Thursday 12 June 2008

Monogamy and Male Pride

I believe in Free Love.
Or at least, I support open relationships.

Idiots who read this, without ever having bothered to read this blog closely- or its comments sections- assume I support this position because I'm a rampantly oversexed male who simply wants put his penis above genuine emotion.

Anyone who has read this blog long enough, knows otherwise.

So I'm going to start with what REGULAR readers already know.

I'm more than happy to live, for life, in a state of total exclusive commitment to a woman, who I have NOT imposed the same on, and who can sleep with exactly who she wants.

And no matter HOW many people she slept with, even if she was to carry their babies, I'd stick with her and NEVER look elsewhere. As long as she loved me, cared for me, protected me, held me as I went to sleep every night, and was fully committed to every value I want to spend my life fighting for.

Why I'd do that, is the subject of this post.

Monogamy, really, benefits males.
It doesn't benefit women.

Let me say that again.

Men lie. Men present Monogamy as good because it's NOT polygamy. It's men having just one woman, not ten.
But fact is, it's STILL a woman having to make do, with whatever sex she ends up with.

Still favours the male. He still gets his way. Because men and women have different needs.
Sex for a man, is about quantity. How often we get it.
Sex for a woman, is about quality. Very much more so.

A man has had thirty lovers. Hey, you stud!
Crap. I've had at least that- it doesn't make me a good lover.

A woman has had thirty lovers. Hey, you slut!

So much of this is tied into male dignity. 'I can satisfy my woman.'
Can you though? Can you only love her if you believe this to be true?

This is why this tieing of sex to love, doesn't work. Yes, at one time, it had to be like that. Now, it just doesn't work.

Time was when women just lay back and thought of England. They were expected to just have experience of one man, or they'd be ostracised- note this never applied to men.
So we men could 'wham, bam, thank you ma'am' till our hearts content.

This suited men- fact is, it's much easier for a man to 'cum'. But even then, let's be straight, men fake too. I'll come to this.
No man likes to admit the fact that he can't make the woman he loves 'cum'.

Now let's be straight.
Sex is a pleasure.
And the pleasure is in the 'cumming'.

So, if you really love someone, you should NEVER want to put barriers in the way of their sexual fulfillment.

And that includes your own 'male dignity.'

I'll be straight- in terms of a mechanism for passing my genes on, I tick the boxes. I find it easy to 'mate', I know I'm pretty fertile.

I also know that out of an estimated 2,000 odd sexual experiences, only about four have resulted in an orgasm.
And before you ask- not that it matters- it's not to do with the equipment. If you must know, that happens to be what is characterised as optimum.

It's the fact that my physical constitution isn't up to extreme athletic acts. Don't forget, had I been born twenty years earlier than I was, I wouldn't have lived. It took them a week to get me to breathe. I weighed five pounds. I spent my early years catching up with everyone else in terms of growth.

Physically, I run out of 'stamina' pretty quick. I CAN'T sprint for two minutes. I did it last month to catch a train. Do you know what happened? I was running down a staircase and suddenly, my legs gave way, my vision disappeared and I just fell down the staircase. My breathing system really is poor- and smoking thirty a day doesn't help that, I know. But fact is, give me just an ordinary English summer, and I'm fainting like nobody's business.

I hit puberty very early in fact, at age twelve. But if you actually check my physique, I have the proportions of a twelve year old child. I really do not, and never will have the strength, or stamina, of a fully grown adult.

To put this in clear terms, I can't last that long. A woman with a healthy appetite will wear me out VERY quickly.
Yes, I FAKE orgasms on about one in five occasions.

Now, let's be clear. I'm not in the bottom section of performers by any means- I get away with such low levels of delivery- I DO get invited for repeat performances- but certainly not due to quality of service. There ARE a lot of nice girls out there- and when I say nice girls, I don't mean prim and proper, but will indulge in sex they don't much enjoy with a bloke they like as a person, in much the same way they'd give sweets to a crying child.
Because hey, I still NEED it. And not just that, I DO have a basic need for genuine intimacy.

Thank God there ARE women like that.

But it would be selfish of me not to expect that they shouldn't actually have sexual needs of their own.

But it still doesn't satisfy- of course it doesn't.
And what of the guys who AREN'T so realistic?

I have a work colleague who was seeing a STUNNING mixed race girl. STUNNING.
Couldn't get it to work.

