# Open Marriage: mutual lifestyle choice or sexual emancipation?



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

There’s been a few threads by men who’s partner’s have suggested or outright stated that they want an open marriage/relationship. 

Without talking about any of the specifics or those individuals or any discussion of the theological or religious implications of open marriage, I do want to discuss some of what I see taking place in much of the threads we see here on TAM.

Open marriage can be a legitimate lifestyle choice for a select few couples who have the temperaments, beliefs and value system that can incorporate other people into their relationship.

I personally have no moral, theological or ideological objections to any kind of consensual nonmonogamy assuming it involves sane, sober, consenting adults all agreeing to that lifestyle of their own free will without deception, coercion or manipulation. 

HOWEVER, what we are seeing most often here really isn’t a mutually embraced lifestyle choice but rather what I see as one party declaring their own personal, sexual emancipation and basically nullifying any previous expressed or implied agreement on monogamy without the other party’s fully informed consent. 

What I think a lot of these chicks are doing is basically declaring their own sexual independence but rather than just coming out and saying they want to date and bang other people but want to retain the other benefits of the marriage such as financial support and 24/7 child rearing assistance, they are gift wrapping it in shiny gift wrapping and pretty bows by saying, “you can get with other chicks too, yay!! 😀 “

But these guys aren’t quite connecting the dots that lead down the road to reality. 

They start getting visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads that they will be having 3somes with other chicks and dating that hottie in the mail room at work. 

But they don’t understand it’s not an even playing field. Not even in the same galaxy.

A woman in an open marriage will have guys lined up down the street and around the corner waiting their turn. 

I would even challenge that a woman in an open relationship will have more options and opportunities and more men begging me me me!! Than a single woman on the actual dating market. 

A married woman has the provider and the babysitter and tire changer and spider killer at home 24/7. All a guy needs to provide for a woman in an open marriage is some fun party time and some dck. It’s a dream cum true for countless men and they will be lining up jockeying for position. 

For a man in an open relationship it is the exact opposite. IMHO it’s actually easier for a man to cheat than to have a hall pass. 

With a cheating husband, the OW can at least think she has a chance. But if a woman knows up front that he has a consenting wife that he is staying with, she has no choice but to realize she is the side piece and while men live to be the side stud, women are programmed to not be a side piece.

So unless a guy is extraordinarily good looking or pro athlete or celebrity or is already quite the lady’s man and a skilled playa’, he really doesn’t stand a chance. 

And the other things these guys don’t get is women are simply different in how they view relationships and sex partners etc than they do.

Men’s basic programming is to ADD women to the harem. They don’t really dump or replace women of their own accord. If left to their own devices men and their own natural programming men will just add more women to the collection and not really discard any. 

(When men leave a BW for an OW, it’s because they made him pick one and he thought the OW was a bigger, better deal or the BW dumped him)

But for women it is much different. She may have some fun riding the carousel for a little while with her new found sexual freedom, but her programming is to be on the lookout for the next bigger better deal.

If a BBD does come along and makes her a valid offer, she’ll be packed up and out of the house in a weekend. 

In that period of time, she will have partied it up with multiple men a week and basically feathered her next nest just the way she wants it and all she has to do is call the movers and fill out the paperwork at the courthouse.

99.9% of the time she already has some hot hunk(s) warming up in the bullpen if not actually hooking up with him/them at the time she brings it up. 

Meanwhile, the chump at home that has been babysitting and laundering her semen soaked underwear for the last 6 months has probably not had so much as a coffee date at Starbucks. 

But where I’m going with this is I think we here on TAM need to at least try to have the skills and temperaments to at least try to determine whether someone is coming here with legit questions and concerns regarding an alternative lifestyle vs whether they are just being handed a turd in shiny gift wrapping and purdy bow. 

The big distinction is are they doing the work and doing their due diligence in having serious discussions with their partner? 

Are they doing legitimate research into said lifestyle and learning about the risks and benefits and taking proper precautions and boundaries? Are they reading books, posting questions on alternative lifestyle forums, meeting with people already in those lifestyles?

Or are they flying blind showing here saying, “she said i could see other chicks!!” And are otherwise clueless. 

The vast majority of what we’re going to see here are the problems and fallout and from those that have basically never really heard of such a thing and are clueless of what they’re blindly walking in to.

The people that have done their homework and minded their P’s and Q’s and are doing ok with it, don’t show up here. Those people are out partying it up having a grand old time. 

We get the train wrecks.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I haven't seen that many on TAM... what I see is wives saying they would allow an open marriage to get their husbands off their back sexwise when they've gone off sex...


----------



## BeyondRepair007 (Nov 4, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> But where I’m going with this is I think we here on TAM need to at least try to have the skills and temperaments to at least try to determine whether someone is coming here with legit questions and concerns regarding an alternative lifestyle vs whether they are just being handed a turd in shiny gift wrapping and purdy bow.


I don't disagree with this in theory but I would add an additional qualifier.
There are people (like me) who have no business touching those conversations

I am fundamentally against the idea of open marriage in any context because I believe it undermines the traditional idea of marriage and helps destroy what marriage is supposed to build.

I know that is completely based and I'm ok with that, but that is also why I shouldn't be in those conversations.

There is individual freedom to have open relationships and theology/morals notwithstanding then to each his own.
But I don't think it's right or best for people and marriages.

I've recently made a 'suggestion box' post for this exact reason. Certain people have no business in certain threads, me being a primary one.
Maybe a create special forum that I never have to go too?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

In Absentia said:


> I haven't seen that many on TAM... what I see is wives saying they would allow an open marriage to get their husbands off their back sexwise when they've gone off sex...


Actually what I’ve seen in regards to that situation is it is the men posting that their wives have told them to get it elsewhere.

Without the proper work and preparation, that can be just as much of a fool’s game as the aforementioned scenario.


----------



## Openminded (Feb 21, 2013)

That may be what their wives have said when they were feeling pushed for sex but I wonder how well that would actually work in reality for most men who are told that. My guess is their wives don’t want to have sex with them but they also don’t want them having sex with anyone else.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Openminded said:


> That may be what their wives have said when they were feeling pushed for sex but I wonder how well that would actually work in reality for most men who are told that. My guess is their wives don’t want to have sex with them but they also don’t want them having sex with anyone else.


Think the vast majority of women that suggest open marriage to their partners don’t believe the guy could get laid in a whorehouse with a million dollars in his pocket.

Since they don’t have any attraction or desire for them, they feel pretty confident that no one else will either. 

(And a good number of them are right) 

I think any time a woman offers her partner to get it elsewhere without her being present and involved such as a 3some or swinging scenario, it’s a game-over moment for the romantic/sexual component of the relationship. 

A lot of them don’t think the guy would actually be able to pull it off and feel confident in telling them to do so. 

But some truly are so detached and have such disdain for them that they truly don’t care. They just want to continue receiving the financial support and help with the dishes and child care.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> Actually what I’ve seen in regards to that situation is it is the men posting that their wives have told them to get it elsewhere.


True... it's always the men posting... never seen a wife saying that publicly...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Openminded said:


> That may be what their wives have said when they were feeling pushed for sex but I wonder how well that would actually work in reality for most men who are told that. My guess is their wives don’t want to have sex with them but they also don’t want them having sex with anyone else.


I agree, but I turned it down when the option was offered. I knew my wife didn't really mean it, but she didn't have many other options.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

BeyondRepair007 said:


> I don't disagree with this in theory but I would add an additional qualifier.
> There are people (like me) who have no business touching those conversations
> 
> I am fundamentally against the idea of open marriage in any context because I believe it undermines the traditional idea of marriage and helps destroy what marriage is supposed to build.
> ...


I don’t think people should be automatically disqualified from a thread just because they don’t agree with the subject matter. 

We all have our opinions and perspectives and as long as someone can back up why they don’t agree with a topic with actual facts and experiences and not just say that they don’t like it or that God said it was bad.

I don’t agree with rape, murder, pedophilia, drug trafficking etc but I am not going to disqualify myself from a thread of someone is asking if they should do it.

However I’m not just going to say that drugs are bad or that God says not to. 

I will share what knowledge I have and what I have witnessed as to the harm that I have seen because of those activities. 

Now yes, you do have a point that certain posters are just to come into certain threads and say that God doesn’t like it or that they don’t agree with it so no one should do it. 
Neither of those is helpful.

But if you can back up WHY you don’t think something is a good idea with actual nuts and bolts facts, knowledge and experiences, it’s no better and no worse than anyone else’s input.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

In Absentia said:


> I agree, but I turned it down when the option was offered. I knew my wife didn't really mean it, but she didn't have many other options.


No she probably did mean it, but she was (rightfully) confident that you wouldn’t actually do it.

Now she can say that she offered and you didn’t do it so you must not have actually wanted sex that bad after all so the monkey is off her back. 

However the risk is, if someone does take up the the offer, then she can say that you blew up the marriage by getting with someone else. 

It is kind of a no win scenario and once someone offers that, it’s usually a game over moment.


----------



## BeyondRepair007 (Nov 4, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> I don’t think people should be automatically disqualified from a thread just because they don’t agree with the subject matter.
> 
> We all have our opinions and perspectives and as long as someone can back up why they don’t agree with a topic with actual facts and experiences and not just say that they don’t like it or that God said it was bad.
> 
> ...


Automatically disqualified, no, I agree with you. I wouldn't want to do that and didn't mean to suggest it.

What you're suggesting (I think) is that we somehow learn to do a better job of helping with those 'I want an open relationship' type of posters to properly & safely achieve their goal as opposed to handing them that 'shiny gift wrapped turd'.

I just would be in favor of having a way to "opt out" for conversations like that. I'm not saying "opt out" should be forced, but that I would have a way for these threads to not be in my figurative face. The same way religion has it's own space. Anyone who doesn't want to engage in those controversial topics doesn't go there.

Maybe that's the wrong way to look at it, maybe what I'm suggesting is a childish "protect others (and my BP) from me" idea. Which is generally a stupid thing to do, but I've seen a bunch of posters here that really should have just skipped certain threads. The topics were clearly triggering and a lot of times ends with an OP who ran away and/or a ban. I feel like open relationship topics might have plenty of that type of activity when there is so many betrayed here.

But I do agree that it is a reoccurring topic and ignoring or not handling it properly helps no one. Those who want to engage should be able to have adult conversations about it with people who understand it and have experienced it.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

most people who come here asking about non-monogamy are trying to get other people to make them feel better. they want to feel loved, desired, etc, rather than looking for someone to enjoy their passions with. 

my wife and i have been polyamorous for years, and i have had MUCH more success than she has in dating. she isn't looking for a hook-up, but hooking up is all most men seem to be interested in if you look at online dating. so yeah, while women might have an easier time getting attention from multiple men, they seem to have a harder time finding anything beyond just sex.

in my experience, people who have been successful with non-monogamy aren't typically out there "partying it up". there are swingers, sure. but almost all of the people i know who practice ENM aren't swingers, though most of them would be willing to "play" if the stars aligned right. 

i DO think that most people dip their toes into ENM with a death grip on the rose tinted glasses.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

A lot of men I know are already in "undeclared" open marriages...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

BeyondRepair007 said:


> Automatically disqualified, no, I agree with you. I wouldn't want to do that and didn't mean to suggest it.
> 
> What you're suggesting (I think) is that we somehow learn to do a better job of helping with those 'I want an open relationship' type of posters to properly & safely achieve their goal as opposed to handing them that 'shiny gift wrapped turd'.
> 
> ...


Honestly, this is a terrible place for sincere people to seek legitimate advice on appropriately researching information on any kind of consensual nonmonogamy.

As you said, many are here due to infidelity and betrayal and have a “Run Forest Run!!” outlook and others simply have moralistic and/or religious chip on their shoulder and can’t or won’t have an open minded discussion of it. 

The catch is many of the guys who come here who’s wives have brought this up are woefully unprepared and ignorant of the ramifications and work required to navigate through that minefield. 

And as time goes on, I do believe this is going a reoccurring theme that we will see more and more of as women obtain more sexual agency as men become more feminized, emasculated and traditional masculine roles become more demonized.

You can avoid whatever topics you so choose, but this topic is going to become more prevalent as time goes on.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> Oh I agree. But at over a year with minimum talking, and going 4 months sexless, I'm currently thinking that I would really like to have a date. And not with the person I'm married to.


how I can relate to this 😊


----------



## BeyondRepair007 (Nov 4, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> You can avoid whatever topics you so choose, but this topic is going to become more prevalent as time goes on.


With any luck I won't have much time left 
Sorta joking... I'm older as you might have guessed.

And I'm sure I'll be leaving the online world long before I leave the real world.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

oldshirt said:


> Honestly, this is a terrible place for sincere people to seek legitimate advice on appropriately researching information on any kind of consensual nonmonogamy.
> 
> As you said, many are here due to infidelity and betrayal and have a “Run Forest Run!!” outlook and others simply have moralistic and/or religious chip on their shoulder and can’t or won’t have an open minded discussion of it.
> 
> ...


It's beyond me why men aren't seeking to terminate marriages in which his spouse wants to keep the benefits of marriage but wants to have sex with others (and he doesn't).

It's also beyond me how male poster after poster comes here with really crap marriages to women who are incredibly toxic and abusive and they want to stay in these marriages because they loooove her soooo much.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

oldshirt said:


> Honestly, this is a terrible place for sincere people to seek legitimate advice on appropriately researching information on any kind of consensual nonmonogamy.
> 
> As you said, many are here due to infidelity and betrayal and have a “Run Forest Run!!” outlook and others simply have moralistic and/or religious chip on their shoulder and can’t or won’t have an open minded discussion of it.
> 
> ...


i think this is where we differ in our opinions. i don't think its more common because men are being feminized and emasculated. i think its more common simply because technology has made it easier. some feminists like to demonize traditional masculine roles, but that has been a thing for several decades. what i see more often is men losing their minds over women that choose to fill traditional masculine roles, and men that choose to fill traditional feminine roles. i see far more people upset with people abandoning tradition than people getting upset with the traditions themselves.

40 years ago, you couldn't just hop on the internet and find other people like you, if you are different. we arent restricted to our own home towns anymore.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Y’all all know I am not down with open marriage (for me, consenting adults do whatever they please). What I experienced in my life was dudes who were thrilled that their wives didn’t care if they dated on the side and the wives didn’t step out. The reason was not, contrary to popular belief, that those women were just awesome and understood that men are not “naturally monogamous.” No, in those situations, she wanted his money and if he had a girlfriend that was part of her “job” as his wife that she didn’t have to do. Those marriages, three of them, ended when the kids left home and the guy was older and he wanted to live out that classic dream of a sweet old couple that love each other until death. She left him and took half his money, because she never loved him. She lied to him and he was so blinded by getting to have sex on the side he didn’t realize he was being used. She wanted no more of him once her children were self sufficient. In those cases, they were both bad people. The men’s children want nothing to do with them because they stepped out on their mothers (the kids all have good marriages except one that has a drinking problem) and the wives are living that MeMaw life. Moral of the story: if your wife doesn’t care if you fool around on her, it’s because she. doesn’t. care. Not the win you think.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

oldshirt said:


> There’s been a few threads by men who’s partner’s have suggested or outright stated that they want an open marriage/relationship.
> 
> .......HOWEVER, what we are seeing most often here really isn’t a mutually embraced lifestyle choice but rather what I see as one party declaring their own personal, sexual emancipation and basically nullifying any previous expressed or implied agreement on monogamy without the other party’s fully informed consent.
> 
> ...


Obviously, from the length of your post this touched a hot button in you.

Perhaps a new section would be in order and possibly with different moderators and some recommended reading or resources. It could be "So you want to try out an open marriage."

The problem is that so much of TAM is build around a traditional marriage concept. However, maybe it is time to add an extra section. That would allow moderators to move some of the discussions that disturb you to a place where the posters could get more of the advice that they need and less flames. 

As to getting them to tell more and do more homework.....I don't think that will work out. People only volunteer what they want or are comfortable sharing. People may not really want critical advice and are sharing and shading the truth to get encouragement for what they want to do. Those are just facts of life.

Still, I do think you do have a point.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Y’all all know I am not down with open marriage (for me, consenting adults do whatever they please). What I experienced in my life was dudes who were thrilled that their wives didn’t care if they dated on the side and the wives didn’t step out. The reason was not, *contrary to popular belief*, that those women were just awesome and understood that *men are not “naturally monogamous.*” No, in those situations, she wanted his money and if he had a girlfriend that was part of her “job” as his wife that she didn’t have to do. Those marriages, three of them, ended when the kids left home and the guy was older and he wanted to live out that classic dream of a sweet old couple that love each other until death. She left him and took half his money, because she never loved him. She lied to him and he was so blinded by getting to have sex on the side he didn’t realize he was being used. She wanted no more of him once her children were self sufficient. In those cases, they were both bad people. The men’s children want nothing to do with them because they stepped out on their mothers (the kids all have good marriages except one that has a drinking problem) and the wives are living that MeMaw life. Moral of the story: if your wife doesn’t care if you fool around on her, it’s because she. doesn’t. care. Not the win you think.


huh. i have never heard that one outside of men who want to justify cheating. 

people leaving a relationship that they dont want to be in has always been a thing. the only safe guard i have against my wife leaving me is that i make sure she enjoys her time spent with me. and that is the only i want to ever put in place. i dont want her to stay "for the kids" or for the money, stability, etc. i want her to stay simply because she wants to. 

this is probably the biggest reason i have been successful in relationships... i always want my partner to enjoy their time with me. i want them to look forward to it, so that i help recharge their batteries, rather than drain them. in any relationship, no matter what kind, that is really all anyone needs to do. do their best to make their partner feel better when they are around. that whole positive, negative association thing. 

all that said, you do bring up a good point about something... non-monogamy has always been incredibly common in wealthy arranged marriages. that has always been a dirty little secret of royalty. im not sure i would call that ethical though. hell, in those "marriages", they often pay someone else to raise the children.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> I don’t think people should be automatically disqualified from a thread just because they don’t agree with the subject matter.
> 
> We all have our opinions and perspectives and as long as someone can back up why they don’t agree with a topic with actual facts and experiences and not just say that they don’t like it or that God said it was bad.
> 
> ...


Why do we need facts and experiences to disagree with something? We dont need to have done something to know that it's damaging. We don't need facts to know that it's not what marriage is about.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

I


oldshirt said:


> Honestly, this is a terrible place for sincere people to seek legitimate advice on appropriately researching information on any kind of consensual nonmonogamy.
> 
> As you said, many are here due to infidelity and betrayal and have a “Run Forest Run!!” outlook and others simply have moralistic and/or religious chip on their shoulder and can’t or won’t have an open minded discussion of it.
> 
> ...


I am sure there are LOADS of websites for people who want to have sex with other people. I am sure you would be spoilt for choice whether you wanted to swing or cheat or have many 'wives' or whatever you craved. 

I see this site as largely for faithful marriage and I think it's a shame that adultery is promoted here at all.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> I
> I am sure there are LOADS of websites for people who want to have sex with other people. I am sure you would be spoilt for choice whether you wanted to swing or cheat or have many 'wives' or whatever you craved.
> 
> I see this site as largely for faithful marriage and I think it's a shame that adultery is promoted here at all.


i think its a shame that you enter these discussions solely to shove your religion down everyone's throats, but here we are.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Young at Heart said:


> Obviously, from the length of your post this touched a hot button in you.
> 
> Perhaps a new section would be in order and possibly with different moderators and some recommended reading or resources. It could be "So you want to try out an open marriage."
> 
> ...


In 99% of the posts here we are only getting one side of the story regardless of the topic so we do need to assume it has been carefully edited towards the OP’s favor.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Being single is sexual emancipation. Marriage is not.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I
> I am sure there are LOADS of websites for people who want to have sex with other people. I am sure you would be spoilt for choice whether you wanted to swing or cheat or have many 'wives' or whatever you craved.
> 
> I see this site as largely for faithful marriage and I think it's a shame that adultery is promoted here at all.


I will say this: never have I ever on this site had someone who was truly part of that lifestyle tell me I was wrong to not want to be a part of it. They’ve tried to convince me that my impression of it was incorrect, but never that I should try it or that I’m selfish or bad because I’m against it. They’re not judging me (at least vocally, we’re all human), they’re just asking that I not judge them. 

I can’t say the same about proponents of other types of cheating.


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> A married woman has the provider and the babysitter and tire changer and spider killer at home 24/7. All a guy needs to provide for a woman in an open marriage is some fun party time and some dck. It’s a dream cum true for countless men and they will be lining up jockeying for position.


So the LAST position a man wants to be in is married to a woman who brings up the subject of an 'open' 'marriage'. He could divorce her and jockey for position with the other countless men she is doing.



oldshirt said:


> Think the vast majority of women that suggest open marriage to their partners don’t believe the guy could get laid in a whorehouse with a million dollars in his pocket.


Maybe the women are right, but their 'partners' need to get out of the travesty they are in. Whether they get laid or not is kinda irrelevant if they have any self respect.

I am honestly puzzled what is the difference between an open 'marriage', and just dating people? I mean why is it ever a "good" thing? Let's suppose that wife brings it up, husband agrees, they go through all the scenarios, agree to all the rules and regulations everyone on here always talks about, agree on how they are going to avoid a deadly disease, and both begin screwing different people every single night and sometimes one another. Where does this logically lead? A decade on they are still doing 5-10 people a week? Still "married"? For why? How is this any different than just going their separate ways and screwing as many as are interested?

What does "marriage" have to do with it? The tax break? The kids? The cost ( for the man ) of divorce?

Wife and I have lived sheltered lives. As far we know, we have never met anyone in an open marriage or any swingers. I have never known anyone at work or recreation who was in this life. My wife has never met a woman who was in this life. That seems a little unusual because we have had hundreds of friends of all backgrounds, ethnicity, political persuasion. I mean we have had family members and friends who are openly gay, so would have thought this 'ENM' life style would be at least as common.


----------



## Mybabysgotit (Jul 1, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> There’s been a few threads by men who’s partner’s have suggested or outright stated that they want an open marriage/relationship.
> 
> Without talking about any of the specifics or those individuals or any discussion of the theological or religious implications of open marriage, I do want to discuss some of what I see taking place in much of the threads we see here on TAM.
> 
> ...


Probably only happens in situations where the wife knows the husband can't get laid anywhere else. She won't want to bang anyone else if the husband is a high commodity.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

As'laDain said:


> i think its a shame that you enter these discussions solely to shove your religion down everyone's throats, but here we are.


Eh????Didn't mention it at all.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Mr. Nail said:


> I'm only getting one side of my story.
> The closest we ever came to actually discussing outsourcing some less sexual components of our relationship, her reply was that if I did there was no need for me to return.
> I could take that as a huge sense of betrayal over something iffy.
> Or
> ...


That wasn't why I divorced to be fair.
I wouldn't end a marriage to find someone better. My ex did some terrible things.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Rus47 said:


> What does "marriage" have to do with it?


Nothing. I think that’s what makes open marriage folks defensive.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Livvie said:


> It's beyond me why men aren't seeking to terminate marriages in which his spouse wants to keep the benefits of marriage but wants to have sex with others (and he doesn't).
> 
> It's also beyond me how male poster after poster comes here with really crap marriages to women who are incredibly toxic and abusive and they want to stay in these marriages because they loooove her soooo much.


I think it going to get worse before it ever gets any better TBH. 

Most men are not sexually attractive or desirable to most women. 

If women had total sexual agency and only ever had sex with the men they were truly attracted to, only a very men would ever have sex at all. 

For a long long time, the common man’s only ace-in-the-hole was as a provider and protector. 

If a woman wanted to eat, feed her offspring and not be kidnapped and raped by the neighboring tribe, she had to secure a male mate. 

That male mate basically charged her sex and her sexual exclusivity for his provisioning. 

The last several generations have seen tremendous strides in women’s financial agency and social systems in the developed world have created a legal and law enforcement system for their physical safety and protection as well as a welfare system that insures that children won’t starve to death. 

The ace in the hole for the common man is rapidly filling in and disappearing. 

Now we’re going to basically have a cohort of young men where a small percentage will be Fck Boiyz with no appreciable relationship or family living skills or temperaments, And sizable majority of men so desperate and hungry for whatever female attention they can get that they will subject themselves to terrible exploitation and even abuse or be thrust back into several more years of celibacy. 

Personally I think female educational and financial empowerment is great improvement over past paradigms and I think individual sexual agency is everyone’s birthright. 

But with that, men are going to need to understand that simply having a job is no longer enough like it was for their fathers and grandfathers. 

They are going to have to compete on a global sexual market place. 

And they’re not just competing against other men. 

Their real challenge will be to compete against women’s ever rising expectations and requirements. 

In our grandmother’s era, a good man was one who wasn’t a falling down drunk, who had a steady income and who didn’t beat them. That was a fine catch. 

Today, it’s a whole different world.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Rus47 said:


> So the LAST position a man wants to be in is married to a woman who brings up the subject of an 'open' 'marriage'. He could divorce her and jockey for position with the other countless men she is doing.
> 
> 
> Maybe the women are right, but their 'partners' need to get out of the travesty they are in. Whether they get laid or not is kinda irrelevant if they have any self respect.
> ...


Oh I guarantee you know some. They just don’t broadcast it. 

It actually is more socially acceptable to be gay today vs in a non traditional heterosexual marriage. 

Just wait a another page or two and you will start to see the hate and vitriol and judgement coming out in this thread. 

But that’s fodder for another topic.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> In our grandmother’s era, a good man was one who wasn’t a falling down drunk, who had a steady income and who didn’t beat them. That was a fine catch.


That’s a pretty low bar. Is it really some grand challenge to be better than that?

I’m going to disagree with you. Women want a man who loves and respects them. A man who isn’t using them for a live-in cook and housekeeper and plan B sex, which is what wives were to men until women were able to support themselves.

Honestly, this very popular notion that expecting men to be decent, adult human beings is somehow women expecting too much is nonsense. Good men are marrying at the same rate they always were. The difference is that women aren’t forced to endure cheating and abuse because they have the option to support themselves.

If being expected to treat a woman like a fellow human instead of a pet you have sex with is too big a challenge, those males are best left out of the gene pool.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Nothing. I think that’s what makes open marriage folks defensive.


what we get annoyed with is people coming into these threads with zero advice, and nothing but "everyone knows its bad because its sin, and your marriage is invalid because my pastor said that my god said so"

so i am just skipping to the inevitable religious bent that Diana7 brings to every one of these threads.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I will say this: never have I ever on this site had someone who was truly part of that lifestyle tell me I was wrong to not want to be a part of it. They’ve tried to convince me that my impression of it was incorrect, but never that I should try it or that I’m selfish or bad because I’m against it. They’re not judging me (at least vocally, we’re all human), they’re just asking that I not judge them.
> 
> I can’t say the same about proponents of other types of cheating.


every one of us that practice ethical non-monogamy knows that its an extremely individual thing. not only would it be pointless to advocate for it, it would be just as dumb as denouncing someone for choosing celibacy. we just get tired of the religious bent, considering many of us dont even practice the same religion.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

oldshirt said:


> I think it going to get worse before it ever gets any better TBH.
> 
> Most men are not sexually attractive or desirable to most women.
> 
> ...


It sounds like someone has had a lot of bad relationships 😆🤣

Most males under 30 these days are nothing like males from 30 years ago. They seem like soy boys. No body definition, no male characteristics, no confidence. They dress very odd and their views on most everything from children to marriage are very strange.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Rus47 said:


> I am honestly puzzled what is the difference between an open 'marriage', and just dating people? I mean why is it ever a "good" thing? Let's suppose that wife brings it up, husband agrees, they go through all the scenarios, agree to all the rules and regulations everyone on here always talks about, agree on how they are going to avoid a deadly disease, and both begin screwing different people every single night and sometimes one another. Where does this logically lead? A decade on they are still doing 5-10 people a week? Still "married"? For why? How is this any different than just going their separate ways and screwing as many as are interested?
> 
> What does "marriage" have to do with it? The tax break? The kids? The cost ( for the man ) of divorce?


My personal thoughts are in the case of my original post are that they are wanting to retain the benefits of marriage while they have fun seeing what’s out there for them.

You don’t sell you car and then walk to work and the grocery store before you start looking for the next one do you?

You don’t sell you house and go homeless living under a bridge while you go house hunting do you?

We have all sorts of colorful names for people who quit one job before lining up the next one.

But yet relationships are the one area we want people to completely break up and live completely free and single for a period of time before even thinking about the next one. 

While that may be a great ideal, it simply isn’t a reality for a lot of people. 

I think most of these chicks are just looking for their next one without actually being single and on their own for any length of time. 

The difference is they are trying to market it as something beneficial or at least palatable to the guy.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Livvie said:


> It's beyond me why men aren't seeking to terminate marriages in which his spouse wants to keep the benefits of marriage but wants to have sex with others (and he doesn't).
> 
> It's also beyond me how male poster after poster comes here with really crap marriages to women who are incredibly toxic and abusive and they want to stay in these marriages because they loooove her soooo much.


It is pretty simple, they are smoking some very high grade hopium and the reality of finances post divorce seem to be painful.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> It sounds like someone has had a lot of bad relationships 😆🤣
> 
> Most males under 30 these days are nothing like males from 30 years ago. They seem like soy boys. No body definition, no male characteristics, no confidence. They dress very odd and their views on most everything from children to marriage are very strange.


It really depends on where you are. I know plenty of good young men under 30. It seems to be about parenting and values. There’s more girly men than before, sure, but good boys do exist.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> That’s a pretty low bar. Is it really some grand challenge to be better than that?
> 
> I’m going to disagree with you. Women want a man who loves and respects them. A man who isn’t using them for a live-in cook and housekeeper and plan B sex, which is what wives were to men until women were able to support themselves.
> 
> ...


I think you missed my point.

Several generations ago, that was considered a good catch.

Today the bar is much much higher,, as it should be.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Oh I guarantee you know some. They just don’t broadcast it.
> 
> It actually is more socially acceptable to be gay today vs in a non traditional heterosexual marriage.
> 
> ...


Disagreeing isn't hate vitriol or judgement, never has been.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

Open marriage - You suck in bed, working on our sex life is too much work, and I don't want to be single. So I am going to have sex with others until I find your replacement. You can have sex with others because I don't care.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Mybabysgotit said:


> Probably only happens in situations where the wife knows the husband can't get laid anywhere else. She won't want to bang anyone else if the husband is a high commodity.


As I stated in post #6 on page 1. 

I agree that most of these women think/know that the guy won’t be able to get anyone else.... at least not in a reasonable period of time. 

But this does cross all socio economic classes. So it depends on what you mean by high commodity. 

Some of these hard charging, very high income guys are very socially and sexually inept that may be titans in the boardroom but are babes in the woods in the bedroom.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Open marriage - You suck in bed, working on our sex life is too much work, and I don't want to be single. So I am going to have sex with others until I find your replacement. You can have sex with others because I don't care.


I think that sums up a lot of these cases. 

But I would also add that they are also very confident that the guy can’t or won’t get with anyone else himself.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Rus47 said:


> So the LAST position a man wants to be in is married to a woman who brings up the subject of an 'open' 'marriage'. He could divorce her and jockey for position with the other countless men she is doing.
> 
> 
> Maybe the women are right, but their 'partners' need to get out of the travesty they are in. Whether they get laid or not is kinda irrelevant if they have any self respect.
> ...


Same here. We know quite a few people who are gay, we have met countless people in our lives from many different cultures, places, walks of life, my husband lived on Oz for 30 years, we have moved a lot, we have never met anyone who was onto that lifestyle. We have known loads who cheated but not with agreement. 
I suspect it's not as common as we are sometimes led to believe here.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

DownByTheRiver said:


> Being single is sexual emancipation. Marriage is not.


But these women are trying to position themselves for both. 

They want the freedom to have sex with whoever they want but still have someone at home unclogging the toilet and killing spiders. 

All while getting the men who are none the wiser to sign off on it.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It really depends on where you are. I know plenty of good young men under 30. It seems to be about parenting and values. There’s more girly men than before, sure, but good boys do exist.


Oh no arguments about there being good guys under 30. But there are a lot more feminine guys than ever. Studies have shown that mens testosterone is lower overall each decade.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> But these women are trying to position themselves for both.
> 
> They want the freedom to have sex with whoever they want but still have someone at home unclogging the toilet and killing spiders.
> 
> All while getting the men who are none the wiser to sign off on it.


Well, There's one born every minute.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> Same here. We know quite a few people who are gay, we have met countless people in our lives from many different cultures, places, walks of life, my husband lived on Oz for 30 years, we have moved a lot, we have never met anyone who was onto that lifestyle. We have known loads who cheated but not with agreement.
> I suspect it's not as common as we are sometimes led to believe here.


You know some people who are in CNM relationships, but They’re not going to tell you because they know you will judge them harshly and be mean to them.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

oldshirt said:


> But these women are trying to position themselves for both.
> 
> They want the freedom to have sex with whoever they want but still have someone at home unclogging the toilet and killing spiders.
> 
> All while getting the men who are none the wiser to sign off on it.


Me personally, I call it emotional immaturity and not being ready for marriage. 

Maybe some people are different. But if she asked me permission to sleep with others, I would be devastated. I also would never be with another lady while married.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> Eh????Didn't mention it at all.


well, you already called ENM adultery. so yeah, you already brought religion into it.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

As'laDain said:


> well, you already called ENM adultery. so yeah, you already brought religion into it.


That doesn't mean she brought religion into this.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> That doesn't mean she brought religion into this.


I personally have been harmed and seen much harm done by religion. I still am not a fan of open marriage. Has nothing to do with religion. I just don’t see the point, to be honest. BUT I know a couple in real life who are open. They have been together almost 30 years. Their finances are completely separate. They seem like really good friends with benefits to me. They’re not affectionate, but they’re certainly happier than the Catholic couples I know.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> That doesn't mean she brought religion into this.


unless you make the argument that its not adultery if it occurs in the marriage. then it becomes an argument about what a marriage is, which inevitably ends up being based solely on her religion. 

we have all seen this exact pattern before, from her specifically.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Rus47 said:


> ........I am honestly puzzled what is the difference between an open 'marriage', and just dating people? I mean why is it ever a "good" thing?
> 
> .....What does "marriage" have to do with it? The tax break? The kids? The cost ( for the man ) of divorce?......


My wife has a very good friend, who lives in a retirement community out here on the West Coast. She has a "boyfriend" lover that lives in Pennsylvania in an assisted living situation. They use to go on cruises and trips together all the time. She didn't want to marry him because she didn't want to give up her ex-husbands social security benefits and some joint pension benefits. Also in her youth, she had been a bit of a "player" liking to date multiple men and play the field. 

One of the problems she now is facing by not being married, is that even with power's of attorney, his having a living will naming her, Health instructions saying she can make the decisions, being his financial guardian (Yes, she got doctors letters saying he was no longer mentally competent), she is having a heck of a time dealing with hospitals, nursing homes, banks, etc. because she is not his wife, even though she has all kinds of lawyer drawn up paper work. She seems to regularly fly back to Pennsylvania every two to three months and meets with his attorney to go deal with some organization that doesn't want to do things for the benefit of her boyfriend, who is on his last legs.

In the USA, there is a tax marriage penalty as opposed to tax break on federal taxes.


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> My personal thoughts are in the case of my original post are that they are wanting to retain the benefits of marriage while they have fun seeing what’s out there for them.
> 
> You don’t sell you car and then walk to work and the grocery store before you start looking for the next one do you?
> 
> ...


Oh I for sure see what is in it for a woman who is tired of the old boy she is married to but doesn't want to lose the perks. So she uses the "open" gambit to screw around while keeping the old boy tethered.

IMO any man who goes for that deal is destined for a lot of misery. And those are as you mentioned most of the people here asking about open marriages, agonizing about how they can stand it just to stay married to their wayward.

I was talking about a married couple, who mutually decide to have an open 'marriage" because they are bored? Or excited to try something out in left field? Or? You were into swingling, so suppose that is sort of similar to an "open" marriage, except both parties are there together as opposed to off alone with others. Why tha,t rather than just being single? Like a "unicorn" swinger? ( is that what they are called?) 

Well to each his or her own, was just puzzled about the why.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I need to throw in a few disclaimers and exceptions here before things start branching down too many interconnected rabbit holes. 

For starters, as I said in the OP, there are a number of people for which open marriage works fine. They researched it, discussed it, weighed the risks and benefits, established boundaries and expectations and each have a high degree of respect and compassion for each other and periodically review the state of their relationship to insure all is going well for everyone involved. More importantly, there wasn't anyone deceiving or exploiting the other or trying to pull one over on the other. This is not about those people. 

I need to also add that there are some people out there who's partner willfully and knowingly neglect and deny the other's needs and the other has tried to address the issues and has tried to get them into MC and has tried other options for getting their needs met and their partner has either refused or just paid lip service and when approached about open marriage basically said, "fine, go do what you want."

Is that a viable, long term solution to the marital problems and problems in the bedroom?? Probably not, but it's also not a manipulation or exploitation or trying to wrap a turd in shiny gift paper. 

If someone presents the options of work with me to find a way to meet my needs, or open the marriage, or divorce; to which the other person opts to give them the hallpass,,,,, that may be pathetic and sad, but it is a mutually negotiated and agreed upon lifestyle choice.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Rus47 said:


> I was talking about a married couple, who mutually decide to have an open 'marriage" because they are bored? Or excited to try something out in left field? Or? You were into swingling, so suppose that is sort of similar to an "open" marriage, except both parties are there together as opposed to off alone with others. Why tha,t rather than just being single? Like a "unicorn" swinger? ( is that what they are called?)
> 
> Well to each his or her own, was just puzzled about the why.


I think you have some typos in there that are muddying up questions. Can you clarify your questions a little bit? 

Not that I'll necessarily have an answer but I'd like to at least understand the questions.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

Livvie said:


> It's also beyond me how male poster after poster comes here with really crap marriages to women who are incredibly toxic and abusive and they want to stay in these marriages because they loooove her soooo much.


I know this may sound somewhat hard to believe, but there are a LOT of guys out there that literally are invisible to the opposite sex...I know a few of these guys...And while in some cases, it is looks, in a lot of cases, it isn't...I know some really butt ugly guys that do well with women and some that...eh.,...aren't horrible looking but couldn't get a woman no matter what they did..

It's this reason, I believe, that they are reluctant to leave...I think in their heads they would never find another woman to get within a mile of their genitals, so they cling for dear life....The other reason is they are lying...They just don't want to blow up their lives and lose all their shyt...They won't admit to that, but that's what it is...so they continue to whine about not getting laid and never leave though...


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

I've been around women enough to know that when a woman says...."(sigh)...then just do whatever you want, OK?"
That she absolutely doesn't want you to take that seriously and do it...It wouldn't matter if it's this topic, or whether she said that after you told her you were going to take a guys only trip to Vegas, or buy an old car or bike, etc...

She says that, but instead of the guy saying, "great, ill get my Tinder profile going"..she wants him to go to his room like a little boy and be sorry it was ever brought up...


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

I think in a vast majority of open marriages the couple falsely believes its working. That is until one day one or both realize wow, my spouse apparently doesn't think I am enough and is sleeping with others. Just what in the hell have I gotten myself into? Or suddenly, he or she sleeps with someone and it becomes more than sex..... I think its even worse than the idea of you and your spouse getting into a threesome. 

Or as your spouse sleeps around with each person, the poison pill of resentment contaminants your marriage until it erupts one day. 

Sorry, but I think having an open marriage is like playing Russian roulette. Except instead of 1 bullet, you now have 5 out of 6 chambers loaded and the target is your actual marriage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> You know some people who are in CNM relationships, but They’re not going to tell you because they know you will judge them harshly and be mean to them.


I doubt I know any because most believe in faithfulness, and you would be surprised what people tell us. You would probably find some of it pretty shocking actually. Little shocks me.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

As'laDain said:


> my wife and i have been polyamorous for years, and i have had MUCH more success than she has in dating. she isn't looking for a hook-up, but hooking up is all most men seem to be interested in if you look at online dating. so yeah, while women might have an easier time getting attention from multiple men, they seem to have a harder time finding anything beyond just sex.


If your wife wants it I wish she had better luck finding men who aren't just looking for a hook up. I'm sure they are out there, yet I have no doubt that they are less common than those just wanting hook ups.



As'laDain said:


> i think this is where we differ in our opinions. i don't think its more common because men are being feminized and emasculated. i think its more common simply because technology has made it easier. some feminists like to demonize traditional masculine roles, but that has been a thing for several decades. what i see more often is men losing their minds over women that choose to fill traditional masculine roles, and men that choose to fill traditional feminine roles. i see far more people upset with people abandoning tradition than people getting upset with the traditions themselves.
> 
> 40 years ago, you couldn't just hop on the internet and find other people like you, if you are different. we arent restricted to our own home towns anymore.


It's wonderful for people to know that they are not alone, and that there are others who can relate to them.



As'laDain said:


> people leaving a relationship that they dont want to be in has always been a thing. the only safe guard i have against my wife leaving me is that i make sure she enjoys her time spent with me. and that is the only i want to ever put in place. i dont want her to stay "for the kids" or for the money, stability, etc. i want her to stay simply because she wants to.
> 
> this is probably the biggest reason i have been successful in relationships... *i always want my partner to enjoy their time with me. i want them to look forward to it, so that i help recharge their batteries, rather than drain them.* in any relationship, no matter what kind, that is really all anyone needs to do. do their best to make their partner feel better when they are around. that whole positive, negative association thing.


Thank-you for sharing the "secret sauce", to maintaining a healthy relationship.



Diana7 said:


> I am sure there are LOADS of websites for people who want to have sex with other people. I am sure you would be spoilt for choice whether you wanted to swing or cheat or have many 'wives' or whatever you craved.
> 
> I see this site as largely for faithful marriage and I think it's a shame that adultery is promoted here at all.


This website is Talk About Marriage, it isn't just Talk About Monogamous Marriage, which is a good thing. Since marriage comes in all sorts of expressions including non-monogamous varieties.

Given that this website is actually just Talk About Marriage, it's okay for those who have marriages unlike yours (like polyamorous marriages or same sex marriages and on and on) to discuss the marriages they experience here. Without always being shamed for it or being told they are wrong or that their lives are an abomination etc.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

Given that this is a forum devoted primarily to marital issues, and counts many betrayed among it's members, is it really advice that is given or is it simply an echo chamber of projected past traumas? 

Individuals may show up seeking advice or support but they are often greeted by past trauma projected on them from other members. Every thread you see projection after projection. Sometimes it's veiled, often there's religion, but always projections. Often there are no open minds, simply regurgitated comments and badly veiled excuses attempting to justify unwavering positions.

I fail to see how any talk of open marriage in this environment would be anything other than toxic. If it is merely a threat of open marriage, our members would have difficulty discussing the underlying root causes, let alone offering advice to correct course. If you weren't already suspicious of a spouse or headed for divorce, most of the threads on here will get you there fast. I've had members... on here... go directly against the advice of licensed marriage counselors who were actively trying to repair relationships. Literally "get counciling" followed by not accepting the counseling advice because it didn't fit their specific view. I can't imagine how much damage that would do if someone was actually seeking advice on here. 

If it is a couple exploring the possibility of open marriage I'd assume they already did the research... but that's on them and again our members as a collective group would be more toxic than good. If it's a threat then we'll read "counciling", " cheating", "divorce" and probably a lot of religion before it devolves into meaningless banter.

Open marriage isn't my thing, nor is swinging, but to each their own. There's plenty of info out there if one is willing to put in time and seek it out.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

Personal said:


> this website is actually just Talk About Marriage, it's okay for those who have marriages unlike yours (like polyamorous marriages or same sex marriages and on and on) to discuss the marriages they experience here. Without always being shamed for it or being told they are wrong or that their lives are an abomination etc.


Unfortunately the reality doesn't even remotely live up to the ideal you stated. Anything beyond traditional beliefs is constantly attacked with such vitriol that it dissuades many others from even commenting. It often becomes an echo chamber within 4 pages.


----------



## 24NitroglyceriN26 (11 mo ago)

BeyondRepair007 said:


> With any luck I won't have much time left
> Sorta joking... I'm older as you might have guessed.
> 
> And I'm sure I'll be leaving the online world long before I leave the real world.


I would like more luck too


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

I classify same-sex marriages that are monogamous as traditional marriages.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> Given that this is a forum devoted primarily to marital issues, and counts many betrayed among it's members, is it really advice that is given or is it simply an echo chamber of projected past traumas?
> 
> Individuals may show up seeking advice or support but they are often greeted by past trauma projected on them from other members. Every thread you see projection after projection. Sometimes it's veiled, often there's religion, but always projections. Often there are no open minds, simply regurgitated comments and badly veiled excuses attempting to justify unwavering positions.
> 
> ...


I agree that there is plenty of information out there about open marriage. Most all of it points to disaster for a marriage. Women easily develop emotional connections to whoever they sleep with. Men can easily get addicted to just sleeping around. There are studies showing divorce rates in open marriages to be over 90%.

Can I ask why would you want the subject of open marriage discussed as a possibility on this site? What would be the purpose? Marriage is between two people, not two people and whomever your spouse wants to sleep with whenever. I just can't imagine any rational guy who cares about his wife being ok at home watching tv while his wife is out having sex with some other guy, or the other way around. 

If a section for open marriage was created, then they might as well create a section on how to cheat on your spouse without them finding out


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I classify same-sex marriages that are monogamous as traditional marriages.


Many people are going to disagree with you on that.

But I’m willing to bet that none of these bible beaters that are so outspoken about open marriage/swinging/polyamory will have the giblets to speak out against it. and it wouldn’t surprise me if the mods would delete any posts objecting to same sex marriage if someone did.

Consensual nonmonogamy in hereto couples is the last legal taboo. 

In society as a whole, even actual cheating can be more accepted and justified by the masses than CNM. 

People may disagree with cheating, but they understand it. They understand it and can see how and why it can happen. 

That same level of understanding and justification doesn’t apply for many in regards to CNM.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I classify same-sex marriages that are monogamous as traditional marriages.


I agree and I feel the same but unfortunately none of us have the capacity to speak for the board. Even if anyone wished to speak for the group there's no real consensus...

There are parts of the world that still allow arranged marriages, even in the US they do happen. Are they monogamous? Are they happy? Are they resentful of each other? Could they divorce if they wanted to? No clue... but by the standards established by their religion it is still a marriage. By the laws of their respective country it is still a marriage. In some respects that may be their "traditional marriage". That would be the likely scenario where a mutual agreement and an open marriage occur.

But again I HIGHLY doubt given past performances that members on here could even begin to offer meaningful advice beyond the simplistic "therapy" and "divorce".


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> why would you want the subject of open marriage discussed as a possibility on this site? What would be the purpose?


Did you miss the undertones where I loudly expressed that having it on here would be toxic in part because the membership doesn't have the skillset, desire, capability or open mindset required to properly advise anyone seeking out meaningful advice on the subject of open marriage?

Your follow up comment comparing it to glorified cheating literally proves my point... And just like that we have a toxic soup by page 4...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> I agree that there is plenty of information out there about open marriage. Most all of it points to disaster for a marriage. Women easily develop emotional connections to whoever they sleep with. Men can easily get addicted to just sleeping around. There are studies showing divorce rates in open marriages to be over 90%.
> 
> Can I ask why would you want the subject of open marriage discussed as a possibility on this site? What would be the purpose? Marriage is between two people, not two people and whomever your spouse wants to sleep with whenever. I just can't imagine any rational guy who cares about his wife being ok at home watching tv while his wife is out having sex with some other guy, or the other way around.
> 
> If a section for open marriage was created, then they might as well create a section on how to cheat on your spouse without them finding out


we can deal with “oughts” or we can deal with “is.” 

We can say that all relationships “ought” to be committed and monogamous so there for we should not address nonmonogamy.

But nonmonogamy “is” a reality and is something that is going to be a part of society whether we as individuals agree with it or not.

To say that it should not be discussed because it can have bad outcomes is the same narrowMindedness that says we should not discuss contraception in schools because then kids will have sex , or saying that we shouldn’t talk about gun safety because guns can be dangerous. 

We can either embrace institutionalized ignorance in hopes that it keeps problems at bay. 

Or we can look at things realistically and recognize potential risks and pitfalls as well as benefits and address those risks and address means of reducing those risks and mitigating their effects. 

CSM in various forms has always been a part of marriage throughout the ages and as time goes on it’s only going to become more and more prevalent and not as hidden in the closet as it was in the past. 

The head in the sand approach has never been the solution to any problem.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> I doubt I know any because most believe in faithfulness, and you would be surprised what people tell us. You would probably find some of it pretty shocking actually. Little shocks me.


Little may shock you but you would still judge it harshly and people know that so they simply don’t tell you about it .... as it should be.

What goes on in a couple’s bedroom is their own business and no one else’s. 

99.9999% of sexuality is in private and people keep it to themselves, especially women. 

No matter how much someone tells you about their sexlife, it’s only the very tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Rob_1 (Sep 8, 2017)

Actually, it's all crap pot, whatever excuse is given to open marriages.

The bottom line is that men that are into sharing their woman, from a biological point of view they were not supposed to procreate (or minimize it). It's mother nature way to ensure that only the fittest get the chance to pass on their genes. Always was, and always been that way. It's the reason why from a social evolutionary point of view it evolved as a taboo. Whichever society you went through at any time it was there. a few exceptions did occur; but now just about any society in this world has it established as a social stigma (taboo) for men.

It is with the advent of modern science and the various methods of birth control that mother nature had been mostly defeated in its natural selection purposes, and all the people that before the advent of health care and medicine that has made sure that those that shouldn't have been borne are now borne, and those that shouldn't procreate now procreate is that we see the propagation as the human population increases in an uncontrollable manner and the easy life we get (in comparison to extremely harsh life that most humans have to live day by day not too long ago) that we see the degrees of degeneration to which the human race now have and tolerates; which just not too long ago it was death for some individuals if found (not that it doesn't still happens in some cultures).

Bottom line, males by the law of nature are supposed to ensure that the progeny that they are (supposedly) engendering is theirs, so that their efforts in making sure that progeny gets to live to procreate is not wasted on some other male's offprings. We are not cuckoos pushing our eggs for others to raise our offprings. We are primates, where the natural selection is mostly a few alphas, silver backs, or whatever you want to call it taking most of the females for themselves. We as humans were never too far away from that primate patron, until the advent of the discovery of agriculture and mankind settling down in one place, creating, the social strata,wealth, and power. The more power the more women you could have. God forbid if any male was caught with another man's woman. It was death for both. Sad that so many so called men are nothing but a sad excuse that pass as men. They wouldn't just a little back in time.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> Many people are going to disagree with you on that.
> 
> But I’m willing to bet that none of these bible beaters that are so outspoken about open marriage/swinging/polyamory will have the giblets to speak out against it. and it wouldn’t surprise me if the mods would delete any posts objecting to same sex marriage if someone did.
> 
> ...


I think you should ask yourself, if we are all such troglodytes, so unsophisticated and provincial in believing that sex should have emotion attached to it, then why do you care so much what we think? Why would you even want the approval of those whose thinking is so slow and backwards?


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

[


oldshirt said:


> To say that it should not be discussed because it can have bad outcomes is the same narrowMindedness that says we should not discuss contraception in schools because then kids will have sex , or saying that we shouldn’t talk about gun safety because guns can be dangerous.


This is comparing apples and oranges..... There is nothing narrow-minded about resisting the idea of openly sleeping around on your spouse as a bad idea.

This is about as bad as promoting the lottery as a way to secure your financial future. Sure, some will win something. But most will lose.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I think you should ask yourself, if we are all such troglodytes, so unsophisticated and provincial in believing that sex should have emotion attached to it, then why do you care so much what we think? Why would you even want the approval of those whose thinking is so slow and backwards?


I don’t even know where you are getting this because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> I don’t even know where you are getting this because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.


What is your goal here? For me to “emancipate” my husband? Tell him we can have an open marriage and he sleep with whoever he wants? You talk about infidelity and call it a “taboo,” like it’s tantamount to tattoos or body piercings instead of a humiliating betrayal. What would freeing my husband to have sex with others accomplish? What’s the endgame?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> [
> 
> 
> This is comparing apples and oranges..... There is nothing narrow-minded about resisting the idea of openly sleeping around on your spouse as a bad idea.
> ...


But no one has said anything about promoting the lottery and no one has said anything about encouraging someone who doesn’t want to sleep around on their spouse to do so and you were not addressing that topic. 

You were essentially saying that open marriage should not be a topic of discussion because you believe it has bad outcomes. 

A lot of things can have bad outcomes. So how do we reduce and mitigate those outcomes? Answer - we address them and talk about them. 

We analyze the processes and identify the risks and then determine how those processes contribute to the risks and from there explore options and other processes that can reduce and mitigate those risks. 

And in so doing, we also have to recognize the benefits because if there weren’t any perceived benefits, people wouldn’t be doing it in the first place. 

So everything becomes an analysis of risk vs benefits and identify means of reducing and mitigating risk while at least preserving if not maximizing benefit. 

That principle can be applied to everything from eating peanuts to driving cars to climbing mountains.

So to single out open marriage as an unspeakable topic is institutionalized ignorance and narrow minded.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> What is your goal here? For me to “emancipate” my husband? Tell him we can have an open marriage and he sleep with whoever he wants? You talk about infidelity and call it a “taboo,” like it’s tantamount to tattoos or body piercings instead of a humiliating betrayal. What would freeing my husband to have sex with others accomplish? What’s the endgame?


You’re way off.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

TexasMom1216 said:


> What is your goal here? For me to “emancipate” my husband? Tell him we can have an open marriage and he sleep with whoever he wants? You talk about infidelity and call it a “taboo,” like it’s tantamount to tattoos or body piercings instead of a humiliating betrayal. What would freeing my husband to have sex with others accomplish? What’s the endgame?


Excellent point!... This is a symptom of the real problem in society. People are trying to rationalize and justify immoral and bad behavior as somehow being acceptable and the new normal.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> So to single out open marriage as an unspeakable topic is *institutionalized ignorance and narrow minded.*


So I should tell my husband he should start sleeping around because monogamy is narrow minded. Seems I’m not_ that _far off.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Excellent point!... This is a symptom of the real problem in society. People are trying to rationalize and justify immoral and bad behavior as somehow being acceptable and the new normal.


Well and what’s crazy is I really don’t care what other people do. Honestly, before I came to this site I had no idea I was ruining my husbands life by expecting him to not sleep around. Apparently he’s been suffering from my narrow mindedness for almost two decades. I guess I’m supposed to look up a swingers party and send him. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to go and serve drinks or whatever. The important thing is that I understand sex has no emotional significance and I am just a meaningless, interchangable piece of meat. I’m kinda confused, TBH. It’s billed as this great, modern thing but sure sounds like the brand of marriage my father pushed on me.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

oldshirt said:


> we can deal with “oughts” or we can deal with “is.”
> 
> We can say that all relationships “ought” to be committed and monogamous so there for we should not address nonmonogamy.
> 
> ...


Discussed in proper context with appropriate resources readily available... absolutely... discussed on here... definitely not going to be productive or constructive or beneficial. At a minimum there's neither the experience levels nor the desire for many to be educated on the topic to attain said experience levels to offer constructive advice. There are other sites better equipped. If people wish to look into it, have at it... but on here it'll be toxic.

As an example, most of the members on here have either been cheated on, or divorced, or rebuilt struggling marriages and/or overcame porn, drugs, sex addiction, alcoholism, emotional and or physical abuse... A quick glance can find resources to overcome all of that, or advice on PI's, lawyers, or techs etc. Enough members have experienced it that they're all too willing to try and be helpful and share...

But what happens when their eagerness to help actually makes things worse? What happens when the urge to contribute something, anything, overrides the reality of the limits of their experiences? As I said, not equipped on here and most definitely more harm than good. And ALL of that is before religion comes crashing through the doors.

Not sure on your context behind the use of "we" but I assume you meant the membership. Please correct if necessary.


----------



## BeyondRepair007 (Nov 4, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> But I’m willing to bet that none of these bible beaters that are so outspoken about open marriage/swinging/polyamory will have the giblets to speak out against it. and it wouldn’t surprise me if the mods would delete any posts objecting to same sex marriage if someone did.


‘Bible beater’ here. Just not ‘outspoken‘ when it’s not the topic. Happy to give you the same opinion about any non-heterosexual, 1 man, 1 woman marriages that I did about open. It just wasn’t the thread topic so I didn’t before you brought it up.

I guess we’ll see if this post gets deleted now.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

oldshirt said:


> But no one has said anything about promoting the lottery and no one has said anything about encouraging someone who doesn’t want to sleep around on their spouse to do so and you were not addressing that topic.
> 
> You were essentially saying that open marriage should not be a topic of discussion because you believe it has bad outcomes.
> 
> ...


Light is faster than sound and explains why some people appear bright until you hear them speak 🤔. 

Here is the risk/benefit analysis you seek.... Having sex with people other than your spouse leads to broken marriages far more than helps them.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Having sex with people other than your spouse leads to broken marriages far more than helps them.


 Does it have to be sex, or is it simply the act of multiple outside relationships, even just friends on a "date"... which could easily fall into the category of an emotional affair?

For that matter is there a difference in wording between a couple that wants to open up their relationship and a couple that just wants outside sex?

I have no experience in this area and absolutely no desire to open my marriage but I enjoy expanding my knowledge. You seem to have a lot of resources readily available to pull from to establish you opinion so I'd love to read up. Please post the research links and studies related to open marriages so I can learn more.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Here is the risk/benefit analysis you seek.... Having sex with people other than your spouse leads to broken marriages far more than helps them.


Which can be a legitimate data point if you can back it up in some meaningful way such citing some kind of studies or statistics or even anecdotal from your own experiences or people you have known. 

we are all just regular people with our own opinions and perspectives based on our own individual knowledge and experiences etc. 
it’s ok to share those opinions and perspectives.

My point was it’s not helpful to say that a certain topic shouldn’t be discussed because it can have bad outcomes.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> What is your goal here? For me to “emancipate” my husband? Tell him we can have an open marriage and he sleep with whoever he wants? You talk about infidelity and call it a “taboo,” like it’s tantamount to tattoos or body piercings instead of a humiliating betrayal. What would freeing my husband to have sex with others accomplish? What’s the endgame?


I'm confused, are you pretending to be a new person who was contemplating open marriage and stumbled upon this website hoping for resources related to it? Because that's the target audience.

Or are you projecting yourself and your own relationship into the subject? ... a subject you've openly expressed you have no desire to learn about, and made perfectly clear isn't in any way related to you or to your marriage.

So why keep going? Why push it further if we both know it has nothing to do with you?

Unless you're pretending to be that outside newbie, because that's the OPs point... we don't have educated outside resources to address that on this forum (and in my opinion nor should we).


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> So I should tell my husband he should start sleeping around because monogamy is narrow minded. Seems I’m not_ that _far off.


You’re getting way off even more.

Let’s hit the reset button and start over.

Go back and read my OP, post #1 and tell me if you think I am advocating your husband or anyone else sleeping around.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

oldshirt said:


> You’re getting way off even more.
> 
> Let’s hit the reset button and start over.
> 
> Go back and read my OP, post #1 and tell me if you think I am advocating your husband or anyone else sleeping around.


Echoes, religion, projection and toxic soup and we're on (checks numbers) page 5. Not a single link, no research, no studies, no advice probably due to lack of experience in that area. And the only member who openly stated they have successful first hand experience in this area went silent... I HIGHLY doubt a dedicated forum would meet a better outcome. Anything outside of perceived normal is met with the same resistance. Lots of talk of an idealized forum.open to discussing various types of marriage, but that's not the reality.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Well and what’s crazy is I really don’t care what other people do.


Considering what followed that statement, are you really sure you don't care about what other people do?



> Honestly, before I came to this site I had no idea I was ruining my husbands life by expecting him to not sleep around. Apparently he’s been suffering from my narrow mindedness for almost two decades. I guess I’m supposed to look up a swingers party and send him. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to go and serve drinks or whatever. The important thing is that I understand sex has no emotional significance and I am just a meaningless, interchangable piece of meat. I’m kinda confused, TBH. It’s billed as this great, modern thing but sure sounds like the brand of marriage my father pushed on me.


Of which, I sure hope that what followed was just exaggerated hyperbole. Since no one has suggested that you or your husband should do any of that which you are claiming.

Otherwise why carry on with such apoplexy about this? When no-one has said that you or your husband should participate in non-monogamous sexual relationships.

If non-monogamy isn't your thing, then this isn't about you.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

crashdawg said:


> Echoes, religion, projection and toxic soup and we're on (checks numbers) page 5. Not a single link, no research, no studies, no advice probably due to lack of experience in that area. And the only member who openly stated they have successful first hand experience in this area went silent... I HIGHLY doubt a dedicated forum would meet a better outcome. Anything outside of perceived normal is met with the same resistance. Lots of talk of an idealized forum.open to discussing various types of marriage, but that's not the reality.


Except there are and have always been plenty of forum members that participate today and have done so through past years, who have no problem with non-monogamous sexual relationships (inclusive of marriages), especially when such relationships are consensual.

As to your assertion that some have gone silent. Since we all have other things to do, it's hardly a surprise that such participation will vary along the way.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Well and what’s crazy is I really don’t care what other people do. Honestly, before I came to this site I had no idea I was ruining my husbands life by expecting him to not sleep around. Apparently he’s been suffering from my narrow mindedness for almost two decades. I guess I’m supposed to look up a swingers party and send him. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to go and serve drinks or whatever. The important thing is that I understand sex has no emotional significance and I am just a meaningless, interchangable piece of meat. I’m kinda confused, TBH. It’s billed as this great, modern thing but sure sounds like the brand of marriage my father pushed on me.


and who said any of that? do you also think that gay people are trying to "turn you gay"?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

crashdawg said:


> Echoes, religion, projection and toxic soup and we're on (checks numbers) page 5. Not a single link, no research, no studies, no advice probably due to lack of experience in that area. And the only member who openly stated they have successful first hand experience in this area went silent... I HIGHLY doubt a dedicated forum would meet a better outcome. Anything outside of perceived normal is met with the same resistance. Lots of talk of an idealized forum.open to discussing various types of marriage, but that's not the reality.


if you are talking about me, i just took a nap.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Excellent point!... This is a symptom of the real problem in society. People are trying to rationalize and justify immoral and bad behavior as somehow being acceptable and the new normal.


or maybe, just maybe, their view of what is immoral and bad is different from yours, and you dont like it, so you attack it as immoral and bad. 

the same argument was made against interracial marriages. same argument against gay marriages. 

if your best argument against something is "my god said its bad" then just state that and move on. you aren't going to convince anyone to listen to your god by telling them how bad they are.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> [
> 
> 
> This is comparing apples and oranges..... There is nothing narrow-minded about resisting the idea of openly sleeping around on your spouse as a bad idea.
> ...


As has been stated, it takes a specific kind of person to be able to practice ENM. Those of us who practice it aren't advocating it for everyone. We are the ones saying it takes a specific kind. 

To use your own analogy, we aren't telling people to go play the lottery, we are trying to determine if it looks like they have a winning ticket. Overwhelmingly, it doesn't. Sometimes it does.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

Personal said:


> Except there are and have always been plenty of forum members that participate today and have done so through past years, who have no problem with non-monogamous sexual relationships (inclusive of marriages), especially when such relationships are consensual.
> 
> As to your assertion that some have gone silent. Since we all have other things to do, it's hardly a surprise that such participation will vary along the way.





As'laDain said:


> if you are talking about me, i just took a nap.


You are the members that I was referring to BUT it's not all about you. You both may be "rare", possibly even " endangered" status but you're not Highlander... there are others... there is more than one or two.

To demonstrate the point I was getting at; religion and ethics took hold by page 1 and you're the only individuals so far with a background of an open marriage willing to comfortably discuss this in this thread. And how many members are online? How many views of this thread? How many others that for any number of reasons didn't engage? Avoided engagement to the point that your absence was noticed? Lack of experience certainly didn't prevent others from contributing

Like I said not all about you, but your insights are both valued and appreciated. My other assessment is that this forum lacks the resources, mindset, and collective experience to support an entire dedicated forum fielding questions on open marriage! There are other sites better suited for this.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

crashdawg said:


> You are the members that I was referring to BUT it's not all about you. You both may be "rare", possibly even " endangered" status but you're not Highlander... there are others... there is more than one or two.
> 
> To demonstrate the point I was getting at; religion and ethics took hold by page 1 and you're the only individuals so far with a background of an open marriage willing to comfortably discuss this in this thread. And how many members are online? How many views of this thread? How many others that for any number of reasons didn't engage? Avoided engagement to the point that your absence was noticed? Lack of experience certainly didn't prevent others from contributing
> 
> Like I said not all about you, but your insights are both valued and appreciated. My other assessment is that this forum lacks the resources, mindset, and collective experience to support an entire dedicated forum fielding questions on open marriage! There are other sites better suited for this.


part of the reason you dont see us comment much is because in most cases, its someone here asking for advice in a situation they did not agree to in the first place. what advice can i give someone who is married to someone that is not willing to work _with_ them. we usually just tell them to file for divorce, since they are not ok with the idea and they cant stop their spouse. there really isn't much to be said in those situations. 

whats funny is that i could give someone some advice here that a monogamous person would completely agree with, but would lose their minds about the situation involving ENM anyway. things as simple as communicate, treat your partner well, find out what makes them smile and do it, etc. 

all that said, i cant really speak too much about "open marriages", since my understanding of them is that its almost the same as swinging, just not done together. in our(polycule) relationships, sex is another way of expressing intimacy and bonding with each other, and it doesnt feel right without a strong emotional connection. so we dont do the whole sleeping around thing. in truth, i dont even date. i am open to new relationships changing if they seem to want to go in a different direction, but i didnt seek out relationships with any of my partners save for my wife. with her, i just sent her a message on yahoo personals and disappeared for 5 weeks of field training at Camp Mackall, then married her after a few weeks of returning. we went on a handful of dates and then got married on a whim, 14 years ago. so i dont really know much about the kinds of open marriages everyone talks about here. it seems that everyone assumes that in all ENM situations, everyone is going out and hooking up as much as possible. it simply isnt true. i have never met anyone who actually does that while married. its one of those things we hear about from time to time, and everyone tries to avoid because it usually ends up with too much drama.

i do find it ironic when people talk about how they are "too committed" to practice ENM. like we arent committed to each other? how many years do we have to go through before we can say we are committed? how many deaths in the family, deployments, health crisis, financial problems, etc... just how much of our lives do we have to go through before we get to say we are "committed"?

several years ago, my wife and my girlfriend both almost died from bleeding out from surgeries, a week apart from each other. one couldn't get out of bed for a month, the other needed help just using the bathroom for a month. i thank the gods for my metamours, because that was rough. if someone wants to know what that is like, coordinating with your partners partners to make sure eveyone is taken care of, moving money around for emergencies, etc, i can talk about that. 

but i imagine that would sound too much like a traditional marriage to a lot of people here.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Sheez, I'm not even enough for one let alone two or more 
I wouldn't mind groupies casually but marriage with two? Oh hell no!

I also don't think open marriages are numerous enough to effect society as a whole. Majority still prefer monogamy.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> Sheez, I'm not even enough for one let alone two or more
> I wouldn't mind groupies casually but marriage with two? Oh hell no!
> 
> I also don't think open marriages are numerous enough to effect society as a whole. Majority still prefer monogamy.


lol, you are one of the few people who might understand why non-monogamy fits my personality type. 

im _*never *_bored.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

As'laDain said:


> lol, you are one of the few people who might understand why non-monogamy fits my personality type.
> 
> im _*never *_bored.


Haha, aye I do mate 

Also why I'm never in the one-size-fits-all camp.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

crashdawg said:


> You are members I was referring to BUT it's not all about you. You both may be "rare", possibly even " endangered" status but you're not Highlander... there are others... there is more than one or two.
> 
> To demonstrate the point I was getting at; religion and ethics took hold by page 1 and you're the only individual so far with a background of an open marriage willing to comfortably discuss this in this thread.


Nope, I don't have any experience in knowingly participating in any (non-monogamous) open marriages.

That said as a married couple who are non-conventional, my wife and I are not opposed to ethical non-monogamy at all, and think that such relationships (including marriages) can also work wonderfully.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

As'laDain said:


> but i imagine that would sound too much like a traditional marriage to a lot of people here.


That's the thing, as a consequence of being human, consensual non-monogamous sexual relationships are for the most part pretty much like any other relationship.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

Personal said:


> Nope, I don't have any experience in knowingly participating in any (non-monogamous) open marriages.


Then I apologize I thought based on the commentary that you were non traditional and open.



> That said as a married couple who are non-conventional, my wife and I are not opposed to ethical non-monogamy at all, and think that such relationships (including marriages) can also work wonderfully.


my wife and I feel the same way. Many of our experiences throughout life have been unconventional and unorthodox, but that is part of the incredibly close bond we share.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

@As'laDain the reason I cited you in particular is because you have openly stated that your background and experiences would lend itself to positive advice in this subject. I don't feel there's enough individuals with that level of ex who are comfortable enough to speak openly and support a new forum on here. I honestly feel any attempt would quickly devolve irrespective of the intent of the poster.

The sheer number of threads related to "wife wants an open" and "husband wants an open" would probably lead anyone searching those key words to this forum. Hell I discovered this forum looking for better communication support in an already strong marriage. And you are correct, odds are those showing up here aren't looking for resources about an open relationship, they're likely in an unhealthy position facing an unwanted ultimatum.

I also think the page count and content on this thread showcases that any attempt by someone to seek answers on this site would likely be met by the flood of criticisms against non traditional relationships.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

As'laDain said:


> As has been stated, it takes a specific kind of person to be able to practice ENM. Those of us who practice it aren't advocating it for everyone. We are the ones saying it takes a specific kind.
> 
> To use your own analogy, we aren't telling people to go play the lottery, we are trying to determine if it looks like they have a winning ticket. Overwhelmingly, it doesn't. Sometimes it does.


You say quite well here. 

I would also add that in addition to being someone who does not have a very rigid view that strict monogamy is the only way, it also takes a lot of work. 

Monogamous relationships take a lot of work to remain healthy and happy long term. To add more people into that mix requires exponentially more open communication and collaboration and effort. 

The majority of the people that come here because their partner wants to have an open marriage do not seem to be interested or even willing to put in the time and effort and open dialogue to make an open marriage successful and long lasting - they just want to be able to get with other dudes without any of the standard consequences and have him at home watching the kids. 

Over time there will be some people who are sincere about exploring it and are willing to put in the work and effort. I think within a page or two all they are going to see are people citing Leviticus and Corinthians and see a bunch of monkeys throwing poop at each other.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> I think within a page or two all they are going to see are people citing Leviticus and Corinthians and *see a bunch of monkeys throwing poop at each other*.


Yeah you clearly don’t hold proponents of monogamy in contempt. 🙄


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> What is your goal here? For me to “emancipate” my husband? Tell him we can have an open marriage and he sleep with whoever he wants? You talk about infidelity and call it a “taboo,” like it’s tantamount to tattoos or body piercings instead of a humiliating betrayal. What would freeing my husband to have sex with others accomplish? What’s the endgame?


What I got from the title of the thread and the original post was that @oldshirt was discussing the contrast of open being a joint decision on a married couple or the women proposing it to the husband she is no longer interested in as a ploy to have her cake and eat it too. It likely started from the several recent threads where the wife decided she wanted to sleep around while married and the shell shocked husband coming on TAM to ask how he could live with the new situation.

The situation wasn't the woman "freeing" the husband but freeing herself.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Yeah you clearly don’t hold proponents of monogamy in contempt. 🙄


It doesn't have anything to do with proponents of monogamy or republicans or democrats or shriners. It's about whether people are able to have civil, open dialogues with each other or not. 

It's important for any topic to have a variety of different views and perspectives otherwise it becomes a cult. 

But how useful that discussion is depends largely on how civil and open minded it can remain without turning into dogma and conflict.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

crashdawg said:


> Unfortunately the reality doesn't even remotely live up to the ideal you stated. Anything beyond traditional beliefs is constantly attacked with such vitriol that it dissuades many others from even commenting. It often becomes an echo chamber within 4 pages.


People who stand up for traditional faithful marriages are often treated badly here. 
I would like you to point out where people who like having sex with others apart from their spouses have been attacked with vitriol. I haven't seen it. There are disagreements and a pointing out of the dangers, but I have seen no one being 'attacked' with anything like 'vitriol'.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Excellent point!... This is a symptom of the real problem in society. People are trying to rationalize and justify immoral and bad behavior as somehow being acceptable and the new normal.


Thats why they want it accepted here as perfectly normal for marriage. I think there are many places to go where it's accepted and talked about much more that a forum that is promoting marriage and helping many who have been cheated on.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> But how useful that discussion is depends largely on how civil and *open minded* it can remain without turning into dogma and conflict.


So if someone does not believe in open marriages they are not open minded. Understood. 
Right now we need to stay together for my son. If I suggested my H go out and start sleeping around, I don’t think he’d see that as “emancipation.” He doesn’t want us to just be friends, and I can assure that I am not going to be “friends with benefits” with anyone. If I’m not attractive and he needs sex with other women to be satisfied then I will free him to be single and get all the satisfaction he needs. Im no one’s consolation prize, no matter how old or overweight I may be. I’m not going to suggest it because divorce would be bad for my son and that’s where it would lead. If that makes me a small-minded rube in a cult, then so be it. I hope this cult has fun hats. I do love a fun hat.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Thats why they want it accepted here as perfectly normal for marriage. I think there are many places to go where it's accepted and talked about much more that a forum that is promoting marriage and helping many who have been cheated on.


Seems like a lot of depravity is now being passed off as "normal"


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

BeyondRepair007 said:


> Automatically disqualified, no, I agree with you. I wouldn't want to do that and didn't mean to suggest it.
> 
> What you're suggesting (I think) is that we somehow learn to do a better job of helping with those 'I want an open relationship' type of posters to properly & safely achieve their goal as opposed to handing them that 'shiny gift wrapped turd'.
> 
> ...


