sign in sign up
<<
Home , Agape, Celibacy, Premarital sex, Sexual jealousy

International Journal of Transpersonal Studies

Volume 38 Issue 1 Article 13

9-1-2019

From Romantic to Sympathetic Joy: , , and Beyond

Jorge N. Ferrer California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, California, USA

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies

Part of the Other Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, Philosophy Commons, Psychology Commons, and the Commons

Recommended Citation Ferrer, J. N. (2019). From romantic jealousy to sympathetic joy: Monogamy, polyamory, and beyond. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 38 (1). http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24972/ ijts.2019.38.1.185

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Special Topic Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Newsletters at Digital Commons @ CIIS. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Transpersonal Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CIIS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy: Monogamy, Polyamory, and Beyond

Jorge N. Ferrer. Cailornia Institute of Integral Studies San Francisco, CA, USA

This paper explores how the extension of contemplative qualities to intimate relationships can transform human sexual/emotional responses and relationship choices. The paper reviews contemporary findings from the field of on the twin origins of jealousy and monogamy, argues for the possibility to transform jealousy into sympathetic joy (or compersion), addresses the common objections against polyamory (or nonmonogamy), and challenges the culturally prevalent belief that the only spiritually correct sexual options are either or (lifelong or serial) monogamy. To conclude, it is suggested that the cultivation of sympathetic joy in intimate bonds can pave the way to overcome the problematic dichotomy between monogamy and polyamory, grounding individuals in a radical openness to the dynamic unfolding of life that eludes any fixed relational identity or structure.

Keywords: jealousy, monogamy, polyamory, sympathetic joy,

n Buddhism, sympathetic joy (mudita) is Although the ultimate aim of many religious regarded as one of the “four immeasurable practices is to develop sympathetic joy for all Istates” (brahmaviharas) or qualities of an sentient beings, intimate relationships offer human enlightened person—the other three being beings—whether they are spiritual practitioners or loving- (metta), (karuna), not—a precious opportunity to taste its experiential and equanimity (upeksha; see Tuffley, 2012).1 flavor. Most psychologically balanced individuals Sympathetic joy refers to the human capability naturally share to some degree in the happiness to participate in the joy of others, to feel happy of their mates. Bliss and delight can effortlessly when others feel happy. Although with different emerge within as one feels the joy of a partner’s emphases, such an understanding can also be ecstatic dance, enjoyment of an art performance, found in the contemplative teachings of many relishing of a favorite dish, or serene contemplation other religious traditions such as the Kabbalah, of a splendid sunset. This innate capacity for , or , which in their respective sympathetic joy in intimate relationships often languages talk about empathic joy, for example, reaches its peak in deeply emotional shared in terms of opening the “eye of the heart” that experiences, sensual exchange, and lovemaking. also allows seeing the divine mystery everywhere When we are in , the embodied joy of our (e.g., Ozturk, 1988). According to these and other beloved becomes extremely contagious. traditions, the cultivation of sympathetic joy can break through the ultimately false duality between Jealousy in Monogamous Relationships self and others, being therefore a potent aid on ut what if my partner’s sensuous or emotional the path toward overcoming self-centeredness and Bjoy were to arise in relation not to me but to achieving liberation. someone else? For the vast majority of people,

FromInternational Romantic Journal Jealousy of Transpersonal to Sympathetic Studies Joy , 38(1), 185–202International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 185 https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2019.38.1.185 the­ immediate reaction would likely be not one of expansive openness and love, but rather of Genetic Selfishness: An Evolutionary contracting fear, anger, and perhaps even violent Account of Jealousy and Monogamy rage. The change of a single variable has rapidly he evolutionary origins and function of turned the selfless contentment of sympathetic Tjealousy have been mapped by contemporary joy into the “green-eyed monster” of jealousy, evolutionary psychologists, anthropologists, as Shakespeare famously called this compulsive ethnologists, and zoologists. Despite its tragic impact emotion. in the modern world—the overwhelming majority Perhaps due to its prevalence, jealousy is of cases of mate battering and spousal murders widely accepted as “normal” in most , and worldwide are caused by jealous (Daly, many of its violent consequences have often been Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982; Goetz, Shackelford, regarded as understandable, morally justified, and Romero, Kaighobadi, & Miner, 2008; Wilson & even legally permissible. (It is worth remembering Daly, 1996)—jealousy very likely emerged around that as late as the 1970s the law of states such 3.5 million years ago in our hominid as Texas, Utah, and New Mexico considered as an adaptive response of vital evolutionary “reasonable” the homicide of one’s adulterous for both genders (Buss, 2000). Whereas the partner if it happened at the scene of discovery; reproductive payoff of jealousy for males was to Buss, 2000). Although there are circumstances secure certainty of paternity and to avoid spending in which the mindful expression of rightful anger resources in support of another male’s genetic (not violence) may be a temporary appropriate offspring, for females it evolved as a mechanism response (see Masters, 2006)—for example, in for guaranteeing protection and resources for the case of cheating and the adulterous breaking biological children by having a steady partner. In of monogamous —jealousy frequently short, jealousy emerged in human ancestral past to makes its appearance in interpersonal situations protect males from being cuckolded and to protect where no betrayal has taken place or when one women from being abandoned. This is why even rationally knows that no real threat actually exists today men tend to experience more intense feelings (e.g., watching a partner’s sensuous dance with of jealousy than women do when they suspect an attractive person at a party). In general, the sexual , while women are more likely than awakening of sympathetic joy in observing the men to feel threatened when their mates become happiness of one’s mate in relationship with emotionally attached to another female and spend perceived “rivals” is an extremely rare pearl to time and money with her (Buss, 2000; Buunk & find. In the context of romantic relationships, Dikjastra, 2004; Sesardic, 2002). Modern research jealousy functions as a hindrance to sympathetic shows that this evolutionary logic in relation to joy. gender-specific jealousy patterns operates widely What are the roots of this widespread across disparate cultures and countries, from difficulty in experiencing sympathetic joy in the Sweden to China and from North America and arenas of sexuality and sensuous experience? What the Netherlands to Japan and Korea (Buss, 1994, is ultimately lurking behind such an apparently 2000; however, see DeSteno, Barlett, Braverman, degraded behavior as jealousy? Can jealousy & Salovey, 2002; Harris, 2003). be transformed through a fuller embodiment of The problem, of course, is that many sympathetic joy in intimate relationships? What instinctive reactions that may have had evolutionary emotional response can take the place of jealousy? significance in ancestral times do not make much And what are the implications of transforming sense in the modern world. There are today many jealousy for spiritually informed relationship single , for example, who do not need or choices? To begin exploring these questions, I want financial—or even emotional—support from turn to the discoveries of modern evolutionary their children’s , yet still feel jealous when psychology. their ex-partners pay attention to other women.

