# data[].attributes.body
This is a group discussing polyamory :-)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Polyamory (from Greek πολύ [poly], meaning "many" or "several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. It is distinct from both swinging (which emphasizes sex with others as merely recreational) and polysexuality (which is attraction towards multiple genders and/or sexes)

This community is public (including all posts and the members list).

See e.g. http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html for poly intro info.

The Rules:
#1: Please remember that it's ok to link things here, but that the expectation is that you will write a short paragraph of text introducing your link to your article, blog, link, pictures, discussion topic, etc. and that It must be topical to the Poly community.

#2: No advertisements for services or for partners, I.E. no things like dating sites and no "I'm looking for a unicorn in Hoboken, NJ" type posts. We as a group have decided that we don't want personals, sexy pictures, etc. That includes advertising for other poly groups. Note that blog posts are not considered ads, and links to your blog articles about polyamory are welcome, so long as they are not solicitations for services or partners.

#3: This is a discussion community devoted to helping one another, support, and outreach.

#4: No reshares. Please avoid resharing things that were shared elsewhere first. Make the same post an original post here please if you feel you must. The exception to this is something that you write a well thought out intro post to. Something that makes it's relevance clear, and poses a question for debate.

#5: Communication is key. Arguing with moderator decisions is not. Do not publicly argue with the staff once a decision about something has been made. Please contact the community owner directly in case of a dispute with a moderator.

#6: The staff reserve the right to summarily delete comments, and posts if they break the rules, as they don't really contribute here.

Thank you.

We are now on FetLife as well! Come on by. FetLife gives our members another option, one that allows private posting to a group. Things posted on FetLife cannot be read unless you are logged into FetLife, granting an additional measure of privacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Polyamory (from Greek πολύ [poly], meaning "many" or "several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1.1 PolyMOOC attachment Additional information and links around attachment. http://padlet.com/fhossmann/polyattachment Your level of participation is completely up to you as there are no formal grades. The Poly MOOC is a hack on the Science of Relationship course (as offered by Colorado State university). Hack meaning that we take something and use it for something else than intended.

# data[].attributes.body
You can always join the group on Facebook. This is the base for Poly MOOC 2014.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you recognize something here? Or do you see it from a different point of view?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No doubt these themes could be described in a variety of ways (and other themes added to the list). Regardless of how one describes the core principles of attachment theory, the key insight is that the same principles of attachment apply to close relationships throughout the lifespan.

# data[].attributes.body
One place to start is Wikipedia. How does this relate to Polyamory? Is anything missing in the article? Is there anything you would like to add or change from a poly point of view?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Attachment theory is a psychological model that attempts to describe the dynamics of long-term and short-term interpersonal relationships between humans. However, "attachment theory is not formulated as a general theory of relationships. It addresses only a specific facet": how human beings respond within relationships when hurt, separated from loved ones, or perceiving a threat.

# data[].attributes.headline
What motivates people to pursue polyamorous relationships?

# data[].attributes.subject
What motivates people to pursue polyamorous relationships?

# data[].attributes.body
By Deborah Anapol.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just as there are many different forms a polyamorous relationship can take, there are many different reasons people choose polyamory. We're not always conscious of the reasons we do things, and sometimes we even make up reasons which have little to do with our real motivations. I'm not saying that we intentionally lie to ourselves, and to others. Rather, we find ourselves doing something and then make up a story to explain it. We may sincerely believe this story, or we may suspect it's fabricated. Either way, it's not always easy to discover the reasons people choose polyamory. However, if you watch them over time, as I have, you can often determine their motivations by observing the results of their choices. And of course you can listen to what they say and what they report in anonymous surveys. I've employed all these methods to compile a fairly comprehensive view of possible motivations for choosing polyamory. Some are predictable, others may surprise you.

