Caveats for Monogamy

This discussion began as blog post on Tribe.net and developed from there.

---

Part I: High-Fidelity Living

My partner, Jai, suggested and we dissolve any NON-SHARED internet-friend-links, dialogs, and real-world friendships with any outstanding gay (male) friends. So, private communications, meeting separately, and establishing exclusive friendships with any other gay men is strictly forbidden in our relationship; basically, any friendship where we are both not active friends of said gay male. But still, I was very ambivalent to the overall premise and I argued intensely for what didn't seem right about it. Was it that Jai simply was so jealous (a character trait that he and I both share) that he couldn't trust me to hold my own in a non-sexual gay friendship?

I truly don't believe it a very good thing for any MONOGAMOUSLY focused partnership (the rules would be completely different for those who pursue polyamory or open relationships--I just have no desire for such modes of relating at this juncture) to carry on a separate discourse with folks who might suggest or perpetrate sexual advances and provide a threat (to any degree) to that CLOSED UNION. I look to my parents, or other stable monogamous partnerships, and I can see a kind of absurdity if one partner spent time developing separate emotional/personal connections with some other (possibly) sexually-open entity. While I do trust my partner, I know nothing about person-X and I don't know if they would take the step to initiate something that my own partner, if say temporarily persuaded might regret and NEVER be able to take back. Why tempt fate in that way? Two, I would be riddled with jealously and question what this other emotional bond with another gay man fulfilled? Three, I believe it more than easy to create the necessary friendships in my life with other females and straight men where the sexual X-factor is not evoked for either partner or party.

I can think of a recent example where I was friends with another gay guy on tribe.net and Jai extended an invitation for friendship to this fellow and he was refused for some reason or another. I have to say I am immediately suspicious of gay men who want to monopolize my attention and exclude my partner--especially the olive branch of tribe.net friendship (which is a withered branch at that). At one point, when Jai an I were on the rocks, this friend and I exchanged some flirtatious messages, so I know on some level that an attraction or sexual experience could have emerged if action had been made toward that end. In all fairness, I called this person and described that, despire our airs of flirtation, I am no longer interested in having instantaneous sexual relations with anyone at this point (I've been there, done that, as so many newly de-closted gay men do, and I consider sex on the first encounter a highly vapid and heart-hardening affair). So, I have unlinked this friend on tribe, and rightly so, I believe. On some level, I regret that we cannot still share the positive, asexual elements of our friendship any longer, but I gladly cash in that cyber-dialog to remove the caustic elements from my most-valued and ONLY relationship.

As a final word: I'm glad that I'm neither bisexually inclined, nor dating a bisexual man.

Any thoughts or comments on this ideology? I'd be interested in what folks have to say on the matter...

---

I received this Comment from my friend, Brad:

"I have some opinions to share on the manner

1) I don't place any value on this "tempting of fate" ideal. If you and your partner are truly meant to be monogomous, then you will be that way no matter what comes up. A relationship that is closed but untested is less valuble than an enduring relationship that is tested.

2) It is unhealthy for any relationship in which the pair do not have some seperate lives or friends. Everyone needs this seperation to get a fresh perspective. Is it right for you to not have any gay friends because you are in a relationship? Should a straight guy not have any girl-friends because he is in a relationship? By no means. you/we/everyone needs seperation from their partner in order to thrive on their own and not everyone you want to be friends with will want to be friends with your partner and vice versa.

3) A monogomous relationship is built on trust, not control and jelousy. As far as long term relationships go, if one or more partners is overtly jelous and cannot respect the other, it will eventualy cause there to be cheating 9 times out of 10. When someone is jelous of what you are doing all the time it is like they are saying, "I do not find you fit for my trust."

4) perhaps the one gay male you were talking to on tribe had a feeling for you but that does not mean that all gay males will so you should not avoid friendships with that part of the population that you share something important in common with."

---

Part II: Doing It Together Not Apart

Thank you, Brad, I really appreciate your input and commentary! And I personally disagree and wonder about much of it:

Brad says:
"1) I don't place any value on this "tempting of fate" ideal. If you and your partner are truly meant to be monogomous, then you will be that way no matter what comes up. A relationship that is closed but untested is less valuble than an enduring relationship that is tested."

