Trying to talk oneself into an open marriage
This article by “Michael Sonmore” (which I’m assuming is a pseudonum) at NY Magazine is one of the saddest things I’ve ever read, although the author says he’s very very happy. It’s an exercise in talking oneself into something—in this case, being in an open marriage when initially one member of the couple wants it and one does not. Here’s Michael:
When people ask how it started, I say this: We married young. She’d had sex before me, but only with a handful of people a handful of times. She never had a boyfriend, never had a lover. I was the first man she ever had the chance to get to know intimately. By her mid-30s, having already had our children and entering her sexual prime, she felt keenly her lack of sexual experience. Happily for me, she was willing to talk about it, willing to ask if I’d be open to exploring other options. We opened a bottle of wine and started talking, and talking, and talking.
She didn’t present it as an issue of feminism to me, but after much soul-searching about why the idea of my wife having sex with other men bothered me I came to a few conclusions…
The conclusions lean heavily on feminist theory, having to with power and self-expression and a host of other things, and then Michael segues into this:
She knew how deep our love was, and knew that her wanting a variety of sexual experiences as we traveled through life together would not diminish or disrupt that love. It took me about six months ”” many long, intense conversations, and an ocean of red wine ”” before I knew it, too.
Well, are you convinced that Michael is convinced? I’m not, and I wonder how much red wine he’s still swilling down in order to stay convinced that he’s convinced. The couple has two young children aged three and six, by the way, so although Michael is also able to have sexual relationships with other people, and has certainly exercised that option many times, it turns out that his wife seems to get more action and therefore Michael’s the one doing the majority of the babysitting.
I suppose open marriage can “work”for some couples somewhere, somehow, under some circumstances. I think the numbers are very few, and I doubt most of the situations involve young children. I could write about Michael’s choice from a lot of angles: a critique of his “feminist” stance, a moralistic viewpoint, a religious one, or a personal one, but I’m going to take a different tack: a practical one, and I’m going to write this as though I’m addressing Michael himself.
You say you love your wife and she you, and your love is strong. You have young children about whom you care deeply. Do you understand that you’ve just upped the risks in your marriage tremendously? And these risks (including the risk of being badly hurt) are actually even greater for you than for your wife, although there are large risks for both, as well as for your children.
The first risk is that open marriages like yours don’t tend to be even, as you’re already found out. To be blunt, your wife is getting more action than you. You may think that’s your choice, but even if you wanted to change it, you might find you have a difficult time doing it. The reason has to do with certain differences between men and women (yes, there are differences), and the relevant one here is that it is still—even in our hookup culture—more common for women to want some sort of emotional commitment or at least intensity of emotion before they have sex.
Why would that lead to more action for your wife? Wouldn’t it be the other way around? The key is in economics of a sort: your wife is a more rare and desirable commodity in the sexual marketplace. If more men are looking for no-strings sex, and more women wanting sex-with-strings, then a women like your wife—attractive, hot to trot and supposedly emotionally unavailable and undemanding—is just what a lot of guys are looking for and having trouble finding. The fact that she’s married is a small glitch, hardly worth troubling over, since her marriage is “open.” For a lot of men, this is an opportunity both golden and rare. All she really has to do is put out the word, and they will (pardon the expression) come.
For you it’s a bit different. Young men who want sex without commitment are a dime (or perhaps a penny, or a centavo) a dozen. And although many more women than in previous years are willing to sleep with a man without a ring and a date (a marriage date, that is), there still aren’t tons and tons of women whose idea of “just right” is a married guy with no possibility of commitment at all. Why not at least take a guy who’s free, and who could possibly have love and marriage with you in his future?
So your road will be tougher, and your wife’s easier. That’s just the way it is. And you’ll be doing a lot of babysitting, so I hope you enjoy it.
There’s another way in which your risks are higher. Sex tends to be bonding, as you may have noticed. The very act of sex and orgasm actually causes people of both sexes to release a hormone, oxytocin, which—if you believe articles like this—may have a greater effect on women and make them more likely to fall in love with the guy they’ve just slept with. Even if oxytocin has nothing to do with it, the phenomenon of becoming closer and closer to someone you’ve been having sex with is one of those things that occurs, and you probably have noticed it can occur in both sexes but may in fact happen somewhat more often in women.
