Slog
News & ArtsMonday, September 13, 2010
4
p.s. laughing at this because so many do gently hit home, I sometimes wonder if I choose non-monogamy simply as a way to keep busy.
8
Oh man, just looking at that chart exhausts me. I can't imagine how anyone has the energy for any of that...
10
Ergh, I'm not sure why there's such a need to DEFINE all of it.
Just communicate, tell your partner what you want, they tell you what they want, you come to an agreement if possible and do what works best for the both of you. Not to mention that the whole non-monogamy thing changes with time.
Just communicate, tell your partner what you want, they tell you what they want, you come to an agreement if possible and do what works best for the both of you. Not to mention that the whole non-monogamy thing changes with time.
12
@8 It's not necessarily exhausting because you essentially only pick ONE of those arrangements. It's like showing a gigantic chart of all the permutations of all the world's religions and saying how atheism is simple and religion is complicated. While it's ultimately true that everything gets more complicated the more people end up involved, the point is that people generally choose ONE belief or relationship style at a time. While nonmonogamy certainly has more choices to pick from, the complications ultimately come from the people involved. [I've had FAR more complicated monogamous relationships than nonmonogamous ones.]
I would argue that the complication and friction in one's relationship comes less from the standard or non-standard sexual arrangements, and more from trying to fill the gap between the setup you have and the setup you want to have. Non-monogamy's seemingly overwhelming number of options theoretically ought to (ironically) make it EASIER to find the right one to suit you and your partner's (and potentially partners'?) needs.
And monogamy is a fine choice, too, if that's what you're into (or if you're comfortable basing your relationship structures on your peers, religion, or are just coasting on a lack of understanding about what you want out of a relationship). It's a fine choice, as long as it's not seen as being the cure for insecurity (cause it's not).
I would argue that the complication and friction in one's relationship comes less from the standard or non-standard sexual arrangements, and more from trying to fill the gap between the setup you have and the setup you want to have. Non-monogamy's seemingly overwhelming number of options theoretically ought to (ironically) make it EASIER to find the right one to suit you and your partner's (and potentially partners'?) needs.
And monogamy is a fine choice, too, if that's what you're into (or if you're comfortable basing your relationship structures on your peers, religion, or are just coasting on a lack of understanding about what you want out of a relationship). It's a fine choice, as long as it's not seen as being the cure for insecurity (cause it's not).
13
So basicly what this chart is saying is that human sexuality is complicated. I guess if it wasn't we wouldn't need advice columnist to explain it to us and Dan Savage would still be waiting tables for a living.
14
I don't get the purpose of this graph either. The main message I've taken away from Dan's posts on the topic are "do what works for you" and "be honest" (don't be a CPOS). Given that a big part of the message is that there is no wrong form of sexuality between consenting adults, I don't get what the digs at monogamy are for. My guess is that it is reactionary because most other advice columnists are anti-polyamory. Another factor could be selection bias; Dan isn't getting letters from people happy in their (usually monogamous) relationships, and so he assumes that those relationships don't work.
15
@14
I suspect the digs on monogamy are, in addition to your possible explanations, because *most of the time* monogamy isn't explicitly "chosen" in the way that nonmonogamy usually is, and it usually also correlates with some dogmatic beliefs about it that nonmonogamists seem to be a little more open/flexible about. (like the way most people don't CHOOSE their religion; they have the one handed down to them by their parents/culture). If people were open-mindedly looking at all the diagrammed options and choosing monogamy on its merits and compatibility with their own wants (rather than fears about something else or social acceptance), I think it would be different.
If this were the case, people would understand the pros and cons of what they'd chosen, and if something wasn't working, they'd know that changing the arrangement was a choice as well as changing their partners or themselves.
I would go so far as to say that the relationship goal of our culture, marital monogamy (limiting yourself to one sexual and loving partner for the rest of your life), ultimately boils down to a kind of withholding-fetish. Which is great if that's the game you both enjoy playing. But when people enter into this arrangement who don't actually HAVE that fetish, or just say they do because our society says that's the right thing to say they want, lots of very similar types of problems can come up.
At least when you've got a unique kind of relationship, your problems are likely to be a little more unique/interesting. :)
I suspect the digs on monogamy are, in addition to your possible explanations, because *most of the time* monogamy isn't explicitly "chosen" in the way that nonmonogamy usually is, and it usually also correlates with some dogmatic beliefs about it that nonmonogamists seem to be a little more open/flexible about. (like the way most people don't CHOOSE their religion; they have the one handed down to them by their parents/culture). If people were open-mindedly looking at all the diagrammed options and choosing monogamy on its merits and compatibility with their own wants (rather than fears about something else or social acceptance), I think it would be different.
