Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

The Case for Open Relationships

By Rachel Kramer Bussel, Huffington Post. Posted December 15, 2007.


Polyamorous relationships need trust and communication -- not so different from monogamous ones.
Advertisement

Matt Titus's recent post "How to Be Faithful" struck a nerve with readers. And it's something I've thought a good deal about, so I decided to look not at monogamy as a goal, but as a social construct. First let me say that if you are in a monogamous relationship, I encourage you to stay within the rules of your relationship, or speak to your partner, rather than simply cheat. But I do believe that monogamy has become fetishized as the only answer to a large degree, with the result being that many people are either locked into relationships they aren't happy with, or are conducting affairs on the side and feeling guilty about it (or not).

This was all brought home to me last week, when I had one of the strangest dinner conversations I've ever had. A guy I'd never met, but who knows some friends of mine, started contacting me by email. He was very persistent, and charming, so I invited him to a reading I was giving. He showed up, and we went for dinner afterward. I wasn't sure if it was a date -- it could've been, but was unclear -- or whether I wanted it to be. Until, that is, he told me he has a girlfriend. He said it matter-of-factly, like it was just a simple fact, dropped as nonchalantly as his hometown. As it turns out, although they live together and have been a couple for six years, he gets around, and often. He seemed utterly unconflicted as he estimated that, on average, he sleeps with another woman once a month. To his credit, he has no misperceptions about what he's doing. "I'm not a swinger, I'm a cheater," he said. Sadly, I'm sure he is far from alone in his extracurricular mating habits.

I asked my friend Suzanne Portnoy, author of The Butcher, The Baker, The Candlestick Maker: An Erotic Memoir, which chronicles her racy sex life filled with multiple partners, about her take on monogamy. She says there "was never a 'light bulb' moment. Following my divorce and then getting into the swinging scene, I started juggling partners and realized I preferred having a variety of sexual partners to just one." Another friend, Tess, is in an open marriage; she doesn't have sex with her husband anymore, but takes outside lovers. He's free to as well, but as far as she knows, he doesn't. She recently blogged about why she's still in her marriage, despite these constraints. I know a married couple where they're allowed to make out with other people, and take advantage of this rule. I know a triad (one man and two women) who live together quite happily, and are raising children together. One friend described her multiple committed relationships as being "like Big Love, without the patriarchy."

Many who've struggled with monogamy's constraints have concluded that, for various reasons, it's just not for them. As Susan Mernit wrote recently at BlogHer:

You see, even if I ended up getting super-serious with the person I am seeing, and decided to move in with him and make a long-term commitment, I just don't think it would be truthful or wise to also agree to forsake all others. I don't feel an emotional need to make this sort of promise, because I've come to question, okay, I don't believe, that sexual exclusivity is a determinant for commitment. And I also don't believe that being in a serious relationship and deeply loving someone always precludes caring for -- and choosing to be involved with -- someone else. Or that not being sexually exclusive is going to wreak havoc with a committed relationship, no matter what.

What really seems important to me in relationships these days, is not choosing monogamy, but choosing openness, authenticity, trust and communication.

I agree with Titus, completely, that "fantasy is a good thing." And for many people, monogamy works just fine. But for others, both men and women, monogamy is not a perfect system and doesn't allow them to fully realize themselves. By that I don't mean "sleep with anyone they want," but rather that we may reveal different aspects of ourselves to different people. Think about your various close friends; the way you interact with them is likely different for each one. Some people have that same experience with lovers; they may be married or in a long-term relationship, but have someone else they see occasionally or frequently. Open relationships are not all about sex, either. We may want someone we can talk to, share with, who provides a different kind of support or energy or way of relating than our primary partner.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: sex, relationships, polyamory

Rachel Kramer Bussel is an author and editor of over a dozen erotic anthologies, most recently Hide and Seek and Crossdressing. She hosts In The Flesh Erotic Reading Series and is a former sex columnist for The Village Voice.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nothing exclusive, no partnership
Posted by: phindrup on Dec 15, 2007 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a relationship there is only one thing that it is practical to keep for your partner. Love making.
If there is nothing in the relationship that is exclusive to your partner, to your relationship, then what is the point?
When one 'cheats' it is not sexual act that is the problem, it is the betrayal.
From my perspective, at that point the relationship is over. No matter when the partner actually finds out, the relationship ended at that time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nothing exclusive, no partnership Posted by: SatanicJamboree
I'm finding it hard to resolve this contrast logically
Posted by: jparsons on Dec 15, 2007 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reading in here...

