Is Monogamy dead?

Is Monogamy Dead? Says the title of this article which is well worth a read, as are the many comments below the line.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/nov/10/sex-is-monogamy-dead?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

In response to this question many contributors and commentators alike say “was monogamy ever alive?”

Meg Barker, a relationship counsellor and lectures says “ It is interesting that we readily accept someone loving more than one child, sibling or friend without their love for one of them diluting the love for others, but when it comes to romantic or sexual love most people cannot accept it happening more than once at a time."

Catherine Hakim, a sociologist who has been controversial before with her notion that women should use their sexuality as “erotic capital” says "The fact that we eat most meals at home with spouses and partners does not preclude eating out in restaurants to sample different cuisines and ambiences, with friends or colleagues.

Anyone rejecting a fresh approach to marriage and adultery, with a new set of rules to go with it, fails to recognise the benefits of a revitalised sex life outside the home."

So true on both accounts.

Diversity in all areas of life should be explored. The fact that those of us who are polyamorous cannot come out and admit to it for fear of a multitude of repercussions is a crime against humanity, seriously.

But nothing is as simple and straightforward as having a yes or a no response.

For those people who do live monogamously in life, it is neither dead nor disgusting. It is totally about choice, and we have to appreciate that it works for some people – in fact, according to this article at least 50% of the population. For those who live polyamorously, this too is neither right nor wrong, though these relationships do have to be managed carefully whether they are open (all partner’s knows other relationships) or not.

What is wrong, however, is this societal notion that a multiple-relationship lifestyle is wrong when evidently, half or more of western society indulge in extra-marital relationships or relationships outside the primary one.

Polyamory can work. For those who choose, for many reasons, to hide their polyamory from their partner, it can work. It’s difficult. It’s hard work but it can be maintained and managed to suit everyone’s needs, even the person who has allegedly been cheated on. They have the satisfaction of the status quo, even though their intuition might be telling them a few home truths about what is actually happening. Don’t rock the boat, they say, and we can maintain this illusion to keep the peace.

For those who admit to polyamory, it can also work but it needs a healthy dose of honesty in order to do so.

There are as many forms of polyamory as there are relationships, and from experience, and bitter experience at that, it can be extremely difficult when what you thought you had bought into, through lengthy discussions on the onset of an additional relationship joining in with your own, turns out to be something completely different.
Of course, when you are embarking on a new relationship with someone, you don’t know where it is going to go, you don’t know whether you can promise or imply long-term commitment to your partner as well as having a relationship with another human being, but you can at least try in the initial months and indeed year, to remember what you had “agreed” and try to ensure that your initial partner feels as loved and as important as he or she always has.

Or you can fuck up. And then your partner can fuck up. And so it goes on.

I am whole-heartedly committed to polyamory and yet there is one thing that nags at me all the time. I find it extremely difficult to understand how people can be equally “intimate” with two people at the same time, despite the quotes above from Barker and Hakim. Ultimately, I do think there is one person that you turn to, one person that you are closer to, one person that knows you better than anyone else, one person that you are completely open to and with.

And this is where I have fallen down.  As the initial or primary person in a relationship, I thought, naively, that this would be enough. I’d done the right thing by accepting a partner’s need for other relationships. Wasn’t that a gracious enough thing to do? Did I have to lose the intimacy too, largely due to my inability to accept the equity of intimacy, exacerbated by the refusal of my partner (or whatever) to tell me the extent of his (or her) involvement with others or his (or her) other partner’s need and desire for something different from their relationship?

Simple answer is that everything changes. We are where we are. We live in the moment with the feeling that are happening now, not what happened before and not what might happen in the future. Yet this is far too simple.

Of course life changes, relationships change and so forth but they don’t have to change to the point of not being. They don’t have to change to be something that is totally distinguishable with what was. But it takes effort in order to do this.

