Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Making choices

Just a fair warning, although I have generally avoided topics of sex and sexuality on this bog (realizing that I could potentially have readers of any age or sexual comfort level), I will be tackling a particular issue that has plagued my mind for quite some now. The idea of an open marriage.

This topic does not come without a source. Actually, I blame it entirely on watching Talk Sex with Sue Johanson (before she retired the show) and reading Dan Savage's column "Savage Love" with regularity. I like to consider myself a sex-positive person in many ways. My philosophy is that what a loving, neurologically mature adult couple chooses to do in their own bedroom is none of my business. Just as what my husband and I choose to do in our bedroom is no one else's business. And, as I've promised you all as well as myself and my husband, I will not be divulging intimate details in this blog. As I said, it's none of your business. But my point is that I do have a fairly sex-positive attitude. Sometimes, though, that positivity has limitations. And those limitations fall upon open marriages. Now, I would never condemn a loving, neurologically mature adult couple for choosing to live in an open marriage, if that's what floats their boat. It's just something I can't quite wrap my little neurologically mature mind around.

Dan Savage recently devoted an entire column to answering questions from people who are either curious about open relationships or who are themselves in them. This is what he had to say about that. Dan Savage is also a very sex-positive fella, but he seems a great deal more positive than I am. He not only "doesn't condemn," but he outright approves open relationships. He even suggests them for some people. That's where his sex-positive attitude leaves me perplexed. Are there no other ways to spice up a couple's sex play in the bedroom? I would offer that there's an entire industry dedicated to it, chockfull of toys, videos, "sex aids" and the like. Surely there are more options before a couple chooses to invite a third or fourth to bed. (Yes, yes, I also know that not all open relationships result in a ménage-à-trois, but Dan Savage does discuss that possibility as well.)

In the column I've linked to above, Dan Savage refers to the book Sex at Dawn, which refers to potential biological proof that humans are naturally disinclined toward monogamy. I get that. It makes sense to me in the most fundamental of senses. However, it's the "struggle with monogamy" that I scratch my head over. When I talked to my own monogamous partner about this, trying to discern what precisely this "struggle" could possibly be, I ultimately decided that I've never had this urge for variety. I've never felt trapped or scared or doomed in any monogamous relationship, and certainly never in my engagement before Robert and I were married.

And then, I stumbled upon this blog entry called "So this is what 30 looks like" on Peripheral Perceptions. It's written by a woman who celebrated her thirtieth wedding anniversary a couple of days ago; her blog reminisces on lessons she learned over the first few years they were married. Although the blog is humorous in nature, she does admit to her marriage having its pitfalls in the course of thirty years (as, I'm sure, they all do). She ends her blog with this little gem:

"Finally, marriage isn’t all about the mushy feelings during the 'honeymoon period.' Emotions change. People change. Entrepreneur and I aren’t anything like we were 30 years ago. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes not so much. Marriage isn’t a feeling. It’s a decision. A decision to love 'in spite of' as well as 'because of.'"

I think this is why I have the feelings I do in regards to the concept of an open marriage. Because Robert and I always made a choice to have a monogamous relationship and marriage. That's why we can't conceive of anything other than that. So, although some people do pursue open relationships because the flame starts to die, it does make me wonder about the choice they made when they entered into that specific relationship. Were they honest with themselves and their partner? Did they enter into a monogamous relationship despite misgivings that suggested they would have preferred some level of sexual freedom? Were their psychological fingers crossed when they chose to stay faithful to a single body?

The point that "[m]arriage isn't a feeling. It's a decision" truly resonated with us. We had a long conversation about the choice we made and what that meant for us. Yes, we entered into our relationship based on a feeling. We entered into our marriage, though, because of a specific decision we made. I want to maintain a sex-positive attitude, but I just don't think I would be able to accept an open option in my marriage.

Anyway, this is the sexual controversy that has recently plagued my mind for the past couple of weeks. Thoughts?

3 comments:

Tim C said...

I'm with you in that, while I'd never condemn someone who elected for a sexually open marriage, I can't quite grasp the thought of it, myself.

Out of several couples I know in such relationships, there is only one I have actually seen make it work. The rest are either broken up, divorced, or "in the closet," if you get my drift.

One of my best friends was pressured into an open relationship by his ex, and he resented her for nearly their entire relationship. He is now in a loving, monogamous marriage, and I've never seen him happier.