To me, that's like saying, "I'm lactose intolerant and tonight I'm ordering a double-cheese pizza and milkshake" even though you have the choice of a hamburger, fries and a coke. Or, in a more serious example, say I'm a recovered meth addict, should I start hanging out with all of my still-abusing friends again? Is there really "no value" in the idea of tempting your fate? Is there no value in considering whether or not you are placing yourself in harmful situtions for your health--be it physical, emotional, or relationship health. I consider this to be essential to respecting youself and your body. In the above hypothetical cases, you are harming yourself by tempting fate; in a monogamous relationship, you have to take two people into account. And if you fail the "test" in the context of a relationship, just one slip could (or would) ruin everything. Is it worth it?

On another level, maybe you can explain the merits of intentionally testing out situations where you have a high likeliness of slipping and failing. What are you proving with this test of will? I'd call this taking unnecessary risks, and in that case, isn't it logical to avoid potentially-harmful situations unless you find that the situation merits putting your health and well-being on the line the sake of some truly noble and higher purpose? Then again, some of us are sadomasochistic and simply enjoy pain. How does a relationship lose value for not being additionally tested? And no relationship is without its share of tests by the very nature of two people. There are so many trials and tribulations that a marriage must face (over 60% of people who get married get divorced). I just don't see what's so good about adding any extra hurdles to an already difficult situation. I would argue that monogamy is not easy in any way to maintain and that it does require forethought, sacrifice, and true grit to make it work. I know that I feel a whole lot safer knowing that my partner is NOT out there testing over and over to see if he can resist higher and higher orders of danger to our relationship.

Brad says:
"2) It is unhealthy for any relationship in which the pair do not have some seperate lives or friends. Everyone needs this seperation to get a fresh perspective. Is it right for you to not have any gay friends because you are in a relationship? Should a straight guy not have any girl-friends because he is in a relationship? By no means. you/we/everyone needs seperation from their partner in order to thrive on their own and not everyone you want to be friends with will want to be friends with your partner and vice versa."

A Straight Scenario:
First, my arguments so far have little or nothing to do with homosexual vs. straight monogamy, per se, so I will make this part of my argument from the perspective of a straight woman. Second, I think it's highly questionable if my guy needs to spend private time alone with another single, straight girl and I am in no way invited, included, or asked to participate in the interplay. I would feel very jealous and worried even if I did trust my man a lot. Especially, I would be wary of my boyfriend hanging around with someone who explicitly has stated the judgment that they don't want to be my friend. And even though I do trust my guy, how much could I trust this stranger who doesn't like me to be with my boyfriend alone? Or maybe, if he absolutely must be with this other person (I'd like to know a good reason...), couldn't he arrange for a hang-out at the house where I'm off in my bedroom, and you guys hang around the house together, watching a movie or something, and catching up on conversation? OR at a social event that all three of us attend where there will be ample opportunities for hanging out together and apart, but we'll all be in the same PUBLIC space together. I'd be very suspicious if my boyfriend needed private and unobserved time alone with another girl. At the very least, could another third-party person that I trust, and that she likes well enough, accompany you two on whatever event you are doing with the stranger who doesn't like me? I believe there are ways to be mindful and considerate to make these questionable encounters as least damaging as possible. But I do concede that not every friend I have will want to be a friend of my love--I live that scenario.

I do believe in some exceptions and allowances: for one, if the friend is a long-term friend who precedes the existing relationship or is in their own long-term relationship AND STILL, why shouldn't your existing partner be involved and included in the social gathering? Or the gathering rescheduled to include your partner? If you need to blab about your partner with this less-than-desirable candidate, do it over the telephone, or by e-mail, if you must keep hold of this time-honored friendship. Another case comes to mind is that if you are at a party or gathering or vacation that your partner just cannot attend (again, I still say, why not just wait for a time you can go together?) and there are obviously people there that fit the sexually-compatible category I describe, you just have to do the best you can and rely on that firm trust which already exists. The trust will tend to hold it together, and that leads me to the next point...

Another argument I will make is about MINIMIZATION of RISK: you cannot avoid every single other sexually-compatible person in the world because your partner isn't present with you. My overall argument is about minimizing risk as much as possible and taking consideration for the feelings and security that your partner enjoys. There will be times when you have to hang out, leave town, go places where you are forced to be one-on-one with an alternate (and sexually-compatible) companion for some reason or another, but please just take the time check in with me, reassure me. A little bit of effort can make an already bad situation much less unpleasant.

Another tertiary idea came to be is that we live in a culture where people tend to drink and use drugs as a component of social recreation. So, even if I trust my partner, I know that behaviors such as drinking lead to a lowering of inhibition and an erosion of better judgment than they might normally have. I think it's important if you are faced with the situation of being with another person who is not your partner, that you tend to refrain from these kind of acts that might impair your reasoning and lead you to doing regrettable actions that you just can't take back. Maybe you can forgive yourself in the end, but don't expect your partner to take, "I was drunk and I didn't know it would go that far" as an excuse. Again, I think this plays into what I see as the overall value of the "tempting fate" argument, and I suggest that you make agreements not to do activities that destroy your better judgment as much as possible unless you want to increase the risk of ruining your monogamous coupling. We all have to take responsibility, and if you do screw up because of one too many screwdrivers, I think you deserve to be booted to the curb by your monogamous partner.

Also, I have absolutely no argument against having social outlets and friends; just about being mindful of the pool of friends that you choose from. In my case, as a monogamous-gay man, I can find many women and straight guys who fit the bill (as I said in the original post). And it's easier, since I'm an introvert, I only need a few close friends in order to satisfy my social appetite.

Another example, I would find it very strange if I observed my dad was planning dates with another woman and my mom wasn't invited or included. Or if my dad was spending his free time writing letters and having phone calls with other women. In fact, I've never seen anything like that happen with my parents. My dad has his guy friends and they provide him with an outlet for time and space away from mom to vent, relax, have fun, and express his human need for autonomy. Again, I believe very strongly in maintaining social outlets beyond your partnership, but stress being selective about who you are choosing the best that you can to satisfy both your social needs and your partner's peace of mind.

Brad says:
"3) A monogomous relationship is built on trust, not control and jelousy. As far as long term relationships go, if one or more partners is overtly jelous and cannot respect the other, it will eventualy cause there to be cheating 9 times out of 10. When someone is jelous of what you are doing all the time it is like they are saying, "I do not find you fit for my trust."

I wholly agree about OBSESSIVE jealousy being a plague to a relationship. If you are always saying, "You are cheating on me with her!" or "I tried calling you at work, and you were out for an hour, who were you F*cking?!" you are eventually going to drive your partner crazy and lead them to cheat most likely. This will KILL a relationship. However, I think a moderate jealously is a natural feeling that can arise in a healthy and acceptable way. I know that I would get jealous if someone came up and started flirting with my boyfriend enticing, "Hey sexy boy" and grabbing his ass. Isn't that normal, or am I crazy? If I were to go home and start screaming and yelling, "You F*cking bastard, son-of-a-bitch, you wanted to fuck that kid, I know it you goddamn....on and on" and accusing you day-in and day-out of not being trustworthy...that's what I mean by obsessive jealousy. But the pang of jealousy from someone else hitting on your partner seems like a very human and natural response to me, one showing that I care about who is my beloved, my one-and-only, and I have the right to be protective (but not obsessively over-protective) of my relationship which I care deeply for maintaining. Jealousy is measured in degrees, not dichotomies, from apathetic not caring, to normal concern, to obsessive insanity. I'd hope, deep down, that my partner would feel a little jealousy if they saw some hunk trying to woo me. If he didn't care at all about how much I flirted and others flirted with me, I would have a real double-take and question how much this guy really cared about being my one-and-only. There's a way to express and set boundaries in a calm and honest way that I consider the pinnacle of respect and reasonability.


Brad says:
"4) perhaps the one gay male you were talking to on tribe had a feeling for you but that does not mean that all gay males will so you should not avoid friendships with that part of the population that you share something important in common with."

First, bring on the lesbians. Second, so far, the sole aspect of being "gay" has never really been the reason that I've created a bond with anyone in my life. Some kind of united gay culture is a MYTH. If anything, the "gay community" tends to be comprised of liars and actors...and I don't say this to be mean; this is the sad after-effect of repression--spending years and years lying about who you are to everyone you love the most, friends and family, makes you an expert liar and actor. To be honest, once I know a guy is gay, I know, well this is a person who *might* consider having sex with me. Not much more. Gays come in all personality types and backgrounds--some agreeable for me and others not. Also, there's another bad tendency I've noticed in gay congregations: I'm not sure if this is common in straight club culture or not, but I've seen many gay men who enjoy the challenge of breaking a couple up by attempting to hit on you and cast seeds of doubt into your mind about your partner. Just for the hell of it to see if they can stir up the shit. I've personally experienced this, and this is another reason I don't go to gay bars much anymore with or without my partner. I think it's sad and despicable behavior and I choose to avoid these activities. I love dancing at a club, but I can do that at a straight bar just as well. If I'm at a gay bar, it's because I'm looking for a pick-up and not trying to preserve my monogamous relationship.

Being gay doesn't create any kind of common history or brotherhood or compatriotism of purpose. In fact, as far as most gay men go, I have much less in common with them than I do with most of my straight friends. It's like knowing that someone else is "white--" does that mean, we are now in some exclusive and important brotherhood together? Oh, that already exists, it's called the Ku Klux Klan. I care about the more profound and richer inner textures of PEOPLE as I know them, not sexual orientations, ethnicities, or all the other shit they put on Equal Opportunity Employment forms (which is usually a joke and a lie in and of itself as employers choose often based on the exact qualities they 'claim' not to discriminate against--but how can it be proven in most cases?).

As a final note, my arguments are designed from the perspective of a monogamous man who wants to retain his monogamous relationship in the most responsible and mindful way. To explore the concept of how to maintain and respect your monogamous relationship to the fullest is a very interesting topic and I love some of the controvery it has already generated. I have absolutely nothing against non-monogamous couplings, triads, or orgies, as long as all the parties involved are consensual, honest, and willing to work together in any alternative-relationship modality. Thank you again, to Brad, for the points you have raised in this debate.

Responses, Counter-arguments, and any Comments are welcome....
Justin

----

NEW ADDITIONS! ***MARCH 14th, 2006***

First Some Responses to Part II:

BRAD (SHADOW-SPAWN):

"You raise some valid and true points in many of the arguments but I will address #4 which I find to be the most contestable.

you say, "some kind of united gay culture is a myth."

This is simply false. The gay community in my experience has had a lot of networking in politics, health, and furthering the notion that gay people deserve to be treated without discrimination. Gay groups lobby in washington to further gay rights, gay groups all over the world parade/fundraise/ and get together to support their causes. In San Francisco where I live, the gay community is greatly united, distributing education paphlets and supplies for safe sex, and doing many things in SF to keep the image of gay people to be a good one in this high tourist area where they are judged by people from all over the world. I personally am getting involved here in this united gay community by preparing to participate in a fundraising run that will help make money to support aids research. I am not gay, but I choose to support this united community becauyse I see the benefit of it. If you came to San Francisco on any of the several "gay days", "pride awarness days," or fundraising events, you would find that a united gay community is alive and strong and a good thing.
A final note on this topic is that you make referance to how coming togehter having pride for being gay is like coming together having pride for being white as the klu klux klan. There is no comparison, do not even go there. The gay community that comes together is more tolerant about race and religion than most other groups, it does not generally hate outsiders like the klu klux klan nor does it advocate violence to others. It stands more on acceptance and compassion.

you say, "The gay community tends to be comprised of liars and actors."

