The New Monogamy  

rm_Kissmystuff 62F
2665 posts
3/16/2006 3:04 pm

Last Read:
3/19/2006 8:29 am

The New Monogamy

ยง A recent article in a New York magazine entitled "Th New Monogamy" states that marriages are becoming more "open". The concept being..that agreed upon "cheating" will prevent the urge to stray further.

According to this long as each partner fools around within the boundries agreed upon by both parties..they aren't actually cheating. The rules range from just kissing to taking part in full blown orgies.

For some.."foresaking all others" feels unnatural even though in committed relationships. long as the rules of engagement are mutually agreed the open approach to marriage reasonable?

What do you think?



interested13563 54M
2557 posts
3/16/2006 4:08 pm

Indeed! As we approach a slightly better understanding of our
nature (including our needs) we find out that there is a large
spectrum of possibilities concerning not only sexual expression
but relationships in general. As long as the poeple involved
understand what they are doing and take personal responsibility
for their actions, there is nothing wrong with any type of
relation between freely-concenting people. In a sense we are
only accepting the obvious, what has always happened but often
under cover. It is this wide range of possibilities that people
have been officially denied in an effort to control them.
There is nothing more psychologically powerful than control
of sexuality and, in particular, its suppression.

KarezzaMagick 65M
165 posts
3/16/2006 9:08 pm

Good evening Kissmystuff,

I hope you don't mind if I ramble for awhile about your most interesting post and questions.

Those who practiced Courtly Love allegedly said, "Marriage is no excuse not to Love." Of course, things were different in Europe then, when most marriages were arranged for us. Nowadays we arrange them ourselves (and half or more fail).

Yes, there are different kinds of Love, or maybe a better way to put it would be, "it's all Love, but there are different degrees." What's possible is also important; an emotional or soul match between people with conflicting interests and lifestyles might not cut it.

Still, Love is important, at least to those who know it and want it. I'll go on record as preferring it.

Stranger in a Strange Land! So you've read that and it influenced you! Did you read Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, in which group marriage is worked out in even more detail, on a prison colony based on our Moon? How about that old potboiler, "The Harrad Experiment"?

I did read your "Myth of Marriage" post. You wrote, "Quite frankly...I like the idea of group marriage. " It's not a new concept, you're right, even in America:

Oneida Community... before he started that, its founder, Noyes, had a wife who suffered multiple miscarriages, so he devised (rediscovered an old concept) that came to be known as "male continence," or intercourse without male ejaculation. This became the standard procedure in that community, long before birth control became lawful or well known.

That sounds like a real 'torment' to many males who have not experienced it and probably to lots of woman, but the fact is a certain special energy is raised that then overshadows the urge for the normal climax and leaves the male feeling empowered and hyper aware and content.

Dr. Alice Bunker Stockham, the woman who founded the Karezza movement visited a matriarchical polyandrous culture in India and returned to the States to take things a step farther. In what she termed, Karezza, the woman also may not experience the contractive orgasm (as she called it), but both partners focus and exchange their bio-energy. Again, those unfamiliar with this often think it sounds like torment, but nobody was holding a gun to the heads of the partners, so if they had not enjoyed it, they probably wouldn't have continuously done it that way. From the written accounts in letters and journals, they all enjoyed it very much.

One benefit besides the heightened energy is that Karezza is said to keep a couple's Love at the courtship state of intensity. This is very important... a goal worth seeking, as you probably know, because even among the best matched couples (and multiples?), Love has a very unpleasant way of dying off, after a few short years. Hence the popular T-shirt slogan, "Sex After Marriage? Are You Sick? (!)

Recently, a woman named Marnia Robinson (Google will list her Reuniting website first, on a search on her name), has reworked Karezza for modern times. Time place and people are all important and things have, indeed changed, since Stockham's day... probably for the worse.

The reworked Karezza is described in Ms. Robinson's book, Peace Between the Sheets and this timely tome is very well worth the read!

It gives detailed instructions on how to slowly work into a sexual relationship, while beginning immediately to sleep together, practicing what are called "exchanges" that intensify and amplify intimacy and affection for the first two weeks until the couple are strongly bonded. Why?

Marnia's husband, Gary, has aided in the discovery that with normal sex, certain hard-wired neuro-hormonal responses make it almost impossible for a sexually active couple to remain "in love" or even married for more than five years, unless church and/or state step in to forbid divorce.

What does this have to do with group, or non-conventional marriage?

Well, Marnia et al believe in monogamy, based upon their experience, practice, and needs.

But who's to say group marriage is not for some people.
Love is probably the key there. Maybe we should define that word, and I will do that below.

I agree with you that hard times are coming and a group may be the best or even the only way to go.

