Open Relationships -- Yay or Nay, Guys?

[Guest]

If you had the opportunity to have an open relationship with your SO, would you be okay with it? You could fuck anybody that you wanted, as long as you were not getting emotionally involved. She could do the same. Would you be okay with that? Or is that something that you would not like? Why?

[boink36]

If you had the opportunity to have an open relationship with your SO, would you be okay with it? You could fuck anybody that you wanted, as long as you were not getting emotionally involved. She could do the same. Would you be okay with that? Or is that something that you would not like? Why?

It's the only way it should be done.

[juanduh]

Only if you are the one on the open side.

[gr8owl]

If you had the opportunity to have an open relationship with your SO, would you be okay with it? You could fuck anybody that you wanted, as long as you were not getting emotionally involved. She could do the same. Would you be okay with that? Or is that something that you would not like? Why?

Depends. I have stated before and truly believe that the key to any successful relationship is your partner making you feel (and vice versa) that you are unique and special to her. The "easy" traditional way is for her to only have sex with you and no one else (and again vice versa). Not necessarily the only way ...... but there has to be something different, something special. Otherwise the "open" fuck-whoever-you-want relationship is doomed cause what the hell is there to a relationship if you are not special to each other?

[fork]

I had the opportunity in my 20's and I said no, and instead opted out of the relationship.

Now, I couldn't imagine being in a relationship that wasn't open. Not that I'm in a relationship at all right now, but that's one of my prerequisites, because I know I'm a cheating piece of shit.

[auldguy]

Excellent question Destiny. The answer has to be yes. If I am participating in the hobby and the SO wanted to fuck around also it would be hypocritical to say no. However the issue has never come up in my situation.

[pfunk]

I have stated before and truly believe that the key to any successful relationship is your partner making you feel (and vice versa) that you are unique and special to her.

I agree. My girlfriend certainly makes me feel special, and she says that I do the same for her. We are best friends.

However, we both have sex with other people.

I'm pretty sure that communication, honesty, and sharing, are the most important parts of "making each other feel special", for us.

So, yay!, to an open relationship.

[bikentats-9753]

Was in one. but when she and I agreed that "we would not getting emotionally involved" she couldn't do that. she ran off with someone she swore to me she wasn't emotional with.

[louisville42]

If you had the opportunity to have an open relationship with your SO, would you be okay with it? You could fuck anybody that you wanted, as long as you were not getting emotionally involved. She could do the same. Would you be okay with that? Or is that something that you would not like? Why?

I think I'd like that very much, and I think as long as I was getting plenty from the SO, that I would only fuck someone else on very rare occasions.

[pitbull]

I would be OK with it, although I would prefer that all fucking happened while I was in the room, and the same goes for her watching me.

[2Big]

You want an open relationship? Let me show you the open door!

[DaysGoBy2]

Personally, I don't see a reason to be in a relationship if I'm unable to meet her needs with such an important part of it as sexual intimacy...

[ak guy]

For me it would have to be an open relationship or I would not be in one. Sex is sex, if you love someone and you want them to be happy. Destiny, I think you have a perfect situation. You're with your best friend, you respect each other and still have a great time with other play partners.

[EuropeanMonger]

.

[pitbull]

I will go against the tide and say no. I'm not prude and I'm not against others doing it but as for myself, no, I would not want that. If I'm in a relationship, I'm in it because I only want it to be me and her. For me, and again this isn't judgement against others, I think it ruins the intimacy (emotional, physical, mental) that normally helps shape and define a relationship.

Hell, even in my selection of escorts (I'm single/widowed BTW so it's not like I'm cheating on a SO) I'm rather "monogamous" in that I see the same woman or two and I'm not into a lot of variety. Obviously the dynamics are different in that I don't hold her to that standard and emotions are kept in check but I've been pretty lame that way throughout my life. I'm a very sexual person and if I'm with someone we'll need to be sexually compatible (as well as intellectually and physically) but as someone in his late 30s, I can count the number of one-night stands on a single hand (and I really only need 2 fingers).

I'm a relationship person though so that's probably a big difference. I enjoy the comfort and security of a committed relationship. I'm not saying that an open relationship can't be committed but I'm talking the physical aspect as well. It works for others but I can't see myself engaging in that. And yes, I'm still a godless atheist. Go figure.

Well said, Aurora Mike. The problems arise when you WERE incredibly sexually compatible, but for mystifying reasons are no longer compatible, and yet you have all these other reasons to share a life.

As for being a godless atheist, well, morality has nothing whatever to do with religion. In fact, it can be persuasively argued that religion/dictator worship that amounts to a religion, is responsible for the majority of wickedness in the world now and in the past. Certainly those who have sworn before a deity to be faithful are not, and plenty of christians have sex out of wedlock and/or in wedlock in an open relationship.

[DontEvenTrip]

I have a few close friends who had "open relationships" and although at first they appeared happy and content, ultimately both relationships ended badly - IMO due to the chemical differences between man and woman. The men were able to view sex as "just sex" and the women at some point or another harbored resentment, felt inadequate and unloved. I think Destiny is an exception to the typical female (and I mean that as a compliment). I know, personally, I couldn't do it and other than Destiny, I really can't say I've heard of another female truly comfortable with it long-term.

[Doug28]

Absolutely no.

While both parties are working to have "their" physical activities special everything is great. The minute one party quits working to make it special the relationship is on a slippery slope.

[crazyb]

I would have to agree with Danielle I think most men can just do it and many women can not. I have seen three of my friends that could not make it work for them and their women

[Bit Banger]

I'm not open to any LTR right now, still among the walking wounded as a friend recently said. So ANY relationship I enter at this time had better be "open". I am a firm believer that a loving relationship is about a good deal more than sex, as recent experience has proven to me. I am also aware that we cannot be all things to all people, or even to one person. I would hope that any future partner and I would both realize that, be able to discuss our individual needs, and act to fulfill those needs with mutual agreement.

The other key to remember is that people change over time. These boundaries need to be renegotiated as circumstances and desires change.

This is a serious topic touching deeply rooted beliefs. IMHO, the common occurrence of issues like mid-life crisis, divorce & serial monogamy, menopausal changes and low-T, is the result of medical technology extending our lifespans. The psychology of relationships is playing catch up.

[Jez UaBriain]

I'm not open to any LTR right now, still among the walking wounded as a friend recently said. So ANY relationship I enter at this time had better be "open". I am a firm believer that a loving relationship is about a good deal more than sex, as recent experience has proven to me. I am also aware that we cannot be all things to all people, or even to one person. I would hope that any future partner and I would both realize that, be able to discuss our individual needs, and act to fulfill those needs with mutual agreement.

The other key to remember is that people change over time. These boundaries need to be renegotiated as circumstances and desires change.

This is a serious topic touching deeply rooted beliefs. IMHO, the common occurrence of issues like mid-life crisis, divorce & serial monogamy, menopausal changes and low-T, is the result of medical technology extending our lifespans. The psychology of relationships is playing catch up.

Once again, the sage advice of Bit. He is right you know. The dynamics of every relationship change over time. People change also. The girl that many of you married, she is no longer that girl. The same goes for you boys.

One thing I do know is this. It matters not if you are in a open/ or a closed relationship- you have to do things together, and often. Otherwise it is only a matter of time before the end of that relationship happens.

[EuropeanMonger]

.

[Bit Banger]

Do you want true monogamy where you get hitched in your teens (more typical 150 years ago) and never find another partner (as practiced by several members of the animal kingdom)?

Or would you prefer the serial monogamy, only one partner at a time but changing partners every 10-20 years, as is frequently practiced in modern society?

The more I look at these issues the more intrigued I am with polyamory. If we view society's primary goal in "marriage" to be forming family bonds for protection of the young, this makes perfect sense. Far better than the practice of divorce and mixed "his, hers, & ours" families with the issues of favoritism & privilege. But our concept of marriage today derives from a patriarchal sense of inheritance and property rights - an attempt to insure that the offspring of my mate are the get of my loins. No bastards allowed! There are (or were) some tribal societies which solve(d) this issue of blood lines by passing a man's property to sister's son instead of mate's offspring.

[pitbull]

Do you want true monogamy where you get hitched in your teens (more typical 150 years ago) and never find another partner (as practiced by several members of the animal kingdom)?

Or would you prefer the serial monogamy, only one partner at a time but changing partners every 10-20 years, as is frequently practiced in modern society?

The more I look at these issues the more intrigued I am with polyamory. If we view society's primary goal in "marriage" to be forming family bonds for protection of the young, this makes perfect sense. Far better than the practice of divorce and mixed "his, hers, & ours" families. But our concept of marriage today derives from a patriarchal sense of inheritance and property rights - an attempt to insure that the offspring of my mate are the get of my loins. No bastards allowed! There are (or were) some tribal societies which solve(d) this issue of blood lines by passing a man's property to sister's son instead of mate's offspring.

And what about polygamy? No, I don't think that works, but I understand it.

[Bit Banger]

And what about polygamy? No, I don't think that works, but I understand it.

There is a wide field of poly*. Like all relationships, stability requires work!

[MrReindeer-9515]

And what about polygamy? No, I don't think that works, but I understand it.

From the linked wiki, that you obviously didn't bother to read/comprehend:

"Polyamory is a less specific term than polygamy, the practice or condition of having more than one spouse. (The majority of polygamous cultures are traditionally polygynous, where one husband has multiple wives. Polyandrous societies, in which one wife has multiple husbands, are less common but do exist.[5]) Marriage is not a requirement in polyamorous relationships. The "knowledge and consent of all partners concerned"[6] is a defining characteristic of polyamorous relationships.", catchy quip though.

