By Philip Chanin, Ed.D., ABPP, CGP
Board Certified Clinical Psychologist
Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
www.drphilchanin.com
philchanin@gmail.com

“Dan Savage has for 20 years been saying monogamy is harder than we admit and he has been articulating a sexual ethic that he thinks honors the reality, rather than the romantic ideal, of marriage…Some people need more than one partner,” he writes, “just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes.  We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them…people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted…Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners.  And that,” Savage says, “destroys more families than it saves.”  (“Married with Infidelities,” by Mark Oppenheimer, The New York Times Magazine, July 3, 2011, pp. 22-24)

Dan Savage is an American author, media pundit, journalist, and LGBTQ activist.  He writes “Savage Love,” a relationship and sex advice column, and has a podcast version titled the “Savage Lovecast.”  He challenges the monolithic devotion to monogamy as the only and best approach.  He believes that “if lovers cannot fulfill all of each other’s desires, then it may be advisable to decide to go outside the bounds of marriage if that is what it takes to make the marriage work.”  (p. 24)

Savage does not believe “that monogamy is wrong for all couples or even for most couples.”  “Rather,” he says, “that a more realistic sexual ethic would prize honesty, a little flexibility and, when necessary, forgiveness over absolute monogamy…The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told the author, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men.  Men were never expected to be monogamous.  Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey.”  In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured.  “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.” (p. 24)

Savage continues, “Folks on the verge of making those monogamous commitments need to look at the wreckage around them—all those failed monogamous relationships out there—and have a conversation about what it’ll mean if one or the other partner should cheat.  And agree, at the very least, to getting through it, to place a higher value on the relationship itself than on one component of it, sexual exclusivity…The answer,” to Savage’s way of thinking, is smarter boundaries, not hard-line rules about monogamy.” (p. 25)

In 2001, The Journal of Family Psychology summarized earlier research, finding that “infidelity occurs in a reliable minority of American marriages.”  Estimates that “between 20 and 25 percent of all Americans will have sex with someone other than their spouse while they are married.”  In 2010, NORC, a research center at the University of Chicago, found that, among those who had ever been married, “14 percent of women and 20 percent of men admitted to affairs.”

Savage has a suggestion.  He states, “But what if (premarital counselors) were to say, ahead of time: ‘You two love each other, and you promise you won’t stray, but you might.  People do.  And if you do, I hope you won’t think it’s the end of the world.’  Such straight talk about the difficulty of monogamy,” Savage argues, “is simply good sense.”  “The point,” he wrote on his blog, “is that people—particularly those who value monogamy—need to understand why being monogamous is so much harder than they’ve been led to believe.” (p. 25)

Savage continues, “Why not tell your spouse everything you want, even if that includes wanting another person?  My sense is that this kind of radical honesty may work best for couples who already have strong marriages.  Where there is love and equality and no history of betrayal, one partner asking if she can have a fling may not be so risky…there are couples who can express opinions about each other’s clothing choices or cooking or taste in movies, and there are couples who cannot.”  (p. 26)

The article quotes Stephanie Coontz, who wrote the book Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage.  She says, “For thousands of years, it was expected of men that they would have affairs and flings, but not on the terms of honesty and equality Dan Savage envisions…It was not until the 20^th century that Americans evolved an understanding of marriage in which partners must meet all of each other’s needs: sexual, emotional, material.  When we rely on our partners for everything, any hint of betrayal is terrifying.  ‘That is the bind we are in,’ Coontz writes.  ‘We accord so much priority to the couple relationship.  It is tough under those conditions for most people to live with the insecurity of giving their partners permission to have flings.’”  (p. 27)

The article also quotes Judith Stacey, a New York University sociologist, who researched gay men’s romantic arrangements for her book, Unhitched:  Love, Marriage, and Family Values from West Hollywood to Western China.  She states that “neither monogamy nor polygamy is humankind’s sole natural state.  ‘One size never fits all, and it isn’t just dividing between men and women and gay and straight.  Monogamy is not natural, nonmonogamy is not natural.  Variation is what’s natural.  I believe monogamy is actually crucial for some couples and totally irrelevant for others.’”  (p. 27)

Stacey writes, “Creating nonmonogamy that strengthens rather than corrodes a marriage is surely as much work as monogamy.  Couples should make vows and honor them.  Not all good relationships require monogamy, but they all require what she calls integrity.  ‘What integrity means to me is we shouldn’t impose a single vow of monogamy as a superior standard for all relationships,’ Stacey says.  ‘Intimate partners should decide the vows you want to make.  Work out the terms of what your commitments are, and be on the same page. There are women perfectly happy to have agreements in which when you are out of town you can have a little fling on the side.  And rules range from ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ to ‘I want to know’ to ‘bring it home and talk about it and excite our relationship.’”  (p. 27)

