4 comments/ 22247 views/ 4 favorites Polysexuality Ch. 01 By: Polysexual Note: This is a draft (December 2006) of a work in progress. While there is no name on this draft, it is under copyright by the author. Polysexuality: When One Partner Isn’t Enough: Discovering Your Polysexual Orientation Chapter 1: What Is Polysexuality?—Defining Terms What do these people have in common? The wife who fantasizes about the body of her son’s soccer coach while having sex with her husband. The happily married husband who sits in his office searching for free internet porn on his computer. The college freshman who laments that she really enjoys sex and doesn’t understand why when guys get lucky they get high fives, while when girls do, they are branded as sluts. The young man who enjoys going to strip clubs, watching the women, and getting an occasional lap dance. His girlfriend, who enjoys going with him and flirting with the strippers. The couple that gets together with other swingers for sex parties. The wife who has a large toy collection she uses while her husband is at work, imagining having sex with many lovers. The president who risked everything for a few minutes of oral sex. The presidents who enjoyed sex with various women in the White House several times a week without comment by journalists (such as FDR, Kennedy, and Johnson). The preacher who risked everything for a massage from a gay man. The civil rights leader whose couplings with various women were recorded by FBI agents. The boy who is so fascinated by bodies and talk of sex that the other kids say he has a dirty mind. The escort who loves her ability to provide sexual satisfaction and loves the money she is paid before she returns to her unknowing family. The basketball player who takes his pick of groupies after every game. James Boswell, the 18th century biographer and friend of the great literary figure Samuel Johnson, who customarily hired a prostitute for an hour, then spent several hours in witty conversation with Johnson, then choose another prostitute on the way home. Samuel Pepys, the important 17th century bureaucrat, whose wife caught him with his hand up the maid’s skirts. Benjamin Franklin, who had a long line of sex partners, from prostitutes to aristocrats, while ignoring his wife for years at a time. The woman who devours historical romance novels with well-muscled chests and low-cut bosoms on the cover and stories of seduction, rape, mistaken identity, and true love. The man who enjoys flipping through Playboy at the barber shop. Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Gideon, Samson, David, Solomon, and, of course, the prophet Muhammad. The married woman who fantasizes about kissing a woman. The man who cannot maintain a committed relationship, but prefers a series of sex partners. The man who is in a wonderful committed relationship with a woman or another man, but still wants a series of sex partners. The woman glued every day to her soap operas or telenovelas who can’t help imagining what her life could be if only . . . The millions of men and women who think they might, if they had the opportunity and were sure they wouldn’t get caught, say yes if offered sex, but never get up their nerve, yet manage to survive pretty happily. Not Perverts but Polysexuals What do they have in common? What name can we give them that can fit them all? They are not all swingers. They are not all adulterers or fornicators, though most may want to be. They are not all mate poachers. They are not all promiscuous. Sex fiends, sexaholics, sex addicts, sexual perverts, sexual deviants—these may fit in some cases, but certainly not in all, and they are unduly pejorative. What do they have in common? They are all polysexuals. Everyone who is not monosexual (wanting only one partner, ideally a spouse) or asexual (uninterested in sex) is a polysexual. Polysexuals make up a large percentage of the population, even though it seems that it is monosexuals (or closeted polysexuals who dare not come out) who make the laws, doing their best to enforce and preserve a monosexual moral system. The result is prejudice against polysexuals, laws against polysexuality, open polysexual-bashing without public outcry. Yet it may be that polysexuals will win in the long run. The sexual revolution is closer to being won than lost. Despite the laws, polysexuals are often seen on television and in movies, many music stars seem to be polysexual, and viewers and listeners are becoming used to the idea of polysexuality, even though they may not have ever heard the term. It’s easier to consider a familiar idea than an unfamiliar one. As far as political power and legal rights, polysexuals are perhaps where homosexuals were before the Stonewall riots of 1969. Like homosexuals, polysexuals may well be born with a complicated genetic propensity toward their orientation. Like homosexuals, various environmental influences that would barely affect monosexuals encourage that orientation. Like homosexuals, they cannot change their orientation, though they may not discover it until middle age and though they may with more or less effort control it. Like homosexuals, they are not cripples, but they are what they are, and what they are should not only be tolerated, but be accepted as one of the ways of being normal and celebrated as a valid and viable form of cultural diversity. It may seem that polysexuality is an umbrella concept that provides a useful etiology explaining the cause of a large range of sexual behaviors or fetishes or pathologies that have not generally been considered together. That is correct. Indeed, it might be applied to any sexual behavior that is not monosexual or asexual. We need such a term. It is a term that can bring people together and help them feel good about themselves. Definitions I didn’t invent the term “polysexuality,” but until I searched online, I thought I had. There seems to be a chain of British dance clubs called Polysexual. François Peraldi edited a book called Polysexuality, published in 1981, but it dealt with a wide range of marginalized sexual interests, not primarily with what some scientists call “sexual variety.” There’ve been a few attempts to use the word in place of the well-established term bisexuality or as a subcategory of polyamory, but they haven’t caught on. The meaning of the word is not yet carved in stone, and it’s a useful word, so I’m going to grab it and use it in my own way and hope it sticks. So here’s my definition of polysexuality, with definitions of other terms as well, so the distinctions will be clear. Monogamy — This comes from Greek words meaning “one wedding” or “one marriage.” Thus, monogamy is one couple being married only to each other and to no one else. It doesn’t tell us if they’ve ever been married to someone else in the past or if they are having sexual relations with other people. Polygamy — This means “many weddings,” but the word polygamy is used only in jest to refer to so-called “serial polygamy,” i.e., divorces and remarriages. Most people, when they say polygamy, mean one man with two or more wives, though this is not quite accurate (except