Personally, I'm all for open relationships. Monogamy doesn't come naturally to me, and I don't want to be a cheater. That leaves me either feeling stifled (either in small ways or larger ones), or in need of a good open relationship. I've had a few of those, and they worked pretty well. The reasons they ended never had anything to do with either of us sleeping with another person.

The key to these things, as it is with most relationship issues, is trust and honesty. As long as you have those two things, it's amazing what you can manage to do. Of course, it helps if neither of you is under the impression that either sex or love implies ownership of another person.

Oh hell yes! Now this is a topic that interests me greatly. I don't think monogamy for LIFE (for some, from early 20s to one's death!) is healthy or suitable for most people, as much as society, the media, friends, and family drills it into us that it is. I, too, wish there were more examples of healthy, open relationships. I know I could use a good model.

I've never been in an open relationship, but I've been in casual relationships where monogamy was not assumed so there was no presumption of "ownership." I do wonder if I could be in a true open relationship one day if I get serious with someone else, or if I will continue on with casual relationships.

I do wonder though, why get married and get the law involved in your relationship even though you have sort of a central partner with whom you raise children and who acts as sort of a base, a family member? Though I'd understand if it were for reasons like health insurance and immigration.

I can't wait to read this book!

I am open to open relationships, and my partner and I do experiment a bit with openness. I don't think humans are necessarily built for monogamy- and I don't think all that many people are truely monogamous in their lives. What are the percentages of people that cheat on their spouses? They are somewhere at 50% who admit to it, I think. The idea of a lifelong commitment to one person is flawed, and I see polamory as an extention of that.

My husband and I are talking about having an open relationship. Neither of us believe that absolute monogamy is possible for a relationship as long as we want to have, at least for us. I don't think I could do a threesome, but we spend a bit of time apart (he visits out-of-state family a lot, I often spend weekends away with my friends) and we've talked about hooking up with others while we're apart. I think it would work out, but we're both kinda nervous about how to go about it or what to expect. Thanks for posting your story, I really like hearing how other people manage open marriages.

I believe that if both partners are happy in their relationship, and neither party is harmed, then it is a healthy relationship. When someone believes they are going into a monogamous relationship and their partner is having secret affairs, that is harmful; an open marriage is not. If a relationship works, and both partners are happy, then it is a good relationship, and outsiders have no ground to tell you otherwise (though they surely will).

I read this blog every morning with my coffee and everyday I have thoughts and responses to the blogs . . . today I had a strong reaction. I have been married to an amazing woman for a little over a year (we were married in Canada). We are truly happy and truly in love. I recently met another woman who is quite brilliant, we have amazing conversations and the chemistry is overwhelming. I have not had a crush like this since college. I feel sick all the time because society tells me a happy marriage is a monogamous marriage and any time I hear of an open marriage it always ends badly. Can my wife and I still be happy if I sleep with another woman? I don't know, all I know today I cannot get this woman out of my mind and I am distracted from my marriage. Would an open marriage give me what I need? I have no idea . . .

I commend you on your courage to live and write about your open marriage. Thank you.

my concern is not rooted in morals, love, or anything like that, it's a straight forward health concern. having more partners can increase the risk of stds like HPV (that can be contracted even if condoms are used). if i'm with an exclusive partner, i wouldn't want to worry about contracting something - with things like HPV a person may not even realize they are a carrier. but if i already know that partner and i are clean, why would i want to risk exposing myself to a health risk?

SaldySays, those are understandable concerns. I would say that the core partners get tested regularly (at least once a year) for STIs, including HIV, and always use condoms and other barrier methods when engaging in any kind of sex with outside partners. It is a risk, sure, but sex always is in regards to disease and unintendended pregnancy. But if both partners enter into an open relationship with the commitment to protecting themselves and their partner(s) as best possible, they can decide if that risk is worth taking.

