Robin ([info]zanfur) wrote,
@ 2006-08-19 20:20:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:philosophy, psychology, questions, rants, relationships

Sexual Exclusivity 101
I don't understand the reasoning behind limiting yourself to one sexual partner. I mean, it's just another physical act, like going on a rollercoaster, or kissing, or dancing. It just seems rather arbitrary to me.

I can understand why it would have been a good idea as little as 50 years ago for safety reasons, but with proper use condoms plus spermicide -- which are amazingly cheap -- you literally have a higher chance of dying in a car accident than getting pregnant1, yet we think nothing of driving cars or crossing the street.

STD's are now an issue, of course, but if you're concerned about that you can both get tested first and exchange test results, obviating the issue on a case-by-case basis. (If you know they have an STD and you sleep with them anyway, well, that's kinda like jumping out of a plane. No one pushed you, and it's your own damn fault if you didn't check your safety gear carefully enough.)

I kind of understand the "in order to fit in" argument. I don't particularly feel a desire to fit in, though. Never really have. I've found that standing out has generally done me better.

Still, an amazingly large number of people think that limiting yourself to one sexual partner2 is a great idea. More than that, an amazingly large number of people think it's the only viable option.

Why is that? Is it just a religious preference?

EDIT: I'd really like to get the opinions from people who have been polyamorous in the past, and are now monogamous. I know some of you are out there. Please?


1: I ran the numbers. Feel free to do it yourself. I used the USDOT fatality numbers for 2004 (which are lower than 2003 and 2002, and the latest I could find) and the effectiveness ratings published by Planned Parenthood for proper use of condoms and spermicide. Depo alone is even more effective.
2: At a time, at least. The whole "single boyfriend/girlfriend" thing, and only sleeping with them. Nothing says you can't find another significant other, but that typically ends the current partnership, and all that.


(Post a new comment)


[info]jezel
2006-08-20 03:38 am UTC (link)
Hon, you already know the answer to that. While you see it as similar to dancing and a rollercoaster ride, most other people don't. They feel emotionally attached to the people they have sex with, and feel territorial about them. That could be evolutionary, or it could be culture-based. Either way, you're best to stick to other people who feel the same way that you do about sex, and therefore tend to have more partners.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]feignedapathy
2006-08-20 03:43 am UTC (link)
hey, iawtc. I clicked this post, said, "I'm not touching that," and clicked away. This pretty much does it.

And I'm definitely not religious.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-20 03:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]feignedapathy, 2006-08-20 03:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]syukton, 2006-08-20 11:02 am UTC

[info]zanfur
2006-08-20 03:51 am UTC (link)
No, I really don't know the answer.

The question isn't, "Do they see it differently?" I know they see it differently. Rather, I was asking, "Why do they see it differently?" I'm certainly emotionally attached to the people I have sex with. I'm not overly territorial, though ... perhaps that's the major difference. Do people think they "own" something of their partners? Seems kind of silly to me, but it would explain a lot.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]feignedapathy, 2006-08-20 04:22 am UTC
(no subject) - tara_firma, 2006-08-20 05:15 am UTC
(no subject) - tara_firma, 2006-08-20 05:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-20 05:50 am UTC
Oops...posted this anonymously the first time... - tara_firma, 2006-08-20 07:55 am UTC
Re: Oops...posted this anonymously the first time... - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 06:50 pm UTC
Re: Oops...posted this anonymously the first time... - tara_firma, 2006-08-21 07:16 pm UTC

[info]kitty_tape
2006-08-20 05:01 am UTC (link)
I think it is a combination of being comfortable (in the sense that wearing the same pair of shoes until they fall apart is comfortable... although I wouldn't want to take that analogy too far =) and societal expectations. For better or for worse, people are strongly influenced by societal expectations and are extremely good at rationalizing them. Once the motivation for the societal expectations becomes obsolete (in this case, certainty of lineage), the rationalizations still remain and people think they represent some sort of universal truth (and that those who disbelieve are crazy/immoral/irrational).

Being the type of person who likes to pick apart societal expectations, I would say I fall more into the lazy/comfortable camp.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]zanfur
2006-08-20 06:06 am UTC (link)
Would you mind separating "comfortable" and "societal expectations" more clearly? I'm probably just missing something obvious, but those seem like the same thing at first glance.

