Polyamory: The New Monogamy?

The opposite of monogamy -- quick. Polygamy, right? Wrong. Polygamy is when one man has many wives (often with bad handmade dresses and a fierce need for some eyebrow threading). The correct answer is: polyamory -- literally, "having many loves." Doesn't sound bad in theory - lots of love, right? However, it seems that monogamy is something we hold in very high regard. Before you start your nasty email to me, calling me a home-wrecking "whore with a pen" who wants your husband, let's make it clear that I am writing this in response to hundreds of my clinical patients over the years who have been in my office asking if it's normal to be monogamous. "Why is it so hard?" they ask. "Does a long monogamous marriage equal a good marriage?" My personal opinion is irrelevant, really. We discuss boundaries, truth, guilt, safety, respect - the things your Maury Povich trailer park swingers tend not to do on day-time TV.

I talked about this with Neil Cavuto on Fox TV, who sneered at my answer that "it's better to have a truthful relationship, where both people are happy, and that is not monogamous, than one that is supposedly monogamous but is full of lies and guilt." Or a monogamous relationship that is bored and resentful but, gosh darn it, we are the emblem of a successful marriage even if we haven't had sex with each other since World War I.

While I've sat across from couples that are either "healing from infidelity" or negotiating kooky rules like "no kissing on the lips or hook-ups in the same zip code," fact is, thanks to the Internet, there are a lot of "updates" happening related to "swinging." But let's stick with the term "polyamorous," which sounds more romantic and less like a circus act. I finally interrupted one patient to ask where the polyamory bulletin board was in the library. This young, professional Manhattanite scoffed, "Ever go out with a guy and --sure you know you can relate as far as movies, books, three things you can't live without, you play coy for a date or two, then sleep with him, only to find that he doesn't like oral sex (and you do), and he loves anal sex (and you don't)?" She didn't pause for an answer, thankfully.

The answer? Rather than Match.com or Nerve.com, a more 'adult' site asks those questions and cuts out a lot of time consuming dinners and chit chat that might lead to the fact that he insists on full Brazilians, you won't give up your landing strip. "Lets face it," she adds "Patterson's 'bilateral cheating' was actually an open marriage."

Sites like Adultfriendfinder.com and Passion.com actually have their fair percentage of singles looking for another single who doesn't mind cutting out the anticipation of not knowing genital anatomy size ("Hell, everyone else waited and all that it's gotten them is a 52% divorce rate and desperate housewives. We have to make some new rules").

In the name of science and being up on my pop culture (and widening my vocabulary to include terms like bi-curious and "soft" swap), I logged on. If only our voting system could have a small percentage of the organization, rules, and clarity of these relationships! "Have some manners and call or write my wife the next day" lists one man in a couple who swing together. That sounds reasonable. "If you don't have basic hygiene down, don't bother emailing me." Again, something I've wanted to say to a blind date or two. Testimonials with accolades and even photo albums make the whole idea very nonchalant. For those who don't want skin-on-skin contact, plenty of members only want chats and video-camming - though I still haven't managed to visualize the tap-and-wank coordination. I'm sure there's a trick. Plenty of married men and women state staunchly, "I'm married and happy, not planning to leave my significant other." Some add that their "other" knows and takes the "don't ask don't tell stance"; others have elaborated a pretty damn sophisticated plan that only shows pictures of body parts and gives alternate email addresses. In most, I'm glad to see, condoms and safe sex aren't a question, they often a non-negotiable.

Is there a darker flip side to this, one where sexual addiction takes over or significant others find those cams and want a divorce? I'm sure. But many many other scenarios exist. "A guy I met last night has been happily married for 14 years," my patient quipped. "That is more than anyone I know!"

We didn't get to talk about how these experiences are making her question old rules and her own views of love and marriage (or singlehood) yet. She ends the session asking rhetorically, "Once you go polyamorous, can you ever go back? Do you want to?"

Don't shoot the messenger. Again, I don't want to sleep with your husband, or wife, or both. Shoot me an email with your opinion.

Comments

[dragkingmax]

I think it's interesting that when polyamorous relationships fail, the fact that they were polyamourous is ALWAYS cited, at least by outsiders, as the reason. But how often do you hear that a monogamous relationship failed because it was monogamous? I mean, obviously monogamous relationships often if not usually fail because of infidelity, but I think that it is rare that that the fact that the (unreasonable?) expectation of monogamy was placed on the relationship in the first place is blamed.

[NoSillyName]

I knew some people who were into this back in the '60s. They were uncomfortable to be around because they looked at everyone as a sex object.

The superior attitude of some people is sickening. "We're waiting for others to evolve." Get over yourselves. Do whatever you do. Not all people are driven by their animal urges. Evolution should go in an intellectual, spiritual direction IMO.

[sterlingcheese]

Yes, but who's to say how that intellectual, spiritual direction looks for each individual? I think for many who choose to be polyamorous, this is such an evolution for them. I don't think this is always about sex. I'm sure it is for some, but for others, I think it's more about freedom and honesty, and who can argue with that as evolution?

