With all the non-chalance and insignificance of sexual relationships in the current age, and pretty much since the dawn of man, there are so many different avenues in which people can partake in inexclusive relationships. The only difference now is there are different “categories” upon which we can classify said inexclusive relationships, but it all boils down to one thing- sex with other people.
You get to “have your cake and eat it too, the more the merrier, greed is good, why have one when you can have ‘em all”, etc.
Then you’ve got the accompanying fuck buddies, booty calls, undercover lovers, Mr. and Mrs. I Want to Have an Affair, FWBs, etc. However, one thing I don’t hear people discuss very often is the open relationship.
An open relationship is usually classified as one in which both people involved feel they are “committed” to each other however, they see people on the side or in tandem and attempt to dictate “rules” and “boundaries”. Like “no sleeping with so-and-so behind my back”, no kissing, no feelings involved, etc.
Some people claim it works out great but I have trouble myself believing it. I would argue that unless you’re that freaky guy Sting and his wacked out wife and you’re off your rocker on coke and quaaludes 23 out of the 24 hours in a day, an open relationship is relationship suicide.
Unless of course killing the relationship is the actual intent. Which brings me to my point- no one willingly wants to sabotage anything that to them, means the world- which is what a good relationship should mean. So logically, one could argue the open relationship itself doesn’t mean shit because most casual relationships don’t.
It’s no mystery I’ve never been involved in a sexually open relationship with anyone because I believe in meaningful, committed and mutually respectable relationships. And those generally don’t include having other people interfering with and potentially ruining all the things that make a relationship enduring and fulfilling- like trust, true love, and an unparalleled bond.
The innocence, intimacy and sacredness in the relationship is forever lost and is replaced by the unknown and many other variables.
How can you truly love someone when there are other people in the way? For a lot of people it’s already hard enough to be monogamous and remain faithful in a committed relationship.
I’m not a casual woman. I highly value intimacy, and the pleasure and beauty derived from sharing myself with one special man. One that I have to be INSANELY attracted to and/or damned near head over heels crazy in love with before I’ll even entertain the notion of going to bed with him. It’s not everyday you find this type of intense attraction and to me, sex just isn’t worth it without it.
Additionally, a healthy sexual relationship is about mutual respect, trust and understanding. It’s hard to be respectful when we are allowing others to intrude where they shouldn’t, it’s difficult to trust someone 100% when other people are in the way, and it’s hard to be understanding when people don’t respect common boundaries. And I have trouble digesting there are any clear boundaries when you let other people have sex with the person you love.
Being in agreement with having an open relationship dictates the terms are negotiable and therefore void.
A good friend of mine and her now common law ex-husband were in an open relationship. It was the classic patriarchal setup in which he was the strong male figure and she was the submissive. Mind you, it was never him and another man in their trysts- it was always her, him and another woman. There were distinct lines drawn for her and none for him and he could very much do as he pleased. And much of the time, he did.
It seems that traditionally, this type of relationship is always to benefit the needs of the man- like women are dumb and dependent Holstein cattle, who need a guide and some assurance that their only purpose sexually is to fulfill the needs of a man.
I’ve been reading an enthralling romance novel by Lora Leigh entitled “Forbidden Pleasure”, which is as far-fetched and unconventional a romance novel can get (as far as any I’ve read). In short, it’s about two incredibly handsome masculine males in love with a beautiful woman. And ironically, this is my, and many a straight woman and gay man’s ultimate fantasy.
The story was, of course, written by a woman but where most of the dictates of an open relationship are concerned, 99 times out of 100, it is always to benefit the stereotypical insatiably sexually macho aggressive male.
My friend and her now, ex-beau stayed together for 10 years and while they frequently engaged in sexual relationships together with various women, her husband often tried to engage in other various separate secret/covert relationships. And he also did so blatantly, right to her face. She was “okay” with everything he did yet ultimately, their relationship crumbled.
