The Plight of Open Relationships: She's Going to Get A LOT More Action than You

Jezebel recently posted this article about a dude that shared his story via Reddit. The brief summary: Dude's been dating his girlfriend for awhile and starts to get bored (see my last article on relationship boredom.) He decides to join an adult social site supposedly to look at pictures of hot women. Some of these hot women begin flirting with him. His confidence boosted, he decides to demand his girlfriend agree to an open relationship or he will dump her. After some expected emotional distress, she eventually relents. He goes on the prowl. She also signs up on the same site.

Fast forward a few weeks. He hasn't seen any action, whereas she's flooded with attention, dates, and a few hookups. The issue comes to a head when he sees her at a bar with another dude who proceeds to thank his for allowing her to have the open relationship.

Even though there's a high probability it's not a real story, it should serve as a cautionary tale on several levels. Let's explore those levels.

1. The vast majority of the time, online hot flirty women probably aren't hot. Or women. If you're getting A LOT of attention from women and you yourself aren't ridiculously rich, handsome, or funny, a red flag should be raised. These women would receive a shit-ton of attention themselves and wouldn't have the time to seek you out. Odds are good she's really just a middle-aged pasty dude in his mother's basement.

2. Understand the "ten to one" rule. At minimum, an available female will receive, on average, ten times the attention an available male will receive. This dude expected his less-attractive (in his words) girlfriend to receive minimal interest. He was shocked she received significantly more attention than he received. Guys typically take a shotgun-like approach to attracting women, whereas women will be a little more focused. It should not have been a surprise she received so much attention.

3. Open relationships done for purely selfish reasons are always disasters. The dude wanted an open relationship because he wanted to bone the supposed hot chicks he was chatting up online. He didn't consider his girlfriend's thoughts or feelings when suggesting the idea. He didn't consider that she would attract attention. He didn't consider she would be gong on dates. He didn't consider other dudes would be boning her. He really didn't consider the possibility that she would actually enjoy the open relationship experience (which she obviously did.)

4. He didn't fully appreciate what he had until he lost it. Or came close to losing it. By his own admittance, this relationship was better than his previous relationships. They had a lot in common. They had fun together. Still, he continually thought about what he was missing. It was a classic case of the grass being greener on the other side. Now, I'm a big believer in the "fix it or end it" philosophy of relationships, so I can sort of appreciate his... proactiveness. However, he went about it in the worst way possible. Instead of him actively ending it, he gave her a douchey ultimatum. Once that genie was out of the bottle, it was out for good. He realized he made a terrible mistake when he realized she was highly desirable. 

The dude seems like a huge tool. Hopefully the girlfriend meets a decent guy and ends the relationship. Hopefully he learned his lesson, too. 

###

Fuck Romance, Your Relationship Needs Excitement!

In my last post, I talked about the inherent challenges of a monogamous relationship over long periods of time. Here in 'Murica, our relationship ideal is to find the perfect soul mate, fall hopelessly in love, and spend the rest of our lives burning with passion. Indeed, that's what usually happens...

...for about nine to twelve months give or take a season or two. 

Eventually the cocktail of excitatory chemicals wears off. The white-hot passion fades a bit and is replaced with a feeling of bonding and intimacy. Evolutionarily-speaking, this cycle probably led us to procreate (via lots o' sex), then bond enough to remain a couple until our offspring are viable enough to leave the nest.

It's a good system. It serves the purpose.

Unless, of course, we introduce the "until death do us part" thing. 

After around five to eight years (on average), that oxytocin-induced bonding we experienced begins to fade a bit. That was the gist of the previous article, and the point of this article on lifelong happiness. The author's drawn-out main point is pretty clear- the toxin that kills relationships is boredom. 

Unfortunately, we're not taught to deal with boredom in relationships. If a relationship isn't as exciting as it once was, society tells us to be more romantic. Flowers. Candles. Dinner at a fancy restaurant. 

Here's the problem. We think romantic gestures are what spark passion, but they don't. They're merely the medium we choose to use when we're seducing and courting each other at the beginning of a relationship. That novelty and excitement is what we crave, not teddy bears hugging heart pillows. 

Those romantic gestures may produce a temporary positive effect because we've been classically conditioned to respond to them with excitement. That wears off quickly, however, because it's the same old person using the same old tired tricks. The gestures are just a band-aid covering up the real problem: Boredom.

So how do we cure this boredom?

Simple. We do exciting shit.

