Clearly the right way to make polyamory mainstream — or at least, better tolerated — should be to go the victim route. It’s not a high road, but it would probably work. ”Oh, oh, poor me. Monogamy is SO EASY for you, but not for me. My brain’s just not wired for it. <insert somewhat reasonable biological research here> Can’t you tolerate my DIFFERENCES?”
I’m almost feeling guilty just thinking about it. We could call it, Monogamist Privilege.
Somebody’s probably already thought of this.
Edited to Add: original post was inspired by Bryan Caplan’s econlog post about poly and signaling.
Oh, probably. In fact, a college friend once used exactly that argument when talking to Chris and I about why he doubted monogamy would work for him. OTOH, my grandfather had good biological reasons for his tendency towards beating up my grandmother, and we still believe that he was responsible for making himself not do so. (We would have recommended a different course of preventative action in light of those biological differences — appropriate meds for bipolar disorder would have gone a long way — but the moral responsibility to persue treatment, or live separately, or something, was there regardless. And given that he managed to never do it publicly, I don’t think you can argue that he had no control.) Biological differences can affect appropriate courses of action, can affect the understanding and forgiveness and grace we extend to our fellow human beings when they fall short of the ideal, but they don’t have to affect our definition of the ideal or how ardently we persue it.
Which is not to say that there aren’t vast numbers of people who would completely buy into this argument. There likely are. I’d say it’s working pretty well for the homosexuals.
Newt
Newt, clearly in your grandfather’s case there’s a difference. Polyamorists generally subscribe to a code of behavior that makes the consent of all involved mandatory.
As to control, I don’t think anyone says that poly people who argue that it’s the way they are wired are also saying they can’t control their actions. It’s not about control but rather about being free to live a life that is authentic to who they are, and not being forced via condemnation to deny their very nature when no one is being hurt.
In that respect we have a lot in common with the queer community. Both they and we (and some of us are both) can say no to our desires, and, in fact, we do, sometimes often, in situations where it would not be appropriate to act due to lack of consent. But where consent exists, we have as much right to be left in peace and to be fulfilled in our love lives as anyone else.
Sambal, amongst poly leadership identity politics is quite controversial. I object to language that says that polyamory is a choice without also acknowledging that for some it is much more than that. Some would like to fight discrimination against poly people by arguing that the choice is a valid one. Since I think there’s more to the story, I also believe it’s unfair to fail to also recognize publicly that there are those for whom it’s not just a choice, but indeed, an identity.