‘Playing the field,”courtship’ are different things

Q: Should people looking for a permanent relationship practice serial monogamy or does it really increase their odds to "play the field"? How could anyone find the time to date several people simultaneously like fictional TV characters, e.g., "Sex and the City"? How could a human being keep track of multiple dating partners? Do they use name tags? Where do they find a bed that big? Feminism seems to be attempting to "educate" people that serial monogamy is a form of "controlling behavior." Does it really increase your odds of meeting Mr./Ms. Right by playing the field? I've always argued that (serial monogamy) saves time. The sooner you get to know someone, the sooner you can select or reject them. -- C.D., Las Vegas

A: The last time I "played the field," I was in the third grade. Chasing girls. Kissing them while they giggled and feigned protest. Any girls, pretty much, especially Patty. But never Cheryl. Can't remember why Cheryl became persona non grata among my circle of dweebs, but nonetheless. Geez, kids are cruel.

By junior high, I "hadtohaveagirlfriend." Embarrassing now to think about it. But my life didn't make sense "unlessIhadagirlfriend."

Not putting this on you, C.D., but one of my more pernicious psychological immaturities well into adulthood was the idealization of women, love, sex and romance. It explains, I think, why women in my past were blown away by me in the first months and years of courtship, only to later find they were inexplicably frustrated and repelled by the same qualities in the same guy.

Idealizing women is just another way to objectify them.

But when I grew up and grew out of that silliness, I found myself exactly where you seem to be. After getting the ol' heave-ho from my marriage, I decided I owed it to myself to "play the field." Yep. That's the answer, Steve-o. You never gave yourself a chance to "date around." So I dated around.

Lasted about six weeks. I didn't like it.

If you're a woman, and you're connected warmly to my life, I'm either growing and enjoying a friendship with you or growing and enjoying a courtship with you. For me, the only available third choice would be to make dating behavior -- socializing, flirting, touching, kissing, sexuality -- into something more casual, exchanging courtship for something more akin to recreation and entertainment. A distraction. Hopefully a creative distraction, but certainly a distraction.

Which is not to say that I have any critical judgment of people who like playing the field. Only to say that I'm reserving the word "courtship" for something else. Something inside me is quickly confused and unsettled with the idea of growing two or more courtships at once. And, in the long haul, I'm just not built for casual. It's a terrific fantasy. It's sometimes functional, but not consistently meaningful or interesting.

I'd rather sit home and play my guitar.

You wonder if feminism sees monogamy as a controlling behavior. I wouldn't say it that way, though I think you're on to something.

What I think is that feminism rightly diagnosed a cultural injustice. For centuries Western Civilization -- with help from the darker sides of Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- raised women to be psychologically "split" about sexuality. Men desired. Women demurred.

And it was such a farce. Modern research suggests that psychologically healthy women actually like sex more than men do. Since the late '70s, in part because of the influence of feminism, television and movies have increasingly been willing to depict women with a shameless embrace of objective sexual desire, i.e., embracing sexuality the way men are encouraged to embrace sexuality.

The choice between serial monogamy and playing the field is a separate discussion; and I don't see the feminist movement having any particular commentary on that, except to say that a woman should be afforded every cultural freedom a man enjoys to make those choices for herself.

But monogamy as a controlling behavior? Isn't it more likely just the opposite? I can't think of anything more controlling than perpetually surrounding yourself with multiple, casual, sometimes tawdry, sometimes warm and friendly, hopefully enjoyable, perhaps even healing, but nonetheless casual dating dalliances as a strategy to make sure you can die before anyone really knows you.

Monogamy is not for sissies. Permanence and exclusivity demand a terrifying surrender of control.

Steven Kalas is a behavioral health consultant and counselor at Clear View Counseling and Wellness Center in Las Vegas. His columns appear on Tuesdays and Sundays. Questions for the Asking Human Matters column or comments can be e-mailed to skalas@reviewjournal.com.