What do you think of open relationships?

I've never been in one. I'd probably get v jealous though.

You in one?

wait i thought i was asking the question

it's complicated

xpost just trying to stimulate your thread..

i know

yes

they only work if you lay down firm ground rules and follow them.

that usually takes the fun out of it though.

so they rarely work.

Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters.

Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?

Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but ... But it might work for us.

I've been in one for the past 22 years. Works for us, then!

But then, that's gays for you...

Mike, do you never feel a tinge of jealousy? Or competition? Do you openly talk about it or do you just keep quiet?

THey wouldn't work for me at all.

gr8080 basically said what i was gonna say. Open relationships are possible, given the right people. But I'm pretty sure the world is full of people unwittingly in open relationships, too.

uh?

i think the point of an open relationship is the... openness.

so you can't be in one unwittingly.

xpost: Seriously, NO jealousy. Jealousy is a symptom of insecurity, and we're 100% secure. No competition either. And yes, we talk openly about it. If someone has made him happy, then I'm happy. And vice versa.

Having said all that, we implicitly know not to take the piss and abuse the freedom - but that doesn't really involve any self-policing, either. Besides, we're both knocking on a bit now, and don't tend to put ourselves in many situations where the opportunity arises. Wouldn't want to give the impression that were leading madly libidinous existences... quite the opposite!

We've both had crushes, but we're both clued up enough to know the difference between a crush and a serious emotional attachment. So crushes get talked about as well.

I've sometimes thought back on all the people I've had sex with in the past 22 years, and wondered whether any of them would have been relationship material if I had never met my partner. I've never been able to identify even one.

xpost

I think there are 2 different meanings of openness there. At least 2.

xxxpost Yes, you can. It's perfectly possible that both think of their relationship as open (but not tell the otehr, which would be extremely ironic).

xxpost I don't think jealousy is necessarily a sign of insecurity. Sometimes you just want to share, I think. Hmm. Not sure and I don't want to test/risk discovering. But, Mike, I think it's great you can do this! You found the right partner and have a very healthy attitude towards it. Shows me that it's all relative. That's what I never knew (as a young person): you set the rules, there's no fixed rules.

i can't even think of ex gf's with other people. i don't think it could work for me. but good luck to anyone who can really make it work, i say.

open relationship means you both consent to it though, despite the double-meaning. "i'm not having an affair; we're having an open relationship" probably won't fly with most people.

it's perfectly possible that both think of their relationship as open

maybe in ernst lubitsch films.

Well, not necessarily. You can think of yoru relationship as open even though the other doesn't. Of course in the long run it'll cause problems, unless one adapts.

xpost

I was thinking O Henry.

But you're being too strict about the def of Open here I think.

This is probly not a productive area of enquiry.

We've been here before tho. 300 angry posts about the necessity of monogamy by teatime.

Well, not necessarily. You can think of yoru relationship as open even though the other doesn't. Of course in the long run it'll cause problems, unless one adapts.

-- nathalie, Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:32 PM (15 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

it's not an open relationship if only one party thinks it is! srsly i'm not trying to make a point about relationship ethics, but this is basic dictionary stuff.

Polyamory

which includes dave q's deathless observation that "I've decided to let the girlfriend fuck whoever she wants. Pretty nice of me huh? Especially since she dumped me about 3 years ago"

I do suspect that heterosexual open relationships are much less likely to be viable.

that is vintage q.

I do suspect that heterosexual open relationships are much less likely to be viable.

Even a cursory viewing of Springer should teach us this.

mult. xposts Yes, words have fixed meanings. ;-) I know. I am just reluctant to see these things as fixed. I'm a bit stubborn that way, I guess, and maybe I have a pessimistic/realistic view on relationships.

I do suspect that heterosexual open relationships are much less likely to be viable.

Really? I often wonder why that is. Maybe we like to fool ourselves into thinking this way.

