 |
Awhile ago some of you may know that I was working on an essay for my sociology course in my last term. I was asked by a few guild members to share the essay and one recommended I share it in the guild proper. I was hesitant to do so, but figured, why the hell not? So here goes. Sociological essay and polyamory and my life apparently. Please note, I understand there won't be complete consensus on some of the stuff I wrote, such as how I've used a few definitions, but I needed to define my terms for clear use in the essay format. I've taken what I've seen to be the more common usage of the words and how I personally use them, though I realize there can be differences depending on who you talk to. That being said... here goes nothing.
Before beginning it seems prudent to speak about the terminology in this essay. In sociological terms monogamy refers strictly to marriage to one person at a time. Strict monogamy of having one spouse for life was the ideal but serial monogamy, having a succession of marriages one at a time, was becoming more recognized and less stigmatized. However, in popular context ‘monogamy’ seems to be used as a term not only denoting marriage but also two-person closed relationships in general. Unlike with ‘polyamory’, which is a term for romantic relationships involving more than two people, coined out of necessity to differentiate from the stigmatized term of ‘polygamy’, there has been no new language to speak of two-person exclusive relationships.
For most in Western society a romantic relationship exclusively between two people is simply termed ‘a relationship’. Since this is the norm it does not need further definition, it is those outside of this norm which requires defining instead. However this seems only to help further the view that exclusive relationships between two partners are the only normal way to be and anything besides this is deviant. This seems inappropriate for an essay which will speak of the challenges of this very same stigmatization.
Anthony Ravenscroft (2004), author of Polyamory: Roadmaps for the Clueless & Hopeful, has tried to speak of monoamory to refer to “couple-oriented” individuals (p. 4). His effort did not meet with wide scale success, perhaps in part because he uses the term to refer to not only those only want one partner but also includes polyamorous dyads that do not currently have any other partners.
For the purpose of this essay I will adopt the use of ‘monoamory’ to refer to non-married exclusive two-partner relationships and ‘monoamorous’ to refer to those who want only one romantic partner at a time. ‘Polyamory’ will be used in the generally accepted way to refer to non-married relationships which have or are open to having more than two people involved. ‘Polyamorous’ will be used to describe those who desire or participate in such relationships. In contrast ‘open relationships’ will be used to refer to relationships where the people involved are ‘open’ to pursue sexual encounters with those outside of the primary relationship.
As an additional point of clarification, there is a popular misconception of polyamorous relationships that they are synonymous with open relationships, but the fact of the matter is these are two different concepts. In polyamorous relations the emphasis is on the whole relationship as a whole (which for most adult relationships does involve sexual activity), where as open relationships are focused on the sexual encounters with others. While these two can be entirely separate, there is even some contention between those in either relationship type, they can also be combined in one relationship. It is possible to have a sexually open polyamorous relationship. However, it is entirely possible to have an open relationship where they are emotionally closed to others and only involve themselves in sexual relations, or to have polyamorous relationship where they are emotionally open but only involve themselves sexually with people they are in a relationship with. They are not synonymous with one another, they can overlap but this is not a requirement. Now that the terms have been defined and the popular misconceptions clarified we may begin.
The experiences and messages that I received of family and relationships as I was growing up were what I now consider to be ambiguous and at times conflicting. Though I bounced around a few cities before the age of eight, my family settled in a small town in the Muskoka area. The society in which I grew up was highly involved with the concept of monoamory and the nuclear family. The only form of family diversity that I knew of was either two-parent families or single-parent families. The ideal seemed to be a household independent of previous generations consisting of mother, father and their children. However I knew enough families who deviated from this ideal by means of divorced parents. My own parents had divorced when I was about five and our household had consisted of my mother, my sister and my brother. At least until my mother met my step dad and we moved to his house when I was eight. This was still a rather typical pattern of serial monogamy, having a series of marriages or common-law unions one after the other. This was paralleled in how I was being taught in school and what values were presented in the media. Any time a family was mentioned in school it was always in the context of a mother, a father and their children no alternatives were ever presented and the ideal remained intact. On television any show that I watched which had families also presented them in this manner. Sometimes an issue like divorce or separation was touched upon, but not for very long and it was clear such arrangements were not desirable for anyone involved. So the ideal remained to find one person you could spend the rest of your life with.
It started to get complicated when I found that my mother held conflicting values which were often contrary to what she was overtly teaching. My mother held to the idea that the family was a perfect sanctuary from the world, her ideal home was the white picket fence and a family that was remarkably similar to the Cleaver family from television’s “Leave It to Beaver”. She also believes that Prince Charming will come and rescue you if ever you need rescuing. These seem fairly straightforward but they conflict heavily with other values she was presenting. She had always taught me to be strong and independent, to not care what other people thought of me and gave me faith in my ability to know right from wrong. She was not socializing me to be a housewife, she stressed the importance of getting an education and a job with which I could sustain myself as well as taught me to speak up for myself in situations where I didn’t feel comfortable. These seem far from the conflicting teachings of Prince Charming and the Cleaver family.
All of that seems fairly typical of life growing up in a small town in Ontario, however, things got even more complicated after I reached puberty and started to take an interest in my peers for more than just friendship. By the time I was in highschool I had slowly come to terms with the fact that I was bisexual. I was attracted to both men and women and I could have dated either. This was my first large step into my own realm of self-discovery. While I had learned a lot about homosexuality and bisexuality from the media, from my peer group at school and from discussion on the internet, the subject was rarely broached in my household. Neither of my siblings showed any signs of liking anything other than the opposite sex and life carried on. I was afraid of my family not accepting me, so I didn’t tell them of my orientation and decided to just date men because it was simpler that way. I thought I was in the clear, because I was still attracted to men I could just date them and not fulfill any of my desires to ask one of the women of my school out. I wouldn’t have to worry about my family finding out, I’d be safe, I’d seem normal and I could still eventually fulfill the ideal family and make my mother happy with some grandchildren.
Unfortunately for me, it wasn’t that simple. It was the summer between grade nine and ten that I figured out I was very attracted to one of the boys in my class and one of my best friends, Jon. I asked him out and we ended up dating. Halfway through the summer I was lost in my emotions, I had fallen in love with him. It seems wonderful, my first kiss was on a beautiful starry night in the branches of a climbing tree near his house. Things seemed like they would be perfect, I thought this was what everyone dreamed about. The problem came when I noticed that the same feelings I had developed for Jon I was also developing for another person, Luc. I had known them about the same length of time, they were both there for me when I needed them, both were supportive and wonderful people. Luc admitted to having feelings for me and asked me if I would like to date him, he didn’t know I was with Jon because he didn’t go to the same school and the subject of relationships didn’t come up between us before. This is where I was completely torn between the two of them.
Typical, it seemed, of the highschool romance. Like Archie, I was stuck between my own versions of Betty and Veronica. I cared very deeply for them both, I didn’t want to have to choose one or the other. However, I knew these things didn’t end well. I would eventually have to choose which one of them I liked more, or I would wind up hurting both of them by stringing them along or cheating. The only alternatives presented to me were chose between the two people you care very deeply for or cheat on them. Neither were acceptable options. There was one mention of something outside of this paradigm, an episode of a show I watched called Student Bodies in which two of the characters wanted to have an open relationship (which was in fact, by the terms of this essay, a polyamorous relationship) so they could see other people while still being with each other. The relationship was portrayed as being riddled with jealousy, insecurity and ended with a dramatic break up. The only alternative which could have provided a solution to my problem and it was not a healthy situation to be in either. I did not want to date the two of them only to have my relationship fall apart and make everyone miserable. So in the end I was forced to choose between the two and it broke my heart to do so.
That was my first encounter with a gut-wrenching decision I did not want to be in ever again. However I was in that situation, again and again. I wondered what was wrong with me. Why couldn’t I just be with one person? Did I not really know what love felt like? Was I just being a stupid teenager ruled by hormones? It seemed as though no matter what experiences I had, or who I was with, I always had the desire to be with someone else as well. I never chose a true best friend like others in my classes did, I always had a group of people I considered to be my best friends, why couldn’t it be the same as just having a lot of friends, I wondered. I thought I was alone. I was ashamed of my feelings and my desires. I had not ever felt that way about my bisexuality because while I thought my family would react poorly I was generally accepted by my friends. However this desire to be with more than one person at a time seemed terrible, selfish, unnatural and just plain wrong. No one ever gave me reason to believe otherwise. After all, the only mainstream options presented are be monoamorous or cheat, and cheating was seen as loathsome, so how could my feelings be anything but loathsome? I had always been taught to go after what I want, to be independent and to make up my own mind, but how could I ever do such a thing when what I wanted was such a terrible thing?
