Clarisse Thorn, who's written thoughtfully on the appeal of BDSM and polyamory and swinging in the face of their standard objections takes a good long look at the appeal of monogamy in the face of its standard dissents. She concludes

Personally, I always think it’s really key, during any sex-positive critique, to emphasize from the start that whatever you like is cool as long as the actions you take are consensual. I know people who act all apologetic for being monogamous, usually because they’ve been overexposed to “polyvangelists” who argue that non-monogamy is “better” or “more evolved”. This is silly! Liking monogamy doesn’t have to be justified, as long as you don’t turn around and claim that non-monogamy is bad and wrong. And liking monogamy is a perfectly awesome reason for preferring monogamy!

Source: Clarisse Thorn

For probably the same reasons "sex positive" has been wielded by those seeking to lever consent through peer pressure often enough to be spoken of with everything from cynicism to scare quotes. (The same thing happened to the word "liberated" in the 1960s and 70s when it became a euphemism for "you should want to have sex with me the way I want to do it even though either you don't find me attractive or you don't enjoy what I'm proposing."

But as I like to point out from time to time, sincerely, without ironic, and with no tepid "to be sure" boiler plating, to be sex positive is not about agreeing to or endorsing any proposed sexual act or interest. Instead it's to acknowledge that other people might consciously, willingly, and deliberately find sexual gratification by means that don't necessarily do the same for you.

For this reason being sex positive is exactly opposite being automatically open to any activity any partner might propose. The closest it comes is to being willing to recognize or at least to consider what might be appealing about a practice to others even as you decline to participate yourself. (Case in point: does Sen. David Vitter's baby-play fetish appeal to me? No, it doesn't even turn me off! Except perhaps in the most general terms I don't understand the appeal at all. That said, while I'll avalanche his ass in stickleburrs for his aching, supercilious hypocrisy actively condemning others for acts he enjoys (non-monogamy, sex work, and fetishism, all with adults who have affirmatively decided to participate) I recognize that it's something that intensely gratifies him sexually and that it either appeals to his partners as well... or at least doesn't trouble them enough to decline to participate.)

But here's the trick: while sex positivity is often discussed in the context of acknowledgement and toleration for "non-mainstream" activities such as kink, BDSM, polyamory, LGTB orientations, or sex work, it necessarily implies toleration and acceptance of asexuality, disinterest, and even squicks: real sex positive people are as respectful of "no thank you" as they are of "yes please." Even if those who really, truly would never say no themselves.

But it especially implies toleration and acknowledgment of monogamy. Because after all, even in very open societies monogamy (serial or lifelong) is the most frequently chosen relationship option. Yes, of course, there's enormous (sex-negative!) pressure to make and keep monogamy the default or even the only sanctioned form of relationship. But that in no way invalidate the choice of those who are attracted to it at all, at all. Nor does it invalidate the very real benefits Clarisse articulates that make it attractive to those who choose it, even as many others are attracted to the benefits of their own choices.

The other day Holly, deconstructing relationship clichés with her usual aplomb, said

I'm not a serial monogamist! I'm a parallel monogamist!

Source: The Pervocracy

That's the way to look at relationships even if you're just "sleeping around" and not poly at all. For that matter it's the way to look at non-sexual relationships.

And here's the trick, and why I like Holly so much: we usually don't think of it that way but that's actually is how most people look at non-sexual relationships. Except we don't call that "parallel monogamy," we call it "having friends." So despite the refreshingly radical perspective her proposition isn't radical at all.

I’ve been reading Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy’s The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Adventures lately, the new edition, and it’s been making me think. A lot.

I was thinking about it as I was drifting into a Sunday afternoon nap (after picking up the house and preparing a menu and shopping list for the week but before shopping and cooking for dinner guests tonight.) And what I thought was how nice it would be to reconnect with some of my past long-term partners. And then I thought how often the conflicts that drove us apart might have been mediated by other people — either by their advice and influence or, sometimes, by their ability to meet real needs that we ourselves couldn’t. (For instance my old partner who, at that time in her life, really needed a decades-long relationship with another woman — we got along great in most other regards but no way I could meet her need for that.)

And it seemed, as I was drifting off, that maybe I haven’t been thinking about polyamory with cultural Playboy/Mormon/Sultan blinders — of polyamory as finding new partners to add to one’s current relationships. As opposed to what suddenly seems a lot more natural: to restore common bonds with those we’ve held life in common with. And, this being about polyamory and not polygamy, I think it would be just fine if they also restored common bonds with other partners of their own.

I don’t think that’s crazy talk. And I’m sure I don’t know what my present partner would think of it. And I am going to go back now and take my nap. But…

Yeah, I think I really like that vision.

Maybe more on this later.

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.