Open marriage ... would you do it? (advice, Latin, conversation, problems)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It defeats too many of the purposes and intentions of becoming wed.
I am completely fine having open relationships, but I would never allow them to become legally bound by my own volition. Beyond that, it’s hard enough to manage one marriage with a single individual. let alone having to consider the prospects and potential for others happening in the future with those you may become involved with during the practice.
It’s too messy to consider seriously for me personally
Last edited by rego00123; 05-20-2018 at 11:50 AM..
Tried just an open relationship but the only side of it that was open was his since that just doesn't suit me.
I gave it my best effort but it didn't work. In a marriage I would never have even have considered it.
Those that it works for I can't and won't judge...just know it's not for me.
Status:
"Just livin' day by day"
(set 18 days ago)
Location: USA
3,166 posts, read 3,355,702 times
Reputation: 5382
No freakin' way. Why even bother getting married. Marriage is for 2 people only. I wouldn't want anyone sampling my husband's sweet love if I was married.
When I was doing polyamory, I was dating (with another person, my boyfriend, as a "quad") a married couple who have been polyamorous/open for a long while. They recently celebrated their 15th anniversary. It was a lovely experience, and something I'm glad I did. The main reason I broke it off with them (but remained friends) is that I was burning the candle at both ends every weekend and feeling stretched too thin with all that was going on...and even so, stressing if I was giving "enough" to any person. Like doing a lot of work yet half-arsing everything, I just had too much on my plate in life.
But what really made it work, for the year that it worked, was that we were all a group together of people who really were very fond of one another and comfortable together, the men were not involved any further than close friendship, but otherwise we were all partners together. I don't think anybody was really jealous of anybody else. And we had great times, hot tubbing, massage, zip lining, hiking, all kinds of neat little adventures.
So when I say "under the right circumstances" I would say that (and present bf and I have discussed it) for us, we would be ok if we were friends with the other partners at least. I would not be happy if he dated a woman who didn't like me, or who I didn't like, and he feels the same way, he'd want to know that any other man in my life respected me, respected him, and respected our relationship. But neither of us really feels any need to pursue any outside connections at this time.
No, just no. Marriage is a huge commitment, and it can be challenging enough with being dealing with only one person for life. Polyamory means what it means, experimenting around with no commitments.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,930,903 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-Man
No, just no. Marriage is a huge commitment, and it can be challenging enough with being dealing with only one person for life. Polyamory means what it means, experimenting around with no commitments.
There definitely can be, and often are, commitments in polyamorous relationships. They're just not monogamous commitments.
No, just no. Marriage is a huge commitment, and it can be challenging enough with being dealing with only one person for life. Polyamory means what it means, experimenting around with no commitments.
I would challenge both assertions.
I had a "huge commitment" with my ex long before we got married. Mainly when we had children. To me, that is where the huge commitment happens. Sure, getting a divorce CAN mean lawyers and losing a lot of money maybe, but it doesn't have to mean that. When we broke up, the divorce was the easy part. I don't feel like the legal part, the marriage and the divorce, was the serious, heavy-duty, piece of any of it. I don't think any of it would have been easier had we never got legally married.
But then I am not one to invest all of this deep meaning into some institution just because. Things mean as much or as little, as the people involved in them MAKE them mean.
I'm building commitment with my boyfriend. We moved in together. Even with separate finances, we are now counting on each other, to uphold obligations, to pay our respective shares of things. I'm trusting him that he won't just up and quit his job and decide I can pay for everything while he sits on the couch all day every day for a year or two. He's trusting me that I won't do any such thing either. Each of us trusts the other with access to our material possessions. I trust him not to harm my kid or my cat. Each of us trusts the other, that we will not have unauthorized sexual or romantic involvement with other people. We are monogamous right now, but have a "just be honest" policy in place, should either of us one day need or want something more.
That, to me, is what commitment is built of, trust, including the trust that you can rely on someone in areas of life that are important. That they will keep the agreements you count on them to keep. That they won't take advantage, but that they will support you in hardship, and celebrate your victories, and always be on your team.
Not a government issued legal document. That's just relationship tax you pay, to get some bundled benefits like the right to share health insurance and easy inheritance and such. I trust a government issued commitment about as much as I trust the government.
