Analysis of Monogamous Relationships - Essay Example

Running Head: Monogamy Monogamy Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecture Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Introduction Laura Kipnis (2003) in her book Against love introduces a polemic argument against monogamous relationships especially in marriage. According to Kipnis (2003) monogamous compassionate coupledom is repressive and creates domestic gulags while those who are involved in such relationship appear domesticated. She attacks the socially acceptable norm that monogamous heterosexual relations are perfect and lead to the many social advantages for the couple. According to Kipnis (2003) society associates many positive aspects to monogamous marriages and fidelity in the union. In the views of Kipnis (2003) a marriage not supposed to be made up of only two people and the presence of a third person only has to mean trouble. If the couple can uphold fidelity in their relationship it leads to success, self-sufficiency, a symbiotic relationship where the couple depends on each other. Other supposed benefits of monogamous marriage include security, safety, a feeling of completion. Through fidelity a couple is able to build a family and a future. Kipnis (2003) against love, outlines a polemic argument against the above commonly held assumptions. This paper analyzes Kipnis (2003) argument against monogamous marrages and points out major flaws in the arguments. The paper concludes that Laura Kipnis is unable to show that monogamous marriages are inferior to other types of intimate relationships. Discussion Kipnis (2003) starts her argument by attacking the uniformity of opinion on matters of monogamous love. According to Kipnis (2003), society frowns at those who hold a contradicting opinion of love; people are cultured in way that they would not even dream of being against love. In her opinion people in modern society are constituted in a way that they cannot go against love. Kipnis (2003) argues that every human being has a yearning to be filled, to form connection with others and be adored at the same time. She asserts that monogamous love is considered the lifeblood of society and nothing else matters. Kipnis (2003) further notes that arguments against love in the present society may not be entertained as even the truth about love is not permissible. Kipnis (2003) argument about what is considered normal in society is supported by Munson and Stelboum (2009) who attack the notion that sexuality in the norm in sexuality. According to Robinson (2005) heterosexual relationship have been constructed and normalized to occupy the position of true sexuality in society. Kipnis (2003); Munson and Stelboum (2009) argue that compulsory heterosexual monogamy is about maintainace of social power and only serves to reinforce a culture of power. Kipnis (2003) thus proposes a polemic argument against love asserting it is time somebody analyzed the conventional wisdom on the sacrosanct subject of love. Kipnis (2003) kicks off his polemic argument by asserting that, monogamous marriages create domestic Gulags. Kaufmann (2009) assets that couples are stuck in relationships because they are afraid of losing the people who love and adore them. In her opinion the desperation and anxiety that results from loss of love forces couples to stay in monogamous unions. Kipnis (2003) makes fun of monogamous union calling for health advisories against their addictive and harmful nature. According to Butler (2002), monogamous union create antisocial behaviours and are a source of mayhem. In the views of Kipnis (2003) getting out of monogamous relationship clean is almost impossible. Kipnis (2003) argument on this matter is supported by many violent love triangles, some even leading to the death of spouses. Joey Greco of popular American TV show; Cheaters specializes in exposing cheating couples (White, 2006). In most instances, when the cheating couple are confronted they turn violent and on many instances Joey Greco has been attacked by infuriated cheating spouses (White, 2006). Kipnis (2003) also attacks the emotional attachment that is created between monogamous couples. In the views of Kipnis (2003), this emotional attachment is equal to imprisoning a person domestically. The fact that leaving a relationship is emotionally draining and shatters once ego means most people involuntarily carry on with monogamous relationship as their avoid the emotional trauma that comes with decoupling. Most people are ready to do anything to maintain their relationship as they fear losing love and the pain that comes with breakups (Kipnis, 2003). Kipnis (2003) further dismisses monogamous relationships as commitment to anxiety which displays itself in a relationship as insecurity, jealousy and control issues. Kipnis (2003) concludes that individuals in monogamous relationships have no choice but to pursue love and conquer love as losing it is too traumatic. According to Kipnis (2003), captivity as a price for being in a relationship is too high a price to pay for the union. In the views of Kipnis (2000), every human being has the right to live their lives the way they want. However, in a relationship a degree of self liberty has to be sacrificed in order for the relationship to blossom. It is true that a monogamous relationship involves compromises on aspects of individuality that are offending to your partner. However, in most cases people have to give up some their individual autonomy to achieve their social goals, For example, most organizations have dress codes which have to be maintained by employees despite the right to dress anyway a person prefers. Similarly, people who enter into relationship have to be ready to give some of their individuality for relationships to prosper. Indeed, every other human relationship involves compromises on individuality. Kipnis (2000) suggest that the instinct to have many sexual partners is natural and biological and thus restricting people to one partner is unnatural and goes against the rules of natural attraction. The behavior of animal and human beings in earlier stages of development is used to support this argument. Further, Brand et al (2007), points to statistics that show every one in three couple in the United States cheat once in a lifetime. While Kipnis (2003) supposes that every person would cheat if they knew they won’t get caught this is not entirely true. According to Robinson (1997), the natural instinct to cheat is equal if not lesser to the genetic disposition to exclusive bonding. In my opinion the negative emotions associated with exclusive coupledom are just as natural as the instinct to cheat. Even in other human relationships people still have feeling of anger, insecurity and jealousy. Therefore the argument that having many partners is natural is a weak one which is countered by the fact that the emotions present in monogamous relations are just as natural. According to Kipnis (2003), the effort