What do you think?
Rate this book
Love and Freedom: Transcending Monogamy and Polyamory
In Love and Freedom, Jorge Ferrer proposes a paradigm shift in how romantic relationships are conceptualized, a step forward in the evolution of modern relationships. In the same way that the transgender movement surmounted the gender binary, Ferrer defines how a parallel step can—and should—be taken with the relational style binary. This book offers the first systematic discussion of relationship modes beyond monogamy and polyamory, as well as introduces the notion of “relational freedom” as the capability to choose one’s relational style free from biological, psychological, and sociocultural conditionings. To achieve these goals, Ferrer first discusses a number of critical categories—specifically, monopride/polyphobia, and polypride/monophobia—that mediate the contemporary “mono–poly wars,” that is, the predicament of mutual competition among monogamists and polyamorists. The ideological nature of these “mono–poly wars” is demonstrated through a review of available empirical literature on the psychological health and relationship quality of monogamous and polyamorous individuals and couples. Then, after showing how monogamy and polyamory ultimately reinforce each other, Ferrer articulates three relational pathways to living in-between, through, and beyond the mono/poly fluidity, hybridity, and transcendence. Moving beyond that binary opens a fuzzy, liminal, and multivocal relational space that Ferrer calls novogamy. In this groundbreaking book, readers will learn practical tools to not only transform jealousy, but also enhance their relational freedom while being aware of key issues of diversity and social justice. They will also learn novel criteria to evaluate the success of their intimate relationships, and be introduced to a transformed vision of romantic love beyond both monocentrism and emerging polynormativities.
- GenresRelationshipsSexuality
212 pages, Hardcover
Published July 1, 2021
12 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
About the author
Jorge N. Ferrer
10 books12 followersI was born in Barcelona, Spain. After obtaining my degree in Clinical Psychology at the University of Barcelona and the University of Wales, College of Cardiff (U.K.), I carried out doctoral research on mindfulness meditation with the support of a fellowship from the University and Research Commission of the Catalonian Council.
In 1993, I traveled to the USA to obtain a Ph.D. degree at California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) under the auspices of the prestigious 'la Caixa" Foundation Fellowship Program (Catalonia, Spain). I began teaching in 1998 at both the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology and CIIS, and in 2000 became core faculty at CIIS, where I also served as chair of the Department of East-West Psychology and launched a concentration in Shamanic Studies.
In addition to dozens of articles, I have authored three books: Revisioning Transpersonal Theory: A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality (State University of New York Press, 2002), Participation and the Mystery: Transpersonal Essays in Psychology, Education, and Religion (State University of New York Press, 2017), and Love and Freedom: Transcending Monogamy and Polyamory (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021), as well as co-edited The Participatory Turn: Spirituality, Mysticism, Religious Studies (State University of New York Press, 2008). Many of my books and articles have been translated into several languages, such as Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, German, Finish, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese.
I was a leading scholar at the Esalen Center for Theory and Research, California, where I have also offered various talks and workshops. In 2000 my work received the Fetzer Institute’s Presidential Award for its seminal contribution to consciousness studies. In 2009 I was selected to become an advisor to the organization Religions for Peace at the United Nations on a research project aimed at solving global inter-religious conflict.
In my international private practice (in English and Spanish) I assist individuals and couples to achieve more satisfying intimate relationships, as well as support individuals in processes of spiritual integration, transformation, and awakening.
I regularly offer invited talks, podcasts, workshops, webinars, and interviews in both English and Spanish.
Learn more at www.jorgenferrer.com
In 1993, I traveled to the USA to obtain a Ph.D. degree at California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) under the auspices of the prestigious 'la Caixa" Foundation Fellowship Program (Catalonia, Spain). I began teaching in 1998 at both the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology and CIIS, and in 2000 became core faculty at CIIS, where I also served as chair of the Department of East-West Psychology and launched a concentration in Shamanic Studies.
