Are there Reasonable Moral Grounds to Oppose Open Relationships and Marriages?

[Drolefille]

Um you said infidelity is a relationship problem and not an open relationship problem? That is self contradictory. Open relationships are relationships!

No, it's saying that infidelity is a problem with all relationships and cannot be laid at the feet of open relationships as a problem that solely belongs to them.
There are gray areas in every relationship.

Again with monogamy there is the idea that one will be solely dedicated to one, in an open relationship sure let's assume there is that dedication on the same level as monogamy, even still if we are to define anything we need to define what is commitment in an open relationship because frankly open relationships in my opinion are nothing more than commited dating relationships w/benefits.

So you're assuming commitment and then assuming that this commitment is not actually commitment after all?
Here's where using your opinion and your assumptions breaks down the logic. Relationships with benefits would describe a "total open" or a "swinger" relationship but not really describe a polyamorous relationship where there is commitment between the multiple parties.
Such commitment is defined within the relationship. Just as it is within monogamous relationships. We don't have cultural tradition of wedding vows for nothing. That's explicitly stating the expectations in a formal ritualized venue.

You giving me information is new sure, but not a universal truth, but neither is mine.
Why should a man dedicate himself to one woman when she also shares herself with another man? Why shouldn't that man have someone for himself? At what point in an open relationship do you define cheating?

If the man wants someone all for himself, then he should be in a monogamous relationship. That's easy.

And when you're breaking the rules of your relationship - whether by lying, performing certain sexual acts, bringing in a partner of a certain gender, etc. - then you're cheating.

Same thing with a mono relationship - cheating can include going to a strip club or watching porn for some couples, but others won't care in the slightest. It's about the rules of your individual relationship(s).

 

[Averroes]

Let's try this again

In a monogamous relationship there is complete unanimous understanding that the involving party is only 1 person for 1 person. In an open relationship, there are several involved. My question if you choose to answer, is at what point do you define infidelity in an open relationship? Please stop saying its the same cause it isn't. For example lets look at your situation. A woman with two byfriends. At what point is it cheating? When a man is discovered with another woman other than you? Or if discovered, and you know of the woman, is it not cheating because you know about it and accept it?

With monogamous relationships I know my wife expects me to be dedicated to her and her alone. But in open polyamorous relationships how do I define fidelity? Where does infidelity come in?

 

[Drolefille]

Let's try this again

In a monogamous relationship there is complete unanimous understanding that the involving party is only 1 person for 1 person. In an open relationship, there are several involved. My question if you choose to answer, is at what point do you define infidelity in an open relationship? Please stop saying its the same cause it isn't. For example lets look at your situation. A woman with two byfriends. At what point is it cheating? When a man is discovered with another woman other than you? Or if discovered, and you know of the woman, is it not cheating because you know about it and accept it?

When the rules of the open relationship are violated. It is not the same in every open relationship. That is what I'm trying to get across to you.
In my relationships, some amount of notice is expected prior to initiating another relationship. While neither of my boyfriends really has veto power over a new relationship that I'm seeking out, I'd consider their opinions and feelings because that's the ethical thing to do. They're not ones to try and veto something without some sort of serious concern anyway. Were I to find another partner and hide this from them, that would be cheating. Were I to inform them that I was looking for/found another partner and was wanting to explore that relationship, that would not be cheating.

We know this because we've discussed it.

With monogamous relationships I know my wife expects me to be dedicated to her and her alone. But in open polyamorous relationships how do I define fidelity? Where does infidelity come in?

You open your mouth and define your expectations and she defines hers and you work it out between you two. It requires effort, but it's worthwhile. And explicitly speaking about these things is healthy in all sorts of relationships.

 

[Averroes]

When the rules of the open relationship are violated. It is not the same in every open relationship. That is what I'm trying to get across to you.
In my relationships, some amount of notice is expected prior to initiating another relationship. While neither of my boyfriends really has veto power over a new relationship that I'm seeking out, I'd consider their opinions and feelings because that's the ethical thing to do. They're not ones to try and veto something without some sort of serious concern anyway. Were I to find another partner and hide this from them, that would be cheating. Were I to inform them that I was looking for/found another partner and was wanting to explore that relationship, that would not be cheating.

We know this because we've discussed it.


You open your mouth and define your expectations and she defines hers and you work it out between you two. It requires effort, but it's worthwhile. And explicitly speaking about these things is healthy in all sorts of relationships.

Hmmm interesting.

So the parameters of how you define fidelity is that so long as you get notice? But how is one obligated to the other in this type of relationship?

 

[Drolefille]

Hmmm interesting.

So the parameters of how you define fidelity is that so long as you get notice? But how is one obligated to the other in this type of relationship?

Yes, our definition of faithfulness is adhering to the rules of the relationship.

