The Critical Polyamorist
  • Home/Blog
  • Critical Poly 100s
  • About
  • Process
  • LINKS: DeColonial Relations
  • LINKS: Crit NonMonogamy

Critical polyamorist blog

Routedness, Not Rootedness in Geography and Desire

1/8/2014

12 Comments

 
the wild Corrib, Galway, Ireland (photo: Critical Poly)
tumultuous mid-continental skies somewhere in the U.S. (photo: Critical Poly)
Brisbane River, Australia (photo: Critical Poly)
During the past fourteen months of my iterative commitment to polyamory, one question occasionally troubles my mind for difficult hours. In the midst of my gratitude for what I have in a world of hardship and sorrow, I grow sad for a time and struggle with this predicament: Am I pursuing polyamory because I have given up hope of ever finding a person so compelling and compatible (and available and in the same country!) that we could remain committed to one another for the rest of our lives? This is the main question I return to time and again, and my chief struggle in polyamory. Am I taking the easy way out? Trying to avoid vulnerability? Disappointment? Commitment and compromise—the hard work of fidelity to another rather than just myself?

In the moments of struggle I also sometimes wonder if I am just too like my parents, neither of whom were able to sustain lifelong romantic partnerships. My life is richer with nurturing and opportunity than theirs were, but I share their propensity for travel and migration. They were both workaholics, both running from but also always returning home. I have come to see their migratory practices as not wholly dysfunctional but as a productive act of survival. And they just crave the road. So do I. Too bad poly wasn’t a viable choice for my parents in their non-privileged mid- to late-20th century middle America world. Maybe both of them would have had more success in love, felt less like failures or oddballs in that regard. Their serial monogamy and that of my extended family members over the course of decades did none of us much good. I saw more than my share of failed marriages and dysfunctional couple relationships. It is sad to remember so much unrealistic idealism and expectations that could never be fulfilled coupled with controlling, dishonest, and disrespectful behavior of men towards women, sometimes of women towards men, but most of all the collateral damage to the children involved. Our struggles were clearly shaped by oppressive colonial institutions that deeply damaged Native American families and communities for more than a century. I see now that there was little possibility of living up to the successful nuclear family ideal. On the other hand, despite colonization, we are still accomplished at cultivating networks of extended family—biological, adopted, and ceremonial—and that makes me proud. And it is probably a key reason that I find myself drawn to this non-Native American practice called polyamory. In its ideal form as I imagine it, poly can help build extended family that includes but goes beyond the restrictive bonds of biology.

Whatever the history that brought me to here—whether it is family- or culture-specific, a result of colonial history, or a fundamental human condition (some like to argue that non-monogamy is biological nature), whether it is nature or nurture or both—every time I enter the space of struggle over poly versus monogamy, I walk out the other side still committed to polyamory. I am certain that even were I to find “true love” again (I think I’ve felt that at least twice in my life), I’d find myself back here in a few years, facing a choice to open that relationship. For I no longer believe that it is realistic or fair or ultimately loving to myself and to my partner to command that each of us legitimately long for and be only with one another. I am also coming to believe as I weigh healthy and honest monogamy against healthy and honest polyamory, neither is any more or less difficult. They both involve considerable emotional work, ethical commitment, the courage to be vulnerable, good communication skills, compassion and withholding judgment. In other words, neither set of practices, if they are to satisfy on multiple levels, allows us to slack. I must therefore decide how to live, love, and desire in the way that seems to best fit me, and I am fortunate to have the resources to do that. While my ethical and analytical head always chooses polyamory, my heart is still deeply conditioned by the romantic and illusory ideal of safety in monogamy. And my body wants what both can offer: connection. In this struggle, I often let my head lead the way, which helps remake my heart. My heart, in turn, prompts new analyses. This blog is part of that.

Only fourteen months after embarking on the path of poly, I find it hard to remember its origin. How did I find the path’s beginning? How long did I ponder it before I started walking? I surely must credit the influence of queer thinkers, some of whom are my friends—both their analyses and the fact that more frequently than straight people they practice ethical non-monogamy. Although queers less often label it polyamory. That label seems to be more the domain of straight people. I know that I did not buy the poly self-help books until after I’d made the decision to try and de-program myself from monogamy. And I know that it is not something I considered when I made the decision, three years ago, to leave my marriage to a stellar human being. But it was marriage itself that had always felt like an ill fit to me. And I worried about the effect that growing unhappiness would have on our child. But still I was committed to serial monogamy back then. I believed I just had to find the right “one” and everything romance-wise would fall into place. But that did not happen. I tried for a couple of years once I felt my heart open up again after I kept it closed in marriage. But for various reasons opportunities with people I could imagine spending a life with appeared, and then faded. In my age, education, and class range, I meet too many potentially suitable matches who are still tangled up emotionally, psychologically, and financially in monogamous relationships, many of them troubled or unsatisfying. And those who are single are often scarred by their previous committed relationships gone terribly wrong, yet many are still committed to a monogamous ideal. Others see themselves as sexual and emotional mavericks who reject commitment and embrace non-monogamy, but without the openness and extreme level of communication that is a hallmark of the poly ideal. These types are an especially bad fit for me. Like them, I may have early on viewed non-monogamy as a way to have smaller, more manageable connections in the face of “true love’s” absence and in the face of competing commitments, such as work. Work comes first. It not only helps support my material well-being and that of my child, but it is through work that I enact my ethical and political commitments to this world. My work is my spiritual practice. My commitment to egalitarianism further complicates my ability to live up to that idealized form of romantic commitment in our society, monogamous marriage. I am not following anyone around, and I don’t want anyone sacrificing their path to follow me. But unlike the anti-commitment mavericks, I don’t want to reject love and meaningful attachment to other humans in the form of romantic relationships. To be sure, I’m nervous of the pain they can bring: but I know I want it. I am like this in friendship too. I crave platonic ties that enfold love and intimacy that will last to our dying days. Ultimately, being non-monogamous does not free me from the work and emotional risk of love and commitment. Rather, it re-shapes what love and commitment (can) look like, requiring me to negotiate them with multiple partners instead of one. Poly can also sometimes blur the boundaries between platonic and romantic love. A caveat: I’m not knocking sex for the sake of sex. For some people that is what fulfills them. It is not sufficient for the intimacy I crave.

Routes after Roots

I had an epiphany a decade ago that rootedness in one place—finding that one true geographic home—will never be something I can find on this planet. What a relief to realize there is no one true place for me, and that there is nothing abnormal about that feeling. I could stop feeling like a failure, fickle, a commitment phobe, like travel is just running, like I was doing it all wrong. Along with that realization, came the knowledge that standing still too long has its own ethical risks—complacency, eclipsed vision, and judgment. I must be regularly challenged on the borders of different worlds, always living in translation. Yet after the decade-long sense of disconnection I could never overcome living on a mountainous coast—on land that moves but under skies that are still—I realized that I need to spend more time on flat, expansive land. If not in the spot where I came into this world in human form, it had to be something like it. This land where I live now is warmer than my birthplace, but still the skies are tumultuous, breathtaking and life giving. And I need rivers like I need the roads and the skies. Rivers are the lifeblood of my historic, metaphoric, and literal topography. I grew up near rivers. They symbolize for me leaving and returning in a regular migratory pattern. They are movement and place simultaneously. Like me, like my parents before me, and historically my migratory ancestors, rivers are routed. I live on the banks of one now. Luckily, my work also enables me to travel and to stay periodically in place. I am rewarded for my skills at translation between literal and technical cultures, between conceptual languages. Travel enables me to co-parent my child who lives with my ex-husband during the school year. As soon as I found it, I embraced the knowledge that I am at peace only living en route, leaving for different and challenging far-off lands, then returning to expansive plains and skies, a more tolerant, thoughtful, and grateful person. Routedness, not rootedness, allows me to lead an ethical life.[1]

But what of relationships? How could I hope to find someone who can live such a life with me while having their own life? I am fortunate to have encountered a few (potential) romantic partners of whom I was enamored and could take anywhere: curious, tolerant, adventurous, grounded intellectuals who like me come from humble economic backgrounds. Individuals who share my lenses and could grow with me in travel. Yet for a variety of reasons, most of them were ultimately unavailable. But even if one had been available, would I have nonetheless eventually faced the choice of polyamory? Yes, probably.

For not only am I routed through different lands, but I am routed in my work. I am fidelitous to multiple institutions and technical tracks. I attribute this second form of routedness also in part to my mother and to the life she created for us as children. She also craves diversity in social relations and from her I learned to build and cherish a stunningly diverse community. It spans many classes, races, nations, technical specialties, levels of ability, sexual and political orientation. I need diverse people with their multiple worldviews and their different knowledges in order to make sense of the world. My family, friends, colleagues, and lovers will often not be comfortable in one another’s presence. But this is the challenge and the existence I crave and which satisfies me: to be continuously routed geographically, conceptually, and intimately.

Again, polyamory is for me an intellectual, political, and emotional project all wrapped up in one—each aspect re-shaping the others. But since I am more accomplished at the intellectual than the emotional, I sometimes lean harder on my analytical abilities and my political commitment to non-monogamy to strengthen my resolve to keep navigating the challenging social, moral, and cultural landscape that is poly. If I want a home there, I must help build it. Just like there is no perfect one true love out there waiting for me, just like I have to create and nourish democratic relationships and knowledges, so must I nourish and help constitute the diverse and democratic poly world I want to live in. In the end, polyamory is not only intimacy constituted by love and sex, but fundamentally by openness to multiple connections. It involves emotional, intellectual, and physical plurality rather than “promiscuity,” which is usually negatively defined as entailing a casual, transient, and indiscriminate approach to intimate connection. But the plurality of polyamory can equally be understood not as excess or randomness but as openness to multiple complex connections, some of them not as complete as one might require in monogamy when you can choose only one person. But when they are combined, cultivated, and nurtured, multiple connections constitute sufficiency, and sometimes abundance. The ideal of polyamory requires an honest recognition that life and love are ever in flux. Too often the ideal of monogamy tells us to deny this. It lulls us into thinking we can get things settled, that we are ever safe and secure in our one true relationship. Polyamory does not let us rest in this idea. In its best form, poly leads us to abundance, negotiated and built through work and care. It takes us beyond that sad and debilitating world in which fear of scarcity and deprivation dog us into a severely circumscribed set of choices that we then think we need to live with for a lifetime. Monogamy can be better than that of course, but often it is not. With polyamory as a legitimate choice, I wonder if our standards for and skills with monogamy would improve as well?

As Ever,
The Critical Polyamorist

Note:
[1] I owe this language that helped me to understand what I have long felt to James Clifford as he articulated these concepts in his book Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.


12 Comments
Situationally Poly
1/8/2014 05:42:29 am

I think of the polyamory experience as a journey, hence the handle "situationally poly." At least for me that's how it is. It's definitely a journey down the road less traveled, an unpaved road full of scenic beauty (and wildlife!) as well as unknown dangers. It was characterized by the need for me to be true to myself, to live authentically and honestly which is not very easy to do in a society that has little tolerance for alternative sexual lifestyles.

For me being poly was as much about accepting myself as bisexual as it was about rejecting monogamous hetero relationships. For a long time I was simply unwilling to have to choose between genders for love and sexual connection.

Among the pitfalls of poly relationships is that it requires people with approximately the same skill levels in terms of communication and self-awareness. When you have disparities in these areas you can be set up for a lot of hurt, even if they are with people that you don't feel that "true love" about.

