Adult Content Warning

This community may contain adult content that is not suitable for minors. By closing this dialog box or continuing to navigate this site, you certify that you are 18 years of age and consent to view adult content.

Marriage Without Monogamy

Discussion in 'All-Star Threads' started by hooker, Oct 30, 2009.

  1. JackNickel

    JackNickel
    Expand Collapse
    Village Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    San Antonio and Beaumont
    Geez, oh, that's right! I tried to get you to contribute to the Boobie thread about 3 years ago, shegirl, but you wouldn't. tisk tisk. :)
     
  2. togasalad

    togasalad
    Expand Collapse
    Should still be lurking

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2
    I've been in both open marriages and open relationships, and one thing that I've discovered is if you are going to do this, you have to do it from the very beginning. My marriage went down the toilet the moment we opened it up, and other relationships have soared because neither one of us were restricted by the other. Relationships, like people, are complicated and as unique as the people in them. Currently, I've taken a step away from polyamory and I'm in my first monogamous relationship in 5 years. It's strange, a bit of an adjustment and some days just kicks my ass.
     
  3. hooker

    hooker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,154
    I just mean that in general, our society has not dealt with the idea of different relationships not only existing, but working.

    Everyone fears what they do not understand.
     
  4. Fungus

    Fungus
    Expand Collapse
    Lurker

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    I was in an open relationship for a little under a year, and it was one of my best relationships. This ended because we moved to different cities, and I started dating someone who didn't want me to see other people. I've found happiness in both exclusive and non-exclusive relationships, and am still figuring out if one feels more natural or comfortable to me.

    Absolutely disagree with:

    I absolutely loved the person I was with, and he was everything I sought in another human being. We knew we had something unique, and that it was very difficult to find other people who were honestly and fully comfortable with our lack of boundaries. He had been dating someone for over a year when we met, and continued to talk to her often and visit her while we dated. I thought this was made easier by the fact that she was on another continent, but he hooked up with other girls occasionally, and started dating someone else geographically close to us as well. I didn't want to be exclusive because I was in college and enjoyed the option of hooking up with other people, though I actually didn't do this for the majority of the relationship. He felt open relationships made sense for him because he traveled and moved around often for months at a time, and didn't see the point in being committed to someone thousands of miles away no matter how much he cared for the person. We talked about our relationship constantly because this was relatively new to both of us, and discussed it with a few friends who were in similar situations.

    Some views we shared on the subject:

    1. It is possible to love more than one person completely and separately.

    When he told me he loved me a few months into the relationship, I was skeptical and didn't quite understand how he could love 2 people at once. It wasn't until I met someone later in the relationship that I really liked and later loved that I understood this. While I become emotionally invested in #2, and I spent more time thinking about him when I was away from #1, I realize that #1 was special enough to me that I didn't value him any less because another awesome person came into my life.

    2. There is value is having emotionally and physically intimate relationships with more than one person. People are so unique and interesting, and bring different things to the table. Why limit yourself to knowing only one person really well on many levels? While you can have platonic friends of the opposite sex (or the same in some cases), it's only in dating someone can you really get to know them on levels they don't make available to most friends and acquaintances on a day to day basis. The rewards from these additional relationships were far more valuable and productive than any feelings of jealousy, possessiveness, or discomfort we felt.

    The good stuff:

    Above all, I felt this person was my best friend and understood me completely. We could tell each other when we developed an interest in someone at work or school, regardless of how fleeting this was--as was often the case--instead of thinking about it in the back of our minds, looking forward to seeing that harmless crush day to day and then feeling guilty about it. I realized that when he told me about other girls he hooked up with or met, I switched to my "X is my friend" mode in which I listened, gossiped and felt happy for him as I would with any of my girlfriends in a similar situation. Just because I'm sleeping with someone I love doesn't mean we're not human and don't become interested in or curious about other people from time to time.

    The difficult stuff:

    Jealousy is definitely present in these relationships, but I realize that these feelings are not productive, and reason myself out of them. When I felt the uncomfortable pangs in my chest as he told me about his other relationship, I asked myself "Am I willing to stop dating other people, or even willing to give up that option, just to have him be exclusive with me?" When the answer to this is no, I remember that this is something I chose and want.

