Historical Accuracy or Happily Ever After

While visiting a lover the other day, she told me that she had a book that she wanted me to read, because the main male character reminded her of me. I said, sure, after which she handed me a historical romance novel, Libertine's Kiss, by Judith James.

Being a guy, my normal preferred reading material does not usually include romance novels, but I have read some, particularly to research the occurrences of libertine characters in this genre, which is a fairly common character subtype.

As I took the book from her and read the blurb on the back cover, I immediately had to laugh -- the main character shared my first name. The book's setting is the 17th century Restoration court of Charles II, who could have accurately been called a libertine king. The author's note stated that the main male character, William De Veres, was based on John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, a noted libertine and poet in the court of Charles II. He was also the subject of the Johnny Depp movie, The Libertine.

As this book was classified as a romance novel, however, I already knew how the book was going to end -- in a monogamous marriage, at which time the libertine would cease being one. This is what the romance novel industry calls the "HEA"; the "happily ever after" formula, which is ubiquitous to every romance novel.

Because of this, I knew the book was going to be a disappointment from the beginning, as it could not remain true to history, nor to the real person that inspired the novel's male lead if it were to adhere to the HEA formula. Indeed, I could imagine Wilmot's sardonic laughter if he'd been able to read the book and see the character he'd inspired go completely out of character during the course of the novel.

And not only did the characterization of the male lead deviate from actual history, so did the female lead's view of what marriage should be deviate from 17th century norms in general, which I'll further elaborate on later below.

Nevertheless, I decided to go ahead and read it, anyway. The book proved to be an engaging read, with the author throwing in snippets of Wilmot's actual poetry throughout the book. Many times during the book, the male lead expressed thoughts that could have come out of my own mouth; enough so that I wondered if the author had read my blog.

To cite a few examples, when asked why he'd ended up as a libertine, he explained to the female lead that it was simply his nature, which is something I've done many times myself.

In another scene, he proposes marriage to her, knowing that he needed to get married sooner or later if he was to have heirs. He reasoned that he might as well do so with a woman he cared for. When she asks if he would remain sexually faithful to her, he honestly tells her no, respecting her enough to be honest with her. When she protested, he explained that there was a difference between sex and love, implying that one should not be inextricably bound to the other.

And this brings me to the book's flaws. The female lead, who was a widow, rejected his initial proposal because she vowed she would not remarry for anything but love. But such a sentiment would have been far less common in the 17th century than now. People then married much more often for practical reasons and love, if present, was considered icing on the cake, rather than the reason to marry in the first place. A woman of that time would not have demanded sexual exclusivity of a prospective husband, however much she might like it, as random dalliances would have simply been considered the nature of the male beast.

Then there were the trite, cliched plot devices that could have been done away with and still allowed the story to adhere to the HEA ending.

The first cliche was that the male lead was a libertine simply because he was a damaged, psychologically tortured man, having been molested as a teen by his tutor and for having had dysfunctional parents. Rarely in romance novels is a libertine a libertine merely because he like frequency and variety with his sex life. The assumption is that every normal person desires a lifelong, monogamous marriage.

The second cliche that left me rolling my eyes in disbelief was that the male lead immediately lost the desire to have sex with other women the moment he took up with the female lead. He became de facto monogamous at this time, despite his claims to the contrary. This is completely unbelievable, as no person who'd been a libertine his entire would suddenly lose that proclivity at the drop of a hat. Indeed, I would imagine that a libertine who'd made the decision to start living a monogamous life would not lose the desire for sexual variety and would have to work very hard to maintain a monogamous life.

Taken as a whole, however, this book was an interesting read, but I strongly believe the author would have done much better had she written it as straight historical fiction. If she'd done so, she would have been free to write the main characters in a more historically accurate manner, rather than as a romance, where she was hamstrung by the romance novel formulaic HEA requirement.

Indeed, Paula Reed's historical novel, Hester, which takes place along the same time period as Libertine's Kiss, did just that, which served to produce a superior novel. Her libertine character, John Manning, is much more genuine and believable than James' William De Veres.

Just my .02 cents.

Study Claims That Liberalism, Atheism, and Sexual Exclusivity in Men Correlate With Higher IQs

A new study, which will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly, has claimed that higher IQs, on average, are correlated with liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity in men (but not in women!).

I buy the first two correlations, as I'm liberal and agnostic bordering on atheist, but I strongly beg to differ on the last correlation. I have never been sexually exclusive with anyone in the 30+ years I've been sexually active, yet I had the highest IQ in my high school graduating class (140). I know this because the guidance counselor made a point of telling me so shortly before I graduated.

The reasoning given was that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past.

Sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates, which helped the human species survive

George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart."

