I would venture the opinion here that your intolerance is much wider than that faux nobility of purpose.
My gut tells me that what you like about the open marriage experience is the chance to express a subliminated homoerotic urge. It gets you off to not be where no man has been before.
You can riff on it as much as you want to. But that is what it gets down to.
And hey, that's fine with me, but sometimes you have to admit that it's the swordplay you wish you had.
Are speaking from experience? Did you try an open marriage for that reason and it went badly? I can’t actually think of another reason for this conclusion. Your argument does not make sense to me.
Are you actually saying that anyone who knowingly has relations with a non-virgin is a closet homosexual?
Are speaking from experience? Did you try an open marriage for that reason and it went badly? I can’t actually think of another reason for this conclusion. Your argument does not make sense to me.
Are you actually saying that anyone who knowingly has relations with a non-virgin is a closet homosexual?
Nope, not saying that.
But I am suggesting that anyone actively having sex with the same women within a day or two of someone else knows that they're being exposed to what's been going on earlier.
And if that's the attraction, then that's what I'm suggesting.
I'm also suggesting that heterosexual men are kinda repulsed by that experience.
And further, that a guy agreeing to that "experience" in an open marriage must on some level be getting off on that "closeness".
Not my thing, but I just wish the openers would be honest about their desires.
Sheesh, seems I made a mess. Thought if I quit posting about the topic, quit retaliating, the thread would get back on track. Anyway, as stated before, this is supposed to be a help forum, not an electronic playground, where you have to fight the "bully" next to the sandbox. For people so "open-minded", seems a lot of personal attacks going on (for which I myself am guilty.) [/end rant]
Back on topic, no, I would not agree to open marriage.
Location: Temporary Resident of Earth Lord Only Knows Where Next
Posts: 5,599
Re: Would you agree to open marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Fella
Sheesh, seems I made a mess. Thought if I quit posting about the topic, quit retaliating, the thread would get back on track. Anyway, as stated before, this is supposed to be a help forum, not an electronic playground, where you have to fight the "bully" next to the sandbox. For people so "open-minded", seems a lot of personal attacks going on (for which I myself am guilty.) [/end rant]
Back on topic, no, I would not agree to open marriage.
Thank you AF, the thread has strayed significantly off topic from the OP. I would like to invite the participants to start a new thread if they would like to debate the moral attributes of an open marriage. Please keep it friendly. Thanks.
To help AF get the ball rolling again, I restate my original position. No I would not agree to an open marriage.
I would venture the opinion here that your intolerance is much wider than that faux nobility of purpose.
My gut tells me that what you like about the open marriage experience is the chance to express a subliminated homoerotic urge. It gets you off to not be where no man has been before.
Well "Dr Michzz" your gut is absolutely wrong. And so are your homophobic rants and opinions about me. But thanks for your worthless judgmental diagnosis offered blindly without facts.
For the record, I am in a 35 year marriage relationship, which does not include swinging, swapping, or 'open' relations.
And no, I would not advise such to others.
That's rich. Two guys who have no intention of having an open marriage arguing with me about my conviction that a man interested in such a thing has hidden desires?
Interesting.
My logic's fine. Based on your postings, my conclusions are sound.
I only see these two other gentlemen as "understanding" They accept others for who they are. They have no need to tell anyone that they are "wrong"
AS I said, I would not be interested in a "complete open marriage" But Swinging and swapping has raised my curiousity to teh lifestytle.
My wife has always said she would never do it. Which I am completely fine with, but hey it is interesting that peeople do this and there are clubs, websites and even resorts for this type of "lifestyle" it is a multi-billion dollar industry for those who run these places, so apparently there is a market for it.
Does open marriages end in Divorce? sure I would say 90% of them or higher. Some do survive and thrive in it. Those people I find very interesting and unique, what makes them tick? what is their trust level like? Their openess, their boundries? All very interesting.
again, not for 90% of the couples out there, probably not for 99.9% of the people on this board, especially since most marriages here are already in disarray anyway.
but hey who am I to judge others? There was a time where Blacks and whites marrying each other was "against gods word!"...pathetic.
If you want to call me gay, bi whatever you want...go ahead, but back when I was 21 a good friend I worked with was out with me and a female friend, My male friend leans over to me and says, "hey i am Gay!" I leaned over to him and said, " Yea I know, don't grab my arse, but you can buy the next round!" He laughed and we hung out. Just never found him attractive, now that cute little red head of a wife? now she is a hottie.
anyway...shall we move on....because as midge Ure once said, "This is answers to nothing!"
My wife and I discussed this extensively, and I want to offer our conclusions.
