"Open Marriage?"

[Toodamnpragmatic]

This wasn't addressed to me, but as I had previously stated we very rarely fight, I almost feel like it's a bit insulting. We very much are equals in this relationship, and neither of us is running roughshod over the other. But we are extremely similar, almost frighteningly so, about just about everything. It's not uncommon for us to be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time, sometimes for a reason, say if we just watched a news story and had a similar reaction, but other times it's almost eerie as there is no reason for it. We don't argue about money because neither of us spends recklessly, and most significant purchases are joint decisions. We don't argue, much, about children because her son is not mine so I'm (mostly) deferential to her decisions. However, as he is 18 and we have recently decided to move out of state, he may end up going with his dad, or maybe even joining the military, as he doesn't want to come with us.

 

I could go on, but I don't think it serves a purpose.

 

My overriding point is that just because you (in a generic sense, I don't know if you personally think so) think that it's simply not possible to have a mutually loving, yet consensually non-monogamous relationship, you are simply wrong. For what it's worth most, though certainly not all, of the people we have met in the Lifestyle have similarly fantastic relationships. Perhaps that, of itself, is a pre-requisite to actually be 'successful' in the lifestyle, whatever that means. Now, if you (again, generically) DESIRE a monogamous relationship, I suggest you seek that out. But make sure the person with whom you are with agrees.

 

The problem is not monogamy or non-monogamy. The problem is when a person who desires monogamy is in a relationship with someone who doesn't. That won't end well in most cases.

 

to give insight. Now I am not even questioning you as I said there is a significant difference between swinging/open relationships/polyamory and I thought you intimiated that you got it..... You swing in a shared setting at clubs.... Are these people you have formed friendships with and meet outside the context of swinging? Would you form a friendship with a female in this group on a one on one basis (not sex, but lunch or coffee)? This is when the issues arise in my opinion.

 

Yet you are back to my comments about fights about money and children. You have no children together, she has a son and not sure how long you've been together.

 

So congratulations on such a good relationship (very hard to find)....... But you don't and haven't had the issues I talk about with multiple kids, child rearing, diapers, schools, activities.....

[JustJoe]

I think we are somewhat getting off the subject that the OP was inquiring about. Perhaps I will start a thread about "open marriages ", and their definitions and usages and also to get posters opinions about them. OP, an "open marriage", seems to be real to those who practice it. Is it a 'REAL " marriage? No, I think not. A real marriage has a level of commitment that these open relationships, simply do not have. There is always that caveat "but". I'm totally commited to my spouse, "but", I eff other people. My "marriage is "just like ", a real marriage. See where I'm going with this? A brief analogy: When I was in college, I joined ROTC to become an officer. There were many guys and gals doing the same. there was a height restriction, that you couldn't be under, I think, 5'4". This one guy wanted join, and told the examiner he was 5'6" but when measured, he was too short. He insisted that he was 5'6". Him saying so, didn't make it so. You (pl) can say anything you want. You can say you're in a marriage, or you can say you're in a relationship, but that doesn't make it so. There are specific qualifications to marriage that these relationships simply do not possess, and wishing will not make it so. I have NEVER seen a completely equal "poly", relationship. One or the other will ALWAYS be in a submissive sexual/emotional position relative to the other. Remember, if BOTH people were equally committed to each other, there would be no need for any third parties , involved, because there would be no room.

[sally4sara]

I think we are somewhat getting off the subject that the OP was inquiring about. Perhaps I will start a thread about "open marriages ", and their definitions and usages and also to get posters opinions about them. OP, an "open marriage", seems to be real to those who practice it. Is it a 'REAL " marriage? No, I think not. A real marriage has a level of commitment that these open relationships, simply do not have. There is always that caveat "but". I'm totally commited to my spouse, "but", I eff other people. My "marriage is "just like ", a real marriage. See where I'm going with this? A brief analogy: When I was in college, I joined ROTC to become an officer. There were many guys and gals doing the same. there was a height restriction, that you couldn't be under, I think, 5'4". This one guy wanted join, and told the examiner he was 5'6" but when measured, he was too short. He insisted that he was 5'6". Him saying so, didn't make it so. You (pl) can say anything you want. You can say you're in a marriage, or you can say you're in a relationship, but that doesn't make it so. There are specific qualifications to marriage that these relationships simply do not possess, and wishing will not make it so. I have NEVER seen a completely equal "poly", relationship. One or the other will ALWAYS be in a submissive sexual/emotional position relative to the other. Remember, if BOTH people were equally committed to each other, there would be no need for any third parties , involved, because there would be no room.

