What if we believed our mythology of romance in partnership so thoroughly we had to make up excuses for having affairs?
I mean… y’know how back before there was “no fault” divorce (actually, I hope you don’t... mercifully, at least most places in the U.S. it’s been a while.) Anyway, back before you could just tell a judge “it’s not working” you had to have a reason. One of the big ones back then was “alienation of affection.” And oh the cases people could (and had to!) build to prove just how alienated their affections were. Then along came no-fault divorce and… not so much.
I’m sort of wondering if the same couldn’t be said for the subset of people who seem to have a hard time being monogamous. I mean, if you buy into the idea that true love has to not only be forever but also has to meet all your needs sexual, domestic, economic, social, psychological, etc. then… it’s gotta be hard to admit to yourself that sometimes we just get horny, or lonely, or restless, or bored. Or just curious!
If you’re busy thinking “I’m stronger than that,” or “I’m not that kind of girl,” or “my parents didn’t raise me to be like that” or, especially “he/she’s the love of my life, I want to spend the rest of my life with him/her” then… well, it’s either going to work, in which case great! Case closed. Or it’s not going to work and rather than compromise on what you say about yourself you start cooking up reasons not to be so attached to your partner. They drive you crazy. Or they’re never home. Or there’s that annoying little whistle when he/she laughs through her nose. Or, classically, he/she’s gotten all stodgy/dowdy and settled in his/her ways And son of a gun, after a while you’ve convinced yourself. Whereupon someone you might have enjoyed a casual fling with suddenly starts looking a lot like Christmas.
Problem #2 being that, well, someone who you might have enjoyed a casual fling with is probably not at all an improvement on the person you decided to spend the rest of your life with and then invested a large part of your life with. Which, incidentally, is why such a low, low percentage of people who leave their partners for another person actually wind up staying with that other person.
Point being that we’re so invested in the idea of monogamy (serial or otherwise) we don’t have a lot of narrative for scratching an itch and having it go away after we scratch it. Of having an affair and being really comfortable and happy when we return to our familiar, much-loved regular partners.
Another clue? People who have a fling and then use all that internalized social expectation (“I’m not that kind…” etc.) to alienate themselves from their partners.
If I wasn’t so fond of long-term relationships, and if I wasn’t sort of tired of seeing really good people breaking up with other really good people, often over affairs… if I wasn’t becoming more than a little tired of our explanation that “it’s just that way” ... and if I wasn’t so darned irked at that Ashley Madison ad, I probably wouldn’t keep bringing it up.
Note: I can’t find the link but evidence suggests that, all other things being equal, long-term outcomes for children are no better when parents stay together “for the children” than when they divorce.
Note #2: See another good post and discussion in comments at Dana’s place over at Life Amid Crisis
Submitted by 2773 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-03-13 17:21.
Point being that we're so invested in the idea of monogamy (serial or otherwise) we don't have a lot of narrative for scratching an itch and having it *go away* after we scratch it. Of having an affair and being *really comfortable and happy* with our real partners.
Ummmm ... yep! I've always been a fan of polyamory for those reasons. I do believe love, attachment and fulfillment come in many forms and demanding we fit it all into one, socially acceptable box is not only closed minded, but next to impossible.
Submitted by 2773 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-03-13 18:15.
In response to your 2nd-to-last comment, you might find this article interesting (and perhaps frustrating):
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/danquayl.htm
As a child from a divorced family, I can say that this article definitely draws its conclusions heavily from statistics, and does not concern itself with the ends of the bell curve, but I think it has some good things to say.
Submitted by 2773 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-03-13 19:56.
Lots that I agree with here, figleaf. I appreciate your analysis of why it can be so hard for people to be honest with themselves about their own motivations. It's not just because we're all weak, bad people; we're trying to cope with oodles of conflicting messages.
But I think you've got some false dichotomies built into this post. If the restless partner retains love and respect for their long-term partner, then the person with whom they have an affair is just a casual fling. Or ... if the restless partner demonizes their long-term partner, then it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas (and you can hum along!). Is it truly necessary to denigrate one lover or the other? Is it impossible for the person in the middle to treat both of his/her partners with affection, respect, and maybe even love? Can't we acknowledge the stickiness of sex and relationships, and the potential for unplanned, unexpected feelings, which makes all of this so much more complicated?
