My Liberal Identity:
You are a Reality-Based Intellectualist, also known as the liberal elite. You are a proud member of what’s known as the reality-based community, where science, reason, and non-Jesus-based thought reign supreme.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com
Anger, Jealousy and Nonmonogamy
Anger and jealousy are both considered to be negative emotions, especially when allowed to be expressed in an uncontrolled, unrestrained manner.
In our society, the problem of handling anger in a mature fashion is taken quite seriously. Anger management counseling abounds, teaching people to express it in a constructive, controlled fashion, especially in the context of intimate relationships. It is rightly believed that despite anger being a natural emotion that should not be ignored or denied, that simply giving uncontrolled free reign to it is neither mature nor constructive. "Rage-aholics", especially when they allow their anger to turn into abuse, are seen as maladjusted people, in need of psychological help. Most people believe that anger, though normal and natural, can and should be controlled.
Jealousy, however, is a whole 'nother ball game for many people. It, too, is seen largely as a negative emotion, but many people respond to it by throwing up their hands, taking the attitude that it is natural, therefore uncontrollable.
Never is this attitude more prevalent when it comes to the idea of people living open, intentionally nonmonogamous lives, be it polyamory, swinging, or libertinism. The view taken is that nonmonogamous relationships are ultimately doomed to failure because of jealousy; that it's "hard-wired" into us and it's completely futile to try to control it.
I'm inherently suspicious of any argument about any aspect of humanity that is said to be "hard-wired"; mostly, I see this approach as being a cop-out. First of all, compared to other animals, humans have few instincts. We were given sentient brains to reason with, instead of a long list of instincts to control our behavior. Humans have an instinctual need to eat, mate, and to reproduce -- essentially, to survive in the short and the long run. Beyond that, there are some tendencies that have evolved over the millennia that relate directly or indirectly to the main drive to survive, that have been become so ingrained as to seem to be innate.
But we should never confuse what is customary, or even natural, with what is constructive and useful -- or changeable. We also should remember what might have been useful in an earlier era might be maladaptive in today's society, and to take a "that's the way we've always done it" approach might well be cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Human beings are amazingly malleable and there is much about us which seems innate, but is rather changeable or at least able to be controlled and mitigated.
When considering nonmonogamous relationships, I've seen observers react with disbelief when confronted with the idea that those involved have learned to handle jealousy in a mature fashion, as if there is actually something wrong if a person does not pitch a fit when confronted by a potentially jealousy-causing situation.
But there's a description in that article of a woman returning home to find her boyfriend in the bathtub with another woman -- and thinking nothing of it -- that gave me pause. It made me wonder why these people are together to begin with. This woman's impassive response to what for most people would warrant a dish-throwing blowout makes me wonder what emotions could have surfaced under even slightly different circumstances. -- Dan Cronin, "The New Monogamy"
In other words, it bothered this man that someone had handled this matter in an adult fashion, instead of having a tantrum about it! I'd doubt he'd have reacted in the same fashion if the issue had been that of anger in a monogamous relationship.
Others take the view that because nonmonogamous relationships are not always easy and trouble-free, that they're not worth bothering with at all. Again, this kind of attitude seems to be unique to the idea of nonmonogamous relationships. Can you imagine these same people saying, "Studying medicine is hard and going to college for eight years will make your life difficult, so you're better off not even trying!"
Considering that traditional monogamous marriages are not exactly trouble-free, with sixty percent of men and forty percent of women straying from their vows and half of all marriages ending in divorce, this attitude is particularly laughable. These statistics have not deterred most people from entering into legal, monogamous marriages, as they rightly believe that something worth having is worth working for and is rarely an easy, trouble-free thing.
And the same is true for nonmonogamous relationships of all kinds. Granted, such relationships aren't for everyone. One must enter these kinds of nontraditional lifestyles with eyes wide open and a great deal of maturity.
Nonmonogamous people don't deny that jealousy can exist and can be a real problem. The difference is that we view jealousy as we view anger, as something that can be controlled and mitigated; we don't just throw up our hands, give up, and give in to it.
If society as a whole started dealing with jealousy as it deals with anger, we'd all be better off, both the monogamous and the nonmonogamous.
Thoughts?
I think that people, especially men, are hard-wired to seek multiple
partners, and are controlled by their notion of morality.I say especially
men because women by nature seem to develop emotional attachments to those
they are physical with more readily than men. When we lived in caves women
needed men to protect them.Keeping your guy around made it less likely
you'd be dragged off by some animal or another man, separating you from
your kids. So emotional attachment seems like a self preservation kind of
thing.I think the notion of monogamy evolved as a way to protect your
personal property(your woman and your other stuff). Not so long ago people
didn't live very long.Monogamy, or at least the pretense of it probably
contributed to survival and certainly some degree of financial security.
Drawing a parallel beween anger and jealously is interesting and seems
valid. By your notion of "contolled" anger/ jealousy, do you mean the
outward expression of these emotions? Or the feelings themselves?I'm not
sure contolling feelings is a good idea. Doesn't stuff get all sublimated
and festery that way? Acknowledging and moving on seems the better
direction to go in, I think. But maybe that's what you ultimately meant.I
think the root of the problem with nonmonogamous relationships is fear,
which is just jealousy broken down into it's parts(in this instance,
anyway).And I think that the fear is justified-who is to say that someone
you are diddling won't turn into your new primary? Maybe jealousy is the
mind's way of saying "I'm not comfortable with this notion, because it
poses a threat", which as I said, on a very primal level is a threat to
one's survival. About people's reaction to nonmonogamy;by definition,
"nontraditional" means out of the norm, so it's not difficult to see why
people would react the way they do.BTW, Your blog is fascinating!
I find jealousy to be a most ugly trait and can tell you so many stories of
what I have seen of how it can ruin relationships, including friendships
and family relations. Jealousy is often the root cause of all those angry
emotions covered in those anger management workshops, where if they had
managed to learn to handle their jealousy, anger would not have been
kindled. Being confident in your relationships and trusting your friends
and loved ones is the the foundation of keeping jealousy at bay, I think.
Very well written post and interesting! I've never really thought of
jealously as the same type of negative emotion as anger but it is a
negative emotion. I think to go into a nonmonogamous relationship you would
have to get your jealously in control first, and like you said have a lot
of maturity about yourself.
I think your limitations on human instincts are a bit of a stretch. The
most basic and powerful instinct I've ever experienced (even more powerful
than the urge to eat or have sex)is the instinct to protect my children.
Of course we see situations where mothers don't experience this (and will
kill or let their children be harmed for the attention of a "man"), but
it's the rare and highly disturbing exception to the rule.
The law should focus on how the parents relate to the children -- not how
they relate to one another. You don't need legal marriage to protect
children.
interesting post - I consider jealousy one of the most destructive emotions
in the gamut of the human lexicon - oddly, though I consider myself
passionate, committed and most definitely monogomous - one thing i am NOT
is jealous - not that I have not had fleeting moments - it would be absurd
to suggest that each of does not at some point, experience at least a
fleeting moment of jealousy- but generally I am not a jealous person - I
would be curious to see people's opiniions on whether they think jealousy
is an "inherited" gene -i.e. you're born with the propensity, whether it is
engendered by environment (i.e. your experiences growing up) or what?
We've discoursed about the hard-wiring vs. socialization before. I think
it's a combination. I think we have genetic tendencies.
Great post. I don't know about the precise extent, but I tend to agree with
Paula about a combination of "genetic tendencies" and socialization. That
said, I think that human beings are incredibly malleable (at least if we
want to be). That is to say, there's a huge variation in terms of what has
been "normal" for human beings in all times and places that we have access
to. That being the case, it's hard to deny that a lot of ways of doing
things can "work" for people, and people who are sufficiently attuned to
that have a great power to choose for themselves--not an absolute power by
any means, but a lot of wiggle room. At the same time, people are trapped
to a greater or lesser extent by their culture, their socialization, etc:
for some people this means that they have been largely determined by their
environment and "can't" change, while for others this just means that they
are limited by their experiences as far as what is thinkable (but those
limitations can be quite broad).
