atheist, polyamorous skeptics

Toward a More Skeptical Monogamy April 25, 2013

Here at polyskeptic, we tend to refer to atheism and polyamory as “skepticism, properly applied.” I’d like to unpack that a little. As happy poly people, we love polyamory. We love polyamory so much that sometimes, it sounds as though we think polyamory is the only way to have a good relationship. So when we say that properly applied skepticism results in polyamory, it might sound as though we mean that monogamy is inherently unskeptical. This is only half true. It is true that if we lived in a more skeptical world, there would be a lot more polyamorous people. If people took a skeptical approach toward their relationships, many people would conclude that monogamy was not the best way to achieve their goals. However, not everyone would. There are plenty of ways to practice monogamy skeptically, and I’d like to go through a few of those.

Both Parties are Only Interested in Each Other

This is the most often-cited reason for monogamy, but often one of the rarest to be approached in a skeptical manner. Most people feel sexual or romantic desire for more than one person. However, not everybody does. A couple who approached their relationship skeptically could easily conclude that they were only interested in each other. However, the difference between this and your garden-variety monogamy is that skeptical monogamy (or what Shaun calls accidental monogamy) would not have rules against outside sexual or romantic connections. They just wouldn’t happen, because neither party would be interested. A skeptical couple, however, will know they cannot predict their future desires (especially many years in advance), so a skeptically monogamous couple will not make long-term plans or rules that are dependent upon their desires remaining only for one another.

Both Parties Enjoy a Controlling Dynamic

One of my least favorite things about traditional monogamy is that it involves each party being controlling in regards to the other party’s sexuality. It’s a form of ownership over an incredibly important part of another person, and I find it repellent. However, some people are into that! And that’s totally ok! In the kink community, there are tons of examples of people who have no desire for an egalitarian relationship. There are relationships which are explicitly based on ownership and control. Both parties go into the situation with eyes open, knowing what they want, and knowing what they are getting. This is entirely compatible with skepticism. So long as each party has skeptically examined their own (and each other’s) desire and each party enthusiastically consents, this sort of relationship is compatible with a skeptical worldview.

Social Consequences

If we lived in a more skeptical world, this would not be an issue. However, we live in the real world, and in the real world, being polyamorous can have consequences. Often, if we are thinking skeptically, those consequences are less bad or less likely than they seem. But sometimes the consequences are real and relatively certain, and it makes sense to try to fit in. Part of what the community is doing is trying to make this less of a concern, but as it stands now, the fear of societal consequences (especially in less liberal regions/countries) can be a legitimate, skeptical reason to stay monogamous.

Lack of Ability or Desire

This is lumping a lot of things together, but basically it stands for the proposition that polyamory takes a certain amount of emotional work and emotional stability, and not everyone is able to do it, either due to mental illness, societal conditioning, or just plain personality. For most people, being happily polyamorous takes a lot of effort.* A skeptic will not shy away from working toward a worthwhile goal, but there is always a cost/benefit analysis. For some people, the amount of work is too great, the payoff (in terms of happiness) too small, or the chances of success too low. A skeptical approach to life will recognize this and make decisions accordingly. Some people will reasonably conclude that it’s just not worth it. So long as their partner agrees, it’s a reasonable position.

I’m sure I’ve missed other reasons why a truly skeptical person or couple might choose monogamy. My intention here was to explicitly acknowledge that monogamy is not always a bad or unskeptical choice. However, I’d also like to stress that the bar for skeptical monogamy is pretty high. It requires a critical examination of all parties motives, desires, predictions, and assumptions. Just as polyamory takes a lot of effort, so does monogamy, and it’s not something to be entered lightly. As with all important decisions, it’s best to approach it in a critical, skeptical manner.

———————-

*this is another area in which we are hoping society will improve. As polyamory becomes more mainstream and monogamy becomes less of a default expectation, starting a polyamorous relationship should take much less work in terms of switching away from a mononormative mindset.

Why Polyamorous Marriage Might Happen March 20, 2013

In the Stranger this week, Mistress Matisse wrote an article entitled You May Now Kiss the Bride and the Other Bride and the Other Bride and the Other Groom: Why Poly Marriage is Never Going to Happen. She gives three reasons why poly marriage is a pipe dream, none of which are very convincing.

