This is what I presented yesterday, and had such a great time writing over the past while. Actually, there were moments when I wanted to kill myself I had spent so much time tying myself in knots and attempting to figure out where exactly I stood in all of this, but when it came down to it, I do believe a lot of what I say. What’s interesting is that I have no idea as to whether or not I would truly be able to be a poly person, but simultaneously, I have trouble refuting my (and Laura Kipnis’) argument about the state of marriage and infidelity. Hmmm… it’s all very tricky!
The dominant language of mononormativity works in such a way that it is seen as natural in our society to fall in love, become a couple and remain partnered for life: happily ever after, and all that. But looking at the 50/50 chance of marriage not working out, it doesn’t seem that this is all that realistic a goal. Behind this idealistic dream that is surreptitiously fed to us intravenously via Hollywood and Harlequin, is a scary truth: the idea that love conquers all and that human beings are naturally monogamous creatures, is in actual fact a social construct.
It is understood that in order for a relationship to last, we have to work at it. As Laura Kipnis notes in her polemic, Against Love, it does seem rather odd that somehow, “the work ethic has managed to brownnose its way into all spheres of human existence” (18). In fact, not only have many people’s relationships become work, but many people seem to prefer to stay at work, than to work on their relationships. Furthermore, it seems to have become not only acceptable, but normal that passion dies within a relationship. And then what happens? Desire makes way for a “mature” relationship, a mature love, which in translation really means no more sex, or that sex too becomes work.
For me, a rather more realistic interpretation of this 50/50 figure of success vs. failure in marriage might be that human beings aren’t really monogamous. But what does that say about this monogamous ideal? But wait! Within the mononormative, heteronormative framework, there’s room for infidelity. While on the surface we all supposedly desire this happily ever after, underneath it all, many discover that they aren’t capable of this, when years into working on a relationship, one or the other partner meets someone else, and rediscovers passion, or worse falls in love. Then there is the choice: make a decision to stay with your partner or to leave her for new love. Choose to tell and risk it all or live a life of lies and deception.
What I want to look at is why these are seen as the only options. When the statistics show the incredible number of people who are adulterous, and the extremely high rates of divorce, would it not be sensible to look for a viable alternative? And an alternative does exist. However, what I’m going to argue is that the constraints of language and dominant mononormative discourse mean that this alternative – polyamory – is kept on the outer fringes of sexual possibility for most people, and furthermore, when it is discussed, it is seen as childish or neurotic or even boring in contrast to infidelity which according to Ani Ritchie appears to be the only viable form of non-monogamy in western cultural discourse (587).
Polyamory is defined in various ways by various people, but the kernel of it is that it is “living by the principle that it is possible to love more than one person at a time without deception or betrayal” (White 17). Words used by the poly community to describe their lifestyle include ethical, responsible, honorable, open, honest, intentional, and principled. The idea is that one lives according to one’s desires and comfort levels, as well as those of ones’ partners, lovers and friends. There is enough love to go around, and as long as honesty and support are maintained, this can be a most rewarding way to avoid the traditional forms of non-consensual non-monogamy that pervade Western society. Through polyamory you can have love and passion flowing through your life consistently, rather than cutting it off with a golden band.
But why, if it sounds like such a reasonable way to live one’s relationships is it so very difficult for most people to fathom that a polyamorous lifestyle is even possible? There are a few reasons for this, our understanding of jealously being a major one, but primarily, I would say that it is discourse and social conditioning that mean that most people are incapable of considering non-monogamous loving lifestyles as a viable option. Because of the way that language structures our world, and thus constrains as well as creates meaning, the lack of language with which to describe polyamory renders it invisible within monogamous culture.
This is something that the polyamorous community has had to struggle with, as the only language available to account for non-monogamy is that of infidelity, language that is imbued with the idea that it is wrong to have more than one romantic or sexual relationship and that the only way to do this is to do it in secrecy. Many polyamorous people feel constrained by this language, and consequently have attempted to reinvent, or reinscribe meaning into words that give them positive connotations, rather than feel restricted by the lack of language available to them.
