BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


monogamy

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Captain Zoom
17:05 / 21.02.02
Originally posted by flux:

quote: People should have the option of letting their relationships fail

But see, it isn't failure according to what you said. It's just the natural progression and ending of a relationship. Perhaps for a lifelong relationship to work, both parties have to be interested in constantly, or at least occasionally, completely re-inventing themselves. Completely. And I'm not so sure that's really possible while keeping the integrity of the relationship. If you change so much that you're no longer the person your SO fell in love with, how can the relationship continue?

Zoom.
 
 
Ierne
17:05 / 21.02.02
... but things change, peoples desires change and then what? the more people you toss into the equation the more chance you have for a rift that may very well lead to a collapse –bk

However, there is also the chance that the more people one is involved with, the more chances of one's needs/desires being satisfied without putting pressure on another individual to cater to more of one's needs/desires than they're capable of. Lovers can be accepted for who they are and not for how many of one's needs/desires they can fulfill.

Yes, people do change and fall out of love with each other. Life goes on, eh?

Without monogamy there's no point in sticking something out. Because you'll always have in your head that you can just go out and find someone else who fulfills that particular desire. – Captain Zoom

That's quite a cliché!
Of course one can have long-term relationships with more than one person, and loving more than one person does not equate with being incapable of sustaining a relationship. In fact, it takes a lot of maturity, honesty and guts to have relationships with more than one person. Time-management skills are a plus.
 
 
m. anthony bro
17:11 / 21.02.02
It depends on how much trust you had riding on it. For some people, an affair or a different homme d'rootage is a complete betrayal, it's what would kill the realtionship. For others, it's just a fuck, and maybe in some cases, it's kinda hot.
There's an idea, however erroneous, that you will find That Special Someone, and be with them forever, and only them, and that anything else is bad. It's an idealised concept, and it's a pretty strong idea.
So, with that much pressure, of course you're going to screw it up. Of course you're going to succumb, because of how much it's drilled into you that you can't have it.
Speaking for any future boyfriends who might read this: beware: I'm going to have sex with other people every now and then. But, you'd know that, because I told you at the restaurant, and you rolled yur eyes and said "you should meet my wife..."

[/LIST]
 
 
sleazenation
17:31 / 21.02.02
A question to those who value the ideal of monogamy

when you are talking about monogamy are you talking keeping a part of yourself "special" for a special someoneelse

or are you talking about wanting a relationship with someone who is keeping part of themselves special for you as well?
 
 
Captain Zoom
17:36 / 21.02.02
Ah, good point. If you are monogamous with someone else, do they have to be monogamous with you? Is monogamy, by definition (whatever that is) a practice indulged in by 2 people?

Zoom.
 
 
w1rebaby
17:37 / 21.02.02
both, I suppose
 
 
Captain Zoom
18:06 / 21.02.02
(realizing he is derailing himself with semantics, Zoom takes the only action still open to him)

Uhhhhhh, I like girls.

Zoom.
 
 
Ierne
18:12 / 21.02.02
(saving Zoom)

If you are monogamous with someone else, do they have to be monogamous with you? – Captain Zoom

Of course not – even if you've specified that you want them to be, in which case they can lie to you.
 
 
Captain Zoom
18:30 / 21.02.02
Cheers Ierne. Now what was that you were saying about a win-win situation?

Zoom.
 
 
Ierne
19:25 / 21.02.02
Now what was that you were saying about a win-win situation? – Captain Zoom

I'll try to clarify. (Note: the following example is totally hypothetical and does not suggest any actual sexual/romantic interest on my part. These were the first four people that came to mind.)

Let us say that there is strong mutual interest between Ierne and four other people: Rothkoid, Cherry Bomb, Haus and Mordant C@rnival. These are four different individuals with different tastes and interests. They may all have certain things in common (intelligence, open-mindedness, wit) but each person will attract Ierne differently, and Ierne will want to develop a different type of relationship with each one accordingly. Ierne will also not be an asshole and let each one know about the others. (I can't stress the honesty aspect enough!) If Mordant, Haus, Rothkoid and Cherry each feel that Ierne cares for them, spends quality time with them (this is where time-management skills come in!) and are sufficiently satisified with the present interaction with Ierne, then it's a win-win situation.

Each person, being different, would require different levels and types of attention; since Ierne loves all four of them, Ierne will do her best to make sure all four of them get the attention they need/want. If Ierne can't do this, Ierne has to communicate with the other four and work something out that all five can live with. If one of the four is not happy about sharing Ierne with three other people, and wants Ierne all to hirself, then the possibility exists for a separation between Ierne and that person, which frees said person to find someone who wil give hir what s/he wants, and Ierne gets to spend more time with the other three: a win-win situation.

