Session 10 - Beyond conference

This page features computer generated text of the source audio - it is not a transcript. The Artificial Intelligence Text is provided to help users when searching for keywords or phrases. The text has not been manually checked for accuracy against the original audio and will contain many errors. If you would like to help create a transcript, please volunteer to listen to the audio and correct the AI Text - get in contact for more details.

[00:00:00] This podcast is brought to you by the queer ventures and pride empty [00:00:06] Hi, everybody, my name's and I like to say thanks to all the other speakers today, and thanks to the organizers. So good, hopeless, I just want to put a slight trigger warning on my work, it will have some it's going to touch on subjects like right domestic violence and suicide like not in detail or anything, but I thought I'd give a heads up for. Um, I wanted to start by talking a bit about the marriage equality campaign. So this is the beyond marriage forum. And it was quite a frustrating campaign for a lot of us to watch for various reasons. Because for many queer people, it felt like quite a strange and privilege priority within queer activism. Because if you know if you're getting kicked out of your home, for being lesbian or or denied healthcare transition, if you transparency and then worrying about whether you pull your hypothetical partner wife seems a little beside the point. But what was also a bit frustrating about the marriage equality campaign was this blanket assumption within it that marriage was something that all of us wanted, and it if queens got married, it would be best for society and it spits for us to pry fit into that society. Alright, Cassie, put it in a challenge 2468 what let's all just assimilate. So we will understand that Iran was aiming for a long term committed monogamous sexual partner with whom we had eventually legalized our love. [00:01:45] This is what I like to call a Macklemore and discourse for those of you. [00:01:51] For those of you who don't know, Macklemore is a straight white rapper who does a song called same love about it was basically telling off the black hip hop commission for being homophobic and he made a lot of money off this is kind of a big, but this discourse was coming from with inside the campaign as well. A lot of the campaign's politics held dominant culture up in a lot of different ways. It was quite white label as Xiaomi sis normative, middle class, possibly sexist, I haven't really looked into that. But you could find people from within all sorts of oppressed demographics that were very supportive of the campaign like in New Zealand, Lewis, a wall, she's a modern woman, and she was quite frankly, the front of it. But the one place where ardent supporters of marriage equality seems almost uniformly normative in in the politics was this total lack of critique of how we're doing our relationships, what sort of relationships we're fighting for, within this legality, and what relationships mean in society as a whole. So the campaign was a seat was quite empty, and only showing this one kind of love. Exclusive monogamy, but it's quite obviously not true. Not everyone is aiming for marriage, non monogamous people everywhere, and people who are single or celibate by choice, and not by choice as well. But this kind of club is still treated as deviants. You know, if you're single, you've failed at some aspects of personhood, and you're just waiting to be paired with the right person with your other half. If you're monogamous here, kind of faithless, degenerate slot? Basically, I am. I noticed this recently, myself, because I put up on Facebook that I was in an open relationship. And people didn't say, you know, Oh, great. Just Yeah, congratulations, the only comment I got was yellow. You You only live once, you may as well have a nice relationship. But it was kind of this, you know, wacky experiment that's ever gonna work. And eventually, I'm going to default to my rightful place, which was not me. And so, you know, it hasn't GIFs that most of us in this room are quite used to seeing society through a political leaders, how its structured by things like racism, classism, sexism, and so on. But when it comes to things like sex, love, and romance, it's quite a blurry picture. If prevented, we're lovers Love is love, and you can't critically analyze it. And indeed, to do so I would spoil the mistake. But it's this very discourse, among other things that's preventing us from seeing that the way we do relationships is highly political. And represents what I call relationship ideology. So I would suggest that we're not going to make much progress with the liberation of queer relationships or any relationships, until we take relationship ideology out of the background, where it's kind of subtle, but it's just the way things are, examine it, and how it interacts with other parts of culture and work out ways that it might need to change. So if we're going to do that, I suppose the first question is, what is a relationship and to my mind, the word itself is quite ideological, because it's primarily used within at least within Western culture fear to a sexual and emotional agreement between at least two people and of course not erase it for bond you have is going to be a relationship, you know, you could have you thought about a your friend was benefit to do whatever. But it's quite rare that you see an explicitly non sexual agreement defined as capital our relationship. I mean, people may do this within a personal life. So I have certain platonic friends who I have referred to, as, you know, being, you know, it feels like a relationship to me, but I wouldn't have a lot of luck if I said, you know, come to the launch party of me, my bro, and spend lots of money on us, oh, you should let me immigrate to Venezuela, so I can hang out with my friends. And so we can fly together, it's not going to happen. So this forms half of relationship ideology. For me, the idea that secure relationships should be privileged over other kinds, at, you know, interpersonal social labels, but also add very material and institution labels, that we need to structure our lives around these sexual emotional commitments, the way we live together, the way we share finances, who gets to visit ideas, beads, and so forth. [00:06:40] And an obvious reason for why secure relationships would be privileged of others, is that within heterosexual context, they're the kind that would produce children. So we I mean, we need sexual relationships to survive as a species. But the idea that we should then raise the stakes within a nuclear family kind of structure, where you just have your men, women and what have you, or likely if you even if you have, you know, to quit evil, it's quite arbitrary, really, it's specific to particular societies at particular times. I don't really, I'm not able to speak to this in detail. But I'm to understand that some that in New Zealand explicit monogamy is an important of colonization, I don't think that it was a monetary construct at all. Another example of doing relationships in a really radically different ways and how we do it here is the most well, isn't it group in the Himalayas. The way their agreements with lovers work is that women honor that