Rather than the "open" marriage this fellow sits daydreaming about (if he and his wife agree, go for it, it's none of my never mind), what's wrong with the staying single option? Even these that put forth that we expect too much of marriage never even seem to consider the why marry in the first place as if that's not even a feasible option? I still think you have the ideal relationship, Amy. If I were to pursue a relationship, it would be with a guy who was no more interested in moving in on me than I would be in moving in on him. I love living alone and would have to find someone else who also did. Right now, I don't want the headache (relationships of any sort are work) but even more than staying single, you're treated like a freak if you honestly say time out for me right now.

I'm with Donna, about the WHY? but I think I know the answer. children introduce a twist. Dunno 'bout Donna but Amy is good with a dog, seemingly. For people interested in kids, not having a family unit around that, is not as easy as having one. For the kid as well there are advantages to having 2 parents in terms of learning.

When marriage was much more of a legal compact, and not wrapped in romanticism, it may have been easier, but that isn't the way it is now.

Is it worth trying to re-set expectations , when everyone will be so resistant to it? The re-set would seem to disproportionately affect women, since they are the ones more invested in the forever romance ideal. IMO anyway...

> But how many of us
> can afford that?

Beatles have been coming up here a lot lately. They were the probably the last celebs who I loved in that childish way that encouraged such shamelessly invasive attention.

As Lennon was killed, all the media types bought into the storyline of the brutal termination of one of the Baby Boom's great simple love stories. But a couple years later, there were some pretty convincing pieces that said John and Yoko's marriage had deep problems and divorce talk even in these last weeks when they seemed to be so happy.

Remember the Rolling Stone cover shot taken hours before he died? Truly happily married couples don't work that hard to convince others. I'm reminded of Paglia's comments when Ellen (then about 40 years old) & Anne were making teenage poses at a White House function: "Who among the heterosexual guests were ostentatiously nuzzling and necking like that?" Rereading that column this morning, it was a surprise to see J&Y mentioned, and it's worth rereading for that point.

I appreciate people who can take a punch and keep a marriage going, especially when there are kids involved, and props to Amy for encouraging this (if that's what she's doing).

But we often get as much boorish behavior as we put up with.

(looking foward to other's comments but gotta work)

Um, if "people" go off to their lovers from 5 to 7, then go home to their families, who's home with the kids?

While I don't have a problem with the idea of both partners having the freedom to go take lovers, I *do* have a problem with *one* partner having that freedom (whether it's the man or the woman)while the other partner has the duty to stay home and watch the kids.

The other potential problem is that the mistresses (and wives-on-a-fling) better be on their toes about birth control . . . .

Donna seems to be right.

Queasily whining writer guy should have stayed single rather than yearning for hot waitresses while simulataneously relying on his wife as a social secretary and for emotional security.

"{We}love our wives and depend on them. In each of our cases, they make our homes, manage our social calendar, bind up our wounds and finish our thoughts, and are stitched into our extended families more intimately than we are. They seem emotionally better equipped than we are. If my marriage broke up, my wife could easily move in with a sister. I'd be as lost as plankton."

heh, Jody, when I read that line, I thought, 'so you get all that? What is your problem again?'

I don't buy the whole "monogamy is unrealistic" canard, because I've seen too many couples (including my own parents) who have been married for a very long time and are still devoted to each other. My grandparents were married for more than fifty years, and my grandfather was absolutely devastated when my grandmother died. I don't know what the secret is, but among the things I've noticed about these couples:

1) They all have several children;
2) They married for love, not passion.

My mom, who is very beautiful, told me once that there were men she had a lot more chemistry with than she did with my dad, but she married Dad because she loved him and she knew he would be a good father. Having children was very important to my mom.

So I don't think monogamy is impossible, or even difficult, for certain people. I do think it is difficult and perhaps even impossible for others, especially for people who put a high premium on sexual passion and who are not terribly interested in having families. I see nothing wrong with those people going from relationship to relationship, or even balancing several relationships at once, so long as they're not lying to their partners and making promises they can't keep.

I do think monogamy works best as the basic social organizing principle because research, and history, have shown that societies with a large number of single, sexually frustrated men are very dangerous societies. I think a lot of people who talk about the virtues of polyamory never really stop to think about what it would mean for vast numbers of people to be left without sexual partners. (Those hot young waitresses are not going to go for middle-aged authors who are bored of their wives, or young pimply computer geeks; they're going to line up for the hot young alpha males, the way the girls do for the athletes on college campuses.)

I don't think the idea of marriage was burdened so much by the idea that marriage should be about love; I think it was burdened a lot more by the idea that love = passion, and passion should last forever. Intensity fades as we get used to things; that's just a fact of life. Love, affection, is a much more enduring emotion than passion (I will never stop loving my parents or siblings, for example, no matter how used to them I am), and it can survive over the course of a lifetime. Passion is something that comes and goes.

The point, I suppose, is that people should just do what works for them, and do it with people it also works for. That means that people like me, who want nothing but a monogamous relationship, should not unfairly judge people who just aren't into that sort of thing -- but it also means that people who don't want or can't do monogamy shouldn't try to tear it down. There's a reason it's lasted so long: as a social organizing principle, it works.

Both my wife and I ate the forbidden fruit. It was nothing but heartache for everyone involved. (But damn, the sex was better than being a teenager!)

That means that people like me, who want nothing but a monogamous relationship, should not unfairly judge people who just aren't into that sort of thing -- but it also means that people who don't want or can't do monogamy shouldn't try to tear it down.

Exactly. What's the point, really? What works for some, doesn't work for others. At the end of the day, are you okay with being alone, rather than being lonely? One can be in a relationsihp and still be lonely, you know. I think it's all in how you connect with someone else. There were guys I knew that, while the passion was crazy, I also knew that living with them would have been absolute hell. Some people just have the mindset that they have to have the option of being passionate with anyone they want, when they want, and to hell with what anyone else thinks. And there are others who want the closeness and the intimacy with their one true love. And then there are those who want the intimacy with their one true love(s) as many times as it takes to get it right! YMMV

"He and I love our wives and depend on them. In each of our cases, they make our homes, manage our social calendar, bind up our wounds and finish our thoughts, and are stitched into our extended families more intimately than we are."

My understanding of the usual relationship which looks like the above, is that the woman does all these things for the man in exchange for his sexual fidelity. That's why women get so angry if they find out that the man has been cheating on her, because in her mind, he's been getting something for nothing.

I don't agree that monogamy works, unless there is at least some deception going on. Sometimes the truth comes out after one partner dies, or it may be that there have been some indiscretions by both partners, which they both know about, but agree to keep a unified front for the family and neighbours. Unfortunately, women usually seem to be more naive about this possibility.

The longest lasting relationship in the Hollywood set was between Kurt Russell & Goldie Hawn, and they were never married. For all we know, they were also both not sexually monogamous.

The longest lasting relationship in the Hollywood set was between Kurt Russell & Goldie Hawn, and they were never married. For all we know, they were also both not sexually monogamous.

Joanne Woodward and Paul Newman?

Though, I guess, for all we know...!

George Burns and Gracie Allen. The Newharts and the Rickles (only because I don't remember their wives' first names, but I saw the documentary about Don Rickles on HBO. Excellent stuff!)

Will Saletan at Slate had an interesting article on a related subject a while back. The thesis of the article is basically that in a showdown between jealousy and promiscuity, jealousy is going to win. That's why monogamy's been around so long, and that's why it's here to stay: in a great many people, envy is far more powerful than lust. There are probably a lot of people who secretly yearn for a spouse who would be tolerant of infidelities, but an open marriage is impossible, because husband doesn't want wife (or wife doesn't want husband) to have permission to cheat as well.

"So I don't think monogamy is impossible, or even difficult, for certain people. I do think it is difficult and perhaps even impossible for others, especially for people who put a high premium on sexual passion and who are not terribly interested in having families."

I put a high premium on sexual passion and don't want to have a family, but I am monogamous. My sweetheart and I truly love each other, and I think the secret (as already touched upon by Donna and Amy) is that we are not married and don't live together. I love it the way it is and am perfectly content to keep it this way. People can be monogamous and not be married.

Reading the article now. It has some interesting points, but I'm spending a lot of time rolling my eyes at quotes such as:

"I haven’t ever seen anyone who doesn’t deliver on every single demand their sexuality makes on them" (this from a friend of the author).

Every single demand? Including hitting on your hot 25-year-old subordinate at work who has a bodybuilder boyfriend, has no interest in your middle-aged ass and sees going to HR to report you as a way to get ahead in her career? Including hitting on your brother's wife? Including knockin' boots with that smokin' 18-year-old you met in a bar who turns out to be 15 with parents looking for someone else besides their precious baby to blame? When does this man find time to do anything else if he's living his life this way?

There's also the fact that the author keeps harping on about how Spitzer lost his job because he had an "illicit but consenting" relationship, somehow leaving out the fact that that relationship was with a frickin' prostitute and that said governor had happily busted other men for seeing prostitutes. If "illicit but consenting" relationships were really enough to destroy one's political career in New York, Rudy Giuliani would never have been able to run for president and David Patterson would have resigned too.

However, I must say that I think the high point of the article was the one where the author tells the therapist about a 60something acquaintance whose wife has lost interest in sex and who has started getting lap dances "plus a little more as a result," the therapist starts asking if the husband in question has tried to figure out *why* the wife stopped being interested in sex, and the author gets annoyed because the therapist isn't going along with his grand plan to legitimate polyamory. Because, you know, women losing their interest in sex could never have anything whatsoever to do with the behavior of their partners (and vice versa for men losing interest in sex). And yes, for the record, I believe that it's certainly possible for women (and men) to lose interest in sex for reasons having nothing to do with their partners...but I seem to have met an awful lot of women in my day who end up getting divorced because of deep frustrations with their husbands, and I can't believe that these deep frustrations didn't affect their libidos at all. (And yes, I know men who have ended up getting divorced because of deep frustrations with their lives, but I think said frustrations have historically been less likely to destroy their libidos entirely.) I feel for men (and women) whose spouses reject them sexually, but I also think that a hell of a lot of people, male and female, don't treat their spouses particularly well and then are shocked, shocked when this treatment results in a lessened sex life.

I did think the end of the article was amusing, though. Author's wife says that sure, she'll go for an open marriage, and she gets first crack at the openness - and the author immediately backs down. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but it seems to me that this guy is all about smashing monogamy until doing so entails visualizing his wife having passionate sex with another man.

(For the record, I do think investigating and questioning an absolute devotion to monogamy for 100% of the population is worthwhile - I just think that this article isn't a particulary good example of such an investigation.)

Pirate Jo, from the article about Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell that Amy posted, I think they agree with you, although they do live together. Here's a quote:

The secret to their successful relationship is not the norm either. Theirs is an open-door policy.
"For instance, I don't like the idea of somebody closing a door and saying, 'You can't walk out the door.' I don't like that feeling," says Hawn. "Now, if somebody keeps the door open, I could be a bird in that cage forever and never fly out."
"And if you have a girl who says that, then you don't cheat," says Russell. "I mean, if you have a woman who does feel that way, and you meet them, I gotta tell ya, it's pretty exhilarating."
"Open marriage?" asks Wallace.
"Doesn't work," says Hawn. "Open marriage does not work. It's a great concept."
"You've tried it?" asks Wallace.
"Early in the '70s, it was a big deal about having relationships that way. And I can't say we tried it," says Hawn. "But in my first marriage, I think there was sort of -- we discussed it. Ultimately, human nature doesn’t let it happen."

Now, they do have kids, so I'd say they're not the best example of the monogamy-without-sharing-your-entire-lives approach...but, on the other hand, Kurt Russell seems to have been more than happy to be a full-time parent for Hawn's kids with Bill Hudson (though that's not quite the same as parenting a kid that one's partner had with someone else *during your relationship*).

Shorter version of the article: married guy seeks divorceless fuck.

As for long-lived Hollywood marriages (though a lesser known name) check out Arthur Peterson. I'm a huge fan of "Soap" and he played the Major. Married 59 years and only his death ended the marriage, according to imdb. I note though, no children. I'm convinced that was their secret.

I love Bob Newhart, Flynne! And read his auto-biography. Actually, it may be common sense once again. He refused to marry when he was young and struggling and waited 'til he was making good money to marry. This only improves my opinion of him. More should have that much sense!

And, no, Amy, you're not the only one STD testing occurs to. I read them and wonder am I the only person who worries about disease? Nice to know, I'm not.

Because, you know, women losing their interest in sex could never have anything whatsoever to do with the behavior of their partners (and vice versa for men losing interest in sex).

