Researchers: Letting Your Spouse Have Sex With Other People Could Be The Key To Maintaining A Happy Marriage
Keep in mind that we evolved to feel jealousy and both psychologically and culturally have a sense of possession of our partner (though we can't truly possess someone).
But Tomas Jivanda writes in the Independent/UK about a paper recently published in Psychological Inquiry by Eli Finkel, Chin Ming Hui, Kathleen L. Carswell and Grace M. Larson, "The Suffocation of Marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow Without Enough Oxygen." (Maslow refers to Abraham Maslow and his ideas about "self-actualization":
"Outsourcing" areas of the marriage such as sex to other suitors could make a relationship work in the long run, they argue.For marriages in which the passion and intimacy has gone, Eli Finkel, from the department of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois, advises embarking on an agreed "non-monogamous" relationship.
"It may be that your spouse is a terrific source of social support and intellectual stimulation but you haven't had sex more than twice a year for the last five years and neither of you thinks that's adequate," he told The Telegraph.
"So you could say, that's one of the needs I am going to fulfil elsewhere. I don't recommend cheating, but an openly consensual non-monogamous relationship, that may very well be functional."
In the paper The Suffocation of Marriage, Prof Finkel and his co-authors argue that people now expect more from a partner than ever before - to be a lover, friend, confidant, therapist, and someone to help achieve their long-term goals.
It truly is unrealistic to expect your partner to meet your every need.
I think you have to prioritize -- decide what's most important to you (perhaps having a good dad for the kiddies for one person; perhaps, for another, having a romantic partner) -- and choose accordingly.
This could be realistic for some. (And I have to say, a number of people who write to me engage in this sort of thing, and I do think we overprioritize sex in relationships.) But I think the reality is that many people will have a very hard time with this in practice -- even if they aren't having sex or having sex that often with their partner.
Finkel's NYT piece on this is here:
Our central claim is that Americans today have elevated their expectations of marriage and can in fact achieve an unprecedentedly high level of marital quality -- but only if they are able to invest a great deal of time and energy in their partnership. If they are not able to do so, their marriage will likely fall short of these new expectations. Indeed, it will fall further short of people's expectations than at any time in the past.Marriage, then, has increasingly become an "all or nothing" proposition. This conclusion not only challenges the conventional opposition between marital decline and marital resilience; but it also has implications for policy makers looking to bolster the institution of marriage -- and for individual Americans seeking to strengthen their own relationships.
So do we change our expectations?
Another logical argument for legalization of the courtesan trade...
Peter at February 20, 2014 6:31 AM
Because divorce has become so easy, and people can literally file at the drop of a hat, I think most people don't have enough trust in each other's loyalties, to make an open marriage work.
Isab at February 20, 2014 6:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/02/20/researchers_let.html#comment-4271597">comment from PeterA prostitute can fall in love with you but is probably more likely to keep it business.
Amy Alkon at February 20, 2014 6:52 AM
Actually romantic marriage is a fairly modern change to the institution.
Back when the countries were run by royalty, the marriage was to share estates, treaties and the rest. The woman was expected to have an heir and a spare.
And then afterward many of them would have a relation that was based off the the heart, but the records still showed the marriage on the books.
Jim P. at February 20, 2014 6:57 AM
Life-long marriage or loyalty is tough regardless - I suspect this is why there was the popular support for making divorce easy to get.
If open marriage makes the quality of one's life and one's self in the marriage better than life outside the marriage, more power to you.
Michelle at February 20, 2014 7:22 AM
"Hi, I Bella and I'm looking for a nice dependable husband. Being a mom is a priority and I need a man who will work hard, and support me so I can be home with our children rather than out them in daycare. My other needs are met, so you don't need to worry about those, aside from watching the kids several nights a week so I can fulfill my fantasies with my exciting alpha bastard sex partner."
I'll pass.
Trust at February 20, 2014 8:03 AM
Yeah, open marriage. Been there, as the extra woman. I would have to say it's a bad idea.
Oh,it starts off great. Then all these pesky inconvenient things like emotions, needs, life's inconveniences, other people getting involved on varying levels with their own baggage...
Totally FUBAR at the end, for all concerned. I actually went to work on a crab processor boat in Alaska just to get away from it!
But by all means, go for it if you must. I'm sure it will be fine.
