Mocking Monogamy (or, “Mo’s Emo Munch 2.0”)
I censored myself in my last post. That is because I had not worked through what I was feeling and I am protective of my emotional ebb and flow these days. As I arrived home tonight, something that happened earlier this afternoon was still tugging at the hem of my heart.
So, I’ll talk about that.
The Munch this afternoon is what I would call my “Home Munch”. It is the direct descendant of the first Munch I attended. Warts and all, I have attended this munch, with greater and lesser regularity, for 11 years or so.
Today I stood to introduce myself at the Munch, as is the custom at this event.
After a slew of people introducing themselves as “Bi-Poly-Switch”, one…..after…..the…..other. I stood and introduced myself with some humor, and then got to my “Box-O-Labels” and referred to myself as a service oriented submissive slave and…pause…Monogamous…
And then several peopled booed. Booed and jeered.
I was stunned but, as is my way, I tried to turn to the humor. “Hey, don’t hate. Step up to the plate.”
That got laughs.
I am always about getting the laugh. Sometimes at the expense of my feelings.
Because it made me feel mocked, hopeless and depressed.
I get that it is unlikely any of these folks meant harm.
But what if a new person was sitting there and saw someone known to the group laughed at for being monogamous?
How does that further push the idea that monogamy is uncool? That people will laugh at you for wanting one partner?
I am not even a hard-line monogamist. I think that it can be cool to play with other people: known quantities and friends. I would also be fine NOT playing with anyone else if I had a partner who wished that to be our dynamic.
I am hardly a person to scold people when they make a joke at my expense.
But some jokes are hurtful. And some jeers can wound.
*hugs ya* As I said at FL, just tell the haters that while they sample everything in sight, you are a gourmet and you prefer to take your time to savor the flavor.
*smiles* Then again, that is kind of judgmental in return, isn’t it?
I understand where you are coming from. It’s likely some of those boos are from people who would rather play with you, and wouldn’t want you kept away. It is a poor way to express themselves, however.
I agree, you handled it with aplomb, although you were hurt. As a newbie, if I were attending and identified as a monogamous, it may well give me pause. If I were a nervous, not totally sure-of-myself newbie, I would be shivering in my seat, most likely.
*hugs again* Kudos to you for stepping up and blogging it.
****hugs**** honey. That is rude, disrespectful, and aims to hurt. I have been both monogamous and not. Currently I am monogamous but my nature is not. However I can appreciate and honor a range of choices – I am so sorry those folks could not.
You want to know the odd thing? One of the people who’d cracked up contacted me after I posted and wanted to clarify / explain / what have you. It would seem that, from their POV, I was just me being my hilarious self. I guess I have to curb my humor, because without even trying, I brought the house down with my declaration of preferred relationship modality. Who knew?
I am still puzzling this and I am still listening to the many monogamous folks who DO feel a bit (or highly) marginalized by the majority poly BDSM / Leather Community at large.
People are certainly feeling their feelings around this issue!
xoxo
Mo
I usually skip the labels when I do introductions, mostly because I’ll approach someone directly if I want to meet them. I don’t want them pouncing on me just because I’m “X” and they are “X”. That has never worked for me.
As for the community dynamic, I figured out at some point that to be part of the long term leather community, you either had to be poly (and putting yourself in a place to find others) or an exhibitionist (wanting to play around others). The monogamous folks who are not exhibitionists hook up and disappear – because the community no longer has anything to offer them. So they tend to be the minority in the leather community (my non-scientific theory).
Howevah (<-my southerness reappearing), that doesn’t not excuse the uttah rudeness of the poly majority.
Maybe your widely posted rant will result in a bit more courtesy :-)
cheers,
bailey
[…] a year ago, I evoked hearty gales of laughter when I stood at a local Munch…one I’ve attended for over 10 years…and introduced myself as being monogamous. This was not […]
[…] myself as, among other things, monogamous. If you care to read the whole story, you can do so here. After realizing that part of the rich stew of emotions I felt when this occurred, a thread of this […]
I consider myself monogamous but it’s an emotional monogamy. I can only handle one intense emotional relationship at a time and give that partner enough attention and love. However I don’t think that physical monogamy is required for that, I can have many people I enjoy playing with but the emotional level there will be only as friends. Some people can handle multiple love relationships and it’s great that they can, those of us who for whatever reason don’t find themselves needing or wanting that shouldn’t be mocked for it.
Mo,
First let me say, I don’t believe you or anyone should be mocked for being monogamous. I think that is really a bad habit of the “sex positive” community. But… I’m a little confused. Do you have a definition of monogamy? And potentially a definition of sex? I really wonder because I’ve found myself more in agreement with Laura Antoniou’s definition of sex, that is, everything we do is sex. Because anything we do that is play related has a potential of generating an orgasm. I can’t think of a better definition of sex, than some action that has the potential of generating an orgasm. So, if that definition is acceptable, how can playing with anyone other than one person be monogamous? If you’re only defining sex as just penetrative sex, that seems a little problematic and would seem to throw us back to the Clinton and Lewinsky years, with Bill claiming he didn’t have sex with Monica because he never put a penis in her vagina. When he clearly did have sex with her. I generally think we need a broader definition of what sex is. So what do you think? Am I off base?
Monogamy as defines is about marriage. It is a flawed concept to describe any relationship outside an actual marriage, but it was the best word in common usage. Really, the only people who should use the word are those who are married. By DEFINITION? Monogamy had nothing to do with who you fuck. It has to do with who you marry. And marriage vows can vary. Wildly.
Today, I refer to myself as monoamorous: engaging in one-on-one committed, loving relationships.
I do not hold on to the idea that having an orgasm means having sex because then masturbation would be the same as a DP with a cock down my throat. Riding a bus with sketchy shocks would be having sex. And I do not consider this to be the case.
The word “Sex” is generally used as a shorthand for “sexual intercourse.” Sexual behaviour, and sexual contact, OTOH, Can encompass a whole lot of stuff. But the term Sexual intercourse is specific. it is, in fact, about penetrative sex. IN common parlance “having sex” is a penis in a vagina. Clinton was being a disingenuous lawyer and using the semantics of a heteronormative society to his advantage. (Kinda.)
Can you be monogamous and fuck around? By definition, yes. Can you be polyamorous AND monogamous? Yep. Because you can be married to one person and love many. Our language around this shit is fucked.
I am monoamorous. If I were married, I’d be monogamous. If i were married and monogamous and played with other people, those definitions would still stand.