An Open Marriage

[brinny]

quatona, re: post #79, you're saying that this couple who loves each other also loves every intimate sexual partner they have relations with?

Are you referring to polygamy or something else? Polygamy is group marriage, isn't it?

How does that work if other married couples are involved in sexual intimacy with this married couple who loves each other?

 

[quatona]

Unless there's a definition of "love" that i'm not familiar with?

Ok, here goes (dictionary.com), all seven entries for "love":


Are there any statistics on how these marriages fare over time when one of their hobbies is sexual intimacy with multiple partners?[/QUOTE]
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
4.
a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5.
(used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like):
Would you like to see a movie, love?
6.
a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7.
sexual intercourse; copulation.

 

[brinny]

Ok, here goes (dictionary.com), all seven entries for "love":

Are there any statistics on how these marriages fare over time when one of their hobbies is sexual intimacy with multiple partners?

a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
4.
a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5.
(used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like):
Would you like to see a movie, love?
6.
a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7.
sexual intercourse; copulation.

is that the same as "lust"?

 

[quatona]

quatona, re: post #79, you're saying that this couple who loves each other also loves every intimate sexual partner the have relations with?

Well, I don´t know this particular couple, so I can´t make a statement about them.

I am thinking of a couple in which each person loves all those they have sex with.

Are you referring to polygamy or something else?

No, as per topic of the thead I am referring to an open marriage.

Polygamy is group marriage, isn't it?

No. Poygamy, typically, is either
- one male married to more than one woman (polygyny), or
- one woman married to more than one man (polyandry).
"Group marriage" - as far as I know - isn´t a common phenomenon nor institution in any of the major cultures around the world.

 

[brinny]

Well, I don´t know this particular couple, so I can´t make a statement about them.

I am thinking of a couple in which each person loves all those they have sex with.


No, as per topic of the thead I am referring to an open marriage.

No. Poygamy, typically, is either
- one male married to more than one woman (polygyny), or
- one woman married to more than one man (polyandry).
"Group marriage" - as far as I know - isn´t a common phenomenon nor institution in any of the major cultures around the world.

would that be the equivalent of two or more married couples who engage in sexual intimacy with other married couples?

Is that the equivalent of "group marriage"?

 

[quatona]

a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
4.
a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5.
(used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like):
Would you like to see a movie, love?
6.
a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7.
sexual intercourse; copulation.

is that the same as "lust"?[/QUOTE]
Brinny, please. You asked for definitions of "love" that don´t include sexual exclusivity (because you said you weren´t aware of any). I looked them up and copy/pasted them, for your convenience. Seven out of seven.
Now, before you continue pushing me around with further questions and ask me to inteprete the dictionary for you, I would expect you to say "Thank you, quatona, for answering my question so conclusively. I have learned something and I stand corrected."

 

[quatona]

would that be the equivalent of two or more married couples who engage in sexual intimacy with other married couples?

No.

Is that the equivalent of "group marriage"?

No.

 

[brinny]

is that the same as "lust"?

Brinny, please. You asked for definitions of "love" that don´t include sexual exclusivity (because you said you weren´t aware of any). Seven out of seven.
Now, before you continue pushing me around with further questions and ask me to inteprete the dictionary for you, I would expect you to say "Thank you, quatona, for answering my question so conclusively. I have learned something and I stand corrected." [/QUOTE]

Nice try.

What you described is "lust" is it not?

 

[quatona]

Brinny, please. You asked for definitions of "love" that don´t include sexual exclusivity (because you said you weren´t aware of any). Seven out of seven.
Now, before you continue pushing me around with further questions and ask me to inteprete the dictionary for you, I would expect you to say "Thank you, quatona, for answering my question so conclusively. I have learned something and I stand corrected."

Nice try.

What you described is "lust" is it not?[/QUOTE]
I didn´t describe anything. I gave you dictionary definitions of "love" - those that you claimed you weren´t aware of.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Nothing is sin "not using religious reasons". It isn't even necessarily unethical, if everyone involved agrees to it with full prior knowledge and consent. That doesn't however, mean its a great idea. Human emotions are complex. Hows the marriage going to cope when someone develops emotions they shouldn't? You'd want the safest sex imaginable, because even the happiest, most open of marriages might not survive an unexpected baby involving a 3rd party.

Just to consider.

Pretty much my thoughts. I don't see it being wrong but the question of possible pregnancies makes it risky. Also, some people are emotionally not fit for that kind of relationships, and even if the original couple is, there might be unwanted affections by some third party. But that's more of a technicality to be considered than moral argument against it as a whole.

