The Ideal of Monogamy? The Ideal of Polyamory? The Choice is Yours! Rejecting Polygamy

Let’s talk about sex!:

I am a social scientist and philosopher of sexology. I’d like to canvas the virtues of monogamy and polyamory, before turning to a wholesale rejection of polygamy. If there is a creator, this is what she/he had in mind!: sexual and emotional monogamy and polyamory, as ideals.

True love is progressive. It’s between two people, or network of lovers, who ideally identify as soul mates. The bedrock of these relationship is mutual intellectual and emotional growth and companionship.

When done humanely, they are both based on emotional and sexual loyalty – close relationships that can be done with care and respect. Both, I hold, have their unique advantages and drawbacks across different contexts, but are equal in merit (when done in a thoughtful manner). Not inferior or superior to one another, just different.

I’d like to turn to monogamy first. I contend, emotional and sexual loyalty between two consenting partners is optimal for child-rearing. This is so children can have emotional and material support by their parents (not knocking adoption here, as adoption is progressive, but adopted kids deserve two parents, no matter what the gender). Here I’m moralising for and asserting an inclusive monogamous model of the nuclear family, open to LGBT+ adult individuals. This is because genetic reproduction invokes an archetype involving sexual penetration and subsequent fertilization by one person (only one person’s sperm fertilizes one person’s egg), which I will develop later in this blog post.

Sexual relations between monogamous partners can progress over time as trust is built. Emotional and sexual monogamy (also) pays respect to, and caters for (humanising) the ancient biological-genetic reproductive strategies of both women and men. It fulfills the needs of emotional connection and security in a relationship for women from men as well as catering for the needs of sexual loyalty from women for men (in loyal emotional and sexual monogamy): a culture of respectful, loyal monogamy when it arises is imperative, both fulfilling the humanised and reciprocal versions of men and women’s differing reproductive strategies, which is socially symbolically extended in monogamous relationships beyond mere biological-genetic reproduction.

The narrow sociobiological view that men are polygamous because some male primates are (trying to solicit as much reproductively successful sex with ovulating females as possible) doesn’t hold up against the humanising strength of true love monogamy.

Furthermore, paternity testing can help annul paternal angst, but mainly it can be eschewed through a culture of trusting, respectful and loyal monogamy when compatibility arises, based on people having compassion and principled behaviour towards one another.

We need more trust and true love as a culture, I contend, which can be met through enlightened forms of monogamy or polyamory, not the overly permissive liberal hedonist model we are somewhat currently mired with in late-capitalist social relations.

Same-sex and LGBTQIA+ relationships, deploy non-normative and different, and actively queer, symbolic hetero-normative reproductive strategy. They make and forge their own nuanced symbolic meanings, yet true love (emotional and sexual monogamy or respectful and enlightened polyamory) is applicable to these relations (except for asexuality which may be best undertaken with emotional monogamy or emotional polyamory), has the greatest humanising effects, too, just as with hetero cisgender monogamous relationships.

A drawback with polyamory is that there is the inevitably uneven emotional and sexual investment across consenting partners, which can be emotionally and sexually hurtful. I will canvas some guidelines and boundaries for those seeking polyamorous intimate relations further into this blog post, which also mitigate or even wholly abrogate this (potential) drawback.

Re asexuality, there may be social contradictions with voluntary celibacy (but that’s another matter for another time)!

To put it poetically, true love, between two people or with multiple partners (or multiple soul-mates even) is both real and ideal! 🙂

Having scaffolded some of the core progressive and idealised features of a culture of monogamy, I’d like to carefully reconcile the ideal, sophisticated, nuanced and functional polyamory. Is one more ideal than the other? That’s a huge debate, and one that I will not do comprehensive justice herein. I suggest that they are equal when done reflexively.

Polyamory can be defined as “the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all the people involved” (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+polyamory&rlz=1C1GIGM_enAU511AU514&oq=define+polyamory&aqs=chrome..69i57.5608j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

A good way to envision it is that each person can ‘casually’? consent to a level of intimate exchange with different partners without having cheated on anyone, where a monogamous agreement or consecration? has not been agreed upon.

Intimate and emotional needs can be met through a ‘casual polyamory’ with certain rules for optimum mental, emotional, and sexual / intimate wellbeing. I suggest that we, in our courting and intimate rituals, reserve phallic penetration of a woman’s body for monogamy. That, I argue, should be reserved for the protection and security of emotional and sexual monogamy. And further to this, ejaculatory hetero sex should only be engaged if trying for a pregnancy (See What is Legitimate Male Reproductive Power?: https://henrywilloughbyssocialjusticeblog.com/2018/08/03/what-is-legitimate-male-reproductive-power/).

