On Polyamory, Sex, and Intimacy
Friend of the blog Liz Bruenig directed my attention to this article by Geoffrey Miller, discussing polyamory. I've been thinking about this topic for a while, and this was the spur to put thoughts to electronic paper. One thing about the article is, I think, inarguable--this topic is going to be with us for a long time to come, and is going to be more and more prominent in time. Dr. Miller's article is a serious and thoughtful piece, and it deserves to be taking seriously and thoughtfully, which I hope to do here.
Before getting into my views--and I know this is obnoxious, but please bear with me--I want to lay down a few markers. First, my position is that marriage is fundamentally a human institution. I recognize that this is a controversial position, especially among Christians of a moderate to conservative orientation (of which I consider myself, whether or not others would consider me so). But I think that if you look at the concrete "facts on the ground" of the relationships that have been swept under the umbrella of "marriage," I think it is clear that marriage is deeply culturally conditioned (even determined), in a way that makes it impossible to come up with a single ontological definition of what marriage is. (I also happen to think this view is consistent with Christian thinking, especially in the First Millennium, but that is outside the scope of this post). And, because I think it is culturally conditioned, I cannot a priori exclude the idea that polyamory of the sort identified by Dr. Miller is beyond the pale, even for Christians. Said another way, if you want to make an argument against polyamory, I think you have to do it on the merits, not be simply excluding it from the jump.
Second, I think it is important to bracket from this discussion fundamentalist Mormon communities, a slice of Islamic society, some traditional African cultures, and other examples of self-conscious polygamy--arrangements where only men are allowed to have multiple partners (I suppose I would also exclude polygyny, though I admit I haven't given that much thought). I think this is important for two reasons. One, whatever the virtues and vices of those arrangements (and, for the record, I think those arrangements are bad), they are a different thing from what we are discussing here, as the dimension of an inherent gender imbalance changes the game in a fundamental way. Two, I think bringing up those examples is too often used as an example of "whataboutism," and a way to avoid dealing with the issue. I take Dr. Miller to be arguing for a relationship model that is founded on gender egalitarianism, and I think it should be approached from that perspective.
Last for the prelude, Dr. Miller seems to treat "swinging" and polyamory as essentially the same thing. I will confess that I am fundamentally ignorant in this area, but as a lay person I interpret swinging as couples engaging in what is essentially casual sex (albeit in a structured context), while polyamory is more about permanent relationships with a sexual dimension. In that sense, I wouldn't really consider these two things the same (as I get to below), but maybe I am just misinformed here.
OK, let's get to the heart of things, and talk a little bit about how we got here. As I see it, the Western marriage/pairing model we inherited (prior to the Sexual Revolution, or the 20s--pick your timeframe) had two major principles and one minor principle. The first major principle is that marriage is an economic transaction, reflecting the limited prospects for women--men became obligated to support their female partner economically, because they could not really support themselves. Second, there was an expectation of sexual exclusivity and fidelity, primarily (as Dr. Miller notes) in order to provide a child-rearing environment, and to try to limit sexual rivalry and disruption. The minor premise was what you might call the "romantic ideal"--the idea that marriage was an expression of love, and was a protected space for two people to meet their personal and emotional needs. The last one was always there, but I think it was always subordinate to the other two, and was subject to greater or lesser emphasis in different contexts and situations.
We now are in a place where the first major premise has either been demoted to minor premise status, or even removed from consideration completely. This is, to be clear, a good thing, as the old way is grounded on a structural injustice, and has all sorts of perverse follow-on effects. But, nevertheless, marriage is no longer really an economic transaction (in the sense that one party needs to be married for economic reasons). In its place, the romantic ideal has been elevated to primary status, and is generally now seen as the prime reason people get married. Meanwhile the exclusivity and fidelity ideal stuck around, somewhat unmoored from its original rationale.
The problem with the way this has played out is that the sexual exclusivity has bled into, and even "turbocharged," the romantic ideal. Now, not only is the idea that marriage and other exclusive relationships are about love, intimacy, and companionship, but that they are, or should be, the exclusive source of love, intimacy, and companionship in someone's life (excluding, perhaps, one's children and/or immediate family members). In my experience, this problem is especially acute with men--while I have quibbles with this article, I think the basic thesis that a culture which stigmatizes male emotions and male emotional expressions ends up making men's partners the exclusive outlet for a man's affective life is true. In addition, the arrow also flows in the other direction, creating a situation where the culture basically views sexual relationships as the only relationships that matter and are worthy of discussion. So, marriage/long-term partnerships are the only relationships that matter, in large measure because they are supposed to provide for all of your needs.
