I spent two decades having babies with a husband who used sex as blackmail. ( I.e. I’ll stop being a bastard to you and the kids when you let me fuck you. )
The sexual freedom came during and after the divorce. It took releasing my rage to fuel the courage it took to blow the marriage and ‘ happy Catholic family’ apart. Then feel guilty about it still 23 years later.
I had several monogamous and non monogamous relationships after. OMG I loved the sexual discoveries, the touching, affection, intimacy( both physical and emotional) and bliss my body craved for so long. And some of the guys definitely had some assholedness going on ( none of the women did. All those experiences were lovely). But the freedom to choose, to drop inhibitions, to crawl out from under the cover of shame, to grow into new found respect for my body, my sexual self, my womanhood, giving myself permission to meet my needs... I was 43. I’m 66 now in a relaxed relationship with a much younger man.
I have grown kids and have dabbled in conversations about my sexuality with a few of them but there is still fear of rejection when I think about opening up to them about that ‘wild’ time in my life.
I love the vulnerability in this interview. Maybe someday I’ll write a memoir about that time in my life. Right now it’s showing up in characters in my novel. 😉
My only concern (given my own history) is that this may be the ideal goal, but even if that's what I want, I can't say it always works. Usually you don't figure out that it may in fact be bad sex until you are in the middle of it and that isn't always the ideal time to stop, sigh. Maybe it SHOULD be the best time, but my experience is it doesn't work out that way. Maybe that's because I'm male LOL, but I don't think so.
I hope I can find time to read this book at some point. I spent most of the nearly fourteen years I was with my ex-husband negotiating the notions of non-monogamy and polyamory. He didn't come right out and tell me at the outset that he was non-monogamous, but to be fair, he did tell me pretty early on and I didn't really know what to do with that information. I was so young and also bisexual and the idea of a lifetime with only one partner seemed literally insane. And yet I didn't really want to be involved in a non-monogamous relationship, so we fought about it for years. He pursued any number of emotional affairs, then eventually he physically cheated on me, and then he brought the woman who is his current wife into the picture and told me that either I let him date her without any restrictions or he wanted a divorce. In an attempt to save my marriage we went through a whole process of drawing up a contract (not unusual in non-monogamous relationships), which it took two weeks for him to violate once we finished writing it together. That was the end for us.
Ironically, my next relationship was a poly one. I was what I called the "happy occasional side-piece" for one of my dearest friend's husband (at her suggestion) for about two years. It suited my life at that point, and when it ended there was no rancor or drama or bullshit, unlike my marriage. And my husband went on, by all accounts, to be happily monogamously married to the Christian cat-lady he ended our marriage over.
I don't think what happened after we split says anything about who either of us is inherently, though I will say it taught me something that has subsequently served me well in regards to relationships: there is no perfect relationship structure. What works for anyone may evolve or change over time. But no relationship structure will work if you insist on being in it with assholes. So now I have a "no assholes" policy. Everything else is on the table.
I always love your comments. They're so insightful and fascinating. And I hope you can read this book!! It's something I wish MORE people talked about because I think it's a way to move the conversation beyond "I am not happy" to "let's figure out a new way to do life"
Thanks, Lyz. That's nice to read. I do think that non-monogamy, though it's becoming more common (or at least more commonly discussed), does require WAY more self-possession and communication skills to manage well than monogamy. Maybe just because there are more people involved, or maybe because it flies in the face of so many of our cultural mythologies about romance and self-worth and sex; so we're not trained for many of the feelings that can come up. But then, I've never really been in a healthy, long term monogamous relationship, so maybe those require the kind of constant communication and mindfulness that successful non-monogamy does.
Regardless, at this point, the requirements of successful non-monogamy just feel like too much work for me. If there's what Esther Perel calls an "inevitable third" in any relationship I'm in, my mistress is definitely my writing. Just figuring out how to be committed to both a person and my creativity is enough of a challenge.
Oh, and another thing! My son is now in a fairly extensive "trans polycule" relationship, which I find fascinating. He is his girlfriend's second partner. And his girlfriend's partner has another partner, who themselves have another partner. And they all hang out and have potlucks together. And everyone is trans/gender-fluid. There's so much complexity there it makes my head sort of melt, but as long as he's well cherished, which he seems to be, I'm happy.
My daughter and her friends, trans and cis, (Gen z) said they’re basically poly, and lovely and open and fluid with it. I do think it’s taken a generation.
