Are Open Marriages Immoral?

[cardero]

Jringer04 writes: Sounds very similar to the reason that the church of Corinth probably used back in the day. They prided themselves with their Greek thinking of absolute freedom including their sexuality. I might not be able to tell you what you should do with your life but you'll be answering to somebody someday and will be held accountable for it. There is nothing "honest" about an open marriage.

I can only present you the truth from observable experience. The evidence stands that in some cases the person that someone is with now has had one or many partners before their current relationship and may encourage other intimate relationships after this one dissolves. Marriage offers a faithful commitment to two people but does not give anyone the truth or right to own or posess another’s body. The evidence that people must sneak and hide to enact extra-marital affairs often leads to lying, deception and mistrust. An open and honest dialogue between two mature adults about the expectation of an adulterous encounter may not erase the hurt that this truth will happen but would be a more considerate, respectful approach then someone sneaking around. At lease both will know where they stand or be able to choose their footing.

Jringer04 writes: I might not be able to tell you what you should do with your life but you'll be answering to somebody someday and will be held accountable for it.

I am not quite sure who or what you are referring to here.

Jringer04 writes: There is nothing "honest" about an open marriage.

The only honesty that comes with any relationship that involves two or more people is the consent and the respect that people offer to share to the relationship. Honesty, trust and even love does not begin or end with sex or the marriage ceremony.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There are cases of open marriages working; Virginia and Leonard Wolfe could be an example. Despite Virginia having lesbian relationships on the side (I believe Leonard had some gay relationships on the side as well, but can't back that up), they were close to each other.

 

[Ringer]

I see that there have been a lot of replies so hopefully I can come up with one meaningful statement that ecompasses all of the points presented.

To put it plain and simple, I believe that an open marriage is a fancy way of approving adultry. Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure when I'm married there is always going to be a part of me that wishes I could be with a different woman from time to time. I think that's human nature. But as a Christian, I'm called to rise above my hedonistic tendancies. I beat my body and make it my slave and not the other way around. I find it hard to believe that someone can justify an open marriage as something that is beneficial to a marriage. While there are always exceptions to everything, a majority of the time I'm sure it creates guilt or resentment among the parties involved. If somebody feels the urge to be sexually intimate with more than one person, chances are they shouldn't have been married in the first place. With a God centered marriage, you do not need to look outside of your marriage for any emotional of physical needs. If a marriage is lacking in any of those areas than those issues need to be addressed. An open marriage, IMO, won't solve any of those problems.

I also understand that many of you might not hold the institution of marriage in as high of regard as the bible says we should. Moreover, I think that society has cheapened the actually meaning of it. But, even if you don't subscribe to the Bible's message, I believe it gives us good guidelines on how a meaningful marriage can be sustained.

I tend to jump all over the place because I get a lot of ideas racing through my head so please ask if you need clarification on anything.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

There are cases of open marriages working; Virginia and Leonard Wolfe could be an example. Despite Virginia having lesbian relationships on the side (I believe Leonard had some gay relationships on the side as well, but can't back that up), they were close to each other.

Ossie Davis and his wife Ruby Dee enjoyed their open marriage, too.

From what I remember, Frida Kahlo and her husband Diego had one as well.





Peace,
Mystic

 

[Ozzie]

I heard recently a reiteration of the interesting theory that love and desire are not the same. Desire requires freedom, love attachment. If so they are polarities. Why couldn't a couple understanding them as polarities experience an open marriage and be happy, so long as they remain together? (Till death do us part?)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are there any grounds for asserting that open marriages (marriages in which both partners willingly allow each other to have sexual partners outside the marriage) are immoral? If so, what are those grounds?

Maybe it depends on your morality (standards/beliefs).

Prostitutes rent their bodies for money. Their morality or standards are different than the house wife content on having one partner whom she is dedicated to.

Just My Opinion....

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Maybe it depends on your morality (standards/beliefs).

Prostitutes rent their bodies for money. Their morality or standards are different than the house wife content on having one partner whom she is dedicated to.

Just My Opinion....

Prostitutes are enacting a transaction...aside from that transaction, there's nothing to say they aren't content to have one partner to whom they are 'dedicated'. You really need to define dedicated.
There are - on the other hand - a vast number of housewives who in a lot of cases would look down on the 'lack of morality' inherent in enacting a financial transaction in return for sexual favours, but will give it away for free to the guy in the next cubicle at work and lie to their husband about it. They aren't having one partner to whom they are dedicated in that case, and in many cases - I know of several people personally - would go off their nut if they found out their husband was doing the same.
That strikes me as far less honest and moral than an open marriage.

 

[Sunstone]

To put it plain and simple, I believe that an open marriage is a fancy way of approving adultry.

