Prejudice

[errantember]

I was floating my mind over my general feelings about monogamy, and I finally arrived at a short opinion that I feel is correct.


No one has ever achieved happiness *because* of monogamy.

No couple has ever achieved happiness *because* of monogamy.

Discuss.



NOTE: This is basically a thought experiment rather than a perceived basic truth. My goal in defending the statement, if I have one, is to define the shape and limits of this idea in my mind, discover how well it meshes or conflicts with other ideas, and learn something about the assumptions we all make about relationships. I'm definitely *not* proposing that one relationships style is necessary better or more appropriate for everyone. More power to anyone who finds a style of loving relationship that makes them happy and successful, including those who identify it as monogamy.

SECOND NOTE: Did they change the editor? It took me like 10 minutes to figure out how to get an lj-cut to work, when in the past it has always just worked. The editor was trying to escape it out for some reason, and that seems like a change.

Comments

[kiki39.livejournal.com]

I'd say that totally depends on one's needs and how monogamy is defined. I know for a fact, for instance, that there are people who have achieved happiness in part through celibacy. I'd suspect, however, that choice of intimate relationship styles is peripheral or conjunct to a larger spiritual calling that certainly includes the relationship to one's self.

I think about this stuff alot, actually, and hope for bliss one day. :)

[errantember.livejournal.com]

I agree that the definition of monogamy is 100% necessary to clarify the argument.

What should be our operating definition?

I think we should have a huge slap fight over which of thinks about relationships more, preferably in a pool of jello.

[errantember.livejournal.com]

Were you at Flipside this year?

[kiki39.livejournal.com]

Yer on, but only if it's lime jello...

Nope! No cash for travel atm, so I'll have to wait for another event to come down. Missed y'all, though!

[errantember.livejournal.com]

I understand. I'm not sure I'll be getting to any non-Austin burn events this year, either. I'm re-arranging my life to make that kind of travel more possible in the future, but it will likely take a while to ramp that up.

I'm still interested in a working definition of monogamy for our discussion.

[kiki39.livejournal.com]

For discussion purposes, I usually define a poly relationship as one including either physical or emotional intimacy, or both, with more thanone person at a time where all persons involved are aware and in agreement. Take out "more than" and add "only" and that's monogamy? That's an awkward definition, I know, but I just woke up from a nap in the sunshine. I'm happy to toss this back and forth and refine it 'cause then I can use it for my Poly 101's!

I been talking to some of my local friends here about going to the Big Burn at some point. We have local recomp/decomp but they're not on Vancouver Island and I've not yet made it to a Victoria event. Someday soon...

disagreement

[bramblekite.livejournal.com]

My ex's new GF is very very pleased that she forced him into monogamy with her. She feels like she's won a big prize, outsmarted a big enemy, and has everything she wants.

Monogamy has made her very happy...but of course, it's not really monogamy, it's getting her way that is the happy point.

Re: disagreement

[errantember.livejournal.com]

Good! You've shown a weakness in my wording. My intention was to require that *both* parties in the relationship be happy, not just one. So, our next iteration is:

No couple has ever achieved happiness *because* of monogamy.

I'm updating the first proposition with your change.

I thought about attacking my own proposition by adding a "long-term" requirement in there, but I don't think that's necessary. I think the statement is true both in the short *and* the long term, but possibly for different reasons.

Re: disagreement

[bramblekite.livejournal.com]

and then you'd need to define 'happiness'...some people think they are happy because their SO has quit yelling at them for few days, or quit hitting them, or let them out of the dog crate, or whatever.

Aside from the twisted up thinking that can come from abuse, some people's idea of 'happiness' involves drugs, drama, booze, or some other pathological habit that an outside observer would see as unhealthy or deterimental over a span of time.

So...does thinking you are happy equal actually being happy?

Re: disagreement

[errantember.livejournal.com]

That's also a good point. Happiness is definitely relative. For the sake of this discussion, I think we're going to have to say that thinking you're happy equals being happy *now*, but not necessarily later. This brings up the question, though, of whether or not a couple engaged in NRE should count, since it's known to be a powerful but time-bounded effect. Does someone who only sticks around until the NRE wears off, decides they made the "wrong choice," and then looks for someone new count as happy? Maybe in the short term, but not, I would argue, in the long-term.