It wasn’t until my last year of highschool that I met someone who shared similar feelings. His name was Graverg and he was a few years older than me, but even so our personalities matched very well. For the first time in my life I was able to open up and talk about my true feelings on relationships, I didn’t understand the need for possession or jealousy, I didn’t feel the need to have an exclusive relationship. He held similar views about possessiveness and jealousy. We had only discussed sexual exclusivity as opposed to openness. I still thought that my idea of having more than one actual boyfriends or girlfriends was just a pipe dream. I had found someone who shared similar values, I wasn’t about to push my luck and scare him away. Graverg would grow close to me and just after I turned 18 we decided to start dating. As we were going to have a long distance relationship and I was just going off to university for the first time neither of us wanted to miss any experiences along the way and we decided to have an open relationship.
It worked well for the first two and a half years of our relationship. We both had sexual encounters with other people, sometimes we were together but other times we were separate. It was difficult working out logistical problems sometimes and once it lead to a bump in the road along the way, but no serious conflict ever arose. The problem came when I found myself in a situation like when I was back in highschool. I had fallen in love with not one but two other people.
M and W were a couple whom I had grown very close to over the last year. They fulfilled components in my life that no one else did, M was a spiritual guide for me, she helped me sort through problems relating to my faith and helped me get to a place where I was comfortable with it. W, on the other hand, provided emotional support that no one else could. I had issues with depression and suicidal thoughts that no one else I talked to understood, not even Graverg. W not only understood but helped me accept what I was feeling which enabled me to sort through some of the issues that was causing the feelings in the first place. They were both important people in my life and I valued them just as much as I had ever valued Graverg. I confessed this one night to W and he introduced me to a whole new concept: polyamory.
Once I heard the term and figured out that it matched the sort of relationship I wanted all along I dove into researching the subject. It started with a Wikipedia article and progressed further from there. I started reading articles on the internet, joined communities and really got involved with the process of learning. I brought the matter up with Graverg and after only a brief conversation I figured out that he wanted a similar relationship, but like me, was too afraid to push his luck about it once he found I was okay with open relationships. I tried to start relationships with M and W, but due to circumstances beyond their control each had to move away and nothing ended up working out between us because of it. Still, that did not deter me. I found out what was possible and I was enthralled with the idea. This was my first step into the realm of polyamory. While it was a wonderful place to be at the start, once I started branching outside of the polyamorous communities I had found online I found the world to be a very different place.
My thoughts and mindset had completely changed. I started noticing how much of my life had been artificially constructed by the society in which I grew up. I found that outside of the bubbles of community there were many who were opposed to the relationship style I chose to pursue. It seemed that everyone around me was driven by what Ingjald Nissen(1961) once called the “Command, Demand and Will to Fidelity”(p. 13). The first, command, is an artificial structure, it is the social institutions which commands people to be faithful. The second, demand, is the natural desire in one person for another person to be faithful towards the first. The third, will, is the longing to find a single person to be faithful towards. (Nissen 1961:13). There were a few problems with these statements. Not only does Nissen declare boldly that nearly all humans, at the core of their being, are dominated by this wish, but also looking at the language chosen it creates further problems (Nissen 1961:13). First of all, Nissen assumed that the two largest factors for what drives people to seek exclusivity. Two thirds of his drives to fidelity are ‘natural’ and only one, command, takes into account the institutions and societal factors involved in shaping how people view relationships. Secondly, take a look at the words chosen “fidelity” and “faithful”. They are used in the context that to be ‘faithful’ to one’s partner one also needs to be exclusive to one’s partner.
Nissen is not alone in his use of the terms. Everywhere I go people seem to believe that anyone who is in an open relationship or a polyamorous relationship lacks ‘fidelity’ and isn’t ‘faithful’ to their partner. The assumption is that if one is not exclusive with their partner they are not loyal, reliable or committed to their partner. Without these qualities the relationship is seen as weak or in some cases not even a ‘real’ relationship. However, these relationships are no less committed, loyal or reliable than monoamorous relationships. The focus of that loyalty and commitment simply change focus.
What I quickly learned through my research and studying into polyamorous relationships is that many healthy relationships have explicit rules and boundaries for that relationship. As these relationships tend to be more complicated logistically and there are wide margins for mistakes and errors emphasis is placed on the creation and maintenance of these rules and boundaries. Many books which seek to help those curious about starting polyamorous or open relationships mention creating a relationship agreement. In depth books, such as The Polyamory Handbook by Peter Benson, have entire chapters devoted to the creation, format and maintenance of such an agreement. In polyamorous support groups and communities, creating specific rules and boundaries to govern the relationship which serve the benefit of all involved is one of the first pieces of advice given to those seeking help. This is where the loyalty and commitment comes into play for those in these forms of relationships. They may not be exclusive, but they are dedicated to upholding the standards and rules of the relationships which they agreed upon. Loyalty goes beyond protecting the rules that were created but also extends to respecting their partner and acting in their best interests and communicating with their partner in an open and honest manner if issues arise.
