|
|
|
|
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 4:54:07 AM | | Get the movie Sex with Strangers. You can get it on Netflix or Blockbuster. It is a documentary-style movie about swingers who are married, and have adopted an "open" style of living. It shows the pitfalls involved in this situation. The only couple that remained together was extremely predatory. They worked as a "team", going out to clubs to "scan" potential women who would be in a one-night stand. These people were extremely sexually-addicted and very predatory. They were lost in a circle of unfaithfulness that seemed to be thrilling at one time, then devastatingly emotionally upsetting, when they CRASHED off the high of the excitement of the thrill of the chase. | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 5:28:00 AM |
A better statement might be, "This ain't normal behavior for me." Beyond that statement, normal behavior is relative and contextual. Relative and contextual in the Bizarro World, perhaps. Not in the world where 99.44% of people would find that behavior to be abnormal. | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 12:34:25 PM |
Well, ACP, first off, stats show that about 50% of ALL marriages end in divorce. That would include the between 1-4 percent in that group that represent polyamorous "marriages."
There are no "polyamorous" marriages in the U.S. and I'm fairly sure that they do not exist in Canada as a recognized "marriage" by the state. Therefore, your assertion of 1 - 4 percent is false.
Your assertion that open marriages end in divorce do not translate to any percentage. There is no reliable data measuring the divorce rate of marriages that are defined as "open".
Secondly, while people may be biologically predispositioned to have multiple sex partners, psychologically and emotionally they're primarily geared toward being monagamous. If such weren't the case, then why do we have marriage to begin with?
This is another assertion without any basis in fact. There is no evidence that humans are psychologically and emotionally geared toward being monogamous. Trained perhaps, conditioned through social construction, likely, however, evidence suggesting that humans are organically predisposed psychologically and/or emotionally is non-existent at this time. "Marriage is a historical and religious construct rooted primarily in male dominated societies that considered women and females in general as property. Marriage became a standard of ownership and authority. Marriage is a practice that continues today as the result of continued social pressure fed by religious traditions and given special status through specific rights and protections guaranteed by the state. It serves no real purpose beyond those two institutions. Marriage is little more than an agreement between partners in how the relationship will function and agreements may be mutually altered.
SOMEONE must have thought that marriage and pledging faithfulness to your spouse must be a natural course of progression in a relationship; otherwise, it would cease to exist.
As already dated, marriage is a social construct and it is already losing favor as a preference. If there were no special rights and protections with the legal status, marriage would likely be a minority practice. There are many types of faithfulness and all negotiated between the parties involved in the relationship. It may be emotional, physical, financial, etc. They are not limited or exclusive to a marriage or marital vows. Neither is monogamy a natural course any more than non-monogamy.
One might be surprised to learn that no marital vows are required for a marriage to become recognized by the state. It merely requires the signature of a legally recognized official and the individuals involved in the contract on the marriage license application.
Open marriages fail for the same reasons traditional marriages do: cheating, abuse, money issues, etc.
True and at the same time, cheating does occur in open relationships as it relates to sexual partners. Cheating cannot occur if permission is given by the spouses to have such interactions. What is missing is any substantive evidence to support your assertion that open marriages fail equal to or greater than the traditional societal view of marriage. One thing that is very different. At least those individuals in open relationships are honest about their unmet needs and not lying to their significant other about their relationships.
And I would presume the reason for this is the same as why most traditional marriages fail: because one partner has a different value system than the other one. In open marriages, they might both start out being okay with it, but one lacks moral conscience and the other one has moral conscience but thinks it might be okay to ignore it. Later, when reality sinks in, they discover that they're bothered by the arrangement and from there is where problems occur -- not unlike any other marriage. It's just NATURAL to expect one's spouse to be faithful to them.
"Moral conscience" is a relative term and only has real meaning to the individual who claims "moral conscience". Not every person shares the same view of morals. I prefer ethics over morals and even they are real only to myself. Most marriages do not fail because of different value systems. Marriages fail because of multiple issues that occur over time, some may be moral, most are rooted in interactions, the lack of interaction, and lack of communication skills. there is no evidence to suggest that moral conscience is a the antecedent of a failed marriage or relationship. Open marriages that begin as open marriages often stay that way and may close and/or become semi-open/closed over time. Marriages and/or relationships that open up later may stay that way if they when they occur as the result of mutually agreed upon parameters by the partners involved. What you are referring to in the above comment is not an open marriage. It is a coerced circumstance which a partner enters into for all of the wrong reasons indicated greater problems than the opening of the relationship. If the marriage fails in your scenario, it is because the partner who did not communicate their personal standard failed to do so and then blames the failure on the open relationships and "being coerced". This is more representative of victim behavior and serves as a means of denying responsibility for their actions.
There appears to be a great deal of opinion in your assertions and little in the way of facts. Current research in the field of relationships strongly contradicts your assertions as does the current research in the field of human sexuality.
Perhaps you are and perhaps you are not one of those individuals who prefers to not let the truth get in the way of a good story. Time will tell.
Best,
ACP | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 12:48:24 PM |
This is another assertion without any basis in fact. There is no evidence that humans are psychologically and emotionally geared toward being monogamous....
Humans have a proclivity for sin. Or are you saying that you are without "sin"?
Marriage is a practice that continues today as the result of continued social pressure fed by religious traditions and given special status through specific rights and protections guaranteed by the state. | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 12:51:31 PM |
tanijaana: "If done correctly and with complete honesty, open marriages/relationships can be beautiful and liberating. I don't believe that loving your partner means selfishly keeping them to yourself; never have and never will."
::nods:: It's unlikely though that you'll be able to convince others of this here.
You either get this or you don't. You're either possessive of your partner's sex life or you aren't. You either see it as cheating or you don't.
But I do think that it's the people who don't *get* polyamory, who are possessive and who think in terms of distrusting their partner are the people who will end up divorcing the fastest. Distrust (worried that your partner will cheat sexually) is a negative trait and one born from insecurity. Possessiveness (trying to control whether or not your partner has sex by being the only one they can have sex with) again is a negative trait and one born from being overly controlling. An inability to imagine other ways of doing something (a polygamous arrangement) to me would be yet another negative trait and one born from rigidity and an unwillingness to grow emotionally.
So yes, I do tend to see these strict monogamous types as selfish, immature, possessive, distrusting and unimaginative. And they probably look at someone with a different lifestyle and imagine them to be selfish, immature and reckless, perhaps. But honestly I don't care what other people think of my relationship because I know it will last just as long as or longer than the average relationship. If mine fails three years from now (just like the average one would) then what will I have lost or gained by comparison? Who knows? I will say that I'll spend several nights of lovemaking with two very attractive women in my bed from time to time and all three of us will be happy in that moment. We'll laugh, we'll make love and there may be times when the two girls are distracted with each other's company and I'll just play the guitar instead. You get out of your relationship what you make from it. If you make it a pattern of distrust then you will be miserable. I prefer to make mine a very close friendship and enjoy what comes from that. | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 1:30:47 PM | When I think about open marriages, I can only conjure a stereotype: deeply unsatisfied adults, most likely going through a mid-life crisis, pathetically searching for hot sex as a solution.
Why bother getting married? What if they fall in love with another person? How long can it go on before it causes a problem due to jealousy and insecurity? not Long I would imagine.
So, then, is open marriage the modern couple's answer to infidelity? Is it two people's attempt to reinvest in the idea of commitment, to define it on their own terms and to try to avoid divorce? Could it be viewed as an honest attempt to make marriage work? "I think that's what people tell themselves, but it raises a red flag for me.
It is incredibly common and incredibly destructive for couples to experiment with open marriage in response to problems or boredom in their sex life. | |
|
| |
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 2:42:39 PM | When you open yourself and your partner to an open marriage...
You also have just closed the door on your wedding vows....
It's senceless no matter how you look at it...
I won't share, and certainly will not be sharred.
Why be married in the first place if your not taking those vows seriously?
Isn't that like a divorce without the paperwork?
 | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 3:08:10 PM |
When you open yourself and your partner to an open marriage...
You also have just closed the door on your wedding vows....
Contrary to popular belief, not all marriages include vows and some marriages include vows that include commitment to the relationship without a commitment to monogamy. Moreover, there is nothing binding about vows when they are mutually altered by the individuals who made them. Just as any contract can be altered and/or renegotiated as long as all partied involved agree to those alterations and/or a new contract.
An open marriage or open relationship is not necessarily the correct approach to fix and/or "save a marriage". Each relationship is different and will need to address the issues that are specific to each one. Open relationships/marriages will seldom work when there are other issues that are destructive in the relationship. Relationships that are already in crisis, do not have a strong foundation of trust and honest, clear communication, will not save their marriage by opening it until they've dealt with the core issues.
Regardless of the type or legal status of a relationship, those without a foundational core of mutual respect, mutual trust, and clear communication are in danger of failure and the risk increases as the issues continue to be ignored.
Open relationships/open marriages are not the problem. I've yet to see a relationship structure that was ever the antecedent to a relationship problem. It always the individuals in the relationship that create and nurture the problems. It is their responsibility to address them regardless of whether it is a traditional marriage recognized by the state, open relationships recognized by the state, or relationships of any and ally types not recognized by the state.
It is the interaction process between partners that sustain or destroy the relationship, and has nothing to do with the type of relationship structure in which the relationship occurs.
Regards,
ACP | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 3:10:12 PM |
<div class='quote'>You either get this or you don't
Yep I dont get it
<div class='quote'>But I do think that it's the people who don't *get* polyamory, who are possessive and who think in terms of distrusting their partner are the people who will end up divorcing the fastest.
Well I was married for 37 years and neither my husband or I were possessive. Both had friends of the opposite sex and did thing such as lunch and dinner with them without our partners When you have communication, trust, and committment you have no reason for possessiveness or mistrust. People dont own other people. We did have an agreement that if either of us found or felt the need to be with another sexually we would sit down and have a discussion. It never happened.
It would be interesting to see if you feel the same way at 50 or 60. But how you live your life is your choice and I wont make judgements on you the way you do those who choose to live a monomogous life.
PEACE
 | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 3:22:51 PM | | ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!!!!!! The reason their marriage was about to fail is because they stopped talking to each other.Comminucation is the ONLY reason a marriage fail's.Marriage's don't fail because of infidility,abuse,or money.They fail because one or both parties have stopped communicating...why are you cheating...why are you abusive...where is all the money going?Communicating and having both parties agree to solve the problem's will probably save the marriage.BUT it take's two!But then again,I guess I'm selfish,I would never share my wife(if I ever get one!LOL.). | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 3:37:47 PM | Why am I so surprised that it has taken 9 full pages of "words" when all who replied could have said either "YES" or "NO"?
It appears to me that SOME people preferred to attempt to shove their opinions down the the throats of others....I didn't think it was all that important what others do....EXCEPT if one of them tries to latch on to ME!
By the way, my answer is NO.
Just my thoughts,
KK | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 3:53:07 PM | Contrary to popular belief, not all marriages include vows and some marriages include vows that include commitment to the relationship without a commitment to monogamy. Moreover, there is nothing binding about vows when they are mutually altered by the individuals who made them. Just as any contract can be altered and/or renegotiated as long as all partied involved agree to those alterations and/or a new contract.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then why be married at all if your actualy doing things with others? Isn't a marriage to be witholding and forsaking all others whether ther are actualy vows or not? Nowhere have I ever seen that two people plus one , plus two, plus three, etc...is an exceptable marriage...
And my answer is still Hell No!!!   | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 7:31:43 PM | This may work for them. None of us knows what happens in other people's marriages.
But my experience includes an open marriage and it wasn't a good thing. In the end, it hastened the end of our relationship and created some serious issues for both of us individually. Even with strict rules, this idea has some serious practical and emotional land mines. | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 7:37:26 PM |
Would you open you marriage to save it?
No. I don't share...and besides, there isn't enough lime in the world, or a big enough shovel. And that goes for both of us.
 | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 7:50:30 PM |
Then why be married at all if your actualy doing things with others? Isn't a marriage to be witholding and forsaking all others whether ther are actualy vows or not? Nowhere have I ever seen that two people plus one , plus two, plus three, etc...is an exceptable marriage...
There are many such marriages and they are acceptable to the people involved. At present, they are simply not recognized by the state, that will likely change.
In countries outside of the U.S., marriages with multiple partners are recognized as "legal". Marriage is whatever the people involved desire it to be. Just because you have not seen two people plus one does not mean that they do not exist or that they are no acceptable.
It may not be an acceptable alternative for you and it is an acceptable relationship for others.
It's usually best to let people live the way they choose as they allow others to live as they choose.
Regards,
ACP | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 7:56:11 PM | ACP..... It's usually best to let people live the way they choose as they allow others to live as they choose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well if that's the case, I'm never getting married........
Call me old fashioned, a stick in the mudd, or just plain cold...
But I'll stick to the old beliefs that when a man and a woman join together,in Holy Matramony, it means "FORSAKING ALL OTHERS".... until death us do part...
And nothing is going to change my mind on that one.....
Perhaps one of the reasons there is so many divorces today, is that too many have "Open marriages" and haven't a clue what means to be faithfull to "Just One Person".....
Heck at the rate this world is going with all the open marriages and fooling around, just think we may be our own brothers cousin, mothers second son on my own daddy's side.....twice entwined.......     | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/1/2008 9:40:53 PM | I'm a broken record in here on this one, but it apparently bears a lot of repeating.
sweetba, the single, solitary reason there are more divorces these days than, say, 100 years ago, is that divorce is available to both parties. It was not, for much of western history. Around the year 1000, a married woman in England could pretty much declare herself divorced, and it was legal. It was only some time later, under the influence of the Roman church and especially to preserve feudal estates intact, that divorce laws became more and more divorce obstacles.
A hundred years ago in America, a woman had to prove cause for divorce, like proving a crime. Even when she did, there were few provisions for alimony or other support, and the children automatically went to the custody of the father, as provider. Men of means had an easier time divorcing wives they didn't want anymore, but the legal standard still required that someone be found at fault, in court.
I don't know why people imagine marriage was any different between two people 20 years ago, or 100, or 1,000. We have always managed to bore one another, to get on one another's nerves, to infuriate and scandalize and totally gross out each other. Good, happy marriages have always been pointed out as freaks of nature, to be admired or sneered at, as one's taste would have it.
So, anyway, if our grandparents could get shed of a crap marriage as easily as we can, they would have. Are you kidding? THey were only people, just like us.
OT, sweetba, living and letting live does not mean your partner can force some alternate lifestyle on you or make you put up with his. This thread is about married coupled who negotiate the means for both to be happy, to give their love to each other in some positive form, and not in the negative form of sacrifice and denial. It only works for those it works for, and your preference for yourself is irrelevant to their preferences. If some guy ever suggests a swing to you, say no, and that'll be it. OK?
Unless, like a sheltered child, you really believe everyone can live the same life, let alone should.
Cheers!
Vulf  | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/2/2008 5:14:23 AM |
It's usually best to let people live the way they choose as they allow others to live as they choose.
And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.
He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him do righteousness still: and he that is holy, let him be made holy still. (Revelation 22: 10, 11) | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/2/2008 8:08:19 AM |
And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.
He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him do righteousness still: and he that is holy, let him be made holy still. (Revelation 22: 10, 11)
If this type of writing helps you get through life, more power to you. For others, it's cobbled fiction.
ACP | |
|
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/2/2008 10:45:03 AM | | i think to many people listen to others, so what do what makes you happy never mind other people options its your life and others shouldnt matter as long as noone is being hurt | |
|
| |
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/2/2008 11:21:39 AM | I would not No. But know that marriages and relationship are a very personal thing. It takes on many form and what works for some do not for others. Why do you ask? Why do you care what they do? Maybe they get off on the reaction of others. We are all different. What they do behind close doors is up to them as long as it hurts no one else. If they are adults it is up to them. You would be so surprise at what some folks like or do behind closed doors. Swingers have a huge following, and the list goes on.
But No... I would not do this. I don't share or play with others. Just me. Life is so short we all need to do what makes us happy and not worry so much about what others think. Maybe they are jealous...........or curious.
Be true to yourself. Let no one preasure you. If you agree, do it. | |
|
| |
| Would you open you marriage to save it?
Posted: 9/2/2008 12:09:30 PM | That's just sick.
Unless I was marries to Sweeet Melissa, in which case I could never stand to see disappointment in those beautiful eyes. In with case I would have to resign myself to the horrors of the dominatrix. Or then again maybe I would be the one lucky enough to return to the sweet embrace of a never forgotten lover. Sounds like the guy in this story has the short end of the stick.
Not only would a man be a fool to spend his time being sexed by a masked circus freak,when he could be cooking omelets and making mimosas for his beautiful wife at home . Just think about the other man, the anguish of letting two weeks go by to be with his beloved.
Sweeet Melissa, you have a face that would launch a thousand ships. No man could share you with another. These people are a novelty to you, but not like you.
You must find your hero. The man who will only have eyes for you and no one else, or it will end in tragedy.
There is an ancient book called the Ramayana. If you read it, I swear you will have eyes to know the one | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
