OPINION & EDITORIAL
Open relationships have drawbacks
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Darryn Beckstrom:
- Steelers' behavior, history befitting of true champion (January 31, 2006)
- Hon. Rehnquist deserves praise (September 8, 2005)
- Underage drinking hurts economy (February 8, 2006)
- Athiests misuse First Amendment (September 16, 2005)
- Open relationships have drawbacks (February 14, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Transmit love, not infections (October 8, 2004)
- Open dialogue necessary (April 17, 2006)
- Sex and the (Mad) City (December 11, 2001)
- Marriage: a cultural tradition (January 21, 2005)
- Hypocritical amendment (December 8, 2005)
by Darryn Beckstrom
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Back in the day, we had a name for those who defied the definition of monogamy. They were called swingers.
But today, it seems the rules have changed and the prevalence of open relationships has increased significantly.
Open relationships are often defined as a situation in which couples agree that it is acceptable to date and engage in sexual activity with other people while still maintaining a relationship with each other.
But a better definition may be cheating without the guilt.
Over the past few years, the social stigma of engaging in polyamory has greatly subsided on college campuses — and this university is no exception. It is a common occurrence for someone to proclaim this so-called "relationship" status on Facebook or to engage in a sexual rendezvous with another person while in a supposed relationship.
One way or another, I find it difficult many do not consider this cheating.
Maybe the Kinsey Report was the start of this deviation from traditional values. But the prevalence of open relationships was precipitated by something more.
Jokingly, a friend recently handed me a copy of Open Marriage, the 1972 best-selling book by Nena and George O'Neil. I would have guessed a book of this raunchy caliber came from a used book sale sponsored by Sex Out Loud — but I was mistaken.
The back cover promises a book that will "introduce you to the open marriage concepts — trust, liking, role flexibility, individual freedom and growth, and love and sex without jealously — that can do wonders for your marriage."
Somehow, I'm not buying it.
There are obvious health concerns for engaging in an open relationship for all participants involved. Having multiple sexual partners greatly increases the probability of contracting a sexually transmitted disease and becoming pregnant. But there are other problems for those who engage in this lifestyle.
More importantly, how can one consider an open relationship to be, in fact, a relationship? Normally, a relationship requires a commitment between two people. If this doesn't exist, then what differentiates an open relationship from mere dating — or friends with benefits? I'm drawing a big blank. Nonetheless, using the word "relationship" to define the aforementioned association diminishes the significance of a monogamous relationship between two people.
Definitions aside, there are also the emotional issues.
Intimacy can only come when two people can engage in sex knowing there are not other sexual partners on the side. Sex is meant to be a bond that brings two people together — which is why waiting until marriage is the ideal situation.
Unfortunately, today it seems the intimate value placed on sex is minimal. Rather, sex is frequently used to either fulfill some mere physiological desire for both sexes or satisfy the lustful mind of an inebriated male after his beer goggles are firmly in place following a night out. It is disheartening to see so many people relegate sex to "it's just sex."
And then there is the issue of jealousy. If individuals do not become jealous of the other woman or man in their partner's sex life then they are either lying to themselves or, sadly, sex is nothing more than a purely physical act to them.
A question I have, though, is if someone can't be monogamous before marriage, who is to say they will practice monogamy within the bounds of matrimony? If people are accustomed to relationships without a commitment to remain faithful to one another (i.e. open relationships) during their dating years, why would marriage be any different?
According to "The Monogamy Myth" by Peggy Vaughn, 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will break their marriage vows at some point during their lifetime — and these figures represent only those who admit to engaging in infidelity. The increasing prevalence of open relationships before marriage will not improve this statistic.
Nonetheless, perhaps a course in relationships can help answer these questions. The Department of Psychology at Haverford College is offering a course this semester titled, The Psychology of Close Relationships. Potential topics to be covered in the class include "alternative relationships" (or more aptly, open relationships). And an entire week will be spent on the issues of infidelity and jealously.