In this hypothetical situation the five people are not necessarily living together or sleeping with each other – Ierne has a meaningful emotional interaction with each of the others, who are aware that Ierne has relationships with other people that may be similar but not the same.

Hope that makes more sense.
 
 
Captain Zoom
20:29 / 21.02.02
Zoom's Wife here: (wife?) Get the feeling there are people just waiting to see what I have to say here. Hmmm. On one hand, I know Zoom, and what fascinates him most is conversations based on hypothetical ideas. Having said that it is an interesting theory that he has put forth. I believe Ierene (sp?) was a bit more well thought out and presented a better arguement. Many points of which I agreed with. I think the big thing is, is that it must be a situation where everyone involved feels the same. Therin lies the rub. Monogamy with one person loving and giving all and another holding their crotch in crowds like it was a buffet du jour.. won't work. I feel we are a growing society (mentally hopefully) and expanding our beliefs to include many diversities. It was not so long ago that inter racial, religious, same sex, yada yada, was not acceptable. I would hazard that this should include non monogamous relationships. Again, it is not for us to judge others and what works for them. As long as the relationship you are in is with an opinion that is shared by all- I say hear hear!
As for some of Zoom's comments... honestly... jerk was the first word that came to mind.

He did ask for it.

Tara.

[ 21-02-2002: Message edited by: Captain Zoom ]
 
 
Disco is My Class War
00:22 / 22.02.02
Personally, I don't ever think I could be monogamous. I have been in the past, and that was its own little nightmare: whenver I felt attracted to someone else I simultaneously had to deal with feeling guilty about it, and having my partner play nasty jealousy 'I can do this too' games.

So, now. I don't know if I really want to do this whole 'Crunchy and I' thing, but we are not monogamous and it works fine. There are far too many amazing people out there who I want to play with. I think the same goes for him.
 
 
Jackie Susann
00:57 / 22.02.02
I think the whole monogamy/non-monogamy thing is just semantics, really. I don't know why, I just like that as an argument today. 'But that's just semantics,' as the Socialist Worker said before I booted him in the nuts.

No, I am distracting myself, monogamy and non-monogamy are both (I think) kind of abstract ways of describing relationships, neither says much about the dynamics involved or what's going on. People's activites aren't transparent, much less their motivations or fantasies. Maybe the partner who keeps telling you about all the cute boys he's fucking is just trying to keep your attention because it's you he loves, just you, and he's actually practically celibate. I don't know, my head is squishy today.
 
 
Saveloy
06:32 / 22.02.02
Ierne:
"In this hypothetical situation the five people are not necessarily living together or sleeping with each other. Ierne has a meaningful emotional interaction with each of the others, who are aware that Ierne has relationships with other people that may be similar but not the same."

[pedantic]Surely 'no sex' + 'meaningful emotional interaction' = a common or garden bunch of close friends? If you're talking about monogomy preventing you from satisfying certain needs, you've got to be talking physical needs, haven't you?[pedantic]

[ 22-02-2002: Message edited by: Saveloy ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
07:54 / 22.02.02
Zoom's wife:

Zoom's Wife here: (wife?) Get the feeling there are people just waiting to see what I have to say here.

Actually, I think most of us believe you to be a figment of Captain Zoom's imagination.

Ierne:

Let us say that there is strong mutual interest between Ierne and four other people: Rothkoid, Cherry Bomb, Haus and Mordant C@rnival.

Run.

Right, on with the show. Something I find interesting here is that people are conflating "monogamy" with "a lifelong relationship", which it of course is not. If it lasts six weeks, then the opportunity to experience "the wonder of you" is fairly limited. I think there is a certain amount of avoidance going on of the simple fact that monogamous relationships end every day.

On reflection, I realised on the tube last night that monogamy is a lot like 4-4-2 (for those of us in the United States, 4-4-2 is a system for the playing of of "Soccer", or football as the rest of the Universe calls it, in which 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and two attackers make up the formation).

4-4-2 is used by many lower division football teams, because it can through organisation compensate for an absence of individual ability. In essence, two big central defenders of limited technical ability can police the area directly in front of goal, two full backs can police the touchlines and move forward when it is entirely safe to do so, two wide midfielders can apply pressure to the opposition full-backs, two central midfielders can cut out balls through the middle and pass out to the wings, and two strikers can run on to balls and head down crosses for each other. According to the particular abilities of the players available, the system is tweaked, but generally one looks for 2 big centre-backs, 2 small, nippy full-backs, two competent dribblers and crossers, a hardman midfielder and a passing midfielder, a big strong forward and a small nippy forward, with the system compensating for the weaknesses of the players. At lower levels, 4-4-2 is safe and reliable way to use oplayers without the perception, technique or footballing intelligence to make more complex systems like 3-5-2 or the sweeper.

