Althouse: From an expert on "the etiquette of open marriages."

August 30, 2009

From an expert on "the etiquette of open marriages."

"'I'm a class act in infidelity. I was very clear with my husband from the outset that I would do as I saw fit for myself, and it has nothing to do with him – it's not a sign that he is inadequate in any way. I knew exactly what I was getting into marrying him and he's delightful, kind, supportive, a good husband, a wonderful father and a really nice man. I didn't expect him to be all those wonderful things and a sex god.' In fact, she says the curious thing is that her husband doesn't take lovers, even though she wouldn't mind. 'He isn't a very sexual person,' she explains. They've been 'very happily married' now for nearly 25 years."

45 comments:

ddh said...: People can come up with the most amazing rationalizations for bad, selfish behavior. Who are these people fooling besides themselves?; 8/30/09, 9:12 AM
Roger J. said...: whatever; 8/30/09, 9:12 AM
g2loq said...: You sleep with everybody they slept with ...; 8/30/09, 9:15 AM
Bissage said...: A good doormat is hard to find.; 8/30/09, 9:16 AM
Bissage said...: Glad they managed to work in the effect on children, there at the end.; 8/30/09, 9:18 AM
SteveR said...: "He broke the open rules,"

That's unpredictable!; 8/30/09, 9:32 AM
Ricardo said...: It doesn't surprise me that people "do" things that are a little, or a lot, outside the norms. It surprises me that they feel a neverending compulsion to vindicate themselves, by blabbing about it. But with the price of long-term therapy being as high as it is now-a-days, I guess this is actually a cost-effective way of finding self-justification.

WV: gulagnes. What you get when you spill Hershey's syrup in a bowling alley.; 8/30/09, 9:32 AM
Skipper50 said...: She wouldn't mind? Only if he doesn't actually do it. Aren't abstract values/principles wonderful things?; 8/30/09, 9:36 AM
BlogDog said...: Anyone who declares him or her self a "class act" (rather like any self-described "intellectual") is making a desperate attempt at self-definition that is at odds with the facts.
Sayeth BlogDog the self-described blogger.; 8/30/09, 9:46 AM
Fred4Pres said...: I take it the rule he broke was discretion. Sounds like fun on one hand, but a hell of a lot of work on the other.; 8/30/09, 10:06 AM
Tiny Jones, Come Home said...: Now Mr. Meade will have to watch himself or we will have a Sure Fire post from our Annie on "Don't Marry A Louse Like Me"!; 8/30/09, 10:42 AM
Chase said...: Is there something the newly married Ann is trying to tell us?; 8/30/09, 10:48 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: It amuses me that "alleged hair transplants" are on the same level as affairs.

Verification word: count

An actual word! Is it broken?; 8/30/09, 11:14 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: "My daughter took an interest in my mobile phone when she was 16 and saw text messages from him [her lover]. She was devastated. This was a child realising that what she'd seen all these years wasn't quite what she thought. I explained all of us have surface lives that are visible, and then we have private lives that are not visible and are not the subject of any one else's concern."

Motherhood fail.; 8/30/09, 11:37 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: "I explained that everyone is really a two-faced jerk, and she should mind her own business."

Edited for clarity.

At least the daughter also has a dad. I hope his profound life advice is better.; 8/30/09, 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Motherhood fail.

So it seems to me as well, but we may be out of touch with modernity.

At least the daughter also has a dad. I hope his profound life advice is better.

One can hope, but there is probably every reason to pessimistic about the prospect.; 8/30/09, 11:45 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Well, this feeds the stereotype that upper class people are decadent, greedy jerks, doesn't it?; 8/30/09, 11:47 AM
MamaM said...: Maria describes a "lovely life" bringing up the children, a "lovely time" with them on weekends, accompanied by "lovely meals", and "beautifully laundered" clothing for her husband.

That seems like a lot of loveliness and beauty for someone opposed to "– all that is really unrealistic."