    Learning to really trust that the other person would never intentionally do anything to hurt or deceive you, and discuss mixed feelings as they came up was a little challenge, but I always felt so comfortable and open with this person that it was rarely an issue. Communication is difficult with this sometimes, and so is the right amount of honesty. While I felt this was the most honest I was with someone, there is a degree of tact you mutually agree on with or without discussing. At the beginning of new side relationships, we would mention it to the other person, and if the other person wanted more information, it was up to the other to ask because it's not clear how much one person wants to hear about the other's adventures.

    I think what makes these relationships work is if everyone involved is on the same footing. Both people have to be seeing someone else so they can relate and be understanding and happy for the other--instead of possessive, hurt, and jealous that one person has a source of intimacy the other does not. This was the most difficult part. Each person has to be dating 2 people, and each of those people has be dating 2 people, and so on. This is not easy when many people don't want to get involved with someone who's seeing someone else in the first place.

    Someone said that to test out whether an open relationship is for you, try a threesome first. I disagree, and think these are 2 very different things. While I can handle my partner(s) being intimate with other people, this doesn't mean I want it in my face or to see it. That's just me though. My partner and his other girlfriend discussed their relationships down to the sexual details, and she got off on watching videos of him hooking up with other girls. Not for me, but I know a few people who are in that boat.

    Of the handful of people I know in open relationships, all are mentally healthy, smart people. No histories of sexual abuse as far as I know. We're just curious and try to be open-minded I guess--just in case we can find happiness in ways most people don't. (Since I stopped dating my ex, I've actually become friends with one of the girls he dated while he we were together.)

    While I believe that some people really are happier in monogamous relationships, I feel that people just don't give alternative relationships enough consideration at all. I've been friends with both people in a couple, and listened to both sides' conflicting feelings of love for the other person, but also feeling too young to commit, and possibly regret for missing out on dating other people just for the sake of it. In these situations, if both sides had just been completely honest with each other and discussed these feelings and actions they could have taken to address them, they could have understood each other better, and challenged themselves to new experiences they can share. Seems like people aren't honest enough with themselves and the feelings that make them feel guilty. I suspect that because many people have these reservations, and because a large number of people admit to cheating at some point in their lives and relationships, monogamy may not be the best situation for everyone. So few try dating other people openly, however, and instead resort to cheating behind their partner's back to get it out of their systems.

    I've heard people throw out "Most/all open relationships are disasters" with no statistics to back this up, when really, how many monogamous relationships fail miserably?
     
  5. nooneuknow

    nooneuknow
    Expand Collapse
    Village Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    27
    This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. I'll preface this by saying that I generally consider myself a unique person with a relatively unique mindset. While this may mean that I have "abnormal psychology," I'll also say that I've never been sexually abused and don't have any issues that affect the way I view relationships. I was seen as somewhat of a goody-two-shoes growing up (straight A's, didn't get into trouble, etc) and, as a result, might not be who people typically think of as a "slut". However, I've always considered myself a sexual person. This does not mean, as someone had posted, that I'm into crazy, kinky, sex with lots of random people. All it means is that I'm very comfortable in my own skin and enjoy engaging in sexual activities with someone I care about, quite often. I'm also very open to new experiences. Again, this does not mean I need crazy kinky sex (I'm probably quite tame for this board). It only means that I'm at an age where I'm exploring my sexuality.

    I've been in three long-term, monogamous relationships (2.5 years, 2 years, 1 year). They happen to have been at a relatively young age. Since then, I have decided that I'm too young to continue this pattern. I'm the type of person who actually enjoys something more the more I do it. This also goes for relationships. Generally, I will grow closer and closer with my significant other and am not the type to "get bored" and need something new. Therefore, it's actually been a struggle to try and maintain a more open relationship. Not because I don't want to imagine the guy I'm seeing with other women, but because it takes effort for me to explore other possible relationships.