Monogamy isn't for everyone - or there wouldn't
be divorce and cheating

And polygamy isn't for everyone - it doesn't solve
jealousy or longing problems, and it's hard work
to keep multiple parties happy

And sexual betrayal isn't necessarily the biggest deal
we try to make it out to be; don't forget
emotional betrayal, etc.

So doesn't it seem like facing off monogamy vs
polygamy is missing the mark?

Neither monogamy nor polygamy will prevent any
types of betrayals, whichever you think
is the most important. It all comes
down to mismatched or changing expectations in
a relationship. I can see reasons that some
problems would be less common in monogamy and
some in polygamy.

When you break your commitments knowing
your partner(s) would be hurt, when you
lie to try to keep the peace, or to
"have your cake and eat it", surely that is the
base of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Additional considerations surrounding open relationships.
Posted by: wli on Dec 15, 2007 2:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first is that the honesty aspect is not as directly approached as it should be. With STD dangers, honesty in terms of what actually happens with sex with third parties becomes a matter of life and death.

The second is that frank discussion of sex to advance the sexual aspect of the relationship is often necessary. Experimentation with third parties and discussions of activities with third parties can assist those discussions.

The third is that the only example discussed is a rather weak case. In a number of instances I'm aware of, the "openness" of the relationship revolves around same sex attraction or activities, and the couple is otherwise "monogamous" in terms of opposite sex activity (I find some rather sexist dynamics at work in various actual cases of this, but that's too far afield). In other cases, issues such as career-related geographical separation, extreme working hours, impotence, vaginismus, illness (whether STD or impairing sexual function), BDSM-oriented chastity, transgender issues, incarceration, and others that motivate the "openness." There are far broader sets of motives for open relationships than the article presents. The abstractness of the presentation of the remainder hinders the understanding of open relationships.

The third of these is by far the most grave. A treatment of open relationships really needs to discuss the pragmatic motives underlying them, not just abstract and emotional issues. With diabetes at epidemic prevalence and impotence vastly under-discussed even before taking that into account, pragmatic physical motives are very likely underemphasized (note that Viagra and Cialis do nothing for genital neuropathy, a rather typical successor to vascular degeneration).

Furthermore, I'll dare to speculate regarding a sensational case: extreme working hours and geographical separation are very obvious influences on Bill and Hillary Clinton. Could they possibly have an open relationship? If they did, could they publicly discuss it without severe political repercussions? Is that the way it should be if they do?

This raises what should really be a fourth point, which is how open relationships are viewed by others. Unfortunately I can't speak to it very well, as I'm rather insulated from whatever real public opinions might be in a cocoon of what right-wingers might call "the fever swamp of the left." Conservative disapproval is still easily anticipated. In my social circles open relationships are accepted to where they're considered unworthy of comment.

I'm glad the article raised the issue of open relationships. However, it did not explore some rather vital aspects of open relationships that it should have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Huh???? Posted by: lexicon
» RE: Huh???? Posted by: wli
» RE: Huh???? Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: Huh???? Posted by: lexicon
» RE: unsafe sex Posted by: lexicon
Catch 22.1
Posted by: talkville on Dec 15, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even intimacy has now become an exchange and economic relation in the USA. Will and Desire are related terms; in fact aspects of the same human condition. The more we obsess about relations and relationships the less these relationships can flourish and advance.

Honesty or Gain; which would the "Free Market" select? Which would a particular individual select? Love and loving are not exactly the same; those who would decide for all of us are not democratic. Honestly! Let each of us decide a fuller and more human way of Be-ing and begin a better world. It is possible!

