Serial monogamy

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 17 2007 05:47

i'm not sure if you're saying that others here are conventional. a bit of a weird thing to point out in friendly discussion, as i was not aware that how unconventaional one is an important political or even ethical point.

Steggsie
Offline
Joined: 16-10-06
May 17 2007 11:44

Well exactly - just like in that awful, brilliant lakeside lodge episode of Peep Show season 2. As you imply, the hippie attitude is actually quite compatible with a conservative anxiety about sex, as I think can be seen from this thread. Kind of lifestylism meets Calvinism.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
May 17 2007 11:59
revol68 wrote:
destruction of 'human solidarity', oh please shut the fuck up.

the relationships which are the most intense will always have the potential to leave people fucked up, bitter, angrry, depressed etc etc. It's the nature of romantic love and to be honest I wouldn't want to exchange it for some castrated leftist hippy wank fantasy where it's all very civilised, level headed and rational, where you do yoga whilst the stinking hippy in the next room fucks the person you love and then youse all sit down to some tofu together.

Tut tut, don't you realise that you can only truly show solidarity with others if you have the emotional range of a pod person on vallium?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
May 17 2007 18:36
Steggsie wrote:
Well exactly - just like in that awful, brilliant lakeside lodge episode of Peep Show season 2.

I was thinking of that too.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
May 17 2007 20:49
jef costello wrote:
Steggsie wrote:
Well exactly - just like in that awful, brilliant lakeside lodge episode of Peep Show season 2.

I was thinking of that too.

That is the episode i have had in mind throughout the whole thread and when i referred to Marks' character earlier...such a great ep. tongue

ginger's picture
ginger
Offline
Joined: 19-07-04
May 18 2007 17:39

Monogamy seems to work well for many (most?) people. For some of us it doesn't and polyamory is a better model. Ideally this is purely personal preference/negotiation and I agree with those who have said that it doesn't seem like the most pressing issue for these boards. And in context for me it is a large and immediate personal issue as I've had ongoing personal problems with trying to negotiate in terms of monogamy/polyamory.

I think the point at which it becomes political is when Power tries to foist one or other model be it heterosexuality, nuclear family, celibacy or monogamy on those within its reach.

I think that happens within this society. There is pressure, there has been coercion for people to fit into a heterosexual monogamous model. However I don't think that the ruling class sees this in any way as important anymore. With the legal pressures off (for a number of reasons including because of the militancy of GLF etc and as I said I don't think the ruling class saw it as important anymore compared to the disruption of those struggling against it.) there is increasing visibility and acceptability of non heterosexual/monogamous relationships.

However this society is conservative and slow to change. There is still social presure and reactionary views expressed regarding those of us who do not fit into the dominant mold :

revol68 wrote:
the relationships which are the most intense will always have the potential to leave people fucked up, bitter, angrry, depressed etc etc. It's the nature of romantic love and to be honest I wouldn't want to exchange it for some castrated leftist hippy wank fantasy where it's all very civilised, level headed and rational, where you do yoga whilst the stinking hippy in the next room fucks the person you love and then youse all sit down to some tofu together.

Personally I've always felt its a hang up for the empty lives most of us lead as workers/consumers that love is primarily quantified by how much pain and jealousy it induces. As somebody who very rarely feels jealous, and on the 2 occasions where I did feel it it was so obviously due to my own insecurities, I've found it hard to empathise with lovers who did express, or want me to express in that way, the power of their emotions via how awful i was when I/them wasn't around etc. Do we really doubt the authenticity of our hearts that much? What happened to ecstasy at being in someone's presense? Delight in intimacy? It seems that the culturally acceptable (ok, what I learned from watching soap operas is the social norm) way of expressing love is to look thunderously at any potential "rival" for your love.

Of course without pressure from the outside to conform (eg in revolutionary situations) to a certain way of being, other ways will spring up from those who naturally are inclined in that way. I don't think that makes "unconventional" relationships intrinsically revolutionary in themselves, although I do think monogamy as commonly practised by eg my parents is very destructive of any other relationships they might want to form. But nor are hose alternative forms of relationships purely "hippy wank fantasy". They are something that works for some people, and that the ruling class in this society proscribed for a long time.

Just because lots of things hippies do are pointless rubbish, doesn't mean they all are. Its reactionary to dismiss something purely on the basis that hippis do it so it must be wrong. Fine, decide its not right for you - you're probably right.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 18 2007 19:40

Oh revol68, that is horrid. I quite fancy ginger as it happens, it was an excellent post. The personal problems one encounters when negotiating terms of monogamy/polyamory are the non-soap opera way of looking thunderously at any potential "rival" for your love.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 18 2007 19:43
revol68 wrote:
what's horrid???

You defending the ruling class' hegemonic control of love.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 18 2007 19:44

Asking someone to stop dressing up their sex life. Jesus, you're right though, I must fancy ginger even more than I thought.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 18 2007 19:46

If I can't dress up for sex its not my revolution.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 18 2007 19:48

Hi

Oh yeah. I don't see how ginger is trying to justify putting it about. I mean, being hot is justification enough.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 18 2007 19:51

"enhances all interactions..." you mean.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 18 2007 19:52
revol68 wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
revol68 wrote:
what's horrid???