But given the audience this course is targeted toward, I'm not holding my breath. And I can guarantee that contrary to popular belief, the answers will be not found in the next issue of Cosmopolitan either.
The rules of the dating game have been redefined. But sometimes changing the rules doesn't always make a situation better in the long run.
Darryn Beckstrom (beckstrom@badgerherald.com) is a doctoral student in the department of political science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 7:36am):
(( "Normally, a relationship requires a commitment between two people. If this doesn't exist, then what differentiates an open relationship from mere dating -- or friends with benefits? I'm drawing a big blank." ))
There is a committment between partners in an open relationship, just as there is in a closed relationship. Every couple makes different committments to each other, however, and one of the committments open partners choose not to make is sexual and/or emotional monogamy. That does not mean there is no committment at all and you are equivocating here.
(( Intimacy can only come when two people can engage in sex knowing there are not other sexual partners on the side. ))
That is an unjustified assumption, given that there are plenty of people out there who enjoy a deep and loving intimacy despite having multiple partners. The burden of proof rests with you and making blithe assumptions like this weakens your argument.
(( If individuals do not become jealous of the other woman or man in their partner's sex life then they are either lying to themselves ))
Again, it seems like you are taking something here to be self-evident when there are multiple examples of people who make this work. The world, I believe, is round nowadays, is it not? I hope we are past the age when something is true just because "it's common wisdom".
I'm afraid this article comes across as a poorly reinforced opinion piece and requires significantly more evidence to carry any weight at all.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 7:45am):
Just because someone doesn't wait until marriage until having sex doesn't make it a less intimate part of the relationship. To me, it is an integral part of a long term relationship, so it just makes sense to see if you are a match in the bed as well as elsewhere. Just because you make a decision, doesn't put you in a position to judge everyone else who doesn't make the same decision as you. Also, how does having multiple partners make you more at risk for pregnancy. Birth control pretty much covers anything, as long as you use it correctly.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 8:54am):
Darryn, you get less fun every article... first it was halloween, then drinking, now sex. What's next? Breathing oxygen? Watching TV?
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 9:13am):
I wouldn't exactly call these people polygymists. When discussing campus relationships how many of them are serious to begin with. I don't think we are talking about open marriages here, because I really doubt that those are all that common even today. But when college kids are hooking up with different people thoughout the week it is usually just because they aren't committed to one person yet. Just because they haven't decided to become exclusive yet doesn't make them some kind of swinger.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 9:14am):
Sounds like Darryn's mad because she's not getting laid. It's ok Darryn, you just need to stop holding out for Brit Hume, he's just not into you ok.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 9:14am):
Preach, preach, preach...
No one's asking you to be in an open relationship, so the why the need to desparage it? If it works for the couople, then how is it in any way your business to even care, let alone write an article about it? Believe it or not, some people may have different ideas than you about what they want their love life to be like, and you have absolutely no right to condemn them.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 9:18am):
So you're having a hard time with the definition of "open relationship". Again your hang ups and closed mindedness limit your intelligence. a relationship is more then something shared between two people. I have a relationship with my wife's parents. Does that mean I'm having sex with them? No, it doesn't. I have individual relationships at work. Does that mean I'm having sex with my co-workers? Again it does not. The big problem that you have with most of the things you write about is that your closed mind limits you.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 9:51am):
I don't get why this is the first article on the opinion page. The piece by Bassey Etim is far, far more important and much better written. Beckstrom's columns are all centered around making moral judgements against those she looks down upon. It's very tiring reading the opinions of someone so full of herself yet unable to grasp how to back up her "arguments". You finally got rid of Hoff's trash now why can't you get rid of Beckstrom's awful columns too?
Steve Anderson (February 14, 2006 @ 10:07am):
"A question I have, though, is if someone can't be monogamous before marriage, who is to say they will practice monogamy within the bounds of matrimony? If people are accustomed to relationships without a commitment to remain faithful to one another (i.e. open relationships) during their dating years, why would marriage be any different?"
