posted June 23, 2012 05:26 PM            

My emotions can run really deep in relationships, so much so that it can scare me and so I’m often more comfortable with intellectualizing things, especially romance as a defense … I guess that kind of sums up having an 8th house Aqua Venus lol

Anyway I’m not really one to get caught up on conventional views on well… anything, but especially in dating and love, I think people should be able to decide for themselves what makes them happy and what morals to live by. So in THEORY I believe that open relationships make sense and could even be a way of allowing people who love each other to stay together in a world where monogamy doesn’t always work out… OTOH, in reality I really don’t know if I could be in one without jealousy getting the better of me, or without there just being too many conflicts for the relationship to last.

In a perfect world I would love to say and believe that no one should ever cheat, and if you’re a mature person and know what to look out for this will never happen to you, but in reality, it does happen. Kind of often. Both men and women in all sorts of circumstances cheat, and I think the psychology of this goes beyond saying these are just forever “bad” people who have a problem…

So, if I was with someone that I loved and cared about and they went behind my back and cheated and lied to me about it, that’s something that's really difficult to move past, but if I was in a situation where he was honest from the beginning and we agreed ahead of time on what was allowed and what wasn’t (i.e. always use protection, always be honest with each other and the other person, etc.) then I’m not sure what it would feel like…

But really maybe that’s just expanding the boundaries of what constitutes cheating, and is just setting up even more lines to be crossed and even more ways to feel betrayed. Like, in all honesty (maybe this is really messed up) but from experiences in the past where I’ve been cheated on I feel like developing an emotional bond with someone is more of a betrayal than physically cheating. So in an open relationship I would honestly be more comfortable with sex outside the relationship than with dating or becoming emotionally intimate. But, as we all know things are rarely ever that simple, and even if one person is clear on the boundaries, emotions aren’t something that can always be controlled, especially when sex is involved.

So, please share your thoughts and opinions… I hope this thread doesn’t turn into an argument of any sort, I’m not advocating any one position, just asking with an open mind and curious to know what you guys think…

posted June 23, 2012 07:42 PM            

It could work as an arrangement but I'd be questioning the level of feeling between the couple involved.

In an ideal world we'd fall in love and stay in love...but this is not an ideal world. Personally, if I'm wanting to sleep with other people then I wouldn't want to stay within the confines of a relationship. I can see how it would be beneficial on a financial level though.

I prefer shorter term monogamous relationships and wouldn't tolerate an open one. Each to their own but I can't help question the connection of those that choose to do it that way.

posted June 23, 2012 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Um, "open relationship" an oxymoron. A relationship implies exclusivity in my view.

---

posted June 23, 2012 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by dysfunctionalmystic:
I don't think it's got anything to do with maturity or even being able to move beyond feelings.

It could work as an arrangement but I'd be questioning the level of feeling between the couple involved.

In an ideal world we'd fall in love and stay in love...but this is not an ideal world. Personally, if I'm wanting to sleep with other people then I wouldn't want to stay within the confines of a relationship. I can see how it would be beneficial on a financial level though.

I prefer shorter term monogamous relationships and wouldn't tolerate an open one. Each to their own but I can't help question the connection of those that choose to do it that way.

Edit to add ; in my youth I had a couple.. but I didn't take advantage of it and neither did it work well for me.

---

I understand what all of you mean and agree that if you're happy in a relationship there's no reason to even want to be sleeping with other people, I also would have no desire... BUT, I know there are people out there who genuinely believe it's not realistic to expect humans to be monogamous and think attraction to other people is natural no matter how strong your bond is with someone. Then there are the compulsive cheaters (who are looked down on for good reason)but this is a lifelong habit for some people even when they care deeply about the person they're with, and I think with any cheating, the lying is the most disrespectful and hurtful part... I'm just thinking having an open relationship might be a more realistic way to eliminate the dishonesty for someone who's going to do it anyway.

edit: there are also people who actually get off on watching their partner (who they consider themselves committed to) being with someone else sexually; threesomes, watching, whatever. (both guys and girls can be into that, it's not always degrading or exploitative, etc.) I know this is all very taboo and most people would never enjoy that or want anything to do with it, which I completely understand I'm just putting it out there for point of discussion. I wouldn't be into it either but my Aqua Venus intellectually isn't offended by it lol