the quite a matriarchal society in many ways, and they were relationships work that a man will go visit the woman's household, and stay there for the night. And the only roles that he has to leave by sunrise know, this man may continue to visit the same woman every month for the rest of his life. But the commitment doesn't go beyond that night. And if any children are produced from this, then the mother's family looks after them. And the child's uncle's may be much more important than the Father, you don't necessarily even know who the father is, because it doesn't matter. So non monogamy is quite, it's not uncommon within more so I'm not sure how most would deal with queer relationship. So be quite an interesting area of research. But this does show that monogamy is by no means universal. In the West, we're quite Canaan binding people into a long term committed, you know, a commitment of a relationship, it's, you know, I don't think many of us can imagine structuring all our relationships away with I only last night. And this kind of commitment means there's not much room within dominant relationship culture for wax and wane and loving, and six drive and so forth. And so if your partner wants to have sex with someone else, or just not spend time with you for a while, then you have to break up with them, you know, it has to be a feminine rupture, we have to otherwise kind of threaten them materially, like, I'll kick you out of my house, maybe just in order to keep them nearby. Because this is your one allotted supply of love, and you have to hold on to it, otherwise, you're going to be alone [00:09:32] forever. [00:09:35] So this construct of of relationship kind of becomes a third party within people's agreements that they have to be loyal to. in marriage, this is an explicit signed contracts, and you'll do things to save the marriage or save the relationship rather than necessarily just to you know, what will make you guys feel good at the time, these commitments of course out or harmful, but it does end up kind of making the idea of consent. And the you know, it it's conceived as mediated by something else. And this forms, the other half of relationship ideology to me is the idea that if you're sleeping with someone or if you're in a relationship with them, then you have right ended up to control the behavior. And in extreme circumstances, this is why that until recently, if you were married, someone you couldn't charge them with, right, because it couldn't happen. You had consented to every sexual acts because you signed this contract to basically this is why the marriage equality campaigns you know, focus that marriage was just about love kind of men men me I remember seeing someone saying legalize gay marriage everywhere in the world. And I was like, oh, including the Soviet countries with America, right? The still legal, you know, how do you like your same love now? Macklemore. Even Besides, right, there's a lot of quite horrific violence done in the name of love. Like domestic violence between partners is often referred to as lovers. It's kind of inevitable really. You know, if some if someone mood is the partner, it's it's a crime of passion rather than just a crime. So this is tied up with things like patriarchy and capitalism, but the fact that some such domestic violence happens in similar ways within queer relationships, as well shows that it's kind of in a category of itself. [00:11:37] And is the fact that [00:11:40] it's not uncommon when relationships break up for people to kill themselves or to want to kill themselves. And these also are treated as sort of just you know, it's just part of relationship culture, like Romeo and Juliet, their story is not treated as tragedy, because relationship addiction is really disturbing. Because just love hurts and oh, wasn't it sad that their relationship didn't work out. And we are reinforcing this kind of thing, when we have a culture that tells people that if they're single, they are alone, if they're single, they've failed somehow. There's also state violence that gets involved with the construction of relationships. Because in places like Indonesia, six foot six external to marriage is punishable by a jail sentence. So this is enforced, this violence within relationships is enforced at lots of levels of society. And we have so basically, we have this aspect of control and domination built into the into the ways that we do relationships. And in recent times one of the solutions to this problem. impulses is polyamory, you know, this movement of having many lovers. But my problem with the sort of framing of relationship politics is that it traits you end up creating stuff is like polyamory is good, and monogamy is bad. And polyamory is kind of inherently you know, having many lovers is inherently if a colon grapes and interesting and does, but there's only one kind of monogamy and it's been down and boring and oppressive. But you can of course have situations where polyamory is hugely unethical, and non consensual, and does all the bad things that monogamy can do. We don't often see this at a societal level, but there was in in Germany in the 1970s, there was a thing called the Friedrich soft commune, which was run by a guy called auto interview. And the rules were that you had to be completely promiscuous, promiscuous, you had to have basically everyone I'm calm your head have sex with each other. And predictively enough, this white male kind of took over things and eventually started. You know, deflowering every new girl that came to the commune, and he was gentle for chopsticks offenses later on. So that's an example of polyamory gone bad. Now, a lot of people would say, but those aren't polyamory because polyamory is nice. But this too. I think it's too difficult to kind of work out what good polyamory and what's bad polyamory to claim it is an overall movement. And of course, you do actually, you know, the problem is you can have really healthy, consensual, monogamous relationships, and they find, you know, maybe some people just don't want to have more than one level or they don't have time. So we need a framework of understanding that has room for both of them. I think that the problem with a society that we've built off of monogamy is the exclusivity path, you know, the idea that you can say to your partner, no, you, you are not allowed to have 60 feelings about someone else. So you're not allowed to make out with them what heavy. So what we need to dismantle within this is kind of in this contract is twofold. So we've got to get right off to some degree, or at least look at the idea that sexual relationships follow completely different ethical rules to other ones. And the second that these relationships involve this kind of power and control. The I actually prefer the term free love has its own. I mean, who did you know, freedom in law, who doesn't like these things, really. If you can kind of treat it like a verb as though free, you know, freeing love, it's it's a process that you constantly updating, you know, trying to involve it with ethics and consent, and so forth. So that would mean that rather than having your either in an open relationship where you fuck everybody, or you're not closed one way, you know, you're not even allowed to look at other people, you can put stuff on