How can I be sure he's monogamous?

Someone asked me the other day: “How can I be sure he's monogamous?”

But what she really wanted to know was how she could be sure that he would be faithfully sexually-exclusive with her and her alone, as opposed to promiscuous.

People often mistake the question of whether to be monogamous or non-monogamous (or polyamorous or polygamous) for the question of whether or not to be promiscuous. But plenty of monogamous individuals are promiscuous, and plenty of poly folks strictly limit themselves to a couple of lovers. The word “monogamous” is ambiguous. It has a number of different meanings, only one of which necessarily implies “not promiscuous”. I certainly know individuals who consider themselves monogamous but who reserve the right to engage sexually with others. And many married people who claim to be sexually exclusive and faithful to their spouse are in fact very promiscuous.

So if you want to be sure you are on the same page, you need to ask explicitly whether the other person prefers one-to-one sexually-exclusive relationships or whether he or she prefers a more inclusive or more open arrangement.

the boss

Take the Taken In Hand tour

Have you seen the following articles?
What you need to know about Taken In Hand
Empowering dominance
Who says you have to be submissive?
He who dares, wins
If I asked for the moon...
Don't wait too long to tell her
Quietly taken in hand
Do you need more attention in your relationship?
Alpha male dominance
Happy living in fear of a man?!

2005 Sep 24 - 12:02 | login or register to post comments | latest article | previous article | next article |

Sounds like an ex-President to me...

If someone asked me if I was monogomous, I would say, "YES!" And, in my mind and in my terminology, that would mean that I am the husband of one wife, and faithful to her - meaning, that I have not had sexual relations with any other woman.

If you've got a partner that would, out of one side of his (her) mouth say that monogomy was a significant component of the relationship, yet believe that sexual promiscuity was permissible, unless it was explicitly agreed to - well, I can only say that this is a partner that wasn't trustworthy to begin with, and I would want no part of that person in a relationship.

Just ask the ex-President's wife.

Sam (of Sam & Missy)

by Sam2020 on 2005 Sep 26 - 00:31 | login or register to post comments

Monogamy

I'm with you, Sam, but I have certainly heard people calling themselves monogamous while reserving the right to have sexual relations with individuals other than their spouse (not necessarily deceitfully).

by the boss on 2005 Sep 26 - 18:58 | login or register to post comments

Nature

Monogamy is extremely overrated. Commitment is completely undervalued however. One can be committed without being monogamous. One can also be monogamous without being committed. The gist of my point is this--by NATURE, humans are not monogamous creatures. We may be trained that way, but given a real choice, there will always be other involvement outside of a relationship. That is our nature--to experience the world and the people in it.

by Ken on 2005 Oct 29 - 10:14 | login or register to post comments

Nature and monogamy

I think some people are by nature more mongamous than others. I do think though that monogamy is something that tends to grow on you with age. when you're young having a lot of affairs etc may seem appealing, but as you get older the idea of being in a stable monogamous relationship seems more attractive"The deep, deep peace of the double -bed after the hurly-burly of the chaise- longue" as Mrs Patrick Campbell put it.

I know I wouldn't want to start having affairs again at my age, it would all be too fatiguing. Besides, I find my relationship with my husband very enjoyable, on the whole, and can't imagine having such a satisfying one with anyone else. That's not to say I don't look at attractive men with appreciation, but even if someone offered, I don't think I'd take them up on it, it would be too messy and complicated, and anyway they would be unlikely to provide me with the sort of satisfaction that my husband does when he meets my very particular needs. I do think that a monogamous relationship is ulitmately more satisfying.

by Louise C on 2005 Oct 29 - 16:00 | login or register to post comments

If we're going to argue natur

If we're going to argue nature and monogamy, I would say nature has made a pretty strong stand for monogamy in humans. Monogamous people are far less likely to fall victim to sexually transmitted diseases that can be deadly. Sure, some may find playing the field to be fun, but that doesn't mean nature favors such behavior. I find eating egg and cheese sandwhiches with mayonaise to be very rewarding, but that doesn't make it natural or safe.

by cj on 2005 Oct 30 - 16:12 | login or register to post comments

Nature isn't concerned about individuals

It doesn't care if you like eating egg and cheese sandwiches, the life of a single organism is irrelevant, nature dictates how the SPECIES operates and survives.

Men by nature have a need to sow their seed in as many women as possible, to sire as much offspring as they can. This is to ensure the survival of the species, now whether the man gets AIDS and dies, along with %50 of his mates and %25 of his children, most of his children will survive, and some of them will have a chance of developing resistance to becoming HIV infected. Result : More humans, better resistance. It's evolution.

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2005 Dec 6 - 08:03 | login or register to post comments

Men and nature

It may indeed be nature's way for men to sew as many seeds as possible,but as Katherine Hepburn says to Humphrey Bogart in 'The African Queen'; "Nature, Mr Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above."

by Louise C on 2005 Dec 6 - 14:17 | login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.