Open relationships - yay or nay?

[gmbteach]

We were watching a tv show this evening and there was a woman who was trying to convince her lover to carry on an affair and that it was okay to keep going despite her being married, as she is in an open relationship.

It lead to a bit of a discussion between us a couple of points.

1. What exactly constitutes an open relationship between two people?

2. What conditions are needed for an open relationship to occur?

3. In your opinion, and I would like to stress that is only your opinion, is an open relationship right or wrong?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, good morning, Gaynor!

1. What exactly constitutes an open relationship between two people?

Whatever they agree it is.

2. What conditions are needed for an open relationship to occur?

I would think only agreement between the two would be needed. I would add trust, but doesn't every relationship of any kind require trust? I'm not convinced that open relationships require more trust than monogamous ones. In fact, when you're tied to one person for life, how much more might your eye wander?

3. In your opinion, and I would like to stress that is only your opinion, is an open relationship right or wrong?

How could I possibly judge that for someone else? Whatever else you might say about open relationships, they are more realistic in terms of human behavior than monogamy. Some might claim that jealousy would ruin any chance at a healthy marriage, but I would argue that 1) monogamous relationships suffer from jealousy, too, maybe even more so as they usually start out with deep (and often unexamined) expectations; and 2) it all depends on the maturity and honesty of the two people involved.

I don't know that I would want this kind of relationship for myself, but given the extent that traditional ideas about marriage and romantic relationships do not reflect reality (marriage in general is a fucking mess really, anywhere you go), it's possible that open marriages offer something more in line with actual human behavior, and therefore something more mature and intelligent than basically owning someone else's private parts for life simply because that's what's been drummed into our heads for thousands of years.

 

[bigfield]

1. An open relationship is where two people in a sexual relationship mutually consent to have have other sexual partners as well.

2. Both people have to like the fact that their partner is having sex with other people. Jealously is totally unacceptable.

3. An open relationship is only wrong for those who can't handle it. Some people just aren't cut out for it, usually because of primal-level jealousy.

A rule of thumb: If you wouldn't take pleasure in having your partner giving you a graphic blow-by-blow account of their most recent hook-up, then you shouldn't be in an open relationship.

 

[bilby]

IMO, it is not just between the two people involved; all three are involved. If A and B have an open relationship, and A wants to have a relationship with C, it is not enough for A to tell C that the relationship with B is 'open'; C needs confirmation from B of this fact, before C can be sure that all is good.

Lots of cases exist where A tells C that A is in an open relationship with B, but fails to tell B about it - with bad results all round.

 

[Jokodo]

We were watching a tv show this evening and there was a woman who was trying to convince her lover to carry on an affair and that it was okay to keep going despite her being married, as she is in an open relationship.

It lead to a bit of a discussion between us a couple of points.

1. What exactly constitutes an open relationship between two people?

2. What conditions are needed for an open relationship to occur?

3. In your opinion, and I would like to stress that is only your opinion, is an open relationship right or wrong?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions.

1. I second hylidae.

2. Trust is important. If A is insecure that B really wants to be with them, they'll be much more prone to perceive any attraction towards C B shows and acts upon as a threat to their own relationship with B. It helps if both partners positively value having an open relationship, and it's not just something they put up with: An ultimatum of the type "you can be with me if you drop her/him" is much less attractive if you consider the prospect of a monogamous relationship a downside in its own right, even when, in a temporary rush of feelings, you might otherwise be inclined to give up anything for your new partner.

3. How can it be wrong? If you'd asked whether it's wrong to pressure someone with a deep aversion against the very idea into an open relationship, that would be a different discussion, but assuming all partners have entered the situation by their own free will?

 

[Angry Floof]

Very good point, Bilby.

I would compare that to the affairs that go on in traditional marriages, except in an open marriage, no one's lying about it or living a double life, and no one has invested their hopes and dreams in something that is unsustainable for a great many people.

So the worst that happens to a traditional marriage when a third party becomes involved is very likely pain for all involved, often divorce, etc., and sometimes even more violent or tragic outcomes. This is about the same, I would think, in an open marriage, except those involved in the open marriage have a fighting chance of handling it with maturity because presumably everything was out and up front from the start, no secrets.

