Sex In The Public Square - relationships - Comments

You know, I would volunteer,

Gracie — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:20:54 -0800

You know, I would volunteer, but often during these studies my eyes start to glaze over and I become a raving lunatic when I spot 'crud' ~ and I become unfit to articulate. *wink*

Research on commitment

Elizabeth — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:42:05 -0800

It's amazing. My first reaction, instead of "wow, that's great. I'm glad that researchers are finding more commonalities between heterosexual couples and other couples," was "man, why does it seem like monogamy always gets equated with healthy relationships." And then I realized that i was interpreting "commitment" to mean "monogamy" before even reading the studies. I will check out the studies later, but I'm most curious to know how, exactly, "commitment" was defined and measured. Certainly the characteristics mentioned in the press release as being measured in the first study ("quality of interaction" and "level of satisfaction" along with skin conductance and heart rate) don't necessarily imply monogamy. Nor, really, do those mentioned regarding the second study (although "sexual behavior" is mentioned, which may mean "number of partners".)

Looking forward to reading both of these. Thanks for posting them Gracie!

(And we really do need to get that research commentary group together! Volunteers?)

It's hard to know if it would work...

Elizabeth — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:17:46 -0700

I wonder if one reason it is so difficult to make polyamory work is that we are so ill-prepared to try it. What I mean is that all of our cultural training is for monogamy. Our institutions support monogamy rather than nonmonogamy, so it isn't any wonder that monogamy works for more people. I wonder how many people polyamory or other nonmonogamous options would work for if those were also supported culturally and by our institutions.

(I'm headed over to the thread Tom_Paine just started to take up the question of replacing one limiting ideal with another.)

polyamory as an ideal

tom_paine — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:59:16 -0700

Polyamory is a poor choice for an ideal, since it barely works for its tiny number of adherents. Monogamy, for all its problems, has a long track record, with huge segments of the world successfully following it. Polyamory is like any other alternative lifestyle, it works for a minority of people and should be encouraged, but it hardly qualifies as "the answer."

There is no single ideal

Ruby — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:45:34 -0700

I'd have to agree that there's no need to promote any particular arrangement as the "ideal," but instead allow people to explore whatever solution is best for them.

Monogamy has always come easy to me. Now that I'm married with children, my biggest concern is not whether or not my husband is sexually faithful to me, but negotiating a balance regarding childcare, housework, social life and family income. Sometimes I'd be happy to let my husband get sex elsewhere once in a while just so I can catch up on my sleep;) But if he were to be spending his time outside the home with someone else, I would have to pick up the slack at home and that's what would make me resentful.

I love the idea of polyamory in theory, but I think that in practice it would be very challenging. It's taken me years to find one man that I'm compatible with on every level. I feel incredibly lucky to be so well-matched, and I'm a little doubtful that I'm going to run into many other people who could fit that bill. AND taking on another lover would mean that person would have to be compatible with both of us, which narrows the field even further.

Still, I'd like to be open to that possibility. The idea of a sister-wife actually has some appeal, and so does a brother-husband:) It's just that my standards are very high and we have a lot of family obligations already. It wouldn't seem fair to expect a third lover to take on the responsibilities of our family, nor would it be fair for either myself or my husband to divert our energies outside the home anymore than we already do. It's already a delicate balance but we manage it remarkably well.

Playing Mono-poly

Visitor — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:22:22 -0700

I agree that it's the universal application and expectation of monogamy that's a problem. There are circumstances that I can see monogamy as a good choice. Poly, in my very limited experience, does take an enormous amount of effort and commitment. Not just from you, but the group together, which is hard. It's like being in a rock band or something. When you have a demanding career or kids (or both) the effort you'd apply to being in poly tribe, for all of its appeal, can seem like too much.

Mongamy as an Ideal

Chris — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:59:11 -0700

I think that it's a bad idea to replace one default model with another. The problem with our current mono-focused society is that monogamy is presented as THE one-size-fits-all solution to relationships, and it's so obviously not. But poly takes a lot of balancing and juggling, too, and doesn't suit everyone at all times. It's important to be able to look at the different needs of relationships through their evolution and be able to have more than one solution.

Why not teach polyamory as an ideal?

Peach — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:47:52 -0700

I go back and forth about this all the time!

I think monogamy is a kind of... artificial (?) condition. I've been trying to maintain an open relationship for about two years based on that principle: it's natural for us to be attracted to other people and it's not wrong to act on it, but in a relationship our sexual decisions necessarily affect both partners, so that has to be taken into consideration.

Sometimes it works, but working out the details takes a lot of discussion, sometimes argument.

So we're trying to train ourselves in the ideals of openness, but we're no more equipped for that than we are to be exclusive, and I often ask myself whether it wouldn't be easier to default to monogamy just to minimize the conflict. ; )

I'd love to hear from others who have more success maintaining variations on conventional relationships!