“It’s not you, it’s me”

There is a set of clichés that constantly capture my attention. It is the ‘people weren’t supposed  to be with the same person; people aren’t inclined to monogamy; that people, men in particular, evolved from a beast and where misquoting Darwin by claiming ‘survival of the fittest’ equates to ‘spreading the seed’ as far as it will go (a rationality that would logically put rapists at the height of the pyramid). 

 

This viewpoint sometimes claims that our society has evolved to suit monogamy as a plastic and unnatural entity. Monogamy is explained quazi-historically as a way to guarantee the furthering of men’s (a rich white man’s) bloodline without too much quarrel. Today, they say, it is nice to have a life partner to help with children and the like, help out financially and for companionship. However, thanks to the invention of contraceptives, sex doesn’t mean ‘furthering of your bloodline’ unless you want it to. We have these incredible bodies, why not make the most of them? Of course, not everyone is ready to evolve past certain attached emotions including jealousy that paint the non-monogamy seeker as apparently more advanced or knowledgeable. Let alone any arguments about weird ‘I’m my own grandpa’ type loving which, if it is not about procreation, all these peeps who want us to believe their opinions are valid because they not only have a copy of Darwin on their shelves for all to see, they’ve even broken the spine so it almost looks as though it’s been read.

But there is a problem with this point of view. So long as someone believes that people have, in the past and currently, lived in a monogamous relationship and have been perfectly happy and at bliss, then they would have to wonder why it is that so many people have this ‘natural inclination’ to not be monogamous; or to not strive for it. I would think that even if someone could prove that there is a natural inclination to some sort of existence like polyandry or polygamy; this is not necessarily something that should be encouraged. Rage, fear, hatred are all supposedly natural emotions, but so is the want to move beyond the tyranny of existing without being able to control and remove these emotions when they are not appropriate. Morality itself, devoid of any religious or political structures, is a ‘natural’ inclination of man. Man, via morality, is something to be surpassed. Rejecting this idea is a very religious concept; that we are all born into sin, or that life is dukha; unsatisfactory and should be avoided or corrected by abstinence.

But do polyandrists and polygamists really review this supposed natural inclination? Surely if there is peace, happiness and love to be found in a monogamous relationship, then that should be the penultimate goal. If it is the case that this is a false goal, then so be it, but this should come later, after monogamy has failed, not as a pre-empted defeatist attitude to life.

The problem then is in asking the question of why people initially seek out polygamy or polyandry. If one person can satisfy someone’s needs in a particular way, then it is not an issue, if they can’t then it still isn’t an issue at the beginning of a relationship. At the beginning of a relationship, there are endless desires that can be fulfilled. How would a person ever know that their new partner is unable to fulfill their needs in particular ways at the beginning of a relationship? At this point, the person is without this knowledge and the possibilities are endless. One knows no different.
 
At this point, the finite amount of possibilities only occurs to the person because it exists only in their own ability to satisfy the needs of the other, rather than in their understanding of the other’s ability to satisfy them. This is the only true understanding that one has at this point. He or she may not know the limits of the other in companionship, in knowledge, in interests, in sexual abilities, in many things, but he or she knows their own limits. They know this all too well.

This may well be the true natural inclination that spawns a life removed of monogamy as a goal, one who is too scared to hope that only one other person will find them interesting enough, knowledgeable enough or sexually able enough for that person not to get bored or dissatisfied with them. Their answer is to lower the bar, to not even try.
 
Sadly so much of the debate around this type of morality is dictated by the religious right. I don’t think they have much to offer in this respect. I get that Jesus wouldn’t have been too keen on the whole horizontal folk dancing. JC, being the son of God and all would be brilliant at most things. He turned water into wine, so you’d think that his bedroom athletics would be quite decent, but think again. Firstly, there would be a lot of expectation. Secondly, if he lived up to that expectation, which I dare say he would have, his partner(s) would say what exactly? The usually appropriate word to say is “God” as in “OH god, oh god OH oh oh GOD.” Which most men would take as a decent compliment, but to JC, it’d just make him think of his dad and then, bang, no more of that type of thing really, he’d want to go play Nintendo. And before you start going “Oh, that is just a lame re-telling of the whole ‘can god cook a breakfast that is so big that even He couldn’t eat it?’ argument… yeah… I know…

This post’s Lame Joke:
A man escapes from prison where he has been for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money and guns and finds a young couple in bed.

He orders the guy out of bed and ties him to a chair, while tying the girl to the bed he gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom. While he’s in there, the husband tells his wife: “Listen, this guy’s an escaped convict, look at his clothes! He probably spent lots of time in gaol and hasn’t seen a woman in years. I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don’t resist, don’t complain, do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is probably very dangerous. If he gets angry, he’ll kill us. Be strong, honey. I love you.”

To which his wife responds: “He wasn’t kissing my neck. He was whispering in my ear. He told me he was gay, thought you were cute, and asked me if we had any vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey. I love you too!!”

This Post’s ‘Michael’s dumb pet hate’: People that say oooo “…as Descartes said ‘cogito ergo sum’” (with a hard ‘g’ sound) as if it’s some sort of badge of learning. Did he really say that there champ? While it may be a simplification of what he did say….blah. Maybe this is a touchy subject for me because a long time ago, just after the publication of my first novel, this total douche from Boston or somewhere called me a philistine because I apparently didn’t understand the big man. He went on to say that he did, because he’d read the original in French (apparently, but I didn’t touch that one). Anywho, I made the mistake of responding to this email, which is a bad thing to do. Weird people that write to you about a book usually are like really drunk friends: they only tell you one of two things – how much they love you or how much they hate you…

This post’s inappropriate over share: I’m in the situation now where any lame ‘let’s do it/how’s your day going’ type joke that I make around my wife just seems inappropriate. This is not because I’m all growed up and proper, just because the other night I was in a bit of a dark mood and having a late night wine leaning up against Trotsky and looking at the beach. Anyway, it was really cold and by the time I came back in, the LoML was all like “you’re freezing” which I made a joke about her liking calipos and me being considerate (I’m not going to spell it out exactly), which made me laugh for about a week and now anything I say just seems to pale in comparison. I’ve peeked. There’s nowhere to go but down from here dear readers.