The idea that obligatory exclusivity leads to sexual sustainability is contradicted by its tendency to lead to the opposite result.
People have a tendency to make choices in their intimate relationships based upon a very limiting set of socialized rules and roles. I find it somewhat sad because our tendency is to be free. Nevertheless the norm is not founded in freedom, but in simplistic limitation. Here are the typical stages of an intimate relationship:
1. Have sex
2. Live together
3. Get married
4. Have children
5. Divorce or stay together until death
The only room for creativity is in whether or not to stay together or in rare cases whether or not to have children. And of course monogamy is generally not only seen as normal but "good" and "respectable." What I find disturbing about the assumption of monogamy is that most people seem to give away their right to make choices about their sexuality to their partner, and would be open to varied intimacy if they only had permission. This need for permission seems to stem from a desire to stay in the familiar role of a child who is not responsible for their own decisions.
I desire to break out of this system and follow my own path. My resistance in the past has been that I knew my decision to break free would (for a time) reduce the likelihood of an intimate relationship with the majority of women (because the majority of women consider themselves monogamous). Many women and men tend to buy into the system of monogamy without questioning it. It seems that women have more greatly than men been socialized to build their identities around marriage and children, and have been socialized to believe that intimacy with multiple partners makes them "bad."
Interesting thoughts Dimitri. While I don't disagree with you on the monogamy part, I have always been open to a polygamous marriage and/or relationship. I do have to put some deeper questions to some of your other statements.
ReplyDeleteThe stages of a relationship happen because it is the natural progression of things. Sometimes it is have sex, have a kid and never live together. There is ample opportunity for creative thinking in between those various stages, not just on whether to stay together or not.
A relationship in its purest form is all about, will you do what you say you will do. Nothing more, nothing less. Normally, people do not stay in relationships when the partner won't hold true to their word. A relationship takes time and energy and effort and hard work. Most people aren't willing to put that work in on one person, let alone a third person in the relationship. I believe that if monogamy wasn't looked upon as the norm then more people would be more open to polygamous relationships. But then again, that is more an American belief more than anything. There are many countries that have always practiced polygamy.
My jumbled thoughts:
ReplyDeleteI am wondering... Dimitri do you mean monogamy as in intimacy or as in marriage?? (or both)
Obviously, and under the guise of religion, but also outside of it, monogamy has socially been the norm, specifically for unions in the United States. And we know there are small or large pockets of polygamous unions in the U.S., but even with any other kinship practice, such as polygamy, there are certain norms or expectations that are founded upon religious or spiritual beliefs, as well as social ones, that give those who practice it certain guidelines and the potential to abuse or misuse them.
In whichever case, religiously or socially, monogamously, polygamously (a word?) or the less commonly thought of (not founded in my personal research so I could be incorrect) polyandry, it is very difficult to de-socialize. I do not think it's impossible, but I think it would take great mental and emotional strength on the side all parties involved.
But I guess what concerns me the most are the sexual partnerships. I agree with Satchmania that is about people doing what they say they will do. That is not to say that you should set up every sexual encounter with a disclaimer, but I think intentions are important to be honest about with the assumption that feelings change over time. I also think there should be more emphasis placed on responsibility of engaging in healthy physical and emotional sex. It is one thing to be married to two (or more) people, but something completely different to be intimate with multiple people at one time outside of marriage. Not to say you shouldn't have sex with multiple people outside of marriage, but if more people were sexually responsible and used birth control (if applicable), took care of offspring produced, or if more knowledge and precautions were taken against the spread of diseases, perhaps more people would feel comfortable openly choosing other relationship practices. Instead it seems people are compelled to go around lying and spreading illnesses all because society has stigmatized the openness of having multiple partners, and because in general, society has become sloppy...
I don't know, maybe these issues are not the take you were going for, but sex and marriage are or can be two separate issues. Any of the -amies are tied to marriage, correct (monogamy, polygyny, polyandry)?
Oh, and as a side note: I think it's interesting in polygamy that it is still the norm for a man to be the one "permitted" to have multiple wives!
D, there are two different areas from which I share my thoughts -- definition and scope of intimacy and how relationships are built.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to look at how you articulate the stages of an intimate relationship. I understand the purpose is to further your argument around the narrow perspective of exclusive relationships. Perhaps you inadvertently omitted the foundations of intimacy, but given societal trends to derail even the simplest of interpersonal exchange, I feel compelled to broach.
The stages of an intimate relationship as articulated above do not reference the intimacy of knowledge, understanding and trust of one another that usually form the foundation. Intimacy does not need be sexual, rather can span the range of family, friendship or confidante to lover, significant other and spouse. As stated, perhaps your list implied the foundations were in place to get to the levels you mention...but without the foundation, there is little to sustain the relationship.
