Monoamory and being bisexual

So, recently, Margaret Cho gave an interview.  Openly bisexual, she ties her sexual orientation with being polyamorous.  You can read that here.

Most people (I hope!) can get that being bi does NOT mean you have sex with anyone and everyone.  And, I think almost as many people know that being bi doesn't mean you have to have sex with both men and women to be satisfied.

But, it seems that the myth is still out there.  That pisses me off.

Maybe more things like this should change to include relationship orientation.

As a bisexual and someone enjoying monoamory, I call bullshit on Margaret Cho's assertion.  It works for her, okay.  But, being bi isn't about how many people you sleep with or even who you choose to sleep with. It's about attraction.  Some bi people act on more attractions than others.  Doesn't change or increase their "bi-ness," in my opinion.  By the same token, not acting on attractions or not being poly doesn't decrease or erase the bisexual part of my identity.

Defining bisexuality as needing poly relationships can be just as faulty as claiming we're all supposed to be mono.

Privacy

So, the other day, Wowzer and I were discussing sexual privacy. The idea of sex in a public place is a hot one.  But, isn't part of what makes it so hot the fact that it's forbidden?  The thrill of getting caught?

If that's the case, then, my question becomes why it's forbidden.  Why is privacy with sex important?  And, why, at the same time that privacy matters, is group sex also so hot?

It's a sexy conundrum.

It's pretty clear that at least part of the taboo is cultural.  In our own past, families often shared one bedroom.  Did the parents ask the kids to hum loudly to themselves?  Or did they just trust that the kids could absorb and handle the fact that their parents had sex?

What about so-called primitive cultures?  I'm pretty sure they don't kick the kids out of their huts to have sex.

Where did this idea that sex is reserved for the private sphere come from?  And, why, in a world of oversharing and reduced personal privacy, is it still taboo?

The Cheating Line

What is cheating?  Is there even a concrete definition?

Apparently, 85% of women and 74% of men consider sexting to be cheating, according to this study.

Is cheating just about a physical act, though?  I've known people who think checking someone out or flirting crosses that line.

It seems like where we place the cheating line says a lot about our relationships.

I consider myself to have cheated in my first marriage.  But, I don't berate myself or label myself a "cheater" for it, given the circumstances of that relationship.  I needed an out and got caught up in sexting and online sex.

That's still an act, though it mainly involves the imagination and masturbating...  And, in some ways, I believe that cheating starts with the head or heart and not the groin.  If we're acting outside the set boundaries of the relationship or its rules, that's obviously cheating.

Where are the rules?  Are they accepted as a given or negotiated?  Ideally, there'd be a conversation and clear understanding of them in all relationships.  But, we humans aren't the best at that.

Monoamory has to include a negotiation of what fidelity is and isn't.

Brave/stupid?

Just got home from a discussion group where I was leading an intense conversation on monoamory and what it is.  And its larger meaning in the universe of sex positivity.  I actually discussed masturbation in public.  I am amazed at myself.  Of course, this is why I'm a writer.  I get to be faceless and just throw thoughts out there for people and then scurry off to my bedroom unnoticed by whoever is reading it.

The discussion was all good.  A lot of people contributed and had interesting thoughts to share.  I'm still toying with the idea of what the tools necessary for successful and ethical monoamory are.

Obviously openness and communication.  We covered that today.  Also, independence balanced with togetherness.  Tricky business, that balance thing.

Wowzer bravely attended the discussion, too, making me admire him all the more.  Given his aversion to being outed, I think he gets extra points tonight.

One thing that surprised me was the reaction I got from some people there.  It seemed like they didn't like the idea that monogamy carries negative cultural weight.

The hard stuff

Have you ever thought about something until you are just sick of the topic?  And then, you suddenly see why the topic was sticking around and pissing you off?

Yeah.  That's me.

There is no "easy" relationship.  Being monoamorous isn't easier, even if it is akin to a relationship model that gets widespread approval.  There's a lot of talk about the difficulty of poly relationships.  I get that--you're juggling multiple romantic attachments in a world where you may not even be able to talk openly about what you're going through or face persecution for it.

It's not fair.

But, if you don't have any good models for a mono relationship that works, either, you're screwed, too.  Just differently.

What's normal?  Is it okay to do marriage like this?  What happens to people in healthy relationships when the honeymoon period ends?

I watched my parents throw things, hide money, cheat on each other, make threats, have screaming fights nearly daily...  Is the absence of that health?  Does every relationship that makes it beyond the rose garden doomed to that kind of hell?

