Open Marriages 'Don't Work' For Psychology Today
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-don-juan/201108/why-open-marriages-dont-work#
"There are some (in my opinion rather obvious) reasons why ultimately, an 'open' marriage almost never works."
That's funny, as I have a number of friends for whom an open marriage certainly does work.
Who promotes the idea of 'open marriage' is irrelevant to whether or not open marriage works. Just because the Live The Dream people in Southern California are a bit strident for my tastes, does not mean that they're not on to something.
Clearly we're not talking about what polyfolk call the "One Penis Policy." That's not open marriage, any more than unicorn-hunting or swinging is.
The author claims that fidelity is a struggle because of:
1) marriage at too young an age
2) difficulties with emotional intimacy (due to an abusive childhood)
3) inability to directly confront problems in a relationship
4) biological wiring for promiscuity, akin to biological wiring for addiction
I could arguably fall into at least of these two categories. However, infidelity as compared to polyamory is like comparing credit card fraud to a charitable contribution. They're just not in the same domain of behavior, except that they involve sex instead of money.
It has been my experience that poly and open relationships require honestly confronting issues in relationships and working through issues with emotional intimacy. Not everyone can do this, and not everyone is good at it.
This quote is quite telling: "People who desire open marriages often don't think about how they would feel knowing their partner is sleeping with someone else."
I laughed out loud when I read this. My blunt reply, quoting Heinlein, is that "A fair exchange is no robbery," followed by a sharp reminder that neither men nor women are property. I add, only partially tongue-in-cheek, that my partner(s) sleeping with someone else(s) can be pretty hot when done safely and with good judgment. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.
The author shares her opinion, without supporting evidence, that "humans are wired for pair relationships" and even more insultingly, that "feelings will result" from having sex with other people.
Of course they will, and that is OK. That's the entire point.
Where she raises my ire is when she claims that some people in open relationships -- who are obviously incapable of attachment -- have either Schizoid Personality Disorder or if they are sexually expressive, are psychopaths.
This kind of thinking reminds me of the days when homosexuals were considered perverts to be forcibly cured, and a bisexual was considered a homosexual in denial.
Of course people in open relationships have feelings for their partners -- all of their partners. One of the most important is compersion, the inverse of jealousy, in which one is happy that one's partner is happy.
Even more insultingly, she asserts that people 'capable of attachment' in open relationships 'end up with ... confusion and/or jealousy.'
In other news, water is also wet and pigs do not fly. Jealousy is a feeling often born of fear of being inadequate. Confronting this one head on like a speeding freight train, a person who is comfortable when their lovers sleep with other people clearly is unafraid of being judged inadequate in bed. I've felt jealous, just as I've felt afraid or anxious or enraged. These are feelings to put into context, consider carefully and cope with, just like any other.
It scares me that a person with so little insight or willingness to do even the most basic research about the lifestyle she attacks is 1) licensed to practice anywhere and 2) gets such a loaded, biased article published in a popular magazine.
I note that said magazine does not permit article comments. I don't have to wonder why.
You can comment here or at Dreamwidth. Makes no difference to me.
"There are some (in my opinion rather obvious) reasons why ultimately, an 'open' marriage almost never works."
That's funny, as I have a number of friends for whom an open marriage certainly does work.
Who promotes the idea of 'open marriage' is irrelevant to whether or not open marriage works. Just because the Live The Dream people in Southern California are a bit strident for my tastes, does not mean that they're not on to something.
Clearly we're not talking about what polyfolk call the "One Penis Policy." That's not open marriage, any more than unicorn-hunting or swinging is.
The author claims that fidelity is a struggle because of:
1) marriage at too young an age
2) difficulties with emotional intimacy (due to an abusive childhood)
3) inability to directly confront problems in a relationship
4) biological wiring for promiscuity, akin to biological wiring for addiction
I could arguably fall into at least of these two categories. However, infidelity as compared to polyamory is like comparing credit card fraud to a charitable contribution. They're just not in the same domain of behavior, except that they involve sex instead of money.
It has been my experience that poly and open relationships require honestly confronting issues in relationships and working through issues with emotional intimacy. Not everyone can do this, and not everyone is good at it.
This quote is quite telling: "People who desire open marriages often don't think about how they would feel knowing their partner is sleeping with someone else."
I laughed out loud when I read this. My blunt reply, quoting Heinlein, is that "A fair exchange is no robbery," followed by a sharp reminder that neither men nor women are property. I add, only partially tongue-in-cheek, that my partner(s) sleeping with someone else(s) can be pretty hot when done safely and with good judgment. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.
The author shares her opinion, without supporting evidence, that "humans are wired for pair relationships" and even more insultingly, that "feelings will result" from having sex with other people.
Of course they will, and that is OK. That's the entire point.
Where she raises my ire is when she claims that some people in open relationships -- who are obviously incapable of attachment -- have either Schizoid Personality Disorder or if they are sexually expressive, are psychopaths.
This kind of thinking reminds me of the days when homosexuals were considered perverts to be forcibly cured, and a bisexual was considered a homosexual in denial.
Of course people in open relationships have feelings for their partners -- all of their partners. One of the most important is compersion, the inverse of jealousy, in which one is happy that one's partner is happy.
Even more insultingly, she asserts that people 'capable of attachment' in open relationships 'end up with ... confusion and/or jealousy.'
In other news, water is also wet and pigs do not fly. Jealousy is a feeling often born of fear of being inadequate. Confronting this one head on like a speeding freight train, a person who is comfortable when their lovers sleep with other people clearly is unafraid of being judged inadequate in bed. I've felt jealous, just as I've felt afraid or anxious or enraged. These are feelings to put into context, consider carefully and cope with, just like any other.
It scares me that a person with so little insight or willingness to do even the most basic research about the lifestyle she attacks is 1) licensed to practice anywhere and 2) gets such a loaded, biased article published in a popular magazine.
I note that said magazine does not permit article comments. I don't have to wonder why.
You can comment here or at Dreamwidth. Makes no difference to me.