Non-Monogamy: A Discussion

[Sistermadly]

After the "Cheating at the Bachelor Party" thread, I thought it might be interesting to talk about non-monogamy. Read this article, and let's talk about the pros/cons of non-monogamous relationships. Would you do it? Why, or why not?

The article is here: http://newyorkmetro.com/lifestyle/se...063/index.html

An excerpt: For much of human history, monogamy (or, at least, presumed monogamy) has been the default setting for long-term love. Hack the system, goes the theory, refuse to forsake all others, open the door even a crack—and the whole relationship will crash. Any dissenters have been pathologized as delusional idealists or worse. But now a new generation of couples is employing a kind of homeopathic hypothesis: that a tiny injection of adventure will ward off the urge to stray further—as long as it’s all on the table and up for discussion. (And just as with homeopathy, a healthy percentage of the population considers this premise bunk.)

[AchtungBaby80]

I've always found it hard to stay completely faithful in the past. I don't know if it was biology or raging hormones, but that's why I'm not married yet. Marriage is a monogamous institution, and I think if you enter into it then you have to play by the rules. (And yes, that includes the bachelor/ette party. ) But you don't have to be monogamous if you don't feel it's right for you...just be up-front and honest about it. Nothing wrong with that. It's a personal thing...now that I've met someone I'm willing to be monogamous for, I don't find it hard. But it is difficult to not be monogamous when the whole world is telling you that you need to be.

Edited to add: I think it's totally normal to be attracted to other people while you are in a monogamous relationship. However, I'm like the girl in the article...what I really care about is how my partner feels. I would be more crushed if he didn't care about me than if he just kissed someone to satisfy a curiosity.

[honeychile]

Where's Brigham Young and Joseph Smith when you need them?

Seriously, didn't they try this in the Sixties, and find out that it just doesn't work out well?

[AGDee]

A part of society ebbs and flows from freedom to monogamy and back. My generation was hit with AIDS while in college and it scared the bejeezus out of us. Back then, it was a definite death sentence. We got more monogamous and conservative sexually. It was incredibly scary then. It does seem like we're becoming more polarized though, because you have this group who is becoming more and more "open" (due to the internet maybe? Which makes things that used to be less common seem more common?) and another group (religious right) who are going further the other way, perhaps in response to the other side becoming more open.

Personally, I have never been able to separate sex and love. It's a deeply intimate and emotional thing to me, so I couldn't be non-monogamous because it just fit with how I think and feel. If other people need or want to have more "open" marriages, etc., then it's up to them. I just know it's not for me.

Dee

[USCTKE]

its easy guys keep your dicks in your pants girls keep your legs closed...neither is that hard to accomplish.

[KSigkid]

I wouldn't cheat on my wife - no way, no how. That's my own personal feeling on it; I made a commitment to my wife, and to be honest the reason I married her is because she's the only woman I want to be with for the rest of my life. If I had any doubts or wanted someone else, I wouldn't have asked her to marry me.

Previously, I still wouldn't have done it. If I was with a girlfriend, and there were other girls I was attracted to, I just broke it off with the current girlfriend.

I'm not going to judge those who do cheat, because it's a personal choice for everyone. I would not do it though.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by KSigkid
I'm not going to judge those who do cheat, because it's a personal choice for everyone. I would not do it though.

Ay, but there's the rub, C - the real change here is not in the presumption of monogamy, it's actually in eliminating the promise of monogamy, whether explicit or implicit, in a relationship.

What I mean is that most marriage covenants or ceremonies rely on a promise to, among other things, stay faithful and not 'cheat'. Now what if we change the rules? What if, as long as you still honor, love, and care for your spouse, there's no restriction of extramarital action, as long as it is in the open, healthy (I really mean 'safe'), or whatever your ground rules are?

I would generally agree with you, though, in your post - however, the reasons why I do that are b/c of the presumption of fidelity. I can't really say how I would feel if that were removed, or if I would be able to exist in that environment.

Most of us have a lot harder time separating sexual feelings and emotional involvement than we think, but that doesn't mean some can't do it. Interesting discussion.

[33girl]

Originally posted by KSig RC
What I mean is that most marriage covenants or ceremonies rely on a promise to, among other things, stay faithful and not 'cheat'. Now what if we change the rules? What if, as long as you still honor, love, and care for your spouse, there's no restriction of extramarital action, as long as it is in the open, healthy (I really mean 'safe'), or whatever your ground rules are?

Or if we change what "faithful" means. It could mean telling your spouse everything instead of not sleeping with anyone else. Sorry, I know that sounds really Clintonian.

[SOPi_Jawbreaker]

Sort of along the lines of what you're saying about changing what faithful means, this is an excerpt from Dan Savage. He's a sex columnist. He's gay but he answers questions from gays and straights. I actually really like a lot of what he says. He's pretty liberal but I think he gives good advice. Anyways, I thought he has some really interesting things to say about monogamy.

