70 people in Thailand have a conflict about monogamy vs polyamory
By Roger Butler (Curious Creatures)
I was in Thailand recently for a six-day workshop in large-group conflict-resolution, inspired by Process Oriented Psychology.
Each day was shaped around what you might call a facilitated conflict each afternoon, involving up to all 70 attendees. This 'group process' generally consists of listing on a whiteboard the issues that are of interest to people, then sorting through them and agreeing on what's going to be the topic of the day. From there people take on the roles that are relevant to the topic by positioning themselves physically around the space; most group processes start with several roles, and the skill of the facilitator is in gradually - or sometimes very quickly! - supporting the roles to deepen. What often results is just two roles, one that is for something and one that is against.
Success is measured by how much awareness and understanding comes to the various roles and the original issue, although partial or full resolution of the issues themselves is of course welcome. (Perhaps there's a parallel to be made with good sex here, in that success should be measured by the journey rather than the potentially orgasmic destination - so much of the joy is in the connection with one's self, relationship to the other, communication skills, and being able to tune into the subtle details... and while the occasional orgasm or moment or resolution is very welcome, they're not mandatory for a good time!).
There was a lot of interest from locals in polyamory and sex-positivity, and I wound up giving a couple of micro-workshops over dinner. The information was received with a level of enthusiasm I haven't seen before in Australia.
On the forth day of the workshop, when it was time to list the topics that were potentially of interest to the large group, one of the people that had been almost tripping over themselves with enthusiastic questions about polyamory the night before, raised their hand and added the topic 'monogamy vs polyamory' to the whiteboard. I was proud of them for potentially outing themselves and raising the topic, and even though there was some positive responses from the larger group, I was quietly confident that such a taboo topic wouldn't get off the ground in relatively conservative Thailand.
I was so wrong.
When it came time to sort out what we were going to work on, there was very strong and clear support for the polyamory topic. There were other good options to choose from, but none of them got anything like the positive feedback that the polyamory topic received. Group processes can be a wild ride; they're sometimes gentle and celebratory, but they encompass the full range of human expression - so sometimes, they're very passionate and strong. I've learned from experience, having participated in at least a few hundred group processes, that I need to be a little judicious about what topics I get involved in, just because I'm not always in the mood for a wild ride. And so I had a little moment of panic as I realised there was almost no chance I was not going to be heavily involved in this contentious - and also very personal - topic. (This is also a good thing, of course, because getting involved in things was precisely what I was over there for, and talking about sex and sexuality is apparently my life mission, so everything was perfect).
The facilitators began by supporting people to step up and shape up some roles, which included some confusion around some definitions, some utterances around Thailand's interesting sexuality history, and soon enough, an assertion that the love felt for just one person is the only true love, and that proper family structures are the things that keep us safe and raise healthy children.
It was my turn to speak, partly because I don't think anyone else in the room was able to pick up the other role, and partly because... well, it just was.
I began by positioning myself over with the 'pro-monogamy' people, and I spoke for the profound joy and gratitude I will always have for the ten-year monogamous relationship I had, earlier in my life. I explained that the other person in that relationship is still one of my best friends, and I will love them always.
I then moved to stand with the 'pro-polyamory' group, and spoke about my four partners (and other play-partners). I explained that I have love for them all, in perhaps the same way that one can have love for a whole range of friends. I mentioned briefly that I'd been in my current situation without a lot of changes for four years, that everyone knew about everyone else, and that it was all very above board.
(The interpreters had to interrupt me at this point, since I'd gotten carried away and forgotten to allow them time to translate - oops!).
Then, I took up a third position, between the two spots I'd just been standing. I said that I don't think there's any one model of relating that's right for everyone - "in fact, every combination of two people is an entirely new and unique relationship structure and style waiting to happen, and the game is to see if the two of you can find it. For me, the most crucial thing in all of this is the ability to choose between the various models, and to make sure that whatever model is chosen, all parties stick to whatever agreements they make". There were some cheers and whoops as this was translated.
A woman standing in the 'pro-monogamy' camp spoke next. She was clearly angered, and was speaking directly at me as an individual (rather than as a role). She rather forcefully demanded: "But what about these women? Have you even checked in with them, to see if they like this arrangement you've put them in? How do they feel about the way you're treating them?". She was almost yelling, through a face that was fixed with anger, and a body that was shaking. I felt my energy rise. No backing out of this particular group process, now.
The facilitators moved like they were preparing to intervene, and a couple of people moved over next to me to offer support (as is customary in group processes, when someone is attacked). One of them went to reply on my behalf, but I wanted to continue the dialog myself, so I spoke up quickly as I moved back to the 'pro-polyamory' position.
I said, "Thank you for asking those questions of me." Because, even if they're put in a charged and loaded way, it's still great to have the opportunity to engage in dialog, especially when there's facilitation to help create safety.
"Firstly, you need to know that some of my partners are men". I said this because I felt that she was confusing polyamory with polygamy. I felt that she was adding a gendered lens to the conversation that didn't need to be there, and it would have been a distraction from what the issues were actually about. Also, even though what I said was a slight exaggeration (in that I have had distinctly more female partners than male partners), I feel like it's a good use of my voice and privilege to go into bat for diversity and different sexuality orientations whenever I can.
"Secondly, yes, everyone knows about everyone, and one of the most crucially important things to me in any relationship, is checking in, almost constantly, as to whether people are happy or not. That is absolutely vital to me, and I can say with a lot of confidence that yes, all of my partners are happy with their situation with me".
As the translation into Thai progressed, I thought about what I wanted to say next. I wanted to point out that my partners also have partners of their own, and that we talk about that too. I wanted to point out that many of us are in the same social circles, and we often hang out together, and that one of my happiest moments is when two partners of the same person work together to help each other in their relationships with the central person. I had so many more things I wanted to say, but I wasn't going to get a chance... Something else was brewing. Once the translation to Thai was finished, I got mobbed.
Well, not mobbed so much... I got hugged. Ten people had rushed the floor and were all giving me a massive group hug. Those that spoke English thanked me for my courage, and said they'd never seen anyone speak for sexuality the way I just had. I noticed that they all seemed to be men; some old, some young, a monk or two... Which I'm guessing was because I'd spoken for male-male intimacy, but perhaps they were also relating to me as a role-model. Either way, it was an unexpected and profound moment. I was elated and relieved, because I had been kind of nervous about coming out to the group like that. It was a not entirely expected personal reveal.
The woman that had spoken to me seemed genuinely happy with my answer. Once I was free from the hug mob, I turned back to her, and we exchanged that delightful little Thai bow-and-smile that I've come to love. The facilitators acknowledged the moment of resolution that had happened, I returned to my seat, and the group process moved onto other aspects of relationships and relating.
There's no 'bad' group process, if you ask me; even the ones that don't get any resolution, and are a little confusing to follow, are still perfect. But this was a particularly good one. Aside from the fact that it was liberating and positive for me personally, there's something about having people come together, even in strong disagreement, and get somewhere with their dialog, which is so missing in our world. I sometimes feel sick when I look at the angry one-sided polarisation in social- and mainstream-media, where we - myself included, too much of the time - seem to only be interested in finding other people that already agree with us, or winning a point-scoring victory against those that don't (before blocking them).
Polarisation is a part of conflict, yes, but so is the part that should come next - what the facilitators of this workshop described as the ability to switch roles, and then finally become detached from outcomes (but not disinterested). I feel lucky to be a witness to one way of achieving that, although of course there are many.
I also feel happy that I got to wave my little flag for choice in relationships. I really don't think polyamory is for everyone, any more than I think monogamy is, even though I seem to be very happily poly. It seems to be right for me, but you're a totally different person; what's right for you?
Thanks, Thailand, for the exchange. It was wild!
(First published by Curious Creatures).
