Is polyamory more evolved?

[River]

Wait, monogamist received its current definition as some sort of bigoted conspiracy?

Not a conscious and deliberate one. But, otherwise, sure -- why not? (It was not conscious and deliberate because monogamism was so deeply entrenched in the culture-mind that it went unnoticed. Not to subscribe to monogamism -- as I use the term -- was tantamount to bestiality, ... "animalistic," "evil, brutish...". Certainly not human!)

Merriam-Webster defines a monogamist as "one who practices or upholds monogamy".

Those who in the American Deep South fought a bloody war to seek to insure their "God-given" right to "practice and uphold slavery (i.e., institutionalized racism) were not simply wishing to be free to uphold a personal choice, but sought to maintain a whole cultural institution: institutionalize racism in the form of slavery.

Their dictionaries happily used "nigger" to mean an African black person taken as property for use by superior white men and women.
[ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nigger ]

It is easy for us to find language usages by white Southerners of the midde of the nineteenth century as far from innocent and unbiased toward former Africans. But those who were the "lawful owners" of those former Africans would hardly have seen their vocabulary as a "bigoted conspiracy". Same goes for the language once popularly used about women in America prior to the relative liberation women have experiencecd here. And same for LGBT folk. This is not mere speculation. It is history.

When a culture's values change, that same culture looks back at the terms it used to define things in astonishment and wonder.

Take as another example "savages" being used to define what we now generally call "native Americans". Was such a usage part of a "bigoted conspiracy"? Now go find yourself an American dictionary from, say, 1845. Look up "savage".

Now go try that word on an Indian reservation, see how that goes.

 

[IndieSolo]

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.

Yes. Quite simply, I am a woman.

That is just one group I am part of. There are others. But, back to being a woman... ever hear of misogyny? It is systemic in American society, though we do appear to be much more progressive than other societies (from the outside). If you're a woman, you still feel it in the fabric of nearly everything you do, though. Just this week, a man assaulted three women in midtown Manhattan, all Asian, by hitting them in the face with a plastic bag filled with something hard. He yelled at them, "Why won't Asian women go out with me?!" or why won't they talk to him, something like that, just before he assaulted them. Each of them staggered away with blood running down their faces. These kinds of things happen to women all the time, not to mention the wolf-calls, rapes, glass ceiling, inequalities in many areas, the pressure to be thin yet voluptuous, yet subject to ridicule if you do anything false to become the picture of woman society expects you to be, and how we should know our place. Sounds crazy because it is.

But wait! Like you, I too have reference material!

John & Yoko wrote a song about it:

"Woman Is The Nigger Of The World"

Yes she is... think about it
Woman Is The Nigger Of The World
Think about it... do something about it

We make her paint her face and dance
If she won't be slave, we say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's trying to be a man
While putting her down we pretend that she is above us

Woman Is The Nigger Of The World
Yes she is
If you don't believe me take a look at the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of the slaves
Ah yeah... better scream about it

We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only place she should be
Then we complain that she's too unworldly to be our friend

Woman Is The Nigger Of The World
Yes she is
If you don't believe me take a look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of the slaves
Yeah think about it

We insult her every day on TV
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When she's young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart
We put her down for being so dumb

Woman Is The Nigger Of The World
Yes she is
If you don't believe me take a look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of the slaves
Yes she is... if you believe me, you better scream about it

[Repeat:]
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance

- John Lennon & Yoko Ono (1972)

In response to criticism of their use of the "N word," Ron Dellums (Co-founder/Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and former US Congressman) said: "If you define 'niggers' as someone whose lifestyle is defined by others, whose opportunities are defined by others, whose role in society are defined by others, then Good News! You don't have to be black to be a 'nigger' in this society. Most of the people in America are 'niggers'."

Yeah, the line in the song that gets me is, "We make her paint her face and dance." Don't ever assume I don't know what it is to be marginalized and hated.

Well, I guess I did have something more to say. Blimey! Now, how all that that relates to monogamy versus polyamory, I am not sure. To clarify, I would like to read other's experiences with polyamory and/or monogamy and how those experiences support or relate to the idea that one is or isn't superior/enlightened/evolved, compared to the other. I think those kinds of responses would answer the OP's question best.

Okay, go!


PS (as an aside): as for the term "monogamist," I have written here many times why I use the word "polyamorist" to describe myself rather than "polyamorous." To me, the "-ist" suffix denotes what I do/practice/choose, as opposed to "-ous" which would describe me or some way I am. At least, that is how see the difference. I do not identify as polyamorous, because I don't subscribe to the notion of being wired one way or the other, but I choose to practice polyamory because it's something I want in my life. Therefore, I call myself a polyamorist, and not polyamorous.

 

[River]

Yes. Quite simply, I am a woman.

That is just one group I am part of. There are others. But, back to being a woman... ever hear of misogyny? It is systemic in American society, though we do appear to be much more progressive than other societies (from the outside).

Yes, I'm quite familiar with misogyny -- and as a gender, relational and "sexuality" non-conformist, I've often noticed that my male body is hardly a protection from my own direct experience of the wounds of misogyny. Example, us male "queers" (gender and sexual non-conformist males of the gay/bi/queer type) are generally disparaged or put down as "just like a girl" ... "feminine"... "pussy" ... words meant to peg us as female or feminine -- which is supposed be the harshest of ridicule which could be spoken about us.