When we engage in exciting activities as a couple, our brains get a surge of epinepherine and dopamine. It makes our heart race, get butterflies in our stomachs, our palms get sweaty, and most importantly, we experience a flood of dopamine that makes us feel really, really good. Not coincidentally, this is the same physiological effect that occurs when we first fell for our partner. Our brains misattribute this effect. Instead of attributing the feelings to the activity, we attribute it to our partner. The excitement of the situation makes us think we're feeling that flame from the early days of the relationship. 

This is the reason the other alternatives I discussed occur. Affairs are exciting and fill that need for excitement. Same deal with divorce. Swinging injects sexual novelty, which kills boredom. Polyamory introduces the feelings of falling in love, which also kills boredom. The drug I discussed would also kill boredom, though it's not FDA approved yet.

If none of those are viable options, you'll have to choose my second option from the previous post- spice things up. This is where we have to think excitement, not romance. Excitement derives from the fight or flight response, so we need to do something that's a little bit dangerous. It could be physically dangerous or socially dangerous. If it scares you, even just a little bit, it will be effective at curing the boredom of long-term relationships. 

Instead of a candle-lit dinner, how about bungee-jumping? Instead of a picnic in a park, how about paintball? Instead of a day at a spa, how about renting some motorcycles for the day? Basically stop thinking "lame" and start thinking "scary."

The author of the linked article mentions the idea of habituation, which means we get used to our significant other. No matter how funny, attractive, or skilled lover they may be, we get used to them. Habituation is boredom. When people say "relationships are hard", this is the "hard" they're talking about. It's hard work continually coming up with new shit. 

When Shelly and I quit our jobs and started traveling, we were in a perpetual state of excitement. Everything was new and awesome; it was amazing. Eighteen months later, even the most scenic vistas produced a "Meh" response. The novelty wore off, habituation crept in. We had to change things up.

So how do you go about continually searching for new, exciting stuff to do? 

Play this game:

Once a month, take turns planning a surprise activity to do as a couple. It can be anything that's close enough to your comfort zone that nether of you panic, but far enough outside your comfort zone that it will be scary. The planning partner can give vague hints, but the secrecy of the activity adds an important element of mystery. The anticipation is a form of seduction, which is one of the first things to die in a typical relationship. 

The schedule of the game is important because it's easy to let excitement-seeking slide when schedules get too busy. Each member of the couple will have two months to plan each "adventure date", which is more than enough time to brainstorm and plan. 

How many of you that aren't ridiculously happy in your present relationship realize the problem is boredom? You still love your partner, but you secretly (or not so secretly) crave excitement? If that's you, give the game a try. You won't regret it. ;-)

###

What's the Deal with Monogamy?

I recently read an article about the development and FDA trials of a pill that would increase women's sexual desire. The idea is to create a fix for the decreased desires (which could be effectively described as "horniness") women typically feel toward their partner in long-term relationships. They aren't happy, and this will help fix a problem. I realized this pill perfectly illustrates the conundrum we face about monogamy- As a society, we celebrate the idea of lifelong pair-bonding. Yet most of us, despite our best attempts, really aren't that good at it. 

Topics like this have always fascinated me because it combines the biology of sexuality, attraction, and pair-bonding with the sociocultural aspects of our intimate relationships. Since I'm between book-writing projects, it seemed like a fun way to jump back into active blogging.

So the question: Are we, as humans, designed for monogamy?

Before we begin, two issues need to be addressed: Individuality and morality. First, we're all different. Research seems to indicate some humans are more adept at monogamy. Some of us are like prairie voles. We find a mate and maintain sexual exclusivity until one partner dies (for the most part... there are a few PVs that like to get a little action on the side.) On the other hand, some of us are live the free-lovin' bonobo monkeys that treat sex as recreation. Researchers attribute this variability to neurotransmitters, specifically the presence of high levels of oxytocin and oxytocin receptors. Other variables, like culture, religion, and other such factors clearly play a role in monogamy.

The second issue is a bit tricky- morality. In the United States, the idea of serial monogamy (only having one partner at a time, but other partners are generally okay if the relationship ends) is the cultural norm that's continually reinforced by many societal institutions. Anything other than serial monogamy is generally frowned upon by the majority. This makes open, honest discussions somewhat tricky. Personally, I prefer to silence my own moral code when discussing such matters. It's useless to try to impose my morality on others, just as it's pointless for them to impose theirs on me.

So let's get to it. What do we know about monogamy?

Animals

In the animal kingdom, roughly 4% of mammals appear to be monogamous. Recent DNA testing of offspring has shown almost all previously-believed monogamous animals, to some degree, aren't having sex exclusively with their mate. This means 96% of our mammal cousins are nonmonogamous.