Reject commodification by others and oneself; we are humans and we are social. A better world is possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Catch 22.1 Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Catch 22.1 Posted by: talkville
Live and Let Live
Posted by: Gravitas on Dec 15, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say live and let live. If polygamy works for some people, why not respect their choice? Personally, I have never been polygamous, but I had a partner who was. I have more of a "mistress" than a wife personality. I don't want to be a caretaker. I don't want to help hubby with office politics. I don't want to deal with in-laws, or go to Thanksgiving dinners where people babble about calories and tell me how great Bush is. I like having just a "lover" who meets physical and limited emotional needs, but doesn't spill over unto other areas of my life. As a trade off, what he does or who he sees is his business.

I am a stanch advocate for letting people create a lifestyle that works best for them. Historically, monogamy is more an ideal than reality. Women, especially, need to get over the Prince Charming happilty ever after myth. And the guilt, like the guilt involved with all pleasures, has been used to manipulate us. I would like to see a society that looks down upon greed, excessive materialism, and exploitation of one's fellow human more vigorously than simply allowing oneself to be human.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Live and Let Live Posted by: lepidopteryx
Here we go 'round again.
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Dec 15, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If "open relationships" work for you, by all means go for it -- but it makes me wonder if anyone at AlterNet could read before, say, 1975.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here we go 'round again. Posted by: Rochelle_Weber
Part of the issue...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Dec 15, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is ignored here are the social implications. What happens when someone gets pregnant or acquires an STD? Who is responsible for raising a child? Who is responsible if someone gives another something deadly like AIDS? What about issues like inheritance?

Marriage isn't just about sex and emotions. There are much larger implications. I don't see it going away anytime soon, because marriage is also a social organizing system. Focusing on the sexual and emotional issues is important, but the issue is much bigger than that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Part of the issue... Posted by: MrVetinari
» RE: Part of the issue... Posted by: lepidopteryx
a lot of work
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Dec 15, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well, whatever floats your boat. Polyamory seems to be a lot of emotional work though. The people who are into that lifetyle focus a lot of energy on both the primary relationship and the flings. Where's the energy for kids, gardening, friends, work, writing that novel?

For me it would be exhausting and unsettling, but then I'm an introvert. And then there's the whole issue of sexual health.

Monogamy is a lot of work but then polyamory sounds more.

What was that previous comment about liking the mistress role rather than the wife role? That's got my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

so what
Posted by: john henry on Dec 15, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we as soci. need to fig. out how to make it one man one woman is ok but its not working now if a women can find a man to put in a group of women an all are working an the money is in one pot to support the group an use the man for leadership but the group sayes what is to be an he speaks for the whole an the main point of this is a family with kids an all but the women sayes who have the childern an in what order an who is going to take care of them an who is going to take care of the home the money will be there pay for miney things but it is a group thing an the man carry out the orders of the women now this is not a 30 day deal this a long term deal just like marrage on there is no cheating the man has to do his part when it is time there is no head achs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Monogamy is a sacred cow...
Posted by: Libertine on Dec 15, 2007 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that few people question seriously, let alone challenge. Through my reading and personal experience, I've come to the conclusion that monogamy isn't natural for either sex, and that it is most definitely isn't for me.

I am not monogamous. But I am not a swinger, polyamorous, or a cheater. I'm a libertine. I don't justify having sex with multiple partners by saying I love each one of them, so I'm not poly. I'm not legally married, emotionally monogamous, and I don't conduct my sex life as an organized couples' activity, so I'm not a swinger. I don't lie to my lovers about my promiscuity, so I'm not a cheater. I'm a sexual free agent, both physically and emotionally -- a libertine. Though I've been in love several times, I separate sex from love, and love need not always be present when I have sex. People have sex for a wide variety of reasons, and there's not just one "right" way to engage in it. As long as those involved are fully consenting adults, there is no wrong or right about it.

My relationship life consists of having several "friends with benefits" and "fuckbuddy" relationships, all of whom are free to see others. I have one-night stands from time to time, when I feel the need for one. I usually have one primary lover at any given time, with whom I also engage in nonsexual, regular dating activities. I do not cohabitate with any of them. The cast of lovers naturally shifts as the years go by, and relationships generally end after they've run their course: of boredom and benign neglect, rather than by any dramatic breakups.

Barring one brief, misadvised marriage in the early 80s, where I managed to remain "faithful" for only two weeks, I've been unmarried ever since, which I now feel is necessary to honestly maintain my independence to live as I wish.