As for polyamory, like any relationship it's only what the people in it, make of it. For some it's exactly what you said, no commitments. Others choose to date only exactly two people and no more than that, some give their spouse veto power over any possible secondary partner, some only have casual activity with anyone but the spouse (more swinging than poly, but still "open.") People do what works for them, that's the whole point. For some it works beautifully, but I don't expect it'd ever be for most people, and I don't see anything wrong with any of that.
I had a "huge commitment" with my ex long before we got married. Mainly when we had children. To me, that is where the huge commitment happens. Sure, getting a divorce CAN mean lawyers and losing a lot of money maybe, but it doesn't have to mean that. When we broke up, the divorce was the easy part. I don't feel like the legal part, the marriage and the divorce, was the serious, heavy-duty, piece of any of it. I don't think any of it would have been easier had we never got legally married.
But then I am not one to invest all of this deep meaning into some institution just because. Things mean as much or as little, as the people involved in them MAKE them mean.
I'm building commitment with my boyfriend. We moved in together. Even with separate finances, we are now counting on each other, to uphold obligations, to pay our respective shares of things. I'm trusting him that he won't just up and quit his job and decide I can pay for everything while he sits on the couch all day every day for a year or two. He's trusting me that I won't do any such thing either. Each of us trusts the other with access to our material possessions. I trust him not to harm my kid or my cat. Each of us trusts the other, that we will not have unauthorized sexual or romantic involvement with other people. We are monogamous right now, but have a "just be honest" policy in place, should either of us one day need or want something more.
That, to me, is what commitment is built of, trust, including the trust that you can rely on someone in areas of life that are important. That they will keep the agreements you count on them to keep. That they won't take advantage, but that they will support you in hardship, and celebrate your victories, and always be on your team.
Not a government issued legal document. That's just relationship tax you pay, to get some bundled benefits like the right to share health insurance and easy inheritance and such. I trust a government issued commitment about as much as I trust the government.
As for polyamory, like any relationship it's only what the people in it, make of it. For some it's exactly what you said, no commitments. Others choose to date only exactly two people and no more than that, some give their spouse veto power over any possible secondary partner, some only have casual activity with anyone but the spouse (more swinging than poly, but still "open.") People do what works for them, that's the whole point. For some it works beautifully, but I don't expect it'd ever be for most people, and I don't see anything wrong with any of that.
Only thing that matters is that you & your bf are on the same page.
Only thing that matters is that you & your bf are on the same page.
Yep.
We've had many conversations to make sure that we are.
But we are the sort of people who appreciate being able to explore ideas without freaking out. We created a term for purely hypothetical discussions that we call "sandbox mode" (like in computer programming) where we discuss a lot of things just so that we can understand ourselves and each other.
The last time we really got deep in talks about poly, we put the whole thing in sandbox mode because even if I had full "permission" to have a second boyfriend, I wouldn't want to right now (or for the foreseeable future.) I'm a busy person with a lot on my social plate and I don't want to put the time and effort into another relationship. It came up because I was discussing how I still sometimes think of a former fling, and it actually annoys me a bit, because I know I don't want to be with him, but sometimes find myself wondering, almost semi-wishing, that I'd been able to keep him out on the periphery of my life as a distant occasional FB or something. He was fun, I miss him, and our interaction really didn't have any satisfactory closure, I guess. But it's a bad idea, and I know that. Well, my boyfriend did NOT like that one bit, and he really wanted to process exactly why it bothered him. It wasn't as simple as "other guy! My woman!" for him. We have a mutual friend, for instance, that he said he could easily imagine being much more ok with me dating and sleeping with, if I had wanted to (and he is a former lover of mine, as well.) Why is one threatening and upsetting, the other not so much? We concluded it was because the one is an unknown, and he does not feel that the dude respects me, him, or necessarily US, and the known quantity feels safer in those respects.
All of this in "sandbox mode" since I'm not trying to get anything going on with anyone else at all, but in terms of personal growth, understanding where his emotional boundaries are, and why...all of that. We find it useful.
I think most people would rather not even engage in such an exercise and prefer to avoid all of it by sticking to the assumed norm of "monogamy as practiced" which sometimes includes all kinds of paranoid and suspicious behavior if the thought even OCCURS to one, that their partner might have the slightest interest in someone else. And it's really that, the lack of trust, that we work to avoid by openly discussing all of this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