186 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Ferrer In addition, most contemporary men and women to reveal the elusive nature of genetic selfishness. suffer from jealousy independently of whether In the movie Cinderella Man, an officer from the they want children or plan to have them with their electric company is about to cut off the power of partners. As evolutionary psychologist David Buss the residence of three children who will very likely (1994) put it, most human mating mechanisms and die without heat—it is winter in New York at the responses are actually “living fossils” (p. 222) shaped time of the Great Depression. When the children’s by the genetic pressures of human evolutionary appeals to the compassion of the officer, history. begging him not to cut off the power, he responds Interestingly, the genetic roots of jealousy that his own children will suffer the same fate if he are precisely the same as those behind the desire does not do his job because he will be fired. As I for sexual exclusivity (or possessiveness) that we in looked around the theater, I noted a large number the West have come to call monogamy. In contrast of people in the audience nodding their heads in to conventional use, however, the term monogamy poignant understanding. It is easy to empathize simply means “one ” and does not necessarily with the officer’s stance. After all, who would not entail sexual fidelity (Barash & Lipton, 2001). In do the same in similar circumstances? Is it not both any event, whereas jealousy is not exclusive to humanely understandable and morally justifiable to monogamous bonds (swingers and polyamorous favor the survival of one’s own progeny over that of people can also feel jealous; see Bergstrand & Sinski, others? But, it is worth pondering, was the officer’s 2010; Deri, 2015; Easton, 2010; Veaux & Rickert, decision the most enlightened action to take? 2014), the origins of jealousy and monogamy are What if by saving my own I am condemning intimately connected in the human primeval past. to death the offspring of another person? What if Indeed, evolutionary psychology tells us, jealousy instead of three children I am condemning ten, one emerged as a hypersensitive defense mechanism hundred, or one thousand? Should numbers be of against the genetically disastrous possibility of any significance in these decisions? What course of having one’s partner stray from monogamy. In the action is most aligned with universal compassion ancestral savannah, it was as imperative for females in these admittedly extreme situations? Any effort to secure a stable partner who would provide food to reach a generalized answer to these questions and protect their children from predators as it was for is likely misguided; each concrete situation requires males to make sure they were not investing their time careful examination within its context and from and energy in someone else’s progeny (Buss, 2000; a variety of perspectives and ways of knowing. Fisher, 1994). 2 Put simply, from an evolutionary My aim in raising these questions is not to offer standpoint the main purpose of both monogamy solutions, but merely to convey how tacitly genetic and jealousy is to secure the dissemination of one’s selfishness is embedded as “second nature” in the DNA. human condition.3 In a context of spiritual aspiration aimed at the gradual uncovering and transformation of Transforming Jealousy into Sympathetic Joy increasingly subtle forms of self-centeredness, he discussion of the twin evolutionary origins it may be possible to recognize that jealousy Tof jealousy and monogamy raises further ultimately serves a biologically engrained form of questions: Can jealousy be truly transformed? What egotism that might be called genetic selfishness— emotional response can take the place of jealousy not to be confused with Dawkins’ (1978) infamous in human experience? How can the transformation “selfish gene” theory, which reduces human beings of jealousy affect relationship choices? to the status of survival machines at the service of To my knowledge, in contrast to most gene replication. Genetic selfishness is so archaic, other emotional states, jealousy has no antonym pandemic, and deeply seated in human nature in any human language. This is probably why the that it invariably goes unnoticed in contemporary Kerista community—a polyamorous group located and spiritual circles. An example may help in San Francisco that was disbanded in the early

From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 187 1990s—coined the term compersion to refer to the the Buddhist terms translated as jealousy—such as emotional response opposite to jealousy (Kerista issa (Pali), phrag dog (Tibetan), or irshya (Sanskrit)— Commune, 1984). Compersion is usually defined are more accurately read as envy. In the various as “the feeling of taking joy in the joy that others Buddhist descriptions of “jealousy” one generally you love share among themselves” (Ritchie & finds illustrations of bitterness and resentment at Barker, 2006, p. 595). Since the term emerged in the the happiness, talents, or good fortune of others, context of the practice of (faithfulness but very rarely, if ever, of contracting fear and to many; see Kerista Commune, 1984), sensuous anger in response to a mate’s sexual or emotional and sexual joy were included, but compersion was connection to others. In the Abhidhamma, for only cultivated in the context of loving bonds with example, jealousy (issa) is considered an immoral members of the commune. However, the feeling of mental state characterized by feelings of ill will at the compersion can also be extended to any situation success and prosperity of others (Dessein & Teng, in which one’s mate feels emotional/sensuous joy 2016). The description of the jealous gods realm with others in wholesome and constructive ways (asura-loka) also supports this assertion. Though (e.g., Deri, 2015). In these situations, one can rejoice commonly called “jealous,” the asuras are said to in one’s partner’s joy even if not knowing the third be envious of the gods of the heaven realm (devas) parties. Experientially, compersion can be felt as a and possessed by feelings of ambition, hatred, tangible presence in the heart whose awakening and paranoia. Discussing the samsaric mandala, may be accompanied by waves of warmth, pleasure, Chögyam Trungpa (1991) wrote, “It is not exactly and appreciation at the idea of one’s partner loving jealousy; we do not seem to have the proper term others and being loved by them in non-harmful and in the English language. It is a paranoid attitude of mutually beneficial ways. In this light, I suggest that comparison rather than purely jealousy . . . a sense compersion can be seen as a novel extension of of competition” (p. 32). As should be obvious, all sympathetic joy to the realm of intimate relationships these descriptions refer to envy, which the Oxford and, in particular, to interpersonal situations that English Dictionary defines as “To feel displeasure conventionally evoke feelings of jealousy. and ill-will at the superiority of (another person) in The reader acquainted with Vajrayana happiness, success, reputation, or the possession of Buddhism may wonder whether such extension is anything desirable” (1989, 5.316) and not to jealousy, novel at all. Has not the transformation of jealousy which is a response to the real or imagined threat of into sympathetic joy been described in the tantric losing one’s partner or valued relationship to a third literature? Well, yes and no. In Vajrayana Buddhism, party. Since Buddhist teachings about jealousy were jealousy is considered an imperfection (klesha) originally aimed at who were not supposed associated with attachment and self-centeredness to develop emotional attachments (even those who that is transmuted into sympathetic joy, equanimity, engaged in tantric sexual acts), the lack of systematic and wisdom by the power of the Lord of , reflection in Buddhism upon romantic jealousy Amoghasiddhi, one of the Five Dhyani Buddhas should not come as a surprise. (Buddhas visualized in meditation; e.g., Thrangu To close this section, I explore the implications Rimponche, 2013). From the green body of of transforming jealousy for intimate relationships. I Amoghasiddhi emanates his consort, the goddess suggest that the transformation of jealousy through Green Tara, who is said to also have the power the cultivation of sympathetic joy bolsters the of turning jealousy into the ability to dwell in the awakening of the enlightened heart. As jealousy happiness of others. dissolves, universal compassion and unconditional At first sight, it may look as if the green love become more easily available to the individual. gods and goddesses of the Buddhist pantheon have Human compassion is universal in its embrace of all defeated the green-eyed monster of jealousy. Upon sentient beings without qualifications. Human love closer inspection, however, it becomes apparent that is also all-inclusive and unconditional—a love that this perception needs correction. The problem is that is both free from the tendency to possess and that