What is Legitimate Male Reproductive Power?

So, this kind of ‘casual polyamory’ I am fleshing out can consist of networks of trusting partners who engage in ‘mini’ microcosmic monogamous intimate exchanges within a ‘casual polyamory’ framework or praxis – perhaps just laying together and giving each other massages – without the kinds of sexual exchanges which may spread STDs / STIs. Phallic penetration of a women, I argue, should be exclusively in the realm and prerogative of full-blown mutually loyal monogamous relationships – preferable in marriage where exclusive intimate and emotional loyalty is pledged and consecrated – a lifetime commitment between two soul mates! To summarise, I argue that what we want in terms of the choice in polyamory is a ‘casual polyamory’ – multiple intimate partners – without phallic penetration of a woman. Lastly on polyamory, I’d like to add that multiple partners in polyamory need not meet one another to be a part of a polyamory network.

Justification (or The Why) (note: arguably hetero-normative justification, but need not be construed as such, and that can be queered):

The archetype (‘original model’) of reproductive sex (vaginal penetration by a phallus) and its primary offshoots (heterosexual phallic penetration in fellatio and anal phallic penetration) are so sexually emotionally powerful – archetypically and evolutionarily psychologically related to ‘reproduction of self’ as the evolved way to live on genetically after mortal death – that they therefore, I argue, should be conducted within and protected by sexually and emotionally loyal monogamy; fellatio and anal phallic penetration are abstracted one-step from vaginal phallic penetration – from the archetype – and thus slightly less archetype-centric, and slightly less closely related to reproduction and symbolic reproduction. For further nuanced clarification: the archetype of reproductive sex is itself heterosexual and hetero-normative intrinsically and by nature. Whilst invoking this intrinsic heterosexual, hetero-normative archetype, on the other hand, may, arguably, be a hetero-normative reproduction. Invoking it thus must have a humane exigency, as it does in this instance: it furthers respectful intimate relations in a graded fashion so as to enhance emotional and sexual wellbeing – mooring to powerful psychological processes in gendered sexual relations across (evolutionary) time.

I do extend empathic sentiments for not meticulously reconciling non-cisgender, bi and homosexuality and queer practice with monogamy and polyamory. In my defence, my logic is that perhaps this courting guidelines and culture could / should be pioneered, justified, reasoned and governed by trans/non-binary and bi/homosexuality / pansexuality persons themselves. Perhaps that kind of gender and sexual orientation philosophising is better constructed by non-hetero and/or non-binary women and men. Perhaps it’s not my business – encroaching on the autonomy of non-cisgender and non-hetero persons to construct their own courting and sexual moralities. But I do hope I have given some food for thought! If you can be homo-normative or non-binary-normative, then I can be hetero-normative by omission as long as I don’t try to abrogate your mature and informed indefeasible right(s) in construction of individual and collective queer identity if you so wish. I use ‘queer’ here in a humane ‘re-appropriation’ and reclamation sense, as you have my libertarian political support and alliance for your identity-making rights, as is both just and altruistic. I would also like to acknowledge a fluidity, ‘overflow’ and ‘the vast expanse’ in sexual orientation and gender, which many-a-time escapes ‘neat’ categorisation and is resistant to taxonomic labelling.

Turning to polygamy – I don’t believe we can morally rescue or reconcile any of its tenets or practices. And, it should be frowned upon. Firstly, what is it? Polygamy is in a person having multiple sexual partners but psychologically enforcing or an imposing an injunction in prohibition of those partners not to have multiple partners themselves – a repudiation of their just choice. It is ‘glorified’ cheating and totally asymmetrical in power relations. It inculcates loyalty to the power-monopolising-abusive party without reciprocation rights of the subordinated parties. Even if it can be ‘consented’ to like in monogamy and polyamory, it has abusive power-dynamics so thus doesn’t meet the threshold of informed structural consent (See Liberal Consent Versus Structural Consent: https://henrywilloughbyssocialjusticeblog.com/2021/05/11/liberal-consent-versus-structural-consent/).

Liberal Consent Versus Structural Consent

One party gets ‘the monogamy’ without reciprocating it – the subordinated partners aren’t afforded it, even though they give it.