When you are so utterly close to someone, it’s difficult to accept that they could possibly be that intimate and close with another but you just have to accept the fact that they can, and it really doesn’t have to destroy a perfectly brilliant relationship. But you must be honest with one another, and if a relationship is worth maintaining, then you have to work at maintaining it.

Monogamy was never alive and it was never dead. Serial monogamy is not wrong, it is perfectly understandable. Polyamory with a primary partner and additional others is a perfectly acceptable form of relationship (and of course, my preferred option). Polyamory with total equity within two, three or more relationships is completely viable too, despite my inability to come to terms with it, largely based on writing and words spoken that implied that this would never happen – which I still believed for a very long time.

All forms of relationship are acceptable and should be accepted within society, on condition that they are not abusive. Anything can work as long as there is open communication if that is agreed or complete silence if that is what has been implicitly been decided.

I live and I learn. I know what I want and I do not want monogamy, not now, not ever, neither for me nor any partner I may have. I may like periods of time when there is only me, but I would never, ever insist on monogamy however much I love the intimacy of a relationship.

The simple fact is that anything goes, and we should accept that and appreciate it, but it can only work if people accept that anything goes and live accordingly, and I know that I have not been able to do that, to my great detriment. It can only work if a decision for openness is adhered to, or the decision for secrecy is subliminally agreed with that “no questions asked” attitude. What you can’t have is openness and then a closure of that openness which leaves a person despondent and feeling rather foolish and deluded.

Life is harsh sometimes, and I really hope that one day we will, and I will, finally get my head around relationships and all the multitude of possibilities that comes with them.

It’s hard and I am still learning, still thinking every single day of how my attitude, my beliefs can and will change. I am completely out of my comfort zone at present, and one day, in the future, I will find an equilibrium that suits me, when I finally decide what it is that makes me tick.

But be assured, it won’t ever be monogamy.

..............................
A Footnote that have been considering all morning since writing this. The issue isn't about monogamy or polyamory. It is about respect; not just for the people in the relationship but the people who are alsoa ffected by the relationship. To say that it is cruel on the incoming partner in a polyamorous relationship to explain the extent of the relationship with the primary partner is just plain wrong, because by not explaining the extent of the initial relationship is cruel to the primary partner. Not respecting certain boundaries, at least in the initial stages, that can be negotiated and reviewed later is wrong. Not respecting people outside the relationship who are affected by its complexities is thoughtless.

All of these things need to be resolved in polyamorous relationships and then they can work most effectively and tranquilly.
Just a thought.

Erotic Capital

My dear Tanya. You’ve got me all going again on a fine Saturday morning but not necessarily in a positive way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/28/tanya-gold-media-ignores-feminism

Ms. Gold is fed up. She is quite right to be so. She complains that women are still not getting a fair deal. She explains that there is still a 15% pay gap between men and women which cannot possibly be right in the 21^st century. She cries in pain at the failings of the feminist movement and the fact that there seems no spunk (excuse the pun) in their activities. She says that the media is to blame for frothing women into nothing but consumers whilst simultaneously filling our minds with trivial irrelevances. As someone recently stated, there is an off button if you do not want to watch crap, and there is a choice for all not to read rubbish in the press.

Which brings me carefully back to Ms Gold’s article.

When oh when oh when are women going to stop bickering with one another and get on with the job in hand (I’m doing well with me innuendos so far)?

I am serious. And so is Tanya.

There is plenty wrong with the way that women are treated and portrayed in life, in the media, in the home.

Women do not earn as much as men for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there is an inherent misogynism in this country. Our world is ruled by men, for men. They have the ultimate power and until women realise their own worth, not as a man but as a woman – collectively – this is not going to change.

Secondly, women are paid less than men over a lifetime because they have time off work for having babies. Not only does this interruption halt their pay for a period of time, but it prevents them from climbing the professional ladder at the same pace as their male counterparts, unless they are a particular type of woman who is probably playing the game as a misogynist in tights and a pencil skirt. Thirdly, women do not have the confidence to use their erotic capital – and more of that later.

There are lots of other reasons why women do not earn as much as men but these are just three to be going on with at the moment and, as Gold points out, there are other factors to do with women being more prevalent in caring professions or public sector, therefore they are feeling the punch of redundancy more than men at present.

What Ms Gold and many feminists fail to appreciate, however, is that we are failing so many women by not empowering them with their own minds and their own bodies.

And that is the biggest tragedy of all.

Ms. Gold opened her comments with a snide hit at the new BBC television programme which appears to be a cross between Mad Men and the Virgin advert that had a group of gorgeous women marching through an airport. She is fed up with these images belittling women and putting them down as nothing but a sexual commodity.

Here’s the thing, Tanya, and I say this as a woman who is deeply committed to the feminist movement. We are a sexual commodity and we should damn well celebrate the fact.

Catherine Hakim recently wrote a book all about the subject which I believe I have referred to before.

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781846144196,00.html

“Why do some people seem to lead charmed lives? They are attractive, but also lively, friendly and charismatic. People want to be around them. Doors open for them. The answer, this book shows, is in the power of erotic capital - the overlooked human asset that is at the heart of how we work, interact, make money, succeed and conduct our relationships.Catherine Hakim's groundbreaking book reveals how erotic capital is just as influential in life as how rich, clever, educated or well-connected we are. Drawing on hard evidence, she illustrates how this potent force develops from an early age, with attractive children assumed to be intelligent, competent and good. She examines how women and men learn to exploit it throughout their lives, how it differs across cultures and how it affects all spheres of activity, from dating and mating to politics, business, film, music , the arts and sport. She also explores why erotic capital is growing in importance in today's highly sexualised culture and yet, ironically, as a 'feminine' virtue, remains sidelined.Honey Money is a call for us to recognize the economic and social value of erotic capital, and truly acknowledge beauty and pleasure. This will not only change the role of women in society, getting them a better deal in both public and private life - it could also revolutionize our power structures, big business, the sex industry, government, marriage, education and almost everything we do.”

Ms Hakim was understandably defensive about her work every time I saw her on the television. She debated with many people who I greatly respect, for example the capable Laurie Penny, who writes so well for the New Statesman and occasionally the Guardian too. Zoe Williams had a terrible run-in with her over lunch and in my opinion, missed some important points in Ms. Hakim’s work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/19/catherine-hakim-interview

For Ms. Hakim is trying to highlight an important issue even if that point was not particularly well made in some people’s minds.

And it is this.

As women, we have erotic capital. We have the natural curves and kindness that enables us to have something to offer that no man on earth can. We have sexuality in our tits and in our pussies, in our legs and the way that we cover them or leave them bare. We have the ability to dress confidently and courageously without looking as though we are the local slapper. We have the opportunity to enhance our already beautiful features with an array of products or just plain soap and water, if we are sensible.

Women are beautiful. The female form is the most stunning thing known to human life, both men and women, and we are not capitalising on this and never have.

Feminists had a vital role to play throughout history. They were fighting important battles; for recognition, for enfranchisement, for equality in the workplace, for opportunity. And I for one am eternally grateful for their efforts.

However, as I have stated on more than one occasion, they did it at a cost. The feminists of the 60s burned their bras quite rightly because they wanted to make it perfectly clear that they were not at the beckon call of men. They were not mere sexual objects that could open their legs whenever a man desired as if this was their only function in life.

But what they forgot was their own enjoyment in all of this, or perhaps they had never actually found it.

Women are sexual beings and are as entitled and capable of enjoying sex as much as any man.

And we have got it! They haven’t.

Which is why I hold a slightly different view to Ms. Gold.

When I see that photograph of the actresses cum trolley-dollies in their bright red Virgin outfits, I stop and stare too. Admittedly, I am not so keen on the idea that this array of beauties prevents me from getting on with life or becoming interested and empathetic to the Miner’s strike or any other political story of the time, but I sure as hell look and I sure as hell get excited, not just for their beauty but for the fact that these are confident women, using not abusing their erotic capital and getting what they want, not what Mr. Branson or any other capitalist man wants.

