hyperskeptic
New member
There's a lovely, nuanced refection on the risks of relationships, open and closed, in The New York Times, this morning: http://nyti.ms/1SOb9yv
It's pointedly pro-monogamy. She infers that open love relationships are immature and OK for experimenting college kids, but truly courageous adults opt for mono love.
I had fled an open relationship, opting for the safety of a closed circle. But the wreckage of monogamous relationships lies all around us. The notion that they’re somehow more stable than open ones is an illusion. Not because monogamy is unsafe, but because all romantic love is. It’s powerful and thrilling. It’s also terrifying.
Marriage isn’t the place to sample and explore, as I did in college. But even here, romantic love is more complicated than in the old children’s rhyme. It’s still an experiment — in trust, understanding and communication. Like any experiment, it could fail. There are no guarantees. As a wife and now a mother, I see that giving my heart to just one other person may be the riskiest way to love of all.
"I see that giving my heart to just one other person may be the riskiest way to love of all."
Re:
Isn't that a bit like implying it takes more guts to be monogamous, due to monogamy's higher risk level?
"Yeah, that's what I got from the article -- that loving one person is more heroic and more mature because you've placed all your bets on one horse, so if you lose, you lose big."
"I guess that's courageous, according to the author, and also implies that love relationships become diluted the more you have."
"Her premise is that additional relationships 'save' you from the pain of losing another because you're not as emotionally invested as you are when you just have one."