My comment and critique to this piece. Why bi, ecosex, tantra, and fluidity make what we mean by ‘poly’ and ‘orgy’ different today from what they meant in the 1960s.
Interesting article.
Emphasizes importance of love revolutions, or ‘lovolutions.’
Argues that the ‘orgy’ was your staple way of being sexually revolutionary in the 1960s, ‘polyamory’ is today’s way. But what is polyamory and what is an orgy? The very concepts of polyamory and of sex with multiple partners have changed since then.
Here’s how Micah puts it:
“Polyamory is an outgrowth of the free love movement but instead of looking to the orgy as the model for rebellion it is the notion of a tribe that excites their imagination. There are many visions of polyamory, but the one that many find intriguing is a world where partners are not exchangeable, relationships are stable and promiscuity is often frowned on.”
I’d like to comment and expand on this. I would object to the idea that today’s polyamory and the ‘orgy’ or group sex don’t get along. Perhaps it’s the very sense of what group sex is or can be that has changed, because we are more aware of the arts of loving via tantric practices and teachings, and because we have reactivated more sophisticated ways to be erotic, and affectionate, and sensual. This is probably due to safety and health and the awareness that a free exchange of fluid is not always healthy for people, especially when partners are multiple.
We are also more familiar with queer sexualities, and everyone is more in tune with being a bit bi and fluid. This has resulted in a sexuality or practice of the arts of loving that is more energetic and nurturing, with more emphasis on pleasure and less on release, and in general more attuned to the yoni, the ying, and what women typically enjoy.
We are a bit more ecosexual, to put it simply, we are more aware of our bodies as ecosystems, and of how they synergize with those of our partners too. I’d say that’s party the result of a general sense of fluidity in the cultural notions of what sexual orientation is, and that fluidity, I would argue, is largely the result of the ecofriendly intentions of the bisexual movement: the idea that we love people for who they are and not based on their gender, and that this love finds it own level of erotic expression too, if you let it.
For those interested in more on this, the new collection Bisexuality and Queer Theory, edited by Jonathan Alexander and yours truly, is now available from Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Also, of course, this is discussed in Gaia and the New Politics of Love. Finally, I am going to talk about it at BiReCon, the research session of BiCon, the 10th International Conference on Bisexuality, in London, August 26-30.
— Serena Anderlini
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com