I'm reluctant to attempt theories, as this would quickly involve some awkward generalisations... but one reasonable generalisation might be that gay men are more liable to separate their emotional and physical desires, hence casual shags are easier to compartmentalise. (That's over-simplified, but it will do.)

will it now

gay men are more liable to separate their emotional and physical desires, hence casual shags are easier to compartmentalise

gaymen are more liable to separate their emotional and physical desires, hence casual shags are easier to compartmentalise

this is my way of saying, from the vantage point of 17 years heterosexually married, that mike t-diva's theory is OTM

Mike, what if you both know the person - a mutual acquiantance or even friend. Is that off limits then?

No, but it's less likely. The flow tends to happen in the reverse direction; several of my dearest friends are former casual shags.

Mike has many gay friends in town.

I'm in favor of it in theory, but I have a hard enough time just finding two people attractive at the same time.

there's got to be a better way of wording that.

I dunno, it's good enough!

my thought: whatever floats your boat. (but not mine so much)

funny, i have trouble getting two people to find me attractive at teh same time.

Couples I've known who are in open relationships are either ideal models of self-confidence and companionship -- the kind that lets a relationship have the same expectations as we have with our friends (i.e., we're individuals, we're not preoccupied with what our friends are doing when they're not with us) -- or they're denying their gut feelings and are going to end up blowing up like William H. Macy in Boogie Nights.

But as someone who gets emotional and creative energy from a range of people instead of one, I could imagine that working in a physical way as well.

http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes-77/BoogieNights19.jpeg

"I don't have a girlfriend, I just know a girl who would be mad if she heard me say that"

Has anyone tried an open relationship with kids? And no - stop typing right now R. Kelly, I mean two adults who have kids, in an open relationship. I think that would be very confusing. When single, I think it's OK, but the kind of partnership required for the family dynamic seems incompatible with an open relationship.

yeah i basically agree -- just can't see how it'd work.

xpost

A friend's older sister is in that situation. She and her husband each have other partners and his girlfriend lives with them and their child.

Am I going to come across as a raging conservative if I say that I think open relationships are a really, really bad idea? Especially with kids involved, wow.

Wow that's interesting Ms Misery.

Is it 'The Red-Headed Stranger' himself? I could see him working an open relationship. Is the girlfriend Carla Bozulich?

OK so seriously here's the problem I see with that. When you're a kid, you form really deep attachments to people in your household. If the girlfriend doesn't have a deep attachment let alone a legal attachment to the kids, there is every possibility of that relationship being torn asunder in a way that the kids won't understand. No?

we're individuals, we're not preoccupied with what our friends are doing when they're not with us

otm

'The Red-Headed Stranger'

Willie Nelson!? He doesn't strike me as the free love type.

Children grow up with lots of different types of families other than one man, one woman. I think as long as whoever is in their life loves them and protects them, it's a good thing.

we're individuals, we're not preoccupied with what our friends are doing when they're not with us

otm in some instances, but marriage is like a marathon, and you're trying to run and lift weights at the same time while getting a handjob.

xpost.

Yes, but when the people in their lives are constantly shifting and disappearing, is that a good thing?

humansuit, i don't really understand your point!

Yes, but when the people in their lives are constantly shifting and disappearing, is that a good thing?

Why would you assume this would happen more in a polyamorous relationship than it would in a monogmaous one?

I can't count how many boyfriends my mother had while we were growing up. . .

Open relationship = tighten up your game.

Neither do i, xpost,

Game, set and match to Ms Misery on that one. Yes, for some reason I was slipping into the totally-committed marriage vs. polygamy thing, and I don't know why, but you're right.

when boundaries are not clear baaaaad things can happen

I was thinking O Henry.

I was thinking of "The Pina Colada Song"

curt1s an open relationship doesn't mean there are unclear boundaries, though. unless that's not what you're saying.

in fact i'd venture to say that it encourages the setting of boundaries, whereas in many monogamous relationships the boundaries are "assumed" based on people's interpretations of what a monogamous relationships are. one person's backrub is another person's buttsex.

Will, if you can't tell the difference between a backrub and buttsex, I think you are very, very naive.

I meant more the other way around-- what some people see as innocent (a backrub) some others might see as cheating (not entirely like buttsex would be to the other person, perhaps).

imagine that masseuse.

I know Will

"OK, I'm going to go really deep tissue here. Just close your eyes and bite down ..."

