Baltimore Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Is monogamy realistic?
I'm still working my way through this (lengthy) article, but already the wheels are spinning. Not that I'm considering changing the "terms" of my marriage, but the points made are interesting. And I 
Dan Savage somethin' fierce.
It may be too late in the day to spark a discusison, but I still think the article is thought-provoking, so I'm posting.
Dan Savage on the Virtues of Infidelity (NY Times link)
ETA: D'oh - Edited to fix typo in subject line; thanks Kathryn!
Re: Is monogamy realistic?
I thought this was about monogramming.
LOL
I'll read the post - I luv some Dan Savage too.
I do agree with the statement that monogamy is not for everyone. Why not just stay single and date/sleep/hook up with anyone you want? Is monogamy for me? Abso-freakin-lutely. I just dont understand why people get married if they know they can't be monogamous. Unless maybe it is an open relationship and both parties agree and know up front that other people will be brought in.
I think this brings me back to my point of gay marriage rights. Two loving, commited to each other partners can't get married because they are the same sex but a guy can get married to woman who he claims is 'the love of his life' and then have extramarital affairs because 'men are hunters and it is in their genes'? BS.
*Obviously this is my opinion. Not trying to force it on anyone else.
I think the issue is more likely:
A - They intended to be monogamous, and/or
B - They weren't upfront with their partners when they realized that they had a desire for a relationship outside of their marriage.
Which are still issues, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that the issue is really getting married and being unable to be monogamous. I think the issue ends up more often being a case of feeling unable to be open and honest with our partners. How many men or women are going to feel the desire to get it on with someone else and *honestly* tell their partner that they're feeling this way? Not many. And understandably. Because being in a non-monogamous relationship is so taboo. There's so much stress on being monogamous that to not be so is touted as wrong, inappropriate, irresponsible. But maybe it's not. Maybe it works for some people. And maybe that's okay. We won't know if we don't actively communicate with our partners and don't honestly engage in conversation.
My husband told me early on in our relationship that if I wanted to sleep with someone else, as long as I was upfront and honest with him (discussing it beforehand), used protection and came home to him, he didn't care. I've never taken him up on that, and haven't offered the same "deal" to him, but we still got married knowing that we each viewed our relationship requirements a little differently.
Before I get jumped on - he's fine with my not opening him up to that kind of freedom. I'm not, at this point, okay with the idea of my husband having sex with someone else. But maybe I'll get to that point. Maybe I'll take him up on the freedom he's offered me - an offer I know for a fact still exists. I can't imagine it, but I'm no psychic - who knows what either of us will feel in the future?
Yeah I edited after I wrote the original post adding in the bolded sentences. I can see if it were talked about up front. And I get what you mean: If someone suddenly wanted to not be monogamous I dont think they would really be gung ho in saying "Hey BTW, I want to sleep with someone else" out of the blue. I think it would be something really hard to bring up in a conversation with the one you love.
I definitely think that is an issue with many shades of gray. Over the weekend I was asking my SIL & BIL about the whole Weiner thing, since they live in NYC & I said that I really didn't get what the big deal was and my SIL was shocked. It's not like I would be thrilled if MH was twic-pic'ing d!ck shots to randoms, but IMO that type of non-physical contact is a far cry from oral/PIV action and not something to end a marriage over.
I think monogamy is definitely a different strokes for different folks thing and that it is not for everyone.
Another reason why some people who do not want/"can't" be monogamous get married, because they are expected to, or there is a social benefit to them being married, like children, career advancement, family acceptance, etc.
I'm happy to see that after 7 pages, I still totally agree with everything Dan Savage says.
i luv him. One of the best compliments I've ever gotten was when my friend told me that I gave Savage Love caliber relationship advice. Honesty and GGG. Building blocks for a solid relationship in my book.
anyway...I think monogomy is a great thing. I think it's absolutely realistic for many many couples. But I think it's sad that our society treats it as the be-all end-all of a healthy relationship. Every relationship is different. Nobody bats an eye that every couple has to work our their own "rules" and their own balance when it comes to household chores, money, food, time, kids, etc etc etc. Why in the world is sex the one thing where that doesn't apply?