Pricklypear at February 20, 2014 8:14 AM
"Hi, my name is Edward. I really want to be a dad, and am seeking an honest, respectable woman as a wife and mother. I have a good career, and will cover all the bills if she raises our kids, cleans, and does my laundry. She must cook dinner on week nights, but can take a break on weekends since I'll be taking my 22 year old girlfriend out on romantic getaways."
Takers ladies?
Trust at February 20, 2014 8:51 AM
Alpha fucks, beta bucks, Trust.
Marissa at February 20, 2014 8:52 AM
If Edward is leaving his wife home alone with the kids on weekends, she's not getting a break.
Thoughts regarding open marriage between spouses who do not have children?
Michelle at February 20, 2014 8:59 AM
If ya gotta have kids, how about waiting until they're on their own before you do the 'open marriage' thing? If you don't have kids and you want to go for it, fine. Just don't get me involved and don't come crying when it doesn't work out. Because it won't. See Pricklypear's post.
Just sayin' is all...
Flynne at February 20, 2014 9:05 AM
It is articles like this that make me appreciate my mostly solitary lifestyle.
Sure, there are times when it isn't all that, but a lot of the time it is really nice. Calm, peaceful even.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 20, 2014 9:08 AM
Exactly my point Michelle. Whether it is the woman tending to home or the man with the great job, neither is going to want the responsibility if the benefits are enjoyed by someone else.
Trust at February 20, 2014 9:26 AM
Uh huh and she can wash his laundry, cook his food and deal with his crazy mother. Oh and be his emotional support. And if she started thinking her opinions about child raising meant fuck all I would start lighting shit on fire. And if it was me.. I have one to take care of that's enough.
Marriage is hard. Some times are harder than others, especially if you are dealing with chronic illnesses in one or the other. I don't get to bail to get my rocks off with someone else. It's wrong. Get through the hard spots to the sunnier spots in the future. It makes you stronger. Never have one of these polymorous situations come out the way expected. You may as well be honest and get a divorce. If there are kids involved its the 3 a's. abandonment, abuse, addiction. Beyond that children deserve to wake up every morning to both their mother and father doing their best to make a good life. Distractions from that leads to disaster.
Josephine at February 20, 2014 10:10 AM
Hell, my deal (mentioned above)didn't even involve children. Except for us grown-up ones.
Look, it just sounds like a good idea, but it's not. Not for most people, anyway. Everybody's ego-driven, and the more ego's you involve in your quest to satisfy your own, the more hellish it all becomes.
My own situation ended up with the wife feeling insecure and needing to pull rank,(partly because the man she tried to involve wasn't having any); me feeling the need to find comfort elsewhere when he had to change plans with me too often(I had fallen in lurve by then, you see.) and him seeking comfort elsewhere himself because two women were becoming tense, better get another one in there!
It took two years to get to this point. File it under 'Seemed like a good idea at the time'.
To sum up: Bleah.
Pricklypear at February 20, 2014 10:18 AM
The benefits of raising children or other endeavors are distinct from the benefits of sexual intimacy.
I think the benefits of sexual intimacy make life better across the board.
I have however heard from many straight married women who are lonely for emotional intimacy and many straight married men who are lonely for sexual intimacy. They don't want to be lonely in those ways but don't want to dismantle what they've built together either.
Michelle at February 20, 2014 10:25 AM
We opened our marriage fifteen years ago. My wife had one lover (the impetus for opening the marriage) and I have had two, one of which has been with me for fifteen years.
It's neither easy, nor simple, but I have found it richly rewarding.
It's easier for us though; my wife and I have no children. My secondary has one child, whom I call the "chosen niece."
It can be made to work, if you put in the effort.
Lamont Cranston at February 20, 2014 11:15 AM
Oh, and the for the smart-ass comments regarding leaving your 40-something wife at home with the kids while you take your 20 something out for romantic getaways -
I want to see you try to pick up a 20 something while being honest about being a 40 something with a wife and two kids you have no intention of leaving.
Oddly - the market of 20 something hotties interesting in dating married, middle-aged men is small.
The lives of practicing polyamorists RARELY look like people think they do.
Lamont Cranston at February 20, 2014 11:19 AM
Lamont
If it is my "smart ass" comments are the ones you were talking about, nothing was said about 40s.
If you and your wife are happy, good for you. Your arrangement is none of my business. The question was about changing standards, and the fact remains few of either sex will sign up for responsibility when the perks go to someone else.
Trust at February 20, 2014 11:38 AM
Amy said expectations, not standards. Point remains the same. Most trade in the responsibility with the expectation they will get the benefit.... and not that someone else will.
"Why buy the cow if the milk is free." Or "why buy the cow for someone else to get the milk."
Trust at February 20, 2014 11:57 AM
Lamont, your post has left me with several questions,(not one of which is any of my business, so I'll just leave them dangling in my mind)and I will just say that I hope the others, including your "chosen niece" (whatever the hell that means), find life as richly rewarding as you do.
Also, I think you may be an example of the exception that proves the rule.
Pricklypear at February 20, 2014 12:33 PM
Pricklypear -
One of the things you struggle with in my lifestyle is functional vocabulary. The role I fulfill in my "chosen niece's" life resembles that of what godfathers did when I was a kid, except there is no religious component. We have a close relationship with her parents, contribute to her education fund, baby sit, kept her from catching on fire when she was younger, et al.
But I can't call her a daughter (she's got PLENTY of parents already). She's not a "friend," at least not yet. That's a relationship of equals. And she's very much a child. But when she learned to talk, she started calling me "Uncle Lamont." So I'm going with "chosen niece" until I can come up with something better.
And you are welcome to ask any questions you want.
Lamont Cranston at February 20, 2014 12:46 PM
My one and only open relationship went poorly due to unequal access to mates.
How is it going to help this marriage when only one of them is not getting laid?
smurfy at February 20, 2014 12:49 PM
I have however heard from many straight married women who are lonely for emotional intimacy and many straight married men who are lonely for sexual intimacy. They don't want to be lonely in those ways but don't want to dismantle what they've built together either. - Michelle
I'm betting the women who are emotionally lonely dont see the point in having sex until their needs are met, and the men who are sexually starved dont see the point in meeting her needs until she stops being a 'frigid bitch' and neither of them see the point in trying to talk to one another.
Heres the way I see it. If dont care enough about your partner to fulfill their needs, we would you care if they got their need fulfilled elsewhere?
lujlp at February 20, 2014 12:52 PM
No.
Fucking hell no, he does not get to go somewhere else for sex.
Maybe what people need is outside friends and family they can lean on for social support and intellectual stimulation. I can get that from my best friend, I can get that from my sister, hell, I can get that with my online D&D group, it's not hard to find.
But I am not going to share the unique intimacy I have with my husband with anyone.
If an open/ poly relationship works for you, then that is fantastic. I am sincerely happy for you. But don't try to sell me a bill of goods that "Adultery makes marriages stronger."
Elle at February 20, 2014 1:06 PM
Depends. How much money do you have to spend on the twenty-something? And what are the parameters of the relationship?
Occasional gifts, romantic (and paid for) trips to exotic places, and week nights to pursue other interests while the inamorata spends time with spouse and children can add up to something appealing to a twenty-something struggling with a moribund job market, dead end job to make beer money, little to no disposable income, and an adventure horizon that extends only as far as one can push the same car one used in college.
Conan the Grammarian at February 20, 2014 1:07 PM
Conan,
It may be that I used to just fish in the wrong waters. But it's been my experience that 20 something females tend to be looking for The One, which I was not, even 15 years ago, able to offer them. Very few girls are interested in being anybody's "secondary."
Lamont Cranston at February 20, 2014 1:25 PM
You might be right, Lamont.
I'm not hanging out with 20-somethings, so I don't know how receptive they are to relationships with 40-somethings - girls or guys.
But, fifteen years ago, jobs were plentiful and that Art History degree meant something. Today, with little prospect of trips to exotic places, perhaps they're looking differently at older folks with a few coins in their pockets.
Conan the Grammarian at February 20, 2014 1:42 PM
If an "open" marriage works for others, that is their business; but, keep it THEIR business.
Don't ask the taxpayers to pay for unplanned bastards.
Don't ask others to make adjustments such as when all three (or more) parents want to attend an already crowded graduation ceremony.
Don't ask the taxpayer to spend more on the court system because you didn't get "palimony" when he split on you by deciding that he wanted to go back to being with just his wife.
Don't bring your fucking drama to MY place of work. Seriously, I've had to field calls from jilted mistresses, I've had to deal with angry spouses showing up and raising Cain because of "that two-timing bastard," etc. One time I fielded a call from a woman who refused to give her name; she just said tell him that the mother of his child called - and, LOL! He wasn't sure who it was.