As I read the arguments in favor of polyamory, I think they are in significant measure reacting to the first part of the problem. When the pro-polyamory crowd says "no one person can meet all of your needs," I think they are 100% right, and I think they are making a very important and necessary critique of monogamy as it is often lived in our culture. If you expect your spouse or your partner to be the singular place to go for affection, emotional support, and companionship, you are off to bad start. I think we have expanded the scope of marriage in the lives of the partners in a way that it really can't bear. The solution, it seems to me, is to work to create a culture where it is normal to have not just casual friends, but a handful of partners with whom one has genuine intimacy in the broadest sense.
But, to put a finer point on it--is it necessary to have sex with those people with whom one is intimate? Because it seems to be that the polyamory advocates have swallowed entirely the cultural expectation that the only meaningful relationships are sexual ones. If you look at the structure of Dr. Miller's article, he identifies the problems with monogamy that are grounded in the restrictive affective horizon allegedly (and, again, I think correctly) caused by monogamy, and then proceeds immediately to having sex with other people as the solution to the problem. It's just assumed that A leads inevitably to B, that you can't be intimate without having sex. I simply don't agree, and I think it is part of the problem that the polyamory folks otherwise have a good handle on.
Now, you might say, "well, OK, but why not have sex with people with whom you have an emotional connection with?" For one thing, it is not necessarily the case that sexual attraction and emotional connection are correlated. As one example, there could be an orientation mismatch--I am blessed with a couple of very close male friends whom I would describe as "intimates" in the sense I'm talking about here, and whom I am not sexually attracted to because I am straight. But, even if one would be attracted to someone in theory, it doesn't mean that one will be, and it doesn't mean that this non-attraction translates into unsuitability as a companion and intimate. And if the interaction is explicitly sexual from the jump, the first filter is likely to be sexual attraction, which will screen these people out. It seems to me that predicating this on sex, and thus sexual attraction, limits the pool of people in a way that runs counter to the broader goals of the polyamory advocates.
But, even if you can find lots of folks that you are both emotionally and sexually attracted to, I think that there is wisdom at the heart of the monogamous ideal, defined narrowly. This is an outsiders perspective, as I have no personal experience in this area, but my default reaction to these polyamory stories is exhaustion. And this exhaustion is at its maximum when looking at what Dr. Miller sees as a key feature of polyamory, the prospect of never leaving the "dating pool." I understand that this is personal, but I don't think it's unique to me--the idea of having a partner with whom one enjoys and can count on having sex with on a more or less consistent basis, without having to ever again deal with dating, is for me absolutely a feature and not a bug of monogamy. Dr. Miller is of course right that it brings with it a certain measure of laziness, but that to me is a problem that can be overcome, and in no way is a reason to essentially voluntarily jump back into the dating process, a process I think sucks and has always sucked for me. Truthfully, in a world where it were somehow an ironclad norm that everyone where polyamorous, I would probably give a polite "no thanks," wish my partner well on her adventures, and read a book or something.
Also, and perhaps more universally, negotiating a sexual relationship is inherently complex, and negotiating multiple sexual relationships seems complex on a exponential scale. Once again I am speaking as an outsider, but I remain skeptical that these multiple vector relationships can be negotiated in a way that doesn't cause them to break down under their own complexity, or eventually distill down to one "real" relationship and an array of people with whom one has essentially casual sex. And this is where I get to the swinging/polyamory distinction. I can see how a couple could compartmentalize their sex lives in a way such that their swinging activities don't get in the way of the rest of their lives, but I don't really see how swinging addresses the broader affective problems with monogamy. In contrast, I can see clearly how polyamorous relationships, defined into terms of deep emotional connections, addresses the problems with monogamy, but I don't see how one can really make that work in practice. The sexual dimension either seems beside the point, or an active impediment to accomplishing the point.
It is not my place to define the agenda for the polyamory movement, and its pretty clear (at least from Dr. Miller's presentation) that having sex with other people is an essential part of the vision. But, as an outsider, it would be a shame if the critique of the institution of marriage and pairing as we have it that the polyamory advocates are making gets swallowed up in a discussion of sex. While sex is important, it's not everything, and I think it's centrality in people's lives has been exaggerated by our culture (equally in its conservative and progressive branches). And I think the polyamory advocates have fallen into that trap. "Polyamory without sex" might be a weird slogan, but it is basically my position.