I apologize for just jumping in like this but I really wanted to try to contribute to this absolutely terrific exchange. I'm 73, married twice, in several poly relationships along the way and I will say that IMHO if its taken a generation that is more about it taking the generation to be open about it. I knew people in the 60s and 70s and 80s who had a variety of poly relationships (communal types, swinger types, triad types, and a variety of others, it takes a village of course :-) ) and what I witnessed (and sometimes participated in) was the need for most people to keep this private because of fear of what the rest of their various communities (mostly monogomous) would think and/or say. This included friends who felt they had to keep secrets from each other. One pair of friends i knew each had opened their marriage but did not know about the other and both couples felt that it was critical to not share any of this with the other couple. It was quite amusing when (after about a year) it all came out between both couples and they had a good laugh about how they had kept all this info from each other. And then they decided to get together as a foursome and it was a disaster :-). I smile only because one the one hand, they all felt that because both couples were engaged in polyamory, they could "get together" and it would work, and on the other, they were both astonished and I think embarassed when the realized that it was "automatic" that because they each had this aspect to their relationship, that somehow it would be automatic that it would work between the four of them. There is truly nothing "automatic" about ANY kind of relationships and relationship behavior, whether it involves 2 people, 3 people, 4 people or many more. Relationships are always complicated and sometimes difficult and expecting ANY kind of result is probably setting yourself up for behavior. The best you can do is invest yourself totally and be ready for a lot of discussion, possible tension and be ready to move away if necessary with the minimum of conflict. And it is WORKS, be joyful because that is NEVER the "default".
Thanks for these thoughts. Yes, all relationships are unique! You’ve made some great points about secrets and I think there is a place for this—all out all the time often doesn’t serve anyone except the person who, for their own reasons, can’t live with complexity and/or duplicity (which is holding different things in our heads at the same time).
Why does this seem insulting to me? Why am I reading this and getting strong whiffs of "nonmonogamists are more evolved and enlightened than monogamous people?"
This also seems to clash with the advice on nonmonogamy I see from the therapeutic community: in order to do polyamory well, the primary couple must be stable (which to me would indicate self-possession and sound communication skills).
I've been in successful non-monogamous relationships, and I've witnessed plenty of dumpster fire non-monogamous relationships. In none of those cases was anyone more evolved or enlightened than folks who are generally or exclusively monogamous.
It's not a question of whether or not someone is evolved or enlightened. Folks who are non-monogamous or polyamorous can get really judge-y about monogamy, and I think that's bullshit, honestly. Like I said, any relationship structure is viable, as long as no one is an asshole. That said, there is a lot of negotiation in non-monogamy to make sure that *everyone* involved and affected is getting their needs met to the fullest extent possible, whether you do a hierarchical primary/tertiary relationship structure or something more flat. It's like running your romantic/sexual life by committee, and group processes ALWAYS (in my experience) require a higher level of self-possession and communication skill then, say, just figuring shit out between two basically healthy people. So many cooks in the kitchen, if you get what I'm saying.
I don't advocate for non-monogamy, to be clear. I think it works well for some people and is a dumpster fire for others. I think monogamy is the same. Everyone has to figure out what works for them given their current needs and the needs of the partners available and attractive to them. And what works may morph over time. There's no final answer other than don't get involved with assholes.
My therapist cites one of her clients who says 'there's more talking than fucking...!' Love this interview. Lots to think about and I'll comment more fully soon--off to work :)
But life is generally a lot more talking than fucking, right? Regardless of whether you are monogomous or poly or whatever. Most of us (at least I have met VERY VERY few) spend less than a few hours a day (if THAT much LOL, yippee) fucking and a whole lot more hours talking and working things out with our partners, our associates, our friends and even our enemies.
It could be because I'm monogamous, but I don't understand how nonmonogamy gets people the "more" they want.
Maybe my understanding of nonmonogamy is too superficial? The stories and accounts I read and hear are usually all about the sex and romance.
But what I want more of is respect and regard without having to kneel to the patriarchy and its totems.
I imagine nonmonogamy and it just doesn't add up for me. Like, if I were nonmonogamous, my wife's girlfriend isn't going to schlep herself across the state to help take care of my beautiful, wonderful mother-in-law while my wife works. My girlfriend wouldn't head out of state to help MY parents. Are our girlfriends going to help manage our household? Are they going to give insulin to the dog? If my wife and I had kids, would my girlfriends take them to the orthodondist? It just seems like more work to me.
Every single time I think of nonmonogamy seriously, it makes me sad. Not because I think romantic partners or spouses can be everything we need but don't have anymore the way my parents did (community/village, religious connections, affinity groups around interests that fed the souls of my mother and aunts), but because it's predicated on the assumption that the best way we can confront our deepest selves and exist in flawed romances is to have sex and romance with other parties.
