territorial

[mellowtigger]

Remember the scene from "Wolf" where Jack Nicholson is in the restroom and hasn't quite acclimated to his new werewolf sensibilities yet, so he starts to pee on the floor to mark his territory? I understand that kind of mindset.  It's not so much the idea of a domineering "MINE" mindset, controlling the use of space, items, or people. It's more about associations and hierarchy. Things are either "Mine" or "Not-Mine". Things become Mine by habit of association. Things become Not-Mine when they are associated with somebody else. It takes a lot of time to build an association for Mine. In contrast, Not-Mine can happen very quickly.

I do wonder sometimes if that's what drives some animals to abandon their infants if they have an unfamiliar scent on them. Not-Mine, with the immediate loss of privileges that accompany the change in status. I also wonder if that's part of what drives monogamous behavior in some animals. *sniff scent* Ah, good, all familiar, so it's still Mine. Anything that breaks the familiarity makes something Not-Mine right away.

In years past, I would actually go hungry rather than enter a kitchen that someone else had used. College days weren't easy for that sort of thing. Trying to push my boundaries and actually cook in any kitchen space would make me a nervous wreck. I was a trespasser, and my senses would go into panic mode right away. It wasn't until age 38 or so that I managed to adapt myself to using a kitchen when no one else was around, then later to not panic if someone came in while I was preparing my food, then later to enter a kitchen while other people were there. I think I've pretty much moved past the kitchen issue now. It would've helped to be this calm about it back in my 20s when I was trying to cook for a boyfriend. Me trying to cook for someone was a bad combination for my mental health. I did it (with marginal success) only twice that I can remember.

I was reminded of these things on Saturday night when I went out for a beer. The local gay rodeo group was having a beer bust fundraiser downtown, so I went out there to join them.  One guy in the bar caught my glance right away because of his longish hair.  A few minutes later, though, he got up on stage and started taking his clothes off.  Ah, he's working here tonight.  Available for everyone to view, therefore Not-Mine, so I lost interest.  The only person to come up and talk to me was a black guy with short dreads.  (Not very long, but enough longhair for me to enjoy the look.)  He gave me his card so I could call and maybe come to his place for a massage.  He did this while his boyfriend was standing there with him.  Again, available for everyone, therefore Not-Mine.

If I separate out any long-term social thinking, I can "go with the flow" of the short-term encounters.  Since everyone in such situations is an interloper, there is no breach of territory for me to experience worry/panic.  At least, I was able to act that way a long time ago during what I refer to as my "slut phase".  :)  It only lasted about 3 or 4 years, because it really wasn't a good way of thinking for me.  Mine and Not-Mine are pretty strong motivators for my observable behavior.  It's better to accommodate them than to suppress them.

Wanting a monogamous relationship makes me an archaic old fogey in the gay universe, I know.  It really isn't Christian puritanism that motivates me, though.  If that's what motivates other people, then I suppose I should be attending a church somewhere to find a suitable partner someday.  *shiver*  No, no, just kidding.  Like country dancing, though, it's something that I'd like to do after I've already found a partner who's interested in joining me, not do it first in order to find the partner.  I'm just backwards that way, I know.

Comments

[anziulewicz.livejournal.com]

In the course of my professional work I've been to countless HIV/AIDS conferences, Gay Men's Health Summits, and so forth ... and all the anecdotal evidence I've been able to gather would seem to indicate that some 70-75% of Gay men don't mind "open" relationships, whereas the remaining 25-30% gravitate more toward monogamy. As someone who tries to be diplomatic about such things, I would not be judgmental toward those who prefer open relationships if that works for them. Personally, though, I could not feel secure in such a relationship. And it really has nothing to do with some religious worldview, since I am not a religious person. There are plenty of animal species that are hardwired to be monogamous, and it has nothing to do with religion. Stick to your principles. It doesn't make you "backwards" or "an achaic old fogey."

[mellowtigger]

I'm not sure it's "principles" exactly either. More of a rationalization of instinct. But, yeah, since I can go years without getting laid, I figure the pattern is pretty much ingrained now. :)

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

Monogomy is far from rare among gay men, I've found- but i suspect that if you do your hunting in bars, the numbers may skew a bit.

Something more compelling tho- how does finding a good man reconcile with walking into the woods in your head?

[mellowtigger]

They're mutually exclusive, yes. T'Reese still has many years left in her, and I've got at least that long to stay in the city life. So until then, I suppose anything is possible. If some different adventure appeared possible, then I'd have to make a choice about which to commit to pursuing. I've been single for more than a decade, though, so I don't consider pairing up to be a likely event.

For that matter, sexual encounters of any sort (romantic or otherwise) are more of a theoretical exercise anyway. *laugh*

[khrysso.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty much this way, too.

[mellowtigger]

So why is it that gay monogamists are "emulating straight culture" or "succumbing to puritan mind control"? (Asking you to defend a stance not your own. *grin*) I can understand that monogamy will remain a minority influence, but why must social supports for it be removed? Is it really so easy for these supports to seem oppressive to the majority who don't subscribe to them?

[khrysso.livejournal.com]

I think that the sense of oppression that you describe is the same phenomenon that exists—perceptually—for survivors of religious oppression.

What I mean by that is that my long journey of extricating myself from my Evangelical cult experience, while it overlapped my sexual repression, was really more of a parallel phenomenon that just happened to share the commonality of affecting my sexual self.

(Or maybe I'm full of shit and you can't really separate God and sex at all: I could write a separate treatise defending that assertion.)

That said, whether it's religion or heterocentrism from which one is separating oneself, what I think is true is that the oppression persists as long as one remains identified with their imperatives; that is, until one has disengaged oneself from and disidentified with the mores and taboos of the former system, one will still have a sense that they apply and will feel oppressed by them.

For example, when I reached the point at which I completely stopped believing that the Bible had any authority in my life, I was no longer able to be intimidated by any of what Gay Christians call the "clobber passages." I grow impatient with Bible thumpers, but never cowed by them.

It is clearly a fallacy (affirming the consequent) to conclude that just because I embrace a path that is often trod by str8 people, I am imposing a str8 model on myself. The fact that a particular route from the Mississippi to the Rockies was taken by both Mormon pioneers and '49ers doesn't make '49ers Mormons, or Mormons '49ers. They just traveled more or less the same road for many miles. They were only both if they were both.

History is full of examples of people on different continents who had no way of meeting each other and yet who came up with the same inventions or discoveries at about the same time, completely independently of one another. And the person who got the credit had better PR or just plain better luck.

Two radically different couples can decide to live their lives according to certain similar patterns without having copied each other. It's dismissive, let alone insulting, to accuse someone of being a copycat when they've spent their entire adult lives having decided to live in a certain way.

[loves-gay-sex.livejournal.com]

The wonderful khrysso pointed me to your post and I hope you don't mind a few comments on my own.

Because monogamy and open relationships confuse me, which surprises the SHIT out of me. All I wanted in my life was monogamy and when I finally found a man who could and would be monogamous, I was stunned to find I didn't want it anymore. On the other hand, I DON'T want an "open" relationship either.

I do very much see that we, as gay men, do NOT have to emulate straight relationships. I think many men really do think they are going to hell or something and as long as they live the gay version of Leave It To Beaver, then they feel it is okay to be gay.

But remember the statistics of cheating. It isn't a gay thing. It is a male thing. Men cheat in overwhelming numbers, even when they are madly and completely in love with their wives or gay lovers.

Does this mean we can't help it? Of course not. I've not cheated on Ryan once. Although I'll admit, I've almost slipped. It took all my strength not to cheat on him. Which stunned and amazed and confused me. Why was I even tempted? Why? Was it that my sex drive is easily ten times his? That can just be an excuse!

A big part of it for me is that I am very emotional and the lines blur for me in what is commonly accepted means of expressing those emotions. It is something that I do see in this “gay” way of thinking, that we don’t have to be heterosexualized. Why can’t I express my love to a friend or growing friend by taking it to a sexual level? Why does the touching have to stop at touching?

And then there is the whole sex for sex’s sake. I love sex! I love men! I love all kinds of men and I love all kinds of sex. Sex is joyful! Sex is beautiful! Sex is wonderful! Why keep it to one man for the rest of my life?

My husband and I love each other very much but we are still attracted to other men. We don’t have to live a Leave It To Beaver life, but we don’t have to be whores either.

One of my favorite Buddhist teachings/stories involves the point where the Buddha had a realization that launched his final journey to enlightenment. He overhears a music teacher telling a student, “If the string is too tight, it will break. If it is too loose, it will not play.”

That is what we are trying to find. We don’t want free reign to fuck anything that moves any time and any day, but we do want a freedom that goes beyond the typical hetero-role model.

Hope you don’t mind my comments!

[mellowtigger]

Mind? No, definitely not. I do want to hear from different perspectives when people can explain them to listeners. :)

*applause*

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

It is clearly a fallacy (affirming the consequent) to conclude that just because I embrace a path that is often trod by str8 people, I am imposing a str8 model on myself.

mellowtigger linked this post in a comment on my journal, and as I read through the comments here, this line stood out as particularly succinct and logical. Nicely written!