"Open" relationships

Elitist Agreement.

While I see your point, I am inclined to point out that it seems none of us can identify an instance where it actually works.  :s  Hence my original point, that it seems to be more destructive than constructive and beneficial.  The way I see it, it's fine to eyeball other people. "Oh she has a hot ass!" "What I'd DO with the pecs on him~!"  stuff like that.... but when you get to the point of actually craving to be with those people as opposed to who you're with, something is just wrong.  :s 

It's not so much about morals as it is end results.  Does it create something positive, or does it destroy something positive? 

Actually, I have seen some open relationships that have worked. One couple I've met in Chicago has been married for some 30 years, and been in an open relationship for more than half of that. But, they're still very loving for each other, and most certainly not in a failing relationship. The key is that love is not lust, you don't need sex to be in love or to be in love to have sex. You could be physically unable to have sex, yet still hold a love stronger than imaginable.

It's entirely possible for people to truly love someone (or even multiple people, in the case of polygamists) while still having sexual encounters with others. In fact, in some cases it might even help a relationship between two people, helping them to better see or enjoy what they love about their lover. It all just depends on their mentality and their own sets of morals and definitions. To someone who isn't okay with it, having sex with someone other than your lover might be unhealthy, unstable, or just plain taboo, but perhaps to someone else, sex with someone who's only a friend be just the same as playing a simple game of Monopoly with them. I'm exaggerating a bit of course, but the point is that it's different for each of us, so whether it's right or wrong, whether it's "okay" or not, is pretty much up to only the people directly involved and no one else. We shouldn't force our thoughts onto them.

However, I believe there are instances where it's not okay regardless of the individuals stance on it. Mostly, if one or more of the people involved is being hurt by it or can't handle the complexities that come with everything. An open relationship can be a heavy strain for most people because of the fears and self-doubts caused by their lover enjoying the company of others like that, not to mention the immense level of trust required for it. It is hell to go through with that, feeling like you're not good enough for them or being afraid that they may leave you someday if one of their other sex partners is better than you in more than just sexual ways, not to mention also having to deal with what people think of you and other social issues.

Unless both people they are perfectly confident in themselves and their lover, it's going to have a heavy toll on someone and just not going to work out right. Most of us are only human and can't handle that. So, regardless of whether or not such a person agrees to have an open relationship, it's just not right to hold one and put them through that.



tl;dr - It's not a sign of a failed relationship, but it simply isn't for most people.

While I see your point, I am inclined to point out that it seems none of us can identify an instance where it actually works.  :s  Hence my original point, that it seems to be more destructive than constructive and beneficial.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Ahhhhhhh there we go, evidence. Thanks Zylos.

I think some people in a monogamous relationship find it somewhat disconcerting sometimes to know that there are people who are together who still get pleasure from someone not involved in the relationship?

I don't think Zylos posted proof anymore than we posted proof that it didn't work.  Although it was nice to see a story where it did work, because I was honestly curious about that one.

I suppose my posts weren't very Elitist Debate, more Jules Opinion.  I wasn't saying I was wholly against it and people shouldn't do it either.  I was saying that, in my experience, it doesn't work.  Also that for me personally, it never would, I am not programed to share. xD 


Edit: If I sound offended or bitchy, forgive me, I'm exhausted, little sleep, lotta work.

Makes plenty of sense to me, Jules.

Personally I feel we should never limit outselves in life by anything so trivial as being in a relationship or such. I can see why relationships exist, and I understand that love is a special thing, but I also feel that we should be (and are) able to love more than one person. But then, and I don't mean any offence by this, you wouldn't be able to see that because you aren't someone who would have an open relationship - such a relationship can only exist between two willing partners. Everybody is different and just as people should be able to love two people, they should also be able to insist on only one just the same.

Why are we still going on about this?

I must be Frank, I did not understand much of what you are say, but it seams to me atleast, that all of these people, having this 'discusion' are too much flowing with hormones to be even talking about such things. If you understand what i am saying, young friends.

[I gathered necro posting isn't as frowned upon in this section, but I'll apologise in advance just in case lol]

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

There really is no set way a relationship should be, there is no right way. To claim there is is very ignorant especially if it's a opinion based on your own feelings and you've done little to no research at all.

Also, why should it matter if these relationships fail or not? It's a freedom of choice that humans should definitely have. Not to mention I've seen no evidence that most of them fail, I have however seen evidence of the opposite.

I recommend watching Penn and Tellers Bullshit! the episode on family values. They look at both sides of the argument.

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

I'm a have to call bullshit. Ducks, you know those duck things - quack - they mate for life. And they have for thousands of years. Ergo it's natural - no human intervention.
So, in a way being with one partner for your life is natural, I'm not quite sure if that's the case in humans though. We must've had the idea from somewhere!

In the end you have to ask what the importance of a relationship is
If it's to make a kid, stay with that one person
If it's to relieve an urge, open relationships would make sense

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

I'm a have to call bullshit. Ducks, you know those duck things - quack - they mate for life. And they have for thousands of years. Ergo it's natural - no human intervention.
So, in a way being with one partner for your life is natural, I'm not quite sure if that's the case in humans though. We must've had the idea from somewhere!

Well, we're mammals and ducks aren't, we evolved along a different chain of evolution. And sure some animals do it, but way more animals don't. I may have exaggerated saying it was unnatural completely, but it is rare amongst animals. I was just making the point that having more than one partner wasn't unnatural and probably more natural than otherwise. There's a reason men (and women) cheat so much, and that's because we didn't evolve to stick with one person. The only reason most of us do is because we've fallen under the belief that it is the correct way things are done.

And if I had to take a guess, we got this idea from religion most likely. I don't know if that's true though lol

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

'Very recent'? Like, before recorded history? Ancient Egyptians had unions similar to marriage. There are theories that it goes back even further. That's pretty much like saying religion is very recent.

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

'Very recent'? Like, before recorded history? Ancient Egyptians had unions similar to marriage. There are theories that it goes back even further. That's pretty much like saying religion is very recent.

Yea, I mean recent in evolution. So yes, before recorded history.

And even if we take into account humans evolved to be able to rationalise and think, that still doesn't explain why open relationships are wrong. Oh, and IN recorded history open relationships were accepted in many cultures.

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

'Very recent'? Like, before recorded history? Ancient Egyptians had unions similar to marriage. There are theories that it goes back even further. That's pretty much like saying religion is very recent.

Yea, I mean recent in evolution. So yes, before recorded history.

And even if we take into account humans evolved to be able to rationalise and think, that still doesn't explain why open relationships are wrong. Oh, and IN recorded history open relationships were accepted in many cultures.

You could also argue that clothing is unnatural, or bathing, or any other thing that's been around since the babylonians, but it wouldn't be a good argument. You can't argue that something is right because it was done a long time ago.  Slavery was accepted up until a time that you could actually call recent, as well as a whole myriad of other bad things. I think a person should have a right to choose what kind of relationship they want to be in, but I think that one person should really be enough. It just seems selfish to me.

Marriage and sticking to the same partners is not natural and is a VERY recent thing in the evolution of humans.

'Very recent'? Like, before recorded history? Ancient Egyptians had unions similar to marriage. There are theories that it goes back even further. That's pretty much like saying religion is very recent.

Yea, I mean recent in evolution. So yes, before recorded history.

And even if we take into account humans evolved to be able to rationalise and think, that still doesn't explain why open relationships are wrong. Oh, and IN recorded history open relationships were accepted in many cultures.

You could also argue that clothing is unnatural, or bathing, or any other thing that's been around since the babylonians, but it wouldn't be a good argument. You can't argue that something is right because it was done a long time ago.  Slavery was accepted up until a time that you could actually call recent, as well as a whole myriad of other bad things. I think a person should have a right to choose what kind of relationship they want to be in, but I think that one person should really be enough. It just seems selfish to me.

Surely keeping someone to yourself is more selfish? lol

And I already said that I was wrong in saying it was unnatural. And I wasn't saying it was a good argument, I was pointing out that the argument that polygamy is unnatural is a bad one because the same can be said about monogamy as well.

Also different things require different types of evidence, for example slavery is not an act of free will while open relationships IS an act of free will. Saying that something that could prove an act of free will is fine would also prove an act against free will fine is ridiculous. Yes, both occurred during our history but with a little research you can clearly see which one had negative effects and which didn't. [I realised you didn't actually fully claim that while re-reading, sorry lol]

Anyway, my stance on it is that open relationships are completely fine if all involved are happy and consented to it. There's really nothing wrong with it otherthan peoples biased opinions towards it.

I should also note, I'd never take part in a open relationship and the reason actually is because I'm selfish and wouldn't want my partner with someone else. But I'm not going to judge something else as wrong or disgusting just because I wouldn't do it myself. There's better ways of looking at the world than just going by how you 'feel' about it.

I don't really care if it's 'natural' or not, but open relationships aren't widely socially acceptable. So, it's just up to the people in the relationship to determine what type of relationship they have and if they openly share that they're in an open relationship. I imagine being open and speaking out or talking copiously about their relationship runs the risk of having a lot of people looking down on them or shunned in some way or another.

As a random side-note, my point is partially directed towards:

You could also argue that clothing is unnatural, or bathing.

Clothing is basically unnatural. Not wearing any though obviously isn't widely accepted. It's useful to have, just saying. I'm also not a nudist - please, keep wearing clothes. Bathing is natural based on every animal ever does this in some form or another.

I don't agree with open relationships only because I'm a jealous fuck and I'd just end up getting jealous and mad thinking there's more to it than just the sex my partner has with the person, and would end up sabotaging my relationship. But that's just me.

plus I like to keep my partner to myself, because they're special to me. they're my partner for a reason.

if my girlfriend asked me to agree to an open relationship I'm not sure what I'd respond with.

If you truly loved someone, why would you need anyone else?

Because love is a cheap trick played by nature to ensure reproduction, it's not the perfect emotion people want to believe it is. But I guess that's a whole other debate that would be off topic here lol

I thought lust was a cheap trick played by nature to ensure reproduction lol
I think with evolution love was created to increase safety of the newborn, just like how marsupials are considered "obsolete" compared to the placental mammals because they provide more security since the baby is in their body.

Tbh, I wonder if love really exists and if it isn't just combination of lust, desire and just getting along well lol