Some Thoughts on 'Redefining Our Relationships' (2.0 / The original version has been slightly edited.)

Last year, a really important and special person in my life introduced me, not to the idea, but to the actual, realizable possibility of polyamory/non-monogamy/open relationships. I was always interested in the radical possibilities of alternative relationship forms in their way of actively attempting to destabilize systems of patriarchy and heteronormativity. What I mean to say is that, alternative relationship forms allow us to take the "possession" out of relationships. They're a way of actively recognizing and realizing (putting into action) that we do not own our partner's body. If one truly believes in individuals' autonomy and freedom, and one believes that one's own body cannot be possessed by another, one can only afford his or her partner(s) the same respect. But I always figured I was "too jealous" to be involved in non-monogamous relationships. Even when my best friends hang out without me, I end up getting jealous or feeling excluded, so how could I be okay with having a partner have lovers outside of me?

Well, this "very important person in my life," passed on a book to me by Wendy O-Matik entitled Redefining Our Relationships. I just recently picked it up again and I thought I would take the time to write about it. O-Matik is an anarchist and, if you hadn't guessed by the title, her 80-ish page long, easy-to-pick-up-and-read-in-an-afternoon book is about open relationships. I must confess here that I find some of the analysis, language, and political outlooks in the book a little too shallow. I'm harshly critical about folks that use general terms like "society" and "culture" to explain complex, multifaceted, inter-relational, and highly varying social, political, economic, and cultural circumstances. I'm also weary of people that presuppose autonomous choice and base revolutionary possibilities on individual choice. Nor do I appreciate those that think of complex assemblages of power/knowledge as "institutions" or "pre-conceived notions," but I'm also highly academically invested in this stuff. So, I kind of just let that stuff fall aside. Part of what I love about O-Matik's book is that it is aimed at being accessible to everyone. Radical relationships shouldn't just be a privilege for theory-reading people. One other caveat I would like to make briefly is that O-Matik's book discusses one very particular type of alternative relationship, where one has a primary, stable partner and other lovers. This is definitely not the only type of alternative relationship to explore. I think ultimately it comes down to preferences. Nonetheless, I think there are some key things that I was able to take away from the book, enough to realize that alternative relationships, while they are not for everyone, don't require you to be some magical person that doesn't experience jealousy, and is just really cool and open and awesome. Rather, in order to be in open relationships (or really in any relationship for that matter), we need to unpack our jealous feelings to find their source. Anyway, I have made a kind of list, in no special order of some great things I got out of the book that I feel can be applied to any relationship.

1. Defining Our "Lovers."

Lovers aren't just people with whom you have sex; they're people for whom you care and love. O-Matik explains that our friends, best friends, cuddle-buddies, pen pals, occasional bed buddies--really anyone who is important to us in our lives--can be considered our lover. Why? Because we love them. These are all people that are important to us and meet our needs in some way, and we meet their needs in some way. As lovers, we share something with each other that is fulfilling to us, and what we "get out" of the relationship is likely unique to it, because it is based on unique personalities coming together. Think about your different friendships with people: there are some friends perhaps that we have with whom we just relax and drink our sorrows away, and others with whom we go on mind-boggling intellectual journeys. A key element in redefining love and lovers is realizing that love comes in all forms, and thinking about our friendships as love allows us to explore them in a deep and meaningful way. It also allows us to put out in the open the realization that no one relationship can meet all of our needs. In this way, we can manage our relationships better. In a traditionally or hegemonically monogamous context, "the L(ove) Word" can be rather scary, as it implies some kind of scary commitment (that is scary because it means we are agreeing to contract ourselves into loving only one person and close ourselves off to other forms of love). But, if we it put out in the open that love exists in all sorts of forms, and is shown in a number of different ways, not just sexually, and we agree that these forms of love do no take away from our other relationship, but rather offer us perhaps a greater sense of fulfillment, we're more free to be open with our feelings about people. In the end, it allows for deeper, more meaningful and intimate relationships with people. When intimacy doesn't just mean sex, it is easier for us (in a monogamous context) to recognize the loving connections we have with people (and however sex is added in to the intimacy equation is something to be negotiated and discussed openly). As a result of redefining love and intimacy so that they no longer have the scary meaning they do in a traditionally monogamous context, I'm never afraid to tell my friends how much I love them and how important they are to me. I'm no longer afraid to tell anyone in my life how important he or she is to me.

