Paola Veronese Allegory of Love[/caption]Carol Forsloff ---Years ago, when the 1960’s sexual revolution began and continued its forward movement through the next decades, open marriage, threesomes and then-somes were touted as the new ways to satisfy sexual urges without trampling on one’s nest. But who makes these arrangements and how do they work out, the kind of open marriage that Newt Gingrich wanted to make with his second wife, according to today’s news?
For those who hung onto traditional family values, open marriage was revolting, as opposed to being revolutionary. But it was defined as that something new and special that allowed men full reign to exercise their more highly-touted sexual prowess. Women, on the other hand, could now be emancipated from playing the role of virgin and participated in the new adventures that open relationships could provide. There were even instructional manuals on how to achieve that perfect open marriage concept, with the sex gurus-anthropologists, Nena and George O’Neill’s how to 1972 “Open Marriage.”
Years later, according to the New York Times account of the couples ventures and misadventures in the writing of the book, and its aftermath, Nena did a follow up to determine how many couples remained successful in maintaining that open marriage idea. Only one out of 100 were said to have stayed together and continued the concept.
Those involved in the one-man, one woman movement to maintain traditional marriage point to the O’Neil’s provocations as ending in failure. On the other hand, last year, Dan Savage, looked again at the marriage arrangements and advocated what he considers a more practical way of expressing relationships, underlining his basic premise that man is not genetically suited for monogamy. He is quoted at length in an article in the New York times in June of last year, when he wrote, “I acknowledge the advantages of monogamy,” Savage told me, “when it comes to sexual safety, infections, emotional safety, paternity assurances. But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.” He goes on to cite how it violates man’s basic instincts to be forced into a one-size-fits all, monogamous arrangement.
Those who object to the O’Neil and Savage philosophies maintain that open marriage destroys real relationships upon which good social structure depends. They also say that without integrity in a marriage some serious problems can develop, as considered by the Ruthblog, a journal devoted to upholding traditional marriage. These are what the writer maintains are the five problems with open marriage, among the numbers of difficulties that can develop. These include the potential for pregnancy that can pose a risk to the children of open relationships. Second, it increases the risk of infection from sexually-transmitted diseases, according to the author’s premise. Furthermore the writer stresses the belief that traditional marriage can provide a long-lasting relationship that creates happiness and satisfaction that open marriage cannot. Guilt and anxiety are often the consequence of not being monogamous. Time and effort are also considerations with the emotional investment and even financial consequences that can be part of the long-range problems that develop. Finally the children in these unions have an increased likelihood of suffering abuse, and the emotional consequences to these children is not worth the risk of open marriage, the writer asserts.
Proponents of traditional marriage as well as those that simply don’t approve of open marriage tell us that open marriage “never did work,” as pointed out in a reprint of an article in the Washington Post by W. Bradford Wilcox who says, with reference to the O’Neil manifesto for open marriage , “Fortunately, the book has since come to be seen as an antiquated relic of the Me Decade, when all too many men and women put their own desires—in the sexual arena, as in so many other arenas—ahead of the needs of their spouse, their marriage, and their children. While swinging may have seemed reasonable to some at the height of the sexual revolution, many couples and the vast majority of Americans have since turned away from the idea.
Today’s news relates sections of an interview with Newt Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, whom he divorced to marry Calista Bistek and with whom he had a long-term affair while he was Speaker of the House during the Clinton Administration. Mariana declares Newt had asked for an open marriage and wanted her to agree to it so he could maintain his marriage to her and continue his affair with Calista. Marianne says she refused to go along with this, even if Calista found it to be agreeable at the time. At the same time, Newt Gingrich led the Republican efforts to impeach former President Bill Clinton for having a sexual relationship with an intern, and then lying about it. Both Clinton and Gingrich are members of the baby boomer generation about which writers say were that “Me First” group.
