[High Treason]

I've been thinking about this a lot, so I thought I'd ask. There is (and has for a long time been) an expectation among most people that you find the one person you love and then never ever ever have sex with anyone else ever again. This notion seems completely absurd to me. I just can't understand how you can claim to love someone and limit their options for happiness at the same time.

I used to be a believer in monogamy in my younger days, so I'll share a little bit of my personal journey to where my beliefs currently are. You grow up kind of just being taught by media, movies, TV, parents, and whatnot that monogamy is just the way things work. Therefore, I believed that, too. Committed relationships without the sexual exclusivity clause didn't cross my mind for a very long time. I got into a pretty serious relationship when I was around 20 years old. She was a lot older than me and had many sexual experiences under her belt. She was my first. As things got serious, it caused a lot of anxiety for me. At the time, being young and not very self aware, I thought I was upset with her for having been so sexually promiscuous. Now I realize that quite the opposite was the case. I was upset that if I stayed with her and got married and the things I felt one did when they loved someone that I would never get to have those sorts of sexual experiences myself. I felt trapped by the prospect of the relationship actually going well and leaving me only allowed to have sex with her forever. As it turns out the relationship did not last forever (it lasted about 2 years) but what if it had? What if it had turned out that we were actually perfect for each other and should be together forever? Then I would not have been allowed to ever have sex with anyone else for the whole rest of my life? What a terrible outcome of a situation that should be happy, finding a person you want to spend your life with!

Later in college, I became good friends with a woman who was very non-monogamous. That was really my first realization that such a life is possible. She is bi-sexual and had sex equally with men and women. When she got married, it was not a sexually monogamous marriage and both of them were allowed to have sex outside the marriage. I thought that was pretty cool. However, as far as my plans for my life were concerned, my brain was still stuck in the sexual monogamy rut. I got married and stayed married for six years without cheating very much. There was this one time during the marriage where another woman and I performed oral sex on each other... and I did have sex with another woman while geographically separated from my wife for a few months. Even on these two occasions, however, I felt that it was something I shouldn't be doing. That it was something that was bad and that I should be sexually monogamous but that there was just something wrong with me.

After my divorce, however, I felt like my eyes started to open. I stopped being able to come up with reasons why sexual monogamy should be expected or is even desirable. Nowadays, it seems to me that expecting sexual monogamy in a relationship is completely selfish and silly. While I used to think that having a woman "cheat" on me would be like the worst thing to happen ever, I now can't imagine demanding that a woman I am involved with restrict her sexual activity only to me, and I wouldn't want to be with anyone who would try to do that to me either. I do want to end up in a committed relationship with one woman, and I do want a sexual relationship with that woman. In fact, that's a pretty big requirement for me. However, I don't see why we shouldn't be permitted to have sex with other people sometimes, too.

Sexual monogamy no longer makes any sense to me. I see now, looking back, that my belief in sexual monogamy for so many years was a major source of stress in my life. Now that I recognize the absurdity of that world view, I'm much more at ease with sexuality and much more mature in my thoughts about relationships.

Sexual monogamy is not a natural state for humans. Just look at the statistics for how often "cheating" happens in relationships. Now realize that those statistics are even lower than reality because they only include people who admit to it or got caught. There's lots of extra-marital sex out there that never comes to light because people are smart enough not to get caught. Also, while it was previously believed that men were the primary culprits, recent studies have indicated that women have extra-marital sex a lot more than was once believed. Women just tend to be much better at planning it and hiding it, therefore not getting caught as often. It has been estimated that as many as 5% of fathers in the US are not actually the biological father of at least one of their children, unbeknownst to them.

"Cheating" happens not because someone in the relationship is a bad person. It happens because monogamy is not natural. It doesn't make sense. Wouldn't it be better if we all just accepted this and did away with unnecessary stress in our lives?

I know a lot of people on this forum are firm believers in monogamy, so I thought I would present the topic to get your thoughts.

[hamster-bamster]

HT: you do need to find a condom solution that works. Otherwise it would be courting disaster. People in open relationships have lower STI rates than people involved in typical garden variety sex behind their primary partner's back because they take the issue of protection seriously. Your writing - great, in theory, but in practice - how would you do all of that without using condoms? Clearly, your partners might themselves have other partners, so there would be a large enough web, raising your risk.

Plus, condoms prevent pregnancy fairly well. So they are, all in all, quite a useful invention.

[High Treason]

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this issue, Hamster. However, your response is completely off topic. Maybe you meant to post in the other thread that is actually about condoms? That's not what this discussion is about. But yes, people should have sex safely when sleeping with people they don't know very well. Whether or not I personally have done so all the time is not within the scope of the conversation in this thread.

[hamster-bamster]

Originally Posted by High Treason

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this issue, Hamster. However, your response is completely off topic. Maybe you meant to post in the other thread that is actually about condoms? That's not what this discussion is about. But yes, people should have sex safely when sleeping with people they don't know very well. Whether or not I personally have done so all the time is not within the scope of the conversation in this thread.

I think it was on topic, because you used to the words "permit" and "allow" in OP. I do not think that your partner should have a right to permit or allow you to have sex with others - it is your life and the choices are yours; true love is non-possessive anyway, so people should not control their partners' sexual choices. However, people also have a right to sexual safety, and, as a corollary, have a say in what you do, sexually, with others. I assumed that you used the words "permit" and "allow" in that sense, and hence the mention of condoms was on topic. If, however, you used the words "permit" and "allow" in any sense other than "have a say in sexual safety", then you contradicted yourself. Your lovers should not be controlling you to the point of permitting/allowing things in any sense other than by reiterating your responsibility for their sexual well-being; nor should you be controlling your lovers' choices, in any sense other than having a say in sexual safety. Your title uses the word "force" in a way that demonstrates that you are clearly against such use of force; then, by extension, the only permissible use of the word "permit" (no pun intended) is in the realm of sexual safety.

Back to OP - try to look forward to better days rather than look backwards to lament opportunities and connections not pursued due to the belief in monogamy. Otherwise it will be too depressing a walk down memory lane - I can tell you, given that I spent close to two decades total in monogamy. It is incredibly depressing to think both of what you lost and what your potential partners lost due to your belief in monogamy. Way too depressing.

[hamster-bamster]

Originally Posted by High Treason

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this issue, Hamster. However, your response is completely off topic. Maybe you meant to post in the other thread that is actually about condoms? That's not what this discussion is about.

I do not know what kind of a discussion you expect to ignite, though - as stated, the thread's strongly worded title does not allow for a discussion, because, quite clearly, you cannot both love a person and force anything against their will. It is another thing when both people want to be mutually monogamous (which comes with its own can of worms, but at least does not involve force). Yet another thing when one partner asks, nicely, for sexual exclusivity. That request can be entertained. But "force"?..

That sounds fine if it works for both partners. I disagree with whether monogamy is natural or unnatural or whether that is even an issue.
Most of us choose to be faithful when we take a life partner and the expectation is that our partner chooses it as well.
Most of us don't feel the need for anyone to choose for us or tell us that our choice is unnatural
No offense but what you're saying sounds like a rationalization of behavior. If you have an open marriage and your partner agrees to it, that's great but I find it odd that you feel the need to bring the rest of us into it.

[hamster-bamster]

Originally Posted by High Treason

While I used to think that having a woman "cheat" on me would be like the worst thing to happen ever, I now can't imagine demanding that (1) a woman I am involved with restrict her sexual activity only to me, and I wouldn't want to be with (2) anyone who would try to do that to me either.

that is very nicely put, in that you FIRST care about your partner's choices and only then, secondarily, about yours. Very very nice, indeed, and commendable.

