Challenging the 'all or nothing' of monogamy
An intrepid new commenter came onto the scene last week, named JK, who was sprinking interesting comments throughout this blog. The most thought-provoking comment, IMO, went beyond the spelling debacle in last week's polyamory post and linked it with the famous settling debate sparked by Lori Gottleib a few months ago.
Non-monogamy could make sense, JK says. If Gottlieb says "The One" is fiction, why doesn't she consider multiple people to fulfill each need? Why the focus on one person?
I think it's interesting that, despite Gottlieb's continual references there to miserable marriages and the troubled plunge she herself took into single parenthood, and despite all her talk of spouse-as-business-partner-in-childrearing, the idea of a voluntarily nonmonogamous parenting relationship was not even HINTED at anywhere in that article. It seems non-monogamous relationships are still widely viewed by women as a fate worse than settling or single motherhood.... if you're having trouble finding The One person who can fill all your needs (for sex, for companionship, for co-parenting), why shouldn't you try to find multiple people who can do so collectively? Divorced parents who still share custody have essentially done just that: they've decided they couldn't be everything to each other but they still maintain a childrearing relationship. And most couples do a little bit of this all the time anyway, insofar as they have friends/relatives besides just their partner who serve companionship needs, and sometimes even help fill in some parenting gaps.
Why does your relationship with a person with whom you have sex need to be an all-or-nothing affair?He has a point. Nobody can ever be everything for someone else. A well-balanced support system -- friends, family, S.O. -- is necessary for a healthy life. You have to diversify your relationshippal portfolio, so to speak.
What do you think?
(Photo by NatsPhotos at stock.xchng)
Comments
So, can we attempt to clarify this picture, some? This nonmonogamous parenting relationship? So, for the custodial parents' "turn" to go prowl (or, even to go out with the permanent nonmonogamous sexual partner, are negotiations - you're turn/my turn - implied? Are we all quite sure that the custodial parent WILL be the mother? Has anyone ever actually listened to a divorced mother talk about trying to just date, much less carry on a sexual relationship with kids in the house? Does this comparison to divorced parents imply that one parent gets everyother weekend for sex provided the noncustodial parent shows up? (We do know the custodial parent will be the mom, right?)
Nonmonogamous sexual relationships have been the dream relationship for men since the beginning of time!
Posted by: Granny | June 30, 2008 2:33 PM
"I just can't go there when it comes to sex."
That's part of the point though. Just because YOU can't go there, certainly shouldn't put a damper on someone else. Not everyone is the same so why is it assumed that 1 relationship model (monogamy) will work for everyone? It's silly and short sighted. Sure monogamy works for some... serial monogamy seems to work for a lot... but non-monogamy does just fine for some too.
Posted by: TLE | July 1, 2008 8:54 AM
its true that a man's dream relationship involves non-mongamy, but let's be honest; it's the dream as long as the WOMAN remains monogamous to him.
Posted by: Dredded One | July 1, 2008 9:10 AM
Don't speak for all men...I don't want to share and I really don't want to share myself with several people. The way I see it I'm a prize and there is only one winner...it's not the lotto where we break pieces off to various ticket holders.
You have to do what works for you...anyone who wants you has to deal with it.
Posted by: Amadeo | July 1, 2008 9:15 AM
I've been married for eleven years to an amazing man - five of them open. I have had the same girlfriend now for a year and nine months and it all works swimmingly. For me, neither the concepts of "monogamy" nor "the one" work very well. I say, to each their own as long as you are honest with yourself and your partner. The only thing I take issue with is hypocritical monogamy.
Best,
Jenny Block
Author of "Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage"
P.S. If you're interested, you can find more of my writing about open relationships at huffingtonpost.com, tangomag.com, and jennyonthepage.com.
Posted by: Jenny Block | July 1, 2008 11:20 AM
I think the most pressing point about this post is someone is coming dangerously close to using my handle on this blog. Intolerable.
Posted by: JTK | July 1, 2008 3:08 PM
JTK, it's all about you, isn't it? Ha.
Posted by: Newmie | July 8, 2008 11:20 AM
Well, JTK, there are only so many combinations of 2 or 3 letters, and furthermore not many people have the initials "QZX" either... But regardless, to avoid confusion I've expanded my nom de plume.
Anyway, Granny: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying the reason not to entertain the notion of non-monogamy is just that the men might enjoy the arrangement too much, while the women will be stuck doing all the childrearing work? Well, if a man doesn't want to pitch in and do all that's fair and necessary to raise his children, I'd humbly suggest that a woman's best course of action would be just to NOT HAVE KIDS with him, rather than to try to corner him into being a good father by wielding a sexual monopoly. Bartering sex for parenting services strikes me as an outdated model for marriages; it's best if men aren't sticking around just because it gets them laid.
As for sex with more people bringing more instability into a relationship, Maryann, I don't really doubt the potential (or likelihood) of that. But objecting on those grounds assumes that instability is always intolerable... Do you actually need a lover "until death do you part"? Or might it actually be OKAY that you might grow apart, someday, as is always possible for any two people no matter how close, so long as your children and any other mutual commitments are honored and cared for?
I've never been in an open relationship. I'm sure it would pose a number of challenges, and clearly it's not for everyone... but I'd say if you think you're someone who can pull it off, try it. If not, don't. But it should be an option on the table, and it really puzzles me why it's so rarely seen that way even in the face of ridiculous divorce rates and long-deferred dreams of parenthood. I just think it's time society started thinking outside the monogamy box.
Posted by: JKlang | July 9, 2008 6:55 PM