Some thoughts on needs, objectification, and the Magic Genitals Effect

[tacit]

If you venture into the polyamory community for long enough, eventually you will encounter someone who says "Polyamory is good because no one person can meet all of your needs. With poly, I can find different people who meet different needs, and so be happier

Comments

[nleseul]

I think I'm obliged to point out that some people do have romantic relationships that don't involve genital-rubbing, and those relationships are just as prone to the fallacies you're talking about as those that do.

Really, I'd be more inclined to call this the "Magic Romance Effect," since romance actually is the magic undefinable element that, for most people, seems to inexplicably move relationships into the realm of Different™. The idea of rubbing genitals with multiple people seems to have gained some measure of acceptability today (see: swingers, friends-with-benefits), but those same people are still prone to freaking out when the possibility of being romantic with multiple people gets introduced.

[mellyjc]

Good point. This is true even of nonpoly, though, where a perfectly good FWB relationship falls to pieces when the idea of romance is suggested.

[tacit]

That's absolutely true. The "Magic Genitals Effect" certainly can and does extend to relationships which are romantic but not sexual.

I call it the Magic Genitals Effect in part to call attention to the absurdity of it; we live in a society which, by and large, assumes that romantic relationships are sexual (and vice versa) and has a great deal of difficulty separating the two. They really aren't the same thing at all, and I think conflation of the two leads to a lot of the problems with assumptions about needs and expectations that I'm talking about.

This is particularly true in nominally monogamous relationships in which one person has, for whatever reason, no sex drive or desire for sex; those relationships, to my eye, look like "I forbid you to have your sexual needs met from anyone except me, and I refuse to meet your sexual needs." Which is a slightly different flavor of messed up from what I'm talking about here, but which is still very messed up, in my opinion.

[lifemovingfwd]

I'm not sure that there's a real issue with the "magic genitals" as much as there is a deeper issue with the way we approach relationships. The magic genitals effect seems to appear after sex because that's when everything is "official" somehow... based on social standards

[radiantbaby]

What I've witnessed over time is that in many cases, we don't listen to our partners. She says, "I don't like jewelry that much." He says, "I really want to watch a game on Sundays." She says, "I can never give up my career, it's too important." He says, "I never want to get married." He goes off and buys her rings and bracelets and such. She gets mad when he spends Sundays watching the game. He expects her to turn into a housewife, she expects him to have a big church wedding and sign the papers. It's like we want toasters but we're just not willing to listen when the targeted toaster says "I'm a blender!" Then we blame the other person instead of admitting that we were being a bit dense and not accepting that we didn't get what we wanted because we didn't pick what we wanted. I think this is really what's happening, far more than objectification of our partners. I think what's really happening is that we're expecting people to be what we decided they are (known in psych as projection) and then having the gall to feel hurt when they

[kitwench]

"The answer, perhaps predictably, was "Primary and Secondary lovers cannot be compared to first born, second born because the love shared is not the same."

This is fascinating to me. It's the Magic Genitals Effect writ large; changes in one's family life are not the same if we aren't rubbing genitals. "

It's love that's the problem.
The love shared ?
No, no no.
Power.
The *power* shared is not the same.

1 kid or 5, they don't get a say in the primary relationship unless permitted and no one is surprised that the primary couple makes all of the decisions including what decisions the children can or can't make.

But a third functioning adult ?
Well- that's not a love issue, that's a power issue.

[serina_ds]

That's a really good point, and one I'd not thought about in that way before. You put it well - when I've used the 'you can love multiple children, why can't you love multiple people?' question, they just say 'children are different' without explaining why.

This will really help me work it out in my head. Thank you.

[davidlnoble]

"But a third functioning adult ?
Well- that's not a love issue, that's a power issue."

Where's the "Like" button. I think this page is broken. I need to reload my browser. :P

Need fulfilment machines yes thank you for that concept.

[luminescnece]

I feel strongly about the idea of partners as need fulfilment machines because that simple term puts words to an... ethos I have sort of been taught by my parents and come to on my own, that is for some reason, not comprehensible to all people around me

Holy crows, character limits!

[luminescnece]

Well now.

Basically I approach all my relationships with the intent that if I feel a person fits with me and my other friends they are worthy of the attention I would lavish on those I love. The people that remain in my life understand that I can't be everything for everyone all the time and that in addition to my own issues I have lots of folks in my life.

The only thing I truly have control over is myself, and where I chose to put my considerable ability and what I chose to do with it is my free choice. I go where I am needed and where I need to go. Sometimes I go where my problems force me and sometimes I go where I am forced, but not for long.

[kawakiisakazuki]

It's not a lie that "no one person can meet all of your needs" nor that "different people can meet different needs" nor that "one can be happier by having more needs met". But unless "needs" in this context refers strictly to a set of sexual kinks so diverse that no one person could possibly satisfy them all, it seems dubious whether there's added benefit for the people one might turn to for those different relationship needs to also be fuckbuddies.

I agree with you that it's creepy to think of a partner as "kink-number-5-fulfilling machine", but on another level I also have a feeling that one could phrase anything and everything in term of "needs" and then cast everything in life - and life itself - as a needs-fulfilling machine and make it sound all cynical and reductionist...