Open relationships work if both people are of the same mind about it. My significant other would have no problem if I wanted to see other people as long as I still want to be with him, but I am very monogamous by nature and wouldn't do it. I have told him that he can also see other people, just please break up with me first. I can't stomach the idea of him with anyone else, and I guess that makes me a bad person - but since he's very monogamous as well it works out. I believe that nobody can *make* anyone else stay faithful anyway, so why try? Just please have the courtesy to end things with me first, and don't lie to me or bring home diseases. That's it.

SaldySays- can we not use "clean" to describe your STD status? That makes everyone with an STD (and there are a lot of people, even people in monogamous relationship) "dirty" and that ain't kosher. Its great that you think your partner will never cheat on you, and maybe (s)he won't, but good luck being sure of that, ever.

"They are somewhere at 50% who admit to it, I think. The idea of a lifelong commitment to one person is flawed, and I see polamory as an extention of that."

I'm actually about to submit a paper to the American Journal of Public Health on this question. In a variety of both nationally representative studies and large-scale studies:

10-20% of married women say they have committed infidelity. 14% in my sample (N = 128,000)

20-30% of married men say they have committed infidelity. 26% in my sample.(N = 128,000)

(Average age in those samples is about 40)

Those are for heterosexual adults. Lesbian women are the same as hetero (14%). Bisexual men, bisexual women, and gay men are much higher though (40%-60%)

Perceptions are higher though: People think 42 of married men and 30% of married women have cheated, and people who guess higher are more likely to have cheated as well.

I don't have a problem with open marriage, but I know that lifestyle would not suit me. Relationships are something personal, and I really don't care whether or not someone chooses to live a polygamous lifestyle. It's empowering to claim your own sexuality and to be true to yourself.

Maybe it's just because I never really learned to share my toys as a child.

It really doesn't bother me that some people choose to have open relationships. But if my boyfriend were to sleep with someone else, even after talking with me about it, I would be jealous. Maybe it is social programming, but at this point in my life I do want a monogamous relationship. I just don't have an overwhelming desire to be with another person.

i apologize for using that diction, JenLovesPonies, i didnt mean to be disrespectful. but, i never claimed that i thought my partner would not cheat on me. i guess that would be built into the same trust that some one in an open relationship would have about their partner practicing safe sex with others.

I checked out your article on Tango, and I thought it was very interesting. While I'm not interested in an open relationship at this point in my life (or in the relationship I am in), I too believe honesty, communication, and tailoring relationships to the partners' needs are what make them work. I wish more people had the courage to think outside the box and recognize that the heterosexual life plan makes so few of us truly "happy." While I can see how other factors in an open marriage, such as an increased risk of STI's, could play into the situation -- or even unforseeable situations, such as sleeping with someone who comes back into your life later on -- it's a matter of being practical (getting tested, protecting yourself) and recognizing that all situations have consequences (good and bad) to deal with. I'm appalled at some of the comments left on your article -- but the internet has an amazing ability to bring out the ugly side of society. I wish you best of luck with your book -- and thanks for opening up the conversation with all of us!

my boyfriend and i are friendly with a couple who have an open marriage. while they've never asked us to participate (why? we're cute!), it has brought up the topic for conversation. we agreed it's not really for us right now. we both felt we enjoyed our time to have casual relationships, and are happy to be sexually committed to each other at this point in our lives. also, it opens up more conversations about what we want sexually from each other, if/when those needs should change, and the possibility of a evolving and maturing sexual relationship with the person i choose to commit to emotionally. but i have trouble disconnecting sexual feelings from emotions.

that being said, i'm happy when people persue lifestyle choices that make them happy, no matter how unconventional. why should your friends and neighbors care what you're doing in the safe confines of your own happy relationships?

Generally speaking, I think open relationships are fine. I've known several well adjusted poly folk, and I know it can work. That said, it's not for me. I need monogamy, and my husband mostly agrees with me. I considered it, and even tried it out for awhile in high school, but I just don't work that way.

Personally, not really my thing. It was fun in college and such, but not something I would want now.

I think the main concern is stability of the relationship. The more partners you have, the more likelihood that you might form an attachment to someone other than your primary partner and move on. For me, that's not a possible source of instability I want to mess around with, or to be at risk for that with my partner moving on.