I also know a gay couple who has an open relationship who have been happily together for a very long time (I think close to 10 years)... They live together, and the arrangement seems to work for them so I think it is possible, I'm just trying to understand how exactly it would work lol

Would you mind elaborating on the experiences you had when you were younger? I was hoping someone who'd been in that situation would post so I'd love to hear your stories if you're willing to share!

posted June 23, 2012 08:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Um, "open relationship" an oxymoron. A relationship implies exclusivity in my view.

---

posted June 23, 2012 09:26 PM            

I'm not wired that way but I have considered it once, both as a temporary measure for someone else (but no one would hear of it and it never happened, and I don't wish to talk about it), and another part of me thought if everyone was honorable & mature that it could create a stable support network and make finances a little easier. But on further reflection (and again just being short & sweet) I decided that it was so rare for honest, mature MONOGAMOUS relationships to exist that having that kind of stability when it involves even more people seem even less likely.

posted June 23, 2012 09:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I decided that it was so rare for honest, mature MONOGAMOUS relationships to exist that having that kind of stability when it involves even more people seem even less likely.

---

I totally agree with this. However logical it seems in theory, in reality it seems like it would just add that many more complications and issues.

But there are cultures that allow men to have more than one wife (my problem with this is that it never goes the other way obviously)and it seems to be more common in the GLBT community from what I understand, so I think it can work for some people, and I'm just a curious person about anything having to do with social norms, cultural differences etc. As an international relations major we talk about very emotionally loaded and controversial topics in a very detached intellectual way and this is what I've gotten used to (especially after taking women's studies classes I there's nothing that really seems too out there lol) even though I'm sure it seems weird to most of you guys to even bring up this topic

posted June 23, 2012 10:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
Why even be in a relationship if one doesn't want exclusivity? Wouldn't it be even more advantageous in terms of flexibility to not be in a relationship?

---

True. I really don't know what makes people pursue open or polyamorous relationships but I guess there are people who want the stability of having one (or more I guess) person to come home to but also don't want to be monogamous for the rest of their lives. I realize most people would just call this selfishness lol and I 100% agree if it's not consensual on both ends but if it is... Idk what it is. I did a google search on polyamorous relationships and found this explanation from one person:

And just like that, we became a triad. It was easy and natural and we had such a good time! There was twice the energy and convenience of a normal relationship. We all had a lot going on, but when one of us was busy, the other two were still able to spend time together. Jealousy just wasn’t there. We didn’t have to ration out love. It multiplied.

And when things changed, it happened in a pretty common way. I finished school and wanted to move on to begin my career. Ellie got an excellent job offer in another city, and we moved there together. Dan stayed behind to continue his work, but planned to move there eventually too.
When Dan and I broke up a few months after the move, he and Ellie remained together, and he and I stayed friends. Sure, now it’s complicated, but what relationship isn’t?

I’ve never bought into the assumption that the traditions we’re born into are necessarily right for us, and now that includes relationships. Any first-year anthropology student can tell you there are a lot of happy families and stable societies in the world that aren’t based on monogamy.

Oh, and threesome sex is hot. That’s why you started reading this, right? And while I wouldn’t say that “polyamory,” however you define it, is for everyone, I do think that deciding how to live you own life probably is.
http://www.thefrisky.com/2010-04-30/first-time-for-everything-a-polyamorous-relations hip/

posted June 24, 2012 01:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
Why even be in a relationship if one doesn't want exclusivity? Wouldn't it be even more advantageous in terms of flexibility to not be in a relationship?

---

posted June 24, 2012 03:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FireMoon:
there are cultures that allow men to have more than one wife (my problem with this is that it never goes the other way obviously)

---

I do recall of reading of one stone age tribe where women had multiple husbands, but men were the hunters and providers and also had a much higher death rate than women so it was necessary for the survival of the tribe (and IIRC it was matrilineal). I don't recall what tribe it was but I think it's one in the Amazon (and still exists to this day).

