Open Partnerships

[Etoile]

Four months sounds damn good to me. Actually, that's probably about how often we do it in reality, but "OMG NO SEX FOR FOUR MONTHS" is kind of overreacting where I'm coming from.

 

[nh23]

How 'bout me and K and our almost twelve years?

My ex husband and I were together for almost twelve years. *coughs* Just sayin.

 

[graceanne]

My ex husband and I were together for almost twelve years. *coughs* Just sayin.

That doesn't make our twelve years any less important or special. My mom and stepdad were together almost 25 years, doesn't mean that 25 years isn't impressive in people who are still married.

 

[nh23]

That doesn't make our twelve years any less important or special. My mom and stepdad were together almost 25 years, doesn't mean that 25 years isn't impressive in people who are still married.

Nope. I didn't mean that at all. Just read your post and my mind went straight to that.

 

[graceanne]

Nope. I didn't mean that at all. Just read your post and my mind went straight to that.

Ok. Sorry if I overreacted. *hugs*

 

[Homburg]

REPENT. THE END IS NIGH.

Return to the fold you non-monogamous delusion whackaloons.

 

[nh23]

Ok. Sorry if I overreacted. *hugs*

*hugs* No problem. I don't say things clearly a lot.

 

[BiBunny]

Oh, for the love of motherfucking God, can I point out for the 12582935183692048th time that poly does not necessarily equal a dominant having a harem of submissives?

*Headdesk*

I think having "rules" is stupid. In my opinion, you should treat everybody in the relationship the same, or you should take your ball and go home. But I'm not gonna tell another person that it's not gonna work. Obviously, it does work for them, or they wouldn't be doing it.

Not. In. The. Mood.

 

[Netzach]

I can't convey the happy well being I get when M's out with his BF, boinking or whatever they're doing and I'm alone at home to indulge in lit, work, eat shitty Chinese food etc. If this is dysfunction, I'm guilty.

Of the two of us, I'm more prone to jealousy and insecurities. I'm still waiting after a year to get bummed out on my solo time.

 

[rida]

whether a relationship is doomed or not, will last forever or not, has very little to do with the type of relationship (mono, poly, vanilla, kinky, straight, gay or what not) and everything to do with how well matched are the people involved, both in short and long term goals.
with a little random element due to unforeseeable external circumstances

 

[Keroin]

Oh, for the love of motherfucking God, can I point out for the 12582935183692048th time that poly does not necessarily equal a dominant having a harem of submissives?

You mean I have to return my "I Dream of Jeanie" costume? But I looked so cute in that hat!

 

[Homburg]

whether a relationship is doomed or not, will last forever or not, has very little to do with the type of relationship (mono, poly, vanilla, kinky, straight, gay or what not) and everything to do with how well matched are the people involved, both in short and long term goals.
with a little random element due to unforeseeable external circumstances

Spot on. Thoroughly spot on.

--

You mean I have to return my "I Dream of Jeanie" costume? But I looked so cute in that hat!

My brain is now stuck imagining you in that get-up. Damn.

Fortunately, it is in no way a bad image to be stuck on.

 

[BiBunny]

You mean I have to return my "I Dream of Jeanie" costume? But I looked so cute in that hat!

No, no, you can keep the costume.

 

[rida]

Spot on. Thoroughly spot on.

thank you!

My brain is now stuck imagining you in that get-up. Damn.

Fortunately, it is in no way a bad image to be stuck on.

Yep, totally:
What a nice image to be stuck on ...

 

[rida]

You mean I have to return my "I Dream of Jeanie" costume? But I looked so cute in that hat!

No, no, you can keep the costume.

NO, no, the right line was:

"you can keep your hat on ..."

 

[Magick_Temple]

There's nothing to argue about really.

Obviously the guy who thinks that just because he's never seen a certain sort of relationship work in his own experience has a bit of a god complex, since I doubt even he's old enough to have intimately watched the relationship experiences of everyone in all cultures during his time on the earth, but at the end of the day a relationship works or it doesn't based on the compatibility of the dreams, desires, needs and hopes of those involved.

It's probably true to say more poly relationships fail in the early days than mono relationships simply because there are more people involved who might change their mind, or find that their partners were not quite as compatible as they at first believed. Say one in a hundred people might meet your needs, then try to find two that do or even more, and obviously the odds of getting it right decrease. But that's not to say it doesn't work, just that it takes more thought, honesty and openness to be sure all parties are suitable.

Monogamy certainly isn't hard-wired biologically, it is a social construct based on either low self esteem (jealousy), religious/political conviction, or a simple overwhelming love for another that truly overshadows all other attraction. But even socially and religiously monogamy is only the preferred state in certain times, places and societies.

IMHO all that matters is that you are open with yourself and your partner, go for gold and never settle for second best, and hope that things don't change too much in the future. how many partners end up in the relationship should be based simply on what those involved want.

