Yeah, the thing is … women like to think that guys only think about their significant other. It’s not enough to be monogamous; you have to never have the thought as well.
Well, that’s just ludicrous. Of course, a guy is going to look because men are oriented to be aroused by visual stimuli. My partner and I often nudge each other when we see a hot stud walking down the street or driving past us. For a woman ( or a man, for that matter) to demand that her or his mate not find other people attractive is not only profoundly immature and controlling, but it also evinces a deep-seated insecurity. My guy can look at hot men all he likes because at the end of the day, he’s mine and I know it.
Lilairen:
I’m using “fidelity” to mean “promising (to one or more partner-people) that if, tomorrow or next year or whenever, you feel inclined to have sex with someone other than the promise-recipient, you will nevertheless not do so”.
I would never make such a promise. I would never incur any such obligation.
I do not “have a problem” with those of you who wish to structure your lives and your relationships around such promises.
I do have a problem with those of you who act like you’ve got a bloody moral trump card in your hand as a consequence of having done so, and who disparage those of us who say that, for us, such promises would not fit who we are.
And I have a (lesser, more sympathetic) problem with those for whom such promises are a poor fit but who make them nevertheless. The sympathy comes from my awareness of the sheer numbers and volume of the Weilders of the Bloody Trump Card contingent.
Unless you think that it is right for you – that it fits you – I don’t think you should go around promising what you will and will not do sexually in the future. Experience and observation shows that most people are lousy predictors of their own sexual behaviors, and turning forecasts into moral obligations hardly improves matters for anyone.
I have serious objections to the idea of conflating “fidelity” with “sexual or emotional exclusivity”; it only serves to feed the prejudice that holds that those people who have multiple relationships honestly are in some way being “unfaithful”.
Fidelity means “keeping promises” and “fulfulling obligations incurred”. And yeah, I think that breaking promises is immoral, and I’m not going to just wave my hands and say that it’s okay. I don’t care what promises you or others make or do not made – but I’m not going to support oathbreaking either.
“Fidelity” only means “exclusivity” in the case that there has been a promise made for exclusivity. I suspect that we agree more than we disagree overall, but that particular dilution of language is one that I can’t abide. So long as “faithfulness” can be used as synonymous with “following an obligation to exclusivity”, those people who are not oathbreakers and are not exclusive are nonconsensually screwed – the language deck is stacked against us.
OK, that makes sense. It is a rhetorical swamp, isn’t it?
Exclusivity-promises are of course what I’m referring to. Even if the promises one has made are promises to be exclusive to one’s seven other partners in a four-couple group marriage.
I completely share your revulsion towards people who make and then break promises of this nature, although as I said I harbor even more of it towards people who harbor and express the strong attitude that everyone should make such a promise and that if they don’t they are immature or self-centered or whatever other bad thing they can think of.
I like Monogamy.
I prefer Monogamy to Oak, Pine, Maple or indeed any other type of wood, except maybe Ceder, Cherry or Apple.
Was it? Is it even a fact, or is it a misattributed cause and effect relationship? Which is inappropriate: the forces of human nature, or the constraints applied by society today?
What is interesting to me is the how marriage somehow becomes defined as sexual exclusivity. While I agree that common usage certainly implies sexual exclusivity, the result of our society’s practice of monogamous marriage also leads to exclusivity of close, personal relationships, particularly with members of the opposite sex. It is as if everyone acknowledges these “human nature forces” - and to overcome them - avoids developing other relationships of a deep emotional nature.
It is interesting to me that many posts tend to assume that only men desire to stray. And while their reasons may differ, the facts support the assertion that women tend to stray as well.
It is interesting to me that for some, at least, mention of polygamy implies the sort of model practiced by some (formerly?) Mormon sects in Utah.
It is interesting to me how any suggestion of non-monogamy appears to imply promiscuity. Or that “open marriage” or polyamory is all about having sex with people other than your spouse.
Can we all agree that close, personal, and loving relationships are of great benefit to individuals and society generally? Then what benefit is gained by societal mores that restrict such relationships to one and only one, for life?
