FREE LOVE, 2.0: LESS LAVA LAMP, MORE GOOGLE. LESS AGE OF AQUARIUS, MORE AGE OF THE ENGINEER

Mistresses and Lovers for Dummies, Rule #3:   If you want an open marriage, then make sure to upload the most updated, de-bugged version of the software, and not the 1970s edition.


If you’re an aspiring idea, one of the worst things that can befall you is that people say you sound like “something from the 1970s.”

“Open marriage… Free love… Isn’t that from the 1970s?” Or, “that’s so 1970s!” It’s the idea kiss of death, to be stashed in the basement with the disco ball and the pet rock.

But “free love v. 2.0,” as a sex educator I interviewed calls it, is different.

In the early 1970s, the idea of open marriage had a political and cultural vogue, but not much of a pragmatic foundation.  Today, negotiated non-monogamy in marriage has little political vogue (in the U.S. mainstream, at least, which is keenly if often hypocritically judgmental about subversions of monogamy, even more so since the 1980s) but it’s got stronger pragmatic incentives and foundations.

Open non-monogamy has a stronger basis in economy—women earn their own paycheck, and aren’t dependent on the sexual-economic contract of marriage; technology—we can hook up and find each other with unprecedented ease today; and demography—we live longer and healthier than ever, which makes non-monogamy appealing for some phases of a marriage as a way to reconcile longevity and commitment.

Free love 2.0 is more Google than lava lamp; more Age of the Engineer than Age of Aquarius, and more paycheck than macramé.  

That paycheck is crucial. Sexual and economic mores are braided together like DNA, even if the romantic in us doesn’t like to think so. As wives have achieved their own earning power, in a way that the early 1970s just hadn’t seen yet, they’ve achieved more sexual latitude.

Although it’s nothing to be proud of, the “infidelity gap” has closed along with the wage gap. At least five scholarly articles from as early as the mid-1990s noted that men’s and women’s sexual behavior for those under the age of 40 (or, in another study, 50) are now quite similar on major indicia, although for the  over-50 generation, more husbands have had extramarital sex than wives.

But that’s cheating. Free love 2.0 couples agree beforehand to be non-monogamous, and they don’t lie to each other. They don’t see extramarital sex as “infidelity,” since deceit isn’t involved.  They define marital “fidelity” as honesty, not monogamy.

And this new non-monogamy is shaped in women’s image. Elizabeth Emens, a legal scholar, calls it “ethical non-monogamy.” In free love 2.0, spouses define non-monogamy around conventionally, although not inherently, feminine characteristics, such as placing paramount importance on (genuine) consent, integrity, relationships, communication, and respect.  

Their standards are to be “al fresco,” or out in the open. They try to avoid lying.  Another main rule is that the “primary” relationship comes first, so things that make the partners uncomfortable aren’t pursued. Each couple decides how much they want to know—which could be nothing at all, or a great deal.

Women are the authors of the canonic, 21st-century guidebooks, including Dossie Easton’s deliciously-titled The Ethical Slut (Easton sees herself as an “activist of the heart”), and Deborah Anapol’s Love Without Limits. Bloggers at feminist sites such as Shakespeare’s Sisters write about non-monogamy. Feminist Jenny Block published a wonderful memoir, Open, of her open marriage in 2008.

Women are also among the most visible sex educators and therapists who instruct on the topic. And more wives themselves bring up the topic or initiate the idea today. Therapist Joy Davidson reports that some of these women “relish the feeling of owning their desires” in this way.  

They’ve taken a different message from feminism’s challenge to the sexual double standard. Rather than abolish the sexual double standard through the equal enforcement of monogamy, they subvert it through the equal practice of non-monogamy, but within ethical boundaries so that it’s not a reiteration of the male tomcatting privilege of the Mad Men era, or the 1970s wife-swapping.

Imagine the kind of open marriage that a Zen-engineer-feminist-libertarian might have. There’s a humble pragmatism and problem-solving spirit to the idea. This isn’t free love inspired by lofty Marxist ideology about smashing the foundations of private property by getting action on the side, or anything that grandiose. There’s a (feminist) emphasis on respect, relationships, equality, and communication, and not so much on recreational sex (although the world of recreational non-monogamy, which couples often engage in together, is also booming. Swing clubs have doubled in the last decade, and it’s easier to find “action” in the privacy of home with the Internet). There’s a thoroughly libertarian belief that individual, adult couples can define sexual commitment in marriage any way they choose, within the ironclad parameters of consent. And there’s a philosophical belief, vaguely Zen, in letting go within intimacy, or being intimate without jealousy, anger, and exclusive attachment.

Free Love 2.0 proposes that we can have loving or sexual attachments to more than one person at the same time without it disrespecting or demeaning those parties. That’s the basic meaning of “polyamory,” which made it into the Oxford English Dictionary in 2000.

Some wouldn’t think free love 2.0 a wise, practical, or good idea. Nevertheless, it is a new one, or at least a massively refurbished one, forged in the feminist image, and bolstered pragmatically by changes in economy, technology, birth control, and demography, which nudge it from feminist utopian to plausible (more on this evolution in a column next week).

 

​There are two kinds of failure – but only one is honorable

Malcolm Gladwell teaches "Get over yourself and get to work" for Big Think Edge.

Big Think Edge
  • Learn to recognize failure and know the big difference between panicking and choking.
  • At Big Think Edge, Malcolm Gladwell teaches how to check your inner critic and get clear on what failure is.
  • Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
Keep reading Show less
Photo by Alina Grubnyak on Unsplash
Mind & Brain

Do human beings have a magnetic sense? Biologists know other animals do. They think it helps creatures including bees, turtles and birds navigate through the world.

Keep reading Show less

Harvard: Men who can do 40 pushups have a 'significantly' lower risk of heart disease

Turns out pushups are more telling than treadmill tests when it comes to cardiovascular health.

Airman 1st Class Justin Baker completes another push-up during the First Sergeants' push-up a-thon June 28, 2011, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Participants were allowed 10 minutes to do as many push-ups as they could during the fundraiser. Airman Baker, a contract specialist assigned to the 354th Contracting Squadron, completed 278 push-ups. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Janine Thibault)
Surprising Science
  • Men who can perform 40 pushups in one minute are 96 percent less likely to have cardiovascular disease than those who do less than 10.
  • The Harvard study focused on over 1,100 firefighters with a median age of 39.
  • The exact results might not be applicable to men of other age groups or to women, researchers warn.
Keep reading Show less

U.S. reacts to New Zealand's gun ban

On Thursday, New Zealand moved to ban an array of semi-automatic guns and firearms components following a mass shooting that killed 50 people.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Gun control supporters are pointing to the ban as an example of swift, decisive action that the U.S. desperately needs.
  • Others note the inherent differences between the two nations, arguing that it is a good thing that it is relatively hard to pass such legislation in such a short timeframe.
  • The ban will surely shape future conversations about gun control in the U.S.
Keep reading Show less