So should we add "long-term" to happiness?

Re: disagreement

[bramblekite.livejournal.com]

really just depends on what you're trying to prove.

Whhat's the quote? "Over a long enough timeline the survival rate for anything drops to 0." Something like that.

Humans are capable of a lot of self delusion when it comes to keeping a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, and food in their bellies.

People are capable of a HELL of a lot of self delusion when it comes to keeping their genitals happy.

With enough repression and denial, any lifestyle choice is work-able.

Polyamory provides a better opportunity for honesty, but also more opportunities for insanity, if that's what the people involved decide to do with it.

don't mind me, I'm just pokin' stuff with sticks to see what kind of icky goo I can get to come out.

Re: disagreement

[errantember.livejournal.com]

All true, and that's exactly what I'm after. If we get more of the goo out, maybe the rest will work more smoothly.

Unless the goo is lube, definitely a possibility in the case of denial. Then we might be in trouble.

[adam rice (from livejournal.com)]

I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find a case that disproves your assertion, if there's someone out there who tried polyamory for a while, discovered he/she didn't like it, and then discovered that monogamy worked better for him/her.

I know at least one person who never identified as a poly per se but was in an open relationship for a long time. Now she is in a monogamous relationship. I assume it is because it works better for her.

Also: chickens?

[errantember.livejournal.com]

I agree that there are a lot of people out there who have tried some form of open relationship who find that it doesn't work for them. It's been my obviously biased observation that many of these people blame a lot of problems that happen in open relationships on the fact that it's open rather than on their own destructive patterns, but I'm willing to concede that there are people who really *did* give it the old college try and still found it didn't work for them. What I'm *not* willing to concede is the idea that monogamy itself was the source of their happiness. Of course, we still don't have an operating definition for either monogamy or happiness this early in the discussion yet. :) I think the root feeling that I'm working from and trying to explore is that people who really manage to make their long-term romantic relationships succeed aren't succeeding because they've chosen to exclude other sexual partners from their relationships. I'm also trying for a democratic theory of relationships, a theory that, however broad and incomplete, could *potentially* work for everyone. In my view, if there are only a few people whos' monogamous relationships just "magically work", the only people getting anything positive out of it are the people in the relationship itself (and bully for them!). By succeeding in a way others can't duplicate, they are actually setting a *bad* example in the same way that not everyone can look like a supermodel or Brad Pitt. Having an ideal that's only truly attainable by a few is really poisonous, because it gives people the illusion that if they just find the right person, or work hard enough, or do whatever, that they could have it, too. I think a huge portion of people's current relationship misery is caused precisely by pursuing that kind of un-attainable ideal.

None of which says that monogamy is inherently a bad choice for anyone.

I'd long suspected that chickens are so cool that they must be part of anything important, and the experience of owning them has only deepened that neurosis. :)

[adam rice (from livejournal.com)]

Well, I don't think the *idea* of monogamy really makes anyone happy, as an abstract concept, any more than the *ideas* of polyamory, double-entry bookkeeping, or right turns on red. It's the practice, the application of it as it applies to one's own life.

In my view, if there are only a few people whos' monogamous relationships just "magically work", the only people getting anything positive out of it are the people in the relationship itself

I think that expecting one's relationship to be a source of joy to those around you is a bit much to lay on it. I don't think relationships "magically work," and whatever it is about those relationships that does work is not superficial, the the looks of an actor or model are. Not exposed to the public.

[errantember.livejournal.com]

I *have* met people who derived great happiness from the idea of double-entry bookkeeping, and even people who enjoy the *reality* of it, but I get your point. I have enough trouble keeping *one* set of books. :)

I agree it's all about the practice, which varies hugely from group to group. One of my main complaints, though, is the fact that the sales pitch (this being the idea) our society puts forward as the Ideal Relationship Style is, in fact, what most people think they're signing up for, not the reality. One of the best quotes I've ever heard about relationships (of any kind) is from Deborah Anapol. I can't find it at the moment, but paraphrase is that "loving relationships take a huge amount of work, self-awareness, and patience, and even when do you do all those things sometimes they don't go like you want them to." I agree with her sentiment that such advise should be the main message we're sending out, rather than our current batch of bias.

