Open marriage... can this work?

Anonymous
I cross posted this from another thread, but I thought it would be more appropriate as a stand alone question.

What does everyone think about an open marriage? That is, what about a married couple who come to a mutual agreement that they don't have to stay monogamous? This decision was reached after they BOTH had indiscretions and the ability to stay monogamous was a major tension point in their marriage. They want to stay married and they have two DCs together. And now they don't have to only sleep with each other, but they do have to be safe when with other people and they have to be honest with each other. Is this even feasible or are they fooling themselves?
Anonymous
They are no better than animals.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:They are no better than animals.



What a nuanced, thoughtful response.
Anonymous
Would they be ok if their children grew up and did the same thing in their marriages?
Anonymous
I would worry about both parties ability to keep things purely physical with the people they sleep with. Also, I would ask why both parties in the marriage have had indiscretions. Is it that monogamy doesn't work for them, or is it that the marriage is in a rough spot? What is the communication like? Will the marriage be able to survive being open? Lots of stuff to consider. I am skeptical.
Anonymous
The sanctity of marriage is gone.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I cross posted this from another thread, but I thought it would be more appropriate as a stand alone question.

What does everyone think about an open marriage? That is, what about a married couple who come to a mutual agreement that they don't have to stay monogamous? This decision was reached after they BOTH had indiscretions and the ability to stay monogamous was a major tension point in their marriage. They want to stay married and they have two DCs together. And now they don't have to only sleep with each other, but they do have to be safe when with other people and they have to be honest with each other. Is this even feasible or are they fooling themselves?


Wow, what an incredibly dysfunctional family unit. Great examples for the kids too.

Really, did anything good come out of cheating? And, technically, this is cheating - you're no longer monog. with your spouse -with or without the consent. You're no longer fully committed to each other both physically and emotionally.
Anonymous
While I agree with the previous posters that this arrangement is wrong, dysfunctional, whatever, would it be better for a divorce to go through, and have the kids now see the parents sleeping around more in the open? It they can keep it a secret, like just meet the f*&# buddy in a hotel, with a complete understanding from said FB that any contact with the family is strictly forbidden could it work? I don't agree at all with open marriage, but if the kids don't see it "modeled" and the parents can be very discreet, it may be better than the loose behavior they'd see if a divorce went through.
Anonymous
OP,

I'd read up on this. A young man wrote about his open marriage, no children, in a magazine article I read years ago. The two problems I recall arising were 1.) how to handle one of the them developing emotional attachments to their outside lovers and 2.) feeling jealous when his wife had a lover and he was having a dry spell.

It sounds too complicated and unworkable. Personally I could never agree to it.
Anonymous
MYOB.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The sanctity of marriage is gone.


Uh, when was it ever present?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:They are no better than animals.



What a nuanced, thoughtful response.


Was "nuanced" your word of the day and you felt the need to fit it in to a sentence even where it was not applicable.

Only animals are indiscriminate about their sex partners. If the shoe fits -- wear it.



Adjective: nuanced (comparative more nuanced, superlative most nuanced)

1.Having nuances; possessed of multiple layers of detail, pattern, or meaning
The setting sunlight played through the gently waving branches, creating subtly nuanced transitions of color and tone as the shadows swept back and forth in the rosy glow.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Only animals are indiscriminate about their sex partners. If the shoe fits -- wear it.


Sounds like OP is being quite discriminate about her sex partners. Monogamy works for some folks. Not for others. As long as you're up front and honest about it, it can certainly work. I'd check out some of Dan Savage's writing / podcasts for more info on this. The key is honesty, realizing that your primary relationship is with your spouse, and giving explicit veto-power to DH/DW.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:They are no better than animals.



What a nuanced, thoughtful response.


Was "nuanced" your word of the day and you felt the need to fit it in to a sentence even where it was not applicable.

Only animals are indiscriminate about their sex partners. If the shoe fits -- wear it.



Adjective: nuanced (comparative more nuanced, superlative most nuanced)

1.Having nuances; possessed of multiple layers of detail, pattern, or meaning
The setting sunlight played through the gently waving branches, creating subtly nuanced transitions of color and tone as the shadows swept back and forth in the rosy glow.



Noun: irony
1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning —called also Socratic irony
2
a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning
b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony
c : an ironic expression or utterance


One more


Noun:twat [twæt tw?t] -Taboo slang

1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Anatomy) the female genitals
2. a girl or woman considered sexually
3. a foolish or despicable person
Anonymous
I feel sorry for the kids. They're going to be so messed up.

I don't think the marriage will last.
Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
Go to: