[Greta Christina] The Joy of Theoretical Non-Monogamy
Well, “theoretical” is probably not the right word.
Here’s the thing. I write a lot about non-monogamy. And I write it from the point of view of someone in a successful non-monogamous relationship. But there are times when I feel a bit hypocritical, or at least not 100% honest, about the writing I do about non-monogamy.
Because — how shall I put this? — our non-monogamy is largely theoretical.
Well, again, “theoretical” may not be the right word. Maybe “potential” would be more accurate.
Here’s what I mean. My wife and I are non-monogamous. We’re both free to have sex outside the relationship, with the other’s permission and blessing. We have limitations, of course, agreements we’ve made about sex outside the relationship: what kinds of sex are okay, under what conditions, when to tell each other, how much to tell each other, etc. But the option to have sex outside the marriage is there, and has been since we first got together.
But neither of us does very much about it. And haven’t, for a long time.
For me, the issue has pretty much been time and energy. Between my day job and my writing, which I am now pursuing to the point of obsessive- compulsion, I’m already working six days a week, sometimes seven. I barely have time and energy for friends, for reading, for dancing, for all the things other than work and marriage that give my life meaning. I don’t even spend as much time with my wife as I’d like. And despite the fact that I’m spending almost every spare waking moment on it, I still don’t have enough time to do all the writing that I want to. Where the hell am I going to find time to squeeze a fuckbuddy into all of that?
And I definitely don’t have the time and energy — not to mention the patience — to actually seek out a potential fuckbuddy. If I happened to meet someone in the course of my life who seemed attractive and available and interested, I’d consider it. But to go on a dozen personal-ad first dates? To kiss a dozen frogs in hopes of meeting a princess or prince? I’ve been there, I’ve done that. And to be fair, I actually had a lot of fun with it in my twenties and thirties, when I had world enough and time. But now . . . well, I’m not saying, “Never.” But I am saying, “Not this week.” And I’ve been saying, “Not this week,” for I don’t know how long. You know how couples who want kids say that it’s never a good week to have a kid? It’s never a good week to look for a fuckbuddy.
And yet, if my wife came to me tomorrow and said, “I don’t want to be non-monogamous anymore,” I’d have a serious problem with it.
Which is the point I want to make. I realize it’s taken me an absurdly long time to get to the point: but this is definitely it, coming up right now.
I have found that non-monogamy is a tremendously valuable asset to our relationship . . . even when neither of us does much of anything about it. The main advantage of non-monogamy isn’t necessarily all the wild monkey sex you get to have with all the hot babes. For me, the main advantage of non-monogamy is that it makes the issue of Other People pretty much a non-issue.
When I was in monogamous relationships (or theoretically monogamous ones), Other People were always an issue. Is my partner having sex with someone else? Are they flirting with someone else? Do they think that other person is more attractive than me? Should I be worried about what they’re doing? Am I worrying over nothing? Am I deluding myself into believing there’s nothing to worry about when really there is?
And it wasn’t just my partners’ attractions and involvements that were an issue, either. My own were, too. Much more so, in fact. When you’ve promised that you won’t have sex with other people, then every single time that you have the serious hots for someone else turns into a Big Fucking Deal: an unbearable yearning that turns you into a character from a Gothic novel or a bad soap opera. It did for me, anyway. And from what I’ve observed in other monogamous relationships, it does for a whole lot of other people, too.
But when you’re not monogamous, the Gothic soap opera vanishes like a bad dream in daylight. The basic unavoidable fact that you and your partner are living animals with normal libidos doesn’t turn into a crisis. The fact that your partner is flirting with someone else at a party, the fact that you yourself are flirting with someone else at a party, all those little flickers of attraction and curiosity that human animals are subject to: not a crisis. Non-monogamy takes the lid off of the pressure cooker. It turns the brooding melodrama into a sophisticated romantic comedy. It makes it No Big Deal.