To George - people who rationalize their behavior typically simply cheat while citing any law of nature that fits comfortably. Many go much further by rationalizing cheating for themselves while using a double standard with their spouses - a very common scenario in ostensibly monogamous couples.

HT is not doing any of that.

That said, the natural/unnatural talk is probably not the most helpful due to the fact that "natural" is so poorly defined and so much abused as a word (cyanide is natural, too, but we still should not consume it). HT, can we talk about it without referencing the laws of nature? Because if we try so hard to be natural, we might just end up without the Internet - the Internet is not natural.

However, I don't see why we shouldn't be permitted to have sex with other people sometimes, too.

Sounds a lot like rationalizing to me but I'll defer to the resident sexual expert It just isn't worth arguing about.

[unaluna]

You rang??

[High Treason]

Originally Posted by hamster-bamster

I think it was on topic, because you used to the words "permit" and "allow" in OP. I do not think that your partner should have a right to permit or allow you to have sex with others - it is your life and the choices are yours; true love is non-possessive anyway, so people should not control their partners' sexual choices. However, people also have a right to sexual safety, and, as a corollary, have a say in what you do, sexually, with others. I assumed that you used the words "permit" and "allow" in that sense, and hence the mention of condoms was on topic. If, however, you used the words "permit" and "allow" in any sense other than "have a say in sexual safety", then you contradicted yourself. Your lovers should not be controlling you to the point of permitting/allowing things in any sense other than by reiterating your responsibility for their sexual well-being; nor should you be controlling your lovers' choices, in any sense other than having a say in sexual safety. Your title uses the word "force" in a way that demonstrates that you are clearly against such use of force; then, by extension, the only permissible use of the word "permit" (no pun intended) is in the realm of sexual safety.

Back to OP - try to look forward to better days rather than look backwards to lament opportunities and connections not pursued due to the belief in monogamy. Otherwise it will be too depressing a walk down memory lane - I can tell you, given that I spent close to two decades total in monogamy. It is incredibly depressing to think both of what you lost and what your potential partners lost due to your belief in monogamy. Way too depressing.

Yes, sexual safety is an issue related to sexual promiscuity. I do believe it is a bit of a tangent from the core issue here, though, which is why I wanted to put a stop to that discussion before it got started and derailed the thread. I also would like to make clear that this is not a thread about me specifically. I included details about my life only as examples. So it's not a thread about me lamenting my past monogamous life. I don't. In fact, I feel a great deal of freedom to have moved past that, but I don't sit around regretting my past. That would be a waste of time.

What I would like to discuss is monogamy in general and basically why people would ever choose it because it doesn't seem to make sense when it's really thought through thoroughly.

Your definitions of "permit" and "allow" are not definitions of those words I am familiar with. I looked those words up in a dictionary just now, and I see no definitions of either one that mean "to be concerned about the possible consequences of something" or "have a say in the safety of something." I suspect you have just invented those definitions in order to make a case for your first post being on topic.

Anyway, what I mean by "permit" and "allow" is the normal definitions of those words: to give permission, consent, or authorization. There is no contradiction because I do believe based on my own past experience as a monogamist and through speaking with countless other people who are monogamous that people in monogamous relationships do not feel they are permitted to have sex with other people and do not believe their partner is permitted to do so either. The fact that you don't believe this is right in a healthy relationship just means that you agree with me. Monogamists, pretty much by definition, do not agree with me and believe that it is acceptable for a partner to have the power to deny permission to have extra-relationship sex.

Furthermore, the great majority of monogamists are not monogamists because they are trying to avoid sexual risk. This is an after-the-fact reason a lot of them will give but it's more just an excuse they throw out to avoid having to think about their beliefs.

Imagine the following conversation between a monogamous couple:

Joe: I had sex with your best friend last night
Jane: Oh my god, you a**hole, we're through!
Joe: Oh no, don't worry, she showed me a copy of a very recent STD screening and we used a condom.
Jane: Oh! Ok, never mind. Sorry I overreacted. Carry on then.

