This is the second and last part of the interview with Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins and Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa on the topic of open, non-monogamous relationships -- Part I is here.
___________________________________________________________________
CATARINA: For something else, some argue that there is a historical correlation between monogamy and democracy, simply because in a polygamous society some men will have more than one woman, while other men will have none (see here). Of course, the idea of a non-monogamous marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, but some people argue that, in an open relationship, being involved with other people may divert resources (emotional, material) from the main relationship, which can negatively affect the well-being of partners as well as of offspring (when there is offspring). What do you think about this?
JONATHAN: In the article you link, our colleague Dr. Henrich is discussing negative sociological consequences of non-polyandrous polygyny—a social system in which men take multiple wives, whilst demanding exclusivity from each of them. I am not a sociologist, but it’s easy for me to believe that such a system could lead to trouble. And practical consequences aside, it’s also just plain unjust. But nobody thinks non-polyandrous polygyny is the only non-monogamist option, right?
It is a fact that in many instances, polygamy is practiced unjustly. I don’t have a firm opinion about whether laws banning it are justified—certainly I can understand the motivation to protect the women who are actually harmed by much actual polygamy. But I am convinced that there is nothing inherently harmful about permanent romantic bonds involving more than two consenting individuals, and I’d like to see such relationships afforded the same legal protections that my marriage is. Laws are blunt instruments, of course; the trick is to have an institution that can tell the difference between good polygamy and bad polygamy. I don’t have a legislative suggestion handy.
But as you say, questions about polygamy and questions about monogamy in the sense we’re talking about it are independent. (That’s an unfortunate quirk of English—‘monogamy’ is used both for marital exclusivity and for sexual exclusivity. Carrie and I are ‘monogamous’ in one sense, but not in the other.)
CARRIE: Let me just add to that by picking up on the question of resources being diverted away from loved ones. Again, I just don’t think there’s anything special about non-monogamy in this regard. Golf can divert resources (emotional and material) from one’s partner and offspring to potentially negative effect. Even among reasonably sensible people, careers and other family members can. Everyone has to learn to manage these sorts of things, and work to ensure a good balance of energy, time and resources. It’s the same with extra-relationship dating: you have to be careful you’re not doing it wrong, because if you do you could harm your loved ones.
CATARINA: One interesting and crucial difference with respect to non-human animals is that, in humans, entirely uninvolved third parties keep track of a person’s behavior; there is a strong tendency towards social control of the ins and outs of people’s relationships, and ‘breach of monogamy’ is seen as socially reproachable. In animals, the uninvolved third parties do not get upset at the animal who strays, even in species with strong monogamous tendencies. I understand from your piece that breaking away from this form of social control was an important motivation for you to be open about your decision, is that right?
JONATHAN: I wouldn’t put it that way. I think that social moral pressure can be a great thing. I’m glad I live in a society where people enforce various social norms upon one another. Among the relevant, perfectly legitimate norms are ones deriving from the promises we make to our romantic partners. I think, for instance, that husbands should keep the promises they make to their wives, and that it’s a good thing that there is some social regulation to that effect. This goes for the more specific case of sexual fidelity, too. I’m very much against cheating, and I have no problem with third parties enforcing that norm, within reason. The problem comes when people make false assumptions about what has and has not been promised; then they’ll be wrong about what constitutes cheating. I don’t want my friends to judge me negatively if they see me out on a date with another woman—not because I don’t think I should be subject to their judgment in generality, but simply because my being out on a date with another woman doesn’t constitute cheating. The fidelity agreement between my wife and me doesn’t prohibit such dates, although it does prohibit other activities. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for my friends to judge me negatively if, consistent with a reasonable respect for my privacy, they learned that I had been unfaithful to my wife. I just don’t want them making false assumptions about what would constitute unfaithfulness.
CARRIE: Part of our motivation for being open about our relationship style is that we hope to avoid some of the kinds of disapproval that we might expect if we were seen with other partners and mistaken for cheaters. Another part of our motivation was good old-fashioned consciousness-raising; the more of that (hopefully), the less unthinking social disapproval and disadvantage non-monogamists will face. I feel like smart people who give some thought to the issue should mostly be willing to challenge any negative preconceptions they might have. I’m optimistic like that.
CATARINA: It is often the case that two people in a relationship simply cannot agree on the terms that best suit them both. Do you have any advice to offer to couples with very dissimilar views on relationships and monogamy? Perhaps you could say something on how the negotiating process has been for you?
CARRIE: Honestly, I think we have pretty similar views on the topic. We negotiate about details though, and we don’t regard anything as set in stone. A backstop for us (which I think helps) is that we could happily have a monogamous relationship if we ever felt that non-monogamy wasn’t working out. Non-monogamy is a bonus, but not a deal-breaker. We’ve also never come across a difference of opinion that couldn’t be resolved by talking honestly. Once all the relevant facts and wishes feelings and are on the table, it’s normally not that hard to see what we ought to do. (It might be more work to do it, but that’s not the negotiating part being hard.)
I’d be hesitant to offer advice to anyone; people who want advice should listen to the Savage Lovecast, or just go ahead and call Dan Savage: he’ll probably end up describing them and/or their nearest and dearest as douchebags, but the exchange will probably be amusing.
Obviously, people with very different views on how monogamous they want to be will probably have to make some serious compromises in order to be together. But then again, the same is true for people with very different cultural backgrounds, or reproductive wishes, or tastes in household décor. In all those sorts of situations, people have to ask whether the benefits of a relationship are worth the costs, and make their decisions accordingly.
JONATHAN: I think what Carrie says is pretty much right. I’ll add one more resource to the list for people who are struggling with the issue: Tristan Taormino’s book Opening Up, which lays out a lot of the options and includes interviews with many people who have faced pretty much every kind of challenge you’re likely to run into.
I’m not sure that most people are ‘hardwired’ for a particular relationship style. (I’m convinced by testimony that at least some are.) What works best for a couple depends on the particular relationship—and it’s not at all uncommon for these things to change over time. So an initial disagreement about the appropriate level of sexual exclusivity needn’t be a deal-breaker. (One good practical tip for couples who are negotiating is to take baby steps. Go to bed—just the two of you—and talk out some fantasies involving other people, with no expectation that you’re going to go out and make them happen. Maybe the monogamously-inclined party will find the fantasy more fun than he or she expected, and will feel more ready to take another baby step before too long.) All that said, some people have fairly particular needs, and if they’re incompatible, that’s a reason not to be together.
CATARINA: The article came out in July; what have been people’s reactions? Were they surprising, or just what you would expect?
JONATHAN: I don’t think anybody has mentioned it to me. I know Carrie’s heard from a few people.
CARRIE: I didn’t have particular expectations; I was just a bit nervous about people being weird or unpleasant. Instead, a few people have written to me expressing support, which I massively appreciate, and so far I’ve had no negative feedback of any kind.
CATARINA: Well, thank you both so much for sharing your thoughts and experiences on this important but, philosophically at least, somewhat neglected topic!
Recent Comments