An Open Marriage

[Mister_Al]

I must say that I would have a hard time agreeing for my wife to have sex with other men. And any person that truly loves their spouse should feel the same way. Any attempt to justify an open marriage is just an example of the low level of morality in the world today.

Alan

 

[tulipbee]

You are correct as the very word Matrimony means motherhood. The problem with man producing more kids with multiple women is obvious.
Just go where polygamy is rampant and see the the 20 kids living in squalor. Why do you think only a few rich shieks and prince have multiple wives in Islamic countries? Because the common man in Cairo walking the streets cant even afford one wife. So a man with many wives wont be able to afford the child support nor the alimony.

When was polygamy outlawed when it was was allowable in the bible?

 

[buzuxi02]

It was never outlawed because it was never widespread to begin with not to mention marital law didnt exist back then. You dont actually think the peasantry which constituted 98% of society and would work in the fields all day had multiple wives did you?
In the Middle East where religious shariah law allows it, its extremely rare. Why? Because its expensive, and because you need to have a heck of alot more women than men. The late King Hussein of Jordan was a serial monagamist, many wives but not at the same time. One of the few examples, and guess what? Same in the bible it is the rich kings and nobles, 99% of the commoners were monogamists.
Rampant modern polygamy is only found in third world rural areas because fathers want to get rid of their daughters because they can be a financial burden/ or it takes places where there is a societal flaw. In poor rural Africa a daughter is worth one cow.
Whether biblical polygamy or modern day polygamy it is greatly exagerated.

 

[quatona]

We're talking about the consent of the spouse that isn't party to the sexual act though. The question is how is that relevant?

It´s only relevant when they have some sort of agreement that it requires consent, of course.

Does a marriage entail husband and wife agreeing to be monogamous?

Not if it´s an "open" marriage, obviously.
They might have an agreement that in each single case additional partners require the consent of the partner, though.

If no, extramarital sex is not a breach of the agreement, consent or no.

That depends entirely on the details of their agreements.

The difference between being honest and being dishonest in this instance is not whether you have your spouse's consent, but whether you conceal the affair.

I see your point: If there is a general agreement between the two that activities with other partners are none of the business of the partner and that no consent is required, there is not dishonesty in being silent about them, and consent is not required.
It all depends on the details of their agreements.

I certainly do, but that's not what this thread is about.

Well, it´s what your question was about: "Why does consent matter?". If you want to retract it for being off-topic, ok.

 

[dayhiker]

When was polygamy outlawed when it was was allowable in the bible?

It was Roman law that a man could only have one wife.

 

[Cearbhall]

OK. Maybe I shouldn't use the word sin. I should ask, why is it wrong?

I wouldn't say that it's wrong. Not objectively, at least. Culturally, it's pretty wrong.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I can't think of any non-religious reason against it. Really everything I can think of would be problem in any relationship, not just in open marriage.

One question mark tho is that there must be some agreement about what to do in case somebody involved gets pregnant. When people have sex, pregnancies can happen.

And any person that truly loves their spouse should feel the same way.

I'm not married, but for example if I was married and in condition (permanently or temporarily) of not being able to have sex with my wife, I would consider giving her go ahead to sleep with some other men. Because one definition of love is to look out for someone elses well being and happiness, I think that would be an act of love. If I truely loved her, I'd want her to be happy and I'd want our relationship to work.

Any attempt to justify an open marriage is just an example of the low level of morality in the world today.

I think it speaks more about high level of independent thinking which is not limited to previously accepted standards of morality, or traditional views on sexuality.

 

[quatona]

I must say that I would have a hard time agreeing for my wife to have sex with other men.

I understand that - but "It´s hard for me" doesn´t a moral argument make. Not even by Christian criteria.

And any person that truly loves their spouse should feel the same way.

Because true love is/should be inherently possessive/jealous?

Any attempt to justify an open marriage is just an example of the low level of morality in the world today.

Or a high level of a different morality than the one you adhere to.

 

[Bible Page]

Can you tell me why an open marriage is sin not using religious reasons? Two married couple who love each other and have no problem seeing other people: there's no jealousy, no animosity, no hatred, they just let each other be free. And they always use protection and gets tested.

I remember when I use to look at porn, there was a married guy on there; and I saw his interview with his wife and kids, and they were OK with what he did. In fact, she loved what he did. How is this wrong, not using religious reasons?

Why would two people get married when they don't want to be married to each other?

If they want to sleep around they can just live together and sleep around at will. In a time when there are STD's that kill people they're playing with their lives just to get off with as many people as they can.
If they had any respect for children they'd at least be sterilized so they can't destroy innocent lives with their behavior.
Open marriage is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Jack of Spades]

If they had any respect for children they'd at least be sterilized so they can't destroy innocent lives with their behavior.

I believe in most cases, their kids wont even find out. I am confident that most kids can emotionally handle having daddy or mom out of home twice in a month for couple of hours for unknown reason.

 

[quatona]

Why would two people get married when they don't want to be married to each other?