If you think that conversation is evenly remotely plausible among monogamists, then I don't know what to say because you clearly live in a different universe than me. It is simply not true that monogamists are that way because they are trying to be safe. That is not the core reason. I suspect the real reason is just socialization, brainwashing if you will. We are just taught from an early age that that is the "right" way to do things and people don't question it. But that's pretty much why I started this thread. I want to know if there are people who can think of good reasons for being monogamous.

[High Treason]

Originally Posted by hamster-bamster

I do not know what kind of a discussion you expect to ignite, though - as stated, the thread's strongly worded title does not allow for a discussion, because, quite clearly, you cannot both love a person and force anything against their will. It is another thing when both people want to be mutually monogamous (which comes with its own can of worms, but at least does not involve force). Yet another thing when one partner asks, nicely, for sexual exclusivity. That request can be entertained. But "force"?..

There are different levels of force. I don't mean physical force, obviously. Your partner is not generally following you around pulling you off people you are about to have sex with. However, if I were to put a gun to your head and say "sing Yankee Doodle or I shoot you" then that would be force. It is giving you a choice between something highly undesirable (death) and something you just simply don't want to do. Similarly, if I say to my girlfriend or wife "Don't have sex with anyone else or I will leave you" that is force. Presumably if she is my girlfriend or wife in the first place, she does not want me to leave her, so she does what I say. That is force. And yes in a lot of relationships, there is one person in the relationship who really wants monogamy and another person who feels forced into it for fear of losing the relationship. Both people are just victims of socialization, though. The monogamous person doesn't really know why she wants monogamy and the person who doesn't really want it doesn't really know why he feels like he has to accept monogamy. It's just that that's the only option a lot of people have ever even considered.

[High Treason]

Originally Posted by George H.

That sounds fine if it works for both partners. I disagree with whether monogamy is natural or unnatural or whether that is even an issue.
Most of us choose to be faithful when we take a life partner and the expectation is that our partner chooses it as well.
Most of us don't feel the need for anyone to choose for us or tell us that our choice is unnatural
No offense but what you're saying sounds like a rationalization of behavior. If you have an open marriage and your partner agrees to it, that's great but I find it odd that you feel the need to bring the rest of us into it.

First of all, I am not trying to condemn anyone for their choices. Your choices are your choices to make. I am also not trying to convince anyone not to be monogamous. However, I do intend to rigorously argue my case and if someone ends up being convinced, then so be it.

You seem to take offense to your actions being called "unnatural." I don't see why. Not killing someone you are mad at is also unnatural. Driving a car is pretty unnatural. We do things that are not natural all the time. All I'm saying is that when we decide to do things that are against our nature (and yes I do maintain that long term monogamy is against our nature) we should have a good reason for it. I just want to know what the reason is for monogamy.

By the way, while we're on the subject of monogamy being natural, there are very few animals in nature that are monogamous. In fact, some of the few animals that we have long believed to be monogamous have recently been discovered not to be. Yes, they keep the same mate for life but also have sex with others on the side. Many biologists now believe that the only animals that are naturally monogamous are the ones that physically bond together during the mating process or don't tend to survive it.

[High Treason]

Originally Posted by hamster-bamster

that is very nicely put, in that you FIRST care about your partner's choices and only then, secondarily, about yours. Very very nice, indeed, and commendable.

To George - people who rationalize their behavior typically simply cheat while citing any law of nature that fits comfortably. Many go much further by rationalizing cheating for themselves while using a double standard with their spouses - a very common scenario in ostensibly monogamous couples.

It's kind of funny that when I talk to people in person about this, I often get monogamists coming back at me with "Yeah of course you want to sleep with other women, but what would you do if your girlfriend was sleeping with another man? huh?" and thinking they have somehow refuted my position. I tell them "I would ask her to be safe about it and to let me know where she is going to be in case she runs into any problems." These people are usually dumbfounded because they're just not able to conceive of a situation in which someone could be fine with that. They usually conclude that I'm just lying.