I find obligation an odd way to define a relationship, but we love each other, talk often, support each other emotionally through happiness and sadness, spend time together, ensure that each gets time with the other partner as needed. We've made a commitment to be together, although there have not been handfastings at this time.

Why do you think that an obligation to one another is necessary to be committed?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Um you said infidelity is a relationship problem and not an open relationship problem? That is self contradictory. Open relationships are relationships! Again with monogamy there is the idea that one will be solely dedicated to one, in an open relationship sure let's assume there is that dedication on the same level as monogamy, even still if we are to define anything we need to define what is commitment in an open relationship because frankly open relationships in my opinion are nothing more than commited dating relationships w/benefits.

Commitment such as to have and to hold, for better or ill, till death do you part, are a part of open relationships. I have sex with someone who isn't my girlfriend (fiance technically), and at the end of the day we snuggle up and are like any other couple. It's just she has a very low sex drive, I don't, and that would be such a terrible reason to end a relationship when everything else is so good.

My question if you choose to answer, is at what point do you define infidelity in an open relationship?

Dishonesty is a good starting point. Emotional infidelity if it is outside the defined boundaries of the relationship, as in having a romantic relationship with another.

 

[Averroes]

Yes, our definition of faithfulness is adhering to the rules of the relationship.

I find obligation an odd way to define a relationship, but we love each other, talk often, support each other emotionally through happiness and sadness, spend time together, ensure that each gets time with the other partner as needed. We've made a commitment to be together, although there have not been handfastings at this time.

Why do you think that an obligation to one another is necessary to be committed?

Well to sustain the definition of fidelity one is essentially obligated to not transgress fidelity. One must maintain their "oath" to sustain their part in the relationship

 

[Averroes]

Commitment such as to have and to hold, for better or ill, till death do you part, are a part of open relationships. I have sex with someone who isn't my girlfriend (fiance technically), and at the end of the day we snuggle up and are like any other couple. It's just she has a very low sex drive, I don't, and that would be such a terrible reason to end a relationship when everything else is so good.


Dishonesty is a good starting point. Emotional infidelity if it is outside the defined boundaries of the relationship, as in having a romantic relationship with another.

Hmmm

I just think just by what was explained here that the subliminal message of open relationships is, that the person isn't satisfied, and thus desire to be open to other personalities. As human beings we have particular favorites and so do I find that can happen in open relationships. For instance, if one boyfriend is particularly affectionate, and the other isn't, the one who shows affection may be desired more emotionally on that level than the other. It's just not an equitable situation.

As far as dishonesty is concerned, sure, I believe this is cross-cultural wisdom. But if I'm in a situation in where I am with a female and she desires me and I desire her yet she desires another man, unless I don't put too much stock in her it would be an uncomfortable situation. In the back of my mind I would wonder...

 

[Kathryn]

Obligations exist in many committed relationships - and they're not a bad thing. For example, if my husband were to be in an accident, or have a stroke, I'd be obligated to take care of him - it is my COMMITMENT to stick with him in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer. But it goes further than that. I am also obligated - to spoon feed him, change his Depends, drive him back and forth to physical therapy, and visit him even if he doesn't know who I am.

And vice versa.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For instance, if one boyfriend is particularly affectionate, and the other isn't, the one who shows affection may be desired more emotionally on that level than the other. It's just not an equitable situation.

It's just like any other relationship. If someone is interested in a romantic relationship with you, but you already have a SO, then you say no. As for sexual favorites, sure I've had mine, but I do not want to love anyone except the woman I am with.

But if I'm in a situation in where I am with a female and she desires me and I desire her yet she desires another man, unless I don't put too much stock in her it would be an uncomfortable situation. In the back of my mind I would wonder...

And that is ok if it would be uncomfortable to you. Humans have evolved in such a way that we are biologically in are in the middle between being monogamous or polygamous creatures. We can fall into either orientation.

 

[Averroes]

Obligations exist in many committed relationships - and they're not a bad thing. For example, if my husband were to be in an accident, or have a stroke, I'd be obligated to take care of him - it is my COMMITMENT to stick with him in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer. But it goes further than that. I am also obligated - to spoon feed him, change his Depends, drive him back and forth to physical therapy, and visit him even if he doesn't know who I am.

And vice versa.

Right and that is my point. Do open relationships blurr that line of obligation? Not talking about absolute devotion, but that commitment where one person isn't satisfied with one personality but several.

 

[Kathryn]

Right and that is my point. Does open relationships blurr that line of obligation? Not talking about absolute devotion, but that commitment where one person isn't satisfied with one personality but several.

I'm sure that people in polyamorous relationships would tell you that they are committed to that level. Here's where things get blurry to me though - when other partners are married - to someone else. Are they going to take time out of their marriage to spoon feed you three times a day? If you're out of work, are they going to put you on their group insurance plan?

