Open Relationships or Just Slutty?

January

Open Relationships or Just Slutty?

By Claudia Maittlen-Harris

+comment

Recently I noticed that one of the choices of the facebook relationship status was “in an open relationship.” When facebook first started, its inclusion of a relationship status that read “it’s complicated” was brilliant. Someone could claim out loud for everyone to see that maybe they weren’t single, but they weren’t prepared to declare “in a relationship.” Could social media be on point with the modern complications of dating? It appeared so. Then facebook stayed on top of things with status’ such as “in a civil union” and “in a domestic partnership.” Once again, bravo facebook. But I think when I see someone selecting “in an open relationship” as their status, it seems like an attempt at edginess but instead gives a TMI feeling and seems, well, unnecessary.

I imagine being in an open relationship is probably fairly complicated – hence sticking to the original status seems wise. Also, being in an open relationship brings several things to mind. The couple could a) sleep with each other, yet hold out the option for sleeping with others, which kind of negates the term couple b) are actually married but allow their partners to sleep with other people – so maybe just keep the status to married, since anything else will make random grade school friends incredibly uncomfortable c) are trying to be edgy and controversial or d) use facebook as a dating platform and nothing sounds sexier to a guy that being “open.” However all of these options seem lame to me. If you aren’t committed to anyone, isn’t that being single? Am I the only one confused? I don’t want to be an old-lady curmudgeon, but what’s next as a relationship status “friends with benefits, ” “we’re texting” or “I was just confirmed as a friend to a cute guy on facebook.”

All in all, it seems like facebook allows people to stretch very tenuous definitions when the old standby of “single” is the most accurate. Also, wouldn’t listing yourself as single allow for more hookups if that’s what one wants? If the intent of being open is to have more sexual encounters, wouldn’t defining anything with anyone be counterproductive to that aim? When I complained about this, a guy friend said “It’s complicated doesn’t define the slam-piece/slammer relationship. Those are decidedly simple.” (I recently just learned what a slam piece was). So having an open relationship allows for more women to be a slam piece. I really don’t think this is progress. But I just start to wonder, where are we going with this? Is absolutely no commitment to anyone something to aspire to and/or announce to 500 of your “friends?”

It reminded me of my guy’s old co-worker. He worked with an older guy (50′s, divorced) who was a freelancer, so my guy only saw him randomly, at meetings. At one such meeting, the older guy walked in carrying the book, The Ethical Slut. Everyone else (except my guy) knew that this guy was in an open relationship with a much younger woman, and from waltzing around with the book, the older guy obviously wanted to keep that general knowledge open. According to The Ethical Slut – “If you’ve ever envisioned a universe beyond traditional lifetime monogamy, this is the book for you!” It is part guidebook, part testimonial, and advice of how to handle the “lifestyle” of polyamory – basically the opposite of monogomy.

While I’m glad this guy is living his life on his terms and is very upfront with the women he’s dating, I was also glad my guy found it all a little shocking and bizarre. I guess the old adage of whatever floats your boat works for this older guy and whomever he dates. He wasn’t being dishonest or hiding what he believed in, in fact he was advertising it. Maybe the “in an open relationship” status is the same way. It’s saying to anyone, be it a friend,a co-worker, family member, or potential date – just exactly where they stand. And to anyone interested in them, they’ve been warned. Maybe facebook is way ahead of the game, and I’m just stuck in my old judgemental ways. Or maybe people were in open relationships before, they just weren’t as open about their open status. But before you tread some murky open relationship waters, see Manslut.

Subscribe to Comments via RSS

The Zeros Field Guide

The Ambiguously Gay Guy

[conflictious sexualous or homus streisandticus]

A chameleon-like variety of man which causes confusion and frustration in prospective mates; this species tends toward cleanliness, vanity and an inexplicable love of footwear.

See: Ryan Seacrest

The Manslut

[masculus rakehellious]

A feral variety of the male species, known for copulating with a large variety of females. Indigenous to nightclubs, frat houses, and often found in close proximity to reflective surfaces, this nomad is frequently found in packs of other Mansluts. This animal uses its appearance and charms to lure its prey.

Synonyms: Gonorrhea Boy, Mario Lopez or Colin Farrell.

The Verbal Masturbator

[oralivis beat-offitum]

This species spends most of his time with others talking only about himself. Believing his every move is important and must be regaled, and do so, loudly and repeatedly, especially to the woman he believes so lucky to be his date. His unique hearing seems to only be able to discern accolades and the sound of his own voice above everything else.

The Dead Electrician

[disappearaveatum inexplicti]

A rare breed of males that after spending happy, fulfilling, seemingly normal times with a wonderful woman, disappears off the face of the earth and never calls again. Signs of dead electrician disappearing behavior come in coded messages such as ‘I’ll call you later,’ “Let’s make plans for this weekend,” or “I’ll call you Friday when I’m on my way over.”

The Cheapskate

[dutch-treaticus infinitum]

A variety of male that hordes its resources to the detriment of its mate.

The Mirage

[perfectus prevaricatum]

Projects the image of perfection, luring unsuspecting females to the parched dessert of disappointment and despair.

The Big Talker

[bullshitkus perfectus]

An intuitive form of chameleon, this breed can accurately access the needs of potential mates and will verbalize his intentions to meets these needs. He will meet none of these needs.

The “Nice” Guy

[politea blanditus or pleasantillum lacklustericium]

A common species of man that suffers from delusions of nicety as the reason of their inability to secure a mate. Have an inability to admit to their other characteristics such as needy, boring, insecure, socially awkward or bad in bed.

The Virtual Man

[texticus ad nauseus]

The species creates an impression of closeness called a Virtual Relationship through near constant indirect communication. This specifically modern species of man is known for poor grasp of spelling and grammar, and also known for expressing all feelings through emoticons. Anthropologists suspect this genus will, over time, develop engorged thumbs due to excessive texting and may die out do to no actual physical interactions.

The Little Friend

[minusculis shaftivitum]

A species known for their expensive modes of transport, they are endowed with a penis of inadequate size. While this alone does not make them an undesirable potential mate, it doesn’t help. Often this species will attempt to overcompensate their unfortunately small member with an unfortunately large ego.

The Jockstrap

[sporticus obssesum]

The specific male species so obsessed with a sport, their team, their fantasy football league, fantasy baseball league and sports center updates that they have little time for reproduction or even copulation. Experts recognize this species by the excess hot wing consumption and empty pizza boxes littering their female free abodes. Can often be heard from a distance yelling, screaming or cursing their beloved teams.

The Closeted Addict

[bacanalus coverti]

Known for his ability to ingest large amounts of questionable, and often illegal, substances, while giving little indication of this behavior.

The Zeros Before