If this were the case, people would understand the pros and cons of what they'd chosen, and if something wasn't working, they'd know that changing the arrangement was a choice as well as changing their partners or themselves.
I would go so far as to say that the relationship goal of our culture, marital monogamy (limiting yourself to one sexual and loving partner for the rest of your life), ultimately boils down to a kind of withholding-fetish. Which is great if that's the game you both enjoy playing. But when people enter into this arrangement who don't actually HAVE that fetish, or just say they do because our society says that's the right thing to say they want, lots of very similar types of problems can come up.
At least when you've got a unique kind of relationship, your problems are likely to be a little more unique/interesting. :)
16
I read Tristan Taormino's book on open relationships and honestly if anything it made any poly interests fade. So complicated...so much drama and talking, talking, talking...I mean, it's hard enough to have a relationship with one person. The idea of doing it with 2 (or more) is just totally exhausting. I get the impression people who have done a lot of therapy would be into this. Endless Talking About Feelings, Boundaries, Issues, blah blah blah. There's no place for a polyamorous hermit. I'd rather be at home alone with a book and see my boyfriend no more frequently than every 4-5 days. Sigh.
18
Dan, you should promote the following idea: The rules around "monogamy" in our culture should be redefined to allow each partner one casual fling without it ending the relationship. Call it the "get out of jail free" clause. Should be part of every wedding vow.
19
Monogamy as a withholding fetish? That makes it sound so kinky. Cool, I've got another kink to add to my list of kinks. One of my poly friends will be teasing me forever on this if I tell her about it.
I've long thought along the same lines as kg8484, in that Dan is somewhat biased because the letters he gets don't come anything close to representing most relationships, especially happy ones.
I've long thought along the same lines as kg8484, in that Dan is somewhat biased because the letters he gets don't come anything close to representing most relationships, especially happy ones.
20
@18: That makes it sound like it's okay to be a CPOS, if only ONCE. A better tack to take would to emphasize forgiveness and remorse for mistakes made.
21
@20: The whole point is that extramarital sex in a monogamous relationship would no longer be considered something that requires remorse or forgiveness, nor is it a reflection of a partner's shortcomings, nor would it automatically make someone a "piece of shit". It would be considered a normal and healthy behavior that every couple could expect...ONCE.
As for whether or not it's done on the sly or in the open, couples can pick whatever method works for them.
I'm thinking it might lower the divorce rate, and possibly the domestic violence rate as well.
As for whether or not it's done on the sly or in the open, couples can pick whatever method works for them.
I'm thinking it might lower the divorce rate, and possibly the domestic violence rate as well.
22
Awesome. It's like a mall map where you're searching for the "you are here" big dot/arrow. This can make for a fun (hopefully) "game" to play with one's partner(s).
23
@21: Accepting that things happen is different from accepting that they're okay.
If my girlfriend were to cheat on me with another guy, I'd be pissed. Why? Because cheating on your committed other IS something to be ashamed of (unless it's as part of their cuckold/cuckquean fetish). It's a breach of trust and a slap in the face. It's not okay, it's not reasonable, and it's not good for monogamous relationships. If you'd really rather sleep with someone else to the point that you'd cheat on your significant other, you shouldn't be in that monogamous relationship.
That said, the offended party who can't forgive a one-time infidelity has a huge splintery stick up his/her ass, and shouldn't be in that monogamous relationship either.
If my girlfriend were to cheat on me with another guy, I'd be pissed. Why? Because cheating on your committed other IS something to be ashamed of (unless it's as part of their cuckold/cuckquean fetish). It's a breach of trust and a slap in the face. It's not okay, it's not reasonable, and it's not good for monogamous relationships. If you'd really rather sleep with someone else to the point that you'd cheat on your significant other, you shouldn't be in that monogamous relationship.
That said, the offended party who can't forgive a one-time infidelity has a huge splintery stick up his/her ass, and shouldn't be in that monogamous relationship either.
27
@15 (and @14 by way of being @15) Being open-minded about an activity doesn't necessarily equate to engaging in said activity. Being a non-monogmous person doesn't necessarily (italicized) make anyone more open-minded than most (again, italicized) monogamous people because said monogamous people could have the attitude, "Hey, whatever works for you, man!" I really hate the word "most" used in arguments for this reason--it's completely unquantifiable, and it's usage is usually based on all kinds of assumptions.
I'm going to go ahead and take issue with both your assumption that "most" monogamous people have monogamy handed to them and "most" religious people have their religion handed to them at the same time by simply saying that I actually believe that a great number of people grow up with these models, question them in their late teens/early 20s, but still choose these options. They weren't handed to them. Almost everyone experiences emotional turmoil during that developmental stage of their growing up process, and sexuality and religion are two big areas where they experience it. They might still choose what they were raised around, but this doesn't mean it was handed to them--it means they thought about it, questioned it, and came back to it. I would think that many monogamous people know exactly what they're choosing and recognize that it's difficult at times but choose it knowing that. Thing is, we don't see everyone's questioning phase because for a lot of people it happens internally. A great many other people change religious views or relationship views during this period as well, but I think to assume that choosing what you happened to be raised around means you never questioned it is way over-simplified and comes more from the cultural mythology we've built in this country than anything else.
