Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Open Relationships

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 9:58:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Inspired by the threesome thread. I think there's actually a lot to discuss about this issue concerning how it would positively or negatively effect a relationship. Sources leading to surveys, studies, psychological theories or the like would be good.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 10:09:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't have a problem with jealousy. For me it just comes down to whether it would hurt the relationship or not.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 10:13:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 10:09:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't have a problem with jealousy. For me it just comes down to whether it would hurt the relationship or not.

Yeah, and it almost ALWAYS does.

Open relationships are a bad idea if you actually care about being in a relationship with the other person. If you don't want to be in a relationship, but just happen to like one particular person a lot, they're fine.
President of DDO
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 10:16:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 10:15:19 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 9/27/2010 9:59:27 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Lol, I'm WAAAY too jealous to ever be in an open relationship.

This!

Actually, I take this back. I just realized I'm currently in one lol
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 6:36:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Open relationships are fine, just as long as you're honest about it. If you're in an open relationship with someone, you probably aren't in love with them yet, there's no commitment. Love doesn't occur before a relationship. Infatuation does. Love occurs when the relationship becomes its own entity, and both parties work to care for that entity. That can't be the case with an open relationship.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 7:57:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Open relationships are probably more common among gay men than monogamous relationships. I don't think that i am up for it, because as JKenyon said, i am waaayyyy too jealous to deal with that. What i have noticed though is the relationship changes into a less sexually based arrangement into a very deep intimate, but largely platonic partnership. It's actually way more common than people would expect, and in all honesty, i can understand easily how this could come to be.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 8:01:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/28/2010 6:36:22 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Open relationships are fine, just as long as you're honest about it. If you're in an open relationship with someone, you probably aren't in love with them yet, there's no commitment. Love doesn't occur before a relationship. Infatuation does. Love occurs when the relationship becomes its own entity, and both parties work to care for that entity. That can't be the case with an open relationship.

I would disagree. I know I couldn't not be with who I am now but I'm technically also with 2 girls too (but I don't like them at all, maybe that has to do with it..?)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2010 8:07:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/28/2010 6:36:22 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Open relationships are fine, just as long as you're honest about it. If you're in an open relationship with someone, you probably aren't in love with them yet, there's no commitment. Love doesn't occur before a relationship. Infatuation does. Love occurs when the relationship becomes its own entity, and both parties work to care for that entity. That can't be the case with an open relationship.

So not true. You can be in love with someone deeply, but just not getting what you want or need sexually. You might go elsewhere for that, but still remain deeply in love with your mate. Things can be compartmentalized pretty easily with men. I agree with most of the rest of the stuff though.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 8:58:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/28/2010 8:07:16 AM, innomen wrote:
So not true. You can be in love with someone deeply, but just not getting what you want or need sexually. You might go elsewhere for that, but still remain deeply in love with your mate. Things can be compartmentalized pretty easily with men. I agree with most of the rest of the stuff though.

This response only makes sense if you're talking about a relationship between two men, or if the woman in the relationship also has an easy time separating sex from love. I said "probably" in order to cover that situation. If you find a woman who thinks that way though, it's likely that she doesn't really love you.

A couple can't be in love if they aren't devoting themselves both to each other and to the relationship. The relationship itself has to be seen as an entity worth protecting. If the man hurts the woman by trying to fulfill his sexual needs elsewhere while remaining with that woman for the emotional intimacy, then he is still operating as if though the relationship itself is not an entity. His concern is what best maximizes his wants, not what is best for the relationship.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 9:29:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm a faithful guy.
I've had hot girls come on to me, friends of partners come on to me, all kinds of stuff and I've never even came close to the act of cheating. (I won't lie and say I haven't thought about having sex with someone else. I'm a guy ffs.)
However, I'm extremely jealous. I've belted guys for having sex with girls that I wasn't even in proper relationships with.
The idea of an Open Relationship you can imagine is completely outside of my comfort zone. If you want to fvck other people, see ya later.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 1:58:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 8:58:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/28/2010 8:07:16 AM, innomen wrote:
So not true. You can be in love with someone deeply, but just not getting what you want or need sexually. You might go elsewhere for that, but still remain deeply in love with your mate. Things can be compartmentalized pretty easily with men. I agree with most of the rest of the stuff though.

This response only makes sense if you're talking about a relationship between two men, or if the woman in the relationship also has an easy time separating sex from love. I said "probably" in order to cover that situation. If you find a woman who thinks that way though, it's likely that she doesn't really love you.

A couple can't be in love if they aren't devoting themselves both to each other and to the relationship. The relationship itself has to be seen as an entity worth protecting. If the man hurts the woman by trying to fulfill his sexual needs elsewhere while remaining with that woman for the emotional intimacy, then he is still operating as if though the relationship itself is not an entity. His concern is what best maximizes his wants, not what is best for the relationship.