Her first reason:

For starters, poly- marriage organizers would have to agree on a precise definition of what, exactly, poly marriage even is. Explaining the flowcharts and Venn diagrams of poly relationships can be trickier and take longer than a play-by-play of naked Twister. And you can’t just engrave “It’s Complicated” on tasteful ivory card stock and mail it off to however many sets of in-laws.

Sure, it’s complicated… if you make it complicated. So why not keep it simple? Poly marriage can be exactly the same as mono marriage, just repeal the laws against bigamy. Whatever rights one partner has go to the other partner also. Rights that need to be divided can be split equally between partners.

People tend to get bogged down in the details of this sort of thing. Sure, legal rights like insurance, inheritance, property ownership, and the like would get more complicated when there is more than just a dyad, but so what? Those same legal rights get complicated when there is more than one child, also, but our courts can handle it. The law is always complicated. Even when laws are written clearly, courts find ways of complicating them. The fact that it would take a complicated legal framework is no reason why it can’t happen, especially when there is already a framework – mono marriage and parent/child relationships – that can be adapted.

Her second reason:

But let’s say the poly community comes up with a way of defining “poly marriage.” Then comes the price tag: It costs five bucks to file an initiative, but persuading voters to change the law in favor of poly marriage would take a lot of skillful and extremely expensive political marketing… fundraising infrastructure is key—and queers have it, poly people don’t.

Poly people definitely don’t have the infrastructure to fund a mass movement for marriage rights, can’t argue with that. But will this always be the case? There is reason to think not. For one, queers didn’t have the infrastructure 20 years ago either. Arguments for gay marriage like Virtually Normal by Andrew Sullivan were routinely dismissed as unrealistic or even undesirable. It wasn’t until homosexuality became more mainstream that the gay marriage movement started getting taken seriously, and it snowballed from there. Just because polys aren’t there yet doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Right now, the community’s goals are mostly visibility-related, but there’s no reason to believe that we’ll never get to the point where marriage is on the table.

Queers have another leg up on the poly community that may not persist: numbers. Latest estimates place the number of homosexuals in the United States at 11.7 million, or 3.5% of the population. Reliable estimates of polyamorists are harder to come by, but most estimates place the number around half a million families (which would translate to an least one million individuals) – nowhere near the 11.7 million queer Americans. However, polyamory is growing, and has the potential to grow far larger than the gay community. As poly becomes more mainstreamed (which is happening more and more every day), monogamy will become less of a default and more of a choice. There is every reason to believe that the more people who see polyamory as a viable option, the more people will prefer it as a lifestyle. Unlike homosexuality, which all evidence suggests is an inborn desire, polyamory is not a sexual orientation. There is no limit on the amount of people who will choose polyamory. As our numbers grow, so does our political power.

Mistress Matisse’s third reason:

I’m a polyamorous person who has never yearned for poly marriage…. I think romantic love that leads to deep, committed relationships is wonderful. But the romance of filing a group tax return? I’ll pass. The legal aspects aside, I’ve never been interested in sharing a household with more than one person. Frankly, even one person is a bit much sometimes…. Multiple-partner cohabitation always seemed to me like it would have all the usual relationship difficulties, plus less closet space, more scheduling headaches, and definitely more emotional processing. I am not alone in my opinion. When I remarked to a poly friend that I was writing about this topic, he quipped wryly, “Oh, right. Poly marriage: When sustaining one happy marriage just isn’t challenging enough for you!”

Just… wow. So… poly marriage is never going to happen because Mistress Matisse isn’t interested in it? I hate to be the bearer of disappointing news, but paging Mistress Matisse! You are not the spokesperson for the entire community! Your personal preference on cohabiting is fine, but it’s far from universal. I live in a house with my fiancee and my wife (and her boyfriend and his wife) and we love it! I also know other poly families who cohabitate in more than just a dyad. Your personal preference is just that – personal. It has absolutely no bearing on the likelihood or unlikelihood of poly marriage at some point in the future.

Furthermore, attitude like this (“marriage? Who needs it?”) were common in the queer community 20 years ago, when it looked like marriage was out of reach. You still find plenty of queers these days who aren’t interested in getting married, but you’ll be hard pressed to find more than a handful (aside from closeted Republicans) who don’t support the rights of all Americans to marry the person (if not persons) of their choosing. As poly marriage becomes more realistic, it will become more popular. That’s just the way of things.

Poly marriage may happen and it may not. It certainly won’t be happening in the next five years. But maybe someday. I certainly hope that it does.