Violence in relationships (emotional or physical) has a tendency to make me physically ill.  Wowzer and I just finished watching the third installation of a series of indie films that feature a couple that, in the previous two movies, seemed very happy.  (Yes, I know it's not real.)  But, what if it's indicative of the trajectory of relationships?

I believe that mono couples can work.  I think it's one model among many that has the potential for health and longevity.  But, the question remains:  what does it look like when it does?

Liking

On a day like today, after we just spent the past 24 with a young member of my biofamily (who'll be known as M from now on), I really needed to read this:

I think you should read it, too.  Then, come back and read the next paragraph.

Being monoamorous, for me, is filled with moments of liking.  I can turn to Wowzer and KNOW he'll always be there.  It's a bone-deep truth.  I can look over at him as he's playing a video game with M and feel:  A) totally at home in the most profound sense of the concept and B) my heart thumps away with oodles of love. Wowzer is it.

Ranting

Sometimes, you just have to rant. Yesterday was a rant day. Things just build up, especially when you have questions that seem unanswerable.  Carving out my own space in the world, being monoamorous, is an intense journey.  Surely there are others making their own thing in terms of relationship models, right?

This morning, I'd love to hear from some who are.

When I Wasn't Writing

Things that have happened since my last post:


Wowzer and I got married.  Big fancy wedding type schtuff ensued.  Surprisingly, we had sex more leading up to the wedding than immediately after it.  Nobody tells you just how exhausted you'll be post-wedding.  Seriously.  Somewhere between picking out super sexy lingerie to wear and actually taking it off, it's like you just want to fall over and snore.  I picked good stuff, too.  Watching Wowzer's eyes just about pop out of his head was worth it, even if we did just fall asleep after that.  This may be why so many people elope.  I'm sure there's more sexual energy when all you have to do is agree with Elvis and collect your complimentary chips.

And, of course, there were discussions with Wowzer as well as poly chosen family leading up to the wedding about relationship models and what we're open to.  My sister suggested that parts of the vows eliminated the potential for a threesome at some point.  (It doesn't.)  Someone else asked if we were open to a triad. (We're not.)  The idea of monoamorousness still confuses people.  It's still evolving for me, honestly.

One of the defining characteristics of it, for me, is that we communicate about everything.

Me:  What do you think of having a threesome sometime?
W:  We could do that, if it were the right person and we had good ground rules.

W:  If we had a threesome, I'd want it to be someone who got that it was a one-time thing.
Me:  That limits who we could share that with.

And so on...

Sometimes I think we communicate beyond what most would see as "normal."  It works, though.  Being clear about what we want, like, don't want, or don't like eliminates "What the fuck is that??" moments.  That communication is at the heart of our monoamorousness and, I think, truly sex-positive.

My guest post on the Sex Positive blog was published this week, too.  It puts me in a new realm of coolness, I think.  You can read that here.   

Read some other stuff while you're there, too.  Maybe even buy a fucking t-shirt.  :)

I'm returning to writing on Sex at Dawn in upcoming posts, I promise.  I have lots to say on that.

Sex at Dawn, Part I

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was set on reading Sex at Dawn in response to conversations regarding polyamory, monogamy and the true nature of human sexuality.  Admittedly, I read the book with some trepidation since the quotes and references to the book depicted it as opposing mono relationships.  With that said, I made it my goal to approach the authors' evidence with as open a mind as I could.  And, there is a lot in this book.  Covering human evolutionary biology from the dawn of man to today is no simple task.  One big positive the book has overall is the level at which it is written.  The authors do a very good job of bringing the science to be easily understood by a layperson.  (Confession:  I am admittedly not a science person so, that was really nice for me.)  With all the information covered in the book, I'm dividing my take on it to match the book's divisions.

Right from the beginning, in the book's introduction, Ryan and Jetha present monogamous relationships as a problem.  "There's good reason marriage is often depicted and mourned as the beginning of the end of a man's sexual life."  Unfortunately, the authors leave us waiting for any evidence to back up this assertion.  Further in the introduction, they ask "Why does the passion fade from so many marriages so quickly?"  This, a worthy question, does deserve exploration and their questioning tone gave me hope.  It is relevant and valuable to question the traditional models and what may be considered universals.  And, I heartily agree with the assertion that we need a "new understanding of ourselves...based on a bold and unashamed assessment of the plentiful scientific data".