I was saying clear boundaries are essential, which is true for any relationship, and was said upthread, I just threw shit out there because I have nothing better to do with my time

well boundaries per se aren't essential, but clarity of where boundaries may or may not lie is

Unless a family is living in relative isolation, a kid grows up around parents' friends. Whatever physical ambiguities might be going on in this community wouldn't have to intrude on the kid's life.

<i>in fact i'd venture to say that it encourages the setting of boundaries, whereas in many monogamous relationships the boundaries are "assumed" based on people's interpretations of what a monogamous relationships are. one person's backrub is another person's buttsex.</i>

I agree, and again I think the lack of possessiveness in friendships allows for greater intimacy and greater peace of mind -- and it makes me wonder if friendships should be more of the model for relationships (for myself; not telling you guys or society what to do).

xpost - but it's very plausible that a husband/wife might be more threatened by a friend's massage than a stranger's buttsex.

one person's buttsex is another person's surprize buttsecks

i can "otm" that curt1s. xpost

me and my (ex) girlfriend both thought we were totally OK and secure w/ being in an open relationship while she was studying abroad. turns out neither of us were, actually, and then we broke up.

eazy is totally OTM here--this kind of thing is theoretically possible btw. two real "individuals," who are confident and secure in their own selves and their relationship to their partner, but in a codependent relationship btw. two insecure depressives (like the one i was in), its pretty much the worst idea ever, no matter how much you might fool yourself into thinking otherwise. and in retrospect it seems obvious, but at the time its pretty easy to convince yourself youre totally OK with your girlfriend fooling around with italian guys.

and yeah--if your relationship is predicated on some hollywood/romeo-&-juliet-type "id die without you" complete and total emotional investment (and most people arent that hardcore about it but it does form the vague basis of most relationships i know), rather than on the "friendship model" (i.e. i love you dearly but i will live if youre gone, which ultimately strikes me as healthier and more commonsensical), opening up a relationship is killing it.

*waves at kenan*

Children grow up with lots of different types of families other than one man, one woman. I think as long as whoever is in their life loves them and protects them, it's a good thing.

Yes. I was talking with my cousin a while ago. Talking about how*normal* it is that people divorce and have new partners (and kids). How that must affect the kids in a way. She just replied that this whole "single family unit" (?) is just a recent thing, that not too long ago kids would grow up with their parents but also others around. I (or she) don't mean other partners, but that this whole *closed* family thing is a more recent thing. Am I rambling? (Tired -> Englese not coherent.) I realized that, well, remarrying (and in this case an open relationship) is not necessarily a bad influence on a kid.

I think on a whole it's abit naive to think that a monogamous relationship has more chances of success than an open one.

Unless a family is living in relative isolation, a kid grows up around parents' friends. Whatever physical ambiguities might be going on in this community wouldn't have to intrude on the kid's life.

In theory, but in practice? Kids are astute, and there is no way you could keep it out of their lives. And moreover, if you are going to be involved in this arrangement, I think it behooves you to be clear with your kids about it too.

*waves back at stevie*

Kids learn (well should anyway) about sex and love from their parents. They are not born with some pre-instilled set of values. I'm sure polyamorous families face similar challenges to families with gay parents. Both sets are perfectly capable of raising well-adjusted children.

I learned about sex from watching Three's Company, iirc.

No, seriously, kids get DEEPLY ingrained ideas about love and sex from their parents, which is one of the reasons a working open relationship is so rare, because one or both of the partners is poorly socialized to the idea, in a way they can't shake.

But I'm not talking about "pre-instilled values." I'm talking about attachment to adults, and if you're having a sloppy open relationship, you're exposing your kid to a lot of insecurity. As you pointed out, it may be no more than a sloppy monogamous relationship, or a sloppy 'single parent dating' thing, but it does require a lot of discipline in terms of making sure you as an adult are OK with what you are doing while at the same time having open communication with your child. xx to Misery, and agreeing with Kenan.

re. max's comment - i think it's an important to note that difficulty in dealing with jealousy in a situation like this doesn't necessitate the diagnosis of "co-dependence." sometimes, it's just plain and simple heartache.

No, seriously, kids get DEEPLY ingrained ideas about love and sex from their parents, which is one of the reasons a working open relationship is so rare, because one or both of the partners is poorly socialized to the idea, in a way they can't shake.