188 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Ferrer does not expect anything in return. Although to love Finn & Malson, 2008; Jamieson, 2004). Nevertheless, without conditions is generally easier in the case of the same could be said about monogamy. After all, brotherly and spiritual love, I suggest that as human the history of monogamy is the history of adultery. beings heal the historical split between spiritual love As H. H. Munro famously wrote, monogamy is (agape) and sensuous love (; see Irwin, 1991; “the Western custom of one and hardly any Nygren, 1982), the extension of sympathetic joy to mistresses.” Summing up the available evidence, more embodied forms of love becomes a natural Buss (2000) estimated that “approximately 20 to 40 development. Furthermore, when embodied love is percent of American women and 30 to 50 percent emancipated from possessiveness, a richer range of of American men have at least one over the spiritually legitimate relationship options organically course of the ” (p. 133), and pointed out emerges. As human beings become more whole that recent surveys suggest that the chance of either and are freed from certain basic fears (e.g., of member of a modern couple committing infidelity abandonment, of unworthiness, of engulfment), at some point in their marriage may be as high as new possibilities for the expression of embodied 76 percent—with these numbers increasing every love open up which may feel natural, safe, and year and with women’s equating in number wholesome rather than undesirable, threatening, those from men (see Lampe, 1987; Thompson, 1983; or even morally questionable. For example, once Treas & Giesen, 2000).5 Furthermore, according to jealousy turns into sympathetic joy and sensuous Brizendine (2006), human genetic studies show that and spiritual love are integrated, a couple may “up to 10 percent of the supposed fathers researchers feel drawn to extend their love to other individuals have tested are not genetically related to the children beyond the structure of the pair bond. In short, once these men feel certain they fathered” (p. 88). In jealousy loosens its grip on the contemporary self, sum, although most people in modern Western love can attain a wider dimension of embodiment in culture consider themselves—and are believed to human lives that may naturally lead to the mindful be—monogamous, both anonymous surveys and cultivation of more inclusive intimate connections. genetic studies reveal that many are so socially but not biologically (see also Barash & Lipton, 2001; Social Monogamy as a Mask Schmitt, 2005a). for Sexual Polyamory In other words, social monogamy frequently ven if mindful and open, the inclusion of masks sexual polyamory in an increasingly signifi- Eother loving connections in the context of a cant number of couples. In Anatomy of Love, partnership can elicit the two classic objections Fisher (1994) suggested that the human desire for to nonmonogamy (or polyamory).4 First, it does clandestine is genetically grounded not work in practice, and second, it leads to the in the evolutionary advantages that having other destruction of relationships. (I am leaving aside mates provided for both genders in ancestral times: here the deeply engrained moral opposition to the extra opportunities to spread DNA for males, and very idea of polyamory associated with the legacy extra protection and resources plus the acquisition of Christianity in the West; see Witte, 2015.) As for of potentially better sperm for females. It may also the first objection, though polygyny (“many ”) be important to note that the prevalent relationship is still culturally prevalent on the globe—out of paradigm in the modern West is no longer lifelong 853 known human cultures, 84 percent permit monogamy (“till death do us part”) but serial polygyny (Fisher, 1994; Murdock, 1981; see also monogamy (many partners sequentially), often Koktvedgaard Zeitzen, 2008)—it seems undeniable punctuated with adultery.6 Serial monogamy plus that with a few exceptions modern attempts at more clandestine adultery is in many respects not too gender-egalitarian open relationships have not been different from polyamory, except perhaps in that too successful; for example, research shows that the latter is arguably more honest, ethical, and less patriarchal and monogamous tropes are reproduced harmful.7 In this context, the mindful exploration of in many polyamorous relationships (Barker, 2005; polyamory (i.e., practiced with the full knowledge

From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 189 and approval of all concerned) may help alleviating engage in dyadic relationships due to their very the suffering caused by the staggering number of strong poly dispositions and may thus not need any clandestine affairs in modern culture. prior dyadic “practice.” In any case, the objection of Furthermore, to disregard a potentially impracticability may be valid in some cases. emancipatory cultural development because its The second common objection to polyamory early manifestations did not succeed may be is that it results in the dissolution of pair bonds. The unwise. Looking back at the history of emancipatory rationale is that the intimate contact with others will movements in the West—from feminism to the increase the chances that one member of the couple abolition of slavery to the gaining of civil rights will abandon the other and run off with a more by African-Americans—one can see that the first appealing mate. This concern is understandable, waves of the Promethean impulse were frequently but the fact is that people are having affairs, falling burdened with problems and distortions that only in love, and leaving their partners all the time in later could be recognized and resolved. This article the context of monogamous vows. As discussed is not the place to review this historical evidence, above, adultery goes hand in hand with monogamy, but to dismiss polyamory because of its previous and lifelong monogamy has been mostly replaced failures may be equivalent to having written with serial monogamy (or sequential polyamory) in off feminism on the grounds that its first waves Western culture. Parenthetically, vows of lifelong failed to reclaim genuine feminine values or free monogamy create often-unrealistic expectations women from (e.g., turning women into that arguably add suffering to the involved in masculinized “superwomen” capable of succeeding the termination of any relationship—and one could in a patriarchal world).8 also raise questions about the wholesomeness of the psychological needs for certainty and security Polyamory as a Path toward Emotional that such vows normally meet (e.g., Charles, 2002). and Spiritual Growth In any event, although it may sound counterintuitive ut wait a moment. Dyadic relationships are at first, the threat of abandonment may be actually Balready challenging enough. Why complicate reduced in polyamory, since the loving bond that them further by adding extra parties to the equation? my partner may develop with another person does Response: From a psychospiritual standpoint, an not necessarily mean that he or she must choose can be viewed as a structure between me and this other person (or lie to me). The through which human beings can learn to express available empirical research supports this view. and receive love in many forms. Although I refuse On the one hand, Rubin and Adams (1986) found to declare polyamory more spiritual or evolved than no significant differences in length of relationship monogamy, it is clear that if a person has not mastered between sexually exclusive and sexually open the lessons and challenges of the dyadic structure he couples. On the other hand, Hagemann (2018) or she may not be ready to take on the challenges conducted an online survey on attendees of 17 alt. of arguably more complex (at least at interpersonal polycon conventions (1996-2008) and reported that and communicative levels) forms of relationships (for “54% (22/41) of respondents with partners were in a discussion of emotional complexity in polyamory, at least one relationship lasting over 21 years and see Ben-Ze’ev & Brunning, 2017). It is important to 83% (34/41) of respondents with partners were in note here that in the same way homosexual and at least one relationship lasting over a decade” (p. bisexual people have the right to make mistakes 15). Thus, the view that polyamory or consensual in their socially disadvantaged and thus arguably nonmonogamy is unsustainable—or is less “more complex” relationships, polyamorous people sustainable than monogamy—is not supported by should be allowed to do so in theirs, including, evidence. if they are so inclined, learning how to do poly More positively, the new qualities and relationships without dyadic experience. In addition, passions that novel intimate connections can it may be also the case that some people cannot awaken within a person can also bring a renewed

190 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Ferrer sense of creative dynamism to the sexual/emotional third (Studebaker, 2012), and this opening, life of the couple, whose frequent stagnation after I suggest, might in some cases be crucial both to three or four years (seven in some cases) is a chief overcome codependent tendencies and to foster the cause of clandestine affairs and separation (Haag, health, creative vitality, and perhaps even longevity 2011; Kipnis, 2003; Robinson, 2009). As surveys of intimate relationships.10 show, the number of couples who successfully I should stress that my intent is not to argue navigate the so-called four- and seven-year itches for the overall superiority of any relationship style has been decreasing over the last decades (Lewis, over others—a discussion I find both pointless and 2001). According to the United Census Bureau, misleading.11 Human beings are endowed with for example, 8.8 years was the average length of wildly diverse biological, psychological, and spiritual U.S. in 2009 (Kreider & Ellis, 2011); even dispositions that may predispose them toward if rates have dropped in the different relationship styles: celibacy, monogamy, since 1980 (Amato, 2010), it is estimated that 52.7% serial monogamy, open marriage, swinging, and of today’s marriages will end in divorce (Cohen, polyamory, among other possibilities. In other 2016). In addition—and crucially—none of the words, many equally valid psychospiritual trajec- available statistical data include the surely much tories may call individuals to engage in one or larger number of separations in unmarried couples. another relationship style either for life or at specific Mindful polyamory may also offer an alternative to junctures in their paths (see Ferrer, 2018a, 2018b). the usually unfulfilling nature of currently prevalent Whereas the psychospiritual foundation for this serial monogamy in which people change partners diversity of mating responses cannot be empirically every few years, never benefiting from the emotional established, recent discoveries in neuroscience and spiritual depth that, for many individuals in support the idea of a genetic base. When scientists Western culture, can only be provided by an inserted a piece of DNA from a monogamous enduring connection with another human being.9 species of mice (prairie voles) into males from a Feminist author Sonia Johnson (1991) captured different—and highly promiscuous—mice species, well the hopelessness many experience today after the latter turned fervently monogamous (Young, endless attempts at monogamous relationships: Nilsen, Waymire, MacGregor, & Insel, 1999). What is more striking is that some human males tending to Thousands of us are completely fed up with the pair-bonding behavior (e.g., marriage, ) self-betrayal of marriage of any sort, including carry an extra bit of DNA in a gene responsible for the self-betrayal of “serial monogamy.” (Perhaps the distribution of vasopressin receptors in the brain “serial agony” is a more apt description.) The (a hormone associated with attachment bonds), and thought of going through even one more that piece of DNA is very similar to the one found in relationship cycle, to say nothing of one after the monogamous prairie voles (Walum et al., 2008); another until we die—ecstasy, contentment, for a similar finding regarding an oxytocin receptor, boredom, numbness, pain, misery, breakup, see Walum et al. (2012). recuperation—makes us feel suicidal when it Although the implications of these findings doesn’t bore us senseless. (p. 118) for the understanding of human mating await In a context of psychospiritual growth, such further clarification, they suggest that a diversity an exploration can create unique opportunities of relationship styles—both monogamous and for the development of emotional maturity, the polyamorous—might be genetically imprinted in transmutation of jealousy into sympathetic joy (or humans. Another biological mark found in non- compersion), the emancipation of embodied love monogamous men and women is higher levels of from possessiveness, and the integration of sensuous testosterone (van Anders, Hamilton, & Watson, and spiritual love. As Christian mystic Richard of St. 2007); however, it remains undetermined whether Victor maintained, mature love between lover and such higher levels (in relation to monogamous beloved naturally reaches beyond itself toward a people, that is) are a cause or an outcome of their