Reminds me of the disastrous marriage between pornstar Tera Patrick and her ex-husband Evan Seinfeld. She wanted him to “share with her in the delight” of being a pornstar along side her and sleep with gorgeous women. Well, guess what? When she told him to pick their marriage over being a pornstar, he chose to remain a pornstar. Really what did she expect? And how fucking stupid can you be?
Still I have to give my friend’s ex-husband some credit for being the manipulative bastard that he is. But I also have to refrain from admonishing my friend an innocent victim. She signed up for it. She signed the dotted line in agreement and signed away any inclination to renege on her permissiveness to allow others come into their bed the first time and every time thereafter. Why would her husband suddenly cease to not take advantage every chance he gets?
Sure it’s a lot of fun, it’s very exciting and it’s adventurous. But after it’s all over with you have a decent sized mess to reconcile after the adrenaline winds down and the endorphins wear off. What happens then? From what I’ve heard, the very same thing that happened to Tera Patrick and my poor, dear friend.
You get to share in all the jealousy, grief, heartache, bullshit, and eventual pain that is inevitable of which you cannot and will not remain immune.
The closest thing I ever got to an open relationship was one evening back in high school, my douchebag ex and his cousin wanted to “swap” me with another girl the cousin was dating. I didn’t agree to it but unsurprisingly that didn’t stop my ex from unrelentingly begging and pleading for it.
Even though I stood my ground and said no, he pursued her anyway. I unexpectedly walked in on him and the other girl making out in the bedroom. I immediately saw red. I was crushed, angry, shocked, insanely jealous, sad, and psychotic all at once. I was screaming, jumped on him and started swinging, throwing fists and acting like the biggest piece of drama queen crap I ever had in my life. I was absolutely miserable. Aside from this incident there was maybe one other time my entire life I found myself so seething angry. Sadly I wasn’t even attached to this boy- I didn’t love him and we’d broken up shortly after. Yet, I was very, very hurt and deeply saddened.
It’s no exaggeration that I was traumatized by the incident. For many years, I was highly insecure and uncontrollably jealous and as a result, my future relationships were often dismal and chaotic because of my inability to trust. I knew it was bound to happen and that’s why I didn’t agree to it to begin with. He betrayed me and went on anyway, and I suffered greatly.
I guess some people can numb themselves (or convince themselves that they can) with drugs, alcohol, Viagra, and by forcing themselves into becoming emotionally detached. Yet it’s no mystery there is such hypocrisy that many people historically become emotionally attached when they have sex- casual or not. And it’s not just women, it’s men too.
I’m simply of the belief that people are deluding themselves- that they are unfazed, emotionally guarded and in control and therefore, perfectly capable of taking part in an open relationship. If people were in such control of their feelings and unaffected by the ramifications involved in an open relationship, then how and why do things often end up so badly torn apart?
The open relationship is a euphemism for “I want to screw other people but I don’t want to cheat by doing it behind your back”. Yet to me, there is no clear distinction.
You may also like:
- How Women Can Avoid Temptation and Cheating
- Being the Other Woman and Being the Footstool
- The Anatomy of a Female Player
- Chasing Dudes is Desperate Lame and Pathetic
- There’s Never a Good Reason to Ball Your Best Friend’s Man
Hey Feisty. You knew I’d comment, right?
First and foremost, I agree with most of the things you say here (didn’t see that coming though!) – IF THINGS ARE NOT MUTUAL, as they were with the friends used as example. If she truly didn’t like what was happening, and she had all these boundaries and he had none, then that’s never a good situation. There are *NO* good relationships, no matter how monogamous, that come from disrespect, and lack of communication and trust.
However. My agreement ends there. I fully believe that open relationships, polyamory, etc, can exist in happy, healthy relationships. Yes, sometimes people are fooling themselves, but it’s dangerous and inappropriate to decide for other people what is good for them based on how *we* feel about something. There are plenty of examples of relationships that are not what you might want, Feisty, but that actually ARE loving, trusting, caring, and very committed. They just don’t fit your mold. That’s ok and it DOES work for them. It is not fake, they are not full of bullshit or pain, they do have rules and boundaries just like everyone else that they follow, and the other people don’t “get in the way”.
