Reply to Modern Love: Lindy West and polyamory

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Modern Love: Lindy West and polyamory"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Just some things from the interview I want to highlight because I have thoughts specifically about a lot of the language and phrasing. I will say up front that I am biased against polyamory because when I was younger, I had some involvement with a number of polyamorous individuals and couples (I was in a community where poly was very popular) and I have a lot of issues with the way many poly people talk about this lifestyle choice and how it impacts those around them.

[i][b]Aham was like, “I’ve been divorced twice by age 27, and I feel like possessiveness and jealousy had a lot to do with both of those relationships collapsing. I don’t think that monogamy is healthy for me.”[/b][/I]

This is how West describes her husband's choices to be non-monogamous. Notice that it's passive -- we don't know *whose* possessiveness and jealousy was problematic in his prior relationships, nor what might have prompted those emotions. And notice how the marital problems are blamed on the emotions, and not on anyone's actions.

[i][b]I was like, I understand how this works and why people do this. I don’t personally have the self-esteem to cope with it.[/b][/I]

This is how West describes her reaction to Aham's non-monogamy. Again, look at the framing. His choice of non-monogamy is framed as valid by default. But West's clear resistance to it is viewed, [I]even by West[/I], as a personal failing. The implication is that a secure person would embrace non-monogamy. Think of this in tandem with the comment about jealousy. The idea is that secure people don't need monogamy because secure people are not jealous. So if you can just master your jealousy, be secure, then you will also want to be polyamorous, which of course makes sense [no reasons given as to why it makes sense at this point in the conversation].

[I][b]West: Where we landed was, If we want to be together for the rest of our lives, who knows what’s going to happen in 10 years, 20 years, who we’re going to meet, how we’re going to feel? Once it was reframed as something that we were going to deal with eventually — and I love to procrastinate. I love to put things off.

Martin: You’re kicking the can of this relationship definition?

West: Uh huh. Which is so unfair to him. [/I][/b]

This is critical because this is how West describes their decision to stay together (and marry) even after Aham revealed to her that he is non-monogamous and she had to accept that to be in a relationship with him. Again, look how passive it is. West is clearly not actually agreeing to a non-monogamous relationship. She just doesn't want lose him. But then again all the language is self-blaming. It's not that Aham was being selfish and uncompromising. Nor did West even question the fact that he had not mentioned this earlier in relationship, before she was attached. Instead, she's the problem, because she procrastinates. She is being "unfair" to him. Everything is on her and he is blameless. This dynamic is very familiar to me. The polyamorous person takes the position of being more evolved, and thus correct in their actions. The monogamous person is unevolved and thus doing *harm* to the polyamorous person by not agreeing to polyamory faster and more willingly.

This dynamic reminds me of how Scientologists label people who leave their religion, or even people who were never a part of the religion but simply don't buy into it (but might be related to people who are in it), as "Suppressive Persons." The person who is skeptical or asks tough questions about the belief system is deemed defective. The person asserting the belief system though, is assumed to be correct.

[i][b]I find out that someone who knew what Aham looked like had seen him kissing someone at a bar. I went home, and we talked for the rest of the night, and at this point he had sort of come to the conclusion that we couldn’t resolve this, which is why he went ahead and started dating this person. Because I had been gone. I had refused to talk to him about it. And I had technically agreed to be non-monogamous.[/b][/I]

So here, West has actually NOT "technically" agreed to be non-monogamous. The whole point is that she didn't want it, and he knew she didn't, and they have basically an ongoing debate about it. And he gets tired of the debate (because he isn't winning it) so he just starts dating someone. Now, why couldn't he have come to West and said "Look, I've met someone I'm interested in. You know I don't believe in monogamy. But now it's real -- I want to date someone else outside our marriage"? And then force the issue, because it is here. The reason he doesn't do this is because he does not want West to break up with him. He wants both women. He wants West, and also to date other people. Even if that's not what West wants.

Yet she is the one who was being unfair to him? But vocally opposing opening their marriage AND walking the walk by remaining faithful to him?

I could go on, everything in the interview is like this. But I don't want to write a novel. And it's nuts that the interviewer is like "I agree, polyamory totally makes sense and is the right way to have a relationship, but like you, I am limited and insecure and that's why I'm not polyamorous." WTF people. It is not a sign of weakness or insecurity to prefer monogamous relationships. It doesn't make you limited, or lame, or less progressive than the next person. You don't need to apologize for it. If you feel like you do, ask yourself what kind of people you are surrounding yourself with that you feel guilty and bad about simply wanting sexual exclusivity with the person you marry.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics