Monogamy, Libertinism, and Character

Many times, I’ve run into the attitude that because I’ve chosen not to be monogamous, that I must have some sort of character defect; morally, ethically, and/or psychologically. One young lady, twenty years my junior, with all the arrogance typical of her age, told me that she found it “sad” that I’d apparently not found the kind of love that would make me want to settle down into an exclusive relationship. Her blithe assumptions implied that I’d never fallen in love, that I had some kind of character defect that made me incapable of love, and that all true love must be monogamous. She came to these conclusions without knowing a thing about me, other than the fact that I was a libertine.

For one thing, she’s not looking from my point of view. She is projecting how she would feel in my situation, again assuming how she sees things is the only valid way to feel. Of course, the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes and look objectively at other points of view and ways of living in this world comes with experience and maturity. Simply because hers is the majority viewpoint, doesn’t make it more valid than mine.

There was a film about the Mexican artist, Frida Kahlo. Her significant other was not monogamous, and she decided she’d do the same, considering that what was good for the goose, was good for the gander. Yet they remained together, in good times and bad, and he was with her until the end of her life. The film mentioned how she found the concept of loyalty to be more important than that of monogamy.

There are some who promise to be sexually exclusive and enter into conventional marriages, yet break their vows again and again, with few compunctions. Yet unless they are discovered, they are seen as moral upright citizens of good character. I, on the other hand, am honest and upfront about myself and my lifestyle. I have also singlehandedly raised a child from infancy to adulthood and I managed that quite nicely without ever being monogamous. Tell me, does that sound like a person with an essential character defect? I think not.