Do open relationships freak you out?

[DigitalFudge]

relationships freak me out period.

Trust me, no one is surprised you feel this way

 

[bankside]

Are you really implying that any relationship that can't last forever was never really a real or faithful relationship to begin with? If so, that's all kinds of fucked up.

Maybe. Me dating a woman was sure a waste of everybody's time. My relationship with my guy isn't even on the same plane compared to that mess.

But not quite. I'm saying it's fucked up to expect a good relationship to end from something other than death, and still be willing to pursue it. Relationships that once had potential to go the distance sometimes come to an end, but it makes sense to me to consider that as a regrettable failure of an original intention to stay together in a real faithful relationship. To me if a monogamous relationship has an expiry date hovering over it, and every intention of getting back on the scene when it's done, then some word other than monogamy should be used for the time span spent together.

To me there is a world of difference in the meaning of, and in the reality of people's lives. between:
"I'm in a monogamous relationship,"
and
"I'm currently in a serially-monogamous relationship. For now."

It's just too different to fit both ideas into the same word.

 

[refujiunderground]

Trust me, no one is surprised you feel this way

yeah and?????

 

[GhostMost]

They freak me out when I see other people in one.

 

[TheLyingGame]

I think they should just call each other friends. It's stupid and confusing. And either way i still think they're desperate whores.

 

[DigitalFudge]

I think they should just call each other friends. It's stupid and confusing. And either way i still think they're desperate whores.

Ooops

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

so da story so far?

12 in da corna pocket
_ YAAAAAAY _

this was a mo

thankyou

 

[geloge]

relationships freak me out

 

[bankside]

Some people learn about themselves from relationships. Sometimes, people have a better understanding of what they want through trying relationships.

Agreed. Others don't.

While I do agree that at any given moment, a relationship should be looked at as something long term, your words give the hint that any relationship that ultimately isn't "till death do us part" is either a waste of time or make believe on the part of people in the relationship.

If that's what you think, I'm calling B.S.

Nope. It's really just about the terminology and the goal. I reject the term "serial monogamy." I just don't think they're monogamous relationships. I think it is fairer to call them "polygamous relationships, one person at a time" and they will not be like or achieve what a monogamous relationship will achieve, and vice versa. It's closer to being a simultaneous polygamous relationship than to a life-long monogamous one.

That being said, I fully recognize it might be the way to go for some people. Polygamy-at-the-same-time makes more sense to me than polygamy-one-at-a-time, but that means it just responds more closely to my own list of pros and cons. And, though I have never been motivated to go there, I am open to the idea here in "Fort Monogamy" for me and my guy. If our lives took some path where the situation required me to acknowledge that a third guy would be in his interests and my interests and our interests, and the third guy's interests, of course it would happen. I just doubt that, but it's clear to me I would not turn down an unconventional arrangement if I was truly convinced it was a good idea, biting off my nose just to spite my face. It would have to give common ground and truly offer something to all three of us, which is where the doubt comes in. And it would not involve the decay of my existing relationship.

I've always been critical of the serial daters/monogamists that fall in love with someone new at the drop of a hat, but it's silly to act as if no "real" relationship could ever be broken by anything other than death.

Fair enough but it's not silly to recognize it's a different kind of relationship entirely. When people say "till death do us part" they are trying to relate to each other in a very different way than people who say "till we're done here at some vague future date." Again, if that's the kind of relationship that tickles the delight of two people, I'm happy for them, but it's obviously not the same thing. I'm just looking for words that recognize the difference instead of lumping it all together.

 

[asu1117]

Freak me out? No. Would I be in one? No.

 

[DigitalFudge]

People are really catching feelings over the words "freaked out"



You liberal gays and your ideals.

 

[GhostMost]

People are really catching feelings over the words "freaked out"



You liberal gays and your ideals.

 

[mikey3000]

Nope. It suits us just fine. Though mine isn't quite an open relationship, it's more of a closed loop relationship. Honesty is key and it works.

 

[diamondstar]

Open relationships are such a cop out to me. It pretty much says "Am too selfish to be with just one person". People can live their lives as they wish, but that's a no for me.