perhaps legally). It might also be accurately used for a group marriage of two or more men with two or more women. Polyamory is often defined as being in love with more than one person at a time, as distinguished from having sexual relations with more than one person. Sometimes polyamory is essentially polygamy without papers. In other cases it may be more like friends with benefits. Ideally, all the partners involved are emotionally involved with each other, whether or not they are sexually involved. Monogyny — This means “one woman,” thus, generally, being married to one woman. Polygyny — This means “many women,” so it’s the correct term for marriage of one man to two or more women. Monandry — This means “one man” or “one husband,” thus, being married to only one man at a time. A monogamous heterosexual wife is monandrous—married to only one husband—and a monogamous heterosexual husband is monogynous—married to only one wife. Again, this doesn’t necessarily tell us if they are having sexual relations with other people. Polyandry — This is the technical term for one woman having two or more husbands at once. Heterosexuality — The Greek word “hetero” means “other” or “different.” Thus, a heterosexual is one who has a sexual interest only in people of the other gender. Homosexuality — The word “homo” in Greek can mean “same,” so homosexual in this sense means having a sexual interest in those of the same gender, whether that be male or female. However, the word “homo” in Latin can also mean “man,” so homosexual in this sense means men having a sexual interest in other men. This confusion is why the word lesbian is also useful for referring to women who have a sexual interest in other women. This is not the place to discuss whether a true homosexual man is solely interested in other men, or only primarily interested in other men. One seems to be born with either a homosexual predisposition or a heterosexual predisposition. One’s upbringing, experiences, culture, and other influences may encourage, stimulate, or repress one’s basic predisposition and turn it into an orientation. Bisexuality — “Bi” is a Latin prefix meaning “two,” among other things. Thus, a bisexual is someone who has a sexual interest in both men and women. This is not the place to discuss whether a true bisexual feels equal interest in both genders, or might be primarily interested in one gender but able and willing to function sexually with the other one under the right circumstances. Monosexuality — A monosexual, whether single or married, is a person who is only interested in having sex with one partner. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals can also be by nature monosexual. A true monosexual is happy being that way and feels little or no interest in “playing around.” Monosexuals are comfortable with monosexual monogamy—they don’t have to struggle to remain that way. They do not seek what some scientists call “sexual variety” or “extra-pair copulation,” and they may condemn those who do or seek legislation restricting their behavior. They are perhaps less likely to divorce than polysexuals (though they may be quick to divorce a polysexual mate), and if they do divorce, it’s not because they want sexual relations with more people. They are less likely than polysexuals to be interested in pornography or indeed anything having to do with sex, including talk, jokes, or television programs. Polysexuality — A polysexual is a person who feels drawn to having sexual relations with more than one partner (over time—not necessarily more than one at once). As with homosexuality and heterosexuality, one seems to be born with either a monosexual or a polysexual predisposition. One’s upbringing, experiences, culture, and other influences may encourage or stimulate one’s polysexual predisposition, hardening it into an orientation. Some polysexuals are polysexual in their minds, but not with their bodies. Some are single, some married. Some are homosexual, some heterosexual. Some are highly sexed, while others have a low sex urge. Probably nearly everyone who enjoys looking at the photos in Playboy or looking at pornography on the internet is a polysexual. Most married men and women who have affairs are polysexual. Couples who swing happily are polysexual. Some people control their polysexuality without too much difficulty, using will power. Some channel it with secret masturbation. Others find their polysexuality almost overpowering, whether or not they give in to it. These variations are all within the parameters of physiological normality, even when they are not within the parameters of cultural normality. Some polysexuals prefer being single with easy access to multiple partners. For most polysexuals, the ideal is probably what we might call consensual polysexual monogamy, where they live in a loving marriage relationship with a partner, sharing a home, companionship, and childrearing, but are allowed to have affectionate sexual relations with multiple partners, so long as the well-being of the marriage is not threatened. Are you a polysexual? Is your mate? Is this causing problems in your life? What can you do about it? What are you going to do about it? Polysexuality Ch. 02 Polysexuality Ch. 02 Probably the biggest current temptation to active polysexuality comes from the internet. Internet porn can be so interesting that it easily becomes a pursuit that eats up an hour or two a day, but who is interested in it? Some college campuses have reported that fifteen to forty percent of their bandwidth use is students looking at pornography. Both videos and internet porn can also introduce watchers to a wide range of practices they might otherwise not imagine. It's quite possible that nearly all of the people who enjoy internet porn are polysexual, even though they might not know it. It's hard to understand why people who only want to have sex with their spouse would want to look at lots of other people having sex. For millions of polysexuals, viewing internet porn provides an outlet that allows them to remain monosexual in practice. They may achieve this through watching or perhaps release pressure through masturbation. However, it seems likely that if people were never exposed to internet porn and the other sources, many polysexuals would find it easier to not think about their orientation and would be less likely to become active. Those who join internet sex and swinger sites with personal ads, such as SwingLifeStyle and AdultFriendFinder, have taken the next step toward active polysexuality. Men may lose interest in other internet porn, but they may spend a couple hours a day reading ads and writing to women, hoping to meet them. Women may spend a couple hours a day answering the messages. Increasingly, both men and women are using web cams to masturbate or expose themselves online. Many who join these sites may not even want to meet someone in person, but a great many do. This is an excellent way to make contact and become active. People don't need to go to bars or clubs or risk propositioning their colleagues. Men know that few woman on these sites will be offended by being