# Can people with a past in open relationships reform to monogamy?



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

Is it in their DNA to always want to branch out sexually, or can the right person, say their soulmate, put an end to it - to the point that he/she no longer desires it?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

anachronistic12345 said:


> Is it in their DNA to always want to branch out sexually, or can the right person, say their soulmate, put an end to it - to the point that he/she no longer desires it?


So did the girl with the man roommate turn out to be spinning a few plates?


----------



## BeyondRepair007 (Nov 4, 2021)

anachronistic12345 said:


> Is it in their DNA to always want to branch out sexually, or can the right person, say their soulmate, put an end to it - to the point that he/she no longer desires it?


Are you thinking of the chickadee you met on Tinder or someone new?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

P.S. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that relationship choices and sex choices are anything but choices.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Another open relationship thread????


----------



## BeyondRepair007 (Nov 4, 2021)

anachronistic12345 said:


> Is it in their DNA to always want to branch out sexually, or can the right person, say their soulmate, put an end to it - to the point that he/she no longer desires it?


Now I recall from that thread, if you liked her but if it was an open relationship thing on her side, you wanted to draw her into a monogamous one with you. Right?

Sure, it’s her choice.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

BeyondRepair007 said:


> Are you thinking of the chickadee you met on Tinder or someone new?


Someone else. I am allowed to start a thread without it pertaining to me.


----------



## 24NitroglyceriN26 (11 mo ago)

Open, I thought, was your heart and soul are in love with God. You then can have a counter sex partner, if needed. Not casual as that trashes your connection to God. Counter gender because it is like counter species to God. So, any more open and it would close to all.

Reset would be to commit full to God. No contact with your hands or others in sensual or sexual manner thinking on stuff I spoke about today. Deep, heavy trash as though you had lived those experiences.


----------



## CrAzYdOgLaDy (Mar 22, 2021)

I know a couple who are in their 60's now. They had the swinging lifestyle throughout their whole marriage until they were in their late 40's early 50's. They have since put the swinging behind them and focus on each other. So the past 10 plus years has just been the 2 of them.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

CrAzYdOgLaDy said:


> I know a couple who are in their 60's now. They had the swinging lifestyle throughout their whole marriage until they were in their late 40's early 50's. They have since put the swinging behind them and focus on each other. So the past 10 plus years has just been the 2 of them.


But what if I say: "no dice" right away? Can a connection be powerful enough for it not to be a factor anymore? How strong is the urge?


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

,


----------



## Mr.Married (Feb 21, 2018)

So Tinder and Patrick are tapping multibutt and you are wondering if you should go ring shopping for the coffee date ?


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

Mr.Married said:


> So Tinder and Patrick are tapping multibutt and you are wondering if you should go ring shopping for the coffee date ?


The Tinder ***** is out. I was curious since there are people in here who have experience with OR. It is a completely foreign concept to me. The hole essence of a relationship is exclusiveness to me. Open relationship is an oxy moron


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

ConanHub said:


> P.S. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that relationship choices and sex choices are anything but choices.


 I read from a girl that she makes her new boyfriend comfortable for a period of time, and then it's time to cut down some new branches, so to speak.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Everything is individual, but yes a person with a past with open relationships can be 100% monogamous.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

happyhusband0005 said:


> Everything is individual, but yes a person with a past with open relationships can be 100% monogamous.


Do you know that for a fact? What would be the main reason for the shift? Sexual compability?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

anachronistic12345 said:


> I read from a girl that she makes her new boyfriend comfortable for a period of time, and then it's time to cut down some new branches, so to speak.


Huh? As in, gets them comfortable, and then starts pushing his partners out of his life?

Wouldn't work for most non-monogamous folks. I had someone try that once. Didn't work.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

As'laDain said:


> Huh? As in, gets them comfortable, and then starts pushing his partners out of his life?


As in start having sex outside of the relationship.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

anachronistic12345 said:


> As in start having sex outside of the relationship.


Oh, so starts out mono, and then gets gets them used to the idea of non-monogamy? 

That almost never works either. Unless people are ok with going to or from monogamy/non-monogamy, they won't do it. 

Not everyone is opposed to switching, but those who are, won't.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

As'laDain said:


> Oh, so starts out mono, and then gets gets them used to the idea of non-monogamy?
> 
> That almost never works either. Unless people are ok with going to or from monogamy/non-monogamy, they won't do it.
> 
> Not everyone is opposed to switching, but those who are, won't.


My point was that it seems to be more than a choice, if she goes out of her way to do it . I really want to know why she cares so much for it. Sex with your loved one is ten times better anyway.

Do you have any idea?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

anachronistic12345 said:


> My point was that it seems to be more than a choice, if she goes out of her way to do it . I really want to know why she cares so much for it. Sex with your loved one is ten times better anyway.
> 
> Do you have any idea?


I don't know. I have never had sex with anyone I didn't love.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Why do you care? Your using tinder which is a hookup site to meet people for casual sex. 
You think your going to meet one of the vestal virgins who will declare her undying love for you?
Wise ****ing up.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

As'laDain said:


> I don't know. I have never had sex with anyone I didn't love.


Do you know someone who lives the life style of open relationships? Are they different in other ways? Has to be something "off" with them?

Yes, I am casting the first stone here... It's online, sue me.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

anachronistic12345 said:


> But what if I say: "no dice" right away? Can a connection be powerful enough for it not to be a factor anymore? How strong is the urge?


This viewpoint, from you, has a problem because you are trying to influence a choice someone already made and they are someone you just met.

If you don't want to get with a girl who likes to ride more than one man at a time then don't.

I wouldn't get involved with a woman who does that but I wouldn't be hung up on her business either.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

anachronistic12345 said:


> Do you know someone who lives the life style of open relationships? Are they different in other ways? Has to be something "off" with them?
> 
> Yes, I am casting the first stone here... It's online, sue me.


We are as unique as everyone else. You will not find a stereotype that applies across the board in any group.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

ConanHub said:


> This viewpoint, from you, has a problem because you are trying to influence a choice someone already made and they are someone you just met.
> 
> If you don't want to get with a girl who likes to ride more than one man at a time then don't.
> 
> I wouldn't get involved with a woman who does that but I wouldn't be hung up on her business either.


IF I just so happen to click with such a person, and fall in love, and she falls madly in love with me...


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

anachronistic12345 said:


> IF I just so happen to click with such a person, and fall in love, and she falls madly in love with me...


Then it is possible that a non-monogamous person might choose monogamy. It's also possible that new relationship emotions will cause then to focus on the new person to the exclusion of others.

It's also entirely possible that they will be energized with new relationship emotions that they have _more_ sex with their other partners. 

Everyone is different.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

The people who try to argue that open marriages are the new normal with nonstop technical jargon are comedy gold 🤣.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

anachronistic12345 said:


> IF I just so happen to click with such a person, and fall in love, and she falls madly in love with me...


Then you'll know very quickly and there won't be a conflict of interest.

I made a lot of life changes for Mrs. Conan but we are probably an exception that proves some rule.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

ConanHub said:


> Then you'll know very quickly and there won't be a conflict of interest.


A clairvoyant told me that I will. Claims to have seen my two kids with her as well. I was appalled.

"You are going to be father (in the future) "Do you want to know how many?". 

Later on he says that the kids popped up in our session, and he described the hair on them. And giggled. The dude was ruthless.

He had zero errors regarding me and my past, for the record.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> The people who try to argue that open marriages are the new normal with nonstop technical jargon are comedy gold 🤣.


One, nobody is arguing that it's new, let alone the new normal. As for jargon, would you prefer another language?

لانجلزية، لا يوجد كلمة لكثير


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

If it was a new relationship I would just think we were too different and move on to the next one.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

anachronistic12345 said:


> A clairvoyant told me that I will. Claims to have seen my two kids with her as well. I was appalled.
> 
> "You are going to be father (in the future) "Do you want to know how many?".
> 
> ...



Are you sure he said you would be the genetic father? Or maybe you were "the father" because you take the daddy role while they were sired by others? Did the clairvoyant specify?


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

well just think of all the people who have multiple sex partners when single, but then meet someone they love and decide to get married, and are monogamous the rest of their lives.

they both made a choice to be monagamous from point X in time.

so why would not married people be able to make that exact same sort of choice, to be monagamous after a certain point of time they agree to?


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

Wolfman1968 said:


> Are you sure he said you would be the genetic father? Or maybe you were "the father" because you take the daddy role while they were sired by others? Did the clairvoyant specify?


Yeah, it was clear that he meant my children. It would appear based on the overall reading that he got a jackpot with me. He was on a roll, and very confident. It was ten years ago though....


----------



## manwithnoname (Feb 3, 2017)

Clairvoyants, psychics, mediums, tarot card readers etc. are for entertainment only, and a complete waste of money. Tinder and other “dating” hookup sites are unlikely to yield the soulmate you so desperately seek.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

manwithnoname said:


> Clairvoyants, psychics, mediums, tarot card readers etc. are for entertainment only, and a complete waste of money. Tinder and other “dating” hookup sites are unlikely to yield the soulmate you so desperately seek.


That's your opinion. He has met my mother and identified a breast scar on her future date, and a violent conflict. And his hair, eyes, etc. He doesn't use cards since he is the real deal.

Deal with it.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> P.S. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that relationship choices and sex choices are anything but choices.


A close friend was in an open marriage with her ex. It caused nothing but trouble...she is now remarried and says never again.


----------



## ElOtro (Apr 4, 2021)

As'laDain said:


> Then it is possible that a non-monogamous person might choose monogamy. It's also possible that new relationship emotions will cause then to focus on the new person to the exclusion of others.
> 
> It's also entirely possible that they will be energized with new relationship emotions that they have _more_ sex with their other partners.
> 
> Everyone is different.


I agree with most o your post.
I do not share your last assertion, as IMO it´s true as trivia but not relevant.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Talker67 said:


> well just think of all the people who have multiple sex partners when single, but then meet someone they love and decide to get married, and are monogamous the rest of their lives.
> 
> they both made a choice to be monagamous from point X in time.
> 
> so why would not married people be able to make that exact same sort of choice, to be monagamous after a certain point of time they agree to?


This is one I was thinking about. Pretty common change a lot of people make.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> A close friend was in an open marriage with her ex. It caused nothing but trouble...she is now remarried and says never again.


My curiosity is piqued but it's a good example of leaving a lifestyle.

I know a lot of people try lifestyles and other things when they are younger and it was only a trial run or phase that they decided wasn't for them in the long run.

Do you know if her ex stayed with open relationships?


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

The dehumanizing views and blatant disrespect for individual choices are really appalling. It's not DNA or some sub human trait. Relationships are complex, some never stop dating.

It's strange to me that monogamous posters on here are comfortable with the concept of dating. They fully understand that dating leads to sex but that there's boundaries, respect, getting to know the other person. Initially they're encouraged to date different people, not focus, experience life. Then they hone in on a specific relationship and make it exclusive. Once exclusive, they're suddenly uncomfortable with the concept of dating unless that relationship dissolves through death, divorce, or break up. If it dissolves, there's a mourning period, and then they're comfortable with the concept of dating again and the process repeats.

But if the word "open" is tossed in there anywhere suddenly all concept of dating, boundaries, and respect are lost. Suddenly monogamous posters cut right to swingers and sex. It's stunning to watch that flip. Call them on it and it gets uncomfortable, they dance around it. Sure they dated but somehow that's different?

And then we get to the TAM initial posts which somehow represent broken unhealthy marriages but also represent healthy open ones at the same time? Literally it's solidified opinions based on what they saw posted on TAM, or based on when specific members opened their relationship on TAM. They misrepresent individual experiences, individual relationships, and individual boundaries as a community ideal. But if you flip the tables they're insulted that you would insinuate that a single person's opinion spoke for monogamy or religion.

The ONLY person who can decide if they wish to remain open or go exclusive is the woman you are chasing. Posting on here shows a blatant disrespect for her freedom of choice. Either you are honest in your intentions with her and risk losing her. Or you start your relationship with her on lies...


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> The dehumanizing views and blatant disrespect for individual choices are really appalling. It's not DNA or some sub human trait. Relationships are complex, some never stop dating.
> 
> It's strange to me that monogamous posters on here are comfortable with the concept of dating. They fully understand that dating leads to sex but that there's boundaries, respect, getting to know the other person. Initially they're encouraged to date different people, not focus, experience life. Then they hone in on a specific relationship and make it exclusive. Once exclusive, they're suddenly uncomfortable with the concept of dating unless that relationship dissolves through death, divorce, or break up. If it dissolves, there's a mourning period, and then they're comfortable with the concept of dating again and the process repeats.
> 
> ...


The difference is that when you are dating, you aren't married to that person. When you are married, it's highly disrespectful to date other people as the two of you are one, not you your spouse and her new hot coworker. Give it whatever term you want, but facts don't care about feelings. That person is cheating on their spouse


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

anachronistic12345 said:


> That's your opinion. He has met my mother and identified a breast scar on her future date, and a violent conflict. And his hair, eyes, etc. He doesn't use cards since he is the real deal.
> 
> Deal with it.


Then why are you here asking us?