Originally Posted by hamster-bamster

That said, the natural/unnatural talk is probably not the most helpful due to the fact that "natural" is so poorly defined and so much abused as a word (cyanide is natural, too, but we still should not consume it). HT, can we talk about it without referencing the laws of nature? Because if we try so hard to be natural, we might just end up without the Internet - the Internet is not natural.

See what I have to say above about the natural/unnatural thing. I'm not some hippie who tries to argue that everything natural is great and that unnatural things are bad. I'm just saying that if something is natural for a species to do, and there's no real harm in doing it, I don't see a reason not to do it.

You seem to take offense to your actions being called "unnatural." I don't see why. Not killing someone you are mad at is also unnatural.

I'm not taking offense... just questioning that it's important to categorize it as natural or unnatural.
I'm a live and let live kinda guy. If it works for you and your partner that's fine. Not my business anyway.
I think that not killing someone I'm mad at is very natural. I think we may have different concepts on what is natural. It isn't in my nature to kill when I'm angry.
There must be some reason you posted. If it isn't to rationalize your thinking or convert others to you point of view then what? Just an intellectual discussion?
Sorry but I just realized what forum I'm in. There must have been some site changes this weekend. Time to reblock forums...

[lynn P.]

"How can you love someone and force then to be monogamous?" I can speak on this issue because of a choice my own husband made 8 yrs ago. His religion permits more than one wife, but most don't do it and we had a deal it wouldn't be done. I have nothing against polygamist marriages or poly-amorous partnerships, as long as all adults are consenting. Consent is the key word here. If its consenting, its not cheating. What I'm against is being forced into a polyamorous or polygamist arrangement against ones will.

Many people expect monogamy and can abide by this effortlessly. Personally I wouldn't want to be with anyone else and could do this for a lifetime. Once I commit, I could be in a room of great looking naked men and come out loyal. I do understand your concern if the person's a virgin and then never has any other experience - that happened to me. This is why its preferred to "sow ones oats" prior to an official commitment.

I want to ask you. Are you willing to be honest from the start of a serious partnership that you'll be having other partners? Being honest will prevent women from being hurt. If you are, then that's fine and just hope that you'll all practice safe sex. Imagine if you draw a diagram of all your hook ups and theirs - that's a great deal of exposure. Cheating is making a partner think you're monogamous........ but if its an open relationship or polygamous relationship, its not cheating. Consent is the key word.

[High Treason]

Originally Posted by George H.

There must be some reason you posted. If it isn't to rationalize your thinking or convert others to you point of view then what?

I posted to ask the question that is the title of this thread.

How can you love someone and force them to be monogamous?

It's something that I honestly don't understand and would like for people to attempt to explain. I have mentioned that in my case, when I was a monogamist, it was mainly out of ignorance and brainwashing. I just hadn't seriously considered any other way and was stuck in a rut of unproductive thinking.

Monogamy is something you can choose for yourself. You can decide to never have sex with anyone besides one person. But how can you justify expecting it of your partner and still claim to love that person? That seems like a contradiction to me. I love you, so I shall imprison you into a life of only having sex with me forever until you die! That sounds downright malicious. It doesn't sound like love.

So, once again, the point of the thread is to get answers to the question from monogamists. How can you love someone and force them to be monogamous?

[lynn P.]

I'll try to answer your question. I believe in monogamy for myself - I truly don't want another man if I'm being fulfilled sexually and emotionally. If I truly love then I don't want anther man and don't feel deprived. True no one should be forced into monogamy if it doesn't come willingly - same as I should be forced into accepting this from my partner if he doesn't want to be loyal. Its natural for me and its fine if its not natural for you. I just hope you'll find other who believe the same to avoid hurting other women. I believe in a deep connection (love) and when that's happening I don't want anyone else.