 

[brinny]

quatona, re: post #87, what is it called if these married couples are engaging in sexual relations with each other?

You mentioned love is involved.

They love each other, right?

Are they in some type of "union" then? A "marriage" of sorts?

Or is it something else?

 

[brinny]

Nice try.

What you described is "lust" is it not?

I didn´t describe anything. I gave you dictionary definitions of "love" - those that you claimed you weren´t aware of.[/QUOTE]

I read them.

Sounds like "lust".

Is that love?

 

[brinny]

Pretty much my thoughts. I don't see it being wrong but the question of possible pregnancies makes it risky. Also, some people are emotionally not fit for that kind of relationships, and even if the original couple is, there might be unwanted affections by some third party. But that's more of a technicality to be considered than moral argument against it as a whole.

What's wrong with possible pregnancies?

 

[quatona]

quatona, re: post #87, what is it called if these married couples are engaging in sexual relations with each other?

I don´t know, and it doesn´t matter because it´s not the topic.

You mentioned love is involved.

They love each other, right?

Yes.

Are they in some type of "union" then?

Well, where I come from we call it (committed) relationship or partnership.

A "marriage" of sorts?

No.

Or is it something else?

Yes. The couple that is married is, well, married to each other. The persons who have a partnership and aren´t married to each other, well, are not married to each other. Those who don´t have a partnership with each other aren´t married to each other, either.
While leading an open marriage may have its complications, describing the marital status of the persons involved is not THAT complicated. Come on, you can make it. Simple rule of thumb: Those persons who are married to each other are married to each other.

 

[quatona]

I didn´t describe anything. I gave you dictionary definitions of "love" - those that you claimed you weren´t aware of.

I read them.

Sounds like "lust".

Is that love?

According to the dictionary, yes. This is one definition of "love". You may not like it (I don´t like it either, btw.), but it´s one of the definitions. Get over it.
You are free to pick any of the others.
Let´s take #1:
Nothing precludes someone from having "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for" more than one person. So, yes, love (by that definition) can be part of the relationship in question quite fine.
#2: It is possible to have a "feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection" for more than one person. So, yes, love (by that definition) can be part of the relationship in question quite fine.
#3: It is possible to have "sexual passion or desire" for more than one person. So, yes, love (by that definition) can be part of the relationship in question quite fine.
And so on, down to #7.
These are seven definitions of "love", all of which can apply to the non-marital relationship quite fine. (That which you said was impossible, by any definition of love you were aware of).

 

[brinny]

quatona, re: post 394,

it's called "swinging"

It's called "lust"

Is it moral?

 

[brinny]

According to the dictionary, yes. This is one definition of "love". You may not like it (I don´t like it either, btw.), but it´s one of the definitions. Get over it.
You are free to pick any of the others.
Let´s take #1:
Nothing precludes someone from having "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for" more than one person. So, yes, love (by that definition) can be part of the relationship in question quite fine.
#2: It is possible to have a "feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection" for more than one person. So, yes, love (by that definition) can be part of the relationship in question quite fine.
#3: It is possible to have "sexual passion or desire" for more than one person. So, yes, love (by that definition) can be part of the relationship in question quite fine.
And so on, down to #7.
These are seven definitions of "love", all of which can apply to the non-marital relationship quite fine. (That which you said was impossible, by any definition of love you were aware of).

Indicates an inability to maintain a stable one-on-one relationship (an inability for "commitment")

It's called "lust".

it's a form of "instability".

it's Polyamorous.

 

[quatona]

quatona, re: post 394,

it's called "swinging"

Thanks. Sounds like an illustrative term.

It's called "lust"

No, it isn´t. It´s called an "open marriage". It may involve lust, just like a close marriage may involve lust.

Is it moral?

That´s the thread question. I´m gald you have found it by now. Give it a try.
I had already answered this question on - I think - page 1.

 

[brinny]

Thanks. Sounds like an illustrative term.


No, it isn´t. It´s called an "open marriage". It may involve lust, just like a close marriage may involve lust.


That´s the thread question. I´m gald you have found it by now. Give it a try.
I had already answered this question on - I think - page 1.

Yes. It's lust.

Are you referring to your response on post #10?

In your opinion it's moral?

 

[quatona]

Indicates an inability to maintain a stable one-on-one relationship (an inability for "commitment")

It's called "lust".

it's a form of "instability".

Thanks for finally giving your opinion.
As I hinted earlier, you could have done so right away. None of the questions you asked was necessary or helpful for you arriving at your conclusion. It´s been your premise all along, after all.