Jenny Block, author of Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage, was kind enough to let Feministing excerpt her book. Her guest post here last year generated a lot of discussion, so I'm sure this section of her book will do the same!
My venture into open marriage is ongoing. But at this point in my journey, what strikes me as most intriguing is the fact that I knew, from very early on, that traditional marriage wasn't compatible with me. I was always interested in "and," rather than "either/or," and I was never sure that love offered any guarantees. And yet I dove headfirst into marriage. Why? I thought that being committed and doing the thing I was supposed to do would help me come to my senses, but even early on in my marriage, I realized that love is a state, and a constantly fluctuating one at that. It is affected by changes in ourselves, our partners, and the world at large. So when the black-and white options we're presented with look like a huge splotch of gray, what are we to do? We must understand and accept that we don't have to live within the confines and rules that society presents for us as "the only way." We have a right to find our own happiness and our own truth.
Love and sex, much to the discontentment of so many who believe in happily ever after, are not constant companions. And those who believe they are will likely run into disappointment somewhere along the way. It's an ideal that sets us up for all kinds of falls. Most of us have had a number of partners by the time we get to that point, and any of those people may have offered qualities that we sought or wanted in a significant other. Yet suddenly there we are, bound to one person for the rest of our lives. Part of being sexually free prior to marriage, assuming that we aren't saving ourselves for The One, involves going through a period of sexual exploration and, if you're lucky, sexual enlightenment. All of which, again, is considered valid, even good, by modern standards.
Young women today are generally encouraged to explore, to find themselves, to be sexually open, but then are expected to somehow simply shut down as individuals when they get married and "settle down." But they don't actually, naturally shut down. They simply have an enforced response because of social conditioning, which demands that we stop being people and start being wives. And so one-night stands and casual sex are socially acceptable at certain points in our lives--college, certainly, and afterwards, as long as we're not married--and then, all of a sudden, sex isn't "just sex" anymore once two people commit to each other. As a result, we are left with an entire society of people trying to conform to an extremely recent social dictate. Truth be told, it's amazing that we aren't failing even more than we already are.
When I tell people I'm in an open relationship, they often ask, "Then why are you even married?" My response: "Why wouldn't we be?" Christopher and I are a good match. Our personalities balance each other out, and we're great coparents. What I've come to realize is that this question stems from a belief, albeit subconscious for many people, that marriage is about sexual ownership. So for those who want further explanation, I sometimes offer this: "We're still married because we believe in traditional marriage based on trust and commitment, not on fireworks or romantic love or sex. We base our other relationships on romance and sex, and our primary one on a much bigger, more long-term picture."
Just know that being open is about love. And there should never be any restrictions on love. Open marriage stems from a number of different scenarios and relationship dynamics. It can be about anything, take any shape, as long as the people involved are all on the same page. There is no wrong way to do this, other than lying to yourself and your partners, in which case you're no longer talking about being open--and society has all kinds of "acceptable" ways of dealing with that.
I don't think people should ever have to be ashamed of whom and how they love. I can think of plenty of things that are shameful: being cruel to animals, or intentionally hurting someone, or stealing something. But love shouldn't ever be one of these things. I love the man who stands by me always, the man who is the father of my child. And I love the woman who provides me with the kind of emotional support and sexual satisfaction that I don't believe any man or any traditional marriage could give me. What if the problem is not with wanting what we want, but rather with the way we are made to feel for wanting it?
I'd like to see open marriages be as accepted as closed ones. I'd like to see the term used to refer to a type of relationship that is one of any number of other choices. I'd like "open marriage" to be a commonly used, commonly acknowledged description of a healthy lifestyle, rather than a reference to something that is somehow deviant, perverse, or even unusual. I want people to acknowledge the fact that open marriage represents the state some marriages already exist in (the difference being that adultery means sex with lying, cheating, and sneaking around, while open marriage means sex with all of your cards in view). I personally prefer to know the cards I'm dealing with.
My truth is this: My husband and I got married because we loved and respected each other. We were both looking for the security and stability a marriage provides. We had complementary interests and abilities. We wanted the same things, and each of us had what the other needed to make those things possible. There were sparks at the beginning, of course. We never would have gotten together in the first place if there hadn't been. But once the thrill of early sex faded, I started to feel like a failure. However, I shouldn't have. We had accomplished exactly what we had set out to: We had a house and a child and careers, and we enjoyed each other. So when I sensed a hole because I was lacking passion and fiery sex and desire, I had to realign my thinking. I had to find what was missing and incorporate that into a new version of the marriage I was in, rather than simply expect it to magically come from the partner I had chosen to spend my life with.
And I found what I was looking for--first with a series of male lovers, and now with a committed girlfriend. So I'm married, and I'm honest, and I'm doing what I need to do to create a space in which Christopher and I can continue growing together in our relationship. And our partnership is one that's rooted soundly in the historical tradition of marriage, one founded on building and living a life together, and not solely on the fleeting state of romance. The only difference is that my husband and I reject the suggestion that commitment to each other means signing over our bodies and our hearts. We share those things--with each other and with those whom we bring into our lives. Marriage should not be a prison. It should be a home base from which we can reach out to find those people and those things that can complete us--and our lives.
From the book Open by Jenny Block. Excerpted by arrangement with Seal Press, a member of the Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2008.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Open Excerpt.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11071
Sounds really interesting; I plan to buy the book. It would be interesting to read the perspective of Block's husband and girlfriend, too. I wonder if the experience is different for a man or a secondary partner.
I don't know if this post is meant to start a discussion on open relationships or not, but I've got one. The author says she doesn't like either or thinking, but describes closed relationships as "shutting down". all non-open relationships require you to "shut down" really? I have much more sex in a relationship-closed or open, though when open always more with the primary partner than when supposedly "non shut down". I agree that open relationships should be an accepted option. but, as an accepted option, the point is that the other option isn't wrong either-just not necessarily for you. is it that impossible to give what she asks for?
