# progressive love, is it for you...



## anonim

A very interesting (and possibly ) discussion about "progressive love." Progressive Love, Is It For You.... - YouTube

Take a listen to this and put your thoughts out here!

The woman is kenya stevens operator of the jujumama blog (http://www.jujumamablog.com/) Her life style is definately outside of the norm!

I'll add more content later, but I have to go to work right now so...


----------



## waiwera

No I just couldn't. 
I don't share my toys very well.

Cool if it works for others though.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I've never tried it but doubt I'd be ok with it. I won't judge those who choose to live this way but I can't see myself taking someone's relationship seriously if they drop that little detail on me.


----------



## costa200

Self justifying crap... And what is that of an "open marriage"? That's an oxymoron! Call it all you want but that's no marriage in my book. What distinguishes friends with benefits from an "open marriage"?


----------



## Almostrecovered

progressive is just another word for socialist!!



oh wait this isn't the politics forum


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

Didn't watch it but based on what others have written in this thread, it's about open marriage. I'd never go for an open marriage.


----------



## Shoto1984

For me there has to be something reserved and special that is only for the marriage. If you're going to have feelings/sex with another then you're robbing the marriage of energy that is the point of being married. I agree with Costa, an open marriage isn't a marriage.


----------



## TrustInUs

I only watched the first 3 minutes but no I couldn't live like that. To each their own, but I can't understand the point of being married if you can have boyfriends/girlfriends outside the marriage. I can't sitting around the dinner table with my husband and his girlfriend.


----------



## Maricha75

She posted a few months ago spouting that nonsense. I believe her thread was deleted and she got banned because she tried to tell people that we who think marriage is between TWO people, and not to include LOVERS, were closed minded. Sorry, Open Marriage will not work for me. Like Waiwera said, I don't share my toys. My husband is mine, I am his. NO ONE has a place in it. After reading her posts here before, I won't look at her site.... not without commenting with a vomit smiley, that is.


----------



## Viseral

That's the worst garbage I've seen in a long time. Why would anyone give credence to these clowns??...


----------



## anony2

Personally, I love her work, we have both her/her husbands books and I think they are spot on. I am also on her forum, get emails from her daily and talk to her occasionally on facebook.


----------



## anonim

waiwera said:


> No I just couldn't.
> I don't share my toys very well.
> 
> Cool if it works for others though.





ScarletBegonias said:


> I've never tried it but doubt I'd be ok with it. I won't judge those who choose to live this way but I can't see myself taking someone's relationship seriously if they drop that little detail on me.





TrustInUs said:


> I only watched the first 3 minutes but no I couldn't live like that. To each their own, but I can't understand the point of being married if you can have boyfriends/girlfriends outside the marriage. I can't sitting around the dinner table with my husband and his girlfriend.


Fairest opinions to date IMO, If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with it or you.




costa200 said:


> Self justifying crap... And what is that of an "open marriage"? That's an oxymoron! Call it all you want but that's no marriage in my book. What distinguishes friends with benefits from an "open marriage"?


How do you find it self justifying?

I think that its called an open marriage because you should be open about what you are doing instead of sneaking around.

_"What distinguishes friends with benefits from an open marriage?"_

I think the answer is the same thing that distinguishes friends from your marriage partner.



Almostrecovered said:


> progressive is just another word for socialist!!
> 
> oh wait this isn't the politics forum


There's nothing wrong with being progressive OR socialist, so I'm at a slight loss to what exactly you mean. Care to expand or are you just being satirical?



Plan 9 from OS said:


> Didn't watch it but based on what others have written in this thread, it's about open marriage. I'd never go for an open marriage.


Please watch it before you comment, else how can you constructively add to the discussion?



Shoto1984 said:


> For me there has to be something reserved and special that is only for the marriage. If you're going to have feelings/sex with another then you're robbing the marriage of energy that is the point of being married. I agree with Costa, an open marriage isn't a marriage.


Interesting opinion to me. 

_"there has to be something reserved and special that is only for the marriage."_ Why?

And do you mean "an open marriage isn't a marriage" _for you_, or that it isn't a marriage period? 

If the latter,why do you define how the marriages of other people instead of allowing their definition for their own marriage (if applicable)




Maricha75 said:


> She posted a few months ago spouting that nonsense. I believe her thread was deleted and she got banned because she tried to tell people that we who think marriage is between TWO people, and not to include LOVERS, were closed minded. Sorry, Open Marriage will not work for me. Like Waiwera said, I don't share my toys. My husband is mine, I am his. NO ONE has a place in it. After reading her posts here before, I won't look at her site.... not without commenting with a vomit smiley, that is.


Its one thing to say that 'something doesn't/cannot/will not work for me' but its another to say 'something is nonsense.'

One is stating an opinion the other, judgmental.
Even if the majority of a group share the same judgmental idea, its still a judgmental idea.

Being open minded (in your context you gave) means acknowledging that ideas (that do not originate from you) exist, and being able to think about and consider them, (not that you have to consider choosing that idea) and if someone rejects an idea without thinking about it, then that _is _being close minded.

It's a shame that thread was deleted though, I would like to have seen it.



Viseral said:


> That's the worst garbage I've seen in a long time. Why would anyone give credence to these clowns??...


keep criticism constructive. On that much at least, they are ahead of you.


----------



## zookeeper

I'm sure there is a very small group of people this would work for, but for the vast majority it would not be workable long-term unless the feelings for the spouse are rather ambivalent. Jealousy is a very natural human emotion. I don't see many people who have strong feelings for their spouse being able to tolerate the knowledge that he/she is sharing intimacy with someone else. Just look at how people here freak out just from finding a fairly innocuous text message from their spouse to a "friend." 

It's not for me.


----------



## anony2

I think that most people think that by saying 'open marriage' that Kenya means that you can go out and screw whomever you want...


which is totally opposite what she actually says.


----------



## anonim

zookeeper said:


> I'm sure there is a very small group of people this would work for, but for the vast majority it would not be workable long-term unless the feelings for the spouse are rather ambivalent. Jealousy is a very natural human emotion. I don't see many people who have strong feelings for their spouse being able to tolerate the knowledge that he/she is sharing intimacy with someone else. Just look at how people here freak out just from finding a fairly innocuous text message from their spouse to a "friend."
> 
> It's not for me.


It's ironic to me how so many people have affairs to some degree but will not consider any degree of open marriage.

Maybe it is because of jealousy, which is as you say, a very strong natural emotion. Jealousy is also a very selfish emotion, not to be confused with people that have jealousy being selfish, I'm talking about the emotion itself.

I suspect that how people react/respond in this context is a social construction and is not inherent in human behavior.


----------



## anonim

anony2 said:


> I think that most people think that by saying 'open marriage' that Kendra means that you can go out and screw whomever you want...
> 
> 
> which is totally opposite what she actually says.


I've read that in many open marriages, a partner has to get their spouses approval before they engage with a third party.


----------



## zookeeper

anonim said:


> It's ironic to me how so many people have affairs to some degree but will not consider any degree of open marriage.
> 
> Maybe it is because of jealousy, which is as you say, a very strong natural emotion. Jealousy is also a very selfish emotion, not to be confused with people that have jealousy being selfish, I'm talking about the emotion itself.
> 
> I suspect that how people react/respond in this context is a social construction and is not inherent in human behavior.


Even people who have affairs don't want their partner to have one. I don't see that as ironic at all. Just because a person betrays their spouse doesn't mean they want to be betrayed in return.

The fact that affairs occur in secret tells you that most people know how hurtful and damaging sharing sexual and emotional intimacy with someone outside the marriage will be. Few cheat thinking what they are doing is acceptable. If they did, they would be upfront about it and call it something like "progressive love" or "open marriage." I knew one guy who tried this with a girlfriend years ago. He was all gung-ho when she agreed that they could see other people. As soon as she met another man he was beside himself and it ended up killing the relationship. 

I find it shocking that it ever works.


----------



## Maricha75

I would rather remain "closed minded" and have sex only with my husband than be considered "open minded" and risk STDs in an open marriage. And yes, as long as there are more partners involved in the sex life, there are more STD risks. Not worth the risk for me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> I would rather remain "closed minded" and have sex only with my husband than be considered "open minded" and risk STDs in an open marriage. And yes, as long as there are more partners involved in the sex life, there are more STD risks. Not worth the risk for me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What makes you think that you have to have sex with someone else for it to be an open marriage? 

I used to think like this too, but after reading her book, I could see her point totally. An open marriage isn't about having sex with other people, it is about openly talking to your spouse about your feelings instead of going behind your spouse and cheating on them.


----------



## anonim

Maricha75 said:


> I would rather remain "closed minded" and have sex only with my husband than be considered "open minded" and risk STDs in an open marriage. And yes, as long as there are more partners involved in the sex life, there are more STD risks. Not worth the risk for me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


close mindedness is not the choices one makes, its the refusal to see that there are choices.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I think it would shock the heck out of people if they knew how many of their friends and family members engage in the open marriage lifestyle.


----------



## anonim

ScarletBegonias said:


> I think it would shock the heck out of people if they knew how many of their friends and family members engage in the open marriage lifestyle.


That is because society conditions people to be judgmental of non-traditional relationship models.

Ideally, if everyone/thing in a relationship was consensual there is nothing wrong with it.


----------



## anonim

zookeeper said:


> Even people who have affairs don't want their partner to have one. I don't see that as ironic at all. Just because a person betrays their spouse doesn't mean they want to be betrayed in return.
> 
> The fact that affairs occur in secret tells you that most people know how hurtful and damaging sharing sexual and emotional intimacy with someone outside the marriage will be. Few cheat thinking what they are doing is acceptable. If they did, they would be upfront about it and call it something like "progressive love" or "open marriage." I knew one guy who tried this with a girlfriend years ago. He was all gung-ho when she agreed that they could see other people. As soon as she met another man he was beside himself and it ended up killing the relationship.
> 
> I find it shocking that it ever works.


Its also not socially acceptable to acknowledge having sexual or emotional desires for people that are not your spouse when you are married. The sad thing is that not being able to be open about it is that it forces those desires to be secret, which makes ones mind a breeding ground for other secrets.


----------



## zookeeper

anonim said:


> Its also not socially acceptable to acknowledge having sexual or emotional desires for people that are not your spouse when you are married. The sad thing is that not being able to be open about it is that it forces those desires to be secret, which makes ones mind a breeding ground for other secrets.


Fair enough, but that's a far cry from an open marriage. Those who are too selfish and immature to accept that no person can meet their every need and desire have no business getting married. I can't recall ever attending a weeding that didn't include the words, "forsaking all others" in the vows. This attitude is a big part of the reason that divorce rates are so high and cheating is so rampant. Too many people seem to think that if they deserve and must have their every whim to be accomodated. Compromise is the the glue that binds a healthy marriage. Anyone who goes through life expecting all their need to be met is in for a rude awakening.

There's a thread here about a guy who says that since his wife (who pleases him sexually in every other way) doesn't want to allow him anal sex he will see a prostitute because he just can't go his whole life not having experienced it. This sense of entitlement is the societal construct.

Now if a couple discusses this before getting married and both agree to sharing each other with other people, I see no harm. How often do you suppose that happens?


----------



## zookeeper

ScarletBegonias said:


> I think it would shock the heck out of people if they knew how many of their friends and family members engage in the open marriage lifestyle.


It would shock the heck out of me if you could provide anything to substantiate your implication that open marriages are commonplace. Please shock me.


----------



## anonim

zookeeper said:


> Fair enough, but that's a far cry from an open marriage. Those who are too selfish and immature to accept that no person can meet their every need and desire have no business getting married. I can't recall ever attending a weeding that didn't include the words, "forsaking all others" in the vows. This attitude is a big part of the reason that divorce rates are so high and cheating is so rampant. Too many people seem to think that if they deserve and must have their every whim to be accommodated. Compromise is the the glue that binds a healthy marriage. Anyone who goes through life expecting all their need to be met is in for a rude awakening.
> 
> There's a thread here about a guy who says that since his wife (who pleases him sexually in every other way) doesn't want to allow him anal sex he will see a prostitute because he just can't go his whole life not having experienced it. This sense of entitlement is the societal construct.
> 
> Now if a couple discusses this before getting married and both agree to sharing each other with other people, I see no harm. How often do you suppose that happens?


i agree 100% that some people are too selfish to be married, open or closed, for the reasons you outlined.

And '_forsaking all others_' is subject to personal interpretation and discussion with your spouse. It wouldn't even apply to atheists/agnostics since you are referring to the religious ceremony.

I can see what you are saying about entitlement being a societal construct.



zookeeper said:


> It would shock the heck out of me if you could provide anything to substantiate your implication that open marriages are commonplace. Please shock me.


They are more common than talked about. People don't talk about them for fear of judgement.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

zookeeper said:


> It would shock the heck out of me if you could provide anything to substantiate your implication that open marriages are commonplace. Please shock me.


Look,just because you're pissy about the topic doesn't mean you get to be pissy toward me for saying those marriages are more common than people like to believe.

Do the research,go shock yourself..it's not my job to educate you.


----------



## pidge70

ScarletBegonias said:


> Look,just because you're pissy about the topic doesn't mean you get to be pissy toward me for saying those marriages are more common than people like to believe.
> 
> Do the research,go shock yourself..it's not my job to educate you.


Every day I swear I <3 you a little more!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

pidge70 said:


> Every day I swear I <3 you a little more!


----------



## amorous_1

Weren't you the one who made the claim about how common they are? Doesn't that put the burden of proof on you? I thought that was how it was supposed to work.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Riptide said:


> Weren't you the one who made the claim about how common they are? Doesn't that put the burden of proof on you? I thought that was how it was supposed to work.


in an anon forum of strangers,there is no burden of anything.If you don't believe it,research it yourself.


----------



## Chumpless

I knew a guy from a while back who got into hard drugs and ended up sharing his wife with his dope buddy, together.

Needless to say, once he got clean and woke up, him and his wife packed their bags together and moved as far away as they could from their warped lifestyle.


----------



## zookeeper

ScarletBegonias said:


> Look,just because you're pissy about the topic doesn't mean you get to be pissy toward me for saying those marriages are more common than people like to believe.
> 
> Do the research,go shock yourself..it's not my job to educate you.


Thanks for the answer. Clearly you don't have anything other than a desire for this to be the truth to base your statement on. I'm not pissy about the topic, but perhaps I don't have high tolerance for those who make outrageous claims with absolutely nothing to back it up.

So be it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScarletBegonias

ROFL seriously man,get over yourself. There were no outrageous claims made. I didn't give numbers,statistics,or state anything was fact. I gave an opinion that I think people would be shocked to know what really goes on in people's marriages. I know I was shocked when several people around me were revealed to be in open marriage situations. I never said it was common,I just said it's shocking to know when you find out.

I didn't present figures,statistics,or any sort of factual information that would warrant links to back anything up.

Had I said "I think people would be shocked to know 48.3% of their friends and family members are in open marriages" THEN you could get on your high horse and expect proof.


----------



## Enginerd

I don't care what two adults agree to do in their relationship. This is a form of freedom I want to have myself. However I am curious how this is handled with children involved. Do you tell them what's going on? Does affect their stability when they figure out Mom and Dad have other partners?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Hmmm, interesting. To me, it's just a repackaging of the thing that has existed as long as marriage has existed. Open marriages is something that works for some people. All the power to them. I know I could NEVER do that. Sex for me is more than a physical act. I found a woman who means everything to me. I made a commitment to her that she would be my one and only outlay of love and emotion (including sex). An open marriage is of NO interest to me.

Now that said. Here's what I DO take issue with. 

1. The audacity to use the term "progressive love". Progressive is a term used to indicate change over time and improvement. People who get into these movements (open marriages isn't a movement, but this is) use wordings and attitudes in a hypocritical fashion. "Your close minded, don't judge us" while taking this attitude that they're somehow "Enlightened" and think in a more "open non-judgmental way". THAT'S what I can't stand. No you think DIFFERENT, not better, not more enlightened, just DIFFERENT. We can agree to disagree but take your pompous attitude about it and walk if you go that route.

Here is the definition of Progressive. So because I don't believe the same, I guess I'm not progressive. 

Definition of PROGRESSIVE
1
a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress
b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities
c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
2
: of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3
: moving forward or onward : advancing 

So, have your open marriage. Enjoy your multiple sex partners. But take this pompous attitude of somehow having a "SUPERIOR" way to love and have a marriage and go back in time and join a commune. Grow your own organic vegetables. Sew your own clothes from the hemp fabric you've woven. Sing around your campfires and I'll see you in another 30 years when the next person comes up with a fad approach to justify open marriages.

But no....YOUR LOVE ISN'T PROGRESSIVE!!


----------



## GTdad

Dad&Hubby said:


> But no....YOUR LOVE ISN'T PROGRESSIVE!!


I laughed at the label. If other couples want to go the open marriage route, more power to them. But to label it "progressive", which storngly implies (to me, at least), that such a lifestyle is generally superior to non-open marriages, seems pretty damn presumptuous.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

anony2 said:


> What makes you think that you have to have sex with someone else for it to be an open marriage?
> 
> I used to think like this too, but after reading her book, I could see her point totally. An open marriage isn't about having sex with other people, it is about openly talking to your spouse about your feelings instead of going behind your spouse and cheating on them.


My wife and I are 100% open with each other. We talk about who we find attractive. We talk about fantasies etc. But we will never ever physically touch someone else. Is ours an OPEN marriage...I'd say no. We both have said. If either strays = marriage over. No ifs ands or buts. We make sure we put enough into each other to make sure that the other wouldn't stray.



anonim said:


> Its also not socially acceptable to acknowledge having sexual or emotional desires for people that are not your spouse when you are married. The sad thing is that not being able to be open about it is that it forces those desires to be secret, which makes ones mind a breeding ground for other secrets.


BS. Sorry but that's totally BS. EVERYONE knows that EVERY SINGLE person has fantasies or finds other people attractive etc. It's what you do from there that makes the difference.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

ScarletBegonias said:


> ROFL seriously man,get over yourself. There were no outrageous claims made. I didn't give numbers,statistics,or state anything was fact. I gave an opinion that I think people would be shocked to know what really goes on in people's marriages. I know I was shocked when several people around me were revealed to be in open marriage situations. I never said it was common,I just said it's shocking to know when you find out.
> 
> I didn't present figures,statistics,or any sort of factual information that would warrant links to back anything up.
> 
> Had I said "I think people would be shocked to know 48.3% of their friends and family members are in open marriages" THEN you could get on your high horse and expect proof.


I completely understand what you're saying SB. You're right too. I've known over 20 "open" marriages in my life. Keep in mind, you have to be close enough to these people to see it so that's probably 20% of the marriages that I know that "intimately". I'm rounding numbers here but you get the idea. I also think it depends where you live. You'll probably find more open marriages on the coasts than in the midwest. 

Not passing judgements, but more liberal thought generally breeds more liberal behavior.


----------



## Shaggy

anonim said:


> It's ironic to me how so many people have affairs to some degree but will not consider any degree of open marriage.
> 
> Maybe it is because of jealousy, which is as you say, a very strong natural emotion. Jealousy is also a very selfish emotion, not to be confused with people that have jealousy being selfish, I'm talking about the emotion itself.
> 
> I suspect that how people react/respond in this context is a social construction and is not inherent in human behavior.


I call BS on jealousy being a selfish emotion.

Being upset and angry at you spouse betraying and cheating is often labelled a jealousy, and that's being done here too, it's not selfish to demand someone that you are loyal to, be loyal to you.

This is just babble double talk often used by charlatans and con artists to twist conversations and make their garbage sound reasonable.

Open marriages are not reasonable and are not marriages at all. Marriages are about faithfulness and loyalty.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> What makes you think that you have to have sex with someone else for it to be an open marriage?


Three separate dictionary sites, among many others I glanced at the beginning description of the definition on other sites, ALL stated the definition of "open marriage", specifically, as *extramarital sexual relationships*. 



anony2 said:


> I used to think like this too, but after reading her book, I could see her point totally. An open marriage isn't about having sex with other people, it is about openly talking to your spouse about your feelings instead of going behind your spouse and cheating on them.


Speaking openly with your SPOUSE about your feelings isn't an "open marriage"..that is open COMMUNICATION. But the part about "telling your spouse instead of cheating on them"...sorry, that has a ring of "I'm going to do this, regardless of what you feel. I would prefer you support me in it, though." Gee, yea, when you put it that way.... 

No, sorry, still won't work for me. And as Dad&Hubby said, that isn't progressive... that's coming up with a new term to make an open marriage, or extramarital relationships, more attractive and get more people open to the idea of having sex with someone other than their spouse. Nope, that doesn't work for me. I will never see THAT as an attractive option.



anonim said:


> close mindedness is not the choices one makes, its the refusal to see that there are choices.


People all have their own choices to make. But to say I am closed minded, as are others, when she POSTED ON THE INFIDELITY FORUM??? Really? Yea, I'm sorry, but that was a stupid choice to make... not exactly a smart decision to post "progressive love" to a bunch of people who have been rocked to the core by someone who wanted to open the marriage...without TELLING first. Yep, makes PERFECT sense. So, if judging her by the stupid choice she made THEN makes me closed minded, well, so be it. I acknowledge that people make those choices for themselves. Don't care what they do in their bedrooms, as long as they don't try to recruit me.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Three separate dictionary sites, among many others I glanced at the beginning description of the definition on other sites, ALL stated the definition of "open marriage", specifically, as *extramarital sexual relationships*.


Which is not REQUIRED, she teaches about monogamy first and foremost. Had you read any of her information, you would have known that, instead I think that you got mad because she went against your religious upbringing ideology of marriage. How do you know that YOUR WAY is the right way?
Do you have proof that it is the RIGHT way? Cause I have PLENTY of proof that it is the WRONG way....just look in the infidelity section of this forum. Had those people been in open marriages, they wouldn't be having those problems. Which is all because of the Christian ideology of marriage. 



Maricha75 said:


> Speaking openly with your SPOUSE about your feelings isn't an "open marriage"..that is open COMMUNICATION. But the part about "telling your spouse instead of cheating on them"...sorry, that has a ring of "I'm going to do this, regardless of what you feel. I would prefer you support me in it, though." Gee, yea, when you put it that way....



Yes, it is because in an open marriage, you can tell your spouse that you are attracted to other people, instead of people attempting to HIDE those feelings, they work through them. The more you attempt to hide and stuff feelings, the worse they get and sooner or later, the man/woman goes out and does something that totally hurts their spouse which anyone and everyone can witness on this very forum in the infidelity section. Had they had open COMMUNINCATION, that wouldn't have happened. 



Maricha75 said:


> No, sorry, still won't work for me. And as Dad&Hubby said, that isn't progressive... that's coming up with a new term to make an open marriage, or extramarital relationships, more attractive and get more people open to the idea of having sex with someone other than their spouse. Nope, that doesn't work for me. I will never see THAT as an attractive option.


No one said it had to work for you but you are wrong about it not being progressive. I feel that it is progressive. I would much rather my husband tell me openly about things and us to discuss them like grown adults. That sure *did not* happen with my parents nor anyone elses parents that I met. 




Maricha75 said:


> People all have their own choices to make. But to say I am closed minded, as are others, when she POSTED ON THE INFIDELITY FORUM??? Really? Yea, I'm sorry, but that was a stupid choice to make... not exactly a smart decision to post "progressive love" to a bunch of people who have been rocked to the core by someone who wanted to open the marriage...without TELLING first. Yep, makes PERFECT sense. So, if judging her by the stupid choice she made THEN makes me closed minded, well, so be it. I acknowledge that people make those choices for themselves. Don't care what they do in their bedrooms, as long as they don't try to recruit me.


So you think that if people talk to you about something then they are trying to recruit you? 

Damn girl. I hope no one tries to sell you some girl scout cookies or a vacuum cleaner. 

Also, just because YOU think something is stupid, doesn't mean that it is...actually it means the direct opposite in this case. You are judging something that you have no understanding of, nor done any research on what she teaches.


----------



## anonim

Oooh, I've got a lot of posts I want to answer to!



Enginerd said:


> I don't care what two adults agree to do in their relationship. This is a form of freedom I want to have myself. However I am curious how this is handled with children involved. Do you tell them what's going on? Does affect their stability when they figure out Mom and Dad have other partners?


This is a very interesting question, and I wish there were people here that were qualified to answer here, but I fear that if there were such people here they would feel forced to withhold their words for fear of judgement.

So I ask that everyone try to keep their personal feelings civil.


Next!



Dad&Hubby said:


> Hmmm, interesting. To me, it's just a repackaging of the thing that has existed as long as marriage has existed. Open marriages is something that works for some people. All the power to them. I know I could NEVER do that. Sex for me is more than a physical act. I found a woman who means everything to me. I made a commitment to her that she would be my one and only outlay of love and emotion (including sex). An open marriage is of NO interest to me.
> 
> Now that said. Here's what I DO take issue with.
> 
> 1. The audacity to use the term "progressive love". Progressive is a term used to indicate change over time and improvement. People who get into these movements (open marriages isn't a movement, but this is) use wordings and attitudes in a hypocritical fashion. "Your close minded, don't judge us" while taking this attitude that they're somehow "Enlightened" and think in a more "open non-judgmental way". THAT'S what I can't stand. No you think DIFFERENT, not better, not more enlightened, just DIFFERENT. We can agree to disagree but take your pompous attitude about it and walk if you go that route.
> 
> Here is the definition of Progressive. So because I don't believe the same, I guess I'm not progressive.
> 
> Definition of PROGRESSIVE
> 1
> a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress
> b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities
> c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
> 2
> : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
> 3
> : moving forward or onward : advancing
> 
> So, have your open marriage. Enjoy your multiple sex partners. But take this pompous attitude of somehow having a "SUPERIOR" way to love and have a marriage and go back in time and join a commune. Grow your own organic vegetables. Sew your own clothes from the hemp fabric you've woven. Sing around your campfires and I'll see you in another 30 years when the next person comes up with a fad approach to justify open marriages.
> 
> But no....YOUR LOVE ISN'T PROGRESSIVE!!


It might be that the people involved view _their _relationship model as progressive _for them_, not that the _traditional_ relationship model is antiquated. 




GTdad said:


> I laughed at the label. If other couples want to go the open marriage route, more power to them. But to label it "progressive", which storngly implies (to me, at least), that such a lifestyle is generally superior to non-open marriages, seems pretty damn presumptuous.


I think I understand what you are saying but, the word 'progressive' can also be used as to mean 'changed' which is how I think it has been used here.




Dad&Hubby said:


> anony2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that you have to have sex with someone else for it to be an open marriage?
> 
> I used to think like this too, but after reading her book, I could see her point totally. An open marriage isn't about having sex with other people, it is about openly talking to your spouse about your feelings instead of going behind your spouse and cheating on them.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I are 100% open with each other. We talk about who we find attractive. We talk about fantasies etc. But we will never ever physically touch someone else. Is ours an OPEN marriage...I'd say no. We both have said. If either strays = marriage over. No ifs ands or buts. We make sure we put enough into each other to make sure that the other wouldn't stray.
Click to expand...

The important question is, are you both free enough to ask if that was what either of you wanted? 

That would be the measure of how 'open' with each other you both are, even if the asker knew the answer would be no.



Dad&Hubby said:


> anonim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its also not socially acceptable to acknowledge having sexual or emotional desires for people that are not your spouse when you are married. The sad thing is that not being able to be open about it is that it forces those desires to be secret, which makes ones mind a breeding ground for other secrets.
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Sorry but that's totally BS. EVERYONE knows that EVERY SINGLE person has fantasies or finds other people attractive etc. It's what you do from there that makes the difference.
Click to expand...

Not every single person has fantasies and/or finds other people attractive. Most do, I can concede with.

I agree that it's important what you do at the point of having a fantasy or an attraction with another person.



Shaggy said:


> I call BS on jealousy being a selfish emotion.
> 
> Being upset and angry at you spouse betraying and cheating is often labelled a jealousy, and that's being done here too, it's not selfish to demand someone that you are loyal to, be loyal to you.
> 
> This is just babble double talk often used by charlatans and con artists to twist conversations and make their garbage sound reasonable.
> 
> Open marriages are not reasonable and are not marriages at all. Marriages are about faithfulness and loyalty.


Being upset or angry are different emotions than jealousy, they are not the same, even if labelled so. Jealousy is envy or desire of something someone else has in one way or another.

It is selfish to demand. It is also selfish to betray. However selfishness is not intrinsically bad, nor is jealousy a bad emotion. 

There's a difference in a selfishness that when followed leads to harm to another person.

You say open marriages aren't reasonable and are not marriages at all. Do other people get to define what your marriage should be, or is that down to you and your wife?

You can be faithful and loyal in an open marriage. I would deign to say that an open marriage would require a higher level of faithfulness and loyalty in order to succeed.




Maricha75 said:


> anony2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that you have to have sex with someone else for it to be an open marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> Three separate dictionary sites, among many others I glanced at the beginning description of the definition on other sites, ALL stated the definition of "open marriage", specifically, as *extramarital sexual relationships*.
> 
> 
> 
> anony2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to think like this too, but after reading her book, I could see her point totally. An open marriage isn't about having sex with other people, it is about openly talking to your spouse about your feelings instead of going behind your spouse and cheating on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking openly with your SPOUSE about your feelings isn't an "open marriage"..that is open COMMUNICATION. But the part about "telling your spouse instead of cheating on them"...sorry, that has a ring of "I'm going to do this, regardless of what you feel. I would prefer you support me in it, though." Gee, yea, when you put it that way....
> 
> No, sorry, still won't work for me. And as Dad&Hubby said, that isn't progressive... that's coming up with a new term to make an open marriage, or extramarital relationships, more attractive and get more people open to the idea of having sex with someone other than their spouse. Nope, that doesn't work for me. I will never see THAT as an attractive option.
> 
> 
> 
> anonim said:
> 
> 
> 
> close mindedness is not the choices one makes, its the refusal to see that there are choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People all have their own choices to make. But to say I am closed minded, as are others, when she POSTED ON THE INFIDELITY FORUM??? Really? Yea, I'm sorry, but that was a stupid choice to make... not exactly a smart decision to post "progressive love" to a bunch of people who have been rocked to the core by someone who wanted to open the marriage...without TELLING first. Yep, makes PERFECT sense. So, if judging her by the stupid choice she made THEN makes me closed minded, well, so be it. I acknowledge that people make those choices for themselves. Don't care what they do in their bedrooms, as long as they don't try to recruit me.
Click to expand...

You said "Three separate dictionary sites, among many others I glanced at the beginning description of the definition on other sites, ALL stated the definition of "open marriage", specifically, as *extramarital sexual relationships*. " 

Does this exclude romantic non-sexual relationships? I think that open marriages could viably include romantic non-sexual relationships as part of their definition.

I would like to hear more from you and anyone else who knows about when she posted though.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

anony2 said:


> Which is not REQUIRED, she teaches about monogamy first and foremost. Had you read any of her information, you would have known that, instead I think that you got mad because she went against your religious upbringing ideology of marriage. How do you know that YOUR WAY is the right way?
> Do you have proof that it is the RIGHT way? Cause I have PLENTY of proof that it is the WRONG way....just look in the infidelity section of this forum. Had those people been in open marriages, they wouldn't be having those problems. Which is all because of the Christian ideology of marriage.


Proof? See right there shows the problem. This is an issue of personal choice. Isn't that what this philosophy espouses. Noone is right or wrong. I have proof FOR ME. For me, I won't have a wife who sleeps with someone else. Period. PS my wife feels the same way. PS I'm also not a Christian. Please take your myopic view of a topic and OPEN YOUR VIEW. I see where you stand on it and I respect it. It doesn't fit my philosophies, but that's fine. We're not married LOL. 



> Yes, it is because in an open marriage, you can tell your spouse that you are attracted to other people, instead of people attempting to HIDE those feelings, they work through them. The more you attempt to hide and stuff feelings, the worse they get and sooner or later, the man/woman goes out and does something that totally hurts their spouse which anyone and everyone can witness on this very forum in the infidelity section. Had they had open COMMUNINCATION, that wouldn't have happened.


And you are predisposing that monogamy = cheating. That's the flaw in your argument. Monogamy and Polygamy are two different views and philosophies. Cheating can exist in both. There's cheating in polygamy. There's lieing in polygamy. Every thing that you bring up to knock monogamy exists in this "open marriage" concept you talk of. Cheating is about selfishness, NOT how many partners you're "allowed" to have. Cheating in polygamy being defined as a partner sleeping with someone their spouse doesn't know about and has previously agreed to. 



> No one said it had to work for you but you are wrong about it not being progressive. I feel that it is progressive. I would much rather my husband tell me openly about things and us to discuss them like grown adults. That sure *did not* happen with my parents nor anyone elses parents that I met.


No, it's different. It's not progressive. Progressive indicates an improvement. There's no "improvement". An improvement on the "closed marriages" that you're knocking would be for those closed marriages to have better communication, NOT more partners. More partners doesn't equal a stronger and improved (ie progressive) marriage. Better and more open COMMUNICATION does. You're judging an entire philosophy on your small view of it. That's understandable, but you need to recognize that. I bet I have more open communication about sex, sexual fantasies, attractions etc. within my monogamous marriage than 99% (I'd say 100% because I don't know how 2 people could be more open but I try not to make totally sweeping statements) of the polygamous relationships. 

Now we can agree to disagree about the merits and strengths of each philosophy. I feel that a relationship where ONE person receives all of your outward emotional, sexual and thoughtful energies will ALWAYS be stronger than one that has those energies split. Humans don't have an untapped amount of those energies, so if its going to someone who's not your spouse, its not going to your spouse. Please note I said outward. There are inward energies as well and they will never be 100% to one person, the percentage will vary from person to person though. I know you'll disagree with me, and that's okay. I'm not "recruiting you" LOL.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

anonim said:


> :
> Originally Posted by Dad&Hubby View Post
> 
> My wife and I are 100% open with each other. We talk about who we find attractive. We talk about fantasies etc. But we will never ever physically touch someone else. Is ours an OPEN marriage...I'd say no. We both have said. If either strays = marriage over. No ifs ands or buts. We make sure we put enough into each other to make sure that the other wouldn't stray.
> 
> 
> 
> The important question is, are you both free enough to ask if that was what either of you wanted?
> 
> That would be the measure of how 'open' with each other you both are, even if the asker knew the answer would be no.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your question. "are you both free enough to ask that was what either of you wanted?" I'm going to assume, but if I'm wrong please correct me. I'm assuming that you mean being monogamous? OF COURSE we asked that question. That question was asked when we became exclusive to each other. We both share the same philosophy about relationships. To marry someone who doesn't is crazy and is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Maricha75

Anony2, I have PLENTY of proof that this "progressive love" is WRONG *FOR ME AND MY HUSBAND*. That is all the "proof" I need. WE chose to marry because WE wanted each other and ONLY each other. WE talk to each other about EVERYTHING. There was a point when we didn't, and that nearly destroyed us. But I can talk to him about those I find attractive. Yes, I find ATTRACTIVE, but I have no desire to have sex with anyone other than my husband. I don't fantasize about anyone but him. That is how *I* am wired. This isn't just my religion here, this is how I feel about marriage, period.

My husband and I discuss everything from orgasms to fantasies to positions we want to try to toys we may or may not be willing to add to our sex life. THAT would be progressive love. THAT is improvement. Adding someone to our marriage would destroy, not improve. Again, this is something that will not work FOR US. You asked me how do I know MY WAY is the RIGHT way? It IS the right way.... *FOR ME AND FOR MY HUSBAND*. THAT is the only thing that matters.

As for anonim's question about romantic non-sexual relationships... that won't work for me either. Again, that won't work FOR ME. And, as I said above, to your wife, what works FOR ME AND MY HUSBAND is all that matters in MY marriage.

Just FYI, I went to her site, read a couple articles and started watching her video. I couldn't finish watching because I nearly threw up when she said they have no problem bringing their lovers around the kids, all being in the same house. No, that would definitely not work for us.

Now, I will be excusing myself from this thread because I fear if I continue posting, I WILL be banned. This woman, Kenya's ideas are just not worth my time, nor worth getting banned over. So, I will see you on other threads, I am sure.


----------



## Entropy3000

anony2 said:


> Personally, I love her work, we have both her/her husbands books and I think they are spot on. I am also on her forum, get emails from her daily and talk to her occasionally on facebook.


BINGO. This explains so very much about some of your other threads. So often I read some threads and wonder what is their agenda. This provides that closure. Always nice when something comes full circle.

I see where you were puzzled by your husbands insecurities. An open marriage is not for me. But from what I gather it is definitely not for those with insecurities.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Shaggy said:


> This is just babble double talk often used by charlatans and con artists to twist conversations and make their garbage sound reasonable.
> 
> Open marriages are not reasonable and are not marriages at all. Marriages are about faithfulness and loyalty.


:iagree:

This entire concept is a logical paradox.
It's like trying to sell the idea that Communism and Capitalism 
( free enterprise ) can co exist at the same time in a Communist system.

Logic fail.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> BINGO. This explains so very much about some of your other threads. So often I read some threads and wonder what is their agenda. This provides that closure. Always nice when something comes full circle.
> 
> I see where you were puzzled by your husbands insecurities. An open marriage is not for me. But from what I gather it is definitely not for those with insecurities.


:iagree: and I wish them luck.


----------



## anony2

Dad&Hubby said:


> *Proof? See right there shows the problem. This is an issue of personal choice.* Isn't that what this philosophy espouses. Noone is right or wrong. I have proof FOR ME. For me, I won't have a wife who sleeps with someone else. Period. PS my wife feels the same way. PS I'm also not a Christian. Please take your myopic view of a topic and OPEN YOUR VIEW. I see where you stand on it and I respect it. It doesn't fit my philosophies, but that's fine. We're not married LOL.


My reply was not to you, it was to Maricha...Also, no one here is asking you to implement this in your life...why do you all act as if someone came in here and said: "CHANGE UP GUYS, time for you to have OPEN marriages"???? RELAX!




Dad&Hubby said:


> *
> And you are predisposing that monogamy = cheating. That's the flaw in your argument. Monogamy and Polygamy are two different views and philosophies. Cheating can exist in both. There's cheating in polygamy. There's lieing in polygamy. Every thing that you bring up to knock monogamy exists in this "open marriage" concept you talk of. Cheating is about selfishness, NOT how many partners you're "allowed" to have. Cheating in polygamy being defined as a partner sleeping with someone their spouse doesn't know about and has previously agreed to.
> *


*
No, I am predisposing that CHEATING = CHEATING because as you said there is cheating in polygamy...The LYING is what Jujumama addresses, people should not have to hide their feelings to please some old age religious belief system. She speaks against cheating specifically. 

If you haven't read her book or know what her information is about, why are you commenting on it?



Dad&Hubby said:




No, it's different. It's not progressive. Progressive indicates an improvement. There's no "improvement". An improvement on the "closed marriages" that you're knocking would be for those closed marriages to have better communication, NOT more partners. More partners doesn't equal a stronger and improved (ie progressive) marriage. Better and more open COMMUNICATION does. You're judging an entire philosophy on your small view of it. That's understandable, but you need to recognize that. I bet I have more open communication about sex, sexual fantasies, attractions etc. within my monogamous marriage than 99% (I'd say 100% because I don't know how 2 people could be more open but I try not to make totally sweeping statements) of the polygamous relationships. 


Click to expand...


Jujumama says that you cannot MOVE FORWARD from monogamy to polyamory if you have not mastered monogamy. THAT is the progressivness of this. You are actually judging HER ideology on your small view of OTHER open relationships. 



Dad&Hubby said:




Now we can agree to disagree about the merits and strengths of each philosophy. I feel that a relationship where ONE person receives all of your outward emotional, sexual and thoughtful energies will ALWAYS be stronger than one that has those energies split. Humans don't have an untapped amount of those energies, so if its going to someone who's not your spouse, its not going to your spouse. Please note I said outward. There are inward energies as well and they will never be 100% to one person, the percentage will vary from person to person though. I know you'll disagree with me, and that's okay. I'm not "recruiting you" LOL.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## anony2

Entropy3000 said:


> BINGO. This explains so very much about some of your other threads. So often I read some threads and wonder what is their agenda. This provides that closure. Always nice when something comes full circle.
> 
> I see where you were puzzled by your husbands insecurities. An open marriage is not for me. But from what I gather it is definitely not for those with insecurities.


I was puzzled because there were DOUBLE STANDARDS and many other people caught on to those double standards in the various threads. Too bad you didn't. 

I have no agenda, this is not my thread, this is my husbands. He made it after I showed him where Kenyaa said that she had slept with 80 men in high school/before college. We both wondered what people on here would think about it, so he posted it. Funny enough, not one person said anything about that, I figured that there would be people up in arms about it. 


:rofl:


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Anony2, I have PLENTY of proof that this "progressive love" is WRONG *FOR ME AND MY HUSBAND*. That is all the "proof" I need. WE chose to marry because WE wanted each other and ONLY each other. WE talk to each other about EVERYTHING.* There was a point when we didn't, and that nearly destroyed us. *But I can talk to him about those I find attractive. Yes, I find ATTRACTIVE, but I have no desire to have sex with anyone other than my husband. I don't fantasize about anyone but him. That is how *I[/B} am wired. This isn't just my religion here, this is how I feel about marriage, period.
> 
> My husband and I discuss everything from orgasms to fantasies to positions we want to try to toys we may or may not be willing to add to our sex life. THAT would be progressive love. THAT is improvement. Adding someone to our marriage would destroy, not improve. Again, this is something that will not work FOR US. You asked me how do I know MY WAY is the RIGHT way? It IS the right way.... FOR ME AND FOR MY HUSBAND. THAT is the only thing that matters.
> 
> As for anonim's question about romantic non-sexual relationships... that won't work for me either. Again, that won't work FOR ME. And, as I said above, to your wife, what works FOR ME AND MY HUSBAND is all that matters in MY marriage.
> 
> Just FYI, I went to her site, read a couple articles and started watching her video. I couldn't finish watching because I nearly threw up when she said they have no problem bringing their lovers around the kids, all being in the same house. No, that would definitely not work for us.
> 
> Now, I will be excusing myself from this thread because I fear if I continue posting, I WILL be banned. This woman, Kenya's ideas are just not worth my time, nor worth getting banned over. So, I will see you on other threads, I am sure.*


*

Again, no one was attempting to recruit you...but if you both wanted each other, then why did you both go out and have EA's?

It sounds to me like you are experiencing triggering if you cannot even talk about something without getting mad and that NOT TALKING about something is what Jujumama talks about. See how the closed communication caused a problem? 

Her ideology is not too far off from Athol Kays from MMSL and she talks about many of the things that he does.*


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> Again, no one was attempting to recruit you...but if you both wanted each other, then why did you both go out and have EA's?


At least Maricha and her husband were WISE ENOUGH to realize that they were heading for serious trouble and they 
STAYED AWAY FROM IT. 
I have NEVER read where she has ever justified their EA's.
They were mature enough to own it , seek counselling and restoration and today their marriage is much stronger for it.

"..._One ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure_..."

Yes?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

anony2 said:


> My reply was not to you, it was to Maricha...Also, no one here is asking you to implement this in your life...why do you all act as if someone came in here and said: "CHANGE UP GUYS, time for you to have OPEN marriages"???? RELAX!


When have I EVER said that I felt someone was coming in here to make changes. I've said NUMEROUS times "to each his own". This type of relationship works for some people. For others it doesn't. My complaint isn't polyamory, my complaint is anyone who takes a mentality that THEIR opinion and philosophy is superior. Monogamy isn't better than polygamy. It's just different. For some, monogamy is better, for others it's not. You are the one who has made statements about polygamy is superior.



> No, I am predisposing that CHEATING = CHEATING because as you said there is cheating in polygamy...The LYING is what Jujumama addresses, people should not have to hide their feelings to please some old age religious belief system.


 Right, but this is an issue that is 100% separate from any polyamorous philosophy. That's like saying, Fried Foods are bad for you, so become a Vegan. It's a disingenuous leap. One doesn't directly connect to the other. 



> She speaks against cheating specifically.


 Of course she does. But again, it's a thought that this "progressive" lifestyle is better to prevent cheating when it's not. It's not about how many partners you allow or disallow in your relationship, it's about how what kind of relationship you have with your partner(s) be it one or more. 



> If you haven't read her book or know what her information is about, why are you commenting on it?


Have I ever said Jujumama is wrong? I'm not commenting on HER. I'm commenting on this mentality of superiority. And yes, if you use the term progressive on something that ISN'T really progressive, then you're passing judgement and taking on that air of superiority.




> Jujumama says that you cannot MOVE FORWARD from monogamy to polyamory if you have not mastered monogamy. THAT is the progressivness of this. You are actually judging HER ideology on your small view of OTHER open relationships.


Sorry, this statement reminds me of Star Wars. (and no, I'm not saying polyamory is the dark side, it's just a funny analogy) "To truly understand the Force, you have to know both the light and the dark". (a mentality used to lure someone down an evil path as in, it's okay to dabble in the dark to better understand the light)

So what you're saying is you have to master monogamy in order to become a polygamist?!?! Uhmm if you master monogamy, then you won't become a polygamist LOL. You can't "master something" unless it's right for you. You can fully understand something, like I fully understand polygamy, but I will never master it because I don't practice it. Success (and mastery) of something is a journey where you never arrive at the finish. I will only have "mastered" monogamy if, at the time of my or my wife's passing, we can look back on our lives and say "wow, what an amazing journey". Until that point, I haven't mastered it. Jujumama may UNDERSTAND monogamy, and realize it's not for her. She may prescribe to the very same things (communication, honesty etc) that make a monogamous relationship work, but she's no "master" of monogamy. 

No I'm not judging ANY ideology. Again let me state this for the UMPTEENTH time. "To each their own". If polygamy works for both people in a marriage, all the power to you, if monogamy is your philosophy, there you go. Just make sure you and your partner are on the same page and keep communication, respect, loyalty and "love energies" flowing to each other without compromise. 

But again, DROP this mentality that this is "Progressive Love". Maybe you weren't good at monogamy, maybe this is the lifestyle for you...hey GREAT. Enjoy it, live it, love it. Just don't tell me you're progressive and I'm not. Sorry, I'd be hard pressed to believe that this Jujumama's marriage is "better" than mine. More interesting....DEFINITELY. But I'm not a big fan of fluctuations LOL. I love predictability. I love waking up in the morning and knowing my wife is lieing there. I love talking to my wife about everything. When I think of sex, I love that I only have to think of one woman. I actually enjoy the "challenges" of focusing on one woman. I love that my sexual desire is a direct link to my heart (as in if I don't love someone, I can't get an erection with them..true story..so again I know Polyamory isn't right for me. I don't think you should love more than one person if you're married) I'm "regressive" in that way.

But if you enjoy her philosophies, awesome. Philosophical discussions are some of the most entertaining discussions you can have, as long as one doesn't take that stand of being better than others.

So I'll remain "regressive" in my love (as defined by you and Jujumama) Because when you call yours progressive, you call others regressive. REGRESSIVE is the antonym of progressive.

So I'll take my simple, underdeveloped love (as defined by you and Jujumama) and you can have your Progressive love.
Regressive
Adjective
Becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
Of, relating to, or marked by psychological regression.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

PS i think my point has been made, so I'm going to stop before getting banned LOL.

Good luck to you Anony2. We may not agree, but I still enjoyed the discussion.


----------



## Maricha75

Ok, after sleeping on it and waking up to this, I decided that I will post again.



anony2 said:


> Again, no one was attempting to recruit you...but if you both wanted each other, then why did you both go out and have EA's?


Plain and simple English? We screwed up. He got sick and I was, I repeat *WAS* ill-equipped to handle it. And, when I had mine, he thought I didn't care anymore, that I was detached to the point where we were beyond help, so he started talking with a woman we had both considered a friend. WE screwed up...and WE have fixed our marriage. OURS.



anony2 said:


> It sounds to me like you are experiencing triggering if you cannot even talk about something without getting mad and that NOT TALKING about something is what Jujumama talks about. See how the closed communication caused a problem?


Maybe I am triggering. And I clearly stated we HAD the communication problem....*HAD*. We don't now. We talk about everything, as I stated in one of my posts above. We weren't before. That breakdown in communication THEN is what enabled the EAs to continue. Now? We discuss everything. We make time for each other. Yes, lack of communication EXACERBATED the problem, but it didn't CAUSE the problem. As I said, it was because I couldn't handle when he got sick. There was nothing he could do about the illness and burdening him further with my lack of coping skills would have made things worse... BACK THEN. We aren't like that now. 



anony2 said:


> Her ideology is not too far off from Athol Kays from MMSL and she talks about many of the things that he does.


I've not read any of Athol Kay's books so I can't compare the two. But, from what I have read on here, I don't recall anyone ever saying that Athol suggests polyamory.

It isn't for me to tell you whether you and anonim can or cannot have lovers. I have friends who are in polyamory lifestyles. The difference between my friends and JujuMama? They don't consider it "progressive"... they acknowledge that it is merely DIFFERENT. Hey, if JujuMama's stuff works for you, fine. As I stated, that is not for my husband and me. It doesn't make us wrong... it makes us different.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Maricha75 said:


> The difference between my friends and JujuMama? They don't consider it "progressive"... they acknowledge that it is merely DIFFERENT. Hey, if JujuMama's stuff works for you, fine. As I stated, that is not for my husband and me. It doesn't make us wrong... it makes us different.


I totally agree with this.Why call it progressive as though non-open marriages are outdated or old world??

Progressive implies that these open marriage individuals are somehow further along and more sophisticated than people who prefer a non open marriage.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> This entire concept is a logical paradox.
> It's like trying to sell the idea that Communism and Capitalism
> ( free enterprise ) can co exist at the same time in a Communist system.
> 
> Logic fail.


Not quite.

Kendra, nor anyone else has said you can have an open marriage and a closed marriage at the same time, so your example of communism and capitalism doesnt make the point you are trying to say, whatever it is.



Entropy3000 said:


> BINGO. This explains so very much about some of your other threads. So often I read some threads and wonder what is their agenda. This provides that closure. Always nice when something comes full circle.
> 
> I see where you were puzzled by your husbands insecurities. An open marriage is not for me. But from what I gather it is definitely not for those with insecurities.


Would you happen to have the testicular fortitude to elaborate on what you think the agenda is?



Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree: and I wish them luck.


We dont have an open marriage if that's what you are trying to assert.


----------



## StoneAngel

costa200 said:


> Self justifying crap... And what is that of an "open marriage"? That's an oxymoron! Call it all you want but that's no marriage in my book. What distinguishes friends with benefits from an "open marriage"?


:iagree:


----------



## anonim

StoneAngel said:


> :iagree:


its ok to agree with other posters, but do you have any thoughts to contribute to the discussion?


----------



## StoneAngel

I guess my thoughts are simple. I love that this forum...one in which so many spouses come here first as a way to cope with the pain of infidelity.....supports couples and individuals in such a way that still maintains the institution of marriage as we know it.

This is one topic that the MAJORITY and their opinions should be applauded for!

It might make the majority a bunch of die hard romantics, but I appreciate being in that camp.


----------



## anony2

:smthumbup:


Maricha75 said:


> Ok, after sleeping on it and waking up to this, I decided that I will post again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maricha75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plain and simple English? We screwed up. He got sick and I was, I repeat *WAS* ill-equipped to handle it. And, when I had mine, he thought I didn't care anymore, that I was detached to the point where we were beyond help, so he started talking with a woman we had both considered a friend. WE screwed up...and WE have fixed our marriage. OURS.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you did EXACTLY what Kendra says to do if you FIXED your marriage....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maricha75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I am triggering. And I clearly stated we HAD the communication problem....*HAD*. We don't now. We talk about everything, as I stated in one of my posts above. We weren't before. That breakdown in communication THEN is what enabled the EAs to continue. Now? We discuss everything. We make time for each other. Yes, lack of communication EXACERBATED the problem, but it didn't CAUSE the problem. As I said, it was because I couldn't handle when he got sick. There was nothing he could do about the illness and burdening him further *with my lack of coping skills would have made things worse... BACK THEN. We aren't like that now. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was PROGRESSIVE...surely you aren't a socialist too? LMAO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maricha75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I've not read any of Athol Kay's books so I can't compare the two. But, from what I have read on here, I don't recall anyone ever saying that Athol suggests polyamory.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither does Kendra and I have tried to explain that to you all about 5 times now.
> 
> 
> 
> Maricha75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't for me to tell you whether you and anonim can or cannot have lovers. I have friends who are in polyamory lifestyles. The difference between my friends and JujuMama? They don't consider it "progressive"... they acknowledge that it is merely DIFFERENT. Hey, if JujuMama's stuff works for you, fine. As I stated, that is not for my husband and me. It doesn't make us wrong... it makes us different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have multiple lovers but if my husband came to me and said that he needed to explore other options, I would then have the option of staying or leaving, but his honesty is what would make our relationship open.
> 
> The progressive part is that he would be TELLING me that he wants to explore other options and not doing it behind my back because like most people, we were both taught to hide those feelings from our spouse. I personally do not think that that is the best option.
> 
> The part of Jujumama's work that works for me is the tantra/sex exercises, feminine and masculine roles, and the manifestation techniques.
Click to expand...


----------



## anonim

I would like to reiterate; *this thread is for the purpose of discussing/debating the content of the original post.*

Even if you find that content offensive, try to stay on topic.

Do not flame, or troll members for their opinions, however offensive they might be to you. 

Thank you for your co-operation, continue!


----------



## Thundarr

Well it wouldn't work for me and I don't think it would work for the vast majority of people but I don't judge couples who want to have an open marriage. I think more times than not that they are being naive to how it will affect them though.

Years back my aunt ran off a few times her hubby took her back each time and she was pregnant shortly after each time. I *suspect* he couldn't have kids but wanted them and was willing to let her go out and mess around because he was a pretty amazing dad to them. Yea it was weird to me but they were married until a few years ago when he died of cancer.


----------



## Caribbean Man

StoneAngel said:


> *I guess my thoughts are simple. I love that this forum...one in which so many spouses come here first as a way to cope with the pain of infidelity.....supports couples and individuals in such a way that still maintains the institution of marriage as we know it.*


Thanks for explaining it so eloquently.
Obviously he didn't quite get my comparison of what they're attempting to do to that of communism and capitalism.
Probably thought that the term " Progressive love" would have fooled us.

But nobody here is Drinking That Kool Aid.........

As for me,
It cannot work.
I didn't get married with the intent of me screwing other women or other partners being involved with my wife.
If I wanted that I would have stayed single where I had lots of that.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Thanks for explaining it so eloquently.
> Obviously he didn't quite get my comparison of what they're attempting to do to that of communism and capitalism.
> Probably thought that the term " Progressive love" would have fooled us.
> 
> But nobody here is Drinking That Kool Aid.........
> 
> As for me,
> It cannot work.
> I didn't get married with the intent of me screwing other women or other partners being involved with my wife.
> If I wanted that I would have stayed single where I had lots of that.


If you feel I don't get your comparison of communism and capitalism, then try to explain in a different way.

And no one is trying to make or fool you, or anyone else, 'drink cool aid' i.e. convert people to polygamous relationships. Its just something to talk about, so chile.


----------



## SpinDaddy

The Lutheran Women’s Missionary League (LWML) does these progressive dinner party things with the church where you go from house to house for a different entre in the meal and there is usually a theme like: French, Italian, etc.

I’ll suggest this to the Wife as a theme for the next LWML Progressive Dinner Party.

And then at the end of the year they do a recipe book for all the year’s parties.

It’ll be the best fund raising project ever. :smthumbup:


----------



## anonim

Here's more food for thought;

Different relationship models can and do exist within one society, with monogamy and marriage being the most common by a large margin.

It seems that just like how communism is attacked by capitalist majority societies, non-monogamous relationship models are attacked by those who feel monogamous relationship models are the only valid relationship models.

To me the sick thing is that it doesn't hurt anyone else if you're in a poly relationship, a mono relationship or a swinger relationship (which is not the same as poly)

So why is there a need to attack something that does not affect or threaten you you?

I have looked on a websites that sponsor differing relationship models (including monogamy, TAM is one of them) and none are as hostile to differing models as *some* of the ones that sponsor monogamy.

Is this because monogamy is the most common relationship form?


----------



## StoneAngel

anonim said:


> If you feel I don't get your comparison of communism and capitalism, then try to explain in a different way.
> 
> And no one is trying to make or fool you, or anyone else, 'drink cool aid' i.e. convert people to polygamous relationships. Its just something to talk about, so chile.


A, you seem to be taking yourself a bit too seriously. CM's Kool-Aid comment added some perfect comic relief to this topic. Chilax.

I think the larger thing you should be looking at is this discussion itself. Although no one here fell off the turnip truck yesterday and all (I believe) have known about open-marriage, the majority of the responses indicate that the majority of people believe that turning to an "open" marriage as a way to "save" a marriage is a complete contradiction.

Even if a couple have exhausted all other ideas to save their marriage...Is introducing another sexual partner a benefit to a troubled marriage? 

Forget all religious and moral objections. Ms. Kenya states herself in the opening minutes of this video, that the transition into such a lifestyle is full of jealousy, insecurity, anger etc etc etc (the list is quite long and all quite negative) Are these really the emotions a couple should be willing to introduce as a way to "mend" their damaged relationship? 

It is illogical and defies reason and as a result would never work for the masses. 
As a result it makes the discussion itself limited.


----------



## Thundarr

So this Lady in the video (Kenya) said she has many partners. When asked if she has sex with them she said only a couple of them. Why asked the host? Because many of them are not in open relationships.

This means many of these lovers of hers are actively in EA with her without their wives knowledge. She knows this and doesn't care which a sign of her character.


----------



## anonim

SpinDaddy said:


> The Lutheran Women’s Missionary League (LWML) does these progressive dinner party things with the church where you go from house to house for a different entre in the meal and there is usually a theme like: French, Italian, etc.
> 
> I’ll suggest this to the Wife as a theme for the next LWML Progressive Dinner Party.
> 
> And then at the end of the year they do a recipe book for all the year’s parties.
> 
> It’ll be the best fund raising project ever. :smthumbup:


Best use of 'progressive dinner party' ever!


----------



## anonim

StoneAngel said:


> A, you seem to be taking yourself a bit too seriously. CM's Kool-Aid comment added some perfect comic relief to this topic. Chilax.


Fine. You can be the subject of the next one then.



StoneAngel said:


> I think the larger thing you should be looking at is this discussion itself. Although no one here fell off the turnip truck yesterday and all (I believe) have known about open-marriage, the majority of the responses indicate that the majority of people believe that turning to an "open" marriage as a way to "save" a marriage is a complete contradiction.
> 
> Even if a couple have exhausted all other ideas to save their marriage...Is introducing another sexual partner a benefit to a troubled marriage?
> 
> Forget all religious and moral objections. Ms. Kenya states herself in the opening minutes of this video, that the transition into such a lifestyle is full of jealousy, insecurity, anger etc etc etc (the list is quite long and all quite negative) Are these really the emotions a couple should be willing to introduce as a way to "mend" their damaged relationship?
> 
> It is illogical and defies reason and as a result would never work for the masses.
> As a result it makes the discussion itself limited.


I agree 100% the opening up a marriage to save it is an unwise move, though i disagree that all have known about open marriages, only the basic idea of them.

The negative feelings Kenya brought up (jealousy, insecurity, anger etc etc etc) are feelings that need resolved in order to be able to have any successful and fulfilling relationships,be they parent, sibling, friend, boyfriend, wife, etc.

So no, it's not illogical nor does it defy reasoning. 

It might not be a viable option for 'the masses' but it doesnt mean it's not a viable option.


----------



## TrustInUs

anonim said:


> If you feel I don't get your comparison of communism and capitalism, then try to explain in a different way.
> 
> And no one is trying to make or fool you, or anyone else, 'drink cool aid' i.e. convert people to polygamous relationships. *Its just something to talk about, so chile*.


I am Not for one second trying to speak for the poster you addressed in the comment above, but if it just a discussion why would you bring another poster's past into it to try to prove your point? ( Marchia75) especially if said poster didn't even bring it up in the thread specifically? Why are you hostile towards those that said it wasn't for them?




anonim said:


> It's ironic to me how so many people have affairs to some degree but will not consider any degree of open marriage.
> .


Why would a couple need to consider an open marriage because of infidelity? As unfortunate and painful as infidelity is, some marriages become much stronger,but that doesn't warrant bringing extra lovers risks of stds into your marriage. This type of marriage may work for some, but I suspect not many.


----------



## anonim

TrustInUs said:


> I am Not for one second trying to speak for the poster you addressed in the comment above, but if it just a discussion why would you bring another poster's past into it to try to prove your point? ( Marchia75) especially if said poster didn't even bring it up in the thread specifically? Why are you hostile towards those that said it wasn't for them?
> 
> I think you are confusing me with anony2?
> 
> 
> Why would a couple need to consider an open marriage because of infidelity? As unfortunate and painful as infidelity is, some marriages become much stronger,but that doesn't warrant bringing extra lovers risks of stds into your marriage. This type of marriage may work for some, but I suspect not many.


I'm not saying that "a couple needs to consider an open marriage because of infidelity."

I just think that it is strange that someone would consider an extreme action (an affair) but refuse to consider that same action with stipulations (open relationships)

I'd expand on this but its time to go to work


----------



## StoneAngel

anonim said:


> Fine. You can be the subject of the next one then.
> 
> I don't understand the above comment. You mean I can be the subject of CM's next joke? I don't believe he was making you the subject of his joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100% the opening up a marriage to save it is an unwise move. though i disagree that all have known about open marriages, only the basic idea of them.
> 
> The premise of this video (atleast the opening minutes) is to offer the opinion that "opening" her marriage improved and enhanced her marriage. The masses don't generally get beyond the Basic premise of Open Marriage because they do not believe it will enhance their quality of life.
> ie) I don't need someone to speak to me for an hour about how dirt REALLY tastes great if you cook it with peanut oil. In the first 30 secs if you tell me you are going to feed me dirt I am gonna say "I pass"
> More to the point Ms. Kenya states she enterntained the idea of an open marriage after her husband came to her and told her he loved and wanted to sleep with another woman. She also stated how hurt and destroyed she was by this confession....So Ms. Kenya is suggesting that her "open marriage" did save her marriage.
> 
> The negative feelings Kenya brought up (jealousy, insecurity, anger etc etc etc) are feelings that need resolved in order to be able to have any successful and fulfilling relationships,be they parent, sibling, friend, boyfriend, wife, etc.
> 
> Yes these feelings are hard enough to manage in all relationships imagine how difficult they are to manage if I am sleeping with my sister's husband! So it does defy reason.
> 
> It might not be a viable option for 'the masses' but it doesnt mean it's not a viable option.
> 
> I Agree 100% but as I said it makes it a limited conversation at best.


----------



## anony2

TrustInUs said:


> I am Not for one second trying to speak for the poster you addressed in the comment above, but if it just a discussion why would you bring another poster's past into it to try to prove your point? ( Marchia75) especially if said poster didn't even bring it up in the thread specifically? Why are you hostile towards those that said it wasn't for them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why would a couple need to consider an open marriage because of infidelity?* As unfortunate and painful as infidelity is, some marriages become much stronger,but that doesn't warrant bringing extra lovers risks of stds into your marriage. This type of marriage may work for some, but I suspect not many.


Because obviously, the couple are NOT practicing monogamy if either have had an affair. See, as soon as you cheat, you are no longer monogamous...see a dictionary.

Why pretend to be monogamous when you are in fact polyamorus? Why the need to lie to yourself and your partner? (not you personally, but generally speaking)


----------



## Maricha75

anonim said:


> I think you are confusing me with anony2?


Yes, it was your wife who specifically brought my and my husband's EAs into the conversation.




anonim said:


> I'm not saying that "a couple needs to consider an open marriage because of infidelity."
> 
> I just think that it is strange that someone would consider an extreme action (an affair) but refuse to consider that same action with stipulations (open relationships)
> 
> I'd expand on this but its time to go to work


I'd consider it strange that someone would consider affair but not open marriage as well. And, since my past was brought into this already, I guess I can answer before it gets asked... what about me, right? Well, yes, I had EA and so did my husband. The one thing I knew I could NEVER do is have sex with someone else while married to my husband. I was presented with the opportunity. I considered the man attractive but when that opportunity was presented, there was no way I could do it. My EA ended months before that (different man). 

Now, the statement was made previously, but anony2, I believe, that if the marriages on the infidelity forum had been opened, there wouldn't have been any problem with infidelity. Now, it may not be what anony2 meant, but to me, and likely to any other betrayed spouse, it sounded a LOT like blaming the betrayed for their spouses cheating. Well, that makes sense if you follow Kenya's teaching... she maintains that humans are not meant to be monogamous. And, I think, THAT is what turns me off to her words, more than anything. SHE has said that in most of her posts on her blog, as have her followers. I disagree that humans are not meant to be monogamous... maybe SHE isn't meant to be monogamous, but I don't believe ALL humans aren't meant to be monogamous... and when someone starts spouting that...well, that turns me off. Maybe she DOES have some good ideas (I have yet to run across even one and I have been searching her blog all day for even ONE redeeming quality), but that anti-monogamy thing is prevalent in all I have read on her blog, thus far. And that rubs me the wrong way. If there is anything redeeming, it is buried under all the rest.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> Because obviously, the couple are NOT practicing monogamy if either have had an affair. See, as soon as you cheat, you are no longer monogamous...see a dictionary.
> 
> Why pretend to be monogamous when you are in fact polyamorus? Why the need to lie to yourself and your partner? (not you personally, but generally speaking)


And why should the one who was BETRAYED have to open the marriage WILLINGLY if that doesn't work with THEIR values? Like you said, open communication would give the cheater (sorry, POTENTIAL cheater) the ability to come to his/her spouse and say "I want to do this"...and the (potentially) betrayed has the option to say "If you do, you can GTFO of my house. I won't live with that"... So why, after the cheating has occurred, should the BETRAYED have to continue in an open marriage? The cheater is given the CHOICE... either stop cheating or get out. 

So, your comment that they are no longer monogamous... do you mean that they can't change the dynamic to be monogamous after having it be open (even if one sided, unknown)? Because if that is your premise, I believe that to be false. It is very possible to go from cheating to monogamy. Of course, I can't speak from the standpoint of having sex with other people, just from the point of having EAs... And I know from my own experience that you can have a monogamous marriage after cheating.


----------



## TrustInUs

Sorry I did infact address the wrong poster. I've gotten you two mixed up.... That should have been for annoy2




anonim said:


> I'm not saying that "a couple needs to consider an open marriage because of infidelity."
> 
> I just think that it is strange that someone would consider an extreme action (an affair) but refuse to consider that same action with stipulations (open relationships)
> 
> I'd expand on this but its time to go to work





anony2 said:


> Because obviously, the couple are NOT practicing monogamy if either have had an affair. See, as soon as you cheat, you are no longer monogamous...see a dictionary.
> 
> Why pretend to be monogamous when you are in fact polyamorus? Why the need to lie to yourself and your partner? (not you personally, but generally speaking)


Yes I'm aware of the definition of monogamy. My point is that yes the cheater made a big mistake, but that does not mean they can't be monogamous. I don't believe bringing more parties into the marriage is going to help, if they decided to stay together.

Now if you're talking about a serial cheater, to me that is a whole different beast. They should be the ones looking for open relationships or remaining single.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

anonim said:


> I have looked on a websites that sponsor differing relationship models (including monogamy, TAM is one of them) and none are as hostile to differing models as *some* of the ones that sponsor monogamy.
> 
> Is this because monogamy is the most common relationship form?


While I have not looked at many of these forums, those that I have just use a different form of hostility. Those folks have no choice but to recognize that monongamy works. But many look down on those who practice it as conservative, unenlightened, uneducated, backward, consumed by jealousy and the like. The very phrase "Progressive Love" makes that very point. 

Not too different than those limosine liberals who tolerate all while looking down their nose at them.


----------



## Hope1964

OK, so let me see if I understand. Because people cheat, that means that humans aren't meant to be monogamous, and that, in fact, non-monogamous people are more enlightened. By that logic, the fact there are serial killers means that humans are in fact meant to be killers, and that those who don't kill others are farther down on the evolutionary scale.   

Most people learn in about kindergarten that just because 'everyone else' is doing something, it doesn't make it a good idea for you to do it.


----------



## anony2

Hope1964 said:


> Most people learn in about kindergarten that just because 'everyone else' is doing something, it doesn't make it a good idea for you to do it.



Well, this same thing can be said about monogamy...just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it a good idea for you to do it. Have you jumped on the monogamy bandwagon because your parents taught you that or what/when did you decide to be monogamous?


----------



## anony2

TrustInUs said:


> Sorry I did infact address the wrong poster. I've gotten you two mixed up.... That should have been for annoy2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm aware of the definition of monogamy. My point is that yes the cheater made a big mistake, but that does not mean they can't be monogamous. I don't believe bringing more parties into the marriage is going to help, if they decided to stay together.
> 
> Now if you're talking about a serial cheater, to me that is a whole different beast. They should be the ones looking for open relationships or remaining single.


Sorry, but how do you KNOW for a fact that the "cheater made a big mistake?" Who told you that/ what are you basing that on?


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> *And why should the one who was BETRAYED have to open the marriage WILLINGLY if that doesn't work with THEIR values?* Like you said, open communication would give the cheater (sorry, POTENTIAL cheater) the ability to come to his/her spouse and say "I want to do this"...and the (potentially) betrayed has the option to say "If you do, you can GTFO of my house. I won't live with that"... So why, after the cheating has occurred, should the BETRAYED have to continue in an open marriage? The cheater is given the CHOICE... either stop cheating or get out.


Who said ANYONE had to do ANYTHING? It sounds to me like you are triggering again....If this is causing you this much triggering, you probably aren't done processing your/his affairs. I know that it takes a long time to process so try and allow yourself some time to deal with those feelings. 

Now, SPECIFICALLY what Jujumama is talking about has NOTHING to do with cheating...what she is saying is that if BOTH people in the marriage are looking outside to get their needs met, then most likely, the one person is not enough to meet your needs....and that is okay. 



Maricha75 said:


> So, your comment that they are no longer monogamous... do you mean that they can't change the dynamic to be monogamous after having it be open (even if one sided, unknown)? Because if that is your premise, I believe that to be false. It is very possible to go from cheating to monogamy. Of course, I can't speak from the standpoint of having sex with other people, just from the point of having EAs... And I know from my own experience that you can have a monogamous marriage after cheating.


You can change it and change it back as many times as you want, but if it keeps happening over and over and over, then apparently someone isn't getting their needs met. This is no different from men getting sex outside of the marriage and when they do other men say that they are doing it because they aren't getting sex at home...well, that is why women have EA's...because their needs aren't being fully met by their husbands, they would LIKE their husbands to meet those needs, but sometimes it is unrealistic...


----------



## Created2Write

If a person wants their marriage to be open to include other lovers for them and/or their spouse, then they really shouldn't marry. The whole purpose of being married is to show that you love this person so much to _forsake all others_ and spend your life with _them_. If that's not something a person intends to do, then they shouldn't marry. Have an open dating relationship and include your lovers in that, if you like. But sex outside of the marriage covenant(which is between _two_ people, no more, no less), is adultery and I can think of no situation where adultery is healthy, whether it's agreed on by both spouses or not.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> You can change it and change it back as many times as you want, but if it keeps happening over and over and over, then apparently someone isn't getting their needs met. This is no different from men getting sex outside of the marriage and when they do other men say that they are doing it because they aren't getting sex at home...well, that is why women have EA's...because their needs aren't being fully met by their husbands, they would LIKE their husbands to meet those needs, but sometimes it is unrealistic...


Honestly, it's really very simple: either you(not you specifically, just in general) want to spend your life with this one person, or you don't. And if a person finds themselves continually and consistently neglected by their spouse to the point that they are considering an open marriage, they should divorce and find someone who _does_ fulfill them. I realize that may seem overly simplistic, but cheating really is _never_ justifiable. Admit that you're unhappy(again, I'm not saying you specifically...just hypothetical person), leave the spouse, and find someone you makes you happy.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> If a person wants their marriage to be open to include other lovers for them and/or their spouse, *then they really shouldn't marry*. The whole purpose of being married is to show that you love this person so much to _forsake all others_ and spend your life with _them_. If that's not something a person intends to do, then they shouldn't marry. Have an open dating relationship and include your lovers in that, if you like. But sex outside of the marriage covenant(which is between _two_ people, no more, no less), is adultery and I can think of no situation where adultery is healthy, whether it's agreed on by both spouses or not.


So you are saying that YOU alone decides what 'marriages' SHOULD/SHOULDN'T be? 

You do realize that before there was monogamy, there was polygamy, right?


----------



## Created2Write

Okay, now I have read the entire thread and I have a few things to say:

1.) Just because a marriage is monogamous doesn't mean that the spouses don't communicate effectively. I mean, really? Sure, maybe within the first few months of the marriage communication isn't exactly the greatest, but that doesn't mean that just because their relationship is monogamous they're doomed to secrets and emotional affairs. 

My husband and I learned to communicate in the dating relationship. After marriage, very little changed. We didn't keep things from each, we didn't hide our feelings. In fact, when we were angry, we shouted. Pretty "open" with our feelings there. Since then we've learned more respectful ways to engage important conversations, so in that way I guess...we have "progressed". But does that mean we have an "open" marriage? Hardly. 

I would never, ever, ever, ever consider staying with my husband if he expected me to allow him to sleep with other women. And if I ever got to the point where I just had to sleep with other men, I'd do the decent thing and let my husband find a woman who actually cared enough to take her vows seriously. We _did_ vow to honor and cherish _each other_ and, unless I was in some kind of hypnosis on my wedding day, I do not remember any other men or women being included in those vows. 

2.) And I'm going to say this before the question is asked: NO, I am not put off by this lifestyle just because of how I was raised. Cheating is a _big deal_. I've been with guys who cheated and lied about it, and it effects the mental and emotional health of a person. I mean, if I'm not making my husband happy, I would _much_ rather him divorce me and find happiness than cheat, _or_ suggest I just allow him to have sex where he wants to have sex. _Neither_ of those options is ideal to me. 

Now, as far as being open about our feelings, we're both free to communicate how we feel. I've told him that if I had to choose any male actor to have sex with, it would definitely be, without a doubt, Liam Neeson. He is my ultimate sexual fantasy. And my husband has told me his. This doesn't mean we would ever pursue those fantasies, just that we have them and we both know what they are. We're also open to say when something isn't okay with us, whatever it may be. But I see this as _effective communication in a nonjudgmental environment_, not an open marriage. 

3.) If you really want people to respect your views on this lifestyle, you should probably refrain from badmouthing the traditional/Christian view of marriage. If a traditional, monogamous relationship isn't for you and you like the idea of having multiple sex partners while maintaining an emotionally gratifying relationship with your wife, that is entirely your call. But there are those of us who genuinely would rather work through the issues of marriage and only be with our spouse whom we love. Whether that's from upbringing, religious views, or just because we love our spouse, is really irrelevant.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Okay, now I have read the entire thread and I have a few things to say:
> 
> 1.) Just because a marriage is monogamous doesn't mean that the spouses don't communicate effectively. I mean, really? Sure, maybe within the first few months of the marriage communication isn't exactly the greatest, but that doesn't mean that just because their relationship is monogamous they're doomed to secrets and emotional affairs.
> 
> My husband and I learned to communicate in the dating relationship. After marriage, very little changed. We didn't keep things from each, we didn't hide our feelings. In fact, when we were angry, we shouted. Pretty "open" with our feelings there. Since then we've learned more respectful ways to engage important conversations, so in that way I guess...we have "progressed". But does that mean we have an "open" marriage? Hardly.
> 
> I would never, ever, ever, ever consider staying with my husband if he expected me to allow him to sleep with other women. And if I ever got to the point where I just had to sleep with other men, I'd do the decent thing and let my husband find a woman who actually cared enough to take her vows seriously. We _did_ vow to honor and cherish _each other_ and, unless I was in some kind of hypnosis on my wedding day, I do not remember any other men or women being included in those vows.
> 
> 2.) And I'm going to say this before the question is asked: NO, I am not put off by this lifestyle just because of how I was raised. Cheating is a _big deal_. I've been with guys who cheated and lied about it, and it effects the mental and emotional health of a person. I mean, if I'm not making my husband happy, I would _much_ rather him divorce me and find happiness than cheat, _or_ suggest I just allow him to have sex where he wants to have sex. _Neither_ of those options is ideal to me.
> 
> Now, as far as being open about our feelings, we're both free to communicate how we feel. I've told him that if I had to choose any male actor to have sex with, it would definitely be, without a doubt, Liam Neeson. He is my ultimate sexual fantasy. And my husband has told me his. This doesn't mean we would ever pursue those fantasies, just that we have them and we both know what they are. We're also open to say when something isn't okay with us, whatever it may be. But I see this as _effective communication in a nonjudgmental environment_, not an open marriage.
> 
> 3.) If you really want people to respect your views on this lifestyle, you should probably refrain from badmouthing the traditional/Christian view of marriage. If a traditional, monogamous relationship isn't for you and you like the idea of having multiple sex partners while maintaining an emotionally gratifying relationship with your wife, that is entirely your call. But there are those of us who genuinely would rather work through the issues of marriage and only be with our spouse whom we love. Whether that's from upbringing, religious views, or just because we love our spouse, is really irrelevant.



1. No one said that. 
2. No one said that either.
3. No one on this thread has this lifestyle, but it seems to me you selectively missed the badmouthing of this type of lifestyle by those practicing the traditional Christian view of marriage, I wonder why?


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> So you are saying that YOU alone decides what 'marriages' SHOULD/SHOULDN'T be?
> 
> You do realize that before there was monogamy, there was polygamy, right?


If you marry with the intention of being faithful to one person, then that should be what you do. If you don't intend to be sexually or emotionally faithful to the person you're considering marrying, then no, imo, you shouldn't marry. 

Yes, I realize there was. That doesn't man that it was right. According to you, just because something is considered "normal" or "acceptable", doesn't mean other ways of doing things are wrong. 

Honestly, it boils down to this: what makes a truly happy, healthy marriage? Is it tons of sexual partners? Is it engaging in extramarital emotional discussions, and building more than one intimate(not necessarily sexual) relationship? Or is it knowing, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the person you married is the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life wife. They're who you want have a family with. 

I mean, isn't that why people get married? Personally, I don't buy into the idea of polygamy. As someone else said, how is a relationship supposed to be strong, healthy and fulfilling if one or both spouses engage in more than one romantic relationship outside of the marriage? I truly do not grasp that concept. If that fulfills some people, then congratulations to them.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> Who said ANYONE had to do ANYTHING? It sounds to me like you are triggering again....If this is causing you this much triggering, you probably aren't done processing your/his affairs. I know that it takes a long time to process so try and allow yourself some time to deal with those feelings.


Actually, anony2, I am not triggering at all. I am just not understanding your point. It really is all over the place. You say that when you cheat, you are not in a monogamous relationship. Ok, I get that. When the betrayed spouse learns of the affair, they have the option of 1. Letting it continue, turn a blind eye. 2. Confront and give an ultimatum. 3. Kick the cheater out. There may be other options, but these are the usual ones, I believe. Now, I recall in an earlier post where either you or your husband (can't remember which) said that if the marriage had been opened, there wouldn't be infidelity. So that is really why I asked my question. WHY should someone who has believed their marriage was monogamous, and monogamy is what THEY want, allow it to continue? 



anony2 said:


> Now, SPECIFICALLY what Jujumama is talking about has NOTHING to do with cheating...what she is saying is that if BOTH people in the marriage are looking outside to get their needs met, then most likely, the one person is not enough to meet your needs....and that is okay.


Again, I disagree with her thinking on that. My experience is that if looking outside the marriage, it is selfishness leading them. But, again, that is my personal opinion, and experience. In my opinion, and that of my husband, those needs should be met by your spouse. Yes, there was something wrong in my marriage and we got emotional needs met elsewhere. In my marriage, that was wrong. We BOTH acknowledge THAT fact. 

Regarding whether what Kenya is talking about has anything to do with cheating depends on whether you consider EAs to be cheating or not. She, admittedly, said she has EAs in that video anonim posted. And the reason they haven't had sex? Because some of them are married and their wives aren't ok with it. So, emotionally cheating on their spouses is ok but not physical.

There was one thing I agreed with her about... speak openly with our kids...teach them what we want them to know about sexuality. THAT I agree with. And I absolutely will be open about sex when talking with my kids.

I disagreed with what she said about her neighbor who chose to divorce his wife because she cheated... she said they should have just worked it out because the WIFE did nothing wrong. The wife did nothing wrong... when she cheated on her husband. The wife opened the marriage without a discussion with her husband. That is not right: blaming the husband because his wife cheated on him.

Kenya also says NO human was made to be monogamous. Yes, I finished watching that video. I disagree with her. I'd say SOME people (including her, which is likely why she states that we ALL are this way) are not wired to be monogamous. But some of us are.





anony2 said:


> You can change it and change it back as many times as you want, but if it keeps happening over and over and over, then apparently someone isn't getting their needs met. This is no different from men getting sex outside of the marriage and when they do other men say that they are doing it because they aren't getting sex at home...well, that is why women have EA's...because their needs aren't being fully met by their husbands, they would LIKE their husbands to meet those needs, but sometimes it is unrealistic...


And how do you explain the ones who have sex outside the marriage while they are still having regular sex at home? And the excuse that women aren't getting their needs met, so that is why they are having EAs? Both are selfish choices. Instead of talking to their spouses and fixing it, they seek attention elsewhere. It isn't unrealistic to want, or even expect, your spouse to meet those needs. And the only way that will happen is if they communicate... really communicate. I believe that the spouse absolutely meet those needs... as long as they are actually given the chance.


----------



## anonim

StoneAngel said:


> I guess my thoughts are simple. I love that this forum...one in which so many spouses come here first as a way to cope with the pain of infidelity.....supports couples and individuals in such a way that still maintains the institution of marriage as we know it.
> 
> This is one topic that the MAJORITY and their opinions should be applauded for!
> 
> It might make the majority a bunch of die hard romantics, but I appreciate being in that camp.


I find it a shame though, that the support is only forthcoming for homogeneous marriages and relationships.


----------



## anonim

FrenchFry said:


> The thing is, this is a pretty recent iteration of the definition of marriage.
> 
> "Only 20% of the world’s societies are considered strictly monogamous, in which a person is married once in his or her life (Encarta '95, 1994)"
> 
> There are:
> Arranged/Contract Marriages where love isn't even entered into the equation
> Bilateral Cross Cousin Marriage and other familial marriages mostly for inheritance and lineage purposes.
> Polyandry
> Polygyny
> 
> In the US until the 1960's, interracial marriages had no purpose. Gay marriage is an ongoing battle that will change the definition again.
> 
> Marriage has been defined and redefined many times over and I don't think it's quite fair for people who enjoy monogamy to hold up monogamy as the ONLY way to be married when there is and has been a plethora of ways to be married.
> 
> So, for me personally I have a hard enough time totally opening up to my husband that trying to add another person to the equation would end in epic failure. I don't judge people who are able to make it happen somehow nor do I applaud them, it has nothing to do with me.
> 
> I don't think I've seen a true Open Marriage thread though on TAM where all of the people post "I'm in an open marriage and this is how it works," and I think as long as infidelity and trying to get through it is a main highlight of this board, I don't know if the environment here will be able to culture such a thread.


95% of the time your posts amaze me. 5% of the time they blow my mind.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Honestly, it boils down to this: what makes a truly happy, healthy marriage? Is it tons of sexual partners? Is it engaging in extramarital emotional discussions, and building more than one intimate(not necessarily sexual) relationship? *Or is it knowing, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the person you married is the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life wife. They're who you want have a family with. *


:iagree: x 100%

Human beings are fascinating.

We have the unique tendency to destroy the very things that gives us _life_
I call it stupidity.

We pollute the air with poisonous industrial effluents.
_We need air to live._
That's stupid.

We pollute the water system with chemicals that case acid rain which in turn makes the ground less productive so that we harvest less food.
_We need food to live._
That's stupid.

We now want to _further_ complicate and pollute the only system that has actually worked for more than a thousand years to provide a strong foundation for building civilized societies .
Marriage.
I wouldn't even attempt to go into the pros of polyamory because the cons far outweigh it.
Monogamous relationships are themselves so complicated that even the most basic function , sex , sometimes become burdensome.
*So, exactly how does adding more partners into a relationship fix this?*
Simple, according to the OP and his wife.
Just " open your minds " , reset your moral / crap compass and lets put some _poly_ garbage in.

Interesting to note,
Poly is a Greek word which means many. It is derived from a combination of the Greek words for _many_ and _much_. It is also thought that the prefix _poly _is related to them Greek word "pele", meaning to spread.

This entire concept of polyamory sounds like _poly_stupidity
to me. 
Just plain old stupid on so [ poly?] _many_ levels....
Yes.

Human beings are fascinating .


----------



## Hope1964

anony2 said:


> Well, this same thing can be said about monogamy...just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it a good idea for you to do it. Have you jumped on the monogamy bandwagon because your parents taught you that or what/when did you decide to be monogamous?


You are the one who said that the fact people cheat proves that humans aren't monogamous. :scratchhead: You're talking in circles now.

I am monogamous because I have no desire to hurt the man I love. Not that it's any of your business. The fact that you call it a 'monogamy bandwagon' makes me feel morally superior to YOU. So thanks for that 

I notice you completely ignored the other point I made in the post you quoted.

And as for who is defining marriage? If you want a marriage defined as something other than a union between two people, PERIOD, then you have to rewrite the standard vows. The only people redefining what marriage is in this thread are you guys. Go and try to marry someone when you're already married to someone and tell me what happens.

Anyway, I hope you are enjoying the view way up there on your self made pedestal. I have no problem with consenting adults who want to live polyamorously. I only have a problem with the ones who try to tell me what's best for me. Sayonara!


----------



## Entropy3000

Some people will say anything to make a buck. Even write a book. Even call a failed marriage progressive.

Since no one has yet mastered monogamy then this progression is moot. If you fall to polygamy then you fail in monogamy. The rest is just word games and spin for the weak of mind.

This is not the type of marriage you are looking for ...

This is very bad juju.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> If you marry with the intention of being faithful to one person, then that should be what you do. If you don't intend to be sexually or emotionally faithful to the person you're considering marrying, then no, imo, you shouldn't marry.


Just to play devils advocate, what is to say that you cannot be faithful to a spouse whilst being in a non monogamous relationship? or that you cannot be faithful to more than one person?



Created2Write said:


> Honestly, it boils down to this: what makes a truly happy, healthy marriage? Is it tons of sexual partners? Is it engaging in extramarital emotional discussions, and building more than one intimate(not necessarily sexual) relationship? Or is it knowing, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the person you married is the person you love and want to spend the rest of your life wife.