 

[DigitalFudge]

Open relationships are such a cop out to me. It pretty much says "Am too selfish to be with just one person". People can live their lives as they wish, but that's a no for me.

Check em, sis.

 

[fetaby]

Agreed. Others don't.



Nope. It's really just about the terminology and the goal. I reject the term "serial monogamy." I just don't think they're monogamous relationships. I think it is fairer to call them "polygamous relationships, one person at a time" and they will not be like or achieve what a monogamous relationship will achieve, and vice versa. It's closer to being a simultaneous polygamous relationship than to a life-long monogamous one.

That being said, I fully recognize it might be the way to go for some people. Polygamy-at-the-same-time makes more sense to me than polygamy-one-at-a-time, but that means it just responds more closely to my own list of pros and cons. And, though I have never been motivated to go there, I am open to the idea here in "Fort Monogamy" for me and my guy. If our lives took some path where the situation required me to acknowledge that a third guy would be in his interests and my interests and our interests, and the third guy's interests, of course it would happen. I just doubt that, but it's clear to me I would not turn down an unconventional arrangement if I was truly convinced it was a good idea, biting off my nose just to spite my face. It would have to give common ground and truly offer something to all three of us, which is where the doubt comes in. And it would not involve the decay of my existing relationship.




Fair enough but it's not silly to recognize it's a different kind of relationship entirely. When people say "till death do us part" they are trying to relate to each other in a very different way than people who say "till we're done here at some vague future date." Again, if that's the kind of relationship that tickles the delight of two people, I'm happy for them, but it's obviously not the same thing. I'm just looking for words that recognize the difference instead of lumping it all together.

I get that when people use the term "serial monogamy" it brings to mind a very specific personality... One that may not take traditional relationship ideals seriously, or enters into relationships for what other people consider the "wrong reasons." But do you really want to go here...

and they will not be like or achieve what a monogamous relationship will achieve, and vice versa.

when two seconds later you go here...

If our lives took some path where the situation required me to acknowledge that a third guy would be in his interests and my interests and our interests, and the third guy's interests, of course it would happen.

You can acknowledge that a third could be in the picture if the stars aligned, but won't acknowledge that relationships do end for a myriad of reasons? Ok.

But as much as you want to object to the term monogamy being used there, it doesn't change the fact that if the parties involved are not seeking sex outside of each other they do get to use the term whether that's 15 years or one week.

 

[HunterM]

Check em, sis.

Oops!...I did it again
I played with your heart, got lost in the game
Oh baby, baby
Oops!...You think I'm in love
That I'm sent from above
I'm not that innocent

 

[nafhoosier]

No, they don't freak me out. To each their own.

But I wouldn't ever be in one, or date anyone who would want to be in one.

Or hook up with a guy who is in one. Not my thing.

 

[altlover85]

But TBH, sex with people you know and care about seems to be what open relationships are about.

Agreed.

I don't think a relationship is like an orange that you squeeze dry and then move on to the next orange. I think that's what serial monogamy is like. I don't even see why it is called monogamy to be honest. It's not that I find anything wrong with it, it just seems obvious to me that if a person considers it desirable and ideal to sleep with more than one person in his lifespan, and I see pros and cons, then why not all at once? Polyamory seems the more honest and desirable alternative IMHO.

It seems equally obvious that if a relationship can last 12-20 years, why not 60?

Seriously?

There are so many different variables that can come up in one year, nevermind 60, that can cause one or both of the people in a monogamous relationship to end things.

 

[hungkee]

I don't know if they "freak me out". I just don't know how full or complete any relationship is within an open relationship.

And so why call any of them a "relationship" beyond how anyone may have many relationships with different people anyway. Lots of people have friends, sex partners, hiking buddies who mean the world to them. One need not box them into what one might call several relationships within an "open relationship". They're all simply people with whom you have relationships however similar or varied.

But then, really, don't we only mean SEX is included when we call for an "open relationship"? Otherwise, all of the other persons can simply be viewed as friends, loved ones and assorted life associates. A person who seeks an "open relationship" simply seeks permission to have sex with other people.

To me, a genuine personal relationship means one other person with whom you decide to commit yourself wholey. That would include sex. Otherwise, why have any relationship if one is only going to be one of many anyway.