An Argument Against Polyamory

Argument:

1. We have a limited time on this planet.
2. Time spent with one person cannot be spent with another person.
3. Intimacy takes time to develop.
4. (1+3) There is a limited amount of intimacy a person can have.
5. (2+4) More relationships, less intimacy all around.
6. (5+6) To maximize intimacy, a person should have one major relationship.

Counterargument:

1. We have a limited time on this planet.
2. * Time spent with one person can be spent with another person.
3. Intimacy takes time to develop.
4. (1+3) There is a limited amount of intimacy a person can have.
5. (2*+4) More relationships does not necessarily limit intimacy, provided time is spent in groups.
6. (4+5) To maximize intimacy, a polyamorist should spend as much time as possible in groups.

The key premises seem to be (2) and (2)*. Which is true to you?

What do you think?

what attachment theory can tell us about polyamory

Let’s talk psychology.

In my last post, I attempted to dismantle a common claim against polyamory. But, as I was alerted by an astute reader, my response was largely subjective. Why not throw in this psychology article? he asked. I agree. Let’s get out of the armchair and into the lab.

The authors of this article noticed that even though monogamy is not the norm for human relationships around the globe, people just assume it’s the ideal. So we have plenty of research on attachment styles in dyadic (couple) relationships, but none on anything else. This leads to a void in the literature. The authors wanted to fill that void by answering a simple question: how do polyamorous people score on measures of attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety?

First, let’s talk about what these terms mean. Attachment anxiety is when you’re obsessed with “the availability of [your] romantic partner” and feel extreme jealousy when you think that “availability” might be in jeopardy. Attachment avoidance is when you try not to get close to your romantic partner in order to avoid pain.

One common hypothesis among monogamists is that polyamorists are simply rationalizing an avoidant attachment style. But let’s see what study has to say about that.

The study had two parts.

• Study 1, which involved 1,281 heterosexual, monogamous respondents, showed that those who approved of polyamory
• Were more likely to have an avoidant attachment style
• Were less likely to have an anxious attachment style
• Study 2 (which involved 1,308 participants: 73% female, 85% currently in a monogamous relationship, and 15% currently in a swinging or polyamorous relationship) showed that, aside from reporting being “happy, satisfied, and in love,” people in polyamorous relationships tended to have
• lower levels of avoidance
• higher levels of trust
• lower levels of jealousy

So, yes, people who approved of polyamory had higher levels of avoidance. This says something about the polyamorous philosophy; it appeals to people who tend to avoid intimacy. However, people who were actually in polyamorous arrangements had lower levels of avoidance. So, it seems like the monogamist hypothesis is onto something, but still mostly wrong. People in polyamorous relationships usually do have secure attachment styles.

The authors conclude that their findings “provide important new evidence that people can exhibit aspects of security (i.e., low levels of avoidance) without sexual exclusivity.”

Therefore, to the monogamist who tells the polyamorist that he or she is “just using polyamory as a way to justify her avoiding intimacy,” we can confidently say that there is at least one study that showed that polyamorous people were less likely to have an avoidant attachment style.

We can also say that polyamorous people tend to have, as I speculated in my last post, higher levels of trust.

In other words: “Nope. Science.”

"YOU'RE ONLY POLY BECAUSE YOU'RE AFRAID OF TRUE INTIMACY"

A week ago, I polled a group of polyamorous people for the best arguments they had heard against polyamory as a lifestyle or as a philosophy of love. In this post and in following posts, I will respond systematically to the claims made against the philosophy of “many loves.”

Claim #1: You're only doing the polyamory thing because you want to avoid true intimacy.

This is essentially an argument from psychology. People who take this position think that polyamory is a psychological defense mechanism rooted not in trust but in an absence of trust. By keeping oneself open to the possibility of loving more than one person, one must keep a slight distance between oneself and even one’s most intimate lovers. Furthermore, there is a better and truer kind of intimacy that one can only achieve in monogamy, and it requires that one essentially subordinate all other sexual-emotional, or romantic, ties to that one supreme relationship. Polyamory can therefore be called a desperate clinging to one’s autonomy at the price of true, rewarding intimacy.

