The Ownership Paradigm

In every relationship, there's a point when the ownership paradigm has to be faced and decided on.  The assumption that poly relationships avoid that and that mono ones accept it as a given is neither accurate nor a fair idea of the way either model should work.

When my partner and I met, we fixated on the word "my" a lot, finding it a turn-on to use during sex and amusing at other points in time.  The idea of belonging to each other, frankly, was really hot.  And, that tends to be true even now, long past that infatuation/new relationship energy stage.    As the relationship has deepened, I've found that we pair that type of play with a recognition of each other's sexual autonomy.  Masturbation is still an outlet for both of us, both shared and alone.  I certainly wouldn't presume that I know all his fantasies, nor do I share all of mine.  So, there's a high level of sharing and of independence.  It balances out. From all I know or have experienced of poly models, the same respect is aimed for in those relationships as well. 

"Aimed for" is the key phrase there, though, as both mono and poly relationships in reality fall short of the ideal. Long-term, when you're making decisions together as a family (with or without children), taking your partner(s) for granted often just happens and communication breakdowns occur.  That seems to be what leads to the ownership paradigm developing, as partners lose sight of the independent nature of each person in the relationship's right to their own sexuality.  These days, we've moved on from the idea that a wife could "owe" her husband sex but the smaller ways we claim ownership of our partners still exist and can break a relationship.

This entry from tacit on Livejournal outlines a lot of the errant thinking that can accompany the ownership paradigm for both poly and mono relationships (although much of it is written with poly models in mind). When monoamorous people start viewing their partner's masturbation or fantasies as something they "let" occur, they're claiming ownership, just as when polyamorous people view additional relationships as something they have the right to grant permission for.

The recognition that this is neither sex positive nor even healthy is a big one for someone in a monogamous relationship in ways that may go beyond that recognition in a poly framework.  After giving that the consideration that led to this entry as well as other ways I see my relationship stepping outside the realm of traditional monogamy, I've begun claiming "monoamorous" as a far more accurate descriptor of it.

Relational Significance

In some ways, the world itself is vanilla. Our culture values monogamy, stability, homogeneity, etc.  But, even within the mono/vanilla label, there's a range.  Being mono/vanilla doesn't preclude sexual exploration, even kink.  Under the radar and labeled in ways that scream normal, my vanilla world never tastes that vanilla to me. 

One thing that caught my attention recently was an article on Jezebel that referred to polyamorous lit that places mono relationships in a light equivalent to "sexual incarceration."  The fact that this bothered me, deeply, led to heated exchanges followed by more serious and calm discussion.  The world at large is still not where it should be in terms of acceptance of different relationship models, accepting monogamy as the norm.  But, if we can move beyond seeing that as the only valid model, then, it seems fair to expect that those other models would also remain accepting of monogamy. 

In my personal world, that's mostly the case.  Poly friends and chosen family members are very accepting of the idea that theirs is one model and that love exists healthily in all kinds of ways.  But, if the argument going "mainstream" has to place monogamy as cruel or bad based on human evolution and our intrinsic biology, then, we're losing something culturally. And, those who seek support in research or literature for alternative relationship models are going to be turning to these sources and finding condemnation of anything not non-traditional. 

Acceptance of different/emerging models for relationships shouldn't mean trampling those who find the existing/more commonly accepted ones a good fit, right? 

For polyamory to gain acceptance, does monogamy have to lose?

What Vanilla Looks Like

How does a liberal, bisexual Pagan in a very red state end up being "vanilla?"  I started by being liberal from childhood in a working class household.  My parents brought home Democratic bumper stickers which we stuck on the sides of our bunk beds, framing our boy band posters and cutouts from Teen Beat.  It wasn't until my thirties, heading for a divorce, that I realized there was a word for the sexual feelings I had for both men and women.  And, at the same time, my struggles with spirituality crystallized as I discovered that what I believed in on my own had a name as well.

I emerged from a difficult divorce broke but with new awareness of myself as a fully-realized adult.  Progress is never easy, though, and no amount of self-recognition gives you foresight of where life will take you.  Dating for a few years led to finding many wonderful friends who have become a chosen family for me.  A family that gave me even more strength to self-define and learn the path to happiness.

And *that* got me to this point in time, where I'm engaged and living in a home in an upper-class neighborhood, planning a wedding that still seems unreal for both the happiness of it and the fact that it's landing me smack in Vanilla Land.  Or, at least that's how the comparison appears in a world where more and more people speak about their open relationships and claim ideas like Sex Positivity for themselves.

So.

Does vanilla and monogamous have to equal bland or Sex Negative?  I hope not.  Yet, where are the voices from Vanilla Land that embrace something beyond the church social and reality TV?  We need to be heard from.

This is what the view from the vanilla side of things looks like as I experience and figure it out.