|
Monogamy Is Good, And It’s Here To Stay
Open marriage is not the way of the future.
by Elizabeth Cline
Why aren’t you in an open relationship yet? Carla Bruni Sarkozy, wife of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, famously “prefers polygamy and polyandry.” In July, Reveal magazine quoted Will Smith as saying that he and wife Jada Pinkett-Smith allow each other extra-marital dalliances. Oprah did a segment on open marriages. And both YourTango contributor Jenny Block and Village Voice sex columnist Tristan Taormino have brand new books out on open relationships. All of this talk of free love is enough to make chicks who prefer old-fashioned monogamy feel a bit, well, old-fashioned. But if history can teach us anything, the open relationship bandwagon will come and go, which is a good thing because most women still benefit from and prefer monogamy.
Why? Women still generally do more work in relationships than men do and openness requires even more diligence than a regular relationship; women are taught to care more about relationships and risk more for them than men, so non-monogamy raises the stakes more for us. And, despite today’s female open relationship proponents, it’s men who typically initiate and prefer non-monogamy.
The recent rash of high-profile cheaters (Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, David Patterson, Larry Craig) has shown monogamy in an ugly light. People yearn for sexual variety, and now that we live longer than ever, it’s unrealistic to imagine a couple staying together fifty years without a single affair. And in fact, statistics show twenty percent of men and thirteen percent of women cheat on their spouse. But open relationships are not the solution, says Ayala Pines, psychologist and author of Romantic Jealousy, because jealousy and envy are just as hardwired as infidelity. Only a third of monogamous marriages survive cheating because of the jealousy and lingering sense of betrayal, says Pines. And the success rate for open relationships is not any better for similar reasons. “In my experience with open relationships,” she says, “the couple goes back to monogamy or else to illicit affairs. Or, it ends in divorce.”
Another reason why open relationships don’t work in practice for a lot of women is because they’re simply too time-consuming. Block is up front about the work involved in juggling a husband and a girlfriend. An excerpt of her book on Huffingtonpost.com, “Life In An Open Marriage: The Four (Not-So-Easy) Steps” (also excerpted on YourTango), prompted one HuffPo commenter to say, “I’m exhausted just reading about all the ‘work’ and never-ending ‘communication’ about feelings, situations, jealousy, worry, etc. It all sounds like much more effort than its worth (IMO).” Likewise, Taormino’s Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships is an intimidating 300 pages, in which the kind of person who is successful at non-monogamy is described as someone committed to knowing themselves “on a deep level,” a process she says might include “psychotherapy and counseling, reading, writing, journaling, blogging, attending workshops and peer support groups, meditation, and various spiritual practices.” While the idea of openness may be appealing to some women, it’s hard to imagine many of us finding the time to juggle a second relationship. Especially those of us with careers and children.
 (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... |
Email to a Friend
Share on Facebook
Digg It
Delicious
Newsvine
Stumble
Reddit
1 Tatiana von Tauber // Oct 29, 2008 at 1:53 am
Thank you Paradym. Feel free to flip through my blog.
I specifically liked how you addressed Cline’s view that women do more work in relationships. That is a view synomynous with typical feminist views; it’s true but not entirely and is an unfair “attack” on men and there is an entire argument on that position alone which needs addressing. You did good bringing it up. If I did, I fear my response would have been even longer!
Thanks Alan for pointing out all of the women how have “jumped on the bandwagon”. I did not know there were so many. This brings up some interesting questions and thought for analysis. I think I’ll address that in the future in length on my blog but quickly here, I’m wondering if it has something to do with the way women generally “attach” to love and its subjective meaning and value versus men, who more often than not, place it on sex without emotion. Meaning, if men in general seek sex sans emotion, they would be less likely to be pioneers in polyamory, not necessarily open relationships which concentrate on sex such as swinging. Would you agree?
Just a note to the editors… it would be nice if Tango Magazine made sure these comments get transfered to their new Beta site, “Your Tango”. At this time, these comments do not appear on the new system.
2 Paradym // Oct 28, 2008 at 9:42 am
Tatiana von Tauber: I thoroughly enjoyed your post and completely agree with you. I’m looking forward to finding more of your writing, on whatever subject. Cheers!
alan7388: Brilliant for pointing out how the real front-runners in alternative relationships are women.
It is readily apparent in Ms. Cline’s writing that she harbors some distinct biases, not that that is always a bad thing but that it can often lead to inaccuracies and stigmatizing. The previous two posters shed light on the major ones, but I would like to point out an underlying paradigm that seems to run through this article and what appears to be a cultural one.
Ms. Cline states, “Women still generally do more work in relationships than men do”. This hints at the accepted notion that women are correct in their view of relationships, that the “truth” of correct relationships is held by women only. That men’s views are incorrect. There has been an undercurrent in recent decades of male-bashing in general culture and definitely the media. Not that much of it isn’t well-deserved after centuries of oppression, but it doesn’t bode well for women to feel a sense of entitlement towards defining relationships only on their terms.
I am not here to say that either side is correct, but that there is no truth as to what a correct relationship is in regards to structure (i.e. monogamy vs. non-monogamy). Women do not have the answer, nor do men. It lies somewhere in the middle. And to find that middle requires being honest with oneself and with your partner(s). A relationship should be an agreement between the involved individuals, not a formula handed down from society, or from one gender. While it seems to be true that women generally are more prone to desire monogamy that doesn’t make monogamy the default.
Many posts I’ve read that rail against open relationships often label non-monogamists as selfish. I find this odd in that perceiving your beliefs as being correct is blatantly selfish in itself. Or the claim that being a monogamist requires sacrifice and therefore is more noble. There are two problems with that: 1. If you are sacrificing something about yourself and your life in order to be a monogamist then you aren’t being honest with yourself or your partner; and 2. there are no trophies handed out for denying yourself something for the sake of denying yourself something. Sacrifice isn’t noble by default. Helping someone with a flat tire while late for work is a noble sacrifice. You and your partner promising not to have sex with others, despite any desires, just to uphold some idealized concept isn’t noble.
Despite Ms. Cline’s claims that the new “popularity” of open relationships as just being a fad, I do think this time it is something different. In the 60s and 70s it was a fad, it was people experimenting, being hip, etc. Most of those that tried it eventually gave it up. Their culture wasn’t ready to adopt it completely. Women had just began to experience any sort of independence but the old paradigms were still there. Now, though, cultural paradigms have changed. Women like Jenny Block, otherwise very normal, middle-of-the-road people (and that is not meant to, in any way, take away from Jenny’s attractiveness, intelligence, skills or talents, just that she does not present herself as alternative in any other way - her dress, presentation and affiliations all appear to be fairly common) are now coming to the idea of opening up their relationships themselves, not because it’s a trend. It’s something they’ve realized in themselves and now they have to freedom and enough equality to actually be strong enough to entertain and begin to live their lives under their own rules, not anyone else’s. There are women who have different desires sexually and emotionally and are now coming out of the woodwork to claim their right to live life as they see fit.
So, Ms. Cline, I would hope that in the future you might be more inclined to be more supportive of a woman’s right to live her life in any way she sees fit, to choose the nature of her relationships based upon her needs and desires, instead of standing guard for old cultural strictures. No one is trying to take monogamy away from anyone. Women like Ms. Block are simply saying there are other ways, that as a woman in America you have the freedom to choose how you live your life and what relationships are most fulfilling for you. That would be noble and would only sacrifice some of your more close-minded friends and fans.
3 alan7388 // Oct 27, 2008 at 11:02 am
Successful open marriages and polyamory do indeed demand that a relationship be very solid to start with, and that those involved have excellent communication habits, high emotional intelligence, and low jealousy. But for some people these things come naturally. For them it isn’t hard at all.
For others, even the hard work to get there is worth it. Polyamory will never be for most people. But it will always be (and in fact has always been) for some.
———————————–
Keep up with Polyamory in the News:polyinthemedia.blogspot.com
———————————–
4 alan7388 // Oct 27, 2008 at 10:54 am
> It’s intriguing that Block and Taormino,
> two of today’s loudest advocates for
> open relationships, are women.
Actually, the modern polyamory movement (in striking contrast to the free-love movements of the 1960s and earlier) is a remarkably female enterprise. A good majority of its creators, leaders, authors, and spokespeople were and are women.
Its two major founders in the 1980s were Deborah Anapol (author of Love Without Limits) and Ryam Nearing (founder of Loving more magazine. Nearing’s successors at Loving More were Mary Wolf and the current director, Robyn Trask. The “poly bible, The Ethical Slut, was co-written by Dossie Easton and “Catherine A. Liszt”/Janet Hardy. There’s Celeste West (Lesbian Polyfidelity); Morning Glory Zell (creator or popularizer of the word “polyamorous”); Jennifer Wesp (creator of the original alt.polyamory usenet newsgroup and credited with the invention of the word by the Oxford English Dictionary); Janet Kira Lessin, Nan Wise, Polyfamilies Yahoo group founder Noel and her successor Julie; Polyamory Weekly podcaster cunning minx; New York poly organizers and spokespeople Birgitte Philippides and Diana Adams, Northwest poly event organizer Theresa Brennan; Anita Wagner; Jasmine Walston; Valerie White; academics Elizabeth F. Emens, Elisabeth Sheff, Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Geri D. Weitzman, Joy Davidson, Elaine (Cascade Spring) Cook, Leanna Wolfe, Meg Barker, Barbara M. Foster; and on and on.
5 Tatiana von Tauber // Oct 25, 2008 at 10:58 am
The feeling of “old fashioned” is self-induced and in no part directed by the “bandwagon” of open relationships. By far women prefer monogamy but to say benefit, one would need to define and compare the various benefits an open relationship might offer to a female; there are many. It appears that the monogamous woman only fears the dark areas and temptation, misunderstandings and socially created views of non-benefits as fears in themselves. Open marriage as open relationships reach above and beyond the standard swinging lifestyle which allows partners to merely engage in sexual activities with others.
Jenny Block never presented the open relationship version where she is “slutting” herself out to another female for the benefit of sex. Block presents another relationship with an individual outside of her primary. That relationship verses sex in itself, casts a vital difference between the benefit of what open relationships may bring and what it is viewed to actually be: sex with other people which can cause great strain on relationships. I do not argue that most women benefit and prefer monogamy; however, to enjoy, benefit and prefer non-monogamy, a woman has to possess a level of personal risk taking pleasure in the experience itself and all that rolls with it rather than the fear of it, which is ultimately what the non-monogamous woman may possess. This fear is a fear of her own sexuality, her body, her other partner’s potential over promiscuity and “leaving”, the negative emotions which may arise and possible divorce; clearly there are more fears which have not been addressed.
In my research I’ve simply stumbled upon individuals who place more value on transcending themselves and their love relationships. If those are grounded enough, they tend to have a lifetime of open relationships that last or they search on, even with its risks because the benefits outweigh the risk factor. Clearly, not all survive but then, the question that begs to be asked is, did they not survive because of the opening of their relationship with others or because there wasn’t enough strength there in the first place, upon which the open marriage became the means in which to highlight something that wasn’t obvious? In other words, if “the other woman” in adultery breaks up a marriage, was the marriage in some way doomed and had not been realized? If the other woman brought attention to relationship problems, sexual dissatisfaction, etc., and if that relationship survived the pitfalls, it seems the other woman deserves an unusual twisted thanks. Strong relationships benefit from “conflict” and variety for growth; weak relationships break.
It is precisely the fear of possibly falling in love with the Other that solid relationships can generally withstand, should that fear or actuality come to play. Further, if so, it merely places them into another level of understanding love, themselves and others, independently and within the context of their relationship. If there is fear of jealousy and loss then the suggestion would be to stay clear of an open relationship. Period. Jealousy does and will happen. The way in which a couple/individual controls his/her actions of that jealousy creates the success or failure of an open relationship experience. It is in part, a test of will and control and in some ways, power both to the self and the other.
Men prefer the sexual fantasy become reality aspect of open relationships, if anything. Perhaps they have been more free to reflect on its benefits. Most men are fine if they can engage with another woman, and perhaps get excited if their woman engages with another but if she were to be with another man, let’s say, the tides turn. This clearly creates empathy to a woman having her husband be with another woman; it seems selfish and egotistical. Open relationships, if “done right” often do not place the sex at the forefront. It’s the full context of the experience and the pleasure the partner derives knowing he/she is allowing that pleasure to occur for the other. I believe the term as another article on Tango, is called compersion.
If a relationship becomes open without intent for that to enhance the existing one, then this creates potential problems. One misconception with those trying open marriage, or those who rule it out automatically, is that it is used as a replacement of some kind to gain more sex for one person or another or fill a lack that is or is not obvious within the relationship. That’s a bad beginning which will surely creates a bad ending. This be the case, the author is correct. However, that said, this be the case, then a couple should not be swayed into an open relationship “fad” (a ridiculous term I’ll address later) as though it were a line of energy drinks or fashion!
Intriguing that two of the “loudest advocates for open relationships” are women? Why? That almost interprets into “unbelievable”. Block and Toarmino are a testament as to how far women have actually come and as far as I can see, they are winning, not because they have the “best of both worlds” or because they have more sex and freedom but because they can without shame.
To call this a fad is an insult to those who work incredibly diligently and consciously to have it work for them, for which, many examples exist. A fad is when wannabes wish to be a part of something they feel like they are excluded from because they see it as popular and/or want to be something they are not. Open relationships as presented by Block and Toarmino don’t appear to be a fad but merely the expression of other ways in which to enjoy love and sexuality, opening avenues for open minds, to show that it can work but you never know until you try: “this is what I know about it”. They, nor anyone else in such a relationship would advocate it as a standard by any means. Poly love/sex is not a fad; it’s exploration. Red Bull is a fad.
I found this article menacing to the power of eroticism, feminism, femininity, sexual exploration and love – the areas of my research expertise and topic of study upon which I have written about in various publications. There is no judgment on monogamy here as its benefits are high but this article oozes with indirect judgment on open love/sex, as though the author would like to “fit in” but can’t, respectfully. However, to be fair, in ways of love and all topics of debate, all sides ought to be expressed – as long as others use their own reason to make up their minds and don’t follow “trends” just because some have labeled it trendy.
(seems I’ve written an article myself here. sorry for the length.)