is monogamy overrated?

[Cubit]

Dan Savage's recent comments (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/24/thought-for-the-day) in response to Sanford's admission of infidelity got me thinking about the way Americans treat sexual monogamy in and out of marriage.

Dying* is easy, monogamy is hard.

One day we're gonna put screw and screw together and realize that the problem is our unrealistic and unnatural fixation on monogamy and not that "some men just can't keep it in their pants." Human beings aren't wired to be sexually monogamous—male or female—and the feigned shock with which we're required to greet each new revelation of infidelity on the part of an elected official, a reality-show star, or a sports figure would be comical if the costs weren't so great. Elevating monogamy over all else—insisting that it, and it alone, is true love's only marker—destroys marriages and families and careers.

Which is not to say that anything goes and that people shouldn't be expected to honor their commitments and that there aren't folks out there who're capable of remaining monogamous over the three, four, five, or six decade course of a marriage. But think of all the people who've cheated and gotten caught. Now think about all the people who've cheated and gotten away with it. Our ideals about the place of sex within marriage are at war with who and what we are. They're at war with reality. Sex is powerful, relationships are fragile. Why on earth do we insist on pitting them against each other?

* Physically, politically.
Bearing in mind that this just represents Savage's cursory thoughts on the subject, what do you guys think?

[Tyjenks]

I think it is incredibly friggin' hard and I judge absolutely no one who does so solely on the fact that they cheated. As has been mentioned in numerous studies, interviews, books, cheating is rarely the casue of marital problems just a symptom. I believe that whole-heartedly.

Monogamy has been beat into most of us. We are made to feel guilty for even thinking about sex with other women. Hell, many folks are taught that looking at nude women and masturbating are equally as wrong. Everything is kinda messed up and I do not know that there will ever be a time when monogamy will be even seriously considered as a possible misstep in our setting up of society. (I guess we are talking about in America)

AS far as honoring commitments go, that part definitely changes things. Once you pledge to stick with someone, that's it. You made a promise and I think you should stick to it. People make mistakes though. That is one that is made impossibly hard to get past.

I have thought a lot about how many people do get caught and what the ratio would be to those who do not. I bet it is a much bigger ratio than we would imagine.

[Mr_PeaCH]

Look at how it is viewed today in the U.S. vs. most of the rest of what we consider the civilized world. Look at the role that our brand of Christianity plays.

Hell, many folks are taught that looking at nude women and masturbating are equally as wrong.

Wait, are you saying that either of those *IS*wrong? (I don't want to be right.)

[Tyjenks]

Wait, are you saying that either of those *IS*wrong? (I don't want to be right.)
No. Although, I had friends growing up that convinced me otherwise. I went on a 6 month "break" in prime teenage years. Hardest (yes, that's right) 6-months of my life. Those friends have since been converted at least where that stance is concerned.

I am just saying there are people with views skewed that far off any sane position that the whole debate is probably off balance to start with in that there is so much more history that has, arguably, wrongly supported monogamy.

[Tyjenks]

Man, my posts almost make it appear that I am lobbying for either cheating or an open marriage.

[Cubit]

Man, my posts almost make it appear that I am lobbying for either cheating or an open marriage.

haha, no worries. i understood what you were trying to say.

[extarbags]

I hate it when people push this "monogamy is stupid, humans should be banging everybody like crazy" angle. I get that it's not fun to be judged, but that doesn't mean you should judge back.

Look, different things work for different people. There are a lot of people for whom monogamy doesn't work, and they shouldn't be pressured into it. But they also shouldn't be pompous enough to view themselves as the enlightened few, the only ones who've got it all figured out, and look down on the poor slobs who commit to one person.

AS far as honoring commitments go, that part definitely changes things. Once you pledge to stick with someone, that's it.

This is the key thing here, and it's why there is a difference between "not wired for monogamy" and "can't keep it in his pants." There's no moral imperative to be monogamous with a person, even one you're married to, but there is a very real more imperative to honor the agreement you make when you get married. Now, that agreement might be that you'll never so much as look at another woman, and it might be that you can do whatever you want short of anal, but whatever it is, you have to stick to it. Or don't get married.

Look, people make hard choices all the time, and you have to choose what you want here. If you want to roam free, banging whoever you want at any time, that's cool, just don't promise someone who loves you that you won't, that's all. And if you do make that promise, thinking you can keep it, and then it turns out you can't, fucking man up and break it off or get a divorce first. If that's too hard, then maybe your wife is more important to you than sexual freedom after all. But tough, you can't have it both ways, and it's incredibly cruel to try.

[awdougherty]

I agree with extarbags and Tyjenks that when you make the commitment you stick to it, even if the meaning is different for all of us. Personally, I find it a little odd that not sexing up another person is part of the agreement to be your spouse's partner. Seems like if sex doesn't bring heavy emotional meaning for you, it might be possible lust after a person but know that your partner is your partner. Maybe not, who knows.

[Marged]

Seems like if sex doesn't bring heavy emotional meaning for you, it might be possible lust after a person but know that your partner is your partner.

But I think there is a lot of evidence that sex does bring emotional meaning, especially the more you have it with a particular partner. So it's like, emotionally free sex is nice work if you can get it, I suppose.

The thing about monogamy is that it kinda reminds me of the Churchill (apocryphal?) line that Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the other ones we've tried. (Although, I don't think monogamy is even all that bad, personally.) I've seen very few people manage open relationships with much success, because sexual jealousy is a destructive force to be reckoned with. Maybe we aren't wired to be monogamous, but we're also wired to be sexually possessive. Fun times! This is why being human is kind of a pain: we have a lot of innate tendencies that don't always work well together, and definitely don't always help us in the modern world.

[Tyjenks]

But I think there is a lot of evidence that sex does bring emotional meaning, especially the more you have it with a particular partner. So it's like, emotionally free sex is nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
Well, unfortunately, for a lot of marriages, for whatever reason and no matter how many "Spice up your sex life" books you read, the emotion and sense of closeness sex brings can burn out. Then that whole we ain't wired that way arguement starts to make a lot of sense.;)

[Disconnected]

I think there's two problems.

One is that pretty much all cultures emphasise monogamous marriages between man and wife, both as the only desirable and as the only possible type of family. The predictable result being that lots of people either don't realise, or realise far too late that it isn't how they want to live.

The other problem is that people fall out of love just as frequently as they do the opposite.

I would rather like if we could somehow agree to stop with the former, but I don't know how to deal with the latter, except maybe not crucify people when it happens. It's not like people fall out of love to amuse themselves (did I mention I hate my ex? - Because double standards are twice as good).

[Enidigm]

Monogamy = Family
Family = Society

Discuss.

[rei]

one douchy take on it (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce)

[Supersport]

Well...I am going to add my two cents on this...

Last year, my wife and I were on the verge of divorce after 13 years of marriage. I felt that she wasn't really adding anything to the relationship (not working, taking care of the kids, even cleaning or cooking) I felt like a meal ticket. I lost complete respect for her and started dating other women.

So we sat down and talked and talked and talked. She committed to going back to the school and sharing in the responsibilities around the house. I took a wait and see approach because we had been down this road before where she said she would commit to changing and didn't.

So fast forward to last November. We had another couple over that we were friends with and it was really late at night. My wife and her husband had went to bed and she started talking about how she wanted to do a swap.

Now here is the thing. My wife and I are have fairly large sexuals appetites and what I didn't know after all those years was that my wife had been wrestling with her bi-sexuality. I had been wanting a our relationship to become open. I didn't know this until we had our talks.

So back to the thing...I woke my wife up and told her what our friend had said and she said she would be into it. So we did a complete swap. Same room and definitely interesting. The thing I found out about myself is that I do not get jealous at all. When it is sex, it is just sex. However if I found some guy sitting on my couch drinking a beer, that would be something totally different because it becomes a respect issue rather than a physical desire issue.

It is funny because now that I know she is down with being open and she knows I am ok with it, we actually share a stronger bond that what was there before. It is something we found that we have in common that not many people are pre-conditioned to be like. Which is pretty cool.

So we have experimented with other couples, three somes with myself and another female and her, and myself, another guy and her. She has settled on a couple of females she likes to be with and just recently asked me how I would feel if she was to move in with us (I was thinking the same thing at the time; just hadn't mentioned it to her yet). I told her I had zero issues with that since she (the other female) is really cool and her and I get along just as much as my wife and her get along.

Probably said to much there, but fuck it.

SO YEAH MONOGAMY is overrated.

[Rimbo]

I'm going to throw out an idea here for people to chew on.

The problem here isn't monogamy or sex, but the idea of romantic love, of being "in love" with a person.

There are many kinds of love. There's the love you have for your brother or you mother. There's the love you have for your dog. There's the love you have for writing code or listening to music or your favorite game. And there's falling in love, or romantic love.

Romantic love is fleeting. VERY fleeting. And until recently, it wasn't why people got married. Marriage was a contract, a business deal; one person provides money, food and shelter, and the other provides descendants. And if you get married because you're "in love" with someone, you're going to be thinking the marriage is over when it invariably ends, unless you built some deeper kind of love in the process.

It's an interesting idea I've heard of, and I think it's worth throwing into this discussion.

[Mark Asher]

I think that can be it sometimes, Rimbo, but I also think there are people who get bored sexually and just want a new sexual experience.

So it's both. Some people want that new romance, and some people just want a new partner.

And I also think that romantic love can get replaced by a kind of love that is just as deep -- it's the feeling of cherishing another person, wanting to see that person happy, feeling like the two of you are in it together as a team.

[rossm]

We may not be directly wired for monogamy, but most people are certainly wired to be posessive and jealous. I think that monogamy is a cultural 'solution' to minimize jealousy and such.

[Rimbo]

Yeah. I picked up The Screwtape Letters again for the first time in a while, and the book makes a big point of the "victory" for "our father below" that getting people to marry for love was.

I'm still pinging the thought around in my head to see what it sticks to.

[Ranulf]

one douchy take on it (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce)

I read that last week. Oh what a silly whingfest and blatant attempt to obsolve herself of her own horrible actions.

[Jason McCullough]

Look, people make hard choices all the time, and you have to choose what you want here. If you want to roam free, banging whoever you want at any time, that's cool, just don't promise someone who loves you that you won't, that's all. And if you do make that promise, thinking you can keep it, and then it turns out you can't, fucking man up and break it off or get a divorce first. If that's too hard, then maybe your wife is more important to you than sexual freedom after all. But tough, you can't have it both ways, and it's incredibly cruel to try.

Unfortunately, it's not just a personal thing; society has some rather ludicrous expectations. Good luck getting elected dogcatcher as a straight person with a non-traditional marriage, for example. It'd be way easier to be gay and get elected. Plus there's basically a "no single people" rule for Presidents. Plus again, people will treat you much better if you're just gay as opposed to non-traditional heteosexuality. We're a strange country; our cultural expectations for gender roles and family structure are pretty unique in the first world.

That Sandra Tsing Loh article is absurd, I forgot to post about it. My favorite part is her sotto-voice admissal of infidelity in the first paragraph, without ever mentioning it again.

[Flowers]

...

Take your victory lap already.

[SpookyKG]

I enjoyed this article:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/06/24/vindication_love/

I think about this often as well... I have a beautiful girlfriend who is everything I'd ever want in a potential wife, and I've been dating her for nigh 2 years. She'd get hitched with me in a second, but I constantly joke about never wanting to get married.

It seems like a disaster even if you DO have the right person. I'd much rather plan a pregnancy than a marriage... Having kids seems exciting, committing to one person forever seems a drag. My problem is that while I would love to date many other people, and possibly experiment with polyamory, my SO would NEVER consider such a thing, and even worse, I would NOT want to share her with any other guy. It's a case of not being able to have your cake and eat it to, I feel, and I think I'm destined for marriage, as are the majority(?) of men.

Wanting to date other people + wanting my girlfriend to only want me is unfair and unrealistic, so I'll likely never act on it. Do I feel this way because I'm a selfish bastard, or because I'm caught in a gray zone between our 'natural' state as humans and the burdens of our cultural norms?

[Disconnected]

I think that can be it sometimes, Rimbo, but I also think there are people who get bored sexually and just want a new sexual experience.

And then there's the people who doesn't fit the mono-hetero-marriage ideal. Some people need more than a single partner to be happy. Some need an owner or a slave. Still others need other things. Point being: people like that won't ever be satisfied with a mono-hetero-marriage. It will never be what they're looking for, even if their partner is.

We're a strange country; our cultural expectations for gender roles and family structure are pretty unique in the first world.

No you're not. You might make a slightly bigger deal out of it, but pretty much all cultures and countrioes share those expetations.

[wildpokerman]

Well...I am going to add my two cents on this...

Last year, my wife and I were on the verge of divorce after 13 years of marriage. I felt that she wasn't really adding anything to the relationship (not working, taking care of the kids, even cleaning or cooking) I felt like a meal ticket. I lost complete respect for her and started dating other women.

So we sat down and talked and talked and talked. She committed to going back to the school and sharing in the responsibilities around the house. I took a wait and see approach because we had been down this road before where she said she would commit to changing and didn't.

So fast forward to last November. We had another couple over that we were friends with and it was really late at night. My wife and her husband had went to bed and she started talking about how she wanted to do a swap.

Now here is the thing. My wife and I are have fairly large sexuals appetites and what I didn't know after all those years was that my wife had been wrestling with her bi-sexuality. I had been wanting a our relationship to become open. I didn't know this until we had our talks.

So back to the thing...I woke my wife up and told her what our friend had said and she said she would be into it. So we did a complete swap. Same room and definitely interesting. The thing I found out about myself is that I do not get jealous at all. When it is sex, it is just sex. However if I found some guy sitting on my couch drinking a beer, that would be something totally different because it becomes a respect issue rather than a physical desire issue.

It is funny because now that I know she is down with being open and she knows I am ok with it, we actually share a stronger bond that what was there before. It is something we found that we have in common that not many people are pre-conditioned to be like. Which is pretty cool.

So we have experimented with other couples, three somes with myself and another female and her, and myself, another guy and her. She has settled on a couple of females she likes to be with and just recently asked me how I would feel if she was to move in with us (I was thinking the same thing at the time; just hadn't mentioned it to her yet). I told her I had zero issues with that since she (the other female) is really cool and her and I get along just as much as my wife and her get along.

Probably said to much there, but fuck it.

SO YEAH MONOGAMY is overrated.

And soon you'll write the third chapter that I've seen every time in the open marraige where you ignore your wife to the point that she's chasing you down the street with your girlfriend and screaming at you through the car window.

Or when you're crying because you went to a local Ron Jeremy show, He said that he's not really into the guy guy girl thing and you come home crying because she picked him.

Yes I've seen both of those from the "open marriage".

I have several more stories about bad endings to this, don't think the show is over.

We're hard wired for multiple partners but our installed software says monogamy.

We're all due to crash to the blue screen sooner or later.

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, Supersport's post reads like the first act of a movie about the violent collapse of a relationship. We'll see how successful this experiment actually in in a year or two if he wants to give us an update.

[SpookyKG]

Yeah, Supersport's post reads like the first act of a movie about the violent collapse of a relationship. We'll see how successful this experiment actually in in a year or two if he wants to give us an update.

But, to be honest, if his marriage was failing and he was checking out anyways, isn't living with 2 chicks a nice denouement compared to an instant split?

[Disconnected]

I doubt we're predisposed to traditional monogamous relationships, I think it's something we're taught, continuously.

I know of a couple of seemingly stable families like Supersport's, including one that I know have been together for more than 35 years. I know or know of a small horde of people who wouldn't fit in a traditional monogamous marriage. And I know many of them have tried, because they thought they had to.

[Acid]

I swore a vow to my wife and I will live by it until my death.

If you make a promise, you are a sick fuckbag if you break it. Period. That's how I see the issue.

I don't have whatever muscle it takes to flex in order to cheat on my girl.

[WarrenM]

I couldn't live with myself if I cheated. My wife is very liberal and as far as looking at other girls or watching porn or whatever, she couldn't care less. She even points out hot girls to me so I don't miss out. But cheating? I would be betraying her trust on such a deep level that ... well, I really can't even go there.

[SpookyKG]

I swore a vow to my wife and I will live by it until my death.

If you make a promise, you are a sick fuckbag if you break it. Period. That's how I see the issue.

I don't have whatever muscle it takes to flex in order to cheat on my girl.

I couldn't live with myself if I cheated. My wife is very liberal and as far as looking at other girls or watching porn or whatever, she couldn't care less. She even points out hot girls to me so I don't miss out. But cheating? I would be betraying her trust on such a deep level that ... well, I really can't even go there.


Admirable, but only tangentially related to the topic. Nobody is REALLY talking about cheating as an alternative to marriage, just other viable alternatives to marriage (most, so far, being respectable and honest ones).

[WarrenM]

Oh yeah, I understand that. I was sort of putting my feelings on monogamy into the context of cheating, I suppose. I can see the appeal of an open marriage but, as has been said earlier in the thread, I haven't seen them work long term.

I've heard that while a 3-way sounds great at first (to the guy, anyway) it inevitably leads to jealousy and mistrust and will tear the relationship apart.

It's sort of like a couple who has babies to keep the marriage together. That rarely works either.

[Disconnected]

(most, so far, being respectable and honest ones).Uhm.. Which ones aren't?

[SpookyKG]

EpicBoy:

I guess you could look at the idea of cheating in the context of an 'open relationship' as well, as that is the real issue for the major problems.

Even with an unpromised bond, SOMEBODY in the relationship is going to feel entitled to a certain level of focus, being the 'primary' player in the emotional side (or bedroom side), etc., and if that notion was broken, they're going to feel 'cheated on' in some way, justified or not.

That's the whole problem, and I guess I can understand it, even having only been in a monogamous friends-with-benefits relationship. It always goes sour, even when you have an 'understanding.'

Uhm.. Which ones aren't?
I didn't want to reread all the posts to verify, so I said that just in case I had missed something (and this post came out of the whole Sanford thing, naughty business)

[Rimbo]

I couldn't live with myself if I cheated. My wife is very liberal and as far as looking at other girls or watching porn or whatever, she couldn't care less. She even points out hot girls to me so I don't miss out. But cheating? I would be betraying her trust on such a deep level that ... well, I really can't even go there.

I'm in a similar boat. My wife protests that she wouldn't mind if I went and sowed my oats, but I come from a long line of one-woman men. (And I know a trap when I see one.) I am just wired that way; I can't think about another woman unless it's to the detriment of the one I'm with. The one I'm with now, I don't want to bother with other women... going on 12 years now.

[Rob_Merritt]

I've noticed that more and more of my friends are trying "open marriage." It seems very complicated, especially when the couple has kids. Arranging the hookups just is nuts sometimes. I'm not saying anything positive or negative about it. It's not something I would do.

[Rimbo]

i'm too polite for group sex... too many thank-you notes to mail out aftewards

[Disconnected]

That's the whole problem, and I guess I can understand it, even having only been in a monogamous friends-with-benefits relationship. It always goes sour, even when you have an 'understanding.'
Thanks for clarifying.

I think that depends a lot on why people want whatever it is they want, how honest they are about it, how clearly and comprehensively they discuss it with those affected, and how good they are at setting limits.

Let's say a bisexual sub finds a nice master, let's on that he perhaps wouldn't mind being shared, and the next thing he knows, his master has an additional partner - something our unfortunate sub didn't want at all, and doesn't know what to do about.

Then again, suppose the above, except this time our more fortunate sub has explained what he wants, as well as what he doesn't want. And keeps refining - and if he feels like it, redefining - what he wants and doesn't want.

The former is heartbreak waiting to happen. The latter may well be the only kind of satisfactory relationship our sub can have.

[Rimbo]

But, to be honest, if his marriage was failing and he was checking out anyways, isn't living with 2 chicks a nice denouement compared to an instant split?

Really good point there.

[WarrenM]

Really good point there.
I suppose. I guess it depends on how emotionally invested you are. The use of the word "chicks" would indicate "not very".

[Robert Sharp]

As I've mentioned before, my wife has given me full permission (which I suppose means it would not be an affair). However, I have not taken her up on it. If I did, I would make sure it was a one night thing, not someone I knew well or had any emotional tie to. There are too many horror stories.

Still, I think we focus on the horror stories and forget that lots of people have successful open marriages. Likely, it depends on the trust issue still, though. People get jealous and feel betrayed, yes. But a strong commitment to each other in non-sexual ways means your marriage will survive an affair, most likely, if you want it to. That's the real issue.

By the time it gets to an actual affair (and here I mean without permission), the marriage is in serious trouble most of the time. An affair, in itself, doesn't have to ruin a marriage, and I think we are silly when we suggest that the other person must have no self-esteem if he/she stays. I'm sure that's true in some cases, but in others it's the existence of such self-esteem that allows the marriage to continue.

As for the original question, yes monogamy is probably overrated. But commitment is underrated right now. I mean a real connection to your partner that isn't about sex per se (though it probably includes sex).

[Coca Cola Zero]

There are many kinds of love. There's the love you have for your brother or you mother. There's the love you have for your dog. There's the love you have for writing code or listening to music or your favorite game. And there's falling in love, or romantic love.


And then there is the love of a pimp. You see, a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.

[WarrenM]

As for the original question, yes monogamy is probably overrated. But commitment is underrated right now. I mean a real connection to your partner that isn't about sex per se (though it probably includes sex).
Now THAT'S what I call a good point.

[Marged]

I think about this often as well... I have a beautiful girlfriend who is everything I'd ever want in a potential wife, and I've been dating her for nigh 2 years. She'd get hitched with me in a second, but I constantly joke about never wanting to get married.

It seems like a disaster even if you DO have the right person. I'd much rather plan a pregnancy than a marriage... Having kids seems exciting, committing to one person forever seems a drag.

Have you told her that you seriously feel this way? Because if she wants to be married, and you don't think you ever want to, you're kinda wasting her time and that's cruel (but not unusual).

I keep asking extarbags for an exception, like "If I chanced upon Bruce Campbell limping along the side of the road, could I take him home, nurse him and have my way with him - and have it not count as cheating!" He keeps saying no, and I reluctantly abide by his wishes. Or just announce "That guy, he's my exception!" as we're watching TV/walking down the street...

Someone upthread was talking about the fact that sex goes away or gets bad in marriage - obviously this is a common complaint, but I've come across some studies that show that happy marriages do seem to maintain a decent freak-quency although excitement is harder to measure. Sex going away or getting perfunctory and brief might be a symptom more than inevitable.

[Spam]

I'm so limited that this entire argument is just silly to me. It's like the humanities crowd trying to tackle thug life for publication in a respected journal. It's as though they forget what got us here in the first place. I can't think of too many tribal cultures that wound up building tv sets and saturn boosters.

[Bahimiron]

But, to be honest, if his marriage was failing and he was checking out anyways, isn't living with 2 chicks a nice denouement compared to an instant split?

Unless it turns out that the problem is with him. In which case living with two chicks will just be twice as bad as living with one.

[Hanzii]

That Sandra Tsing Loh article is absurd, I forgot to post about it. My favorite part is her sotto-voice admissal of infidelity in the first paragraph, without ever mentioning it again.

Why is it absurd?
She points to a lot of interesting research - the most interesting to me is the one saying that serial monogamy is more damaging to the kids than just being with a single parent. Ie the damaging part is not splitting up, but mom and dad settling with new partners. Especially if there's a series of them.

And she does mention the infedelity again in the piece.

Maybe we aren't wired to be monogamous, but we're also wired to be sexually possessive. Fun times! This is why being human is kind of a pain: we have a lot of innate tendencies that don't always work well together, and definitely don't always help us in the modern world.



As for the original question, yes monogamy is probably overrated. But commitment is underrated right now. I mean a real connection to your partner that isn't about sex per se (though it probably includes sex).

