Designer Relationships Read online

  SOME COMPONENTS OF A DESIGNER RELATIONSHIP

  Designer relationships entail:

  •Free and enthusiastic choice

  •Mutuality in defining the relationship and establishing parameters

  •Permission to consider all forms of relating

  •Dedication to maintaining radical regard of your partner(s)

  •Regular testing of the nonexclusive for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and transparency about sexual history

  As we’ll discuss in some detail, contemporary conservatives lament what they perceive to be the erosion of “traditional” marriage, but their concerns are misplaced. This panoply of relationship options can also benefit those who choose to be sexually and emotionally exclusive. The benefit lies in the fact that they’ve been exposed to the available possibilities, have genuinely thought them through, and have chosen what is truly appropriate for their partnership. Even in the context of total exclusivity, people change and evolve. They may experience new desires and interests. Being able to discuss these feelings freely and fully is likely to make partnerships more durable, enhance feelings of interdependence, and reduce the likelihood of infidelity or other clandestine behavior.

  The New Sexual Revolution

  We are also in the midst of a second sexual revolution (at least the second such revolution in the past fifty years). A decade ago, it was almost inconceivable that marriage equality would be the law of the land and that a substantial majority of Americans would support it. It also would have been hard to imagine that Time would feature a transgender television star on its cover and call the trans movement “America’s next civil rights frontier.”1 A similar but somewhat less visible shift is taking place in cultural attitudes toward alternative relationship styles.

  The sexual revolution of the 1960s and ’70s was bracketed roughly by the invention of the birth control pill and the HIV/ AIDS crisis of the 1980s. It was a heady time of rapid and dramatic cultural change, including the exploration of relationship alternatives, a topic that was examined in books like Open Marriage, Group Marriage, and the immensely popular The Joy of Sex and More Joy of Sex. The AIDS crisis and the generally conservative political culture that characterized the 1980s slowed the rate of change but failed to stop it entirely. Despite the closure of Plato’s Retreat and other renowned 1970s swing clubs, the swinging subculture endured, and other clubs such as New Horizons in the Seattle area remained open throughout. The term polyamory (meaning many loves) was coined in the early 1990s, and the movement grew during that decade. By 1997, two influential books on polyamory had appeared—The Ethical Slut, by Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy and Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits, by Deborah Anapol.

  When Nena O’Neill, coauthor of Open Marriage, died in 2006, Margalit Fox opined, in her New York Times obituary, that the 1972 book read like “a period piece” with ideas that seemed “quaint” and “naïve.”2 Since that obituary appeared, dozens of books on various forms of open relating have been published, from new editions of The Ethical Slut and Polyamory to Tristan Taormino’s Opening Up, Christopher Ryan’s Sex at Dawn, Jenny Block’s Open, Elizabeth Sheff’s The Polyamorists Next Door, and Curtis R. Bergstrand and Jennifer Blevins Sinski’s in-depth sociological study Swinging in America. The notoriously censorious Dr. Drew Pinsky recently acknowledged on The View that polyamory works for some people, and numerous articles on polyamory and other forms of open relating have appeared in mainstream media outlets since Partners in Passion’s publication.

  As part of this wave of interest, we were interviewed as experts for a segment on Breakthru Radio/FoxDC in April 2014. The reporter, Sarah Fraser, informed us that approximately forty percent of her New York City “person on the street” subjects thought that open relationships were a valid and viable option, even if not for them personally. At least one of the Fox hosts agreed during the in-studio discussion.3 Eight years after O’Neill’s death, the ideas expressed in Open Marriage seem more seminal than quaint.

  The current shift has been influenced by a wide variety of cultural factors. In addition to the growing and politically active polyamory community, the swinging and kink communities appear to be gaining many new adherents. Therapists like Esther Perel and Tammy Nelson have been challenging conventional wisdom, exploring the potentially positive transformations that can take place in the aftermath of an affair, and moving the professional discourse away from the knee-jerk assumption that nonmonogamous arrangements are intrinsically problematic. At the 2014 American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists’ (AASECT) annual conference, sessions dealing with nonmonogamy were very well attended.

  It seems likely that growing public acceptance of marriage equality is playing a role, as Jay Michaelson suggested in The Daily Beast, since pair-bonded but nonexclusive relationships are commonplace in the gay male community.4 In one recent study, nearly fifty percent of long-term gay couples were in some form of consensually nonmonogamous relationship.5 This fact caught the mainstream public’s attention when sex columnist Dan Savage described himself as “monogamish” on The Colbert Report.6 Based on Savage’s comments to Colbert—“Is it cheating if I’m on one end of the guy and my husband’s on the other?”—his own arrangement seems to be one that involves the occasional threesome or group encounter but perhaps no outside liaisons, a structure that would be familiar to many in the swinging community.

  Designer Relationships—a Field Guide

  Now that we’ve provided a working definition of designer relationships, let’s consider some of the relationship styles that fall within the confines of this very broad term. Because it is such an inclusive one, we can’t possibly cover every variation. When multiple people are involved there are simply too many possibilities. Thus, we’ll focus on the larger categories, with an occasional foray into more intimate details.

