Jeremy M. believes you don’t need to let society’s rules get in the way of the kind of relationship that you are interested in having.
This is not an article about cheating. This is not an article about polyamory. This is not an article about threesomes. This is not even an article about what Dan Savage would cleverly describe as “monogamish”. No, this article is about finding balance, and figuring out what works for you.
Up until the last hundred-or-so years, marriage and sexual fidelity were not particularly linked. Husbands often had mistresses; this was a fact tolerated by wives, since they not infrequently were shtupping the gardener. This was the way of the world until relatively recently. There are a bunch of reasons for this, mainly religious and economic (it’s amazing how often those two are linked), which you can read more about in much greater detail and with greater expertise than I can offer in the excellent book Sex At Dawn.
Suffice it to say, however, that the general assumption today is that sexual exclusivity is a necessary part of any committed relationship, and that anyone acting otherwise is betraying their significant other and was obviously never in love with them in the first place. This goes against much of what we know of our own evolution, similar species, and even our own history, and need not be the rule if those involved don’t want it to be.
In fact, societal norms often go against our actual needs and desires. So, why shouldn’t we have the kind of relationship that we want? Why can’t we separate sexual exclusivity from fidelity? In short, why can’t we have our cake and eat it too?
A little backstory may be in order. In my teenage and early adult years, for a variety of reasons not the least of which being my socially awkward nerdery, much of my sexual expression took place online. I have in the past been a total slut on LiveJournal communities, “dirty chat” sites, CraigsList casual encounters, and other places. I’ve played with quite a few people in front of my webcam. I enjoy the chance for clever wordplay, the ego stroke (no pun intended) and the seduction of it, and I have no regrets about that aspect of my sexuality. As with anything else, relying on it to the point where it becomes an addiction can lead to its own issues).
Two years ago, I met an awesome woman, and we started dating. Eight months later, we were living together.
From early on, a bedrock of our relationship has been how open and honest we try our best to be with each other, even (or especially) when its a difficult subject to be vulnerable about (hi, sexuality!). One of the few things I hadn’t brought up with her in the early not-yet-exclusive parts of our relationship was the fact that I was still playing with other people online. My interest ebbs and flows, but it has always been there, to some degree.
To me, these activities were not reflective of anything I felt was lacking in my relationship, nor was it meant as any kind of search for intimacy elsewhere (though initially it may have been a block against intimacy, I have grown a lot since then and adjusted). However, I was very worried about how she would interpret it.
I felt lost and confused as to how to reconcile my love and commitment to my girlfriend with the pleasure and ‘spark’ I get from the occasional online flirtation with friends and strangers. This was just a normal part of my life, and suddenly i had a lot of conflict about it, because now I had someone that could be hurt by my actions.
The feelings that came up when I thought about it were pretty intense. I questioned how I felt about her, I questioned my own ability to ‘be faithful’, even though I knew I would never betray her trust with anyone in person. My mind, when given the chance would spin around such untrue-but-powerful lines as “you’re just doing this to fuck up your relationship” and “if you continue, you’re going to lose her, and you deserve what you get”
Traditional wisdom, of course, says that if your partner is being sexual with anyone else, they are ‘cheating’ and should be dumped immediately, so I should suck it up and just stop altogether. Needless to say, the activity created some internal conflict. Luckily, I’ve never been one to bow to conventional wisdom.
Rather than struggling hard to give it up (which ultimately I would’ve done my best to do, had she asked), or hide it (which would make it an actual betrayal of trust, in my mind), after some soul-searching, I chose instead to talk to her about it. My girlfriend was certainly aware of my interest in playing with people online (we’d even played around online a couple of times before we lived together), but I didn’t know how she would feel about these activities continuing (and even maybe including her in them) now that our relationship was ‘serious’.
We needed to talk, so we talked. My intention was to clarify my intentions and negotiate through anything that came up for both of us. She did not have the same history with online playing as I did (oh, us old farts who grew up in the early days of cellphones and before digital cameras) but in discussing she seemed to understand the appeal, and was open to expanding the boundaries of our relationship to include flirtations with others online. We talked about ground rules: We each must make clear to anyone we play with that we are in a relationship, so as to not give an impression that something more could take place. The people I play with understand the boundaries I stick to and why. It has become a fun way to explore hidden aspects of some of the people in my life, aside from the purely physical aspect of it. Ground rules are very important when it comes to something like this.
Initially, the feelings that came up were those of inadequacy, feeling ‘used’ and ‘not taken seriously’, which are completely understandable things that I also struggled with. This was something new for both of us, and luckily we were able to support each other through when these things came up. One of the additional responsibilities of choosing non-standard boundaries is being extra super communicative and sensitive to each others feelings about it, and address them as often as is necessarily. Patience is required.
My commitment to my relationship is absolute. It is by far the most solid relationship I’ve ever been in, I love and respect her (and vice versa), and we’ve made it clear to each other that neither of us are going anywhere. We’ve reached a place now where our opportunities to focus our sexual attention to a wider spectrum than just each other is less of a source of stress and more of something that we can explore together, when we choose to pay attention to it.
