"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.