Contact Info --

Email us --



Our Other Blogs --
We are three adults living in a polyamorous triad family. The content here is intended for an adult audience. If you are not an adult, please leave now.

3/31/2010

Polyamory Observations #17

I've watched with a jaundiced eye as the media has scrambled to make sure that we are all awash in the sordid details of high profile monogamous marriages gone terribly wrong.  Through the powers of a media machine that lives and breathes through a 24/7 news cycle, we've been privy to the messy details of the drama between Tiger Woods and his wife, Elin Nordgren.  Likewise, most recently, we've been treated to the sad story of Oscar winning actress, Sandra Bullock, her husband, Jesse James and his tattooed porn star mistress.  Part of me is inclined to shrug it off with a slightly irritated, "and we care because?"  On the other hand, I think there is something to be learned in these high profile relationship trainwrecks -- a bit of information about the way we think about and conceive of love and committment in this culture.

What strikes me about these two broken marriages is that they act as signposts, pointing to our culturally normative, idealized fantasy of monogamous, forever, 'til death do us part matrimony.  Here we have beautiful people with all the advantages and privilege that are conferred on the wealthy and attractive in our society -- and their apparently storybook romances seemingly cannot survive in spite of all of that.  There are probably dozens of sociological ways to study and analyze these marital disasters, but here's the thing that occurs to me just now...

We, and by "we" I mean women, marry for a lot of reasons.  We make a whole bunch of assumptions and we invest in lots and lots of intellectual and emotional bargains (many of them unspoken) for all the things that we hope will come to us as a result of the promises we make.  Perhaps the most essential, most intrinsic thing of value that women expect to gain from their monogamous marriages is the belief that they will be held as "special" within this relationship.  Wives trust that, within the context of their marriage relationship, there will be a reserved and private space shared only by two.  There will be a line between the "outside" world and the inner world occupied by two lovers become husband and wife.  The husband is, conceptually, property of the marriage and of his wife, even as she becomes "his."  What they create between them, in intimate terms, is considered to be unique to them and not to be shared beyond the bounds of their couple-ness. 

That belief in being special, being unique, having access that is denied to everyone else is so foundational to our view of traditional marriage that it becomes impossible for most women/wives to even contemplate the possibility that a good husband might become involved outside that dyadic limit.  If it happens, it is unbelievably, almost insurmountably destructive.  The whole sugar-candy construct crumbles, and there is simply no way forward out of the morass of shame and betrayal and anger and hurt.

It is part of what makes it so difficult for many if not most to comprehend those who live polyamorously.  To be poly, one must, from the outset, give up the notion of being special, unique, or of some sort of singular value.  For poly lovers, there is nothing that necessarily or definitively belongs only to the pair of lovers.  Everything is open once the relational boundary becomes open.  Lovers, because they love one another, might "take care" of one another and act respectfully with regard to crossing lines and protecting sensibilities.  It is the polite and grown up way to manage these things, after all.  So, there might be some sort of negotiated courtesies that partners agree to -- "don't bring your lover into our bed," for example, but there are no rock bottom assumptions or guarantees.

Coming face to face with that blunt reality is enough to give most people pause.  Over and over again, I've had other women tell me that they couldn't/wouldn't share their partner in this fashion -- and I understand.  It isn't the sharing, really.  We mostly learn to share nicely by the time we are in grade school, and the vast majority of reasonable people can share just fine in other areas of their life.  Too, none of us who've ever parented more than one child really believes that it is impossible to love more than one person simultaneously.  What causes us to come smack up against our own personal "NO," with regard to poly is that realization that we can't BE POLY and BE SPECIAL.  As critical as it seems to be for those rich and famous folks to feel special, and unique in their relationships; it is even more essential for most of the merely mortal, regular gals among us (those of us who have our wrinkles and deficiencies) to have the assurance that we really are IT. 