My point is this. If I’d just gone with societal norms and not bothered to talk to her about it, we may have had a fine relationship, all told. But, by discussing it, and negotiating an agreement that works for both of us and continuing the conversation throughout our relationship to refine and adjust as necessary, we’ve set a precedent that we can define our own terms together, live our own relationship and do what makes us happy rather than purely what is expected of us. This takes a lot of communication, checking in, and in a way, that initial conversation never ends.
I’ve sometimes seen sexually or romantically polyamorous relationships described as ‘hacking life’, and I can see what they mean by that. Our relationship is not quite fully poly in that regard, and in fact might even be scoffed at as ‘amateurish’ from some in that community with mutliple long-term partners and such, but it is what works for us right now, and certainly has elements of that ‘thrill’ of having a secret addition to our otherwise ‘standard’ relationship.
Here’s a final thought on the thrill aspect: the initial rush of passion and intensity in a new relationship is biologically linked to an increase in dopamine in the brain (also connected to feelings of variety and novelty, which makes sense: new relationship is new). Then (after a year or so) things settle down and oxytocin (bonding hormone) takes over, leading to a deeper more intimate connection, but a necessary decrease in that animal heat that comes from dopamine. Is it possible that the ideal biological situation for keeping that dopamine passion alive while also being bonded to a partner is non-monogamous sexual exploration? Someone should do a brain study!
This kind of activity, especially over the last 100 years, has been SO vilified, so ingrained as WRONG and HURTFUL, that even making room for this small amount of freedom seems simultaneously freeing and ‘not right’. Sometimes I’m unsure of it myself. But, I look forward to the opportunity to explore as many new adventures with my girlfriend as possible, and I’m forever grateful for her open-minded GGG-ness and willingness to figure out what works for us.
photo by massimo_riserbo / flickr
More from our Special Section on Polyamory.
You might also like our section on Our Sexual Vocabulary.
♦◊♦
are you two dating or not? are you all boyfriend and girlfriend? If the answer is no, then this whole issue is a moot point. If you two are living together but nothing serious, then you both are free to do what ever with whoever you want. However, if you want to call yourselves boyfriend and girlfriend then thats different.
monogamy has always been imposed in patriarchal societies for guaranteeing male paternity, always by beta males.
Most male scientists being beta themselves will give numerous bullshit excuses and faux benefits for monogamy and marriage, but the institution of marriage has been the single most sexist institution under patriarchy..
the gender aspects of patriarchy can easily be seen as an extension of beta male sexuality, which is why monogamy was only imposed of females, men could have mistresses if they could..
Hi Jeremy M
Are you still available for comments?
Thus article was published in 2011. Are you still in a committed relationship with the same woman today?
I am here, and we are still happily together.
Actually I don’t think anyone is anyone’s “catch.” I think part of each person’s sexuality is theirs to do with as they will, even if they wish to give it all to one person, or masturbate in front of a computer some of the time. I think, too, that we often honor sex-negative feminism out of gallantry (I think Victorianism is one of the mainstays protecting a vision of woman as victim— therefore deserving of special protections.) But I think Tobe calls it like many people see it. As patriarchy theory says women are owned by men, it also says… Read more »
Hi Hank Are we permitted to bring in comment from other threads? I give it a try. The issue is what is commitment. Do you have a good definition Hank? Here is Brian’s comment from the thread about commitment and polyamorous relationships: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/maybe-men-cheat-because-they-love-their-partners/comment-page-3/#!o3i52 ✺”I’m going to define commitment for you, Tyler. A commitment is a promise to devote a certain amount time, energy, or other resources to a particular end. When defined in terms of a relationship, a commitment is a promise to devote a certain amount of time, energy, or other resources to a particular person. That’s it. No… Read more »
Hi Iben, I think “commitment” is a pretty empty word, about like “communication.” It sounds good. But it’s vague, and not perfectly realizable. I guess the common sense is “forsaking all others” as traditional wedding vows. This sense gives me a problem, though, probably because of how I seem to be put together. I’m deeply committed to my wife, as I was to my first wife, and to steady girlfriends before that. Still, I can’t think of any of them where I didn’t have at least one outside sexual relationship at some point. Typically it wasn’t in the first phase… Read more »
This is all well and good, as long as your partner knows this about you UPFRONT and has made the decision to either participate in it with or otherwise tolerate it. Otherwise, it’s being deceitful. And why should you feel the need to hide this from your potential partners, anyway? I mean, you do pride yourself on being you and not what society deems *normal* right?
I’ve learned: no secrets, period. Even at the peak of sexual tension before couples decide to do it for the first time, you gotta tell them who you are. At that stage one is bright-eyed and bushy tailed to get it on and words don’t matter until love steps in. Sparks are flying high and there’s no time to wander over naked and sweating from a passion filled day to the computer to flirt with anyone online, is there? If it is in you to do it then, why the wait to tell her after securing her love? I myself… Read more »
Hi Tobe I agree, but maybe for other reasons than you ✺”I also have my own boundaries when it comes to men like you,”✺ Who wants to get involved with a man that already had a committed relationships with another person? Can he satisfy also other persons needs in addition to the one he is committed to , while he is “swinging “? I don’t think so. Is he also able to relate to the other persons he has sex with( online or not) as whole persons and not only something to have sex with? To me it sounds like… Read more »
I had one affair that began with online sex, and then finally after a year, led to having sex once. I fell in love, and now the lady says that she’s not interested in the romantic part of our relationship. She’d had online sex before. But I was the only person, she said, with whom she’d actually had physical sex. I had met her a couple of times before we began the online stuff, and she sort of initiated it by saying she was attracted to me (on a message board.) Like me, she’s married. I’d say my relationship with… Read more »
Sounds like a complicated situation! As i stated in the article, open and honest communication is key here. Sounds like, by having sex with another woman without your wife’s knowledge or consent, that maybe your situation is a little different than what I described?