From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 191 relational style (cf. Brandon, 2010). As Wiley (2016) structure as the container for appropriate sex in argued after doing ethnographic fieldwork in Young’s intimate relationships. Since reproduction is the neuroscience laboratory, it is important to be mindful biological purpose of sexual relations, he wrote, of the possible ideological biases in the attempts long-term commitment and sexual exclusivity to “biologize” or “naturalize” either monogamy or are desirable for the wholesomeness of love polyamory.12 In any event, as cross-cultural findings relationships. Needless to say, the reduction of from evolutionary psychology convey, it seems sexuality to reproduction blatantly overlooks its undeniable that “humans are designed and adapted recreational, bonding, healing, transformational, for more than one mating strategy” (Schmitt, 2005b, and spiritual functions, among others (e.g., Chopel, p. 268). 1992; Eliens, 2009; M. Robinson, 2009). Despite the great respect I feel for these and Religious Decree on Sexual Behavior other spiritual teachers who speak in similar fashion, address the objections to polyamory because I must confess my perplexity. These assessments of I lifelong or serial monogamy (together with appropriate sexual expression, which have become celibacy) are still widely considered the only or influential guidelines for many contemporary most “spiritually correct” relationship styles in the spiritual seekers, are often offered by celibate modern West. In addition to the traditional Christian individuals whose relational sexual experience prescription of lifelong monogamy, many influential is likely to be limited, or even nonexistent. A contemporary Buddhist teachers in the West make major lesson from developmental psychology is similar recommendations. Consider, for example, that an individual needs to perform a number of Thich Nhat Hanh’s reading of the Buddhist precept developmental tasks to gain competence (and of “refraining from .” Originally, wisdom) in various arenas: cognitive, emotional, this precept meant, for the monks, to avoid engaging sexual, and so forth (e.g., Uhlendorff, 2004). Even in any sexual act whatsoever and, for lay people, when offered with the best of intentions, advice to not engage in a list of “inappropriate” sexual offered about aspects of life in which one has behaviors having to do with specific body parts, not achieved developmental competence through times, and places. In For a Future to Be Possible, direct experience may be both questionable and Thich Nhat Hanh (2007) explained that the monks misleading. When this advice is given by figures of his order follow the traditional celibate in culturally venerated as spiritual authorities, the order to use sexual energy as a catalyst for spiritual situation becomes even more problematic. What breakthrough. For lay practitioners, however, he is more, in the context of spiritual praxis, these read the precept to mean avoiding all sexual contact assertions can arguably be seen as incongruent with unless it takes place in the context of a “long-term the emphasis on direct knowledge characteristic of commitment between two people” (p. 29), because Buddhism. there is an incompatibility between love and casual It may be worth remembering that the sex (monogamous marriage is a common practice for Buddha himself encouraged polyamory (polygyny, lay people in his order). In this reading, the Buddhist actually) over monogamy in certain situations. In precept was reinterpreted as a prescription for long- the Jataka 200 (the Jatakas are stories of Buddha’s term monogamy, excluding the possibility of not former births), a Brahmin asks the Buddha for only wholesome polyamorous relations, but also advice regarding four suitors who are courting his spiritually edifying occasional sexual encounters four . The Brahmin says, “One was fine (e.g., Wade, 2004). (It is important to note, however, and handsome, one was old and well advanced in that “long-term commitment” is not equivalent to years, the third a man of [noble birth], and “monogamy,” since it is perfectly feasible to hold a the fourth was good” (Cowell, 1895, p. 96). “Even long-term commitment with more than one intimate though there be beauty and the like qualities,” partner.) In The Art of Happiness, the Dalai Lama the Buddha answered, “a man is to be despised if (Tenzin Gyatso, 1998) also assumed a monogamous he fails in . Therefore, the former is not the

192 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Ferrer measure of a man; those that I like are the virtuous” , such as sympathetic joy, to all areas of life (Cowell, p. 96). After hearing this, the Brahmin gave and in particular to those which, due to historical, all his daughters to the virtuous suitor. cultural, and perhaps evolutionary reasons, have As the Buddha’s advice illustrated, several been traditionally excluded or overlooked—areas forms of relationship may be spiritually wholesome (in such as sexuality and romantic love. the Buddhist sense of leading to liberation) according The culturally prevalent belief—supported to various human dispositions and contextual by many contemporary spiritual teachers—that the situations. Historically, Buddhism hardly ever only spiritually correct sexual options are either considered one relationship style intrinsically more celibacy or monogamy, is a myth that may be causing wholesome than others for lay people and tended unnecessary suffering and that needs, therefore, to to support different relationship styles depending be laid to rest. It may be perfectly plausible to hold on cultural and karmic factors (see Harvey, 2000; simultaneously more than one loving or sexual bond Sangharakshita, 1999). From the Buddhist perspective in a context of mindfulness, ethical integrity, and of skillful means (upaya) and of the soteriological spiritual growth, for example, while working toward nature of Buddhist ethics, it also follows that the the transformation of jealousy into sympathetic joy key factor in evaluating the appropriateness of any and the integration of sensuous and spiritual love. intimate connection may not be its form but rather I should add that, ultimately, I believe that the its power to eradicate the suffering of self and others. greatest expression of spiritual freedom in intimate There is much to learn today, I believe, from the relationships may not lie in strictly sticking to any nondogmatic and pragmatic approach of historical particular relationship style—whether monogamous Buddhism to intimate relationships—an approach or polyamorous—but rather in a radical openness to that was not attached to any specific relationship the dynamic unfolding of life that eludes any fixed or structure but was essentially guided by a radical predetermined structure of relationships (see Ferrer, emphasis on liberation. 2018b). It should be obvious, for example, that For a variety of evolutionary and historical one can follow a specific relationship style for the reasons, polyamory has received “bad press” in “right” (e.g., life-enhancing) or “wrong” (e.g., fear- mainstream Western culture and spiritual circles— based) reasons; that there are more and less mature being automatically linked, for example, with forms of both monogamy and polyamory; that all , irresponsibility, inability to commit, relationship styles can become equally limiting and even narcissistic hedonism (see Conley, Moors, ideologies; and that different internal and external Matsick, & Ziegler, 2012; Ferrer, 2018a). Given the conditions may rightfully call individuals to engage current crisis of monogamy in contemporary culture, in different relationship styles at various junctures however, it may be valuable to explore seriously of their lives. It is in this open space catalyzed by the social potential of responsible forms of non- the movement beyond ideological monogamy and monogamy. In addition, given the psychospiritual ideological polyamory, I believe, that an existential potential of such an exploration, it may also stance deeply attuned to the standpoint of the be important to expand the range of spiritually mystery out of which everything arises can truly legitimate relationship choices that individuals can emerge.13 make at the various developmental crossroads of Nevertheless, gaining awareness about the their lives. ancestral—and mostly obsolete—nature of the evolutionary impulses that direct human sexual/ Conclusion: emotional responses and relationship choices may Beyond Monogamy and Polyamory empower individuals to consciously co-create a t is my hope that this essay opens avenues for future in which expanded forms of spiritual freedom Idialogue and inquiry in spiritual circles about may have a greater chance to bloom. Who knows, the transformation of intimate relationships. I also perhaps as spiritual practice is extended to intimate hope that it contributes to the extension of spiritual relationships, new petals of liberation will blossom