This is one particular feature that I was never taught when growing up. Open, honest communication skills were not presented as keys to a healthy relationship. The focus was always on how to get the person to go out with you, how to treat your anniversaries and where to go on dates. There was some discussion on things such as safer sex practices, but that was only for a few hours out of an entire term of health class. Communication and problem solving skills were important in professional and academic spheres, but in the private relationship and friendship they were rarely ever spoken of at all. No emphasis was placed upon communicating and talking out the problem with your partner.
In an article giving advice to teenagers to determine whether or not they are truly in love it describes love as “not about jealousy” and “not about conflict” (Hardcastle 2011). It describes love as a positive feeling that if it becomes tainted by jealousy, mistrust, insecurity, spitefulness, it is no longer love but just a “pale copy” (Hardcastle 2011). This is a depiction I come across often enough in my life, especially my teenage years. I can understand what the article is getting at, it is attempting to encourage healthy and happy relationships instead of unhappy or abusive ones that can crop up if one is not experienced to avoid them. However, the emphasis in the article made love appear to be a perfect entity which nothing can get in the way of, and if something does get in the way it automatically is not love anymore but something else. This gives the impression that one does not need to work to make a relationship work, it implies that if it is love, it will be happy and nothing else gets in the way of that. This is the complete opposite of what I found as I started to delve into the polyamorous community. For both open relationships and polyamorous relationships, indeed relationships in general, the three top components have always been touted “communication, communication, communication”. This along with trust, respect, understanding and the desire to solve problems that arise have all been upheld as keys to healthy relationships. These seem like basic concepts, but they can be very difficult to figure out on your own and no where before the polyamorous communities did I ever see such emphasis on these things or the notion that relationships need more than love alone to work. This was jarring at first to come from a place that barely mentioned safer sex, that didn’t mention the work and commitment it takes to keep a relationship healthy and emphasized mind games to go to a place where communication, honesty, respect, trust, problem solving skills, safer sex and conflict resolution are talked about nearly to excess. It was in fact refreshing to experience the transition from one frame of mind to the next.
What was not refreshing was the fact that only once I started to become open about my polyamorous desires and relationships did I find just how much society was against them. Not only were they dismissed as a viable possibility but stigmatized as unhealthy or unreal. As Aurel Kolnai wrote in his book Sexual Ethics, “any attempt … to ‘extend’ it to others, means in reality to destroy it.” (Kolnai 2005:125) It, in this case, is the devotion and personal affection associated with relationships and in particular marriage. He goes on to describe the process of loving someone new ultimately destroys the love of the old. That love and relationships are valuable things, “But not everything valuable should be repeated” (Kolnai 2005:133). While the original book was written sometime in the 1920s, this book was translated only a few years ago in 2005 and at least in part shows how society views love, relationships and in particular marriage still today.
Part of the problem facing those wanting consensual alternatives to monogamy in Western society today is that our specialists, psychologists and anthropologists in particular, have been defining the rest of the world in contemporary Western terminology. Prominent Anthropologist George Murdock claimed that the nuclear family is a “universal social grouping” in his anthropological survey. He also has stated that marriage is found in every society (Ryan and Jethá 2010:117). Anthropologist and author Desmond Morris once said on his series The Human Animal, “The pair bond is the fundamental condition of the human species.” Biological anthropologist Micheal Ghiglieri called marriage “the ultimate human contract” and claimed it was “older than states, churches and laws” (Ryan and Jethá 2010:116). In doing so, they have homogenized the world and to those looking at the conclusion of their research assumes that the rest of the world looks more-or-less the same as our society. This is a problem for those in Western society who want to participate in styles of intimate relationships and family dynamics that differ from the monogamous nuclear family standard because it portrays them as going against all established society, as unnatural and even uncivilized. Those who have not studied the material and know of the pitfalls of confirmation bias in the scientific and anthropological field past and present would take statements made by professionals, such as those above, at face-value and use it to marginalize those who would want something different.