  It’s perhaps easiest to begin by discussing the two basic qualities that are inconsistent with designer relationships: unconsciousness and absence of consent. Many people enter into monogamous relationships without a clear understanding of what they mean by monogamy and what their agreements are. This can also be an issue in consensually nonmonogamous relationships, but typically open relating demands reflection and discussion because it transgresses cultural norms and because it requires frequent negotiation and renegotiation. Cheating is not limited to monogamous relationships and is probably more common than it should be in open ones. A relationship that involves cheating is not a designer relationship (even though there may be circumstances where cheating is appropriate, and even kind—for example when a caregiver chooses not to disclose outside activities based on deep consideration for a partner’s emotional well-being).

  Nonconsensual nonmonogamy can take a wide variety of forms, including: clandestinely getting lap dances, secretly employing sex workers, having affairs, and having same-sex liaisons “on the down low,” to name a few. An additional variation is doubly nonconsensual—secretly dating others and not disclosing one’s relationship status. We like to call these deficient forms of nonmonogamy because they are done in secret. The whole dynamic changes when the activity is consensual.

  Consciousness and consent are crucial, but beyond that, there’s simply no one-size-fits-all approach to relating. Designer relationships come in many styles.

  Single by Choice

  There are people who prefer to be solitary, with or without casual sexual partners or “fuck buddies.” There is nothing wrong with enjoying casual sex, with preferring to live alone, or with having no interest in partnered sex. Still, these choices are frowned upon and even stigmatized in the culture at large.

  I’m faced with the dilemma that I don’t fit perfectly into either the Lifestyle or Vanilla world. I don’t always have the energy (or stomach) for play, or the stomach (or energy) for the regular world. I want parts of both, but all of neither. For some mystical, seemingly unattainable hybrid reality is what I yearn. And, frankly, I often doubt its existen
ce. But, then again, this was how I once viewed sex—as some far-off, hidden land populated by divinely anointed, nonhuman super beings—and look at me now. Not to brag, but I can hold my own.

  —Daniel Stern, Swingland: Between the Sheets of the Secretive, Sometimes Messy, but Always Adventurous Swinging Lifestyle

  Single and Polyamorous

  This is similar to single by choice but with a stronger emphasis on having emotional connections with various partners. Some people think of polyamory (which we discuss in detail below) as an orientation, so single and polyamorous may also refer to being currently unattached but seeking a multipartner relationship.

  Asexual

  It’s estimated that one percent of the population is asexual, a term that is sometimes defined as meaning “a person who does not experience sexual attraction.”7 There has been a move to claim this as an orientation in recent years, and many asexual people feel justifiably marginalized in a culture that treats sex as so central (even as it demonizes those who are on the highly sexual end of the spectrum). It is important to distinguish between asexuality and celibacy—making a choice to abstain from sex temporarily or for a lifetime. Also bear in mind that sex is a choice, and asexual people may choose to have sex even in the absence of desire.

  The asexual movement (though not asexuality) is a relatively new phenomenon. Perspectives on the orientation and terminologies vary considerably within the community—for example, some who identify as asexual have a rich autoerotic life but don’t wish to engage with others, and some may have no interest in genital activity. We expect the movement and the language to change and evolve over time to reflect this variety more fully.

  Asexual people may choose to form emotional and affectionate partnerships. Even if there is no sex per se, other forms of physical and emotional intimacy can be fulfilling. As long as the parties involved are satisfied with the arrangement, there’s no reason to think of these relationships as being any less valid.

  Nonsexual

  Like asexual relationships, nonsexual relationships can be emotionally intimate and enduring. One fairly common manifestation of this type of arrangement, and we’ve had friends and family who fall into the category, is an emotional (and sometimes a domestic) partnership between two people of different orientations. One friend has been in such a relationship for nearly forty years, and both parties have found sexual outlets elsewhere, without sacrificing the emotional intimacy.

  Monogamous by Choice

  When the terms of a monogamous relationship are discussed and agreed upon and both parties make an informed and considered decision to be exclusive, the relationship is more likely to be dynamic and truly fulfilling for both parties. When monogamy is mutually chosen, many people experience it as a profound expression of love.

  Semiconsensual Nonmonogamy

  Semiconsensual nonmonogamy is somewhat more efficient than its nonconsensual counterpart because there is at least some measure of transparency, though it lacks the collaborative and mutual dimension that we think is optimal. This form of relating has much in common with other open relationship models, but the accompanying attitude is one of toleration rather than engagement. In this type of arrangement, a partner might say, “I don’t care what you do on your own time, and I don’t want to know about it. Just call when you say you are going to call, and be home in time for dinner.” Semiconsensual nonmonogamy is not an uncommon solution for couples dealing with illness, a commuter relationship, or a major imbalance in sex drive, and it can work for some people.