I want to respond to some of the other posts when I get home, but this triggered something that I think needs to be put out now. At first I was thinking that one simply needs to pay attention to the thread title at the least and maybe the OP and that should be enough to say, "nope". Actually I still do, but something in this post made me realize that maybe an ENM section is not a bad idea. Especially since ENM covers way more than sex. Or, since open/swing is the sex side of ENM and poly is the relationship side, a poly section, and open/swing can stay in the sex section.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> So if someone does not believe in open marriages they are not open minded. Understood.
> Right now we need to stay together for my son. If I suggested my H go out and start sleeping around, I don’t think he’d see that as “emancipation.” He doesn’t want us to just be friends, and I can assure that I am not going to be “friends with benefits” with anyone. If I’m not attractive and he needs sex with other women to be satisfied then I will free him to be single and get all the satisfaction he needs. Im no one’s consolation prize, no matter how old or overweight I may be. I’m not going to suggest it because divorce would be bad for my son and that’s where it would lead. If that makes me a small-minded rube in a cult, then so be it. I hope this cult has fun hats. I do love a fun hat.


I don't know where you are getting this stuff. You are way off the mark. No one has even hinted that either you or your husband should hook up with others. 

I realise this thread has gone in quite a few different directions, but no one has come close to discussing the things you are talking about.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

[


crashdawg said:


> Does it have to be sex, or is it simply the act of multiple outside relationships, even just friends on a "date"... which could easily fall into the category of an emotional affair?
> 
> For that matter is there a difference in wording between a couple that wants to open up their relationship and a couple that just wants outside sex?
> 
> I have no experience in this area and absolutely no desire to open my marriage but I enjoy expanding my knowledge. You seem to have a lot of resources readily available to pull from to establish you opinion so I'd love to read up. Please post the research links and studies related to open marriages so I can learn more.


So you are arguing for a topic that you openly admit you have no idea about???...... It doesn't get any better than this.

I never imagined someone needs links and research to show that opening your marriage is harmful.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> So if someone does not believe in open marriages they are not open minded. Understood.
> Right now we need to stay together for my son. If I suggested my H go out and start sleeping around, I don’t think he’d see that as “emancipation.” He doesn’t want us to just be friends, and I can assure that I am not going to be “friends with benefits” with anyone. If I’m not attractive and he needs sex with other women to be satisfied then I will free him to be single and get all the satisfaction he needs. Im no one’s consolation prize, no matter how old or overweight I may be. I’m not going to suggest it because divorce would be bad for my son and that’s where it would lead. If that makes me a small-minded rube in a cult, then so be it. I hope this cult has fun hats. I do love a fun hat.


Should I actually start doing what you are accusing here? Not once have I _ever_ said someone should even try ENM, let alone gone into threads of monogamous people and accused them of being closed minded because it's not for them. I certainly haven't gone into their threads and told them that they are immoral, or used my religion to denounce them.

And yet, our very existence has you here twisting yourself to turn yourself into the victim.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

oldshirt said:


> I don't know where you are getting this stuff. You are way off the mark. No one has even hinted that either you or your husband should hook up with others.
> 
> I realise this thread has gone in quite a few different directions, but no one has come close to discussing the things you are talking about.


This poster does this quite often. Just don't take the bait!


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

As'laDain said:


> well, you already called ENM adultery. so yeah, you already brought religion into it.


Adultery isn't a strictly religious word. It just means having sex with someone other than your spouse. Open marriage = adultery. It is just what it is.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Adultery isn't a strictly religious word. It just means having sex with someone other than your spouse. Open marriage = adultery. It is just what it is.


And if you have more than one spouse?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Adultery isn't a strictly religious word. It just means having sex with someone other than your spouse. Open marriage = adultery. It is just what it is.


Open marriage = Permission to cheat


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

As'laDain said:


> And if you have more than one spouse?


Then it isn't adultery.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Open marriage = Permission to cheat


Yes, exactly, it just also happens to be adultery. 



As'laDain said:


> And if you have more than one spouse?


To expand a little. My thought is that an open marriage is simply cheating on the marriage, even if everyone knows about it. I've always considered a marriage to be a commitment between two people, including exclusive sexual relations. I'm willing to expand that definition, in my mind, to accommodate the fact that polyamory exists, but that still means there is a similar commitment among all concerned. 

An open marriage, to me, is nothing more than an attempt to make sleeping around seem legitimate. If you are free to foster intimate relationships with others outside of your marriage, then don't be married. Those people are diminishing the value and meaning of marriage IMO.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> People who stand up for traditional faithful marriages are often treated badly here.
> I would like you to point out where people who like having sex with others apart from their spouses have been attacked with vitriol. I haven't seen it. There are disagreements and a pointing out of the dangers, but I have seen no one being 'attacked' with anything like 'vitriol'.


I have yet to see individuals supporting traditional marriage be attacked in this or any other thread. I do see anyone who falls outside of the scope of traditional marriage getting attacked, chastised, shamed, and then the attackers twisting words and claiming they are victims. To be CRYSTAL clear, no one is attacking you, your marriage, or your religion... yet we clearly see religious views being thrown upon others on here.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> I have yet to see individuals supporting traditional marriage be attacked in this or any other thread. I do see anyone who falls outside of the scope of traditional marriage getting attacked, chastised, shamed, and then the attackers twisting words and claiming they are victims. To be CRYSTAL clear, no one is attacking you, your marriage, or your religion... yet we clearly see religious views being thrown upon others on here.


I would say a person's religious views are no different than their opinion. We simply know what went into the formation of that opinion. @Diana7 is simply stating her opinion. Can't she express her opinion, just because it is influenced by her religious views? I have similar views even though I am not religious.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I would say a person's religious views are no different than their opinion. We simply know what went into the formation of that opinion. @Diana7 is simply stating her opinion. Can't she express her opinion, just because it is influenced by her religious views? I have similar views even though I am not religious.


Bingo! Because in this brave, new world you are looked at as being archaic and stupid if you are religious


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> There’s been a few threads by men who’s partner’s have suggested or outright stated that they want an open marriage/relationship.


I'll never have to worry about this ever again, but IF I was married again, or in what is supposed to be a committed relationship and someone I am with suggests this, they'll be history.



> Open marriage can be a legitimate lifestyle choice for a select few couples who have the temperaments, beliefs and value system that can incorporate other people into their relationship.
> 
> I personally have no moral, theological or ideological objections to any kind of consensual nonmonogamy assuming it involves sane, sober, consenting adults all agreeing to that lifestyle of their own free will without deception, coercion or manipulation.


I do. And sorry, I just don't respect anyone that lives that lifestyle. If its what they want, fine, no skin off my teeth really. But I still don't respect them. And almost every story I hear, that lifestyle ends up with huge complications. What a surprise.



> What I think a lot of these chicks are doing is basically declaring their own sexual independence but rather than just coming out and saying they want to date and bang other people but want to retain the other benefits of the marriage such as financial support and 24/7 child rearing assistance, they are gift wrapping it in shiny gift wrapping and pretty bows by saying, “you can get with other chicks too, yay!! 😀 “


Well I don't know if it's confined simply to "chicks", but in general I agree. They want the conveniences of marriage, or at the very least avoiding the inconvenience of divorce, but want to screw around.



> But these guys aren’t quite connecting the dots that lead down the road to reality.
> 
> They start getting visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads that they will be having 3somes with other chicks and dating that hottie in the mail room at work.


I agree....but then they realize their SO is off boffing some other guy, and THEN they can't handle it.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I would say a person's religious views are no different than their opinion. We simply know what went into the formation of that opinion. @Diana7 is simply stating her opinion. Can't she express her opinion, just because it is influenced by her religious views? I have similar views even though I am not religious.


You missed his point (deliberately?)....but I would say that as long as people can RESPECT opinions that differ from their own, there is no harm and it's even enlightening and interesting to have different opinions included.

The problem I see on here ALOT is the lack of respect for different opinions, while expressing one's own. That's hypocritical.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> I never imagined someone needs links and research to show that opening your marriage is harmful.


I have always advocated for the individual and each individual couple to practice whatever sexual practice they prefer as long as it is with consenting adults. That is whether they are hetersexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, asexual etc as well as whether they be monogamous, polyamorous, swinger, open marriage, married, single whatever. As long as it is between consenting adults and of everyone's informed consent and free will, I am good with it, even though it may not be my cup of tea. 

But let me say this about research and examining things with an open and object mind - the world was flat until objective minds and research showed that it wasn't. People were burned alive for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe. People with diabetes and epilepsy were hung, burned and drowned because the convention wisdom and authorities said they were possessed by the devil. I can go on for infinity but I'm sure you get my point. 

If someone chooses to be monogamous because they have seen what's out there and determined that monogamy is what's best for them, I am totally cool with that. The vast majority of people are going to choose that paradigm based on their own values, temperments, beliefs and things that they have experienced and seen with their own eyes. 

And if someone asks for input on monogamy vs nonmonogamy, they are perfectly justified and welcome to share their opinion and why that is their belief. 

At least 75% of my adult life has been monogamous and traditional and 16 of my 26 years of marriage has been traditional and monogamous, so I have no beef or opposition to monogamy. It has it's pros and cons, risks and benefits just like everything else. 

And if you read my opening post, you should clearly see that I am not a big advocate of most the situations we see here on TAM where one partner is proposing open marriage. But that is based on what we are seeing being presented here on TAM by people completely unfamiliar with nonmonogamy and are most likely being duped and taken advantage of. 

But I am some of the other posters are getting at is that for some people, other paradigms work better for them and when having a discussion about those other paradigms, it is not helpful when those who have strict adherence to dogma and piont fingers and blanket statements about something being morally wrong 100% of the time or that whatever God they believe in says its wrong, it's not helpful or germane to the discussion.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

drencrom said:


> I'll never have to worry about this ever again, but IF I was married again, or in what is supposed to be a committed relationship and someone I am with suggests this, they'll be history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My personal experience with this tells me that when a partner asks to open up the relationship they already have someone in mind or they are already cheating.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> [
> 
> So you are arguing for a topic that you openly admit you have no idea about???...... It doesn't get any better than this.
> 
> I never imagined someone needs links and research to show that opening your marriage is harmful.


Apologies your light traveled faster then your sound. What I initially assumed was a comment displaying a heightened understanding of the topic supported by data, links, and studies I now realize is merely a sound byte of an entrenched position. Unfortunately it also demonstrates why a forum for open marriage wouldn't work on here. People would be seeking additional resources as well as advice, not just opinions!

I'm not sure if the miscommunication is over verbiage, native language, or simple lack of reading comprehension... but once again for you and EVERYONE IN THE BACK... I am not for or against open marriage. I am not interested in opening my marriage. I am curious about those who decided to go down that path. If their communication skills can better my own marriage then I've added a new skill set to my own toolbox. I am accepting of different perspectives, it doesn't mean I'm for or against it.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> My personal experience with this tells me that when a partner asks to open up the relationship they already have someone in mind or they are already cheating.


Or in MY personal experience, my husband refused to have sex with me, but constantly lied about it, telling me we "just" had sex and calling me a sex addict for wanting sex more than twice a month, because he didn't want to lose the benefits of his wife appliance.

Seriously telling him I would be opening the marriage if he didn't fit me into his porn/masturbation time somewhere was the ONLY thing that got his attention and kept him from stopping sex completely...for several years at least (it certainly wasn't a permanent solution).


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> You missed his point (deliberately?)....but I would say that as long as people can RESPECT opinions that differ from their own, there is no harm and it's even enlightening and interesting to have different opinions included.
> 
> The problem I see on here ALOT is the lack of respect for different opinions, while expressing one's own. That's hypocritical.


Nope, nothing missed on purpose. 

I see some lack of respect often going both ways, there are just more voices on one side than the other. 

That said, I think some believe that disagreeing with someone's opinion is disrespecting their opinions. I don't agree, they aren't the same thing.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

Numb26 said:


> My personal experience with this tells me that when a partner asks to open up the relationship they already have someone in mind or they are already cheating.


This goes to the core of the thread; the difference between a mutual agreement entered by both partners from the beginning, and an ultimatum given by one spouse to another. They are not the same thing. I think lumping them together is where people get confused. We are far more likely to have people stumble across this board due to an ultimatum vs due to mutual agreement.

The ultimatum isn't an open marriage, and members on here can effectively offer great advice related to divorce and/or marriage repair.

A mutual agreement is something many of us aren't able to offer advice on, and our boards lack any resources related to it. What's more if it is in fact a mutual agreement many members would charge in assuming it is an ultimatum due to the sheer volume of ultimatums we see posted on here. Members would almost certainly do more harm.

There are other communities that can properly support questions related to mutual agreements. I would advise posting resource links to them but I don't believe we can adequately support a forum for it.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> Or in MY personal experience, my husband refused to have sex with me, but constantly lied about it, telling me we "just" had sex and calling me a sex addict for wanting sex more than twice a month, because he didn't want to lose the benefits of his wife appliance.
> 
> Seriously telling him I would be opening the marriage if he didn't fit me into his porn/masturbation time somewhere was the ONLY thing that got his attention and kept him from stopping sex completely...for several years at least (it certainly wasn't a permanent solution).


This is a strong argument against open marriage. It shouldn't be used as a band aid to address other issues in your marriage. That is quite often what is happening in posts here that are related to some type of non-monogamous relationship. Which I think was the intent of the OP.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

LisaDiane said:


> Or in MY personal experience, my husband refused to have sex with me, but constantly lied about it, telling me we "just" had sex and calling me a sex addict for wanting sex more than twice a month, because he didn't want to lose the benefits of his wife appliance.
> 
> Seriously telling him I would be opening the marriage if he didn't fit me into his porn/masturbation time somewhere was the ONLY thing that got his attention and kept him from stopping sex completely...for several years at least (it certainly wasn't a permanent solution).


Apologies for that experience but again you're highlighting the point of the thread. That was an ultimatum, not a mutual agreement. I believe one of the goals of this thread was to establish if we have sufficient mutual agreement queries being posted to justify a forum specifically for it. Given your own personal experience and the experiences of many others I don't believe we're equipped to offer advice on mutual agreements. We're far more likely to assume everything is an ultimatum and charge in with the wrong mentality and incorrect advice.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

crashdawg said:


> This goes to the core of the thread; the difference between a mutual agreement entered by both partners from the beginning, and an ultimatum given by one spouse to another. They are not the same thing. I think lumping them together is where people get confused. We are far more likely to have people stumble across this board due to an ultimatum vs due to mutual agreement.
> 
> The ultimatum isn't an open marriage, and members on here can effectively offer great advice related to divorce and/or marriage repair.
> 
> ...


Yes,, and very well said.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> This is a strong argument against open marriage. It shouldn't be used as a band aid to address other issues in your marriage. That is quite often what is happening in posts here that are related to some type of non-monogamous relationship. Which I think was the intent of the OP.


Nope... It's not Open Marriage, it's an ultimatum and the confusion surrounding the two is precisely why we're ill equipped to support it on this site.

An actual healthy non monogamous open relationship is a mutual decision, not a threat, not an ultimatum. Please stop confusing the two in statements. This misconception does a great deal more harm.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

crashdawg said:


> I believe one of the goals of this thread was to establish if we have sufficient mutual agreement queries being posted to justify a forum specifically for it.


Just to clarify - some other posters have mentioned a forum specific to open marriage/nonmonogamy etc. 

However I have NOT suggested nor advocated for that. 

I agree with you that such a forum would be an unmitigated disaster and bloodbath and that a number of the regulars here would deliberately attack and try to intentionally undermine any useful discussion that could potentially take place.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Nope, nothing missed on purpose.
> 
> I see some lack of respect often going both ways, there are just more voices on one side than the other.
> 
> That said, I think some believe that disagreeing with someone's opinion is disrespecting their opinions. I don't agree, they aren't the same thing.


Please point out ONE example of a lack of respect from our non-monogamy members to those who believe monogamy is morally superior.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> This is a strong argument against open marriage. It shouldn't be used as a band aid to address other issues in your marriage. That is quite often what is happening in posts here that are related to some type of non-monogamous relationship. Which I think was the intent of the OP.


My situation is in fact a VERY STRONG argument against marriage at all, isn't it?

And DO NOT take my pitiful, painful situation and use it to defend your morals...that's a snippet of what went on between us.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> This is a strong argument against open marriage. It shouldn't be used as a band aid to address other issues in your marriage. That is quite often what is happening in posts here that are related to some type of non-monogamous relationship. Which I think was the intent of the OP.


And for the record...once he took sex completely away, I LEFT HIM, I didn't open our marriage. Because I lost all desire for a man who was so unrepentantly selfish.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> Nope... It's not Open Marriage, it's an ultimatum and the confusion surrounding the two is precisely why we're ill equipped to support it on this site.
> 
> An actual healthy non monogamous open relationship is a mutual decision, not a threat, not an ultimatum. Please stop confusing the two in statements. This misconception does a great deal more harm.


I'm not confusing them at all. You're right, it isn't really an open marriage, but that is how it is always brought up here. I have yet to see anyone ever come on here saying, "hey, *wife and I* decided we want to have an open marriage. Any suggestions?" It is always one party saying their SO asked to open the marriage and they don't want to, not sure if they should accept it, etc. 

Given that is the typical scenario, why would we ever expect to see posts in response to that expounding the virtues of and "open marriage"? The very fact that a poster doesn't even fully understand the definition of a true open marriage says a lot about what they are actually going through. The advice should not be to consider the request. They should never be considering it under those circumstances. If they are at a point where they need to come ask internet strangers about it rather than talking to the spouse that presented them with the idea says all I need to know.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Nope, nothing missed on purpose.
> 
> I see some lack of respect often going both ways, there are just more voices on one side than the other.
> 
> That said, I think some believe that disagreeing with someone's opinion is disrespecting their opinions. I don't agree, they aren't the same thing.


Then why didn't you address what he said in his post?


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I'm not confusing them at all. You're right, it isn't really an open marriage, but that is how it is always brought up here. I have yet to see anyone ever come on here saying, "hey, *wife and I* decided we want to have an open marriage. Any suggestions?" It is always one party saying their SO asked to open the marriage and they don't want to, not sure if they should accept it, etc.


That's strange to me, because I have read several that said almost exactly that. And most of the responses are that it will be an apocalypse for them and they will regret it, and some posters even tell them they are horrible spouses for considering such a thing.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I'm not confusing them at all. You're right, it isn't really an open marriage, but that is how it is always brought up here. I have yet to see anyone ever come on here saying, "hey, *wife and I* decided we want to have an open marriage. Any suggestions?" It is always one party saying their SO asked to open the marriage and they don't want to, not sure if they should accept it, etc.
> 
> Given that is the typical scenario, why would we ever expect to see posts in response to that expounding the virtues of and "open marriage"? The very fact that a poster doesn't even fully understand the definition of a true open marriage says a lot about what they are actually going through. The advice should not be to consider the request. They should never be considering it under those circumstances. If they are at a point where they need to come ask internet strangers about it rather than talking to the spouse that presented them with the idea says all I need to know.


#1 if you're not confusing them then why did you say her situation was an argument against open marriage? She gave an ultimatum. Open marriage was a term used in her threat but it was clearly used as a threat in a devolving relationship, not a mutual agreement between partners. It was not in any way an open marriage. There is no argument there for or against open marriage. It's an ultimatum, a threat, we can deal with those on here.

#2 the rest of what you posted parroted what I've already said in this thread MULTIPLE times. It's possible in you missed it while responding to everyone on here.

So again please quit confusing an open marriage with an ultimatum. They are not the same thing. You claim to know they are not the same thing. Yet you post them as one in the same. Your actions just add to the confusion.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> My situation is in fact a VERY STRONG argument against marriage at all, isn't it?
> 
> And DO NOT take my pitiful, painful situation and use it to defend your morals...that's a snippet of what went on between us.


I wasn't using your situation to defend my morals. I said it "is a strong argument against open marriage." I should have chosen my words better. What I meant was it is a strong argument against accepting a request to open a marriage. That is more on point with what I was getting at. It is not a fix for the dysfunction in the marriage that drove the request to open the marriage. 

I do personally think an open marriage, even a true one with both parties in agreement, is still wrong and does not really fit my definition of marriage. That is just my opinion. If someone came on here with that situation, where both people discussed it extensively and were asking for advice on how to make it work, I would keep my mouth shut. I have no advice to provide them. However, if there is any hint that it is being used to fix something else, the person posting doesn't appear to be all in or it seems the poster's spouse isn't all in, I will jump in and tell them they are making a mistake. The latter is true for >99% of all posts on here that relate to this topic.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> #1 if you're not confusing them then why did you say her situation was an argument against open marriage? She gave an ultimatum. Open marriage was a term used in her threat but it was clearly used as a threat in a devolving relationship, not a mutual agreement between partners. It was not in any way an open marriage. There is no argument there for or against open marriage. It's an ultimatum, a threat, we can deal with those on here.
> 
> #2 the rest of what you posted parroted what I've already said in this thread MULTIPLE times. It's possible in you missed it while responding to everyone on here.
> 
> So again please quit confusing an open marriage with an ultimatum. They are not the same thing. You claim to know they are not the same thing. Yet you post them as one in the same. Your actions just add to the confusion.


See my later post, I think we are more in agreement than not. As I said, I should have chosen my words better, but it was in response to the same wording used in her post.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> That's strange to me, because I have read several that said almost exactly that. And most of the responses are that it will be an apocalypse for them and they will regret it, and some posters even tell them they are horrible spouses for considering such a thing.


I have seen maybe 1 post where it was pretty clear that both parties were on board and they were asking for advice on the mechanics of it all. There is always something else going on, something negative, that brought on the idea of opening the marriage. OR they already tried it and encountered problems.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> You missed his point (deliberately?)....but I would say that as long as people can RESPECT opinions that differ from their own, there is no harm and it's even enlightening and interesting to have different opinions included.
> 
> The problem I see on here ALOT is the lack of respect for different opinions, while expressing one's own. That's hypocritical.


Depends on the opinion.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I have seen maybe 1 post where it was pretty clear that both parties were on board and they were asking for advice on the mechanics of it all. There is always something else going on, something negative, that brought on the idea of opening the marriage. OR they already tried it and encountered problems.


To your point I've never seen a mutual agreement post on here. I've only seen ultimatums which is why I don't think we're equipped to support realistic open marriage requests. I know there's other boards, any couples wishing to explore that lifestyle can find the resources they need (assuming they weren't already part of that lifestyle).

It's not "one talk", it's continued communication over the course of a relationship. It may not even be physical. My wife and I went out to a dinner and were surprised to see a group of 3 instead of a group of 2. Their 3rd was out at the same place by chance (my wife and I had actually picked the diner 20 minutes earlier). They could have lied "college buddy from out of town, co-workers etc" but they were honest. I remembered the comment "outed by chance but we have too much respect for him to lie about who he is".

They'd never told us because it's not our scene and we're not interested. I remember she joked about stigmas and no reason to say anything if we're off limits. The other thing that hit me, they were so honest. From day 1 the guy knew he was dating a couple. No hiding. No lies. Hey if their marriage can handle it all the more to them... not our thing. They said they'd always been in that lifestyle, just never outed before. I don know anything more. It's not a topic people discuss.

They'd never hit on us. They'd never mentioned it previously. But after that we set a boundary of group lunches/brunches only (previously we did game nights, bowling, dinners at each others houses). There is a stigma, and as confident as we are neither of us felt comfortable enough to be out alone with either of them. We were honest. They were honest. We stayed friends. Again I stress, no one ever hit on us, cool friends, lost touch a few years ago (the 3 of them moved out of country with no internet access). They were cool to hang out with, honestly felt like a normal group of friends. No creepy vibes or anything.

They said it was the same stigma as being gay in the 50's, that once outed there's always a risk and no going back. Had he not been at the diner I doubt we'd ever know about it.

Marriage is a HUGE step. I can't see someone bringing this up after taking that plunge. I'd think any "open" dialogue would be early on in a relationship before things grow to the level of marriage. But again 0 experience in that area, that's my assumption.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

LisaDiane said:


> And for the record...once he took sex completely away, I LEFT HIM, I didn't open our marriage. Because I lost all desire for a man who was so unrepentantly selfish.


I am so sorry you experienced that. I know for my wife and I the stress of the pandemic really took a toll on our relationship. Not nearly as drastic as you described, but definitely took a hit. I actually found this forum because I was researching marriage communication methods.

Had a marriage counselor tell me once that less sex was like a check oil light. Maybe you need more. Maybe the sensor is bad. It's a little light saying "check it out". Ignore it too long and the engine will die.

Sorry he was selfish. Hope you were able to find someone who respects you.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

So, looking at the opening post of this thread, I would agree with OP - just the opening post of this thread. All the excess fluff that came after and the constant fighting as the thread went in multiple different directions doesn't matter. The opening post made sense and I firmly agree with it regardless of my personal thoughts on the messenger.

And this is a GOOD message. Men do need to watch out for their wives saying they want to open up the marriage. You won't even be able to finish the word "yes" before she is sprinting out the door. She is already cheating or she has someone in mind. Plain and simple. A conversation like this doesn't come out of nowhere. If a wife truly wanted to do something like this in some sort of ethical way, there would be countless talks over a long period of time. One or two talks with manipulation sprinkled in like, "I'll divorce you if you don't agree" means most certainly she has someone lined up or is already cheating.

OP is also correct that any man that thinks he is going to be living a super sweet and wild sex life is most likely fooling himself. I do believe that many men can do this in today's day and age, but it is going to take FAR more effort than what their wife will need to put into this. Getting into great shape. Clean up. Go get some new clothes. Work on their game. What I'm saying is that it can be done, but it will require serious effort - then I think a man can have some "fun" with Tinderellas. Of course, all assuming that is the way you want to roll.


What OP didn't mention are the situations where this MASSIVELY backfires on women that want this. I've read countless stories where the wife gets totally blindsided by jumping the gun on this just so she can have fun with as many men as she wants (or at least the one man she already had in mind before asking her husband). I actually do know one couple as well where this happened (not swingers, a wife that asked her husband for an open marriage and it blew up in her face).

Again, OP is right. The wife will have her pick of the litter for sex. No question........ But all it takes is ONE woman. One date for the husband. It could be a year later after his wife has been plowed by 150 different men. The husband will finally go on a date and meet someone that treats him with dignity and respect. She will form an emotional bond with him. The wife will initially think it is cute even though it bothers her greatly. She can't say anything because that would make her a hypocrite, but eventually, the husband spends more time with his lover instead of the wife. All of a sudden, the wife stops dating because she is losing her husband. All of a sudden, she is desperate to close the marriage again. She had her fun and now she wants her husband back. Too late. The husband that reluctantly opened the marriage due to threats of divorce and other manipulation tactics has found someone new. The wife didn't see this coming because in reality, she didn't want an open marriage. She wanted a one-sided open marriage. OP is correct again - the wife definitely thinks the husband will have no shot in hell of picking up other women. She thinks she'll get all the side pieces she wants while the husband stays at home and takes care of the kids. She wasn't prepared to "get what she wished for".


I will read some stories where this sometimes happens in reverse (the husband asking the wife for an open marriage and then losing his wife to another man due to the constant disrespect), but I usually see it where the wife asks for an open marriage. The one couple I know this happened to was the same thing. Husband found someone new. Divorced his wife. Wife moved away to another state. My wife and I had to hear this through mutual friends. This was about 12 years ago. Thankfully, my wife stopped talking to that woman once she said she wanted an open marriage with her husband. We prefer not being around these folks.

The overall message to me really is, "Be careful what you wish for". 

Personally, if a spouse asks for an open marriage, best to start the divorce papers right away. Way too suspicious for me. Most likely there are things going on behind you that you aren't seeing.


----------



## Alittlelost57 (May 8, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> There’s been a few threads by men who’s partner’s have suggested or outright stated that they want an open marriage/relationship.
> 
> Without talking about any of the specifics or those individuals or any discussion of the theological or religious implications of open marriage, I do want to discuss some of what I see taking place in much of the threads we see here on TAM.
> 
> ...


This is a fraught subject on several levels, as you mentioned. Like you, I have no moral objection to whatever arrangement two consenting adults agree to. Your focus seems to be on people who come here with questions or concerns, and how this site can best address those. So with that in mind....

I believe there's a big distinction between people who begin a relationship with the understanding that they'll be committed but non monogamous. Everyone's cards are on the table up front and there's no relationship capital that will be there in a marriage or LTR. It's almost always true in a LTR where non monogamy is brought up that one partner is clearly more on board or on board first with the idea. When that's the case, the person interested in exploring other relationships is asking for a fundamental and pretty dramatic change in the existing deal. Even someone who might have had a fleeting positive thought about non monogamy but aren't interested in it might reasonably feel that they have limited good options when their partner makes the request. If my partner feels strongly enough about it to bring it up then what happens to the relationship if I say "no"? That marriage capital can clearly influence the decision. It puts pressure on me to say yes to at least trying it.

And there is a gendered aspect to this. A survey done with about 6000 respondents from one of the biggest non monogamy web sites asked straight couples that were established before opening the relationship who broached the subject, and it was the woman 2/3 of the time. Men with primary partners tend to have a very different experience with non monogamy than women do. The consensus seems to be that if a man was great at dating, he'll find women who are interested in him. Chances are his partner is also attractive and charming though, so if he's keeping score she'll still likely have more opportunities for sex and about the same shot at something more meaningful. If I were that man (I'm not and neither are most men) I might very well see the freedom to act on feelings and to explore to be worth an occasional bummer moment when our options seem unbalanced.

But that's not most men's experience with non monogamy. Men struggling to make connections is so common that every on line community I've seen has a primer talking about this to try to prevent it from being the dominant topic in other discussions. There are times where the genders are reversed, but that's rare.

In those discussions the answer most often for the person struggling is that they're looking at things wrong. They're told that they have equal opportunity but that equal results are never promised. They're told that they need to "do the work" and become better men or partners. I think the discussions ignore the fact that having a nesting partner can be an advantage for a woman trying to attract another man, and a definite disadvantage for a man trying to. There is always a cost to any decision, and one cost of non monogamy is emotional. Both men and women often struggle when their partner is experiencing the rush of a new relationship. With balancing time and logistics with ongoing non primary relationships. They may have mixed feelings, with happiness for their partner, but anxiety and insecurity too. And this cost is almost always borne disproportionately by the man. It's not that it can't work for both partners, but I think it works best for men who are both very attractive and secure in that knowledge, or men who believe they should be able to make this work and should be able to handle their feelings if they struggle, or men who tend to be submissive emotionally. If none of those descriptors fit you, you're likely in for a real "chance to grow".

And to wrap it back around, the difference between established and new relationships is important if this experiment falls flat. I've read of couples who went back to monogamy because one partner needed to, and I wonder if that's really a genie you can put back in the bottle. Not that the person who had more success will cheat, but will they be happy with the thing they wanted to move away from and found success doing so? In a new relationship that starts off non monogamous, they'll likely split with minimal damage. But with kids and finances and family et al, the same factors that might prompt a dubious person to feel obligated to "try" non monogamy to keep a relationship, may influence both to stay together after the trial failed. It's much easier to move on if a new relationship can't be as happy after a trial being open.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

@LATERILUS79 I think that door could easily swing either way. I also don't see this as an open marriage since it's based in manipulation and threats... it's an ultimatum in a pretty bow.

Like you I think actual discussions of open relationships would happen well before a relationship reaches the level of marriage. I think it would be continued, ongoing conversations. I think both sides would need communication, respect, and boundaries to avoid jealousy and anger. I know those relationships are possible but I also know it's not something most can responsibly handle.

Your use of the word "game" is troubling. It's not so much a matter of wooing another individual. It's honesty, openness, and respect. That's probably the most ironic part. I'd argue successful open relationships probably have more respect, more honesty, and better communication, but are stigmatized by the relationships and situations described in your post. And due in part to that stigma I doubt most people realize they might know a successful open couple. It's not something people would normally discuss. The threats and ultimatums are confused for actual open marriages and due in part to that confusion the very topic is tainted with hurt, anger, suspicion, stigma etc.

It's like finding out the bank manager has an Onlyfans account. They may have been hyper sexual all their life, but it wasn't a topic of discussion and no one had issues conducting business with them... but once that genie's out... stigma applied, perception changed, well poisoned...

Not to thread jack and not even remotely related to you. I found it ironic that the very stigma of porn compelled members to fiercely come out swinging despite the fact that the research I conducted and the specific videos I viewed were to provide a better experience for my wife using a technique I was unfamiliar with. Once my reasoning was clear I heard everything from bad counselor advice, to not how porn is used, to splitting of hairs over what is and isn't porn. I feel that exact same "rush in and then defend at all costs" behavior would find its way on a dedicated open marriage forum. I'm certain of it. Most of the exact same members were already outspoken on that thread, and again on here!


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

crashdawg said:


> Nope... It's not Open Marriage, it's an ultimatum and the confusion surrounding the two is precisely why we're ill equipped to support it on this site.
> 
> An actual healthy non monogamous open relationship is a mutual decision, not a threat, not an ultimatum. Please stop confusing the two in statements. This misconception does a great deal more harm.


Yes and the key here is a health non monogamous marriage there should still be commitment and loyalty. When there is a mutual decision to open a marriage in a healthy way, the marriage will still have rules and boundaries that all parties understand and commit to and betraying that commitment can lead to the end of the marriage. A person in an open marriage can still be in a cheating situation if they are secretly breaking the rules and boundaries. In a scenario like the OP was referring to the approach and intent is inherently self serving and is an attempt to side step one partners boundaries and lacks loyalty and respect. The marriage is over in practice but the proposing partner is attempting to live as if they have no commitment or expectation of loyalty.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> We dont need to have done something to know that it's damaging.


This is what many folks have said about Christianity.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

maquiscat said:


> This is what many folks have said about Christianity.


Why is it that people hate Christianity and not Islam I wonder? 🤔


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Why is it that people hate Christianity and not Islam I wonder? 🤔


Are there people like that? Besides Muslims I mean. I guess leftists. That’s a threadjack though. Bringing it back around, polygamy was the norm in the Bible, and is not expressly forbidden. It’s mostly society that has pushed for monogamy, because polygamy allows a few men to own all the women instead of each man getting his own woman. Most world religions are pretty similar in their view of women. So polygamy is generally acceptable from a religious viewpoint, correct?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> Why is it that people hate Christianity and not Islam I wonder? 🤔


Who says they don't? Not to mention I don't have to hate a given group to point out that an argument given by a member of that group can be turned right back on them.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Bringing it back around, polygamy was the norm in the Bible, and is not expressly forbidden. It’s mostly society that has pushed for monogamy, because polygamy allows a few men to own all the women instead of each man getting his own woman. Most world religions are pretty similar in their view of women. So polygamy is generally acceptable from a religious viewpoint, correct?


 it would be a significant thread jack but it really depends on which version of which Bible and which books specifically within the Bible. The Bible has been rewritten, translated, and reshuffled more then any other book in history! Various cultures outlawed polygamy at various times, typically associated with the arrival of Christianity (pagans had orgies as part of specific celebrations). If you prevent group activity and only recognize valid marriage through the church while also strictly controlling education then you can control a population. This is literally how we got bunnies crapping jelly beans, Easter on Spring Solstice and Christmas on Winter Solstice. I'm reminded of Mel Brooks line in Men in Tights, can't drink the sacramental wine but there's plenty of trees to bless!

Women viewed as 2nd class citizens was cultural, reflected in the Bible as well (Orthodox Jewish and ancient Roman cultures), and people throughout history pointed to said Bible as justification for that horrible attitude. There are Bible quotes in newspaper articles against women's suffrage if that's any indication of how recent it was in the US.

Some religions are ok with poly, some are don't ask don't tell, some are strictly against it and will kill you. 

Harems are a whole different topic (equally interesting).

But yeah if you want to have the Bible thumping most don't make it past Council 1 let alone Council 2... book of Timmy (Timothy) is a fun read as is book of Mary Magdoline (but those are cutting room floor, edited out centuries ago!)

But hey if people want to go down that path don't threadjack, start a new thread.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> @LATERILUS79 I think that door could easily swing either way. I also don't see this as an open marriage since it's based in manipulation and threats... it's an ultimatum in a pretty bow.
> 
> Like you I think actual discussions of open relationships would happen well before a relationship reaches the level of marriage. I think it would be continued, ongoing conversations. I think both sides would need communication, respect, and boundaries to avoid jealousy and anger. I know those relationships are possible but I also know it's not something most can responsibly handle.


I don't see what I described as a true open marriage either - but that is what I believe many start out as. One of the spouses tricks the other into an "open" marriage when in reality one of the spouses just wanted to get side pieces. I believe that was the original intent of this thread - watch out for this because it won't be a true open marriage situation because there is minimal communication and the marriage will be blown up for sure. 


crashdawg said:


> Your use of the word "game" is troubling. It's not so much a matter of wooing another individual. It's honesty, openness, and respect. That's probably the most ironic part. I'd argue successful open relationships probably have more respect, more honesty, and better communication, but are stigmatized by the relationships and situations described in your post. And due in part to that stigma I doubt most people realize they might know a successful open couple. It's not something people would normally discuss. The threats and ultimatums are confused for actual open marriages and due in part to that confusion the very topic is tainted with hurt, anger, suspicion, stigma etc.


