Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the seventies as a small child surrounded by couples with "open" marriages. It was a lot more like wife swapping, really. A lot of people did get hurt. Some parents I know even got AIDS... but that wouldn't be my concern now, my concern now is, marriage and kids works as a partnership. No matter how stable you think your open marriage is, it's never that. Without the binary of just having a self and an other, there's a lot more to balance. I also grew up in the seventies as a small child surrounded by people who couldn't stop talking about how progressive and wonderful and cool they were for having their open marriages... meanwhile we kids were thrown together and torn apart by whom our parents were or weren't sleeping with. Nothing like telling the school counselor, "Beth isn't my mom, she's just my dad's girlfriend. But yeah, she has permission to get me from school."

Thanks for sharing the perspective of the now grown child. I think adults get lost in their own worlds sometimes, with all sorts of things (work, marriage, divorce, drama, trauma - anything). It’s helpful to see this narrative.

Agreed.

People who want to live this way shouldn't have kids. They are too selfish.

The world would be a better place if many immature adults just skipped having kids and did what they really want to do...live for themselves.

I kinda agree, but biological and social influence is real. As a woman who’s kids are now older elementary age, I feel myself reawakening as it were.

My kids are awesome and I love them, but now that my hormones are changing and the kids are smelly and opinionated I’m…restless.

I’ve read enough books to know I’m not alone. There’s a million books, drugs, etc to try and suppress or overcome.

Or I can engage in discreet, consensual extramarital relationships with likeminded people. I’m a happier person and therefore a better wife and partner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

It's a lot easier for two unhappy people to maintain a partnership/union/whatever than it is for a chain of people.

I don't think many people are built for many years of monogamy. But I think far fewer are built for many years (or even months) of polyamory.

This is the truth. Monogamy is like democracy -- a terrible idea but better than the alternative.

At least as for as marriages with children are concerned. For people who don't have kids, and especially if they are both financially independent, I think a broader range of arrangements can work. With kids, monogamy is hard to beat.

Agreed marriage is not especially significant for those who are not parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

It's a lot easier for two unhappy people to maintain a partnership/union/whatever than it is for a chain of people.

I don't think many people are built for many years of monogamy. But I think far fewer are built for many years (or even months) of polyamory.

This is the truth. Monogamy is like democracy -- a terrible idea but better than the alternative.

At least as for as marriages with children are concerned. For people who don't have kids, and especially if they are both financially independent, I think a broader range of arrangements can work. With kids, monogamy is hard to beat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

They've worked well for millennia for the majority of people

Worked well in what way?

Most societies throughout human history have been polygamous and they are associated with much worse outcomes for women and children (abuse) and in some ways worse for most men as well. There are many benefits to society, women, and children when monogamy is the standard.

. Polygamous for men and women? Societies wheee women had financial independence / equality with men?

Are there societies where women have equality with men?

Some Pacific Island cultures had more equality for women along with polygamy for both men and women.

I think strict monogamy for women along with their oppression tends to arise out of agrarian and pastoral traditions. Property and inheritance become more important concepts which means the paternity of children becomes more important. Women come to rank alongside livestock.

Which cultures are these?

Vanatinai of Papua New Guinea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

They've worked well for millennia for the majority of people

Worked well in what way?

Most societies throughout human history have been polygamous and they are associated with much worse outcomes for women and children (abuse) and in some ways worse for most men as well. There are many benefits to society, women, and children when monogamy is the standard.

. Polygamous for men and women? Societies wheee women had financial independence / equality with men?

Are there societies where women have equality with men?

Some Pacific Island cultures had more equality for women along with polygamy for both men and women.

I think strict monogamy for women along with their oppression tends to arise out of agrarian and pastoral traditions. Property and inheritance become more important concepts which means the paternity of children becomes more important. Women come to rank alongside livestock.

Which cultures are these?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

It's a lot easier for two unhappy people to maintain a partnership/union/whatever than it is for a chain of people.

I don't think many people are built for many years of monogamy. But I think far fewer are built for many years (or even months) of polyamory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

They've worked well for millennia for the majority of people

Worked well in what way?