One of the most obvious examples of the reinscription of meaning into a word is Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt’s reinterpretation of the word ‘slut.’ Easton and Liszt proclaim themselves to be ‘ethical sluts,’ a term that for them describes someone who respects other people’s rights and feelings, behaves with honesty and integrity, is not selfish, works for the whole community, doesn’t exploit people, and doesn’t treat people like objects (Klesse 644). An ‘ethical slut’ is a person who simply enjoys sexual connection with many partners. Easton further notes in an interview with Christian Klesse, that she has a strong interest in reclaiming language – taking sex-negative words and using them positively, and asks why she should let all of the people with negative views on sexuality define the words we use to talk about it.
In their book, entitled The Ethical Slut, Easton and Liszt note the difficulties involved in talking about polyamory without creating a new language, saying that most of the language that is available to us has built-in value judgments, like the word slut, which are a legacy of our sex negative history (Easton 39). Liszt notes in an interview that if you let your enemies define your words you give them the power to hurt you (Ritchie 591). By creating a new meaning for a word like ‘slut,’ not only can you unpack the double-standards imbued within the word – that promiscuity is bad in women and celebrated in men – but you can also see it as a strategy for resistance, when people proudly proclaim themselves to be ‘ethical sluts,’ which is something that you see on the poly websites and in discussion groups. However, outside of these safe spaces, it is still very difficult for poly people to step away from the dominant mononormative discourse that controls the language we use.
Describing relationship structures is a place where polyamory has had to create a completely new set of terminology, and not without complications. It seems that there are as many different types of relationships as there are people, and while many do use specific models, for instance the primary/secondary/tertiary model, the V, the tribe or pod, these terms themselves are up for interpretation. In my email correspondence with a woman I will refer to as Polygirl, she remarked to me that she struggles with the labels used in the poly world, as we can never really decide in advance who we will love and how much we’ll love them. She notes that she uses “the label primary to mean the relationship that involves children and finances… but not to define the intensity of love felt. She says, “I’m sure there are others out there who share children with more than one poly love and for them, ‘primary’ could mean something entirely different again.” Some people also have issue with the idea of hierarchical relationship structures, and consequently speak of ‘inner circles’ of relationships, or quads or triads, which attempt to maintain equality within the polyamorous relationship.
Not only are words reinscribed with new meaning, but often new words are created where none exist that sufficiently describe a feeling or type of relationship. For instance, lacking the word to describe a partner’s partner, the term ‘metamour’ was coined. This term came from discussions in the Alt.Poly group, and one of the participants in this thread commented that “there wasn’t a word for it but the concept got talked about a lot, so when someone coined a word it started being used everywhere quickly”(Ritchie 593). A ‘paramour’ is the unmarried partner of a married polyamorous person, and was noted by one poly group member, to have enabled her to recognize the relationship she had with her partner’s partner, which gave him a special relationship to her.
Another place that words have been created is in describing feelings, especially in relation to jealousy, which is popularly considered to be a natural component of romantic love or a pre-programmed response to one’s partner behaving or feeling sexually towards someone else. In polyamory, the word ‘wibbly’ is used to express when one feels anxiety and needs reassurance, but it doesn’t have the same sort of negative connotations as jealousy. Many people also use the term ‘compersion’ to describe the feeling of joy that comes from the joy your partner is experiencing with others. This word is pretty much the antonym for jealousy. Others who don’t like this word use ‘frubbly.’ As Ritchie and Barker note, inventing a word for this positive reaction to a situation challenges the traditional understanding of jealousy and can enable those within poly communities to rethink their emotions and experiences.
Because of the difficulties of living outside of the dominant mononormative relationship structure, many people can feel alienated and incapable of truly expressing an identity. With the creation of a language of polyamory, not only can poly people find a voice, but they can also express themselves within dominant culture and potentially challenge the mononormative understandings of emotions and relationships, and consequently attempt to bring polyamory into a more visible position within mainstream culture.
