"Open Marriage?"

[sxyNYCcpl]

This has been a fun and interesting thread. I don't think that anyone has convinced anyone else, but it was interesting , nonetheless.:D

 

If you'll indulge me one additional point.

 

Us going back and forth arguing semantics, they're real, no they're not, yes they are, no they're not is mostly meaningless.

 

But the reason I participate in these threads in the first place is to override the idea that any marriage that does not include strict monogamy is doomed to failure. That's simply not true, in fact the evidence would tend to indicate that it's the exact opposite, that people who (voluntarily, and of their own genuine free will) participate have divorce rates much lower than the general population. My own, admittedly anecdotal, observations are that that seems to be true. People we have personally known in the lifestyle split up with much less frequency than others. I am only personally aware of two couples in the circles we frequent to have split. There are certainly others I am not aware of, but I can point to a job I had about 8 years ago, since then every single person in that office has been divorced. It was a small office (roughly 7 people), but to my knowledge, they were all (at least on paper) monogamous.

 

That said, if you (pl) are doing it to save your otherwise failing relationship, or because one person is deploying overseas and it's better than lying, or one spouse is going along to get along, it probably WILL end in disaster. Then again, those relationships are probably teetering on the edge of a cliff already.

 

With the phrase 'consensual non-monogamy', by far the most important word is 'consensual'. If it's not truly that, look out.

[JustJoe]

CPL, as long as you refer to it or them as relationships, I'm on board. It's when you bring in the "M", word that I balk. I agree with you, 100% (ahem) that consensual is the operative word. Without it, it's cheating, whether your in a marriage or a relationship.

[woinlove]

And the OP did NOT say "legally."

 

 

I think we agree that if you want to say any doctor who got his/her degree at Stanford Medical School is not a doctor, because you don't like Stanford, you are free to do so. I don't see splitting hairs between 'she's not a doctor' or 'she's not a licensed doctor', but if one works for you and not the other, fine. Either way, she is a doctor. And people who are married are ... well ... married.

[JustJoe]

Woinlove, according to you ANY doctor is a doctor, even witch doctors or quacks.. If any marriage is a marriage, then any doctor is a doctor.

[woinlove]

Woinlove, according to you ANY doctor is a doctor, even witch doctors or quacks.. If any marriage is a marriage, then any doctor is a doctor.

 

Really? I say a licensed doctor who studied at Stanford is a doctor and you conclude that I think a witch doctor is a doctor? Are you saying that you think California is licensing witch doctors these days?

 

Well, if anyone thinks the State of California is licensing witch doctors, then I guess it is not surprising that they might think the State of California is issuing fake marriage licenses too. Sadly, that's what the majority of voters thought and the Federal Courts had to tell them they were wrong.

[JustJoe]

Read your own post, woinlove. You said that regardless of whether she is licensed or not, she is still a doctor. Would you go to an unlicensed doctor? Or take your children to an unlicensed doctor? I think you had better use a different analogy.

[sxyNYCcpl]

open marriage= evil job

 

Really? Who in the heck do you think you are?

[sxyNYCcpl]

If any marriage is a marriage, then any doctor is a doctor.

 

Any legally licensed doctor is in fact a doctor. And any duly licensed marriage is in fact a marriage. Doctors licenses can be revoked for cause. Marriage licenses cannot, they must be voluntarily relinquished, if desired. We're going around in circles again, but you deciding a marriage doesn't meet your personal requirements for being a marriage doesn't make it so.

[JustJoe]

In the eyes of the law, but not in MY eyes. If there's no love, there's no marriage. To me, marriage is more than paper - it's a heart and soul thing. If you want to f other people, there's no heart and soul in that love, IMO.

 

BTW, your analogy sucks.

Yes, Donna, but you have to realize that you and I are living in sin. If we were in an "open marriage", we could f**K anybody we please, as long as we say the right words, Like "I'm totally committed to you", or "you can do the same thing , I don't care", which is probably closer to the truth.

[JustJoe]

Any legally licensed doctor is in fact a doctor. And any duly licensed marriage is in fact a marriage. Doctors licenses can be revoked for cause. Marriage licenses cannot, they must be voluntarily relinquished, if desired. We're going around in circles again, but you deciding a marriage doesn't meet your personal requirements for being a marriage doesn't make it so.