Poly relationships are at least as much work as monogamous ones, if not more so. For sure there is a lot to learn and a lot of joy that can come with the territory. But I have always felt that relationship shouldn't have to be "work." I just got lucky that I actually did have that "one true love" which is so elusive. It would take 26 years for that relationship to come full circle to the point where we were actually ready for each other, but once that finally happened the relationship became so easy that I would never trade it for anything, not for any poly relationship or anyone male or female.

Reply
Critical Poly
1/8/2014 06:55:46 am

dear situationally poly,

thank you for your comment and for your continued conversation with me on this topic. i try to write in a way that acknowledges the real benefits of polyamory while also acknowledging that monogamy and other forms of intimate connection (while i may not have discussed them here yet) are also valid for different people in different contexts. like you, i've spoken to several other people who have moved in and out of poly in their lives and i am very happy when i hear about people who are in good healthy mono relationships as well. it is interesting that you say poly is more work than monogamy. it is certainly a lot of work but i find it (so far) more fitting for me than was monogamy, therefore not quite as hard. on the other hand, i fully expect to encounter daunting new challenges that i have yet to imagine, and no doubt they will shape further blog posts as i continue on this journey.

Reply
Situationally Poly
1/9/2014 12:42:45 am

When I originally made that post it was very long but it mysteriously got lost......urrrrgh! There were other thoughts in there I want to try to reconstruct.

The hard work aspect......yes, at times mono was harder for me just because the relationship itself was already not optimum. Poly was more work for the reason that it takes so much more communication (especially when difficult emotions arise) and there are multiple people to communicate with. It's simply very time consuming, especially when you're doing it right. But the rewards can be stellar.

The other thing I wanted to say is that it really put me in touch with my ancestral/tribal history of plural marriage. In my tribe it was common for men to have more than one wife if he could afford it. Although I am not aware of women being afforded the same privilege, it was perfectly acceptable for them to choose to move in and out of relationships as she desired. I have a family tree in the form of a notebook of a couple of hundred pages.....a remarkable compilation created by my late cousin.....and it is filled with church records of baptisms, marriages, etc. It goes back on the INdian side for 10 generations. It reveals how common it was that women had multiple husbands in their lifetimes, even a couple of hundred years ago.

I often felt that poly was really how humans were meant to interact, that it is the most "natural" way to do relationships once you strip away all the heteropatriarchal programing from your thinking. It felt really natural to me, and mono relationships felt like merely the default relationship style for people who were unwilling (or unable) to expand themselves.

But now I see it as just one legitimate relationship form. It all comes down to what works for wherever you are at in your life. And that's the fluid nature of the conditions of possibility.

Situationally Poly
1/9/2014 12:43:06 am

When I originally made that post it was very long but it mysteriously got lost......urrrrgh! There were other thoughts in there I want to try to reconstruct.

The hard work aspect......yes, at times mono was harder for me just because the relationship itself was already not optimum. Poly was more work for the reason that it takes so much more communication (especially when difficult emotions arise) and there are multiple people to communicate with. It's simply very time consuming, especially when you're doing it right. But the rewards can be stellar.

The other thing I wanted to say is that it really put me in touch with my ancestral/tribal history of plural marriage. In my tribe it was common for men to have more than one wife if he could afford it. Although I am not aware of women being afforded the same privilege, it was perfectly acceptable for them to choose to move in and out of relationships as she desired. I have a family tree in the form of a notebook of a couple of hundred pages.....a remarkable compilation created by my late cousin.....and it is filled with church records of baptisms, marriages, etc. It goes back on the INdian side for 10 generations. It reveals how common it was that women had multiple husbands in their lifetimes, even a couple of hundred years ago.

I often felt that poly was really how humans were meant to interact, that it is the most "natural" way to do relationships once you strip away all the heteropatriarchal programing from your thinking. It felt really natural to me, and mono relationships felt like merely the default relationship style for people who were unwilling (or unable) to expand themselves.

