Is polyamory more evolved?

[River]

What I do believe is that polyamory, or at least acceptance of it amongst the many models of possible relationships, is more emotionally mature, culturally adaptive and socially harmonious than monogamy as a model of how things actually are instead of how we are trying to force things to be. We are capable of social order many magnitudes greater than what we see. That necessarily includes and transcends monogamy.

I'm in whole-hearted agreement with 98% of this post--most especially, the social acceptance part. A society which has social acceptance for polyamory is, indeed, "more evolved" -- or shall we say "adaptive" (let's just say "superior") -- to / than one which does not.

Edit:

Note: I distinguish between the practice of monogamy and "monogamism" defined as a kin to "heterosexism," which is a kin to sexism, racism, etc. The practice of monogamy, to me, is morally and ethically neutral. It's as good a choice as ethical non-monogamy. Monogamism, so defined, is -- to me -- quite morally repugnant ... in precisely the same way that sexism, racism and heterosexism are morally repugnant.

 

[IndieSolo]

In my lifetime, I have known and still know many, many, MANY very open-minded, accepting, highly intelligent and rather enlightened (in many ways) people who just happen to be monogamists. And heterosexual (although I thought this thread was only about a form of relationship, not sexual orientation, gender identity, nor politics - those, to me, are separate issues).

Ugh, there is this sense of superiority that a lot of polyamorists express, as if people who are happily monogamous are dull non-thinking clods and incapable of open-mindedness just because they choose to be, or feel more comfortable and happy in, one love relationship at a time. Feh. I can't stand that attitude -- especially since we have seen many non-monogamists post here who are as narrow-minded and unkind as anyone could possibly be.

Monogamists can search their souls, seek enlightenment, and challenge themselves in relationships just as much as polyamorists do - but the issues are different. Not more or less evolved, just different.

 

[River]

In my lifetime, I have known and still know many, many, MANY very open-minded, accepting, highly intelligent and rather enlightened (in many ways) people who just happen to be monogamists. And heterosexual (although I thought this thread was only about a form of relationship, not sexual orientation, gender identity, nor politics - those, to me, are separate issues)..

Yes, they ARE separate issues ... when what I've been calling "monogamism" does not enter into the discussion. As soon as "monogamism" (in my preferred -- and very rational -- usage) enters into the discussion it combines with ...

... Racism, Sexism, Classism, Ableism, Anti-Semitism, Ageism and Heterosexism..., etc., as a form of marginalization and disempowerment to certain classe of people. It then becomes very much topical. And it becomes at least almost silly to pretend that "its a separate issue" -- something (like an elephant in the room) not to be talked about, away, apart....

Dictionaries have misused and abused words before, and just because most dictionaries use "monogamism" as if that term could not possibly be related to sexism, racism, agism, classism, etc., is no reason for me NOT to point out that ... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it may very well be a duck in sheeps clothing.

The -Isms: http://www.sascwr.org/files/www/resources_pdfs/anti_oppression/Definition_of_Isms.pdf

 

[IndieSolo]

The OP asked if polyamory is a more evolved form of relationship. That is all. The question is about a form of non-monogamy versus monogamy. I think that if you want to discuss various kinds of discrimination and politics, that would go in another, different thread all your own in the Fireplace forum.

 

[River]

The OP asked if polyamory is a more evolved form of relationship. That is all. The question is about a form of non-monogamy versus monogamy. I think that if you want to discuss various kinds of discrimination and politics, that would go in another, different thread all your own in the Fireplace forum.

Respectfully, I disagree with your framing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_and_conversation_theory

Whether monogamy or polyamory (or monogamism or poly-ism [?]) is "more evolved" or not is a question concerning normativity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

For some unknown reason, you seem to want to PREVENT a conversation about these normativity questions.

So I respectfully disagree with your framing.

I can honestly not see any way to meaningfully discuss normative matters without any recourse whatsoever to discussions of politics, power, social relations, discrimination....

 

[IndieSolo]

Sorry, I don't consider Wikipedia any kind of authority on anything, since it is edited by anyone who feels like it, and I am an active editor there.

I am not interested in preventing any topic to be discussed, but it seems you have an agenda to discuss marginalization, and I am saying that your tangent should be in its own thread because it is taking this one off-topic. I suppose I take exception to that because you used my previous post about good relationship skills as a jumping-off point for your tangent in marginalization. In the end, I really don't care who says what as long as it all stays within guidelines, but it is my opinion that that is a separate subject, and arguing with me about this point is just turning it into a meta-discussion and even further off-topic.