In all honesty, I think truly healthy and happy open relationships can be shining examples of a couple who truly trust one another, are deeply committed to each other based on things that are NOT threatened by sex or other people, and are incredibly communicative. I’m not saying ALL open relationships are this way, just as not ALL monogamous relationships are wonderful.
Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that human beings DID NOT evolve to be monogamously partnered their entire lives. We actually aren’t penguins. We’re more like bonobos. These studies are revealing sex to be central to our social network, and that prehistoric human communities used sex to build and strengthen social bonds. That women had sex with multiple partners, not one. Monogamous one-partner relationships evolved with agriculture. See, we didn’t know sex meant babies until we domesticated animals. At the same time, agriculture started to mean resources for specific people, not the group. As such, people (men) wanted to pass on their property to their children (now that they understood that process) thus women came to be property as well, and monogamy became important (so you knew who to pass on things too).
This isn’t to say monogamy is no longer important. It’s just culture, not evolutionary. Today, we are the product of both forces, and we should allow for both, depending on what people find most appealing and works for them.
But don’t take my word for it. I highly recommend you and your readers the following:
Sex at Dawn (a book re: those studies I mentioned) ~ http://www.sexatdawn.com/
Samantha Fraser: http://notyourmothersplayground.com/ – and her fab interview with Met Another Frog: http://www.metanotherfrog.com/2011/07/14/sfgd13/
Evolving Evie: http://openandkinky.blogspot.com/?zx=d07cf4e3755c1552
An interview over at Confronting Love: http://confrontinglove.com/2011/07/19/poly-sex-confidential-an-interview-with-a-filmmaker-exploring-polyamory/
… and much more…
Hi Nik.
Indeed evolutional “theory” has revolutionized the idea that we, by nature, are not monogamous as a species. However, there are studies and arguments on both sides. But it begs the question, what about polyandry? Why is it always men who get to have 10 wives? It’s because polyamory is deeply rooted in misogyny. A mere .47% of the world’s population practices polyandry while the remaining societies of which polyamory is a custom and societal norm are among the most misogynistic in the world.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200806/why-are-there-virtually-no-polyandrous-society-0
(I would also point out psychologytoday.com is male-dominated corporate propaganda for lack of a better example.)
Additionally, you need only examine FLDS and other religious sects in which polyamory thrive (which are also the only places in the US where polygamy is ostensibly legal) and it is well-documented the children born into these families are often sexually abused and highly socially dysfunctional.
http://www.rebeccakimbel.com/childabuseandpolygamy.html
The nuclear family model works because, as Heather pointed out, it instills moral values- something that is CLEARLY lacking in today’s society. Not only that, I am part of a nuclear family and I was raised in one. Both of my brothers, like myself are married with smart, talented, healthy children and I am the happiest and most fulfilled I’ve been ever in my life.
It’s true, divorce rates are on the up and up and many people are remaining single indefinitely. However, I would also add that a lot of these very same people who get divorced and/or are single still want to find true love and commitment just like everyone else.
If you want to sleep with whoever you want, why not just be single? Why call it a relationship? Why not just call it “relations”?
First, some definitions to clear things up: Polyamory is having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved, and does not include marriage. If you marry more than one person, it’s polygamy. From there, polygamy can be polygyny (one husband, multiple wives) or polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands).
Absolutely agree that polygyny, as it exists in many societies, IS rooted in misogyny – but not simply because there are multiple wives. The misogyny is often more about religion – and about how women *in general* are viewed: they have little choice in marriage (but then, often the men don’t either – e.g. the arranged marriage), they are seen as only for procreation, are the property of their husband, etc etc etc. As such, I’d agree, that the majority of them, as they are practiced today VIA RELIGION AND NOT CHOICE, are indeed rooted in misogyny. The second link you provide makes this very clear. BUT it is not ALL polyamorous or polygamous relationships – the ones I champion are based in CHOICE and mutual, enthusiastic consent (which DO exist, check the links I gave) – NOT religion or coercion. BIG difference.