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> The difference is that when you are dating, you aren't married to that person. When you are married, it's highly disrespectful to date other people as the two of you are one, not you your spouse and her new hot coworker. Give it whatever term you want, but facts don't care about feelings. That person is cheating on their spouse


We struggle with this lately in all aspects of society. It’s not enough that we accept that some people don’t value fidelity or attach emotion to sex. We have to celebrate and tell them they’re better than we are. Open relationships are not the same as faithful marriage; they want us to say they are, that they’re smarter, deeper, more “secure” than we are. Fine, they can say what they want. The real argument here is over terminology: is an open marriage really marriage? I don’t have to change what I think about the answer to that question, and THAT is what they’re all upset about. If we don’t celebrate and participate in open marriages, they’ll keep saying it’s because we just don’t “understand” them. They can say that all they want, it won’t change what I think.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> We struggle with this lately in all aspects of society. It’s not enough that we accept that some people don’t value fidelity or attach emotion to sex. We have to celebrate and tell them they’re better than we are. Open relationships are not the same as faithful marriage; they want us to say they are, that they’re smarter, deeper, more “secure” than we are. Fine, they can say what they want. The real argument here is over terminology: is an open marriage really marriage? I don’t have to change what I think about the answer to that question, and THAT is what they’re all upset about. If we don’t celebrate and participate in open marriages, they’ll keep saying it’s because we just don’t “understand” them. They can say that all they want, it won’t change what I think.


There has been a lot of this sh*t going on the past couple of years with the "normalizing" of certain things, hasn't there?


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> The difference is that when you are dating, you aren't married to that person. When you are married, it's highly disrespectful to date other people as the two of you are one, not you your spouse and her new hot coworker. Give it whatever term you want, but facts don't care about feelings. That person is cheating on their spouse


What are the terms of the marriage? Is it a religious marriage or a civil one? Which religion? Which civil laws? You painted with an incredibly broad brush imposing your religion, opinion and laws of your specific region on everyone else by representing it as fact... I'm calling you on it!


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

Numb26 said:


> There has been a lot of this sh*t going on the past couple of years with the "normalizing" of certain things, hasn't there?


That’s my point. It’s the same with “trans.” If you as a man won’t date a “woman with a penis,” you’re transphobic. It’s not enough to accept that some men will dress as women, you have to participate and celebrate it.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

TexasMom1216 said:


> That’s my point. It’s the same with “trans.” If you as a man won’t date a “woman with a penis,” you’re transphobic. It’s not enough to accept that some men will dress as women, you have to participate and celebrate it.


Just like if you don't accept a man in a dress walking into the same bathroom your young daughter is using you are labeled a bigot.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> My curiosity is piqued but it's a good example of leaving a lifestyle.
> 
> I know a lot of people try lifestyles and other things when they are younger and it was only a trial run or phase that they decided wasn't for them in the long run.
> 
> Do you know if her ex stayed with open relationships?


I don't know. I can tell you that they got very different things out of it....he got strange and she was trying to fill an emotional hole in the marriage. He never worked and was very controlling....thought he could demand that she got the same thing he did out of it and went crazy when she got attached.

The guy she married is actually the last guy she hooked up with before he ex filed. She offered to cut it off but said they had to close the marriage and he refused. Of course he went ballistic when she got emotionally involved.

He filed for divorce thinking it would bully her but she agreed it was best. He went on a harassment campaign (while he was screwing other women) but eventually found another woman willing to support him. 

I don't know if they're open but I hear he hits her.

My friend is emotionally very close to her new hb and has no desire to look elsewhere, and new hubby wouldn't go along with it anyway.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> We struggle with this lately in all aspects of society. It’s not enough that we accept that some people don’t value fidelity or attach emotion to sex. We have to celebrate and tell them they’re better than we are. Open relationships are not the same as faithful marriage; they want us to say they are, that they’re smarter, deeper, more “secure” than we are. Fine, they can say what they want. The real argument here is over terminology: is an open marriage really marriage? I don’t have to change what I think about the answer to that question, and THAT is what they’re all upset about. If we don’t celebrate and participate in open marriages, they’ll keep saying it’s because we just don’t “understand” them. They can say that all they want, it won’t change what I think.


How exactly does a lifestyle you clearly do not believe in either add or subtract the personal value you have assigned to your own relationship? I am very curious about this "struggle". Again there's this broad brush that assumes all open relationships are sex only with absolutely no boundaries and all monogamous marriages are perfect and healthy with complete respect for each partner. We've clearly seen on here that neither absolute is accurate.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

Numb26 said:


> Just like if you don't accept a man in a dress walking into the same bathroom your young daughter is using you are labeled a bigot.


How did you make the leap from open relationships to transexual bathroom access? I'm not understanding the intended link.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> I don't know. I can tell you that they got very different things out of it....he got strange and she was trying to fill an emotional hole in the marriage. He never worked and was very controlling....thought he could demand that she got the same thing he did out of it and went crazy when she got attached.
> 
> The guy she married is actually the last guy she hooked up with before he ex filed. She offered to cut it off but said they had to close the marriage and he refused. Of course he went ballistic when she got emotionally involved.
> 
> ...


My emoji says it all.....😳


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

My first impression of this thread is on the title: it's offensive. Why? Because it presumes that people in poly or open relationships are broken and should "reform." Crap on that!

Poly and open are quite different from each other. Poly IMO is an orientation, but it's not a binary thing. I'm poly, but mostly have been in monogamous relationships or have been effectively monogamous even though I identify as poly. It depends on what agreement I have with my partner(s), and if the agreement allows for poly or open scenarios, the opportunities I find to pursue other partners.

Personally, I can be very happy and content in a monogamous relationship, if it's an extraordinarily good one, like my current relationship. However, we are still in agreement that we _can_ have other partners, either for poly or open relationships. Therefore, technically I am in a poly/open relationship, though effectively I'm not at the moment. I don't currently have other partner(s), but if I met someone who was also open to the idea, I'd be free to see what develops.


----------



## Skruddgemire (Mar 10, 2021)

anachronistic12345 said:


> Is it in their DNA to always want to branch out sexually, or can the right person, say their soulmate, put an end to it - to the point that he/she no longer desires it?


Why not both as a possibility? That there are people who are wired to want/enjoy open relationships but might under certain circumstances opt for a monogamous relationship?

This is one of those topics where either side of the argument can point to examples that promote their points. Because there are those that can and those who can't. In a way it's a bit like asking "Do people like fish?" and seeing those who say that they do pointing out the people who enjoy it and those that say that they do not pointing out the people who can't stand it at all. 

The evidence exists for both because you can find people in both categories. 

To the point though, yes there are those people who enjoy open relationships that can opt for a monogamous relationship under the right circumstances (such as a mono only soulmate). Also it might be because those people have had enough of the effort in open relationships and want to settle for something simpler. 