I think it's odd that when someone goes on about open relationships, they operate from this assumption that there's something wrong with monogamy. How many of us in successful, healthy monogamous relationships really feel like we're "shutting down"? If it works, it works, whatever "it" may be for each person, and I'm not sure why defending our choice to be monogamous or open always results in bashing the other side like there's something unnatural or regressive about them. If I'm going to read a book about someone's experience in an open marriage, I'd like to hear about her experiences, not her assumptions about what the rest of our relationships are like.
Yeah, she could have simply left out the whole third paragraph of the excerpt and it wouldn't have turned the discussion into one of "monogamy v. polyamory". Although, it's true that people who practice open relationships constantly have to counter the implicit assumption that monogamy is the norm and any deviation must be justified. At least in Block's case she's making her argument that monogamy is anti-feminist explicit.
Is her argument actually about it being anti-feminist though? She talks about young women and being wives, but I'm not so sure that 3rd paragraph couldn't apply to men, too. Maybe she says something more in the rest of the book to clarify, such as the idea that society sanctions men's extramarital affairs but not women's.
And I agree that people in open relationships do have to defend their choices whereas monogamous people don't, but accusing women of shutting down and losing their identity to become wives when they're monogamous doesn't defend so much as attack. Like I said, I'd rather hear why it works for her rather than what she thinks I'm suffering through.
I only know what I see in the excerpt, but I read it as her arguing that monogamous marriage is anti-feminist because sexual exploration is much more important to women, who have to labor under the threat of being labeled "sluts", than men.
In general, though, I agree with your point. People are better off talking about why their choices are right for them rather than why their choices are right for everybody.
We can tell from the excerpt that Block has relationships outside of the marriage but does her husband? We've heard what Block needs in a relationship but not what her partners in and outside of the marriage need.
Also, Block explains her need/desire for open marriage in terms of sexual needs and then describes the sexual and EMOTIONAL fulfillment she receives from her girlfriend. Is open marriage about being sexually open, emotionally open or both?
I hope these are questions Block answers in her book.
I know several couples who tried to make the "open" part only about sex, but when emotions started creeping in, they crashed and burned badly. None of them are still together.
I'm guessing that whether it's sexual and/or emotional is negotiated by each couple interested in being open, but from my experiences seeing sexually open couples fail, you can't always negoatiate what your heart is going to do. Maybe those who approach it by allowing for emotional connections outside the marriage end up having more success by having already anticipated and approved of it.
Not to try to negate your experience, but there are lots of couples who make the "open" part only about sex. They're called swingers.
I wasn't denying they exist, just musing about the ones I've seen. I'm sure there are dynamics that make them successful that weren't present in the couples I knew.
No, swingers go to swingers clubs. Not all people who do sex outside of their marriage are swingers. For one, swinger culture is usually anti- male bisexuals, and the female bisexual activity that goes on is often directed at the male gaze and not for each other. Swinging often involves a good bit of being willing to let others watch as well.
I'm in an open marriage that has at times included both casual sex and emotional commitments, but my husband and I have never identified as swingers, nor have most of the people we've been with.
I never said they were. I was just giving an example of a large, commonly-recognized group of people for whom the model usually is one committed relationship and everything else is "just sex."
There are problems in swing clubs, as you point out. However, it's not true that all swingers go to swing clubs, and the ones who don't may avoid them because of the problems you note. (Also one you don't: The drinking and drugging that is the norm in many swing clubs.)
We have an open marriage, though it's admittedly monogamous right now just out of circumstance. I think a lot of the questions being asked about Block's work really depend on the couple. Couples in open relationships really have to negotiate their own "terms;" there's no right or wrong.
My husband and I don't consider ourselves polyamorous. We love each other; that's it. What we're looking for is sex only, and it works for us. There's no emotional connection to the other people we're having sex with, and either of us is free to call an end to the other's sexcapades for any reason. My only attachment and my loyalty are to my husband. I really view being open as akin to finding a girlfriend to look at antiques with me if I love that and my husband doesn't. It's not about needing or wanting multiple partners for us.
I came into the idea of openness from the radical/Marxist feminist position that monogamy results from the rise of private property and the need to insure rightful inheritance. And, yeah, I get that doesn't apply to many couples today, but the origins for me are clear. Most of us are indoctrinated early with the idea that love = monogamy when sex really is a physical act. It fulfills a physical need. While we individually may use it as an emotional outlet, at its core, sex means physical pleasure. Controlling sex through cultural mores is a tool of the patriarchy.
We have an open marriage, though it's admittedly monogamous right now just out of circumstance. I think a lot of the questions being asked about Block's work really depend on the couple. Couples in open relationships really have to negotiate their own "terms;" there's no right or wrong.
My husband and I don't consider ourselves polyamorous. We love each other; that's it. What we're looking for is sex only, and it works for us. There's no emotional connection to the other people we're having sex with, and either of us is free to call an end to the other's sexcapades for any reason. My only attachment and my loyalty are to my husband. I really view being open as akin to finding a girlfriend to look at antiques with me if I love that and my husband doesn't. It's not about needing or wanting multiple partners for us.
I came into the idea of openness from the radical/Marxist feminist position that monogamy results from the rise of private property and the need to insure rightful inheritance. And, yeah, I get that doesn't apply to many couples today, but the origins for me are clear. Most of us are indoctrinated early with the idea that love = monogamy when sex really is a physical act. It fulfills a physical need. While we individually may use it as an emotional outlet, at its core, sex means physical pleasure. Controlling sex through cultural mores is a tool of the patriarchy.