Regarding the article you posted: I used to subscribe to that idea too, that males have multiple females because they know the babies are theirs and then will provide resources, but if females have multiple partners, the male doesn’t know where to put his resources. It’s definitely a clear mating strategy for some animals – but definitely not ALL animals. In addition, I no longer believe it applies to people. I think we are far more of a community-based society, and that prehistoric human beings raised children communally, so it didn’t matter whose baby was whose – all resources went to everyone. Where it did apply was, again, in early agriculture, when people started to covet personal property. BUT the key is this: it was important for men to know who their children were to pass on resources as a result of agriculture, NOT as a mating strategy – and in that I’d say the article used it inappropriately. I realize that appears a fairly subtle difference, but I’d argue it is not – as the mating strategy has to do with genetic fitness, and with human history it has to do with culture and possessions. Does that make sense?
All that is NOT AT ALL to say we should do away with monogamy. AT ALL. As you and Heather make clear, monogamy will continue to be the dominate form of relationships in our present culture *because* it’s the most comfortable for people. Which is fantastic – we should all do what makes us happy.
However. I find issue with saying that ONLY the monogamous, traditional marriage can provide morals. That, in my opinion, is completely false – based on testimony from a growing number of people speaking out about their relationships. I also think they would be highly offended to not be able to call it a “relationship”. They can be just as committed to more than one person, care just as deeply, and be just as loving and trustworthy, as you are to one person. Calling it “relations” cheapens what they have, and dismisses their commitment and relationship. That’s not something that’s up to you.
I used the “blanket” term “polyamory” in reference to both polygamy and polyandry because polyandry hardly even exists so much that it barely even counts among the grand scheme of non-monogamous relationships. The only “legal” form of polyamory is polygamy and that in itself is misogynistic. Women almost nowhere in the world are permitted to marry more than one man, but the double standard still affects women and their PERSONAL choices in making that decision for themselves. What if I want to go out and marry 10 dudes? I absolutely cannot but men can go to Utah and marry 10 women if they want and use religion as their primary motivation behind their choice. Where are women given that kind of latitude? They aren’t.
With all due respect, this is my blog and I have the right to state my personal opinion and commentary. And many of my readers happen to agree with my convictions and my message and detract from it their own point of view. That’s the beauty of having a blog, people can read it if they want to, if they don’t agree they can turn the page. I certainly don’t agree with or believe everything I read and we can agree to disagree, but for you to state that I “cannot push my views on others” and that “it’s not up to me”, I never once said I was the messiah of all truths. I simply call things how I see them and frankly, I’m not too thrilled with what my generation and my child’s generation are and will be facing:
Loneliness, perpetual singlehood, believing marriage is obsolete, meaningless relationships, lack of intimacy, and ultimately unfulfilled lives. And “swingers”, “open relationships” and “baby daddies” ain’t fucking helping.
I really have to disagree with you about women having multiple partners in open relationships being rare, as I certainly have not seen it to go that way in general at ALL. Often it is the female half of a couple who will have much more success finding other partners, because let’s face it, if a married guy, or a guy with a girlfriend tried to hit on you or propose you become one of his extramarital partners, our cultural bias is to be offended- it’s tougher for males to find other women who’d be ok with being a secondary partner in an open scenario.
I think you are making claims about men being the ones who get all the extra partners, and that women get the short end of the stick, and it’s not based on any statistical fact or practical experience in the world of open relationships. You say you’ve never been in one- and there ARE relationships where the agreed upon rules include sex with others for one, but not for the other partner, and NO it’s not always the male that gets to fuck around so to speak.
I think you’d do well to start downloading and listening to dan savage’s Savage Love podcast. You are making a lot of assumptions about non-monogamous relationships that are not based on reality or fact.
