Really. So what are your generalizations? List them. I predict that one of two things will occur here:
OR
I’m going to repost something I wrote elsewhere in response to some more politely phrased questions about my polyamory.
I actually get this question fairly frequently. Basically, the whole open/poly thing works like this: We are both of the opinion that sexual attraction and love are not necessarily linked–that is, it’s perfectly possible to be attracted to someone you don’t necessarily love, or be in love with someone you have no interest in having sex with. In addition, we both think polyamory is a fairly realistic response to the fact that many people (or at least, us) don’t stop being attracted to or caring deeply about other people just because we’re in a relationship.
As a case in point for both, I’d describe my best friend as someone I love–and he’d say the same thing–despite the fact that neither of us are in the slightest bit homosexual or even bi, and therefore there wouldn’t ever be any physical intimacy. At the same time, we take care of each other like family and refer to each other as brothers.
So given the existence of that kind of relationship in parallel to the existing relationship (and eventually, marriage) that my wife and I have (she has similar friendships), we both are comfortable with the fact that love doesn’t need to be exclusive to be deep and meaningful.
So meanwhile, I’m a Zen Buddhist (former Catholic, and at least somewhat in possession of pagan beliefs as well) and my wife is a sort of fusion of pagan and Jewish doctrines. Neither of us believe that sex outside of a marriage is sinful or wrong (obviously not, as we had sex before we were married like most people do)–my religion in particular treats sex like anything else, in that the act itself is not harmful by itself, only in the circumstances and methods can it potentially be harmful.
So once you have the idea that love isn’t diminished despite loving multiple people, and that sex doesn’t necessarily have to be solely in a marriage context to be healthy and fun, polyamory sort of just follows logically along.
We were not initially open when we got married, but we became so early on–it was a case where most people are kinda squicked about it (you may be one of them!) so neither of us was particularly willing to bring it up at first, despite the fact we were deeply in love.
As for why get married if one believes in polyamory? Several reasons, the first and most important of which is the legal benefits of marriage with regard to finances and spousal rights (especially as we plan to have kids eventually). Secondly, we are in a poly relationship that recognizes levels of relationship and intimacy–my wife will always be my primary lover, because we live together and share not only love, but financial situations, most possessions, and eventually children. At the same time, right now I also have a secondary partner (who is also married, to a man who also has a secondary partner) who complements my wife in many ways–she’s an outgoing woman who enjoys camping and outdoorsy stuff, while my wife is a bookish introvert who plays video games and writes. Each provides a different subset of overlapping interests, much like any close friend would.
If anything, my wife and I have grown closer since we’ve been practicing polyamory–she doesn’t have to surrender her bisexuality in order to stay married to me, and I don’t have to annoy her with the portion of me that loves camping and canoeing and shooting when she couldn’t care less. While there are a LOT of couples out there who turn to the open marriage to try to save their broken one, they tend to have a very short half-life–polyamory simply does not work without a very open communication and shared expectations with all of one’s partners.
On a personal level, I’d just like to anti-thank AHunter3 for making my life harder–some people are poly, some people are not, ultimately everyone should do whatever combination of A) “keeping the promises they’ve made to their partner(s) no matter what” and B) “keeping themselves happy” that results in the best outcomes.
Oni no Maggie, I salute you for being a great example of what I’m talking about.
OK.
a) MOST PEOPLE absorb from the cultural mileu (family, religion, peers, TV and movies, yadda yadda) a dominant notion if one notion is indeed extremely dominant. The notion that the “right way” to socially organize ongoing relationships is monogamy / sexual exclusivity is one such dominant notion. Therefore it comes as no great surprise that in this culture
b) MOST PEOPLE believe not only that for them, personally, the only acceptable and appropriate way to have an ongoing relationship in which they and their partner is not demeaned is if it is monogamous and sexually exclusive, DESPITE never having given any serious consideration to possible alternatives…they ALSO believe it is intrinsically true “for everybody”. Like the possibility of being a Muslim or an atheist in suburban Birmingham Alabama in 1969 instead of a Christian, the possibility of having an ongoing relationship NOT based on exclusivity and/or of having multiple concurrent relationships simply is NOT something that most people have contemplated and then rejected as an even remotely conceivable acceptable possibility for themselves. Or their daughters, sons, sisters, etc.