From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 193 that may not only emancipate minds, hearts, and solidarity with the poor, unwillingness to pay , but also bodies and the instinctive higher taxes, and, I would add, hiding immense world. In this light, I can envision—and invite other to fortunes in undeclared offshore accounts. join in—an “integral bodhisattva vow” in which the 4. Nonmonogamy is a more encompassing term conscious mind renounces its own full liberation until than polyamory (“many ”). Whereas the the body and the primary world can be free as well.14 former includes any type of nonmonogamous relationship—including open marriage, Notes swinging, and promiscuity—the latter is normally used to refer to the consensual, long- 1. Earlier versions of this paper appeared in Tricyle: term maintenance of more than one romantic, The Buddhist Review (Ferrer, 2006) and Tikkun: sexual, and/or emotional bond (see Anapol, Culture, , Politics (Ferrer, 2007). 2010; Barker & Landridge, 2010a, 2010b; Although this scholarly version updates my Klesse, 2006). Also known as responsible perspective in significant ways, a more extended nonmonogamy (e.g., Anapol, 1992; Klesse, discussion of the experiential and conceptual 2006), polyamory is usually valued over not territory beyond the monogamy/polyamory only monogamy and patriarchal polygamy, but binary (a territory I call nougamy) can be found also swinging, , and promiscuity (for in Ferrer (2018b). criticisms of these poly-hierarchies, see Klesse 2. This standard evolutionary narrative of an 2006; Noël 2006; Petrella, 2007). ancestral pair-bonding culture and archaically 5. For discussions of how contemporary seated was challenged by individuals and couples are redefining the Ryan and Jethá (2010), who argued for a far meanings of fidelity and infidelity (and thus of more sexually promiscuous human pre-historic monogamy), see Duncombe, Harrison, Allen, past and a link between the origins of sexual and Marsden (2004); Haag (2011); Perel jealousy and the emergence of agriculture about (2006); and Wosick (2012). ten thousand years ago; for critiques of this 6. Although serial monogamy did not become proposal, see Ellsworth (2011) and Saxon (2011). prevalent in Western until the late 20th Although it is very likely that the emergence century, views supporting it began to appear of agriculture (and thus of human settlements in the 18th century (Dabhoiwala, 2012). For a and private property) increased men’s concern critical examination of serial monogamy as the for paternity and sexual possessiveness (e.g., normative project of romantic self-actualization Stearns, 2009), the exact (pre-)historical origins in the modern , see Petrella of sexual jealousy are probably multifarious and (2005). As for serial monogamy’s institutional definitively not clear-cut; after all, many hunter- function, Kipnis (2003) wrote: gatherer cultures practice marriage (Walker, Hill, It’s clear that serial monogamy evolved as a Flinn, & Ellsworth, 2011) and sexual jealousy pressure-release valve to protect the system exists even in cultures practicing shared paternity from imploding. No, there is nothing wrong (Beckerman & Valentine, 2002). with the institution or its premises, no, you 3. After introducing this understandably controversial just happened to get the wrong person. But notion about a decade ago (Ferrer, 2007), I was next time around you’d better make the recently reassured by the fact that a mother best of it, because too many strikes and of the moral and intellectual stature of you’re out—you’re the problem. In serial Marcia Angell (2016) shared similar feelings. monogamy, the players change, but the In her essay, Angell denounced the potential institution remains the same. (176) selfishness involved in ’ focus on their own progeny over anyone else’s, as well as its 7. For a witty—and deliberately polemical— pernicious social consequences such as lesser defense of adultery in the context of modern

194 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Ferrer Western mononormative culture, see Kipnis rules somehow misses the point. In a social (1998, 2003). In this connection, see also climate where serial monogamy prevails, Anderson’s (2012) argument that cheating is a promising monogamy and assuming that rational response to the irrational predicament the relationship will end if the promise is in which mononormativity places people with broken surely creates conditions for the its demand for dyadic sexual exclusivity—that is, ultimate insecurity. (p. 156) it not only rectifies the dissonance many people feel between their monogamous self-identity Other authors have stressed the pernicious and their desire for (cf. Mint, impact of serial monogamy for children, 2004), but also allows them to access sexual identifying this prevalent relational trend as variety while staying in a long-term relationship. the major cause of “the current epidemic of Compare here Ben-Ze’ev and Goussinsky’s broken homes and single- ” (2008) related argument that adultery actually (Ryan & Jethá, 2010, p. 300; cf. Bergstrand & helps to maintain the social institution of Sinski, 2010; Squire, 2008). In this regard, a monogamy. Similarly, VanderVoort and Duck polyamorous mother wrote: “I’m not going to (2004) wrote, “The implication [of the adulterer’s ditch one loved one just because I love someone need for therapy] is that it is the transgressor, else. That’s called serial monogamy, more like not the structure [monogamous marriage], that serial heartbreak! And what it does to the kids!” needs adjustment” (p. 8). In referring to these (Naomi, cited in Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 41). works I am by no means justifying adultery; 10. Although desirable and growth-promoting in however, the above arguments are worth many cases, I no longer think of longevity as pondering—and the point remains that adultery the paramount or even a central benchmark exists only in a monogamous context. As Mint to assess the success of intimate relationships. (2004) put it, “monogamy and cheating . . . are Instead of this arguably monocentric standard conceptually interdependent . . . They represent (clearly a residue of the traditional vow of lifelong two sides of the same coin, one shiny and one monogamy), I suggest that more appropriate tarnished” (p. 61). criteria are the quality of relationship (cf. Deri, 8. Actually, a new wave of greater cultural 2015; Rowan, 1995) as well as its healing and acceptance of nonmonogamy seems to be transformative power (Ferrer, 2018a). under way. After researching contemporary 11. Despite the widespread variety of arguments marriage trends in the United States, Haag for the superiority or advantageousness of (2011) concluded: “Marital nonmonogamy may monogamy (e.g., Barash & Lipton, 2009; be to the 21st century what was Fisher, 2004; Jenkins, 2015; Masters, 2007) or to the 20th: a behavior that shifts gradually polyamory (e.g., Barker & Langdridge, 2010b; from proscribed and limited, to tolerated and Bergstrand & Sinski, 2010; Petrella, 2007), the common” (p. 247). available empirical evidence supports a more 9. On the emotional precariousness of serial egalitarian and pluralistic scenario (see Ferrer, monogamy, Jackson and Scott (2004) poignantly 2018a). In a comparative study of 284 self- wrote: identified monogamous and polyamorous men and women, for example, Morrison, Beaulieu, Why should monogamy be equated with Brockman, and Beaglaoich (2013) found no security? We talk a great deal about the significant group differences in scores indicative importance of in relationships, but if of relational quality (i.e., , trust, and everything important is circumscribed then attachment)—although poly men and women there is no need for trust. Trust is necessary showed greater levels of intimacy as measured in a context of risk. Forbidding something by the Intimacy Attitude Scale-Revised (IAS-R; and then “trusting” someone not to break the Amidon, Kumar, & Treadwell, 1983). In addition,

From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 195 against popular assumptions about monogamous between depending on diverse personal, social, and polyamorous individuals’ attachment issues and cultural factors and circumstances. If this (for discussion, see Conley, Ziegler, Moors, were the case, I hypothesize that whereas those Matsick, & Valentine, 2012), a secure attachment at both ends of the continuum may tend to style was found to predominate in both groups. naturalize their relationship style, those falling Similarly, Tibbets (2001) found no differences somewhere between may tend to describe it as regarding relationship commitment between a personal or strategic choice. In any event, for monogamous and polyamorous and a critical discussion of the potentially pernicious bisexual women. In a review of the literature, social and political implications of regarding Conley et al. (2012) found no evidence for polyamory as , see Klesse monogamy to be advantageous over polyamory (2014). on improved sexuality and sexual safety (cf. Loue, 13. For a discussion of both the ongoing “mono/ 2006; however, see Conley, Moors, Ziegler, & poly wars” and different pathways to overcome Karathanasis, 2012; Lehmiller, 2015), relationship the monogamy/polyamory binary, see Ferrer quality (cf. Kurdek & Schmitt, 1985), healthy (2018a, 2018b). attachment style (cf. Morrison et al., 2013), and 14. For an extended discussion of the integral benefits for family life and child rearing (cf. bodhisattva vow and its implications for spiritual Pallota-Chiarolli, 2010; Sheff, 2013). In any event, and practice, see Ferrer (2017). as Wiley (2015) pointed out, such a pluralistic account should not eschew the critique of References compulsory monogamy’s ideological standards of healthy adult bonding (see also Emens, 2004). Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing 12. In addition to important methodological flaws in trends and new developments. Journal of Young et al.’s (1999) research designs (e.g., in the Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666. https://doi. test to measure voles’ monogamy), Wiley (2016) org /10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.0 0723.x discovered that monogamy was ideologically Amidon, E., Kumar, V. K., & Treadwell, T. (1983). associated with optimal human development: Measurement of intimacy attitudes: The “In this model, monogamy in voles is compared Intimacy Attitude Scale—Revised. Journal of to social health and promiscuity in voles to Personality Assessment, 47, 635–639. https://doi. autism in humans” (p. 57). Wiley’s work is org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4706_9 invaluable in revealing the ideological character Anapol, D. (1992). Polyamory: The new love of “naturalizing” discourses about not only without limits—Secrets of sustainable intimate monogamy but also polyamory. In this regard, relationships. San Rafael, CA: IntiNet Resource see also Robinson’s (2013) critique of considering Center. polyamory and monogamy as “natural” or fixed Anapol, D. (2010). Polyamory in the 21st century: sexual orientations (like or Love and intimacy with multiple partners. homosexualit y) and her proposal to instead regard Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. them as strategic identities that people (bisexual Anderson, E. (2012). The monogamy gap: Men, women, in Robinson’s study) can freely select at love, and the reality of cheating. New York, NY: different psycho-socio-political situations. This Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ discussion is related to Barker’s (2005) finding that acprof:oso/9780199777921.001.0001 whereas some people think of their polyamory Angell, M. (2016). Why to be a parent? [Review of as how they naturally are, others describe it A. Gopnik, The gardener and the carpenter: as something they choose to do. My sense is What the new science of child development that it is likely that people could be situated in tells us about the relationship between parents a continuum from “very monogamous” to “very and children]. The New York Review of Books, polyamorous” with many falling somewhere 63(17), 8, 10.

196 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Ferrer Barash. D. P., & Lipton. J. E. (2001). The myth of Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2004). Men, women, monogamy: Fidelity and infidelity in animals and infidelity: Sex differences in extradyadic and people. New York, NY: Henry Holt. sex and jealousy. In J. Duncombe, K. Barash. D. P., & Lipton. J. E. (2009). Strange Harrison, G. Allen, & D. Marsden (Eds.), The bedfellows: The surprising connection between state of affairs: Explorations in infidelity and sex, evolution, and monogamy. New York, NY: commitment (pp. 103–120). Mahwah, NJ: Bellevue. Lawrence Erlbaum. B a r k e r, M . ( 20 0 5 ). T h i s i s m y p a r t n e r, a n d t h i s i s m y… Charles, M. (2002). Monogamy and its discontents: partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous On wining the Oedipal war. The American identity in a monogamous world. Journal Journal of Psychoanalysis, 62(2), 119–143. of Constructivist Psychology, 18( 1 ) , 7 5 – 8 8 . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015177127341 https://doi.org/10.1080/10720530590523107 Chopel, G. (1992). Tibetan arts of love: Sex, Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010a). Whatever , and spiritual healing (J. Hopkins & D. happened to non-monogamies? Critical Y. Yuthok, trans.). Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion. reflections on recent research and practice. Cohen, P. N. (2016). Multiple-decrement life table Sexualities, 13(6), 748–772. https://doi. estimates of divorce rates. Open Science org/10.1177/1363460710384645 Framework. Retrieved from https://osf.io/zber3/ Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (Eds.). (2010b). Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Understanding non-monogamies. New York, Ziegler, A. (2012). The fewer the merrier? NY: Routledge. Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non- Beckerman, S., & Valentine, P. (Eds.). (2002). monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses Cultures of multiple fathers: The theory and of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30. practice of partible paternity in lowland South https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01 America. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida 286.x Press. Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Ben-Ze’ev, A., & Goussinsky, R. (2008). In the name Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals of love: Romantic ideology and its victims. are less likely to practice safer sex than openly New York, NY: Oxford University Press. monogamous individuals. The Journal of https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198566 , 9(6), 1559–1565. https://doi. 496.001.0001 org /10.1111/j.1743- 6109.2012.02712.x Ben-Ze’ev, A., & Brunning, L. (2017). How Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, complex is your love: The case of romantic J. L., & Valentine, B. A. (2012). A critical compromises and polyamory. Journal of Social examination of popular assumptions about Theory and Behaviour 48(1), 98-116. https:// the benefits and outcomes of monogamous doi.org /10.1111/jt sb.12156 relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bergstrand, C. R., & Sinski, J. B. (2010). Swinging Review, 17(2), 124 –141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1 in America: Love, sex, and marriage in the 21st 088868312467087 century. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Cowell, E. B. (Ed.). (1895). The Jataka or stories of the Brandon, M. (2010). Monogamy: The untold story. Buddha’s former births (Vol. 2; W. H. D. Rouse, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Trans.). Cambridge, UK: The University Press. Brizendine, L. (2006). The female brain. New York, Dabhoiwala, F. (2012). The origins of sex: A history NY: Broadway. of the first . New York, NY: Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies Oxford University Press. of human mating. New York, NY: Basic Books. Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male Buss, D. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, jealousy is as necessary as love or sex. New 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(82)90 York, NY: Free Press. 027-9