Of course, there are a lot of successful, happy, faithful monogamous marriages, no doubt. But not enough to call that any kind of standard, in spite of our starry-eyed mainstream expectations of such.

In addition to maturity and honesty, I imagine an open marriage would also require deep self-awareness on the part of everyone involved, as well as confidence. We modern humans are nothing if not insecure creatures, wanting love and connection and acceptance and blah, blah, blah.

Sometimes wise and aware people enter into traditional marriages, acknowledging the realities and willing to accept difficult times ahead, but all too often it's the same old doe-eyed fairy tale. In an open marriage, there's just a much more stark reality in your face from the moment the topic arises, so while there's always room for unrealistic or egotistical expectations in any relationship, the open marriage dispenses with a ton of possible delusion from the start.

Holy shit, it sounds like I'm promoting open marriage now. lol I'm just saying it's more logical for those who are realistic about their own needs and desires and find monogamy not to be what they want.

 

[Jokodo]

A rule of thumb: If you wouldn't take pleasure in having your partner giving you a graphic blow-by-blow account of their most recent hook-up, then you shouldn't be in an open relationship.

That's too strict. You don't have enjoy hearing graphic details. If knowing that your partner has pleasurable experiences feels more good than bad, even if you don't want to know about the details, that's more than enough.

Most of us don't expect our partners to enjoy a detailled account of the conversations during a night out with old pals. Unless they think we shouldn't have those nights out, that doesn't make them a problem.

 

[Jokodo]

IMO, it is not just between the two people involved; all three are involved. If A and B have an open relationship, and A wants to have a relationship with C, it is not enough for A to tell C that the relationship with B is 'open'; C needs confirmation from B of this fact, before C can be sure that all is good.

That's why it's a good idea to hook up with your wife's best friends - they don't have to check with a person they barely know, nor do they have to trust you on it. They already knew it from her before you ever cast an eye upon them.

Lots of cases exist where A tells C that A is in an open relationship with B, but fails to tell B about it - with bad results all round.

I don't know how frequent that really is, but that's really a case against lying, not against open relationships.

 

[Angry Floof]

Side note: Worldwide, it seems that arranged marriages are the most successful, at least in terms of divorce rates.

 

[Keith&Co.]

1. What exactly constitutes an open relationship between two people?

Well, there's so much variety in what constitutes a closed relationship, that's got to be up to the individuals.
One of my shipmate's wife got upset if he looked at Page 3 girls. She considered him reading or watching porn to be cheating on her.
My wife's limit is touching. I can go to titty flop bars all night, but anytime I touch a naked or half-naked woman, the part(s) I touched with has to be burned off before I go home.

Each relationship is a compromise, so the couple has to decide what they want, what they're willing to put up with.

2. What conditions are needed for an open relationship to occur?

Honesty. At least between everone having sex. Probably to include any kids.
Our son heard that a classmate's parents were getting a divorce. Part of the story was that Dad was meeting a woman out of town. So we drove out of town one time and just happened to run into a coworker. Youngest freaked, sure that this was a sign of divorce. So the kids need to at least know if they see a parent stumbling out of a bar or a hotel, it's not going to lead to a divorce.

3. In your opinion, and I would like to stress that is only your opinion, is an open relationship right or wrong?

I'm not going to automatically judge anyone. I do know of a couple where the husband told his wife their marriage was over and the way to save it was for her to bring women home for him to sleep with. But that wasn't 'open' as much as 'mudder pucking manipulative assholery.' I'll judge him pretty easily...and lazy to boot...

Openness wouldn't work for either me or Mrs. &Co. I mean, beyond that she allows my playboy subscription and sent in the change-of-address forms while I was at sea at least once. For the town I grew up in, that's practically participating in a threesome.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A rule of thumb: If you wouldn't take pleasure in having your partner giving you a graphic blow-by-blow account of their most recent hook-up, then you shouldn't be in an open relationship.

I dunno about that... Do you read Laurell K. Hamilton? I don't really like reading through the blow-by-blow descriptions of her main characters having sex. And I have no stake in those relationships. I skip ahead to when shots ring out or the vampire politics start in...
Other people's sex can be boring. Kinda like other people's dreams.

 

[Togo]

I think a lot depends on the individuals. The problem is that different people need different things at different times, and you need a lot of communication to make relationships work. Open relationships come in various forms.

