Are there Reasonable Moral Grounds to Oppose Open Relationships and Marriages?

[painted wolf]

How is that different than a single person who isn't a virgin?

I know single friends who have had way more sexual partners than my friends in "polyamorous relationships" ever would.

wa:do

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

...and therefore it is morally right that your narrow views should be pushed upon others?

I am not forcing anyone to do anything.

 

[Barcode]

How is that different than a single person who isn't a virgin?

I know single friends who have had way more sexual partners than my friends in "polyamorous relationships" ever would.

wa:do

Those are your friends.

And no there isn't no particular difference (and the only real difference is the frequency of these encounters).

I happen to know couples in polyamorous relationships who openly are involved with several couples at a time.

If you are to compare a single person to a polyamarous couple the latter is more exposed to more people than the former.

 

[painted wolf]

Potentially exposed.... but, is this a moral ground to oppose such relationships?

Disease is something that everyone having sex should be aware of when picking a partner... even if you love them very very much.

wa:do

 

[idav]

Are there any reasonable moral grounds to oppose open relationships and marriages? If so what are those reasonable moral grounds?

I think love is more powerful when concentrated and not spread thin. Don't think that qualifies as moral but its logical. The moral aspect would be along the lines of needing much love for yourself at the expense of the others.

 

[Barcode]

Potentially exposed.... but, is this a moral ground to oppose such relationships?

Disease is something that everyone having sex should be aware of when picking a partner... even if you love them very very much.

wa:do

I think idav wrote an excellent response to your statement.

 

[Sunstone]

If you are to compare a single person to a polyamarous couple the latter is more exposed to more people than the former.

And you know this....how?

 

[Barcode]

And you know this....how?

It would appear more obvious cause you're (the couple) exposed to more people

 

[painted wolf]

I think idav wrote an excellent response to your statement.

You mean where he said his view wasn't based on the morality?

And how does that follow with your argument.... that it too isn't based on a moral position but a personal view of the nature of love?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

It would appear more obvious cause you're (the couple) exposed to more people

Again, this is an assumption based on the idea that the couple is more promiscuous than the individual.

Like all sweeping generalizations, it's flawed from the outset.

You are assuming that all open couples are swingers who engage in wild sex with as many people as possible... this is false.

wa:do

 

[Songbird]

It would appear more obvious cause you're (the couple) exposed to more people

That doesn't make sense. Think about it. A single person's partners are presenting the same opportunity for risk as a person who is part of a relationship. Being part of a couple doesn't inherently increase risk.

 

[Kathryn]

It's simple math.

The more people you or your partner have sex with, the more risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

It's not a matter of morality - it's a matter of reality.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If this is merely about a numbers game based on spreading sexually transmitted diseases or ridding ourselves of the risk of pregnancy, there are a LOT of methods couples can use to reduce and/or eliminate the risk of pregnancy or STD's.

What we have in our culture is still a rudimentary understanding of sex and sexuality. It's not that it's good or bad, but the squeamish view of sex outside the monogamous, heterosexual model is a symptom of how we perceive what sex and intimacy should look like.

 

[Kathryn]

If this is merely about a numbers game based on spreading sexually transmitted diseases or ridding ourselves of the risk of pregnancy, there are a LOT of methods couples can use to reduce and/or eliminate the risk of pregnancy or STD's.

If you're going to have sex with other people, yes, you can REDUCE the risk of STDs, but you cannot completely eliminate that risk.

You can control what you do, but you can't control what others do, especially in the relatively private realm of sexuality.

That's why, regardless of what level of trust you have with your sexual partner(s), you are still opening yourself to more risk, the more partners you or your partner have.

And if you go into a relationship knowing that more sexual partners will be included in that relationship, you are simply increasing your risk.

It's just factual. Nothing personal - till it's you sitting with your feet in the stirrups being diagnosed with something rather nasty.

 

[Barcode]

That doesn't make sense. Think about it. A single person's partners are presenting the same opportunity for risk as a person who is part of a relationship. Being part of a couple doesn't inherently increase risk.

See Kathryns statement

 

[Barcode]

If you're going to have sex with other people, yes, you can REDUCE the risk of STDs, but you cannot completely eliminate that risk.

You can control what you do, but you can't control what others do, especially in the relatively private realm of sexuality.

That's why, regardless of what level of trust you have with your sexual partner(s), you are still opening yourself to more risk, the more partners you or your partner have.

And if you go into a relationship knowing that more sexual partners will be included in that relationship, you are simply increasing your risk.

It's just factual. Nothing personal - till it's you sitting with your feet in the stirrups being diagnosed with something rather nasty.

Thank You Kathryn!

Maybe its me or how I word it but I've been saying this the whole time.

If polyamarous unions are a culture, you'd be exposed to a hell of a lot more people and even if you and your significant other practice safe sex, you can't control the actions of others.

I used swingers as an example because that is the most common form of open relationships- at least in the U.S. (meaning the legal kind).

People are asking the differences between couples and singles in relation to STD contraction. This is a very good example.

 

[McBell]

I used swingers as an example because that is the most common form of open relationships- at least in the U.S.

Really?
Source please.

(meaning the legal kind).

Please be so kind as to name these "illegal" kinds of open relationships.

 

[Barcode]

Really?
Source please.


Please be so kind as to name these "illegal" kinds of open relationships.

Polygamous relationships.

Although polyamorous is less specific the concept of being involved with multiple people is what I meant. Unions such as polygamy, polyandry

As far as proof hmmm I could post hundreds of links for swinger sites including craigslist advertisements for swinger parties but I afraid I would violate the forum guidelines

 

[McBell]

Polygamous relationships.

That's it?
ONE illegal open relationship?

Would not prostitution also be an illegal open relationship situation?

As far as proof hmmm I could post hundreds of links for swinger sites including craigslist advertisements for swinger parties but I afraid I would violate the forum guidelines

ROFLMAO

Are you serious?
The only thing you have to offer to support your claim that swingers are the most popular open relationships is the number of advertisements for swingers?

 

[idav]

You mean where he said his view wasn't based on the morality?

And how does that follow with your argument.... that it too isn't based on a moral position but a personal view of the nature of love?

wa:do

I also stated a moral position. If a person is in an open relationship it doesn't necessarily follow that the others are as well.