But now I see it as just one legitimate relationship form. It all comes down to what works for wherever you are at in your life. And that's the fluid nature of the conditions of possibility.

Almost Poly
1/8/2014 11:26:02 am

Awesome. I especially loved the contrast between those who engage in multiple partners and relationships but can't pony up and embrace the openness and communication of polyamory. I do not approve of dishonesty.
Also, I'm finding myself less grounded all the time especially as I return to landscapes of my childhood and realize how different I am.
I find your possibly unaware juxtaposition between being fixed geographically and monogamy with being more transitional/migratory and polyamory.
I don't know many interested in poly or poly-practitioners, but in my very narrow view, I only know poly-oriented folks who all share an unfixed geographical aspect to some extent, often those who moved around as children and then continued to in college.
As you've posted before, there is the tendency for poly folks to be well-educated. As you said, many of us keep a collection of friendships and connections who wouldn't feel real comfortable in the same room together? I know I do.
This ability to embrace various landscapes, various types of people...does this inform how we love and commit?
I wonder if moving around, either as a child, or as one pursues professional work, pushed that.
I have been hunting for a piece of land to build a lasting permaculture site to work from, and I seriously wonder if that aggravates my sense of monogamy as a must have.
I truly was almost poly before that.
There is another aspect, but that is beyond the scope of this conversation.
I also truly think that the models of land ownership as done by my European, especially British, ancestors inform monogamy so much more than anyone wants to admit. I thank my other ancestry and tribal perspective, as well, for the ability to see that. That, and Downton Abbey. ;)

Reply
Critical Poly
1/9/2014 12:09:00 am

dear almost poly,

thank you for your comment. a couple of things: i very much realized (but it took a while!) that because i am more migratory than fixed in my travel/living practice, and in my technical/disciplinary practice, it why would i not be in my love life. again, this is not the same as transient or random in my travels. the places that i am routed through are very specifically chosen. i was writing to a colleague last night that i am not a tourist. i don't do touristy things. i much prefer to visit far-off lands where i have work to do with colleagues who are working on similar intellectual and indigenous projects. i prefer to be taken to different places in this world by people whose homelands those are. i go as part of building lasting friendships and loving professional collaborations.

and i do indeed see monogamy as similar to being fixed in place. this is not a good or a bad thing. it depends on our individual contexts. i don't think building a permaculture site to work from at all precludes polyamory. i think where we live in terms of local culture is more the issue. poly is way more acceptable in some places than others.

as for the relationship between individual land ownership historically and monogamy, it is absolutely the case. and there is some good academic literature out there that i am pretty sure touches on this. i have this in my links page but see:

Meg Barker and Darren Langdridge, eds. Understanding Non-Monogamies. New York & London: Routledge, 2010. (Available on Amazon)

Special Issue on Polyamory, Sexualities 9(5), J. Haritaworn, C-j. Lin, C. Klesse, eds. Sage Journals. (E-mail me for particular articles you'd like. I have them in PDF.)

best of luck!

Reply
CriticalPoly
1/19/2014 04:15:07 pm

Dear Situationally Poly,

(This responds to the 1/09 post above but for some reason there is no reply button allowing me to insert my comment where it should be.)

These past couple of weeks I have been unfortunately reminded just how hard polyamory is in terms of the communication requirements. Like you say, SP, poly is, all things being equal, more work than monogamy because there are multiple people involved. Add to that the fact that I DON'T think poly world has a higher percentage of folks with better communication skills. And I don't think there is a higher percentage in poly world of self-aware and really honest people either. In short and in my experience so far, there are just as many poor communicators and ethically less than stellar poly folks as there are monogamous folks. Folks is folks as they say.

