Scoop The Dirt

Marriage. Overthrown.

We don’t intend to remain single. For the general population, being single is just a phase, a stage of life to move out of into adulthood, and ultimately, marriage. And for good reason: married workers can receive up to 25 percent more pay than unmarried individuals as a result of health and pension opportunities. Insurance rates are lower and passing on inheritances is a lawful right, among other advantages.

The single population does not have equal rights, and people overlook the inequalities because singledom is not considered a permanent state. Most imagine that they will someday take vows and become a part of the higher-earning, right-bearing, morally advanced marital system. Unfortunately for some, they currently do not have the right to marry. Gay men and women in the United States are fighting for equality. But the majority of the single population is not.

In the book Urban Tribes, the author Ethan Watters introduces an organization called the American Association of Single People. They define the word “single” as every adult who is not married. AASP is a nonprofit of individuals committed to creating equality for those who are single—as a result of their lack of rights or by choice.

I have previously put on my feminism hat and argued against marriage because of the evolution of industrialization. However, later in Urban Tribes, Watters encounters psychologist David Buss who points out, “Monogamy is probably enforced because society is mostly composed of beta males. It is tough to get elected by a population of beta males if they know that you’re going to have a thousand young women in your harem. In polygamous systems, some men get left out, so it’s in the beta males’ best interest to make rules about monogamy” (148). (Clearly they wouldn’t consider opening up a free love system to allow women to have more than one partner.)

Both theoretical explanations of monogamy point to a marital institution that is less than pious—not to mention the divorce and infidelity rates. It fosters inequality either on women or on men who might not be able to get women in a polygamous system. The heritage of marriage is flawed. Yet there are many people who want to be able to take part in the system.

I commend organization such as the AASP who look to vilify inequalities resulting from marriage. I also understand the plight of those who wish to take part in the institution, but are legally limited. However, I do not accept the system as it is. If I could charge both populations with one goal, it would be to create something new. Marriage as we know it should be an institution of the past, an overthrown entity that is eclipsed by a new commitment system.

Now is the best time to innovate, to create a new system for individuals to subscribe to without the inequalities that marriage upholds. New commitments could stop divorce rates and invigorate fresh generations. It would shake the foundation of the culture in America and show the world that we not afraid to build newer, better institutions. We could flourish personally, and as a unified collective, as we abolish the inequalities of the tradition of marriage.

We don’t intend to remain single. But we should build a better institution to house commitment. Marriage is just so limiting…

V Day

On behalf of V Day:

Embrace Your Inner Girl

The Price of Stagnancy

I like people who show excitement about their lives—maybe because my emotions are written on my face, and I like it when I can tell what other people are feeling too. My friend Paul is one of those people that embraces his happiness and shows the world. You can just feel the goodness when you hang out with him.

I feel lucky to hang out with Paul, and I felt particularly grateful for his presence last week when I met up with him after an exceptionally stressful day at work. Paul’s energy worked wonders and within minutes we were sharing animated stories and delightful conversation.

Until we reached the topic of his girlfriend. It was like the energy wafted away from him. No more excitement. No more goodness. But he said only good things. She was understating, flexible, and kind-hearted. She loved children, wanted stability, and wasn’t an alcoholic. He dug her. But he was by no means excited about her.

I did not intend to foster a negative response, but I had to ask what was up. I received a twofold candid answer: 1. He did not see his relationship with her as long term, and 2. He had yet to come across anyone better.

I prodded. He couldn’t see himself with this girl for a long period of time because she did not challenge him. It is not that she is dumb, but she is not smart either. And she couldn’t hold an intense conversation. Often, they would speak about the events of the day, and then the conversation would cease. And he had dated around before. He got along with this one, she wasn’t crazy, and she did offer him some autonomy. For all of the positive reasons he remained in the relationship, but there was clearly something missing.

In typical form, I started to consider relational stagnancy that is maintained because there is no one better as a prospect. If another, more desirable mate presents him or herself, the stagnant relationship can then be dissolved. It takes another person to be a catalyst for the termination of the relationship.

I couldn’t help but wonder how stagnancy-maintained relationships translated into non-monogamous relationships. The ability to date anyone at any given time hinders a breakup based on another partner coming into the picture. There are some exceptions to this rule, as always, but mostly it would be hard to tell your non-monogamous partner that you no longer wanted to date him or her because of another partner.