These are probably my view on the subject.
If monogamy is natural then I find it weird, that we're so bad at it. That monogamy worked better in "the old days" in my mind has more to do with religion, laws and discrimination of women making splitting up very hard for at least one partner in the relationship and not some rosy notion of better days.

Maybe people today aren't willing to work hard enough on their marriages and again maybe they aren't supposed to. Perhaps working out other ways of being happy and not hurting your kids are more important.

I don't know of any working open marriages, but on the other hand I know a much larger statistical base of monogamous marriages failing.

So whatever works for you - as long as you're honest about it and finds your solution as equal partners - ie it has to work for both.

[Bahimiron]

Why is it absurd?

I'm going to assume that it's absurd because if one goes into a relationship with an expectation of monogamy, all the justification after infidelity that monogamy is itself an unnatural and unrealistic expectation is just bullshit rationalizing of ones inability to control ones own behavior.

Open relationships are fine as long as both parties understand that that's what it is.

If you are in a relationship that was initially intended to be monogamous and your partner believes it still is, but you've decided to change the rules, you are in the wrong and trying to offer scientific evidence for why it's okay doesn't change that.

[Hanzii]

Or perhaps someone enters into a relationship with false expectations and when that manifests itself tries to look to science and other people in order to analyze what went wrong?

I'm not saying I agree with her, but I would like a bit more argumentation than just the words 'douche' and 'absurd'.

[Blackadar]

I'm not saying I agree with her, but I would like a bit more argumentation than just the words 'douche' and 'absurd'.

I think the words 'douche' and 'absurd' about summed it up for me as well.

[Murph]

Or perhaps someone enters into a relationship with false expectations and when that manifests itself tries to look to science and other people in order to analyze what went wrong?

Still missing the point.

I'm pro-marriage, myself, and I believe that when you make a commitment to someone you are expected to honor it. Personally, I feel like if things get bad, my wife and I obligated to do what it takes to make things work, and I don't feel like divorce is an option for either of us, but for people who are genuinely "stuck" in marriages "with false expectations," it's not like there's not a door out.

I could never be involved in an open relationship myself, but it's not my place to judge those who are...as long as everyone's on the same page about what's okay and what's not, more power to you all. BUT, as soon as someone crosses the boundaries of any arrangement, there will always be consequences.

[Hanzii]

Still missing the point.

I'm pro-marriage, myself, and I believe that when you make a commitment to someone you are expected to honor it. Personally, I feel like if things get bad, my wife and I obligated to do what it takes to make things work, and I don't feel like divorce is an option for either of us, but for people who are genuinely "stuck" in marriages "with false expectations," it's not like there's not a door out.

I could never be involved in an open relationship myself, but it's not my place to judge those who are...as long as everyone's on the same page about what's okay and what's not, more power to you all. BUT, as soon as someone crosses the boundaries of any arrangement, there will always be consequences.

Of course.
And I don't see her arguing the opposite. She's picking the door that says splitting up and looking for reasons why monogamy perhaps isn't easy - I don't see her saying that she did nothing wrong. Contrary to what Jason says, she mentions what happens later in the article as 'her infidelity', which isn't a neutral or kind term. She isn't blameless.

[Murph]

My mistake. I sorta just skimmed the article, which I should know better than to do. :-/

[Kraaze]

I could never be involved in an open relationship myself, but it's not my place to judge those who are...as long as everyone's on the same page about what's okay and what's not, more power to you all. BUT, as soon as someone crosses the boundaries of any arrangement, there will always be consequences.

That's my general take on the topic of open relationships and commitment as well. I don't care what the commitment was, whether it involved monogamy or whose turn it was to pick the kids up at school or a solemn promise to never repeat the stories from the honeymoon, it needs to be honored. If a person has made a commitment to their spouse they are fucking up if they break it.

I myself have no problem with open relationships but I can still easily condemn cheaters and liars.

[awdougherty]

Romantic love is fleeting. VERY fleeting. And until recently, it wasn't why people got married. Marriage was a contract, a business deal; one person provides money, food and shelter, and the other provides descendants. And if you get married because you're "in love" with someone, you're going to be thinking the marriage is over when it invariably ends, unless you built some deeper kind of love in the process.

It's an interesting idea I've heard of, and I think it's worth throwing into this discussion.

Just to add to this point, for the longest time, these contracts involved one husband with multiple wives. So not only was marriage a business contract, it was a polygamist business contract. The idea of monogamy based on love is very recent relatively speaking.

I guess I sometimes feel like I may not be wired quite right for monogamy, but I do enjoy the partnership and bond of my marriage. I can't really imagine a better partner through life, but fulfilling a few fantasies seems like it could be fun as well.

[Jason McCullough]

No you're not. You might make a slightly bigger deal out of it, but pretty much all cultures and countrioes share those expetations.

Sure, but the US is pretty far out there in our views compared to others. From Loh's article:

At least that is the attitudinal yin/yang described by Andrew J. Cherlin in his scrupulously argued Marriage-Go-Round (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0375423036/theatlanticmonthA/ref=nosim/): compared with our western European counterparts, Americans are far more credulous about marriage. In World Values Surveys taken at the turn of the millennium, fewer Americans agreed with the statement “Marriage is an outdated institution” than citizens of any other Western country surveyed (compare the U.S.’s tiny 10 percent with France’s 36 percent). We are also more religious—more Americans (60 percent) say they attend religious services once a month than do the Vatican-centric Italians (54 percent) or, no surprise, the laissez-faire French (12 percent). At the same time, Americans endure the highest divorce rate in the Western world. In short, although we say we love religion and marriage, Cherlin notes, “religious Americans are more likely to divorce than secular Swedes.”

Why is it absurd?

She cheats on her husband. The next step? Write thousands of words of "analysis" to rationalize why it's ok! To analogize, if I knocked over a bank it'd be pretty absurd for me to write a book "about my crime" that's really about the history of inequality, trying hard as possible to convince everyone inequality is stupid in the first place. Calling it "my felony" wouldn't change what I'm up to.

It's disappointingly sleazy. I quite liked Depth Takes a Holiday.

[Tim James]

Comment on quote in the original post:

As a human being you don't necessarily have to act like you're wired. There may be a "war" going on within ourselves but it's similar to the war between sedantary lifestyles and our built-in fight or flight response. If there's an advantage to the modern concepts then it's worth pursuing even if it takes a long time to rewire our brains.

I don't know if that was his point; maybe he meant that we shouldn't be shocked about our inner animal who is poorly evolved for modern society, even if we would prefer higher-minded concepts like monogamy for various reasons.

[Rimbo]

As for the original question, yes monogamy is probably overrated. But commitment is underrated right now. I mean a real connection to your partner that isn't about sex per se (though it probably includes sex).

Even better point. :)

[Enidigm]

Just to add to this point, for the longest time, these contracts involved one husband with multiple wives. So not only was marriage a business contract, it was a polygamist business contract. The idea of monogamy based on love is very recent relatively speaking.


Where are you getting this idea from? Monogamy was a pretty important concept since the days of the Roman Empire (which makes this more a Greco-Roman than Judeo-Christian issue); marriages were ways of cementing resources and relations between families. That doesn't work very well if you're marrying more than one woman. Now, that doesn't mean they weren't tolerant of mistresses et al.

[awdougherty]

Where are you getting this idea from? Monogamy was a pretty important concept since the days of the Roman Empire (which makes this more a Greco-Roman than Judeo-Christian issue); marriages were ways of cementing resources and relations between families. That doesn't work very well if you're marrying more than one woman. Now, that doesn't mean they weren't tolerant of mistresses et al.

The Bible, for one. Other cultures. And like you mentioned, the ones that did were often more tolerant of affairs. Also, since you mentioned the Roman empire, marriage was basically an agreement between two people that could be just as easily dissolved. It didn't seem to involve the heavy pressures that I feel modern society and religion put on it.

[Enidigm]

Right, but dissolving marriage is not polygamy. And, while this sounds a bit euro-centrist, how we perceive marriage was not influenced until recent times by other Asian or Islamic cultures.

And i believe, perhaps wrongly, that the nature of Old Testament society had little influence in the development of ancient or early Middle Age western society outside of the boundaries of sects seeking to follow their own interpretation of what was still visible of those mythical societies the Bible relates upon.

Also there were limits to divorce instated during the Middle Ages by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. There were some historical dilemmas the occasional Byzantine Emperor had to resolve after exceeding the number of allowed divorces - which i guess is about the time when the moralizing movement to sanctify marriage in a religious context began.

[SpookyKG]

I think about this often as well... I have a beautiful girlfriend who is everything I'd ever want in a potential wife, and I've been dating her for nigh 2 years. She'd get hitched with me in a second, but I constantly joke about never wanting to get married.

It seems like a disaster even if you DO have the right person. I'd much rather plan a pregnancy than a marriage... Having kids seems exciting, committing to one person forever seems a drag.

Have you told her that you seriously feel this way? Because if she wants to be married, and you don't think you ever want to, you're kinda wasting her time and that's cruel (but not unusual).


Absolutely. In the exact same words. It elicits some moodiness, but I'd rather have it out there. She doesn't feel it's a waste of time, and is banking on the fact that my mind will change. Considering I'm in medical school and currently moving towards a path of having-no-life-or-time-to-date anyways, she's probably right.

[awdougherty]

Right, but dissolving marriage is not polygamy. And, while this sounds a bit euro-centrist, how we perceive marriage was not influenced until recent times by other Asian or Islamic cultures.

And i believe, perhaps wrongly, that the nature of Old Testament society had little influence in the development of ancient or early Middle Age western society outside of the boundaries of sects seeking to follow their own interpretation of what was still visible of those mythical societies the Bible relates upon.

Also there were limits to divorce instated during the Middle Ages by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. There were some historical dilemmas the occasional Byzantine Emperor had to resolve after exceeding the number of allowed divorces - which i guess is about the time when the moralizing movement to sanctify marriage in a religious context began.

True, dissolving marriage is not polygamy. I sort of mishmashed the original point of the thread with what I was talking about. I brought up the Roman part to go along with my thoughts on the original topic. But what I said was that monogamous marriages based on love are relatively modern and I feel a lot of that direction has come from religious sources. I understand the marriage was often created to solidify an agreement, but I also feel these societies were also more tolerant of affairs so the heart could still want what it wants. So I feel that even if the marriage was between one man and one woman, the relationships may not have been.

I guess you could argue that marriage has evolved over time, that we no longer need it to make sure everyone eats or to keep England and France from going to war. We get to choose. But we build into that agreement "till death" and I'm not quite sure why.

[WarrenM]

But we build into that agreement "till death" and I'm not quite sure why.
It makes Jesus happy.

Much like why we can't buy booze here before noon on Sunday. Jesus doesn't want you showing up for worship, plastered.

[cesare]

I think about this often as well... I have a beautiful girlfriend who is everything I'd ever want in a potential wife, and I've been dating her for nigh 2 years. She'd get hitched with me in a second, but I constantly joke about never wanting to get married.

It seems like a disaster even if you DO have the right person. I'd much rather plan a pregnancy than a marriage... Having kids seems exciting, committing to one person forever seems a drag.
Have you told her that you seriously feel this way? Because if she wants to be married, and you don't think you ever want to, you're kinda wasting her time and that's cruel (but not unusual).
Absolutely. In the exact same words. It elicits some moodiness, but I'd rather have it out there. She doesn't feel it's a waste of time, and is banking on the fact that my mind will change. Considering I'm in medical school and currently moving towards a path of having-no-life-or-time-to-date anyways, she's probably right.


I recently ended a relationship after being in pretty much the exact same situation. The initial two paragraphs summed up my situation and mindset exactly.. the current standard in relationships and child-rearing doesn't really make room for this mindset. And as that "douchey" article shows, it's not particularly gender-based, despite the fact that guys are usually the ones who are told that we need to "grow up" or that we need to get over our "cliched commitment issues" (ironically a Dan Savage statement).