Many authors have posited, as Ryan and Jetha do, that our culture lost much that defined it in the shift from a hunter/gatherer society to structured agriculture.  Communities undoubtedly became much smaller and played less of a role in culture, as individual family units gained predominance.  The group lifestyle that hunter/gatherer cultures were based on emphasized interdependence for the survival of the group as a whole.  The authors connect that social structure with sexuality, a link that I'll address in a later post.  Certainly large family groups for food production and child-rearing would have made a great deal of sense.  Drawing on evidence from current hunter/gatherer societies, they point to the idea of fierce egalitarianism as a cultural practice of mandatory sharing.  "We believe this sharing behavior extended to sex as well."  Thus far in the book, the authors have not demonstrated evidence of this assertion, a thing they promise to do in following sections.

Part I opens with a discussion of the cultural indoctrination that forms such visceral responses as disgust to certain types of food regularly eaten in other parts of the world.  This makes sense and is fairly common knowledge.  Much of what receives cultural acceptance and the label "normal" gets that approval because generations have touted it as positive.  Ryan and Jetha propose that biological truth should be separated from cultural influence and, again, I cannot disagree with that.  Being able to distinguish between these two concepts has advanced culture in the western world in human rights, technology and social structure, giving rise to equal rights to vote, hold property, developments in hygiene and communication as well as public education and upward mobility.  I grew wary at this point in the book, however, seeing the authors' direction toward more denigration of monogamy.

I have seen many references to our close primate relatives, the bonobos, in recent years.  Their open and varied sexual practices have been publicized and studied often in the last decade or so.  When the authors begin turning to examining the mating habits of several primates, they establish that the only monogamous ape is the gibbon, a primate that establishes long-term pair bonds.  The gibbons create a model akin to the nuclear family unit common to many families.  Bonobos, on the other hand, exhibit closely connected family groups that are comprised of a community of primates and exhibit non-monogamous sexual relationships.  Sex among bonobos exists for pleasure as well as procreation--another difference between them and the gibbons.  Clearly, the social structure and sexuality they exhibit matches more closely a polyamorous/non-monogamous familial organization.

As Ryan and Jetha draw Part I of the book to a close, they include a table that delineates the socio-sexual behavior and infant development of chimps, bonobos and humans.  Listing such similarities between humans and bonobos as: female copulation during menstruation, the rate at which infants develop, behavior of females after giving birth, variety of copulatory positions, behavior while having sex and variation of sexual partner combinations (hetero and homosexual), the authors are clearly laying the groundwork for further connection (either existing or repressed) between humans and bonobos.

Being a Witness to Sex

A few days ago, my fiance (who shall be known from hereon as Wowzer) attended a cunnilingus demonstration hosted by the local sex positive organization.  When the event was announced, I suggested it to Wowzer, thinking it might spark some interest but, I was also nervous and a small part of me hoped the idea would get vetoed.  Wowzer is already quite skilled at oral sex, frequently eliciting orgasms in the double digits during it.  But, he liked the idea.  The event booked up fast--so fast that friends of ours were unable to get in only a few hours after we did.

Confession:  I had never seen another couple having sex, aside from porn.  And, everyone knows how orchestrated porn is. My imaginative powers aside, this demo presented sex in a different way than I had ever experienced it before.

The demonstration:  three couples performed while about 30 people watched them.  Despite my nerves, the environment was utterly comfortable and relaxed.  The couples were all long-term partners and displayed a deep knowledge of each other's bodies and, obviously, trust for each other and the group.  As one of the hosts said all the people there were friends.  And that feeling of connection and trust was pervasive as the evening progressed.  I would rate this as one of the healthiest, most positive sexual experiences I've had.

As a learning experience, the setting was both an asset and a detriment.  Thirty people crowded in a living room don't allow for seeing as well as would have been ideal.  Wowzer's review was, in part, that he felt he knew much of what was demonstrated and discussed.  No surprise to me.  But, I did learn more about my comfort zone and how shared sexual experiences can be not only healthy but a great boost for one's confidence.  All the participants were beautiful but also very real and normal.  I can only hope that more opportunities like this will present themselves in future.

The Ownership Paradigm

In every relationship, there's a point when the ownership paradigm has to be faced and decided on.  The assumption that poly relationships avoid that and that mono ones accept it as a given is neither accurate nor a fair idea of the way either model should work.

