And this is exactly what makes it odd to me. In your scheme you can be with someone as long as you want and share a life, but you are still sharing it with others through sexual activity - "relating" to them through sex. For some people, that's unacceptable.
Please note that I am not taking sides on this, because I haven't voted in my own thread.
That strikes me as very contradictory. By engaging in sex with other people, he's establishing a sexual relationship with them.
Yeah... a SEXUAL relationship. For two people in an open relationship, that's not unacceptable. How is this contradictory? Contradictory to what, exactly? Like I said, if neither person involved feels threatened by outside sexual relations, then these relations don't bother anyone and don't affect the 'primary' partners involved. I'm not sure what you don't understand here, or why this is so difficult for you to grasp.
Also if you'll note, I wrote "non-commital polygamy" to qualify the term. And you clearly are getting very defensive, which is kind of hysterical since you're trying to pass yourself off as so confident and secure in your grasp of things.
Honey, the reason your use of "polygamy" is incorrect is because no one here is talking about someone having multiple marriages.
You don't even know the definition of the terms you are using. It's annoying and shows a clear lack of effort and depth on your part to even have a basic grasp of terms. That's why I'm getting defensive - because you're passing off opinions and judgments without having a clue what you're talking about, besides your own emotional responses to things. And because I've debated about this subject about a dozen times in this forum, and every time there is some guy like you who would basically be better off reading a BASIC list of polyamory/non-monogamy FAQ questions on a website instead of rattling off every trite little concern he can think of.
Well, that's the thing, you don't know that for sure.
No one ever does, but the fact that the two people involved trust each other enough to grant that says something about their love.
No matter how much you think you do, people can chage. And having an open relationship could easily contribute to that change and facilitate an attachment to someone else, leaving you in the dust.
So in other words, we should be in monogamous relationships because we're afraid that, if we let our partner meet other people, they will eventually find someone better than us and leave us. Do you see how this kind of thinking is riddled with insecurity and fear? If I'm confident that I'm with someone because we love each other, then I don't want to be so insecure and afraid that if he has sex with other people, he's going to magically stop wanting to be with me. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're also forgetting that, even in monogamous arrangements, no matter what you do - short of locking your lover up in doors, which from the sounds of it wouldn't be a far cry - people in relationships are GOING TO MEET OTHER PEOPLE who might strike their interest on some level, be it superficial and visual, even. Why do you think so many people in monogamous relationships end up cheating? Is monogamy suddenly this brilliant safeguard to keep people from cheating? The point is that no matter what you're going to notice other people and in some cases be interested in them. In an open relationship, you can go ahead and explore that interest, for some people all the way, for some just sexually, the major issue being that if you're just going to be with me because the model of our relationship is stopping you from finding someone else, well then, that's not really a good reason to be with me and doesn't make me feel all that good in the first place. If you have a man and you let each other go out and fuck around, or what have you, and they still come home to you because you're really the one they want to wake up to in the morning, well, then that's wonderful and strikes me as a lot less controlling and insecure and fear based than monogamy.
So tell me, how is this a relationship?
Because these two people are still TOGETHER. How can you dare to question the validity of that relationship, yet you have absolutely no qualms calling a purely 'sexual' (and perhaps short lived or one night) relationship nothing short OF a relationship? Double standard much?
You are basically saying that love and intimacy are not exclusive between two people, so if they aren't, then what distinguishes this as an actual relationship? What's the foundation? What holds it together? It sounds more like a mutually supportive association - a business arrangement.
First of all, I'm saying that love and sex are not mutually exclusive between two people, but I can also argue for the validity of full blown polyamory as well. But as for your question, it seems as if you're suggesting that in order for love and intimacy to function, it has to be scarce. Like in order for these two people to love each other, they have to totally cut off any kind of affection they might have for another person, because, according to your logic, love or affection or sex is finite and, if we share it with someone outside of our couple, we're somehow going to have less for and between ourselves. I don't really think that's true, and again, it sounds like an emotional reaction that is steeped in and based out of fear and insecurity. The foundation and what holds it together is love, real love, and not some kind of hierarchical, manipulative, fear-based, property based, limiting idea of being with someone in order to safeguard and stop yourself from potential meeting other people.
Your arguments are very circular, and I don't think you've thought this through completely. Don't get mad at me just because I'm questioning things - I don't have to accept anything you say as fact.
You're the one with the circular arguments here. You're asking the most INANE and BASIC questions about non-monogamy and here I am like some kind of walking talking FAQ to help you expand your mind. Maybe before you go starting a debate using the most archaic concepts around, you could actually read up about a subject FIRST... just a thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monogamy
http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/poly-resources/
http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/10-realistic-rules-for-good-non-monogamous-relationships/
).
try fucking and jump hurdles same time it very difficut but make for fun viewing at olympics