I know it's not romantic or sexy to bring these things up, but these are the practicalities of marriage and commitment.

 

[Averroes]

I'm sure that people in polyamorous relationships would tell you that they are committed to that level. Here's where things get blurry to me though - when other partners are married - to someone else. Are they going to take time out of their marriage to spoon feed you three times a day? If you're out of work, are they going to put you on their group insurance plan?

I know it's not romantic or sexy to bring these things up, but these are the practicalities of marriage and commitment.

I guess I'm still having trouble because in reality (in the philosophical sense) if I am with a woman in an open relationship, and who, also has another man in this open relationship when she is with the other guy she isn't committed to me and when she is with me she isn't committed to the other guy (See my point)?

 

[Kathryn]

I guess I'm still having trouble because in reality (in the philosophical sense) if I am with a woman in an open relationship, and who, also has another man in this open relationship when she is with the other guy she isn't committed to me and when she is with me she isn't committed to the other guy (See my point)?

Yes - because I am also a very monogamous person. Not one time in fifty years have I been in any other sort of intimate relationship - nor have I ever wanted to be. My ex husband did cheat on me - with strangers he met online and then in person for casual sex. I'll just say this much - I got it all in the divorce.

My current husband (I saved the best for last, apparently!) also puts top priority on monogamy. His ex wife was unfaithful to him as well - with several partners.

We are both adamantly monogamous. I think what bothers me is that some (not all, but some) polyamorous people insist that monogamy is not the natural state - it's a learned behavior, and therefore some sort of unnatural restriction of emotions and sexuality. This position denigrates the choice, and the value and positives, of monogamous relationships.

I think, though, that polyamorous people would say that they are committed to BOTH people, or ALL the people, in the relationship(s). My question is - how deep does this committment go? When push comes to shove, who do you spoon feed? Whose diapers do you change?

 

[Drolefille]

Well to sustain the definition of fidelity one is essentially obligated to not transgress fidelity. One must maintain their "oath" to sustain their part in the relationship

I don't know what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying what I've been saying: You follow the rules of your relationship, this is how you maintain fidelity.

Hmmm

As far as dishonesty is concerned, sure, I believe this is cross-cultural wisdom. But if I'm in a situation in where I am with a female and she desires me and I desire her yet she desires another man, unless I don't put too much stock in her it would be an uncomfortable situation. In the back of my mind I would wonder...

So poly isn't for you. I don't have that worry with my boyfriends. I'm awesome, and they both agree. They're awesome and that's why both I and their wives are with them.

I had a relationship break up because there was a lot of insecurity and lack of honesty. That's what made it a bad relationship.

Obligations exist in many committed relationships - and they're not a bad thing. For example, if my husband were to be in an accident, or have a stroke, I'd be obligated to take care of him - it is my COMMITMENT to stick with him in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer. But it goes further than that. I am also obligated - to spoon feed him, change his Depends, drive him back and forth to physical therapy, and visit him even if he doesn't know who I am.

And vice versa.

That's the commitment you made, certainly. I don't really see it as an obligation, per se. Nor would I define my relationship in the terms of 'obligation' rather than 'commitment.'

That said, there's no difference in the obligations of an open relationship compared with a similar closed relationship. Married couples are still married, dating relationships are still dating relationships. The only difference is if one partner tells the other "If I am a vegetable go find someone else" vs" If I am a vegetable, stay with Steve." (Or whatever.) These expectations and 'obligations' vary in any relationship, but I still wouldn't call the parties "obligated to each other" particularly not as a primary descriptive factor.

And that is ok if it would be uncomfortable to you. Humans have evolved in such a way that we are biologically in are in the middle between being monogamous or polygamous creatures. We can fall into either orientation.

And having evolved minds and emotions we're not limited to the biologically necessary - as someone else referenced earlier in this thread. We can pretty much love, bond and/or mate with who we like *SAFE, SANE AND CONSENSUALLY*

Right and that is my point. Do open relationships blurr that line of obligation? Not talking about absolute devotion, but that commitment where one person isn't satisfied with one personality but several.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Do open relationships mean you can ditch your spouse when things get rough? I mean, just about the same as a monogamous relationship. Does it mean it's more 'ok' to do so? Only if you are unethical in your relationship (just like in a monogamous relationship.)

You could argue that it would mean you'd have better emotional support when things were rough. Going through a breakup with two boyfriends supporting me was possibly the easiest breakup I've had. It was heart-wrenching for other reasons, but it was, in retrospect, a time I knew I had people to catch me if I started falling into despair.

 

[Drolefille]

I'm sure that people in polyamorous relationships would tell you that they are committed to that level. Here's where things get blurry to me though - when other partners are married - to someone else. Are they going to take time out of their marriage to spoon feed you three times a day? If you're out of work, are they going to put you on their group insurance plan?

