Tia and I both read his book when we were teens, and then read the unabridged version together, that his Wife got printed, after we met (in this life) some 6 years ago.

Jenna makes a good point. I see how this book may have had more to do with the 'free Love' movement of the 60s than any other single factor. I also see that most of these people read into it what they wanted to, as opposed to what the Author had intended

I read into it that the Author was not saying we can simply do this now, or perhaps even a thousand years from now. There clearly is no Martian language, let alone a Martian discipline to master.

The book 'The Harrod Experiment' also came out near that same time, and also suggested this was a good goal to work towards. He also made it clear that we are not ready for this, and we all need to work to advance our way of thinking and evolve before we are near ready for this.

It is good to keep working towards that goal as a society, but we need to place more focus on how we are going to find and grock the wisdoms represented in these books, before we dive head first into the orgies that our fast food society is salivating over, and does not want to wait until they can do this right.

If we don't wait, we risk a great deal of hurt and anger. We first need to develop a healthy relationship with ourselves. Then we need to learn relationship skills and conflict resolution, to mention only the tip of the ice burg. Think of our future or current off-spring we are also screwing up when we are impatient and do not do this the right way.

We wrote a web site on this topic a few years ago, and have added to it from time to time. It is at ladytia.com/pdx/ , and we would love to hear your thoughts on it.

Love David & Tia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pay it forward!
( payitforward.com )

Interesting parallels are developing. I too read this novel as a preteen urban male and it certainly contributed to much of my self identification. I was about 12 or 13 when I read it and it was a stand alone vision in its time of a polyamorous relationship.

Now I want to distinguish this from the hedonist lifestyle that was being popularized as the Playboy/girl 'chic' culture contemporaneous to that time. It is no easy task to identify yourself as polyamorous in a society that legislates monogamy and even without actively seeking outside partners the very discussion of this topic destroyed my first serious relationship.

My lover became obsessive with making me prove my love and she began seeking partners for me. This was not my idea of polyamorous and the result was catastrophic to us both.

After that I lived in semi successful menage a'tois for about six months that came apart more because of a dangerous level of self abuse by one member intent on her heroin use, and who highly resented and rejected my attempts to get her to reduce her excess. She left and later the other woman did too when I refused to adopt the hedonist imperative that I find too superficial emotionally and devoid of any true commitment.

I later began a life long relationship of 27 years with my wife, who is the mother of our two children. Our realtionship is complicated by her being the "survivor" of her parents' "Open Relationship". Ironically they too are still together (and apart) while approaching their 50th anniversary. My wife is still scarred emotionally by abuse of outside partners that robbed her youth but she is at least now healing decades later. She was seduced by one of her mother's boyfriends at the age of 12.

My side of the story in this is ironic because I have learned that aside from possessiveness on my part to overcome it was even harder to overcome the idea of jealousy as a measure of love. I could get into the issue from a theoretical discussion of Evolutionary Psychology but the plain and simple fact is that besides many women not wanting to share their mate they feel diminished in "value" when shared.

Please don't attack me for saying this I am not trying to defend the social norm. It impossible to address the parallelism and perversion of love by treating our bodies, and more importantly our hearts and minds as property if we do not have a functional grasp of why society behaves as its does. It is also important to accept the reality of this common behavior.

I have never felt fully satisfied by monogamy but ironically I am not promiscuous, and certainly not serial monogamous; but I am polygamous. That word in its actual definition is synonymous with polyamory today.

I am an "alpha type" male wolf and I guard my children's as well as my wife's well being with my life. They were born into my hands and instinctely their needs outweigh most desire on my part to expand our realtionship. I will not casually tolerate the risks to my family that I witnessed in so many other social experiments. The best manner of preventing this is to restrict my own self indulgence through shallow promiscuity. I think the pack mentality of the cannine/feline mind is in part at the heart of a polyamorous family structure and this is inherently threatenting to a society that insitinctively fears this potentially predatory character association.