I'm 35, and male. I never understood as a teenager why jealousy had to exist. I had my bouts with it in college, when I derived a great deal of my identity and status from my relationships, but I certainly don't think this was healthy. At 25, I married my college sweetheart, with whom I had always been monogamous, but we were theoretically in favor of the idea of non-monogamy. We remained monogamous for the first few years of marriage. She had a brief relationship outside our marriage in 1997, but it didn't work out. Then we both got involved in outside relationships in early 2001. Mine went for a couple of years, with another polyamorous married woman, before I broke it off. Hers, with a single man, went very well, and I always got along with him too. In late 2002, we asked him to move in with us. In 2003, she had breast cancer, and we both supported her and stood by her through chemotherapy. Now she's healthy again, the three of us consider ourselves all married, and we're considering children. There have been ups and downs in all these relationships, but that's true of any relationship. The overall tone continues to be very loving. My wife sleeps with me some nights, and with her other husband on other nights. We're very happy together.
Regarding cheating - cheating necessarily implies breaking the rules. That's what cheating means. I don't see how sex outside of marriage is cheating if it's done honestly. For us, the term "infidelity", unfaithfulness, means breaking faith in things that really matter, like honesty and respect.
And I'm disappointed to see you place so much emphasis on the sexual aspect of these relationships. Polyamory is about multiple love, as the name suggests. These are love relationships foremost; and yes, people tend to have sex in love relationships. I wouldn't have gotten involved with the woman in 2001 if I hadn't fallen in love with her. And why should loving one person mean you cannot love another? The world has many wonderful people in it.
(I wouldn't be surprised if the polyamorous relationships you see on campus have a heavy sexual emphasis, though. As I recall, many relationships in that age range do...)
"And then there is the issue of jealousy. If individuals do not become jealous of the other woman or man in their partner's sex life then they are either lying to themselves or, sadly, sex is nothing more than a purely physical act to them."
It boggles my mind that anyone would define a loving relationship by the amount of hate and posessiveness it stirs up.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 10:25am):
Any doctoral students actually in psychology or sociology want to chime in on this one? All I have to say is, Darryn "The Windbag" Beckstrom strikes again. Why don't you go find a nice clammy cave and listen to your own voice echo there. Maybe in the constant repetition you'll have what is known as a breakthrough, and understand that you're wrong about everything. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Didn't anyone ever tell you that? I can prove that you're wrong with just two words, one of which is a contraction: You're wrong. Open your brain, think a bit, and repent of your wrong wrong wrongity wrong wronging ways.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 10:31am):
Yet again Ms. Beckstrom demonstrates the near proximity of the far left and the far right. Seriously. Her ideas about drinking (last week) and sex (this week) are quasi-communist in their attempts to deny individual liberty and freedom. Towards the end of today's column she all but advocates that students take some sort of course that instructs (read: indoctrinates) us how to conform to her strict version of what constitutes a healthy relationship. Oh, and of course, not a course of the Haverford variety, one in which the question of relationship form might actually be researched and explored rather than answered before the fact.
My partner and I are monogomous and that's a beautiful relationship model for us; it's one that we're both certain will last us our entire lives. We arrived at the decision through realistic communication about sexuality and desire and through honesty about present and future attractions outside of the relationship. Isn't that a far superior and permanent way to arrive at monogomy than for Ms. Beckstrom and her Nanny State operatives to dictate monogomy to us -- in high school health classes or university psychology?
My goodness--the Soviet Union crumbled in part because individuals suffered within one-size-fits-all ideologies. Let grown ups be grown ups; leave them alone about the choices they make. We, in turn, will extend the same favor to you.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 10:58am):
Has Darryn Beckstrom ever even had sex? Shouldn't that be a prerequisite for having an opinion about what sexual lifestyles work and don't? I mean, I understand that people who decide to remain virgins until marriage can argue the whole abstinence issue, no matter how much evidence goes against it, but honestly... to have much of an opinion on what sexual lifestyles work and what don't, a person needs to have had at least one sexual partner.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 12:22pm):
What a wonderful headline on Feb 14: "Monogamy the only healthy relationship"
When can I stop opening the Herald and be told I did something wrong by Beckstrom?