I was in Thailand recently for a six-day workshop in large-group conflict-resolution, inspired by Process Oriented Psychology.
Each day was shaped around what you might call a facilitated conflict each afternoon, involving up to all 70 attendees. This 'group process' generally consists of listing on a whiteboard the issues that are of interest to people, then sorting through them and agreeing on what's going to be the topic of the day. From there people take on the roles that are relevant to the topic by positioning themselves physically around the space; most group processes start with several roles, and the skill of the facilitator is in gradually - or sometimes very quickly! - supporting the roles to deepen. What often results is just two roles, one that is for something and one that is against.
Success is measured by how much awareness and understanding comes to the various roles and the original issue, although partial or full resolution of the issues themselves is of course welcome. (Perhaps there's a parallel to be made with good sex here, in that success should be measured by the journey rather than the potentially orgasmic destination - so much of the joy is in the connection with one's self, relationship to the other, communication skills, and being able to tune into the subtle details... and while the occasional orgasm or moment or resolution is very welcome, they're not mandatory for a good time!).
There was a lot of interest from locals in polyamory and sex-positivity, and I wound up giving a couple of micro-workshops over dinner. The information was received with a level of enthusiasm I haven't seen before in Australia.
On the forth day of the workshop, when it was time to list the topics that were potentially of interest to the large group, one of the people that had been almost tripping over themselves with enthusiastic questions about polyamory the night before, raised their hand and added the topic 'monogamy vs polyamory' to the whiteboard. I was proud of them for potentially outing themselves and raising the topic, and even though there was some positive responses from the larger group, I was quietly confident that such a taboo topic wouldn't get off the ground in relatively conservative Thailand.
I was so wrong.
When it came time to sort out what we were going to work on, there was very strong and clear support for the polyamory topic. There were other good options to choose from, but none of them got anything like the positive feedback that the polyamory topic received. Group processes can be a wild ride; they're sometimes gentle and celebratory, but they encompass the full range of human expression - so sometimes, they're very passionate and strong. I've learned from experience, having participated in at least a few hundred group processes, that I need to be a little judicious about what topics I get involved in, just because I'm not always in the mood for a wild ride. And so I had a little moment of panic as I realised there was almost no chance I was not going to be heavily involved in this contentious - and also very personal - topic. (This is also a good thing, of course, because getting involved in things was precisely what I was over there for, and talking about sex and sexuality is apparently my life mission, so everything was perfect).
The facilitators began by supporting people to step up and shape up some roles, which included some confusion around some definitions, some utterances around Thailand's interesting sexuality history, and soon enough, an assertion that the love felt for just one person is the only true love, and that proper family structures are the things that keep us safe and raise healthy children.
It was my turn to speak, partly because I don't think anyone else in the room was able to pick up the other role, and partly because... well, it just was.
I began by positioning myself over with the 'pro-monogamy' people, and I spoke for the profound joy and gratitude I will always have for the ten-year monogamous relationship I had, earlier in my life. I explained that the other person in that relationship is still one of my best friends, and I will love them always.
I then moved to stand with the 'pro-polyamory' group, and spoke about my four partners (and other play-partners). I explained that I have love for them all, in perhaps the same way that one can have love for a whole range of friends. I mentioned briefly that I'd been in my current situation without a lot of changes for four years, that everyone knew about everyone else, and that it was all very above board.
(The interpreters had to interrupt me at this point, since I'd gotten carried away and forgotten to allow them time to translate - oops!).
Then, I took up a third position, between the two spots I'd just been standing. I said that I don't think there's any one model of relating that's right for everyone - "in fact, every combination of two people is an entirely new and unique relationship structure and style waiting to happen, and the game is to see if the two of you can find it. For me, the most crucial thing in all of this is the ability to choose between the various models, and to make sure that whatever model is chosen, all parties stick to whatever agreements they make". There were some cheers and whoops as this was translated.
