# Would you agree to open marriage?



## MsLady

Men, would you ever agree to have an open marriage with your wife if she asked? Why or why not? If yes, under what conditions?


----------



## MarkTwain

Only if "she made me do it" 

1) We would have to wait until the kids left home.

2) Everyone would have to be tested.

3) I must meet and approve the guys!

4) I would only be happy if it added something. If it took away, I would want it to stop.

5) Following on from 4), if she drifted off in some other dudes direction away from me, I would call it off (or attempt to!)

The whole thing is a Pandora's box. Once you open it... it's no use trying to sit on the lid if you don't like it.


----------



## kirkster5

Not a chance in hell!!
Why: She's my wife. That is part of the "forsaking all others" part of the marriage thing. If you want to have sex outside of your marriage get a divorce. I think that if you want to remain a couple but still have sex with others that is OK if you both agree to it but it goes against what "Marriage" stands for. Live together,date, whatever but IMHO if you choose to Marry than you are choosing to be with your spouse only.


----------



## Amplexor

Absolutely not, we sowed our oats with others in the years before we met, then committed to each other in the vows of marriage.


----------



## Dancing Nancie

I would agree to this. I would have to establish some ground rules, and specific arangements. 

Either of us would be able to veto any other person. 
The other person would have to either be in an open marriage too (no singles).
Of course regular health details.

I could give other things, but would need a lot more thought. My wife would never do this, but it sure is a fun thought!


----------



## MarkTwain

I certainly don't need other women. There are things I would like to try with my existing woman, but there is no pressing desire for others. 

I am not the jealous type as long as I remain at the centre of her universe. 

The one trouble I see with letting her have other lovers is that women are secretive when it comes to their true feelings. I don't think she would let on to the degree that she was falling for someone if it went beyond just sex. So I would be left trying to work it out. 

So I can't see it happening really. But on the other hand, we might both live for another 40-60 years, who knows what adventures might come our way during that time.


----------



## justean

Amplexor said:


> Absolutely not, we sowed our oats with others in the years before we met, then committed to each other in the vows of marriage.


yeh i like what you said amplexor


----------



## GAsoccerman

I would not want a Direct open marriage.

But I would be game for a "swinger" marriage.

Which is only at a swingers club or a swinger resort, such as Desire resort in Cancun. 

we would only agree to "swapping" No dates by ourselves, we would only do things as a couple.

For the record my wife and I have been to a swinger club, but we have not "swapped" we gone to these clubs and kept to ourselves, we like the sexually charged atmosphere, and I truly beleive my wife really enjoys people watching us or she enjoys watching others enjoy themselves.

We plan on going to the cancun resort next winter, our ground rules is, no swapping, just a hot wild time at a wild place for ourselves.

but if she wanted to push it further I would be game, But I think Brad Pitt would ahve to stroll through that door for that to happen. :rofl:


----------



## LucyInSC

I'm "airing my dirty laundry" here, but my ex-husband wanted to try swinging and I agreed. (Notice I said EX) We met another couple several times and, I didn't intend to, but I fell madly in love with him and he with me. I wouldn't do it again. It is too difficult to separate sex and emotion. :nono:


----------



## Guest

kirkster5 said:


> it goes against what "Marriage" stands for. Live together,date, whatever but IMHO if you choose to Marry than you are choosing to be with your spouse only.


Agreed! I would not do it personally (I didn't even have sex until I was hitched!) but if you are dating someone and you want to shake things up a bit, it's your choice, as long as you both consent to it and USE A CONDOM! :nono: Once you're married, however, you've really got to ask whether marriage is for you if you want to, um, share the nuptial love lol. "Open marriage" is a bit of an oxymoron in that respect.



LucyInSC said:


> It is too difficult to separate sex and emotion. :nono:


Agreed twofold! Although, some people do like a good time... and horses for courses and all that.


----------



## MsLady

"Desire Resort" sounds interesting ... hmm, might be a better place to start and see if things can't get spice within, rather than "without" the marriage. Is everyone there totally hot and in shape or could a slightly out of shape couple still find a niche (that would be us)? Would it be overwhelming for beginners?


