"Love in its broadest sense, based on care, responsibility, respect and knowledge, is not an escape from a life without meaning, but a recognition that we make our individual lives meaningful through our involvements with others. We cannot retreat from the contingency and arbitrariness of the world, but we can make life meaningful if we face it with a recognition of our mutual need for one another."

—Jeffrey Weeks


r e l a t e d
o u t p o s t s

shades beyond gray
"The queer / pansexual erotic journal by and for the freaktribe"

Anything That Moves
"The bisexual magazine for the FABGLITTER"



My Summer Romance:
"Of course I have. I've seen many. It's just that I've never seen one so... so... uh. . so beautiful. So feminine."

Shame of the Cities
Gentrification in the New Urban America

Faster, Poetry, Slam! Slam!
Scenes from the National Poetry Slam in Austin, TX

I Love to Burn the Flag
"Sometimes the stars would ignite, sometimes the stripes. Sometimes, the whole thing would go up in a blaze of Old Glory..."

Black on White:
Black Writers on What It Means to Be White
Edited by David Roediger

PR Watch:
Edited by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton


Fabrication Defect:
Tom Zé, Brazil's Cultural Cannibal, Poops a Pearl

Smoke Signals:
A History of Native Americans in Cinema

 

by Peter Staudenmaier
02.26.01


to talk about openly and reasonably than sex, love and intimacy. The subject is likely to be an occasion for embarrassment or misunderstanding, and is often simply not a safe theme for people who have suffered abuse or had mostly negative experiences. Despite the pitfalls involved, however, it's important to try to come to terms with the various forms of sexual expression within the communities we live and work in, with as much knowledge as possible. In that spirit I'd like to explore a set of choices about intimate conduct that is rarely articulated in a serious and thoughtful way: conscious non-monogamy.

I'll emphasize at the outset that there's nothing wrong with monogamy as such. When monogamous relationships are the result of considered choice, they're frequently durable and fulfilling, and anything that makes people truly happy is all right with me. But there is something wrong with compulsory monogamy; and unfortunately that is the predominant manifestation of monogamy in our current society.

What's in a Name?

Indeed, the very term "non-monogamy" points to the problem here. Using this word to designate an alternative approach to relationships underlines the extent to which monogamy is the unquestioned premise, the unacknowledged dogma behind all discussions of the topic. People who practice alternatives to monogamy sometimes choose terms like "polyamory," "open relationships" or "inclusive relationships" (as opposed to exclusive ones). Personally I like the old phrases "free love" and "varietism," which were pioneered by nineteenth century anarchists and feminists who were acutely aware of the connection between sexual freedom and social freedom. The phrase "free love" was appropriated in the 1970's and subsequently took on narcissistic and male-dominated connotations, and I'm loathe to bring those associations to the kind of conscious non-monogamy that I believe can be truly liberating. Thus, I'm left with the little-used but untainted "varietism."

Varietism takes many forms; I will only describe one of them here. But what all forms have in common is a rejection of monogamy as ideology and as institution. The ideology of monogamy is based on what I call the soap opera paradigm (you might also call it the Hollywood paradigm or the Disney paradigm): the notion that somewhere out there your perfect complement awaits, the person who will fulfill all your desires, and if you can just find each other you'll live happily ever after. I think that's a fairy tale which ends up cheating a lot of people out of a meaningful and successful love life. Challenging such romantic illusions can open up real erotic and emotional possibilities instead of holding us hostage to an impractical myth.

The soap opera paradigm is based on two equally implausible and contradictory ideas: That of generalized emotional-erotic scarcity (there's not enough love or lust to go around, so I'd better grab what I can get and hold on to it); and that of complete one-to-one compatibility (one person can satisfy all of my needs and longings, and I'll be able to do the same for him or her, forever).

I propose a more realistic scenario: Sexual desire and emotional satisfaction are dynamic and constantly changing aspects of our lives, and attraction doesn't usually sort itself automatically into neat categories. The prospect that one person will bring universal fulfillment is as unlikely as the prospect that I'll never find any fulfillment at all if I don't ensure that my relationship with him or her is an exclusive one.

Thus varietism seeks to replace an ethos of romantic competition with one of cooperation. Affection and pleasure aren't rare commodities to be carefully guarded; indeed they often multiply when shared. Rejecting the ideology of monogamy does not require giving up on deep and lasting emotional bonds, but simply freeing those powerful connections from an inadequate and inappropriate structure. In the words of lesbian activist Ellen Herman, "This does not mean that love and intimacy would disappear, just that the role of sexuality would be less distorted and scaled to a more realistic size, making chances for sexual and emotional satisfaction much greater."

As misleading as the ideology of monogamy is, it is monogamy as institution that is truly damaging. In fact, the discrepancy between the ideology and the institution is striking: for many people, men in particular, "monogamy" means demanding fidelity from one's partner while violating it oneself when the opportunity arises. This is not surprising given the historical origins of monogamy and the social context within which it operates. Private property and economic acquisitiveness, after all, accord well with a model of romantic possessiveness. And it is difficult to disentangle the institution of monogamy from the sexism, homophobia, and general fear of sexual nonconformity which mark our culture. From this perspective, we might view patriarchy, heterosexism, and compulsory monogamy as one interlocking structure, where each component reinforces the others, to the detriment of us all.

Monogamy as Ideology & Institution

Even as a moral framework, monogamy falls short in several ways. Devotees of the practice—I like to call them monogamaniacs—trumpet its ethical character, which is supposed to be based on consideration for one's partner and the wish to avoid messy entanglements. But our feelings plainly are messy much of the time, and monogamy more often acts as a kind of moral or emotional shortcut by offering people a prepackaged set of easy answers and thus relieving them of the burden of making difficult choices. Ethical varietism, on the other hand, asks us to work through such questions, painful as they may be, and to squarely and openly face the issues they raise for us and our partners. Commitment to one's partner and to the relationship, from this point of view, becomes an active process that is constantly renewed rather than a passive structure that is merely assumed.

So how does this alternative model of relationships actually work? It starts with honesty—a radical and challenging kind of honesty. Creating open relationships requires a commitment to genuine communication with everybody involved. This can be scary at first, and certainly requires discipline, but it can also be an inspiring revelation. Intimacy is often deepened, and pleasure increased, when we start treating our own affection and desire, as well as our partner's affection and desire, with respect rather than suspicion. Believe it or not, watching your lover blossom in the context of another relationship can be intensely rewarding and can strengthen your own bond. It can, of course, also lead to changes in your relationship that may involve greater distance or even, to be fair, separation. But the important question is whether people remain committed to their relationships out of honesty and love or out of fear and insecurity.

Varietism in Practice