In addition to dozens of articles, I have authored three books: Revisioning Transpersonal Theory: A Participatory Vision of Human Spirituality (State University of New York Press, 2002), Participation and the Mystery: Transpersonal Essays in Psychology, Education, and Religion (State University of New York Press, 2017), and Love and Freedom: Transcending Monogamy and Polyamory (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021), as well as co-edited The Participatory Turn: Spirituality, Mysticism, Religious Studies (State University of New York Press, 2008). Many of my books and articles have been translated into several languages, such as Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, German, Finish, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese.
I was a leading scholar at the Esalen Center for Theory and Research, California, where I have also offered various talks and workshops. In 2000 my work received the Fetzer Institute’s Presidential Award for its seminal contribution to consciousness studies. In 2009 I was selected to become an advisor to the organization Religions for Peace at the United Nations on a research project aimed at solving global inter-religious conflict.
In my international private practice (in English and Spanish) I assist individuals and couples to achieve more satisfying intimate relationships, as well as support individuals in processes of spiritual integration, transformation, and awakening.
I regularly offer invited talks, podcasts, workshops, webinars, and interviews in both English and Spanish.
Learn more at www.jorgenferrer.com
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 18, 2022
Okay, how can I start, because this book was a wild ride. Maybe I'll just start with my conclusion and then write the longer review to get more into detail...
Basically this book tries to make the point that we should break up mononormativity and start to see relationship styles as the broad spectrum they should be seen as. I fully agree! I wish more people would question what relationship style would fit for them and then decide whatever floats their boat – monogamy or anything that falls under the broad spectrum of nonmonogamy.
The main problems I have with this book where the following, I will get into detail below:
1. The author completely excluded LGBTQ+, he wrote that he can only write from the perspective of a cis white guy, so he will “focus on heterosexual relationships between cisgender men and women" and “not discuss asexual and aromantic identities or orientations”.
2. He was trying to coin his own, innovative terms such as “novogamy” very hard and again I felt like he did not really take one single glance at the actual nonmonogamous community. He really wanted to reinvent the wheel here, as most of his innovative ideas already exists.
3. He contradicted himself a lot. I will come back to this later, but it was absolutely confusing at times.
4. I feel like the whole book served his agenda of merging Religion, especially Buddhism, into the conversation. Also he wrote about that we can't leave out nonmonogamy with nonphysical entities such as angels/in the subtle realm out of the conversation. What the heck.
5.
Dude, no. “Just be happy” won't do it. I'll get into this below.
6. The appendix was weird talk of Alpha Male vs. Omega Male. Will also go into this below.
7. I did not like how he used terms like “Monophobia”, “Polynormativity” and “Polypride” (with a negative connotation).
Ok, so now that I summarized it let me go a bit more into detail.
1. On excluding LGBTQ+: Apart from the fact that you can just do research and include quotes/voices from LGBTQ+ folks like other authors do it all the time you just can't do that when writing about nonmonogamy. A big part of the community is queer and queer people have always had a big influence in shaping nonmonogamous relationship styles. It just seems like lazy writing to me. Later the author wrote about intersectionality and how important it is to go against oppression and that literature is often aimed at a certain type and class of people (white, cis/het etc). When he knows that, why didn't he do it better? It's just lazy. Later on into the book he called asexuality a relationship style, which makes clear that he didn't really do his homework.
2. On Reinventing the wheel: He wrote about a mono-poly-binary, as if styles like Relationship Anarchy among others wouldn't already exist. But nonmonogamy is a very broad umbrella term and the many people I know already do it all very differently. It is not as black and white as he wants to paint it, just to prove his points. I myself am a polyamorous person in a relationship with my monogamous partner for 17 years now, I am dating someone who does hierarchical polyamory without label and I, myself, have a very relationship anarchist's mindset.
Further he wrote:
and I feel like he did not understand the meaning of both terms. How can one be “monogamous and nonmonogamous at once”? As Hierarchical Nonmonogamy is still nonmonogamy, for example. I think this came from him, writing a lot about polyamory is about seeking sexual freedom and novelty and monogamy is about stability and attachment – which is just a false and harmful stereotype. Later he contradicted himself multiple times, because he also wrote about how this is a common prejudice, just to use the same stereotypes in his arguments later. It was one of the many confusing contradictions throughout this book and I didn't really understand what his own take on it was. Really tiring.
