After reading Andrew Printer’s article “Monogamy vs. monotony” in the May 4 edition of the Gay & Lesbian Times, a great sense of discouragement and despair overcame me. The article focused solely on non-monogamous couples and did not address those couples who feel strongly against such arrangements. Both sides of the debate were not presented.

Printer stated that some of the couples toggled between monogamous and non-monogamous situations, with one couple ultimately leaving their relationship open and the others going back to exclusivity. The bottom line was that all three of the couples Printer highlighted had at one point in time strayed from monogamy.

Printer couldn’t find any long-term monogamous gay male couples to interview. Did he look hard enough? They must exist. Then I asked myself the same question: Do I even know any?

After racking my brain to think of all the couples I know in San Diego, I couldn’t think of a single monogamous couple who has been together longer than just a few years. It seems I just don’t know many couples in general. I’m a young, single guy, and many of my acquaintances and friends are also unattached. It doesn’t mean we don’t want to be in relationships, we just have yet to find our Mr. Rights. Still, finding a long-term monogamous gay male couple in San Diego seems like finding a needle in a haystack.

Call me old fashioned, but some day I want to fall deeply in love and have a solid, thriving, long-term, committed relationship – one that involves only two people. Sex is an extremely personal and intimate aspect of any relationship. I wouldn’t want to share the love of my life with anyone else, not even if it’s just for sex.

But then there’s the camp who believe sex is just sex, and the action is meaningless unless emotions are involved. Research has indicated that compared to women, men are usually more visually and physically stimulated. Yes, we’re a primal and sex-driven species, but we do have the capacity for self-control. If that wasn’t the case then we’d all be frolicking at bathhouses all day, having sex with as many people as possible.

From my perspective, I can’t just jump into bed with someone without having some kind of emotional connection. Maybe I’m more traditional and reserved than most gay men. Maybe I’m a lesbian trapped in a gay man’s body. Still, the argument doesn’t justify the rationale for having an open relationship.

For some couples, though, open relationships work if the ground rules are in place. If both parties are willing to take the time to keep the level of communication open at all times and develop specific rules for scenarios that may arise outside of the relationship, an open arrangement can be successful and healthy.

On the other hand, co-dependency issues seem to prevent many couples who are in unstable open relationships from ultimately severing their ties and moving on. There always seems to be that couple, the one who has been together forever, yet it’s clear to their friends that the relationship should have ended years ago. Even though a breakup may be the most logical decision, the couple can’t fathom the concept of being single again, so they remain in an unfulfilling relationship. How logical is that? Being coupled for the sake of being coupled simply isn’t healthy.

Opening up the relationship to save it may not be the best remedy. I have a friend who was partnered with someone who wanted an open relationship. It was a point of contention for the couple, but he eventually succumbed to the demands of his partner. “It only made it worse,” my friend told me. “We ended up breaking up soon after.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines monogamy as “the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Printer said the three couples he interviewed had their share of struggles coming to a conclusion about their physical monogamy, but their emotional monogamy was always unshakable. He said they found their place on the “sexual/emotional continuum that fits.” Monogamy is not dichotomous and should not be placed on a continuum. Just like pregnancy, you can’t be just “a little pregnant.” You’re either completely monogamous or you’re not.

Printer concluded his article by citing David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison’s The Male Couple (1984), which investigated 156 male couples. They concluded “fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior, but rather by the emotional commitment to one another.” This may be true for the couples McWhirter and Mattison examined, but it’s certainly not true for all male couples.