My husband suggested "open marriage" a few years ago. A marriage counselor said that in his experience of 25 years, ALL "open" marriages ended up in divorce.

The same nut who post these threads over and over.

Big article, LOL. Yes for nutters.

Anonymous wrote:In a country of 320 million, does it work for some people? Of course but usually the exception because of all the emotions involved. Also, for heterosexual couples, women have a tremendous advantage finding sex partners (this seems to be implicitly suggested in the article's examples). This inbalance would appear to create issues in and of itself.

Anybody who isn't getting a "normal" amount of sex in his/her marriage should absolutely chose an Open Marriage. I certainly would.

The very reason behind women's "tremendous advantage finding sex partners" is that women generally do not WANT sex, while men generally ALWAYS want sex.
This imbalance is purely a result of each gender's biological sex drive.
So although most women could easily find sex, they don't actually want it, and therefore don't pursue.
Meanwhile the men are far more motivated and pursue with vigor.
Net result is a wash: both wind up getting the same amount of action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a country of 320 million, does it work for some people? Of course but usually the exception because of all the emotions involved. Also, for heterosexual couples, women have a tremendous advantage finding sex partners (this seems to be implicitly suggested in the article's examples). This inbalance would appear to create issues in and of itself.

But this is not an imbalance if the wife is the one who really wants the open marriage. We struggled for 10+ years to find a good balance. In as gentle a way as possible, I brought it up. My husband got crazy defensive, and it took me about 18 months to work it out with him. I didn't dwell on his inadequacies in the bedroom (what would be the point?) but instead talked about it being a safety valve and a way to prevent a huge area of dissatisfaction. He really likes having the freedom, in theory, but in truth is not very interested in sex in general.

Women can more readily find sex partners but this is not an imbalance if the wife wants the open marriage? I do not follow this at all. If anything, the fact that women can more easily find sex partners would be an argument that it should have to be the man who wants the open marriage before it happens.

(In reality, it should be a non-starter unless both want the open marriage. And, I think, for the majority of couples, an open marriage will be very problematic. I don't think it's a high percentage of couples who can maintain the necessary communication and emotional equilibrium required for a successful open marriage.)

I couldn't do it because I know myself and I would a) be crazy jealous and b) probably fall in love with someone else just because new sex chemicals can be so powerful. My goal in marriage is stability and synergy so this would not be for me.

I thought it was interesting. I feel certain that it would not be a good choice for DH and I, but a friend of mine and her husband have had an open marriage for over 13 years, so clearly it works for at least some others.

I think there is a huge difference between people who are actually polygamists - who both sincerely always intended to have multiple partners - and people who open their marriages in a last ditch attempt to save it, such as Elizabeth and Daniel.

I would love to see the long term divorce statistics on these relationships.

A few things that struck me as kind of glossed over:
1) it seems like the majority of the couples in the article also have children. I just don't see how parents can justify the emotional energy, time, and financial expense spent on maintaining these side relationships and not on their children/spouse.
2) the main couple the author focuses on in my opinion is not truly an open relationship. First, even though the husband brought up having an open marriage the wife said no. Then she had an affair and they "opened" the relationship. Then her husband is interested in one far away relationship that they don't have the finances to sustain which ends. Meanwhile, the wife continues to see her local "boyfriend" whose wife also doesn't know about her!
3) I was shocked that Luce and her husband had a disagreement as to whether one spouse should have an automatic veto of the other's spouse's partner if they have an STD. Gross.

Anonymous wrote:In a country of 320 million, does it work for some people? Of course but usually the exception because of all the emotions involved. Also, for heterosexual couples, women have a tremendous advantage finding sex partners (this seems to be implicitly suggested in the article's examples). This inbalance would appear to create issues in and of itself.

But this is not an imbalance if the wife is the one who really wants the open marriage. We struggled for 10+ years to find a good balance. In as gentle a way as possible, I brought it up. My husband got crazy defensive, and it took me about 18 months to work it out with him. I didn't dwell on his inadequacies in the bedroom (what would be the point?) but instead talked about it being a safety valve and a way to prevent a huge area of dissatisfaction. He really likes having the freedom, in theory, but in truth is not very interested in sex in general.

Anonymous wrote:I wish that people would figure out what they want, and what they really want, BEFORE stringing someone else along. You KNOW if you can't be faithful, you just know. So find someone who is OK with that. But my sense is that people want it both ways. The thought of entering a marriage as OPEN is off-putting to even the people who don't have the monogamy gene.

STAY SINGLE and date for heaven's sake. If you have kids and go into that lifestyle you are dragging your kids along. Kids see everything and talk a lot.

If that's not enough to convince you to get your shit together, research STD's with that kind of lifestyle. Sleeping around is dangerous.

I mean really, is it worth your life?

Anonymous wrote:In a country of 320 million, does it work for some people? Of course but usually the exception because of all the emotions involved. Also, for heterosexual couples, women have a tremendous advantage finding sex partners (this seems to be implicitly suggested in the article's examples). This inbalance would appear to create issues in and of itself.

+1. I found it interesting, but probably an overly rosy picture. I bet that for every couple that successfully implements this, there are 10 where it blows up in their faces.
I also think it's kind of funny that progressives are fine with this, but are very judgmental about polygamy. I see a lot of benefits to polygamy (especially considering how women traditionally, and even now, just have a shit-ton of work to do in the home, so you might as well split it up), and also think that polyandry should be equally OK (although, as a woman, I can't really see wanting multiple men around the house to ensure that the sporting events are on 100% of the time and the whole house really does smell like sweat...).

Anyone who suggests an open marriage is already cheating on you.

I wish that people would figure out what they want, and what they really want, BEFORE stringing someone else along. You KNOW if you can't be faithful, you just know. So find someone who is OK with that. But my sense is that people want it both ways. The thought of entering a marriage as OPEN is off-putting to even the people who don't have the monogamy gene.

In a country of 320 million, does it work for some people? Of course but usually the exception because of all the emotions involved. Also, for heterosexual couples, women have a tremendous advantage finding sex partners (this seems to be implicitly suggested in the article's examples). This inbalance would appear to create issues in and of itself.

Big piece in this weekends NYT -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/magazine/is-an-open-marriage-a-happier-marriage.html?_r=0

discuss....