Do English and most modern languages lack the vocabulary to describe polyamorous relationships? I think that this is possibly the case, especially considering that most modern cultures and languages do not have an accepted cultural and linguistic context to describe these type of relationships. Even the word “polyamory” means “many loves” but does not in any way convey or describe the kind of relationships this might involve, it doesn’t allow to specify the type of polyamory, the dynamic, how individuals relate to one another etc.

Take for example a polyamorous relationship in which there are two men and a woman. People use the terms “triad” or “thruple” but none of these terms convey anything other than that three people are involved in a relationship, it says nothing about the genders or gender dynamics of those involved. In a situation like the aforementioned for example, it’s possible that one of the men involved might be more effeminate than the other, and so “balance” the masculine-feminine energy between the three people. 

I remember reading somewhere about twin flames - that twin flames, when they come together, create a “third” energy, which, is true in any relationship, but I use “twin flame” here as a metaphor for a spiritual, at least originally monogamous love, which feels powerful, beautiful, and which is fundamentally based upon the choice to love. The “twin-flame” phenomena generally excludes this latter point, because usually one or both “twin flames” run away from the love, and this is accepted as fact, and is used to explain why these connections seem deceptive. But actually, I think that our understanding of this is deceptive. Twin flames imply that we don’t have any choice, that we just have to surrender, and that eventually we will become reunited with the other half of a soul. 

This is just a toxic belief system, since love is fundamentally a choice. So the way I use “twin flame” here to connect to what I’m talking about is not the same as how they are commonly described - in terms of love being a choice. Personally I think that if love is true, and spiritual, then both people are likely to choose it. But other than this difference, I use “twin flame” in much the same way, to describe the same kind of love, and feeling, because in terms of what the “twin flame” feels like - and how special it feels - this is I think a feature of “twin flame love”, but not because the universe made us that way, but because we chose it. And when we chose it from our hearts - it’s because the universe intended it. By making the decision truest to our true self, we realise that what we most want and need is also exactly what the universe ordained for us, they are what connects us to God. And so the whole idea of there being a “twin flame” who doesn’t choose us and who we do not choose, that is not a twin flame. They only become a twin flame when we know - and we only know when we choose. By choosing that which is truest to us, God will answer us with what we have always needed. And we have to then keep making the choice to choose our truest self. The idea that the twin flame is somebody who automatically completes us, is the end of our journey, is entirely false. We have to keep choosing to love ourselves, them, and that which we most love and care about generally. Love is a transformation, as is life, but our essence never dies in this world. 

Anyway, one important thing I did see once on a website about twin flames, is the concept that this “third energy” between twin flames - essentially the ultimate form of monogamy - that this “third energy” can occasionally be brought into a “third” adult human. What a beautiful concept. It’s a pity that polyamory has become popularised under the same “YOLO” attitude that gives us things like Love Island, and which lacks spiritual depth and meaning beyond the desire to escape from human boredom. Which also just pretty much sums up why people watch television to a fairly large degree. 

And this makes me wonder, for example, if the third person is another man, then does this often mean that the energy between the three people involved also “balances” itself to a new expression of the relationship’s access. Could one of the men for example become more feminine and thereby balance the male-female energies in the new dynamic? The idea of one of the men allowing his own sexual/romantic energy to change is also an act of love and can also be seen as a form of submission - not through any kind of malice but rather through the persons’ innermost desires.

I have discussed other aspects of this in other publications, the idea that someone could have a twin-flame type relationship and also experience it to some extent non-manogamously. The spiritual community and society in general has largely hated this possibility, where love is either acceptable as monogamous romance, or as the “YOLO I don’t know what I really want” idea of polyamory which is acceptable in society, and presented to people on television in terms of “if you don’t know what to do, try this”, which is obviously not the reason I would choose to engage in polyamory. It also really annoys me when people present polyamory as some kind of solution to the “problems” of monogamy. I would argue that monogamy does not have “problems”, but rather, all relationships involve life, then involve hardship and the need to make the decisions that truly help our soul. Understanding polyamory as a “solution” to the problems of monogamy, is akin to thinking that taking a rowing boat on the ocean is the “solution” to being unable to row one across a lake. 

I hope that by writing this article I have managed to cover some interesting topics and aspects to topics (which I have not discussed elsewhere, I have not). I will write more on these subjects in the future. Even though this article may read as though I am wondering through topics - that is the intent, to present the topics in an order that helps the reader to observe their own feelings and make their own conclusions. This article is dedicated to romantic love and all those who value it.