Polysecure - Book Summary

Let's dive into the fascinating world of relationships, their intricacies, emotional nuances, and what happens when there's more than one partner involved.

Ask yourself, what is your relationship style? How do you engage with your partner when you're both in the same space, soaking each other's energy? Can you interpret your feelings and those of your partner? Are you good at putting them into words? Take a moment to think about what happens when you're apart. Do you find yourself longing for them? Is it a mild feeling, or does it consume you? Maybe, you just go about your day as if they're just a call away?

See, every relationship has its unique beat — but attachment theory claims we can bucket people into one of four attachment styles to unravel their relationship tendencies. It also enables us to foster healthier romantic habits.

Now, let's turn up the complexity a notch. Consider multiple romantic relationships. Can you visualize the emotional whirlwind such relationships might stir?

Not to discourage you from trying — in fact, consensual nonmonogamy is gaining traction in modern society, as more folks discover it aligns with their needs and values. However, understanding attachment styles can offer a significant advantage in this pursuit — and that's where we come in.

As we delve into this summary, we'll explore attachment theory and nonmonogamy basics, how they interplay, and the steps you can take to achieve a secure attachment style within a nonmonogamous framework.

This voyage of discovery is more about establishing healthy nonmonogamous relationships rather than an overall introduction to the subject. If you seek the latter, we recommend other resources like The Ethical Slut by Janet W. Hardy and Dossie Easton in our audio library.

Uncover the aspects of attachment theory and how it connects your present relationships to your early beginnings.

Before embarking on a tour of multiple relationships, let's make a pit stop at attachment theory. This concept plays a key role in how we understand and navigate nonmonogamy.

Born from the intellectual fires of British psychologist John Bowlby, the attachment theory seeks to outline the variety in human bonds. Yet, it was Mary Ainsworth's insightful experiment that really brought out the essence of these attachment variations.

Picture this — Ainsworth's "Strange Situation Procedure" focused on young children in a playroom with their parent, then had the parent temporarily leave. The changes in the children's demeanors during the parent's absence and return, as well as their exploration of the room and interaction with toys, were the central points of observation.

A major set of children seemed rather unfazed. They initially explored, showed a bit of upset when their parent left, but regained balance upon their return. According to attachment theory, their behavior implies a secure attachment style.

However, children with different reactions showcased insecure attachment styles. For instance, those exhibiting an avoidant style (known as the dismissive style in adults) were independent explorers, regardless of parental presence. Their mood held steady when the parent left and reappeared.

Children manifesting the anxious style (known as the preoccupied style in adults) were far less explorative, remaining near their parent, and their distress levels spiked when the parent left.

The elusive disorganized style, or fearful-avoidant style in adults, wasn't initially categorized. This style is a mixed bag, where individuals fluctuate unpredictably between dismissiveness and preoccupation.

So how does a child land in a particular style? Well, it largely hinges on their life experiences. When faced with recurrent absenteeism or disengagement from a parent, a child might fall into dismissiveness as they learn to depend on themselves. In contrast, overbearing presence or anxiety from a parent can lead the child to become overly dependent, hence leaning towards preoccupation. The fearful-avoidant style often traces back to challenging parental experiences leading to trust issues.

This is where we stumble upon trauma. Interestingly, trauma is not as complex as it sounds — simply put, it's any experience of disconnectedness. This could stem from a one-off distressing incident or repetitive occurrences like frequent relocation during childhood. These traumas play a pivotal role in shaping our attachment styles.

Keep in mind that the attachments formed during early childhood often echo in adult relationships, primarily conditioned by our experiences with our parents. For example, an anxious child might grow up to be an adult with a preoccupied pattern in relationships — and vice versa.

Don't let this idea cement you into a fixed attachment style; they're not set in stone. Apart from parental experiences, other aspects of your life, including relationships, can alter your attachments over time. Furthermore, you can consciously nurture healthier attitudes and habits. If crafting a secure attachment style sounds like a good goal, rest assured that it's completely achievable. But don't allow your attachment style to become a crutch. It's not a ready-made justification for your actions. Remember that change is possible if you're willing to work for it.

Visualizing the attachment styles on a graph, with high to low avoidance levels on one axis and high to low anxiety on the other, could be insightful. Securely attached individuals reside in the quadrant with low avoidance and low anxiety. The fearful-avoidant personalities score high on both, preoccupied types have high anxiety with low avoidant tendencies, and dismissive ones depict high avoidance and lower anxiety.

Placing these styles on a graph underscores the fact that attachment styles are more like spectrums than rigid categories. However, every cloud has a silver lining, and each position on the grid comes with its own benefits. For example, lightly dismissive people often embody admirable traits like self-sufficiency and emotional resilience. Those with the preoccupied style are frequently skilled in intuiting other people's feelings, which can be a valuable skill in adult relationships.

But universally, a secure attachment style is beneficial regardless of the relationship type. And, as we move forward, you'll see how critical secure attachment becomes in the context of nonmonogamy.

Nonmonogamy and attachment theory come together, but it's not what you might expect.

Let's take a pause from exploring the complexities of attachment theory and dive into the world of nonmonogamy.