Non-monogamy relieves relationship pressure in another way, too. If there’s a particular kind of sex you like (or want to try) and your partner isn’t into it, you aren’t forced to choose between deprivation and infidelity. You have a third option: Go Do That Thing With Someone Else. And when Doing That Thing With Someone Else is an option, you sometimes find that That Thing no longer has that bewitching glow of irresistibly tempting eroticism. There have definitely been times when I’ve had some fantasy that my partner wasn’t crazy about; have considered pursuing it outside the relationship; and decided that it really wasn’t worth the bother.
Which brings me to the best thing about non-monogamy. For me, anyway. When you’re not monogamous, you realize that not every single person you’re attracted to is someone you’d seriously like to fuck if given the opportunity.
This is probably the single most important lesson that non-monogamy taught me. When you’re monogamous, every single person you’re even moderately attracted to seems like Shangri-La, a lost city of infinite erotic promise, with genitals made of divine light and chocolate ice cream that would transform your life if only you could have a taste. (It did for me, anyway.) The allure of the forbidden, and all that.
But when you’re non-monogamous, you remember that you don’t actually want to go to bed with every attractive person who crosses your path. Some attractive people become much less attractive on closer acquaintance. Some attractive people are crazy; some attractive people are dull; some attractive people have appalling political opinions. And some attractive people you just don’t connect with. Especially if you have a busy, reasonably fulfilling life, the reality of non-monogamy may well turn out to be that most people who you’re passingly attracted to are not, in fact, people you actually want to fuck. They may be perfectly lovely, but they’re just not worth the effort.
I’m not saying non-monogamy is right for everybody. If even the thought of your partner having sex with someone else gives you anxious fits, the reality probably isn’t going to be so swell. And it’d be irresponsible to get into a non-monogamous relationship on the understanding that neither of you is actually going to do anything about it. I can’t even get my mind around the contorted logic that that would involve.
But I think a lot of people avoid non-monogamy because they think it means “constantly running around with other people.” And I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t necessarily mean that. If you’re a normal urban couple with the usual insanely- overbooked urban life, then it very likely isn’t going to mean that. (You can even make that one of your agreed-upon limitations if you like. I had an affair once with a guy whose agreement with his partner was, “No more than once a month” . . . an agreement that worked out amazingly well, for a good long time.)
For me at least, the main joy of non-monogamy isn’t all the different hot babes I get to boink. The joy of non-monogamy is knowing that different hot babes are an option. And it’s the pressure that this option takes off of our relationship. The joy of non-monogamy isn’t all the Other People. It’s the transformation of Other People from tantalizingly forbidden fruit into just another choice, one more potentially fun thing that I could theoretically be doing with my ever-vanishing spare time. It’s the transformation of Other People from high drama into no big deal.
This entry was posted on Friday, 2 May 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
on Friday, 2 May 2008 at 11:22 am klinnea wrote:
I am also in a non-monogamous marriage and have a friend who is in a non-marriage, non-monogamous long-term relationship (with 4 kids to boot!). I agree with you whole-heartedly that it is just a healthier way to stay with someone you have truly bonded with, truly love and truly trust without having to pretend you never have a crush on anyone else, don’t like flirting or don’t really want to know if you’d like having sex with someone else. And like you, I don’t get that much opportunity to exercise my right to “stray” outside of my marriage but, when I do, there is no guilt, no worries and no BS. However, I have to hide my extraneous relationships, not from my husband, but from everyone else lest they think I’m a pig. My husband also has the option to go play but he just hasn’t chosen to for a long time…we’re getting older…choices get more limited when you don’t hang out much anymore. He is fine with the fact that every time we see a very close friend of ours we end up in the same bed. But if anyone else ever suspected…other friends, co-workers, family…I’d be ostracized to say the least. That is the one drawback to our kind of relationship. It still seems to have to involve some lying even if it isn’t to ourselves. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s my take.
on Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 12:11 pm JoAnn wrote:
I find non-monogamy simply opens more avenues of communication. The less things a partner thinks/feels/believes they can’t share with me, the better - and sometimes, lusting after that hot babe makes our sex hotter.
I’ve never understood why most society thinks my other half should sit home with his thumb up his ass while I have a 1001 things going on. I want him to go out and have a good time with a person he enjoys instead of waiting at home for me.
on Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 7:01 pm Nancy wrote:
My husband and I are non-monogamous. We have been married 11 years (2nd marriages) and have six children between us. Our lifestyle choice has literally been “nirvana” for us. It has removed most of the risk factors that so often destroy monogamous couples. This lifestyle begs that we put it all “out there” with one another. We have found that if we can speak and act freely “sexually”, we can carry this “honesty” into ALL areas of our relationship. And, over the years, this open expression about all subjects has strengthened our marriage. When he wanted to explore his interest in D/s (seriously, not just “ooohh, spank me, i’ve been bad), he found himself a woman that was submissive “in her soul”. And, when I was diagnosed with MS and experience fatigue beyond belief……..I never had to deal w/ the “guilt” of not being able to be there for him sexually……..I would just send him off to play. It worked for both of us.
When he went through periods where his libido was low, I had my own lover to turn to, a black man (that was MY kink) that my husband introduced me to 8 years ago. (He and I have this weird “quarterly schedule, kind of like the financial markets.)
So, non-monogamy CAN work……it DOES work but, it requires that each person “check their ego at the door” and leave behind the traditional ideas that society insists on imposing upon us all.
on Sunday, 4 May 2008 at 1:28 pm Deafies, Let’s Chat! » Blog Archive » [PERSONAL POST] Freedom In Relationships wrote:
[…] Here is a great blog post about how non-monogamy does not necessarily mean madly going around and fucking every body you see in your way. […]
on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 4:50 pm Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2008-05-06 wrote:
[…] [Greta Christina] The Joy of Theoretical Non-Monogamy | Blowfish Blog “When you’re monogamous, every single person you’re even moderately attracted to seems like Shangri-La, a lost city of infinite erotic promise, with genitals made of divine light and chocolate ice cream that would transform your life…” (tags: relationships sex monogamy aweosme) […]
on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 6:14 pm Alexa wrote:
Interesting perspective. I’d be curious to see how many couples would survive if they had theoretical non-monogamy. I suspect a great many of them would experience the same impact that you have.
on Thursday, 8 May 2008 at 3:34 am No Big Deal « Frangipani wrote:
[…] No Big Deal May 8, 2008 Filed under: Definitions, Lust, Polyamory, Sex — Araliya @ 9:35 pm Tags: Definitions, Lust, Polyamory, Sex Another post by Greta Christina on the Blowfish Blog. This one’s about the importance and effect of non-monogamy in relationships, even if said non-monogamy is mostly theoretical. A quick quote. Which brings me to the best thing about non-monogamy. For me, anyway. When you’re not monogamous, you realize that not every single person you’re attracted to is someone you’d seriously like to fuck if given the opportunity. […]
on Thursday, 8 May 2008 at 4:53 am Valhar2000 wrote:
Well…
It is true that you and your partner are “living animals with normal libidos”, as are so many other people, but it is also true, perhaps not for you, but for many, that we are normal animals who experience intense sexual jealousy. That is a part of who we are, it evolved in our ancestors, and was selected for, and we are stuck with it.
This makes the concept of non-monogamous relationships difficult to apply universally, to say the least.
Still, when you put it that way, it sounds good. Perhaps it is something we should all strive for, as much as it is feasible to do so.
on Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 7:13 pm Dav wrote:
I think there are stages of polyamory kind of like levels of playing the piano. Some people sit down at the piano the very first time and play, others might wait until someone tells them how to hold their hands and which keys to press, but everyone who plays the piano starts out at one level and if they continue, they gradually develop additional skills, which make additional musical experiences available to them.
Lots of times, with both sex and piano, the player has a bad experience and basically shuts down. Lots of people never have sex again, or they avoid that type of person, or that situation. On the flipside, some people keep growing and working around the setbacks.
It seems to me that sex is a particular kind of conversation, and you can get better and better at it, until, like Glenn Gould playing the piano, you can do things that truly are impossible to the novice. Or you can get stuck in a rut.