This email is in response to a radio program in which there was a discussion of the benefits of Tamera society. Tamera society is a community started in the 1990’s and expresses free love and community sharing of responsibilities, an attempt to break out or free from the oppressive ideas of monogamous relationships.

Dear Daniel:
I listened to your discussion with Henrik Palmgren on Red Ice Radio and found the topic of the Tamera community, which emphasizes free love, thought provoking. The points you made about a community where issues regarding jealousy and possessiveness are challenged, where there is no suppression of sexual desires, and where the care of children and other responsibilities are shared within the community were interesting.
Henrik’s reaction to the topic intrigued me, as this is an interviewer who in past programs offered casual responses, such as, “Let’s hear more of that” when a guest made a proclamation about being of an alien consciousness sent here to save humankind. So, of course, my level of interest/curiosity increased at his heightened reaction to your description of the life and love expressed within the Tamera community.
I also recognized the bipolar views expressed regarding Tamera, yours being the benefits of sexual freedom within or outside of a relationship and Henrik’s being the importance of intimacy within a committed relationship. I have studied consciousness for over 20 years and have met and counseled individuals who have explored alternate relationship styles within certain subcultures. These pockets of communities exist either in separate commune-type living spaces, or are intermingled within the larger society where monogamous marriages are the norm. What I have discovered in my work and associations is interesting and would perhaps contribute to the discussion.
The three points discussed in this email I think you would find interesting. These are: consciousness does not exist when the new structure is borne in reactivity to the other; in our dual natures, there is the shadow until acceptance is reached and the third structure is created; and the third point is the children raised in commune-type settings also have difficulty in adult relationships as do children raised in nuclear families consisting of a mother, father, and siblings.
The first point I would like to expound on is that typically these communities are formed out of reactivity to something expressed in society, such as a repression of certain sexual or religious freedoms. The group founder wants to establish another living experience with different values and morals from the larger society. From a consciousness perspective, when something is borne out of reactivity, then it is still part of the same dynamic. The new structure may have the appearance of true ego liberation, yet the new creation is only an expression of a polarity or the shadow aspect of the thing it seeks freedom from. When a bipolar expression occurs, there is an ego seduction at play. The seductive quality gives the appearance of ego freedom, when actually it is only the experience of a bipolar force or reactivity. There is ego seduction at play in many of these communities, especially due the involvement and support of the collective, and the seduction roots deeply in the unconscious. The individuals in the collective are unaware of this ego seduction, as it is unconscious and supported by the community. So, in the case of Tamera, it appears that sexual freedom among multiple partners arises out of mental clarity or out of spiritual and sexual freedom, but in fact this is heightened energy as it is expressed in opposition to society’s investment in monogamy.
Henrik’s question about why a new community of sexually free individuals should be created when a person could just do as he or she wishes and have multiple relationships within the larger society, actually provides the answers to the dilemma of sexual oppression when done from a clear mind and open heart, i.e. non-reactive or defensive ego. My understanding of consciousness transformation shows the importance of holding both aspects of the duality within one’s mind until the third structure comes in. This third structure would not be one that is in reaction to either expression of the opposites. This process requires an individual to remain present with their sexual conflict and/or suffering. The third structure would be sexual liberation within the context of the larger society, but it would not have any reactivity to society’s push for monogamy. Both expressions of sexuality in their dual natures serve society and individuals at different points in an individuals consciousness development, even when that individual is in reactivity.
The second point I want to make has to do with examining the shadow side of these communities that arise out of reactivity to the values of larger societies. As I mentioned earlier, there is a seductive quality that comes from resisting a majority viewpoint. For example, a seductive aspect of sexual freedom within a community would assist a person in turning a blind eye to the power he or she may experience in his or her freedom of expression, and how that power over the committed partner becomes abusive. If the members of the community have had previous relationships that have ended, then typically an undercurrent of punishment or self-deprecation occurs. I have found that when married couples enter into such a community and begin to explore their sexuality with others, then there is undeniably a victim perspective in one of the partners. Once again, this serves the individuals involved, even if the service is to drive them deeper into unconscious dynamics, but it does not serve as a rising to consciousness when one remains in an ego-seductive behavior.
In a marriage, the couple is still bound by a sacred contract that comes out of the construct of the previous society’s beliefs about marriage. This marital contract is usually in direct opposition to their newfound belief system; otherwise, there would not be a need to seek a resolution of sexual desires in a community of sexual freedom. Even though there is an intellectual agreement to expand the marital contract to include the ability to seek sexual expression with others, the aspect of consciousness in which that ritual resides cannot be assessed by the intellect. The marital contract needs to involve another ritual or something similar, such as a divorce to release the individuals from the arrangement or vow. Otherwise, once again, shadow aspects of the relationship are activated.
Another shadow aspect of these communities is that the gender of the community founder plays an enormous role in determining the power system of the community. If the community’s founder is female, then it is typically the males who are victimized or have less power, and vice-versa. From my experience, when there is a power situation, then the parental shadow is activated, as we are all born of our natural parents, and our relationship to those parents defines our relationship to power. In communities founded by a female, men will become the lovers of the Great Mother and play out their seductions and sufferings with their projected mother image, and where a man heads up such a community, women will play out their roles with the Great Father. The new community becomes another stage on which to play out the same old subconscious dramas.
The third point, I want to make, involves the children raised in these communities. You touched briefly on this topic, describing the benefits of shared parenting. While community living appears to have many benefits on the surface, one surprising issue that seems common is the difficulty with intimacy that these children have as adults when they decide to be in a relationship with one individual. Oftentimes the children raised by many members of a community do not have the experience of developing the bond that occurs in a committed monogamous relationship dynamic. This is typically an issue if the children live in community houses and are raised in another commune separate from their parents.
While these points seem to indicate the darkness that exist within such communities, there is at times the need for individuals to experience one side of the polar extreme and then experience the other before true consciousness is born. These communities can be a means to obtain true ego liberation if explored with caution, as the shadow of collectives, whether in a small community or the larger society, is often difficult to bring into the light of consciousness.
Thank you, Daniel, for giving me this opportunity to contemplate a little more deeply on collectives and relationships and for an enjoyable two hours listening on Red Ice Radio.