The Case For Open Relationships

Matt Titus's recent post "How to Be Faithful" struck a nerve with readers. And it's something I've thought a good deal about, so I decided to look not at monogamy as a goal, but as a social construct. First let me say that if you are in a monogamous relationship, I encourage you to stay within the rules of your relationship, or speak to your partner, rather than simply cheat. But I do believe that monogamy has become fetishized as the only answer to a large degree, with the result being that many people are either locked into relationships they aren't happy with, or are conducting affairs on the side and feeling guilty about it (or not).

This was all brought home to me last week, when I had one of the strangest dinner conversations I've ever had. A guy I'd never met, but who knows some friends of mine, started contacting me by email. He was very persistent, and charming, so I invited him to a reading I was giving. He showed up, and we went for dinner afterward. I wasn't sure if it was a date─it could've been, but was unclear─or whether I wanted it to be. Until, that is, he told me he has a girlfriend. He said it matter-of-factly, like it was just a simple fact, dropped as nonchalantly as his hometown. As it turns out, although they live together and have been a couple for six years, he gets around, and often. He seemed utterly unconflicted as he estimated that, on average, he sleeps with another woman once a month. To his credit, he has no misperceptions about what he's doing. "I'm not a swinger, I'm a cheater," he said. Sadly, I'm sure he is far from alone in his extracurricular mating habits.

I asked my friend Suzanne Portnoy, author of The Butcher, The Baker, The Candlestick Maker: An Erotic Memoir, which chronicles her racy sex life filled with multiple partners, about her take on monogamy. She says there "was never a 'light bulb' moment. Following my divorce and then getting into the swinging scene, I started juggling partners and realized I preferred having a variety of sexual partners to just one." Another friend, Tess, is in an open marriage; she doesn't have sex with her husband anymore, but takes outside lovers. He's free to as well, but as far as she knows, he doesn't. She recently blogged about why she's still in her marriage, despite these constraints. I know a married couple where they're allowed to make out with other people, and take advantage of this rule. I know a triad (one man and two women) who live together quite happily, and are raising children together. One friend described her multiple committed relationships as being "like Big Love, without the patriarchy."

Many who've struggled with monogamy's constraints have concluded that, for various reasons, it's just not for them. As Susan Mernit wrote recently at BlogHer:

You see, even if I ended up getting super-serious with the person I am seeing, and decided to move in with him and make a long-term commitment, I just don't think it would be truthful or wise to also agree to forsake all others. I don't feel an emotional need to make this sort of promise, because I've come to question, okay, I don't believe, that sexual exclusivity is a determinant for commitment. And I also don't believe that being in a serious relationship and deeply loving someone always precludes caring for--and choosing to be involved with--someone else. Or that not being sexually exclusive is going to wreak havoc with a committed relationship, no matter what.

What really seems important to me in relationships these days, is not choosing monogamy, but choosing openness, authenticity, trust and communication.

I agree with Titus, completely, that "fantasy is a good thing." And for many people, monogamy works just fine. But for others, both men and women, monogamy is not a perfect system and doesn't allow them to fully realize themselves. By that I don't mean "sleep with anyone they want," but rather that we may reveal different aspects of ourselves to different people. Think about your various close friends; the way you interact with them is likely different for each one. Some people have that same experience with lovers; they may be married or in a long-term relationship, but have someone else they see occasionally or frequently. Open relationships are not all about sex, either. We may want someone we can talk to, share with, who provides a different kind of support or energy or way of relating than our primary partner.

I've been in both open and monogamous relationships, and one thing I can safely say is that there are plenty of people in so-called monogamous relationships where there's all kinds of cheating going on. Or, as Betty Dodson told me a few years ago, "America practices serial monogamy with cheating on the side. It's never acknowledged and it's lied about." If you've been cheated on, you know the pain and heartache this can cause, likely fostering distrust that can stay with us in future relationships. Even if there's not cheating, it's likely that one person may be up to something the other wouldn't necessarily approve of (flirting, for instance). Furthermore, when we make monogamy the be-all and end-all in relationships, in some ways we make the letter of the law more important than the spirit. Would you rather your partner make love to you every day, even though their heart's not really in it? Therapist Esther Perel, author of Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic, recently said:

The way I see it is that I meet many couples in my practice who may be sexually faithful and are betraying each other in so many other ways. Neglect, indifference, contempt, lack of respect, stonewalling, disqualifying, devaluing, ridiculing, lying, deceit and so on. There are so many ways that people let each other down, betray each other, tear the trust, demean each other, all the while they are sexually faithful. So why is it that we think sexual betrayal is the mother of them all?