At least, that's what the argument says.

My Response, Part 1: The argument is well-intentioned. Hooray!

There is no doubt that opponents of polyamory make this argument out of a genuine concern for their polyamorous friends. They believe that they are helping their polyamorous friends to understand a truth about themselves of which they are simply in denial. And, in the case of certain self-destructive behaviors like addictions, this kind of confrontation is good and even necessary. But the argument at hand does not imply that the practice of polyamory is self-destructive; it merely implies that it puts a cap on the level of intimacy that the polyamorous person can achieve. Polyamory limits rather than destroys. And this again reveals the goodwill of the person making the argument; in the best case, they hope that their polyamorous friends can realize their subconscious blunders and achieve greater happiness in their relationships.

In order to assess the argument, though, we have to determine whether its central claim is true—whether polyamorous intimacy is in fact stunted by being non-exclusive. This is hard to do because intimacy is such an individual, subjective experience. Besides, seeking a relationship that meets one’s own needs and caters to one’s own temperament is an individual responsibility. What we can ascertain, though, is whether a problem with intimacy is actually damaging to the philosophical position of polyamory. This, after all, is the main question we’re after.

My Response, Part 2: Surprise! A problem with intimacy is not necessarily a problem for polyamory.

Polyamorous people in healthy relationships will no doubt claim that they feel close to their partners. But if they feel distant from them, I think it is fair to say that this is not necessarily a mark against non-exclusivity per se but rather against a particular relationship. For if a monogamous couple suffered from a lack of intimacy (as many monogamous couples do), one would not deduce that exclusivity per se was the cause of the problem but rather poor communication, a lack of quality time, a bad match, or some other thing that people consider damaging to intimate relationships. The openness or closed-ness of the relationship would not even enter the discussion.

Why, then, does the non-exclusivity of polyamorous relationships appear to monogamists as their fatal flaw? It may be simply that the monogamist, lacking a justification for monogamy, can only affirm monogamy by negating its opposite. After all, non-monogamy is the one thing that definitively distinguishes polyamory and monogamy.

Justifications for monogamy usually assume at the outset some premise that polyamorists would deny at the outset; they usually appeal to some essential feature of human relationships, be it theological (God created erotic love for couples) or biological (the human animal naturally forms pair-bonds; and since nature is our model for everything, triadic or other bonds can’t be as good). But good justifications for monogamy (a) will only make assumptions that both monogamous and polyamorous people could accept and (b) will deduce a pro-monogamy conclusion from those shared premises. No polyamorous person would accept, for instance, that humans are necessarily pair-bonders or that God created erotic love for couples; therefore, these and other essentialist arguments (those arguments having to do with some inherent feature of human relationships) can’t give monogamists much confidence in their own position. Negating polyamory, for them, especially with an essentialist argument, might serve as a defense mechanism against the possibility of uncertainty and ambiguity.

That said, here is an argument for polyamory that succeeds where these arguments for monogamy fail.

My Response, Part 3: An argument for polyamory based on common assumptions.

Our assumptions, which are probably shared by monogamous and polyamorous people alike:

1. Let’s assume that healthy relationships require good communication.
2. Let’s also assume that good communication builds intimacy.
3. And let’s also assume that when something is generally understood, there is less of a need to talk about it.  

Are we all on the same page? OK, let’s begin.

When something is normal, its rules, though they are unspoken, are generally understood. Polyamory, as a deviation from the unspoken rules of “normal relationships,” requires a greater degree of communication in order to function well. Therefore, for a polyamorous relationship to thrive, its members must communicate honestly and deliberately about their needs, desires, boundaries—they will decide how their relationship is going to work. In order to be able to communicate honestly about such personal things, people must become vulnerable. Therefore, a healthy polyamorous relationship, like a healthy monogamous relationship, creates all the intimacy that it needs in order to thrive. Furthermore, if a person is looking to avoid intimacy, the last thing he or she should pursue is a polyamorous relationship, because with all that communication, you’re going to get real close, real quick.

If you would like to submit an argument for or against polyamory, please send me an email! In a week or so, I will take a look at another argument against polyamory and come up with a response to it.