Obviously, they do want to be married to each other.

If they want to sleep around they can just live together and sleep around at will. In a time when there are STD's that kill people they're playing with their lives just to get off with as many people as they can.

Except that´s not the scenario in the OP, and not the idea of an open marriage, typically.
Plus, like a closed marriage, an open marriage isn´t all about sex.

If they had any respect for children they'd at least be sterilized so they can't destroy innocent lives with their behavior.

"Destroy innocent lives"? Now you just got carried away, eh?

Open marriage is a contradiction in terms.

No, it isn´t.

 

[dayhiker]

Most people that open their marriage are older, have already raised their children and have medically fixed themselves so they can't have any more kids.

Many poly young people are raising their kids together. So its more like most of human history where the extended family lived in the same house/compound.
Which I personally think would be a great way to be raised as a kid.

 

[Cearbhall]

I must say that I would have a hard time agreeing for my wife to have sex with other men. And any person that truly loves their spouse should feel the same way.

Eh, but on what grounds? Saying that someone "should" want something isn't an argument, especially since the prompt was to make this argument without the help of religious logic.

 

[Mister_Al]

Eh, but on what grounds? Saying that someone "should" want something isn't an argument, especially since the prompt was to make this argument without the help of religious logic.

What do you mean by "on what grounds?" People divorce each other every day on grounds of adultery. That's not religious logic, that's a blatant disregard for the marital relationship. If a person has any character at all they will consider their marriage vows (yes VOWS) they made to their spouse as their promise of faithfulness to them and not as some sort of casual rhetoric made to fill a place in the marriage ceremony.

If somebody can tell me in one breath how much they love their spouse and then in another breath say that it's alright with them if their spouse has sex with someone else then I'll have to assume that one of their statements is a lie. Morality isn't dead and it isn't out of style--try it sometime.

Alan

 

[Jack of Spades]

If a person has any character at all they will consider their marriage vows (yes VOWS) they made to their spouse as their promise of faithfulness to them and not as some sort of casual rhetoric made to fill a place in the marriage ceremony.

dictionary.com defines word "faithful" as following:

adjective
strict or thorough in the performance of duty: true to one's word, promises, vows, etc. steady in allegiance or affection; loyal; constant, reliable, trusted, or believed.

So, using this definition, if a couple have honestly and openly agreed that they can involve other parties in their sex lives, and act true to any sort of bonus agreements their deal might have, such as informing the other person about their activities, there is no unfaithfulness. They are both being true to their marriage vows. That's not adultery and nobody is being cheated.

If somebody can tell me in one breath how much they love their spouse and then in another breath say that it's alright with them if their spouse has sex with someone else then I'll have to assume that one of their statements is a lie. Morality isn't dead and it isn't out of style--try it sometime.

Are you saying that "love" is just synonym for having an exclusive sexual relationship with someone?

 

[Cearbhall]

What do you mean by "on what grounds?"

I'm asking why you think there's a "should" here.

People divorce each other every day on grounds of adultery. That's not religious logic, that's a blatant disregard for the marital relationship.

This thread is about open marriage.

 

[Mister_Al]

Are you saying that "love" is just synonym for having an exclusive sexual relationship with someone?

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes--your SPOUSE! The one you swore an oath to that they would be your one and only (forsaking all others) till death do you part.

Alan

 

[Mister_Al]

This thread is about open marriage.

Yes it is.

Alan

 

[Jack of Spades]

The one you swore an oath to that they would be your one and only (forsaking all others) till death do you part.

Do you realize that marriage vows differ from country to country? In my language, there is no such expression of "forsaking others". Marriage vows are also not universal. At least in Finland, spouses are free to write their own vows if they want to, they don't have to use the standard ones. So, making a marriage vow which states that I promise that I'll let my wife have alot of boyfriends, would be as valid as the standard one.

Also, if we leave the mythical finality aspect out of the vow, and call it a promise (the stuff said when getting married is called "promise" in my language, not vow) there is really no point to assume that you're somehow ultimately tied to your promise if the person I made the promise to, tells me it's not against her will that we can do things differently than previously agreed.

To creatively quote someone famous: The vows are made for human, not human for the vows

 

[Mister_Al]

Do you realize that marriage vows differ from country to country? In my language, there is no such expression of "forsaking others". Marriage vows are also not universal. At least in Finland, spouses are free to write their own vows if they want to, they don't have to use the standard ones. So, making a marriage vow which states that I promise that I'll let my wife have alot of boyfriends, would be as valid as the standard one.

Also, if we leave the mythical finality aspect out of the vow, and call it a promise (the stuff said when getting married is called "promise" in my language, not vow) there is really no point to assume that you're somehow ultimately tied to your promise if the person I made the promise to, tells me it's not against her will that we can do things differently than previously agreed.

To creatively quote someone famous: The vows are made for human, not human for the vows

Your reply is a perfect example of how much our morals have degraded in this nation. At the risk of sounding religious:
Does the names Sodom and Gomorrah sound familiar?

Alan