"Open Marriage?"

[woinlove]

Regardless what everyone has to say on the subject, and regardless what THEY, the law or anyone else feels, I am free to feel that a relationship wherein a couple is screwing a whole lot of other people is NOT a true marriage.

 

I am certainly not hurting anyone by what quietly goes through my mind, am I? It's not like I'm going to try to enact legislation against anyone.

 

No, you are not hurting anyone and you are certainly entitled to any opinion you want to hold about others' marriages. I think this discussion resulted from a couple people saying others are not married, when they meant to say the marriage was not their idea of a marriage.

 

This happens in discussions of gay marriage as well, when some people feel compelled to say they don't consider the couple married (when obviously they are) rather than saying they don't consider the couple to have their idea of a marriage.

 

It's all rather silly, except for people like gays in Texas and elsewhere whose marriage is not recognized. I'm not aware of anywhere in the US where people can not legally have an open marriage, although the Texas Republicans would probably like to change that - once they finish dealing with those who like oral sex!

[sally4sara]

Regardless what everyone has to say on the subject, and regardless what THEY, the law or anyone else feels, I am free to feel that a relationship wherein a couple is screwing a whole lot of other people is NOT a true marriage.

 

I am certainly not hurting anyone by what quietly goes through my mind, am I? It's not like I'm going to try to enact legislation against anyone.

 

No, you're not hurting anyone by feeling it is not what you'd go into a marriage for. Your opinion isn't preventing anyone from getting married monogamously or not.

But you can see that if a couple gets married and one of them cheats or, with permission, sleeps with someone else, the marriage does not simply dissolve upon foreign D in P. The spouse who was cheated on or later decided the permission they gave was regretful will still have to seek out a legal end to that license to no longer be married.

 

So its a matter of opinion. Now lets examine the extent of that opinion.

Say you're single. You meet a guy you find attractive and interesting who was cheated on but has not gotten a divorce. Do you sleep with him or is he married? Do you get married to him before he gets a divorce?

 

Or does having this opinion just afford you the justification to sneer at the marriages of others?

 

I like you Donna and I'm not trying to argue. I'm just trying to figure out the purpose of not recognizing the marriages of non monogamous couples. What does it afford you? What does it afford Joe. I'm curious because I'm happily and monogamously married and it troubles me not at all that others are married and with honesty for each other, choose to not be monogamous.

[sally4sara]

Here's your answer, s4s.

 

And, for the record, we're not even MARRIED! lol

 

HAHHAHAHAA! I feel so mislead and lied to now!

[woinlove]

I wonder about an "Open Marriage", I can certainly understand an open relationship (although it's not something I'd want for myself!) but isn't "Open Marriage" an oxymoron?

 

If either or both spouses can have sex with others is that a marriage at all? Personally, I don't believe it is and I'd like to see the term "Open Relationship" replace the the term "Open Marriage"

 

Opinions?

 

Donna, I've copied the OP above, which you see posts a specific question as to whether an open marriage is a marriage at all. That was the point JustJoe and a few others were addressing, which goes beyond differences of opinion on what kind of marriage any individual wants.

 

As I replied to the OP, one would need to try to change the law to accomplish what the OP wants.

[sally4sara]

As well, tomorrow is my first year wedding anniversary. I will not be celebrating it with group sex.

 

Considering going out with your man though Donna seeing as he isn't really committed to anyone without that piece of paper right?

 

I tease I tease.

[sxyNYCcpl]

To each their own. I'm not saying it's wrong, just different from what I perceive as true love. For me.

 

On this, you and I agree. But it's much different than saying a consensually non-monogamous marriage 'doesn't count as a real marriage'. Your quoted statement above is realistic. Different people perceive true love differently. You value monogamy, and see it as important. We do not.

 

Neither of us is right, and neither of us is wrong. Were we candidates to be dating (each other), we would not be a good fit, but that's okay, too, so long as one of us did not try to be something they are not.

[JustJoe]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

" The rest of society does? Would you care to bet on it?

[sxyNYCcpl]

As well, tomorrow is my first year wedding anniversary. I will not be celebrating it with group sex.

 

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.

[sally4sara]

" The rest of society does? Would you care to bet on it?

 

Well hell Joe! I just finished recognizing the marriage of Donna and her man without the presence of a license. How did it hurt me to respect her commitment?

 

Are they now married simply because I acknowledge the validity of their relationship?

[sxyNYCcpl]

" The rest of society does? Would you care to bet on it?

 

Yes.

 

Care to show me a single state that revokes a marriage license based on consensual non-monogamy? (Hint: You can't, because it doesn't exist.)

[sally4sara]

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.

 

Hmmm, I'm with your mom on this one. Sex I'm not having is smelly and obnoxious and therefore, not really my definition of sex.