I actually didn’t find that "douchey" article all that douchey. The author was obviously bitter and cynical, and she was obviously secretly gleeful that her friend was considering divorce (misery loves company, etc), but I don’t disagree with her overall point. And I didn’t think she glossed over her role in the breakup, I think she accepted that as a given and was trying to glean lessons or direction from her experience and the experience of the people around her.

[Shadarr]

Yes I've seen both of those from the "open marriage".

I have several more stories about bad endings to this, don't think the show is over.

Yeah, I've seen a few polyamourous relationships and they've always ended badly. If you think about how few binary relatioships work out, it makes sense, because adding a third person increases the complexity exponentially. And it only takes one person feeling a little jealous or ignored to blow the whole thing up spectacularly.

I really feel for people who need a poly relationship, because they're pretty much doomed. It's hard enough finding one person you're compatible with, finding two who are compatible with you and each other is virtually impossible.

Open relationships can work in theory, as long as both people don't get jealous and it stays 'just sex', but in practice they usually fail because one person wants it and the other just says yes because the alternative is breaking up. But of course, any time you're not being honest with yourself or your partner, the break-up is inevitable anyway.

[SpookyKG]

Yeah, I've seen a few polyamourous relationships and they've always ended badly. If you think about how few binary relatioships work out, it makes sense, because adding a third person increases the complexity exponentially. And it only takes one person feeling a little jealous or ignored to blow the whole thing up spectacularly.

I really feel for people who need a poly relationship, because they're pretty much doomed. It's hard enough finding one person you're compatible with, finding two who are compatible with you and each other is virtually impossible.


Anybody who has been reading my comments will know that I'm in a monogamous relationship, BUT:

Everybody who is referencing polyamourous or open relationships is talking about 'failure' coming when the relationship falls apart. I feel like there must be SOME type of person for whom leaving a relationship is a natural progression.

I don't think a breakup is a failed state for somebody's love life. I have IMMENSELY enjoyed relationships that ended for good reasons, and they have enriched my life. We're challenging monogamy in this thread, why not challenge the permanence of a sexual relationship regardless of the flavor (mono or otherwise)?

[Enidigm]

True, dissolving marriage is not polygamy. I sort of mishmashed the original point of the thread with what I was talking about. I brought up the Roman part to go along with my thoughts on the original topic. But what I said was that monogamous marriages based on love are relatively modern and I feel a lot of that direction has come from religious sources. I understand the marriage was often created to solidify an agreement, but I also feel these societies were also more tolerant of affairs so the heart could still want what it wants. So I feel that even if the marriage was between one man and one woman, the relationships may not have been.

I guess you could argue that marriage has evolved over time, that we no longer need it to make sure everyone eats or to keep England and France from going to war. We get to choose. But we build into that agreement "till death" and I'm not quite sure why.

Well, the reasons affairs of the heart were tolerated was because marriages were often arranged and not chosen for love. I'm not a scholar on this topic, but there is probably a connection in Western literature between the concepts of courtly love, adulation or worship of the female from Catullus and Ovid, the declaration of the sanctity of marriage in religious terms, and the development in Victorian times of women's suffrage and idealizing women's choice in love or their marriage partner.

[prolix]

I'd much rather plan a pregnancy than a marriage... Having kids seems exciting, committing to one person forever seems a drag.
I hate to break it to you, but if you have a kid, you're committing to a person forever.

[Tim James]

Only 18 years, and you can boss them around for most of that time.

HOLY SHIT I love Google targeted ads.

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CLfZjcDYhPrP8gEQ2AUYTzIIbApzrWPsOCk

[Marged]

I don't think a breakup is a failed state for somebody's love life. I have IMMENSELY enjoyed relationships that ended for good reasons, and they have enriched my life. We're challenging monogamy in this thread, why not challenge the permanence of a sexual relationship regardless of the flavor (mono or otherwise)?

I'm sort of with you up to a point. If a woman wants children, though, they really don't have forever to do so. We're finding out that neither do men, but they seem to have a little more leeway.

I've had those kinds of relationships, and I don't regret them, but if they had lasted... five years instead of a year and a half, and if I ended up single when I was in my thirties as a result of "betting he'll change his mind," I would probably regret that time lost. Finding someone you want to be with takes some time, and at that point biologically, time is not on your side.

It's all fine and good if you want to be a swinging single your whole life, and more power to those who do, but if you decide you want kids you have a whole host of other considerations: biological, emotional, financial, as well as what's best for them.

Ahahahaha, Tim, I love that ad!

[WarrenM]

I dunno, he seems interested since he's staring at her boobs.

[Shadarr]

Everybody who is referencing polyamourous or open relationships is talking about 'failure' coming when the relationship falls apart. I feel like there must be SOME type of person for whom leaving a relationship is a natural progression.

Well, when I say they ended badly I mean a massive blow-up, hurt feelings and emotional scars all 'round. People are changing all the time, and you either grow together or you grow apart. If you grow apart, breaking up isn't a bad option. But what I'm talking about isn't an amicable break-up, it's the kind that turns into baggage.

[Adam B]

... I've come across some studies that show that happy marriages do seem to maintain a decent freak-quency although excitement is harder to measure...

I hate you so much for this.

[Marged]

I hate you so much for this.

Aww, you're welcome!

[Hanzii]

I actually didn’t find that "douchey" article all that douchey. The author was obviously bitter and cynical, and she was obviously secretly gleeful that her friend was considering divorce (misery loves company, etc), but I don’t disagree with her overall point. And I didn’t think she glossed over her role in the breakup, I think she accepted that as a given and was trying to glean lessons or direction from her experience and the experience of the people around her.

My view exactly.

I agree that breaking the contract of marriage is always bad, but nothing concerning human beings is ever black and white. Had she done it on their wedding day, I'd gone with douchy, but after 20 years people change and while cheating is still wrong (and her use of terminology shows she realizes this) but the blame doesn't necessarily lie completely with one person.

I my wife showed no interest in me at all sexually, like the man in the other couple she describes, I would have reached some limit, where I might decide rather to have an affair than to end the marriage for the sake of our children and what was left of the marriage, which could still be friendship and partnership - or an open marriage, if we could agree to that. But this is purely hypothetical, I couldn't accept my wife with another man.

[KWhit]

We're hard wired for multiple partners but our installed software says monogamy.

We're all due to crash to the blue screen sooner or later.

Not a bad analogy.

[Tim James]

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CNLdmd2CtqKPXhDYBRhPMgj-F2rMzxCSKQ

These look like the worst relationships. First the white woman with her Arab or Persian guy who clearly married her to become a citizen but is now shamed by his family, and now this cougar who might be losing her boy toy. You're all doomed, folks.

[Mark Asher]

I'm in a similar boat. My wife protests that she wouldn't mind if I went and sowed my oats, but I come from a long line of one-woman men. (And I know a trap when I see one.) I am just wired that way; I can't think about another woman unless it's to the detriment of the one I'm with. The one I'm with now, I don't want to bother with other women... going on 12 years now.

I'm kinda like that too. When I'm with a woman, she's the woman I have fantasies about and care about and want to be with, even if things are rocky. I really like the comfort of being with one person and being a kind of team.

I think there have been studies that show that some people are a bit wired to fool around and some people are wired to be faithful.

[Enidigm]

She cheats on her husband. The next step? Write thousands of words of "analysis" to rationalize why it's ok! To analogize, if I knocked over a bank it'd be pretty absurd for me to write a book "about my crime" that's really about the history of inequality, trying hard as possible to convince everyone inequality is stupid in the first place. Calling it "my felony" wouldn't change what I'm up to.

It's disappointingly sleazy. I quite liked Depth Takes a Holiday.

Writing to rationalize their behavior (spoken for or not) is, like, what female authors do. Not to overgeneralize, but i've encountered this sort of logic countless times in many different fields from female authors - but especially recently with the rise of blogs - to the point where i think it's some sort of stylistic female-coded thing as much as something inherent.

[cesare]

I think there have been studies that show that some people are a bit wired to fool around and some people are wired to be faithful.

I agree with that. I know plenty of people, both male and female, who are always in relationships. When they break up with someone they're in a new serious relationship within a month. Likewise I know plenty of people, again both male and female, who are rarely if ever tied down, and when they are in a relationship it's a short-lived, frenetic whirlwind disaster.

[cesare]

Writing to rationalize their behavior (spoken for or not) is, like, what humans do.

Mortoned.

And I'm still not seeing any rationalization in that article.

[Shadarr]

The whole time she was talking about how "perfect" her friend's marriage was, I had alarm bells going off. All the stuff she was talking about was superficial. Anyone who spends that much time on appearances is not going to have time for the substance. The couple with a strong marriage is the one that holds hands or puts their arms around each other whenever they're near, who support each other and act as a team, and just generally do things together and find reasons to be together. It has nothing to do with what their kitchen looks like or what kind of lamps they have.

Also, even though it was just a quote from a friend of hers, the line about how when marriage was invented "it was considered to be a kind of trade union for a woman, her protection against the sexually wandering male" is bullshit. Marriage was originally a contract between a man and a woman's father to sell her like livestock. The idea that it benefits women, or even that they have a say in the matter, is pretty damn recent.

What I think it shows is that she, and her circle of friends, have a very narrow and Disneyfied concept of marriage. She obviously bought into the Cinderella fairytale that you find your prince charming and have your beautiful wedding and then live happily ever after. Now she's realizing that the story doesn't end there, that marriage in and of itself doesn't solve anything. And maybe she's even realizing that a great kitchen has no more to do with a good marriage than an expensive car or even a good father. Though she doesn't give a lot of indication that she's actually learned anything.

I tend to agree with SelfishGene and Adam that there's a lot of rationalizing in the article but it's pretty short on substance. I don't read enough women's magazines to extrapolate the broader generalization, but I certainly know enough women who like to talk about all the stuff they learned from their last break-up before they go out and make the exact same mistakes again.

[Jason McCullough]

Writing to rationalize their behavior (spoken for or not) is, like, what female authors do. Not to overgeneralize, but i've encountered this sort of logic countless times in many different fields from female authors - but especially recently with the rise of blogs - to the point where i think it's some sort of stylistic female-coded thing as much as something inherent.

I am speechless, sir.

[Rimbo]

Well, what he's saying is technically accurate. The only real problem with it is the implication that people who are not authors, or who are not female, somehow don't do this all the time. But it's not like what he's saying is by itself false. :)

[Enidigm]

I am speechless, sir.

Perhaps the editorial pages of so many recent webzines (Salon, Slate, NYT, ect) have affected me adversely in this matter. So many of these sorts of relationship/lifestyle pieces seem to be self-justification. One i read on Salon was from some rich lawyers wife opining the merits of living overseas with her children "for the experience"; she called him and he grunted assent, and wheee she's living the rustic Riviera lifestyle - for the kids, of course. Other common topics include nannies in NYC (everyone has one, don't they), studying upper-class exec prostitution by becoming one (she says she chickened out in the end; i'm sure), basically anything re: sex, ect.

[Jason McCullough]

It's disturbingly frequent with editorial and women's magazines. I think it's less "women in general" than a certain terrible class of women writers that everyone is forced to read for some goddamn reason for some goddamn reason.

[Andrew Mayer]

It's post Helen Gurley Brown writing. Which is, to say, Sex and the City.

[Lizard_King]

While Tsing Loh and to a lesser extent Caitlin Flanagan are undeniably the most consistently terrible writers in the Atlantic now that Virginia Postrel's lame (but in a different genre of crap) interjections are less frequent, it's tough for me to believe that the problem is most closely linked to their gender. For instance, right in the same magazine Christopher Hitchens does wonderful women's writing.

[Supersport]

I'm in a similar boat. My wife protests that she wouldn't mind if I went and sowed my oats, but I come from a long line of one-woman men. (And I know a trap when I see one.) I am just wired that way; I can't think about another woman unless it's to the detriment of the one I'm with. The one I'm with now, I don't want to bother with other women... going on 12 years now.

