![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I am absolutely sick to death of people saying "I don't like polyamory because I once knew an asshole who said he was polyamorous". I've ranted about this before and will probably do so again in the future. It just infuriates me because these same people then retreat into monogamy as if the problem was the relationship structure and not the people. And they usually will admit that some monogamous people are assholes, but they always, ALWAYS rationalize that by saying that monogamy itself is not the problem.
Well, polyamory deserves to be held to the same standards. Or rather, monogamy should be held to the same standards as polyamory, IMO. There is example after example after example of happy, successful poly relationships and there is example after example after example of some truly awful monogamous relationships. There are people who use the term "monogamy" to justify abuse and possession and objectification. But it's not monogamy's fault, no, that person is just a bad guy. But meet one person who calls himself "polyamorous", but still has only rudimentary communication skills, or insecurities, or is in the process of learning who he is and what he wants, and it's a sign that the whole structure is bad.
I followed a Twitter link to a "post about polyamory". I won't re-post it in full, but I will re-post my response. If you don't follow the link to read it yourself, my response is a word-for-word repeat of the original post, only I substituted all mentions of "polyamory" with the word "monogamy" and I made some minor contextual substitutions to be internally consistent.
I fully get that polyamory is "not for everyone", but it is my opinion that the *reason* it is "not for everyone" is because we are all products of our upbringing and the society in which we are raised, and only a few are able to shuck off those early assumptions and to compensate for making it to adulthood without good communication skills or good self-esteem skills (because self-esteem and security are a learned skill, just as low self-esteem and insecurity are also a learned skill - one that our society seems to prefer instilling in our youth). If we had been raised from the beginning not to revere monogamy so in the face of all evidence, I fully believe that polyamory would, indeed, be "for everyone", or at least it would be the majority state.
But the fact stands that, regardless of the reasons why, polyamory is "not for everyone" at this time in this society, and I get that. What pisses me off is the hypocrisy that polyamory is "not for everyone" because polyamory itself is problematic, but then they turn around and embrace monogamy while excusing monogamy's problems on the problematic individuals, not on the flaws of the relationship structure itself.
So, here's my response:
Does it make any sense for someone to say the following:
----------------
When I was 20, I dated a man who was into monogamy. I was young and naive. I expected him to be an expert, since he was experienced with monogamous relationships. However, no rules were discussed with me, no boundaries were communicated, and there was no negotiation. I was unclear what constituted "cheating" because it was just assumed, and questioning that was not allowed.
I uncomfortably found myself pressured to keep him happy. His jealousy got out of control. If I was on the phone to a friend, he would be downstairs stomping and breaking things. Left an impression on me. I couldn't take it anymore and I had to leave.
I'm not opposed to monogamy, I have several mono friends who are fulfilled by their relationships.
What I don't like about monogamy:
When people tout it as being the "traditional" or most stable form of relationships. Monogamy is definitely not for everyone. I believe only a very small percentage of the population would be able to thrive without cheating or divorce as an option.
When people who identify as mono yet cannot communicate or take responsibility for their feelings and thus create mono drama that hurts people around them. Which leads to the last one...
When non-mono people are forced to "deal with" their partner wanting to close their relationship. When they become the victim of cross-fire between their jealous partner and their friends. When they settle for less than their needs because they don't know enough about healthy monogamous practices.
Sure, people in poly relationships can be poor communicators or get jealous or have flawed relationships in other ways. My discomfort with monogamy is that it isolates so many people. There just aren't enough people around to check in and make sure the relationship isn't unhealthy or abusive.
----------------
This is obviously a ridiculous essay. Monogamy is not the source of the problem in those monogamous relationships that are problematic. The source is the people involved. it doesn't matter *what* relationship structure they are in, the problem is that the individuals are flawed.
No one ever seems to blame monogamy when a monogamous relationship fails. But everyone wants to blame the polyamorous structure when they meet someone who is insecure, immature, lacking in social skills or communication skills or even empathy for other people, who just happens to call themselves "poly".
Your problem is not with polyamory. Your problem is with people who treat their partners poorly. People like that are a sad fact of all cultures and relationship structures.