I say this is a gross generalization and it does nothing but reinforce your idea that the united gay community is a myth. It especially saddens me that you say this about a group that you are a part of because if you feel that way about the group, it reflects poorly. What I mean by this is that you must feel some pity for yourself for being a member of a group composed of liars and actors.

If I said "white people are generally selfish and ll mannered." I would be making a gross even racist generalization and would feel bad to be a part of that group.

All people in a group are not alike and should not be generalised in the negative. If you are getting an impression of gay people from going to sex clubs or bars than I can see how you would come to that conclusion. I would urge you to get out more elsewhere/ gather more real world experience on the subject to discover a more balanced truth about that.

I am willing to debate some of our other points later as well though I stand more corrected on some of the earlier ones. "

---

JAI:

"

Culture Schmultzer

I have thought about Zed’s post and your comment here, Shadow, wondering how best to formulate a comment of my own when there are some terms you both use that remain seriously undefined which makes it difficult to know if we all are speaking about the same thing so I will begin on unequivocal ground by congratulating you and thanking you for your volunteer fundraising contribution; the field is still vast and there are never enough open hearts and willing hands.

Given that a “Culture” is most commonly construed as something that someone is *born into* (e.g. American Culture, Hispanic Culture, and on and on – hence the word “enculturation” which is the brainwashing we all get as kids to one degree or another by merely living among other members of our birth culture,) Zed’s assertion is true. Read your own response after you quote his assertion that, “Some kind of united gay culture is a MYTH,” and you will note that you never once use the term “culture” in defense of your taking exception to Zed’s assertion. You write “gay community” six times and “gay groups” twice. Since “Culture,” “Community,” and “group” are not synonymous, you have completely failed to address Zed’s point.

So let us go with your term, “united gay community” (which I reiterate is NOT a culture.” Does “gay” include or exclude Lesbians? Are ALL homosexual men “gay,” including (oh, just for fun) those who are members of any of the sundry groups that purport to help them “cure” their homosexuality? Without knowing what population you are discussing (and it can be argued that limiting your exposure to the homosexual concentration that exists in certain San Francisco neighborhoods could distort your ability to evaluate what living as a homosexual man is like elsewhere in the USA) it is almost impossible to address your comments. Is the undefined “united gay community” united within itself or is it really a bunch of little groups (you yourself used the word groups twice in your comment) that manage from time to time to form a type of union when facing a perceived common threat? Thus the engendering of the ubiquitous use of acronyms plus “alliance” or “coalition?”

Although these questions are difficult to answer while the key term “gay” remains undefined here, I have the point of view that homosexuals in the aggregate are NOT united even at the best of times, although gifted leaders may artfully fabricate the illusion of union. The underlying fact is that homosexuals have one, and only one, trait in common: they are predominantly attracted sexually to others of their same gender. Period. I have great difficulty not only in seeing the monolithic “united gay community” you repetedly mention, but also the possibility of one existing given the thin thread of commonality shared by homosexuals. Define “gay” I ask again. When I know what you are talking about I might have more to say about it.

Zed’s negative comments about homosexual men’s ability and penchant to deceive due to living a lie and keeping a huge secret during their most formative years IS a generalization but agrees with my experiences not only in dance clubs (in five countries) but at private parties which I have both attended and thrown where sex was supposedly not on the agenda as well as a numbing number of Gay Pride Day marches and picnics I have attended. Only ONE mass grouping of homosexual men I have been among has lacked the trademark nuanced deceit and that was probably because we were carrying out a political action in Tucson, demanding that the police arrest and jail us for violating the Arizona sodomy law (which for me at least, was a deceit since I didn’t violate that law until 20 years later and then in a jurisdiction where it was legal.) I’ve seen it in San Francisco (My God! I DID it myself in San Francisco!) probably 5 years before your birth and have no reason to logically think that the scars left on homosexuals who make it out of the stunting, deforming hiding we call “closet,” have changed there either. I was in the closet for my first 18 years – a short time relative to the history going on at the time I came out and certainly can not exempt myself from being gifted at deception, but I do really hate it and try to bend over backwards to just be blunt and honest. I’ll never be a diplomat although I *could be one* if I let myself fall back into the familiarity of the early survival skills I developed to protect myself during my formative years. I’m sure many homosexual men likewise are mindful of what skills their own closet trauma bestowed on them but not anywhere near enough. “Watch your back!” I would say to you but far be it from me to fuck with your karma.