History of Monogamy

Way back in college, I took a few human sexuality courses. I remember a discussion on the origins of "marrying for love." Shocking to me at the time, that idea wasn't formulated until the Enlightenment in 17th century Europe. Prior to this, marriage was done for political, social, or economic reasons. The idea of monogamy simply didn't exist.

Once people started marrying for love, the concept of sexual jealousy among spouses was introduced. Emotional possessiveness became an issue. The idea of monogamy was born.

This wasn't a huge deal, however, due to the logistics of the era. The mortality rate was pretty high. The odds of a spouse dying, thus freeing the survivor to find another partner, was quite good. Death during childbirth, industrial revolution accidents, or just good ole' disease made for early grave. "Same partner to death" really wasn't that much of a commitment.

Compare that to today. Let's assume you get together in your mid-twenties. With a life-expectancy stretching well into the seventies, that means fifty-plus years of trying to keep the spark alive.

Chemicals

Specifically, neurotransmitters. This is a complex topic, so I'll greatly oversimplify it. We have two neurotransmitters that have a profound effect on sex drive- dopamine (increases) and serotonin (decreases.) When balanced, we're pretty normal. When dopamine increases, sex drive increases. This is why novelty, exercise, and cocaine all make us at least a little bit horny. When serotonin increases, we lose sexual interest. This is why SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or antidepressants) kill sexual interest.

This is important because dopamine decreases the more time we spend around our significant other. Early in relationships, our brains are flooded with dopamine. After awhile, it decreases. This causes us to get bored with our partner. This effect seems especially prominent in women. It even has a name: Hypoactive sexual desire disorder.

Oxytocin, at least to some degree, counteracts this effect by emotionally bonding us with our partner. It's also the same neurotransmitter that bonds parents to kids. This system is what keeps us together in what I would define as "social monogamy." We identify ourselves as a couple socially. Unfortunately, oxytocin doesn't boost sex drive. In fact, it have have an opposite effect.

Emotional closeness requires a sense of safety. Passion requires a sense of danger. The two constructs, by definition, are mutually exclusive. Masters at seduction understand this, which is why the pushing and pulling of sexual interest is so alluring. It plays these two constructs off each other. That's another topic for another day, however.

How we Interpret the Lack of Interest in our Partner

Let's say you've been in a relationship for a few years. In the beginning, you were like jackrabbits. You fucked at every conceivable opportunity. Eventually that tapered off. Maybe you got married. Had a few kids. Bought a nice house in the 'burbs. Whatever.

When we experience that decrease in sexual desire, most of us assign blame to our partner. It's not necessarily deliberate, it's just a self-preservation thing we do. We may love them, but we begin resenting them for little behaviors that we believe are killing the passion we once experienced. We begin to feel trapped by the societal expectations of monogamy. That subtle misattribution can lead to a fairly predictable course of action that undermines the relationship by forcing us to make a decision among a slew of options.

The Options

Option #1: Stick it out. Some of us have the requisite neurotransmitter cocktail (and associated receptors) to make monogamy a cruse in the park. In other words, we have no problem living a life devoid of passion because we're strongly bonded to our mate. This is the default mode most of society champions. The problem, of course, is that the vast majority of the population seems to be incapable of this. 

Option #2: Spice things up. This is the "Cosmo" solution we read while standing in the checkout line at the local Piggly Wiggly. Novelty releases dopamine. If we change up our game, we get a little bit of that fire back. This is actually a pretty decent solution because it's socially acceptable... except for the fact that it's exceedingly hard work to constantly inject novelty. We adapt to novelty rather fast, and if our partner is the lone source of the novelty, we have to "up the ante" every time we try something new. That light spanking on the ass and nipple tweaking will eventually morph into being caned and hung from the ceiling via piercings. 

Option #3: Get divorced. Old partner isn't exciting anymore, so we get a new one. That's the real spirit of serial monogamy, isn't it? This feels like a ridiculous option, but a divorce rate hanging north of 50% suggests it's popular. For some, this may not be a viable option due to kids, insurance, materialism, etc. 

Option #4: Have an affair. New partners certainly create a spark, so we could solve this issue by finding sex and/or love behind our partner's back. Some research has suggested THIS is how we evolved. The generally-accepted conservative statistic indicates about 20-25% of couples will be affected by infidelity, with some studies pointing to MUCH higher numbers. For example, according to these stats, around 70% of males AND females would have an affair if they were assured they wouldn't get caught. 