From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 197 Dawkins, R. (1978). The selfish gene. New York, NY: Ferrer, J. N. (2017). Participation and the mystery: Oxford University Press. Transpersonal essays in psychology, education, and Deri, J. (2015). Love’s refraction: Jealousy and religion. Albany, NY: State University of New York compersion in women’s polyamorous Press. relationships. Toronto, Canada: University of Ferrer, J. N. (2018a). Mononormativity, polypride, and Toronto Press. the “mono-poly wars.” Sexuality and Culture, Dessein, B., & Teng, G. (Eds.). (2016). Text, history, 22, 817– 833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-017- and philosophy: Abhidharma across Buddhist 9494-y scholastic traditions. Boston, MA: Brill. Ferrer, J. N. (2018b). Beyond the non/monogamy De, Steno, D., Barlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., system: Fluidity, hybridity, and transcendence in & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in intimate relationships. Psychology and Sexuality, jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact 9(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2017. of measurement. Journal of Personality and 1400459 Social Psychology, 83, 1103–1116. https://doi. Finn, M., & Malson, H. (2008). Speaking of home org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1103 truth: (Re)productions of dyadic-containment in DeVisser, R., & McDonald, D. (2007). Swings non-monogamous relationships. British Journal of and roundabouts: Management of jealousy Sociology, 47, 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1348/01 in heterosexual "swinging" couples. British 4466607X248921 Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 459–476. Fisher. H. (1994). Anatomy of love: A natural history https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X143153 of mating, marriage, and why we stray. New York, Duncombe, J., Harrison, K., Allen, G., & Marsden, NY: Ballantine. D. (Eds.). (2004). The state of affairs: Explorations Fisher. H. (2004). Why we love: The nature and in infidelity and commitment. Mahwah, NJ: chemistry of romantic love. New York, NY: Henry Lawrence Erlbaum. Holt. Easton, D. (2010). Making friends with jealousy: Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Romero, G. A., Therapy with polyamorous clients. In M. Barker Kaighobadi, F., & Miner, E. J. (2008). Punishment, & D. Langdridge, D. (Eds.), Understanding non- proprietariness, and paternity: Men’s violence monogamies (pp. 207–211). New York, NY: against women from an evolutionary perspective. Routledge. and Violent Behavior, 13(6), 481–489. Eliens, J. H. (2009). The spirituality of sex. Westport, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.07.004 CT: Praeger. Grazer, B. (Producer), & Howard, R. (Director). Ellsworth, R. M. (2011). The human that never evolved: (2005). Cinderella man [Motion picture]. United [A review of Christopher Ryan and Caclida Jethá, States: Universal Pictures. Sex and dawn: How we mate, how we stray, and Haag, P. (2011). Marriage confidential: Love in a post- what it means for modern sexuality]. Evolutionary romantic age. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Psychology, 9(3), 325–335. Hagemann, Ian K. (2018). Exploring pioneers in Emens, E. (2004). Monogamy’s law: Compulsory polyamory: alt.polycon attendance, current monogamy and polyamorous existence. New York relationship status, and current identities. University Review of Law and Social Change, 29(2), Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/ 277–376. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.506242 Exploring_Pioneers_in_Polyamory___alt. Ferrer, J. N. (2006). What’s the opposite of polycon jealousy? Questioning the Buddhist allegiance Harris, C. R. (2003). Factors associated with to monogamy. Tricycle: The Buddhist Review jealousy over real and imaginary infidelity: (Summer), 83–85. An examination, of the sexual cognitive Ferrer, J. N. (2007). Monogamy, polyamory, and and evolutionary psychology perspectives. beyond. Tikkun: Culture, Spirituality, Politics, 22(1), Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 319–329. 37–43, 60–62. ht tps://doi.org /10.1111/1471- 6402.0 0112

198 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Ferrer Harvey, P. (2000). An introduction to Buddhist Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1985). Relationship ethics: Foundations, values and issues. New qualit y of men in clo s e d or o p en relationships. York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https:// Journal of , 12, 85–99. https://doi. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511800801 org/10.1300/J082v12n02_06 Irwin, A. (1991). Eros toward the world: Paul Tillich Lampe, P. E. (Ed.). (1987). Adultery in the United and the theology of the erotic. Minneapolis, States: Close encounters of the sixth (or seventh) MN: Fortress. kind. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (2004). The personal is Lehmiller, J. J. (2015). A comparison of sexual health still political: Heterosexuality, feminism and history and practices among monogamous and monogamy. Feminism and Psychology, 14(1), 151– consensually nonmogamous sexual partners. 157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353504040317 The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(10), 2022– Jamieson, L. (2004). Intimacy, negotiated 2028. nonmonogamy, and the limits of the couple. In Lewis, J. (2001). The end of marriage? Individuation Duncombe, J., Harrison, K., Allen, G., & Marsden, and intimate relations. Cheltenham and D. (Eds.), The state of affairs: Explorations in Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. infidelity and commitment(pp. 35–57). Mahwah, Loue, S. (2006). Sexual partnering, sexual practices, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi. and health. New York, NY: Springer. org/10.4324/9781410610652-3 Masters, R. A. (2006). The anatomy and evolution Jenkins, C. S. I. (2015). Modal monogamy. Ergo: An of anger: An integral exploration. Ashland, OR: Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 2(8), 175 –19 4. Tehmenos. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0002.008 Masters, R. A. (2007). Transformation through Johnson, S. (1991). The ship that sailed into the living intimacy: The journey toward mature room: Sex and intimacy reconsidered. Estancia, monogamy. Ashland, OR: Tehmenos. NM: Wildfire. Mint, P. (2004). The power dynamics of cheating: Kerista Commune (1984). Polyfidelity: Sex in the Effects on polyamory and . In S. Kerista commune and other related theories on Anderlini D’Onofrio (Ed.), Plural loves: Designs how to solve world’s problems. San Francisco, for bi and poly living (pp. 55–76). Binghamton, CA: Performing Arts Social Society. NY: Harrington Park. Kipnis, L. (1998). Adultery. Critical Inquiry, 24, 289– Morrison, T. G., Beaulieu, D., Brockman, M., & 327. https://doi.org/10.1086/448876 Beaglaoich, C. O. (2013). A comparison of Kipnis, L. (2003). Against love: A polemic. New York, polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are NY: Pantheon. there differences in relationship well-being and Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its "others": ? Psychology and Sexuality, 4(1), Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2011.6 Sexualities, 9(5), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 31571 1363460706069986 Murdock, G. P. (1981). Atlas of world cultures. Klesse, C. (2014). Polyamory: Intimate practice, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. identity or sexual orientation? Sexualities, 17(1/2), Nhat Hanh, T. (2007). For a future to be possible: 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460713511 Buddhist ethics for everyday life. Berkeley, CA: 096 Parallax. Koktvedgaard Zeitzen, M. (2008). Polygamy: A cross- Noël, M. J. (2006). Progressive polyamory: Considering cultural analysis. New York, NY: Berg. issues of diversity. Sexualities, 9(5), 602–620. Kreider, R. M., & Ellis, R. (2011). Number, timing, https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706070003 and duration of marriages and : Nygren, A. (1982). : The Christian 2009. Economic Studies (May), idea of love (P. S. Watson, Trans.). Chicago, IL: 1–23. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of University of Chicago Press. (Original work Commerce/U.S. Census Bureau. published 1930 and 1936)

From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 19915 Oxford English Dictionary (1989, 2nd ed.). Envy. 5.316. Sangharakshita (1999). The Bodhisattva ideal: Wisdom Öztürk, Y. N. (1988). The eye of the heart: An and compassion in Buddhism. Birmingham, UK: introduction to Sufism and the major tariqats Windhorse. of Anatolia and the Balkans (R. Blakney, Trans.). Saxon, L. (2011). Sex at dusk: Lifting the shiny Istanbul, Turkey: Redhouse. wrapping from Sex at dawn. Lexington, KY: Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Border sexualities, CreateSpace. border families in schools. Lanham, MD: Schmitt, D. E. (2005a). Sociosexuality from Argentina Rowman & Littlefield. to Zimbanwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, Perel, E. (2006). Mating in captivity: Unlocking erotic and strategies of human mating. Behavioral intelligence. New York, NY: HarperCollins. and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311. https://doi. Petrella, S. (2005). Only with you—maybe—if org/10.1017/S0140525X05000051 you make me happy: A of serial Schmitt, D. E. (2005b). Fundamentals of human monogamy as governance and self-governance. mating strategies. In D. Buss (Ed.), Handbook In M. Sönser Breed & F. Peters (Eds.), of evolutionary psychology (pp. 258–291). of identity: Interdisciplinary readings on sex Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. and sexuality (pp. 169–182). Amsterdam, The Sesardic, N. (2002). Evolution of human jealousy: A Netherlands: Rodopi. just-so story or just-so criticism. Philosophy of Petrella, S. (2007). Ethical sluts and closet the Social Sciences, 33(4), 427–443. https://doi. polyamorists: Dissident eroticism, abject subjects org/10.1177/0048393103257964 and the normative cycle in self-help books on Sheff, E. (2013). The polyamorist next door: Inside . In N. Rumens & A. Cervantes-Carson multiple-partner relationships and families. (Eds.), Sexual politics of desire and belonging Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. (pp. 151–168). New York, NY: Rodopi. Squire, S. (2008). I don’t: A contrarian history of Ritchie, A., & Barker, M. (2006). ‘There aren’t words marriage. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. for what we do or how we feel so we have to Stearns, P. N. (2009). Sexuality in world history. New make them up’: Constructing polyamorous York, NY: Routledge. languages in a culture of compulsory monogamy. Studebaker, S. (2012). From Pentecost to the triune Sexualities, 9(5), 584–601. https://doi.org/10.117 God: A Pentecostal Trinitarian theology. Grand 7/1363460706069987 Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdsman. Robinson, M. (2009). ’s poisoned arrow: Tenzin Gyatso (H. H. the XIVth Dalai Lama). (1998). From habit to harmony in sexual relationships. The art of happiness: A handbook for living. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam. Robinson, M. (2013). Monogamy and polyamory as Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A strategies identities. Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 21– review of the research literature. Journal 38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.755731 of Sex Research, 19(1), 1–22. https://doi. Rowan, A. (1995). How to be not monogamous. In org/10.1080/00224498309551166 K. Lano & C. Perry (Eds.), Breaking the barriers of Thrangu Rimponche, K. (2013). The five Buddha desire: New approaches to multiple relationships families and the eight consciounesses (P. E. (pp. 13–19). Nottingham, UK: Five Leaves. Roberts, Trans.). Glastonbury, CT: Namo Buddha. Rubin, A. M., & Adams, J. R. (1986). Outcomes Tibbetts, L. (2001). Commitment in monogamous of sexually open marriages. The Journal of and polyamorous relationships. Unpublished Sex Research, 22(3), 311–319. https://doi. manuscript, Washburn University. Retrieved from org/10.1080/00224498609551311 http://picucci.net/Star/Relationships/polypaper.html Ryan, C. & Jethá, C. (2010). Sex at dawn: How Tr e a s , J ., & G i e s e n, D. ( 20 0 0 ). S e x u a l in fi d e li t y a m o n g we mate, how we stray, and what it means married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of for modern sexuality. New York, NY: Marriage and the Family, 62, 48–60. https:// HarperCollins. doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x

16200 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Ferrer Trungpa, C. (1991). Orderly chaos: The mandala Wiley, A. (2015). Constituting compulsory principle (S. Chözdin, Ed.). Boston, MA: monogamy: Normative femininity and the Shambhala. limits of imagination. Journal of , Tuffley, T. (2012). The four sublime states: The 24(6), 621–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589 Brahmaviharas. Contemplations on love, 236.2014.889600 compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. Wiley, A. (2016). Undoing monogamy: The politics Brisbane, Australia: Altiora. of science and the possibilities of biology. Uhlendorff, U. (2004). The concept of Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https:// developmental tasks and its significance for doi.org/10.1215/9780822374213 education and social work. Social Work and Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1996). Male sexual Society, 2(1), 54–63. proprietariness and violence against wives. Current VanderVoort, L., & Duck, S. (2004). Sex, lies…and Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 2–7. https:// transformation. In J. Duncombe, K. Harrison, G. doi.org /10.1111/1467- 8721.ep10772668 Allen, & D. Marsden (Eds.), The state of affairs: Witte, J., Jr. (2015). The Western case of monogamy Explorations in infidelity and commitment (pp. over polygamy. New York, NY: Cambridge 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. University Press. Van Anders, S., Hamilton, L. D., & Watson, N. V. Wosick, K. R. (2012). Sex, love, and fidelity: A (2007). Multiple partners are associated with study of contemporary romantic relationships. higher testosterone in North American men and Amherst, NY: Cambria. women. Hormones and Behavior, 41, 454–459. Young, L. J., Nilsen, R., Waymire, K. G., MacGregor, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.01.002 G. R., & Insel, T. R. (1999). Increased affiliative Veaux F., & Rickert, F. (2014). More than two: A response to vasopressin in mice expressing the practical guide to ethical polyamory. Portland, V1a receptor from a monogamous vole. Nature, OR: Thorntree. 400, 766–768. https://doi.org/10.1038/23475 Wade, J. (2004). Transcendent sex: When lovemaking opens the veil. New York, NY: About the Author Pocket Books. Walker, R. S., Hill, K. R., Flinn, M. V., & Ellsworth, R. Jorge N. Ferrer, Ph.D., is core faculty of the M . ( 2 0 11) . E v o l u t i o n a r y h i s t o r y o f h u n t e r - g a t h e r e r departments of East-West Psychology and Integral marriage practices. PLoS ONE, 6(4), e19066. and Transpersonal Psychology at the California https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.00 Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS), San Francisco. He 19066 is the author of Revisioning Transpersonal Theory: Walum, H., Lichtenstein, P., Neiderhiser, J. M., A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality (SUNY Westberg, L., Reiss, D., Ganiban, … Westberg, Press, 2002) and Participation and the Mystery: L. (2012). Variation in the oxytocin receptor Transpersonal Essays in Psychology, Education, and gene (OXTR) is associated with pair-boding Religion (SUNY Press, 2017), as well as the coeditor and social behavior. Biological Psychiatry, of The Participatory Turn: Spirituality, , 71(5), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Religious Studies (SUNY Press, 2008). Ferrer has biopsych.2011.09.002 taught courses and workshops on sexuality and Walum, H., Westberg, L., Hemmingson, S., intimate relationships at CIIS and other institutions Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Igl, W., … since 2000. His essays on these topics have appeared Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Genetic variation in in numerous journals, including Psychology and the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPRIA) Sexuality, Sexuality and Culture, ReVision, Tricycle: associates with pair-bonding behavior in The Buddhist Review, and Turning Wheel. He is humans. Proceedings of the National Academy currently preparing a book on transbinary forms of Sciences, 105, 14153–14156. https://doi. of intimate relationships beyond monogamy and org/10.1073/pnas.0803081105 polyamory. He was born in Barcelona, .

From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 20117 About the Journal

The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies is a is a peer-reviewed academic journal in print since 1981. It is sponsored by the California Institute of Integral Studies, published by Floraglades Foundation, and serves as the official publication of the International Transpersonal Association. The journal is available online at www. transpersonalstudies.org, and in print through www. lulu.com (search for IJTS).

18202 International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Ferrer