Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, March 8, 2011
Savage Love What's Love Got To Do With It?
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Regarding a certain Washington Monthly cover story about a certain sex-advice columnist, Lindsay Beyerstein writes at the Big Think...
Dueholm starts off with a pretty good summary of Savage's recurring themes: Disclosure, autonomy, reciprocity, and a minimum standard of sexual performance. I was surprised at how badly Dueholm misinterprets Savage's views on monogamy. Like Dueholm, I'm a longtime fan of the Savage Love column and the Savage Lovecast—and I think Savage makes his views on the subject pretty clear.
Dueholm sets up his own view of monogamy as the opposite of Savage's:
If there is something to treasure in the old, traumatized ideal of lifelong monogamy, it’s not that it demeans sexual fulfillment. Rather, it’s that monogamy integrates sexual fulfillment with the other good things in life—having someone to pay bills and raise children with, having a refuge both emotional and physical from the rest of the world.
Ironically, Savage could practically have written that sentence.
Savage's main point is not that monogamy is bad, or even unattainable. He just knows that it's hard work for most people. He wants to debunk the myth that if you're a normal person, and you really love your partner, you will never want to have sex with anyone else. Savage wants people to stop torturing themselves because their desires don't line up with an arbitrary social ideal.
As he sees it, there are two ways of dealing with this predicament. You can either embrace monogamy as a difficult but worthwhile project because you like to live that way, or you and your partner(s) can figure out some other arrangement that you like better. The first step is being honest with the people you date and choosing people who want what you want. That's one reason why Savage is always harping on disclosure. It's no longer ethical, or practical, to assume everyone wants the same thing.
...
Dueholm's vision is actually much bleaker than Savage's. Savage tells his readers that they don't have to buy into every detail of traditional monogamy in order to have that loving, bill-paying, childrearing life partnership, if that's what they want. For example, Savage and his husband are monogamous, apart from an occasional threesome with a mutual friend. This arrangement satisfies their desire for variety and their need for a stable long-term loving relationship. What's bleak about that?
Nothing!
But Terry and I wouldn't describe ourselves as monogamous-apart-from-an-occassional because we wouldn't—couldn't—feel comfortable using the word "monogamous" in reference to ourselves, not even monogamous-with-an-asterisks, because technically we're, you know, not. But we kindasorta hate the term non-monogamous because when a gay couple describes themselves as non-monogamous people—gay and straight—assume a degree of promiscuousness that 1. we wouldn't be comfortable engaging in and 2. we're not actually engaging in. People don't make the same assumption about non-monogamous straight couples because it's generally more difficult for straight people to get laid.
That's why we usually describe our loving, bill-paying, childrearing life partnership as "monogamish." Mostly monogamous but stuff happens. Some other stuff. Sometimes. Not all the times. It's a term that I'd like to popularize.
Our monogamish relationship—and I suspect that we're not the only monogamish couple out there—has allowed us to integrate "sexual fulfillment with the other good things in life" quite nicely, thanks.
1
I love it! I'll start using it immediately, since it describes the relationship I have with my own husband.
2
Because if there's anything we need more of, it's additional terms and labels to describe relationships!
3
"because their desires don't line up with an arbitrary social ideal...."
That ideal is not arbitrary.
That ideal is the basis and foundation for stable families and societies.
Societies that strive for that ideal are more successful than those that don't.
That ideal is not arbitrary.
That ideal is the basis and foundation for stable families and societies.
Societies that strive for that ideal are more successful than those that don't.
6
There are people with no primary partners. There are people with primary partners who "date" secondary partners. And there are people with primary partners who fuck secondary partners. All seem like different kinds of non-exclusivity.
The next great language project of the sexual revolution will be to coin a term that means essentially monogamous-non-exclusive. Right now that's the only way I can term having a primary partner and not dating other people but occasionally fucking them. Have at it.
The next great language project of the sexual revolution will be to coin a term that means essentially monogamous-non-exclusive. Right now that's the only way I can term having a primary partner and not dating other people but occasionally fucking them. Have at it.
7
Nothing says TRUE LOVE like insisting that you be allowed to cheat as a condition to remaining in the "marriage"....
9
Now can we debunk the idea of "soulmate" as the one random person out there who is somehow right and best for you if only you can find him or her as opposed to something you create over a long period of time of mutual love, respect and GGGing?
