Monogamy, poly relationships, heteronormativity, and growth

Regular reader’s of Hugo Schwyzer’s blog know that he writes often about monogamy. In his previous writing, “monogamy” has been treated as largely synonymous with (sexual and emotional) fidelity. Recently, he attempted a positive definition of monogamy:

Bottom line: monogamy is as much about how I love my wife as it is about how I don’t express that particular kind of love to others. It is defined by intensity as much as by exclusivity. [...] Our relationship is, at its core, a contract of mutual support and a pledge to act as a relentless catalyst for the other’s growth. And if you know me, or you know my wife, you know just how relentless we can be.

Bolds original.

Here’s what makes me squirm about this definition: remove all mentions of exclusivity, and it sounds like a definition of (one kind of) a healthy relationship. There’s nothing about this definition other than the exclusivity bit that is actually particular to monogamy.

Let’s clarify that.

I’ve never myself tried polyamory/polyfidelity/open relationships, so in many ways I’m the wrong person to write this response, and I’d welcome comments from people who have personal experience of poly/open relationships. That said, poly relationships, and the principles that underpin them, are not-totally-out-of-the-mainstream in the feminist/social justice activist subculture I spend a lot of time in, so I’ve read and thought a lot about them, and discussed them extensively. The basic premises, more or less (and they may vary from person to person, but the ones that get discussed a lot within the feminist circles I’m familiar with), as I understand them, seem to be:

1. the fact that you have a sexual/romantic relationship with someone doesn’t mean you get to tell them what to do with their body.
2. the fact that you have a sexual/romantic relationship with someone doesn’t mean that you have to be everything to each other.
3. it’s important to talk about what each person wants in the relationship and is comfortable with.

It’s unclear to me why we should think that the principles I’ve listed above should be incompatible with intensity of feeling, or with “mutual support and a pledge to act as a relentless catalyst for the other’s growth”.

It seems to me that when we put definitions of monogamy in these terms, it commits us to tacitly assuming that non-monogamous or open relationships are somehow inherently less important, less respectful than a long-term monogamous relationship. A philosopher would say that was question-begging, but in any case, it seems rather unfair to people whose sexually/emotionally open/poly relationships are very real, honest, respectful, and focused on mutual support and growth.

But Hugo’s post got me to thinking about the way certain kinds of relationships are systematically assigned Real Relationship Points (TM) and others are not. When we talk about the importance of “stable relationships”, we’re valuing long-term relationships over the short-term ones. When we talk about monogamous relationships in the terms Hugo has used, we devalue non-exclusive relationships.

The relationship model that Hugo writes about — the one in which serious relationship are long-term, monogamous, live-in, and vehicles for spiritual growth, is one which belongs to a Christian discourse that Hugo is (explicitly) committed to. That works for him, which is great. But I’m not sure why that’s the model that should work for anybody else, and I get distinctly uncomfortable when I hear things like “I consider monogamous marriage to be the best vehicle I know for personal growth” (but, in fairness, see the caveats here).

Look, some people will find long-term live-in monogamous relationships to be exactly the kind of relationships that work for them. Other people will find that monogamy doesn’t work for them. Others will find that live-in isn’t that great either, and they prefer having their own space (the Existentialist and I live separately, for example, and are likely to continue doing so for the foreseeable future). Other people will find that they don’t care all that much for long-term. Such people get an awful lot of flak (“afraid of commitment”, etc), but much of it seems unjustified to me.

I don’t think I can let this issue pass without pointing out that the allocation of Real Relationship Points (TM) by society is done in an overwhelmingly heteronormative way. I don’t just mean that heterosexual relationships get more points that queer ones, although that’s true. I also mean that the monogamous marriage -type relationships get more points than anything not fitting that model.  Moreover, it is a Big Deal that monogamy is often negotiable, or often seen to be negotiable, in queer communities.  And because of the lower allocation of Real Relationship Points (TM) to poly/open relationships, there’s a lot of stigma attached to communities in which poly relationships are common, or seen to be common?

That stigma isn’t harmless.  We see it in unequal legal rights and privileges for certain kinds of relationships and family units.  We see it in lack of certain kinds of legal protections for people in or  leaving certain kinds of relationships.  We saw and continue to see it in inadequate government action on HIV/AIDS that maintains that “It” happens to “Them” — the promiscuous “Them”, the queer “Them”.  We see it in inaction on HPV in men in the UK — because only virginal girls are worth protecting, apparently.

Hugo, I like the way you write about a lot of issues.  I particularly like your writing on myths of male weakness.  But the heteronormativity in these posts?  Please don’t ignore it.

–IP

Advertisement