 

[rida]

There's nothing to argue about really.

Obviously the guy who thinks that just because he's never seen a certain sort of relationship work in his own experience has a bit of a god complex, since I doubt even he's old enough to have intimately watched the relationship experiences of everyone in all cultures during his time on the earth, but at the end of the day a relationship works or it doesn't based on the compatibility of the dreams, desires, needs and hopes of those involved.

It's probably true to say more poly relationships fail in the early days than mono relationships simply because there are more people involved who might change their mind, or find that their partners were not quite as compatible as they at first believed. Say one in a hundred people might meet your needs, then try to find two that do or even more, and obviously the odds of getting it right decrease. But that's not to say it doesn't work, just that it takes more thought, honesty and openness to be sure all parties are suitable.

Monogamy certainly isn't hard-wired biologically,it is a social construct based on either low self esteem (jealousy), religious/political conviction, or a simple overwhelming love for another that truly overshadows all other attraction. But even socially and religiously monogamy is only the preferred state in certain times, places and societies.

IMHO all that matters is that you are open with yourself and your partner, go for gold and never settle for second best, and hope that things don't change too much in the future. how many partners end up in the relationship should be based simply on what those involved want.

I know you did not mean it, and usually I'm not the one to point out such things, but the bolded statement worded as it is manages to single handly insult both monogamous people (low self estime) and polyamorous ones (their love is not strong enough).

And it is a pity as it detracts from other valid points you make in your post, such as the fact that it is statistically harder to match 3 people than 2.

 

[Magick_Temple]

Wow, I've never been criticised for how a sentence reads if you miss out some of the clauses before LOL

Obviously, the first point that I am insulting monogamous people by suggesting they have low self esteem only works *if* you pretend I didn't include the other possible reasons for their feeling that way... so... erm... since I did I don't really feel the need to answer that one.

The second point, that I may have unintentionally insulted poly-amorous folk by suggesting that overwhelming love is reserved for, or would result in, a monogamous relationship is a more answerable criticism.

As you acknowledge, the perceived slight was certainly not intended, and I apologise if anyone read it that way. A better wording would have been 'a simple overwhelming love for another that truly, in their case, overshadows all other attraction.'

I hadn't seen it as an exclusive suggestion - ie; that this was the *only possible* result of that sort of love, but if we are to try to make my semantics unimpeachable I have to take your point.

And to try to avoid any other misunderstanding of my views, the 'IMHO' at the start of the last paragraph that may otherwise sound as though I am stating what I believe to be unarguable fact is a really important part of the statement.

 

[JMohegan]

Okay Old Guy Experence here, I've seen and been involved with enough people to know that open relationships just don't work. We have a thousand years of hard wired morals that relationships are one-on-one. In the end the Mistress or Master loose their harem and are either alone, or with one hanger-on that they may or may not be able to stand.

The internal time clock is ticking.

Middle aged guy here. My observation is that open relationships of the type described in the OP's link do work, in many cases, for the reasons quoted below. In saying they "do work," I mean that the husband and wife stay together over the long term, and happily so. Most often, the third parties come and go.

AOL Health: What do you get out of having an open marriage?

Block: More than anything, I get a sense of peace. I don't ever have a sense of, "What if there's something else out there?" It's exciting to be with someone new.

AOL Health: What do you think your husband gets out of it?

Block: He always tells me two things. One, for him it's about the freedom too. He hasn't had a girlfriend since that first one [we had together]. But he likes the idea of going to a basketball game or a bar and buying some girl a drink and hanging out and not feeling like I'm going to walk in and say, "What the hell is going on here?" It's fun to be attracted to other people. It's fun to feel sexy, after having me barking at him about chores. It's nice to have some pretty girls not yelling at him and see him as a person, not as a husband or a father, but as a person. That feels nice, that feels good. It's that and he feels like a success. When he and I were having troubles, he felt like he was a failure. He wondered what was wrong with him that our marriage wasn't deliriously happy? Now he feels like a success. Because I have everything and he has everything and everybody's happy. A happy, healthy marriage, family and household -- that can be a grand measure of success.

M-s-s is an entirely different dynamic and challenge, because of the power imbalance and the fact that any sharing that goes on is usually one-sided (i.e., M feels free to take on more than one s, at his/her discretion, but s is usually not free to take on more than one M or outside relationship.)

 

[DiscusDave]

I think my feeling on this has always been more of "excited naivety." I've seen it said soooooo many times (even in my short time here on the boards) that you can't tell someone else that their type/form/set-up of "relationship" does or does not work, because you are not part of the dynamic. This is ever so true. With that in mind, having never been in any open/poly/multiple-partner relationships.... I can't say whether those work or not. All I can say is that since my cluelessness lends to, not a misunderstanding, but as I call it an UN-understanding, I amalways amazed (not meant in any offense), awed, excited and happy for those poly and open relationships that work, and I think that everyone taking part should be applauded. I think that's partly because I am excited over ANY relationship that works. Because relationships, IMO (and seem to be on), are just that... hard work. Albeit very rewarding work, but still it takes a massive amount of effort on any involved party's part to make everything run smoothly. Which, almost any hard work should be commended.