11
Personnally I loved the terms "social monogamy" vs "sexual monogamy" in Sex At Dawn. But monogamish works too.
12
In an interesting side note, the Monogamish were a Native American tribe that historically lived on what we in Seattle now call Capitol Hill.
13
"because it's generally more difficult for straight people to get laid." You might want to edit that to "straight men". I don't know if there's ever been a landspeed competition, but I'm pretty sure a straight woman has a competitive edge over a gay man.
14
Whenever I hear monogamy, and especially when you say "monogamish," I think of the Muppets singing "Manamana":
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%…
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%…
15
Love the new terminology.
Seems like 90% of the "disagreements" around here regarding monogamy (including the one in the Washington Post) have more to do with the definitions of terms than any substantive difference in point of view.
The term "non-monogamy" is particularly problematic, given that it encompasses such wide range of circumstances - harems, people on their 5th marriage, cheaters, swingers, singles playing the field, and "monogamish" open relationships. When someone touts the benefits of monogamy, its usually unclear which of these alternatives they are comparing it to.
Seems like 90% of the "disagreements" around here regarding monogamy (including the one in the Washington Post) have more to do with the definitions of terms than any substantive difference in point of view.
The term "non-monogamy" is particularly problematic, given that it encompasses such wide range of circumstances - harems, people on their 5th marriage, cheaters, swingers, singles playing the field, and "monogamish" open relationships. When someone touts the benefits of monogamy, its usually unclear which of these alternatives they are comparing it to.
17
Now, Canuck - you have seen the clip from the saucy Italian Swedish-lady-action mockumentary that song was written for, no?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXo1ufdQ4…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXo1ufdQ4…
18
If it at all helps balance the inequity in gay/straight stereotypes you're feeling; If a straight couple described themselves—I should say DEFINED themselves—as "non-monogamous", I'd instantly assume "swingers circuit."
19
@ #8 For The Win!
Being an old gay guy, I'd like to say that one of the things that seems to have tripped us up in the PR sweepstakes is that we have been pretty much open and honest about our sexual lives, unlike the vast majority of straight people, who demonstrate their capacity to misrepresent fidelity in relationships quite clearly and who don't seem to be able to talk honestly about what they do, what they like, what they dream of -- certainly not in the way that gay people have over the last few decades. (Remember, I said "vast majority", I didn't say "all".) Until straight folks throw off the shackles of prudery and hypocrisy about their sex lives (are ya listening, Newt?) gay folks of all genders are going to be stuck in the negative side of the PR balance sheet.
Being an old gay guy, I'd like to say that one of the things that seems to have tripped us up in the PR sweepstakes is that we have been pretty much open and honest about our sexual lives, unlike the vast majority of straight people, who demonstrate their capacity to misrepresent fidelity in relationships quite clearly and who don't seem to be able to talk honestly about what they do, what they like, what they dream of -- certainly not in the way that gay people have over the last few decades. (Remember, I said "vast majority", I didn't say "all".) Until straight folks throw off the shackles of prudery and hypocrisy about their sex lives (are ya listening, Newt?) gay folks of all genders are going to be stuck in the negative side of the PR balance sheet.
20
Love this line. I'm going to start referring to my libido as being "deployed". (decoyed?) (destroyed?)
Love, emotional compatibility, the possibility of a life together, not to mention irrecoverable years already spent—these must all be staked against the value of a fully deployed libido.
Love this line. I'm going to start referring to my libido as being "deployed". (decoyed?) (destroyed?)
21
Oh gus, I had no idea! I love all their Miss Clairol blonde bump hairdos...and to complete the loop...a barn full of nearly naked Swedes would be enough to make almost anyone monogamish...heh.
22
Just gotta say I LOVE the cartoon of Dan! Flash back - reminds me of Mad Magazine, so "What, Me Monogamous?"
23
"People don't make the same assumption about non-monogamous straight couples because it's generally more difficult for straight people to get laid."
I have to disagree here. You're probably right that people would assume more promiscuity from gay couples than straight for the reason you state, but it's nonetheless assumed that straight non-monogamous couples are promiscuous. Mix in a bi man with that straight couple and we're especially assumed to be indiscriminate swingers--that assumption of promiscuity itself lends toward the greater difficulty in finding additional partners.
I have to disagree here. You're probably right that people would assume more promiscuity from gay couples than straight for the reason you state, but it's nonetheless assumed that straight non-monogamous couples are promiscuous. Mix in a bi man with that straight couple and we're especially assumed to be indiscriminate swingers--that assumption of promiscuity itself lends toward the greater difficulty in finding additional partners.
