Here's a Thought...

                I've been married for longer than I was alive before I met my husband. I've been a parent for longer than I was childless. I hit both of those markers years ago. Since I expected to spend most of my life as a married parent, I am neither surprised nor dismayed.

                I don't tend to pat myself on the back too much, either, unless I'm exposed to some train wreck of a life that makes me think, "How is it that you didn't see that coming? Amateur."

                I continue to be baffled by other people and their thoughts on marriage and parenthood, though. That's also nothing new, but it is continually astonishing.

                Years ago, I ran into a high school friend I'd lost track of just after she graduated. I was 24 and she was 21; I'd last seen her shortly after my wedding. I had a husband, two kids and a mortgage. She was divorced. "You're still with the same man?" she said. "That's so cute."

                Um, yeah. That's just how we thought of ourselves – so cute.

                (That's sarcasm, folks; I've discovered that I have to label it, or people can't tell.)

                A few years later, I was commiserating with a girlfriend as she griped about annoying male habits. I agreed with her on some point or other, saying the usual, "I know exactly what you mean."

                "No, you don't!" she said. "You don't know about men! You're married!"

                Wow. "And I married what, exactly, a hamster?" I asked.

                "No. Well, you know what I mean. You aren't out there, like, dating or anything."

                "How many hours a day do you spend with your boyfriend? I live with a man!"

                "It's not the same."

                "I know! I live with a man."

                She remained firm in her assessment that my lack of dating experience meant that I knew little about men. "You know about your husband, not about men in general." Well, OK, but that's like telling the mother of an infant that she doesn't know about babies, or a sick person that they don't know about disease. It may not be all-encompassing information, but by golly, it's first hand, reliable and in depth.

                Actually, I was always sure – and I still am – that I knew more about men from being "one of the guys" than I would if I was dating any of them. Guys, think about how you behaved around your buddies, and how you behaved around girls that you wanted to impress. If you grew up with me, think about the times you hushed me before I spilled the beans in front of your girl. Who knew you better – that is to say, who had a more accurate picture of what went on in your head and your life?

                What I want to talk about today, though, is one of the commonly held beliefs that just don't make any sense to me. I mean, as usual, I can tell you why people believe what they do, but to me it seems fairly ridiculous.

                I cannot come up with any compelling reason to believe that sleeping around before you get married will make you more likely to be happy settling down and being monogamous after married.

                Leave all of your preconceived ideas about choosing sex partners aside and consider the two following scenarios.

                Scenario One: It is perfectly morally acceptable to have sex with anyone who wants to have sex with you. In fact, you are encouraged to have many different partners in relationships lasting anywhere from minutes to years. You will never be able to be truly satisfied and happy with your life unless you've experienced everything that's out there. Try any number of sexual philosophies and practices, and enjoy them all. Then, one day, meet someone you will love more than you'll ever love anyone else, someone who is more compatible with you than anyone else ever will be. From that point on, you will only have sex with that one person. Even if you meet many willing, attractive, compatible individuals after you've made this commitment, even though in days or years past it would have been acceptable or encouraged to bed them, now you can't, because you've chosen your one.

                Scenario Two: You have always known that you will only ever have sex with one person. Before you make that commitment to your one, no matter who offers, the answer is no. You very carefully choose your one, because it's a matter of great importance. After you have actually made that (lifelong!) commitment, you are encouraged to have sex as often as you both wish.

                Now ask yourself: which person is more likely to be happy with their partner, happy with their sex life and content in a life of commitment and monogamy, someone who lived life #1 or life #2? Who is going to be more likely to fear that they didn't get a chance to do everything and to meet everyone?

                Right now, before you tell me at once how wrong I am, how unrealistic and naïve and stupid, and and and, let's set the parameters.

                You probably noticed that I talked about giving consent and being willing, but didn't tie it in to the usual noun that follows the word consenting in these discussions, "adult." That's because I'm thinking about all the people of my acquaintance who were having sex before they were adults. By and large, they felt justified in doing so then, and as adults they say things like, "Kids are going to have sex. It's just a foregone conclusion." I am not, for purposes of this discussion, bringing in the idea of adult to child sex, although I have heard people make that argument. ("In past centuries," they say, "it was just understood that…" Or, "We like to deny that children are sexual creatures, but they're not." I'm not going to have that discussion right now.)  I'm assuming that we're talking about teens to teens or adults to adults, with about a 4 year wiggle room margin.

                I'm also not going to muddy the waters with a discussion on the exact definition and purpose of "consent." The standard definition is my preferred one, thanks, and I'm not going to get into minutae like, "After how many drinks?"