In my opinion we don't need even more new terms. What we need is to simply more visibility and give people a chance to see that all relationship styles are valid and they have a choice. The author kinda tried to say the same, but in a completely convoluted way with a lot of false allegations and logical fallacies.
3. On Contradicting himself: The already mentioned contradictory statements of polyamory weren't the only one's. For example he wrote:
only to write a few pages later:
He mentioned science that proved that Serial Monogamy is more linked with getting STIs than Consentual Nonmonogamy, later he included science that proved that none of the relationship styles leads to less STIs. There were a lot of those contradictions, so many that it was absolutely annoying and a big displeasure to read.
4. On Religion: While I respect people's choices here it felt more than a bit sketchy. He came up with these topics very late into the book and even wrote about nonmonogamy with nonphysical entities/in the “subtle realms”. He wrote he knows of the scepticism of atheists, so I guess he knew exactly what he did here. The book really took a turn from me at this point and I feel like he did not only want to “break free of mononormativity”, but also to bring his own spiritual viewpoints into it. Which kinda makes sense, because after I googled this guy I saw that religion/spirituality is his main topic.
His points about Buddhism also were completely unecessary:
So why does he include it at all? His anwer:
Well yes, that what I felt too while reading.
I think I don't even have to comment too much on the nonmonogamy with nonphysical entities stuff here. To me this clearly doesn't belong into a book about reinventing polyamory/monogamy. Not everyone wants to bang Angels, Jorge.
5.
The problem with the “Just transform your jealousy to compersion”-approach is, that it doesn't work. Jealousy is an emotion, often with underlying emotion and it needs to be addressed and talked about. I personally don't experience jealousy, but my partner did great work of working through his feelings of jealousy and deconstructing them. I took him seriously. He feels compersion when I am happy with a date, but he also sometimes still feels jealousy. It is okay. This is broadly discussed in the nonmnogamous community too. While Ferrer said polyamory tried to be superior and had a few points I agree with the assumption that people can just learn not to be jealous and feel compersion instead was somehow forgotten. Confusingly he later mentioned this approach, so again he knows about this, which did not held him back from proposing his solution.
6. The Alpha Male vs. Omega Male-Appendix. Just one quote from his list:
This essay would make more sense if he would drop both terms and would just write about toxic and nontoxic masculinity, but he also describes the "Alpha Male" as more confident etc, as if you are either effeminate or very masculine and these would come with certain traits of toxicity or Mr.Nice Guy-Ness. Here for example he could have simply written something like: "Toxic masculinity is feeling like questioning your sexuality makes you "weaker" or "less of a man". But sexuality has nothing to do with where you are on the spectrum of gender identity or masculinity."
But he's putting stuff into a binary, which is bold for a dude who just ranted about putting everything into a binary the whole book long (even though the binary he was talking about (poly-mono) doesn't really exist like that but ok). Alpha vs. Omega Male is just amplifying the whole stereotype. Just stop it, for real.
7. On “Monophobia”, “Polynormativity” and “Polypride”: Monophobia sounds like Heterophobia (it doesn't exist).
Monophobia: There is frustration about mononormativity for sure, but this has nothing to do with so called “monophobia”. Yes, some polyamorous people try to stance polyamory as superior, but again, this has nothing to do with being prejudiced, rather than with arguing in the wrong direction. Polyphobia comes out of prejudices and often doesn't have a reason, it makes people avoid Polyamorous folks and act hostile against them – the author even wrote about his own experiences with polyphobia. I never heard of polyamorous people avoiding monogamous friends just because they are disgusted by their monogamy.
Polynormativity: In this context “normativity” means usually, that a certain thing is the societal norm, the only presented choice as a default, the most visible option. Polynormativity simply doesn't exist. And no, having a polyam community bubble also doesn't create “Polynormativity”, as in all the Polyam places I know Monogamy is very accepted. It is just creating a safe space from polyphobia.
