Monogamous norms, poly norms
Truth be told, from where I sit in Orange County, California, I’m not seeing a huge groundswell of support for “open marriage,” or polyamory, or anything of the kind. So why bring it up now? Mainly because Family Scholars and Marriage Debate about polyamory/polygamy, and because Stanley Kurtz sees a dangerous slippery slope in an odd sort of triple union in the Netherlands, where one man and two women formed a “cohabitation contract.”
Now, it may well be the case that polyamory is gaining public support in the Netherlands. I wouldn’t know, not being up on Dutch culture. All I do know is it sure is far out of the mainstream in Orange County. But what I want to talk about right now is not the Netherlands, or the law either there or here, or the slippery slope. What I want to talk about is the matter of norms, and how marriage is a matter of cultural expectations, as much as a matter of law, and what the difference is between a world of monogamy-friendly cultural expectations, and a world of polyamory-friendly cultural expectations.
Here’s what our world looks like now: Back when I was in college, I once helped a guy out with a problem he was having at the computer center, and he invited me out for coffee. At the coffee house, he proceeded to tell me about his marriage – a marriage which, he said, was purely for immigration purposes. I could see where this was leading, and inwardly marvelled that he expected me to go for this line, but I was young, and polite, and did nothing more overt than politely excusing myself after a little while. Later I told a friend, and he – as well he should have done – was at pains to urge me not to have anything to do with the guy with the marriage which supposedly didn’t give him any reason not to play the field. Most of us look with suspicion on men who claim to have marriages that allow for a bit on the side. Most of us urge our friends to look with suspicion on such men.
Here’s another possible set of norms: Some time ago, a guy wrote to kinky sex advice columnist Dan Savage (that’s “kinky sex advice columnist” as in “mostly advises people about kinky sex” – I have no idea how kinky Savage himself is in his preferences). This guy was from some Middle Eastern country, and was revelling in the greater sexual opportunities of his new home in Canada. Only problem was, the woman he’d been flirting with online turned out to be married. She was inviting him to meet her in person; should he go? And Savage basically said, well, her marriage might well be an open one; it was a matter between her and her husband. Now, I love reading Dan Savage, and find him usually entertaining, and sometimes even dead right, but there’s no way on earth that I want our cultural marriage norms to work like this.
Occasionally, I’ve run into someone from a poly friendly subculture, extolling the virtues of open relationships. And the argument will be put forth that, after all, you can always tell people that you’re monogamous, if that’s your thing. Um, no. I don’t want to be expected to go around telling people that I’m monogamous; I want my ring and marriage license to already tell them that such was my likely intention. And even more likely my husband’s expectation. Part of the value of being married is that I’m asking people to help bind me to a promise when the going gets tough, to help me make it work. Not chain me so firmly to that promise that I’d be told I’d made my bed and needed to lie in it if Joel were actually abusive. But surely bind me enough that it’s not left to be purely my own personal business if I lie to him and cheat on him.
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:54 pm
What obligation does society have to “help bind you to a promise” between you and someone else? And even if it does, just how does *other people’s* occasional polyamory and/or open marriages, threaten the particular promises you have made? (And in fact, it is only occasional. There’s never all that many people who really want to do this, but always a few.) When I hung out with certain certain early net communities, I’d occasionally see a female hacker openly living with two boyfriends/husbands, presumably an accommodation to the gender imbalance within that community. And yes, there were “open” pairings too — the important point is that in each case, the partners sat down and agreed to their rules. There’s little in common between that and cheating.
To be blunt: How does other people’s polyamory et al “break your leg or pick your pocket”? And how does the existance of non-traditional marriages interfere with traditional marriages? I’ve never heard a bride and groom vow “to enforce the expectations of society”, nor close with “until not enough people care about this monogamy stuff”.;-)
December 23rd, 2005 at 5:47 pm
I think some sort of obligation of others to help bind us to the promises is implicit in:
1) The fact that the promises are made publically.
2) In a church (or, in my case, a Quaker meeting), which has often put you through a process of discernment or counselling before even agreeing to witness your marriage.
3) Then presented to the world with all sorts of public signs (rings, etc).
Obviously the degree to which “society” is expected to bind us to the promises varies – I expect active support from my Quaker meeting and from my family, while from other people, I may want no more than *not actively interfering* with my keeping of promises I’ve publically made.
Why is there an obligation? In large part, because those promises help build a space in which people can readily raise children together. In another part, because a world in which people can make commitments and get public support for them (have it understood that marriage means you get to put your sick spouse before any other obligation you might have, etc.) is part of the value that marriage provides to people, and having people who are personally obligated to care for each other when ill, etc. is part of the value that marriage provides to the rest of the world.
Now, other people’s *occasional* polyamory doesn’t do a whole heck of a lot to my marriage, one way or the other. It doesn’t pick my pocket, nor is there any reason for me to go out and interfere with them, as long as it’s occasional and rare (as it is, in fact, now). It may be a sin, God may not prefer it, most churches may not choose to bless it, but there are lots of sins one is better off spending time on preventing. (All this assuming I’m not in a relationship with the people involved which would invite my comment – if the minister of some small Baptist church comes out as openly polyamorous, he can darn well expect flack from his congregation.) Because, as it stands, said polyamory *is* occasional, and people pretty much have to jump through hoops to convince prospective partners that yes, it really is OK with the spouse.
What *would* pick my pocket, and interfere with my marriage, would be a world in which the default assumption for marriage weren’t monogamy, one in which whether you really meant to be monogamous were up for grabs at each social gathering where you might meet an attractive person. And that *would*, yes, lead to far more cheating than open pairings, because the number of people who mean initially to be monogamous, and promise such, but later slip when tempted, far outnumbers the number of couples who truly want to negotiate open relationships (especially in the straight world). In fact, though I’ve heard of open relationships which were negotiated in advance and where everyone professed to be happy with them (and even know of one such blogging couple now), what I’ve encountered more often is relationships that open up only because they have to, when one person starts sleeping with someone else and neither is quite willing to break up. It seems to me that such is the world toward which Kurtz wants to argue we are sliding (though from here in Orange County, it looks like a distant prospect).
Obviously, there’s a huge possible continuum here, ranging from “I disapprove so much that I’ll even dump on a spouse for forgiving a spouse’s adultery” to “if two people disagree on whether to have an open marriage, I’ll side with the one who wants to open up the marriage, and argue that the other should give way.” I’d say that, in a world where marriage generally involves vows of fidelity, and where only a small minority are willing to tolerate a spouse sleeping with someone else, the continuum of social expectation should at least rest at a point where it’s presumed that people have to go out of their way to convince you that their spouse really is OK with a poly relationship. As they do now.
The issues in *legal* recognition of polygamy get more complex; there you get into varies issues, from the complexity of changes to marriage laws, to issues of very young women in certain subcultures being pressured into polygamous marriages to men, to the question of what would constitute consent to a polygamous marriage (would all previous spouses need to consent? would there need to be a higher age of consent for poly marriages? would you have a stronger need to maintain very free access to no fault divorce, so that people could get out of poly marriages they had found they didn’t like?).
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:10 pm
“one in which whether you really meant to be monogamous were up for grabs at each social gathering where you might meet an attractive person. And that *would*, yes, lead to far more cheating than open pairings,”
Sappho, as my prior comment suggested, I’ve hung with some pretty wild folks, but I’ll add now that damn few of them couldn’t take a no. If it’s cheating on *your* end, then it’s your responsibility to at least say as much and refrain from making passes at people. If your vows are too fragile to face mere opportunity, work on the vows. And yes, I’ve been told, “Sorry I’m taken” enough times myself, just as a single guy, and always took it for a full stop.
Regarding legal structuring of group marriages, Robert Heinlein described several versions in different novels, notably _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_, and Number_Of The_Beast_) (I feel like I’m forgetting another one…) There are also the “water circles” from _Stranger In a Strange Land_, which had some common features with marriage. The simplest equitable scheme is probably some sort of private corporation, with shares reflecting personal franchise, financial investment and “sweat equity”.
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:21 pm
“it’s presumed that people have to go out of their way to convince you that their spouse really is OK with a poly relationship. As they do now.”
The “proper” poly response to that would be to introduce you to the spouse. (If it’s just a ONS, they didn’t “have to” tell you about their partner in the first place!)
Also, Child marriage and abuse is already covered (diversely) by state law. Why should those change for groups?
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Why child marriage would change for groups is that current state laws allow some awfully young ages for marriage with parental consent (and parents in patriarchal-style polygamy are part of the problem, not a reason to slacken up on the marriage age).
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:40 pm
As for married people (regular old monogamous marriage agreement) making passes, of course they’re always more at fault than whoever they may wind up sleeping with. The person who actually makes the vow has got to be more gravely wrong than the person who only knew about it (for which reason I’ve always seen the attitude that blames “the other woman” more than a philandering husband as odd). But it does seem weird to me to treat a public (and publically encouraged and sanctioned) vow as if it were a purely personal preference, which isn’t really anyone else’s business except in so far as you’re supposed to respect “no” as “no.”
December 24th, 2005 at 12:20 am
I wonder if as polyamory becomes more mainstream (assuming it will), if there will evolve customs that may speak to your concern, Lynn. I’m thinking mostly of some development of the wedding ring as sign of unavailability. Maybe a certain kind of ring or way of wearing it could be a sign for monogamy (or a closed poly relationship, it amounts to the same thing), and another kind for open relationships…
December 24th, 2005 at 9:52 am
“I’ve always seen the attitude that blames “the other woman†more than a philandering husband as odd”
This is perhaps the Hera archetype. Hera was the queen of the Greek Gods, infamous for her abuse of her husband Zeus’s mortal mistresses. A more modern, “feminist”, verison of the archetype purports to consider the husband as almost a toy for some interloper to pick up. Of course, the latter more or less mirror-images the usual Bronze-Age view of women, but either way it’s not too complimentary!
