Talk:Open marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Is Swinging Open Marriage? 2 More Citations of Source Material 3 Verification of 'notable people with open marriages' list 3.1 Will and Jada 4 Referencing Sources 5 Proposed revision 6 Revision July 26, 2006

[edit] Is Swinging Open Marriage?

The article claims there is disagreement as to whether or not swinging is open marriage. I don't think this is a definitional issue. I think this is an issue about the psychological and social consequences of the diverse forms open marriage can take.

First, the claim a disagreement exists is not consistent with the definition provided. The opening line of the article states:

"An open marriage is a marriage wherein both parties agree to permit some forms of sexual relationships for one or both outside the marriage, without regarding this as sexual infidelity."

A swinging couple can be married. Both partners of the swinging couple can agree to permit sexual relationships for one or both outside the marriage. Both partners in the swinging couple can decide the outside sexual relationships do not constitute sexual infidelity. If a swinging couple meets all the defining criteria for an open marriage, then either swingers do have open marriages by definition or the definition offered is incorrect (too inclusive).

Second, I've been around the polyamory, open marriage, swinging, and bisexual communities long enough to know people battle for social turf for psychological reasons. People want sexual non-monogamy for different psychological reasons:

• On the one hand are people who want sexual non-monogamy for intimacy and self-identity. These people often want emotionally involved relationships with outside sex partners, and they often seek privacy with outside sex partners as a way to reaffirm self-identity ("Although I'm married, I'm still an individual who can have sexual and romantic relationships with whomever I want").
• On the other hand are people who want sexual non-monogamy for sexual gratification. These people often prefer to avoid emotional involvement, and they tend to enjoy sexual activities as a couple ("The couple that plays together stays together.").

The psychological motives of these two groups conflict. Consequently, their personal interactions often lead to tension and conflict. This in turn leads to the formation of separate communities so people can find those who share their relationship motives and avoid those who share alternative relationship motives.

The so-called disagreement as to whether swingers are in open marriages has a lot to do with defnding social turf by controlling language. Open marriage is a large enough term to cover both groups of people described above, and this is intolerable for those who only want to interact with people sharing their own relationship motives. So the attempt is made to use language and definitions to exclude people holding different relationship motives.

I'd like to see the paragraph on the disagreement moved to its own section and elaborated upon in terms of open marriage diversity.

Kelly

Yeah, this phenomenon is a nuisance when trying to write an encyclopaedia entry. Entries need to start with a definition so people know what they're talking about, but different people use the term differently. Might be best to use the same fix that we thrashed out over at polyamory: start from the broad definition, acknowledging that others exist, and then discuss the narrower definitions later in the article. I've edited the intro sentence accordingly, which should at least remove the contradiction, but will leave the elaboration for others. --Calair 06:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the definition originally quoted above by Kelly was an older version, omitting the qualifier "some forms of" sexual relationship. Most open couples would still find other forms of sexual relationship (eg: traditional secret affairs) to still be infidelity or breaking of agreements, so the earlier definition was clearly too broad to reflect actual usage. Kelly's argument that the earlier unqualified definition would "automatically" include swingers was valid, but the newer definition avoids that pitfall and leaves open the question of whether or not swingers would be included. Perhaps that part of the discussion should be removed in light of the newer and more focussed definition.

The problem with moving the paragraph on disagreement about swingers being automatically considered to have open relationships to a later section it that many of the points made in the article depend on the definition one has in mind - they may be true or false characterizations of open marriage depending on that definition.

I think part of the problem with defining this term is confusion between "identity politics" and "taxonomic objecitivity". Should the typical character of "open marriage" be defined by the participants who identify as having open marriages, or by outsiders who are seeking to classify relationship styles? For an example of the latter, an anthropologist could assert that a tribe practices polygyny without any need for the polygynous members of that tribe to self-identify as polygynists per se - it's a label applied from without, using definitions from anthropology rather than from within the culture in question. If one sees "open marriage" in that light, then an academic could classify all swingers as automatically having open marriages (by that academic's own definition) even if most of the subjects themselves vehemently rejected the term. On the other hand, one might define open marriage more descriptively by seeing what those identifying as having open marriages tend to have in common. Are we seeking to define open marriage based on prescriptive or descriptive usage? I would suggest descriptive, since unlike polygyny there is no consensus academic definition of open marriage to be applied objectively, and the prescriptive usages seen here tend towards personal advocacy.