The existence of nonmonogamous relationships, despite their long history, has still not been fully recognized or accepted on a broad societal scale. It remains a niche in the tapestry of human relationships. Sensitivities around nonmonogamy haven't quite evolved as much as those around other social paradigms such as gender, sexual orientation or even race.

As shocking as it may sound, monogamy, even though it is often touted as the social norm, isn't the consistent path trodden by many in relationships. Studies reveal that nearly half of the married populace confesses to straying outside of their vows — but infidelity and nonmonogamy aren't synonyms.

So what exactly falls under the umbrella of consensual nonmonogamy, or CNM? The depths of CNM are as varied as the sea — from relationship anarchists who revel in low degrees of emotional and sexual exclusivity to swingers where emotional exclusivity may be high, but sexual exclusivity is quite low. Somewhere in between lie hierarchical forms of polyamory where there is a primary partner and the others are deemed as secondary.

This brings us to the million-dollar question: Do attachment theory and nonmonogamy intersect and if so, how?

Unfortunately, academic explorations connecting CNM relationships with attachment theory often fall short in this field. However, a few insights have begun to illuminate the overlap. Often, our immediate assumption is that those who tread the path of nonmonogamy likely have an insecure attachment style. But, in reality, studies indicate that attachment anxiety levels are almost equal in both CNM and monogamous relationships, and attachment avoidance levels were found to be lower in CNM.

Participants of CNM relationships are, quite interestingly, not plagued by jealousy as much and embody a substantial degree of trust compared to their monogamous counterparts. Therapeutic observations coincide with these findings, alluding to the idea that forming secure attachments with multiple romantic partners is indeed possible — a phenomenon we term as being "polysecure."

One might wonder at the idea of being securely attached to multiple partners. But, a deeper contemplation makes it completely plausible when you think about children who are known to form secure connections with several parental figures such as both the mother and father.

That being said, an integral point that requires acknowledgment in this context is the very nature of nonmonogamy in itself. Nonmonogamous relationships acknowledge the inevitable reality of change, something that might unnerve individuals wired to the security of monogamous permanence.

However, it bestows a beautiful serenity too. In CNM, your partners choose to stay by your side, not bound by signed contracts or societal norms, but purely out of love and mutual consent. Isn't that quite the romance?

Security in polyamory means cultivating a secure attachment, even within yourself.

So, you might wonder then, how can one maintain a balanced beam between secure attachments and the world of polyamory?

It's not an easy path to tread. Diving into polyamory can inadvertently unearth latent insecurities, mirroring the reactions of the child in Mary Ainsworth's experiment when the parent left the room. Not to worry, though – the author presents a framework coined "HEARTS" to assist individuals in not just venturing into nonmonogamy, but doing so while nurturing secure attachment styles.

The "H" in HEARTS stands for being "Here" — physically present with your partner. In a nonmonogamous world, the challenge of availability frequently crops up due to multiple partners sharing one's time. Hence, undivided attention and maximizing the value of time spent together is crucial.

The next letter, "E," encourages the expression of joy. It's integral for secure attachments in polyamory that you don't merely tolerate, but actively rejoice in your partner's multiple relationships. This is encapsulated in the term "compersion" – when your partner's happiness with someone else resonates joy within you.

Following up is "A", which advocates for emotional attunement to each partner's needs — and this might differ with each individual. Mutual understanding and feeling acknowledged nurtures the emotional bond between partners.

Next in line is the dual-function "Rs" which symbolize rituals and routines. In monogamy, routines might sometimes besiege the spontaneity, but they are the undercurrent that sustains the connecting threads of a relationship. Cultivating familiar routines in polyamorous relationships might be an uphill task due to intricate schedules, but little rituals provide important building blocks for stronger bonds.

"T" beckons partners to turn towards each other, particularly post-conflicts. It's a call to abandon the quest for proving oneself right and delve into fruitful discussions instead, harboring understanding rather than winning the argument.

And the last one, "S," stands for self — an element that demands significant attention in polyamory. While nonmonogamy might sound like a juggling act between managing multiple partners, the most formidable task is managing oneself. If your relationship with yourself isn't secure, it's a steep slope to form secure relationships with others.

Each letter in the "HEARTS" scheme reflects your relationship with self: "H" for "Here" translates to delighting in solitude, "A" represents unravelling myriad layers of self-awareness and introspection. That said, individuals with insecure attachment styles may grapple with this form of rigorous self-exploration.

But facing these issues head-on and navigating through it is what paves the path towards secure attachments, even in polyamory.

Nonmonogamy might come in various shapes and hues, but the common thread stitching all forms is the involvement of multiple people. Despite the dynamics of these numerous relationships, the foundation of it all lies in the relationship with yourself. After all, the most proximate and ever-present individual in one's life is quite unsurprisingly — oneself.

In conclusion

The lens of Attachment Theory provides insight into the various ways individuals behave in relationships, classifying them as either secure or insecure. Insecure style further branches out into anxiety-ridden, avoidance-bound, or a combination of both. For those traversing the path of consensual nonmonogamy, fostering a secure attachment style is paramount – and the journey towards it begins, most importantly, with being secure in your relationship with yourself.