Perel's point, again, emphasizes that sex is not the only important part of a relationship, which should be obvious, but isn't always.

For those interested in more information on the topic, two books coming out next year will explore the topic in more depth: Tristan Taormino's Opening Up: Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships (Cleis Press) and Jenny Block's Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage. (You can read Jenny's take here on the Huffington Post in "Portrait of an Open Marriage.") For anyone considering non-monogamy or wanting to learn more, the classic 1997 volume The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities by Dossie Easton and Catherine A. Lizt is truly a must-read. The very idea that you can be "ethical" and still, in some way, a "slut" is still highly provocative ten years later.

Before you think I'm advocating you rush off and beg your spouse to open up your marriage, please note that open relationships aren't for everyone. It's not as simple and easy as it may look from the outside. The polyamorous people I know put a lot of time and effort into all of their relationships to make sure everyone's on the same page. Lastly, this is not an either/or choice you must make now and stick with forever. Some couples drift in and out of monogamy depending on what works best for them at any given time. And polyamory is not a panacea; if you think you'll cure any and all sexual longings or be free of jealousy simply by taking on new partners, you're probably in for a rude awakening. I can't say whether monogamy's right for you or not, only that monogamy clearly isn't right for everyone, or we wouldn't have the levels of cheating and divorce that we do. Titus rightly acknowledged that monogamy can be a struggle, and a worthwhile one, for many, but it is not the only option out there.

Comments

[golfgirl]

The fact that a woman's sexuality is so much more highly valued than a man's makes an open marriage inherently equitable. It was alluded to in some of the comments. An open marriage implies that each partner is free to have sex (or date, or be intimate) with others but not free to commit to those others. Thus the woman of the couple would be relentlessly sought after by men, as almost men tend to seek uncommitted sex. By the same token, the man of the couple would find it difficult to secure a partner, as women rarely prize uncommitted sex, unless they are paid or otherwise compensated. So inevitably the man of the couple would be spending varying amounts of the family savings on his adventures while the woman of the couple would be spending nothing. My husband and I (we're quite equal in looks and appeal, BTW) conducted some research on this and found this to be absolutely true.

It's a very interesting topic though. I actually wanted to do some more extensive research, but my husband didn't. Oh well.

[curiousasheck]

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

[hog]

good post. slight off topic from open relationships and transparent honesty with regard to polyamory (sic) response to the
"it's for the children you narcissist" commenters:
i know a lot of adult children of divorced parents and as many with parents who stay married for forty, even fifty years. I am in my forties.
there is no set truth to the idea that dysfunctional incompatible parents
who divorce have less together adult children, just as 'non-quitter' high functioning marrieds are not guaranteed healthy and successful adult children.
there are so many ways to be healthy. the idea that one way of raising children works across the board is absurd. my own very healthy hetero parents that stayed happily married were kind, patient and high functioning had three totally neurotic adult children that struggle with almost everything!

[lungfish]

Used to think that swinging was cool... we both agreed to try it out... lo and behold it was good. Mostly good for her. Guys were all over her. Me, well, more of a wall flower. Not that I wasn't motivated I just thought too much. Too many situations just weren't right for me though they worked for her.

We were honest, I was patient but none of it really added up to happiness. The sexuality in our own relationship was super but the lack of a true sense of dependability was not.

I think that if people want to try this sort of thing, they can. But lies are lies and cheats are cheats... and you can't really compromise on those points.

I think a lot of people choose this sort of thing to avoid actually breaking up with someone. I met a number of so-called swingers at swingers parties who confided that swinging was the the last step before breaking it off.

I am not moralizing beyond the fundamentals of trust and I will readily admit that exploring sexuality with others and a commtted spouse is possible and can be really fun.

But I would say that is true for probably less than 10percent of the people we met, played with, hung out with. The rest were couples in decline and exploiting sex as a means of avoiding the ineivitable.

That was the truth for us, as well. We broke up a year ago after an 18year run...

[wm1066]

Anybody remember the book 'The Harrad Experiment' that came out in the mid sixties?
That book set the ball rolling on open marriages.

[mbaty]

This is where I'm at: I want honesty, not monogamy. I can take it if my partner has sex with another person, but if they lie to me and run around deceiving me, that is so much worse. Also, what if I can't be monogamous? I don't want to decieve my partner either, and the truth is that when you are really compatible with someone and you've developed a relationship, no one else is going to duplicate that. You love everyone differently, and different people bring out different aspects of ourselves. I think that the "death due us part" obsession we all have is really just an ideal to strive for, but probably not a reality. When fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, you have to wonder, maybe relationships aren't meant to last forever.
And if someone wants exclusive rights to your body, they should have a responsibility to fulfill your needs.
Communication is the key.