I just don't think a dichotomy describes the range of possibilities, and certainly not the range of relatively *ethical* possibilities. If the restless person intends to behave as responsibly as possible (given that we're talking about infidelity, so I realize that's a big if, and I also wonder if maybe a better word than "responsibility" would be "sustainability"?), then he/she cannot and should not denigrate *either* partner or treat them as a mere means to an end. Within the dichotomous framework, one or the other partner gets treated instrumentally, and thus is at least partly dehumanized. In a sustainable, human framework, no one gets stereotyped as dowdy. No one gets reduced to a mere "itch" or "fling," even if the connection might run deeper.
I'm not sure how polyamory - nice as it sounds in theory - avoids that problem, either. All the talk about primaries and secondaries makes me wonder how one can rank relationships without hurting people. The imperative to damp down jealousy often strikes me as deeply manipulative. An ethic of “honest at all costs†strikes me as more idolatrous than ethical.
As for the divorce literature: I could be wrong, but my recollection is that while initial studies showed no harm, later studies were more nuanced, showing that harm accrued to children in openly warring families, but otherwise kids benefited from parents staying together.
Submitted by 2773 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-03-13 21:15.
From what I have heard, polyamorous people (or at least the successful ones) are simply more aware of these kinds of issues, and strive to be conscious enough of their own rationalizations and behaviors to minimize any negative impacts. That's something that anyone can (and probably should) do, but in the case of polyamory, even more vital if you want to make things work.
Submitted by 2773 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-03-14 15:54.
I'm not sure how polyamory - nice as it sounds in theory - avoids that problem, either. All the talk about primaries and secondaries makes me wonder how one can rank relationships without hurting people. The imperative to damp down jealousy often strikes me as deeply manipulative. An ethic of “honest at all costs†strikes me as more idolatrous than ethical.
Looks to me like you've been only hearing the Vocal Asshole part of the poly community, so a couple of points:
- not everyone does heirarchical polyamory; of the people who do, like myself, many find the concept of "ranking relationships" alien. To me, "primary" means "that type of relationship that parallels marriage in structure, nature, and commitment" and "secondary" means "other sorts of relationships."
Coming to heirarchical poly was a hard road for me, because I broke several relationships by trying to fit them all into the serious, committed model even when they were not suited to that and that was disrespectful of the people involved.
- the word I use for people who have "an imperative to damp down jealousy at all costs" is not "polyamorous"; it is "idiot". Living without jealousy is like living without pain -- one can lose a limb through lack of actual knowledge about what's going on.
- "Radical honesty" and "full disclosure" are minority, and IMO often kind of sanctimonious minority, positions. I see no reason to give people information that's none of their damn business, and that includes my primary partners.
Submitted by 2773 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-03-14 17:50.
Thanks for the insights, Dw3t-Hthr. I've definitely gotten a sanctimonious flavor from some of the online discussions that I've read; you're right about that. My only first-hand experience of polyamory was with a long-ago partner who tried to convince me that he and I could be polyamorous *after* he'd slept with another woman (and yes, I realize that this is *not* what most polyamorous people would recommend!). So it's helpful for me, as an outsider, to see that there are other ways to approach polyamory that seem to take into account the fact that humans are, well, complicated, and that don't try to just paper over jealousy. It's great that you've found an approach that works for you.
Regardless of whether one is polyamorous or monogamous or something else altogether, it seems to me like the bedrock of dealing ethically with one's partner(s) has got to be some sort of Kantian refusal to see people as mere means to an end. And that means trying to comprehend them as whole people, and responding to their needs, regardless of the level of commitment.
Submitted by 2773 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-03-14 18:58.
There is an unfortunate subset of poly folks who are fond of "You hate me because I'm beautiful" rhetoric: wanting to blame social antipathy on People Rejecting Our Obvious Superiority. These people are tremendously tedious to everyone in the known universe except, perhaps, each other.
Unfortunately, there are communities (and even a magazine!) that cater to these people, which means that they wind up sounding like they know what they're doing. (Did I sound a little judgemental there? Heh. Gee.) Some of the luminaries say things about how polymory will lead to Profound Spiritual Growth and similar rhetoric, which comes back to sounding like using people as means to an end, which creeps me out.
I'm with the people I'm with because I want to be with them. I have the sort of relationships I do with them because that's what works for us. This isn't an ideology or profound enlightenment, unless perhaps dealing with adults as an adult is a sign of enlightenment, which would be kind of depressing. No Ideology Required.