I wanna meet your parents now.

Also, don't overestimate the influence of parents. I think I learned most about sex from watching porn movies. </kenan>

I think many of us are using different meanings of open relationships here.

Really, don't underestimate the influence of parents. If you're parents didn't screw you up, you can't realize everything they did for you, wouldn't you agree?

I've had something of a on-again-off-again polyamorous relationship with a couple of married friends, but in the past few years, as their daughter has gotten older, we've had to ensure that she was out of the house / staying with grandparents if we wanted to have sexy time.

Fwiw, I don't think their daughter really knows the extent of the relationship, she just sees me as 'mommy & daddy's friend.' Just as well, I guess. She's a great kid, anyhow, and we get along quite famously.

i forget where i learned about sex, but it DEFINITELY wasn't my parents. my parents still haven't told me how you have kids. i asked them when i was young, because kids always did it in cartoons, so it seemed like the thing to do. they told me you pray very hard and jesus puts a baby in mom's stomach. i remember thinking, "well that's unreliable"

in the past few years, as their daughter has gotten older, we've had to ensure that she was out of the house

Is it bad for a baby to see you masturbating?

xxxpost True, but I hardly think that will save/destroy my relationship.

I honestly think Hollywood thaught me that I have to stand by man. </irony mode>

no tim i dont mean to imply that; my relationship was codependent absent any concerns of "openness," it just so happens that codependency (centered around my, and my partner's, deep-seeded insecurities) exacerbates feelings of jealousy/loneliness/emasculation/heartbreak.

my relationship was screwed up way before we decided to make it open. the lesson i took away from it (that everyone should be aware of) is that opening up an already fragile relationship wont SAVE it (no matter how much you might convince yourself otherwise); for an open relationship to work it needs to be rock-solid and totally stable and secure.

If you're parents didn't screw you up, you can't realize everything they did for you, wouldn't you agree?

That's not true. As an adult I think you are quite able to see which of your values, beliefs, habits, etc come directly from your parents. Good or bad.

Also not sure what this has to do with open relationships. . .

No, not save/destroy relationships, but it's important to try to do right by your kids when you can. And I don't think we're talking about kids learning about sex, we're talking about kids learning about relationships, which they certainly do from their parents.

And I don't see the problem with blindfolding your baby for a few minutes.

humansuit I really think that you're coming at this from the perspective that merely having open/multiple relationships is bad for kids. This is not a true statement.

Ms Misery - I'm just saying that good parenting can be under-appreciated, whereas bad parenting can be very noticeable. And as far as what it has to do with open relationships, it's back to the debate about how much what you do affects your children, and how much adding an open relationship complicates parenting.

I think that people can have open relationships and kids and make it work, I just think it would be difficult in most cases.

I wanna meet your parents now.

I really don't think you do.

Bad relationships can affect kids poorly. I would be willing to bet more monogamous relationships go bad than polyamorous ones (and by the latter I do not mean cheating or random hooking-up).

I would not be willing to bet that at all.

Going back to the original question:

I would think they are not for everyone, but for the right sort of people it might be ideal. Trust is the absolute bedrock for relationships, not exclusivity. Being open about seeking and having other partners would maintain the basis for trust, which is truth-telling. That much is good.

However, trust isn't the be-all and end-all of relationships. A good relationship generally requires a huge amount of time and effort from both partners or it will just tail off and disappear eventually. This is the real reason that exclusivity is the standard operating procedure. It creates a higher level of availability during times of high demand. Kind of like an electrical grid that must be built to handle peak loads, not just average loads.

As it says in the Bible somewhere, one man cannot serve two masters, and given the nature of relationships, trying to serve two or more of them at one time will create inevitable conflicts of interest: if you're needed equally by more than one partner at the same time, how do you choose between them? One relationship is always going to be better served than the others. This is fertile ground for problems that will rapidly dissolve relationships, or else drive them into shallower waters. 'We're just friends', anyone?

So, as far as I can see, the right sort of people for open relationships would be people who have very low needs or expectations from relationships in general, which would also tend to be people with a very low capacity to love others - for whatever reasons.

