Monogamy or polyamory: What might be more suitable to human nature?

Monogamy or polyamory: What might be more suitable to human nature?

來自專欄性（Sexuality）、性別（Gender）與性向

What might be more suitable to human nature? ——monogamy or polyamory? Although human nature includes multiple layers, it is no doubt that human beings ultimately strive for seeking value and meaning. Love and sex could be possible values that bring meaning to our life. Polyamory is a reaction to centuries old cultural assumptions of being in a relationship with someone. The barest definition for polyamory would be multiple loves——poly means multiple, amory means love. If we simply define it based on the origin of the word, any definition of polyamory should essentially refer to romantic love relationships, though whether or not it includes reference to the sexual is more controversial. The contemporary philosopher Elizabeth Brake offers her definition of polyamory and suggests that polyamory is more suited to human nature. Alan Goldman, on the other hand, questions the existence of poly-amory (multiple romantic love), because for Goldman, one cannot possibly fall in love with more than one person. In what follows, I shall explain the definition of 「polyamory」, using examples to illustrate what 「polyamory」 means. Then I will offer defenses of two contrary claims. First, polyamory is ethically better than monogamy because it is suited for human nature and second, polyamory is ethically worse than monogamy because it is not suited for human nature. In regard to love, polyamory brings more romantic relationships and more value to our life compare with monogamy, except for one side effect: it also causes more possessiveness and jealousy when one of the members tries to bring a third party into the relationship. I then argue that even though some people have a hard time with jealousy and possessiveness, others do not. Whether polyamory is suitable depends on the people in the relationship.

Brake offers the definition of polyamory in her essay 「Is 「Loving More」 Better? The Value of Polyamory」: polyamory 「involves multiple love and sex relationships」; polyamorous relationship: 「can be same-sex or different-sex」; polyamorist: 「can be straight, gay, bisexual, or, more generally, queer.」 (Brake, 202). She states that 「polyamory is not defined by a particular relationship. For example, it could involve an individual pursuing more than one simultaneous relationship in an open and forthright way, with varying degrees of love or commitment. Polyamory can also be practiced by a dyadic couple in an open-relationship.」 She states that group relationships also take multiple forms (203). For example, when group members only have sexual relationships within the group is called polyfidelity; one can be in a relationship with three or more people, but other members need not have sex with each other，etc.

Brake goes on giving examples to address this definition, such as 「polyamorous units can evolve into different formations because polyamory is not defined by its formal structure and polyamory also cannot be defined as a sexual orientation. Rather, polyamory is best characterized as adopting, and consequently practicing, a certain set of attitudes toward monogamy, exclusivity, love and sex.」 (203) 「Polyamorous values center on non-possessiveness, communication, honesty, and critical reflection on the norms of monogamy, as well as love and sex.」 (203) She claims that we have to consciously choose to be in a polyamorous relationship. For example, for X to be a polyamorist, it doesnt simply mean X accepts that he can fall in love with more than one person. X also has to commit to the value of being polyamorous—— non-possessiveness; and open and honest communication. In other words, complete honesty with partners about individual needs and expectations and future directions of those relationships including whether or not it is permissible to have sex outside these relationships.

Brake is not forthright about how to define polyamory in terms of whether any forms of polyamory should or should not essentially include sex or love or neither. But we can assume that she is leaning towards the definition ofamoryin polyamory to be understood to refer toromantic love. For instance, even in a polyamorous relationship, bedroom death will occur nonetheless, if not in the passionate stage of love. Having sex with multiple people doesnt mean that you will not get sexually bored with them. There will still be a tendency to cheat even in a polyamorous relationship, because the intrinsic value of sex in polyamory does not strengthen. Thus, even though Brake doesnt specifically say that polyamorous relationships should involve romantic love, we should still move the emphasis in the definition of 「polyamory」 from sex to love, because that retains the core value of polyamory. If we contemplate more deeply, polyamory has to be about romantic love, the whole point of polyamory is that we can have romantic love with more than one person. In this case, friendship would not be polyamorous.

Additionally, because romantic love is often understood in deep connection with sexual desire, if we define polyamory by insisting on romantic love, the sexual has to be included, even though we might have exceptional cases like romantic relationships that are devoid of sex for one reason or another, such as asexuality or romantic partners who have been together for a long time and who are no longer sexually interested in each other. In fact, it is virtually impossible to imagine cases where someone is passionately in love with another person romantically yet has no sexual desire towards that person. The sexual desire might not be acted on, but they exists. Given the fact that the value of polyamory is 「multiple love」 and romantic love always includes the sexual, I suggest a possible definition of polyamory: the practice of being romantically having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the commit to certain values, the values should be consent for all members and it can be but not restrict to honesty and none-possessiveness.

Brake argues that polyamory is superior to monogamy and it is more suited to human nature especially in terms of sexual desire (214). People might be more sexually and romantically fulfilledin a polyamorous world. First of all, polyamory is less promise-breaking by engaging in radical honesty and only promising to obey rules which they believe they can keep (206). Secondly, although polyamorists can be dishonest or break their promises, monogamists can do so also. Except these moral wrongs such as cheating, dishonesty or breaking promises are not intrinsic to polyamory (206). Our specialness and basic need to feel acceptance and belonging is not only confirmed in monogamous relationships.Most importantly, polyamorous relationships are more open and involve access to multiple sexual partners, so there is less temptation to cheat. In addition, polyamory is more suited to human nature because we might not be sexually monogamous by nature, and human sexual desire might target multiple sexual partners.