When you're talking about a being as complex as H. Sapiens...it's going to depend on the individual. It's why in a lot of thought problems like this I often say "Ask 100 people, get 120 answers."


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

As'laDain said:


> One, nobody is arguing that it's new, let alone the new normal. As for jargon, would you prefer another language?
> 
> لانجلزية، لا يوجد كلمة لكثير


There is --- much!!!


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

anachronistic12345 said:


> That's your opinion. He has met my mother and identified a breast scar on her future date, and a violent conflict. And his hair, eyes, etc. He doesn't use cards since he is the real deal.
> 
> Deal with it.


So that is where he got to - Sweden!!!! (can you help us south or north - nearer Malmo or Stockholm or further north?). Do not worry or panic - the men in the white coats are coming to get him and take him back to Lithuania.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> What are the terms of the marriage? Is it a religious marriage or a civil one? Which religion? Which civil laws? You painted with an incredibly broad brush imposing your religion, opinion and laws of your specific region on everyone else by representing it as fact... I'm calling you on it!


I feel honored to be called out on this..... Forgot about laws and religion. This is about loving, respecting, and honoring the person who you committed to for the rest of your life. There is no love and honor in dating and/or having sex with other people when you have taken vows to your spouse 

When two people get married, both should feel a level of trust and security as a team together. Telling your spouse that I am going out on a date with someone I met is purely toxic to a marriage. They may not show it right away, but it will come out


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> My emoji says it all.....😳


The best part was that he went around telling people she'd had an affair.

His screwing other women apparently didn't count because it was just sex.

Hard to argue with that logic.

SMH


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

crashdawg said:


> The dehumanizing views and blatant disrespect for individual choices are really appalling. It's not DNA or some sub human trait. Relationships are complex, some never stop dating.
> 
> It's strange to me that monogamous posters on here are comfortable with the concept of dating. They fully understand that dating leads to sex but that there's boundaries, respect, getting to know the other person. Initially they're encouraged to date different people, not focus, experience life. Then they hone in on a specific relationship and make it exclusive. Once exclusive, they're suddenly uncomfortable with the concept of dating unless that relationship dissolves through death, divorce, or break up. If it dissolves, there's a mourning period, and then they're comfortable with the concept of dating again and the process repeats.
> 
> ...


When you are dating you are not normally in a committed relationship. It is strange to me that people who do not like monogamy and probably prefer the swinging lifestyle are comfortable with screwing around freely but not with commitment. They encourage people to open themselves to many relationships but they're suddenly uncomfortable with the idea of commitment to one person who would almost always be hurt by opening the relationship up. I am baffled that they cannot see the breakdown of society and committed relationships that this kind of hedonistic and yes, antisocial thinking brings.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

lifeistooshort said:


> The best part was that he went around telling people she'd had an affair.
> 
> His screwing other women apparently didn't count because it was just sex.
> 
> ...


Typical cheater logic. So absurd it’s impossible to do anything but roll your eyes and walk away.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> The difference is that when you are dating, you aren't married to that person. When you are married, it's highly disrespectful to date other people as the two of you are one, not you your spouse and her new hot coworker. Give it whatever term you want, but facts don't care about feelings. That person is cheating on their spouse


I would like to point out that the thing that USED TO make marriage special was that the couple presumably shared sex only with eachother...THAT is what made "the two of you one", it's NOT that the government recognizes your union and defines it as marriage, it's NOT the piece of paper...it was THE SEX. 

Now that people have accepted sex before marriage, and without marriage, and even are ok with people screwing anyone they want -- just as long as you don't "marry" them and then do it -- they want to try to elevate their choices as being more than immoral based on the absence of a legal commitment...but that just falls flat under scrutiny.

Open marriage is the same as casually dating and screwing multiple people. It's ethical as long as everyone is HONEST and OPEN about their expectations and intentions. At least in an open marriage, the partners (presumably) remain loving and supportive of eachother....not so with people who only want to use eachother's bodies for a month, or a week, or a NIGHT.

So the people who are willing to "be one" with multiple people as long as they don't get the government involved are NOT morally superior to people who are doing the same within the honest definition of their own relationship/marriage. And people like that who want to claim such a thing, while taking advantage of other people by having casual sex forever, are being hypocritical. 

In MY opinion.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

manfromlamancha said:


> When you are dating you are not normally in a committed relationship. It is strange to me that people who do not like monogamy and probably prefer the swinging lifestyle are comfortable with screwing around freely but not with commitment. They encourage people to open themselves to many relationships but they're suddenly uncomfortable with the idea of commitment to one person who would almost always be hurt by opening the relationship up. I am baffled that they cannot see the breakdown of society and committed relationships that this kind of hedonistic and yes, antisocial thinking brings.


The breakdown of morals and "hedonism" comes from ALL forms of non-committed sexual activity, NOT just within marriage.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> The best part was that he went around telling people she'd had an affair.
> 
> His screwing other women apparently didn't count because it was just sex.
> 
> ...


Glad she got away, I honestly have a hard time understanding how some folks end up with such weirdos but it happens a lot.😵‍💫


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> I feel honored to be called out on this..... Forgot about laws and religion. This is about loving, respecting, and honoring the person who you committed to for the rest of your life. There is no love and honor in dating and/or having sex with other people when you have taken vows to your spouse
> 
> When two people get married, both should feel a level of trust and security as a team together. Telling your spouse that I am going out on a date with someone I met is purely toxic to a marriage. They may not show it right away, but it will come out


You're assuming they commit to a single person and an open relationship was never discussed prior to their commitment to their partner? That's not always accurate. The OP in this thread is FULLY aware that the woman he is chasing is in an open relationship. Healthy open relationships focus on respect and communication from the beginning. Healthy open marriages are when both parties discuss it, no ultimatiums... I am curious if she communicated the open nature and boundaries of this relationship from the beginning. There focus on wanting to "convert" her with no mention of when or how he became aware of the relationship parameters.

Beyond that you're assuming the content of someone else's vows and the choice of that couple to include a specific religion in their relationship. Again you're taking your own personal opinion and presenting it as fact. So my comment stands.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

LisaDiane said:


> The breakdown of morals and "hedonism" comes from ALL forms of non-committed sexual activity, NOT just within marriage.


If you go just a single step further it becomes a watershed moment that discusses the origins of the word hedonism. Suddenly you're made aware of the impacts that the forced imposition of a conquering culture's tradition, morals, language and religion has on a conquered peoples. You begin to understand the impacts of forced conversion at sword point, and how every step leads to assimilation and the eventual eradication of other cultures.

I honestly question if you're even aware of how close you are to that precipice. But by all means please keep going...


