View Single Post
  #27  
Old 07-13-2010, 11:45 PM
immaterial immaterial is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 133
Default

I've been thinking about negative definitions versus positive definitions lately. Especially the negative definition of monogamy.

It sounds reasonable enough, wondering if one can love more than one person in a sexual/romantic way without causing harm somehow. This is the stuff that the surface appearance of monogamy is built from. Lots of people think it's just not possible to love more than one person romantically and sexually, that it would hurt too much or be too complicated or would "dilute" the love, etc. These all seem to me to be exclusive, negative definitions of what monogamy is. Choosing monogamy because non-monogamy is impossible, painful, complicated, dishonoring to the One Love, etc. This is a paring away, a paring down of what sexual/romantic interactions can be, until all that is left is exclusive monogamy.

I simply can't see how this can be fulfilling, let alone even be seen as an actual choice. This is what passes for monogamy in our culture but is really a fear-based choice, a desire to possess the other, to protect oneself, a self-righteous conditional love that is not in the least truly interested in the full freedom and passion of the other or oneself.

For monogamy to have life, creativity, freedom and passion in it, it seems to me it would have to be a positively defined, fully consciously embraced choice. Not the closing of doors and windows out of fear for what's outside, but a decision to throw one's lot in with just one other fully, completely, with abandon, with one's whole heart and focus. Not out of a conviction that love can be limited, because really, even on first glance, such a conviction is laughable. Isn't it? Love? Limited? The two words are practically antonyms. But out of the conscious decision to romp around in love's infinitude with only one other. I have never made this whole-hearted and focused commitment to someone else and I'm not desirous of it. My commitment is to love itself, and each interaction is just a different facet of that infinite power. That may be why I am poly/non-monogamous.

Polyamory and non-monogamy could both be negatively defined as well. It seems tempting to "choose" polyamory/non-monogamy "because monogamy has failed." This seems like a very slim choice indeed.

Immaterial
Reply With Quote