women who've dealt with commitment phobes-late 30's preferred

[Trialbyfire]

And I'll go even further with that. I agree that most people are tempted at some point, that most people consider cheating at some point. However, I also think that the person who is truly okay with their partner doing it is extremely rare. Even in polyamorous-type situations, there appear to be ground rules - the additional people have to be approved and accepted before bringing them in. In religions where men can have multiple wives, you don't see them wanting their women to return the favor. I'd argue that usually, an "open" relationship, when you take it apart and look at it closely, is anything but. People still set rules, establish boundaries, and that is fundamentally the issue - when people cheat, they do so as much to experience the thrill of the illicit, to have a secret, to do something dangerous, as to sleep around.

 

Perhaps it's simply more honest to admit that, generally, you'd prefer your partner to sleep just with you (although if you're more secure, you can at least admit that they might want more from time to time)?

I agree with all of this serial muse.

 

It's another aspect of the "open" mind v. the "principled" mind.

[ItIs]

Posted by ItIs:

The real important thing, IMNSHO, is that both people understand each other's expectations and play by the same rules. Beyond that, anything goes, as far as I'm concerned.

 

later posted by Trialbyfire

If you play fair, all will be well. If you cheat (apply both definitions) and create inequity, all will not be well.

 

later posted by serial muse:

I'd argue that usually, an "open" relationship, when you take it apart and look at it closely, is anything but. People still set rules, establish boundaries, and that is fundamentally the issue

 

It's interesting to see people try to make an argument out of nothing.

 

Could it be because they have a different perspective on things and are trying to discredit any points of view that do not fit neatly into their paradigm of how things "should" be?

 

Why can't people who have different outlooks on things maintain a civil discussion? Trash talk and ridicule only betray a lack of confidence.

 

According to what I've read, George S. Kaufman and Dorothy Parker both had marriages that were precisely as I stated, both devoted entirely to their spouses in every way except sexually (indeed, from early on in the marriage, Kaufman and his wife discontinued sexual activity with each other, while each continued having other lovers), and Kaufman and Parker were both quite devastated when their (non-sexual) spouses died.

 

What's that saying about the proof of the pudding being in the eating thereof?

 

And that other saying about not criticizing what you don't understand?

 

I do acknowledge that such situations are rare. But are they really more likely to fail? I'm not at all convinced of that point... and I'm certainly not by any means implying that anybody in particular (let alone everybody) should have a certain point of view about marriage.

 

Are you, Tbf and serial muse?

[Trialbyfire]

Please define marriage, from a legal perspective.

[ItIs]

That's almost like asking me to define quality. I know what I understand it to be, but damned if I could come up with a good definition without extending my break from work for too long ...

[Trialbyfire]

I think this would be worthwhile waiting for. Why not wait until after work to answer this question?

[serial muse]

It's interesting to see people try to make an argument out of nothing.

 

Could it be because they have a different perspective on things and are trying to discredit any points of view that do not fit neatly into their paradigm of how things "should" be?

 

Why can't people who have different outlooks on things maintain a civil discussion? Trash talk and ridicule only betray a lack of confidence.

 

According to what I've read, George S. Kaufman and Dorothy Parker both had marriages that were precisely as I stated, both devoted entirely to their spouses in every way except sexually (indeed, from early on in the marriage, Kaufman and his wife discontinued sexual activity with each other, while each continued having other lovers), and Kaufman and Parker were both quite devastated when their (non-sexual) spouses died.

 

What's that saying about the proof of the pudding being in the eating thereof?

 

And that other saying about not criticizing what you don't understand?

 

I do acknowledge that such situations are rare. But are they really more likely to fail? I'm not at all convinced of that point... and I'm certainly not by any means implying that anybody in particular (let alone everybody) should have a certain point of view about marriage.

 

Are you, Tbf and serial muse?

 

Goodness, why so hostile? Where did I trash talk and ridicule? In short, WTF are you talking about??

 

I only expressed my point of view and thoughts on the matter, which you are discrediting because I guess they disagree with yours (they betray a "lack of confidence," or something. Huh?). I'm not sure why it became something more personal for you, but I certainly don't feel like having an emotional discussion about something that I thought was intellectual. I don't really think it's appropriate to instruct me I should take a certain point of view because I don't "understand" something, while simultaneously telling me that I should live and let live and not tell other people how to think. How do you possibly make sense out of that hypocrisy?

 

Let others have their point of view without telling them they're being close-minded, okay? We all have a right to our opinions. I may disagree with your viewpoint but I never personally attacked you for it. You might want to think about that before you go about laying down the law.

[Trialbyfire]

Goodness, why so hostile? Where did I trash talk and ridicule? In short, WTF are you talking about??

 

I only expressed my point of view and thoughts on the matter, which you are discrediting because I guess they disagree with yours (they betray a "lack of confidence," or something. Huh?). I'm not sure why it became something more personal for you, but I certainly don't feel like having an emotional discussion about something that I thought was intellectual. I don't really think it's appropriate to instruct me I should take a certain point of view because I don't "understand" something, while simultaneously telling me that I should live and let live and not tell other people how to think. How do you possibly make sense out of that hypocrisy?

 

Let others have their point of view without telling them they're being close-minded, okay? We all have a right to our opinions. I may disagree with your viewpoint but I never personally attacked you for it. You might want to think about that before you go about laying down the law.

He's using the tactic of, the best defense is a strong offense. They don't call it offens-ive for nothing.

[ItIs]

Goodness, why so hostile? Where did I trash talk and ridicule? In short, WTF are you talking about??

You didn't, serial muse. If it came across that way I apologize. I was wondering about the disagreeable tone in stating something I'd already said myself. But perhaps you just hadn't read that far back in the thread, OK.

 

Posted by Tbf.

It's another aspect of the "open" mind v. the "principled" mind.

 

But just how does one interpret that one?

Just what did I say prior to that to merit such a condescending response, Tbf?

 

Posted by Tbf.

He's using the tactic of, the best defense is a strong offense. They don't call it offens-ive for nothing.

 

And the hits keep on coming.

 

Now, as far as the legal definition of "marriage" goes, I can only state my personal point of view, seeing as how to the best of my knowledge it's defined by the municipality in which the people live and/or get married. I consider marriage a loving partnership in which two people become one legal entity in many respects, and look out for each other's best interests in such a way as to optimize their common good, however they might see it.

 

Posted by serial muse

Perhaps it's simply more honest to admit that, generally, you'd prefer your partner to sleep just with you

 

If that's really the way one feels. Which most likely does apply to a vast majority of people, I'll grant, but not necessarily to a majority of those who are in non-exclusive relationships, which is evidently our points of view diverge. This is based on my personal observations of people who are in such relationships. Sure, they tend to be discreet about their other dalliances, but that only makes sense. Nobody likes to be the "third wheel" unless they're in on the fun.

 

If someone wants to have sexual relations with people other than their partner, I don't think it would be very reasonable for them to expect their partner to have sexual relations only with them. So if you really mean that people who feel that way should not be involved in "open" relationships, I'm in total agreement, serial muse. Which goes back to why I'd not expect it to such a degree from those who are in mutually "open" relationships, because I wouldn't expect them to want such a relationship in the first place.

 

Call me quixotic, but I really do think some people could truly be more interested in their partner's pleasure than their own "possession" of said partner. And of course there are responsibilities that go along with this, like anything else.

[serial muse]

Okay, but you'll notice that I did not make a blanket statement. I said, and this is my opinion, as I made clear by saying things like "I think," that I think it's rare for a person to truly feel okay about their partner sleeping with someone else. And I do. I just do think it's rare. I don't, personally, know anyone who's totally okay with it, and I do know people in "open" relationships. For one thing, one of the "two" people in those relationships is usually just going along with it so as not to completely lose their partner. As for the other - I knew some people who were "polyamorous," and as I stated, it was interesting to see just how many rules there actually were. Not what I'd call "open" at all. Look, I know there are all kinds of people in the world, and I don't see anywhere in my post that I deny that it's possible. I'm just saying it's rare. In my opinion.

 

I think, though, that there's an assumption in your example that a person who says they want an open relationship is also, at heart, a "non-jealous" person - and I would argue with that.

 

However, I also think that the person who is truly okay with their partner doing it is extremely rare.

 

I'd argue that usually, an "open" relationship, when you take it apart and look at it closely, is anything but. People still set rules, establish boundaries, and that is fundamentally the issue - when people cheat, they do so as much to experience the thrill of the illicit, to have a secret, to do something dangerous, as to sleep around.

 

generally, you'd prefer your partner to sleep just with you

[Trialbyfire]

Oh come now, ItIs, you can't be that serious about a hypothetical discussion about open marriage or cheating in general. Life's too short to take this discussion so personally.

 

No doubt that marriage is legally defined on a per State basis, assuming you live in the United States. Regardless, there are certain across the board commonalities that can be drawn, of which infidelity is one that doesn't belong in the legal concept of marriage.

 

Sure, people can agree to an open marriage, if it's they both want but one party cannot force the other party to accept an open marriage. It has to be by consensual agreement. Of course this begs another question, of how the law perceives infidelity, in a situation where one party attempts to force an open marriage and the other party decides to sue for divorce, at a later date, or it's an open marriage according to the participants but one party chooses to enforce fidelity mid-stream and sue for divorce, when the other party won't abide.

[Replicant]

No doubt that marriage is legally defined on a per State basis, assuming you live in the United States. Regardless, there are certain across the board commonalities that can be drawn, of which infidelity is one that doesn't belong in the legal concept of marriage.

 

How is it clearly or legally defined (and enforced) when there are US states like Utah which allow rampant polygamy and religion to dictate what is and what is not limitations on marriage?

 

It's defined by the church and the courts, the church for the religious aspect behind it and the courts well...maybe that was to legally help extended men's lives limiting the matrimonial trauma source to just one woman

[Trialbyfire]

How is it clearly or legally defined (and enforced) when there are US states like Utah which allow rampant polygamy and religion to dictate what is and what is not limitations on marriage?

 

It's defined by the church and the courts, the church for the religious aspect behind it and the courts well...maybe that was to legally help extended men's lives limiting the matrimonial trauma source to just one woman

While practiced openly by the Latter Day Saints, who are a splinter group of the Mormon Church, polygyny is neither sanctioned by the Mormon Church or by law, in Utah.

 

Same could be said for crack addicts. Everyone knows there are crack addicts everywhere in the world. Why aren't they all in jail?

[Replicant]

While practiced openly by the Latter Day Saints, who are a splinter group of the Mormon Church, polygyny is neither sanctioned by the Mormon Church or by law, in Utah.

 

Same could be said for crack addicts. Everyone knows there are crack addicts everywhere in the world. Why aren't they all in jail?

 

If marriage is defined by the specific church faction in question, which allows them to have an unlimited source of wives in this case. Then each specific religious group which is fragmented from the original can undermine actual state laws which define what constitutes an actual marriage by law.

 

Possession of drugs is a felony charge, jailing the user makes less sense than the nailing the dealers or suppliers of course. The preacher dealing the verbal crack is untouchable due to freedom of speech laws. So busting one dude for having a harem to create a religious ripple effect afterwards, would be like telling all ready to be muslim martyr's they've ran out of virgins!

[Trialbyfire]

If marriage is defined by the specific church faction in question, which allows them to have an unlimited source of wives in this case. Then each specific religious group which is fragmented from the original can undermine actual state laws which define what constitutes an actual marriage by law.

 

Possession of drugs is a felony charge, jailing the user makes less sense than the nailing the dealers or suppliers of course. The preacher dealing the verbal crack is untouchable due to freedom of speech laws. So busting one dude for having a harem to create a religious ripple effect afterwards, would be like telling all ready to be muslim martyr's they've ran out of virgins!

Same difference. Breaking the law, does not always equate to a crackdown by the law. Cost effectiveness also plays a substantial role.

[ItIs]

I don't, personally, know anyone who's totally okay with it, and I do know people in "open" relationships. For one thing, one of the "two" people in those relationships is usually just going along with it so as not to completely lose their partner.

 

So your observations are different than mine. We are dealing with rather small "sample sizes" here, so that does not come as a shock.

 

Yes, there undoubtedly many cases in which someone "goes along" with a polyamorous relationship so as not to "lose" their lover. Maybe even most of such situations. But whose responsibility is that? There's always the door, and if the door isn't an option we're talking about something in an entirely different realm that is quite unambiguously nasty.

 

It has been my observation that most people who are polyamorous simply don't get married.

 

Probably a lot more people who are really polyamorous in their nature "go along" with monogamy so they don't lose their steady partner...

 

Posted by Tbf.

Of course this begs another question, of how the law perceives infidelity, in a situation where one party attempts to force an open marriage and the other party decides to sue for divorce, at a later date, or it's an open marriage according to the participants but one party chooses to enforce fidelity mid-stream and sue for divorce, when the other party won't abide.

 

Then that's an issue people who are in such a situation need to take into consideration. So there may be an issue of whether or not an "open" marriage is defined as a marriage, as such. In most of the states gay marriages aren't legally sanctioned, either, though the people involved may have a marriage that's a damn sight better than most straight married people.

 

As it is -- at least where I live -- the matter of infidelity being grounds for divorce is moot whether the relationship is "open" or not. People don't have to have any grounds to get a divorce. I don't think that is necessarily a good thing, because many people take marriage so lightly they become serial marriers. I'm not exactly religious, but I find this phenomenon puzzling. It's almost as if many people get married just for its own sake, with little thought of what it means.

 

Before anybody dismisses the last statement as ironic coming from me, bear in mind that George S, Kaufman and Dorothy Parker were by all accounts I've read loved their partners very much and were devoted to them in every way except sexually. I consider that better than a faithful marriage that plays out as one more temporary situation in a serially monogamous lot of relationships.

[Trialbyfire]

Then that's an issue people who are in such a situation need to take into consideration. So there may be an issue of whether or not an "open" marriage is defined as a marriage, as such. In most of the states gay marriages aren't legally sanctioned, either, though the people involved may have a marriage that's a damn sight better than most straight married people.

 

As it is -- at least where I live -- the matter of infidelity being grounds for divorce is moot whether the relationship is "open" or not. People don't have to have any grounds to get a divorce. I don't think that is necessarily a good thing, because many people take marriage so lightly they become serial marriers. I'm not exactly religious, but I find this phenomenon puzzling. It's almost as if many people get married just for its own sake, with little thought of what it means.

 

Before anybody dismisses the last statement as ironic coming from me, bear in mind that George S, Kaufman and Dorothy Parker were by all accounts I've read loved their partners very much and were devoted to them in every way except sexually. I consider that better than a faithful marriage that plays out as one more temporary situation in a serially monogamous lot of relationships.

I agree that people take marriage too lightly. It should be "as death, do you part", unless there are valid reasons such as dissolution due to infidelity or abuse. If both parties put serious effort into the marriage over self, I can't see it failing.

 

As for the case that you provided, the two have a different concept of marriage and love, than something I would be willing to participate in. If it works for them, that's their perogative.