MONOGAMY AND VIRGINITY: NEGLECTED ASPECTS OF SEXUAL FREEDOM

By D.M. Dismore

Considering the disreputable company which "monogamy" has often chosen to associate with (patriarchal marriage), and the rabid antisexuality required to invent a concept like "virginity" then spend centuries praising it as a feminine virtue, why should anyone dedicated to ending sexual repression feel anything but contempt for either? Because without the vocal and consistent support of pro-sexual people for the free and proud exercise of either of those options, we not only run the risk of failing to achieve our goal of a sexually liberated society, but of becoming simply mirror images of the insecure and intolerant repressives we despise most.

Now, I'll admit that since the A.I.D.S. epidemic became an unwanted guest at every discussion of sexuality, many kind words have been spoken in favor of "mutually monogamous relationships."

But because of its context of being a "defensive measure" against H.I.V., such support often sounds like an unpleasant prescription or an irritating but necessary precaution (like a condom...) instead of an enthusiastic endorsement of a lifestyle with its own inherent rewards, and which many would eagerly choose in an A.I.D.S. - free world.

Meanwhile, ultraconservative religious groups have spent decades courting virgins by designing clever, gimmick-ridden campaigns which combine lavish praise and personal support with not-too-subtle indoctrination that sex is something inherently evil and dangerous which can only be magically transformed into something positive by "traditional marriage."

So, for many of us (regardless of age or sexual status) who derive our values from feminist or other equalitarian, progressive philosophies rather than abject fear or religious dogma, such pronouncements provide no meaningful support. Regrettably, the 21st Century seems much like many which preceded it: Too many of the "wrong people" using all the "wrong reasons" for praising lifelong monogamy with a loving partner, or postponing one's first sexually intimate act until a uniquely special kind of relationship with an equally exceptional partner can be created.

If I were an antisexual Fundamentalist, militantly working to stuff everyone back into the old behavioral strait jackets of the 50's, I could bask in reassurance from the sermons of the self-appointed American Ayatollahs of the Radical Right. But as an active feminist and zealous advocate of sexual liberation, I've often been disappointed - sometimes even outraged - at the lack of articles and essays written from an anti-traditionalist point of view which affirm that a refusal to separate partnered sex from a genuinely loving, very well established relationship is as valid and "sexually liberated" a choice as any other.

DEFINING SEXUAL LIBERATION

A sexually liberated person is someone who takes pride in their own values, feelings and choices, and who gives equal respect to those who may be their opposites in regard to all these things. In a sexually liberated society, the incredibly joyous spectrum of lifestyles we humans are capable of would not be seen as an "evil" to be repressed, nor a bizarre quirk to be "tolerated". Instead, so long as sexual behavior does not involve violating the basic standards of equality (such as through irresponsibility, deception, or lack of consent) our stunning diversity would exuberantly celebrated.

But while the most obvious roadblock to that society - the Religious Right - consciously works to promote fear, intolerance and ignorance, at times WE have unconsciously endorsed, and unknowingly validated the idea that NOT all choices are to be respected. Given enough time and effort we can defeat the antisexual forces in our society, but not until we rid ourselves of every trace of the same disease of sexual intolerance which afflicts our opponents.

SEX: "WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?"

For some, absolutely nothing. For others, absolutely everything. For most, something in between. I make no apologies for being in the second category, though I have no doubt that those in the first find their orientation satisfying and natural, and I have no desire to "convert" them to my way of thinking. But I do want them to understand and respect my views as much as I do theirs.

The choice I made as a teenager was based on one simple observation about human nature: Our attitude toward ANYTHING is shaped by the experiences we associate it with. So I realized that for myself, the best way to make sexuality as special, meaningful, and enjoyable as it had the potential to be was by choosing never to associate an intimate sexual experience with anything less than a relationship in which true intimacy had already been firmly established on every other level, even if such relationships rarely come along conveniently early or often in anyone's life. Of course, not being of Vulcan ancestry, there would be no way to maintain that commitment solely on the basis of its inherent logic. But this turned out to be one of those extremely rare instances where gut-level intuition and reason actually coincided, and the two seem (so far !) to be a match for my amusingly unthinking hormones.

"LIBERATED MONOGAMY"

Even before I would have been able to adequately explain my decision, I probably would have been able to sum it up with just one word: "Ours." From childhood on, I had the good luck to observe many genuinely loving, long-lasting relationships, so I began to think of sex as "our" special experience, even though I had no idea when - or if - "we" would ever meet, and if we did, whether I

would be fortunate enough to maintain that one relationship for a lifetime, or, like many people, be forced by circumstances to practice "serial monogamy" with a minimal number of highly compatible partners.

Now, if this sounds suspiciously old- fashioned and traditional, be assured it is not. Even before becoming a feminist, my natural nonconformity prevented me from ever longing for anything which would even resemble a "conventional" relationship.

A NON-POSSESSIVE "US-NESS"

Neither "practicing monogamists" or "pre-monogamist" virgins need buy into the long list of ills which are usually associated with a high degree of respect for sexuality. For instance, possessiveness has certainly been an integral part of traditional monogamy.

In patriarchal societies, the wife is the "property" of the husband, and as such he has a "right" to exercise total, exclusive control over her sexuality, though never vice versa. Premarital virginity is highly valued as a "gift" she bestows upon him, the dubious assumption being that past chastity is an indicator of future behavior, therefore any children she gives birth to will be his. In more modern societies, the assumption is that being faithful to a partner is a "sacrifice" to be made, and which should be returned in kind. So, solemn public oaths of fidelity are celebrated, and any violation of this promise is considered the worst possible betrayal.

But for sexually liberated people, there can be many attitudes toward monogamy. For couples who find no value in it, and whose self-esteem is not built upon the precarious foundation of being their partner's exclusive sexual interest, "open relationships" in which sexual fidelity is neither desired nor promised are wonderfully ideal. At the other end of the spectrum, two militant monogamists, each of whom freely chooses to be sexually exclusive for their own reasons, are every bit as "liberated" as the first couple. In each case, individual choices are being made, and everyone is doing as their basic nature impels them.

An interesting - and obvious - question is whether those with completely opposite views on monogamy could build and maintain a solid relationship. Absolutely !! IF the "monogamist" is a secure individual who does not see their own exclusivity as a "sacrifice," who recognizes and values their partner's independent nature, and understands that their relationship is built upon a far broader and firmer base than sex, it's just another version of the "open" relationship.

Personally, I don't see monogamy as some "sacrifice" one makes for a partner. I see the rewards going to the sexually exclusive person more than their companion. It keeps sex from being trivialized by associations with anything less than the kind of truly intimate relationship so hard to maintain that you can't have more than one at a time. Sure, I'll freely and happily admit to having taken maximum advantage of my lively and vivid imagination. But while these imaginary experiences are by nature trivial, and therefore cannot be trivialized, the same cannot be said for real-life, partnered sex. I have always known without any doubt that even a single instance of casual sex would be enough to substantially and permanently reduce the meaningfulness of sex for me. So, regardless of how enjoyable that experience might be, it would be a poor bargain in the long run.

Obviously, many people may have views or experiences which are totally opposite from my own. They may have the ability to easily separate "casual" from "meaningful" sex, or may simply prefer the former. If so, great ! They're doing what's right for them, and there's no reason to debate whether that lifestyle is "right for everyone" or mine. The answer is that NEITHER ONE is right for all, nor is any other specific choice. There are now six billion people on this planet, which means that there are six billion potential lifestyles. Each of them should be judged not upon how closely it mimics our own, whether it happens to serve the interests of the power elite in a society, or conforms to whatever theological views happen to dominate in a particular time or place, but upon whether it brings satisfaction to those who live it, and avoids doing damage to others.

But though there is a rich and vast variety to the lifestyle choices made by those who have liberated themselves from the grip of unthinking conformity, for at least three decades most people have believed that "sexual freedom" means casual - even irresponsible - sex and nothing more. Debunking that myth should be a top priority, and we should have been working on that right from the start.

A MISINTERPRETED CONCEPT

Though the basic definition of sexual liberation seems uncomplicated and self- evident, the fact that it contains no specific behavioral mandates ("Every liberated person must ...." "No liberated person can ..." ) makes it a tough sell in a society where people crave absolute, "black and white" definitions. This necessary "fuzziness" leaves it vulnerable to misinterpretation by those who oppose it, as well as some who favor it, and we need to look at both groups to see what we're up against before we can plan our strategy for the 21st Century.

OUR ETERNAL OPPONENTS

Though "religion" has taken a staggering array of forms and beliefs over many millennia, certain types of religion have quite correctly seen sexual liberation as a direct assault on their values. Their opposition came first, was inevitable, and will never cease. If there is but "one unchanging truth" in regard to sexual morality revealed by a patriarchal, homophobic, authoritarian deity to a few of its fellow males, and which is to serve as a standard for all, then any deviation from that rule is an "intolerable evil" which Fundamentalists have a "duty" to fight. While I certainly respect the right of anyone to live their life according to any religious or philosophical principles they choose, the "fight" they engage in must remain internal, not external. All of us have battles between our principles and our behaviors, and that struggle makes us better people. But the one thing that must never be tolerated is any attempt by one group to impose its own unique and strictly religious views on an entire society, because there is no objective basis on which to presume that one religion is inherently more "true" than another. There are, however, objective reasons to believe that freedom, diversity, and equality are inherently good, because all other things being equal, societies which encourage those values tend to be superior to those which do not. (A good "experiment" took place in the 20th Century when Germany was divided in two. Though essentially identical in 1945, it took only 16 years for the differences between East and

West Germany to become so pronounced that a fortified wall had to be built to keep people in the authoritarian society from escaping into the free one.) So, though we will never be able to convert ultraconservative religious followers to our own belief that there are a variety of satisfying and responsible sexual lifestyles, we do need to always make sure that everyone in this country has the freedom to embrace, renounce, or ignore any given religion.

Of course, the Religious Right has never had any intention of limiting itself to just helping its own people fight internal spiritual battles, and at the top of its social and political agenda has always been the defeat of sexual freedom in ANY form. So, not surprisingly, the portrayal of sexual liberation as the glorification of casual, irresponsible sex was an effective way to drum up opposition to any challenges to "traditional values." Posing a false choice of "their values" or "no values" could be a powerful message, causing many middle-of-the-road people to hesitate about endorsing something which appeared to lead to nothing but massive increases in sexually transmitted diseases, emotional isolation, and extreme selfishness.

In reality, like any other kind of freedom, sexual freedom can lead to great results or disastrous results on an individual level. The only people who never make bad choices are those who never make ANY real decisions. But they never make good choices either. The alternative to the risks of a sexually liberated world in which people make their own choices for their own reasons is not a happy, naturally conformist world in which everyone is gently guided along the same "correct" path. The alternative is a world where the diversity that defines us as human beings is brutally and systematically assaulted, though never extinguished. So we won't be going back to the idealized world of the past that certain politically active evangelists describe to their viewers on a daily basis. It never existed, and could never exist. But there is an exciting one in the future if sexual liberation is a part of it.

THE HIJACKING OF SEXUAL LIBERATION

Though there's little doubt that the opinions of media giants tend to skew the news that they report, some of the mythologizing in regard to the "sexual revolution" was not deliberate. The business of news must always be the unusual, or the shocking, as well as the profound. If ten thousand planes take off and land safely, and one crashes, it's not "media manipulation" to ignore the day's routine flights and give front page coverage to the accident. So, if during the 60's & 70's a reporter wanted to do a story about the "sexual revolution" it wouldn't make good journalistic sense to feature an evenly balanced spectrum of lifestyles. The story would, of necessity, be about casual sex, swingers, singles bars and V.D. clinics. In the same way that saturation coverage of airplane crashes gives a totally unrealistic view of airline safely, it took no carefully crafted "conspiracy" to caricature sexual liberationists as people who viewed sex and love as totally separate things which might, occasionally, coincide.

Of course, not all media distortions were so innocent or inevitable. Thanks to rampant sexism, racism, and classism, ALL the issues of the 60's were "explained" to the general public from the perspective of middle and upper class white males born between 1900 and 1930. An Internet user and cable-TV viewer of today would be stunned at the narrow, monolithic view of society available from TV news and major magazines just a few decades ago.

Now, from the point of view of a middle- class male TV anchor or newspaper editor, what could "sexual freedom" possibly mean? It COULD mean that if women were finally "liberated" from societal stereotypes, they would take on the same freewheeling sexual behaviors as men. While the overall goals of liberationist movements might not appeal to those who had no desire for a level playing field, or power-sharing with women and people of color, "more sex" with "fewer strings" was something they could really get behind. The fact that true sexual liberation bestows the kind of inner self-confidence it takes to say "no" as well as "yes" must have occurred to a few of society's "Official Explainers Of Ideas". But since that half of liberation would be of no possible benefit to them, it seems to have been conveniently overlooked, as Hugh Hefner and the "Playboy Philosophy" became a much more comfortable symbol of sexual liberation than any feminist thinker, conservative OR radical.

WHY WE SHOULD CARE

Though feminism's support for freely chosen lifelong monogamy, and for a virgin's "right to wait" is basic, it's rare for it to be explicitly stated. In the beginning of this latest phase of the sexual revolution, that was understandable. Feminists were attacking a deeply entrenched system of exploitation that most people took for granted as "normal" or "inevitable" and it was necessary to prove that there were people who defied societal norms and assumptions and lived quite happy lives totally at odds with tradition.

Nearly four decades have gone by since those early days, and though we're probably no closer to total victory than the suffragists were forty years after they began working for the vote in 1848, incredible progress has been made in that time in eradicating stereotypes and myths that go back many centuries. But it's time for a change of image and tactics.

We can all be justifiably proud of what's been done to promote the first half of sexual liberation: The right to freely and guiltlessly say "yes" and make delightfully unconventional choices. But now we need to give "equal time" and emphasis to the "missing half" of sexual liberation: The right to freely and comfortably say "no" at any time, and for any reason, and to make conventional (but not exploitive) choices for unconventional reasons.

As long ago as 1980, a "Cosmopolitan" survey showed that a surprisingly high number of sexually sophisticated readers longed for a "counterrevolution" to the "trivialization" of sex that liberation had allegedly brought. Many more publications contained letters expressing nostalgia for the days when having a date didn't automatically imply having sex, and reluctance to have sex outside of marriage (or at least a well-established relationship) wasn't assumed to be an "embarrassing hangup." I doubt many of those who held those views truly wanted a return to the stifling oppression and double standards of the 1950's. They were simply dissatisfied with the status quo of a half-finished revolution. The answer then, as now, is not to go back, but forward. Trading an old, obligatory "no" for a new, obligatory "yes" was no more "liberating" than a prisoner being transferred from one cell to another. Liberation must ALWAYS be about MAKING choices, not the choices themselves.

We need to be there at the beginning, when first sexual choices are being made. When virgins need reassurance, acceptance, and impartial advice, where can it be found? Not from parents in many cases. Few can talk to their children about sex at all, and fewer still can be objective. Teachers and family planning professionals? Thanks to the New Victorians, sex-ed is either nonexistent, watered down - or worse yet - tailored to fit the views of the most militant Bible- Thumpers. The media? Not where gratuitous, trivialized sex is considered a legitimate substitute for clever plots and three dimensional characters, and corporate child molesters sell exploitive sex to ten year olds along with their product. But most regrettably, they can't come to the feminist movement either. For a decision which may influence their attitudes toward sexuality for many years, feminists have had nothing to say to virgins of ANY age.

If we can be there when teens and pre- teens need us most, reassuring them that sex really is too special to be begun with insecurity, peer pressure, or emotional blackmail by a would-be partner, we'll have the credibility to help instill the dignity and self-confidence that will reassure them of their right to say "yes" whenever they freely choose to do so, in their own time and for their own reasons.

If feminists and other supporters of sexual liberation prove through personal examples and testimony that we represent a vast and joyous spectrum of lifestyles, all of which are deserving of respect, we'll have a lot more to offer "Generation Next" than the narrowly constricted, "one-size- fits-all" life-plans and misogynistic, antisexual dogma of our opponents.

But before we can talk to others, we need to start talking among ourselves. Even if this means sometimes expressing an unpopular view, or making a choice that others may not personally understand or identify with. But then, wasn't criticism for doing things like that what impelled most of us to join the feminist movement in the first place ?

Contact the author at: AFeminist@aol.com