Brandi, sex may be a physical act but for a lot of people (myself included) it involves an emotional connection. In likening sex to antique shopping you are ignoring many aspects of sex such as intimacy, closeness, trust and so forth, the presence of which make it so much more than just physically 'getting off'. I see casual sex basically as two people just masturbating using each other's bodies, and seeing as there are plenty of creative ways to masturbate these days, I personally don't see the point - although I accept that other people enjoy doing it.
Love and sex, for me, are inextricably linked. The same is true for many people. In the context of the blog as a whole, I am monogamous and enjoy it whole heartedly, both sexually and emotionally. I've read a lot about polyamorous relationships and most of the writers seem to start from the point of view that those of us who say we are satisfied and fulfilled by monogamy are somehow lying to ourselves or blindly acting out patriarchal dogma. Nothing could be further from the truth!
love and sex for you. that's the key phrase here-for you. just like she shouldn't say that you're shut down for liking monogamy, you shouldn't generalize your experience. There's room for both. if you don't think you can seperate love and sex-which, by the way, is not a requirement for a poly relationship-there's also the idea that a person has enough love to go around. That sharing love and sex with someone else doesn't take away from the love and sex you share with, for example a spouse-then don't have one. she isn't wrong for wanting more than one person, you aren't wrong for only wanting one.
For those of you who are interested in more, you can also hear Block talk about the book and her experience of open marriage on RhRealityCheck's Nov. 11 podcast. In the interview, anyway, I didn't get the sense that she was claiming open marriage was the preferable option for everyone . . . just that it was what worked for her and her husband. I have yet to read the book.
Block makes it clear in her book that she has absolutely nothing against monogamy, and she applauds everyone for whom it works. Her open attitude towards all types of relationships was what really sucked me into her writing... not to mention her complete honesty. Really exhilarating! As for being sexually vs. emotionally open... the whole point is to do what works best for you. My husband + I are in an open marriage, and were so excited to find this book, as our situation is similar. Really excellent read. The first chapter is available as a free download on her website:
http://www.jennyonthepage.com/Open_chapter1.pdf
I'm in an ethical open relationship, and I can tell you from my experience in polyamory circles that many "poly" people neither hate monogamy nor think it inferior--they just found something that worked better for them. I wasn't looking for a polyamorous relationship, but it's where I happened to find much more happiness, honesty, and growth than I ever had in other relationships, so .
it's true that people who practice open relationships constantly have to counter the implicit assumption that monogamy is the norm and any deviation must be justified
Mithras, that's absolutely the rub right there. I'm lucky that the people closest to me either are poly-friendly or became convinced that I was in a good situation by meeting my fella and seeing the positive results in my life. But once you're practicing an open relationship, you really notice the hidden assumptions in current-day "monogamy," especially the ones that aren't necessarily all that monogamous or healthy. Kind of makes you ask yourself why you're considered the freak.
My theory is that even the most open-minded monogamous person tends to hear a simple statement that "openness/poly works best for me" through the filter of their own choices, which are themselves heavily mediated by messages they get from outside. They instinctively put themselves in your shoes and imagine the reaction from friends and family; their discomfort translates into the slightly-accusing tone that's almost inevitable in those situations.
Good point. Some of my die-hard monogamous friends are extraordinarily comfortable conversing with me about my relationship because they're very secure in their own choices. Others, including ones who are usually cool with 'alternative' choices, can't touch it, I suspect because my choice shines too much unflattering light on their own choices.
By the way, I'm in agreement with the others who said open relationships aren't always about something "missing" from the initial relationship. Many open relationships are much more about opening up to new people, experiences, and emotions rather than making up some alleged shortfall.
My family growing up made a lot of out-of-the-mainstream choices (although my parents were hetero and monogamous), and I myself often make unorthodox life choices . . . I've learned over the years that whenever you make a personal decision (however clear you are that it's a personal decision) that deviates from the mainstream, that action is percieved by lots of people as a criticism of their own choices: parenting choices, sexual choices, educational and career choices, food consumption choices -- the list goes on and on. You don't even have to speak about those decisions in political terms (or speak about them at all) to get hostile blowback. I've never really found a way to successfully counteract that.
I don't know if there is one.
Another interesting reaction is the assumption that I'm telling them this because I want to date them, or relatedly, that I'm on a mission to undermine monogamy by converting one of the partners in a monogamous relationship.
I am married and have been polyamorous for many years. I was intrigued when Block's book came out, but was turned off of buying it because all the excerpts and related columns by Block have tended to assume this air of superiority - that monogamy is repressive and stultifying.
That is certainly how Block and many nonmonogamous folk have experienced it, but stating it as a universal fact only alienates those who are content with monogamy. Not everybody wants or needs sexual openness in long-term relationships, and for many people there is plenty of room for sexual exploration with a single partner.
Block's framing of her arguments through own personal narrative only further serves to polarize reactions to her book, since it is easy for many readers to conclude that an open marriage that has a history of cheating within ostensible monogamy is a manipulative arrangement, and Block is not telling the whole story. I don't draw any such conclusions myself - I'm sick and tired myself of people assuming my partners aren't genuinely okay with my nonmonogamy - but it does make her a somewhat problematic spokesperson.
Tristan Taormino's Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships is a much better treatment of the subject.
thank you for pointing out an alternative-I need to read that. I get so annoyed with people on both sides of the issue-some hard core pushers of open relationships, and what I'd call MRAs advocating for cheating-that monogamy=death of sex, death of sexual experimentation, etc. No. you can have fun monogamous sex. and you can have lots of it. You can have fun poly, or open(I tend to define these as different-polyamorous=closed relationship but not limited to two people, open=not closed. I know this isn't universal) sex. and you can have lots of it. It's all about what works for you. and as to emotions vs. just sex. right now my boyfriend and I expect each other to have some emotions with other people-they're friends with benefits, not random strangers. but we're the only ones each of us says "I love you" in a romantic sense to. does that work for everyone? unlikely. but that's how we do it.
