This critical analysis focuses on whether open relationships are healthy. While Donald Dyson, assistant professor of human sexuality education at Widener University and the National co-chair of the conference for the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists claims yes, that there are essential qualities of a healthy relationship and that an open relationship can be successful. Stanley Kurtz, a writer and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center disputes the claim and contends that no open relationships are not healthy and can be damaging to the institution of marriage and will lead to same-sex marriage or plural marriages. (Hall, 2010, p. 248). Dyson and Kurtz both made some value points in their
He mentions that with any relationship good communication about intimacy needs, sexual desires and fantasies, and personal preferences, limitations, jealousy, attraction needs to be discussed. He also points out that while communication is the main key between the partners. They must also have honesty and trust in order to sustain a healthy relationship (Hall, 2010, p. 253).
Dyson and Kurtz strongly have different views on whether or not open relationships can be healthy or not. I think both have valid reasons for their arguments but are arguing different positions. While Dyson argues that open relationships can have a positive. Dyson’s argument focuses more on the impact of open relationships as self-contained to the individuals involved rather than assuming that such an arrangement will have a single, universal impact on all relationships. In contrast, Kurtz contends that any redefinition of marriage will be the start of a slippery slope that will ultimately affect everyone by causing the institution of marriage itself to disintegrate (Hall, 2010, p.
He more a less pointed out from one case how a couple bringing in a third person by cohabitation resulted in homosexuality. The wife could have been bi-sexual before bringing in the third person into their marriage. Kurtz was a little bias and his perception of homosexuality was more the reason why he believes open relationships to be unhealthy. Dyson mentions each open relationship would be different, it is up to the couple to decide how open their relationship will be with others they bring into the marriage, and they will decide together if they will have same-sex partners. Having honest communication and trusting your spouse or partner is how an open relationship can be a healthy relationship. In conclusion, with the divorce rates rising more people need to be honest with their spouses and communicate within their relationships. Open relationships straight or same-sex maybe healthy, but if there are problems in the marriage; those problems need to be addressed before agreeing to have an open
It is not all about communication” . It says that not surprisingly those couples who reported communicating more effectively showed the highest satisfaction with their relationships. But the next two reasons which were also the only other ones with strong links to couple happiness, were knowledge of partner which included everything from knowing their pizza-topping preferences to their hopes and dreams and life skills like being able to hold a job, manage money, etc . But in order to have a healthy relationship I do believe that the communication is key but they also do need to know how to communicate in a healthy way that will not cause
In present society, any man who loves another man is labeled a homosexual. If a man is not a homosexual, then he is not allowed to display any form of affection for another male. If a man does go beyond the boundaries of showing affection for another man, that man runs the risk of being labeled a homosexual. However, there are those who see the error of this and want to change this societal viewpoint. Two examples of individuals who have strikingly similar views on this issue believe that there can be a balance between homosexuality and heterosexual male bonding. In relation to this balance, the term “homosocial” describes bonds between persons of the same sex. Even though these two individuals come from completely different ends of the spectrum, they both agree that “homosocial desire” allows desire between two men to exist in a form that incorporates love between men without sexual attraction. Writer Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and film director Kevin Smith both display through different types of media that homosocial activity can evolve from male bonding to exist in the same range as homosexuality.
As times have progressed, we have seen a tremendous growth in the acceptance of many different relationships such as gay, lesbian, and transgendered. But to some, relationships out of the “ordinary” to them should not be allowed to happen. Although some places and people have now accepted gay marriage, there are also those who prohibit two men, two women, and so on and so forth, to get married. In an anarch...
Monogamy is a cultural norm that dominates many modern societies, and when individuals engage in monogamous relationships, they are unconsciously conforming to historical and cultural legacies of what is perceived as love that predate their illusions of personal agency. Although anthropological records indicate that 85% of human societies have tended towards polygamy (Henrich, Boyd and Richerson 2012), the modern culture of monogamy has rapidly risen and spread in the past millennium (Senthilingam 2016). This demonstrates how an individual’s conception of a heterosexual relationship as normatively monogamous has been constructed by social forces. In addition, social forces in the form of state legislation also perpetuate and reinforce an individual’s conception of what a romantic relationship should entail. Monogamous heterosexual marriage remains to be the only form of marriage with legal recognition in many countries. An individual’s belief that a romantic relationship should culminate in marriage is hence not formed through independent thought, but rather through what is considered normative by law. Essentially, “marriage is not an instinct but an institution.” (Berger 1963, 88) because it is enabled and promoted by virtue of the law. In addition, many couples believe in
It is tempting to believe that when couples say that they are “in love,” they view their love in the same way –that they have successfully “defined their relationship.” Love after all, is the only legitimate reason for marriage in western society and one should at least be on the same page before entering into a perpetual union (Henslin 468). Sociologists like to say that romantic love is composed of two components: sexual attraction (a biological response) and idealization of the other (a societal created response that promotes a bond between two individuals) (Henslin 468). However this is a very simple definition of love because it turns out that romantic love is in the eye of the beholder. Researchers of heterosexual love have ...