Could get it work fine once she'd left his flat and he was on his own.

What of the girl- who I know who cried herself to sleep every night because after two years, he couldn't make love to her?
And part of those tears were to do with her covert sleeping with other people to get the sex he couldn't give her?

As soon as they split up, he got it up with her successor.


Men feel pressure to fulfill, because our dignity is so tied up in it.

We have set up a terrible pressure for ourselves. Now women have woken up to sexual fulfillment, we all feel we have to rise up to the mark.

But let's be honest, it causes more problems than it's worth.

That little squeeze she gives you afterwards where you KNOW she's thinking 'I can see you enjoyed it, shame it didn't rock my world.'

And doesn't that eat away?
Your male jealousy.
You KNOW she wants better. And you're frightened she'll go elsewhere.

So. Do you love her?
Then let her.
And when she comes home, put your arms round her and say thankyou to her for coming home.

She came home to YOU. THAT's what Love is. Not who you have sex with, who you come home to.

Sexual exclusivity, just doesn't make sense, not if you really mean love. Because we force choices on people they don't need to make. Be with me, support me, love me, hold me, shouldn't have to be, have my sex and mine alone.

I'm committed to overthrowing the link between a physically pleasurably activity and a genuine emotion.
And just to prove I mean that, I'm more than prepared to offer a woman sexual Fidelity from myself, whilst INSISTING, she doesn't promise the same to me.
Because if enough men do that, we really can undermine this horrid sexual possession notion and show that we men who propose it, do not do so for selfish reasons.

In the interests of increasing overall human happiness, increasing overall pleasure (for women) and reducing overall pain (excepting the initial twang of men surrendering a little dignity), I'm perfectly prepared to do this.

Because it's time we grew up about sex.


Anonymous said...

If a man doesn't satisfy a woman in bed, generally it's both parties fault.

There is always a way to work at it, to find something that does work. You have to get to know your partner if the sex is to be sustainabley good. It doesn't happen overnight and often resultant of a deeper connection. Just because someone pushes the right buttons physically, doesn't mean that it's a fulfilling experience.

Lack or decline of sexual congruity shouldn't be validated as an excuse to fuck around behind your partners back. It can be symptomatic of bigger problems that should be addressed.

Anonymous said...

Bunny- What you describe, is making the best of a bad job.

What you describe, is a woman making do, out of a sense of obligation.

I don't see why girls like you should have to put up, out of a sense of obligation.
You deserve BETTER.

Anonymous said...

You know I've been thinking about this subject quite abit lately Crushed.

Not all women want to sleep with other men while in a relationship, in fact I'd say 90% don't, rather because of how the were raised, or religion, or other reasons.

Those that live The Lifestyle with a spouse usually have to be very careful to keep jealousy and fear (most often the male's) in check, communication is key to that. I've read a few accounts where couples have broken up, or barely survived this type of relationship. It's not to be entered into lightly.

But there are those that thrive in it, and grow closer because of it.
I was commenting tonight on another blog about how I don't think I could handle the insecurities of knowing my wife or SO was off fucking another man (or woman), but that if it happened with me there and participating, I would feel different. And that's my limit.

But there seem to be many couples in The Lifestyle living exactly like you mention, with the man staying monogynous, and the wife having other lovers.

And if you were to ask those men why, each one would have his own reasons for it, just like you do...

Anonymous said...

It's not making do at all. Sex isn't the be all and end all of a relationship.

Fidelity shouldn't be hinged upon your partners ability to bring you to orgasm.

There is no trick that can't be learned and no technique that can't be modified in order to please your partner.

General lust aside, sex is about being close to your partner. Most couples want to learn how to please each other. The couples that don't often have bigger problems else where. Usually a good indication of how the rest of the relationship plays out. It's intimacy.

Sexual intimacy shouldn't be divvied up and passed out for the sake of a quick thrill.

Anonymous said...

I believe that a fulfilling sex life with your partner does not mean you have to have an orgasm every time , plenty of other ways. If you two are comfortable with each other then you work at it and explore ways, keep it interesting and don't let your sex life fall into a rut. It's not just the 'job' of man to keep his woman satisfied, if she lays there counting the cobwebs on the ceiling or needs a stick of dynamite under her to make her move, then either his technique is not working and she needs to tell him or she is doing 'it' to make him happy. Too many women expect the man to do all the work and make them happy, men do have needs and wants also. If you cant be open and honest with each other about something as personal as sex then you can't expect it to improve either.
I wouldn't like my partner to sleep around, have friends of the opposite sex by all means, spend time with them but not sleep with them.