[NoSillyName]

sterling, I'm all for freedom and honesty. This "movement" is nothing new. Its not the way most people want to live, so no, polyamory is not the new monogamy. Fantasy is usually much different from reality.

Stay independent and have all the loves you want. Why try to bring more lovers into a marriage?

It may not always be about sex, but the examples in the article make it seem that way.... oral or not, anal or not, brazilian vs. landing strips....­. better to know before wasting time with someone, write my wife a note in the morning, etc. Silly crap that sounds like some people wanna emulate Hugh Heffner or they've read too many Penthouse Forums (do they still have those? I'm completely out of touch.)

[RobNYNY1957]

I like the article, but the authhor is confusing "polygamy" and "polygyny".

Poligamy is having more than one spouse, polygyny is having more than one wife, and polyandry is having more than one husband. Polygyny is overwhelmingly the most common form of polygamy, but the words are, strictly speaking, not synonymous.

I'm not sure that the concept of "opposite" applies to monogamy, but polygamy seems to be about as opposite as polyamory.

[writeforlife]

Well, I think the terminology is somewhat irrelevant . . . I think the question Dr. Vranich is trying to raise is: does monogamy work? Should it be the "gold standard"? Should we start to question the way relationships function in the larger culture, both marriages and otherwise, and should we begin to make our own decisions, even if those decisions fall outisde of the accepted norm?

[RobNYNY1957]

My dictionary defines "polyandry" as having multiple husbands, "polygyny" as having multiple wives, and "polygamy" as having multiple spouses (for example, either polyandry or polygyny.. Polyandry and polygyny are forms of polygamy. I'm not sure that the concept "opposite" applies to monogamy, but "polygamy" seems to fill the bill as well as "polyamory". By far the most common form of polygamy is polygyny, but it is not synonymous with it.

[yogaivy]

So it sounds like the multiple husbands and multiple spouses idea involves actual marriage. I think polyamory as a whole contains a broader definition -- my understanding is that it just means multiple lovers, in some form, whether you're married to them or not.

[jayvee]

btw, here's a link to the story (which I'd recommend reading) and the image in question

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=2967

[jayvee]

Nice post. But I recognize the image of the candy hearts. I know because I helped create it for a polyamory story written about six years ago in a Detroit publication. What's HuffPo's policy on appropriating copyrighted images?

[hoopesaz]

Ruh roh!

[ArabianMonkey]

Polyamory.­... yes. There are so many beautiful souls around and so many magnificent things to discover and so many challenges to overcome and so many important things to contribute. With so much variety, how can there be only one?! And does it have to mean you love one more than the other? I like that there are different kinds of love and loves.

But I don't believe polyamory is the new monogamy. Monogamy is a great choice if that's what two people want, other choices shouldn't wreck that.

[hoopesaz]

Sex is part of my marriage, but it certainly doesn't characterize what mine and my wife's relationship is all about. "Open" relationships are characterized purely by the sexual aspect of the relationship. It's justified becuase you get your "needs" met when in fact they aren't "needs", but "wants".

For a vast majority of people, sexual drive changes dramatically over a lifetime. In many instances people lose their sex drive almost entirely. And what happens in these relationships when that occurs? A relationship characterized by sex but where the partners no longer have sex (or not very much sex) disentigrates.

I'm not trying to make a moral argument. It just seems to me that the law of the harvest eventually catches up to people in this type of relationship. Honestly, sounds like lots of fun during the early years of marriage. Sounds like a complete disaster as the years move on.

[boulddenwyldde]

"A relationship characterized by sex but where the partners no longer have sex (or not very much sex) disentigrates. "

As do ones where they don't. My wife lost interest in me after she got pregnant, and we spent the next 20 years as partners in parenting. Then the kids went off to college.

She made very clear that she was not interested in reviving the relationship. I suggested that we could work out an arrangement, but she was cold to that idea as well. So we're divorcing.

I think poly sounds very appealing.

[Delphine]

Sorry, I guess I don't like to share.

[KChand]

HuffPost's Pick

Hi Dr. Vranich,
I enjoyed your article in the Huffington Post today.
My husband and I (second marriages for both) have been
living and exploring these themes for 10 years +.
Among other very exciting dates with other people and
without, we have been having a 6 year long
relationship with another woman (single). She also
dates many others from time to time. There are some
quirks like the fact that there is BDSM activity
infused in our relationship with her. But mostly the
topic you write about is quite apropos to our life. We
struggle (mostly I do) with all the things you
mention, like every now and then getting insecure
about my being "enough" for my husband. Your last
question inspired me to write you back and that is one
I ask myself often. If I ask it out loud, it is often
the beginning of a bad conversation. The only answer
to what will there be when this ends, is we will need
to find that out at the time. If you are open to what
presents itself in the marriage, the same logic should
hold for what is lost. Otherwise you don't live the
life you have. You are living it by avoiding things
that you are afraid MIGHT happen. Not a good place to
be.

Anyway, thanks for the article.