 

Eh, I think its all relative. By your own standard, by the standard of many other people, it is not their definition of marriage. With the same logic, you saying it isn't doesn't make it not a marriage. I think this is a live and let live issue. The marriage of other people doesn't have to meet my standard because it isn't my marriage. My marriage doesn't have to meet the standard of people who are not in my marriage.

 

Ever heard of Walking Marriage?

 

http://www.panda-greatwall.com/everything-chinese/chinese-culture/86-society/344-secret-of-a-walking-marriage-custom-unveiled.html

 

Or how the Muslim and Mormon faiths have sects that promote more than just two spouses in the marriage?

 

Or even people who live out their lives till death with just the two of them and no marriage license at all.

[woinlove]

Remember, if BOTH people were equally committed to each other, there would be no need for any third parties , involved, because there would be no room.

 

Some people think their spouse should not have any friends of the opposite sex, while others are fine with this provided it remains platonic. Not sure by "no need for any third parties" if you think married people should not have any friends at all, other than their spouse, or just not friends of the opposite sex, or just nothing that goes beyond platonic. Some married people take it even further and would interpret your "third parties" to include activities - e.g., they shouldn't have careers or hobbies that take them away from home for more than xx period of time, etc. Others live apart for extended periods of time and are fine with it.

 

I'm surprised at how interested you are in what other married people agree to, going so far as to want to pronounce their marriage real or not. Of course, the very definition of marriage does hit a sensitive spot with some people. Often it seems driven by religion - at least the push back against gay marriage seems to be largely, but not completely, driven by religion.

 

More generally, some people seem to think their own marriage will some how be lessened by having other people married in ways they do not agree with. I've never understood that way of thinking and it seems like a small-minded way to think. I can understand some people thinking an open marriage is immoral in the way I understand some people thinking premarital sex is immoral. I don't agree with them, but I can understand it. But this aspect of worrying what other marriages are like, not on religious grounds, but because you think one or both must be deluding themselves and ultimately they will end up divorced, is something I don't understand.

[linwood]

I think you totally missed the point, I'm asking if an "open marriage" IS, in fact, a marriage. I say, by definition, it is not.

 

You would be correct if everyone held your definition of "Marriage".

 

Not everyone defines marriage as you do.

[sxyNYCcpl]

Are these people you have formed friendships with and meet outside the context of swinging?

 

Not all, but some. A person met in a swinging context has become my best friend on the planet, outside of my wife. He's more like a brother than a friend.

 

Would you form a friendship with a female in this group on a one on one basis (not sex, but lunch or coffee)?

 

Not many, but there are a handful with whom we've gotten that close.

 

So congratulations on such a good relationship (very hard to find)....... But you don't and haven't had the issues I talk about with multiple kids, child rearing, diapers, schools, activities.....

 

True enough. BTW, let me be clear, I'm not bragging about my relationship to pat myself on the back, or to say looky here at how wonderful we are. The only reason I bring it up is to counter those who say such a thing is not even hypothetically possible. They're wrong, and I know they're wrong because of my own personal experience.

[Toodamnpragmatic]

Not all, but some. A person met in a swinging context has become my best friend on the planet, outside of my wife. He's more like a brother than a friend.

 

 

 

Not many, but there are a handful with whom we've gotten that close.

 

 

 

True enough. BTW, let me be clear, I'm not bragging about my relationship to pat myself on the back, or to say looky here at how wonderful we are. The only reason I bring it up is to counter those who say such a thing is not even hypothetically possible. They're wrong, and I know they're wrong because of my own personal experience.

 

you are a swinger, not in an "Open-Realtionship/Polyamorous" affair, which I have noted is in my opinion much different.