That aside, having multiple husbands in a patrilineal society (especially where inheritance and birth rights are concerned) presents all kinds of problems, though strangely every matrilineal society I can think of offhand was also much more likely to have men with multiple wives than the other way around (though IIRC, I think I recall reading that Betazed, a matrilinear society in the Star Trek universe, had women with multiple male partners, typically just sexual while going through a phase but once including marriage, not that such means anything just that the surname that gets passed down matters to people in matters like this). Though if I may be cynical for a minute I do recall finding that when I allowed a man to live with me that every time I found it a lot of work (not always in the same way) and after taking care of a handful I decided there was a reason why women did not normally marry more than one husband at a time (and might enjoy having another wife to help) in the history of our species as one was enough work!

Actually when I shared that observation with Granny she shared about her experiences on a hippie commune and agreed with me on that, and one reason she avoided marrying (though she came close twice) was because men in her experience were like children only many of them thought they were the boss of the woman playing mother to him.

posted June 24, 2012 03:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I do recall of reading of one stone age tribe where women had multiple husbands, but men were the hunters and providers and also had a much higher death rate than women so it was necessary for the survival of the tribe (and IIRC it was matrilineal). I don't recall what tribe it was but I think it's one in the Amazon (and still exists to this day).

That aside, having multiple husbands in a patrilineal society (especially where inheritance and birth rights are concerned) presents all kinds of problems, though strangely every matrilineal society I can think of offhand was also much more likely to have men with multiple wives than the other way around (though IIRC, I think I recall reading that Betazed, a matrilinear society in the Star Trek universe, had women with multiple male partners, typically just sexual while going through a phase but once including marriage, not that such means anything just that the surname that gets passed down matters to people in matters like this). Though if I may be cynical for a minute I do recall finding that when I allowed a man to live with me that every time I found it a lot of work (not always in the same way) and after taking care of a handful I decided there was a reason why women did not normally marry more than one husband at a time (and might enjoy having another wife to help) in the history of our species as one was enough work!

Actually when I shared that observation with Granny she shared about her experiences on a hippie commune and agreed with me on that, and one reason she avoided marrying (though she came close twice) was because men in her experience were like children only many of them thought they were the boss of the woman playing mother to him.

Anyway, you might find this of interest as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo#Walking_marriages

---

You’re very right about how women having multiple husbands in a patrilinear society concerned with inheritance and birth rights would cause a lot of problems. Considering the ways capitalism (started by the development of agriculture followed by the industrial revolution) has changed ideas and expectations on the family structure, it actually makes a lot of sense. I’ve heard it argued that this has actually caused a lot of the issues we hear about so often in regards to women’s rights and suppression. The traditional roles have always been the same, women give birth, tend to the home, etc. and men go out and provide (food, livestock, etc.) But, since money is what is valued most in our society over family, since money is literally necessary for an individual to survive let alone to support children, women’s work or “reproductive work” has become devalued. Not to mention the increased importance of controlling women’s bodies to make sure that the kids that will be inheriting your property really are yours and not someone elses. It’s my opinion that our standards of what a family unit should be may not be as natural as it seems growing up immersed around them.

Thank you for the article that’s a great link! I had a hunch cultural structures like this still exist, but wasn’t aware of any specific examples. In egalitarian societies before capitalism (in many Native American societies for example), from my understanding it was very common for both men and women to have multiple sexual partners, and there was no formal marriage in the context we understand it. Extended family and the group at large shared responsibility in raising the kids, similar to the Mosuo culture.

Also, I totally agree about not even wanting the responsibility of taking care of multiple partners lol I would think it might be too much for anyone to handle over time girl or guy lol

Anyway, thanks again for sharing Pixie

posted June 24, 2012 04:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Um, "open relationship" an oxymoron. A relationship implies exclusivity in my view.

---

I agree.

I also don't believe in the argument that monogamy is "unnatural". I see it as basically a cop-out and dishonest. If you love someone, truly, you won't want someone else so bad that you're willing to betray the one that you love. You might appreciate beauty, but you wouldn't seriously want to take the step of sleeping with that person if you really love your significant other. If you are willing to sleep with someone else (or at least try to), then you aren't really in love.