propositioned—that's why they are there. Of course, most men on these sites never manage to find a woman willing to meet them, but they keep trying. Probably nearly all of the people on these sites are polysexuals, though there are some who are looking for only one partner who will be permanent, but very sexual. Even the large percentage that tries these sites but leaves discouraged is likely to be polysexual. Why would a monosexual want to sign up? Summary: Orientation vs. Choice—Why It Matters If polysexuality is indeed an orientation that makes it much more likely that polysexuals will have multiple partners, this may have an impact on society. People may begin trying to determine before marriage whether the person they hope to marry is polysexual. It may be that polysexuals will be happiest if they marry other polysexuals. Certainly monosexuals can avoid a lot of problems if they marry other monosexuals. If polysexuality is an orientation, this may help men and women understand how it is that their spouses can desire other sexual partners, yet want to remain married. Thus, it could decrease divorce. If polysexuality is an orientation, it may be that employers and governments may need to take this into account when they develop company policies and government laws. Non-fraternization policies in companies may be good in theory, but polysexuals may find it very difficult to follow the policies, and it may be that the penalties may need to be changed. A number of laws may need to take polysexual orientation into account, not least the laws regarding marriage and divorce. It may be that marital unfaithfulness should not be defined as taking another sexual partner but as falling in love with someone else to the exclusion of love for the spouse. Polysexuality is not the same as polygamy, and accepting polysexuality as an orientation does not mean condoning polygamy (though to be fair, the general abhorrence of polygamy is a cultural artifact, mere custom, not required by nature or even by God—though I myself wouldn't want multiple wives). Accepting homosexuality as an orientation has opened the way to questions regarding gay marriage, partners sharing health insurance, having legal rights, inheriting property, holding property in common, and many more. These questions should not come up with polysexuality. Accepting polysexuality as an orientation may make us more tolerant of the peccadilloes of the rich and famous. The tabloids will have less news to print. Congress will have to find another way to waste its time and our money than asking questions of politicians who have sex with multiple partners. Also, if polysexuality is accepted as an orientation, people will have less reason to lie to spouses, children, and colleagues. Women will kiss husbands goodbye, say "I love you," and go off to spend a couple hours with some internet friend, then come home to a spouse who is not jealous and not threatened. Men will be able to explain that their orientation makes certain behavior more likely, but doesn't affect their love. It seems that there is a great deal to gain from accepting polysexuality as an orientation. Doing so, however, will require major cultural changes, not least in the way we see marriage. Polysexuality Ch. 03 Polysexuality Ch. 03 Another approach might be to educate your parishioners. Study the chapters in this book on polysexuality in the Bible. Educate people, in your sermons, about how the various cultures in different times in the Bible influenced what was written and what was seen as right and wrong. Help people understand that the position that "God said it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it" is naïve and not a sound approach to interpreting the Bible (though it may make it easier to make decisions). Even if you can only do this for a year or two before you get fired, you may do a lot of good. You may even get enough people on your side that after you are fired, you'll be able to start a new church and keep pastoring. Meanwhile, do please avoid thinking in a sexual way about your secretary or any of your parishioners. Limit yourself strictly to women you already know are interested in that sort of activity, and I do not mean church members who have a crush on you. If you do start practicing your polysexuality, you'd do well to practice it far from home, and don't put a face shot on a web site. I do know several pastors who are practicing polysexuals. Some find swing clubs safer and more congenial than public meetings. Q: My husband is an introvert. He does okay with other people for a few hours at a time, but it's trying for him. I'm an extrovert. I don't have to be with other people all the time, but I do enjoy being with other people. I'm a professional woman, and I have many acquaintances. I go out to lunch once or twice a week with another man or woman. This isn't a sexual thing, and I don't talk about sex with the men, though sometimes the women and I share secrets, of course. I've felt myself wondering at times, though, what it would be like to have something more physical with someone. Am I a polysexual? Would I do better to stop having lunch with these people? A: Enjoying being with other people doesn't mean you are a polysexual. If you are, you don't seem to be thinking about it very much. You may be in a sense "cheating" on your husband by giving intellectual companionship to others. However, I assume you are already giving him as much of that as he wants. If your friendship with others meant he didn't get enough companionship from you, there would be a problem. This is sort of like giving tomatoes from your garden to the neighbors because your family already has all the tomatoes they can eat. I assume that your husband knows you are going out to lunch with other people but isn't threatened by it. You are fantasizing a little about sharing sex as well as lunch. This may mean that you do have a polysexual orientation, even though it may be undeveloped. I assume you and your husband already have a healthy sex life, so sex with someone else would not be monosexual. If you decide to go farther with this, see if you can find a way to find out if your husband might also be polysexual. Many introverts are thoroughly polysexual. Having sex with multiple partners can be less threatening to introverts than having "love affairs" that demand a lot of emotional entanglement. When love has nothing to do with the extra-marital sex (I'm distinguishing between love and affection), it needn't jeopardize the marriage so long as the partners correctly understand the nature of ideal marriage. Q: I met a woman on an airplane. We started talking and ended up playing around a little. Then we ended up sharing a hotel room for the night. It was the most exciting thing I've experienced in years. I'd love to see her again, but I don't know when I might be able to. Meanwhile, I'm fantasizing now about meeting other women. I wouldn't want my wife to find out, but I don't feel guilty. Would you call me a polysexual? A: Yes, I think you qualify as a polysexual who is just waking up to his orientation. Q: I'm happily married. Meanwhile, a