Karen

[HHR]

The human species is NOT naturally monogamous. If monogamy were the natural preference, we would have no need for the legal construct of marriage, which basically attempts to force people into an arrangement most would be happier without. All the blarney about marriage and family, heard most loudly from government, religion and the Chamber of Commerce, is nothing more than another attempt to keep people divided, and under control. It's a lot easier to control a population organized under a nuclear family arrangement, each family in competition with all others, than it is one where relationships are more spread out and there is a greater chance for wider solidarity on issues.

[peterg76]

Monogamy means a reciprocal commitment between equals. If two people have trouble with it, more than two, while not impossible, won't be any easier. The consenting adults can do what they want, but don't try to pass it off as a "new monogamy".

[JennyBlock]

It is fabulous to see such a respected expert tackling this subject in such a positive and intelligent manner. I don't know that polyamory is the new monogamy. I'm not sure it's the "new" anything. But it is, without at doubt, a viable lifestyle choice. And one that seems to better suit the biology of many people. Monogamy doesn't work for many, many people, including a number of them who swear that it does. People cheat. They lie to themselves and to the people who love them. But it doesn't have to be that way. I've been in a successful open marriage for five years and everyone involved is happy and secure. I've been accused of having my cake and eating it too. Maybe so. But I don't believe that marriage is supposed to be about martyrdom.

Jenny Block
Author of "Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage

http://www.jennyonthepage.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenny-block

[hoopesaz]

Here's the disconnect for me. Liberals embrace the concept of welfare, income distribution, and other societal programs, founded on the truth that society simply fails to function well when everyone operates from selfish motives.

I'm not liberal, but I do agree with the position above. Society does function much better and people find real happiness when they think beyond themselves and have a concern for others that trumps their concern for personal gratification (whether it be sexual or otherwise).

I'm sure multi partner open relationships work for a few people. But, what are the costs associated with that lifestyle? Everytime I read of someone who is in such a relationship, they only talk about how everythings peachy and everyone is happy. In a monogamous relationship, the cost is that I have sex with one woman forever. I'll only have children with one woman...I'­ll only experience the closeness that intamacy brings with one woman. And, there are times when we struggle, when things are hard and we don't find each other attractive because we wear on one another. I'm just being honest.

I'd like to see someone in a "successfull" open relationship take honset inventory of the costs of such a relationship.

[RoloTomassi]

Part 1

For me this brings up the “fine line” issue of what are the necessary social concessions required to satisfy human animal, verses the question of what human concessions are necessary for social stability and to a lesser degree, social, non-religious morality.

I think it’s pretty well established that both male and female humans are by nature polyamorous, with males being more so, which is primarily due to male sexual physiology. Our Western social norms were originally defined by very outdated religious concepts, and are much more difficult to use as valid social boundaries in the modern day. And like so many other areas where what is acceptable to a person or a couple [married or unmarried] is subject to legal governance, civil unions and the rules that apply to them are far more restrictive than what is actually practiced in reality.

And here’s an example that tangential, but still relevant, IMO:
We continually see on national and local newscasts stories of adults with teenage sex partners--as prescribed by our current cultural norms and laws, these stories are always in context to criminal prosecution. But a look at the evolution of human society and previous social norms reveals that this is not only a practice that has been tolerated, but in some instances even encouraged in our past societies.

[RoloTomassi]

Part 2

The point being that while there are certainly multiple and valid reasons for our prohibitions for sexual age of consent, we sometimes see a case or situation that makes us feel as though our social and legal norms are just too antiquated and unrealistic. My example of this would be the MSNBC program “To Catch a Predator” series; for me the borderline entrapment setup is far more distasteful than the individuals and activities they pursue. While I am certainly opposed to thirty-something males stalking girls in their early teens online, when I see a young man in his early twenties charged with a crime for having sex with a teenager—even though I know I would object as a protective father--I can’t get past the idea that while restrictions should be applied, no actual “crime” has been committed [as long as the situation was consentual].

I also feel that our legal requirements for exclusive male/female marriage are absurd and impractical, as well as the legal confines of such a union, in regards to polyamorous situations. But a reasonable argument against an “anything goes” policy is the complexity of the division of wealth and property upon the dissolution of complex unions.

But I fear that nothing in this realm will change much; as long as we depend on antiquated religions for the foundations of morality and law, we will remain stagnant in regards to the legality of evolving human unions and relationships.

[kallisti7]

Polyamory is another word for selfish and discipline-free. Polyamory means never having to make a sacrifice. Polyamory means I love you, just not enough to to control my sexual urges. I love sex, but I don't believe that a fulfilling sex life is the magic key to happiness. Sorry, it's not that simple. Happiness has many ingredients and great sex is just one of them. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/images/comments/post_comment.gif

[alan7388]

> Polyamory is another word for selfish and discipline-free.

Omigod, what horse patootie. Polyamory does not mean careless sleeping around, as you seem to imagine. It means mutual love and respect among more than two. For this to work well, it demands unusual levels of discipline, honesty all around, excellent communication skills and the courage to use them; kindness, willingness to sacrifice cheerfully for the good of others, willingness to stand up for yourself against others, the wisdom to know which of these to choose when... and much else.