“We live in sexually interesting times, meaning a culture which manages to be simultaneously
hypersexualized and to retain its Puritan underpinnings, in precisely equal proportions.”
-Laura Kipnis, Against Love: A Polemic
This paper’s title was inspired by lyrics from a song “Is It You?” by Cassie. As in any other traditional love song, the speaker expresses their need for “a lover, not a friend” (line 1, my emphasis). The speaker describes certain qualities that they are seeking for in their potential lover. For instance, the speaker says that they look for someone who is “not afraid to say the way they feel about you,” “someone who understands how [they] feel,” “someone to share [their] pain,” and “someone who [they] can cry with through the night” (lines 4, 19, 21). In the chorus, the speaker repeatedly asks whether “you” are the one for them who can fulfill all of these “requirements.” I recall listening to this song when I was in junior high as a thirteen-year-old kid. Funnily enough, back then, I was secretly in love with a boy who was in his final year of middle school. My much younger self seemed to have liked the song without any critical reflection on the lyrics, most likely because I was too preoccupied with relating to the song as someone who was clandestinely fantasizing about having a special, loving relationship with someone I admire. My crush was not viewed in a favorable light by people around me. A lot of my acquaintances treated my feelings as immature and shallow because I was admiring someone that I do not know very well. They believed I could not “truly” love somebody without spending a long time with them to learn about who they really are. A crush was not perceived to be deep and genuine enough to be “love.” Thanks to YouTube algorhythm, I happened to listen to this song again over a decade later, after experiencing many crushes in life. Then, I realized how ludicrous the lyrics are. The spaker is asking this one person, whom they call “a lover,” to take on the roles of a friend, parent, and caregiver—What a ridiculous amount of commitment! Furthermore, I have noticed that such love songs are a type of cultural product that perpetuates the bullshit idea of true and pure love forever stemming from an exclusive, romantic relationship with a lover.
Over time, going through my twenties, I began to question why so many people crave the specialness of a long-term relationship between two, generally heterosexual, individuals. People in South Korea, my mother country, are notoriously curious about other people’s love life. At times, they fail to respect the boundary and ask why someone is not in a romantic relationship when they are old enough to get married. Anyone who is not enjoying a coupledom are, often times, viewed with suspicion, as if they lack attractiveness as a human being or any other key attributes required to be a “marketable” being in the cis-heteropatriarchal romance-centric world.
Furthermore, I found the following to be the most problematic: There is also an implicit hierarchy amongst romantic relationships. I noticed that short-term relationships are frequently regarded as an incomplete or shallow, and have failed to develop into a longer and more meaningful relationships—no wonder why my crush was dismissed as a childish feeling that I would grow out of soon. This series of realizations about romantic relationships caused me to cast doubt on the idea of mature and pure love per se. Along the way, I discovered the concept of amatonormativity. Justin L. Clardy defines this term as “the belief that a central, dyadic romantic relationship that leads to marriage is the ideal romantic relationship, a universally shared goal, and should be pursued above all other relationships” (4). Regarding the ideology of love, there are several naturalized notions concerning sexuality, such as compulsory heterosexuality. Amatonormativity is also one of the romantic ideologies that drives individuals to enter a stable, exclusive dyadic romantic relationship and ultimately form a nuclear family that contributes to capitalist futurity.
Drawing on Clardy’s definition of amatonormativity, this essay seeks not only to dethrone complusory monogamy but also to dispel the myth of “true love”—the belief that humans are designed to seek romantic relationships and only a long-term romanitc-sexual relationship culminating in marriage is the ideal form of coupledom. I argue that such belief excludes individuals who do not participate in (dyadic) romantic relationships, whether they are aromantic, remain single by choice, or for other reasons. Non/monogamies free one from the shackles of the obligation to prioritize romance and marriage in their life, allowing them to value even short-term relationships as opportunities to learn about themselves.
Nevertheless, I would like to note that my objective is not to address non/monogamies solely in a celebratory manner. I admit that even among non/monogamous communities, certain non/monogamous relationships are deemed superior over others, contingent upon the degree of “seriousness” or the level of exclusivity in the relationship. For instance, consensual non/monogamists who practice polyamory, polyfidel, or consensual open marriage may judge those who refuse to engage in romantic relationships but only desire sex such as one-night stands or threesomes as superficial. Nathan Rambukkana criticizes this act of “privileging” certain forms of non/monogamies. He underlines that “polyamory’s focus on the notion of ‘responsible non-monogamy’ does not deconstruct privileged hetero- and mononormative assumptions about non-monogamy in general but instead carves out a space of acceptability within non-monogamous intimacy” (119). In other words, individuals engaging in consensual or “responsible” polyamory may be practicing another form of romantically and sexually exclusive relationship, which could be viewed as an emulation of monogamous marriages. Such interconnectedness between monogamy and non/monogamies implies that non/monogamies are not inherently radical or innovative alternatives to compulsory monogamy as long as they are enmeshed in the ideologies and practices of love that circulate in amatonormative societies. Therefore, pushing back against amatonormativity is an attempt to critique dominant ideologies of love that lie not only in mononormative societies but at the intersection of compulsory monogamy and non/monogamies.
I am going to share one informal interview I had with Elmo (a nickname), who is a twenty-five-year-old art teacher living in the Midwest. They identify themselves as non/monogamist and this conversation provides us with some insight regarding how to view love and love life and how we can go against the amatonormative society’s ideology of true love.
Unruly Love: Conversation with a Non/monogamist
My conversation with Elmo began by listening to their story of how they became non/monogamous and what was their first experience in non/monogamous relationship like. I asked Elmo when they started to identify themself as a non/monogamist and whether there was any special occasion that drew their interest in practicing non/monogamies. Elmo explains:
Elmo: What led me to identify as a non/monogamist was my experience in a monogamous relationship. I was in a monogamous relationship with a man before for four and a half years, and he wanted a very traditional kind of relationship where we get married and maybe have a family and all of that, and I experienced a lot of feelings of guilt in that relationship, for even having feelings for other people, for having crushes on other people, and I would really get in my head about that, and then on his ends, he was very jealous of my friendships with other men, and I remember him like calling my male friendships like “oh…go talk to your other boyfriends” … he would throw that at me so that relationship ended in 2019, and then, after that, I very quickly realized that I wanted a different kind of relationship. Then, in the next relationship that I was in, I started to have those conversations about, “What do you think of polyamory?” And the next person I was with was interested in it, and it took a totally different approach to relationships than my past partner, and what I really appreciated about this relationship was that I actually liked talking about other people with this person; I liked hearing his stories about other partners and other experiences. I liked telling about mine! And this was like what I haven’t had before, and I think that made us closer as we were able to share more about ourselves. So that was my first experience exploring polyamory.
This conversation highlights how the traditional monogamous relationship, which ultimately seeks to “settle down” by marrying, may feel restricting to certain individuals. Instead of feeling entitled to keep their partner(s) entirely to themselves at all times, Elmo prefers talking about other people that they have feelings for to their current partner(s), indicating that Elmo is not pursuing exclusivity to make their romantic relationship unique and special but rather asserting that a person’s attraction to multiple people does not diminish their love for their current partner.
Elmo further explains how the practice of non/monogamy helped them change their life.
Elmo: I think it has changed my life by making me more open to the different types of people that I have been having relationships with. Because opening the door to polyamory for me meant that I didn’t have to put the pressure on myself to find a person that could be everything for me. And I can experience these relationships with different people and appreciate them for who they are instead of trying to stress out whether, “Will this be a long-term thing?” or “Are you the right one for me? Can you do this and this and this for me?” But instead, I can be with…just be with them, get to know them, and then just appreciate each relationship for what it is, instead of like trying to find the perfect person …
What stands out in this response is the fact that Elmo has freed themselves from the idea of “long-term relationships” or an obligation to find “the perfect person,” but they have learned to be “open to different types of people.” Elmo’s reponse suggests that giving themselves a chance to start a new relationship should not be bounded by the idea of long-lasting relationships. Possessing the expectation that a relationship will last into the future can be constraining since it forces people to estimate the length of the connection in advance and prevents them from giving it a chance if they believe it will not last long. What matters to Elmo is what they can learn or earn from each relationship, regardless of its length. Focusing on the uniqueness of each person one dates is deeply linked with contesting the belief in “perfect partner.” Elmo’s preferred style of dating recognizes that one does not have to feel entitled to such “a perfect person,” as they can date more than one person with different strengths and attractiveness. The change in life Elmo experienced by becoming polyamorous suggests a possibility of growing into a well-rounded person by gaining a full self-understanding through diverse love experiences with multiple people.
Joey: Could you tell me more in detail about learning to be alone rather than considering a [love] relationship a huge part of your life? I think that part is closely aligned with this project.
Elmo: Ok so, I guess like comparing my long-term monogamous relationship to my polyamorous relationships, in my monogamous relationships, there were a lot of conversations about our role that we’re going to have in each other’s life in the future and will we be able to fufill those roles for each other, and so there were conversations like, “Oh! He’s going to be a doctor. Will I be able to be the type of person who can be kind of a doctor’s wife-kind-of-person and socialize with all of his fancy friends with everything…” Because I have always been a bit more eccentric and loosey-goosey, and so that I can see, there was the pressure of how I was going to mold myself into this future person’s… to be this person’s partner for the rest of my life. And then now, in relationships, I think I’m more focused on things like quality time. [I like] spending this time with this person and just enjoying each other’s energy and being in each other’s presence. And, yeah, we don’t always have so many conversations about the future and how we’re going to… what roles we are going to play in the future and how they are going to play out. But [I am] just focusing on enjoying the time that I have with people. And I think that has also probably taught me to enjoy the time I have with myself too, and just like experiencing the present moment with myself.
Elmo’s experience with a traditional monogamous relationship that posits marriage exemplifies what happens if we decenter traditional dyadic romance from one’s life.
The point about spending time with oneself is particularly noteworthy in this response. Elmo says that when they were in a traditional monogamous relationship, they often pondered how to play the role of the ideal partner that suits their partner’s material conditions, including his profession and social life. However, as a polyamorist, Elmo is now freed to enjoy the time alone rather than planning the future with someone else. Elmo’s anecdote implies that amatonormative worship of marriage can limit one’s self-formation by confining them to permanent relationship with one person. Non/monogamies, which are not bound by the idea of “happily ever after,” shed light on the fact that living alone does not mean that the individual is susceptible to loneliness. Rather, the individual can engage in a more independent self-formation without being hampered by the amatonormative relationship’s insistence on perpetual responsibility.
Joey: Do you feel conflict between your understanding of love and dominant ideas of love? Have you ever tried to manage that conflict?
Elmo: One conflict that I have felt is that the length of a relationship is equal to its worth. So like seeing a relationship that lasts for a decade, that scene is like the top, like what you’re looking for. And then, relationships that last maybe a couple of months—it seems like those don’t even matter. That’s nothing. And what I have found is that relationships lasted even a couple of months taught me so many things about myself. Just being with those people unearthed a different part of myself that I didn’t know existed. And I carry that with me. So the different relationships that I had have all done that. I think because when I get to know someone else on an intimate level, then I also get to know myself intimately, and every person is so unique and different, so that learning happens in a different way with each person, which I really appreciate. So that’s part of how I fight the sort of dominant ideas, like the length of the relationship being [considered important.] What’s important is that I really value these relationships that I’ve had even for short periods of time.
Elmo critiques amatonormative beliefs in “long-term and serious” relationships, which circles us back to my anecdote on crush. Elmo reemphasizes that even though one of the relationships lasted a couple of months, they learned a lot about themselves. Elmo’s emphasis on learning allows us to presume that non/monogamies are more than just about the relationship; they are also about learning about oneself and shaping one’s selfhood. Simply put, self-making through the practice of non/monogamies is a mode of resistance against the amatonormative myth of long-lasting relationships as a true and mature form of love. I would like to conclude the interview section by introducing Elmo’s lovely metaphor:
Elmo: Sometimes I thought about… you know how a cat will want the door open even if they don’t actually want to be in the other room or on the other side of the door? They just want the door open so that they know that they can go into the other room. Like, they’ll stay at the aisle of the door, then you open the door, and then they just stay in the room that they’re in … Yeah, that’s the comfort to me in polyamory. The freedom of knowing that I have these paths even if I’m not actively trying to go down every path.
Even if one identifies as a non/monogamist, they may not practice it right away. However, they can reassure themselves that there is another road they can follow any time if they feel suffocated while living under the pressure of compulsory monogamy—what Elmo refers to as “the freedom of knowing.” The non-compulsory nature of non/monogamies frees one from amatonormative constraints and allows one to unearth previously unknown tendencies and preferences, leading one to a more dynamic and multidimensional love life.
Though this may sound overly obvious and outmoded, my conversation with Elmo, as well as previous studies conducted by other scholars of non/monogamies, prove that love can be practiced in a variety of ways. On that note, I would like to thank all the scholars who have bravely performed research on non/monogamies as a way to combat amatonormativity, despite all the prejudices and criticisms they may have faced for defying mainstream norms. Above all, I would also like to thank my numerous younger selves for always overcoming devastation and confusion caused by seemingly “immature,” “silly,” and “inauthentic” love relationships that they exposed themselves to and landing on this unconventional style of relationship that will lead them to new adventures. If I could travel through time and meet my 13-year-old self, I would tell them that they will have a lot of heartbreaks and they will have a hard time pulling themselves out of the fantasy of love withheld by many other people around them (perhaps that might a bit brutal thing to say to a middle schooler). Nevertheless, I would also give them hope by saying that they will meet a lot of comrades (namely, Foucault, perhaps, a good friend who will torture them when they get into graduate school) who will grace them with knowledge they need to navigate the complex web of amatonormativity and cis-hetero-patriarchy. I truly wish all the best to non/monogamists and their relatas.
Works Cited
Clardy, Justin L. Why It’s Ok to Not Be Monogamous, Routledge, 2023.
Kipnis, Laura. Against Love: A Polemic, Vintage Books, 2004.
Elmo (redacted information). Interview. Conducted by Joey Junsu Hong. 21 March 2024.
Rambukkana, Nathan. Fraught Intimacies: Non/Monogamy in the Public Sphere, UBC Press,
2016.
