How a hackneyed romantic ideal is used to stigmatise polyamory

AlongCamePoly

New member
I really liked this article, I think it's well-written, accurate, and interesting.

Source.

There’s no longer anything unusual about wanting an open relationship. Many who consider themselves progressive about sex, gender, love and relationships know this. It’s just that almost nobody in an open relationship wants to be open about it. What’s surprising is that so many people feel the need for secrecy.

I’ve been out as polyamorous for years. Because of this, non-monogamous people who aren’t out often feel able to talk to me about their own situations. When I go to conferences, I can’t help noticing all the philosophers who are in closeted non-monogamous relationships. This discrepancy between reality and socially acknowledged reality can be disorienting; the “official” number of non-monogamous people in the room is almost always one (me).

So what’s going on? No doubt there are several factors at work, but I want to talk about one that’s both powerful and insidious: non-monogamy isn’t considered romantic.

Romantic love is widely considered to be the best thing life has to offer: failing at romance is often construed as failing at life. Amatonormativity is a name for the attitude that privileges lives based around a focal monogamous romantic relationship. What gets called “romantic” isn’t just about classification; it’s about marking out those relationships and lives we value most.

Gendered ideas
This monogamous ideal is supposed to appeal to women especially. According to the stereotypes, single women are desperate to “lock down” a man, while men are desperate to avoid commitment. There’s nothing new here: monogamy has historically been gendered. Even in situations where marrying more than one woman has been illegal, it has often been normal for men to have mistresses, but different rules have applied to women. This is unsurprising: in a patriarchal society with property inheritance passing along the male line, paternity is key, and enforced female monogamy is an effective way to control it.

Women’s sexuality can also be policed by developing a feminine model that includes a purportedly natural desire for monogamy, plus social benefits for conforming to that model (and penalties for non-conformity). This model can then be internalised by women as a romantic ideal inculcated via fairytales. In a similar vein, rather than allowing only men to have more than one partner, we can instil a subtler cultural belief that men’s infidelity is natural and therefore excusable, while women’s infidelity is not.

Our language undermines gender-related optimism about monogamous romantic ideals: there is no word for a male mistress; romantic comedies are “chick flicks”. “Romance” novels are marketed to and consumed by women. Brides are “given away” by men to other men. We never hear about crazy old cat gentlemen. And how many married men do you know who’ve taken their wife’s surname?

These attitudes persist not just in word but in deed: wives in hetero marriages still do more housework than their husbands, even if they earn more (which they rarely do).

Recent growing acceptance of same-sex love as romantic has presented challenges to gendered norms. But this has happened alongside another change: monogamy has become an even more powerful romantic ideal by including same-sex relationships. And its impact is intensely gendered.

Women who enter voluntarily into non-monogamous relationships are a direct challenge to the idea that women naturally monogamous. They are socially penalised to maintain the status quo. A non-monogamous woman will be portrayed as debased and disgusting – a “slut”. When I have discussed my open relationships online, I have been called a “cum-dumpster”, a “degenerate herpes-infested whore”, and many other colourful names.

My internet trolls focus on sex, partly because presenting non-monogamous relationships as just sex makes it easier to degrade them, and partly because women who violate the monogamy norm – whose sexuality is out of (someone’s) control – are a threat to an ancient feeling of entitlement over women’s sexuality and reproductive potential. In contrast, a non-monogamous man is, at least sometimes, liable to be regarded as a stud.

Apart from monogamy, the only other relationship structure that controls paternity in a similar way is patriarchal polygamy, which is stigmatised in contemporary North America, for reasons including bona fide feminism as well as racism and cultural imperialism. One effect of this is that monogamy is seen as the only fair and liberal alternative.

Ways out
Actually, there are many alternatives. But to tolerate them is to tolerate widespread social uncertainty about who is having sex with whom. This would extend to everything sex is entangled with, and everything it represents. Our ideals of romantic love regulate not just our expectations about sex but also our conceptions of family and the nature of parenthood.

