"Why I must consider non-monogamy"

TheHuntress

Well-Known Member
This is an interesting article- written by a woman- on potentially choosing to be in a marriage that is not monogamous. I thought it was nice to hear it from a woman's perspective, since we constantly hear about it from the men. I would personally choose an open or non-monogamous relationship if it were offered.

The other day, I was talking to one of my lesbian friends about the difference between gay and straight relationships. “Being a straight woman, who may want to get married someday, means I have to entertain the notion of having a nonmonogamous marriage,” I argued.

“Why?” she challenged me. (I get this reaction a lot. Especially from women, gay or straight, who tend to get defensive when I say something to this effect.)

“Not to consider it would mean I’m in denial,” I replied.

To ignore the state of the institution of marriage would be silly of me should I choose to enter into it. The American divorce rate is projected to be about 50 percent for first marriages and even worse for second or third marriages. A recent study published in the book Marriage Confidential found that 65 percent of wives and 85 percent of husbands would have affairs if they knew they wouldn’t get caught. Let’s face it, these stats are depressing.

It’s not that I’m seeking out a nonmonogamous relationship; it’s just that, as a 30-something woman, if I do get married at this point, I really don’t want to be one of these statistics. That means my partner and I will have to do whatever it takes to make things work long-term. And, truth-be-told, I have no idea what those things will be.

I don’t know what it’s like to be committed to the same person for five, 15, or 25 years. I don’t know what kind of experiences or variety either of us will want or need or how we’ll change as people. To pretend that I do know would be a lie.

An article in this weekend’s The New York Times Magazine explores the pros and cons of the nonmonogamous marriage model, as popularized by sex colomnist, Dan Savage. The article quotes Savage’s views about how feminism impacted the institution of marriage.

“The mistake that straight people made was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitar*ian and fairsey … In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed, we extended to men the confines women had always endured. And it’s been a disaster for marriage … Straight women, are in relationships with men. Doesn’t it help to know what we’re really like? Women can go on marrying and pretending that their boyfriends and husbands are Mr. Darcy or some RomCom dream man. But where’s that going to get ’em? Besides divorce court?”

I agree with Savage that marriage has become a disaster due to these confines, but not because feminism has sought to strip men of their true evolutionary nature or because we’ve denied ourselves the “pressure-release valve.” And no, most of us aren’t expecting to ride off on horseback with Mr. Darcy.

I think marriage is in such trouble because our expectations of fidelity are unrealistic. Right now, the collective, popular paradigm about marriage is focused on maintaining fidelity, rather than maintaining honesty. Maintaining honesty would mean realistically assessing both partners’ changing needs and desires, even if they are totally different from one another, and being G.G.G. (Savage-speak for “good, game, and giving”) enough to compromise. I think the best we can do in our journey to make marriage truly “egalitarian and fairsy” is to be honest with ourselves and each other. That means acknowledging that nonmonoagamy could be an option that works.

So what do you think? Would you be open to having a nonmonogamous marriage? Share your thoughts in the comments.

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-soap-box-why-i-must-consider-nonmonogamy/
 
Coming from a marriage where infidelity was a feature, I found that the infidelity wasn't the most difficult part to deal with. In fact, her need to sleep with someone else was almost a non-issue. Times and people change over the course of a relationship. The breakup of the family/social unit and the strains on access to my child were the most difficult. I had grown accustomed to seeing myself in the role of provider and support for both my son and my ex and losing that place and role was really rough.

I think a non-monogamous marriage is definitely an option that people should look at going forward. Loyalty should be to the family unit/children/etc, but no one should go around with the fantasy that one human will be able to meet every single need you have for 30-50 years, depending on how long you live.
 
Coming from a marriage where infidelity was a feature, I found that the infidelity wasn't the most difficult part to deal with. In fact, her need to sleep with someone else was almost a non-issue. Times and people change over the course of a relationship. The breakup of the family/social unit and the strains on access to my child were the most difficult. I had grown accustomed to seeing myself in the role of provider and support for both my son and my ex and losing that place and role was really rough.

I think a non-monogamous marriage is definitely an option that people should look at going forward. Loyalty should be the family unit/children/etc, but no one should go around with the fantasy that one human will be able to meet every single need you have for 30-50 years, depending on how long you live.

I absolutely agree with you, orejon. I think that's where the 'honesty' part comes in. I'd rather KNOW what was happening than not, and have the option to do what I want. And funny, for the couples I know in open relationships, the option isn't always exercised...but having the outlet is nice.
 