Polypride: This term was used interchangeably with “Monophobia”, which is... sad? Enraging? Polypride for me is about visibility we need so much. Polypride is for me about living my best polylife unapologetic, without shame and fighting against the stigma. It is nothing bad and it doesn't have inherently to do with seeing Polyamory as superior. It has to do with self-acceptance as well as wishing acceptance from others. Sad that he confused polypride with hate.
As a friend from my polyamory Discord (Hello, Shandalara! <3) put it:
And he is right, because if it was only about making a point that nonmonogamy and monogamy are both valid, about breaking free from mononormativity without trying to argue that one is better than the other, about breaking free from toxic masculinity it could have been a good and valid book. But all his points were either contradictory, amplified harmful stereotypes, were unnecessary or not new at all.
So no, we don't need this novogamy and I can't recommend this book at all, even though I did not disagree with all of the points he made. Better take a look into the community and learn from each other and about all the possibilities, because nonmonogamy and polyamory is already a broad spectrum and includes a lot of different ways and possibilities. Don't let Ferrer tell you otherwise!
Basically this book tries to make the point that we should break up mononormativity and start to see relationship styles as the broad spectrum they should be seen as. I fully agree! I wish more people would question what relationship style would fit for them and then decide whatever floats their boat – monogamy or anything that falls under the broad spectrum of nonmonogamy.
The main problems I have with this book where the following, I will get into detail below:
1. The author completely excluded LGBTQ+, he wrote that he can only write from the perspective of a cis white guy, so he will “focus on heterosexual relationships between cisgender men and women" and “not discuss asexual and aromantic identities or orientations”.
2. He was trying to coin his own, innovative terms such as “novogamy” very hard and again I felt like he did not really take one single glance at the actual nonmonogamous community. He really wanted to reinvent the wheel here, as most of his innovative ideas already exists.
3. He contradicted himself a lot. I will come back to this later, but it was absolutely confusing at times.
4. I feel like the whole book served his agenda of merging Religion, especially Buddhism, into the conversation. Also he wrote about that we can't leave out nonmonogamy with nonphysical entities such as angels/in the subtle realm out of the conversation. What the heck.
5.
"Moving beyond jealousy to sympathetic joy is one key to overcoming the “mono–poly wars” and destabilizing the mono/poly binary."
Dude, no. “Just be happy” won't do it. I'll get into this below.
6. The appendix was weird talk of Alpha Male vs. Omega Male. Will also go into this below.
7. I did not like how he used terms like “Monophobia”, “Polynormativity” and “Polypride” (with a negative connotation).
Ok, so now that I summarized it let me go a bit more into detail.
1. On excluding LGBTQ+: Apart from the fact that you can just do research and include quotes/voices from LGBTQ+ folks like other authors do it all the time you just can't do that when writing about nonmonogamy. A big part of the community is queer and queer people have always had a big influence in shaping nonmonogamous relationship styles. It just seems like lazy writing to me. Later the author wrote about intersectionality and how important it is to go against oppression and that literature is often aimed at a certain type and class of people (white, cis/het etc). When he knows that, why didn't he do it better? It's just lazy. Later on into the book he called asexuality a relationship style, which makes clear that he didn't really do his homework.
2. On Reinventing the wheel: He wrote about a mono-poly-binary, as if styles like Relationship Anarchy among others wouldn't already exist. But nonmonogamy is a very broad umbrella term and the many people I know already do it all very differently. It is not as black and white as he wants to paint it, just to prove his points. I myself am a polyamorous person in a relationship with my monogamous partner for 17 years now, I am dating someone who does hierarchical polyamory without label and I, myself, have a very relationship anarchist's mindset.
Further he wrote:
"In this context, there is no way out: one must be either monogamous or nonmonogamous, sexually exclusive with one partner or not, and so forth"
and I feel like he did not understand the meaning of both terms. How can one be “monogamous and nonmonogamous at once”? As Hierarchical Nonmonogamy is still nonmonogamy, for example. I think this came from him, writing a lot about polyamory is about seeking sexual freedom and novelty and monogamy is about stability and attachment – which is just a false and harmful stereotype. Later he contradicted himself multiple times, because he also wrote about how this is a common prejudice, just to use the same stereotypes in his arguments later. It was one of the many confusing contradictions throughout this book and I didn't really understand what his own take on it was. Really tiring.
