Your thoughts on swinging/open relationships

[Shiver Me Tits]

I can't, but the people in the relationships can. If all participants are satisfied by 7 years, who am I to judge their impression of their own relationship?

Why is seven years important then?

It isn't, would you prefer 5, or 10? I thought of both and split the difference. Most lines of distinction we draw are arbitrary you know.

If it's all about letting people judge for themselves, why impose this arbitrary time-frame at all. Again, you're assuming that "value" of a relationship is longevity, so I'm afraid it is kind of important to define what you're actually talking about. What does "working for seven years" mean? Why is it important that a relationship "works for seven years".

This is where I stopped. In your first reply to me you tried to turn this into a semantic debate over what "Works" means. Now you're just trying the same thing with a "7 years?!?!" twist. I'm not interested in a semantic argument online, with someone I don't know, on a subject I'm not that passionate about. If you want to discuss the core issues in a less nitpicky fashion, I'm here, but not for a fight for a fight's sake.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't know, I'm a traditionalist. I grew up looking up to my parent's relationship who have a very loving exclusive marriage. It's what I've always held as an ideal. I can't wrap my head around the idea of an "open relationship." If you're going to go out and bone other people why are you in a relationship?

 

[Phasmal]

To each their own, but it's not for me.

I don't really think anything of it morally as long as everyone is on the same page. It does make me kind of sad when I hear about open relationships where only one of the original partners wanted it to be open and the other one just kinda went along with it.

So, no, I wouldn't do it myself. It's not something I want, and it seems like a lot of effort. Having one boyfriend is quite enough for me.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It isn't, would you prefer 5, or 10? I thought of both and split the difference. Most lines of distinction we draw are arbitrary you know.

So why are you drawing any at all?

This is where I stopped. In your first reply to me you tried to turn this into a semantic debate over what "Works" means.

No. I asked you to explain what the word "works" means when you said it, because you did say it and thus you did presumably mean something by it. That's not an unreasonable thing to do.

If you just want to be able to say shit and not have anyone comment on it, why are you posting on a discussion forum? Why not make a blog?

Chimps live and work together in troupes, grooming each other, hunting together and raising their young. They also fight with, rape, and murder each other. Sound familiar? As for "Pffft" that is not now, nor has it ever been an argument.

Bonobos live and work together in much larger troupes than chimpanzees, grooming each other, and raising their young. They are largely non-violent due to frequent socio-sexual contact and seem to have sex primarily to facilitate social bonding and enjoyment rather than to secure reproduction. Sound familiar?

Again, you can read whatever you want into the behaviour of animals.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I don't see the point of a relationship if people just bang whoever they want to anyway. Sorry if I'm blunt OP, but from the people I've known in my time it's almost always one-sided, and if it isn't then it's just a Friends With Benefits arrangement where no one wants to commit.

People can pretend all they want but when someone frequently shares moments of intimacy and lust with someone other than you, your adrenal glands will still flare up and not sit idly by. There will be an element of jealousy or injustice involved, especially if it's a transition from a normal relationship into an open one.

If either party feels that it's necessary to make it open in order to sustain the relationship, then I'm sorry to tell you, but it's probably a good time to bail, since that's one of the telltale signs of a stagnated/dead relationship. Intimacy is one of the core pillars of good relations and if it isn't good enough between two people regularly, then you either need to experiment more or face the music.

 

[Shiver Me Tits]

Chimps live and work together in troupes, grooming each other, hunting together and raising their young. They also fight with, rape, and murder each other. Sound familiar? As for "Pffft" that is not now, nor has it ever been an argument.

Bonobos live and work together in much larger troupes than chimpanzees, grooming each other, and raising their young. They are largely non-violent due to frequent socio-sexual contact and seem to have sex primarily to facilitate social bonding and enjoyment rather than to secure reproduction. Sound familiar?

Again, you can read whatever you want into the behaviour of animals.

Or you could deal in the best information available, rather than internet bullshit, in which case talking about Bonobos and ignoring the other half of our ape ancestry is a bit lame.