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

crashdawg said:


> If you go just a single step further it becomes a watershed moment that discusses the origins of the word hedonism. Suddenly you're made aware of the impacts that the forced imposition of a conquering culture's tradition, morals, language and religion has on a conquered peoples. You begin to understand the impacts of forced conversion at sword point, and how every step leads to assimilation and the eventual eradication of other cultures.
> 
> I honestly question if you're even aware of how close you are to that precipice. But by all means please keep going...


I'm not sure what the last sentence means, if you think you are pointing out something specific to me.

But all I meant with my post was that the morality that everyone is throwing around (basically from the Bible) would also call their sexual choices JUST as immoral as open marriage. That's all I meant.

If you have some specific point you want to question me about, or point out to me, please be more specific so I can answer your assumptions accurately.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> If you go just a single step further it becomes a watershed moment that discusses the origins of the word hedonism. Suddenly you're made aware of the impacts that the forced imposition of a conquering culture's tradition, morals, language and religion has on a conquered peoples. You begin to understand the impacts of forced conversion at sword point, and how every step leads to assimilation and the eventual eradication of other cultures.
> 
> I honestly question if you're even aware of how close you are to that precipice. But by all means please keep going...


And the technical jargon arguments of trying to justify how cheating on your spouse is okay now begins 🍿🍿


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> And the technical jargon arguments of trying to justify how cheating on your spouse is okay now begins 🍿🍿


It’s all about terminology. “Ethical non-monogamy” = “I keep dating and looking for “the one” while I use this other person as a security blanket, but it’s ok because I told them they weren’t enough for me and I don’t care who else they sleep with as long as I get my wife/husband appliance until I find my soulmate.”

They want to do as they please without rules. And it’s not enough for us to shrug and say, “it’s your life,” we have celebrate and participate.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

LisaDiane said:


> I'm not sure what the last sentence means, if you think you are pointing out something specific to me.
> 
> But all I meant with my post was that the morality that everyone is throwing around (basically from the Bible) would also call their sexual choices JUST as immoral as open marriage. That's all I meant.
> 
> If you have some specific point you want to question me about, or point out to me, please be more specific so I can answer your assumptions accurately.


In other threads a different poster pointed out that monogamy was the dominant trait worldwide. What they neglected to mention was the practice of forced Christian conversion practiced from the late Roman empire onward. Basically the destruction of polytheism, which had direct impacts on everything from relationships to cultural social structures.

On this thread a poster claims an open relationship goes against vows, against marriage, and against religion without knowing the vows, the marriage commitment, or if religion was even involved in a relationship. What they highlighted, possibly by mistake, is the cultural link between religion and recognized relationships. As monotheism and "one god" was forced on other cultures, "one wife" was also forced on them. Anything outside of the conquering culture's view was deemed immoral, outlawed, and punishable by death.

The practice is ancient, and was initially specific to Christianity (prior Roman practice was to conquer and establish Roman temples but leave local cultures intact). BUT that practice continued throughout history and up to modern Imperialism. To claim something is immoral is to state it goes against your beliefs (which is perfectly acceptable until those beliefs are thrust upon others).


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It’s all about terminology. “Ethical non-monogamy” = “I keep dating and looking for “the one” while I use this other person as a security blanket, but it’s ok because I told them they weren’t enough for me and I don’t care who else they sleep with as long as I get my wife/husband appliance until I find my soulmate.”
> 
> They want to do as they please without rules. And it’s not enough for us to shrug and say, “it’s your life,” we have celebrate and participate.


And you've personally been in a healthy open relationship and experienced this? I'm asking because I haven't. I've always been told they're not looking for "the one" that that's a monogamous trait.

Bright side, thank you I was wondering what ENM meant. I've been asking for clear definitions in multiple threads! I'm not familiar with that term.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

crashdawg said:


> In other threads a different poster pointed out that monogamy was the dominant trait worldwide. What they neglected to mention was the practice of forced Christian conversion practiced from the late Roman empire onward. Basically the destruction of polytheism, which had direct impacts on everything from relationships to cultural social structures.
> 
> On this thread a poster claims an open relationship goes against vows, against marriage, and against religion without knowing the vows, the marriage commitment, or if religion was even involved in a relationship. What they highlighted, possibly by mistake, is the cultural link between religion and recognized relationships. As monotheism and "one god" was forced on other cultures, "one wife" was also forced on them. Anything outside of the conquering culture's view was deemed immoral, outlawed, and punishable by death.
> 
> The practice is ancient, and was initially specific to Christianity (prior Roman practice was to conquer and establish Roman temples but leave local cultures intact). BUT that practice continued throughout history and up to modern Imperialism. To claim something is immoral is to state it goes against your beliefs (which is perfectly acceptable until those beliefs are thrust upon others).


Ok, well, I understand this is what you believe (because you've posted it on other threads), and while I find it interesting, I don't necessarily believe some of your specific points, based on what I've read and learned about history and Christianity and the Roman Empire, etc.

What I would like you to specifically explain is what you meant by THIS....
_"I honestly question if you're even aware of how close you are to that precipice. But by all means please keep going..."_

Hints and sarcasm only confuse me, so if you want to make a specific point, you need to do it directly, or else I will most likely miss it.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> And the technical jargon arguments of trying to justify how cheating on your spouse is okay now begins 🍿🍿


If your assumption is that I'm going to force my opinion on you and justify bad marriage choices then you're sadly mistaken. I'm happy to explain and question but I do not force.

If you assume I really don't care and that healthy open and healthy closed relationships have 0 impact on my relationship... then you'd be correct.

BUT on that note we need a "Can people with a past in monogamy reform to open relationships?" thread because fair is fair and reform isn't a bad word right? Just a technical term for correction... ummm... yeah...


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

LisaDiane said:


> Ok, well, I understand this is what you believe (because you've posted it on other threads), and while I find it interesting, I don't necessarily believe some of your specific points, based on what I've read and learned about history and Christianity and the Roman Empire, etc.
> 
> What I would like you to specifically explain is what you meant by THIS....
> _"I honestly question if you're even aware of how close you are to that precipice. But by all means please keep going..."_
> ...


Please enlighten me. Christians were initially persecuted and it became really bad under Nero. They initially weren't even viewed as a religion, just a religious sect under Judaism. After the secret conversion of the Roman Emperor other forms of religion were systematically outlawed and conquered cultures were forced into subjugation. That FYI is not opinion it's well documented fact and Romans were meticulous about recording events at that specific time. But then you can expand to Dark Ages and eventual conversion of the Vikings. You can jump to the English rule of Ireland and Scotland. You can jump to the French, or the Spanish, or the Portuguese... and just keep going. No pulled punches, no sugar coating. Again not my opinions, recorded historical records of destroyed poly theistic cultures and forced conversion of their peoples to Christianity. Fair warning a lot of that is tough to read...


