open relationship

[Superpants]

http://www.thesite.org.uk/sexandrelationships/couples/lifeasacouple/openrelationships

thoughts on this?

 

[MQTA]

the key to anything one wants is finding volunteers to be the Others' that are involved

 

[hernyaccent]

I am all for open relationships as long as your honest with the others involved. It's not my style but who am I to knock what others do. Only suggestion I would have for them is use protection and get tested regularly.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I'm sorry, but I woudln't approve of "open" relationships. No matter how I feel on the issue of homosexuality, this is worse thant that. You are not remaining faithful to the one you committed yourself to, period. This goes to show one thing. Selfishness. If you expect others to respect your relationship, how about showing some dignity and not jump around when you feel like it. Have some fortitude and discipline and actually stand by one person, instead of involving others to satisfy one's needs. Multiple partners are one reason why the spread of STD's is prevalent.

 

[Superpants]

You are not remaining faithful to the one you committed yourself to, period.

how would this be unfaithful? the premise is that each member of the relationship would agree on a standard of committment (in this case, openness in the relationship) and would abide by that agreement (commitment).

does this really differ drastically from the biblical idea of a man having one wife, and several concubines?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

how would this be unfaithful? the premise is that each member of the relationship would agree on a standard of committment (in this case, openness in the relationship) and would abide by that agreement (commitment).

does this really differ drastically from the biblical idea of a man having one wife, and several concubines?

No it doesn't, but even then there were problems. Think of Abraham and his little fling that helped spawn the Arabs.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1) If open relationships are so natural for human beings, why does jealousy exist? What would be the evolutionary point of the emotion? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the line that we are all "naturally" suited to polyamory, though perhaps a small number of individuals are, just as a small number of individuals are suited to homosexual relationships.

2) Just because some behavior is "natural", that doesn't make it moral or wise. That is the naturalistic fallacy.

3) Just because some behavior doesn't mistreat others, that doesn't make it moral. Mistreatment of oneself is a moral concern as well.

4) Open relationships promote a shallow and hedonistic view of relationships. When relationships are open, then are cheapened. I'm not sure how to "prove" this, but I think that people should pursue deep, romantic relationships as part of their natural growth as integrated persons, and this requires exclusivity for the trust that is needed to make this work.

These are just a few of the reasons why I will never support polyamory as a cultural value suitable for everybody. I might accept the idea that a small percentage of society is suited to polyamory. Maybe.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

Well, I have known tons of people who were in open relationships and all of them, save one, eventually failed. And generally the reason for this was that when the two partners agreed on the open relationship, it was generally only one of the partners who wanted it and the other partner only consented out of fear of losing their partner. Then, of course, the partner who suggested it eventually found someone else (which was the point of the open relationship, in their mind in the first place) and left the other one high and dry.

I am definitely not saying all open relationships turn out this way, but in the past 12 years I have seen many of them follow the exact same pattern. If someone I was involved with ever asked for an open relationship, I would show them the door.

 

[beechy]

As far as I'm concerned, people can structure their relationships this way if that's what they want. But I personally wouldn't want to be a party to one.

 

[HappyHousewife]

If everybody involved is a knowing, responsible, and consenting adult, then I have no issues with it. I personally would not be involved in an open relationship, it wouldn't work for me. If it works for others, then that's wonderful. Really it's not my job to judge people and their relationships and interactions within their own circle, so it's not up to anybody other than those involved to approve it or not. Nobody needs to seek approval or validation from others not in the relationship so if it works for them that's all that matters.

 

[Skydancing]

It certainly wouldn't work for me, I like to keep my man for myself! However, if it works for others then that is the choice of the couple concerned!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

how would this be unfaithful? the premise is that each member of the relationship would agree on a standard of committment (in this case, openness in the relationship) and would abide by that agreement (commitment).

does this really differ drastically from the biblical idea of a man having one wife, and several concubines?

And what in Christian or Jewish scripture would lead you to this conclusion?
Are you aware that it was against the Law to sleep with another's concubine or are you confusing concubine with prostitution, adultery, or fornication?
The article is weak mutterings that attempt to suggest sleeping with various people when it suits them and as long as it suits them is justified because it might be forced into a comparison with another model or because people are really just driven by Gnostic forces and self-control should be only applicable to those that can demonstrate it - pure sophistry.

But since this is an extramarital discussion:

2 Samuel 3:6-8
6 During the war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner had been strengthening his own position in the house of Saul. 7 Now Saul had had a concubine named Rizpah daughter of Aiah. And Ish-Bosheth said to Abner, "Why did you sleep with my father's concubine?"
8 Abner was very angry because of what Ish-Bosheth said and he answered, "Am I a dog's head—on Judah's side? This very day I am loyal to the house of your father Saul and to his family and friends. I haven't handed you over to David. Yet now you accuse me of an offense involving this woman!


Matthew 19:3-12
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"


4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
~~~


Either the article needs to address polygamy as polygamy is defined or it is only attempting to redefine polygamy with a new injected version that best fits adultery, prostitution or simply fornication.

 

[Velo Princesse]

I take no issue whatsoever with open relationships. It's all about why you have one and how you handle it. For example, I have friends who are swingers. Their relationship was not cheapened, but strengthened by it. They say they are closer now than they ever have been. I asked how that is even possible and they pointed out that when you go into it for the other person, and the two of you always talk and follow the rules layed out, it does no damage.... beyond that, if you are always having open and honest discussions, it actually helps the relationship. This is not something they engage in all the time, but rather something they enjoy every once in a while. I also know people who have an open relationship. They say the same thing as the swingers.

I think that if a relationship fails it is because you didn't take care of it, not because of what boundaries you decided to live by.

Randi

 

[The Seeker]

If open relationships are so natural for human beings, why does jealousy exist? What would be the evolutionary point of the emotion? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the line that we are all "naturally" suited to polyamory, though perhaps a small number of individuals are, just as a small number of individuals are suited to homosexual relationships.

A natural desire for one's partner to only be with you (jealousy) does not mean that we do not also have a natural desire for multiple partners ourselves. Though, as you say yourself, it is irrelevant whether is is "natural", if it is immoral or unwise.

Just because some behavior doesn't mistreat others, that doesn't make it moral. Mistreatment of oneself is a moral concern as well.

In what way? How can it be said to be morally wrong to act towards ones own detriment? Stupid perhaps, but stupid is not the same thing as immoral.

Open relationships promote a shallow and hedonistic view of relationships. When relationships are open, then are cheapened. I'm not sure how to "prove" this, but I think that people should pursue deep, romantic relationships as part of their natural growth as integrated persons, and this requires exclusivity for the trust that is needed to make this work.

Just because that is what works for you, doesn't mean it is for everybody. Some people might find that their emotional needs are met better by an open relationship than a monogamous one. Monogamy is not for everyone.

Personally, I think that open relationships have far to much potential for complicated emotional problems and its not something I'd go for. But if some people find that it is better for them and they're careful not to engage in sexual practices that might put their partner(s) at risk (e.g. unprotected sex with strangers).