----------



## GAsoccerman

LUCY I agree with what you said, to hard not to get emotional and tied up with a couple you keep swapping with.

That is why i said, if we were to do it, it would be at a club or a resort, 

you would need ground rules set and strictly followed, but if you keep swapping witht eh same couple, you are only spelling disaster becuase it becomes a relationship.


Sorry to hear your split. But understandably so. 

hence forth why we have not "jumped" to that....
I think we like being around it....but not involved in it.


if that makes sense


----------



## GAsoccerman

Desire resort is couples only...which is nice and better then Hedo from what i am told.

Ages vary from 20's to 70's and all colors, shapes and sizes.

I believe majority is 40's and 50's becuase they are....comfortable with life and their marriages.

don't think of a club of super models. farthest thing from it


----------



## Guest

GAsoccerman said:


> don't think of a club of super models. farthest thing from it


There goes any last chance of me going to there then (kidding)


----------



## sunflower

No way could I agree to that I think that it would just cause problems. A girl I used to work with her and her husband had a "open" "swinger" marriage and they ended in divorce.


----------



## draconis

never

draconis


----------



## snix11

sure. why not.


----------



## humpty dumpty

not a chance !!
wow id hate to see my husband with someone else , We met when i was 13/14 and i couldnt even think of being with anyone else.
He rocks my world


----------



## onlylonelyone

Wow...it is very interesting to see everyone's answers. I don't think I could visually handle my husband touching another woman. Because of my own insecurities. I think you would have to be in such a perfect relationship to even come close to succeeding in an open marriage. Then I would wonder why anyone would want to risk it and would the question ever really come up???? Thats a tough one.


----------



## Kyle

If you do the research before you jump in to swinging they all recommend taking it slowly. Take a few swinger tests, go to a swing club to check it out, etc...
They stuff I read about it all mentioned that if you are a jelous person then the lifestyle is not for you. Some people get passed their jelousy once they know that its just sex, not emotional.
Every club also says only swing if your relationship is solid. Swinging is basically just to spice up the sex life and live out some fantesies. If theirs emptiness that your feeling in the marriage then you've got other issues that need to be resolved first.


----------



## homebizhubby

It will probobly be the worst thing to happen to your relationship. I had a 4some with a girlfriend, her friend and the friends man. A week later everyone involved was insecure or mad about something and at 3 weeks neither relationship survived. 

I have known many to do the same and it always results in the same outcome. Some can do the swinger thing but gealousy will overpower most people to try and shed the experience.


----------



## Lavender

Kyle said:


> Some people get passed their jelousy once they know that its just sex, not emotional.
> 
> I Disagree.. There is nothing More Emotional than Sex.. If someone needs/wants to try something diffrent they cant get with there spouse.. Exit the Relationship .. Divorce.. Dont Destroy the Very Foundation Marriage Stands For...


----------



## Dancing Nancie

Lavender said:


> Kyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people get passed their jelousy once they know that its just sex, not emotional.
> 
> I Disagree.. There is nothing More Emotional than Sex.. If someone needs/wants to try something diffrent they cant get with there spouse.. Exit the Relationship .. Divorce.. Dont Destroy the Very Foundation Marriage Stands For...
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is more emotional for some than others. It may be purely emotional for you, but it is not that way for everyone.
> 
> I do agree with you though that if you need to do something else and your partner isn't willing or able then you either deal with it or leave the relationship.
Click to expand...


----------



## reidqa01

again and again please read.

Swinging is sex with total strangers no knowledge attached.

Men treat women as meat, women treat men as meat.

You had friend to friend sex, what would happen in a night if 20 penis's entered your wife and vice a versa.

Please refrain the word swinger until totally known.


----------



## fly_guy

I personally believe sex is something more than just - sex. Regardless of if you are in the heat of the moment, you are giving a part of yourself away to someone you can never get back. When I got married, I vowed myself to my wife. Again, my personal belief.


----------



## martino

Also from what i've heard, couples start out swinging with a lot of ground rules between them, then they start bending, distorting, she wants to go with someone alone or he does, next thing there are huge conflicts and jealousy.