    Back on topic, this is how I would view an open relationship working successfully:
    All parties involved have to be completely open with each other about what they want out of the relationship and what they're willing to offer. (Cheating is cheating because it is kept a secret and done behind your partner's back.) I strongly believe that we are capable, and often do, care about more than one person at the same time. I know personally that I can love multiple people concurrently. In my case, an open relationship would not entail random sex with strangers. But that's just because sex does mean something to me, and I would not be able to offer myself to someone that I didn't care at least a little bit about. However, flirting with someone outside a relationship and even partaking in other intimate acts is something I would like the option of doing from time to time. For me, jealousy usually comes from feeling like my partner is doing something behind my back. This would not be an issue in a completely open and honest relationship. Any jealousy I feel in this type of relationship is something I consider as my problem and would try to work out without guilting my significant other. That said, when I am with my main partner, I expect at least 70% of the attention to be on me. I still need to feel loved and appreciated and as a result don't relish being ignored in public for other women.

    Especially in a marriage, but also in a relationship, it's very important to be clear with everyone involved who your main partner is. That relationship is the main one, and other people involved have to understand that you're not planning on leaving that relationship.

    For me, it really comes down to the fact that I do flirt and think about other people even when I am in a relationship. I find this completely normal and acceptable and don't want to be with someone that would guilt me for it. And I completely understand that my partner may have the same desires. Acting on these desires should be encouraged as, in my opinion, it will make the relationship stronger. And you know what, when I'm allowed to engage in intimate behaviour with others, the thought usually charges me right up for my main partner.
     
  6. Merle

    Merle
    Expand Collapse
    Village Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    30
    I have read through all of the posts here but have not seen something brought up so I would like to even though it may be a sensitive subject. That subject is child rearing.

    First off to begin I have no children and do not plan to until my mid to late twenties. I do have close friends in monogamous relationships that have had children (marriage or otherwise) and have seen the effects of such. However, I have never personally seen an open marriage or relationship with children.

    I have seen a documentary where a certain isolated society did not have marriage and women had open relationships with men and the children came out fine. However this was an isolated incident and their culture was vastly different from either American, Canadian, or most European cultures. However child rearing was not the focus of the documentary, I will try and find it if I can.

    I am not going to give my opinion on the matter since it would be the stupid, ignorant, uneducated opinion of a 23 year old. In no way to I mean to imply that the point of marriage or a relationship is to have children. However, if there are people who are knowledgeable about couples in open marriages or relationships I am genuinely curious about what the effects (if any) there are on the children in that form of a relationship.

    In no way do you have to provide any form of personal information but I am asking that if you have not personally witnessed a close friend, been in the situation, or are not an educated person on the subject please refrain from responding to this question.

    So to sum up my question is, What are the effects, if any, on children and the relationship between partners in raising children during an open marriage or relationship?

    (If you do have children I believe you are more than qualified to to answer some parts of the question)

    Edit: Small spelling error
     
  7. Dr. Rob

    Dr. Rob
    Expand Collapse
    Experienced Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    124
    If anyone is interested, there are two women giving some commentary on their open marriages over at ShrinkTalk. They are both very open and honest and seem receptive to questions. Join the discussion in the Comments thread over there if interested:

    http://shrinktalk.net/?p=475
     
  8. Nate17

    Nate17
    Expand Collapse
    Village Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37
    I was married for 11 years, and during that time we tried twice to "spice things up". Once was with another couple. It failed, but it was because the other couple was just so different from us, there was nothing in common. The other was a Threesome with another man, whom she introduced. The marriage fell apart soon after (already was, who am I kidding) But anyway, after living thru that, I realized that the only thing gained was the momentary excitement. I honestly cannot fathom the idea that sharing your spouse or better half is healthy. I guess were products from our culture, ect. I'm not judging anyone, far from it.. But my question is are we as humans (whom religion and society want us to marry and behave) or on a baser instinct spread our seed? Sure, I want to plug the girl ringing up my groceries. I believe my mind says do this, not that. My baser self wants to to procreate. Does it come down to that one thing?
     
  9. scootah

    scootah
    Expand Collapse
    New mod

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,728
    Whoops

    I wrote something in response to Dr Rob's post about this today - but I'll answer a couple of questions just in case anybody cares

    I don't have kids. I don't particularly like kids. That said, my wife raised a neice from infancy to about 10 years old, while in an open relationship. That kid is now 20 and I know her pretty well and some of my friends who are in open relationships have kids.