 

Your situation, while it intrigues me, I can at least get my head around as you "play together"..... Having a male best friend too I can understand, now if it was the wife that you "played-with" that you were best friends with and confided in and had lunches or coffee with, then that invisible line would be crossed.....

[sxyNYCcpl]

There are specific qualifications to marriage that these relationships simply do not possess, and wishing will not make it so.

 

Where are these qualifications described? I would opine that the only looking at marriage through religious glasses requires monogamy, and I don't even think that's true of all religions. Certainly marriage as it exists in civil society does not require monogamy if the parties involved do not desire it. Yes, it's outside the norm from a statistical perspective, though I suspect you'd be shocked if you knew how widespread it actually is.

 

Remember, if BOTH people were equally committed to each other, there would be no need for any third parties , involved, because there would be no room.

 

You don't get it, Joe. We don't see marriage as a license to have sex. To us, sex is a recreational activity, and we see no risk (or harm) in involving others in our recreational activities. Do you think married couples who play tennis with people other than their spouses are demonstrating a lack of commitment? To us, it's the same thing.

 

You don't understand that. That's okay, you don't need to. You only need to know that others, many, many others, do, and chose to live their lives by their standards, not yours.

 

But when you judge something you don't understand, you generally come to false conclusions.

[sxyNYCcpl]

now if it was the wife that you "played-with" that you were best friends with and confided in and had lunches or coffee with, then that invisible line would be crossed.....

 

Perhaps, I guess we'll only find out when and if it happens. I have no philosophical objection to my wife becoming close with a male, and I am 99.9999% convinced if she did, she would never disrespect our relationship by violating our one rule. My best friends wife is one of the woman that I have, and will in the future, spent time with alone. As my wife has with my friend. But I have absolute confidence that none of the 4 people being discussed now would ever, ever do anything out of bounds.

[JustJoe]

Where are these qualifications described? I would opine that the only looking at marriage through religious glasses requires monogamy, and I don't even think that's true of all religions. Certainly marriage as it exists in civil society does not require monogamy if the parties involved do not desire it. Yes, it's outside the norm from a statistical perspective, though I suspect you'd be shocked if you knew how widespread it actually is.

 

 

 

You don't get it, Joe. We don't see marriage as a license to have sex. To us, sex is a recreational activity, and we see no risk (or harm) in involving others in our recreational activities. Do you think married couples who play tennis with people other than their spouses are demonstrating a lack of commitment? To us, it's the same thing.

 

You don't understand that. That's okay, you don't need to. You only need to know that others, many, many others, do, and chose to live their lives by their standards, not yours.

 

But when you judge something you don't understand, you generally come to false conclusions.

CPL, I understand you're thinking and frankly resent your insult to my intelligence. I "get it", I just don't agree with "it", Marriages are codified commitments between two people. As such, there are certain qualifications that are standard in almost all marriages, in almost all cultures. And PLEASE don't say that having friends outside the marriage is the same as having sex with said friends. It's not the same , and you know it. The bottom line is that you feel that you are in a marriage, but even that doesn't make it so, or as Sara pointed out, doesn't make it NOT so. . One of the single most important qualifications for marriage is sex within the marriage. If there is sex outside the marriage, it is adultery, even if you have permission from your spouse. It's simple as that. Sex within the marriage = marriage, sex out side the marriage = relationship. You may have a stable relationship, maybe even a joyous one, but it is not a marriage. I personally wish that the word "marriage", would not be used to describe "relationships", or used as a definition/condition by Government or business. I feel that my relationship with my GF is as stable and as meaningful as any religious ceremony could make it, but I would never call it a marriage, even if we went to a justice-of-the-peace or court official and made it LEGALLY a marriage. Can YOU understand that? I don't object at all to people being in poly relationships, or swinging , or whatever they wish. What I object to is them calling such a thing a marriage. It's cake-eating. You want the respectibility of a marriage without doing the necessary work. You want to "talk the talk", without "walking the walk". Even in those cultures that approve of multiple spouses, there is STILL a separate ceremony for each marriage and sex outside of the plural marriages is considered adultery. I know of no culture that approves of sex outside of marriage, after the persons have made the marriage contract. Also please don't say that there are more of you guys than I might think, because that also proves nothing.

