What does monogamy look like?
I got that question, phrased precisely that way, from a friend recently. He wasn’t asking for a definition, and he wasn’t asking for a defense of the institution. He was asking about living it out in practice.
I told my friend I wasn’t necessarily the best person to ask; though long a defender of the principle, until well into my thirties I proved capable of honoring monogamy only in the breach. Fidelity didn’t come naturally to me, something I’ve noted before. My friend told me that this was precisely why he was asking who it was he was asking — I had a “before and after” story he found moderately compelling, and he trusted that my relationship with my wife today is as it appears to be: faithful on both sides.
I’ve touched on this issue before in various posts, but I’ll summarize a bit today. First off, monogamy needs a positive definition. It can’t be summed up by what one doesn’t do with other people. I’ve never liked the “I’m monogamous because when I’m in a relationship I’m not sexual with other people” stance, not because I disagree with the statement, but because it’s far too limiting. Monogamy is about where we direct our physical and emotional and sexual energy, and not just where we don’t. In other words, monogamy is as much about single-minded devotion to one other person as it is about scrupulously avoiding sex (or emotional affairs) with others. If the energy isn’t flowing towards our partner, then we can’t claim we’re really monogamous if all we’re doing is keeping it bottled up. Monogamy and sexual self-denial are very different beasts.
Bottom line: monogamy is as much about how I love my wife as it is about how I don’t express that particular kind of love to others. It is defined by intensity as much as by exclusivity. That intensity has waxed and waned over our nearly eight years together; it has been profoundly impacted by the birth of our daughter. But it remains more than shared bank accounts and parenting duties and the enduring pledge not to be sexual or romantic with others. Our relationship is, at its core, a contract of mutual support and a pledge to act as a relentless catalyst for the other’s growth. And if you know me, or you know my wife, you know just how relentless we can be.
I am definitely someone who feels more inclined to a monogamous relationship, but what is your opinion on polyamory and polygamy? (And by those, I mean the more ideal form than what most modern cultures understand them to be – among consenting equal individuals, etc.) Can the single-minded devotion that one person devotes to several people be equal in kind to the type that one devotes to one? Does intensity and exclusivity have to be so tightly proportional?
I’ve found the heuristic of actively channeling all relationship energies towards one’s partner a useful way of dis-empowering any temptation I might have to flirt with others.
The required single-mindedness does remind me that there are multiple aspects to faithfulness. I believe that just not sleeping with (and avoiding emotional bonding) with other people doesn’t meet the requirement of full fidelity. I think it is necessary to mindful in order to keep that promise to love and honour the partnership in all ways.
I wonder if this is perhaps the distinction that some make when they talk about the difference between loving someone and being “in love” with that person.
Interesting.
What about a couple where one or both of the partners have very demanding careers? If I am a lawyer or surgeon or something equally involved, and I am very busy and focused on that career while remaining married/partnered and do NOT physically or emotionally get involved with another person…..but I don’t spend the majority of time focused on my partner….am I then not mono? What if the time spent on the partner is full and focused? What if we’ve been together for 20 years happy with the system? Still not mono?
If you place your standard of single mindedness on most modern relationships, would we find very few truly mono relationships?
I agree that it is extremely important to place the loved one in the highest esteem, to partner with them and focus on them, act as a catalyst for their growth, as you say. But I think there are a great deal of ambitious, driven people who might not fall under your standard, yet who are content with their relationship.
Then again, I am more poly than mono (philosophically at least) so I tend to disagree with much of what you write. I like what you write, I just tend to disagree with it.
I think that humans are actually best described as serial monogamists, in love with variety and stimulation, while still enjoying some general consistency. I don’t think one size of relationship fits all. I also think that one can indeed have an emotional (non physical) love affair and have it be healthy.
Pingback: Quick Links « Gerry Canavan
jules,
I imagine both Hugo and his wife have demanding careers and don’t spend their work time thinking/obsessing over each other. I think he was talking about “the time spent on the partner is full and focused” rather than constant time with the partner.
hugo, your posts on monogomy are usually not my favorite of your writing but I love this one and the positive approach to one’s partner and love.
Thanks, Victoria. Yes, Jules, this isn’t about not having a life outside of one’s partnership. It’s about finding ways to honor that partnership even when you’re apart.
Sure, my wife and I chat on the phone during the day. But one way that this idea works is that when I’m at the office, or teaching, or driving on the freeway, or doing some other task, I bring Eira into my focus, into my consciousness, feeling her with me, her shoulder against mine, my partner, encouraging me and pushing me and reminding me we are building a joint vision — even if we go eighteen hours without seeing each other.
I lurk here often although I don’t often comment.
I suspect that some people who practice polyamory or polyfidelity might find this definition somewhat exclusive. That is, the definition you give here
“Our relationship is, at its core, a contract of mutual support and a pledge to act as a relentless catalyst for the other’s growth”
might well be as true of some poly relationships as some monogamous ones, and consequently it is not clear to my why this should be a definition of monogamy as opposed to, say, a *healthy* relationship (which is not necessarily monogamous).
It seems to me that when you write about monogamous relationships, you’re also tacitly assuming that non-monogamous or open relationships are somehow inherently less committed, less serious, less respectful, or less honest than your monogamous relationship. A philosopher would say that was question-begging, but in any case, it seems rather unfair to people whose sexually/emotionally open relationships are very much stable, committed, honest, respectful, and focused on mutual support and growth.
–IP
Irrational, I don’t dispute what you’re saying — but I must admit I’ve known a great many poly folks, and I’ve never seen the long-term sustained commitment that I have seen in monogamous relationships. Actually, I have: in lesbian poly situations. I’ve yet to see a poly grouping with heterosexual dynamics sustain itself for more than a few years. Perhaps I need to get out more.
I’m not sure that not having seen it means it doesn’t exist or is impossible. I’m also somewhat troubled by the idea that only long-term relationships can be committed, respectful, and focussed on mutual support and growth.
I guess all I’m really saying is that a fulfilling (or supportive, or growth-inducing) relationship means different things to different people. And it seems distinctly unfair to me to trumpet a certain kind of monogamous relationship as the One Right Kind, when other people’s needs might be best met in other kinds of relationships.
And as I’m sure you’re aware, emphasis on monogamy as an institution has been heavily criticised as heteronormative and patriarchal by some feminists and queer rights activists. It’s one thing to say “this is the kind of relationship that works for me”, in which case, you know, that’s great. It’s quite another to say, or suggest, that other relationships aren’t as good or healthy, especially when that sort of claim has been used systematically by the conservative right, if not by you, to fuel homophobia and anti-feminist-backlash. I know you aren’t using these claims for those purposes, but that doesn’t erase the political context in which you make these statements. Does that make sense?
–IP
Pingback: Monogamy, poly relationships, heteronormativity, and growth « Modus dopens
This is a great viewpoint on monogamy! Mind if I link to it in my Friday post?
xo~Sadie
Of course, Sadie, I’d be pleased.