Great article!

IshtarM — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:00:53 -0600

Such a good article - thanks!

I'm not currently in a committed relationship, though I have two lovers. My previous committed relationships were all monogamous and I'm seriously considering opting for an open relationship if I get seriously involved with someone in the future. I'm mindful of society's double standards and judgements (I come from a fairly conservative culture) and will probably only tell people I trust.

Thank you for all the links - I'll make a point of checking them out.

Open doesn't mean indiscriminate.

Liz Rizzo — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:52:02 -0500

I love that! You know, it applies to being open about yourself on the Internet in all sorts of ways, I'd say. I think you've honed in on the key confusion.

Liz Rizzo

I blog at Everyday Goddess.

Lip Service is the key

Bill Cammack — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:57:46 -0500

Hey Susan. Interesting article.

I think your key observation is "People who don’t give lip service to monogamy are then perceived as indiscriminate or easy".

I hadn't thought about it until reading your post right now, but there's definitely a stigma attached to a woman actually announcing that she's in an open relationship.

The way the double-standard works, guys are automatically in open relationships by not declaring a girlfriend/fiancee/wife. You're "dating" all the girls you can get your hands on until you announce that you're physically exclusive with one of them.

As you state, the perception is that you're still on the market. There's also the perception that you're available, because your choice of relationship declaration has defined you (to them) as someone who thinks differently... I suppose I'm trying to find a nice way to say that women are perceived to be "easy" if they're willing to mess with more than one person at a time.

If you had declared "single", you would have been "normal, yet currently unattached". Declaring "in an open relationship" [unfairly] labels you as "attached, but looking for more".

Also, the fact that you would "go for something like that" speaks to guys as well. I understand your personal position from what you said in your article: "non-monogamy is a political statement as much as a personal one (after
many years of marriage, I don’t want to make absolute commitments to
anyone and don’t think it’s necessary for me to do so)". Barring that type of explanation, though... As hard as women in general campaign for fidelity, monogamy and exclusive relationships, declaring "in an open relationship" [unfairly] implies that she could.not.get.her.man.to.commit or that she wasn't willing to commit to HIM. The implication of the former is that she can be "taken" by a guy that offers her an exclusive relationship and the implication of the latter is that her man has no hold on her and she's sexually available.

Great topic. I'll have to get into this more. It's one of those things that you get so used to that you dont' even think about the images that come to mind when you read a woman's relationship status as "open".

~ Bill
I blog at billcammack.com

BlogHer - non monogamy - Comments

Great article!

Open doesn't mean indiscriminate.

Lip Service is the key