Saturday, November 5, 2011


I adore my husband. He adores me right back. There is a wealth of interaction and emotion between us and the concept of putting another person there just doesn't do it for either of us. We are everything to each other. We've briefly entertained the thought of inviting another person for sex, but we just weren't quite sure what the point would be, and it didn't seem like it would be much fun for the person we had added. A threesome just for the sake of it? No.

I knew it would be this way when we married. We waited a long time before we started trying for a baby, because it was so amazing just being the two of us. Our child was wanted as an expression of our love for each other and we were devastated when we couldn't catch pregnant easily, but we didn't need a child to feel complete.

I know that some people do not feel that way. I'm fine with that. I would no sooner mock those feelings and choices than I would inflict pain on my child. I read this post and I cheered, because Holly struck my feelings dead on -  I am not stuck in my monogamous relationship, woe, poor me, because that is what is expected of me. I rejoice in my relationship because it fits who I am. It is a choice we have both made, to belong to each other exclusively, and it is every bit as fulfilling as delightful as any polyamorous bunch could ever hope for.

But as Holly's post also stated, polyamorous people can also get a little overexcited, even "evangelical" about their choices. Kind of like: it's so amazing you have no idea what you're missing you should really try it like this no no this is the best way I swear!

To quote briefly from Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed:
If you drew people as dots and the relationships between them as lines connecting the dots, the result would look remarkably similar to the topology of telecommunication networks like the Internet, wherein dots represent telephony devices (phones, fax machines, computers, etc.) and lines represent interconnections between them. However, a telecommunication network in which each device could only be connected to one other device—a compulsorily monogamous worldview—would not be very useful. Why buy a phone that can only call one other phone in the world?
People are not tape, but neither are they telephones. This bizarre need to compare people to random other objects that honestly bear no similarity does not work for me. I know a good metaphor when I see one, but this is not it. This network view also seems to assume that people in monogamous relationships have no other connections. Their 'compulsory monogamy' isolates them from the rest of the world, and how could such brainwashed automatons ever connect with anyone outside of their own limited worldview? Okay, so that last bit is my own gut reaction to the piece - the feeling of being attacked just for who I've consciously chosen to love. I get some irony in that, as my heterosexually monogamous privilege has taken umbrage, but it's more than that.

Those gut-punched reactions did color my reception of the rest of the piece, which does have some interesting things to say. It ends with these words:
If this is true, then cultivating the skill of empathy across the planet’s populace, as polyamorous culture actively endeavors to accomplish, is a prerequisite not merely for one’s own individual happiness, but also for the very survival of civilization—and our humanity.
I don't see planting the seeds of monogamy as an inferior sort of backwater, unenlightened relationship style as furthering this goal of empathy. How I choose to relate in my personal life - how anyone chooses this - is beside the point. No relationship choice makes anyone less of a person, so I don't see why it is necessary to denigrate monogamy in order to celebrate polyamory. Can't we have both, and whatever else tickles our fancies? I know that monogamy does not exactly need a champion, but it does need to be treated as a valid choice even by those who haven't chosen it. We cannot win any kind of revolution by splintering.

You're poly? Awesome! I'm monogamous, I'm awesome too! Let's have lunch!


  1. I could write a book of a comment, so I will try to keep it short-ish.

    I agree with you.

    When I was growing up the goal that we were striving towards regarding different lifetstyles and such was, live and let live. That was lovely.

    But what has happened recently is that many with these alternative lifestyles want to thrust it upon those of us with more traditional lifestyles by insulting ours and touting theirs as the ideal.

    For example, many in the gay community insult heterosexuals by calling us "breeders."

    I find it interesting that those who are often rather anti-religion and pro-Darwin forget that survival of the fittest and evolution require reproduction of the genes that will most-likely keep the species going. And that isn't theirs.

    As for polyamory in particular, definitely not for me. As I said on my blog in my post about flirting, it's fun, there are cute guys at work that I'm even kind of attracted to, but I don't want to have anything to do with any penis other than the one belonging to my man. If polyamorous people do, that's their choice, but definitely not mine. I'm not interested in exchanging bodily fluids with a crowd. Yuck, yuckity, yuck yuck yuck.

  2. For myself, I couldn't stand the thought of Daddy having sex with another woman, even if I was right there.

    You're absolutely correct that there's nothing wrong with being happy with just the two of you, Conina!


  3. Thank you for this post. I too, am extremely happy in my chosen monogomy.

    We've also discussed bringing other people into our bed and/or relationship and have come to the conclusion that, for us, and in this relationship, it is something better kept in fantasy.

