March 21, 2009

• A Reasoned Response to the Monogamous

  My public response to this comment on the version of my poly post featured on Datingish.  (You don’t actually have to click the comment, I included everything she had to say in bold.)

  Well.  It’s a good thing I’m not easily offended or feel I deserved any of the names you called me or I might struggle with having an intelligent response to you.  I’d like to clarify a few things upfront, though.  1) Calling me a hippie is not an insult, I am (proudly) some sort of hippie; 2) Calling me stupid couldn’t be any further from the truth; 3) Calling me a whore couldn’t be any further from the truth; 4) I’m possibly one of the most honest and self-sacrificing people you will ever meet and I truly feel that I am being completely honest with myself and all people in my life by practicing polyamory; 5) I will never stoop so low as to call you names just because we have differing opinions.

  That said, let the rebuttal begin.

  “You’re taking a term that has a common definition among the society at large and breaking it down into technical’ terms which you know aren’t even relevant to what it really means.  Sure ‘intimacy’ can be loosely defined; but having multiple intimate partners means you’re nothing but a WHORE.  I’m going to respond to each of your little self-serving ‘points.’”

  The word you have the biggest problem with, in this whole post, is my use of Intimacy?  Sexual intimacy is only one of the definitions for intimacy, see for yourself.  Other definitions include close familiarity that is usually affectionate or loving, detailed knowledge or deep understanding, and the quality of being comfortable or warm [with someone].  Apply these qualities to relationships, apply them to friendships, I don’t care, but don’t tell me the only way one can be intimate with a person is sexually.

  “Your technical justification against this is based on  YOUR OWN assumptions about polygamy itself. Polygamy is SUPPOSED to be just as you describe Polyamory to be. It just never turns out that way, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT HUMAN NATURE, (you stupid hippie).”

  Do you have references?  Because I’ve studied polygamy and it doesn’t seem to imply any sort of anything remotely close to what I know about polyamory (and that which I have stated here).  Polygamy literally means “many wives (marriages)” and, if you know anything about the history of marriage it is, in many cultures, an act of asserting male control and power over women (and was otherwise economic rather than romantic.) Granted, marriage has come a long way, but what it started out as and what it is now are worlds apart.  Polyamory is a completely different ball game entirely, and polyamorous relationships have no legal recognition and little historical foundation.

  “Sex is always a constant in romance. If you’re saying sex isn’t the center of a romantic relationship then you’re talking about friendship. This again is human nature.”

  Do me a favor and go tell every asexual person and people saving themselves for marriage that their relationship in its current state is nothing more than a friendship since sex is missing.  This line of thought is ridiculous.  There’s more to romantic relationships than sex. (Romance, for example?)  Or I mean, maybe all your friendships are romantic, *shrug*, who am I to pretend I know. All mine are.

  “In this context, a ‘polyamorous person’ is nothing more than a whore. It may or may not indicate that you have commitment issues, but what I’m going to argue is it CERTAINLY doesn’t point towards someone who IS committed. The point of a romantic relationship is to show loyalty towards one individual and showing that they are ENOUGH for you, despite all the faults that they, naturally as humans, have. If you are with two people you are not in a committed relationship; you are simply using each person to fulfill a different need.”
  

  You keep referencing “human nature”.  My understanding of humans is that they naturally want to spread their seed and have carbon copies of themselves running around so that they can feel like they have accomplished something with their lives.  That’s typically what animals want, so why wouldn’t humans (who are animals with the ability to reason and think logically) want that.  My studies of biology and psychology don’t agree with you that being non-monogamous goes against human nature.  In fact, I’d go so far as to say that being monogamous goes against human nature.  But, I don’t even want to argue with that, because I think monogamy is beneficial for obvious reasons.  I am just saying it’s not for everyone.

  Commitment doesn’t have a rigid definition and certainly doesn’t mandate monogamy.  Committing to a person is an act of promising to keep their trust.  It’s a trait of sincere and steadfast fixed purpose; a bind to a course of action.   Commitment in a polyamorous relationship may be a bit abstract, but it is still commitment.  You’re promising to your primary lover(s) that you will not act outside the set rules for the relationship.  You’re promising complete honesty and transparency, open communication and discussion about feelings, trust until it’s proven you can’t trust them — everything a relationship demands.  Polyamorous people still recognize cheating as a “no-no”; if it is not spoken about, discussed, and approved of, it violates the relationship and poly people would be just as heartbroken about this as any monogamous person.