I agree with the comments of dykelawyer and want to add this.
I also am married and have been poly for almost 20 years now. Besides the points dykelawyer made, I also note the emphasis in the excerpt on the idea that the additional relationships make up for something that is missing in her primary relationship. Ms. Block says her primary relationship lacked fiery passion and desire. And her main description of her partner is "a good match" and that she has "respect" for him.
My own experience (and that of many poly couples I know), is that nothing is lacking in the primary relationship. Poly for many is about having the freedom to act on feelings and desires for others (normally within agreed on rules of ethical conduct). Most people would agree, they would never expect their partner to be their only friend, they would expect their partner to have friendships with other people. For myself, poly is expanding that concept into the sexual realm. But as said above, even though having outside friends seems to work for everyone, I fully agree that poly sexuality is not "better" or that it works for everyone.
I'm very glad that Ms. Brooks explains the concept of honesty and care for each other as part of the open relationship (as opposed to cheating or sneaking around). But I still don't feel that she is describing what polyamory fully is, or why couples who are very satisfied with each other still might want to have an open relationship.
There needs to be a point of view somewhere in between the erroneous "monogamy is for suckers" theme and the "poly is good because I can't get what I need" theme.
Maybe I'll check out Tristan Taormino's book on the recommendation above.
Thanks for posting the excerpt and sparking the discussion
"We're still married because we believe in traditional marriage based on trust and commitment, not on fireworks or romantic love or sex. We base our other relationships on romance and sex, and our primary one on a much bigger, more long-term picture."
I’m confused… what traditional marriage? The one where the husband and wife sleep in separate beds or the woman has her own area of the house and he just comes to visit occasionally. How is this idea revolutionary or even new? If your relationship is not based on fireworks, romantic love or sex YOU ARE IN A DEAD MARRIAGE and that is why DIVORCE is legal here.
How many women worldwide or even men for that matter are in fixed up marriages which are completely loveless and also operate on this same basis? Are their lives any more enhanced by not really loving each other? How many men worldwide have taken another wife or two or three? Perhaps out of duty to God or out of some emptiness they feel with their first wife. This emptiness is the lack of LOVE. How many people cheat because of this lack of LOVE and attention they need? As John Tarrant has said “Attention is the most basic form of love; through it we bless and are blessed.". So if you have multiple partners who both require more attention than just friends or other family members, what justice are you doing them in being in a relationship with them? You will never be able to give both people the same kind of attention. People are very complex and have deep feelings and thoughts; somehow I doubt that everyone feels equal all the time in these relationships.
“We were both looking for the security and stability a marriage provides.”
What is this stability? Money? Knowing that the other person will support you and love you no matter what? This “stability” is an interesting concept. If these ideas were so far and progressive this marriage would not have happened. They wouldn’t have adhered to traditional “values” and they could have broken up or stayed together whichever works. Yet, this “marriage” is what made them feel so trapped. Perhaps the problem here isn’t not feeling the spark, but getting married. The idea that we are supposed to stay with one person for the rest of our lives even when things are boring seems silly to some people. This happens a number of ways but mostly it is lack of attention from both parties and lack of communication. If these two people were not married would they still have other girlfriends and boyfriends on the side? If that is the case then, why use the word commitment? It is a commitment to money more than anything and child rearing perhaps. Which also brings in another question of how do children fit into this picture? Do they know about these extra relationships? How does that affect them and does it affect them?
Now ideally marriage shouldn’t exist. That way money, property, childcare and so forth would not be attached to that idea. So if marriage didn’t exist people could have relationships with whomever they pleased and that would be okay, except with one problem. There was a tribe that had this very aloof idea of marriage in China; I believe they are still in existence. The mothers know who their children are but the fathers don’t and while they have a very organized community something happen every so often…incest. Because no one is monogamous no one really knows who the fathers are. So occasionally a child is born with deformities and terrible immune systems because unknown to the two lovers, they are father and daughter. So there does need to be a way to keep track of children and fathers and so forth. Back in the day marriage was the only way one man would know that the woman he was sleeping with was bearing his children.
There are many different types of levels human beings connect on, spiritually, emotionally, physically and so forth. The idea of love is that all those things are intertwined. Love cannot exist without all those elements. Once your attention is being split into two or three or however many directions you don’t spread any love equally. It seems almost unethical to only devote to someone else just a sexual part of you or deep emotional part of you or even both if you already give that to someone else. It seems unfair to their needs and desires. Obviously these boyfriends and girlfriends are human beings not rag dolls or sex toys to be passed around. Don’t they deserve an attentive partner as well? Do these other boyfriends and girlfriends only devote themselves to the married people or do they also have their own partners? Don’t these people deserve some stability as well? Don’t they deserve a monetary net? Don’t they deserve a partner who will love them and care for them no matter what? Or are they just as disposable? Shouldn’t they be entitled to sharing money, or sharing the task of child rearing as well? Or is this “stability” only reserved for the “married” couple. Seems kind of unfair.