For me personally, I prefer an exclusively monogamous relationship. I think as long as my partner and I keep our relationship interesting and exciting, it will be everything we want and need. I feel like if I'm truly meant to be with someone for life, I won't ever want to be with anyone else. As far as open relationships go, I have no problem with them and the people who have them. I know that every relationship is unique and different and people need to do what's best for them and their relationships.

THANK YOU. It's about time this was discussed in an adult manner.

What concerns me are the number of people who jump to the conclusion that a relationship MUST end *because* one member stepped outside that relationship sexually--whether once or repeatedly. The fact of having done so yields information about the state of the relationship. It is not a conclusion about the relationship.

It seems the happily-ever-after complex sets people up for more hurt than is necessary.

UCLAbodyimage- I stand corrected. I had 50% in my head, I am not sure where from, and now Google is showing me similiar stats to you.

SaldySays- My point was that you are taking risks, too. I don't think there is ever a way to truely know we are sexually safe from STDs.

For me, being in a monogamous relationship is not about ownership. I'm a serial monogamist. I've tried being in casual relationships where I've been sexually active with several people for a short period of time. I find that within monogamy, for me, I feel more fulfilled sexually. This is not to say that monogamy is the only root to a happy sex life, just that for me, personally, I get greater joy out of sex when I believe that my partner and I are exclusive.

"UCLAbodyimage- I stand corrected. I had 50% in my head, I am not sure where from, and now Google is showing me similiar stats to you."

50% would be a little scary!

The numbers like 50% come from magazine studies where they have people write in or mail an insert from the magazine. The problem is that the people who have a story to tell are more likely to mail it in, so they get over-represented.

What confuses me about open relationships (and I blame the lack of educated conversations I've had on the topic) is if it stays monogamous for everything but the sexual part of the relationship. I think aspect of the open relationship idea that confuses most people that I've spoken to is "If I was in an open relationship does that mean that we would both have sex with other people, but would still come home to each other at night?"

Most monogamous people will forgive their significant other if he/she cheats on him/her, but they won't forgive about having a entire other relationship (after sexual, and into emotional/mental/etc). So does that make most people in open relationships, but they don't know how to define it yet?

I understand this was a very confusing question, and I guess I'm asking more of the specifics (which should be discussed with the partner you are sharing the open relationship with, because there are no rules & regulations to follow...I get it...) but I would have no option but to guess and test each theory I think would work. I think my open mind wanders too far and I picture my husband with 45 wives and 150 children, and wondering if I could be comfortable with that.

Maybe we're weird, but part of what my wife and I enjoy about our marriage IS the ownership side of things, though we prefer to call it "belonging". She belongs to me, and I belong to her.

That's what trips our trigger, but for someone else, it may have exactly the opposite affect.

I think that's part of why this is such an emotional issue for some people. Some of us enjoy monogamy and are kind of freaked out by open relationships. For others, it's the exact opposite.

The human heart is a complicated organ.

Open relationships aren't for me personally, but I know several polyamorous people. Two of my friends have an open marriage to each other, and their marriage is one of the most stable marriages I've ever seen. On the other hand I know of one other woman who screwed up because she didn't define her relationship with one young man as "open" before pursuing other men; thus, she did what could only be defined as cheating on him, because she wasn't honest about having sex with other men, and on top of that, HE wasn't polyamorous.

So, really, I've got no problem with open relationships, so long as no one gets hurt and both/all parties conduct themselves in the right manner. Open relationships just aren't for me personally, that's all.

I think my open mind wanders too far and I picture my husband with 45 wives and 150 children, and wondering if I could be comfortable with that.

It's great that we're discussing this, though I feel maybe it's a bit of "preaching to the choir." If open relationships were NOT relegated to the fringe or seen as radical, maybe more of us in society would not be scared or jealous of entering into an open relationship or if our partner expresses a desire to do so. Sexuality is a continuum, I believe, and the fluidity of love and sex in relationships should continually be discussed throughout one's romantic partnership(s).