----------



## sunflower

Ya thats so stupid its setting yourself up for divorce. I think its a BAD idea and whoever thinks that sex isnt personal and the most intimate act is the dumbest person I ever met IN MY LIFE. There is nothing more intimate. seriously think about DUH. and to see your life partner with another WOW whats wrong here. hmmm... I would totally be taken back and packing my bags if thats what My H wanted


----------



## Sensitive

I have asked my hubby before. Fortunately, he said no.


----------



## findingpeace

Never Never Never would I think about allowing such a thing in my marriage does anyone know what marriage is these days what our wedding vows meen and whom we made them to I think when people are asking for an open marriage they are really saying I dont want to be married I want to have sex with other people and I want your pemission to do so that way I can do it without hurting you it is all about me me me what a selfish world it has become we all want instant gradification what happened to committment loyalty and honesty, I know even if I allowed such a thing to happen the trust factor would be gone because you just opened the door for infidelity and they could just simply say you said it was ok ect. there goes your marriage right down the drain there is no friendship without trust for trust is the foundation all freindships are built apon for a man shall reap what he sows sow a seed of deception and you shall be decieved watch a fool in their folly >>>>:slap:


----------



## johnamos

As posted before, it appears many damaged marriages is doing just this. We actually do know a couple.

He has an affair, she cannot forgive. They have 400k house, cannot selll or get rid of plus other expenses. So they are both liable.

She go's out, no questions asked, he go's out no questions ask.

No sex in home with new partner is rule, they live as brother and sister.

I suspect this new marriage is growing.


----------



## MarkTwain

johnamos-

Interesting arrangement, are they reasonably happy? Or is it daggers drawn?


----------



## Roger136913

I would never agree with it also.....


----------



## johnamos

Mark,

All joking aside to be with them is like being brother and sister literally. My wife really finds it funny with the open sexual relationship they have, my god he made me come ten times, and she was so oral to the end is common.

I find it strange,


----------



## TabbyCat

I think the answer is simple. Only if you want your marriage to end. I think if someone wants an open marriage, they shouldn't have gotten married.

I looked into what being married was about before I did it. I was single until I was 37, and by then, I knew what I wanted and what I didn't. Living alone for 5 years helped me find who I am.


----------



## tdr64am

Marriage as I view it pretty much rules that stuff out. But even if I was more lax about that - well, as Dirty Harry said, "a man's got to know his limitations"; not sure I'd be too keen on seeing my wife enjoying herself with some other guy. And if I was going to veto another guy...well, fair's fair.


----------



## GAsoccerman

I smell spam


----------



## Gomez

I just want to share my experiance with this question.

My wife went from totally jelous to asking me about an open relationship. It was because she already had someone in mind, an EA she wanted to turn into a PA if only she had permission. I was already aware that she was too close to this OM and at first I said ok with anyone but him.

Then it was ok as long as I got my chance first. Then it came out she had already kissed and touched this OM, and the open marriage thing was just to get rid of the guilt she felt. Of course after she told me that she no longer wanted an open relationship, she just wanted things to go back to the way they used to be.

I was very mad and considered getting some payback, she said she would be fine with that, but when it came right down to it I realized I just couldn't intentionally hurt my wife, and even if she gave me permission and wouldn't leave me I knew it would hurt her. So I never did, and I try to believe I never will.

I just want to give warning to anyone who hears this question: it probly means that the asker already has someone else in mind, and may mean that something has already happened. In any case I think its a sign of trouble.


----------



## Rhea

Should you need an open marriage then you shouldn't need to get married in the first place...just my opinion.

You don't enter marriage to share yourself physically with others. That's to be taken care of prior. End of story in my book.


----------



## Conflicted

I wouldn't be able to do it. I think there will be too many question marks in my head


----------



## Deejo

This thread's been kicking around for a while. I thought I already posted to it ...