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 1:13pm):
Ms. Beckstrom, doesn't it strike you as a bit misinformed to write an opinion piece on a topic you admit to knowing nothing about? You claim that abstaining from sex until marriage is preferable, and I have friends who make the same decision. I respect their choice. I, however, do not make that decision, and my friends respect my choice. Different things work for different people, and our society will be functional when we all realize that there is no one size fits all solution. I don't spend my time writing editorials about how your choices, which don't affect me, are negative. Please don't spend your time doing that to me.
Abe Sorock (February 14, 2006 @ 1:45pm):
The attacks on Darryn have been pretty vicious. I don't think she "condemned" anyone as much as she could have. I'd hardly say "Darryn's mad because she's not getting laid" constitutes a serious response to a serious article. Changing societal standards-- I didn't say decline-- are definitely a topic worth debating and both sides of the argument deserve consideration and respect. Maybe relationship roles do need some reexamining, because personally I can't imagine there is only one way to live a healthy and happy life. However, discarding an appeal to traditional monogamy as a frustrated personal outburst is just ignorant. Traditional monogamy has actually worked pretty well so far, and engaging in "polyamory" or an open relationship is unquestionably a trade-off and not without its downsides. However, traditional monogamy has its downsides too and it's up to the individual and couple to decide which they value more. Darryn seems to value the former, while many others seem to prefer the latter-- well, I guess that's why they call it "opinion." No one is trying to force their view on anyone else, except by trying to end debate entirely through retributive personal attacks. Incidentally, Happy Valentine's day.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 3:23pm):
Darryn didn't only make an appeal to traditional monogomy. She made a prescriptive claim that traditional monogomy is the only legitimate and healthy relationship model. That is what most seem to oppose. There are many, many reasons to praise monogomy and many reasons to critique non-monogomy. But such a critique need not take the form of nanny-style prescription.
You know who Darryn sounds most like in this column? It's not a fellow Republican. It's Tipper Gore. Or maybe even Joe Lieberman. Darryn is right on the spot where Republicans and Democrats meet in a Nanny State, self-congragulatory love fest.
Both Gore and Beckstrom take on a tone of moral superiority as they bemoan changing mores and the loss of the good old days before such things as video games and individual choices interferred with people's maturation. And both want to demean other people's profoundly personal choices--choices which really shouldn't concern anybody but the individuals directly involved. And both, therefore, want to relegate individual ethics and morality to a realm of the prescribed, and, therefore, a realm of robotic, thoughtless response.
Of course, I, like Abe, fail to see how critiquing Beckstrom's sex life has any relevance to this conversation unless you believe in some crude eye-for-an-eye justice scheme.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 3:29pm):
Abe,
You are right that comments such about Darryn not laid enough are not an appropriate response to this article. Its seems to me that many of the other responders are starting to get a little annoyed with Darryn's constant preaching of her own moral values to the detriment to those of others. We see this week after week. (Let's not forget the moral reaons for rooting for the Steelers). Your post was completely different from the article in that you did not engage in an attack on either the idea of monogamy or an open relationship.
Darryn, however, suggests that people choosing to have an open relationship aren't really in a relationship, that they can't have any real intimacy, and that sex is just sex for anyone not choosing monogamy is not debating the drawbacks of either decisions, it's an attack on what Darry believes is wrong. She could have used her title to actually demonstrate the drawbacks without such a judgemental and bombastic moral tone, in which case, you wouldn't have so many people attacking Darryn personally.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 4:33pm):
The extreme right would rather not have sex at all. If they could find a way for storks to deliver lily white babies to all happily married evangelicals, they would do it and eliminate intercourse.
Too late, Vonnegut beat you to the punch. Welcome to the Monkey House.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 4:42pm):
The Haverford course you describe sounds quite interesting. I'm glad that some schools are approaching this topic, since it is worthy of thoughtful discussion, especially among college age students.
It's obvious that polyamory doesn't suit your personal tastes or jibe with your personal morals, and that's fine. However, I'd encourage you to consider that intimate personal commitments can -- and often are -- defined by factors quite separate from sexual or emotional exclusivity.
I'd also encourage you to consider that monogamy carries its own set of inherent difficulties. Every type of relationship does. The challenges are part of the package.
- Amy Gahran
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 6:49pm):
What's going on with the College Republicans?
More and more, when its members publish a column, they're advocating some kind of social control (constitutional bans on civil unions and marriage, bans on drinking, bans on all but their kind of sex).
What happened to Republicans being the ones who prize personal liberty and freedom above all else?
I know Darryn might not be representative. But dissenting Republican voices are mighty silent.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 7:07pm):
> ...a copy of Open Marriage, the 1972
> best-selling book by Nena and George
> O'Neil. I would have guessed a book of
> this raunchy caliber
"Raunchy caliber"? It seems clear from this comment that Ms Beckstrom has not read the book. I did read the book some 16 years ago, and found it quite informative about healthy interaction between spouses. FYI, I have been married for 28 years.
Ms Beckstrom is entitled to her opinion about open relationships, but she is not entitled to review a book she has not read.
Jasmine
jasminegld@aol.com
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 12:43am):
Not everyone is capable of handling an open relationship. If you are not, that's OK. You are not required to have one. But for those in relationships without attachment issues, why limit sexual possibilities to what society finds acceptable? It is far better to ask your partner what he/she finds acceptable; after all, communication is the basis of ANY healthy relationship, open or closed.
You ask many questions, but offer only wild speculation in place of answers. Why? Did you run out of time to interview someone who, unlike yourself, has an open relationship? Opinion article does not necessitate talking out of your ass. You've earned your F. Do your homework, Darryn.
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 7:29am):
"But a better definition may be cheating without the guilt."
You are entirely missing the whole point about open relationships. "Cheating" implies breaking of a rule, a vow, or a commitment -- in an open relationship, having multiple sexual relationships breaks nothing. It is playing by the rules, as the two people have made them.
Why do you assume that no commitment has been made, simply because the commitment does not included refraining from having other sexual relationships? If you feel that sexual fidelity is the only or most important commitment a partner can make, then it's you who are reducing your relationship to sex and nothing else!
I would rather have a partner who loves me and sticks by me, supports me in sickness and in health, is a comfort in times of sorrow, a companion in joy, a parent to my children, one who promises never to lie and always to be there, rather than one who simply promises never to have sex with anyone but me!
Surely intimacy can only be increased when partners are able to admit to and share their attractions to others. It takes a great deal of bravery and faith to dare to love without the straightjacket of monogamous expectations. Lots of us do it, though, and are happier and more fulfilled for it.
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:32am):
"And then there is the issue of jealousy. If individuals do not become jealous of the other woman or man in their partner's sex life then they are either lying to themselves or, sadly, sex is nothing more than a purely physical act to them."
I do not believe that jealousy is completely naturally caused. I think a lot of it is taught, either as children if it seemed that parents did not give enough time and attention, or by being told that it's not possible to love more than one person, that it's wrong and that more love for someone else means less for you.
Love is not a physical item that you can give out to people and that you will run out of if you give to more than one person. In a loving, trusting relationship, it is possible for people to feel secure that if their partner loves someone else this does not mean less love for them. Time is a physical constraint, and care needs to be taken that each relationship is given enough.
I take pleasure in seeing my partners with other partners, because I love them and want them to be happy (this is often called compersion or frubble). I don't feel that I have to take sole responsibility for this kind of happiness in my partners. I am currently enjoying the NRE (New Relationship Energy) my primary partner is sharing with someone new. It's lovely to see him this way.
I am also quite empathic which helps - seeing the people I love happy makes me happy.
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:50am):
"But a better definition may be cheating without the guilt."