[JustJoe]

I don't seem to be the one with the angst, here. I have merely expressed my opinion, and my opinion is as good and as valid as anyone else's. I certanly don't expect to influence any other posters, and would not even if I could. CPL, you and Sara and anyone else who believe in the validity of your claims can say or do anything you want, that's obvious. I am trying to debate an issue, and only that. I have opinions on a great many subjects, this is just one of them, and isn't that what a FORUM is about? If you ( PL) have taken my words personally, then I apologize, because I was speaking generically. I have no idea about you (pl)and your relationship(s) and frankly don't want to know, except as a debating point. You and others have put words in my mouth that I didn't say, have ascribed motives to me that I don't have, and have questioned my intelligence. None of that have I done to you (pl). You (pl) will find that I've posted on a great many threads here on LS, and surprisingly SOME of them haven't been about this subject.

[JustJoe]

If all you (pl) have said is generic as well, then I accept that and we can agree to disagree and remain cordial, which is my feeling.

[sally4sara]

I don't seem to be the one with the angst, here. I have merely expressed my opinion, and my opinion is as good and as valid as anyone else's. I certanly don't expect to influence any other posters, and would not even if I could. CPL, you and Sara and anyone else who believe in the validity of your claims can say or do anything you want, that's obvious. I am trying to debate an issue, and only that. I have opinions on a great many subjects, this is just one of them, and isn't that what a FORUM is about? If you ( PL) have taken my words personally, then I apologize, because I was speaking generically. I have no idea about you (pl)and your relationship(s) and frankly don't want to know, except as a debating point. You and others have put words in my mouth that I didn't say, have ascribed motives to me that I don't have, and have questioned my intelligence. None of that have I done to you (pl). You (pl) will find that I've posted on a great many threads here on LS, and surprisingly SOME of them haven't been about this subject.

 

Hey now! All I'm asking is what you get out of not recognizing the relationships of others when they don't match your own standards? You're right, your opinion is as valid as anyone else in that you control your own thoughts. But to adamantly hold an opinion about the actions of others you're not having a relationship with that don't hurt the people involved, one has to have motive to do so.

Such as believing it isn't right to put bleach in your colored clothes when you wash them. Its an opinion based on a fearful result. But if its your laundry, you get to decide what to wash it with and someone who thinks its perfectly okay to put bleach in with colored items won't factor into your laundry care. Now if someone was constantly going behind you and dumping bleach in your colored wash, I could understand hotly debating the practice of putting bleach on with colored items.

 

I'm asking what your motive is and what you get out of it. What are you trying to prevent when you go on about a standard you and your partner don't employ.

 

For myself, I fear a world without choice. That is my motive for participating in a debate about a practice I do not employ. The phrase "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member" comes to mind.

[sally4sara]

He'd never take you up on it.

 

Of course not! I recognized you as married so now, like it or not, you're married.

[JustJoe]

Sara, I truly don't think I have any motive except as a debating point. I am not a married person, IDK any of the other posters, or their situations, and really have no axe to grind. I guess, if there is any motive at all , it would be the same as "truth in advertising". MOST of the practitioners of "open marriages", will repeatedly state that they are "100% committed to their spouse". EXCEPT, sexually. Now I may be an old country boy, but from where I come from, 100% means ALL. It means... in every particular. Clearly, if you are having sex with someone other than your spouse, you are not committed 100%. That would be the only "motive", I would be likely to have.

[sxyNYCcpl]

But here's the thing - "the rest of society" is not made up solely of legal entities.

 

But 'Marriage' IS a legal status. (Or entity, if you prefer.)

[carhill]

Reading this thread caused me to take a look at how Wikipedia authors described the dynamic and something I took away as quite fascinating was the list of notable people who practice or proscribe to precepts commonly viewed as 'open marriage'. Very interesting, especially with regard to the breadth and history beyond recent popular culture. Thanks for that, OP

[sxyNYCcpl]

Clearly, if you are having sex with someone other than your spouse, you are not committed 100%.

 

The point is that different people define 'committed' differently. And your knee-jerk reaction may be to think it's like Bill Clinton trying to redefine 'is', but it's not.

 

Some people require* their spouse to be the same religion as they are. Others do not.

 

Some people require their spouse to dress in a certain manner. Others do not.

 

Some people require their spouse to not communicate with members of the opposite sex. Others do not.

 

Some people require monogamy. Others do not.

 

Were we Jewish, my wife going in public without a wig concealing her real hair would be considered a lack of commitment. But we're not, so she doesn't.

 

There is no universally accepted definition of 'commitment'. Never has been, and never will be.

 

* When I use the word 'require' above, I mean as a prerequisite to marriage (or dating), not in the sense of giving orders to be obeyed. Though, sadly, there are some relationships which very much include obeying orders.

