Interesting Times [an opinion piece]
Jul. 11th, 2003 11:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
azekeilThis morning I watched some of Kilroy. I know, it's my own fault really. But it got me thinking. The program was about couples where someone had cheated on their partner and the discussion was about people's experiences with being taken back and given a second chance or not. A man was talking about his remorse and regret at his having an affair and wanting to be taken back.
Up until this point it had been a frank and open exchange of views, with no one jumping down anyone else's throat, people just telling their experiences.
A woman responded to this man with the opening line, "How can you love two people?"
My interest in the program abruptly switched off. Well actually that's not true - my level of empathy for the people involved nosedived. I wanted to see what they said about it. Not a lot - it was accepted implicitly by the audience in their deafening silence on the matter. Sometimes it's a shame the show's producers miss a trick by casting their nets wider to get the BIGGER picture, not just what's socially accepted as the norm. I must admit, I didn't watch the program to the end as I was already late for work.
But in any case, it got me thinking. There are fundamental flaws with monogamy. It's by definition posessive, promoting negative behaviour like jealousy. Because it's the socially accepted norm it is also the default, the ignorant choice. It puts pressure on people to 'find the right person'. It promotes a very insular and introspective style of relationship; in standard marriage vows: '..forsaking all others..'.
The woes of peer pressure continue, promoting living together as the natural next step. One that is often taken without much thought for how it will actually work; what each person's needs are, financial and emotional commitments, etc.
Now, before you get me wrong, this is not a post about monogamy bashing. I know a good few people who are in fantastic monogamous relationships. Polyamoury has a whole host of different flaws as well. For example, there are those who get swinging and polyamoury confused, much to the detriment of all concerned. Polyamoury is not the norm, it is difficult for people to accept, an uphill struggle. Polyamoury forces people to communicate. Also, because it is not the norm, it can do exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to achieve; it can close off whole sections of people. Some dismiss it out of hand as alien, but there are also those who consider it but decide it is not for them.
The legal system and businesses in this country on the whole have no concept of polyamoury let alone consideration for it in their policies. Polygamy is illegal: in some forms it would be classified as bigamy.
It can be a lot more difficult to juggle each person's needs in polyamourous relationships, leading to feelings of being left out, and the same old problems of jealousy. There is of course the issue of increased risk of STDs. Not only is there an increased risk but each person must take responsibility not just for their own health but for the health of every other person in the relationship. Many polyamourous relationships have simple ways of dealing with this.
I explored briefly the possibility of alternative living arrangements, such as a commune or some much more cohesive group than tends to be found in society today. As technology has progressed, it becomes less and less important to give back to the community in which you live as it becomes easier and easier to spend your time elsewhere. Increases in transport and further, increases in difficulty in transport have lead to the breakdown of the community as the foundation of our society. Increases in communication have also had the same effect, but have also lead to the formation of new communities, of which LiveJournal is a great example. Communities which can share similar outlooks on life, interests, attractions, and nearly the whole gamut of human interactions. Of course, this is not without downfalls. It is a lot easier to avoid any sort of responsibility for ones actions in these new-formed communities. Only those communication methods which call for an investment in time and emotional effort will be successful in promoting close-knit communities where people can interact profitably. I personally keep most of my interactions to people I can or have met, by way of increasing responsibility and thus the value of my interactions.
In the advent of diminished responsibility, it can lead to people feeling like they don't belong and they can feel overwhelmed with not being able to find a place to 'fit in' or 'settle'.
I want to consider the social, cultural and political ramifications of the perfect transport system; free teleportation. It would allow communities to interact more freely; promote much more interaction between people and cultures that wouldn't otherwise get to interact. It could open up avenues of trade and skilled working that would have been impossible before.
It also has the potential to start more and bloodier wars than ever before. Security would take on a completely different meaning, and potentially be completely unenforceable. Politics would have to be revolutionised. Countries would no longer exist. Cultures would lack the insulation to generate their cultures in the first place.
Take Britain as an example. As an island it has the world's busiest airports and a high population density for a first-world country. It has been an attractive prospect for many people of all cultures to come and live and work here. The advent of cheap and accessible transport has enabled that.
But as a result of cheap and available transport, people neglect their responsibilities to their local communities and move elsewhere or simply interact elsewhere.
If you look at any group of people today, the ones with the most individual culture and the most community responsibility are those with the least available transport and communication.
You can see the lack of responsibility manifesting itself in modern-day problems, such as increased numbers of single parents. The close-knit communities of the past would have frowned on that sort of outcome and put pressure on the roaming parent to stand up to their responsibilities. Of course, that's not to say that that was the best solution. Violence, abuse and inequality were far more rife then.
The point is that I believe that we are going through a societal and cultural revolution. I have no idea where it will end up but slowly and surely the problems faced by everything from communities right up to world politics is facing the pressures caused by increases in availability of communication and transport. Soon it will reach a point where something will snap, and it will have a cascade effect.
These are interesting times.
