Blind Devotion and Traditional Monogamous Marriage

On a poly/mono yahoogroup I manage, a subscriber wrote: "...it still amazes me that even among the most liberal, traditional marriage views tend to hold sway. This seems to be the last thing to change, and I wonder why?"

The idea of sharing one's partner with someone else scares the heck out of a lot of people, so much so that they dare not examine these issues too closely for fear that the monogamous marriage house of cards will come tumbling down. Many people would much rather choose denial and avoid picking at the scab of deeply-held beliefs around monogamy, even though there is considerable threat to their emotional health underneath. By this I am referring to:

-- Hypocracy in the form of cheating;

-- Reluctance to acknowledge that, especially in today's world, people and their needs can and do change, sometimes regardless of relationship situation;

-- The idea that monogamy gives right of ownership over one's partner's heart, body and soul;

-- A belief that despite the present state of monogamous marriage, it is still the only acceptable game in town and therefore the gold standard;

-- Questions around whether that fairy tale we often buy into that we'll find the perfect one for us and live happily ever after can really withstand the test of time.

For many people it feels much safer to rationalize to themselves that monogamy is the only legitimate option because choosing anything else challenges beliefs around possessiveness and that false sense of security that a marriage license often fosters. It may also open the door for their partner to express an interest on a polyamorous relationship, which is also frightening to many people.

At this time in history, traditional, unexamined, reflexive monogamy rises almost to the level of mass obsession and delusion. The European church leaders who several centuries ago set up the model of patriarchal monogamy as the only option and tied it to the soul's salvation were very crafty and understood human nature all too well. They set purity and virtue in women up as the only standard to which a woman could aspire and remain respectable. This was necessary in order to control women's sexuality, and thereby control paternity and inheritance rights. People were forbidden from thinking for themselves, and challenging church docrine was sacrilege. Any alternative relationship route was very effectively blocked with the belief that down any road besides lifelong monogamous marriage was nothing but destruction and ruin. These standards truly create the appearance of there being no way out of the monogamy trap and that monogamy is something people simply must accept regardless of its flaws. Like I said, very crafty.

Most people internalize those messages still today. They've been passed along, generation after generation, and today they are oft repeated on TV and other popular media. It feels a lot safer to go with what is considered acceptable so as to appear respectable and legitimate in one's community, and to one's family and friends. Primarily it's only those who are not especially invested in what other people think of them, who are willing to examine their own beliefs and societal messaging and stay independent in their thought processes, and who are able to step back and see what is real and what is illusion who escape the reflexive nature of committing to monogamous marriage.

DISCLAIMER: I realize that there are people who enter into monogamous marriages who are not blind to these issues and who have discussed them with their intendeds prior to marriage and chose a traditional monogamous marriage while aware that there are other legitimate options. I just wish there were more of them. These are NOT the people to whom I refer here.

As long as what's outside the walls of the house of monogamy looks like a dark forest with beasties hiding around every turn in the forest path, people are going to run screaming from it in anger and fright. It is my goal, as is that of other polyamory advocates, to shed light on those dark spots and help people understand that there is nothing to fear and that polyamory is merely another option.

The Origins of Monogamy and Jealousy

Someone wrote the following to me yesterday.

You obviously have approached this subject with a scholarly bent and seem to know quite a bit. I have thought a lot about it too and I have, from time to time, dabbled in Sociology and Social Psychology. I have a sort of negative, flip-side question for you: what do you think the origins and purposes of monogamy are? For the life of me, I cannot see how monogamy serves any real purpose except to guarantee mates for the less-advantaged males. What do you think?

Well, certainly your observation about monogamy serving to guarantee mates for less-advantaged males is accurate according to Psychology Today.

Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy.

When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

Once upon a time when there were certainly no DNA tests to confirm paternity, monogamy was intended to guarantee blood lines so that wealth and property was kept in the family. How well that worked in reality is likely another story, but it did give (or was at least was intended to give) men control over who inherited property, since the right of women to own property is a much more recent development.

Monogamy's origins are also firmly rooted in Europe and the Catholic church. The church enforced monogamy as an aspect of virtue according to the gospel of St. Paul and other biblical sources who believed that Eve seduced Adam into sin and so women needed to be dominated and controlled to save them from sin. This also served to help men avoid feelings of jealousy by keeping their women to themselves, and women bought into it as well, perceiving that they preferred to keep their men to themselves, even as they were attracted to other men and tempted to stray - just as, in reality, were their men. The church declared that temptation to stray was a sin, and that monogamy was divinely mandated. Again, this was the church's way of controlling its parishoners and maintaining it's own power and authority.

