One day the four of us were driving together somewhere, and we were talking about marriage and relationships, and what it's like having a baby. Then suddenly, out of nowhere, Gerard's brother-in-law commented, "Those people out there who think that they can have an 'open relationship' are completely fooling themselves. That's just not the way that human beings are wired, and those types of relationships never work out."
He went on for a little while, and I was a bit shocked, listening to him. I thought I let a decent amount of time pass before countering, "That's certainly not true. Lots of people have successful open relationships, and there's lots of evidence indicating that monogamy is not the 'natural state' for human beings."
"Like what?" he demanded, his voice gaining momentum and energy bordering on aggression. "What specific research studies can you cite that have proven that monogamy isn't the natural state for humans?"
And so began a very interesting conversation. Gerard's sister and brother-in-law were hell-bent on believing that monogamy is the only way to have a loving partnership. I tried telling them about several couples that I know who have successful open marriages, and they reacted first with disbelief ("yeah, but how long have they been together?") and then with dismissal ("okay, maybe they've been married way longer than us, but that's still not that long and anyway that's not that many examples").
An interesting element to their disbelief was that they imagined non-monogamous relationships as across-the-board betrayals. I explained that, in healthy polyamorous relationships, the couple agrees to the terms, and that the primary relationship gets first priority. This was very difficult for them to wrap their heads around. Gerard's sister countered, "So if the wife didn't like one of the husband's other partners, she could say 'I want you to stop seeing her' and he would?" I could tell that she was taken aback when I answered, "Yes, exactly."
They were also applying odd reasoning to the whole idea. "By sleeping with other people, you're putting your family at risk because you could catch STD's." It seemed like it was difficult for them to imagine that a person might apply the same principles that kept them safe during conventional dating (such as honest conversations, regular testing, and condoms) to their "piece on the side" relationships.
We went round and round for a while, and the discussion sort of ended at a draw. Gerard's sister seemed to have a slightly wider perspective after hearing us out, but her husband was stubbornly holding his position. He insisted that my experience is skewed because I live in a big city and that the rest of the world is much more conservative and similar to him than my "sample." We let the topic go-- although later I did email them both a number of links to articles describing the research about monogamy (he did ask for it). Neither of them replied.
It was sort of funny for Gerard and I to be championing open relationships together. I would say that we don't have an open relationship, though I suppose that's somewhat debatable. Gerard isn't allowed to pursue sexual relationships with other women, and I'm not allowed to pursue sexual relationships with other men. However, I am allowed to pursue sexual relationships with women. Twice since we met I have had encounters with women-- once with my best friend, and once with a girl I met on Craigslist for that express purpose.
It's interesting to note that, in both cases, Gerard had some feelings of jealousy in addition to his arousal, even though the whole thing was his idea. The sister and brother-in-law were using jealousy as evidence that human beings were intended for monogamy. "Relationships are complex," I told them. "I'm not saying that there is never jealousy. The people who choose these types of relationships have to make the choice to address those feelings when they come up-- they don't ignore them or pretend not to have them. These sorts of things can be fine when they're talked about and worked through." I think that Gerard would say that his jealousy was not as strong as his arousal and motivation to see me sleep with women. And though I don't have a secondary partner in my life right now, we both have positive associations with our experiences in the past, and Gerard would be thrilled if I were to find someone new to get involved with.
We've always talked about someday opening our relationship more. I admit that I do like the idea that Gerard won't be the only man that I sleep with for the rest of my life, even if he becomes my husband and the father of my hypothetical baby. And I like the idea of being secure enough in our bond that I'd be willing to let him have an encounter with another woman at some point. Right now, I don't think we're being pulled in that direction-- but we're in agreement that we're open to going there one day.
I was disappointed by that conversation with Gerard's family. It's hard to be reminded that there are such judgmental and closed-minded people in the world, and to realize that some of those judgmental and closed-minded people are actually lovely to be around most of the time! Dan Savage often points out that it's our preoccupation with monogamy that contributes to many couples' struggles, and suggests that monogamy would actually be easier if we were willing to give ourselves credit for the hard work that it involves, to realize that it's okay and natural to be attracted to people besides our partners and to want to have sex with those people. To empower ourselves in our choice: to pursue the ups and downs of polyamory or to work our way through monogamy, and to actively address the joys and pitfalls of whichever one we choose.
Here are some of the sources about non-monogamy research that I sent to the sister and brother-in-law:
The Double Life of Woman (has some passing references to evolutionary theory)
I guess I'm lucky. Where I live I know of several poly relationships that have lasted a decade or more. :)
ReplyDelete"...there are such judgmental and closed-minded people in the world..."
ReplyDeleteMaybe don't think of them as judgemental and closed-minded. Maybe think of them as "terrified." I hypothesize that most people who have strong negative reactions to something different from their norm do so because they feel threatened whatever that difference is. Maybe G's BIL is afraid of his wife's reaction if he expresses attraction to another woman. Maybe he's afraid she herself is attracted to other men. Maybe he feels insecure in his relationship and is afraid he'll lose it. Anyway, just my thoughts, trying to view this couple with compassion. If ya have to be almost-related to them, you might as well. :-)
kj
how odd, what a weired way to look at it. Polyamoury is described in the bible (slightly one sided, admitedly, one man, several wives) and this is still practiced in arab and african countries.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that everyone in every such relationship is happy, but then niether is everyone in the one husband one wife relationship.
I think for me - speaking in very broad brush strokes - there is a difference between polyamoury and open relationships. Polyamoury is about relationships, about developing and nutring them, and open relationship sounds to me more like just a 'get out of jail free card' to do what you want. I know there's more to it often, than that, but I think that's why open relationships can often implode.
i loved reading your article and it made me laugh how consevative gerard's family members were. i myself am a bit conservative but i don't ecxclude my self from thinking of an open relationship. I enjoyed really enjoyedd rour post! Excuse me if i'm being to outward. I'm drunk.. :D
ReplyDeleteKJ... you and i already discussed this, but i know what you're saying. honestly, i was just shocked by their perspective!!
ReplyDeletemamacrow, that makes sense that the term "open relationship" just has a negative connotation to you. but these two didn't know the term "polyamory" either. for them, it was the whole concept-- though only because they'd never allowed themselves to (consciously) consider that ANYTHING other than what they do is okay.
animalbar, there's no law against reading (or commenting) while drunk. :) thanks for chiming in!
This was an interesting read for me because I have to agree with both parties. Kind of. I think that there can absolutely be successful polyamorous relationships; in fact, I'm fascinated by them and find them particularly beautiful in design when executed properly. However, I myself am a person that simply is not wired in a way that would allow for an open relationship. Part of me is very bothered by this-- I would love to have some open relationship qualities to my relationship with my Daddy. I fully believe that one can have relations with other people and still be faithful (in a sense of the term) to their main partner, and could even strengthen bonds by doing so. Daddy says as well that he doesn't think that he could handle what that entails, but he doesn't hold disdain for those who can, either.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm just trying to say that people need to learn that what applies to them (in terms of their "wiring" at the moment :]) is not applicable to everyone else. We all have our cans and can'ts, and that needs to be respected.
I find such discussions boggling, really, because I really have not a jealous bone in my body; yet almost everyone tells me it is otherwise. I like to throw in a mention of compersion, but that is usually equally incomprehensible to them…
ReplyDelete"these two didn't know the term "polyamory" either. . ." Bingo. I'm going less with either closed minded *or* terrified (though both are undoubtedly important factors) and more with ignorant/uninformed. These people "mainly socialize with the people in their culdesac. They live in a bubble and they like it that way." You showed them something from outside the bubble. They value their bubble but bubbles are fragile. Accepting the possibility that others are comfortable with lifestyles and practices completely incompatible with our own assumptions about the world can seem threatening. After all, if I accept such a thing, then aren't I automatically less sure about the things I was sure of before? I would say yes, and good for that, but many (most, even) of us don't want to be less sure. We want to be more sure. Absolutely sure. Certain. And certainty, like the bubbles on which it usually depends, is a fragile thing that must be constantly nurtured. Complexities from outside the bubble are forever threatening certainties. You're both right, and that's fine. Many people are indeed wired for monogamy. Many others aren't. Great. I like rainbows. But not everyone does. A great many people (regrettably, in my view) find them threatening, even bad. They threaten the very concept of a "right path." Again, I say good for that but it increasingly seems to me that more people than not have a deep need for right paths. My own path is "right for me" and that's all that matters, but for many it needs to be "right for everyone" to be valid. I think it's good and healthy to challenge these "right for everyone" beliefs but in the end I think you probably won't convince BIL. Challenge for you (it's certainly one for me!)will be to accept that even his closed-minded certainty is part of the rainbow.
ReplyDeleteAfterthought--not so much that I "like" rainbows necessarily as much as I am aware of the rainbow and choose not to be threatened by it. But in the end, whether I "like" it or not, and whether I am threatened by it or not, human experience exists along a vast spectrum, a large rainbow. It stretches from monogamy to polyamory to unpartnered to whatever, from gay to straight to whatever, from male to female to transgendered to postgendered to whatever, from religious to atheist to agnostic to whatever, etc. That's just life. People who are comforted by life in bubbles don't want to perceive that. It's tempting to see it as a life mission to burst bubbles wherever they are found but they are often tenaciously protected so one should proceed with care, and sometimes not at all. Personally I'm terrible at it--I often seem to think it is my cosmic responsibility to expose everyone to the world as I see it (which is, it goes without saying, the way it "really" is), but I think this is at the heart of the confrontation between you and BIL.
ReplyDeleteI forgot ". . . from kinky to vanilla. . ." :)
ReplyDelete