[sxyNYCcpl]

I personally wish that the word "marriage", would not be used to describe "relationships", or used as a definition/condition by Government or business. I feel that my relationship with my GF is as stable and as meaningful as any religious ceremony could make it, but I would never call it a marriage, even if we went to a justice-of-the-peace or court official and made it LEGALLY a marriage. Can YOU understand that?

 

And perhaps we're getting close to the root of the disagreement between us. It appears you see marriage, first and foremost, as a religious sacrament, and that it should be viewed under religious definitions.

 

The problem is, that is simply not true.

 

Marriage is a legal status. It affects power of attorney, inheritance, taxation, all manner of civil legal issues. It is, first and foremost, a way for two people to declare their love and devotion to one another, and express a desire for a long term, perhaps even life long, relationship.

 

It is ALSO, simultaneously, a religious sacrament for some people.

 

But the terms of any individual marriage are very much up to the individuals involved. Some couples may feel ANY interaction with a member of the opposite sex outside the core relationship is inappropriate. Others may be okay with interactions, but may have very strong feelings about what is, and what is not, appropriate attire, insisting on ultra-modest dress. Still others may be okay with itty bitty string bikinis, or even nudism, but may desire monogamy. So long as both partners are on board with whatever terms exist, it's all good.

 

Now, personally, I have no problem separating the religious marriage from the civil contract. Leaving marriage to religion and having the legal 'civil union' being the 'legal status' equivalent of what it already is today. That solves the issue of gay marriage, and simultaneously eliminates perverts like us from the ranks of those who are 'married', for we do not ascribe to religion, and would not seek a religious ceremony. (Though that's not true of all who have similar lifestyles, some are in fact religious, and while we do believe in a supernatural creator, 'God' if you will (or must), we believe religion to be 100% man made, without input or guidance from up above.)

 

Unfortunately that proposed compromise is one that doesn't seem to be very popular with anyone, so I don't see it happening, regrettably you're likely going to have to live with people like us having our cake, and eating it at the same time.

 

Really, I don't understand why you care one way or the other. We could be your next door neighbor, and unless we did something that you could see, our recreational activities would have no effect on you, regardless of what labels we did or didn't use.

[sally4sara]

Ever notice how these posters who share their poly, swinging, open whatever you want to call it marriages don't tell traditionally and/or religiously married people how to define their unions?

 

Us monogamous folks are not lords or gods who get to tell others how to live and how to term their lives. You may have a deity holding you to your actions. I recognize no deity and my choice to be monogamous was my own. Free will.

 

Be happy if you have a partner with values that match your own no matter what shape those values take. I highly doubt, if all has been shared in honesty, that you're lack of respect for their MARRIAGES will keep them up at night or have them starting posts about how monogamous marriages are not real marriages.

 

****, at this point I'd rather hang out with some of these people rather than someone who thinks they get to evaluate the worth of my marriage by their own standard even if my marriage gets a pass for being monogamous.

 

Why the venom Joe? What are they doing to YOU?

[JustJoe]

What I can't understand , CPL is your insistance in projecting your thoughts as mine. I said quite clearly that marriage is a codified commitment between two people to form one union. Whether the codification is religious or civil, isn't the point, the point is that to have a true marriage you must agree to exclusive sexual fidelity, WITHIN the marriage or marriages. Even in those cultures that allow multiple spouses, the distinction between sex OUTSIDE the marriage (s) and that which takes place WITHIN the marriage (s)is sharp and rigidly enforced. You , yourself, differentiate between sex within your relationship and sex outside your relationship. This doesn't mean that your relationship isn't good or profound, it simply means that it's not a marriage, and you're calling it one, will not make it so. Even in Gay/lesbian marriages, sexual exclusivity is the cornerstone. Perhaps in the age of birth-control our definition of marriage needs to be changed, but I wouldn't look for it in the near future. Besides the religious strictures, insurance, retirement, inheritance, paternal responsibility ( in the case of one of your playmates becoming pregnant, or your "wife", becoming pregnant by one of her playmates) health care, etc, mitigate against it. My GF and I are close friends to a couple who practice "open marriage", and we have discussed this same issue with them. They realize where I'm coming from, and accept it. We realize where they are coming from and accept that. Perhaps that is the best you and I can do. I do not call an "open marriage", a marriage. I don't call hamburger, steak. I don't call "closure", justice. I don't call "lite", beer, beer, and I don't call a spade, a heart. I am probably the least politically correct person you will ever meet.

