I recently went out on a first date with a stylish, charming man of French (Québécois) descent. And when our conversation moved into that of relationships (which it inevitably does with me) he suddenly caught me off guard by stating : "I believe in commitment...but not monogamy."
His admission left me quite tongue-tied. I've never met someone who came right out and said so; or rather, I've never dated someone who believed so. And the more he explained his position to me, the quieter and more pensive I became...
It's not that I've never questioned monogamy before. In fact, in the aftermath of divorce I think it's normal to question it all: love, fidelity, sexuality -- hell ,even the nature of humanity and the animal kingdom...
But my recent experience with the cheating husband, combined with witnessing other friends cheat, my ex-husband's past infidelity, as well as my more sexually liberated attitude since divorcing, got me thinking, "What if having sex with someone other than your partner isn't just a 'lifestyle' choice? What if it's also not an issue of right or wrong? What if our culture has simply indoctrinated us with beliefs around love, commitment, attraction and sex that end up emotionally terrorizing us unnecessarily at some point, or all throughout, our lives?"
As time moves me away from my former marriage, the more I question -- and doubt -- everything and anything. And just as I've learned to separate sex from love since divorcing, I wonder, could I one day learn to separate love and commitment from jealousy? Could that be the next stage in my maturation and evolution?
The truth is that not everyone who cheats is a monster. Nor are they all self-centered, valueless slime-buckets and sociopaths. So if all the people who engage in affairs aren't completely evil, could it be that the issue of having sex outside a relationship/marriage isn't all evil either?
The French man sitting across from me seemed very much a decent, honest man who wore his heart on his sleeve. And I admired him and liked him in many ways -- for his intelligence, his charm, his handsomeness, his open-mindedness and 'joie de vivre'...
But could I walk into a potential relationship with him, knowing it required I give consent to him sharing that 'joie de vivre' between the sheets with other women?
I couldn't. I still just don't think I can, regardless of how hard I try to imagine it, no matter how open and mature I think I am. My social programming, the doctrine I've absorbed, runs too deep. It has roots, connectors, a life force of its own. Blame it on my past hurts, fear, close mindedness, insecurity -- whatever you want... but I'd prefer to have shorter relationships that are monogamous, than a long one broken up by flings or affairs. Otherwise it seems one is giving up before a relationship even has a chance to get off the ground.
Pfft, but as they say, "Never say never." What do YOU think?
Follow Delaine Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Delaine_Moore
However, when two people have sex, there is a certain bond formed. I've read about this and have experienced it myself. Chemicals are exchanged between the two people, and feelings start to form. In the scenario where you have a emotionally committed relationship with one person, and have a sexual relationship on the side, how wouldn't this get complicated? You may be emotionally committed to someone, possibly for life, but what if feelings just as strong form with the other person you're having sex with. Will you then have two equally fulfilling relationships? How long is that sustained for, before your feelings may outbalance the other person? Wouldn't this be emotionally draining? I've never had sex with a person where I didn't develop feelings for them afterwards. Maybe I'm more monogamous at heart, and can't share my feelings with multiple people. But I do feel having a monogamous relationship is extremely difficult. One day I hope to be able to have this type of happiness with another person where there is no jealousy or dishonesty.
Most of the time, even for people in traditional monogamous relationships, sex is a physical thing, a release, a pleasure. Be honest, after years together, how often do you connect emotionally with your partner when you have sex? Isn't the temptation of "cheating" about the physical thrill of something different, or maybe the illicit nature of deceipt? Cheating is not driven by emotion unless your relationship is not fulfilling you. If your emotional needs are met in your relationship, and you're secure in knowing that you and your mate are emotional bonded for life, you might be open to spicing up your sex life and even opening the door to the possibility of sexual variety.
Most of the commenters seem to have responded with remarks about cheating, showing that they missed the fact that it's not cheating if you know about it and chose it. The source of happiness is unique to the person who experiences it. Judging others will never make anyone happy.
Betrayal, secrecy, affairs cause so much havoc and heartache.
You say: "Honey, I don't believe in NOT shooting philandering husbands, either".
What you described is cheating. No non-monogamous (or polyamorous, though the term is patently ridiculous.) person would condone cheating. Philandering is lying. Oh, and here's the biggest thing: We don't expect our significant other to be with us all the time, either. If Hillary Clinton slept with another man, there'd be scandal. If my girlfriend/fiance/wife sleeps with another man, it's an accepted part of our relationship and something I'd not be angry with her for, nor hold against her.
I don't expect everyone to be open to that sort of relationship. If the idea is too uncomfortable for you, then be with someone else who also believes in monogamy. But don't get all holier-than-thou on that person because they have a different lifestyle.
But if kids are not involved couples should negotiate for whatever type of relationships is going to best meet the needs of both people. Just be open and honest at the outset.
And men should not be so cowardly. I think a lot of men would like sexual variety. But when they meet a woman who they think would make a good wife/mother they get scared and think "I love her, I'm not ready to only have sex with her, but if I don't agree to a monogamous marriage I'll lose her and potentially wind up alone." Men should tell the truth about their desire for sexual variety and WAIT until they find a woman who actually agrees with their values. It may mean getting married between 45 and 50 rather than 30 and 35 but it's still better than divorce.
