polyamory

How Socioeconomic Conditions Shape Stereotypical Gendered Behavior

A couple of thoughts based on reading Cheri of Secret Lover’s Lane response to an anonymous commenter who, evidently informed by the Two Rules of Desire, claimed, roughly, that women want only emotional rewards from sex and men want only physical rewards. (In her post Cheri angrily but ably challenges the commenter, as you can for yourself here.)

Claims of sociobiology not withstanding, it seems like our social structures make it so that women can’t afford to prize physical enjoyment with multiple partners and men can’t afford to prize emotional rewards with partners either. Our traditional social contract says women must be economically marginalized to the point that they and/or their children will suffer if they don’t hitch their wagons to someone who’s earning power isn’t artificially suppressed. And meanwhile under the same contract men are expected to financially and socially support any partner they form emotional bonds with (see “kept woman,” “mistress.”)

“Can’t afford” is obviously not the same thing as “don’t have.” I’m not necessarily endorsing polyamory. I don’t think it’s bad, I’m just not necessarily endorsing it. But, for instance, rethinking the constructed dichotomies would benefit both men and women in serial monogamy, short-term pre-relationship dating, or the kind of studious “hookup culture” relationships. Especially in areas where there’s enough social and economic parity, sufficient income/productivity/social-infrastructure, and access to fertility management to allow individuals of any gender to raise children independently.

Getting back to Cheri, point #2 would seem particularly clear because while she’s married she’s the primary income earner, the primary household manager, the primary child-care provider (though I could be really mistaken about that) and the one most experienced with what she seeks in multiple relationships.

I keep forgetting to do this but if you’re an adult you can click to see a possibly not-work-safe image.

"Evolutionary Psychology" True... Except Where It Isn't

Megan of delivers the goods on the story that gendered promiscuity/monogamy is genetically determined.

The idea that men try to impregnate as many women as possible while women try to hold on to a provider is derived from fruit fly behavior. Its applicability to humans is becoming increasingly questionable.

There’s a ton more here. Go read it.

Bottom line: the sociobiological/ev-psych model of promiscuous men and monogamous women holds up quite well in (very contemporary in evolutionary terms) locations where… well… promiscuity in men and monogamy in women are either tolerated or encouraged. In other locations not so much.

If you’re an adult you can click for a possibly not-safe-for-work image.

Infidelity and Its Aftermaths

B of B is for blog, wrestling with a problem between her partner and his most (and evidently only mostly) recent ex-partner, raises little-discussed problem with infidelity (emphasis mine.)

I had always trusted them explicitly, I’m not the jealous type. Earlier this year R admitted (after I had found some damning evidence on his phone) that they had ‘nearly’ slept together in our bed. I haven’t spoken to her since, although not out of my doing. She has been avoiding me.

She said it here.

Think there’s a corollary of the Washington-D.C. maxim that “it’s not the scandal that brings you down it’s the coverup” in there somewhere? Oh yeah!

I think in a lot of cases the real consequences don’t arise from what the “betrayed” partner feels about betrayal (especially if it’s undiscovered.) It’s how the betrayers feel, and consequently behave, about the betrayal.

Thoughts?

Gender Expectations and Polyamory


Photo “Half open’ by Flickr user Dave Delaney. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Long as I’m on a roll about gender assumptions, Em and Lo answer a good gender-busting letters-from-listeners question over at Daily Bedpost

[Dear] Em & Lo
 
I am a 31-year-old male in California and have been married for 6 1/2 years. Back in March, my wife came to me one night and said she would like to discuss something with me…I knew it was something serious but never imagined she’d say, “What do you think about an open marriage?” She is conservative by nature so this took me by complete surprise. I have dated her since she was 18, she is now 28, and we have two kids. She says she doesn’t want to leave me or the kids, but admits to feeling trapped — like she never lived out her early 20’s. We have discussed it over the last couple of months: she is persistent in wanting this. What are the positives of this and can it be healthy for a marriage?
 
Confused Husband

Dear C.H,

First, can we just say we love that you’re concerned, cautious and confused about your wife’s request? The cliché male response would be to immediately jump at an opportunity like this. “I can get a free pass from my wife to sleep with other women?!? Hells yes!” Of course, not all men are immune to the powerful bonds of traditional, monogamous marriage. They too can cherish the stability and intimacy that comes from dedicating your life to someone, body and soul…OR, they’re so riddled with jealousy that they couldn’t stand the thought of their wife sleeping with anyone else and would just prefer to secretly cheat behind her back so they can have their cake (they sleep around) and eat it too (their wives don’t).

For the sake of courtesy, let’s assume you fall into the former category…

Read the quote in context here.

It’s a safe assumption that most men would jump at the chance. But then, as Bitchy Jones laments, it’s also a safe assumption that dominant women can’t or don’t love their men, enjoy refraining from sex while denying it of their despised partners, wear provocative-looking but impenetrable attire, and of course secretly exist only to please men…

Oh wait!

As for the jealous, ok-for-me-but-not-for-thee thing Em and Lo mention? Oh yeah, that happens too. But I’m pretty sure we can all agree that’s not a sensation exclusive to any one sex or gender. (Actually the mechanism of that particular kind of jealousy’s pretty interesting. I’ve spent quite a lot of time talking it over with different people over the years. One of these days I’ll have to post about it. But I digress…)

Note: Just to be clear this isn’t a knock on E&L’s answer, at all, at all. The part I quoted was just a preamble to some practical, positive advice about ways their correspondent can process his partner’s request.