Nurturing my marriage has been a life's work that I would never trade. But I don't have the bandwidth, the interest, or the inclination to "date" or have sex with anyone other than my wife.
And honestly? It seems like nonmonogamy is one more concession heterosexual women make to placate men - make the husband/boyfriend central, but allow other lesser stars revolve around the Sun That Is Him. It just seems like such a big bag of bullshit to me.
One of the things I appreciated about the book and it's insights is that it opened up my eyes to the ways that I think we settle and rarely question the tropes of our lives. I don't think I am cut out for nonmonogamy, but I think it's important to read books that challenge our preconceptions and ideas of what a good "relationship" looks like. Also, I encourage you to reconsider your preconceived notions about nonmonogamy so you can at least be more open and understanding of the people around you for whom it does make sense in the world. And I don't think it really centers sex as much as you are thinking.
As weird as it might sound, I have considered my preconceived notions about nonmonogamy kind of a lot.
I don't have any desire to stigmatize people who are nonmonogamous, or declare their relationships "bad." I know exactly two people who have ventured into this and, well, neither lasted and both divorced. (Of course there's no guarantee the marriages would have survived if they hadn't have opened their marriages. It would be dumb to assume otherwise.)
Maybe I should read this book, because all of the content I have seen and read about ethical nonmonogamy have definitely been focused on the sex and romance. If poly girlfriends/boyfriends/enby SOs all live together and everyone picks up everyone's socks or takes care of each other's kids? I guess that's closer to biblical marriage than the way we do things now.
I am a more sexual person than my husband, whom I love dearly and have a lifelong relationship with as co-parents, friends and lovers. We have great sex. I just want more—more arousal, more touch, more intensity, more/any dirty talk, exploration, sensuality. I also know that great sex, for me anyway, only comes with love and deep knowledge of each other. Open nonmonogamy in our relationship could not just be sex but be open to love. I know that you can love more than one person at a time and that exclusivity is contrived. I don’t believe I am alone in thinking this although, as with all taboos, we are hidden.
I suppose I might be capable of being in love with more than one person at a time. It's never happened to me, and at 52, I hope it stays that way.
Maybe there's a benefit to being the Senior Undersecretary of the Ugly Majority, lol! No one ever finds you fuckable (or maybe they do, but it turns out you're insufferable and definitely not worth it!)
I appreciate your bringing additional aspects of caring and compassion that deserve attention when we reflect upon the primary commitments and relationships in living authentically. Without "kneeling to the patriarchy and its totems." We women are so groomed, I find it difficult to cease the kneeling shit. But working on it.
The most successful non-monogamous relationships I've seen have involved a lot of mutual support and exactly the kind of helping each other that you think wouldn't happen. They've been true partnerships with multiple people involved.
But it very much depends on why the relationship is open in the first place -- a lot of open relationships are only about sex and romance, it's true. When my wife and I got together nearly 25 years ago, we talked about monogamy -- we'd both been in several non-monogamous relationships in the past, and I'm openly bisexual so we had a lot to talk about around that too -- but we agreed that we would be monogamous... and we have been monogamous all that time. For most of our marriage, her sex drive was much higher than mine, and I always said if she wanted additional partners I'd be totally fine with that, but she didn't want to deal with the "dating" aspect of it which I can understand (I work in the online dating industry so I know how awful dating can be!).
In my own case it was my ex-wife who attempted to bully me into an open marriage. I wasn't even entirely against it, but everything I read said that polyamory depended on a solid base of good communication, which we did not have.
Ultimately, I don't think nonmonogamy is necessarily male or female (or trans or gay).
First, let me say that I have not read the book, so I don't know if my question is answered in it ... but I saw this part of a blurb about the book:
"Molly Roden Winter was a mother of small children with a husband, Stewart, who often worked late. One night when Stewart missed the kids’ bedtime—again—she stormed out of the house to clear her head. At a bar, she met Matt, a flirtatious younger man. When Molly told her husband that Matt had asked her out, she was surprised that Stewart encouraged her to accept."
And I wonder, did the nonmonogamy solve the missing-bedtime problem? Like ... did Stewart stop working late and missing bedtime after the nonmonogamy began? Or did that problem just ... disappear?
I personally have no idea about Molly's situation, but i will say from my experience(s) that these things almost never have much to do with each other. A partner being oblivious to their responsibilities doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you are monogomous, poly or something else. So becoming non-monogomous I would think would rarely "solve" this issue. What it MIGHT do is permit the party who is feeling aggrieved by their partner's negative behavior(s) to find their OWN outlet to alleviate their own anxieties and anger. Maybe they will become more able to deal with their partner's stupidity with the kids. But maybe not... because these things are complex interactions regarding behaviors and relationships. All that i have found over the many years is that this stuff is ALL complex and there is no "answer", just a lot of questions and issues to deal with. Smart people (when all parties are "smart") MAY be able to work out the dynamics... most will have at least some difficulties.