Moreover, it often happens that a reduced capacity to love is temporary and subject to change, so that even if an open relationship suits you today when you enter it, it might not suit you later on and you should be prepared for that to happen to you - or to your partner in an open relationship.

I'm gonna invite all of you to a Shortbus party.

My dad cheated on my mom when I was very little and they were still together, and he cheated on his second wife and then his third wife turned out to be polyamorous. My mom is monogamously gay, although I remember overhearing some talk of some playing around with friends when I was a kid. My attitude towards my parents' sexuality as a kid: "ewwwww!" (but I didn't feel I could say that (I got no problem with lesbianism but just with thinking of my parents in that way at all)). I think my dad's relationship is now "open" or they have some specific rules like kissing is okay. She is apparently "lacking the jealousy gene" -- as a result, I think my dad is much more monogamous than ever. I think without the thrill of sneaking around, it's not as appealling, and he knows that she wouldn't have any trouble with getting some on the side, and it turns out he does have the jealous gene.

I think it might work for some people. I know I would get batshit jealous though.

So part of my point is that I don't agree that parents should be open with their kids if their relationship is open. If a kid asks, that's one thing, but do the children the favor of not embarrassing them with what you do with your friends in private.

I agree that you could go that way but it runs counter to we interact in my own family, so that's my bias. We have no secrets, we've already started teaching our 9-year-old the basics of sex, and we try to instill in her strong connections to our family and friends that is based on openness. If I were in an open relationship, I would still do the same, although not necessarily giving my kids the total down-low at the age of 9.

Yeah even if they do understand the birds and bees they don't need to know everytime you get some strange.

"get some strange?"

does "i don't mind if i don't find out (and i won't try to)" and vice/versa count as "open"? coz that's gotta have been the average way that lots of marriages worked for a long time.

strange ass (new booty)

O. As in, "hey honey, I went for a massage but I think someone got some strange ass."

I've heard tell of open situations that work, but every time I've known the people involved it's been smarmy and clearly making one person more happy than the other.

does "i don't mind if i don't find out (and i won't try to)" and vice/versa count as "open"? coz that's gotta have been the average way that lots of marriages worked for a long time.

-- s.clover, Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:33 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yeah, i think this might be how a lot of "open" marriages work....?

does "i don't mind if i don't find out (and i won't try to)" and vice/versa count as "open"?

i suppose it's about how explicit/acknowledged it is...

i suppose i think it's much murkier when kids are involved because of the 'sticking together for the kids' factor. less of a contract freely entered into with kids in the picture.

my bestfriend and her fiance have been together 5 years, and have a type of 'open' relationship. when you're discussing 'open' i think it's important to define it as either sexually open or emotionally open - i.e. is it ok to just fuck other people as long as there's nothing more going on, or is ok to actually have some kind of emotional relationship with someone else? my friend and her partner occasionally engage in foursomes, and the guy has slept with other women while out of town. the thing is, they're both extremely well-adjusted and secure people, and completely sure of their love for one another, so there's no jealousy. for them it's just sex and fun with other people.

i'm kind of in an emotionally open relationship, but only through the force of circumstance and day-to-day practicalities. i have this 'thing' with a very special guy, and if we lived in the same country it would be a seriously monogamous relationship. but we don't, and we won't anytime soon. so it doesn't make sense to remain 'faithful'. we've agreed that we're both ok with seeing other people, but some tact needs to be employed. for instance, if i hook up with some guy for a bit of fun, i don't tell him about it. if i met someone and it got serious, then i would.

but personally, if i was actually with someone, i couldn't have an open relationship. i'm far to insecure to deal with the consequences.

i wouldn't think of that as insecurity -- the flipside is being so insecure that you'll put up with a situation you aren't really that cool with.

me and gf are in a open relationship now, except we decided to call it 'breaking up but still hooking up'

so, ex-gf

Oh then I have been in an open relationship too!

(sorry dude)

ok you maniacs, how do you keep sleeping with someone you just broke up with? Do you feel some need to punish yourself? Are your lives not bleak enough? The world is full of people to have sex with -- find another one.

You have to ask Rhonda to help you. That works so much better.

I am not explaining ex-sex on the internet.

