Since it is Valentine’s Day, this article is about romance. And since this is Mindful Construct, it’s about how we can mindfully construct our ideas about romance, with respect to the monogamy-polyamory debate.
Monogamy is when two people are in an exclusive romantic relationship, meaning they are committed only to each other and they are not open to exploring new romantic relationships with other people, as long as they are together.
Polyamory is when two people are in a relationship that is not necessarily exclusive, but open. Depending on their relationship agreements, the two people may become involved with other partners while still being committed to each other. It’s not cheating because it’s part of their relationship contract, meaning that all people involved are involved by consent.
The debate between monogamy and polyamory
It would seem that both relationship styles are simply a matter of preference and personal need. But what often results is that proponents of one relationship style defend their philosophy at the expense of the other. It then becomes a fight over which is the “higher,” “more conscious,” “more spiritual,” or “more loving” relationship style.
Those judgment terms are meant to invalidate the other side as being inferior and less worthy of human attention. Those judgments do not respect each person’s right to choose how they want to relate to others romantically based on their own needs—and not for anyone else or for any group standards.
Debaters talk at, not to—and in doing so they ignore the flaws in their arguments
But really, it’s not about love at all (which we will explore later on). Granted, we enter romantic relationships because of love (or in hopes of love)—but we construct our notions of romance and our values for romantic relationships based on our personal beliefs and needs.
While many people debate which relationship style is more natural for humans, meaning more “right” for them to conform to, they forget what makes humans unique—that we are endowed with personal choice and individuality. And they also underplay the important fact that there is not sufficient research to show that either style is more natural or fitting for humans—who are very much shaped by their cultural systems.
But our primate relatives hold the answer, right?
If we look at the primate order, to which humans belong, we see extreme variety in terms of mating style. Titi monkeys mate for life. Bonobos are rather promiscuous for life. They use sex as a social currency, as well as for group cohesion. Bonobos form matriarchal societies, and sex with anyone goes—including sex with the same gender and even sex with children (with some exceptions). So there’s quite a range in our primate relatives. And monogamy seems to be the minority.
But when considering animal studies, we need to be mindful of the role ecology and culture play. My “Animal Cognition” professor from college repeated several times over the course of the term that the more a species depends on extended child-care and thus learning, the more that experience will shape each individual—and the more that individual differences will abound.
Humans are a unique primate because of culture and individual differences
Humans are especially dependent upon extended child-care, learning, and culture. And we are especially diverse. So it doesn’t make sense to apply animal mating studies to humans—without taking into full account the role that culture and individual experience play.
This is why we don’t know whether monogamy or polyamory are more natural for humans. And why I argue that neither is. What a person is drawn to will be based upon their individual life experience and how they were raised. It doesn’t have to do with what’s right, moral, or even more loving.
To see how choosing one relationship style over another is one of choice, rather than one of love, let’s explore the major argument in favor of each style—and why it doesn’t hold weight in the name of “love.”
Argument for monogamy:
Romantic love is intended to be between only two people, because when you love someone, you love only them and you devote yourself only to them as an expression of that love. Therefore, when a person is in love with someone whom they are romantically involved with, it is their moral obligation not to fall in love with or become involved with anyone else.
Major flaws in this argument:
- Love is not a moral obligation—love is a continual choice to respect and accept another person unconditionally. You love because you choose to, not because you have to. Love is a verb—whenever it becomes a feeling or a state of being, such as “in love,” it easily masks the true motivation of infatuation and codependency. Furthermore, when you really love someone, you never stop loving them, even if you are no longer in a relationship; that total respect, appreciation, and acceptance will live on.
- The love a person has for one person does not diminish or detract from the love they have for another; a person can love different people differently. However, it’s the way that a person expresses their love for one person that can detract from how they express their love for another (or if they even do). Love is infinite, but the physical ways in which we express love are bound by laws of nature. Thus, it is healthier for two people in a relationship to be honest about their feelings for others, if they arise, in order to strengthen the honesty and integrity of the relationship—rather than suppress their feelings from fear.