 

[River]

Sorry, I don't consider Wikipedia any kind of authority on anything, since it is edited by anyone who feels like it, and I am an active editor there.

I am not interested in preventing any topic to be discussed, but it seems you have an agenda to discuss marginalization, and I am saying that your tangent should be in its own thread because it is taking this one off-topic. I suppose I take exception to that because you used my previous post about good relationship skills as a jumping-off point for your tangent in marginalization. In the end, I really don't care who says what as long as it all stays within guidelines, but it is my opinion that that is a separate subject, and arguing with me about this point is just turning it into a meta-discussion and even further off-topic.

I think you completely miss my point about normativity, and frankly I don't care whether you learn about that point from Wikipedia or any other (among hundreds) of sources on that topic. You are saying that my posts are a "tangent" away from the topic of the O.P. I insist that my contributions are a pathway deeply INTO the O.P's question.

I have always considered you a friend. And I do -- and have -- respected you. So there's nothing personal against you in my insistence that -- this time -- you're missing it. You're apparently wanting to redirect the question AWAY from the O.P.'s question in order (strangely, to me) to prevent this very same "tangent".


"Normative means relating to an ideal standard of or model, or being based on what is considered to be the normal or correct way of doing something." -- from Wikipedia

 

[River]

The title question of the O.P. was, "Is polyamory more evolved?"

Halcyeus, in post #20 , said "Evolved is a loaded word. I don't like the way its strayed so far from its literal, scientific meaning in some circles."

So we see that the O.P.'s question can be addressed striclty as

(a) a scientific question in biological evolution

or

(b) a normative question in ethics

or

(c) some other domain.


Did anyone present take it as (a)?

Does anyone wish to propose a (c)?

 

[Halcyeus]

In my lifetime, I have known and still know many, many, MANY very open-minded, accepting, highly intelligent and rather enlightened (in many ways) people who just happen to be monogamists. And heterosexual (although I thought this thread was only about a form of relationship, not sexual orientation, gender identity, nor politics - those, to me, are separate issues).

If happily monogamous people are thinking, open-minded and comfortable with me being polyamorous, I couldn't be happier. However, that is not as common as I'd like. Far from it, as I'm learning.

No one just happens to be monogamists. Everything is connected, related. No one is just anything for no reason. Sexual orientation, gender identity, politics and the like can be treated as separate issues, though they're often not as separate as would fit a nice, tidy debate. Their connection to polyamory is part of a much bigger picture that maybe *should* be considered.

If the OP uses a term with as wide connotations as 'evolved' there is bound to be a wide range of thinking in response to it.

 

[River]

In all honestly, folks, I have NO IDEA how to discuss the O.P.'s question without involving a very serious discussion of "normativity" -- and thus power, social relations, popular discourse, framing, politics....

It would be like trying to discuss all of (or any of) film and literture without taking note of power relations! --Absurd!

_______________________________


Edit:

It just occurred to me -- at long last, finally! -- that even the usage of "more evolved" as applied in presumably "purely scientific" evolutionary biology, is necessarily (even if subtly) associated with normative questions. In other words, there appear to be no non-normative approaches to duscussing the phrase "more evolved".

 

[IndieSolo]

No one just happens to be monogamists.

I did not mean it that way. I meant it to be a little sarcastic when I said they "just happen to be" monogamists. My point was that one's relationship choice/status/preference does not necessarily have any bearing on, nor necessarily reflect, whether one is "highly evolved," enlightened, conscious, aware, open-minded, etc., and that there is no need to tear down monogamy or monogamists as less evolved (or less of anything) in order to be happy, comfortable, and grounded in one's choice to live polyamorously.

 

[kdt26417]

Every polyamorist has a saturation point: a maximum number of partnerships that can be maintained at the same time due to the limits of time and energy. For some maybe the number is twelve, for others, seven. For some, three or two. And for some, one. In that sense, monogamy is like a subset of polyamory ... far from being less enlightened.

Less enlightened is when people look down their nose at polyamory ... or at any other relationship model for that matter.