The other unfortunate trend I see are married couples using poly as a crutch to keep their marriages hobbling along when really they should take a hard look at ending them. Now this is not to say that there are not some genuinely productive, healthy marriages made more so by opening them up. But I see too many of the former which makes risky terrain for some of us single poly folks who get caught up in the fallout from those deteriorating marriages. Maybe it's just that poly is getting trendy and so we're seeing a rash of not very serious toe-dippers into the poly waters. But I personally make it a point now to only date people who are committed to polyamory and who convey to me that they understand the conceptual framework and the language. Poly is not for everyone, and it's so much more than just “seeing multiple people.” Or it should be, at least in Critical Poly’s book!

Your comments about our North American histories of tribal plural marriage also resonate with me. We had that among my own people too. And as you say, while the historical record does not seem to show that women had the same privilege as men who could have multiple wives, it was nonetheless acceptable for women to move in and out of relationships. I am fascinated that your family's genealogical record shows women having multiple husbands in their lifetime even a couple of centuries ago.

In my culture, I do not think we have completely lost what I believe is a practice related to plural marriage: a woman's sisters' children are referred to as her children and her sisters' children traditionally refer to each other as siblings, and not cousins. (Men would sometimes marry sisters.) Now we have largely lost these references in terms of the English language, but I think we continue to live such relationships informally. I wonder if our continuing extended family practices that have not changed completely from the days of plural marriage influence my greater level of comfort with the idea of plural marriage (than most people who have not grown up in such a community), and with polyamory more broadly. I am currently without a primary partner but I think if I were to be in a committed couple situation again I would rather it involve plural relationships and an extended family situation. I find the nuclear family model to be too much pressure, smothering, and too individualistic in ways I haven't fully articulated yet. Thanks for the food for thought!

Critical Poly

Reply
CriticalPoly
1/19/2014 04:22:24 pm

Dear Situationally Poly,

(This responds to the 1/09 post above but for some reason there is no reply button allowing me to insert my comment where it should be.)

These past couple of weeks I have been unfortunately reminded just how hard polyamory is in terms of the communication requirements. Like you say, SP, poly is, all things being equal, more work than monogamy because there are multiple people involved. Add to that the fact that I DON'T think poly world has a higher percentage of folks with better communication skills. And I don't think there is a higher percentage in poly world of self-aware and really honest people either. In short and in my experience so far, there are just as many poor communicators and ethically less than stellar poly folks as there are monogamous folks. Folks is folks as they say.

The other unfortunate trend I see are married couples using poly as a crutch to keep their marriages hobbling along when really they should take a hard look at ending them. Now this is not to say that there are not some genuinely productive, healthy marriages made more so by opening them up. But I see too many of the former which makes risky terrain for some of us single poly folks who get caught up in the fallout from those deteriorating marriages. Maybe it's just that poly is getting trendy and so we're seeing a rash of not very serious toe-dippers into the poly waters. But I personally make it a point now to only date people who are committed to polyamory and who convey to me that they understand the conceptual framework and the language. Poly is not for everyone, and it's so much more than just “seeing multiple people.” Or it should be, at least in Critical Poly’s book!

Your comments about our North American histories of tribal plural marriage also resonate with me. We had that among my own people too. And as you say, while the historical record does not seem to show that women had the same privilege as men who could have multiple wives, it was nonetheless acceptable for women to move in and out of relationships. I am fascinated that your family's genealogical record shows women having multiple husbands in their lifetime even a couple of centuries ago.

In my culture, I do not think we have completely lost what I believe is a practice related to plural marriage: a woman's sisters' children are referred to as her children and her sisters' children traditionally refer to each other as siblings, and not cousins. Now we have largely lost these references in terms of the English language, but I think we continue to live such relationships informally. I wonder if our continuing extended family practices that have not changed completely from the days of plural marriage influence my greater level of comfort with the idea of plural marriage (than most people who have not grown up in such a community), and with polyamory more broadly. I am currently without a primary partner but I think if I were to be in a committed couple situation again I would rather it involve plural relationships and an extended family situation. I find the nuclear family model to be too much pressure, smothering, and too individualistic in ways I haven't fully articulated yet. Thanks for the food for thought!