Congratulations on your recent marriage, by the way! I'd still like to get coffee sometime, when your schedule slows down a bit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]kitty_tape, 2006-08-20 04:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 06:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitty_tape, 2006-08-21 08:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitty_tape, 2006-08-22 01:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-22 05:11 pm UTC

tara_firma
2006-08-20 05:08 am UTC (link)
Sex is just a different thing for different people. I'm one of the "only one partner" people, myself. It just means something different to me than it does to those who are not "only one partner" people. And that's neither better nor worse, just different.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]zanfur
2006-08-20 05:55 am UTC (link)
What does sex mean to you? I know what it means to me, and I know that it means different things to me depending on who the other party is, but I don't know what it means to other people.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - tara_firma, 2006-08-20 07:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 06:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - tara_firma, 2006-08-21 07:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - tara_firma, 2006-08-21 07:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 11:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - tara_firma, 2006-08-22 12:28 am UTC

[info]omgnatalie
2006-08-20 05:52 am UTC (link)
i like to feel a deep, unyielding bond with whoever im having sex with.

i think because im a woman, if i have sex with someone i dont love, i feel used afterward. its a terrible feeling, and i think that sex (although it is, in definition, purely a physical act) should be MORE than just sex. it should be something that you do with someone you really care about. it shouldnt just be some primal thing that you do with whoever.

and i have a hard time believing you have ever had any feelings for anyone that went beyond "liking" them. i cant see how you could love someone and want to fuck someone else. it doesnt make sense to me.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]zanfur
2006-08-20 06:05 am UTC (link)
Ugh. I know what you mean. I've had exactly one one night stand, and I felt kinda gross afterwards. I don't think I'll ever do that again.

I don't know about "should" be more than a physical act, but I do know that it's much more satisfying to me when I actually care about the person. Orders of magnitude better. It's like the ultimate expression of a hug, mutually expressing that you care. Sex when I don't care much about the person just kinda feels like a notch above masturbation. Still, masturbation does feel kinda nice.

I don't know what to say to the "liking" comment. I'm certain I've loved, and loved deeply. I think my requirements for liking someone enough to sleep with them are probably much lower than yours, though. I go to "clothing optional" parties, where kissing strangers is common, and in general the touch/sexuality barrier just doesn't really exist (and no, there are no drugs involved, often not even alcohol). Things are a little different when you're making out with each other merely as friends.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]pixxelpuss, 2006-08-20 03:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 07:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]omgnatalie, 2006-08-21 01:32 am UTC

[info]cow
2006-08-20 06:50 am UTC (link)
Everyone's already answered the commitment angle, so I figured I'd ask...

> STD's are now an issue, of course, but if you're concerned about that you can both get tested first and exchange test results,

Don't some diseases take longer (i.e. months) to show up on tests? That's a pretty scary window in between. (I often wonder about the disease level in certain subsets of the poly community.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]pixxelpuss
2006-08-20 03:51 pm UTC (link)
You're probably thinking of HIV, and yes there's a hefty window there. I think that's because it takes awhile to build up sufficient viral load to measure. Also, there are plenty of STDs that are transmitted in spite of safe sex. There is some research indicating that herpes can be spread between outbreaks via viral shedding, and crabs, scabies, chancroid, and HPV can all be transmitted through skin to skin contact without penetration occurring.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]ariata
2006-08-20 05:57 pm UTC (link)
http://www.stdresource.com/concern/c1_d_3_a.php

The incubation period for Gonorrhea is usually 2 to 7 days.

Chlamydia
The incubation period for Chlamydia is usually 2 to 6 weeks, but can be longer.

Syphilis
The incubation period for Syphilis is usually 10 to 90 days.

HIV
The window period for HIV is usually 2 weeks to 3 months, but could be up to 6 months.

Hepatitis A
The incubation period for Hepatitis A is 15 to 50 days.

Hepatitis B
The incubation period for Hepatitis B is usually 45-180 days, with an average of 60 to 90 days.

Hepatitis C
The incubation period for Hepatitis C ranges from 2 weeks to 6 months - commonly, 6 to 9 weeks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]lumiere, 2006-08-21 12:07 pm UTC

[info]gothic_coop
2006-08-20 03:11 pm UTC (link)
Monogamous relationships are a lot eiser to deal with in one simple way. There is only one person you have to deal with. I know that sounds like a over simple answer. Polyamorous relationships take a lot of time and emotions to deal with do to the fact that there is more people that are demamding energy from you. I am not say that Polyamorous relationships are bad. Not at all I am just saying they take a lot of work to make them work out right.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]zanfur
2006-08-21 07:08 pm UTC (link)
I'll heartily agree with that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]valarmorghulis
2006-08-20 05:24 pm UTC (link)
To me, it's just hotter. When I form such a closeness with one other individual and then explore it and bring it to its full capacity, it takes a LOT of time and energy if I want to do it right. But, when it's done right, it's really really *hot*. Then, though, it doesn't leave me with the time or energy to work on it with other people, and those interactions then become less hot (and thus less interesting) because I don't have the resources to put into them.

Maybe if I were a superhero...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]ariata
2006-08-20 05:58 pm UTC (link)
A superhero like the one in X3 that robbed seven banks at the SAME TIME?

Yeah :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]zanfur
2006-08-21 09:15 pm UTC (link)
Sounds like a balancing act ...

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]ionan
2006-08-20 09:03 pm UTC (link)
I wouldn't mind discussing this with you at some later date, in person.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 07:08 pm UTC

[info]syukton
2006-08-20 10:09 pm UTC (link)
Well, for one, in a monogamous relationship you only have to trust one person to not fuck up and bring an STD home. In a poly relationship, you have many people to trust, and you have each of their people to trust, and so on. If even one of those people is untrustworthy--if they lie, are misinformed, or whatever--then everybody feels the pain. It's true that in a monogamous relationship you can be deceived about a person's STD status, but the numbers game is dramatically different.

Additionally, in a monogamous relationship, the level of commitment is usually higher. What I mean is that once you've put all your eggs in one basket (so to speak) you are more profoundly aware of your choices that may fuck up those eggs, and you work harder to avoid any eggfuckuppings. In poly relationships there is less effort, I believe (having no personal experience with it mind you, merely anecdotal experience), put into fixing that which has broken because simply "moving on" may be "better for both of us."

There's also the aspect where, when one wholly dedicates themself to someone else, it's a sign of the utmost respect. The dedicatee may not be the most perfect person in the world, they may not be the most beautiful, or the most funny, or even the best at anything, but that the dedicater has chosen to dedicate themself to this person is in itself something that I find to be very profound.

Limiting yourself to one sexual partner also guarantees that you only have to deal with one person's baggage. People get different treatments from life as they grow up and grow old, and these treatments can drastically alter peoples' personalities. I would personally rather deal with only 1 crazy girl, than I would 10 crazy girls. The numerous discussions about feelings and fulfilling needs and so on and so forth can become draining in and of themselves in a two-party relationship; the prospect of engaging in such discussions on a consistent basis with multiple parties is not appealing at all.

Then there's the whole love thing. Is it possible to love more than one person? Sure it is! But is it possible to wholly dedicate your life to more than one person? No, sadly, it isn't. In a scenario of multiples, you will always have to put somebody ahead of somebody else, you will always be forced to play favorites. In a monogamous relationship, you don't have to ever play favorites, you can always fully support your lover and provide everything that your lover requires. You are able to truly love them, in terms of doing everything you can to make their life better--in terms of watching out for them, guarding them, protecting them and supporting them, backing them even when you don't agree with them and refusing to give up on them or let them give up on themselves no matter how insurmountable the next challenge appears. In truth, a complete love is a love where two people do truly become one. Not in the moment, but ongoing and forever. They think and act not just for one another, but as one another. In a poly relationship, 2 will never become 1, because there cannot simply be 2. There are always 3, or 6, or 92, and getting all of those people on the same page so that they can all become one entitye becomes statistically improbable and therefore highly unlikely.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]omgnatalie, 2006-08-21 01:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 10:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]syukton, 2006-08-21 10:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 11:30 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 10:17 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-22 05:25 pm UTC

[info]grrlanimal
2006-08-20 11:33 pm UTC (link)
I'm not religious at all, and I'm not monogamous to please any outside expectation. I don't "fit in" in any other way, and when I was being around poly folk, my monogamy certainly didn't fit in. I've tried poly, and I'm just not comfortable with it. There are a bunch of things that happen.

