LW tropes in real life

[desecration]

This article is full of false dichotomies, bad assumptions about what open relationships entail, and what I'll call the "therapist's fallacy": he reasons that open relationships are harmful because every open relationship he sees is on the rocks, ignoring the fact that couples only come to him to talk about their relationships when they are on the rocks.

Ironically, it is survivorship bias. He sees only the relationships where people care enough to pay money for therapy. The rest are unknowns. Of course... this is a problem with almost all scientific research, like cherry-picking.

 

[desecration]

People in both open marriages and swinging tend to be very discrete. They also tend to be upper middle class with the means to hide their lifestyle, while the objects of their dalliances tend to be middle or lower middle class, enamored with the wealth their "friends" have and use.

This is fascinating. The ongoing American class war takes a new form.

 

[desecration]

People are bored and directionless, so they fuck. There's some happy people--typically the folks who got out of town and came back to settle down later in life--but mostly, the ones who stuck around feel hopeless, so they drink and fuck.

This is true of sad people everywhere. No purpose in life, might as well consume.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Imma just going to cut and paste that straight into my ideas folder.

EDIT: And I'm just going to add the words - "My Fair Lady but at a swingers club" as an aide to memory.

Go for it! There's a great shortage of venues round London - ones that will consider being rented out are horribly expensive, so to make a new club night happen, someone decided to put on an event marketed to every type of degenerate they could think of... (four floors in some warehouse in East London).

It would be a new spin on training a submissive. Getting gagged every time she uses a non-U word, maybe?

 

[LMWM321]

It may sound like I'm being facetious here, but I'm not..

I imagine a day will come - maybe 50 years or 75 years from now - when researchers find that those who continue to regularly have sex late in life live MUCH longer and healthier - which could mean fewer cardiac events, less arthritic pain, better mental acuity, etc.. And if couples stop fucking in their 60's or 70's simply b/c they've come sexually bored w/ with their partner (perhaps b/c they've already had sex thousands of times), then they'll be encouraged - by Geriatricians and General Practitioners, plus family and friends - to OPENLY pursue sex outside of their marriage. Indeed, it will be recommend in much the same way that exercise is today. Before this can happen many cultural changes need to happen, such as...

• If we were supposed to be sexually monogamous why do so many of us continue to desire sex outside our relationships? As far as I know we are the only species that is constantly resisting an urge that evolution gave us. Generally speaking, doesn't doing what evolution compels a species to do make it a stronger species? ..So why are we ignoring this biological urge?
• Marriage is a promise b/w two people to make the other person the most important person in their life. You'll have kids together, travel together, grow old together, spend retirement together, and be at each others side if (more like when) major health problems arise. And one day you'll be buried alongside each other. That is marriage! It's not necessarily a promise to make that person the ONLY you'll ever have sex with for 60-plus years!!!
• Couples have to realize that letting a partner have sex with another person is NOT a threat to a solid marriage, it's an expression of how much you love your partner to let them experience that joy.
• If you as a man or woman decide you're done w/ sex, you have no right to expect your partner to be done w/ it too. Even if your disinterest is precipitated by health issues, etc..
• Be fine with the fact that another man or woman can give your partner a better orgasm than you. You're fine w/ others cooking better than you, giving better massages than you, etc.. Besides, the only reason it may be better is BECAUSE it's someone new - it's not about you.

Anyway, feel free to add to the list if you like. We're a long ways away from it happening, but I do believe it's inevitable. Thankfully, we've come along way in our understanding of how sexual orientation and gender identification are not the same for everyone. ...That for people to have their best chance at happiness, they need to be supported in being what feels natural for them. ..For some, ethical non-monogamy is no different. It's as irrepressible as being attracted to the same sex is if you're gay. And the desire for sex outside a relationship may not be apparent while courting or at the start of a marriage, so it's not realistic to say, "Well, just make your partner aware of it before marrying.."

 

[SimonDoom]

It may sound like I'm being facetious here, but I'm not..

