so i posted that Sophie Lewis article about sexuality under capitalism on Reddit the other day and there was a short discussion in the comments that got me thinking; basically someone felt very attacked because they were monogamous and didn't want to be forced into all this queery stuff.
many years ago, when i first heard people talking about "abolishing whiteness", it didn't make any sense to me. people can't help being born with white skin, i thought, so how does it make sense to abolish that. reading this person talking about their "immutable monogamy", how they were born, how they just are, reminded me of myself back then.
i'm not interested in trying to draw parallels between two different forms of oppression, but it made me wonder if simply opposing things like gay marriage and queers in the army is framing our position too much in liberalism and being afraid to talk more plainly about what we want.
i'm not monogamous, but when i talk about it, i'm always very careful to say something like, "people should be able to choose the sort of relationships they want, including monogamy", because i'm worried about invalidating people (who may be queer themselves) who identify with monogamy.
but now i think maybe i've been doing this all wrong. monogamy is an entrenched power structure, a privileged position, another thread in the twisted rope of hierarchy. instead of catering to monogamists, we should be talking about abolishing monogamy... right?
maybe i'm late to the party and everyone else already realised this ages ago, so i'd appreciate pointers to any other writing about this. (i'm familiar with relationship anarchy, but i've only ever seen it presented as one particular alternative to monogamy.)