I am not opposed to an open relationship, though I would never puruse one myself. Too many messy emotions, and too much risk for STDs.

That said, this is an interesting concept, and I must ask, why marriage? Marriage is a very specific word to use, it has both religious and legal connotations. While I would understand the author's desire to get married for legal and financial benefits, why does she still use this specific vocabulary? I ask this because it is common when challenging a social structure to change one's vocabulary. For example, many straight couples I know who have been married use the vocabulary of partnership and partner to describe their spouses so as to avoid assigning gender roles, as well as to challenge the idea that marriage must be between a man and a woman. If they had not needed health insurance or legal protections in the event of separation, they probably would not have been married. So, why marriage? I do not take issue with the idea that people aren't necessarily meant to be with one person the rest of their life, but I am curious as to why the author still sticks with this word.

Also, how is it that a monogomous relationship is not as honest, and rife with ownership and jealousy? I suppose it depends on what one thinks their partner needs to be honest about, and I don't think that an open relationship is necessarily free of ownership issues. It's very hard to escape those.

I don't get it... You get married to become exclusive (closed), and then you think you might want "open" marriage -- open "closed-ness." Why not just not get married at all? Why embrace a platitude (marriage) that is by definition exclusive, and expand it so that it eventually has no meaning?

What are the benefits to marriage, if there is no sexual exclusivity? Aren't all those benefits (if any) attainable outside of marriage -- and outside of any unique quality that makes marriage distinct? Why is marriage necessary if you want sexual "openness?"

Having read your Tango article, it seems like things aren't quite as equitable as you would hope. The chronology of events looks like this to me:

You married into a vowed monogamous relationship. You broke that vow. Your husband forgave you, though he was devastated by your admission. You found another, better way to fuck someone else - you brought him into it. He gave in to the idea (being a guy I can see the attraction to the scenario), and now he's complicit. Since then, he's not sought out another liaison, but you've fucked dozens of men and women. But that's okay, because you tell him about it, whether it hurts him or not. And he can't refuse, because he's 'not that guy' and he's been part of it with you.

It sounds like you've manipulated this relationship into precisely the territory you want. You know it hurts your husband, but through skill and dumb luck you've locked up his argument. And now he lives in his head, and not his heart. Poor guy.

This is a feminist site, and I really enjoy the discourse, so perhaps I can make my view on this a bit more clear. Reverse the genders in her story. It's now her husband who had a lengthy affair, who was caught and spends his days and nights away sleeping with others. No communication or agreement (I saw nothing about her husband being okay ahead of time with any of her lovers), just him banging away at the nation's population. She's at home, waiting, and being okay in her head, but not in her heart.

Devastating.

I want to say, I greatly respect people's privacy and decisions they make with their own families. If someone wants to live an open marriage, I say go for it.

I know, however, it isn't for me. I'm a man and some would seemingly believe tons of men would jump onto such a concept. Not I. Perhaps it is my upbringing, Italian-American. Perhaps it is my religious choices. Perhaps it has something to do with my own views of morality. Maybe all of the above.

I think it is more likely to do with--when I think about the woman I love, I think about her sharing times, good and bad with me. I don't mean to sound soft, but it really isn't just about sex. Though, in part it is. I couldn't imagine seeing her with another man under any circumstances--and I only hope she feels the same way about me and other women. I don't think it is about "ownership" as someone says above. Rather, it is the intense emotional connection I have with someone that I couldn't possibly share.

Maybe my situation is a bit different, however. My girl friend is my largest crush and I was hers. For 7 years we saw each other go in an out of relationships without really knowing the true story. I've seen what I talk about above and already felt the pain and anguish associated with it. It sucks and I couldn't do it again.

It isn't for everyone. But, it is for some people. To those people, I say good luck and godspeed. Honestly, on the outside, how would I ever know who you were.

JenLovesPonies: in turn, can we not make statements that infer one's parter is likely to cheat and if you believe otherwise, it's only wishful thinking? It frames the marriage as being untrustworthy and the commenter a fool, which is nasty and uncalled for. Particularly as it's not statistically supported, it seems like a personal attack. Sort of a 'I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to make you feel bad my saying your partner will probably cheat on you' sort of response.