Actually, I think the problem IS communication with the spouse if one has an affair. The best policy is always “don’t ask; don’t tell” if one must do this. Otherwise it’s just whistling past the graveyard. Partners repress real jealousy, while grinning. The new relationships take up too much psychic space with DADT. DADT means that the original couple can’t pour over the gristly details like wiggling a sore tooth.
I meant “don’t take up too much osychic space,,,”
And actually Jeremy, you’ll note that the particular problem here had nothing to do with “open and honest communication,” which has become, I think, a meaningless trope. It has to do with my previous adultry partner’s sexually addicted husband. Open and honest communication there has led to dangerous situations for her. She currently vacillates between being in a lot of pain and telling me about it and telling me not to meddle.
Thank you for posting this article. Non-monogamy, in all its forms is a volatile subject and I really appreciate you opening up to everyone about what works for you. I am new to exploring non-monogamy, and specifically polyamory. I have been in a committed relationship with my boyfriend for over a year, but it has only been monogamous for part of the time. A couple of months in, we decided that our relationship was strong enough that we wanted to try non-monogamy, and it has worked beautifully for us since. To us, commitment means being there for each other, loving… Read more »
To me “cheating” is activity that violates the (explicit or implicit) agreements in the relationship.
In one relationship thinking about other women of masturbating might be cheating. In another having sex with the neighbor on the living room floor might not. It’s all about what you agreed, what you promised each other.
Jeremy and The Girlfriend, Thanks, it took courage and an open mind about yourself to talk about this. and of course we will have some people grab their heads in pain and scream about how wrong it is and how men are pigs, or how REAL men would never do that. playing with the spark of NRE (new relationship energy) is very cool and very fun, and takes nothing from how one persons cares for or is attracted to another. If you have a lobster dinner does it mean you like steak less? You’re right his is not polyamory (… Read more »
One of my favorite contributions from Dan Savage’s amazing It Gets Better project is from a kid who says “I’m gay. It works for me.”
So simple, and yet it enrages so many.
I have found that the men that I know best in my life all behave with double standards….it’s okay for them to lust after other women (sometimes openly in front of their wives) but they can’t stand it if their wives or even if their friend’s wife is checking somebody out or fooling around…. A man’s ego is pumped up by the higher number of women he drools after but is decreased by the slightest hint that his woman is interested in someone other than him… I was involved with a married man many years ago…he seemed to delight in… Read more »
Now that’s an interesting point. Of course I would take issue with any generalization of “all men”, though I bet its more common to have a situation like you described than to not have it.
I’m thinking that this kind of insecurity/ego combination would also apply to threesomes. Someone like that would demand a MFF threesome but balk at a MMF one.
In my relationship, I enjoy hearing about my gf’s crushes, and encourage her flirting with whoever she wants, but I understand that I’min the minority.
Things are more fun with less jealousy and more adventuring together.
I think if you are in the habit of getting involved with married men, you’re probably going to encounter more men who feel entitled this way. Most of the married men I know acknowledge that they’re frequently attracted to women other than their spouse, but they’re also deeply in love with their wives and aware of how lucky they are.
…. and would never cheat on them, I forgot to add.
Dear Jeremy and The Girlfriend, Thank you for this post and for speaking up about your relationship. Despite the fact that we’re all judged (really, no matter what), it really opens people’s minds to have the discussions you’re generating. I also think it’s so important to hear from people like you, who are loving, committed, and communicative to discuss relationships that go beyond the conventional. I have my own thoughts on monogamy, yet I do think committed monogamous relationships will still be the most comfortable for most people – which, I agree, is due to society not biology. And, hey,… Read more »
I’m glad I didn’t stop reading after this: “Suffice it to say, however, that the general assumption today is that sexual exclusivity is a necessary part of any committed relationship, and that anyone acting otherwise is betraying their significant other and was obviously never in love with them in the first place.” I disagree strongly. People are extremely varied in the things they desire from a relationship. It does seem that most people do tend to prefer committed, one-on-one relationships: but many other people have come to many different types of arrangements to ensure both partners’ needs are met. As… Read more »
I agree that people’s WANTS from a relationship vary. My point was that the societal expectation of relationships is that they are monogamous and sexually exclusive, and that people who fall outside that are still edge cases, and that a reason that the numbers are still small is because people don’t communicate their wants for fear of rejection based on societal expectation.
While we’re on the subject of defining cheating and monogamy, I wonder how to categorize a marriage that stays together and becomes strictly monogamous after an affair, despite an affair. Let’s say a spouse has an affair, ends the affair, recommits to monogamy, is forgiven, works on making the marriage better and never has an affair again and stays married in an exclusive relationship with his or her spouse. In absolute terms, this is not really successful monogamy, but in a long term sense it is. Monogamy in this case sort of worked, if not perfectly. It may not be… Read more »
An interesting point. Does monogamy/non-monogamy refer only to the CURRENT state of the relationship, or to how it has existed historically? I would venture to say that if we’re talking about the second one, there are thousands of relationships that started off casual that turned into monogamous ones that would need to be redefined 🙂 My vote is that the ‘monogamous’ label should be used relative to the current state of affairs (heh). Success in monogamy is SUCH a loaded statement. Dan Savage would say if you’ve been married for 20 years and you’ve each only cheated once, that’s a… Read more »
I keep reading articles like this and the comments are so similar. Polyamory needs a better PR campaign 😉
Seems like articles like this ARE the PR campaign, Julie 🙂
Wow, how did this turn into blaming the girlfriend and questioning the validity of the relationship? They’re clearly committed to each other and he never said he had stopped being sexually interested in her. She’s even coming onto the site and defending him. It sounds like they’re in a loving, supporting, sexually fun relationship, but are able to be honest with each other and get their kicks without blowing up at each other out of sexual frustration. Good for you guys! There’s a lot more to a relationship than just not having sexual relations with or thoughts about other people.… Read more »
They’re clearly NOT committed to each other, that’s the point of the discussion.
In your opinion, Tyler. Practice those three words. You don’t get to tell Jeremy how he feels.
I’m going to define commitment for you, Tyler. A commitment is a promise to devote a certain amount time, energy, or other resources to a particular end. When defined in terms of a relationship, a commitment is a promise to devote a certain amount of time, energy, or other resources to a particular person. That’s it. No stipulation regarding monogamy, no specific promises of physical or emotional faithfulness. The actual commitment agreement depends on what each individual in the relationship needs. I think it is readily accepted that nobody can devote every moment, every spark of energy, and every resource… Read more »
This is the information that we need to have good relationships!
I’m so tired of all the word games about this. First “open relationship” then “polyamorous” and now “non-monogamy”. Please. People want to pretend there’s something fantastic and unique and evolved about it, but really, it’s just dating.
So you’re dating each other now rather than being in a committed relationship. Okay, fine. But it’s dishonest to tell people you’re “in a relationship” or “have a girlfriend” because you don’t. We all know what those words mean, and if you tell people you’re together when you’re just dating, it’s a lie.
I agree on the vocabulary stuff, though I will say that ‘polyamorous’ is different (implies multiple romantic partners).
We’ve been together two years, and living together for a year and 3 months. Not sure what your definition of ‘in a relationship’ is that would exclude that level of commitment.
I’ve dated someone for over six years and I’m not in a relationship with him – we’re just dating. Some years we date more than other years. We don’t pretend it’s something it’s not. I’ve dated other people in that time, and for long periods of time without commitment. That’s not “poly” or “non-monogamy” – that’s DATING.
Were you living together, sharing a bank account, taking family trips together etc? Or were you living separately with separate lives and limited connection to each other’s family. I’d say that makes a significant difference in what the commitment level is. Anyway, you don’t get to tell Jeremy what his relationship is. I mean you can call it Green Beans if you want but that doesn’t change his experience of his relationship anymore than if I say your dating relationship was a Unicorn. You don’t want to be poly? Don’t be poly. No one really has a vested interest in… Read more »
It does make a difference, when one is being dishonest with family/friends/others about the nature of their relationship. If you’re not in a committed relationship, don’t say you are regardless of where you live or how you do your banking. Would the family on all the “family trips” really be keen on getting attached to someone who just screwed someone other than their darling son or daughter the night before? Probably not, which is why they lie about it. When my society offers direct financial benefits to people who claim to be married (not Jeremy’s particular case in particular), I… Read more »
I agree, it seems like in your situation, (on-again-off-again, minimal long-term commitment) it should be called dating. I just meant to clarify that that is not the nature of our relationship.
How is it remotely different? What is your measure, there?
*You* may be dating, and if that’s what you like, great. But why try to make your shoes fit everyone. I’ve been with the same women for 25 years, married for 23, 2 children, shared home, shared economy, blah blah. A bit of a stretch to call that “dating”, don’t you think? We have commitment, and we know very well what that means. We *also* have other partners – some committed, some just dating. Again, we know what it means. And since you don’t walk I my shoes, clearly don’t understand my experience, I’m amazed you think you can tell… Read more »
I didn’t say your relationships weren’t real, just that they’re not the same as committed relationships or marriages (in anything other than the ‘legal/signed papers” sense). Finding someone to share housework while you both bang other people isn’t the same as committing to being with one person. My point is not whether either or both are right or wrong, but whether a non-committed relationship should be referred to as such (it should not). To do so is to mislead people which I think really is wrong. You’re reading my comment wrong; I never said that none of the people I’ve… Read more »
Jeremy, thanks for sharing this. Always nice to hear a story of someone who decided to follow his or her own path, and found a home there. Designing your own may be a little more complicated than going with the standard offering, but if you put in the effort you can have a lot of fun. One thing I especially like about your story is that you have not fallen into the trap of “we have to have a real open relationship” or “we have to be poly the right way”. It saddens me when people do that, because there… Read more »
Thanks Lars!
One of the most exciting and valuable things about having the conversation is that it opens up the possibility for readjusting the boundaries further (or differently) in the future.
Dan Savage has a nice post up today about the topic. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/12/07/sl-letter-of-the-day-the-monogamish-closet Every time I see an article written about non monogamy, I hear two things: 1) It will destroy your relationship-and then there is anecdata about how every couple ever involved with poly has flamed out, completely ignoring that there are thousands of long term partnerships that flameout anyway. Poly could be a cause, sure. But so could the actual level of communication. There are lots of poly relationships in the closet that no one ever hears about (which are successful). Maybe if more of the success stories were… Read more »
As Savage and others point out, there are stories of poly exploration that lead to relationships going down in flames. You can find plenty of those stories. (I suspect very rarely is a relationship running along just fine and then polyamory ruins the whole thing.) The success stories don’t get much attention because when it works people don’t broadcast it very much. Just because there aren’t a lot of people shouting about how well poly is working for them doesn’t mean it never works. Successful “unconventional” relationships may be taking place next door and you would never know it, exactly… Read more »
To be fair, the same is true about successful monogamy as well. We don’t hear as much about the marriages that don’t go down in flames. Couples that stay together and stay monogamous rarely draw a lot of attention precisely because it’s working for them. (Of course, like you said, they could be secretly non-monogamous.) We should also remember that people divorce for all sorts of reasons, and sexual infidelity or sexual incompatibility is just one reason. A couple can be very well-suited sexually and still make each other miserable and still get divorced. A couple can be very successful… Read more »
And I think the best evolutionary view of human sexuality is that humans in the aggregate have developed a wide variety of sexual behavior across the board. I suspect that human survival over the course of a few million years is a result of sexual diversity, not a single “strategy” of nature but multiple possible strategies. Having only monogamy or only polyamory as the “natural” state would have limited humanity’s long-term prospects. There’s no reason to assume that “natural” means only one single pattern. There are plenty of animal species out there that practice different mating patterns in different environments.… Read more »
Your article is quite interesting, Jeremy, and often aggravating to be honest. Among my many thoughts and feelings (perhaps judgments) about this, I agree that communication is key. However, I wonder why your decision to communicate started with your need to express your sexuality online instead of discussing ways to explore sexuality with your partner. Perhaps the openness in communication should start with a conversation about the intimate needs of both partners within a monogamous relationship. If those needs can’t be satisfied within monogamy, then questions can be asked about whether it is the right partner, etc. I do think… Read more »
Hey CT- To address your points My decision to communicate did not start with this particular conversatoin, we have always been an open and communicative couple, as stated in the article. I do agree that having a general conversation about each person’s needs early on is an ideal situation, but I’m not sure that a lot of us feel comfortable about doing that (which is part of why I wrote this to begin with) I do take a bit of issue with your “can’t be satisfied within monogamy” for a few reasons. 1) The concept that our relationship isn’t ‘enough’… Read more »
I don’t follow your argument about cheating. To me, cheating means “violating a (possibly implicit) relationship agreement”. What the agreements are depend on the relationship. It sounds like you define cheating as “violating MY relationship agreements”, even if it’s other people with different agreements. That argument only works if there is universal standard for relationships – and Jeremy makes it quite clear that he does not acknowledge any such standard. As for all these “biological” argument as to what men and women (or everybody) is supposed to want, I can just say that in my experience human beings have a… Read more »
The connection between monogamy in women and the care of children is not “biological,” as it depends on social constructs. Why exactly would you need monogamy in a tribe? Why would you need it in a dystopia/utopia where children were raised by, say, a class of professional nannies? Why would you need it in a culture where women held all of the wealth, and raised children collectively?
I agree. Wouldn’t it make more evolutionary sense for a mother to have a bunch of men around caring for the baby to protect against wild animals and other dangers? Or, if it’s a vicious competition for mates, why not a competition for which male will be the best with children? Why not have sex with a lot of male partners so they all think the baby is theirs and have more than one father figure? That seems equally plausible to me. I can understand requiring the mother’s presence for breastfeeding, but that doesn’t explain tasking women taking care of… Read more »
Actually, a biological mother is not required to breastfeed, there are ways of inducing lactation that don’t require child birth. Just thought I’d throw that in there.
Good point.
“…gives them the ability to (speaking only to sexual needs) satisfy and keep a man.” I’m wondering about the idea that women evolved to complement male sexuality. Isn’t it just as likely that males evolved to complement female sexuality, or that the two co-evolved? This is a bit of circular reasoning here that assumes that men were wired to be promiscuous first and therefore women can only keep them monogamous by having no estrus period, because women need monogamy and men need promiscuity. Or, maybe it’s begging the question and not circular reasoning. This theory fails to explain the evolution… Read more »
The metaphor “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” implies an impossibility: once you eat the cake, it’s gone. The only way to keep it, is not to eat it. If you try to do both, you will not succeed. Applied to the sexual realm, the idea is that if try to have both the intimacy and support of a long term relationship and the thrills of fooling around, something will be lost.
