So the question is, if people in two very dfferent society do what seems to be the same behavior, must we insist they are, in fact, doing the same thing? I tend to think “no”, that the meaning of sex in contemporary America differs from the meaning of sex in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, but there’s enough of a grey cloud around the issue to feed debate, to be sure.

On asexuality, I’ve seen a number of articles on the rejection of sex in the last couple years, and I’d say yes, most of the people interviewed have spoken about their choice in terms that lead me to believe they are concerned about commodification (among other things — protection from a loss of control over themselves seems to play a somewhat important role, for instance). I wouldn’t presume to apply this to *all* forms of asexuality, though, just as I wouldn’t presume to apply my ruminations above to *all* bisexuals.

I see what you’re saying about people being treated as commodities and about the engagement of what it takes for us to function in a consumption-driven society in sexuality. Consumer society, then, is playing a very important role in shaping and directing desire as well as the way we understand the role of desire in our lives. The part I was having trouble with, I think, was the implication that you put quite explicitly in this post: giving a central role to the claim that we are trained to act on sexual desire in explaining the situations where we do act on it. I guess if the task is to work out the differences between societies where people are more or less likely to act on sexual desire – comparing, to take an easy example, Victorian England to the present-day States – then this kind of factor may seem important to understanding what’s going on. But I would have just thought that if you extended your interest to non-consumer societies where people are highly and variously sexually active, then you might find commonalities in the aspects of the mindset involved in this happening despite that difference in the role of consumption in these societies. I just wonder about the extent to which these evolutions in sexuality are really attributable to just the same aspects of people’s mindset as those involved in that focus on material consumption.

Incidentally: are Asexuals actually rebelling against consumer society? ;)

But see here’s the thing: I did mention a gray area between these extremes on the continuum of non-monogamy. So there are self-identified swingers who only swing with people within a particular “network” of friends and lovers. Therefore your own definition includes many swingers (or “new monogamists”) do. On the other hand, there are some self-identified polyamorists who have several sex-based relationships and may explain that their definition of love includes transient relationships that focus on physical intimacy because this, itself, is a form of love in the grand sense. So we’re getting into counter-cultural perceptions of what “love” means in the first place.

As for writing a piece on how poly is developing, it’s not quite my area of study either. I just happen to be familiar with the milieu. I don’t actively study polyamorists from an academic point of view.

I’m bi and even I didn’t see that as an attack on the legitimacy of bisexuality. There are female bisexual behaviours that may be encouraged in the swinger milieu but not all of the women who partake in these behaviours identify as bisexual. I differentiate between bisexual (or homo or heterosexual) behaviours and said identities. They don’t have to co-exist.

All of that said, it’s important not because it’s an important part of my own argument — it’s not, and I deliberately didn’t mention it until the end for that reason — but becasue of the stereotypes that shape the authors’ and their subjects rejection of the term. Perhaps Nancy would like to write a longer piece on how polyamoury is developing in today’s society, to fill in the gap I deliberately left as something outside my own area of study.

(PS: It’s been 10 minutes — is Ozma back from her break yet?)

The thing is, I’m not trying to make a case that most marriages have been polygynous; rather, I’m pointing to the fact that it is a common way of practicing marriage, that monogamy is by no means a pattern that existed forever and was only recently supplanted by New York hipsters.

Paul – no righteousness intended, though I struggled to find language to deal with this in a non-judgemental way, and I don’t think I was fully successful. Consumerism is a fact of life in the modern world, and it is deeply situated in our identities. We *are* good consumers, which is proof of this. I don’t think there’s a “Desire” to be a good consumer, in any conscious way — it’s just what we are. There’s hardly an item in my house that I’ve made myself, and if I have made it myself I certainly haven’t done so from raw materials I’ve procured myself. I’m sure an inventory of your own life, or of most anyone’s in our society, will turn up a similar situation.

When I see people being treated as commodities — and the language of sexuality is filled with “hot young things and “sex toys” and other phrases which reduce sex partners to their qualities as physical objects — it seems clear to me that the same facilities that enable us to function in a consumption-driven society are being engaged when it comes to sex as well. That we aren’t “rigorously trained to suppress” desire, that we are in fact trained to “act on sexual desire when the opportunity presents itself” is part of the point — features of our psyches that are well-known by marketers.