Up until this point it had been a frank and open exchange of views, with no one jumping down anyone else's throat, people just telling their experiences.
A woman responded to this man with the opening line, "How can you love two people?"
My interest in the program abruptly switched off. Well actually that's not true - my level of empathy for the people involved nosedived. I wanted to see what they said about it. Not a lot - it was accepted implicitly by the audience in their deafening silence on the matter. Sometimes it's a shame the show's producers miss a trick by casting their nets wider to get the BIGGER picture, not just what's socially accepted as the norm. I must admit, I didn't watch the program to the end as I was already late for work.
But in any case, it got me thinking. There are fundamental flaws with monogamy. It's by definition posessive, promoting negative behaviour like jealousy. Because it's the socially accepted norm it is also the default, the ignorant choice. It puts pressure on people to 'find the right person'. It promotes a very insular and introspective style of relationship; in standard marriage vows: '..forsaking all others..'.
The woes of peer pressure continue, promoting living together as the natural next step. One that is often taken without much thought for how it will actually work; what each person's needs are, financial and emotional commitments, etc.
Now, before you get me wrong, this is not a post about monogamy bashing. I know a good few people who are in fantastic monogamous relationships. Polyamoury has a whole host of different flaws as well. For example, there are those who get swinging and polyamoury confused, much to the detriment of all concerned. Polyamoury is not the norm, it is difficult for people to accept, an uphill struggle. Polyamoury forces people to communicate. Also, because it is not the norm, it can do exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to achieve; it can close off whole sections of people. Some dismiss it out of hand as alien, but there are also those who consider it but decide it is not for them.
The legal system and businesses in this country on the whole have no concept of polyamoury let alone consideration for it in their policies. Polygamy is illegal: in some forms it would be classified as bigamy.
It can be a lot more difficult to juggle each person's needs in polyamourous relationships, leading to feelings of being left out, and the same old problems of jealousy. There is of course the issue of increased risk of STDs. Not only is there an increased risk but each person must take responsibility not just for their own health but for the health of every other person in the relationship. Many polyamourous relationships have simple ways of dealing with this.
I explored briefly the possibility of alternative living arrangements, such as a commune or some much more cohesive group than tends to be found in society today. As technology has progressed, it becomes less and less important to give back to the community in which you live as it becomes easier and easier to spend your time elsewhere. Increases in transport and further, increases in difficulty in transport have lead to the breakdown of the community as the foundation of our society. Increases in communication have also had the same effect, but have also lead to the formation of new communities, of which LiveJournal is a great example. Communities which can share similar outlooks on life, interests, attractions, and nearly the whole gamut of human interactions. Of course, this is not without downfalls. It is a lot easier to avoid any sort of responsibility for ones actions in these new-formed communities. Only those communication methods which call for an investment in time and emotional effort will be successful in promoting close-knit communities where people can interact profitably. I personally keep most of my interactions to people I can or have met, by way of increasing responsibility and thus the value of my interactions.
In the advent of diminished responsibility, it can lead to people feeling like they don't belong and they can feel overwhelmed with not being able to find a place to 'fit in' or 'settle'.
I want to consider the social, cultural and political ramifications of the perfect transport system; free teleportation. It would allow communities to interact more freely; promote much more interaction between people and cultures that wouldn't otherwise get to interact. It could open up avenues of trade and skilled working that would have been impossible before.
It also has the potential to start more and bloodier wars than ever before. Security would take on a completely different meaning, and potentially be completely unenforceable. Politics would have to be revolutionised. Countries would no longer exist. Cultures would lack the insulation to generate their cultures in the first place.
Take Britain as an example. As an island it has the world's busiest airports and a high population density for a first-world country. It has been an attractive prospect for many people of all cultures to come and live and work here. The advent of cheap and accessible transport has enabled that.
But as a result of cheap and available transport, people neglect their responsibilities to their local communities and move elsewhere or simply interact elsewhere.
If you look at any group of people today, the ones with the most individual culture and the most community responsibility are those with the least available transport and communication.
You can see the lack of responsibility manifesting itself in modern-day problems, such as increased numbers of single parents. The close-knit communities of the past would have frowned on that sort of outcome and put pressure on the roaming parent to stand up to their responsibilities. Of course, that's not to say that that was the best solution. Violence, abuse and inequality were far more rife then.
The point is that I believe that we are going through a societal and cultural revolution. I have no idea where it will end up but slowly and surely the problems faced by everything from communities right up to world politics is facing the pressures caused by increases in availability of communication and transport. Soon it will reach a point where something will snap, and it will have a cascade effect.
These are interesting times.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 06:07 am (UTC)I'm glad I got you thinking with what I posted. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
My post covers a whole range of topics and was almost mapping of my thought process into written word. I thought it would be interesting for people to see the way in which my mind worked in this instance.
I never thought for one second I would have covered each of the mammoth topics in enough detail for my satisfaction; they are merely starting points for further conversation.. as your replies so clearly point out!