And there is nothing wrong with this. We have friendships with many couples that know what we have been doing and I have had the guys come up to me in some cases and say "Man, I don't know if I could do something like that." and I have had some get kinda angry at me as well. What I tell them is that it seems to work for us and as long as things are going good, we will continue with what we think is working.

As for the trust thing, I agree with this statement. For a long time, I didn't trust my wife in her ability to handle this kind of situation and that was a mistake. However, she has watched me with another woman; not partaking; just watching and not expressing a hint of jealousy. I have done the same. So I don't think that will factor into the equation unless of course I find some guy hanging out at my house all the time or something. :)

[Robert Sharp]

The couple with a strong marriage is the one that holds hands or puts their arms around each other whenever they're near, who support each other and act as a team, and just generally do things together and find reasons to be together. It has nothing to do with what their kitchen looks like or what kind of lamps they have.


You're overgeneralizing a bit here. A lot of couples don't engage in public displays of affection. That doesn't mean they aren't fully in love. Physically touching each other constantly tends to go away in many relationships, sometimes because there is no longer a need for that kind of reassurance of intimacy. There's also nothing wrong with doing things apart, as long as the goal isn't escaping the partner (obviously). Still, I get your point. How a couple's house looks, or whether people think they look cute together is completely irrelevant.

Supersport, why do some men get angry at you over that? I don't really understand it. Are they just thinking they could never allow their wives to do such things? Because I'm guessing that's the real problem for most men. They can picture themselves doing it, but not their wives (see Hanzii earlier in this thread). I agree though that one of my worries would be whether my partner was serious about allowing me to be intimate with someone else (without jealousy). That's something that would be almost impossible to read until you actually went through with it, though I suppose you could get a decent idea before that.

[SpoofyChop]

just watching and not expressing a hint of jealousy

I think this is the key thing here man. So far neither of you is "expressing" any jealousy. Maybe neither of you feel it yet. I think you will eventually.

This is not a good situation and I really hope you get out of it. Likewise to everybody else that indicated they don't honor their marriage vows.

To everybody that recognizes that marriage should be kept between husband and wife, you're doing the right thing.

[Rimbo]

I think this is the key thing here man. So far neither of you is "expressing" any jealousy. Maybe neither of you feel it yet. I think you will eventually.

This is not a good situation and I really hope you get out of it. Likewise to everybody else that indicated they don't honor their marriage vows.

To everybody that recognizes that marriage should be kept between husband and wife, you're doing the right thing.

I dunno. It's certainly the right thing for me. And I think it's the right thing for most people. And I think that even for the people for whom it isn't, swinging is definitely signing up for more drama in one's life. (One partner is drama enough for a lifetime for me.) But I'm not willing to go so far as to say that what's right for me, or for most people, is what's right for EVERYONE. Sexuality is a really complicated part of our personalities, and everyone's different that way.

[ElGuapo]

Supersport, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter and have some general questions:

1) Do you two have an agreement you are not going to have children? Or are they grown children?

2) How old are you and your wife, roughly?

3) Is this yours/her first marriage?

Feel free to answer, or not answer these, if I'm being too nosy just ignore me. Your relationship fascinates me, as I've only read about this as urban myth.

[SpoofyChop]

Sexuality is a really complicated part of our personalities, and everyone's different that way.

I hear what you're saying but I think this is one of these situations:

http://xkcd.com/592/

:D

[cesare]

I hear what you're saying but I think this is one of these situations:

http://xkcd.com/592/

:D

..but some people are wired like this:

http://xkcd.com/584/

In any case I don't think Supersport or his wife are suddenly going to become jealous one day. They may have other issues, but attributing your own sensibilities to their situation seems way off.

[Marged]

In any case I don't think Supersport or his wife are suddenly going to become jealous one day. They may have other issues, but attributing your own sensibilities to their situation seems way off.

What makes you think he's going to manage to buck the trend, though? The odds are not on his side. Of course it's possible he might be the exception, but it seems far more likely this will engender feelings of jealousy amongst some members of this relationship. This is not a matter of viewing this through the lens of an individual's experience - sexual jealousy is a widespread phenomenon.

[ElGuapo]

This thread goes very well with the Noah's Ark thread.

[Rimbo]

Sure, but people do beat the odds. I'm not saying he will or he won't; I'm saying that only he and his wife can know for sure.

[WarrenM]

I'm not saying he will or he won't; I'm saying that only he and his wife can know for sure.
Well, that's the thing that's being argued. He and his wife don't know, and won't know, until it's all finished and done. Everything is great until it isn't.

[Kraaze]

Well, that's the thing that's being argued. He and his wife don't know, and won't know, until it's all finished and done. Everything is great until it isn't.

True enough, but expectation also plays a big part in this I would have to imagine. All of the prognistications of doom that surround any relationship that ventures outside of the rigid norms of society must surely prey upon the doubts and fears of the participants. I'm wondering if there isn't a self fulfilling prophecy in action here.

[Marged]

Sure, but people do beat the odds. I'm not saying he will or he won't; I'm saying that only he and his wife can know for sure.

Sure, but you did say you didn't think they would succumb to jealousy - I figured that was a statement of certainty.

Let's ask him in five years!

[Bahimiron]

To everybody that recognizes that marriage should be kept between husband and wife, you're doing the right thing.

Or a husband and husband or a wife and wife, surely.

[Rimbo]

Well, that's the thing that's being argued. He and his wife don't know, and won't know, until it's all finished and done. Everything is great until it isn't.

I think that mostly happens when people aren't honest with themselves about how they really feel from the beginning and/or omit important details when talking about their feelings to the other. It's not so much that the feelings don't develop until later; it's that they don't get exposed for what they are until later.

There are people in history who've done the multiple partners thing and the open marriage thing and been perfectly happy with it. Maybe they were wired that way. Maybe they were just good enough at fooling themselves that they were able to believe they were happy (and if you get to that point, what's really the difference any more?).

Still, it's good that we're pointing this out to Supersport as a warning that IF his open relationship succeeds, then he'll be one of the exceptions which prove the rule, and that there are a lot of ways that things can go wrong.

BUT!

I think the key element to this, that a lot of us are glossing over, is that making his relationship with his wife open actually breathed new life into it. Things were not working out between them, and now they are. They've both taken up a new hobby that they both enjoy, that gives them each more quality time together than they had before. It's just that instead of tennis or line dancing, it's fucking other people, and if there's one thing Americans just don't know how to deal with, it's sex. :)

[cesare]

What makes you think he's going to manage to buck the trend, though? The odds are not on his side. Of course it's possible he might be the exception, but it seems far more likely this will engender feelings of jealousy amongst some members of this relationship. This is not a matter of viewing this through the lens of an individual's experience - sexual jealousy is a widespread phenomenon.

I think there needs to be certain components in place for jealousy to arise, not just jealousy over an open relationship, but even the unfortunately typical, “that girl was flirting with you,” “who’s this person from work who just called”, etc. Like, insecurity, lack of trust, differing expectations, an uneven situation in terms of one person being more into the relationship than the other person. I don’t think all people are naturally jealous in situations where sex is involved.

In Supersport’s specific case, as someone else has already pointed out, his relationship looked like it was already on the way out for other reasons before it became open. He seems to have a very (and I’m choosing my words carefully here), que sera sera attitude towards the situation. His wife seems to be enthusiastic about the whole thing. He mentions that their bond is stronger now. Based on his first post, I think if problems arise in that relationship it’s going to be over other things, not jealousy.

In my personal experience (not a marriage), jealousy lessens over time as expectations reach an equilibrium, it doesn't suddenly pop up.

[Mark Asher]

Open relationships can work in theory, as long as both people don't get jealous and it stays 'just sex', but in practice they usually fail because one person wants it and the other just says yes because the alternative is breaking up. But of course, any time you're not being honest with yourself or your partner, the break-up is inevitable anyway.

I can't imagine these kinds of relationships working in the long run. I would think there would be jealousy issues to deal with. Even if you agree to an open marriage and both parties want it, I suspect what happens is one of the two gets more action and the other then begins to feel aggrieved and jealous.

I suppose some work, but I wonder how much the couple really cares about each other? Maybe the marriage is just an economic convenience and easy availability to sex?

It seems so odd to me.

[Marged]

I don’t think all people are naturally jealous in situations where sex is involved.

It doesn't seem like it's settled science at all, but it strikes me that there's increasing evidence that jealousy has its basis in our biology. We have genes and hormones like vasopressin and oxytocin that promote monogamy and increase sexual possessiveness. From just reading up on it just now, it also seems as though the more sex you have with someone, the more possessive you feel (so lots of sex with random, different partners would incite less jealousy than lots of sex with one person).

[Shadarr]

You're overgeneralizing a bit here. A lot of couples don't engage in public displays of affection. That doesn't mean they aren't fully in love. Physically touching each other constantly tends to go away in many relationships, sometimes because there is no longer a need for that kind of reassurance of intimacy. There's also nothing wrong with doing things apart, as long as the goal isn't escaping the partner (obviously). Still, I get your point. How a couple's house looks, or whether people think they look cute together is completely irrelevant.

Oh, absolutely it's a gross generalization. PDA's aren't something every couple does even at the beginning of the relationship. But I do disagree that touching goes away in good relationships. Maybe that's the case, but the people I know who've been married 10 or 20+ years who still love each other, still touch each other. The ones who stay together that long and don't touch are usually together for some other reason like kids, keeping the house, not wanting the stigma of divorce, or just being afraid of change. And usually, they seem less happy.

I don’t think all people are naturally jealous in situations where sex is involved.
I agree, as long as it stays just sex. I think two people who are not jealous about sex can have an open relationship. I'm less convinced that they can invite a third person to be part of the relationship, which is what Supersport says is happening. They're going to have another woman living with them. That's no longer an open marriage, that's a polyamourous relationship and I have never seen those work out.

It's one thing to not be jealous about sex, it's another to not be jealous about your partner sharing time and emotional intimacy with another person. And even if both people in the original couple have no jealousy issues at all, the new person probably will. She'll feel excluded, or she'll want to spend more time with one person than the other, or she won't be totally bi and will mostly want sex with one and not the other. Best case scenario is that the couple breaks up with that person and not with each other, but usually it ends up breaking up everyone.

[Disconnected]

I agree, as long as it stays just sex. I think two people who are not jealous about sex can have an open relationship. I'm less convinced that they can invite a third person to be part of the relationship, which is what Supersport says is happening. They're going to have another woman living with them. That's no longer an open marriage, that's a polyamourous relationship and I have never seen those work out.

I have. But it probably is very rare, and in both the ones I know of, the second woman is more the lover of both husband and wife, than an equal partner. I'm seriously fumbling for words here, but I hope you get my meaning.

For the date-obsessed ones among you, one of those families is very new (but serious about it) and the has been together for roughly 36 years. According to their oldest (a friend of mine), the third person got involved shortly after he was born.

As for the jealousy thing, I think most of you guys need to take a step back. I'm not implying we're all unique little snowflakes, but some of us absolutely do have very different values and desires. So different people still get killed over it in places.

For myself, it's not that I don't feel jealously. I'm jealous all the time. But there's circumstances/conditions/people where I can't feel jealous, because I fully understand there's nothing to be jealous of.

Anyway, Demigod beckons!

[cesare]

It doesn't seem like it's settled science at all, but it strikes me that there's increasing evidence that jealousy has its basis in our biology. We have genes and hormones like vasopressin and oxytocin that promote monogamy and increase sexual possessiveness. From just reading up on it just now, it also seems as though the more sex you have with someone, the more possessive you feel (so lots of sex with random, different partners would incite less jealousy than lots of sex with one person).

Most human emotions that have their basis in biology, and yet there's still a vast spectrum of human personalities. As just one example, religion is often pointed to as having a biological basis, and yet there are plenty of people out there who don't have a spiritual aspect to their personality whatsoever.