If something is missing in a relationship you will not find it by adding an extra person. People are complicated with thoughts and feelings not just body parts. Monogamy takes work LOTS OF WORK but that doesn’t make it restrictive. If you feel trapped then you need to look at yourself and what it is that is making you feel trapped and change it. Love should be something constant and not the sum of money and security, but rather attention care and empathy.
actually I do think this is more traditional marriage-only fairly recently has it been about love and not property. only fairly recently was marital sex expected per se to be more than a duty that you had to do. Now, I think a definition based on love is a step in the right direction, don't get me wrong. but that is harder. also, I'm curious why you think that if stability and love were seperated marriage wouldn't exist. as I said, until fairly recently, it was perfectly normal and more likely that men would marry and get stability to one person, and love and passion would come from a mistress. It could be seperated, and marriage came about anyway. so I'd like some clarification as to what you mean there. and as to, don't non primary partners deserve attention and love too-yes. Does that mean they want it from you in particular?-not necessarily. but many, I'd say most, people know that. Why do you think there are so many articles about "men know if you're a girlfriend type or just for sex type within 10 minutes, dating advice style crap? while I can't speak for everyone, I'd never try to say that a non primary partner couldn't look for someone else to be their primary. I don't expect to be more important to someone else than they are to me-that's a reason I've turned people down, in fact. I do expect them to know what they want.
This is pure monogamist bias. This kind of argument is exactly parallel to homophobic assertions that people of the same sex can't have a good relationship because it's not "normal." Just because you can't imagine yourself doing it doesn't mean it can't - much less shouldn't - be done.
Also, you've taken the quote about "romantic love" out of context in order to spin it as a loveless marriage. What she really says is:
She loves them both and they love her. Good for them all.
But isn't it sexist of her to say the following?
"the kind of emotional support and sexual satisfaction that I don't believe any man or any traditional marriage could give me."
Isn't she just reiterating the tired gender stereotype that men aren't emotionally available and don't understand women's bodies? And why does marriage mean the death of sex and emotional support? Do people stop supporting each other when they make a commitment? It's the opposite if anything, or at least it should be. It sounds to me that she is friends with her husband and in love with her girlfriend.
Yeah, I'd be happier if it was "any ONE man or any traditional marriage . . . " It would ackowledge her own experience by not universalize it in a way that sounds, at least, like she's writing off all men as being capable of emotional and physical intimacy that would be satisfying.
earthling and annajcook-
I tend to disagree that she's universalizing, since she says "could give me." Also, I don't read her as saying all women are bisexual. (Reading the chapter that wolfegirl posted the link to, I don't see anything other than her frank admission that she comes to all this with lots of baggage.)
I think her unstated thing is the distinction between the emotional dynamic of a domestic, child-raising home life as compared to the relationship with a partner who she doesn't live or have economic or family responsibilities with. Maybe I am projecting my own experience onto her, but it seems to me that she's saying that between the satisfaction of having a committed long-term relationship that centers on stability and the raising of a child and the thrills of having a passionate, sexual relationship that may or may not last, she believes she doesn't have to choose.
"This kind of argument is exactly parallel to homophobic assertions that people of the same sex can't have a good relationship because it's not "normal.""
Not really. What is normal is different from culture to culture. In Togo it is normal to have a girl's genitals chopped off because they consider it important. But this is unethical. Therefore not everything that is considered normal is ethical. My argument was on the basis of ethics not normality. It is unethical to not let gays and lesbians get married. Just as it is unethical to force a person to get married to someone they don't love.
"Just because you can't imagine yourself doing it doesn't mean it can't - much less shouldn't - be done."
I never said I couldn't imagine myself sleeping with more than one person or having an "extra"relationship but I've thought long and hard about how it would be damaging to me and all the people involved. I've said this before but just because it is something that pleases you doesn't make it ethical. For example I LOVE NIKE running shoes. But I refuse to buy them because I know some kid in India was hunched over for two days sowing them together. Just because it might be something I like doesn't mean it is ethical.
I just think that if you are going to be polyamorous you should not get married. Because then why does only one of your partners get to benefit from being with you? It makes no sense, and it is unfair. This is unethical to me. Separating love and sex can be a very dangerous thing. Statistically speaking this separation happens in people who have been sexually abused, or traumatized as children. That's not to say that is everyone's case but from what I have read that seems to be the consensus.
"I love the man who stands by me always, the man who is the father of my child. And I love the woman who provides me with the kind of emotional support and sexual satisfaction that I don't believe any man or any traditional marriage could give me."
This really isn't a great argument about love. This is exactly what I was talking about. She finds stability in him because he will always be there and because he is helping her raise her child. That is not love. This is a marriage of convenience. She really romantically loves this woman, because she gets emotional and sexual satisfaction from her. So I don't think this marriage is polyamorous by any means, because she really only loves the woman she is with. She loves her husband how I love my best friend. My best friend and I live together, share money and food and chores. But I sleep with my boyfriend and he gives me a lot of emotional support. Meaning I only romantically love him, not her.
once again, why do you assume that she is the only one that her girlfriend is with? that's not the norm, in at least the poly relationships that I've seen. Why do you assume that because her girlfriend isn't married to her that she isn't married to someone else? either back yourself up or take down that straw relationship.
"once again, why do you assume that she is the only one that her girlfriend is with?"
Because she said the following...
"And I found what I was looking for--first with a series of male lovers, and now with a committed girlfriend. "
Committed usually means exclusive. So that would mean her girlfriend is exclusive and is only with Block. That is why I assume that. That is unless committed means something else?
well, since the book and the thread are talking about open relationships, no, committed does not necessarily, or in this context I'd say even usually, mean exclusive. as I said above, it's not the norm(at least from what I've seen, been in and read) for two parts of an open relationship to have different rules about openness. That's usually strongly discouraged in any kind of community about the subject. As you say, it's unethical under most codes of ethics. She isn't really sharing details of who is doing what with whom other than herself either here or in the chapter-a decision that was probably made to respect the privacy of her husband and girlfriend. which seems loving. but more likely, a committed relationship is an ongoing one, and that you have some interest in working things out rather than just bailing.
I just think that if you are going to be polyamorous you should not get married. Because then why does only one of your partners get to benefit from being with you? It makes no sense, and it is unfair.
