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?
" 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."
ReplyDeleteI find a lot to be problematic about Sex at Dawn and Myth of Monogamy and other evolutionary psychology-based arguments for non-monogamy. Even so, have you really found that these books as a whole (not just quotes from Schwyzer's recent article) really condemn monogamy? Remember, many arguments for monogamy have been based on its 'naturalness' and proponents have pointed to the animal kingdom. Both Sex at Dawn and Myth of Monogamy offer evidence that that's not the case. This evidence does provide some insight into why cheating is such a common phenomenon. It sounds like you're confusing the accusation of something as 'unnatural' to mean 'wrong.' That's not what I read these books as saying. What they are saying is that monogamy (and I would extend this to polyfidelity) is an uphill battle (in fact, SaD uses this term in the last chapter) and so should not be the default. Also, people who choose it should be aware that there are challenges attendant to that choice. Polyamorous people are always being reminded of the challenges connected to their relationship configurations, why can't monogamous people be too?
I'm making progress on Sex at Dawn but only started it after reading the Schwyzer piece. I'm hoping to blog my conclusions afterward.
DeleteWith regard to the idea that unnatural doesn't equal wrong, that's true by definition. However, we've all seen the word used to denigrate and try to argue away homosexuality. The repeated use of the word in this way has made it far more loaded. To label one relationship model as unnatural and another as more so creates a serious dichotomy, as if both weren't present in the natural world. Given that they are, labeling one or the other unnatural is inaccurate. And, given that the word has become rather loaded in our culture, it is understandable that some offense would result.
Beyond that, I do agree that all relationships present unique challenges and recognition of that is important.
I'll be interested to see what you think about Sex at Dawn. I'm actually not a fan myself, but not for the reasons that Hugo Schwyzer isn't. I wrote a critical review at the SEX+STL website, but should probably revise it, as it rambled.
ReplyDelete