I’m reading More now and loving it. I appreciate her candor, authenticity, and sense of humor. This book certainly gives me pause after nearly 17 years of monogamous marriage. Thanks for this insightful interview!
First comment from a man: I've always thought that any relationship that makes the participants happy is good as long as it's honest and transparent.
What I'm trying to understand is that if a couple starts off in a monogamous relationship, but then shifts to a polyamorous relationship, how are ground rules set to ensure that both (or all) parties feel they are being fairly treated? It seems like there will be inevitable ambiguities.
One of the virtues of monogamy is the simplicity of the rules.
I hesitated to comment, because I have such a different viewpoint, having been married for 38 years, and happily so, with monogamy as a cornerstone of our particular relationship.
Do readers believe that a satisfying (in all respects) monogamous relationship is still a worthwhile goal? But that sometimes, it just doesn't work out that way, and an open polyamorous relationship is the best solution? Or is it that for some people a polyamorous relationship is from the start the goal?
Oh monogamy is not simple at all. But one of the reasons I found this book so valuable is it's important to understand that what works for you may not work for everyone and it's important to challenge preconceived notions of what love and relationship and satisfaction look like.
I agree that a monogamous marriage is not simple at all. But the rules of who one can have sex with are simple: only with each other.
In any case, I thought the interview was interesting and I bet the book does very well as people will be curious to understand how the arrangements work and what led this particular couple to shift their relationship.
Yes, yes and yes :-). Sorry I can't be (personally) less ambiguous. My point is that EVERY relationship (monogomous, poly or some other combination/style) is different and the people involved and what they want and can cope with are always different. There is no question (I think LOL) that monogomous relationships ARE "simpler" because, well, they just involve two people. At least that is "simple". But even that depends on what EACH person wants/needs/is willing to ask for/is willing to NOT demand, etc. It just gets a little more complex with there are 3 people involved, and much more complex with 4 or more. But it doesn't really get DIFFERENT in any significant way. As a simple example, how much are YOU sure that your partner has been 100% honest with you about every single thing in your marriage of 38 years? If you are POSITIVE, then you are certainly extremely lucky and probably very rare. And UNLESS TWO people in a monogomous relationship are in fact 100% honest with each other for all time, there are always possibilities of complexities. And even if they ARE 100% honest, I guess there are STILL possible complexities. My point is that there is no "sure thing" in ANY sort of relationship mix no matter how many people. Is monogamy "still a worthwhile goal"? I dunno :-). Does it HAVE to be? Maybe for some people it is, for others it isnt. I don't think it is an issue of "a best solution" ("hey, I wanted monogamy but I guess I will have to settle for polyamory because its my best other option", that is rarely going to be a "thing"). For each person (and each 2/3/more people) there is probably a "best choice" which may involve accepting soemthing less than you want, or leaving so you can find what you want, or trying to push a partner(s) into something more.
As I said, I think, after 73 years here on earth and 57 years of fooling with various forms of relationships, each situation is different, personal and probably rarely simple.
I don’t need/want my partner to be 100% honest with me. Let alone about everything in my marriage. As a strident defender of privacy, mine, my children’s, my husband’s, I cultivate space in my life that belongs to me. There are fundamentals, principles, commitments that are understood. Beyond those, meh.
Totally understand and of course each relationship is different. But that's exactly what I was suggesting, that there is no "correct" way to handle things... I guess I said 100% honesty but what I really meant is that the "correct" thing is to honor whatever it is the partners (2, 3, whatever) have agreed upon. Doing that as close to "perfection" as possible should be the only real goal, because presumably that is what will satisfy your (and your partner(s)) commitment to the relationship.
Of course, you also need to be prepared for anyone to change their needs :-). That just complicates things more, sigh...
I spent two decades having babies with a husband who used sex as blackmail. ( I.e. I’ll stop being a bastard to you and the kids when you let me fuck you. )
The sexual freedom came during and after the divorce. It took releasing my rage to fuel the courage it took to blow the marriage and ‘ happy Catholic family’ apart. Then feel guilty about it still 23 years later.