In monogamous relationships, you could look at getting out of a stagnant relationship like getting out of a limiting job. You have stayed with the company for years, have some investments with the company, but if something better comes along you are more than willing to quit to advance someplace else. However, non-monogamy would be like having multiple jobs. One you feel moderate about, one you can advance with, and one you only do on the weekends, for example.

There are a few problems I have yet to mention. First, if you are stuck in a stagnant monogamous relationship, how do you go about finding someone better? Considering the expectations of monogamy, it is tricky to date around. If the better prospect is a friend, you don’t actually know if they would make a better romantic partner; you probably just have an idea or you have not been faithful to your monogamous partner, and you are a jerk. Second, in non-monogamy, relationships do end. The reason for the breakup would probably sound something like, “I feel like we just won’t be able to grow if we maintain our relationship.” (Yes, yes. I do understand that this can happen in monogamous relationships as well, but return to the example of my friend Paul).

Okay…lots of rambling, but what’s my point? I do not think that monogamy and non-monogamy are the only ways to live. They are however, the most prevalent ways of life that I choose to discuss. So, with these two types of being in mind, I want to ask: Are humans drawn to stagnancy? We like comfort and routine, and we do settle. Do we reach a mediocre level of happy and just remain in it until we die? Do we uphold stagnant relationships because at least we are in a relationship? Do we limit our growth and potential happiness because “there is no one better out there”?

I will never claim to have the answers to these questions, although I could probably construct a pretty good argument if I wanted to. I don’t want to though, because it makes me nervous that, in an increasingly individualistic society, we have a paradigm on our hands: we do not rely on ourselves for happiness. We invest in other people, even if the people are not our ideal. We do not take responsibility for our own relational growth. Instead, we settle.

For now, Paul is no different. He will maintain his relationship. I just hope that someone better comes along soon.

Condom Contract?

I like to think that the act of communication is a generally straightforward act. You open your mouth, engage your vocal chords and the various muscles necessary to form noise, and words come out. However, we have all had moments where words are hard to come by because of the content of our message. These situations muddle the straightforward nature of utterance. For me, it is like butterflies in my stomach are holding the strings that have sewed my mouth shut. Often, the nerves telling you to not speak are trying to squelch something important. Or something that you have never considered verbalizing before.

My mouth had a rough time forming words when I wanted to ask my primary partner about the bounds of our condom contract. Let me provide a little background:

My primary partner and I have had a condom contract for about a year. For those of you who are not familiar with the terminology, I define my primary partner as the main relationship(s) in which I engage. A condom contract, according to the UK Polyamory Society (see the website for a nice list of terms that relate to non-monogamy and polyamory), is “an agreement between members of a non-monogamous relationship…to use condoms with sexual partners outside of those within the agreement.” Basically my main partner and I only have sex with each other without condoms.

I came to a point where I had to question my condom contract because another man came into the picture. I wanted to maintain the contract with my primary, but I also wanted to consider this other man. Would my primary let another man in on our contract?

In order to ask this question, I had to engage in an empathy activity: I wanted to know how I would react in the same situation. I asked myself first, would I ever consider letting another person into our contract for him? I decided that it very much depended on the person and the situation. So then, what would it take for me to come to a conclusion? What would I need in order to feel comfortable with my primary sharing unprotected sex with another woman?

The nature of non-monogamy requires a great amount of trust: if my primary partner decides to have sex with another woman without protection, my health is in jeopardy; therefore, I have to trust that he will tell me if he violates our contract. If I had to consider another person in my contract, I would have to meet him or her. I would have to like him or her. I would have to trust him or her with my body as much as I trust my primary partner.

So finally I sacked up, took a deep breath, and asked my primary his thoughts on the situation as I exhaled. After a thoughtful glance, he answered, “I would rather only trust you, and not bring in another person.” Needless to say, our condom contract remains in tact. I had to give the boy credit; he knew right off what he wanted. And I had to analyze the challenges of communication in order to even begin to decide. Seems about right.

Monogamists are Romantics

“All the romantic imagery of ‘true love’ that has since helped to idealize marriage in contemporary society can’t change the fact that marriage is essentially a property relationship.”
-Sharon Smith

Monogamists are Romantics

Marriage is an achievement: a state that people aspire to attain, and often they feel inadequate if they do not conquer the monogamous relationship by a certain age. To put it simply, we expect and are expected to get married in order to begin the process of legitimate procreation. I experience this expectation every time I make the long-distance call to chat up my grandmother. At 85, the woman is still sharp, and she prods me about when I will say the fateful, “I do.” She reminds me that she was 24 when she got married, and that I should kick up my game in order to snag a mate.