I see several things wrong with the inclusion of sexual exclusivity as a factor involved in higher intelligence. First of all, sexual activity and reproduction are no longer inextricably linked; thus promiscuity no longer necessarily means that a man will sire large amounts of children. Secondly, no libertine worth his salt, myself included, sleeps with a large variety of women with the desire to "spread our genes around." I've had hundreds of partners in my lifetime, yet I've managed to sire only one child.

Considering that every male celebrity who strays from his marriage now garners widespread societal disapproval and extensive publicity, I'd hardly say that sexual exclusivity is no longer an "unconventional" idea for men. Sexual exclusivity for both sexes has been one of our society's most sacred of cows for quite some time now, regardless of human nature.

Indeed, to be openly and unashamedly non-monogamous is now an unconventional philosophy in our current society.

And in light of the fact that it was religion that imposed monogamy on society in the first place and a large part of being religious today is to accept and adhere to the idea of sexual exclusivity with a single mate, it would seem as if intentionally non-monogamous lifestyles would be more accepted among liberals and atheists.

An interesting study to be sure, but one with a lot of holes in it.

Thoughts?

Four Types of Sex

As I see it, sex is a very basic, primal, and instinctual thing. For me to
be attracted to a particular partner, an emotional response isn't
necessary, though it's not unwelcome in some instances. Rather, it's a
matter of chemistry and hormonal response. I don't have this
response with just anyone, but I most certainly have it quite a bit
more often than an emotional response.

I classify sex in four basic ways:

Sex with no love and no chemistry/hormonal response
Sex with love only
Sex with chemistry/hormonal response only
Sex with both love and chemistry/hormonal response


I've tried it all four ways.

Sex with no love and no chemistry/hormonal response is mechanical
and unsatisfying. I've only done this a few times and I don't do
this sort at all anymore.

Sex with love and no chemistry/hormonal response is not sexually
satisfying, either. Such instances are a matter of trying too hard
and trying to force something that isn't there. It also has the
highest probability for emotional hurt. I also avoid these types of
encounters as well.

Sex with chemistry/hormonal response only can be extremely
satisfying depending upon the context, such as one night stands and
fuckbuddy relationships. They work best for anyone who is able to compartmentalize and see thevalue of sex for its own sake. As a libertine, this type is what is most common for me, as chemical attraction is vastly more common than being in love.

Sex with both love and chemistry/hormonal response is, of course, also
highly satisfying in its proper context, which are long term
committed relationships. However, they are less desirable when one is
merely interested in a one time deal, or a fuckbuddy relationship without
other expectations. This type tends to create complications which are a hassle in those types of relationships.

So, though I am a libertine, I am not entirely indiscriminate, as there are only two of the four types that I am comfortably engaging in.

Hypocrisy: The True Amorality

While idly browsing the net today, I came upon a most interesting post that expressed similar ideas to my own about the recent flurry of public moral hypocrisy we’ve seen lately on the news. What caught my interest about this post was that it came from the other side of the aisle from my own thoughts; that of the social conservative.

What follows below are my comments on this post. To better understand my comments, ead the original article first:

Why Traditionalists Should Prefer Libertines to Hypocrites

My response to this post:

Coming from the other side of the aisle, as an open, unrepentent libertine, I have to thoroughly agree with your thoughts on this matter. I’ve expressed similar thoughts on my own blog, albeit coming from the opposite side of the aisle.

In fact, I’ve had many traditionalists express similar thoughts to me; that they respect me because I am open and honest about who and what I am, without excuse or apology.

And I find it amusing, that as conservative Christians avoid company with the libertine, I tend to avoid association with the conservative Christian. I don’t avoid them as marriage partners, however, because I’ve decided that marriage as is currently defined is not a good fit for me, considering the way I’ve chosen to live my life.

Like you, I have no respect for the hypocrite; the one who gives lip service to conservative beliefs, while secretly engaging in more libertine behaviors. Just as you do, I highly value honesty and integrity in others.

Also like you, I believe that I am a moral person, even if my moral tenets differ in some key respects from yours.

Though I do not believe in sexual or emotional exclusivity of any kind, my behavior, which is congruent with my beliefs, is not “infidelity”. “Fidelity” is to honor the promises that one has made. Because I never promise to be exclusive to anyone, my non-monogamous behavior cannot be described as “infidelity”.

The core of my moral beliefs is the Golden Rule; to treat others as I would wish to be treated. Because I do not expect sexual fidelity from others, my own behavior is congruent with this tenet.

I believe true amorality resides not in the conservative traditionalist nor the honest libertine, but rather in the two-faced hypocrites you describe.

One Right Way?

"The plague of mankind is the fear and rejection of diversity: monotheism, monarchy, monogamy and, in our age, monomedicine. The belief that there is only one right way to live, only one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual, medical affairs is the root cause of the greatest threat to man: members of his own species, bent on ensuring his salvation, security, and sanity. "
— Thomas Stephen Szasz

Since my earliest childhood, I've instinctively rejected the idea that there is only One Right Way to do various things. My natural inclination has always been to think in shades of grey, rather than adhere to the simplistic, dualistic limits of black and white thinking. My instinct has never been to unquestioningly herd with the flock, but rather to ask why, doing my own research if necessary. And if I don't find the answers to be logical, reasonable, or currently relevant, I reject them.

Humans by nature are ingenious and malleable. We are able to adjust and adapt to various situations, often finding multiple ways, albeit by different means, to arrive at a workable solution. Few things in life require a single method of accomplishment, as "All Roads Lead to Rome" tends to be the rule, rather than the exception.

However, humans throughout history tend to have an atavistic fear of difference, however benign. The desire for uniformity, for mass conformity, probably is at the root of most human conflict. The idea that all the pieces of a puzzle need not be of universal shape and design in order to fit together in a harmonious whole is nowhere near attaining critical mass at this point in human history, if it ever does.

Nevertheless, there will always be a sizable minority of contrary souls like me to make sure the idea is never extinguished.

Thoughts?

Relationship ADD

The other day, I was visiting a lover I don't see all that regularly, and she told me that I have "Relationship ADD", because I flit from relationship to relationship, with little interest in settling down with one woman.

After I finished laughing my ass off, I conceded that she was probably right and that referring to my wandering ways as such was really rather clever.

I thought about it a little, and realized that one of the prime reasons I tend to move on from any particular relationship is boredom; once I've pretty well gotten all the mystery out of a particular relationship and my partner has become fairly predictable, my attention wanders and I lose interest. Rarely do my relationships break up because of anger or hard feelings; they die from lost interest and benign neglect.

And like those with ADD who jump from one thing to another, I've long been happy with having several lovers concurrently; when one gets boring, I go visit another, so I that I don't get terminally bored with any particular one permanently too soon.

Nevertheless, this type of ADD is one that I have no interest in "curing".

The Sexual Hell Test

Your result for The Sexual HELL Test...

HELL LEVEL 3

Raw score: 81%

There's a special place in Hell for you: the basement penthouse. You scored the nastiest possible score on the Sexual Hell Test. You have no sexual restraint whatsoever. You'll take pleasure however you can get it, and my guess is you get it a lot. If for some reason you don't right now, you will soon, as people in your category only tend to spiral down ever deeper into the abyss of carnality and delicious sin. Congratulations.


I, personally, think that this category is the best. Paradoxically enough, sexual liberation and indulgence can only bring you closer to purity.


AVOID: all but level 3 hellions like yourself. You wouldn't want to ruin anyone, now would you?

Take The Sexual HELL Test at HelloQuizzy

Bar Hookups

A recent Alternet article, The Thrill of the Bar Hookup by Josey Vogels recently posed the question:

What exactly do people get out of cruising for inebriated strangers in bars?

As one who has extensive experience with one-night stands, I commented on this article which follows below:

I Outgrew the Bar Scene

I used to do a lot of bar pickups when I was in college (drinking age was 18 then). As the author said, I wasn't looking for any meaningful relationships; I was just looking to get laid. But some of those one night stands turned into friends with benefits relationships and I met my ex-wife in a college bar.

But when I left college, I gave up drinking and also any desire to hang around drunks and spend time in smoky places. Thus, using bars to find new partners dropped off for me and now, I rarely enter a bar for any reason. And the older I got, the more important it became to avoid alcohol, so there is no chance of anything interfering with my "functionality".

However, the desire for the thrill of the hunt and the victory of conquest has never left me. Fortunately, however, I've found I'm able to make pickups wherever I go. Some favorite places are bookstores, the library, the supermarket, outdoor festivals, fairs, and flea markets, laundromats, and so on. Partners found in these places also yield a higher possibility than not to end in friends with benefits relationships. I prefer being sober and having sober partners, plus I tend to find more intelligent women, especially in bookstores and libraries, with whom I can also have a real conversation with.

Those readers who have hooked up for one-night stands in the past, feel free to share your experiences below.

Sometimes A Cigar is Just a Cigar

Once again, Alternet has provided me with blogging fodder. In the latest article, Caveman Sex: How Evolutionary Psych Pushes Sexist Stereotypes , the author makes the point:

The watered-down evolutionary psychology prevalent in pop culture enables some men to rationalize sexist double standards about relationships.

I found the article to be rather simplistic, so I made a comment, which is shown below:

I am one of those promiscuous males the author writes about. However, I don't consider myself "loutish", nor do I have sex with anyone who is not entirely willing.