Anonymous said...

I've had this theory that if either party wishes to have sex with other people, it should be okay. As long as you come home to the person you love. When I told a few of my friends that if I ever decided to get married, I wouldn't mind if my husband had different sexual partners sometimes, as long as I could do the same, and they said "What's the point of getting married then?" Then again, none of us are actually sexually active so it was all hypothetical =D It's a relief to see someone who thinks like me

Anonymous said...

This sure was a controversy post, really stirring up the pott. In general I can say, whatever works for a couple, should be ok. Respect, trust & honesty are the pillar stones in any relation and if you have that, basically anything can be built.

But I myself have difficulties seeing how this can practically work. Sex, love, intimacy – for me, they are all connected and you cant have one without the other. Sure, sex could be just an primal physical act, but I doubt that’s what majority of people are looking for. Could be fun for a while, but most of us want something more. Not denying the power of the orgasm or the thrill of the hunt & pursue, but in the end, intimacy is what the majority are looking for in the long run. Sex with someone you love is all about taking it to another level. It is the closest to someone you’ll ever be – one mind, one body, one soul…

I’d say that sure beats the “Herbal Essence” moments.

Anonymous said...

I know more than a couple of married friends here in Adelaide who engage in open relationships. And every night, they come home to each other. I have observed their deep love for each other and I know they'd never leave each other. I do see how that can work for some people and I can see your point.

However, it wouldn't suit me. I don't want my husband to want to share me, or to be shared himself. Selfish? Maybe, healthy? sure. I feel physical touch outside of a r'ship is disrespectful unless you have an agreed 'open relationship' like I mentioned above.

Also, I believe women connect emotionally when someone kisses them tenderly. I would worry that her loyal loving husband at home would be only getting half of her love, the other half she is reserving for her lover.

Anonymous said...


I thought you'd never get your thumbs out of your ass and post this!


Men - can't live with'em, forbidden to shoot'em...

Anonymous said...

gosh .... crushed is the sort of idiot who believes commitment free relationships are worth having.

Anonymous said...

I don't have *any sex at all* because no one fancies me, rightly so, and reading all this stuff about shagging anyone is just pointlessly depressing. I begin to understand what Houllebecq meant when he wrote that sex was a system of social hierarchy(which I think I did blog on, at least then I was having it).

Incidentally on the subject of physique(which I think we were), I know women who appear to be appalled by the fact that I am now musclebound. How the hell can I win? They loathe flab, fair enough, and they think muscles are the last refuge of the yob. I am told that sensitivity is good, then I am called a wimp. Who knows.

Either way 31 is the new 13. For me at least.

Anonymous said...

Heart of Darkness, in America you can shoot as many men as you like, so long as you have a badge.

Crushed, I was pretty curious to see some of the replies to this post. I'm not quite sure that we're not all stumbling around in the dark here, at least a little.

I have witnessed polyamorism in previous incarnations, and it works well to a limited degree. It's checked, however, by the difficulty of reconciling the practice to social and legal expectations. A court wouldn't recognize a group marriage, which is all well and good until such things as long-term/terminal health care, burial and probate court become an issue.

Anonymous said...

I think women are partially responsible for their own lack of satisfaction, too. An unscientific poll of my girlfriends-- myself included-- will have the majority having faked orgasms at some point in their lives... both to try to soothe the male ego, and because, well, we feel mighty shitty about the effort it takes to get us off. I certainly wish I had it as easy as the average guy!

Anonymous said...

THAT's what Love is. Not who you have sex with, who you come home to.

Lots of thoughts going through my head about this Crushie. May have to get my head together and write a post about my values on sex and love and sex without love..

xx thanks for your thoughts - your brain is an interesting one.

Anonymous said...

@ Baht At: If you're being serious about that, then I don't think you read the post properly Oo

Anonymous said...

what a lot of rubbish...its never right to sleep around while in a relationship. if your happy to let that happen then you should not be in that relationship. part of loving someone is to have respect for them how can you respect them if they or you are sleeping around !!

Anonymous said...

Fusion- I think if you scratch the surfacr there are more people- of both sexes- open to the idea than would first appear.

