Too often it is said that gay men are "so promiscuous" and that we are seemingly incapable of maintaining a monogamous relationship. To that I say, monogamy, schmonogamy! Monogamy isn't just difficult for gay people, it's difficult for everyone. I would venture to say that most, if not all, of us have seen someone to whom we have been attracted and had an inappropriate thought or two. It is also very likely that the majority of us have been unfaithful to a significant other, be it emotionally or physically (yes, there is emotional cheating). The problem here, isn't that society is chocked full of salacious skank-bags, it's that we have bought into this social construct that monogamy is more than a possible attribute of a relationship, but it is THE standard to which all relationships are to be held. Why is it that we can't view monogamy the same way we do most other qualities and traits? Some people are good at sports, for others maybe crosswords or Sudoku, still others enjoy bungee jumping, things that rush the adrenaline and traveling the world, while another may be perfectly content never having left the state of Michigan. All of these things are fine, to each his or her own we say, but when it comes to monogamy, everyone should want and aspire to have a monogamous relationship - why is this?
Let's unpack this a bit, shall we? Monogamy is ingrained into the very fabric of our society. Marriage vows, for instance, are filled with conditions (sickness, financial ruin, until death, etc.) under which one will remain with their partner, reinforcing the notion that one should be bound to one partner for the rest of his/her life. Of course there is always the option of divorce but that isn't a subversion of monogamy, it just becomes serial monogamy. It's also more convenient to be monogamous in this country. Marriage and partner benefits, such as creating certain life estate trusts, joint insurance and health care, and filing joint income taxes, add incentive and essentially reward people for entering into a monogamous unions. These benefits don't allow for the possibility of more than one partner or any alternative to a traditionally monogamous relationship, but rather discourage them.
The idea of casual dating has also fallen victim to the monogamy epidemic. Instead of being able to comfortably get to know two or three, or more, people at once, people are labeled as "players" and "sluts" for such behavior. Instead of appreciating that people are taking the time to carefully select a mate, we brand them as having "commitment issues" or being "promiscuous" because they aren't adhering to society's definition of "proper monogamy". I understand that some people abuse this privilege, dating several people at once, all the while being deceitful and hurting others in the process - that's not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting however, is that we no longer consider monogamy the goal toward which all relationships should work, and stop classifying other approaches to dating as "second rate" or "dysfunctional".
If we look at the divorce rate and the amount of adultery that occurs, it's evident that people just aren't too great at this whole monogamy business. Just like bungee jumping, Sudoku, living in a big city or having children aren't for everyone, perhaps monogamy isn't either - at least in the traditional sense. I am not proposing that everyone go out and be polyamorous, but rather entertain the possibility that traditional monogamy isn't the only way to love someone. We all have urges so what's wrong with communicating those to our partners and, should our partners approve, acting on them? Is one still "cheating" if there is no deceit and both partners agree to the supplementary tryst? Does that make two people love each other less or de-legitimize their relationship? Instead of having a secret affair, (which can be destructive to relationships and the emotional well-being of those in them), could being honest about those desires and creating a shared meaning of monogamy between two people be a better option?
Perhaps we're too insecure with ourselves and our relationships to entertain the possibility that our partner finds someone else attractive, or maybe monogamy works well for you, both of which are valid. I understand that, for some, this kind of "progressive thinking" may not be possible or desirable. However, what if it is possible that "traditional monogamy" may be, in fact, holding us back from new and more realistic ways of loving one another? Whether monogamy is your "thing" or not, make sure that your love is an honest, functional and positive one - isn't that what we all really want anyway?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, for most people it is just too darn painful when their partner is not monogamous for them to entertain the idea of polygamy. It's true that society has somewhat rigid norms regarding monogamy, but my hunch is that this is because this is what was found to work; thing get exponentially more complicated when there are more than two people involved.
ReplyDeleteBy no means am I defending the rigid social norms and saying that everyone should be monogamous - on the contrary, I think that everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as their partner(s) are up for it - I am simply postulating that polygamy may be a much more difficult path to sustain.
It is interesting in that one could look at the current drive for same sex marriage as being a culprit in holding monogamy up as the gold standard...making it seem that marriage via a monogamous relationship is the only, normal, healthy way to live life. This argument underlies much of the rhetoric around gay marriage (one can look at Andrew Sullivan's VIRTUALLY NORMAL to see this poignantly) and can be seen in the homophobic discourse surrounding HIV/AIDS and in a fair amount of social scientific research. The "queer" turn then is to take the unintelligible path arguing for promiscuity, public sex, etc. as such "alternatives" provide different, not "more" or "less" realistic, possibilities of relatonships hidden by the marriage drive. (see Michael Warner's Trouble with Normal for this argument)
ReplyDeleteMonogamy then is not "found to work" as the previous comment suggests, but is constructed to work through the language used to describe it as such language re-inscribes and re-iterates the "efficiency" or "healthy-ness" of monogamy making those who are entrenched in such language to come to see monogamy as the "way" of life.
I think monogamy has evolved along with humankind though. If you look at the history of coupling, marriage, and divorce, you'll see that coupling is the oldest, followed by marriage, with divorce only being around 500 years old. That's pretty young comparatively.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the other changes that have happened during these times, then you'll why monogamy changed as well. One of the biggest changes is that people are living longer. During the Dark Ages up to the 1600's (I believe), girls as young as 14 were married off to men in the 30's and 40's. These girls were not menstruating yet, but as soon as they were, they were producing heirs because the men would only last for 10 years before dying. Basically, marriages would last much shorter times than they are now.
The lengths of marriage coupled with the advent of divorce, the sexual revolution(s), women's rights, etc. have all changed how monogamy is viewed. These things have all culminated to now, especially for the queer community because of our need to be perceived as "normal"