I get the idea that you think I'm going to be making some big "evolutionary psychology" push, and you think there's a need to enter full SJW defense mode. I'm not, so chill out.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Or you could deal in the best information available, rather than internet bullshit, in which case talking about Bonobos and ignoring the other half of our ape ancestry is a bit lame.

As is talking about chimpanzees. Again, the homo-pan split predates the chimpanzee-bonobo split. Both have an equal claim to be the closest living relative to human beings. Claiming that humans are naturally aggressive or patriarchal because of chimpanzees is no less foolish than claiming that humans are naturally non-violent and promiscuous because of bonobos.

I get the idea that you think I'm going to be making some big "evolutionary psychology" push, and you think there's a need to enter full SJW defense mode. I'm not, so chill out.

Human beings naturally probably live a lot like Chimpanzees, complete with regular social upheaval, daily violence, and patriarchy.

You seem to think it's necessary to infer or interpret a lot of things which are actually quite explicit in the things you say.

 

[Luna Saltatio]

I don't know, most people aren't that sure of themselves, lack any sense of possessiveness or jealousy, and in addition are in such an incredibly healthy and trusting relationship that this could even work. In principle it seems fine, but the backstory of "happy" people in that kind of relationship never seems particularly happy to me.

 

[MishaK]

I wouldn't speculate about what would or wouldn't be feasible for all people alive, but based on your description that doesn't sound like a winning formula to me.

Or you could deal in the best information available, rather than internet bullshit, in which case talking about Bonobos and ignoring the other half of our ape ancestry is a bit lame.

As is talking about chimpanzees. Again, the homo-pan split predates the chimpanzee-bonobo split. Both have an equal claim to be the closest living relative to human beings. Claiming that humans are naturally aggressive or patriarchal because of chimpanzees is no less foolish than claiming that humans are naturally non-violent and promiscuous because of bonobos.

I felt I had to respond to this. Bonobos are really unique in the world of apes and monkeys, and primates in general. There are relatively solitary types like Orangutans, who are fairly pacifistic, but they're also mostly solitary. I don't believe that another primate species can be said to have a similar social structure to Bonobos, while violent hierarchy is broadly the norm.

Of course that doesn't excuse any such behavior in humans, but denying our heritage and fantasizing that we're descended from peaceful circle-jerkers flies in the very gruesome face of humans and our ancestral tree. We also, clearly, can override urges and have been selecting for people who can exist in at least a primitive society for at least 1.2-1.8 million years. It's a complicated issue though, and you're simplifying it.

 

[Shiver Me Tits]

Or you could deal in the best information available, rather than internet bullshit, in which case talking about Bonobos and ignoring the other half of our ape ancestry is a bit lame.

As is talking about chimpanzees. Again, the homo-pan split predates the chimpanzee-bonobo split. Both have an equal claim to be the closest living relative to human beings. Claiming that humans are naturally aggressive or patriarchal because of chimpanzees is no less foolish than claiming that humans are naturally non-violent and promiscuous because of bonobos.

I get the idea that you think I'm going to be making some big "evolutionary psychology" push, and you think there's a need to enter full SJW defense mode. I'm not, so chill out.

Human beings naturally probably live a lot like Chimpanzees, complete with regular social upheaval, daily violence, and patriarchy.

You seem to think it's necessary to infer or interpret a lot of things which are actually quite explicit in the things you say.

It is, since you'd have to infer, "And that being the natural state of humans in the absence of any higher reasoning or civilization, it's license to endorse bad behavior." and you'd have to be an absolute dickhead to do that.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

Not my jam, but if it works for the people in question and they're happy, then it's all good.

 

[Cheesy Goodness]

My sister-in-law and her husband would get an itch about every 5 years, and they would try an open relationship for a bit. It finally did them in after 15 years of this back and forth. They had a very ugly divorce. Both of them had been through a lot together too. I hold a very low opinion of their values and actions. They set a horrible example for their son.

I reject the very notion of it, especially on a moral level. Marriage can only work with someone that will stay faithful to you. Getting emotional or sexual satisfaction from a third-party will spell disaster in the long term. My wife belongs to me and I belong to her. There is no room for anybody else. Just the thought of her sleeping with another man disgusts me. I would never trust her again for violating our vows. You promise "...to have and to hold from this day forward... until death do us part." That's not something that should be said without conviction.