I know it's not romantic or sexy to bring these things up, but these are the practicalities of marriage and commitment.

Many of these things are not legal options. Were they, and were we to get handfasted or married, then, yes. All of the above.

I'm not handfasted - either as engagement or marriage - so we're in the long-term dating stage of things. But I know people who are in serious, hand-fasted committed relationships who live together, raise kids together, and yes they are with each other for the duration.

I guess I'm still having trouble because in reality (in the philosophical sense) if I am with a woman in an open relationship, and who, also has another man in this open relationship when she is with the other guy she isn't committed to me and when she is with me she isn't committed to the other guy (See my point)?

You're not polyamorous, so it's not really going to make much sense to you. When boyfriend's with his wife I'm not jealous, I'm happy for him. And vice-versa. Boyfriends are happy that I'm happy with both of them, not jealous of my commitment.

If you see commitment or love as a limited number or a percentile you're right, you can never be happy. If you see it as infinite then it's not really a concern.

Yes - because I am also a very monogamous person. Not one time in fifty years have I been in any other sort of intimate relationship - nor have I ever wanted to be. My ex husband did cheat on me - with strangers he met online and then in person for casual sex. I'll just say this much - I got it all in the divorce.

My current husband (I saved the best for last, apparently!) also puts top priority on monogamy. His ex wife was unfaithful to him as well - with several partners.

We are both adamantly monogamous. I think what bothers me is that some (not all, but some) polyamorous people insist that monogamy is not the natural state - it's a learned behavior, and therefore some sort of unnatural restriction of emotions and sexuality. This position denigrates the choice, and the value and positives, of monogamous relationships.

I think, though, that polyamorous people would say that they are committed to BOTH people, or ALL the people, in the relationship(s). My question is - how deep does this committment go? When push comes to shove, who do you spoon feed? Whose diapers do you change?

Parents who have multiple children manage to be committed to all of them. I think (the general) we'll manage.


There are poly people who find mono people to be stifled and unnatural - because they refuse to understand how mono people feel. Just like there are mono people who find poly people hedonistic, irresponsible and uncommitted (or immoral), because they refuse to understand how poly people feel. Most of us can go "huh, glad that works for you" and move on.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Right and that is my point. Do open relationships blurr that line of obligation? Not talking about absolute devotion, but that commitment where one person isn't satisfied with one personality but several.

Not really. My fiance had to bathe me after I had bilateral carpal tunnel surgery. She has had to wait on me after knee surgery, and will have to do so again for at least one month after my next knee surgery. I have also cared for her while she is ill, gave her a shoulder to cry on when her father died, and couldn't have loved her more when she told a nurse I'm her hunny bunny when I signed her out of the ER.

Here's where things get blurry to me though - when other partners are married - to someone else. Are they going to take time out of their marriage to spoon feed you three times a day? If you're out of work, are they going to put you on their group insurance plan?

That just depends on the individual person and relationship. For some the relationship ends after sex, so the answer would most likely be a no. The same for long term "friends with benefits." But there probably have been some cases in which the friend did come to the aid their friend. By comparison though there are many cases in non-open relationships in which the people do not treat eachother that good, would not take care of eachother, and couldn't care less about what eachother is doing. But for many in an open relationship sex is the only reason for a relationship outside of one's romantic relationship, so there really is no reason that such things would be considered for such a short-term arrangement.

I guess I'm still having trouble because in reality (in the philosophical sense) if I am with a woman in an open relationship, and who, also has another man in this open relationship when she is with the other guy she isn't committed to me and when she is with me she isn't committed to the other guy (See my point)?

If you are seeing this woman for sexual reasons, then you really aren't committed to her, she isn't committed to you, but she is committed to her husband as that is the person she chose to pursue a romantic relationship with. One thing to keep in mind with open relationships is that sex and romance are separated as far as choosing to have sex with someone who isn't your SO. And while sex is a great experience in general, the bonds of love can make sex a divine experience. One thing a sex partner cannot fulfill though is the euphoric bliss of looking your lover in the eyes, a powerful and emotionally charged climax, and cuddling in the arms of the one you love. Even just the cuddling part is something that non-romantic partners don't do that well.

Also it does depend on culture. The Nayars of India for example, gave a woman a symbolic non-sexual husband to announce her coming of age, and then after that any man that would give her gifts at the required times was considered her husband and had sexual access to her. One woman would have multiple husbands, and a man could have multiple wives. The father of any child would be the first man to acknowledge being the father, even if he got her pregnant or not. In Papua New Guinea, a man can have multiple wives if he is rich enough. He takes care of them all, and each wife shares the same responsibilities. For them it's an economic reason to have multiple wives because more wives makes it possible to produce more yams and raise more pigs, which is how wealth is measured in their culture.