25
Absolutely, on the problems of the labels 'monogamy' and 'non-monogamy.' But 'monogamish' really really sucks. Sometimes I want to say 'we're faithful, but not monogamous.'
Can't you just say 'mostly monogamous?'
Can't you just say 'mostly monogamous?'
26
I think the old phrase was "we have an understanding." This year I find myself saying we have an "open" marriage. But I don't really see why one needs an accurate label.
For the purposes of dating, presumably one needs to be more specific than is conveyed by monogamish, or open or any of the alternatives.
For the purposes of building a movement, can't we just say that people should consider their partner(s)' requests with an open mind?
For the purposes of dating, presumably one needs to be more specific than is conveyed by monogamish, or open or any of the alternatives.
For the purposes of building a movement, can't we just say that people should consider their partner(s)' requests with an open mind?
28
no, Mr. Savage has nothing against monogamy, just as he has nothing against pit bulls and fat people. his keen interest in finding and posting anything that talks of monogamy as "unnatural" should not be seen as anything other than his complete appreciation for those who live monogamously (even though he knows they are lying about it).
and the rejoinder to those links "um, i was right" (or something as pithy) should not be construed by our gentle reader as an indication that Mr. Savage has once again chosen heat over light, the fight over the discussion, etc. no, no, no, he respects those who are monogamous.
one thing is clear after reading slog, Mr. Savage is nothing if not completely respectful of those with whom he differs.
and the rejoinder to those links "um, i was right" (or something as pithy) should not be construed by our gentle reader as an indication that Mr. Savage has once again chosen heat over light, the fight over the discussion, etc. no, no, no, he respects those who are monogamous.
one thing is clear after reading slog, Mr. Savage is nothing if not completely respectful of those with whom he differs.
29
I love the cartoon too, but I am having trouble identifying who everyone is supposed to be! Is there a connection here? I get why Michael Phelps (?!) is there. And next over looks like Mary-Louise Parker which makes no sense. Tucker Carlson (?) is that? Well he's a pundit like Dan at least. And then some blonde. Insights?
30
I want to refer specifically to the letter that is brought up near the end of Dueholm's article. He brings up one of the few problems that I have with Dan's advice concerning sex and relationships.
I tend to side with Dueholm when he says:
"If the aspiring HND dissolves this years-long transaction in order to find a partner who is just as lovable but less jealous, or who shares his libido at every point, he will likely have a lonely road ahead of him."
It can be very hard to find someone even close to what you want in a long term partner. I often wish Dan would occasionally say, "Keep it in your pants big boy, sex isn't everything."
I think people really do have a choice when it comes to sex. We are animals, but we are also far more than animals.
It may also be a matter of perspective for me. I have been in a very small number of relationships and I am always the one getting dumped. From my perspective, when I find someone who is willing to be with me I make the necessary sacrifices to stay with that person because I know how hard it is for me to find someone I like, who also likes me back. The thought of jeopardizing this relationship because I need more "variety" is insanity to me.
I also find the idea of sexual variety to be vastly over-rated. I have found myself in situations where I could have taken advantage of some NSA sex and most of the time I have passed on the opportunity because my ego is insulted by the idea of someone using me solely for their pleasure without a care in the world for me as a person. My arousal actually becomes deactivated if this thought occurs to me.
Of course my viewpoint may change when I finally manage to stay in a relationship for more than 3 months.
More...
I tend to side with Dueholm when he says:
"If the aspiring HND dissolves this years-long transaction in order to find a partner who is just as lovable but less jealous, or who shares his libido at every point, he will likely have a lonely road ahead of him."
It can be very hard to find someone even close to what you want in a long term partner. I often wish Dan would occasionally say, "Keep it in your pants big boy, sex isn't everything."
I think people really do have a choice when it comes to sex. We are animals, but we are also far more than animals.
It may also be a matter of perspective for me. I have been in a very small number of relationships and I am always the one getting dumped. From my perspective, when I find someone who is willing to be with me I make the necessary sacrifices to stay with that person because I know how hard it is for me to find someone I like, who also likes me back. The thought of jeopardizing this relationship because I need more "variety" is insanity to me.
