Laura: There's a silent epidemic in relationships. Depending on the study you read, up to half of all people in long-term 'monogamous' relationships will be unfaithful. The authors of the book we're discussing today would argue the problem isn't a lack of love—it's a lack of design. Sophia: Wow, that's a bleak statistic to start with. A 50% failure rate for the one thing society holds up as the ultimate goal. It sounds less like an epidemic and more like a fundamental design flaw in the system itself. Laura: That is precisely the argument. Today we’re diving into a book that tackles this head-on: Designer Relationships: A Guide to Happy Monogamy, Positive Polyamory, and Optimistic Open Relationships by Mark A. Michaels and Patricia Johnson. Sophia: And what's fascinating is the authors aren't your typical academics. They're a married couple who have been teaching Tantra for decades. One has a background in law, the other was an opera singer. They bring this really unique, practical-meets-spiritual lens to the whole topic. Laura: Exactly. They aren't just theorizing from an ivory tower; they're practitioners. And their core argument starts by questioning the very foundation of modern relationships, the thing we all take for granted.

Sophia: Which is monogamy itself, right? The idea that it's the natural, default setting for humans. Laura: Precisely. They kick things off with a quote that really stopped me in my tracks: "Despite widespread endorsement of monogamy as the ideal type of romantic relationship, the construct of monogamy lacks a consistent definition." Sophia: Hold on, what does that even mean, it 'lacks a definition'? It seems pretty straightforward: one partner. That's it. Laura: That's what we assume! But the authors break it down. Are we talking about sexual monogamy, meaning you only have sex with one person? Or emotional monogamy, where you only share deep intimacy with one person? What about social monogamy—presenting as a couple to the world? Or practical monogamy, like sharing finances and a home? For most people, these things are all bundled together without a single conversation. Sophia: Huh. Now that you mention it, I’ve never actually defined that with a partner. You just kind of… fall into it. It's the cultural script. The book has a great term for this, doesn't it? Laura: They do. They call it "mononormativity." It's the pervasive assumption that all people are, or should be, monogamous. It’s treated as the default operating system for relationships. Sophia: Okay, but are they saying monogamy is inherently flawed? Or just that we're defining it poorly? Because it feels like they're setting it up to fail just to make a point. Laura: That's the key question. Their argument is that the problem lies in it being an unconscious default rather than a conscious choice. When you don't define the terms, people create their own definitions, and that’s where the trouble starts. The data backs this up. Beyond the infidelity stats, some research suggests 15 to 20 percent of marriages are effectively 'sexless.' People are staying in the structure, but the vitality is gone. Sophia: Ah, so it's like everyone is handed the same software package for their relationships, but nobody reads the terms and conditions. And for a lot of people, the software keeps crashing because it was never designed for their actual hardware, for their real needs. Laura: That is the perfect analogy. And society's response is to blame the users for the crashes—calling them failures, cheaters, or broken—instead of questioning the faulty, one-size-fits-all software. Sophia: So the problem isn't necessarily monogamy itself, but compulsory monogamy. The idea that you must use this software, and if it doesn't work, you're the one who's defective. Laura: You've got it. The authors are advocating for choice. They believe a consciously chosen, well-defined monogamous relationship can be incredibly beautiful and fulfilling. But it has to be a choice, not an assumption.