In my own experience when discussing and debating the acceptability of polyamorous relationships and multi-adult households with children people have the tendency to point to such relationships they have personally seen fail, or have heard of failing, to conclude that all such relationships are doomed to failure and are harmful for all involved, especially if there are children in the mix. They look to professionals such as Murdock, Ghiglieri and Morris to justify their views that the way Western society does things is also practiced the world over and as such there are no positive examples for them to draw upon. Opponents in discussion often believe that any positive polyamorous or open relationship is doomed to failure but it just hasn’t happened yet and that there are no positive examples of such relationships the world over because their worldview has been homogenized.
This problem is in part due to the confirmation bias mentioned above but also because of a translational paradox. This is the assumption that a word translated from one language to another has identical meaning (Ryan and Jethá 2010:11 cool . There are a wide variety of behaviours and relations that could be considered ‘marriage’ and there is just as much variety for the motivations behind these relations. What anthropologists have called “marriage” is actually a diverse range of sexual and social practices which do not always line up with the ‘traditional’ view of Western marriages. Some societies such as Aché of Paraguay , consider living in the same domicile marriage, once either of the pair move out they are no longer married(Ryan and Jethá 2010:119).
What is considered marriage also depends on the social construction of reality. How one views the world can be influenced by their position in the social structure. For example the older members of the Curripaco people in Brazil believe that marriage is a rigorous process and only consider a pair ‘married’ when they have demonstrated that they can sustain themselves, have ritually fasted and had a baby together. The younger generation of the Curripaco see a couple as being ‘married’ when a woman goes to live with and cook for a man (Ryan and Jethá 2010:119).This parallels the view in Western society that those in cohabiting relationships are in relationships which are less serious than marriage, it is a step on the road to marriage. However, even though cohabitation is prelude to marriage for many, common law unions and even having cohabitation the end in and of itself are both becoming popular alternatives (Murray, Linden & Kendall 2011:423). To some of the older generation such couples would be ‘living in sin’ and less legitimate and proper than those who are married. So conception of reality varies depending on where in society the person is coming from, there is not necessarily an objective reality. This is a problem for people in polyamorous and open relationships because their relationships and sexual encounters will never be deemed legitimate as they are not within the bonds of marriage and as such they will never be seen a proper in the eyes of those who still hold these views.
It seems as though the issue has arisen in part from the perspective of Western anthropologists that sexual relations need to be justified in some way. In their own society sexual relations outside of
marriage was seen as improper, so where ever there were sexual relations there must have been marriages as well to justify the activity. This tendency, though not by anthropologists in this case, can be seen in the Shia Muslim tradition with their marital institution called Nikah Mut’ah or ‘marriage for pleasure’. These marriages have a definite end point arranged before they begin and can last anywhere between a few minutes to many years. As these marriages one can have multiple temporary wives simultaneously and require no paperwork or formal ceremony they are often used as a religious loophole to justify for prostitution and casual sex (Ryan and Jethá 2010:120). However, they are still considered ‘marriages’.
Even when members of a particular society disagree that their style of relationships constitutes marriage they are still classified as such. For example the Mosuo people in China have an arrangement they call sese “walking”. Anthropologists have referred to these as “walking marriages” and as such put the Mosuo on the list of societies with marriage. However the Mosuo themselves do not consider these arrangements marriages and in fact they have little in common with the Western conception of marriage at all. In this society all adults regardless of sex possess an absolute sexual freedom and autonomy. The sese is simply the practice of visiting others and having sex. When young women reach maturity they receive their own bedroom and can bring as many lovers as she wants to this room as long as they are gone by morning(Ryan and Jethá 2010:127-12 cool . This does not fit Western conception of marriage and the Mosuo people do not believe it is classified as a marriage, however it is still framed in those terms as far as most anthropology is concerned. This contributes to the homogenization of the world and is a reflection of the different socially constructed reality of those observing the situation. The lenses of the observers are coloured by the perception of their society and of their station within that society. If marriage is required for justifying sexual encounters, then for other societies to have many casual sexual encounters it appears as though this must be framed in the context of marriage. This filters down to the non-professionals of society and they view the world through this same homogenized lens and so assume that all societies are relatively similar and no society has a system in place for multiple partner relationships or sexual encounters that function to the benefit of those participating in it. Since these are considered ‘marriages’ they are framed as serious relationships and institutions within society and some would refuse to consider them similar to the sexually open relationships or polyamorous relationships which are not considered serious and are not institutionalized.