  Although it may work for some, merely tolerating a behavior is not embracing and supporting your partner’s growth or using sexuality as a tool for evolving together. It is an old-fashioned approach that evokes what is or was common in some European societies. Men of a certain class often had mistresses, and wives had no choice but to tolerate the infidelity. Some self-defined “open relationships” in which the policy is “don’t ask, don’t tell” also fall into this category. Of course, there’s no problem if this approach works for you, provided you are making informed safer sex decisions and have arrived at this style of relating in a way that is truly mutual.

  Open Relationships

  Many people use open relationship as a kind of shorthand, so the intended meaning can vary a great deal. The origins of the term go back at least to 1972 and the publication of the O’Neills’ Open Marriage. While the book did not focus on nonmonogamy, in one chapter sexual nonexclusivity was presented as an option:

  We are not recommending outside sex, but we are not saying it should be avoided either. The choice is entirely up to you, and can be made only upon your own knowledge of the degree to which you have achieved, within your own marriage, the trust, identity, and open communication necessary to the eradication of jealousy.8

  To a significant extent, the O’Neills’ way of thinking about relationships helped lay the groundwork for the polyamory movement that emerged almost two decades later, but their vision of open marriage had little to do with sexual nonexclusivity. The brief section devoted to that topic probably accounts for the book’s enduring fame. Open Marriage helped popularize alternative relationship models that had been percolating in various subcultures for nearly a decade.

  The late 1960s and early ’70s were an era of major cultural change and experimentation, but attitudes were in some respects considerably more conventional than they are today. Thus, open marriage has been replaced by open relationship, which is now one of the relationship status options on Facebook. (“It’s complicated” is another.)

  The problem with the terms open marriage and open relationship is that they are very broad. If you choose “in an open relationship” as your status on Facebook, your closest friends are likely to know what you mean and understand your arrangements, but the other one thousand may just assume that you sleep with random people. There are numerous ways to have an open relationship. It can mean you’re dating and have agreed it’s too soon to be exclusive; it can mean you swing; it can mean you date multiple people; or any number of other things. Thus, it is a very generic statement about being nonmonogamous. It’s useful as shorthand but no more than that. How you define it more deeply is up to you. As the O’Neills put it: “Open marriage is called open for that very reason: the options are there for you to take or leave according to your individual decision.”9 The great advantage to the term is that it is not limiting.

  Monogamish

  This neologism has a few different meanings. As we’ve noted, Dan Savage has famously used it to describe his own relationship. It can also mean monogamous with occasional exceptions. Wiktionary defines it as “mostly monogamous, but allowing for occasional infidelities.” (More on “infidelity” and our objections to definitions of this sort later.)10 We’ve also heard it used to refer to people in dyadic relationships who agree that flirting and limited erotic interactions with others (making out or dirty dancing) are okay, while other, more overtly sexual activity is not. We prefer the way Savage uses it, which implies pair-bonded but open to having interactions with others from time to time.

  Friends with Benefits

  This form of nonmonogamy seems to be increasingly common among young people. It usually refers to sexual relating without excessive emotional entanglement, and it is often decried for its association with “hookup culture.” Notwithstanding, friendship can involve deep attachments. It’s a truism that friendship is pretty much essential if you want to have an enduring, erotic relationship. Thinking about any long-term lover as a friend with benefits (FWB) is a healthy attitude.

  It is not uncommon for a couple’s first nonmonogamous sexual experience to happen with friends. We’ve known people who were at a party where things got a little “crazy” and one thing led to another. Sometimes a conversation with friends about your sex life can lead to a discovery that there’s a realm in which you wish to interact. For some, this is the preferred form of erotic adventuring, and if you are part of a community that supports sexual explorati
on, you have a much better chance of meeting potential FWBs. Deliberately setting out to seduce someone who may not be interested and who might even take offense can be very risky. In some cases, it’s probably better to leave the seduction in the realm of fantasy.

  In contrast to the nonconsensual nonmonogamy of an affair, an FWB relationship can be more nourishing. An affair may provide an opportunity to grow and may even make your sex life with a long-term partner hotter for a while, but in most cases, when an affair gets found out, either the affair or the established relationship will have to end. In an FWB situation, there is transparency and, if you handle it well, no drama. You can feel affection for another person without putting the partnership at risk, and the friendship can take its natural course. You and your FWB may drift apart, you may stop being sexual together while remaining close, or you may have a lasting, uncomplicated erotic relationship. (Of course, this is also true for singles and others who have FWBs.) Being open to this way of relating creates an array of possibilities for developing deep and enduring bonds with others, even when the dyad remains central.

  Swinging, or Being “in the Lifestyle”

  Swinging generally applies to couples who engage in sex with other people as a recreational activity, though there are many singles in the community as well. Swinging as a social movement dates to the 1970s, with some older antecedents. In the early years, “wife swapping” was commonly used as a synonym. The term swapping is still in use, albeit in a more egalitarian way, without the word wife as prefix. This highlights the centrality of the couple in the lifestyle and leads some to see the movement as conventional and even conservative.