Non-established relationship
Two people who see each other on a regular basis, but don't want to be exclusive with each other
This is often a trial phase, after people have met and like each other, before they have severed any rival options. Can also be a long-term option for those who feel they don't want to settle down, or at least not settle down yet. As a long-term solution it's a little less comfortable, since you're openly shopping around for someone to replace or supplement the person you're with. It can also often be that one person in relationship wants to be exclusive, but the other isn't willing to do so.
Problems: Possibly the hardest relationship to keep stable, as it's prone to drifting either to no relationship, or into an established relationship, exclusive or otherwise. In the long run it's almost impossible to lay down and maintain rules around a relationship without having one. It doesn't keep your options entirely open, since friends of your partner, or those who only want exclusive relationships for themselves, may still be unwilling to date you.

Established relationship, open to causal others.
In this two people are in an exclusive relationship, but sleep around with other people. As long as they don't form a relationship with anyone else, no problem.
This can work quite well, provided it genuinely suits both parties. Can include sharing a partner, or bring people home who you think your partner will like.
Problems: Sleeping with people without developing longer-term feelings for them is actually quite hard. Get used to continually explaining your domestic relationship to everyone you meet, or you won't get many people willing to sleep with you anyway.

Established relationship, open to long-term others
Two people in a relationship that may acquire more people that last for several years.
This can work well, but the relationship with the others is not equal. That's a serious limitation for most people. Some people, however, don't want equal place in a relationship, because they don't want to take responsibility for maintaining it. For them it can work quite well.
Problems: Inequality in the relationship can lead to stress. Adding a series of breakups to your otherwise stable relationship may not be a plus, particularly since you'll be going through your partners as well as your own.

Polyamourous relationships
Established relationships between three or more people.
This can work well, and be remarkably stable in the core, if not around the edges, particularly if everyone brings something different to the relationship. The more links between people the better, so strict heterosexuals may find themselves at a disadvantage here.
Problems: maintaining a quality relationship with another person can be a lot of work. Maintaining it with two people is more than twice as much work, because you also have to allow for their feelings for each other. As such poly relationships can involve a lot of social drama, planning, spreadsheets, and really quite large calendars. Some rely on one or two hyper-organised people who plan everything, often backed up by one or two empathic people who can reliably hug it all better. Others rely on all living in the same building and not wanting to go out much.

Are open relationships wrong? Not in themselves, no. I would say that they are likely to do more harm than good for most people, and that they are avoided for reasons which are quite practical and sensible. But if the circumstances and people are right, it can work quite well, and there's nothing wrong with it. Like all dating, however, you need to be careful or people end up getting hurt.

 

[bigfield]

A rule of thumb: If you wouldn't take pleasure in having your partner giving you a graphic blow-by-blow account of their most recent hook-up, then you shouldn't be in an open relationship.

I dunno about that... Do you read Laurell K. Hamilton? I don't really like reading through the blow-by-blow descriptions of her main characters having sex. And I have no stake in those relationships. I skip ahead to when shots ring out or the vampire politics start in...
Other people's sex can be boring. Kinda like other people's dreams.

Well that's settled.

I would not want an open relationship with Laurell K. Hamilton.

Thanks for the heads up, Keith.

 

[Jokodo]

I think a lot depends on the individuals. The problem is that different people need different things at different times, and you need a lot of communication to make relationships work. Open relationships come in various forms.

Non-established relationship
Two people who see each other on a regular basis, but don't want to be exclusive with each other
This is often a trial phase, after people have met and like each other, before they have severed any rival options. Can also be a long-term option for those who feel they don't want to settle down, or at least not settle down yet. As a long-term solution it's a little less comfortable, since you're openly shopping around for someone to replace or supplement the person you're with. It can also often be that one person in relationship wants to be exclusive, but the other isn't willing to do so.
Problems: Possibly the hardest relationship to keep stable, as it's prone to drifting either to no relationship, or into an established relationship, exclusive or otherwise. In the long run it's almost impossible to lay down and maintain rules around a relationship without having one. It doesn't keep your options entirely open, since friends of your partner, or those who only want exclusive relationships for themselves, may still be unwilling to date you.