I just read the article.

It is a text-book on manipulation. Period.

Open marriage should be talked about before marriage starts. Otherwise, it is changing the deck in the middle of the hand and, when someone has already invested years into something, maybe they will consent.

But, is it "enthusiastic consent?"

Sad.

I have had a question for awhile about the poly thing... how do you deal with jealousy - not of the people who are with your #1 guy or gal, but of your #1 guy or gal themselves. In particular in the situation where they seem to be finding lots of other partners when you are not finding any at all, or going through a lull... I guess this is starting to sound a little Dear Abby/Dan Savage'ish - but I wonder how much relationships fray not because of the attention spent on others, but the lack of attention one partner is feeling in comparison (self comparison) to the other...

anyways, just a thought...

read the tango article--very nice. i've read "the ethical slut", the sort of bible of polyamory, but i could actually relate to this article more. i admired this woman, and this couple's, journey.. the ups and downs, the doubt, the joys and frustrations/jealousy. her story was told honestly and humbly. i am only 22 years old and not currently in a committed relationship, nor have i been in a polyamorous relationship. but, i have many years and, hopefully, many relationships ahead of me, and i am staying open to future possibilities. it's nice to at least have a model or reference point out there for these kinds of choices. for some, yes, a polyamorous life is a happier one, one in which they can be more honest with themselves and others... and what is wrong with that? as a culture, we need to get over our association between monogamy and morality.

We’ve been socially programmed to demand fidelity and are told at every turn that jealousy and ownership prove love. I don’t buy it.

A great quote. I've often felt feminism's successes in regards to relationships and equality have gone in something of the wrong direction. Rather than having a husband who owns a wife, we now have a husband and wife who own each other (or girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.), when what we should be striving for are relationships where nobody is owned.

I'm wary of open relationships/marriages. As a concept, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with them. However, my husband and I have discussed it and have chosen to be monogamous for the foreseeable future. Which is not to say any level of openness is forever off the table, but we're not comfortable with it at this time.

Out of the many open relationships I've personally observed, the vast majority end in heartbreak and divorce. Usually it's a problem of communication, one partner does not approve of the person, manner, or time spent on their spouse's secondary relationship. Rather than openly talk it out and resolve it, things turn into a morass of resentment, passive aggression, and rebellion. Then the primary relationship dissolves.

I've also seen people leave their spouses for a secondary partner. Which is not to say it wouldn't have happened anyway, but I think that the abandoned spouse feels worse for their own complicity.

I think the worst concept for me might be when a secondary relationship ends badly and the partner brings that grief and depression back into the primary relationship. I wouldn't be able to stand it if my spouse put our relationship on the back burner for months because he was pre-occupied with pining over someone else.

I'm glad to know there are people out there with happy, functioning, open relationships. I just don't know many people with the level of security and communication to make it work.

I can see why people would ask "why marriage, if it's open?", but I think it reveals a lot of preconceptions.

Open relationships are not about "you can't be with one person for your entire life." They're about "you don't want to be limited to one partner for your entire life." There's more to marriage than sex. There's love, and emotional support, there's financial support, there's the day-to-day struggle of building and sharing a life together. Those things all remain in an open relationship. When you marry a person, whether you intend to have an open or closed marriage, you are saying that you want that lifelong struggle and bond with them.

Now, none of that precludes the possibility of other sexual partners, or even of other romantic partners. Love is not a finite resource, after all. We all love many people in many ways. It's been said that the more love you give, the more you have to give. It's a self-renewing resource, as long as the building blocks are there and you still receive what you need in return from those you love (when those things fail is when love dies).

Some people have open relationships where it is clear that the additional partners are for sex and sex alone. Some allow love, so long as it does not supplant the primary partner. And some actually engage in something which could be considered closer to polygamy/polyandry, where the relationships between the various partners are more of a shared-spouse scenerio.

Which type of open relationship you have is really up to the participants. Any of them can work, so long as there is trust, honesty, love, and full agreement.

open is an extremely loose term. For instance, one can have an open marriage in one way and not another i.e sleeping with other couples while together, sleeping with other people in privacy, cuckholding and various other kinky things.

Everyone has a preference. Obviously some people are not willing to watch their parents get it on with someone else, while others are perfectly okay with it.

To comment on what Adrianna was saying about the new crush, i would say that before you ask your wife to consider you with another person, that you ask yourself if your ready to see her with another person.

Speaking from personaly experience my fiance and I have taken it from every angle over the last few years. We have come to this point in our lives where we'll occassionally add someone to the mix, but at the end of the day we'd always rather just be alone.

Also, we don't do that secondary relationship thing, it's just us and everyone else if just for funs and undertands that.

I agree that everything needs to be in the open BEFORE anything happens with other folk. When my S.O. told me that he was fine with me going outside the relationship I was floored, and I told him that although he may be fine I was definitely NOT okay with him going behind my back with other women (or men). We're clear on things now, and if he wants to be with another person then I only ask for courtesy, no more no less. That courtesy is to tell me so I can move on, and free him to do the same. That is not controlling things, that is standing up for what I expect in a relationship. I refuse to hold him back if he wants other people, and I won't be second fiddle to anyone. Them's my rules. I guess it's why my relationship works after so long - we're honest about expectations.

to further what Minervasp73 says, there's nothing wrong with being managomous. So many people are jumping on the swinging and open marriage dealy because it's more acceptably talked about now. It's not a big deal if people find out where-as in my mothers day it would have been uber talked about and looked down apon. You could almost say that it's become trendy to be in open relationships. At least I look at it like that sometimes. It sucks when people trash talk marriage and monogomy as I have seen a lot of "singles" do. If it's not for you, then it's not for you. Don't trash someone elses choice right?

Isn't it possible to talk about how your relationship works for you without denigrating others? I'm in a traditional monogamous marriage, and it works well for us. I didn't go into this marriage because I was looking for a Prince Charming, and I'm not repressing any natural non-monogamous urges. I don't demand sexual fidelity from my husband as a way to prove his love, and I don't think the jealousy I would feel if he cheated on me proves my love. I know he loves me, and vice-versa. Our fidelity is a gift we give to one another. It's sappy, but it's true.

If both members of a open marriage are healthy and happy, then more power to them. I just think that many of them are fooling themselves. Human beings are wired to be jealous, and it will happen at some point in most open marriages. And that's where the happiness part disappears. *Every* type of relationship has its own pitfalls. It's why life is complicated.

Maybe instead of redefining what marriage means, we ought to work on naming, supporting and cherishing other types of equally valid relationships. This should include separating the legal benefits of marriage from the moral commitments people make.

Marriage already has an implied cultural meaning. The label has been claimed and defined. According to the vows most couples take at weddings, it means emotional and physical fidelity to one person so long as you both shall live. For alot of people, both gay and straight, that commonly agreed upon definition is central to one of the most important relationships in their lives.

So, rather than change that definition, which would cause quite a bit of pain to those who value it highly, why not work to validate other kinds of relationships? A polyamorous relationship is a perfectly valid choice for a group of adults to make. So is a relationship where the commitment is not forever. Name them, celebrate them, fight for recognition and benefits for them! I truly believe that gay couples should be able to choose marriage if they so desire and straight couples should be able to choose civil unions if they so desire. Leaving the term "marriage" alone and defining a new term is a truly live and let live solution.

I honestly don’t judge other’s relationships at all, couples make choices about what they want and need and no one else’s opinion should matter.

That said, I’ve seen about 15 open relationships among my friends and every single one of them has fallen apart in the long run. If someone can make it work more power to them. But just based on my personal experience I’ve yet to see an open relationship last for more than 4 or 5 years. Swinging I’ve seen work in the long run but to me that’s a slightly different type of open relationship.

The reasons why I don’t have much faith in open relationships is perfectly represented by this Tango article. She is hurting her husband by doing something that he clearly grudgingly accepts at a necessary evil to keep their relationship going. She openly acknowledges that her actions hurt him, yet she chooses her needs and pleasures above his feelings. I’m with the other comments that see this as manipulation pure and simple. I bet that the fact that they talk about her other sexual partners doesn’t make it hurt him any less.

I would be very curious to read an article about their relationship 4 years from now.

ShanaLyns, marriage has meant many things through the years. For a time it meant ownership of the wife as chattal. To the polygamous Mormons it means that the wife is faithful to a single spouse and the husband is faithful to multiple spouses. Why do we have to cling to the definition that is currently traditional, just because it is so?

A marriage means whatever you want it to mean. If two partners with no interest in sex, who have all the emotional and other ties of a normal relationship, marry each other, is that not a marriage? Or should they call it something else just because they don't get it on?

I'll say it again. Marriage is about more than sex. Much more. If you have all the important glues that bind a relationship together, and you join together in a ceremony to finalize that relationship, why not call it marriage? Because it doesn't fit what some traditional people think of marriage? So what? There was a time when the idea of choosing your own spouse for love (rather than having them chosen for economical/social reasons) was a radical concept, and it horrified some people. But those couples who married for love were still able to call it marriage, and now it's the accepted practice.

I'm not saying open marriages will supplant closed ones in the future. I'm saying that marriage takes many forms, a different one for each individual couple, and to say that only one group has the true claim on the term "marriage" is silly in the extreme.

If your sex life solely defines what your marriage is, you might want to take a good hard look at the relationship. And if you agree that it doesn't (as it wouldn't for most healthy marriages), then why insist that other people's sex lives define theirs?

I always assumed I would jump at the chance of an open marrage or relationship. But now looking at it and thinking about it I think it should stay in the realm of fantasy, for me personaly at least.

If others want to experence open relationships than good for you, but I think the relationship Jenny has is a terrible one. And as someone else pointed out, if the genders were reversed there would be a compleatly different selection of comments up here, all negative. It seems your husband is living many peoples own personal hell.

I hope you find a spouce that accepts your lifestyle better. It seems you fell in love with someone with whom you are fundamentally incompatible with.

Haha, I could barely find one person I want to be in a relationship with, let alone two of three. :)

"We’ve been socially programmed to demand fidelity and are told at every turn that jealousy and ownership prove love. I don’t buy it."

I don't think we are programmed to believe that "jealousy and ownership" prove love--as far as I know and was taught, those two qualities lead to abuse, which is definitely NOT love at all. Also, I think I can demand fidelity and expect to get it in return without seeing it as a way to "prove" love--it's more of a desire to be with one person than a "see? I *really* love you!" kinda thing.

Oh, and let me just put out there (to add to the other anectdotal evidence) that I know of one open marriage couple who've been together for fifteen years now. They and their three kids are doing fine. And, as I said, none of my open relationships ended because of the sex. They ended for other reasons (for example, my husband was an abusive asshole).

Kimmy, I don't think anyone has attacked the idea of open marriages per say. The comments just seem to say if open marriages are for them or not, and if marrage is the appropiate term.

I guess for me the thing that would not be okay about an open relationship is the idea that there is actually a second "relationship" going on. Personally I'd love to be able to have sex with other people, I love my boyfriend, but he's not as interested in sex as I am, so it would be nice to be able to get some when he didn't feel like it. However then I'd have to leave our home and go hook up with someone else, I would have to take time away from my relationship with him, and I'm not so sure that's cool. Even less cool is the idea of being with someone and being romantic with someone else. For one part of a couple to have an ongoing relationship with another person with actual feelings involved, that would be hard for me personally to accept.

Just sex I can see working. But if you want to have multiple romantic relationships... why get married at all?

Andrew, I never said that anyone was attacking open marriage. But there was an attack on the idea that "marriage" was an appropriate term (although attack indicates a level of animosity not present either in the post or in my response to it). I merely defended the idea that marriage doesn't have a strict definition, and shouldn't.

Shinobi, that question has been asked and answered. Marriage is more than sex, it is a lifelong bond between two people. Just because you allow other interactions (and remember that love is not a finite resource), that does not necessarily decrease the value of the lifelong bond.

People with open relationships get married for the same reason other people get married. They love that person and want to make the committment to be with them through their lives.

Kimmie,

I strongly disagree that marriage means what you want it to mean. It means what you vow during your wedding ceremony and what the laws of the state you accept a marriage license from say it means. You make explicit promises during that ceremony to your partner in the presence of others. Most people vow fidelity. I'm sure some do not.

You also willingly and freely sign a marriage license when you wed. That license is a legal contract and in 23 states, that contract includes the legal expectation of fidelity. So, even if the couple doesn't explicitly vow fidelity during the ceremony, their contract with state often includes it because adultery is a crime (technically) in about half of the states in the US. Now, it's ridiculous that it's a crime. But, it is and if you disagree with that, you shouldn't sign a marriage license.

By willingly signing your name on a marriage license in one of those states, you personally accept that definition of marriage.

That definition is not for everyone. Monogamy is not for everyone. Life long commitments are not for everyone. If that's not what you're doing, don't sign a marriage license.

But, it seems like alot of people want the benefits of the label marriage without accepting the uncomfortable parts. You wouldn't sign a mortgage, a lease, or a contract whose terms you didn't agree to and then expect the other parties involved to understand that you're different and that you didn't really mean what you signed. So don't do it. Saying one thing and doing another is hypocritical and deceptive.

So, all I'm saying is do Something Else.

"Something Else" could be glorious. I would rejoice at the honesty of a couple who acknowledged up front that maybe fidelity wasn't for them but wanted to celebrate their amazing emotional connection. I'd be there, Crate & Barrel gift in hand, camera clicking away. I'd vote for their right to health insurance, hospital visitation, family leave, inheritance, etc. I'd recognize that what they had was special and joyous. I would think more of them for their honesty.

I think society is ready to accept Something Else or several different Something Elses. Offering more choices on how to define your relationship benefits everyone. We already have a few choices like Dating and Married that have different kinds of meanings. Some meanings are much more flexible than others. Let's expand that and remove the legal and financial privilages marriage brings so that everyone has room to define their own relationships instead of trying to force into a shoe that doesn't fit.

I wonder what the responses to the article would have been like if you replace sex with "talk with" another person throughout? It would be soundly ridiculed, because of course people aren't supposed to just talk to their spouse and no one else ever again after they get married. So if we understand that people need relationships outside of marriage, why does the door slam so hard at the point of physical intimacy?

Very good post, Shanalyns.

I'd add that it DOES make sense that adultery's a crime. Marriage is a legally binding contract, is it not? It's illegal to break the terms of a contract. If you don't wan

ShanaLyns, adultury is only a crime if there is a victim. In an open marriage, there can be no victims. According to the laws in my state, adultery can only be charged by the wronged spouse. If no spouse is wronged, no crime occurs.

The "uncomfortable parts" of marriage, as you term them, don't relate to sex, necessarily (although there can be incompatibilities there). They relate to learning to live with and love a person 24 a day, 7 days a week, for the rest of your natural life, sharing the ups and downs of life, trying to maintain compatible goals, trying to reach those goals, possibly raising children, growing old together, etc.

I maintain, and will always maintain, that there is no standard marriage. Every couple has to make of marriage what they can in order to make it work. You can't force people into cookie-cutter ideas of what it's supposed to be. Your marriage (should you have one either now or in the future) won't be the same as someone else's. That doesn't make it any less of a marriage. There are those, after all, who would say a feminist marriage wasn't a real marriage, because the woman is supposed to submit to the man. Traditional vows say "obey," even if most folks leave that out nowadays.

You view fidelity as being the thing that makes the difference between marriage and "other." However, that don't make it so. Marriages throughout the centuries have included infidelity of both the clandestine and official varieties (concubines, anyone?). As I said before, the meaning of marriage has changed many times and will continue to change. To insist that everyone cling to a particular definition just because it happens to be what we have now is silly. I don't need "separate but equal." Marriage is good enough for me.