If two or more people are in an open relationship, which you define as a "situation in which couples agree", how can they be cheating? If there is no lie, no subterfuge, no dishonesty and no hurt feelings, what exactly are they cheating on?
"Maybe the Kinsey Report was the start of this deviation from traditional values."
The Kinsey Report was a collation of factual statements provided by individuals who wished to share and discuss their sexual behaviour and attitudes in order to increase our societal understanding of human behaviour. It reported on behaviour already taking place, therefore could not have started anything, let alone deviation.
"Having multiple sexual partners greatly increases the probability of contracting a sexually transmitted disease and becoming pregnant."
I suggest that people with multiple partners are more likely to be educated and practice safer sex than those in monogamous relationships, due to the obvious need for greater care. The agreement my husband and I subscribe to means that we won't have any sexual contact with someone new until they can give STD testing history of at least 6 months, preferably a year. Current and ongoing partners are also required to undergo regular testing as a condition of our relationship. Someone has already pointed out the error in logic relating to the statement about pregnancy, so I'll skip over that.
"More importantly, how can one consider an open relationship to be, in fact, a relationship? Normally, a relationship requires a commitment between two people. If this doesn't exist, then what differentiates an open relationship from mere dating -- or friends with benefits? I'm drawing a big blank. Nonetheless, using the word "relationship" to define the aforementioned association diminishes the significance of a monogamous relationship between two people."
Who are you to define what is 'normal' and how many people constitute a relationship? My husband and I have been married 2 years and have an open relationship. We have 3 other partners, who we having caring, friendly, honest relationships with. I would not state that your article diminishes the significance of news reporting, so I'll thank you not to dictate to me how my having an open relationship diminishes monogamy.
"Intimacy can only come when two people can engage in sex knowing there are not other sexual partners on the side."
I posit that when having sex between myself, my husband, and one or more of our partners, there is indeed intimacy and you wouldn't know about it because you're not involved. Indeed, you are not invited, Darryn.
"...sex is frequently used to either fulfill some mere physiological desire for both sexes or satisfy the lustful mind of an inebriated male"
I ask you, what is wrong with either of these concepts? Sex is a powerful natural motivator and it's deeply ingrained in our behaviour for a reason. We are still mammals, after all. The human body is a beautiful machine and needs to be exercised regularly to maintain proper functioning, including sexually.
"If people are accustomed to relationships without a commitment to remain faithful to one another (i.e. open relationships)..."
Again, I state, we have an open relationship and we have commitments both to each other as spouses, and also to our partners. We are commited to being open and honest, to learning and growing and sharing our lives together, and to care for one another to the best of our abilities. I have faith that all of us will act according to our moral and ethical standards, and in accordance with the agreements we have made. Please note that agreements can change just as we all do through life, and that all parties agree to the agreements, hence the name.
"But given the audience this course is targeted toward,..."
So, what, students are not significant enough to warrant the capacity for growth and learning? What school of thought do you subscribe to, Darryn?
On first read-through, I felt this article to be a personal attack. On further reflection, I can see that it is merely the thoughts of an under-researched aspiring writer with a closed mind. Keep trying, Darryn, but please keep journalistic values in mind before submitting the next one.
Chris C. (February 15, 2006 @ 10:45am):
I think this article is a great example of how people in general deal with a concept that is completely contrary to everything they have been raised to believe and practice. I can say this because I was in the same boat many years ago.
First off, polyamory is a very broad term and there are a number of different relationship structures, each with their own benefits and challenges. Many years ago I used to call it "polyconfusion" or "fancy swinging" however after a few years of experience, I have come to find that most people think that the easiest type of relationship is monogamy and anything else must be sexually driven. If you look at the number of divorces out there, it's easy to see that there is nothing easy about any type of relationship, especially monogamy.
So, my current situation is that I am in a triad relationship which is where my wife and I both have a common live-in girlfriend and this relationship is closed which means that we don't seek further emotional/sexual (the two kinda go hand in hand) relationships outside our circle of three. I have since found a huge number of benefits to this sort of relationship and no doubt similar benefits are present in other such relationships under the umbrella of polyamory. How we got here is a long story so I'll try to briefly summarize the ups and downs.
Pros :
Home Care - We all have kids (3 total) so the division of discipline, homework checking and general love and care is spread out among the three of us. The kids get away with less and because our communication is pretty open and we don't run into the issue of a child turning one parent against another since there is always a third person to help clarify the situation. Also the house chores get divided so the load to keep the house and family in working order is less.
Financially - With two parents bringing in income and one staying at home with the kids (by her choice) we make more than enough to keep everyone comfortable.
Communication - By far the most important part here is open communication. When there is a problem between two people in a monogamous relationship it's easy to get into a rut of not wanting to talk about it or worse, avoidance. And to make a change in the relationship can become a one-on-one battle of the wills. In our relationship, the person not directly in the dispute helps to bring things together and provides an additional viewpoint to the situation. The need for communication is much greater but that is balanced by the fact that communication is easier when there is another person to add there perspective of what's going on. It's harder to justify that you're right when you have two people saying "no, you're wrong".
Sexual/Emotional - This is the most sensitive and delicate aspect but it is also the most rewarding. The ability for all of us to lean on each other, to be able to work together to fulfill each others needs at the same time is tremendous. One would think that less time is spent between each other but, as a case in point, when one person needs to work or wants to spend time with friends, that leaves the other person with little to do. Having another partner in the relationship means that really no one is left bored, alone or neglected. And I don't mean this on a sexual level either. There are times that my wife gets a little stir crazy, and our GF and I realize this so while I might need to get some work done, our GF gets the wife out of the house for a little personal out time. When on person needs some along time, that doesn't leave the other partner feeling neglected.
Health -- I am more speaking toward the type of closed 3 way relationship I have. This is something we agreed upon from the start. Having a regular relationship is challenging however having any of us carrying on multiple sexual/emotional relationships sets up some risks that we were not prepared to take, the first being that of disease. I don't want to catch something that my partners brought home from someone else.
Second was emotional baggage. We don't want to have our intimate relationship impacted because any one of us comes home pissed off or emotional hurt because one of their other partners did something. While that might be par for other open relationships, we decided we didn't want to have to deal with that so ours is closed. This obviously is going to be a Con for other types of polyamory relationships.
Cons :
Jealousy -- Unlike what most people would think, jealousy is a warning emotion that indicates the possibility of loss and hurt. The problem is that this emotional warning is based on experience and the brains ability to construct scenarios where loss is possible. This is a tool, much like any other pain, to indicate an evident problem even when one doesn't exist. In a monogamous relationship, jealousy is still a factor because each person in the one-on-one relationship has friends and there are times that the two wont be together or that either of the two might get caught looking at another person of the opposite sex.
What tampers jealousy is security in knowing that the other person is reliably committed to what ever rules have been laid down either by the title of their relationship (i.e. dating, married, etc) or by the rules that are agreed upon. A developed "faith" in the structure of the relationship turns jealousy off. Hence being Faithful.
This is no different in a polyamorous relationship however the rules have to be clearly communicated and respect for partners needs to shown regularly. Once the security of knowing that your partner/s are following the rules, jealousy subsides and the relationship can resume, progress and grow, regardless of the structure. A disregard for your partners feelings in any relationship often lead to actions that end up with jealousy and all too often to you hear people say that they love each other and yet they act without respect and consideration toward each other.
Society -- Much like the tone of this article, there is this concept that its all sexual. People get this idea in their head that multiple partners equals crazy porno orgies. This is no truer than the word "marriage" equals sex every night. So while the family structure works great in practice, you still have deal with how everyone reacts to finding out that this relationship is ...different. The same biases of "well their cheating, they just don't know it" or "their lying to themselves" come from those who just don't know and can't wrap their heads around it. Because they can't fathom the situation or how it could possibly work for them, they then project there beliefs onto others. I have accepted this as a pretty human reaction to how we relate, or in this case, not relate to other peoples situations so our brain does the best it can to relate on the spot and spits out the result. If the result is negative, then it must be negative for everyone else, regardless of whether they know it.
