Sexuality Philosophy (Questions, ideology)

[Aksannyi]

Sure, until your girlfriend gives you shit for sleeping with another girl without her around.

If that's how your girlfriend would react, then an open relationship is not for you.

[Elcura]

If that's how your girlfriend would react, then an open relationship is not for her.

FTFY, but yeah. Kinda doesn't work if both people aren't into it.

[Aksannyi]

Well, yes. I meant the collective "you," meaning the pair of them. Essentially, this is not for you (guys).

[hey]

Sorry in advance if i repeat anything that has already been said!

I don't understand how you (universal you, not you-you) can tell someone that you love them above all others and then want to fuck someone else. Similarly, if you tell me that I'm the one you want to be with for the rest of your life, you shouldn't want to be fucking other people.

Why not? Should i also not want to play final fantasy with other people either? I do not see any reason you cannot love someone above all others, but do not want to spend every waking moment with them, to the exclusion of everyone else.

I don't think its a feeling of ownership, but more a demonstration of trust. If you are wanting to commit to a relationship with somebody, and want them to do the same for you, sacrifices are going to have to be made. And one of those is forgoing animal instincts to show your commitment to a single person. I do have a romanticized view of sex, in that it shouldn't be something you do with just random people. Could just be a type of bitterness on my part though. The idea that if I can resist the temptation, you can too.

Why resist it though? What is the purpose? What benefit is there? To me, there is none, except perhaps to make someone else happy, and so i could be with them, if they did not feel the same way.

There doesn't need to be, but for most it's an important part of the relationship. There are many things that go into attraction than physical/sexual attraction, but it is an undeniable element for most relationships. Most couples go through the "Can't keep their hands off each other" phase.

Yes, of course, but as you said, there is no need for it. Sex is not a technical requirement for a relationship. It is of course common, but not required.

I understand your situation, but can you describe your relationship?

I did not say i do not have sex with my SO. If i didn't though, i wouldn't really mind.

Overly simplified, a close relationship with some one with out sex I'd call best friends; add sex and suddenly they're in a romantic relationship.

No, i disagree. They are in a sexual relationship. Friends can have sex and not be romantic. We even have a term for that: friends with benefits.

Basically, when you look at your SO why do you describe it as a romantic relationship and not just your close friend? What makes it romantic?

Love makes it romantic.

I guess now that I think about it I can see how love and sex can be mutually exclusive and how they can also only be 1 to 1 and everything in between that range. I suppose the answer is "shit's situational". However people like to spend their time.

Wouldn't it be more efficient/easier to love someone and be sexually attracted to them at the same time? Putting aside the likelihood of finding said person of course.

Yes, we are all different. Some people require sex to be part of a relationship, others require that it not be, others don't mind one way or the other. Some require monogamy, others will not accept monogamy.

It is not really a matter of efficiency. I mean, yes, that is easiest, and that would be why most people who are not asexual, do indeed have sex with someone they are in a romantic relationship with, but there is not requirement for it. If i were interested in an asexual person, i would not be deterred by that. If they are unable to satisfy all of my needs, i could find another person who could. That's perfectly okay.

There's pro's and con's to open relationships as there is with monogamy. It's up to everyone to find out what works best them.

Personally, I could never do an open relationship. I don't get possessive or jealous or anything like that but because dealing with one persons needs/wants/desires is exhausting as is. I can't imagine having to juggle more than my own and my bf. I also wouldn't feel like I would be able to truly connect with someone if I had multiple partners. If it works for others, kewl, neato. Glad it works. But as a virgo introvert dealing with peoples emotions is beyond draining for me. Dealing with people in general is beyond draining, actually.

Yup, this is all true. In some ways, it is easier, and in others it is harder. Certainly it is not for everyone.

Sure, until your girlfriend gives you shit for sleeping with another girl without her around.

Some people are okay with it, others are not. It is important to be up front with your partner(s), so you do not get involved with someone like that.

[Kuya]

Sure, until your girlfriend gives you shit for sleeping with another girl without her around.

It happens.

If you agreed that you would only have the threesomes were both of you are involved then she kind of has every reason to be mad, but if you agreed that sleeping around without each other is fine but she has a meltdown anyway, then it's important to validate her feelings otherwise she'll just get more hostile.

In those instances, she would have to calm down and look into what made her snap. And if it so happens she really can't deal with an open relationship, well, that's the end of that.