2. Loving for the sake of loving.

This kind of goes with the first point, but just to build on those last two "confessions," I thought I'd add this point. I think monogamy implies some kind of reciprocal contractual thing, in the sense that we form a kind of contract with another person, where we're bound to them. In the most extreme cases, which actually do exist, it's as if we do not exist as subjects, as individuals, outside of this contract. Part of alternative relationships means putting ourselves at the centre, being self-possessed. We don't start our relationships based on the idea that we possess another and they possess us. Instead, we each belong to our own selves. It may sound cheesy but the first step in loving is to love yourself. I think a lot of people find comfort in monogamy because it's a contracted guarantee that someone else loves and cares for us, so we don't have to worry so much about loving ourselves. We can kind of hold back our insecurities instead of opening them up, exploring them, and maybe overcoming them. Loving for the sake of loving has the goal of ultimately loving to our fullest potential and having more love to give and more love in our lives. This means we must love ourselves and take care of ourselves. Part of this involves deep introspection about who we are, what we want, and who we want to be. This can be scary because it could mean setting up a plan or goals for ourselves that may or may not be achieved. Loving for love's sake is also scary because it means expressing our love and care for others without expecting anything in return. This can be really hurtful, but if we take the time to love ourselves and work at building meaningful relationships around us, what could be crippling and debilitating simply becomes a little bruise to the ego. That's fine; let's move on.

3. Trust and Communication.

All relationships, be they family ties, workplace relationships, friendships, or romantic/partner relationships, require constant communication and a solid foundation of trust. I think for most of us this seems really obvious, but even in picking up O-Matik's book again recently, I was reminded that we don't always practice this stuff in our everyday lives. We don't always talk about our deepest insecurities, fears, or emotions with our friends/family/partners/lovers for fear of being too needy, or perhaps because we're afraid to address them ourselves. It's also important to remind ourselves to actively communicate our needs. I think in monogamous relationships once we've kind of had "the talk" about being together, the lines of communication aren't always open. Open relationships, simply because of their structure, require constant negotiation of boundaries, re-evaluation of feelings, and active discussion of needs, etc. Part of having an 'open' relationship means having open lines of communication. When you hardly ever talk about your relationship, it can be really scary to bring things up, for fear of stirring things up. But, when you always talk about your feelings, needs, and relationship, it's really easy to check in.

I think there are at least two elements in establishing an open line of communication. The first comes from the "loving yourself" bit. The less insecurities you have about your partner not loving you because you don't love you, the less afraid you feel of bringing anything up that could "shake up" your relationship with him or her. The second comes from trust. This also, in a way, has to do with insecurities as well. The more you trust your partner and that he or she cares about you, the easier it is to communicate. I really see trust and communication operating as a kind of dialectic. You can't have communication without trust and you can't have trust without communication. I think the key to trusting each other is being open and honest, but the even bigger key is to open yourself up. I really do believe that the less insecurities we have, the stronger support networks we have, and the more "good things" (activities, hobbies, endeavors), and "good people" (family, friends, lovers, etc.) we have going on for us in our lives, the easier it is to take leaps in relationships. We have something to fall back on. Having "full" lives and love for ourselves, and hence no need for another individual to feel fulfilled or happy, doesn't mean that we're flippant or insincere and insensitive about those relationships. Rather, it means we can be more open, up front, and honest about our needs, intentions, etc., and are able to put ourselves into things more deeply and fully because we have less of our own personal happiness invested into things. There's less to be afraid of if things go awry. To put it simply, when we're not looking to specific relationships to make us happy--when we love ourselves and are fulfilled by that love--we put less strain on our relationships. Everything else comes to us as a beautiful, loving supplement instead of the thing we need to make us happy. Okay, I'm starting to feel like I'm writing a self-help book here. I know I am stating the obvious. But, as much as we believe or know these things, we don't always practice them in our daily lives. I mean, letting go of our insecurities is easier said than done.

4. Jealousy.

This is the part of O-Matik's book that I think really helped me the most. As I said, I once thought I was "too jealous" for non-monogamous relationships. But, what I learned from O-Matik, is that people in open relationships experience jealousy too. The key is to not simply repress those emotions and let them fester, but to recognize and unpack them. We need to firstly address (to ourselves) that we're feeling jealous. Next, we need to ask ourselves why we're feeling jealous. Usually jealousy is rooted in some other emotion or insecurity. O-Matik asks, are we jealous that our friend/lover/partner is out with someone else because he or she is out without us, or are we jealous because we feel lonely or empty when we are not with him or her? If the former is the case we might remind ourselves that we appreciate alone time with certain people, so of course our friend/partner/lover does too, and this does not change how he or she feels about us. If the latter is the case, then we should address circumstances in our own lives so that we don't feel lonely or empty without another person.

Cultural representations of monogamous relationships normalize those feelings of "needing" someone else, or feeling "empty" without him or her. Instead of reveling in those emotions, we might take those times when we're not with someone else to perform self love, to do something just for ourselves (take a bath, go for a walk, masturbate, cook an amazing dinner for 1, read, etc.), or to spend time with other important people in our lives. This way, instead of feeling left out, we can take the time to enjoy our own alone time. O-Matik says this helps us better "cherish" the time we have with our lovers/partners. Again, this is easier said than done. And, I admit, there have been a few occasions in my life when my whole group of friends was out without me and didn't call to invite me. How could I not be hurt? Of course I was hurt! I felt like I had missed out on something, and like I had been forgotten. But, I've also been on the other side of those situations, so I try and remind myself that, in the midst of fun, it doesn't always occur to us to "call the rest of the gang." And, as I have been reminded several times, it's not fair to expect others to always be the ones that call you. I could have just as easily called one of them if I wanted to hang out!

It's a bit different with romantic relationships, especially with (sexually/romantically) open relationships. When our partners, whom we love, are spending time with other people, we tend to feel threatened. This is a legitimate feeling. However, this is where trust and communication come in. When we have communicated clear boundaries about our relationships with lovers and are open about our friendships, etc. and our love and care for other people, it's more difficult to let our imaginations run wild. Usually when we feel threatened it's because we've imagined all sorts of wild scenarios about what could be going on between two people without us, and perhaps we're feeling a bit insecure about how this might change our relationship with the absent partner. This is not to say we should rationalize our feelings away and never bring them up with our partners. It's important to share our worries and feelings. However, this is where trust comes in. If we have solid foundations to our relationships with open communication, such that both parties display an active investment in the relationship, it's easier to trust that our partner loves and respects us. We're less likely to feel "replaceable" when our partners are clearly invested in our relationships with them and spend time communicating with us. When everyone is clear and open about intentions, desires, and needs, and all parties involved pay respect to those intentions, desires, and needs, if trust is established, there is usually less to feel threatened or worried over.

All I can say about this is, "This is true, friends." Having been in open relationships, I can say that having a partner that regularly communicated their affection towards me and took the time to check in with me about my feelings was very reassuring. I was never jealous of anyone else in their life because I knew that their feelings for anyone else did not change their feelings about me. I felt like I had a really comfortable place in their life and wasn't "replaceable." Because of this, it was much easier for me to feel comfortable showing my affection and letting my guard down. When my partner is open and honest with me, and I remember, value, and take the time to enjoy all of the other great relationships in my life, I am no longer afraid to love and to show affection. Communication has always been something very difficult for me, because I have always been terrified of conflict and confrontation. But, I've learned that assuming the worst (conflict and confrontation) about open communication is not only irrational, but a horrible way to think about people. If we care about someone, we should think the best of him or her, not the worst. So, knowing that people in our lives care about and respect us, there is nothing to fear in opening the lines of communication. And, if we're testing the waters with someone new, the worst that can happen is that he or she will not necessarily reciprocate our feelings in the same way. It's just a small bruise to the ego; nothing that a little time performing self love, or spending time with those who do love us, can't fix!

5. Dealing with Conflict.

By now this blog entry has got to be about as long as the book it is about, but I just want to address one last part of Redefining Our Relationships that I think is really great. There's a great section in O-Matik's book that specifically looks at dealing with conflict. It explains that the first part of resolving a conflict is to, after a fight, harsh words, or an emotionally intense situation, walk away, cool down, and give yourself time to get rid of intense emotions. I would add it is during this time we reflect on how and what it is we are feeling, what was said and done to make us feel that way, as well as recognizing what we have said and done that we regret, and what we are responsible for in terms of our actions and behaviour for addressing a solution. This seems obvious, but I think it's a good reminder. O-Matik reminds us that part of resolving conflict means: a) realizing that not everything can be resolved; agreeing to disagree; b) coming at things from a 50-50 perspective, meaning that we listen to and recognize each other's feelings, even if we don't agree, and each agree that we're responsible for 50 percent of the solution, instead of just thinking, "I'm right and you need to realize that and do better" or "It's all your fault; you made me feel like shit, now fix it!"; c) discuss things in terms of actions and words ("This is what was said/done, and this is how it made me feel") instead of accusations ("You [always] make me feel like this!" and/or "You did this to hurt me!").

These strategies for resolving conflict are not new to me, and they're something I have tried to make use of for a few years now. Sometimes things really get under our skin, and it's hard to step out of those emotions to analyze them. But, I think the more we remind ourselves of these strategies and keep them in mind, the easier it is to try and put them into practice.

Some Final Thoughts.

I hope you don't feel like I was trying to be your therapist. I think in the end I didn't really end up talking about too much about open relationships and how they're theoretically radical, or how they're better (for me) than monogamous relationships. I think it's because I'm not necessarily against monogamous relationships. Rather, I'm against cultural representations of monogamy that embody heteropatriarchal values such as "ownership" or "possession" of another's body, and loyalty. We can trust and love and care and respect another person "fully and truly" (post-modern criticisms of essentialist notions of "full" and "true" aside; if you can't do this then simply read that statement as "in a way that is mutually satisfying/sufficient"), without having to "possess" them. And, valuing loyalty is just false in the sense that it denies that we love more than one person in our lives and that our different forms of love are expressed in different ways. Loyalty implies that my love for one person will "threaten" my love for another, or prove me disloyal. I think all the talk of insecurities and jealousy above just goes to show that this is not necessarily the case.

In the end, I realize that it's not monogamy that is oppressive. It is the way we think about relationships and love that causes problems in them. I think I've moved beyond thinking about things in terms of monogamy/non-monogamy. I like, instead, to think of all of my relationships as open relationships (or at least embodying the principles of "open relationships" outlined above, whatever name I apply to them doesn't necessarily matter so much to me), because I will always have important loving bonds outside of romantic/intimate partnerships, and I would like all of my relationships to involve open communication and trust. To me, open relationships, or the principles of openness embodied in "Whatever-you-wanna-call-your-relationship," are a way of, in theory, resisting the patterns of possession, insecurity, and loyalty that come from "traditionally" or hegemonically (heteropatriarchal) monogamous relationships. They are not a ticket for me to do whatever, and whomever, I want. Each relationship should be based on clearly discussed and defined levels of comfort (and, therefore boundaries) that are respected by everyone. Whether or not I explore sexual relationships outside of my primary partnership, I still like to think of all of my relationships as open.

However, I think that we can also use the tools and ways of thinking about relationships outlined by Wendy O-Matik to "radicalize" monogamy. I think any healthy relationship can embody all of the above things I just mentioned. This is why I prefer not to fix any specific name to the principles outlined above and also prefer to break down the monogamy/non-monogamy binary. These ways of thinking and acting do not only apply to non-monogamous relationships. If these values are internalized into all relationship forms, so that all relationships operate such that both parties are equal (not in the shallow-liberal-political-theory sense, but in a actively-analyzing-how-power-is-shared-and-taking-steps-to-put-power-processes-out-in-the-open kind of way) and no one possesses or controls anyone else, then monogamy becomes less tied up in the historicized power-relations baggage that makes it so unappealing to those that value radical liberation and autonomy. Instead, it simply means that you have one sexual partner as opposed to more than one sexual partner. And, as a final caveat, please don't take this attempt to radicalize monogamy as my perverted way of valorizing it over other relationship forms. I do not think it is wrong/bag/deviant/unfair/disloyal to have more than one sexual partner. (If I did, I obviously wouldn't be such a fan of open relationships as I am!).

Instead, part of wanting instead to "radicalize" monogamy comes from a critical awareness that often people who practice open relationships or polyamory hold it up as "the most radical" to the point that people involved in radical politics who are in monogamous relationships begin to feel bad or guilty about it. Just because someone prefers to sleep with one person and doesn't feel comfortable having their partner sleep with anyone else doesn't mean they are possessive or practice all the heteropatriarchal baggage that has been tied up with monogamy through history. In fact, as Brenden reminded me with his comment, opening things up sexually can take a lot of work, negotiation, and communication, that can be really exhausting and take away from other areas in our lives. This is not to say that only sexually open relationships require "work" (or, emotional labour) in terms of constant communication, and perhaps negotiation. Ultimately, I think that these choices are up to individuals in whatever partnerships they establish. In my own relationships, I like to have open conversations with people to see what types of relationship patterns they are comfortable with, and I am respectful of them. I don't hold anyone's choices against them. It doesn't mean they are "less radical" or that they are "possessive" and "oppressive" if they prefer that I don't sleep with anyone else. Perhaps it's something that can be re-evaluated in the future as trust and 'security' builds. If not, no problem. That's where open communication about sexual needs and compromise come in. I try not to hold up open sexual relationships as some ideal radical standard to be attained. It's a personal decision. End of story. What matters are the ways in which we attempt to make whatever relationships we have, in whatever form they take, as mutually fulfilling, as non-oppressive, and as free from relations of power as possible.

If you've managed to read through all of that, thank you for following along, and I hope some of it was helpful to you. I know it seems obvious, etc., etc. However, as I said, this material was really helpful for me, and I find it continually helpful to look back to. It's easier to put things into practice when we're constantly thinking about them. I hope you can take something valuable away to your own relationships. The bit about spreading love and love as revolutionary in O-Matik's book is a bit cheesy, and also quite shallow, to me. However, I think there is something to be said about practicing love and openness in our own lives. I wouldn't advocate this as a social, economic, or political solution to all, or any, of the world's problems as hippies of the 1960's might have. Nonetheless, in a world that at times seems absolutely doomed to the horrors of advanced capitalism and systems of oppression, living (at least partly) to love, as much and as deeply as possible, is at least one change of many that we can make in our own lives to make things a little more tolerable. I recognize that coloniality, racism, sexism, citizenship, dis/ability, heteronormativity, class, criminality, and other systems of oppression complicate each of our individual circumstances, which is why I am not trying to argue that "we should all just try and love as much as possible" and that's it. In many cases, material circumstances make one's ability to express one's affection for another risky, dangerous, or punishable. So, I realize there is a privilege in even being able to sit back and analyze how I express my love. But, if we take time to love, in whatever capacity we do (even if it's just ourselves), and to feed our bodies, minds and spirits with just a little bit of something "good," it makes us stronger in our struggles. The more meaningful ties and relationships that we build, the more allies we have, building a stronger collectivity.