the spectrum. So, you know, I have quite a few people say to me, oh, I couldn't do an open relationship. But what does that mean? Like my relationship is open in lots of ways, but I'm not open to everything. And I would assume that other people's relationships aren't close to everything either. You know, I can say there's not one monogamy or one polyamory so it means you could tech stuff in baby steps, like you might be cool with your partner, sleeping with someone else, or you might be on the call with him making out or you might at this point, just want to talk about it. [00:16:41] And once you stop trying to free love within your intimate relationships, you have to stop doing it elsewhere as well. So it's not much good. Us faffing around talking about jealousy within relationships. When people can't pay their rent, or when they're stuck in a war zone. There are more pressing problems, then working out which of you gets to, you know, see the other partner on a Friday or what have you. Here So, we've got to remove power and control from everywhere. And it bothers me that a lot of polyamorous community don't seem to understand how to do this. A lot of people who identify as polyamorous are privileged get, I remember me saying this, our meeting this kind of system, the white poly man and had secret relationships because he didn't have a job and didn't like the need to work. And you say it's all about love? And I say, Yeah, I agree on principle. I think it's more complicated than that, because it's quite hard to love when you're being oppressed. And it's like, Yeah, but there aren't really any prison systems in New Zealand. And then I kind of laughed in this face. And later that night, he greeted me by slapping [00:17:50] me ass and I was like, well, [00:17:53] figures. And I think there's quite a danger if we do. structure, our movement around color. Amery that it's going to get the device is going to get diverted into things like legalizing polygamy, which is specifically polyamorous marriage, and I can guarantee that it's going to be the same boring classes stuff that the marriage equality campaign was and we're just you know, polyamory will just become another movement that Oreos can market to [00:18:21] worry Oreos, you know, the craft Oreos, things that gay marriage, or just be like lots of Oreos, and there will go to something [00:18:30] wires like a balloon in the Mario series. Okay. I don't [00:18:35] know maybe they want to expand and market to it. [00:18:40] Was there are ways that people who specifically practice polyamory are oppressed. Like if you don't get visitation rights to the hospital is a problem. And there was one woman in the US who lost custody of her children because she was polyamorous, but overall, the not really an oppressed minority. There's a massive violence being done against Polly identified people. And I think a lot of polyamory community, they're quite aware of the violence that can take place within relationships in terms of things like jealousy and, and control, but they're not aware of really all of the violence that they can do themselves within being racist or being queer phobic, or ablest and so forth. So there's, you know, there's lots of different types of freedom and love that we need to enable for everybody, not just within our relationships. Yeah, I suppose that's basically me, I just want to say this, no, you know, we're not going to have queer relation. We're not going to have queer liberation without relationship liberation, and we can't have relationship liberation without liberation. So we've got to find a way to synthesize all those to [00:20:03] this really interesting [00:20:10] sort of informs what I say let's take a different angle. Like most of us, I'm more interested in love for marriage. But I want to consider the connections and antagonisms between love and marriage today. And I want to attempt a precise definition of love here because we're not meaning merely deep, caring, or close friendship or failure, or fiction or companionship. Those things are necessary and important, and a big source of personal security very often. But what I wanted to talk about is passionate sexual love, and love in this sense, and marriage. Both have long histories in Western culture and beyond going back thousands of years, but they're almost entirely separate history. Loving marriage quite simply had nothing to do with each other. Even the fiction that love and marriage should somehow be combined, is rather recent, and unevenly applied. Marriage has always been about status and property, even in the last 200 years where majors attempted to appropriate love for its own purposes. It's a debased, deformed kind of love, that marriage is sought to incorporate and love we're the perfect match involves celebrity and power and money. And where your grandmother tells you it's as easy to fall in love with a rich woman is with a poor one of the ideal marriage requires us a lot of the millionaire films, there are perfectly a prince, all of whom are probably pretty unlovable. The Paint Shop Boys and not exactly right, that love is a bush construct. It'd be more true to say that law there's a feudal construct, because the modern ideology of love is primarily shaped by the ideals of nightly sure in the Middle Ages. And of course, love and the chivalry was always outside marriage, and about either unfulfilled yearning, or an adulterated adultery. Marriage is about power and property, and love was counterpart to it. Now, if love penetrated the ruling classes during the Age of chivalry, it did have a pre history which was largely unwritten, to shoot before slavery, love was confined to the lower orders. citizens in Athens and Rome, didn't love their wives. But there may have been infatuated with a slave girl, or boyfriend. But servants and Shepherd boys is live mostly I'm going to call it because that doesn't matter. We're able to love each other, and love intensely, and the records pass, but there are traces inevitably Lyft in in song and verse. Now, we live in a cynical age, and intelligent people are not supposed to believe in loud. However, there are hints and traces and there's an anthropological studies of pre class societies. And actually, we can see, the patches or incidents or explosions of love, have formed in the most different kinds of social arrangements that our species has tried out. We can see that love is sometimes capable of great heroism against the predominated institutions in society. And we can see that love has been was widespread, with power and status and property weakest. Indeed, I want to argue here that love can appear in many environment has extraordinary potential for disruption. But if love is to transcend the exceptional and the episodic, if there's to be a generalized freedom to love, then class society has got to be dismantled. Now, of course, respond to Nancy and diversity of forms of love, its passion, and sheer joy. Don't sit easily, beside the authority and hierarchy necessary to run the class society. So marriage has become a tool for the organization of love. Love is a danger and marriage is put into service for its moderation and debasement and to render it uniform. So heterosexual marriage is the standard against which all other relationships are measured parental expectations, housing