A lot of what passes itself off as polyamory these days really should be called poly-sexuality.
Because when you encounter people who claim to be polyamorous they often seem fixated on the subject of sex, not love.
This is understandable, since many polyamorous people began their love life in traditional long term monogamy.
And it is uncanny how similar the words monogamy and monotony really are!
In her book Mating In Captivity, Esther Perrel spends over 250 pages bemoaning the state of modern monogamy, exploring the paradox of how to make the marriage of sexual desire and domestic comfort work.
It seems that the more we become comfortable with our partners, the less they really interest us sexually.
Erotic love is founded in mystery and uncertainty, which the coziness and safety of daily home life just doesn’t quite support.
Many couples seek to deal with this anomoly by spicing up their love life, adding toys, role playing, and other kinky options to their bedroom activities.
They even try moving things outside the bedroom into public places!
The whole 50 Shades phenomenon shows us how extreme this attempt to liven up a dead sex life can really get.
For a lot of couples though, they finally come to conclude it is just not possible to keep sexual desire alive with one person for a lifetime.
But instead of separating and participating in the relationship assembly line known as serial monogamy, they choose instead to allow each other some sex “on the side.”
They open up their relationship.
I mentioned last week in my post on serial monogamy that guys seem to warm up to this idea of polyamory a lot more easily than you girls do. But I also emphasized this shouldn’t really be the case, because you girls are a lot more polyamous than you recognize.
You tell me all the time that you don’t believe your romantic partner is capable of meeting all your emotional needs.
So you make sure you have lots of other emotional relationships “on the side,” to make sure your needs are met.
Did you notice my use of that phrase there?
I did that on purpose.
I’m trying to get you to recognize something you don’t usually notice.
Your desire to “get some on the side” emotionally is really not that different than a guy’s desire to “get some on the side” sexually.
The reason it looks different to you is you’re a girl and you don’t have the level of sexual needs a guy has.
Being an emotional creature of course, you definitely have more emotional needs than your guy does.
But it never occurs to you to apply the same logic you apply to your emotional needs to your guy’s sexual needs.
If it is true that no romantic partner can meet all your emotional needs, why would you think it is possible for you as a romantic partner to meet all your guy’s sexual needs?
I hope I don’t have to tell you that usually guys are way more sexual than you are right?
And are we also all clear that you are way more emotional too?
So these situations are actually pretty parallel.
The double standard you girls play here is what often leaves guys in sexless marriages and relationships.
Because ultimately your needs are not sexual.
They are emotional.
And you feel completely fine with going and getting those needs met by someone other than your partner.
Often even with other guys.
You think that’s okay because it is not sexual needs you’re seeking to meet.
What’s the difference? Either way you are seeking to get your needs met by someone other than your romantic partner.
A guy’s heightened sexual needs are completely parallel to your heightened emotional needs.
So given that you think it is okay to ‘get some on the side” for your emotional needs, am I safe to assume you’re okay with your guy ‘getting some on the side” for his sexual needs too?
If not, why not?
Let me know your thoughts below.