Following the breadcrumb trail on Polyamory

Jezebel had a short article on Polyamory yesterday that links to longer, more interesting articles on the subject.  Okay, marginally more interesting articles, but it’s nice to see that we’re making it into the NYT and the WaPo.  Something about us is going mainstream.  The WaPo seems to think that we’re all old farts.  Ok… I sort of resemble that remark. Despite my 28 years, I’m really a get-off-my-lawn old fart at heart.  The NYT article (and Jezebel) talk about how much work polyamory is, as if this is something extraordinary.  Lesson, kids: all good relationships are a lot of work.  Another lesson:  all good relationships are unique.

All good relationships are a lot of work.  I chafe at the idea that somehow a monogamous relationship is less work overall than a polyamorous relationship.  For one thing, there are those of us who really wouldn’t be happy any other way than polyamorous, and making a happy, complete relationship out of monogamy would be a whole lot more work for us than the reverse.  The converse is the same for those who are naturally monogamous.  It’s not more work.  It’s different work.  Sure, on the face of it, managing two relationships well should be twice as hard as managing one relationship well, but in practice that’s not really the case.  75% of the work in a relationship, in my experience, boils down to learning when to form habits vs. when to remain dynamic, and going to the effort of forming those habits and remaining dynamic where necessary.  Not falling into the groove where the groove will wear down the relationship while getting into the groove of doing the things that keep you and your partner(s) happy.  Quite a number of the habits and dynamics you develop in one relationshipwill be necessary in another relationship and will already come naturally.

That covers everything from learning how to continuously enjoy sex, flirting, dates, and conversation (remaining dynamic), to picking up the clothes off the floor, doing the dishes, keeping the gas tank full, raking the yard, mowing the lawn, and treating your partners with respect, trust, and love (building habits).  And that all goes for monogamous relationships as well as polyamorous ones.  Note for those of you who want to add “keeping jealousy in check” on the poly side and not the mono side…  see “respect, trust, and love,”  Jealousy comes in all relationships, and sometimes it has to do with sex and partnership, but sometimes it has to do with time spent on other things (kids, career, friends, hobbies).

As for the “every relationship is unique,” that sounds very froofy on one level, but I don’t mean it that way.  I’m not talking about unique and special snowflakes, but rather that the issues, strengths, weaknesses, outside lives, and personalities of people involved in a relationship change the nature of the relationship (which is obvious) in ways that often don’t meld with what we’re taught the words relationship, partner, or marriage mean (maybe not so obvious).

Consider an academic couple who live in different cities and see each other a few times a month.  Consider a couple in an arranged marriage who start out that way (I’ve seen several of these).  Consider a partnership across classes, cultures, races, and the way society views these.  Consider a same sex partnership in the context of today’s society.  Consider a marriage between people who have lost children in one way or another, and also between people who have dealt together with decades of the hard knocks life throws at you (that society judges you for). Consider successful examples of all these, and I think you’ll see that these relationships break your childhood, teenage, and even some adult preconceptions about what relationships “are”, what marriages “are.”  Now consider a polyamorous relationship and tell me, “Is that really more fundamentally different from the other relationships I’ve asked you to consider?”

Different, yes.  A lot of work, yes.  Fundamentally different from other relationships, more work than other relationships…  I just don’t think those aspersions apply.