I was pretty interested in this Psychology Today article, as well: Infidelity See, Infidelity Do.

Basically, Haltzman argues that people who want to stay monogamously married should hang out with other people who have the same desires. The premise is based on the effects of social networks. If you have friends that cheat, Haltzman argues you are more likely to cheat, because you will have a social network that supports bending the rules.

My qualms with this piece: Haltzman doesn’t actually cite any evidence that people who have friends who cheat are more likely to themselves. He mentions a sociology professor who has studied cheating behavior among professional athletes, and he mentions another study which showed that happily married couples who attend religious services are less likely to cheat; he extrapolates from these two studies that people who have friends who cheat or have cheated are more likely to cheat themselves. I can follow his logic, but I am not entirely convinced of his conclusions. (It just seems like there are many other factors at play, and I found his logic a bit simplistic. That being said, I think social network theory to be really fascinating, and it makes sense that “birds of a feather flock together.”)

A question I would pose to Haltzman: What if a monogamous couple has friends who are in an open relationship? Is it just a matter of time in this case as well that the monogamous couple try ethical nonmonogamy? I’m not sure what he would say.

I think his advice makes sense: if you are monogamous, and want to remain monogamous, then surround yourself with people who have similar values. It seems really similar to the idea of surrounding yourself with fitness enthusiasts if you are also into exercise, or of surrounding yourself with eco-conscious folks if you are as well. But, I also think it discounts the inevitability of change, and how wonderful it is to have a diverse and dynamic social network that may influence you to change. While cheating is dishonest, and not (in my opinion) a preferred nonmonogamous behavior, it can also open us up to new ways of relating, learning about ourselves, and growing.

I really enjoyed this Psychology Today article, “Your Sex Number: A Scale of Sexual Desire and Libido.”

His idea is that there is a libido spectrum, and figuring out where you are on the spectrum, as well as where you partner is, can be helpful in avoiding tension around the frequency of sex within your relationship. So according to Meyers, it can diffuse a lot of frustration if a couple realizes that one individual has a high libido number and the other has a low libido number. It can help individuals realize they are just different, and help keep it from feeling personal if sex isn’t happening as frequently as one of them would like.

His first recommendation “discuss a menu of sexual acts” is very much like Marty Klein’s idea of sexual intelligence, and I was happy to see it at the top of his list. I think it is continually important to expand your ideas of what it means to be intimate, romantic, and sexual. 

His next recommendation floored me: “Rethink monogamy.” What?! Totally awesome! His full explanation:

The vast majority of romantic couples in American society report that they’re monogamous, despite the fact that a high percentage of individuals within those couples secretly seek out sexual adventures with others. Secrets, of course, are bad news for the obvious way that they can destroy intimacy. If you and your partner have vastly different sex numbers and the less sexual one isn’t interested in compromising to have more sexual activity, you both should consider creative ways that the more sexual partner can get those needs met. If you’re a couple who would consider letting each other have the occasional sexual dalliance outside the relationship, make sure to keep the lines of communication open to avoid growing apart. Perhaps you’re a couple that must set specific rules: never engage in sexual activity with the same person more than once, only seek out adventures on vacation or far away from home, and so forth.

I am impressed!

His next recommendation is pretty interesting: sublimate sexual energy. Basically, try to harness your sexual energy into other activities, like art or exercise, that produce tangible results. He describes sublimation as a high-level defense mechanism (although I wonder about calling it a defense versus coping mechanism), and that it can be a very healthy way to manage a long-term relationship in which the sexual energy has gone stale.

Lastly, he offers the possibility that a couple break up if a libido incompatibility is too great. This part was interesting to me: 

As a therapist, I’m hard-pressed to believe that ending a relationship for sexual reasons is a good idea. Given that the are so many alternatives (sublimating the energy, changing the parameters of monogamy, and compromise), my hope is that couples find a way to keep the good parts of the relationship rather than throw it away.

