My first wife and I explored non-monogamy. Back in 2006 people thought it was bizarre.

• Amy Schneider is an American package technologist and nan astir successful female ever to compete connected "Jeopardy!"
• This is an adapted excerpt from her memoir "In nan Form of a Question."
• "In nan Form of a Question" explores Schneider's travel of leaning into curiosity arsenic she explores galore areas of life.

I met Kelly successful 2004, and it was quickly evident to some of america that we were going to get married. Around Christmas, Kelly said, "Don't propose until aft I postgraduate successful May!" If she hadn't, I'd astir apt person projected by New Year's Eve, and she would person said yes, because we knew we were going to walk nan remainder of our lives together. We besides knew already successful those first fewer months together that we didn't want to beryllium monogamous.

For one, we still had truthful overmuch of our lives to live. I was 25, and she turned 22, 12 days aft we met. And while she'd had a spot of sexual experience, I had nary whatsoever. I'd ne'er moreover been kissed. She was my first for fundamentally everything, and while I had nary uncertainty that I wanted to wed her, I couldn't thief recognize that marrying her was expected to mean that she would beryllium my past arsenic well. I was expected to committedness that I would spell to my sedate without ever knowing what activity was for illustration pinch anyone other but her. And that made maine uncomfortable.

Not miserable, thing that wasn't dwarfed by really happy I was to beryllium pinch her, conscionable a small uncomfortable.

We some grew up successful a civilization that stigmatized sexuality

One of nan things that brought america together was our shared trauma from being raised successful a civilization that didn't conscionable condemn sexuality but fundamentally denied that intersexual pleasance existed.

With each other, we'd yet recovered personification to whom we could safely admit that, actually, we benignant of liked having orgasms and each nan various activities that tended to nutrient them. It was specified a alleviation to beryllium capable to opportunity that. To beryllium capable to talk astir nan truth that sometimes we sewage horny, that we masturbated and fantasized and lusted and envied, that what we fantasized astir was not nan Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and that our orgasms didn't look to person thing whatsoever to do pinch Christ's love. With each other, we could talk astir our existent fantasies, whether they were sanctioned by nan Council of Trent aliases whatever.

Another of nan superior ways we connected was done our fascination pinch popular culture, truthful inevitably, we sewage astir to sharing which celebrities we fantasized about. And we quickly realized something: if either of america ever sewage nan chance to enactment connected our fantasies, if Kelly had an existent opportunity to person activity pinch Jude Law, aliases I had an existent opportunity to person activity pinch Justine Henin-Hardenne, past not only would nan different spouse beryllium OK pinch it, they would beryllium genuinely happy. We loved each other. If our partner was capable to fulfill 1 of their dreams, why would we do thing isolated from cheer them on?

And then, of course, not each of our crushes were celebrities, and we weren't going to dishonesty astir that, either. Obviously, we had crushes connected group we knew successful existent life, group who mightiness return our liking successful friendly beingness interaction, dissimilar Justine Henin-Hardenne. So why should we effort to forestall that from happening? Everybody says it would beryllium bad, but everybody besides said it would beryllium bad to person premarital sex, and premarital activity was fucking amazing. So, why not conscionable fto each different person sex pinch different people? Even group who weren't successful The Talented Mr. Ripley?

When I asked myself that question, I couldn't find immoderate downside. It conscionable seemed for illustration different facet of nan mobility to which cipher ever seemed to person a satisfying answer: Why is location this typical class for behaviour involving genitals?

Sex pinch personification other wasn't a dealbreaker for us

Having activity beryllium nan dividing statement betwixt OK and not OK seemed truthful random. Why should it beryllium unbearable if Kelly sewage drunk and hooked up pinch personification charismatic astatine a party? Whereas, if she was spending each of her clip pinch that different person, prioritizing them complete me, keeping them concealed from me, but ne'er having activity pinch them, that's not cheating? If she creates a floor plan connected OkCupid and puts "Looking for my adjacent husband" successful her bio, that's expected to fuss maine little than if she went connected a activity travel and hooked up pinch a coworker 1 night? Doing that wouldn't mean she wanted to time off me. I knew that for a fact, because I could ideate myself having activity pinch each kinds of different people, and successful nary of those fantasies did I want my narration pinch Kelly to end.

So, since we didn't spot a constituent successful being monogamous, we decided not to be. In nan Bay Area successful 2023, that's not hugely shocking, but successful Cincinnati successful 2006, group thought it was bizarre. We didn't show galore group astir it, but we didn't hide it, either, and moreover our friends were skeptical. Which was baffling to us, but then, we were utilized to being lonely geniuses, misunderstood by those who were beneath us.

Excerpted from In nan Form of a Question by Amy Schneider. Copyright 2024 and Avid Reader Press. Published by Simon & Schuster.