I have friends that agreed to an open marriage before they got married. Their marriage has outlasted 3 traditional marriages amongst our common group of friends. They have been married nearly fifteen years I believe. In many cases I don't doubt that an 'open marriage' is suggested to save an already troubled relationship - and of course only dooms it. For them, I think it played backwards. I don't doubt that they love each other, and they both believed that eventually they would grow out of the lifestyle, and simply come to value the relationship beyond the scope of sex. In a bizarre way, it's almost brilliant.


----------



## GPR

Never just an open marriage, see whoever whenever type of thing.

But maybe bringing others in with us, I can see why some people would like it. The attractiveness of the fulfilling of some fantasies if handled the right way. 

BUT, I know that it wouldn't work, so would never even consider it. Even if the act itself was OK, I don't think I could handle the possible aftermath (and I know she couldn't).


----------



## NothingMan

No.

Hell No.

No way, no how, no.


Even if she was only bringing women back for me to share with her, the answer would still be no. Unless you want the marriage to end as others have previously advised.


----------



## hitched4ever

LucyInSC said:


> It is too difficult to separate sex and emotion. :nono:


This is true...but primarily for women.
Thats the 'can of worms' one opens if they venture down this path.

Having tested the 'swinger' waters in earlier times with a couple we were friends with, I found it fun and exciting, especially when we engaged is sexual activities in front of the other couple. My wife on the other hand, although excited by that, became horribly jealous when any touching between me and the other woman occurred, ruining the experience for both of us.

As some have pointed out, if your the jealous type any play in this area will not work. Plus...you always have the elephant in the room...women almost always end up equating sex with emotion...as do a few men.
Me, if my sweetie wanted a nice man to 'service' her I would be happy to find one and watch it happen. But honestly, it takes a certain kind of person to 'swing' successfully. There are loving couples that have engaged in it for years, decades even, with only positive results. But they are few.


----------



## Anonymous Fella

"Open marriage" is not marriage. If you want other sexual partners, marriage is not for you. I cannot fathom anyone enjoying let alone watching their spouse having sex with someone else. The only way I have ever been able to wrap my head around the idea: someone is not fulfilling the other's needs. I seem to have discovered through observing my friends "open relationships": The one wanting to seek sexual exploration is one who usually puts little to no effort into the relationship. This is not always, but mostly the case. The person has no emotional gamble. The other spouse does the bending and stretching, while the other simple reaps the rewards. I have seen that when the plan backfires on the one wanting to explore, the one who used to do the "relational laundry" slips away, leaving the adventurer alone and suddenly empty. 

My $ .02: Marriage is a covenant to a higher authority than desire. If you can't keep the covenant, you can't keep the marriage.


----------



## hitched4ever

Anonymous Fella said:


> "I cannot fathom anyone enjoying let alone watching their spouse having sex with someone else. The only way I have ever been able to wrap my head around the idea: someone is not fulfilling the other's needs.


Just because you can't understand or 'fathom' something doesnt make it wrong for everyone. Thats just your opinion. 
I would suggest that some people have a level of trust and commitment that you cant fathom either. The way they express it may be foreign to you but it isnt to them. 

Dont get me wrong, I wouldn't advise anyone to enter an open relationship. Thats a road that works well for a relative few. I am just saying that just because you think people engaging in it are inadequate in some way doesn't make that a fact. People have a right to follow their own conscience and not be governed by yours or even a consensus of opinion.


----------



## Anonymous Fella

hitched4ever said:


> I would suggest that some people have a level of trust and commitment that you cant fathom either. The way they express it may be foreign to you but it isnt to them.


Surely you jest? You say someone can maintain commitment while engaging in sexual acts with others? Pick up a dictionary, actually, just google "commitment." This is an excerpt from an online dictionary: "2 a: an agreement or pledge to do something in the future ; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date b: something pledged c: the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled <a commitment to a cause>"
My guess is your definition for commitment is: share the bills and return to my bed every once and a while? Marriage is a commitment, not a suggestion. You make an oath to one person and one person alone. If that doesn't sound correct to you, why did you even get married? Why not just live together or date one another? You say vows you don't mean....doesn't make much sense to me.