I realized a long time ago that I *was* trying to do more with my loving relationships than just bring happiness to myself and my partners, and it definitely colors my view on the entire subject. I am, in fact, trying to shift the world in what I see is a more positive direction by proving it's possible to be really happy having multiple-long term sexual partners, raising kids in that environment, etc. And while I wouldn't be pursing this path personally if I didn't think it would lead to my own happiness, there are times when I've made choices that are better for The Cause than they are for me, and will continue to do so when I think it's worth it. Naturally that's my own cross to bear.

I both agree that most relationships that look like they magically work probably are the result of a lot of behind-the-scenes hard work. Another old friend of mine is very fond of the whole "gold/silver/brass" relationship model, with qualities of result being related to the amount of work for each metal. And while I think he's full of shit, it's not because he's wrong, it's because he's wrong 99.9% of the time. I *do* think there are fantastic (gold) relationships where the people involved really *don't* have to work that much at it, by some coincidence of parenting, training, personality, etc, etc. And even if there aren't, most people's expectation about the realistic boundaries of human experience in relationships are grossly skewed, and that skewing is the source of many relationship problems. If there's one thing I think the poly community does better than the mono community, it's facing those realities head-on rather than trying to sweep them under the rug. It's something I'm grateful for, personally, because I tend to hide from problems rather than face them, and being unable to stop myself from being brutally beaten about the face with them helps me get past them. I view the currently dominant monogamous model as something that tries to shield people from realities. And I don't think that any model of relationships that requires institutionalization of denial is sustainable. And it wasn't until I read Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits that I realized the most simple summary of my problems with the way most relationships I saw were structured -- they weren't sustainable for a huge portion of the human population. And for a model that's being sold as the *most* sustainable, that's a Big Problem.

On the other hand, there are times when I'm dealing with some kind of borderline-might-be-false positive from some STD test somewhere in my extended circle, or people I really love moving out of town to pursue their dreams, when only having one partner sounds pretty keen. :)

None of it is easy for 99.5% of us.

[adam rice (from livejournal.com)]

I think the media tends to present us with both idealized and catastrophized (is that a word?) views of common experiences, including monogamous relationships, parenthood, driving a car, going to work, etc. So it is inevitable that you'll see rosy pictures of monogamous couples. But you'll also see the catastrophized view on the Jerry Springer show, Law and Order, etc. If polyamory were more commonplace, it would get the same schizo treatment. Because it is a subculture, the poly community doesn't need to wade through either of these media depictions, and can just get on with inventing itself directly.

It's a bit unfair to say that monogamous couples tend to sweep these problems under the rug. I'm sure some do, but most people know that what they see on TV isn't real. For that matter, even in the media, it's very nearly as clichéd to see couples depicted as making an honest effort to keep a relationship working (or just talking about it and saying "it's not like they show in the movies") as it is to see Rob & Laura Petrie, psycho girlfriend, or abusive boyfriend.

[errantember.livejournal.com]

If catastrophied isn't a word, it should be. I may have to steal that one. Go Adam!

Thank you, BTW, for participating in this discussion. Getting multiple viewpoints on the subject was largely the point, and in my LJ friends list I'm largely preaching to the choir.

Although I am *definitely* turned off by unrealistically positive/happy/dippy portrayals (the entire romantic comedy genre, for instance) my criticism is aimed more at what most people consider realistic expectations. While I'm willing to admit that some people may be able to find long-term happiness in life-long monogamous relationships, I believe firmly that most people won't, and that it's definitely not a worthy flagship model for relationships in general. I feel that even people who do succeed with it are doing it despite the relationship model, not because of it, which is really where this whole discussion started. If, say, there were some kind of open acceptance of the fact that most marriages probably aren't going to last forever and some kind of alteration of the system to say that this process of not lasting was *normal* and *ok* and could be not only sanely but potentially *happily* planned for, I might feel better.