Now, Brazil also often played 4-4-2 during the period of their eminence. There you had a pair of ball-playing central defenders who were able to play intelligent passes across the pitch to set up new attacks, full-backs able to overlap the midfield and provide highly accurate passes infield or dribble past opponenents, wingers with incredible ball skills who could cut out entire defences with skilful passing and running, one central midfielder acted as a playmaking "stopper", combining positional sense with a broad range of passing, the other played in a more advanced role with the responsibility of doing something utterly magical, and the forward were, generally, fast and small with almost prescient awareness of the ball to be able to make perfectly timed runs into unpredictable spaces. A bewildering, enchanting set of interlocking patterns of movement and passing, the Brazillian 4-4-2 resembled its counterpart on the playing fields of England in name only, and yet the basic structure of the system is the same.

So, the point. Done well and skilfully between two emotionally competent people, monogamy is a fantastic and beautiful thing, able to offer different but equally valid arguments for its existence in comparison to all the other intricate and equally beautiful dances available.

On the other hand, if you are a pair of needy, disturbed, childish or just plain dim people, monogamy is probably the way forward because it attempts to minimise the number of situations in which your own resources are pitted against the complexities of the world by imposing an easy-to-follow system.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:05 / 22.02.02
Are you Brian Glanville in disguise?
 
 
Jackie Susann
08:15 / 22.02.02
I think that was my favourite ever Barbelith post. Haus's, I mean (no offence, Kit Cat).
 
 
bitchiekittie
10:59 / 22.02.02
honestly Im too damn confused to answer any of this with any clarity

there are too many facets to any single relationship to be able to actually delve into with any real end meaning.

my real question is not "why arent you monogamous" - I can see how non-monogamy can work out great for everyone involved, particularly with a healthy dose of honesty, communication and time-management skills.

however, Im surprisingly sorry to say (as it seems like a damn fine thing, particularly in my current situations), Im thinking more and more lately that its not the thing for me
 
 
Ierne
11:47 / 22.02.02
If you're talking about monogomy preventing you from satisfying certain needs, you've got to be talking physical needs, haven't you? – Saveloy

I realize that the pull-quote you used from my post was a bit vague – sorry.

In this hypothetical situation the five people are not necessarily living together or sleeping with each other. Ierne has a meaningful emotional interaction with each of the others, who are aware that Ierne has relationships with other people that may be similar but not the same. – Ierne

I was trying to convey that the five of us are not necessarily living together communally (which is another stereotype associated with polygamy – the big hippie commune), nor is it necessary for all five to date/sleep with each other. In my example Ierne is in love with four different people who know about each other, but that doesn't mean that Cherry has to love Mordant or Haus has to love Rothkoid or any other permutation of the four. (Optimally they would know each other and get along, but that's up to each individual.)

I didn't mean to suggest that there was no sex involved in my scenario at all! But having said that, I do think that there are other needs besides physical/sexual ones that are crucial (emotional, intellectual, spiritual) and it may be very difficult (impossible, perhaps) for one person to satisfy ALL those needs for another person.

(Edited to add the pull-quote in question – oops again )

[ 22-02-2002: Message edited by: Ierne ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
12:00 / 22.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Ierne:
In my example Ierne is in love with four different people who know about each other, but that doesn't mean that Cherry has to love Mordant or Haus has to love Rothkoid


Run further.
 
 
Ierne
12:06 / 22.02.02
Hey – I'll change the name if you'd prefer, Haus. I just wanted four people with varying interests and personalities for my example, and those four were the first ones to pop up in my head. Absolutely nothing personal intended.

(I probably should have asked people first before using their ficsuit names...sorry )
 
 
Persephone
12:17 / 22.02.02
Why sorry, bk? I'm of the mind that there's nothing instrinsically better about either monogamy or polygamy, it only matters what works for you and your partner(s). I rather agree with Crunchy that the distinction is semantics, because when you get into any relationship then you have to negotiate the *specifics* of what that "monogamy" or "polygamy" means. Trouble comes when the negotiations fall apart, and that can happen in either case.

E.g., I've been with Husband for ten years, married for three. We don't have sex with other people. We don't romantically kiss other people, either. We don't talk intimately with other people, even. Reason why, because over the years one of us was inclined to ask "What if I did this or that" and the other answered "I'd be fucking pissed." We've similarly negotiated other stuff like Is it okay to fall a little in love with/flirt with/fantasize about someone else, all okay and all sources of pleasure.

Counterexample, my ex-fiance once demanded of me, Have you been unfaithful to me in mind or in body? Which struck me as dumb, and as long as there was no difference I slept with someone else shortly thereafter.