As for the "trust" part. You have any idea how many men and women have told me about how having trust allows them to live-out all sexual fantasies, just to find out either one or both partners have fallen in love? Okay, let's just say for the sake of the argument a couple can thrive in that particular relationship. If the husband or wife enjoys someone else more than their spouse, then someone isn't doing something right. You can argue they trust each other to always come back. Well, if you truly love your spouse, you want them to achieve complete happiness. Not a couple hours of being with someone else, and being forced to return to you.

So, correct, these are my opinions. As I had stated in my post, I never said everyone in these kind of relationships are inadequate. I however did state that in most of my observations, someone's needs were not being met. That is a deeper issue than just "swinging on Saturdays."

:scratchhead: After reading this, it kind of sounds like I'm directing all of this at hitched4ever. Sadly, that's not the case. My explanation of commitment is really just a broad sweep that encompasses the many things I have heard, not just his response. The trust issue in this instance is directed at this particular discussion however.


----------



## hitched4ever

Obviously you really dont fathom other forms of commitment other then your dictionary definition and understanding. Thats okay. I accept that. I am not even suggesting your approach to be wrong.
I am suggesting that your opinion was a bit judgmental and sweeping in nature. I realize however that your understanding is likely limited to those few you have met or what you have read etc.

My point was that there are people who DO 'get their needs met' who live a lifestyle much different then yours. (or mine) And your presumption that thats not the case is not totally accurate. To be honest, the people I know who live that way happily are happier then most of the folks in this forum complaining about marriage issues. But, thats not because of sex with others really its more about their strong mutual desire to please their mate, in all things. How they express it is different then you would...and something many cant fathom. 

People express similar attitudes about polygamy and plural marriages and many other things they don't understand or agree with.


----------



## michzz

Don't be so smug about your "enlightened" attitude hitched4.

It's a slippery slope you're on.


----------



## hitched4ever

Other then you perhaps no one here is being 'smug'.
Thanks! 

If you missed my point here it is again....dont judge how others live by your own limits. Its fine to have limits, even recommended. Its narrow minded to judge others by your own however.


----------



## Sandy55

Will steal from MT, as I totally concur with:



MarkTwain said:


> Only if "she made me do it"
> 
> 1) We would have to wait until the kids left home.
> 
> 2) Everyone would have to be tested.
> 
> 3) I must meet and approve the guys!
> 
> 4) I would only be happy if it added something. If it took away, I would want it to stop.
> 
> 5) Following on from 4), if she drifted off in some other dudes direction away from me, I would call it off (or attempt to!)
> 
> The whole thing is a Pandora's box. Once you open it... it's no use trying to sit on the lid if you don't like it.


AND DITTO on "The whole thing is a Pandora's box. Once you open it... it's no use trying to sit on the lid if you don't like it".


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> Other then you perhaps no one here is being 'smug'.
> Thanks!
> 
> If you missed my point here it is again....dont judge how others live by your own limits. Its fine to have limits, even recommended. Its narrow minded to judge others by your own however.


I didn't miss your point.

Mine is this. if you commit to someone there is an exclusive deep bond, unique in nature between you and that someone. Add in others? it complicates things and loosens that bond. Add in enough somebodies then there eventually is no bond. It's just a bunch of somebodies, probably sensation junkies who think that sharing their intimacies with a gaggle of others is just like commitment and the bond between two people.

I mean, I get the whole "I'm bored i want some strange" coupled with "I don't want to divorce because of financial reasons" thing.

What i do not get is actively agreeing to have some other man screwing my wife. Seems kind of displaced homosexuality to me.

Plus, the bond that holds me wife and I together can only be loosened or cut by the presence of another man in her life.

You mention that you perceive others as having limitations and being judgmental and narrow minded because they do not share your befuddled thinking.

To me, you are so wrong. The limitations and narrow mindedness you exist in are in believing that opening up a marriage to others intrusion is just as much a commitment as that of true marriages, the love and bond found in a good marriage.

Open up your mind, you may find that the mistaken path you are on violates much more than a dictionary definition.


