getts said:My wife and I are in an 'open' relationship, and love it. It has truly made us grow that much closer. We never have jealousy rear its ugly head (of course, we never did prior to the 'lifestyle change', either). But it is nice to be walking down the mall and have my wife ask "Would ya?" when we pass an attractive girl in the mall. So many of my friends have to pretend like pretty women (other than their wife) do not exist.
Well, there you go people - you've witnessed it directly from the horse's mouth! ...someone in a long-term relationship telling us that being in an open relationship has had little other than a positive effect on their lives. Good for you I say! It's refreshing to read such an account; in contrast to the rhetoric I was receiving in the previous thread - e.g. people telling me "No, it [ i.e. polyamory ] is most definitely not a viable alternative for the 'many'". ....such 'definitive' terms seem quite out-of-place to me. Despite the fact that - in all fairness - they were merely answering the question I had posed (and for that I appreciate their response), I don't understand how someone, upon observing trends in society (divorce rates etc.), can claim that monogamy is the only viable option for most people!
Also, I hope it didn't seem rude when I said I "don't see much point in getting married", but I have a question: if you were in your twenties again, would you marry the second time around? Personally, I find some of the arguments for marriage to be quite cynical - to argue for doing it for the 'legal' benefits for example. And aren't these alleged benefits to-a-large-extent offset by the possible bureaucratic and financial 'hell' associated with divorces (..as well as other likely inconveniences)? Also, fireguy_31 - in the previous thread - referred to the "economic stability, comfort, [and] security" associated with a monogamous relationship. This, to me, seems to be a profession that it all-too-often isn't about love (..which it is purported to be about) - or at least not to the extent that it is supposed to be. When such people then turn around and say that "open relationships are very superficial", are they not being somewhat hypocritical?
--------------------------------
Literature that people might be interested in:
What seems to be a very interesting book on this topic (..or at least related to it) is: Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People. To give a quote from the book description:
An appropriate quote - no?Monogamy may be the rule, but it's not the practice - not even for animals.
No, I haven't read it yet - I think attempting to digest an entire book merely in order to confirm something that seems quite obvious already is somewhat silly. The book description plus reviews comprise a nice bite-sized summary however!
--------------------------
To those who would defend monogamy, and 'closed' relationships:
......please, don't even bother (...not on the basis of my posts anyway) - there's no need to! I'm not arguing that monogamy isn't an option - what I am arguing is that it isn't the only option! To offer another quote from the editorial review of the afore-mentioned book:
... monogamy works [..or at least can work..] well for most of those who desire it and that one of our uniquely human traits is our ability to overcome biology in some instances.
So ...yeah ...if you want to spend your entire life with one other person, then go for it - and all the best with that! ....but please don't prescribe the same rules for everyone else!
--------------------------
Baron Max said:I've seen a few "reports" that say some girls are being held against their will, but isn't that two separate issues? One is polygamy, which is a voluntary multiple "marriage", the other is a criminal act ...one ain't got nothin' to do with the other, does it?
(...assuming that you haven't fabricated this entire scenario - care to provide references?) if you're implying here that polygamy/polyamory is associated with an increased tendancy to hold people against their will (...presumably for the purpose of sexual gratification - is that what you're implying?) then - in the vast majority of cases - the answer is obviously "no" - "one" most certainly "ain't got nothin' to do with the other"*!
It's quite obvious, Baron, that no one here is advocating anything other than consensual relationships between adults; and trying to insinuate otherwise would be quite ignoble ...and - frankly - pathetic. Only a bitter, plotting coward would do that sort of thing! ...You're not one of those, are you?
Encouraging people to draw societal-wide conclusions based on rare, isolated incidents - while ignoring everything else in society that pertains to the issue - is rarely, if ever, a legitimate method of debate.
* I'm ignoring your double-negative by the way - and treating it as a single-negative
Last edited: