Non-monogamy
Typically, we have been raised to believe that monogamy is the height of romance and true love. I beg to disagree on that front. I believe most people are naturally non-monogamous, not all of us, possibly, but the majority of us. By non-monogamy, I don’t mean we are non-committing or promiscuous, but that we want to, rather than bond with one person alone, we wish to bond with several people simultaneously, multiple men or multiple women, to marry the same person with our best friend(s), with every group member’s consent and to everyone’s pleasure and contentment.
Let’s think of it this way: You can have as many friends as you want, and people believe you can love each one of them equally but differently. You can have as many family members as you like and love each of them equally but differently. You can have as many children as you want without anyone demanding you pick a favorite out of the lot and give up the rest – lest you give your favorite the impression that you don’t love them enough. All of a sudden, when it comes to romantic partners, we’re told that you cannot have but one lest you are somehow… Deranged. All of a sudden, love becomes subject to a number: One.
Three different main forms.
Polygamists come in three different main forms: polygyny, polyandry, and polygynandry. Polygyny is the form of polygamy that we usually associate with the word “polygamy,” one man married to several women. In natural polygyny, however, there is no need to force this type of bonding, but each partner is excited to be a part of this mashup. Polyandry is the opposite form of polygyny: one woman married to several men, a much less common but not unheard of form of polygamy, and the closest thing, but not a very good comparison, that modern society would find to polyandry is that of a prostitute with her loyal admirers, who can, without a doubt, be in love with the same woman, and enjoy being in love with the same woman. Polygynandry is the median form of both, often called “group marriage,” a term I didn’t feel like it sounded like a part of the series, so I bastardized these words into one myself. Pardon me. Polygynandry is formed between several men and several women, as you might expect.
Now, in modern societies, obviously, polygamy is not legally recognized, but there is no law against cohabitating with whomever you want or sleeping with whomever you want. I’ll leave the discussion on the impact on children to another time, but let’s just say it will only be weird if you (or society) make it weird for them. (And obviously, NOWHERE does polygamy refer to underaged children being married to anyone, just saying overly cautiously to those with a weird and wild imagination.)
What makes a person one or the other?
A natural polygamist would feel a sense of relief at the thought of being able to live in a certain way and that the way they’d love to live, if society allowed it, was not in any way oppressive toward their natural partners – people who they love – but that they, too, would find it a liberation rather than an ordeal. Basically, for Cat Type Thinker: what your fetishes will lead you to, that’s your type.
For Dog Type Thinker, maybe sit this one out and stick to monogamy for the time being. You don’t need to rush into decisions on this one. Resist your urge to fear that all the good ones will be gone by the time you are ready for an informed choice; if you start making uninformed choices, you certainly will miss out on good choices. Dog Type Thinker may also choose to limit themselves to non-sexual relationships completely and forget all about this nonsense. This is definitely Cat Type Thinker Territory, although some Dog Type Thinker may find it comforting and quite a nice idea, especially in a demisexual (romantic but non-sexual) or asexual (non-romantic non-sexual) format. However, it’s never wise to force oneself into any of these things.
Why is monogamy even a thing?
There are reasons behind monogamy, obviously; it’s just that it does not function for every one of us equally. Monogamy works somewhat for those who are polygynandrous, but it miserably fails polyandrists and polygynists. Polygynandrists simply split their natural group and remain close friends with their non-partnered friends, or if they go into partner swapping, they understand that the same way; if they wind up cheating on each other, they understand each other without drama. However, with polygynists and polygynandrists, the non-functionality of monogamy and even partner swapping becomes immediately clear. Polyandrous men don’t want to stray any more than polygynist women do, but their partners just might. Polyandrous women don’t like their men straying any more than polygynous men like to see their women wandering from bed to bed, and that, obviously, doesn’t feel fair, considering – and it all falls apart.
Monogamy works as a default setting for all different types of people up to a point; at least it somewhat “guarantees” a partner for everyone, but for nobody perfectly, and even natural monogamists (who I tentatively believe to exist) are stuck in a society where they are marrying natural polygamists without realizing, putting their otherwise given monogamous bliss on a path to inevitable destruction.