----------



## hitched4ever

michzz said:


> I didn't miss your point.
> 
> 
> To me, you are so wrong. The limitations and narrow mindedness you exist in are in believing that opening up a marriage to others intrusion is just as much a commitment as that of true marriages, the love and bond found in a good marriage.
> 
> Open up your mind, you may find that the mistaken path you are on violates much more than a dictionary definition.


Several things are overwhelmingly obvious.....
1. You have not even ONE tiny clue what path I am on.
2. You have jumped several major incorrect conclusions.
3. Your narrow mind and view obviously allows you to ASSume & judge people without even knowing any facts about them.
4. Thats about typical for a narrow mind. 

The rest of your post and your homophobic jab isnt worth responding to.
Thanks.


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> Several things are overwhelmingly obvious.....
> 1. You have not even ONE tiny clue what path I am on.
> 2. You have jumped several major incorrect conclusions.
> 3. Your narrow mind and view obviously allows you to ASSume & judge people without even knowing any facts about them.
> 4. Thats about typical for a narrow mind.
> 
> The rest of your post and your homophobic jab isnt worth responding to.
> Thanks.


Hit a nerve eh?

You passed my test. The narrowminded have to respond in itemized lists.

BTW, it was not homophobic to point out the clear hidden wish for sword play. Explains a lot about the so-called open marriage mantra. Come on, tell us really what you wish for? It would be freeing for you.


----------



## hitched4ever

michzz said:


> Hit a nerve eh?


Nope. Not at all. Just pointing out some FACTS. 
I regard your thoughts about me as moronic. And thats being complimentary. 
Every time you post on this you prove it even more.
You have not even one slight clue of what I am, or what I stand for, what my marriage relationship is, or what I think about others relationships. You took one post, read your own nonsensical thoughts into it, and ran with it without ANY regard for facts. Typical judgmental narrow minded behavior. Nothing new.


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> Nope. Not at all. Just pointing out some FACTS.
> I regard your thoughts about me as moronic. And thats being complimentary.
> Every time you post on this you prove it even more.
> You have not even one slight clue of what I am, or what I stand for, what my marriage relationship is, or what I think about others relationships. You took one post, read your own nonsensical thoughts into it, and ran with it without ANY regard for facts. Typical judgmental narrow minded behavior. Nothing new.


Fascinating experiment in disproving your openmindedness. As soon as your sphincter factor was hit, you're irritated about narrowmindedness and start spewing slurs.

I have clues about your feelings about marriage based on your postings, your dismissiveness about other opinions. Figured I'd experiment on your supposed enlightened thinking about what it means to have commitment in a marriage.

Holding opinions other than your own means moronic?

If so, find me some more morons, I need some company.


----------



## hitched4ever

michzz said:


> I have clues about your feelings about marriage based on your postings,



And...as I said, youre not even close to the truth. 
Keep trying.


----------



## GAsoccerman

WAHOO we got ourselves a good old Peeing match


----------



## Mog

Wow. I have to admit that I am a little disturbed by this exchange. I have only been reading these boards for about a week, but I thought this was kind of a support/information based thing. 

Just because a certain lifestyle does not suite your tastes does not mean that you need to pass judgment on it. Just because someone does not understand your way of life does not make them less of a person.

No matter how “open minded” or “free thinking” we consider ourselves, everybody is narrow minded about something. I don’t really care who you are or how accepting you are of others proclivities. Everybody has a line that they will not cross even if they won’t admit it or haven’t found it yet.

Please agree to disagree and be done with it. Nobody will ever benefit from in-fighting.


----------



## hitched4ever

Mog said:


> Just because a certain lifestyle does not suite your tastes does not mean that you need to pass judgment on it. Just because someone does not understand your way of life does not make them less of a person.


I couldnt agree more. 
There is a difference however in just 'not understanding' and condemning others based on your lack of understanding...which was my point from the beginning. 



> Everybody has a line that they will not cross even if they won’t admit it or haven’t found it yet.


Very true! Its how we deal with others who DO cross those lines that determines what kind of person we are. 
We can be narrow minded judges limited by our own understanding but pass judgments anyway, OR....
we can live within our own dictates of conscience and allow others to do the same. I'd suggest the latter to be 'correct'. 