'breaking up but hooking up' is basically an honest open relationship
at least the way we've done it, which isn't really implying that anything is 'over' as much as living far away is just impractical in relationship terms

What if you dont sleep with your ex but you keep doing everything else with them? (hanging out, cuddling, sometimes sharing a bed, but pretty platonically).

... I'm in some kind of denial arent I.

Ah, see, I was imagining your classic messy breakup, and then "Ok but we can still have the sex" no no no no boxcar etc

obv i expect this process to not work nearly as cleanly as it has so far, in the long run

esp now that me and rebound girl are back on track

What if you dont sleep with your ex but you keep doing everything else with them? (hanging out, cuddling, sometimes sharing a bed, but pretty platonically).

That's called marriage, Trayce.

Hahaha =)

Oh dear.

Thank you. You are too kind.

i wouldn't think of that as insecurity -- the flipside is being so insecure that you'll put up with a situation you aren't really that cool with.

-- That one guy that quit

that maybe the case for some people, but for me i know it's mostly my own insecurities. however, when i'm with someone i have no desire to sleep with someone else. i've noticed in the past that if i do find myself considering what it would be like to sleep with another person, that pretty much signals my current relationship has come to its end.

there's this friend of my bf's (we're in an open relationship), who i like kno too. and throughout their short friendship, he totally mounted this whole "woo my bf" mission. i shoulda put my foot down earlier, cuz it definitely smelled fishy. anyway, it all just came to a head and i sent him a nasty email this morning.

so yea, our thing is no emotional, and nothing at all with friends, cuz that's like already emotional. but even just "oh yea u can have sex w/ someone else" can get very tricky.

So, not really all that open at all then, that seems like an awful lot of restrictions! :)

As a by the by, are we differentiating here between open relationships and polyamorous ones? I have a few friends who are in the latter category and seem to make it work well. One married couple, guy also has a gf, gf has just had a baby, they all live together. I dont know the mechanics of how on eath all that works, but they all seem fine.

i think Ms Misery summed it up perfectly, upthread: whatever floats your boat.

does "i don't mind if i don't find out (and i won't try to)" and vice/versa count as "open"?

i was in one of these, and then i found out (inadvertently) and i went more or less totally off the deep end. my sense (for me at least) is that if youre unable to be aware of your sig o's flings without melting down, youre probably not secure enough to be in an open relationship.

whatever floats your boat

whatever roasts your weenie?
whatever flaps your pennant?
whatever fills your sandwich?
whatever wiggles your flagella?

were these not even considered?

whatever shucks your corn

for me, "open relationship" has always meant u can have sexual relations with other people, but intimate attachments are questionable. i've also always just assumed, on like a basic human nature level, that open relationships don't cover friends. who wants to foul up a friendship with a love triangle? i think it is person-specific, but to me, overall, it doesn't seem like a bad way to go if monogamy is too much pressure. it's just dealing with ur emotions that's the bitch - whether or not you can handle it. some ppl know better than others whether or not they're built for that kind of thing.

i might have to break "whatever shucks your corn" out sometime

if youre unable to be aware of your sig o's flings without melting down, youre probably not secure enough to be in an open relationship.

again, i've got to say that having a hard time with this doesn't necessarily mean insecurity. being in love enough that it's heartbreaking doesn't mean you're insecure.

I agree with this.

sometimes, it's just hard to be gracious and let someone be free. Or something.

right

We're all human really.

tim i didnt say "insecure" absoultely! i said "insecure enough to be in an open relationship"! it's totally possible to be secure in your closed relationship and still be too insecure to open that relationship up--in order to know that your sig o is having sex with other people, you need to be sort of phenomenally secure about yourself and your relationship, in my opinion moreso than youd need to be in a healthy relationship otherwise

ok, i still don't think it's necessarily an issue of insecurity at all, though, if you happen to be in love to the extent that your partner becoming involved with someone else hurts you.

then id ask why you felt hurt, though.

because you want something complete and transcendent in your love.

