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

[Drolefille]

So we established that if a reasonable moral stance against an open relationship and marriges( does the op mean and/or?) were to exist the morality would have to be derived from a consiquential/objective/biological point. Now back to the ops post,

yes a moral stance based off of a consiquential/objective/biological point would be reasonable. Does this cover all questions or do i need to come up with possible examples? can they be theortical?

Examples would be good rather than just a meta answer. A theoretical answer is better than none at all, but one with actual rationale would be better.

I really am hoping someone will come up with something, honestly.

 

[Drolefille]

I know... I gotcha I see our conversation as one of looking for truth. I think we are both hitting on a few different ones. I also see it as a matter of personal preference, but I think that it becomes a moral issue if it is damaging to the family unit. I don't really know of any cases of open marriages... only other cultures where women are corralled together and owned like property. I've seen things on TV indicating they are really unhappy. Also Mormons, and I have seen things on TV (true stories) where they are like prisoners of their husband.

When you say bring a third person into the relationship in some way, what way do you mean? Would they live with you, or would you just spend one week a month away from home?

Open relationships vary wildly. Sometimes it means moving in and living as a triad (or more) sometimes it means only seeing other people at parties or on weekends away, that sort of thing. Sometimes it means never bringing someone else home at all.

 

[Averroes]

I think open relationships are as a whole, morally neutral. I feel the same about monogamous relationships.

For someone who is unsatisfied with one partner, and open relationship can be beneficial because they will be able to have intimate relationships, but not harm others by cheating or lying about his or her ability to be monogamous. For people who are completely or primarily satisfied by one partner, then monogamy or monogam-ish relationships may work best for them. They wouldn't necessarily feel happy involved in an open relationship.

So I suppose I could argue a moral benefit, but I don't actually think it's necessary to have one because relationships only have moral value to me in their ethical and honest nature, not the shape of the relationship itself.

Hmmm

Nothing which involves emotions, feelings, love, etc is morally neutral....

If I love someone I find them morally good.....

 

[Reine]

Young girls and grown women are very different things. This is about consenting adults, not young girls.

And I know a few very self confident grown women who are not ashamed of enjoying casual sexual relationships with men. They don't have sex because they don't think men will like them, they have sex because they enjoy having sex.

If that were true would it be such a common cultural practice?

wa:do

I wasn't aware that bringing people home to become intimate with one of the parents was common. Sorry if I sound dumb, ... but where is this common in the US?

Also, I don't think women really want satisfying sex with no relationship. If that were he case, a vibrator would do just fine and last all night. Sorry to be blunt. ... can't beleive I said it, but it's true.

 

[Drolefille]

Hmmm

Nothing which involves emotions, feelings, love, etc is morally neutral....

If I love someone I find them morally good.....

Certainly, and good loving relationships are good things. Unhealthy, dishonest and damaging relationships are bad things.

Relationships themselves can be either good or bad (or anywhere in between) and as such the relationship itself is morally neutral in my eyes. The form of the relationship doesn't matter so much as the quality of it.

 

[Averroes]

Certainly, and good loving relationships are good things. Unhealthy, dishonest and damaging relationships are bad things.

Relationships themselves can be either good or bad (or anywhere in between) and as such the relationship itself is morally neutral in my eyes. The form of the relationship doesn't matter so much as the quality of it.

That is interestering that you find the quality of the relationship does not morally shape it....if that makes sense.

 

[Drolefille]

I wasn't aware that bringing people home to become intimate with one of the parents was common. Sorry if I sound dumb, ... but where is this common in the US?

I think you misunderstood, single parents dating other people is very common though and it is essentially the same thing with one fewer person.

But there are about 500,000 polyamorous families in the US per the last Newsweek article on the topic. It's not shockingly rare.

Also, I don't think women really want satisfying sex with no relationship. If that were he case, a vibrator would do just fine and last all night. Sorry to be blunt. ... can't beleive I said it, but it's true.

If men just want sex and no relationship they have their hands/fleshlights/etc. right? But that's not true either right? And no, a vibrator, while fun, is not the same as the real thing.

So it's your belief, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[Drolefille]

That is interestering that you find the quality of the relationship does not morally shape it....if that makes sense.

No, I think I'm just having a hard time being clear.