What makes you think poly people who have partners who want that sort of commitment don't get married? I know plenty of people with multiple spouses. It's just not a legal arrangement.
OKAY CAN SOMEONE PLEASE DEFINE THE WORD COMMITMENT FOR ME BECAUSE APPARENTLY I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THESE RELATIONSHIPS.
No you don't, obviously, and throwing an all-caps tantrum doesn't make me want to try to explain it to you.
A commitment means you'll be there when someone needs you and vice versa. This does not have to include a marriage license, but it can. It does include a mutual set of boundaries and ground rules and shared understanding.
If you can be there for your kids, your spouse and your extended family, why not more than one partner?
No you don't, obviously, and throwing an all-caps tantrum doesn't make me want to try to explain it to you.
A commitment means you'll be there when someone needs you and vice versa. This does not have to include a marriage license, but it can. It does include a mutual set of boundaries and ground rules and shared understanding.
If you can be there for your kids, your spouse and your extended family, why not more than one partner?
What makes you think it has the same definition for monogamous relationships? But regardless, the group marriages I know of live in the same space, share finances, raise children together, etc...
Pretty much the same as you'd expect from a monogamous couple, except with more than two people. So I call them committed. You could call them married, but that has legal ramifications. Some of them call themselves hand-fasted, which is a pagan thing.
first of all, i really don't think alternative relationships are at all comprable to fgm in terms of ethics. secondly, you assume that just because you can't equitable share your attentions with multiple loves that it can't be done. though i'm sure you still do it (mom, sibling, lover, best friend) on a different level. but i love my primary, very much. and when i had a secondary partner i loved him very much too. and when, in the future, i find the right human to get emotionally involved with i'm sure that i will love them too. polyfidelity is what works for me. the amoury (meaning love) part of polyamoury is what makes it work...for me.
does it require some juggling? yeah, scheduals are what they are and it takes balance. it also takes a high level of coomunication from everyone and enough trust to know that if an involved party says, "i need more time/sex/space/affection/kisses/something," that need will be examined and discussed with an eye toward resolution.
and by the way, i resent the statement that anyone who wants this kind of relationship must be defective or an abuse survivor. most of the "studies" done on this have foregone conclutions and/or are conducted by people who think this is a deviance and therefore (consiously or not) seek out study participents that fit their preconceptions.
firefey wins the thread.
i didn't say they were comparable by any means, i was trying to say what is normal is not always ethical
by choosing the most brutal act and using scare tactics to do so. at best, it's a logical falisy. at worst it's dismissive to women who have suffered the act and degrading to people who have these kinds of relationships. and who are you to make the judgment call that all relationships that don't fit into your catagory of correct are unethical? sounds a bit like the words used by other groups to dismiss loving, caring same sex relationships.
also... sorry about the double post.
understood, as I've said before i was just trying to say what is normal is not always ethical.
first of all, i really don't think alternative relationships are at all comprable to fgm in terms of ethics. secondly, you assume that just because you can't equitable share your attentions with multiple loves that it can't be done. though i'm sure you still do it (mom, sibling, lover, best friend) on a different level. but i love my primary, very much. and when i had a secondary partner i loved him very much too. and when, in the future, i find the right human to get emotionally involved with i'm sure that i will love them too. polyfidelity is what works for me. the amoury (meaning love) part of polyamoury is what makes it work...for me.
does it require some juggling? yeah, scheduals are what they are and it takes balance. it also takes a high level of coomunication from everyone and enough trust to know that if an involved party says, "i need more time/sex/space/affection/kisses/something," that need will be examined and discussed with an eye toward resolution.
and by the way, i resent the statement that anyone who wants this kind of relationship must be defective or an abuse survivor. most of the "studies" done on this have foregone conclutions and/or are conducted by people who think this is a deviance and therefore (consiously or not) seek out study participents that fit their preconceptions.
I too get that feeling of "there's something wrong with monogamy" from these excerpts.
Which is understandable--to a degree-when you're constantly having to defend your life choices. (And, to be fair, these are just excerpts.)
I've always looked at relationships like this:
Every person has to negotiate the terms of their relationships with the other party. Outsiders don't get to define how many partners are acceptable to you or what kind of sex play you should engage in or what your definition of cheating is or how you divvy up your housework. If they're not in the relationship, they don't count.
If monogamy is bad, is celibacy worse?
Poly/mono relationship discussions are always difficult- it's hard not to feel attacked from either point of view. And the thing to remember is that there is one end of the poly scale, as presented in open, where a couple's marriage provides companionship and a possible parenting partner but romance and sex are found elsewhere, and the other end of the poly scale, where a couple's marriage provides companionship, a PPP, romance and sex, and occasionally the partners have sex without romantic emotion with others.
I'm mono, but I was best man at the wedding of a poly couple I'm very close to. I see their relationship up close, and they've found something that works for them. Different people find it more or less easy to seperate romantic feelings and sexual longing, to pull apart Love and Sex into seperate boxes. Some people find that to them, Love and Sex come seperately. Others- like myself- find the two impossible to remove from each other. Neither is wrong, both cause heartbreak, and that's why you need to talk about this with any partner.
I will admit that I cannot see any reason to get married if you do not love and have no intention of starting a family with your prospective spouse. That's just being great friends, as far as I can see. And there are problems with marriage, with all the baggage it holds, but a lot of people's hurt feelings come down to the way they see marriage- as a base for a family, or as a celebration of love between two people. Neither is wrong; you just have to work out what you want marriage to mean to you.
"I'm curious why you think that if stability and love were seperated marriage wouldn't exist."
Marriage would still exist, I just think it is unethical.
"It was perfectly normal and more likely that men would marry and get stability to one person, and love and passion would come from a mistress."