Thank you for coming to my own blog to patronize me, Megan. Perhaps you can cite actual tangible unbiased sources (besides another biased opinion podcaster) in which a society openly accepts polyandrous relationships more so than they do polygynous- better yet, please provide me with any personal statistical proof that open relationships actually really work (and yes I am thinking in terms of “til death do we part”) Because from what I’ve seen, I have yet to hear of ONE SINGLE case in which it didn’t somehow end up going wrong.
Ah hm.. Actually penguins are not monogamous – only for a breeding season and then they go their separate ways once the young are born. While Nikkie raises valid points and I appreciate her perspective I will have to respectfully disagree. After working in the field for many years I can certainly tell you that more often than not – open relationships can cause catastrophic damage. Sorting those messes out are a nightmare. Not even worth risking. Like I have state before I have friends that are and I do not judge. I advocate self awareness – if its not your cup of tea – then its not – its up to the individual. I wouldn’t consider an open relationship ON ANY TERMS. Do I think its ok – NO – I think it erodes moral values and undermines social fabric. Its confusing enough for teens to figure out who they are so lets just throw some more “terms” in the mix. I don’t know of any that haven’t ended in disaster. No it takes alot more maturity to handle that type of an arrangement and maturity itself is hard to come by. For me monogamy is absolutely necessary to achieve balance and harmony in a relationship – at least one I would be a participant in. The sexual revolution of the 60s brought us what – more disease, more unwed mothers, more children in foster care, more of what…… yes you can screw who you want and use whatever justification you feel you can and push the idea that it is ok to the rest of the sheep who want to be considered “cool” remember when smoking used to be considered “cool” – someone figured out that is really wasn’t. Nor is spreading your legs for the next best thing or things to come along. Not cool and certainly not liberating in any way. Freedom comes from inside not who you let *inside*. So I am right on with you Feisty – I have read too many letters to Santa from little kids who have undecided or reluctant parents who just want a *normal* life. I have seen the damage up front and personal…. Its an ugly picture and the longer we play this game of name the relationship and make it ok as long as you can wave a banner and fill out a form for a permit….. the longer we will struggle to bring the world peace and harmony. Just another distraction from personal responsibility – name the game… ABOVE ALL – DO NO HARM!
You are correct about the 60′s revolution, Heather. Sure it gave us our freedom, but with that came countless consequences of which you have given prime examples, especially child abuse.
Yeah, I want the normal life. That’s how I was raised and I’m a perfectly fine functional adult, as are the rest of my family. I take “personal responsibility” for what’s at stake in my life- my husband and my child. I share that with no one because it is sacred to me.
I appreciate you taking to time to cotnriubte That’s very helpful.
Actually, odds are that the STD rate was either similar to today or higher before the sexual revolution. Both the more commonplace acceptance of forms of birth control that also reduce STD risk, as well as the general empowerment of women over their lives and choices, impacted STD rates. Furthermore, the idea that open relationships “erode morals” is frankly rhetorical bs. The nuclear family itself is an invention of the industrial era. It was much more common even only 100 years ago for children to be raised a combination of parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, neighbors, and others. Many mothers died in childbirth. And no small number of fathers were gone due to warfare, commonplace diseases like TB, or simply abandoning their families. People act like the sky has fallen in recent decades, but the reality is that there have always been numerous challenges facing intimate relationships. I, personally, want to be with one person in a monogamous relationship, but I don’t see that as the only workable model.
Nathan, you bring up a good point about nuclear families and the industrial era, however I do have to disagree with you on your stance that it doesn’t have an impact on moral values. You might take a look at the links I’ve provided Nikki as far as polygamy and the effects it has on children who are raised in this type of environment.
I’ve never understood the appeal of open relationships. To me that’s an oxymoron. If it’s open, then it isn’t a “relationship.” At least not in the sense of what a relationship generally denotes. I don’t think most people who agree to such an arrangement do so without some type of goal in mind…ie, it leading to something more, someone to pass the time until someone better comes along, or whatever. To me an agreement like an open relationship is the ultimate act of settling and when people settle, really nothing good can come from it.