An individual relationship can have moral value, but the concept of relationships in the aggregate is morally neutral. So my very good relationship with my boyfriend is a good, positive relationship. My recently ended relationship was not a good one because it wasn't honest enough and wasn't healthy. Both of those were 'open' relationships. Therefore I wouldn't say that open relationships are inherently morally good or bad in general. (I'm not basing that off my anecdotal experience but a philosophical/moral/ethical standpoint. The anecdote just illustrates the point.)

 

[Reine]

My boyfriend thinks my other relationships are awesome. His wife thinks his relationship with me is awesome. And so on.


Which is an issue independent of open relationships. There's not a lot of research on open relationships out there, but there's none at the moment that indicate any harm to children exposed to them.

Also it must be pointed out that the majority of those girls you know of probably have monogamous parents, in name at least. Serial monogamy and cheating are both things that make monogamous a bit more monogamish.


What do you mean by the bolded, sex in front of kids? Obviously not ok. A random string of people in and out, also not ok, the same as it wouldn't be ok with a single parent dating one person at time to constantly bring that kind of unrest into children's lives.

But as pointed out, that happens in monogamous relationships, not just polyamorous or open ones. You're assuming that an open relationship = open casual sex where in reality there are a wide variety of relationship styles.

I think open relationships are as a whole, morally neutral. I feel the same about monogamous relationships.

For someone who is unsatisfied with one partner, and open relationship can be beneficial because they will be able to have intimate relationships, but not harm others by cheating or lying about his or her ability to be monogamous. For people who are completely or primarily satisfied by one partner, then monogamy or monogam-ish relationships may work best for them. They wouldn't necessarily feel happy involved in an open relationship.

So I suppose I could argue a moral benefit, but I don't actually think it's necessary to have one because relationships only have moral value to me in their ethical and honest nature, not the shape of the relationship itself.

No, I didn't mean sex in front of the kids. I meant intimate display of affection that kids whitness their parents doing. Kissing on the lips, long hugs, holding hands and so on. I didn't realise you were involved in an open relationship. You would know first hand then how it is for you. I still think most kids would have a hard time with it though, because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.

 

[Iti oj]

Examples would be good rather than just a meta answer. A theoretical answer is better than none at all, but one with actual rationale would be better.

I really am hoping someone will come up with something, honestly.

I'll keep it biological ( been reading dawkins this week)
A society of people both male and female who behaved in open relationships is dangerous to our selfish genes. First off, the rate at which stds spread would be dangerous, but so would the rate of birth defects and genetic disorders would spread through the general population do to the increased mating pool. Incest would become more likely albeit accidental Also how would we know who the father was? Males would be less inclined to help with child rearing. Lastly with so much mating going on their would be less energy for child rearing food gathering etc. This is not stable.

Now a population with only males having multiple partners would be more stable then if females only had multiple partners. First off one man can impregnate many woman, but a woman can only get knocked up by one male at a time. When a male has multiple partners but the female does not parenthood is not hard to determine. Only the males with the best genes would spread their dna and the females with the best genes would be more likely to pass on traits (favoritism). With a female multi partner picture any male could be the lucky one to have his lil swimmers make it.

Now a monogamise relationship allows a mixture of both weak and strong genes to spread. It also has the least likely hood of accidental incest. It also decreases competion from the 1 to many ration and raises competion to the pure open. monogamy increases child birth rates but it also increases how much time and energy can be put into child rearing. populations grow but parents are better able to rear their children.

Just to list a few... any of these can be harmfull to an idividual and or the race ergo (what an awesome word) moraly wrong. Some are more moraly wrong then others. Some are close or equal. pick your posion.

posted off my phone

 

[Averroes]

No, I think I'm just having a hard time being clear.

An individual relationship can have moral value, but the concept of relationships in the aggregate is morally neutral. So my very good relationship with my boyfriend is a good, positive relationship. My recently ended relationship was not a good one because it wasn't honest enough and wasn't healthy. Both of those were 'open' relationships. Therefore I wouldn't say that open relationships are inherently morally good or bad in general. (I'm not basing that off my anecdotal experience but a philosophical/moral/ethical standpoint. The anecdote just illustrates the point.)

Ok I understand you. I guess now that I see it for what it is, I just don't agree.. I just don't believe relationships of themselves as a whole hence aggregate, are morally neutral.

 

[painted wolf]

I wasn't aware that bringing people home to become intimate with one of the parents was common. Sorry if I sound dumb, ... but where is this common in the US?

