Your lover is not your property!

[SmartDude]

I have a problem with the word "cheating" in the context of romance. It implies that love is just a game. You play by the rules and don't cheat?

 

Lets face the facts. Even if you are in a committed relationship you will still find other people attractive. Does anyone really want to have sex with the same person their whole life? Why do people even try to stay together for "the rest of their lives" in this way? Is it because of the state imposed concept of marriage? Culture?

 

I think in the future, our current society's version of monogamy will be looked at as stupid and unrealistic. Lets face it, the real problem is jealousy and becoming attached to the ones you love. Love and attachment are not the same thing, but people get them confused. And this is indeed difficult because our current society can not go beyond the jealousy/attachment thing right now. It would blow their minds lol.

 

If you were a man and truly loved your wife/gf/whatever, and she wanted to explore sex or intimacy with another person...What is the REAL problem? Is it fear that she won't love you anymore? So what then, people are not capable of loving 2 people at once? Or can you love one person but just want to have experiences that are romantic or sexual with others as well?

 

Can you imagine a time when a wife says to her husband "Babe, I am gona go out and get some tonight, can you stay with the kids?" and he just says "sure baby, I love you, have a good time."

 

I don't think people are ready for this type of openness and non-attached giving and receiving of REAL love. So no, I am not promoting or encouraging it. I guess I am just having a philosophers moment:)

[Grumpybutfun]

There are actually people who are in open, polyandrous and polyamorous relationships so this is not a new line of thought or a new philosophy. Also, most of the time if parameters aren't placed and met in relationships, why have a relationship? Why not just date around and have sex with whomever you please? Love doesn't make people the property of the other, but the entire point of a relationship is to be special to the other person. What you are proposing may work well in theory or if an agreement is met before the relationship begins, but is usually hard to work out and many find that one person will get jeaous. Even polyamorous and polyandrous pods have a hard time working out the dynamics of their open relationships because people are by nature possessive of things they like. Dogs with bones and children with toys show possession is not a learned behavior. Openness and unattachment are very likely never going to be a part of mainstream relationships because the very words promotes singledom and independence.

I think it is hubris to define REAL love in terms of acceptance of sex partners for a couple as sex is only a part of a romantic relationship. If you really want to be philosophizing, try to define love. That has been the goal of all of the greats since the beginning of expression of thought.

Hey live and let live is my philosophy, but happily traditional in my own life.

Grumps

[Chi townD]

I have a problem with the word "cheating" in the context of romance. It implies that love is just a game. You play by the rules and don't cheat?

 

Lets face the facts. Even if you are in a committed relationship you will still find other people attractive. Does anyone really want to have sex with the same person their whole life? Why do people even try to stay together for "the rest of their lives" in this way? Is it because of the state imposed concept of marriage? Culture?

 

I think in the future, our current society's version of monogamy will be looked at as stupid and unrealistic. Lets face it, the real problem is jealousy and becoming attached to the ones you love. Love and attachment are not the same thing, but people get them confused. And this is indeed difficult because our current society can not go beyond the jealousy/attachment thing right now. It would blow their minds lol.

 

If you were a man and truly loved your wife/gf/whatever, and she wanted to explore sex or intimacy with another person...What is the REAL problem? Is it fear that she won't love you anymore? So what then, people are not capable of loving 2 people at once? Or can you love one person but just want to have experiences that are romantic or sexual with others as well?

 

Can you imagine a time when a wife says to her husband "Babe, I am gona go out and get some tonight, can you stay with the kids?" and he just says "sure baby, I love you, have a good time."

 

I don't think people are ready for this type of openness and non-attached giving and receiving of REAL love. So no, I am not promoting or encouraging it. I guess I am just having a philosophers moment:)

 

What you're suggesting is an open relationship. And for some, it works. But, most of the time, these couples don't last. Someone usually ends up getting hurt.

[SmartDude]

What you're suggesting is an open relationship. And for some, it works. But, most of the time, these couples don't last. Someone usually ends up getting hurt.

 

Ya, I am aware of the concept of open relationships. But really I am going in another direction with this. I will try to make it easier to understand.

 

Let's say you had a time machine and could travel back to the 50's. Someone asks you about the future. You tell them that in the future their are such things as friends with benefits, casual sex with strangers, porn is everywhere on the internet and the big shocker: when married people aren't in love anymore they just get divorced instead of remaining miserably together just because they promised "for better or for worse."-D: of course they would be shocked and think that humanity has gone to hell. So is it regression or is it evolution?

 

I wonder if in the future,most relationships will have at least some characteristics of what we now label "an open relationship".

 

BTW I am not a philosopher, just a bored dude at work thinking funny thoughts:p

[BlessYourCottonSocks]

Wow this gives me the goosebumps, the bad goosebumps.