We create cultural scripts—books, movies, and music—that heighten the expectations of monogamy. The general population is inundated with media that idealizes the marital relationship, even as children. We don’t consider questioning the institution because it is something that just is. Prince Charming marries Cinderella, Romeo marries Juliet, the Bachelor marries his ideal woman. And everyone who enters into the vows are happy.

Monogamists are romanticists. They are on a quest to defeat the norm, rise above the divorce rates, and strive to have a love that transcends time and epitomizes marital bliss. I thoroughly enjoy the idealism that is monogamy. It is the one thing I still struggle with because I also grew up thinking that I would have a love that fulfilled me body, mind, and soul forever. Some days I feel as though my youthful romantic monogamist is in a mighty duel with the realistic non-monogamist that I have grown into. The youthful fall so easily when they stand on the shaky ground of romanticism.

I am a realistic non-monogamist. I cannot help but read the cultural scripts on monogamy and latch on to all the failure. I also can’t help but question where the idea of monogamy began in the first place.

Random fun fact about me: I dig Marx. I think he is all kinds of interesting (see Sharon Smith’s works for some interesting in-depth analysis on both Marx and Engles). Between Marx and Engels, they wrote that the nuclear family unit, including the monogamous pairing of the mother and father, did not exist before the class society. They theorize that monogamy gained popularity when women were pigeonholed into reliance on their male partners because they did not push a plow, but carried children. The plow provided a means for surplus and wealth, but it was the man’s wealth because he produced it. Monogamy entered the picture when men wanted to pass their wealth down, and women were the means to children. Women had to be monogamous in order to insure the paternity of the child.

The theory not only explores the origin of monogamy, but also explains why marriage seems to be inherently hypocritical: women had to be monogamous, but men could be freer with their sexuality because they had more control in the relationship. Monogamy gave birth to prostitution. Hookers meet a monogamous society’s need of providing unattached sex. Men could fuck around and not get emotionally attached. As men were allowed their frivolities, the virtue of women was reinforced. And then the scripts started. True monogamy became idealized. Property was still important, so monogamy was still valued. But hookers still existed and women started to share in the adulterous activity.

Non-monogamy is a realistic approach to romance. I have let go of the scripts that are reiterated in the media that surround me. I have embraced the Marxist idea that by nature, we were not monogamous, but rather our human creations have driven us to marriage for economic purposes. I am glad that there are still some idealists out there, and I hope that for some of them, they are able to achieve their dream of marriage. It is just not for me.

Post Script: People have an incredible ability to justify anything in their favor.

Wardrobe Malfunction

A few years ago, when Janet Jackson flashed her pasty-adorned breast, Janet drew the attention of the masses. The event was termed a scandal, and according to Wikipedia, the incident spurred over 5,000 stories in major US publications, newspapers, and TV/radio broadcasts. The football-watching world was in an uproar because of the tit-interruption of the half-time show (Oh the irony of men).

Later, Justin Timberlake declared that Janet had a “wardrobe malfunction.” I would venture to say that on a typical day, Janet does not wake up, slap some sticky on her nipple, and adhere a decorative embellishment under her clothes. What I am trying to say is that I don’t think Janet had a “wardrobe malfunction” at all; I think she planned to have half of her top ripped off.

At this point it is entirely valid for you to be wondering what Janet’s exposed breast has to do with non-monogamy. I realize that this is a stretch, but bear with me: Janet was required to explain the exposure of her breast. Why is it so hard to understand that she may have strategically paired the reputably amazing halftime-show with the amazingness of her boob for entertainment value? Unfortunately, the event was played off as unintentional, and “wardrobe malfunction” was coined. Point JT.

So here is my connection: many people engage in non-monogamous relationships with the intention of finding a monogamous partner, so they do not explain themselves. I intentionally engage in non-monogamy, and because my intention is not ultimately monogamy, I am regularly asked to give an explanation. Apparently, my lifestyle is just as outlandish as Janet’s mostly covered boob, and requires the same level of attention to intention. But why? Why do I have to explain myself? I can come up with four reasons:

1. People simply don’t consider non-monogamy as a legitimate lifestyle. They do it, and don’t talk about it, and are accepted because they are on their way to monogamy. My intention sets me apart. I feel obligated to provide an in-depth explanation in order to be fair to all involved.

If people were brought up to question the institutions around them, I would not have to explain myself. However, we are complacent; we don’t like to question what is comfortable. My questions led me to different answers, and I have to regularly provide a context for my actions.

