A Smokin' Hot Post about Sex!
OK, not really. But it probably got your attention. Lately I’ve been learning a lot about writing headlines. Did you know that five times as many people read the headline as read the rest of the copy? I apologize if the rest of the post doesn’t fit the headline. Although it is kind of about sex, so keep reading!
A few weeks ago, I had a fascinating conversation with a friend about open relationships. In an open relationship, it’s understood that if your S.O. loves someone else, he or she can act on that love physically and emotionally. There is no “claiming” of a person as “mine” . . . you pretty much have to be OK with your partner sharing intimately with another person or people. And vice-versa.
So, I really am not OK with this idea. I once read a book set in a hippie commune, and all the hippies were in open, “free love” relationships. In theory, this may sound meaningful, but in practice it seemed more like a chance for the men to get laid as often as possible, because hey, baby, why don’t you want to share the love? There wasn’t very much deep emotional connecting going on.
Anyway, I’m sure people currently in open relationships would take issue with my description, seeing as I got it from a book, and in some ways I can see their argument. Because the main reason I could never be in an open relationship is my jealousy and insecurity. I don’t want my S.O. to be with anyone except me. And is jealousy or insecurity really the best reason to do anything? Is the only argument for monogamy that we’d all be horribly jealous if we weren’t monogamous?
Because that doesn’t seem like a very good reason. Maybe we should all just get over it.
But I don’t believe that. I think there are more reasons for monogamy than just jealousy and insecurity. And so I turned to Wendell Berry.
(A note: I love WB. He writes amazing essays and poetry about agrarian life, and life in our messed-up culture, and relationships and all kinds of stuff. He’s sensible and thought-provoking and just so cool. It takes awhile to wade through his prose, because it is so packed full of ideas, but it’s definitely worth it).*
So WBs argument for monogamy—or rather, fidelity—is that it’s a harnessing and a containment of the energy of sexuality. That it’s not a “grim, literal duty enforced only by willpower” but rather a virtue that leads to “harmony between one creature and another.” It’s the “necessary discipline of sexuality, the practical definition of sexual responsibility . . . the keeping of faith, not just with the chosen one, but with the ones forsaken. The marriage vow unites not just a woman and man with each other; it unites each of them with the community in a vow of sexual responsibility toward all others. The whole community is married, realizes its essential unity, in all of its marriages.”
This may sound like WB is advocating open relationships, but he’s actually advocating marital fidelity for the sake of the community . . . that monogamous sexuality is a responsible way of showing love and respect to the other members of your community. Because it is a responsible harnessing of a human energy . . . energy that can be destructive if it’s not channeled. Like most of the energies in the physical world, unlimited access is not a healthy thing.
So, that seems like a much better argument for monogamy/fidelity than just a bunch of jealous insecurity. Although that’s always going to be there. And maybe jealousy isn’t completely negative. I don’t think it’s wrong to want to be special—the most special—to someone.
But either way, everyone should just read more Wendell Berry.
*all the quotes in here are from an essay, The Body and the Earth. It’s collected, with a bunch of other essays, in The Art of the Commonplace: the Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry, published by Counterpoint, 2002.
A few weeks ago, I had a fascinating conversation with a friend about open relationships. In an open relationship, it’s understood that if your S.O. loves someone else, he or she can act on that love physically and emotionally. There is no “claiming” of a person as “mine” . . . you pretty much have to be OK with your partner sharing intimately with another person or people. And vice-versa.
So, I really am not OK with this idea. I once read a book set in a hippie commune, and all the hippies were in open, “free love” relationships. In theory, this may sound meaningful, but in practice it seemed more like a chance for the men to get laid as often as possible, because hey, baby, why don’t you want to share the love? There wasn’t very much deep emotional connecting going on.
Anyway, I’m sure people currently in open relationships would take issue with my description, seeing as I got it from a book, and in some ways I can see their argument. Because the main reason I could never be in an open relationship is my jealousy and insecurity. I don’t want my S.O. to be with anyone except me. And is jealousy or insecurity really the best reason to do anything? Is the only argument for monogamy that we’d all be horribly jealous if we weren’t monogamous?
Because that doesn’t seem like a very good reason. Maybe we should all just get over it.
But I don’t believe that. I think there are more reasons for monogamy than just jealousy and insecurity. And so I turned to Wendell Berry.
(A note: I love WB. He writes amazing essays and poetry about agrarian life, and life in our messed-up culture, and relationships and all kinds of stuff. He’s sensible and thought-provoking and just so cool. It takes awhile to wade through his prose, because it is so packed full of ideas, but it’s definitely worth it).*
So WBs argument for monogamy—or rather, fidelity—is that it’s a harnessing and a containment of the energy of sexuality. That it’s not a “grim, literal duty enforced only by willpower” but rather a virtue that leads to “harmony between one creature and another.” It’s the “necessary discipline of sexuality, the practical definition of sexual responsibility . . . the keeping of faith, not just with the chosen one, but with the ones forsaken. The marriage vow unites not just a woman and man with each other; it unites each of them with the community in a vow of sexual responsibility toward all others. The whole community is married, realizes its essential unity, in all of its marriages.”
This may sound like WB is advocating open relationships, but he’s actually advocating marital fidelity for the sake of the community . . . that monogamous sexuality is a responsible way of showing love and respect to the other members of your community. Because it is a responsible harnessing of a human energy . . . energy that can be destructive if it’s not channeled. Like most of the energies in the physical world, unlimited access is not a healthy thing.
So, that seems like a much better argument for monogamy/fidelity than just a bunch of jealous insecurity. Although that’s always going to be there. And maybe jealousy isn’t completely negative. I don’t think it’s wrong to want to be special—the most special—to someone.
But either way, everyone should just read more Wendell Berry.
*all the quotes in here are from an essay, The Body and the Earth. It’s collected, with a bunch of other essays, in The Art of the Commonplace: the Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry, published by Counterpoint, 2002.
posted by Melanie at 1:35 PM