It's worked for me, and it's as natural to me as falling off a log. I wouldn't expect everyone to live as I do, but conversely, I resent the idea that monogamy is the only ethical choice for everyone. Indeed, how can it be a true "choice" if there are no others?

I find monogamy wanting in that it sets up unrealistic expectations for one person to meet all of the other's needs. It's also a setup for the "familiarity breeds contempt" scenario. Limiting myself to one lover, would be like limiting a gourmet to one type of meal. A steak dinner might be my favorite meal, but I don't want to eat one 3 meals a day, 365 days a year, year in, year out. I would soon be sick of it. But when I have that steak meal less often, alternating with chicken, fish, salad, and so on, I appreciate it that much more. I value my independence and I crave variety, and each new lover adds a new facet to my sexual repertoire.

Monogamy is fine for those who prefer it. But nonmonogamous relationships of various types: polyamory, swinging, and libertinism suit some of us better and are ethical choices, as long as everyone involved is on the same page.

To read more about my libertine ideas, visit Libertine's Blog and check out the left column.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks Posted by: Libertine
» LIBERTINE......YOU'RE BACK Posted by: gellero
» Marquis de Sade Posted by: pdxstudent
» Yea, but why is it a sacred cow? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Monogamy is a sacred cow... Posted by: lepidopteryx
I could not humiliate my children
Posted by: bryanth798 on Dec 15, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and make them suffer for my own selfish gratification. I really don't think that the Left should be embracing any behavior that is really going to harm families on which the security of children depend. Are we supposed to be seen as the sector of society which advocates throwing the kids under the bus so that daddy and mommy can use all this sophistry to hide their innability to act as shamelessly promiscuous people? Whatever happened to self-control and adult behavior? What is so great about hedonism that it has to be held up as some kind of value? If you want to fool around, have at it. But don't act like this is something to brag about. If my mom had run around on my dad, and he was torn up about it, I imagine it would have contributed to me having misogynist tendencies. This is the sort of harvest that promiscuity on the part of a parent will lead to. Just because divorce is common does not mean it is normal. It is still devestating for children, and no amount of hoity-toity sophistry on the part of a lot of so, so smart people is going to change that. Do us a favor, and don't put this type of article in a journal like this. It has no place here. These are Republican values and issues you are discussing here. Normalizing hedonism is Republcan ideology. This is stuff for Rudy Giuliani to embrace, since it essentially defends his values. This crap is an embarrassment for the Left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I could not humiliate my children Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» way cool Posted by: gellero
» RE: way cool but... Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: way cool but... Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: way cool but... Posted by: greywolf
» Now That's Subversive Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Now That's Subversive Posted by: gellero
» It's a LIBERTARIAN idea Posted by: Libertine
» Pinko Posted by: gellero
Society should NOT encourage marriage.
Posted by: Landbaron on Dec 15, 2007 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No-fault divorce, or how to make lawyers rich and destroy civilization. Only about 15 out of 100 children born reach 18 with an intact family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

get married at least 3 times
Posted by: zooeyhall on Dec 15, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The great anthropologist Margaret Mead said that we should get married at least 3 times in our lives:

The first time: for sex

The second time: for children

The third time: for companionship

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: get married at least 3 times Posted by: basinjasin
Married Swingers
Posted by: gellero on Dec 15, 2007 5:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Married swingers seem to be pretty solid in their relationships. No need to be wanting 'strange'......it's there for the taking. And then you go back home to your day to day life. Visit 'Miami Velvet' or 'Trapeeze' in Ft. Lauderdale........just to observe the scene.........more fun than you'd think, and the people are more gorgeous and young than you'd expect.
Host a 'sex positive' party sometime. Don't go through life as a weenie !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe the problem is with marriage as the exclusive market for sex.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Dec 16, 2007 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage is a legal contract. Sex is considered part of the marriage contract. Successful prenuptial agreements have made it clear that marriage can be entered as a strictly financial agreement. Yet it is illegal in most states to contract for sex except through marriage. Sex exclusively through marriage is a rule that obviously doesn't work.

I think Government should get out of the sex business entirely. The government license should be for a civil union only, with no restrictions on the number or characteristics of the partners. This would meet a growing and unfulfilled need that often has nothing to do with sex.

