Sunday, January 3, 2010
(It seems I've lost the ability to regulate the pictures I put up. My other blog shows me the picture as I type the body of the entry. This blog (all on blogger) shows me 5 lines that make up the link I guess and then I can't make the pic bigger or smaller...oh well...)
Lately, in my vast amount of celibate time, I have been thinking about the idea of monogamy. I've been thinking about how in 12 years of marriage, I became involved with other people a few times. AntiChrist never found out and we never discussed the idea of monogamy, because for him, I'm sure it was a given, that we were. But even as I spent 1/3 of my life on the ultimately futile task of getting him to love me, I thought on more than one occasion, that if he had approached me and said he wanted an open marriage, I would not have had an issue with it. Not in the least. Now that I am on my own and occasionally pondering my future, my mind falls more and more on the idea of polyamory. (Why does blogger/my computer tell me I'm spelling this wrong when I am not, according to dictionary.com?)
Can you be in a loving, committed relationship and NOT practice monogamy? Obviously, like everything in life, from playing bridge to spanking, it depends on the people. It depends on open, honest communication about your needs and desires. Beyond that, I just don't know.
My thoughts turn to my own experiences in relationships with people who were not as available as I would have liked and also Tiger Woods. The press is having a field day crucifying the man. His wife is the stunningly beautiful victim of his insatiable and horrific and selfish desires.
But has anyone thought, well maybe it's her unrealistic adherence to the old interpretation of the wedding vows? Maybe people shouldn't be denied pursuing relationships they find stimulating outside of the relationship they are committed to.
I'm not even sure what is involved anymore, having had 12 years pass since I took any.
"Do you promise to love, honor and cherish..." check, check & check.
I'm not sure people say "Cleave thee only unto her...for as long as you both shall live"
But the interesting thing is this...there are TWO definitions of Cleave, both verbs.
a) To adhere closely to, stick, cling. To remain faithful
b) To split or divide, to penetrate or pass through.
I don't know many ministers who would let you introduce the idea of an open relationship in wedding vows, but we are still a fairly young century and I'm holding out hope!
I feel like I'm in a unique position because my marriage is over and I am completely single, so I am not coming at this with the perspective of someone in the middle of a bad relationship. But it is something that fascinates me.
I love you, I am committed to you (committed...let me pull out the dictionary again)...I want to be in a relationship with you...but if I meet someone who interests me or I'm attracted to, then I want to feel that I am free to pursue that.
It could be argued, I suppose, that this in increasing the possibility of a partner finding someone else, falling in love with them and leaving you. I would argue how many times does that happen when people are pursuing the "traditional monogamous" relationships. How many people, every year, find themselves blindsided and devastated because their hopes and dreams turned out to be built on quicksand? I don't mean to belittle or diminish the pain and suffering these people go through, but what if you entered into serious relationships with it with a little more acceptance of the idea that your partner is going to be attracted to other people, your partner may want to pursue that and you may as well and that's okay?
What if you trust your partner to be honest with you. "I've met this person, I want to see where it goes, but I love you and I want to be with you and I'm being careful..."
I stress the importance of being honest, but of course, playing both sides of the coin, does such an arrangement undermine the commitment you have to your partner? Does it take something away? I'm not saying that a person or their partner should be out screwing everything that moves, but what if having that freedom kept a person from becoming bored and stagnated in their relationship? What if that freedom kept them more interested at home? Just a theory...and like others (lone gunman for example)...it may not pan out.
I'm sure it's easier said than done for most. But would life be easier if it weren't? I'm not big on labels, monogamy, polyamory (although I LOVE the way that word sounds), married, heterosexual, homo, bi-, but these are just the thoughts floating around.
I met someone 4 years ago and he is one of my best friends. We share a lot and he is aware of some of my tastes and preferences, in a sort of vague, general way. Around the same time Mr. Wonderful and I ended, my friend was dealt a devastating loss when his own partner of 14 years or so, was taken from him. I've known for sometime that I had feelings for him, beyond friendship, however I never acted on it because I knew and cared about his partner and they were in a "traditional, monogamous" relationship. So now, although it is way too soon for either of us to really pursue anything romantically (and I'm not sure he's interested although I have a hard time believing he's unaware), I do find myself wondering about the future, not just with him but with anyone I may meet.
"Okay, not only am I going to need you to dominate me, spank me and tie me up, I'm also going to need to be able to see other people, even if we're serious and committed to each other..."
Oh yes...this is going to be interesting!