Also your own stance on monogamy and your own relationship status would be interesting to know as a way of putting your comments into a perspective. Are you commenting to support monogamy? To support some other relationship form or is your motive more personal? Many of the arguments you made in your earlier post sound like the ideal primordial soup from which a monogamous relationship death spiral would be expected to emerge. As the only named principal aside from Zed in his previous post, he made my position obvious: I choose monogamy and am happily married to Zed although in my past I have been in non-monogamous relationships and do not in any way suggest that monogamy is in any way right, better or the only option. It is merely my preference at this time in my life. AND as Zed pointed out it requires sacrifices and pays dividends that are different than other forms of relationship and it is in no way easy. Other relationship forms pay different dividends and require different sacrifices. They are not easy either.

Zed your two posts on this subject were both great, being forced to clarify and crystallize blood red opal thinking more and more by Shadow’s comments has really made each one better. I believe that you, too, need to define some terms more clearly if you want to engender an environment where people are able to discuss the topic meaningfully. We all have different prejudices, perspectives and experiences. I hope to have validated both yours and ShadowSpawn’s as well as having expressed mine.

My best to you both,

Jai (MojoMan)

---

DAN (PROFESSOR PLAGUE):

"

monogamy

Zed-

I will plead ignorance to much of the discussion about the gay community or lack therof. I am actually more concerned about the ideas you've put down about relationships. I will address just a couple of them.

First, I agree with Shadow that a relationship is built primarily on trust; indeed you can define any relationship, romantic or otherwise, by the degree to which you trust that person.
It seems to me, Zed, that you and your partner treat cheating as some inevitable collapse, and are already hardening your hearts to this eventuality.
"Cheating" to me is simply another word dishonesty. The reason that polyamorous relationships can work (and admittedly many of them don’t) is that the two partners trust each other. It’s not “cheating” for them because they are up front about their sexual activities. If you truly want to sleep with other people you will. This is a choice. You can also choose whether to be honest about it or not. It is here that trust is forged. You will see in your partner the same weaknesses you yourself have. If you sleep around and hide it from your partner, you will be forever suspicious that they, too, are hiding something. You will be obsessed with any relationship that does not involve you.

Which leads me to another issue. Trying to forbid your partner's contact with sexually compatible people is like trying to protect a sand castle from the tide. I see people I am sexually compatible with every day. I smile at them, make conversation, and sometimes flirt a little depending on the situation. It’s fun, and is good for the egos of everyone involved. Then I go home to my girlfriend, who I trust gets hit on way more than I do, and probably flirts with plenty of them. Believe me, if I spent time worrying about all the sexually compatible guys my girlfriend runs across/hangs out with, I wouldn't get any sleep. The problems you are describing give me the impression that you feel your own sexual activities are beyond your control, and that your partner’s are beyond his control.

My point is that the two of you are separate beings with a mutual relationship. In fact a relationship REQUIRES two people. Not one person in two bodies. Trying to cram two souls in one body is known in some circles as codependency. And with the mutual distrust going on, you both are setting yourselves up for a lot of unnecessary drama and heartache.

Ultimately, these issues of control are a matter of possession and attachment. All too often we see our partners as possessions, things we can put in a tower and keep from the world. But other people do not belong to us. It is an illusion. The more we try to possess them, the more it will hurt when we lose the very real bonds we have with them. Better to direct your energies toward building trust than in securing possession of something which cannot be yours.

d.