Do you want true monogamy where you get hitched in your teens (more typical 150 years ago) and never find another partner (as practiced by several members of the animal kingdom)?

Or would you prefer the serial monogamy, only one partner at a time but changing partners every 10-20 years, as is frequently practiced in modern society?

The more I look at these issues the more intrigued I am with polyamory. If we view society's primary goal in "marriage" to be forming family bonds for protection of the young, this makes perfect sense. Far better than the practice of divorce and mixed "his, hers, & ours" families with the issues of favoritism & privilege. But our concept of marriage today derives from a patriarchal sense of inheritance and property rights - an attempt to insure that the offspring of my mate are the get of my loins. No bastards allowed! There are (or were) some tribal societies which solve(d) this issue of blood lines by passing a man's property to sister's son instead of mate's offspring.

While I find the concept of polyamory intriguing, to say the least, unfortunately as long as our Culture continues to view a single male/female contractually obligated unit as the best(only) way to successfully raise[Redacted](), I fear we are many generations away from the "Howard Family" ideal.

Edited April 24, 2014 by MrReindeer
Science!

[Bit Banger]

Actually, I read both the polyamory Wiki article and the polygamy article it linked to. Polygamy refers to formal, sanctioned, relationships while polyamory refers to less specific relationships, like the "open relationships" discussed in this thread.

I find it interesting that:

The practice has been ruled to violate the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and the United Nations has recommended that the practice be abolished.

[pitbull]

From the linked wiki, that you obviously didn't bother to read/comprehend:

"Polyamory is a less specific term than polygamy, the practice or condition of having more than one spouse. (The majority of polygamous cultures are traditionally polygynous, where one husband has multiple wives. Polyandrous societies, in which one wife has multiple husbands, are less common but do exist.[5]) Marriage is not a requirement in polyamorous relationships. The "knowledge and consent of all partners concerned"[6] is a defining characteristic of polyamorous relationships.", catchy quip though.

While I find the concept of polyamory intriguing, to say the least, unfortunately as long as our Culture continues to view a single male/female contractually obligated unit as the best(only) way to successfully raise[Redacted](), I fear we are many generations away from the "Howard Family" ideal.

To the resident reindeer troll: Yes, I did read the link on polyamory. I was curious about Bit's OPINION of polygamy. I was not confused about the distinctions, but way to jump to unfounded conclusions.

[MrReindeer-9515]

To the resident reindeer troll: Yes, I did read the link on polyamory. I was curious about Bit's OPINION of polygamy. I was not confused about the distinctions, but way to jump to unfounded conclusions.

That may well be Green Pea, but if ya were just interested in Bit's OPINION, ya could have just PM'ed him; but instead ya posted in a public forum... but hey you'll have as many posts as some of the other tools around here in no time!

Actually, I read both the polyamory Wiki article and the polygamy article it linked to. Polygamy refers to formal, sanctioned, relationships while polyamory refers to less specific relationships, like the "open relationships" discussed in this thread.

Well, I assumed you read it...

In re the dropped quote: while I can't comment specifically on the motivations of the UN, I can't help but wonder if it has anything to do with a majority of countries that allow it, only recognize polygyny...

Edited April 25, 2014 by MrReindeer
Science! And too much punctuation.

[Bit Banger]

... In re the dropped quote: while I can't comment specifically on the motivations of the UN, I can't help but wonder if it has anything to do with a majority of countries that allow it, only recognize polygyny...

From the polygamy article (the whole paragraph):

Zeitzen states that Western perceptions of African society and marriage patterns are biased by "contradictory concerns of nostalgia for traditional African culture versus critique of polygamy as oppressive to women or detrimental to development."[9] Many international human rights organisations as well as women's rights groups in many countries have called for its abolition. The practice has been ruled to violate the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and the United Nations has recommended that the practice be abolished.

With footnote:

Zeitzen, Miriam Koktvedgaard (2008). Polygamy: a cross-cultural analysis. Berg. p. 3. ISBN 1-84520-220-1.

Perhaps that explains the UN position.

[MrReindeer-9515]

From the polygamy article (the whole paragraph):

With footnote:

Perhaps that explains the UN position.

See, that's what I get for "skimming", but I rest my case.

I suspect that regardless of the UN motivation, in an arrangement as described, women tend to get the shit end of the stick.

To bring it back on track(sort of): I think polyamory is a less formal/more palatable solution, but also a pipe-dream(at least on a widespread basis) during our lifetime.

I think it's wonderful what Destiny and pfunk(and others) are able to enjoy, but it works on such a limited basis. "If there were only time enough to love..."

Edited April 25, 2014 by MrReindeer
Science! And added thought.