A discussion between two college sophomores trying to make sense of the debauchery of monogamy whilst navigating the tumultuous hookup scene at Yale University.
KAYCEE
Let’s jump right in.
(clears throat)
First and foremost, if we’re going to talk about monogamy, we have to define it.
LULA
How PoL of you.
KAYCEE
Yes, yes.
(chuckles)
I’m aware, but I think it’s necessary. The Cambridge Dictionary defines monogamy as: the custom of having a sexual relationship or marriage with only one other person at a time.
KAYCEE sets the phone down.
Now, I have problems with this definition and with marriage as a concept itself. First, I think monogamy has two main aspects, including emotional monogamy and sexual monogamy. With the former, there are certain things within popular culture that are considered ‘cheating.’ Like flirting, for example.
LULA
Totally. I think people, including myself, implicitly include all these assumed components of monogamy in our own definitions but never really directly express them. It’s super harmful to talk about monogamy as this all-encompassing label for exclusivity when it means so many different things to different people.
KAYCEE
Right. And a lot of it is social conditioning about romantic love. I just want to say, the level of love that I have experienced platonically with my friends has yet to be matched by a romantic partner.
LULA
Speak on it.
KAYCEE
Don’t get me wrong, I love both my friends and romantic partners. Yet, no one has ever told me to be possessive or jealous of my friends. If my hometown friend called me and told me she’s really close with one of her college friends, I would be sooo happy for her. Like, good for her! But, everyone tells you that you should care about what your partner does AND who your partner does.
LULA
And I think that’s the source of so many pitfalls in couples now. For example, IDGAF if we’re dating and at some point you experience the desire to have sex with someone else… to me, that’s the human body. Good for you and your libido. But I might have a partner who’s not OK with that – and that needs to be a discussion. Not an end-all difference in our values or something. I think what especially confuses me about monogamy really is that it’s the assumed label for every relationship.
KAYCEE offers an affirming hmm.
LULA (CONTD)
And for a generation that’s increasingly conscious of which labels people prefer… what the fuck are we doing 1) assuming non-monogamous relationships are invalid and 2) assuming monogamy means the same thing to everyone.
KAYCEE
Personally, I think the more human experience is to be non-monogamous. If I were born and taught non-monogamy… it-it just makes more sense. Particularly, I think marriage is really a societal construction, looking at the historical progression of it from courtship and politically arranged marriages, to marriages out of necessity for financial security, to the norm that it is now.
LULA
YES. And not to be a Yale nerd but I need to bring up a reading I had this semester for a class I’m in, 1000 Years of Love Songs. The article is called “‘All You Need Is Love’ From Romance to Romanticism: The Beatles, Romantic Love and Cultural Change” by Colin Campbell. I’m not going to get into the whole segment about the Beatles right now, but need to mention this section on romantic love and marriage that explains how centuries ago the “price” for accepting that romantic passion was a legitimate sole motive for choosing a partner – instead of like, status or wealth – was that it should be closely tied to monogamous marriage. It might sound ODE to say that this sets up the concept of marriage to fail but look at marriage today. Like, over 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce or something?
KAYCEE
Yeah and the legality aspect complicates everything. Especially in cases of divorce and separation, the process is so much more drawn out and hurtful.
LULA
Right! All to say, I found myself really agreeing with the article that now, in the 21st century, we’re left with this weird Victorian insistence on the association between love and marriage; we value passion so much that as soon as it fades, we’re hunting for a replacement instead of a solution. But passion naturally fades and relationships naturally shift. And this crazy baseline of monogamy we all rely on keeps us from working through these things with a partner. Hence, divorce, unhappy marriages, cheating without communicating first, etc. I’m not saying that the reliance on monogamy causes all of these problems at all, but I think it seriously harms a couple’s chance at success.
KAYCEE
And circling back to marriage specifically, we view not getting married as a fundamental failure of not belonging.
LULA snaps in agreement.
Imagine 10 years from now: everyone you know is now married. You show up to someone’s dinner party. Alone. It’s not the fact of not being married, but the fact that everyone else is asking ‘when are you getting married?’ or ‘why aren’t you married yet?’ that makes non-monogamy taboo; the fact of deviating from the norm while everyone else you know isn’t. But, I mean, you’re already familiar with this, no?
LULA
Subtle segway Kaycee.
KAYCEE
Sorry. Love you.
LULA
So… Yes. I’m pretty open about this (no pun intended)…
KAYCEE
Ha.
LULA (CONT’D)
…But I was in an open relationship my whole first year at Yale.
KAYCEE
How was that?
LULA
Best relationship ever. I say that to be dramatic but also not really – it was seriously the healthiest relationship I’ve had with someone. And the most common response I get at Yale when it comes up is that we had to be toxic. LOL.
KAYCEE
LOL. As if monogamous relationships can’t be toxic. I am curious though, how does the conversation to be open start?
LULA
So true. Communication. Sounds stupid but it wasn’t something either of us was planning – or something I ever considered for myself – but when something isn’t working and people can talk about it, instead of depending on pre-determined confines of an assumed label, I think there’s a lot of room for growth that people are usually quick to push to the side. That people ignore based on what society has conditioned us to think is the only valid type of relationship – a monogamous one.
KAYCEE
Right, and I don’t think either of us is necessarily advocating for everyone to be polyamorous or bashing on monogamous relationships; more so just calling attention to why you should question your monogamous tendencies and think about what is best for you and your situation.
LULA
Totally. The whole point, I think, is to keep ourselves from prescribing to any relationship-defining labels other than what works for the people involved. And to question if monogamy, whatever that actually means, makes sense as a baseline at all. It’s not toxic if it works for everyone involved, period!
KAYCEE
DUH!!!!! Basically, Lula and I slayed this.
LULA
Thank you, Kaycee. And on the note of being open: If you want to kiss us, we’re both single. <3
————————-END OF TRANSCRIPT————————–
