I’ve frequently mentioned a workshop – “Sex, Love, and Non-Violence” – that I took around 1980 at SUUSI (the Southeast Unitarian Universalist Summer Institute). The workshop’s goal was to make people feel less embarrassed and self-conscious about (I would say) erotic interactions.
The workshop tried to lower the stress associated with telling someone you were interested in them – whether the interest was definitely long-term, exploratory, or simply a one-night stand (i.e. purely sexual).
By lowering the stress, and any associated fear, shame, or embarrassment, we might become more honest and clear in our communications and interaction.
Twenty-five years later, I’ve had a lot more experience in sex and relationships (my early experience had been rather limited). And I’ve spent over ten years now “screening” newcomers to South Bay Polys. I’ve occasionally made mistakes. Because who do you want to screen out? I discouraged people who were looking for swinging, one-night stands, mindless sex – and people whose phone voices assumed the air of obscene callers.
Some poly-friendly Unitarian Universalists are currently engaged in a variant of the “Swinger vs. Poly” topic. There has always been a strong feeling, among some polys, that “polyamory” can include swinging, one-night stands, anonymous sex – any non-monogamy – if done honestly and “responsibly”.
This led me recently to question whether I was truly “sex-positive” or simply “sex-neutral.” Does “anything go?” Is all sex good?
I don’t think “anything goes” (neither do the UU polys) –- and sometimes sex is a bad idea. But perhaps the rules polys follow are different, because our outlook on sex and relationships is different.
Polys tend to think outside the Monogamy Box. Our guiding principle is not how many people we have (or don’t have) sex with. For many of us, it also isn’t a matter of what kind of sex we have, (gay or straight, BDSM, etc.)
For us, it is important to communicate, to be honest, to not hurt, to not exploit; and to feel comfortable, somehow, with sex – or at least to be open to becoming comfortable with sex (I remember, when I was younger, feeling very ambiguous about sex – I think a lot of people do).
Which makes “screening” much harder, more subjective. Do I trust someone? Are they honest and caring? Do I feel comfortable with them?
But such screening (whether of prospective group members or prospective dates) is more honest. I’m more concerned with honesty, communication, non-exploitation, caring – than I am with specific sexual behavior. Monogamists might apply this ethic to two-person relationships; we extend it to singles and multi-person interactions as well.
The sex is sometimes irrelevant!