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

[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.