                I also know people who will be practically yelling right now that this is why monogamy is flawed and unnecessary, because it sets people up for failure. I am not OK with that philosophy. Did we learn nothing from the key parties and "open marriage" movement of the 1970s? Wait, of course we didn't. Humans are notoriously bad at learning from the experiences of others; why do I bother to ask? If you need me to pull statistics on how often "open" relationships fail, on their own or in comparison to monogamous relationships, I'll do that. However, I think we can all be grown up and informed enough to agree that giving your significant other your blessing to have sex outside of your relationship does not guarantee that your relationship will be successful, or even that it will be free from jealousy.

                While I'm not advocating, obviously, condemning those who had sex before they were married (I find that I have to state the obvious, or someone will argue the point), I am puzzled as to how anyone thinks that having multiple partners before marriage means that you'll be happier after marriage. I remember talking to the adorable 18 year old ingénue in a play we were both in years ago. She was gushing about her boyfriend, and another cast member asked her if she thought he'd be proposing soon. She was aghast. "Oh, no! My dad would kill me if I settled down before I sowed my wild oats!" she said. I just can't imagine.

I also couldn't wrap my head around it when a friend's mother kept encouraging her not to "rush things" by getting married to a man she'd lived with for five years. When did that become "rushing?" She insisted that she loved the daughter's beau, that he was a great guy and that they were smart people, but she panicked every time they said, "engaged" or "married." If I was cautioning one of my kids about a relationship of five years or more, it would be because I thought the partner was a bad choice, period, not because I thought they were rushing things.

I was equally puzzled when a friend broke up with her high school sweetheart when they were well into adulthood because, "I don't want to be with him just because I've never experienced anything else." Think about your best friend, the one you've known for years, the one who knows you inside and out, the one you can't wait to phone with news and spend all the time you can with. Would you ever say, "Geez, you've been an amazing friend, and I have no complaints, you've seen me through so much, but I've just got to dump you so I can see if there's someone more amazing out there"?

After they broke up and she started dating other people, she felt that the fact that she found new relationships that she was happy in (but nothing permanent so far) was a clear indicator that she'd had the wrong guy before. After all, if she was "supposed" to be with him, wouldn't life be unremitting misery without him? The fact that she found other men attractive, enjoyed their company, and had great sex with some, meant that her earlier, long standing relationship had been "wrong," she was sure.

Was I the only one who went into marriage intending to stay married and stay faithful while fully aware that I would undoubtedly, in the future, meet guys who would be great catches if I was single? Full TMI disclosure: I have had sex with 1 person in my life. I have met many that were charming, funny and delightful, who made my hormones buzz, who caused momentary daydreams or wishes that it was morally acceptable to sleep around. I kept my clothes on; it wasn't that huge an exercise in willpower. It was simply what I expected life to be like. I do not feel deprived. I am not missing out. If I was unsure about that, I have only to look at the lives of others to see it. They took what is, for me, the road not taken, and I wouldn't trade places.

I'm also not advocating staying in a bad relationship because "you made your bed, now lie in it," or because you can't bear to be wrong or to feel like the time you spent together was a "waste." (Did you learn from it? That's not a waste of time, even when you have to end it.) I'm here because I choose to be, not because I don't know that I have other choices available. I have a deal breaker list; everyone should. My husband knows what's on it, and it's nonnegotiable. Some people are in relationships from which they should RUN, not walk. I don't think that negates the idea that sleeping around is bad.

I don't believe in the idea that there is only one perfect match for everyone, and you either find that match or settle for second best all your life. Any number of people could be a perfect match for you, or me. That doesn't mean that choosing one is a bad idea. It doesn't mean that monogamy is doomed to fail.

I also think that the people who say to me, "Oh, I'm SO glad I didn't stay with my first boyfriend/girlfriend" don't negate it, either. The question at hand is whether it's easier to "settle down" after feeling free to have sex with any available partner, not whether or not young people generally have good taste or a sense of long term goals and how to get there. (For the record, some do and some don't. That shouldn't surprise anyone.)

I know many people who are monogamous after a very non-monogamous past. I know it can be done, and I know that people can be happy doing it. I just think it would be an easier transition if their past had been celibate. I know it would be tough for me to go through life thinking, "Oh, geez, why didn't I meet you earlier?"

So many people tell their kids not to drink until they're adults, but that it's OK then. The concept of, "not now, but feel free when the circumstances are right" shouldn't be foreign. Nobody feels that it's burdensome to keep people besides their spouse out of their finances and child rearing – why should it be burdensome to keep them out of your pants?

I submit that it isn't.