Of course, I've chosen to frame this discussion in terms of a largely false monogamous/poly dichotomy. One thing squarely in the middle that I think I'd support is the idea of time-bound commitments more along the lines of handfasting, or likely something made with modern lifestyles more in mind. If commitments of, say, five years were more in style, renewable at will by all parties, I'd likely have seriously considered it with many of my partners. And while I do consider having children a special case, I think the idea that staying together "for the children" is one off the most destructive things parents can do for their kids if they're not really happy together. The fact that an often ugly divorce is the only real option is another sign of how immature our society is at dealing with relationships, with the long-term psychology of the children being sacrificed on the alter of the *very* dicey and irresponsible assumption that the parent's romantic love will somehow last until they'll out of the nest. In most cases, it won't. If people built this very real possibility into a healthy long-term plan for how their kids can still have a great upbringing *without* that assumption warping everyone's reality, the world would be a better place. As a society, I'd like to see the commitment of the parents to each other and their commitment to the kids be non-violently separable, if not entirely separate to being with. If things are handled maturely (and often they aren't) this is one place that many poly families have a huge advantage over monogamous ones, because the child's identity and mental health aren't tied only to one specific pair of adults. It's much more possible in such a situation for major changes in the parent's relationships to occur *without* causing serious psychological damage to the children, simply because expectations were managed differently, and because there are more adults around in parent-type roles, and those roles are less rigidly defined. This is again a false dichotomy, though, because many cultures handle this better than our nuclear family model by having many generations living together to help with the kids, and most of *them* aren't poly. However, there are distinct advantages to having a poly family-of-choice rather than a family-of-blood for kids, the most obvious being that you can decide who you want in or our rather than being stuck with whoever Uncle Ed happens to be.

You right that the mainstream gets beaten up more on Jerry Springer for the same reason that Windows systems get more viruses than Macs. :)

However, while some degree of respect is finally creeping into the treatment of poly people on talk shows, you should *see* the beating they usually get. Even if the host is fairly open minded, the audience rarely is.

Most Americans still think we're "Mormon Fundamentalists" reproducing with 14-year olds. And until we do a better job of educating people, that won't change.

[rkentspeth.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I'll do justice to my thoughts in this reply but here goes...

I think no group of people (couple, triad, etc.) is happy because of the form of their relationship. Forms themselves do not bring happiness, IMO.

I believe happiness comes from being with the right person/people and having the *appropriate* form for those people. If the form for certain people is monogamy, then they are in the appropriate form and that form reflects a harmony within the couple. Did the form itself cause their happiness? I don't believe so. I believe that each person is with a partner that suits him/her and are happy for that reason; the form merely expresses an internal truth for them.

So, I would say that no couple has ever achieved happiness because of monogamy, yes, but I would also say that no couple/group/etc. has ever achieved happiness because of being poly.

[errantember.livejournal.com]

I think you're hitting closer to the mark on where I was going with this discussion than anyone else so far. It's not the form, it's the people and what they *do* with the form that makes a difference. And since I see poly relationships as a superset of mono relationships, I see more opportunities for success. However, with our collective lack of maturity and education around relationships, there are also exponentially more opportunities for failure in a wider model, especially one that exposes those involved to a lot of stresses that monogamy has been specifically designed to avoid. And in either case, there are certain base levels of maturity necessary for long-term relationships to succeed, and I think another interpretation of what I'm try to say is:

If you have the maturity and skills to really make monogamy work long term, you have them to make poly work long-term, too. Someone in this position might chose to be monogamous because they want to, but not because they *have* to.

And *this* comes out of the recognition that a lot of limits defined by monogamy are specifically designed to *prevent* exposure to many issues that lead to personal growth and having to deal with real-world relationship issues by sweeping them under the rug or denying that they exist. You can choose your relationship style, but you *can't* choose to have a relationship with someone else where you don't have to deal with, say, the ending of NRE, inevitable interest in other people, the fact that falling in love is largely uncontrollable, the fact that healthy people *always* change over time, the fact that we all carry fucked-up emotional baggage from our childhood's, etc, etc, etc. When I hear monogamous people complaining about their relationship problems, I often see the answer in facing up directly to problems monogamo-hetero-patriarchy teaches us to pretend don't exist. And then they're stuck, because the real answers lie outside their "allowed" relationship space. And because breaking that mold suddenly means having to be an emotional adult in a world run by emotional kindergardeners. Real life and real relationships are *complicated* and difficult, and far from maximally convenient.