REAL TALK: OPEN RELATIONSHIPS DON'T WORK AND ANYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE IS TRICKING THEMSELVES INTO THINKING IT'S PROGRESSIVE.

that said, i have mad respect for the dudes who actually convince their gfs to let them bang other broads. that's a pretty sweet set-up if you do it right

xpost: right--and when your partner is with someone else (either physically or emotionally), you feel insecure abt the completeness or transcendence of your love.

altho i think looking for wholeness and transcendence in one's relationships is misguided & generally futile

maybe you and i are operating under different conceptions of security/insecurity tho?

it's not a question of looking for wholeness and transcendence. sometimes you just experience it - you're in love and you don't care about anyone else. and when your partner does, yes, that can hurt. that doesn't mean you're "insecure!"

right but you feel hurt b/c you think that transcendence and wholeness is gone, right? which is to say that youre insecure about its continued existence.

i used the term "completeness," actually. and, yes, it actually IS, by definition, gone.

i wonder if an open relationship would fail if one person got a lot more tail than the other....

also, this thread is crying out for a more practical/economic definition of what a "relationship" consists in.

xp but if your relationship is based around "completeness," and that completeness is gone, then your relationship is no longer functioning, right?

theres a weird disconnect here--if your partner is involved w/ someone else, either theyre still in love with you or theyre not, right? so if they are (and therefore your relationship is still complete), and you cant handle it, its because youre too insecure to trust that love; if theyre not still in love with you (and the completeness of the relationship is gone), insecurity is a moot point because youre, like, not really in a healthy or functioning relationship anymore

that's a different use of the term "complete" than the one i was using. my example was the person in love to the extent that they're not interested in others. a relationship with a sense of completeness would be two such people.

and again, i maintain that when one person is emotionally invested in a relationship in this way (not necessarily by choice or by decision or because that's the way it's done in our society by merely by the extent of their feelings) and they find that their partner is not, the pain has nothing to do with insecurity.

because they feel as though their partner should also have no desire to go outside the relationship?

also id argue that a relationship where one person is more emotionally invested than the other, or emotionally invested in a different way that hasnt been discussed or thought about, is a relationship with much deeper and more extensive problems than the question of "openness."

i guess id say that a relationship where both partners have vastly different conceptions of "emotional investment" is an insecure relationship, period.

or at least, where both partners have vastly different conceptions of "emotional investment," and where those differences havent been covered or thought about or discussed

max i think it's curious that you'd suggest that people who are comfortable in open relationships have a higher degree of security, because i think it's pretty clearly a way of avoiding intimacy. you're extrapolating from yr experience of trying to maintain a long-distance open relationship, but the conclusion you're getting from it is weird. wanting to be in an open relationship doesn't mean someone just has a lot of gusto, it means they're emotionally incomplete.

i dont see how a person could be comfortable in an open relationship and not feel totally secure in their partner's love & attraction for them! i mean, if youre not secure in that youre always going to be wondering if the people they're meeting are better than you in a variety of ways, and that youll be left for another person!

also wanting to be in an open relationship doesnt necessarily indicate "emotional incompleteness," whatever that might mean--they just might want to fuck other people.

because they feel as though their partner should also have no desire to go outside the relationship?

No! It's certainly doesn't have to be a matter of wanting to impose something on the other person. The pain is because the person's love feels transcendent and complete so this person naturally desires a relationship with that other person that is also transcendent and complete.

Whether they want to continue with the person anyway if it's not is a matter of choice, obviously.

theres a weird disconnect here--if your partner is involved w/ someone else, either theyre still in love with you or theyre not, right?

Going back to what I was saying earlier today about friendships being the more ideal model than relationships or family, who knows which of our friends loves us and which do not? Is it really a binary thing?

The pain is because the person's love feels transcendent and complete so this person naturally desires a relationship with that other person that is also transcendent and complete.

yeah the problem here is that i would call that insecurity, and you wouldn't.

