Jamieson: Intimacy, negotiated nonmonogamy, and the limits of the couple.

I’m going to do my best to try something new here (at least for me).

This article was of particular interest to me. After reading the first section, I immediately became aware of some of my own biases regarding relationships. I’ve already grown to understand my own interpretation of an “ideal relationship” and how that may relate to monogamy, but my 'eureka moment' stems my perceptions of others. The “couple” has long been the main way that I’ve really thought about romances. Seeing my prejudice spelled out in front of me was sort of shocking.

I’m not saying that I don’t think nonmonogamous relationships can exist, but rather that I first think of nonmonogamous as a couple with something extra on the side. Only after that—a conscious realization of my own misunderstanding—do I then imagine other possible scenarios.

The general view of ‘cheating’ or extramarital (I use this term loosely) sex as wrong is intriguing in light of the statement that followed. How many people, when asked if extramarital sex is wrong, are thinking about a negotiated nonmonogamy or merely recoiling to the deceit usually involved? I feel that the deceit is generally more of issue. Even still, I think that the willingness (or even need) to be deceitful reflects the social distaste for nonmonogamy. Lying appears to make the cheating despicable, but the actions would have already have been seen as a negative thing (at least by the person performing it) in order to want to lie about it anyway. Is that right? Maybe someone would lie because they expect the other person to be upset about their choice, then finding out about the deceit was cause for being upset. Then again, there are probably examples of both of those scenarios.

The way that this chapter mentioned Gidden’s approaches to love encounter sexual exclusivity. Confluent love does not necessitate monogamy—sexual exclusiveness in the pure relationship is determined by the mutual desirability of it.

Again, after coming to terms with my earlier bout with the 'eureka moment', Jamieson accurately claims that even the Giddens’ coupledom (the one that isn’t necessarily exclusive) still relies on the centrality of the couple.

The specialness provided by fidelity seems to be a reality in the relationships that I’ve encountered. The perception that the person you’re with has a monopoly on your sexual activity seems questionable in some ways. I like monogamy; I like the idea of nonmonogamy. Either way, this sort of specialness is, at least in some way, representative of the issues that kipnis brings up in her polemic. Furthermore, where does this specialness get us?