- Love is not a binding contract. Again, it is a choice. It healthy for two people in a relationship to negotiate their relationship needs and come to agreements about how they want to express and honor their commitment to each other. This open honesty builds trust, motivates each person to stay in the relationship because they choose to—not because they feel they have to—and it also decreases the chance that each person is staying in the relationship for codependent, rather than interdependent reasons.
Argument for polyamory:
A person needs sexual variety to be satisfied in life. Additionally, a person needs the freedom to grow personally and spiritually—which often occurs most intensely in intimate relationships. Therefore, a person needs to be free to be emotionally and physically intimate with whoever they so please, so that they may exercise their freedom to get the most satisfaction and growth out of life.
Major flaws in this argument:
- Sexual variety is an abstract concept; it is possible for a monogamous couple to experience sexual variety to a greater extent than a polyamorous couple. In turn, a person by nature embodies variety, because they are inherently multi-dimensional with perhaps unlimited potential to explore different aspects of their self. So then, what is actually meant is that “a person needs to have sex with multiple partners, perhaps simultaneously, in order to experience sexual variety”—which is not a logical assessment.
- Intimate relationships are intense opportunities for personal and spiritual growth, but they are not necessary. A person can grow from virtually any experience or relationship, depending on their own commitment to growth. Growth is a personal choice that comes from within; it is not created by an external event or another person. Furthermore, intimacy with more than one partner does not ensure “greater” or “deeper” intimacy, and may be used as a codependent excuse to avoid intimacy with a primary partner.
- A person is free to make their own choice about how many partners they want to be involved with. But respecting your partner’s choice to pursue other relationships is a separate issue from respecting your own core needs and choices—which may be monogamous. You can respect a partner’s needs without disrespecting your own needs in the process.
What it all comes down to
What it all comes down to is the practical, not-so-pretty, real life nitty gritties—not the lofty romantic ideals (that are merely our personal constructs).
What it all comes down to is your resources as a physical being living in a physical world.
You have limited time, energy, attention, emotion, and so on. While your love and ability to love may be infinite, the way you express love in the physical world is limited by your resources—there’s no denying that. In other words, there are no limits on how much can unconditionally accept and respect other people (our previous definition of love), but there are limits on how much you can invest yourself into relationships. Just as there are needs for how much you want to invest.
No such thing as more “natural” for all of humanity
No one relationship style is more natural than the other—for all of humanity. The only thing that is natural is for you to be honest with your feelings, and acknowledge your needs and your limitations when it comes to romantic relationships.
No one can tell you which relationship style you should pursue. If a partner insists that you change for them, then they aren’t respecting you. If you feel compelled to change for your partner, you may be more afraid of abandonment than acting in love for your partner.
What it all comes down to is your relationship with yourself—this is your relationship for life. You are either committed to making it the healthiest and happiest it can be, or you set yourself up for continual internal conflict and self-inflicted pain.
You either try to conform to a partner’s or a society’s ideals for what is the more “natural” relationship style, or you only settle for a partner who respects you completely and aligns with your core relationship needs.
It doesn’t sound romantic to say that you are with someone because they meet your relationship needs, but it also doesn’t seem romantic when you maintain and honor strong, healthy personal boundaries that protect your precious limited resources.
Whether or not it’s romantic, maintaining your personal boundaries is how you express self-love. And self-love is necessary for any other-love to be possible. So this Valentine’s Day, celebrate with some self-love, and remember that your relationship with yourself is the most important one you will ever have.
To me, that sounds like the most natural thing for a person to do.
Stay Connected
RSS feed | Email updates | Twitter stream | Facebook Fanpage
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
What do you mean by limited resources ?
“but it also doesn’t seem romantic when you maintain and honor strong, healthy personal boundaries that protect your precious limited resources.”
I saw the same flaws in those arguments, but they are just someones description of what they should be.
Most people, i feel, enter polygamy only to satisfy this hunger within them, this desire, and then mask it as spiritual growth.
But it is their choice in the end to do so.
‘;’
The limited resources mentioned were: time, energy, attention, emotion. But that’s only a starter list. What I mean is that because we are physical beings, we have limited physical resources — which we use to *express* love. For instance, you need time to invest in a relationship, and you need energy so you can do things with the other person, and you need emotional energy in the form of empathy to strengthen the connection.