You don't think that one side could go a little frigid in the bedroom and the sexual needs of the other can be met elsewhere on purely a physical basis, and yet all other emotional needs and wants are fulfilled between the two? Prostitution is completely dependent on this sort of situation. If the (let's say) woman is still receiving all her emotional needs from her husband, and has a blind eye to what goes on when he's away, is the relationship doomed? Sometimes maybe, but not as often as you think.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 2:09:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 1:58:46 PM, innomen wrote:
You don't think that one side could go a little frigid in the bedroom and the sexual needs of the other can be met elsewhere on purely a physical basis, and yet all other emotional needs and wants are fulfilled between the two? Prostitution is completely dependent on this sort of situation. If the (let's say) woman is still receiving all her emotional needs from her husband, and has a blind eye to what goes on when he's away, is the relationship doomed? Sometimes maybe, but not as often as you think.

I think we're talking about two different things. You're asking me whether or not you think this situation is possible. It's not only possible, it's common. The problem is that this isn't love. This couple isn't doomed, it's just on the way there. Any marriage counselor could tell you that this situation requires therapy.

Let me ask you though, why do you completely dichotomize emotional and physical to women and men respectively in your example? You don't find it strange that the wife seems to have no interest in the physical aspect and is only interested in the emotional? You don't find it strange that the man is so physically starved that he has to seek out relief outside the relationship? You don't find something wrong with the fact that the woman is "turning a blind eye"? This looks like a drama in which the wife drinks alone at night and tries to commit suicide a few scenes later.

You're putting too much emphasis on justifying the chosen method of resolution when you forget that the underlying issue is the real problem. What's causing the frigidness from one side? Why are they not talking about it? The only thing that makes less sense than your conclusion is your hypothetical situation :(
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 4:00:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 2:09:15 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/1/2010 1:58:46 PM, innomen wrote:
You don't think that one side could go a little frigid in the bedroom and the sexual needs of the other can be met elsewhere on purely a physical basis, and yet all other emotional needs and wants are fulfilled between the two? Prostitution is completely dependent on this sort of situation. If the (let's say) woman is still receiving all her emotional needs from her husband, and has a blind eye to what goes on when he's away, is the relationship doomed? Sometimes maybe, but not as often as you think.

I think we're talking about two different things. You're asking me whether or not you think this situation is possible. It's not only possible, it's common. The problem is that this isn't love. This couple isn't doomed, it's just on the way there. Any marriage counselor could tell you that this situation requires therapy.

Who are you to say it isn't love? You think that love can only exist when sex is involved? I gave you examples of homosexual men who operate this way as almost commonplace. I think that there are more relationships that exist like this than you can imagine, and they don't necessarily not work. You assume that there is harm involved, and i think that's a faulty assumption.

Let me ask you though, why do you completely dichotomize emotional and physical to women and men respectively in your example? You don't find it strange that the wife seems to have no interest in the physical aspect and is only interested in the emotional? You don't find it strange that the man is so physically starved that he has to seek out relief outside the relationship? You don't find something wrong with the fact that the woman is "turning a blind eye"? This looks like a drama in which the wife drinks alone at night and tries to commit suicide a few scenes later.

Nah, not at all. I think that there are some women, or even some men, that reach a point where sex is not so desirable but they still crave the deep companionship and security of the love they have with their mate. This isn't as remote a situation as you think.

You're putting too much emphasis on justifying the chosen method of resolution when you forget that the underlying issue is the real problem. What's causing the frigidness from one side? Why are they not talking about it? The only thing that makes less sense than your conclusion is your hypothetical situation :(

Frigidness could be biological. I dunno, libido often diminishes with women particularly after menopause. Also there is sexual incompatibility - where after time the appetites of the two people diverge and grow further and further apart so there is more disinterest in the area of sex than interest. The couple accommodate the situation, and so does their relationship.

Fewer relationships are ideal than otherwise, and many are not ideal sexually, but as relationships go, they very well may be maintained by intense love as any other relationship.

Are we talking about two different things? Not sure, maybe a variation.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 8:02:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 4:00:23 PM, innomen wrote:
Who are you to say it isn't love? You think that love can only exist when sex is involved?

Strawman. Love can't exist when there's a lack of communication, obvious dishonesty, and utter confusion about each other's needs. That's a downward spiral. You're not painting a pretty picture so far, perhaps you could go into more detail about this story and it might be different.

I gave you examples of homosexual men who operate this way as almost commonplace.

At 9/30/2010 8:58:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
This response only makes sense if you're talking about a relationship between two men, or if

I've already responded to this. I won't pretend to know how a homosexual relationship works, nor am I interested. I can't relate to it, so I won't disrespect it by making wild guesses. The rest of this discussion will be limited exclusively to male-female open relationships.

I think that there are more relationships that exist like this than you can imagine, and they don't necessarily not work. You assume that there is harm involved, and i think that's a faulty assumption.

Are there many of these relationships? Possibly. Do they work? Depends on what you mean by "work". If you mean, will they stay together, then yes, maybe. But I don't think that the vast majority of these relationships can be considered loving relationships. Before I go on and say anything else, why don't you rework your scenario to be more detailed. Keep in mind, a man and a woman.

Nah, not at all. I think that there are some women, or even some men, that reach a point where sex is not so desirable but they still crave the deep companionship and security of the love they have with their mate. This isn't as remote a situation as you think.

Men and women retain their sex drive long into their senior years. Their biological capacity diminishes, but studies have shown that diminished sex drive is purely psychological. Vaginal dryness, feelings of insecurity about desirability, etc. influence women's sex drive negatively, but women who bypass these problems demonstrate little to no decrease in sex drive. Men commonly don't have these problems save for age-related erectile dysfunction. Why? Society isn't as harsh.

Regardless, the situation you described before was obviously one-sided. I'm getting very confused, I've even forgotten what it was we were arguing about. Could you please honor my request for a new, more detailed scenario? I believe it is regarding an open relationship in which one party is uninterested in sex and is interested only in intimacy or something of the sort.

Frigidness could be biological. I dunno, libido often diminishes with women particularly after menopause. Also there is sexual incompatibility - where after time the appetites of the two people diverge and grow further and further apart so there is more disinterest in the area of sex than interest. The couple accommodate the situation, and so does their relationship.

Sexual interest is just as much psychological as biological. After a long period of monogamy, do you really think situations exist in which the woman is all of a sudden fine and dandy with her husband having sex with women half her age just because *she* isn't as interested in sex? There is a heavy psychological toll in something like that happening, one that is very destructive to a preexisting monogamous relationship. More likely than not, all of these problems can be solved through therapy and couple's counseling. I won't rule out the possibility that involving a third party is an option, I just can't really think of a plausible situation in which it is the best option. That's why I'm asking you to redo your hypothetical.

Fewer relationships are ideal than otherwise, and many are not ideal sexually, but as relationships go, they very well may be maintained by intense love as any other relationship.

I don't see how intense love would allow for transgression by a third party. Intense love would prevent those problems in the first place, and if the situation calls for a third party, the problems exist most likely because there is no intense love.

Are we talking about two different things? Not sure, maybe a variation.

The best way is for us to start from scratch. Please rework a very detailed, heterosexual relationship in which you think an open relationship is the solution, and is probable enough to consider.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 8:18:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm with Kleptin---as a hetero female, I could never be in an open relationship with someone I'm in love with. Nor could I ever be in an open sexual relationship, though...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:13:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 9:15:49 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
I think the best relationships involve no sex.

How many of them have you had?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:15:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Love is simply another form of authority. I am supposed to subordinate my will to serve another. Libertarianism denounces it.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:19:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:15:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Love is simply another form of authority. I am supposed to subordinate my will to serve another. Libertarianism denounces it.

Libertarianism is apathetic toward other individual's choices...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:21:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:19:46 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:15:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Love is simply another form of authority. I am supposed to subordinate my will to serve another. Libertarianism denounces it.

Libertarianism is apathetic toward other individual's choices...

I have a more broad conception of liberty.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:24:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:21:19 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:19:46 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:15:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Love is simply another form of authority. I am supposed to subordinate my will to serve another. Libertarianism denounces it.

Libertarianism is apathetic toward other individual's choices...

I have a more broad conception of liberty.

You have no conception of liberty.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:27:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:15:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Love is simply another form of authority. I am supposed to subordinate my will to serve another.
Who is doing the supposing? No one's making you fall in love. I think Mises said something along the lines of "Few women would be flattered to hear that not only are they beautiful, but they also afford ample opportunity for self-sacrifice." If your will does not coincide with another's in such a manner, no big deal, don't pretend it does, the point isn't to "subordinate." If it does, enjoy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:30:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:24:38 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:21:19 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:19:46 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:15:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Love is simply another form of authority. I am supposed to subordinate my will to serve another. Libertarianism denounces it.

Libertarianism is apathetic toward other individual's choices...

I have a more broad conception of liberty.

You have no conception of liberty.

You are just jealous because my conception is more robust than yours.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:31:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:30:00 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:24:38 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:21:19 AM, Reasoning wrote:
I have a more broad conception of liberty.

You have no conception of liberty.

You are just jealous because my conception is more robust than yours.

That doesn't even make sense. Are you trolling?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:32:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:30:00 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:24:38 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:21:19 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:19:46 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:15:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Love is simply another form of authority. I am supposed to subordinate my will to serve another. Libertarianism denounces it.

Libertarianism is apathetic toward other individual's choices...

I have a more broad conception of liberty.

You have no conception of liberty.

You are just jealous because my conception is more robust than yours.

Showing off to pick up a potential object of love?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:34:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:32:02 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:30:00 AM, Reasoning wrote:
You are just jealous because my conception is more robust than yours.

Showing off to pick up a potential object of love?

You confuse love with the gratification of desire. I love only myself; I care only for myself. Others are simply means to my ends.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:35:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:34:00 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:32:02 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:30:00 AM, Reasoning wrote:
You are just jealous because my conception is more robust than yours.

Showing off to pick up a potential object of love?

You confuse love with the gratification of desire. I love only myself; I care only for myself. Others are simply means to my ends.

Do you have any idea what "love" means?