Before getting into my views--and I know this is obnoxious, but please bear with me--I want to lay down a few markers. First, my position is that marriage is fundamentally a human institution. I recognize that this is a controversial position, especially among Christians of a moderate to conservative orientation (of which I consider myself, whether or not others would consider me so). But I think that if you look at the concrete "facts on the ground" of the relationships that have been swept under the umbrella of "marriage," I think it is clear that marriage is deeply culturally conditioned (even determined), in a way that makes it impossible to come up with a single ontological definition of what marriage is. (I also happen to think this view is consistent with Christian thinking, especially in the First Millennium, but that is outside the scope of this post). And, because I think it is culturally conditioned, I cannot a priori exclude the idea that polyamory of the sort identified by Dr. Miller is beyond the pale, even for Christians. Said another way, if you want to make an argument against polyamory, I think you have to do it on the merits, not be simply excluding it from the jump.
Second, I think it is important to bracket from this discussion fundamentalist Mormon communities, a slice of Islamic society, some traditional African cultures, and other examples of self-conscious polygamy--arrangements where only men are allowed to have multiple partners (I suppose I would also exclude polygyny, though I admit I haven't given that much thought). I think this is important for two reasons. One, whatever the virtues and vices of those arrangements (and, for the record, I think those arrangements are bad), they are a different thing from what we are discussing here, as the dimension of an inherent gender imbalance changes the game in a fundamental way. Two, I think bringing up those examples is too often used as an example of "whataboutism," and a way to avoid dealing with the issue. I take Dr. Miller to be arguing for a relationship model that is founded on gender egalitarianism, and I think it should be approached from that perspective.
Last for the prelude, Dr. Miller seems to treat "swinging" and polyamory as essentially the same thing. I will confess that I am fundamentally ignorant in this area, but as a lay person I interpret swinging as couples engaging in what is essentially casual sex (albeit in a structured context), while polyamory is more about permanent relationships with a sexual dimension. In that sense, I wouldn't really consider these two things the same (as I get to below), but maybe I am just misinformed here.
OK, let's get to the heart of things, and talk a little bit about how we got here. As I see it, the Western marriage/pairing model we inherited (prior to the Sexual Revolution, or the 20s--pick your timeframe) had two major principles and one minor principle. The first major principle is that marriage is an economic transaction, reflecting the limited prospects for women--men became obligated to support their female partner economically, because they could not really support themselves. Second, there was an expectation of sexual exclusivity and fidelity, primarily (as Dr. Miller notes) in order to provide a child-rearing environment, and to try to limit sexual rivalry and disruption. The minor premise was what you might call the "romantic ideal"--the idea that marriage was an expression of love, and was a protected space for two people to meet their personal and emotional needs. The last one was always there, but I think it was always subordinate to the other two, and was subject to greater or lesser emphasis in different contexts and situations.
We now are in a place where the first major premise has either been demoted to minor premise status, or even removed from consideration completely. This is, to be clear, a good thing, as the old way is grounded on a structural injustice, and has all sorts of perverse follow-on effects. But, nevertheless, marriage is no longer really an economic transaction (in the sense that one party needs to be married for economic reasons). In its place, the romantic ideal has been elevated to primary status, and is generally now seen as the prime reason people get married. Meanwhile the exclusivity and fidelity ideal stuck around, somewhat unmoored from its original rationale.
The problem with the way this has played out is that the sexual exclusivity has bled into, and even "turbocharged," the romantic ideal. Now, not only is the idea that marriage and other exclusive relationships are about love, intimacy, and companionship, but that they are, or should be, the exclusive source of love, intimacy, and companionship in someone's life (excluding, perhaps, one's children and/or immediate family members). In my experience, this problem is especially acute with men--while I have quibbles with this article, I think the basic thesis that a culture which stigmatizes male emotions and male emotional expressions ends up making men's partners the exclusive outlet for a man's affective life is true. In addition, the arrow also flows in the other direction, creating a situation where the culture basically views sexual relationships as the only relationships that matter and are worthy of discussion. So, marriage/long-term partnerships are the only relationships that matter, in large measure because they are supposed to provide for all of your needs.