In my opinion we don't need even more new terms. What we need is to simply more visibility and give people a chance to see that all relationship styles are valid and they have a choice. The author kinda tried to say the same, but in a completely convoluted way with a lot of false allegations and logical fallacies.
3. On Contradicting himself: The already mentioned contradictory statements of polyamory weren't the only one's. For example he wrote:
"Indeed, monogamy and nonmonogamy should not be considered as disconnected polar realities”
only to write a few pages later:
"Seeking to open new trails for thinking and living in between,through, and beyond the mono/poly bipolarity."
He mentioned science that proved that Serial Monogamy is more linked with getting STIs than Consentual Nonmonogamy, later he included science that proved that none of the relationship styles leads to less STIs. There were a lot of those contradictions, so many that it was absolutely annoying and a big displeasure to read.
4. On Religion: While I respect people's choices here it felt more than a bit sketchy. He came up with these topics very late into the book and even wrote about nonmonogamy with nonphysical entities/in the “subtle realms”. He wrote he knows of the scepticism of atheists, so I guess he knew exactly what he did here. The book really took a turn from me at this point and I feel like he did not only want to “break free of mononormativity”, but also to bring his own spiritual viewpoints into it. Which kinda makes sense, because after I googled this guy I saw that religion/spirituality is his main topic.
His points about Buddhism also were completely unecessary:
"The problem is that the Buddhist terms translated as jealousy—such as issa(Pali), phrag dog(Tibetan), or irshya(Sanskrit)—are more accurately read as “envy.”"
[...]
"the lack of systematic reflection in Buddhism upon romantic jealousy should not come as a surprise."
[...]
"The relevance of sympathetic joy for intimate relationships becomes more visible when juxtaposed with contemporary research on the phenomenon of compersion in polyamorous people."
So why does he include it at all? His anwer:
"In this discussion, I am obviously cherry-picking and magnifying a historical tendency in the diffusion of Buddhism for my own purposes."
Well yes, that what I felt too while reading.
I think I don't even have to comment too much on the nonmonogamy with nonphysical entities stuff here. To me this clearly doesn't belong into a book about reinventing polyamory/monogamy. Not everyone wants to bang Angels, Jorge.
5.
"Moving beyond jealousy to sympathetic joy is one key to overcoming the “mono–poly wars” and destabilizing the mono/poly binary."
The problem with the “Just transform your jealousy to compersion”-approach is, that it doesn't work. Jealousy is an emotion, often with underlying emotion and it needs to be addressed and talked about. I personally don't experience jealousy, but my partner did great work of working through his feelings of jealousy and deconstructing them. I took him seriously. He feels compersion when I am happy with a date, but he also sometimes still feels jealousy. It is okay. This is broadly discussed in the nonmnogamous community too. While Ferrer said polyamory tried to be superior and had a few points I agree with the assumption that people can just learn not to be jealous and feel compersion instead was somehow forgotten. Confusingly he later mentioned this approach, so again he knows about this, which did not held him back from proposing his solution.
6. The Alpha Male vs. Omega Male-Appendix. Just one quote from his list:
"If self-identified as heterosexual, Alpha Males tend to be homophobic, speaking and acting in ways that do not leave any room for questioning their sexual orientation. Omega Men are often “queer straight men” who appreciate all sexual orientations; they can also be openly bisexual, homosexual, metrosexual, omnisexual, or pansexual."
This essay would make more sense if he would drop both terms and would just write about toxic and nontoxic masculinity, but he also describes the "Alpha Male" as more confident etc, as if you are either effeminate or very masculine and these would come with certain traits of toxicity or Mr.Nice Guy-Ness. Here for example he could have simply written something like: "Toxic masculinity is feeling like questioning your sexuality makes you "weaker" or "less of a man". But sexuality has nothing to do with where you are on the spectrum of gender identity or masculinity."
But he's putting stuff into a binary, which is bold for a dude who just ranted about putting everything into a binary the whole book long (even though the binary he was talking about (poly-mono) doesn't really exist like that but ok). Alpha vs. Omega Male is just amplifying the whole stereotype. Just stop it, for real.