Personal boundaries are meant to protect those resources (our time, our energy, and so on) so we are not so depleted where our health is compromised.
“Most people, i feel, enter polygamy only to satisfy this hunger within them, this desire, and then mask it as spiritual growth.”
That’s what motivated me to write this article. I think it’s more honest just to admit when you want to have more partners, without caking on spiritual fluff.
But at the same time, the other side has used the same strategy to mask the institution of monogamy as being morally correct.
So to be mindful about this issue, we need to let go of the illusion that there is a more right, natural relationship style that everyone should follow. And instead be honest about our needs, find what works for us, and respect others in doing the same.
Very thought-provoking article. I’m glad you took a balanced perspective on the issue. The more people find out what works best for them, and stop believing that someone else already has it figured out for them, the happier and more aware people can become.
Thanks for your response Byteful Traveller. I agree that we can all be happier if we get to know ourselves better, and find out what we need (and perhaps why).
I’m glad the article came across as balanced, that was my goal. A few times in editing, I had to bite back the “But monogamy is better…” knee-jerk reaction (because I personally am more wired in that direction). How easy it is to slip perspective… but I finally felt I was able to integrate the poly perspective and not have to see it as being wrong, but just a different choice.
“Baby, I love you because you respect my relationship needs and respect my personal boundaries that protect my precious limited resources”
sorry but I had to! ;)
I am afraid I am a bit of a knee-jerker ;) I wouldn’t so much say monogamy is better as I would say it is natural and in our nature. Just as a deer or a lion has a nature so does a human. We have just completely lost touch with it because we are brainwashed endlessly from cradle to grave that we are all “blank slates” who are nothing more than “the product of our environment.” They even say we are a mutation from monkeys ;)
Sorry but I don’t believe that nonsense, to quote Carl Jung in his German accent “I kan’t believe it,” and dare I say I know it not to be the case!?!?
Notice you said you had to “bite the reaction back”, see I would say you had to “suppress your natural instinct which you’ve been conditioned to believe is merely the product of conditioning”, there is a big distinction but one which is extremely significant and at the center of the whole issue.
There has been research in human nature, specifically I am thinking of a groundbreaking book by Wilhelm Reich called “Children of the Future: On the prevention of sexual pathology.” It is not exactly a PC read but it is serious research into human nature, he talks of the raising of children in line with nature and it is extremely enlightening to see just how much “nature” is in human nature (as opposed to the blank slate nonsense).
Regardless, in my own mind I recognize that to associate with two people sexually is pathological, it’s an impossibility prevented by biology, not by preference or choice, it’s akin to some cosmic debasement and splitting of ones soul, for lack of a better term, it is wrong. I refuse to believe otherwise and I refuse to be tolerant of other people’s beliefs, there is no believing something just for the sake of believing it in my book, it’s either in your nature and who you are as a human being or it isn’t. Polylolydollyblahlyfantamerous is just an excuse for human debasement!
Ok, there I said it ;)
lol Chris. I would go with, “Baby, I want to be in a romantic relationship with you because you respect my relationship needs and respect my personal boundaries that protect my precious limited resources.” (Because love can exist without romantic relationship.) When you get down to the specifics, it’s not so romantic, is it? But that means that we humans are capable of creating the romantic, which in itself, is romantic.
Ah, but that’s not entirely accurate. The theory of evolution holds that we are descendants of a common ancestor of other primates.
Polyamory doesn’t feel right for me personally. It may seem that I’m suppressing *my* natural instinct by writing about how it’s not “wrong.”
But in fact, I’ve spent much of my time and energy angry with and triggered by polyamory — by letting out my natural instinct. I had to get out all of those feelings to be confident enough in my own nature to accept it as right for me.
And after I did so, I could see with broader view what romantic relationships all boil down to (my rephrasing of your statement above). Which is what naturally happens when you follow your emotions to where they came from — your perspective changes. And guess what, after I could see that romantic relationships are a human construct, and that research has not made enough of a compelling case for either style to be more “natural”… I no longer felt threatened by polyamory or angry at it.
Does that mean I’ve shut off my natural instinct? Of course not. I can understand and respect why someone else might choose polyamory, but that doesn’t change what’s right for me.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Chris.
You say that the article is about “romance,” but isn’t it really about sex? I have yet to hear anyone on the side of polyamory talk about romance. My experience has been that people (usually men) who say they’re polyamorous are really just trying to get away with having sex with as many people as they want while avoiding committing to any one of them. And, in my experience, they make it seem as if “loving everybody” is a more spiritual thing to do.
I am, by nature, monogamous. And I value relationships over sex. To me, a relationship is about making the choice to be with someone and walk together in the world, hopefully grow together and individually. I make the choice and commitment to be with that person and to do the work of being in a relationship. I believe that a lot of people are scared of that or scared of being limited sexually to one partner.
I do have a hard time believing that polyamory is “natural,” and because of my experience I find it very triggering. I’d be interested in someone showing me a couple where both partners are genuinely polyamorous, rather than one person being a narcissist and the other codependent and simply agreeing to what their partner wants. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I just think it’s rare.
Kristi, yes, this article is mainly about sex. Because the construct of romantic love is often entangled with sex. I like to detangle, deconstruct. ;)
I agree.
I think it’s much healthier to enter a polyamorous relationship if you yourself want polyamory to satisfy your needs. Otherwise, it’s tempting and easy to unconsciously justify your partner’s polyamorous needs at the expense of your own.
thanks for writing this, you don’t know me or how this has affected me but I’m at peace with my self now.
I think I was over thinking it all, I’m more inclined to monogamy, and I love her-sigh-so..yeah, it stays that way
thanks :)
Nosferato, I am happy to hear it. It was my hope that this article would help readers find more peace in discovering their own answers. :)
Hi Melissa, I must say that this is one of the most “impartial” and all-comprising texts I have ever read about this topic. I like your idea on love being a choice and agree on the fact that each of us may have different preferences of lifestyle deriving from different cultural upbringing and needs. While respecing all cultural differences, I still feel that each lifestyle may have its own advantages and disadvantages. I am open-minded and don’t feel that I am pre-wired for any specific relationship style, so I feel that I am still in the process of choosing. I have more reasons to prefer monogamy, yet I wonder what I should do if the person I love is polyamorous. My personal feeling is that if I truly choose to love only one person all my life, even if that person is polyamorous, it is fine and not codependency.
My question is: if a monogamy-preferring person loves only a polyamory-preferring person, and the polyamory-preferring person also loves the former but other people as well, is it still “reciprocate love”? I think it is, but would like to hear what you and others think.
Hi Skyskrykyr, what a great question.
The thing is, “reciprocate” is another loose term, like love. Reciprocate for you may mean something completely different for someone else. I shared some of my opinion on this in the Sept. 15th comment. In how it can be easy and convenient to justify a partner’s polyamorous needs at the expense of your own monogamous ones.
However, this is really something only you can answer.
You probably have some criteria for what’s “reciprocal” and what’s not. Like say you need to spend 1 day with your partner for every day that they spend with another partner. Or maybe you need 3 days a week, period. Or maybe just a phone call everyday.
Obviously, life isn’t so easy to chop up like this, but the point is that there is some time-ratio (as well as other precious-limited-resources ratios) that *won’t* make you feel reciprocated, but rather, cheated out. It’s finding that fine line that’s important.
And, to make it more complicated, intimacy is really hard to measure. You can’t know how intimate a poly partner would be with other partners. Would you be measuring reciprocation based on intimacy? Because in my view, intimacy is something exclusive. Once it’s out in the open to several others, it’s no longer “intimacy” or as intimate as you thought it was — a view, of course, that’s colored by my monogamy preference. :)
Yes, I do think that a monogamy-preferring person who’s in a romantic relationship with only a polyamory-preferring person who loves the former but other people as well — *can* experience the relationship as “reciprocate love.” It’s a possibility, though I think it would be rare.
Because by human tendency you’re either monogamously selfish, or polyamorously selfish; wanting one partner all to your self, or as many partners as you please. In that way, it’s easiest for both partners in a relationship to share the same kind of selfishness — which takes care of a lot the “reciprocation.”
Of course, my opinion on this is also colored by my understanding that emotionally, we are all polyamorous, but romantic-relationship-wise, monogamy is what’s natural to me.