I imagine a day will come - maybe 50 years or 75 years from now - when researchers find that those who continue to regularly have sex late in life live MUCH longer and healthier - which could mean fewer cardiac events, less arthritic pain, better mental acuity, etc.. And if couples stop fucking in their 60's or 70's simply b/c they've come sexually bored w/ with their partner (perhaps b/c they've already had sex thousands of times), then they'll be encouraged - by Geriatricians and General Practitioners, plus family and friends - to OPENLY pursue sex outside of their marriage. Indeed, it will recommend in much the same way that exercise is today. Before this can happen many cultural changes need to happen, such as...

• If we were supposed to be sexually monogamous why do so many of us continue to desire sex outside our relationships? As far as I know we are the only species that is constantly resisting an urge that evolution gave us. Generally speaking, doesn't doing what evolution compels a species to do make it a stronger species? ..So why are we ignoring this biological urge?
• Marriage is a promise b/w two people to make the other person the most important person in their life. You'll have kids together, travel together, grow old together, spend retirement together, and be at each others side if (more like when) major health problems arise. And one day you'll be buried alongside each other. That is marriage! It's not necessarily a promise to make that person the ONLY you'll ever have sex with for 60-plus years!!!
• Couples have to realize that letting a partner have sex with another person is NOT a threat to a solid marriage, it's an expression of how much you love your partner to let them experience that joy.
• If you as a man or woman decide you're done w/ sex, you have no right to expect your partner to be done w/ it too. Even if your disinterest is precipitated by health issues, etc..
• Be fine with the fact that another man or woman can give your partner a better orgasm than you. You're fine w/ others cooking better than you, giving better massages than you, etc.. Besides, the only reason it may be better is BECAUSE it's someone new - it's not about you.

Anyway, feel free to add to the list if you like. We're a long ways away from it happening, but I do believe it's inevitable. Thankfully, we've come along way in our understanding of how sexual orientation and gender identification are not the same for everyone. ...That for people to have their best chance at happiness, they need to be supported in being what feels natural for them. ..For some, ethical non-monogamy is no different. It's as irrepressible as being attracted to the same sex is if you're gay. And the desire for sex outside a relationship may not be apparent while courting or at the start of a marriage, so it's not realistic to say, "Well, just make your partner aware of it before marrying.."

This seems possible to me, but I would quarrel with the word "inevitable," because I think in general things are much less inevitable than people think they are. The world is very different today from what I thought it would be as a young techno-rationalist-optimist in my 20s. It's much weirder, and much less predictable. I'm still an optimist, but more of a "I don't have any clue how, but I think there's a good chance we'll muddle through this some day" kind of optimist.

My hope is that we continue to become more accepting of the fact--because it is a fact whether we like it or not--that tastes and preferences differ, and there's no good reason for society to force everyone to adopt a "one size fits all" model.

 

[LMWM321]

This seems possible to me, but I would quarrel with the word "inevitable,"

I mean inevitable in the same way that it was apparent 30 years ago that much broader acceptance of Homosexuality was inevitable. Does it mean it's accepted by everyone? Sadly, no...

 

[Dearelliot]

Many years ago my wife and I experimented with swapping. We went on a Swingers week, holidays in Mexico, nude pools. We flew close to the flame, but for us, it didn't work out.
One thing that we heard, time and time again talking to swingers, was the lady saying she did it for her husband, not something she wanted, but she went along.
For whatever that little tidbit is worth.

 

[LMWM321]

One thing that we heard, time and time again talking to swingers, was the lady saying she did it for her husband, not something she wanted, but she went along.
For whatever that little tidbit is worth.

Okay... so if she didn't have any interest in sex outside of the marriage then why wouldn't she just let him pursue it? And he most definitely should not expect his wife to do it if she wasn't truly interested in it. Asking her do it just to satisfy his kink to watch or know she's doing it isn't fair either. In fact it's horrifying.

 

[lustychimera]

Okay... so if she didn't have any interest in sex outside of the marriage then why wouldn't she just let him pursue it?

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Like, he says he wants to have sex with other people, she didn't want that, so she should just let him while she remains monogamous herself?

 

[LMWM321]

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Like, he says he wants to have sex with other people, she didn't want that, so she should just let him while she remains monogamous herself?

Exactly... each person be true to their own needs.

 

[lustychimera]

Exactly... each person be true to their own needs.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I disagree pretty strongly with that.

I have no issue with non-monogamy, but I believe it needs enthusiastic consent from both people.

Pressuring someone to save a marriage feels wrong.

 

[policywank]

It may sound like I'm being facetious here, but I'm not..

I imagine a day will come - maybe 50 years or 75 years from now - when researchers find that those who continue to regularly have sex late in life live MUCH longer and healthier - which could mean fewer cardiac events, less arthritic pain, better mental acuity, etc.. And if couples stop fucking in their 60's or 70's simply b/c they've come sexually bored w/ with their partner (perhaps b/c they've already had sex thousands of times), then they'll be encouraged - by Geriatricians and General Practitioners, plus family and friends - to OPENLY pursue sex outside of their marriage. Indeed, it will be recommend in much the same way that exercise is today. Before this can happen many cultural changes need to happen, such as...

• If we were supposed to be sexually monogamous why do so many of us continue to desire sex outside our relationships? As far as I know we are the only species that is constantly resisting an urge that evolution gave us. Generally speaking, doesn't doing what evolution compels a species to do make it a stronger species? ..So why are we ignoring this biological urge?
• Marriage is a promise b/w two people to make the other person the most important person in their life. You'll have kids together, travel together, grow old together, spend retirement together, and be at each others side if (more like when) major health problems arise. And one day you'll be buried alongside each other. That is marriage! It's not necessarily a promise to make that person the ONLY you'll ever have sex with for 60-plus years!!!
• Couples have to realize that letting a partner have sex with another person is NOT a threat to a solid marriage, it's an expression of how much you love your partner to let them experience that joy.
• If you as a man or woman decide you're done w/ sex, you have no right to expect your partner to be done w/ it too. Even if your disinterest is precipitated by health issues, etc..
• Be fine with the fact that another man or woman can give your partner a better orgasm than you. You're fine w/ others cooking better than you, giving better massages than you, etc.. Besides, the only reason it may be better is BECAUSE it's someone new - it's not about you.

Anyway, feel free to add to the list if you like. We're a long ways away from it happening, but I do believe it's inevitable. Thankfully, we've come along way in our understanding of how sexual orientation and gender identification are not the same for everyone. ...That for people to have their best chance at happiness, they need to be supported in being what feels natural for them. ..For some, ethical non-monogamy is no different. It's as irrepressible as being attracted to the same sex is if you're gay. And the desire for sex outside a relationship may not be apparent while courting or at the start of a marriage, so it's not realistic to say, "Well, just make your partner aware of it before marrying.."

It seems to me that monogamy has been consistently imposed upon us and enforced in various ways over time, if not by law then via societal pressure and the authority of the church. It wasn't so long ago that societal conventions and rules existed that made it damn near impossible for a woman to exist outside of wedlock. And that condition prevails in some parts of the world today. So, if monogamy is so "natural" why do we have to work so hard to impose and enforce it.

 

[policywank]

Ah, I see. Yeah, I disagree pretty strongly with that.

I have no issue with non-monogamy, but I believe it needs enthusiastic consent from both people.

Pressuring someone to save a marriage feels wrong.

I think the challenge is that the underlying assumption here is that monogamy is the default position. Otherwise being compelled to be monogamous because that is what your partner wants would be just as much of a sacrifice as allowing your partner to be non-monogamous even though you prefer to remain monogamous. There would be no assumption that one of those sacrifices is more valid than the other.

In fact, I might argue that being restricted from doing what you want is a bigger sacrifice than not being permitted to restrict your partner's activity.

 

[LMWM321]

I have no issue with non-monogamy, but I believe it needs enthusiastic consent from both people.

Pressuring someone to save a marriage feels wrong.

I agree.. ..But I feel she should - in a world decades from now - enthusiastically consent to his being w/ other people for NSA sex. That's the gist of my post - that in years to come couples in a marriage will realize that to love someone truly and deeply is to let them live a life that best suits them. That one day we'll realize that your husband or wife needing to occasionally be w/ someone else is a NORMAL and HEALTHY thing for them. That it's as essential to their physical and mental well-being as exercise and a proper diet.

