Monogamania 4: Pussies, Whips, Claws, and Leashes

So, after reading all the discussions that have happened around this original post, I have a few final musings, and then I think I want to let my brain rest on this one for a long while and think about/write about other things.

Thought #1:
I began to notice that most of the polyamorous people who were writing in all seemed to have one person they thought of as their "true mate," and others who they slept with outside of that relationship. I'm wondering if that's the preferred state for most people--to have one love bond, but to have some side action. It's interesting, because you'd think if you wanted to be truly polyamorous, you'd not want ONE of anything, including a marriage or committed one-on-one relationship. Or rather, you'd be single, sleeping with many. And yet that seems not to be the case for most of the polyfolks. What do you all think? Is the ideal a soulmate, with benefits? Or completely open, unbound relationships for all?

Thought #2:
The always insightful Figleaf was pointing out to me in an email:

Since stereotypes say men are sperm-spewing,conscienceless animals we wallpaper over those who have no problem with monogamy. Pussywhipped. No ambition. Maybe a closet homosexual. Scared to have fun. Really religious! All these excuses we make to protect our stereotypes! WTF is that about anyway?

I think this is what has always bothered me the most. Every comedy you see where a guy's about to get married, every bachelor party speech you overhear, every joke that's made to the groom just before a wedding is always, "Oh, she's gotten her claws into you good," or "You can still run while you have the chance!" There is this sense that monogamy--particularly for men--is related to their freedom and masculinity somehow. I suppose I don't understand this whole attitude, seeing as pretty much across the board every study that's done shows that men are far happier and healthier when they're married, and that the sex is not worse. For instance:

Survey responses from the married men painted a positive picture of marriage - 94 percent said they were happier married than single, and 73 percent said their sex life was better. From a story in the Arizona Republic.

And:

According to a large-scale national study, married people have both more and better sex than do their unmarried counterparts. Not only do they have sex more often but they enjoy it more, both physically and emotionally. From Rutgers University's National Marriage Project research center.

And yes, I understand that "married" does not necessarily mean "monogamous," but one would assume that most people in marriages are more steeped in the mainstream and are at least attempting to live out the monogamous lifestyle as a result. And yes, I also know "happier" is a relative term, and as a single person, I have some issues with how these survey questions may have been asked, mitigating factors, etc., but still--the results seem fairly consistent everywhere you look.

So why this prevailing attitude that marriage/monogamy is a "trap" for men?

Thought #3:
In a related thought, I want to hearken back to another discussion that went on at Figleaf's blog a while back, which may have been the initial catalyst for my post, after I let it marinate for a while. You can find the post and responses here. The main post's question was really, "If partners gave each other the permission to have sex outside the relationship, would that quell their desire to do so?" But in reading all the comments and discussion after the question was posed, I remember I really reacted strongly to seeing people referring to the person who wanted a monogamous relationship as "holding the leash," and the suggestion that it might be possible that, "the more exclusivity one demands, the greater the risk [of the person sleeping with someone else without telling you]," or the possibility that "giving each other permission not to be [100% monogamous] makes it [monogamy] less painful."

It's not the actual suppositions people were making, but just the descriptors. Monogamy as being "leashed," "a demand," or "painful." I think it bothered me because I've never really viewed monogamy as any of those things. To me it was a compliment, not a burden. That person wanted me above all others, and I wanted him. We weren't sacrificing, we were WANTING. And what we wanted was each other, most of all. I never felt my partner's belief I would be monogamous was a "demand." I thought it was a mutual understanding, a shared feeling of love and fidelity. I never felt "leashed," or that I was "leashing" my partner--I wanted to be there, and I assumed he did too, or would have spoken up. And while relationships in general are not always easy, and I've had my troubles along with everyone else, I never felt that staying committed to someone was "painful." Well, actually, that's not true. I did ultimately find my long-term committed relationship to be painful (though not because I wanted to sleep with someone else), but when I did find it so, we ended it.

So--as to me...what do I think is right, mono- or -poly? Neither, really. I think it depends on the people, the circumstances, the agreements and guidelines made, etcetera. But I do think there have to be clear guidelines and expectations set up front, which both partners can agree to (assuming it's a two-partner agreement). And it's not fair to change the rules mid-stream and not discuss it. I think most everyone who's talked about it here or on other blogs agrees with these.

And I also think that if anyone is walking into either situation, monogamy or polyamory, thinking it's a "trap," a "leash," or "painful,"--or if they thought they'd be okay with it but then find instead it's any of those things for them, well, I think that they have a responsibility to speak up, be honest, and take themselves elsewhere if ultimately they can't get what they want. If you're feeling trapped in any relationship, it's not right for you. But that's only my opinion, of course. My longest relationship was six years. I probably have no right and not enough understanding of lengthy marriages to lecture to you long-time-marrieds. But to me, on the outside, it looks pretty clear-cut, really.

Which do I think is right for me? I just don't know anymore. I'm at a stage where I'm having to evaluate a whole slew of assumptions that I once held as true in my life. I'm not sure where I'll end up, but I'm sure it'll be interesting finding out. Lately, though, I've been thinking a lot about WHY we want to be with one person. Or why we want marriage and children. I'm not asking this because I think they're bad choices. But I'm just saying, what about this: If you were able to be absolutely sure that you would never catch an STD, you'd always have loving friends, and you had absolute certainty that at the end of your life, you would not end up alone or impoverished, and you would be well cared for-- would you care about getting married? Having kids? Having multiple lovers? Having one special lover? Living alone or in groups?

Right now, to me, that seems to be the most honest litmus test for figuring out what you really want. If you'd answer, "Yes, I'd care if I did/didn't have one monogamous partner," or "Yes, I'd care if I had/never had kids, or "I'd never/still want to get married if I knew that was going to be the case," then you know what you really want. Of course we don't have any guarantees that we won't die alone and friendless if we're not in a monogamous marriage. But we don't have any guarantees that our spouses won't leave us or die either, or that our kids or friends will still be around when we're old.

We just don't know what can happen. Ever. So to choose a lifestyle other than the one you know deep down in your heart you'd want if you weren't scared--that just can't be the right thing to do. Can it?

The tricky part, though, is knowing whether you really know how to answer those questions honestly.