Ultimately, what we call romantic is a philosophical issue that touches on the core of who we (think we) are, and what we value. I believe that the romantic-ness of romantic love is largely socially constructed, and as such malleable. We collectively write the script that determines the shape of the privileged (romantic) relationship style. This script has changed, and will continue to change. But currently that process goes on largely below the radar: we aren’t supposed to see it happening, or realise that we can control it.

Romantic love maintains a wholly natural image, evading challenge or critical scrutiny by seeming inevitable, incomprehensible and wonderful.

We must get beyond this. We need to question the limits we have placed on what counts as a romantic relationship. Freedom to love – the right to choose one’s own relationships without fear, shame or secrecy – is critical, not just for individuals but for us all collectively. Non-conformity is the mechanism that reshapes the social construct to better represent who we are, and who we want to be. Instead of forcing our relationships to conform to what society thinks love is, we could force the image of love to conform to the realities of our relationships.

But it won’t be easy. If the love of a polyamorous triad is seen as romantic, and hence as valuable as the love of a monogamous couple, then the triad should have the same social and legal privileges as the couple. How could we deny them the right to be co-parents? How could we defend the legal or financial benefits of monogamous marriage, or the lack of legal recourse for anyone fired for being polyamorous? These are the privileges by which we signal to monogamous couples and nuclear family units that theirs are the most socially valuable social configurations.

Nor could we defend the countless ways in which non-monogamous people are stigmatised and rejected. My boyfriend’s father no longer speaks to him about anything but the weather because he is in a polyamorous relationship with me. An extended family member literally prayed over me when she learned that I was non-monogamous, feeling an urgent need to ask Jesus to save me from this culture. Stigma against non-monogamy is beyond a joke: researchers have uncovered assumptions that the non-monogamous are just bad people: less likely to walk their dogs, or floss their teeth.

It’s far easier to pretend that this is not really happening. Or that it’s not really a big deal. Perhaps you feel that way right now: perhaps you’re thinking you don’t know any non-monogamous people. But I wouldn’t be too sure. Until quite recently, an awful lot of people thought that all their friends and relatives were straight.
 
Very fascinating. I've been thinking a lot about how polyamory/relational anarchy will influence the academic work that I want to do. This touches on so many aspects: Philosophy of love, romantic love as a social construction, the politics behind all of it, where we should go from here, etc.

Amatonormativity - what, "mononormativity" wasn't enough?

Seriously, though, I think the notion of "romantic love" needs a major overhaul to be redeemable long-term. It really just seems like we build cultural trappings and ornaments around whatever form of family constitutes "the ideal" - i.e., the "relationship escalator" - and "romance" is what we call the sentiments that these rituals generate to idolize the "norm." Even the author's suggestion that we render triads as romantic implies as much. Suddenly we're trying to "norm" certain versions of polyamory that revolve closer to the "nuclear family" standard just as the LGBT community has done with "same-sex marriage."

This is why I love queer theory and anarchism.
 
... the author's suggestion that we render triads as romantic implies... [that] we're trying to "norm" certain versions of polyamory that revolve closer to the "nuclear family" standard, just as the LGBT community has done with "same-sex marriage."

That stood out to me in the article as well. I get so tired of the FMF fidelitous triad (or the FMFM quad) as being the "norm" or most sought after form of poly, when it is extremely rare! Having read here and elsewhere on the subject of poly for many years, by far the most common long lasting form of poly is the MFM V, closed or open. And often the men are mono while the female hinge is poly.

Another also common shape in actual real life poly is a long term FF relationship, where each woman might have a F or M partner of her own. (I'm in a relationship of that shape.)

It's also obvious that modern polyamory is rooted in feminism and women's new freedom to explore their sexuality and needs. Yet it's portrayed in the press as being a male horndog's dream. So annoying!

Another myth we are fed in society is that women's sex drives are so low. When in fact, a healthy liberated self-assured female (who has access to birth control, STD prevention, and health care in general at every stage of life) can have an extremely high sex drive, higher than a man. She can easily give 2 men all the sex they need. She is also (perhaps biologically and definitely culturally) prone to having a higher emotional quotient, so able to handle the social aspects of keeping a V going along well.

