, and despair—the whole gamut of emotions one could expect in a situation like this. But there was also hope. As Meghan and Damien came to realize, their spouses meant what they said—they had no intention of ending their marriages. Nick and Sophie just hoped that their respective relationships could tolerate and eventually embrace an expansion of love.

Finding themselves on the opposite side of the spectrum—valuing monogamy more than polyamory—Meghan and Damien found their strange alliance reassuring. They had no interest in getting to know each other as it felt like too much to add to their already-conflicted emotions, but they felt comforted by what they knew was going on for the other person. There were, of course, other times, too, when one or the other felt uneasy, assuming that his or her “ally” was more on board with the process of opening up.

Transitioning to polyamory for mono-poly couples is particularly arduous, and the risks of the relationship ending are high. The way these different relationships in my office happened to be balanced was fortuitous; it was not easy for anyone, but no one felt left out. Still, a lot was at stake. In spite of their earnest attempts at slowing down, Nick and Sophie were experiencing new relationship energy, or NRE, and, with their spouses’ permission, hoped to become physically intimate. For Meghan and Damien, this movement toward increased intimacy was still advancing too fast. Much of the work at this stage of therapy involved giving voice to each person’s respective insecurities and desires and managing the progression of opening up. To prevent their relationships from imploding, the married couples had to prioritize taking care of their marriages. As hard as it was for them, Nick and Sophie kept their agreement to hold back on their budding relationship.

Transitions of any sort represent opportunity and loss, and each person and couple in this poly-centered constellation was dealing with a mixture of hope and grief. After a few months of careful negotiations, Nick and Sophie were finally due to spend their first night together. We discussed in detail what they were “allowed” to do. They could kiss and cuddle but without progressing to any form of sex. To Meghan and Damien’s relief, the night went as planned, but there was a lot to digest. Nick and Sophie were disappointed with the slowdown but agreed that, to avoid unrepairable ruptures, the speed of their burgeoning intimacy had to be negotiated all over again.

The process of therapy is rarely smooth, and this was definitely true in the case of these four people. There were as many discoveries of what is relationally possible as there were setbacks. Over time, Meghan and Damien officially consented to partially open their marriages. The partial opening meant that Nick and Sophie could take further steps in their relational exploration, but they were not to add any more partners. Meghan and Damien still did not find polyamory appealing, but came to appreciate that the conflict was not theirs alone. Likewise, Nick and Sophie came to learn how hard their spouses were willing to work to ensure the well-being of their marriages.

There were inevitable breaches of trust, most of them unintentional. One day Nick’s car broke down and Sophie had to give him a ride. It meant that she was late coming home to dinner with Damien. It was a blow of betrayal. It took several weeks of therapy to repair this rupture but, overall, the focus on honesty, openness, and transparency—the binding agents of polyamorous relationships—was paying off. Each person and couple was learning that it was possible to reach new levels of relational integration as long as everyone’s concerns were respected and heard. “Doing things right” involved a copious amount of processing, not only during our sessions but also outside of therapy.

Eventually, the weekly couples’ sessions became biweekly, and the moment came when both therapy tracks came to an end. We parted ways with an understanding that we could resume therapy should the need arise. Nick and Meghan came back several months later to work through some difficulties related to his family of origin. I learned then that Nick and Sophie were still seeing each other, maintaining the kind of balance that appeared to work for everyone involved. They were all tired of the endless processing needed to sustain this delicate balance, but affirmed their interest in making each of their relationships evolve and grow.

Working with Nick and Meghan, and Sophie and Damien, provided me with a valuable meta-perspective that I would not otherwise have. Their parallel tracks forced me to be in a constant dialog with my countertransference, and I gained great insights from this process. This is not to say that I recommend other therapists follow suit. It is a personal judgment call how to approach situations of this level of complexity. What I have learned is that therapy boundaries do not have to be rigid to be safe, but they do need to be transparent, predictable, and negotiable. Whenever I am willing to alter the course of treatment, or be somewhat flexible about whom I accept as a new client, I emphasize that it is something we can try out as long as we are open about the process and are willing to change course if needed.

References

• Anderlini-D’Onofrio, S. (2009). Gaia and the new politics of love: Notes for a poly planet. North Atlantic Books.
• Barker, M. J., & Langdridge, D. (Eds.). (2010). Understanding non-monogamies. Routledge.

2 Paving the Road to Polyamory: From Free Love to Multiple Loves

“How come you therapists always use food metaphors?” a patient once asked. Until that moment, I was not aware of this particular predilection clinicians apparently have. Food as a clinical metaphor makes intuitive sense; we all need to eat in order to survive; thus, everyone can relate. But food is so much more than the calories needed; food is about love and oppression, nutrition and depletion, cultural influences, and elaborate perceptions of right and wrong. In other words, there is nothing simple about food and eating. So, returning to the question that frames this book—if polyamory is a new kind of cuisine that is here to stay, how do we eat it?

Human behavior is governed by biopsychosocial factors—a powerful combination of biology, ecology, environment, and culture in a specific moment of time. Biopsychosocial factors form and inform who we are; therefore,humans of the 21st century are both similar and different from our ancestors. Not having direct access to the past, we can only make educated guesses, but from what researchers can conjecture, it is highly unlikely that our forebears were monogamous. Present-day hunter-gatherer cultures, the living examples of our ancestral existence, are not monogamous. They ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I: Charting the Map of Polyamory
• Part II: Poly Dynamics of Love
• Part III: Sexuality in Polyamory
• Part IV: Jealousy in Transparent Love
• Part V: Relational Psychodynamics and Attachment Perspectives
• Part VI: Love Insists the Loved Loves Back
• Final Thoughts
• Glossary
• Index