2. People have presuppositions about non-monogamy, such as being non-committal or promiscuous. The presuppositions have to be rectified in order for me to be seen as a legitimate partner. (Apparently, I am all about legitimacy.)

3. I have a desire to foster open and honest communication in the relationship being established. I want my relationships to create the atmosphere of understanding and questioning. I have nothing to hide about my relationships, so I am inclined to explain my behavior.

4. I don’t want to be monogamous, and this is hard for some people to understand. Monogamists are romanticists, and non-monogamists tend to be realists. People want to find that one person that fulfills their needs, and I would rather find myself and engage in relationships.

It comes down to the idea that I am seen as living a lifestyle that does not jibe with the norm. I define myself as different because of the reactions I receive from those around me, and I have to explain the foreign concept that others have not considered. I don’t want to be seen as an entertainer exposing my tots for ratings, so I provide a clarification that is true for me: I expose myself because I want people to understand. I also want people to relearn to question everything—monogamy is only one institution that we have settled in to.

Yin Yang versus Venn Diagram

Monogamous relationships seem to be symbolized by a yin yang yin-yang —two parts that come together to make a whole. I am not saying that all monogamous relationships are this way, but monogamy lends itself to the idea that people are not whole without a partner, and that they rely on one partner to complete them. For example, the phrase “your better half” is widely known and accepted to refer to a significant other. The prevailing attitude that one person plus one person equals one household can work for some individuals, but it is inherently irrational to me.

Instead of a yin yang, I like to think of relationships like a Venn diagram: two whole entities come together and parts of their lives intersect to establish a relationship. The circles remain independent of each other in the Venn diagram scenario and each can grow in relation to the other or independently. The Venn diagram is also useful as a symbol for non-monogamy because it allows multiple circles to intersect and overlap.

So…why symbolism talk? I’ve been doing research lately on non-monogamy within the institution of marriage. One book I have found interesting is called Beyond Monogamy: Recent Studies of Sexual Alternatives in Marriage edited by James R. Smith and Lynn G. Smith. Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, the book is a compilation of articles that explore the role of sex in traditionally defined marriage. The only downfall of this book is that Recent actually means it was published in 1974, right in the middle of the “Free Love” movement. The publishing time period could be both a benefit and a downfall of the text depending on how you look at it, but I will not go into that now (if you really want me to, please ask and I will be more than willing to provide an explanation).

However, one particular article that caught my attention is called “Open Marriage: The Contextual Framework” by O’Neill and O’Neill. It defines an open marriage as “a relationship in which the partners are committed to their own and each other’s growth” (62). My initial reaction to the definition was that a traditional marriage could have this quality—monogamous partners can just as willingly choose to be committed to growth as non-monogamous partners can doom each other to stagnancy. But the authors argue their definition of an open marriage departs from the typical roles defined within marriage. I can see their rationale, but here is where I would call attention to the date of publishing—in 2009, we have, for better or for worse (pun intended; appreciate!), changed the “traditional” roles of partners in a marriage. I at least like to think that women are seen more as equals and less as June Cleavers.

The closed marriage, then, is defined: “The expectations of closed marriage—the major one being that one partner will be able to fulfill all of the others needs (emotional, social sexual, economic, intellectual, and otherwise)—present obstacles to growth and attitudes that foster conflict between partners” (62). Just as I could see the rationale behind the roles of a traditional marriage, I can also see the rationale behind the idea that monogamous partners expect their significant others to fulfill their needs; it is the yin yang model.

The flaw in the design of the yin yang is that it limits the growth of partners. The two sides will not fit unless they grow at the same time and at the same rate, and that is nearly impossible for two people to do unless you are an identical twin sharing a prenatal sack with your sibling. The evolution of relationships, with the woman as equals business and all, seems to be throwing out the traditional roles of marriage and moving it to more of a union capable of growth. Marriage can be a fluid structure built to suit both partners.

So here is my point: marriages should be cultivated to promote growth of both parties—to be Venn diagrams. I would suggest that we re-define marriage and completely disregard the “traditional” expectations. In this model, each partner could outline what he or she need and strike a balance of needs. Marriages should be an annual contract to be reassessed when the contract expires. The annual reassessment would give marriage a fresh perspective because partners could dissolve the relationship without messy divorces, and people would not take their husbands and wives for granted because they had sworn to be around until death.

A German politician tried to institute marriage as a contact and lost all kinds of popularity as a result (http://tinyurl.com/yg4b87r). Luckily, I’m already “what’s wrong with America,” and I’m not a politician, so that’s happy. Anyway, that’s all for now.

Down To Fuck?

Apparently I am favoring prefaces lately, so I am going to go with it: there are times when I wonder if the collective conscious is actually at work in simple day-to-day events such as the construction of a blog. Today, I wanted to address question number three in the “Top Ten Questions about Sex-istentialism,” and entered the blog only to see that I had received another comment. Huzzah! It said: “So are you trying to say you are down to fuck?” Perfection. My drive to answer question three was reinforced by the reader, and I like to think the collective consciousness too. If you do not remember the question (it’s actually a series of questions), here it is:

Are you slutty? This is the direct question that men seem to skirt, but many imply with questions such as:
“So, how many people have you had sex with?”
“How many people are you having sex with now?”
“Have you ever had any STD’s?”
“Have you ever been with a girl?”

Down To Fuck?

For the sake of consistency, I am inclined to define “slutty” before I begin to explain my rationale for not being such. I do want to note here, though, that my definition of slutty is by no means a universal definition. It is what I have grown accustomed to as acceptable, and it is even flexible depending on the situation. To me, someone who is slutty is careless when it comes to his or her sexuality. Sluttiness can manifest in sleeping with an exorbitant amount of partners; it can be the inconsideration of emotion for a partner (for example, an emotionally unattached man who continues to engage in a sexual relationship with someone who is emotionally attached); it can also be the inability to see sex as anything more than physical gratification.

According to my definition, I am not slutty because I am not careless about my sexuality. Actually, I think that I overanalyze my sexuality on a regular basis because of my choice to be non-monogamous, and care too much as a result (Is this healthy? Probably not. But I am a work in progress, so I am okay with that).

Let me explain a little further, if you are monogamous, imagine being non-monogamous for a minute. You meet someone, you click, and you’d like to see this person again. So you do. Having sex with this person is one step toward intimacy, and you can choose to do whatever you want. But keep in mind that you might meet someone else next week. And then maybe another person the next day. Theoretically, you could have sex with all of these people (and cross your fingers that you don’t get knocked up or get an STD). What are the repercussions of your actions? You are enjoying intimacy with multiple people; you can continue to grow your sexual escapades; and you are doing it ethically as everyone knows about everyone else. Thank you for humoring me with the hypothetical.

For me, the hypothetical has been a reality, but I could never bring myself to have sex with many partners at the same time. Ultimately, I learned that sex means too much to me. It is too much of an emotional expression for me to play at with many people. I need to have a stable partner to grow with in sexuality in order for me to be sexually fulfilled. Sex is something I want to share with those who are truly special to me romantically, with people I love. I reserve sex for such individuals.

I am not saying that I haven’t encountered problems with my approach to sex. Men have gotten frustrated with me because I have sex with other partners and not them (I find this situation ironic because their frustration reinforces my unwillingness to have sex with them). I have been told that I am a tease. Non-monogamy has made men think that I would be willing to jump into the sack with them and they essentially break up with me when they find out I’m not going to be an easy lay.

So, “am I down to fuck?” It depends our relationship. If you are someone I love and you care about me, it’s on in every direction. If you are only looking at me as someone you can fuck, nope. Sorry. I am a woman, for crying out loud, and I will never take sex lightly.

Countering the Commentary

As a blog writer, I have embraced the excitement I feel when readers interact with me via commentary. You can see, however, that I have received very few comments, so the excitement gets sort of bottled up until I am notified that I have one. Today, my message box alerted me that I had one new comment. Imagine my excitement! A Mr. Bradley posted (see under “Sex Only” below):

“This is a load. You are going to die lonely… You are addressing subjects as to which you have no personal experience obviously. I suggest that you pull your head out of your ass. Non-monogamy? You are the exact thing that is wrong with America. What do you think that the effect of your actions have on those around you? All I have to say is you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s called self fulfillment. A-Derh!!”

Not only is it a comment, but also a criticism—my first posted criticism! I could have done without some of the hostility; nonetheless, I was still pretty excited. I concluded that my reply would be crucial: I needed to establish the correct tone to address the various issues Mr. Bradley points out about non-monogamy, in addition to applying the correct reasoning in order to foster understanding of my perspective. After some intense shower deliberation, I toweled off and made my decision. I am going to use a critical tool, which emphasizes professionalism and sincerity to analyze Mr. Bradley’s points: Aristotelian logic. For more information on Aristotle and logic, please visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The following is basically a dissection of the argument, sentences, and words of the commentary, applied to the basic rules of logic. I will not provide a complete works cited page, but rather a Ce-Centric version of citation (this means I am going to make a love child of MLA, APA, AP, and my very own style). I invite Mr. Bradley to please enter into the conversation!