Humans are natural problem solvers. We're always looking for ways to solve or avoid problems. So it's probably inevitable that some people will come to polyamory hoping that polyamory will allow them to avoid dealing with problematic personal issues or that it will solve problems in an existing relationship, but if this works at all it's usually a temporary fix. In a few cases, however, polyamory does allow people to create healthy and functional relationships they probably could not have managed otherwise.

More often, one partner reluctantly agrees to polyamory to win the affections of the other, secretly hoping that this unwelcome twist will magically vanish once they are committed to each other. Some are consciously or unconsciously creating a situation in which they can heal childhood wounds or replicate the large extended family they grew up in. Kate, speaks for many when she says, "I don't think I've ever engaged in anything that has prompted more self-reflection and intense personal growth than has polyamory."

Some want a stable and nurturing environment in which to raise their children. Some use polyamory to mask or excuse addictions to sex, work, or drama while others seek utopian or spiritual rewards or want to take a stand for cultural change. Others are simply doing what's fun and what comes naturally for them or are rebelling against religious prohibitions or family expectations. Some use polyamory as a weapon in a power struggle or to punish a controlling partner. Some want to keep their erotic life alive and vital while in long term committed relationships or to fulfill sexual or emotional desires they can't meet with only one person or with their existing partner. Some are trying to make up for developmental gaps or to balance unequal sex drives. Some people do not start out consciously choosing polyamory at all, but find that polyamory has chosen them.

Nancy and Darrell are a good example of a couple who deliberately chose polyamory for its opportunities for growth as well as to allow a broader sexual context within their marriage. They were both virgins in their early twenties when they married forty years ago. After ten years of being happily monogamous, while attending a relationship seminar they discovered that neither one was invested in sexual exclusivity. It turned out that they had simply defaulted to monogamy, as do so many people, and once they took a look at it they realized that their only reason for continuing to be monogamous was fear of the unknown. Confident of their love, their compatibility, communication skills and their commitment to each other, they decided to open their marriage. It's less common now than in the past for couples to have no sexual experience before marrying, but I know of many such couples who have found in polyamory a way to jointly embark on the adventures they missed out on in their youth.

While Nancy and Darrell consciously chose polyamory as an opportunity to grow together and to deepen their own bond while exploring committed sexualoving relationships with others, they didn't immediately realize that polyamory would become a spiritual practice. When I first met them about fifteen years ago they were seeking help in releasing and transforming jealousy. Nancy appeared the more emotional of the two, but both exuded a sensible, good-humored sincerity. Through cultivating compersion and incorporating the concept of "honoring the Divine in each other and in every one of our partners," polyamory became a doorway into spiritual growth for Nancy and Darrell.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the drama of co-dependency and sex addiction. For Thelma, the idea that she was attempting a polyamorous relationship that would involve a potentially painful confrontation with her own jealousy but would be well worth it in the end, allowed her to drawn into an abusive relationship. Thelma first sought my advice on informational resources about polyamory because a year or so into their relationship her boyfriend had come out to her as polyamorous and she wanted to learn more about it.

"I am not polyamorous," she told me. "I have enough difficulty with one relationship at a time and I would go completely unconscious in a number of simultaneous relationships. But I'm in love with him, and he wants polyamory, so I'm trying to be open minded about it." I suggested a few books and websites, offered to put her on my mailing list and suggested she let me know if she wanted some coaching in navigating this unfamiliar territory. About two years later Thelma sought help from a therapist.

Several years after that, Thelma looked me up again, asking what I thought about sex addiction. I responded that I was very disturbed by the presence of sex addiction in the polyamory community, saying that while most polyamorous people are not addicts, it was a significant problem and one which often came up for discussion in my workshops. Although I wish sex addiction was never an issue in polyamory, the truth is that polyamory does provide a convenient cover story for addicts who are generally in denial about having an addiction. It's easy to justify sexual obsession by calling it polyamory. A handful of sex addicts can wreak havoc in a community, especially when people are still operating out of conditioning which forbids the sharing of "family secrets" out of misguided respect for confidentiality. Polyamory offers a venue in which sex addicts can begin at least to tell the truth about what they're doing instead of carrying on secret affairs. I prefer to put a positive spin on it by seeing that bringing their destructive,

Sex and love addiction can traumatize an addict's partners, and to the extent that partners fit the co-dependency profile, polyamory can effectively skirt the need to face an addiction and the painful feelings it covers. However, polyamory can also be utilized as a healthy means of coping with psychological difficulties, pre-existing trauma, differences in sexual desire, and the garden variety erotic boredom so common in long term monogamous marriages.