When my partner and I met, we fixated on the word "my" a lot, finding it a turn-on to use during sex and amusing at other points in time.  The idea of belonging to each other, frankly, was really hot.  And, that tends to be true even now, long past that infatuation/new relationship energy stage.    As the relationship has deepened, I've found that we pair that type of play with a recognition of each other's sexual autonomy.  Masturbation is still an outlet for both of us, both shared and alone.  I certainly wouldn't presume that I know all his fantasies, nor do I share all of mine.  So, there's a high level of sharing and of independence.  It balances out. From all I know or have experienced of poly models, the same respect is aimed for in those relationships as well. 

"Aimed for" is the key phrase there, though, as both mono and poly relationships in reality fall short of the ideal. Long-term, when you're making decisions together as a family (with or without children), taking your partner(s) for granted often just happens and communication breakdowns occur.  That seems to be what leads to the ownership paradigm developing, as partners lose sight of the independent nature of each person in the relationship's right to their own sexuality.  These days, we've moved on from the idea that a wife could "owe" her husband sex but the smaller ways we claim ownership of our partners still exist and can break a relationship.

This entry from tacit on Livejournal outlines a lot of the errant thinking that can accompany the ownership paradigm for both poly and mono relationships (although much of it is written with poly models in mind). When monoamorous people start viewing their partner's masturbation or fantasies as something they "let" occur, they're claiming ownership, just as when polyamorous people view additional relationships as something they have the right to grant permission for.

The recognition that this is neither sex positive nor even healthy is a big one for someone in a monogamous relationship in ways that may go beyond that recognition in a poly framework.  After giving that the consideration that led to this entry as well as other ways I see my relationship stepping outside the realm of traditional monogamy, I've begun claiming "monoamorous" as a far more accurate descriptor of it.

Relational Significance

In some ways, the world itself is vanilla. Our culture values monogamy, stability, homogeneity, etc.  But, even within the mono/vanilla label, there's a range.  Being mono/vanilla doesn't preclude sexual exploration, even kink.  Under the radar and labeled in ways that scream normal, my vanilla world never tastes that vanilla to me. 

One thing that caught my attention recently was an article on Jezebel that referred to polyamorous lit that places mono relationships in a light equivalent to "sexual incarceration."  The fact that this bothered me, deeply, led to heated exchanges followed by more serious and calm discussion.  The world at large is still not where it should be in terms of acceptance of different relationship models, accepting monogamy as the norm.  But, if we can move beyond seeing that as the only valid model, then, it seems fair to expect that those other models would also remain accepting of monogamy. 

In my personal world, that's mostly the case.  Poly friends and chosen family members are very accepting of the idea that theirs is one model and that love exists healthily in all kinds of ways.  But, if the argument going "mainstream" has to place monogamy as cruel or bad based on human evolution and our intrinsic biology, then, we're losing something culturally. And, those who seek support in research or literature for alternative relationship models are going to be turning to these sources and finding condemnation of anything not non-traditional. 

Acceptance of different/emerging models for relationships shouldn't mean trampling those who find the existing/more commonly accepted ones a good fit, right? 

For polyamory to gain acceptance, does monogamy have to lose?

What Vanilla Looks Like

How does a liberal, bisexual Pagan in a very red state end up being "vanilla?"  I started by being liberal from childhood in a working class household.  My parents brought home Democratic bumper stickers which we stuck on the sides of our bunk beds, framing our boy band posters and cutouts from Teen Beat.  It wasn't until my thirties, heading for a divorce, that I realized there was a word for the sexual feelings I had for both men and women.  And, at the same time, my struggles with spirituality crystallized as I discovered that what I believed in on my own had a name as well.

I emerged from a difficult divorce broke but with new awareness of myself as a fully-realized adult.  Progress is never easy, though, and no amount of self-recognition gives you foresight of where life will take you.  Dating for a few years led to finding many wonderful friends who have become a chosen family for me.  A family that gave me even more strength to self-define and learn the path to happiness.

And *that* got me to this point in time, where I'm engaged and living in a home in an upper-class neighborhood, planning a wedding that still seems unreal for both the happiness of it and the fact that it's landing me smack in Vanilla Land.  Or, at least that's how the comparison appears in a world where more and more people speak about their open relationships and claim ideas like Sex Positivity for themselves.

So.

Does vanilla and monogamous have to equal bland or Sex Negative?  I hope not.  Yet, where are the voices from Vanilla Land that embrace something beyond the church social and reality TV?  We need to be heard from.

This is what the view from the vanilla side of things looks like as I experience and figure it out.