    The answer is I don't think it has less impact on a kid then say being raised by two mommies or two daddies. Ideally - your kids just don't know that fucking much about your sex life and if they do know too much - then you give them the very watered down version so it seems mundane and boring. It only starts to impact kids when you involve them in it - which is fucked up.

    I've done workshops at fetish events to teach people how to shelter their kids from the digital side of their kinks. I've help people lock their kids out of shit. I've helped build the 'store rooms' where mommy goes with guests when the kids are at sleep overs. Most parents keep their kids from being too exposed to the whole deal because kids shouldn't know that much about their parents sex lives. That said, I have friends who's teenage children know WAY too much. I have friends who's pre-teen kids know way, way, way too much. That's nothing to do with the fact that mommy and daddy occasionally fuck Aunt Susan - that's a parenting decision where they've dramatically over educated their children at a very young age (in my incredibly biased, having never raised a child view). But they've consciously made the decision to let their children have that information.

    There's certainly an impact from teaching your kids too much about the birds and the bees and the inserting peeled ginger into someone's urethra. But that's not an open marriage thing.

    There are some things you can't hide from your kids though - like if one of your partners wears a collar all the time, and obviously isn't goth or anything - the kids will catch on. If you have a live in third party who is intimate with you in front of the kids - that has to be explained. And how you handle that has to be tailored to the kids in question and how you want to raise them. My friends who I think do that well explain it in a very telly tubbies sort of way with lots of focus on 'different but ok' and 'consenting adults who've all knowingly chosen to love each other' and no details of how the mechanics of the sex works.

    Heh. You'd be surprised. Full time tops in the gay community are really rare, that doesn't change with the Bears.

    It's already been said, but this is nonsense. Fundamentally - there are millions of tribes in Africa and through the pacific islands (and Utah) where non binary relationships are working very well. Monogamy is a cultural expectation and the only thing required to not have monogamy in a healthy relationship is a personality that can function outside of cultural presets.

    That might arguably be considered an unusual psychology - but I have personally met and know well enough to say 'their relationship works pretty well and isn't a negative part of the lives of anyone involved' despite being non binary - a few hundred people at least. That's not bumped into at a party or met at a conference - that's people I've spent time with and got to know them pretty well

    Most of those people aren't standard thinkers, it's true. But Twisted? There's a lot of bias in that phrase that I don't think is warranted.

    This is why the rest of the world makes fun of Americans. I mean really. I know puritans founded your country, but lets try and keep up with some shit - like the fact that you aren't a majority of the worlds population. Through a lot of Asia - polyamorous relationships aren't a big deal, they're not idealized but they're also not something most people give a shit about. Basically all of Africa's indigenous populations that haven't been converted by catholic missionaries (who coincidentally, have all the food) have non binary relationships. One of the more interesting theories on why Suicide bombers became prevalent was the lack of available women in societies that prized sons above daughters where food was limited, and engaged in polygamos relationship models with one man to many women. If you talk about the Christian Western World - maybe your 90% hold water. Maybe. But in the real world - that's not a majority share of the worlds population. Hell, even the very religious scandanavians almost universally don't give a shit about people cheating in their marriages as long as the core family unit still comes first.

    I disagree with the entire point of your post - but this is true. You can't make an open or a poly relationship work if you can't get past the idea that Sex means EVERYTHING the way the catholics have always told us it does.

    Really, I'm flattered - but I can't stress just how many people I know who make non binary relationships work just fine. I can't stress just how wide spread non binary relationships are in places where Catholics aren't the dominant cultural influence. I'm fucking weird - it's true. But the things that make my relationship work aren't as uncommon as you seem to think.

    I'm not sure if you had shitty teachers, or what the deal is. But that's just not a true reflection of gender dynamics in a lot of polyandrous relationships - even where wives were bought with cattle, that's just not an accurate reflection. Sharia law can give that impression where it's implemented by fundamentalists - but in terms of the bulk population of Islam, that's not a realistic reflection of the culture or the power dynamics.

    If you love your cat like you love your women, you'll run up a fortune in vet bills. I'm just saying - they're smaller animals and lube only goes so far.

    In terms of people seeing themselves as equals - This diverges from Poly and moves to BDSM - but I know a lot of people who will actively fight to prevent the ones they love from seeing them as equals and would be very offended if you suggested that it in any way diminished the truth of their love. Hetero-normative Judeo-Christian, post second wave feminist egalitarian relationships might be very politically correct. They might even be what the majority of the first world is looking for - but it's not the only way for two or more people to get down. And it certainly doesn't have a corner on the True Love market.
     
  10. The Village Idiot

    The Village Idiot
    Expand Collapse
    Porn Worthy, Bitches

    Reputation:
    274
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Where angels never dare
    I find this discussion very interesting, but in some ways, I can't help think that people are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

    Whatever makes your relationship work for you, well, good for you. I certainly would never judge what consenting folks do, but I find the effort to legitimize 'open marriage' to be a misguided one.

    Marriage, by the traditional sense, involves you saying to the world 'I am with this person, and this person' only. We also have a definition ready-made for folks who don't want to commit sexually to one partner: it's called 'Dating.' I'm oft reminded of folks who say 'Yes, I'm Catholic, but I believe in abortion, birth control and the death penalty.' Uh, well, then you're not really buying into the whole thing, so why do it? Why is it that some people demand that institutions change to suit their specific needs? Life is a series of trade offs, you do X, you potentially foreclose Y.

    And yes, the definition of marriage is currently being debated - the gay marriage movement (which I support, because hey, they should have as much right as I do to lose half my shit and be miserable).

    Again, not judging anyone who is in an 'open marriage' - because if that's what works for you, good. It just seems to me that if that's the type of relationship you want, then maybe marriage (the forsaking of all others, or something like that) isn't for you.
     
  11. Crazy Wolf

    Crazy Wolf
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    11
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    548
    No.

    Marriage, by the European traditional sense, involves you saying to the world, "I am with this person, and this person only(until there's a disagreement and we get a divorce)".


    Marriage, by the human traditional sense, involves you saying "I enjoy being with this person and want them in my family, baby-making would also be nice."
     
  12. falconjets

    falconjets
    Expand Collapse
    Average Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    70
    When you voted for president did you agree with everything that your candidate stood for? No, and although you will say "but I found the one that I most agreed with and compromised," I'd say "what if you didn't have to?" Not trying to get off focus, but if you had the chance to change the aspects of their policy that you don't agree with, I'm sure you would. Because society puts pressure on people to define their relationships, be it with some higher power, mary sue down the block or with jim, ashley and amy, people are now looking to stretch established definitions of relationships to fir the ones that they are in.
     
  13. The Village Idiot

    The Village Idiot
    Expand Collapse
    Porn Worthy, Bitches

    Reputation:
    274
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Where angels never dare
    Right, but my point is there is already a 'definition' of the relationship they are in: dating. They don't have to get married if they don't want to, just as I don't have to suggest who the president should be. And part of the idea of 'compromise' is what you are compromising is less valuable to you than what you are gaining. In this case, it doesn't sound like that all, but rather, what is being compromised (having sex with numerous partners) is more important than what is being gained (a life partner in the eyes of the law).

    Again, I am judging no one, my objection - and I use that word VERY loosely - is the idea that marriage needs to be redefined in this instance. It doesn't. If people find having just the one partner to be against what they want, the solution is simple: don't get married.

    Ultimately, whatever folks want to do to make their lives more fulfilling (so long as no one else is hurt) is just fine by me. I just disagree that the definition needs to be changed in this instance.
     
  14. falconjets

    falconjets
    Expand Collapse
    Average Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    70
    That point is fair enough, but there is also a definition for what happens when two males or two females are together, so by your logic that is justification for not allowing gay marriage. I know that is extrapolating your logic to a situation that I don't think you were considering when you made your statement, but that is how the US legal system works. Obviously there are many more complications that would come along if poly amorous relationships became a category of marriage, such as what to do in the case of a divorce, but I think that if people are up for it and want to deal with it then they should be allowed to have their relationship recognized by the law.
     
  15. scootah

    scootah
    Expand Collapse
    New mod

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,728
    I'm married and in a relationship that includes more then two people. I only have one partner - my wife means vastly more to me then anyone else in my life. I love with a little l all the people that we're involved with. I Love her with a big L and some implied exclamations at the end.