I had several monogamous and non monogamous relationships after. OMG I loved the sexual discoveries, the touching, affection, intimacy( both physical and emotional) and bliss my body craved for so long. And some of the guys definitely had some assholedness going on ( none of the women did. All those experiences were lovely). But the freedom to choose, to drop inhibitions, to crawl out from under the cover of shame, to grow into new found respect for my body, my sexual self, my womanhood, giving myself permission to meet my needs... I was 43. I’m 66 now in a relaxed relationship with a much younger man.
I have grown kids and have dabbled in conversations about my sexuality with a few of them but there is still fear of rejection when I think about opening up to them about that ‘wild’ time in my life.
I love the vulnerability in this interview. Maybe someday I’ll write a memoir about that time in my life. Right now it’s showing up in characters in my novel. 😉
I also feel that “I don’t have bad sex because I won’t have bad sex” belongs on a tee shirt!
It's the rare interview that results in so many perfect quips and insights
My only concern (given my own history) is that this may be the ideal goal, but even if that's what I want, I can't say it always works. Usually you don't figure out that it may in fact be bad sex until you are in the middle of it and that isn't always the ideal time to stop, sigh. Maybe it SHOULD be the best time, but my experience is it doesn't work out that way. Maybe that's because I'm male LOL, but I don't think so.
People can end sex at any moment that it does not feel right or good. And I don't think that this quote excludes that reality.
I hope I can find time to read this book at some point. I spent most of the nearly fourteen years I was with my ex-husband negotiating the notions of non-monogamy and polyamory. He didn't come right out and tell me at the outset that he was non-monogamous, but to be fair, he did tell me pretty early on and I didn't really know what to do with that information. I was so young and also bisexual and the idea of a lifetime with only one partner seemed literally insane. And yet I didn't really want to be involved in a non-monogamous relationship, so we fought about it for years. He pursued any number of emotional affairs, then eventually he physically cheated on me, and then he brought the woman who is his current wife into the picture and told me that either I let him date her without any restrictions or he wanted a divorce. In an attempt to save my marriage we went through a whole process of drawing up a contract (not unusual in non-monogamous relationships), which it took two weeks for him to violate once we finished writing it together. That was the end for us.
Ironically, my next relationship was a poly one. I was what I called the "happy occasional side-piece" for one of my dearest friend's husband (at her suggestion) for about two years. It suited my life at that point, and when it ended there was no rancor or drama or bullshit, unlike my marriage. And my husband went on, by all accounts, to be happily monogamously married to the Christian cat-lady he ended our marriage over.
I don't think what happened after we split says anything about who either of us is inherently, though I will say it taught me something that has subsequently served me well in regards to relationships: there is no perfect relationship structure. What works for anyone may evolve or change over time. But no relationship structure will work if you insist on being in it with assholes. So now I have a "no assholes" policy. Everything else is on the table.
I always love your comments. They're so insightful and fascinating. And I hope you can read this book!! It's something I wish MORE people talked about because I think it's a way to move the conversation beyond "I am not happy" to "let's figure out a new way to do life"
Thanks, Lyz. That's nice to read. I do think that non-monogamy, though it's becoming more common (or at least more commonly discussed), does require WAY more self-possession and communication skills to manage well than monogamy. Maybe just because there are more people involved, or maybe because it flies in the face of so many of our cultural mythologies about romance and self-worth and sex; so we're not trained for many of the feelings that can come up. But then, I've never really been in a healthy, long term monogamous relationship, so maybe those require the kind of constant communication and mindfulness that successful non-monogamy does.
Regardless, at this point, the requirements of successful non-monogamy just feel like too much work for me. If there's what Esther Perel calls an "inevitable third" in any relationship I'm in, my mistress is definitely my writing. Just figuring out how to be committed to both a person and my creativity is enough of a challenge.
Oh, and another thing! My son is now in a fairly extensive "trans polycule" relationship, which I find fascinating. He is his girlfriend's second partner. And his girlfriend's partner has another partner, who themselves have another partner. And they all hang out and have potlucks together. And everyone is trans/gender-fluid. There's so much complexity there it makes my head sort of melt, but as long as he's well cherished, which he seems to be, I'm happy.
My daughter and her friends, trans and cis, (Gen z) said they’re basically poly, and lovely and open and fluid with it. I do think it’s taken a generation.