[carhill]

As a child of the 50's who had parents who grew up in the 20's, the 'time machine' regarding lovers being property would find largely similar results, controlling for aspects relevant to freedom. IOW, if a person was completely free to choose, and were socialized to exercise that freedom, then few if any people would be 'property' of a lover or spouse. Then, as now, relationships and marriages, in the absolute sense, were/are voluntary. Yes, a family or social group could enforce property decisions with monetary or social penalties, and people often felt pressured by such penalties, but choice remained, in the absolute sense.

 

A great example of choice exercised and that one's lover and/or spouse is not one's property would be that of my father who, as one of millions called up to serve in WW2, left his family (wife and daughters) to serve overseas. His wife found a new guy, took his daughters and left him to come home, after a couple of years being in a war zone, to nothing except a child support payment. That was in 1946. She completely debunked the premise of her being the male's 'property' and nailed him financially to boot, with his last child support check written to her just before I was born in the late 50's.

 

People do what they want. They always have and they always will. If they want to be in a monogamous relationship for life, they will. If not, not. For every person who chooses to conform to familial, societal, or religious/spiritual edicts, there's another person who thumbs their nose. The great equalizer is that we all die. Whatever your choice is, make it count.

[InnocentMan]

Open relationships are all well and good, until someone gets crabs, or something equally gross.

[Keenly]

I came in here hoping it was about possessiveness and fully prepared to agree with you.

 

 

But then I read your post.

[fixing]

Hey OP. If thats your stance on relationships, marriage etc, then kindly dont ever enter into a relationship with a girl. Use hookers, or maybe your good looking and can have multiple and agreed one night stands. Most people want the mutual exclusivity of a relationship. Its the ultimate commitment which is a very unique and beautiful thing. Because i assure you, when i get married to the right one, sexually speaking i will see her as my own, just as i would want her to feel im hers.

[SmartDude]

Hey OP. If thats your stance on relationships, marriage etc, then kindly dont ever enter into a relationship with a girl. Use hookers, or maybe your good looking and can have multiple and agreed one night stands. Most people want the mutual exclusivity of a relationship. Its the ultimate commitment which is a very unique and beautiful thing. Because i assure you, when i get married to the right one, sexually speaking i will see her as my own, just as i would want her to feel im hers.

 

Ya, I know that feeling of just wanting to be with one person. I have been there and love it. Now that I am single though, I am enjoying that as well.

 

And actually I do see a "hooker". I am a regular of hers and will only see her. The "relationship" might even be considered long-term because I have been seeing her for about 8 months now. She is a sweet woman, and the sex is more like boyfriend-girlfriend lovemaking. It helps that we are both good looking people too. In a way it is more honest than a FWB relationship. And who the hell wants a one night stand? No time for the sex to get good, it feels cheap doing that.

[todreaminblue]

marriage is ordained of god first and foremost.......fidelity is a god given principle.......to ensure true happiness.......jealousy occurs where unfaithful acts are committed adn the knowledge of how easy ti is to do so ....eat that forbidden fruit said the snake to eve......its a sin to have sex outside of marriage .. and that not a societal principle...marriage is more or less scoffed at and divorce is so easy and extra marital affairs are the norm ....and some where in society is the quiet hum of happy faithful partners who love each other i am attracted to that sound..it has this cool beat to it......two heart beating in sync.......a quiet blissful hum....cleave unto one.....god given.....use condoms have safe sex pick up one nighters......cheat flirt carry on......not god given...rules are not only given for games......they are given so you have a happy life.......life is not a game neither is love nor should it ever be a game...not when hearts are involved....a true heart ....never plays games with another heart.......making love is a union of hearts not bodies. ............we are not flesh alone nor is true pleasure and happiness truly derived in the flesh alone....deb

Edited November 22, 2013 by todreaminblue

[Kate9292]

Ya, I am aware of the concept of open relationships. But really I am going in another direction with this. I will try to make it easier to understand.

 

Let's say you had a time machine and could travel back to the 50's. Someone asks you about the future. You tell them that in the future their are such things as friends with benefits, casual sex with strangers, porn is everywhere on the internet and the big shocker: when married people aren't in love anymore they just get divorced instead of remaining miserably together just because they promised "for better or for worse."-D: of course they would be shocked and think that humanity has gone to hell. So is it regression or is it evolution?

 

I wonder if in the future,most relationships will have at least some characteristics of what we now label "an open relationship".

 

BTW I am not a philosopher, just a bored dude at work thinking funny thoughts:p

 

So you are saying the was no porn or casual sex in 50's?

[melell]

All I can think is the Huxleys 'Brave New World'

 

...if ya want to layer some perspective.

