Just Between Us...
When two people decide they will be sleeping with no other, it becomes a commitment. Sometimes it is unspoken, others it is discussed, and still others it is less than mutual. What is so often not considered or noticed is that mutual monogamy has responsibilities on both ends of its spectrum, not cheating and alleviating the want to cheat. This is not a gender specific issue, it’s a responsibility issue anytime you enter into a contract (commitment) there are benefits and responsibilities, if there is one without the other then you should probably reconsider your position in that contract. So let’s break down the concepts involved here…
First let’s define monogamy, even though I am relatively certain everyone knows what it means whether they admit it or not.
mo·nog·a·my
Function: noun
Etymology: French monogamie, from Late Latin monogamia, from Greek, from monogamos monogamous, from mon- + gamos marriage, from gamein to marry
1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
2 : the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time
As with most conditions or status’ involving more than one person there are attributes that have to be upheld to keep the title accurate. Primarily you have to not have sex with anyone other than the specific partner. Sex in this sense (to me) would include anything intimate; kissing, affectionate holding, romantic interludes, fucking, oral copulation, pretty much anything you wouldn’t want to see your partner doing with someone else. Ok now we all knew that but to define it is to insure it. On to what this is all about.
The current expectation, it seems, of people in a monogamous relationship is that the partner will not under any circumstances break the rule of this commitment. People seem to think they can pull a few months of “not in the mood” and its ok, or deny their partner affection, attention, concern, and/or courtesy just because they don’t feel the need. This is wrong, and more importantly it is not conducive to maintaining the commitment. To me the prerequisites of maintaining a monogamous relationship are that you have to cooperate in the needs of your partner. This includes basic attention; conversation, basic affections, (at least) occasional sexual relations. If one of the individuals involved drops their end of the responsibility they should not be shocked nor upset when the other finds what they need elsewhere. You can not expect someone to go to an empty well for water forever. Too often I see men and women who will not act in accordance with the contract they have entered and assume it’s not their problem, and worse, get extremely self righteous when their partner alleviates his/her unacknowledged desires outside of the partnership. It’s just wrong.
For the sake of clarity, this does not mean that it’s okay to cheat. If your partner is having a (singular) bad day and is not up to catering to your needs you should deal with it, more specifically you should cater to them instead. It does not mean that you should just randomly go and work it out while still maintaining the illusion of a partnership either, if someone finds themselves in this situation they should make it known, and work it out. Working it out does include, but is not limited to, ending the partnership. This also does not mean that there can’t be circumstances that generate the inability to adhere to the two way aspect of this, use your judgment. For any partnership to work all (both) parties have to understand the guidelines and the limitations, not just hold on to the expectation of the bottom line.
Closing thought; I am monogamous myself, if I decide it’s not working out I end it or give them the option to end it or work things out, but either way I don’t cheat. However, I would not expect someone to not cheat on me if I were unwilling to supply the needs for extended periods of time. This is by no means a cut and dry thing, but it’s my guideline and I stand by it.
First let’s define monogamy, even though I am relatively certain everyone knows what it means whether they admit it or not.
mo·nog·a·my
Function: noun
Etymology: French monogamie, from Late Latin monogamia, from Greek, from monogamos monogamous, from mon- + gamos marriage, from gamein to marry
1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
2 : the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time
As with most conditions or status’ involving more than one person there are attributes that have to be upheld to keep the title accurate. Primarily you have to not have sex with anyone other than the specific partner. Sex in this sense (to me) would include anything intimate; kissing, affectionate holding, romantic interludes, fucking, oral copulation, pretty much anything you wouldn’t want to see your partner doing with someone else. Ok now we all knew that but to define it is to insure it. On to what this is all about.
The current expectation, it seems, of people in a monogamous relationship is that the partner will not under any circumstances break the rule of this commitment. People seem to think they can pull a few months of “not in the mood” and its ok, or deny their partner affection, attention, concern, and/or courtesy just because they don’t feel the need. This is wrong, and more importantly it is not conducive to maintaining the commitment. To me the prerequisites of maintaining a monogamous relationship are that you have to cooperate in the needs of your partner. This includes basic attention; conversation, basic affections, (at least) occasional sexual relations. If one of the individuals involved drops their end of the responsibility they should not be shocked nor upset when the other finds what they need elsewhere. You can not expect someone to go to an empty well for water forever. Too often I see men and women who will not act in accordance with the contract they have entered and assume it’s not their problem, and worse, get extremely self righteous when their partner alleviates his/her unacknowledged desires outside of the partnership. It’s just wrong.
For the sake of clarity, this does not mean that it’s okay to cheat. If your partner is having a (singular) bad day and is not up to catering to your needs you should deal with it, more specifically you should cater to them instead. It does not mean that you should just randomly go and work it out while still maintaining the illusion of a partnership either, if someone finds themselves in this situation they should make it known, and work it out. Working it out does include, but is not limited to, ending the partnership. This also does not mean that there can’t be circumstances that generate the inability to adhere to the two way aspect of this, use your judgment. For any partnership to work all (both) parties have to understand the guidelines and the limitations, not just hold on to the expectation of the bottom line.
Closing thought; I am monogamous myself, if I decide it’s not working out I end it or give them the option to end it or work things out, but either way I don’t cheat. However, I would not expect someone to not cheat on me if I were unwilling to supply the needs for extended periods of time. This is by no means a cut and dry thing, but it’s my guideline and I stand by it.
posted by Capt. Obvious at 7:52 AM
7 Comments:
i have nothing left to say here capt =]
people think they can have everything with an effort on their behalf. no such a thing as a free lunch.
hehe, yeah this really is not one of my better write-ups, I have been wanting to get back to ranting but the Muse has left me for the time being so I have just been writing whatever is on my mind, and in this case I am not real content with the outcome :/
shrug the idea was sound but the execution left something to be desired....
Can't fault this. Yes yes and yes.
I think you wrote a very apt piece. If this is you writing whatever is on your mind I love your mind.I think it is hard to generalise but it is always good to start off with a definite idea of how you want a committment to pan out.
I agree with the needs based part of your post. I think the dedication to the relationship includes meeting the needs of the other, not just constantly thinking of self. That is probably the most important part of what you said. You still have to give when you don't 'feel' like it, sometimes..doing it out of love and care.
When illness comes along somethings have to be put 'on hold' and that needs to be made clear. When Clem became chronically ill for a period of months and it drew into years we needed to talk about my needs and his requirements and what had to happen. That drew us closer together and so there was no 'going somewhere else' because the understanding and respect was there. Patience is a great gift and is rewarded.
Thanks for all these thoughts. You are a wonderful writer.
'Needs' stretch across an entire relationship tho' - not just the physical. For a woman in particular - sex drive (in general) is the first to go when other needs are not being met.
Just my thoughts.
right on Blue!
From personal exsperiance, most people don't allow their other the chance to meet their needs when they arn't being met. By this I mean half the time one doesn't let the other know their needs arn't being met.
all interesting, sorry I took a few days off and have only now gotten back to my daily routine :)
I did want to reply to Bluebolt though...
although for men (like me) we tend to relate "Needs" to sex, but I really was not specifying sex in this case I used the word "Needs" in the general sence.. intending to cover everything from the need for closeness, space, conversation, concern, trips to teh mall... etc.. sorry for the lack of clarity.
Post a Comment
<< Home