[JustJoe]

Also, you are right about one thing, I really don't care what you do. What I care about is how you present it. To call an "open marriage", a marriage is misleading and untrue.

[sally4sara]

Also, you are right about one thing, I really don't care what you do. What I care about is how you present it. To call an "open marriage", a marriage is misleading and untrue.

 

What does it mislead you to? What actions are wrought out of you when dealing with a married couple that you feel tricked over upon discovering they are not monogamous?

 

When I meet a couple that state they are married, I can't think of anything I do for or because of their marriage that would have me feeling mislead or lied to if I later learned they were poly/swing/open.

[sxyNYCcpl]

Whether the codification is religious or civil, isn't the point, the point is that to have a true marriage you must agree to exclusive sexual fidelity, WITHIN the marriage or marriages.

 

Says who? You?

 

Sorry, you may have been an Army Officer, and for that I sincerely thank you for your service, but you're are not 'in command' of our society. Certainly many religions require sexual fidelity within their sacrament of marriage, but it it most certainly NOT a requirement for a civil marriage. Legally, consensual non-monogamy isn't even (generally, there may be exceptions) considered legal adultery in states where adultery is a crime.

 

You're not important enough to decide for the rest of us how to live. We get to do that for ourselves.

 

This doesn't mean that your relationship isn't good or profound, it simply means that it's not a marriage, and you're calling it one, will not make it so.

 

Well, that settles it then. Honey, Joe on the Internet said we're not married, guess you gotta move out.

 

Perhaps in the age of birth-control our definition of marriage needs to be changed, but I wouldn't look for it in the near future.

 

Huh? What does birth control have to do with the definition of marriage?

 

I do not call an "open marriage", a marriage.

 

You might not, but the rest of society sure does.

[sally4sara]

Give me back my cup of sugar! I only give a cup of sugar to monogamously married neighbors damn it! And NO you may not have my crossword when I'm done reading the newspaper. I only do that for monogamously married people!

 

:lmao::lmao:

[sxyNYCcpl]

I don't either.

 

In your last post, you said 'for you' so I was gonna give it a pass, but you called me out.

 

If we're not married, then what are we? When the guy said 'By the power vested in me, I now pronounce you man and wife', he was only kidding?

[sally4sara]

I look at this pretty much the same way I look at a guy who got a sex change.

 

Maxine, formerly Max got his name and status legally changed to that of a woman. He wants me to refer to him as "her" or Maxine instead of Max.

 

No amount of me continuing to refer to Maxine as Max or "him" is going to reverse the operation or external appearance in any way. And no amount of me, out of politeness, calling him "her" or Maxine is going to change Maxine's chromosomes.

 

But anytime I have to deal with Maxine, I will choose to be polite and respectful because it requires less effort out of me to be polite than it does to push a confrontation. Nothing I would have done for Max was above or beyond anything I'd do for Maxine. And no operation is going to change that. And no operation someone else got is going to change ME.

 

I'm very confused by the suggestion that I have to not recognize a non monogamous couple as being married to avoid being mislead. Be they monogamous or not - I wasn't going to be screwing either of them. Especially not if I'm already in a relationship. So I can't see how insisting on calling the wife "GF" or the husband "BF" is going to accomplish anything other than a confrontation.

[woinlove]

I said quite clearly that marriage is a codified commitment between two people to form one union. Whether the codification is religious or civil, isn't the point, the point is that to have a true marriage you must agree to exclusive sexual fidelity, WITHIN the marriage or marriages.

 

I wouldn't be surprised about anything to do with sex in Texas, so maybe what you say is true in Texas. Don't the Republicans want to ban oral and anal sex in Texas?

