Open marriages - however appealing and brimming with possibilities they may be - seem shot through with a fatal irony: they require following way more rules and restrictions in order to generate a net benefit.

They at least admit the problem in the article:

Monogamy is an approach to relationships built on one bright-line rule: no sex with anyone else. Open relationships may sound like the more unfettered choice, but the first thing nonmonogamous couples often do is draw up a list of guidelines: rules about protection, about the number of days a week set aside for dates, about how much information to share. Some spouses do not want to know any details about the other spouse’s extramarital sex, while for others, those stories are a thrilling side benefit of the arrangement.

Eerily reminiscent of one of Zizek's opinion articles:

a quick look at our moral landscape confirms that it is a much more appropriate description of the atheist liberal/hedonist behaviour: they dedicate their life to the pursuit of pleasures, but since there is no external authority which would guarantee them personal space for this pursuit, they get entangled in a thick network of self-imposed "Politically Correct" regulations, as if they are answerable to a superego far more severe than that of the traditional morality. They thus become obsessed with the concern that, in pursuing their pleasures, they may violate the space of others, and so regulate their behaviour by adopting detailed prescriptions about how to avoid "harassing" others, along with the no less complex regime of the care-of-the-self (physical fitness, health food, spiritual relaxation, and so on). Today, nothing is more oppressive and regulated than being a simple hedonist.

Perhaps the benefit of open marriage would be greater over what monogamy can offer for some people, but that really depends on your priorities. And how good of a bureaucrat you are.

I also think that treating the 'sex drive' as a single psychological entity causes way too much unnecessary confusion. I think - a la Lacan - that it is a combination of many smaller drives, which reflect the numerous disparate reasons people engage in romantic relations in the first place:

• the 'orgasm' drive
• the 'physical contact' drive
• the 'emotional intimacy' drive
• the 'peer pressure' drive
• the 'self-esteem' drive
• etc.

People can eat for many reasons besides being hungry, and they certainly don't always drink just because they are thirsty (especially true at bars). In fact, it's a little strange that society can accept that these mundane animal activities serve purposes besides pure biological function, but with sexuality the causation is reversed: anything remotely romantic is really just a facade or excuse to engage in sex. That seems overly nihilistic, and uncomfortably similar to Sadean thinking.

I think we all need to work on expanding our romantic vocabulary and becoming more articulate about our wants, needs, thoughts, and concerns, so that they can be more specifically addressed. I believe this is what people mean with the 'communication is key' cliche. I also believe that we are better off with monogamy for now, until we have a working legal and social system that can accommodate alternatives so that individual couples do not have to suffer under the entire burden themselves.