I've had many a conversation here on TN and back on the knot talking whether phone sex/sexting/flirting/dirty dancing/groping/kissing/anything shy of a full-on sexual encounter really counts as cheating. And I'm often dismayed by women who stridently claim that By God that's CHEATING and anybody who thinks otherwise is letting their husband get away with ***/has a crappy marriage/is a doormat/whatever.
I just want to pat them on the head and say, "No, sweetie, my rules are not your rules. My relationship is not your relationship. And I hope to god you've had a conversation with your husband about these things and he understands what your boundaries are because otherwise you might be in for one hell of a shock."
My husband is a flirt. He was born a flirt, he'll die a flirt. This has NEVER bothered me. Therefore, it's understood in our relationship that flirting is ok. I can con free drinks off guys in bars, he can chat up cute girls. It's all cool. The same thing does not apply in all relationships, and that's also cool. But I am sure that there are people who would see MH flirting away with one of our friends at a party and silently judge the state of my marriage despite the fact that I see him at it and just laugh. I mean really? That's how we judge the stength of a marriage? By whether MH ever checks out another girl's butt? That's just...sad.
My Goodness...another food blog. Featuring: Macarons from a old post with a photo taken by my mom for a break from my crappy food photos!
Everything's good for everybody as long as they are consenting adults and no one's getting hurt - the issue is when different partners have different ideas of what's acceptable and how to handle that shift in rules within a marriage.
I've gotten married and always assumed DH and I would be monogamous - what happens if down the road one person wants to renegotiate our relationship to allow outside activities? I think that's where the conflict in altering up monogamy is - how do re-define your contract? Is that fair?
I think it's just as fair to have a sit down about possibly changing the terms of your contract as it applies to sex as it is to sit down and have a talk about changing the terms of your "contract" as it applies to kids, the dishes or what have you.
IMO it's the responsibility of the party who wants the change to do more bending than the other party since there was an initial agreement...but imagine you are the main breadwinner with a typical 9-5 job and you wanted to quit and open your own etsy shop selling beaded hankies. It's totally reasonable to sit down with YH and talk that over, discuss your budget, discuss what he'd have to do to make that work (take more hours, change jobs, cut expenses, etc). And it'd be reasonable for him to refuse to move into a studio apartment in a shitty neighborhood and live off ramen so that you can live your crafting dreams, but it'd be totally unreasonable for him to just flat out refuse to discuss the options.
Sex, and the terms of it in your marriage, should be no different. Yes, it's a big deal. Yes, it might cause strife to even talk about it. But that's no reason to not even have the discussion and see what kind of comprimise you can reach. There are a lot of emotions wrapped up in sex, and that's not a bad thing. But I think if people took away the insistance that the only good marraige is a 100% monogamous marriage, they might be a little less shrill about it and end up a little happier in the long run, even if they stay monogamous.
My Goodness...another food blog. Featuring: Macarons from a old post with a photo taken by my mom for a break from my crappy food photos!
I met a couple in college who had an open marriage. They were friends with my roommate. I thought the whole thing sounded weird and skeevy. They could each sleep with whomever they wanted as long as they got the other's approval first. Then I met them, and they turned out to be the nicest, friendliest, most down-to-earth couple ever. So I don't know. Obviously that worked out very well for them. They didn't have kids though (that was years ago, they might now). I think with kids in the mix such arrangements could become dicey.
And obviously, there are risks. What if an unintended pregnancy occurred, and there was a paternity question? And STDs....condoms don't protect against everything.
ETA: disclaimer, I only skimmed the beginning of the article, I don't have the time to read it all right now. Just talking about some people I knew.
I agree with everything Wawa said, but particularly the last paragraph above. Well said!