Bingo. I've seen this before when guys start to treat their wives like a substitute Mommy ("social secretary") and then not understand why the chemistry fizzles. Been there myself in a previous marriage. (Did anyone besides me get creeped out when Reagan called his wife Nancy "Mommy?")

Pirate Jo, I didn't mean to imply that passionate people who don't want kids can't or shouldn't be monogamous. I am very much in favor of people doing what works for them, so long as other people aren't unreasonably and unfairly being left by the wayside. (Obviously, I'd have a big problem with a single parent abandoning their young children to fend for themselves, night after night, while parent hooks up with a string of people in the next town over.) I just think monogamy tends to be easier and more desirable for people who are looking for a lifelong companion with whom they can raise a family. That doesn't mean monogamy can't be easy or desirable for other kinds of people.

Marion, I loved your take on the article - the author annoyed me and I couldn't stop rolling my eyes either. "Petulant" is the word that springs to mind. What a little twerp. I believe Crid had a good phrase a while back - something about prematurely caving in to the fantasies of "dim teenaged boys." Yup.

Thanks, Pirate Jo! I feel compelled to add, though, that I'd love to see how someone like Amy would approach the subject. My big problem with the article was that the guy seemed to decide at the beginning that he wanted to conclude that smashing monogamy would be best for everyone, and pretty much tried to make all of the data he found fit that conclusion, with a few obligatory "to be sure"s. I think you need someone who's NOT looking for an excuse to sleep with a person extramaritally to write a *good* article about the subject.

I'm finding the whole "we should encourage waitresses to be mistresses!" thing more funny as time goes on. Dude, those cute 20something waitresses don't want to sleep with middle-aged guys...at least, not unless you have money. At that point, you really might as well just hire a prostitute and be honest about what you're doing. Also, does he really think that there are hordes of parents out there eager for their beautiful 20something daughters to be the for-sex-only mistress of a middle-aged guy instead of spending their time and energy looking for an appropriate partner for a real relationship with them? God knows we don't always do what makes our parents happy, and hot 20something waitresses may be looking for great no-strings sex too - but I guarantee that they're seeking it far, far more with hot 20something guys.

(Are there women who are equally as deluded about their attractiveness to the younger set? Yes. When one of them writes an article, I'll harsh on that group. But there are many more forces in society informing women overtly or subtly that their hotness is in inverse proportion to their age.)

Why do we relentlessly seek a one-size-fits-all standard? Whatever works for you, is good, just don't think that makes you an expert on everyone else.

I think the problem is that there's some fundamentalism about the standard. Now, if you have kids, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura on what you owe them. But, otherwise, I don't think marriage makes sense for our times. It's usually financially stupid for a man, but this is a venture people go into promising to be with another person for the rest of their life (usually on the basis that they'll continue to have an alive relationship with that person), so people tend to ignore the questions they should ask up front, like "What if this doesn't work out?"

I'm a realist, and like Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, I'm of the mind that the caged bird doesn't sing (at least, in this bird's case). Lock the cell door, and I'll probably try very hard to escape.

The old saying that we used for boat and airplane owners and everyone else in Nevada was.

"If it flies, floats or fucks, Rent it."

Dude, those cute 20something waitresses don't want to sleep with middle-aged guys...at least, not unless you have money.

Agreed, marion -- and the money only counts if it's spent on copious amounts of Tiffany jewelry. :) In all seriousness, in this day and age, I'm having a hard time buying that any good-looking young person is going to be looking for hot no-strings sex with a much older person. And I doubt the author's sexual fantasies include plain or ugly women.

Why do we relentlessly seek a one-size-fits-all standard? Whatever works for you, is good, just don't think that makes you an expert on everyone else.

Todd, I completely agree with you.

I think the problem is that there's some fundamentalism about the standard.

But fundamentalism isn't destroyed by trying to force everyone to fit into one mold. The author just wants people to accept a different kind of fundamentalism. There are certain people who will say "Monogamy is the only way for everybody!", and this guy seems to be saying, "No, polyamory's the only real way, and everyone who says they believe in monogamy is just deluding themselves and denying their true nature." The world isn't that black-and-white. People are different and want different things. We never question differences about little things -- no one doubts me when I say that spaghetti is my favorite food, and that I can't stand sauerkraut. But when it comes to the big things, everyone acts like we all want the same things, and we don't. That's my problem with the article -- not his idea that "this doesn't work for me," but the implication that "since this doesn't work for me, it must not work for anyone, and it should therefore be changed/destroyed."

> there were men she had a lot more
> chemistry with than she did with
> my dad, but she married Dad because
> she loved him and she knew he
> would be a good father.

It's great when women recognize that love is a marketplace. Especially pretty ones, because it's all too easy for them to think their saleability is a function of the excellent character... Why would such a woman ever be told otherwise? Nobody human being wants to deliver the bad news to pretty girls. (But Father Time does it for fun!)

A woman as sensible as your Mom about her partner in this contract probably understands that the work begins for both parties on the day the document's signed.

I like you a lot, Elizabeth. But I disagree with this part:

> people should just do
> what works for them

Society should enforce standards that keep your private beeswax private... We should discourage behavior that requires us to finance or otherwise clean up your messes (corralling your enraged children, etc.)

> Whatever works for you, is
> good, just don't think that
> makes you an expert on
> everyone else.

You guys are concentrating too much on individual fulfillment. The rest of us have expectations of your personal behavior, too... If only that we don't want to be bothered with it or its consequences.

Also, as a middle-aged (essentially "much older") guy who's never authored a book (but read one once), plain and ugly women get prettier every day.

Know this truth... Feel its power.

(Also, Gretchen: Sorry about the rain. This never happens here._

Amy and Donna are right: marriage is not for everyone. Barbara Feldon (Agent 99) wrote a good book about the art of living alone. It can be bliss. Socially, though, people tend to think you must be weird/sad/lonely. For them, marriage gives you someone to be with. I used to work for a couple who seemed to be married only because they didn't want to be alone. Some of the comments here remind me of Strindberg's line that marriage is like an eel trap - those who are on the outside want to get in and those who are on the inside want to get out.

I love Barbara Feldon! I got to record her once when I worked in advertising, right out of colllege, producing commercials for Ogilvy & Mather. Found a link to her book, which I 'm buying:

Living Alone and Loving It: A Guide to Relishing the Solo Life.

Bella DePaulo's is also very good: Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After.

PS Don't follow my lead above; i.e., only one link per comment unless you're me and can go in and rescue a comment right away from my spam filter!

Great title to Bella DePaulo's book. I'm checking that one out!

Love is a choice you make, not something you fall into. All the research shows that people who stay married are the ones who believe in marriage. Yep. Sounds idiotically simple, but it's the truth.

When people get married they have no idea of the commitment they are making; they think they'll just get out of it if they're "not happy." (Ahem - speaking of a younger version of me here.) Truly committed people realize love is not passionate all the time, and decide to stick to it when things get routine.

It's not monogamy that's the problem - many people can do it. It's finding someone who can really follow through with it - rather than simply saying the words. It's really searching inside yourself to find out if you are really one of those people - then finding someone who shares the same values. (that's the hard part - because of the cultural constraints that tell you monogamy is "normal.")

If you're not one of those people (like Amy) and have the brass ones to admit it - good for you! And good luck finding someone similar to trade apartment keys, like Amy seems to have done.

I'm with Elizabeth: "People are different and want different things." Monogamy works for some, singlehood works for some, polyamory works for a few, serial monogamy seems to be what most people end up with by default.

I think it depends on how equal the partnership is. Yoko and and John isn't a good example, because no matter how fabulous an artist she thought she was, his fame and his money was always going to trump hers.

And the best guide to the single life is Live Alone and Like It, which is also full of great advice for anyone, married, gay, single, straight.

And the French--maybe rich Parisians.

I'm getting to prefer the description "living independently" since "living alone" unfortunately has too many mistaken connotations of being sadly on your ownsome, like the icky, self-pitying all-by-myself scene in Bridget Jones.

Greetings from Glendale...and Crid, you are about the millionth person to say "it never rains here." Weather's bettah back in Boston. I'm pretty much hating life except for the fact I'm going to Lucky Scent's Scent Bar later to drop a few bills on perfume. And we're going out for breakfast soonish... But, anyway, yeah - this weather is ABSURD. Had to go buy pants yesterday!!

Elizabeth: Really enjoying you. You covered all the bases here. Please come hang out again.

Throwing this out there: What about the fact that chemicals bombard the brain's of women post-sex (or just post-o?) which create attachment? There is probably a biological reason for this. But doesn't that make sex outside a monogomous relationship (let's say kids are involved so there is a reason for this monogomous relationship to last) a dicey proposition?

I guess we're all responsible to understand our own bodies and our limitations sexually. If you can't handle it w/o getting attached stay away. But it will no doubt be easier for men to be polyamorous w/o emotional consequences.

Just a thought. I just woke up and trying to process this logistically not just philosophically.

Now: suggestions for shit to do when it's RAINING IN LOS ANGELES?

PS: I've just been informed we're going to The Griddle Cafe on Sunset at Fairfax in West Hollywood because it's allegedly pretty rad. Hopefully they have food good enough to make me forget it's raining. Will let you know if my friend is wrong and it suck :-)

I think the Goldie/Kurt relationship popped into my head was because it seemed to be the most transparent one in the move star set, because at least they discussed some of the challenges of being together.

The old school couples like George & Gracie make me think of a previous era when keeping up appearances was more important than honesty. They seemed to be happy (and monogamous) but we really don't know what kind of arrangement they had, and if it was truly monogamous, and they were both happy with it, then they obviously found what worked for both of them.

If you know yourself really well, which usually happens after you've lived 'independently' for a while, you can decide what works for you, and structure your relationship accordingly.

I was married once and forced myself to follow the terms of the marriage contract, because I'm an ethical person, not because of religion. The ex didn't, and was unfaithful after about 4 years of being together. I was incredibly pissed off since I was the only one following the rules.

"I'm having a hard time buying that any good-looking young person is going to be looking for hot no-strings sex with a much older person"
I've met many good looking young guys that love having no-strings-attached sex with a hot older woman, no money involved, but that's just been my experience. Your results may vary!

I've also experienced many times these older guys out for dinner with their wives, who hit on me when the little woman goes to the bathroom. I think it's pretty funny that they've totally lost touch with reality. Maybe I didn't notice the wife? Who knows what goes on in their heads.

Gretchen, my theory is the oxytoxin or whatever that hormone is called, disappears once women hit perimenopause. Maybe because progesterone and estrogen drops off, and testosterone gets proportionately prevalant, women start to be able to act like men sexually.

I think women can learn to suppress their emotions the way men do, but men have a huge headstart on that because they've been raised that way.

The old school couples like George & Gracie make me think of a previous era when keeping up appearances was more important than honesty.

Good point, Chrissy, but I remember George being absolutely devestated by Gracie's death. It seems to me that no matter who you are, whether you're part of a "Hollywood" couple or not, being true to yourself would also incur being true to whatever vows you take.

Gretchen, I'm so sorry you're not having nice weather out there, so I won't tell you that it's 70 and sunny here in southern CT! o_O

Gretchen, my theory is the oxytoxin or whatever that hormone is called, disappears once women hit perimenopause. Maybe because progesterone and estrogen drops off, and testosterone gets proportionately prevalant, women start to be able to act like men sexually.

Ding ding ding! Damn did you hit the nail on the head that time, Chrissy! I'm right there, right now. Not that I'm cavalier in any way about it with BF, because we are awesome together, but it's not as important to me as it once was. I can take it or leave it and the while the younger guys that are hitting on me are cute, I can also take or leave them as well. It's flattering, but I often find it more amusing than not. Funny, that!

I think women can learn to suppress their emotions the way men do, but men have a huge headstart on that because they've been raised that way.

It may not be so much that, but that once you are comfortable with yourself and your sexuality, it makes it that much easier to see it for what it really is. BF and I can have great sex, and then he'll get right up and wash his truck, and I'll get right up and tackle the garden or housework or whatever, with renewed energy, rather than just lay there in the "afterglow" like I used to. It's almost like, okay, that's that, back to business as usual. Of course, YMMV.

I'm all for fun, and had quite a bit with the young guys for a while. I wound up hitting it off quite nicely with one of them, so I've chosen to have all my fun with him for about the past year. I always told him to do whatever he wants, and that I didn't want him to resent me for taking away his freedom, so he decided to have all his fun with just me. It's amazing what giving someone their freedom can do.

I'm terribly romantic, and I get the feeling that George & Gracie, & even Paul & Linda were truly in love (and quite possibly monogamous!), but that it was a day to day decision for them and not something they forced themselves to do.

"I'm terribly romantic, and I get the feeling that George & Gracie, & even Paul & Linda were truly in love (and quite possibly monogamous!), but that it was a day to day decision for them and not something they forced themselves to do."