As indicated here, I have little tolerance for intolerance.


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> As indicated here, I have little tolerance for intolerance.


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.


----------



## Mog

michzz said:


> 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.

:scratchhead:Are you actually saying that anyone who knowingly has relations with a non-virgin is a closet homosexual?


----------



## michzz

Mog said:


> 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.
> 
> :scratchhead: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.

Capiche?


----------



## Mog

Capisco perfettamente che abbiate una extremly difettosa logica.

:smthumbup:


----------



## michzz

Mog said:


> Capisco perfettamente che abbiate una extremly difettosa logica.
> 
> :smthumbup:


So you can translate using Google? Doesn't change a thing.

How does sloppy seconds translate anyway?

Even in the Italian I'm sure it's not something to aspire to experience in a marriage.


----------



## 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.


----------



## Amplexor

Anonymous Fella said:


> 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.


----------



## hitched4ever

michzz said:


> 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.


----------



## Mog

:bounce:I apologize for contributing to the derailment of this topic, and for the rudeness of my previous post.

I would not be willing to have an open relationship with my wife as I feel that it would lead us in a rather dark direction.


----------



## michzz

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.

But I'll stop.


----------



## GAsoccerman

Interesting......

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!"


----------



## Gomez

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.


----------



## hitched4ever

Gomez said:


> 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.


----------



## Shoto1984

This thread keeps going and going and...... 

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.


----------



## Gomez

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.


----------



## Shoto1984

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.....


----------



## hitched4ever

Shoto1984 said:


> 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.


True. There are bisexuals and other sub variations. 

On that subject, research indicates that those who hate or accuse others of homoerotic behavior, and/or lash out at behavior they deem to be such, stand a very high probability and instance of having homoerotic fantasies themselves. They have been shown in studies to commonly respond to homoerotic images and material to a rather high degree. 



> The issue of legality may seem trivial, until one partner gets a divorce on thier terms because of proven adultery. That's why its a concern, its a way out if one partner decides to act on it.


I don't find it beneficial to enter a love/marriage relationship with a 'lawyer like' mentality, with contingency plans for various outcomes. Planning for a possible break up seems quite counter productive to me. The marriage relationship is more about teamwork and trust...and should be.


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> On that subject, research indicates that those who hate or accuse others of homoerotic behavior, and/or lash out at behavior they deem to be such, stand a very high probability and instance of having homoerotic fantasies themselves. They have been shown in studies to commonly respond to homoerotic images and material to a rather high degree.


Cite your source data. Otherwise you are riffing.


----------



## hitched4ever

michzz said:


> Cite your source data. Otherwise you are riffing.


There are many sources and studies, some have even been aired on TV. PBS in fact, and others. You can search out on your own. Its for real. 'Homophobes' are in fact are commonly aroused by homoerotic material. 

The Journal of Abnormal Psychology is a good place to start.


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> There are many sources and studies, some have even been aired on TV. PBS in fact, and others. You can search out on your own. Its for real. 'Homophobes' are in fact are commonly aroused by homoerotic material.
> 
> The Journal of Abnormal Psychology is a good place to start.


Like I thought, you're riffing and lazy too.

BTW, I'm not an ignorant buffoon. and you're much less than you imagine.

Like I said, cite your specific sources. You cite "studies" than be specific.

Doesn't matter, I said I'd stop. Just thought that was a very silly and vacuous posting.


----------



## hitched4ever

Lazy?? LOL...(says the guy who wont bother to look up the facts)
Sorry, not going to play librarian for you. 
Facts are facts. If you truly want them (and I suspect you dont) you can get them. A 1996 study found in the above mentioned journal is a good place to start. There are lots more. 

But...that's not really the topic here in this thread.


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> Lazy?? LOL...(says the guy who wont bother to look up the facts)
> Sorry, not going to play librarian for you.
> Facts are facts. If you truly want them (and I suspect you dont) you can get them. A 1996 study found in the above mentioned journal is a good place to start. There are lots more.
> 
> But...that's not really the topic here in this thread.


Like I thought. You're still riffing.


----------



## hitched4ever

Whatever you say. The info is there and freely available
IF you want it....obviously you dont.


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> Whatever you say. The info is there and freely available
> IF you want it....obviously you dont.


You don't like being pinned down when you blather on about "studies".

I'm not about to try to figure out what "studies" you are referring to. Much easier to expose your modus operandi. 

Riff away or cite your SPECIFIC sources.


----------



## hitched4ever

I have never taken upon myself to force others to learn. 
Citing specifics does no good for those who have no desire to learn.

But, I would suggest you begin with a test by Wright, Adams, and Bernat, then go from there. Those scientists have done many studies...and there are others. These studies are not secret. Google is your friend. You might be surprised what you learn about yourself. OR, you can sit here and throw off on me and learn nothing.  Good luck to you.


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> I have never taken upon myself to force others to learn.
> Citing specifics does no good for those who have no desire to learn.
> 
> But, I would suggest you begin with a test by Wright, Adams, and Bernat, then go from there. Those scientists have done many studies...and there are others. These studies are not secret. Google is your friend. You might be surprised what you learn about yourself. OR, you can sit here and throw off on me and learn nothing.  Good luck to you.


This is not about me learning from you. It is about calling out someone who spouts off empty statements. But you know that.

Pedantic riffing. Back it up with specifics.


----------



## hitched4ever

No silly, you should learn about YOURSELF. Perhaps you dont really want to for some reason.....that wouldnt be surprising. 
Asking me to provide you with all the answers YOU need would be 'learning from me'. You should study for yourself. 

You have been given an actual published source and three names. Utilize that if you want or not. Good luck!


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> No silly, you should learn about YOURSELF. Perhaps you dont really want to for some reason.....that wouldnt be surprising.
> Asking me to provide you with all the answers YOU need would be 'learning from me'. You should study for yourself.
> 
> You have been given an actual published source and three names. Utilize that if you want or not. Good luck!


So in other words: You can't cite any SPECIFIC sources. I don't need you to point me towards reading in general.

When a person cited "studies" that person ought to be able to actually produce them.

You can't.


----------



## hitched4ever

The only reason we are even discussing this is because you interjected it into the original topic...one which most agree generally has little or nothing to do with anything '****'. One may wonder why you are so insistent that it does. One might also wonder why my statement about the connection of homophobic behavior/attitudes to arousal from homoerotic material even concerns you...and about why you reject that notion and are so demanding of a 'source'...when in fact you have given some.

In any case it seems that you should search out answers to those questions on your own or in another thread. Its clear that anything that I point to will be rejected by you. I cannot help that. This thread is supposed to be about open relationships. Maybe we should discuss that.


----------



## michzz

hitched4ever said:


> The only reason we are even discussing this is because you interjected it into the original topic...one which most agree generally has little or nothing to do with anything '****'. One may wonder why you are so insistent that it does. One might also wonder why my statement about the connection of homophobic behavior/attitudes to arousal from homoerotic material even concerns you...and about why you reject that notion and are so demanding of a 'source'...when in fact you have given some.
> 
> In any case it seems that you should search out answers to those questions on your own or in another thread. Its clear that anything that I point to will be rejected by you. I cannot help that. This thread is supposed to be about open relationships. Maybe we should discuss that.


I would not reject you giving SPECIFIC sources. But you STILL cannot provide them.


----------



## hitched4ever

Apparently youre half blind or dont read well LOL
I already gave you one to start with...gave you the names, dates and publication. 

Adams, H.E., Lester, Wright, L.W., and Lohr, B.A. (1996) "Is homophobia associated with sexual arousal?" Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 

In this study of males only those with 'homophobic' ideology were aroused by homoerotic images. Others were only aroused by straight or girl/girl images. 

This is a very old subject. Freud taught the same principle. 
There have been many studies through the years. 

GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND!! Good luck!!

Back to the subject in this thread.


----------



## GAsoccerman

Michzz and Hitch....me thinks you two should take this to "personal message" and have this tennis match, because it will be never ending.


----------



## Catholic_RN

One of the many things that sounds better in fantasy than in reality.


----------