Countering the Commentary

I will begin with the first sentence, “This is a load.” I want to give Mr. Bradley some credit here, because of the nature of the sentence in relation to the content of the blog. He posted his comment just after the “Sex Only” piece. “Sex Only” is in sum, a rant about poop in relation to sex. Bravo, Mr. Bradley, for the pun. It is, in fact, a load. As a rant, I did include quite a few exaggerations and quips to emphasize the ridiculousness of the post in general terms, and quite a load of crap ensued.

I am not so sure that the intention of the first sentence was to show playfulness through words, however. It seems more like a critique of the whole blog. Therefore, I will begin by defining terms, because “What a load” is quite vague. It is not a complete thought. One would rightfully ask, “A load of what?” because it clearly cannot simply be “a large quantity” (1). Native English speakers can assume a slew of various slang phrases associated with the word “load” that would fulfill the needs of the sentence, such as “shit load,” “load of crap,” “load of laundry,” “truckload” or “blow your load.”

Once again, I am going to make the assumption that Mr. Bradley means to say, “This is a load of crap”—or shit, for those of you who do not embrace euphemisms—“This,” referring to the blog and ultimately the idea of non-monogamy; and “load of crap” meaning “something that is not true” or “something that is of very poor quality” (2). At this juncture, it is critical to point out that “This is a load” is only an opinion. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion; therefore, I will not argue. Also, this statement is not the main point of the comment, so I will now cease the load talk.

The next sentence, “You are going to die lonely… You are addressing subjects as to which you have no personal experience obviously,” begins with what could be considered the basic premise of the commentary. Mr. Bradley makes very clear that he thinks that I will die lonely, and then he proceeds to provide evidence for his claim.

Before I get to the evidence Mr. Bradley provides, I am going to take issue with the implication of the statement “You are going to die lonely.” I believe that Mr. Bradley is intending to be harmful with his words. For many people, they would imagine an old lady all alone in her bed taking her last breaths and wishing that she would have married her beloved instead of some other decision she made that ultimately put her in this place of demise with no one to be a witness. Let’s cork the imagination for a moment, and explore some of the other reasons people die alone. For one, most people do not die the day their spouse dies; therefore, I would have a 50/50 chance of being the one who outlives my monogamous marital partner (I am also a woman, and we tend to live longer, so a man’s chance of holding his wife’s hand as he dies is greater anyway). Second, there is the argument that the idea of the spouse would be there amidst the death, even if he or she wasn’t physically present. Even if this is the case, you are still technically alone, so I don’t buy it. Third, if we are talking death from disease, a doctor or nurse might be in the room, and the dead would die with company. I don’t really want to babble anymore about death, so by all means, apply that corked imagination here and think of all of the ways a person could die alone.

As a personal application, I am just going to say that I have embraced dying alone because I am okay with being the root of the word “alone,” which is one. Oneliness is not a bad thing. My nature as a whole person depends on the idea that I identify myself as “one,” not “one half” or any other fraction. Marriage does not guarantee dying with someone else. I will have my commitment ceremony and probably live with one person and dabble in other relationships (commitment ceremony will be further described another day). I would actually say that my odds of dying with someone else in a commune are way greater than in a house as an old person with one other spouse. So romantically, even if I am technically alone, I could still have the idea of love around me when I cease live on this earth.

Moving on, apparently it is obvious that I have no personal experience in the matter of non-monogamy, much to my dismay and actual experience. However, I will ride on the no experience bandwagon and gain some credibility through the use of expert sources: Dossie Easton, Catherine A. Liszt, Lori Gammon, Bill Strong, Barbara Foster, Michael Foster, Letha Hadady, Adriana Blake, Irwin Altman, Joseph Ginat, Sterling M. McMurrin, Robert Rimmer, Peter Benson, Anthony Ravenscroft, Janet Kira Lessin, and Ryam Nearing have all written books on the ideas surrounding multiple loves. Articles of experienced people living happily in non-monogamous relationships have appeared in Newsweek (4). And there are quite a few organizations dedicated to the education of those interested in non-monogamy such as the Polyamory Society (5). Where my credibility lacks, I hope these sources build the case.

