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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I had NO IDEA in my 20s and 30s that I wasn't able to be faithful. Why would that even cross my mind if I'd never been unfaithful before? But when it happened, it happened and I went full tilt.

Looking back I can say there were red flags about our relationship, but not about my ability to be monogamous. I seemed perfectly capable of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much of this is related to millennial guys having zero testosterone and being more likely to be cucks.

If we put cuck-testosterone levels on the Y-axis and thigh-gaps on the X-axis, I'll bet we could really learn something.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+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...).

+1. It's all fun and games until someone gets too attached and boom, blows up your household, finances, and kids' lives. This seems like basically propaganda. They cast divorce and cheating as inevitabilities rather than choices or outcomes resulting from predictable factors. They really couldn't find anyone who had a bad outcome and regrets it?

Having been raised by hippies, I know several adults whose parents had open marriages, and they universally hated it. The article gives extremely short shrift to the experiences of children and the impact on them.

And to the first lady, who cheated on her husband, your boyfriend is a LIAR and if he'll cheat with you, he'll cheat on you. But you are ethically challenged too, so you probably don't care.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

+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...).

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much of this is related to millennial guys having zero testosterone and being more likely to be cucks.