[man_in_the_box]

Ya, I am aware of the concept of open relationships. But really I am going in another direction with this. I will try to make it easier to understand.

 

Why is it a different direction? Open relationships exist and you are free to be in one if you want to. Why do you feel the need for everybody else to adopt this vision as well? What's wrong with people having their own vision of what their relationship should/should not entail?

[old]

OP, I thought your questions were great.

 

I think many people in a committed relationship will want to have sex with someone else at some point and not necessarily just for sex. At some point, there can be a feeling of great love for another person and that love may need to be expressed physically, and without any loss of feelings or desire for the other partner, i.e. the one to whom the so-called "cheater" is committed. It is certainly possible to love two people very much indeed and at the same time. And in my mind, to suppress such love would be an immoral act.

 

I liked your analogy to cheating as an activity in a game. Cheating in real life is defined by those who want to impose their rules on us (e.g. by spouses, friends, people on sites like this one, etc.). I reject the notion that any person (including my spouse) can impose rules as to how I conduct my one-and-only life. What some call cheating can often equally well be called expressing love, making love, making someone happy, enriching someone's life, giving someone renewed purpose in life, etc, etc. Cheating is an inappropriate term in relationships since we are free individuals and not bound by rules such as might be found in a game (unless we choose to be bound). Personally, I choose not to be bound. I choose not to treat life as a rule-bound game. I think far too many people are being misguided by conventions and traditional edicts and so get terribly distressed when they cannot live up to the conventions or spend their lives looking for something they never wanted or needed anyway. I think the situation is better now than in the 1950's but there is still much progress to be made and we will surely see much more progress by 2050.

[Oldspiceywolf]

Frankly I'm frustrated with being monogamous. I live my wife and I'm not going to cheat but sometimes I wish I could have sex with someone else. I wouldn't even mind if she had sex with someone else it's the extra-marital RELATIONSHIPS that scare me. It's hard to have good sex with one night stands. I got married for the support system and to have children the monogamy just came with it. I realize the confusion that extends from having ongoing sexual relationships with people when you are married so that's out of the picture for me. Still I would enjoy one or two hall passes a year and wouldn't mind giving them to my wife either if I didn't have to hear the details or know when it's happening but she's not interested and I'm not interested in jeopardizing my relationship to push the subject or experiment on my own. Some get to have their cake and eat it too but in this circumstance I'm not one of them.

[Woggle]

If you don't want monogamy then find somebody who is okay with open relationship and be honest about it. Don't lie to somebody that does expect it. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand?

[Oldspiceywolf]

Yeah open open relationship is a no go for me but a hall pass with rules on infrequent occasions doesn't bother me. I'm far more the supportive doting person and my wife is more like the business minded need to get her rocks off character in the relationship. Real open relationships are hard but the idea of my wife having sex with another man or woman doesn't wreck my world but the idea of her being wrapped in text messages and emails for some other person would make me question being married. You gotta figure out what works for you!

[bubbaganoosh]

So you are saying the was no porn or casual sex in 50's?

 

I was born in 1947 and my little kid years were in the 50's. I had a friend I used to play with and my older sister by 8 years used to baby sit for his family. We lived in a regular neighborhood with regular people.

 

One day, we were sitting under the porch eating a snack and my friend was telling me about how if he got up late at night for whatever reason, he often saw his parents naked along with other people. What I remembered was him telling me that all the grownups had a bunch of hair "down there" and he pointed to his groin. I didn't know any better because at that age I didn't have any.

 

Any how fast forward to 2003, and I was telling my oldest sister about what he said and she looked at me and said "Yeah I know because they were swingers and in the cellar of their house, they had a bunch of porn magazines and 8mm films stashed in a box and the dog and cat were chasing around and the cat knocked the box over and when my sister checked out the noise, she saw it on the floor. She said she picked the stuff up and put the box back on the shelf and stopped babysitting for them. The good old primp and proper 1950's. The only difference was that back then it was kept under wraps but there was porn and swinging.

Edited November 25, 2013 by bubbaganoosh

[HokeyReligions]

I have a problem with the word "cheating" in the context of romance. It implies that love is just a game. You play by the rules and don't cheat?

 

Lets face the facts. Even if you are in a committed relationship you will still find other people attractive. Does anyone really want to have sex with the same person their whole life? Why do people even try to stay together for "the rest of their lives" in this way? Is it because of the state imposed concept of marriage? Culture?

 

I think in the future, our current society's version of monogamy will be looked at as stupid and unrealistic. Lets face it, the real problematic is jealousy and becoming attached to the ones you love. Love and attachment are not the same thing, but people get them confused. And this is indeed difficult because our current society can not go beyond the jealousy/attachment thing right now. It would blow their minds lol.