I think the possessiveness and jealousy is largely a cultural construct.

My view is TRUE human sexuality is to be seen in our close relative, the Bonobo.

In the long run, I'd like to see the total removal of sexual excllusivity, I merelty propose this as a way men can erode this value in a way that still shows commitment to the woman they love in such a way the moral conservatives can't call it a campaig based on lecherous male desires.

Oestrebunny- I agree. It ISN'T. So why should it be a factor at all? Why not separate sex completely from relationships?

After all, it's hard to reconcile love with ownership rights to someone's body.

Nunyaa- I understand and agree with a lot of what you say here. Yes, I think there is still a lot of not wanting to talk about these things openly.
The whole point is to open, and not lie. Cheating is cheating, necause an exclusivity agreement had been made. It is the deceit that makes it wrong, not the act itself.

Vanessa- If both parties are in agreeement, of course its OK.
And people connect on levels other than sex.

True Love is always platonic at heart.

Crashie- I would agree on the intimacy thing. For me, I'd say that was the real icing on the cake. Intimacy I'd say, is the real valuable thing, sex in itself, is just a bodily function.

I like your last paragraph, and I agree in theory though to be honest, I'm not sure its something I've experienced in practice to that intensity.

Ms Smack- There is a theory that suggests that such arrangements are MORED conducive to genuine affection, for a variety of reasons.
One being of course, couples try harder to retain eachothers affections.

Re your last point, I'd simply say, a mothers love for her first child does not decrease when a second child is born. We CAN love more than one person at a time.

Heart- Well, much of it has already been stated in comments sections before.

I guess I nedded to clarify the basis of my opinions.

Baht At- Haven't you been asked not to comment here?

Oh well, nothing too offensive about your comment today.
Someone else already answered your comment, so need for me to.

Anonymous said...

Jim- I sometimes liken sex to tobacco. You spend hours waiting for a fag and getting irritated by the lack of smoking oppotunities.

You go out and have a fag, when you light it and take in a couple of drags its great. Then its gone.

And in half an hour, you want a cigarette again.

x-dell- I personally want to see marriage abolished, at leastt in law, and all related legislation simply changed to follow normal business practises.
That wouldn't affect peoples right to 'marry' in religous ceremonies and act as if they were married.
Merely it would have no relevance in law.

Princess P- The evidence suggests that a minority of women have acheived orgasm through regular pentrative sex.

Do you know humans are the only species to have a female orgasm?
Its suggested it evolved as a result of bipedality.

Kimba- I think that line kind of sums it up for me.

I think there were many reasons for the need for sexual exculivity in past eras- primarily preventing spread of VD and keping track of paternity.

We don't need it now, and I think it reduces, rather than increases optimum human happiness.

Vanessa- :) It wouldn't be the first time.

Sally- Well I'd respect her for choosing me as the one she came home to. Even though she had a wide range of lovers to choose from.

True Love is platonic, not linked to bodily possession, or it needen't be. I just feel sexual possession belongs to a more possessive, territrial era, where women were possesions, effectively.

I didn't always think this- as a younger man, I could be quite sexually jealous.

But if you love someone, you should always be able to forgive them that, I think. If you'd ALWAYS forgive, than why prohibit?

Anonymous said...

Why not separate sex completely from relationships?

For what purpose? For meaningless sexual encounters with everyone else but your partner?

Sex outside a relationship has even more opportunity to be unsatisfying than what sex within a relationship does. Sexual fulfillment isn't always about reaching orgasm. Often it's about feeling a deeper connection with your partner, it's a level of intimacy you can't reach with anyone else. Hinging the success of monogamy in a relationship upon thirty seconds of what is basically muscle spasms is a ridiculous idea. If that's all it really came down to then there would be no need for anyone to be with anyone at all.

My view is TRUE human sexuality is to be seen in our close relative, the Bonobo.

Are you taking the piss?

In Bonobo society, sexual intercourse is used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation. The female apes trade sexual favours for food. Does this sound at all familiar? That's pretty much what we've already got.

Save for the fact that most of us do want to form lasting relationships with individuals. And why is that a bad thing? Searching for that kind of intimacy isn't wrong. Sustaining and holding on to that intimacy as something sacred isn't wrong either. And most people when they find it, aren't quick to share it around with every other person they take a passing fancy to. It's something special between the two of you. It's only when the intimacy starts to lose it's appeal that people stray in the first place. Infidelity is often the symptom of a deeper problem within the relationship. Not an optimum social model.