The Word Sentiment of the Day is "Compersion"

Anita Wagner of Practical Polyamory, while flagging a positive article about polyamory at YourTango.com

There’s a good article on compersion on the women’s sex and love webzine tangomag.com. I love that this subject – something most people have never heard of or even imagined – is being explored on a women’s mainstream venue.

She said it here.

I’d never heard of compersion either but it sounds like a useful word. According to the still-mostly-a-stub Wikipedia page compersion is

...the positive feelings one gets when a lover is enjoying another relationship. Sometimes called the opposite or flip side of jealousy.

[or]

...the feeling of taking joy in the joy that others you love share among themselves, especially taking joy in the knowledge that your beloveds are expressing their love for one another.

Source: Wikipedia

I can’t think of a lot of other words in English that carry that sentiment even in the general sense of feeling glad about someone else’s good fortune. There’s a link on the page to a Pali/Sanskrit word, mudita that means “rejoicing in others’ good fortune” Which, they say is “sometimes considered the opposite of schadenfreude.” Although, come to think of it, we don’t have an English word for that either.

To be honest on my tongue and to my ear neither “compersion” or “mudita” seem very evocative of the sentiment. Seems like a pretty useful sentiment though so if any poly-linguist and/or deep-vocabulary readers know of other similar words let me know in comments.

Tin ear or not I have to chalk up another one for the poly folks.

Sauce for the Goose, sauce for the Gander, revisited

Long-time readers might be happy to know that Goose and Gander of their epinomous blog have been on a bit of a tear lately after maybe a year of relatively low-key updates. For more recent readers Goose and Gander had a perfectly lovely, conventional marriage based on each partner’s assumption that the other would be shocked by their sexually adventurous inclinations. And so each, sacrificing his or her preferences out of commitment their marriage and their partner, kept their own sexual lid screwed down tight. And came close to separating before one or the other (can’t remember who) got brave enough to confess — expecting rejection and instead discovering intense relief.

I think a lot of couples find themselves in that situation, fueled in part by wireframe-only drawing conceptions of marriage, or partnership, or parenthood, or adulthood that we mistake for the final results. And of those who “come out” to each other, an awful lot of them simply switch one set of conceptions for another, winding up perhaps physically less strained but not necessarily emotionally closer either.

Which is why I think Goose and Gander’s story is so compelling: recognizing one set of mistakes they resolved not to simply take on another complete set, choosing instead to take what steps they took slowly, methodically, with lots of mutual check-ins, and some serious mutual generosity and respect. (It ought to be obvious that stepping outside of conventional boundaries takes generosity and respect for each other, otherwise you might find yourself escaping your relationships without having to move out or shake up your children’s lives.)

Has their relationships been smooth sailing ever since? Has their every encounter with someone old, let alone someone new, been hassle free, risk free, jealousy free, or better-to-have-loved-and-lost-than? Sheeyeah right — and they grew wings, won on American Idol, and never pay more than $1.30 for gasoline too. Oh wait! They, like we and everybody else, are humans involved with other humans so of course they’ve had burnt pancakes as well as perfect soufflés.

But more than anyone else I know they’re doing it together, exploring a multitude of kinks including bondage play, spanking and other forms of S&M, and other partners together, separately, and in groups. You don’t have to do any of this with your partners, even if you were so inclined. But if you did you’d do far worse than to choose to follow their example.

Anyway, the above has been a long preamble to the following snippet from Goose of Goose and Gander that nicely articulates what real adults can do, together, not just to discover but to create a community based as much on friendship as on mutual sexual interest.

I have to say though, that for all the punching, scratching, caning and general tingling of naughty bits, the part I liked best about the weekend was how much trust and love and fun there was. Its serious fun, without taking itself too seriously. There is always a ton of laughter and affection and ALWAYS seriously good food. Our little gang is awesome. Awww…..

Gander and I talked for a long time last night about the act of physical affection in today’s culture. I mean, anyone can fuck and run, but how often do you get to cuddle, hold hands, stroke skin, touch hair, be in breath range with someone other than your child/pet/significant other.

Touch is radical, or it can be. I think that is what feels the most subversive to me and the most pleasing, about our group parties and hang outs: that I can touch and be touched by many and in many ways. It feels rather healing actually.

Plus, I like seeing people naked.

She says this and more here.

Finally, what I really appreciate about Goose’s, and Gander’s, posts is not only the acknowledgment of “strings attached” sex (as if there could be any other kind) but the real benefit stringiness brings to our relationships. The furtive, “no-strings” touch humans too often seek, too often behind their partner’s backs? Not so much. This isn’t to knock casual encounters for those who choose them, not at all, at all. Just a point that they’re not as fulfilling when you’re starving for fulfillment!

Which brings me back to Goose and Gander’s original plight. The standard model would have been for each to slip behind each other’s backs, perhaps through one of the extramarital personals sites that seemed to be in the newspapers earlier this month, and try to “get it while they can,” for as long as they could, until one or the other slipped, and then deal with all the repercussions — trading a smaller set of problems for perhaps several much larger ones. I think it’s pretty cool that they’ve chosen to work together instead of separately.

Syndicate content