This is true feminism; a woman empowered through her own body to aspire and to achieve, to be confident with her own body to ensure that she gets the things in life that she wants. Yes, she is sexy. Yes, she is stunning. Yes, she may well be using her looks to gain access to a professional ladder that may well not be there without them but why shouldn’t she?

But it is she that is making the choices.

If I looked as good as these women, I’d use my erotic capital.

This thing about choice is really important. In the past some feminists have suggested that whilst women think they are making a choice, in actual fact all they are doing is fulfilling the dream of the misogynist.

Let us take these Virgin flight attendants as a point in question.

There is the suggestion from feminists that the women here have made a choice in their career but that choice and even that career is solely there for the purpose and at the discretion of men. The only reason that they have this career is to titillate and excite a man as he travels across the Atlantic in is power-driven world, offering a kindly release from meeting after meeting. The choice of them being there is man’s and all the stupid women are doing is playing into their hands.

Well, yes, there is a possibility that this is partly true or certainly was in the past but we need to move on. We need to ensure that the choice is right back with women and that there is every possibility that some women choose to be a flight attendant because a) they want to travel to interesting places and b) they like their bodies, they are proud of their looks and they get a little sensual or sexual excitement from others appreciating them too.

It is the most subtlest of shifts that is required and like a tipping point, if all women would stop this talk of a misogynist take-over, then we could really start empowering ourselves for ourselves rather than it having anything to do with men whatsoever.

Recently, I attended a Burlesque evening. What made me so utterly content was that there were these women on the stage who were not necessarily the most beautiful girls in the world. They were not the smallest women, they were not the typical perfect size and yet they were there, performing and being exceptionally proud and delighted in their ability to be themselves. They were performing for men and women alike but most importantly they were making a statement to say, “Yes, I have something. I have something that is good and natural and I am celebrating it, in front of you all, and I am happy to do so. I am doing it for me, not for you, though if you enjoy it too, so much the better.”

They were using their erotic capital to good effect.

They were using their erotic capital not to get the better of anybody but because they were simply enjoying being a woman, and this is something that some feminists appear to want us to ignore.

Tanya Gold is right. We need more women in parliament. We need equal pay and not this ghastly gap between men and women, but we also need women to be women and to be proud of the fact. We need women to be sexual beings and ensure that there is as much right to be sexual as a woman as it is for a man.

There is no competition. We just need to lose this idea and get on with being who we are.

And when it comes to erotic capital, well even this phrase is slightly wrong.

Yes, we want women to capitalise on their womanhood, and yes, this sometimes means expressing their sexuality to the point of being erotic, but really, in most cases, we just want women to enjoy being women just as men, I hope, enjoy being men.

Men and women are different but we really have to get over this issue we have about the possible exploitation of our sexuality by men. In some ways we are doing more exploitation by not accepting the fact that we have this erotic capital. We are preventing some women from being who they want to be.

And one final little gripe, Ms, Gold. You mention how deplorable it is that women are seen as mere consumer fodder and then you add a sentence like this.

“When the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) polled 34,158 male and female executives in the private sector last year, they learned the average pay gap between men and women doing the same job is £10,031, and the average woman will, as such, be cheated out of £330,000 in her lifetime, which is a lot for a feminist, and also for a consumer.”

 which I assume suggests that you think that some of the £10K shortfall would be spent on consumer products should fair pay exist because that is what women do!

Be careful.

We can twist and turn any argument and any sentence and my point in doing this is to emphasise that we need a little conformity here. We need to unite and not fight. We need to accept the difference between men and women but most of all we need to empower women to be women and part of that means reclaiming their sexuality and stop pretending that this world is full of misogynists intent on having pussy all for themselves and their own purpose.

It is time for women to capitalise on being a woman and being themselves without any glaring snarls from feminists or misogynists alike.