The Interwebz seems to be making it easier and easier to find a hookup partner other than our spouse. Ashleymadison.com, the leading "place to find affair partners" website, boasts over 20 million members. Let that sink in for a moment. We're talking about possibly 40 million relationships that would be affected. And this is just one of many websites that offer the same service. It's safe to say this is a popular option to solving the passion problem. 

The problem here, of course, is the negative impact on the relationship. Only about a third of relationships survive an affair, and the experience tends to be rather traumatic to the betrayed spouse. It's obviously frowned upon by society, too, but it maintains a pretense to monogamy. The system still works, just one partner happened to make a mistake. 

Option #5: Ethical nonmonogamy. Ethical nonmonogamy, which is practiced by 20-25% of the US population, is some sort of sexual and/or emotional relationship involving other people in full knowledge of both partners. At one end of the ethical nonmonogany spectrum would be swinging by adding one or more recreational (i.e.- casual) partners with no emotional attachments (sexually nonmonogamous) to polyamory, which is adding more people to the loving emotional aspects of the relationship (emotionally and possibly socially nonmonogamous.) This is a very simplified explanation of many, many diverse groups that have different goals and motives, but one fact remains: We add novelty by breaking the societal expectation that monogamy is the norm. 

This option is basically like the "spice things up" option on steroids. All parties are consensual, so nothing occurs without full disclosure. There may be problems navigating the complex feelings that arise, but those are usually worked out via communication. The real issue is acceptance. Society as a whole doesn't like competition to the "one partner forever" model. All variations of ethical nonmonogamy poke holes is the common assumptions and practices of monogamy. 

Option #6: Drugs. To bring the discussion full-circle, we come back to Lybrido, the testosterone-and-Viagra cousin that causes women to experience a surge of dopamine (and get horny.) The idea is pretty straight-forward. As the passion dies down after a year or five, a woman can take this pill to revive her sexual desire for her partner.

It's more exciting than riding out the passionless relationship, easier than continually fanning the flames by introducing novelty, avoids the pain of divorce and/or affairs, and is more emotionally easier and socially-accepted than swinging or polyamory. We live in a drug culture, and this idea would probably be more widely accepted than Viagra was back in the 90's. 

There are caveats, however. How will the woman feel about requiring a pill to feel desire for her significant other? How would the guy feel? What if the spouse isn't the recipient of that increased horniness? Are there unintended health complications? How would we ever get anything done if we were having sex all the time?

Conclusion

Our culture clearly promotes the idea of monogamy. Yet the amount of money spent on magazines willed with "improve your sex life"tips, the ever-growing divorce rate, the number of illicit affairs that occur, and the number of couples involved in ethical nonmonogamy tell us monogamy is not the Utopia we make it out to be. Is it time to stop teaching monogamy as the only movie shown in the theater? Should we fully accept alternatives to monogamy? Do we increase spending to find drugs that will make monogamy more palatable? Do we all become eunuchs once we pop out a few kids?

What do you think of the issue? Leave a comment!

###

A Case for Premarital Sex

Premarital sex is a fairly controversial topic. Based on our best research, it's exceedingly common (95%, based on this pretty good study.) Yet we still have a cultural tendency to vilify it. Maybe it's that Puritan heritage. Maybe it's our schizophrenic view of religion. Maybe we just like being rebellious, and frowning on premarital sex gives us a rush. 

Regardless, here are seven reasons to kick the tires before buying the car:

1. You get practice. We don't learn to ride a bike during the first stage of the Tour de France, do we? Of course not. Why should sex be any different? We could probably solve a lot of our world problems if only people learned to be better lovers.

2. You can assess sexual compatibility. You like sex four times per week and enjoy some light bondage. Your partner wants sex one per month in missionary only. This is a problem. Post-marriage is not the time to discover this.

3. You can explore your own sexuality. This is related to the previous item. We never really know what we like until we try some stuff out. In the absence of experimentation, we have to rely on guessing. Getting to know what YOU like is a prerequisite to a fulfilling sex life.

4. Abstinence is much more difficult than it used to be. Back in the day, kids reached puberty (ad the accompanying drive to have sex) around age 15-16, then got married around 16-17. Premarital sex was easy to resist because they didn't have to wait long... maybe 10-15 months. Today, kids reach puberty around 12-13, but don't get married until mid-to-late twenties. Is it realistic to resist that drive for 10-15 YEARS? Of course not. 

5. Abstinence promotes an association between shame and sex. Abstinence vilifies our sexuality by associating it with shame. I'll let Kristen Howerton speak to this one.