If the cost of a sexually exclusive relationship (monogamy) is forsaking all other potential close, personal, and loving relationships with half the population, is the cost worth the benefit?
While I can understand the argument that monogamy is “right” because “that’s the way it is”, can anyone make the case that monogamy is “right”, because it benefits society? Is it the way it should be?
The first argument offered in this thread is that monogamy is healthier, because it eliminates sexually transmitted diseases. At a theoretical level, there is some substance to this argument. In practical application, however, it falls a little short of its goal. If your end objective is to eliminate the risk of STDs, abstinence is your only course of action.
Monogamy in society today isn’t pure monogamy, it’s serial monogamy. The concept that you are monogamous if you only have one partner at a time isn’t consistent with the “eliminate STD” argument.
Even those who save their virginity for marriage, and never divorce, monogamy appears to be more of a goal than a behavioral description. More than 50% of married persons commit adultery. While you may be monogamous, that still doesn’t protect you from STDs. And while I’m sure your spouse is trustworthy, the statistics are not on your side.
On the other side, accepting non-monogamy as a possibility does not necessarily mean having more than one sexual partner at any given time. It means you are willing to accept the possibility that you are capable of developing intense personal relationships with more than a single member of the opposite sex, and acknowledging that expressions of those feelings increase the chances of non-mongamous sex. But such an acknowledgement doesn’t imply promiscuity.
Early in this thread, Belrix offered a false dichomoty by not including a non-monogamous option. Ethilrist suggests that pursuing such an option has a tendency to lead toward cheating or divorce. The facts, however, offer no support to such a contention. It is antithetical to logic to suggest that open relationships lead to cheating. Statistics show that open relationships are at no greater risk of falling apart than monogamous relationships (interestingly, however, when a polyamorous relationship breaks down, many folks are quick to suggest that polyarmory was the problem - but funny, when monogamous relationships fail, even to infidelity, no one tends to suggest that monogamy was the problem).
And after this little rant, I feel compelled to offer my disclaimer, quickly becoming standard to my posts on this topic: In no way am I suggesting that polyamory is the preferred model of human relationships generally. But I similarly reject the notion that monogamy is the preferred model of human relationships generally. I take no issue with people that consider polyamory and reject it. I take issue with people who reject polyamory, for themselves but especially others, without consideration. Just because it isn’t right for you doesn’t mean it isn’t right for others.
But it’s not about forsaking all close personal loving relationships. Being monogamous does not forbid those things, it only means you’re not having sex with other people, IMO. Being in a sexually exclusive relationship doesn’t alter the fact that I have very close relationships emotionally with other people, it only means I don’t have sex with those other people. Of course this leads to the fact that I don’t understand the concept of polyamory very well. I don’t understand it because it’s supposed to not be about just who you have sex with, it’s who you form very close relationships with. And my confusion is that the only real difference I can see is that I only have one sex partner at a time.
The thing I find scary, catsix, is that I’ve seen more than a few people who do seem to believe that their spouse or other long-term partner is required to be a part of all portions of their life, and having a life of their own or interactions with other people that don’t include the spouse is evidence that their relationship is a failure. (I also want to add that the most dramatic example of this I’ve seen was a poly couple.) When they said “forsaking all others” they weren’t kidding.
There’s at least one monogamous poster on alt.poly whose life is set up much the way you’ve expressed yours, incidentally. I get the impression that she finds the entire supposed dichotomy somewhat droll.
For me – I have two life-partners. Two husbands, if you will. (Which means I get a tremendous kick out of people who claim that “polygamy” is denotationally equivalent to Mormon-style polygyny.) I recognise in myself the possibility of developing additional romantic relationships – not just close emotional ones – and I do not choose to prevent relationships that have that aspect to them from developing it. For me, the concept is just that I take each relationship on its individual merits – if both parties want sufficiently to have a romantic relationship to go to the work, that’s what we have; if both parties want sufficiently to have a sexual relationship to go to the work, that’s what we have.
