Do Amor, da fidelidade, da monogamia, da poligamia #1
«As well as questioning rules around fidelity, polyamory can be seen to challenge the supposed mutually exclusive categories of “friend” and “lover” inherent in the dominant version of heterosexuality. Burr and Butt (1992) argue that we generally divide relationships into “friends” and “lovers,” and that these culturally available categories exert a “terrific pull on people’s behaviour and experience” (p. 23), according to the Kellian notion of “anticipation.”
People are expected to have one “lover” and anyone else should fall into the category of “friend,” with strict cultural rules around what behavior is appropriate in a friendship and problems experienced when a relationship seems to fall somewhere between the either/or categories of friend and lover (e.g., a close opposite sex friendship or a lover one is no longer sexual with). Friendships are generally seen as less important than love relationships, as exemplified in the common language of two people being “just” friends. In polyamorous relationships, there can be more than one lover, and the distinctions between friends and lovers may become blurred.
Several participants spoke of such a blurring of the distinctions, for example, by having “sexual friends” or by placing emphasis on people they were close to, whether or not the relationships were sexual. For example: Good friends now are former lovers or the former or current partners of former lovers.
This whole community is kind of like that. It’s a strength. Again, it was argued that this could be threatening to people outside polyamory. Despite this common discourse of polyamory as very different to monogamy, participants also frequently argued that polyamory was not so different. For example: I don’t think it’s vastly different to monogamous relationships. Romantic relationships are always about the same kinds of things: fun, friendship, sex. »
Barker, M. (2005). This is my partner, and this is my...partner's partner: constructing a polyamorous identity on a monogamous world. Journal of Constructive Psychology, 18, 75-88.
People are expected to have one “lover” and anyone else should fall into the category of “friend,” with strict cultural rules around what behavior is appropriate in a friendship and problems experienced when a relationship seems to fall somewhere between the either/or categories of friend and lover (e.g., a close opposite sex friendship or a lover one is no longer sexual with). Friendships are generally seen as less important than love relationships, as exemplified in the common language of two people being “just” friends. In polyamorous relationships, there can be more than one lover, and the distinctions between friends and lovers may become blurred.
Several participants spoke of such a blurring of the distinctions, for example, by having “sexual friends” or by placing emphasis on people they were close to, whether or not the relationships were sexual. For example: Good friends now are former lovers or the former or current partners of former lovers.
This whole community is kind of like that. It’s a strength. Again, it was argued that this could be threatening to people outside polyamory. Despite this common discourse of polyamory as very different to monogamy, participants also frequently argued that polyamory was not so different. For example: I don’t think it’s vastly different to monogamous relationships. Romantic relationships are always about the same kinds of things: fun, friendship, sex. »
Barker, M. (2005). This is my partner, and this is my...partner's partner: constructing a polyamorous identity on a monogamous world. Journal of Constructive Psychology, 18, 75-88.
posted by fiona bacana at 3:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home