“Stacey and Savage each say that monogamy is the right choice for many couples…if there are people whose marriages work best with more flexibility, they should find the courage to choose an arrangement that works for them, society be damned.”  (p. 27)

In summary, “Savage believes that adultery can be one of those trials, like financial woes or ill health, that marriages can be expected to survive.  ‘Given the rates of infidelity, people who get married should have to swear a blood oath that if it’s violated, as traumatic as that would be, the greater good is the relationship…The cultural expectation should be if there’s infidelity, the marriage is more important than fidelity.’”  (p. 28)

Recently I was working in psychotherapy with a mid-40’s married man who had one-night stands when he was out of town and he also had a 6-month affair with a female colleague at his office.  The crisis this has created in their marriage is illustrative of what Dan Savage talks about when a couple has not been open with each other about their desires.  Regarding the affair, my patient said, “I was looking for someone to prop me up and tell me how great I am.”

His wife is devastated.  He told me, “She gets physically sick if I go into the office.  How can I help her heal and still work for this company?”  He added, “There are days she can barely get out of bed.  She’s so hurt.  Betrayal trauma.  PTSD.  I feel ill equipped to help her.  She wants to be heard and understood.  She wants me to “hold her pain.’” She ruminates over and over.  She has to understand “why?” She says, “How do I know it won’t happen again?” and “How could you hurt me so deeply?”  My patient further stated, “The same cycle, over and over.  A never- ending loop.  She has nightmares and can barely sleep.  Most days, she feels hopeless.”

I also met with the wife of my patient, who told me, “I feel trapped. I though we both made the same commitment—obviously he didn’t.  We have two teenage kids.  I’ve tried really hard to meet his needs.  He had one-night stands when he was away and lied about it.  He lied about his alcohol use and he lied about the affair at his office.  I feel isolated.  The trauma I’ve been through.  He thinks I’ll be better if I’m not around him.  Sex—that part of me is dead now.”

The wife also told me, “I’ve had hope before.  It’s been dashed again.  Is it better to give up hope?  The people in his office encouraged it.  A gross culture!  He was encouraged to not be faithful!  I’ve told him, ‘I’m not comfortable with you going into your office anymore.’  I’d prefer that he not work there anymore.  He did physical things with her in the parking garage.’”

Esther Perel is a world-famous writer and sex therapist.  In recent years she focused her couples therapy practice in New York City on helping individuals and couples who are dealing with affairs.  She has written a remarkable book:  The State of Affairs:  Rethinking Infidelity.  In Chapter 14, “Monogamy and it’s Discontents,” she challenges our culture’s devotion to monogamy as the only viable marital choice.  She describes a debate at one of her workshops between a man who subscribes to monogamy and a woman who challenges this approach.

The woman is quoted as saying, “They just lie about it.  The difference is that some of us have accepted that monogamy goes against our nature, and we’re being honest with ourselves and our partners.”  Perel writes, “I understand the logic behind her argument: If monogamy is not natural, then imposing it on people gives them no option but to cheat…Natural or not, what matters to us is that presently many men and women seem to find monogamy, translated as mandatory sexual and emotional exclusiveness, quite difficult to maintain.  Hence it may be time to at least take a fresh look at the topic.”  (p. 256)

Perel writes, “Monogamy may or may not be natural to human beings, but transgression surely is.  Every relationship, from the most stringent to the most lenient, has boundaries, and boundaries invite trespassers.  Breaking the rules is thrilling and erotic—whether those rules are ‘one person for life’ or ‘sex is okay but no falling in love’ or ‘always use a condom’ or ‘he can’t come inside you’ or ‘you can fuck other people, but only when I’m watching.’” (p. 257)

In her first book, Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence, Perel writes about the difficulty of reconciling stability and desire in long term relationships.  In her book on affairs, she returns to this theme.  She states, “Cheating and lying aside, I see the conversation about ethical non-monogamy as a valiant attempt to tackle the core existential paradoxes that every couple wrestles with—security and adventure, togetherness and autonomy, stability and novelty.  The debate over monogamy often appears to be about sex.  To me, it asks a more fundamental question: Can a new configuration of commitment help us to achieve what French philosopher Pascal Bruckner calls, ‘the improbable union of belonging and independence.’”(p. 259)

Perel continues, “Some pairs are interested in embracing a multiplicity of intimate partners from the start; others, after decades of exclusivity, become curious about how to draw fresh lines around their long-established coupledom.  And then there are those who, in the aftermath of an affair, wonder if opening the doors of their relationship would be a more mature response to the crisis than closing the door on decades of companionate life…Maybe we should give the marital innovators some time to figure it out.  After all, does the old monogamy work so well?”(p. 262)

Perel states, “Marital sufferings and family crises as a result of infidelity are so damaging that it behooves us to seek new strategies that fit the world in which we live.  I’m not suggesting that dissolving monogamy is the answer for everyone.  But it is obvious that the current model is hardly a universal fit.  Hence I respect monogamy’s dissidents and their contribution to creating new templates for relating.”