7. On “Monophobia”, “Polynormativity” and “Polypride”: Monophobia sounds like Heterophobia (it doesn't exist).
Monophobia: There is frustration about mononormativity for sure, but this has nothing to do with so called “monophobia”. Yes, some polyamorous people try to stance polyamory as superior, but again, this has nothing to do with being prejudiced, rather than with arguing in the wrong direction. Polyphobia comes out of prejudices and often doesn't have a reason, it makes people avoid Polyamorous folks and act hostile against them – the author even wrote about his own experiences with polyphobia. I never heard of polyamorous people avoiding monogamous friends just because they are disgusted by their monogamy.
Polynormativity: In this context “normativity” means usually, that a certain thing is the societal norm, the only presented choice as a default, the most visible option. Polynormativity simply doesn't exist. And no, having a polyam community bubble also doesn't create “Polynormativity”, as in all the Polyam places I know Monogamy is very accepted. It is just creating a safe space from polyphobia.
Polypride: This term was used interchangeably with “Monophobia”, which is... sad? Enraging? Polypride for me is about visibility we need so much. Polypride is for me about living my best polylife unapologetic, without shame and fighting against the stigma. It is nothing bad and it doesn't have inherently to do with seeing Polyamory as superior. It has to do with self-acceptance as well as wishing acceptance from others. Sad that he confused polypride with hate.
As a friend from my polyamory Discord (Hello, Shandalara! <3) put it:
"That book reminds me of these cornflakes. When you leave them in the milk for too long and they get soggy and taste like cardboard."
And he is right, because if it was only about making a point that nonmonogamy and monogamy are both valid, about breaking free from mononormativity without trying to argue that one is better than the other, about breaking free from toxic masculinity it could have been a good and valid book. But all his points were either contradictory, amplified harmful stereotypes, were unnecessary or not new at all.
So no, we don't need this novogamy and I can't recommend this book at all, even though I did not disagree with all of the points he made. Better take a look into the community and learn from each other and about all the possibilities, because nonmonogamy and polyamory is already a broad spectrum and includes a lot of different ways and possibilities. Don't let Ferrer tell you otherwise!
February 22, 2024
Enriched with lots of research studies and quotations from interviews. A good source of modern research on polyamory or relational freedom for people who come from a more rational/research based perspective.
I really like how the author puts a spiritual and social justice bent on how to measure relationship success:
- measure relationship success:
- • How much love was experienced? Was this love limited to the relationship
- or also extended toward others and the world?
- • To what degree were the personal needs (e.g., sexual, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, social) of all partners met in the relationship?
- • Did friendship and mutual support successfully coexist with sex and
- romance?
- • Were harmony, care, trust, respect, empathy, and kindness present even in
- conflicting moments or challenging situations?
- • How mindfully was anger expressed and received? How were other “negative” emotions (e.g., annoyance, frustration, jealousy, shame, guilt, anxiety,
- fear, and despair) managed?
- • How well and how fully were incompatibilities, disagreements, and conflicts addressed, resolved, or transcended?
- • How much mindfulness, compassion, and forgiveness were exercised? In
- particular, how much were they offered in relation to oneself and one’s
- partner(s)’ perceived or self-perceived flaws, limitations, unhelpful patterns,
- and growing edges?
- • How much sexual, sensuous, and emotional joy and delight characterized
- the relationship? Was sexuality an open soil conducive to mutual satisfaction, emotional bonding, vital regeneration, and ecstatic transcendence (as
- opposed to fraught with persistent challenges, conflicts, or frustrations)?
- • To what extent were ego-transcendence (i.e., liberation from selfishness and
- egocentric concerns) and other spiritual qualities—such as inner peace, unconditional acceptance, generosity, and devotion—experienced in the relationship?
Healing:
• To what extent is a relationship contributing to heal somatic dissociations,
energetic blockages, sexual wounds, emotional conflicts, or cognitive ideologies and rigidities?
• Has a relationship fostered the growth of personal integrity and wholeness,
individuation, sexual and emotional maturity, ethical behavior, and vocational development?
