In describing the polyamorous lifestyle to friends and family a few words come up time and again. ‘Jealousy’ is bandied around, as is ‘commitment’. Certain friends may opt more for ‘lucky bastard’ or ‘say that again...!?’ Clearly the first group understands the concept of polyamory a little better than the second group, which is largely made up of my male friends of a certain type, but I digress.
One word which comes up a lot, and which has started to jar with me, is exclusive (and all of its derivatives). I was out to lunch with a friend recently who is thinking about ‘going exclusive’ with the girl he’s seeing. Similarly I was sitting with some good friends recently who married this year, and when another one of the group was talking about the guy she’s seeing she was immediately asked – “are you seeing each other exclusively?”
As regular readers will know, I have nothing against monogamous relationships – indeed I have had a number of happy relationships on those terms in the past, and don’t rule out more in the future. What I do resent, however, is the unspoken value which seems to be attached to the word, particularly in reference to relationships.
In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzcshe says “Love of 'one' is a piece of barbarism: for it is practised at the expense of all others. Love of God likewise.” Avoiding the inevitable bun-fight which ensues when religion is openly discussed, I find this idea really interesting. Is choosing to love just one person as a spouse/lover really barbarism, or is it self-preservation, and therefore necessary? If indeed it could be considered barbaric, then what events have resulted in the current situation in so many parts of the world (in particular the western world), with the vast majority aspiring to ‘achieve’ a monogamous, long term relationship?
The word exclusive literally means “not divided or shared with others”, and is derived from the latin verb claudere, meaning to close or to barricade. To me, the idea that a relationship or a love should be made exclusive would suggest that one is dealing with a finite commodity – that in order to love a second person, one must start reduce the love they feel for the first. I’m not convinced that this is the case. If a woman with one child finds she is pregnant with a second, I don’t think she would worry that she would not be able to love her firstborn any less. Ok – not exactly a direct comparison (if it is, I suggest you contact the authorities) but many of the principles hold true. In fact, logistically it does throw up some complications, and it requires more planning – sadly time IS finite – but ultimately the reward is well worth the additional effort.
Another area which is questioned around polyamory is one of respect. I have been asked, nay told: “if you really respected Simone the way my boyfriend and I respect each other then you wouldn’t want to see anyone else.” This kind of comment is usually followed by an affectionate glance at said partner, followed by a slow, simultaneous look of condescension which makes me want to punch them right in the smug. In answer to this point I repeat that if you do not want a partner to have a meaningful connection with anyone other than you then you must, to some extent, view them as a possession. I believe this indicates a lack of both trust and respect.
I’m going to finish here (I really should get some work done today) with the question of the antonym of exclusive. In common language people may say ‘common’, ‘available to all’ or ‘accessible.’ In relationship terms there are limited options – some would say ‘open’, or ‘casual’ – both of which cheapen the idea of a polyamorous relationship. I often resort simply to ‘non-exclusive’ which again has negative connotations in many people’s eyes.
Perhaps ‘inclusive’ is a better word to use? I’d appreciate any other suggestions...
7 comments:
It has been a recurring theme for me that when I tell someone I am in a polyamorous relationship (still not sure whether polyamory is synonymous with 'open' relationship... much like you, I'm struggling to find a term that doesn't have pre-existing negative connotations, and doesn't sound just a little too full of itself for my taste)... when I tell someone that I have recently come into an open relationship with my girlfriend (it was 'closed' before), I get the impression that they see it as a step backward. In the traditional view, one flirts around, can see multiple people, then goes 'exclusive' as you said. So when I say, "yeah, we decided to move to an open relationship", the response seems to suggest they think of this as a step back to the pre-exclusive stage of the relationship. It shows a unique lack of understanding of the thing-in my mind it has seemed like a large step FORWARD, as it's saying we want to be true with each other and not just subscribe to the monogamy mold when it doesn't sit too well with either of us-but I have a hard time figuring out how to impress upon them the difference between their understanding and mine without simply saying, "Hey... read this book."
As to the topic of where traditional monogamy came from, that is addressed in the very start of the book that I've been going through since this all began. Long story short, he talks about the middle ages and the split between the upper and lower classes. The lower classes didn't really subscribe to the monogamy idea, but the upper classes used marriage as a way to tie together families, primarily for political reasons. However, even they didn't hold any ideas about being 'exclusive'. Then once the merchant class came about, they started to adopt the marriage tradition, which was eventually passed down to the peasantry as well. However, the meaning of the thing was lost, and it took on the idea of being exclusive which it never had before. Obviously, that's a very shortened version, but it's his theory on it - I've been meaning to look more into it. Thought it might provide you a seed.
The author of this book, by the way, is fond of the term 'non-monogamous relationship'. It's open enough to allow for a lot of different situations, doesn't come across as pretentious, etc. (I thought the term polyamorous was pretentious as hell until I really got into understanding what it was about).
I take your point about the slight pretension with the word polyamory, but non-monogamy is not sufficiently specific as it includes swinging, casual 'fuck buddy' type arrangements which, as you know, are not anything like polyamory! I guess the term will not sound nearly as pretentious when it's more widely known, and the concept is more widely accepted.
Thanks again for reading - I really enjoy your feedback!
My partner and I have been using the term "Inclusive" recently. I think it reflects the situation accurately and sounds better than the alternatives.
Your blog is great! :)
Alex.
Hi! Unless you and all your partners are open about poly, I would be careful not to use real names. Just a thought since you said you are new to poly. Good blog!
Thanks Polyspace- I have taken all the necessary precautions!
I'm glad you're enjoying the blog.
My husband and I about a year ago discussed as nosferotu said, 'moving to an open relationship,' and it has worked wonderfully for us. I like the term 'inclusive,' and yet people intent on a monogamous perspective don't seem able to draw distinctions, thinking 'inclusive' would be 'including' everyone and anyone, regardless of circumstances, which isn't really applicable to ground-rule based relationships (unlike swinging, perhaps).
For me, explaining my relationships as 'open' works incredibly well, because I can help others see it as a step forward instead of back by pointing out that my husband and I, the best of friends there could be, were communicatively VERY 'open' with each other for two - three years before we progressed forward, to the place we're at now, of continuing that openness to include other potential partners.
The importance of communicating openly and honestly is something that people in a monogamous relationship can certainly appreciate and understand, like a common ground we can start from.
Post a Comment