But for both you and your wife—whatever you may think, whatever you may think you know (as in that paragraph of yours I quoted at the outset)—you really don’t have a clue about the risks you run of having one or the other of you fall in love with someone else, and although you’ve tied yourself into a pretzel justifying sexual infidelity and telling yourself that your very normal feelings of jealousy are somehow abnormal and exploitative, I wonder how well you (or she) will do when emotional infidelity comes to stay.
You seem aware of that danger. In fact, you wrote:
I don’t want her to fall in love with anyone else, and every time she goes on a date, I confront the possibility that she might. It happened at the beginning: The first person she dated after we opened up fell hard in love with her, and my wife, overwhelmed by his ardor, tried to love him back. Watching it happen, I was confused, angry, and terrified that she wanted to leave me. She assured me she didn’t, and whatever feelings she had for him didn’t lessen what she felt for me. Believing her then was the ultimate trust exercise.
It is likely to happen again, and perhaps again. And it may just be that one of those times she won’t be able to assure you so convincingly that “whatever feelings she has for him don’t lessen what she feels for me.” Have you ever fallen in love, hard? One of the things that makes it so overwhelming is the novelty of the new person, the new discoveries—the intensity of the new as opposed to the boredom (intermittent or continuous) nearly inevitable with the old. You have actually countered this boredom with an interesting trick, which is to talk between yourselves about each of these new guys, and that probably adds a sexual titillation and newness to your own sex life. Good luck with that when she (or even you) does find that the feelings for the other are greater.
And then there’s pregnancy. I certainly hope your wife has foolproof contraception, because she could become pregnant with another man’s child. How do the two of you feel about her carrying that man’s child to term? How do the two of you feel about abortion? How do both of you feel about abortion if and only if the child isn’t yours? How do the two of you feel about having a paternity test while the child is still in utero, a test that occurs either between 11 and 13 weeks or 16 and 22 weeks, and increases the risk of miscarriage?
Oh, and of course the more partners you both have the more you run the risk of STDs. And of course each of you informs all potential partners before getting involved that you are in an open marriage, right?
People are monogamous in marriage for a great many reasons. Some reasons are religious. Some are traditional. Some people take vows seriously. Some don’t want to hurt their spouses, and know that infidelity would do just that. Some aren’t even tempted, or tempting. Some are isolated and don’t have much opportunity. Some aren’t all that interested in sex anyway. Some are afraid of STDs.
But some, and this might just be the majority, consider monogamy a gift they voluntarily give to themselves and their spouse and their marriage and their children, a gift that makes for some hardship but that also makes it less likely to cause pain to that spouse and to those children, or to damage the bond itself.
There’s also this: hooking up and degenerating down.
http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/tinder-is-tearing-apart-society/
What’s sadder than a hook up or an open marriage? An entire generation that had bought into it.
”If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to “history.” On the other hand there is “modern culture,” which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the “higher world.”
– Julius Evola (On the Secret of Degeneration)
This NY Magazine piece reads like fiction to me sort of like those ‘articles’ by that Tanya Cohen or whatever her name was that were so ridiculous as to be hard to believe. The pseudonym also leads to questions.
But it did inspire Ace Of Spades to change his Twitter handle to ‘Paolo The Wifehunter’ which is pretty funny.
Griffin:
Yes, it could be a hoax. But I know that open marriage is not all that uncommon among youngish people today in certain liberal enclaves.
We used to call such a man a cuckold. I would also suggest he get DNA testing on the children.
Not only is the marriage at risk but as you briefly mention, the children’s emotional security. IMO, that is by far the strongest consideration of all.
Open marriage is not polygamy but it does bear strong similarities to the non-formalities of plural marriage. Partners come and go, achieve differing degrees of intimacy and around the children swirl the parent’s experiment and gamble.
Monogamy’s goal is the strongest binding of two souls, the ‘soul mate’ or ‘twin flame’. An elderly couple dotting upon each other in a tender closeness that others can only envy.
Open marriage exchanges that goal for variety’s transient pleasure.
Oops.
dottingdoatingBravo, neo. Excellent post.
Kind of typifies the sickness of modern liberals.
i am middle aged, and so grew up before this “hooking up” bs. But unfortunately, it was after three “sexual Revolution.” I married for the first time late in life. I love my husband very much. But if I could live my life over again, and know what I know now, i would have waited until marriage.
It does read like a piece of fiction written by a woman.
Neo, great post. I really see myself in a lot of this – not important which side I’m on, but I really appreciate how you lay out all the issues in a clear manner.
This concept of an open marriage is something so foreign to our marriage it seems insane that any couple could consider it. Either a couple is totally devoted to each other or they are not a couple. Lack of imagination in a couple’s sex life is a sign they do not belong together.
At first I thought this was pretty hilarious, and thought ‘what a patsy,’ but I read the whole article. It gets even sadder. This man stays home to take care of the kids and his wife is out in the world bringing home the bacon and now she is shtupping other people, and he could too if he could find anyone but he cant. Cause he doesn’t have a job. He’s a house husband taking care of the kids. So most women who are the type to sleep with married men aren’t gonna sleep with that kind of married man. This man is so sad and is trying to talk himself out of seeing the writing on the wall. He’s being treated pretty badly. I feel sorry for the kids.
There’s been some question whether this person is who/what they say they are. Robert Stacy McCain, for one, has suggested this may be the wish fulfillment of a frustrated feminist. So has Ace, if I remember correctly.
The story fits too neatly.
Polygamy is much more reasonable than an open relationship. Parents are sure who is the parent, there is structure. Actually, I would say polygamy is natural. I have seen no religious restrictions about having multiple wives, though I believe that wives are limited, in around about ways, to one husband. Polygamy is nothing like an open relationship. From every religion I am aware, sex is limited to marriage, and marriage to between a man and one or more women. I don’t even think there is anything but, perhaps, pagan notions, which allow for a woman to have multiple husbands.
Very different. Open relationships only seem to work if neither partner really cares and won’t, in the future, care. That is difficult to know, especially as one partner becomes obviously more sexed.
Then again, I am voting that it is a hoax. Some woman writer fantasizing.
Being cuckold notwithstanding a child born into a marriage has the woman’s husband as his/her legal father. DNA results don t count. Family law
says the child is her husbands.
Divorced guys have discovered kids are not theirs but they were still expected to pay child support.
I hope this is a hoax. If not, well, this is going to end in tears. If they’re lucky.
I thought “open relationships” died a whimpering death by 1970 or so. If feminists are going to revive anything else from the sixties, will somebody please wake me up from my medical marijuana?
I’m sorry, I know I should be more sympathetic, but this is more cringe-worthy than sad. Now if I had a sick dog …
This exposition was analyzed elsewhere on the Web and the consensus is that it was written by a woman. (feminist)
The breadcrumbs led to one gal in particular… but no smoking gun.
The minority opinion was that it was written by a true cuckold.
This is not “marriage”: it’s promiscuous shacking-up. And the woman sounds like a sadist, and the man like a masochist.
If it’s true, pity the poor kids.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong. And words like “marriage” DO have meaning, leftwing nutjobs/degenerates notwithstanding. Adultery is forbidden for a whole host of reasons.
Brilliant post, neo.
Someone is trying to talk themselves into believing something, but it isn’t Michael Sonmore.
The core of the problem well laid out here:
Done Been Girled: The Price of Matriarchy.
Standards and boundaries ladies, standards and boundaries …. if you are ladies that is.
G6loq:
That’s a fine read. Thanks.
Since Néo brings up the whole subject matter, Uncle Sanders is in the picture:
‘Feminist’ Bernie Sanders Says Women Fantasize About Being Raped…
Cough, cough, :coffeesip:
I blame his three holes certified womyn voters ….
Seems a theme
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2KUJ6eBQl0
I don’t think we ever thought the pill would lead us into open marriage and Ashly Madison. But, the unintended consequences…
All seems so sad, really.
I have a relative who was in an unhappy marriage – they should never have gotten married, but she wanted to, and he went along with it. It was a loveless marriage and they were both in their mid 30s when the subject came up.
She started cheating, he found out, and she refused to stop. So he accepted the open marriage. She thought they would have complete honesty about things, not sure why she thought that. They had 3 kids, 2 were newborns.
Fast forward a year. She was just hooking, and he met a woman he fell in love with. Moved out, they divorced, and he is now remarried. She’s alone with 3 kids, and looking for someone. Can’t find anyone for a relationship. 3 kids = baggage. Was with 1 guy in an open relationship, but finally figured out that the guy was a loser, a taker.
Who ended up hurt? The 3 priceless young boys now in a split home. Her, unhappy then, unhappy now, unhappy going forward.
Tragic, sad and infuriating.
As with all other things, there’s an active subculture that thinks it’s ok. She and I are divided by a complete gap in perspectives/outlooks. I love the boys like my own, and shake my head in sadness.
“I don’t want her to fall in love with anyone else”
When do you think this guy is going to realize she has never fallen in love with anyone at all.
Where do journalists find these degenerates? Look at this:
“The point is that it should be women who choose, not men – even the men they’re married to. For my wife, the choice between honoring our vows and fulfilling her desires was a false choice, another trap.”
I thought that you *already chose* the moment you got married, and that it was perfectly reasonable for your spouse to be able to count with you not changing your mind on a whim. Especially once children have entered the picture. What else is the purpose of those vows?
I cannot make up my mind whether it would be better for them to use whatever modicum of honesty they have left to divorce and go their separate ways, or they should stay in this… situation, not to disrupt their children’s tranquility. Although with these two I imagine that children have already picked up all sorts of cues that their parents are not quite normal: mother regressing to moral toddlerhood, father incapable of insisting on boundaries and actually agreeing that she should do that, both of them rationalizing this away as some sort of “progressive” wonder. Sounds like a great environment.
As some wag on another page said, and it bears repeating here:
“Caitlyn Jenner called. She said to grow some balls.”
So, why does he “love” his “wife”?
Poor sap. I wonder how long he makes her wait after returning before she can kiss him.
By the way, although I called him a “poor” sap, no sense of pity or compassion should be read into that remark whatsoever.
This guy is being emotionally abused. And so are his children. Get the hell out and don’t look back. This narcissistic woman loves nothing and no one but herself. She will hand over the kids with the least resistance from him.
A man that doesn’t even command the loyalty, obedience, or respect of his children or partner, isn’t worth much.
Just another breeding factory for Planned Profit’s profit.
Nothing modern about this, the medievals and Romans had rape, sex slavery, and hedonism as well. They just had social systems surrounding it, that either hid it or encouraged it.
The only thing modern I can see is that people don’t see a need to hide it now nor do they even understand what kind of power structure it creates, this hedonism.
“Nothing modern about this, the medievals and Romans had rape, sex slavery . . . ” Yes, and those are exactly the moral equivalents of open marriage! Brilliant.
In my experience, most people, even fairly sophisticated, open-minded people, cannot handle open marriage; but a few do. To each his own.
Yes, and those are exactly the moral equivalents of open marriage! Brilliant.
Hedonism must be a word you just were ordered to Stand Down and ignore then, zombie.
“Open marriage” was what Henry 8th could use to justify getting a male heir. Aristocrats and those in power could always justify it one way or another. Unfortunately for you, Bilwick boyo, you aren’t an aristocrat, but merely the zombie dogs of the elite rulers.
“Unfortunately for you Bilwick Boyo, you aren’t an aristocrat, but merely the zombie dogs of the elite rulers.”
And you base this on what, Captain Logic?
And no, I am not an aristocrat in the sense of having been born in Downton Abbey or the equivalent; but I like to think I am part of Jefferson’s natural aristocracy, the key ingredient of which Leonard Read described as “a love of excellence for its own sake.”