I thought I'd seen it all. I really had. I thought nothing about feminism could surprise me anymore, but I was wrong.
Consider this recent piece in New York Magazine entitled "What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism." It's written by a male "feminist" househusband named Michael Sonmore who approves of his wife sleeping with other men.
Mr. Sonmore, it seems, is content to stay home with their young children while his wife cavorts with some guy named Paulo. "Before my wife started sleeping with other men," he writes, "I certainly considered myself a feminist, but I really only understood it in the abstract. When I quit working to stay at home with the kids, I began to understand it on a whole new level. I am an economically dependent househusband coping with the withering drudgery of child-rearing. Now that I understand the reality of that situation, I don't blame women for demanding more for themselves than the life of the housewife."
Despite the fact that vows were an admitted part of their wedding – vows which presumably included a promise of marital faithfulness – this couple decided sexual repression isn't where it's at, man. They decided on an "open marriage," a remnant of the ridiculousness that characterized society in the '70s.
"Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression," says Mr. Sonmore, "and, not to get all women's-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man's fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can't control. We aren't afraid of their intellect or their spirit or their ability to bear children. We are afraid that when it comes time for sex, they won't choose us. This petty fear has led us as a culture to place judgments on the entire spectrum of female sexual expression. …
TRENDING: St. Patrick's role on the 'external hard drive'
"Feminism always comes back to sex, even when we're talking about everything else. The point isn't that all women should be sexual adventurers. … The point is that it should be women who choose, not men – even the men they're married to. For my wife, the choice between honoring our vows and fulfilling her desires was a false choice, another trap. She knew how deep our love was, and knew that her wanting a variety of sexual experiences as we traveled through life together would not diminish or disrupt that love. It took me about six months – many long, intense conversations, and an ocean of red wine – before I knew it, too.
"What surprises most people is when I tell them it's not the sex-with-other-men that bothers me," Mr. Sonmore concludes. "The sex is the easy part, the fun part. It's what the sex connects to, stands for, reveals that can be difficult. I don't want her to fall in love with anyone else, and every time she goes on a date, I confront the possibility that she might."
I find myself stunned, mouth agape, trying to understand this perspective.
The impact of infidelity on children is well-documented. But the documentation usually revolves around the notion that unfaithfulness is hand-in-glove with lying, sneaking around and otherwise keeping the infidelity a secret from one's spouse. Presumably Mr. Sonmore and his wife feel they've bypassed this potential trauma on their children by being open and accepting of diverse sex partners within the bounds of their relationship.
Those who support open marriages argue sexual diversity is healthy for the marriage (except for those pesky diseases); that children are not harmed because there's no sneaking around or lying; and happy parents make for happy kids. "Those who practice open relationships or polyamory often say they are 'hardwired' this way and that laying the ground rules for multiple relationships spares everyone hurt and disappointment," notes this WebMD article.
Is it all sunshine and roses when both partners agree to "swing"? Dig a little deeper and the answer is no.
As "fun" as an open marriage appears on the surface – wild sex, woo-hoo! – it appears to disguise a great deal of ugly qualities and emotions, including selfishness, insecurity, bullying, anger, licentiousness, lack of control, sadness and fear.
What kind of pillow talk takes place between Paulo and Mr. Sonmore's wife during their trysts? Do you think she is telling her lover about her wonderful husband and praising him for his understanding of her "sexual expression"?
"He doesn't realize it," said my husband as we discussed the article, "but no woman can have any respect for a man who behaves like this. She secretly despises his passivity. When a man abrogates all responsibilities to be a man in his relationship with a woman, then she looks for a real man – or what she thinks is a real man."
The pillow talk between the wife and Paulo is more likely to be something like this: "Boy, your husband is a complete wimp." "Yes, but he cleans the house and takes care of the kids."
Meanwhile Paulo the Alpha Male is reinforcing in her mind just what an utter weakling her husband is. Thus Mr. Sonmore should not be surprised when his wife decides to move in with Paulo or some other dude since, after all, most women don't like men they can walk all over. By then it will be too late for Mr. Sonmore. He can't suddenly turn on his Alpha Male gene and assume the position of a strong man.
Does this sound like a healthy relationship?
The primary thing I see in this opinion piece is two wildly selfish people who want what they want regardless of vows, propriety, the needs of their children, or anything else that impinges on their animal desires. We have a woman thinking her emotions and feelings are paramount above the good of the family, and a man who is so "wife-whipped" (I won't use the more vulgar term) and afraid of being called a sexist that he doesn't dare complain when his spouse break her vows.
This is what feminism has wrought.
C'mon, people, if you're going to have this kind of attitude going into marriage, why on earth are you getting married at all? Why drag children's lives into a sewer just because you want to live there yourself? Stay single, for Pete's sake.
And incidentally, Mr. Sonmore says that he's free to sleep around, too – he just doesn't take much advantage of this prerogative. No doubt it's because he's worn out from keeping house and raising the kids all day. Or possibly it's because he instinctively knows what his wife's reaction would be to his own "search" for "sexual expression" (and assuming he could find a willing partner into gamma male-dom).
An open marriage isn't healthy – it's terminally ill.
Media wishing to interview Patrice Lewis, please contact [email protected].
|