[JustJoe]

I would also say that some of CPL's agruments are invalid. He states repeatedly that "there are lots " of us (practitioners of open marriage) when clearly there are NOT. And also that there is "no law", invalidating poly marriages, which doesn't prove anything. There is no law against marrying a tree, either. What does that prove? Nothing and nothing. I would also question his statement that "the rest of society", accepts poly "marriages". I would be willing to wager that if you took a poll of adult citizens, married or single , the VAST majority would not agree with him.

[JustJoe]

The point is that different people define 'committed' differently. And your knee-jerk reaction may be to think it's like Bill Clinton trying to redefine 'is', but it's not.

 

Some people require* their spouse to be the same religion as they are. Others do not.

 

Some people require their spouse to dress in a certain manner. Others do not.

 

Some people require their spouse to not communicate with members of the opposite sex. Others do not.

 

Some people require monogamy. Others do not.

 

Were we Jewish, my wife going in public without a wig concealing her real hair would be considered a lack of commitment. But we're not, so she doesn't.

 

There is no universally accepted definition of 'commitment'. Never has been, and never will be.

 

* When I use the word 'require' above, I mean as a prerequisite to marriage (or dating), not in the sense of giving orders to be obeyed. Though, sadly, there are some relationships which very much include obeying orders.

Please, CPL, you know what I meant, and are waffling just like Slick Willie.

[sally4sara]

Sara, I truly don't think I have any motive except as a debating point. I am not a married person, IDK any of the other posters, or their situations, and really have no axe to grind. I guess, if there is any motive at all , it would be the same as "truth in advertising". MOST of the practitioners of "open marriages", will repeatedly state that they are "100% committed to their spouse". EXCEPT, sexually. Now I may be an old country boy, but from where I come from, 100% means ALL. It means... in every particular. Clearly, if you are having sex with someone other than your spouse, you are not committed 100%. That would be the only "motive", I would be likely to have.

 

But you don't have to have anyone but the person you're with believing 100% committed extends to the sexual arena. You bring in the religious aspect and that is another reason I get confused because I'd trust the level of commitment out of someone who, without religious goading, chooses monogamy over the level of commitment of someone who chooses monogamy because some invisible deity says so. Truth in advertising is subjective. sexyNYCcpl would be fine with the product they purchased being as advertised as a commitment even if that 100% did not extend to the sexual arena because that isn't what they made their purchase for. You would be upset because you bought the wrong product, not because the product you seek doesn't exist.

 

Its more like a car with an optional features pack. SexyNYCcpl wanted a model with the anti locking breaks and manual transmission. You want no anti lock breaks and an automatic. Take it up with the dealer. Not the ones who chose a different options pack. The only thing accomplished by arguing the point with someone who went for a different set of features is to suss out who the smart fella is. Either way you both get from your chosen point a to b the way you want.

[JustJoe]

But you don't have to have anyone but the person you're with believing 100% committed extends to the sexual arena. You bring in the religious aspect and that is another reason I get confused because I'd trust the level of commitment out of someone who, without religious goading, chooses monogamy over the level of commitment of someone who chooses monogamy because some invisible deity says so. Truth in advertising is subjective. sexyNYCcpl would be fine with the product they purchased being as advertised as a commitment even if that 100% did not extend to the sexual arena because that isn't what they made their purchase for. You would be upset because you bought the wrong product, not because the product you seek doesn't exist.

 

Its more like a car with an optional features pack. SexyNYCcpl wanted a model with the anti locking breaks and manual transmission. You want no anti lock breaks and an automatic. Take it up with the dealer. Not the ones who chose a different options pack. The only thing accomplished by arguing the point with someone who went for a different set of features is to suss out who the smart fella is. Either way you both get from your chosen point a to b the way you want.

Sara, you are being politically correct. 100% means 100%

[JustJoe]

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

[sally4sara]

Sara, you are being politically correct. 100% means 100%

 

It depends on the needs being addressed by that 100%. 100% juice is not always 100% apple juice. Full service is the full extent of the services provided by the company you turn to not every kind of service ever provided by every company in existence. If you go to a full service gas station you're not going to get a happy ending massage simply because they have a neon sign claiming "full service here".

 

So its not about what defines a marriage as a "real" marriage so much as the people involved in the marriage and their definition of what makes it "real".

 

As I see it, either my marriage is the only "real" one or they're all "real". I won't be peeking in anyone's windows to be sure of whats going on, so I respect them all for being what the two people wanted out of marriage unless one or both of them say it wasn't what they wanted. If my opinion was what was needed to make it valid, we all need to congratulate Donna on her marriage because I believed she was married. She is committed, resides with him, and they're monogamous after all and that's what it takes for you to feel a marriage is real even if a license has been issued right?