Critical Poly

Reply
Tammi L. Coles link
1/20/2014 08:36:03 am

"Am I pursuing polyamory because I have given up hope of ever finding a person so compelling and compatible (and available and in the same country!) that we could remain committed to one another for the rest of our lives?"

There's nothing about the nonmonogamous path that precludes long-term commitment. There's also nothing about the nonmonogamous path that means there must be longevity for it to be valid.

This is the issue with which I do the most struggling. My *preference* for an intense and long-term emotional relationship struggles with the data that shows *most* relationships follow a curve that is *not* forever after. Do I identify as poly because I love it as a relationship model far better than the monogamy lie I grew up with or because I recognize and accept (sometimes with a heavy sigh) our nonmonogamous human nature.

I am married but have a partner with whom I share a stronger emotional connection. Sometimes, honestly, I fantasize about having him all to myself -- me! the woman who is not his alone!

Yes, we speak sincerely of our future together but my poly identify forces me to be present, to accept the gift of what I share with my partner right now, rather than focus on a false (culturally inculcated) hope.

Reply
CriticalPoly
1/20/2014 10:34:51 am

Dear Tammi,

thank you for your comment! I am heartened by your wisdom and your experience. Your words are so succinct, and yet so helpful to me. I am sure they will be to others as well.

Very sincerely,
Critical Poly

Reply
Keith Klingele link
2/1/2018 07:37:34 pm

I, too, came to an epiphany many years ago that I could not live rooted in one geographical place. In spite of that, I lived on and worked a farm in eastern Washington for 23 years. I was also monogamous during that course of time. Fast forward to a couple of years ago when I was anchored out in the Bahamas one summer evening. I was invited to dinner by a couple anchored nearby. As we spoke of our love for boats and the sea, my friend said his brother was different. He had a piece of land in the mountains with a cabin. And that was okay for his brother, but my friend could never live like that. I told him I understood his brother's affinity for his place in the mountains because I loved the mountains too. He was livid. He said, "That's impossible! You can't love both. It has to be one or the other." I was a little taken back. I had never thought of it that way. Why if I love one must I deny myself the other.

I was recently asked by someone to explain my love affair with the sea. I told them that I would fist need to explain my love affair with the mountains. The love affairs I have with people are no different. I refuse to deny myself the love of one because I love another as well.

Thank you for this wonderfully written blog. I will be a loyal follower.

Reply
Critical Poly
2/1/2018 09:22:27 pm

dear keith, thanks for your comment. i really appreciate your also linking land/water and human loves. i'd like to hear your explanation of the different/overlapping? things mountains and see nurture in you. for me it's prairies and rivers and low rolling hills. i better get back to writing if you're going to be a loyal follower. i've been focusing on academic writing lately but i miss how intensely these blog posts come for me so i do want to get back to them.

CP

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Photo credit: Short Skirts and Cowgirl Boots by David Hensley
    The Critical Polyamorist, AKA Kim TallBear, blogs & tweets about indigenous, racial, and cultural politics related to open non-monogamy. She is a prairie loving, big sky woman. She lives south of the Arctic Circle, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. You can follow her on Twitter @CriticalPoly & @KimTallBear

    Archives

    August 2021
    February 2021
    July 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    March 2019
    January 2019
    April 2018
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    May 2016
    March 2016
    December 2015
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013

    Tweets by CriticalPoly

    Categories

    All
    Christianity & Polyamory
    Colonialism & Polyamory
    Critical Theory
    Family & Polyamory
    Indigenous People & Polyamory
    Native Americans & Polyamory
    Paganism & Polyamory
    Professionalism & Polyamory
    Race & Polyamory
    Tipi Confessions

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home/Blog
  • Critical Poly 100s
  • About
  • Process
  • LINKS: DeColonial Relations
  • LINKS: Crit NonMonogamy