Again, as far as I can see the problem is that you are imposing your own beliefs and probably your own sense of morality on the issue. You assume that having sexual-loving relationships with more than one person is immoral and thus you can't expose your children to it. But what if it's not? What if modeling love without sexual jealousy is actually a good thing (as I believe)? What if showing your children that they have options when it comes to forming relationships is *healthier* for them and provides them with a stronger sense of self? What if teaching them to communicate honestly and to negotiate for their needs responsibly helps them grow up to have healthier, more responsible relationships regardless of which path they choose?
This has been my experience at least. And polyamory isn't just for men. And polyamory is not about sex, it's about *relationships*. It's about freedom to be honest when you love more than one person at the same time.
And how is honesty not a good thing to model for your children?
My reasoning has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with pregnancy. I've met more than two married couples who ended up having another child more than four years after their supposedly "last child" was born. In one couple the woman had had a stroke before 40 and stopped having her menstrual cycle. The doctors told her she could not get pregnant. So she and her husband stopped using birth control and when their youngest child was 11 she got pregnant. It was a blessing for them.
When people decide to become parents they are making a gargantuan, long term financial and emotional commitment. It is not fair to the children IN the marriage if, totally by accident, the parents create children outside of the marriage who they then are obligated to emotionally and financially support. I'm talking about something I know from personal experience. When my half brother and sister were younger than 18 money started being garnished from my stepfather's paycheck for a child he'd created outside of the marriage to my mom. Believe me, that money certainly could have benefited my brother and sister who were created in the marriage.
IMO it is just not fair to the children in the marriage for the parents to take ANY chances on creating children outside of the marriage who might take resources away from the children in the marriage.
The problem, as I see it, is that people do not take the time to get to know each other any longer. We have this "speed" date mentality where we no longer court each other but expect to know as much as possible in as little time as possible.
So, not wanting to have sex with other people, if my partner goes and has sex with someone besides me, that's sex I can't have, since most males can only have sex a limited number of times a day. And people certainly have a biological urge. That can be applied to emotional relationships instead. It's not about "owning" the person, but new, shiny people are distracting enough to justify risking the pair bond over, so they're distracting enough to take time away from being with the primary partner.
In today's busy world, where couples who are not poly are already scheduling time together to make sure they don't lose each other in work and school and everything, not wanting your partner to suddenly be very occupied spending time with a new relationship instead of spending time with you makes total sense if you personally aren't going to be able to fill the time with another partner.
No one wants to be lonely, and it's much worse to be lonely when you have a relationship.
The lion doesn't have a LIMBIC SYSTEM and therefore cannot develop the emotions of a human.
This may not be right for you, so I don't impose it on you. Please don't impose your standards on me. If you and your spouse aren't comfortable with it, don't do it. We are and do. If someone I was dating tried to come between me and my wife, that would be a deal-breaker for me.
To use your example: Have you never moonlighted? Working a second job when you are open and honest with the primary job, make sure that the primary job's needs come ahead of the second job, and when you are honest about all this with the second employer, is completely legitimate.
Exclusivity and commitment aren't the same thing. The implication is there, but not required.
The bottom line is that the question of "commitment to what?" is always a personal definition. The person who cheats obviously has a higher "commitment" to their own pleasure than they do to their monogamous partner's well being. Whereas someone who is polyamorous, who communicates and *negotiates* for the needs and desires of their partner(s), can have a *commitment* to the health and well being of multiple partners, and a commitment to working out conflicts between those needs and desires. When I was in a triad marriage that's what we asked of our family members, that they be fully committed to the well being of those in the family, and that we do what was necessary to work out things so that everyone's well being was tended to.
The word "commit" means (in this context) "to pledge (oneself) to a position on an issue or question; express (one's intention, feeling, etc.)" ... "to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance; pledge:"
In both of those meaning we were committed to our family, to each other's well being. No where in any of those definitions is there any reference to "exclusivity". That's a connotation imposed upon the definition by individuals in specific contexts.
So yes - words have meaning - but they aren't always clear meanings, and they don't always mean the same thing to any two different people. There are lots of words like that. Love, freedom, justice, patriotism... in fact, any word with any semantic load tends to be rife with connotations which occur with some people, but not with others.
I'm sorry that the fact that my personal choice not to bow to your connotations is so distressing to you - but that's one of my personal ideas of "freedom". And part of my personal definition of "love" is that it is more expressive when open, and less expressive when limited by unnecessary constraints. And for me, arbitrarily assuming "sexual exclusivity" in a relationship is unnecessary constraints.
I simply don't believe you. Anyone can say anything, pretend anything, but it doesn't make it so. It is difficult enough for two people to be committed "you said you'd call at 3, and it's already 3:05"; why pretend you're so much more advanced that you get extra points for the extra difficulty of three, plus various others wandering in and out, and in, and out. All so committed to each other,and everyone else too.