I have always wanted to post this article, but due to previous circumstances, it did not seem appropriate. Now, finally I get to express a philosophy I have been fighting for ever since.

When I was a little girl, I thought that exclusive relationships were the only way to go. That was until I started seeing my parents fight and learning that each of them were already having side affairs. I was not mad at their choice. Maybe a bit shocked as most parents of the kids I played with in school seemed so affectionate of each other. Still, my mind was set to think that if not all people are bound to cheat, at least they are all instinctively to have thoughts of experiencing a different body other than the body of the partner they are committed to (okay, some just want others' attention, but that's too irrational and dramatic).

Now, I'm just going to tell you why and how monogamy entraps us to something that is unnatural of our bodies and minds--yes, it's psychological, biological, philosophical, anthropological, basically scientific.

---

Nature of men and women

---

Men used to be hunters back in the day. They liked the thrill of such experience and oh well, the collection. Women, on the other hand, happened to have been tasked in investing more time at home or for their offspring. Now, don't look at it in a feminist perspective as if I were suggesting here that those strict duties be maintained. The real deal here is that such history is merely responsible for the way we act now especially when it comes to dating and all those other types of affairs.

According to Charles Darwin's theory of sexual selection, it is then reasonable to say that the conventional relationships that usually lead to marriages and having children is prostitution. Why? It is because mothers are more inclined into taking care of the kids she has with her male partner which is then perceived as way for the father figure to keep working hard to provide a good life for the family while almost always failing to attend to more personal needs of the said woman of the household. Regardless of that fault, the woman stays because whether we admit it or not, it is beneficial for her to stay and be able to receive support for both her and her children rather than looking to fill those personal issues that do not really suggest any but of rationality--and we need this practical sense in order to survive in this world, don't we?

Back in the Native American society and Pre-Spanish Colonial living in the islands of the Philippines though, there was an equality in both genders when it comes to their mating choices. Both sexes were accepted to be polyamorous that it worked so well, they were still able to keep a family--of course not in the now commonly accepted sense. This worked because people were then into strong ties with people in their community that they shared everything, and yes, including sex because isn't it the most tempting and pleasurable to share?

---

"But we now live in a more civilized society!"

---

It's a common reaction I get when I tell people this. I remember, a couple of years ago when I was in a car with two of my best male friends heading to an event, we got to talking about how we want our relationships to be if we were to have one. My traditional friend said that he wanted to be with a girl who has not had much sexual partners in the past and is willing to get married and have kids. The other said, "why would you want to have someone who never had her share of fun just like you?"

My traditional friend replied, "I need someone who is never going to leave me." I pulled a WTF face on him to which the other guy reacted, "Now you tell us what you want. We want to hear what a girl would say about all this." I have never been into those formal relationships so I quickly answered, "I want a guy who will be there for me--a solid companion--who will also allow me to have other casual sexual affairs on the side."

By this time it was already my semi-conservative friend doing the WTF face. "That's not a relationship, that's friends with benefits!" Before I could even explain my choice, my other friend responded, "Wake up, in reality, people like us who enjoy casual affairs and even ghost people after we get what we want may be loyal and faithful mentally to a special someone but never physically." Then we high-fived and looked at our other friend who still could not get our point.

"I don't know, but you [me], will never get any guy of that sort especially that you're a woman.You won't get a loyal guy or that guy you prefer. You are a girl yet you enjoy pleasures of a man," my defeated friend said. He meant to be offensive, but I was never insulted by these remarks, so I told him this:

"We're Filipinos. We have a whole history of polyamory that is the reason why a lot of married couples in this society regardless of who they are remain unfaithful. They refuse to be honest about their natural urges and satisfy their individual desires secretly. In [my other friend] and I's preferred setup, we will never have to worry about betrayal because the options are out there to avoid it. I mean come on, it is betrayal that is actually the deal in side affairs, not the fact that there was a third party itself, right? Deep inside, you know you can't avoid cheating and that you would even rather do that than be open about it, so who do you think is down for a more complicated setup now?"

---

Philosophers in open relationship

---

If you are cultured enough when it comes to literature and philosophy, you have probably heard about Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. These philosophers were like the "it" couple of the the philosophy academe. They took the world by storm when they began to be known for promoting their ideals of existentialism and freedom.

The most interesting part about two intellectual rock stars being together was the fact that they lived by their philosophy of not compromising their freedom despite their relationship. They maintained that in order to not make the whole natural conflicting concept of love (I hate this word, it has become too sappy) ruin their fondness of each other's beautiful attributes and company, they should then allow each other to free and not think much of a "we" or "us".

I remember being in a forum for philosophy majors back in my former university called "Is Love Doomed?" where we discussed Sartre and De Beauvoir's relationship. I was with this hardcore Catholic and fellow philosophy major friend who repeatedly whispered how odd the whole setup was. Being fresh from breaking off a sickening common relationship, I knew better. I might have been a virgin at that time who had never even experienced the pleasure of sex to be be open minded enough but I knew damn well that I would also want that setup where I was also given the respect and freedom to have other affairs.

They chose to be in that kind of relationship because they did not want to build it based on bad faith. According to Sartre, bad faith is entrapping oneself to just a whole box of ideals and not allowing transcendence. Now in the context of relationships, bad faith would mean wanting to possess one another--a desire to control the other in exchange of that love. Obviously, these intellectuals knew the weight of being dictated, asked to unnecessarily change for someone, and having to cancel on things for the other. They did not want that and the nagging that might arise from it. Some say De Beauvoir was less in charge because she did not have as much affairs as Sartre but she had her freedom nevertheless, and she just chose not to use it. Hell, I'd use it--look at Sartre compared to De Beauvoir's looks! We talk about it like gossip in the field.

In that moment, I knew how I was really made to go for the same setup. If schedules do not allow me to be with my partner and I want to go to an island full of gorgeous men, I absolutely would want the freedom to interact with them in a flirty and intimate manner. I don't want to be wrapped around someone that leads to making him my life or my world--that's sick! I live for myself and my pleasures and I demand my partner to respect that. I also don't want to be the type with an expectation of how my partner should behave based on social norms which creates obsession over any person in that situation. I'd rather not expect him to act certain ways so that he would do the same and just allow us both to be free to do what we want and be away from standards, labels, and all those social expectations.

---

So about me

---

In the end of that debate in the car, it was not really about who won the argument but which setup actually made more sense to us. To my conventional friend, I think he still believes in his own preference which is good for him if he really sees it as the one that makes more sense. However, for me, I still go with my preference. I have experienced my friend's preferred setup but for some time and it was fine until you have to spend time by apart for career and perhaps individual growth reasons. Being away from each other surely feels sad but if you are as rational as me, you would not let that happen.

You have to keep your sense of self and keep doing what you love doing before the whole relationship took place. I don't believe one must do so much to adjust for a mutual understanding. The understanding itself is fine--there is care, comfort, respect, fun, happiness, and adventure. I have always wanted to suggest having outside non-serious affairs beginning from the fact that when I get invited to events I no longer get to be flirty because I had to be "faithful" which seriously felt like I was not being myself, but I did not know how to say it until it came from him recently. I told him I was hurt--but not in the way you think. I felt a little hurt more in my pride area that I did not just go for my instinct of telling him before so that we could have done it earlier which is better for some reason. It's no joke to suppress inner tension like that especially that we were used to act on it freely before meeting each other.

Sex is like any physical activity like sports. It could be as casual as that. It does not mean that when you keep a partner and go for other people, the partner is not enough in his/her being. It is more like a healthy lifestyle wherein you allow yourself to be free of sexual frustrations. Some might say, "why not just stick together all the time so you would not need others?" Life is too short to be strangled with having your whole world revolve around someone plus I don't think it has something to do with the presence of the partner--it is more like an urge to experience a different body or act on a curiosity especially on what it will feel like to do it with someone perhaps of foreign culture, character or looks. Besides, it's still good to have a constant companion to share special things with who also understands you don't want formal relationships and allow you to remain free to have outside affairs for a sort of hobby maybe. The extra affairs are not to be taken personally against each other.

img sources:

• Girl
• De Beauvoir & Sartre
• De Beauvoir & Sartre
• Flintstones
• Samantha Jones
• Samantha Jones