I agree with you there, this was totally normal, not ethical but normal.
"Does that mean they want it from you in particular?-not necessarily. "
Well why be with someone if they don't want your attention? Seems kind of pointless.
"Why do you think there are so many articles about "men know if you're a girlfriend type or just for sex type within 10 minutes, dating advice style crap?"
I believe this is in response to the bachelor culture we have today. The one night stand, no strings attached relationships. I could write 200 pages about why that is in men's magazines but i'll leave it at this...Because this society still pushes the idea that men are all about sex, no emotions, no connections just sex. Block seems to reinforce that idea with her reasoning of whom she loves. She "loves" her husband because he can support her and she loves her girlfriend because she everything her husband isn't, that being her girlfriend is the better match.
attention is not marriage. Even love is not marriage. That's a perfect example of why someone might want not to be a spouse, and prefer to be a non-primary partner. there's generally less responsibilites and less asked. You're right that society allows men to admit that they aren't in love with everyone that they have sex with. Novel thought-women aren't either. With some people there truly is a lifelong love connection. with some people there is a sexual connection, but trying to live together and share your entire life would just drive you crazy. You're right that the fact that the advice is only given to men comes from and leads to sexist b.s. but it's still true, just more generalized. There are different levels of love and attraction. saying that marriage is the most important one, and that monogamy is worth giving all the rest up for is your choice, and your values. but not universal. I can think of people that I've been in love with but that marriage wouldn't work out. are you saying that isn't really love? I disagree.
"attention is not marriage. Even love is not marriage"
From all the people I know who have been divorced it was because of lack of attention. If marriage does not mean love then there is another word for that, divorce.
"but trying to live together and share your entire life would just drive you crazy."
Every relationship takes work. It seems like an easy way out to not fix what is wrong in the first place rather than band-aid the issue. This issue being sexual compatibility.
"saying that marriage is the most important one, and that monogamy is worth giving all the rest up for is your choice, and your values"
I didn't say marriage was most important. I said they shouldn't get married if they are going to have multiple relationships. Because as far as I know multiple marriages in the US are illegal. I think it is unfair to the boyfriends and girlfriends who do not get to legally benefit from the marriage which they are not technically a part of.
"I've been in love with but that marriage wouldn't work out. are you saying that isn't really love? "
No that's not what I'm saying. You are right plenty of people have non-marriage relationships and those are all valid and love relationships. What I was saying was that marriage shouldn't be about money and convenience, it should be about love.
I don't have any real stake in this, since an open marriage isn't something that could ever work for me, but you really seem to be dismissing other peoples' experiences and determined to institute your view of relationships on everyone.
Marriage ain't always for love, and rarely in history has it been. Marriage in the US is a legal contract, and there's nothing that requires passion or romance. If someone decides to get married because they want the legal benefits, then they enter the contract.
You keep arguing for the rights of the people outside the marriage - but they're not being coerced. If they decide they want to sleep with/date someone/be committed to someone who's in a marriage, and everyone's well aware of the circumstances, that's their right to do so. If they decide that they want solitary attention and legal benefits of marriage and that dating someone who's married isn't working for them anymore...they can leave. If they're not worried about those things, I'm not sure why you're worried on their behalf other than for the sake of making sure everyone gets married for the "right" reasons.
So I don't think this marriage is polyamorous by any means, because she really only loves the woman she is with.
Wow. way to be judgmental about other peoples' subjective experience! Why is it so important to you to dismiss her own definition of love and romance, as long as she's not forcing you to adopt the same?
Why is it important to not buy Nike shoes as long as kids in the US don't have to subjected to slave labor?
I think it is important for me to dismiss her definition of love and romance because her reasoning for loving her husband seems empty. From this excerpt, it seems empty. She chooses two reasons why she loves her husband, because he supports her and he is helping her raise her child. Well, damn my grandma did that for my aunt, that doesn't mean it is romantic love. What she says about her girlfriend is much more heartfelt, less logistical and much more important. Because isn't that what everyone wants in a partner? Someone who gives them emotional support and sexual satisfaction...this sounds like love or a healthy relationship. How she describes her husband is more like a nanny who listens every so often.
rootedwillow, the analogy to child labor is inaccurate because in that instance you can point to actual people being hurt by a purchasing decision. In a marriage, the only people directly affected are the individuals involved (in this case, the two married partners, their lovers, and the children), and if none of them are unhappy with the arrangement, then who are we to judge?
You can certainly say "from what she describes, that's not the sort of relationship that would make ME happy." And talk about why. But you're rejecting the way she defines her own experience. And you're doing so based on one excerpt of a long book. It's one thing to say, as many of us have, that in this excerpt the author comes across as critical of other peoples' relationship choices . . . but I don't think it's okay for us to be judgmental of her own relationship choices, as long as no one else directly involved is unhappy. (And even then, it's for them to speak up, not for us to criticize).
Okay, I am being judgmental. I'll pose some questions... Obviously they cannot be answered right now but I'm just wondering.
If there is not sexual fidelity ...
Does Block's husband ever get jealous over Block spending money on her girlfriend?
Does Block's husband ever get jealous over Block spending time with her girlfriend?
Would Block's husband be okay with Block having another man's baby?
Would Block be okay with her husband having a child with someone else?
How would all that work?
It works differently for different people. People work out varying agreements about time, finances and kids just like in monogamous relationships.
Yes, most poly people deal with jealousy. You can learn to cope. Jealousy is mostly a cultural artifact and rooted in fear: fear you won't get your needs met, fear your partner will leave you. When you know that's not going to happen, jealousy largely disappears. There's even a point many poly people get to called "compersion": feeling joy watching your partner interact with others because you can see how happy it makes them. It's a great feeling.