Interestingly, the part of the argument I expected to get pounced on has been ignored (so far?). It doesn’t take a very hostile reading to see this as an attack on the legitimacy of bisexuality. That’s not my intention either — I don’t take the behavior described here as indicative of bisexuality in general. But I do believe that sexuality and orientation are constructed through culture, and that if we see a sudden increase in the willingness of women to consider bisexual relations as a normal expression of their own sexuality, we need to look for factors in the society at large that might help explain it. The increased centrality of consumption to our selves is, I think, an important factor in the increased practice and acceptance of bisexual relations between women (and explains why there hasn’t been much of a similar trend among men — in fact, the whole recent “metrosexual” trend comes off more as a way of preotecting the straightness of men in a consumption-driven society than as an indicator of greater acceptance of male bisexuality).

Ozma — see you in 10.

Would you care to elaborate? Who? What? When? Where? Why?

Do I detect a whiff of righteousness in this diagnosis? And can it really plausibly be claimed that the desire to be a “good consumer” explains people’s drive to act on sexual desire when the opportunity presents itself and they aren’t too rigorously trained to suppress it?

As for “accepted” vs “allowed”, it seems to me that it is often seen as an ideal form of marriage that is not forcibly attained in high numbers in actual fact. Therefore, statistically speaking, most marriages wind up being monogamous. I can dig up a reference if needed when I go back to the office in a few hours.

RE: “I couldn’t very well fit that all into one sentence, now could I?”

Well, no, I wasn’t expecting you to. But here’s my one-sentence alternative: “Polyamory is a type of relationship where there is an openness to having more than one romantic/emotional/sexual relationship and where all of one’s partners are aware of each other.”

Maybe “accepted” was a poor choice of words — perhaps “allowed” would be better. Attitudes towards polygyny run the gamut from strong social disapproval to embrace, depending on factors ranging from the role of women in the local division of labor to religion to political structure. The fact remains that polygyny exists in a large number of societies, and there’s no reason to assume it hasn’t existed for a long time now.

Nancy – fair enough, but I couldn’t very well fit that all into one sentence, now could I?

Living in Québec, the land of common-law arrangements, I often find the term marriage limiting as well. Just today, in class, we were discussing various restrictions that societies place on sexuality. One of the things that came up was extra-marital sex. Although we are surrounded by people who are in long-term relationships in the common-law form, we persist in discussing the issue in terms of “cheating on one’s husband/wife.”

I’m sure that many people in common-law arrangements would agree that the same restriction applies to them, though.

I usually rationalise this whole issue by saying that common-law arrangements fall under the anthropological definition of marriage since this includes arrangements that are formally recognised by the society. This is certainly the case in QC with common-law.

My turn to nitpick. While Oneman’s intentions are probably good, I just want to point out that polyamory is a much broader and deeper phenomenon than this description implies. There is a wide range of arrangements that fall under the term. Some polyamorists are indeed part of “semi-closed networks of friends and lovers”. Others are in three-way relationships in the form of either a “V” (where one person has a relationship with two people who do not have a romantic/sexual relationship with each other) or of a triad where there all three are involved. Some polymorists are involved in relationships involving more than three people. In some of these relationships, polyfidelity is practiced, where the three practice sexual exclusivity amongst themselves. In others, while there is a strong emotional/romantic/sexual tie between the people involved, there is an openness to sexual and/or romantic relationships outside the group (usually with the safer sex caveat).

Other polyamorists have a seemingly traditional “couple” where both are open to having “secondary” or “tertiary” (note that these terms are in high dispute in the polyamory community) relationships. Some polyamorists are even single but open to the idea of multiple romantic relationships. Some polyamorists have a mixture of deep committed relationships and other “f*ck friend” type relationships.

The bottom line is that polyamorists will more than likely tell you that polyamory is relationship-oriented and that consists of the possibility for simultaneous romantic/sexual relationships with more than one person, as long as everyone is aware of what’s going on. Essentially, there is a belief that, unlike what the monogamous ideal says, it *is* possible to love more than one person without undermining the solidity or validity of any one of the relationships.

Many polyamorists ardently distance themselves from swingers, who they may see as focussing purely on sex. Others see the two behaviours as different degrees on the continuum of non-monogamy where there is a huge gray area in which swinging can involve deep friendships. That being said, one can be a polyamorist AND a swinger.

from where does that rather definitive statistic come? How does one measure “often preferred”? It would help also if you broke down the “often” part and the “preferred” part and their respective contributions to that robust 80% figure. while you are at it you could throw in a definition of “accepted”.