That, I believe, is the biggest problem with open relationships - GENERALLY one partner wants an open relationship more than the other (Yes, I realize there are some partnerships where both partners desire the open relationship), and while the partner who wants a committed, monogamous relationship may give in to the other's desires, he or she is very likely to resent the one who does not, and it is incredibly unfair that, on top of the resentment toward their partner for not being monogamous, they should be made to feel guilty for WANTING someone committed to only them.

What arguments like Savage's ignore is that humanity has evolved since the days when multiple partners were normal. Men don't HAVE to be "minutemen," as Savage quoted, and, to be quite honest while trying not to be TOO open, I find it much more satisfying to run a marathon than to sprint. Arousal can build through endurance, and while I can't speak from experience, since I'm not willing to consider an open relationship, either, I think endurance provides a better finale, too.

A. Hab. said...

I'm with you, Tim. I do worry about people who make these sorts of decisions for their marriages--are both partners really as dedicated to the decision as they appear to be? Or is one dedicated to saving the marriage and will do anything to keep his or her partner, even if that means sharing him or her? It makes me sad.

But, on the other hand, I understand that human sexuality is a complex and infinite thing. The possibilities are endless for the ways in which a person or a couple or a threesome or a group of people can express their sexuality. I guess I'm just a little skeptical of the idea that Savage suggests that would make monogamy such a tricky choice to make.

Of course, media outlets seem to support this idea while likewise denying it. Look at any movie that includes an engagement and wedding preparations. Inevitably either the man or the woman will pause for a moment to reflect on the infinite sex partners they will never bed if they go through with the marriage. The idea seems to be daunting to these characters. In fact, I had been so inundated by these images that I actually expected either Robert or myself (or hell, both of us!) to question our commitment. I had even braced myself for most of the beginning of our engagement for that inevitable and uncomfortable talk wherein he would surely confess that he was scared to marry me and commit to a life of monogamy with me. The conversation we actually had?

Me (desperate for the other shoe to just drop already): Are you nervous about getting married?
Him: Kind of...I mean, we've never been married before, so it'll be really exciting to see what that will be like. But, yeah, I guess I'm nervous about what kind of husband I'll be.
Me: But are you nervous about BEING married?
Him: No.
Me: I mean, are you nervous about being married to ME?
Him: No.

As far as I understand, his bachelor party was not rife with hysterical bouts of panic at knowing that he would never again "know" another woman. And my bachelorette party was not the "last night" that it purported itself to be. Instead, it was a celebration with my best girlfriends that I would soon be married to the love of my life.

So it just makes me wonder about those apparently common fears. Are they common after all? And if they are common, then are those who don't have that fear a little freakish?

Tim C said...

My bachelor's party consisted of playing video games with Andrew and one of his friends. I've never understood the "last gasp" mentality behind the stereotypical bachelor(ette)'s party.

Honestly, if you feel like you have to have a last gasp, maybe you aren't actually prepared to get married, and maybe that's OK. I almost hate to admit it, but I would have felt deeply hurt and betrayed if Jen had wanted the stereotypical bachelorette's party, but I also know that she would have felt the same way if I had wanted the stereotypical bachelor's party.

As for the common fears, I don't know. I have friends who STILL experience those fears, even years into their marriages, and I have friends who never once experienced (or at least admitted to) those fears. I was never afraid of marrying Jen - it felt absolutely right. That's not to say we've never had any trouble, but it is always easy to WANT to work through any problems that may arise.

Obviously, the human experience is radically different from one person to the next, which is why I always question advice like Savage's. Even if our attitudes toward different types of relationships are part of nurture rather than nature, by the time we're old enough to enjoy those relationships, those attitudes are as firmly ingrained as they would be if they WERE nature, and we will be much happier with someone who (whether by nature or nurture) shares our attitudes than we will be in trying to forcibly reshape our own attitudes. Sure, there are some "nurtured" attitudes that should be changed (racism and homophobia jumping immediately to mind here), but nurtured attitudes are also HARD to change, so I would say that only the destructive ones SHOULD be changed. Desiring a monogamous relationship isn't something that strikes me as even remotely destructive, unless you also tend to only desire partners who are in to wild and crazy orgies, in which case you kind of brought that on yourself ;-).