1) Although you can have more than one child and still love the first child just as much, sibling dynamics do arrive that changes the relationship of those children with the parent. The same is true in an amorous situation. Even if you say you dont love anyone any less, you do introduce competition for affection and that changes the feeling of assured exclusivity that is a primary reason for most people getting married.
2) Marriage is completely voulentary, while adultary is illegal even with the other parties consent. In other words if all parties are amicable the most intellegent thing to do is get a divorce then have a nontraditional ceremony that more accurately reflects your future arrangements.
3) Mathmatically haveing one partner that you can work on a deep and growing bond with is better as life goes on than several short term bonds that never attain the ripeness that the passage of time grants. When one person is 80 and has had one good partner for 60 years that person will be happier than another 80 year old that has had 12 different 5 year relationships and has only just met the next new partner. That person really doesn't have anyone that knows and cares about them.
4) The main reason we didn't try it is I couldn't convince myself that I wouldn't use it as a vehicle to try to meet someone that was interested in a monogamous relationship. Its what happens the moment you are done with a threesome, the person with options picks one to talk to and the other is diminished. One person will always have a stronger connection than the other and there is no gaurentee its the "primary". 90% of people pair off or just walk away alone and avoid those that participated in swapping or group relations.
2) Marriage is completely voulentary, while adultary is illegal even with the other parties consent. In other words if all parties are amicable the most intellegent thing to do is get a divorce then have a nontraditional ceremony that more accurately reflects your future arrangements.
Why would that matter even one bit??
Lots of things are 'illegal'. States often try to regulate
what isnt even their business. In many states sex toys,
oral sex, and all manner of 'normal' married behavior is
in fact illegal....along with washing your car on sunday.
These lists of stupid laws are endless!
I wouldnt even consider keeping such nonsensical laws.
There are MANY reasons NOT to enter into an open relationship.
Legality doesnt even make the list.
As for the question, possibly depending on how we approached it. As was mentioned earlier, as long as it was a positive to the relationship but if it was a negative then no or at least not with those particular people.
The debates between moral absolutism and moral relativism always ends up the same. No one is convinced by the other and the moral relativism side always has the advantage of be able to allow for the moral absolutist position while the reverse is not true.
While there maybe some sub group that is motivated by the "sword play" idea I think evolutionary biology gives us a more common explanation then that.
Please explain to me what the positives would be. Its a fantasy that I dont see what it would benefit me on the other side, after its fulfilled.
The idea of being fawned over by two girls is of course attractive, but that is not the way I am wired. I am the initiator, I do the work, the motion, the tending to others befor I finish for myself. Having another person there practically sounds like just more work to do befor I finish.
Her way of course she wants two men to fawn over her and ravage her, but it would never work that way either. Two guys would always be preoccupied with avioding seeming homosexual to each other while in the midst of a sexual act. That tension would suck the extra attention away from her, and leave her doing the impossible work of trying to make two men feel like alpha male at the same time.
As for just having seperate one on one excursions, the effort we would need to put into finding and wooing acceptable people would leave no time to work on the real permenant relationship. If your partner is really so lacking in an aspect that you find necessary then you need to either work with your partner or find a new partner, not just complicate the situations with more partners that would have still more areas of excellence and deficiancy.
I am not talking morality, right or wrong here. I just cant imagine a situation where you could share your primary partners attention and still feel fulfilled by the relationship over the long term. It may seem good for a short while, but conflicts are bound to happen that someone would exit the arrangement to solve.
A man I work with goes swinging with his wife on weekends, they have no kids, both work, take seperate vacations, and act more like roommates than lovers. That is not the kind of relationship I want with my wife. My wifes ex-boyfriend thought he had a new woman that would let him have an open relationship, but she got jelous and ended it.
Every real world instance of complex amorous arrangements has not yeilded the desired results. My theory is that we are just not conditioned that way. The Idea of mother is singular, for each of us only has one image of who our mother is. I think the same is true as we search for wife/husband, the true fulfillment of that Idea is singular, not plural.
P.S. The issue of legality may seem trivial, until one partner gets a divorce on thier terms because of proven adaultary. That's why its a concern, its a way out if one partner decides to act on it.
I intend no insult but it's one of those things "if I have to explain it then you won't understand it...." Plus it would probably take pages and pages of typing....not. Some people are open to the idea (though they may never try it) and some aren't....leave it at that.
"My theory is that we are not conditioned that way." Good theory there my friend. We are conditioned to stay within societal norms. These norms have evolved from religious, economic and probably political influences. Here again some people are open to challenging the societal norms and others aren't. Thank goodness we don't burn people at the stake anymore.....
Re: Would you agree to open marriage? 
Are you actually saying that anyone who knowingly has relations with a non-virgin is a closet homosexual?
I apologize for contributing to the derailment of this topic, and for the rudeness of my previous post.