From an evolutionary biological standpoint, humans are programmed to pair bond for the raising of children, though anthropologists believe we have never done so entirely monogamously. There is a reproductive advantage to spreading one's reproductive resources around to others, generally others perceived to be healthy - which explains why men in particular are so attracted to women younger than they. We women have a finite number of eggs and a finite number of years in which to put them to use - not so for men.

Next we throw into the mix the matter of sexual jealousy. This is not even remotely new in evolutionary terms and is believed to have developed as a further means of keeping parents together for the raising of children, especially in order to see that children are protected and provided for at least until they are out of the cradle. Some anthropologists assert that this explains why biologically limerence, that "in love" rush of emotions, eventually wears off, preparing us to then be attracted to others so as to continue to spread reproductive resources around to other attractive, i.e. reproductively viable, partners.

For more on all this, see the book references on the website for the Institute for 21st Century Relationships, specifically here and here.

I recommend the works of anthropologist Helen Fisher, especially her book "Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray", as well as the book "Christianity and Sexuality in the Early Modern World: Regulating Desire, Reforming Practice" by Wiesner-Hanks.

Sexual jealousy makes monogamy seem like a good idea, yet we are just as biologically programmed to stray outside the pair bond to further guarantee perpetuation of our species. In other words, it is normal to want to keep our partner to ourselves while we decline to remain monogamous ourselves. It seems that human evolution is entirely focused on outcomes and is not concerned with the internal conflict it may create in attaining them.

In my work with polyamorous people on resolving jealousy, I have encountered a few who are honest enough to fully admit that they want to be with others but are not willing to share their partner with others while admitting that it is unfair. A very few bisexual folks with straight partners take this approach as well, pointing out a need for one of each as justification for being with more than one while their straight partner has no such right or imperative. In both cases the motivation is to avoid feelings of jealousy while getting their need for variety met. These folks are definitely in the minority, at least as to their willingness to admit to these rationalizations. The vast majority of non-monogamous people share these feelings but are much more philosophically egalitarian. They choose to deal with concerns about jealousy more directly, by doing internal emotional work, communicating with their partner(s) about their feelings, and in so doing finding ways to minimize or resolve their feelings in a way that is fair to everyone.

So the polyamorist says to the monogamist “POLYAMORY IS NOT BETTER THAN MONOGAMY.”

Someone who wished to remain anonymous recently sent me a response to my June 7 post, Identity Poly-tics in which they accused polyamorists in general of "trying to foist their opinions on other people." This person, who I’ll call Jo (gender neutral) said, “In another blog post, dated June 7th, Anita compared polyamory, once again, to gay marriage.”

I’m a bit confused, since I said nothing in that post about gay marriage. Jo went on to say,

“ I am so, so sick of hearing this. It really makes me mad. You aren't gay, so quit comparing yourself to people who are.”

Does being bisexual count? (Small grin.)

“The other day, I attended a gay rally, and a goth girl showed up wearing a collar with spikes 2 inches long. She was riding a bike (I wonder if you know her?) “

Wait! Is this one of those assumptions people make along the lines of, "Hey, you're from Tennessee? (Population 6,000,000) My uncle lives in Tennessee - do you know him???"

The visible polyamory community is pretty small and incredibly far flung, so I very much doubt that I do. Also, many people live poly lives whose social circles do not encompass the polyamory community itself, especially polys who are gay, lesbian and/or kinky. Some of their communities make space for them as poly people and as a community subset, and they are content with that.

“On one side was a sign that read, ‘Lesbian bed death - in your face – Polyamory’ and the other side read, ‘Queer as f* - High Femme - Kiss my a**’ It ticked me off, but it was nothing I hadn't seen before!”

“When polyamorists direct such offensive language to 'monogamists' as you label those of us who believe in two-person relationships- the first time I've ever actually been offended by a label- can you guess what the reaction is?”

How horrid of me! How dare I?!?! (Sorry, but I just can't help poking a little fun at Jo's assumptions - s/he speaks as if s/he really believes that all polyamorists are determined to make sure same sex couples can't marry.)

As to the term "monogamist", Microsoft Word’s spellcheck doesn’t even blink at it – I think that means it’s a common term and mine was fair use of it. Mirriam-Webster agrees:

mo•nog•a•mist
Function: noun
Date: 1651 : one who practices or upholds monogamy

“Can you guess what I wanted to scrawl on her sign with the cans of spray paint sitting so temptingly nearby? It's incredibly offensive, and 'lesbian bed death' is also completely untrue. It makes me mad. I don't know why 'polyamorous bed death', 3 or 4 people who are bored with each other, isn't an equally possible scenario, or how poly is somehow a 'cure' to a bad 2-person relationship. It's utterly ridiculous.”

No poly activist I know says anything remotely like what is assumed here, i.e. that polyamory can be a cure for a troubled dyadic relationship. I would never and have never recommended such a thing. I've never heard of poly bed death, but I expect that it exists for some poly people, just like it does for the rest of the population, gay, bi, trans and straight.

I did use the term “monogamist” in the Identity Poly-tics post, in which I was discussing how some polyamorists don’t want to be referred to as such. I said that *to me* the term “polyamorist” is a simple term which I use to describe one of the two sorts of people who engage in long-term, committed intimate relationships. The others are indeed monogamists, and the dictionaries clearly agree. I didn’t imply that one is better than the other, but that’s what Jo heard nevertheless. And Jo is certainly not the first person I’ve encountered who gets hot under the collar at the perception that someone is trying to label them.

What I don’t think I said but will happily say now is that I do not consider polyamory to be any better than monogamy – it’s just different. Monogamy works for many people, and so does polyamory.

“To my mind, this little goth girl's definition of polyamory is polygamy, or "swinging". I'm sort of thinking it is your definition, too.”

I've not had much luck with trying to get an accurate impression of someone's personal definition of polyamory as they practice it by reading their t-shirt and noting their style of dress. And though I don't identify as a swinger, I fully support swinging as a legitimate form of sexual expression, and I've spent enough time socializing with swingers to have a pretty good idea that there aren't too many goth girls hanging out with them. Neither have I noticed signs of goth culture invading mormon polygamous compounds - if it has, it's their secret! We do see a bit of gothness here and there in the polyamory community, and lots more of it in the BDSM/kink community, where there are also lots of polyfolk.

I do make references to being sex-positive in my 6 June post, which some people hear as code for promiscuous. For the record, I do not identify as a polygamist nor a swinger. I support polygamists (when all partners are adults and have equal power of choice) and as I said above, I also support swingers as well, each in their preferred method of partnering. I believe that theirs are valid forms of intimate relationships, too.

“Anyway, everyone in the Universe now except for most gays is lumping polyamory in with gay marriage, and it has me steamed. Do me a favor and quit trying to tie yourself to me and drag down my chances of getting gay marriages formally recognized in the US as they should be under our Constitution.”

Ah, so now we get to the heart of the matter and what has Jo so steamed. In my next post I’ll elaborate on the history of the conflation of same sex-marriage and polyamory, by whom, and how hostility between same-sex marriage proponents and polyamorists is exactly what the enemies we share hope will happen.

Whole Lotta Love in Salon.com

I am delighted with the article on polyamory published on Salon.com yesterday entitled "Whole Lotta Love". As it happens, I and several other polyamory spokespeople have been working with the journalist who wrote it for several months. (I am quoted in the beginning of the article.) She did a wonderful, even-handed job with it, something we haven't always gotten from the media. In the bad old days, mostly we were sensationalized via the open sexual component of polyamory, which is just one of the aspects of it that bear examination in order to fully understand the concept of polyamory. So to Liz Langley and the folks at Salon.com, I again say a big thank you!

The comments following the article are very interesting. There is a lot of harsh negativity, some more tolerant voices, and then there are the polyfolk who are doing an excellent job of explaining in detail the more subtle but no less vital parts of the polyamory concept that are impossible to convey in an article in soundbites. And then there's the emotional underpinning that I believe is largely responsible for the strongest and more defensive negative reactions. Here is the response I posted.

When polyamory is the subject of a news article, certain assertions are invariably quickly made, i.e. that polyamory is just an excuse for cheating, it's bad for the kids, it's bound to result in the spread of STDs, and so forth. Polyamory as a concept clearly evokes fear in some folks. This is understandable. It scares we polyamorists, too, sometimes, and we want it, so it isn’t difficult to imagine how someone not so inclined might feel if their partner came home one day and said “Honey, I’m interested in polyamory, would you consider giving it a try?”

We are all subject to the fear of loss those words inspire because we’ve all been marinated in the same culture that has told us since we were born that love is scarce and must be hoarded. When you add to that the anthropological fact that possessiveness was once a useful behavior for perpetuating the species, the urge for which still exists in the reptilian part of the brain called the amigdula, no wonder the idea is very unsettling.

What there wasn't room to elaborate about is that though we polyamorists sometimes feel the same fear of loss and so forth, we choose to work through those emotions, be great poly parents, etc. In other words, we work hard to transcend the challenging parts because we know others who have done it, that we can succeed at this and in doing so satsify both the human need to pair bond as well as the human need for sexual variety.