Perel quotes Dan Savage when he says, “It is reductionistic to make sexual exclusivity the sole marker of devotion.”  Perel adds, “For many people, sexual exclusivity feels inextricable from trust, security, commitment, and loyalty.  It seems unimaginable that we could retain those virtues in a more permeable relationship.  However, as the psychiatrist Stephen B. Levine posits, changing values is an integral part of life experience…What if we were to consider fidelity as a relational constancy that encompasses respect, loyalty, and emotional intimacy?  It may or may not include sexual exclusiveness, depending on the agreements of those involved.” (pp. 263-264)

Perel continues, “Today’s romantic pluralists have done more thinking about the meaning of fidelity, sexuality, love, and commitment than many monogamous couples ever do, and are often closer to each other as a result…Contrary to the stereotypes of bored, immature, commitment-phobic people engaging in a licentious romp, these experiments in living are built on thoughtful communication and careful consideration.  If there’s anything they’ve taught me, it’s that there is tremendous merit in having open discussions about the subject of monogamy and the nature of fidelity, whether they result in open marriage or not.”  (p. 264)

“Monogamy is anything but monochromatic, particularly in our digital age.  Today we each negotiate our particular brand.  We decide whether it allows for fantasizing about someone else while making love to our partner, for extracurricular orgasms, for enjoying memories of one’s wild youth, for porn, for sexting, app browsing, or more.  In other words, monogamy exists on a continuum.  When you ask people if they are monogamous, I suggest you ask them first what their definition of monogamy is.”  (p. 265)

“Until now, monogamy has been the default setting, and it sits on the premise (however unrealistic) that if you truly love, you should no longer be attracted to others.  This is why it often takes a fling or a betrayal to launch the conversation.  Once the fiction has been cracked and you are no longer protecting it, you can begin to craft a more truthful narrative together…Dan Savage suggests that monogamy should be an ‘opt in.’  If people were given more opportunity to choose, he offers, maybe some of them wouldn’t have opted in and then they wouldn’t be in trouble for adultery.  Rather than penalize those who fail monogamy’s standardized test, we should recognize that the test is disproportionately difficult…Having feelings and desires for others is natural, and we have a choice whether to act on them or not.” (p. 266)

Perel writes that the fear is “If we get too close to others, one of us might fall in love with someone else and leave.  It’s pure dread that loosening the grip on monogamy, even in the slightest, could unravel the strongest bond.  What the vanguardists are trying to tell me (and perhaps themselves) is that the opposite is true.  They believe that if they subject themselves to the contraints of monogamy, they’re more likely to bolt.  The more freedom they have, the thinking goes, the more stable their relationship will be.”  (p. 267)

Perel uses the example of a couple she calls Kyle and Lucy.  She states, “Kyle had always fantasized about inviting a third into his relationship—specifically a man to have sex with his wife while he watched.  One day he found the courage to whisper his preferred scenario in her ear while they were making love.  Seeing her turned on by his words gave him the feeling he was ‘riding on the edge of marriage.’  Their sexual play went on for eight years.  Then Kyle began to long for something less ephemeral.  Besides finding the idea of a real third arousing, he saw it as a hedge against adultery.  ‘I know that it’s difficult to be faithful and stay interested in one person for a lifetime.  But there has to be a better way that the typical ‘betrayal.’” (p. 267)

“A few months later Lucy was propositioned by a younger man—sex with no strings attached.

‘I encouraged her to go for it,’ Kyle says, ‘Since then, our sex life, which had dwindled after the kids were born, has bloomed.’  Lucy needed reassurance that he was really okay with it, so they would make love before she left.  When she returned, Kyle needed to know every detail, and she was comfortable telling him only if they were making love again.” (p. 268)

“Kyle and Lucy relish the buzz of transgression—not against each other, but together, against cultural norms.  Ninety-five percent of the time, they are exclusive; occasionally, they open the door…It is a limited excursion that feels safe and can be a guard against straying.  Playing with others stokes their ardor for each other.  In my study of desire, there is a question I have taken with me around the globe: ‘When do you feel most drawn to your partner?’  One of the most

common answers I hear is ‘When others are attracted to him or her.’” (p. 268)

“The triangular gaze is highly erotic, which is why stories like Kyle and Lucy’s are much less unusual than you may expect.  Opening up a relationship does not always deplete the intimacy of the couple; sometimes it serves to replenish it.  The fantasy of inviting in a third comes in many variations—imagining, enacting, watching, joining in, waiting at home, listening behind a door, enjoying the detailed report…Sex with others isn’t only about being with others. ‘It is perhaps more accurate to consider it a rather intricate, perhaps dangerous, method of teasing and arousing the primary partner.’” (pp. 268-269)