So, yea, mind your own business, and I'll mind mine. Just don't make your business mine.
Charles at February 20, 2014 2:15 PM
Charles, All the things you fear, and more, have come to pass with the serial polygamy, we call ,marriage,divorce, and remarriage.
It can hardly get any worse.
A lot of people need to make their sex lives more private, and what they are doing I don't really care, except that a lot of what is legal now, is far more damaging than those things which are illegal, or at least frowned upon.
Isab at February 20, 2014 2:37 PM
It's a good news/bad news scenario.
Honey, I fucked twenty people and caught AIDS and gave it to you, but our marriage remains strong because you said it was ok, and I love you for that!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 20, 2014 2:52 PM
Lamont, I was going to ask some questions, but then I remembered irritating JimP. yesterday and I had to go back down there and bug him about the Booty Bra. Can't get in a serious frame of mind now.
Thanks for explaining!
Pricklypear at February 20, 2014 3:58 PM
"Occasional gifts, romantic (and paid for) trips to exotic places, and week nights to pursue other interests..."
If a husband did this for his wife, he might not need to find someone else.
This brings up the criticism I've heard that men in polygamous societies spend a lot of their resources obtaining more wives instead of on their children.
Lori at February 20, 2014 5:35 PM
I'm betting the women who are emotionally lonely dont see the point in having sex until their needs are met, and the men who are sexually starved dont see the point in meeting her needs until she stops being a 'frigid bitch' and neither of them see the point in trying to talk to one another.
Posted by: lujlp at February 20, 2014 12:52 PM
I think you're right.
That said, as a woman, I don't see a point in having sex with someone from whom I feel estranged. I don't understand "angry sex."
(These are different for me than the idea of liking your mate but not being in the mood, and having sex anyway - which I think is a contribution toward world peace, or at least domestic bliss.)
Michelle at February 20, 2014 7:04 PM
I have absolutely no control over Amy's blog or website. I don't control you or anyone else. But the question you need to ask yourself: Would the details actually help or hirt your opinion? So knowing that he has one, two, or three lovers in addition to his spouse can make a difference.
Knowing what his lover does that is different from his spouse makes sense to a point. Like this Dear Prudence where the wife has to be drunk to enjoy sex compared to a GF who enjoys it.
But knowing that the GF shaves and the wife does not means that the decision is pretty superficial.
Jim P. at February 20, 2014 8:50 PM
How many couples communicate well enough to make adding a third - or more - person to the conversation?
Radwaste at February 21, 2014 3:37 AM
Rad, the few polyamorous people I know seem to do a lot of "processing" - even more than lesbian couples.
Michelle at February 21, 2014 4:10 AM
Some of my friends live this lifestyle. I want to say it usually leads to divorce, but I admit I have no proof these couples wouldn't be divorced anyway.
It's hard to have lovers "on the side" to whom you don't get emotionally attached and who don't get emotionally attached to you. You aren't just having sex with the other person, zipping up, and going home. Forming a relationship of some kind is inevitable. Competing priorities are an issue. As is falling in love with the other person because novelty is just so appealing and the side relationship isn't burdened with mundane, real-life things.
This is basically allowing your spouse to shop for another romantic mate while keeping you on reserve. Like Smurfy said, there's usually an imbalance between what both partner can find on the market. In the ugliest situations that I have seen, one partner is carrying on a full-fledged love affair with someone else (who is his/her priority) while the spouse holds down the fort and does the grunt work of marriage.
Insufficient Poison at February 21, 2014 6:25 AM
All this polyamory BS seems like it's abdication of personal responsibility just because someone's bored with their marriage. Marriage takes work. ANYbody can be lazy in their relationships. ANYbody can abdicate and avoid responsibility in their relationships. Keeping the relationship WORKING takes personal responsibility and having a backbone where your wishbone is.
Flynne at February 21, 2014 7:58 AM
Game changer: some sexual incompatibilities cannot be willed or worked away.
SSRIs, sometimes used to treat depression, rage disorder, and other conditions, can kill libido and leave a partner biochemically unable to connect.
Alzheimer's - do you romance someone who doesn't know you?
Michelle at February 21, 2014 2:03 PM
Open marriages only work when both partners are alphas.
Eric at December 6, 2016 2:47 AM
Leave a comment