As I was writing my last post, listening to Minx's podcast, and watching the Weiner scandal wind down, there came a long article in the New York Times magazine on July 3rd titled "Married, with Infidelity" by Mark Oppenheimer. One of my readers, after my last post, noted that she wanted more, that I had just scratched the surface. I think Oppenheimer's articles goes deep and broad in a balanced fashion and it is worth a read.

The majority of the article focuses on long-time advice columnist and creator (with his partner) of the "It Gets Better" project Dan Savage. Savage also appeared on a recent episode of Comedy Central's Colbert Report to discuss the article. Oppenheimer presents some supporting and contrasting views though, in the end, he asks the question: "it gets better?" And replies that "it does. But it also gets very complicated. Savage is not arguing “let Arnold be Arnold.” He is imploring us to know the people we marry and to know ourselves and to plan accordingly."

For me, this is one of the most salient points that the article makes. Some marriage counseling or preparation for marriage does not take into account the myriad things that can come up in any relationship. Oppenheimer writes that "Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy."

I don't think Savage is making the argument that we should act on all of our urges, rather, that we are better off when we can safely talk about them. In some cases, as he notes, this may help avoid an illicit affair or may open up exploring whatever the urge may be with a current partner. Not talking about things, lack of information or communication, these can make things more complicated. There is a delicate balance between honesty and integrity. Is it "honest" to do or say something that you don't truly believe in doing or saying, just to please your partner? I don't believe so, and this is being "honest" without integrity and respect for yourself.

A contrasting view is presented by Janice Abrahms Spring, psychologist and author of After the Affair. Oppenheimer writes "Spring is inclined to a pessimism as strong as Savage’s optimism — after all, she works with couples who have ended up in counseling — but she offers a persuasive reminder that there may be no such thing as total honesty. Even when we think we are enthusiastically assenting to a partner’s request, we may not know ourselves as well as we think we do."

This is a significant concern; it is safe to say "no" or "I'm not interested" yet also be able to hear your partner? And, is it comfortable to express an urge, have it heard, yet also not act upon it? There are times that our instincts are to help or fix or change when, in the end, all the partner wants us to do is listen and witness.

At its root, infidelity implies a lack of truth, a lack of honesty. One may extend this to also include a lack of faith. It can take a lot to trust someone yet this trust is one of our basic developmental needs, intrinsic in our ability to be individuals in society. What this article suggests--with which I concur--is to strive to achieve open and honest communication between and among partners. What is perceived as infidelity (having an intimate connection outside your partnership) may in fact be the ultimate in fidelity if it stems from couples having a dialogue about their wants and needs. This may lessen the desire or need to deceive.

The other takeaway for me from the article is that it is rather balanced and it takes into the account biases of the various sources cited. It neither promotes open relationships or infidelity as the answer to marital problems nor holds up monogamy as the solitary standard for successful relationships. I find the article thought-provoking and articulate. In skimming the 580-plus comments, it demonstrates to me that the article has also promoted dialogue on the topic. One comment, though, noted the reductive quality of a lot of the comments, picking one element and having it represent the entire article. Another commenter, NS, from Columbus, OH, notes:

"It bothers me that people are reading this article as an attack on their values, but it is also telling that they are doing so. Reacting so defensively to a benign proposition suggests that they either failed to actually read the article, or are, to paraphrase Shakespeare, protesting too much as they sense a kernel of truth in what Savage is saying."

This brings up the "motivated reasoning" concept I have written about previously. Is it possible to read this article objectively if you read it in the context of a strongly held position? My reading of this article does not pick up on an attack on monogamy nor do I think it promotes infidelity though I find many of the comments do reflect a desire to defend long term monogamous relationships as a viable lifestyle or to expand on the often profoundly negative effects of infidelity. The language in the article, particularly the use of the word infidelity, is provocative. It reminds me of Dossie's reclaiming of the word "slut" in order to dissipate the negative connotations it carries while also realizing that the word is likely to provoke reactions in some people.

When it comes down to it, what Savage and his partner are doing is not infidelity if you define infidelity as an illicit affair done without the knowledge of your partner nor is it "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" since they are aware of what each other is doing. Savage covers this in his Colbert Report interview in a jaw-dropping manner.

I've struggled some with what I wanted to say in this post. What I realized after sitting with it is that the dialogue is important. Infidelity exists, open relationships exist. There are many factors that impact our relationships and what is most important for me is creating the space for ongoing, open, honest, and safe dialogue about these things. It's great if monogamy works for you, it's great if open relationships work for you. In both cases, be prepared to discuss and explore how intimacy works for you. That's the work of many successful relationships.

I am testing a commenting scheme and a new typeface, feedback is appreciated.