What is troubling?
Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I said "game" in the context of a man attempting to get laid. I don't think a woman needs game. A man will need to dress nice, look nice, be in a shape and charm a woman to get laid. Would "charm" work better? 
Maybe I'm not understanding an open marriage. I assumed an open marriage was about getting to have sex with other people. Well, if that is what both the spouses want, then the man is going to have to increase his charm to do that. 

I don't understand why that is troubling. I agree with the rest of what you said there. There needs to be good communication between the spouses. Sure. 
I disagree that an open marriage has more communication and I definitely don't think an open marriage has nearly the same level of respect as a monogamous one. To each their own. It's all good with me how people want to view it. 

As far as the stigma goes, 

Too bad so sad? 

People that live in open marriages are free to do as they please just like everyone else. I'm totally cool with it. I just prefer not to be around it. I don't care that there are many folks that do this ethically. I don't. I think there are a lot more than don't do it ethically and would look for someone vulnerable to prey upon and be a part of (not the reason, a PART of) screwing up someone else's monogamous marriage. I don't care how many people here say how ethical they are - I do believe them, but I think there are so many more that are not. 

I think this is why so many of these open marriages fail. I think the majority of them are not prepared for what that entails - just like OP said. I think it takes a very specific type of person for this to work. Since most people that try this are NOT that specific type of person where this will work, I'm going to assume any open marriage person I run into is the bad kind and I don't need that around me or my wife.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

LATERILUS79 said:


> I don't see what I described as a true open marriage either - but that is what I believe many start out as. One of the spouses tricks the other into an "open" marriage when in reality one of the spouses just wanted to get side pieces. I believe that was the original intent of this thread - watch out for this because it won't be a true open marriage situation because there is minimal communication and the marriage will be blown up for sure.
> 
> What is troubling?
> Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I said "game" in the context of a man attempting to get laid. I don't think a woman needs game. A man will need to dress nice, look nice, be in a shape and charm a woman to get laid. Would "charm" work better?
> ...


 The use of the term "game" indicates a sole purpose of persuading another individual in the hopes of getting laid. We both agree on that. It's essentially deception. Taking that a step further you assume the majority of open marriages are born out of deception. I argue that this is a skewed view based in part on vocal individuals posting here who had no understanding of what an open marriage actually is but it sounded like a good threat... so they said it, maybe did it, but it was never a relationship it was a game to get laid. At a minimum that's pretty insulting and if people said "you only put a ring on it to get laid" I think a lot of monogamous couples would be equally offended.

An ultimatum is about having sex. An open relationship is an honest agreement between partners from the moment things begin to get serious. Both parties are respected at all times. Boundaries are set. Maybe they date someone as a couple. Maybe they both go on separate dates. How far those dates go depends entirely on the couple's boundaries. Even if the date would like more, if the agreement is no sex then anything in that direction is considered cheating! Others on here started to outline in.

The description given to me is they never stopped dating. Sometimes it was a group date. Sometimes it was individual dates. BOTH individuals (spouse and date) are fully aware from the very beginning. Boundaries are set. Everyone is aware. Relationship is centered on trust, communication, and respect. The other description given to me was that the date often fills an interest. Spouse isn't a baseball fan, date is. Spouse hates video games, date loves going to the boardwalk arcade. One went to opera, other went to go carts... but they both love movies and they're fully committed to each other.

People would react "well that's going out with friends"... yep... Again level of seriousness and intimacy is openly discussed and communication is constant.

When something is boiled down to "just sex" or "this or else" or "just getting laid" then once again we're back to it not being an open marriage. Swinger are an entirely different conversation, again not my scene, and that is primarily about sex (there are subsets).

So thank you for opening with game and following with just sex. It brought context to your misinterpretation of an open marriage (again intent of this thread).

I could never do that. I would never willingly put my wife in a position where she'd be tempted. I fully trust her and I assume she fully trusts me but I wouldn't be comfortable with that risk. But I'm also not one to come down on others for how they navigate their relationships.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

crashdawg said:


> Apologies for that experience but again you're highlighting the point of the thread. That was an ultimatum, not a mutual agreement. I believe one of the goals of this thread was to establish if we have sufficient mutual agreement queries being posted to justify a forum specifically for it. Given your own personal experience and the experiences of many others I don't believe we're equipped to offer advice on mutual agreements. We're far more likely to assume everything is an ultimatum and charge in with the wrong mentality and incorrect advice.


My situation was much more complex than just what I stated here...I'm NOT trying to tell my story, just as Numb26 wasn't either (who I responded to)....I was simply stating how open marriage could be offered for a different reason.

It wasn't really even an ultimatum, and I actually brought it up after I offered DIVORCE (which he didn't want because he wanted to USE me). And it was part of an entire conversation (and serious issue) each time I brought it up, so I was slightly offended when @BigDaddyNY wanted to flippantly point to it as justifying (what I consider to be) HIS closed-minded opinions.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Numb26 said:


> Why is it that people hate Christianity and not Islam I wonder? 🤔


I think we know that answer. People as a rule feel physically and socially safe slamming christianity but don't feel physically safe or even socially safe saying anything negative about Islam. That's incontrovertible.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> The use of the term "game" indicates a sole purpose of persuading another individual in the hopes of getting laid. We both agree on that. It's essentially deception. Taking that a step further you assume the majority of open marriages are born out of deception. I argue that this is a skewed view based in part on vocal individuals posting here who had no understanding of what an open marriage actually is but it sounded like a good threat... so they said it, maybe did it, but it was never a relationship it was a game to get laid. At a minimum that's pretty insulting and if people said "you only put a ring on it to get laid" I think a lot of monogamous couples would be equally offended.
> 
> An ultimatum is about having sex. An open relationship is an honest agreement between partners from the moment things begin to get serious. Both parties are respected at all times. Boundaries are set. Maybe they date someone as a couple. Maybe they both go on separate dates. How far those dates go depends entirely on the couple's boundaries. Even if the date would like more, if the agreement is no sex then anything in that direction is considered cheating! Others on here started to outline in.
> 
> ...


Serious question for you since you want to discuss this. Exactly what boundaries are left to cross if you go on a date with another person and have sex with them while married?

I seriously would not be able to look my wife in the face or even step foot in the house with the shame I would feel from going on a date and having sex with another lady.

Just my opinion, but I cannot see how anyone actively participating in open marriage can come home to their spouse and act as if nothing happened.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> The use of the term "game" indicates a sole purpose of persuading another individual in the hopes of getting laid. We both agree on that. It's essentially deception. Taking that a step further you assume the majority of open marriages are born out of deception. I argue that this is a skewed view based in part on vocal individuals posting here who had no understanding of what an open marriage actually is but it sounded like a good threat... so they said it, maybe did it, but it was never a relationship it was a game to get laid. At a minimum that's pretty insulting and if people said "you only put a ring on it to get laid" I think a lot of monogamous couples would be equally offended.
> 
> An ultimatum is about having sex. An open relationship is an honest agreement between partners from the moment things begin to get serious. Both parties are respected at all times. Boundaries are set. Maybe they date someone as a couple. Maybe they both go on separate dates. How far those dates go depends entirely on the couple's boundaries. Even if the date would like more, if the agreement is no sex then anything in that direction is considered cheating! Others on here started to outline in.
> 
> ...


I hear you. I think you are making sense.

I agree with you that I misinterpreted the open marriage. I didn't learn about it here, though. I am grouping all people (including those that are willing to deceive their spouse into an open marriage and have a very unhealthy open marriage) with the specific people that are able to handle open marriages as equal partners. I think you are only referring to the specific people that do open marriages correctly, right? 

I'm going with what OP said in the first post. Watch out about a spouse asking for an open marriage and jumping in quickly. Even if those people fail at it (and I think they will because there wasn't a lot of conversation ahead of time) I am still going to include those people into "open marriage" people even if they suck at it. Its those people I prefer not being around. 





crashdawg said:


> I could never do that. I would never willingly put my wife in a position where she'd be tempted. I fully trust her and I assume she fully trusts me but I wouldn't be comfortable with that risk. But I'm also not one to come down on others for how they navigate their relationships.


You and I are in agreement here. I don't care if others want to live this way. I'm all for everyone choosing to the live the way they want, but I would want to know that they do live this way so that my wife and I can steer clear of them. I have no interest in being around people that live this kind of lifestyle. I don't mind speaking about it on the internet, but it doesn't interest me to physically be around people that live this lifestyle. 

The one couple I knew that tried this failed miserably. The husband remarried, has kids and lives a good life last time I heard. The wife that wanted the open relationship is now 42 (like me) unmarried and childless - and the sad thing is how my wife met this woman. It was in a "trying to get pregnant" group. This woman wanted to have children with her ex-husband, but also wanted an open marriage. Now she has neither, but whatever. To each their own. I was glad my wife stopped talking to this woman. It's just not the type of people I would want around us.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> My situation was much more complex than just what I stated here...I'm NOT trying to tell my story, just as Numb26 wasn't either (who I responded to)....I was simply stating how open marriage could be offered for a different reason.
> 
> It wasn't really even an ultimatum, and I actually brought it up after I offered DIVORCE (which he didn't want because he wanted to USE me). And it was part of an entire conversation (and serious issue) each time I brought it up, so I was slightly offended when @BigDaddyNY wanted to flippantly point to it as justifying (what I consider to be) HIS closed-minded opinions.


I'm closed-minded because my opinion is that an open marriage is wrong, and offering to open a marriage to address an issue is wrong? Aren't you now disrespecting my opinion by saying I'm closed-minded?

I used your post as a example of the exact type of scenario where it is crystal clear that suggesting an open marriage is suggested as a "fix" for a broken marriage.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Serious question for you since you want to discuss this. Exactly what boundaries are left to cross if you go on a date with another person and have sex with them while married?
> 
> I seriously would not be able to look my wife in the face or even step foot in the house with the shame I would feel from going on a date and having sex with another lady.
> 
> Just my opinion, but I cannot see how anyone actively participating in open marriage can come home to their spouse and act as if nothing happened.


 Honestly, no clue. Not my scene, not my relationship. Maybe the boundary is moving in. Maybe the boundary is solo dates, maybe it's no intimacy, just a date, or no intimacy when the spouse isn't there. Maybe there's no sex with outside, just group dates and solo dates are allowed. Again those boundaries are set, respected, communicated, and trusted by the couple. It is up to them what boundaries they set and how they enforce it.

NOW since I answered it... why did you automatically assume it's all about sex, with no boundaries or safeguards in place to prevent the outside relationships from approaching that level of intimacy? Does every date end in sex... or are there signs a date is headed that way and it's either accepted or ignored?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I'm closed-minded because my opinion is that an open marriage is wrong, and offering to open a marriage to address an issue is wrong? Aren't you now disrespecting my opinion by saying I'm closed-minded?
> 
> I used your post as a example of the exact type of scenario where it is crystal clear that suggesting an open marriage is suggested as a "fix" for a broken marriage.


I find it quite bizarre that anyone would think that having sex with others would fix anything.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> I find it quite bizarre that anyone would think that having sex with others would fix anything.


Lucky you that you've never had to consider anything else then.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I'm closed-minded because my opinion is that an open marriage is wrong, and offering to open a marriage to address an issue is wrong?


Not even close.



BigDaddyNY said:


> Aren't you now disrespecting my opinion by saying I'm closed-minded?


No.



BigDaddyNY said:


> I used your post as a example of the exact type of scenario where it is crystal clear that suggesting an open marriage is suggested as a "fix" for a broken marriage.


I know what you said, and what you meant.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> Honestly, no clue. Not my scene, not my relationship. Maybe the boundary is moving in. Maybe the boundary is solo dates, maybe it's no intimacy, just a date, or no intimacy when the spouse isn't there. Maybe there's no sex with outside, just group dates and solo dates are allowed. Again those boundaries are set, respected, communicated, and trusted by the couple. It is up to them what boundaries they set and how they enforce it.
> 
> NOW since I answered it... why did you automatically assume it's all about sex, with no boundaries or safeguards in place to prevent the outside relationships from approaching that level of intimacy? Does every date end in sex... or are there signs a date is headed that way and it's either accepted or ignored?


I feel like you have some strange views and think of the world as some kind of utopian type society.

If you participate in open marriage, dont be surprised when your spouse meets someone else and you get the sit down talk about how they are embarking on a new journey without you


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I'm closed-minded because my opinion is that an open marriage is wrong, and offering to open a marriage to address an issue is wrong? Aren't you now disrespecting my opinion by saying I'm closed-minded?
> 
> I used your post as a example of the exact type of scenario where it is crystal clear that suggesting an open marriage is suggested as a "fix" for a broken marriage.


 I don't mean to speak for another member. I didn't see it as closed minded. I found it confusing because you took an ultimatum and used it as justification for a position against open marriage when it's really not an argument for or against it. We covered that extensively.

Again I try to be crystal clear for anyone else who may have confusion, an ultimatum is not an open marriage. It's a threat in a rapidly devolving relationship. I feel horrible that she found herself in that position. A real open marriage, like a successful monogamous marriage, relies on respect, trust, communication and clear boundaries. Sex may be part of it but it doesn't define the relationship.

I think that's the biggest takeaway many members on here are getting. They went in confused because most posters on here just use it as a threat to get sex, they use it as a game... and it's not. Facing that reality means eroding a stigma and questioning a long held belief. That's not an easy thing to do.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> Honestly, no clue. Not my scene, not my relationship. Maybe the boundary is moving in. Maybe the boundary is solo dates, maybe it's no intimacy, just a date, or no intimacy when the spouse isn't there. Maybe there's no sex with outside, just group dates and solo dates are allowed. Again those boundaries are set, respected, communicated, and trusted by the couple. It is up to them what boundaries they set and how they enforce it.
> 
> NOW since I answered it... why did you automatically assume it's all about sex, with no boundaries or safeguards in place to prevent the outside relationships from approaching that level of intimacy? Does every date end in sex... or are there signs a date is headed that way and it's either accepted or ignored?


Don't be ridiculous. All talk of open marriage involves sex. Now you are playing loose with the definition of open marriage.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> Not even close.


Then what were you referring to when calling me closed minded, because that sure seems toe what you were referring to.



LisaDiane said:


> I know what you said, and what you meant.


I'm not so sure that you do.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> I feel like you have some strange views and think of the world as some kind of utopian type society.
> 
> If you participate in open marriage, dont be surprised when your spouse meets someone else and you get the sit down talk about how they are embarking on a new journey without you


I really don't care what you think but I feel like there is a significant comprehension issue so to avoid further confusion

ONE MORE TIME FOR EVERYONE IN THE BACK. I PROMISE I'LL TYPE SLOWER

I could never be in an open relationship and I do not want to put my partner in that position.

But that's me, that's my relationship. I'm not interested in others outside of my wife. To my knowledge she is not interested in anyone outside of me. We have no desire to open our marriage. I love experiencing life with her. I'm not here to tell others what to do or to try to impose my beliefs on others or to express my displeasure in how others view life or how they conduct themselves.

You and I are very different. Im sorry life has jaded you so much.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Don't be ridiculous. All talk of open marriage involves sex. Now you are playing loose with the definition of open marriage.


Does all talk of marriage involve sex?

Are you basing your opinion on actual healthy open relationships or is your opinion limited to the specific ultimatums posted on this forum? Please elaborate!

ALSO you dodged the question. I gave an honest response and asked an honest question in return. You dodged the question. Why did you skip past any boundary that may have been in place and immediately go to sex?


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> Does all talk of marriage involve sex?
> 
> Are you basing your opinion on actual healthy open relationships or is your opinion limited to the specific ultimatums posted on this forum? Please elaborate!


The term open marriage in general, and specific to the thread means sex with someone other than your spouse. And yes it is supposed to be mutually agreed to with no coersion. This isn't opinion, just fact.

Talking to other people and going on dinner dates is not what anyone calls an open marriage. I think you are purposely expanding the definition into innocent activity territory to try and normalize open marriage. Not sure why that is.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I used your post as a example of the exact type of scenario where it is crystal clear that suggesting an open marriage is suggested as a "fix" for a broken marriage.





Diana7 said:


> I find it quite bizarre that anyone would think that having sex with others would fix anything.


Not one person here has ever said anything about open marriage fixing a broken marriage. 

Please don’t try to portray people as having said something they didn’t say or even imply.

lisaDiane’s ex H was willfully and intentionally rejecting her and denying her indefinitely and then was lying to her face and accusing her of being a sex addict when she tried to address their marital issues. 

She offered him a fair and equitable divorce which he declined but he continued to deny her and continued to refuse to address their issues. 

Only then did she state the ultimatum of address the issues or open the marriage to regain her humanity and have her basic needs of love and affection met. 

Ultimately they chose divorce.

As I clearly stated in Post # 61 of this thread, a case of someone being chronically and willfully rejected and denied is NOT an example of the scenario I described in my opening post.

She was not duping or manipulating him so she could go out and party it up with other dudes. 

She was willfully and intentionally being rejected and denied of a basic human need for God knows how long. 

Ultimately she/they chose divorce.

Neither she nor anyone else in this thread has anyone suggested opening the marriage as a fix for a broken marriage.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> The term open marriage in general, and specific to the thread means sex with someone other than your spouse. And yes to is supposed to be mutually agreed to with no coersion. This isn't opinion, just fact.
> 
> Talking to other people and going on dinner dates is not what anyone calls an open marriage. I think you are purposely expanding the definition into innocent activity territory to try and normalize open marriage. Not sure why that is.


I'm not trying to normalize anything and I believe you've confused Swinging with Open Marriage. Swinging is a subset of Open Marriage but does not define it. Also what's on this forum is significantly skewed as we've previously disc multiple times.

I also think that if either spouse went on a date with the opposite sex many on here would consider that a absolute violation of marriage even if no physical intimacy occured. I believe that's part of an emotional affair? Again no sex, just doing a couples thing with someone other then your spouse...

For someone not interested in that lifestyle you have a lot of confused opinions. I only know what I've read, and what was explained by the outed couple.

So is all talk of entering a monogamous marriage just sex?


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> I'm not trying to normalize anything and I believe you've confused Swinging with Open Marriage. Swinging is a subset of Open Marriage but does not define it. Also what's on this forum is significantly skewed as we've previously disc multiple times.
> 
> I also think that if either spouse went on a date with the opposite sex many on here would consider that a absolute violation of marriage even if no physical intimacy occured. I believe that's part of an emotional affair? Again no sex, just doing a couples thing with someone other then your spouse...
> 
> ...


In the context of this thread it is all about sex. People coming to TAM to discuss "open marriage" are ALWAYS talking about sex. No one comes here say, "my wife wants an open marriage so she can have guys take her to dinner and a movie." The is ridiculous. What guy would want to be on the dating end of that relationship knowing sex is off the table. You seem to be in a made up dream world.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> I find it quite bizarre that anyone would think that having sex with others would fix anything.


Be honest... do you really believe they're thinking that or do you think they using it as either a threat or an excuse?

What about long term relationships when someone is accused of cheat and immediately says "we should get married". Do they really want to get married or are they using the proposition of marriage to stall?

I find it quite bizarre that people assume all talk of an open marriage magically occurs near a crisis in the relationship when all talk of successful marriage is actually an ongoing conversation started when that relationship hit specific benchmarks. Please pass the sweet tea I enjoy sipping on the front porch discussing " the bizarre"!


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> In the context of this thread it is all about sex. People coming to TAM to discuss "open marriage" are ALWAYS talking about sex. No one comes here say, "my wife wants an open marriage so she can have guys take her to dinner and a movie." The is ridiculous. What guy would want to be on the dating end of that relationship knowing sex is off the table. You seem to be in a made up dream world.


So every date you went on had strings attached? Every time you took your girlfriend out or your wife out the only goal was to get laid? You never went to a game just to go? Never went to a concert just to go? Never took someone to the beach because both of you loved it... always just a game to get laid? What about fishing with the guys did that have strings too?

I know guys who couldn't handle their spouse even having friends of the opposite sex...


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> Not one person here has ever said anything about open marriage fixing a broken marriage.
> 
> Please don’t try to portray people as having said something they didn’t say or even imply.
> 
> ...


I know that no one here is suggesting open marriage as a fix. If anything the opposite is true. I was only pointing out that her suggestion of an open marriage in her circumstances is simar to what we often see of people coming here to discuss the topic.

At that moment in time and in desperation she brought up opening the marriage. She knew it wasn't a real solution, but many who come here think it might be.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> So every date you went on had strings attached? Every time you took your girlfriend out or your wife out the only goal was to get laid? You never went to a game just to go? Never went to a concert just to go? Never took someone to the beach because both of you loved it... always just a game to get laid? What about fishing with the guys did that have strings too?
> 
> I know guys who couldn't handle their spouse even having friends of the opposite sex...


I can't believe this isn't getting through to you. Of course not all dates lead to sex. But you are being intellectually dishonest if you are saying that the discussions of open marriages, especially here on TAM, mean anything other than sex with someone other than your spouse.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

BigDaddyNY said:


> In the context of this thread it is all about sex. People coming to TAM to discuss "open marriage" are ALWAYS talking about sex. No one comes here say, "my wife wants an open marriage so she can have guys take her to dinner and a movie." The is ridiculous. What guy would want to be on the dating end of that relationship knowing sex is off the table. You seem to be in a made up dream world.


Monogamy is about sex. Marriage, it has been convincing argued several times, is a sexual relationship. Yes, the idea that “open marriage” is about dating is silly. It’s about having sex with someone, anyone other than your spouse.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I can't believe this isn't getting through to you. Of course not all dates lead to sex. But you are being intellectually dishonest if you are saying that the discussions of open marriages, especially here on TAM, mean anything other than sex with someone other than your spouse.


There you go again tying it directly back to TAM when we both established that TAM isn't a reflection of a healthy Open Marriage.

Think back to when you courted your wife. I assume multiple dates. Things got close. Milestones in the relationship were hit. BOTH of you discussed what you were comfortable with as those milestones approached.

Why does every boundary most healthy relationships set go right out the window the moment Open Marriage comes up? Why is there this confused misconception that it's just a banging free for all with no communication, nothing discussed, no boundaries set and no intent to either convey those boundaries to the 3rd person or enforce them?

You LITERALLY blew past ALL of those milestones and boundaries which are encouraged, discussed, and PRECISELY spelled out in various threads discussing healthy monogamous relationships HERE ON TAM... so why? Why did you immediately go right to sex?

Are you assuming people in healthy open relationships don't have enough respect for their primary partner, or themselves, or anyone they date to openly set boundaries?


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Monogamy is about sex. Marriage, it has been convincing argued several times, is a sexual relationship. Yes, the idea that “open marriage” is about dating is silly. It’s about having sex with someone, anyone other than your spouse.


So no courtship? No dating? No getting to know the other person and setting healthy boundaries that encourage mutual respect and communication? Just here's the ring let's bang?

If my comment seems crass that precisely what's being inferred about Open Marriage. It's creating this bizarre, confusing double standard that's fed from posted ultimatums on TAM that don't even reflect a healthy marriage much less a healthy open one.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

BigDaddyNY said:


> In the context of this thread it is all about sex. People coming to TAM to discuss "open marriage" are ALWAYS talking about sex. No one comes here say, "my wife wants an open marriage so she can have guys take her to dinner and a movie." The is ridiculous. *What guy would want to be on the dating end of that relationship knowing sex is off the table. You seem to be in a made up dream world*.


my girlfriend and i have never had PIV sex. mostly, we kiss and cuddle when we aren't otherwise enjoying spending time with each other.

while that isnt what was brought up in the OP, the bolded part is not at all accurate. i know several people in polyamorous relationships who are completely asexual but still love other forms of intimacy, which is part of the reason polyamory suits them.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> So no courtship? No dating? No getting to know the other person and setting healthy boundaries that encourage mutual respect and communication? Just here's the ring let's bang?
> 
> If my comment seems crass that precisely what's being inferred about Open Marriage. It's creating this bizarre, confusing double standard that's fed from posted ultimatums on TAM that don't even reflect a healthy marriage much less a healthy open one.


Do you know what courtship is? Lol that would be shopping around for a new spouse.

I'm pretty sure that you are absolutely the only one in this thread that thinks open marriage means anything other than open to sex outside the marriage.

When someone talks about opening a marriage the end goal is always sex. Not one person says, honey let's open our marriage, I want to be free talk, text and hang out with other people.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Aren’t swingers parties and orgies sex parties? People in open marriages go pick up strange women at bars for… conversation? No. Sex. It’s all about sex.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Aren’t swingers parties and orgies sex parties? People in open marriages go pick up strange women at bars for… conversation? No. Sex. It’s all about sex.


for those looking for sex, yes. not everyone is looking for sex.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

As'laDain said:


> my girlfriend and i have never had PIV sex. mostly, we kiss and cuddle when we aren't otherwise enjoying spending time with each other.
> 
> while that isnt what was brought up in the OP, the bolded part is not at all accurate. i know several people in polyamorous relationships who are completely asexual but still love other forms of intimacy, which is part of the reason polyamory suits them.


Not talking about ployamory. We are talking about open marriage and one spouse being asked by the other to open a marriage which is going to be about sex. Please answer honestly, which is what I expect from you. When you hear open marriage, do you think they aren't talking about sex?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Not talking about ployamory. We are talking about open marriage and one spouse being asked by the other to open a marriage which is going to be about sex. Please answer honestly, which is what I expect from you. When you hear open marriage, do you think they aren't talking about sex?


i always have to ask, because people seem to use that term for pretty much every form of non-monogamy. people unfamiliar with ENM generally call everything an open marriage. at least at first.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Do you know what courtship is? Lol that would be shopping around for a new spouse.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you are absolutely the only one in this thread that thinks open marriage means anything other than open to sex outside the marriage.
> 
> When someone talks about opening a marriage the end goal is always sex. Not one person says, honey let's open our marriage, I want to be free talk, text and hang out with other people.


nice dodge... when are they discussing an open marriage? Is it at the beginning of the relationship or the tail end when it's failing? That one time... on TAM...

Courtship is not shopping around for a new spouse it's dating multiple individuals to determine if you're even compatible. Sometimes you find that one person and you take a deep breath and discuss different boundaries. Sometimes you keep dating.

BUT once again you dodged... why is there an expectation of healthy boundaries in a monogamous relationship but not in an open relationship?

I don't mean to pile on more questions when so many remain unanswered. Maybe I should start a list?


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> I really don't care what you think but I feel like there is a significant comprehension issue so to avoid further confusion
> 
> ONE MORE TIME FOR EVERYONE IN THE BACK. I PROMISE I'LL TYPE SLOWER
> 
> ...


So what exactly is your overall point? You are all over the place with this. You say this is something that should be discussed and this is also something you would never participate in...... So why does there need to be open discussions?

To me, an open relationship is telling your spouse you are only a fraction of what I want, but I want to keep you around while I date and/or fullfill the missing pieces with others or find someone else who is better.... the marriage is dead and you are only using each other as a convenience. You can word it however you want and use whatever adjective, study, statistic, etc. And it doesn’t matter if sex is involved or not, you are cheating on your spouse. 

And yes, we are very different. I don't bite into this new age nonsense of using selective words and terms to make bad behavior sound not so bad. Such as, we practice and participate in an open marriage to fulfill our needs.....Nah, you are disrespecting your spouse and proving that you are not ready for marriage.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

As'laDain said:


> i always have to ask, because people seem to use that term for pretty much every form of non-monogamy. people unfamiliar with ENM generally call everything an open marriage. at least at first.


For a moment I thought I was the only one that noticed this... Maybe clear definitions are in order?


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> nice dodge... when are they discussing an open marriage? Is it at the beginning of the relationship or the tail end when it's failing? That one time... on TAM...
> 
> Courtship is not shopping around for a new spouse it's dating multiple individuals to determine if you're even compatible. Sometimes you find that one person and you take a deep breath and discuss different boundaries. Sometimes you keep dating.
> 
> ...


Of course there can and should be boundaries in a non-monogamous relationship. The problem is the boundaries you are listing for what everyone knows as the definition of an open marriage are nonsense.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> So what exactly is your overall point? You are all over the place with this. You say this is something that should be discussed and this is also something you would never participate in...... So why does there need to be open discussions?
> 
> To me, an open relationship is telling your spouse you are only a fraction of what I want, but I want to keep you around while I date and/or fullfill the missing pieces with others or find someone else who is better.... the marriage is dead and you are only using each other as a convenience. You can word it however you want and use whatever adjective, study, statistic, etc. And it doesn’t matter if sex is involved or not, you are cheating on your spouse.
> 
> And yes, we are very different.* I don't bite into this new age nonsense of using selective words and terms to make bad behavior sound not so bad. Such as, we practice and participate in an open marriage to fulfill our needs.....Nah, you are disrespecting your spouse and proving that you are not ready for marriage.*


so why are YOU here? you have already decided on your own definition of ENM, and its morally wrong, bad, disrespectful, etc. why not just state that and let it go? 

the reason you get pushback is because others recognize that adults can make their own choices and agreements with each other without being disrespectful. you disagree. cool. 

i often get people that are on their second, third, fourth marriages telling me that im not ready for marriage because "NON-MONOGAMY!" i always find it ironic.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Now this is what I call a popcorn thread.  

I don't think anyone can really reach an agreement here except to agree to disagree lol
Monogamy or polyamory, both are lifestyles with very strong differing values and attitudes associated with it

Ultimately everyone minds their own business (and if not - they should!) so lol


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> Now this is what I call a popcorn thread.
> 
> I don't think anyone can really reach an agreement here except to agree to disagree lol
> Monogamy or polyamory, both are lifestyles with very strong differing values and attitudes associated with it
> ...


these always turn into popcorn threads. every single one of them. if all the ENM people here went into every thread and told monogamous people that they were close minded, controlling, backwards, and immoral for choosing monogamy, ALL of the threads here would end up like this. as it is, we recognize it as a valid personal choice. it would be nice to be given the same courtesy.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> So what exactly is your overall point? You are all over the place with this. You say this is something that should be discussed and this is also something you would never participate in...... So why does there need to be open discussions?
> 
> To me, an open relationship is telling your spouse you are only a fraction of what I want, but I want to keep you around while I date and/or fullfill the missing pieces with others or find someone else who is better.... the marriage is dead and you are only using each other as a convenience. You can word it however you want and use whatever adjective, study, statistic, etc. And it doesn’t matter if sex is involved or not, you are cheating on your spouse.
> 
> And yes, we are very different. I don't bite into this new age nonsense of using selective words and terms to make bad behavior sound not so bad. Such as, we practice and participate in an open marriage to fulfill our needs.....Nah, you are disrespecting your spouse and proving that you are not ready for marriage.


Why is my lack of participation in a lifestyle tied directly to whether or not a group should or shouldn't discuss it? Let's start there please...

I have been painfully consistent the entire time. Unfortunately my efforts seem to be in vain. From the beginning I have stated that what many assume is an open marriage proposal is in fact an ultimatum that in no way represents an open marriage. I've stated that our merry band of misfit toys is highly skill at charging in at the first whiffs of marital distress and unloading a barrage of resources, religion, advice, articles, links, MRE's if you're hungry. Members are so keen to rescue everyone that basic reading comprehension proves an impossible task. In those rare instances when a couple is actively seeking advice on a healthy open relationship we are neither equipped nor experienced enough to discuss it. Instead we kill it, because it's not traditional and we assumed it was already bad. Most of that is actually before we even hit page 5...

On the bright side I've honed my bowling ball sharpening skills.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

As'laDain said:


> so why are YOU here? you have already decided on your own definition of ENM, and its morally wrong, bad, disrespectful, etc. why not just state that and let it go?
> 
> the reason you get pushback is because others recognize that adults can make their own choices and agreements with each other without being disrespectful. you disagree. cool.
> 
> i often get people that are on their second, third, fourth marriages telling me that im not ready for marriage because "NON-MONOGAMY!" i always find it ironic.


Just because others do something, that doesn't mean its right...... And I am here because people need to stand up to this nonsense. Too many people are just quietly sitting on the sidelines not saying anything in society. And its not just marriage either.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Of course there can and should be boundaries in a non-monogamous relationship. The problem is the boundaries you are listing for what everyone knows as the definition of an open marriage are nonsense.


FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK

if you agree there should be respect and healthy boundaries why did you skip EVERYTHING and go directly to sex?

We can get to the rest if we're lucky but this one is still floating out there...

you're still dodging and I know it's uncomfortable.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> Why is my lack of participation in a lifestyle tied directly to whether or not a group should or shouldn't discuss it? Let's start there please...
> 
> I have been painfully consistent the entire time. Unfortunately my efforts seem to be in vain. From the beginning I have stated that what many assume is an open marriage proposal is in fact an ultimatum that in no way represents an open marriage. I've stated that our merry band of misfit toys is highly skill at charging in at the first whiffs of marital distress and unloading a barrage of resources, religion, advice, articles, links, MRE's if you're hungry. Members are so keen to rescue everyone that basic reading comprehension proves an impossible task. In those rare instances when a couple is actively seeking advice on a healthy open relationship we are neither equipped nor experienced enough to discuss it. Instead we kill it, because it's not traditional and we assumed it was already bad. Most of that is actually before we even hit page 5...
> 
> On the bright side I've honed my bowling ball sharpening skills.


And the issue should be killed right away. There is no such thing as a healthy open relationship. And its not because of any traditions. Its because common sense says dating others and/or sleeping with others is very harmful to a marriage.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Just because others do something, that doesn't mean its right...... And I am here because people need to stand up to this nonsense. Too many people are just quietly sitting on the sidelines not saying anything in society. And its not just marriage either.


That sounds a lot like imposing your morality and beliefs on others. At a minimum you've appointed yourself and deemed it nonsense. And here I thought we had this grandstanding discussion about how no one is pushing beliefs on others...

@Diana7 @TexasMom1216 @BigDaddyNY 
You all see this right it's not just magically on my screen?


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> That sounds a lot like imposing your morality and beliefs on others. At a minimum you've appointed yourself and deemed it nonsense. And here I thought we had this grandstanding discussion about how no one is pushing beliefs on others...
> 
> @Diana7 @TexasMom1216 @BigDaddyNY
> You all see this right it's not just magically on my screen?


You can think whatever you want


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK
> 
> if you agree there should be respect and healthy boundaries why did you skip EVERYTHING and go directly to sex?
> 
> ...


Lol, okay, you've completely.lost me on your point and I have no idea what you think is making me comfortable.

Let me be clear. 

Open marriage does not equal open communication.

Open marriage means sex outside of the marriage.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> And the issue should be killed right away. There is no such thing as a healthy open relationship. And its not because of any traditions. Its because common sense says dating others and/or sleeping with others is very harmful to a marriage.


Winner winner Chicken Dinner...

Thank you for your honesty and for speaking for others and for invalidating choices made by others that have absolutely no impact on you.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Let me be clear.
> 
> Open marriage does not equal open communication.
> 
> Open marriage means sex outside of the marriage.


 Mind if I ask how you can speak with such authority and conviction on a subject that you've previously confused terms on and have openly stated that you don't participate in?

sorry I added another question...


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> Winner winner Chicken Dinner...
> 
> Thank you for your honesty and for speaking for others and for invalidating choices made by others that have absolutely no impact on you.


Facts don't care about your thoughts or choices. Open marriage is just a sugar-coated term for infidelity.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

As'laDain said:


> these always turn into popcorn threads. every single one of them. if all the ENM people here went into every thread and told monogamous people that they were close minded, controlling, backwards, and immoral for choosing monogamy, ALL of the threads here would end up like this. as it is, we recognize it as a valid personal choice. * it would be nice to be given the same courtesy.*


Good luck  
Hahahahahahah


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Facts don't care about your thoughts or choices. Open marriage is just a sugar-coated term for infidelity.


Is it ok if I quote you in other threads? Maybe just tag a few members here who swear opinions from one side are never misrepresented as facts and pushed on others? I mean your comments are crystal clear. I wouldn't want anyone claiming they're out of context...


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

@crashdawg, I read over what you said a few times. I’m gonna try to honestly answer what I think you are saying.

if a couple opens their marriage, that means they are willing to open it up to whole new relationships both physically and emotionally.

I’m being serious. I really want to figure out what you are saying.

you mentioned all the steps of courting and that is what got me thinking.

so, that means both spouses are able to have their spouse and as many boyfriends/girlfriends they want? You don’t necessarily go out looking for sex, but go out looking for another partner to add to your spouse? Is that what you are getting at? Then the only thing different between your girlfriend and wife is that the wife lives with you - but you could have a connection with that girlfriend. Mostl likely sex and then like vacations with her or something?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Just because others do something, that doesn't mean its right...... And I am here because people need to stand up to this nonsense. Too many people are just quietly sitting on the sidelines not saying anything in society. And its not just marriage either.





ThatDarnGuy! said:


> And the issue should be killed right away. There is no such thing as a healthy open relationship. And its not because of any traditions. Its because common sense says dating others and/or sleeping with others is very harmful to a marriage.


so, you are so offended by what consenting adults do in their personal lives that you feel the need to attack it whenever anyone talks about it. i remember how "common sense" told everyone that letting gay people be open would destroy the military. that turned out to be baseless prejudice too.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

As'laDain said:


> so, you are so offended by what consenting adults do in their personal lives that you feel the need to attack it whenever anyone talks about it. i remember how "common sense" told everyone that letting gay people be open would destroy the military. that turned out to be baseless prejudice too.





As'laDain said:


> so, you are so offended by what consenting adults do in their personal lives that you feel the need to attack it whenever anyone talks about it. i remember how "common sense" told everyone that letting gay people be open would destroy the military. that turned out to be baseless prejudice too.


You are putting words in my mouth


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> You are putting words in my mouth
> 
> View attachment 84112


except that i am not. you have already stated that you think its bad and wrong, should be "stood up to" and have no reason as to why other than "everybody knows it". what exactly are you standing up to? nobody here is trying to convince anyone to practice non-monogamy.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> ... In those rare instances when a couple is actively seeking advice on a healthy open relationship we are neither equipped nor experienced enough to discuss it...


Care to point to one thread where that happened? Just one, where someone was seeking advice to open a healthy marriage to non-monogamy? Should be easy, sounds like you've seen this over and over again in the 3 weeks you been here.



crashdawg said:


> Mind if I ask how you can speak with such authority and conviction on a subject that you've previously confused terms on and have openly stated that you don't participate in?
> 
> sorry I added another question...


Your posts just ooze with condescension and superiority, but anyway.

The definition of open marriage is very clear and doesn't require participation in it to define it. I mean you don't participate in it, but seem to be pushing your definition pretty hard. Straight from Merriam-Webster: _"a marriage in which the partners agree to let each other have sexual partners outside the marriage" _

So, when someone comes in here and says their spouse hit them up about opening the marriage, they are talking about sex, plain and simple.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

LATERILUS79 said:


> @crashdawg, I read over what you said a few times. I’m gonna try to honestly answer what I think you are saying.
> 
> if a couple opens their marriage, that means they are willing to open it up to whole new relationships both physically and emotionally.
> 
> ...


Apologies, but I'm starting my answer with introspective questions. Are people born with a spouse or do they find someone via dating? Assuming it's not arranged and one is in fact found via dating is it a one and done or does it require multiple dates? And sadly if you didn't marry your grade school first crush does it require multiple dates? Now is it dates with the same individual or different individuals? And do those dates lead directly to sex? Do they build up to sex? Are some of them just fun dates? Does it always work out and lead to marriage? If it doesn't work out and lead to marriage do you start over?

Ok now that we've got a mental baseline on dating both with and without sex.

Ever go out with a group of friends? Ever go mini golfing? Maybe go river rafting? Maybe go to a concert? Possibly go to a movie? Did any of that lead directly to sex? Did it build up to sex? Was some of it just a fun experience, no sex at all?

Awesome mental baseline on group activities without implied sexual behavior. 

Ever had an attractive friend you didn't hook up with of the opposite sex? Ever catch a movie with them? Maybe hit a ball game with them? How'd your other half react to it? Did your other half have an attractive friend of the opposite sex? How'd you feel when they spent time together?

Pretty sure we've got jealously covered, possibly even the importance of clear communication.

Now, relationship is getting serious, maybe sex, maybe marriage, do you discuss it or just assume it's exclusive and mutual? Hopefully you discuss it, but do you just pop a ring or does that take time? Do you discuss expectations of husband and wife or just wing it? Talk about kids or roll the dice? Move in right away or ease into cohabitation? Big ceremony? Small ceremony? No ceremony? Finances?

Awesome baseline on communication skills. For best chances of success talk early and talk often.

So given literally all of the above that goes into relationship that leads to marriage why would one assume that a desperate plea and ultimatum posted on TAM be the perfect opportunity to not only begin discussion between a couple about an open marriage... but somehow represent a successful open marriage? If they're on here post a do or die then it's not even a successful closed marriage!

An open relationship, like a successful marriage, is constant communication started early on in the relationship and maintained often. It's not a surprise trap at the end. Maybe it's sex. Maybe it's only sex with your primary. Maybe it's dates, or non sexual group activities. You can literally read through this multiple times and pull different memories of your own, examine them. Could you do that with more than one person or does it just turn to sex for you?

That's the individualistic part that's uncomfortable... some can just hang our or play video games or hit a movie or an amusement park. Others only think of sex. If all you think of is sex. Same problems in monogamy... 

I could never do it. Not interested. I would be too jealous and I know my wife would be as well. We were VERY clear on "just us" when we hit that mark in our relationship. Way before marriage. Way before kids. Back when we decided to stop dating others and just be a couple.

For some couples that talk goes differently... but again it's not on TAM or at the alter or right before the ring... it's early and it's constant communication.


----------



## Deguello (Apr 3, 2015)

In Absentia said:


> I haven't seen that many on TAM... what I see is wives saying they would allow an open marriage to get their husbands off their back sexwise when they've gone off sex...


Would that be bait and switch does not make sense to me


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> An open relationship, like a successful marriage, is constant communication started early on in the relationship and maintained often. It's not a surprise trap at the end. Maybe it's sex. Maybe it's only sex with your primary. Maybe it's dates, or non sexual group activities. You can literally read through this multiple times and pull different memories of your own, examine them. Could you do that with more than one person or does it just turn to sex for you?


That's not true. Many start well into the relationship. I think OldShirt and his wife didn't start swinging until 10 years into their marriage. I think there are others that started well into their relationship.


You've switched over to using the term open relationship. I don't know if that was on purpose, but that term has a much different meaning than open marriage. What you have been describing is more like an open relationship, open and clear talk about boundaries. An open marriage is about sex, period. In particular, this thread was started 100% about sex. Why can't you understand that?


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Aren’t swingers parties and orgies sex parties? People in open marriages go pick up strange women at bars for… conversation? No. Sex. It’s all about sex.


Depends on the marriage. Some people in open marriages or poly-amorous relationships go about things the way any traditional single person looks for a new partner, they're looking for a relationship of which sex will likely be a part. Some open marriages are just about hooking up with other horny people. Wide range. 

Not all swingers parties involve sex, some involve PINEAPPLES though.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Care to point to one thread where that happened? Just one, where someone was seeking advice to open a healthy marriage to non-monogamy? Should be easy, sounds like you've seen this over and over again in the 3 weeks you been here.


 except you forgot to mention most of the threads are unlocked so non registered members can read them and you've only got me finally posting something but I digress. I've stated openly multiple times ON THIS THREAD that most of what we'd get were ultimatums. I even corrected you because you claimed an ultimatum somehow presented a compelling argument against open marriage...




> Your posts just ooze with condescension and superiority, but anyway.


 I believe the word you're looking for is "frustration". Eventually I got tired of unanswered questions, baseless accusations, inflammatory remarks and people pushing things...



> The definition of open marriage is very clear and doesn't require participation in it to define it. I mean you don't participate in it, but seem to be pushing your definition pretty hard. Straight from Merriam-Webster: _"a marriage in which the partners agree to let each other have sexual partners outside the marriage" _


 you have the entire internet at your fingertips and everyone watching and you went to the dictionary? No certified therapists, no marriage counselor, no sites specializing in that field who could give you a breakdown... just good old dictionary? Where was this handy tool when you were confusing everything?



> So, when someone comes in here and says their spouse hit them up about opening the marriage, they are talking about sex, plain and simple.


 this one time... on TAM...

Please see the first 5 or so pages where we openly pointed out that if they're on TAM with a do or die their marriage is on the rocks and it an ultimatum not an open marriage... and that's under "U" if you need that definition!

I'm sorry if your pride was hurt because you backed yourself into illogical positions and couldn't honestly answer questions without causing issue. I would HONESTLY hope that you have more respect for you own relationships and don't assume everything immediately leads to sex. I really hope it was "here's the ring spread'm"... and if you're insulted that exactly what you made an open relationship out to be, no boundaries, just sex... and when I called you on it you couldn't even man up to that.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

crashdawg said:


> except you forgot to mention most of the threads are unlocked so non registered members can read them and you've only got me finally posting something but I digress. I've stated openly multiple times ON THIS THREAD that most of what we'd get were ultimatums. I even corrected you because you claimed an ultimatum somehow presented a compelling argument against open marriage...
> 
> 
> I believe the word you're looking for is "frustration". Eventually I got tired of unanswered questions, baseless accusations, inflammatory remarks and people pushing things...
> ...


Open marriage means sex with partners other than your spouse. Sure lots of things lead up to that and yeah you can have any rule you want. No sex with strangers on Tuesdays. No sex until they meet the other SO. *At the end of the day open marriage means open to sex with others. This is as factual as the sky is blue. *

You can go way beyond the dictionary. Go ahead do a google search on what is an open marriage, you won't find a single definition any where close to what you are saying. 

Here are the first half dozen, all are about sex. I think you just enjoy arguing this point. It isn't just a TAM thing that open marriage mean open to sex with other. It is just what it is. 


_Open marriage_ is a form of non-monogamy in which the partners of a dyadic marriage agree that each may engage in extramarital sexual relationships 

_Open marriage_ is one type of relationship under the larger umbrella of consensual non-monogamy. 

An _open marriage_ is a marriage in which spouses are free to be romantically involved with other people. 

An _open marriage_ follows guidelines of agreed-upon emotional and/or physical relations outside the primary (wedded) partners. 

An _open marriage_ is one in which each spouse is free to seek out other sexual partners on their own. 

The term "open marriage" is sometimes called "polyamorous marriage." In an open marriage, partners are legally married to one another and describe their marriage as their primary relationship. Also, the partners agree that they are comfortable with some level of non-exclusivity.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> There’s been a few threads by men who’s partner’s have suggested or outright stated that they want an open marriage/relationship.
> 
> Without talking about any of the specifics or those individuals or any discussion of the theological or religious implications of open marriage, I do want to discuss some of what I see taking place in much of the threads we see here on TAM.
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot of your views when it comes to women and sex.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here..

What I don't agree with is that TAM folks need to get wise to slvtting it up in a marriage.

That's a kink and has always been fringe and never main stream.

I am able to discern unbalance in these situations and I always do a disclaimer that I'm fundamentally opposed to it but no one here needs to understand kink.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> There is no such thing as a healthy open relationship. And its not because of any traditions. Its because common sense says dating others and/or sleeping with others is very harmful to a marriage.


Neither of these statements are true. Logically they seem to make sense and often time in practice they prove correct, but in fact there are a lot of healthy, happy, successful marriages that are, have been or are starting to be open. There are many marriages that have been opened with no harm and are even enhanced. Might not seem possible but for some it works better than the traditional path. It's definitely not for most.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> You are putting words in my mouth
> 
> View attachment 84112


I love that guy. He’s funny.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ConanHub said:


> I am able to discern unbalance in these situations and I always do a disclaimer that I'm fundamentally opposed to it but no one here needs to understand kink.


This hits the nail on the head for me. We all have our kinks. I have mine. I don’t need approval, and I don’t need everyone to share them. They’re kinks. Leave them in the bedroom where they belong.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> I agree with a lot of your views when it comes to women and sex.
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you're saying here..
> 
> ...


kink is like leather masks, ball gags, bathroom stuff, whips, chains, toe sucking etc etc Kink is some kind of turn on outside of standard PIV and such. 

Whether to be sexually exclusive or not within a relationship is a lifestyle choice and relationship paradigm. 

Whether people think nonmonogamy is a good idea or not, it is a fact of life and it is something that is going to be becoming more and more common and prevalent as time goes on. 

Whether one considers it a fringe or not depends on how one measures it. The percentage of couples practicing some for of nonmonogamy right this very moment is likely in the minority. Depending on what studies you read, somewhere from 4-10%. Not a huge number. But 10% is not an insignificant number. 

However, if one were to count everyone from age 85 on down who have been in some form of CNM relationship at some point in their lives, that number will be significantly higher. 

And I feel very confident that if we took the 18 year olds that are alive today and check back in with them in the year 2070
It will be a sizeable majority. It's a growing trend and one that we can't simply say it's bad or wrong and then ignore it. 

Humans aren't monogamous by nature. We force ourselves to be with religious doctrines, divorce laws and social pressure and our own selfishness that makes us want our mate to only be sexual with us so we sacrifice our own desires, but our base primal natures are not the least bit monogamous for life. 

We now have antibiotics and antivirals that treat STIs. We have effective birth control. And women are no longer pregnant or nursing their entire fertile years that need a man to bring them animal protein and protect them from marauding tribes. 

So people are starting to question why they should be restricted to one mate for life. 

Some are going to remain single and uncommitted and simply live a promiscuous lifestyle. 

Some are going to decide that monogamy will work best for them. 

But there will be a percentage that want the other benefits of marriage/LTR but opt to not have that relationship be contingent on strict sexual exclusivity. 

It's going to happen. It's already happening now. Wishing it away because you don't like it or don't think it's a good idea is not going to keep it away. 

As another poster put it a few pages back, is this site going to be "Talk About Marriage?" or is it going to be "Talk About Traditional Marriage" or "Talk About Monogamous" marriage, where other forms of relationships are on ignore or worse, attacked and belittled?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> This hits the nail on the head for me. We all have our kinks. I have mine. I don’t need approval, and I don’t need everyone to share them. They’re kinks. Leave them in the bedroom where they belong.





ConanHub said:


> I agree with a lot of your views when it comes to women and sex.
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you're saying here..
> 
> ...



ok. by that logic, your entire marriage is just a kink.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> kink is like leather masks, ball gags, bathroom stuff, whips, chains, toe sucking etc etc Kink is some kind of turn on outside of standard PIV and such.
> 
> Whether to be sexually exclusive or not within a relationship is a lifestyle choice and relationship paradigm.
> 
> ...


It's a kink and has always been fringe. I don't have a particular beef against this kink but it certainly is what it is and mainstream it is not.

History absolutely confirms this.

Trying to make kink mainstream is absolutely a tactical error.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

As'laDain said:


> ok. by that logic, your entire marriage is just a kink.


To someone with your fringe views, absolutely.

You aren't historically or logically accurate.

My marriage is very mainstream, successful historically and proven.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ConanHub said:


> It's a kink and has always been fringe. I don't have a particular beef against this kink but it certainly is what it is and mainstream it is not.
> 
> History absolutely confirms this.
> 
> Trying to make kink mainstream is absolutely a tactical error.


The only historical instance of this “kink” is polygamy, a practice that actively dehumanizes women and regards them as livestock.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> It's a kink and has always been fringe. I don't have a particular beef against this kink but it certainly is what it is and mainstream it is not.
> 
> History absolutely confirms this.
> 
> Trying to make kink mainstream is absolutely a tactical error.


I disagree that relationship paradims and lifestyle choices are kinks, but let's set that aside and use your kink analogy anyway. 

Everyone has their own kinks. Everyone has something that they dig that someone else will think is a kink. You have some things that others will think is a kink and everyone will have something that you think is a kink. 

There for kink IS mainstream because we all have them. 

And if you are going to come here and say that you have virtually no kinks, then you are actually the oddball or you are just dull and boring. 

And as far as historical confirming anything, History confirms pervertedness on all levels throughout all of time. 

At no time in human history has June and Ward Cleaver ever been a reality. There ain't nuth'n new here. It's always been here. 

What's different today is now we have the anonymity of the internet where people actually talk about it. And now we have Pornhub where now people are actually seeing it. 

And since we also have treatments for STIs and effective contraception and women are finally claiming their own sexual agency, people are starting to question why they should act like June and Ward Cleaver.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> The only historical instance of this “kink” is polygamy, a practice that actively dehumanizes women and regards them as livestock.


No it's all been there before. There's nothing new here. People just didn't talk about it as much. In fact people don't really talk about it much now. Whatever it is that going on out there, you only know the very tiny tip of the iceberg. 

But since you brought up polygamy and the dehumanization of women as livestock etc, it's largely female sexual agency that driving the new wave of CNM/swiging/poly/open marriage et al. 

So I guess pick your poison.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> I disagree that relationship paradims and lifestyle choices are kinks, but let's set that aside and use your kink analogy anyway.
> 
> Everyone has their own kinks. Everyone has something that they dig that someone else will think is a kink. You have some things that others will think is a kink and everyone will have something that you think is a kink.
> 
> ...


You are, of course, fine to disagree but historical data in all strata indicates it is a kink.

Every society that ever elevated anything besides heterosexual monogamy to the same level or even above heterosexual monogamy, disappeared.

That's a fact.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> You are, of course, fine to disagree but historical data in all strata indicates it is a kink.
> 
> Every society that ever elevated anything besides heterosexual monogamy to the same level or even above heterosexual monogamy, disappeared.
> 
> That's a fact.


Society as we know it now will be also be gone in 100 years, just like the society of 1922 has disappeared.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> To someone with your fringe views, absolutely.
> 
> You aren't historically or logically accurate.
> 
> My marriage is very mainstream, successful historically and proven.


logically accurate? you just reduced my relationships to kinks. unless yours is just a more common kink, than mine aren't either. 

my point is that relationships are not kinks.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

TexasMom1216 said:


> The only historical instance of this “kink” is polygamy, a practice that actively dehumanizes women and regards them as livestock.


I believe anything that dehuminizes women, does it to us all. We are all mankind, the human race.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> You are, of course, fine to disagree but historical data in all strata indicates it is a kink.
> 
> Every society that ever elevated anything besides heterosexual monogamy to the same level or even above heterosexual monogamy, disappeared.
> 
> That's a fact.


every society not here today disappeared. and yet non-monogamy remains alongside monogamy. that says nothing.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> Society as we know it now will be also be gone in 100 years, just like the society of 1922 has disappeared.


The world has a way of history repeating it's mistakes. The more things change, the more people stay the same.

Even evolutionary thinkers have to agree with me on this one.

Do you know how many dipshit revolutions the world has actually been through?

Do you know how many times my mainstream marriage has been verified as the foundation to all successful societies?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

As'laDain said:


> every society not here today disappeared. and yet non-monogamy remains alongside monogamy. that says nothing.


You are showing your ignorance of data and history.

Kinks can exist as fringe, existing on the coattails of heterosexual monogamy.

If they ever get to the point where they equal or exceed heterosexual monogamy, that particular society has been wiped from the face of the earth.

That's just Data.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> The only historical instance of this “kink” is polygamy, a practice that actively dehumanizes women and regards them as livestock.


the word you are looking for is polygyny. polygamy is multiple spouses and includes polyandry and polygyny. 

both are still practiced in various parts of the world.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> You are showing your ignorance of data and history.
> 
> Kinks can exist as fringe, existing on the coattails of heterosexual monogamy.
> 
> ...


well then, enlighten me. what society practiced non-monogamy in favor of monogamy?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ConanHub said:


> Do you know how many times my mainstream marriage has been verified as the foundation to all successful societies?


Yet here we are.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> Yet here we are.


As riders on the coattails of heterosexual monogamy, absolutely.

That has been proven.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> As riders on the coattails of heterosexual monogamy, absolutely.
> 
> That has been proven.


im still waiting for you to name a single society that collapsed because of non-monogamy.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

Young at Heart said:


> Obviously, from the length of your post this touched a hot button in you.
> 
> Perhaps a new section would be in order and possibly with different moderators and some recommended reading or resources. It could be "So you want to try out an open marriage."
> 
> ...


Oh, don't spoil his fun! This subject gave him an opportunity to ruminate, expound and use all of those cute spellings he's been saving up. Plus, he gets to remind people that he once had an active sex life.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Holy crap, this thread exploded. I am going to touch on a few posts from the beginning now that I have top and can type better than on my phone. But I'm not going through all of it. If there is a point you'd like me to hit, tag me and link it.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

Blondilocks said:


> Oh, don't spoil his fun! This subject gave him an opportunity to ruminate, expound and use all of those cute spellings he's been saving up. Plus, he gets to remind people that he once had an active sex life.


We could name the section "The Sinking Ship Of Marital Denial " 🤣


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> No it's all been there before. There's nothing new here. People just didn't talk about it as much. In fact people don't really talk about it much now. Whatever it is that going on out there, you only know the very tiny tip of the iceberg.
> 
> But since you brought up polygamy and the dehumanization of women as livestock etc, it's largely female sexual agency that driving the new wave of CNM/swiging/poly/open marriage et al.


it’s always been there, in the bedroom, where it belonged. Not out in mainstream society.

“Female sexual agency” is driving this? That’s delusional. Young women are being convinced by the left that devaluing themselves is “sophisticated and cosmopolitian” and it’s what the “cool people” do. It’s basically, “men will always be unfaithful, if you participate in he will ‘love’ you more for being so ‘cool’”. “Act like a porn star to get love” is a message from leftism, and the goal is to end families. It’s got nothing to do with empowering anyone.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> HOWEVER, what we are seeing most often here really isn’t a mutually embraced lifestyle choice but rather what I see as one party declaring their own personal, sexual emancipation and basically nullifying any previous expressed or *implied agreement* on monogamy without the other party’s fully informed consent.


I think what we are getting is actually more of a mix between the above, and honest attempts at doing open correctly, as well as many points in between, with the negative aspects being due to anything ranging from maliciousness to honest ignorance.

Also NEVER run with implied anything. That implied agreement of monogamy might well have been an implication that open would happen later in the marriage. Implied and assumed are the two worse states that any marriage, mon, open, or poly, can have.




> But they don’t understand it’s not *an even playing field.* Not even in the same galaxy.


The problem here is thinking that an even playing field is needed. What is actually needed is an _agreed upon_ playing field. If it's not even, but all playing are happy with the field, then all is good, at least as far as that aspect goes. And yes, more men will approach woman than the other way around. The question is what is the true motive? It might be as simple as why bother to search when they will come to you? Or there can be a lot of reasons.



> And the other things these guys don’t get is women are simply different in how they view relationships and sex partners etc than they do.


I think this and much of that below it, is stereotyping. That we are looking at what years, even centuries of social pressure has told us. Look at the whole concept of how people who are in same sex relationships supposedly act. One always becomes the "man" and the other the "woman". Which is not true. It can and does happen, but it's not something that is set in stone. And that is what has set many people to fight the coming out of anything from the LBGT camp or the ENM camp, not to mention the kinksters.



> But where I’m going with this is I think we here on TAM need to at least try to have the skills and temperaments to at least try to determine whether someone is coming here with legit questions and concerns regarding an alternative lifestyle vs whether they are just being handed a turd in shiny gift wrapping and purdy bow.
> 
> The big distinction is *are they doing the work and doing their due diligence in having serious discussions with their partne*r?
> 
> Are they doing legitimate research into said lifestyle and learning about the risks and benefits and taking proper precautions and boundaries? Are they reading books, posting questions on alternative lifestyle forums, meeting with people already in those lifestyles?


Hell they are not doing that even for monogamy, and making sure that they have a compatible partner prior to tying the knot.



> The vast majority of what we’re going to see here are the problems and fallout and from those that have basically never really heard of such a thing and are clueless of what they’re blindly walking in to.


I agree, but where they are coming from is not always from a position of deceit by one party or the other. That is also an important point for when we give out advice. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but several of us ENM types have given the advice that whatever form of ENM is proposed is not a good idea for the couple. And having a clear picture of what is happening is also helpful. The most recent guy had his title saying no, but his OP all over the place, so that you weren't sure what his position was. And sadly we typically only get the one side, so we never know what kind of bias they are giving us.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

As'laDain said:


> im still waiting for you to name a single society that collapsed because of non-monogamy.


You will be waiting a long time because I did the studying and it's not my business that you haven't.

I'm generally not here to conduct a debate and I mostly hate debates anyway.

I don't withhold information however and, if you want to, you can get educated the same as anyone.

There has never been a successful, developed, civilization that had anything other than heterosexual monogamy as it's foundation. Fringe has always been around but it never gets mainstream until a civilization is about to fall.

I don't even have to touch any religious text to figure this one out.

Even evolutionary thinkers would tell you as much.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

I don't have a lot to add to this discussion....but there has been one thing that has puzzled me for the entire time I have been on this earth and saw the female species as something to sexually desire...

We are programmed to chase females...That's what males do...But the thought that once you find the so called "one" that the inner desire can just immediately and for an eternity, be suppressed...It can...but it's very hard...especially if you aren't the type of guy that has to be immensely lucky to find one or two women in his lifetime that view him as sexually attractive..

While I didn't invent the saying, it's been said that men are only as faithful as their options...IME. that has been proven, not in all cases, but more than half...

I've said it before in other threads and I do believe what I say...Not many species on this planet would last a single generation if they had to abide by these rules as set out by humans (hetero monogamy)...They'd run themselves into extinction in no time flat...I am not one that believes we are "different"....When you see how close we are genetically to primates(who aren't monogamous), then it starts to make some sense...

No one can deny that "sexual incompatibility" is a primary reason that marriages fall apart...Just look around here for a while and you will see that for yourselves...I see commercials on TV for divorce lawyers that state that affairs make up the reasons for the majority of divorces...Well, a lot of affairs arise because one of the parties in the pairing lost interest in the other...And maybe that "lost interest" was something that was programmed into all of us to some degree, so that we assure sustainment of the species...? You decide...

Does the poly lifestyle solve all this? For some, perhaps, but for many it wouldn't...I for one, wouldn't be down with sharing a woman...Never happen..Again, maybe that is programmed in, I dunno...I think most guys feel the same way...I can't speak for women, but I would imagine the same..

At the risk of rambling on more than I already have, in summary , I do recognize that these powers and desires are very hard to suppress, and I would dare say it's really _un natural_...That being said, if enough attention isn't paid at the time of mate selection to ensure very strong sexual attraction, then the more the person in the LTR is going to be fighting that innate internal struggle...Poly isn't the answer....It just replaces one problem with another...If people can make it work for them, just like anything else, live and let live and more power to them...


----------



## Rus47 (Apr 1, 2021)

hamadryad said:


> but it's very hard...especially if you aren't the type of guy that has to be immensely lucky to find one or two women in his lifetime that view him as sexually attractive..


This is key. A subset of men have no difficulty finding many women willing and eager to mate with them. Women don’t mind sharing one of those men. And dont mind if he doesnt hang around to help with his offspring.

A larger subset of men are blessed if they find one woman willing to put up with them. 

I knew from my youth was in the second subset, and thankfully met my wife to be.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

In Absentia said:


> I agree, but I turned it down when the option was offered. I knew my wife didn't really mean it, but she didn't have many other options.


My wife always says, "Say what you mean, Mean what you say!". She figured out early on to not say stupid **** being sarcastic or other wise...because I will give her just that in spades. If you don't mean it then why did you say it. Goes both ways, babe!

I would have stayed out one night and when she got all upset...you said, not interested, get it elsewhere. Your words!


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> Why do we need facts and experiences to disagree with something? We dont need to have done something to know that it's damaging. We don't need facts to know that it's not what marriage is about.


Exactly. I know that if my wife wanted open marriage, I will not sleep with another, but I will be dating and looking for her replacement. When that one is located, I will file on grounds of infidelity due to her sleeping with another. I could never go there after she had another man in her..nope...not happening. Stick a fork in the marriage...it's done.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> it’s always been there, in the bedroom, where it belonged. Not out in mainstream society.
> 
> “Female sexual agency” is driving this? That’s delusional. Young women are being convinced by the left that devaluing themselves is “sophisticated and cosmopolitian” and it’s what the “cool people” do. It’s basically, “men will always be unfaithful, if you participate in he will ‘love’ you more for being so ‘cool’”. “Act like a porn star to get love” is a message from leftism, and the goal is to end families. It’s got nothing to do with empowering anyone.


I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. In fact I will even say you are on the money. 

And even though you didn’t mean to, you are also supporting my statement that you are trying to dispute. 

while I don’t really want to turn this into a political debate, you do need to ask yourself who this “left” is. 

Answer = women and feminists. 

Yes there are a few people with penises and man buns and philosophy degrees that are in the left, but generally the majority of what you are calling the “left” that is pushing that ideology is women and feminists.

So even though you are trying to disagree with me - you’re actually supporting my statement.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

hamadryad said:


> I don't have a lot to add to this discussion....but there has been one thing that has puzzled me for the entire time I have been on this earth and saw the female species as something to sexually desire...
> 
> We are programmed to chase females...That's what males do...But the thought that once you find the so called "one" that the inner desire can just immediately and for an eternity, be suppressed...It can...but it's very hard...especially if you aren't the type of guy that has to be immensely lucky to find one or two women in his lifetime that view him as sexually attractive..
> 
> ...


So are you saying that you are willing to resist your natural urge to chase and obtain many women, even though you believe it's unnatural, in order to ensure that you don't have to share your partner...is that what you said in there?

I'm NOT being disrespectful or snarky...I'm really asking because I'm curious if that's how you really feel.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

I will be attending the marriage of a triad later this year, one the child of one of our closest family friends. Two consider themselves non-binary, one is asexual. The have co-habited now for several years, and have decided to formalize that relationship into a marriage. Which I and everyone around them will respect as such, even if they cannot get the IRS to recognize it for tax purposes. 

I'm sure as hell not going to stand up and tell them they are wrong, immoral, or misguided for committing themselves to each other. The day that marriage is extended to more than two persons is coming.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> If you participate in open marriage, dont be surprised when your spouse meets someone else and you get the sit down talk about how they are embarking on a new journey without you


That can happen. It happens far more often in traditional marriages, simply given the numbers and human nature. The main difference is that consensually open relationships and marriages are just that: mutually agreed upon. Presumably, those in such consensual arrangements know the risks and think they are worthwhile. Those in traditional marriages are blindsided far more often because they are wishfully thinking they are actually in a monogamous relationship.

Some people are not suited for monogamy, realize it, and act ethically to form relationships that do not require it. Isn't that better than those pretending to be monogamous who then cheat?

ENM/CNM people can also be happily married, enjoy all the benefits of marriage, and mutually choose to change the things about marriage that do not work for them, usually without negative consequences. Here on TAM we usually hear only from those who have NOT fully and fairly discussed an open marriage with their partner, who are being pushed into it. That isn't really ENM/CNM, as it's certainly not mutual. That's an f-you, my way or the highway scenario, and it's both wrong and dysfunctional.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LisaDiane said:


> So are you saying that you are willing to resist your natural urge to chase and obtain many women, even though you believe it's unnatural, in order to ensure that you don't have to share your partner...is that what you said in there?
> 
> I'm NOT being disrespectful or snarky...I'm really asking because I'm curious if that's how you really feel.


That’s almost a topic worthy of its own discussion but it does apply in a roundabout way to CNM scenarios as well, But I think one of the big drivers of monogamy in relationships is not that people want to be exclusive to one person per se, but that monogamy is the price people are willing to pay for their partner’s exclusivity. 

I think that’s why many people have such a visceral reaction to any kind of CNM. 

People understand and get cheating as a concept. They may think it’s bad and say people shouldn’t do it.... but they understand it and understand why people do it. They understand people wanting to get some on the down low for themselves while trying to keep their partner exclusive.

But change the playing field a bit where each party agrees to have some form of consensual outside entertainment and it sends chills up and down the spine.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Married but Happy said:


> That can happen. It happens far more often in traditional marriages, simply given the numbers and human nature. The main difference is that consensually open relationships and marriages are just that: mutually agreed upon. Presumably, those in such consensual arrangements know the risks and think they are worthwhile. Those in traditional marriages are blindsided far more often because they are wishfully thinking they are actually in a monogamous relationship.
> 
> Some people are not suited for monogamy, realize it, and act ethically to form relationships that do not require it. Isn't that better than those pretending to be monogamous who then cheat?
> 
> ENM/CNM people can also be happily married, enjoy all the benefits of marriage, and mutually choose to change the things about marriage that do not work for them, usually without negative consequences. Here on TAM we usually hear only from those who have NOT fully and fairly discussed an open marriage with their partner, who are being pushed into it. That isn't really ENM/CNM, as it's certainly not mutual. That's an f-you, my way or the highway scenario, and it's both wrong and dysfunctional.


This is very well said. 

Much of what we see here on TAM is either the train wreck in the aftermath, or we see the train barreling down the tracks towards the impending derailment. 

But there are a few that are legit and are people that are trying to put in the work.

The problem is all are attacked with the same broad brush of either moral/religious rhetoric or their very motivations and characters are assailed for even considering it in the first place. 

The end result is neither those who are having the wool pulled over their eyes and are being duped, nor the legitimate ones seeking advice are necessarily getting much useful nuts and bolts input.


----------



## Akinaura (Dec 6, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> The only historical instance of this “kink” is polygamy, a practice that actively dehumanizes women and regards them as livestock.


 Well then, moo. As part of a poly marriage, I resent being considered livestock. If you don't know what you are talking about, ask. Most of us are willing to explain...but please don't have the mindset that we belong with the pigs/cows/chickens.


----------



## Akinaura (Dec 6, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> My marriage is very mainstream, successful historically and proven.


And that proves what exactly? So has non-monagamy. If it wasn't successful it would have died out like the dodo birds. 

Stop trying to shame us into believing it's a "kink". Even if it was, kink-shaming is a thing and you seem to have a grand ole time shaming others for it. But heck, if it makes it easier for you to understand us, keep on trucking. Just don't shame anyone because of it. That's called being respectful last time I checked.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

oldshirt said:


> That’s almost a topic worthy of its own discussion but it does apply in a roundabout way to CNM scenarios as well, But I think one of the big drivers of monogamy in relationships is not that people want to be exclusive to one person per se, but that monogamy is the price people are willing to pay for their partner’s exclusivity.
> 
> I think that’s why many people have such a visceral reaction to any kind of CNM.
> 
> ...


i think you are on to something here. people run out of reasons to attack ENM/CNM pretty quickly, but will carry on calling it immoral, wrong, etc, and continue to attack it. sometimes it looks like a sense of injustice, since they feel like ENM/CNM folks are getting the comforts of marriage without having to sacrifice what they have to sacrifice. this comes out a lot as the arguments about how its bad society, it ties up too many women with too few men, etc. 

whats funny is that the same men who say these things would be baffled that a skinny 5'8" 120 pound man, or a short fat man, could have several enthusiastic young attractive female partners. they dont like it, they dont understand it, so they fear it and attack it. 

i think that might be where the chills come from.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> You will be waiting a long time because I did the studying and it's not my business that you haven't.
> 
> I'm generally not here to conduct a debate and I mostly hate debates anyway.
> 
> ...


right... and non-monogamy has destroyed exactly how many civilizations? even in every society where it is permitted, its still a minority. but so is homosexuality. 

what is your point?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Cletus said:


> I will be attending the marriage of a triad later this year, one the child of one of our closest family friends. Two consider themselves non-binary, one is asexual. The have co-habited now for several years, and have decided to formalize that relationship into a marriage. Which I and everyone around them will respect as such, even if they cannot get the IRS to recognize it for tax purposes.
> 
> I'm sure as hell not going to stand up and tell them they are wrong, immoral, or misguided for committing themselves to each other. *The day that marriage is extended to more than two persons is coming.*


i hope so. i was willing to stay in the closet about being bi before DADT was repealed. i never even mentioned it here until after it was repealed, because that would have been grounds for getting kicked out of the army with a dishonorable discharge. as it was, i didn't have a male partner, so it was not enough of an issue to be a hill worth dying on.

technically, polyamory is against military regulations as well. but i give zero ****s. i have been through a HELL of a lot of war, been injured, lost friends, hell, i was even declared dead after a service related injury. im not willing to throw my partners out to save my retirement benefits. they are people and i love them. if someone wants to use my personal relationships as grounds for stripping me of the benefits i have earned, well... the people are worth it. 

as it is, i doubt that will ever happen. even the military knows that ENM is a viable option. otherwise they probably wouldn't have given me a security clearance.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> An _open marriage_ is a marriage in which spouses are free to be romantically involved with other people.


Of it gets to this point then it is typically referred to as a polyamourous relationship. But yes technically an open relationship/marriage. The ENM community typically tries to use open/swing for sex and poly for emotional relationships, especially since within the context of poly, a sexual relationship might not happen.



> The term "open marriage" is sometimes called "polyamorous marriage." In an open marriage, partners are legally married to one another and describe their marriage as their primary relationship. Also, the partners agree that they are comfortable with some level of non-exclusivity.


Again, only if the intent is that emotional relationships are formed. If it is only about sex then rarely is the marriage polyamourous. Polyamourous marriages _can _arise out of open/swing relationships.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

maquiscat said:


> Of it gets to this point then it is typically referred to as a polyamourous relationship. But yes technically an open relationship/marriage. The ENM community typically tries to use open/swing for sex and poly for emotional relationships, especially since within the context of poly, a sexual relationship might not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, only if the intent is that emotional relationships are formed. If it is only about sex then rarely is the marriage polyamourous. Polyamourous marriages _can _arise out of open/swing relationships.


These are subtle and important distinctions that matter, but most staunchly monogamous people probably won't bother to understand the distinctions.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> kink is like leather masks, ball gags, bathroom stuff, whips, chains, toe sucking etc etc Kink is some kind of turn on outside of standard PIV and such.
> 
> Kink and fetish and philia are three separate statuses that can be applied based on a person's need/desire for a given activity. The same activity for one person might be a kink, but a philia for another person. Technically, even PIV sex can fall under any of those by they way they are defined. We just typically don't.
> 
> ...


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Married but Happy said:


> These are subtle and important distinctions that matter, but most staunchly monogamous people probably won't bother to understand the distinctions.


Amen to that!


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

As'laDain said:


> ok. by that logic, your entire marriage is just a kink.


Only if the marital status is what is getting you off sexually.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> It's a kink and has always been fringe. I don't have a particular beef against this kink but it certainly is what it is and mainstream it is not.
> 
> History absolutely confirms this.
> 
> Trying to make kink mainstream is absolutely a tactical error.


It was very mainstream at one point. Look at how many of the biblical figures were in polygynous marriages. There is a whole society in Asia that practices polyandry to this day. A lot more mainstream that some would wish you to believe. And in many first world countries, it is growing as more and more people realize that they do not have to kowtow to a tradition for tradition's sake.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> The only historical instance of this “kink” is polygamy, a practice that actively dehumanizes women and regards them as livestock.


Not exactly true. First off you are thinking polygyny, which is the proper name for 1 husband and multiple wives. Polygamy is only multiple spouses, with no set number for either type of spouse.

Secondly, polygamy does not in and of itself dehumanize women anymore than monogamy has when women were considered chattel. It is that attitude towards women that is the dehumanizing factor and can be found in both types of marriage. As noted there is an active present day community in Asia that practices polyandry. Is it your claim that this practice dehumanizes men and regards them as livestock?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> You are showing your ignorance of data and history.
> 
> Kinks can exist as fringe, existing on the coattails of heterosexual monogamy.
> 
> ...


Every past society that has upheld heterosexual monogamy has also been wiped off the face of the earth. That's just data (and not Data who is an android).


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Cletus said:


> I will be attending the marriage of a triad later this year, one the child of one of our closest family friends. Two consider themselves non-binary, one is asexual. The have co-habited now for several years, and have decided to formalize that relationship into a marriage. Which I and everyone around them will respect as such, even if they cannot get the IRS to recognize it for tax purposes.
> 
> I'm sure as hell not going to stand up and tell them they are wrong, immoral, or misguided for committing themselves to each other. The day that marriage is extended to more than two persons is coming.


We have a lot of changes that we have to make before hand though. Right now, legally speaking, it would be easier to get incest marriage through than poly. Keep in mind that I am only looking at the legal logistics there, and not whether we would even try. And it could happen for the same reasons that interracial and same sex marriage were able to be brought in easily (legal fighting notwithstanding). All that has to be done is to eliminate the "not these couples" laws. With poly, you would have to change all the laws that presume only two people, and then come up with laws that accounted for multiple spouses. That is a major logistical challenge especially if you are not going to put legal limits on number of spouses.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> Not exactly true. First off you are thinking polygyny, which is the proper name for 1 husband and multiple wives. Polygamy is only multiple spouses, with no set number for either type of spouse.
> 
> Secondly, polygamy does not in and of itself dehumanize women anymore than monogamy has when women were considered chattel. It is that attitude towards women that is the dehumanizing factor and can be found in both types of marriage. As noted there is an active present day community in Asia that practices polyandry*. Is it your claim that this practice dehumanizes men and regards them as livestock*?


Yes. Any relationship where spouses are faceless, soulless, interchangable meat used solely for sex and servitude is dehumanizing.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Yes. Any relationship where spouses are faceless, soulless, interchangable meat used solely for sex and servitude is dehumanizing.


Ok? You are the only one talking about those situations. So what's your point?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Yes. Any relationship where spouses are faceless, soulless, interchangable meat used solely for sex and servitude is dehumanizing.


That's a rather huge assumption on what happens within any given poly family. Last I checked my spouses were not faceless or soulless. Nor are they used solely for sex or servitude. I also noticed where you seemed to have avoided the part where women were used for sex and servitude within monogamy. "A woman's place is barefoot and in the kitchen". By your standards, monogamy should have been gotten rid of a long time ago.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

maquiscat said:


> That's a rather huge assumption on what happens within any given poly family.


I guess maybe the unspoken assumption behind some people's view of this, is that it's not _possible_ to love and care romantically about more than one person.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Laurentium said:


> I guess maybe the unspoken assumption behind some people's view of this, is that it's not _possible_ to love and care romantically about more than one person.


No? Why?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Laurentium said:


> I guess maybe the unspoken assumption behind some people's view of this, is that it's not _possible_ to love and care romantically about more than one person.


My thought has always been why is it then possible to love more than one kid? How is it really different, as far as the emotional aspect goes? If one spouse is supposed to be enough, then surely one child is supposed to be enough.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

maquiscat said:


> My thought has always been why is it then possible to love more than one kid? How is it really different, as far as the emotional aspect goes? If one spouse is supposed to be enough, then surely one child is supposed to be enough.


Sorry but this is apples and oranges


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> Sorry but this is apples and oranges


How? Explain this difference between loving multiple children and multiple spouses. How is love ever restricted to only one of whatever?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Numb26 said:


> Sorry but this is apples and oranges


No not really. I think it’s a fitting comparison.

I think people grossly underestimate our capacity to love and be loved.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

maquiscat said:


> How? Explain this difference between loving multiple children and multiple spouses. How is love ever restricted to only one of whatever?


You honestly believe the love you have for your children is the SAME as you have for your spouse?


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> How? Explain this difference between loving multiple children and multiple spouses. How is love ever restricted to only one of whatever?


The love I feel for my wife is different from the love I feel for my kids, my parents, relatives, etc. My wife gets the romantic form of my love, the rest do not.

For me, there is always one that is above the rest, my wife.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> The love I feel for my wife is in a different from the love I feel for my kids, my parents, relative, etc. My wife gets the romantic form of my love, the rest do not.
> 
> For me, there is always one that is above the rest, my wife.


Exactly! You cannot compare romantic love to any other kind of love


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I could easily love more than one woman and, in fact, I have when I was younger (before marriage)...


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> Exactly! You cannot compare romantic love to any other kind of love


And you believe you can only feel that kind of romantic love for one person at a time?


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

In Absentia said:


> No? Why?


I don't know why they think that.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> No not really. I think it’s a fitting comparison.
> 
> I think people grossly underestimate our capacity to love and be loved.


Sorry, wanting to bang a bunch of random strangers isn’t love. If sex is just a transactional, meaningless physical release, it’s not love. You may love a particular person, like your wife, but it’s not the same as the relationship I have with my husband. And that’s fine for you, but it won’t work for me and I will never believe that it’s better. She’s a very good friend and life partner that you sometimes have sex with. I know that makes you angry, but for you to say that I am nothing but a piece of meat and I’m not special and I don’t deserve the kind of love I think is important makes ME angry. That’s why these discussions will never end well: we have completely incompatible views about love and marriage. I have zero desire to make you conform to my beliefs, but I have a right to my opinion of them. I can like and respect someone as a person while completely disagreeing with their views about marriage. I’ll of course keep an eye on my husband if he’s around your wife, just like I have to do with our swinger friends. And you are perfectly free to view me as some sort of small-minded, provincial, prudish idiot. Maybe you’re right, maybe we will eventually stop viewing love and respect as intertwined with sex. Maybe society will change and married people won’t have sex with each other at all, but will get all their sex from outside people. That would allow men to stay married to women they love as people while having sex with only very young women they find attractive. But until that time comes, I’m going to keep living my way and I will only tell you what I think about your choices when you ask (like you did by starting this thread). I am sorry that you don’t like what I say, but I’m being honest. Just like you are.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Laurentium said:


> I guess maybe the unspoken assumption behind some people's view of this, is that it's not _possible_ to love and care romantically about more than one person.


That would be flawed thinking on their part if that is the case. Since there are plenty of people who do and have loved and cared romantically, for more than one person at a time. And just like @In Absentia I have also romantically loved more than one woman at a time.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

LisaDiane said:


> And you believe you can only feel that kind of romantic love for one person at a time?


I'll be a bit brutally real here.

Love is a choice and an action far more than a feeling.

I'm committed to and bound to my wife in a particularly unique way and my choices to love her are different than what choices I make with the rest of the world.

I love a lot of people with an adult love. I'm in a covenant relationship with only one.

I truly love other women and, in eras apparently long gone, men and women were more socially able to express that love with the understanding that marriage was uniquely different.

There is a woman I love very much. We grew up together and she loves me back.

We have rejoiced in each other's marriages and children and sincerely want the best for each other.

We could have easily become partners but we had different paths at pivotal points in our lives.

We certainly feel the love you are talking about and we choose to love each other as friends and our SO's as spouses.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

LisaDiane said:


> And you believe you can only feel that kind of romantic love for one person at a time?


No, it can happen and it has. The important thing is whether you act on it or not. Then again, loyalty and fidelity is now considered oldfashioned and outdated.
Which is why I am living my life the way I am now after the D. I don't fit in this "brave new world".


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Sorry, wanting to bang a bunch of random strangers isn’t love. If sex is just a transactional, meaningless physical release, it’s not love. You may love a particular person, like your wife, but it’s not the same as the relationship I have with my husband. And that’s fine for you, but it won’t work for me and I will never believe that it’s better. She’s a very good friend and life partner that you sometimes have sex with. I know that makes you angry, but you to say that I am nothing but a piece of meat and I’m not special and I don’t deserve the kind of love I think is important makes ME angry. That’s why these discussions will never end well: we have completely incompatible views about love and marriage. I have zero desire to make you conform to my beliefs, but I have a right to my opinion of them. I can like and respect someone as a person while completely disagreeing with their views about marriage. I’ll of course keep an eye on my husband if he’s around your wife, just like I have to do with our swinger friends. And you are perfectly free to view me as some sort of small-minded, provincial, prudish idiot. Maybe you’re right, maybe we will eventually stop viewing love and respect as intertwined with sex. Maybe society will change and married people won’t have sex with each other at all, but will get all their sex from outside people. That would allow men to stay married to women they love as people while having sex with only very young women they find attractive. But until that time comes, I’m going to keep living my way and I will only tell you what I think about your choices when you ask (like you did by starting this thread). I am sorry that you don’t like what I say, but I’m being honest. Just like you are.


I've seen that the more things change, the more people stay the same. There have always been groups shouting "It's the new age!", only to find a lot of the same things happening that have always happened or discovering their "new thing" actually isn't new at all.😉


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> How? Explain this difference between loving multiple children and multiple spouses. How is love ever restricted to only one of whatever?


This is a tough one. I think you have a really good argument here, @maquiscat. While I don't share the same views on relationships and marriage with you, I highly respect your opinion and thought provoking posts.

The best I can answer this (for myself) is sex. It is the special thing that I share only with my wife. It is me giving of myself to her, and only to her. 

I have two children, a son and daughter. I share something special with each of them that the other does not have. If I shared the special thing I have with one child with the other, then it isn't special any more.

Same thing with my wife. My romantic, sexual relationship is special. I can only share that with one person.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ConanHub said:


> I've seen that the more things change, the more people stay the same. There have always been groups shouting "It's the new age!", only to find a lot of the same things happening that have always happened or discovering their "new thing" actually isn't new at all.😉


Since the beginning of time, men have made excuses for why they shouldn’t have to be faithful. “It didn’t mean anything, it’s different with you because I luuuurvvve you.” Heard it. Many times. Do not believe it. If being faithful to me is too big a sacrifice we’re not compatible. I wish you all the happiness, good bye.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> I'll be a bit brutally real here.
> 
> Love is a choice and an action far more than a feeling.
> 
> ...





Numb26 said:


> No, it can happen and it has. The important thing is whether you act on it or not. Then again, loyalty and fidelity is now considered oldfashioned and outdated.
> Which is why I am living my life the way I am now after the D. I don't fit in this "brave new world".


I understand what you are both saying, especially because I have never actually felt romantic love for more than one man at a time (even when they were undeserving of it).

However, there are other people who feel the way you both do and DO act on it, openly with their partners, and they don't feel like it disrespects them or diminishes their love for them either.

And at least of the people on TAM, they are some of the most honest and respectful and dedicated spouses/partners I have ever met.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> No, it can happen and it has. The important thing is whether you act on it or not. Then again, loyalty and fidelity is now considered oldfashioned and outdated.
> *Which is why I am living my life the way I am now after the D. I don't fit in this "brave new world".*


It's strange to hear you say this, because I'm pretty sure I just read a post by you that your plan is to maintain only superficial relationships with women (for sex only), and maybe you even meant you weren't interested in monogamy either.

So you are living a very different standard with women than what you are saying here is morally superior (unless I misunderstood your posts). And I don't believe that your reasons for that are because everyone else is being immoral, so you aren't going to be moral either (by your definition, I mean).


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> You honestly believe the love you have for your children is the SAME as you have for your spouse?


The love I have for my friends is different than that I have for my children than that I have for my parents and that I have for my other family members. And yet with all of them I can have more than one in that group.

Simply noting that the type of love is different does not explain why it is limited. That is a cop out. Explain to me how one love is limited and another is unlimited.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Since the beginning of time, men have made excuses for why they shouldn’t have to be faithful. “It didn’t mean anything, it’s different with you because I luuuurvvve you.” Heard it. Many times. Do not believe it. If being faithful to me is too big a sacrifice we’re not compatible. I wish you all the happiness, good bye.


Heard the same thing from my XW so it's not exclusive to the male of the species


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

LisaDiane said:


> I understand what you are both saying, especially because I have never actually felt romantic love for more than one man at a time (even when they were undeserving of it).
> 
> However, there are other people who feel the way you both do and DO act on it, openly with their partners, and they don't feel like it disrespects them or diminishes their love for them either.
> 
> And at least of the people on TAM, they are some of the most honest and respectful and dedicated spouses/partners I have ever met.


I just answered your query without going to the other places this post goes.

We don't disagree about choices.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Sorry, wanting to bang a bunch of random strangers isn’t love. If sex is just a transactional, meaningless physical release, it’s not love.


No one has suggested that banging a bunch of random strangers is love. I'm not sure why you keep arguing against things, that no one has said?

Also as someone who has in the past banged some random strangers, I have no problem saying I didn't love them when I banged them as random strangers. That said we certainly enjoyed ourselves and had fun sharing that sex together. Plus I had so much fun with one of those random strangers, that we started dating each other after we started banging each other (2 hours after we met), and I even married her 2½ years after that.



> You may love a particular person, like your wife, but it’s not the same as the relationship I have with my husband. And that’s fine for you, but it won’t work for me and I will never believe that it’s better.


No one is trying to convince you to have a relationship that you don't want, as before this still isn't about you.



> She’s a very good friend and life partner that you sometimes have sex with. I know that makes you angry, but you to say that I am nothing but a piece of meat and I’m not special and I don’t deserve the kind of love I think is important makes ME angry.


No one is saying you are a piece of meat, I am sorry you feel that way, for your own health, you it seems like you keep projecting your own poor self esteem issues onto things that have nothing to do with you. Please..., breathe..., in..., out..., relax...



> That’s why these discussions will never end well: we have completely incompatible views about love and marriage.


Cool then you don't have to carry on having kittens over it, if it isn't for you, you're allowed to not get involved.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

LisaDiane said:


> It's strange to hear you say this, because I'm pretty sure I just read a post by you that your plan is to maintain only superficial relationships with women (for sex only), and maybe you even meant you weren't interested in monogamy either.
> 
> So you are living a very different standard with women than what you are saying here is morally superior (unless I misunderstood your posts). And I don't believe that your reasons for that are because everyone else is being immoral, so you aren't going to be moral either (by your definition, I mean).


Not the same. We are talking about LOVING more then one person and being in a LTR with more then one person


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> The love I feel for my wife is different from the love I feel for my kids, my parents, relatives, etc. My wife gets the romantic form of my love, the rest do not.
> 
> For me, there is always one that is above the rest, my wife.


But that still doesn't explain why that romantic form has to be limited. There are all kinds of different forms of love. Explain why romantic love is the only one that is limited.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Heard the same thing from my XW so it's not exclusive to the male of the species


Very true and excellent point. I was speaking only from my point of view, but you’re correct, it goes both ways.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> Not the same. We are talking about LOVING more then one person and being in a LTR with more then one person


But is that what you meant when you said that's why you don't fit anymore, so you don't want that?

Maybe I'm seeing them more as the same, not different.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> Heard the same thing from my XW so it's not exclusive to the male of the species


Agreed. @TexasMom1216, I get that you've come across many bad men in your life...... I can assure you that an equal number of bad women exist.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> I just answered your query without going to the other places this post goes.
> 
> We don't disagree about choices.


To be clear, I'm not judging anything you guys (or anyone) is saying, I'm just trying to clarify what is confusing me so I can understand all the opinions I'm reading.

I don't care what people believe, if it works for them.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

LisaDiane said:


> But is that what you meant when you said that's why you don't fit anymore, so you don't want that?
> 
> Maybe I'm seeing them more as the same, not different.


Sex is one thing and I firmly believe that two consenting adult should be able to enjoy themselves even if there is no emotional bond. In fact I encourage it!
But to me, when feelings become involved it changes everything


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Since the beginning of time, men have made excuses for why they shouldn’t have to be faithful. “It didn’t mean anything, it’s different with you because I luuuurvvve you.” Heard it. Many times. Do not believe it. If being faithful to me is too big a sacrifice we’re not compatible. I wish you all the happiness, good bye.


I will agree with the caveat that humans behave this way.

I grew up watching women behave badly though it takes two to tango.

I've observed that those with power and/or authority have a temptation to misuse their position.

More men have been in these positions historically but Potiphar's wife definitely misused her position and the recent plague of teachers preying on boys illustrates humans have a tendency to want to take sexual advantage with their positions.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> Sex is one thing and I firmly believe that two consenting adult should be able to enjoy themselves even if there is no emotional bond. In fact I encourage it!
> But to me, when feelings become involved it changes everything


Ok, now I know what you mean...mostly!


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Why, in so many topics here, and this one in particular, do so many people have so much difficulty in recognizing that not everyone thinks as they do? 

Your love for your spouse isn't lessened because someone else has two. Your relationship isn't reduced by your ability to love only one person at a time, or your need for a singular person with whom to have a physical relationship. 

So what is so threatening or improbable about other folks having a different reality?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> Exactly! You cannot compare romantic love to any other kind of love


Says who? Just because you can't doesn't mean the rest of us can't. I find it interesting that you can't articulate the difference but claim that it is there, and furthermore, that because it is there for you, that all other people must have that same difference and must follow your example.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Sorry, wanting to bang a bunch of random strangers isn’t love.


No one is claiming it is. But this topic has gone on past only open to include poly. 



> If sex is just a transactional, meaningless physical release, it’s not love.


I have always noted the difference between having sex and making love, even when the actions are limited between spouses. 



> You may love a particular person, like your wife, but it’s not the same as the relationship I have with my husband. And that’s fine for you, but it won’t work for me and I will never believe that it’s better.


No one is asking that you feel it is better for you. But likewise you should not be telling others that it is bad for them, at least not as an automatic thing.



> She’s a very good friend and life partner that you sometimes have sex with.


This seems to be you trying to tell another person how they feel, and the meaning of those feelings. 



> I know that makes you angry, but for you to say that I am nothing but a piece of meat and I’m not special and I don’t deserve the kind of love I think is important makes ME angry.


This seems to be a projection of some sort, because I didn't noticed anyone saying this about you.



> That’s why these discussions will never end well: we have completely incompatible views about love and marriage.


The difference is that you want to say our choices are bad, whereas those of us who are ENM are saying you choose what's good for you. We don't tell you what you do is bad.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Numb26 said:


> Not the same. We are talking about LOVING more then one person and being in a LTR with more then one person


Is that what we are talking about? I thought we were talking about being able to love more than one person generally... not family, obviously.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

maquiscat said:


> Says who? Just because you can't doesn't mean the rest of us can't. I find it interesting that you can't articulate the difference but claim that it is there, and furthermore, that because it is there for you, that all other people must have that same difference and must follow your example.


So you are going with the "Love is love" argument?


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Sorry, wanting to bang a bunch of random strangers isn’t love. If sex is just a transactional, meaningless physical release, it’s not love. You may love a particular person, like your wife, but it’s not the same as the relationship I have with my husband. And that’s fine for you, but it won’t work for me and I will never believe that it’s better. She’s a very good friend and life partner that you sometimes have sex with. I know that makes you angry, but for you to say that I am nothing but a piece of meat and I’m not special and I don’t deserve the kind of love I think is important makes ME angry. That’s why these discussions will never end well: we have completely incompatible views about love and marriage. I have zero desire to make you conform to my beliefs, but I have a right to my opinion of them. I can like and respect someone as a person while completely disagreeing with their views about marriage. I’ll of course keep an eye on my husband if he’s around your wife, just like I have to do with our swinger friends. And you are perfectly free to view me as some sort of small-minded, provincial, prudish idiot. Maybe you’re right, maybe we will eventually stop viewing love and respect as intertwined with sex. Maybe society will change and married people won’t have sex with each other at all, but will get all their sex from outside people. That would allow men to stay married to women they love as people while having sex with only very young women they find attractive. But until that time comes, I’m going to keep living my way and I will only tell you what I think about your choices when you ask (like you did by starting this thread). I am sorry that you don’t like what I say, but I’m being honest. Just like you are.


The original situation referred to by @oldshirt is one person wanting to "bang a bunch of random strangers" and trying to do that by tricking their partner into an open relationship. The discussion has shifted a little for some into poly relationships, which involves a deeper romantic relationship with multiple people simultaneously. There's a difference. I doubt any people in Poly relationships view people in traditional relationships in any kind of negative light. The hate of a chosen lifestyle really only seems to flow in the direction of the Poly folks from what I see. What works for you works for you (and most people) and what works for CNM people works for them (what form that takes is limited only by imagination). One being better is a purely individual perspective and better is only for that individual.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Sorry, wanting to bang a bunch of random strangers isn’t love. If sex is just a transactional, meaningless physical release, it’s not love. You may love a particular person, like your wife, but it’s not the same as the relationship I have with my husband. And that’s fine for you, but it won’t work for me and I will never believe that it’s better. She’s a very good friend and life partner that you sometimes have sex with. I know that makes you angry, but for you to say that I am nothing but a piece of meat and I’m not special and I don’t deserve the kind of love I think is important makes ME angry. That’s why these discussions will never end well: we have completely incompatible views about love and marriage. I have zero desire to make you conform to my beliefs, but I have a right to my opinion of them. I can like and respect someone as a person while completely disagreeing with their views about marriage. I’ll of course keep an eye on my husband if he’s around your wife, just like I have to do with our swinger friends. And you are perfectly free to view me as some sort of small-minded, provincial, prudish idiot. Maybe you’re right, maybe we will eventually stop viewing love and respect as intertwined with sex. Maybe society will change and married people won’t have sex with each other at all, but will get all their sex from outside people. That would allow men to stay married to women they love as people while having sex with only very young women they find attractive. But until that time comes, I’m going to keep living my way and I will only tell you what I think about your choices when you ask (like you did by starting this thread). I am sorry that you don’t like what I say, but I’m being honest. Just like you are.


No one said anything about banging a bunch of random strangers.

If you don’t want to bang random strangers - simply don’t.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

🍿This has definitely turned into a case of who can use the fanciest and most technical words to make cheating on your spouse as not so bad and acceptable 🍿🍿🍿

In the real world, its hard enough to find only two people who make it to the 30 year mark. You just don't see posts of relationships involving 3 people or more I guess saying we are celebrating 30 years together. I am sure it has happened, but its a very unique and uncommon thing to happen.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> 🍿This has definitely turned into a case of who can use the fanciest and most technical words to make cheating on your spouse as not so bad and acceptable 🍿🍿🍿
> 
> In the real world, its hard enough to find only two people who make it to the 30 year mark. You just don't see posts of relationships involving 3 people or more I guess saying we are celebrating 30 years together. I am sure it has happened, but its a very unique and uncommon thing to happen.


You aren't going to see them here, but I know many of them in real life. 

Before I moved to Maryland, I used to go to a social gathering where several polycules would attend. If you ask the old timers if they can tell if new poly relationships will last, they just laugh and ask if you will be back next year. Or of they are military, they will say wait until the first deployment. 

They are about as successful as any long-term committed relationship, you just don't hear about them.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> 🍿This has definitely turned into a case of who can use the fanciest and most technical words to make cheating on your spouse as not so bad and acceptable 🍿🍿🍿
> 
> In the real world, its hard enough to find only two people who make it to the 30 year mark. You just don't see posts of relationships involving 3 people or more I guess saying we are celebrating 30 years together. I am sure it has happened, but its a very unique and uncommon thing to happen.


Depends on your definition of cheating. If a couple has a consensual open relationship, with mutually agreed to rules and boundaries which they adhere to strictly, is it cheating? It's and interesting question, I personally know one couple in an open marriage who disagree on this. The wife believes they are technically cheating the husband does not.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> So you are going with the "Love is love" argument?


I certainly recognize the difference between eros and filia and agape and all that. But that difference between them doesn't explain why some forms are limited and others are not.

Now keep in mind that while I assert a capacity for more than one love to exist at a time, that does not mean that a given individual can handle engaging with more than one at a time for a LTR. But that is still a separate thing from whether the love can exist for multiple people at the same time.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> Now keep in mind that while I assert a capacity for more than one love to exist at a time, that does not mean that a given individual can handle engaging with more than one at a time for a LTR. But that is still a separate thing from whether the love can exist for multiple people at the same time.


well, yes, that's how I see it too...


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> 🍿This has definitely turned into a case of who can use the fanciest and most technical words to make cheating on your spouse as not so bad and acceptable 🍿🍿🍿
> 
> In the real world, its hard enough to find only two people who make it to the 30 year mark. You just don't see posts of relationships involving 3 people or more I guess saying we are celebrating 30 years together. I am sure it has happened, but its a very unique and uncommon thing to happen.


Unique and uncommon doesn't make it bad or unacceptable, as your first paragraph implies. Which is the point of many of us here.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

In Absentia said:


> well, yes, that's how I see it too...


But does @Numb26 see it that way? Given his response, I'm putting doubt behind it.


----------



## LATERILUS79 (Apr 1, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> I certainly recognize the difference between eros and filia and agape and all that. But that difference between them doesn't explain why some forms are limited and others are not.
> 
> Now keep in mind that while I assert a capacity for more than one love to exist at a time, that does not mean that a given individual can handle engaging with more than one at a time for a LTR. But that is still a separate thing from whether the love can exist for multiple people at the same time.


It's an interesting concept, you know? My mind cannot imagine what it would be like to have more than one romantic partner at the same time - where true romantic feelings are felt for more than one person, but I can understand giving into physical desires for more than one at the same time. I find your mindset very interesting. I wish I could understand just for understandings sake.

But really, that could apply to anything. It'd be cool if there was some sort of machine that could transfer the thought process/pathways or whatever from one person to the other. Then maybe I could understand what words are failing to describe. I fully trust you that you are able to have romantic feelings for more than one person at the same time. In the same line of thinking (with my mythical machine), what if a betrayed spouse could show the wayward spouse EXACTLY what it feels like to be cheated on? I can imagine a wayward putting on this special head device and immediately crumple to the ground in pain. 

I know you are are into Sci-fi - I think this same thing occurs when Vulcans do mindmelds (if I remember correctly). They can transfer thoughts and feelings.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Sorry, wanting to bang a bunch of random strangers isn’t love. If sex is just a transactional, meaningless physical release, it’s not love. You may love a particular person, like your wife, but it’s not the same as the relationship I have with my husband. And that’s fine for you, but it won’t work for me and I will never believe that it’s better. She’s a very good friend and life partner that you sometimes have sex with. I know that makes you angry, but for you to say that I am nothing but a piece of meat and I’m not special and I don’t deserve the kind of love I think is important makes ME angry. That’s why these discussions will never end well: we have completely incompatible views about love and marriage. I have zero desire to make you conform to my beliefs, but I have a right to my opinion of them. I can like and respect someone as a person while completely disagreeing with their views about marriage. I’ll of course keep an eye on my husband if he’s around your wife, just like I have to do with our swinger friends. And you are perfectly free to view me as some sort of small-minded, provincial, prudish idiot. Maybe you’re right, maybe we will eventually stop viewing love and respect as intertwined with sex. Maybe society will change and married people won’t have sex with each other at all, but will get all their sex from outside people. That would allow men to stay married to women they love as people while having sex with only very young women they find attractive. But until that time comes, I’m going to keep living my way and I will only tell you what I think about your choices when you ask (like you did by starting this thread). I am sorry that you don’t like what I say, but I’m being honest. Just like you are.


You aren't going to change anyone's minds by making stuff up about them, telling them what their loved ones _really_ mean to them, and then putting words into their mouths so that you can claim to be a victim. 

None of the things that you are accusing us of saying we're ever said by anyone but yourself. YOU are the one reducing our relationships to a mere sex act. YOU are the ones saying that ENM turns a woman into a piece of meat. 

Why don't you ask my wife if she feels like livestock? Oh wait, she already told you.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

LATERILUS79 said:


> It's an interesting concept, you know? My mind cannot imagine what it would be like to have more than one romantic partner at the same time - where true romantic feelings are felt for more than one person, but I can understand giving into physical desires for more than one at the same time. I find your mindset very interesting. I wish I could understand just for understandings sake.
> 
> But really, that could apply to anything. It'd be cool if there was some sort of machine that could transfer the thought process/pathways or whatever from one person to the other. Then maybe I could understand what words are failing to describe. I fully trust you that you are able to have romantic feelings for more than one person at the same time. In the same line of thinking (with my mythical machine), what if a betrayed spouse could show the wayward spouse EXACTLY what it feels like to be cheated on? I can imagine a wayward putting on this special head device and immediately crumple to the ground in pain.
> 
> I know you are are into Sci-fi - I think this same thing occurs when Vulcans do mindmelds (if I remember correctly). They can transfer thoughts and feelings.


Replying here so that I can write more when I get back to my laptop...

You just reminded me of something that polyamorists know about, but hasn't been talked about here. 

Compersion.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

maquiscat said:


> Unique and uncommon doesn't make it bad or unacceptable, as your first paragraph implies. Which is the point of many of us here.


The point is that these types of relationships very rarely last. And yes, I believe its wrong to try and normalize something like this when its almost certainly going to fail.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> The point is that these types of relationships very rarely last. And yes, I believe its wrong to try and normalize something like this when its almost certainly going to fail.


That's great...FOR YOU, and anyone who agrees with you.

But you don't get to tell anyone else what is "wrong" FOR THEM, when it doesn't affect your choices at all.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> The point is that these types of relationships very rarely last. And yes, I believe its wrong to try and normalize something like this when its almost certainly going to fail.


Now we have to look into the why of it not lasting. I wonder how many collapse from external pressures much as many monogamous marriages and relationships do? All that indicates is that external factors can affect any relationships, poly or mono. I mean the argument of relationships failing was also bright up for interracial and same sex marriages. Unless you are arguing that they too should never have been normalized.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

LisaDiane said:


> That's great...FOR YOU, and anyone who agrees with you.
> 
> But you don't get to tell anyone else what is "wrong" FOR THEM, when it doesn't affect your choices at all.


So unless we agree with open marriage, we are not allowed to speak our mind?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> So unless we agree with open marriage, we are not allowed to speak our mind?


There is a difference between "I don't like it. It's not for me." and "You are absolutely wrong in doing this." Unless, you think we should be able to claim monogamy wrong and unnatural.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> So unless we agree with open marriage, we are not allowed to speak our mind?


Not at all. Unless you can speak your mind with RESPECT for the other people who are different than you, you shouldn't share anything arrogant or hateful.

Disagree all you want, if you are able to do that respectfully...for example, the way YOU want to be talked to.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

maquiscat said:


> There is a difference between "I don't like it. It's not for me." and "You are absolutely wrong in doing this." Unless, you think we should be able to claim monogamy wrong and unnatural.


And an even bigger difference between, "I don't like it. It's not for me.", and, "You are ruining marriage and society for everyone with your immorality and disgusting choices."


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

maquiscat said:


> Now we have to look into the why of it not lasting. I wonder how many collapse from external pressures much as many monogamous marriages and relationships do? All that indicates is that external factors can affect any relationships, poly or mono. I mean the argument of relationships failing was also bright up for interracial and same sex marriages. Unless you are arguing that they too should never have been normalized.


I believe the issue is that people change physically and mentally as they get older. Priorities and what is important in life also changes.

Three people in a relationship may have a strong bond because they are carefree and enjoy going out or something else that bonds them. Over time, one or two of them might lose interest in that lifestyle. One of them might want to focus on building a career and start a family. This leads to people growing apart.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

LisaDiane said:


> Not at all. Unless you can speak your mind with RESPECT for the other people who are different than you, you shouldn't share anything arrogant or hateful.
> 
> Disagree all you want, if you are able to do that respectfully...for example, the way YOU want to be talked to.


Can you please point out to me what I said that was so disrespectful? Because it certainly feels like if I am not agreeing with you, then its disrespectful in your eyes.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> I believe the issue is that people change physically and mentally as they get older. Priorities and what is important in life also changes.
> 
> Three people in a relationship may have a strong bond because they are carefree and enjoy going out or something else that bonds them. Over time, one or two of them might lose interest in that lifestyle. One of them might want to focus on building a career and start a family. This leads to people growing apart.


That’s not really any different than a 1 on 1 monogamous relationship though. 

Those same things happen in traditional relationships.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

maquiscat said:


> There is a difference between "I don't like it. It's not for me." and "You are absolutely wrong in doing this." Unless, you think we should be able to claim monogamy wrong and unnatural.


Where have I said "You are absolutely wrong in doing this "?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> 🍿This has definitely turned into a case of who can use the fanciest and most technical words to make cheating on your spouse as not so bad and acceptable 🍿🍿🍿


How exactly are you cheating on a spouse who has agreed to every condition of the marriage? 

That's a rhetorical question.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

oldshirt said:


> That’s not really any different than a 1 on 1 monogamous relationship though.
> 
> Those same things happen in traditional relationships.


This is why I believe half of monogamous relationships fail. But this is also why I believe that most all open relationships fail.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Can you please point out to me what I said that was so disrespectful? Because it certainly feels like if I am not agreeing with you, then its disrespectful in your eyes.


Gladly....and it was even pointed out to you by another poster, but you refused to acknowledge it.



ThatDarnGuy! said:


> To me, an open relationship is telling your spouse you are only a fraction of what I want, but I want to keep you around while I date and/or fullfill the missing pieces with others or find someone else who is better.... the marriage is dead and you are only using each other as a convenience. You can word it however you want and use whatever adjective, study, statistic, etc. And it doesn’t matter if sex is involved or not, you are cheating on your spouse.
> 
> And yes, we are very different. I don't bite into this new age nonsense of using selective words and terms to make bad behavior sound not so bad. Such as, we practice and participate in an open marriage to fulfill our needs.....Nah, you are disrespecting your spouse and proving that you are not ready for marriage.





ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Just because others do something, that doesn't mean its right...... And I am here because people need to stand up to this nonsense. Too many people are just quietly sitting on the sidelines not saying anything in society. And its not just marriage either.





ThatDarnGuy! said:


> And the issue should be killed right away. There is no such thing as a healthy open relationship. And its not because of any traditions. Its because common sense says dating others and/or sleeping with others is very harmful to a marriage.





ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Facts don't care about your thoughts or choices. Open marriage is just a sugar-coated term for infidelity.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Three people in a relationship may have a strong bond because they are carefree and enjoy going out or something else that bonds them. Over time, one or two of them might lose interest in that lifestyle. One of them might want to focus on building a career and start a family. This leads to people growing apart.


For which we have the most oft repeated suggestion on this site for monogamous couples - get a divorce, if you can't manage the change.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

Cletus said:


> How exactly are you cheating on a spouse who has agreed to every condition of the marriage?
> 
> That's a rhetorical question.


Not rhetorical at all. A marriage is between two people, not two people and whomever else you want.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Where have I said "You are absolutely wrong in doing this "?


See my above reply to you, quoting just a few of your posts (certainly not all of them).
Your opinion is that ONLY YOUR OPINION is the moral, acceptable, unharmful way to engage in a relationship.

I find it very interesting that you cannot differentiate between disagreeing WITH respect and WITHOUT it.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> A marriage is between two people, not two people and whomever else you want.


FOR YOU.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Not rhetorical at all. A marriage is between two people, not two people and whomever else you want.


And who gets to decide that? The state or religion? 'Cause there are several examples of the latter who do not agree with you.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

LisaDiane said:


> Gladly....and it was even pointed out to you by another poster, but you refused to acknowledge it.


Words have no emotions and its easy to take things the wrong way. I am sorry if I offended you as I didn't mean to. But that is what I said and that is what I stand by. Its not rude, not nasty, its just my opinion. 

There have been many other posters on various subjects whose comments can be taken the wrong way, but they are truthful and correct.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Words have no emotions and its easy to take things the wrong way. I am sorry if I offended you as I didn't mean to. But that is what I said and that is what I stand by. Its not rude, not nasty, its just my opinion.
> 
> There have been many other posters on various subjects whose comments can be taken the wrong way, but they are truthful and correct.


