Open Relationships vs. Don't Ask Don't Tell (date, men, therapy)
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.
Nobody with your philosophy could become a politician, that's for sure.
I worked for politicians for 6 years and I agree.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
The other night, a friend and I were having a conversation about relationships and fidelity. He is all for open relationships and has one with his wife. As I have always said, I would never be in an open relationship despite the fact that monogamy is not my strong suit. As we talked about it, I finally figured out why I don't like open relationships: it's the talking about it.
It seems that people in open relationships are very open about discussing their side sexual escapades. This includes the guys on OK Cupid etc who tell me I am welcome to call or email his wife to confirm things are open. Or for instance my boss, she and her husband have an open relationship (why do I know this? Too much talk...) and when they went to a trade show in Las Vegas he brought a woman back to their hotel room and asked my boss to take a walk. Online I see people talk about how their lover and spouse are all friends, or about how they are actively dating.
I have said before that the perfect relationship is open for me and closed for you, but that's not accurate. I don't care if you sleep with someone else. I just don't want to hear about it. What works for me: Don't ask don't tell. If my partner is out somewhere and a desirable one night stand were to present itself, I don't have a problem with it. But I don't want to hear about it either. Bored on a business trip and met someone at the hotel bar? Go for it. But I don't want to hear about it. Take care of yourself, use a condom, and keep up your personal obligations. And of course I will do the same. A dating profile that lists you as "available" is a no. Randomly meeting someone and going for it is a yes. But I don't want to hear about, nor will I ask you.
I would like to hear from you open relationship proponents, do any of you structure your relationships in this way? Or do you always talk about it?
I have never agreed with an open relationship/marriage however, I'm not saying it is right or wrong it is just not the right thing for me.
I am not jealous or possessive however, I am married and I took those vows very seriously. So, being my husband means if you lie to me, cheat on me or steal from me I am walking away and will never turn around or come back. Again, that is what is right for me and my husband agrees it is right for him as well.
At any point if he decides he has found or wants to look for someone better than me, he is free to tell me this, then we get the divorce and I walk away and he is free to pursue whomever he wants to. I may not like it or agree with it but I REFUSE to waste my time with any human who does not want me in their lives.
Hi folks, I've been working all day and am late to the party
My two cents on the various issues that have been raised:
- Most poly folks don't sleep around. They have two, maybe three, longterm committed relationships. And each of their partners have two or three total.
- Poly is all about consent. It's not poly if you don't want it.
- DADT can work fine, but it limits your dating pool severely. Many poly folks have been burned by cheaters who lie and say they are in a DADT relationship. It might be worth considering allowing one brief chat to confirm your partner is not cheating.
- Most poly people I know don't talk about sexual details with one partner, when talking to another partner, unless they're discussing STI risks.
- IMO, consent is required whenever you want to do something that is not commonly assumed in your sub/culture. If I ask out a guy I know is poly, and I want to have a monogamous relationship with him, the burden is on me to state that clearly upfront. Same thing if I ask out a mono guy and I want a poly relationship. Anything else is likely to get me dumped for cause.
Hi folks, I've been working all day and am late to the party
My two cents on the various issues that have been raised:
- Most poly folks don't sleep around. They have two, maybe three, longterm committed relationships. And each of their partners have two or three total.
- Poly is all about consent. It's not poly if you don't want it.
- DADT can work fine, but it limits your dating pool severely. Many poly folks have been burned by cheaters who lie and say they are in a DADT relationship. It might be worth considering allowing one brief chat to confirm your partner is not cheating.
- Most poly people I know don't talk about sexual details with one partner, when talking to another partner, unless they're discussing STI risks.
- IMO, consent is required whenever you want to do something that is not commonly assumed in your sub/culture. If I ask out a guy I know is poly, and I want to have a monogamous relationship with him, the burden is on me to state that clearly upfront. Same thing if I ask out a mono guy and I want a poly relationship. Anything else is likely to get me dumped for cause.
That sounds exhausting and like it has more clauses than a BMW lease.
One of the main reasons I reject the whole concept of relationship rules (including the whole idea of "open relationships") is that people are going to do what they want anyway. Insisting people tell you things they don't want to tell you, making people agree to things under duress (and if it's clear they'll lose you if they don't agree to it, that's duress in my book), etc. won't get someone to behave the way you want. As I've said before, it's main use appears to be to make oneself feel better and give a sense of having the moral high ground if there's heartbreak later. That doesn't seem like sufficient justification to me.
One of the main reasons I reject the whole concept of relationship rules (including the whole idea of "open relationships") is that people are going to do what they want anyway. Insisting people tell you things they don't want to tell you, making people agree to things under duress (and if it's clear they'll lose you if they don't agree to it, that's duress in my book), etc. won't get someone to behave the way you want. As I've said before, it's main use appears to be to make oneself feel better and give a sense of having the moral high ground if there's heartbreak later. That doesn't seem like sufficient justification to me.
Is a committed relationship interesting or useful to you? What does one of those look like to you?
Is a committed relationship interesting or useful to you? What does one of those look like to you?
If you mean "committed" in the sense of never seeing anyone else again, no.
In a large sense, how "committed" are relationships anyway when either person can end them whenever they want to?
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.