I mean, here are two questions. Are we responsible for keeping our friends happy? Are we responsible for keeping our partners happy?

eazy id like to think that i know which friends love me and which dont--and there are friends about whose love i feel insecure, and those friendships are obviously not ideal friendships!

these are all just retarded rationalizations dogg. there is a spectrum of healthy human behavior, and this doesn't fall under it. just because someone is compelled to something and because they are comfortable with it doesn't mean that it's healthy! "they might just want to fuck other people" is one of a million retarded rationalizations in this thread, as is the idea that the level of comfort is from... their undying faith in their partner's love??? that's a really concrete way to approach this!

cankles bro im not arguing for open relationships! i think most people who are in them are fooling themselves, just like you--but i think its silly to assume that its totally impossible for two well-adjusted, secure & happy people to be fucking others on the side (see the several examples of happy & functional open relationships on this thread)

Here's the thing: is there any behavior we would not want our good friends to engage in when we're not in the room with them? Maybe stuff that is: disrespectful of us (dissing us and sabotaging our lives); appearing in a way that is dishonest and/or duplicitous to the way they've earned our respect and love (i.e., behaving in a way that makes the friendship a sham); or in a way that is self-destructive to them.
Does any of this have to do with feelings of possession? Not really.

The pain is because the person's love feels transcendent and complete so this person naturally desires a relationship with that other person that is also transcendent and complete.

yeah the problem here is that i would call that insecurity, and you wouldn't.

-- max, Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:56 AM (19 minutes ago)

So one is, BY NATURE showing signs of "insecurity" in ever wanting this in a relationship?

yeah see dude, i think we're pretty much on the same page, it's just where you say it's theoretically possible - all the pps i've known in open relationships (some of them fairly long term) have been as smart and confident and basically well-adjusted as anyone i've known, so the anecdotes about happy & functional open relationships aren't like shocking to me, but i question the level of intimacy present in these relationships. but hey, there's always an outlier i guess.

yeah i really dont think security plays into it at all. what tim's talking about in his own faggy way is just the nature of intimacy, and wanting a relationship that has built-in barriers to it probably means that you cant handle it. i had an example in my head just now but i forgot it :'(

i think the real issue here is that the men who pull this off are to be commended, it seriously is the greatest scam in the world.

waht about the ladies who pull it off?

whores

I don't know what Tim means by "complete" (unless he means "satisfied and content", which is different). Life is too various to be completable.

That open relationships thread is interesting in theory, and I wish it could solve some problems. I am really, really envious of the people who are in open relationships, not because I want to be in one for the extra play--not at all that--but because the guys (and girl) I've known who are in them seem to live pretty much without jealousy. They get a really good deal--a marriage or long-term relationship or whatever, a chance to scratch the 7-year itch, plus best of all an apparent security that comes from knowing that that person loves you and you love them and not even fucking someone else can touch it.

In my relationships we were never allowed to step out, but we did have 3ways on occasion, and I honestly don't think that contributed to the deterioration of the relationship, and there was never ever jealousy from them.

The point is that I have problems with jealousy. If I lost track of my boyfriend for too long I would start obssessing and if he went out to a bar without me I would wonder if he was picking up someone else. I hate it and would gladly trade my jealousy in a mostly-monagamous relationship for lack of jealousy in an open one.

I don't mean complete in some ultimate sense or for forever. I'm just talking about being in love to the extent that you don't think about wanting other things.

And as I've been saing, I don't think wanting a transcendent relationship because of the extent of those feelings should necessarily be construed as this idea that you're "insecure" or even (Jesse, if this is applicable in your situation) that you "have problems with jealousy."

Ah, ilx. As winter turns to spring, our thoughts turn to sexing. As spring turns to summer, our thoughts turn to sexing somebody else.

and the whole year around, our thoughts are hopefully in places other than whatever kenan is posting about sex

this whole process is easily complicated by the LONG DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP

also zing xp

oh noes, zinged again

you know what I really like? Small children.

II hate it and would gladly trade my jealousy in a mostly-monagamous relationship for lack of jealousy in an open one.

but yeah, that can nevertheless be a real desire.

deej OTM re LONG DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS

Ah, ilx. As winter turns to spring, our thoughts turn to sexing. As spring turns to summer, our thoughts turn to sexing somebody else.

-- kenan, Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:36 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

File under: Excelsior

I happened to be reading Dewdrops on a Lotus Leaf: Zen Poems of Ryokan on a bus on the way out on the town tonight and came across something that sums up how I feel about relationships:

Who says my poems are poems?
My poems are not poems.
When you know that my poems are not poems,
Then we can speak of poetry!