[Rimbo]

I agree, as long as it stays just sex. I think two people who are not jealous about sex can have an open relationship. I'm less convinced that they can invite a third person to be part of the relationship, which is what Supersport says is happening. They're going to have another woman living with them. That's no longer an open marriage, that's a polyamourous relationship and I have never seen those work out.

It's one thing to not be jealous about sex, it's another to not be jealous about your partner sharing time and emotional intimacy with another person. And even if both people in the original couple have no jealousy issues at all, the new person probably will. She'll feel excluded, or she'll want to spend more time with one person than the other, or she won't be totally bi and will mostly want sex with one and not the other. Best case scenario is that the couple breaks up with that person and not with each other, but usually it ends up breaking up everyone.

I think so. Or that one couple goes into the threesome, and another comes out. And based on comments Supersport has made, if we were to set up a betting pool on the outcome, I'd put my money on the wife and the girl being the couple that leaves and he being the one with the short end of the stick.

But I'm not a bettin' man.

[Marged]

Most human emotions that have their basis in biology, and yet there's still a vast spectrum of human personalities. As just one example, religion is often pointed to as having a biological basis, and yet there are plenty of people out there who don't have a spiritual aspect to their personality whatsoever.

Well, but here's the thing: I don't think we are beholden to these impulses, but that we should acknowledge that we have them. These are people who are engaging in a sexual arrangement that's fairly unusual for humans and claiming that they feel no jealousy. Right? I just find it far more plausible that they are experiencing jealousy and finding a way to override it, tamp it down, stifle it, or otherwise overcome it. And if they're happy, more power to them. I guess that's my point.

[Jon Rowe]

Nope. (more detailed below) ... (I am waiting for a compile here at work :)

[Jon Rowe]

It doesn't seem like it's settled science at all, but it strikes me that there's increasing evidence that jealousy has its basis in our biology. We have genes and hormones like vasopressin and oxytocin that promote monogamy and increase sexual possessiveness. From just reading up on it just now, it also seems as though the more sex you have with someone, the more possessive you feel (so lots of sex with random, different partners would incite less jealousy than lots of sex with one person).

Well, if you think of it this way.

Females are much less likely to have an affair, because they think in a much more monagamous way. Brains are wired to care for children, women have to choose the male they will be able to raise a child best with. They look for protection and choose based on that. (Not to say that there aren't exceptions) but this is commonly accepted of how most females of monogamous species look for traits.

Now, males, on the other hand, also have that biological need to be possessive over a female. There is an inherent altruism in the human species that makes us very different from many other "stop and drop" species that mate with multiple partners. This is displayed in many ways on how so many humans are compelled to help others. This altruism leads to our sex lives as well, we want our sexual partners to do well, so we tend to stick with them. Males also have to battle with our desire to spread our genetic seed in a wide swath. This is why men are much more likely to "cheat" on their significant others.

Things to look at. In most ways I think that humans are not a monogamous species, but through our evolution and cultural structure and increased brain and thinking capacity we have moved towards more monogamy. The increased brainpower increased our ability to empathize with others, and the children that we have.

The most analogous living species to ours are the Chimpanzees and the Bonobos. Now, I think this is where our answer lies. Chimpanzees are very possessive of their mates. There is an alpha male that lords over all of the females in their troop.

Bonobos are an interesting anamoly when it comes to their social and sexual hierarchy. Bonobos are nature's hippies. They eat mostly fruit, live in a very flat hierarchy, they are matriarchal, bisexual (fairly often) and highly sexed. They are the embodiment of "free love"

It is very obvious that we, as Homo Sapiens have both of these qualities in our sexual minds.

Now, the true answer to this question.

No, with an exception. It isn't over-rated. It is what has worked for thousands of years. People enjoy it and people will continue to enjoy it.

The exception: Not everyone is wired the same. Some people are going to be more perceptive to being sexually open. Good for those people, enjoy your freedom. Those of us who don't feel that way and enjoy a singular partner... Good for you, you want a deep caring partnership with one person.

It really all comes down to personal tastes, biologically both sides are there. Make up your own mind.
(Sex pretty much all you study in Ethology, which was one of my specialties in school)

[Rimbo]

Well, if you think of it this way.

Females are much less likely to have an affair, because they think in a much more monagamous way. Brains are wired to care for children, women have to choose the male they will be able to raise a child best with.

The person a female chooses to be the caretaker does not necessarily have to be the male that said female chooses to be the biological father. Thus you have Goldie Digger who marries Mr. Richman, who works 14 hour days and sets her up in fancy clothes, boob job and a beautiful home, and then while he's out she fucks Manly McBigdick the poolboy. And gets pregnant. And then when Mr. Richman gets home, she blows him and gives him the ride of his life. He never knows it's not his kid.

And this is just as wired into the female psyche as "spreading the seed around" is for the males. And while she's fucking Manly McBigdick, Mr. Richman is actually spending 3 of those 14 hours promising his secretary Mary Rottencrotch that he'll get a divorce while banging his personal assistant in his corner office with a view of the river.

And in the case of Manly McBigdick and Mary Rottencrotch, their motives are the same as Mr. Richman and Goldie Digger -- Manly McBigdick is spreading his seed behind his girlfriend's back, while Mary Rottencrotch thinks she's going to end up with Mr. Richman as her provider.

[Mark Asher]

I disagree with that sorta, Rimbo. Women at a subconscious level sometimes look for the alpha male, and the alpha male can be the guy with the resources, not Manly McBigdick.

It's not as if men look for the alpha female, the woman with the most sense and intelligence and strength. We're often initially attracted to a woman based on a subconscious judgement of her fertility.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about this. I'm a layman psychologist.

[Rimbo]

I disagree with that sorta, Rimbo. Women at a subconscious level sometimes look for the alpha male, and the alpha male can be the guy with the resources, not Manly McBigdick.

Oh, I agree with you; my point is that while she'll go for the alpha male to marry, that he's not necessarily the one she'll want to fuck. Actually, Goldie Digger and Mr. Richman will probably fuck like Spring mice until a few years after they're married. Then, he gets bored and decides he needs a personal assistant to help out at work, and she starts looking for someone to help clean the pool...

[Jason McCullough]

Boy, this thread went all evolutionary psychology downhill.

Females are much less likely to have an affair, because they think in a much more monagamous way.

Where you getting that? Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/health/28well.html), for example, has it at 4-3:


But detailed analysis of the data from 1991 to 2006, to be presented next month by Dr. Atkins at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies conference in Orlando, show some surprising shifts. University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.

The researchers also see big changes in relatively new marriages. About 20 percent of men and 15 percent of women under 35 say they have ever been unfaithful, up from about 15 and 12 percent respectively.


Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity) has further links.

[Damien Falgoust]

I'm betting that Rimbo has read Robin Baker's Sperm Wars (http://www.amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Infidelity-Conflict-Bedroom/dp/1560258489/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246060065&sr=8-1), a really fascinating book on mate selection and sex. I highly recommend it.

In a nutshell, women want two things, both geared towards maximizing her offspring's chances for survival and eventual reproductive success: resources and attractive genes. That's why Goldie marries Mr. Rich and fucks McBigdick on the side, even if she isn't conscious of the reasons she makes those choices. But there's actually a lot more to it than that. The human body has some pretty interesting ways of tricking itself into sexual choices geared towards reproductive success (and the eventual success of one's offspring). Give it a read, it's good stuff.

[Rimbo]

I'm betting that Rimbo has read Robin Baker's Sperm Wars (http://www.amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Infidelity-Conflict-Bedroom/dp/1560258489/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246060065&sr=8-1), a really fascinating book on mate selection and sex. I highly recommend it.

No, I haven't, but that sounds like an awesome book.

[Shadarr]

For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.
An article I read said the increase in infidelity among women correlates with an increase in financial independence. Which implies that women aren't genetically predisposed toward monogamy, they have just been more dependent and had more to lose.

[Rimbo]

And only a minority have a pool and the financial resources to hire a dedicated employee to maintain it.

[Tyjenks]

Hypothetically, some males, look for women to take care of based on those needs to fulfill a caretaker role or because that is what there environment taught them as they grew up. They then realize it can be friggin' exhaufting if the spouse never matures into a role where she takes on some of the responsibility...or she is shielded from the responsibility for so long that she grows to expect to be taken care of and does not see the need to take on a more repsonsible role. Kids come along and the pressure to take care of everything becomes overwhelming. The thought of a strong, independent woman, which was completely foreign, initially, becomes incredibly inticing.
Just sayin', monogamy is difficult. :)

[Robert Sharp]

Oh, absolutely it's a gross generalization. PDA's aren't something every couple does even at the beginning of the relationship. But I do disagree that touching goes away in good relationships. Maybe that's the case, but the people I know who've been married 10 or 20+ years who still love each other, still touch each other. The ones who stay together that long and don't touch are usually together for some other reason like kids, keeping the house, not wanting the stigma of divorce, or just being afraid of change. And usually, they seem less happy.


Sure, but you dropped my adverb. I didn't say they stop touching altogether. That would be a bad sign, assuming intimacy is part of the relationship at all (I actually don't have a problem with marriage based on economics rather than sex, as long as that is the goal of both sides). The constant touching fades.


BTW, a lot of you are using the term 'wired' in this thread. What the hell does it mean? It can't be a genetic thing, since you are talking about biology and then saying people are wired differently. Seems unlikely that two humans are genetically predisposed to be radically different in the ways mentioned. So what does 'wired' mean?

Oh, and socio-biological evolutionary theory can fuck right off.

[Coca Cola Zero]

FWIW, I think that if people want to have open relationships or be perpetually single-but-dating or whatever, that's fine if everyone is in agreement up-front, but I don't like the idea of using the fact that we're 'hard-wired' for multiple partners as an excuse for cheating on someone. That's a total cop-out, IMO.

We're hard-wired to be xenophobic, we're hard-wired for resource hoarding by any means necessary (up to and including widescale physical violence), we're hard-wired to store lots of fat to survive the 'lean times'. There are thousands of ways in which we are hard-wired which don't make that much sense anymore given our modern society and the ways in which physical/mental/emotional evolution has trailed our societal and technical evolution.

Is it ok for someone to shoot a black guy because he's hard-wired to fear that which is different from him in looks and in culture? Of course it isn't. And my argument isn't that cheating is as bad as that, just that if you take the argument some people give as to why it is OK to higher levels, you see that it is bullshit.

We need to hold ourselves to higher ideals than our base nature, and I say that as someone who is totally non-religious. And if you buy into the system of higher ideals for society by entering into a traditional marriage (or even by being in a traditional long term relationship in which the practice of monogomy is reasonably expected), then you're a fucktard if you later change the rules and cheat on your partner, and don't try to make excuses for it by looking to biology, just accept the fact that you're a fucktard and move on.

[Tyjenks]

It may just be the Sam Adams, but CCZ makes a lotta sense. Nice.

[Disconnected]

It may just be the Sam Adams, but CCZ makes a lotta sense. Nice.

That's probably why nobody has made the argument he's attacking...

[Tyjenks]

That's probably why nobody has made the argument he's attacking...

I thought he was attacking the .hard-wired "excuse". That has been brought up. Or maybe that is the excuse I have been ruminating on..

[wildpokerman]

FWIW, I think that if people want to have open relationships or be perpetually single-but-dating or whatever, that's fine if everyone is in agreement up-front, but I don't like the idea of using the fact that we're 'hard-wired' for multiple partners as an excuse for cheating on someone. That's a total cop-out, IMO.

We're hard-wired to be xenophobic, we're hard-wired for resource hoarding by any means necessary (up to and including widescale physical violence), we're hard-wired to store lots of fat to survive the 'lean times'. There are thousands of ways in which we are hard-wired which don't make that much sense anymore given our modern society and the ways in which physical/mental/emotional evolution has trailed our societal and technical evolution.

Is it ok for someone to shoot a black guy because he's hard-wired to fear that which is different from him in looks and in culture? Of course it isn't. And my argument isn't that cheating is as bad as that, just that if you take the argument some people give as to why it is OK to higher levels, you see that it is bullshit.