According to Luke Brunning, polyamory requires more practice in communication, self- and- other awareness, and emotional work, thus, it is more emotionally challenging but also more emotionally rich than monogamy (212). The value of polyamory according to Brake includes honest communication and non-possessiveness. Honest communicationis a fundamental rule for polyamorous relationships.Non-possessivenessrejects relationship norms that treat partners as possessions who can be controlled. She also states that in polyamory, there is a phenomenon called 「compersion」 ——not only not feeling jealousy, but feeling joy and delight when your partner is having sex with someone else (213).

However, other philosophers have argued that polyamory is ethically worse than monogamy because it is not suited for human nature, especially because the value of polyamory is non-possessiveness and romantic love often associated with exclusivity.

Let us first examine Goldman』s description of romantic love: 「love is more exclusive in its objects than sexual desire.」 「Love is accompanied appropriately by desires for other shared activities as well.」「Sex affords us a paradigm of pleasure, but not a cornerstone of value.」 whereas love does, according to Goldman.Sexual desire, by contrast, is desire for another which is nevertheless essentially self-regarding(Goldman, 58).For Goldman, love is indeed more inclusive in its object than is sexual desire. Romantic love is almost by its nature monogamous where sexual desire is almost by its nature non-monogamous. Sexual desire is a desire——it gets bored of its object after a while, but a normal person cannot deeply love more than a few individuals even in a lifetime. We may be suspect that those who attempt or claim to love many love them weakly if at all (Goldman, 58). When someone falls in love, he/she must have a feeling of possessiveness. For example, when X falls in love with Y, X doesnt wish Y to have intimate relations with anybody else. Polyamorous relationships clearly don』t suit the nature of possessiveness.

In addition,those who argue that polyamorous love is impossible and only monogamous love is possible might have a preconceived picture of love in early passionate stages. That is, during those stages, polyamorous love is impossible. In other words, in early stages, love tends to be monogamous, but later on, the relationship becomes possible to be open or poly. However, the decision to invite a third party is notwithstanding complications. How to communicating with their partners』 possessiveness, jealousy and rancor would still remain as a huge issue.

Human nature includes various conceptions, for example, sexual desire; passiveness; jealousy and pursuit of intimacy and meaning. However, we can argue that there are different types of human nature. Some human nature can make us better person and bring us values of life as oppose to the human nature that reduce it.As I discussed earlier, sexual desire might not be that valuable compare with love, which can bring us more meaning. Sexual desire according to Goldman, targets various bodies. It is in our human nature to contact with other bodies. The satisfaction of sexual desire can bring pleasure. As Goldman argues, 「that essential element for sexual desire is for the sexual pleasure」. But if the only intrinsic value of sex is pleasure, sex itself seems less valuable compared with romantic love, which brings us intimacy and meaning. The major advantage of polyamorous (having multiple sex) compare with monogamy seems less valuable.

Goldman and Brake differ on whether we can love more than one person. Goldman values monogamous relationships because he rejects the possibility of loving multiple people whereas Brake values polyamorous relationships because she believes we can in fact fall in love with multiple people. But for both of them, love brings us value, not so much sex. So, the question becomes, which brings us more value by satisfying our human nature, polyamory or monogamy. In the case of value, polyamory is standing on a higher ground because it can bring more love which means more value to our life. However, in the initial stages of romantic love, it seems to inevitably involve possessiveness and jealousy, and how to negotiate with multiple partners will be more difficult in a polyamorous relationship during the stage of passionate love. Monogamy would hardly satisfy our sexual desire especially after the early stages of romantic love. If one of the initial reasons for polyamory is the belief that being in a monogamous relationship might stifle our sexual natures in many ways, one solution is to accept our nature and enter a polyamorous relationship. Thus, polyamory is more suitable for human nature in terms of sexual desire. Although polyamory values non-possessiveness and honesty when it comes to the concept of love, and while it brings more love and more value to our life compared with monogamy, polyamory also causes more possessiveness and jealousy when one of the members trying to bring a third party into the relationship especially in the early stages of love––––––communication becomes crucial at this point. It is a great point where they can reevaluate their commitment and consent for their relationship, which will remain important through the rest of the relationship. However, to what values a member commits and consents to is completely up to the individual.

I have explained what 「polyamory」 means in this paper, and I have illustrated two contrary views of polyamory——whether it is ethically better than monogamy because it is more suitable to human nature. Finally, I argued that human nature consists of various parts. When it comes to sexual desire, polyamory is certainly better than monogamy because it allows multiple sexual relationships. The key component for polyamory is romantic love, which potentially brings more value. However, when it comes for a third party to enter the relationship, the feeling of possessiveness and jealousy might be stronger than people in a monogamous relationship and lead to more conflict between existing members. Nonetheless, it also could be a good thing for members to practice communication.

In the end, I believe each relationship is unique and not completely accurateto categorize. In fact, it is more important to not to put a label on a certain relationship, but to clarify the nature of the relationship and how you and your partner(s)feels in it. Whether it is polyamory or monogamy, the ultimate pursue for intimacy and value will always win. Of course, the most essential part is always that whether this relationship can broaden your conception of the world, make you a better human being and make you live better, not its name.

Bibliography:

Elizabeth Brake. 「Is 「Loving More」 Better? The Value of Polyamory」 In The Philosophy of Sex:

Contemporary Readings,

7thed., edited by Raja Halwani, Alan Soble, Sarah Hoffman, and Jacob M. Held. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.

Alan Goldman, 「Plain Sex」 In The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings,

7thed., edited by Raja Halwani, Alan Soble, Sarah Hoffman, and Jacob M. Held. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.

推薦閱讀：