I see the notion of polyamory gaining ground, especially among young, hip, avant garde adventurers in their 20's and 30's.  It is the newest, hottest thing to be "into" poly; creating vast, complicated webs of tangled up relatedness that has people swapping partners in just about every conceivable configuration.  Some seem to believe that the trend is toward wider social acceptance of poly relatedness -- driven by the sheer numbers.  I am not entirely convinced.  Those young, randy trend setters will have to deal with growing up and living life and aging, and I wonder if, as time takes it toll, some significant number of them will find it more than just a bit challenging to keep on being just one among many...  nothing special, no more cherished or valued than anyone else.

swan

11 comments:

  1. Good post. There are problems inherit with both systems, but if all involved have the right mindset I believe poly would work better in the long run. But what do I know, lol? I've only done the monogamy bit and that hasn't exactly gone smoothly. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. No two people....no two women are more special.............certainly not more special to me than my swan and my t. The idea that to be "special" requires singularity is just another example of the absurdity of the monogamous mythos.

    Tom

    Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you've imagined

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your very insightful post! :)

    I suppose what gets me about the Tiger Woods and Jesse James debaucles is that they immediately claim "sex addiction." Sex addiction is a very real illness, however I do not feel that these two men suffer from it. Unfortunately, once the media jumps on the "sex addiction" bandwagon, it turns what people are construing as polyamory into a qualifiable illness and hence those who practice it must be ill/sick. Argh! :(

    I apologize for the soapbox! It's just that I find these situations so frustrating! Thanks again for posting...

    Best,
    Baby Girl :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Early in my poly days I struggled a lot with the "most special" issue. Gradually I came to realize that if a partner picks us to be their partner, it's because we ARE special, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen us in the first place. Once I realized that I *was* special, the need for assurance that I am most special was greatly reduced.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Karen8:19 PM

    Very insightful post, but,if I am remembering correctly Swan, you have had some difficult times dealing with your Masters looking for other spanking partners. I am not sure how you have worked that out, but I think that it reflects what many of us feel when we find our partners have another playmate...no matter how secure we feel in the relationship there is always that thought in the back of our minds..what if????

    Karen

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dante -- I am not sure it there is a "more" workable relationship model. Poly works for some, and monogamy works for others. Then, too, it seems that one can point to plenty of examples where neither model seems very successful. I think that there are relatively fewer good working models of poly, but then, there are relatively fewer of "us!"

    swan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sir -- You are, of course, right that there is an enormous, pervasive, and sometimes downright insidious cultural normative that pushes us toward monogamous viewpoints. Ours is not a "poly friendly" culture.

    I love You.
    Yours always and all ways,
    swan

    ReplyDelete
  8. Baby Girl -- it is true that poly folks, like other alternative lifestyle folks, get smeared with all sorts of weird and outlandish comparisons to things in the "normal" part of our culture that are routinely viewed as "sick" and "perverted." Hence, it is not surprising that a poly person might be characterized in the same way as a "sex addict." What is interesting is that a poly person is rarely characterized in the same category as a "tax payer," or a "community volunteer," or a "member of the PTA," or... After all, while there may not be very many sex addicts in our number, there are surely lots of all those other things!

    swan

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anita, the notion of "most special" versus "just special" is interesting. I was not trying to point to the need or urge to feel most special, but instead to the uneasiness that can come from confronting the fact that your lover may very well be sharing those same things that make you feel special and cherished with someone else. If those whispered endearments, or special shared places, or particular activities are part of the experience of "being special," then knowing that they are not uniquely yours is a practical emotional reality that poly folks have to address on some level.

    swan

    ReplyDelete
  10. Karen, you are correct. I have had, and do have trouble with my Master's desire to play with others. We have "worked that out" very simply. He continues to do as He chooses. He attempts to do that with great sensitivity and care for my feelings. I accept that the problems are MINE. I acknowledge my emotional reactions, but try not to let them become the driving force in my life or in my relationship.

    swan

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for the post Swan! My vanilla friends and family just look at me like I'm crazy when I say "Were these women dealt the ultimate betrayal as people portray them or were they just sucked into the outdated idea of monogamy..." I struggle with these definitions and all that they imply and am glad to see a different perspective.

    ReplyDelete

Something to add? Enter the conversation with us.