Instead of the anti-monogamy/anti-commitment argument, I think that it would be more honest to say that people don't want to be monogamous and committed rather than to say that they literally can't or shouldn't be monogamous and committed. It's not a matter of ability. It's a matter of choice. It's dishonest to claim that you cannot control yourself in this area of life.

Learning to control desires and deal with them responsibly is important--not just with sex, but with other areas of life, too. That's not to say that a person should never have sex, just that they shouldn't act on the wish to have sex every single time that they have it. Using good judgment and self-control is important.

I don't consider open relationships to be cheating if both people happily and willingly agree, but I really don't feel that they often work out. It's very, very common for one person to become attached. And, too, if one person only goes along with it to keep the other happy, then that won't work. And then there's the whole safety thing, too--some people choose to be promiscuous and careless, putting themselves and their partners at risk.

posted June 24, 2012 04:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
Why even be in a relationship if one doesn't want exclusivity? Wouldn't it be even more advantageous in terms of flexibility to not be in a relationship?

---

--agreed

I think, too, that sometimes people just write monogamy off as "square" or something without considering that deep trust can lead to a lot of exciting exploration.

posted June 24, 2012 05:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Um, "open relationship" an oxymoron. A relationship implies exclusivity in my view.

---

posted June 24, 2012 07:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
I also don't believe in the argument that monogamy is "unnatural"

---

I don't either. But different people are wired different ways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
If you love someone, truly, you won't want someone else so bad that you're willing to betray the one that you love

---

That's true of YOU (and many others) not of every single person on the planet. Furthermore, it's not a betrayal because the terms are acceptable to all involved. If everyone involves agrees to it how can it be a betrayal?

Now obviously this isn't acceptable to YOU, so someone having relations with someone else would be a betrayal to YOU, but then you would never agree to such an arrangement so it doesn't apply to those who do agree to such arrangements.

It's like how different diets work for different people, some people learn better differently than everyone else. What may be best for the most people isn't necessarily the best, or even possible, for a small minority.

Or think of nudist camps. Most people would be very uncomfortable with nudity (their own and other people's) but there are some people who feel repressed and stifled when forced to wear clothes and feel free and liberated when they're able to walk around naked with others who understand (just as there's a minority who feel stifled in a strictly monogamous relationship but free and liberated with partners who serve different needs). These people tend to enjoy nudist camps and recreation, and btw, it's not for perverts, they typically work hard to keep perverts away from themselves. Like with polyamory it's not about trying to start an orgy nor is it about trying to convince you to walk around naked, it's just an alternative for those who are happier with it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
You might appreciate beauty, but you wouldn't seriously want to take the step of sleeping with that person if you really love your significant other. If you are willing to sleep with someone else (or at least try to), then you aren't really in love

---

This statement is true of you, but not everyone. And technically, even people truly in love can be tempted into betrayal, it happens all the time. Again, betrayal is where one breaks trust with another as opposed to having an arrangement that works with everyone. It's wrong to equate polyamory with betrayal because you're imposing your own values and inclinations on others who have an alternative view and who do not misrepresent themselves. To betray you they'd have to break a promise or understanding, and that's not something the polyamorous are any more likely to do than the monogamous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
Instead of the anti-monogamy/anti-commitment argument

---

This seems an exaggerated and distorted view of the actual arguments presented. While there are those who champion polyamory for all as passionately as you champion monogamy most to my knowledge simply see it as an alternative that works for some people (just like how most nudists want a lifestyle that works for them but doesn't think everyone should just "loosen up" and go about starkers). Most importantly it still requires strong loyalty, trust, and commitment in most cases, it's not licentiousness or orgies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
I think that it would be more honest to say that people don't want to be monogamous and committed rather than to say that they literally can't or shouldn't be monogamous and committed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
It's dishonest to claim that you cannot control yourself in this area of life

---

I disagree that such is true of everyone, or even most, who promote a polyamorous alternative. Again, you seem to have distorted the actual case made for it into one of unrestrained promiscuity which very few do (and the type of people you're thinking of with poor impulse control and no real concern for their partners are much more likely to claim to be monogamous because that will get them a lot more sex, though they may enjoy employing such arguments as, "I'm a man, we can't help it," or "I sipped some beer and he took advantage of me when I jumped his bones").