Well, polyamory deserves to be held to the same standards. Or rather, monogamy should be held to the same standards as polyamory, IMO. There is example after example after example of happy, successful poly relationships and there is example after example after example of some truly awful monogamous relationships. There are people who use the term "monogamy" to justify abuse and possession and objectification. But it's not monogamy's fault, no, that person is just a bad guy. But meet one person who calls himself "polyamorous", but still has only rudimentary communication skills, or insecurities, or is in the process of learning who he is and what he wants, and it's a sign that the whole structure is bad.
I followed a Twitter link to a "post about polyamory". I won't re-post it in full, but I will re-post my response. If you don't follow the link to read it yourself, my response is a word-for-word repeat of the original post, only I substituted all mentions of "polyamory" with the word "monogamy" and I made some minor contextual substitutions to be internally consistent.
I fully get that polyamory is "not for everyone", but it is my opinion that the *reason* it is "not for everyone" is because we are all products of our upbringing and the society in which we are raised, and only a few are able to shuck off those early assumptions and to compensate for making it to adulthood without good communication skills or good self-esteem skills (because self-esteem and security are a learned skill, just as low self-esteem and insecurity are also a learned skill - one that our society seems to prefer instilling in our youth). If we had been raised from the beginning not to revere monogamy so in the face of all evidence, I fully believe that polyamory would, indeed, be "for everyone", or at least it would be the majority state.
But the fact stands that, regardless of the reasons why, polyamory is "not for everyone" at this time in this society, and I get that. What pisses me off is the hypocrisy that polyamory is "not for everyone" because polyamory itself is problematic, but then they turn around and embrace monogamy while excusing monogamy's problems on the problematic individuals, not on the flaws of the relationship structure itself.
So, here's my response:
Does it make any sense for someone to say the following:
----------------
When I was 20, I dated a man who was into monogamy. I was young and naive. I expected him to be an expert, since he was experienced with monogamous relationships. However, no rules were discussed with me, no boundaries were communicated, and there was no negotiation. I was unclear what constituted "cheating" because it was just assumed, and questioning that was not allowed.
I uncomfortably found myself pressured to keep him happy. His jealousy got out of control. If I was on the phone to a friend, he would be downstairs stomping and breaking things. Left an impression on me. I couldn't take it anymore and I had to leave.
I'm not opposed to monogamy, I have several mono friends who are fulfilled by their relationships.
What I don't like about monogamy:
When people tout it as being the "traditional" or most stable form of relationships. Monogamy is definitely not for everyone. I believe only a very small percentage of the population would be able to thrive without cheating or divorce as an option.
When people who identify as mono yet cannot communicate or take responsibility for their feelings and thus create mono drama that hurts people around them. Which leads to the last one...
When non-mono people are forced to "deal with" their partner wanting to close their relationship. When they become the victim of cross-fire between their jealous partner and their friends. When they settle for less than their needs because they don't know enough about healthy monogamous practices.
Sure, people in poly relationships can be poor communicators or get jealous or have flawed relationships in other ways. My discomfort with monogamy is that it isolates so many people. There just aren't enough people around to check in and make sure the relationship isn't unhealthy or abusive.
----------------
This is obviously a ridiculous essay. Monogamy is not the source of the problem in those monogamous relationships that are problematic. The source is the people involved. it doesn't matter *what* relationship structure they are in, the problem is that the individuals are flawed.
No one ever seems to blame monogamy when a monogamous relationship fails. But everyone wants to blame the polyamorous structure when they meet someone who is insecure, immature, lacking in social skills or communication skills or even empathy for other people, who just happens to call themselves "poly".
Your problem is not with polyamory. Your problem is with people who treat their partners poorly. People like that are a sad fact of all cultures and relationship structures.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/8/09 05:10 am (UTC)From:Good response
Date: 7/8/09 09:56 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)I fully agree with this perspective. Our society also conditions us to be codependent. Just listen to the love songs on the radio for an hour. They are all about codependency.
There is, however, as I learned in my gender studies class in college, an amount of this that is physiological. In order to perpetuate her genetic material, females will desire a single partner to create babies with and then expect them to stick around long enough to ensure that the baby reaches maturity. Oxytocin is a brain chemical that causes a female to bond with her male partner. Just something to consider as to why monogamy feels right for a large percentage of the population.