Ester Perel, author of Mating in Captivity, wisely advises that "The presence of the third is a fact of life; how we deal with it is up to us. We can approach it with fear, avoidance, and moral outrage; or we can bring to it a robust curiosity and a sense of intrigue ... Acknowledging the third has to do with validating the erotic separateness of your partner. It follows that our partner's sexuality does not belong to us. It isn't just for and about us, and we should not assume that it rightfully falls within our jurisdiction. It doesn't."

Perel suggests that "we view monogamy not as a given but as a choice. As such it becomes a negotiated decision. More to the point, if we're planning to spend fifty years with one soul - and we want a happy jubilee - it may be wise to review our contract at various junctures. Just how accommodating each couple may be to the third varies. But at least a nod is more apt to sustain desire with our one and only over the long haul - perhaps even to create a new 'art of loving' for the twenty-first century couple."

Robert Masters is a Canadian therapist who formerly headed an intentional community which utilized many radical measures to help people awaken to their divinity, including non-monogamy. From what I've heard from friends who spent time there, polyamory was a very effective means of penetrating the personality, similarly to its use in earlier spiritual groups.

Since this community disbanded some years ago, Masters has changed his views. He now believes that "If we were to put monogamy up against polyamory, with regard to depth, awakening potential, and capacity for real intimacy, which would come out on top? Monogamy, by a landslide, so long as we're talking about mature monogamy, as opposed to conventional (or growth-stunting and passion-dulling) monogamy, referred to from now on as immature monogamy. Immature monogamy is, especially in men, frequently infected with promiscuous desire and fantasy, however much that might be repressed or camouflaged with upstanding virtues. Airbrush this, infuse it with talk of integrity and unconditional love and jealousy-transcending ethics, consider bringing in another partner or two, and you're closer than near to polyamorous or multiple-partnering territory."

Masters came to his appreciation for monogamy relatively late in life, after fully immersing himself in multiple partner relating. While he does not emphasize stability as a criterion for preferring monogamy, I get the feeling that this is part of its current appeal for him. Instead Masters uses the language of attachment, and critiques multi-partner relating as a way to avoid attachment. In my experience, it doesn't. True, plenty of people use multi-partner relating as a strategy to avoid attachment, some even recommend this, but in my experience attachment is a powerful force which can override any mental argument or situational defense. Many people hope to find greater stability, depth, and personal growth in their intimate relating by choosing polyamory, while others seek the same qualities in monogamy. The bottom line is that whether we like it or not, all relationships are dynamic by nature and any effort to avoid this reality is doomed to failure.

While there is no data to support the common assumption that polyamory impairs attachment or is risky to the longevity of a pair bond, and, in fact, Perel and others acknowledge that it may be just the opposite, I suspect that whether polyamory or monogamy does more to stabilize a relationship depends upon the individuals involved and their life experience. When two or more people are well matched, opening their relationship usually makes it stronger. When they're not, opening up can be destabilizing. Neither monogamy nor polyamory has a corner on immaturity, and people can gravitate towards both from a position of maturity or its opposite.

The blessing and the curse of polyamory is that love which includes more than one tends to illuminate those dark shadows many would prefer to ignore. While some people deliberately seek out polyamorous relationships for the purpose of freeing themselves and their children from the neuroses arising from typical nuclear family dynamics, most inadvertently discover that polyamory provides a very fertile environment for replicating any dysfunctional patterns carried over from the parental triangle experienced in their family of origin.

