Well before we can delve into that, firstly we have to define what we mean by the word love.
I broke it down in more detail not so long ago in this post here but my own personal definition is very simple. Love is the deep emotional need for the well-being of another person; a need so deep that it becomes intrinsic to your own feeling of well-being.
To see them happy makes you smile, should somebody wish to do them harm you would do whatever you could to stop that from happening.
So far so good? Well this definition brings us to reason number one.
1. It is quite possible to feel the deep emotional need for the well-being of more than one person
While the emotional landscape that you tread when you are in a sexual relationship is certainly different than a loving friendship or family bond (as I discussed here) it does not change the basic definition of love itself.
If you use the Sex 2.0 model of navigating the emotional waters of a sexual relationship then you are certainly in for a choppier rider than is necessary but that brings me to reason number two.
2. There is nothing intrinsically subtractive about love
What I mean by that is that the deep emotion need for the well-being of one person does not make your feelings for the well-being of another person any less.
Love is not a zero sum game whereby for one to win, another must lose. Love does not work like that and it never has.
Certainly the Sex 2.0 framework, which acts as the rather ugly and wholly artificial template that has been imposed on the top of human nature, works that way but human nature does not, it never has and it’s likely not going to in the millennia to come.
As a zero sum game has been artificially imposed onto of a naturally non-zero sum game however, this can lead to confusion and can cause people to puzzle whether it is possible to love more than one person at the same time.
As somebody posted in our new Facebook group – unfenced relationships – just the other day, zero sum game is a contradiction of love because it is saying “I love you, so let me put you in this box, where you can never express (the full expression of) love for anyone but me again EVER.”
3. Sex 2.0 is already obsolete
Sex 2.0 which is built on the premise that women must sell their sexuality in exchange for security (ultimately the security of marriage to a man) and men must seek to fence-in the sexuality of their partner on an exclusive basis to ensure that they are raising their own kids. This system is already obsolete.
These days men, if you want to know if you are raising your own kids, can get at DNA paternity test done. Want to know before the baby is even born? Get a prenatal paternity test done.
As for women, well, in an age where women have access to social mobility, their own jobs careers and money as well as access to the welfare state and reliable contraceptives, women don’t need to sell their sexuality in exchange for security any more.
Yes in the 18th century before women had access to all these things the options for a woman wanting to have sex were limited to marriage, homelessness or prostitution but we don’t live in the 18h century any more so why act like it?
4. Human beings are non-monogamous pair bonders by nature
As anybody with a pair of eyes and ears has probably noticed, human beings sure like to fool around a lot even the ones in fenced relationships.
Also, unlike many other species who only mate when the female is at the height of her fertility in other words “in season” or “on heat”, we have sex all the time. In other words, we are a pretty horny bunch compared to other species.
Despite being non-monogamous by nature, we are however natural pair-bonders. By that I mean it is absolutely intrinsic to our nature to be sexually attracted to each other. We have sex because we enjoy it, we become infatuated naturally and of course love is the most natural love emotion of all.
We spent almost the entirety of human existence living in small social groups (tribes) where caring for the well-being of each other was at the core of our existence and a key tool in our survival.
Our non-monogamous nature and the advantages that biodiversity offers is another key reason.
Any system – like Sex 2.0 – that does not respect the two basic facts of human sexual nature; that we are natural pair-bonders but not naturally monogamous can only experience entropy over a period of time both on an individual and a systemic level.
5. You are already doing it silly!
Every argument I have ever heard from those opposed to polyamory – literally to love several or many people – comes from people who not only love their immediate partner but also experience the deep need for the well-being of friends and family members too.
In other words, although they may not being having sex with more than one person – which Sex 3.0 in designed for too (the choice of fenced relationships under Sex 3.0 is every bit as legitimate as the choice of unfenced relationships) they are already practising polyamorists.
See, it’s ok silly, you are doing it already!