couple years ago I started a happy relationship with a woman I dated fifteen years ago, before I got married. She was divorced and hadn't had sex with anyone for a number of years. However, she had about a dozen sex partners before she got married, and she had a couple long-term affairs while she was married. We e-mailed each other nearly every day and developed a great friendship. We were also able to get together several times for several days of hot sex. I never told her I was having sex with just my wife and her, and she knew I was a member of AdultFriendFinder. However, I met a woman on AFF who lives nearby, and we started meeting now and then. When I told my old girlfriend, she exploded, calling me a "dishonest cheater." Given that I had been "cheating" with her for a couple years, I couldn't figure out why she was so upset. I finally stopped writing to her, as I didn't want the grief she was giving me. What's going on? A: It seems likely that you are a polysexual, but she is not, or at least she's not entirely comfortable with it. She had sex with you because you reminded her of the good old days. She was surviving alone without sex, but you awakened her. However, as a polysexual, you assumed that she'd be going out with other men beside you. Instead, she was seeing you the way a monosexual sees a man. She knew you were also having sex with your wife, but she still somehow saw herself as something more than as friend and sex partner. There's an alternate explanation as well. Certainly her sexual activity in her youth, combined with later affairs, suggests that she might be a polysexual. It may be that during her sexual dormancy she repressed her sexuality so much that the polysexual urges didn't reawaken when she met you. It could also be that what started as a polysexual escapade for her became much more serious because you offered her a level of intimate friendship she hadn't experienced in years. In other words, you made her fall in love with you. Then, instead of seeing things as a full polysexual would, she began seeing you through the eyes of new love, which can be pretty jealous. Polysexuality is at its best when everyone involved can be honest about it. When partners have to tiptoe around to avoid being caught, it can sometimes seem sordid. However, it's not fun to hurt people's feelings, either. Polysexuality Ch. 04 Polysexuality Ch. 04 Also, as best I can tell, men are not having sex with lots of women because they want lots of children, but because something inside them craves sexual variety. Perhaps there is a genetic need for survival that makes all creatures do whatever it takes to maintain themselves through offspring. Perhaps that is driving our behavior without most of us realizing it. However, perhaps most creatures seek variety because they seek a certain kind of pleasure they get from it. Perhaps creatures are less driven by an unwitting genetic urge for continuation of the species (or of their own line) than by a well-recognized but genetically based love of good feelings—an urge with an immediate pay-off. This pleasure imperative has the same effect, but is less mysterious. Indeed, so long as creatures seek sexual pleasure, life will continue without any need of a genetic urge for maintaining the species. So long as creatures seek sexual pleasure, at least occasionally the result will be pregnancy and childbirth, even among a species with many ways of preventing pregnancy. Women are not being monosexual because they want only a few children, though it may be that many stress monosexuality in order to keep food on the table, provided by their husbands. If the evolutionary speculation is true, women should want many partners, as some husbands are infertile. Polysexuality makes evolutionary sense (for an excellent and witty review of the current scientific thinking on this by a zoologist and a psychiatrist, see David P. Barash and Judith Eve Lipton, The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People [New York: W. H. Freeman, 2001]). Many systems of religious beliefs have strongly encouraged both monosexuality and many children, and this influences us. In American culture, young people put great emphasis on being in love as the fundamental consideration leading to marriage. A great many divorces, particularly among people who have been married only a few years, are due to the feeling that they no longer love each other the way they did at first. This is one of many areas where understanding the polysexual orientation can be a great service to society. Recently National Geographic published a cover story called "Love: The Chemical Reaction" (February 2006). Although it simplified the chemistry a great deal, it shared some interesting information. It claimed, essentially, that the complex of feelings of lust, passion, and romance we call being "madly in love" that often leads to marriage is not only chemically induced, but is not induced by the same chemicals that cause the feeling of warm, companionable friendship called love that people who have been happily married for years experience from day to day. It's a little like the difference between being high on the methamphetimine called Ecstasy and taking a couple ibuprofen for pain relief. One fills you with wonderful feelings that are not your normal state and make it difficult to think rationally and be duly cautious, while the other makes it easier to be your real self with a minimum of pain. People who are "in love" are not entirely in their right minds or able to make clear-headed decisions about their future. It's as if they were high on Ecstasy. These are the people who are deciding to get married—imagining that they will remain high their entire life. As one might expect, teenagers who get married after "falling in love" are among those most likely to get divorced when they come to their senses. Rutgers University anthropologist Helen Fisher put a number of college students who had recently fallen "madly in love" in an MRI and watched what happened when she showed them photos of their love interest. She found that two particular areas of the brain lit up: the ventral tegmental area and the caudate nucleus. These areas, as the article puts it, are "home to a dense spread of receptors for a neurotransmitter called dopamine" (p. 35). Fisher claims that dopamine is what gives people the sensations linked to being "madly in love" (for more information, see Helen Fisher, Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love [New York: Henry Holt, 2004]; also see Charles Pasternak's critical review of the book at http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/love.asp; retrieved 31 January 2006). Among other things, dopamine stimulates passion, pleasure, and the libido. Cocaine and amphetamines can both cause a surge in dopamine levels in the brain ("Dopamine," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine; retrieved 31 January 2006). If seeing one's passionate love interest sparks a somewhat similar response (though naturally, not artificially, as with drugs), it's no wonder that the feeling of falling in love is something like being high. But