Sophia: Okay, so if the pre-installed software is buggy, what's the alternative? Do we just write our own code from scratch? That sounds… exhausting. Laura: It can be, but it's also incredibly empowering. This brings us to their central concept, the 'Designer Relationship.' They have this fantastic line: "You are the designer, along with your partner or partners, and it’s up to you to create a relationship that works and to redesign it when and if appropriate." Sophia: I like that. It flips the script from being a passive consumer of a relationship model to an active architect. It’s less like buying a pre-fab house and more like hiring a team to build a custom home. You choose the layout, the materials, the windows, everything. Laura: Exactly. And there's a powerful story in the book that illustrates this perfectly. It's about a man named Kenneth Haslam, and his story was actually one of the inspirations for the book. Sophia: Oh, I'm curious. Tell me about him. Laura: Kenneth was born in the mid-1930s, a very conservative time. The only acceptable life path was to marry a virgin, have kids, and live a quiet, monogamous life in the suburbs. That model was supposed to meet every single one of your needs for your entire life. Sophia: The classic American Dream package deal. No substitutions allowed. Laura: None. And Kenneth tried. He really tried. He went through two marriages and several other long-term relationships, and they all ended. He came to see himself as a 'failed serial monogamist.' He felt fundamentally broken, like he was incapable of succeeding at the one thing that was supposed to define a man's life. Sophia: Wow, to go through life feeling like you're fundamentally failing at something so important... that's heartbreaking. You can just imagine the weight of that shame. Laura: For decades. But then, in the mid-1990s, something changed. He bought a modem. He went online and, for the first time, discovered the polyamory community. Sophia: Whoa. It must have been like discovering a new continent. Laura: It was. He found people talking openly about having loving, sexual, and ethical relationships with multiple people. They had different structures, different rules, but the guiding principles were honesty and communication. He realized he wasn't a 'failed monogamist'; he was a perfectly normal person who was simply not suited for compulsory monogamy. The blueprint was wrong for him, not the other way around. Sophia: That gives me chills. He wasn't a failure; he was just trying to build a skyscraper with the blueprints for a bungalow. He finally found the right architectural plans for his life. Laura: And he became a huge activist, even helping establish a historical collection on polyamory at the Kinsey Institute. He found peace because he was finally able to design a life that fit him, instead of trying to contort himself to fit a life that didn't. Sophia: That's an amazing story. But for people who aren't looking for polyamory, what does 'designing' a relationship actually look like in practice? Is it a literal contract? 'You take out the trash on Tuesdays, and I agree not to get mad when you watch six hours of football on Sunday'? Laura: It can be that practical if you want! But it's much deeper. It's about having explicit, conscious conversations about your expectations. For a monogamous couple, it might be defining what counts as a 'micro-cheating' or what level of emotional intimacy with others feels comfortable. For a 'monogamish' couple, it might be agreeing they can explore sexually outside the relationship, but only together at specific events. Sophia: So it's really about replacing assumptions with agreements. Laura: That's the entire philosophy. It's about building a foundation of trust through radical honesty. And it's not a one-time conversation. The 're-design' part is just as important. You can revisit the blueprint whenever you need to, as your lives change. Sophia: This all sounds very empowering. But I have seen some criticism that the book's language can be a bit 'couple-centric.' How does this 'designer' framework apply to people in, say, a network of three or more, or someone who identifies as solo-poly and doesn't have a primary partner? Laura: That's a fantastic point and a valid critique some readers have. The authors do often use language that centers a dyad, a couple. However, the core principles are universal and can absolutely be scaled. The framework's essential skills—self-knowledge, profound interest in your partners, empathy, kindness, clear communication—are even more critical in more complex relationship structures. The key is that everyone involved must be an equal architect in the design process. It’s not about a primary pair dictating terms to others, but about a collective building a structure that works for all.

Laura: Ultimately, the book's message isn't 'non-monogamy is better than monogamy.' It's that conscious relationships are better than unconscious ones. The real revolution here is moving from assumption to agreement. Sophia: So the most radical act isn't necessarily choosing a different relationship style, but simply having the conversation in the first place. To actually sit down with your partner, or partners, and ask: 'What are we building together? What does the blueprint look like? And are we all happy with the design?' Laura: That's it. It’s about taking full ownership of your love life. The authors even quote the musician Lou Reed to drive this home, saying, "No kinds of love are better than others." Sophia: I love that. It’s not about a hierarchy of relationships. It’s about finding what's authentic, ethical, and joyful for you and the people you love. It’s about leading with kindness and respect, no matter the shape of the relationship. Laura: A perfect summary. It’s a call to be brave, to be honest, and to be the architect of your own happiness. Sophia: That's a powerful place to end. It makes me curious what our listeners think. Have you ever felt the need to 'redesign' your relationship, or have you had one of these conversations? Let us know your thoughts on our socials. We'd love to hear your stories. Laura: This is Aibrary, signing off.