euphemisms for modern marriage.

George Orwell warned against the use of euphemisms nearly 75 years ago, when he wrote that obfuscatory political language is designed “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” Although many euphemisms are misleading, some may be necessary in their offering of a kinder, gentler way to present the truth; others may present the truth in ways that maximize the public’s acceptance of it. Vicki Larson, a writer for The Guardian, suggests that “platonic parenting” might not just be a term to make a nontraditional marriage justifiable and infidelity respectable, but could be the new way of dealing with what happens when a couple realizes (or finally admits) that their romantic relationship is either a) not worth saving, b) too much trouble to save, or c) impossible to rekindle due to any number of factors, not the least of which is the revelation of one partner’s same-sex attraction, attraction to someone outside the marriage, or lack of attraction to his or her spouse. What Larson fails to consider is how a couple might deal with a relationship that is for all intents and purposes, a good relationship (not without its problems, of course), that has grown in somewhat different directions. What happens when two people love each other, and it’s still not enough–not enough to stay monogamous, and not enough to end things?

The author of The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists, and Rebels presents an option that the general public might, just might, be ready to support and accept. “Reshaping marriage” is easier to swallow than “polyamorous marriage” or “open marriage,” just as “conscious uncoupling” makes divorce sound like a positive and celebratory choice for two people who can no longer live together amicably. The problem with Larson’s categories, however, is that they seem to accept that people can (or should) give up on love in favor of other ideals: safety, comfort, financial security, support for raising kids, companionship. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, society still only wants to believe the marriage plot goes one of two ways: two people meet, fall in love, move in together, get married, have children, and live happily ever after, or two people meet, fall in love, get married, have children, realize that one or both spouses are unhappy in the marriage, and after infidelity or counseling or both, eventually divorce. Although this manuscript has been updated for the modern day in that it now includes a variety of types of couples, the paths they are allowed to walk are still paved with cobblestones.

Because even though the world may be ready to accept gay marriage, the world isn’t quite ready for open marriage. Society would rather not talk about the rampant infidelity that has been occurring since marriage was a financial and political contract than talk about responsible non-monogamy. And yet, polyamory is a growing subculture: just read Franklin Veaux’s More Than Two or Dossie Easton’s The Ethical Slut. Making a commitment to one person doesn’t necessarily exclude commitments to others; in fact, as Veaux and Easton point out, multiplying the number of relationships a person cultivates has the potential for helping all of the relationships grow. Jenny Block writes frankly about her decision to open her marriage in her memoir, Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage, and Tristan Taormino’s Opening Up provides practical advice on how to navigate and negotiate open relationships. The information is out there, but most people aren’t ready for it.