Over the holiday break, I was reading Relationships For Dummies, which I checked out of a local library. It was a kind of interesting book – useful perhaps – but one recurring trait got in my way: The author was insistently monogamist.
“Monogamist?” I admit I made up the word. What do I mean, “monogamist?” Should I be surprised that a book on relationships assumes and advocates monogamy? Not in current U.S. culture, I suppose. Only…
…don’t people realize that not everyone is monogamous?
Well, yes, I think “they” do – and this is where my term “monogamist” comes in. It isn’t just that the book assumes monogamy as the norm – it refuses to take non-monogamy seriously. It assumes that the only real relationships are the monogamous ones. It refuses to consider the possibility that a non-monogamous relationship can be serious, truly intimate, deep, committed, etc.
To acknowledge such things would upset a basic assumption of this book – which I’ve seen in other books and which, I admit, drives me up a wall. The assumption is: As you become closer to someone, you will want to become sexually and emotionally exclusive with them. If you don’t want to become exclusive, then it’s not really a significant relationship. It’s not worth pursuing. You’re immature. Or there is something wrong with you.
But I’ve never felt this way, long-term – and I’ve had long-term, committed, deeply intimate relationships, very meaningful and nurturing for me.
I would prefer that the author simply acknowledge her own prejudices and allow that other people may approach relationships differently, but still validly. Let her acknowledge that non-monogamy may be meaningful and valid for some of us.