  Furthermore, showing a partner that they are “enough” for you is a requirement for your romantic relationships, but can’t be said for all romantic relationships.  I can’t get on the notion that someone out there is supposed to “complete” me.  I agree that someone could compliment me, but I also agree that multiple people could compliment me.  It’s just a conflict of perspective.  

  “Of course lust [in this case, wanting someone else while you're with someone] happens, because it’s human. The point though is that if you LOVE someone, then that vastly overrides your lust for someone else in every way. Again, your weirdly twisted notions of love here are evidence of your naivete and limited experience of what a mature relationship, of what ‘love’ really is. This whole ‘infinite’ idea of love is nice in some idealized little utopian kind of way, but life doesn’t work out that way. Love is often measured by time and commitment. If you love someone, you’re not going to take time and energy away from them to spend with someone else, unless you feel something less than love for both of those individuals.”

  Lust literally means “strong desire” so, okay, lust is fair to discuss here.  Sort of.  I mean, I’m really pretty overwhelmed by how you can’t seem to understand that my relationships aren’t based around sex or sexual attraction (as I hardly experience sexual attraction or desire sex).  Maybe you’re projecting?  

  Humans construct relationships based on love with all manner of people. From parents to children to everyone in between.  Romantic love is no different. You can indeed love two individuals romantically (and equally), because they are individuals and what attracts you to them is unique to them.  Savvy? 

  At the same time, I’ll give you one thing you’re right about: I have limited experience with monogamy. There, I said it, I haven’t had much experience with monogamy.  But telling a poly person that they don’t understand relationships because they haven’t experienced monogamous ones is like telling someone who likes vanilla cake and is not a big fan of chocolate ice cream that they have fucked tastebuds due to not having eaten enough chocolate ice cream.  Why would I put myself in monogamous situations when I know that I have a polyamorous philosophy of life?  Why would I eat chocolate ice cream when there is a perfectly good vanilla cake sitting right there?

  You can’t tell me that my “little utopian view of life and romance” doesn’t work out because I’m currently, um, living proof that it does.  And have friends who are living proof as well.  Jealousy can be managed and controlled, time can be divided and shared (much the same way most people still have friends that they spend time with while they’re dating someone), and everyone involved can be happy.  This isn’t just about me, this is about me and all the people that I love and appreciate and respect and want to keep in my life even when new people show up or old people move away or whatever life throws at my relationships. 

  And this line again: “If you love someone, you’re not going to take time and energy away from them to spend with someone else, unless you feel something less than love for both of those individuals.”  I already addressed this.  Love is not the same thing as money.  You can’t “spend” it in ways that are of greater or equal value; love morphs and takes on different shapes; it’s different.  Likewise, some people just don’t have a lot of time in general, for whatever reason (school, work, deployment, prison, the circus, too much time wasted swooning over Lady Gaga, you name it).  You can’t dismiss love just because you can’t see it in hourly increments.  Love being measured by time and commitment really is a poor measure; it’s subjective in that everyone has their own needs/wants.  What you need or want from your partner may not (and probably won’t) coincide with what they can offer.  So, measuring their level of commitment in the time they spend with you has to be done taking into account their thoughts, not your own. 
  

  Or, as a good friend puts it, “Walk a mile in another’s shoes? Only if they’re Prada or the hottest kicks on the market. Most humans can’t be bothered to consider another’s views. Even if they could, perception is relative. You can’t literally view the world as another would because you are still you.”

  “You don’t commit to someone with the notion in mind that they’re the best you got, first. You commit to them as an individual whom you enjoy being with, and appreciate. People are not commodities.”

  I never said that people are commodities.  Also, we agree on the fact that people are worth committing to because they are individuals whom you enjoy being with, and appreciate.  That’s a very well-worded position that I hold.  I enjoy being with my lovers, and I appreciate each and every one of them.  I would never make the claim that someone was the “best I got” because I don’t support that viewpoint.
  

  “I agree with your idea that there’s not some predestined ‘one’ for us. But when you’re with one, and you commit, then you show respect for them by paying your romantic and lustful attention TO them. Not because it’s a responsibility, but because you LOVE them. You don’t add more to your collection because you might ‘miss out’ or feel the need to ‘spread the love.’”

  I do show my attention to my lovers.  All of them.  Because I love them.  And they know I love them, and they’re “in on” and a part of my lifestyle.  I’m not cheating anyone of anything, I’m not being devious, I’m not being shady, I’m not being slutty, I am just being honest.  Different people pull different parts of my personality out, and prioritizing my relationships is tricky.

  Is there anything else you would like to rudely misunderstand me about?

  • 7:53 pm
  • 22 Comments