You didn't offend me, but I cringe at the thought of you offending any of our members who practice ethical non-monogamy. We used to have fantastic, interesting, and very enlightening threads with those members' input, and now almost NONE of them post when the Morality Police descend onto a thread with their hostile objections and blanket judgments...and I hate seeing that happen now. 

When you state your opinion as if anyone who doesn't agree with you is totally wrong to have their own opinion, it IS rude and nasty and disrespectful. Your comments and opinions are ONLY truthful and correct FOR YOU.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

LisaDiane said:


> See my above reply to you, quoting just a few of your posts (certainly not all of them).
> Your opinion is that ONLY YOUR OPINION is the moral, acceptable, unharmful way to engage in a relationship.
> 
> I find it very interesting that you cannot differentiate between disagreeing WITH respect and WITHOUT it.


And your opinion is that, just your opinion. 

I find it very interesting that you do not seem to understand that in a forum, there are differences in opinions, and differences in viewpoints along with mixed conversations. There hasn't been any name calling, derogatory remarks, or personal insults.

Again, I am sorry if you find them disrespectful, But that is your opinion.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> This is why I believe half of monogamous relationships fail. But this is also why I believe that most all open relationships fail.


Anything that is more complex and has more moving parts is going to be more prone to hiccups and breakdowns.

But does that make it bad or wrong? 

Even in traditional marriages, is it really the end of the world if it doesn’t last forever?

And no marriage is the same in 10,20,40, 60 years than it was in the beginning. And no married has ever been what the newlyweds walking down the aisle thought it was going to be. 

Does that make it bad or wrong?


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> And your opinion is that, just your opinion.
> 
> I find it very interesting that you do not seem to understand that in a forum, there are differences in opinions, and differences in viewpoints along with mixed conversations. There hasn't been any name calling, derogatory remarks, or personal insults.
> 
> Again, I am sorry if you find them disrespectful, But that is your opinion.


I think you are willfully misunderstanding what I'm telling you. Which I guess makes sense.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

As'laDain said:


> Replying here so that I can write more when I get back to my laptop...
> 
> You just reminded me of something that polyamorists know about, but hasn't been talked about here.
> 
> Compersion.


ok, compersion...

so, one of the things that you will often see is that non-monogamous people will often claim an emotional response that differs from what monogamous people experience. it often ends up devolving into arguments about whether someone can truly love more than one person, or people claiming that it is impossible to love your spouse and not get jealous if she spends time with or has sex with another person. it goes beyond not just getting jealous. sometimes, they DO get jealous, and they work through that. but there is something else that happens often enough to merit its own discussion amon non-monogamous people: compersion. 

simply put, compersion is sharing in someones happiness. it is not "being happy for them", im talking about an emotion that is just as powerful and real as jealousy. its an emotional reaction, where someone experiences happiness/joy as a_* reaction *_to seeing their partner happy. even among non-monogamous people, this doesn't happen all the time, but it happens enough that it is often discussed. often, it hits people out of nowhere, and is just as consuming as jealousy. 

for people who are prone to react this way, it doesnt really matter _what_ makes their partner happy, just _that_ their partner is happy. for them, the mirror neurons responses are so strong that they feel incredibly happy _just from seeing it_.

this happens in monogamous relationships as well. when you see your partner ecstatic about that new promotion, or winning a competition, etc. and that is all expected and normal in most relationships. the reason why it gets discussed among non-monogamists is because society tells us that we are supposed to experience jealousy when our partners are happy because of their time and activities with someone else, so its surprising the first time a partner comes home from time spent with another partner and they experience compersion instead of jealousy. 

there is another thing that happens as well, called transference. this is where a person transfers emotions that one person elicits and, still experiences it while with another person. it is not a conscious decision. it just happens, the same way compersion or jealousy happens. in this case, if i am feeling exceptionally loved and happy after spending time with one partner, i _feel_ just as happy and loved when with another partner. the emotion doesn't just go away... i still _feel_ it regardless of where i am or who i am with. every once in a while, both compersion and transference get in full sync, and everyone in the polycule walks around with big smiles on their faces expressing love for each other all the time lol. 

none of this is unique to non-monogamy. it happens in most monogamous relationships as well. think about the last time you saw a newlywed couple that are excited as can be about spending their lives with "the one". the emotion they are experiencing won't last forever, everyone knows it. _they_ logically know it. at some point, they will have to work through stuff, they will experience other emotions, they will get stressed, etc. but at that moment, all they feel is joy, excitement, love, etc. 

the only real difference is that non-monogamous people don't try to limit all those experiences to and with one person. that doesn't mean that everyone is going to press their buttons. contrary to popular belief, non-monogamous people are just as picky as monogamous people. 

the only form of non-monogamy that has any prevalence of people that spend time trying to have sex with a bunch of people is swinging. they even call it a "game". most of them are courteous and smart enough to know better than try to go after people that are not into the lifestyle, but just like with monogamous people, some are assholes. unfortunately, non-monogamous people get painted with the worst of their individuals. you dont see monogamous people being viewed with suspicion because almost all cheaters in the world are in monogamous relationships...


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> The point is that these types of relationships very rarely last. And yes, I believe its wrong to try and normalize something like this when its almost certainly going to fail.


60% of second marriages fail 73% of third marriages fail, should divorced people never get remarried? Something being normalized has nothing to do with how likely any particular scenario will succeed or fail.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> The point is that these types of relationships very rarely last. And yes, I believe its wrong to try and normalize something like this when its almost certainly going to fail.


most monogamous relationships "fail" as well. non-monogamy may be wrong for you, but it isn't wrong for me.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

just wanted to point something out... if non-monogamy is all about sex, and a non-sexual partner is no different than a freind, then why the hell are people so upset about emotional affairs?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> I believe the issue is that people change physically and mentally as they get older. Priorities and what is important in life also changes.
> 
> Three people in a relationship may have a strong bond because they are carefree and enjoy going out or something else that bonds them. Over time, one or two of them might lose interest in that lifestyle. One of them might want to focus on building a career and start a family. This leads to people growing apart.


To start with, you are using a misconception that the three being together prevents the starting of a family.

With that said, how does any of that not apply to monogamy as well?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Cletus said:


> How exactly are you cheating on a spouse who has agreed to every condition of the marriage?
> 
> That's a rhetorical question.


"But....but.....but, that's adultery!"


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> So unless we agree with open marriage, we are not allowed to speak our mind?


Pretty much the message I’m getting, too. We’re country mice who need to keep quiet.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

LisaDiane said:


> Gladly....and it was even pointed out to you by another poster, but you refused to acknowledge it.


Preach it sister!


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

non-monogamy has actually made my own life easier. easier to raise a family, easier for us to pursue our careers, etc.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Pretty much the message I’m getting, too. We’re country mice who need to keep quiet.


Seems to be a lot of that going on in the world lately


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Pretty much the message I’m getting, too. We’re country mice who need to keep quiet.


making stuff up to be offended at again, i see.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Not rhetorical at all. A marriage is between two people, not two people and whomever else you want.


So then you are saying that Jacob was only married to Leah and was never married to Rachel?

This is before we look at the _fact_ that marriage has had a wide variety of combinations and applications across history and culture. One would have to rewrite history and the Bible in order to eliminate that.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Cletus said:


> And who gets to decide that? The state or religion? 'Cause there are several examples of the latter who do not agree with you.


And the former. Several cultures throughout history, and we have a currently practicing polyandry culture today.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> But that still doesn't explain why that romantic form has to be limited. There are all kinds of different forms of love. Explain why romantic love is the only one that is limited.


I think for me it is because it signals that she is uniquely special to me in this world. You don't have to limit romantic love if you so choose, but then you lose the special category reserved for only one person in the world.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Pretty much the message I’m getting, too. We’re country mice who need to keep quiet.


You're the victim here? Fascinating.

Only one side is pushing for the One True Properly Ordained Definition of Marriage here. It's not like it's even close. Throw in references to chattel slavery and ...


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Pretty much the message I’m getting, too. We’re country mice who need to keep quiet.


And what is the message we're getting with, "it's wrong and it should not be encouraged"?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> And your opinion is that, just your opinion.
> 
> I find it very interesting that you do not seem to understand that in a forum, there are differences in opinions, and differences in viewpoints along with mixed conversations. There hasn't been any name calling, derogatory remarks, or personal insults.
> 
> Again, I am sorry if you find them disrespectful, But that is your opinion.


so, you are totally fine with everyone reducing your spouses value to a peice of meat, nothing more than livestock, because you have sex, right? you have sex, so obviously that is all she is to you, just a piece of meat. otherwise, why would you be having sex? you can say whatever you want about it, but that is all your wife is worth to you. 

you find nothing disrespectful about that?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I think for me it is because it signals that she is uniquely special to me in this world. You don't have to limit romantic love if you so choose, but then you lose the special category reserved for only one person in the world.


Again, says who? Sure, for _you_ maybe that special category has only one slot, but that doesn't mean we are all limited to one slot nor that we are wrong for having more than one slot, not that we are wrong in encouraging people to determine for themselves without being told they are wrong the number of slots they have for that special category.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

As'laDain said:


> so, you are totally fine with everyone reducing your spouses value to a peice of meat, nothing more than livestock, because you have sex, right? you have sex, so obviously that is all she is to you, just a piece of meat. otherwise, why would you be having sex? you can say whatever you want about it, but that is all your wife is worth to you.
> 
> you find nothing disrespectful about that?


No more disrespectful then you passing around your wife to others like a piece of meat. See how that works? Works both ways


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> And what is the message we're getting with, "it's wrong and it should not be encouraged"?


I guess the difference is even though you have said over and over that I’m a small-minded prude, I’m ok with what I’m doing and I’m going to keep doing it. No one is stopping you, have sex with all the people you want and ignore the naysayers. Why do you need approval from people you hold in contempt? If I’m wrong and you’re right, then won’t that eventually come out in the end?
Again I ask, what is the endgame? I’m supposed to tell my husband to go have sex with other women? Would that make you happy?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Numb26 said:


> No more disrespectful then you passing around you wife to others like a piece of meat. See how that works? Works both ways


passing her around? what, you think i have bidders raising their hand, waiting for their turn? 

if you want to know what she actually feels about it, ask her. or, you can just keep making stuff up.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> No more disrespectful then you passing around you wife to others like a piece of meat. See how that works? Works both ways


Or treating sexual partners like pieces of meat?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I guess the difference is *even though you have said over and over that I’m a small-minded prude*, I’m ok with what I’m doing and I’m going to keep doing it. No one is stopping you, have sex with all the people you want and ignore the naysayers. *Why do you need approval from people you hold in contempt?* If I’m wrong and you’re right, then won’t that eventually come out in the end?
> Again I ask, what is the endgame? I’m supposed to tell my husband to go have sex with other women? Would that make you happy?


and when did that happen?

and why are you spending so much energy to put yourself in the victims chair in a situation that doesn't even remotely affect you?

if you want us to start calling you a prude and small minded, just say so. it would at least make more sense then the stuff you keep pulling out of your backside.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

As'laDain said:


> passing her around? what, you think i have bidders raising their hand, waiting for their turn?
> 
> if you want to know what she actually feels about it, ask her. or, you can just keep making stuff up.


You equated a man having sex with his wife as treating her as a piece of meat. Just showing you the fallacy of that thinking by showing you how ridiculous it sounded by turning it around.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Numb26 said:


> You equated a man having sex with his wife as treating her as a piece of meat. Just showing you the fallacy of that thinking by showing you how ridiculous it sounded turned around.


I'm not the one that equated it. I was pointing out that it is disrespectful to do so, because it had already happened. I _was_ turning it around. 

You trying to "turn it around" just brought it back 360.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Or would that be 180? Blah...


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

For the record, I only had an issue with @maquiscat claiming that there was no difference between romantic love for a spouse and parental love for a child.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Numb26 said:


> For the record, I only had an issue with @maquiscat claiming that there was no difference between romantic love for a spouse and parental love for a child.


that isnt what he claimed though. he said that love is not restricted to one person.

part of the confusion probably comes from the fact that english has only one word for love, while most other languages have multiple words. he is not suggesting that we love our romantic partners the same way we love our children. 

i typically avoid using that analogy, even though it is correct. i avoid it because someone usually argues against something that wasnt even stated to begin with. nobody claimed that people feel romantic love for their children. 

what he is saying is that people are capable of feeling paternal/maternal love for more than one child, and that people are capable of experiencing romantic love for more than one lover. if this weren't the case, then people would never cheat when they still love their spouse. non-monogamous people just remove the restriction of only being allowed to love one person romantically. that does NOT mean that they love their children _*the same way *_they love their partners, but it does recognize that humans are not restricted to loving only one person, regardless of the kind of love we are talking about.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> Again, says who? Sure, for _you_ maybe that special category has only one slot, but that doesn't mean we are all limited to one slot nor that we are wrong for having more than one slot, not that we are wrong in encouraging people to determine for themselves without being told they are wrong the number of slots they have for that special category.


Yes, you can put as many people in that status as your desire. I just feel that the amount of love you have available to give is finite. You only have so many minutes in a day to share that love. I don't want my time for her and her time for me to be reduced to accommodate one or more other people.


There may be a rare post here where the OP may benefit from your encouragement. The other 99.9% will be better served by getting an opinion about why it isn't a good idea to give into a request for this type of relationship.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> For the record, I only had an issue with @maquiscat claiming that there was no difference between romantic love for a spouse and parental love for a child.


FWIW, I don’t think @maquiscat meant it the way it may have sounded to you and I. I understand what he’s trying to say. You can have two children and love them equally but differently.

At the core of it I think it’s about the way you view sex. For some people it’s emotional, for some it’s just like racquetball. Those views are so incompatible that there’s really no middle ground. I do completely disagree that “tolerance” and “acceptance”equal “approval and participation.”


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> FWIW, I don’t think @maquiscat meant it the way it may have sounded to you and I. I understand what he’s trying to say. You can have two children and love them equally but differently.
> 
> At the core of it I think it’s about the way you view sex. For some people it’s emotional, for some it’s just like racquetball. Those views are so incompatible that there’s really no middle ground. I do completely disagree that “tolerance” and “acceptance”equal “approval and participation.”


My biggest problem is that, for me, there is a defining line between sex and emotion. They very rarely cross and when they do it is not something I am willing to share.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Yes, you can put as many people in that status as your desire. *I just feel that the amount of love you have available to give is finite. *You only have so many minutes in a day to share that love. I don't want my time for her and her time for me to be reduced to accommodate one or more other people.


This is YOUR opinion ONLY. 



BigDaddyNY said:


> There may be a rare post here where the OP may benefit from your encouragement. *The other 99.9% will be better served by getting an opinion about why it isn't a good idea to give into a request for this type of relationship.*


Again, this is YOUR opinion ONLY. Others do not agree with you, and arrange their relationships to meet their needs. YOUR way isn't necessarily the "best" way for everyone.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> My biggest problem is that, for me, there is a defining line between sex and emotion. They very rarely cross and when they do it is not something I am willing to share.


And this is why you want the freedom from judgment to conduct your sexual relationship choices YOUR way, even if it is immoral to other people (and they would be to many). 

I certainly couldn't "date" the way you do, but I would NEVER condemn you for that, because you are making the choices that work best for you, and I don't view it as my right at all to place MY sexual standards on anyone else.

I am happy for you that it works for you and you are enjoying your life!


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

BigDaddyNY said:


> There may be a rare post here where the OP may benefit from your encouragement. The other 99.9% will be better served by getting an opinion about why it isn't a good idea to give into a request for this type of relationship.


This I have to if not disagree with, at least question.

How many of the sexless marriages here _might_ be improved by having more than one possible sexual outlet available?

As I previously stated, I know of one asexual who is getting married to two others. This person would be required to forego marriage entirely, or be forced to limit their partner choice to other asexuals in a purely monogamous world. As part of a thruple, they might just thrive. 

Or how much easier might it be for low wage earners to have a stay at home parent when there are two others going into the world to pay the rent? 

I don't know the answers to these questions, or the many others I have not considered here, but I know that I don't know. I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily put a cap of .01% on it. Especially having lived through the era when gays were told "marriage just isn't for you. Sorry". 

Granted, in the context of this topic, having that request come out-of-the-blue in an already established monogamous relationship might be a big ask. But then again, it might come as a relief for some.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> This is YOUR opinion ONLY.
> 
> 
> Again, this is YOUR opinion ONLY. Others do not agree with you, and arrange their relationships to meet their needs. YOUR way isn't necessarily the "best" way for everyone.


Absolutely correct, it is my opinion that I am sharing. If I feel strongly that it is correct for the situation I will push it.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> FWIW, I don’t think @maquiscat meant it the way it may have sounded to you and I. I understand what he’s trying to say. You can have two children and love them equally but differently.
> 
> At the core of it I think it’s about the way you view sex. For some people it’s emotional, for some it’s just like racquetball. Those views are so incompatible that there’s really no middle ground. I do completely disagree that “tolerance” and “acceptance”equal “approval and participation.”


for me, sex is next to impossible for someone i dont already feel very comfortable with. when we first met, my wife was the one that pushed for sex. i wasnt quite ready for it, and if it hadnt been for the way she stood by me and cared for me when i fell deathly ill, i might not have gotten to the point where i was. 

a big part of the reason we push back about our relationships being reduced to sex is because you are missing the point and mischaracterizing our relationships completely. i litterally cannot have a one night stand. it has never happened, even when i meet someone while im completely drunk. there have been times when i was out with my buddies and woke up with a half naked attractive young woman trying to take my clothes off, and my reaction has always been to go for a walk and find somewhere else to sleep. 

so this idea that its all about sex is completely incorrect for most of us. i cannot have casual sex, i certainly couldn't pay a prostitute for sex. on a side note, i had a buddy pay a prostitue to sleep with me in germany once. i asked her what she would do after our "time" was over, she said she would go back to work. so i gave her enough money to spend the rest of the night with me. no, we didnt have sex. i had a pennywhistle and a flute that i used for self defense, so i spent the night teaching her how to play the pennywhistle while i played the shakuhachi, until my buddies were ready to head back to the hotel. 

in other words, stop telling us its all about sex. when you reduce all of it and compare _people_ to pieces of meat, not only are you missing the mark, you are dehumanizing the people involved.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> No more disrespectful then you passing around your wife to others like a piece of meat. See how that works? Works both ways


Hmmm....that sounds a lot like when men used to say (paraphrased) "not as disrespectful as letting your wife go out and work for a living" or many other things that we didn't let women do that we now allow.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Cletus said:


> Granted, in the context of this topic, having that request come out-of-the-blue in an already established monogamous relationship might be a big ask. But then again, it might come as a relief for some.


I will always encourage someone to seriously think twice, maybe three times, before considering any form of non-monogamy.


You are right that we could come up with some scenarios where some form of opening a marriage may be a viable solution, but that simply isn't what we see around here and isn't what this post was talking about. This post is about what we typically see here.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Absolutely correct, it is my opinion that I am sharing. If I feel strongly that it is correct for the situation I will push it.


That's fine. But then when you argue with and put down people who are also sharing THEIR opinions, you are being disrespectful, and obstructive. And defeating the purpose of the threads on TAM.

If you only post so you can persuade everyone that YOU are right and THEY are wrong, then I can't believe your purpose is to help anyone.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

maquiscat said:


> Hmmm....that sounds a lot like when men used to say (paraphrased) "not as disrespectful as letting your wife go out and work for a living" or many other things that we didn't let women do that we now allow.


Leave your white horse outside, nobody was attacking women.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I will always encourage someone to seriously think twice, maybe three times, before considering any form of non-monogamy.
> 
> 
> You are right that we could come up with some scenarios where some form of opening a marriage may be a viable solution, but that simply isn't what we see around here and isn't what this post was talking about. This post is about what we typically see here.


Your form of "encouragement" often sounds like bullying to me.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> Your form of "encouragement" often sounds like bullying to me.


Not the intent.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Numb26 said:


> Leave your white horse outside, nobody was attacking women.


hey, you are the one that said "passing your wife around", as if she were a belonging, when talking about consensual non-monogamy.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Grabbing popcorn....


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> Hmmm....that sounds a lot like when men used to say (paraphrased) "not as disrespectful as letting your wife go out and work for a living" or many other things that we didn't let women do that we now allow.


No. It doesn’t sound like that at all.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

As'laDain said:


> hey, you are the one that said "passing your wife around", as if she were a belonging, when talking about consensual non-monogamy.


And I was showing you how ridiculous you sounded with what you said. Didn't we already straighten this out? I don't think he read the thread


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

LisaDiane said:


> That's fine. But then when you argue with and put down people who are also sharing THEIR opinions, you are being disrespectful, and obstructive. And defeating the purpose of the threads on TAM.
> 
> If you only post so you can persuade everyone that YOU are right and THEY are wrong, then I can't believe your purpose is to help anyone.


Of all the people in this forum with whom I probably share almost nothing in core beliefs, I find @BigDaddyNY to be one of the most respectful. Not that I follow too closely. 

Isn't it understood that most of us are simply stating an opinion when we say something here, don't restate it 100 times, are reasonably respectful and don't beat people over the head with it? 

Do we really need the "it's only YOUR opinion" flair on every post?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

LisaDiane said:


> Lucky you that you've never had to consider anything else then.


I wouldn't consider it no matter what.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> I wouldn't consider it no matter what.


I guess you are a better woman than me then.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I guess the difference is even though you have said over and over that I’m a small-minded prude,


Actually no I've not said that. I am the one that says if monogamy is best for you then be monogamous; there's nothing wrong with that.



> I’m ok with what I’m doing and I’m going to keep doing it.


I'm ok with what you are doing (monogamy) and I want you to keep doing it. 



> No one is stopping you, have sex with all the people you want and ignore the naysayers. Why do you need approval from people you hold in contempt?


Transference. I'm not holding you in contempt. I am one of the ones being held in contempt by certain people. I mean, we have monogamous people on this forum who are not holding ENM types in contempt. As much as you strike back when you feel attacked, so do we. We don't call your lifestyle wrong. We only state it is wrong for us, and that other people don't have to follow it just because someone _claims_ it is better.



> Again I ask, what is the endgame? I’m supposed to tell my husband to go have sex with other women? Would that make you happy?


What was the end game for equality for blacks, for women, for LBGT+? What's is the end game for trying to get others to not attack these groups?

I have no issue when someone just shakes their head and says, "I don't get it. It just doesn't compute with me and I'll never do it". It's when someone comes out with, "You're wrong and you need to stop talking about this", as many on this thread alone, yet alone this forum, has said, that we strike back against being struck.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

LisaDiane said:


> I guess you are a better woman than me then.


You made that request as an attempt at a last resort and I think I can safely assume it was really the last thing you wanted. That is what I was trying to point out. That is a fairly common theme when someone come here to discuss some form of an open marriage.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> For the record, I only had an issue with @maquiscat claiming that there was no difference between romantic love for a spouse and parental love for a child.


Not exactly what I was saying. I was noting that there was no reason only one should be limited while the other is not. I did acknowledge different love types.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

As'laDain said:


> simply put, compersion is sharing in someones happiness. it is not "being happy for them", im talking about an emotion that is just as powerful and real as jealousy. its an emotional reaction, where someone experiences happiness/joy as a_* reaction *_to seeing their partner happy.


I guess I'd call that "mudita".


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> You made that request as an attempt at a last resort and I think I can safely assume it was really the last thing you wanted. That is what I was trying to point out. That is a fairly common theme when someone come here to discuss some form of an open marriage.


Well, when someone views their opinion as superior, especially morally, then they can become insensitive to how "sharing" their opinion can hurt other people. And often that's actually intentional.

That's why keeping an open mind and having a GENEROUS spirit, instead of telling people your way is the only right way, is the best way to promote communication and understanding...or else you might damage the way other people look at you and how they feel about you forever.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Yes, you can put as many people in that status as your desire. I just feel that the amount of love you have available to give is finite. You only have so many minutes in a day to share that love. I don't want my time for her and her time for me to be reduced to accommodate one or more other people.
> 
> 
> There may be a rare post here where the OP may benefit from your encouragement. The other 99.9% will be better served by getting an opinion about why it isn't a good idea to give into a request for this type of relationship.


i meant to reply to this, but got side-tracked.

as for the amount of time you have, yep. its finite. for most marriages, people spend most of their free time together. monogamy makes perfect sense in that case, if both people are happy. for some, being monogamous means lots and lots of time alone.

for instance, my wife and i. i have spent more of our marriage either away in training or away in a combat zone then i have at home with her. one of the things that helps, in our case, is me knowing that my wife has someone to support her while im deployed. and even beyond that, if i dont come back, she will have someone there for her to help her through her grief. that is not saying that her partners are just there to help her while im gone, but people often ask what the other spouse gets out of it. even if i were not involved with anyone else, that would still be a benefit from my perspective. the last thing i need to be worrying about when i am deployed is things back home. as it is, i have had enough close calls to worry about that.

where most people go wrong is by thinking that non-monogamy will actually fix anything. my wife having another partner doesnt fix anything in our own relationship. that said, you can see how we might choose non-monogamy in this case. one, im gone a lot. two, i dont get jealous by her spending time with, and even having sex with, her other partners. and three, we both genuinely feel happy when we see each other happy, so why not?

as it is, we have been through all kinds of stuff that kills most marriages, yet here we are still.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> What was the end game for equality for blacks, for women, for LBGT+? What's is the end game for trying to get others to not attack these groups?
> 
> I have no issue when someone just shakes their head and says, "I don't get it. It just doesn't compute with me and I'll never do it". It's when someone comes out with, "You're wrong and you need to stop talking about this", as many on this thread alone, yet alone this forum, has said, that we strike back against being struck.


First, thank you for the reasoned, lucid, good faith response. I appreciate that you don’t just point fingers and call names.

Second, I don’t think comparing your situation to black people being excluded from certain places or jobs because of the color of their skin or women being bought and sold like property and not allowed to support themselves, being forced to sell themselves to a man to survive, and gay people being afraid to walk outside without being beaten up is a strong comparison. No one is stopping you from doing what you’re doing; some internet strangers are hurting your feelings, that’s not the same. 

There will never exist a world in which all choices are celebrated. Tolerance is really the best we can hope for. I don’t recall anyone saying you shouldn’t be allowed to have multiple sex partners, but I use the ignore function a LOT. I also think that for example, when I say how I would feel about my husband having multiple partners, I’m describing what I feel. Those are MY feelings. I’m allowed to have them.
You’re allowed to feel differently. You can do whatever you like. As I’ve said before, I have swinger friends. I have my own opinions about how that’s going, but because opinions are like assholes and I don’t engage in a lifestyle where I show my asshole to everyone else, I figure I’ll do the same with my opinion. Until someone asks, like say, starts a thread and says why doesn’t everyone understand that swinging/swapping/open marriage is best or better and they should celebrate it. I also don’t think calling something a “kink” is automatically “kink shaming.” My “kink” is monogamy.

If people make you feel bad about your choices, I understand how you feel. How many times a day do I hear on here I’m a bad wife because I have an opinion and believe I should not be subjugated or I’m a bad mother because I have a job? No one likes criticism, but at the end of the day the only one we have to live with is ourselves. And after all, these are all just internet strangers.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Laurentium said:


> I guess I'd call that "mudita".


i had to look that up, but yes.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

TexasMom1216 said:


> If people make you feel bad about your choices, I understand how you feel. How many times a day do I hear on here I’m a bad wife because I have an opinion and believe I should not be subjugated or I’m a bad mother because I have a job?


Almost never, I'd wager. Honestly.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Numb26 said:


> For the record, I only had an issue with @maquiscat claiming that there was no difference between romantic love for a spouse and parental love for a child.


He did not say that. 

@maquiscat did not say that romantic love and parental love was the same.

YOU are one putting those words in his mouth that he did not say. 

He was using that as an example that people can love more than one person and that love is not like some finite amount of volume where you only have enough for one person.

Let me put this into my own words so that I do not misrepresent what someone else said myself.

A lot of people view love like a pie. The pie is only so big and there is a finite volume and once the pie is gone, it is gone.

So they believe that since there is only so much pie, the more people one tries to serve, the smaller the piece of pie everyone gets. 

And after a certain point, there is simply no more pie left and anyone else showing up gets none. 

The monogamy pie model is your partner gets all the pie and no one else gets any because that would take away from their allotment of pie. They get all of your pie and you get all of theirs. 

In the monogamy model, ingredients are scarce and the pie pan is small and the oven can only fit two pies. So only the two people can be allowed to have any pie and they have to keep it to themselves and not share or give any away. 

And for a lot of people that’s how they want it and it works for them. 

In the nonmonogamy world, the ingredients are abundant so there is o shortage of pie and the pie pans are big and the ovens are big and warm and can make lots of pie and there is enough for everyone. 

You can break this down further and say in polyamory everyone brings their own ingredients and pie pans to the kitchen and they all bake their pies together.

In open marriage if one is heading out, they make an additional pie and takes it with them for their other. 

And in swinging, everybody brings their own pie to the table with them. 

So Maquiscat was not saying that romantic love and parental love are the same (not the same pie so to speak) 

He was saying we all have lots of pie ingredients and the ability to make lots of pie and the ability to feed any number of people based on our own preferences and temperaments.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> First, thank you for the reasoned, lucid, good faith response. I appreciate that you don’t just point fingers and call names.
> 
> Second, I don’t think comparing your situation to black people being excluded from certain places or jobs because of the color of their skin or women being bought and sold like property and not allowed to support themselves, being forced to sell themselves to a man to survive, and gay people being afraid to walk outside without being beaten up is a strong comparison. No one is stopping you from doing what you’re doing; some internet strangers are hurting your feelings, that’s not the same.
> 
> ...


i dont think its too strong a comparison at all. to this day, people still lose jobs and have to deal with people trying to take their children away because of it. we still live in a world where i could go fight in war after war that this country sends me to, and then have all of my benefits stripped away and given a dishonorable discharge because of who i love. it was no different under DADT.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

oldshirt said:


> He did not say that.
> 
> @maquiscat did not say that romantic love and parental love was the same.
> 
> ...


yep. 

the best way i have heard non-monogamists describe it is like this:

imagine love as water coming out of a water hose. non-monogamists point the hose straight up, and anyone who gets too close is going to get wet. for monogamous people, its still a water hose, but its pointing at one person instead of spraying water everywhere like a fountain.

not a perfect analogy either, but i think it fits better.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

As'laDain said:


> imagine love as water coming out of a water hose. non-monogamists point the hose straight up, and anyone who gets too close is going to get wet. for monogamous people, its still a water hose, but its pointing at one person instead of spraying water everywhere like a fountain.


Eww.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

As'laDain said:


> imagine love as water coming out of a water hose. non-monogamists point the hose straight up, and anyone who gets too close is going to get wet. for monogamous people, its still a water hose, but its pointing at one person instead of spraying water everywhere like a fountain.





Cletus said:


> Eww.



I agree with the “Eww!” LOL

I don’t think that’s a good description at all. 

Putting water and pies aside, My point is we all have a lot more capacity for love that what we give others and ourselves credit for.

It’s not a scarce resource and we all have the ingredients to make as much as we want. 

It often comes down to how we view it and how much we think we need vs how much we think we can give.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> I agree with the “Eww!” LOL
> 
> I don’t think that’s a good description at all.
> 
> ...


@As'laDain has a situation where he just can't spend all his time with his wife due to physical distance for long stretches at a time, that sadly could become permanent due to combat. So neither are really losing anything by sharing that time and energy that they had available to them with others. Except, they are giving up exclusivity in their romantic lives. In his case it seems it is judged as a good trade off for the others things he and his wife gain. I can see the logic behind it. I also think that is a fairly unusual circumstance.

For me it comes down to time and energy spent. I may be able to feel love, of various types, for nearly an infinite number of people, so no, I guess that resource isn't scarce. However, time and a person's emotional energy and capacity for intimacy do have limitations. A ONS will eat away at some of that and if you are really trying to build a relationship with another person prior to taking it physical you are spending a ton of time and emotional energy dating someone other than your spouse. If my wife has some leftover emotional energy and intimate desires at the end of a day I want it directed at me and me alone. The reverse is true for me.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> The point is that these types of relationships very rarely last. And yes, I believe its wrong to try and normalize something like this when its almost certainly going to fail.


You're talking about traditional marriages here, right? They have a 40% or more failure rate, and at one time it was apparently over 50%. Let's not normalize marriage, as so many fail or are unhappy!

In my experience with poly romantic relationships, some may have a lifespan. If things end amicably because of changing needs and goals, that does not mean it failed. It simply means that poly relationships can be more flexible by their very nature, and can't be judged by the same criteria as traditional marriages and relationships. Different types of relationships may have a time, a reason, and a season - permanence (especially when in misery) is *not* a good measure of relationship success.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

Thank you everyone for a truly incredible read. I set the tablet down last night out of sheer frustration. I didn't plan on logging on tonight. I opened the browser to find the time for the Dropkick concert and this popped up. I've been reading it for 20 minutes. 9pm EST is the start time and it's free for anyone wondering.

I was never part of the lifestyle. I don't know all the terms. But I respect it. Even if it wouldn't work for me (I know my limits) it clearly works for others and I am honestly happy. Their happiness is exactly that, happiness. It has no impact on my marriage, no impact on me. I'm sorry if any of my posts led to confusion due to my lack of understanding of clear definitions. I enjoyed the banter, but it clearly got to heated and for my specific part I am sorry.

I do have questions. Multiple members have expressed that they are so passionate about their opinion that they stand up for it. They push it. They take it personal and they're reminded of past betrayals and they can't do it and they're forceful when they post that opinion. I quoted several and they seemed embarrassed and outraged by it. 

How is that emotional stance helpful? How is that any different from forcing your beliefs on others, willing them to see your side? I find it odd and disturbing that the ones who specifically posted claims of persecution are caught in quotes actively persecuting others. And instead of admissions of guilt or apologies they downplay it and sweep it under. Unfortunately it not only reflects on the individual, it reflects on the membership as a whole.

Happy St Pat's everyone. And if you don't celebrate or don't believe don't worry... I'm still happy and still happy for you. Follow your own path. Don't wait for others to beat the trail down for you...


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Cletus said:


> Of all the people in this forum with whom I probably share almost nothing in core beliefs, I find @BigDaddyNY to be one of the most respectful. Not that I follow too closely.
> 
> *Isn't it understood that most of us are simply stating an opinion when we say something here, don't restate it 100 times, are reasonably respectful and don't beat people over the head with it?*
> 
> Do we really need the "it's only YOUR opinion" flair on every post?


I wish that were the case. It doesn't seem to be lately.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> First, thank you for the reasoned, lucid, good faith response. I appreciate that you don’t just point fingers and call names.


I do try. Name calling doesn't get people anywhere. I also try to make sure that I keep separate facts and opinions, objective and subjective. I'm sure you've noticed by now that I rarely use things like "good" or "bad" as absolutes as do some others on here. I do my best to frame them as the subjectives that they are.



> Second, I don’t think comparing your situation to black people being excluded from certain places or jobs because of the color of their skin or women being bought and sold like property and not allowed to support themselves, being forced to sell themselves to a man to survive, and gay people being afraid to walk outside without being beaten up is a strong comparison. No one is stopping you from doing what you’re doing; some internet strangers are hurting your feelings, that’s not the same.


I won't agree that it is not the same, but it is currently not at the level that those issues ever got to. My hope is to make sure it never does get there. But there are people who are actively trying to make sure it doesn't happen. Were you aware of what the state of Utah tried to do to the family of Sister Wives? They never got around to actually doing it, but they were considering using their common law marriage laws to declare marriages between the husband and all three women, and then charge him with bigamy, even though he never sought to obtain legal status with all the women. Word got out and the family left the state and then sued. The case initially had been decided in their favor, thankfully before it was overturned. However, the reason it was overturned was not a decision that the state was right, but that the family had no standing to bring the case in the first place since the state never actually went through with it.

I made the comparision of those three in that order, because after one group was granted more freedoms, those opposed placed more pressure on the next group. Who do you think will be the next target? Either kinksters or ENM, of which I belong to both. Right now we can get away with a lot because we are not seeking any legal status. But what happens when the polys start wanting marriage rights? We'll end up the same as the other groups.



> There will never exist a world in which all choices are celebrated. Tolerance is really the best we can hope for. I don’t recall anyone saying you shouldn’t be allowed to have multiple sex partners, but I use the ignore function a LOT.


There are those who are saying that we shouldn't even be talking about it and that it is wrong and such. I agree that tolerance is the goal. I will never ask someone to approve of my choices, because then I would have to approve of theirs. And there are so many that I don't approve of. But my devotion to freedom is such that I will defend that which is revulsive to me simply to ensure that people have the freedom to choose it should they wish and will never tell them that they can't talk about it. Don't mean that I won't slam their bad arguments if they present them, but I do that for things I agree with as well, so....balanced.



> I also think that for example, when I say how I would feel about my husband having multiple partners, I’m describing what I feel. Those are MY feelings. I’m allowed to have them. You’re allowed to feel differently. You can do whatever you like. As I’ve said before, I have swinger friends. I have my own opinions about how that’s going, but because opinions are like assholes and I don’t engage in a lifestyle where I show my asshole to everyone else, I figure I’ll do the same with my opinion.


