Too much like a conservative straight woman?

Well, the fact that I am sitting here writing this at Starbucks means that the jury is still out on the success of my birthday. Undoubtedly tomorrow will bring some sort of posting on the good or ills of my day.

I find myself at a point of reevaluating some of my long held beliefs. It started slowly, as I was time and time again confronted with friends that worked outside what I thought were the ideal ways to handle a relationship, but ended with a bang. I have been reading Dan Savage's new book, The Commitment. Like his previous The Kid, it is sort of a personal memoir about something he and his partner have experienced and how they dealt with it. When I read The Kid I was made aware of various problems in parenting, both in general and specifically as a gay man and had some very thought provoking moments as I read it. The same has held true with his most recent book.

There are lots of things that I am bound to think about, and I am sure that at some point I will get around to many of the other points in later writing, but right now, I have only one focus: monogamy, and lasting relationships.

I have always held the idea that a real relationship is one where monogamy is mandatory. No questions. When I dated Daniel, I was challenged to a degree in this belief, but in all of our time together, we really never had to confront it head on, so I pretty much was able to continue to float along with my opinion. Since that time, I have if anything strengthened this position, asserting that the only way to have a truly lasting and healthy relationship was to be 100% committed to each other and no one else.

Now a few friends who have known me well pointed out the fact that no matter what my opinion was in theory, and no matter how much I might not cheat, they were absolutely positive that my boyfriend cheating on me would not be a deal breaker. I am too forgiving and would rather have the relationship succeed than one night of weakness to destroy all we had built. They are probably right, but as of yet, I haven't had to test this hypothesis.

As I mentioned, several friends in long-term relationships that don't necessarily believe in monogamy have recently come into sharp conflict with my opinions. Some are to the point where I would simply get angry, feeling they were betraying themselves and whoever they were with. The angrier I got, the more I had to wonder if this wasn't a case of me using anger to hide the fact that in light of their success I was losing logical ground. I hate losing logical ground, and if I was indeed overcompensating with anger, this was a bad sign indeed.

Dan was the catalyst that ensured that I really had to come to grips with my real opinion on this. About halfway through the book, Dan has a chapter that he devotes entirely to sex with other people while you are dating someone. True to his consistently reasoned approach, he points out many different angles and uses several examples. Cutting as short as possible, he cites the Greeks, Romans, and Jonathan Katz, who says that monogamy is "one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma." In ancient times, the value of marriage was placed over that of monogamy, and in fact it was accepted that being with one person for the rest of your life, had everything to do with life commitment and little to with who you slept with. The evidence that people weren't designed to be monogamous and that any attempts to break our nature is pretty pointless. It's funny because in this instance, I feel like all the religious people that I despise trying to say that only in denying ourselves can we be "good." No better way to win me over than make me feel like I am acting like someone I hate.

Denying or trying to hide the fact that we are attracted to others is ridiculous. As Dan says, "It's impossible for two people to be all things to each other sexually, and the expectation that two people must be all things to each other- that they should never find another person attractive or act on that attraction-does a great deal of harm." Now Dan certainly isn't making a case for polygamy, permanent singlehood or stupidity. In fact, his case is presented in the only way that I ever would have been forced to reconsider myself: the fact that his case is for saving marriage.

As I mentioned, the ancients didn't have the same hang-ups we do. In fact, only in the last century or so has the idea of complete monogamy become so socially adamant. Strangely, Dan also points out the fact that the steady increase in divorce rates mysteriously starts at the same time. Coincidence? No such thing. So how is it that being with other people can save your relationship? Well, he conveniently gives 2 great examples. In both these examples (one gay, one straight) it is strong couples who are totally devoted to each other, but have set up the "rules" to which they can expand their sexual experiences without damaging their relationships.

1. Terry- (The rules here are less specific) They must be safe, not in any way endanger their child. They don't hang out in bars or do internet hookups, but if the right circumstances are met, "cheating" is allowed. The two examples he gives are three ways (obviously much more applicable in gay relationships) but implies that in the ten years they have been together there have been a few other circumstances outside of three ways.
2. Billy- "Should the opportunity arise or present itself in such a way that it can be taken advantage of discreetly, without doing emotional harm to the other person or endangering the other person, than either of us can take advantage of the opportunity." He goes on to gives 2 examples. One at a restaurant, where a woman outside was incredibly hot. Billy kept turning to look at her, and instead of getting enrages, his girlfriend teased him, telling him he was busted, and switched seats with him so he can have a better view. They "spare each other the trauma of pretending." Interesting. The more extreme example of this rule is with this woman at the bowling alley. He says, "If… I was out with some friends and Kelly was out of town or having a girl's night out, and Red over there and I hit if off and things proceeded as thing sometimes proceed, I could take advantage of the situation without guilt."

Both guys point out that they have these rules, and by allowing the freedom, neither couples have acted on it very often, but neither do they have to worry about the snide comments of "you were looking at so and so" or the heartbreaking revelation of cheating. In both these instances of course things like affairs would be deal breakers, and the ideas behind the rules is that they are there to strengthen the relationship not destroy it. Dan says that they've made their "desire for others a non-issue." He goes on to say that, "Indeed, as most heterosexual swingers report, the times we've had sex with other guys has actually enhanced our desire for each other. Far from tearing us apart, the times we've had sex with another person… have renewed and refreshed our intimate life. It's made our home more stable, not less."

I am forced to admit that he may be onto something. I know he isn't the first. He brings up so many other examples like the aforementioned swingers, etc. and of course there are all my friends that seem to make it work. Maybe it is society that is forcing us to take this narrow view, and maybe in this one instance I have allowed it to shape my own thinking, possibly to my detriment. Thank God for the ability to reevaluate our opinions and become smarter before we destroy ourselves.