[wm1066]

"sister lovers, water brothers and in time maybe others, saying to me, 'What we can do is to try something new, if your crazy to.' I don't really know, why can't we go on as three?"
Well I tried that and it just doesn't work very well! ... with all due respect to Jefferson Airplane.

[whatsthatsound]

No one has worked this sucker out since the beginning of time. Thanks for an interesting read, though.

[TRYKER]

If monogamy came naturally, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The expectations ingrained in it are the source of the downfalls.
But for having children, a single lifestyle with free choice allows all to do as they will, without having to remake the "other" into some security blanket or ego booster...not to mention whipping boy.
Co-dependence has reached deep into our psyches and we've bought into the religious view of monogamous-virtue, all else be damned.
This is 2007 and we are evolving, lets observe our freedom and do what comes naturally.
If 95% cheated, monogamy didn't come naturally.

[brooklyncitizen]

"So why is it that we think sexual betrayal is the mother of them all? "

-Well there is the disease and the collateral damage to children; many children feel the betrayal at discovering their parent's mistress or lover, it isn't just the partner that has to be "ok" with it.

-there was the san diego case a few years ago of the marrried woman who was a swinger and swung with her neighbor who later kidnapped raped and killed her small daughter.

-you are putting your partner at risk of getting STD.

-if polyamorous is the lifestyle you seek why get married? I simply don't understand the overzealous emphasis on marriage and the inability to uphold its sacredness and commitment to one another.

"Marriage is a beautiful mistake two people make together".

[Demetre]

Great piece and interesting conversation.

I have a few thoughts. First, it is important to remember that monogamy is often not practiced by those who advocate it most strongly. Other proponents of monogamy may discover that their partners have not always been practicing it with them. While I agree that two honest adults are capable of arranging the relationship that best suits them, it is important to consider two aspects of marriage that exist outside the realm of sexual fulfillment -- protection of assets and the welfare of children.

Do you want your spouse spending your family's money on a fling with someone you're not particularly crazy about? Your ability to have a say in this matter may be contingent upon how much more or less you make than your spouse.

Also, do you want your partner's paramours to have social relations with your children? At what point should they be informed of this marital arrangement? I don't have children (does Ms. Kramer-Bussel?) so I am not sure how these things work.

In case you do not know her, Rachel Kramer Bussel is probably the best contemporary writer of erotica. Her acute psychological insights make her the Henry James of the genre.

[KatWilder]

As a fortysomething woman, I've watched one by one as my friends have gotten divorced recently after 15-, 18-, 20-year marriages. Infidelity has factored into many of those splits, but not all.

The problem isn't polyamory or open relationships as much as marriage as we know it isn't working for a lot of people, for whatever the reason. And marriage as we've known it has meant monogamy.

It is up to a couple to decide or themselves what works and what doesn't in their relationship, period. The important thing is that both understand and freely agree to what it looks like. (I blogged about that at http://blogs.marinij.com/katwilder/2007/09/my_bizarre_love_triangle_1.html

I'd much rather enter into a committed relationship in which we were honest about our desires than THINK I was entering into a monogamous relationship in which he, not "wanting to hurt me," actually does, as he lies and fools around on the side.

[eaglecapri]

'...please note that open relationships aren't for everyone.'

I once dated an anthropologist (I know, I know) and he said that as long as all parties were in agreement, then there would be harmony (emphasis on harmony) between or amongst them. With that being said, I know a woman who lives with both her husband and her boyfriend. I also know (second hand) of a woman who is in a relationship with a gay man and his lover; they also live together and last reported they are still totally happy! The common thread between the two relationships is being true to oneself and the relationship (again, emphasis on harmony) and not conforming to what society dictates! As they say, whatever floats your boat.

[MikeDu]

Most 'solid monagamous' relationships I see were gone into for the simple purpose of purchasing real estate!

People enter relations for widely different reasons, to find a sex partner, a housemate, a financial partner, a protector, a friend, for procreation, for social status, an excuse to stage that 'fantasy weding' you always wanted. Each reason for the relation alters the terms of the relationship. If you're entering a relation to gain guaranteed sexual contact (in your early 20s) of course the rules of the relation will differ from one entered mainly for peer status (in your late 30s).

[onlinesavant]

I love it. I love it. Someone finds something from someone they disagree with and they automatically (Like Pavlov's dog.) label their perspective "liberalism", and them "liberals". Now, by definition, "open" is akin to liberal, but, I'm befuddled as to waht any ofthis has to do with political philosophy, which is wah ta few in this conversational thread would try to intimate. Is Rudy G. a political liberal? Or Mark Foley? Or David Vitter? I could go on, but then no one else would get the chance to comment. So, here and now, let's squash this. This has NOTHING to do with political liberalism. These are the opinions of individuals about their sexual relationships with their "significant others". These people are just as much, if not more likely, to be political "conservatives" as the squarest of the square.

[dgrffy]

This is delicious. I love it! This is what makes watching Western Culture disintegrate almost as enjoyable as a good football game. Europe, due to declines in birthrates, has one foot in the grave. Every study ever commissioned - no matter how buried beneath the grocery adds - suggests children are better off in a family with a man and woman (no indication if multiple presences add to the benefits). Everything suggests that the disintegration of this social construct called monogamous marriage has lead to depression, dependency, abuse, crime, and disease at rates never before tracked. And yet, our answer? When the boat"s sinking - bring in more water! I love it. If it weren't for the royal screwing we are giving our posterity (those who don't have kids don't care of course), I would laugh. As it is, I think I will cry a little, too.

[tkk]

Why is it that liberals can't figure out that giving into the problem is not a solution.

[tkk]

I am a liberal Democrat who takes exception to the argument for Polyamoury. People who are enamored of "open relationships" always fail to state the very serious negatives of these situations. I always find it interesting when women promote this idea because it is invariably women and children who suffer greatly from the arrangement.

Generally, I think people recommend "open relationships" because they have psychological problems they haven't addressed that keep them from using the necessary discipline required for monogamy.

In this world, there is no paradise or utopia in relationships. Relationships are hard. Part of maturing into a responsible adult is learning to discipline our base animal appetites and appreciate an intimate relationship with one other mate who enriches one's life.

When you start thinking polyamory is a great system, take a hard look at the traditional Mormons. A more abusive system for women, girls, and young men could hardly be found.

[Beachrunner]

If people who are into this sort of thing would be honest and admit that they care more about their genitals and where their next orgasm is coming from than anything else, I'd appreciate it.

It would be quite a bit better than all these tortuous attempts at rationalizing wanting to have sex with anyone who flips your switch.

[InstantDogma]

Men are not wired to be monogomous.
It's not evolutionarily advantagous.
Simple as that.
Deal.
Have a nice day.
Steve

[NoOneSpecial]

Just my observation being a gay man and belonging to a community that has a pretty high incidence of people who've embrace the "open relationship" lifestyle...

In the end I have yet to see any evidence, researched or anecdotal, that open relationships make for happier people or couples. In fact, even amongst those who have open agreements there often seems to be higher levels of mistrust and jealousy than in monogamous ones.

Another thing I've noticed is that the sooner gay couples jump into an open relationship agreement (typically anywhere from right away to the first 5-7 years) is usually directly proportional to how long they remain a couple. In other words the faster they get into it, the faster they break up.

And finally, there are certain elements of the gay male community that do not RESPECT those who choose monogamy. Especially around gay meccas like Palm Springs and such. The basic wisdom I've heard is that if you value your monogamous relationship you won't move to such places as your relationship will likely end within a matter of a year or two since the pressure in opposition to monogamy is so intense.

[squander123]

I've also been an open relationship (which was itself a link in a chain of other open relationships), and I entirely agree with the central points made by this article. Why indeed is sexual monogamy now fetishized as the 'true' marker of a committed relationship? I had no problem with my partner having a sexual relationship with another person, and he in turn had no difficulties with my other sexual relationship.

However, as the article makes clear, it does require a tremendous amount of work to keep everyone involved happy and feeling valued - after all, everyone is having not one relationship, but two, with all the work which that implied. At the time, we were all pretty young (mid-20s), and most of us were more commmitted to our personal lives than our professional lives, so we had the time and mental space to give to our relationships. Now that I'm in my late 30s, and have a demanding professional career (and a monogamous relationship), I do think about this sometimes - having an open relationship is a bit like having two jobs, and these days I don't think I have the time or energy!

So while I'm not intellectually convinced at all by monogamy, it seems to have become a practical necessity now that I have a 'proper job'. Like all the other features of imminent middle-age...!

[cylindar]

Excellent piece!!!!

[mexamerican]

i've got more than enough on my hands keeping one chick happy. and i'll be damned if i'm going to share her with other pipi. but if you're cool with you're girl/guy out there hunting for new and strange genitalia, then go for it.

[acudoc]

I think it is wise to respect any archetype of the human psyche, such as marriage, that arises spontaneously in human affairs. To trifle with an archetype brings only disaster, chaos, and despair.