Trouble agreeing on 'open'

[DonnyBeGood]

I give a lot of background here, but if you want the question that's at the core of the matter, skip to the last paragraph. That might let you know whether or not the rest is worth you time to read.

 

I met a woman online a few months ago. She was seeking an open relationship in which her significant other was in another city and they were long distance dating with the goal of building a life together once the other found a job in our city. They decided to not be monogamous so they could each be sexually fulfilled while they waited and directed their lives towards that goal. I would be someone who, if we clicked, would be a sex partner, a fun date, someone to keep warm with at night, but not someone who was going to be as significant in her life as her boyfriend. I would accept that them living together someday would end our relationship.

 

I found the idea exciting because I had been in a monoLDR before myself and remembered the months of sexual frustration I would experience waiting for us to be together. In that relationship I was eventually cheated on after 8 years of my being totally faithful and after having had the conversation at least 3 times that we might each be happier if we could admit that we loved eachother and loved sex and could be fulfilled with other partners if we had safe boundaries (emotional and physical) while we were apart. I felt it was hypocritical to not allow me that experience (sex with someone else) but then cheat on me when she reached her end of frustration, and be so ashamed of herself that she ended the relationship over it. Worst part, it wasn't even long distance by the time she did that.

 

I found the idea that I could have a fun sexual relationship with mutual attraction and be fulfilled, but also that I could be the change I wanted to see in the world in regards to the types of relationships i've had and the aspects of them I didn't like. I could be there for her, be realistic about it, and in a sense, be there for her partner as I didn't wish to get between then.

 

That 8 year relationship I refered to was not singular or anomalous for me. My next relationship was 5 years in which only 3 months were long distance, once again ,while we were living together, that women ended up cheating on me as well even though we had also discussed the possibility that we could have an open experience and basically the response she had was that it would be me cheating on her if that happened. Not allowed, no way. But then she did it and that was the end once again...

 

With this current relationship we met under the pretense of open and her having a primary significant other. Shortly thereafter she broke up with him because apparently the course he took in having a partner closer to him went way outside of the boundaries that had agreed upon. We started to have a closed relationship at that point. It was and has been me and her only. The conversation came back up recently and she asked me why I wanted an open relationship and if I still did.

 

My response was yes I still did. The 'why' was that I have never wanted my significant other to cheat on me, not because I wanted them to be mine and mine alone, but because I wanted them to have what they wanted, even if that meant occasionally being with someone else sexually, or even romantically, lovingly, as long as I am their main attraction, so to speak. And if it comes to the point that they find someone who they clearly see themselves with in a better way than what we had together, either they can tell me what they liked about that relationship and it might very well be something I can do with them and still keep us, or perhaps there is a reality to accept and they can be happier with another and that's the end of 'us'. Would it hurt? Yes. But every relationship I've ever had has ended except this one I'm still in, and they all hurt in the end because instead of us going into a situation with our eyes open, they just abruplty snuck around on me,,, and yet I'm still getting up everyday and living my life anyway. It happens and my main goal in life isn't to just -keep- someone, it's for us both to be happy. I think the fact that I've spent just about half of my life with 2 women and I'm 30 shows that I'm not all other the place and can do my part to keep things going. But I'm realistic that not everyone you spend a year with will end up being the one. It happens. After 8 years, 5 years, 20 for my parents.

 

She asked how often I'd be with another person. I said ideally, once or twice a year. If I went to my homestate for example, I might spend a few nights with someone I went to college with or what have you. She asked why I'd want that.

 

I said because for me the attraction is not just 'strange' or 'variety', but that I'd like the freedom to see my sexuality as something I own and I choose. I want to be able to share it with someone else for the little thrill one gets from 'new' but mostly because it makes me feel like I own my sexuality, I can decide what it is, and I have the freedom to do it and not lose a long term relationship because it's done with informed consent for all parties involved, not just sneaking off like has always happened to me. Being 'allowed' to do it, that feeling alone is a load off my shoulders. I wouldn't turn that into dating all the time while my girlfriend sleeps along. That's not what I want.

 

She told me that for her it would probably be more like 10 a year. My issue with that is even with condoms you can still pass certain things and since she has been in several open relationships in the past and not caught anything, I'm sure that each of use having 1 or 2 a year is not an out of control risk factor as she's made it this far without getting anything and she's had about 6 open relationships.

 

Our idea's of fair ended up being way off. To her 'fair' is not the same amount, like us each having 1 or 2 other lovers in the course of a year. Fair is that she could find 20 people a year who can show her clean STI test results and who she would find appealing enough to sleep with. For me I think I'd find that once or twice a year. She has a history with poly people and this is the norm, I don't. So if I had sex with 100% of the mates that met my criteria and I desired, she should be able to have sex with 100% as well, and that would be 20 to my 1.

 

I told her in that situation, I don't know if I'd be comfortable after all. Maybe it's not for me after all. I'd not want to have sex with her less often because she had a lot of other mates just so I could have one freeing experience a year or so. I wouldn't like the feeling that I'm getting worried about catching herpes while she's having sex three times as often as I am just so once in a while I can be with someone else.

 

She asked how would I feel then if we were closed. Same as always, I said, as time went by I'd have more and more fantasies, I'd start being more and more envious of people who get to have a new lover, but like I always did in the past, I'd deal with it. We can't always have everything we want, and that's ok.

 

She said she didn't want me to feel pent up on her account.

 

As a compromise she suggested that we have a threesome. I said that the whole "owning my sexuality" thing might be satisfied with that, but it's still supervised in as sense if she's there so I didn't know if that would make me feel elated, but i've never done it and I'd be willing to try. What if the other person was a man? I responded that I don't have any fantasies about being with a man but if she wanted that we could try it, but I'd appreciate it if the opportunity for have a woman involved would present itself as well.

 

She said she's not really into it because, been there, done that (for any kind of threesome).

 

I don't know why she could want to have a threesome just to do it for me, but couldn't let me just have a date and maybe sex on my own just so I can feel what it's like once in my life. To be able to do that and it's not wrong. And she can do the same, just not 10 times or 20 times more often without it affected me in a bad way, emotionally or perhaps physically.

 

I've wanted this for the 15 years that I've been dating. I want to try it. Im 30 now and this had been something I have always wanted. What I've had instead is the standard christian marriage style where it's Adam and Eve and anything else is cheating. Do not want. Based on my experiences and the women I find myself attracted to, they will be with someone else eventually. I'm not trying to fight that, I'm find with it if there's some boundaries and evenness to it.

 

My partner has done it all, open, poly, threesomes, two partners in the same day but not at the same time. Things that I have always fantasized about but was never with someone who would be comfortable with it.

 

I understand someone can be comfortable with those things in the past but not now. Preference is preference. That's why it's preference. But I'm having trouble feeling like she's just teasing me. You can do it once, but I'll do it 10 times,, as if in retribution.

 

I asked her plain "Why can't it just be twice a year for each of us." Her answer was that's not fair, and thats not what an open relationship is. She mostly knows people in open relationships and that's never how it works, there are no tallies, you just do as you wish and typically because of one being less socially awkward or more physically attractive than the other, there will be one partner who has many times more partners than the other. In our situation it would be her with many more than I.

 

Is an open relationship always defined as two people doing whatever they please? Or is it a fair boundary to try and keeps things even with regard to STI risks instead of just a laissez faire attitude and 'open means open'? (And yes, we would be practicing safe sex with other partners, and even with eachother until we decided to stop being open and each tested negative for everything at least 3 months after our last contacts.)

[TheGuard13]

An open relationship is open.

 

 

People don't generally have them in order to sleep with the 1 or 2 attractive people they want to sleep with.

 

 

They have them because they do not want their options limited, period. The idea of having their options limited bothers them, so they ask for a situation where that does not apply.

[DonnyBeGood]

An open relationship is open.

 

 

People don't generally have them in order to sleep with the 1 or 2 attractive people they want to sleep with.

 

 

They have them because they do not want their options limited, period. The idea of having their options limited bothers them, so they ask for a situation where that does not apply.

 

Is there anything to be said for the biological side of things? With Herpes being transmitted even if there is the use of a condom? There are plenty of ways to reduce the risk, but it seems that even if you leave a 1% chance,,, eventually that cylinder turns up loaded. Thats why I think just a few encounters appeals to me so much. I don't have to roll the hundred sided die 100 times. Also. there are 7 billion people. If I feel this way, is it unreasonable to assume I can find someone else who does?

 

If she could be closed with me, in your opinion, am I really asking her for a lot to be slightly open. I mean, she's all for the limitation of 0 extra partners each.

 

Other than that, your response is something very close to the things she's said, so it give me some perspective,, that she's not just making it up to ,, streamline my options to match her preferences.

[TheGuard13]

There is a cost to anything. With an open relationship, like with all sexual encounters, that includes the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases.

 

 

People who want open relationships generally want them because of the feeling of freedom it provides. They don't just want one or two dalliances. I've known people in open relationships who don't even DO anything with other people, they just like the idea that they could do anything if they wanted.

[EmilyJane]

It doesn't sound like you want an open relationship really at all.

 

It sounds like you want a monogamous one with someone who cares about you, who isn't long distance who won't cheat on you.

 

Maybe own that, get rid of this chick and get out there and find it?

[mammasita]

Open is open, no limitations.

 

It sounds like you just want a "hall pass" not an open relationship.

[Trimmer]

I think you're putting your energy in the wrong place, trying to look for an objective definition of "open" that you can compare yourself against.

 

The specific term that you use and the objective definition that someone votes on for that word are completely irrelevant. The point is: what parameters do you need and what can you tolerate and support in each other? In order to form a workable relationship, you need to come to a meeting of the minds on what that looks like, and it has NOTHING to do with what one word you use or how that word is defined in some relationship dictionary or online poll you can find.

 

The fact is the two of you have very fundamental differences about what will work for you in the relationship. Pointing to a word and its definition, and saying "See?!?! This is what 'open' means..." isn't going to change that difference between the two of you by the slightest amount.

[isisisweeping]

Is an open relationship always defined as two people doing whatever they please? Or is it a fair boundary to try and keeps things even with regard to STI risks instead of just a laissez faire attitude and 'open means open'? (And yes, we would be practicing safe sex with other partners, and even with eachother until we decided to stop being open and each tested negative for everything at least 3 months after our last contacts.)

 

My ex husband is in a long term open relationship. I am not wired that way, but he seems happy. From what I understand, there are hundreds of ways to conduct such a relationship but the important keys are open, honest communication. If you can't communicate well, it's a bad idea. The boundaries are what you set and they can be any range: a clean STD test from any new partner even with protection, a core few acceptable only, a core couple and rules for the others.... So, I guess this isn't a question anyone can answer.

For him, he has his two primary... I do not know much about theirs, and dates others. I only heard through him, but they place a focus on honesty, safety, and using discretion on choice in people to keep out drama. He also said you always have to make sure for poly each relationship functions independently, that seeing more than one partner isn't to compensate for holes in the relationship. I'm not sure how that works if it's more like a sex without relationship type of thing except for the core relationship.

 

For the life of me, even after asking questions and seeing it work, I cannot comprehend it well. I don't really want to be with somebody else when I am in a relationship. Also, it seems like a lot of work and thought I'd rather put into one of my hobbies. Then, I prefer not being around people most of the time.

[Kate9292]

If you want to have an open relationship, this goes both ways. If you can sleep with others, so can she. And you don't get to keep tabs on how many times or with who - nor does she.

[isisisweeping]

If you want to have an open relationship, this goes both ways. If you can sleep with others, so can she. And you don't get to keep tabs on how many times or with who - nor does she.

 

My ex does say that this kind of thing, without communication and everyone just does whatever, is the kind that blows up in a huge, spectacular way.

[DonnyBeGood]

 

The specific term that you use and the objective definition that someone votes on for that word are completely irrelevant. The point is: what parameters do you need and what can you tolerate and support in each other? In order to form a workable relationship, you need to come to a meeting of the minds on what that looks like, and it has NOTHING to do with what one word you use or how that word is defined in some relationship dictionary or online poll you can find.

 

 

I think that's actually the discussion that her and I were having. If an open relationship means having sex with as many people as you want all the time, I'm not comfortable with that. I'm not, however, against an occasional step outside of monogamy. She seems to either want one or the other. What I want clearly isn't an open relationship by that definition. I don't know why she can't accept anything in between.

 

I felt like she was just threatening retribution "if you want to sleep with 1 or two other people a year, I'll probably be with 10-20" but the way she sees if, if thats all I want and get 100% of that, then she should get 100% of what she wants and she has many more opportunities than I do as she's a woman.

 

I get that idea, but the parallel I made is, if we want to go running together, and I run faster, we aren't running together are we? I felt like pacing our extracuricular activities to an even keel was fair. But it has to work for both of us and she's not in agreement.

[kakui215]

I think you're putting your energy in the wrong place, trying to look for an objective definition of "open" that you can compare yourself against.

 

The specific term that you use and the objective definition that someone votes on for that word are completely irrelevant. The point is: what parameters do you need and what can you tolerate and support in each other? In order to form a workable relationship, you need to come to a meeting of the minds on what that looks like, and it has NOTHING to do with what one word you use or how that word is defined in some relationship dictionary or online poll you can find.

 

The fact is the two of you have very fundamental differences about what will work for you in the relationship. Pointing to a word and its definition, and saying "See?!?! This is what 'open' means..." isn't going to change that difference between the two of you by the slightest amount.

 

 

I think Trimmer offers some valuable wisdom here, and I'd like to add to it. As noted, it seems that the 2 of you (and, I would add, most others here) are more concerned with defining the term "open" than with helping to establish & maintain a happy, satisfying relationship. In addition, whether for or against the very idea of open relationships, most seem to be engaging in this semantic argument from the standpoint that fairness is key, and that if one of you can justifiably say, "That's not fair!", your relationship will fail.

 

There are a couple of problems with that approach. For one, if we look at successful marriages & other LTRs (long-term relationships) -- those in which both partners report high levels of happiness & overall satisfaction -- we'll find various parts of each relationship that one could label as "unfair". Typically, if pressed, each partner could rattle off a list of unfairnesses & injustices! To the other partner (and perhaps to an outside observer), some of those items might seem ridiculous, and applying the label "unfair" to them might itself seem unfair. With other items, however, the unfairness may seem obvious to almost anyone, and that other partner in such relationships, will often concede that. Each might be right in labeling certain elements of their marriage or LTR as "unfair", but they are still happy together! Why?

 

Successful long-term relationships typically involve a degree of trust & commitment that places a much higher priority on love & kindness than on fairness or justice. At any one time, one partner will probably have a greater need for something than the other partner. Ideally, the response of that other partner will be to help provide for that need, not to refuse to do what he or she can do only because "it wouldn't be fair". If each of you truly loves & cares for the other, you must do whatever you can to fulfill each other's needs, whether or not any one of your actions in the course of helping your partner result in an imbalance of the scales of fairness. And if you're genuinely committed to each other, you'll do this out of kindness, a kindness that compels you to act with love even when you don't have any similar need at all -- and even during those moments when you don't feel great love or passion for your partner. At times, it is natural for that to seem unfair because, in some ways, it is unfair! But relationships are not legal proceedings -- stop trying to balance everything on those scales. In fact, toss them out!

 

So, both of you should put aside the concern over what "having an 'open' relationship" must mean, and instead, each focus on what Trimmer outlined so well: What parameters do you need? What can you tolerate? And how can you support each other? If either of you cannot accept the answers that the other provides to each of these questions, then it's probably time for the 2 of you to end the relationship -- hopefully with some degree of love & kindness for each other, made possible by the better understanding you both have. If, however, each can accept the other's answers, neither of you should just go forth on your own -- if you want this to work, you need to agree to come back to those questions regularly and update your answers. Ignoring them, refusing to revisit them periodically, or reacting to your partner (or now, "primary partner") in a negative way when he or she wants to discuss them, will (and probably should) mean the end of your relationship.