Second, you and I have had several discussions regarding relationships -- traditional and non-traditional. One of the early discussions was expanded upon within this blog, and referenced by Tareef's most recent entry specific thereto. I see no need for redundancy in defining terms and regurgitating societal acceptance and/or trends regarding what is accepted and expected in understanding monogamous / polygamous relationships. That's understood and easily vetted. What I find of interest is the 'openness' and honesty in engaging all players in such relationships. This builds upon my first point of the foundation that supports close interpersonal relationships.
To be successful in building a relationship -- regardless of the type of relationship -- it must be founded on honesty, directness and openness with everyone involved. Key word here is 'everyone'. The game rules cannot be different for different players. If you truly seek an untraditional relationship with multiple partners involved, each has to understand of what they are a part, their role and the role of others and the expectations of each. That leaves each individual to choose to play or not. If the approach to this is truly as a path to freedom and in perpetuating a paradigm shift, then it can't be entered into from dual platforms. In other words, maintaining the 'traditional' constraints within a relationship, and engaging 'discreetly' in intimacy with multiple partners. That's a recipe for disaster.
Ok, so if I follow your logic then is it ok to have a 'classroom' with students of all ages, kindergarten, 3rd grade, 8th grade, high school, college (a one room schoolhouse, if you will) and we teach to the norm, holding them accountable to the same benchmark....because it all balances out eventually? I understand hierarchy. You don't put someone in a race car, a basketball game or course for which they are not capable of understanding. What you're describing is playing two separate games, concurrently. That's a different concept from what you describe above.
ReplyDeleteAJ,
ReplyDeleteI can really appreciate your last 2 paragraphs. I think the modern family structure is something to discuss. How else can we explain the vast jump in divorce rates in our country? The family structure has most certainly evolved, and will continue to evolve over time as does most organisms and the structures they have (or have been by others) put in place. Some people desire to live that "mundane" lifestyle watching sitcoms with their wife or husband because it is safe, or maybe because they have yet to discover another option. And it may very well work for them. But there are also couples who have been married for many years, have raised kids, and once those kids are out of the house, do exactly what you mentioned in the latter part of your last paragraph, except perhaps, they stay together living monogamously. It works for them. You call it selfish, but I would deem them selfless. The interesting thing about relationships to me is that they can be as creative as made by those involved. No two are the same, and there is no clear recipe for creating a healthy one. Something that works for you may not work for another party. I think this is the true essence of humanness. And even more astonishing is that I do not think it matters one bit whether it transpires through monogamy or polygamy. I see myself as a humanitarian, a world traveler, an educator (and although I have always lived a monogamous lifestyle by choice, I am open to the idea of polygamy). I have always been selfish in terms of my accomplishments; and as a consequence, my relationships seem to fail. I have always refused to allow anyone to stand the way of my goals of educating in order to improve or enrich the life of others. But I think I've lived monogamously for this reason alone; I hadn't found that one person who's life goals were in alignment with my own- how could I expect to find multiple?) I guess what I am learning now is that if you find someone (or multiple people) that value the same lifestyle, then pursue it...be open to it...regardless of the stigma.
But still for some I feel it's unnecessary to abandon that "selfishness" if in the end, you (and possibly your partner(s)are still empowering humanity...
I'm not sure I follow your logic, Taj, in your most recent entry....but will offer that the upward trend in divorce rates is, again, attributable to the societal demand for immediate gratification as well as the ease in obtaining a license to marry. People aren't forced to give thought and don't apply process thinking to see long term implication of their choice. Further, I don't think it is so much the stigma associated with duplicity in relationships that is a deterrent for monogamy, rather the lack of forward thinking, the tendency towards possessive mindsets and, most importantly, the follower mentality of most.
ReplyDeleteThe one point on which I concur is that relationships are the creative interpretation of
the designers.
Victoria: Perhaps I was unclear in my thought process but my description of divorce rates is unrelated to my description of the two monogamous relationship examples I gave. In my first 4 sentences, I was simply commending AJ for shedding light on the issue of the modern family. I do not disagree at all to your afore mentioned reasons for the trends in divorce rates. As a matter of fact, I think the act of ceremonial marriages itself has become a "trend", and is most certainly a contributing factor. My thoughts that follow were to simply offer a different view on AJ's idea that monogamous relationships are driven by selfishness and are boring... Not everyone gets "stuck" if they choose to marry one person.
ReplyDeleteI, too, agree that monogamy is something that most are simply accustomed to. If I lived in Sudan, I would possibly feel the same way about Polygamy...
Random thought on the topic of ceremonial weddings and trends:
ReplyDeleteis it possible to separate the religious and the cultural wedding(s)? For example, in Islam, marriage is considered a contract--not a sacred union. There are numerous Muslims who are married under their religious contract, however, they are not "legally married" under American cultural standards. Is it possible to be married within the Christian faith, in America, without being legally married? These days, will a preacher/pastor marry two people in a sacred union(religiously and spiritually) without proof of a state marriage license?
@ Christen, yes in America there is no way to be "married" without going through legal process.
ReplyDeleteBecause America has a separation of church and state, its possible to get married without a "Christian" wedding, but not possible to have any kind of legal marriage without the state.
Good ol' America for you...