Moral of the story: even people who claim to be fine with open relationships will sometimes find themselves in uncomfortable and threatening situations. It's important for the other person not to get defensive and lash back at the partner suffering a jealousy episode. Otherwise it will just blow up.

[NynJa]

If you agreed that you would only have the threesomes were both of you are involved then she kind of has every reason to be mad, but if you agreed that sleeping around without each other is fine but she has a meltdown anyway, then it's important to validate her feelings otherwise she'll just get more hostile.

In those instances, she would have to calm down and look into what made her snap. And if it so happens she really can't deal with an open relationship, well, that's the end of that.

Moral of the story: even people who claim to be fine with open relationships will sometimes find themselves in uncomfortable and threatening situations. It's important for the other person not to get defensive and lash back at the partner suffering a jealousy episode. Otherwise it will just blow up.

We had an agreement that if something happened while we were out not in each others company, to just have fun and go with it, as long as its a one time thing and not a side relationship, and we tell the other person right away. She wound up getting dicked by some guy a lot more than just one time (without telling me), and the one time I got a bj from another girl and told her, she snapped.

I dont see why the feelings of a hypocrite need to be validated? She went and told her friends that I'm an asshole who cant handle the open relationship, yet I offered to close it up when she got pissed at me that day. She said not to.

[BaneTheBrawler]

This is not a relationship advice thread.

[Penthesilea]

Having a romantic relationship with someone without being sexually attracted to and active with sounds god awful. Just be friends at that point.

[archibaldcrane]

To be fair, plenty of marriages become that.

They just usually don't start that way.

[Aksannyi]

To be fair, plenty of marriages become that.

They just usually don't start that way.

That generally is not the same thing, other than when age makes sex either unenjoyable or just too difficult.

However, people who have no desire for sexual encounters exist, they're called asexuals, and they are certainly capable of having romantic and loving relationships without sex. I was dating someone for a long time and we had a healthy sex life until he had to go on a medication that caused his libido to take a serious nosedive. That was a bit of a challenge for me, but I loved him and I continued to support him until he was able to get on a different medication. Not having sex didn't diminish my love for him. It just made my self-sex life a lot more active lol.

I guess I don't expect people who aren't asexual to understand the appeal to having a romantic relationship without sex (and personally I would like sex to be a part of my relationships), but as long as they're happy then I don't see anything wrong with it.

[FNH]

I'd like some information to kind of wrap my head around this. I understand everyone has different desires, but I can't understand modern polyamorous relationships or open marriages. Now I understand having multiple sexual partners in the course of dating, but I don't consider chasing tail at the bar a "relationship". Imo for a long term serious relationship, monogamy has the stronger bond. If I'm going to settle down and alter my life(or even relocate as it sometimes happens for careers or w/e) it would be a one on one deal, that other person would be all I would need and would expect that out of the other person also.

For some societies I get the benefits that a polyamorous relationships and how it works in their culture, but in the modern first world countries what is gained for the group? I can see the benefit for the person with multiple SOs, but for the others what is their attraction to it or the thought of that being a strong relationship? Do you feel that there is an equal amount of attention/attraction/attachment among the group? Do you have to schedule time with them? Is it a mutual friendship across the group or are you all like a group where you know each other exists but you a detached from them? If I came across someone who wanted to spend time with me but was poly I probably wouldn't turn her down, but she wouldn't be getting my full attention either I just see it as she likes to see lots of people. I wouldn't feel like I could draw much emotionally from that relationship or really even consider it that. Whats to gain in a polyamorous relationship for the "concubines"? Monogamous relationships don't always last forever, but it is common for them to last 30+ years. Have there been long lasting polyamorous relationships in modern society? As for open marriages, again I understand wanting to experience more, but why lock down into a marriage? Is it for the taxes, insurance, whatever? Wouldn't it be easier to do what you want if you didn't have to say you were married? I see that as just keeping a slam piece on lock down for the regularity. What happens when one of you comes across someone that forms a stronger connection? What happens when you want to have children?

[Rooney]

Trying to organize my thoughts on this. To me there seem to be three main points: romance, intimacy, and sex. You can have each one individually or a combination of two or all three. Where the three intersect is where you'd generally expect to find your SO/soul mate/etc. That doesn't necessarily mean they're the best choice for your current need though. Sometimes you want/need to fuck just to get off and it may be hard for your partner to dissociate that from the relationship.

To answer FNH: I'd say poly relationships are rarely equal in attraction/attention/etc. I was in a three-way relationship for a while. I was romantically/sexually attracted to one partner, while primarily sexually attracted to the other. The two of them were romantic/intimate with each other, but rarely sexual. And sometimes we'd get a fourth person purely for sex.

As long as everyone (whether two or many) communicates in the relationship, there's no reason everyone shouldn't get what they're looking for. Sometimes this takes the form of monogamy, sometimes poly, sometimes open marriage, etc.

[Kuya]

I'd like some information to kind of wrap my head around this. I understand everyone has different desires, but I can't understand modern polyamorous relationships or open marriages. Now I understand having multiple sexual partners in the course of dating, but I don't consider chasing tail at the bar a "relationship". Imo for a long term serious relationship, monogamy has the stronger bond. If I'm going to settle down and alter my life(or even relocate as it sometimes happens for careers or w/e) it would be a one on one deal, that other person would be all I would need and would expect that out of the other person also.

For some societies I get the benefits that a polyamorous relationships and how it works in their culture, but in the modern first world countries what is gained for the group? I can see the benefit for the person with multiple SOs, but for the others what is their attraction to it or the thought of that being a strong relationship? Do you feel that there is an equal amount of attention/attraction/attachment among the group? Do you have to schedule time with them? Is it a mutual friendship across the group or are you all like a group where you know each other exists but you a detached from them? If I came across someone who wanted to spend time with me but was poly I probably wouldn't turn her down, but she wouldn't be getting my full attention either I just see it as she likes to see lots of people. I wouldn't feel like I could draw much emotionally from that relationship or really even consider it that. Whats to gain in a polyamorous relationship for the "concubines"? Monogamous relationships don't always last forever, but it is common for them to last 30+ years. Have there been long lasting polyamorous relationships in modern society? As for open marriages, again I understand wanting to experience more, but why lock down into a marriage? Is it for the taxes, insurance, whatever? Wouldn't it be easier to do what you want if you didn't have to say you were married? I see that as just keeping a slam piece on lock down for the regularity. What happens when one of you comes across someone that forms a stronger connection? What happens when you want to have children?

I think the post that came after yours sort of answered what I was going to say.

I think you're mixing in a lot of different kinds of relationships into one category and that's because a polyamorous relationship is a large umbrella term for lots of different ways to organize a relationship. Not to mention polyamorous and open aren't necessarily the same thing.

For example, a couple might choose to be romantically exclusive to one another, and only add a third person for sex. This third person could be a regular or it could be a different person every now and then. A couple can also decide to have exclusively sexual relationships (no romantic connection) on the side that does not involve eachother. A couple could also decide to only have sex with other couples. This is generally what an open relationship or open marriage is.

A couple can also decide to be both sexually and romantically involved with a third. With a fourth, and what have you. A couple can also decide to have sexual/romantic relationships on the side that does not involve eachother. This is generally what polyamoury is.

I guess people might decide to engage in an open marriage for the tax benefits or because they believe marriage is a romantic symbol (like most people do).

This article claims most relationships last 2 years and 9 months:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...dia-blame.html

[hey]

Having a romantic relationship with someone without being sexually attracted to and active with sounds god awful. Just be friends at that point.

Maybe for you, but for others it may be preferable. People are different.

[FNH]

I get the desire for group sex or multiple partners, but at the point of time in which I would want a serious romantic relationship I would have a hangup about it then. If dating someone else that "wasn't enough for me" I wouldn't really consider that to be a serious romantic relationship. Marriage/long term serious relationships are about more, to me, than just fulfilling my sexual desire, but if I had one of those facets that I couldn't fulfill through that one person then I wouldn't waste their time or prevent them from finding what they wanted. It just seems to me that poly relationships and open marriages are just fleeting and the chances of it breaking down are higher. My perceptions/hangups just trying to see it from the viewpoint of someone else.

[hey]

I'd like some information to kind of wrap my head around this. I understand everyone has different desires, but I can't understand modern polyamorous relationships or open marriages. Now I understand having multiple sexual partners in the course of dating, but I don't consider chasing tail at the bar a "relationship". Imo for a long term serious relationship, monogamy has the stronger bond. If I'm going to settle down and alter my life(or even relocate as it sometimes happens for careers or w/e) it would be a one on one deal, that other person would be all I would need and would expect that out of the other person also.