An open marriage and adultery seem distinct in that, in an open marriage, consent is given for sex with others, while that's not so in adultery. Do you see that as a significant distinction?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Prostitutes are enacting a transaction...aside from that transaction, there's nothing to say they aren't content to have one partner to whom they are 'dedicated'. You really need to define dedicated.
There are - on the other hand - a vast number of housewives who in a lot of cases would look down on the 'lack of morality' inherent in enacting a financial transaction in return for sexual favours, but will give it away for free to the guy in the next cubicle at work and lie to their husband about it. They aren't having one partner to whom they are dedicated in that case, and in many cases - I know of several people personally - would go off their nut if they found out their husband was doing the same.
That strikes me as far less honest and moral than an open marriage.

You noticed I said is was just my opinion.....

Maybe "morality" needs to be defined......I don't know...

I do agree with you though.......

 

[Buttercup]

Maybe "morality" needs to be defined......I don't know...

Meh. Take my advice, leave that one alone.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

You noticed I said is was just my opinion.....

Maybe "morality" needs to be defined......I don't know...

I do agree with you though.......

Meh, I was just running with an alternate look at what you wrote...obviously the examples do have a different moral compass from each other.I'm just not entirely sure which one is more likely to point North.
I'm not sure it's possible to entirely pin morality down, unless you're one of those who believe there is such a thing as an absolute morality. Otherwise it tends to be a little bit of a slippery and subjective thing.
In my opinion, it's the lack of honesty, betrayal of trust and sheer hippocrisy in the second example I gave that's immoral, not the shagging of the workmate. Just like you, this is just my opinion, but as it apears to work for me, I'll stick to it.

 

[Isabella Lecour]

I still don't see why anyone would object to open marriages from a moral point of view, other than the a-typical...."god says it's not good." For me saying that god said anything makes me ask "which one?" So I can't judge morals by what one single god said about anything. Too often the gods are in conflict. I judge my morals on what's honest, what's loving, what's consiterate, on foresight, and on what's causes the least harm.

Any action or behavior can become twisted and harmful if taken to extremes or twisted into something that it wasn't met to be in the first place. I find the intents to be more enlightening that focusing on the action it self. In war, killing is acceptable by most; even morally right. Killing outside of war or even by a serial murder is immoral and unacceptable. The actions are the same but the intent is not. Both have an emotional payoff for the enactor but society reacts very different towards both enactors.

I think morals are very fluid in the specifics but it just reflects a social desire to maintain a decent sense of social harmony and therefore generally very basic. I find objections towards open marriage to be fluid across different sections of society.

 

[s2a]

Actually, I know two couples who have had open marriages for many years and are doing wonderfully.

Bully for them. Really.

I would still advise against such "couplings", for a host of valid reasons.

Sexual fidelity (as a pledge/oath) amongst married couples is not about "sex", per se. It's about promising to honor and respect your (presumptively) life-partner's equal commitment to shared interests...and mutual trust.

I have NO problem with uncommitted adults seeking as much and/or as many "partners" in sexual gratification as their hearts, minds, and libidos can maintain. Quite frankly, been there, done that...in spades...and may I say, no lasting regrets attached to my own experiences in this regard.

I just don't see the "point" of "open marriages". Why not just remain single, and openly promiscuous instead? If a marriage is a contract of convenience, or some advantageous financial arrangement of mutually gratifying fiscal profit...then why not just become business partners instead, and continue to f**k whomever you please, whenever you please?

Again, I'll state that I have no "moral" objections to any consenting "open marriage" agreements. I just haven't read (or "heard") any intellectual arguments favoring such "arrangements" that strike me as favorable, or preferable, to the the idea of promising another person that you will remain forever foremost in your thoughts and deeds...eschewing any and all other interests or "desires".

I'm married. I've been so for 18 years now (as of 10/14/07). I could easily enough slip away for an hour or two and enjoy some "strange" at a local pub, or pay (in similar fashion) for an impersonal "service" from a prostitute...and my wife would NEVER be the wiser. I haven't, I don't, and I won't...simply because I promised that I would value our pledged commitment to one another over ANY other spurious or alluring opportunity of momentary self-gratification.

Thus proclaims the position of a singularly atheistic perspective , and a socially progressive liberal.

Go figure.

 

[Inky]

I just don't see the "point" of "open marriages". Why not just remain single, and openly promiscuous instead? If a marriage is a contract of convenience, or some advantageous financial arrangement of mutually gratifying fiscal profit...then why not just become business partners instead, and continue to f**k whomever you please, whenever you please?

It's quite possible to fall in love with someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them and still be fine with the idea of them sleeping with other people. Just because somebody doesn't place importance on monogamy doesn't mean that their marriage is less emotionally significant to them.

Again, I'll state that I have no "moral" objections to any consenting "open marriage" agreements. I just haven't read (or "heard") any intellectual arguments favoring such "arrangements" that strike me as favorable, or preferable, to the the idea of promising another person that you will remain forever foremost in your thoughts and deeds...eschewing any and all other interests or "desires".

It sounds like it's not something you'd enjoy, and that's perfectly fine, but not everyone has the same wants and needs. It's possible that there's no favorable reason for you to do it, but that doesn't extend to the rest of humanity.