I know open relationships are nothing new, but I consider it very misguided. You're an adult and you do whatever you want. I couldn't hate the idea enough. Before you decide to take that step, you better consider real hard if you actually want that and if it'll benefit you in any meaningful way. Likely scenario, your relationship will suffer for it.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I felt I had to respond to this. Bonobos are really unique in the world of apes and monkeys, and primates in general.

And humans aren't?

Sure, we aren't descended from bonobos. But neither are bonobos. At some point in the past, there was a hominid species from which these three surviving species (chimpanzees, bonobos and humans) descended. It may be that that species was behaviourally very chimp-like (just as physically, it was probably very chimp-like), but if that is the case then we can see in the case of bonobos that very small variations in genetics have managed to produce huge changes in social behaviour. The point was that you cannot use primatology to infer truths about "human nature" or supposedly-natural trends in human behaviour at all, not that bonobos are a more convincing model for human nature than chimps.

The whole concept of human nature needs to be moved away from its Hobbesian origins and the "nature/nurture" debate. We know enough to be able to question this simplistic idea of an inner struggle between social civilization and natural animal instincts. We are, after all, social animals. Social learning is natural for us. Without it we don't degenerate into our "natural" form as violent, patriarchal beasts, we just don't develop properly.

It is, since you'd have to infer, "And that being the natural state of humans in the absence of any higher reasoning or civilization, it's license to endorse bad behavior." and you'd have to be an absolute dickhead to do that.

Well.. Not really. That's neither what I'm inferring nor is it necessary to do so.

Hobbes, for example, thought that human nature was pretty horrible, but he still used it to make a set of moral claims which, in practice, were extremely prejudicial (particularly to people who were not white Europeans).

You haven't just claimed that humans beings resemble chimpanzees in an abstract sense, which relative to most animals on the planet they sort of do but that goes without saying, you've turned that into a argument from nature regarding the moral and social quality of different human relationships. So, relationship forms which you don't like aren't just relationship forms you personally don't like, but rather they simply won't "work" (again, still no word on what that means) because they aren't in accordance with this supposed chimpanzee-like human nature. You can think that nature is "good" or "bad" as much as you want, but you're still using it as a yardstick to judge how people behave.

 

[MHR]

Two things: First of all, I find the idea of polygamy disgusting at a base level. That anyone should deserve and take multiple partners and find multiple willing, submissive patsies in this facade invokes a feeling in me of pure revulsion. It's predatory and extremely unfair.

Second thing; I find polyamory where all partners are equal and free to be with as many different people as they wish to be fine.

I'm in a type of polyamorous relationship. The person I'm with, she hangs around other people and it really doesn't bother me in the slightest, because I'm always free to find someone on the side as well, and I know that that neither her or I being with someone else would affect the way she feels about me, or I her. It's a flat state of "always loved" and that only comes with trust. Trust comes with communication and security. For that to be working right you need to know about all the things that can go wrong without it.

You people, all people need to understand about polyamory is that at its very core is that it's based on selfishness. It's very selfish to want more than one person to love or to fuck or to take the time of one person or choose to discard the time concerns or commitments that would usually come with being with another. The trick to having all these wonderful things is to understand and accept the selfish nature of these desires in each-other and work around them.

When you want to know why it's so hard or as elusive as a unicorn to see a successful polyamorous relationship, it's because when people ask themselves "do I want to be in a relationship that's based on selfishness?" the answer is usually no. People have it drilled so hard into their heads what caring is and what makes up a proper sense of propriety that it comes at odds very easily with polyamory.

