During most of my life, I have been in committed relationships, and I have always been totally faithful to my partner. And what's more: I have never had sex with anybody who I knew was in a committed relationship, where the partner did not know or approve of what he was doing. If this is in any way confusing to you, dear reader, by all means read on.

Some people, maybe even you, my friend, firmly believe that being faithful means never having sex with anyone except your partner. They call this monogamy, but it is in reality not monogamy until they set up rules for it. Rules to prevent either of them from doing what they want to do, should an opportunity arise. The need to make rules for monogamy is an indication that the partners doubt that they can be faithful to each other.

I think we have to define the word faithful. The whole meaning of a relationship is to stay together, to be there for each other, in good times and in bad times, to support and love each other unconditionally. For this to work, both partners must have faith in themselves that they can live up to this commitment, and faith in the partner to do this too. To be faithful is simply to live up to your partner's faith in you. To be faithful is to never do anything that you don't want your partner to know about. If you have faith in your lover, you allow him to do anything he wants, as long as it is not against your wishes, and you rely on him to know your wishes. A faithful couple never has any secrets from each other, and they tell each other anything and everything that is of any importance.

I don't think we have a disagreement on these definitions. Now we have to agree on the fact that men are by nature polygamous. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the man's love and devotion to his mate that his eyes are wandering with lust and yearning when something appealing is in sight. It happens all the time. Men are made that way; it was Mother Nature's method of propagating the species. That's why a middle-aged executive sneaks out with his secretary, and if he and his wife really have faith in each other, then that would mean nothing. He would then tell his wife about it, the wife would ask him if it had been good, he would say yes, she would be happy that her husband had had a good time, and then they would have supper together and go to bed. These are true lovers, and they will remain together in happiness forever.

No, that is not how it happens. The wife screams, the man must leave the house, he'll be alone, she'll be alone, they'll both be poor and unhappy, all because they had no faith in each other - she believing that he was now going to abandon her and therefore throwing him out and thus abandoning him.

Of course, the executive could have suppressed his nature and not done a thing. Out of concern (or fear) for his wife's feelings, he would, over time, have become tense and nervous and unhappy, and after years of this he might just have had to demand a divorce to get his freedom to follow Mother Nature's cravings. Similar scenario: The man leaves the house, he'll be alone, she'll be alone, they'll both be poor and unhappy, all because they had no faith in each other.

Enforced monogamy hardly ever works. Sooner or later, the sneaking behind the partner's back begins, and it is only a matter of time until it comes out, leading to an unhappy breakup, for no reason at all. In a gay relationship, one of the guys, or probably both, did what nature demanded, and all hell breaks loose. All because they did not have faith in each other and therefore had made rules that made it impossible for them to be faithful.

I have never had monogamy rules in my relationships. Not that it was a philosophy back then; it was just a natural thing. We were in love with each other, we knew that both of us regarded our relationship to be the core of our lives, that our futures were intertwined with each other, and nothing more was needed. Since sexual variation and curiosity is part of a man's makeup, we really needed hot sessions with other guys now and then, and did we ever have fun discussing afterwards what we had met along the way. Sometimes we gave a victim to each other as a present, sometimes we used the victim together. And we always made it clear to the playmate that we were "taken", so he didn't assume that this was anything more than playtime.

Back when they were popular, my lover and I went to the baths together, and there we got together in the cafeteria to compare notes and recommend a particularly good find to each other. Usually we went home together after finished play, but not necessarily so. We really had no convoluted rules.

Once back then I was selected at the baths by a recent Olympic gold medalist in figure skating; wow, a real somebody and also a great play. We wound up driving home to me in his little sports car to continue playing some more. Oh, did I ever wish that my lover could get his ass together and come home to share my catch!! But no, he came home half an hour after my guest had left. What a disappointment for both of us! Of course we had each other, but this would have been fun.

At this point I think you are getting my message. It is simply improper to demand our partner to abstain from anything he really wants or needs to do, and to allow him to have the sex he needs is more important than anything else. If you let him do it, he will love you ever more for it. There will be no betrayals because there is nothing to betray. Life and relationship will be infinitely easier if you have faith in each other, and you know that no sexual frustration will ever break you apart.

Let me sum it up. To be faithful has nothing at all to do with monogamy -- it has everything to do with being so much in love that you are sure that your lover will always love you. If you are not sure of that, then you should go your separate ways immediately, because no monogamy rules will hold a non-loving relationship together, never have, never will.

Send me more e-mail comments in this matter, and I will publish them right here, with your e-mail address included only if you specifically say so.