policy, architecture, family or popular music, only things push toward a marriage like this. And to the extent that a relationship is in the nature of marriage, a heterosexual marriage only get that extent is it job successful. [00:25:11] So we have the modern nuclear family, under capitalism as an instrument for the mass organization of the mystic tasks and reproduction. And for the discipline training of the workforce. The ideal were in love and marriage combined, has a dual function. [00:25:29] It's meant to be rocket eyes, and roof, allies love and to render it socially harmless. It's meant to spice up your marriage to make it acceptable. [00:25:41] That's not to say that there is no real love in the world today. I think many of us get a taste of genuine love, and some get a full certain. But the commercial mass media love industry, and the attempts to Tyler to the institution of marriage had profoundly misshapen. The pursuit of love is combined with a pursuit of money, power and fame. And the experience of love is trusted by crass commercialism, showing weddings, and legal and social controls which define marriage, and knows the society that marriage at an individual level is necessary, a betrayal of love. And each of us has got to make their way as best they can. And in a broken world. And marriage helps many of us negotiate that path. But as a cultural institution, marriage is fundamentally conservative. So that's the context, I think, in which we came to the struggle for same sex marriage rights. And it's a strange situation which has emerged with remarkable historical speed on a global basis very recently, when I was a young man fighting for homosexual was formed in 1985 86. gay marriage was not something that we thought of as a possibility to even be considered. So in the context of the way, marriage is actually carried out, and its social role, and its debasement of love. It's really not surprising that radical queers look on this movement for marriage rights with great suspicion. Why would we want to buy into the process whereby the creative, disruptive, passionate power of love was tamed to fit the conservative straitjacket of marriage. But marriage is not going to be transcended by maintaining the limitations and constraints on it by but by opening it up, by freeing it at the compulsions, which surrounded compulsions, which are ideological, and legal, and material. So most of us took a deep breath, and supported marriage reform. We supported quite it's quite simply because legal prohibition is not an instrument of liberation. Many of us don't want to join the army don't want to join the police force or become truck drivers or to adopt children. But what the same rights to do those things as anyone else. The point about the fight for the right to get married, was not that we were advocating or create people should actually get married, that we should we should be allowed to get married. Now, there were some attractions and the argument that we want the right to be different, and not married to be the same as the dominant forces in society. And the truth is, the fight against oppression, whether it's sexual or religious, or national or economic oppression, is always a fight for equal rights, right to be the same. separate but equal is not equal. We're Muslims and atheists do not have the same rights as Christians. They're pushed to make their beliefs about religion invisible. With queers do not have the same rights as straights. They are pushed to make the Korean us invisible. It's only through winning the right to be the same, that we really have the right to be different. So most of us supported the campaign for equal marriage rights. But it was hardly an earth shattering episode. And although our little victory in that campaign was quite satisfied, mostly because I suppose we don't get the experience of many victories. It wasn't exactly a turning point in history. The campaign was occasion from for some highly reversible mass consciousness raising, and possibly it laid the groundwork for the more important struggled to protect queer kids from bullying in high schools. But the objective and concrete achievement of this campaign was actually just a tiny logical extension of bourgeois democratic rights, which will have very little impact on our real lives. And in the end, it simply wasn't a big deal. When the celebrations died down, queer and trans people still faced discrimination and oppression in families of schools and workplaces, as we always knew we would. [00:30:36] In my counseling practice, I see hetero normal activity pushing people to the brink of death. I see very high levels of stress and addiction among queers. I see the independent youth benefit denied to adolescents who have nothing, no family, no accommodation, no job. There are in fact, extraordinary levels of an employment, a young among young queers right now. I see health professionals refusing to take seriously the problem of queer and trans suicidality. gay boys bullied at school, trans teenagers kicked out of their homes. Sometimes it feels like we're in a battleground. And in the context of the trauma that surrounds us, the lesser but still urgent and also the other practical needs, in that context, are imagining a utopia of polymorphous perversity seems a bit indulgent, we might want a world where the privileges of monogamy are dismantled, whether as a culture celebrating diversity, and a universal validation, of relationships of many different shapes. But right now, we have to concern so with the fact that many all queer and trans kids grow up in fear of bullying at school, and a significant number want to kill themselves, because they've been kicked out of home with no resources. What I'm wanting to argue is that we shouldn't separate that rather, we should link the struggle for immediate needs, and the struggle for a more profound liberation. Indeed, it's only in the struggle to meet the immediate needs, that we can lay a path to profound change and a fundamentally better society. Now, I want to explain that in a concrete way and use the example of housing. It's clear that an abundance and variety of subsidized housing would be a new a new this step in meeting immediate needs, it would help counter the effects of poverty, it would take a lot of the sting out of family transphobia, and homophobia. Even if modest housing were immediately accessible, it would take much of the stress and conflict at an adolescent coming out crises. There are depressions which would lift and suicides that wouldn't happen. In fact, it wouldn't just be queer and trans adolescents who need access to accommodation separate from their parents. I think most families with adolescents at certain points need more housing options. And as well as addressing immediate needs, and this is the point of adolescence. Good accommodation options would also address the needs of married people when their marriages were in trouble or merely need the little space. Whether it's a question of domestic violence, frustration about the relations coming to stay, or a new sexual configuration disturbing the equilibrium of the household. access to housing would remove one of the most important constraints, which too often turns a marriage into a prison. In practice, one of the compulsions, which enforces