You might think that's nonsense, that relationships are built upon selflessness and sacrifice to one-another. You might think that a good polyamorous relationship is one in which each partner loves each-other equally, and like a loving nest of animals all snuggle together at night holding each-others hands with big grins on their faces. The truth is that nobody has the time or patience for that, and everyone has their biases. If you're trying to balance the selfish desire to have people to love with the purest form of selflessness that comes with loving them all equally, you'd realize that the easiest way to do that is to have 1 partner, and you'd just be in a simple monogamous relationship like everyone else. And most people can barely even do that. Making the necessary concessions to be successfully polyamorous takes a different approach that acknowledges selfishness, to be mindful of those desires in others, and to keep it in check for yourself.

Before I risk writing a damn book, the basics involve making deals. You lay out equal deals and you follow the rules. Lack of communication or a valid premise cause things to spiral out of control quickly. You need to know what you want and need, what they want and need, and for everyone involved to know it.

 

[burnout02urza]

In a word: Don't.

This is a terrible idea. You know how the word 'cuckold' is a popular insult? Well, if you go ahead with this, you're making yourself a literal cuckold.

I guarantee you - she'll be getting laid a lot more than you will. She'll also lose any remaining sexual interest in you.

Did she suggest this? Did she literally tell you that she wanted to fuck other men, and you should be okay with that? That's an enormous red flag. If she's not already cheating on you, she's longing for the chance.

Tell her 'no'. And also "The fact that you brought this up has lowered my opinion of you, as a person."

If you were the one to suggest this, why?

edit: And here's one such story.

https://m.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/2mh8oj/my_wife34f_and_i_35m_tried_an_open_relationship/

 

[mardocOz]

[Snip]

Bearing in mind that not everyone's relationships and values are the same, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that specific people, that you presumably do not know and know nothing about, is cheating on the OP, or at least wanting to.

This being said, I would have to side with those encouraging extreme caution. And annoyingly I fear that I am about to undo my argument above.

Anecdotally I was in a similar situation to yourself once. My fianc? wanted an open relationship, but I did not. I pondered for many months about whether or not I could bring myself to be OK with it, and eventually decided that I couldn't bring myself to accept it. She was of the mindset that she could differentiate between sex and love. And that's fine, some people would agree with her. That's cool. I did not. For me, sex is an important part of a relationship. It's more than the physical act, it's a deeply personal thing, a connection between two people. And I was not OK with sharing that with anyone else. I didn't want to picture myself with anyone else, and when I thought about her and someone else it made me upset. Angry, even. I'm sure there are some who would sympathise with her, OK sure. I don't think I was the bad guy in this story.

Anyway, ultimately, she wouldn't budge from her position, and neither would I. We broke off the relationship, I moved away, and then just as I was contemplating whether or not I'd made a terrible mistake in leaving her I get a call from my now ex-fianc? who, wracked with guilt, admits to having cheated on me while we were together.

Was she wanting an open relationship because she wanted to cheat? Was she already cheating at this point and wanted an excuse? Probably. But the point is less about the outcome of my failed relationship and more about the personal decision that I came to when I realised that I was not OK with an open relationship. And at the end of the day, it's a personal decision for you too. Nobody on here can tell you what is right, or how you should feel one way or the other. We can provide you with our thoughts, our anecdotes, our warnings, but ultimately it's your life, and nobody knows you as well as you. Be happy in your decision, whatever it is. Have no regrets.

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

I don't see the point of a relationship if people just bang whoever they want to anyway. Sorry if I'm blunt OP, but from the people I've known in my time it's almost always one-sided, and if it isn't then it's just a Friends With Benefits arrangement where no one wants to commit.

People can pretend all they want but when someone frequently shares moments of intimacy and lust with someone other than you, your adrenal glands will still flare up and not sit idly by. There will be an element of jealousy or injustice involved, especially if it's a transition from a normal relationship into an open one.

If either party feels that it's necessary to make it open in order to sustain the relationship, then I'm sorry to tell you, but it's probably a good time to bail, since that's one of the telltale signs of a stagnated/dead relationship. Intimacy is one of the core pillars of good relations and if it isn't good enough between two people regularly, then you either need to experiment more or face the music.

I largely disagree with your points about a one-sided nature to any such arrangement or the notion that it will always mean a diminished the level of intimacy and commitment with those involved, but you do raise an excellent and effective point regarding just how complicated a lot of those sexual feelings might get. Particularly since this is something that's fairly likely to pop up, regardless of how well people can manage or compartmentalize their romantic feelings.

