Open relationships - yay or nay?

[Jokodo]

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

Maybe, for some people, part of what makes it so hard is the expectation to have all their relationship needs fulfilled by one person?

 

[Bronzeage]

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

Maybe, for some people, part of what makes it so hard is the expectation to have all their relationship needs fulfilled by one person?

Expectations are the death of most relationships. Expecting someone to stick around while their partner searches for someone who can provide things they can't, is a fairly unrealistic expectation.

 

[Jokodo]

Maybe, for some people, part of what makes it so hard is the expectation to have all their relationship needs fulfilled by one person?

Expectations are the death of most relationships. Expecting someone to stick around while their partner searches for someone who can provide things they can't, is a fairly unrealistic expectation.

Why?

 

[gmbteach]

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.

I wasn't sure where to put it Jokodo TBH. It was a toss up between a few of the forums. I put it here as when I was discussing it here at home, it was a bit of a moral discussion I guess.

 

[bilby]

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.

I am not trying to make a case against open marriages; I am setting out what I believe to be a minimum standard of openness for such a thing to work.

It is a purely academic question for me, as it is really not my thing at all; basically I am extending the principal I apply to monogamous relationships - if you wouldn't do it with your partner watching, don't do it - to a situation with more than two participants; in my mind it is important that none of the parties are treated to insufficient information; where insufficiency is defined by an empathetic application of that basic rule.

I am very much opposed to the 'ownership' model of relationships; they are about doing what other people want in order to make everyone happier - so if a relationship is making one or more parties unhappy, something must change. Nobody can complain about a third party 'stealing' their partner, because nobody owns their partners. But partners have a responsibility to explicitly end a relationship that is making them miserable. Simply starting a new relationship without consulting (or at least informing) the existing partner(s) is just wrong.

 

[bilby]

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

That works if your measure of success is legal endurance; if the measure is happiness of those involved, then it is dubious at best.

I suspect that cultures where arranged marriage is the norm also have the greatest taboos against divorce.

 

[Angry Floof]

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

That works if your measure of success is legal endurance; if the measure is happiness of those involved, then it is dubious at best.

I suspect that cultures where arranged marriage is the norm also have the greatest taboos against divorce.

That was my thought as well. Just wanted to throw yet another model of marriage into the mix.

 

[Bronzeage]

Expectations are the death of most relationships. Expecting someone to stick around while their partner searches for someone who can provide things they can't, is a fairly unrealistic expectation.

Why?

How long would you stay in a relationship with a partner who said, "You have a lot of good points, but you're not everything I need. I am going to spend time and effort with other people and try to find what is lacking in you. I'll be totally honest and always tell you what I am doing."

I wouldn't stick around.

 

[Jokodo]

Why?

How long would you stay in a relationship with a partner who said, "You have a lot of good points, but you're not everything I need. I am going to spend time and effort with other people and try to find what is lacking in you. I'll be totally honest and always tell you what I am doing."

I wouldn't stick around.

You wouldn't stick with a partner who's actively looking for climbing buddies while you're an acrophobic?

 

[Bronzeage]

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

That works if your measure of success is legal endurance; if the measure is happiness of those involved, then it is dubious at best.

I suspect that cultures where arranged marriage is the norm also have the greatest taboos against divorce.

That depends on whether the man or woman wants the divorce.

I suspect societies with arranged marriages tend to have the highest number of spousal murders.

 

[TSwizzle]

I don't think "an open relationship" is a right or wrong issue. And I assume that the open relationship to mean banging other people and your SO to be on board with the arrangement. I'm a bit old fashioned so I prefer the more traditional sneaking about behind their back.

 

[Jokodo]

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.



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

I am not trying to make a case against open marriages; I am setting out what I believe to be a minimum standard of openness for such a thing to work.

It is a purely academic question for me, as it is really not my thing at all; basically I am extending the principal I apply to monogamous relationships - if you wouldn't do it with your partner watching, don't do it - to a situation with more than two participants; in my mind it is important that none of the parties are treated to insufficient information; where insufficiency is defined by an empathetic application of that basic rule.

Again, I think this rule is too strict. If A and B are in an open relationship and A has an adventure with C, with B's full knowledge and approval, that should be enough. Assume C has independent confirmation from both A and B that they're in an open relationship and that this really is OK for all involved, but still has hang-ups about "stealing B's partner" even though it's very clear that nothing more is going to come from this hook-up. In this scenario, C might feel uncomfortable about the idea of B knowing too many details, let alone watching. That's a situation where, as A, you shouldn't want do it with B watching, if only out of respect for C. Yet, I don't see what would make this situation wrong.

I am very much opposed to the 'ownership' model of relationships; they are about doing what other people want in order to make everyone happier - so if a relationship is making one or more parties unhappy, something must change. Nobody can complain about a third party 'stealing' their partner, because nobody owns their partners. But partners have a responsibility to explicitly end a relationship that is making them miserable. Simply starting a new relationship without consulting (or at least informing) the existing partner(s) is just wrong.

I don't disagree with anything in this paragraph.

 

[bilby]

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.

True; but that's a BIG 'If'.