WV sappress...to cover truth with loveliness; 8/30/09, 11:55 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Anyone else get the sense that if the wife found out the husband was cheating she'd freak out?; 8/30/09, 12:05 PM
Moose said...: Higher class version of Bill & Hillary...; 8/30/09, 12:10 PM
Roman said...: In my own simple way of looking at this: If you want an "open" marriage, Why bother getting married?; 8/30/09, 12:31 PM
Synova said...: In the only "open" marriage I've heard of, she finally divorced him, not because he was cheating (supposedly she was ok with that) but because she was tired of being ignored. He was out having a social life and she was home with kids and finally decided, you know what, this really sucks.; 8/30/09, 12:48 PM
Wince said...: God damn it, not another post about the Kennedys!

Does this story qualitfy as a "bodice-ripper."

WV "smathme" = Having to do with the "money shot"; 8/30/09, 1:10 PM
Roger J. said...: remind me not to f**k any italian politicians wives--I do wonder what their std rate is

wv sairois what you get when you screw italian politician's wives; 8/30/09, 1:26 PM
William said...: I've read a little about the Bloomsbury crowd. For such a group of sour intellectuals, they really had rabbity sex lives. I don't know as it made them any happier, but they kept plugging away at it. Virginia Woolf's love affair with Vita Sackville-West is the least prurient lesbo action of which I am acquainted.......We like to think that there is some perfect balance of sex and fidelity that will lead us to have happy, fulfilled lives. We also like to believe that there is some balanced diet of greens and bbq that will give us lean, healthy bodies. Such beliefs are harmless and should be widely encouraged.; 8/30/09, 1:41 PM
Joe said...: If a couple wants an open marriage and both fully consent, I have no problem with it. I'm skeptical they actually work since the tendency to create emotional attachments is so high that when the marriage hits a rough spot, the temptation and ability to bail would, I think, be irresistible.

On the other hand, there is ample historical evidence that people can have long term affairs without destroying their marriages. I suspect the key is discretion and to keep the mistress/lover just that and nothing more. (And making a marriage open would, it seems, make that much more difficult.); 8/30/09, 1:44 PM
Alex said...: The rule in an open marriage is you're not allowed to fall in love with your mistress. Right?; 8/30/09, 1:52 PM
Will Cate said...: Words mean things, dammit. To even call these relationships "marriages" denigrates the term.

Sometimes spouses stray. Sometimes they are forgiven; other times the marriage blows up completely as a consequence.

But don't call these relationships marriages. At best, they are arrangements of convenience.; 8/30/09, 2:28 PM
Methadras said...: Is she serious? She has numerous infidelities and yet, when he conducted himself in like manner in a way she didn't like, well then he broke the rules. I swear to God, I'll never understand women. EVER!!! They are a package of paradoxes, innuendos, intrigue, and mysteries that no knowledge on earth will ever understand. I can imagine even God saying, "You know what, sorry guys, I don't know what I did right there."; 8/30/09, 2:44 PM
Peter Hoh said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/30/09, 3:09 PM
MamaM said...: Yes! Methandras, only I imagine God saying the same thing twice!; 8/30/09, 3:09 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Will Cate, in the eyes of the law, "these things" are marriages.

When the religious right goes on about same-sex marriage changing the definition of marriage, I like to point out that straights have already redefined it.; 8/30/09, 3:12 PM
traditionalguy said...: The profound need for solitude in her husband may be the key to their continued successful relationship. He just does not want a socially active life while she enjoys hers. And neither one fears being rejected and financially wrecked by the other ones decisions. Very interesting. But then, he is missing out on a lot of fun out of his stubborn refusal to do the work to adjust and to better meet his and her needs. Like the Kennedys, the rich are not at all like you and me.; 8/30/09, 3:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Years ago when I traveled to Taiwan extensively on business it was expected that a successful man have a mistress. Indeed if he did not have one it would almost a loss of face. However the rules were very clear:

1- never be seen in public with the mistress, especially with by people who know the wife. Under no circumstances can the wife be subject to embarrassment.
2-no outside children or STD's.
3-home every day at a reasonable hour and on weekends spend time with the kids. The wife must be able to maintain the fiction that there is no affair indeed it is the desired goal that should not even be aware there is a mistress. Only the close circle of the boys at the club can know.
4-money is always left on the night stand by the bed after sex with the mistress. If she refuses to take the money the affair is to be ended immediately. Even if she loves him, she must take the money otherwise he must end it. As long as she takes the money she has no claim on him.
5-If the wife is publicly humiliated by the husband due to his having an affair, the punishment for the husband is to be left essentially penniless as she can never remarry (or at least in socially acceptable circles) and the money is her compensation.