As the author of the original post, I take full responsibility that I have a negative psychological association to polyamory because of my past experiences. Yes, my issues were with the people involved. I wrote that post to give my perspective since I'm a member of the BDSM community where there are a good number of folks that identify as polyamorous. Not everyone in BDSM is poly and not everyone is comfortable with polyamory. I did not write the post to 'bash' polyamory in any way. I'm hopeful that the more healthy people in polyamorous relationships that I met, the easier it will be to disassociate.
The simple fact does remain, however, that multiple partners increases the likelihood of someone involved fucking up and when that happens multiple people are affected, not just one. I'm not saying that it means monogamy is better than polyamory, but perhaps less risky. Also, I don't believe that romantic relationships are comparable with friendships, but I felt that you response was well-articulated and creative.
I'm glad that my post inspired you.
Re: Good response
Date: 7/8/09 10:26 pm (UTC)From:It does not actually benefit females to have a single male partner to perpetuate her genetic material. Females in most species, including humans, seek out a variety of male sperm donors to get the most variety of offspring to increase the chances of that offspring surviving.
Some species, including humans, practice SOCIAL MONOGAMY, which is the practice of having a single partner for the purposes of raising the offspring, but that partner is not necessarily the genetic contributor to said offspring.
The oxytocin is also only released for a short time period, just long enough to ensure the babies' survival. This is the New Relationship Energy period, which lasts, on average, 18 months to 3 years.
However, the pairbond caused by those hormones is ALSO formed between the female and the offspring during childbirth and reinforced during breastfeeding. So, clearly, humans are not only capable, but wired for, forming pairbonds with more than one individual at a time.
I also have to contradict you in your last paragraph. It is not, actually, a "fact" that multiple partners increases the likelihood of someone involved fucking up. The number of people is the least important factor in the probability of a relationship going south. By a HUGE margin, the more important factors are the individuals' communication skills and compatibility with each other.
A monogamous couple who does not know how to communicate with each other, who are not compatible with each other, and who are otherwise screwed up have a close to 100% probability of failure.
However, a group of 3 or 4 people who all have advanced communication skills and very compatible personality types are much more likely to succeed.
The number of people is the least important factor in the stability of a relationship, and that has been demonstrated mathmatically in several venues.
If you don't believe that romantic relationships are comparable with friendships, then I suggest you have that conversation with everyone who has ever had to choose between his lover or his best friend, or anyone who has ever been dumped because her lover disapproved of her spending time with her platonic friend, or anyone who has ever had a friendship last 40 years while romantic partners have come and gone.
How they are comparable is that there is the same range of intensity and depth to the emotional connection that there is in romantic relationships. There are acquaintences, casual friends, activity partners, close friends, best friends, "hetero-lifemates", etc. There are also fuckbuddies, casual partners, "just dating", boyfriend/girlfriend, spouse and "soulmates". Just because you have never had a platonic friend that meant the world to you doesn't mean that others haven't. My platonic friends are just as important to me as my romantic partners and I would exert myself to the same extent that I would for my romantic partners. The only thing that is different is that I'm not having sex with them, but the depth of my feelings for them is no more shallow than the depth of my feelings for my loves.
Re: Good response
Date: 7/12/09 08:25 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)- as someone with two lovers, i agree that it's a viable theory that i'm doubling my chances of getting hurt, and doubling my chances of hurting a partner, by doubling my partner number.
however. it's been my experience that in practice, i'm mostly doubling my resources of (and depositories for) sex, affection, support, and pleasant stuff like that. if i have an argument with one, or one isn't available, then it can be nice to have a second parnter to get a hug from. recently when A and i were having issues, i talked to B, and he gave me some perspective and good advice. i waited a bit before going back to A, we made up and are now even better than before. i think as long as you care about each other and communicate lots, and _don't mind_ the sharing (i've known people who were unhappy with sharing but tried to be poly anyway, and it ended badly) then it can be a perfectly doable way of going about things.
Re: Good response
Date: 7/13/09 08:14 pm (UTC)From:Not to mention the fact that monogamous people are not islands either. How their parents, siblings and friends behave with regards to their relationships also affects the "complication factor". If you have a meddling mother-in-law, that's no less likely to fail than a triad with an uncooperative member, and much more likely to fail than a quad made up of 4 adults who are committed to the relationship, committed to polyamory, are compatible with each other and who have advanced communication skills.