Established relationship, open to causal others.
In this two people are in an exclusive relationship, but sleep around with other people. As long as they don't form a relationship with anyone else, no problem.
This can work quite well, provided it genuinely suits both parties. Can include sharing a partner, or bring people home who you think your partner will like.
Problems: Sleeping with people without developing longer-term feelings for them is actually quite hard. Get used to continually explaining your domestic relationship to everyone you meet, or you won't get many people willing to sleep with you anyway.

Established relationship, open to long-term others
Two people in a relationship that may acquire more people that last for several years.
This can work well, but the relationship with the others is not equal. That's a serious limitation for most people. Some people, however, don't want equal place in a relationship, because they don't want to take responsibility for maintaining it. For them it can work quite well.
Problems: Inequality in the relationship can lead to stress. Adding a series of breakups to your otherwise stable relationship may not be a plus, particularly since you'll be going through your partners as well as your own.

Polyamourous relationships
Established relationships between three or more people.
This can work well, and be remarkably stable in the core, if not around the edges, particularly if everyone brings something different to the relationship. The more links between people the better, so strict heterosexuals may find themselves at a disadvantage here.
Problems: maintaining a quality relationship with another person can be a lot of work. Maintaining it with two people is more than twice as much work, because you also have to allow for their feelings for each other. As such poly relationships can involve a lot of social drama, planning, spreadsheets, and really quite large calendars. Some rely on one or two hyper-organised people who plan everything, often backed up by one or two empathic people who can reliably hug it all better. Others rely on all living in the same building and not wanting to go out much.

Are open relationships wrong? Not in themselves, no. I would say that they are likely to do more harm than good for most people, and that they are avoided for reasons which are quite practical and sensible. But if the circumstances and people are right, it can work quite well, and there's nothing wrong with it. Like all dating, however, you need to be careful or people end up getting hurt.

Your second option is not unique in having to do a lot of explaining. In all but - maybe - your variant one, your potential interest will know about your existing partnership(s) before they've had a chance to decide whether they're interested in you, if you're honest with them.

 

[Bronzeage]

A relationship is a set of mutual demands between two people. It is impossible to have a relationship between 3 or more people. It is simply a set of relationships, but as each person is different, the relationship is separate and different.

The mutual demand which usually defines a relationship is sexual exclusivity. Most people consider this the foundation of a relationship, so any mutual demand list which includes allowing sex with others, will be by necessity very complicated.

The problem with added complications cannot be overstated. The purpose of a relationship is to make life easier. We discovered this simple fact several million years ago. Life is easier when you have someone close, someone upon whom you can rely, and most important of all, someone whom you believe you know what they are going to do. The simplest rule to understand and follow is always, "Don't do it." It doesn't matter what it might be, there is no ambiguity in "Don't do it."

The "You can do it sometimes, under certain circumstances," is the rule of an open relationship. In between no and yes, there is a universe of maybe.

I have led a life of very bad behavior. I don't regret this, because I learned a lot from the experience. This problem of open relationships and how to handle them came up from time to time. For myself, I found that letting a third(or more) person into the sexual part of a relationship carried a significant risk. Sex is the cement which binds a couple. This is not sex in the mechanical sense.This is sex in the sense if intimacy and closeness. There is a selfish trait in humans which makes it difficult to share something which makes us feel so safe and comfortable, and which is so easily threatened.

 

[fromderinside]

1. What exactly constitutes an open relationship between two people?

What hylidae sez

2. What conditions are needed for an open relationship to occur?

Agreement by any third or fourth party involved. Not all, just the current open alternatives.

If it goes beyond two partners for any one individual I'd consider calling selfish, but hell, if it works for ones involved add multiples.

3. In your opinion, and I would like to stress that is only your opinion, is an open relationship right or wrong?

In my opinion its just hunky dories.

 

[Jokodo]

A relationship is a set of mutual demands between two people. It is impossible to have a relationship between 3 or more people. It is simply a set of relationships, but as each person is different, the relationship is separate and different.

The mutual demand which usually defines a relationship is sexual exclusivity. Most people consider this the foundation of a relationship, so any mutual demand list which includes allowing sex with others, will be by necessity very complicated.

