Ethical non-monogamy - From fringe to mainstream

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

See the book review in the NY Times

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/13/books/molly-roden-winter-more-book-open-marriage.html?unlocked_article_code=1.NU0.xNVH.KdCMWiKarPkH&smid=url-share

[couplers 4,640]

My takeaways:

Once again, the distinctions among poly, swinging, open marriage, and non-monogamy are conflated.

 

"About a third of Americans surveyed in a YouGov poll in February of 2023 said they preferred some form of non-monogamy in relationships."  Wow!

 

"... there might be a scarcity of books by moms in open marriages because they are simply too busy: 'When you’re a parent and you’re polyamorous, who has time to write?' "  That's why my writing about the lifestyle is limited to brief burts here.

 

“Her story, which is about what it means for a mother to be erotically charged..."  I need it more after I got into my thirties and had kids.

 

"She’s grown more confident that her marriage of 24 years has benefited from their outside relationships.  ... the surprising connections she’s formed with the “other women” in her life, including Stewart’s girlfriends and the wives of the men she dates."  True.

Edited January 13 by couplers

[EastInWest 1,524]

49 minutes ago, couplers said:

My takeaways:

Once again, the distinctions among poly, swinging, open marriage, and non-monogamy are conflated.

Even I can't keep up with all the acronyms the kids are using these days and I'm not old enough to say things like that.

 

(Oh no, oh no. I guess I am.)

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

52 minutes ago, couplers said:

My takeaways:

Once again, the distinctions among poly, swinging, open marriage, and non-monogamy are conflated.

 

The confusion/conflation problem always exists when there are experts and non-experts in discussions of just about any topic, LS or professional or otherwise. Mrs. FL and I routinely run into the problem when we are having discussions with friends in our areas of medical expertise. We are happy when the conversation is "more right than wrong".  

 

Our conversational approach here is to point out that monogamy is fairly clearly understood as exclusivity; non-monogamy is therefore non-exclusive. There are lots of different forms of non-exclusive.  Non-exclusive might mean "monogamish" to one couple, regular swing as couples to another, dating in an open marriage to another, polycule to another, and so on.  Those distinctions become important mostly when a monogamous couple entertains the idea of (ethical) non-monogamy--what does the non-exclusive menu of options include, and what does each mean for the couple's relationship?

 

 

[Numex 2,416]

In my quick read, I saw too much angst over whether someone is a "better" sex partner than someone else. When my wife is getting it on with another partner I hope that she is having the best time possible. Think about it, if my wife was going to dinner with someone else, would I want her to have a worse meal than when she went to dinner with me?

[kittyswinger 260]

Some men are better in bed but that doesnt mean my partner and bf are up for replacement. It is a combination of emotional exclusiveness and sexual non- exclusiveness. Some would wish to form deeper connection which is possible bcoz Im poly but time management is the restraint.

[hunterdonNJcpl 1,389]

"For now, Winter is bracing herself for the impact the book will inevitably have on her and those around her — but she seemed undaunted."

“I’ve been spending a lot of my time calming everybody else down,” she said. “This doesn’t feel like something I need to be afraid of.”

 

I think that's brave. In our 25 years of swinging we have put a lot of time, effort, and anxiety into keeping our Lifestyle a secret - with limited success. 

 

My wife and I have often observed how the world excuses cheating - but not swinging. 

 

Hopefully books like Winter's will help remove the societal stigma around non-monogamy.

 

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

2 hours ago, hunterdonNJcpl said:

 

“I’ve been spending a lot of my time calming everybody else down,” she said. “This doesn’t feel like something I need to be afraid of.”

 

 

 

My wife and I have often observed how the world excuses cheating - but not swinging. 

 

 

Reflect for a moment on what you do when you sit down at a restaurant and look around at the other couples. We are never initially asking ourselves whether they cheat or they swing. 
 

Rather, we ask ourselves are they happy being with each other? Are they looking at each other, holding hands, engaged in conversation, interacting with the staff? Are they smiling? 
 

Now think on the lifestyle gatherings you have attended. Meet and greets. Cruises. Parties. Hotel takeovers. Think about those couples in LS and in vanilla settings. Same questions. 
 

Perhaps some are interested in whether you swing. But…your partner, your kids, your reports at work, your buddies at the club, the other parishioners at your house of worship…their primary interest is in whether you are happy and content with each other. 

[hunterdonNJcpl 1,389]

1 hour ago, Fundamental Law said:

Perhaps some are interested in whether you swing. But…your partner, your kids, your reports at work, your buddies at the club, the other parishioners at your house of worship…their primary interest is in whether you are happy and content with each other. 

In a perfect world.  However, we still hear of people getting in trouble with their employers due to ethical violations etc.  For example, we know a couple who are both teachers and they post no photos on their online profile for fear of being outed - which they say could cost them their jobs.  Meanwhile, it is not unheard of for teachers to have affairs with other teachers at their school, which will likely not cost anyone their job. 

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

16 minutes ago, hunterdonNJcpl said:

However, we still hear of people getting in trouble with their employers due to ethical violations etc. 

There's a spectrum. Looking at educational roles, there are some things that will get you prosecuted, like a relationship with a minor. If you are in a position of  policy-making, like the chancellor-pornographer at the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, and you deliberately go public by posting your own videos on youtube,  yes you are likely to get fired from that role. But at the other end of the spectrum, a couple that goes on a clothing-optional holiday on their own time are not going to get into trouble unless they bring a slide show of their trip back to school.

 

It's not ethical violations but the so-called "moral turpitude" clauses in contracts that tend to be problematic. The working definition of moral turpitude: "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community."   The sentiment or accepted standard of the community is likely to be different in (for example) San Francisco versus Peoria. What is a violation and what is a grave violation?  

 

Swingers tend to be rather more ethical than cheaters. Outward monogamy is a community standard, serial monogamy is accepted as a community standard, and affairs are the stuff of PTA gossip. As Jimmy Carter discovered, "lust in the heart" is not a community standard, no matter how ethical and transparent it happens to be, if one is a "public figure".