[High Treason]

Originally Posted by lynn P.

I have nothing against polygamist marriages or poly-amorous partnerships, as long as all adults are consenting.

Personally I wouldn't want to be with anyone else and could do this for a lifetime.

Are you willing to be honest from the start of a serious partnership that you'll be having other partners?

Yes, no rational person could possibly have anything against a relationship they have nothing to do with. Sure, there are plenty of irrational people who do, but it's impossibly to have a productive discussion with irrational people, so we'll not make provisions for them within our conversation. However, the question is not whether you mind if other people have open relationships. The question is why you would attempt to impose a closed relationship upon your partner you claim to love if he didn't want it.

As I've said, you are certainly allowed to make that decision for yourself. But why are you allowed to make that decision for your partner?

Yes, I would be honest about the expected terms of a relationship before agreeing to be in one. Only a fool would accept any agreement without being fully aware of its terms, and that goes for a relationship just as much as a business contract. That doesn't mean I'm going to bring it up on the first date, or second, or fifth. It doesn't mean I'm going to bring it up before having sex with someone for the first time, either. But when the topic of a committed relationship comes up, I definitely make it clear that sexual exclusivity is not part of that arrangement. Sexual exclusivity is not commitment. It's just sexual exclusivity. Commitment is something else entirely.

[lynn P.]

Originally Posted by High Treason

Yes, no rational person could possibly have anything against a relationship they have nothing to do with. Sure, there are plenty of irrational people who do, but it's impossibly to have a productive discussion with irrational people, so we'll not make provisions for them within our conversation. However, the question is not whether you mind if other people have open relationships. The question is why you would attempt to impose a closed relationship upon your partner you claim to love if he didn't want it.

As I've said, you are certainly allowed to make that decision for yourself. But why are you allowed to make that decision for your partner?

Yes, I would be honest about the expected terms of a relationship before agreeing to be in one. Only a fool would accept any agreement without being fully aware of its terms, and that goes for a relationship just as much as a business contract. That doesn't mean I'm going to bring it up on the first date, or second, or fifth. It doesn't mean I'm going to bring it up before having sex with someone for the first time, either. But when the topic of a committed relationship comes up, I definitely make it clear that sexual exclusivity is not part of that arrangement. Sexual exclusivity is not commitment. It's just sexual exclusivity. Commitment is something else entirely.

The question is why you would attempt to impose a closed relationship upon your partner you claim to love if he didn't want it.

I met my husband when I was 18 ....married at 25 and after 30 yrs he decided to marry another religiously speaking and cut me off in the physical department. We had a deal and he agreed to monogamy....he did want it and I didn't impose it on him. I didn't force him but he tried to force me to tolerate this and not be with anyone else. If I'm monogamous, I have the choice to find a partner who also wants the same - he did want the same and went back on the agreement. I can't be attracted to a man who has sex with other women therefore I stopped loving him. I wouldn't force anyone to be monogamous - its has to be natural and a choice.

[High Treason]

Originally Posted by lynn P.

True no one should be forced into monogamy if it doesn't come willingly - same as I should be forced into accepting this from my partner if he doesn't want to be loyal.

I believe in a deep connection (love) and when that's happening I don't want anyone else.

We crossed streams a bit in our last posts :-)

I'll just point out two sentences I feel are a bit weird in your last post. In the first sentence, you equate not being sexually exclusive with not being "loyal." How do you make this leap? I can think of no connection between having sex with someone exclusively and being loyal to that person. Not only is it possible to be loyal and still have sex with other people, but it is also possible to not be loyal and yet remain sexually exclusive with the person. Loyalty and sexual exclusivity have no relationship as far as I can tell.

It seems you default to talking about why you want to be sexually exclusive yourself, not why you want your partner to be. I can understand why someone would want to be sexually exclusive. That's not what I'm trying to discover. What I don't understand is why someone would expect their partner to be as a condition of the relationship.