Men may find childhood competition with Dad for the attention of Mom rekindled when they relate with a woman who has another lover. If they unconsciously begin to act out the old childhood script of competition with the man for the heart of the woman, an unpleasant and painful drama is likely to unfold. If instead they can consciously find ways to support each other in basking in the richness of loving of both each other (which need not include sexuality) and the woman, and to creatively manage the only truly limited resource, that is, time, not love, a more enjoyable outcome is possible. Many men have strong competitive instincts which they have been socialized to express very directly. Women frequently have the same strong competitive urge, but women's socialization has driven competition underground and it often comes out sideways, making it even more challenging to overcome. Unresolved sibling rivalries can also be rekindled in polyamorous relating. These are situations in which an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so it behooves people who are contemplating polyamory to heal their family of origin issues first.

Abundant love can bring out our shadow in ways which have little to do with jealousy and competition. I once spent a week vacationing with a man I was newly in love with and another couple who we were both attracted to and who I'd been very close to for several years. I eagerly anticipated our time together, imagining how wonderful it would be to enjoy the company of three people I loved and who loved me. After a few days I found myself feeling more and more uncomfortable. Feelings of unworthiness I never knew I had began overwhelming me. My usual calm and self-confident self had disappeared and in its place was an anxious and insecure stranger. At first I didn't understand what was happening and tried to push these troubling feelings away, but they only got stronger. I found myself wondering whether I deserved this much love. Was I really good enough for him and him and her? Finally I tearfully confessed that my self esteem had hit an all time low. Held in three pairs of loving arms, I took the invitation to dive into my shadow and experienced firsthand the legendary power of love to light up the dark corners of the psyche, shedding healing light on that which has been hidden.
Excerpted from Polyamory in the 21st Century, by Deborah Anapol, published by Rowman & Littlefield, July 2010, appears by permission of the publisher. This material is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Please contact the publisher for permission to copy, distribute or reprint.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just as there are many different forms a polyamorous relationship can take, there are many different reasons people choose polyamory. We're not always conscious of the reasons we do things, and sometimes we even make up reasons which have little to do with our real motivations.

# data[].attributes.body
Another way to look at it? What do you think?

# data[].attributes.body
A video by mystic life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chris (pen name, Mystic Life) shares about inner guidance he received recently about his polyamorous path. You can get his book "Spiritual Polyamory" at http://SpiritualPolyamory.com Read the related article, "Polyamory Without Attachment To Form" at http://www.lovemore.com/blog/?p=1331 Intuitive Guidance - Ethical Sites at http://LiveReaders.com To see Chris's written works (pen name, Mystic Life) on spiritual and personal growth, visit http://Unification.com Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/UnificationCom "Like" on Facebook: http://facebook.com/spiritual.polyamory PLEASE HELP THIS CHANNEL OUT By Remembering To...

# data[].attributes.body
One way of looking at it, Do you agree?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Mystic Life

I have learned that polyamory can be used to dissolve the ego, or enhance it. Similar to how nuclear technology can be used to either power a city or destroy it, the poly path can be utilized to bring us closer to peace, or create endless suffering through multiple attachments. In other words, we can let go of controlling others, or we can create multiple relationships in which we are dependent upon the actions of our lovers to feel good about ourselves.

When I first began my polyamorous journey, it felt incredibly liberating to be free of the constraints of monogamy, which had never worked very well for me. As a freshly-minted rebel I wanted everyone to be polyamorous, and would denounce the "evils" of possession and control inherent in monogamous and polyfidelitous relationships. This came largely from my ego since my insecure mind needed to convince others to be as I wanted them to be in order to feel more secure (and because I wanted to have more potential partners). It was ultimately an endeavor of needy proselytizing.

Years later, I then explored polyfidelity myself. As is often the case with judgments, the universe seems to give us the opportunity to become what we judge so that we may develop empathy. Over the course of seven years of polyfidelity, I learned to set aside my judgments of both polyfidelitous and monogamous relationships. My perception matured, and I came to understand that every form of love we experience is always customized for the lessons we need at that time. As our lessons change, the form of love to which we feel drawn to explore will most likely change as well.

