As Dan points out when he interviewed one such couple who 'Swing' regularly (a perfectly respectable 40-something Jewish couple with 2 sons, good jobs, a nice house, dog etc by the way):
"Rather than seeing their attraction to other people pull them away from each other, David and Bridget have made lust something they do together and share and, most important, control and police."
See where I'm going with this yet?
He quotes them as saying "we've been together for ten years, swinging for four. We're still clinging to each other and this feels like the most natural thing in the world".
He continues with a very interesting proposition (sorry if I'm using just Dan a lot here, it's just that I think this guy talks a lot of sense). That is that the scientific evidence against 'monogamy' being natural is just so vast that people would be stupid to pretend otherwise.
Evolutionary biologists even go so far as to say that sexually exclusive, lifelong commitments are just - well, unnatural in the grand scheme of things.
So it is in fact, only the Commandments or some highly opinionated 'virtuous' members of our society that have, down the years, dictated to us what we should - and shouldn't - think of as acceptable. And only foolish society would build 'marriages' on such rocky foundations.
Putting monogamy first - as the centre for all relationships, does in fact destabalise more marriages (and I use marriage here from both a straight and gay perspective) than it saves - period!
Telling people that you have to be monogamous in a relationship is setting them up for failure.
As Dan puts it - "we're wired to cheat".
We should not view non-monogamousy (is that a word? ;-)) as a serious wrong-doing but as a natural and understandable part of being who we are - and how you communicate and agree boundaries about this with each other is in fact far more important.
Now at this point I probably should expect a huge weight of opinion coming down on me saying what about the people who stay faithful to each other, what about the commitment between two people, what about the fact that being non-monogamous by its very nature means that you're not fully committed to the relationship you're in.
Well, and I agree totally with Dan here, I am not advocating that 'adultery' is acceptable.
What I am trying to say is that there's a right way and a wrong way.
Society should really get with it and realise that there are a multitude of different relationships out in the world right now and we should have more realistic attitudes about what does, or doesn't constitute a positive and healthy relationship.
Not everyone will want to, sure, but surely making the fact that it happens the main-stay of the reasons why people shouldn't be together is just down-right, out'n'out wrong.
Seeing as I've plagiarised Dan to death already (it's only because he's put into very concise terms something that I've been trying to express but haven't had the skills to do so), I'll plagiarise him a bit more to conclude with the following comments:
* People are already committing adultery. They're just committing it in a culture that tells them the desire to do so means their marriages (or partnerships) are a sham and tells them that not being together is the only answer.
* Allowing for outside sex under certain circumstances is not the same as allowing for outside sex under 'any and all' circumstances. Being non-monogamous is not the same thing as being out of control.
* How long will it be before we re-examine the size and the shape of the box that we put everyone into? Lust and human nature cannot be contained by the boxes we've ended up building for it.
* There should be a whole load more than just 'one' understanding that a loving and committed relationship can come to.