A woman standing in the 'pro-monogamy' camp spoke next. She was clearly angered, and was speaking directly at me as an individual (rather than as a role). She rather forcefully demanded: "But what about these women? Have you even checked in with them, to see if they like this arrangement you've put them in? How do they feel about the way you're treating them?". She was almost yelling, through a face that was fixed with anger, and a body that was shaking. I felt my energy rise. No backing out of this particular group process, now.
The facilitators moved like they were preparing to intervene, and a couple of people moved over next to me to offer support (as is customary in group processes, when someone is attacked). One of them went to reply on my behalf, but I wanted to continue the dialog myself, so I spoke up quickly as I moved back to the 'pro-polyamory' position.
I said, "Thank you for asking those questions of me." Because, even if they're put in a charged and loaded way, it's still great to have the opportunity to engage in dialog, especially when there's facilitation to help create safety.
"Firstly, you need to know that some of my partners are men". I said this because I felt that she was confusing polyamory with polygamy. I felt that she was adding a gendered lens to the conversation that didn't need to be there, and it would have been a distraction from what the issues were actually about. Also, even though what I said was a slight exaggeration (in that I have had distinctly more female partners than male partners), I feel like it's a good use of my voice and privilege to go into bat for diversity and different sexuality orientations whenever I can.
"Secondly, yes, everyone knows about everyone, and one of the most crucially important things to me in any relationship, is checking in, almost constantly, as to whether people are happy or not. That is absolutely vital to me, and I can say with a lot of confidence that yes, all of my partners are happy with their situation with me".
As the translation into Thai progressed, I thought about what I wanted to say next. I wanted to point out that my partners also have partners of their own, and that we talk about that too. I wanted to point out that many of us are in the same social circles, and we often hang out together, and that one of my happiest moments is when two partners of the same person work together to help each other in their relationships with the central person. I had so many more things I wanted to say, but I wasn't going to get a chance... Something else was brewing. Once the translation to Thai was finished, I got mobbed.
Well, not mobbed so much... I got hugged. Ten people had rushed the floor and were all giving me a massive group hug. Those that spoke English thanked me for my courage, and said they'd never seen anyone speak for sexuality the way I just had. I noticed that they all seemed to be men; some old, some young, a monk or two... Which I'm guessing was because I'd spoken for male-male intimacy, but perhaps they were also relating to me as a role-model. Either way, it was an unexpected and profound moment. I was elated and relieved, because I had been kind of nervous about coming out to the group like that. It was a not entirely expected personal reveal.
The woman that had spoken to me seemed genuinely happy with my answer. Once I was free from the hug mob, I turned back to her, and we exchanged that delightful little Thai bow-and-smile that I've come to love. The facilitators acknowledged the moment of resolution that had happened, I returned to my seat, and the group process moved onto other aspects of relationships and relating.
There's no 'bad' group process, if you ask me; even the ones that don't get any resolution, and are a little confusing to follow, are still perfect. But this was a particularly good one. Aside from the fact that it was liberating and positive for me personally, there's something about having people come together, even in strong disagreement, and get somewhere with their dialog, which is so missing in our world. I sometimes feel sick when I look at the angry one-sided polarisation in social- and mainstream-media, where we - myself included, too much of the time - seem to only be interested in finding other people that already agree with us, or winning a point-scoring victory against those that don't (before blocking them).
Polarisation is a part of conflict, yes, but so is the part that should come next - what the facilitators of this workshop described as the ability to switch roles, and then finally become detached from outcomes (but not disinterested). I feel lucky to be a witness to one way of achieving that, although of course there are many.
I also feel happy that I got to wave my little flag for choice in relationships. I really don't think polyamory is for everyone, any more than I think monogamy is, even though I seem to be very happily poly. It seems to be right for me, but you're a totally different person; what's right for you?
Thanks, Thailand, for the exchange. It was wild!
(First published by Curious Creatures).
got a comment?
Got comments? ...Here's the link to this article on Monogamy vs Polyamory on facebook, and you can leave your comments there.