As to your other points, I suppose my disagreement largely lies with the varied number of reasons or options a couple might consider an open relationship. Whether that be to explore some sexual/kinky fantasies or simply wishing to have a little flexibility/space. A lot of it I think depends on how open and honest the people involved are, and how balanced out such an arrangement would work out based on the personalities involved (not sure if I worded that very well). And even more probably depends on what someone's actual intent is for the idea (which ties in with open honesty, with oneself and others).

Two things: First of all, I find the idea of polygamy disgusting at a base level. That anyone should deserve and take multiple partners and find multiple willing, submissive patsies in this facade invokes a feeling in me of pure revulsion. It's predatory and extremely unfair.

Second thing; I find polyamory where all partners are equal and free to be with as many different people as they wish to be fine.

I'm in a type of polyamorous relationship. The person I'm with, she hangs around other people and it really doesn't bother me in the slightest, because I'm always free to find someone on the side as well, and I know that that neither her or I being with someone else would affect the way she feels about me, or I her. It's a flat state of "always loved" and that only comes with trust. Trust comes with communication and security. For that to be working right you need to know about all the things that can go wrong without it.

You people, all people need to understand about polyamory is that at its very core is that it's based on selfishness. It's very selfish to want more than one person to love or to fuck or to take the time of one person or choose to discard the time concerns or commitments that would usually come with being with another. The trick to having all these wonderful things is to understand and accept the selfish nature of these desires in each-other and work around them.

When you want to know why it's so hard or as elusive as a unicorn to see a successful polyamorous relationship, it's because when people ask themselves "do I want to be in a relationship that's based on selfishness?" the answer is usually no. People have it drilled so hard into their heads what caring is and what makes up a proper sense of propriety that it comes at odds very easily with polyamory.

You might think that's nonsense, that relationships are built upon selflessness and sacrifice to one-another. You might think that a good polyamorous relationship is one in which each partner loves each-other equally, and like a loving nest of animals all snuggle together at night holding each-others hands with big grins on their faces. The truth is that nobody has the time or patience for that, and everyone has their biases. If you're trying to balance the selfish desire to have people to love with the purest form of selflessness that comes with loving them all equally, you'd realize that the easiest way to do that is to have 1 partner, and you'd just be in a simple monogamous relationship like everyone else. And most people can barely even do that. Making the necessary concessions to be successfully polyamorous takes a different approach that acknowledges selfishness, to be mindful of those desires in others, and to keep it in check for yourself.

Before I risk writing a damn book, the basics involve making deals. You lay out equal deals and you follow the rules. Lack of communication or a valid premise cause things to spiral out of control quickly. You need to know what you want and need, what they want and need, and for everyone involved to know it.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here. Selfishness might sound a little harsh, but it's... kind of accurate. And not in the sense that someone is just a selfish and uncaring person so much so much as that like you say, a lot of negotiation is involved, so a lot of elements to the whole arrangement will involve bargaining with how a relationship is going to be handled.

Although if you think about it, a monogamous relationship typically demands a pretty high level of selfishness too. Perhaps more in some ways.

I'm still a little surprised at how puritanical so many responses in this thread have been so far.

 

[MHR]

I'm still a little surprised at how puritanical so many responses in this thread have been so far.

I'm not surprised at all. It's one thing to be trapped in the idea of marriage and only knowing one person for most of your life, but it starts making logical sense when faced with the possible alternative being an experimental relationship model that has a good chance of being a big mess that comes about by selfishness, jealous, or ambition.

I would usually be against recommending it most of the time, because most people wouldn't be able to handle it, and recommending something good in theory that would likely end up in a big mess is difficult to recommend for everyone. But there's nothing morally wrong with it. You just have to keep in mind "consenting adults."

 

[C5H5-NiNO]

The title is a little misleading, because whatever I think about the topic at large, your story OP, is just full of red flags. I wouldn't be shocked if she's already cheated on you.

 

[Marik2]

I want Bara no hime to log in and talk about this subject