Monogamy as well as polygamy needs "a healthy dose of honesty, communication and time-management skills." Though I suppose there's something to what Haus says, id est there's already a sort of playbook out there to the game of monogamy & you can go by the rules & be more or less OK. But it's better if you engage your head in the game, that's been my experience.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
12:28 / 22.02.02
Ha, topical. Just bought a book called The Ethical Slut! {don't let me go into Sh! on my own, ees baaaaad.}

There's also a tendency for non-monogamy to be distrusted and down-graded in culture at large, which is one simple reason why people who don't feel it works for them feel they have to shout about it.

Thought that was pretty obvious meself.

Whatever the attitude round here, or whatever's seen to be the attitude round here, it *isn't* accepted in western societies as a definite choice/long-term lifestyle decision.

People (even those who practice it) often associate it rather with being immature, not 'sorted' enough to do the grown-up thing, afraid of commitment, emotionally stunted etc. As a conscious decision or realisation that non-m. is for you, it actually require alot of hard work, care, emotional smarts etc to get it right. Just like any relationship, and further particularly any relationship that doesn't fit the societial 'norm' and so has the extra pressures of 'delearning' that norm to figure out what *you* want.

[ 22-02-2002: Message edited by: Lick my plums, bitch. ]
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
12:36 / 22.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
Run further.
Dammit. Knew I should've gotten my ficsuit pressed.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
12:38 / 22.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Ierne:
Hey – I'll change the name if you'd prefer, Haus.



Oh, I'm not offended or freaked out....it's just that the idea of me loving Rothky, or Rothky loving me is just a bit...not that we're not both very attractive, but...well, it would probably have happened by now, is all I'm saying.

It hasn't, has it?
 
 
bitchiekittie
12:53 / 22.02.02
Im only sorry because everyone in my life wants very different things - and I simply cannot make everyone happy. that last bit is the part that gets to me every damn time
 
 
Ierne
13:18 / 22.02.02
Oh, I'm not offended or freaked out... – Haus

Glad to hear it.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
15:22 / 22.02.02
You know, and I'm not feeling very articulate today, so excuse my ramblings... but, I don't think I could not be monogamous. I mean, in theory everything you've all said about polygamy makes perfect sense. It should be like that. But in reality I don't think I could do that. Not now, anyway.

Or is that just because I'm happy with one person? I mean... it often seems like I could be with other people and it wouldn't matter, but then it really does (matter). And then in my stomach I'd feel sick...

Feel well confused about all this. Is it programming? Upbringing? I mean...

Spinning. Dizzy.

hmmmmm.
I need a lie down.
 
 
netbanshee
16:11 / 22.02.02
...I too play in a monogamous field. I think that in many ways one person is enough to try to tackle at one moment in time. God...thinking of two women taking up my time seems like a nightmare! One's enough, believe me. That said, I'm attracted at many levels with my current partner and see that there is a lot of things that will be keeping me going in the future. But at the same time, I don't kid myself with the notion that "this is it" or that all of my needs will be covered by this person. Sexually...at the moment, yes. But good friends and relationships that I have with others keep me as stimulated as I need to be at the moment. Will this change...probably.

Also, after reviewing the thread, it seems that in order to have this conversation one has to speak ideally...which honestly is not the way it ever works out. I think that in many ways, some of the motivating factors that get you to one side of the fence or the other aren't always good, wholesome, unselfish and honest ways of thinking... I think at the root of all of this, to be able to choose these abstract notions as a way of signifying how you deal with relationships, takes effort.
 
 
Francine I
18:59 / 22.02.02
I don't think it's necessary to speak in abstracts and ideals of abstract or ideal concepts. In fact, I believe it to be counter-productive.

The fact is, when you "run the numbers", most monogamy doesn't "work" (meaning, doesn't foster happy, healthy, emotionally open relationships), and a little bit does. In fact, most polygamists aren't very happy, either. Really, when you get right down to it, we're all just groping for an understanding of the meaning of our relationships with others. Some grope in different directions.

Monogamy is oft-disliked because it's more or a less a societal convention. While we'd like to believe all societal conventions are bad, bad, bad, the truth here is like the one above: Many are. Some aren't.

Monogamy didn't always make sense. It won't always make sense. It never made sense for everyone.

Nonetheless, it makes sense for some. For some, monogamy is an abandonment of your own responsibility in the world. For some, so is polygamy. This being said, I've seen examples of beautiful, fully-operable "nuclear family" structures -- the ultimate in the Monogamous Paradigm(tm). Parents who are partners who are lovers who are friends who are incredibly happy, intelligent, active people. I've probably met one family who I can verifiably, from over-time observation, claim to fit this description. Still, most folks envy them. Not their child, or their marriage, or their car, their jobs, their home. Most folks envy them for being content, but not complacent. I've known happy practitioners of polygamy. Not many, either.

What matters is not which system happens to be "superior". Ultimately, what matters is what you give, how you conduct your relationship or relationship(s), and emotional honesty.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
12:40 / 23.02.02
Yes.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply