I’ve been thinking about personal morality of late. I have to confess to a lapse in both judgment and actions and thus cannot pretend to speak from some moral high ground. Instead, I am wondering how to live in caring relationships in a world that has devalued marriage and monogamy. If we have not devalued these values, we, as a culture, have certainly become somewhat ambivalent about them. For my own self, I do believe in monogamous relationships, but I am not convinced that they should be the only norm. Consensual polygamy may be more practical and more honest.
First, Do No Harm
I have always stated that the first rule is to affirm life. That which is harmful to that dictum is harmful to any practical morality. Honesty, care, compassion all must be part of the equation, especially when the question involves something as personal as sexuality. Harmful sexual expression can – and does – occur in monogamous relationships. I think of sex used as power or control by either partner and see that the ideal of sharing intimacy has been lost to a need to control. This is harmful. This is, to my view, immoral. What about so-called open marriages or open relationships? I will confess a bit of inconsistency in my thinking and note that this is very provisional.
I think that “open marriage” is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is, by definition, an act of exclusive commitment. I am very supportive of this, be this for gay or straight persons. This allows the formation of a stable family unit, insofar as commitment is sustained (an assumption that is more often than not invalid in our culture of disposable covenants). I do not believe that we should enter into marriage lightly, nor do I believe that marriage should be dissolved so easily. In truth, I am coming to a place of thinking that marriage should be the exception and not the rule for most relationships.
Open relationships are quite another issue. I am not certain that I consider “don’t ask, don’t tell” to be functional or life affirming. It allows for expectations to develop and agendas to become hidden. It denies the primary ideal of honesty. I believe that consensual polygamy is acceptable outside of marriage, assuming that all partners understand the nature of the relationship and all partners are responsible in their actions.
Honesty and Ease
I do not believe in lying to comfort a lover. I have been profoundly hurt by lies told to me because they would “make things easier.” They never do; they only create an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Eventually, the truth has a way of making itself known and in that destructive revelation, the ease that was bartered for is destroyed. Honesty is a much better ground upon which to build a relationship. I can think of no circumstance in which a lie serves as a solid grounding for any relationship. In my experience, they have been destructive.
I think that exclusivity is a good thing. It is not the primary good. It is good insofar as it creates a boundary for trust and commitment to one another. I am a 48-year-old man that has come out of a (sadly) failed relationship. It was destroyed by the lies told to me by my lover. I am not in a position now to consider another exclusive relationship. I am not convinced that exclusivity must be the only grounds for intimacy.
What harm is there in this if all parties are aware of the reality and all are able to be comfortable? As I write this my Christian scruples want to rebel; but I have come to a place of not holding the Christian gospel as the cornerstone of an ethical system. I think that my reactions are well-practiced reflexes from a time when I held a different basis for an ethical system. I return to my first premise: do no harm. I am not seeking to make sex objects out of women, using them as objects rather than entering into an "I/Thou" relationship with them. This is an interim arrangement, based on honesty and the consent of all involved.
Interim Arrangements
The idea of a penultimate context from ethics is well grounded in Christian ethical thought. It presumes an eschaton, a great time of judgment and redemption at the end of all things. In a world that presumed the evil nature of the flesh and the immediate consummation of God’s redemptive promises, it followed well that all marriages were interim. Curiously, they were also reckoned as absolutely binding: No open marriages. The only other option was continence. We now live 2,000 years after the passing of the authors of the New Testament. Its apocalypticism seems to be a vestige of its time rather than a pronouncement for the ages. I think that an ethic that is grounded on that apocalyptic vision is ultimately grounded in an archaic understanding of the good. Spiritual purity was placed in contrast to physical life; even good food and drink were considered sinful, as they promoted vanity and egocentrism.
Interim ethics need to presume a mutuality of trust, realizing that life is marked by changes, some imposed by the whims of others and against our will. They understand that relationships are ephemeral and that sexual expression within those relationships needs to regard the transient nature of these relationships. I am not advocating promiscuity. I am advocating some middle ground that allows for growth toward or away from commitment but always allows for trust and honesty.
Ah, but I am only a fool…
