"Couple Privilege" is a Bullshit Concept

There's been a trend in the last several years, in mainstream polyamorous culture – be it the most popular blogs, or podcasts, that is increasingly dogmatic – that there's a “right way” and a “wrong way” to do polyamory. This dogma is also increasingly restrictive and as a result, exclusionary. A lot of this dogma started out as what was actually very good advice on how to build successful poly relationships based on the kind of poly relationships the advice-givers themselves engage in, and what they personally need and desire in relationships. Which is great – for them. It's become a huge problem in the community for those who fall outside that particular box.

At it's heart, polyamory simply refers to the idea that people can have romantic relationships with more than one person at a time. This basic premise leads to a nearly infinite number of different relationship models, from the dreaded polyfi triad of the “unicorn hunters” (in which a preexisting couple attempt to find a bisexual woman to join their and only their relationship) to a completely open structure of any number of people with almost no rules or guidelines allowed and everything inbetween. What's been happening, however, is that anything that resembles the triad model is increasingly seen as the “wrong” kind of poly, and countless articles and podcasts are focused on trying to convince preexisting couples to move to practicing poly in as open and rule-free a way possible. To resist this, the mainstream poly culture says, is an exercise in the laughable notion of “couple privilege”

Lately there's a concept that's been gaining a lot of ground in what I'll just refer to as “mainstream polyamorous culture” as defined by the most popular and well-read blogs, articles, and forums, and most-listened to podcasts. This insidious injustice is referred to as “couple privilege.”

“Privilege” is a concept that comes out of what's generally referred to as the social justice community, and was specifically a concept first used in terms of how racism in the United States gives unearned, hidden privileges to white people, leaving people of color at a disadvantage that white people often don't realize or understand. The concept was quickly used by feminists, who coined “male privilege” and gay activists, who coined the term “straight privilege.” It then continued to expand in usage in social justice circles, with “cis privilege”, “passing privilege”, “neurotypical privilege” “thin privilege” and other uses, some of them appropriate and necessary, others misplaced.

The basis of the privilege concept is oppression. In the U.S., people of color experience oppression, and lack privilege based on the color of their skin and/or race. (This isn't really up for debate here at SoT). Women experience oppression in relation to men, who automatically receive male privilege on the basis of their gender. Privileges and oppressions intersect – a white woman does not receive male privilege, but she is granted white privilege.

“Couple privilege” doesn't work as a concept. You are not born as a couple. You are not guaranteed to remain a couple for the rest of your life. Being in a couple is a conscious choice. A gay person may not be out, but they still are not recipients of straight privilege, because the nature of anti-gay bigotry affects their internal sense of self, their ability to be out in the first place is a decision that largely results from anti-gay oppression. The analogy doesn't work. Coupledom, as a choice people make, doesn't function in a similar way at all to inborn traits that lead people to be privileged or oppressed.

One of the problems with the popularization of social justice ideas and lingo outside of the rigorous academic setting in which it originated is that complex concepts are often reduced to simplistic, black and white thinking by people who don't have a good understanding of the basics behind how oppression and privilege function. Anything that confers social, legal, or other benefits on a group is seen as a privilege, and any negatives that result from being part of a group is thereby explicitly or implicitly understood to be an oppression – when often it's not.

For instance: I completely agree with the idea, behind couple privilege, that “our” (U.S., western, etc) society encourages couple-based relationships. For that matter, so do the vast majority of other cultures and religions. Most societies have expectations that a coupled relationship – preferably legally and/or religiously sanctioned, with children resulting from the union, until someone in the relationship dies – is what everyone should aspire to. It's just expected. It's a clear socio-cultural norm.

Furthermore, being in a couple confers all kinds of benefits on the people in the relationship. Social approval, pooling of resources, and if legally sanctioned, a vast number of economic and social benefits. There is a reason, after all, why same-sex couples want marriage rights.

Based on that, it seems reasonable to say that couples are privileged. And if the people using the term “couple privilege” were basing their arguments on these clear social benefits, I'd be more inclined to take the term seriously, although even with this model there are still problems. Most legitimate uses of the privilege term as described above are based on inherent truths about yourself that you cannot change – your race/ethnicity, your sexual orientation, your gender (understanding that most trans people say they were always the gender they identify with – the issue of non-binary trans people is beyond the scope of this post). Whereas couplehood is far more complex and based more in choice than any of these other identifiers. Almost anyone can choose to be part of a couple, if coupledom is what they seek. (Whether they can find the ideal partner is another matter, but it is not difficult for almost anyone to find another lonely soul with low expectations who wants to be in a relationship. Think of some of the most awful people you know who happen to be married.)