Kudos to you for trying to make it work. Maybe it will. It wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but that’s just me.
Fair point, Jill. It may not have been the most appropriate metaphor, but I used it because it is commonly associated with situations like these.
As for it not being your cup of tea, that’s fine too. My point ( as i said above) is most specifically about having a conversation about the boundaries of your relationship and each persons interests as to where they may not overlap, or even have room to expand.
That’s a really good way to put it, Jill. And that’s why I don’t think that people who sleep around on each other are in a committed relationship by any terms. Committing to sex with one person is the easy part; it’s emotions and feelings that are beyond our control.
And polyamory takes emotions into account. It allows for feelings of love, in fact it’s part of the name. It is possible to love more than one person at a time even if you never have sex with them. and its possible to have sex with people you don’t love, true enough. All of these combinations are possible and some people are willing to do the exploration of those combinations. Some are perfectly happy not “going there.” Jill knows what she likes, knows what makes her happy and so she should do that and be really happy about it. Jeremy… Read more »
Right, there’s nothing inherently wrong about any of that. It’s just wrong to pretend that open relationships are the same as marriages and committed relationships and referring to them as such. So you date more than one person; that’s not a marriage (except since marriage is technically a legal institution you can sign the papers and get all the benefits of it without having to practice actual marriage. As you said, what a world).
Well folks, there you have it. Tyler knows everything and how to define things in ways we do not. We can all rest assured in our long term non committed relationships that we have no idea what we are talking about, none of us, even though we are the ones in the relationships, and Tyler who doesn’t know any of us, how we operate and what we negotiate, knows more about the status of our ‘ships than we do.
Whew!
Let’s keep it civil, please. Everyone has a right to say what they like even if we disagree. Making it heated doesn’t help anyone.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I feel I should point out that it seems like you’re in a very ‘monogamous’ relationship in terms of trust and intimacy. Solid partners embarking on life together as a team and all that. The fact that sexually there is an ‘unconventional’ understanding doesn’t mean that the relationship is any less committed, which is the point that would be ‘vilified’ as you say by societal norms. But, in the end what works for each relationship should win out. Happily ever after could mean white picket fence & 2.5 kids or white picket fence & 2.5… Read more »
Happily ever after could also mean 2.5 spouses….
Good point, Judy. Theres a difference between monogamy, sexual exclusivity and fidelity, even though they tend to be all jumbled up into the same thing.
Well said. I think you’re also raising a point about accepting your partner for who he/she is, which seems to me the bedrock of a committed relationship in the first place. A committed relationship is something that the people involved work out together. It may look very different from other relationships, but what works for them works for them. Some people will say that you are just giving in to your lust, and you shouldn’t let your lust ruin your partner’s life. To that I say, why does my life have to be controlled by my partner’s jealousy? If there’s… Read more »
I think people have a right to have standards about what they want. Personally, I don’t want to feel like I’m competing with the entire universe of available women in order to have the love and affection I need from my partner. He can choose to break up with me. I’m not controlling him in any way. It’s his choice. If the other options look better, why stay with me? He SHOULD leave in that case. Why stick with someone who bores you sexually?
Cause not everything is about sex
I dunno, my experience has been that when a man loses interest in sex they lose interest in the relationship. Without sexual feelings for a woman, the love, affection and attentiveness disappears quickly.
I kind of agree with what you’re saying, though I do think loss of sexual interest is usually a symptom of other problems, not the problem itself.
That having been said, I’m not sure where you see “losing interest in sex” or “losing interest in sex within a relationship” in the article. Could you point out the specific section you’re responding to?
You’re right, this article wasn’t talking specifically about seeking out sexual relationships with others in response to loss of desire for one’s primary partner. But if you read other articles about non-monogamy, that’s frequently the theme. “People aren’t naturally monogamous, it’s natural to lose interest in someone sexually in a LTR, therefore, you should agree to seek excitement and variety elsewhere.” My feeling has always been that my partner can seek out others whenever he wants. Maybe we could still be friends, but I’d probably lose interest in having sex with him if that happened. I don’t want to force… Read more »
That is a fair point, and there are times when people decide to try an “open relationship” in order to address a “problem” in the relationship, in the hopes that opening up the field will solve the problem. I’ve seen many of those (in fact, i would posit that MOST of those) end in failure. I would recommend against this course of action for people in that situation. This goes back to my original point that loss of sexual desire is usually the symptom of a deeper issue. That is also not the subject of this article. It’s not “dont… Read more »
Well they seem like very shallow men if they’re only in it for sex. Sexual desire diminishes over the years for a lot of people, but they don’t just pack up and leave, if you love someone you work it out, you don’t just leave because they aren’t that interested in sex anymore.
And there are people who physically can’t have sex, but I don’t see their love or affection being any less than those who can.