---

Part III: Being Considerate
by Justin-ZED ZEBRA

[I'd like to say that this is one the the most detailed and rich blog conversations that I've seen on tribe.net and I honor and respect all of the current participants for making such excellent and considerate points-of-view for discussion and digestion. I think that, if anything, we are showing that human relationships are indeed a complex and multivalent discourse deserving of much contemplation and debate as to how we should or can skillfully participate, relate, and consider ourselves and those with whom we share our most intimate partnerships--be they monogamous partnerships, friendships, or any other kind of relationship. The very nature of our language and its usage is at stake in this conversation--making it a most exciting, refreshing, and thoughtful debate. I may be repeating myself in this post, or responding to what others have said, for the sake of clarification of MY perspective and opinions. I apologize for any unnecessary redundancies you may find contained herein.]

First, I would like to clear up any dispute that I am in some way asserting any inherent or objective SUPERIORITY, GOODNESS, or RIGHTNESS in choosing a monogamous relationship. This is certainly NOT my opinion: open-relationships, polyamory, or other alternative relationship modalities are worth study and consideration in their own right. I don't think monogamy-alternatives should be forsaken for the glory or preeminence of monogamy.

That said, my choice to live in a monogamous dyad is one of preference and a prediliction that I personally am pursuing in my own intimate relationship, and thus my exploration on the subject of monogamy is meant to examine just that: how can I best live in this monogamous coupling, what are the inner workings and facets of monogamy, what are the typical trials and tribulations that a monogamous relationship faces, and how can we optimize the benefits of monogamy and minimize the suffering for all parties involved?

"Monogamy" is a specific element in a relationship contract between two people, defined as:
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
( m-w.com )

I believe that our discussion, or at least the one I am interested in having, revolves solely around the third definition: having a single mate during a period of time. I'm not interested in an asexual additional marriage either, for you sticklers...so, if I am monogamously married or unmarried, I am speaking about monogamy meaning having one sexual partner or mate during a given period of time as agreed upon openly by both partners. I am using mate most sparsely in this case (and for the specific issue of monogamy) as a sexual partner. So, in essence, monogamy means maintaining a contract of sexual exclusivity, or faithfulness, in the intimate sphere of your life with a mate. Let me be clear, I desire much more than fidelity in my ideal mate as a total being and for my fulfillment in a relationship. But I desire nothing less than total sexual fidelity in my MONOGAMOUS MATE.

Shadow and the Professor have both, in their own ways, espoused the virtues of trust and honesty as vital components to any relationship. Or, as a corollary, they make convinvincing points toward how a lack of trust and honesty are destructive elements to any relationship (leading to any number of undesirable outcomes: obsession, control, manipulation, over-attachment, etc). I have no arguments to make with these propositions. I, too, believe that these are 'virtues' in that trust and honesty benefit any kind of relationship, monogamous or not. I believe that these arguments are breaking out of the box of monogamy, and turning simply into a discussion of how to establish and maintain trust with others and why that's an essential function of a good relationship. So, I shall speak for a moment about trust and what the idea of trust means in general to me.

Trust is a state of SAFETY, RELIABILITY, SECURITY and CONFIDENCE created between two (or more) people. It's interesting (and apparent by their spellings) that the words TRUST And TRUE both come from a similar origin--the Old English word "trEowe," meaning "faithful." Intriguing, yes? Trust appears ruled simultaneously by a sense of reason and by a sense of faith; and if you take either away, the trust collapses. By reason, I use this term to mean any BELIEF held due to real-world observation(s) of its APPARENT truth. And I think it's important to see trust as a process of building, or of reaching higher and higher orders of trust. It typically takes a good reason (their actions must prove out time and time again in a dependable and observable way) for someone to EARN your trust. Trust accrues. Trust is measured in degrees of intensity. When our words are perceived as congruent with our deeds, this appears to build a healthy foundation for receiving the trust of another. Thus honesty is such a powerful keystone of trust. Also, sometimes we trust one entity with one type of trust and another entity with a completely differnt sort of trust. We trust our friends with our new digital camera, but not the neighborhood bully. We trust the banker with our money, and not our secrets about our bestfriend--those we save for the beautician. We trust our parents with our sacred baseball card collections and see what they did when we moved out! (*noise of binders landing in the trash can*). I kid, but you get the point. All trust is not equal.

But don't forget about FAITH; I marvel at how trust is so special, and so fragile, for this reason. Everytime we truly trust, we are making a leap of faith. Trust means taking the risk of believing in someone else outside of yourself (and have you ever wondered how much you can trust yourself? That's a sticky situation...) And I will argue, that on some level the skeptical principle will always introduce at least a shred of doubt into anything we have placed our so-called trust in. It seems so inescapable to me that when I am trusting, I must at the same time reserve some part of my being to consider that I may in fact be living a delusional existence: for all the trust my monogamous mate has earned by his appearance of truthfastness and fidelity, could he in fact still be violating this trust and destroying the contract upon which our monogamous relationship stands? Deception, low or high, but especially of the conditions of sexual fidelity in a monogamous relationship, is anathema to a healthy relationship. And if your monogamous partner wants to sexually deceive you, because say, they think all the other benefits of being in a relationship are really cool, they can find a way. Trust me...

What, then is my solution, and what have I been trying to say all along, with these long-winded labyrinthine phrases of rhetoric and wit?! ;)

Simply put: BE CONSIDERATE of each other!

Take the time to inform your partner of your wants and needs, ask them what they want and need. Listen to each other. Give what you can give and be clear about what you cannot give. Take a moment to consider how you can best serve yourself and your mate with your actions. Include your mate in the decision-making process. BE OPEN, BE HONEST, AND BE KIND TO EACH OTHER. Consider the settings, choices, and situations that you subject yourself to and how those might affect your relationship.

In my first post, I state: "establishing exclusive friendships with any other gay men is strictly forbidden in our relationship."

The Professor observed: "Trying to forbid your partner's contact with sexually compatible people is like trying to protect a sand castle from the tide." And a later the professor said: "The problems you are describing give me the impression that you feel your own sexual activities are beyond your control, and that your partner’s are beyond his control."

I think this points out an error on my part, but one that I thought I addressed in my second post. I no longer see the game as forbidding one person from making an action per se, so much as I see it a game of working together to MINIMIZE when possible both partner's engagement with situations where problematic issues to the contract of monogamous trust MIGHT arise. The art of observing the actions they take and being honest as to how those actions affect the relationship for you is one that requires consideration and practice. How considerate was it to disappear for eight hours after work without even a single telephone call to check in? I argue that being considerate and thoughtful when making decisions as to what you do with your time, what activities you engage in with whomever, and how this could possibly impact your relationship for better or worse, is an act of love and honor for the highest good of the relationship and the well-being of both parties. I believe sexual activities and behaviors are within the control of my partner and I, I DO TRUST HIM and his LOYALTY to me, it's just that I'd rather not even have to make a second guess (or as many total second guesses) if at all possible. Does the very act of second guessing mean that the trust isn't there or is completely absent? I don't think so. Or does that even mean that I am losing sleep because of the few times that I do engage second guesses? No. As I said above, some percentage of skepticism will always be active in any act of faith or trust. I think that's normal and not what I would consider an unhealthy mindset or a damaging way of being together.

Professor: "It seems to me, Zed, that you and your partner treat cheating as some inevitable collapse, and are already hardening your hearts to this eventuality."

I am not lightening my heart to this idea. My partner and I have both discussed very clearly that there is a high liklihood that our relationship would be dissolved if either of us cheats on the conditions of monogamy; truly, there are few other clearly stipulated conditions for a break-up outside of sexual infidelity. Nor do I consider it an eventuality, and why is that? Because I think that we have built a high level of trust through highly considerate actions from both of us. Does this mean I am guaranteed fidelity. No.

Bottomline, I choose to hold the belief that considerate actions and communications add hugely to how much I can trust my partner and feel secure and happy in a monogamous partnership.

There are other issues that I could comment on and probably will at a later time, but consider me exhausted for the present.

See ya on the other side of "Caveats for Monogamy" (Part IV).

Love you all and thank you for this engaging symposium,

-=JUSTIN *ZED*=-
---
"A Zed and Two Naughts, what a Z00!"
--From ZOO, by Peter Greenaway