I appreciate his approach: why turn a relationship into an either-or situation when there are alternatives to keeping the relationship and finding ways of staying sexually satisfied? However, I also question the idea that sexual incompatibility is not a good reason for ending a relationship. Why? Sex is such a basic human need, and we all deserve pleasure and satisfaction and physical intimacy. (Granted, he goes on to say that after a couple has exhausted ways to salvage the relationship, it may be time to break up and move on.) It seems like, to me, that sex is still so taboo and tangential to what relationships are supposed to be about in our culture, that to even suggest that two people break up because of sexual incompatibility is sacrilegious.

Just my two cents!! But I was impressed with his ideas and happy to see some broader ideas of what can be done with different libidos in a relationship.

In counseling yesterday:

“Well, I feel like a lot of people have told me- people in my innermost circles- have said I see you with a PhD. What does that even mean? What does that mean they see me with a PhD? What does that even look like? How would I look different with another Masters? It’s the image thing. That I am more valued with a PhD than with another Masters. I am just trying to figure out which program is in alignment with my goals afterwards. A research PhD program at Indiana University, where the Kinsey Institute is, sounds so, so, SO amazing. The person they assigned to be my advisor is AMAZING! But… research and academia does not sound like my cup of tea long term. So I think I better do the Masters.”

My counselor looks at me. She nods her head. I already know what I should do.

She validates me and my desires and she says: “This work you are doing is beautiful, and is so important to the work you want to do.”

I love that. I used that in one of my interview answers- that it is really important to me to be in a program that focuses on self-awareness. It is really awesome to me that my counselor goes to counseling, because it tells me that even counselors continue to benefit from and integrate their own self awareness and growth work into their personal and professional lives.

So, the decisions I (and J) have to make in the next 1-2 weeks:
-Which schools to put deposits down at/confirm that I am coming, so that
-We have more time to bide before J knows better about potential job opportunities, so that
-J knows which state to take his licensing exams in, so that
-We know where the hell we are moving to this summer/fall

Whew. We’ll get there. These are exciting decisions to be making :)

I feel pretty well integrated and knowledgeable about my local open/ethically nonmonogamous relationship community. I am not integrated in the local kink community and culture. However, there are definitely aspects of my relationship with J, and my own interests, that would mean that we could easily find community within the kink community. What is interesting to me, though, is that I have met few couples within the open relationship community that have a relationship dynamic or structure or interests that overlap with the kink community.

Maybe I would find more people in the reverse: maybe there are more people in the kink community that have some kind of open relationship (rather than people who have open relationships that also have an established BDSM component to their relationship). I don’t know. My idea behind that is that folks in the kink community often have (in my experience) excellent communication skills around boundaries and agreements, and so it would make sense to me that those skills would spill over into the broader relationship structure.

On a related not, I remember writing a post about this way back when, but I always get kind of skeezed out when I encounter judgements within the alternative sexualities community about other folks within the community that do something different. (Ex: A poly person being weirded out and disdainful of swingers. And vice versa. BDSM practitioners being looked down upon by non-BDSM practitioners. Etc.) (This is probably a good reason why I haven’t met many people within that middle section of the Venn diagram- if you are shamed or have been shamed within your alternative sexualities community, you are probably much less likely to try to share your kinks with your open friends, or vice versa). Wasn’t there a Catalyst Con workshop about this that I wanted to go to? Ah, yes, I found it:

“Slut Shaming in Sex-Positive CommunitiesSerpent Libertine, Femcar, Crysta Heart, jessica drake, Carol Queen #cconshaming

Does “sex positive” always mean acceptance of the sexual appetites of others or other communities we’re not involved in? Why is it acceptable for sex-positive individuals to bash or criticize the sexual proclivities of others while claiming to be supportive allies? Based on our collective experiences within the sex worker, BDSM, swinger, poly, and queer communities, our panel will lead a discussion that examines some of the ways we’ve witnessed slut-shaming from those we’ve expected it least. Additionally, we’ll discuss why initiating conversations about these incidents can be even more challenging than speaking with folks in the vanilla world. By confronting this issue, we hope to find better ways to stimulate conversations among sex-positive individuals and learn how our words and actions can have an impact on others who lack understanding of our communities.”

Just a little rant :-) Thanks for reading!