Recently, this desire to change once again arose in my life. One morning, I awoke after about four hours of sleep, and receptively listened to my inner guidance for about two hours. I realized that it was time to let go of attachment to what form love would take in my life, and release my interest in polyfidelity. I understood that to enhance my spiritual lessons, I had to cease my quest for something secure because ultimately there is nothing we can grasp in life without creating suffering.

Of course, either monogamy or polyfidelity may occur without clinging. Such forms of love can be arrangements that simply work for those who are involved without limitations being placed upon others. Yet what I realized during my recent revelation is that for myself, the desire for a secure form of love was keeping me in a place of subtle discomfort. I knew that my challenge was to completely release control of what others (and myself) might choose to do in the realm of intimacy. In life, fears and uncertainty can cause us to crave something to hold on to, to give us the illusion of predictability. In the realm of intimacy, however, this is what often destroys love. So to diminish my ego as much as possible, I realized it was time to return to my original open approach to polyamory, but without the judgment or superior attitude I once held.

Part of my draw to polyfidelity, albeit mostly unconscious, was to limit my contact with men. Growing up without compassionate male role models, as well as having faced challenges with metamours (partners' partners) during my earlier poly experiences, made it tempting to desire a triad that would have an imaginary protective boundary around it. However, part of my recent inner guidance was that the world will not heal without a diminished degree of competition in the realm of unhealthy yang dynamics, and that vulnerability and emotional healing with metamours could be viewed as an opportunity as opposed to a burden.

Additionally, although this may change in the future, I don't see myself as desiring a "primary" partner. I once heard a perspective from the spiritual teacher Mellon-Thomas Benedict, a man who had died for a short period of time, but came back to life with many insights. In essence, he stated that we are our own soulmate, and those we love throughout our life are "playmates" from whom we learn lessons in order to better know who we are.

I certainly can understand the desire to find "the one." Throughout our lives we've been bombarded with images and stories in the media which convey that this is the only real endeavor that can possibly bring comfort. Yet I sense that I have a different purpose. My deepest satisfaction comes from learning to be at peace with whatever form life is taking. If I'm alone, I can be content. If I have one lover, I can allow her to be "one, in this moment" without needing her to be "one, eternally." And if I have more than one lover, I don't need to rate them in terms of importance. I can love them differently, yet equally, similar to how a conscious parent with two children does not need to have a "primary" and "secondary" child.

I am letting go of my attachment to form, and there is a deep feeling of trust beneath this release. I've spent a great deal of time by myself for nearly two years, becoming more comfortable in my own skin, and I believe this has helped me form a launching pad from which I can venture into the unknown spaciousness of love. As many of us who have been guided to polyamory know on some level, letting go of society's rigid rules about what love must look like can create an entirely new way of being on Earth.

Is our inability to have anyone or anything to "hold on to" scary sometimes? Absolutely...until there is a complete surrender to life.

Loving More staff writer - Mystic Life ( 9 Posts)

Mystic Life is an author on personal and spiritual growth. His books include Spiritual Polyamory and Unification. He enjoys sharing concepts from spirituality and psychology that help increase well-being.

Spiritual Polyamory Site ~ http://SpiritualPolyamory.com
Author Site ~ http://Unification.com
Facebook (Spiritual Polyamory) ~ http://facebook.com/spiritual.polyamory
Facebook (Author) ~ http://facebook.com/UnificationDotCom
Twitter ~ http://twitter.com/UnificationCom
Google+ ~ http://gplus.to/mysticlife
YouTube ~ http://youtube.com/UnificationDotCom
Mystic Life's Blog ~ http://www.LifeIsMystical.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Polyamory Without Attachment To Form - Loving More Nonprofit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Mystic Life I have learned that polyamory can be used to dissolve the ego, or enhance it. Similar to how nuclear technology can be used to either power a city or destroy it, the poly path can be utilized to bring us closer to peace, or create endless suffering through multiple attachments.