This is an interesting article- written by a woman- on potentially choosing to be in a marriage that is not monogamous. I thought it was nice to hear it from a woman's perspective, since we constantly hear about it from the men. I would personally choose an open or non-monogamous relationship if it were offered.



http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-soap-box-why-i-must-consider-nonmonogamy/

No I would not consider an open marriage. It's not for me. But I don't live blindly either. Men and women both cheat but normally for different reasons. Men mostly cheat for physical reasons while women mostly cheat for emotional ones. Not to say the opposites don't occur. IMO if you KNOW you don't want to cheat you have to be practical about it. And that means you need not put your self in a position that you could fall prey. Especially if your a woman you need to keep a distance IMO from friendships with men you would be interested in if not for your marriage especially including x's. Not that you can be friends but limitations are best to keep an emotional attachment from occurring. With men IMO need to never be alone with another female nor have inappropriate conversations with a female and honestly physical attraction has nothing to do with it.
 
I absolutely agree with you, orejon. I think that's where the 'honesty' part comes in. I'd rather KNOW what was happening than not, and have the option to do what I want. And funny, for the couples I know in open relationships, the option isn't always exercised...but having the outlet is nice.

And the few non-monogamous relationships I know of (granted, it's not many), the couples seem to have a love that is stronger than and not dependent on maintaining constant sexual desire for each other. Thus, during the off-periods they behave more like best friends and that gets them through the ebbs and flows until desire returns.
 
w/o monogamy, what's the point of marriage.

At the risk of sounding like the sides of the gay marriage debate, marriage was always traditionally more about property transfer, child-rearing and the like, more than it was ever about emotional/sentimental love/eros (especially given the historical inequity between male and female social standing.
 
Last edited:
And the few non-monogamous relationships I know of (granted, it's not many), the couples seem to have a love that is stronger than and not dependent on maintaining constant sexual desire for each other. Thus, during the off-periods they behave more like best friends and that gets them through the ebbs and flows until desire returns.

I personally only knew of 2. Both are now divorced. One of the marriages I knew of mostly brought women into their marriage. I was with them a couple of times. (Young and experimenting you know, but it made me so totally uncomfortable especially with the guy) but the woman was a bit jealous after she heard her husband speak about his enjoyment for me. But there was a few men they brought into their marriage too. She ended up leaving him for one of them.
I think it works for some and it doesn't for others just like monogamous marriages.
 
I personally only knew of 2. Both are now divorced. One of the marriages I knew of mostly brought women into their marriage. I was with them a couple of times. (Young and experimenting you know, but it made me so totally uncomfortable especially with the guy) but the woman was a bit jealous after she heard her husband speak about his enjoyment for me. But there was a few men they brought into their marriage too. She ended up leaving him for one of them.
I think it works for some and it doesn't for others just like monogamous marriages.

That sounds more like swinging or threesomes than what I was contemplating. I was thinking more of each partner having the ability to seek refuge when needed with another partner independent of the spouse. I may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but threesomes seem to be even more harmful. I think the "marriage bed" should be for just the couple, but that they can seek out others to fulfill these "needs" when they arise.
 
That sounds more like swinging or threesomes than what I was contemplating. I was thinking more of each partner having the ability to seek refuge when needed with another partner independent of the spouse. I may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but threesomes seem to be even more harmful. I think the "marriage bed" should be for just the couple, but that they can seek out others to fulfill these "needs" when they arise.

Yeah your right. I've never actually known anyone in the type of relationship you describe. As humans it's not only natural for us desire many different people at once but also to be jealous, so I don't truly think a non monogamous relationship will fix the problem you know what I mean.
I've often pondered the idea why so many men love to conquer as much pussy as they possibly can but yet and still want their woman to have been with as little as possible. I came to the conclusion it's a jealousy thing. People just don't want to share. They don't want others to have had what they now have and sometimes there lies insecurities about comparing themselves to ones past lovers.
 
Yeah your right. I've never actually known anyone in the type of relationship you describe. As humans it's not only natural for us desire many different people at once but also to be jealous, so I don't truly think a non monogamous relationship will fix the problem you know what I mean.
I've often pondered the idea why so many men love to conquer as much pussy as they possibly can but yet and still want their woman to have been with as little as possible. I came to the conclusion it's a jealousy thing. People just don't want to share. They don't want others to have had what they now have and sometimes there lies insecurities about comparing themselves to ones past lovers.