And you deciding that an "open marriage", is a true marriage , doesn't make it so either. But you're right, we are going around in circles.You are never going to convince me that your relationship is a true marriage. You can make up all the "proofs", you want, but I calls em like I sees em. If there is sex outside of the "marriage", then the "marriage", is a sham. My opinion.

[JustJoe]

BTW, that isn't what Woinlove said. She said that a doctor is a doctor, licensed or not. I know what she was getting at, but with all due respect, her analogy is really bad.

[JustJoe]

i am an anti openmarriage. and i do not need to ask who the hell you are as i already know who you are=sex predator

Dude, a word of warning. You need to be more respectful of other posters. You WILL get banned, if you make false accusations or show disrespect.

[sxyNYCcpl]

i am an anti openmarriage. and i do not need to ask who the hell you are as i already know who you are=sex predator

 

Listen, pal, you've gone over the line. You are new here, but you have certainly started on the wrong foot. To accuse me of being a sexual predator is inflammatory, libelous, and flat out false, and if I know (or find out) who you are, I will most certainly be pursuing legal action.

 

I don't care what you think about open marriage, your opinion is less than meaningless to me.

 

You want a war, bring it.

[sxyNYCcpl]

It makes it so for HIM. Why do you care?

 

Do you really need to ask that? It's insulting. It's disrespecting my marriage, which despite our non-conventional approach to sexuality is pretty awesome. To say he (or you) does not desire such a thing is totally fine, I recognize that it's different strokes for different folks. But to take it to the next level and declare our marriage as meaningless is not only not accurate, it's needlessly inflammatory.

[sally4sara]

I've been told that my monogamous marriage is not a real marriage before:

 

We were not virgins. This group of people believe that when you have sex the first time, god marries you and that person. Any sex you have with someone else is adultery. Basically we're all married to the first person we have sex with.

 

We were not married in religion. This group of people believe the two people getting married do so to honor god's intent for his children. If two non religious people get married, god did not ordain it. The two people are just fornicating.

 

I was married once before. This group of people believe that there is no divorce in the eyes of god. Ending the legal contract be damned; any relationship you have after divorce is adultery.

 

We do not intend to have children. This group of people believe marriage is for creating babies. If you get married and do not have babies, the marriage is a charade.

 

There is no law backing these beliefs. Its all opinion. I did not ask for these peoples' blessings or get my marriage license from them through deceit. Yet they all felt compelled to make sure I knew they did not find my loving and monogamous marriage to be up to their snuff. And yes, each condescending remark was insulting, disrespectful, unsolicited and unnecessary.

 

If it was down to the opinions of others - no one would be able to get married because there are so many different and conflicting opinions about what makes a marriage a "real" marriage. How about not trying to define marriage for anyone but yourself? Such as saying "its not what I'd get married for" rather than "you don't have a real marriage" because the former is true and based on your personal beliefs about marriage and the latter is just an aim to insult and disrespect a relationship that has nothing to do with you.

Why are so many people compelled to do the latter when two people they WON'T and WOULDN'T be in a relationship with get married?

[JustJoe]

CPL, the problem here seems to be that you feel free to express your opinion, but dislike allowing others to express theirs. I have always stated that it was my opinion, only. I have never, in thought , word or deed, said that my opinion was sacrosanct, or that your opinion had no meaning. You came onto this thread to defend your relationship.....fine...please allow me the courtesy to disagree with you.

[woinlove]

Read your own post, woinlove. You said that regardless of whether she is licensed or not, she is still a doctor. Would you go to an unlicensed doctor? Or take your children to an unlicensed doctor? I think you had better use a different analogy.

 

Read my post again. I worded it to parallel this discussion.

 

Person A says he isn't a doctor because Person A doesn't like Stanford. When challenged, Person A retorts that he said he wasn't a doctor, he didn't say he wasn't a licensed doctor. In other words, he is willing to admit that the doctor is a licensed doctor but insists he still isn't a real doctor, because he trained at Stanford.

 

Substitute married for doctor and open for Stanford and that sums up this discussion.

 

Personally, I'd rather people call a spade a spade, and not skirt around the issue. If they think people shouldn't be allowed to marry unless X,Y and Z, then why not just say so, instead of saying married people aren't married. What the heck does that mean anyway? I suppose to them it means they don't like it. Well, why not just say, I don't like your marriage, rather than saying you aren't married? A lot more to the point, isn't it?