c) MOST PEOPLE, when confronted with a practice that they have mostly only heard of as the topic of negative discussion, and wherein no one that they know personally participates in that practice, react with a mild to moderate degree of revulsion and condemnation, and for MOST PEOPLE in our culture, any structuring of ongoing romantic practices still falls into that category and therefore it is not an exaggeration to say that MOST PEOPLE still look down their nose at the idea that it is even OK for other consenting adults to have multiple boyfriends and/or girlfriends, and/or to neither promise nor feel any obligation to NOT have sex with other people if they are in a loving ongoing relationship with someone —saying for example “What you are doing is not right” or “You are just fooling yourself” or “Then you don’t really care very much for your girlfriend” etc etc. This last generalization is less applicable by far than it would have been a decade or so ago, but in the loose sense by which more than half equals “most” I will make it and I will stick by having made it as a generalization.
OK make fun of me and expose me for the close-minded zealot that I am.
It is true that most people have not seriously considered going poly, and have a negative view of poly-ness.
Why is this “…not flattering to the average mono/possessive person”? Most people have not seriously considered joining a new religion, indulging in an extreme survival sport, or living on a commune; many have negative views (possibly based on ignorance) of these choices. This isn’t “unflattering” to them, it is merely reflective of reality - anyone doing something that isn’t the norm is facing an uphill battle for general acceptance.
Which says nothing, of course, about whether whatever they are doing against the norm is a better choice than the norm, for any particular person. Presumably it is better for them or they would not have chosen it.
It implies that mainstreamers haven’t thought about what they are doing, therefore that they are doing it somewhat automatically / mindlessly. That’s probably not very flattering to them, and judging from comments in this thread I gather that they dont EXPERIENCE it as very flattering to them.
And therein lies the sticking point that has caused the enmity in here: I won’t make that same concession for the mono / possessive folks, not in any generalized sense, because I think for most of them they did NOT choose. They accepted the cultural default, unconsidered. And people find that attitude on my part smug, arrogant, annoying, zealously condescending, etc.
There is little to suggest that sexual exclusivity is an arbitrary fixation of certain cultures. I’m sure someone could dig up an obscure anecdote about the tribe from [y] part of the world that does things differently, but for the vast, vast, vast majority of human beings, it’s considered morally right to be faithful to your romantic partner. This expectation is certainly held of women. Men have been held to a lesser standard in the past and are still held to a lesser standard in most parts of the world, but this is related to the varying levels of power held by women in the world’s societies.
Should we conclude that the desire for one’s partner to be faithful is a part of human nature? Sure. Men desire it from women in all cultures and women vocally desire it from men in any society in which women have a decent amount of social standing. Given a choice, people prefer for their partners to be faithful.
The idea that people are programmed by culture at large to obey the rule of sexual exclusivity is like the idea that boys fight because they’re encouraged to by violent cultural media. It ignores the fact that people have natural sexual desires and that, for the vast majority of people, one of them is sexual exclusivity in their partner.
Even if most people haven’t given a whole lot of consideration to non-monogamy as an option, that doesn’t mean they’re mentally closed. There are lots of things that we don’t give tons of consideration to because they’re obviously ridiculous. I haven’t given consideration to the idea of a marriage that doesn’t involve sexual intercourse at all; I have not considered opening a casino in Antarctica; you get my point. I want a relationship that involves faithfulness, and I want this because I’m part of a species whose members almost always prefer fidelity.
It’s absolutely true that there is too much moralism over sexuality in our society. People just won’t mind their own business.
But let’s not say that all of the things most people believe about those who practice open relationships are wrong. I certainly don’t think that people who practice open relationships are able to commit to each other as much as those who are monogamous are. After all, an open relationship is a relationship where infidelity is the norm. An open relationship is a relationship where less reciprocity is expected, right from the get-go. In a monogamous relationship, the two people are faithful to each other for the sake of each other. Not so in an open relationship.
I most certainly do believe that those who want open relationships are motivated, in a large part, by their desire to have sex with a variety of different people. The limitation so often maligned by polyamorists that most people subscribe to is the limitation of not having sex with somebody other than your partner. Some people, such as those who practiced open relationships, just can’t seem to abide by this. And they think the reason that other people do is that they’re not open-minded.