I find the assertion that men like me are looking for the most fertile women to impregnate laughable at best. Believe me, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in siring children. Rather, I take great pains to avoid doing so. In 30+ years of my active and varied sex life, I've managed to only sire one child -- and that was during the very brief time I was married.

Nor is my choice of partners dictated by what the media tells me I should find attractive -- I use ALL my senses when choosing partners, not just my eyes. I've been with women of all types: short, tall, fat, thin, in-between, stereotypically "beautiful", average, plain, and "homely". Essentially quite a few women between 18 and 65 are game to me. My ideal partner is open minded, intelligent, and, obviously has a healthy interest in sex.

Nor do I believe that women are necessarily "coy" and choosy. I've had several hundred lovers over the years and I think I'd have had a harder time finding willing women if the "coy" theory was uniformly true. I don't think women are any more naturally monogamous that men are, but rather, they've learned to be that way because they've traditionally been punished more severely for straying than men have been.

In conclusion, I'd say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and that some people, male and female, are promiscuous simply because we like frequency and variety in our sex lives.

Monogamy Is Monotony

On Alternet this morning, I read an article, Why Relationship Sex is Boring, by Esther Perel, author of the book "Mating in Captivity". In this article, she makes the point:

The very things that nurture love -- comfort, stability, safety -- can extinguish sexual desire.

I pretty much agreed with what she had to say and my comment on the article follows below:

Monogamy is Monotony

I think the author pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I've found that once I get to know a partner completely and that there are no more surprises left, nothing new to learn about this woman, then boredom sets in and desire flies out the window and the sex becomes routine and mechanical. And all the sex books and new positions and new settings in the world don't change the fact that I'm having sex with the same old partner.

It's quite similar to what would happen if you decided to eat your favorite meal 3 meals a day, 365 days a year. What was once your favorite meal, quickly becomes "the same ol' thing", no longer anything special.

After a brief failed marriage in the 80s, I decided that marriage and monogamy were no longer for me, as it wouldn't be fair to me or to any woman I might marry. Since that time, my relationship/sex life is to have several "friends with benefits" relationships going concurrently, with the occasional one night stand thrown in for added variety. I live alone, maintaining my own space.

There's no domestic dailiness to kill the desire, living apart keeps us from knowing every small detail about one another, and having several relationships at once keeps excessive familiarity away longer. And when any one of these relationships runs its natural course(they typically run from one to five years), I tend to remain friends with them.

I only had the one child from the failed marriage and had no desire for more, so my life didn't upset the lives of children, as I've kept my relationship life separated from my role as a parent.

I can't advise anyone else how to conduct their lives, but I can say it works for me.

Sex Survey

This sex survey was lifted from the beautiful Chica-X.

1. What is the strangest thing you have ever inserted or seen inserted (in a sexual manner) in person?

It would have to be a PR-24 police baton that I would insert into a lover by the vaguely penis-shaped handle end.

2. Have you ever had sex anyone whose name started with a J?

Too many to count. My current primary lover's first name begins with a J, incidentally.

3. Have you ever been outside completely naked?

Of course. I would advise others wanting to do likewise to make sure not to do it during mosquito season, though.

4. Do you prefer music, TV, or other noise in the background when you have sex?

Music, preferably with a beat that approximates the rhythm of sex; slower for "making love", faster and heavier for good old fashioned fucking. I'm not fond on having a TV on when having sex, unless we're using a porn tape as inspiration for our activities.

5. Have you ever used ice for sexual purposes?

Sometimes -- it's amazing what ice does for nipples!

---

Feel free to provide your answers in the comment box.

The Benefits of 'Friends With Benefits'

Yesterday, I read an article on Alternet, Are There Any Real Benefits to 'Friends with Benefits'?, which took the view:

Having 'friends with benefits' can be fun. But it can also destroy friendships and stand in the way of real relationships.

As one who has spent much of his adult life engaging in concurrent "friends with benefits" relationships, I had to comment to disagree. Interestingly enough, most of the comments took a similar viewpoint to my own. My comment follow below:

I am a non-monogamous heterosexual male. I prefer novelty and variety in my sex life. I'm not interested in a daily, domestic committed relationship, as I prefer my independence and privacy. I do not wish my sex life to consist only of random hookups, though these have their place on occasion. For my life, friends with benefits relationships work well. Currently, I have several friends with benefits relationships going on, which has worked for me in the 30+ years I've been sexually active.

There are a lot of women who, for whatever reasons, don't want a serious relationship at various points in their lives, but they still have sexual needs they want fulfilled. These are the kinds of women whom I typically choose for my partners. There's lots of great sex with no strings attached on both sides. The cast of characters continues to shift over the years, but that just goes with the territory.

