To fling, perchance to save a relationship?
September 9, 2006 | 12:00am
One of my gorgeous friends is in the final stages of a complicated divorce. During a meeting with her future ex-husband, he attempted to save their 30 years of monotonous marriage by suggesting a reconciliation for the sake of the children.
His terms: "As long as you give me my space, we could live in harmony." When she heard the word "space," she knew in her gut that he had a girlfriend; his wanting his space meant wanting his freedom to be unfaithful. My girlfriend nixed the reconciliation, knowing that it was not in her grain to be in an open marriage.
Writer Erica Jong drew a lot of controversy when she stated in an interview that "monogamy is not possible for interesting people." A lot of people were insulted that monogamy made them boring. For most people in a long-term partnership, fidelity is the unspoken and expected form. Stray even a tiny bit from the path and you will most likely lose the relationship completely. Biologically, the desire to be unfaithful makes sense. Sociologist Dr. Curtis Bergstrand says, "Monogamy was invented because it was a historical necessity for people on farms raising children. Now people live longer, monogamy is harder. A marriage can last 60 years. How can sex survive that!"
And here is the conundrum: We want a pact of monogamy to protect us, yet physically, we are programmed to break such a pact. It’s the chemicals of attraction. The pulse of infatuation races when you feel an attraction for someone. Once our bodies stop producing the chemicals that stir our sexual desires, we feel doomed and rush to the nearest doctor to give us a fix. We have to admit that we can get attracted outside our supposed "monogamous" relationship. The juices flow when the chemistry is there. That’s why some people describe monogamy as monotony.
French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said that human beings have a sexual appetite for more than one person and they shouldn’t be condemned for it because they are simply in touch with their own desires. He said that there are incompatible aspects in desire: if you wanted to be in a state of desire, you could never be in a state of satisfaction; passion and harmony cannot easily co-exist. Simone de Beauvoir, his life partner, was able to fill his ideal. They never lived together. They maintained separate homes, took other lovers, yet their relationship survived sexual infidelity because they occupied each other’s lives on intellectual, emotional, and spiritual levels. Their relationship was defined by the importance of the freedom of the individual; love through liberation. They set the concept of what is now called "modern monogamy."
It seems there is a brave new world out there that lives on the definitions of "modern monogamy." They have their own terms like, "You can look, but don’t touch," "You can flirt but only till there, " "You can touch above the waist," and in extreme cases, "You can do what you want as long as I am still there."
Some women would rather allow their husbands to stray rather than lose them completely. They end up doing their own thing, having a fling or two to save their sanity and their marriage. Some are successful in juggling both roles, some end up as emotional wrecks.
Some people thrive on the charge of high-octane emotions; some are exhausted by it. I had to warn a girlfriend not to get too involved with her married boyfriend. She believed him to be "so profound" when he said to her, " I am truly committed to you because I love you!" Didn’t he say this to his wife too when they took their sacred marriage vows? And to his ex-girlfriend who also happened to be my friend? What sounded profound to her sounded more like BS to me. But each to her own beliefs. After all, one person’s breaking point is another person’s starting point. For some, flowery words like those are their security blanket; for me, show me through your actions, for words are cheap.
In The Good Life by Jay McInerney, one of his characters justifies his actions by saying, "All men need just four things: food, shelter, pussy and …strange pussy." Translation: men need a new lover every so often to live an exciting life. Plus, most men want their girlfriends to be faithful while they stray. Which brings us to the subject of double standard. Some people (both men and women) want freedom for themselves but containment for their partners. Wouldn’t it be torture for you to know that you are faithful to your mate but he or she is carrying on with someone else?
Even Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir could not work it out. In her book The Second Sex, she writes, "He wanted her all to himself and not belong to her; to live as a couple and remain alone." It was not doable for her. She had to do her thing for her to survive the relationship. For some couples it could work out, but with a lot of pain on the part of the faithful mate. Some couples agree to play but stick together. They have this shared fantasy of playing together as long as they can disconnect after they play and be emotionally bound to each other. They have their own rules and they abide by them.
Dr. Bergstrand, a researcher, says that he never tried swinging outside of marriage but based on his research, "swingers have happier marriages and are generally satisfied with their lot." By swingers, he meant both man and woman going for an occasional sexual fling to satisfy their fantasies with the full knowledge of the other partner.
Sarah, one of his case studies, says, "I am grateful to have gotten beyond jealousy, but given the choice of three-way or a faithful partner, I would have chosen the latter." She had to abandon ideas of a conventional relationship because she loves her husband very much. They are proof that sexual exclusivity isn’t a necessity – what counts is a couple’s willingness to rethink what fidelity means and to be prepared to bend rather than break the rules.
Is it worth it in the end? There is a song that goes: "The heart is just like a wheel, when you bend it, you can’t mend it."
I guess old-fashioned monogamy evolved to protect us all emotionally, so that the human heart would not have to bend and be broken. Try not to break your heart, for no matter how you mend it, the scars will always be there.
Open flirting: Flirting is fun, as long as it is strictly hands-off.
Waistline monogamy: touching and kissing, all activities above the waist.
The Clinton monogamy: Oral sex does not count.
Body fluid monogamy: You must be separated from your sexual partners by a layer of latex.
The 50-mile rule: Don’t sleep with anybody in your own city.
Human sex toy: someone a couple brings home to spice up their love life.