This is why I love queer theory and anarchism.

The study of queer love sure has been neglected for very very long time!
 
Hey there AlongCamePoly, thanks for sharing that article, it made a lot of good points.
 
the most common long lasting form of poly is the MFM V
But that seems to say that longevity indicates "success" -- itself a monogamyth** :D -- when what may be needed is a structure or center that is nimble, capable of morphing & moving to take best advantage of a fluid environment.

And that's to our detriment. Rather than seek to create what works best, many (likely most) people seeking nonmonogamy (for whatever overt, stated reason) continue to act upon their blindedness by the Romantic ideal, & compromise that best in favor of what will last longest... supposedly, anyway, according to the generally unproven (& often concretely WRONG) Romatic ideal. :eek:
Another myth we are fed in society is that women's sex drives are so low.
That one has always baffled me... but I think I can grasp it: one outfall of the feminist movement & of the socalled "sexual revolution" is that women got tired of being EXPECTED to have sex... particularly by men who used this demand to prove their political correctness as a pressure-point. (Though in the '80s the tactic was hardly uncommon amongst lesbians, in Minneapolis at least.)

At its biggest, our household was me, my girlfriend, my fiancee, & her girlfriend. At one point or another, they each ended budding relationships that couldn't get past the "well, if you do it with HIM, why don't you with ME? like, RIGHT NOW??" hurdle. :rolleyes:

Yet males (without supportive evidence, I sometimes hesitate to call us all "men" :eek:) have their own Romantic stereotype to hide behind: the "one huge orgasm" thing where a few minutes of friction leaves them sated for the rest of the week. I've heard about guys who would "save it up" for a big date night, & avoid other sexual contacts & masturbation in order to be... well, fully ready, I guess.

And this probably evolved directly into the present-day fascination with Erectile Dysfunction & the resultant boner pills that'll woodify a guy for no good reason whatever.

Me, I never had a problem, even when living with multiple sexual partners & additionally having multiple recurring relationships. Quite the opposite. I could leave one partner to rest, & be so exhausted I literally could not walk a straight line, only to have another roommate sleepily invite me to her bed, & have no problem "performing" (oooh, that word irritates me!) for another hour or two. I thought no more of it than any of my partners did of having sex with two or three of their lovers in a single day.

I say that not to brag. I've long pointed out to guys who thought they wanted to be polyfidelitous that once they'd been disabused of the HBB thing (where "they can take care of each other, right?"), they'd be in a situation where two healthy women had the RIGHT to EXPECT proper sexual attention, as desired. A few reconsidered the logistics, but it's the nearby F in their "couple looking" who will look thoughtful.

...but overall I suspect part of the problem is cultural, that the female orgasm is still viewed with suspicion, being potentially endless in number. I can think of a handful of lovers who were quite capable of more than two dozen :) orgasms over a couple hours, where even at my healthiest I think more than seven of my own in a single day would've been somehow detrimental. This has been used to justify belief that Woman is inherently evil, there to perennially tempt & eventually deplete poor li'l exaustible Man -- which kinda says that maintaining the "Man = exhaustible" trope is part of the Romantic narrative.

(And even that thought seems to suggest that more somehow equates to better. I've only rarely had the experience where ONE was so good that I didn't even THINK about sex for days. More than one partner has told me she was in a mood for "one good one" rather than a "string of firecrackers" (as one once put it).)
She can easily give 2 men all the sex they need.
I said the same thing once at a poly meet-&-greet. My beloved rolled her eyes, & said wearily, "Try four." :D That became a standard illustrative exchange.
She is also (perhaps biologically and definitely culturally) prone to having a higher emotional quotient, so able to handle the social aspects of keeping a V going along well.
Maybe that's part of my problem -- often, I'm the most "emotional" person in the room. :cool:

I feel this post should begin its own thread...
________________

** -- though I wish I could claim credit for this neologism, aside from the name of a DJ duo it appears exactly ONCE on the Internet, here
 
Back
Top