"I think that gays, especially gay male couples, have a sense of realism about male sexuality that it would benefit the whole country to adopt which is, and I promote this in my column all the time, which is that monogamy is not easy or natural," Savage continued. "I say this to women in my column, to straight women, if a guy is your partner, monogamous for 40 years, and only cheated on you a half a dozen times, he was really good at being monogamous. Because monogamy is hard. And you know, we've set up our relationships and our expectations that not only should monogamy be easy, but it's proof of love and devotion: you are successfully effortlessly monogamous. And for most men monogamy is a struggle and I think it puts a strain on a relationship." That's not to say that Savage is advocating sleeping around or cheating on your partner. "I think there needs to be all sorts of controls in place if you're going to build in a little outside sexual contact, as it's called, to protect the primacy of your relationship and your emotional bond, the primacy of your sexual relationship, your physical health and safety," he said.

Savage has such an arrangement with Terry. "Terry and I found [outside sexual contact] a really effective way to bottle the lightening that usually strikes and destroys many relationships. And it doesn't threaten us," he said. "Having that off the table and having that bottled and controlled in this way that allows for it under certain rare circumstances, makes our relationship stronger and likelier to last in the long run."

Monogamy can work for some couples, he said, but the couple has to agree on the definition.

"I've had many instances where I've met a monogamous couple and later been speaking with one of them and said, 'So you're monogamous?' and the guy will look at me and go, 'Well, yes and no.' And what that means is 'yes he is, no I'm not.' And I prefer things above board than not above board. But then the monogamous guys freak out when you say this because you're basically accusing everybody who's in what they believe is a monogamous relationship is either lying or they're being deceived."

But statistics show, said Savage, that many long term relationships will have outside sexual contact. "Do you want to set up your relationship in such a way that when that near inevitability occurs you're destroyed and your relationship falls apart? Or do you want to set it up in such a way that when that happens it's something you can either work through or survive because you don't place too much importance on it, or, you know, in the case of Terry and I, it's something that you did together and you had a blast and you still like to talk about, and, you know, it actually was fuel for your own sexual connection."

While he may be skeptical about monogamy, he is in favor of restraint.

"I think that one of the things that gay men particularly need to borrow from straight people is, whether you believe it's genetic or your believe it's culture, heterosexual women and female sexual reserve acts as a check on male heterosexual licentiousness," he said. "Women won't go to bath houses. If they would there would be straight bathhouses. But women won't do that. Women won't go to the park in the middle of the night and have sex with men they can't see."

"[Gay men] have to find that check within ourselves and we have to find that check within our relationships, too, particularly if we're going to allow for a little outside sexual contact so it doesn't spin out of control," he continued. "Straight people need to have more sex than they do, gay people need to have less sex than they can. And you lesbians need to stop having lesbian bed death. You're letting down the team."

A healthy and active sex life, said Savage who has been with his partner over 10 years, is essential for relationship longevity. "Sex is the cement that you put in place, you know, in the first 10 or 20 or 30 years of a relationship so the last 10 or 15 years of changing Depends happens. It's just the glue that holds you together during your physical dissolution in old age," he said.

[sugar and spice]

I think the statement that I sometimes hear, that people should not be monogamous because we're not, by nature, monogamous creatures is b.s. There are a lot of things about people that are natural (tendencies towards violence, for example) that are socialized out of us. We have the power to go against choices that are "naturally ingrained."

That said, I have no problem with non-monogamous relationships as long as both people are down with it and the honesty/trust is there. I think it would be difficult for me, however, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely. I think that as long as honesty and trust are a given, you can bring a lot more to the table than you can if you don't trust the person.

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by sugar and spice

That said, I have no problem with non-monogamous relationships as long as both people are down with it and the honesty/trust is there.

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm exclusively with my husband, but if our relationship changes at some point in the future, I would insist on both of us being down with the changes, and I'd insist on complete honesty. Like I said in the other thread, I'd rather have the kind of relationship where he could pull me aside and tell me what he's thinking, rather than the kind where he cheats and I'm completely blindsided by it.

I don't think that being open to non-monogamy means that you're fatalistic about infidelity though. I'm with sugar and spice - I think that for some people, monogamy and life-long fidelity are possible and a reality. On the other hand, I like the idea of building in some sort of "controlled system" like Savage suggests. Even if you have that system in place, it ultimately boils down to the choices you make as an individual. Just because it's on the table, it doesn't mean you have to dig in.

[irishpipes]

Originally posted by USCTKE
its easy guys keep your dicks in your pants girls keep your legs closed...neither is that hard to accomplish.

I found this hilarious just because his signature reads "Go Cocks!"