I also find the idea of sexual variety to be vastly over-rated. I have found myself in situations where I could have taken advantage of some NSA sex and most of the time I have passed on the opportunity because my ego is insulted by the idea of someone using me solely for their pleasure without a care in the world for me as a person. My arousal actually becomes deactivated if this thought occurs to me.
Of course my viewpoint may change when I finally manage to stay in a relationship for more than 3 months.
31
LukeJoe: It's a parody of the poster....
http://ginavivinetto.files.wordpress.com…
.... for the film Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice
http://www.iffkv.cz/image/8437-bob-carol…
http://ginavivinetto.files.wordpress.com…
.... for the film Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice
http://www.iffkv.cz/image/8437-bob-carol…
32
@ 28: Let me guess, you're a fat pitbull owner who can't get laid. RTFA, troll.
@30: So variety isn't as important to you as it is to some people - that's fine, everyone's different - or perhaps you'll discover after being in a longterm relationship that your assessment of your own needs was inaccurate.
It's true that it can be very difficult to find a compatible partner, and it's unreasonable to expect perfect compatibility from anyone, and this needs to be weighed against whatever dissatisfaction is felt. Dan has addressed this on occasion (there's a YouTube video of him speaking at a uni where he says you're only allowed five dealbreakers), but to be fair, he's surrounded by a legion of advice columnists and an entire culture that says in near-perfect unison that you *shouldn't* ever leave someone because of sexual incompatibility.
@30: So variety isn't as important to you as it is to some people - that's fine, everyone's different - or perhaps you'll discover after being in a longterm relationship that your assessment of your own needs was inaccurate.
It's true that it can be very difficult to find a compatible partner, and it's unreasonable to expect perfect compatibility from anyone, and this needs to be weighed against whatever dissatisfaction is felt. Dan has addressed this on occasion (there's a YouTube video of him speaking at a uni where he says you're only allowed five dealbreakers), but to be fair, he's surrounded by a legion of advice columnists and an entire culture that says in near-perfect unison that you *shouldn't* ever leave someone because of sexual incompatibility.
33
I too would really like to know what AHND decided. It's a tough call when weighing up a "loving, bill-paying, childrearing life partnership" against a "fully deployed libido". Especially as Chase @32 explains it is unreasonable [for any of us] to expect perfect compatibility from anyone. I wonder if AHND was able to find/negotiate a balance that worked for him...
34
I headed off to urbandictionary to create the entry for monogamish. But I was beaten to the punch! However, I can proudly say I was the first person to give it a thumb (thumbs up, of course!)
Thumb it up here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
Thumb it up here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
35
As opposed to "open relationship", I've started to say our relationship is "open for discussion". I don't like any term that suggests, or has come to suggest, that we might throw our bodies or hearts in any direction at a whim. I like to inform people that I have a partner, that her feelings matter to me, and that in one way or another she has some involvement and influence over the choices I make with others. I also like it because it suggests some flexibility in the choices we might make with others. I've spoken to people who write down specific rules of engagement that they must follow, which is fine for them if that's what they need. For us, I don't like to think that we can anticipate every situation that might come up. When a situation does come up, I don't want to be reminded of Rule #4. Nor do I want to find myself defending my actions to my partner by saying "But I followed the rules!" Our only rules are that we discuss whatever might come up and that our communication be honest.
I also use, and have no problem with, "non-monogamous". All of the different terminology points toward the simple idea of non-monogamy, but most--swinger, poly, open relationship--have come to carry connotations that I don't feel I can define my relationship by. Non-monogamy is simply that: we are not monogamous.
I also use, and have no problem with, "non-monogamous". All of the different terminology points toward the simple idea of non-monogamy, but most--swinger, poly, open relationship--have come to carry connotations that I don't feel I can define my relationship by. Non-monogamy is simply that: we are not monogamous.
36
As opposed to "open relationship", I've started to say our relationship is "open for discussion". I don't like any term that suggests, or has come to suggest, that we might throw our bodies or hearts in any direction at a whim. I like to inform people that I have a partner, that her feelings matter to me, and that in one way or another she has some involvement and influence over the choices I make with others. I also like it because it suggests some flexibility in the choices we might make with others. I've spoken to people who write down specific rules of engagement that they must follow, which is fine for them if that's what they need. For us, I don't like to think that we can anticipate every situation that might come up. When a situation does come up, I don't want to be reminded of Rule #4. Nor do I want to find myself defending my actions to my partner by saying "But I followed the rules!" Our only rules are that we discuss whatever might come up and that our communication be honest.
I also use, and have no problem with, "non-monogamous". All of the different terminology points toward the simple idea of non-monogamy, but most--swinger, poly, open relationship--have come to carry connotations that I don't feel I can define my relationship by. Non-monogamy is simply that: we are not monogamous.
I also use, and have no problem with, "non-monogamous". All of the different terminology points toward the simple idea of non-monogamy, but most--swinger, poly, open relationship--have come to carry connotations that I don't feel I can define my relationship by. Non-monogamy is simply that: we are not monogamous.
37
That's why I like "open-minded relationship": to me it implies that there's room for selective excursions from monogamy, but it's not an advertisement that you're fair game for all comers, which is an unfortunately common interpretation of the alternatives, in my experience.
38
Hm, this writer has made Mr. Savage's position on monogomy too gentle. He has said that he find monogomy to be unnatural.
39
@38
So? Any rational person would also find things like corrective lenses, automobiles, and clothing unnatural.
Saying monogamy is unnatural doesn't mean it's unattainable - just that when it is attained, it takes work, and even people who are successfully monogamous by choice and happy about it will still find themselves turned on by other people.
The article correctly summarizes what I've always seen to be Dan's point - that having the slipper fit doesn't instantly cut off any attractions to other partners.
So? Any rational person would also find things like corrective lenses, automobiles, and clothing unnatural.
Saying monogamy is unnatural doesn't mean it's unattainable - just that when it is attained, it takes work, and even people who are successfully monogamous by choice and happy about it will still find themselves turned on by other people.
The article correctly summarizes what I've always seen to be Dan's point - that having the slipper fit doesn't instantly cut off any attractions to other partners.
40
I kind of wish Dan would respond to Dueholm's article in detail. It's a thoughtful article, one that might lead to improvements in an already excellent column and ethical system if he takes on Dueholm's critiques.
41
Being from central PA, I can't help hearing this as "monog-Amish" which creates kind of a weird image. Dan, Terry, and a bearded guy in a horse and buggy? But I guess it works better than the phrase I normally deploy: "None of your damned business."
42
@3: Have you considered that perhaps the term "family" is arbitrary, hence the great big fights over whether two males, two females, or a single parent and child can be a family. For that matter, so is the phrase "stable society"; is a society that decides to acknowledge the rights of sexual minorities--to take an example--becoming more stable, or less? There's no yardstick--depends on whom you ask.
@19: I think things are changing. I know a few in my generation--and a LOT of the younger folk--have come to acknowledge and respect the good that out gays have done themselves by integrity in their sex lives. By the same token, many of us are aware that a lot of the language we're learning to use to describe our desires, our relationships, and our sexual inner lives, we're inheriting from gay folks. Gays fought a lot of fights and learned a lot of lessons--both with straights and among themselves--so that straigths didn't have to. Some are grateful; their children will be much more so.
I find the Dueholm article pretty compelling, except here:
"The debates that continue over pornography and open relationships are driven less by positive or negative attitudes toward sexual satisfaction per se than by differing views of how sexual satisfaction relates to everything else in life. And this is where Savage’s ethics make their most problematic claims—by separating and elevating sexual satisfaction above other things people value."
What any longtime SL reader should know is that Dan doesn't argue for the elevation of sexual satisfaction over other values, but rather it's integration *with* other values in the relationship--a substantial improvement over its traditional relegation to a ghetto of shame, silence, and isolation.
Dueholm's a careful enough reader that I would have expected him to spot that. I'm surprised it escaped him.
More...
@19: I think things are changing. I know a few in my generation--and a LOT of the younger folk--have come to acknowledge and respect the good that out gays have done themselves by integrity in their sex lives. By the same token, many of us are aware that a lot of the language we're learning to use to describe our desires, our relationships, and our sexual inner lives, we're inheriting from gay folks. Gays fought a lot of fights and learned a lot of lessons--both with straights and among themselves--so that straigths didn't have to. Some are grateful; their children will be much more so.
I find the Dueholm article pretty compelling, except here:
"The debates that continue over pornography and open relationships are driven less by positive or negative attitudes toward sexual satisfaction per se than by differing views of how sexual satisfaction relates to everything else in life. And this is where Savage’s ethics make their most problematic claims—by separating and elevating sexual satisfaction above other things people value."
What any longtime SL reader should know is that Dan doesn't argue for the elevation of sexual satisfaction over other values, but rather it's integration *with* other values in the relationship--a substantial improvement over its traditional relegation to a ghetto of shame, silence, and isolation.
Dueholm's a careful enough reader that I would have expected him to spot that. I'm surprised it escaped him.
43
Et voila, Dan Savage coins yet another new sexual neologism! I'll enjoy using this one as well (maybe incorporate it into the Hump! movie I've always dreamed of making)...
46
@13: I don't think this is true, for a lot of the reasons 19 states. Straight women have to overcome the social pressure that girls aren't supposed to approach guys, act "desperate" or like a "slut", or be too blatantly sexual. Straight men have similar problems, as well as the stereotype that women just want to get pregnant and get child support, and that women don't actually want or like casual sex and are always looking for marriage or a serious relationship. These don't really apply to gay people, and gay people have also had to figure out what they want for themselves rather than fitting into society's mold.
@30: Sounds like you're naturally monogamous, which is fine, but most people aren't like that. And it's hard to tell from your post but it sounds like you might give too much in relationships and not take enough for yourself (which can certainly cause people to dump you). While compromising in a relationship is great when both people do it, if you have to make great sacrifices, that may mean it's not working for you, especially if your partner isn't willing to make similar sacrifices.
@35/36: Now I'm curious what the negative connotations of "open relationship" are.
@30: Sounds like you're naturally monogamous, which is fine, but most people aren't like that. And it's hard to tell from your post but it sounds like you might give too much in relationships and not take enough for yourself (which can certainly cause people to dump you). While compromising in a relationship is great when both people do it, if you have to make great sacrifices, that may mean it's not working for you, especially if your partner isn't willing to make similar sacrifices.
@35/36: Now I'm curious what the negative connotations of "open relationship" are.
47
Interesting term monogamish and I can see how it may come in handy when negotiating a possible tryst with someone who is aware of ones relationship but not the terms.
For all others, I prefer to use the term: "Married". For every married couple, there is a different set of rules, definitions, roles, etc. and the combination of all of these make a marriage quite unique of all others. Sure, some marriages are more 'traditional' than others but they are still as unique as the humans who make the couple.
As a society, we don't seem to feel the need to describe the particular nuances of our relationships or marriages with descriptive terms unless of course it comes to SEX. I mean to say, do we have special terms to describe who sits down to pay the monthly bills, (monobillous or sharedbillous), who baths the kids (wifebathous/husbandbathous), etc. I mean really wtf???!!!
Personally I am in a long term committed marriage. We have widely varying degrees of other sexual partners depending on the year, our frame of mind, our goals at the moment, our spiritual and physical state of mind, etc., etc. Sometimes our relationship has been 'monogamous' for years at a stretch even though it was 'open' to explore exmarital sex for each half but was declined for shared and individual reasons.
So in the end, I am married. My husband and me define our own relationship and the verbiage that surrounds it. For 99% of folks that is more than enough information and a special word or term is simply not necessary nor desired.
So
For all others, I prefer to use the term: "Married". For every married couple, there is a different set of rules, definitions, roles, etc. and the combination of all of these make a marriage quite unique of all others. Sure, some marriages are more 'traditional' than others but they are still as unique as the humans who make the couple.
As a society, we don't seem to feel the need to describe the particular nuances of our relationships or marriages with descriptive terms unless of course it comes to SEX. I mean to say, do we have special terms to describe who sits down to pay the monthly bills, (monobillous or sharedbillous), who baths the kids (wifebathous/husbandbathous), etc. I mean really wtf???!!!
Personally I am in a long term committed marriage. We have widely varying degrees of other sexual partners depending on the year, our frame of mind, our goals at the moment, our spiritual and physical state of mind, etc., etc. Sometimes our relationship has been 'monogamous' for years at a stretch even though it was 'open' to explore exmarital sex for each half but was declined for shared and individual reasons.
So in the end, I am married. My husband and me define our own relationship and the verbiage that surrounds it. For 99% of folks that is more than enough information and a special word or term is simply not necessary nor desired.
So
48
And people change and adapt over time. I've read "Savage Love" from the beginning, and remember being shocked when when Dan chose Terry over non-monogamy. (It's mentioned in the archives somewhere) Obviously over the years, they, like all couples, negotiated things. It's a good lesson that has stuck with me over the years; love, respect, and negotiation over the years trumps rigid social mores.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (49) RSS