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
Learning to control desires and deal with them responsibly is important--not just with sex, but with other areas of life, too. That's not to say that a person should never have sex, just that they shouldn't act on the wish to have sex every single time that they have it. Using good judgment and self-control is important.

---

Ironically, this is good advice for those who try polyamorous relationships as it is for those who try monogamous.

Polyamorous relationships are often committed, just with more people involved, and cheating is still possible and there are typically rules and standards involved, and it's not intended for people who "can't keep it in their pants."

Granted, "open relationship" isn't exactly the same thing as polyamory and perhaps it should be more strictly defined, though going by the context of what everyone is saying I'm getting the impression all alternatives to monogamy are being included as one and that the subtle differences between swinging, open relationships, and polyamory are being ignored. That's difficult for me to deal with because how I'd respond if this was about swingers would be subtly different and would also depend on the ground rules of the swingers involved (between those who are very selective and exclusive vs. those who use Craigslist to find partners, for example).

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
And, too, if one person only goes along with it to keep the other happy, then that won't work

---

I agree with this, but the fault doesn't lie with polyamory here but with a spineless person who made a commitment to a lifestyle s/he wasn't prepared to live up to in a desperate attempt to be with someone incompatible.

It would be the same if the partner agreed to join a religion or political party completely detestable to the same person or reject one's own beloved religion (or philosophy) or political affiliation just to keep someone, or engage in specific sex acts s/he considers disgusting, or become a nudist when one loves fashion and finds nudity icky or a retiring person agreeing to allow one's home to be the site of frequent parties or even agreeing to have children despite detesting them just to keep someone. Just because the said person agreed to it when it was unacceptable just to hold onto someone a little longer doesn't mean any of these things are wrong, but that s/he was wrong for agreeing to it rather than accepting the incompatibility and moving on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:And then there's the whole safety thing, too--some people choose to be promiscuous and careless, putting themselves and their partners at risk.

---

Just as true of the monogamous. Plenty of spouses caught STDs, even AIDS, after having been married for years or decades. Granted, each person involved in such a relationship increases the chances that one will stray and perhaps catch a STD but those are the risks those people accept for whatever reason...

And I once briefly joined a sex club to satisfy my curiosity but they were very exclusive...and they required everyone to be tested as well as vouched for by respected members (and it was invite only), and not just by any doctor I had to see a doctor who was was part of the club and had to be tested once a month. IOW, all of us were safer from STDs than many who are only in a monogamous relationship, even a virgin who waited until marriage to someone else who had a STD without knowing or without telling (who may even claim to be a virgin as many actually believe oral and anal "doesn't count" and refuses to disclose such past indiscretions, and btw, kids at my high school not only "stayed virgins" by sticking to oral but were convinced they couldn't catch STDs that way).

quote:

---

Originally posted by RegardesPlatero:
it just does not work in my book.

---

posted June 24, 2012 08:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FireMoon:
I had a hunch cultural structures like this still exist, but wasn’t aware of any specific examples. In egalitarian societies before capitalism (in many Native American societies for example), from my understanding it was very common for both men and women to have multiple sexual partners, and there was no formal marriage in the context we understand it. Extended family and the group at large shared responsibility in raising the kids, similar to the Mosuo culture

---

Btw, here's another book you should check out or ILL (Inter Library Loan) from the library:

Women of the Celts

posted June 24, 2012 09:45 AM            

I have also been the one who has insisted that the relationship wasn't exclusive but I wasn't 100% with the person at the time. I knew I didn't want to spend the rest of my life with them. In short, I didn't care too much. These situations were acceptable to me when I was under the age of 23[give or take a year]

I couldn't accept anything but monogamy now. I'll stay single rather than get myself a fwb or open relationship. I want a deeper loyalty and definite commitment. I want to be number one and only.