One of the posters expressed resentment at their perception that polyamorists give the impression that they believe they are more highly evolved than monogamists. Over the course of eleven years I've only heard a small number of comments from polyfolk I would consider to rise to the level of snottyness being perceived, so I'm a bit bemused by how often I encounter this accusation from non-polys. Some of it comes from general resentment toward us over what they perceive is our shaking up their seemingly safe monogamous world. I also wonder whether to mono folk it seems that when we talk about what we have to do to deal with our emotions and other challenges of being good at polyamory, we are automatically perceived by some to be raising the bar without their consent in terms of relationship skills required to be competent relationship partners of any sort. I'm definitely going to make further inquiries about this as I'm always looking for better ways to craft our public message so that it resonates and doesn't put people off. Comments on this especially welcome.

Should polyamorists seek marriage rights?

When the subject of discussion is polyamory activism, some seem to indicate that a desire for marriage equality for polys is a natural primary goal of poly activism, even a no-brainer. I remain opposed to this course of action because the corporate and big government powers that be are unlikely to let it happen. I am speaking in this instance about the well-heeled, congress-in-its-pocket health insurance industry. Unless a very, very rich polyamory activism benefactor comes along, in no way does the polyamory community have the resources to fight the kind of fight we'd have to fight to get the huge morass of a system of marriage laws, privileges and benefits retooled to fit marriages of more than two.

Of course, this is not so as regards same-sex marriage. No rewebbing need take place, merely a lifting of the one man-one woman requirement. There is much less likelihood of a negative financial impact under those circumstances than what would surely be anticipated by health insurance companies and the IRS as regards three or more equal partners or "spice".

I support a more feasible method via improving the availability and affordability of individual health insurance, together with getting state and federal government out of the marriage business. Domestic partnerships of many kinds would be recognized, and the same benefits granted now to a more narrow definition of families would become available to all intentional families.

A plan along these lines has already been put forth by a group of activists, writers and academics in 2006, a group called Beyond Same-Sex Marriage

With federal and state government out of the marriage business, marriage would become a private matter in terms of getting the blessing of religious institutions and so forth. No one's existing marriage would be harmed, and no one's right to engage in marriage would be prevented.

Polyfolk might have to go to more trouble to designate who gets what financial, parental and inheritance rights, but I'd be willing to spend some money with a good lawyer if that's all it took to have good, effective legal protection, access to fair benefits and the ability to choose who and how many partners I want, while taking power to grant relationship legitimacy out of the hands of government.

National Headquarters of Polyamory

I got a laugh today when someone I know sent me this and asked when the national headquarters had been opened! Too bad it's not what it looks like.

In the beginning, or how I got here.

Hello, and welcome. Some of you may have seen me around polyamory and other alternative lifestyle events. I sometimes give programs on polyamory relationship skills, and I've been living a polyamorous life for 11 years now.

I have been married and divorced twice, the second time over 20 years ago. The second divorce hit me hard. I loved my husband, and leaving my "second chance" marriage behind left me with a sense of failure, ineptitude, and disillusionment. Where was the fairy tale love they promised me? Instead what I got was a mixed bag, part happiness, part misery, and the eventual realization of just how hard it is to be all things to one person over the long term.

Oh, and of course what contributed to my disillusionment was cheating. I saw how much crushing pain and suffering it caused in the marriages of friends, of family, and yes, in my own.

Two things I knew - one, that I was very afraid of falling in love only to have it all go to smash with all the pain and suffering again, and two, that I wanted nothing whatsoever to do with cheating - ever.

With the love cards seemingly stacked against me, I told myself that love just wasn't meant for me, even though I'm a very loving, open-hearted person in general. I believed that I wasn't good at it and should just save myself and others the inevitable hard landing.

For years I avoided becoming romantically involved, choosing instead to concentrate on raising my daughter and excelling in my career. But, as time passed and my daughter was due to leave the nest fairly soon, I came to recognize that no matter how much fear I felt about falling in love again, continuing to deny myself the very human need for emotional and physical intimacy had its price - and it was a big one. Thus came my moment of clarity when I realized that the first thing I had to do was to learn to overcome my fear of being hurt again. The second was to come to terms with the lessons I had learned about what poisons relationships and what helps them flourish.

Until a bit after that point in time, I had never heard the term polyamory and had never imagined that I would want this way of life for myself, even actually embrace it with great enthusiasm. In my next post I will tell you more specifically what I did next and how what for over 40 years had been a monogamous life was transformed into a polyamorous life.