a continuing marriage, when there are children, which make it difficult to escape when it's past its use by date is the expense of setting up accommodation which allows genuine co parenting, people are forced to stay in the marital home in order to keep connected to their children. Alternatively, they've got to simply leave the marriage and the family and thereby leave most of the parenting to one of the former partners usually the mother. Decent accommodation options for families which are coming at pad would remove one of the compulsions which save marriage today. So what's true that family law and fairy tales and Hollywood are important forces in shaping and maintaining the institution of marriage? Actually, it's often too often simply the absence of an alternative place to live. oriented state temporary, that keeps a marriage going with determines its shape. [00:35:37] Along with housing, you could use similar arguments about this child here which care which we should be fighting for to remove another set of compulsions which keep in place, the marriage system and gender inequality. Now a program to remove those largely economic compulsions, see what people would make it realize without them seems a far more sensible way of approaching the world of the future, than to try to imagine in advance how it will look, because that's something new simply cannot know. We can know the future of marriage, but we can fight against the constraints on current marriages and current relationships. If there were true material security, the compulsions which today hold marriage, and the current family system together, those constraints would be removed with material security, income, enormous sexual freedom and diversity of domestic relationships. Now, we are told that the system simply cannot pay for decent housing or childcare. And I guess the people who say they're actually know the system, and I guess that right, the system can pay for decent housing, and childcare, so much the worst of the system, or throw it away. And so the struggle for domestic freedom is indivisible from the struggle for socialism. The running costs of capitalism are simply too high. There's an awful lot of corruption and freeloading involved in capitalism, an awful lot of paperwork, all of which eats up human life. Without giving anything back. There's the human effort wasting wasted on financial shenanigans. This whole industries, which add very little to the sum total of human happiness, banking, insurance, advertising, capitalism, simply profoundly wasteful. But nevertheless, even with this waste, the resources exist. There's a study on the basis of data for the year 2000, United Nations World Institute from the element of economic research report said the three richest individuals in the in the world possess more financial assets than the last 48 nations combined. [00:38:15] The richest 1% in the world [00:38:20] 40% of the global assets. [00:38:25] So the program for a world beyond marriage must be a program, which addresses the obscene inefficiency and the inequality of the capitalist system. Only a program of socialism can create the conditions for transcending marriage, and how will we live under socialism? I don't know. But we can't know what will replace marriage and current family arrangements, but we can suspect that we're issues and material security behind this people's personal preferences. will trump any considerations of family pressure or popular prejudice? We can expect that our domestic arrangements will be extremely diverse. [00:39:25] Um, [00:39:26] I have a little bit to say I suppose [00:39:30] one thing that is the most common would be to agree with the media needs [00:39:38] and the overall liberation things as being our main kind of focus with the future, that combined thing? Absolutely. There's a lot of other social and cultural considerations that we want, but they are not as pressing. I think so I really wanted to, to replace that. Another thing I wanted to say, I think, was that while monogamy and polyamory, for example, because those were the two that were brought up quite strongly on what they are two forms of relationship, a ways of being, I think, also making really, really clear that there's a lot of ways of existing under those two labels, particularly, the understanding and the definitions provided of those two, were contrary to a lot of to a lot of definitions that I that I've heard and also quite contradictory. I think on that note, it's just an end, and particularly particular, I think it's really problematic. And potentially it's something that I found quite flawed. To say that polyamory as a whole was not an oppressed minority. Particularly because while a group is may not be violently physically violently acted against I'm exclusion invisibility, also forms violence and structural violence. And so I think the end, polyamorous people, that can include that should not necessarily I do, I totally agree that that should not be weird, queer should go and with a queer struggle should go in some ways that's even separate this straight people who identify that way, there's a million different variations on it's definitely not a utopia or any idea like that. And I think that's quite acknowledged, in at least many of the [00:41:34] current kind of ideas and that now, but I would say that, [00:41:41] you just that invisibility thing is really, really important. And also the fact that people operating outside or inside monogamy, but in outside the conventional definitions, also experienced the lives as a wide range of oppressions, biases and privileges. For example, they could as myself identify as a queer, white, sustained a woman. And so there's a lot of privilege, and also, oppression and bias in that sentence. And that's the same with polyamory. Like, you could say all, like, just phrasing it. And then some ideas. Some people are idiots, it's not really a useful kind of way, way to deal with that. And it's also kind of, in some ways generalizing what it is. And also, just child, like, legal rights are also quite an issue. And just one final thing, and then I will stop, I promise. I did Yeah, I just, I think that because people can be oppressed in many different ways, and by many different aspects of their identity, which feed into each other that it's unhelpful to discount. And it's just, [00:43:03] yeah, cultural and physical, the visibility of polyamory is sucks, and it's quite damaging. And I think actually, the invisibility of polyamory as an option is a real problem, because people don't know that just like, if I'm attracted to someone else, while I'm with partners, and I'm wrong, you know, like, because monogamy is the only way I suppose what I mean, by privilege in that sense was that a lot of poly identified people know that they can be quite privileged because it's under capitalism, it's quite difficult to find even one person to form a nice relationship little I'm meaning you need a lot of things like time and it's difficult to structure around it. Just structure that around things like childcare, and so forth. [00:43:54] One thing just, [00:43:55] um, it's just because like polyamory, and things that exist, could be like, not so different from monogamy has existed for our time periods include many different economic, social and cultural ways. So and talking about this, but specifically find out the capitalism yet. So literally, maybe even parents is a economic asset, but then also talking about existing and minority populations and other places in time. [00:44:27] Yeah, true. And I think it's important that that's acknowledged as well is that like, because I think a lot of people a lot of people come to polyamory newly, you know, sometimes convenient. For one is as though it's this magical thing that just vinted whereas it has been across cultures all times. And I think there's a lot of cultural, you know, this invisibility of other cultures within a polyamory movement, because, I mean, I think it's a thing of like, when we, you know, when other cultures are colonized, we colonize their romantic lives as well. And I think that's something often not taken into account within certain politics [00:45:14] possibly hasn't been discussed. [00:45:19] polyamory is my identity is basically people defining themselves in opposition to mainstream monogamous relationship styles. And I think that that's quite different from what is often meant by people, you know, acting polyamorous Lee, which just literally means having lots of relationships at once. So this will I interpreted as meaning which perhaps is not what she meant. But when when polyamorous people aren't impressed directly, it's because there is the depends what you mean by being polyamorous. So if you are in long term committed relationships, yes, you will get more marginalized, if you just happen to be one person who has multiple relationships at once. That's, it's such a diverse group of people that you can't group them together into a single module. [00:46:10] Absolutely, I think that's just one thing I just wanted to put out there that polyamory like is, you know, only political kind of thing. And people could be being in sec. It also means, like an umbrella term anyway, like, means many, many different things to people. That's all I wanted to say. [00:46:31] That probably is a lot of value. And I quite [00:46:34] like the word free of something I've talked about. But as having that as a political identity, that implies you have sort of this this social criticism on how you approach relationships, and you're not necessarily thinking that everything has to be as open as possible. But yeah, I think I think because for me, Scott too many meanings, possibly a new word is needed at some level. [00:46:58] Yeah. [00:47:02] I was [00:47:06] thinking about it, but like [00:47:09] I do fully every sometimes, you know, at the moment, I'm in an open relationship and you know, just just one and you know, sometimes I'll see other people [00:47:20] like maybe if I were in a triangle or what have you, then I might might identify as polyamorous but it's not. For me, it's not a permanent identity. It's something that a booth sometimes [00:47:35] I'm in [00:47:38] it, perhaps worth noting in that vein as well, that the idea of queer sexualities as identities of a person is quite a recent phenomena and like the word homosexuals on the invented in 1969, in favor of sexual while after bisexual somewhere online. So kind of prizes that you did, you know, you might performing homosexual acts, or heterosexual acts, but didn't say anything about who you were as a whole. [00:48:14] No, Scott, coming. [00:48:18] I wonder if sexuality will be important in people's identity at all in the future? Six months? [00:48:38] I suppose is, you know, people often kind of want to say like, Oh, I don't identify as feminists because I don't like labels. So I don't, [00:48:46] you know, I don't know. [00:48:47] Because I don't like labels. And so at the moment, I think we actually, you know, because of how society works, we often need those labels because to differentiate different experiences. [00:48:57] And so also demonstrate what you believe that, you know, I think, ultimately, we might, [00:49:03] we might want a society that didn't have those kind of labels. So and someone said to me that like, why do you need to call it free love? Why does not, you know why name it at all, it's like, we'll have to call it free love, because we don't have a society that values free love at the moment. Like, I don't know, if we're ever going to reach this sort of magical utopia, where everyone [00:49:24] you know, gets to fuck whoever they want to know, and bats an eyelid. [00:49:29] Especially, I find it discouraging, I don't think we're going to get there. Because I think climate change is going to probably wipe all of us out. [00:49:36] She's really depressing. I'm like, I mean, I knew I wasn't gonna live to see the [00:49:42] movie fulfilled. But I hoped it might happen in the future. And this [00:49:48] was kind of beside the point. [00:49:54] I mean, like stuff, like climate change is affected by this sort of stuff as well, if you're having everyone lives in the separate nuclear family houses and buying 20 vacuum cleaners rather than one, you are going to do damage to the planet. [00:50:05] Yes. So the socialization of housework is actually quite an important part of [00:50:12] that, by, by an assistance from society, we're [00:50:20] where people do work collectively. [00:50:24] They have jobs, they have jobs. But in fact, their jobs are not like today of 6080 hours a week. They're not jobs that [00:50:35] some people earn megabucks, and other people earn peanuts. [00:50:41] When you have that sort of a society, then the possibilities of relationships, how to organize how you organize the relationships, what happens with children, the domestic chores, and things like that, as done in order to enhance our lives. Whereas today, biology control our lives. Right. So, you know, I agree with, with what, with what Bill was actually arguing that, you know, that we need that, you know, talking about freedom in under this in this sort of a way society is organized, is social media, because we're not really free to do very much at all. And when you've got no money, you've got very little freedom at all. And we need to create a society where people have real choices, not for the privileged few, who happen to be financially able to do with or strength of character, to breach the norms of society. The real choice, that's what we have to be fighting for, and what all those real choices will be sexually. If we have a society that's built on collaboration, not on profit, [00:52:13] we don't know we cannot predict. Because it's a two was opening. [00:52:28] I kind of believed in phrase woman, and she, she was like rude, what, cuz she was kind of Woodstock free love, which is a sort of, it's a sort of freedom of like, I can fuck whoever I want. And you can't say anything. Which, you know, obviously ended up privileging primarily mean of people. So that sort of free love kind of sucks for a lot of people. And so I think we've got to not have this definition of freedom as a sort of just a license, do whatever you want, because no one can, you know, not everybody can do that, you can have some people that you can't have everyone doing it at once, because, you know, one person's freedom ends up being else, Chris is prison. And definition of freedom I really like comes from David Foster Wallace, who was talking about the kind of freedom the education gives you. It's, it's the kind of freedom so