For some societies I get the benefits that a polyamorous relationships and how it works in their culture, but in the modern first world countries what is gained for the group? I can see the benefit for the person with multiple SOs, but for the others what is their attraction to it or the thought of that being a strong relationship? Do you feel that there is an equal amount of attention/attraction/attachment among the group? Do you have to schedule time with them? Is it a mutual friendship across the group or are you all like a group where you know each other exists but you a detached from them? If I came across someone who wanted to spend time with me but was poly I probably wouldn't turn her down, but she wouldn't be getting my full attention either I just see it as she likes to see lots of people. I wouldn't feel like I could draw much emotionally from that relationship or really even consider it that. Whats to gain in a polyamorous relationship for the "concubines"? Monogamous relationships don't always last forever, but it is common for them to last 30+ years. Have there been long lasting polyamorous relationships in modern society? As for open marriages, again I understand wanting to experience more, but why lock down into a marriage? Is it for the taxes, insurance, whatever? Wouldn't it be easier to do what you want if you didn't have to say you were married? I see that as just keeping a slam piece on lock down for the regularity. What happens when one of you comes across someone that forms a stronger connection? What happens when you want to have children?

I do not think people generally analyze how their relationship(s) benefit the group. If they really love someone, they often want to be in a relationship with them. It is that simple. The difference is merely, that for people who are poly, we do not reject people merely because we are already in a relationship. Some people will actively seek more relationships, others will not, but if they happen to come across one, they may be open to it. It really depends on the person.

If I came across someone who wanted to spend time with me but was poly I probably wouldn't turn her down, but she wouldn't be getting my full attention either I just see it as she likes to see lots of people.

Again, people are all different. Sometimes that is the case, but other times it is not. For me, personally, i do not really seek out any relationships. I do not really want to see a lot of people. However, if i were to meet someone, and it turns out our friendship turns into love, i will not avoid progressing the relationship simply because i am already in one (assuming they were also okay with that).

Love is not finite. It is absolutely possible to love multiple people, without it taking away from how much you love someone else. Sometimes it is equal(ish), other times it is not. I do not see it as a competition though: i could still love someone quite a lot who loves someone else more than me. Perhaps the bond is not quite as strong as it would be if they did not, but for me, that is okay. Not every relationship is perfect. As long as it is good for everyone involved, i think it can be worth it.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm loling at the people in here who think that being completely sexually satisfied by one person is the norm.

[hey]

I get the desire for group sex or multiple partners, but at the point of time in which I would want a serious romantic relationship I would have a hangup about it then. If dating someone else that "wasn't enough for me" I wouldn't really consider that to be a serious romantic relationship. Marriage/long term serious relationships are about more, to me, than just fulfilling my sexual desire, but if I had one of those facets that I couldn't fulfill through that one person then I wouldn't waste their time or prevent them from finding what they wanted. It just seems to me that poly relationships and open marriages are just fleeting and the chances of it breaking down are higher. My perceptions/hangups just trying to see it from the viewpoint of someone else.

Well, lets be real: no relationship is perfect. If you only give someone a chance if they are, then you're going to be alone your entire life. To me, it would be preferable to have 2+ relationships, which, combined, can satisfy all of your needs (or give you a break when you need it! Sometimes you might just want to stay home, while your SO might want to go out. If they have another SO who wants to go out with them, then everyone can be happy), then to be in one which cannot.

[FNH]

I do not think people generally analyze how their relationship(s) benefit the group..

My question was about benefit for the person involved. Like I said, I understand it a bit for the central person(I don't know the proper term), but for the rest of the group vying for the attention/affection of the central what is the benefit of that? How do you feel fulfilled from it? It would seem to me(based on my views and feelings that don't equate to everyone) that it wouldn't be equal. If the central were to relocate to another state would you follow? In a serious monogamous relationship it isn't uncommon for that to happen. For me love is finite in the category of who I want to change my life for, I can care for other people and all that but if I'm going to have someone be a part of my life then yes I only have enough for one. My love for my friends is different from my love for a SO.

[hey]

My question was about benefit for the person involved. Like I said, I understand it a bit for the central person(I don't know the proper term), but for the rest of the group vying for the attention/affection of the central what is the benefit of that? How do you feel fulfilled from it? It would seem to me(based on my views and feelings that don't equate to everyone) that it wouldn't be equal. If the central were to relocate to another state would you follow? In a serious monogamous relationship it isn't uncommon for that to happen. For me love is finite in the category of who I want to change my life for, I can care for other people and all that but if I'm going to have someone be a part of my life then yes I only have enough for one. My love for my friends is different from my love for a SO.

I do not understand what you mean by "central person".