So - do swingers themselves typically identify as having open marriages? My sense is not, but I know of no statistics on this. Failing that, perhaps the fairest way to put this is that "some swingers may also identify as having open marriages or open relationships" (neither "most" nor "very few"). I think this is more useful than debating whether all swingers should be classified as having open marriages (relationships) or none should be. Z

[edit] More Citations of Source Material

This article is a good start, but it could do with better citations and source material. E.g. where does the list of "typical rules" come from? From what I have seen of open marriages/relationships, not all of these rules would be typical (some appear more restrictive than I'd have expected). I realise that my own anecdotal evidence isn't much to go on, but is there a scholarly basis for the assertion of what is "typical"? That would be interesting to know about. I'd also like to see some history of the concept and its advocates. Metamagician3000 11:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The agreements were given as examples from within a diverse range, not as the "typical" set used in open marriage. This somewhat reduces the degree of unvalidated assertion, as it's only asserting existance rather than preponderance of any given agreement. In that regard, I believe it would be better to revert the agreements to the version prior to "Revision as of 14:44, 17 June 2006" because the earlier version gave a number of variations that different couples have chosen. The edit at that time eliminated all but one option for each area of agreement, which reflects a strong personal bias of that individual editor as to which of several options is more reflective of open marriage. That narrowing of examples shifted the flavor from "some examples illustrating the diversity of agreements (without assertions of which versions were more commone)" to "the listed choices are more typical of open marrage than others".

I'm currently working on a complete revision of the article on Jealousy, which will include a well-referenced section on ground rules. It will take me until July 31 to finish the revision of the Jealousy article, as I have to write most of the new articles. I plan a revision of the Open marriage article after completing the Jealousy article; I will include a referenced section on ground rules at that time. I have not been able to get to this sooner because I was working on a complete revision of Monogamy and a substantial revision of Attachment theory. kc62301

If you should happen to come across referenced material relevant to polyamory, please consider adding it to that page as well - it would greatly benefit from a few more citations. --Calair 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally have mixed feelings about polyamory. I would rather collaborate on articles dealing with specific forms of relationships (Monogamy, Polygamy, Open Marriage, Group Marriage, Cohabitation, etc.). kc62301

[edit] Verification of 'notable people with open marriages' list

I'm concerned about inaccuracy in this list. There is a similar list over at Polyamory, and there's a tendency for people to add names to it willy-nilly without careful documentation. When I went checking some of the listed names, I found that their listing was often questionable, either based on the assumption that 'tolerated cheating' = 'open/poly relationship', or on no evidence at all that I could find; see Talk:Polyamory and archives for details. Some of those same names, and some other questionable ones, have shown up here.

In particular, I'm concerned about the accuracy of edits made by 64.26.98.90. After looking at comments on his/her talk page re. other pages, this anon seems to have a history of questionable edits. In particular, on this page:

- Listed Benjamin Franklin in the 'notable people with open marriages' section. No documentation offered, no discussion of this in Franklin's own article, and nothing elsewhere on a brief Google search. - Ditto Geronimo. I twice reverted the same IP's previous attempts to add Geronimo to the similar list in Polyamory for this reason. - Listed François Mitterrand; while Mitterrand certainly had a mistress, and his wife seems to have known about this, it's not clear whether she consented to the arrangement or just put up with it. - Changed his/her own edit 'François Mitterrand, the late president of France' to 'François Mitterrand, the late French Prime Minister'. AFAIK, Mitterrand was president but never prime minister; I'm not sure why 64.26.98.90 would be providing accurate information and then replacing it with inaccurate (unless s/he is unaware that those are two different positions), but that's what seems to have happened. - Various other edits that may well be true, but don't offer any supporting cites and aren't supported by the relevant people's articles.

IMHO, these sort of lists should be supported either by information on the relevant people's own pages, or at least by a reference provided here. In the absence of such evidence, people should not be included on these lists. --Calair 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Bob Jones (which should've been Bob Jones, Sr. anyway), since this seemed more than usually unlikely and Googling on +"bob jones" +"open marriage" produced nothing obvious to justify inclusion in the list - if this can be confirmed it should be in his article. --Calair 01:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Margolis disclosed that she has an open marriage in August , 2000 , on the "Howard Stern Show".