Poly-amorous: having multiple partners openly and consensually.
Voyeurogamy: You can look but no touch.
Trinogamous: being in a committed three-person relationship.
His terms: "As long as you give me my space, we could live in harmony." When she heard the word "space," she knew in her gut that he had a girlfriend; his wanting his space meant wanting his freedom to be unfaithful. My girlfriend nixed the reconciliation, knowing that it was not in her grain to be in an open marriage.
Writer Erica Jong drew a lot of controversy when she stated in an interview that "monogamy is not possible for interesting people." A lot of people were insulted that monogamy made them boring. For most people in a long-term partnership, fidelity is the unspoken and expected form. Stray even a tiny bit from the path and you will most likely lose the relationship completely. Biologically, the desire to be unfaithful makes sense. Sociologist Dr. Curtis Bergstrand says, "Monogamy was invented because it was a historical necessity for people on farms raising children. Now people live longer, monogamy is harder. A marriage can last 60 years. How can sex survive that!"
And here is the conundrum: We want a pact of monogamy to protect us, yet physically, we are programmed to break such a pact. It’s the chemicals of attraction. The pulse of infatuation races when you feel an attraction for someone. Once our bodies stop producing the chemicals that stir our sexual desires, we feel doomed and rush to the nearest doctor to give us a fix. We have to admit that we can get attracted outside our supposed "monogamous" relationship. The juices flow when the chemistry is there. That’s why some people describe monogamy as monotony.
French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said that human beings have a sexual appetite for more than one person and they shouldn’t be condemned for it because they are simply in touch with their own desires. He said that there are incompatible aspects in desire: if you wanted to be in a state of desire, you could never be in a state of satisfaction; passion and harmony cannot easily co-exist. Simone de Beauvoir, his life partner, was able to fill his ideal. They never lived together. They maintained separate homes, took other lovers, yet their relationship survived sexual infidelity because they occupied each other’s lives on intellectual, emotional, and spiritual levels. Their relationship was defined by the importance of the freedom of the individual; love through liberation. They set the concept of what is now called "modern monogamy."
It seems there is a brave new world out there that lives on the definitions of "modern monogamy." They have their own terms like, "You can look, but don’t touch," "You can flirt but only till there, " "You can touch above the waist," and in extreme cases, "You can do what you want as long as I am still there."
Some women would rather allow their husbands to stray rather than lose them completely. They end up doing their own thing, having a fling or two to save their sanity and their marriage. Some are successful in juggling both roles, some end up as emotional wrecks.
Some people thrive on the charge of high-octane emotions; some are exhausted by it. I had to warn a girlfriend not to get too involved with her married boyfriend. She believed him to be "so profound" when he said to her, " I am truly committed to you because I love you!" Didn’t he say this to his wife too when they took their sacred marriage vows? And to his ex-girlfriend who also happened to be my friend? What sounded profound to her sounded more like BS to me. But each to her own beliefs. After all, one person’s breaking point is another person’s starting point. For some, flowery words like those are their security blanket; for me, show me through your actions, for words are cheap.
In The Good Life by Jay McInerney, one of his characters justifies his actions by saying, "All men need just four things: food, shelter, pussy and …strange pussy." Translation: men need a new lover every so often to live an exciting life. Plus, most men want their girlfriends to be faithful while they stray. Which brings us to the subject of double standard. Some people (both men and women) want freedom for themselves but containment for their partners. Wouldn’t it be torture for you to know that you are faithful to your mate but he or she is carrying on with someone else?
Even Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir could not work it out. In her book The Second Sex, she writes, "He wanted her all to himself and not belong to her; to live as a couple and remain alone." It was not doable for her. She had to do her thing for her to survive the relationship. For some couples it could work out, but with a lot of pain on the part of the faithful mate. Some couples agree to play but stick together. They have this shared fantasy of playing together as long as they can disconnect after they play and be emotionally bound to each other. They have their own rules and they abide by them.
Dr. Bergstrand, a researcher, says that he never tried swinging outside of marriage but based on his research, "swingers have happier marriages and are generally satisfied with their lot." By swingers, he meant both man and woman going for an occasional sexual fling to satisfy their fantasies with the full knowledge of the other partner.
Sarah, one of his case studies, says, "I am grateful to have gotten beyond jealousy, but given the choice of three-way or a faithful partner, I would have chosen the latter." She had to abandon ideas of a conventional relationship because she loves her husband very much. They are proof that sexual exclusivity isn’t a necessity – what counts is a couple’s willingness to rethink what fidelity means and to be prepared to bend rather than break the rules.
Is it worth it in the end? There is a song that goes: "The heart is just like a wheel, when you bend it, you can’t mend it."
I guess old-fashioned monogamy evolved to protect us all emotionally, so that the human heart would not have to bend and be broken. Try not to break your heart, for no matter how you mend it, the scars will always be there.
Glossary Of Modern Monogamy |
Waistline monogamy: touching and kissing, all activities above the waist.
The Clinton monogamy: Oral sex does not count.
Body fluid monogamy: You must be separated from your sexual partners by a layer of latex.
The 50-mile rule: Don’t sleep with anybody in your own city.
Human sex toy: someone a couple brings home to spice up their love life.
Poly-amorous: having multiple partners openly and consensually.
Voyeurogamy: You can look but no touch.
Trinogamous: being in a committed three-person relationship.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