By no means, however, am I claiming to lack whatever "male privalege" persons with male bodies may have in our culture. Nor am I claiming to know misogyny as intimately as any woman.

 

[kdt26417]

As a polyamorist (polyamorite? polyamorean?), I'm not convinced that my plight is as bad as it has been for blacks, women, homosexuals, bisexuals, Native Americans, or others. I'm just speaking from and of my own experience of course. Others' mileage may vary.

 

[River]

As a polyamorist (polyamorite? polyamorean?), I'm not convinced that my plight is as bad as it has been for blacks, women, homosexuals, bisexuals, Native Americans, or others. I'm just speaking from and of my own experience of course. Others' mileage may vary.

Oppression certainly does have its spectrum iof degrees of bad or worse. But it is all oppresision, nevertheless. I suspect perhaps most people experience some kind and degree or another oppression. This may seem an exaggeration, until we look carefully. But that it is commonplace is hardly any reason to accept it as inevitable. All forms of oppression should be overthrown rather than accepted as "normal".

One of the main ways we know non-monogamists (and those who practice polyamory) are oppressed is that, so far as I can tell, most of us live in the closet. One can find endless examples of this clostedness here in this forum. Many a sad tale has been told in here of fear of coming out to familiy, friends, co-workers, etc....

Not every oppressed class of people can find sanctuary in a closet, of course. Some are oppressed for the color of their skin, for example. And that's nothing a person can hide. So those with the closet as an option are part of a whole "community" of sorts, and such "communities" can grow weary together and eventually rise up and step out together in solidarity -- as finally happened following the Stonewall Rebellion with the LGBT "community".

Polyamorists are beginning to do this now, only in a much slower, more quiet way -- a way which cannot be called "a riot". I'm happy to watch and participate in this gradual and somewhat quiet transformation.

 

[YouAreHere]

Oy. This thread has moved in so many different directions, I don't even know where to begin... other than "I really should be working, but..."

Societies and populations do evolve (on a rather fast, observable scale), as we've seen when older generations take their older ideals and knowledge with them when they die. Maybe in a superior way (in the case of greater social acceptance of what people do with their own bodies and within their own - consenting - relationships), maybe not (in the case of losing pieces of heritage, like Native American dialects, etc.). But it's an adaptation based on what is needed for that society to continue to survive. Maintaining your original language doesn't help you get a job/rental/etc. in today's world.

All I'm going to say about the "monogamist" definition (in this context - I did reply on the other thread before I saw this one) is this:

Merriam-Webster defines a monogamist as "one who practices or upholds monogamy".

Those who in the American Deep South fought a bloody war to seek to insure their "God-given" right to "practice and uphold slavery

Emphasis is mine. I practice monogamy for myself. Given the "or", according to the dictionary, I am a monogamist. I don't give a rat's ass about jamming it down someone else's throat, and I'm not a fan of poly folks doing the same. (Chops went through a polyvangelistic phase in the beginning of our relationship, and I eventually tore him a new one... If I'm going to be accepting and respectful of you, then by God, you'd better do the same for me.)

His "new one" has since healed, BTW.

This is why I hate these labels. I don't use the word "polyamory" in conversation when I talk about Chops, because I then have to UN-explain everyone's idea of what THEY think the word means, and then explain what it really is. I just say he's not monogamous, and he has another long-term relationship. Lots of words, but far fewer than doing the "correct the misconception" thing.

As for marginalization, as a mono person in a mono/poly relationship, it's damned hard to even find a group that can identify with you. My mono friends don't get it, and range from "he's disrespecting you, you deserve better, is he really *that* good in bed that you have to do this to yourself?" to the best case of "cool with it, but just can't relate". And I sure as hell don't fit into the Poly mold because, well... I'm not poly.

I'm walking a tightrope between two camps, neither of which I truly belong to.

I'm not invalidating the fact that poly folks can be (and often are) marginalized, but life ain't all roses for those of us mono folks who are caught in the middle by virtue of being in a relationship with a poly person. In essence, we've partially rejected a piece of society that we identify with, and it's fairly isolating.

So screw it, I made a place for myself here. Monogamist or not. Perhaps I shall be a Rosetta Stone of sorts.

To clarify, I would like to read other's experiences with polyamory and/or monogamy and how those experiences support or relate to the idea that one is or isn't superior/enlightened/evolved, compared to the other. I think those kinds of responses would answer the OP's question best.

This isn't going to help, but...
IMO, when it comes down to it, every relationship is a relationship between (or among) people. If two people aren't right for each other, drift apart, or aren't respectful and loving to each other, then the relationship has problems, regardless of the type of relationship. Poly relationships just open you up to more of those connections that *can* go south over time (or go swimmingly).

There are poly assholes (c'mon - we've seen whole threads where people roll their eyes at certain posters) and there are monogamous relationships that work beautifully. And vice versa. It's all about the people *in* the relationship, IMO.

Mine doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion, though, as Chops and Xena both think of marriage as a Bad Oppressive Thing, while I just maintain that it's the people within the marriage that determine whether or not that will be true. Meh. It's my belief and I'm sticking with it.

So... how's that for a rambling, monogamist opinion on this thread?

 

[River]

So... how's that for a rambling, monogamist opinion on this thread?

Honest. Fair. Compassionate (toward self and others). Forgiving. Kind. Wise....

Five out of five stars.

 

[YouAreHere]

D'aww, shucks. <Looks at ground and twirls foot>
Thanks.