![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Links du jour
Heeb Magazine announces the 2009 Heeb 100 -- their top picks of Jewish Americans who are "young, smart and innovative." (Edited To Add: Sure, not as insightful as The Jewish Week's 36 under 36, or the Forward 50, each of which had the good sense to cite ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hatam_soferet! but I still find this kind of index interesting. >:-)
Ethan Zuckerman reviews a talk by Daniel Gilbert called "The Four Answers", on why it’s so hard to know what makes us happy. ETA: The link to this came via a post (on my birthday, entitled "Joy") from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
vlvn_rabbi, whom I don't know but have started reading because I like reading about the things she writes about, even if I am not (currently) often in a place of sufficient mindfulness to fully take them in.
And, in not unrelated news, and also in honor of National Coming Out Day yesterday, here are some links on polyamory I've collected over the past few months.
As several people pointed out to me when it came out, polyamory made Newsweek back in July: "Only You. And You. And You."
So there had been this really negative column in Psychology Today a few months earlier, which link I provide only for contrast. I went poking around trying to find it for someone later, and found a whole series of thoughtful articles on relationships from Aaron Ben-Zeev, whose name I knew because (as it took me a while to remember) he was an MIT Press author. Some of his writings in this new blog were kind of oddball, or otherwise less helpful, but I liked a bunch of what I read, including the following (all emphases mine):
Lastly, our own (awe-inspiring) Kamela Dolinova is writing a new regular column on Open Relationships for the Boston Examiner. Check it out!
hatam_soferet! but I still find this kind of index interesting. >:-)Ethan Zuckerman reviews a talk by Daniel Gilbert called "The Four Answers", on why it’s so hard to know what makes us happy. ETA: The link to this came via a post (on my birthday, entitled "Joy") from
vlvn_rabbi, whom I don't know but have started reading because I like reading about the things she writes about, even if I am not (currently) often in a place of sufficient mindfulness to fully take them in.And, in not unrelated news, and also in honor of National Coming Out Day yesterday, here are some links on polyamory I've collected over the past few months.
As several people pointed out to me when it came out, polyamory made Newsweek back in July: "Only You. And You. And You."
So there had been this really negative column in Psychology Today a few months earlier, which link I provide only for contrast. I went poking around trying to find it for someone later, and found a whole series of thoughtful articles on relationships from Aaron Ben-Zeev, whose name I knew because (as it took me a while to remember) he was an MIT Press author. Some of his writings in this new blog were kind of oddball, or otherwise less helpful, but I liked a bunch of what I read, including the following (all emphases mine):
- "The pattern of proclaimed monogamy with clandestine adultery leaves the social form of marriage intact while finding individualistic psychological outlets that reduce the emotional problem of the sameness of marriage. This solution is increasingly becoming unsatisfactory since adultery has become so prevalent that many marriages cannot remain intact."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200811/proclaimed-monogamy-clandestine-adultery-1 - "Exclusiveness is characterized in negative terms that establish rigid boundaries, whereas uniqueness is characterized in positive terms that celebrate an ideal. Exclusive entails "not permitting," "restricting," "not dividing or sharing with others," "excluding some or most, as from membership or participation." Unique is characterized in positive terms that establish distinctiveness: "being one of a kind," "different from others in a way that makes somebody or something special and worthy of note.""
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200807/can-uniqueness-replace-exclusivity-in-romantic-love - "...if intense love is to continue over a considerable length of time, it should involve profound intrinsically valuable activities that are available for each person and some that are common to both. Such activities require normative boundaries expressing the valued way a particular person wants to live in order to flourish over a long time. The satisfaction here is not transient, as it involves the optimal development and function of the individual. When activities are perceived as intrinsically valuable, they entail seeking the good of the beloved for her own sake, while at the same time being profoundly satisfying for the lover. Profound love does not stem from subordinating one's activities to those of the beloved, but from considering the activities for and with the beloved as compatible with one's own intrinsically valuable activities."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200807/loving-its-own-sake-heaven-cant-be-far-where-we-lie - "Paying attention to our own personal needs does not mean loving ourselves above all else; our love for others is in no way diminished, and is probably increased, by our interest in our own activities and our desire to adequately fulfill all our commitments. [...] In modern society most of the penalties for dissolving a marriage have been removed and many of the incentives can be obtained in other social frameworks. The choice of staying within a marriage depends, therefore, more on the issue of whether it facilitates personal development and satisfaction, including that of love."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200807/the-nurturing-approach-romantic-love-promoting-rather-controlling
Lastly, our own (awe-inspiring) Kamela Dolinova is writing a new regular column on Open Relationships for the Boston Examiner. Check it out!
no subject
no subject
But judging from previous Heeb 100 lists I've seen, I don't think their criteria has anything to do with how well-known these folks are within their fields; it appears to be more of a "young Jews we find interesting (and perhaps photogenic) enough to profile" thing.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Has anyone, as far as you know, ever advanced the idea of polyamory as a sexual orientation? I'm fully aware of course that poly relationships are and can be formed solely amongst straight people, solely amongst LGBTQQ individuals, or any combination thereof. But has anyone argued that a preference for poly relationships has an innate psychological basis, such that those with poly preferences can't "make" themselves prefer monogamy any more than gays can "make" themselves straight?
I realize this question touches on what you've been going through; I ask it because I imagine there are many others who've honestly tried to feel comfortable in a monogamous relationship but in the end felt, as you did, that they weren't being true to themselves on a fundamental level, and that it wasn't a question of "choosing" to be one way or the other. And I wonder whether the concept of polyamory as orientation has been at all researched or at least publicly advocated; if so, it may be therapeutic or helpful to you and others who've gone/are going through what you've done.
no subject
I mean, I think it's more of a spectrum than LBGetc. identity tends to be. But there are certainly people who "identify as poly" more or less strongly, and I am in that camp. I don't want to say a whole lot more about it right here, right now, but it's one of those "no really, this explains a great deal about patterns I have experienced over my entire life" insights.
(At the same time, I do also hold that monogamy is in part a cultural inculcation, and suspect that a great many more people "could" function just as successfully in a polyamorous context if they weren't so thoroughly trained into abhorring the idea. >:-)
no subject
And while I'd agree that cultural pressure plays a role pushing people towards monogamy, the impression that I've gotten is that, even in happily-accepting, supportive social groups, polyamory is hard. Monogamous relationships are hard, just because they involve two people with seperate brains who think in different ways. More people, more complications.
(This is also biased, of course, by the "case studies" of my friends. Of four people I know who've been involved in poly relationships, only one has gone smoothly and without horrible drama.)
An answer from the bleachers
Yes. It's possible to (very roughly) divide poly people into "poly is what I do" and "poly is what I am" groupings. Some people feel very strongly one way or the other; some are sort of nebulous on it. I can't point to formal research on it, though. There's not much formal research on poly at all.
Re: An answer from the bleachers