And that's what it's all about. People still have sexual needs even if they don't have the time or inclination to pursue a full-blown relationship, monogamous or not.

The author of this article compares FWB relationships to "real" relationships. As far as I'm concerned my relationships are "real"; they're just not traditional. My relationships are non-traditional, but they're no less "real" than those that end in marriage or long-term commitments. I don't measure the quality of my relationships by how long they last; I don't see my relationships as endurance contests. If the sex was good for both of us in the time it lasted, then it was a success.

She also said, "The cornerstone of friendship is open communication, and becoming a friend with benefits actually shuts down those open lines. Let's face it, if the only thing you're doing together is having sex, it isn't the same thing as sharing who you are."

In response to this, I'm quite honest with the women I have FWBs with -- I make the nature of the relationship quite clear with each woman at the very beginning. We're not getting together to "share who we are" any more than two people who get together once a week to go bowling, play bridge, watch sports on TV, or whatever, get together to "share who they are". We all have casual acquaintances with whom we get together for sole or limited purposes and no one laments the lack of "soul sharing" in these relationships. So, why not sex, too, between two sexually compatible people who are just looking for great sex?

Is There a Monogamy Gene?

A recent scientific study of Swedish twin brothers suggests that there may be a genetic component the ability of men to be monogamous and how strongly they bond with their mates.

The gene involved modulates the hormone vasopressin.

"Our main finding was an association between a variant of the vasopressin receptor 1a gene and how strong bonds men reported they had to their partners," said lead researcher Hasse Walum, of the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. "Men carrying this variant scored on average lower on a scale measuring the strength of the bond compared to men not carrying this variant."

This study was begun in response to results from a similar study with voles. "Studies in voles have shown that the hormone vasopressin is released in the brain of males during mating," Walum said.

The more vasopressin in the brain, the more male voles wanted to remain with the female after copulation is over, the study showed . This effect was more pronounced in monogamous voles.

Of course, voles and humans are quite different, so the research team focused the vasopressin 1a gene, which is shared by both species. Variations in this gene strongly influenced vasopressin activity in the male vole, so researchers wondered if it might be the same for men.

The research team looked for variants of the vasopressin 1a gene among the 552 pairs of male twins that participated in the study. All the men were currently in a relationship that had lasted at least five years, with 18 percent being unmarried. The men were given psychological tests that measured their ability to bond and commit.

They found that men with a certain allele of the vasopressin 1a gene, called 334, tended to score markedly low on the Partner Bonding Scale, which is a psychological test. They were also less likely to be married than men with another form of the gene. Carrying two copies of the 334 allele doubled the odds that the men had undergone some sort of marital crisis.

Dr. John Lucas, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College said that the findings made sense to him, as genes help drive much of human behavior, including mate bonding.

He pointed out, however, that this gene wasn't the only factor involved that influence a man's ability to form bonds and/or be monogamous.

"It's unlikely to be a single gene—it's likely to be multiple genes that are expressed incompletely and interact with the environment," said Lucas. He said that inborn temperament, which is likely hard wired by our individual genetic makeup, and interacts through time with our environment through training and experience, forms our personalities. Personality, in turn, involves the ability to commit.

Walum also noted that the finding would likely not be applicable to women, since vasopressin appears to be tied to social bonding in males, but not females. Further studies focusing on females would be needed to indicate what affects the ability to commit for women.

He also stated that the results of this study would not be sufficient to predict future behavior in any given man.

For me, personally, monogamy is a bad fit that has always felt unnatural. And through experience and observation, I've come to the conclusion that some people naturally have an easier time living monogamously than others. it's quite interesting to find that medical studies that back up what I've always known instinctively.

I think a follow-up study should be conducted to see why the variation in alleles exists, as it apparently serves a biological purpose that would indicate that a variation in mating strategies, rather than monogamy for everyone without exception, is beneficial to the human race.

Thoughts?

Libertine FAQ

What is a libertine, anyway?

A person who espouses or practices libertinism (q.v.)., which is:

1. Defiance in thought, word, or deed of the prevailing sexual mores (q.v.).

2. Sexual activity as such -- that is, without unwelcome admixtures such as the violation of another's freedom -- conducted in rejection of what others think is proper as expressed in laws, social mores, or codes of religious purity; licentious sexual behavior. The pejorative tag is "liberty without virtue," although that tag falsely implies that all people who practice libertinism in this sense lack virtue.

3. The view that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is acceptable.

4. The view that one is morally free to engage in sexual activity without incurring marital obligation, whether first or afterwards, with as many willing people as one wishes.

Isn’t libertinism the same thing as promiscuity; being a slut?