Hence the thread. How much knowledge is necessary? How much can be assumed? What parts of the intimate details of the relationship between any two people in such an arrangement need to be communicated to the other parties, in order to avoid anyone getting hurt? These are moral questions.

I don't see any good reason not to discuss the Social Science aspects of the same topic - either in a new thread in that forum, or by moving this one to that forum if, as and when the moral discussion has run its course. But there are certainly some moral questions to discuss here.

 

[Bronzeage]

How long would you stay in a relationship with a partner who said, "You have a lot of good points, but you're not everything I need. I am going to spend time and effort with other people and try to find what is lacking in you. I'll be totally honest and always tell you what I am doing."

I wouldn't stick around.

You wouldn't stick with a partner who's actively looking for climbing buddies while you're an acrophobic?

Not an apt simile. We are talking about a partner who wants other sexual partners and you did not answer the question.

 

[Jokodo]

You wouldn't stick with a partner who's actively looking for climbing buddies while you're an acrophobic?

Not an apt simile. We are talking about a partner who wants other sexual partners and you did not answer the question.

I did, and it's not a simile. It's an instantiation of what you said you wouldn't put up with: A partner who is looking for other people to do some exciting activities with you can't offer them. And, hey, a climbing buddy is someone you're entrusting with your life. That's more than you can say about a lot of varieties of sex.

If you prefer a more direct answer: As long as I can be sure that there are things my partner only has in me to balance what is lacking in me.

 

[credoconsolans]

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?

Whatever the two - and it has to be both people's idea, not just one and other feels compelled for whatever reason to go along - agree upon.

This is why open relationships rarely last because you rarely get two people of the same mindset together.

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

For two people to not be that invested in the relationship. Obviously they can take the relationship or leave it since finding other partners and not be invested in just one is the whole idea.

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

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's more a matter of successful or not. And they rarely are due to #1 above.

 

[Jokodo]

Whatever the two - and it has to be both people's idea, not just one and other feels compelled for whatever reason to go along - agree upon.

This is why open relationships rarely last because you rarely get two people of the same mindset together.

FIFY

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

For two people to not be that invested in the relationship. Obviously they can take the relationship or leave it since finding other partners and not be invested in just one is the whole idea.

How is this implied? You can want to stay with your partner for the rest of your days and consider your relationship the most important aspect of your life and yet admit that you haven't stopped finding others attractive and desirable. And if your partner knows the first part and accepts the second, and feels secure about it, and you know you can act out some of those desires without hurting them, why would that make you automatically less invested?

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

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's more a matter of successful or not. And they rarely are due to #1 above.

Do you have any demographic data on this point, or is this just Common Knowledge(tm)?

 

[fromderinside]

Not an apt simile. We are talking about a partner who wants other sexual partners and you did not answer the question.

I did, and it's not a simile. It's an instantiation of what you said you wouldn't put up with: A partner who is looking for other people to do some exciting activities with you can't offer them. And, hey, a climbing buddy is someone you're entrusting with your life. That's more than you can say about a lot of varieties of sex.

If you prefer a more direct answer: As long as I can be sure that there are things my partner only has in me to balance what is lacking in me.

Glossing over sexual won't suffice as an answer.

 

[Jokodo]

I did, and it's not a simile. It's an instantiation of what you said you wouldn't put up with: A partner who is looking for other people to do some exciting activities with you can't offer them. And, hey, a climbing buddy is someone you're entrusting with your life. That's more than you can say about a lot of varieties of sex.

If you prefer a more direct answer: As long as I can be sure that there are things my partner only has in me to balance what is lacking in me.

Glossing over sexual won't suffice as an answer.

There was no "sexual" in Bronzeage's original question. What he asked was: 'How long would you stay in a relationship with a partner who said, "You have a lot of good points, but you're not everything I need. I am going to spend time and effort with other people and try to find what is lacking in you. I'll be totally honest and always tell you what I am doing."' Nothing in that question excludes climbing buddies.

 

[ronburgundy]

1. Both parties are fully aware and accepting that the other person may have sex with other people. Yet, it still is a "relationship" (not just occasional hookup), meaning that it has most of the qualities one expect from the term "in a relationship with", except sexual exclusivity.

2. Not sure. I doubt many or any open relationships have the kind of emotional bond that exclusive ones do. Jealously is not "childish". It is probably a natural byproduct of strong emotional attachment and bonding. Thus, lack of negative feelings when a person has sex with another just isn't plausible unless you don't have much of an emotional bond with them to begin with. I suspect the most successful open relationships are those that are basically exclusive most of the time where out-of-relationship sex is only viewed and used as a rather occasional "release" / "free-pass" kind of thing. Alternatively, if both people are always together and involved in any sex with others then that is different and may not qualify as "open".

3. No moral judgment whatever. By definition, the other person knows, so there is no harm against another's will. So, nothing immoral about it. Cheating is immoral because it is by definition against the other's will. This isn't cheating. Even as far as having kids go, kids are not nearly as fragile as our panicked society fears, and raising kids with religion likely does them more harm, as does working too much and not being there for them, and countless other things most parents do.