There is a need for a relationship contract, giving the rights and responsibilities we now associate with marriage, which is just as great for people who obviously are not concerned with sex. As so many social contracts are falling by the wayside, including commitments from government and employers, and the stripping of influence from trade unions, individuals need to be able to form their own unions for mutual care and the sharing of responsibilities and benefits.

Marriage, on the other hand, should be unregulated and left to churches and other private interests, who can make up their own rules as they wish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having It Both Ways
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 16, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 'problem' is commitment and part of that is the expectations of the significant other/partner or spouse. The rest is just explaining away someone's desire to have it both ways.

If one is in a marriage or is living with a partner they should be monogamous, to my way of thinking. The other person most likely expects as much and that fact is undoubtedly a cornerstone of the relationship. Further, cheating unexpectedly on a partner exposes them to any STDs the 'open' partner may acquire- not good.

If you wish to live like a single person without attachment and sleep with whomever you wish then do so. If you wish to live in a committed relationship, then most would be best served by remaining monogamous for it's duration.

I really think that marriage in the western culture is rapidly becoming an anachronism- in the small towns as well as the big cities. It's going to take a while for our folkways, laws and norms to catch up to that fact. I seriously doubt that I will ever marry, choosing instead to take relationships as they come for as long as they last.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oh, yay
Posted by: kenhymes on Dec 16, 2007 6:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yay, let's be the advocates of open marriage and free love and lots of sex for everyone, because that's what really matters right now, is the author's desire to justify sleeping with multiple partners, not economic justice for the hungry, the exploited, the overworked, the uninsured. Not the death raining down on iraqis which we are paying for with every hour we work, not the tens of thousands of maimed and traumatized men and women coming back to families who will receive little or no support in dealing with this.

What the %$&# is wrong with you people? What is Alternet thinking putting out this drivel from 1973?

Get your heads out of your pants and help someone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Foundations Posted by: Nebris
» Ah yes..make love not war Posted by: meetmeineleusis
Do you want to become old without having kids?
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 16, 2007 6:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know where love takes people, but I know of a few older women who are bitter because they didn't raise any kids.

Monogamy or Mormon/muslim polygyny assures that there's a second parent for raising kids. Committed lesbian/gay relationships can also provide assurance of a second parent. Otherwise you're on your own. Earn the money and love the kid at the same time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hope they never find a cure for AIDS!!
Posted by: Landbaron on Dec 16, 2007 8:39 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they do people will be having sex everywhere with almost no discretion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Open"-ing Up
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Dec 18, 2007 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I once dated someone who wanted an open relationship. It caught me by surprise probably because I was raised to believe in monogamy. And at that time I didn't know if she meant it or not, but we're all human and beleive in different ideas, but she never followed up on her statement, now that she has a child to raise.
Some people can handle it, others can't and someone wants to get into that kind of life, so be it. I'm not going to judge. There are pitfalls and pratfalls in our decisions. However, I don't know if I can commit myself to an open relationship; yes, love is to be shared but we're go awry when it comes to sex, and the author said not all partnerships place sex at the top.
Lastly, if there's conflict, then both should try to iron out the wrinkles; if they can't, then it may be time to move on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Open"-ing Up Posted by: Knot_Rich
Polygamy will never work
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Dec 19, 2007 9:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think of how difficult maintaining a single relationship can be.

With three people, you now have three relationships to maintain.

With four people, you have six!

Far too much to hope for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this site has some good discussions
Posted by: Racumin on Dec 21, 2007 11:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a good book. What's Love Got to Do with It?

I was taught monogamy was purely political. It's only until very recently that people even got married for "love." Marriage for love is looked down upon in most cultures. The fact that we marry for love kind of messes this system up a bit.
In relation to family organization. I can think of many that are not based on monogamy or the nuclear family. I wish I had all my old reading I could give examples. There's one middle-eastern or indian system in which the females in a patrilinial family take on lovers from other families. The fathers from these stay with their own family and take care of their sisters and cousins children. There are many other ways people get together. There's nothing moral or natural about monogamy. I always found it strange that most people in the west are unaware of all these different ways of life. I find it so interesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]