Similar, yes. However, many libertines have actively chosen this lifestyle, unlike many promiscuous people who merely drift into such behavior without much conscious thought or choice. The difference in outlook being that, for many people, promiscuity is a manifestation of other issues going on in that person’s life, whereas, for the libertine, it is a matter of philosophy and a way of looking at the world that goes beyond mere sexual expression.

What’s the difference between a libertine and a sex addict?

Choice and control. The libertine has chosen sexual freedom with a clear conscience and is in control of with whom, when, where, and how they choose to have sex, whereas the sex addict is acting out of compulsion and feels much guilt. See my blog entry “Libertine vs. Sex Addict” (30 Aug) for a more in-depth comparison.

Are libertines polyamorous and/or swingers?

Though all three have sex with multiple partners, libertinism isn’t the same as polyamory or swinging. Both forms of non monogamy are too structured to be true libertinism, where the emphasis is on unrestrained sexuality.

Polyamory stresses love and generally involves limiting oneself to a set number of partners. Swinging, on the other hand, generally doesn’t limit the number of sex partners, but swingers are usually legally married and are emotionally monogamous.

Libertines do not like to limit themselves either emotionally or in their availability to having new lovers. Rather, libertines prefer to remain open to all possibilities.

Do libertines have long term love relationships? Or is it all about the sex?

Libertines can fall in love just like anyone else. Unlike monogamous people, who confine their sexual expression and romantic love to a single partner, libertine relationships run the full gamut of possibilities, usually with several, of different levels of intensity, going on simultaneously.

The types of relationships typically include one night stands, fuckbuddies, sexual friendships, and love relationships. There may be one or several of each type going on concurrently, though the typical pattern is to have fewer “in love” relationships and one night stands, and more fuckbuddies and sexual friendships. Fuckbuddies and sexual friends are quite similar, differing mainly in frequency and feelings. Fuckbuddies are now and then lovers, at the emotional level typical of acquaintances, where one may love (but not be “in love” with) a sexual friend and usually sees them on a more regular basis.

Of course, every libertine manages it differently; some are indeed, “all about the sex”, where others lean more toward the polyamorous end of the spectrum. Any way is good; the key component being individual preference.

Can one be a libertine and be celibate? Monogamous?

Yes. Being a libertine isn’t only about behavior; at the core, it is an attitude, a philosophy, a way of looking at the world.

Though no libertine wants to be celibate, sometimes libertines are obliged to be celibate by circumstance: sickness, old age, etc.

Similarly, there are those who might be married and have many unavoidable responsibilities and do not have the time to pursue libertinism at certain points in their lives.

There are active libertines, and there are also libertines merely by belief.

Do libertines make promises they don't intend to keep just to get someone into bed?

Jerks come in all types, libertines included. So, the less ethical among us might do that, but anyone who’s been successful as a libertine for any length of time has learned that honesty is the best policy and prevents most types of hassles.

What about STDs?

The first thing to remember is that all forms of sexual expression carry risks; the only thing that is 100% guaranteed to be safe is abstinence. And for nearly everyone, that isn’t a workable or acceptable option. That being said, it is true that those of us with active, non monogamous sex lives do have a greater risk of contracting STDs, and it is important for us to be aware of and practice safer sex methods, especially with new lovers and those of short duration.

Condom usage and periodic testing for STDs is important, as is taking some care in choosing partners. Of course, this isn’t foolproof, but it does reduce the likelihood.

Life itself comes with risks -- driving a car is risky, flying in a plane is risky, crossing a busy city street on foot is risky. Consenting adults all have to decide for themselves what is an acceptable level of risk to have in their lives, and then take responsibility for their choices and any such consequences that may result.

And again, honesty is essential. Before getting involved with us, potential new lovers deserve to know that we are not monogamous in order to be able to make an informed decision whether to consent to sexual involvement. Giving others the opportunity to assess their own personally acceptable risk level is the only ethical thing to do.

------
Note: This is a reprint of the FAQ I did on my original blog at Blog City in 2004.

Voluntary Sterilization and Young, Childless Adults

Recently, I was having a conversation at work about young, single guys in their 20s who get vasectomies because they don't ever want children and are terrified of being trapped into unwanted fatherhood by a woman who has an "accident on purpose". There are also those who are sick of having to use condoms every time, and who also recognize that legitimate accidents can happen even with regular condom use.

As with childless -- and sometimes not so childless -- women in the same age group, doctors are reluctant to sterilize people in that age group, taking the attitude that they don't know their own minds, despite being of legal age.

After this conversation, I googled this topic and discovered that many men are lying about their age and sometimes their parenthood status, in order to get the vasectomies. This is, of course, easier for men to do, as a physical examination cannot reveal whether or not a man is already a father as it can with women and motherhood.

A comment made by one of my female coworkers especially irked me. She said she had nothing against this, just as long the man was single or if his wife/female partner gave permission.

Excuse me? No one owns my body but me and as an adult, I have every right to do with it as I see fit -- I need no one's permission.

I know that women used to have to get their husbands' permission to get a tubal ligation, but this was just as wrong, as a woman’s body belongs to her alone, just as a man’s does..

Granted, for those of you in committed relationships, it would be best to discuss this step with your significant other before proceeding, but the final decision properly remains with the person who owns and "wears" the body every day. The hell with getting permission.

As for myself, though I’ve been promiscuous, to say the least, during my entire adult life, I’ve never taken the step of getting snipped. I’ve thought about it, but as cheap as I am, I’ve never followed through. Fortunately, I’ve managed to sire only one child during the course of all these years, though I’ve had a few scares. I guess I’m lucky, careful, or both.

I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about the idea of people in committed relationships needing to get the permission of their spouse/sigificant other in order to get sterilized. I’d also like your opinion of young, childless people getting voluntarily sterilized in their 20s.

Questioning Sacred Cows

On Alternet, in the article "Is Cheating Ever OK", the author addresses the question:

If one partner refuses to have sex, does the other have the right to seek it elsewhere?

My response to this article follows below:

Perhaps the question should be "Should monogamy always be an unquestioned part of every intimate relationship", rather than, "Is 'cheating' ever OK?"

While monogamy isn't natural for human beings in general, some people have an easier time being monogamous than others. The intensity of libido, of sex drive, varies widely among people. Monogamy is, perhaps, easier among those with roughly matching sex drives, and easiest among those with moderate to low libidos, where variety and/or novelty isn't high on their list of sexual needs. With a couple where both partners have relatively low libidos, a sexual dry spell would not necessarily make them want to look elsewhere for sexual gratification. Monogamy tends to work well for such people.

But for those of us with moderately high to very high libidos and/or where variety and novelty is important, monogamy is akin to the restrictor plates that NASCAR uses at superspeedways to limit how fast the cars can go. That is, there's a lot of power (sex drive) being thwarted to keep it within socially accepted limits.

If you've got a couple with mismatched libidos, as described here, you've got a recipe for frustration for the one with the higher libido. Such couples may be well-matched otherwise, but the expectation of strict monogamy in such instances can ruin what was otherwise a good marriage.

Likewise, there are instances where one partner becomes chronically ill or disabled and is no longer able to have sex. Is it fair to expect the healthy partner to satisfied with "just cuddling" for the rest of their lives?

Another related sacred cow is that many people believe that sex and love must always go together; that the only "proper" reason to have sex is as a way to express love for one's partner. But in reality, people have sex for many different reasons in addition to love: to fill a physical need similar to eating, sleeping and so on, a stress reliever, they're horny, etc. I'm of the opinion that as long as sex is between consenting adult partners, there is no one "proper" justification for sex.

In addition to questioning the assumption that all intimate relationships must always be monogamous, no matter what, we need to question the assumption that the only proper reason to have sex is to express love for one's partner. Perhaps then, couples with mismatched libidos or those with a disabled partner who are otherwise happily married, could continue to be happily married without one partner being sexually frustrated.

Your thoughts?

Sometimes A Cigar is Just a Cigar

When checking Alternet this morning, my eyes was immediately caught by the title to one article: Do Jerks Get Laid More?

I thought to myself, "here we go again." Yet another expression of the tired opinion that Monogamous = Nice Guy, Non-monogamous = Jerk. Needless to say, I find that black and white assumption to be simplistic at best.

My response to this article follows below:

Sometimes a Cigar Is Just a Cigar

I'm one of those guys who has had a large number of sexual partners since I first became sexually active in the mid-1970s. I'm unmarried and have been for my entire adult life, barring one brief misadventure into marriage in the early 80s.

I don't think I'm a jerk or a narcissist, however. I just have a high libido and I prefer casual sex with a variety of partners, rather than settling down into a monogamous relationship with just one partner.

I'm not a jerk, as I'm honest with women and tell them up front what I'm all about -- they have a chance to walk away if that's not their cup of tea.

Though I'll occasionally have a one night stand and I do have more serious relationships (never monogamous), I'm mainly the "friends with benefits" type for several women concurrently.

That is, there are a lot of women who, for whatever reasons, don't want a serious relationship at various points in their lives, but they still have sexual needs they want fulfilled. These are the kinds of women whom I typically choose for my partners. There's lots of great sex with no strings attached on both sides. And though the cast of characters continues to shift over the years, it's worked well for me -- and for them, too.

And that's what it's all about. People still have sexual needs even if they don't have the time or inclination to pursue a full-blown relationship, monogamous or not.

Your thoughts?

Libertine Liberal

Once again, Alternet has given me something to write about. In the article, Progressive Religious Leaders Drowned Out in Conversations About Sex, the author refutes the idea that progressive sex and family values don't mix.

However, one thing the author wrote made me leave a comment that questioned an assumption made even by many liberals: "...the false moral dichotomy of today's manufactured narrative that equates values with conservatives and liberals with libertines."

My response to this was:

I AM a Libertine Liberal

But that doesn't mean I have no ethics, principles, or morality. It's just that I don't accept that to be a moral person that I must live a monogamous lifestyle -- in my book monogamy isn't synonymous with morality.

I'm honest and open about my non-traditional life. I practice what I preach, unlike some of the hypocrites in the so-called "family values" crowd.

Though I don't care about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, as the "family values" crowd thinks moral people ought to be concerned about, I am concerned with the issues of poverty, health care, the environment, education, and other truly moral issues.

I also raised a child to responsible adulthood as a single parent, with whom I now enjoy a good relationship, so they can't tell me that I don't care about children just because I don't live like Ned Flanders.

I don't want to hear it from either side that I can't be a moral person because I'm a libertine. True morality isn't about what you do in the bedroom, anyway. It's how you treat people in general.

Morality for me is deceptively simple: "Treat others as you would wish to be treated". If that's all a person takes away from religion, then they're doing well in my book.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the Sexual Double Standard

I read an article on Alternet this morning about the sexual double standard: "He's a Stud, She's a Slut"

This article, based on the author's book of the same name, focuses on the fact that women have traditionally be more negatively judged for being promiscuous than men have been. However, she greatly overstated her position by saying, "'Slut' is applied to women engaged in any activity besides knitting, praying, or sitting perfectly still lest any sudden movements be deemed whorish." She was similarly simplistic when she assumed that promiscuous men are always viewed in a positive manner.

My reply to this article:

I am one of those males with a lot of sex partners the author speaks of. The author is essentially right to say that my female partners are judged much more harshly than I am, though men like me don't go entirely without being judged negatively either.

Men like me are commonly viewed as being "afraid of commitment", "emotionally unavailable", "immature", "jerks", "assholes", "sexist", "misogynist", and so on. Need I elaborate further? I could, because I've heard it all.

But this wouldn't be any more true for me than it would be for a woman who similarly prefers variety and novelty in her sex life.

Nor do I apply a different standard to women who prefer casual sex than I do to myself, as that would be highly hypocritical to say the least. Indeed, where would I be at if all women were strictly monogamous, one-man women? Instead, when I find a woman who is like me, I feel as if I've found a kindred spirit.

And I'm not particularly fond of the words used to describe the actively non-monogamous male than women are thrilled by the word "slut". This is mainly because such words connote a rather mindless, thoughtless approach to sex, rather than the deliberately promiscuous-by-philosophy approach that I have taken.

Rather, I've adopted a term hundreds of years old to self-define my sexual inclinations: libertine. This has the benefit of being a value-neutral term equally applicable to both men and women.

I never refer to a woman as a "slut", nor would I care to be described as a "player". I refer to all people who prefer a variety of casual sex partners as libertines instead.

Thoughts?

The Nature of Cheating

For the purposes of this entry, I will address the concept of cheating as the term is commonly used in reference to personal relationships, rather than that of breaking rules in regards to doing various types of work.

I've had many people refer to my lifestyle of intentional nonmonogamy as "cheating". On the other hand, I've had several married men who approve of my lifestyle and who are engaging in extramarital sex without their wives' knowledge tell me that they are "just like me".

Wrong on both counts. I am unmarried. I have not taken vows that promise sexual exclusivity to any woman. I remain unmarried so I can engage in the life I have chosen openly without any conflict of interest. That is not cheating.

If I ever chose to marry, I would not promise fidelity, nor would I expect any woman to do so. It would be what's known as an "open marriage". This also would not be cheating, as she and I would have agreed to different rules. One must agree to certain rules in order to be bound by them; the mere fact that most people agree to such rules does not automatically bind one to them, if one has openly declared to live by different rules.

Married men who engage in extramarital sex clandestinely without their wives' knowledge or approval are not "just like me" at all. They have not openly owned their non-monogamous natures and they have vowed to keep the traditional rules of marital fidelity. They want it both ways and are playing both ends against the middle. They want the convenience of a wife and domesticity and also the sexual freedom I enjoy, without having to admit to it honestly. They are cheaters. To be honest, they should either live up to what they agreed to or openly try to re-negotiate the terms of their marriages.

Thoughts?