 

[Stellify]

While there are always exceptions to everything, a majority of the time I'm sure it creates guilt or resentment among the parties involved. If somebody feels the urge to be sexually intimate with more than one person, chances are they shouldn't have been married in the first place. With a God centered marriage, you do not need to look outside of your marriage for any emotional of physical needs. If a marriage is lacking in any of those areas than those issues need to be addressed. An open marriage, IMO, won't solve any of those problems.

Guilt and resentment can of course be involved, and an open marriage is certainly not a quick-fix to deeper emotional issues in a relationship. That's why, for an open relationship like that to work, the two people involved have to be utterly honest with each other about their feelings, not only about the open relationship in general, but about the specific extra-marital relationships each partner has. And the couple should go into it for the "right" reasons (ie: not because they're having problems and don't want to face the real issues). Normal issues still need to be addressed like they do in any relationship.

I also understand that many of you might not hold the institution of marriage in as high of regard as the bible says we should. Moreover, I think that society has cheapened the actually meaning of it. But, even if you don't subscribe to the Bible's message, I believe it gives us good guidelines on how a meaningful marriage can be sustained.

The couples I know who are in open marriages happen to hold their marriage in high regard and are extremely serious about it; I don't think it's fair to say that just because people are in an open relationship it means that they don't. They are still very committed and take the trust they have for each other very seriously. They just happen to trust each other to sleep with other people but stay completely emotionally involved with just the one partner. And even so, they have their rules about what they consider "adultery"; cheating is still possible, it just takes a different form.

 

[s2a]

It's quite possible to fall in love with someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them and still be fine with the idea of them sleeping with other people. Just because somebody doesn't place importance on monogamy doesn't mean that their marriage is less emotionally significant to them.

I agree. But I see no advantage afforded in espousing that perspective.

It sounds like it's not something you'd enjoy, and that's perfectly fine, but not everyone has the same wants and needs. It's possible that there's no favorable reason for you to do it, but that doesn't extend to the rest of humanity.

I wasn't extending any summary conclusion for the "rest of humanity" to either "favorably" accept, or subliminally act within. Marriage is a conscious act of both emotional and pragmatic motivation.

I simply put forward the notion that (as you suggest) that even "people in love" needn't (necessarily) be "married".

Marriage defines/describes more than a declared "love bond", or emotional attachment.

Heck fire..."going steady" in high school is hardly a "marriage" of any sort,,,yet it may epitomize every generic aspect of being "in love", whilst suiting one's own emotional "needs" of the time.

If we objectively consider the inescapable statistical fact that 50% of all marriages "fail" [in the US], then it's not unfair to conclude that at least 50% of all marriages are predicated upon either unspoken, or unfulfilled, expectations that remain unmet or [otherwise] misunderstood by an alienated/disaffected spouse.

I was (to my best recollection) first "in love" with a really cute gal when I was six years old. I was not ready to married to her at that point/time in life. I can also relate that any aspects of any mature and self-aware sexuality...then utterly escaped my more jejune sensibilities.

Just know that I harbor no moralistic disfavor upon those couples that enjoin/promote "open marriages".

I don't view such "understandings" as being inherently sinful or "immoral".

But...I think I can fairly question any claims of added value or lasting merit to such a qualified [emotional] "understanding", and I await any legitimately provided example of such a qualified "arrangement" that has successfully persisted [in love] for more than eighteen years.

I invite either your provided compelling anecdotes or statistical evidences to support any notion that "open marriages" present any sort of advantageous relationship amongst two people "in love", as compared with most committed companionships of felicitously consenting fidelities.

 

[Inky]

I simply put forward the notion that (as you suggest) that even "people in love" needn't (necessarily) be "married".

Marriage defines/describes more than a declared "love bond", or emotional attachment.

I think I get what you're getting at. But, I don't think all good marriages are defined by the values you put out. Some people do get married simply because they think they're good for each other in the longterm and want to form a more official permanent partnership, and that's a perfectly legitimate reason to do it. Others want to raise a family, and that's another fine reason. They have just as much reason to get married as couples who want to be monogamous.

I've heard the exact same argument against intentionally childless spouses, that marriage is about children and so people who don't want kids just shouldn't get married because they're missing some essential ingredient. I don't think it's necessarily our place to tell anyone else what marriage is "about". Sexual fidelity has merit when it's something both partners get personal satisfaction from, and that's the reason it has merit in those cases, not because it causes them to conform to a sort of ideal spousal relationship.

 

[Yerda]

Again, I'll state that I have no "moral" objections to any consenting "open marriage" agreements. I just haven't read (or "heard") any intellectual arguments favoring such "arrangements" that strike me as favorable, or preferable, to the the idea of promising another person that you will remain forever foremost in your thoughts and deeds...eschewing any and all other interests or "desires".

I don't know if I have an intellectual argument in me. In this case I reckon, "we want to", seals it in terms of the whys.