More...
I'm going to go ahead and take issue with both your assumption that "most" monogamous people have monogamy handed to them and "most" religious people have their religion handed to them at the same time by simply saying that I actually believe that a great number of people grow up with these models, question them in their late teens/early 20s, but still choose these options. They weren't handed to them. Almost everyone experiences emotional turmoil during that developmental stage of their growing up process, and sexuality and religion are two big areas where they experience it. They might still choose what they were raised around, but this doesn't mean it was handed to them--it means they thought about it, questioned it, and came back to it. I would think that many monogamous people know exactly what they're choosing and recognize that it's difficult at times but choose it knowing that. Thing is, we don't see everyone's questioning phase because for a lot of people it happens internally. A great many other people change religious views or relationship views during this period as well, but I think to assume that choosing what you happened to be raised around means you never questioned it is way over-simplified and comes more from the cultural mythology we've built in this country than anything else.
30
@27
Everyone wants to feel that their lifestyle decisions are their own, but it's difficult to ignore the weight of family and community inertia. Even if you are the kind of person who upends their inherited beliefs in college and attempts to reconstruct them for yourself, once you start having to make bigger adult life decisions like choosing partners and social groups, we just naturally gravitate to the familiar. Even our supposedly unbiased reasoning is tempered by our experience which favors the familiar (if so many of the people I know, love, and trust are doing this, am I confident enough about my beliefs to go against all of them?) and ascribes extra fear to the unfamiliar (if I have any problems deviating from the norm, will they be blamed on me for doing something so different), even if this fear of the unknown is the gain of sand around which the "reasoned" rationalization-pearl is spun. And once we "rationally" start to fashion our identities, they tend to stick and develop inertia of its own.
As you said, like with ANY giant generalization, no one is saying ALL people do this or that specific thing, but it borders on incontrovertible that folks who have reinvented themselves entirely anew would be statistically more open-minded to new ideas than those who have not.
There's also a (potentially socially inherited) difference between being able to say "hey - whatever works for you" (not being an asshole about other people's choices) and *actually* considering those alternative choices as useful or viable. Sure, some people have endless or pathological amounts of energy to devote to hating or arguing with people who folks whose lifestyles they disagree with, but a certain amount of acceptance is innate in just "having a life". (and I'm sure if we're talking about Savage Love readers, we're already engaging in some self-selecting demographics).
More...
Everyone wants to feel that their lifestyle decisions are their own, but it's difficult to ignore the weight of family and community inertia. Even if you are the kind of person who upends their inherited beliefs in college and attempts to reconstruct them for yourself, once you start having to make bigger adult life decisions like choosing partners and social groups, we just naturally gravitate to the familiar. Even our supposedly unbiased reasoning is tempered by our experience which favors the familiar (if so many of the people I know, love, and trust are doing this, am I confident enough about my beliefs to go against all of them?) and ascribes extra fear to the unfamiliar (if I have any problems deviating from the norm, will they be blamed on me for doing something so different), even if this fear of the unknown is the gain of sand around which the "reasoned" rationalization-pearl is spun. And once we "rationally" start to fashion our identities, they tend to stick and develop inertia of its own.
As you said, like with ANY giant generalization, no one is saying ALL people do this or that specific thing, but it borders on incontrovertible that folks who have reinvented themselves entirely anew would be statistically more open-minded to new ideas than those who have not.
There's also a (potentially socially inherited) difference between being able to say "hey - whatever works for you" (not being an asshole about other people's choices) and *actually* considering those alternative choices as useful or viable. Sure, some people have endless or pathological amounts of energy to devote to hating or arguing with people who folks whose lifestyles they disagree with, but a certain amount of acceptance is innate in just "having a life". (and I'm sure if we're talking about Savage Love readers, we're already engaging in some self-selecting demographics).
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Confidential to Conservative Christians: Keep Doubling Down On Hate, Assholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Show This Woman Some Love by Dan Savage
-
Dharun Ravi Sentenced to 30 Days by Dan Savage
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Seattle's Forthcoming Waterfront Ferris Wheel by David Schmader
-
NOM's Brian Brown Said I Could Name the Time and the Place by Dan Savage
-
Why KeyArena Won't Work by Goldy
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
SL Letter of the Day: Anti-Gay Sister-In-Law Getting Her Kink On by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (30) RSS