Anyway, to cover some of your points in this part:
- Polyamoury does not define a person; it merely is a way of expressing a past or present preference for a relationship structure that is not monoamoury.
- I used the example of the marriage vows when talking in the context of monogamy as supposedly the epitome of monogamy is marriage? I certainly accept however that more people nowadays choose not to engage in a legal joining.
- I said that polygamy is illegal, not polyamoury. I certainly believe people can make their own legal/financial arrangements but I was pointing out that it is not accepted/recognised by the law and businesses in general, by their lack of policies specifically including these sorts of relationships.
- I was referring to diminished responsibility in terms of peoples' interactions online, rather than in the context of polyamorous relationships. But of course, just because monogamy places more emphasis on finding 'the one', the perceived danger is that people in polyamorous relationships can and will accept lower standards in the people they choose to see. This is a double-edged sword. Perhaps you love seeing person X because of their sparkling wit. You might not want to live with them or raise children with them because your financial and emotional sides don't mesh so well but that is less of a concern because you're not asking for them to provide you with everything you want in a relationship. Often that's where [monogamous] relationships fail.
Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 07:28 am (UTC)Surely a person's make-up consists in no small part of their preferences for a particular type of relationship...a person inclined to polyamoury is not the same kind of person as one inclinedto monamoury?
Maybe I'mmissing some subtleties in your point, but I feel that everything a person thinks, says, does..their preferences, thought processes, behaviours...is what defines them as the person they are rather than someone else
Given your comment that "I certainly accept however that more people nowadays choose not to engage in a legal joining.
" I am not sure why you make such a point of the legal issues surrounding polygamy...unless, of course, you feel that your life is somehow constrained by the lack of a legal option
Personally, I feel the whole issue of legally binding relationship is irrelevant...hence the fact that I have never married...I love who I love...have a relationship with them...live with them or not, as I choose...it is no business the State*, as far as I am concened, and I do not feel the need to have my relationships validated by others...that is surely done by the quality of the relationships I have with the people concerned..from friewdship to full-blown relationship.
* or anybody else, for that matter
>the perceived danger is that people in polyamorous relationships can and will accept lower standards in the people they choose to see
Howso?..I do not see how the investment by a person in a polyamourous relationshi differs from that of a person in a monogomous one.
As I intimated, being in a monogomous relationship or even marriage, does not guarantee that all concerned make the same investment or place the same value on said relationship(s) any more or less than a polyamourous one...and the same must surely hold true the other way around.
It is not the nature of the form or number of relationships that determines a person's acceptance of lower standards, but their own personality/nature
>Perhaps you love seeing person X because of their sparkling wit. You might not want to live with them or raise children with them because your financial and emotional sides don't mesh so well but that is less of a concern because you're not asking for them to provide you with everything you want in a relationship.
I believe that is what is known as friendship, no?
>Often that's where [monogamous] relationships fail.
Yep...I agree with you on that one...but then I'm a bit of an expert on that one
Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 07:29 am (UTC)Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 07:32 am (UTC)Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 07:40 am (UTC)No, I don't personally feel a need to have my relationship(s) validated by the state or anyone else. My point was that the lack of legalities/business policies is characteristic of how little recognition/acceptance polyamory/polygamy is given.
I did say 'perceived danger' of polyamorous relationships accepting lower standards.
So a polyamorous person decides to see person X who has sparking wit. What happens when they fall in love despite their non-compatible financial/emotional situations? Is that just a close friendship? Or can we call it a relationship now? People have different styles of polyamourous relationships. I think I am in one group of people who don't believe that every single person you are in a relationship with should necessarily be a perfect mesh for you in all areas.
Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 08:12 am (UTC)What happens when a person in a monogomous relationship does the same?
What happens when these two people have no other relationships and are free to form one?
I think you're chasing ghosts here...it is not the nature of monogamy or polygamy that is the issue, but the nature of human beings and their emotions
>I think I am in one group of people who don't believe that every single person you are in a relationship with should necessarily be a perfect mesh for you in all areas.
I think that:
a) that is the norm...which is why we each have a number of friends and not just one...and still have friends even when we are in a relationship (or two)
b) this healthy approach on your part is desirable, regardless of the number relationships.
Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 08:51 am (UTC)They don't have any honest options. They can either cheat, ignore it, or end their current relationship to be with the new person.
> What happens when these two people have no other relationships and are free to form one?
Then, depending on how much of a need they feel to be in relationships and how blinded they are by their NRE they form one.
In answer to the rest of your comments, I would suggest that in some ways my personal form of polyamoury is an extension of friendships. I don't believe my relationship with someone else should (ideally) be bounded/controlled by my relationship with someone else. Of course in practise you start off slow and move towards your ideal..
Re: Part I
Date: 2003-07-11 09:23 am (UTC)I think the last two are honest option
You also ,issed theoption to forma new,polyamourous relationship with both ;->
>I would suggest that in some ways my personal form of polyamoury is an extension of friendships
I would hope that all relationships (monoamourous or polyamourous) are based on friendship...otherwise what's the point?...it's doomed to failure!