I think it may appear like jealousy on the surface, but I think it's actually hardwired animal instinct. In many (but not all) species the male competes vigorously for access to a female and once she's inseminated, she's down until the gestation period is over. Meanwhile the male then moves on to seek multiple mating opportunities, which ensures gene pool diversity. The only difference now is that social conditions have allowed greater freedom for women to be their own sexual beings and we have decoupled reproduction from 'mating', so it's about pleasure, not just childbearing. Hence the woman need not be bound down at home while the male does as he pleases. Whatever the source, it's clear that the human species will have to adapt to new arrangements made possible by social and technological innovation.
 
I think it may appear like jealousy on the surface, but I think it's actually hardwired animal instinct. In many (but not all) species the male competes vigorously for access to a female and once she's inseminated, she's down until the gestation period is over. Meanwhile the male then moves on to seek multiple mating opportunities, which ensures gene pool diversity. The only difference now is that social conditions have allowed greater freedom for women to be their own sexual beings and we have decoupled reproduction from 'mating', so it's about pleasure, not just childbearing. Hence the woman need not be bound down at home while the male does as he pleases. Whatever the source, it's clear that the human species will have to adapt to new arrangements made possible by social and technological innovation.

Female animals might only have sex during breeding time, but they also have sex like crazy with many different suitors during that time. Both these examples go back to what I was saying about desiring many at the same time but I still don't see how that would make the male not want a female who has did the same. Take dogs for example. The male is ready to breed all the time with many different females. The female breeds with many different males during breeding time. Male dogs will fight each other to breed with the female.
 
Right now, the collective, popular paradigm about marriage is focused on maintaining fidelity, rather than maintaining honesty. Maintaining honesty would mean realistically assessing both partners’ changing needs and desires, even if they are totally different from one another, and being G.G.G. (Savage-speak for “good, game, and giving”) enough to compromise.

Gotta be the best quote I've read regarding relationships in a long time. Bottom line is if you love each other, respect each other and want to be together, you've GOT to be able to speak openly with each other without fear of judgement or knee-jerk reactions. Doesn't even have to be in the context of sex. Putting unrealistic expectations and limitations on each other is setting yourselves up for failure.
 
The comparison to animals gets a bit tiresome, in my opinion. We're complex beings with so much more at stake, the comparison seems redundant.
 
The comparison to animals gets a bit tiresome, in my opinion. We're complex beings with so much more at stake, the comparison seems redundant.

Redundant or not it's factual. We maybe complex but the primal urges that have allowed our species to survive for eons is still ever present and can't be ignored. And FYI we are animals kid.
 
Gotta be the best quote I've read regarding relationships in a long time. Bottom line is if you love each other, respect each other and want to be together, you've GOT to be able to speak openly with each other without fear of judgement or knee-jerk reactions. Doesn't even have to be in the context of sex. Putting unrealistic expectations and limitations on each other is setting yourselves up for failure.

That's really what got me, too. I think people go straight to sex because that's the heart of most issues, but the fact is, if you can't tell someone the truth, why are you in a relationship with them? Although, I do understand that thanks to the media, society, etc. there are a lot of unrealistic expectations about relationships and what romance is supposed to mean and what it's supposed to represent. And men and women seem to be fed different sides to that story, which leads to a lot of confusion and hurt feelings.
 
Redundant or not it's factual. We maybe complex but the primal urges that have allowed our species to survive for eons is still ever present and can't be ignored. And FYI we are animals kid.

I knew someone would say that and lo and behold, it's none other than ANDRAE :p

WTF does how cats and dogs mate have to do with human relationships?
 
Coming from a marriage where infidelity was a feature, I found that the infidelity wasn't the most difficult part to deal with. In fact, her need to sleep with someone else was almost a non-issue. Times and people change over the course of a relationship. The breakup of the family/social unit and the strains on access to my child were the most difficult. I had grown accustomed to seeing myself in the role of provider and support for both my son and my ex and losing that place and role was really rough.

I think a non-monogamous marriage is definitely an option that people should look at going forward. Loyalty should be to the family unit/children/etc, but no one should go around with the fantasy that one human will be able to meet every single need you have for 30-50 years, depending on how long you live.
I have always said that cheating is some place near the bottom of reasons why I would get divorced...
 
w/o monogamy, what's the point of marriage.

indeed people are tying to make up reasons why NOT to get married and blaming the institution of marriage instead of the two main reasons marriage fail.

1) people getting married too soon/for the wrong reasons
2) people giving up on marriage too soon
 
Back
Top Bottom