It's been a while since I last been there, I wonder if those unwritten rules are still in effect. As for the woman in the article, she should know that discretion is the only way something like that can be made to work. So why openly comment on your marriage and embarrass your husband? She will find her herself divorced soon enough.; 8/30/09, 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Years ago when I traveled to Taiwan extensively on business it was expected that a successful man have a mistress. Indeed if he did not have one it would almost a loss of face. However the rules were very clear:

1- never be seen in public with the mistress, especially with by people who know the wife. Under no circumstances can the wife be subject to embarrassment.

2-no outside children or STD's.

3-home every day at a reasonable hour and on weekends spend time with the kids. The wife must be able to maintain the fiction that there is no affair indeed it is the desired goal that should not even be aware there is a mistress. Only the close circle of the boys at the club can know.

4-money is always left on the night stand by the bed after sex with the mistress. If she refuses to take the money the affair is to be ended immediately. Even if she loves him, she must take the money otherwise he must end it. As long as she takes the money she has no claim on him.

5-If the wife is publicly humiliated by the husband due to his having an affair, the punishment for the husband is to be left essentially penniless as she can never remarry (or at least in socially acceptable circles) and the money is her compensation.

It's been a while since I last been there, I wonder if those unwritten rules are still in effect. As for the woman in the article, she should know that discretion is the only way something like that can be made to work. So why openly comment on your marriage and embarrass your husband? She will find her herself divorced soon enough.; 8/30/09, 3:44 PM
Laura(southernxyl) said...: Methadras said...
Is she serious? She has numerous infidelities and yet, when he conducted himself in like manner in a way she didn't like, well then he broke the rules.

Are you saying that Veronica, Silvio's wife, has numerous infidelities? I didn't get that from the article. It's the self-described "expert" who says she has infidelities and she doesn't say her husband broke rules.

Also, you're using the woman who describes her unusual and socially-frowned-upon lifestyle to demonstrate how you don't understand "women" - do you not mean that you don't understand "women like that" which excludes those of us fine upstanding ladies who stand by our men?; 8/30/09, 4:16 PM
rhhardin said...: Rover would be a good dog name for them.; 8/30/09, 5:05 PM
Peter Hoh said...: cubanbob asked: So why openly comment on your marriage and embarrass your husband?

The article indicates that names were changed. I think it's fair to assume that "Maria Princeton" is not the real name of the woman who is extensively quoted.; 8/30/09, 5:09 PM
theobromophile said...: Now 20, her daughter has yet to have a boyfriend.

No surprise there. She probably has a hard time trusting men, given that her mother is such a louse.

Ditto Laura: most women are not like that. There's something unique about a long-term marriage, with someone you love, that just cannot be replicated with an open marriage, a long-term mistress, or a long-term girlfriend/boyfriend situation.; 8/30/09, 6:19 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Read about HG Wells' private life.; 8/30/09, 10:22 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy they have to be carried by three.

A line I vaguely remembered. I thought it was penned by Ambrose Bierce. Google tells me it's a line from a movie, A Scandal in Paris, that I am certain I have never seen.; 8/30/09, 11:30 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Bissage @9:16 for the win.; 8/30/09, 11:31 PM
Robert W. said...: Pretending that an Open Marriage is actually a "marriage" is like thinking that soy milk comes from a cow.; 8/31/09, 8:40 AM
kentuckyliz said...: Dad's valuable life to daughter:
1. don't be a hoor
2. don't fall in love with a hoor
3. don't marry a hoor
4. please follow this advice so my suffering has not been in vain

WV singsha
a geisha who can sing; 8/31/09, 9:48 PM
kentuckyliz said...: oops that's "life advice"; 8/31/09, 9:49 PM