As I read the arguments in favor of polyamory, I think they are in significant measure reacting to the first part of the problem. When the pro-polyamory crowd says "no one person can meet all of your needs," I think they are 100% right, and I think they are making a very important and necessary critique of monogamy as it is often lived in our culture. If you expect your spouse or your partner to be the singular place to go for affection, emotional support, and companionship, you are off to bad start. I think we have expanded the scope of marriage in the lives of the partners in a way that it really can't bear. The solution, it seems to me, is to work to create a culture where it is normal to have not just casual friends, but a handful of partners with whom one has genuine intimacy in the broadest sense.
But, to put a finer point on it--is it necessary to have sex with those people with whom one is intimate? Because it seems to be that the polyamory advocates have swallowed entirely the cultural expectation that the only meaningful relationships are sexual ones. If you look at the structure of Dr. Miller's article, he identifies the problems with monogamy that are grounded in the restrictive affective horizon allegedly (and, again, I think correctly) caused by monogamy, and then proceeds immediately to having sex with other people as the solution to the problem. It's just assumed that A leads inevitably to B, that you can't be intimate without having sex. I simply don't agree, and I think it is part of the problem that the polyamory folks otherwise have a good handle on.
Now, you might say, "well, OK, but why not have sex with people with whom you have an emotional connection with?" For one thing, it is not necessarily the case that sexual attraction and emotional connection are correlated. As one example, there could be an orientation mismatch--I am blessed with a couple of very close male friends whom I would describe as "intimates" in the sense I'm talking about here, and whom I am not sexually attracted to because I am straight. But, even if one would be attracted to someone in theory, it doesn't mean that one will be, and it doesn't mean that this non-attraction translates into unsuitability as a companion and intimate. And if the interaction is explicitly sexual from the jump, the first filter is likely to be sexual attraction, which will screen these people out. It seems to me that predicating this on sex, and thus sexual attraction, limits the pool of people in a way that runs counter to the broader goals of the polyamory advocates.
But, even if you can find lots of folks that you are both emotionally and sexually attracted to, I think that there is wisdom at the heart of the monogamous ideal, defined narrowly. This is an outsiders perspective, as I have no personal experience in this area, but my default reaction to these polyamory stories is exhaustion. And this exhaustion is at its maximum when looking at what Dr. Miller sees as a key feature of polyamory, the prospect of never leaving the "dating pool." I understand that this is personal, but I don't think it's unique to me--the idea of having a partner with whom one enjoys and can count on having sex with on a more or less consistent basis, without having to ever again deal with dating, is for me absolutely a feature and not a bug of monogamy. Dr. Miller is of course right that it brings with it a certain measure of laziness, but that to me is a problem that can be overcome, and in no way is a reason to essentially voluntarily jump back into the dating process, a process I think sucks and has always sucked for me. Truthfully, in a world where it were somehow an ironclad norm that everyone where polyamorous, I would probably give a polite "no thanks," wish my partner well on her adventures, and read a book or something.
Also, and perhaps more universally, negotiating a sexual relationship is inherently complex, and negotiating multiple sexual relationships seems complex on a exponential scale. Once again I am speaking as an outsider, but I remain skeptical that these multiple vector relationships can be negotiated in a way that doesn't cause them to break down under their own complexity, or eventually distill down to one "real" relationship and an array of people with whom one has essentially casual sex. And this is where I get to the swinging/polyamory distinction. I can see how a couple could compartmentalize their sex lives in a way such that their swinging activities don't get in the way of the rest of their lives, but I don't really see how swinging addresses the broader affective problems with monogamy. In contrast, I can see clearly how polyamorous relationships, defined into terms of deep emotional connections, addresses the problems with monogamy, but I don't see how one can really make that work in practice. The sexual dimension either seems beside the point, or an active impediment to accomplishing the point.
It is not my place to define the agenda for the polyamory movement, and its pretty clear (at least from Dr. Miller's presentation) that having sex with other people is an essential part of the vision. But, as an outsider, it would be a shame if the critique of the institution of marriage and pairing as we have it that the polyamory advocates are making gets swallowed up in a discussion of sex. While sex is important, it's not everything, and I think it's centrality in people's lives has been exaggerated by our culture (equally in its conservative and progressive branches). And I think the polyamory advocates have fallen into that trap. "Polyamory without sex" might be a weird slogan, but it is basically my position.
Comments