Thoughts about monogamy I agree with

This blog entry is just a copy of this thread by @butchanarchy on Twitter.

Okay here's the take: I have yet to come across a single sound argument for how expecting monogamy from your partner is compatible with anarchist values of personal autonomy and rejection of coercion and private ownership. Because it isn't. Let's break it down.

First, I am going to clarify that I am not speaking here of choosing for *yourself* to remain monogamous. That is a personal choice each person can make about their own capacity and desires. What I'm going to explore are the implications of expecting monogamy from others. I understand that this is probably going to make a lot of folks uncomfortable. It is my request for you to recognize that just because this is a deeply personal subject that agitates many things we take for granted about relationships, does not mean that it is inherently wrong. I like to start this topic with an example of the conservative housewife: just because there are many conservative housewives who would wholeheartedly agree that they love their role and their husband's control over them does not mean that that role is wrong to critique. Likewise, simply because many people claim that monogamy feels good or works for them, does not put monogamy beyond critique. It is, in fact, its deeply personal nature (as well as its place as a powerful component of our social life) makes it all the more important to critique. Just as feminists aren't suggesting that we charge into people's homes and rip housewives out of their relationships when we critique the social control inherent in that kind of relationship, critiques of monogamy aren't trying to make you end your monogamous relationship.

Alright, now that I've gotten all the disclaimers all of the angry commenters are going to ignore anyway out of the way, let's begin. Suppose we come across a monogamous couple who takes their monogamy another step: they have mutually agreed that neither one of them will have any friends. They feel that friendships could become close enough to threaten the relationship, and so forbid them outright. If either partner ever becomes friends with another person, the other will withdraw their love, affection, and willingness to continue the relationship. Does this feel ethical to us? Many of us would say no, that not only is friendship a good that, as loving partners, we should encourage our partners to pursue, but that forbidding our partner has other friendships besides us is putting boundaries on someone else's autonomy we have no right to. That, even if it was a mutually agreed upon arrangement, that does not change the coercive nature that is imposing costs on someone else for expressing their own autonomy in engaging in friendships with other people, a sphere that is not ours to control or put limits on. So, we have to ask ourselves, what exactly is it about the nature of romantic and sexual relationships that is so fundamentally different that we can justify imposing limits on what kinds of mutually consenting relationships our partner has with other people? The answer is that the value that sees romantic/sexual relationships as different than platonic/nonsexual ones is patriarchal. The idea that it is acceptable to control someone else's sexual encounters bc of their relationship with you gives you that privilege is as well.

There are many defenses people mobilize in defense of monogamy, and perhaps I will tackle them all another day, but I will address the one that I see most often. The Jealousy Defense: "I can't do anything besides monogamy, I am too jealous/insecure." Firstly, I'd like to point out that this kind of defense would not be accepted by most radicals for any other autonomy-limiting desire. When men say that they can't let their woman partner have guy friends because he's too insecure or jealous, that does not fly. If someone asked their partner not to pursue a project they're passionate about because their success makes them feel bad, we would also not accept that. Jealousy and insecurity is real, and it fucking sucks, but in no other aspect of life do we (radicals at least) accept its existence as a justification for exerting limitations on someone else's autonomy except when it comes to monogamy. Instead, we encourage people to get to the root of that insecurity. Why do you feel like you need to limit the kind of relationships someone else has/projects they pursue in order to feel safe and secure in a relationship with them? Under the jealousy defense is actual root issues that are NOT addressed with monogamy. Past trauma, self-worth, conceptualizations of what makes relationships valuable (passed down largely via patriarchal values), and more. Monogamy is a (very faulty) bandaid, at best. I say "at best" bc I have also yet to see monogamy actually help anyone feel more secure/less jealous. If the entirety of your security in a relationship with someone is built on them not going beyond friendship with anyone else, you are CONSTANTLY on the lookout for threats. Rather than a protection against jealousy, monogamy is a capitulation to it. You erect borders around "your" property and then patrol them consistently. Every new friendship your partner has can bring fear that you will lose them if they get too close or have too much attraction. However, even where monogamy is actually helpful against feelings of jealousy, that still would not square it with the values of respecting and protecting people's personal and bodily autonomy. Of course in anarchism we do have limits to what we will abide people using their autonomy to do: after all, we would still encourage and pursue substantive consequences for harm. But in what way is people pursuing mutually consenting sexual/romantic relationships harm? If the adult I, also an adult, am having a romantic/sexual relationship with is an eagerly consenting party, in what way could it be argued that our act of connection is a harm to someone else just by virtue of the fact that I also have a romantic/sexual relationship with them? The idea that, by virtue of my romantic/sexual relationship with someone, that I can claim a kind of ownership over what they do with *their* body and dictate what *their* boundaries must be is not in any way compatible with a respect for personal and bodily autonomy.

There are other questions to ask here. Many people would still like to lean on the idea that "if both people agree then it's fine." But how much can we say that anyone can fully consent to being monogamous when it is a societal expectation to be able to be in a relationship? When someone is presented with the options of either being monogamous or having to search out niche communities of non-monogamous people (hard to find if you're not in a city) to be able to have relationships at all, can we say that they are giving enthusiastic consent? Not to mention that many people have never even been shown that non-monogamy is an option in the first place! Most people in cultures where monogamy is an expectation are never even made aware of other ways of being in relationship. Is that enthusiastic consent? Many of us (at least most of my audience here) live in a culture that prioritizes monogamous relationships to the point that privileges for them are codified into law. In what way can any of us genuinely say that people have full and open choices in the matter? Monogamy is not a choice devoid from context. Nor is people's desire for it. It's prevalence is founded in patriarchy, in which a woman's body, sexuality, and desire is seen as something that can be possessed. That is has been expanded to include all genders does not change that. Since I literally could not finish this thread w/o someone mobilizing the sexual health defense, here's your answer to that one: Monogamy does not protect you from STIs, and non-monogamy does not make you more likely to contract them. Agreements about safe sex practices are made all of the time in non-monogamous relationships. You don't need to limit someone's sexual activity to do that.

This thread is not me making an argument for cheating, nor me saying that polyamorous relationships are inherently healthier or more ethical. There are MANY components to what makes a relationship healthy or ethical or not, relationship structure being one of those many. However, this thread is here to encourage actual genuine analysis and reflection on this subject, which I have genuinely seen lacking in current radical discourse. It is strange because this idea actually used to be much more acceptable to speak about in anarchist circles. I think it is important that we understand that monogamy, as it currently stands, is an institution. And the fact that we take it so for granted and that questioning it is met with so much backlash shows that it is a very powerful one. If we wish to create fundamental change in society as it currently exists, it would be the greatest folly to neglect to scrutinize what is currently one of the building blocks of our shared social world: our relationships. It is uncomfortable, yes, but deeply necessary.

For additional reading on this topic I highly recommend you check out Critical Polyamorist @KimTallBear's work on this subject! This is one piece of many.