You defending the ruling class' hegemonic control of love.

ahh bullshit if anything i'm a feudal opponent railing against the bare faced quick fix consumerism of capitalism and the commodity logic that reduces all interactions to empty hedonism and tears assunder bounds of loyalty and honour.

Yeah. I've done the lord of the manor/castle wench game. The hay lofts make me sneeze.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 18 2007 20:00

Oh aren't we moody. Are you enjoying your sex life comrade? As you say, there is no point, and that's why ginger avoided doing it. Is she a woman? This gets better and better. I hope she's watching me defend her so chivalrously.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 18 2007 20:05

You must be drinking. I mean doesn't ginger strike you as the sort you'd go for? Does me. She better not be a minger, is all I can say.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 18 2007 20:10

Hi

There you go. Her spell has got us both under control. That's 4 on the go she's got now. What a tart.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 18 2007 20:15

Hi

Perhaps ginger is my Mrs.

Love
LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 18 2007 20:30
Quote:
I reckon you'd be a jealous bastard in real life.

I think it varies on a body-clock as well as between individuals, like the desire to start a family or male pattern baldness or something.

ginger's picture
ginger
Offline
Joined: 19-07-04
May 18 2007 21:22

lol

Clarification
1) My sexual activity is not a political act in and of itself.
2) I enjoy it and have been known to "put it about"
3) The point at which it becomes in any way worth discussion on political boards is the point when I am oppressed for my personal behaviour. Which I am not suggesing is particularly happening now. Although I do have to pretend to have a normal hetero/monogamous lifestyle to not be ostracised in my workplace/community.
4) To the best of my knowledge I've not had sex with anyone who's contributed to this thread so far. In fact I think I've only ever met john. in real life and I'm fairly confident we've never had sex, though there were many drunken nights back-in-the-day.
5) I wasn't having a go at anyone for their sexual/relationship preferences. The only reason I mentioned mine was to contextualise my response and to say that I might have a bias as that is my preference.
6) I've aways thought LR was quite hot too. In a lascivious Sunday brunch in bed kinda way.

ginger's picture
ginger
Offline
Joined: 19-07-04
May 18 2007 22:05
revol68 wrote:
Ah right and this isn't vaguely political or judgemental about anyone, no?

No. It wasn't. I have absolutely no problems with how anybody decides to lead their sexual relationships as long as its between consenting adults.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
May 19 2007 07:14

A threat to bourgeois morality and serial monogamy?

ginger's picture
ginger
Offline
Joined: 19-07-04
May 19 2007 10:48
revol68 wrote:
ginger wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Ah right and this isn't vaguely political or judgemental about anyone, no?

No. It wasn't. I have absolutely no problems with how anybody decides to lead their sexual relationships as long as its between consenting adults.

well i'm not suggesting you plan to set up a front group about it but quite clearly is a political statement and rather judgemental as well.

lol. thats amusing coming from you, considering your dig at non monogamy before i even joined this thread:

revol68 wrote:
some castrated leftist hippy wank fantasy where it's all very civilised, level headed and rational, where you do yoga whilst the stinking hippy in the next room fucks the person you love and then youse all sit down to some tofu together.

The only critical point I made was at anyone (monogamous, polyamorous or whatever) who quantifies their love in terms of jealousy. I do think thats unhealthy but I think its a sad product of society that ends up with people doing that. Do you disagree? I'd be interested to hear why you do if so. I might learn something and thats always nice. smile

I've been very clear from the beginning that I think most people may well prefer monogamy, and why would I have a problem with that? I'm totally soppy and adore it when people find love of whatever form works for them.

The only time that your sexual/relationship preference (between consenting adults) becomes of political relevance is if you are oppressed for it.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 19 2007 13:28
Quote:
your bullshit rant about jealousy, as if it can be reduced to closed minded brain washed drones

On the contrary. Ginger elevates jealousy to the status of a sexual peccadillo. Like bondage, say, or foot worhsip.

ginger's picture
ginger
Offline
Joined: 19-07-04
May 19 2007 13:49
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
some castrated leftist hippy wank fantasy where it's all very civilised, level headed and rational, where you do yoga whilst the stinking hippy in the next room fucks the person you love and then youse all sit down to some tofu together.

see I was pointing out that it's not polyamarous relationships that annoy me but some of the smug self satisfied shit that accompanies it, attitudes that you summed up perfectly with your bullshit rant about jealousy, as if it can be reduced to closed minded brain washed drones. I don't have a problem with a whole range of emotions and as i said hate this 'right on' bullshit were people are expected to hide/suppress such emotions because they are political incorrect, for me jealously, hurt and a whole spectrum of emotions are not just bad side products of capitalism blah blah blah but form part of a full human experiance.

Well I disagree that you were being specific enough to just be critisising people who are smug about their relationships. To me you were dismissing everyone who chooses not to be monogamous.