So yeah.... that's my opinion. Or at least my take on it. To sum up.... "YAY FOR PEOPLE BEING IN HAPPY RELATIONSHIPS!"

(I know though that this type of thinking is in the vast minority of thought, though.)

----

I know this was far back, but what's a "whackaloons?"

 

[Homburg]

All I can say is that since my cluelessness lends to, not a misunderstanding, but as I call it an UN-understanding, I amalways amazed (not meant in any offense), awed, excited and happy for those poly and open relationships that work, and I think that everyone taking part should be applauded.

It might amuse some people to know this, but I was actively biased against open/poly relationships for most of my life. I think it was backlash against my own long suppressed urges.

Still, one of my best friends in the world had a long-standing rule - any woman interested in dating him had to be both bisexual and willing to have an open relationship. In his case, he's been married twice. The first one lasted three years and ended in divorce. While the open side of it caused issues, I think the pressure of him being in the military and far, far away from her all the time (she was unwilling to move from the local area regardless of his length of deployment or PCS) had more to do with it than not. When he got out, he decided to move to Texas to take a particularly good job, and she didn't want to move. Marriage ended right there essentially.

I never really approved of the arrangement, nor of the girl he married. He knew it, and we'd agreed to disagree. Kudos to him, when I came out as poly (and he was literally one of the first people I told) he did not razz me for it. Just gave me solid, down to earth advice and wished me well. There's a reason we've been friends for 20 years now.

I know this was far back, but what's a "whackaloons?"

Well, it has a political connotation, but usually it just means a not quite sane person. Really not sane. And, in this case, the not-sane is by decision, not biochemical imbalances.

 

[DiscusDave]

It might amuse some people to know this, but I was actively biased against open/poly relationships for most of my life. I think it was backlash against my own long suppressed urges.

.....

I never really approved of the arrangement, nor of the girl he married. He knew it, and we'd agreed to disagree. Kudos to him, when I came out as poly (and he was literally one of the first people I told) he did not razz me for it. Just gave me solid, down to earth advice and wished me well. There's a reason we've been friends for 20 years now.

Thank you for the insight. I think I'd get a bigger kick out of you being against open/poly relationships way back when, if you were gallivanting around trying to convert any monogamous person to those types of relationships. Maybe I missed the gallivanting, but I haven't been privy to any of that from you, so it's just interesting insight into how a person's desires can change over time.

I think you're friends experiences can be related back to the idea that any type of relationships have the potential to not succeed, and it's the cooperative effort of all those involved (whether just 2 or more than that) to keep it afloat. Give him my regards and wish him well, from me, on any endeavors he undertakes.

Well, it has a political connotation, but usually it just means a not quite sane person. Really not sane. And, in this case, the not-sane is by decision, not biochemical imbalances.

Thanks! I'll try and fit that word into some conversation in the next week. Whackaloon! Hehehe. Ah the simple things in life.

 

[Homburg]

Thank you for the insight. I think I'd get a bigger kick out of you being against open/poly relationships way back when, if you were gallivanting around trying to convert any monogamous person to those types of relationships. Maybe I missed the gallivanting, but I haven't been privy to any of that from you, so it's just interesting insight into how a person's desires can change over time.

Nope, no gallivanting. There were some apologies rendered, the friend mentioned above got one and flat said that no apology was necessary, as I'd never been a dick about it.

I think you're friends experiences can be related back to the idea that any type of relationships have the potential to not succeed, and it's the cooperative effort of all those involved (whether just 2 or more than that) to keep it afloat. Give him my regards and wish him well, from me, on any endeavors he undertakes.

Yeah, his take on it was that it was good while it lasted, and could have continued had she been flexible about moving. I know he'd love to open up his current relationship, but I doubt it will happen.

Thanks! I'll try and fit that word into some conversation in the next week. Whackaloon! Hehehe. Ah the simple things in life.

It is an excellent word

 

[rida]

Wow, I've never been criticised for how a sentence reads if you miss out some of the clauses before LOL

*snip*

Didn't mean to criticize, and I see that my words came out harsher that I meant them to be. Personally, I did not feel offended. And I did read the totality of your message. It is just that mono vs poly is often a touchy subject and so I did something that I never do and pointed out the way your words could be mistaken.

As for your last paragraph,

IMHO all that matters is that you are open with yourself and your partner, go for gold and never settle for second best, and hope that things don't change too much in the future. how many partners end up in the relationship should be based simply on what those involved want.

I agree.