“Ever since then we have felt free to go our separate ways. For Gordon this has meant pickups in gay bars, casual sex in Turkish baths, nothing that demands any involvement. This was the kind of sex he felt most comfortable with before we were married. For me it has meant an occasional one-night stand and one long relationship with a girl I had known but not had sex with before my marriage. There was an awkward situation several months ago when she wanted me to leave Gordon and live with her. I was already pregnant with Gordon’s child, and it was her dream that I would live with her and we would raise the child together. I made it clear that my first loyalty was to Gordon, and she backed off and accepted me on my own terms, but I expect she and I will break things off before much longer, as I have never felt as comfortable with her since that time.”
JWW: As more people come to regard conventional marriage as potentially stifling to the individual, one can only assume that more and more marriages will grow increasingly permissive. Relationships in any society inevitably evolve to better suit the needs of the participants. There is no reason why the institution of marriage should be exceptional in this regard. Simplistic as it is to assert that the nuclear family is utterly outmoded, that marriage will not endure for more than another generation, I find it quite as unrealistic to expect that the nature of marriage will be utterly uninfluenced by the extraordinary changes in our ways of life.
Will the whole concept of sexual fidelity vanish in short order? I rather doubt it, although I suspect a great many people will attach substantially less importance to it than has been the rule in the past. I doubt, too, that the double standard will die out entirely, but recognize at the same time that its distinctions will continue to fade and blur.
The mutually permissive marriage has many aspects beyond the condoning of adultery, as we have seen. Most of the examples we have dealt with have concerned sexual behavior as a function of the permissive marriage, perhaps largely because it is the most clear-cut indicator of attitudinal changes. That a woman escapes the confines of the kitchen, or holds a job, or participates in activities of her own, is a less vivid example of freedom within marriage (and far less a violation of social mores) than that she spends time alone with other men, and has sex with some of them.
Additionally, the specifically sexual aspects of the permissive marriage have given rise to a concept which represents a very new style in love and marriage — i.e., that it is possible to be emotionally involved with, even to love, more than one person at a time. The permissive marriage facilitates the expression of multiple love within the social structure of monogamy. The marital life styles we will examine in the next few chapters extend the concept of love for more than a single partner to the point where monogamy is eliminated and multiple marriage of one sort or another replaces it. In such relationships, one does not merely have sexual relations with more than one partner (as in swinging) or have meaningful emotional relationships with more than one partner (as in some permissive marriages). In addition, one relates to several partners equally with the intention of maintaining such multiple relationships on a permanent basis.
Side by Side by Side
The term “group marriage” is generally used to denote a marital relationship (in fact if not in law) of more than two persons. One can further assume that both sexes are represented; I have never heard the term applied to a group exclusively male or female.
In this sense, a threesome, or ménage à trois, composed either of two women and a man or of two men and a woman would be considered a group marriage. I think it is worthwhile, though, to consider such unions separately. The differences between threesomes and all numerically larger plural marriages seem to be sufficiently great enough to constitute generic differences. Since it may be difficult to determine the reasons why this is so, perhaps we should first learn how it is so.
First of all, a threesome is considerably more likely to evolve spontaneously. Plural marriages of more than three persons are often consciously planned and arranged, with the concept of such a relationship preceding the actual selection of partners. A philosophical commitment to the idea of the group marriage comes first, to be followed by the actual selection of members for the group.
Threesomes may also be formed in this manner, of course. It is not uncommon for a husband and wife to come to the decision that their lives together would be enriched by the addition of a third person, whether male or female, to the family circle. This sort of decision in advance of specific opportunity has been happening more widely in recent years, as more persons are intellectually aware of the possibilities of experimentation in marital structure.
But many threesomes, like Topsy, just grow. A third person is gradually drawn into the sphere of a marriage, becoming at once a friend of one partner and a lover of the other. The extramarital relationship is either confessed or discovered, it serves not to force the three principals apart but in fact draws them together, and the three ultimately come to regard themselves as husband and wives — or husbands and wife, as the case may be.
The manner in which threesomes come into existence, and the sundry psychological aspects that render them particularly attractive, are largely outside our area of concern here. We might more profitably try to learn what forms these troilistic relationships take once they have been established as presumably permanent alliances.
It is as tiresome as it is awkward to keep referring the reader to one’s other books, but it would be unrealistic to display sudden symptoms of false modesty. I have examined the subject of troilism at length in Three Is Not a Crowd, and would urge readers who are particularly interested in the evolution of threesomes to consult that work. The book consists of interviews in depth with three permanent trios and one couple who have participated extensively in temporary threesomes and are actively seeking a partner for a permanent relationship. While we will consider these cases briefly in the pages to follow, the book renders them in far more scope than we have room for here.
Another difference between the threesome and the group marriage lies in the sort of people who become involved. Group marriage, as we will see, appeals for the most part to a rather well-defined class of the population. Threesomes, on the other hand, are apt to occur in virtually any stratum of society, among educated and uneducated, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, innocent and sophisticated, urban and rural.
It is important, I think, that we distinguish clearly between permanent threesomes that constitute de facto marriages and the temporary threesomes that exist for purposes of sexual recreation. This latter class is infinitely more numerous, and a cursory glance at any of the correspondence bulletins of the sexual underground reveals that an astonishing proportion of the singles and couples advertising therein are seeking such three-way alliances as either a preferred or an exclusive form of swinging. An overwhelming majority seek triangles of two women and a man, but one also finds a good number of ads placed by single men desiring to join couples and by couples looking for an additional man.