I also agree that its not on to suppress/hide or otherwise be made to feel that your emotions are wrong. In my experience of poly communities these days thankfully thats not part of the culture anymore. Instead emotions such as jealousy are seen 100% as indications that somebody's needs aren't being met in a relationship and that the relationship needs work. Poly "culture" (such as it exists through mailing lists, social outings etc) is to comunicate honestly and openly with your partners. To absolutely express if you feel hurt or upset or insecure or wanting more special time with your partner or wanting them not to have sex in the same house or whatever. Thankfully we've grown up from the naivety and lack of care for the person/people that you claim to love as displayed in that horrific film about the commune in Sweden (?).

There are some excellent articles on this site :
http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html

I don't think that having an honest, caring, respectful and communicative relationship is exclusive in ny way to polyamory. However I do think that without that a polyamorous relationship will not survive at all, in a way that with monogamy it might be possible to. Its as if the fact of not being monogamous is like the miner's canary - if there's anything wrong it will show up way before you might otherwise notice.

For example my parents' disfunctional (monogamous) relationship couldn't have survived as long as it did, with so much swept under the carpet if they'd also been openly and honestly been hving other lovers. Because they were both a bit insecure and upset and fractured within the relationship, the added pressure of nonmonogamy would have blown it apart.

Therefore in order to ensure that poly relationships survive there is a need for them to be honest, communicative, renegotiated etc. And I'm most definitely not saying that monogamous relationships can't be like that too. At their best all reationships are.

xeromag wrote:
Jealousy is most common when somebody feels insecure, mistreated, threatened, or vulnerable in a relationship. If you feel secure in a relationship, you don't get jealous. Jealousy is not the problem; jealousy is the SYMPTOM of the problem. Address the insecurity or the things underlying the feelings of vulnerability, and you address the jealousy. So the trick to making a poly relationship work is to make everyone involved feel secure, valued, and loved.

A poly relationship depends much more than a traditional relationship on mutual security and trust. Even the smallest amount of insecurity in a poly relationship can quickly be magnified to the point where it can be lethal to the relationship.

( http://www.xeromag.com/fvpolyjealousy.html )

ginger's picture
ginger
Offline
Joined: 19-07-04
May 19 2007 13:57
Lazy Riser wrote:
Quote:
your bullshit rant about jealousy, as if it can be reduced to closed minded brain washed drones

On the contrary. Ginger elevates jealousy to the status of a sexual peccadillo. Like bondage, say, or foot worhsip.

What happened to the chivalrous defender of my honour from yesterday? ;P Not sure which I prefer to be honest...

dictionary.com wrote:
peccadillo : a very minor or slight sin or offense; a trifling fault.
[Origin: 1585–95; < Sp pecadillo, dim. of pecado sin < L peccātum transgression, n. use of neut. of ptp. of peccāre to err, offend]

I promise I consider neither bondage nor foot worship as a very minor sin.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
May 19 2007 15:03

Ha ha. That was meant to be a defence actually, see I'm suffocating you now, aren’t I. I was chatting with a mate the other day who asked why does mother nature make all the hotties so complicated? “All in your mind”, says I. I’m not so sure really though.

jeremytrewindixon
Offline
Joined: 6-03-07
May 21 2007 02:24

From lem (I think I am "you")

Quote:
i'm not sure if you're saying that others here are conventional. a bit of a weird thing to point out in friendly discussion, as i was not aware that how unconventaional one is an important political or even ethical point..

Wouldn't dream of saying any such thing, lem.

I must say that while the discussion continues to be interesting it hasn't engaged much with the point that what challenges "polyamory" and other non-exclusive sexual forms is by no means traditional monogamy, Traditional monogamists, one life one partner as a serious aim at least, are more and more looked at with tolerant smiles. Cute. Sweet. Not quite to be taken seriously.

The challenge is "serial" or if you like disposable monogamy. That this is by no means the "traditional" form of monogamy but a recent developement seems to be missed.

The idea that Anarchists are only interested in the direct action of the state, and have no interest in cultural and social developements seems to be a narrow one. For example, if a polyamorist has to lie about their lifestyle in order to avoid ostracism then it seems to me that is of interest to Anarchists.

jeremytrewindixon
Offline
Joined: 6-03-07
May 23 2007 02:34
Quote:
i'm afraid i have no interest in what people do in their bedrooms,

That'd make you pretty unusual, revol68, and also make it hard to understand why you bought into this discussion in the first place.

And if you'd ever heard a child crying for her father that she wasn't allowed to see then you might have a better grasp of the importance of the subject.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 23 2007 02:44
revol68 wrote:
i'm unusual because i don't give a fucking what consenting strangers get up to in their bedrooms? I mean maybe, I suppouse on some level i find it interesting to know thugarist likes to get down and dirty as Yogi but on a political level it really doesn't do anything for me.

It was totally political.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
May 23 2007 11:08
jeremytrewindixon wrote:
And if you'd ever heard a child crying for her father that she wasn't allowed to see then you might have a better grasp of the importance of the subject.

depending on what he's doing in there it might be a good thing. You wouldn't want her to develop a phobia about horses.