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

I honestly question if you're even aware of how close you are to that precipice. But by all means please keep going...

It has been my personal experience that when individuals are made aware of historical records that directly conflict with the religious narratives they've been taught that it becomes both traumatic and painful. Often they're not aware of the very real, very dark history. Canada is grappling with that now in relation to the bodies of children discovered at former "reform" schools.

No sarcasm. I was 100% serious. If you decide to start down that rabbit hole just know it's very very dark. There are no limits to what people did throughout history in the name of their religion.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

crashdawg said:


> I honestly question if you're even aware of how close you are to that precipice. But by all means please keep going...
> 
> It has been my personal experience that when individuals are made aware of historical rec that directly conflict with the religious narratives they've been taught that it becomes both traumatic and painful. Often they're not aware of the very real, very dark history. Canada is grappling with that now in relation to the bodies of children discovered at former "reform" schools.
> 
> No sarcasm. I was 100% serious. If you decide to start down that rabbit hole just know it's very very dark. There are no limits to what PE did throughout history in the name of their religion.


Yeah, but what did that have to do with MY comment about hedonism?? 

I'm NOT afraid to read about history, and the horrible things people have done in the name of religion. Have you read anything about Muslims conquering people...??


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

LisaDiane said:


> Yeah, but what did that have to do with MY comment about hedonism??
> 
> I'm NOT afraid to read about history, and the horrible things people have done in the name of religion. Have you read anything about Muslims conquering people...??


It was your choice of the word, the history behind it, and how it's been used in various forms throughout history to define and subjugate conquered cultures.

Hedonism, hedonistic peoples, heathens... ...savages... against morals... without morals... animals...

Please let me know if further clarification is required. Look into the history and context of the terms and you'll quickly see the dark history surrounding that path.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

@LisaDiane I've read quite a bit on Muslim empires conquering various cultures including the Moors occupation of Spain. It doesn't absolve Christianity of their part in history it just shows they weren't the only player.

Apologies for the thread jack everyone.

Hopefully we can "reform" the thread...


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> @LisaDiane I've read quite a bit on Muslim empires conquering various cultures including the Moors occupation of Spain. It doesn't absolve Christianity of their part in history it just shows they weren't the only player.
> 
> Apologies for the thread jack everyone.
> 
> Hopefully we can "reform" the thread...


People conquer others while announcing their religion......Religion doesn't conquer people, culture, or empires.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> People conquer others while announcing their religion......Religion doesn't conquer people, culture, or empires.


People conquer others and multiple major Christian societies made the active choice to force their religion on the conquered people at sword point under the threat of death. They eradicated any competing cultures, religions, holidays, traditions or languages. Their choices had a dramatic impact on global world history, the spread of their religion, and cultural and religious discussions that continue to this day. That is fact sir (actually multiple facts recorded independently from various historical records). It is not interpretation or opinion.

Incredibly uncomfortable, but facts nonetheless.


----------



## TexasMom1216 (Nov 3, 2021)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> People conquer others while announcing their religion......Religion doesn't conquer people, culture, or empires.


You and your pesky “facts.” 😉


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> People conquer others and multiple major Christian societies made the active choice to force their religion on the conquered people at sword point under the threat of death. They eradicated any competing cultures, religions, holidays, traditions or languages. Their choices had a dramatic impact on global world history, the spread of their religion, and cultural and religious discussions that continue to this day. That is fact sir (actually multiple facts recorded independently from various historical records). It is not interpretation or opinion.
> 
> Incredibly uncomfortable, but facts nonetheless.


Actually, it's usually leaders from a particular country or empire that decide to invade others. The military really had no choice but to follow the leader. They either fought or faced execution, prison, or some form of punishment.

Again, people conquer others. Religion itself has never conquered any nation or empire in history.


----------



## crashdawg (11 mo ago)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Actually, it's usually leaders from a particular country or empire that decide to invade others. The military really had no choice but to follow the leader. They either fought or faced execution, prison, or some form of punishment.
> 
> Again, people conquer others. Religion itself has never conquered any nation or empire in history.


Everything from the California Mission System to the Crusades to the fall of the Inca, Mayan, and Aztecs go directly against your statement. Religion was closely aligned with military and often served as the backbone of the invading armies.

But hey let's talk Knights Templar...


----------



## ThatDarnGuy! (Jan 11, 2022)

crashdawg said:


> Everything from the California Mission System to the Crusades to the fall of the Inca, Mayan, and Aztecs go directly against your statement. Religion was closely aligned with military and often served as the backbone of the invading armies.
> 
> But hey let's talk Knights Templar...


Actually no, they don't go against my statement..... A vast majority of people in those empires blindly followed their rulers out of pure fear. You either believe in what we say, and do as we say. Or, you will be burned alive or some other horrible death.

Fear, hunger, and the will to survive were often the backbone of invading armies


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Using religious attacks to


ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Actually no, they don't go against my statement..... A vast majority of people in those empires blindly followed their rulers out of pure fear. You either believe in what we say, and do as we say. Or, you will be burned alive or some other horrible death.
> 
> Fear, hunger, and the will to survive were often the backbone of invading armies


Kind of sounds what is going on now, doesn't it? Believe in what they do and do as your told or else you will be socially ostracized, doxxed, lose your job, etc.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

manfromlamancha said:


> There is --- much!!!


lol, for a second, i wasnt sure what you meant. then i realized that autocorrect left out a lam. للكثير(for the many)

there are a lot of words that are used in english that arent english. english is the barbarian of languages that rolls over everything and takes what it needs, but there are still a LOT of words that english simply doesnt have a word for. just as there are english words that don't exist in other languages. 

many times, polyamory is better described in its many forms in other languages. english has one word for love. there are languages that have 20,30, and some even more. in order for us to understand any of them in english, we have to talk about the ways in which people express and experience them. we use the same word for "i love coffee" as we do for "i love my spouse". it wasnt until very recently that we started using words in psychology for concepts that existed for centuries in other languages... limerence, for example. 

i could just start using words from other languages to describe some things, like limerence, but even being an english word, most people have not heard of it.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

something i dont get... 

someone can be so devoted to an idea of country that they will go fight for that country, even die for that country. that is considered totally normal and virtuous. someone can be married while doing so. ah, look at how virtuous they are! they are sacrificing time and putting their life on the line for their society! such a sacrifice!

but someone who claims to be devoted to two lovers? morally bankrupt. can't happen. they are just fooling themselves, so they can cheat. someone who bails on the (new) person they are "devoted" to every 3-4 years, virtuous. but a polycule that literally cannot be ripped apart by law, war, financial hardship, near death experiences, other people... 

"not ready for commitment."

makes no sense to me.


