The nature of "open relationships"

[LookAtThisPOst]

Figured this was the best choice as anywhere to post.

 

 

I happened along this profile of a woman, locally...that said she was in an "open, non-monogomous" relationship, had been in a relationship with a man for 13 years, but since he travels a lot...she seeks the company of men while he's away.

 

She profoundly expressed, "No sex!!" as she considers herself "old-fashioned". I had to laugh at the contradiction here, but it was funny seeing her express her frustration IN her profile as men questioned the nature of her relationship.

 

I thought "open" relationship was open to even being sexually involved with others. A non-committal thing, yes? Polyamory?

 

But, I'm not starting to wonder if people in general are even aware of the definitions of bi-sexuality, new trending terms like Pansexual.

 

I get the feeling that some people are CALLING themselves these things, but aren't actually aware of the definition? Yes?

 

I

[John Bigboote]

I thought "open" relationship was open to even being sexually involved with others. A non-committal thing, yes? Polyamory?

 

Relationships are what the people in them decide they are. They don't have to fall neatly into one category or another. And in any case, "open" and "nonmonogamous" are pretty general terms. If monogamous people can talk about "emotional affairs," then I don't see any reason why people can't classify their relationships as "emotionally open" or "emotionally nonmonogamous."

 

Also consider the fact that many women feel it necessary to put in "no sex," or something like that, even if it's not entirely true, to keep from being called a slut and to dissuade the douchebags from blowing up their mailbox.

 

But as long as we're talking about the standard definitions of things, Open relationships are frequently committed relationships, and poly relationships certainly are.

[Methodical]

Relationships are what the people in them decide they are. They don't have to fall neatly into one category or another. And in any case, "open" and "nonmonogamous" are pretty general terms. If monogamous people can talk about "emotional affairs," then I don't see any reason why people can't classify their relationships as "emotionally open" or "emotionally nonmonogamous."

 

Also consider the fact that many women feel it necessary to put in "no sex," or something like that, even if it's not entirely true, to keep from being called a slut and to dissuade the douchebags from blowing up their mailbox.

 

But as long as we're talking about the standard definitions of things, Open relationships are frequently committed relationships, and poly relationships certainly are.

 

Excellent explanation.

[Popsicle]

Figured this was the best choice as anywhere to post.

 

 

I happened along this profile of a woman, locally...that said she was in an "open, non-monogomous" relationship, had been in a relationship with a man for 13 years, but since he travels a lot...she seeks the company of men while he's away.

 

She profoundly expressed, "No sex!!" as she considers herself "old-fashioned". I had to laugh at the contradiction here, but it was funny seeing her express her frustration IN her profile as men questioned the nature of her relationship.

 

I thought "open" relationship was open to even being sexually involved with others. A non-committal thing, yes? Polyamory?

 

But, I'm not starting to wonder if people in general are even aware of the definitions of bi-sexuality, new trending terms like Pansexual.

 

I get the feeling that some people are CALLING themselves these things, but aren't actually aware of the definition? Yes?

 

I

 

She's off her rocker.

[petertemplar]

So is she looking for a platonic affair.

 

*Generally*, open implies open to sex with other partners while remaining married or "together".