This does not follow. Any constellation of people with incompatible mutual demands will be complicated, but just because sexual exclusivity usually, as in for most people, defines a relationship doesn't mean you cannot have a relationship between two people neither of whom demands it, and thus an open relationship without the issue of incompatibility. It merely makes it less likely for any two such people to run into each other at the local supermarket.

The problem with added complications cannot be overstated. The purpose of a relationship is to make life easier. We discovered this simple fact several million years ago.

Wrong, if by "relationship" you mean an exclusive relationship between exactly two people. A majority of cultures studied have some form of polygamy institutionalised, in that it is understood that high status men (more rarely women and sometimes both) can take additional partners into a marriage or marriage-like constellation. Others know more informal arrangements, where a man or a woman can take additional lovers although the relationships with them don't reach the same closeness as the primary one. Jealousy is not unknown, but in some such societies considered a sign of weakness.

Life is easier when you have someone close, someone upon whom you can rely, and most important of all, someone whom you believe you know what they are going to do.

This is true, but being in an open relationship doesn't change any of that if you're being upfront about your intentions, needs, and desires.

The simplest rule to understand and follow is always, "Don't do it." It doesn't matter what it might be, there is no ambiguity in "Don't do it."

This may hold for you, but not for everyone.

 

[Jokodo]

On a more general note, I really don't see how this topic fits into the "Morals" forum - I consider it a topic for Social Science.

There's a lot of interesting questions to ask about open relationships - how likely are they to succeed, what are some common problems and benefits, which personality types are most likely to enjoy themselves in one, are there any demographic data about success rates/average durations, if and when they end, is the break-up typically more or less painful than in a (nominally) exclusive relationship, and many others. Those are questions for sociology and psychology.

The question of "right" or "wrong" doesn't enter the picture if all involved know what they are entering, and choose to do so.

 

[Perspicuo]

Open relationship #2
The open secret.

This is the traditional variety of open relationship, where one or both know but prefer to ignore it. When it's too difficult to fully embrace by the other while understanding it does not mean there is no love or commitment. At times the fear of losing the other as the money source is at stake, which helps to motivate this situation.

 

[Bronzeage]

This does not follow. Any constellation of people with incompatible mutual demands will be complicated, but just because sexual exclusivity usually, as in for most people, defines a relationship doesn't mean you cannot have a relationship between two people neither of whom demands it, and thus an open relationship without the issue of incompatibility. It merely makes it less likely for any two such people to run into each other at the local supermarket.

The problem with added complications cannot be overstated. The purpose of a relationship is to make life easier. We discovered this simple fact several million years ago.

Wrong, if by "relationship" you mean an exclusive relationship between exactly two people. A majority of cultures studied have some form of polygamy institutionalised, in that it is understood that high status men (more rarely women and sometimes both) can take additional partners into a marriage or marriage-like constellation. Others know more informal arrangements, where a man or a woman can take additional lovers although the relationships with them don't reach the same closeness as the primary one. Jealousy is not unknown, but in some such societies considered a sign of weakness.

Life is easier when you have someone close, someone upon whom you can rely, and most important of all, someone whom you believe you know what they are going to do.

This is true, but being in an open relationship doesn't change any of that if you're being upfront about your intentions, needs, and desires.

The simplest rule to understand and follow is always, "Don't do it." It doesn't matter what it might be, there is no ambiguity in "Don't do it."

This may hold for you, but not for everyone.

"Exclusive" is a demand of most intimate relationships. This does not mean it is a necessary condition. It is possible to have other intimate relationships. I have proven that many times. It's much easier if social norms allow it and dictate conditions. Polygamous societies have some of the strictest and most rigorous social codes concerning marriage.

Hang gliding, base jumping, and swimming the English Channel are all possible. I've seen it done, but possibility does not mean risk free. The more risk there is in an action, the more complicated the safeguards. What does "upfront about your intentions, needs, and desires," mean. We need a definition of three different words and then require a person to know their own, and be able to articulate them. It's possible, but complicated.

I speak from experience. The human heart(metaphorical heart) rarely understands its motives. It will temper reality and bend perception in favor of needs and desires. Al the honesty, logic, and transparency cannot change this. If your experience leads you to other conclusions, that's fine with me.

It's hard enough to find one person with whom to have a satisfying relationship. Imagine the odds of finding two.