Multiple husbands for you? But what, my dear, if those husbands then wanted multiple wives? Men who practice Karezza are certainly "up" to that, as they are never debilitated by the so-called "little death" that actually becomes an energy drain and speeds males to the grave after the age of about 35 (or so say the Taoists).

Sex with Love is important, so long as we define "Love" as a higher emotional or spiritual form of magnetic attraction that empowers and energizes the parties involved in the relationship. So if it is possible to actually keep Love alive in a relationship, that will probably be the most important and urgent factor for those who are interested in Love and in keeping their relationships alive.

Personally, when I Love a woman, I hardly have eyes for another, no matter who she may be. But that's not to say that another "She" couldn't be introduced, if things were handled properly.

I'll not don my tinfoil hat this evening and suggest that the Posers [sic] That Be have been attempting to limit us to nuclear families because they want to discourage the emergence of powerful tribes, that might compete with them. The fact is, I don't need my tinfoil hat because the way the Mormon polygamists are demonized by the establishment pretty well makes my point. Sure, there are abusive situations there, as there are in most every culture, but these group marriages can also empower all involved and add greatly to their collective wealth and ability to acquire property, care for children, and simply be happy.

The bottom line (and I'm not making an innuendo there) is that people should probably be free to create the kind of lives they need.

My advice to you (I'm three years older, after all LO is that if you are seeking a male (or two or three), you might be wise to act in an alpha way at least to the extent of exercising your womanly Right to insist upon controlling the sexual part of the relationship, including perhaps demanding that they learn to make love to you without ejaculation, at least until they have proven they really do Love you! I think that would be a pretty good way to separate the mere thrill-seekers from admirer's of a more serious sort. What do you think?

rm_FreeLove999 47F
16127 posts
3/16/2006 10:40 pm

well, since i am in such an open marriage, i would have to agree. if i could not go this route, i would have divorced my husband by now (we discussed divorce before we ventured on an open relationship). i am glad we are still together, despite everyone telling us it would ruin our marraige; our marriage is stronger than ever. the love and affection are still there, the comfort and consensus are still there, but the va-va-voom has gone, and i need va-va-voom in my life

[blog freelove999]

rm_goddess1946 107F
13518 posts
3/17/2006 9:00 am

it is such a personal thing..the most important thing
to me is that there be absolute honesty...

i do believe that it is possible to love more than one
person at one time... sex is another story altogether...

as for me, i've been single for the past 15 years...
and in the meantime, I'm sending thoughts for a
very Happy St. Patties Day to you!
[post 274091]

Just a little food for thought.............
If you really want to be happy, nobody can stop you...

champagnechaser 42F
1639 posts
3/17/2006 8:05 pm

Absolutely! I think its unnatural to be with only person sexually for any longer period of time. Sex and love could be seperated. I believe that an ideal marriage would allow for extra-curricular sexual activities. However, I think its best if these activites include the other spouse.

TopFisher 64M

3/18/2006 3:39 am

"Wont stray for sex..will stray for love.."

Well this person thinks you have something mixed up.....

Which means you do not love or respect your spouse! Right?

Sex can happen, love is something else and true love..... we you are together in all activities, and for the most part such does involve others.

Love does not just happen, lust does.

Been ther done that. I am a man that can indeed love and I do mean love more than one wonam. Polyogamy is the term. But my lady asked,no actually told me I could have my flings or her. I love this lady way too much, she is thr dream gal for many men I care not your age. She was not happy about me fucking another, even, after clean up, desiring to fuck her.

I will give this lady anything, as long as she does not restrict our sexual life. She does not, I will only fuck her. ONLY her..... and believe me such continues to be a challenge for me. But I am person enough to bive up to my committment, and we made such with a hook and in blood to one another.

I remain somewhat amazed at how totally honest I would be with a lover, yet felt I could not be with my wife! How fucked up is that?

The person that has been with me, love me. supported me, bared my children...... it of course goes on.... I cold not trust with my sexual desires. Yet she had control over money matters for three years after our seperation!

There are times when sex is just that , having a sexualaly enjoyable time with somebody that is not your SO or spouse. I've never had a problem with such..

I'm begining to actually think our fears of sharing witha a spouse is that such will be used against us at some future date in some way.

With me today? I am very happy, if she does does desire another womans lipd around my dock, then she is the one that controls such. If she , for some reason decides she is no longer interested in me sezually, then I will fing such gratifaction with other women.

I know I will,I've seen me do it!

Boundaries are like a posten speed limit. Most of us will fuck with them!

Reality is, it's a matter of love and understanding/respect.

ArgosPlumyKooky 46F
3902 posts
3/19/2006 6:59 am

allowing that it is our biological nature to stray, i believe if both parties consent it is perfectly fine! if i ever married again, it would have to either be a perfect match(does this ever happen?) or eventually we would explore other pleasures , solo or as a couple.

Become a member to create a blog