We need to hold ourselves to higher ideals than our base nature, and I say that as someone who is totally non-religious. And if you buy into the system of higher ideals for society by entering into a traditional marriage (or even by being in a traditional long term relationship in which the practice of monogomy is reasonably expected), then you're a fucktard if you later change the rules and cheat on your partner, and don't try to make excuses for it by looking to biology, just accept the fact that you're a fucktard and move on.

You make sense on Honey Moon too. Which has a nice clean finish if I may say so.

But anyway, yes I agree that it's not an "excuse" but remember that the societal penalty for cheating is much softer than the penalties for other behaviors. I would totally bet that in Muslim countries where the penalties can include being stoned to death that the incidence of infidelity is minimal.

[Jon Rowe]

Boy, this thread went all evolutionary psychology downhill.

Whete you getting that? Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/health/28well.html), for example, has it at 4-3:


The rate is still higher in men. And historically, pre 1960 I guarantee you that difference was even greater. I am talking about human beings on a large scale whole, not just the last 15 years in one of the more sexually open countries.

But, that is an interesting shift. It makes sense though, it is so much easier for women to care for a baby on their own now-a-days. So it makes sense that they don't need a man with them.
This really is a mix of deep undercurrents of our primal instincts and how much our society has changed our ways of thinking.
That being said, the rate of men vs women infidelity will always skew towards men. That is just the biological facts. We are wired to spread, and women are wired to protect.

Rimbo: Your example actually follows my logic. The woman cheating on the man is assuming she won't get caught, and the caregiver male will still give the care. She is having her cake and eating it too.

But, psychology is such a soft science that it is hard to measure exact results, it is impossible to prove anything through psychological studies as that damned free will messes everything up.
But, that being said... some interesting things to think about here. It seems like our social structure and society have a lot more to do with our sexual tendencies.
This is exactly like how the Bonobos and Chimps work. They are extremely similar species, but they have totally different sexual societies. One species is more open, and they are freer sexually. The other is more constrained socially and sexually.

[Destarius]

What the courts are seeing are increasing instances of women cheating on men and my own anecdotal conversations with female friends suggest that they harbour equally aggressive sexual tendencies, but social mores do not allow equal expression.

Once there's true gender equality in the way society views gender roles in a sexual relationship, I'd say all bets are off on which gender is more inclined to cheat.

But on another note, what's the difference between an open (non-marital) relationship and a 'friends with benefits' arrangement?

[Disconnected]

I thought he was attacking the .hard-wired "excuse". That has been brought up. Or maybe that is the excuse I have been ruminating on..

Oh.. But again, nobody was presenting it as an excuse to betray each other. Personally I've been saying that while we are different - whether it's 'wiring' or something else - what the difference legitimises are various family types, not betraying your partner.
I mentioned that I've tried the idealised family type, and found it isn't for me. That wasn't a nebulous way of saying I have (or want to) cheated on someone, and don't want to take responsibility for it. What I meant was that the idealised family type isn't ideal for everyone. If that's really supposed to be the only option, then some of us - myself included - would be happier being single.

Well, but here's the thing: I don't think we are beholden to these impulses, but that we should acknowledge that we have them. These are people who are engaging in a sexual arrangement that's fairly unusual for humans and claiming that they feel no jealousy. Right? I just find it far more plausible that they are experiencing jealousy and finding a way to override it, tamp it down, stifle it, or otherwise overcome it. And if they're happy, more power to them. I guess that's my point.

Can't you make a similar argument every time you feel like saddling people with motives/emotions you think they ought to have? I mean, I can practically hear a few billion theists mutter: "Oh, it's not that those atheists aren't theists, it's just that they've found ways to override or redirect their faith."

I said there's circumstances where I won't feel jealous. I really do mean it. That said you'll have to take my word for it, because unlike Super I'm not brave enough to elaborate.

[Tyjenks]

Oh.. But again, nobody was presenting it as an excuse to betray each other. Personally I've been saying that while we are different - whether it's 'wiring' or something else - what the difference legitimises are various family types, not betraying your partner.
I mentioned that I've tried the idealised family type, and found it isn't for me. That wasn't a nebulous way of saying I have (or want to) cheated on someone, and don't want to take responsibility for it. What I meant was that the idealised family type isn't ideal for everyone. If that's really supposed to be the only option, then some of us - myself included - would be happier being single.
I am with you there as well. Sorry, I was not trying to discount your view by agreeing with some of what CCZ said.

[Jason McCullough]

The rate is still higher in men. And historically, pre 1960 I guarantee you that difference was even greater. I am talking about human beings on a large scale whole, not just the last 15 years in one of the more sexually open countries.

Ok. That kind of implies genetic hardwiring and evolutionary psychology is not driving this, though, right?

That being said, the rate of men vs women infidelity will always skew towards men. That is just the biological facts. We are wired to spread, and women are wired to protect.

.....even though the statistical data doesn't show this.

[Disconnected]

Once there's true gender equality in the way society views gender roles in a sexual relationship, I'd say all bets are off on which gender is more inclined to cheat.

I think you're right. I also don't see how Jon_Danger's conclusion follows from his argument. If women's primary objective was to secure the optimal provider at all times, wouldn't they be more likely to screw around than men?

Incidentally, if men and women aren't more-or-less equally likely to screw around, then who are they screwing? No matter how I look at it, I can't make the logistics work.

But on another note, what's the difference between an open (non-marital) relationship and a 'friends with benefits' arrangement?The former involves a loving couple and usually a long term commitment. The latter involves neither.

I am with you there as well. Sorry, I was not trying to discount your view by agreeing with some of what CCZ said.

Uhm, yeah. Sorry. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. It's just the way he beat the hell out of that strawman, made it sound as if those of us who think the continued idealisation of one particular family type is a shitty idea, were advocating cheating. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Supersport]

Supersport, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter and have some general questions:

1) Do you two have an agreement you are not going to have children? Or are they grown children?

2) How old are you and your wife, roughly?

3) Is this yours/her first marriage?

Feel free to answer, or not answer these, if I'm being too nosy just ignore me. Your relationship fascinates me, as I've only read about this as urban myth.

We have two kids

Both of us are in our mid-thirties

This is our first marriage. Been married 14 years and counting.

You guys can ask any questions. I am a pretty open guy.

[Supersport]

I think so. Or that one couple goes into the threesome, and another comes out. And based on comments Supersport has made, if we were to set up a betting pool on the outcome, I'd put my money on the wife and the girl being the couple that leaves and he being the one with the short end of the stick.

But I'm not a bettin' man.

I have thought about that. My attitude about it is that if she feels that she would be happier with somebody else other than myself, then thats cool with with me. I know I will be fine whatever the outcome.

And that is a pretty liberating feeling to have.

[Andrew Mayer]

A couple of points:

1) It's only cheating if the other person isn't allowed to do it. (Otherwise you should call it something else.)
2) I know of one couple in a long-term open relationship. After almost a decade it's basically stabilized into each of them have another significant other, and they're all pretty happy with it. That said, I ended up talking with a woman who runs a regular XXX nightclub at a friends' house, and when I mentioned their names she called them "The most stable four set I know." Pretty clearly they are a massive exception.
BUT
3) I really hate that every relationship is judged on the "Did it last forever?" standard. Barring kids, which do change the equation, I think it's fine to say that a relationship can be a success, even if you eventually went your separate ways. The idea that any relationship that ends is a total failure is very negative and sad IMO. I really enjoyed the people I was lucky enough to spend time with over the years.
4)Women cheat plenty. Pretending they don't is a nice fiction.
But what they often do differently then men is compartmentalize their sexuality. There's much less sexual cognitive dissonance for many women than most men, and they can shut up about it. I think Mad Men does a great job of showing how it often works, and I actually don't think it has really changed all that much.

[Jason McCullough]

Incidentally, if men and women aren't more-or-less equally likely to screw around, then who are they screwing? No matter how I look at it, I can't make the logistics work.

Back in the day you had a small number of women who slept with a very high number of men. Not sure anymore though.

[Spam]

I'm seeing an enthusiastic defense of people who have failed to sustain their monogamies. I'm not seeing a substantial case for some notional system that is better than monogamy for having families and rearing kids.

[Moggraider]

The rate is still higher in men.

I disagree. A 2005 study Newsweek reported on showed men and women admitting to cheating in their marriages at an equal rate - 22%. And that's just who admits to it. It's probably about equal.

[Disconnected]

Back in the day you had a small number of women who slept with a very high number of men. Not sure anymore though.

Assuming the numbers given in this thread are remotely accurate, that must necessarily still be true. Probably truer now than ever, given the current size of the population. But even assuming a not insignificant use of sex workers, I still don't see how the logistics would work.

I'm seeing an enthusiastic defense of people who have failed to sustain their monogamies.

Where?

I have defended that some of us have values, needs, wants, hopes, aspirations, dreams and whatever else you want to call it, that don't coincide with the idealised family type.

I have attacked the notion that the idealised family type should remain idealised. It isn't ideal for everyone, so why insist that it is, especially when we primarily do it at the expense of other types of families?

I'm not seeing a substantial case for some notional system that is better than monogamy for having families and rearing kids.Hardly surprising, given that nobody has attempted to argue that any specific family type is a universal or general improvement over the idealised one. I don't believe any type of family is "teh bestest!" I don't, because that's not my own experience and I don't know of any evidence to support such an assertion.

[Cubit]

I find it amusing how people keep jumping into this thread to argue points that no one is making.

[Coca Cola Zero]

Incidentally, if men and women aren't more-or-less equally likely to screw around, then who are they screwing? No matter how I look at it, I can't make the logistics work.


One fairly plausible (but completely theoretical) explaination for reported differences other than women lying more due to social stigma might be that men are more willing to screw around across a wider gap of ages. If the dual common wisdoms that...

A) Flings for women are more about filling an emotional need while flings for men are more about plain old sex

and

B) Women are more likely to mate based on social status, men are more likely to choose a mate based just on physical appearance.

...then it would make sense that women tend to have flings with people more in their age range and with similar life experience (eg. middle-age. financially stable men, who are also probably married) and men are likely to have flings with either much younger (unmarried) girls or married older women depending upon what is available, attractive and easy (enough).

If the above is true, this does give men an extra pool of the (unmarried) population to play around with to run their numbers up.

[awdougherty]

I find it amusing how people keep jumping into this thread to argue points that no one is making.

Fuck you if you don't think President Bush Jr. was a better ventriloquist than Bush Sr.

[Spam]

Idealized...in the literature? I was hoping for some numbers. Let's start with kids from traditional households vs all others. We could look at things like earnings, education level, how they rate their self-esteem, etc etc. Because it is about the kids right?

Then we could get into the household as an entity, nukyular family vs others, in terms of financial independence, earnings over time, how participants rate their score on human factors, perceived ability to be self reliant, etc etc. No one has done this kind of stuff?


edit:
I shouldn't respond so critically but the "idealized" comment got to me. Monogamy is frankly shat upon as being "not for the five percenters" and carrying a stigma of "lowbrow" in the stuff I read. I don't go around reading stuff that reinforces opinions that i hold, so I could be totally off.

I don't argue with this view, I'm just saying I think that in general "other than monogamy" is probably a bad idea for your average person trying to succeed at life, and it's dishonest to depict it otherwise.

[Rimbo]

I have thought about that. My attitude about it is that if she feels that she would be happier with somebody else other than myself, then thats cool with with me. I know I will be fine whatever the outcome.

And that is a pretty liberating feeling to have.

Amen, brother.

[wildpokerman]

3) I really hate that every relationship is judged on the "Did it last forever?" standard. Barring kids, which do change the equation, I think it's fine to say that a relationship can be a success, even if you eventually went your separate ways. The idea that any relationship that ends is a total failure is very negative and sad IMO. I really enjoyed the people I was lucky enough to spend time with over the years.


This my friend is the bombshell that society probably needs to accept in order for the overall question of cheating to have any meaning.