Does Block's husband ever get jealous over Block spending money on her girlfriend?
Does Block's husband ever get jealous over Block spending time with her girlfriend?
Would Block's husband be okay with Block having another man's baby?
Would Block be okay with her husband having a child with someone else?
How would all that work?
I can answer from my perspective.
No, I don't get jealous of my wife spending time or money with other people.
I can't imagine if my wife would want to have someone's child other than mine. We're child free by choice. For that matter, I don't intend to get anyone else pregnant either.
But if she did, I really wouldn't care who's sperm created the child. If it was someone who wanted a relationship with the child, we'd work that out. If they just wanted to donate sperm, that would also be fine with me.
I really don't get the attachment people have to a genetic tie to children they raise. It's totally irrelevant to me. I understand that it exists, but I can't put myself into a position where I'd feel it. It's alien.
romantic love as a reason for getting married is a REALLY (as in less than 100 years) new reason. and it's not universal by any means. in most places in the world (ie everywhere that isn't the USA, much of Europe and most of Australia) marriage is not about love at all. it's a social contract between families that binds them together in complex ways. it's a legitimacy of sexual contact and the offspring produced. and like it or not it's a business transaction. just because your idea of marriage is the shiny new halmark version pushed by the bridal industrial compex (who makes big money off those romantic notions) doesn't make you more enlightened than the rest of the world. and it doesn't make that reason for marriage any better than other reasons. i would also wager that your deffinition of love, and mine are pretty different. and that's ok. i'm willing to let you have whatever type of relationships you want to have with consenting adults. cause that's your right. but it is my right too. and it's your right to define love and your own expectations of marriage any way you want. but it's mine too.
and i don't think anyone here can answer your questions about block's relationship. but i'll answer them from my own.
If there is not sexual fidelity ...
Does my beloved ever get jealous over me spending money on other partners? in a word: no. we are set up to where i make all the financial decisions, cause i'm better with money than he is. and once the bills are paid, that money is for spending. he gets his own agreed upon amount to do with as he pleases and i have mine. what each of us does is up to us.
Does my beloved ever get jealous over me spending time with other partners? sometimes. but our relationship is set up such that we talk about jelousy, where it comes from, and how to alliveate it. my former secondary was, and still is, friends with both my beloved and myself. they were not intimate, but we often did things together as a unit. this helped to foster a sence of trust between them that kept most jelousy issues from ever coming up.
Would my beloved be okay with me having another man's baby? no. but neither one of us wants kids so that's kind of a non-issue. and one of the reasons he's a primary and not a secondary partner.
Would I be okay with my beloved or any other partner having a child with someone else? if my beloved suddenly decided he wanted kids, and we talked about it and i still felt i didn't then yes i would be ok with it. unplanned, not so much as it would violate condom rules we have. but i like being an auntie, so that would be fun for me to get to share with him the experience of being a father without some of the attendant social pressures on me. and my former secondary did want kids, which is part of why he was a secondary and welcome to find another partner he wanted to have kids with.
that helps to know, thanks
okay i asked this a little further up in the comment section what is your definition of commitment? Is there any other word you use to describe this because, talking about these relationships it seems too flimsy of a word to describe who or what you are committed to? What does this commitment entail? Are you just emotionally committed, economically committed etc? I don't meant to bog you down with questions, but using the word commitment in this case is too confusing.
It is only too "flimsy" of a word in your mind.
commitment: 4. a pledge or promise; obligation: We have made a commitment to pay our bills on time.
5. engagement; involvement: They have a sincere commitment to religion.
Mutual promises and involvement. Why is that so hard to understand?
i agree with bifemfatale, it's too "flimsy" in your mind. but i think a lot of that is owing to a very narrow view of what commitment means to you. which is a good or bad thing as you percieve it, not trying to make a value judgement. i would ask that you answer those same questions for yourself. in a relationship, just who or what are you committed to? is it emotional, economic, or some combination? do you have paralell commitments to other people, both accounting for romantic love and leaving it out of the equation?
in any relationship i try to be comitted to the paramaters of that relationship. be it romantic, platonic, business, or familial. every one of those relationships is some combination of emotional and economic factors and comitments. the main difference between us, in this discussion at least, is that i don't view romantic love as a finite resource that msut be parceled out in order to avoid running out of it. i see love as an exponential resource that grows in the giving. or to quote shakepear (totally out of context) "the more i give to thee, the more i have for both are infinite."
It's always seemed strange to me that nobody ever discusses sexual compatibility in long term relationships or marriage. And as a woman, if you mention a lack of sexual compatibility as a deal-breaker, you're viewed as being shallow and probably slutty.
I've been in two long-term exclusive relationships prior to the (monogomous) one I'm in now, and I always, always cheated. But now I realize that it was because we were totally not sexually compatible (and they insisted on monogomous relationships), but women in our culture can't list that as a reason for breaking up with a partner with whom they're copmpatible in every other way. My last fuck buddy (with whom I was cheating on my ex) turned out to be totally sexually compatible with me (we both have very strong sex drives), and since we're also compatible in many other ways, it kind of stuck in spite of our best intentions (the first time I ever got emotionally entangled with a fuck buddy) and we've been together for 4 years and are raising my stepdaughter and our daughter together. From the outside we appear to be a perfectly respectable, conventional family, but I think this is based on our sexual compatibility.
In other words, I think the expectation to be monogomous is only reasonable in cases where you are truly sexually compatible, but I think that's pretty rare.
Personally, I am monogamous. I was married and divorced several years later. For me, I don't see the reason to married if the relationship is going to be open. I have seen couples over the years try the open relationship and someone ends up hurt. I guess I am conservative when it comes to relationships. If a couple married or not chooses to have an open relationship, please exercise extreme caution.