Jamie, Here’s another scenario: You are in a loving committed relationship with your long term partner and you have a great sex life and a stable relationship but despite all that you manage to fall in love with someone else. Not because there was anything wrong with the first person – you have to ignore your impulse to come to that conclusion, but just because you share something special with the new person. You talk this over with your partner and decide the 2nd relationship does not have to threaten the 1st. That is a choice you can make but… Read more »
Well you can do that but I don’t see the point. I don’t see why a loving, committed person wouldn’t be enough for you.
And I think that if someone really loved their spouse they wouldn’t want to fall in love with anyone else, so they wouldn’t, and if they did they would ignore it because they are committed to their loving spouse and don’t need anyone else.
This idea of monogamy is SO ingrained in us that we use very strong language to reinforce monogamy as legitimate and anything else as bad/wrong/no good. It’s not at all about a person being ‘enough’; enough is a very misguided term. It’s like asking a parent “Why did you have more than one child? Wasn’t that first one enough? How can you have loved the first one if you went and had a second one?” (I know that a love for a child is not a romantic love, before you go down that road; this just exemplifies the nature of… Read more »
Hi Treehugger Maybe they will explain to us how they define commitment ? I feel cynical about this arrangement Jeremy describes. Here is his words: ✺”This article does not necessarily describe a polyamorous relationship. My understanding is that polyamory involves more than one romantic relationship happening simultaneously. This is closer to a swinging/open relationship, where there is one primary romantic one and then other non-romantic connections made with others. That’s why I chose “non-monogamy’ as the title.”✺ And my question is how is commitment defined here? Is he married? I don’t think so. It sounds like cohabitation to me. But… Read more »
@Jill: People absolutely have a right to have standards, and I’m not recommending that everyone have this specific arrangement, by any means. My point was more general: HAVE the conversation about boundaries, interests, curiosities. Be as open and honest as you can. Don’t take for granted that your relationship can only work if it is structured in a certain way. For me, at least, it’s not a competition. I’m not looking for intimacy, commitment, or someone to grow old with. I found those things. But the spark of new flirtation is something that is always exciting, and not having to… Read more »
Amen, Jeremy and Jamie. Everything romantic isn’t always about sex. It’s also about feelings. And it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a zero sum game.
@Jill : Hi, I’m a person. I’m not sexually boring, and Jeremy is not out there looking for someone to replace me. Getting comfortable with an open-ish relationship was a very gradual (and sometimes difficult) process. We’re still figuring it out. I think it says a lot about our level of trust that I’m not threatened by him sharing a bit of himself with other people. Ideally, at some point, it won’t just be a solo activity for him and it’ll be something I’ll take part in as well. I’m not a doormat. I don’t feel cheated on. I’m not… Read more »
Easy enough, since he’s not “with” you, is he? He’s just dating you.
Nothing wrong with that, but call a spade a spade.
He made it pretty clear that we’re not “dating.” We live together. He is “with” me. We spend a ton of time together. We’ve been there for each other during difficult times. We make important decisions together. We have a wonderful, close, long-term relationship, by every measurable standard.
Thanks for your lovely comment!
@ The Girlfriend… Tyler’s comment was uncalled for and an expression of his own issues. You are to be commended for trying to find a way to be in relationship with Jeremy that is based on creating a new set of arrangements. Our society is full of people who lash out at change. I for one commend you and Jeremy for talking about the rules and boundaries that others take for granted even as their relationships are strangled by those very rules. If you haven’t read Esther Perel’s Mating in Captivity, have a look at it. And best regards to… Read more »
Jill, if it feels like (or sound like) “competing with all other women in the world”, I’d say non-monogamy is not for you. Because it’s not what non-monogamy is about. As someone who’ been practicing non-monogamy for 20+ years (with the same primary partner, in a stable, committed relationship) I can say that there’s no competition. I’m not competing for my partner’s love and affection. But neither do I feel it’s a loss for me when she shares with someone else. And – it’s not about “the other options looking better”, either. There is no competition, and there is no… Read more »
Maybe I don’t really understand how it’s not a competition. It seems like you are basically telling your primary partner “you are not enough for me, I need more” — more sex, better sex, more attractive partners, whatever. I think if my significant other told me that (or visa versa), how is that NOT a huge, giant slap in the face? I know I’m not the most attractive woman around, not the youngest by any means, undoubtedly not the most sexually skilled. There are thousands of women out there who are probably more fun to be with, better in bed,… Read more »
Well, Jill. How may friends do you have? Only one? Can you only have one friend? Or can you have a variety of friends with whom you do a variety of things? I realize it’s not quite apples to apples, but if you don’t frame friendships within the pov of competition, perhaps you could consider thinking of sexual relationships that way. Not in real time I mean, I’m not advocating you try it, I mean as a thought experiment. And you keep coming back to the sex, as if that’s all poly was. It isn’t about, “well, I know we… Read more »
If being poly isn’t about sex then why are so many of the arguments in favor of it framed in terms of sex? I.e., “human beings need sexual variety, dopamine drops in long term relationships, men are programmed to spread the their seed, men are programmed to get bored with their long term partners and seek new, fertile young women to impregnate” etc. If you have opposite sex friendships that aren’t about sex, then what you have are friends. Maybe close friends. That’s not polyamory (as I understand it). But I’m not telling anyone they shouldn’t do it, I’m fine… Read more »
First of all, I don’t believe in “men are programmed” evo psych stuff. Think that’s mostly BS. Secondly, one can have deep romantic feelings for someone without have sex with them. And one can have sex with a friend and not feel any sexual tension at all.
