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

[Songbird]

See Kathryns statement

Kathryn's statement doesn't apply to yours. You essentially said single people who sleep with others present less risk of disease than married people (or the equivalent).

Think of it like this: A single person who has sex with three people, and a married person who has sex with three people. Why would the married one present more risk??

 

[painted wolf]

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.

That's not a problem with open relationships but with honesty of an individual with their partner.

wa:do

 

[Falvlun]

Sigh*

Because if your lifestyle involves multiple people the risk is greater

Let me guess. You replied, again, without reading post 153. Because if you had, you would see that I already addressed this. Why do I even bother?

PS. You also missed post 197.

 

[idav]

That's not a problem with open relationships but with honesty of an individual with their partner.

wa:do

The moral dilemna would depend on the individuals and emotional attachments are usually something that isn't controlled so it could cause unintentional harm though preventable.

 

[painted wolf]

The moral dilemna would depend on the individuals and emotional attachments are usually something that isn't controlled so it could cause unintentional harm though preventable.

Just like any relationship.... emotional harm isn't limited to one type of human interaction.

You may as well be opposed to all relationships.

wa:do

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.....

We've been through this before, Kathryn.

We're not just talking intercourse here.....but cybersex, sexting, web cams, etc.

That's just the tip of the iceberg that introduces sexual experiences that carry no risk whatsoever for the consenting parties.

 

[idav]

Just like any relationship.... emotional harm isn't limited to one type of human interaction.

You may as well be opposed to all relationships.

wa:do

Introducing another person into the mix lends to having a moral backlash that is avoided when a couple agrees to a monogamous relationship. It is the major difference when others become involved.

 

[Sunstone]

Introducing another person into the mix lends to having a moral backlash that is avoided when a couple agrees to a monogamous relationship. It is the major difference when others become involved.

Could you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[idav]

Could you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what you're saying.

Relationships are complex enough without bringing in more elements into the equation. To me it just seems like eventualy someone gets hurt or it would at least be a common occurence.

 

[Sunstone]

Relationships are complex enough without bringing in more elements into the equation. To me it just seems like eventualy someone gets hurt or it would at least be a common occurence.

Thanks for the elaboration! To me, you're going to get hurt in just about any relationship. It's largely a matter of how much hurt you can tolerate that determines the kind and quality of relationships you will have. A friend of mine once said of her daughter, "Her loves will be few and far between", because her daughter had very little tolerance for emotional pain.

 

[blackout]

Introducing another person into the mix lends to having a moral backlash that is avoided when a couple agrees to a monogamous relationship. It is the major difference when others become involved.

No. Because when a person is Poly in nature,
the backlash will be caused in the attempt to BE something else.

 

[Sunstone]

No. Because when a person is Poly in nature,
the backlash will be caused in the attempt to BE something else.

I don't think that point is well enough understood. When you are something by nature, you tend to create all sorts of problems trying to fit another mold.

 

[painted wolf]

Introducing another person into the mix lends to having a moral backlash that is avoided when a couple agrees to a monogamous relationship. It is the major difference when others become involved.

Given how flimsy most monogamous relationships are, I doubt it's all that great a backlash. :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[blackout]

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.

You can't control what your 'monogamous' spouse does either.

A spouse in a non poly relationship
will be far more apt to lie and conceal
when they find they also need what another relationship on the side
is providing them.

So anyway, essentially I agree with you- you can't control what others do.
ever. in any situation.

 

[blackout]

Given how flimsy most monogamous relationships are, I doubt it's all that great a backlash. :sarcastic

wa:do

Perhaps so many relationships and marriages fail in part
to the fact that a significant number of Poly-natured people
are trying to force themselves into the only model they know-
the model that everyone around them expects.
"what everyone does" "the way it is" "the way it's done" and all that.

I'll point out as I usually do
that divorce/remarriage, and dating
is serial polygamy/poly.

 

[blackout]

I don't think that point is well enough understood. When you are something by nature, you tend to create all sorts of problems trying to fit another mold.

Exactly.

In the end, it's hurtful for all involved.

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps so many relationships and marriages fail in part
to the fact that a significant number of Poly-natured people
are trying to force themselves into the only model they know-
the model that everyone around them expects.
"what everyone does" "the way it is" "the way it's done" and all that.

I'll point out as I usually do
that divorce/remarriage, and dating
is serial polygamy/poly.

Quite likely... my wife and I are in an "open" relationship... in that we openly discuss our sexual natures with each other.

We don't hide when we are attracted to another person, we talk about it honestly to each other and we don't judge the other as bad for it.

Humans are sexual creatures and we need to come to peace with it. We have been happily together for 15 years... and I can only credit our "openness" with each other for that.

Plus, you don't need to have sexual contact to have a relationship with someone... even a physical one.

wa:do

 

[idav]

No. Because when a person is Poly in nature,
the backlash will be caused in the attempt to BE something else.

When your monogomous by nature you shouldn't be with a poly is what it comes down to. If there is honesty there is still backlash. The other thing is that you can be Poly and still get feelings hurt from being open.

 

[blackout]

When your monogomous by nature you shouldn't be with a poly is what it comes down to. If there is honesty there is still backlash. The other thing is that you can be Poly and still get feelings hurt from being open.

Partners get their feeling hurt over all sorts of things,
especially when they are not well suited for each other.
In whatever ways.


What exactly is this backlash?

 

[idav]

Thanks for the elaboration! To me, you're going to get hurt in just about any relationship. It's largely a matter of how much hurt you can tolerate that determines the kind and quality of relationships you will have. A friend of mine once said of her daughter, "Her loves will be few and far between", because her daughter had very little tolerance for emotional pain.

Thats interesting. Getting hurt in a any relationship is more of a reason to keep it as simple as possible and like I had said before, throwin in extra complications. Love triangles are justed headed for Springer.