Personally I feel this as a functionally tribal, perhaps almost nomadic affinity. I want a close intimate committed relationship with people I can feel a life long trusting bond with and whom I can feel secure and good about sharing the child rearing, construction, care-giving, finances, as well as the bedroom. I love to love and be loved in return.

A second aspect as a male, is the difference of gendermind with respect to sexual activity. While I have a normal level of bi-curiosity it has never been sufficient to overcome my reluctance to submit to male attention.

In the passive/active role play I am not trusting of most males as they cannot give up the power politics of sexual play and if I were gay I would be a lesbian. I can relate to a sense of surrender to a force that is not bent on abusive power but my instinct for survival rejects anyone that attempts dominance and in fact I opt for meaningful frienshhips and scholastic asceticism instead.

I should add that while I have deep real friendships with other males another reason I am uncomfortable with them as bedroom partners is that I endured being raped as a child of 7. I can fully relate to the perspective of many women that never are able to build a trusting relationship with a male afterward. Telling me (and I do distinguish) that gays are not pedophiles does not alter the simple fact that they are mostly still male.

So let me return to the central aspect of this post, two distinct aspects of human sexuality appear to mitigate the ability of rational and healthy polyamory (aside from profound health concerns) first is the sexual politics of patriarchy/matriarchy. Second, is how that power politic impacts territorial genetics as possessiveness and the interwoven psychology of tribalism, 'Selfish Genes,' and emotional "bonding".

Third the psychology of love expressed as property rights is not a simple[stic one. It has some powerful components as a paradigm of species survival behavioral models but are complicated by the reorganizing divergent period of social development and evolution that many of us prefer to identify with modern Transcendalism, also known as Transhumanism.

The history of marriage and family is too important and generally misunderstood to gloss over and it is a part of this discussion that deserves a lot more attention.

Let me close with an interesting aside of language; in Spanish the word for "spouse" that shares its etymology from ancient Latin. It also shares a synonymous use such that when made plural (esposas) ironically means "handcuffs," as in the chains that were used to bind slaves and prisoners. The word is still used this way by most Latin American police.

Take a moment to examine the duality of the language of love and the causality for many of the paradoxes we experience become rapidly apparent. Polyamory is about a very different form of family, a form much closer to tribal than modern secular. One that has even less respectability but far more pragmatic value than any traditional form of monogamy or its variant, serial monogamy. However we may as well take our Mayflowers to New Worlds because we are less likely to be accepted than gay men and women seeking to behave in a parallel status quo and if a bunch of us demand to be mated in holy wedlock on the steps of San Francisco Town Hall Bush will win the election.

I just posted a treatment of the dark side of polyamory on a separate thread dealing with the authors use of the concept. Heinlein it should be understood did argue for the rational use of eugenics and it is one reason he was often vilified as a fascist even though he was at worst a Libertarian in this respect.

Today he is at the heart of the Transhumanist movement that desire to move from Natural Selection to Human Selection and polyamory is a means for rapidly disseminating not only a memetic model for enlightenment but also a genetic model for accelerating mutational advantage. In other words IMO this author is definitely treating the behavior as a means to an end not an end in itself.

The thread is about Messianism and the Mass Mind
www.tribe.net/tribe/servl...iewThread.vm

I would very much enjoy some contrasting opinion on this aspect, especially from women as the child bearers that might be understood as crucial to this method. How can polyamory be divorced from Heinlein's proposed remodeling of the modern family?

I too am poly. I read Stranger in my early teen years and found it interesting but I don't feel it guided my path towards polyamory. It was more a welcomed acknowledgement that different relationship styles were certainly possible. Upon rereading the book early this year after having about 7 years of poly experiences, I found it too be amazingly applicable to my current worldview but in more of a confirming way then a life changing one.

This entry hit home with me,PABlo.

Very much so.


Thanks for putting it into words..