# data[].attributes.body
The story of that quote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Richard Bach? Jess Lair? Anonymous student? Sting? Peter Max? Chantal Sicile?

Dear Quote Investigator: On his first solo album in 1985 the musician Sting released a song called:

If You Love Somebody Set Them Free

Recently, I heard more elaborate quotations that included the above statement:

If you love something, let it go. If it returns, it's yours; if it doesn't, it wasn't.
If you love someone, set them free. If they come back they're yours; if they don't they never were.

The statement immediately above was attributed to Richard Bach who wrote the enormously popular inspirationally work "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" in the 1970s. But I cannot find this saying in his novels. Could you tell me where this expression came from?

Quote Investigator: QI has found no substantiation that Richard Bach created or used the phrases above.

The earliest known evidence for a version of this saying appeared in a book titled "I Ain't Much Baby-But I'm All I've Got" by Jess Lair that was privately published in 1969. Lair was a teacher, and he asked his students to create small writing samples. For each class meeting a student was supposed to write "some comment, question or feeling" on a three inch by five inch card and place it on a table in the front of the classroom. Lair read the short texts and made comments at the beginning of the class. The following was written on one card [JL69] [JL72]:

If you want something very, very badly, let it go free. If it comes back to you, it's yours forever. If it doesn't, it was never yours to begin with.

Lair stated that about half of the cards were unsigned, and he did not identify the person who turned in the expression above. Here are three other examples from junior and senior students:

1. I heard a very profound statement last night. Unfortunately I've forgotten it.
2. No guts-no glory.
3. Laughter is the song of the angels.

Lair did not require the words to be original, and he did not request attributions. So the student may have gathered the quotation of interest from another unknown person.

Top quotation expert Fred Shapiro, editor of the Yale Book of Quotations, obtained a copy of the 1969 book recently and verified the presence of the passage. Lair published multiple editions of his book, and in the past a 1974 edition was the earliest known and verified copy [JLYQ] [JLQV].

Here are additional selected citations in chronological order.

In 1951 Esquire magazine published a short story titled "The Tyranny of Love" by Harry Kronman, and it contained a quotation that prefigured part of the saying under investigation [EQHK]:

"I mean, if you love something very much, you've got to go easy with it-give it some room to move around. If you try to hold it tight like that, it'll always try to get away."

In 1969 the educator Jess Lair published a version of the saying which he obtained from a junior or senior college student as mentioned above:

If you want something very, very badly, let it go free. If it comes back to you, it's yours forever. If it doesn't, it was never yours to begin with.

In 1972 a compact version of the expression appeared as the caption of a one-panel comic by the graphic artist Peter Max who was part of zeitgeist of the 1960s and 70s. The phrasing of this version was closer to the most common modern variants. Max did not claim authorship; instead, he used the label "Unknown" [PMCP] [PMNJ]:

"If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it is yours. If it doesn't, it never was."
-Unknown

The comic was part of a syndicated art series called "Meditation". Max prompted his readers to send in quotations by asking the following question: "What words of wisdom guide your life?" The words above were sent in by "Chantal Sicile, Staten Island, N.Y." But she did not claim authorship, apparently. The reward for a published quote was a poster autographed by Max.

In April 1975 the Oregonian newspaper published a profile of basketball player Bill Walton in its Sunday magazine section. The article noted a picture that displayed a different phrasing for the saying [ORBW]:

In the office of Bill Walton's San Francisco attorney, there's a picture that is captioned:

If you love something very much
Let it go free.
If it does not return, it was not meant to be yours.
If it does return, love it as hard as you can for the rest of your life.

In December 1975 the saying was published together with several other quotations in an article called "Points to Ponder" in the mass circulation periodical Reader's Digest. Jess Lair's book was acknowledged, and the words were identical to those in the book [JLRD].

For several years the actor Lee Majors was married to the actress and iconic beauty Farrah Fawcett. In 1978 an interviewer for the UPI news service asked Majors about this relationship [LMFF]:

"I have an old saying framed in my office. It goes like this, 'If you love something, set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If it doesn't, it never was.' That's how I feel about a marriage partner."

By the 1990s the expression had implausibly been assigned to the author Richard Bach. Here is an example message from the Usenet distributed discussion system in 1994 [JLRB]:

>In summary, I'd like to add something I read by Alan Dean Foster: "If
>you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it is yours forever.
>If it doesn't, then it never was yours at all."
Actually it was Richard Bach, but Foster is a great author too!

By 1999 a comical remark had been appended to the maxim [UNSL]:

But, if it just sits in your living room,
messes up your stuff, eats your food,
uses your telephone, takes your money,
and doesn't appear to realize that you had set it free.....
You either married it or gave birth to it.

In conclusion, the creator of this general saying is not known. Jess Lair helped to popularize one version starting in 1969. He was given the statement by an anonymous student. Peter Max helped to popularize another shorter version in 1972. He was sent the expression by Chantal Sicile.

(Many thanks to Randi who asked about this quotation and inspired the construction of this query and reply.)

[JL69] 1969, "I Ain't Much Baby-But I'm All I've Got" by Jess Lair, Chapter 19, Page 98, Privately published. (Verified on paper by Fred Shapiro)

[JL72] 1972, "I Ain't Much Baby-But I'm All I've Got" by Jess Lair, Chapter 20: Our Magic Cards, Quote Page 203, [Copyright: 1969, 1972], Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York. (Verified on paper)

[JLYQ] 2006, The Yale Book of Quotations by Fred R. Shapiro, Section Jess Lair, Page 440, Yale University Press, New Haven. (Verified on paper)

[JLQV] 2006, The Quote Verifier by Ralph Keyes, Page 135, St Martin's Griffin, New York. (Verified on paper)

[EQHK] 1951 February, Esquire, The Tyranny of Love by Harry Kronman, Start Page 30, Quote Page 30, Column 3, Esquire Publishing, New York. (Verified on paper)

[PMCP] 1972 September 16, Cleveland Plain Dealer, [Cartoon Panel: Meditation by Peter Max], Page 19-B, [GNB Page 31], Cleveland, Ohio. (GenealogyBank)

[PMNJ] 1972 September 16, News Journal, [Cartoon Panel: Meditation by Peter Max], Page 3, Column 4, Mansfield, Ohio. (NewspaperArchive) (This newspaper mentioned Chantal Sicile and the request for quotations.)

[ORBW] 1975 April 20, Oregonian, Sunday Section: Northwest Magazine, At Home with Bill Walton by Judy Hughes, Start Page 10, Quote Page 12, Column 3, Portland, Oregon. (GenealogyBank)

[JLRD] 1975 December, Reader's Digest, Volume 107, Points to Ponder, Page 201, Column 1, The Reader's Digest Association. (Verified on paper)

[LMFF] 1978 July 5, Nashua Telegraph, Lee Majors Is No Mr. Fawcett, [UPI newswire], Page 15, Column 6, Nashua, New Hampshire. (Google News Archive)

[JLRB] 1994 April 26, Usenet, Newsgroup: alt.romance.chat, From: Rob Geraghty, Responding to: Michael Aulfrey, Subject: Re: What do women want??? I need a woman's advice!! (Accessed online at groups.google.com) link

[UNSL] 1999 August 23, Usenet, Newsgroups: alt.support.arthritis, From: Bbaylarry, Subject: OTP: Joke - If You Love Something. (Accessed online at groups.google.com) link

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If You Love Someone, Set Them Free. If They Come Back They're Yours

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Richard Bach? Jess Lair? Anonymous student? Sting? Peter Max? Chantal Sicile? Dear Quote Investigator: On his first solo album in 1985 the musician Sting released a song called: If You Love Somebody Set Them Free Recently, I heard more elaborate quotations that included the above statement: If you love something, let it go.