If one voluntarily chooses not to be in a relationship – whether that's because they don't enjoy being part of a couple, or they are having trouble finding a partner that meets their standards – they are still choosing to be single, at least for the time being. There's also the reality that most people are part of a couple at some points during their life. From my point of view, the concept of privilege doesn't work well when it's an attribute that is something nearly everyone on the planet goes through, or is a result of choice. (This is also why I don't buy into the idea of “adult privilege” with regards to children/teenagers as an oppressed group, or “youth privilege” with regards to older people. There are severe disadvantages in various societies with being young, or old – and often legal issues that should be advocated for these groups. That doesn't mean they fit the oppression model.)

But I'm willing to grant that if a person is using the term “couple privilege” to refer exclusively to the important, wide-ranging benefits that couples receive legally, economically, and socially from the culture at large that my disagreement with the concept does rest almost entirely on the semantic argument between “advantages” and “privileges” and a healthy debate could follow.

But no. If you read the definitions and descriptions of couple privilege that are routinely linked to and discussed in the poly community, it becomes clear that the majority of it is based instead on relationship dynamics. Which is a preposterous misunderstanding of the concept of privilege.

“Couple privilege” pushers argue from two fronts: the emotional/practical benefits that couples receive versus single people, and specifically within polyamory, the ways that couples can supposedly use their “couple privilege” in placing the needs of their relationship above that of other partners.

Privilege/oppression is a concept that functions on large dynamics – things that affect an entire culture/society. Couple privilege pushers use the term almost exclusively to refer to things that affect individuals, and confusingly throw in a few examples of the larger disadvantages non-couples face in society as justification for complaints that at their heart, are based entirely on individualistic dynamics.

From the couple vs. single aspect of “couple privilege”, many people have made lists of what privileges couples receive that single people do not. Unlike valid concepts of privilege which rest on irrational, unfair bigotry against a particular group, much of the “privileges” put forth are simple issues based in practicality that has little to nothing to do with seeing singles as an inferior class of people. Examples include the idea that package travel deals are based on double occupancy and singles have to pay more – despite the fact that my single mother takes advantage of such deals for “couples” by traveling with a friend. Or the idea that larger living spaces are afforded to couples who can pool resources, ignoring that groups of people have been choosing to live together to afford nicer places by pooling their resources since forever. Another one, laughably, was the fact that single people may be relegated to sleeping on a cot when visiting family for the holidays, because the bedrooms are afforded to couples. The idea that this family arrangement is based on “oppression” is so ridiculous that I shouldn't have to even mention it, but it makes sense that if two people are willing to share a bed, they will get to sleep in that space to make more room for more people! The minor inconveniences that singles face under these situations are not benefits that only couples can enjoy, but based entirely in practical space concerns.

The other issue put forth by the couples versus singles model are emotional. Being part of a couple means you have someone to rely on for emotional support, to back you up in an argument, to take care of you when you're sick. But again, none of these functions are or should be relegated to romantic couples only. Friends and family can fulfill nearly all of these emotional roles, if the author had bothered to cultivate and treat non-romantic/sexual relationships as seriously as romantic/sexual ones.

It's also worth noting that these couple privilege checklists don't assess the many downsides of being part of a couple. If you don't believe me, stay tuned for our single privilege checklist.

Within specifically the polyamorous concept of couple privilege, the same individualistic error is applied. In this context, “couple privilege”, generally, refers to any action that results from the couple privileging their relationship above any other romantic/sexual relationships. You can argue that this is a bad or even “wrong” way to do polyamory (which I disagree with but that's a matter for another post) but it's not privilege as is understood within a social justice context. All a single poly person has to do to avoid couple privilege is to not enter into relationships with couples! A woman can't escape sexism, even if she doesn't date men, and a Black person can't escape racism, even if they don't socialize with white people. Real oppression is not something you can escape via a simple choice, but couple privilege, as defined by polyamorous people, can simply be avoided. Problem solved!

I hope you made it through this rather pedantic wall of text. I apologize for the dryness of this post, but when dealing with social justice concepts I prefer to err on the side of boring clarity rather than entertaining snark. Rest assured that my next post, which will explore in greater detail the problems with anti-couple thought in modern poly culture, will be a lot more fun, both for me to write and for you to read.