I have to wonder about ads for Viagra, Cialis, etc.; I don't think these guys would have ED if they were looking at, say, Stacy Keibler close up. Your own health and sanity affect everyone who cares about you.

another great read along these lines is "Against Love: A Polemic" by Laura Kipnis.

> suggestions for shit to
> do when it's RAINING IN
> LOS ANGELES?

1. Fall to your knees and clasp your hands in gratitude to a beneficent Almighty that He had the compassion to deliver you to the most exciting, dynamic, integrated, and expressive cosmopolitan metropolis the globe has ever known.

2. Go to the Getty. They have indoor shit, too, and the view is life-altering even if it's overcast, and it probably won't be all day.

3. Drive the San Gabriels, the Tehachapis, the Santa Monicas... It can't be raining everywhere.

amy, you wrote: "I'm of the mind that the caged bird doesn't sing (at least, in this bird's case). Lock the cell door, and I'll probably try very hard to escape."

as i - and it sounds like many of your readers - view your arrangement with gregg as a model, i'm interested in knowing how you two address/ed the issue of monogamy. will you divulge?

Rather than bother Amy for personal details, why not just read the EMily Gould NYT mag. cover story?

First thing, I want to compliment Crid for suggesting the Getty on a rainy day...or any day for that matter. The Getty is one of my favorite places in LA, along with the Huntington which would also be a good place on a rainy day.

So, back to monogomy! I agree with the ideas that if you mate just to have kids or something like that, it doesn't work. I always thought that. And when I was a young woman and in college and everyone seemed to be getting married one a week or so, I was always working on what I was doing and thinking that the marriages that were happening were kind of random. Like people just found each other at at time when they wanted to do a thing, like start a family or do a business and needed someone at home or something like that. It seemed that people were trying to fill roles.

Not to say I didn't date. I dated lots of people, and it still came back to the role thing. Can't count the times that I heard that some guy wanted me to have his children or support him in his business or be his angel or something along those lines, and all the time I'm thinking...can't we just get to know each other a little better? People jump into this stuff way too early on a regular basis, I'm thinking.

So, I went on my way. And in graduate school I met a truly fascinating man, who was also in school. I didn't believe that anyone could be that fun, that challenging in conversations and that free to just not expect anything from me aside from being together and enjoying our time.

We dated for four years with no plans for the future with most of it after our studies, but eventually our career choices made us make it one way or another, so we married. We actually decided to split up first, but that only lasted a couple of months, so we got married after that.

And this coming October, we will celebrate 25 years of marriage. It has been fun. We both married our best friend, so when we don't like each other, we still love each other. I can't count the times that a discussion has started with, "you know you are being a real butthead, but let's go from here..."

Plus, we found a way to deal with the whole thing of having kids in the house and having fun with sex. We have a teenager...there are kids moving through our house at all times of the day and early evening, and at night we have a kid walking around searching for food to eat because he is growing at least an inch a day and eats what seems like 10 meals a day. We have a bit of a time here or there to have sex at home but it seems there is very little private time.

So, we have a 'date night' every Saturday night where we leave the house for hours...and we go to a cheap hotel and watch whatever is on cable movies and have long wonderful sex time, and then go to the waffle house right next to it to eat breakfast food at night. It SO works.

If anyone would have told me 25 years ago that my husband and I would be talking in the garage for fun times, going to a cheap hotel for private sex times, and that he actually sent my name up for a place on the Mars lander...I would have said, sign me up! But basically we both did, because we both married someone we knew would be interesting for a long time. We have lived in a few places, worked on houses and projects and taken wonderful trips, and we always take a ski trip every spring. Three years ago, I had a job opportunity that I had been waiting for a long time, but it would take yet another move. My husband, who saw me follow him for a few moves for his job just looked at me and said...let's go. Surprised the hell of of me, and I told him, you know that kind of thing is why I married you in the first place.

I think people make marriage choices based on what they think they need to do, not what they want. I knew that I would never get married unless I found a man who was interesting and challenging and dependable, and that is what I found. I think I got lucky, but I wonder if more people set their boundaries like that, how lucky would other people be?

So great reading your comment, Ang -- great to hear somebody who's worked things out. And I love the cheap motel thing for having sex with kids in the house. I'd suggested that before for people to keep their relationship alive (in the column) but I might have to borrow that for people who have kids and have problems finding time and space for sex.