    We use 'partner' as a word for the person that you're fucking all the time - and that works fine when you're introducing a fuck buddy at the office christmas party and you don't want that person to feel slighted. But we also use the word partner for our spouse and then get confused when the two ideas inter mingle.

    But when I talk about my wife as my partner, I mean 'together, we're greater then the sum of our parts, she's the largest part of my life, part of my core, I'd be less then I am if she wasn't here, every day that I don't see her is a day wasted' sort of partner. She's not just the other half of my kinky sexual practices. She's not a friend who I live with. She's this incredibly connected part of my life. And I don't think I could have two of those - it'd be too hard to keep my sense of self stable if I shared this much with more then one person.

    But the other people in our lives are sex partners or play partners - they're partners in the sense that the sex positions that we're doing wouldn't work without their involvement, they're great friends and people we love - but it's much more casual then a Marriage.

    But fundamentally, it's about distinguishing emotion from physicality. Fundamentally - a large part of my motivations and my biology are pure instinct. Evolutionary sexuality where species proliferation relates to how many different people I can fuck. The species proliferation also to a large degree has depended on our ability to dispose of our poop in a sanitary fashion and piss somewhere where bears won't eat us while we're holding our dicks. We enjoy eating red meat and being in the sunshine because we need iron and vitamin D to continue the species. The fact that I've overcome those biological impulses enough to wear sunscreen, eat the occasional salad and not do a spot check for bears before I take a piss doesn't change the fact that we've got a bunch of hard wired pleasure/discomfort responses that are based around species survival.

    We can fuck without any intention of procreation. We can take contraceptive drugs, wear condoms or get surgical procedures to prevent us from being able to breed and still the pleasure response from fucking is there. We've evolved our culture to fit that social need. We came up with Monogamy to fit a bunch of social needs. The argument about what social need it fits varies from 'Because god willed it' to 'because all men are pigs who should be removed from the gene pool' - there are some arguments about family modeling and disease spread that hold varying amounts of water. But either way - there are a bunch of modern social conditions where monogamy doesn't fill any social need other then maintaining the status quo and continuing our social programming (unless you believe that god really did will it, in which case there's not much point in having a discussion about the topic).

    Continuing a status quo with a pre defined set of ideas just because that's the way it's always been done and that's the name for it that we already have isn't really my thing. I think words change their meaning over time (hands up, who hears faggot and things of a bundle of sticks intended for burning? Who here's nigger and things a person regardless of ethnicity who is ignorant and incapable of changing that status). I think Marriage is a word that's become almost as emotionally laden as faggot and nigger - and I wish it hadn't. Fundamentally - I think as a society we'd all be much better off if we moved Marriage back to a religious ceremony - like a Barmitzvah - Nobody gives a shit when a Jewish thirteen year old becomes a man - he can't buy beer or smokes - but he's got all the rights and obligations of the ceremony.

    I think a Marriage should be the same deal. Fine you're married. Nobody gives a shit until you pass the tests to be considered common law spouses. File an application of intention to become common law spouses for immigration purposes - give out civil unions (or whatever the fuck you want to call it) to any group of two or more financial entities who meet the tests as defined by law. Marriage is just something you do if you want a ceremony/excuse for a party for your friends/family/superstitious union of occultists with shared delusions to celebrate your relationship.
     
  16. The Village Idiot

    The Village Idiot
    Expand Collapse
    Porn Worthy, Bitches

    Reputation:
    274
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,273
    Location:
    Where angels never dare
    Whoa, hold the horses. Assuming you believe that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, there is a big difference here. People that are seeking 'open' marriages, from what I've seen, tend to be straight. They are not barred from getting married. They are seeking to mold what is already in existence into a different form than that which is typical. Choice.

    Homosexuals are barred from getting married in many places. Now if you consider homosexuality a choice, then I guess you could take what I've said and apply it there, however, to be clear, that is not how I view it.

    But that's my point, 'open' marriages, to some degree, are recognized by law. Take scootah's situation (and very well thought out posts, by the way). The law recognizes his marriage to his wife. By choice, they seek something different than that which is typically thought of as marriage in this country. Homosexuals (in my view) aren't making a choice, the choice is made for them. That is why I support gay marriage (and I believe I posted my view on this earlier).
     