I apologize for just jumping in like this but I really wanted to try to contribute to this absolutely terrific exchange. I'm 73, married twice, in several poly relationships along the way and I will say that IMHO if its taken a generation that is more about it taking the generation to be open about it. I knew people in the 60s and 70s and 80s who had a variety of poly relationships (communal types, swinger types, triad types, and a variety of others, it takes a village of course :-) ) and what I witnessed (and sometimes participated in) was the need for most people to keep this private because of fear of what the rest of their various communities (mostly monogomous) would think and/or say. This included friends who felt they had to keep secrets from each other. One pair of friends i knew each had opened their marriage but did not know about the other and both couples felt that it was critical to not share any of this with the other couple. It was quite amusing when (after about a year) it all came out between both couples and they had a good laugh about how they had kept all this info from each other. And then they decided to get together as a foursome and it was a disaster :-). I smile only because one the one hand, they all felt that because both couples were engaged in polyamory, they could "get together" and it would work, and on the other, they were both astonished and I think embarassed when the realized that it was "automatic" that because they each had this aspect to their relationship, that somehow it would be automatic that it would work between the four of them. There is truly nothing "automatic" about ANY kind of relationships and relationship behavior, whether it involves 2 people, 3 people, 4 people or many more. Relationships are always complicated and sometimes difficult and expecting ANY kind of result is probably setting yourself up for behavior. The best you can do is invest yourself totally and be ready for a lot of discussion, possible tension and be ready to move away if necessary with the minimum of conflict. And it is WORKS, be joyful because that is NEVER the "default".
Sorry for the intrusion.
Thanks for these thoughts. Yes, all relationships are unique! You’ve made some great points about secrets and I think there is a place for this—all out all the time often doesn’t serve anyone except the person who, for their own reasons, can’t live with complexity and/or duplicity (which is holding different things in our heads at the same time).
"Non-monogamy... does require WAY more self-possession and communication skills to manage well than monogamy."
This, times a zillion.
Why does this seem insulting to me? Why am I reading this and getting strong whiffs of "nonmonogamists are more evolved and enlightened than monogamous people?"
This also seems to clash with the advice on nonmonogamy I see from the therapeutic community: in order to do polyamory well, the primary couple must be stable (which to me would indicate self-possession and sound communication skills).
Not trying to start a fight, I promise.
I've been in successful non-monogamous relationships, and I've witnessed plenty of dumpster fire non-monogamous relationships. In none of those cases was anyone more evolved or enlightened than folks who are generally or exclusively monogamous.
It's not a question of whether or not someone is evolved or enlightened. Folks who are non-monogamous or polyamorous can get really judge-y about monogamy, and I think that's bullshit, honestly. Like I said, any relationship structure is viable, as long as no one is an asshole. That said, there is a lot of negotiation in non-monogamy to make sure that *everyone* involved and affected is getting their needs met to the fullest extent possible, whether you do a hierarchical primary/tertiary relationship structure or something more flat. It's like running your romantic/sexual life by committee, and group processes ALWAYS (in my experience) require a higher level of self-possession and communication skill then, say, just figuring shit out between two basically healthy people. So many cooks in the kitchen, if you get what I'm saying.
I don't advocate for non-monogamy, to be clear. I think it works well for some people and is a dumpster fire for others. I think monogamy is the same. Everyone has to figure out what works for them given their current needs and the needs of the partners available and attractive to them. And what works may morph over time. There's no final answer other than don't get involved with assholes.
Gotcha. Thanks for the reflection. It makes sense.
My therapist cites one of her clients who says 'there's more talking than fucking...!' Love this interview. Lots to think about and I'll comment more fully soon--off to work :)
But life is generally a lot more talking than fucking, right? Regardless of whether you are monogomous or poly or whatever. Most of us (at least I have met VERY VERY few) spend less than a few hours a day (if THAT much LOL, yippee) fucking and a whole lot more hours talking and working things out with our partners, our associates, our friends and even our enemies.
Ha ha. Of course! Just a funny overture to the inherent complexities of this path taken.
"(at least I have met VERY VERY few) spend LESS than a few hours a day"... sorry for the mistake and I can't figure out how to edit it now!
"You can't outsource your happiness" belongs on a T-shirt.
IT DOES!!!! Molly is the coolest.
It’s so good!!!
I... I just don't know.
It could be because I'm monogamous, but I don't understand how nonmonogamy gets people the "more" they want.
Maybe my understanding of nonmonogamy is too superficial? The stories and accounts I read and hear are usually all about the sex and romance.
But what I want more of is respect and regard without having to kneel to the patriarchy and its totems.
I imagine nonmonogamy and it just doesn't add up for me. Like, if I were nonmonogamous, my wife's girlfriend isn't going to schlep herself across the state to help take care of my beautiful, wonderful mother-in-law while my wife works. My girlfriend wouldn't head out of state to help MY parents. Are our girlfriends going to help manage our household? Are they going to give insulin to the dog? If my wife and I had kids, would my girlfriends take them to the orthodondist? It just seems like more work to me.
Every single time I think of nonmonogamy seriously, it makes me sad. Not because I think romantic partners or spouses can be everything we need but don't have anymore the way my parents did (community/village, religious connections, affinity groups around interests that fed the souls of my mother and aunts), but because it's predicated on the assumption that the best way we can confront our deepest selves and exist in flawed romances is to have sex and romance with other parties.
Nurturing my marriage has been a life's work that I would never trade. But I don't have the bandwidth, the interest, or the inclination to "date" or have sex with anyone other than my wife.
And honestly? It seems like nonmonogamy is one more concession heterosexual women make to placate men - make the husband/boyfriend central, but allow other lesser stars revolve around the Sun That Is Him. It just seems like such a big bag of bullshit to me.
One of the things I appreciated about the book and it's insights is that it opened up my eyes to the ways that I think we settle and rarely question the tropes of our lives. I don't think I am cut out for nonmonogamy, but I think it's important to read books that challenge our preconceptions and ideas of what a good "relationship" looks like. Also, I encourage you to reconsider your preconceived notions about nonmonogamy so you can at least be more open and understanding of the people around you for whom it does make sense in the world. And I don't think it really centers sex as much as you are thinking.
As weird as it might sound, I have considered my preconceived notions about nonmonogamy kind of a lot.
I don't have any desire to stigmatize people who are nonmonogamous, or declare their relationships "bad." I know exactly two people who have ventured into this and, well, neither lasted and both divorced. (Of course there's no guarantee the marriages would have survived if they hadn't have opened their marriages. It would be dumb to assume otherwise.)
Maybe I should read this book, because all of the content I have seen and read about ethical nonmonogamy have definitely been focused on the sex and romance. If poly girlfriends/boyfriends/enby SOs all live together and everyone picks up everyone's socks or takes care of each other's kids? I guess that's closer to biblical marriage than the way we do things now.
NOT THAT I AM ADVOCATING FOR "BIBLICAL MARRIAGE!" I AM NOT!
I am a more sexual person than my husband, whom I love dearly and have a lifelong relationship with as co-parents, friends and lovers. We have great sex. I just want more—more arousal, more touch, more intensity, more/any dirty talk, exploration, sensuality. I also know that great sex, for me anyway, only comes with love and deep knowledge of each other. Open nonmonogamy in our relationship could not just be sex but be open to love. I know that you can love more than one person at a time and that exclusivity is contrived. I don’t believe I am alone in thinking this although, as with all taboos, we are hidden.
Jessica, thank you for this really wonderful and insightful response!
Thanks for this.
I suppose I might be capable of being in love with more than one person at a time. It's never happened to me, and at 52, I hope it stays that way.
Maybe there's a benefit to being the Senior Undersecretary of the Ugly Majority, lol! No one ever finds you fuckable (or maybe they do, but it turns out you're insufferable and definitely not worth it!)
I appreciate your bringing additional aspects of caring and compassion that deserve attention when we reflect upon the primary commitments and relationships in living authentically. Without "kneeling to the patriarchy and its totems." We women are so groomed, I find it difficult to cease the kneeling shit. But working on it.
The most successful non-monogamous relationships I've seen have involved a lot of mutual support and exactly the kind of helping each other that you think wouldn't happen. They've been true partnerships with multiple people involved.
But it very much depends on why the relationship is open in the first place -- a lot of open relationships are only about sex and romance, it's true. When my wife and I got together nearly 25 years ago, we talked about monogamy -- we'd both been in several non-monogamous relationships in the past, and I'm openly bisexual so we had a lot to talk about around that too -- but we agreed that we would be monogamous... and we have been monogamous all that time. For most of our marriage, her sex drive was much higher than mine, and I always said if she wanted additional partners I'd be totally fine with that, but she didn't want to deal with the "dating" aspect of it which I can understand (I work in the online dating industry so I know how awful dating can be!).
In my own case it was my ex-wife who attempted to bully me into an open marriage. I wasn't even entirely against it, but everything I read said that polyamory depended on a solid base of good communication, which we did not have.
Ultimately, I don't think nonmonogamy is necessarily male or female (or trans or gay).
First, let me say that I have not read the book, so I don't know if my question is answered in it ... but I saw this part of a blurb about the book:
"Molly Roden Winter was a mother of small children with a husband, Stewart, who often worked late. One night when Stewart missed the kids’ bedtime—again—she stormed out of the house to clear her head. At a bar, she met Matt, a flirtatious younger man. When Molly told her husband that Matt had asked her out, she was surprised that Stewart encouraged her to accept."
And I wonder, did the nonmonogamy solve the missing-bedtime problem? Like ... did Stewart stop working late and missing bedtime after the nonmonogamy began? Or did that problem just ... disappear?
The answer is....it's complicated.
I personally have no idea about Molly's situation, but i will say from my experience(s) that these things almost never have much to do with each other. A partner being oblivious to their responsibilities doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you are monogomous, poly or something else. So becoming non-monogomous I would think would rarely "solve" this issue. What it MIGHT do is permit the party who is feeling aggrieved by their partner's negative behavior(s) to find their OWN outlet to alleviate their own anxieties and anger. Maybe they will become more able to deal with their partner's stupidity with the kids. But maybe not... because these things are complex interactions regarding behaviors and relationships. All that i have found over the many years is that this stuff is ALL complex and there is no "answer", just a lot of questions and issues to deal with. Smart people (when all parties are "smart") MAY be able to work out the dynamics... most will have at least some difficulties.
I’m reading More now and loving it. I appreciate her candor, authenticity, and sense of humor. This book certainly gives me pause after nearly 17 years of monogamous marriage. Thanks for this insightful interview!
First comment from a man: I've always thought that any relationship that makes the participants happy is good as long as it's honest and transparent.
What I'm trying to understand is that if a couple starts off in a monogamous relationship, but then shifts to a polyamorous relationship, how are ground rules set to ensure that both (or all) parties feel they are being fairly treated? It seems like there will be inevitable ambiguities.
One of the virtues of monogamy is the simplicity of the rules.
I hesitated to comment, because I have such a different viewpoint, having been married for 38 years, and happily so, with monogamy as a cornerstone of our particular relationship.
Do readers believe that a satisfying (in all respects) monogamous relationship is still a worthwhile goal? But that sometimes, it just doesn't work out that way, and an open polyamorous relationship is the best solution? Or is it that for some people a polyamorous relationship is from the start the goal?
Oh monogamy is not simple at all. But one of the reasons I found this book so valuable is it's important to understand that what works for you may not work for everyone and it's important to challenge preconceived notions of what love and relationship and satisfaction look like.
I agree that a monogamous marriage is not simple at all. But the rules of who one can have sex with are simple: only with each other.
In any case, I thought the interview was interesting and I bet the book does very well as people will be curious to understand how the arrangements work and what led this particular couple to shift their relationship.
Yes, yes and yes :-). Sorry I can't be (personally) less ambiguous. My point is that EVERY relationship (monogomous, poly or some other combination/style) is different and the people involved and what they want and can cope with are always different. There is no question (I think LOL) that monogomous relationships ARE "simpler" because, well, they just involve two people. At least that is "simple". But even that depends on what EACH person wants/needs/is willing to ask for/is willing to NOT demand, etc. It just gets a little more complex with there are 3 people involved, and much more complex with 4 or more. But it doesn't really get DIFFERENT in any significant way. As a simple example, how much are YOU sure that your partner has been 100% honest with you about every single thing in your marriage of 38 years? If you are POSITIVE, then you are certainly extremely lucky and probably very rare. And UNLESS TWO people in a monogomous relationship are in fact 100% honest with each other for all time, there are always possibilities of complexities. And even if they ARE 100% honest, I guess there are STILL possible complexities. My point is that there is no "sure thing" in ANY sort of relationship mix no matter how many people. Is monogamy "still a worthwhile goal"? I dunno :-). Does it HAVE to be? Maybe for some people it is, for others it isnt. I don't think it is an issue of "a best solution" ("hey, I wanted monogamy but I guess I will have to settle for polyamory because its my best other option", that is rarely going to be a "thing"). For each person (and each 2/3/more people) there is probably a "best choice" which may involve accepting soemthing less than you want, or leaving so you can find what you want, or trying to push a partner(s) into something more.
As I said, I think, after 73 years here on earth and 57 years of fooling with various forms of relationships, each situation is different, personal and probably rarely simple.
I don’t need/want my partner to be 100% honest with me. Let alone about everything in my marriage. As a strident defender of privacy, mine, my children’s, my husband’s, I cultivate space in my life that belongs to me. There are fundamentals, principles, commitments that are understood. Beyond those, meh.
Totally understand and of course each relationship is different. But that's exactly what I was suggesting, that there is no "correct" way to handle things... I guess I said 100% honesty but what I really meant is that the "correct" thing is to honor whatever it is the partners (2, 3, whatever) have agreed upon. Doing that as close to "perfection" as possible should be the only real goal, because presumably that is what will satisfy your (and your partner(s)) commitment to the relationship.
Of course, you also need to be prepared for anyone to change their needs :-). That just complicates things more, sigh...
I don’t need/want my partner to be 100% honest with me...
Same.