Snips and Snails, and Monogamy Tales

A friend emailed me today to tell me about her breakfast adventures. She had breakfast with admitted polygamists and was subsequently drowned by a current of confusion over her own stake in that war. (What a hearty breakfast that must have been.) Her email invoked the same sentiments in me - confusion that something consensual could be so controversial - and I got to thinking about why monogamy is considered the flagship of a partnership.

Here's my attempt to de-tangle the delicacies. I started with the concept of 'family'.

Sure, a family unit is the fiscal brick of our society, but just because sex creates children does not mean that sex must, de facto, create families. Who elected Merriam and Webster the mayors of morals and why is fidelity at the epi-center of character? Are the players in an open relationship infidels? If it's consensual, is it unethical? I think monogamy is a way to ensure that neither party will conflate emotional and fiscal availability with physical pleasure. It's a way to be secure in your resources, to know that your partner won't leave you for the next set of grope-able mammary glands that walks by.

But why? Why would a partnership break under the wave of an orgasm? Because if it's agreed upon that the relationship is monogamist (not under ANY circumstances to be confused with monotonous), then the act of infidelity strikes at the core of what's really breaking up the iceberg - trust. The definition of infidelity is lack of faith. It's a breach of contract, not an unethical consortium! Why should infidelity be as heinous as not bringing home those pickles you promised? Because it involves a sentient third party?

Wouldn't it be more NATURAL to copulate with as many people as possible? To ensure the survival of your tribe? To keep workers in the fields, hunters in the woods? More mouths to feed but more might to feed the mouths?

And then there's a society that rests, nay, tax-breaks upon the familial unit. I think THAT charter is the infidel of humanity. Defining family as that which springs out of us rather than those who web around us to create a dome to weather the world - it seems archaic, to say the least, and narrow-minded, to get saucy.

As my friend was breakfasting, I was messing around on my company's payroll website looking for a W-2 to download and file (coincidentally, yes, we're a Fidelity client. ohhhh the undertones of reliability...) and what I think we're all missing is that the 'family' unit, though fiercely guarded by some, is actually, federally, a fairly soft term. Why not band together with your chosen 'family' and elect a head of household, elect some dependents (grad students, for sure), file together and split the rewards. Why not? Why not file your taxes the way you live your life? Why not redefine the family unit? Ascribe some responsibility to each other, devoid of 'genetic family' obligation. The future most certainly lies in family units shaped by reality as, eventually, that square peg will be smoothed by the edges of the hole, right?

And I guess, until then, my response to my friend's email is that my lesbionic stake is with the womanogamists. I don't think it's natural, I don't think it should be the cru(tch)x of society, but I don't want to share this one with the world and for that reason, I have promised to practice the art of keeping my hands in my pockets. A welcome, fair and cozy place for them these blustery days.