“Nonmonogamists…create explicit relational arrangements with as much precision as a legal document.  Common features include stipulations around honesty and transparency; where and how often liaisons with other lovers can take place; who those lovers can be and which specific sex acts can and cannot be shared with them; degrees of emotional involvement; and of course, rules about protection…’Our one rule,’ Ally explains, ‘is the use of condoms with external partners.  The three of us are fluid-bonded, so if one person takes chances it puts all of us at risk.’” (pp. 270-271)

Five years ago, I was working with a mid-40’s couple with two teenage children who decided to open up their marriage. This was initiated by the wife, who had only had two lovers in her life, and she wished to experience other lovers besides her long-term marriage to her husband.  As Esther Perel has suggested in the previous paragraph, this couple created an explicit document regarding how they would handle these liaisons.  Here are the specifics they crafted:

“Ethical Non-monogamy (ENM) Guidelines:

“Relationship Hierarchy: Our relationship is primary.  We work hard—with intention and compassion—on sustaining, growing, and deepening our relationship.  The health of our marriage relationship is our top priority.  If our relationship is not strong or is struggling, ENM should be paused.  Either partner may ask for a pause at any time.

ENM Type: We practice ethically non-monogamous parallel polyamory (relationships outside the marriage don’t interact).  We only date other ethically non-monogamous married persons.

Sex: We each have sovereignty over our bodies and are responsible for our own physical health.  All forms of sexual activity are at the individual’s discretion.  We are exclusively fluid-bonded.  Condoms (for vaginal, oral, and anal) and oral dams (for oral) are used with all persons outside of the marriage relationship without exception.

Health: Either partner who is sexually active outside the marriage relationship is tested for STI’s annually and after each relationship ends if sex was occurring.

Space: ENM friends are not permitted in our homes.

Safety: On dates, we disclose initial and changes in location and provide regular check-ins.

Frequency: One weekday date a week and one overnight or weekend date a month is preferred.  Dates when the kids are home (holiday breaks or summer) are avoided.

Ethics: Honesty and compassion are core values.  We are discrete in all activities and avoid lying—even to protect that discretion—as much as possible.

Communication: Weekly check-ins occur to discuss upcoming logistics, to request guideline adjustment or exceptions, and to provide emotional support.  Disclosure is provided as quickly as possible when any guidelines—intentionally or not—are not honored.

Texting: (including all forms of electronic communication): Electronic conversations with ENM friends are muted.  Texting ENM friends at certain times (dates, meals, together-time) is discouraged.  Communication during special occasions (birthdays, anniversary, holidays, and vacations) should be negotiated.

As you can see, the guidelines are quite comprehensive, and they seek to provide a framework of safety and care.  Over the next year after these guidelines were established, the wife of this couple had several lovers with whom she had many dates.  The husband chose not to date outside of the marriage.  After several years, the couple decided to again close their relationship, which has continued to thrive and deepen.

As Perel has written, “Nonmonogamy requires equal footing and trust…Successful nonmonogamy means that two people straddle commitment and freedom together…polyamory is a growing movement in the United States and around the world.  Many who choose this lifestyle do so with an entrepreneurial mind-set that aspires to a greater freedom of choice, authenticity, and flexibility…the polyamorous lifestyle is more than just sex and freedom.  It is a new type of community-building.  Its flexible network of attachments…is an attempt to counterbalance the isolation felt by so many modern couples trapped in the nuclear model.”  (pp. 273-276)

Perel writes: “Polyamorists tend to attach a great deal of moral weight to their commitment to transparency and individual liberty—in fact, many seem firmly convinced that it’s a stance more virtuous than that of the lying and cheating monogamists…the polyamorous experiment is the natural offshoot of the societal trend toward greater personal license and self-expression. (p. 277-278)

Perel quotes the late psychologist and gay activist Michael Shernoff: “’Couples who successfully negotiate sexual nonexclusivity are, whether or not they are conscious of it, being genuinely subversive, in one of the most constructive ways possible…by challenging the patriarchal notion that there is only one ‘proper’ and ‘legitimate’ (heteronormative) way that loving relationships should and need to be conducted.’”(pp. 278-279)

Perel concludes: “Monogamy was once a subject that was never even discussed in the therapist’s office, but today as a matter of course I ask every couple, What is your monogamy agreement?  Marriage without virginity was once inconceivable.  So, too, sex without marriage.  We are touching the new frontier, where sex outside can live within a marriage.  Is our culture ready for the heretic notion that a relationship could be reinforced by fluid boundaries, rather than destroyed?  Is it the end of monogamy?  Or is it just one more step in its long history of redefinitions? (p. 279)