Finally, I want to focus on the last word in the sentence, “obviously.” I can’t help but question Mr. Bradley’s premise because, “The phrase ‘obviously’ is often viewed with suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting dubious premises. If something doesn’t seem obvious to you, don’t be afraid to question it” (6). All I have to say is that my lack of experience is not obvious to me. If it is crystal clear to everyone else, and I am just missing the last few years of my life, please refer to the paragraph above where you will encounter a whole slew of experienced folks. If you are right there with me and feel as though this word is meant to try and force me to accept dubious premises, don’t worry, I’m going to question it: How exactly, is it obvious?

Moving right along, the next two sentences read, (1) “I suggest that you pull your head out of your ass” and (2) “Non-monogamy?” One, I do not believe my head is up my ass. It will probably always be an exit only for me. Two, yes, non-monogamy. Also known as polyamory, polyfidelity, open relationships, free love, and all sorts of other terms. Done.

I was entirely baffled by the next sentence, “You are the exact thing that is wrong with America.” As I thought about it, I was slightly pleased with myself that I could enrage someone enough to actually blame me for the problems with America. A quick search put me in with the likes of Bush, Obama, Evangelicals, those who do not like guns, and more. A survey of a few people identified “the problem with America” to be whole fields such as the economy, health care, ignorance, Twilight, apathy, entitlement, and the list goes on as well.

My stretch to accommodate the claim grandfathers me into the idea that America’s moral code is wavering, and that is how I am “exactly what is wrong with America.” If my assumption is correct, and the statement relates to morals, I am going to have to ask for a definition again. This definition, however, is not one I can produce from cracking a book or searching online. It would have to be a direct conversation about the foundation and application of Mr. Bradley’s specific moral code. Something tells me that we would never actually be able to logically argue the point of “what’s wrong with America” because we would never be able to agree on the definition. My morals will look very different from Mr. Bradley’s, and I for one, am proud and happy to live in a country where we can respect each others moral differences.

This next sentence, posed as a question, is a doozy, “What do you think that the effect of your actions have on those around you?” I will completely use personal experience to back up my claim that I do consider the effects of my life on others, and if you do not think I am credible because of my “obvious” lack of experience, then please skip to the next paragraph. I consider it this everyday. I consider my actions in relation to not only my romantic partners, but also my friends and family as well. I talk to them all about my relational preferences, and I have found that people are incredibly tolerant of my lifestyle. I do have some friends who do not elect to subscribe to non-monogamy themselves, and who challenge my opinions. I have met openly hostile people too. I have learned an incredible amount about myself and have learned to craft the defense of my lifestyle with acceptance that everyone will have a different perspective and preference. I know that they have learned from me, as that is actually a question I tend to pose in conversation. All I can hope is that we learn from each other. So to answer the question concisely, I think my primary effect is one that happens intellectually; I hope to make those around me think, and I hope to think in return—a basic idea that I apply to all facets in life where I engage with another person.

This is getting way too long now, so I will address the final three sentences together: “All I have to say is you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s called self fulfillment. A-Derh!!” The initial sentence is once again an opinion, and because it has no evidence there is really nothing I can do to create a counter argument. All I can offer is my opinion in return: I do know what I am talking about. Next, “It’s called self-fulfillment.” Definition time! Self-fulfillment: “the fulfillment of your capacities” (7), “the full use of one’s own abilities” (8), or “a life-style concept whereby people express their growing sense of uniqueness through goods and services purchases” (9). With exception to the “goods and services purchases” portion, if Mr. Bradley is saying non-monogamy is self-fulfillment, then I agree. I am actually pretty happy with that statement. Finally, “A-Derh,” is made up. I think it is an expression used to imply my stupidity, but I just don’t buy it (Heh. If you Google it, Aderh is apparently a disease, kinda cool, but completely unrelated). I do not believe “A-Derh” reflects on anything of substance, so that’s all I am going to say about it.

Enough is enough. Consider this my conclusion. I’m done. And I hope you check back in next week, where I promise I will not dump a three-page argument on you again.

Ce-Centric Citations (check out that alliteration!)
1. “Load” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Load
2. “Load of crap” http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=46771
3. http://www.polyamory.org/~howard/Poly/books.html and http://www.polyamorysociety.org/page17.html
4. http://www.newsweek.com/id/209164
5. http://www.polyamorysociety.org/
6. http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html
7. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=self-fulfillment
8. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/self-fulfillment
9. www.prenhall.com/rm_student/html/glossary/s_gloss.html

Jealousy #1

I am going to make my first attempt at answering the jealousy question. What jealousy question, do you ask? Scroll down and read the “Top Ten Questions” posted below. If you are too lazy to scroll down, I would typically be inclined to say, “Sack up and do it, slacker.” However, tonight, I am feeling generous, so I will provide: “I just couldn’t share someone I loved. What about jealousy?”