Indeed Sunny, I too look at it as though it’s a “stepping stone” to other things. Kind of reminds me of the potential drug addict who starts out with alcohol, then marijuana, then pills, then coke, etc.
Sexual experimentation often takes on the same “snowball” effect as it has been documented in people with porn/sex addiction. Soon one person isn’t enough, then you need two people, maybe more- people who are freakier, are more adventurous, have better T&A, etc. The original situation becomes much less exciting. Tera Patrick and Evan Seinfeld are the perfect example of that.
You know yourself being a psychologist that our brains are wired to pine for that type of fix- the big dopamine rush. And if we can’t get it by traditional means, we resort to extreme means.
Final comment:
One: again, if an open or polyamorous or polyangrous relationship is not for you, don’t have one. But. Don’t put your views on someone else. There are many people out there who are very vocal about it working for them. They will tell you it makes them happy and fulfilled. That there is love, care, trust, commitment, and communication. To tell them they’re fooling themselves simply because you couldn’t imagine one? Does that seem ok? Other people’s relationships are not up for your judgment. Again, we should celebrate love in all its forms, not tear it down because it’s not OUR form.
Two, the idea that non-trad relationships destroy moral and social fabrics is dangerous and just untrue. I completely understand where you guys are coming from: absolutely there are instances where poly relationships are not mutually consensual, and/or stem from abuse. BUT THAT IS NOT ALL OF THEM. I really encourage you to read about it – there are many, many voices telling you differently.
I also understand you’re talking about from a child’s POV. Here’s the thing with that: What damages children is NOT the house they grew up in, because I can promise you there ARE homes with more than two loving and caring parents, all providing resources to that child. The problem arises with the way that relationship is viewed by people not friggin’ in it. THEY are the ones that judge, THEY are the ones that tell children something is wrong with them, with their parents. That same argument, that the relationship “degrades moral and social fabrics” and is harmful to children, is the EXACT SAME ONE against gay marriage. I explicitly DO NOT subscribe to either. I think happy, loving, homes produce happy, loving kids. We can choose to celebrate that… or not.
Finally – as far as the sexual revolution of the ‘60s goes? Yeah, no. As Nathan points out, it resulted in more contraception, more safety, more education. More freedom of sexual expression – and more freedom for women, period. But, of course, I totally get where you’re both coming from on that point too: with that increase in sexual freedom comes increased RESPONSIBILITY. Obviously. And, equally obviously, there are those that ignore that responsibility – but it doesn’t mean we ALL do. Or that having a lot of sex means you’re irresponsible (… walking the fine line to slut-shaming…) To the contrary, if you ask me. Plus, it’s far more convoluted than that. Part of the problem is one, the fact that we STILL don’t have enough education and access to family planning across the board – and this is something that’s socially and racially based (it’s a twisted twisted web I tell you!). And I think I’ve said too much already so… I better not get started on another topic… Yikes!
Nikki, I realize that I have hit a nerve because I am more than aware that you actively participate in this lifestyle. That is your choice- your prerogative. However, what would you say to me and countless others who are “sick” of having your agenda pushed on us?
You got Jersey Shore, Bad Girls Club, & “Friends with Benefits” starring a bunch of overpaid corporate sellout assholes who want to try to portray disvaluing respectful relationships as the societal standard. I don’t even have to visit any blogs to know about that- all I have to do is turn on my television set and see a bunch of scandalous buffoons making clowns of themselves showing all their tits, asses and fucking everyone around town. Just maybe people like me are sick of the “sexual revolution” being shoved down our throats.
Hey Feisty,
I hope I’m not coming across as angry – because I’m not. I’m just engaging the conversation, and tone isn’t exactly something that comes across in text.
I am not sure if it’s my lifestyle yet or not. I’m still exploring.