Cohabitants with children might avoid marriage because they are afraid of hurting the children; they want to diminish the prospect of getting hurt. Lewis believes that the decline in the male breadwinner model, and the increase in women’s employment, together with the change in family law are what cause the temporary coupledom. Dench and Lewis hold the same sentiments in this case. Both Dench and Lewis believe that women’s participation in the economy, them wanting more independence (individualism), and the decline of the male breadwinner model are the main causes of marriages that do not last. Having said all that, as mentioned before, family is still central to most people (Scott 1997). Beck & Beck-Gernsheim have stated, “when discussing the future of “the” family, people often start out from false premises. They compare the familiar pattern father-mother-child with a vague notion of “no family,” or assume that another kind of family is replacing the nuclear one. It is much more likely … that instead of one kind replacing the other there will be a huge variety of ways of living together or apart, which will continue to exist, side by side.” Lewis holds the same view that of having democratic intimate relationships, and not just a conventional version of
Marriage Ideals and Ideas Marriage has many has definitions and what William Bennett thinks will destroy the sanctity of marriage has been keeping it alive for centuries. Between William Bennett’s essay “Against Gay Marriage” and Stephanie Coontz “The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love” their ideas of marriage are very different; from fidelity, to same sex couples there is no correct way to be married. The conservativeness of Bennett’s ideals of marriage are simple, between a man and a woman, and completely monogamous; something he claims gay couples cannot commit too. A claim from Bennett is that, “[marriage’s] essential idea is fidelity”(272) and with “a homosexual marriage… a greater need for ‘extramarital outlets’”(272). Bennett however seems to be uneducated in the fact that hererosexual couples do not always fit in those categories for example Coontz, who has researched
... analysis from another article from the reader, “Beyond Marriage: Democracy, Equality, and Kinship for a New Era” in regards to this sub claim, at least for comparison purposes because the article does have a focus on the LGBTQ community, but her intentions with investigating new ways to achieve true equality is similar to what I believe should be considered for marriage as a whole.
Yarber, William L., and Barbara J. Sayad. Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2013. Print.
Marriage & Family: The Quest for Intimacy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Wiederman, Michael. A. 1997. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Second "Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey. " Journal of Sexual Research, Volume 34 (issue 2), 167-174.
Human beings are not isolated individuals. We do not wander through a landscape of trees and dunes alone, reveling in our own thoughts. Rather, we need relationships with other human beings to give us a sense of support and guidance. We are social beings, who need talk and company almost as much as we need food and sleep. We need others so much, that we have developed a custom that will insure company: marriage. Marriage assures each of us of company and association, even if it is not always positive and helpful. Unfortunately, the great majority of marriages are not paragons of support. Instead, they hold danger and barbs for both members. Only the best marriages improve both partners. So when we look at all three of Janie’s marriages, only her marriage to Teacake shows the support, guidance, and love.
The importance placed on fidelity has probably never been higher than it is today. In Stephanie Coontz’s essay, “Five Myths about Marriage,” she states that according to a 2010 Gallup Poll that only 23% of Americans believe that divorce is morally wrong, while 92% believe it is immoral for married men and women to have an affair. Mary Malone, a married high school teacher says, “Based on my own life experiences, I can name several examples in which a couple, with and without children, divorced instead of having an affair and hiding it from one of the spouses. They filed for a non-contest divorce to acknowledge that the fidelity piece of the vows could no longer be upheld” (M. Malone, personal communication, January 16,
Same-sex couples are not the only couples changing. Heterosexual marriages are undergoing large transformations due to gender roles and expectations. In 1981, 90% of women by the age of 50 were involved in a marriage (Canadian Social Trends, 2007). What is more astonishing is, in 1981, 1 out of 1000 marriages ended in divorce and in 2006 the census recorded out of 1000 marriages 120 resulted in divorce (Canadian S...
Ranging from TV shows such as ‘How I met your mother’ to the colloquial vocabulary, looking for one’s other half is a concept known to all. Each and every one, as Aristophanes says, looks for a soulmate to feel and complete and show love and compassion towards. The normalcy surrounding homosexual relationships has also gained prevalence today in certain parts of the world and are completely normal, which is in contrast to a darker world where Aristophanes’ speech fails to hold ground and a cloud of unacceptability shrouds over homosexuality. Another phenomenon that is accepted today is having sex for satisfaction and not only for
Open marriages are a form of relationship first truly brought into the public eye by Alfred Kinsey in the 1960s. Since then, the idea of approved extra-martial affairs have continued to be popularized, despite the uneducated critics hollering about it being an insult to the institution of marriage, or a way to justify cheating on one’s significant other. As open marriages start to become a more feasible option for couples looking to explore their sexuality, a common question always seems to come up; this question, in fact, will be the purpose of the following text. Using examples from the 2004 biographical film Kinsey, directed by Bill Condon and produced by Gail Mutrux, while integrating discussion from Tristan Taormino and her book Opening