----------



## manwithnoname (Feb 3, 2017)

anachronistic12345 said:


> That's your opinion. He has met my mother and identified a breast scar on her future date, and a violent conflict. And his hair, eyes, etc. He doesn't use cards since he is the real deal.
> 
> Deal with it.


My apologies. I didn’t realize he was the real deal.


----------



## BeyondRepair007 (Nov 4, 2021)

As'laDain said:


> makes no sense to me.


Maybe it doesn’t, but at least you have it right.

Actually that comparison is apples vs oranges.

A persons willingness to sacrifice for their country is inherently a willingness to defend, protect, and sacrifice for the most important people in their lives. Be it multiple wives or mono wife, or extended family, etc. By extension, having that willingness to sacrifice for the freedom of your neighbors and so on until ultimately the country. Because that’s where the sovereignty is being challenged.

Someone wants to have multiple partners… ok, whatever, but it doesn’t compare.

But I get what you’re trying to say, why is one standard of following your code of morals wrong and the other is right. The judge gets to decide if both are following an established morality, or rather, establishing a morality that doesn’t align with the commonly accepted ones.

So yea, depends on who you ask unless you ascribe (as I do) to 1 code that is true, objective, and unchanging. (delivered by the Christian God)

I think having multiple lovers/wives violates and weakens the traditional marriage. I think the traditional marriage is a bedrock for strength and happiness to society at large. Thus, multiple lovers is immoral while soldiers are acting virtuously. YMMV.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

crashdawg said:


> It was your choice of the word, the history behind it, and how it's been used in various forms throughout history to define and subjugate conquered cultures.
> 
> Hedonism, hedonistic peoples, heathens... ...savages... against morals... without morals... animals...
> 
> Please let me know if further clarification is required. Look into the history and context of the terms and you'll quickly see the dark history surrounding that path.


Well, I was using it within the context of what that poster said, and about sexual morality TODAY...and I was using a Biblical word to highlight the use by that poster, and disagreeing with him (in one way).

Your points, while valid (to you) and interesting, are worthy of discussion in a completely different context than what I was saying here. That's probably why I was confused.

Also, just FYI, MOST people know about much of history and even religious history...in fact, it's very popular right now to bash the history of Christianity and the ways it was spread, while simultaneously overlooking similar and even WORSE atrocities done by other peoples and religions. So you really don't need to worry about sending anyone down any rabbit holes of trauma, especially for me.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

crashdawg said:


> @LisaDiane I've read quite a bit on Muslim empires conquering various cultures including the Moors occupation of Spain. It doesn't absolve Christianity of their part in history *it just shows they weren't the only player.*
> 
> Apologies for the thread jack everyone.
> 
> Hopefully we can "reform" the thread...


EXACTLY.


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

anachronistic12345 said:


> Is it in their DNA to always want to branch out sexually, or can the right person, say their soulmate, put an end to it - to the point that he/she no longer desires it?


I don't care. Even if they could, I don't relate to those deviants so keep them away, even if they reformed.

If they did it in the past, they would easily do it in the future


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Numb26 said:


> Another open relationship thread????


yeah, cuckoldism keeps returning. Why don't these people write their wives cell # on the bathroom wall at Buffalo Wild Wings ?


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

anachronistic12345 said:


> My point was that it seems to be more than a choice, if she goes out of her way to do it . I really want to know why she cares so much for it. Sex with your loved one is ten times better anyway.
> 
> Do you have any idea?


 is it ? If so, why do they keep heading elsewhere ?


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

anachronistic12345 said:


> The Tinder *** is out. I was curious since there are people in here who have experience with OR. It is a completely foreign concept to me. The hole essence of a relationship is exclusiveness to me. Open relationship is an oxy moron


I agree with you wholeleartedly


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

I don't post much any more for a variety of reasons. However I will say this. 

I have done the multiple dating thing, or FWB thing, and I find it hollow. I really just want someone to love me. As sappy as that sounds. When I had several GF's or FWB, the problem was that they ALL wanted more. And I did not at that time. 

Really I just wanted a relationship and I found that with my current wife, yeah I got married. 

Sleeping around just gets old, although many people may not understand that, but it does. 

Not sure if that makes sense, I have been in the cups a little tonight...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

BluesPower said:


> I don't post much any more for a variety of reasons. However I will say this.
> 
> I have done the multiple dating thing, or FWB thing, and I find it hollow. I really just want someone to love me. As sappy as that sounds. When I had several GF's or FWB, the problem was that they ALL wanted more. And I did not at that time.
> 
> ...


👍👍👍

In vino veritas.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

anachronistic12345 said:


> Is it in their DNA to always want to branch out sexually, or can the right person, say their soulmate, put an end to it - to the point that he/she no longer desires it?


I highly doubt a swinger drops the desire for variety in sexual partners.

But even in the event they do, I don't want someone that has that kind of past.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

anachronistic12345 said:


> Someone else. I am allowed to start a thread without it pertaining to me.


Who said anything about you not being allowed? It was a simple question that commanded a simple answer.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

Cletus said:


> Then why are you here asking us?


becuase he doesn't see EVERYTHING.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

manwithnoname said:


> My apologies. I didn’t realize he was the real deal.


You are welcomed to explain away how he saw that.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

drencrom said:


> Who said anything about you not being allowed? It was a simple question that commanded a simple answer.


And I answered it.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

Married but Happy said:


> My first impression of this thread is on the title: it's offensive. Why? Because it presumes that people in poly or open relationships are broken and should "reform." Crap on that!
> 
> Poly and open are quite different from each other. Poly IMO is an orientation, but it's not a binary thing. I'm poly, but mostly have been in monogamous relationships or have been effectively monogamous even though I identify as poly. It depends on what agreement I have with my partner(s), and if the agreement allows for poly or open scenarios, the opportunities I find to pursue other partners.
> 
> Personally, I can be very happy and content in a monogamous relationship, if it's an extraordinarily good one, like my current relationship. However, we are still in agreement that we _can_ have other partners, either for poly or open relationships. Therefore, technically I am in a poly/open relationship, though effectively I'm not at the moment. I don't currently have other partner(s), but if I met someone who was also open to the idea, I'd be free to see what develops.


The difference between open and poly is synthetic. A person in an open relationship could fall in love with someone else via external sexual outlet. Conversely, someone in a poly relationship could fail with his/her objective, and in practise end up with an open relationship in which only one person is "loved"


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

anachronistic12345 said:


> And I answered it.


I'll repeat, who said anything about you not being allowed to say what you said?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Married but Happy said:


> My first impression of this thread is on the title: it's offensive. Why? Because it presumes that people in poly or open relationships are broken and should "reform." Crap on that!
> 
> Poly and open are quite different from each other. Poly IMO is an orientation, but it's not a binary thing. I'm poly, but mostly have been in monogamous relationships or have been effectively monogamous even though I identify as poly. It depends on what agreement I have with my partner(s), and if the agreement allows for poly or open scenarios, the opportunities I find to pursue other partners.
> 
> Personally, I can be very happy and content in a monogamous relationship, if it's an extraordinarily good one, like my current relationship. However, we are still in agreement that we _can_ have other partners, either for poly or open relationships. Therefore, technically I am in a poly/open relationship, though effectively I'm not at the moment. I don't currently have other partner(s), but if I met someone who was also open to the idea, I'd be free to see what develops.


Poly isn't an orientation, it's a choice.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

crashdawg said:


> In other threads a different poster pointed out that monogamy was the dominant trait worldwide. What they neglected to mention was the practice of forced Christian conversion practiced from the late Roman empire onward. Basically the destruction of polytheism, which had direct impacts on everything from relationships to cultural social structures.
> 
> On this thread a poster claims an open relationship goes against vows, against marriage, and against religion without knowing the vows, the marriage commitment, or if religion was even involved in a relationship. What they highlighted, possibly by mistake, is the cultural link between religion and recognized relationships. As monotheism and "one god" was forced on other cultures, "one wife" was also forced on them. Anything outside of the conquering culture's view was deemed immoral, outlawed, and punishable by death.
> 
> The practice is ancient, and was initially specific to Christianity (prior Roman practice was to conquer and establish Roman temples but leave local cultures intact). BUT that practice continued throughout history and up to modern Imperialism. To claim something is immoral is to state it goes against your beliefs (which is perfectly acceptable until those beliefs are thrust upon others).


Most people with no faith seem to also want monogamy also.


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Poly isn't an orientation, it's a choice.


Then why is it IMPOSSIBLE to consider for most of the population, male and female?


----------



## anachronistic12345 (11 mo ago)

drencrom said:


> I'll repeat, who said anything about you not being allowed to say what you said?


That's the point I made since he assumed it had to pertain to me.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

wmn1 said:


> Why don't these people write their wives cell # on the bathroom wall at Buffalo Wild Wings ?


Maybe some do. To each his own.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Popcorn thread number 3 here we go!


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> Poly isn't an orientation, it's a choice.


Perhaps, but since you have no experience with it, your opinion comes from ignorance.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Married but Happy said:


> Perhaps, but since you have no experience with it, your opinion comes from ignorance.


Like blind men arguing about the color green. 

"It's warm like the sun"

"No! It's soft like velvet!"

-_-


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

TexasMom1216 said:


> It’s all about terminology. “Ethical non-monogamy” = “I keep dating and looking for “the one” while I use this other person as a security blanket, but it’s ok because I told them they weren’t enough for me and I don’t care who else they sleep with as long as I get my wife/husband appliance until I find my soulmate.”
> 
> They want to do as they please without rules. And it’s not enough for us to shrug and say, “it’s your life,” we have celebrate and participate.


I think that 'ethical non monogamy' is an oxymoron.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Married but Happy said:


> Perhaps, but since you have no experience with it, your opinion comes from ignorance.


It comes from knowing that we all make choices. We all choose to be faithful or not.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> Actually, it's usually leaders from a particular country or empire that decide to invade others. The military really had no choice but to follow the leader. They either fought or faced execution, prison, or some form of punishment.
> 
> Again, people conquer others. Religion itself has never conquered any nation or empire in history.


People often blame wars on religion but the vast majority of wars were nothing to do with religion. The attack on Ukraine being another example.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

anachronistic12345 said:


> Then why is it IMPOSSIBLE to consider for most of the population, male and female?


Because most people dont want a poly relationship?


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

happyhusband0005 said:


> Maybe some do. To each his own.


until they try coming into my life, then it's lights out for them because I will destroy them


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

wmn1 said:


> until they try coming into my life, then it's lights out for them because I will destroy them


Then definitely, don't call the number.


----------



## wmn1 (Aug 27, 2014)

happyhusband0005 said:


> Then definitely, don't call the number.


no I will put an ad in the paper giving it more publicity. It's called helping the cuckold out


----------



## frenchpaddy (May 31, 2021)

people change as they get older what is important is to be in the same place with your other half at the same time 
there are people that try it and enjoy it for a time then with age drift away from it as the trill or excitement or what ever it gave them goes away, 
I think the most important thing is to be in agreement with what you both want and to know what the other person wants out of it , 
I think even cheaters can change, just some people have different expectations from the people they let into their life, 
this is a long question and you have to know yourself and the other person to know what is right for you


----------



## Bulfrog1987 (Oct 8, 2021)

I know this is controversial, but that’s like saying a cheater will always continue to cheat. Not true.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Perhaps, but since you have no experience with it, your opinion comes from ignorance.


Never murdered either but I know what it is.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

As a baseline I would expect that person to tell me they were in an open relationship or some other kind of swinger, poly etc. Not doing so would likely cause me to end the relationship.

There is also the factor that they have so many ex'es I would want to know who they are and are they out of her life. 

Just having so many ex'es is by itself a risk factor as ex'es become sex'es. Possibly more so since these ex'es see her as easy with no need even for an introduction.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Bulfrog1987 said:


> I know this is controversial, but that’s like saying a cheater will always continue to cheat. Not true.


You are correct, but the question is, are they worth the risk. I feel like once the you stepped over that line once it is much easier the next time. That isn't always the case, but it should always be a concern.


----------



## Bulfrog1987 (Oct 8, 2021)

BigDaddyNY said:


> You are correct, but the question is, are they worth the risk. I feel like once the you stepped over that line once it is much easier the next time. That isn't always the case, but it should always be a concern.


I get the why behind it. I stepped out. Worst decision I ever made for a number of reasons. I was miserable and young and stupid. 

I wouldn’t do it again.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

Part of what is concerning is that FWB raises red flags that the person is a serial cheater. In no way am I saying that everyone who has a FWB is a serial cheater. 

The use of the word "friend" also brings up the possibility that the persons conception of that word has changed. It would feel like it sets a low barrier to having sex with someone else. The birth of a horrible euphemism.

The word friend can become a trigger.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

Bulfrog1987 said:


> I get the why behind it. I stepped out. Worst decision I ever made for a number of reasons. I was miserable and young and stupid.
> 
> I wouldn’t do it again.


I suspect you would also show few other signs of being a cheater, I would also guess you would be honest with future partners about this if they asked.


----------



## Bulfrog1987 (Oct 8, 2021)

TAMAT said:


> I suspect you would also show few other signs of being a cheater, I would also guess you would be honest with future partners about this if they asked.


That is correct. I’m no longer shammed by it though many think I should be.


----------

