I am a co-founder of Anakosha, which supports responsible non-monogamy and is on the cusp between polyamory and swinging: we relate to each other as whole human beings with consideration and caring, but we also support committed couplehood as the "home base" for all polyamorous explorations. We call this "social polyamory". A great many swingers, most of them, in fact, fit comfortably into this concept, as do many polyamorists. In fact, originally, the word "polyamory" meant responsible non-monogamy of any kind, though it has been largely monopolized by the multiple-commitment end of the spectrum.

There is indeed a continuum of non-monogamous philosophy ranging from a pure sex focus and indifference to one's sexual partners beyond the sex act, at one extreme, and polyfidelity, group marriage, at the other. We think the overwhelming majority of participants in responsible non-monogamy (those who are considerate of others and behave ethically, at the very least in Golden Rule terms) prefer a primary commitment to one other person.

In fact, that preference has been scientifically documented as being true for human beings generally. Overwhelmingly, most human beings prefer a single, deep, romantic, sexual bond.

But science has also shown something else: human beings are not by nature sexually monogamous. And even where adultery is punishable by death, it happens on a regular basis. Depending on whose statistics you like (I'll take Kinsey's), some two-thirds of American marriages experience adultery. We just gotta have it.

Does this mean there is a tragic conflict in human nature that dooms us all to lives of choosing between sexual frustration and cheating?

Of course not. The answer is a model which celebrates and honors the primary relationship while opening the couple's circle of sexual intimacy from two to something else. And it works just fine. It works best when the other partners are friends of both the primaries, and the consensual sex takes place, not necessarily in the same room, but under the same roof.

But we're not talking about just an accommodation to human sex drive. It turns out that a comfortable polyamorous lifestyle is greatly joyful and positive for primary relationships, and defuses a great deal of frustration that is destructive of marriage.

Strict monogamists believe they are the solid mainstream of society. But science, and lots of positive experience with responsible non-monogamy, tell us that the mainstream, in terms of the reality of human nature, is with us non-monogamists. It's the "straight" people who are bent. They have imposed artificial strictures on their behavior that is causing misery for millions on a daily basis.

In reading the other comments to this article, I am seeing typical concerns and fears, and there are sensible, pragmatic answers to all of them. You do have to inquire to learn about them, though.

The ethical code of social polyamory is not complex. It's how nice people behave: honestly, considerately, unselfishly, generously. And that produces a safe, happy environment.

And all this produces a deeply satisfying relationship with cherished friends. All you straight people love your friends, admit it. Well, we love ours too. Just because we boink their brains out it doesn't mean we want to move in with them and share their bank accounts -- EEEeew! But we love them nonetheless, have immense fun with them, and they enrich our lives hugely.

And what the straight world has designed -- or perhaps allowed as a result of extreme jealousy and objectifying sex as their societies became more powerful -- as a perpetual, primal conflict of emotions, between commitment to one's primary partner and sexual desire for others, is for us a distortion, not to say perversion, of the joyful, simple realities of human nature.

What they see as conflict we see as two parallel drives which lead us to paradise.

The full quote from Pope's famous epigram is, "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer." Barlett's statement is clearly assent, and for that he deserves some faint praise himself.

A damning comment would be like this: "Well, it is true that President Bush has subverted the Constitution, authorized war crimes and corrupted the Justice Department, but he really did mean well." The statement must be redolent of damnation, otherwise it does not, you known, damn.

And damnation is indeed what the situation requires.

Joe (The Bloviator) Biden is a fathead, always has been a fathead, always will be a fathead. That's why he can't raise money and can't get anybody to vote for him except other fatheads. Worse, he is a Beltway fathead, which means he sells out important principles faster than other fatheads, and when the conventional wisdom swings away from him, he dances over to the new place and trusts in public amnesia not to recognize what he's doing. His policy expertise is based on magazine articles, and the only thing he has mastered is posing as knowledgeable for an audience of other fatheads. His true expertise is getting re-elected and promoting himself in Washington, though even his dinner party hosts know the only reason he's being invited is his seniority. He is Senator Jack S. Phogbound (from "L'il Abner") with a Delaware accent. His only contribution is to occasionally vote right in the Senate, and to set a benchmark for dubious propositions, such that everyone else can say, Well, we know one thing, we don't want to do THAT.

Why should any rational person accept the extreme detail of these deeply romantic "emotional affairs" which were concealed and lied about for umpteen years and at the same time believe she did NOT boink the guy silly every chance she got?

Either this gal is deeply neurotic and needs that kind of therapy, or she is by nature polyamorous, in which case a discussion along those lines needs to be had. Clearly traditional marriage is not for her. The question is, can there be some adaptations which will make the husband happy?