My final point, and then let’s agree to disagree and move on, is that there is a HUGE difference between what you’re talking about in society and the relationships I am referencing. I realize that can be seen as my point, but I really wish, even if you don’t agree with how they live their lives, that you wouldn’t equate them with the horror that is Jersey Shore or other “reality” TV, etc etc etc. You know I am SO with you on that shit being gross. I really, really believe they are different. Fundamentally.
But, as you pointed out, this is your blog. I highly respect you as a woman and writer, I didn’t mean to offend or overstep a boundary. I was simply voicing my opinion, and asking you and your readers to take a new view on things, or at least to not equate things that aren’t the same, even if you don’t like either. That doesn’t mean you have to do that or take my view.
Hope we’re still cool.
XX ~ Nik
Nikki, of course we’re still cool! We always have debates and I always respect and value your opinion. We’re both adults and I never take any of your input offensively. We always manage to keep it within the realm of healthy “argument” and on an adult level. I know you know that.
I’m sorry if I was out of line or too harsh… I didn’t mean to be. You always have a place and a voice here on this blog. Hugs…
Love you,
Melissa
Sweet – we’re on the same page. Sometimes I worry because text means tone is so hard to convey, and so easy to misconstrue, ya know?
Nope – you were good. Thanks for letting me speak mah piece!
Love you, too, woman. Keep kickin’ ass.
I once dated a guy used to these relationships: fail. I found he was so broken that he couldn’t handle a committed relationship, he ran away from love.
I can’t say everyone in these “relationships” might be on the same boat, but I’m not one to sign up again for heartbreak, confusion, anxiety, mistrust that came with this “relationship”.
Having come from a committed 5 year relationship, I simply couldn’t understand why anyone would want this! A year later and I have understood the unhapiness the ex was living. It’s sad still to me, but it doesn’t mean I’ll go back there.
Miriam, I can fathom the emotional disengagement you experienced with this man. To me, that’s bound to happen to anyone. A lot of people easily become hollow by the lack of intimacy- that’s my theory anyway.
It’s your choice to call whatever you want a farce. As you said, your blog, your rules. I’ve been in a polyamorous relationship with my husband for years. What that means is, I love (or, have a close romantic and sexual bond with) more than one partner. It doesn’t mean sleeping around with whoever I want, though if that’s how you define it, go right ahead. I’m bisexual, and I love men and women. The nuclear family model you endorse doesn’t work for me, and many people who promote it and its morals currently (mainly members of certain religions and the Republican Party) would also want me to go back into the closet, or in extreme cases, undergo curative therapies to become straight. We also don’t want children.
People in polyamorous arrangements (which are not the same as polygamous arrangements) often don’t talk about them freely because they’re afraid of the judgments, and if children are involved, legal repercussions. That’s why you don’t hear about successful relationships too often. We keep them under wraps because we’re satisfied, and have heard others tell us it’s all a lie, it’s a farce, we’ll fail, we’re corrupt, and so on a thousand times before.
I initiated our polyamorous relationship, not him. Many of the polyamorous relationships I know of are female-initiated, too. I’m sorry your experience with partner-swapping upset you for years afterward, but swinging has nothing to do with our arrangement, though it seems that it’s all the same to you.
One last point: There’s no need to worry about an arrangement like ours sullying a nuclear family like yours. People in genuine polyamorous relationships (as opposed to those who are cheating and calling it by a different name), by their very nature, don’t WANT traditional monogamous nuclear families, so we have zero interest in people who do.
Thank you very much for this response, MusicBank. It was definitely thought provoking. You’re the only person who has come forth and talked about this thru sharing their own personal experience. I very much respect your views.
