![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Writer's Block: There Can Be Only One
May. 23rd, 2009 02:53 am[Error: unknown template qotd]
First off: the literalist in me thinks this is a very silly question to ask. Then the abstract part of my brain kicks in and slaps it on the back of the head. :-|
Moving right along...
I think it's possible to be in a monogomous relationship and happy at the same time. I mean, there are some who seem to manage it. (Unless they're deceiving themselves, or putting on a show for the sake of conformity, which I'm sure happens with some people too.) It's just not something I've experienced personally. I have yet to be in a monogomous relationship that didn't end up making me feel a little bit dehumanized, like I was property, or some trinket/toy/status symbol for my SO. I don't like feeling like that; I certainly wouldn't want to make anyone I cared about feel like that. (I mean, playing at it in bed's fine, but I could never be happy in a relationship where either side seriously thought of the other in terms of ownership.)
So, generally, polyamory/open relationships make more sense to me. They seem to acknowledge a person's humanity and individuality more than monogamy, by acknowledging their right to choose what they do with themselves, how they spend their time, and who with. Also, it seems to me that monogamy presumes that one can--in fact, should--put a limit on how much love it's acceptable feel. The way I see it, you meet some wonderful people, now and then, and sometimes affection grows into something more intimate than traditional friendship. It doesn't make any pre-existing loves less or inferior any more than a tree growing another branch negates the other branches. If love is there, it seems to me that it should be celebrated rather than condemned, and expressed in whatever way comes naturally, if its mutual, rather than pretending that there's nothing there.
(Contrariwise, it also bothers me immensely when people assume that one cannot be close to a person of their preferred gender--if they have one--without sex being involved. That's a whole other subject, though.)
The other thing that bugs me about monogamy is that, in my experience with it, it seems to enable a common tendency people have to make everyone responsible for their insecurities but themselves. Now, I'm not saying that one shouldn't talk to their SO if they're troubled. A big part of being in a relationship is communication. And I'm not saying that anyone is or has to be perfect. We're all human. However, by the same token, I have yet to see evidence of a situation being improved by presuming that an insecurity should be catered to, rather than worked on. It smacks of power games when that kind of assumption enters into a relationship; at best it leads to stagnation, at worst, everyone goes down with the ship.
So, yes, I've got some issues against monogamy. Though, really, I think what it boils down to is that people need to do what works for them without presuming it's the answer for everyone else too, or that there's something wrong with everyone else if it isn't.
First off: the literalist in me thinks this is a very silly question to ask. Then the abstract part of my brain kicks in and slaps it on the back of the head. :-|
Moving right along...
I think it's possible to be in a monogomous relationship and happy at the same time. I mean, there are some who seem to manage it. (Unless they're deceiving themselves, or putting on a show for the sake of conformity, which I'm sure happens with some people too.) It's just not something I've experienced personally. I have yet to be in a monogomous relationship that didn't end up making me feel a little bit dehumanized, like I was property, or some trinket/toy/status symbol for my SO. I don't like feeling like that; I certainly wouldn't want to make anyone I cared about feel like that. (I mean, playing at it in bed's fine, but I could never be happy in a relationship where either side seriously thought of the other in terms of ownership.)
So, generally, polyamory/open relationships make more sense to me. They seem to acknowledge a person's humanity and individuality more than monogamy, by acknowledging their right to choose what they do with themselves, how they spend their time, and who with. Also, it seems to me that monogamy presumes that one can--in fact, should--put a limit on how much love it's acceptable feel. The way I see it, you meet some wonderful people, now and then, and sometimes affection grows into something more intimate than traditional friendship. It doesn't make any pre-existing loves less or inferior any more than a tree growing another branch negates the other branches. If love is there, it seems to me that it should be celebrated rather than condemned, and expressed in whatever way comes naturally, if its mutual, rather than pretending that there's nothing there.
(Contrariwise, it also bothers me immensely when people assume that one cannot be close to a person of their preferred gender--if they have one--without sex being involved. That's a whole other subject, though.)
The other thing that bugs me about monogamy is that, in my experience with it, it seems to enable a common tendency people have to make everyone responsible for their insecurities but themselves. Now, I'm not saying that one shouldn't talk to their SO if they're troubled. A big part of being in a relationship is communication. And I'm not saying that anyone is or has to be perfect. We're all human. However, by the same token, I have yet to see evidence of a situation being improved by presuming that an insecurity should be catered to, rather than worked on. It smacks of power games when that kind of assumption enters into a relationship; at best it leads to stagnation, at worst, everyone goes down with the ship.
So, yes, I've got some issues against monogamy. Though, really, I think what it boils down to is that people need to do what works for them without presuming it's the answer for everyone else too, or that there's something wrong with everyone else if it isn't.