Anyway, lot’s of options available in that case.
Poly does have to do with sex sure, but it isn’t swinging or hookups without feelings.
It may be helpful to define my terms here.
This article does not necessarily describe a polyamorous relationship. My understanding is that polyamory involves more than one romantic relationship happening simultaneously.
This is closer to a swinging/open relationship, where there is one primary romantic one and then other non-romantic connections made with others. That’s why I chose “non-monogamy’ as the title.
Most of the arguments I hear about poly are not about sex. Also, as Jeremy points out in his reply, sexual IN-exclusivity is not necessarily poly. The way that a person could feel something other than “I am not ‘enough’,” is if they are not thinking in terms of a paradigm where there is “enough” and “not enough.” My preferred analogy is conversation. I have conversations with many people during a given week. I might have great conversations with one person and still want to converse with others, not to fulfill a deficiency but because there are lots of interesting… Read more »
I guess I disagree, I think people make relationship decisions on a competition basis all the time, and men choose women based on competitive criteria all the time (hotter, younger, whatever). Woman also have competitive criteria, frequently. As an aside, I’ve always wondered how well polyamory works for women when they get a little older. I can imagine it may be a lot of fun for women in their 20’s but once you are in your 40’s or 50’s (or older), it seems like it may be a bad deal as you will not be in demand in the community… Read more »
Do we really have to go around perpetuating the myth that older women have less to offer? It starts with us ladies.
I think older women have a lot to offer (I’m 45 so I’d better think that!) but I’m aware that the majority of men out there in the dating world disagree. Just a fact of life.
Any men from the “majority” care to weigh in on Jill’s assumptions/generalizations, aka “facts of life”?
If you don’t believe me, go read the responses to the article “Is it natural for men to lust after young women” — consistently one of the top articles on this site — and you will discover that, yes, a majority of men (with a few exceptions) appear to believe that older women (35+, or maybe younger than that) are not worth crap and having nothing to offer sexually or in any other respect. Those are the facts, like it or not.
I don’t think we have less to offer at all. I will say there seems to be a cultural trend that downplays women as sexual (or sexually enticing) after about 40 years of age. This is not to say some people don’t find older women attractive, just that as a trend it happens. I’ve found it so, that’s for sure.
I did read that article and what I took away from it was more of an, “it’s me, not you” sort of idea – the men are looking to validate themselves by society’s standards, i.e. if I can attract a good looking, young woman, then I’ve still got it! So the first step to changing that measure is changing society right? My point is, it’s not biological, it’s cultural and it takes a collective effort to reinforce our cultural standards or tear them down.
You’re not in a committed relationship if you’re banging other people. It’s just that simple. What do you think you’re committed to? Not getting mad when the other person plays with someone else’s genitals? That’s not the same thing as a “committed relationship”.
Why is this arbitrary thing (banging) what defines committed. I know many couples who don’t “bang” each other OR anyone else, but also don’t talk, don’t share and are very unhappy. Are they committed because no one is “playing with someone elses genitals?” What makes the commitment? So long as you are only have sex with one person it doesn’t matter if the rest of the ‘ship is a mess? Or if everything in the ‘ship is genius, beautiful, long term, sharing finances etc, but there is swinging then nope. Not committed. You have an extraordinarily black and white view… Read more »
I am very much committed to my relationship with my partner. We have built a life together, a home together, and hopefully one day a family together. We are committed to communicating with one another openly and honestly. We are committed to being mindful of one another’s feelings and looking out for each other’s well-being. We are committed to caring for one another and supporting one another in our various pursuits. We are committed to working together at having a healthy and happy relationship. How isn’t this commitment? Because I am comfortable with my partner engaging in sexual activity with… Read more »
This comment “why does my life have to be controlled by….” speaks volumes. Making a commitment is not “being controlled.” It’s making a choice to commit to another person. Sounds like you’re not ready for it, which is fine, but don’t pretend that sleeping around is the same thing as being “in a relationship” minus the “control” factor.
If a guy presented his “let’s sleep around on each other” case by saying he felt that committing to me was about “control” I’d steer WAY clear of him from then on. People with issues of power and control are really toxic.
Tyler are you being willfully argumentative? I think the only people who truly know how their relationship is going (what it means to them, how they want to structure it, the commitment level) are the people in it. It’s clear you don’t agree with the model presented as viable for you, but is it truly outside the realm of possibility that others can find it viable? I don’t think it is.
I’m glad you’re willing to share this part of your life with the rest of us. I personally try to look at others experiences not in a judgmental way, but in an inspirational way. I’ve always had an ‘inkling’ that this ‘model’ or structure of relationship that is pushed and supported as the ‘societal norm’ just cannot be right for everyone. We all have too many differing wants/needs/desires that not one thing can be completely satisfying 100% of the time. I’m a ‘serial flirter’ (as I was once called). Its not something I go out of my way to do,… Read more »
Thanks for this piece, Jeremy.