So I wouldn’t say that open relationships are immoral, but I would say that some of the assessments made by those you criticize at least make sense in some way.
I’m not willing to concede this point. I’d bet that most people who have been in monogamous relationships have, in fact, had more than a very fleeting thought about being non-monogamous for various reasons. I will fully admit that I have. And I bet that while there are certainly those who, for religious reasons or otherwise, have immediately dismissed such thoughts because they’ve been taught that such thoughts are wrong, period, I believe that many of us have thought about it further, and concluded – perhaps quickly, but not without real contemplation – that such a lifestyle doesn’t fit us.
In other words, I just think your assumption that most people have failed to make an actual choice in this regard is simply false.
Isn’t this true for just about anything? I never seriously considered becomming a Jehovah’s Witness (and indeed I know nothing of it good or bad, other than the vague sense that it is some sort of strict sect) - does that mean I’m “mindlessly” not Jehovah’s Witnessing?
That is, before I’d even consider becomming a Jehovah’s Witness, someone would have to make a damn convincing case as to why I should consider it.
I rather suspect the resistence you and other polys get is that any major personal choice different from the norm faces a great uphill battle for its advocates to demonstrate its value, before it is considered on a level playing field with existing choices.
Where you and I differ is that you appear to hold the view that it is incumbent on the majority to give your minority lifestyle choice a fair consideration for themselves on equal standing with the majority option. That is not I thing where the onus lies. There are lots of folks clamouring to have their minority religions, lifestyle choices, or whatever recognized and adopted by others. Why is yours somehow of more importance, that the majority is in effect being small-minded if they don’t give it due consideration for themselves?
Again, most people did not choose to not be poly in the same way that they did not choose to be Jehovah’s Witnesses, Nudists, Vegans or what-have-you. It simply never occured to them that these were important choices to make. Why should it? I have never sat down and seriously considered why I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness, and if some Jehovah’s Witnesses tasked me with this failure, I’d have no defence - other than a vague sense that a fundy-sounding sort of religion isn’t for me (but then, as I said, i know very little about it).
Similarly, most people have a vague notion that being poly isn’t for them (should they ever happen to think of it) and leave it at that.
Isn’t the onus on those advocating these minority positions to make some sort of case as to why the average person should give their views a more considered consideration? Comming out and saying that somehow it is the average person’s fault for not giving your point of view such consideration is hardly fair. There are literally thousands of minority positions on every conceivable topic that the majority haven’t considered. It is indeed more than slightly arrogant, because it assumes the very point that is in contention: that your view has intrinsic merit.
Just because someone hasn’t considered all possible alternatives to the “cultural default” (however you feel like defining that) doesn’t mean that one of these alternatives is necessarily a solution to whatever issues they may have. You seem to assume that, in general, relationship troubles for monogamous people are caused by monogamy itself - and would be resolved by choosing to live polyamorously. The narrow-mindedness inherent in such an opinion is rather amusing, considering the viewpoint you’re espousing.
Of course it doesn’t.
No. I observe that for SOME monogamous people it SEEMS – to ME – that their problems are caused by beating themselves and their partners to an emotional pulp with their sexual-exclusivity jealousies, or at least that that is how they manifest themselves… and it SEEMS – to ME – that if they could put that down and stop mauling each other with it they’d be happy. Would that work for them? I dunno. I’m not them. DO I THINK MOST PEOPLE WHO MATCH THAT DESCRIPTION UP TO THIS FAR HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED DOING THAT? Yes, that is exactly what I think.
Do I think that about every monogamously inclined person I meet? No. It’s a generalization.
You mean the jealousy that occurs when someone is unfaithful to their romantic partner? When person A realizes that person B wasn’t taking the relationship as serious as he/she was? When trust is broken?
Yeah, people sure go crazy over that. They also get pissed at each other over shared finances, over where they should live, or over how many children they should have.
Here’s the AHunter3 solution to these problems: stop expecting things from people. Is your partner not being faithful to you? Stop expecting him to be! Does your partner spend large sums of money on unnecessary items without asking you about it? Stop expecting him to do otherwise! Does he call you a bitch when you overdo the pasta? Stop expecting him to speak to you gently!
God, why doesn’t anybody even consider these solutions? It must be some sort of obscure dogma that people get indoctrinated with.
Bith, I think my fundamental difficulty with your position is that we have a different definition of faithfulness. I don’t think there’s necessarily any intrinsic value to a particular definition of faithfulness (such as "sexual exclusivity), nor do I think I am any less faithful to my wife simply because we have a different set of promises in our marriage vows than you did/will.
I was hoping you’d address some of the points I made upthread, essentially saying that love is not a zero-sum thing in my opinion and it does not diminish my love for my wife to say I love my best friend or I love my mom. Perceptually, I don’t see any difference in the actual feeling there, just differences in the expected methods of expressing that feeling.
Personally, I judge faithfulness by two criteria–how well one keeps one’s promises, whatever they may be, and how happy one’s partner(s) are with the status of the relationship.
Obviously your mileage varies with mine vis-a-vis our expectations of our (potential) partners, but mostly I dissent with the implication that a human only has so much caring/love/devotion to offer. By the same token, I also repudiate AHunter’s continued implication that there’s something “wrong” with monogamy, and see nothing wrong with it.
Ultimately, why does any of this have to be judgemental? I’m happy with my relationship(s), you’re presumably happy with yours, who the heck cares about the specific details?
No. The jealousy that occurs when one partner begins obsessing over the possibility that they may not be the entire universe to the person they’ve chosen to make their entire universe. When a person realizes that their occasional feelings that stir towards someone other than their current partner, but that they would never admit to, mean that their partner is likely feeling similar occasional impulses that the partner also doesn’t admit to. When the fear of acknowledging reality destroys trust on both sides.
Monogamy works quite well for many people, possibly even most people. But it doesn’t work for nearly as many people as are convinced that it’s the only thing that can possibly work for anybody. I don’t know which is sadder–a couple where one partner isn’t cut out for monogamy, but is desperately trying to make it work in a doomed attempt to maintain a relationship; or a couple where neither partner is fundamentally monogamous, but neither will consider that possibility, and torment each other with the vision of a ‘perfect’ relationship that neither of them really wants.
Religion actually does make a decent analogy, if you treat it properly. Nearly everyone has the religion they were raised in, it’s true. But there are still two kinds of people within that enormous group: the ones who realize that it’s possible that the religion they were raised in and believe in isn’t actually right, or at least isn’t right for everyone; and the ones who give thanks to God/Allah/L. Ron Hubbard every day that they are lucky enough to have seen the Truth of the One Real Faith, and feel contempt and pity for the poor fools who weren’t lucky enough to be raised as Baptists/Muslims/Scientologists or wise enough to see through the falsehoods and lies of the religion that the deluded infidels were raised in.
In a culture where monogamy is drilled into everyone from an early age as the only valid relationship style, it’s very natural for the few people for whom it doesn’t work and who have found that there are other ways to love, to try to help other people at least try to question some of those default assumptions. Anyone who’s succeeded at polyamory or open relationships has had to go through a lot of re-evaluation of things that used to seem obvious, and aren’t inclined to let the assumptions of people they care at all about go unchallenged.
That doesn’t excuse being annoying about it, of course. 
I don’t think anyone here has a problem with those who simply are poly. As you note, what causes the difficulty are those who have embraced poly-dom with the fervour of a convert, and scorn those who are not.
I can well imagine that taking on a minority lifestyle would be difficult and that those who do would be in for a lot of grief from the populace at large, and thus willing to return that grief with scorn.
Particularly where, as here, the lifestyle in issue attempts to make a virtue out of what most consider a vice. Take Vegitariansim. Most people aren’t Vegitarians, have never really seriously considered the pros and cons of Vegitarianism; but again, the moral basis of Vegitariansim, while not shared, is at least not contradictory to the morality of the general population. Not so with poly-dom, which appears at least to first glance to devalue faithfulness itself - which most people consider a virtue - and exhault untrammled lust - which, while very attractive, most consider a vice, and not only in the religious sense.
I suppose an imperfect analogy here would be to food. Most people believe that it is best to have a balanced and above all moderate diet; they well recognize that, if left to themselves, they have a tendancy to eat nothing but chips and chocolate until they are sick and bloated. “Gluttony” is a vice and “moderation” is a virtue, not necessarily in a religious sense, but ultimately because these things are supposed to be for your own good. Many look on sex in a similar way. Sure, it would be nice to have sex with unlimited partners, and many a fantasy is based on that; but the feeling is that such a “diet” if engaged in reality would be ultimately unsatisfying and alienating, because for most people sex, affection and love are all entwined together.
Naturally polys don’t see it that way, and it isn’t my opinion that either way of looking at it is “correct”. Each is “correct” depending on one’s personality and values. Unlike the case of diet, I don’t think that a choice in this area leads to inevitable results (though from what I’ve seen, poly-dom is much more difficult to do and come out happy, being more complex and because people lack a “road map” for how to behave).
You are using faithfulness as defined as one person to only one person, that is what is defined by a monogamous culture. Take the principle of faithfulness (loyalty, keeping your word) and allow that to be applied to more than one person (which it is used as when used for purposes outside of monogamous relationship/marriage [being faithful to your country]) and i would expect many polyamorous people are very faithful to their more than one love.
You also give an example based on sexuality. Polyamory is many loves and can and often does not include sex. From what i’ve seen this does exist for many.
Also is needed to differentiate sex behavior and love behavior. You say that most people can’t do that and that is likely in a monogamy dominant culture. Though some people can clearly love and sex differently.
People who choose to have multiple sex partners and no love are included in the group called swingers, in fact many who participate in this have a rule of ‘no emotions’, ‘have all the sex you want but when you feel emotions your relationship with that person is over’.
People can be polyamorous and have no sex.
People also can be polyamorous and include sex as much as might be had in monogamy, only a tiny fraction of the time is sex. What percentage of your time with your lover/spouse is spent having sex? Polyamorous relationships are likely similar, a lot more time is spent doing the laundry and going to the park and everything else than having sex.
from what i’ve heard people have success doing the same behavior and procedures that people do on ‘one to one’ loving and apply that to multiple persons.
certainly there are differences, people might need better time managemment. people who might try polyamory are likely those that value love relationships, they might be more relationship intensive than the average person. maybe that higher valuation and dedication aids in finding the methods needed to succeed.
Hence the observation that for most people, sex and ‘love’ is bound together and interrwined. Certainly there are varieties of “love” which do not include sex: many people “love” their parents, children, relations and even their friends, without considering themselves “poly”. The quality of “love” that most people understand as connected with “faithfulness” is, specifically, the love that is expressed in a sexual manner: once can “love” an infinite number of relations, etc. in varying degrees without triggering any concerns about faithfulness in the dominant culture. What people following the dominant culture can’t do, and what poly people can, is express specifically sexual love towards more than one person at a time without feelings of transgression. Has nothing to do with the fact that people don’t in fact have sex all the time, it is a question of the quality of their relationship.
That can’t be the case, as much of what results in “success” in a mono situation is premised on singularity. Certainly some basic stuff would be the same, like goodwill and a willingness to respect and compromise, but there would I suspect be many a devil in the details.
Certainly practicing a lifestyle outside the norm requires greater dedication. It does not thereby follow that everyone who attempts it is self-selected for the ability to have the greater dedication required.
Let me state it more explicitly (I thought it was implied).
from what i’ve heard people have success doing the same behavior and procedures that people do on ‘one to one’ loving (except the part about being ‘one to one’ monogamous) and apply that to multiple persons.
no it doesn’t follow that everyone who would try polyamory would be more dedicated. that is probably the reason i didn’t make that claim. i do think that it is a valid claim that most people who try it, realize that having more relationships requires more relationship skills and energy and do so because they think they have those resources.
Sure people can love their friends and not consider it poly. Some people do have a nonsexual love for people that they do consider it poly. People love others nonsexually who they consider their brother/sister or chosen family every bit as deeply as that of a lover/spouse. I will accept their claim that they are poly.
you still only accept faithfulness as applying only ‘one to one’. just as faithfulness can be applied to the nonsexual relationship of ‘one to more than one’ as being faithful to your country (loyalty, keeping your word) so it can to sexual relationships. since there are people in 3 and 4 person marriages who have a commitment to only have sex with in that group then i believe that faithfulness can be applied that way, the term for that is polyfidelity (same concept as fidelity in monogamy just applied to more than one person).