Most of the time, I can’t be arsed going through the work; I could comfortably make a commitment to a closed system. Other people place much higher value in having the possibility available to them; I’m guessing AHunter3 would be a fine example from this thread. My husband and I have an interesting dichotomy going; I can’t be happy in a monogamous relationship, but I can take or leave the ‘open’ question, whereas he can take or leave polyamory, but if he’s in a poly situation, he finds an agreement to a closed system to be unacceptably arbitrary. So over the time that we’ve been together, we’ve worked out that it makes the most sense for us to be poly and open. 
Lilariren posted:
** My husband and I have an interesting dichotomy going; I can’t be happy in a monogamous relationship, but I can take or leave the ‘open’ question, whereas he can take or leave polyamory, but if he’s in a poly situation, he finds an agreement to a closed system to be unacceptably arbitrary. So over the time that we’ve been together, we’ve worked out that it makes the most sense for us to be poly and open.**
This is a very interesting illustrative point. I very much doubt poly, mono or any choice in between is easy. Every choice carries challenges so it’s a case of choosing your limits. Lilairen’s reference to closed systems seems valuable in identifying a framework. When sex and intimacy are up for grabs how permeable can any system be and still survive and thrive? Just setting up the ground rules for those inside would be a delicate business. Allowing outsiders, relative strangers, into the system would have to take their wildly personal wants, needs and expectations into account as well.
I don’t think monogamy is “stupid” just because it’s difficult sometimes. Actually I suspect poly-and-open choices are more difficult because they require a far stronger degree of thought and care to be pulled off ethically. Maybe there’s a qualitative difference between quickie sex-for-kicks encounters and more lasting relationships. I just don’t get how that wavering line is easier just because it’s drawn further out. Even without “Fatal Attraction” extremes, there are still real people attached to the gonads. One passing taste might be enough, like sampling a teensy spoonful from an ice cream parlor. Then again, sampling around opens doors (on both sides) to those who say, “Yum! More, please.” and the system must adapt. And the more people involved, the more complex the adaptation. That can’t be easy.
This isn’t a screed against poly-and-open folks. I’m definitely not wired that way, but hey, ain’t ever gonna volunteer or be drafted as a pundit either. Sex/inclusion/intimacy has bumfoozled people since whenever. I just don’t think any choice is free of consequences. “Free love”? Not a possibilty, unless humans lobotomize themselves. The brain’s the ultimate erogenous zone so I just don’t understand how–or why–that can be discounted.
Pick your limits and take your consequences.
Easy depends a lot on who the people are. One of my friends has been known to say something like, “Poly isn’t easy. But for me, it’s much easier than monogamy.” Some people find having one relationship simpler than multiple; me, I find two relationships easier to handle than one. And my husband doesn’t actually have a preference at all.
Likewise, there are people who have lots of rules and people who have not so many. Basically, the rules I have can be summed up as “safer sex practices outside the family” (my family is four adults; no children yet) and “if someone’s doing stuff that’s detrimental to the health of an existing relationship, it’s at risk of asskicking”. There have been more rules in the past; there might be more in the future if the situation warrants it. We have networks of agreements, but I suspect most people with intimate relationships do; many of them cover things on the order of magnitude of “I’ll clean the stove if you’ll wash the dishes”.
“Relative strangers” is a relative term; my husband’s outside-the-family girlfriend was my college roommate.
Overall, my beliefs on the subject of What Other People Should Do With Their Relationships boil down to: think about the agreements you make. Keep the agreements you make. If you can’t keep them comfortably, negotiate a change in good faith or end the relationship.
I tend to believe that the thought and care it takes to do poly really well is not significantly different from the thought and care it takes to do monogamy really well: paying attention to your needs, paying attention to your partner’s needs, keeping agreements, being honest, and demonstrating love in ways that your partner understands as loving are, I think, universal relationship skills.
You know, I may start adding that in. Right along with “honor, cherish, and generally put up with lots of stupid shit.”