Not sure how much that helped, but I’m glad to continue the discussion.
Hi Melissa, thanks for your swift answer!
I believe the key notion is what you called “selfish” love; which includes the tendency to be jealous of the time/resources/affection/etc. that may be allocated to others. What if we reframed love (yes, also romantic love) into an altruistic relationship?
The Wikipedia entry on Polyamory introduces the concept of “compersion” i.e. the opposite of romantic jealousy. I personally feel that the propensity to either jealousy or compersion may depend on what social norms and traditions one follows.
The first time I really fell in love as a teenager, the girl of my daydreams had plenty of admirers and could charm anyone with her outgoing personality. What I spontaneously felt towards her was pride (fatherly, brotherly) and even more admiration (”Wow, I’m so happy I know a person with such social skill!”). This turned into jealousy only when friends and people around me started instilling in me the idea of promiscuity (Guys sometimes have a great difficulty figuring out whether a girl is just outgoing or also promiscuous, therefore equating the two adjectives…).
Thus, in my personal history, I feel that the need for emotional exclusivity (flirting, affection, communication, etc.) may be socially conditioned. In the case of sexual exclusivity, my preference strictly stems from practical considerations (health, STDs, etc.)
Throughout the years I have become less and less dependent on social standards and more on my personal core values (unconditional altruism, independence of thought). So, in my case of a monogamous person loving a polyamorous person, the choice is between “reciprocal exclusivity” and “reciprocal love (without exclusivity)” – if we consider altruism as being a component of love, then demanding exclusivity from the person we love… would be a limitation of our love towards them.
I know, many in today’s society would call me a potential cuckold :-)
Skyskrykyr,
The concept of compersion is an alluring one. It taps into one of the true prizes of the human brain, which is cognitive reappraisal. However, there’s a fine, fine line between natural cognitive reapprasial, and sort of premature version of it without a thorough processing of the raw emotions first. There’s a huge lack of proper studies to do this kind of complex cognitive reappraisal the justice it deserves, but simply put: it’s one thing to be able to reappraise an event (a partner being sexual with another), and it’s another to want to consistently reappraise the event in the same manner (in order to sustain the poly relationship).
In other words, there is also some social conditioning attached to the poly lifestyle, one of them being the continued working at compersion over the more naturally hard-wired tendency of jealousy.
When it comes to romantic relationships, any style is going to be socially conditioned, because we are social and cultural creatures.
One argument that many poly people like to make is that they transcend false definitions of love because they “rise above” the wretched “social conditioning.” But their own lifestyle is also perpetuated by its own sets of social conditioning.
Emotional exclusivity is yes, socially reinforced. But it may also stem from evolutionary advantages of trust, mutual investment of resources, and commitment.
I regard love and romantic relationship as two separate things in the article. Because when they mingle, they often push an agenda of one relationship style over the other, rather than a view less constrained by such constructs.
Altruism is indeed a component of love. But “demanding exclusivity from the person we love… would be a limitation of our love towards them” is not entirely accurate. “Demanding” a person to change for you would be, yes. But setting a personal boundary and leaving a relationship because it no longer suits your core monogamous needs would not be a limitation of love towards them, but an expression of self-love, maturation, honesty, and realism.
I would say that for you to really feel confident in being mono with a poly partner, stripping away lingering judgment of monogamy as being a lesser way to love would be very helpful. Because as long as an emotional trigger judgment remains, the real reasons for you choices won’t be as clear. At least as I understand it. :)
Hi Melissa,
my previous observations were mostly personal sentiments outside the context of any relationship style’s agenda, even though I borrowed some of their notions. The emphasis was more on how to apply “egoism vs altruism” in the scenario I posited.
Having a Christian background, I am talking about unconditional altruism (”selfless love”), which can be quite different from biological or conditional altruism and can often seem idealistic, but is bound to code and discipline (i.e. can go against any natural/instinctive inclination).
What I want to underline is that in the case of disciplined unconditional altruism, it would still be an active choice and not passive behavior deriving from codependency – even in a physical relationship (and not just “love”). Say we have monogamous person (M) and polyamorous person (P).
P gives M love, sex, and a proportion of her resources.
M gives P love, sex, and exclusivity (all resources). M chooses to do so out of unconditional love and his set of values (including not being jealous).
What underlies my reasoning could be an “agenda” promoting discipline and self-control within the context of religious ideals. I do realize that it can, incidentally, complement the arguments in favor of polyamory.
Skyskykyr –
I believe I’ve been in a similar situation as you.
We’re guys. We love women for so many reasons. You say you fell in love with your woman because she was so social and full of life–well, that’s what we love women for. They radiate something that we are attracted to. We’re drawn into their mystery. Our genes tell us to merge with this beauty. It’s not our choice to desire beautiful women, we just must.
It is VERY EASY to fall into a common trap when it comes to attraction to a woman, and that trap is pedestalizing her. No woman is a goddess or a perfect being, and deep down no woman wants to be treated as such. Resentment will breed from such treatment.
Let’s flip it: if a girl thought I was perfect in every way and looked upon me with awe, I would probably ask her to buy me a coffee and then proceed to get super-annoyed by her presence. It’s human nature. Humans use other humans who present themselves to be used.
Another factor here is the term polyamory. It’s total bullshit. It’s a fancy term created to justify a phase that all humans go through due to hormonal overactivity (or let’s just say normal-functioning hormonal activity). That phase, in layman’s terms is called “the player phase” where women AND men feel the urge to sleep with as many various partners as possible. Whether or not the urges are played out is a different story, but we all pass through this stage, and the stage may last a lifetime, but that’s besides the point.
The player stage is rife with rationalizations and justifications from “this is an existence of higher consciousness” to “it’s just human nature” but when it really comes down to it, we’re just horny. Any layer of meaning beyond that is ego talking. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. It just is, and personally, I think it’s a fun stage to go through.
Last point I’m going to make is that you can’t make your woman the focus of all your “amor” because you’ve only got so much to give, man. You and her are obviously not on the same page and you’d be better off finding someone who is… or you know what’s an even better idea?
Find yourself.
Not the self who exists for God or for Woman or for Higher Purpose. God is not You, even if He created you. Find the Self that makes you a whole, individual person with values, likes and dislikes, who knows what is acceptable and unacceptable to himself. And then love that self with the same devotion and monogamous energy that you placed on your external objects of love (external things cannot bring you wholeness).
Bottom line is this. She’s “playing” you and justifying it with “polyamory.” Don’t over-rationalize it.
Good luck to you, man!
And self-love re-enters thread. :)
@WN, I am not overrationalizing but trying to look at things from different points of view. I totally understand that polyamory (and its arguments) can be used to justify the straying and vague behavior during our “horny phase” (in the same way overpopulation is used to justify War), but does this mean that the same arguments cannot explain higher/deeper purposes? In some cultures it is actually part of spiritual tradition to love and to look after more people simultaneously…
And of course, “Love” is not the same as “putting on a pedestal”. What you are talking about is probably obsessive infatuation, an unproductive behavior both to the loving and the loved persons. But “finding someone else” just because your investment in a person is not reciprocated in the same exact way is also not a behavior that falls into my definition of Love.
Who said you cannot find God (or any other higher purpose you wish) at the end of finding your “self”? :-)
@Melissa, I totally agree, but I insist that loving someone else unconditionally (especially if it is a choice, based on your values) does not necessarily mean that you don’t love yourself anymore.
For some people, it is also true to “Love thy neighbor as thy self” :-)
Skysrykyr, the tricky thing about unconditional love is that you can easily use it to justify ignoring, repressing, or foregoing your own basic needs, especially with a “spiritual” reasoning. Which I do think is a real tendency for being mono with a poly partner.
Here’s another way to look at it, two of many options:
(a) Once you meet someone you like, you re-shape your mono needs based on their poly needs, because it’s the “unconditionally loving” thing to do
(b) You get really clear on what the ideal partner would be for you, who would meet your core needs… and then you don’t spend time with those who aren’t compatible, because you love yourself enough to immerse in only the things that really fulfill you
I think the best bet is to be honest with yourself on what *you* really need, with the other (theoretical) person out of the picture. That’s essentially self-love, making sure the relationship with you is stable before bringing anyone else in.