I did some housecleaning on the list, trying to cut it down to verifiable info. I left in people whose open marriages were adequately documented on their own pages, and Googled the others (but not at great length; there may well be things I missed, and deleted people can certainly be re-added if documentation can be found).

I've added cites here for Margaret Sanger, Havelock Ellis, Dick and Naomi Mitchison, but if somebody has the time to work that info into their respective articles that would be great. There are probably better cites to be found than the ones I added - I just picked the first relevant links that came up on Google, and the Sanger one in particular could do with improvement.

Removed for lack of verification: Cindy Margolis - no documentation found. Could be re-added if the above claim about disclosure on Howard Stern Show can be supported, but an anon comment on its own isn't verification. Joseph and Magda Goebbels - latter article claims "there is evidence that at some point they had agreed to have an open marriage" but gives no cite; could be re-added if/when cite is provided there. Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier, film stars; found one article headed 'Leigh and Olivier enjoyed open marriage', but what it describes sounds more like blatant cheating than an agreed arrangement.[1] François Mitterrand, the late President of France - well known to have had a mistress, no documentation given for an agreement with his wife on this. Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith - source for claim is probably these much-reported remarks, but note Smith's followup on this topic here. His intended meaning seems to be hypothetical - along the lines of "I'd rather have an open marriage than go behind Jada's back" than "I have an open marriage." William Moulton Marston, creator of Wonder Woman - lived with Elizabeth Marston & Olive Byrne/Doyle, but this seems to have been closer to unofficial polygamy than an open marriage; AFAICT, Olive was effectively a spouse to William and perhaps also to Elizabeth.--Calair 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The source verifying that Cindy Margolis has an open marriage [2],can also be accessed at [3],just click archives 1996-2006, then click August 14,2000. 420 hottie

That first link still isn't working for me (not sure whether there's a referring-page issue involved or what), but from following through from the front page, this link should work.

AFAICT, this is the relevant section:

"Gary made a phony phone call to Cindy recently and in the call they asked her to do some wacky stuff. One of the things Gary asked her to do was sleep with Howard. She said she would do it. Today Howard said that Gary was unable to make the call to her for him to sleep with her because it was too awkward. Cindy told Howard that when she got married she and her husband made up lists of people they could sleep with and Howard was on her list. So she is still willing to have him come to her hotel and sleep with her. Howard said he really wants to do this and Cindy told him that he just has to come on her show. Howard doesn't want to do that but she convinced him that it's okay to come over to her hotel. Howard let Cindy plug her show and web site CindyMargolis.com. She gave him a kiss goodbye and Howard asked Gary if he got the info from Cindy. Gary said he got the address and phone number for her. Cindy even said she'd change her flight out of town just for Howard if he wants to come over. Howard knows that nothing will happen though. He predicts that she'll just want to have dinner because she's married."

This sounds to me more like lighthearted banter than a serious admission of an open marriage. People flirt on radio & TV shows all the time; if we reported every joking remark as fact, Wikipedia would be flooded with unreliable information. If Cindy Margolis really has an open marriage and is willing to make that public, there should be more about it than this - for starters, I'm sure such a story would sell magazines. --Calair 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the "unreferenced" template to this section. There is already a "fact" tag on Ellis. Labelling Einstein as being in an open marriage smells funny to me. He had a number of affairs, and his wives may have known of them. But that doesn't mean that his wives tolerated or condoned these affairs or had ones of their own. The article on Einstein doesn't use the phrase "open marriage" anywhere either.

Anywho, do as you may. This section has the potential to be very inflammatory. I hope I'm not pouring fuel on the flames; that's not my intent. I hope people can cite some unambiguous, reliable sources for these claims (on all the persons listed). Cheers, Lunch 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will and Jada

C&Ping my comments from Talk:Polyamory on the same subject:

Will Smith gave an interview which was widely interpreted as saying they had an open marriage (see e.g. here) but Jada Smith has indicated that he was misinterpreted/taken out of context on this one[4] and Will Smith is rather less than clear on the point in a subsequent interview[5]. IIRC there was another interview with Smith in which he said his intended meaning was not "we're open" but "open marriage would be better than dishonesty", or words to that effect, but I can't find that one at present. --Calair 09:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing Sources

I'm currently writing the section on adult attachment in the Wikipedia article on Attachment theory. I plan to start working on a revision of this article around the middle of July--with many references included. If you look at my revision of the Monogamy article, or the adult section of the Attachment theory article, you will see I'm a big fan of scientific references. kc62301

[edit] Proposed revision

I am currently working on a complete revision of the open marriage article. Open marriage is a broad enough topic for several articles, and I have finished outlining the articles I am writing. Please check out the new article outlines at User:Kc62301/Open marriage. Here are some of the thoughts behind the proposed changes:

• All the new articles will be well-referenced. For examples of my love of references, see the Monogamy articles as well as the Attachment in adults and Attachment measures articles.
• Open marriages are first and foremost relationships. Polyamory and swinging are communities, and as communities encompass more than open relationships. For example, polygamy is not an open marriage (as typically understood) and swingers can be single. Both polyamory and swinging involve organizations. The proposed revision of the open marriage article focuses on open marriage as a relationship (and contains several links to the polyamory and swinging articles as related community topics).
• Researchers have recently started distinguishing between two type of sexual non-monogamy: polyamorous and swinging. This distinction will be discussed in detail in an article devoted to the styles of open marriage.
• All open marriages (polyamorous and swinging) share certain things common: they are disapproved of in most Western societies, they involve a marriage that needs to be maintained, and they require strategies to manage jealousy. Each of these common themes are discussed in a separate article. The article on jealousy will be relatively short and point to a newly revised article on jealousy (including an article devoted to coping with jealousy).
• Ground rules will be discussed at length, with several references to scientific studies, in the article on coping with jealousy. This is because the main purpose of ground rules is to manage jealousy and romantic rivalry in relationships.
• If there is a topic not included (e.g., legal issues or sexual orientation issues), people are welcomed to write an article about that topic. It can then be added to the main page along with the other articles. This format has gone over well in other areas (e.g., Monogamy and Attachment), since it helps readers easily find what they want to read and allows contributors to easily expand the topic with new articles. Kelly 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All in favour of good referencing. On the other points: worth noting that while polyamory can be a community, not all polyamorous folk consider themselves part of that 'poly community'. (Much like homosexuality in this regard - some gay folk build their social circle around orientation, some don't.)

Contrarywise, in some cases the distinction between 'polyamory' and 'swinging' is more about community than about the actual type of relationship involved. I've seen several people say that they chose between identifying 'poly' or 'swinger' not because of whether they placed emotion over physicality, but because they already had friends in one of those communities (or alternately, didn't like what they'd seen of the other one). Getting this sort of thing into verifiable, encyclopaedic form is hard, though.

May also be worth noting that the distinction between 'poly' and 'swinging' didn't start with researchers; this is more a matter of researchers acknowledging an existing distinction in usage among practitioners of both. --Calair 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Points taken. Please let me know what you think about the way I'm handling it in User:Kc62301/Open marriage styles. The article is not complete. But I think you will see how it attempts to deal with the issues you raised. This would be an excellent time to suggest improvements. Kelly 03:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision July 26, 2006

• I have exercised the Wikipedia philosophy of being bold and made major revisions to the Open marriage article.
• The topic of open marriage is broad enough for several articles. Reorganizing the main page to summarize the various articles will help readers find the information they seek more easily. It will also allow contributors to write new articles on open marriage and easily integrate them into the new page. This strategy has gone over well with the Monogamy article and the Attachment theory article.
• I released the articles a little early due to my upcoming vacation. I will continue to polish and improve the articles after my vacation.
• I have an unfinished article in the works on Open marriage relationship. This article will look at the various effects open marriage can have on relationships--positive, neutral, and negative. It will contain a few brief notes on relationship maintenance.
• I think the articles I've added have enough verifiable references from credible sources to remove the template for lack of citations. I've removed the template. I'd be happy to discuss if anyone objects. Kelly 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the new article on relationship maintenance. That's the last article I plan to add, although I will go back after my vacation and improve some of the existing articles (including the addition of some figures). I hope no one objects to removing the emotional issues section. I think those are now covered in the relationship maintenance article and the jealousy management article. Kelly 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Should emphasize the usual temporary nature of the "marriage". One study of upper class educated "opens" tried to do a follow up interview after five years and noone was still "married". The long-term success rate ( or happiness rate ) seems low. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

Got a cite for that? --Calair 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Margolis mentioned that she and her husband made lists of people they can sleep with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chester polarbear (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Just because someone is on that list,it doesn't mean they're going to have sex.