Non-non-monogamy

We tend to think something is amiss when it’s defined solely in opposition to something else. In the case of “non-monogamy,” the debate (which is not new) has recently taken on an increasingly political (and not just social) tone, opposing the idea of ​​monogamy and portraying it as an oppressive system imposed by various entities and institutions of power that have nothing to do with “human nature.”

Now, if there’s anything that encompasses everything and its opposite, it’s human nature. If there’s anything uncertain and unpredictable, it’s precisely human nature. In fact, human beings often seek to contradict their own “nature,” not out of necessity or logic, but out of curiosity and experimentation, which frequently yields either marvelous or catastrophic results. And the line that distinguishes them is astonishingly thin.

Non-non-loneliness

It is known that humans can exist alone, isolated from the world, following their most primal nature and surviving solely based on it (satisfying basic needs like eating, sleeping, and defecating, without anyone bothering them or anyone else – except the occasional animal that would have to be killed to be eaten). But what they have failed to do throughout human history is coexist with other human beings by following only their primary and individual instincts and impulses.

Precisely because of its volatility, human nature has always waged battles with itself, seeking a balance between emotions and intellect, innate characteristics and acquired knowledge, fundamental desires and responsibilities, rights and duties, the idea of ​​individuality and community, the need for freedom but also for rules, ambition for causes and fear of consequences, nostalgic conservatism and anarchic liberalism, yin and yang, darkness and light, and all the other dualities (yes, because even on a spectrum there are always two extremes), often paradoxical, with which we have had to coexist since the beginning of time and our lives.

Interestingly, although it seems that these moral questions only affect humans, we are not the only ones to deal with this type of dilemma. The only difference is that humans have developed philosophical thought, politics, science, and religion, which question and reformulate the very issues, while other animals use more pragmatic methods, which to our eyes may seem violent and cruel, to resolve their internal and external disputes.

Non-non-complacency

As our social contexts and structures become more complex, we have also been led to rethink the formulas of our personal relationships. In this sense, the “moral” questioning that humankind has always made of reality and its role in it has led to the creation of countless strategies for family and, consequently, social organization, which have given rise to the most diverse views of what personal and affective relationships should be in different eras and places around the world.

All of this has given rise to different family structures, whether in small communal societies or large imperial societies. In other words, non-monogamy is not an invention of modern times; it is merely a re-questioning of our most primal personal ambitions. A questioning that stems from the technological possibilities that today allow us to maintain close relationships at a distance, allow direct and immediate contact with people who are not always present in our daily lives, and, above all, facilitate the multiplicity of connections that allow for greater detachment of one individual from another exclusively.

What this new reality is increasingly enabling is the idea that non-monogamy is not actually the ability to live with multiple people, but rather the ability to live alone and independently, precisely because we can have contact with multiple people at any time. The impossibilities of managing time and distance that existed in the past are now being overcome by this constant global connectivity.

Non-non-condition

But the question that arises in public debate, and that often comes up in my private consultations, is this: the fight for freedom is undoubtedly an exciting adventure, but once freedom is achieved, one rarely knows what to do with it. When possibilities seem endless, and this is compounded by the constant influx of incentives from other lives (what are social networks if not a menu of alternative universes?), any decision or choice seems limited and limiting to everything else.

The emptiness that is generated when nothing belongs to us and we belong to nothing is the opposite of the idea of ​​connection that motivates us to want everything. That is why, nowadays, perhaps the definition of “non-monogamy” is indeed the best way to describe something that, more than being, is not.

However, the great virtue of this non-definition is not its possible transformation into something defined. It is precisely in provoking the self-questioning that compels us to do, regarding another of humanity’s great dilemmas: to have/to be because we want to or because we need to.

Curious to learn more? Book an Erotic Coaching session.