Commitment/Monogamy

Most people would rather be around someone they can tolerate or even dislike than be alone. Everybody would rather be around someone they like than be alone. Many people can find someone they like when given a very small sample of the population. When you find someone to spend your time with, it’s nice to have some assurance that they’re not going to suddenly abandon you.

There’s a commonly accepted notion that the most convincing way to demonstrate your commitment to another is by having sex with them exclusively. I do agree monogamy is an ultimate sacrifice, and I do notice that sacrifice is an often use tactic to demonstrate commitment, but why must another submit to punishment before you can trust them? I am fully convinced our society’s obsession with monogamy has destroyed far more relationships than it ever has helped. Why should we have to go to such extremes to convince another we are committed to a continued relationship with them?

One obvious answer is that sex is the most intimate thing people can do. What is intimacy except knowing another really well? There is no logical connection why intimacy should be tied to commitment except as it relates to the previously stated idea that knowing another is often enough reason to be with them. But must humans really be that immature? Perhaps; I’m not suggesting I have any answers here. But we should be able to know someone intimately without being compelled to spend the rest of our lives committed to hanging out with them, shouldn’t we? I understand that it’s flawed to try to apply logic to human compulsion.

Another likely explanation for distrusting a committed partner with having sex with another is that sex can be addictive. The assumption is that they’ll want to go and have sex all the time instead of hanging out with you. I honestly can’t say I have a good argument against this line of thought except that there’s something worthwhile in a committed relationship that goes beyond sex. After all, most people stay in committed relationships despite the sex, not because of it. There’s a tired adage that goes something like, “When you have sex with the person you love you won’t want to have sex with anyone else.” Puulleease! How would you know? That’s what I thought.

A consideration that must always be made is the very real threat of STD’s. The worst case scenario is for your partner to be out cavorting around and then bringing home some venereal disease. Modern technology could greatly reduce the fear of STD’s, but the powers in charge seem to want us to be afraid to have sex. Things are far from my way, but if they were every major grocery store would include a free or cheap STD clinic. Among other things, this would bring a whole new dimension to the offer, “Hey baby, want to come over to my place? I’ll cook! I don’t have any food though….” I don’t even mind waiting a few days for the results; it’s not unlike the waiting period when purchasing a hand gun.

I realize these questions are instantly annihilated by the Christian assertion that sex outside of commitment is a sin. Sin is the religious equivalent of “illegal” in social justice. A felony is illegal regardless of whether you question the validity or justness of the law, and if you get caught breaking the law you will be punished regardless of whether you agree with that law unless you can successfully argue that the law is unfair and have it removed. Similarly, sin is the assumption that the universe itself has a system of laws in place that we must either follow or be punished for breaking. And there’s no arguing with the universe! This of course necessitates that the universe has awareness, intention, and the ability to execute its plan. (If the universe does have a plan for us, it’s certainly an ill-conceived one.)

The Abrahamic traditions assert that there is a universal law that sex is a sin until you sign a contract with another whom you intend to “have relations” with saying that you’ll be committed to caring for that person for the remainder of your life. Is this weird to anyone else? What other contracts can we make to void other so-called sins? In the Judaic Old Testament, males could have as many wives as they wanted, but females could only have one husband. The New Testament, influenced by the Roman culture surrounding it, declared you can only sign this bizarre sin-exempting contract with one other person. In the Old Testament, punishment for sin is poverty and enslavement on earth; in the New Testament punishment for sin is eternal torture in hell. According to the Bible, the universe not only knows what it is doing, but it is also fair, just and consistent. You can’t disprove universal consciousness, but you can pretty quickly dismiss the biblical version of it.

Most people are pretty quick to jump down my throat when I start questioning concepts like monogamy that are so ingrained in our culture. But I think we should question assumptions such as these if only because it never even occurs to most to question them. It’s a hell of a lot better than resorting to deception, guilt and surreptitiousness.