It is my view that true human sexuality can already be seen - in humans.

One cheating girlfriend does not a Bonobo Ape make.

Anonymous said...

Oestrebunny- OK, let's just speculate that a woman DOES feel that deep personal connection you describe, nut still, the sex part doesn't fulfill her expectations.

In this case, is it wrong hor her to indulge in 'meangingles' sex elsewhere, for purely physical reasons?

Yes, there will always be a need for people to be with people- intimacy and the connection you have just described. But as things stand the quality- or lack thereof- of the sex life can be a huge factor.

Yes, I'd agree most of us DO want to form lasting relationships with people. Not a bad thing at all.

But maybe these things would be MORE sustainble if less pressure was put on them.

Its about conceding that you may just not be enough for the person you love, or have enough to offer, and that they are entitled to more. Because you can't give them all they deserve.

And you want them to have all they deserve, not just make do, out of loyality.
I don't want a woman to be unhappy, just because I can't make her happy but she feels she must deny herself fulfillment for my sake.

In humans, yes. In our cultural constructs, no.

Anonymous said...

If you're not enough what makes you so certain she'd stick around? Your permission to sleep with others if she feels she has to? Well then of course your correct. That just solves all of your problems doesn't it?
If you're not enough, you're not enough. No number of surplus sexual partners is going to make you enough.

That's a woman making do Crushed, sticking around out of a sense of obligation yet seeking fulfillment elsewhere.

Not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

Oestrebunny- She may not. What right have I to expect her to? What right has anybody to expect somebody to stick around?
This idea that we must sign some kind of contract in blood, and don't have thr right to walk away at any time, makes no sense.

The connection should be built on genuine emotion and pragmatism.

You're right, I'm not vain enough to think I'd EVER be enough. That's the point, I don't expect to be.

So I would be happy to allow someone I loved the right to find her own blend of happiness- and be grateful she made do with me.

Isn't that a lot more realistic?

Anonymous said...

I dont see the issue here, iv spoken about this many times with various people and in my opinion so longs both partries involved are happy with that and remain honest about it, I dont see the harm. It can work for many people and I know first hand many people oit works very well for too.

Anonymous said...

Not really, no.

There is no blood contract, where do you get these ideas of ownership from? Unless of course that was your own behavioural construct that you're now trying to make up for?

You keep saying that you don't want a woman to make do and that she should be happy. Yet you do want a woman to make do. You want her to make do with you and supplement her own happiness with others.

Why should she make do at all? Why shouldn't she just leave you and find herself someone who does fulfill her completely? Someone who was more sure of themselves, someone who was aware of there self worth.

If - as you said, girls like me deserve better; then why shouldn't men like you expect the same?

Anonymous said...

Posh Totty- It does work for many people, yes.
It don't myself see why it shouldn't be the social norm.

At least for those who choose it.

Oestrebunny- Time was when I bought it.
At one time, I did used to get very sexually jealous, yes. I don't think it was a food thing. And all deep down, the result of my own insecurities.

Well, I'd just want her to be happy.

Why shouldn't she? Hey, I agreee. it is not love that which conditions make. I don't expect me to be the worth a woman who is worth loving.
Love is a gift- it doesn't acquire rights.
If I was to love someone, I wouldn't expect anything of them at all, just what they CHOSE to give me.

Because I think girls like you deserve more and men like me already expect too much.

Anonymous said...

Crushed, At the risk of sounding like one of your harem of pliable admirers. It does not always have to be a guy’s baby making equipment involved. The fact is that Girls get to come more than once without the ‘penalties’ that guys have to cope with. Try too hard too often in one evening and I know it eventually hurts and that is no fun.

But unless you are actually looking to make babies, without being too graphic, an intelligent, fun inventive guy can find ways round that. Also just hugs and kisses are great all on their own sometimes.

Also OestreBunny is not talking about making do out of obligation. It’s more about love, loyalty and making stuff as good as you can manage. If you see it that way I worry for you.

Anonymous said...

Really good post.
But................. the last time we discussed this, I somehow gathered the impression that besides being faithful to her (good for ya), not only would you let her sleep with others, but you'd be disappointed if she didn't want to... not sure if that's true...? :-)