• To what extent did a relationship enhance sociopolitical awareness, empathy toward others (both human and nonhuman), and personal empowerment, to support becoming more effective culturally transformative agents?
• Has a relationship helped its members to become more aware of their own
social privilege and oppression, as well as contributed to greater socioeconomic justice and equality?
• What have been the relationship’s actual fruits in terms of not only possible
biological progeny but also creative personal, social, and cultural projects
carried out individually and/or as a relational unit?
• How effective is or has the relationship been in fostering ecological sustainability (see Barker, 2013)?
• To what degree did the relationship promote the emergence or growth of
spiritual qualities such as mindfulness, compassion, generosity, and selflessness, as well as openness to previously unknown aspects or mysteries of life
and the world?
After a relationship ends:
• How much friendship and love remain after an intimate relationship has
ended?
• How has that love transformed in its postromantic phase?
• How much gratitude can one experience toward prior partners, even in
those cases where aspects of the relationship or separation process were
painful?
I really like how the author puts a spiritual and social justice bent on how to measure relationship success:
- measure relationship success:
- • How much love was experienced? Was this love limited to the relationship
- or also extended toward others and the world?
- • To what degree were the personal needs (e.g., sexual, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, social) of all partners met in the relationship?
- • Did friendship and mutual support successfully coexist with sex and
- romance?
- • Were harmony, care, trust, respect, empathy, and kindness present even in
- conflicting moments or challenging situations?
- • How mindfully was anger expressed and received? How were other “negative” emotions (e.g., annoyance, frustration, jealousy, shame, guilt, anxiety,
- fear, and despair) managed?
- • How well and how fully were incompatibilities, disagreements, and conflicts addressed, resolved, or transcended?
- • How much mindfulness, compassion, and forgiveness were exercised? In
- particular, how much were they offered in relation to oneself and one’s
- partner(s)’ perceived or self-perceived flaws, limitations, unhelpful patterns,
- and growing edges?
- • How much sexual, sensuous, and emotional joy and delight characterized
- the relationship? Was sexuality an open soil conducive to mutual satisfaction, emotional bonding, vital regeneration, and ecstatic transcendence (as
- opposed to fraught with persistent challenges, conflicts, or frustrations)?
- • To what extent were ego-transcendence (i.e., liberation from selfishness and
- egocentric concerns) and other spiritual qualities—such as inner peace, unconditional acceptance, generosity, and devotion—experienced in the relationship?
Healing:
• To what extent is a relationship contributing to heal somatic dissociations,
energetic blockages, sexual wounds, emotional conflicts, or cognitive ideologies and rigidities?
• Has a relationship fostered the growth of personal integrity and wholeness,
individuation, sexual and emotional maturity, ethical behavior, and vocational development?
• To what extent did a relationship enhance sociopolitical awareness, empathy toward others (both human and nonhuman), and personal empowerment, to support becoming more effective culturally transformative agents?
• Has a relationship helped its members to become more aware of their own
social privilege and oppression, as well as contributed to greater socioeconomic justice and equality?
• What have been the relationship’s actual fruits in terms of not only possible
biological progeny but also creative personal, social, and cultural projects
carried out individually and/or as a relational unit?
• How effective is or has the relationship been in fostering ecological sustainability (see Barker, 2013)?
• To what degree did the relationship promote the emergence or growth of
spiritual qualities such as mindfulness, compassion, generosity, and selflessness, as well as openness to previously unknown aspects or mysteries of life
and the world?
After a relationship ends:
• How much friendship and love remain after an intimate relationship has
ended?
• How has that love transformed in its postromantic phase?
• How much gratitude can one experience toward prior partners, even in
those cases where aspects of the relationship or separation process were
painful?
March 8, 2024
Not a guide, but might help writing a guide !
I usually don't read in english, but some books are not in french so I don't have the choice .... and really enjoy understand the whole ideas.
This book helped me to understand more novogamy realities and will help in my professionnal practice.
I usually don't read in english, but some books are not in french so I don't have the choice .... and really enjoy understand the whole ideas.
This book helped me to understand more novogamy realities and will help in my professionnal practice.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews