
I was in highschool during the turn of the millennium, a time when a classic-put down became lost. Slut was a word that sounded powerful, that one might cut up from a magazine to proudly paste on a decoupaged notebook, a word she might see emblazoned in rhinestones on a baby-tee, and stand in awe of. This was also a time of hook-ups, we didn’t date, we “talked” which usually meant a few phone calls and some heavy petting. In college, it went from talking upfront to fucking upfront and it seemed everyone I knew had swapped fluids with one and other at some point. People still shacked up of course, but it was usually after a hook-up than picking- her-up for dinner and a movie.
Long dead are rules and etiquette and courting. The hook-up culture of one night whirlwinds, easy-to-get antibiotics and available contraception is in full swinging-swing. And aside from the Christian Right, the lot of us are backing it with an enthusiastic ass-slap. Thanks to feminism, the aforementioned contraceptives, divorce forgoing taboo and later marriages all of this can happen. Pro-sex feminism has given us an era where the term “slut” is an endearing word among friends.
But with the old rules abolished, and no new ones in place are we progressing? Or as Charlotte Allen suggests in her article, The New Dating Game, have we simply removed the rules and de-evolutionized, entering back into the Paleolithic age of dating. Where, as she writes “the men drag the women by their hair back to the cave, and the women love every minute of it.”
The old model of dating is eliminated, yet we are still adhering to a stagnant system of relationships and marriage. The emotional and psychological positions in relationships largely remain pre-feminist. But our generation wants someone to grow with rather than just grow old with. We don’t want companionship, we want intimacy. The customs are broken, and this shattering of patriarchy has allowed us to become more in touch with our biological nature. But something more is needed.
For some, as we throw outdated relationship mores through the window, what hops in is non-monogamy This is not a new model, but another product of the sexual revolution. Non-monogamy makes the human truth of being attracted to other people no longer forbidden. At it’s best it can eliminate cheating.
The non-monogamous often say that humans aren’t naturally monogamous, it is a social construct. From evolutionary psychology, we know that men are naturally non-monogamous. Their biological urge is to spread as much seed as they can, a better chance at passing along genes. But it was long believed that women were inherently monogamous, however, not exactly right. We now know that women are actually hypergamous by nature. Which means they are only with one partner at a time, but are always looking for a trade-up. A partner who will bring home a bigger boar, who has a bigger cave.
But let’s be frank, this is just biology, it is great to be in touch with our biology but it can also be overcome. After-all, there are many women who enjoy polyamory, many men who don’t and a lot of women who don’t trade up. But what I want to bring your attention to is not the question of overcoming these things, but the sad truth that we currently don’t have a common model of relationship, monogamous or non, that actually works. What we have is damaged, created under patriarchy for broken people. Doing away with the customs and sexual rules doesn’t give a new, working foundation of how to relate emotionally and psychologically. No wonder we’ve decided, quite literally “fuck it.”
There no such thing as falling in love and never having to work on the relationship. The idea accepted by many psychologists is that in relationships we are trying to heal old wounds, we marry an emotional replica of a parent so we can do this. Relationships then take a delicate hand of intentionality, curiosity, communication and self awareness toward yourself and your partner. It shouldn’t be about accepting or downplaying whatever emotional tug-of-war you are in (as it seems former generations have done) but working to dig deep inside and find what your personal pattern is, what you are re-playing and the unconscious role your partner fits into.
As we we get closer to our biological nature and shake off the shackles of ancient rituals and customs, the need for self realization and intentional relationships becomes stronger. This is an empowerment needed for all genders. These cultures and customs worked for broken people with short lifespans but we need more, I want more for all of us.
art by anne taintor
Related posts:


2 Comments
“But what I want to bring your attention to is not the question of overcoming these things, but the sad truth that we currently don’t have a common model of relationship, monogamous or non, that actually works.”
As a mid-forties dad who’s passively poly (wife is very poly, I’m more “open relationship”-ish), I disagree with that. I’ve seen monogamy work. I’ve always believed that the issue is that, at least in our culture, we have no Role Models of anything other than the traditional monogamous relationship.
Monogamy is “easy” because both partners walk into it having been taught both the stated and unstated rules. When they aren’t taught by their parents, they are taught by popluar culture (the Huxtables, the Cleavers, and any other tv family).
What we don’t have is a cross culture common understanding of what being poly, or open, or any other non-standard model means in the way of the relationship rules. It’s hard to verbalize everything, and to find agreements.
I’m also going to comment on this:
“But for me, the biggest intrigue about non-monogamy is that it can eliminate cheating.”
Being non-monogamous doesn’t elimate cheating. It makes it possible to sleep with / have relationships with other people without having to lie or destroy your primary relationship, though. Even in an open relationship, many people find it easier to simply do what they want to do and then lie about it. The price of that freedom is a hell of a lot of work.
Anyway, interesting essay, I just thought I’d drop my thoughts on it because the fact that poly has no role models has gone through my head for years now. In fact, my college age daughter (who’s known that we’re poly for years) has tried poly, and had it blow up. On the other hand, she seems to have a much better grasp on the communications, honesty, and work required to have a healthy relationship, even if she ignores that knowledge from time to time.
Hi Quasi,
First, thanks for bringing up and clarifying the monogamy/cheating question since I did not do so in the piece. I am right there with you though which is why I specifically said *can* eliminate cheating.
As far as your assertion that relationships as a whole are not broken, I still disagree. I believe that you have seen monogamy and polyamory work but I am not talking about the outliers, or even those that are just “working.”
My view is that without being totally intentional and digging into out patterns and unconscious psychological reasons why we are in the relationships we are in, we won’t have fulfilling relationships. They might still “work” however.
I don’t think that in the case of our broken models that the sexual aspect has much to do with it. We are hurt by not allowing ourselves to truly communicate with ourselves or one and other, and the expectation that the relationship is going to fix us.
I think that you are right that poly can add an even more difficult element on top of that!
4 Trackbacks
[...] here to read the rest: How Feminism Has Changed Relationships :culture, dating, feature, lifestyle, personal, rabbit-write, sex-amp-gender, sex-and-gender, [...]
[...] Rabbit Write: How Feminism Has Changed Relationships The sad truth that we currently don’t have a common model of relationship, monogamous or non, that actually works. [...]
[...] Rabbit Write Communicating Strength and Empathy Skip to content « How Feminism Has Changed Relationships [...]
[...] worked for broken people with short lifespans but we need more, I want more for all of us. via rabbitwrite.com digg_skin = [...]