6. Abstinence promotes a sense of ownership over your significant other. The idea of "saving" virginity for our spouse has traditionally been a function of our religio-partiarchal heritage and encouraged a sense of ownership over our significant others. We could solve a lot of relationship issues if only we saw our spouses as autonomous beings that aren't bound by a contract.

7. Life is short. Sex is fun. No explanation necessary.

There you have it- seven reasons to test the milk before you buy the cow.

###

Are You an Alpha or a Beta?

Are you an alpha or a beta?

This is a topic that's sprung up a lot lately on Facebook, and it fascinates me. Before we dive into the specifics, let's develop a nice operational definition of "alpha" and "beta." I like to think of this construct as a continuum, or pecking order, present in masculine personalities. 

Alphas are at the top. They are the leaders. They are confident, cool under pressure, and care little about what others think of them. They live life on their own terms. They don't ask for what they need; they take what they need. They fit the masculine stereotype, even though sex is irrelevant.

Betas are the followers. They're pleasers. They are self-conscious and rely on passive-aggressive means to get what they want or need. They whine. They complain. They play the role of victim. They're easily offended. They fit the feminine stereotype.

Does This Dichotomy Really Exist?

In short, not really. The idea is borrowed from the cousins of our best friends- the wolf. Specifically, wolves in captivity. In the latter third of the 20th century, researchers noticed wolves in captivity (that part's important) developed a strict social "pack hierarchy." The strongest male, through force, assumed the role as leader. The strongest female assumed the role of alpha female. They mated. The rest of the pack helped raise their baby wolves. Pop human personality theorists borrowed this concept and applied it to humans. 

Psychologists struggled to actually validate this idea. As it turns out, human behavior is far more complex. In fact, the entire field of personality psychology is plagued by weak correlations and exceptions to rules. There are A LOT of theories out there... some better than others. None adequately explain the depth and breadth of humanity.

This shouldn't be a huge surprise because... it turns out wolves are more complex, too. Captive wolves act differently than wild wolves, which seriously damages the fundamental basis of the alpha/beta dichotomy.

Be that as it may, we still like to make sense of our world. We like convenient categories as they provide valuable mental shortcuts. It's important to remember that all of us have some alpha qualities and some beta qualities at least some of the time, and this is usually dependent on the situation. Even though the concept of alphas and betas may be fantastically over-simplified, it can still serve a useful purpose.

Why We Care

Our society heavily favors alphas. They get the first pick in pretty much everything. Betas... they fight over the scraps. Normally, we fall into one of these two roles- leaders or followers. Active or passive. Strong or weak. The role we play at any given time is inconsequential, as long as it's the role we want to play. Problems arise when betas decide they want to become alphas... usually with really bad results.

The fundamental problem is betas assume being an alpha is a set of behaviors. Do the behaviors -and- POOF! You magically become an alpha.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Alphas aren't alphas because they act cocky, brag, or exclaim their strength. In fact, nothing shouts "I'm a beta" for males than peacocking. You know, the "Jersey Shore" male strutting. It's all just an act, which is painfully evident to true alphas. Real alphas don't need to peacock. For women, it's more common to proclaim strength, which is also a distinct "I'm a beta" cry. Again, real alphas don't need to proclaim their strength. Both of these behaviors are nothing more than facades to hide insecurities.

The real secret to being an alpha is inner contentment. Once you really accept who you are and recognize you're at the helm of the ship that is your life, becoming an alpha is easy. Needing the affirmation of others is the hallmark of being a beta. 

This, of course, is easier said than done. If you're a beta and you want to be an alpha, here are some tips:

1. Introspection helps. If someone hurts or offends you, plumb the depths of your psyche to figure out why. There's a root cause, and it has nothing to do with the other person. You're allowing yourself to be offended and/or hurt. 

2. It's okay to act the part until you achieve inner contentment, just make sure you know how alphas really act. In any given social situation, observe. Try to figure out who is the true alpha in the situation. In a room full of alphas, everyone immediately knows where they fit in the pecking order. True alphas accept this.

3. Develop the ability to lead. Alphas, above everything else, are leaders. They care deeply for their pack and take every opportunity to help them. 

Conclusion

The dichotomy of alphas and betas may not be statistically verifiable, but it is a useful schema we can use. This is especially true if we're a beta and wish to become an alpha. I've always had a lot of alpha traits, but was raised in an environment that more or less required me to learn beta behaviors. It's taken awhile to learn to effectively play the alpha role, but it worth it. Being an alpha is a Hell of a lot more fun. ;-)

###