~~~~
So that's it. It's hard for most to get past the sexual part, to imagine redefining social definitions ruling words like "relationship" and to believe that a "relationship" can be anything other than monogamous however I am proof that it can and does work with great advantages and for those who can be committed (sticking to the rules) and honest with their partners, its enormously rewarding on a number of levels.
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 4:19pm):
Jealousy shows how much you love someone the way jumping off a cliff shows how well you can fly.
Monogomy works for some people. It works very well. They are happy and content.
Waiting until marriage works for some people. It works very well. They are happy and content.
Polyamoury works for some people. It works very well. They are happy and content.
Swinging works for some people. It works very well. They are happy and content.
Having sex before marriage works for some people. They are happy and content.
If you are doing something that makes you unhappy, stop doing it.
If someone else is doing something that makes you unhappy, and you are directly involved, say something and get yourself out of the situation.
If someone else is doing something that makes you unhappy, and you are in no way involved?
Well, how does this affect you?
If you can't come up with an answer, maybe it's not your place to tell them how to be happy.
Be happy in whatever way works for you, and I'll be happy in whatever way works for me.
- Anna
Anonymous (February 17, 2006 @ 3:00pm):
In answer to a couple of posters who wondered why Darryn's articles 1) keep getting published, and 2) keep ending up as the first article on the opinion page; she is the CHAIR of the Editorial Board. If anyone sane held the position she surely would have been told to stop long ago. Or then again, maybe the Badger Herald wants her to keep writing, its the only reason I read the paper - to see what craziness is going to spew from her next.
G M (February 18, 2006 @ 9:50pm):
An interesting article but it seems to be very opinionated and with no personal contact to enough people who practise or believe in the concept of polyamoury.
Over the last century the net, telephony, telegraphy, fax, etc. has lessened the need for humans to make personal contact.
Add to that the commercial 'advancement' that forces smaller communal busnesses (post offices, launderettes etc.) to close and you have a lot of people with less and less contact to others.
Love could be defined as (among other things) a measure of how much another person is worth to you in terms of security, understanding, trust, dependability etc.
As social contact becomes less and less and the conception becomes more formal, isn't it natural to assume that it increases in value and demand like any other commodity?
Isn't it also natural to expose more of ours inner-selves to attract others as the competition becomes more difficult?
When it becomes harder to find another person that can appreciate the things we do and 'click' with us then i believe we all appreciate it when it does 'click'.
For me, being Poly is acknowledging that there is more than one person i can love and the warm feeling i get from knowing that the people i love, love me for who i am. It's that simple, it's tradition that makes it so hard! :-D
Anonymous (February 24, 2006 @ 6:58pm):
I'd love to hear back from this author after 6 or 7 years of wonderful marriage have opened her eyes to the reality that there is more to being human and enjoying life than the same conversations with the same like-minded soul...
Anonymous (April 20, 2006 @ 2:35am):
My boyfriend and I are currently in a monogomous relationship and we are very happy and very much in love. This, unfortunately, resulted in incredible jealousy for fear of losing something we value so much, each other. The jealousy got so bad that we nearly broke up. Then we discussed the idea of an open relationship. Now I'm not concerned about where he goes or who he's with because I know that I can trust him to call me if "something comes up" so to speak. Then it's totally under my discression as to whether I'm comfortable with it that day or not at all. I don't know about anyone else and I'm speaking at least for myself and my boyfriend when I say that the concept is entirely about TRUST! I would rather get a phone call that says he'd like to have sex with someone else and be able to have the option of saying no, than lose him to worry, panic, and jealousy. I'll remind you that we are in a monogomous relationship and at least if that were ever to change I'd have the final say, therefore negating the need, desire and opportunity to cheat. People want what they can't have.