 

[lustychimera]

I think the challenge is that the underlying assumption here is that monogamy is the default position. Otherwise being compelled to be monogamous because that is what your partner wants would be just as much of a sacrifice as allowing your partner to be non-monogamous even though you prefer to remain monogamous. There would be no assumption that one of those sacrifices is more valid than the other.

In fact, I might argue that being restricted from doing what you want is a bigger sacrifice than not being permitted to restrict your partner's activity.

It's not about whether monogamy is more right or moral than nonmagomy.

It's about someone changing the agreed upon boundaries of their relationship years after marriage--that contract--is formed. Especially if it's something that would hurt their spouse in some way.

You ask, if they say no, that's when you decide if this thing you want is more important than your partner. If it is, you move on and find somebody new.

You don't browbeat your partner into compliance, knowing it will hurt them. That's not love. Having the "moral highground" doesn't change that fact.

 

[LMWM321]

In fact, I might argue that being restricted from doing what you want is a bigger sacrifice than not being permitted to restrict your partner's activity.

Well said PW (as usual) and I would add, @lustychimera, that it's not alway apparent at the outset of a relationship or marriage what a persons needs will be well into the future. For ex., I had NO idea when I married decades ago that I would one day want occasional sex with other partners to be happy, or that my wife might one day feel the same. So it's not like a 19 year old should be expected to immediately declare to a new girlfriend/boyfriend whether or not they are monogamous. ..They may be at that point, but it may well change.

Remember, I'm talking about a better, more evolved world - decades from now. ..Nowadays, most people would find it horribly embarrassing to admit their wife or husband is getting additional sex outside the marriage. But 50 years from now I think it'll be perceived as normal as admitting your partner goes to get a monthly massage. And health providers will one day be encouraging it as a way to a healthier, happier and longer life.

 

[desecration]

If we were supposed to be sexually monogamous why do so many of us continue to desire sex outside our relationships?

People desire all sorts of stuff. Kids have sex for sex's sake; when adulthood hits, people try to build families.

 

[Dearelliot]

Okay... so if she didn't have any interest in sex outside of the marriage then why wouldn't she just let him pursue it? And he most definitely should not expect his wife to do it if she wasn't truly interested in it. Asking her do it just to satisfy his kink to watch or know she's doing it isn't fair either. In fact it's horrifying.

I never asked what their reasons were for what they did,, you know sitting around engaged in bar room conversations, people talk about themselves, I didn't feel I should question.

 

[policywank]

It's not about whether monogamy is more right or moral than nonmagomy.

It's about someone changing the agreed upon boundaries of their relationship years after marriage--that contract--is formed. Especially if it's something that would hurt their spouse in some way.

You ask, if they say no, that's when you decide if this thing you want is more important than your partner. If it is, you move on and find somebody new.

You don't browbeat your partner into compliance, knowing it will hurt them. That's not love. Having the "moral highground" doesn't change that fact.

I agree that nobody should be forced or brow beaten into doing anything.

I just think that as long as everyone is treated fairly and with respect the overall framework should be that there is no one right or superior answer.

To the extent that you use words like "if this thing is more important than your partner" that applies both ways. It seems to imply that the partner who is inclined to leave their SO so that they can engage in CNM is selfish or is putting sex above their partner. I can see that point of view but then it runs the other way too. The partner who would prefer to lose their SO rather than let them engage in CNM is putting their need to limit their partner's sexual activity above their partner.

 

[policywank]

People desire all sorts of stuff. Kids have sex for sex's sake; when adulthood hits, people try to build families.

Some do. Some don't Some build families without having to be monogamous.

I don't think that the point is that adults shouldn't be responsible, but rather that there are different ways of doing so and it is not an absolute that it must involve monogamy.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Like, he says he wants to have sex with other people, she didn't want that, so she should just let him while she remains monogamous herself?

It's not for everybody, but some couples do have that kind of arrangement - usually termed "mono-poly".

Ah, I see. Yeah, I disagree pretty strongly with that.

I have no issue with non-monogamy, but I believe it needs enthusiastic consent from both people.

Pressuring someone to save a marriage feels wrong.