You are one of the better ones who make it clear that such things are not for you, unlike many others who are outright calling ENM wrong instead of wrong for them. So for that, thank you. 



> Until someone asks, like say, starts a thread and says why doesn’t everyone understand that swinging/swapping/open marriage is best or better and they should celebrate it. I also don’t think calling something a “kink” is automatically “kink shaming.” My “kink” is monogamy.


Pay attention. If anyone ever starts such threads, I will be among the first to point out that it is not the best, and that it is not for everyone. In fact, I can't think of any of the ENM people currently who would make that claim. We have others who might say we are, but we're not. We are also among the first ones to point out to people when they want to fix a marriage, that any form of ENM is not the way to go, unless the ONLY problem is a sexual one such as no function, asexual, or similar. Then it only becomes a maybe.



> If people make you feel bad about your choices, I understand how you feel. How many times a day do I hear on here I’m a bad wife because I have an opinion and believe I should not be subjugated or I’m a bad mother because I have a job? No one likes criticism, but at the end of the day the only one we have to live with is ourselves. And after all, these are all just internet strangers.


If anyone has ever called you a bad wife for having a job or expressing an opinion, I have not been on that thread to call them out. And believe me I would. I wouldn't even have to agree with your opinion. In the end, the only person or people who can make the claim, is your spouse(s), and if they are abusive, not even them. And you might even be a bad wife....for a given man. But that doesn't make you a bad wife for all other men. And that given man would also be a bad husband.....for you. But only the abusives are bad in general. And that is what ENM is like. It might be bad _for _some people, but that doesn't make it bad in general. And if it is abusive then it is neither ethical nor consensual, as shown by the FLDS in those compounds in Utah and surrounding states. We're not trying to make ENM the only or majority way, anymore than people wanted interracial or same sex marriage to be the only or majority way, despite all the opponents of those saying as much. And at the end of the day, I would hope that you would defend yourself and other working wives as much as we defend ourselves, and in the same manner, when being told women working is wrong.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Except, they are giving up *exclusivity* in their romantic lives. In his case it seems it is judged as a good trade off for the others things he and his wife gain.


The problem here is that you are ascribing exclusivity as something all people want. That is part of our point. Sure that might be a majority view, but that doesn't make our view wrong as a whole. This isn't the goal of everyone, and we are not bad for not desiring exclusivity in our relationships, intimate or otherwise.



> For me it comes down to time and energy spent. I may be able to feel love, of various types, for nearly an infinite number of people, so no, I guess that resource isn't scarce. However, time and a person's emotional energy and capacity for intimacy do have limitations. A ONS will eat away at some of that and if you are really trying to build a relationship with another person prior to taking it physical you are spending a ton of time and emotional energy dating someone other than your spouse. If my wife has some leftover emotional energy and intimate desires at the end of a day I want it directed at me and me alone. The reverse is true for me.


Which is wonderful for you guys, because that is what you want. It's a part of who you are, and I for one celebrate that. But we don't tell you that you are making bad choices for engaging in monogamy.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

BigDaddyNY said:


> @As'laDain
> 
> For me it comes down to time and energy spent. I may be able to feel love, of various types, for nearly an infinite number of people, so no, I guess that resource isn't scarce. However, time and a person's emotional energy and capacity for intimacy do have limitations. A ONS will eat away at some of that and if you are really trying to build a relationship with another person prior to taking it physical you are spending a ton of time and emotional energy dating someone other than your spouse. If my wife has some leftover emotional energy and intimate desires at the end of a day I want it directed at me and me alone. The reverse is true for me.


This is something that @LisaDiane had brought up in an earlier post and that I had mentioned a page or two after that. 

What you mention above is what I believe drives a lot of why most people opt for monogamy when our basic, primal natures don't want limitation. 

You state your love is not scarce and you can feel love for an infinite number of people,,,,, but you essentially want ALL of your wife's love and attention focused on you and don't want it subdivided towards anyone else.. 

THERE IT IS!


I'm not pointing fingers at you because I believe all 7 billion other people on earth feel the same way to one degree or another including myself.

Our basic human nature is selfish and self serving. At our core we want it all. We want unlimited access and unlimited options and opportunities - but we want our mates all for ourselves and their focus to be on us. 

But, unless we are Soloman or Genghis Khan or Helen of Troy or Cleopatra, that is not realistic. Only the most rich and powerful men and most beautiful women can enter into that realm. 

So at the end of the day it boils down to how much we value our partner's exclusivity and what we are willing to pay and sacrifice for it. For most, that sacrifice comes in the form of our own exclusivity and commitment. We sacrifice our own nature to secure the other's exclusivity. And we do that on the assumption (hope?) that they sacrifice their nature for our exclusivity and commitment. 

It becomes a form a calculus for each individual, what do we value more and what and how much are we willing to sacrifice.

Do we value our partner's exclusivity more than our own nature and are willing to give up sexual freedom and variety as a man or the quest for a superior mate as a woman? 

Or do we value our freedom and quest of other/better options open and don't commit to exclusivity or commitment at all and remain single? 

Do we make promises of exclusivity and commitment in the light of day and then exercise our primal nature in the shadows on the down low (ie cheating)

Or do we work out some kind of middle ground and compromise with our partner where each get to exercise some leeway within certain parameters to where they can maintain the relationship and it's benefits while still being able to exercise some of their primal natures?

Those are our 4 basic options and it's something we all have to face and work out within ourselves and with our partner(s) as we go through life.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

crashdawg said:


> I was never part of the lifestyle. I don't know all the terms. But I respect it. Even if it wouldn't work for me (I know my limits) it clearly works for others and I am honestly happy. Their happiness is exactly that, happiness. It has no impact on my marriage, no impact on me. I'm sorry if any of my posts led to confusion due to my lack of understanding of clear definitions. I enjoyed the banter, but it clearly got to heated and for my specific part I am sorry.


If you ever want to learn more, feel free to ask those of us who are ENM. I did have a thread up a while back along the title lines of Ask a Poly Anything. It would probably be a zombie thread by now, so I don't recommend asking in the thread itself.

The only thing I will put out here and now is something I teach in my BDSM 101 class, but it really applies to all of life. In the end there are only two rules:

Rule #1: Consent is mandatory.
Rule #2: With the exception of rule #1, there is no one true way.

Most of the basic ideals will remain consistent, although the labels not so much.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> The problem here is that you are ascribing exclusivity as something all people want. That is part of our point. Sure that might be a majority view, but that doesn't make our view wrong as a whole. This isn't the goal of everyone, and we are not bad for not desiring exclusivity in our relationships, intimate or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is wonderful for you guys, because that is what you want. It's a part of who you are, and I for one celebrate that. But we don't tell you that you are making bad choices for engaging in monogamy.


I did see that point clearly. Sorry to keep singling him out, but he gave such a great example. @As'laDain made it clear that the other things he got from his polyamorous relationships had a greater value for him than exclusive romantic and sexual access to his wife. 

I realize this can be a viable choice for some. I still struggle internally with letting go of the idea that marriage is meant to be exclusively between two people. In my view anything that deviates from that is deviating from the ideal. It doesn't mean it is wrong, but there is something about the situation that is driving the need for a solution that deviates from the ideal. Yes, my ideal, not necessarily someone else's. However, my posts and point of view will always be based on what I think is the ideal situation for a marriage. I do really try to do that without bullying or being disrespectful, but no one is perfect.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> You state your love is not scarce and you can feel love for an infinite number of people,,,,, but you essentially want ALL of your wife's love and attention focused on you and don't want it subdivided towards anyone else..
> 
> THERE IT IS!
> 
> ...


Absolutely no argument from me. I do want all of my wife's romantic love. I have no problem with sharing her non-romantic love with our kids, our family members, close friends and even her kindergarten students that are all like her children. The romantic stuff, that is all mine. 




oldshirt said:


> So at the end of the day it boils down to how much we value our partner's exclusivity and what we are willing to pay and sacrifice for it. For most, that sacrifice comes in the form of our own exclusivity and commitment. We sacrifice our own nature to secure the other's exclusivity. And we do that *on the assumption (hope?) * that they sacrifice their nature for our exclusivity and commitment.


Or, on the solemn promise of marriage vows. 



oldshirt said:


> It becomes a form a calculus for each individual, what do we value more and what and how much are we willing to sacrifice.
> 
> Do we value our partner's exclusivity more than our own nature and are willing to give up sexual freedom and variety as a man or the quest for a superior mate as a woman?
> 
> ...


How about a 5th option. What if I feel so strongly that I am meant to be exclusive to my wife that I'm not sacrificing anything to be exclusive? It is just who I am? I honestly don't feel like I am sacrificing anything by being exclusive with my wife. On the contrary, I feel like I would be sacrificing something by not being exclusive with my wife. And I'm not talking about sacrificing her exclusivity to me. I want that, but I am saying that I would be sacrificing something by me no longer being exclusive to my wife.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

BigDaddyNY said:


> How about a 5th option. What if I feel so strongly that I am meant to be exclusive to my wife that I'm not sacrificing anything to be exclusive? It is just who I am? I honestly don't feel like I am sacrificing anything by being exclusive with my wife. On the contrary, I feel like I would be sacrificing something by not being exclusive with my wife. And I'm not talking about sacrificing her exclusivity to me. I want that, but I am saying that I would be sacrificing something by me no longer being exclusive to my wife.


That sounds romantic and endearing and all, but it's still calculus. 

Your desire for other romantic/sexual experiences with other people are less than your desire for a stable and secure relationship with her and less than your desire for her sexual exclusivity to you. 

That is probably true for most couples. 

But other people can have other values on those parameters and that does not make them wrong or bad or that their relationships are fundamentally flawed or lesser. It just means they view it differently and they value some things more and some things less than you.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

It’s about whether sex is an emotional thing or just a meaningless physical thing. Bottom line, that’s what it is. If sex is meaningless, fidelity is a sacrifice. But if it’s something emotional and special, fidelity feels natural. The important thing is to find someone who feels about it the same way you do. Poly folks connect differently.

I’m almost jealous, I wish sex didn’t mean anything to me. I bet it’s easier when it doesn’t mean anything.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It’s about whether sex is an emotional thing or just a meaningless physical thing. Bottom line, that’s what it is. If sex is meaningless, fidelity is a sacrifice. But if it’s something emotional and special, fidelity feels natural. The important thing is to find someone who feels about it the same way you do. Poly folks connect differently.


Different people connect differently, that much is true. 

But it's not necessarily all or nothing. It's not like behind one curtain is an "emotional thing" with love and commitment and marriage and family etc and behind Curtain #2 is a "meaningless physical thing" and those are the only two curtains and the only two options to pick from. There are lots of curtains and lots of various options and combinations and permutations. 

How much emotion does there have to be to count as meaningful? How do you even measure emotion. Does an emotional level 4 count but level 3 doesn't? 

Is physical always meaningless or can physical count too at some point? If the physical component is meaningless, should these people that haven't had physical affection or sex in a year but claim the other aspects of their relationship is good, should they shut their mouths and quit complaining because the physical component of a relationship is meaningless?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> If the physical component is meaningless, should these people that haven't had physical affection or sex in a year but claim the other aspects of their relationship is good, should they shut their mouths and quit complaining because the physical component of a relationship is meaningless?


if the person is in an open marriage, then a year without sex wouldn’t happen. They would go out and get it somewhere else.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It’s about whether sex is an emotional thing or just a meaningless physical thing. Bottom line, that’s what it is. If sex is meaningless, fidelity is a sacrifice. But if it’s something emotional and special, fidelity feels natural. The important thing is to find someone who feels about it the same way you do. Poly folks connect differently.
> 
> I’m almost jealous, I wish sex didn’t mean anything to me. *I bet it’s easier when it doesn’t mean anything*.


i wouildnt know. sex is anything but meaningless to me. you are making stuff up again.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> if the person is in an open marriage, then a year without sex wouldn’t happen. They would go out and get it somewhere else.


And you know this how?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> if the person is in an open marriage, then a year without sex wouldn’t happen. They would go out and get it somewhere else.


That did not address the questions at all. 

How much emotion is enough to be meaningful? 

And if physical is meaningless, then what should we do with all these people who are complaining that their partner hasn't touched them in a year but claim they love each other?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> That did not address the questions at all.
> 
> How much emotion is enough to be meaningful?
> 
> And if physical is meaningless, then what should we do with all these people who are complaining that their partner hasn't touched them in a year but claim they love each other?


What we are seeing with partners who haven’t had sex in a year is situations where they are exclusive. Where the partner who is refusing sex is also not letting their partner go outside the marriage for sex.

So the partner refusing sex either needs to free their spouse to find someone else to find an emotional bond or release them from fidelity. Those are always the people who say “it’s just sex, why can’t you do without?” To them I say, “if it’s just sex, then let your spouse go get it somewhere else.”

As to “how much emotion,” this feels like a trap, but any. If you don’t attach emotion to sex then you don’t attach emotion to sex. You attach in other ways. I’m not a proponent of the “sliding scale” of emotion that says cheating is ok because “it’s different with you.” We’ve discussed this. It either means something or it doesn’t. It can be meaningless until you are with someone with whom it means something, but it’s not a light switch. At least, in my world it isn’t. Maybe some people are fine with that. I am not. It’s just my personal view. Which I am allowed to have.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I did see that point clearly. Sorry to keep singling him out, but he gave such a great example. @As'laDain made it clear that the other things he got from his polyamorous relationships had a greater value for him than exclusive romantic and sexual access to his wife.
> 
> I realize this can be a viable choice for some. I still struggle internally with letting go of the idea that marriage is meant to be exclusively between two people. In my view anything that deviates from that is deviating from the ideal. It doesn't mean it is wrong, but there is something about the situation that is driving the need for a solution that deviates from the ideal. Yes, my ideal, not necessarily someone else's. However, my posts and point of view will always be based on what I think is the ideal situation for a marriage. I do really try to do that without bullying or being disrespectful, but no one is perfect.


I was actually thinking about this earlier (my thought not your post here) and that I should point out that you are actually one of the better ones who hasn't been so directly blanket statement about ENM being wrong. Then ......granchildren! Bedtime is probably not the best time to do postings.

And I like to think of it more in terms of the norm (statistically speaking) as opposed to the ideal. Especially since I realize that any given ideal is not universal. I honestly believe that monogamy is the most common natural state of humans. Not to say that there were not times when polygamy (usually polygyny) was the more advantageous. But neither path has ever been the only one.

So thank you for what understanding you do bring, and for having our back when others have misrepresented us. I have noticed.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It’s about whether sex is an emotional thing or just a meaningless physical thing. Bottom line, that’s what it is. If sex is meaningless, fidelity is a sacrifice. But if it’s something emotional and special, fidelity feels natural. The important thing is to find someone who feels about it the same way you do. Poly folks connect differently.
> 
> I’m almost jealous, I wish sex didn’t mean anything to me. I bet it’s easier when it doesn’t mean anything.


Why can't sex be both? And in this, I am going with the assumption that you mean emotionally meaningless. If it was physically meaningless why have sex at all?

Why can't sex with my wives be something emotional and involved and meaningful, while any sex I have with women I am not in an emotional relationship with be just for the fun and physical pleasure of it?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> if the person is in an open marriage, then a year without sex wouldn’t happen. They would go out and get it somewhere else.


ROFL! It's not always that easy. Nor does being in an open relationship mean that you are always looking. Being open only means that the option is there, not that you are constantly taking it. I'm poly as well as open, but I am not actively looking for a 4th spouse. If a person happens along who is spouse potential, well now we have that option to take him or her in as our 5th.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> What we are seeing with partners who haven’t had sex in a year is situations where they are exclusive. Where the partner who is refusing sex is also not letting their partner go outside the marriage for sex.
> 
> So the partner refusing sex either needs to free their spouse to find someone else to find an emotional bond or release them from fidelity. Those are always the people who say “it’s just sex, why can’t you do without?” To them I say, “if it’s just sex, then let your spouse go get it somewhere else.”
> 
> As to “how much emotion,” this feels like a trap, but any. If you don’t attach emotion to sex then you don’t attach emotion to sex. You attach in other ways. I’m not a proponent of the “sliding scale” of emotion that says cheating is ok because “it’s different with you.” We’ve discussed this. It either means something or it doesn’t. It can be meaningless until you are with someone with whom it means something, but it’s not a light switch. At least, in my world it isn’t. Maybe some people are fine with that. I am not. It’s just my personal view. Which I am allowed to have.


You most certainly are allowed to have those views. And we're not going to tell you they are wrong. But neither are ours, which is what we are getting told by others (not you).

Sex itself doesn't mean a thing to me in and of itself. I can handle things on my own if I need to. But some activities are more fun with partners. But sex with a person with whom I have an emotional attachment to....that means something. Right now it means that there are two people with whom sex has emotional meaning. For me, I would say that it is a light switch, but I'm not the one who flips it.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

maquiscat said:


> Why can't sex be both? And in this, I am going with the assumption that you mean emotionally meaningless. If it was physically meaningless why have sex at all?
> 
> Why can't sex with my wives be something emotional and involved and meaningful, while any sex I have with women I am not in an emotional relationship with be just for the fun and physical pleasure of it?


Every single person who ever cheated on me used this excuse. “It didn’t mean anything. It was just sex. It’s different with you cause I lurve you.” What a complete load of garbage. If she’s a piece of ass, so am I. I don’t want to be a piece of ass, so we’re done. (Not “we,” as in you and I, but we as in that cheater and me.). Upon this I will not bend. I’m either nothing or I’m not. There is no in between. Sex is very emotional for me. I’m not interested in being used. This isn’t something I will compromise on. I never knew until I came here that I was wrong to believe in my own worth and yet here you are telling me I don’t deserve to be valued. I’m going to step away from this. My son needs his father and he’ll choose me, if I tell my husband to start having sex with other people he’ll ask for a divorce.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Every single person who ever cheated on me used this excuse. “It didn’t mean anything. It was just sex. It’s different with you cause I lurve you.” What a complete load of garbage. If she’s a piece of ass, so am I. I don’t want to be a piece of ass, so we’re done. (Not “we,” as in you and I, but we as in that cheater and me.). Upon this I will not bend. I’m either nothing or I’m not. There is no in between. Sex is very emotional for me. I’m not interested in being used. This isn’t something I will compromise on. I never knew until I came here that I was wrong to believe in my own worth and yet here you are telling me I don’t deserve to be valued. I’m going to step away from this. My son needs his father and he’ll choose me, if I tell my husband to start having sex with other people he’ll ask for a divorce.


Actually, I think he is saying you do deserve to be valued and you get to choose how that happens. In your case it is that sex is all about the emotional connection and that it is only between you and your husband. I feel the same way. However, he is saying that for him he can have that sexual/emotional connection with more than one person as well as have non-emotional/recreational sex with others. For him sex does not always include an emotional connection or an exclusive emotional connection, it's non-binary, but rather on a spectrum of sorts. I'm assuming his wives feel the same, so they feel valued. You and I need sexual exclusivity to feel fully valued by our spouse.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Every single person who ever cheated on me used this excuse. “It didn’t mean anything. It was just sex. It’s different with you cause I lurve you.” What a complete load of garbage. If she’s a piece of ass, so am I. I don’t want to be a piece of ass, so we’re done. (Not “we,” as in you and I, but we as in that cheater and me.). Upon this I will not bend. I’m either nothing or I’m not. There is no in between. Sex is very emotional for me. I’m not interested in being used. This isn’t something I will compromise on. I never knew until I came here that I was wrong to believe in my own worth and yet here you are telling me I don’t deserve to be valued. I’m going to step away from this. My son needs his father and he’ll choose me, if I tell my husband to start having sex with other people he’ll ask for a divorce.


Something to keep in mind. ENM people do not believe in cheating anymore than monogamous people do. Going behind backs is wrong even for us. We're an open marriage as well as poly, but if any one of my spouses were to step out without telling us, that's wrong!

And it's not wrong for _you_ to want that exclusivity. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. You know who you are and what you want. Don't compromise! I don't. I know I am poly and open and I make sure that it is put out there front and center. You and I would never make it together, but on the plus side, I would never have cheated on you because you would have known from the start what I was. You very much deserved to be valued as you see it. Please do not think I have ever claimed otherwise. The only think I have claimed with regards to that is that each person has their own view as to what makes them valued. For some exclusivity is key to being valued, and that's great. But that is not the key for everyone. I have two wives and a husband. They feel valued and I feel valued by them. But that is us, and we don't expect you to hold to the same standard. We just ask not to be held to other people's standard of being valued.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Actually, I think he is saying you do deserve to be valued and you get to choose how that happens. In your case it is that sex is all about the emotional connection and that it is only between you and your husband. I feel the same way. However, he is saying that for him he can have that sexual/emotional connection with more than one person as well as have non-emotional/recreational sex with others. For him sex does not always include an emotional connection or an exclusive emotional connection, it's non-binary, but rather on a spectrum of sorts. I'm assuming his wives feel the same, so they feel valued. You and I need sexual exclusivity to feel fully valued by our spouse.


GMTA!


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Actually, I think he is saying you do deserve to be valued and you get to choose how that happens. In your case it is that sex is all about the emotional connection and that it is only between you and your husband. I feel the same way. However, he is saying that for him he can have that sexual/emotional connection with more than one person as well as have non-emotional/recreational sex with others. For him sex does not always include an emotional connection or an exclusive emotional connection, it's non-binary, but rather on a spectrum of sorts. I'm assuming his wives feel the same, so they feel valued. You and I need sexual exclusivity to feel fully valued by our spouse.


I would be lying if I said I believe that people can switch that on and off. Also, no, he is not saying I’m valuable. It’s precisely the opposite, just like his buddy who said my husband would be better off with a Labrador retriever than with me. I’m nothing, and I’m depriving my husband it seems of the joy of sex with other people. Ugh, sometimes this place really gets under my skin. I can’t get younger, no matter what I do. I’m supposed to shut down and watch the man I love leave me becuase I can’t get younger. Seems really unkind. There are some really awful people in the world.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I would be lying if I said I believe that people can switch that on and off. Also, no, he is not saying I’m valuable. It’s precisely the opposite, just like his buddy who said my husband would be better off with a Labrador retriever than with me. I’m nothing, and I’m depriving my husband it seems of the joy of sex with other people. Ugh, sometimes this place really gets under my skin. I can’t get younger, no matter what I do. I’m supposed to shut down and watch the man I love leave me becuase I can’t get younger. Seems really unkind. There are some really awful people in the world.


Maybe you _should_ stay out of these threads. You keep interpreting damned near everything as an attack on you. 

The victim chair isn't even there, so stop trying to sit in it.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> I would be lying if I said I believe that people can switch that on and off. Also, no, he is not saying I’m valuable. It’s precisely the opposite, *just like his buddy who said my husband would be better off with a Labrador retriever than with me.* I’m nothing, and I’m depriving my husband it seems of the joy of sex with other people. Ugh, sometimes this place really gets under my skin. I can’t get younger, no matter what I do. I’m supposed to shut down and watch the man I love leave me becuase I can’t get younger. Seems really unkind. There are some really awful people in the world.


Who was that? I missed it. Your husband would only be better of with the lab if he didn't love you. Since I am not getting that vibe, then whoever said that is full of it. Got a post number? I might have to go back for that one. My husband is on this forum, but he hasn't been in any of these threads, so it's not him you're talking about.

You are valuable and deserving of being valued. But only you can define that which makes you valued and that criteria doesn't apply to anyone else. Just as the criteria that makes me or my wives or my husband feel valued doesn't apply to you.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

maquiscat said:


> I'm poly as well as open


Sorry but can you remind me what that distinction is?


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Every single person who ever cheated on me used this excuse. “It didn’t mean anything. It was just sex. It’s different with you cause I lurve you.” What a complete load of garbage. If she’s a piece of ass, so am I.


I can see why you say some of the things you do. I don't think I've ever been cheated on.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

maquiscat said:


> Something to keep in mind. ENM people do not believe in cheating anymore than monogamous people do. Going behind backs is wrong even for us. We're an open marriage as well as poly, but if any one of my spouses were to step out without telling us, that's wrong!


Yes. There's this bigger question, maybe too big for this thread, about (as Paul Simon says) "the meaning of a marriage contract". What do we commit to when we commit to each other? If it's just _"no sex with anyone else"_, that seems like a very impoverished concept of commitment. What happened to loving and honoring?


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Laurentium said:


> Sorry but can you remind me what that distinction is?


Keeping in mind the two rules I mentioned earlier in the thread, typically when one talks about an open relationship or swinging, sex is the primary goal. Polyamory, which can eventually include polygamy, has the relationship foremost in mind. This might even mean that sex is not a part of it. Just as we note emotional affairs here, so too can something just be an emotional relationship. And there can be some overlap as well, especially in that aspect of no one true way with what each label exactly means. Swinging almost always means that marriage is involved, but that label is being used currently in a very broad way. For some, it only applies if it's a married couple with other married couples. For others, married people with married people, but as couples isn't necessary. And still others would considered it where a married person is having sexual relationships outside his marriage whether the other person is married or not. Consent and knowledge is assumed in all of these.


----------



## emergentstar (10 mo ago)

As a newbie, this was a really informative thread. Open marriage or polyamory is nothing that I would be interested in/ comfortable with (for my husband who may read this…I REPEAT I HAVE NO INTEREST SO PLEASE DON’T WORRY). 

And…I do think it’s a legitimate choice between consenting adults who don’t need to be shamed for their choices. 

And…it sounds like it’s a tactic that some partners have used to manipulate their partners.

And…done well, with proper communication and boundaries, can be really successful. 
And…absent that communication/boundaries would be a recipe for disaster. 

All that to say that like many things, it’s super complex and individual results may vary.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Laurentium said:


> Yes. There's this bigger question, maybe too big for this thread, about (as Paul Simon says) "the meaning of a marriage contract". What do we commit to when we commit to each other? If it's just _"no sex with anyone else"_, that seems like a very impoverished concept of commitment. What happened to loving and honoring?


How do different people define loving and honoring? What I consider them to be might not be the same as what you consider them to be. And for this purpose, I am eliminating the legal marriage contract, because in the end, the law does not require love, sex or children. The legal marriage can be a marriage of convivence, and power to those who want to use it that way, if they are honestly setting themselves up for a LT stable household. To me, if your marriage falls apart because the government no longer recognizes it legally, then you never had a real marriage at all. But that's the key right there. To me. For others that government recognition is very important. And I don't mean in the same way that interracial couples or same sex couples were fighting for. They already had their unrecognized marriages, and were only fighting for the legal benefits for the most part. There is no one true way. A marriage contract is what the couple, or more if poly, make of it and define it to be. It's why I can challenge others to prove that I have violated any marriage vow I took. They never will be able to. They will assume vows I never took, and they will apply their own criteria to other aspects, when the only person it is important to is my spouses.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

TexasMom1216 said:


> Also, no, he is not saying I’m valuable. It’s precisely the opposite, just like his buddy who said my husband would be better off with a Labrador retriever than with me. I’m nothing, and I’m depriving my husband it seems of the joy of sex with other people. Ugh, sometimes this place really gets under my skin. I can’t get younger, no matter what I do. I’m supposed to shut down and watch the man I love leave me becuase I can’t get younger. Seems really unkind. There are some really awful people in the world.


If you are going to keep coming on here saying people have told you that your husband would be better off with a labrador retriever and that people are telling you that you need to let your husband get with other people and telling you that you are a country bumpkin because you don't screw other people,, you are going to have to start posting those quotes and showing us exactly who said those things and where they said them. 

Because I have not seen one single person tell you that you should open your marriage or that you are less-than for being monogamous. 

I have seen many people telling you that you have been putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say. But I have not seen one single comment where someone has said that you are wrong or less-than for being monogamous or that you should be getting with other people. 

I will back up @maquiscat offer that if you quote any of these people that are telling you these things and show us who and where that was said, I will also go back and correct them and stand up for your right to be monogamous and have a traditional relationship and inform them that traditional monogamy is perfectly valid relationship paradigm and that no one should be disparaged or cajoled for choosing monogamy over nonmonogamy. 

But in order to do that, I need to see the actual quotes from the actual threads where those things are being said.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

maquiscat said:


> How do different people define loving and honoring? What I consider them to be might not be the same as what you consider them to be.


For sure. I'm trying to understand this space. And the way my mind works, I tend to come down to mundane sounding details. I'd want a marriage where my partner would discuss it with me before, for example, getting a tattoo, or changing their career, or booking a long solo holiday in another country. And some will see this as me thinking they need my _"permission"_. It's not that. But I'd need them to care what I think and what the impact is on me. Other people may want to be much more loosely connected. (Maybe this is why I'm single).


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Laurentium said:


> For sure. I'm trying to understand this space. And the way my mind works, I tend to come down to mundane sounding details. I'd want a marriage where my partner would discuss it with me before, for example, getting a tattoo, or changing their career, or booking a long solo holiday in another country. And some will see this as me thinking they need my _"permission"_. It's not that. But I'd need them to care what I think and what the impact is on me. Other people may want to be much more loosely connected. (Maybe this is why I'm single).


And there is nothing there that would show a difference between monogamy and any kind of ENM. Granted if you're open only to have outside sexual activity, the you wouldn't necessarily be worried about that person save in the context of your meet ups. But for poly, well that's pretty much how my marriage is. Yeah, it's not permission, but the keeping each other informed of major changes and doings.


----------



## Slowhand (Oct 8, 2021)

oldshirt said:


> There’s been a few threads by men who’s partner’s have suggested or outright stated that they want an open marriage/relationship.
> 
> Without talking about any of the specifics or those individuals or any discussion of the theological or religious implications of open marriage, I do want to discuss some of what I see taking place in much of the threads we see here on TAM.
> 
> ...


Much of what you said is true IMHO.


----------



## fluffycoco (May 29, 2021)

Is open marriage more like two roommates with some benefits? If have no kids, maybe okay ?


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

The only exposure I had to an open marriage was the couple with us at the diner who ran into their partner. I'd posted about it earlier. The exact way they explained it is they never stopped dating. She loved Aerosmith... we're talking huge fan. He loved symphonies (LA Philharmonic for example). So when Aerosmith came to town the husband bought her a ticket but the boyfriend went (he paid for his ticket). While they were out the girlfriend would take him to Disneyland (he was a huge Disney fan, his wife wasn't). They had set boundaries, no physical intimacy. For them they said it was "never stopped dating". But again that's my incredibly limited exposure.

They described themselves as an open marriage. So that was the term I used on here. More specifically they said they always kept an open relationship that evolved into an open marriage. The surreal comment was " I really don't like Aerosmith, he does, so I'd bring the mood down by being there and he'd amplify it. She gets a higher high with him next to her" and the same was said about the Disneyland date... They cared so much about each other's experience, and physical intimacy was reserved for husband and wife.

Like I said limited exposure on my part. I'm not interested in the lifestyle but I am curious about the proper definitions and terminology. Hopefully that would avoid confusion.

To be CLEAR, because it's come up before, I don't think most initial posts on TAM are reflective of a healthy relationship much less a healthy open relationship. All of the "wants open" I've read have been ultimatums, not realistic discussions within a healthy relationship. I don't think there's enough interest in healthy open relationships to warrant another forum. I also don't think most of our membership is qualified to provide healthy advice to a couple seeking information on an open relationship. I've said it MULTIPLE times but I keep having to restate it...

I also assume every relationship is different. People may always be open or they may open up their relationship (or marriage) at different times. They also assign their own boundaries. Assuming everyone is a Swinger, or everyone opens up at X year because posters on here did, is painting with a very broad brush.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

fluffycoco said:


> Is open marriage more like two roommates with some benefits? If have no kids, maybe okay ?


No, because the couple still have intimate and romantic feelings towards each other and are committed to the relationship. Of course there are always outsiders who want to define their commitment for them instead.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

crashdawg said:


> The only exposure I had to an open marriage was the couple with us at the diner who ran into their partner. I'd posted about it earlier. The exact way they explained it is they never stopped dating. She loved Aerosmith... we're talking huge fan. He loved symphonies (LA Philharmonic for example). So when Aerosmith came to town the husband bought her a ticket but the boyfriend went (he paid for his ticket). While they were out the girlfriend would take him to Disneyland (he was a huge Disney fan, his wife wasn't). They had set boundaries, no physical intimacy. For them they said it was "never stopped dating". But again that's my incredibly limited exposure.
> 
> They described themselves as an open marriage. So that was the term I used on here. More specifically they said they always kept an open relationship that evolved into an open marriage. The surreal comment was " I really don't like Aerosmith, he does, so I'd bring the mood down by being there and he'd amplify it. She gets a higher high with him next to her" and the same was said about the Disneyland date... They cared so much about each other's experience, and physical intimacy was reserved for husband and wife.
> 
> Like I said limited exposure on my part. I'm not interested in the lifestyle but I am curious about the proper definitions and terminology. Hopefully that would avoid confusion.


Noting how I have said that there is no one true way and people can use labels differently, this typically would fall under poly, especially since there is no sex, and there are emotional relationships going on. Poly doesn't require sex. Far too many people have this false assumption that an intimate relationship has to include sex. It may be true that _they _need sex for an intimate relationship, but the false assumption is that ALL require it.




> To be CLEAR, because it's come up before, I don't think most initial posts on TAM are reflective of a healthy relationship much less a healthy open relationship. All of the "wants open" I've read have been ultimatums, not realistic discussions within a healthy relationship. I don't think there's enough interest in healthy open relationships to warrant another forum. I also don't think most of our membership is qualified to provide healthy advice to a couple seeking information on an open relationship. I've said it MULTIPLE times but I keep having to restate it...
> 
> I also assume every relationship is different. People may always be open or they may open up their relationship (or marriage) at different times. They also assign their own boundaries. Assuming everyone is a Swinger, or everyone opens up at X year because posters on here did, is painting with a very broad brush.


To be sure, many try to enter into ENM for the wrong reason, or thinking that it will be instinctually easy. I myself have advised against it many time. Other times it's unclear where their motives lie, so I provide pro and con and warnings. I actually assume that most people are monogamous, because that is the statistically safe bet. I just keep my eyes...and mind....open and provide such advice as warrented.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

maquiscat said:


> many try to enter into ENM for the wrong reason, or thinking that it will be instinctually easy. I myself have advised against it many time. Other times it's unclear where their motives lie, so I provide pro and con and warnings. I actually assume that most people are monogamous, because that is the statistically safe bet. I just keep my eyes...and mind....open and provide such advice as warrented.


Two very different thoughts are about to transpire in the same space.

ENM is one of many acronyms and abbreviations I am not familiar with. I think a clear definition of various terms would be beneficial to me, and to the group.

Monogamy's status as the dominant socially accepted relationship has a lot to do with the historical spread of Christianity and the eradication of other cultures, languages, social hierarchies, traditions and religions. It's a point previous posters neglected to mention. Forced conversion at the tip of a sword tends to have that impact. History is a subject I do enjoy. There's a reason most of South America speaks Spanish and Brazil speaks Portuguese.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

crashdawg said:


> ENM is one of many acronyms and abbreviations I am not familiar with. I think a clear definition of various terms would be beneficial to me, and to the group.


ENM: Ethical Non-Monogamy, also sometimes referred on here as CNM: Consensual Non-Monogamy

Rough breakdown: ENM/CNM is where people engage in multiple intimate (physical and/or emotional) relationships at the same time, and typically the label stays with people who do so even if the individual is in only one or no relationships at the time.

Open relationship/marriage tends to be about sex only. For some people there is always some kind of emotional tie to someone other than their partner when they are with them, but it's not the want to spend my life you you type.

Swinging usually refers to open marriage, and there is a variety of applications for the label right now. For the more old fashion, swinging is where both (or all if a poly marriage) spouses of a marriage trade partners with those of another marriage. More modern swingers will say that if either spouse of a marriage is having sex outside the marriage that counts as swinging. Somewhere in the middle having sex outside the marriage with another married person, even if your own spouse and/or theirs is not present.

Polyamory is a new term for an old concept. Multiple intimate emotional relationships. It was coined with two base concepts in mind. One, all involved parties are aware of the who and what (within certain reason),and two, while it is assumed sex will be a common element, it is not a required element. The focus was to be on the emotional relationship. If the relationship evolves into marriage, that becomes polygamy. Polygamy means multiple spouses and does not have any indication of the number of husbands or wives. My specific marriage falls under this category as we have two husbands and two wives. Polygyny is a specific subset of polygamy, and is specifically 1 husband and multiple wives. Due to it's similar pronunciation to polygamy, it is often mislabeled as polygamy. Polyandry is a subset of polygamy also, but is 1 wife, multiple husbands. There is at least one polyandrous society still in the world today, and there are lots of isolated polyandry marriages (not necessarily legally recognized) throughout the world, as well as polygyny and polygamy marriages. Poly groups have many different names for themselves, but the most common are polyqules (spelling may be off) or poly units. They also have many different configurations. Not all poly groups reside in a single house, but when they do the most common term for that is kitchen table poly.

Does that help?


----------