This is one of those questions that I have various answers for according to my mood. So, taking into consideration my current state of being, I really don’t feel like providing a comprehensive answer as it relates to my own personal experiences. I would rather provide a general answer that I have observed in relation to the masses.

Traditional relationships (marriage or the common “boyfriend/girlfriend” scenario) come with predefined expectations—you wouldn’t go and snog someone other than your boyfriend/girlfriend without being considered questionable, for example. Once a title is applied, and the unspoken definition accepted within the bounds of the relationship, both parties then, inevitably, feel a sense of entitlement surrounding their partner. Entitlement is the beginning of limitation, dissatisfaction, and decline. Entitlement also generates the ultimate feeling of jealousy when a third party infringes upon your territory.

Let me lay out a hypothetical situation to stroke your understanding of entitlement. A girlfriend goes out to dance with her friends. She flirts and ultimately dances with men who are not her defined partner. If the male partner happened to witness the flirting and subsequent dancing, he would be inclined to feel jealous. Other men were encroaching on his territory.

The situation makes inherent sense. The woman clearly elicited her man’s jealousy by breeching the unspoken code that she would not come in contact with other men. Here’s my problem: does her interaction threaten her relationship? Sometimes, maybe. But most of the time, probably not. She just went out and interacted with the people in her direct proximity. She danced and had fun and then returned to her boyfriend to continue to engage in the relationship in which she chose to be.

But the jealous mind will not allow it to be an innocent night of dancing. All of the sudden, the green-eyed beast comes out and starts arguments, throws things, or even seeks revenge. Granted, you could argue that the green-eyed beast comes out only in unhealthy relationships. Then, I would then argue that 98% of the monogamous relationships I’ve witnessed are unhealthy; the green-eyed monster does not discriminate according to race, gender, etc. and makes regular appearances.*

Instead of taking responsibility, the entitlement of being in a relationship predisposes relationship members to think their jealousy is justified. Here is where I want to apply a tip from my fellow Bits n Pieces blogger: “Humans are often full of shit. Humans need to be called out on said shit. It’s really fun to do the calling out.”

Fun time: you, relationship goer who feels entitled to be jealous, are full of shit. I am not denying that jealousy happens, because it does. It is a human emotion. Just like happiness or sadness or anger. And people who get really violent when they are angry typically go on some sort of stabilizing medication or go to anger management classes. Jealousy does not yet have a drug, so learn to deal with it just like any other emotion. Critically think about your situation. What is the root of the jealousy? Do you feel as though your relationship is threatened? Do you think the girl he is flirting with is prettier than you? Yadda, yadda, yadda…

Instead of becoming the beast you think you get to be because your significant other “made you jealous,” tell your partner that you are feeling jealous. Identify the insecurities that are partially responsible for the jealous rage. Then work it out. Ask for a hug. Talk about what you need in order to temper the feeling. Or suck it up and feel it. Feel it and be happy that you care so much about your partner that you are jealous of the time that you don’t get to spend with him or her. Now, I will say it, “Sack up. Talk. Cope. Move on.”

Jealousy transcends all relationship types because it is a human emotion that everyone feels. No matter the kind of relationship you engage in, you are going to feel jealous at some point. Embrace it. Then look forward to feeling happy again.

*Technically, I am arguing that my some of my friend’s relationships are unhealthy if they choose to engage in monogamy, as it is traditionally known. I clearly can’t help but question the predefined expectations that come with monogamous relationships. The undefined relationship, I would argue, is doomed.

I have always had a crush on Jay Gatsby. And I have always latently blamed the late, Great Gatsby for my initial campaign against traditional marriage. You see, when I was a fifteen-year-old high school English student, I couldn't help but advocate for Gatsby's cause and create my first critique on the institution of marital bliss.

Gatsby and Daisy were the titular characters of my paper defining the basis of my critique on marriage—that vows allow for a general stagnancy due to the lack of necessary relational reassessment. Instead of marriage, I posed that committed relationships should be contractual, spelling out expectations, and the general unspoken entitlements of monogamy would not be presumed. The contract would be subject to re-evaluation on an annual basis, and could be dissolved according to the agreed upon "relational separation" clause. Granted this rationale has grown over the years, but the main point remains intact...Read More!