Do open relationships freak you out?

[DigitalFudge]

I'm not sure I could do one. I'm very insecure about plenty of things and if I were ever to meet someone I felt comfortable to enter
a relationship with (read: will not happen in this lifetime), the fun of it would be that I was actually what they wanted (and vice versa). I'd get jealous if this person started catching feelings for another guy. I'm not sure if sex would bother me so much, but actually going out on dates, holding hands with another guy... I'd be crushed.

First time I have been able to relate to you, tbqh.


I will remember this.

 

[altlover85]

First time I have been able to relate to you, tbqh.


I will remember this.

I love that abbreviation. For some reason it seems elegant to me.

 

[bankside]

Uh huh...


To paraphrase: "They're just not doing it ~right~..."

Sigh. I'm doing polygamy wrong. I totally fail to have a third person in my bed every night. No extras on the side.....but that's because I'm doing monogamy right. But if I thought I had a polygamous relationship right now, I'd only be kidding myself.

So how many times do I have to say I have no problem with something, even though it's not for me, at least not in the foreseeable future, before you realise I actually mean it.

 

[altlover85]

^I feel the same. I think it's the word "quite."

I agree.

Sigh. I'm doing polygamy wrong. I totally fail to have a third person in my bed every night. No extras on the side.....but that's because I'm doing monogamy right. But if I thought I had a polygamous relationship right now, I'd only be kidding myself.

So how many times do I have to say I have no problem with something, even though it's not for me, at least not in the foreseeable future, before you realise I actually mean it.

I was pretty sure fetaby was talking about your ideas on monogamy and serial monagamy and not about polygamy. I could be wrong though.

I do love how you talk about how you do monogamy right though. And yet you say you aren't on a high horse. It's kind of funny.

 

[bankside]

I was pretty sure fetaby was talking about your ideas on monogamy and serial monagamy and not about polygamy. I could be wrong though.

Yes. I was talking about polygamy because it shows another example of different kind of relationship that I don't have. Just because it's obviously different from my monogamous relationship doesn't mean I think polygamy is bad. In fact I'm a pretty consistent defender of polygamy as being expermental and challenging, but very legitmate for those who want to honestly give it a try.

Similarly, it seems obvious at least to me, how much of a difference there is between monogamy and serial relationships. I haven't made my case to your satisfaction, but so far we aren't even arguing about whether I'm right or not, we're just dumping on me with the false assumption I think I'm somehow better than that. It doesn't mean I am against them, other than for myself. But I don't think people should fool themselves about the kind of relationship they have, or that they want to have. That's why I don't tell people my one husband and I are in a polygamous relationship. To me it's the same difference between a monogamous relationship and serial relationships.

So yeah, "society" might confuse monogamy with serial relationships, but I think that's doing a disservice to people whether they want one or the other, making it harder to understand the goals of each relationship and harder to see the difference.

 

[72-Jay]

Most people think of "till death do us part" as marriage. And while that may be hetero-normative, I doubt most people of any orientation assume that anything short of "till death do us part" isn't real. This is crazy talk.

I agree that you can have a real relationship without (or atleast before) the marriage/'till death do us part' thing
I even think people with the right mind-set/emotion-set may be able to have a 'real' relationship even if it was "open"

--------
Personally as I stated earlier could never do the open relationship thing (or any sorta quickie/hook-ups/etc for that matter). Its simply not my thing.

If i ever got in a relationship (which I personally doubt will happen) I would be looking for monogamy, and 'till death do us part' as far as commitment goes...(but not marriage even if it was legal)

 

[fetaby]

So yeah, "society" might confuse monogamy with serial relationships, but I think that's doing a disservice to people whether they want one or the other, making it harder to understand the goals of each relationship and harder to see the difference.

My question is, who are you to define what those goals are to anyone else regardless of the type of relationship they have.

You're attempting to argue that unless a person is with only one person for their entire life that person isn't monogamous... Then why exactly is your idea contradicted by the very definition of monogamy?


Monogamy | Define Monogamy at Dictionary.com

the custom that allows a person to be legally married to only one spouse at one time. Appearing in two general forms, monogamy may imply a lifelong contract between two individuals that may be broken only under penalty-as prevails in the Roman Catholic and Hindu prescriptions for marriage-or it may imply that persons are required to be monogamous but may change spouses repeatedly, a practice sometimes called serial monogamy.

The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time.

1. bigamy polygamy Compare digamy the state or practice of having only one husband or wife over a period of time
2. zoology the practice of having only one mate

1.
marriage with only one person at a time. Compare bigamy, polygamy.
2.
Zoology . the practice of having only one mate.
3.
the practice of marrying only once during life.

If anything is making it harder to understand or achieve it's an expectation that unless a person is fitting into your narrow definition of what constitutes monogamy the motivation within the relationship and what can be achieved by the relationship differs. That's just not true, and you have nothing to back that up. Life happens to people, part of that is death and part of that is change. And sometimes those changes mean ending a relationship and eventually starting a new one.

I'd say that if a person's intention is to be only with the person they enter into a relationship with, they're monogamous. Knowing that life happens and it may end doesn't mean that person is any less monogamous for that knowledge. In fact, I'd say it makes them pragmatic and realistic.

 

[altlover85]

Similarly, it seems obvious at least to me, how much of a difference there is between monogamy and serial relationships. I haven't made my case to your satisfaction, but so far we aren't even arguing about whether I'm right or not, we're just dumping on me with the false assumption I think I'm somehow better than that. It doesn't mean I am against them, other than for myself. But I don't think people should fool themselves about the kind of relationship they have, or that they want to have. That's why I don't tell people my one husband and I are in a polygamous relationship. To me it's the same difference between a monogamous relationship and serial relationships.
So yeah, "society" might confuse monogamy with serial relationships, but I think that's doing a disservice to people whether they want one or the other, making it harder to understand the goals of each relationship and harder to see the difference.

I don't see a difference because I don't think there really is one. I think in order to prove that a difference exists you would have to know the thought processes of those involved in the relationship, which would be difficult information to obtain. If you don't have that knowledge, I think you are just making assumptions in order to fit your own defintion of a word, which has a common definition that is broader than what you are considering and includes what you call serial relationships.