We are semi-monogamous species who needed to pair bond and reproduce for survival and usually died right after the pro-creative years were over.

Now we are a species who in most cases gains the basics of sustenance with minimal effort and have a large amount of time that we can dedicate to existential awareness and a general pursuit of happiness and we live to be 80 years old.

Sing it Mr. Mayer because that viewpoint is rarely to never expressed when talking about relationships.

[Jon Rowe]

.....even though the statistical data doesn't show this.

Statistical data =/= proof.
For all we know the statistical data just shows that women and men are equally likely to report that they cheated on their significant other.

These psychological studies and polls are not science. There is nothing saying that people are telling the truth in these studies.
Correlation =/= causation.

The only way to get scientific proof is to observe. You would have to follow couples and actually see who cheats on who to get real data.

But, this is all meaningless because I am just trying to make educated guesses here and everyone is assuming that I am stating fact here. The only fact is, is that we have absolutely no way to know how our species is set up. We can't study ourselves, we are biased. I just think, given our similarities to other species, that we can skew in both directions. The biological indicators are there for both sides. I don't know why people see the need to pick apart the claim I made based off of the biological record and not actual human psychological "studies"

[bigdruid]

First off, I raise my coffee cup to Supersport and other folks here who are in open relationships. People seem to be so fixated on how "trouble is brewing for you guys, you are doomed, come back in 5 years and tell us how it works out, etc" - the same could be said for traditional monogamous relationships as well ; most of those end in drama and breakups too, often with children involved.

I've been serially monogamous for my entire adult life, and I've never cheated (for some given value of cheating :) - for me, I think an open relationship would inevitably lead to to trouble. I'm happily married, and I find my marriage profoundly satisfying over the long haul, but like most long-term relationships there have been some really rocky patches - my concern is that had we been in a situation where either or both of us had a willing, sympathetic, compatible partner readily available, it would've been too easy for either one of us to say "fuck it, I'm out of here, I'll pickup my shit later".

I'm sure some people would say that that's a feature of open relationships, not a bug :) And, honestly, the breakup of a relationship is not the end of the world by any means. But now that my wife and I have a kid I don't want anything that might make the breakup of our marriage even slightly more likely, and the way I'm wired, I think it would.

Oh, and I read that Sandra Tsing Loh article in the Atlantic, and my takeaway was that guys need to keep delivering in the bedroom if they want to keep their marriage together. Those were some hugely sexually frustrated women in that article (I'm reading between the lines for the author herself, who complained that her husband was on the road 20 weeks out of the year).

[Jon Rowe]

Well women do reach their sexual peak later than men. So it would make sense. People often forget that women want sex too.

[Jason McCullough]

Statistical data =/= proof.
For all we know the statistical data just shows that women and men are equally likely to report that they cheated on their significant other.

These psychological studies and polls are not science. There is nothing saying that people are telling the truth in these studies.
Correlation =/= causation.

Yeah, now you're a skeptic about elaborate claims.

[extarbags]

Statistical data =/= proof.
For all we know the statistical data just shows that women and men are equally likely to report that they cheated on their significant other.

These psychological studies and polls are not science. There is nothing saying that people are telling the truth in these studies.
Correlation =/= causation.

The only way to get scientific proof is to observe. You would have to follow couples and actually see who cheats on who to get real data.

Right, so... men cheat more? You can't really say "hey, that study only shows who admits to it, therefore it's not reliable and my gut feeling is correct."

[Andrew Mayer]

When I was involved in the seduction scene there was a guy who used to specialize in seducing married women. The question he asked was "If you could have an amazing experience with a man that would in no way negatively effect your primary relationship, would you do it?"

He said his yes rate was well above 50%. Not that he was bagging that percentage, but he figured that was the opportunity rate...

[Jon Rowe]

Statistical data =/= proof.
For all we know the statistical data just shows that women and men are equally likely to report that they cheated on their significant other.

These psychological studies and polls are not science. There is nothing saying that people are telling the truth in these studies.
Correlation =/= causation.

The only way to get scientific proof is to observe. You would have to follow couples and actually see who cheats on who to get real data.

But, this is all meaningless because I am just trying to make educated guesses here and everyone is assuming that I am stating fact here. The only fact is, is that we have absolutely no way to know how our species is set up. We can't study ourselves, we are biased. I just think, given our similarities to other species, that we can skew in both directions. The biological indicators are there for both sides. I don't know why people see the need to pick apart the claim I made based off of the biological record and not actual human psychological "studies"

Nice selective quoting everyone. Keep P&R strong

[Robert Sharp]

I think the reason you were picked on in this way is that you stated that men would always cheat more than women. It's biology. NOW you are saying we don't know the biology perfectly, so you are kind of guessing. That's more accurate (and a nice admission), but you can't blame people for still thinking of you holding the previous position. Psychology matters. Biology plays a role, but so does sociolization, and you simply can't ignore the latter and expect to make accurate claims. That's why I have a problem with biological evolution theories (and even some socio-biological). They tend to ignore the sociology, or at least underemphasize it.

Both fields also overgeneralize.

[Jon Rowe]

Exactly, but if I admit defeat then I lose!!!

[Rimbo]

Exactly, but if I admit defeat then I lose!!!

Sometimes, when you win, you really lose. And sometimes, when you lose, you really win.

[Jon Rowe]

You have to know when to hold em, know when to fold em...

[Cubit]

The only way to win, is not to play.

[Skipper]

Winning isn't everything, but the WILL to win is everything.

[ReptileHouse]

So..... does this thread mean that Qt3 get-togethers are a bit more lively than I've been led to believe?

[Robert Sharp]

Depends on which couples show up!

[Jon Rowe]

If flowers is around the conversation slowly but surely drifts to going ass to ass..

[Disconnected]

Idealized...in the literature?

In general. Would you agree Jesus is idealised? If so, marriage is too. Much more so, even. That said, I'm not calling this particular spade a spade to get on your nerves. I'm doing it because 'hetero-mono-marriage' is overly long, and because it isn't actually descriptive.

Both the heterosexual and monogamous qualifiers are more inclusive than the family type(-s, if you include some really remote/backwards places) idealised around the world.

If you can come up with a better term, I'll adopt it no problem. Until then, you will just have to cope.

I was hoping for some numbers.And you can find a little, if you look really hard. Problem is there's not enough data to support speculation.

Because it is about the kids right?Not particularly, no. Incidentally, atypical families are less likely to have children.

No one has done this kind of stuff?Yes, but not to any reasonable extent.

I don't go around reading stuff that reinforces opinions that i hold, so I could be totally off.I don't know what planet you live on, but it sure sounds like a nice place. Would it be possible for us to emigrate, do you think?

I don't argue with this view, I'm just saying I think that in general "other than monogamy" is probably a bad idea for your average person trying to succeed at life, and it's dishonest to depict it otherwise.And I'm just saying that I think that in general, the minority of people for whom "other than the idealised family type" is the only good idea, is rather significant. So pretending nothing but the idealised family type exists or can work, isn't just dishonest, it's harmful to people.

Anyway, I would like to know why you are getting defensive about this? I'm not, after all, attacking the idealised family type. I'm attacking the ideas that it is the only one, and that others should be maligned.

[RepoMan]

OK, fuck all this psychobabble bullshit, let's get some more juicy personal experience going up in here.

So I was in polyamorous relationships exclusively all through my twenties. ("Polyamorous relationship" here means "in a year-or-more serious relationship where other people may be involved.") I had two such relationships -- one lasted seven years, and one lasted one (overlapping) year. During the seven-year period, I had maybe three other short-term encounters.

And then right when I turned 30, I met the very monogamous woman to whom I'm now happily and monogamously married. We've got two kids. It used to be that I didn't experience much jealousy, but that may have changed with her -- though I'll never really find out :-)

So, here's some random data points from my personal experience:

Out of seven separate polyamorous relationships I'm aware of -- where the people involved were expressly agreeing to be polyamorous when they met, and where two of those relationships were mine -- only one of them is still together. The longest separated relationship lasted nine years. One kid involved out of all those -- though, in that case, it seems to be working OK for the kid; the polyamorous man and woman involved found closely adjacent housing, have each taken new partners, and both couples seem to be sharing in the parenting in a fairly committed way. In fact, as far as I know, each of those couples is actually acting monogamously now!

Out of ten monogamous marriages I know of during the same period as the above, seven of them are still together. Of the separations, there's a total of one kid involved, in a marriage that only lasted three years.

So there's no certainty either way, but I've seen a lot more monogamous marriages stay together than polyamorous relationships, percentage-wise. Is that social negativity winning out? In my experience, no -- it really was interpersonal issues.

On the flip side, though, we've just moved to a new area, and we've met quite a few polyamorous people here who seem to have been together for quite a while, some with kids, even. So the successful-polyamorous count may be going up. Still, the trend is clear.

In my personal experience, polyamory can be pretty incredible if you are prepared to focus most of your energy on your relationships, if you have a relatively high tolerance for drama, and if you don't have kids. I finally realized that I'd scratched my itch for having those kinds of sometimes amazing (incredibly amazing) but often draining relationships, and I knew I wanted to 1) have kids and 2) have a life to do things other than relationships and kids. (you know, like playing computer games!)

So going monogamous has been very successful for me so far -- it is in fact waaaaaaaaay more relaxing than polyamory, and my wife and I have a great time sexually and otherwise. Plus we really love our kids and love having a lot of time and attention for them. (Not at all suggesting that those making other time choices don't really love their kids! And though poly success with kids is relatively rare, it does happen.)

We do enjoy going to sex parties of various kinds, even though we don't actually touch other people -- we like being near other people, even though not with them. There are lots of ways to hotten up your love life, it doesn't have to be actually wiggly-bumping.

Still, I'm really glad I had the polyamorous experiences I had. If not, I wouldn't have ever had my 27th birthday party, where my two female then-partners surprised me with five other women... (and no, I didn't have sex with them all, but still.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!)

Superwhozit, I'm glad you and your wife are having more fun in your relationship -- that's good for you and for your kids. Still, I'm most concerned about your kids in all this, and I really hope you and your wife keep it fun and don't wind up getting even more pissed at each other for some reason and splitting up, because that would suck for your kids. My hunch is that if you keep your wife as the #1 woman, and bring other people in as secondary partners only, you've got the best chance.

Edit: Just peeked at the Loh article, and in the first portion is that lovable data point about "half of all marriages end in divorce." Every time I hear that I know the person quoting it is wanting to make marriage seem more fragile than it is. Many divorcees marry repeatedly, so while out of all individual marriages half may end in divorce, significantly less than half of all people married will experience divorce. That is, the proportion of married people who divorce is less than half. (Anyone have any statistics on what it actually is?)

Double edit: Whoops, I seem wrong. This fairly comprehensive look at the question (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=briefingPapers&ext=estimatedivorce) says that 43 percent of all first marriages end after 15 years. So it may be close to half. Still, that means that 57 percent of all people who get married the first time will have their marriages last at least 15 years, which is not too bad, considering.

[Spam]

Yes, but not to any reasonable extent.
Really?

I don't know what planet you live on, but it sure sounds like a nice place. Would it be possible for us to emigrate, do you think?

Anything's certainly possible, but the homeowner's association is a real rabid grizzly. What with droit de seigneur and adherence to the recently adopted IPMC..
In the meantime perhaps you could try here (http://xxx.lanl.gov) and here (http://aldaily.com).


And I'm just saying that I think that in general, the minority of people for whom "other than the idealised family type" is the only good idea, is rather significant. So pretending nothing but the idealised family type exists or can work, isn't just dishonest, it's harmful to people.

Anyway, I would like to know why you are getting defensive about this? I'm not, after all, attacking the idealised family type. I'm attacking the ideas that it is the only one, and that others should be maligned.

Nice. I'm hardly defensive, I'm trying to apologize for making you look like you're talking about something you haven't the slightest clue about. Yes, it's quite nice here in my world..

[Rimbo]

Thanks for the anecdotes, RepoMan!