Accidental monogamy: surviving the fires of polyamory

People don’t tend to have one small set of coherent and well-understood wants and needs, easily compatible with one other person who also has their wants and needs categorized into an easily communicative format for ideal matching algorithms (not even OK Cupid’s!).  No; our needs are largely unknown, fluid, and evolving and in order to satisfy them we will usually need to have multiple outlets for them which are capable of handling the inevitable evolution of those desires.

For some, a monogamous arrangement may sufficiently satisfy both people involved.  But how can we be sure that this arrangement really does satisfy the needs of both people and is not merely a capitulation to pragmatism and lack of personal challenge?

Let’s start with a basic distinction.

What is the difference between:

    • a couple who have seriously considered and challenged what they want and subsequently arrived, accidentally, at a monogamous relationships structure which fits with what both ideally want and need.
    • a couple who have ignored, compromised, or otherwise rationalized their wants and needs to fit their relationship into the expected relationship structure in our culture due to concerns about jealousies, insecurities, and fear of social stigma?

Answer: one has survived the fires of polyamory and accidentally landed in monogamy, and the other has chosen monogamy without traversing said fires.

That is, the former didn’t create a rule of romantic or sexual exclusivity nor had they assumed monogamy via cultural defaults.  They are accidentally monogamous in that they simply have no desire to be with other people even if pursuing such a thing is permitted.  The latter type of couple cannot be sure if they are maximally satisfied with their relationship because they have not taken the issue seriously enough.  They may, in fact, be missing something potentially wonderful for the sake of pragmatism or insecurity.

In order to be sure that the monogamous arrangement is actually satisfying the wants and needs of both individuals (hence not needing to even create an exclusivity rule because neither partner is interested in straying) one has to address the issue of polyamory.

All too often, the idea of sacrifice, compromise, and repression of certain desires is chosen in place of satisfaction (or at last the attempt of such) of what we want to have.  Many people convince themselves that a relationship with one person is not only a better path to take, but it is more intimate and meaningful one.

That is, quite frankly, not only a myth but it is absurd and irrational.  We need to allow ourselves to explore who we are, if we care to find out, by traveling the paths that will allow us to do so best.  We cannot limit ourselves, based upon social expectations, to learning slowly and inefficiently lessons which will, be invaluable to us.

Calculating the probabilities

Monogamy is logically possible as a means to satisfying all the the wants and needs of two people.  In such cases where this is the case, I applaud the work that was needed and done in order to ensure that certainty, because such certainty cannot be achieved merely through assumption, cultural default relationship progression, or lack of honest communication about needs, goals, etc.

But something being logically possible does not tell us how likely it is.  So, how likely is it that two people would be ideally happy with only one romantic/sexual partner?

The specific sets of desires, personalities, and capabilities which would need to exist in two people will be highly unlikely to ideally math up.  This, compounded by the necessity that each person will have done the essential personal work to know what they need and want from themselves and others makes the matching up, in time, space, and single-ness, highly unlikely.  Also, they need to actually meet.

How I might actually calculate such probabilities, whether with some Bayesian analysis or by some other means, is beyond my ability to do.  First of all, I am not an expert in probability or statistics.  Secondly, I don’t know all the relevant factors or how to weigh them against each-other.  Thirdly, I don’t think that actual probabilities is necessary to make the general point; it seems highly unlikely.

And yet, monogamy is rampant.  My conclusion is that the vast majority of monogamous relationships are not ideally healthy, at least from the point of view of them not satisfying all the wants and needs of the people involved.  Perhaps not everyone shares the value of satisfying our wants and needs above social pragmatism, or something, but either way I think that the world has something to gain by addressing the issue of non-monogamy as a means of making our relationships better.

By putting ourselves through the difficult challenges of figuring out what we want, what others want, and allowing ourselves to find monogamy by accident rather than default, I think much can be learned and our relationships will be better, whether monogamous or polyamorous, for everyone.