FW
Open relationships aren’t better or worse, they are just different and have their unique set of pros and cons. Some people crave freedom and variety and have stronger relationships when they can be open about their desires, whilst others value stability and tradition. For example, I like to think of those in an open relationship as analogous to athletes that cross train. Not only do they work on elements in different sports that translate to their main one, they don’t burn out and have a greater appreciation for their main sport having a little time away from it. They are better athletes because they take sometime away from their main sport and dabble in other ones. Of course there is a balance that needs to be made. A little absence makes the heart grow fonder, so to speak, and being with others makes you appreciate what you have with the one you truly love (as long as you aren’t spending too much time away from your #1)
Ultimately, an open relationship requires the maturity to transcend juvenile, negative emotions like jealousy. Some open relationships work, others don’t, but don’t act as if monogamous relationships are 100% godsend cause there is a reason why the divorce rate is over 50%
Two cents from a happy guy in an open relationship
That’s very clever Prince- you have correlated competitive sports to be analogous with meaningful relationships. I guess that makes perfect sense because open relationships are often enjoyed in the context of screwing for sport.
And your theory about transcending “juvenile emotions like jealousy” usually only works on those who share an emotional attachment to the person that is comparable to that of a frozen fish stick. “Sure honey, I’m so flattered that you don’t get jealous. That just means that you really don’t give a shit about me.”
Write me in 10-15 years and tell me how it’s working for you then. Again, I’ve never heard a “death do us part” happy ending come flying out of an open relationship.
As far as the divorce rate, you might start asking the really hard questions, like why people are getting married in the first place. I can almost guarantee that those who divorce didn’t marry for true love.
True love transcends everything- even your desire to go out and justify screwing other people.
FW
I also have to add that really “appreciating what you have with the one you truly love” easily negates any desire to be with someone else.
FW
Take a look at this wonderful blog. That’s the best description of an open relationship, with the beauty and hardship that comes. We assume monogamy or non monogamy are wrong without really looking into it.
http://herdirtylittleheart.tumblr.com/
Aww, wow. Your brain just can’t wrap itself around the fact that sex with other people doesn’t inherently sabotage a relationship. I read raptly to that point in the article, at which I knew you’re the dead-wrong author for it.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with this woman’s article is an idiot. An idiot who just wants an excuse to be a whore.
Sure it isnt natural for human beings to be monogamous, but that does not make it right. People dont realize monogamy is a moral that ‘s supposed to correct and control our animal-desire to sleep around, for our benefit. Just because something is natural does not make it right. It is also in mankind’s Nature to be stupid. But does that make it right? No. The goal of the human being is to evolve past its animal-Nature, and giving in to the animal-desire to sleep around is degenerating to being a human being. An open “relationship” is not a relationship, but an oxymoron.
A female would have to be an ice queen or a sociopath to honestly, true blue not have an issue with it IMO. They can prove so much now since breaking the whole DNA code. Our hormons naturally stimulate our brains to produce emotions during sex. They are involved with pigs that screw other people while they are screwing them. They can’t be feeling too damn great outside the bedroom/sexnest? I’m lost for a politically correct term here.They are obviousally not being cherished & honored. God knows what else they are having to put up with. Or I might be wrong & they don’t mind or like it more than pigster does. Long term on a whole as far as issues like self-esteem, self-worth, value, etc…I’m not convienced that everything hunky-dorey, unless she is Bi. Who knows. All I know is I’m 46 & any pigster I ever met into porn or swinging is a Smuck!! Stinking ass man & all the sexist attitude & descriminating behavior & verbal, mental hurtful crap that comes out of the stinking ass host pig-man. The female/male biology of both has been pretty established since before hunter/gatherer society as what to do when. That includes emotions like anger, jelousey, depression, etc…If it was so freaking great & feeling good & everybody so ha ha happy, more would be doing it & we’d all know a couple of em doing it & hear about it more often.
That is my public reply. My faith reply is, it don’t work or feel good too long. There are WAY too many demons & demonic co-horts at play. A couple of commandments being blantenly disobeyed & several Bible verses being spit on & that just for starters. Every time they all disperse & go back home, new demons are coming in the back door with em. Be they all happy for too long the head-master lucifer will jump in to stir up some doubt, desent & ill willed feelings while they gossip about the other humans they just got freaky with Oh yea, he don’t want em to enjoy anything or be happy be it his party or them in church on thier knees.Their souls are infected & their free will is in Satans back pocket. They can’t be doing too damn good, it isn’t possible..