needed to make a relationship work is unnecessary hard work. Kipnis (2003) notes that “desire is organised contractually, with accounts kept and fidelity extracted like labour from employees.” However, every other human relationship needs rules to operate without ant hiccups. Even if a man and a woman are in an open relationship where they see other people, they cannot live without rules of engagement. For example, most people in open relationship can only meet one partner at a time. Furthermore, in a polygamous relationship, the polygamous partner has to plan who and where he will spend time with his partners. Having many partners is harder work that even a single monogamous relationship as a partner has to struggle to keep more partners satisfied by complying with their rules of engagement. Kipnis (2003), attacks the requirement by monogamy that partners repress their desire for other people and it for one partners. According to Kipnis (2003), humans are not a higher being thus their is no point of foregoing our bases impulses. Kipnis (2003) refers to monogomous relationship as love utopianism that thrives on the assumptions that a love in a relationship will outlast the desires that led to the formation of the relationship. In her view we should let our desire for variety run wild for us to be truly free. Robinson (1997) argues that monogamy is a stifling and artificial construct that imprisons a person’s desire for sexual variety. While Kipnis (2003) argues that a relationship can be consolidated by openness and honesty about sexual desire, she fails to take into consideration other emotions. It is naive to think that when a person has multiple relationships he will escape such emotions like love, jealousy and angers. Once another person joins a marital relationship the negative relationship noted earlier become heightened. In the views of Robinson (1997) such emotions like lust, love and infatuations complicate relationships involving multiple partners. Kipnis (2003) seems to admit that once another party becomes involved in a relationship it becomes potentially more dangerous. In regard to this Kipnis (2003) comments; “there’s consequences of getting into bed with someone that are unpredictable” Kipnis (2003) attack of monogamy does not also take into account the type of relationship and the parties involved in the relationship. In his argument Kipnis (2003), does not consider whether a partners is gay, straight or if the partners have children together. While heterosexual couples are under enormous pressure from society to maintain fidelity little, the same cannot be said about gay couples. Similarly, couples who have children together are even under more pressure to remain committed to their monogamous relationship for the sake of their children. According to Robinson (1997), most old-fashioned societies allow men to be less faithful to the marriage partners. In the views Robinson (1997), men do not want their women to have the some infidelity privileges as them. It is well known that men will always prefer their women to be chaste while they consider themselves free to cheat. Most men will always hold this old-age prerogative in every relationship they enter. In so doing men and society is a great barrier to their women becoming involved with multiple partners? In contrast, in same-sex marriage the reaction to a partner cheating with a person from the opposite sex would obviously different. Question like whether a male partners would be concerned if his gay mate cheats on him with a woman arise. Kipnis (2003) failure to take into account children who are borne out of a relationship significantly weakens the strength of his argument against monogamy. Sooner or later most heterosexual couples will reproduce regardless of whether they are in an exclusive coupledom or an open relationship. Kids bring about new levels of commitment to monogamous relationships and also increase the responsibility of partners towards that relationship. For, instance mums who have to raise kids become exhausted and may not even desire romantic relationships with their husbands. Kipnis (2003) argument for open relationships can only apply to couples who have not had children. In the views of Robinson (1999), once you make a leap to parenthood, focus in the relationship shifts to the children rather than the partner. Henceforth, most partners will consider the children’s need for a stable and predictable homes a greater priority than their own selfish desire to seek sexual and emotional satisfaction by having a variety of partners. This view is supported by Robinson (1997) who asserts that most couples have no choice but to become sexually conservative once they have children. Conclusion The argument for against exclusive unions in marriage is not sustainable. First, it is naive not to expect people to repress their sexual desire while expecting them to keep other emotions in check. In comparison, if people were allowed to express their anger freely this would result in a disorderly world. Similarly, repression of sexual desire in relationships should not be accepted as an argument against monogamous unions. Secondly, the claim that monogamous union repress personal freedom fails to a take into consideration that almost all social relationships require that an individual give up some of his personal liberty. The essay gives an example of an employee who has to observe his workplace’s dress code or risk losing his job. Thirdly, Kipnis (2003) assertion that monogamous relationships require insurmountable effort to maintain is rebuffed by the fact more partners would only expand the burden on a person to maintain good relations with the multiple partners. Thus it can be concluded that exclusive monogamous union in marriage are not unique in creating domestic gulags, requiring insurmountable effort to maintain or repressing an individual’s rights; other social relationships have similar consequences. References Butler, J (2002). Excerpt from ‘Is Kinship Always Already Heterosexual?’ differences, 13.1, pp. 14-23; 41-44. Jean-Claude Kaufmann, J (2009). Gripes: The Little Quarrels of Couples, Helen Morrison (trans), Polity, Cambridge, 2009. Kipnis, L. (2000) ‘Adultery’, in Intimacy, Lauren Berlant (ed), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2000, pp. 9-47. Laura Kipnis (2003), Selection from ‘Domestic Gulags’ in Against Love: A Polemic, Pantheon Books, New York, 2003, pp. 82-94 Munson, M. and Judith P. Stelboum , J(eds) (1999). The Lesbian Polyamory Reader: Open Relationships, Non-Monogamy, and Casual Sex, Haworth Press, New York, 1999. Robinson, K. H. (2005). " Queerying" Gender: Heteronormativity in Early Childhood Education. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(2), 19-28. Robinson, V. (1997). My baby just cares for me: Feminism, heterosexuality and non‐monogamy. Journal of Gender Studies, 6(2), 143-157. White, M. (2006). Investigating Cheaters. The Communication Review, 9(3), 221-240 Read More