"Queasily whining writer guy should have stayed single rather than yearning for hot waitresses while simulataneously relying on his wife as a social secretary and for emotional security..."

When he got married, sex etc was hot. Entropy happens. Routine. Now he wishes he'd re-thought it. Can't blame him for not knowing before he knew ... or for thinking that he wouldn't be like all those other bored men and women who warned him. Bottom line: either don't get married or have a marriage that makes room for outside sex and is strong enough to withstand the possible complications. Maybe when you're not forbidden to "stray" it also won't seem so tempting. And maybe if both parties can party, they'll work harder to keep the party at home, if that's what they want.

Amy,

You can borrow anything you want from my comment. The idea of making time for an important relationship is sort of a global idea anyway. I work in the design field, and from my time in that field I realize that there are very few new ideas but a re-interpretation of things that historically have worked can be very powerful. It's kind of like we have to re-learn the real lessons of time over in our own way.

Probably the reason that the Homer Simpson "doh" is something we all get.

But I really do think that the lack of sex while kids are growing up is an issue with married folks. I just read a book yesterday, "I Feel Bad About My Neck", by Nora Ephron, and she said te same thing...that married people she knew never had sex while their kids were growing up. I think that is a very sad thing. Actually, she put it in an empty nester sort of way, like...ok, now that the kids are gone and we always didn't have sex while they were here, will we after they are gone?

And really, I have no idea how to chime in on that because we do have sex now. But at the end of the book, she had a few things she said she wished she knew "then" and I loved them, so here are just the ones I loved but there were more...

The plane will not crash.

If you have a teenager at home, you need a dog, because you will need someone to be happy to see you when you get home.

She had so much more, this is just what hit me at the time. And I'm on my front porch on my laptop and a major thunderstorm just came up, so that's what I have for now.

Ang

"I have to wonder about ads for Viagra, Cialis, etc.; I don't think these guys would have ED if they were looking at, say, Stacy Keibler close up. Your own health and sanity affect everyone who cares about you." When I see those ads, Rad, I'm always screaming at the guys, run for your life. She loves her orgasm more than she cares about you. She wants sex even if it gives you a heart attack. The other ones that creep me out big time are the ones for the herpes medications. I've got herpes, the male half of the beautiful couple says. But I don't, the twit hanging all over him drooling says. Uh, why would you sleep with someone admitting they have a horrible disease they could possibly pass on to you? There ain't no such thing as that hard up!

I have never gotten the whole not having Teh Sex after being partnered to someone for an extended period. The one thing in our relationship in the run-up to separating, was sex. While things were rosy in front of the now six year old, when he wasn't present we were either scowling, fighting or fucking.

Since we got back together, we have had an even better sex life than we did before (excepting the last couple months of the youngest sprog's gestation). I mean we don't screw every night or anything, but we are certainly active enough. I just don't get why the lack of sex is so very common.

I do find it interesting that when we got back together, momma was very clear that we should have an open relationship. When we were together before, we had discussed it and I made clear my distaste for monogamy. This was fine until we reached a point in our relationship where she felt that we were committed enough that I would no longer take other partners - but she didn't actually say anything about it. This was largely responsible for us splitting up before.

Now that we are together again and have very clearly defined our relationship as open, we have managed monogamy just fine by default. Neither of us seems to have any interest in going through the trouble of actually pursuing extra-curricular sex. We have talked about spicing things up with another couple, but haven't really gotten all that excited by the idea.

The most important thing though, is that we own our relationship. We have occasionally gotten a little help (i.e. counseling) to help us work out exactly what we need our relationship to look like, to work for us. But we decided that what others think about it, how they might feel, is incidental to having a relationship to work for us.

We get criticized on occasion for having separate bedrooms. We get criticized playing at traditional gender roles too much. We get criticized for steeping too far out of traditional gender roles. We really got criticized at a dinner party, when my partner made a snide remark to a women who was trying to subtly hit on me, about our open relationship. One person said that marriage would take care of that problem, to which my incredibly wonderful partner responded; "Duh! that's why we're never getting married."

I really enjoyed this publish. You are writing relating to this subject perfectly. I truly appreciate reading through your blog and that i will definetly bookmark it! Keep up the fascinating articles!