 

But better not go to Canada, Joe. In Canada, legal marriages are not an agreement to exclusive sexual fidelity and adultery requires both that it be sex outside your marriage and that your spouse did not in any way condone it. If it doesn't meet BOTH of these conditions it is not adultery in Canada. Many States have similar conditions, which is why, depending on where you live, you are advised not to have sex with your spouse after discovery infidelity if there is any chance you might want to divorce them on grounds of adultery. Canada's law is just a lot more explicit and explanations of Canada's divorce laws explicitly mention "open marriage" and how it is treated before the courts for divorce.

 

Now, Texas is probably a different matter. No gay marriages there. Maybe you are influenced by the local environment. Canada's government decided many decades ago that the state does not belong in people's bedrooms.

[sxyNYCcpl]

The point is, our relationship is a marriage, as defined by the authorities who define such things. You may not want to be in a non-monogamous relationship, such is your right, and I hope if that's the case you find (or have) a like minded partner.

 

That you, or Joe, or anyone else doesn't consider it a 'real' marriage is mere semantics. Your opinion is meaningless, until and unless the laws and civil definitions of things get changed.

 

You don't define marriage. Neither do I. Nor does Joe, or any other poster on this board. It's defined by the several states, and through the full faith and credit clause (most) marriages done in other states are recognized by all of them.

 

If we're not married, do we actually need to do a legal divorce, or is a copy of this thread sufficient?

[sxyNYCcpl]

Don't the Republicans want to ban oral and anal sex in Texas?

 

Yes, they do. It's actually in their platform, should you wish to check it out. Despite the fact that SCOTUS has found that private, consensual sodomy is an absolute right, they're still trying to get it banned.

[sxyNYCcpl]

By the same token, a couple who has an "open" R doesn't need to push anyone ELSE into declaring what they have as a M.

 

At the risk of being repetitive, you do not make such declarations. They are made by governmental authorities. Now, I consider myself a realistic anarchist, in that I wish we humans were capable of living without any governmental authorities, but I am realistic enough to know that's a formula for disaster. So long as they do, in fact, exist, they are the ones who decide (in theory, at we the people's direction) what is and is not a marriage.

 

We are married, by definition, regardless of what you think about it. No disrespect intended, it's just the facts.

[sally4sara]

By the same token, a couple who has an "open" R doesn't need to push anyone ELSE into declaring what they have as a M.

 

Live and let live. I do. I simply have an opinion, and I am entitled to it.

 

If I were married and my guy suddenly wanted an "open" marriage, I would show him the "open" f'ing door.

 

They don't push. They do what you and I did. They went and got a license and got married.

While I too would be upset if I married under one set of standards only to have my partner want a completely different standard after, that isn't what is being discussed. The OP asked "is an open marriage still a marriage?"

 

So lets look at it:

 

Non married couples can still be monogamous. Can have children. Can live together, make purchases together and everything else that goes into being married. Depending on the state, they can even carry each other on their insurance and drawing up a will can secure inheritance. Custody of children will still be handled in a court whether they were married or not. The only difference between them and a married couple is a marriage license and the need to go through a divorce process to end the relationship.

 

This tells me the defining difference between a monogamous married couple and a monogamous non married couple is the license.

 

These non monogamous, legally married couples do still get to do everything available to a married or non married couple. But if the relationship ends, they will still have to go through a divorce whereas a non married couple will not. That means they are bound together in a way a non married couple are not bound. It comes down to the license, not the sex practices.

 

Opinions are opinions are opinions. We all have them and that isn't being infringed on when someone else has a different opinion UNLESS you're in a relationship with them.

But by law and logic. These marriages are still marriages no matter what sex practices are employed. If this wasn't true, all anyone would need to do to not be married any longer would be to sleep with someone they're not married to.

But what would happen if a guy got married (license and all), slept with the UPS delivery gal while his wife was at the store, and then tried to get married to UPS gal? He isn't really married because he slept with someone outside of the marriage right? So it should be all cool for him to get married to the UPS delivery gal right?

[sxyNYCcpl]

I am free to feel that a relationship wherein a couple is screwing a whole lot of other people is NOT a true marriage.

 

You certainly are. I don't understand what you mean when you say it, given the fact that married, or not, is as I previously explained, a legal status granted by the state, but you're free to feel whatever you like.