For me, sex is extremely binding, and I can't do it casually.

If I'm being sexual with more than one person, I always favor one, and being sexual with anyone else becomes uninteresting to me, if not abhorrent.

I'm pretty complex, and I like depth, and I like history, and I can't get that with multiple partners. You can really only skim across the surface with several people.

V used to say the same thing - that it's just another thing like going to a movie. It's totally not like going to a movie to me. It makes me wonder if people who are poly, and who don't understand monogamy, are incapable of intimacy. He used to say if he played with someone at a party, that was intimacy - but he didn't know anything about them at all. And going to a movie is not intimate. Therefore - I think he had no real understanding of intimacy.

I like the "big meal of single serving condiments" idea. There's no depth to it for me.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]grrlanimal, 2006-08-21 05:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 10:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 10:45 pm UTC

[info]holeinthedonut
2006-08-21 05:34 am UTC (link)
Do you think you have any limits on how many people you can have that kind of relationship with?

You know poly is a balancing act, and depending on the people involved, a very delicate one. I would figure the key word for monogamists is simplicity, tradition aside.

Anyway I don't think I understand this "I don't understand this monogamy thing" thing.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 11:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ariata, 2006-08-22 07:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-22 05:27 pm UTC
My .02...
[info]rakeofdoom
2006-08-21 06:45 am UTC (link)
I feel that if I hadn't had any hang-ups, whatsoever, not only would I be ok with my partner having other partners, but I would be ok with being with the opposite sex.

I think it boils down to insecurities.

I would NOT like my partner going to another for something sexually... even if it's something I could NOT provide. Why? Because, frankly, I'm a bit insecure. I really like being the one person to go to for sex/making love/etc, and that they like and want to. I would feel inadequate if they went elsewhere.

As for emotionally - I feel mostly the same about that - but really, I'm ok with them needing to talk to someone about something emotional - they would probably feel that they already know my point of view, and are looking for another perspective. In the end, that's really ok with me.

To previous posters: Yes, one night stands are... regrettable after the fact. Having sex with someone you know and like, is MUCH more enjoyable.

But that doesn't mean that it's ok (for you non-poly folks) for you or your partner to have sex with their best friend. Because it's not. It's much more than that connection... really, it's just a distraction, not even relevent.

STDs? Please, how many of you dated your last three partners 6... or even 3 months, had a second test done, and only then had sex.. with a condom. STDs aren't it either. As for STDs, it's always a gamble - all you can do is improve the odds.

When I think about my partner having sex with someone else, I don't stop to think about STDs, or if they know and like the person.

I have an /immediate/ gut reaction.

I believe it's insecurity.

Most people haven't analyzed the world, and tried to strip it down, and build up rules, cause and effect analysis, etc. Most of us make an assumption that seems to work and drive on. Most of us haven't sat down and tried to nail down all of the causes of insecurity - all the of the things that turn or twist the stomache - and quash them.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: My .02... - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 11:39 pm UTC
Re: My .02... - [info]dzenifr, 2006-08-22 05:17 pm UTC
Re: My .02... - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-22 05:31 pm UTC
Re: My .02... - [info]dzenifr, 2006-08-22 05:53 pm UTC
Re: My .02... - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-22 07:07 pm UTC
Re: My .02... - [info]dzenifr, 2006-08-22 08:07 pm UTC

[info]smileygoldfish
2006-08-21 03:54 pm UTC (link)
I agree with what's been said about sex being a way to bond two people. And it makes it more special when its just between two people. Also, i think sex in itself if a sacred thing and not for recreation. Its a way to bond parents as well as create a family. But I'm religious, so perhaps you will just disregard my comment.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]zanfur, 2006-08-21 10:20 pm UTC
True Dat!
millimon
2006-09-22 10:00 pm UTC (link)
There is no evidence that "Serial Monogamy" is any safer than Swinging or Polyamory. If you have 1 partner you have X% chance of contacting a disease, and if you have 2 parnters, either parallel or serial, your chances just went to something between X+1 and x^2. I'm not concerned with the math. The math isn't the point really, it's the fact that the risk is the same.

Great to see you're doing okay despite all the stress Robin. Best wishes.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…