Most societies throughout human history have been polygamous and they are associated with much worse outcomes for women and children (abuse) and in some ways worse for most men as well. There are many benefits to society, women, and children when monogamy is the standard.

. Polygamous for men and women? Societies wheee women had financial independence / equality with men?

Are there societies where women have equality with men?

Some Pacific Island cultures had more equality for women along with polygamy for both men and women.

I think strict monogamy for women along with their oppression tends to arise out of agrarian and pastoral traditions. Property and inheritance become more important concepts which means the paternity of children becomes more important. Women come to rank alongside livestock.

Wrong. I would demand strict monogamy because I'm not wasting my assets on a bastard. Simple as that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

They've worked well for millennia for the majority of people

Worked well in what way?

Most societies throughout human history have been polygamous and they are associated with much worse outcomes for women and children (abuse) and in some ways worse for most men as well. There are many benefits to society, women, and children when monogamy is the standard.

. Polygamous for men and women? Societies wheee women had financial independence / equality with men?

Are there societies where women have equality with men?

Some Pacific Island cultures had more equality for women along with polygamy for both men and women.

I think strict monogamy for women along with their oppression tends to arise out of agrarian and pastoral traditions. Property and inheritance become more important concepts which means the paternity of children becomes more important. Women come to rank alongside livestock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

They've worked well for millennia for the majority of people

Worked well in what way?

Most societies throughout human history have been polygamous and they are associated with much worse outcomes for women and children (abuse) and in some ways worse for most men as well. There are many benefits to society, women, and children when monogamy is the standard.

. Polygamous for men and women? Societies wheee women had financial independence / equality with men?

Are there societies where women have equality with men?

Some Pacific Island cultures had more equality for women along with polygamy for both men and women.

I think strict monogamy for women along with their oppression tends to arise out of agrarian and pastoral traditions. Property and inheritance become more important concepts which means the paternity of children becomes more important. Women come to rank alongside livestock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

They've worked well for millennia for the majority of people

Worked well in what way?

Most societies throughout human history have been polygamous and they are associated with much worse outcomes for women and children (abuse) and in some ways worse for most men as well. There are many benefits to society, women, and children when monogamy is the standard.

. Polygamous for men and women? Societies wheee women had financial independence / equality with men?

Are there societies where women have equality with men?

Some Pacific Island cultures had more equality for women along with polygamy for both men and women.

I think strict monogamy for women along with their oppression tends to arise out of agrarian and pastoral traditions. Property and inheritance become more important concepts which means the paternity of children becomes more important. Women come to rank alongside livestock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

They've worked well for millennia for the majority of people

Worked well in what way?

Most societies throughout human history have been polygamous and they are associated with much worse outcomes for women and children (abuse) and in some ways worse for most men as well. There are many benefits to society, women, and children when monogamy is the standard.

. Polygamous for men and women? Societies wheee women had financial independence / equality with men?

Are there societies where women have equality with men?

Some Pacific Island cultures had more equality for women along with polygamy for both men and women.

I think strict monogamy for women along with their oppression tends to arise out of agrarian and pastoral traditions. Property and inheritance become more important concepts which means the paternity of children becomes more important. Women come to rank alongside livestock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, but one of the major tenets of marriage is "forsaking all others."

It's just a way to feel good about cheating. Don't take it too seriously.

lol, it’s not cheating if both partners agree to it.

It’s worse than cheating if one partner is pressured into it.

Everyone has to stand up for what they want in a marriage. There’s a door if you want to leave.

I mean, generally healthy marriages are not approached like business negotiations between adversaries.

The fact that that’s what you took away from my statement tells me you have a closed mind about this. The point is, everyone has their limits. If you allow someone to push yours, then you’re complicit in that. But some people love being victims. Shrug.

The fact that you cannot understand why what you wrote is so dysfunctional says it all. It also really seems to indicate that the power play of “negotiating boundaries” is what some polyamorous people are really into. Meanwhile, healthy relationships (of all types) are built of empathy and mutual deference, not asserting your own wants at every point and making your partner “stand up” for themselves constantly.

NP. Agree. It's one thing to tell your partner that you have unmet needs and you want to work with them to try to have those needs met with them. That's not putting the union at risk. It might be putting the status quo at risk, but for a lot of LTRs the status quo is not sustainable.

The moment you say to your partner "I want to open up" you are changing it forever. There is no going back. The union is different from that point forward.

DP but really? I wouldn’t feel that way at all if my DH came to me and said he wanted to open it up. That’s just a question. Like sometimes he comes to me and says “maybe we should move to an apartment in the city” and that doesn’t mean we will, although we could, it’s just the beginning of a conversation about how we’re both doing.

To me an affair is a betrayal. Talking about how you maybe want one and want to see if there’s an okay to do it within the marriage isn’t a betrayal at all. Even if the answer is a strong no.

OH FFS, wanted to move to the city and wanting to sleep with someone else is in no way, shape or form the same thing. Your spouse has basically copped to fantasizing about others because you’re not satisfactory in some way. You think that’s the same as “hey, maybe we as a unit should think about living in the city”???

You think an affair is such a betrayal but not if your partner tells you first. I suspect your reply will be “Well, I can always say no”. And yes, you can and then walk around with the knowledge that your spouse wants other people and the only thing stopping him is you, you who apparently wasn’t enough in the first place. I’m sure your union will be totally exactly the same as it was before! What are you, a cyborg?

At best, maybe PP means that she would understand what he was saying was a fantasy and wouldn’t be threatened?

“Hey, can we discuss opening up the marriage because I want to have sex with other people (that I probably already have my eye on) is not exactly the same as “You know, I really think I’d like if you gave me a hall pass for Margot Robbie.”

So you’d rather be cheated on. Noted. Ignorance is bliss, I guess!

You are an absolute idiot. Just a blithering moron. It’;s good to know, though, that your partner can just walk all over you….and all with your consent too! I’m sure you’re just so empowered! I’m sure all the stress and jealousy and discussion about primaries and secondaries is just so growth-inspiring! You should write an article in the Post.

If my partner has a problem in the marriage, he can be an adult and discuss it with me without giving me the “suggestion” but really ultimatum of sleeping with other people.

Oh but if your spouse has trotted this line out to you and you’ve said no? I hope you’ve looked into divorce lawyers. Your issues aren’t going to go away because of a two letter word. Your union is over, whether it’s now or in a few years. Too bad you don’t know it yet.

Hon, you've no idea who you're talking to or what you're talking about. Frankly women do much better than men in open relationships--it's kind of a joke in the community that they're spoiled for choice. It's the best of both worlds.

A community full of humiliated, butt-of-the-joke husbands who get the worst of both worlds isn’t really the sell you think it is. Sounds like even if you’re doing better, you’re still picking from a bunch of losers.

I regret to inform you there are many, many husbands who are extremely aroused by this “humiliation”

Again, I really wish you’d keep your emotional sadomasochism and fetishistic exhibitionism to yourselves. The public is not a willing or appropriate participant.

I have no idea why you’re so upset with me. I don’t participate in this kind of thing, just pointing out the reality for the many people who are confused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people tend to talk past each other on this issue. I think it is simultaneously true that: 1. Open marriages work very well for a small group of people, who reasonably resent the social opprobrium against the practice and advocate for it because it works really well for them ; 2. Open marriages are a catastrophe for a much larger group of people; and 3. Normalizing open marriages will inevitably result in pressure on monogamous-preferring spouses who don’t want to open the marriage along the lines of “you are unreasonable not to open the marriage, it has gone mainstream and all the cool kids are doing it.” Yes they can say no, but it’s much harder to once the practice becomes widespread.

I’d say that this holds true for monogamous marriages as well - they work well for only a small group of people. Read the All or Nothing Marriage.

They've worked well for millennia for the majority of people

Worked well in what way?

Most societies throughout human history have been polygamous and they are associated with much worse outcomes for women and children (abuse) and in some ways worse for most men as well. There are many benefits to society, women, and children when monogamy is the standard.

. Polygamous for men and women? Societies wheee women had financial independence / equality with men?

Are there societies where women have equality with men?