There's a lot of middle ground between "enthusiastic consent" and coercion/pressure.

I don't enjoy taking out the garbage or cleaning out the kitty litter or spending time around my partner's horrible aunt. But I do those things, because they need doing, and in some cases because it costs me less to do them than it'd cost my partner, and she does similar things for me. Any live-in relationship is likely to require a lot of those choices, where consent is neither enthusiastic nor coerced.

For some people, mono-poly relationships fall into that kind of "unenthusiastic but unforced consent" territory. The monogamous partner might not be thrilled about their partner having other lovers, but they can live with it. I have friends who've been in arrangements like that, and from what I could tell, both partners were better off as a result than if they'd gone their separate ways.

For others, the idea of their partner having other lovers is unbearable, and the only way they're saying yes to it is through coercion or denial. That's not a situation I'd recommend to anybody.

The line between the two is not an easy one to draw, and it depends on individuals and circumstances, but the distinction is important.

 

[policywank]

Well said PW (as usual) and I would add, @lustychimera, that it's not alway apparent at the outset of a relationship or marriage what a persons needs will be well into the future. For ex., I had NO idea when I married decades ago that I would one day want occasional sex with other partners to be happy, or that my wife might one day feel the same. So it's not like a 19 year old should be expected to immediately declare to a new girlfriend/boyfriend whether or not they are monogamous. ..They may be at that point, but it may well change.

Remember, I'm talking about a better, more evolved world - decades from now. ..Nowadays, most people would find it horribly embarrassing to admit their wife or husband is getting additional sex outside the marriage. But 50 years from now I think it'll be perceived as normal as admitting your partner goes to get a monthly massage. And health providers will one day be encouraging it as a way to a healthier, happier and longer life.

I think that even in today's world the marriage contract is an evolving thing. Most people no longer buy into the notion that whatever you said on your wedding day is an iron clad commitment until death. We each have the right to change the terms of reference as long as we are forthright and honest about it and we respect our partner's right to make their own decision.

If for instance one partner decides that they want to engage in consensual non-monogamy, I think that they need to think about the consequences, communicate effectively with their spouse and go about their activities in a way that is respectful including any divorce that may ensue. But they are not obliged to obtain permission absent which they must remain in the marriage as it was. And they don't deserve to be judged for making a decision that was their story make.

 

[lustychimera]

I can see that point of view but then it runs the other way too. The partner who would prefer to lose their SO rather than let them engage in CNM is putting their need to limit their partner's sexual activity above their partner.

I think that's the spot where we fundamentally disagree. I can empathize with that POV, but I also feel that the person who changes the terms is the one leaving. The other person is reacting to those changes.

I don't see the vice versa as equal.

 

[policywank]

It's not for everybody, but some couples do have that kind of arrangement - usually termed "mono-poly".



There's a lot of middle ground between "enthusiastic consent" and coercion/pressure.

I don't enjoy taking out the garbage or cleaning out the kitty litter or spending time around my partner's horrible aunt. But I do those things, because they need doing, and in some cases because it costs me less to do them than it'd cost my partner, and she does similar things for me. Any live-in relationship is likely to require a lot of those choices, where consent is neither enthusiastic nor coerced.

For some people, mono-poly relationships fall into that kind of "unenthusiastic but unforced consent" territory. The monogamous partner might not be thrilled about their partner having other lovers, but they can live with it. I have friends who've been in arrangements like that, and from what I could tell, both partners were better off as a result than if they'd gone their separate ways.

For others, the idea of their partner having other lovers is unbearable, and the only way they're saying yes to it is through coercion or denial. That's not a situation I'd recommend to anybody.

The line between the two is not an easy one to draw, and it depends on individuals and circumstances, but the distinction is important.

I'd suggest that all marriages involve some measure of unenthusiastic but unforced consent in some aspect of the marriage. It is just that we have been taught that there are certain compromises that are correct and certain ones that are incorrect. Forsaking all others is correct we are told and expecting your partner not to compel you to forsake all others is incorrect.

There are a whole litany of trade-offs or compromises for which society tries tells us what the right answer is. But those aren't objective truths. They are just dogma that has been forced upon us.