  17. falconjets

    falconjets
    Expand Collapse
    Average Idiot

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    70

    The first part I'm not going to answer here because it will get too far off topic.

    As to Scootah's situation, I believe that is sufficiently covered by the law. But, as he says he Loves!!!!!!!!!! his wife, and they love the people who come into their life. I'm not sure it is possible, but for the occasional group who may be able to love multiple partners equally, they do not have a way to recognize their relationship under the law.

    I do not necessarily agree that it would be necessary to do so, mostly because I do not believe that a situation like that is possible, but that's mostly because I know I couldn't do it. I was just saying that if someone came along in this perfect storm of a situation then they'd be shit out of luck.

    Also, in Scootah's situation someone is not straight (I'm not sure about the dynamics of the relationship and whether all "guests" are female or male or they change it up) and therefore they could be looking for a way to explore their bisexuality in a legally recognized relationship.
     
  18. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    329
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,079
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    Isn't this becoming an illogical argument? I liken it to arguing over the colour red - there's no way we can know if the way my brain interprets the colour red in exactly the same as the way your brain interprets it, because we'll never be able to see the situation through the same perspective, try as we might.

    Yes, you said yourself that you don't think this relationship is possible for you...this in no way excludes it from being perfectly reasonable and appealing to someone else. I agree with some of the previous posts that say we should just expand on the definition of 'marriage.' Because marriage carries with it benefits under the law, if two people, or three people, or however many consenting adults feel that they want to be in a committed relationship conveniently labeled "marriage" then let them. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms with the other participant's permission isn't for anyone else outside of their chosen circle to judge or restrict.
     
  19. scootah

    scootah
    Expand Collapse
    New mod

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,728
    of the 7 or 8 people that we play with most often, including myself - none of us are strictly heterosexual.

    That said, if you think homosexuality is any more or any less hard wired into us then say bisexuality, or the inclination towards polyamourous or open relationships - you're not paying attention.

    The things that turn us on are a product of the evolutionary history of the human species, and our cultural influences as we grow up. Family, Peers, Education, Religion, Government, Entertainment and Personifications of those key indicators (cops/educators/celebrities/politicians/preachers/the cool kids) define our cultural expectations conceptions and those cultural influences blend with our genetics to get a human sexuality. If other guys get your dick hard - it's not something that you can healthily change. If watching your wife get boned by other guys gets your dick hard - it's not something you can healthily change. If Asian women with big feet turn you on... you get the fucking drift.

    Being conscious of what turns you on and ethical about the way you behave while turned on is what makes us decent and civilized people. We have a shared cultural acceptance that ideally, we should accept the relationships of consenting adults without prejudice or bias - I don't think many, if any people reading this post will be backwards enough to think that queers don't deserve relationship recognition because they aren't heterosexual - why is it such a leap from that point to say 'if you're a consenting adult and your relationship is with another or multiple other consenting adults - it's nobodies goddamn business how that relationship works - it should recieve the same consideration as any other relationship. It shouldn't need a discussion it's just a logical extension of common sense.

    The only part of this broader topic that actually deserves a conversation is to talk about the protection of children in these relationships - and it seems to me that I can't be that much harder to come up with child protection laws for a family with 3 mommies and a gimp then it was to come up with laws for a family with two step parents, two biological parents, a potentially exponential number of grandparents, guardians and siblings/step siblings.
     
  20. Natty

    Natty
    Expand Collapse
    Disturbed

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    343
    History of experimentation? Check. History of facilitating the human species? Not so much. We could probably argue back and forth about how inate pleasures and experiences preserve or decimate the human race, regardless of social norms. But to make the statement in bold is inaccurate in my opinion. Trust me, I get the point. But to say that relationships akin to the Pax Romana are healthy for the human species has been debunked by history.

    And this is coming from a guy that insinuates a threesome to his wife at least once a month, and wish he knew where he could get some fire rolls.

    Anywho, put me down in the marriage WITH monogomy department until an update arrives in the rant and rave thread. If this board's still around in the next 5 decades.