 

If you were a man and truly loved your wife/gf/whatever, and she wanted to explore sex or intimacy with another person...What is the REAL problem? Is it fear that she won't love you anymore? So what then, people are not capable of loving 2 people at once? Or can you love one person but just want to have experiences that are romantic or sexual with others as well?

 

Can you imagine a time when a wife says to her husband "Babe, I am gona go out and get some tonight, can you stay with the kids?" and he just says "sure baby, I love you, have a good time."

 

I don't think people are ready for this type of openness and non-attached giving and receiving of REAL love. So no, I am not promoting or encouraging it. I guess I am just having a philosophers moment:)

 

This is a tired old argument. Its a theory that's been atound for centuries and in many cultures. If it works for you, fine. If it doesn't fly with others, leave them/us alone and look for someone who shares your view. Oh, and good luck with that. There are many who believe as you do. You might have good luck in Utah. ;-)

[HokeyReligions]

Regarding the 50's analogy: Yes, many people in those days would be very shocked if they could look ahead to the role sexuality plays in our culture today and the many different ways individuals express it. In fact, those 50's people had the opportunity to get blown away by the massive challenge to the prevailing social norms presented by the 1960's "free love" movement.

 

Nonetheless, the various ways that sexuality is "revolutionized" don't wipe out the earlier modes; they just add.

 

Anybody who wishes to can forge a monogamous relationship with another person where extracurricular sex is out of bounds, and if it happens it will be viewed as a betrayal. Cheating. This doesn't mean that those people view each other as "property;" it means that they have agreed on parameters for their relationship and they're trusting one another to stand by those.

 

But, people are also free to be single and sexually active, or be married swingers, or completely polyamorous, or polygamous, or whatever they want to be. It's all good, as long as their partners are on the same page with them about that stuff.

 

So, just like the monogamous nuclear families from the 50's are not replaced by sex with prostitutes or FWB or whatever, I doubt that in 50 more years what we have now will be replaced by a 100% sexual free-for-all.

 

Some people are pretty much hard-wired for monogamy. It's not always a social construct.

 

Your kidding right? Sex and pornography have existed as long as mankind. Ever hear of the Kamasutra? When photography was invented some of the first photos were nudes of women and men. Same with motion pictures. It existed in drawing paintings and words in books before that. Anything you can think of doing has been thought of and done before. The same with emotions and relationships. There are anient cave paintings depicting sexual acts including bondage, oral and anal and group sex.

 

Why do uou think the puritans sewed young men and women into bags? Its because they KNEW all the ways two people find to gratify themselves sexually and the poor judgement lust fosters.

[Janesays]

I love when young kids look at a decade like the 50's like it was soooooo long ago.

 

When you consider that monogamous relationships have existed for THOUSANDS of years, to say that they will cease to exist in 50 more years is delusional. From an evolutionary standpoint, 50 years is nothing. 50 years is flash in the pan.

[Woggle]

I love when young kids look at a decade like the 50's like it was soooooo long ago.

 

When you consider that monogamous relationships have existed for THOUSANDS of years, to say that they will cease to exist in 50 more years is delusional. From an evolutionary standpoint, 50 years is nothing. 50 years is flash in the pan.

 

If people who remember it are still alive it's not that long ago.

[crederer]

Ya, I am aware of the concept of open relationships. But really I am going in another direction with this. I will try to make it easier to understand.

 

Let's say you had a time machine and could travel back to the 50's. Someone asks you about the future. You tell them that in the future their are such things as friends with benefits, casual sex with strangers, porn is everywhere on the internet and the big shocker: when married people aren't in love anymore they just get divorced instead of remaining miserably together just because they promised "for better or for worse."-D: of course they would be shocked and think that humanity has gone to hell. So is it regression or is it evolution?

 

I wonder if in the future,most relationships will have at least some characteristics of what we now label "an open relationship".

 

BTW I am not a philosopher, just a bored dude at work thinking funny thoughts:p

 

The reality is that most of those things did happen in the 50's (with the exception of internet) people were just better at hiding it.

 

And relationships aren't a game, but there are certainly rules. Please play by the rules (unless you are both cool with an open relationship, that's fine, but not for me).

[KathyM]

If you don't want monogamy then find somebody who is okay with open relationship and be honest about it. Don't lie to somebody that does expect it. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand?

Exactly. If a person does not want monogamy, they can refrain from getting into a committed relationship with a person who does want monogamy. If they decide after marriage that monogamy is not their thing and they don't intend to continue with monogamy, then they can renegotiate it with their spouse, or leave the marriage if the spouse is not willing to renegotiate. It's not fair to a spouse to deceive them into thinking they are in a monogamous marriage that was promised to them, when they are not.