FALSE DICHOTOMY
_Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two, For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities)._

What makes a happy healthy marriage might vary among different people



Created2Write said:


> I mean, isn't that why people get married? Personally, I don't buy into the idea of polygamy. As someone else said, how is a relationship supposed to be strong, healthy and fulfilling if one or both spouses engage in more than one romantic relationship outside of the marriage? I truly do not grasp that concept. If that fulfills some people, then congratulations to them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> FALSE DICHOTOMY
> _Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two, For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities)._
> 
> *What makes a happy healthy marriage might vary among different people*


OP,
Throughout this entire thread, you appear to be trying to obfuscate the basic ,logical , argument that everyone is using to rebut your beliefs vis polyamory.

That is, a marriage is in our society, a LEGAL contractual arrangement between TWO people.

My straightforward questions to you sir:

1] *What constitutes a marriage in YOUR OPINION.*

2]*What constitutes a happy , healthy marriage in YOUR OPINION.*

3]*How has polyamory helped YOUR MARRIAGE, please give YOUR personal experience.*

4]*If you are not already involved in polyamory, HOW DO YOU EXPECT IT TO HELP MAKE YOUR MARRIAGE HEALTHIER.*

I have asked you four straightforward questions. I would like to have straightforward answers please.
No obfuscations.
No fancy footworks.
No transmogrification.

Thank you.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Actually, anony2, I am not triggering at all. I am just not understanding your point. It really is all over the place. You say that when you cheat, you are not in a monogamous relationship. Ok, I get that. When the betrayed spouse learns of the affair, they have the option of 1. Letting it continue, turn a blind eye. 2. Confront and give an ultimatum. 3. Kick the cheater out. There may be other options, but these are the usual ones, I believe. Now, I recall in an earlier post where either you or your husband (can't remember which) said that if the marriage had been opened, there wouldn't be infidelity. So that is really why I asked my question. *WHY should someone who has believed their marriage was monogamous, and monogamy is what THEY want, allow it to continue? *


I dont know, why? I dont think anyone has suggested this what so ever. 




Maricha75 said:


> Again, I disagree with her thinking on that. My experience is that if looking outside the marriage, it is selfishness leading them. But, again, that is my personal opinion, and experience. In my opinion, and that of my husband, those needs should be met by your spouse. Yes, there was something wrong in my marriage and we got emotional needs met elsewhere. In my marriage, that was wrong. We BOTH acknowledge THAT fact.


I think expecting your spouse to only rely on you to get their needs met is selfish. For instance, if you needed emotional support that your spouse could not provide, do you get it from some where else, maybe your mom, sister or even counselor? My mother in law has provided emotional support for me that my husband could not, was this wrong of her to do? If your spouse needed a doctor, would you deny him that? Guess what- that is him getting his needs met outside of the marriage. 




Maricha75 said:


> Regarding whether what Kenya is talking about has anything to do with cheating depends on whether you consider EAs to be cheating or not. She, admittedly, said she has EAs in that video anonim posted. *And the reason they haven't had sex?* Because some of them are married and their wives aren't ok with it. So, emotionally cheating on their spouses is ok but not physical.


And men get their sexual needs met by watching porn, ask them, they will tell you. Why is this any different? 




Maricha75 said:


> There was one thing I agreed with her about... speak openly with our kids...teach them what we want them to know about sexuality. THAT I agree with. And I absolutely will be open about sex when talking with my kids.
> I disagreed with what she said about her neighbor who chose to divorce his wife because she cheated... she said they should have just worked it out because the WIFE did nothing wrong. The wife did nothing wrong... when she cheated on her husband. The wife opened the marriage without a discussion with her husband. That is not right: blaming the husband because his wife cheated on him.


That is because Kenya believes in 'no blame, no shame, no victim no villain'. Do you have proof that the wife did something "wrong" and if you do, is this not based on YOUR religious beliefs? 




Maricha75 said:


> Kenya also says NO human was made to be monogamous. Yes, I finished watching that video. I disagree with her. I'd say SOME people (including her, which is likely why she states that we ALL are this way) are not wired to be monogamous. But some of us are.


What proof do you have that some of us are wired to be monogamous? 

"Here at JujuMama we honor the couple who wants to create sexual exclusivity just as much as we honor couples who do not want sexual exclusivity. Natural monogamy may not be possible, but chosen mono-harmony is for sure! * We can and should be sexually exclusive if this is what both partners desire*."

https://www.jujumamablog.com/services/master-monogamy-and-move-on/

Now, can you see why I have said REPEATEDLY that what you are representing her as is incorrect? That is straight from her website. The whole basis her teaching is that EACH ONE OF US define our own marriage, you do not define mine and I do not define yours. 







Maricha75 said:


> And how do you explain the ones who have sex outside the marriage while they are still having regular sex at home? And the excuse that women aren't getting their *needs met*, so that is why they are having EAs? *Both are selfish choices.* Instead of talking to their spouses and fixing it, they seek attention elsewhere. It isn't unrealistic to want, or even expect, your spouse to meet those needs. And the only way that will happen is if they communicate... really communicate. I believe that the spouse absolutely meet those needs... as long as they are actually given the chance.


Is getting your needs met selfish? This seems to be the whole basis of your reply.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> I dont know, why? I dont think anyone has suggested this what so ever.


You didn't say this earlier?



anony2 said:


> just look in the infidelity section of this forum. Had those people been in open marriages, they wouldn't be having those problems.


But your mentor, jujumama, would say that there was nothing wrong with the cheater having multiple partners. That the cheater did nothing wrong. That the betrayed spouse is wrong for not wanting/allowing his or her spouse to just go ahead in these extramarital relationships.



anony2 said:


> I think expecting your spouse to only rely on you to get their needs met is selfish. For instance, if you needed emotional support that your spouse could not provide, do you get it from some where else, maybe your mom, sister or even counselor? My mother in law has provided emotional support for me that my husband could not, was this wrong of her to do? If your spouse needed a doctor, would you deny him that? Guess what- that is him getting his needs met outside of the marriage.


*Sigh* I don't expect every. single. need. he. has. to be met by me. I am obviously not a psychiatrist, I cannot write him a prescription for his medications. I am not a pharmacist, I cannot fill those prescriptions. But when it comes to problems within the marriage itself, that is to be between him and me, and only opened to people we agree on. He talks to a male friend of his and I talk to a female friend of mine. I have posted on here about a few things, all of which he is ok with. If he is EVER not ok with something I say here or to anyone, then I no longer mention that subject outside our relationship.

You know very well what is meant when many of us are talking about getting needs met elsewhere. Please, don't be so obtuse.



anony2 said:


> And men get their sexual needs met by watching porn, ask them, they will tell you. Why is this any different?


Not all men. Mine doesn't watch it at all. My dad doesn't either.




anony2 said:


> That is because Kenya believes in 'no blame, no shame, no victim no villain'. Do you have proof that the wife did something "wrong" and if you do, is this not based on YOUR religious beliefs?


So... having sex with someone else (in other words, cheating on her husband), without agreeing together to open the marriage, isn't wrong? Oh, that's right... the woman was only following her instincts, just as Kenya says she should. (Hey, that's what Kenya said, not me)



anony2 said:


> What proof do you have that some of us are wired to be monogamous?
> 
> "Here at JujuMama we honor the couple who wants to create sexual exclusivity just as much as we honor couples who do not want sexual exclusivity. Natural monogamy may not be possible, but chosen mono-harmony is for sure! * We can and should be sexually exclusive if this is what both partners desire*."
> 
> https://www.jujumamablog.com/services/master-monogamy-and-move-on/


Also from her blog:

"I am not a critic of Serial Monogamy or Monogamy. But I do know that neither exists in Western culture. Why do I say that neither monogamy or serial monogamy exists? That’s simple, the practice of being sexually exclusive is not adhered to by anyone in this country, even when in a stated sexually monogamous or committed relationship, and I can prove it easily…" 

https://www.jujumamablog.com/2010/08/31/monoharmony-the-better-monogamy-part-i/



anony2 said:


> Now, can you see why I have said REPEATEDLY that what you are representing her as is incorrect? That is straight from her website. The whole basis her teaching is that EACH ONE OF US define our own marriage, you do not define mine and I do not define yours.


No, I really don't see that I am misrepresenting her. It is true though... you choose what your marriage will be, I choose for my own (well, my husband and I do). And we choose to be monogamous.

And, if I am misrepresenting her, why did you say this:



anony2 said:


> Jujumama says that you cannot *MOVE FORWARD from monogamy to polyamory* if you have not mastered monogamy. THAT is the progressivness of this. You are actually judging HER ideology on your small view of OTHER open relationships.


Polyamory: the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time 




anony2 said:


> Is getting your needs met selfish? This seems to be the whole basis of your reply.


Getting sexual needs met by someone other than your spouse? Forming an intimate, romantic, emotional bond with someone other than your spouse, and not putting that energy into building a strong marriage with your spouse alone? IMO, yes, that IS selfish...going and looking outside the marriage to fill those needs instead of trying to work on it between the spouses. It absolutely is selfish.

If she didn't say that monogamy is, essentially, a stepping stone toward polyamory, I think more people would be open to her message. And yes, she does say that. On her site, she has stated that mastering monogamy is only step one in her process. The end goal IS to be polyamorous. 

But whatever. I have open communication with my husband. I have no desire to have a sexual or emotional (as in intimate emotional bond that is on an equal level to my husband, or closer) relationship with anyone other than my husband. He has no desire for extramarital relationships as I described above either. Perhaps it is our religious beliefs playing a significant part in it. I've seen monogamous marriages work, no matter what "jujumama" says. And it will continue to work as long as people like me continue to pass those values on to our children and grandchildren.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

anony2 said:


> Now, SPECIFICALLY what Jujumama is talking about has NOTHING to do with cheating...what she is saying is that if BOTH people in the marriage are looking outside to get their needs met, then most likely, the one person is not enough to meet your needs....and that is okay.


Interesting that you make that statement without addressing this earlier post:



> So this Lady in the video (Kenya) said she has many partners. When asked if she has sex with them she said only a couple of them. Why asked the host? Because many of them are not in open relationships.
> 
> This means many of these lovers of hers are actively in EA with her without their wives knowledge. She knows this and doesn't care which a sign of her character.


How does this square with cheating being bad in this situation?


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> 1. No one said that.
> 2. No one said that either.
> 3. No one on this thread has this lifestyle, but it seems to me you selectively missed the badmouthing of this type of lifestyle by those practicing the traditional Christian view of marriage, I wonder why?


I didn't "miss" anything. A lot of people in this thread don't agree with with lifestyle because they believe it could add more pain and issues to a marriage than help it, as you've suggested it can. _Many_ people here, even those who have claimed to be Christians, have said that they have no problem with what individuals choose for themselves, but this lifestyle isn't for them. Not sure how that constitutes badmouthing....?


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> Just to play devils advocate, what is to say that you cannot be faithful to a spouse whilst being in a non monogamous relationship?


So...you're saying that is possible to maintain emotional and sexual faithfulness to your spouse while also engaging in emotional, possibly sexual, relations with someone not within the marriage? Is that not a contradiction? If it's a non-monogamous relationship, then doesn't that mean that there is either more than one wife/spouse _or_ that there is extramarital relations being engaged in? I mean, either you are monogamous(and you reserve your emotional and sexual connections with your spouse and no one else) or you're not.



anonim said:


> or that you cannot be faithful to more than one person?


Okay, let's play this out: A man meets a woman and they fall in love. They marry, both believing that they're with the one person they're meant to be with/want to be with. Later in life issues arise in the marriage and the husband decides to cheat. He's getting his emotional and physical needs met by this other woman while his wife isn't aware. 

If he decides that he isn't wired to be a monogamous man, and he wants to marry this other woman too, then he should tell his wife. (As many, including you, have suggested he should.) And he should understand that his current wife may not be keen about this lifestyle, especially considering that they married under a monogamous pretense. _She_ now has the choice of whether to stay and agree, or divorce. Just because the husband is fond of the polygamy/open relationship option doesn't mean the wife is or needs to be.

If you marry under the understand that the relationship will be monogamous, you can't expect the other spouse to just go along with such a drastic change. Maybe the wife will be okay with it. Great for them. If not, she is within her rights to divorce her husband. 

You say that if a man or woman looks outside of the marriage to get the needs met, it means that the other spouse isn't enough to meet those needs. It's also true, then, that if a man or woman looks outside the marriage for attention, _they_ aren't enough to meet the other spouses needs as well. Not many people would be too excited to find out that their spouse wants an open marriage. 




anonim said:


> FALSE DICHOTOMY
> _Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two, For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities)._
> 
> What makes a happy healthy marriage might vary among different people


Granted. But most people want total and complete devotion from their spouse, and they marry because they believe that person will give them that security. I know you're going to say that what the majority does doesn't define whether what the minority does is right or wrong, but given that affairs are usually not seen as _helpful_ to marriages, no matter what state their in, I really can't see how an open marriage could help either. I mean, _why_ are affairs seen as so destructive? Trust is broken as soon as one spouse goes outside of the relationship either emotionally or sexually. The dedication to the marriage is now in question. 

I mean, when we date, we do so because we want to find a partner we're compatible with. We want to find love, security, and a mate. If someone wants multiple partners, I really do not think they should marry. It's my opinion, and you can disagree.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> I think expecting your spouse to only rely on you to get their needs met is selfish. For instance, if you needed emotional support that your spouse could not provide, do you get it from some where else, maybe your mom, sister or even counselor? My mother in law has provided emotional support for me that my husband could not, was this wrong of her to do? If your spouse needed a doctor, would you deny him that? Guess what- that is him getting his needs met outside of the marriage.


There is a difference between getting needs met in general, or getting specific needs that are usually reserved between spouses met outside of the marriage. I may "need" friendship, and while my husband is my best friend, that "need" isn't something that either of us expected to be contained within our marriage. He has other friends, I have other friends. I may "need" more financial security and so get another job, but we didn't marry under the pretense that my husband would always be the one to provide for all of our financial obligations. I may "need" support during stressful times and so turn to my friends for that support, but that is _not_ necessarily the same kind of support I get from my husband. 

On the other hand, I may "need" romantic attention, but I _do not_ seek it outside of my marriage. Why? I vowed not to. I may "need" sexual attention, but I don't seek it outside of my marriage. Why? I vowed not to. Moreover, even when I have to go without those needs being met, deep down I don't just want romance, I specifically want _my husband_ to meet that need. Sure, some other guy could flirt with me and be romantic, but it's not going to fulfill me because he's not my husband. 




> And men get their sexual needs met by watching porn, ask them, they will tell you. Why is this any different?


Not all women are okay with their husbands viewing porn, nor do all men seek out porn when they feel a sexual need. 



> That is because Kenya believes in 'no blame, no shame, no victim no villain'. Do you have proof that the wife did something "wrong" and if you do, is this not based on YOUR religious beliefs?


See, this is just was gets me. Why are religious beliefs being discounted? Most of us have some kind of belief system, whatever it is, and it is usually that belief system that becomes the basis for our moral standards. Our beliefs define our morals. Most people believe that selfishness is wrong. That's why theft, robbery, assault, murder, rape, etc. are considered heinous crimes. And yes, that's why most of us see adultery as an immoral actions; it's based on selfishness. 



> What proof do you have that some of us are wired to be monogamous?


What proof do you have that we're not? Besides cheating, that is. If we can't use our religious beliefs to disprove polygamy, you shouldn't use cheating to prove it. So have at it: prove we're not meant to be monogamous.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> On the other hand, I may "need" romantic attention, but I _do not_ seek it outside of my marriage. Why? I vowed not to. I may "need" sexual attention, but I don't seek it outside of my marriage. Why? I vowed not to. *Moreover, even when I have to go without those needs being met, deep down I don't just want romance, I specifically want my husband to meet that need. Sure, some other guy could flirt with me and be romantic, but it's not going to fulfill me because he's not my husband. *


Ok,
Let me play " Devil's advocate " here.

Lets say anonim and his wife annoy2 decide amongst themselves that they want to open their marriage and live the polyamorous lifestyle, in order to " satisfy their needs ."

What are the new rules and boundaries of their marriage? Can annoy2 say to her husband that he cannot have that young , nubile 18 year old woman as his new lover? What if anonim starts developing intimate relationships with a few gay men, because he thinks that they best can fulfil his needs?
Can annoy2 object?
And what if annoy2 does the same ,will they still consider themselves a normal , healthy hetrosexual husband and wife? 
What if that 18 year old decides she wants to get pregnant for anonim , because she wants to get her _needs_ met.
How will that improve the emotional bond between anonim and his wife?
Exactly which one of her needs would having the 18 year old pregnant for her husband satisfy?
Does anonim like the idea of a young man ,around the same age as their eldest son, having a close ,intense relationship with his wife and satisfying her sexual needs three times daily?
What if she decides that she wants to have a baby for her lover to satsfy her needs?

My point is that relationships are very complex. Without proper rules and strong boundaries,

THEY CANNOT WORK.


----------



## Created2Write

I have known a couple of people who were in a monogamous relationship, and then went to an open relationship. The male did not want to partake, but the girl wanted it so he agreed. He did _not_ like the guys she would date, but she would tell him that it wasn't his choice who she dated. Yet, whenever she didn't like who he dated, she would forbid him from seeing them again. 

Sound healthy? Hardly.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I wouldn't be able to separate the emotional from the physical so it would never work for me or my husband...we are both cut from the same cloth in this area...high in the Romantic...the " one woman"/ "one man" type. 

I am reading this book right now... Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love: ... 

It has a section about *"Jealousy- the Nurse of Love*" .... Capellanus wrote "He who does not feel jealousy is not capable of loving". He called jealousy the "nurse of Love" because he believed it nourished romantic fire. 

In every society where anthropologists have studied romantic passion, they report that both sexes get jealous, very jealous... 

As the I Ching, the Chinese book of wisdom written over 3 thousand yrs ago, warned..."A close bond is possible only between 2 persons; a group of 3 endangers jealousy".

This is how I think also. 

I don't need to experience "progressive" to understand how this would affect me, and tare at my







for my Lover.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> Let me play " Devil's advocate " here.
> 
> Lets say anonim and his wife annoy2 decide amongst themselves that they want to open their marriage and live the polyamorous lifestyle, in order to " satisfy their needs ."
> 
> What are the new rules and boundaries of their marriage? Can annoy2 say to her husband that he cannot have that young , nubile 18 year old woman as his new lover? What if anonim starts developing intimate relationships with a few gay men, because he thinks that they best can fulfil his needs?
> Can annoy2 object?
> And what if annoy2 does the same ,will they still consider themselves a normal , healthy hetrosexual husband and wife?
> What if that 18 year old decides she wants to get pregnant for anonim , because she wants to get her _needs_ met.
> How will that improve the emotional bond between anonim and his wife?
> Exactly which one of her needs would having the 18 year old pregnant for her husband satisfy?
> Does anonim like the idea of a young man ,around the same age as their eldest son, having a close ,intense relationship with his wife and satisfying her sexual needs three times daily?
> What if she decides that she wants to have a baby for her lover to satsfy her needs?
> 
> My point is that relationships are very complex. Without proper rules and strong boundaries,
> 
> THEY CANNOT WORK.


Very good points, and I would like to know the answer to this as well. 

Where are the lines drawn? Is it based on what each individual couple wants for themselves? If so, are there _any_ boundaries at all? Or is it all basically acceptable, so long as both couples consent?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Very good points, and I would like to know the answer to this as well.
> 
> Where are the lines drawn? Is it based on what each individual couple wants for themselves? If so, are there _any_ boundaries at all? *Or is it all basically acceptable, so long as both couples consent?*


And that's my point.
How can there be agreement when the OP suggested polyamory as a solution to monogamous couples being unable to agree, or have their needs fulfilled exclusively by each other.
Exactly how does bringing in more parties make the married couple _more_ agreeable with each other?
Obviously, there will only be more ground for disagreement.

That's why in my first response , I called it a logic fail.


----------



## Thundarr

This thread is talking about compatibility at it's core. If a couple is compatible and both want to live the same way then whether it's monogomous or open is none of my business.

Cheating or when someone goes outside of the understood boundaries is a huge betrayal and is what infidelity is about at it's core.

I don't think less of people with different lifestyles and I certainly don't think I'm better than anyone else but I would avoid hanging around open couples. Maybe it would be tempting in some way and I think it would devastate how my wife and I look at each other.


----------



## Created2Write

I wonder if we're ever going to get the answers to our questions, or no...


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> I have known a couple of people who were in a monogamous relationship, and then went to an open relationship. The male did not want to partake, but the girl wanted it so he agreed. He did _not_ like the guys she would date, but she would tell him that it wasn't his choice who she dated. Yet, whenever she didn't like who he dated, she would forbid him from seeing them again.
> 
> Sound healthy? Hardly.


One example of a failed relationship (whether it be mono or poly) does not justify saying that all similarly structured relationships will fail. 

In your example given, I think that the failure of the relationship came far more from the males refusal to assert his feelings (read; no backbone) and say he didnt consent with the idea of an 'open' relationship and not leaving when the female asserted controlling and abusive behaviors (read; double standards)



Created2Write said:


> So...you're saying that is possible to maintain emotional and sexual faithfulness to your spouse while also engaging in emotional, possibly sexual, relations with someone not within the marriage? Is that not a contradiction? If it's a non-monogamous relationship, then doesn't that mean that there is either more than one wife/spouse _or_ that there is extramarital relations being engaged in? I mean, either you are monogamous(and you reserve your emotional and sexual connections with your spouse and no one else) or you're not.


Yes, I think it is possible to maintain emotional and sexual faithfulness to your spouse while also engaging in emotional, possibly sexual, relations with someone not within the marriage and no its not a contradiction. its the same as all other relationships - you have/set boundaries and stick to them, you communicate issues you have openly and clearly.



Created2Write said:


> Okay, let's play this out: A man meets a woman and they fall in love. They marry, both believing that they're with the one person they're meant to be with/want to be with. Later in life issues arise in the marriage and the husband decides to cheat. He's getting his emotional and physical needs met by this other woman while his wife isn't aware.


This example isnt about poly (or mono) relationships, its about _cheating_, which can and does occur in ALL relationships.

You're moving the goalposts, which is another fallacy.

I'm not justifying whether its ok for someone to have an affair, its not.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Phrixos Oidipous said:


> There is no such thing as "progressive" love! Open marriage/relationship is just merely our lifestyle choices that some people just don't understand. We are like swingers and we even have a "fun date" with other people. With clear boundaries. This is an arrangement that can make or break your relationship, the bottom line is that so long you had a clear guidelines as well as honesty (also lots of communication) just like any monogmous arrangement then you can achieve to a level where I can have sex what ever I wanted while I had a loving long term partner to fall back to. I know that im sinning by posting this "dark" view in a marriage/monogmous forum. If anyone feels offended then I will apologise for what I say but this whole progressive love is just merely a lifestyle choice.
> 
> Maybe I should do the sinful work by putting up a thread on my story of my open relationship. (hope the moderators don't ban me for my views!)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I really like your post but I felt it deserved more than just a "like". I think you can judge from my posts that I'm DEFINITELY not for polyamory for myself. But I have ZERO negative feelings of it for other people. If it works for you and your spouse....all the power to you.

What I had issue with is the cultish type mentality that the people labeling this "Progressive" have and the attitude of superiority within those people.

I truly appreciate you stating "this isn't progressive".


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> One example of a failed relationship (whether it be mono or poly) does not justify saying that all similarly structured relationships will fail.
> 
> In your example given, I think that the failure of the relationship came far more from the males refusal to assert his feelings (read; no backbone) and say he didnt consent with the idea of an 'open' relationship and not leaving when the female asserted controlling and abusive behaviors (read; double standards)


Except that their relationship was much healthier before the open relationship...



> Yes, I think it is possible to maintain emotional and sexual faithfulness to your spouse while also engaging in emotional, possibly sexual, relations with someone not within the marriage and no its not a contradiction. its the same as all other relationships - you have/set boundaries and stick to them, you communicate issues you have openly and clearly.


........This makes no sense. Adultery isn't defined by whether or not the spouses consent to extramarital sex. By definition, adultery is nothing less than voluntary sex between someone who is married and someone they're not married to. Whether the other spouse consents or not is irrelevant. 

So, yes it _is_ a contradiction. 



> This example isnt about poly (or mono) relationships, its about _cheating_, which can and does occur in ALL relationships.
> 
> You're moving the goalposts, which is another fallacy.
> 
> I'm not justifying whether its ok for someone to have an affair, its not.


No, you're trying to redefine the meaning of what cheating even is. Having sex with someone who isn't your spouse, whether your spouse knows and agrees or not, is _still_ adultery.


----------



## anony2

SimplyAmorous said:


> I wouldn't be able to separate the emotional from the physical so it would never work for me or my husband...we are both cut from the same cloth in this area...high in the Romantic...the " one woman"/ "one man" type.
> 
> I am reading this book right now... Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love: ...
> 
> It has a section about *"Jealousy- the Nurse of Love*" .... Capellanus wrote "He who does not feel jealousy is not capable of loving". He called jealousy the "nurse of Love" because he believed it nourished romantic fire.
> 
> In every society where anthropologists have studied romantic passion, they report that both sexes get jealous, very jealous...
> 
> As the I Ching, the Chinese book of wisdom written over 3 thousand yrs ago, warned..."A close bond is possible only between 2 persons; a group of 3 endangers jealousy".
> 
> This is how I think also.
> 
> I don't need to experience "progressive" to understand how this would affect me, and tare at my
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for my Lover.


Simply, your sexual relationship did progress according to your posts about your sex life. Why do you all act as if the word PROGRESSIVE is a bad word? Does this have something to do with politics? 

Also, as far as your ideology of jealousy, have you watched the TV show called Sister Wives? The wives are ALL jealous of each other, but yet, they are still all married to the same man....and they love him.


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> Let me play " Devil's advocate " here.
> 
> Lets say anonim and his wife annoy2 decide amongst themselves that they want to open their marriage and live the polyamorous lifestyle, in order to " satisfy their needs ."
> 
> What are the new rules and boundaries of their marriage? Can annoy2 say to her husband that he cannot have that young , nubile 18 year old woman as his new lover?
> 
> 
> 
> What if anonim starts developing intimate relationships with a few gay men, because he thinks that they best can fulfil his needs?
> Can annoy2 object?
> And what if annoy2 does the same ,will they still consider themselves a normal , healthy hetrosexual husband and wife?
> What if that 18 year old decides she wants to get pregnant for anonim , because she wants to get her _needs_ met.
> How will that improve the emotional bond between anonim and his wife?
> Exactly which one of her needs would having the 18 year old pregnant for her husband satisfy?
> Does anonim like the idea of a young man ,around the same age as their eldest son, having a close ,intense relationship with his wife and satisfying her sexual needs three times daily?
> What if she decides that she wants to have a baby for her lover to satsfy her needs?
> 
> My point is that relationships are very complex*. Without proper rules and strong boundaries,
> 
> THEY CANNOT WORK.*


That is the basis of PROGRESSIVE LOVE..developing the rules as you go along and not giving up or divorcing when the other person makes a mistake. 

That means that if anonim found an 18 year old that he wanted to explore his relationship with, FIRST he would come to me and discuss it with me, if he started having feelings for her, he would discuss those feelings with me. If she wanted children, first he would discuss it with me. 

This is why we are not doing this type of relationship; we sat down and discussed it one day and decided that our relationship is not strong enough to do this. We are both too jealous and we have too many problems as it is. First we would have to master monogamy.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> That is the basis of PROGRESSIVE LOVE..developing the rules as you go along and not giving up or divorcing when the other person makes a mistake.
> 
> That means that if anonim found an 18 year old that he wanted to explore his relationship with, FIRST he would come to me and discuss it with me, if he started having feelings for her, he would discuss those feelings with me. If she wanted children, first he would discuss it with me.
> 
> This is why we are not doing this type of relationship; we sat down and discussed it one day and decided that our relationship is not strong enough to do this. We are both too jealous and we have too many problems as it is. First we would have to master monogamy.


I agree completely with you on this anony2. There is a special breed of people who could live this life style and make it work but I'm not one of them and the vast majority of people are not one of them. It's not that I am not enlightened so much as I don't want to be enlightened. It's just not my cup of tea.

The reason progressive love is an annoying term is that the word has a clear meaning of moving forward therefore it sounds condescending or demeaning that I am so primative and have not yet evolved to that greater state.


----------



## Created2Write

That's another thing: when does anyone actually "master" monogamy? I mean, there's no such a thing as a monogamous couple that doesn't have issues. Moreover, it implies that there's something superior after a monogamous relationship...as if monogamy is a level lower and polygamy/open relationships are a step up, so to speak.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> The reason progressive love is an annoying term is that the word has a clear meaning of moving forward therefore it sounds condescending or demeaning that I am so primative and have not yet evolved to that greater state.





Created2Write said:


> Moreover, it implies that there's something superior after a monogamous relationship...as if monogamy is a level lower and polygamy/open relationships are a step up, so to speak.


The word progressive does not make sense to me here. Yea I just quoted myself which is pretty lame.


----------



## Created2Write

Thundarr said:


> The word progressive does not make sense to me here. Yea I just quoted myself which is pretty lame.


We posted at the same time and made a similar point. Not lame to quote yourself at all.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> That's another thing: when does anyone actually "master" monogamy? I mean, there's no such a thing as a monogamous couple that doesn't have issues. Moreover, it implies that there's something superior after a monogamous relationship...as if monogamy is a level lower and polygamy/open relationships are a step up, so to speak.


Is monogamy better than polygamy? Isn't that what you have been saying all along?


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> The word progressive does not make sense to me here. Yea I just quoted myself which is pretty lame.


We can sit here and make fun of the name of it, criticize it, or what ever you want about it all day long....but it doesn't change anything and would be kinda like me saying what does CREATED2WRITE and THUNDARR even mean? Those names do not even make sense here...


----------



## Thundarr

Created2Write said:


> We posted at the same time and made a similar point. Not lame to quote yourself at all.


That puts me in good company.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> Is monogamy better than polygamy? Isn't that what you have been saying all along?


No. We are not saying monogamy is better than polygamy or polyamory. We have been saying it is DIFFERENT. Not below, not above, but different... on equal footing. THe reason the term "progressive love" leaves a bad taste in our mouths is because it implies that polyamory is better. And yes, she does say at one point on her site that monogamy is a step, on the road to polyamory. What we are saying is that it isn't a step. They are on the same level.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Is monogamy better than polygamy? Isn't that what you have been saying all along?


If the other option involves adultery, then _yes_, monogamy is better. Polygamy involves an actual marriage commitment between a husband and his wives, or the wife and her husbands; at least it's not adultery. Polygamy isn't for me, and while I definitely am uncomfortable with the idea, I'd take polygamy over an open relationship any day.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> We can sit here and make fun of the name of it, criticize it, or what ever you want about it all day long....but it doesn't change anything and would be kinda like me saying what does CREATED2WRITE and THUNDARR even mean? Those names do not even make sense here...


I was just pointing out a reason why many people are instantly offended by the term because it has a demeaning connotation. That's not the same as making fun or even trying to tear down the argument. Just a few posts back I re-iterated a point that you made and I think I view this topic pretty neutral. I'm all for someone elses open marriage if it floats their boat.

By the way Thundarr means nothing. It was a cartoon character from when I was a shorty.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> We can sit here and make fun of the name of it, criticize it, or what ever you want about it all day long....but it doesn't change anything and would be kinda like me saying what does CREATED2WRITE and THUNDARR even mean? Those names do not even make sense here...


Yet again, you and your husband seem bent on changing the definitions of words. The word progressive means:

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters

2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.

3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement. 

By using the word progressive you are implying, if not flat out stating, that polygamy and polyamorus and open relationships _are_ the next stage(meaning superior) in relational evolution, which implies that monogamy is somehow a lesser form of romantic relationships. Just because you want a word to mean something doesn't alter its actual meaning.

Also, my name is rather self-explanatory...written in a sentence it would be: I was created to write.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> The reason progressive love is an annoying term is that the word has a clear meaning of moving forward therefore it sounds condescending or demeaning that I am so primative and have not yet evolved to that greater state.


:iagree:

When I first saw the headline " Progressive Love", I thought this MUST be some new concept to help build relationships.

Reading it, it sounded more like " Alternate Love " to me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> By the way Thundarr means nothing. It was a cartoon character from when I was a shorty.


:lol: Ha ha!

I was right then!
i always thought your name was from that cartoon.

If so then we are both around the same age?

Children of the 70's.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

anony2 said:


> We can sit here and make fun of the name of it, criticize it, or what ever you want about it all day long....but it doesn't change anything and would be kinda like me saying what does CREATED2WRITE and THUNDARR even mean? Those names do not even make sense here...


No there's a HUGE difference Anony2. I won't RESTATE the definitions, but the term Progressive was chosen and it has meaning to the person who assigned the name to the movement. 

They could've said "open love" "mutually unexclusive love" even something with a positive spin but not putting itself on a higher level such as "unrestricted love" or "love without boundaries". But no, Mamajuju (I can't type that and not think of the sloth from Ice Age 'It's bad JUJU') CHOSE to name it "PROGRESSIVE". So you can attempt to dismiss the issue that a lot of us have over the name, but it's not going away.

Mamajuju thinks she's found the Shangri La of love (for herself granted) and "if you open your mind and allow the beams of understanding to penetrate your mind, YOU TOO could experience this divine and advanced form of love too" (yes I'm being sarcastic and not quoting her).


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> :lol: Ha ha!
> 
> I was right then!
> i always thought your name was from that cartoon.
> 
> If so then we are both around the same age?
> 
> Children of the 70's.


That is correct. I'm coming up on 45.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Sorry I couldn't hold back. Picturing a sweaty fat kid at a computer jump up and yell 

"DING. I just advanced to level 60 on my Love Character. I can now buy the Progressive expansion pack. Mom, we need to go to Gamestop."


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Thundarr said:


> I was just pointing out a reason why many people are instantly offended by the term because it has a demeaning connotation. That's not the same as making fun or even trying to tear down the argument. Just a few posts back I re-iterated a point that you made and I think I view this topic pretty neutral. I'm all for someone elses open marriage if it floats their boat.
> 
> By the way Thundarr means nothing. It was a cartoon character from when I was a shorty.


You Barbarian You!!


----------



## Thundarr

Dad&Hubby said:


> You Barbarian You!!


I already progressed from caveman all the way to barbarian. Now they're asking me to progress even more. Will it ever stop.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> *If the other option involves adultery, then yes, monogamy is better.* Polygamy involves an actual marriage commitment between a husband and his wives, or the wife and her husbands; at least it's not adultery. Polygamy isn't for me, and while I definitely am uncomfortable with the idea, I'd take polygamy over an open relationship any day.


Sorry, but there is adultery in monogamous relationships too, so I guess you are SOL. :scratchhead:


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> No. We are not saying monogamy is better than polygamy or polyamory. We have been saying it is DIFFERENT. Not below, not above, but different... on equal footing. THe reason the term "progressive love" leaves a bad taste in our mouths is because it implies that polyamory is better. And yes, she does say at one point on her site that monogamy is a step, on the road to polyamory. What we are saying is that it isn't a step. They are on the same level.


It was a step for her because she was taught the same thing that I was and that was for a woman to be ashamed of her sexuality. 

Again, it sounds as if you guys have thrown the baby out with the bathwater because you didn't like what she had to say. Oh well, your loss.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Yet again, you and your husband seem bent on changing the definitions of words. The word progressive means:
> 
> 1. favoring or advocating* progress, change, improvement*, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters
> 
> 2. *making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.*
> 
> 3. characterized by such progress, or by* continuous improvement. *
> 
> By using the word progressive you are implying, if not flat out stating, that polygamy and polyamorus and open relationships _are_ the next stage(meaning superior) in relational evolution, which implies that monogamy is somehow a lesser form of romantic relationships. Just because you want a word to mean something doesn't alter its actual meaning.
> 
> Also, my name is rather self-explanatory...written in a sentence it would be: I was created to write.



Surely your marriage has progressed from what it was the day you got married? If not, then I guess you both have stayed the same and not attempted to improve yourselves or your marriage?

THAT is what she meant by progressive love. Maybe if some of you would have read her book, you would have understood that.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Sorry, but there is adultery in monogamous relationships too, so I guess you are SOL. :scratchhead:


The difference is that very few people(if any) actually marry with the intention of being unfaithful. In an open relationship you have no intention of being emotionally and sexually exclusive, which means one or both spouses actively and consistently seek out adulterous affairs. 

There _is_ a difference there.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

anony2 said:


> It was a step for her because she was taught the same thing that I was and that was for a woman to be ashamed of her sexuality.
> 
> *Again, it sounds as if you guys have thrown the baby out with the bathwater because you didn't like what she had to say. Oh well, your loss.*


Anony2, I'm glad you aren't ashamed of your sexuality. No woman, or man should be. It's one of the biggest issues in relationships (poly or mono).

And along those lines, if you find a partner in life with whom you can share a great and long life with who shares in your feelings and gets joy from your sexuality, you have the biggest WIN! you can have. 

I'm lucky in that I also found a woman who isn't ashamed of her sexuality. There's NOTHING better for her partner. Now my wife believes in monogamy and you believe in poly. Your Husband obviously believes and poly and I believe in mono. We're BOTH in two great marriages because of that simple issue. We and our partners aren't ashamed about sex and we're in a relationship with someone we're very compatible to.

But I don't see how I'm throwing any babies anywhere. (I know, figure of speech LOL trying to bring in some levity). I take issue with Mamajuju's arrogance about her sexuality and mentality towards relationships. I take issue with her taking a stance that her way is at a higher level and more advanced. THAT is where my "bath" water landed.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Surely your marriage has progressed from what it was the day you got married? If not, then I guess you both have stayed the same and not attempted to improve yourselves or your marriage?
> 
> THAT is what she meant by progressive love. Maybe if some of you would have read her book, you would have understood that.


Between my husband and I as individuals? Yes. Of course he and have progressed. Most individuals progress through life. 

But to say that _open relationships_ are a _progression_ from _monogamy_(which has been said by not only you and anonim, but by the woman who wrote the book as well with the "you first have to master monogamy" stuff), you're stating that open relationships/polygamy is superior to monogamy or somehow more enlightened, which implies that those of us who wouldn't be okay with open relationships are somehow less evolved.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> It was a step for her because she was taught the same thing that I was and that was for a woman to be ashamed of her sexuality.
> 
> Again, it sounds as if you guys have thrown the baby out with the bathwater because you didn't like what she had to say. Oh well, your loss.


So she has many lovers and many of them are not in open relationships. She progressed alright. She progressed into someone who has no concern for anyone other than herself and certainly not for the wives and children of these men (or women). The premise of open marriage is one topic but I'm sorry I can not view this woman as anything other than what she is. Disgusting.

On the topic of open marriage when infidelity is NOT involved. Do it if you want to. It just doesn't matter to me.


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> I was just pointing out a reason why many people are instantly offended by the term because it has a demeaning connotation. That's not the same as making fun or even trying to tear down the argument. Just a few posts back I re-iterated a point that you made and I think I view this topic pretty neutral. I'm all for someone elses open marriage if it floats their boat.
> 
> By the way Thundarr means nothing. It was a cartoon character from when I was a shorty.


The word progressive doesn't have a demeaning connotation unless you consider improving something demeaning, personally, I do not. 

I am all for improvement and change in our marriage... I didn't know that some of the people on this website are against improvement and change in relationship/marriages. Go figure! :rofl:


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> The word progressive doesn't have a demeaning connotation unless you consider improving something demeaning, personally, I do not.
> 
> I am all for improvement and change in our marriage... I didn't know that some of the people on this website are against improvement and change in relationship/marriages. Go figure! :rofl:


The demeaning part is the notion that what most of us practice apparently needs to be improved upon in this way. Of course it's not demeaning to the other side of the equation. It's confusing to me that me not wanting to screw other women while my wife screws other men makes you so offended.


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> So she has many lovers and many of them are not in open relationships. She progressed alright. She progressed into someone who has no concern for anyone other than herself and certainly not for the wives and children of these men (or women). The premise of open marriage is one topic but I'm sorry I can not view this woman as anything other than what she is. Disgusting.
> 
> On the topic of open marriage when infidelity is NOT involved. Do it if you want to. It just doesn't matter to me.


Sooooo...you are saying that you know these men that she is involved with? You know that they have children? I think that you guys have judged her and not understood what she was saying. Here is a better video where here and her husband talk about what an open relationship is REALLY about. 

Do you consider anyone that has an affair disgusting? How about emotional affairs?


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> The demeaning part is the notion that what most of us practice apparently needs to be improved upon in this way. Of course it's not demeaning to the other side of the equation. It's confusing to me that me not wanting to screw other women while my wife screws other men makes you so offended.


So your marriage was perfect the day that you said I do? 

It's confusing to me that Kenya wanting to screw other men while her husband screws other women makes you so offended, so much so that you would call her disgusting.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> The word progressive doesn't have a demeaning connotation unless you consider improving something demeaning, personally, I do not.
> 
> I am all for improvement and change in our marriage... I didn't know that some of the people on this website are against improvement and change in relationship/marriages. Go figure! :rofl:


C'mon now... I know you are smarter than this. Improve our relationship with our spouses? Absolutely. "Improve" to the point that we "progress" past monogamy? HELL NO! You are deliberately glossing over the fact that she DOES teach it that way. You gloss over the fact that she has affairs with men who can't PHYSICALLY cheat on their wives because their wives have said no. So...we should look UP to someone who actively engages in emotional infidelity, because she sees nothing wrong with it? Really? Look up to a woman who encourages men to be emotionally unfaithful to their wives? No thanks. I know how it feels on both sides of that equation and there's no way I will look up to someone who sees nothing wrong with hurting a spouse that way, just because SHE and Mr. Stevens are ok with it in THEIR marriage. I can't take anyone's word seriously, even if they may have some things that could be of merit, as long as they actively engage in infidelity. Not in their own marriage, but encouraging others to do it, as she does with the lovers she doesn't have sexual intercourse with.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> So your marriage was perfect the day that you said I do?
> 
> It's confusing to me that Kenya wanting to screw other men while her husband screws other women makes you so offended, so much so that you would call her disgusting.


Again, what we find disgusting is the fact that she encourages EMOTIONAL AFFAIRS with men whose wives won't "let" them have sex with her. Really, I know you understand this... I'm certain you are acting like you don't on purpose.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Between my husband and I as individuals? Yes. Of course he and have progressed. Most individuals progress through life.
> 
> But to say that _open relationships_ are a _progression_ from _monogamy_(which has been said by not only you and anonim, but by the woman who wrote the book as well with the "you first have to master monogamy" stuff), you're stating that open relationships/polygamy is superior to monogamy or somehow more enlightened, *which implies that those of us who wouldn't be okay with open relationships are somehow less evolved*.


I am pretty sure that is what the basis of your argument was about monogamy when I had to point out that polygamy is what was practiced before monogamy.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> The difference is that very few people(if any) actually marry with the intention of being unfaithful. In an open relationship you have no intention of being emotionally and sexually exclusive, which means one or both spouses actively and consistently seek out adulterous affairs.
> 
> There _is_ a difference there.


But yet, there is still adultery in monogamy and many spouses are actively and consistently seeking out adulterous affairs...every day this forum has new members talking about them.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Again, what we find disgusting is the fact that she encourages EMOTIONAL AFFAIRS with men whose wives won't "let" them have sex with her. Really, I know you understand this... I'm certain you are acting like you don't on purpose.


She isn't in any EA's, she is in an OPEN relationship. Her husband and her allow this in their marriage. 

I know you understand this and I am certain that you aren't acting like you do not know this on purpose. 

How can someone in an OPEN RELATIONSHIP, be in an EMOTIONAL affair?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Between my husband and I as individuals? Yes. Of course he and have progressed. Most individuals progress through life.
> 
> *But to say that open relationships are a progression from monogamy*(which has been said by not only you and anonim, but by the woman who wrote the book as well with the "you first have to master monogamy" stuff), you're stating that open relationships/polygamy is superior to monogamy or somehow more enlightened, which implies that those of us who wouldn't be okay with open relationships are somehow less evolved.


So you are saying that we aren't ALLOWED to have any opinions apart from YOUR opinion?


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> She isn't in any EA's, she is in an OPEN relationship. Her husband and her allow this in their marriage.
> 
> I know you understand this and I am certain that you aren't acting like you do not know this on purpose.
> 
> How can someone in an OPEN RELATIONSHIP, be in an EMOTIONAL affair?


Are you for real? I mean, seriously? THE MEN ARE NOT IN OPEN RELATIONSHIPS. Their WIVES won't LET them. They are having EAs with HER. She is the AFFAIR PARTNER. It is irrelevant whether she and Carl are in an open marriage. What IS relevant here is that the WIVES are not ok with it. And yet, Kenya encourages them to emotionally CHEAT with HER. They are emotional affairs because the MEN are cheating on their WIVES.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> But yet, there is still adultery in monogamy and many spouses are actively and consistently seeking out adulterous affairs...every day this forum has new members talking about them.


I never said there wasn't adultery in monogamous relationships. However, those who commit adultery in monogamous relationships almost universally recognize that _it's wrong_, whereas an open relationship tries to justify actively seeking out multiple adulterous affairs. 

The point here isn't that monogamous relationships are free of adultery, the point is that open relationships involve number multiple adulterous affairs.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Are you for real? I mean, seriously? THE MEN ARE NOT IN OPEN RELATIONSHIPS. Their WIVES won't LET them. They are having EAs with HER. She is the AFFAIR PARTNER. It is irrelevant whether she and Carl are in an open marriage. What IS relevant here is that the WIVES are not ok with it. And yet, Kenya encourages them to emotionally CHEAT with HER. They are emotional affairs because the MEN are cheating on their WIVES.


Are you for real?

If they are having affairs with HER, then it is THEIR problem to deal with. They are the one that is hiding that part of themselves with their partner. 

You had an EA, are you disgusting?

If your husband had an EA, who was liable to you? Was it the other woman or was it your husband?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> I never said there wasn't adultery in monogamous relationships. However, those who commit adultery in monogamous relationships almost universally recognize that _*it's wrong*_, whereas an open relationship tries to justify actively seeking out multiple adulterous affairs.
> 
> The point here isn't that monogamous relationships are free of adultery, the point is that open relationships involve number multiple adulterous affairs.


WRONG according to WHOM? According to YOUR standards?

I wasn't aware that you are the judge of this world and everyone in it.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> I am pretty sure that is what the basis of your argument was about monogamy when I had to point out that polygamy is what was practiced before monogamy.


So? Logically speaking wouldn't that mean that _monogamy_ is a progression of _polygamy_, since polygamy came first? 

Sheesh.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> She isn't in any EA's, she is in an OPEN relationship. Her husband and her allow this in their marriage.
> 
> I know you understand this and I am certain that you aren't acting like you do not know this on purpose.
> 
> *How can someone in an OPEN RELATIONSHIP, be in an EMOTIONAL affair?*


From dictionary.com: 

Affair: "a sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other" 

An emotional affair, without the sex, exists between two people who are not married to each other. Consent is irrelevant. If two people are engaging in a romantic relationship and aren't married to each other, while one or both of them already have a spouse, it's an _emotional affair_.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> So you are saying that we aren't ALLOWED to have any opinions apart from YOUR opinion?


It's _a definition of a word_. I don't make the definitions. This isn't about me, this about word choice, word choice that you, your husband and Kenya have all used.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Are you for real?
> 
> If they are having affairs with HER, then it is THEIR problem to deal with. They are the one that is hiding that part of themselves with their partner.
> 
> You had an EA, are you disgusting?
> 
> If your husband had an EA, who was liable to you? Was it the other woman or was it your husband?


Liable to _her_? The husband. 

But that doesn't meant that the woman who encouraged the emotional affair is miraculously innocent.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> WRONG according to WHOM? According to YOUR standards?
> 
> I wasn't aware that you are the judge of this world and everyone in it.


Well, given how many men and women come to this forum expressing their extensive pain and disappointment at discovering their spouses infidelity........

Are you really going to argue that adultery is somehow ethical?


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> Are you for real?
> 
> If they are having affairs with HER, then it is THEIR problem to deal with. They are the one that is hiding that part of themselves with their partner.
> 
> *You had an EA, are you disgusting?*
> 
> *If your husband had an EA, who was liable to you? Was it the other woman or was it your husband?*


Yes, while I was still involved in the affair, I absolutely was disgusting. My husband was liable to me. You know this. See, there's a big difference between IS/AM and *WAS*. I WAS having EA. During that time, I was one of the lowest of the low. Now? No. And that is only because I don't behave like that anymore. And, I don't encourage others to behave that way. I do my best to discourage it, whenever possible.

I find it interesting that anyone can look up to someone who ENCOURAGES people to cheat on their spouses. By continuing in the affairs with these men, that is exactly what she is doing. But, I know you will gloss over that because, after all, it is their fault, not hers. I mean, why should she discourage anyone from cheating on their spouses, right?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> From dictionary.com:
> 
> *Affair*: "a *sexual relationship* between two people who are not married to each other"
> 
> An emotional affair, without the sex, exists between two people who are not married to each other. Consent is irrelevant. If two people are engaging in a romantic relationship and aren't married to each other, while one or both of them already have a spouse, it's an _emotional affair_.




She doesn't have sex with these men, she said it in the video, she is FRIENDS with them. YOU and the others on here have decided it was an EMOTIONAL affair, not her or her husband.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Yes, while I was still involved in the affair, I absolutely was disgusting. My husband was liable to me. You know this. See, there's a big difference between IS/AM and *WAS*. I WAS having EA. During that time, I was one of the lowest of the low. Now? No. And that is only because I don't behave like that anymore. And, I don't encourage others to behave that way. I do my best to discourage it, whenever possible.
> 
> I find it interesting that anyone can look up to someone who ENCOURAGES people to cheat on their spouses. By continuing in the affairs with these men, that is exactly what she is doing. But, I know you will gloss over that because, after all, it is their fault, not hers. I mean, why should she discourage anyone from cheating on their spouses, right?


I do not JUDGE her, YOU might feel that you are perfect that you can judge her, but seeing as you have had an emotional affair, I don't see how you can judge her harshly unless you want judged just as harsh. 

I am not her judge and every person I look up to is imperfect.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> It's _a definition of a word_. I don't make the definitions. This isn't about me, this about word choice, word choice that you, your husband and Kenya have all used.


No, I am not disagreeing with the definition, I can read the definition myself, I am disagreeing with YOUR OPINION, you are telling me that I am not allowed to have an opinion different than yours.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> She doesn't have sex with these men, she said it in the video, she is FRIENDS with them. YOU and the others on here have decided it was an EMOTIONAL affair, not her or her husband.


Okay...I'll break it down for you. 

Sally and Jim are married and in an open relationship. Sally is fine with Jim having a romantic relationship with other women, and he is fine with her having romantic relationships with other men. So, Jim meets Megan. Megan and her husband are _not_ in an open relationship, but Megan likes Jim, so she flirts with him. They start dating. They don't have sex, but they go on dates, they laugh, they have a good time, and they care about each other...They're "friends" too. 

Guess what? It's _still_ an emotional affair. Why? Megan and Jim are not married. They're pursuing a romantic relationship with each other, while they have spouses. Moreover, Megan _isn't in an open relationship_. 

That _is_ an emotional affair, and not according to me, but the definition of the words.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Liable to _her_? The husband.
> 
> But that doesn't meant that the woman who encouraged the emotional affair is miraculously innocent.


Who said anything about innocence? I think everyone here is past innocence, being as some here have HAD emotional affairs.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> No, I am not disagreeing with the definition, I can read the definition myself, I am disagreeing with YOUR OPINION, you are telling me that I am not allowed to have an opinion different than yours.


My opinion surrounds the definitions of the phrases "progressive" and "emotional affair". Since you say you have no issue with the definitions, though....you agree, then, that progressive implies that polygamy and open relationships are somehow more advanced or better than monogamous relationships, and that the definition of an emotional affair has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a marriage is an open relationship?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Okay...I'll break it down for you.
> 
> Sally and Jim are married and in an open relationship. Sally is fine with Jim having a romantic relationship with other women, and he is fine with her having romantic relationships with other men. So, Jim meets Megan. Megan and her husband are _not_ in an open relationship, but Megan likes Jim, so she flirts with him. They start dating. They don't have sex, but they go on dates, they laugh, they have a good time, and they care about each other...They're "friends" too.
> 
> Guess what? It's _still_ an emotional affair. Why? Megan and Jim are not married. They're pursuing a romantic relationship with each other, while they have spouses. Moreover, Megan _isn't in an open relationship_.
> 
> That _is_ an emotional affair, and not according to me, but the definition of the words.


In every circumstance you can provide, the husband and the wife are ONLY liable to each other. Megan made the vow to her husband, JIM did not.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> My opinion surrounds the definitions of the phrases "progressive" and "emotional affair". Since you say you have no issue with the definitions, though....you agree, then, that progressive implies that polygamy and open relationships are somehow more advanced or better than monogamous relationships, and that the definition of an emotional affair has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a marriage is an open relationship?


And MY opinion is that a relationship that PROGRESSES is PROGRESSIVE. NOTHING that you do or say will change my opinion. If you do not think that is progressive, then that is YOUR opinion, you do not have to agree with me.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Who said anything about innocence? I think everyone here is past innocence, being as some here have HAD emotional affairs.


I wasn't talking about _here_, I was talking about Kenya. Just because she and her husband are in an open relationship, doesn't make her relationships with other men okay. By her own admission, many of the men she was involved with had wives who _were not_ okay with the idea of an open relationship. So, instead of having sex with them, Kenya had romantic relationships with them without their wives consent, and then encourages other people to do the same.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> In every circumstance you can provide, the husband and the wife are ONLY liable to each other. Megan made the vow to her husband, JIM did not.


It doesn't matter who is liable to whom. Yeah, Megan is liable to her husband...it's _still_ an emotional affair.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> And MY opinion is that a relationship that PROGRESSES is PROGRESSIVE. NOTHING that you do or say will change my opinion. If you do not think that is progressive, then that is YOUR opinion, you do not have to agree with me.


UGH. 

My argument isn't with the idea of progression. Any relationship that get's better, whether it's a marriage, a family relationship, a friendship, a business relationship, whatever...any relationship that improves in someway progresses. No argument there. That is the proper usage of the word.

My issue is with the statement that open relationships are a progression of monogamous relationships. That is flat out stating that open relationships are better. If that's what you believe, just say so. I certainly won't judge you are get mad.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> I wasn't talking about _here_, I was talking about Kenya. Just because she and her husband are in an open relationship, doesn't make her relationships with other men okay. By her own admission, many of the men she was involved with had wives who _were not_ okay with the idea of an open relationship. So, instead of having sex with them, Kenya had romantic relationships with them without their wives consent, and then encourages other people to do the same.



Who made the vows to these wives was it her or the husbands?


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> I do not JUDGE her, YOU might feel that you are perfect that you can judge her, but seeing as you have had an emotional affair, I don't see how you can judge her harshly unless you want judged just as harsh.
> 
> I am not her judge and every person I look up to is imperfect.


I'm not perfect. I don't claim to be. Yes, I judge the actions because I know how it feels to betray and to be betrayed. FYI, I HAVE been judged harshly. I get my actions thrown back in my face from time to time. You even did it to me...wait, you still are. And again, the difference between my EA and hers? Mine is OVER... she is still involved in hers.I don't make excuses for my screw up. I know I did. I know I was wrong. I can't go back and change it. I am ashamed of my actions. I am ashamed that I cheated on my husband. She, however, has no shame for encouraging these men to cheat on their wives.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> It doesn't matter who is liable to whom. Yeah, Megan is liable to her husband...it's _still_ an emotional affair.


Yes, it does matter who is liable to whom and this is why in the court of law the affair partner doesn't get fined/taken to jail when it is shown that the husband/wife is shown to have had an affair. 

MEGAN is having the emotional affair with Jim, JIM is in an OPEN marriage.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> I'm not perfect. I don't claim to be. Yes, I judge the actions because I know how it feels to betray and to be betrayed. FYI, I HAVE been judged harshly. I get my actions thrown back in my face from time to time. You even did it to me...wait, you still are. And again, the difference between my EA and hers? Mine is OVER... she is still involved in hers.I don't make excuses for my screw up. I know I did. I know I was wrong. I can't go back and change it. I am ashamed of my actions. I am ashamed that I cheated on my husband. She, however, has no shame for encouraging these men to cheat on their wives.


So because you have been judged harshly, you think it is okay to judge others harshly based on YOUR BELIEFS?

What if she doesn't believe the same way you do, is she beholden to your beliefs still?


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> Yes, it does matter who is liable to whom and this is why in the court of law the affair partner doesn't get fined/taken to jail when it is shown that the husband/wife is shown to have had an affair.
> 
> MEGAN is having the emotional affair with Jim, JIM is in an OPEN marriage.


And Jim encourages Megan to cheat on her husband, then writes a book about how wonderful and enlightening it is to behave like that.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Who made the vows to these wives was it her or the husbands?


Who made the vows to whom is _*not*_ the point! The point is that it's still an emotional affair. There's not way to justify it! The husbands made the vows to the wife, and then chose to engage in a romantic relationship with Kenya. That = emotional affair. 

Kenya then encourages others to do the same thing. Hence, she's encouraging emotional affairs. 

Is it really that hard to grasp?


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> So because you have been judged harshly, you think it is okay to judge others harshly based on YOUR BELIEFS?
> 
> What if she doesn't believe the same way you do, is she beholden to your beliefs still?


Sigh... You are going in circles. You know exactly what I am saying and are deliberately acting as if you don't. I said that MY problem with her is this. I have a big problem with someone who encourages OTHERS to cheat on their spouses. No, she is not responsible for the actions of these men. But if she believes that honesty and openness in all marriages, then she shouldn't be encouraging these men to cheat on their wives with her... no matter how good they make her feel.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Yes, it does matter who is liable to whom and this is why in the court of law the affair partner doesn't get fined/taken to jail when it is shown that the husband/wife is shown to have had an affair.
> 
> MEGAN is having the emotional affair with Jim, JIM is in an OPEN marriage.


But there is _still_ an emotional affair going on.

Hence, those men were in _emotional affairs_ with Kenya, and she encourages that kind of behavior.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> And Jim encourages Megan to cheat on her husband, then writes a book about how wonderful and enlightening it is to behave like that.


And another person who did the same thing comes on and calls Jim-the kettle black...

Things that make you go HMMM...


----------



## Created2Write

Maricha75 said:


> And Jim encourages Megan to cheat on her husband, then writes a book about how wonderful and enlightening it is to behave like that.


_*Precisely*_.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> And another person who did the same thing comes on and calls Jim-the kettle black...
> 
> Things that make you go HMMM...


So, since you can't actually justify Kenya's actions, you stoop to rubbing a mistake in Maricha's face?

Makes sense I guess. At least Maricha has the integrity to admit when she's wrong.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> But there is _still_ an emotional affair going on.
> 
> Hence, those men were in _emotional affairs_ with Kenya, and she encourages that kind of behavior.


An emotional affair can be defined as follows'

"A relationship between *a person and someone other than (their) spouse (or lover) *that has an impact on the level of intimacy, emotional distance and overall dynamic balance in the marriage. *The role of an affair is to create emotional distance in the marriage*."[1]"

Emotional affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, it was MEGAN who had the EMOTIONAL affair.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> An emotional affair can be defined as follows'
> 
> "A relationship between *a person and someone other than (their) spouse (or lover) *that has an impact on the level of intimacy, emotional distance and overall dynamic balance in the marriage. *The role of an affair is to create emotional distance in the marriage*."[1]"
> 
> Emotional affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yes, it was MEGAN who had the EMOTIONAL affair.


I never said it wasn't. 

_But the fact remains that there is still an emotional affair taking place, and an affair involves *two* people._ Without Jim, or another person, there can be no emotional affair.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> An emotional affair can be defined as follows'
> 
> "A relationship between *a person and someone other than (their) spouse (or lover) *that has an impact on the level of intimacy, emotional distance and overall dynamic balance in the marriage. *The role of an affair is to create emotional distance in the marriage*."[1]"
> 
> Emotional affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yes, it was MEGAN who had the EMOTIONAL affair.


Who was Megan's partner in the affair? Who fostered the feelings she had?


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> And another person who did the same thing comes on and calls Jim-the kettle black...
> 
> Things that make you go HMMM...


Yea, Tony comes on and calls Jim on his actions because he *was* doing what Megan did and what Jim does with Sarah and Michelle and Tammy, etc. Meanwhile, Tony is trying to get Megan to see how her actions are hurting her husband, while Jim keeps spouting how wonderful this lifestyle is. And Tanya, who bought Jim's book, backs him up at every turn. 

Hmmmmm...... :scratchhead:

ETA: Btw, It would be more logical to say Maricha was calling Megan the kettle, not Jim. Maricha's marriage is not open.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sometimes I really wonder about this thing called liberalism.

Bertrand Russell, 19th Century Mathematician and Philosopher once said:

".._All movements go too far_.."


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Who was Megan's partner in the affair? Who fostered the feelings she had?


No one fostered them. In the scenario, it said that MEGAN pursued the affair.

"but *Megan likes Jim, so she flirts with hi*m. They start dating. They don't have sex, but they go on dates, they laugh, they have a good time, and they care about each other...They're "friends" too."


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> I never said it wasn't.
> 
> _But the fact remains that there is still an emotional affair taking place, and an affair involves *two* people._ Without Jim, or another person, there can be no emotional affair.


Sorry, but that is the funniest thing I have ever heard in my life...

JIM is not the only person in the world that she could have had the affair with...if not Jim, it would have been Bob, if not Bob, it would have been Mark, if not Mark it would have been James...

The problem is not that JIM was there, the problem was that Megan was not getting something in her marriage that she needed, so she looked elsewhere without the knowledge of her husband.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> Sorry, but that is the funniest thing I have ever heard in my life...
> 
> JIM is not the only person in the world that she could have had the affair with...if not Jim, it would have been Bob, if not Bob, it would have been Mark, if not Mark it would have been James...


And yet... it was Jim. And, knowing how Megan's husband felt about it, he continued in the affair, rather than counsel her to open up to her husband and strengthen that bond. Unfortunately, he believes Megan isn't doing anything wrong by cheating on her husband. After all, she is just going on her instincts.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Sigh... You are going in circles. You know exactly what I am saying and are deliberately acting as if you don't. I said that MY problem with her is this. I have a big problem with someone who encourages OTHERS to cheat on their spouses. No, she is not responsible for the actions of these men. But if she believes that honesty and openness in all marriages, then she shouldn't be encouraging these men to cheat on their wives with her... no matter how good they make her feel.


No, I am not going in circles, you are going in squares and since I will not bow to your belief, you think you are going to bludgeon me with it again. 

How do you know that she isn't encouraging these men to be open and honest with their wives? Are you claiming to know what goes on between her and her friends?


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> The problem is not that JIM was there, the problem was that Megan was not getting something in her marriage that she needed, so she looked elsewhere without the knowledge of her husband.


And that's how JIM justifies the affair... there is NO justification for cheating. If Jim was living what he CLAIMS to believe, he would encourage Megan to open up to her husband, not run around behind his back. But he doesn't. Why? Because he is only thinking of what HE wants.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> And yet... it was Jim. And, knowing how Megan's husband felt about it, he continued in the affair, rather than counsel her to open up to her husband and strengthen that bond. Unfortunately, he believes Megan isn't doing anything wrong by cheating on her husband. After all, she is just going on her instincts.


And yet, if it wasn't Jim, it would have been BillyBob. SHE made the vow to her husband, JIM did not. Rather than open up to her husband, SHE chooses to go behind his back and have an affair, all the while JIM is saying that she should tell her husband her feelings...but she is too afraid to, because she is afraid that with these strict Christian views, that he will divorce her...but yet on Sunday, he will stand up in church and read Malachi 2:16.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> And that's how JIM justifies the affair... there is NO justification for cheating. If Jim was living what he CLAIMS to believe, he would encourage Megan to open up to her husband, not run around behind his back. But he doesn't. Why? Because he is only thinking of what HE wants.


Jim doesn't have to justify anything. What makes you think that he answers to you or anyone else? 

This is what I think is so wrong with your religion, your god said not to judge or YOU would be judged but yet, some how some of you think that means that Christians get to judge everyone else. I just do not get it.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> No, I am not going in circles, you are going in squares and since I will not bow to your belief, you think you are going to bludgeon me with it again.
> 
> How do you know that she isn't encouraging these men to be open and honest with their wives? Are you claiming to know what goes on between her and her friends?


Anony, if she is calling them her lovers (which she has), and she says their wives are not ok with it (again, she said that as well), an honorable person would say "Hey, I can't do this with you. Your wife isn't ok with it. You need to open up with your wife." Calling someone a lover is NOT "just friends".

As far as me bludgeoning you with my beliefs, that's laughable. What is more accurate is that you keep bringing my EA up, likely to set me off. I've had such tactics used against me in the past. It starts out with trying to convince me (or someone) of a subject. When that doesn't work, it gets progressively more aggressive until I (or someone) am condemned. It's either that tactic or something else to make you feel justified in bringing up my past.

I just have a problem with someone being venerated for encouraging people to be disloyal to their spouses, all under the guise of "we're just friends". Don't care what you do in your marriage or what C2W does in hers, as long as it doesn't include encouraging someone else to cheat on his or her spouse, be it physical or emotional. If Kenya was doing this with people whose wives are ok with it, I couldn't care less. But she knows the wives don't approve, yet does it anyway. THAT is the problem with THIS particular subject.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> No one fostered them. In the scenario, it said that MEGAN pursued the affair.
> 
> "but *Megan likes Jim, so she flirts with hi*m. They start dating. They don't have sex, but they go on dates, they laugh, they have a good time, and they care about each other...They're "friends" too."


But without _Jim_ there would never have _been_ any dates. It takes two to make an affair, not one. I mean, do you think he didn't flirt back? Obviously he showed an interest... Just because a woman likes a guy doesn't mean there's suddenly an EA. It takes the other person responding in kind to create that. If he had said no, realizing that she wasn't in an open relationship, the EA wouldn't have happened with him.

And maybe, if he encouraged her to be open with her husband, like he is with his wife, there wouldn't have been an EA at all, whether with him or someone else?


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Sorry, but that is the funniest thing I have ever heard in my life...
> 
> JIM is not the only person in the world that she could have had the affair with...if not Jim, it would have been Bob, if not Bob, it would have been Mark, if not Mark it would have been James...
> 
> The problem is not that JIM was there, the problem was that Megan was not getting something in her marriage that she needed, so she looked elsewhere without the knowledge of her husband.


Not buying it. Not one bit. Megan's attraction and flirtation with Jim doesn't make an affair. He has to return the feelings, and show them. Which he did, since they started dating.

If _Jim_ had said "No" to Megan, then yeah...the EA could have happened with someone else. But did he? _No_. He didn't care that Megan was in a closed relationship. _He_ chose to flirt back. One person flirting with another doesn't make it affair. 

"It takes two to tango". Without _two_ people, there can be no affair. I'm pretty sure you're not really this naive...


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> And yet, if it wasn't Jim, it would have been BillyBob. SHE made the vow to her husband, JIM did not. Rather than open up to her husband, SHE chooses to go behind his back and have an affair, all the while JIM is saying that she should tell her husband her feelings...but she is too afraid to, because she is afraid that with these strict Christian views, that he will divorce her...but yet on Sunday, he will stand up in church and read Malachi 2:16.


ROFLMHO!

You should do stand up comedy.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> Jim doesn't have to justify anything. What makes you think that he answers to you or anyone else?
> 
> This is what I think is so wrong with your religion, your god said not to judge or YOU would be judged but yet, some how some of you think that means that Christians get to judge everyone else. I just do not get it.


:rofl::rofl: Perhaps you missed the part where I said I don't care if someone has an open marriage or polyamorous or whatever. I couldn't care less if both parties are willing and happy participants in any lifestyle... provided there is no deception, all parties are open and honest with each other, there is no cheating. I have a big problem with *cheating* being encouraged. Your "Jujumama" claims to uphold this... yet, she is romantically involved with men who are cheating on their wives... and is ok with that. A real winner there. 

Like a few of us have said, if she presented her theories differently and if she didn't encourage cheaters to continue to cheat, then some of us might take her seriously.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Jim doesn't have to justify anything. What makes you think that he answers to you or anyone else?
> 
> This is what I think is so wrong with your religion, your god said not to judge or YOU would be judged but yet, some how some of you think that means that Christians get to judge everyone else. I just do not get it.


This isn't about judgment. This is about hypocrisy and contradictions. I would have very little issue with this if Jim were to practice what he preached. If, as you say, open relationships are supposed to _prevent_ cheating, then Jim would never have dated Megan to begin with. Just because _he's_ not cheating in his relationship(because his spouse/SO has given him permission to date Megan), doesn't mean he isn't in a cheating relationship with Megan(since her husband hasn't given her permission to date Jim). _That_ is the issue.


----------



## Created2Write

Maricha75 said:


> :rofl::rofl: Perhaps you missed the part where I said I don't care if someone has an open marriage or polyamorous or whatever. I couldn't care less if both parties are willing and happy participants in any lifestyle... provided there is no deception, all parties are open and honest with each other, there is no cheating. I have a big problem with *cheating* being encouraged. Your "Jujumama" claims to uphold this... yet, she is romantically involved with men who are cheating on their wives... and is ok with that. A real winner there.
> 
> Like a few of us have said, if she presented her theories differently and if she didn't encourage cheaters to continue to cheat, then some of us might take her seriously.


Precisely.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Anony, if she is calling them her lovers (which she has), and she says their wives are not ok with it (again, she said that as well), an honorable person would say "Hey, I can't do this with you. Your wife isn't ok with it. You need to open up with your wife." Calling someone a lover is NOT "just friends".
> 
> As far as me bludgeoning you with my beliefs, that's laughable. What is more accurate is that you keep bringing my EA up, likely to set me off. I've had such tactics used against me in the past. It starts out with trying to convince me (or someone) of a subject. When that doesn't work, it gets progressively more aggressive until I (or someone) am condemned. It's either that tactic or something else to make you feel justified in bringing up my past.
> 
> I just have a problem with someone being venerated for encouraging people to be disloyal to their spouses, all under the guise of "we're just friends". Don't care what you do in your marriage or what C2W does in hers,* as long as it doesn't include encouraging someone else to cheat on his or her spouse, be it physical or emotional.* If Kenya was doing this with people whose wives are ok with it, I couldn't care less. But she knows the wives don't approve, yet does it anyway. THAT is the problem with THIS particular subject.



I have had your tactic used on me also, you guys set up a scenario and twist and turn it until I HAVE to agree, but I am not going to, so you can drop that, I have proven my point. If it wasn't Jim, it would have been someone else. The sad part, is that MEGAN pursued the affair and that is EXACTLY what the scenario said. Had she not pursued it with Jim, it would have been someone else, because SHE wasn't getting her needs met. 

Just because you have a problem with something, doesn't mean it is WRONG, it just means that you BELIEVE that it is wrong and it might be WRONG to you, but that doesn't mean it is WRONG to everyone, especially people that do not hold your beliefs.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> I have had your tactic used on me also, you guys set up a scenario and twist and turn it until I HAVE to agree, but I am not going to, so you can drop that, I have proven my point. If it wasn't Jim, it would have been someone else. The sad part, is that MEGAN pursued the affair and that is EXACTLY what the scenario said. Had she not pursued it with Jim, it would have been someone else, because SHE wasn't getting her needs met.
> 
> Just because you have a problem with something, doesn't mean it is WRONG, it just means that you BELIEVE that it is wrong and it might be WRONG to you, but that doesn't mean it is WRONG to everyone, especially people that do not hold your beliefs.


WE didn't make any scenario. The scenario was based precisely on what Kenya herself admitted to!


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> This isn't about judgment. This is about hypocrisy and contradictions. I would have very little issue with this if Jim were to practice what he preached. If, as you say, open relationships are supposed to _prevent_ cheating, then Jim would never have dated Megan to begin with. Just because _he's_ not cheating in his relationship(because his spouse/SO has given him permission to date Megan), doesn't mean he isn't in a cheating relationship with Megan(since her husband hasn't given her permission to date Jim). _That_ is the issue.


Your hypocrisy and contradictions? MEGAN married her husband, JIM did not. If Megan did not pursue JIM, she would have pursued another man. If a single man is with a married woman, does that mean he is cheating? Who exactly is he cheating on?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> WE didn't make any scenario. The scenario was based precisely on what Kenya herself admitted to!


So you didn't make up a scenario about Megan and Jim? WOW...


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> I have had your tactic used on me also, you guys set up a scenario and twist and turn it until I HAVE to agree, but I am not going to, so you can drop that, I have proven my point. If it wasn't Jim, it would have been someone else. The sad part, is that MEGAN pursued the affair and that is EXACTLY what the scenario said. Had she not pursued it with Jim, it would have been someone else, because SHE wasn't getting her needs met.
> 
> *Just because you have a problem with something, doesn't mean it is WRONG, it just means that you BELIEVE that it is wrong and it might be WRONG to you, but that doesn't mean it is WRONG to everyone, especially people that do not hold your beliefs.*


In your world encouraging unfaithfulness is okay, then? 

Look, what you and your husband, or what Kenya and her husband, agree to is none of my business. If they agree that being in an open marriage would give them a better chance at staying together, then good for them. _But they shouldn't be in relationships with people who aren't also in open marriages or single._ If a man is in a closed marriage with his wife, Kenya _should not_ encourage him to be in an EA with her. If he no longer loves his wife, he should own up to it and divorce. Otherwise, _he is cheating_, and Kenya has encouraged it.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> So you didn't make up a scenario about Megan and Jim? WOW...


ROFLMHO.

Oh my goodness. Yes, I wrote out a scenario about Jim and Megan. But that scenario _was based on Kenya's own admitted actions._ The actions of the people wasn't made up. I just added the names Jim and Megan to it. 

*face palm*


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Your hypocrisy and contradictions? MEGAN married her husband, JIM did not. If Megan did not pursue JIM, she would have pursued another man. If a single man is with a married woman, does that mean he is cheating? Who exactly is he cheating on?


Two singles pursuing each other aren't cheating on anyone. Why? *Neither of them is married.* 

Kenya is in an open relationship. Good for her. _She_ isn't cheating when she dates someone. However, if the man she is seeing _isn't_ in an open relationship, then _he_ is cheating on his wife _with_ Kenya. Kenya isn't cheating, _he_ is, but Kenya is the one he is cheating on his wife _with_. Really, it isn't that difficult to understand.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> In your world encouraging unfaithfulness is okay, then?
> 
> Look, what you and your husband, or what Kenya and her husband, agree to is none of my business. If they agree that being in an open marriage would give them a better chance at staying together, then good for them. _But they shouldn't be in relationships with people who aren't also in open marriages or single._ If a man is in a closed marriage with his wife, Kenya _should not_ encourage him to be in an EA with her. If he no longer loves his wife, he should own up to it and divorce. Otherwise, _he is cheating_, and Kenya has encouraged it.


She isn't encouraging it. She might be telling them every day to tell their wives, how do you know that she isn't...did you ask her?

So you are saying that when Maricha had an EA, that she no longer loved her husband and she should have owned up to it and divorced her husband and when he did it that he should have divorced her?

I thought your religion taught that divorce was a sin. Is that just for non Christians?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Two singles pursuing each other aren't cheating on anyone. Why? *Neither of them is married.*
> 
> Kenya is in an open relationship. Good for her. _She_ isn't cheating when she dates someone. However, if the man she is seeing _isn't_ in an open relationship, then _he_ is cheating on his wife _with_ Kenya. Kenya isn't cheating, _he_ is, but Kenya is the one he is cheating on his wife _with_. Really, it isn't that difficult to understand.


I never said two singles. READ IT AGAIN. 

Again, if a single man is in a relationship with a married woman, is HE cheating and whom is he cheating on?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> *WE didn't make any scenario. *The scenario was based precisely on what Kenya herself admitted to!





anony2 said:


> *So you didn't make up a scenario* about Megan and Jim? WOW...





Created2Write said:


> ROFLMHO.
> 
> Oh my goodness. *Yes, I wrote out a scenario* about Jim and Megan. But that scenario _was based on Kenya's own admitted actions._ The actions of the people wasn't made up. I just added the names Jim and Megan to it.
> 
> *face palm*


ROTFLMFAO...****FACEPALM***

Make up your mind...you should be in stand up comedy. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> I have had your tactic used on me also, you guys set up a scenario and twist and turn it until I HAVE to agree, but I am not going to, so you can drop that, I have proven my point. If it wasn't Jim, it would have been someone else. The sad part, is that MEGAN pursued the affair and that is EXACTLY what the scenario said. Had she not pursued it with Jim, it would have been someone else, because SHE wasn't getting her needs met.


And yet, your tactic was to throw my affair in my face, even after my husband and I worked it out. Nice touch. Best way to push someone away is to attack them personally.

I'm dropping the Megan and Jim thing. If Kenya were a true friend, she wouldn't be referring to the men whose wives are not allowing open marriages as lovers. And, again, if these men aren't getting their needs met by their wives, they need to talk to them instead of expending their energy on Kenya. 



anony2 said:


> Just because you have a problem with something, doesn't mean it is WRONG, it just means that you BELIEVE that it is wrong and it might be WRONG to you, but that doesn't mean it is WRONG to everyone, especially people that do not hold your beliefs.


Conversely, just because YOU think it's right, doesn't mean it is, especially to people who don't believe as YOU do. I speak of emotional affairs from experience, which you know. I know how it feels to betray and to be betrayed. And when someone CLAIMS to be a friend, yet encourages cheating rather than breaking it off, that isn't friendship.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> She isn't encouraging it. She might be telling them every day to tell their wives, how do you know that she isn't...did you ask her?


Maybe she is. But by pursuing these men romantically, she is encouraging their actions of finding romance outside of their marriage. Also known as....cheating! If the man's wife isn't okay with the open relationships, Kenya shouldn't be romantically involved with them. 



> So you are saying that when Maricha had an EA, that she no longer loved her husband and she should have owned up to it and divorced her husband and when he did it that he should have divorced her?
> 
> I thought your religion taught that divorce was a sin. Is that just for non Christians?


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. 

Many men and woman involved in emotional and sexual affairs still love their spouses a lot...they just have a need that isn't being met so they seek it elsewhere. Having and affair or having an EA doesn't necessarily constitute divorce. Reconciliation can happen. 

No longer loving your spouse, however, is much more difficult to fix, and being romantically involved with someone else usually doesn't help. And since Kenya calls these men "her lovers", I think it's safe to assume that they are much more than mere "friends".


----------



## Entropy3000

anony2 said:


> I never said two singles. READ IT AGAIN.
> 
> Again, if a single man is in a relationship with a married woman, is HE cheating and whom is he cheating on?


He is cheating with a married woman. You know what is being said. You just want to disagree which is fine. You have an agenda to push. 

But indeed a person who is cheating with someone elses spouse is a cheater. Unless they met at Hedonism 12.

She sounds like a real flake to me. But mainly someone who is just preying on the gullible. But kudos to her for making her failed marriage into a way to earn some extra shillings.


----------



## Created2Write

> If a single man is with a married woman, does that mean he is cheating? Who exactly is he cheating on?


No, the man isn't cheating. The woman is, but she is cheating on her husband _with_ the single man. The single man can easily say, "You're married and I don't condone cheating. As much as I like you, I can't be with you while you're still married to your husband. It wouldn't be right."


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> ROTFLMFAO...****FACEPALM***
> 
> Make up your mind...you should be in stand up comedy. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


You're intentionally dodging the point.


----------



## anony2

anony2 said:


> Your hypocrisy and contradictions? MEGAN married her husband, JIM did not. If Megan did not pursue JIM, she would have pursued another man. * If a single man is with a married woman, does that mean he is cheating? Who exactly is he cheating on?*






Created2Write said:


> *Two singles pursuing each other aren't cheating on anyone. Why? Neither of them is married. *
> 
> Kenya is in an open relationship. Good for her. _She_ isn't cheating when she dates someone. However, if the man she is seeing _isn't_ in an open relationship, then _he_ is cheating on his wife _with_ Kenya. Kenya isn't cheating, _he_ is, but Kenya is the one he is cheating on his wife _with_. Really, it isn't that difficult to understand.



You saw EXACTLY what I wrote, but yet, if you were to answer my question...your whole argument went down the drain and you know it. 

The single man is NOT cheating on anyone. Thus, Kenya is NOT cheating on anyone because HER relationship is open. The married man is cheating because HE MADE THE VOW to his wife, not Kenya.


----------



## anony2

Entropy3000 said:


> He is cheating with a married woman. You know what is being said. You just want to disagree which is fine.
> 
> But indeed a person who is cheating with someone elses spouse is a cheater. Unless they met at Hedonism 12.


Sorry, I do not uphold the Judeo/Christian ideology of adultery and believe it or not, I have that right. 

The second sentence does not make a lick of sense. Who is this person *cheating on* if their spouse does not care if they have extra marital relationships?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> *No, the man isn't cheating.* The woman is, but she is cheating on her husband _with_ the single man. The single man can easily say, "You're married and I don't condone cheating. As much as I like you, I can't be with you while you're still married to your husband. *It wouldn't be right*."


In this case, Kendra is the single man because HER relationship is OPEN....so she isn't cheating, the man that she is with, IS. 

But yet again, that is a judgment call, that YOU are attempting to make FOR HER.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> In this case, Kendra is the single man because HER relationship is OPEN....so she isn't cheating, the man that she is with, IS.
> 
> But yet again, that is a judgment call, that YOU are attempting to make FOR HER.


I never said Kenya is the one who is cheating. Yes, the man is the one cheating, but he's cheating on his wife _with_ Kenya. Kenya is the other half of the relationship.

And yeah, I misread your post. It doesn't change my point whatsoever.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> She isn't encouraging it. She might be telling them every day to tell their wives, how do you know that she isn't...did you ask her?


She calls them her lovers. People who are just friends don't refer to each other as lovers.



anony2 said:


> So you are saying that when Maricha had an EA, that she no longer loved her husband and she should have owned up to it and divorced her husband and when he did it that he should have divorced her?


I owned up to it. He had the option to work things out or divorce, just as I did. We both chose to work on our marriage. And really, instead of getting involved in EAs, we should have been communicating with each other. Speaking to others about things that should have been worked out between him and me only served to separate us further. 



anony2 said:


> I thought your religion taught that divorce was a sin. Is that just for non Christians?


Well, you used to be Christian, so I believe you know what the Bible says about divorce. Yes, God hates divorce. But it also says it is allowed for infidelity. Even then, a couple doesn't HAVE to divorce. Even the prophet Hosea was married to a prostitute.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> [/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You saw EXACTLY what I wrote, but yet, if you were to answer my question...your whole argument went down the drain and you know it.
> 
> The single man is NOT cheating on anyone. Thus, Kenya is NOT cheating on anyone because HER relationship is open. The married man is cheating because HE MADE THE VOW to his wife, not Kenya.


Yes, _her_ relationship is open. But the man's isn't. He is cheating, but he's cheating _*with*_ Kenya.


----------



## Entropy3000

anony2 said:


> Sorry, I do not uphold the Judeo/Christian ideology of adultery and believe it or not, I have that right.
> 
> The second sentence does not make a lick of sense. Who is this person *cheating on* if their spouse does not care if they have extra marital relationships?


Neither do I. I have the right to take the predator off of the board if I choose to as well. That is not turn the other cheek. I just have to be willing to take the consequences for my actions.

See we all decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. It really comes down to holding people accountable. I have that right. So play your games and take your chances. 

You have a cheating agenda to press. You wish to tear down traditional marriage because you are having trouble making it work for you. Perhaps you are just trying to sell some books or just take your angst out on folks who want to be faithful to their spouses. Jealousy perhaps. I think that is not only wrong but pretty messed up. Hurtful. I could care less if you have an open marriage. However, once you start spreading the rhetoric of cheating and defend those who would cheat with others then you are pushing a hateful agenda.

You do know what I am saying but you choose to say that something does not make sense to you because it does not support your agenda.

So please do follow the pursuit of happiness in your own way but realize you take great risks when you infringe on others happiness.


----------



## anony2

Entropy3000 said:


> Neither do I. I have the right to take the predator off of the board if I choose to as well. That is not turn the other cheek. I just have to be willing to take the consequences for my actions.
> 
> See we all decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. It really comes down to holding people accountable. I have that right. So play your games and take your chances.
> 
> You have a cheating agenda to press. You wish to tear down traditional marriage because you are having trouble making it work for you. Perhaps you are just trying to sell some books or just take your angst out on folks who want to be faithful to their spouses. Jealousy perhaps. I think that is not only wrong but pretty messed up. Hurtful. I could care less if you have an open marriage. However, once you start spreading the rhetoric of cheating and defend those who would cheat with others then you are pushing a hateful agenda.
> 
> You do know what I am saying but you choose to say that something does not make sense to you because it does not support your agenda.
> 
> So please do follow the pursuit of happiness in your own way but realize you take great risks when you infringe on others happiness.



I don't have a cheating agenda to press, me and my husband do NOT have an open relationship. WE DO NOT have one. I do not WANT to have one, nor does he, we discussed this a while back and decided it is NOT for us. HE brought up an open relationship before we got married, I disagreed with it then and I said that I DO NOT want to be in one...so there is the end to that pipe dream of YOURS...NEXT.

Next, YES, we each decide what is right and wrong FOR OURSELVES not for others, which I have stated on here several times now when these people are saying that SHE is wrong this and SHE is wrong that...that is judgement. 

Kenya is being faithful to her spouse, as am I. I have put a question into her to clarify what she meant on this video because I do not want to JUDGE her actions when I do not KNOW them. When she replies, I will tell you, but I do not think it is fair to PRESUME about her...so you can quit being HATEFUL about that too. 

You know what I am saying here right? 

What do you mean about taking a predator off the board and what great risks am I taking for discussing it on a forum ABOUT MARRIAGE? 

I think the only hateful agenda here is yours...and you are projecting it on to me.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> You know what I am saying here right? Do I need to take you off the board for being a predator because this post seems very predatorial to me as well as being very accusatory and very THREATENING.


Really? Should I do the same because you singled me out because of something I did? And continued to hammer on it, and I never once said anything about YOU? 

I appreciate that you have put in a question to her about what she said on that video. I am definitely interested in her reply. What was the question you asked her about it, if you don't mind my asking?

Just to clarify, if, indeed, it turns out that the wives are FINE with it, as long as it doesn't go physical, cool. But if they are not, it wouldn't sit right with me. You can understand that, right?

I still don't like the concept of calling monogamy a stepping stone toward polyamory. If she was marketing it as an alternative lifestyle, nothing more, nothing less, with principles that will work in any relationship (which you claim she does), Some of us might be more receptive, as I stated. But she does place polyamory on a higher level, from what I have seen on her site. I don't agree with that. I wouldn't put either of them above the other, but on equal level. I don't think I am better than her, or you, or anyone. But I also don't think she, or you, or anyone else is better than I am. I'm not perfect, you aren't, and neither is anyone else.

Anyway, I will wait to see what she replies to you.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> Sooooo...you are saying that you know these men that she is involved with? You know that they have children? I think that you guys have judged her and not understood what she was saying. Here is a better video where here and her husband talk about what an open relationship is REALLY about.
> 
> Do you consider anyone that has an affair disgusting? How about emotional affairs?


I watched the video where she said she didn't engage in sex with all of her "lovers" because many of them were married and not in open relationships. That's pretty simple so I'm not sure why I needed to explain it but there it is. These "lovers" whether they are men or women have significant others and statistically speaking some have children.

I consider anyone who thinks of themselves with no regard for others feelings or the negative impact they have on others as disgusting people. That doesn't mean they cannot change. So sure I am disgusted by anyone currently in an affair because of their actions. If they affair ends and they change for the better then that's a different story.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> Let me play " Devil's advocate " here.
> 
> Lets say anonim and his wife annoy2 decide amongst themselves that they want to open their marriage and live the polyamorous lifestyle, in order to " satisfy their needs ."
> 
> What are the new rules and boundaries of their marriage? Can annoy2 say to her husband that he cannot have that young , nubile 18 year old woman as his new lover? What if anonim starts developing intimate relationships with a few gay men, because he thinks that they best can fulfil his needs?
> Can annoy2 object?
> And what if annoy2 does the same ,will they still consider themselves a normal , healthy hetrosexual husband and wife?
> What if that 18 year old decides she wants to get pregnant for anonim , because she wants to get her _needs_ met.
> How will that improve the emotional bond between anonim and his wife?
> Exactly which one of her needs would having the 18 year old pregnant for her husband satisfy?
> Does anonim like the idea of a young man ,around the same age as their eldest son, having a close ,intense relationship with his wife and satisfying her sexual needs three times daily?
> What if she decides that she wants to have a baby for her lover to satsfy her needs?
> 
> My point is that relationships are very complex. Without proper rules and strong boundaries,
> 
> THEY CANNOT WORK.


First off, its anony2 not 'annoy2', it is not by accident you type this; be respectful or stop posting here.

Second, in your theoretical argument the rules and boundaries would be set according to the morals/desires/tastes/boundaries of all of the people involved - just like any other relationship.

I think at its optimal, a poly relationship would be more like a team, as opposed to a partnership. Both concepts could work. both can fail.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Very good points, and I would like to know the answer to this as well.
> 
> Where are the lines drawn? Is it based on what each individual couple wants for themselves? If so, are there _any_ boundaries at all? Or is it all basically acceptable, so long as both couples consent?


Where are the lines drawn in _your _relationships? 

Is it based on what each individual couple wants for themselves?

If so, are there _any_ boundaries at all? Or is it all basically acceptable, so long as both individuals consent?


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> So your marriage was perfect the day that you said I do?
> 
> It's confusing to me that Kenya wanting to screw other men while her husband screws other women makes you so offended, so much so that you would call her disgusting.


Where do these thoughts even come from? Give me some background as to why you're asking the question like a quote or something. I'll try to explain whatever it is.

I find self centered people who don't care how their actions affect others as discusting and offensive. I think everyone else understood what part of the situation I find offensive so I also don't know why it confuses you but I could guess.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> She isn't in any EA's, she is in an OPEN relationship. Her husband and her allow this in their marriage.
> 
> I know you understand this and I am certain that you aren't acting like you do not know this on purpose.
> 
> How can someone in an OPEN RELATIONSHIP, be in an EMOTIONAL affair?


Maricha75 and everyone but you are saying that she is coercing and participating in therefore an accessory in many EAs.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Really? Should I do the same because you singled me out because of something I did? And continued to hammer on it, and I never once said anything about YOU?
> 
> I appreciate that you have put in a question to her about what she said on that video. I am definitely interested in her reply. What was the question you asked her about it, if you don't mind my asking?
> 
> Just to clarify, if, indeed, it turns out that the wives are FINE with it, as long as it doesn't go physical, cool. But if they are not, it wouldn't sit right with me. You can understand that, right?
> 
> I still don't like the concept of calling monogamy a stepping stone toward polyamory. If she was marketing it as an alternative lifestyle, nothing more, nothing less, with principles that will work in any relationship (which you claim she does), Some of us might be more receptive, as I stated. But she does place polyamory on a higher level, from what I have seen on her site. I don't agree with that. I wouldn't put either of them above the other, but on equal level. I don't think I am better than her, or you, or anyone. But I also don't think she, or you, or anyone else is better than I am. I'm not perfect, you aren't, and neither is anyone else.
> 
> Anyway, I will wait to see what she replies to you.


I didn't say anything like he said to me to you NOR WOULD I. I didn't accuse you of attempting to tear down the NON traditional roles of marriage because you ended your EA or say that you are defending monogamy because you couldn't get your EA to turn into a PA or that you needed to be taken off the board because you are obviously predatorial since you had a EA.


If Kenya's OPINION is that a polyamorous relationship is progressive from a monogamous one, then she has the RIGHT TO THAT OPINION. She doesn't need to justify her beliefs to you nor anyone else. BUT... her book is not about how to have polyamorous relationships at all, it is about gender roles and how to change your man by being the woman in the relationship and taking on the feminine aspects. It is also about how she was not in the feminine role in hers and how it was failing because of it. She also discusses some metaphysical aspects of marriage, some I-Ching and some other thing that her husband is into.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Except that their relationship was much healthier before the open relationship...


moving the goal posts again.

The male in your example had no backbone and was unwilling to stand his ground about what he didnt want and was uncomfortable about. ANY relationship he would have been in would have been unhealthy because he refused to assert his boundaries. The female was pushy (sounding) and refused to respect her partners feelings. This wasnt because they were in an open relationship, it was because she had no consideration for her partners feelings. This could and would have happened in any relationship.



Created2Write said:


> ........This makes no sense. Adultery isn't defined by whether or not the spouses consent to extramarital sex. By definition, adultery is nothing less than voluntary sex between someone who is married and someone they're not married to. Whether the other spouse consents or not is irrelevant.
> 
> So, yes it _is_ a contradiction.
> 
> What is adultery (or cheating) in someones marriage cannot be defined by an outsider to that marriage (or maybe form of marriage). The very definition of adultery, just like marriage, varies greatly from culture to culture, and you cannot fairly or reasonably judge what is adultery (or cheating) to a relationship that is alien to you.


Coincidentally, the term adultery has an Abrahamic origin. Are you judging from within or from without that origin?



Created2Write said:


> No, you're trying to redefine the meaning of what cheating even is. Having sex with someone who isn't your spouse, whether your spouse knows and agrees or not, is _still_ adultery.


Not only am I NOT redefining the word, I dont think you ever knew what the word you were using meant outside the context of your own religion/culture.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> She doesn't have sex with these men, she said it in the video, she is FRIENDS with them. YOU and the others on here have decided it was an EMOTIONAL affair, not her or her husband.


She's the one who called them her lovers. Not me.


----------



## anony2

thundarr said:


> i find self centered people who don't care how their actions affect others as discusting and offensive.




then do not be that way.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> I do not JUDGE her, YOU might feel that you are perfect that you can judge her, but seeing as you have had an emotional affair, I don't see how you can judge her harshly unless you want judged just as harsh.
> 
> I am not her judge and every person I look up to is imperfect.


She can judge her because she also judges her past behavior in the same light. Sure I judge murders, thieves, rapist, scam artist, and people who do what ever they want to at the expense of others.


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> She's the one who called them her lovers. Not me.


She called ME baby and I have talked to her two times by email. 

My friend on facebook called me hun...does that mean that we are having an EA?


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> And MY opinion is that a relationship that PROGRESSES is PROGRESSIVE. NOTHING that you do or say will change my opinion. If you do not think that is progressive, then that is YOUR opinion, you do not have to agree with me.


ding ding ding. That's the point. None of us do agree with you and that's all we are saying. Nothing more.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> If the other option involves adultery, then _yes_, monogamy is better. Citation needed. Polygamy involves an actual marriage commitment between a husband and his wives, or the wife and her husbands; at least it's not adultery. Polygamy isn't for me, and while I definitely am uncomfortable with the idea, I'd take polygamy over an open relationship any day.


Really?:rofl: So what exactly is it that legitimizes polygamy and bastardizes open marriage/relationships? Isnt (according to you) marriage one man/woman and everything else adultery/cheating?


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> She can judge her because she also judges her past behavior in the same light. Sure I judge murders, thieves, rapist, scam artist, and people who do what ever they want to at the expense of others.


But you do not KNOW that she does it at the expense of others...you are only presuming that she is, thus why I put a question into ask her if she does.


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> ding ding ding. That's the point. None of us do agree with you and that's all we are saying. Nothing more.


No, it isn't nothing more. If it was 'nothing more' then that is all you would have had to say to begin with.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Yet again, you and your husband seem bent on changing the definitions of words.


I'll interrupt you here. Your username 'Created2Write' implies that you write, that you use words. If this is true, then I feel that it is your business to know that the word *Etymology *exists and more importantly, what it means.

Etymology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Created2Write said:


> Also, my name is rather self-explanatory...written in a sentence it would be: I was created to write.


Maybe but you should understand your tools more. They have existed far longer than you.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> When I first saw the headline " Progressive Love", I thought this MUST be some new concept to help build relationships.
> 
> Reading it, it sounded more like " Alternate Love " to me.


Now this is the first thing you've said in a long time that I could agree with.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> She called ME baby and I have talked to her two times by email.
> 
> My friend on facebook called me hun...does that mean that we are having an EA?


Lots of people are called baby or hun or boo. I've been called those. I don't recall someone telling others that I was their lover though unless I was that.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> But you do not KNOW that she does it at the expense of others...you are only presuming that she is, thus why I put a question into ask her if she does.


Yes we do know that. She said that they are married and not in open relationships. I know that infidelity hurts people terribly and I know that she likes having lovers who in in EA thus infidelity.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> I already progressed from caveman all the way to barbarian. Now they're asking me to progress even more. Will it ever stop.


go fighter next, they get more feats


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> No, it isn't nothing more. If it was 'nothing more' then that is all you would have had to say to begin with.


That is all I said to begin with. Feel free to go back to the original comments.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> The difference is that very few people(if any) actually marry with the intention of being unfaithful.


you should check out CWI when you have time, it might open your mind.



Created2Write said:


> In an open relationship you have no intention of being emotionally and sexually exclusive, which means one or both spouses actively and consistently seek out adulterous affairs.
> 
> There _is_ a difference there.


Exclusive<>faithful. And once again you are applying words (affairs) to contexts that are not applicable (open relationships)
unless one breaks rules/boundaries.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> I never said there wasn't adultery in monogamous relationships. However, those who commit adultery in monogamous relationships almost universally recognize that _it's wrong_...snip


You still haven't been to CWI yet no?


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Nothing "progressive" about sleeping around. Seems like a step backwards to me.

I have known people in an open relationship who say it helps because there is no jealousy, however up close and personal that just wasn't that case, there was still competition hurt feelings and just more resignation "if I want to be with this person I have to put up with it and or join on". 

I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest those couples break up just as often and the hurt is still the same.

Also the excuse about really trusting each other doesn't wash as often people in those relationships beleive people just can't be monogomous. So instead of trusting g they have basically just given up on faithfulness.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> From dictionary.com:
> 
> Affair: "a sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other"


Ever dated??? you had an affair!
Sex before marriage?? you had an affair!

Your definition is archaic.


----------



## anonim

Maricha75 said:


> Yes, while I was still involved in the affair, I absolutely was disgusting. My husband was liable to me. You know this. See, there's a big difference between IS/AM and *WAS*. I WAS having EA. During that time, I was one of the lowest of the low. Now? No. And that is only because I don't behave like that anymore. And, I don't encourage others to behave that way. I do my best to discourage it, whenever possible.
> 
> I find it interesting that anyone can look up to someone who ENCOURAGES people to cheat on their spouses. By continuing in the affairs with these men, that is exactly what she is doing. But, I know you will gloss over that because, after all, it is their fault, not hers. I mean, why should she discourage anyone from cheating on their spouses, right?


Its better to ask forgiveness than permission right?


----------



## anony2

On the video HERE she first calls them her partners...


Progressive Love, Is It For You.... - YouTube

at 4:55 she states "THEY CAN BE MY FRIENDS."

Going by her definition and yours mixed, I have had an EA with my doctor because she provided me with emotional support when I had a miscarriage and she hugged me and held me when I cried. My 3 counselors, because they provided me with emotional support, my entire Al-anon support group that I used to go to, which consisted of about 15 elderly ladies. My mother in law, because she hugged me, my sister in law because she has pinched my butt several times over the years, she has hugged me many times. I have also had an EA with my best friend, cause she calls me and we share intimate stories about our families, Kenya, and one of my husband's college friends cause both of these women have called me baby, love, and sending xxx's and I am not even bisexual, so I think that a more stringent definition is called for in this case. :lol:

:rofl:


----------



## anonim

anony2 said:


> An emotional affair can be defined as follows'
> 
> "A relationship between *a person and someone other than (their) spouse (or lover) *that has an impact on the level of intimacy, emotional distance and overall dynamic balance in the marriage. *The role of an affair is to create emotional distance in the marriage*."[1]"
> 
> Emotional affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yes, it was MEGAN who had the EMOTIONAL affair.


This should be the definition of the word affair, period. clears up a lot of crap.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Sometimes I really wonder about this thing called liberalism.
> 
> Bertrand Russell, 19th Century Mathematician and Philosopher once said:
> 
> ".._All movements go too far_.."


Bertrand Russell, 19th Century Mathematician and Philosopher once said: 

"Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness"


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> WE didn't make any scenario. The scenario was based precisely on what Kenya herself admitted to!


actually you did, which is also a fallacy, the strawman.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Look, what you and your husband, or what Kenya and her husband, agree to is none of my business.


Then dont judge.


----------



## anonim

anony2 said:


> Sorry, I do not uphold the Judeo/Christian ideology of adultery and believe it or not, I have that right.


agree.:iagree:


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> On the video HERE she first calls them her partners...
> 
> 
> Progressive Love, Is It For You.... - YouTube
> 
> at 4:55 she states "THEY CAN BE MY FRIENDS."
> 
> Going by her definition and yours mixed, I have had an EA with my doctor because she provided me with emotional support when I had a miscarriage and she hugged me and held me when I cried. My 3 counselors, because they provided me with emotional support, my entire Al-anon support group that I used to go to, which consisted of about 15 elderly ladies. My mother in law, because she hugged me, my sister in law because she has pinched my butt several times over the years, she has hugged me many times. I have also had an EA with my best friend, cause she calls me and we share intimate stories about our families, Kenya, and one of my husband's college friends cause both of these women have called me baby, love, and sending xxx's and I am not even bisexual, so I think that a more stringent definition is called for in this case. :lol:
> 
> :rofl:


Watch 50 more seconds. She explains that it's more than friendship. But then that may not suit your argument. It's touch, hugging, intimacy, emotional support. That would be considered an EA to me if my wife was participating.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> She can judge her because she also judges her past behavior in the same light. Sure I judge murders, thieves, rapist, scam artist, and people who do what ever they want to at the expense of others.


Judging is also done at the expense of others...


----------



## Entropy3000

anony2 said:


> I don't have a cheating agenda to press, me and my husband do NOT have an open relationship. WE DO NOT have one. I do not WANT to have one, nor does he, we discussed this a while back and decided it is NOT for us. HE brought up an open relationship before we got married, I disagreed with it then and I said that I DO NOT want to be in one...so there is the end to that pipe dream of YOURS...NEXT.
> 
> Next, YES, we each decide what is right and wrong FOR OURSELVES not for others, which I have stated on here several times now when these people are saying that SHE is wrong this and SHE is wrong that...that is judgement.
> 
> Kenya is being faithful to her spouse, as am I. I have put a question into her to clarify what she meant on this video because I do not want to JUDGE her actions when I do not KNOW them. When she replies, I will tell you, but I do not think it is fair to PRESUME about her...so you can quit being HATEFUL about that too.
> 
> You know what I am saying here right?
> 
> What do you mean about taking a predator off the board and what great risks am I taking for discussing it on a forum ABOUT MARRIAGE?
> 
> I think the only hateful agenda here is yours...and you are projecting it on to me.


The predator is taking huge risks in their acts of cheating. They risk retaliation. They cannot be certain that they wll be viewed as an innocent party. Trendy as that may be. Their actions are hurtful and selfish. Are you saying you are a cheater? I never said that but I will not assume you are or are not. You really are being less than clever to try to infer my comment about cheaters was in reference to you personally but indeed your tactics are transparent to be sure.

You are being another's minion dear lady. You are playing the surrogate and pressing this agenda. You may be this person for all we know. I don't care. It is an internet forum. Go for it. But it is the rhetoric that I find disturbing. So being the internet I am calling you on it.

You made a comment about Judeo / Christian thinking. My reply to you was to make it clear that while much of my values comes from Judeo / Christian thinking, I mean come on I am American, that I am not one for turning the other cheek. I have my view of right and wrong. You can have yours. But indeed just because we think we are right does not mean others do as well. So I risk much if I cheat with another persons spouse. They very well could decide to deal with me in an extreme fashion. If I did that to their marriage they would have every right to deal with me very harshly. I certainly would. We are NOT talking about laws. We are talking about what an individual considers to be right and wrong. We must factor this in when we interact in society.

So whether you classify a single man/woman having an affair with a married woman/man a cheater or not is prganatically moot. Many hold the single person accountable and see them as a predator / cheater / lowlife and so on. You see them as not in the WRONG. Many of us see them as very WRONG and culpable. They are an offender as surely someone breaking into your bank account or your back door in order to take from your family. I think they should be dealt with in the same light. I would even if no one else would. YMMV.


----------



## anonim

Entropy3000 said:


> Neither do I. I have the right to take the predator off of the board if I choose to as well. what are you talking about??? That is not turn the other cheek. I just have to be willing to take the consequences for my actions. which actions?
> 
> See we all decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. It really comes down to holding people accountable. I have that right. So play your games and take your chances.
> 
> You have a cheating agenda to press. No. i think YOU have an agenda to press. Your agenda is 'traditional marriage' as evinced from your next sentence. You wish to tear down traditional marriage because you are having trouble making it work for you. Perhaps you are just trying to sell some books or just take your angst out on folks who want to be faithful to their spouses. Jealousy perhaps. I think that is not only wrong but pretty messed up. Hurtful. I could care less if you have an open marriage. However, once you start spreading the rhetoric of cheating and defend those who would cheat with others then you are pushing a hateful agenda. OH you mean its ok to haev open relationship, just as long as you dont talk about it.
> 
> You do know what I am saying but you choose to say that something does not make sense to you because it does not support your agenda.
> 
> So please do follow the pursuit of happiness in your own way but realize you take great risks when you infringe on others happiness. Who is infringing and how?


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> Judging is also done at the expense of others...


Ok? A blanket statement like this without citing how a specific judgement causes a specific result doesn't mean anything in this thread.

I remember this trick where a true statement is thrown out as if it disputes some comments in a thread when it has nothing to do with the context of the thread at all. You may remember the thread since you're who I called out on it then.


----------



## anonim

*LittleDeer* said:


> So instead of trusting g they have basically just given up on faithfulness.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


are you asserting that people go into open relationships because they have given up trusting god?


----------



## Thundarr

To help with your understanding anomim,

Entropy3000 was talking about 
1. which actions? being in an EA with someone.
2. OH you mean its ok to haev open relationship, just as long as you dont talk about it. No he's still talking about the EA. You know the part where her partner's are cheating on someone else with her.
3. Who is infringing and how? And AGAIN, he's talking about her infringing on the rights of the person women who are being cheated on by men in EA with her.

It's really pretty simple that the infidelity part is what we don't like but I can translate additional comments as needed for you.


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> Watch 50 more seconds. She explains that it's more than friendship. But then that may not suit your argument. * It's touch, hugging, intimacy, emotional support.* That would be considered an EA to me if my wife was participating.


Which, like I said above, then that means that I have had EA's with about 40 people of the same sex as myself...and I am not bisexual. How can that be?

Edit to add: I have also apparently had an EA with my doctors daughter, who was also a doctor, because she was the first doctor that I saw when I had the miscarriage and she sat on the bed holding me while I cried and my doctors husband who was also a doctor because he pulled a splinter out of my foot that was deeply embedded and I was crying my eyes out because it hurt so bad and he touched my foot when he took the splinter out. I should also include (since it includes touch) every doctor that has given me a vaginal exam and some of the nurses too because they were there when I had my 4 children and they provided emotional support...


----------



## Entropy3000

I judge people and myself all of the time. Not PC?

LOL. Don't judge me then.

Of course we must judge in our lives. It is how we make decisions. It how we avoid toxic people and situations. We must judge others and ourselves.

We need good judgement. Something to be cultivated.

To not judge people that are in the wrong is enabling them and the worng that they are doing. This is a judgement call we should make in my view. 

I do agree if one lowers the bar and redefines their values to a lower standard you may consider that progressive. Word games. Spin. I call it degenerative. But what ever one calls it, moving from monogamy to ploygamy is not being more dedicated and bound to your spouse. That is fine if that is what a couple agrees to. Good for them. However if they enage with a spouse in a mongamous marriage then they are predators.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> Ok? A blanket statement like this without citing how a specific judgement causes a specific result doesn't mean anything in this thread.


Then i require you to specify which murders, thieves, rapist, scam artist and whoever else you are judging.

Judging people is done at the expense of someone other than ones self.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> Which, like I said above, then that means that I have had EA's with about 40 people of the same sex as myself...and I am not bisexual. How can that be?
> 
> Edit to add: I have also apparently had an EA with my doctors daughter, who was also a doctor, because she was the first doctor that I saw when I had the miscarriage and she sat on the bed holding me while I cried and my doctors husband who was also a doctor because he pulled a splinter out of my foot that was deeply embedded and I was crying my eyes out because it hurt so bad and he touched my foot when he took the splinter out. I should also include (since it includes touch) every doctor that has given me a vaginal exam and some of the nurses too because they were there when I had my 4 children and they provided emotional support...


What exactly do you think it means when someone in an open marriage says she has touch, hugging, intimacy, emotional support with her partners and that they are more than friends. I don't know a single person other than you (and maybe your hubby) that equate this to a doctor touching your foot to get a splinter. It's not a logical response but I predicted it was coming.


----------



## Entropy3000

anony2 said:


> Which, like I said above, then that means that I have had EA's with about 40 people of the same sex as myself...and I am not bisexual. How can that be?
> 
> Edit to add: I have also apparently had an EA with my doctors daughter, who was also a doctor, because she was the first doctor that I saw when I had the miscarriage and she sat on the bed holding me while I cried and my doctors husband who was also a doctor because he pulled a splinter out of my foot that was deeply embedded and I was crying my eyes out because it hurt so bad and he touched my foot when he took the splinter out. I should also include (since it includes touch) every doctor that has given me a vaginal exam and some of the nurses too because they were there when I had my 4 children and they provided emotional support...


It is because you do not fully understand what an EA is. An EA is an obsessive emotional bound with someone. It does not have to be sexual. In fact it is a strong and close friendship. It often can turn romantic and later sexual. However, an EA is an Emotional Affair. At a level of an EA this can involves touching and other affection.

So there you have it!!! Indeed you can have an EA with someone of the same sex and not be bisexual.

I can indeed give someone a hug and not be in an EA with then. But it is shades of gray.


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> Then i require you to specify which murders, thieves, rapist, scam artist and whoever else you are judging.
> 
> Judging people is done at the expense of someone other than ones self.





Thundarr said:


> I remember this trick where a true statement is thrown out as if it disputes some comments in a thread when it has nothing to do with the context of the thread at all. You may remember the thread since you're who I called out on it then.


huh. Look at that. My last comment still applies to your new and completely off topic request.


----------



## Entropy3000

Thundarr said:


> To help with your understanding anomim,
> 
> Entropy3000 was talking about
> 1. which actions? being in an EA with someone.
> 2. OH you mean its ok to haev open relationship, just as long as you dont talk about it. No he's still talking about the EA. You know the part where her partner's are cheating on someone else with her.
> 3. Who is infringing and how? And AGAIN, he's talking about her infringing on the rights of the person women who are being cheated on by men in EA with her.
> 
> It's really pretty simple that the infidelity part is what we don't like but I can translate additional comments as needed for you.


It is all about the infidelity cheating part. I am not for open marriages but what a husband and wife agree to is their business as long as it does not hurt others ... especially children. But I have a big problem with the affairs with those that are in monogamous relationships.

I see it as preying on those who should indeed know better but are pulled into EAs not realizing what they are getting into.

Some folks get an extra kick out of seducing a married person. For all sorts of twisted reasons. That does not take away responsibility from that married person. But it calls a predator for what they are.


----------



## anony2

Entropy3000 said:


> I judge people and myself all of the time. Not PC?
> 
> LOL. Don't judge me then.
> 
> Of course we must judge in our lives. It is how we make decisions. It how we avoid toxic people and situations. We must judge others and ourselves.
> 
> We need good judgement. Something to be cultivated.
> 
> To not judge people that are in the wrong is enabling them and the worng that they are doing. This is a judgement call we should make in my view.
> 
> I do agree if one lowers the bar and redefines their values to a lower standard you may consider that progressive. Word games. Spin. I call it degenerative. But what ever one calls it, moving from monogamy to ploygamy is not being more dedicated and bound to your spouse. That is fine if that is what a couple agrees to. Good for them. However if they enage with a spouse in a mongamous marriage then they are predators.


I live by the ASSERTIVE BILL OF RIGHTS...

1. “*I have the right to judge my own behavior, thoughts and emotions, and to take the responsibility for their initiation and consequences upon myself.*”

2. “I have the right to offer no reasons or excuses for justifying my behavior.”

3. “I have the right to judge if I am responsible for finding solutions to other people’s problems.”

4. “I have the right to change my mind.”

5. “I have the right to make mistakes – and be responsible for them.”

6. “I have the right to say, ‘I don’t know’.”

7. “I have the right to be independent of the goodwill of others before coping with them.”

8. “I have the right to be illogical in making decisions.”

9. “I have the right to say, ‘I don’t understand’.”

10. “I have the right to say, ‘I don’t care’.”

http://www.transcendedu.com/upload/when-i-say-no-i-feel-guilty-smith-e.pdf


So to the rest of your post...I don't care.


----------



## Thundarr

Re: progressive love, is it for you... No it's not for me.

Alright. Now we are back on topic.


----------



## Entropy3000

anony2 said:


> I live by the ASSERTIVE BILL OF RIGHTS...
> 
> 1. “*I have the right to judge my own behavior, thoughts and emotions, and to take the responsibility for their initiation and consequences upon myself.*”
> 
> 2. “I have the right to offer no reasons or excuses for justifying my behavior.”
> 
> 3. “I have the right to judge if I am responsible for finding solutions to other people’s problems.”
> 
> 4. “I have the right to change my mind.”
> 
> 5. “I have the right to make mistakes – and be responsible for them.”
> 
> 6. “I have the right to say, ‘I don’t know’.”
> 
> 7. “I have the right to be independent of the goodwill of others before coping with them.”
> 
> 8. “I have the right to be illogical in making decisions.”
> 
> 9. “I have the right to say, ‘I don’t understand’.”
> 
> 10. “I have the right to say, ‘I don’t care’.”
> 
> http://www.transcendedu.com/upload/when-i-say-no-i-feel-guilty-smith-e.pdf
> 
> 
> So to the rest of your post...I don't care.


This post makes sense. Thank you. This is what I have been trying to say.


----------



## Thundarr

DP - Open Marriages - YouTube

This is Kenya and her husband and some partners and her kids on Dr Phil. It's pretty sad.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> DP - Open Marriages - YouTube
> 
> This is Kenya and her husband and some partners and her kids on Dr Phil. *It's pretty sad.*


:iagree:


".....In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule..." 
*Friedrich Nietzsche*


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> DP - Open Marriages - YouTube
> 
> This is Kenya and her husband and some partners and her kids on Dr Phil. It's pretty sad.


What was sad was the way that Dr. Phil was attempting to shame her for her talking to her children about sex/porn. I guess since she did not teach her daughter that porn is fine to watch and that porn=love, then Kenya is a dirty dog. 

I guess in your world, it is your way or no way...I pick no way.


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> 
> ".....In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule..."
> *Friedrich Nietzsche*


Says the man that includes himself in every group aka circle jerk so he can feel important...Prove that your way is the right way...I will be waiting.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> Says the man that includes himself in every group aka circle jerk so he can feel important...Prove that your way is the right way...I will be waiting.


anony2,

I would give both you and your husband only one piece of advice.

Screenwriter Bruce Feirstein once said:

"..The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success..."

So far on this thread , the only thing both of you have been successful at is drawing strong criticism from 99% of the respondents to your proposal.
And its not because they cannot hear the music you're dancing too that they think you're insane . They hear the music, they see the fancy footworks and they are still REJECTING your proposal because they see the _insanity_.

Your " genius " and insanity are both one and the same. There is absolutely no distance between them, and it will be unsuccessful, just based on your attitude to those whom you're trying to impart the idea.
Simply put, two of you are terrible salespersons for the concept of you're trying to promote.
So even if the concept of poly is 100% workable, it would not work for both of you because of your low tolerance level of people and your penchant for eschewing logic.

IMO, you guys are fooling yourselves.
But in a world full of your contemporaries , sadly that _must_ the norm .


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> What was sad was the way that Dr. Phil was attempting to shame her for her talking to her children about sex/porn. I guess since she did not teach her daughter that porn is fine to watch and that porn=love, then Kenya is a dirty dog.
> 
> I guess in your world, it is your way or no way...I pick no way.


Ok, on THAT part, I agree with you (and Kenya). It is better that she dispel the image that porn is real sex, since her daughter was exposed to it by a friend. I can safely say that, if my child was exposed to it and thought THAT was the norm for sex, then I'd do exactly what Kenya did... watch a small clip and explain that it's not real.

Regarding the rest of the show...

-- Kenya's partner is separated, ending/ended a marriage. Been separated for about a year and involved with Kenya for about that long as well. 

-- Kenya's partner doesn't want his real name mentioned, and doesn't want anyone to see his face outside of those who were there.

-- As Dr. Phil asked "If there is nothing wrong with it, why hide your face? Why hide your identity?" Seriously, he is separated from his wife, so what's the problem?

-- I had a problem with Kenya interrupting ALL THE TIME. No one could get a word in edgewise. (She DID later issue an apology to Dr. Phil and, I believe, the show, for her behavior in that respect)

-- Her ashy legs/the lotion. Are you kidding me? The cameras weren't focusing on her legs. You could only see her legs from a distance, and you can't tell that her legs are dry. And the pouting face? What is she? A petulant child? 

-- The kids. They weren't saying only that they would want to be in a polyamorous lifestyle. They were saying NO ONE can live with and commit to only one person. Kenya stated that she posted the entire interview with her kids, not just snips, on Facebook. If it has also been posted on YouTube, I would like to see it. But based on just what the kids said in those clips, that bothers me. No, the polyamorous lifestyle doesn't scare me. What scares me is kids saying that no one can remain in a relationship for years and years and years with only one person because it isn't right. 

-- Carl's assertion that STDs are caused by fear...fear of getting them. And he doesn't always use protection because he's not afraid of getting an STD. That if you're not stressed about contracting one, then you won't get it. No.... you won't get it if you don't have sex with an infected person. (The following is purely speculation, please, take it as such). Suppose Carl were to meet a woman with HIV. Even people with HIV need love, right? So, he and Kenya agree it's ok for him to have her as a partner. Will he adhere to his thinking that he won't contract HIV, if he chooses to not use a condom, because he has no fear of getting it? Or, will he continue to use a condom because he knows that if he has unprotected sex with this woman, his chances of contracting HIV increase, and then he could pass it to Kenya or his other partners and they to their partners?

Maybe that part about Carl was taken out of context. Did he ever post anything on their blog about that subject?

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on my impression of the show. I didn't like that Kenya monopolized the conversation. When someone else was addressed, she felt the need to respond... what's up with that? Why can't they speak for themselves? And yes, I watched the entire thing.


----------



## BjornFree

How do these men enthusiastically sign up for sloppy seconds?

While I agree that to each his own, I can't wrap my fuzzy brain around the concept of being okay with their wives doing the dirty with another man. Men who get cheated go through the traumatic experience of reliving their wife's infidelity in HD(in their brains of course). 

How do the proponents of Progressive and Free love deal with the physical aspect of their mate having sex with another person? And also, what do these people gain out of the err marriage?

I mean, if you do want to sleep around, wouldn't it be a better idea to lead a single life?


----------



## Caribbean Man

BjornFree said:


> How do these men enthusiastically sign up for sloppy seconds?


That's quite easy.
All it takes is a female with a sharp knife or a sharp pair of scissors to cut off his ball$.
Then _she_ gives him the ** permission ** to have sex with other women whom _she_ is ok with.

Polyamory is the feminist response to the societal double standard regarding male sexual supremacy, or " penis power."

Basically trying to " level the playing field."


----------



## BjornFree

Caribbean Man said:


> That's quite easy.
> All it takes is a female with a sharp knife or a sharp pair of scissors to cut off his ball$.
> Then _she_ gives him the ** permission ** to have sex with other women whom _she_ is ok with.
> 
> Polyamory is the feminist response to the societal double standard regarding male sexual supremacy, or " penis power."


But, I think its the men who more often than not who broach the subject of threesomes and so forth. I just don't get if it is just an exhibitionist thing or if its something else. I mean sign me up for a threesome with two females and myself any day but how do men specifically deal with letting their wives suck someone else's penis?


----------



## StoneAngel

anony2 said:


> *Do you consider anyone that has an affair disgusting? How about emotional affairs?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> To answer this question one has to put it into context!
> If I knew someone who had an affair and this person was remorseful, understood that the action caused great pain, was selfish, reckless etc etc and that person was willing to accept the consequences of the affair....of course I would not consider them disgusting.
> The 'offending' partner (to keep it simple) deserves support and understanding as they brace themselves for the consequences that lie ahead.
> 
> If the "offending" partner openly expressed that he/she deserved the sexual experience and gratification of other partners, expressed that it was natural to do so, expressed that the partner who felt wounded and betrayed should get over those feelings and become more enlightened, expressed that a 'good' partner would endulge these adulterous sexual desires and struted around like a self-righteous pea****, I would most certainly consider them disgusting.
> 
> Whether a PA or an EA...no difference for me.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> DP - Open Marriages - YouTube
> 
> This is Kenya and her husband and some partners and her kids on Dr Phil. It's pretty sad.


I watched this and I can say that Doctor Derp tried his hardest to paint kenya and carl as representing something they arent.


----------



## anonim

BjornFree said:


> How do these men enthusiastically sign up for sloppy seconds?


All those in favor of virgin brides say 'aye'


----------



## Maricha75

anonim said:


> All those in favor of virgin brides say 'aye'


"Aye"... except mine was a virgin groom. Are we changing to course of the conversation again?


----------



## Caribbean Man

BjornFree said:


> But, I think its the men who more often than not who broach the subject of threesomes and so forth. I just don't get if it is just an exhibitionist thing or if its something else. I mean sign me up for a threesome with two females and myself any day but how do men specifically deal with letting their wives suck someone else's penis?


Its like the tale of the dog and its bone.
The dog sees a reflection of itself with a bone in a pool of water and he decides to dive in thinking it _another_ dog with _another_ bone.
He looses his bone and gets all wet.

Every man would like the fantasy of more than one woman, at the same time.
But in order to have that , his wife then offers him a " bone " in the form polyamory. 
If your wife tells you that its ok if you have sex with other women, it means that she no longer loves or respects you enough to hold you up to a standard.

_Even in Polygamous marriages where the man has more than one wife, the wives are often jealous of each other._

So he looses his wife and no other woman would respect him enough to commit. He's a cuckold.
She on the other hand gets numerous lovers.
She's a hot wife.


----------



## BjornFree

anonim said:


> All those in favor of virgin brides say 'aye'


Aye

Tsk Tsk, such a childish response. Little doubt as to why women in progressive relationships prefer to be boned by Mr Studly. Its becoming clear now.


----------



## BjornFree

Guess i touched a nerve there, with my sloppy seconds question.Apologies. Lol. Rofl


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> All those in favor of virgin brides say 'aye'



Well my wife was a virgin bride.
But to me it didn't matter, so long as she was having sex with ONLY ME after marriage.
No ' SLOPPY " SECONDS " for me.


----------



## StoneAngel

anonim said:


> Bertrand Russell, 19th Century Mathematician and Philosopher once said:
> 
> "Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness"


I think you are misquoting Bertrand Russell. I believe his reference relates to the truth of Love and its vast possiblitiies for the human condition when accepted openly.

He WAS NOT referring to opening oneself up to an endless array of carnal lust.

If you still can not yet distinguish between SEX and LOVE you have a long way to go before the word PROGRESSIVE should be used.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

anony2 said:


> Says the man that includes himself in every group aka circle jerk so he can feel important...Prove that your way is the right way...I will be waiting.


Wow, I've just spent the last 5 or 6 pages catching up. And you and your husband take serious offense to the issue of others "judging" and this is how you speak.

And your husband's condescension in this is awful


> I'll interrupt you here. Your username 'Created2Write' implies that you write, that you use words. If this is true, then I feel that it is your business to know that the word Etymology exists and more importantly, what it means.
> 
> Etymology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Created2Write View Post
> Also, my name is rather self-explanatory...written in a sentence it would be: I was created to write.
> Maybe but you should understand your tools more. They have existed far longer than you.


This is obviously a divisive topic. Everyone has their own opinions, and that's what they are. 

Many people here have taken offense to Kenya's wordings and also her not being culpable in any of her relationships.

I'm sorry, I DO find a person who KNOWINGLY enters into ANY form of relationship that is a form of infidelity, regardless if they are the WS or the AP, to be in the wrong.

Just like I would hold someone responsible for LEGALLY selling a gun to someone IF they knew that person was going to use it for harm.

Or the package store that sells alcohol to the OBVIOUSLY drunk person who's going to drive home.

I do think that a person is responsible for their actions and how they affect other people. Kenya is wrong for continuing relationships with married people who are NOT in open relationships. 

Again though, that's my opinion and only carries weight for me.

And just to add for equality sake. Everyone needs to reserve their judgements to a socially acceptable level. EVERYONE judges somethings to some extent, you have to to make a decision. So the other people who cast judgements are without guilt and you and your husband are the only guilty ones. We are all guilty of judgements, it's just HOW we judge and express those judgements that make the difference.


----------



## anony2

Dad&Hubby said:


> Wow, I've just spent the last 5 or 6 pages catching up. And you and your husband take serious offense to the issue of others "judging" and this is how you speak.
> 
> And your husband's condescension in this is awful
> 
> 
> This is obviously a divisive topic. Everyone has their own opinions, and that's what they are.
> 
> Many people here have taken offense to Kenya's wordings and also her not being culpable in any of her relationships.
> 
> I'm sorry, I DO find a person who KNOWINGLY enters into ANY form of relationship that is a form of infidelity, regardless if they are the WS or the AP, to be in the wrong.
> 
> Just like I would hold someone responsible for LEGALLY selling a gun to someone IF they knew that person was going to use it for harm.
> 
> Or the package store that sells alcohol to the OBVIOUSLY drunk person who's going to drive home.
> 
> I do think that a person is responsible for their actions and how they affect other people. Kenya is wrong for continuing relationships with married people who are NOT in open relationships.
> 
> Again though, that's my opinion and only carries weight for me.


So CM can call me ANNOY2 countless times and you do not call him out but you call me out on this?


----------



## anony2

StoneAngel said:


> I think you are misquoting Bertrand Russell. I believe his reference relates to the truth of Love and its vast possiblitiies for the human condition when accepted openly.
> 
> He WAS NOT referring to opening oneself up to an endless array of carnal lust.
> 
> If you still can not yet distinguish between SEX and LOVE you have a long way to go before the word PROGRESSIVE should be used.


Try this one on for size then...

“Religions, *which condemn the pleasures of sense*, drive men to seek the pleasures of power. Throughout history power has been the vice of the ascetic.”
Bertrand Russell quote

or this one:

“It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so,* it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion*”
Bertrand Russell quote


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> So CM can call me ANNOY2 countless times and you do not call him out but you call me out on this?


Your husband called him out on it. Frankly, until he pointed it out, I didn't notice it either. When I am typing, I get letters mixed up. I could easily type annoy instead of anony. I actually have to THINK when typing your screen name, which is tough when typing fast. And, since spellcheck doesn't correct "annoy", it could easily be a mistake. However, if he DID, in fact, do it on purpose, as you and anonim believe, then yes, he was wrong. BTW, when I misspell things, I backtrack often and correct them immediately. That is, when they are words recognized by spellcheck. I have an awful habit of typing "ahve" and "ahs" etc.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> So CM can call me ANNOY2 countless times and you do not call him out but you call me out on this?


If you read my post # 281 you woul clearly see where I corrected that mistake after you alerted me to it in a previous post.

In order to have a healthy debate on any topic, there must first be some level of honesty and truthfulness .


----------



## Caribbean Man

Maricha75 said:


> Your husband called him out on it. Frankly, until he pointed it out, I didn't notice it either. When I am typing, I get letters mixed up. I could easily type annoy instead of anony. I actually have to THINK when typing your screen name, which is tough when typing fast. And, since spellcheck doesn't correct "annoy", it could easily be a mistake. However, if he DID, in fact, do it on purpose, as you and anonim believe, then yes, he was wrong. BTW, when I misspell things, I backtrack often and correct them immediately. That is, when they are words recognized by spellcheck. I have an awful habit of typing "ahve" and "ahs" etc.



Haha!
Both you and I posted a response to the silliness AT THE EXACT SAME TIME, [ 9:32 AM ] and both of us said the same thing!

But I did get mixed up with the name, and I feel a lot of other people do too.


----------



## StoneAngel

anony2 said:


> Try this one on for size then...
> 
> “Religions, *which condemn the pleasures of sense*, drive men to seek the pleasures of power. Throughout history power has been the vice of the ascetic.”
> Bertrand Russell quote
> 
> or this one:
> 
> “It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so,* it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion*”
> Bertrand Russell quote


Wow.....you make a big leap..... Nothing I have written in this thread implies that I am a bible thumper or condemn open marriage from a religious stand point. I have no religious affiliation and do not particularly believe that my morals or guiding principles stem from religious teachings. In fact most of my points/arguments have been squarely placed around the human biological state, human emotional state and natural human bonding.

I don't disagree with the quotes that you just listed by Bertrand Russell. These quotes can be intertwined with the progressive need for 19th century society to separate the Church and State. The above quote you mentioned is also in reference to gender rights, a womens place within the church and society, and Bertrand's views on biology itself.

All really great stuff and a voice much needed to advance society and the human race.

So I come back to my original post. Stop misquoting him. The original quote posted by your husband was Not Bertrand Russell's way of denouncing traditional marriage and organizing the masses to embrace the world freely with erection in hand and open vaginas...It was not about a human need to sow seeds. Your husband misquoted Bertrand Russell to support an agenda.


----------



## Caribbean Man

StoneAngel said:


> So I come back to my original post. Stop misquoting him. The original quote posted by your husband was Not Bertrand Russell's way of denouncing traditional marriage and organizing the masses to embrace the world freely with erection in hand and open vaginas...It was not about a human need to sow seeds. Your husband misquoted Bertrand Russell to support an agenda.


:smthumbup:

Also Russell was pro family and he didn't go into the deep end of relativism like Nietze, Sartre and others.

The Op and his wife are in deep waters.
Maybe they can swim ?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Dad&Hubby said:


> Wow, I've just spent the last 5 or 6 pages catching up. And you and your husband take serious offense to the issue of others "judging" and this is how you speak.
> 
> And your husband's condescension in this is awful
> 
> 
> This is obviously a divisive topic. Everyone has their own opinions, and that's what they are.
> 
> Many people here have taken offense to Kenya's wordings and also her not being culpable in any of her relationships.
> 
> I'm sorry, I DO find a person who KNOWINGLY enters into ANY form of relationship that is a form of infidelity, regardless if they are the WS or the AP, to be in the wrong.
> 
> Just like I would hold someone responsible for LEGALLY selling a gun to someone IF they knew that person was going to use it for harm.
> 
> Or the package store that sells alcohol to the OBVIOUSLY drunk person who's going to drive home.
> 
> I do think that a person is responsible for their actions and how they affect other people. Kenya is wrong for continuing relationships with married people who are NOT in open relationships.
> 
> Again though, that's my opinion and only carries weight for me.
> 
> *And just to add for equality sake. Everyone needs to reserve their judgements to a socially acceptable level. EVERYONE judges somethings to some extent, you have to to make a decision. So the other people who cast judgements are without guilt and you and your husband are the only guilty ones. We are all guilty of judgements, it's just HOW we judge and express those judgements that make the difference.*





anony2 said:


> So CM can call me ANNOY2 countless times and you do not call him out but you call me out on this?


No, sorry. I was trying to say that everyone should refrain. It was wrong for CM to call you Annoy2. Without a doubt. 

I should've made a stronger point about that. 

I think we all need to pull back the personal attacks that naturally occur, when not watched for, in a passionate debate.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I would think that this "progressive love " / Polyamory you speak of requires a certain level of tolerance and understanding.

If you cannot understand how someone could easily make a mistake with your screen name, then I don't see how this polyamory thing could work for you

Again, it was a genuine mistake.
Its hard to spot the difference between anony2 and annoy2.
But my apologies if you are offended.

People have called me all sorts of things here.
CB, CM, Caribe , Carib., Caribbean, and Caribbeab Man.
Some have even called me arrogant and your husband has called me a Pick Up Artist and a misogynist.
Ha, ha!
No problem with me , it just smile., becauseI have a high tolerance level, that's why ,
My MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE WORKS.

A word of wisdom , again.

_This Polyamory / open marriage lifestyles definitely not for both of you. It will further fracture your marriage._


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> Where are the lines drawn in _your _relationships?
> 
> Is it based on what each individual couple wants for themselves?
> 
> If so, are there _any_ boundaries at all? Or is it all basically acceptable, so long as both individuals consent?


Nice attempt to dodge the questions.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> moving the goal posts again.
> 
> The male in your example had no backbone and was unwilling to stand his ground about what he didnt want and was uncomfortable about. ANY relationship he would have been in would have been unhealthy because he refused to assert his boundaries. The female was pushy (sounding) and refused to respect her partners feelings. This wasnt because they were in an open relationship, it was because she had no consideration for her partners feelings. This could and would have happened in any relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, the term adultery has an Abrahamic origin. Are you judging from within or from without that origin?
> 
> 
> 
> Not only am I NOT redefining the word, I dont think you ever knew what the word you were using meant outside the context of your own religion/culture.


LOL! Dude, your beef is with the English language, not religion. I went to the dictionary and looked up the definition of adultery, and no where was it stated that consent is what defines an adulterous relationship.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> She called ME baby and I have talked to her two times by email.
> 
> My friend on facebook called me hun...does that mean that we are having an EA?


Seriously? You are so determined to turn a blind eye to this that you're pulling at strings now. 

There is a massively substantial difference between calling someone, "Hun", or "Sweetie" and referring to someone _as your lover_. Lover implies a romantic connotation that is pretty universally recognized by pretty much everyone. You don't use that word unless you intend to state that there is a romantic relationship going on.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> Really?:rofl: So what exactly is it that legitimizes polygamy and bastardizes open marriage/relationships? Isnt (according to you) marriage one man/woman and everything else adultery/cheating?


Yeah, according to my faith, that is how I define a _Godly_ marriage. 

However, I don't think that that suddenly makes polygamous marriages null and void. If a man is legally married to a woman, then he's married to her. In polygamy, a man can have more than one wife, so when he has sex with his other wive's, he's not technically committing adultery. 

An open relationship isn't the same as polygamy. By definition, there is adultery taking place. Consent between the spouses to go outside the marriage is irrelevant. Moreover, the fact that these people who are in open relationships don't restrict who else they see to other people who are also in open relationships sort of confirms it.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> I'll interrupt you here. Your username 'Created2Write' implies that you write, that you use words. If this is true, then I feel that it is your business to know that the word *Etymology *exists and more importantly, what it means.
> 
> Etymology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe but you should understand your tools more. They have existed far longer than you.


What does the evolution of words have to do with anything? Or the translation of one word from one language into another? Are you implying that the English definition of adultery isn't the same as other definitions of adultery? 

Also, if you want people to be respectful to you, you should probably learn to practice being respectful to others. Otherwise, there's no way to take what you say seriously.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> You still haven't been to CWI yet no?


You asked that last night after I'd gone to bed.


Sheesh.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> Ever dated??? you had an affair!
> Sex before marriage?? you had an affair!
> 
> Your definition is archaic.


*rolls eyes*

You know exactly what that means. But, since you're still bent on intentionally missing what I'm saying, I'll post the definition of adultery:

Adultery:
"voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse. "

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com


----------



## anony2

StoneAngel said:


> Wow.....you make a big leap..... Nothing I have written in this thread implies that I am a bible thumper or condemn open marriage from a religious stand point. I have no religious affiliation and do not particularly believe that my morals or guiding principles stem from religious teachings. In fact most of my points/arguments have been squarely placed around the human biological state, human emotional state and natural human bonding.
> 
> I don't disagree with the quotes that you just listed by Bertrand Russell. These quotes can be intertwined with the progressive need for 19th century society to separate the Church and State. The above quote you mentioned is also in reference to gender rights, a womens place within the church and society, and Bertrand's views on biology itself.
> 
> All really great stuff and a voice much needed to advance society and the human race.
> 
> So I come back to my original post. *Stop misquoting him. The original quote posted by your husband was Not Bertrand Russell's way of denouncing traditional marriage and organizing the masses to embrace the world freely with erection in hand and open vaginas...It was not about a human need to sow seeds. Your husband misquoted Bertrand Russell to support an agenda.*



No one misquoted Russell and my husband idd not say that this was Bertrands way of "denouncing traditional marriage"...that is YOUR interpretation of the quote and its reasoning, no one elses...


----------



## Maricha75

Ok, I think we do need to take a step back for a second here. 

Anony2, and I think anonim as well, said they are not entering into a polyamorous relationship. Basically, it seems that they are picking, out of Kenya and Carl's teachings, what works for them and their marriage. Did I get that right, anony2 and anonim? And, basically, even though Kenya says that monogamy is just a step toward polyamory, you have no plans to go past the monogamous relationship...or "mono-harmonious" relationship, the term Kenya coined. Have I got it so far?

When you, anony2 and anonim, mention "progressive" and "open", you are talking about building up the marital relationship and communicating with each other, in an open fashion. I get that. I really do. As I stated before, my concern is that when reading certain things on her site, and hearing her speak, I don't get that "vibe" from her...that it is about opening up to your spouse. I know you understand that, right?

Ok, so, in order to make people like me understand the principles without making it seem like my choices in life (monogamy, or as Kenya sees it, serial monogamy) are inferior to hers? As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, Kenya came on here talking about open marriages and the things she said were basically what we have been saying about it: the things that turned us off to her message. 

Regardless of what any of us thinks of Kenya and her methods, I think we all agree that we need to do what is best for our own marriages, agreed? And, we all agree that cheating is wrong? We agree that in open marriages/relationships (by definition, not the communication definition  ), the couple is not cheating on each other when they agree to have extramarital relationships. We agree that Kenya at least SAYS cheating is wrong, but we disagree as to whether she is involved in emotional affairs because a couple of her partners are not in open marriages (by definition). So, hopefully, Kenya responds to anony2, soon, so we get the clarification about those men, so we are no longer speculating about that.


----------



## anonim

Maricha75 said:


> "Aye"... except mine was a virgin groom. Are we changing to course of the conversation again?


your sarcasm meter is malfunctioning


----------



## anonim

BjornFree said:


> Aye
> 
> Tsk Tsk, such a childish response. Little doubt as to why women in progressive relationships prefer to be boned by Mr Studly. Its becoming clear now.


And yet you match a 'childish response' with an equally immature assertion. Maybe you should ask women in general, if they prefer to be boned by Mr Studly regardless of their relationship models.


----------



## anonim

StoneAngel said:


> I think you are misquoting Bertrand Russell. I believe his reference relates to the truth of Love and its vast possiblitiies for the human condition when accepted openly. You can verify your opinion just as easily as I can.
> 
> He WAS NOT referring to opening oneself up to an endless array of carnal lust.
> 
> If you still can not yet distinguish between SEX and LOVE you have a long way to go before the word PROGRESSIVE should be used.And you are the judge of my understanding, how?


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> :smthumbup:
> 
> Also Russell was pro family and he didn't go into the deep end of relativism like Nietze, Sartre and others.
> 
> The Op and his wife are in deep waters.
> Maybe they can swim ?


I'll note that kendra and carl are also pro family.


----------



## StoneAngel

Dad&Hubby

I would also like to add to your point that an individual establishes his/her personal boundaries based on the judgements he/she makes.
Determining if something is wrong or right as you see it is a not a bad thing. 
What is wrong is when one abandons a sense of fairness and empathy in the face of judgement.


----------



## BjornFree

anonim said:


> And yet you match a 'childish response' with an equally immature assertion. Maybe you should ask women in general, if they prefer to be boned by Mr Studly regardless of their relationship models.


Women in good and fulfilling monogamous relationships will agree that Mr Studly is right at home. Such a shame that its not the case in "Progressive Relationships", cheers. 

And I really do believe the people posting on here know who is childish and who isn't.


----------



## StoneAngel

anony2 said:


> No one misquoted Russell and my husband idd not say that this was Bertrands way of "denouncing traditional marriage"...that is YOUR interpretation of the quote and its reasoning, no one elses...


What????? Please tell me to what he was referring in the context of how he used that quote! If Bertrand Russell words were not being used in such a way than maybe your husband should use his own words (instead of someone else's) to advance understanding of his position.


----------



## Maricha75

anonim said:


> your sarcasm meter is malfunctioning


Nah, wasn't being sarcastic. Usually, when you bring up the "virgin card", the course of the conversation switches to virginity being overrated or some other conversation related to that... just not relishing a rehash of that particular subject.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> I would think that this "progressive love " / Polyamory you speak of requires a certain level of tolerance and understanding. I agree and think that this applies to pretty much all relationships, some requiring higher degrees than others. I dont think all people are suited for or have the requisite traits for all relationships.
> 
> If you cannot understand how someone could easily make a mistake with your screen name, then I don't see how this polyamory thing could work for you. I dont think it was a mistake. and name calling has nothing whatsoever to do with poly/open/mono relationships.
> 
> Again, it was a genuine mistake.
> Its hard to spot the difference between anony2 and annoy2.
> But my apologies if you are offended.
> 
> People have called me all sorts of things here.
> CB, CM, Caribe , Carib., Caribbean, and Caribbeab Man.
> Some have even called me arrogant and your husband has called me a Pick Up Artist and a misogynist.
> Ha, ha!
> No problem with me , it just smile., becauseI have a high tolerance level, that's why ,
> My MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE WORKS.
> 
> A word of wisdom , again.
> 
> _This Polyamory / open marriage lifestyles definitely not for both of you. It will further fracture your marriage._


Were not considering poly/open relationships, though that doesnt prohibit us from thinking and talking about it.


----------



## Created2Write

Watched the video. 

I agreed with showing her daughter that porn isn't real sex. No argument with that little segment of the show. 

However, the rest made me highly uncomfortable. The kids saying that it's _impossible_ to remain faithful to just one person your whole life? Tons of people have successful monogamous relationships! This was enlightening to exactly what Kenya believes, and that's that polyamorous relationships are _better_ than monogamous ones. Why else would her children say such things?

Disturbing.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Yeah, according to my faith, that is how I define a _Godly_ marriage.
> 
> However, I don't think that that suddenly makes polygamous marriages null and void. If a man is legally married to a woman, then he's married to her. In polygamy, a man can have more than one wife, so when he has sex with his other wive's, he's not technically committing adultery.
> 
> An open relationship isn't the same as polygamy. By definition, there is adultery taking place. Consent between the spouses to go outside the marriage is irrelevant. Moreover, the fact that these people who are in open relationships don't restrict who else they see to other people who are also in open relationships sort of confirms it.


"_according to my faith, that is how I define a Godly marriage._"

Thats fine. Define your own marriage by it. The marriages of other people are defined by the people whose marriage it is, not by anyone outside it. Especially when it doesn't affect you.

PS. marriage doesnt require god. Well at least mine doesnt.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> "_according to my faith, that is how I define a Godly marriage._"
> 
> Thats fine. Define your own marriage by it. The marriages of other people are defined by the people whose marriage it is, not by anyone outside it. Especially when it doesn't affect you.
> 
> PS. marriage doesnt require god. Well at least mine doesnt.


Great.

None of what you just said has anything to do with my point about polygamy. Yet another dodge.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> What does the evolution of words have to do with anything? Or the translation of one word from one language into another? Are you implying that the English definition of adultery isn't the same as other definitions of adultery?


The evolution of words has everything to do with it. It means the meaning of the words you use are changing, and have changed from things you never even knew they were. It means that their can be alternate meanings of the same or parallel words in different contexts or in different places.

In this context, you've taken the traditional american christian evolved definition of adultery and applied it to a non-traditional marriage. 

In other words you're judging them by your standards, not their own.


----------



## anonim

StoneAngel said:


> I have no religious affiliation and do not particularly believe that my morals or guiding principles stem from religious teachings. In fact most of my points/arguments have been squarely placed around the human biological state, human emotional state and natural human bonding. But just because something is prevalent, it doesn't mean its natural does it?
> 
> 
> So I come back to my original post. Stop misquoting him. The original quote posted by your husband was Not Bertrand Russell's way of denouncing traditional marriage and organizing the masses to embrace the world freely with erection in hand and open vaginas...It was not about a human need to sow seeds. Your husband misquoted Bertrand Russell to support an agenda. If you think that, then address it *TO ME.* No one denounced, nor even mentioned 'traditional marriage' which really shows YOUR agenda. Which is to denounce non-traditional marriages. I say to each their own and live and let live.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Nice attempt to dodge the questions.


You dont get it. It's the same as any other relationship. Just because a person is in a polyamorous/polygamous/open/monogamous relationship, it doesnt mean they have no boundaries no???

The principles are the same as with any relationship, romantic/sexual or otherwise.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> LOL! Dude, your beef is with the English language, not religion. I went to the dictionary and looked up the definition of adultery, and no where was it stated that consent is what defines an adulterous relationship.


Nice attempt to dodge the question.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Seriously? You are so determined to turn a blind eye to this that you're pulling at strings now.
> 
> There is a massively substantial difference between calling someone, "Hun", or "Sweetie" and referring to someone _as your lover_. Lover implies a romantic connotation that is pretty universally recognized by pretty much everyone. You don't use that word unless you intend to state that there is a romantic relationship going on.


She is telling you "show where the line is" and you cant.


----------



## Maricha75

anonim said:


> She is telling you "show where the line is" and you cant.


"Where is the line?"

Ok, here, let's clear that up:

Someone calls your wife "baby"..are you ok with that? 
Yes - no worries. No - you need to discuss boundaries with your wife to clear it up. Makes sense, yes?

That's where the line is. Your boundaries may be different than mine. If someone calls me "babe", other than my husband, I am not ok with that and neither is he. And neither of us is ok with the other referring to someone else by that term. Now, if a friend refers to me as "hon (or hun", generally speaking, we are both ok with that...depending on whom and the context. If they call one of us "love" or "lover", that's a HELL NO from both him and me. It is our boundary.

We didn't always have those boundaries. We never really discussed them... until we both emotionally cheated on each other. Our boundaries may not be the same as yours. And that's ok. They work for us. Your boundaries may not work for us, and that's ok too.


----------



## anonim

Maricha75 said:


> Ok, I think we do need to take a step back for a second here.
> 
> Anony2, and I think anonim as well, said they are not entering into a polyamorous relationship. Basically, it seems that they are picking, out of Kenya and Carl's teachings, what works for them and their marriage. Did I get that right, anony2 and anonim?
> 
> Yep, pretty much.
> 
> And, basically, even though Kenya says that monogamy is just a step toward polyamory, you have no plans to go past the monogamous relationship...or "mono-harmonious" relationship, the term Kenya coined. Have I got it so far?
> 
> I dont see what difference it would or should make as far as this thread or forum goes if we were poly or in an open marriage, but as you say we are monogamous and have no plans to change that.
> 
> Also, I've never heard of 'mono-harmonius' before
> 
> 
> When you, anony2 and anonim, mention "progressive" and "open", you are talking about building up the marital relationship and communicating with each other, in an open fashion.
> 
> Yes, even past the point of traditional marriages.
> 
> I get that. I really do. As I stated before, my concern is that when reading certain things on her site, and hearing her speak, I don't get that "vibe" from her...that it is about opening up to your spouse. I know you understand that, right?
> 
> I understand that Kenyas (jujumama) perspective and teachings do not resonate with you (or with 95% of other posters here)
> 
> I dont agree 100% with what kenya and carl believe and practice but I think there are significant aspects of their relationships that traditionalist marriage trainers/coaches either ignore or neglect.
> 
> I'm curious to what 'vibe' you're getting from her though.
> 
> 
> Ok, so, in order to make people like me understand the principles without making it seem like my choices in life (monogamy, or as Kenya sees it, serial monogamy) are inferior to hers? As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, Kenya came on here talking about open marriages and the things she said were basically what we have been saying about it: the things that turned us off to her message.
> 
> Regardless of what any of us thinks of Kenya and her methods, I think we all agree that we need to do what is best for our own marriages, agreed? And, we all agree that cheating is wrong?
> 
> I feel it is, yes.
> 
> We agree that in open marriages/relationships (by definition, not the communication definition  ), the couple is not cheating on each other when they agree to have extramarital relationships.
> 
> An open couple (heck a trio as far as that goes) are not cheating each other by having extramarital relationships, if they do not cross/break boundaries they set in their relationship, just like a monogamous couple.
> 
> We agree that Kenya at least SAYS cheating is wrong, but we disagree as to whether she is involved in emotional affairs because a couple of her partners are not in open marriages (by definition). So, hopefully, Kenya responds to anony2, soon, so we get the clarification about those men, so we are no longer speculating about that.


Tyvm.


----------



## StoneAngel

Anonim
What? I was responding to your wife's 'try this on for size" post, which was her answer to my direct response to your one-liner post quoting Bertrand Russell. Check the thread man....I was addressing you and you alone....your wife was the interloper! So please go back and read the posts again and please refrain from giving me posting ediquette.

When I say" natural" bonding I did not say "natural" marriage, so please come down off your soap box.

My comments have all been about the "natural human responses" feelings of possesion, jealousy, fear, anger in the face of threat. When one naturally bonds with a member of the opposite sex any action between the bonded partner and an interloper stirs up natural fight/flight responses and other stresses.....all the communication in the world will never quelch these autonomic response. 
You believe that with adequate communication and rules these autonomic responses cease to exists and that is bull-pucky.
These responses are not eliminated/or controlled with maturity. The resulting behavioural reactions may be controlled by maturity and awareness, but the mates brain chemistry is altered,( Dopamine, Adernaline etc etc) agitation exists and the mate is in a constant state of trying to self-soothe or requiring her mate to soothe him/her. This is not a natural state of being and the practice is deterimental to your health.
Again my point of view has nothing to do with morality and I have no agenda other than to indicate that science states that in such arrangements your body is under a tremendous amount of stress whether you have agreed to the arrangement or not.


----------



## anonim

BjornFree said:


> Women in good and fulfilling monogamous relationships will agree that Mr Studly is right at home. Such a shame that its not the case in "Progressive Relationships", cheers.
> 
> And I really do believe the people posting on here know who is childish and who isn't.


What about women (or men) in good and fulfilling polyamorous or open relationships?

"_And I really do believe the people posting on here know who is childish and who isn't."_

Because when all else fails, shame them.


----------



## anonim

Maricha75 said:


> Nah, wasn't being sarcastic. Usually, when you bring up the "virgin card", the course of the conversation switches to virginity being overrated or some other conversation related to that... just not relishing a rehash of that particular subject.


I mean i was being sarcastic, I'd rather not resurrect that topic either.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Watched the video.
> 
> I agreed with showing her daughter that porn isn't real sex. No argument with that little segment of the show.
> 
> Did you see the part when Doctor Fool tried to state it as if they were just watching pornos with their kids, as though recreational?
> 
> However, the rest made me highly uncomfortable. The kids saying that it's _impossible_ to remain faithful to just one person your whole life? Tons of people have successful monogamous relationships! This was enlightening to exactly what Kenya believes, and that's that polyamorous relationships are _better_ than monogamous ones. Why else would her children say such things?
> 
> Disturbing.
> 
> Yes. But it happens the exact opposite to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> I'll note that kendra and carl are also pro family.


Damn!:slap:

I must admit you really caught me this time....

I should have known that you probably have a different definition for family based on your " progressive love " concept.

What do they call it " Progressive Families?":rofl:
or is it " polyfamily " where the kids grow up with " polydaddies?" 
So confused, not knowing who are their brothers and sisters and how many
** daddies ** they really have....

I can imagine the kids at school asking them,
" So who's your daddy ,Conrad or Anonim ?" and the kid responds ," actually its both..."


----------



## Maricha75

anonim said:


> Did you see the part when Doctor Fool tried to state it as if they were just watching pornos with their kids, as though recreational?


I did see that part as well. That's why I said (and C2W did as well) that I agreed with Kenya on that subject.



anonim said:


> Yes. But it happens the exact opposite to.


Just so I understand... please elaborate?


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Damn!:slap:
> 
> I must admit you really caught me this time....
> 
> I should have known that you probably have a different definition for family based on your " progressive love " concept.
> 
> What do they call it " Progressive Families?":rofl:
> or is it " polyfamily " where the kids grow up with " polydaddies?"
> So confused, not knowing who are their brothers and sisters and how many
> ** daddies ** they really have....
> 
> I can imagine the kids at school asking them,
> " So who's your daddy ,Conrad or Anonim ?" and the kid responds ," actually its both..."


Yes because there is only one way to raise a family....your way. Whatever.

Also, none of which that you post above is how kenya and carl raised their children, if you had of watched the Doctor Foal video, you would know that they dont raise their children not knowing who their parents and siblings are. 

But still you deliberately try to paint and misrepresent their child rearing, saying that the children dont know who their siblings and parents are, when none of that is true. So I recommend you keep your forked tongue in your mouth.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> Yes because there is only one way to raise a family....your way. Whatever.
> 
> Also, none of which that you post above is how kenya and carl raised their children, if you had of watched the Doctor Foal video, you would know that they dont raise their children not knowing who their parents and siblings are.
> 
> But still you deliberately try to paint and misrepresent their child rearing, saying that the children dont know who their siblings and parents are, when none of that is true. So I recommend you keep your forked tongue in your mouth.


Actually I was trying to visualize when children arrive in the progressive love / poly scenario, because the boundaries can shift based on ow the persons involved feel. There are no solid contracts stating that they cannot do that.

So what if both partners decide its o to have kids with other partners, 

*WHO WILL THE CHILDREN CALL DADDY?*

I think that is a common sense question.
Yes?


----------



## anonim

Maricha75 said:


> Just so I understand... please elaborate?


C2W said "The kids saying that it's impossible to remain faithful to just one person your whole life? Tons of people have successful monogamous relationships! This was enlightening to exactly what Kenya believes, and that's that polyamorous relationships are better than monogamous ones. Why else would her children say such things? Disturbing."

If the kids saying " _it's impossible to remain faithful to just one person your whole life_" is due to the influences of their parents having an open marriage, then one must admit that it is equally plausible that kids of monogamous marriages would advocate monogamy because of the influences of their parents relationship model.

To make another example; If I was raised in a christian country by christian parents in a christian culture, I would probably grow up christian.

But if I was raised in a muslim country by muslim parents in a muslim culture, I would probably grow up muslim.

So how much is nature and how much is nurture?


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Actually I was trying to visualize when children arrive in the progressive love / poly scenario, because the boundaries can shift based on ow the persons involved feel. There are no solid contracts stating that they cannot do that.
> 
> So what if both partners decide its o to have kids with other partners,
> 
> *WHO WILL THE CHILDREN CALL DADDY?*
> 
> I think that is a common sense question.
> Yes?


If you dont know or cant figure it out, then I suggest you put the question to kenya. 
I myself imagine they would call their father daddy same as most other people.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> If you dont know or cant figure it out, then I suggest you put the question to kenya.
> I myself imagine they would call their father daddy same as most other people.


So the kids live with the real mother and " polyfather " whilst their biological father lives with another woman.
Or do they live with their biological father and " polymother?"

Which one is it?


----------



## Maricha75

Caribbean Man said:


> So the kids live with the real mother and " polyfather " whilst their biological father lives with another woman.
> Or do they live with their biological father and " polymother?"
> 
> Which one is it?


Depends. And before I am called to task on this, no, I am not changing my views on monogamy vs polyamory lol. However, what would you expect kids to call their step-parents when the parents divorce? Usually, it's "Mom and Tom" or "Dad and Sally"..Same with same-sex couples. Two gay men adopt a child. Does the child call one mom and the other dad? No, they are both "dad"... Two lesbians each get pregnant by IVF. Are they mom and dad? No, they are both "mom". There are plenty of alternative families out there. What the kids call the partners really isn't relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Hope1964

People are still responding to this drivel??


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> The evolution of words has everything to do with it. It means the meaning of the words you use are changing, and have changed from things you never even knew they were.


.................. 

Show me a culture or a time that has ever defined adultery as something other than what we define it as today. 



> It means that their can be alternate meanings of the same or parallel words in different contexts or in different places.
> 
> In this context, you've taken the traditional american christian evolved definition of adultery and applied it to a non-traditional marriage.


You _live_ in a traditional American society, so.......I don't mention "Christian" because even Atheists recognize adultery as being morally unacceptable.



> In other words you're judging them by your standards, not their own.


Uh huh. 

Except, this isn't just _my_ standard. Basically everyone else in this thread, except your wife, recognizes that these men are cheating on their wives with Kenya. For people who claim that this lifestyle is supposed to lessen adultery and cheating in relationships, it's hypocritical for her to be in a relationship where the other person is cheating on their spouse with her. 

But this has been said a dozen times.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> You dont get it. It's the same as any other relationship. Just because a person is in a polyamorous/polygamous/open/monogamous relationship, it doesnt mean they have no boundaries no???
> 
> The principles are the same as with any relationship, romantic/sexual or otherwise.


I get this. 

What I don't get is what those boundaries actually _are_. 

If Kenya's agenda is to help people reduce the risks of cheating in their relationships, it is then _hypocritical_ of her to knowingly enter a romantic relationship with a man whose wife doesn't agree with open relationships.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> She is telling you "show where the line is" and you cant.


You have male friends, I'm sure. If you have a party and your best male friend is there, and you're introducing him to other people, would you refer to him as your lover? Would your wife refer to her best female friend as her lover? 

If the answer to that question is no, then I have to ask, why not? If it only means "friendship" after all, then there's nothing to hide, right? I don't know, nor have I ever known, anyone who would ever refer to someone who was _only_ a friend as a lover. 

*lov·er*
noun
1. a person who is in love with another.
2. a person who has a sexual or romantic relationship with another.
3. a person with whom one conducts an extramarital sexual affair. 

This is what the majority of our society defines a lover as. And, since Kenya lives in this society, she _knows_ this. There is a reason she calls these men her lovers, and it isn't because she's a friend whose only intention is to encourage them to return to their wives. She is romantically involved with them, and while she may not be cheating, she is in a relationship where the man _is_.

Oh yeah, that's right. Words evolve, so now I'll bet you're going to try to tell me that this word doesn't really mean what our society has believed it to mean. You like to cover your bases, don't ya?


----------



## Created2Write

Yes, I did see the part about pornography. It doesn't change the rest of what I saw or how I felt about it. Dr. Phil isn't perfect, but he _is_ and _has been_ successful at his job, and he is a professional with an education in what he practices. His opinions are his opinions, but they are based on what he's learned as a psychologist.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> C2W said "The kids saying that it's impossible to remain faithful to just one person your whole life? Tons of people have successful monogamous relationships! This was enlightening to exactly what Kenya believes, and that's that polyamorous relationships are better than monogamous ones. Why else would her children say such things? Disturbing."
> 
> If the kids saying " _it's impossible to remain faithful to just one person your whole life_" is due to the influences of their parents having an open marriage, then one must admit that it is equally plausible that kids of monogamous marriages would advocate monogamy because of the influences of their parents relationship model.


Yeah. You're proving my point.



> To make another example; If I was raised in a christian country by christian parents in a christian culture, I would probably grow up christian.
> 
> But if I was raised in a muslim country by muslim parents in a muslim culture, I would probably grow up muslim.
> 
> So how much is nature and how much is nurture?


......

Anyway, it's clear that Kenya has taught her girls that it's impossible to have a successful monogamous relationship. Her daughter said that in the video more than once. She believes it because, by Kenya's own admission, they don't keep things from their children, so she is teaching them this. 

Thanks for proving my point. Glad we agree.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Anonim,

In response to this:



> When you, anony2 and anonim, mention "progressive" and "open", you are talking about building up the marital relationship and communicating with each other, in an open fashion.


You wrote this:



> Yes, even past the point of traditional marriages.


Please expand and explain.


----------



## Hope1964

tall average guy said:


> please expand and explain.


*groan*


----------



## Thundarr

Dad&Hubby said:


> Wow, I've just spent the last 5 or 6 pages catching up. And you and your husband take serious offense to the issue of others "judging" and this is how you speak.
> 
> And your husband's condescension in this is awful
> 
> 
> This is obviously a divisive topic. Everyone has their own opinions, and that's what they are.
> 
> Many people here have taken offense to Kenya's wordings and also her not being culpable in any of her relationships.
> 
> I'm sorry, I DO find a person who KNOWINGLY enters into ANY form of relationship that is a form of infidelity, regardless if they are the WS or the AP, to be in the wrong.
> 
> Just like I would hold someone responsible for LEGALLY selling a gun to someone IF they knew that person was going to use it for harm.
> 
> Or the package store that sells alcohol to the OBVIOUSLY drunk person who's going to drive home.
> 
> I do think that a person is responsible for their actions and how they affect other people. Kenya is wrong for continuing relationships with married people who are NOT in open relationships.
> 
> Again though, *that's my opinion and only carries weight for me.*
> 
> And just to add for equality sake. Everyone needs to reserve their judgements to a socially acceptable level. EVERYONE judges somethings to some extent, you have to to make a decision. So the other people who cast judgements are without guilt and you and your husband are the only guilty ones. We are all guilty of judgements, it's just HOW we judge and express those judgements that make the difference.


Well I second your opinion.


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> I would think that this "progressive love " / Polyamory you speak of requires a certain level of tolerance and understanding.
> 
> If you cannot understand how someone could easily make a mistake with your screen name, then I don't see how this polyamory thing could work for you
> 
> Again, it was a genuine mistake.
> Its hard to spot the difference between anony2 and annoy2.


Freudian slip . I must humbly apologise for this being so humerous to me.


----------



## Thundarr

StoneAngel said:


> Dad&Hubby
> 
> I would also like to add to your point that an individual establishes his/her personal boundaries based on the judgements he/she makes.
> Determining if something is wrong or right as you see it is a not a bad thing.
> What is wrong is when one abandons a sense of fairness and empathy in the face of judgement.


We may choose our boundaries but we don't choose our consequences. We can choose what we think is right but if someone determines it's ok to have disregard for others by having EAs then I disagree with them at a core level.


----------



## Entropy3000

Thundarr said:


> Freudian slip . I must humbly apologise for this being so humerous to me.


annoy2 could be read as annoying squared or annoying double down or an annoying couple ....

But I transpose characters all of the time myself. Too often. I do it so often that at times I get some rather humerous combinations. Freudian? I bet some percentage of the time but Idunno.

So Thumper I am not so sure CMan meant anything by it.


----------



## Hope1964

Anon, annoy, tomato, tomatoe.


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> So the kids live with the real mother and " polyfather " whilst their biological father lives with another woman.
> Or do they live with their biological father and " polymother?"
> 
> Which one is it?


Kenya and Carl live together, they are husband and wife, just like you have a wife and you live together...do your kids live with you?


.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Maricha75 said:


> Depends. And before I am called to task on this, no, I am not changing my views on monogamy vs polyamory lol. However, what would you expect kids to call their step-parents when the parents divorce? Usually, it's "Mom and Tom" or "Dad and Sally"..Same with same-sex couples. Two gay men adopt a child. Does the child call one mom and the other dad? No, they are both "dad"... Two lesbians each get pregnant by IVF. Are they mom and dad? No, they are both "mom". There are plenty of alternative families out there. What the kids call the partners really isn't relevant to the discussion.



The point is not just who the kids call daddy.

In a gay marriage there are TWO parents.


The question is how many " parents " are there in polyarmory , and is that an ideal situation to raise kids , bearing in mind that the " ideal home" has two parents, living together .when divorce or separation occurs it hurts the kids psychologically, no doubt.
So in polyamory the kids potentially start off living like kids whose parents are separated.

The OP has said several times that polyamory is better than monogamy. In monogamous marriages [ including gays ] there are just two parents.
So who takes charge of the kids, should the biological father's partner decide that she doesn't like his kids? What happens if she also has kids for another partner, and he doesn't like her husband? Who then gets to keep her kids?


----------



## anony2

Seriously, now your argument has been reduced to you calling names and shaming people?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Yeah. You're proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> Anyway, *it's clear that Kenya has taught her girls that it's impossible to have a successful monogamous relationship*. Her daughter said that in the video more than once. She believes it because, by Kenya's own admission, they don't keep things from their children, so she is teaching them this.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point. Glad we agree.


Except that isn't what she has taught her daughter, had you watched to the end of that video, Kenya is talking to her mother and law and she states that her daughter has decided for HERSELF to be in a monogamous relationship. Kenya's whole point is that people should DECIDE for themselves instead of letting the culture you live in decide for you.

If you were raised in a polygamist society, you could have felt pressured to be in a polygamist marriage even if you did not want to be a polygamist...that is how she felt inside a monogamous society.


----------



## anonim

Hope1964 said:


> People are still responding to this drivel??


No one asked you specifically for you to comment. feel free not to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> Kenya and Carl live together, they are husband and wife, just like you have a wife and you live together...do your kids live with you?
> 
> 
> .


I have no kids.
But I believe bring kids into this world is VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.

You see anony2,
My sister lived a kind " polyamorus " lifestyle at one time.She had both a husband and a lover. Her husband knew she had a lover but he was powerless to stop her.
She got pregnant for her lover and when the kid was born, he was looked upon by the other kids as an outcast. They taunted him daily. He would sit in a corner and cry.
One of the most gut wrenching questions he asked me once when I visited them was :"who is my daddy?" with tears in his eyes.
He was just 4 years old.
I decided to take him as my child, and raise him. Today he is almost 18 years old, very successful in school ,and is an excellent sportsman. He represents our country all over the world.
So you're wondering what this got to do with this discussion?
My point is,
Adults F-up the lives of innocent children by their stupid , selfish , morally depraved lifestyles.
In the end,
ONLY THE KIDS SUFFER.
Yup,
I grew up with just a mother, my father DIVORCED her when I was just five years old.

I don't expect you all to " connect the dots"
But,

Welcome to REALITY


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> The point is not just who the kids call daddy.
> 
> In a gay marriage there are TWO parents.
> 
> 
> The question is how many " parents " are there in polyarmory , and is that an ideal situation to raise kids , bearing in mind that the " ideal home" has two parents, living together .when divorce or separation occurs it hurts the kids psychologically, no doubt.
> So in polyamory the kids potentially start off living like kids whose parents are separated.
> 
> The OP has said several times that polyamory is better than monogamy. In monogamous marriages [ including gays ] there are just two parents.
> So who takes charge of the kids, should the biological father's partner decide that she doesn't like his kids? What happens if she also has kids for another partner, and he doesn't like her husband? Who then gets to keep her kids?


It takes a village to raise an idiot ... I mean a child.

Some children call mommy's special friends Uncle. Uncle Buckaroo, Uncle Reno ... Uncle Pinky and so on.

Still others could use Daddy with a modifier. Daddy George, Daddy Kramer, ... Daddy New-Man. Or by scedule. Daddy Tuesday/Thursday


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> ..................
> 
> Show me a culture or a time that has ever defined adultery as something other than what we define it as today.
> 
> so you wish to assert that how things are now are the way things have always been? No.
> 
> Mormonism. If they can marry more than one person then their terms of adultery must be different.
> 
> You _live_ in a traditional American society, so.......I don't mention "Christian" because even Atheists recognize adultery as being morally unacceptable.
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> Except, this isn't just _my_ standard. Basically everyone else in this thread, except your wife, recognizes that these men are cheating on their wives with Kenya. For people who claim that this lifestyle is supposed to lessen adultery and cheating in relationships, it's hypocritical for her to be in a relationship where the other person is cheating on their spouse with her.
> 
> But this has been said a dozen times.
> 
> Your original position was that a married couple in an open marriage were committing adultery despite giving each other permissions. THAT is what i disagreed with you about NOT whether kenyas partner was in an EA with her.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> I get this.
> 
> What I don't get is what those boundaries actually _are_.
> 
> If Kenya's agenda is to help people reduce the risks of cheating in their relationships, it is then _hypocritical_ of her to knowingly enter a romantic relationship with a man whose wife doesn't agree with open relationships.


I can't tell if you're trolling or really dont get it :scratchhead:

Peoples boundaries vary _ from person to person. _ This is what makes people compatible or not so.

Are you able to comprehend something aliens/strange/different without the use of generalizations?


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> You have male friends, I'm sure. If you have a party and your best male friend is there, and you're introducing him to other people, would you refer to him as your lover? Would your wife refer to her best female friend as her lover?
> 
> If the answer to that question is no, then I have to ask, why not? If it only means "friendship" after all, then there's nothing to hide, right? I don't know, nor have I ever known, anyone who would ever refer to someone who was _only_ a friend as a lover.
> 
> *lov·er*
> noun
> 1. a person who is in love with another.
> 2. a person who has a sexual or romantic relationship with another.
> 3. a person with whom one conducts an extramarital sexual affair.
> 
> This is what the majority of our society defines a lover as. And, since Kenya lives in this society, she _knows_ this. There is a reason she calls these men her lovers, and it isn't because she's a friend whose only intention is to encourage them to return to their wives. She is romantically involved with them, and while she may not be cheating, she is in a relationship where the man _is_.
> 
> Oh yeah, that's right. Words evolve, so now I'll bet you're going to try to tell me that this word doesn't really mean what our society has believed it to mean. You like to cover your bases, don't ya?


There is no ambiguity to the word lover here. This is not a Judeo / Christian thang. Lover means a person one has regular sex with. Not a close friend unless you have regular sex with them.

Be My Lover


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> *Kenya's whole point is that people should DECIDE for themselves instead of letting the culture you live in decide for you.*
> 
> If you were raised in a polygamist society, you could have felt pressured to be in a polygamist marriage even if you did not want to be a polygamist...that is how she felt inside a monogamous society.


^^^^^^
This is the same type of existential mumbo jumbo that led over 900 well educated middle and upper class Americans around 1978, to go live in a commune in the jungles of Guyana, called Jonestown, under the
* visionary leadership * of a " progressive " , charismatic man called Jim Jones.
Eventually they all KNOWINGLY drank Kool Aid mixed with cyniade. 
They all committed MASS SUICIDE because they didn't want _culture affecting their choices_.
They ended up living in a cult and dying in a cult.
All because of_ culture ._


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^^^
> This is the same type of existential mumbo jumbo that led over 900 well educated middle and upper class Americans around 1978, to go live in a commune in the jungles of Guyana, called Jonestown, under the * visionary leadership * of a " progressive " , charismatic man called Jim Jones.
> Eventually they all KNOWINGLY drank Kool Aid mixed with cyniade.


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Yes, I did see the part about pornography. It doesn't change the rest of what I saw or how I felt about it. Dr. Phil isn't perfect, but he _is_ and _has been_ successful at his job, and he is a professional with an education in what he practices. His opinions are his opinions, but they are based on what he's learned as a psychologist.


You dont need a doctorate to form an opinion. IMO he abused his 'qualifications' when he intentionally tries to make people look like something they arent (this is with regard to his saying that kenya and carl watched porn with their child, when they were showing their kid what sex is and isnt)

Jack the ripper also had a successful career.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Yeah. You're proving my point.
> 
> by saying that, you acknowledge mine.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point. Glad we agree.


we don't agree, your'e just being facetious to deflect what i'm saying.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> :iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


Human beings are _fascinating_....


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> The point is not just who the kids call daddy.
> 
> funny you say that here, but to my post, you were asking exactly that. You are double talking.
> 
> In a gay marriage there are TWO parents. unless its a polyamorous gay marriage
> 
> 
> The question is how many " parents " are there in polyarmory , and is that an ideal situation to raise kids , bearing in mind that the " ideal home" has two parents, living together .when divorce or separation occurs it hurts the kids psychologically, no doubt.
> So in polyamory the kids potentially start off living like kids whose parents are separated. How do you figure?
> 
> The OP has said several times that polyamory is better than monogamy. Show me this.
> 
> 
> In monogamous marriages [ including gays ] there are just two parents.
> So who takes charge of the kids, should the biological father's partner decide that she doesn't like his kids? What happens if she also has kids for another partner, and he doesn't like her husband? Who then gets to keep her kids? Just like the rest of us humans, they work something out or the courts would decide.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> Human beings are _fascinating_....





> Come to now, where suddenly no sense, makes sense. -- Charles Manson
> 
> Charlie has a way of taking the truth and making it a lie. -- Linda Kasabian
> 
> Charlie is love. -- Lisa Armbruster
> 
> How could it not be right if it is done with love? I have no remorse for doing what was right to me. I have no guilt in me. -- Susan Atkins


Not all familes are the same.

Only point is that people can justify anything ... especially in a cult.


----------



## anonim

anony2 said:


> Kenya's whole point is that* people should DECIDE for themselves instead of letting the culture you live in decide for you.*


DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGIDING!

This is the correct answer!

A question to those who are hostile to even the idea and concept of open marriage or any other officiated relationship form except one man-one woman religious marriages;

With regard to your beliefs, where did you get them from? Internally? Did you come to your conclusions without interference from other people telling you what you should think, feel, and believe? 
Externally? Did someone teach you what was right or wrong was? 

Can you even tell or even know whether your beliefs were obtained internally or externally?

And if you can't tell or don't know the difference, aren't you just a repository for someone else's information?

Now apply this to marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGIDING!
> 
> This is the correct answer!
> 
> A question to those who are hostile to even the idea and concept of open marriage or any other officiated relationship form except one man-one woman religious marriages;
> 
> With regard to your beliefs, where did you get them from? Internally? Did you come to your conclusions without interference from other people telling you what you should think, feel, and believe?
> Externally? Did someone teach you what was right or wrong was?
> 
> Can you even tell or even know whether your beliefs were obtained internally or externally?
> 
> And if you can't tell or don't know the difference, aren't you just a repository for someone else's information?
> 
> Now apply this to marriage.



CULTURE ALWAYS INFLUENCES THE WAY WE LIVE AND THE DECISIONS WE MAKE.
Even if you and your beloved wife were to join the polyamorus lifestyle, you all would be joining a community with its own CULTURE. That CULTURE will affect your decisions, values and daily lifestyle.

No man is an island.

OP, do you vote?
Why do you vote?
Who told you that you should vote?
Did it come from within you or externally?
Whatever decision you made on voting, to or not to, which candidate or party, _aren't you just a repository for someone else's information?_


----------



## Entropy3000

“By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.” -- Adolph Hitler

Just about twisting the truth. Some people are more maliable than others of course. The weak of mind. Those who cannot think for themselves.

We are the sum of our experiences. I challenge conventional thinking everyday. I think out of the proverbial box. But consider that while there are many great things outside of the box that there are an infinite number of bad ideas outside the box as well.

A smart man learns from their mistakes and successes. A smarter man learns from others mistakes and successes as well.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> I have no kids.
> But I believe bring kids into this world is VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.
> 
> You see anony2,
> My sister lived a kind " polyamorus " lifestyle at one time.She had both a husband and a lover. Her husband knew she had a lover but he was powerless to stop her.
> She got pregnant for her lover and when the kid was born, he was looked upon by the other kids as an outcast. They taunted him daily. He would sit in a corner and cry.
> One of the most gut wrenching questions he asked me once when I visited them was :"who is my daddy?" with tears in his eyes.
> He was just 4 years old.
> I decided to take him as my child, and raise him. Today he is almost 18 years old, very successful in school ,and is an excellent sportsman. He represents our country all over the world.
> So you're wondering what this got to do with this discussion?
> My point is,
> Adults F-up the lives of innocent children by their stupid , selfish , morally depraved lifestyles.
> In the end,
> ONLY THE KIDS SUFFER.
> Yup,
> I grew up with just a mother, my father DIVORCED her when I was just five years old.
> 
> I don't expect you all to " connect the dots"
> But,
> 
> Welcome to REALITY


in my opinion CM, what your sister had was not polyamory, just straight up cheating. No communication, consent, respect or consideration was shared between her and her H, am I correct? And I can connect the dots and understand where your issues and perspectives/opinions come from but your reality just is one of as many realities as there are people.

Adults can F-up the lives of children by not caring about them or what happens to them. Sometimes you do the best you can and they get F-ed up anyways. 

Cheating is cheating, whether its in a mono/poly/open/gay/straight marriage/relationship. You don't get to say "_she was cheating, its because she was poly_" It don't work like that. Cheaters cheat. You know that.

As a side, how do you define morally deficient?


----------



## anonim

Entropy3000 said:


> It takes a village to raise an idiot ... I mean a child.
> 
> Some children call mommy's special friends Uncle. Uncle Buckaroo, Uncle Reno ... Uncle Pinky and so on.
> 
> Still others could use Daddy with a modifier. Daddy George, Daddy Kramer, ... Daddy New-Man. Or by scedule. Daddy Tuesday/Thursday


Quality contribution this ^^


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^^^
> This is the same type of existential mumbo jumbo that led over 900 well educated middle and upper class Americans around 1978, to go live in a commune in the jungles of Guyana, called Jonestown, under the
> * visionary leadership * of a " progressive " , charismatic man called Jim Jones.
> Eventually they all KNOWINGLY drank Kool Aid mixed with cyniade.
> They all committed MASS SUICIDE because they didn't want _culture affecting their choices_.
> They ended up living in a cult and dying in a cult.
> All because of_ culture ._


goes to show that education aint all that.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> CULTURE ALWAYS INFLUENCES THE WAY WE LIVE AND THE DECISIONS WE MAKE.
> Even if you and your beloved wife were to join the polyamorus lifestyle, you all would be joining a community with its own CULTURE. That CULTURE will affect your decisions, values and daily lifestyle.
> 
> No man is an island.
> 
> OP, do you vote?
> Why do you vote?
> Who told you that you should vote?
> Did it come from within you or externally?
> Whatever decision you made on voting, to or not to, which candidate or party, _aren't you just a repository for someone else's information?_


very good questions and points.

No i dont vote.n/a. n/a. n/a. Yes. thats why I should find my own information.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> “By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.” -- Adolph Hitler



Well,
These two are definitely not skillful and they absolutely don't know how to use propaganda.

Apart from his madness, at least Hitler had a brilliant vision for Germany
That's why he renamed it the " Third Reich ",meaning 
" kingdom ", destined to reign 1000 years.
The first and second being Charlemange's Rome and Bismark's empire respectively.

But exactly what are the benefits of what these two are proposing except the opportunity to have extra marital sexual affairs without responsibility ?
There is absolutely no method nor logic to their madness.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

anonim said:


> DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGIDING!
> 
> This is the correct answer!
> 
> A question to those who are hostile to even the idea and concept of open marriage or any other officiated relationship form except one man-one woman religious marriages;
> 
> With regard to your beliefs, where did you get them from? Internally? Did you come to your conclusions without interference from other people telling you what you should think, feel, and believe?
> Externally? Did someone teach you what was right or wrong was?
> 
> Can you even tell or even know whether your beliefs were obtained internally or externally?
> 
> And if you can't tell or don't know the difference, aren't you just a repository for someone else's information?
> 
> Now apply this to marriage.


I think overall society is becoming much more accepting of open marriages with an "each to their on attitude" on the whole. I do think many people here are apposed to it, because they have insight and knowledge about how unfaithfulness can irrepairably harm a marriage.

While the people in these "progressive" marriages don't call it cheating, because everyone knows about it. It is my opinion that when you seek a close physical or emotional bond outside your marriage and feel the need for ongoing physical and emotional connection to others (not just platonic hugs nor platonic friendships), that you are in fact harming the relationship, your focus is on someone else, your time is spent on someone else, your energy is expended on someone else or multiple other people. Of course it's exciting, like a all new relationships. But at the end of the day you have cheated and robbed your marriage of a deep bond, time energy and closeness that should be mutually exclusive between the two of you.

Studying about oxytocin and human pair bonding has helped me decide that open marriages and even porn etc are not good for marital bonds and strong relationships. 

To me open marriages are for people who just want to cheat openly without consequence but the the consequences are probably telling, when people are on camera having sexual relationships and investing more and more time to sleeping with others.

My fiance's ex wife wanted an open marriage and after much pressure he agreed, she eventually left him for one of the men she was sleeping with. It didn't enrich their marriage it only divided them, and there was still jealousy, secrecy etc etc But then again she is so advanced


----------



## anonim

Entropy3000 said:


> “By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.” -- Adolph Hitler
> 
> Just about twisting the truth. Some people are more maliable than others of course. The weak of mind. Those who cannot think for themselves.
> 
> We are the sum of our experiences. I challenge conventional thinking everyday. I beg to differ. IMO you fall smack bang in the middle of mainstream marriage  I think out of the proverbial box. But consider that while there are many great things outside of the box that there are an infinite number of bad ideas outside the box as well.
> 
> Ideas are potential, not intrinsically good or bad.
> 
> A smart man learns from their mistakes and successes. A smarter man learns from others mistakes and successes as well.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> very good questions and points.
> 
> thats why I should find my own information.


And how exactly do you hope to find it, if you are not open to ideas of society that has thousands of years of research and work behind it?

Civilizations are build on the backs [ hard work and knowledge] of previous civilizations.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Well,
> These two are definitely not skillful and they absolutely don't know how to use propaganda.


Might be because we arent trying to??


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*LittleDeer* said:


> I think overall society is becoming much more accepting of open marriages with an "each to their on attitude" on the whole. I do think many people here are apposed to it, because they have insight and knowledge about how unfaithfulness can irrepairably harm a marriage.
> 
> While the people in these "progressive" marriages don't call it cheating, because everyone knows about it. It is my opinion that when you seek a close physical or emotional bond outside your marriage and feel the need for ongoing physical and emotional connection to others (not just platonic hugs nor platonic friendships), that you are in fact harming the relationship, your focus is on someone else, your time is spent on someone else, your energy is expended on someone else or multiple other people. Of course it's exciting, like a all new relationships. But at the end of the day you have cheated and robbed your marriage of a deep bond, time energy and closeness that should be mutually exclusive between the two of you.
> 
> Studying about oxytocin and human pair bonding has helped me decide that open marriages and even porn etc are not good for marital bonds and strong relationships.
> 
> To me open marriages are for people who just want to cheat openly without consequence but the the consequences are probably telling, when people are on camera having sexual relationships and investing more and more time to sleeping with others.
> 
> My fiance's ex wife wanted an open marriage and after much pressure he agreed, she eventually left him for one of the men she was sleeping with. It didn't enrich their marriage it only divided them, and their was still jealousy, secrecy etc etc But then again she is so advanced


Love this whole post *Little Deer* ....except we still enjoy a little porn - we're hopeless on that one...it's never hurt him, it's never hurt us. 

The rest is Golden - :smthumbup:


----------



## anonim

*LittleDeer* said:


> I think overall society is becoming much more accepting of open marriages with an "each to their on attitude" on the whole. I do think many people here are apposed to it, because they have insight and knowledge about how unfaithfulness can irrepairably harm a marriage.
> 
> While the people in these "progressive" marriages don't call it cheating, because everyone knows about it. It is my opinion that when you seek a close physical or emotional bond outside your marriage and feel the need for ongoing physical and emotional connection to others (not just platonic hugs nor platonic friendships), that you are in fact harming the relationship, your focus is on someone else, your time is spent on someone else, your energy is expended on someone else or multiple other people. Of course it's exciting, like a all new relationships. But at the end of the day you have cheated and robbed your marriage of a deep bond, time energy and closeness that should be mutually exclusive between the two of you.
> 
> Studying about oxytocin and human pair bonding has helped me decide that open marriages and even porn etc are not good for marital bonds and strong relationships.
> 
> To me open marriages are for people who just want to cheat openly without consequence but the the consequences are probably telling, when people are on camera having sexual relationships and investing more and more time to sleeping with others.
> 
> My fiance's ex wife wanted an open marriage and after much pressure he agreed, she eventually left him for one of the men she was sleeping with. It didn't enrich their marriage it only divided them, and their was still jealousy, secrecy etc etc But then again she is so advanced


The most objective and to the point post in this thread ^^^^^

TY.

Still a question LD, how is there cheating if a relationship is open?

"_To me open marriages are for people who just want to cheat openly without consequence_" I take this to mean that, if you were to ever have an open marriage, that would be the reason why.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> in my opinion CM, what your sister had was not polyamory, just straight up cheating. No communication, consent, respect or consideration was shared between her and her H, am I correct? And I can connect the dots and understand where your issues and perspectives/opinions come from but your reality just is one of as many realities as there are people.
> 
> Adults can F-up the lives of children by not caring about them or what happens to them. Sometimes you do the best you can and they get F-ed up anyways.
> 
> Cheating is cheating, whether its in a mono/poly/open/gay/straight marriage/relationship. You don't get to say "_she was cheating, its because she was poly_" It don't work like that. Cheaters cheat. You know that.
> 
> As a side, how do you define morally deficient?



What you are failing to understand is that whether or not he agreed with the relationship he was poweless to stop it.
_But it paled into insignificance when the child was born._

Even if he agreed to the relationship and it became polyamorous ,the child was born in a situation that was less than ideal and it almost DAMAGED HIM FOR LIFE.

He was scorned and daily taunted by her other kids.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> What you are failing to understand is the whether or not he agreed with ths relationship he was poweless to stop it.
> 
> Even if he agreed to the relationship and it became polyamorous ,the child was born in a situation that was less than ideal and it almost DAMAGED HIM FOR LIFE.
> 
> He was scorned and daily taunted by her other kids.


Who was making the choices that were harming everyone?

_it wasn't the relationship making those choices_


----------



## *LittleDeer*

anonim said:


> The most objective and to the point post in this thread ^^^^^
> 
> TY.
> 
> Still a question LD, how is there cheating if a relationship is open?
> 
> "_To me open marriages are for people who just want to cheat openly without consequence_" I take this to mean that, if you were to ever have an open marriage, that would be the reason why.


I would liken it to something like this.

If I was a professional athlete. I played football (which I know nothing about mind you). 

I decided I wanted to play for 5 other teams.

I told my first team you are number one, I love you the most, but I just love football so much, i need to spend time with the other teams, and play with them often too. The rules are you can't get upset about it, because you all know.

Then I played football all over the place, started missing games with my team, because how could I possibly keep up the pace with everyone.

I give time to the other teams that should be spent invested in bonding and training with my original team.

I tell secrets from my original team, not on purpose it just happens, when I am frustrated, plus I feel close to them and bonded, it's only natural. I share stories and moments with them that my first team is missing out on with me,. The other teams are benefiting a little, but my first team is losing a lot.

I am cheating my first team of my best self, my energy and time, the close bond, some games, moments, and I'm investing in the other teams. I may find one day, not surprisingly that i have bonded more to and prefer another team over the first one. They are more exciting after all.


----------



## Thundarr

I don't have a problem with open marriages. It's not for me because I don't want to share my wife and she doesn't want to share me. But as a concept it doesn't bother me. For that matter I think it's fine for young adults to realize it's a choice. I don't particularly think many of them would do well with it though. Even Kenya admitted that it's tough to get past the initial insecurites and jealosy and she had been married more than 11 years.

The thing I latched onto earlier in the thread regarding Kenya and what I don't like about her message doesn't have anything to do with the marriage being open. It has to do with my interpretation that some of her partners are cheating on their wives with her which I think is low character on their part and hers.

It's been a common anti-gay theme that gay parents will raise gay kids. I think it COMPLETELY FALSE and statistically proven so. I know there are no external influences that could have made me want to look at men sexually. Because of this, I don't think kids of open marriages will be converted to it. They will choose the kind of relationship they want.

One thing that annoys me about Keyna and this thread as well is the effort to convert or enlighten me and anyone else listening. I'm enlightened enough to say "you go for it" but I don't think it's for me or for most people. That sentiment was either mis-represented by me or was mis-read by others way back in the thread.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> Who was making the choices that were harming everyone?
> 
> _it wasn't the relationship making those choices_


OP,
Its now 27 pages, over 400 posts, and both you and your wife have failed at convincing anybody except your #1 fan , about this " progressive marriage."

All of your arguments are circular because its premise is false.
Everytime you find yourself cornered by difficult questions , you wiggle out by posting ludicrous responses, like the one above.

What exactly have you two achieved from this thread?
What's the purpose of this thread?

Maybe its time for the mods to step in.


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> I have no kids.
> But I believe bring kids into this world is VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.
> 
> You see anony2,
> My sister lived a kind " polyamorus " lifestyle at one time.She had both a husband and a lover. Her husband knew she had a lover but he was powerless to stop her.
> She got pregnant for her lover and when the kid was born, he was looked upon by the other kids as an outcast. They taunted him daily. He would sit in a corner and cry.
> One of the most gut wrenching questions he asked me once when I visited them was :"who is my daddy?" with tears in his eyes.
> He was just 4 years old.
> I decided to take him as my child, and raise him. Today he is almost 18 years old, very successful in school ,and is an excellent sportsman. He represents our country all over the world.
> So you're wondering what this got to do with this discussion?
> My point is,
> Adults F-up the lives of innocent children by their stupid , selfish , morally depraved lifestyles.
> In the end,
> ONLY THE KIDS SUFFER.
> Yup,
> I grew up with just a mother, my father DIVORCED her when I was just five years old.
> 
> I don't expect you all to " connect the dots"
> But,
> 
> Welcome to REALITY


Let me show you some dots then...

My parents are in a monogamous relationship. They have been for almost 55 years now. Now, you might think...great job, right?

Well, in this 55 years, they have been physically and emotionally abusive, not only to each other, but to each one of us children...to the point that my oldest brother was using drugs before he got out of jr high. 

My dad is a recovering alcoholic, my mom is co-dependent...

Should I blame the fact that my oldest brother cannot be in a relationship longer than a year or two on my parents decision to be monogamous?

Here are some more dots for you to connect...

My aunt and uncle have been married for 50 years, they had 4 children of their own and adopted one. My aunt and uncle lived a nice long life together until a very disturbing secret came out about my uncle. He had paid his nieces to dance around in sexy underwear when they were in JR HIGH and some other things that the family has refused to talk about...my uncle was the head of the church that he went to. They are still married, but he suffers from severe alzheimer's disease. The family decided to rug sweep it after it came out, apparently, the statutes of limitations had passed on this, so they could not do anything legally. 

Edit to add: They were foster parents all the while he was doing this. It makes me wonder how many children he has done this to. 

Is that the result of monogamy too?


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> OP,
> Its now 27 pages, over 400 posts, and both you and your wife have failed at convincing anybody except your #1 fan , about this " progressive marriage."
> 
> All of your arguments are circular because its premise is false.
> Everytime you find yourself cornered by difficult questions , you wiggle out by posting ludicrous responses, like the one above.
> 
> What exactly have you two achieved from this thread?
> What's the purpose of this thread?
> 
> Maybe its time for the mods to step in.


No one is attempting to convince/convert anyone. Are you not able to discuss a topic without taking it as someone is trying to convert you?

I am. 

Threatening with the mods to step in is just silly. If you do not like the thread, why not just LEAVE it?

No one said CM, PLEASE STAY AND ARGUE ENDLESSLY AND PLEASE INSULT "ANNOY" and her husband AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE...

Seriously...NO ONE SAID THAT.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> OP,
> Its now 27 pages, over 400 posts, and both you and your wife have failed at convincing anybody except your #1 fan , about this " progressive marriage."
> 
> All of your arguments are circular because its premise is false.
> Everytime you find yourself cornered by difficult questions , you wiggle out by posting ludicrous responses, like the one above.
> 
> What exactly have you two achieved from this thread?
> What's the purpose of this thread?
> 
> Maybe its time for the mods to step in.


you mean the mods should close this thread because you don't like that it exists? or because certain truths hit close to home??

No one here has asked a difficult question, many people here have attacked me and my wife, down to name calling, because they cant handle the topic thats brought up. if the mods should remove anything , maybe they should remove those people that do that.


----------



## anonim

thundarr and CM show me a post where either my wife or I were trying to convert anyone. If you cant, stop making those accusations. Its just harassment.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> *No one is attempting to convince/convert anyone.*


I've been part of quite a few threads and this one feel more like this is happening than any I remember off hand. If it's not the actual intent then somewhere the perception is not matching the intent.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> No one is attempting to convince/convert anyone. Are you not able to discuss a topic without taking it as someone is trying to convert you?
> 
> I am.
> 
> Threatening with the mods to step in is just silly. If you do not like the thread, why not just LEAVE it?
> 
> No one said CM, PLEASE STAY AND ARGUE ENDLESSLY AND PLEASE INSULT "ANNOY" and her husband AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE...
> 
> Seriously...NO ONE SAID THAT.


^^^^^^^^
See?

Perfect example.

I asked a simple question.

"..What exactly have you two achieved from this thread?"
"..What's the purpose of this thread?"

And the above was your response.

How do you expect to convince anyone with that attitude?

Here is one more chance to prove yourselves.

Can you please CLEARLY state in point form TEN factual and practical benefits of poly over mono?


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> I've been part of quite a few threads and this one feel more like this is happening than any I remember off hand. If it's not the actual intent then somewhere the perception is not matching the intent.


How could we be attempting to convert someone to something that we do not even practice ourselves? 

If a person is attempting to convert you to a religion, it has to be THEIR religion, and not someone else's, right? What benefit would they get to convert you to someone else's religion?


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> See?
> 
> Perfect example.
> 
> I asked a simple question.
> 
> What exactly have you two achieved from this thread?
> What's the purpose of this thread?
> 
> And the above was your response.


Again, if you do not like the thread, why do you keep coming back to it?

What are you achieving by coming to this thread?

What is the purpose of you coming here but to attempt to get it shut down by trolling in it?


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> I've been part of quite a few threads and this one feel more like this is happening than any I remember off hand. If it's not the actual intent then somewhere the perception is not matching the intent.


I am not responsible for your perception, only my own.


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> thundarr and CM show me a post where either my wife or I were trying to convert anyone. If you cant, stop making those accusations. Its just harassment.


On what should be the main topic of this thread you haven't needed to because we both think open marriage is ok. It's not for me and I think I remember you saying it's not for you but tht doesn't matter so much.

You have tried to convince me to like Kenya by vehemently defending her when I don't even know why you care what I think about her. This started after I noted I didn't like her having EA with men whoses wives didn't know about it on page #5. Everything from comparing a doctor removing a splinter to Keyna's affair partners. Even things like the simple definition of progressive was challenged for many pages. It's just been dodging subject matter and I don't recall one dissenting opinion that wasn't deflected in some way.

Because of this it feels like a "right warrior" fight for many pages even though we agree on parts of the subject that's apparently not enough. So yea my perception is that you are trying to convert me to think Kenya and how she thinks is hunky dory.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Here is one more chance to prove yourselves.


I am not required to prove myself to you, for this topic to be declared valid, by you, to talk about.

*KMT*


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> He had paid his nieces to dance around in sexy underwear when they were in JR HIGH and some other things that the family has refused to talk about...my uncle was the head of the church that he went to. They are still married, but he suffers from severe alzheimer's disease. The family decided to rug sweep it after it came out, apparently, the statutes of limitations had passed on this, so they could not do anything legally.
> 
> Edit to add: They were foster parents all the while he was doing this. It makes me wonder how many children he has done this to.
> 
> *Is that the result of monogamy too*?


Nope,
It was the results of the actions of sick, AMORAL <-----[ does that ring a bell?] people. People who put their own sexual urges above any cultural norm or practices, set for the proper functioning of a society.<-----[ how about this, does it ring a bell?]


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> I've been part of quite a few threads and this one feel more like this is happening than any I remember off hand. If it's not the actual intent then somewhere the perception is not matching the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> anony2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not responsible for your perception, only my own.
Click to expand...

Here was an example of what I'm talking about. I posted this for your benefit so you would know my honest opinion since maybe other's are feeling the same thing. Instead of say "This was not my intent Thundarr", you chose to deflect and say something not only snarky but not helpful to the subject matter. I enjoy civil disagreement much more than this. Once in a while I even change how I think about something based on someone's input. So deflecting comments waist an opportunity to say something profound.


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> On what should be the main topic of this thread you haven't needed to because we both think open marriage is ok. It's not for me and I think I remember you saying it's not for you but tht doesn't matter so much.
> 
> You have tried to convince me to like Kenya by vehemently defending her when I don't even know why you care what I think about her. This started after I noted I didn't like her having EA with men whoses wives didn't know about it on page #5. Everything from comparing a doctor removing a splinter to Keyna's affair partners. Even things like the simple definition of progressive was challenged for many pages. It's just been dodging subject matter and I don't recall one dissenting opinion that wasn't deflected in some way.
> 
> Because of this it feels like a "right warrior" fight for many pages even though we agree on parts of the subject that's apparently not enough. So yea my perception is that you are trying to convert me to think Kenya and how she thinks is hunky dory.


Again, your perception is your own. I do not care what you think of Kenya or anyone else as far as that goes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> *I am not required to prove myself to you, for this topic to be declared valid,* by you, to talk about.
> 
> *KMT*


:lol::rofl::lol::rofl:

FACT:

You CANNOT prove yourself.
You have FAILED TO CONVINCE ANYBODY after nearly 400 posts!

What's your point?


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> Nope,
> It was the results of the actions of sick, AMORAL <-----[ does that ring a bell?] people. People who put their own sexual urges above *any cultural norm or practices,* set for the proper functioning of a society.<-----[ how about this, does it ring a bell?]





These "cultural norms or practices set for the PROPER functioning of a society" aren't working, thus why many men/women that are in monogamous relationships have affairs.

They haven't worked since the church set them up to begin with.


----------



## anonim

*LittleDeer* said:


> I would liken it to something like this.
> 
> If I was a professional athlete. I played football (which I know nothing about mind you).
> 
> I decided I wanted to play for 5 other teams.
> 
> I told my first team you are number one, I love you the most, but I just love football so much, i need to spend time with the other teams, and play with them often too. The rules are you can't get upset about it, because you all know.
> 
> Then I played football all over the place, started missing games with my team, because how could I possibly keep up the pace with everyone.
> 
> I give time to the other teams that should be spent invested in bonding and training with my original team.
> 
> I tell secrets from my original team, not on purpose it just happens, when I am frustrated, plus I feel close to them and bonded, it's only natural. I share stories and moments with them that my first team is missing out on with me,. The other teams are benefiting a little, but my first team is losing a lot.
> 
> I am cheating my first team of my best self, my energy and time, the close bond, some games, moments, and I'm investing in the other teams. I may find one day, not surprisingly that i have bonded more to and prefer another team over the first one. They are more exciting after all.


let me amend your analogy.

If I was a professional athlete. I like to play football.

I decided I want to be able to play in games for different teams, should the opportunity arise.

Before I agree to play a game for a team, I tell them that I play games with other teams and that I wont be playing only for their team. To my mind this gives everyone the opportunity to decline if they aren't comfortable with this arrangement, before they become committed. 

I may or may not have a favourite team, but all teams I play with are treated with the same respect courtesy and dignity that I want to be treated with. For example I dont arbitrarily make up rules and conditions of playing for a team nor do I tolerate them making rules for me in a similar manner.

If I do choose to commit to a primary team then that team is the highest priority to me - equal to my own priority to me. 

If I do choose to commit to a primary team, then all commitments must be fulfilled to the satisfaction of both before I invest time and energy into playing other games, and before the team invests time and energy into other players.

Secrets cause divisions. Therefore I dont keep, nor accept being kept from me, secrets, regarding my game playing or the team recruiting other players. 

If I can be one self, and not have to hide what i like, I can be my best self.


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> Here was an example of what I'm talking about. I posted this for your benefit so you would know my honest opinion since maybe other's are feeling the same thing. Instead of say "This was not my intent Thundarr", you chose to deflect and say something not only snarky but not helpful to the subject matter. I enjoy civil disagreement much more than this. Once in a while I even change how I think about something based on someone's input. So deflecting comments waist an opportunity to say something profound.


So please, say something profound and leave it at that.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> :lol::rofl::lol::rofl:
> 
> FACT:
> 
> You CANNOT prove yourself.
> You have FAILED TO CONVINCE ANYBODY after nearly 400 posts!
> 
> What's your point?


You have nothing to add and you are trolling this thread in the hopes of getting it closed. :scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

anony2 said:


> These "cultural norms or practices set for the PROPER functioning of a society" aren't working, thus why many men/women that are in monogamous relationships have affairs.
> 
> They haven't worked since the church set them up to begin with.


Well the church also said that you shouldn't commit murder , but just today i heard over 29 innocent people were shot and killed....

Soooo does that mean that we should also change the laws regarding murder?
Should we now disregard the laws, take up arms and kill anyone we feel like because 
" the church set them up to begin with?'

Logic FAIL _yet again_


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> Again, your perception is your own. I do not care what you think of Kenya or anyone else as far as that goes.


I presume you have been commenting for many pages on this subject for more than just to see your own words. My guess is that you hope others ponder these questions that you have pondered and that some enlightenment is shared in both directions.

So I'm glad you don't care what I think about Kenya but I would think you would care how me and others percieve what you're saying. Especially if what we are getting does not match your intent.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> So I'm glad you don't care what I think about Kenya but I would think you would care how me and others percieve what you're saying. * Especially if what we are getting does not match your intent.*


^^^^
which is what I've been trying to explain to them.


----------



## anony2

Caribbean Man said:


> Well the church also said that you shouldn't commit murder , but just today i heard over 29 innocent people were shot and killed....
> 
> Soooo does that mean that we should also change the laws regarding murder?
> Should we now disregard the laws, take up arms and kill anyone we feel like because
> " the church set them up to begin with?'
> 
> Logic FAIL _yet again_


Yes, your logic did fail because...

The christians committed many murders themselves so no one took them seriously when they made up laws for other people that they were not following themselves.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> Nope,
> It was the results of the actions of sick, AMORAL <-----[ does that ring a bell?] people. People who put their own sexual urges above any cultural norm or practices, set for the proper functioning of a society.<-----[ how about this, does it ring a bell?]


im getting pretty sick of your name calling. man up.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> You have nothing to add and you are trolling this thread in the hopes of getting it closed. :scratchhead:


This is the UMPTEENTH time you are accusing posters on this thread of trolling.
Why not simply report all " trolling posters" to the mods?

Anyone who is able to dissect your suggestion and expose it you accuse them of trolling.


----------



## anonim

Caribbean Man said:


> This is the UMPTEENTH time you are accusing posters on this thread of trolling.
> Why not simply report all " trolling posters" to the mods?
> 
> Anyone who is able to dissect your suggestion and expose it you accuse them of trolling.


no one said 'posters' are trolling. just that YOU are. time to stop feeding them.


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> I presume you have been commenting for many pages on this subject for more than just to see your own words. My guess is that you hope others ponder these questions that you have pondered and that some enlightenment is shared in both directions.
> 
> So I'm glad you don't care what I think about Kenya but I would think you would care how me and others percieve what you're saying. Especially if what we are getting does not match your intent.


And I presume that you have been commenting for many pages on the subject because you think that I have to believe the same thing that you do, RIGHT? And since I don't, you are the one that is REALLY trying to recruit me and you are just projecting or transferring your perception on to me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anonim said:


> im getting pretty sick of your name calling. man up.


Man up?
That's an oxymoron in your universe.
It does not exist!

[ PS. If the cap fits....]


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> Well the church also said that you shouldn't commit murder , but just today i heard over 29 innocent people were shot and killed....
> 
> Soooo does that mean that we should also change the laws regarding murder?
> Should we now disregard the laws, take up arms and kill anyone we feel like because
> " the church set them up to begin with?'
> 
> *Logic FAIL yet again*


What a shame too. Maybe you or I should have played devels advocate so the pro Kenya side would have some inteligence to it.


----------



## anonim

.....aaaand back to the discussion.

I'm curious about why people equate open relationships with cheating. 

All of the anecdotes posted here, without exception afaik, have a man and a woman in a marriage, the woman wants to see other guys and pushes the husband into agreeing. And this is not close to an average functioning open marriage. why is this the normal perception of an open marriage for most people here?


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> And I presume that you have been commenting for many pages on the subject because you think that I have to believe the same thing that you do, RIGHT? And since I don't, you are the one that is REALLY trying to recruit me and you are just projecting or transferring your perception on to me.


I present my opinions and why I think them. I expressed what I didn't like about Kenya. After that I only took up for my reasons for me not liking what she does. 

What I want is inteligent conversation. That's when I have an opportunity to learn to modify what I think. That's also when I have the opportunity do say something that registers with someone else. I don't consider deflection as inteligent or useful though even though I'm sure we all do it once in a while.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> What a shame too. Maybe you or I should have played devels advocate so the pro Kenya side would have some inteligence to it.


and this has what to do with this discussion?:scratchhead:


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> .....aaaand back to the discussion.
> 
> I'm curious about why people equate open relationships with cheating.
> 
> All of the anecdotes posted here, without exception afaik, have a man and a woman in a marriage, the woman wants to see other guys and pushes the husband into agreeing. And this is not close to an average functioning open marriage. why is this the normal perception of an open marriage for most people here?


Thank you anonim. In my opinion they are not the same. There's not any moral delima for me in regards to an open marriage with defined rules that are respected by both parties.

For example I don't think Kenya is betraying her husband in any way.


----------



## anony2

Thundarr said:


> I present my opinions and why I think them. I expressed what I didn't like about Kenya. After that I only took up for my reasons for me not liking what she does.
> 
> What I want is inteligent conversation. That's when I have an opportunity to learn to modify what I think. That's also when I have the opportunity do say something that registers with someone else. I don't consider deflection as inteligent or useful though even though I'm sure we all do it once in a while.


Well, your quote says it best, "your *actions* define you". 

I do not consider judgement. insults, name calling and accusations a way to get someone to have intelligent conversations with me....so far, *that is all that you have done*. Thanks but no thanks, I do not want to have a conversation with someone who is attacking me on four different levels.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> Thank you anonim. In my opinion they are not the same. There's not any moral delima for me in regards to an open marriage with defined rules that are respected by both parties.
> 
> For example I don't think Kenya is betraying her husband in any way.


I agree, and this is why I don't think that having an open marriage is committing adultery. rule breaking is rule breaking with open or closed.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> What a shame too. Maybe you or I should have played devels advocate so the pro Kenya side would have some inteligence to it.
> 
> 
> 
> anonim said:
> 
> 
> 
> and this has what to do with this discussion?:scratchhead:
Click to expand...

Actually it has everything to do with what the topic is supposed to be. I don't think the pro open marriage arguments were presented well. I think we needed someone who could stay on topic defending it.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> Well, your quote says it best, "your *actions* define you".
> 
> I do not consider judgement. insults, name calling and accusations a way to get someone to have intelligent conversations with me....so far, *that is all that you have done*. Thanks but no thanks, I do not want to have a conversation with someone who is attacking me on four different levels.


Well then prove what I've said is not correct. Stay on topic and don't deflect. I will attempt to do my part as well.


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> Actually it has everything to do with what the topic is supposed to be. I don't think the pro open marriage arguments were presented well. I think we needed someone who could stay on topic defending it.


when the posters are being attacked instead of the ideas they are putting forth, it diverts the focus of the thread.


----------



## anonim

For many of the respondants, it seems they took umbrage at the title of kendras title of progressive love and never got past that. Some posters had useful insights, even if they dont agree with open relationships, which is their perogative.


----------



## Deejo

Please avoid, baiting, name calling, or disrespect when posting. 

Lest bad things happen ...


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> For many of the respondants, it seems they took umbrage at the title of kendras title of progressive love and never got past that. Some posters had useful insights, even if they dont agree with open relationships, which is their perogative.


I am one who noted why the title seems offensive to some. The fact that the word progressive didn't fit the meaning of the term to many of us could have been glossed over because really how much does that matter.


----------



## JediG

Don't have time to watch the whole thing (...so I watched about two and a half minutes), but an open marriage is definitely not for me or my husband. Not to say it can't work for some people because I'm sure it can, but I think it's one thing to have sex with other people and another to actually be able to love other people.


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> when the posters are being attacked instead of the ideas they are putting forth, it diverts the focus of the thread.


I've only been frustrated with the amount of deflection and word spinning of my comments into unrelated tangents. That's what pulls us off focus and that's what makes it frustrating is that arguments just never get addressed.


----------



## Maricha75

Ok, some have questioned what the daughter thinks and/or feels. On Kenya's site, she posted an apology to Dr. Phil for her behavior on his show. She agrees that she was AGGRESSIVE, rather than ASSERTIVE. Anyway, she posted the entire video of her interview with her daughter, here:
https://www.jujumamablog.com/2012/02/24/my-apologies-to-dr-phil/

And here is their oldest child's thoughts on the relationship:
VID00001.mp4 video by drphil2010video2 | Photobucket

There is also a video of the youngest, who is 7 years old, but his thoughts seemed to be more along the lines of a child sharing his toys.

Oh, anonim, you said you had never heard Kenya's term "mono-harmonious". She uses the term in conjunction with her "master monogamy" ideas. Here is the link on her page:
Mono~Harmony | The Better Monogamy Part I | Jujumama's Love Academy


----------



## StoneAngel

:smthumbup:


Thundarr said:


> I don't have a problem with open marriages. It's not for me because I don't want to share my wife and she doesn't want to share me. But as a concept it doesn't bother me. For that matter I think it's fine for young adults to realize it's a choice. I don't particularly think many of them would do well with it though. Even Kenya admitted that it's tough to get past the initial insecurites and jealosy and she had been married more than 11 years.
> 
> The thing I latched onto earlier in the thread regarding Kenya and what I don't like about her message doesn't have anything to do with the marriage being open. It has to do with my interpretation that some of her partners are cheating on their wives with her which I think is low character on their part and hers.
> 
> It's been a common anti-gay theme that gay parents will raise gay kids. I think it COMPLETELY FALSE and statistically proven so. I know there are no external influences that could have made me want to look at men sexually. Because of this, I don't think kids of open marriages will be converted to it. They will choose the kind of relationship they want.
> 
> One thing that annoys me about Keyna and this thread as well is the effort to convert or enlighten me and anyone else listening. I'm enlightened enough to say "you go for it" but I don't think it's for me or for most people. That sentiment was either mis-represented by me or was mis-read by others way back in the thread.


:smthumbup:


----------



## jaquen

If it's utterly consensual, then fine. How other people chose to conduct their marriages is none of my business whatsoever.

Sexual solidarity is imperative to my marriage. If there ever comes a time when it is not, then we will divorce. My wife and I are extremely connected, and were connected long before we ever got together. Hopefully we would remain so post-divorce.

The one aspect that I do believe Kendra is correct about, for our marriage, is that we do not expect, or pressure, one another anymore to be the sole, singular source of our emotional support. We did that for many years before marriage, and it only caused conflict and disappointment. So we both acknowledge, and embrace, strong, close friendships in our lives. We are one another's main source of emotional support, but friend and family definitely are very important to both of us. I think people are inherently social creatures and it's unhealthy for most to try and pretend that their spouses are the only people they will ever need.


----------



## Thundarr

jaquen said:


> If it's utterly consensual, then fine. How other people chose to conduct their marriages is none of my business whatsoever.
> 
> Sexual solidarity is imperative to my marriage. If there ever comes a time when it is not, then we will divorce. My wife and I are extremely connected, and were connected long before we ever got together. Hopefully we would remain so post-divorce.
> 
> The one aspect that I do believe Kendra is correct about, for our marriage, is that we do not expect, or pressure, one another anymore to be the sole, singular source of our emotional support. We did that for many years before marriage, and it only caused conflict and disappointment. So we both acknowledge, and embrace, strong, close friendships in our lives. We are one another's main source of emotional support, but friend and family definitely are very important to both of us. I think people are inherently social creatures and it's unhealthy for most to try and pretend that their spouses are the only people they will ever need.


I think this was the general feeling of most on this thread. I thought Keyna had some compelling arguments for why it's a good thing for her and her husband and for others who think and feel similarly to them. If you look back through the thread though (not asking you to), you'd notice that we kept getting sidetracked on details quite often.

I think CB got banned due to this thread and I suspect Deejo was contimplating the same with me and possibly Mr and Msr A. Ah heated TAM threads. fun fun.


----------



## Entropy3000

Thundarr said:


> I think this was the general feeling of most on this thread. I thought Keyna had some compelling arguments for why it's a good thing for her and her husband and for others who think and feel similarly to them. If you look back through the thread though (not asking you to), you'd notice that we kept getting sidetracked on details quite often.
> 
> I think CB got banned due to this thread and I suspect Deejo was contimplating the same with me and possibly Mr and Msr A. Ah heated TAM threads. fun fun.


The only thing I agree with her on is that it is natural for people to fall in love. I totally agree. It is natural for people to repopulate the earth. There are all sorts of urges that are natural that are not progressive.

This is why I push boundaries and why I keep insisting that the damage to the marriage is done when other freindships get too close from the bonding. I do believe that having these close friends is dating them.

Again people are free to do this. Where I engaged this thread was when the dating of maried people was discussed. Dating of other people who were cheating on thier spouse. I see that as a cheating agenda.

Living in communes is not a new thing. It is tribal. Tantric sex is not new.

It speaks volumes that she has more sex with her lover and not her husband. That she does this because her lover is 25 years old. That she already had the passionate sex with her husband when he was younger so now she does not need that from him because they have already bonded and so no longer needs that from him. She gets this from the younger guy. It goes that the husband can do the same ...

And also to get men / husbands used to their wives having had large number of partners before and even during the marriage.

And really while it is a type of marriage in many ways it is a non-marriage. In my opinion. To me this is just FWBs. If that is how a couple wants to frame their marraige then fine.

ALL marriages have a level of openess. It comes down to where the boundaries are. I used to think in my younger days have close opposite sex friends was fine. I do not feel that way any more. So I draw the line there.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Except that isn't what she has taught her daughter, had you watched to the end of that video, Kenya is talking to her mother and law and she states that her daughter has decided for HERSELF to be in a monogamous relationship. Kenya's whole point is that people should DECIDE for themselves instead of letting the culture you live in decide for you.
> 
> If you were raised in a polygamist society, you could have felt pressured to be in a polygamist marriage even if you did not want to be a polygamist...that is how she felt inside a monogamous society.


Deciding for herself that she wants to be in a polygamous marriage is _not_ the same as coming to the conclusion that monogamous relationships are impossible to keep and/or keep healthy and happy.


----------



## Created2Write

1. As far as I know, Mormons are _married_ to their numerous partners. Also, can you _prove_ their definition of adultery is different? The definition of adultery _can_ apply to relationships where there is more than one _spouse_. 

2. So Kenya and Carl aren't committing adultery on each other. Fine. Kenya is, however, in a relationship where the other man is having an EA _with_ her _on_ his wife. That was _my_ argument. And _that_ is entirely contradictory to the whole premise of this lifestyle being about _preventing_ cheating.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> I can't tell if you're trolling or really dont get it :scratchhead:
> 
> Peoples boundaries vary _ from person to person. _ This is what makes people compatible or not so.
> 
> Are you able to comprehend something aliens/strange/different without the use of generalizations?


I'd be a dunce if I didn't get it now with how often you dodge my point with this kind of a response. 

Are you aware of what a generalization actually is? Because....there was no generalization in my post whatsoever. I'm talking _specifically_ about Kenya. 

She says that this lifestyle can be used to prevent cheating in relationships. That's great for her and her husband. But why is she finding men in closed relationships and dating them? If the point is to prevent cheating, why get a man into an EA with her? Sure, maybe she isn't cheating, but that's because she's in an open relationship. The other man/men aren't in open relationships. What about their marriages? Yes, those men should have the decency to remain faithful to their wives. They shouldn't be out looking for other women. Kenya can't control what they do, it's true. But she can control whether or not to return their advances. She can control whether or not she enters a relationship with them. Why would she choose a man who is in a monogamous relationships if she's trying to prevent cheating with this lifestyle?


----------



## Created2Write

*LittleDeer* said:


> I would liken it to something like this.
> 
> If I was a professional athlete. I played football (which I know nothing about mind you).
> 
> I decided I wanted to play for 5 other teams.
> 
> I told my first team you are number one, I love you the most, but I just love football so much, i need to spend time with the other teams, and play with them often too. The rules are you can't get upset about it, because you all know.
> 
> Then I played football all over the place, started missing games with my team, because how could I possibly keep up the pace with everyone.
> 
> I give time to the other teams that should be spent invested in bonding and training with my original team.
> 
> I tell secrets from my original team, not on purpose it just happens, when I am frustrated, plus I feel close to them and bonded, it's only natural. I share stories and moments with them that my first team is missing out on with me,. The other teams are benefiting a little, but my first team is losing a lot.
> 
> I am cheating my first team of my best self, my energy and time, the close bond, some games, moments, and I'm investing in the other teams. I may find one day, not surprisingly that i have bonded more to and prefer another team over the first one. They are more exciting after all.


Yes, yes, yes and yes. :iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> These "cultural norms or practices set for the PROPER functioning of a society" aren't working, thus why many men/women that are in monogamous relationships have affairs.
> 
> They haven't worked since the church set them up to begin with.


The only way this would be accurate would be if there were no such thing as a successful, happy monogamous marriage. But there have been hundreds of thousands of happy, successful monogamous relationships. Sure, people mess up in monogamous relationships. But I'll bet that cheating happens in polygamous relationships too. And in homosexual relationships.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> no one said 'posters' are trolling. just that YOU are. time to stop feeding them.