Zach: The “sign for monogamy” is established, and not going anywhere. It’s up to the polyamorists to come up with any signs they want. The question is, exactly what *you’re* trying to “mark off” here? Are you just looking for a sign saying, “this person will never, EVER, show sexual interest in you?” Sorry, but that’s not how adult life works (certain religious orders notwithstanding, maybe).
December 24th, 2005 at 11:15 am
I don’t know that I’d count on any religious orders as a guarantee of lack of sexual interest, either
.
December 24th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Dave: I wasn’t suggesting that the “sign for monogamy” would necessarily have to go anywhere.
I’m just suggesting that something similar but not identical could end up emerging, as a way to signify something similar (e.g. I am in a committed-for-life relationship) but not identical (e.g. that relationship is not necessarily exclusive) to monogamy. Like, instead of a band on the ring finger, a band on another finger. Or a not fully closed/circular band.
December 25th, 2005 at 7:40 am
Zach, let my try to rephrase my question here: Why is it important to *you*, that any passing polyamorists let you know that whatever relationships they have are “open”, before you’ve even struck up a conversation? At best, this sounds like a “scarlet letter”. Or are you assuming that because they’re not monogamous, they *have* to “consider all offers”?
December 25th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Dave: No, I think you’re totally misunderstanding me… it’s not important to me whether people signal their relationship status, actually — I just enjoy speculating about future trends in sexuality and relationships.
If a person wants to communicate to the world that they are “taken” by some signal like a wedding band, great, though I don’t think they have to. If any poly people want to communicate an analogous thing to the world, also great, though again I’m not saying they have to. I’m completely comfortable with just having to learn what each person’s deal is the old fashioned way (i.e. asking them or picking up on things they say).
December 26th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Not to put too fine a point on it, the entire point of a wedding ceremony, according to no less than Judith Martin / Miss Manners, is to involve the community in the couple’s business. As she quipped “there’s nothing two people can do with a marriage license that they can’t do just as well without.”
The third paper I ever wrote in college (and thus maybe only the fourth or fifth paper I wrote, ever, since I was a very poor high-school student) was about my search for the origins of the word “community.” (I’d picked that word for an introductory social theory class because at the time, just before Reagan was elected, it was the informal term of choice for interest groups large and small.) It proved to be terribly difficult. The only real, non-equivocal definition I found was in the big Catholic encyclopedia which said, roughly, that a “community” is a group of people who create a shared space for families to raise their children. Finally, historically anyway, marriages were at least as much about community continuity as a personal bond — and still in many parts of the world adultery is considered at least as much an offence against the family as against individuals.
Anyway, I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea that marriage vows are at least as much public promises as private ones. (This in no way diminishes my respect for those private promises.) Consequently I have no problem with the idea that others can help us enforce them.
I do sort of want to challenge the idea of marriage as a way to fend off unwanted advances. One’s ability to say no without discomfort or fear should be independent of marital status.
Finally, I would agree that a ring on the wedding finger ought to be at least an invitation for greater diplomacy although even then it’s not an ironclad signifier — many people continue to wear them after their marriage has been dissolved through divorce or death and some just wear them for decoration.
Thanks, Lynn,
figleaf
December 27th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Zach: OK, sorry if I sounded harsh. Part of my energy there was coming from something Figleaf summarized much more gently: “challenge the idea of marriage as a way to fend off unwanted advances. One’s ability to say no without discomfort or fear should be independent of marital status.”
In fact I don’t think there “ever” will be a “universal” sign for polyamory, on several counts:
(1) there aren’t enough such people, especially *outside* the “alternative communities”, to maintain a contiguous subculture.
(2) there are too many possibilities to easily communicate. Consider the “hankie codes” of gay cruisers, where some of the basic codes were widely recognized, but others varied from place to place.
(3) there’s good reason not to make an early point of non-standard sexuality unless you *are* in an alternative-friendly environment, and if you are, the usual *local* IDs will suffice. One major point of the hankie codes, was that the hankie could disappear instantly, upon sight of square or scumbag.
(4) Ditto for hanging out *any* sign to the effect of “I’m cruising”. Notice how nothing like that ever caught on among the “straight” crowd?
December 28th, 2005 at 7:17 am
Only a man could say that he has encountered few potential sexual partners who couldn’t take a no. Even in the most casual of encounters a woman frequently needs to repeat that no, often many times.
The ability to say no should be independent of marital status, yes, but what’s wrong with wanting to signal that no in a general way rather than having to speak it again and again?
I have in fact heard from many women that an engagement ring actually *increases* the amount they get “hit on” by male acquaintances.
December 29th, 2005 at 5:41 am
Jean: that’s not quite what I said, in that I was talking specifically about the LMNOP crowd that I used to hang out with. Their takes on consent were a good deal more advanced than the “mainstream”. In other comments elsewhere, I breifly discuss the “pushing” aspect of hetero courtship; for this discussion, suffice to say, that I’ve dealt with an irritating number of women who wound up going home with the pushier guy instead of me.