Re: "monogamism" ... corresponds with stuff like "racism," but ... "monogamist" doesn't correspond with "racist." I'm just sayin'. (English ain't a perfect language)

 

[River]

My point was that one's relationship choice/status/preference does not necessarily have any bearing on, nor necessarily reflect, whether one is "highly evolved," enlightened, conscious, aware, open-minded, etc., and that there is no need to tear down monogamy or monogamists as less evolved (or less of anything) in order to be happy, comfortable, and grounded in one's choice to live polyamorously.

I utterly and completly agree. And -- of course -- the normative quesition works both ways. Neither monogamy nor polyamory is "more evolved," or superior (which is a better word for what we're discussing, because less fraught with wandering interpretations).

To discuss any of this without pointing out the similarities with other normative questions about other groups through history (women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, racial minorities, social classes, etc.) is -- to me -- absurd. This topic is ALL about who has the power to frame what constitutes "more evolved" (or, better, "superior").

And this has been my point all along.

Some may say that "We all have that power". And that would be largley true! But do we enact that power? Can we? How much?

Go have a look at how blacks were treated in the Jim Crow South prior to the African American Civil Rights Movement..., or how gays and lesbians were treated by the establishement prior to the Stonewall Rebellion ("riots") ... and then say that we all have equal power over our lives and our discourses.

 

[kdt26417]

Live and let live ... I'd like to see more of that.

 

[River]

Re: "monogamism" ... corresponds with stuff like "racism," but ... "monogamist" doesn't correspond with "racist." I'm just sayin'. (English ain't a perfect language)

My point was that monogamism (and monogamist) is a different word from monogamy. One can practice monogamy without being a "monogamist" -- as I prefer to use that latter term.

My further point is that dictionaries can be wrong, mistaken, and subsequently revised -- in response to public opinion (and change of usage) -- which is how word definitions sometimes, in fact, do change in dictionaries.

A VERY strong case can be made for using "monogamism" to mean something in kinship with (taxonomically) words like sexism, racism, classism, agism, ableism, heterosexism, etc.... In each of those cases of -isms we have one group of people insisting that they are superior to another group of people -- and treating the "out group" in accordance with their presumption of superiority.

Keep an eye on your dictionaries, folks. It won't be long before definition 1. will diverge from definition 2. -- which is how dictionaries first respond to obvious changes in usage.

 

[kdt26417]

Hmmm. If the dictionaries change, I'll change with them. My eye will be on Wiktionary. But not with bated breath. I think changing the definition for monogamist is going to be a hard sell. But we'll see.

So what word will replace monogamist? Monogamite is the best I can think of offhand.

 

[IndieSolo]

To discuss any of this without pointing out the similarities with other normative questions about other groups through history (women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, racial minorities, social classes, etc.) is -- to me -- absurd. This topic is ALL about who has the power to frame what constitutes "more evolved" (or, better, "superior").

To you, it's absurd and that's what it's about. Not to me. I don't think it's necessary to compare other kinds of groups throughout history to make a point about monogamy versus polyamory. I'd rather read about other people's direct experiences, from their lives, than read theory and rhetoric, complete with footnotes. However, I myself don't have anything more to say on it.

Carry on.

 

[River]

I'd rather read about other people's direct experiences, from their lives, than read theory and rhetoric, complete with footnotes.
Carry on.

You want some "direct expereience" from me?

I've had LOTS of people be hurtful and dismissive in their words and actions toward me once they understood that I don't subscribe to their view that "true love" is necesarily exclusive. I've had people tell me that I'm mean, insentitive and unloving toward my partner because of my polyamory. I've been ridiculed and badmouthed. How detailed would you like me to be?

I mention those other classes of people who get treated this way because it is VERY FAMILIAR human behavior to me. I call it bigotry.

Do you belong to a marginalized and hated class of people, other than those who practice non-monogamy? Perhaps you are less familiar with the direct experience of hatred and contempt directed at you on the basis of bigotry than are some others.

 

[River]

Hmmm. If the dictionaries change, I'll change with them. My eye will be on Wiktionary. But not with bated breath. I think changing the definition for monogamist is going to be a hard sell. But we'll see.

So what word will replace monogamist? Monogamite is the best I can think of offhand.

Noting the "hard sell" factor (which I think is deeply rooted in power relations), I once toyed with calling the bigots "monogamism-ists," but surely this many isms in one word is one too many!

 

[kdt26417]

Wait, monogamist received its current definition as some sort of bigoted conspiracy? Hmmm. Seems like more of an unfortunate coincidence to me, but I could be wrong.