    I have no problems or instinctive 'yukiness' regarding polyamoury, in fact, I can see the attraction, definitely. but I also see no reason why protecting their position needs to become attacking someone elses.

  4. I'm tired of some people seeming to expect that with this lifestyle, being poly is the norm. Aren't we judged enough already by those misinformed about ttwd? Can't we just respect each other and not push our ideals on other people?

    And why is one way better than the other? Living this way is hard enough without having to justify what works for us.

    One of my best friends is part of a poly relationship, and we talk about it often. How I couldn't do it. And although she didn't start out wanting to be part of one, she deals with it now. But we would never judge each other or think that eithe relationship is somehow lacking because we do things differently.

  5. t1klish: That exchanging bodily fluids with a crowd part is pretty distressing to me as well, to be honest. I'd assume there's protection involved though..

    Kitty: That's perfectly understandable, and making you/us feel like that's selfish isn't cool. We can't rewire ourselves; we feel how we feel.

    mamacrow: Yeah, I think there's room in the world for all of us - throwing stones just seems childish. "Why buy a phone that can call only one other phone in the world?" just haunts me.

    sassafrass: Hi, thanks for weighing in!

    You're absolutely correct; it's already hard enough to be what we are and feel how we feel and try to experience what we need to experience to be fulfilled, without someone thrusting expectations upon us. There's no "right way," despite what weird telephone metaphors would have you believe. You have to be true to yourself.

  6. I meant to mention I feel a bit insulted by the "breeders" tag too, especially when some of us "breeders" have such a hard time breeding. My gay friends have never used such a term though. At least not where I can hear them.

  7. The phone metaphor is absurd, not just because we're clearly not telephones, but because it implies then that we should be having sex with everyone on the planet with a phone.

    Sadly, so much of this stuff is right out of Brave New World, which was at the time considered futuristic horror.

    There was a whole section in the book on propaganda against natural reproduction (I don't believe for a second that it's a coincidence that pop culture these days is promoting the absurdity that all women are gay), the words mother and father being considered offensive (people were trying to ban those words from textbooks here in California because they "offend" certain groups), promiscuity was encouraged (this topic right here), and all was being done in the book so there would be no traditional family, children were brought up by the government, and only test-tube genetically engineered reproduction existed.

  8. People should be free to chose whatever works right for them. Monogamy is perfect for you! D/s is perfect for you! Awesome that you have found what works best for your needs! <3

    I think there's a line between being overexcited, which I know I've been in several regards, and preaching. That woman was preaching. She is basically saying that your choice to be monogamous is the wrong one. That's ridiculous! Her logic is also flawed and several others made some very good points about it.

    The best thing you can do is walk away from people and material like that. It'll only drive you crazy if you let in linger in your mind.

  9. t1lish, i was thinking of Brave New World too! The everyone belongs to everyone else thing, and 'nice' girls don't go on too many dates with the same person etc etc!

    Huxley was awesomely prophetic! I feel often we are in the area of bumble puppy! (you could only get approval for marketing a new game if it was more complicated, and required more and unique parts to any game already in exsistance)

  10. t1klish: That thought (more absurdity re: the phone metaphor) occurred to me too, but in the interest of my rant not becoming TOO long I left it out. I spoke to my husband about it on a long drive we took Friday night though. I had not considered the Brave New World-ism of the whole situation. It's definitely an interesting parallel to draw. I'll have to look up that thing about the textbooks.. it sounds bizarre.

    I always thought there was a certain goodness to that book - not all the parts you mention, but in actually having the people who do the menial labor be happy that they do.

    cuddlykitten: Just walking away from it doesn't carry the same weight as responding to it thoughtfully. (maymay is a man, though)

    Regardless, it's not just some random blog, he speaks at events and is published in journals and what-have-you, so a lot of people are hearing this false logic... and a good, powerful speaker can make even that terrible phone metaphor sound reasonable to a crowd. I generally have a lot of respect for what he's doing over there, but this one just struck a cord of "Wait, WTF?" in me.

  11. Im not sure the manual labour class were happy... They were clones, so little individuality, + engineered to be passive + have low IQ. They were conditioned to hate anything that would detract them from their decreed place in society + drugged up on soma.

    it was a riged caste system predetirmed before artificial conception, unescapable + a bit scary really!

  12. mamcrow: In the book, yeah, the extreme multiples, the poison in the bottles and the indoctrination + the drugs, a bit scary.

    I meant a good thing that could be taken from that is that people who need to do the jobs that need doing and honestly can't go beyond those jobs shouldn't be made to feel less than. That's a whole different post, a whole different BLOG, really.


Thank you for reading. I hope you'll let me know you were here - I like friends!