The emphasis on marriage or at least common-law unions as the end goal to dating and relationships is also problematic to those in polyamorous or open relationships. As polygamy is illegal most Western societies today there is no real legitimizing of such relationships. In fact, in Canada currently there is in fact a vague ‘anti-polygamy law’ in the Criminal Code which criminalized not only polygamous unions which try to claim they are all legal (this committing fraud against the government to get the tax breaks and other benefits for all spouses), but also ‘polygamous’ unions which don’t make claims to being legal. Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that anyone entering into or in any way consents to “any form of polygamy” or “any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at a time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage” (Department of Justice Canada 2011:s.293). While the law is old and rarely used that the law itself is on the books helps add to the stigmatization of those in such relationships. This makes those in polyamorous relationships not only delegitimizes such relationships it makes those who participate in them criminal.
Thankfully for polyamorous people within Canada this particular law as it is been written has come into question and appears to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia a reference case was recommended on October 22, 2009 by Attorney General Micheal de Jong to determine whether or not Section 293 violates the Charter and to gain clarification of the law itself (Townsend 2009). The reference case has moved forward with many organizations speaking on many aspects, to keep the law exactly as it is others to change it to exclude those in consensual egalitarian polyamorous arrangements and others have wanted to get rid of the law altogether (Bramham 2011). This test case will likely not be the end of the decision, whatever the BC judge decides the case will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada instead of staying at the provincial level. This has been a great interest within polyamory communities and updates to the case have been featured several times on a prominent news blog Polyamory in the News. These cases are what shape a society and change lives.
Regardless of the final decision this is a wonderful example of how individuals not only are shaped by the society they inhabit, but also have the ability to shape that very same society. It is the fervent hope of polyamorists in Canada that the law is either struck down or amended to exclude their form of relationship from the section, so that the criminality would be removed and associated stigma of their relationships would lessen. As the governing structure would no longer sanction the stigmatization even if it does not fully legitimize such relationships by making polygamy legal.
While large scale change such as Canada making polygamy legal may be a little too much to hope for just yet, it seems as though Canadian society is at least willing to look into the issues facing those in alternative relationship and family configurations today. It could be based on my perception of the world since opening myself to open and polyamorous relationships, but it does seem to me that there is more publicity coverage for relationships which are non-monoamorous and non-monogamous. While many still focus on abusive polygynous communities, there is increasing movement by those in more egalitarian styles of polyamory to speak up about the issues they are facing in society today. The entire breadth and scope of the issues which they face have barely been scratched in this essay as I needed to narrow the focus to a few issues which have affected me and their potential causes. It is an exciting time to be polyamorous in Canada, there is more public knowledge about the subject and while it is still stigmatized recognition is the first step to acceptance.
Bibliography
Anapol, Deborah. 2010. Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy with Multiple Partners. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.
Benson, Peter J. 2008. The Polyamory Handbook: A User’s Guide.Bloomington: Author House.
Bramham, Daphne. 2011. “Future of Canada’s polygamy law rests in the hands of chief justice.” The Vancouver Sun. April 15, 2011. Retrieved June 21, 2011.
(http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Future+Canada+polygamy+rests+hands+chief+justice/4625907/story.html).
Department of Justice Canada. 2011. “Criminal Code.” Amended April 29, 2011. Retrieved June 21, 2011. (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html).
Hardcastle, Mike. 2011. “How to Know if You’re Really in Love?” About.com Teen Advice. Retrieved June 21, 2011. (http://teenadvice.about.com/od/loveanddating/a/isitlove1.htm).
Kolnai, Aurel. 2005. Sexual Ethics: The Meaning and Foundations of Sexual Morality. Translated by Francis Dunlop. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Murray, Jane Lothian, Rick Linden, Diana Kendall. [2007] 2011. Sociology in Our Times: Fifth Canadian Edition. Scarborough, On: Nelson Education Ltd.
Nissen, Ingjald. 1961. Absolute Monogamy: The Attitude of Woman and War.Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.
Ravencroft, Anthony. 2004. Polyamory: Roadmaps for the Clueless& Hopeful. Santa Fe: Fenris Brothers.
Roy, Rustum, Della Roy. 1971. “Is Monogamy Outdated?”Pp. 332-350 in Family, Marriage, and the Struggle of the Sexes. Vol. 4, edited by Hans Peter Dreitzel. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Ryan, Christopher, Cacild Jethá. 2010. Sex at Dawn: Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. New York: HaperCollins Publishers.
Townsend, Dave. 2009. “Province to Seek Supreme Court Opinion on Polygamy. Statement.” BC Government. October 22, 2009. Retrieved June 21, 2011. (http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2009AG0012-000518.htm).
|
 |
Reply