that when you're waiting in line at the supermarket, you don't have to think that, you know, this person in front of you is just there to annoy you. And you know, isn't it terrible when I'm in a supermarket line, that's all you can think about when, when you're educated, you can take yourself out of the immediate context here. And so you can you can turn paraphrasing his speech really badly. But you can remove yourself mentally from that sort of state and you freedom to emphasize with other people. And, you know, so when they do something to you, it's not specifically to hurt you. It's about you know, you can try imagine this sort of perspective. And he said, that kind of freedom involves discipline, and if and the ability to sacrifice for other people without it being bad for you, and you can do, you can do that kind of sacrifice, because you care about them. I think that's a real freedom, and it's a sort of freedom that we should be striving for. Within politics. I mean, oh, I [00:54:24] was going to end up like, Okay, can I just say one point, [00:54:31] being raised that much yet. The work, I think will always be subject to a culture and ideology, like, even in in radically, you know, communal, communal societies from one place that was going to be functioning differently. So I think while certainly the removal of capitalism will will allow a huge amount of liberation. I think it's a bit naive to say that relationships will suddenly start working without an idea ology which was taught people how to do things. So I think I think that what you're talking about free love you as well as as well as condemning capitalism and marriage, you have to deliberately proponents something else. And then if this is the removal from inheritance, lucidity, or at least exclusivity being the norm of relationship, I think it's very important to have this this positive ideological part of, of what you're talking about. [00:55:29] I think you're right. [00:55:31] I think that you exaggerate this. [00:55:39] exclusivity is much, is privileged in all sorts of ways. But all sorts of material things, particularly around live, that the housing question, whether you gotta do it [00:55:56] is an important thing, [00:55:57] which helps build exclusivity. [00:56:00] And, [00:56:02] you know, there's all sorts of actual material things, which make the exclusivity work. Now, I'm not saying that the ideology of exclusivity plays no role with us. I am saying that sexual desire is such a strong enough to overcome the ideology of exclusivity, in the context of the disappearance of the material, props to that ideology. Yeah, [00:56:36] one of the things that, [00:56:40] that I think we get mixed up in so called democracy is that if I look at all the different democratic countries as such, [00:56:52] they are all oligarchies [00:56:55] by but [00:56:58] the government's and those who control them, [00:57:02] if we ever become educated enough, as a peoples to actually realize this, because what they keep them things will happen. But while they can keep feeding us magazines, on Starlite styles, and these people have this and you can and you get this whole, it's like Valium, to so many people I was I see people at work, they go through the RB wonderful This is capitalism, because we have this music, but you don't have any of it. You don't have any events. But it's that dream of the live happily ever after. and that type of thing. Now the thing about with it with you're talking about polyamory, in most countries where it was done, and in, it was done for very good reasons. Monique, mainly because of the white population was actually how it was actually distributed. And in those countries where I've been to with that practices, they're not particularly wealthy, those people. And what we've done in the West, again, is taking something that has worked politically for a people and said, We'd like to try that. But we don't always have the constructs to make it. So in place with polygamy, polyamory is practiced. If you have a look at the social content of those places, it is almost necessary for that to happen. And I know with polyamory, or polyamory, if the land was it was that cooler, then it was better to have more men over one woman to marry a group of men to actually get that land to work. So it wasn't it was often done or not should say is done. It is done because of survival. [00:59:14] And polygamy [00:59:17] in most cases of my study of it, and with people I know who when I've lived in countries with that is done. It was done because the country still gets the thing is that it is dangerous for women to go out. Hopefully, that will change. And I know in Saudi Arabia, now they that just passing a law that women and why it may not seem great to us can actually practice law in the courts there for the first time ever, because they're trying to actually slowly change it. I think you said so thing about the mounting is, and in many cases, I think you're right. But among the aristocrats know, you're my I come from my grandparents, they were arranged marriage, my mother's first marriage was an arranged marriage, it worked out well, when you come from a little village where there's only 25 or 30 people, when you come to the city, and you realize there are thousands of people and you have a choice. But I remember with my mother, that choice was almost too much coming from one society where you've been brought up, where she knew as as a youngster, she was going to be married at a certain age, and then coming into the city and saying this, hey, it's different. It's different here. My grandparents on my multi site never really got over that, that there was this choice. But what they couldn't get over was that people could divorce if it did not, because my grandparents on my mother's side, were married for political reasons. Not I'm not saying it was right. But I'm just saying there's political reasons that happened for us. Again, it was about land and what builds talked about to about actually, what works socially. And what works socially, for my mom, and for my grandparents was, it was to actually make sure that there was enough land, there were enough gardens for things to work. So there will be enough food for the offspring. So I'm just saying is, when we throw things around, and say all this or this or that, without looking at where it actually comes from, and why it is in a society, we actually do another form of colonization, saying it's all real, try this. But without the political constraints that actually have happened in those societies. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, or it will happen or what I'm just saying. That's the way it is. But I do repeat, we live in an oligarchy. And it is no different now than it was at the beginning of the 20th century or the late 19th century. With the Czar's and the royal families and the billionaires, and most of the places. Today, there are more people in service as Butler's and what all those other things are households around the world. Then there was an ID warrior England, which is just a mind blower for me. But within the marriage, and those things are one of the things. Yep, I don't want the sexual thing to be I think that we still have interesting, I suppose we will. But I also know that as soon as we get that, as a quantum of find, society will find something else to suppress. It always does. And people say, Oh, I'm not racist or anything. But the arguments about suppressing us and our sexuality are same arguments that were used with that with people with mixed marriage, the same argument that was used with people who were thought themselves better than others. The arguments haven't changed just where they've actually pointed the bullets are has [01:03:40] love life. Thank you. [01:03:56] up is that when we're talking about [01:04:01] polyamory or polygamous societies requiring it, requiring it because that's that's how freelance working that was, that was what age five. I think the flip side of that which you've touched upon, but perhaps when I felt like I was making connections in my life, like I wasn't, was that in our society, right now, we very, very, very much do need to need monogamy because this is sort of neutral families, which which are easier to control and train people this was Bill was saying and I think that that was largely true under basically, basically as long as capitalism's been a thing. And then feudalism in any of the tiers of society to own anything. So I think I think very much the flip side is that in all of these rather nasty forms of government, or you know, these ones, which need a lot of improvement they've relied on, not me, so so to say that polyamory is the other is only from a metric perspective. [01:05:05] Yeah, I don't know if that was meant anything. But [01:05:09] which do he [01:05:10] says? Because it's like, well, [01:05:12] I would love to remove all the material constraints that are on people forcing them into [01:05:17] prescriptive monogamy or polyamory. [01:05:21] But then, you know, do you do you wait until all those done before we address relationships? Or do you do it the other way? It's, [01:05:29] we can't do anything until we [01:05:31] have to be a queer Christian, like it might be part of the polygamy. polyamorous queer community, you might want to push that and might want to, you know, gain that but it doesn't like I mean, that's got to come from [01:05:46] a false dichotomy. Of course, we, for the right for anyone who wants to be a beginner, or anything [01:05:55] else, and [01:05:58] we're also for the for people who think polyamory is [01:06:04] is is the way to go and good fun and meets their needs. And I know that there are other people whose needs would meet who don't know about it, who could join, of course, they're going to say, hey, polyamory is great, [01:06:18] and why don't you come along with the polyamorous [01:06:19] and at the end of the day, have the right to, [01:06:22] to advocate that. And I [01:06:25] have a symbol of sympathy for a lot of the psychology that's behind that. [01:06:33] But we also know that it will be a very minority sport. [01:06:41] In [01:06:42] the current society, that it requires quite a lot of privilege to be able to maintain a pop polyamorous life for very long. [01:06:53] I mean, I'm sure it's possible for a few years for a large swathes of the population, [01:06:59] but it would require quite a lot of resources to be to be polyamorous with, you know, a career and kids and all that kind of thing. I'm not saying it can't happen, it does happen. It happens very successful. But it's exceptional, it will go on being exceptional. And so was popular ization of polyamory and popular ation popularization of an identity as polyamorous is something which is great. At the same time, it is important to be fighting to stop the suicides [01:07:39] it's to be addressing the actual material conditions [01:07:45] of, of kids, and other people who are just in, in in ghastly situations, you know, and when I say that, it's sometimes like you're in a war zone, it really feels like that it's okay dealing with, with with one or two suicidal kids, but if you get three or four of them at the same time, [01:08:08] life becomes actually quite difficult to handle for the people who are trying to look out for [01:08:13] and how much more difficult is it for them. [01:08:17] And, and [01:08:18] the, you know, that our political solutions, which will undermine this as a problem. And I had to fight for what we do in in small ways get make progress. And that, it seems to me that we can do both of these things that not, it's not an either or feeling. [01:08:41] Because, you know, [01:08:47] very rarely practice by the very rich, you know, all these premises and things, they've all got their mistresses, they've all got their illegitimate children who have Jukes of this and that [01:09:02] we can't get abortion, rich women have always got an abortion. [01:09:10] So that's the thing is that, we have to say that monogamy has a special role in society. And even before nuclear families, when there was the extended family still work the same way as being oppressive, it's there for a reason we are taught, we have to be taught how to behave and what orientations we should have. And I just agree with you about what Romeo and Juliet but it's in there it is, it's clans. Right? Girl has fallen in love with the wrong clan. That's what it's about. It's about which family is going to control the female. So monogamy really, for the middle and lower classes. Abortion is not to be heard, because it means you'll be sexually free contraception, you'll be sexually free. And you know, free lovers. You know, you think of Woodstock and always it's all very fine. But when you wake up and you find that you're actually pregnant, it's not such free love after all. So, you know, we need a society where these things aren't an issue. And then people's secret expiration is able to be a contract, regardless of what it is. That's what we want. [01:10:39] Yeah, I think [01:10:48] I think [01:10:49] what I didn't mention touch on within the speech is that I think, a material reason that historically, I think to a different degree, but but secret relationship chips are often considered in this sort of like, compelling yet terrifying, separate category is that having six not demonstrate something that feels awesome and can straight up kill you like through the spread of disease or through pregnancy and different childbirth ones? It's an extreme sport, really. [01:11:20] So I think, yeah, it's possibly [01:11:24] I always saw the way that society changed after seeing the invention of the pill and so forth. You know, it's a [01:11:35] tough one. But some of what Bill was saying is that [01:11:40] is the sky power we have known and said that it would be nice to assume that we can sort of just improve society like teaching everyone to do it better, but there's actually a material basis for ideology which kind of reproduces and reduces itself. So you remove certain material constructs you will change the ideal change the ideology along Foster. [01:12:06] We don't [01:12:10] we don't have the soul to do [01:12:13] everything [01:12:18] happen so they're [01:12:19] not going to be hit by Hurricane [01:12:26] we can delay it. [01:12:38] Thank you, guys.

This page features computer generated text of the source audio - it is not a transcript. The Artificial Intelligence Text is provided to help users when searching for keywords or phrases. The text has not been manually checked for accuracy against the original audio and will contain many errors.