as the poet A. E. Housman wrote about being drunk and seeing the world as it isn't, " 'tis pleasant till 'tis past: / The mischief is that 'twill not last." As Lauren Slater writes in National Geographic, Biologically speaking, the reasons romantic love fades may be found in the way our brains respond to the surge and pulse of dopamine that accompanies passion and makes us fly. Cocaine users describe the phenomenon of tolerance: The brain adapts to the excessive input of the drug. Perhaps the neurons become desensitized and need more and more to produce the high . . . (p. 44). That is to say, being madly in love is exhausting. Our brains get used to the extra dopamine, and eventually they stop reacting to it by making us feel passion and desire. This explains why the romantic high that leads so many people to get married seldom lasts. Its end is a natural phenomenon, and no one is to blame. Sometimes it can be stimulated again: a glass of wine in front of a warm fire, a vacation to a resort in Jamaica. But the feeling will be temporary. Even college graduates don't understand the transitory nature of romantic passion and are disappointed when it ends. What are teenage lovers who end their education with high school supposed to do? Far too often, they divorce, often in their mid-twenties after producing a child or two. But the decrease in dopamine production needn't signal the end of a marriage. The high is over, for the most part, but true love is still growing. Instead of fire, there is warmth. Long-term love relationships, it seems, trigger the release of oxytocin, a hormone made in the brain (p. 48). Oxytocin induces uterine contractions. It also helps mothers bond with their babies. When oxytocin floods the brain, it makes people feel loving, warm-hearted, and trusting. It reduces pain, stress, and anxiety and may help lower blood pressure ("Oxytocin," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin; retrieved 31 January 2006). It's no wonder that research shows that happily married couples live longer than unhappy couples or singles. Oxytocin is released when mothers nurse their babies. It's also released any time a woman's nipples are stimulated. Orgasm releases oxytocin for both men and women, and this helps explain why sex helps people bond with each other. Similarly, if a couple stops having sex, their sense of bonding may decrease. Oxytocin needs estrogen to work, so it works best in women. This is why women bond more easily than do men. Touching and hugging help to stimulate oxytocin, too (see Paul Byerly, "Oxytocin in Women: The Bridge Between Touch and Sex," http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/biology/female/female-oxytocin.shtml; retrieved 31 January 2006). It seems that oxytocin is readily available throughout life. In a healthy long-term relationship or marriage, it's produced when a couple touches, hugs, kisses, makes love, shares, eats together, chats, walks together, thinks warm thoughts about each other, or gazes into each other's eyes. Indeed, in a good marriage, oxytocin is being produced and causing bonding day by day. Can the passion ever return? Can dopamine-caused romance once again infuse a marriage? Helen Fisher and her colleagues say it can. "Aron and Fisher also suggest doing novel things together, because novelty triggers dopamine in the brain, which can stimulate feelings of attraction" (p. 49; also see Esther Perel's Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic [New York: HarperCollins, 2006]). Many couples, possibly a million, indeed, have discovered that polysexuality can rejuvenate a marriage. The novelty of meeting new partners, whether separately or, even better, as a couple, stimulates dopamine, which causes romantic passion, and there is enough for not only the new partner but for the spouse. Many long-term swinging couples claim that their weekly or monthly visits to their favorite swing club gives them an erotic jolt that lasts for days and keeps their marriages fresh. When they're done wrong, extramarital sex and premarital sex can seem cold and empty. However, if they are done right, not only is there dopamine leading to the renewed thrill of passion, but there is the warm bonding caused by oxytocin release during foreplay and intercourse. People who go to swing clubs often play with people they barely know, but when everything works well, a bond can develop from this intimacy that lasts for years and transcends the transitory bonding that happens in, say, a cocktail party. It's not as deep as what two long-term partners have, but it's special. If a husband and wife share this with each other, they have friends in common, but they also have even more reason to stay together and stay in love. Their own love for each other increases as they play together. The chemicals help it happen. As people are fond of saying in some swing clubs, "The couple that plays together stays together." They not only have the bonding of oxytocin, but they have much more dopamine in their marriages than most couples, so the passion recurs more often. If you are a monosexual, reading this, perhaps, to understand a polysexual spouse, what are you feeling right now? Are you beginning to sense that for the polysexual, whether male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, desiring or having multiple sex partners may not reflect at all unhappiness in a marriage? Your partner may feel nothing but love for you, be very happy being married to you, yet somehow crave more variety. The best explanation for the craving is gene and environment-induced polysexuality. Your partner may be struggling to deal with genetically natural and normal needs that our culture condemns for reasons that are partly valid, but needn't be. I Want My Own Baby to Inherit My Property Why is it that our cultural norm is monosexual monogamy when so many of us are genetically polysexual (though also monogamous)? Part of the reason is the way Christians over the centuries have interpreted the Bible, marginalizing many of the relevant Bible verses while placing undue emphasis on a few verses taken out of their cultural context. This will be explained later in the book. Anthropologists and biologists will probably agree, however, that there is something in men, deeply ingrained over thousands of years, that makes them want to be certain that they are the fathers of children born to their wives. If we search the ancient laws of Sumer, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, China, and more, we find harsh laws against women who get pregnant by another man. We find similar laws among many more recent primitive cultures studied by anthropologists. Some may believe that men are more likely to be polysexual in orientation, but whatever the reason, men are also terrified of their wives being polysexual. Perhaps this is because men have known their own desires and assume that their wives have similar desires. Perhaps, in centuries past, they've known they were having sex with other men's wives and feared other men would get to their own wives, as well. In tribes practicing female circumcision, it seems this is done to lessen women's sexual pleasure so they will be less likely to take other lovers. The assumption is that wives will do whatever necessary to fulfill their needs because women are naturally polysexual. Their pleasure is less important to their husbands than their monosexuality, so they are circumcised. The requirement in many Islamic countries for women to keep their bodies and sometimes even their hair and face covered also seems to be due to men knowing their own hearts and being uncertain of the hearts of their wives. What cannot be seen is less likely to be desired. In Bible times, we find, wherever people then were writing laws, men felt that the primary way of assuring a sort of immortality for themselves was by being remembered. They were most likely to be remembered by their descendents. Their descendents were most likely to remember them if the men owned land they could pass down to their descendents. Men imagined future generations of heirs blessing them for faithfully maintaining their inheritance and passing it on. If a wife got pregnant by another man, it was possible that a husband could unwittingly leave his own inheritance to another man's son, a man who was not part of the family. Not only would a man's own memory wither, but the memory of his ancestors. He would be forgotten. (Jewish ideas of immortality through memory are based on this.) The assumption is that after a man died, his wife's lover would come forward and explain to the son who the real father was. Thus, having sex with another man's wife was in a way the ultimate theft, stealing a man's wife, property, children, memory, and immortality. [BOX: What Do the Scientists Say?: Have husbands throughout history been right to worry about other men getting their wives pregnant? David M. Buss writes, "A female colleague of mine who wishes to remain anonymous told me that she discovered a 10 percent genetic cuckoldry rate, using DNA fingerprinting technology, in a study she was conducting on the genetics of breast cancer in the United States. So perhaps 10 percent of the readers of these pages have genetic fathers different from their putative fathers, products of their mother's clandestine infidelities." (The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating rev. ed. [New York: Basic Books, 2003], 236.)] Throughout most of English literature there are accounts of men having sex with other men's wives. In Chaucer's "The Miller's Tale" and "The Reeve's Tale," for example, written before 1400, medieval college students happily enjoy the wife of a carpenter and the wife and daughter of a miller (and the women enjoy them, too!). Many of the old English and Scottish ballads sung for centuries where they were composed and then sung later in Appalachia deal with this, too. In "Matty Groves," for example, the wife of a lord spies handsome young Matty and drags him to her bed while her husband is off tending the sheep. The idea is that she wants sex, but her husband fears an heir not of his own blood and kills Matty. Surely songs like this had some basis in fact. This is in part due, perhaps, to the fact that men often couldn't afford to marry until they were older; or after being widowed, having money and power, they married girls rather than women their own age. This was the so-called "May-December" marriage that was considered a sure recipe for a wife playing around. The sympathy of the audience was often with the wife because only a foolish old man would want a wife he was unable to satisfy. As the old man was also often relatively wealthy, there may have been audience jealousy involved, as well. Shakespeare's plays are full of references to cuckolds, to husbands who "wear horns." In The Merchant of Venice, for example, Gratiano, hearing that his new wife and Bassanio's new wife have slept with a lawyer and his clerk, says, "What, are we cuckolds ere we have deserved it?" (V.i.265). He is assuming that women take lovers when their husbands prove unsatisfactory. In Othello, the supposedly cuckolded general says, "A horned man's a monster and a beast." Iago replies, "There's many a beast then in a populous city, and many a civil monster" (IV.i.62--63). Othello, of course, becomes a beast and murders his wife for an act she has not committed. [BOX: In As You Like It, Act 3, Scene 3, the fool Touchstone decides to marry the "country wench" Audrey, who says, "I am not a slut, though I thank the gods I am foul." Touchstone replies, "Well, praised be the gods for thy foulness! sluttishness may come hereafter." They will marry in the forest, among the "horn-beasts," such as deer. But "horn-beasts" leads Touchstone to comment on the likelihood of husbands "wearing horns" and to argue that it is indeed "more honorable" for a man to "wear horns" because horns are a form of defense, and a defended city with towers and wall is more honorable than an undefended village. He says, Courage! As horns are odious, they are necessary. It is said, 'many a man knows no end of his goods': right; many a man has good horns, and knows no end of them. Well, that is the dowry of his wife; 'tis none of his own getting. Horns? Even so. Poor men alone? No, no; the noblest deer hath them as huge as the rascal. Is the single man therefore blessed? No: as a walled town is more worthier than a village, so is the forehead of a married man more honourable than the bare brow of a bachelor; and by how much defence is better than no skill, by so much is a horn more precious than to want.] Whether or not many men in cities were cuckolded in Othello's day, Shakespeare and his audience believed they were. The word cuckold comes from the old French word for the cuckoo bird, which lays its eggs in some other bird's nest. (When a man placed his progeny in another man's wife, that other man was cuckolded or cuckooed, and somehow the injured party came to be called a cuckold, when the cuckoo parallel should actually refer to the man planting the heir in the nest.) In the tales and songs of Spain and Italy, we also find this concern with men impregnating the wives of other men, and this was considered a matter of "honor" and a reason to kill. Such lovers as Casanova and Don Juan excelled at this, and the assumption was that a great many women were eager to enjoy these men. Whether they were or not, men believed they were. Again, the real concern behind the stated concern with honor was the integrity of inheritance: a man wanted to make sure that his heir was his own flesh and blood. We might consider in this context the feudal droit du seigneur or "right of the first night." This was exercised in France until the French revolution (see the Charles Dickens novel A Tale of Two Cities for an example) and in England during the middle ages. Lords claimed the feudal right to have sex with any girl who worked on their estates on her wedding night. (Whether they often exercised this right is questionable.) This was a matter of showing one's power over others: just when a man most wanted his new wife for himself, the lord took her. Beyond this, the nobility assumed that servant women were theirs for the taking. Also, breeding with the lord could improve the bloodline, so to speak. (In "The Miller's Tale," Chaucer writes that the pretty young wife Alison is good enough "For any lord to leggen [lay] in his bedde, / Or yit for any good yeman [yeoman] to wedde" (ll. 161--162). A working girl was fit for a lord to play with or for a working man to marry, but she shouldn't expect to marry the lord. We find a woman who did dream of marrying the lord in Thomas Hardy's 19th century novel Tess of the d'Urbervilles. It does not end happily.) This is the cultural context from which our fear of "unfaithful" women developed. Were many women practicing polysexuals? Probably not. But men feared they might be because they knew they themselves were or would be if they had the courage and opportunity. This is probably related to the idea developed by biologists that men have a need for many partners, while women do not. Polysexuality Ch. 04 There are also many known instances of the royalty and nobility of Europe catching various sexually transmitted diseases from prostitutes. These could be passed on to their wives, and they could also lead to the infertility of both men and women. Thus, there might be no heir. Again, the inheritance was of major importance. Polysexual Responsibilities What should this mean to us? Must we continue to fear the lovers of our spouses? Is monosexuality the only way to insure the inheritance? A growing number of couples are using in vitro fertilization when wives have a hard time getting pregnant. Sometimes the sperm used is not the husband's. In other cases women are inseminated directly with sperm from donors. Some husbands are uncomfortable with this, but gradually we are getting over our queasiness regarding paternity. Then there are surrogate mothers who are pregnant with another couple's child. Many people adopt children today, and the adoptive fathers love the children and gladly leave them their estates. Today there are many reliable forms of birth control available. Unlike the past, it is now easy for men and women to have sex without having children. Thus, the major cultural reason why women should worry about their husbands (they might divide the inheritance with a child born to another woman) or why men should worry about their wives no longer need apply. Men can still get other men's wives pregnant, but if they do, it almost has to be a deliberate act, rather than an accident. Also, in our culture, few men would think of making another man's wife pregnant so their physical son could inherit another man's wealth. We just don't think that way anymore. Here are some things polysexuals and those married to them should consider before becoming active. A polysexual man has a duty to any woman he plays with to not get her pregnant. A polysexual woman, likewise, should not play unless she is sure she will not get pregnant. Such a pregnancy is not fair to the other partners involved. A man should not play until he has ascertained that birth control is assured. A woman should do the same. If there is a possibility of pregnancy, there are certainly several other enjoyable ways of playing. Polysexuals should never enter into sex blindly. This is irresponsible. Actually, many active polysexuals have been sterilized so pregnancy can't happen. This is the most responsible approach, but it's not feasible for men and women who still plan to make babies at some point. Polysexuals also need to be cautious about disease. While it would be bad enough if they caught a sexually transmitted disease, it would be far worse if they passed it on to a non-polysexual spouse. Thus, polysexuals should get themselves checked whenever there's a possibility that they might have picked up something. They should require condoms for all vaginal and anal intercourse unless they know each other well and are sure that each other is clean. They should be cautious in their choice of partners and have the guts to politely say no to anyone if they have any reason to question whether the person is clean. They are at most risk with young studs and party girls. They are at least risk with older people who are married and have very little experience apart from their spouses. Very few monosexual spouses are likely to be delighted to hear that their loved one is a polysexual who wants to begin practicing. A big part of fulfilling one's marriage vows is avoiding what hurts one's partner. Unfortunately, it isn't always possible to be what one is without causing pain. My high school acquaintance who decided he was gay probably hurt his wife a lot, but she understood that this had always been his orientation, and she supported him. A man in the Marines may volunteer to fight overseas. It may well be that his wife wishes that he weren't in the Marines at all, but he is her husband, she knows he is what he is, and she bears with it. Meanwhile, he doesn't want to hurt her, but in his heart he's Semper Fi, and he's taken an oath of service. Polysexual spouses have many duties toward their monosexual partner. It's their duty to be discreet, to not tell all their friends what they're up to, not tell their parents and siblings. They need to be considerate of their partner's feelings. They should never make a pass at a friend of their spouse. They should never do or say anything that might embarrass their spouse if they can help it. They should not flaunt what they are, neither should they ever taunt their spouse with what they are. There may be some monosexual husbands and wives who want to know the truth and hear what their polysexual spouse has been up to. More likely, if they are understanding and give their permission for the polysexual to play, they would prefer not to hear about what's been going on. Some polysexuals might think they'd be much more comfortable if their spouse would let them tell what they've been up to, but this is certainly a place where they can respect their spouse's wishes. If the spouse doesn't want to hear, they should count their blessings and say nothing. Polysexual husbands and wives of monosexual spouses should never forget their promise to love and cherish. If polysexuals spend so much time seeking other partners that they stop being devoted to their spouse, then they will make their spouse doubly unhappy. This is the road to divorce. Polysexual husbands and wives should strive to be the very best husbands and wives possible. They should redouble their kindness, helpfulness, and gentleness. If they haven't been thoughtful, polite, and helpful before, then now is a good time to start. If a monosexual wife finds that since her husband got permission to play, he's been spending much more time with her, helping to do the daily chores, doing the things she likes to do, taking her to restaurants or away for weekends, she may decide that he's become a better husband since he became a practicing polysexual. (And, of course, why shouldn't he become a better husband and a happier man? Add to this that if he is playing with his wife's permission, he is certainly not "cheating.") Finally, it's important to consider the wellbeing of the children, if there are any. I know of several teenage and older children who know their parents are polysexual and are happy for them. However, it's interesting that while the parents sometimes suspect that some of their grown children are genetically polysexual and would be happier if they admitted it, very few of these children are actually practicing, even if they know that their parents are. Thus, it seems to me that polysexual parents are not generally providing an environment that encourages polysexuality among their children. Even if the parents are open about it, I've never met parents who urge their children to "Go and do likewise." They seem to believe very strongly that children should not be exposed to polysexuality, but should be left to discover it on their own. As for child abuse, happily polysexual parents seem to be far less likely to turn to their children for a sexual outlet than are more inhibited parents. Many children would be very uncomfortable if told that a parent is a practicing polysexual. It's much better to keep children in the dark if one thinks they might be upset than to make oneself feel better by telling them something they can't handle. It's also possible to lose one's children's respect. They might think one weak or incompetent or inadequate or a bad parent. With most children, it should be very easy to tell them, "Mom and dad are going to a party, and we'll be home very late. Your babysitter will take care of you." If only one spouse is polysexual, it's easy to say, "Mom has to go away on a business trip. She'll be home tomorrow." In most cases, there may be no reason to ever tell one's children what one is up to. If these suggestions are followed, a polysexual marriage can be very pleasant for all involved. Even the monosexual spouse may end up with a much more attentive partner to make up for the fact that the partner is polysexual. It isn't always possible to know right away if a person is polysexual. Some people may have enjoyed dating many partners, may have had sex with several people before marriage, yet never considered multiple partners after marriage. Others may have gotten married at a young age after dating only one person, and they may have never had much of an opportunity to think about polysexuality. Some people are raised in conservative homes where sex isn't mentioned, and whatever sexual feelings they have are repressed. I would argue that people are either polysexual or monosexual by genetic fact, but polysexuals may never realize what they are or may only gradually come to realize it. One woman was married twice without guessing. Only when she was in her mid forties did her boyfriend gradually convince her to try swinging. Once she tried it, she realized that she loved it and that this was what she'd always been looking for without realizing it. Now she says that if she ever marries again, it will have to be to another polysexual. It's possible that you have always thought of yourself as a monosexual. You've always imagined a long and happy life with the spouse of your dreams and no other man or woman. But perhaps as you've read this you've remembered times when you've wondered what it might be like to have another partner or several at once. Perhaps you are a woman who sees herself as heterosexual, yet you've sometimes found yourself wondering what the touch of another woman would be like. If your spouse becomes a practicing polysexual and you have that ability in you without realizing it, it's quite possible that you may find yourself becoming interested in hearing what your spouse has been up to. Your spouse may convince you to attend a party or club. You may find yourself entering a wonderful new lifestyle. Achieving Maximum Happiness in Marriage Perhaps your partner isn't aware of his or her polysexual needs, but just feels a sense of incompleteness and unease that is misdiagnosed as a mid-life crisis. Perhaps you sense that your partner is a non-practicing polysexual or fear that your partner is actually a practicing polysexual. Perhaps you see in your mind the collapse of your warm and comfortable marriage and the loss of much you hold dear. You are preparing for disaster. It doesn't have to be that way. Polysexuals can fall out of love, too, and even if your partner is not a polysexual, it may be that your marriage is near death. On the other hand, if you and your spouse can deal with the issue and you can free your spouse to explore while providing a warm, safe, loving, oxytocin-filled relationship, you may end up with an even happier relationship than before. But you'll need to stop equating sex with marriage and get over the idea that sex is acceptable only within marriage. Stop thinking that "marital unfaithfulness" means extramarital sex. If your spouse loves you and wants to stay with you, count your blessings and do everything you can think of to keep it that way. The real unfaithfulness is when your spouse stops caring, is cruel, shows no compassion, doesn't want to talk with you or spend time with you, refuses to share household duties with you, doesn't do acts of love and kindness, doesn't provide for you well. Think about this paragraph. Compared to this, a loving polysexual partner is a joy. You could do much worse. And after all, what is it you want most from a marriage? If you say, "What I want most is for my partner to not play around," you aren't thinking straight. That's a negative statement. You're not asking for pleasure; you're asking for an absence of pain, and that pain is caused by a culture-based misunderstanding. If you stop thinking of polysexuality as pain, you will be freed to think of ways to improve your marriage. Dare I suggest that if your spouse is a polysexual who wants permission to play, you are in an excellent position to improve your marriage? Sit your spouse down and offer a deal. In exchange for your allowing your partner to occasionally meet with other people, you have a list of demands. Ask for things that will improve your marriage. Ask your spouse to be discreet and to promise to never say bad things about you to anyone. Ask your partner to spend time with you, and specify what you'll be doing together during that time. Ask your partner to walk with you, chat with you, and help you with this or that. Ask your partner to have frequent health exams and to promise to wear condoms. Ask your partner to spend time every day hugging or touching you. Ask for sex as often as you feel you'd like to have it. You might also consider asking your spouse to promise to go to a marriage counselor with you. Explain that what you want is for the two of you to learn how to enjoy each other more while ironing out any resentments or unmet needs. Each of you will win. If the counselor helps, you might even consider asking your partner to go with you to a sex therapist. Explain that the goal is not changing the polysexual orientation, but learning to be better lovers with each other. You will get more sex if you want it, and it will be better sex. Meanwhile, you may even become so talented that your spouse loses interest in meeting others. It's even possible that you'll discover in yourself an unexpected polysexual orientation.