 

Now, if anyone said, I think your marriage should be illegal and banned, then that would be something real to discuss. No one seems to be in that mindset - which I guess makes us pretty popular, given that there seem to be people out there who even want to ban oral sex. Why all the love coming our way?

[JustJoe]

you start it ... by telling who the heck i am.

 

i didn't want to fight with you. ok

Dude, You need to go to another thread. Your "evil Job", and "sexual predator", posts have no part in what, until now, was an interesting and courteous debate. Just leave.

[woinlove]

Sorry. The teachings of one medical school over another are nowhere NEAR involvement of the heart.

 

Your analogy STILL sucks.

 

Maybe that's the difference between us. While my heart is solidly in my marriage, I can't say any of my heart is in some discussion where people say I'm not married or not really married. I meant it when I said that doesn't even make sense to me - never mind involving my heart. It makes no more sense to me than saying a doctor isn't a doctor because he went to Stanford.

 

However, if your heart is involved in saying I am not married, then I hope that makes you feel better. I mean that honestly, not sarcastically. It really doesn't mean anything to me, so if it tugs on your heart, it should feel good to you, because I'm perfectly fine either way.

[JustJoe]

Woinlove, I really do understand your post, I just thought it was worded, funny. The main issue here seems to be one of semantics. You, CPL and LHLH, believe that a marriage is valid , even if there is sex outside it. I do not. Whether or not I "like", your relationship, is irrelevant. The OP's question was ; Is an open marriage a real marriage, or is it something else. I stated my opinion, and have defended it. You and others have taken issue with my opinion, and attacked it. That is what debate is all about. I have no opinion about the quality, sincerity or depth of any of your relationships, and wish all of you much happiness, and certainly do not intend any disrespect, of you or your so"s. And if you have read my posts, I have been at pains to always state that it was my opinion only and didn't constitute a personal attack on anyone.

[sxyNYCcpl]

CPL, the problem here seems to be that you feel free to express your opinion, but dislike allowing others to express theirs.

 

I have no problem with opinions. I may disagree, and I may argue, but you have an absolute right to express what you think.

 

Here's the problem...

 

'Your marriage is not real' is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact, that is demonstrably false.

 

'I would not desire to have a relationship like yours' is a statement of opinion, and one to which you are entitled. That you feel that way, I hope you have (or find) someone of like mind, and live happily ever after.

 

'All open relationships are doomed' is also a statement of fact, that is not true. Granted, as I said before, from your experience that may certainly appear true, but soldiers deploying overseas who agree to an open relationship because it appears better than the alternative are doing so under duress. Unless they actually DESIRE an open relationship, they probably are bound for trouble.

 

The only real difference between you and us is that we have different outlooks on sexuality. You see it as intrinsically bound to a romantic relationship, whereas we see it as a recreational activity. I genuinely do not understand the way you think. I don't think you understand us. That's okay, viva la difference!

 

In light of recent events in our little debate here, I did want to thank you for being gracious and charitable, despite our differing opinions.

[NoLongerSad]

As we have not yet had a public wedding ceremony, but intend to do 'someday', we're thinking we may actually need two. One for 'normal' friends and family, and one for our freaky friends. Not sure how my mom would handle needing to step over fornicating couples to get to the snack bar.

 

 

What? You've never actually gotten married?

 

Obviously if that's true, you don't have an "open marriage" because you're not married.

[NoLongerSad]

Listen, pal, you've gone over the line. You are new here, but you have certainly started on the wrong foot. To accuse me of being a sexual predator is inflammatory, libelous, and flat out false, and if I know (or find out) who you are, I will most certainly be pursuing legal action.

 

LOL no you won't. By actually making such a shrill, empty threat against some other anonymous poster who said something intemperate to you, you've completely undermined whatever level of credibility you think you might have.

 

(I'm not endorsing the other poster's name-calling, of course. But your reaction is so "over the top" and so clearly impractical that it's just....blowing smoke on your part.)

 

I don't care what you think about open marriage, your opinion is less than meaningless to me.

 

But you stated in another post that you never actually got married, right? So doesn't that mean that whatever your relationship might be, it's not a marriage, open, closed, or of any other kind?

 

 

You want a war, bring it.

 

LOL again this is the sort of internet bluster that completely undermines any credibility that the blusterer is trying to accrue.

 

It all makes me think that you might not even have any real gf's, actually.

[JustJoe]

CPL and Donna. I'm neither "gracious", charitable", or "cool", it would destroy my carefully cultivated persona as the Evil Mr. JustJoe, if any of my students, were to read this stuff. They think I'm the educational equivalent of Freddie Kruger.:D

[NoLongerSad]

I have no problem with opinions. I may disagree, and I may argue, but you have an absolute right to express what you think.

 

Obviously, and whether or not you acknowledge that, doesn't change it, right?

 

 

 

Here's the problem...

 

'Your marriage is not real' is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact, that is demonstrably false.

 

O.K. now I'm confused. I thought you said you never actually had a wedding ceremony? Have you ever been legally married, you know, with a government-recognized marriage license, anywhere? If not, then no, you're not "really" married. (You may have a legally recognized domestic partnership or civil union, however.)

 

 

'I would not desire to have a relationship like yours' is a statement of opinion, and one to which you are entitled.

 

Actually, it's a statement of fact as to what her opinion is.

 

 

That you feel that way, I hope you have (or find) someone of like mind, and live happily ever after.

 

Actually, what you need to be hoping is that YOU find someone who agrees with YOU about this stuff. Or, I guess "multiple" people, since you are an advocate for other than monogamous relationships. Getting two people to agree on anything is difficult; getting three to all agree with each other, esp. about something important like how the relationship should be managed, is practically impossible.

 

You keep speaking in very theoretical terms but you give absolutely no examples of how you manage your non-monogamous relationships. What happens when two of you want to engage in one activity, and the third wants to do something else? You don't say. How are feelings of jealousy managed? You don't say. As a matter of fact you haven't even explained how the cheque is divvied up when the three of you go out for dinner.

 

It all sounds good but without any details it's just so much smoke and mirrors.

 

People in "real" marriages, in real relationships, KNOW how difficult it is to maintain a good relationship when only TWO people are involved. Yet you are claiming that it's so easy, so natural, equally as good, to have a relationship with THREE people involved (or many more, come to think of it).

 

REAL people in REAL relationships know better.

 

'All open relationships are doomed' is also a statement of fact, that is not true.

 

I think I agree but only to the extent that people who deliberately want open relationships to start with, are not 100% committed in the first place. Their freedom is more important to them, then the relationship. That characterizes the whole mind-set. It's much easier for me to understand people who have been monogamous for a long time and then just decide they want some variety, so they open things up.

 

But that's not what you're promoting. You're promoting NEVER being in a committed monogamous relationship. Under any circumstances.

 

There's a big difference between someone who can be monogamous or non-monogamous depending on the people and the circumstances; and someone, such as yourself, who seems to have such a stake in being anti-monogamous. And that's what I think people are reacting to with you. Not that you are in favor of open marriages, but rather, that you are anti-monogamous.

 

 

Granted, as I said before, from your experience that may certainly appear true, but soldiers deploying overseas who agree to an open relationship because it appears better than the alternative are doing so under duress. Unless they actually DESIRE an open relationship, they probably are bound for trouble.

 

Not your call to make, obviously. It seems to me those soldiers actually have an understandable reason to want an open relationship, you can call it duress if you like. You're not under duress but you want it too.

 

The only real difference between you and us is that we have different outlooks on sexuality. You see it as intrinsically bound to a romantic relationship, whereas we see it as a recreational activity. I genuinely do not understand the way you think. I don't think you understand us. That's okay, viva la difference!

 

No, that's not true at all. Just because someone perceives the IDEAL sexual relationship as being interwined with a romantic one, doesn't mean that they are incapable or unaware of having sex without romance!

 

It is YOU who are INSISTENT that sex be disassociated with romantic love. Your loss, of course, whether you realize it or not.

 

In light of recent events in our little debate here, I did want to thank you for being gracious and charitable, despite our differing opinions.

 

You are grinding an axe that is pointless for you to be grinding. Just because you are incapable of seeing the value of monogamy does not mean it is valueless. Once you stop insisting that monogamy has no value, then you will find a lot less people disagreeing with you.