You said I was trolling. So....it's not just CM.


----------



## Created2Write

jaquen said:


> If it's utterly consensual, then fine. How other people chose to conduct their marriages is none of my business whatsoever.
> 
> Sexual solidarity is imperative to my marriage. If there ever comes a time when it is not, then we will divorce. My wife and I are extremely connected, and were connected long before we ever got together. Hopefully we would remain so post-divorce.
> 
> The one aspect that I do believe Kendra is correct about, for our marriage, is that we do not expect, or pressure, one another anymore to be the sole, singular source of our emotional support. We did that for many years before marriage, and it only caused conflict and disappointment. So we both acknowledge, and embrace, strong, close friendships in our lives. We are one another's main source of emotional support, but friend and family definitely are very important to both of us. I think people are inherently social creatures and it's unhealthy for most to try and pretend that their spouses are the only people they will ever need.


I like the distinction you make here in the last paragraph. I think we all have friends who offer emotional support during tough times. I'm certainly grateful for my friends and family. 

I would like to add, though, that none of my friendships include anything romantic. There are certain topics I don't discuss, certain things I don't say, certain bounds I don't cross. My husband is the same.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

anony2 said:


> Again, your perception is your own. I do not care what you think of Kenya or anyone else as far as that goes.


And yet this thread was started. Why was it started? To learn what people think of Kenya and her "movement".


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Deciding for herself that she wants to be in a polygamous marriage is _not_ the same as coming to the conclusion that monogamous relationships are impossible to keep and/or keep healthy and happy.


you are correct. It might be how it was for her though.

also this works the other way round too, meaning that, deciding that one wants to be in a monogamous marriage/relationship is not the same as polygamous or poly relationships are impossible to keep, or keep happy and healthy. its just a matter of courses for horses.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> Yes, yes, yes and yes. :iagree::iagree::iagree:


how about you address my version?:smthumbup:


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> You said I was trolling. So....it's not just CM.


This was addressed to CM, not to you. but please link where I said that you were trolling.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> you are correct. It might be how it was for her though.
> 
> also this works the other way round too, meaning that, deciding that one wants to be in a monogamous marriage/relationship is not the same as polygamous or poly relationships are impossible to keep, or keep happy and healthy. its just a matter of courses for horses.


But, as you have said so often, people have different experiences. And I don't think it's fiar to her children to teach them that monogamous relationships never last, or if they do, they aren't healthy and happy. They should have the chance at a monogamous relationship, and instead of being taught "People aren't meant to be monogamous", they should be taught, "Whatever kind of relationship you choose, there will always be fights and difficulties. This doesn't mean the relationship is over, it just means it will take work to be the best you can in the relationship."

Also, I've never said that polyamorous or polygamous relationships are impossible to keep or keep healthy.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> how about you address my version?:smthumbup:


I didn't agree with your version, so there wasn't anything for me to address.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> *I can't tell if you're trolling or really dont get it :scratchhead:*
> 
> Peoples boundaries vary _ from person to person. _ This is what makes people compatible or not so.
> 
> Are you able to comprehend something aliens/strange/different without the use of generalizations?


There it is. 

So, it wasn't just CM you've accused of trolling.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> There it is.
> 
> So, it wasn't just CM you've accused of trolling.



no, thats me saying I cant tell if you were trolling or if you really didnt understand. Thats not me calling you out on trolling.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> But, as you have said so often, people have different experiences. And I don't think it's fiar to her children to teach them that monogamous relationships never last, or if they do, they aren't healthy and happy. They should have the chance at a monogamous relationship, and instead of being taught "People aren't meant to be monogamous", they should be taught, "Whatever kind of relationship you choose, there will always be fights and difficulties. This doesn't mean the relationship is over, it just means it will take work to be the best you can in the relationship."
> 
> Also, I've never said that polyamorous or polygamous relationships are impossible to keep or keep healthy.


So have you taught your children that polyamorous relationships as an option?


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> I'd be a dunce if I didn't get it now with how often you dodge my point with this kind of a response.
> 
> Are you aware of what a generalization actually is? Because....there was no generalization in my post whatsoever. I'm talking _specifically_ about Kenya.
> 
> She says that this lifestyle can be used to prevent cheating in relationships. That's great for her and her husband. But why is she finding men in closed relationships and dating them? If the point is to prevent cheating, why get a man into an EA with her? Sure, maybe she isn't cheating, but that's because she's in an open relationship. The other man/men aren't in open relationships. What about their marriages? Yes, those men should have the decency to remain faithful to their wives. They shouldn't be out looking for other women. Kenya can't control what they do, it's true. But she can control whether or not to return their advances. She can control whether or not she enters a relationship with them. Why would she choose a man who is in a monogamous relationships if she's trying to prevent cheating with this lifestyle?


Sorry, but from Kenya's response, she is NOT dating any men in closed relationships. She says that they are her FRIENDS, she doesn't 'date' them at all what so ever. Unfortunately, on TAM, people equate 'friends' means that you are having sex with them...no friends allowed.


----------



## Maricha75

anony2 said:


> So have you taught your children that polyamorous relationships as an option?


I can answer for myself.... Nope! And not gonna either. Oh, I will tell them that some are in polyamorous relationships and some in polygamous, etc. But, you know me.... my "pesky" religious beliefs are gonna get in the way, so I will stress monogamy. Then again, there are a lot of things I will be stressing when I am teaching my children which some may likely disagree with. But, my kids, my choice in how to raise them.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> But, as you have said so often, people have different experiences. And I don't think it's fiar to her children to teach them that monogamous relationships never last, or if they do, they aren't healthy and happy. They should have the chance at a monogamous relationship, and instead of being taught "People aren't meant to be monogamous", they should be taught, "Whatever kind of relationship you choose, there will always be fights and difficulties. This doesn't mean the relationship is over, it just means it will take work to be the best you can in the relationship."
> 
> Also, I've never said that polyamorous or polygamous relationships are impossible to keep or keep healthy.


Why do you feel it is unfair for kenya to teach her children that monogamous relationships dont last? most of the time they dont. And when they do last, they arent always good relationships. Plus there's gonna be dozens of dozens of people advocating monogamy and demonizing polyamory throughout the lifetime of those kids, why shouldnt there be a voice or two speaking from the other side _that have experience in what they are talking about?_

Also, what would you think if kendra said your children should be taught polyamory instead of monogamy, do you think she would any right to say that?




Created2Write said:


> I didn't agree with your version, so there wasn't anything for me to address.


I dont think you should agree with my version, just acknowledge it.
I also wanted to know what you thought about a version that wasnt intrinsically belittling, and automatically portrayed in a negative context.


----------



## anonim

Maricha75 said:


> I can answer for myself.... Nope! And not gonna either. Oh, I will tell them that some are in polyamorous relationships and some in polygamous, etc. But, you know me.... my "pesky" religious beliefs are gonna get in the way, so I will stress monogamy. Then again, there are a lot of things I will be stressing when I am teaching my children which some may likely disagree with. But, _my kids, my choice_ in how to raise them.


What about their choice?


----------



## Maricha75

anonim said:


> What about their choice?


What about it? If it's ok for Kenya to say that monogamy never works, why is it not ok for me to stress monogamy? Why is it not ok to bring our religious beliefs into the discussion with MY kids? She raises her kids how she sees fit, and I am doing the same with mine.

I say my choice as in it is my decision what I teach them while they are minors and I am raising them. What they do once they come of age is their choice. But while I am raising them, it is mine.


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> What about it? If it's ok for Kenya to say that monogamy never works, why is it not ok for me to stress monogamy? Why is it not ok to bring our religious beliefs into the discussion with MY kids?* She raises her kids how she sees fit, and I am doing the same with mine.*
> 
> I say my choice as in it is my decision what I teach them while they are minors and I am raising them. What they do once they come of age is their choice. But while I am raising them, it is mine.


Well, created2write said that it is NOT okay for Kenya stress polyamory, so therefore, equally it would NOT be okay for you to stress monogamy. 

I don't get off why people think that they know how other people SHOULD raise their children. What authority do they have to decide that?


----------



## anonim

Thundarr said:


> I think you hit on a good point here. I would not want her teaching my kids poly and it's her right to teach her's.
> 
> I do feel bad though that if her kids want poly then their pool of relationship candidates is very small.


I thought that was a good point too. Some people feel they have the right to choose, if only in their own mind, what other people should know or learn. I dont think the pool of people for poly relationships is small at all though, Its just looked down on by traditionalists, that arent content to live and let live.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> So have you taught your children that polyamorous relationships as an option?


When I have children, no, I won't. I have a specific belief system which defines marriage in a particular way. 

For Kenya, though, she doesn't belong to a religious faith that defines marriage as anything in particular(or, at least she hasn't mentioned one), so she's open to all kinds of marriages/romantic relationships. Or at least she says she is. In that case, she should teach her children that _all_ relationships, even friendships and family relationships, take work, and no matter what marriage option they choose, they're all capable of being healthy and happy under the right circumstances, and with the proper boundaries. 

Like it or not, what we believe(whether it's an actual religion or merely a handful of moral principles) defines our choices, and it defines what we teach our kids. I believe marriage is meant to be one specific thing, and so that is what I will teach my children. If Kenya believes that marriage should go beyond monogamy and include polygamy and polyamorous relationships, or any other kind of relationships she supports, then she should teach her children that _all_ of them are possible. By saying that monogamous relationships are doomed to fail, and by teaching her children that monogamous relationships are impossible to keep happy and healthy, she's essentially doing the exact same thing that you've criticized Christians for doing with monogamy(saying monogamy is better), only she's saying polyamorous relationships are better.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Sorry, but from Kenya's response, she is NOT dating any men in closed relationships. She says that they are her FRIENDS, she doesn't 'date' them at all what so ever. Unfortunately, on TAM, people equate 'friends' means that you are having sex with them...no friends allowed.


She called them her lovers, though. _That_ does equate romance with the relationship. And she says that she doesn't have sex with them because their wives are against it, yet, she calls them her "lovers".

How does that just mean "friends"?


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> Why do you feel it is unfair for kenya to teach her children that monogamous relationships dont last? most of the time they dont. And when they do last, they arent always good relationships. Plus there's gonna be dozens of dozens of people advocating monogamy and demonizing polyamory throughout the lifetime of those kids, why shouldnt there be a voice or two speaking from the other side _that have experience in what they are talking about?_


If her belief really is that polyamorous/polygamous relationships are better than monogamy, then I have no issue with it. But by saying that monogamy is step toward polygamy, and that if you haven't mastered monogamy, you won't master polygamy, and _then_ to push that people aren't meant to be monogamous and that it's impossible to maintain a healthy and happy monogamous relationship is contradictory. By her own advice, she says not to enter into polyamorous relationships until one has "mastered" monogamy. Does that not imply a positive connotation? Does that not imply that it is, indeed, possible to have a healthy, happy monogamous relationship? 

She is inconsistent, at best. If she wants to be a voice for the other side, then fine. But pick a side. Either it really isn't possible to maintain a happy, healthy monogamous relationship, or it is. She can't have both. 

Also, I'm pretty sure that there are unhappy and unhealthy polyamorous and polygamous relationships. I'm pretty sure that they divorce, too. I'm pretty sure that there are those who break the boundaries of their relationships. The type of relationship you're in doesn't make it happy and healthy be default. Being in a monogamous relationship doesn't automatically make the relationship unhealthy, nor does being in an open relationship automatically make it healthy.



> Also, what would you think if kendra said your children should be taught polyamory instead of monogamy, do you think she would any right to say that?


She could say whatever she likes. She's entitled to voice her beliefs. It's a free country. I certainly don't have to listen to whatever it is she says, nor does she have to listen to what I believe. I do, however, have I right to say what I believe.



> I dont think you should agree with my version, just acknowledge it.
> I also wanted to know what you thought about a version that wasnt intrinsically belittling, and automatically portrayed in a negative context.


Your version seemed to center on the fact that it was perfectly fine for this player to hop around to various teams and play for them, so long as his primary team knew about it, and so long as all the other teams knew about it too. Communication is definitely something I agree with, and _if_ someone decides that they are incapable of dedicating their talent to solely one team, the right thing to do is to inform every team they want to play for of their choice to play for as many teams as they can. The teams then have the choice to agree, and accept less than 100% effort from this player, or they can simply choose not to bring him onto the team. 

Most people, I think(maybe I'm wrong), really do desire total commitment and dedication in their relationship, including exclusivity in their romantic and sexual lives. Kenya says that polyamorous relationships aren't for everyone. Fine. I can accept that. To go on and teach her children that it's impossible to maintain monogamous relationships is _not_ consistent with that. My issue is with her inconsistency and the constant implication that open relationships truly are better than monogamous ones.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Well, created2write said that it is NOT okay for Kenya stress polyamory, so therefore, equally it would NOT be okay for you to stress monogamy.
> 
> I don't get off why people think that they know how other people SHOULD raise their children. What authority do they have to decide that?


Thanks for misquoting me. 

I said that I think it's unfair to _only_ teach polyamory since, from the beginning, she has said that monogamy is a step toward polygamy. If she genuinely believes polyamory to be better, she should teach it to her kids. But she should also dispense with this front of, "This isn't for everyone, or even most people. If you haven't mastered monogamy, polyamory won't work". What she's teaching her children seems to be inconsistent with what she's telling everyone else. _That_ isn't fair to her kids. 

What she teaches them is none of my business. They're her kids. But, when trying to present a potentially new lifestyle to society, what she believes and what she tells us, and her kids, should be the same and so far it doesn't seem to be.


----------



## anonim

anony2 said:


> So have you taught your children that polyamorous relationships as an option?


I think she should.


----------



## anonim

Created2Write said:


> If her belief really is that polyamorous/polygamous relationships are better than monogamy, then I have no issue with it.I suspect that If you truly had no issue with it you wouldn't say how Kendra should raise her children because you would have no issue with how she is raising her children.
> 
> But by saying that monogamy is step toward polygamy, and that if you haven't mastered monogamy, you won't master polygamy, and _then_ to push that people aren't meant to be monogamous and that it's impossible to maintain a healthy and happy monogamous relationship is contradictory.
> 
> By her own advice, she says not to enter into polyamorous relationships until one has "mastered" monogamy. Does that not imply a positive connotation? Does that not imply that it is, indeed, possible to have a healthy, happy monogamous relationship? Yes it does. I think it is rare though.
> 
> She is inconsistent, at best. On some of the things she says I agree, but she makes many unassailable points that have yet to be rationally countered in this thread. If she wants to be a voice for the other side, then fine. But pick a side. Happiness is not a side or a team.
> 
> Either it really isn't possible to maintain a happy, healthy monogamous relationship, or it is. She can't have both.
> 
> Also, I'm pretty sure that there are unhappy and unhealthy polyamorous and polygamous relationships. I'm pretty sure that they divorce, too. I'm pretty sure that there are those who break the boundaries of their relationships. The type of relationship you're in doesn't make it happy and healthy be default. Being in a monogamous relationship doesn't automatically make the relationship unhealthy, nor does being in an open relationship automatically make it healthy. agree 100%
> 
> She could say whatever she likes. She's entitled to voice her beliefs. It's a free country. I certainly don't have to listen to whatever it is she says, nor does she have to listen to what I believe. I do, however, have I right to say what I believe.
> 
> Ok ill put this to the test . When you have children I think they should be taught to consider open relationships and polygamy as viable relationships, if not by you, then by someone who isn't predisposed against non traditional relationships. Because they might well be as happy in a non traditional relationship as a traditional one. We know well the success (or failure) rates of relationships and marriages.
> I want my children to consider anything that might make them happy.
> 
> 
> Your version seemed to center on the fact that it was perfectly fine for this player to hop around to various teams */snip*
> On the contrary, why do you think it isnt??? *snip/*
> and play for them, so long as his primary team knew about it, and so long as all the other teams knew about it too.
> Honest question; would it seem more acceptable (not fair or honest but _acceptable_) if they snuck around instead? Think about this one before you answer please.
> 
> Communication is definitely something I agree with, and _if_ someone decides that they are incapable */snip* Why do you believe someone would have to be incapable of committing to one person instead of choosing not to commit to one person? Someone can choose not to commit and not be some kind of emotional/social invalid/ingrate.*snip/*
> of dedicating their talent to solely one team, the right thing to do is to inform every team they want to play for of their choice to play for as many teams as they can. Not 'as many as they can,' but 'as many or as few as they want.'
> 
> Remember this person is not a mental invalid, they can make choices that are good for them AND refrain from choices that are bad for them. Just like you or me.
> 
> The teams then have the choice to agree, and accept less than 100% effort from this player, or they can simply choose not to bring him onto the team.
> 
> Yes. this is normal for any relationship.
> 
> Most people, I think(maybe I'm wrong), really do desire total commitment and dedication in their relationship, including exclusivity in their romantic and sexual lives.
> 
> My problem with that presumption is that people have that singular world view shoved down their throats without a single critical thought or question about it, for as long as they've been able to perceive. And people spend their entire lives trying to make a relationship model work for them, when it just doesnt work for them. And I'm not even specifying open/poly.
> 
> Kenya says that polyamorous relationships aren't for everyone. Fine. I can accept that. To go on and teach her children that it's impossible to maintain monogamous relationships is _not_ consistent with that.
> 
> My issue is with her inconsistency and *the constant implication that open relationships truly are better than monogamous ones*. What would change for you if she was right?


----------



## *LittleDeer*

anony2 said:


> Let me show you some dots then...
> 
> My parents are in a monogamous relationship. They have been for almost 55 years now. Now, you might think...great job, right?
> 
> Well, in this 55 years, they have been physically and emotionally abusive, not only to each other, but to each one of us children...to the point that my oldest brother was using drugs before he got out of jr high.
> 
> My dad is a recovering alcoholic, my mom is co-dependent...
> 
> Should I blame the fact that my oldest brother cannot be in a relationship longer than a year or two on my parents decision to be monogamous?
> 
> Here are some more dots for you to connect...
> 
> My aunt and uncle have been married for 50 years, they had 4 children of their own and adopted one. My aunt and uncle lived a nice long life together until a very disturbing secret came out about my uncle. He had paid his nieces to dance around in sexy underwear when they were in JR HIGH and some other things that the family has refused to talk about...my uncle was the head of the church that he went to. They are still married, but he suffers from severe alzheimer's disease. The family decided to rug sweep it after it came out, apparently, the statutes of limitations had passed on this, so they could not do anything legally.
> 
> Edit to add: They were foster parents all the while he was doing this. It makes me wonder how many children he has done this to.
> 
> Is that the result of monogamy too?


No not the result of monogamy, the result of selfish people unwilling to change. Nor put their marriage and children first.

It is my opinion that open marriages start off putting their desire to be unfaithful before their marriage. I'd love to see some stats on it, but just from what I know, they invite problems in by having sex with others JMO.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Thanks for misquoting me.
> 
> I said that I think it's unfair to _only_ teach polyamory since, from the beginning, she has said that monogamy is a step toward polygamy. If she genuinely believes polyamory to be better, she should teach it to her kids. But she should also dispense with this front of, "This isn't for everyone, or even most people. If you haven't mastered monogamy, polyamory won't work". What she's teaching her children seems to be inconsistent with what she's telling everyone else. _That_ isn't fair to her kids.
> 
> What she teaches them is none of my business. They're her kids. But, when trying to present a potentially new lifestyle to society, what she believes and what she tells us, and her kids, should be the same and so far it doesn't seem to be.


I didn't QUOTE you, I said that you said it was not okay. 
What she tells us and her kids are the same thing. I have watched the videos of what her kids say and it is the exact same thing. I think what is going on here is that YOU have a false belief about Kenya and you are holding her responsible for that false belief.


----------



## anony2

*LittleDeer* said:


> No not the result of monogamy, the result of selfish people unwilling to change. Nor put their marriage and children first.
> 
> It is my opinion that open marriages start off putting their desire to be unfaithful before their marriage. I'd love to see some stats on it, but just from what I know, they invite problems in by having sex with others JMO.


Neither of these marriages were open marriages little deer, they were monogamous relationships. So this must be the norm for monogamous relationships right? 

My point was that just like CM can use his example of a cuckhold marriage which is not an OPEN marriage and blame open marriages for the actions of the people in that relationship, I can use these as examples of monogamous marriages.

Also, we can keep telling people what they SHOULD do to have a perfect monogamous marriage, but is there any evidence or proof that is the way that people SHOULD live?

Who gets to decide how someone SHOULD live?


----------



## anonim

*LittleDeer* said:


> It is my opinion that open marriages start off putting their desire to be unfaithful before their marriage. I'd love to see some stats on it, but just from what I know, they invite problems in by having sex with others JMO.


First off I'd have to say that just because a marriage or relationship was open/poly It doesnt mean the focus of that relationship was sex with other people. Secondly, being unfaithful in open/poly relationships is just the same as it is in mono relationships. Being open/poly doesnt mean being unfaithful. I've seen you equate being open/poly with cheating/unfaithfulness across a few of your posts. why?


----------



## jaquen

But lets be real about; throughout human history there have been many, many, many "open" marriages.

Unfortunately that openness was mostly afforded the man, and against the woman's will.

At least with mutually agreed upon openness, all parties are on the same page. I do think that is a much healthier, more honest approach than the many people who are opening up their marriages without consent from their spouse.


----------



## Thundarr

anony2 said:


> Also, we can keep telling people what they SHOULD do to have a perfect monogamous marriage, but is there any evidence or proof that is the way that people SHOULD live?
> 
> Who gets to decide how someone SHOULD live?


These are good points. I think monogamous is the norm because most people just feel it instinctually. But no I don't care to tell someone that it's how they should be. For that matter, two of Kenya's kids answered the question about their preference. The 13 boy said poly and the 11 girl said monog so obviously they know monogamy is a choice as well.

Infidelity is the enemy to me, not lifestyle choice.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I don't understand the need to debate it.The only problem I have is anyone thinking their way of living is better than how someone else chooses to live.If you think monogamy is the way to go...then go be that way.If you think an open marriage is best...then go be that way.

Why sit and try to debate it? Does it really matter if people approve of the way you live or even understand the way you live?


----------



## anonim

ScarletBegonias said:


> I don't understand the need to debate it.The only problem I have is anyone thinking their way of living is better than how someone else chooses to live. If you think monogamy is the way to go...then go be that way.If you think an open marriage is best...then go be that way.
> 
> Why sit and try to debate it? Does it really matter if people approve of the way you live or even understand the way you live?


Does it really matter if people approve of the way you live ?

To a degree yes. Some people can live and let live, and other people will attack what is different even though it doesn't ever affect them, kind of like the whole gay marriage issue.

For example, there have been people that wanted to get this thread closed because they dont like what is being talked about here. Even though they could elect not to participate.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

anonim said:


> Does it really matter if people approve of the way you live ?
> 
> To a degree yes. Some people can live and let live, and other people will attack what is different even though it doesn't ever affect them, kind of like the whole gay marriage issue.
> 
> For example, there have been people that wanted to get this thread closed because they dont like what is being talked about here. Even though they could elect not to participate.


Unless someone is coming to your home and attacking you bc of the way you choose to live,it doesn't matter if they approve,agree,or even understand.

Who cares if they wanted the thread closed?The good thing you should recognize is that it WASN'T closed.So those people who want it closed can just go on and be angry about not being able to control the situation.


----------



## anony2

ScarletBegonias said:


> I don't understand the need to debate it.The only problem I have is anyone thinking their way of living is better than how someone else chooses to live.If you think monogamy is the way to go...then go be that way.If you think an open marriage is best...then go be that way.
> 
> Why sit and try to debate it? Does it really matter if people approve of the way you live or even understand the way you live?


I don't think that it was supposed to be a debate, I think it was more along the lines of "what does the members of TAM think about this and why?" My husband thinks this way and he loves getting other peoples opinions about different subjects. This is one of the many things that makes me attracted to him.


----------



## anonim

ScarletBegonias said:


> Unless someone is coming to your home and attacking you bc of the way you choose to live,it doesn't matter if they approve,agree,or even understand.
> 
> Who cares if they wanted the thread closed?The good thing you should recognize is that it WASN'T closed.So those people who want it closed can just go on and be angry about not being able to control the situation.


I disagree with regard to your opinion that it doesnt matter if someone (dis)agrees with how you live unless they are (sic) coming to your home. If you are socializing, working or otherwise operating/functioning in other aspects of your life that have nothing to do, or interfere with what is different about you(r lifestyle) people can still lower the quality of your life by their actions. 

I'm not saying that any/everyone should agree with me but dissenting opinions should be to the point and not intentionally disrespectful.

I personally care that they want the thread closed and its mainly because;

1) they wish to curtail my ability to communicate freely with others that are willing to communicate with me, solely because they dislike A) the subject matter (poly/open/non traditional relationships/marriages), or B) the poster of the said subjects.

2) they resort to underhanded disrespectful tactics and behaviors in an attempt to achieve their goal despite of having the option of simply not participating and engaging in something more to their approval.

I do recognize and i'm glad that this thread wasn't closed, even though some people have strong feelings about it, because I like to hear about peoples different experiences, feelings and opinions, especially when they are outside of 'the norm'.

This thread isn't causing anyone harm, except in their own heads because everyone is free to walk away from it as they please.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

anonim said:


> I disagree with regard to your opinion that it doesnt matter if someone (dis)agrees with how you live unless they are (sic) coming to your home. If you are socializing, working or otherwise operating/functioning in other aspects of your life that have nothing to do, or interfere with what is different about you(r lifestyle) people can still lower the quality of your life by their actions.
> 
> I'm not saying that any/everyone should agree with me but dissenting opinions should be to the point and not intentionally disrespectful.
> 
> I


You can't control anyone but you can control how you choose to react to those people.No one has control over you except for you.If someone has the ability to lower the quality of your life then you're giving them WAY too much power over you. If it's an employer doing it then you need to take the steps to make it known that person is behaving in a discriminatory manner. 
I totally get that everyone wants to be understood and respected.But in the world we live in today,it's not likely anyone even gives a damn about you or your life...I say you as a general reference.You can only say so much before you have to realize it's time to throw your hands up and say well whatever,I tried to get you to understand and you don't,there's nothing else I can do.

It's tough to have a discussion about all the different types of marriage out there because people feel so strongly about the issue.Chances are no one will listen and no one will be understood.Everyone will walk away frustrated and feeling disrespected.

I feel like you have some need to defend the open marriage topic when there really is no need...unless deep down you feel there IS something wrong with it and are overcompensating by being on the defense about it.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

anony2 said:


> I don't think that it was supposed to be a debate, I think it was more along the lines of "what does the members of TAM think about this and why?" My husband thinks this way and he loves getting other peoples opinions about different subjects. This is one of the many things that makes me attracted to him.


Anony2 and Anonim, you both are very well spoken and represent your opinions well, but to be blunt. I feel like you both just love to debate. The content of the debate is less important than the actual activity of debating points.

Your husband was the person who has said many times that he doesn't care what other people think.

This thread just seems to be 2 sides that drew lines in the sand and ANYTHING the opposition says gets debated. Regardless if it's on point or not. It's debating simply to debate, not to have an actual intelligent discussion that sways any opinions or works to any mutual understanding. And no, I'm not singling you out, like I said, 2 sides.

Anyway, I'm backing out of this thread, it went from some pretty intense discussions, which where interesting, to feeling like how my exwife argues (no matter what you say, even if you agree with something, the point is debated).


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> Ok ill put this to the test . When you have children I think they should be taught to consider open relationships and polygamy as viable relationships, if not by you, then by someone who isn't predisposed against non traditional relationships. Because they might well be as happy in a non traditional relationship as a traditional one. We know well the success (or failure) rates of relationships and marriages.
> I want my children to consider anything that might make them happy.


You're free to think that if you wish, and I'm free to agree or disagree. Just like I can think what I wish about Kenya's raising techniques, and she can choose to agree or not.



> My problem with that presumption is that people have that singular world view shoved down their throats without a single critical thought or question about it, for as long as they've been able to perceive. And people spend their entire lives trying to make a relationship model work for them, when it just doesnt work for them. And I'm not even specifying open/poly.


How do you know people don't think critically about it? Sure, I'm sure there are those who are blinded by religious or social obligations. I've met many people in my life who are like this about many, many things; religion itself, politics, relationships, art, literature...they have no real opinions of their own because they're comfortable with what they've been taught. My mother was that way until she met my day who encouraged her to examine why she believed with she did regarding political matters. 

There are numerous people in this thread, though, who have thought long and hard about their marital choices and have taken _ a lot_ of time to try and understand where you're coming from, and yet, we _still_ would much rather have monogamous relationships. 

Also, I think it's really oversimplifying things to suggest that difficulties and struggles in marriage are due to the kind of marriage that exists between a couple, rather than the people themselves. All relationships have plenty of issues, family relationships, friendships, marriages, dating relationships, business relationships...the issue isn't necessarily the kind of relationship we're in, but the people who in the relationships. Some business relationships are incredibly toxic, while many others are healthy and functional. Many family relationships are hateful and disfunctional while others are healthy and happy. Likewise, many monogamous relationships are unhealthy and toxic, while many others get through their difficulties(even adultery and emotional affairs) and come out stronger in the end. 

Some kinds of relationships are going to come with more issues based on the type of relationships it is. Business relationships, for instance, are going to come with certain issues because the people in the job are usually around each other all day. They get on each others nerves, they get irritated with favoritism, some people are lazy and others have pick up the slack. Much of this is going to depend on the kind of job and the people doing it. Open relationships are automatically going to include more issues in the relationships involved because there are more than two people included in the most intimate parts of the relationship. Most friends don't see the intricate workings of a couple, but many in open marriages/open relationships will see more than the average friend. Unless the people involved are unusually fee of drama, there will more than likely be more issues. 

Just my opinion.



> What would change for you if she was right?


If she was right? If open relationships really were better? That's a pretty impossible question to answer. I'd need a hel*l of a lot more than just her word or your word to believe that it was, first of all. My faith, which is a part of who I am, doesn't coincide with the idea, second of all. But setting those two things aside, I don't know that anything would change for me. I would still love my husband more than any other person, man or woman. I wouldn't want a relationship with anyone else. I wouldn't want him in a relationship with anyone else.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> I didn't QUOTE you, I said that you said it was not okay.
> What she tells us and her kids are the same thing. I have watched the videos of what her kids say and it is the exact same thing. I think what is going on here is that YOU have a false belief about Kenya and you are holding her responsible for that false belief.


If you really see them as the same thing, then nothing I or anyone else says is going to effect you. Which is ironic, since what you've accused many of us here of doing(having some vendetta against Kenya and her style of living, and being unwilling to see what you're trying to say) is precisely what you're doing, just with what the rest of us are saying.


----------



## Created2Write

jaquen said:


> But lets be real about; throughout human history there have been many, many, many "open" marriages.
> 
> Unfortunately that openness was mostly afforded the man, and against the woman's will.
> 
> At least with mutually agreed upon openness, all parties are on the same page. I do think that is a much healthier, more honest approach than the many people who are opening up their marriages without consent from their spouse.


Not _all_ parties involved. Is it healthier between Kenya and her husband? Sure, being honest and open is always better, no matter how difficult the truth is. 

But the men Kenya is in emotional affairs with? Their wives don't approve of open relationships, and from her own confession, these men are Kenya's lovers. That is _not_ healthy, and I don't believe it should be supported or encouraged.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> Not _all_ parties involved. Is it healthier between Kenya and her husband? Sure, being honest and open is always better, no matter how difficult the truth is.
> 
> But the men Kenya is in emotional affairs with? Their wives don't approve of open relationships, and from her own confession, these men are Kenya's lovers. That is _not_ healthy, and I don't believe it should be supported or encouraged.


Then don't support or encourage it, but you cannot expect others to follow YOUR faith when they do not follow YOUR faith.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> If you really see them as the same thing, then nothing I or anyone else says is going to effect you. Which is ironic, since what you've accused many of us here of doing(having some vendetta against Kenya and her style of living, and being unwilling to see what you're trying to say) is precisely what you're doing, just with what the rest of us are saying.


Sorry, but this does not even warrant an answer, it is too far out in left field and is just more claptrap.


----------



## anony2

Dad&Hubby said:


> Anony2 and Anonim, you both are very well spoken and represent your opinions well, but to be blunt. I feel like you both just love to debate. The content of the debate is less important than the actual activity of debating points.
> 
> Your husband was the person who has said many times that he doesn't care what other people think.
> 
> This thread just seems to be 2 sides that drew lines in the sand and ANYTHING the opposition says gets debated. Regardless if it's on point or not. It's debating simply to debate, not to have an actual intelligent discussion that sways any opinions or works to any mutual understanding. And no, I'm not singling you out, like I said, 2 sides.
> 
> Anyway, I'm backing out of this thread, it went from some pretty intense discussions, which where interesting, to feeling like how my exwife argues *(no matter what you say, even if you agree with something, the point is debated).*


Please show me where anonim said anything about not caring about what other people think on this thread.


----------



## Created2Write

anony2 said:


> Then don't support or encourage it, but you cannot expect others to follow YOUR faith when they do not follow YOUR faith.


You either can't or won't see what I'm saying. And I don't feel like going round and round in circles with you.


----------



## anony2

Created2Write said:


> You either can't or won't see what I'm saying. And I don't feel like going round and round in circles with you.


No one asked you to...do I need to remind you that you keep coming back voluntarily?


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles

anonim said:


> That is because society conditions people to be judgmental of non-traditional relationship models.
> 
> Ideally, if everyone/thing in a relationship was consensual there is nothing wrong with it.


(Smirk) Common sense conditions wise individuals to be "judgemental" about absolutely everyone and everything in their lives.


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles

I don't drink poison... I guess that makes me "close-minded".

Hey ! It's a choice, right ?
:beer:


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> This entire concept is a logical paradox.
> It's like trying to sell the idea that Communism and Capitalism
> ( free enterprise ) can co exist at the same time in a Communist system.
> 
> Logic fail.


I feel compelled to quote the above Truth because it is universal and unassailable.

The very phrase "Open Marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
Linguistic nonsense. Intellectual deceit and mental misdirection and slight of hand.

The question isn't: "Is Open marriage right for you?"
The question IS: "Is marriage NOT right for YOU?"

Clearly it isn't right for people who promote this sort of thing (and I use "promote" here intentionally because that is the apparent aim of these "anon" posters). 

:soapbox:


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles

anony2 said:


> So you are saying that YOU alone decides what 'marriages' SHOULD/SHOULDN'T be?
> 
> You do realize that before there was monogamy, there was polygamy, right?


By the same token, you do realize that before we lived in houses, we lived in caves?
:rofl:


----------



## anonim

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> (Smirk) Common sense conditions wise individuals to be "judgemental" about absolutely everyone and everything in their lives.


Common sense might tell you that if you judge someone on someting that has no bearing on you, all you are doing is alienating yourself from them, and from learning something new.


----------



## anonim

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> I don't drink poison... I guess that makes me "close-minded".
> 
> Hey ! It's a choice, right ?
> :beer:


we ingest many things that, in the correct amounts or with the correct method, or in due time, are poisonous. :beer: is one of them


----------



## anonim

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> I feel compelled to quote (that which you see as)the above Truth because it is universal and unassailable. You should know, 'truth' about things that cannot be measured are purely subjective.
> 
> The very phrase "Open Marriage" is a contradiction in terms. (only if the terms you were taught, dictated that they were the ONLY terms)
> Linguistic nonsense. Intellectual deceit and mental misdirection and slight of hand.
> 
> The question isn't: "Is Open marriage right for you?"
> The question IS: "Is marriage NOT right for YOU?"
> Your question implies that your form of marriage is the only form of marriage. which it _isnt_.
> 
> Clearly it isn't right for people who promote this sort of thing (and I use "promote" here intentionally because that is the apparent aim of these "anon" posters).
> 
> Anyone is free to discuss any topic that doesnt violate the terms and conditions of TAM so get off your :soapbox:


If you had bothered to read from beginning to this post you would know that we are not in an open or poly marriage and are not seeking to make it so.


----------



## anonim

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> By the same token, you do realize that before we lived in houses, we lived in caves?
> :rofl:



You have houses now, but that is no measure of growth when those that dwell in them have the same limited minds of their ancestors that lived in caves, attacking and destroying things they fear because they are scared of ideas that are different to what they know?

:scratchhead:


----------



## anony2

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> By the same token, you do realize that before we lived in houses, we lived in caves?
> :rofl:


My ancestors lived off he land, we didn't need to hide in caves.


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles

anonim said:


> Common sense might tell you that if you judge someone on someting that has no bearing on you, all you are doing is alienating yourself from them, and from learning something new.


But it is my mindful intention to alienate myself from people I JUDGE to be toxic (in my sole opinion, which is absolutely superior to yours). :BoomSmilie_anim:


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles

anonim said:


> we ingest many things that, in the correct amounts or with the correct method, or in due time, are poisonous. :beer: is one of them


and all things are toxic if indulged in beyond the limit of toxicity.
Observing healthy limits prevents harm.


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles

anonim said:


> If you had bothered to read from beginning to this post you would know that we are not in an open or poly marriage and are not seeking to make it so.


Perhaps you aren't, but you argue FOR it.


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles

anonim said:


> You have houses now, but that is no measure of growth when those that dwell in them have the same limited minds of their ancestors that lived in caves, attacking and destroying things they fear because they are scared of ideas that are different to what they know?
> 
> :scratchhead:


Like your inferior sentence structure and choice of words, your notion of both the definition of "marriage" and concept of what constitutes a "healthy marriage" are inferior as well. Unlike you, I have no qualms or inhibitions about judging others and the ideas they espouse. My expression of my judgement that your ideas are toxic to marriage and fidelity (which is at the core of marriage) is not attacking or destroying anything, it is merely presenting my view for the forum to consider. The forum readers are quite capable of reading and deciding for themselves where Truth lies.


----------



## anony2

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> *Like your inferior sentence structure and choice of words*, your notion of both the definition of "marriage" and concept of what constitutes a "healthy marriage" are inferior as well. Unlike you, I have no qualms or inhibitions about judging others and the ideas they espouse. My expression of my judgement that your ideas are toxic to marriage and fidelity (which is at the core of marriage) is not attacking or destroying anything, it is merely presenting my view for the forum to consider. The forum readers are quite capable of reading and deciding for themselves where Truth lies.


argumentum ad hominem...


----------



## anonim

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> But it is my mindful intention to alienate myself from people I JUDGE to be toxic (in my sole opinion, which is absolutely superior to yours). :BoomSmilie_anim:


Hostility is not required to alienate your self from someone, merely refuse to interact with them, in this context you could refuse to comment/post.

Intentional irrational hostility shows an intent to alienate _other people._

By definition ones opinion cannot be 'superior' to another when there is no basis to measure them. :BoomSmilie_anim: :soapbox:



Sigma Uber Alles said:


> anonim said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had bothered to read from beginning to this post you would know that we are not in an open or poly marriage and are not seeking to make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you aren't, but you argue FOR it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that I do, even if it seems that way to you.
I'm just not arguing _against _it.

But, for the sake of argument, even if I was arguing for it, _So What?_


----------



## Thundarr

anonim said:


> Hostility is not required to alienate your self from someone, merely refuse to interact with them,


hmm. Agree with that too.


----------



## anonim

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> anonim said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have houses now, but that is no measure of growth when those that dwell in them have the same limited minds of their ancestors that lived in caves, attacking and destroying things they fear because they are scared of ideas that are different to what they know?
> 
> :scratchhead:
> 
> 
> 
> Like your inferior sentence structure and choice of words, your notion of both the definition of "marriage" and concept of what constitutes a "healthy marriage" are inferior as well. Unlike you, I have no qualms or inhibitions about judging others and the ideas they espouse. My expression of my judgement that your ideas are toxic to marriage and fidelity (which is at the core of marriage) is not attacking or destroying anything, it is merely presenting my view for the forum to consider. The forum readers are quite capable of reading and deciding for themselves where Truth lies.
Click to expand...

I haven't defined what marriage means when you asked earlier for a reason. Marriage means different things in different cultures and for different people. Being from only two cultures, I understand that I don't have any understanding whatsoever of any definitions of marriage outside of my own cultures, nor a full definition of all kinds of marriages within the cultures i can relate to, and it would be narrow minded and ignorant of me to cast condemning judgement on marriages outside of my understanding and outside of what affects me.

Well worded enough for you? 

That which you label truth is belief or opinion; - it cannot be weighed, it cannot be measured - it cannot be objectively substantiated.

Shouting your belief from the highest of mountains in the loudest of voices does not make an opinion truth.

As you say, I have (sometimes) qualms or inhibitions about judging others and the ideas they espouse. This is because;

1. I understand that judgments can harm other people, and it isn't always necessary to harm others to get my point or idea across.

2. Just because I have an idea, opinion or belief about something, it doesn't mean my idea or belief is true or correct. No matter how many people agree with me or disagree with me.

3. If I judge/harm someone with an opinion that later turns out to be false, the wrong I did is greater for it.

I would be interested to hear why you think my expression of polygamy or open relationships/marriages is toxic to _*your *_marriage/relationships fidelity. Will your SO read it and want to be poly? Do you think about it in the dark corners of your mind?



anony2 said:


> argumentum ad hominem...


Yes, quite. Please keep it civil and respectful *Sigma Uber Alles * or refrain from posting.



Thundarr said:


> Sigma Uber Alles said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it is my mindful intention to alienate myself from people I JUDGE to be toxic.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with this. At least I would avoid to some extent.
Click to expand...

I agree with this principle, but when you go onto a thread which discusses topics you find toxic and try to alienate the OP, I consider that an act of hostility and aggression.

Kind of like going to your house with the intention of 'trying to alienate myself from you.'



Sigma Uber Alles said:


> and all things are toxic if indulged in beyond the limit of toxicity.
> Observing healthy limits prevents harm.


I agree fully. The disputes in this thread, are what are the 'healthy limits' 

I dont believe they are the same for all people, some people have higher or lower tolerances than others and for that reason, I dont believe one should dictate anothers limit, especially based on what their own limit is.


----------



## LoveDr

Some marriages need to be spiced up a little bit. If your love life is getting boring and both partners are open to it, I don't see why not giving it a shot. Who knows...It could be the thing that sparks your marriage again..


----------



## Thundarr

LoveDr said:


> Some marriages need to be spiced up a little bit. If your love life is getting boring and both partners are open to it, I don't see why not giving it a shot. Who knows...It could be the thing that sparks your marriage again..


Yea I'm sure there's no harm NewpostDr . Just fun love with no guilt or jealously. It's not instant gratification. It's not dangerous. It would be so cool to think of my wife getting banged and loving someone else. That's why everyone's doing I guess. Where do I sign up.


----------



## anonim

LoveDr said:


> Some marriages need to be spiced up a little bit. If your love life is getting boring and both partners are open to it, I don't see why not giving it a shot. Who knows...It could be the thing that sparks your marriage again..


I'm not sure that one should open up a marriage or become polygamous to spice things up, any more than one should get married to spice up their relationship.


----------



## Maricha75

anonim said:


> I'm not sure that one should open up a marriage or become polygamous to spice things up, any more than one should get married to spice up their relationship.


Now THIS is something we agree on! FINALLY! (In this thread anyway! )


----------



## anony2

Maricha75 said:


> Now THIS is something we agree on! FINALLY! (In this thread anyway! )


Seriously? Is that what you thought that we thought?

No, not at all.


----------



## Created2Write

anonim said:


> I'm not sure that one should open up a marriage or become polygamous to spice things up, any more than one should get married to spice up their relationship.


I agree with this as well.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

And now...we all hug


----------

