nonmonogamy musings
full source here courtesey of mae bee, published on godhaven ink
"COMMUNITIES NOT COUPLES rule relationships, and the acceptance of them, betrays an internalised hierarchy. the relationship of a couple is of greater value and worth than others in the community. it would be equally unrealistic and undesirable to hope for everyone to feel as much love and connection with every single one of their community - down that path lies formalised and institutionalised groups or other coercive ways of relating which are just as damaging as rule relationships and coupledom.
community is more than one and it is more than two also. to create self-governing, self-sufficient small communities there cannot be the tyranny of individualism or of coupledom. to create wild and anarchistic communities we must also forsake the idea of sacrificing individual desires for the sake of the community. we have been so programmed by the megamachine that it is hard to imagine such a world where cooperation rather than competition does not elicit us as without. even harder to imagine is a world where we are free to take our pleasures and our desires openly. but if these are the communities we are in the process of creating then we must be honest and open and challenging. these communities will not prosper by shying from conflict but rather by not fearing it.
an argument often given by those who do not necessarily preach coercive relationships but are restricted by the ideology is this:
it is reasonable for A to not kiss B in front of C.
it is reasonable because A cares for C as much as she does for B.
A does not want to upset C.
nobody wants to upset those we care for. but if we restrict or inhibit our own desires for the false peace of not upsetting others, then we are left in a passionately deficit world. what then if C was upset because A and B were both female and C’s masculinity was threatened by queer sex? or if C was upset because A was black and B was white and C’s security as a black man was upset by mixed race love?
as radicals we would inevitably say the lovers should challenge homophobia and racism, that the onus is on C to deal with his feelings. and rightly so. homophobia and racism are internalised and damaging dynamics of control and power that must be challenged. so are rule relationships.
would you kiss B in front of C if C would be upset?!"
what a right moral maze i'm creating for myself...
*messyhead*
"COMMUNITIES NOT COUPLES rule relationships, and the acceptance of them, betrays an internalised hierarchy. the relationship of a couple is of greater value and worth than others in the community. it would be equally unrealistic and undesirable to hope for everyone to feel as much love and connection with every single one of their community - down that path lies formalised and institutionalised groups or other coercive ways of relating which are just as damaging as rule relationships and coupledom.
community is more than one and it is more than two also. to create self-governing, self-sufficient small communities there cannot be the tyranny of individualism or of coupledom. to create wild and anarchistic communities we must also forsake the idea of sacrificing individual desires for the sake of the community. we have been so programmed by the megamachine that it is hard to imagine such a world where cooperation rather than competition does not elicit us as without. even harder to imagine is a world where we are free to take our pleasures and our desires openly. but if these are the communities we are in the process of creating then we must be honest and open and challenging. these communities will not prosper by shying from conflict but rather by not fearing it.
an argument often given by those who do not necessarily preach coercive relationships but are restricted by the ideology is this:
it is reasonable for A to not kiss B in front of C.
it is reasonable because A cares for C as much as she does for B.
A does not want to upset C.
nobody wants to upset those we care for. but if we restrict or inhibit our own desires for the false peace of not upsetting others, then we are left in a passionately deficit world. what then if C was upset because A and B were both female and C’s masculinity was threatened by queer sex? or if C was upset because A was black and B was white and C’s security as a black man was upset by mixed race love?
as radicals we would inevitably say the lovers should challenge homophobia and racism, that the onus is on C to deal with his feelings. and rightly so. homophobia and racism are internalised and damaging dynamics of control and power that must be challenged. so are rule relationships.
would you kiss B in front of C if C would be upset?!"
what a right moral maze i'm creating for myself...
*messyhead*
posted by zoe at 1:37 pm
3 Comments:
thank you, mr bliss, for some incredibly good points there.
shit. i'm rubbish at referencing, a relative beginner at blogging and even worse at pointing out that i didn't write the article that i was quoting from, it was on the godhaven site (link at the beginning). my contribution was the messyheaded aarghy bit at the end. i kind of chose to post it to provoke comment if anyone ever read this blog, and my, what a comment :)
i had issue with the whole a - b - c scenario too.
not least because it initially reminded me of one of those logic puzzles (if a lives in a green house, and c lives next to d etc) and relegating ppl to letters doesn't sit comfortably with me...
the reasoning behind that whole thing irked too, much for the same reasons as it did you.
sure, snog your life away if you're challenging homophobia or racism while you're doing it. but if there's no prejudice involved over the upset that you cause, if it's just a case of upsetting someone for the sake of it (sorry, to challenge their internalised rules) then i don't really see how that makes it a Good Thing. i would be upset by sticking my hand in a box of tarantulas and i certainly am not going to start doing that just to challenge my own internal rules about what makes me happy...
"If A and C have made it clear that they both desire monogamy, then A is obliged (just plain common decency) to inform C that the situation has changed and that they no longer want monogamy. In that case, C is totally justified in (i) feeling upset, and (ii) ending the relationship. Just as it's unacceptable to insist that someone remain monogamous against their will, so it is unacceptable to insist that someone accept a radically new role within a relationship against their will."
yup yup yup.
i'm sure that at some point i'll be able to come up with a rational and clear explanation of my views on the whole thang, but they seem to shift from day to day in different ways.. (but when i do i hope it's as well thought out and expressed!).
i shall think about this more.
and it's just occured to me..
if you're into the whole queer thing, surely there's a whole issue with getting together with a homophobic partner?
and i can't imagine someone in a mixed race relationship getting together with someone racist.
maybe i'm being naive, and don't have enough life experience on this one. however, my personal 2p worth - i used to go out with a girl from bradford (my home town). she seemed really nice and sorted and fairly right-on. one night we got a taxi home and she was fuming when we got out.. when i asked why, she replied that she'd rung an all-white taxi firm to take us home, and that they hadn't stuck to their all-white part of the deal.
i was speechless. i also wondered how on earth i'd missed that particular quality in her.
we didn't go out for very much longer at all.
so that whole argument goes out the window for me.
interesting article
here too.
Post a Comment
<< Home