I had no idea that the US was the only culture...
If you look at human history you will find a very large percentage of cultures around the globe have engaged in "nonnuclear" parenting strategies.
From polyandry and polygamy to polyfidelity, concubines and cicisbeo there are dozens of variations on what a "healthy family" looks like.

Also, I don't think women really want satisfying sex with no relationship. If that were he case, a vibrator would do just fine and last all night. Sorry to be blunt. ... can't beleive I said it, but it's true.

I can't believe you said it either... a vibrator is nice, but nothing compared to a skilled living partner.

(Unless you have Sunstones gal...then all bets are off because she is a work of art. )

wa:do

 

[Reine]

So we established that if a reasonable moral stance against an open relationship and marriges( does the op mean and/or?) were to exist the morality would have to be derived from a consiquential/objective/biological point. Now back to the ops post,

yes a moral stance based off of a consiquential/objective/biological point would be reasonable. Does this cover all questions or do i need to come up with possible examples? can they be theortical?

Well, I'm not arguing on the behalf of open relationships, I am saying that I would personally opose them but only oppose them from a legal point of view if it could be objectivlly shown that they are harmfull and damaging in some way. I don't think that can be proven, but if you know of any instance... then yes, let us here them

 

[Averroes]

Well, I'm not arguing on the behalf of open relationships, I am saying that I would personally opose them but only oppose them from a legal point of view if it could be objectivlly shown that they are harmfull and damaging in some way. I don't think that can be proven, but if you know of any instance... then yes, let us here them

Do you believe (since you mentioned the word legal) open relationships would survive parental custody disputes?

 

[Iti oj]

Well, I'm not arguing on the behalf of open relationships, I am saying that I would personally opose them but only oppose them from a legal point of view if it could be objectivlly shown that they are harmfull and damaging in some way. I don't think that can be proven, but if you know of any instance... then yes, let us here them

Already posted some. But it might be to biologicalyu based for your taste. Its the last post on the previous page.

 

[Reine]

Open relationships vary wildly. Sometimes it means moving in and living as a triad (or more) sometimes it means only seeing other people at parties or on weekends away, that sort of thing. Sometimes it means never bringing someone else home at all.

I was just wondering if the man that you are in an open relationship brings you home for supper to meet the wife, or to the kids birthday parties, or family reunions?

 

[painted wolf]

I was just wondering if the man that you are in an open relationship brings you home for supper to meet the wife, or to the kids birthday parties, or family reunions?

I think that would depend on the people involved.

wa:do

durp... this was specifically about Drolefille's relationship.... durrr.... don't mind me.

 

[Drolefille]

I'll keep it biological ( been reading dawkins this week)
A society of people both male and female who behaved in open relationships is dangerous to our selfish genes. First off, the rate at which stds spread would be dangerous, but so would the rate of birth defects and genetic disorders would spread through the general population do to the increased mating pool. Incest would become more likely albeit accidental Also how would we know who the father was? Males would be less inclined to help with child rearing. Lastly with so much mating going on their would be less energy for child rearing food gathering etc. This is not stable.

Well first, condoms prevent both STDs and children.

But how is the mating pool actually increased in size. Instead I would think the mating pool stays about the same it's just redistributed. Genetic disorders would have the same likilhood to be propagated, particularly since women can only have so many kids at the same speed.

We also have DNA tests. (Also in some species and in some human cultures there's actually been evidence that not knowing the father can mean that all involved males are more likely to support the mother and children.) That said, we're not a product of our instincts, we have our brains instead. Men raise children that aren't their own all the time in our culture.

I don't understand how the biological = moral since an unthinking animal doesn't have morals.

Now a population with only males having multiple partners would be more stable then if females only had multiple partners. First off one man can impregnate many woman, but a woman can only get knocked up by one male at a time. When a male has multiple partners but the female does not parenthood is not hard to determine. Only the males with the best genes would spread their dna and the females with the best genes would be more likely to pass on traits (favoritism). With a female multi partner picture any male could be the lucky one to have his lil swimmers make it.

Which might be why culturally polygyny or harem style partnerships are the most common form of non-monogamous relationships we've seen throughout history (barring cheating relationships.)
Again, I fail to see a moral grounding here?

Now a monogamise relationship allows a mixture of both weak and strong genes to spread. It also has the least likely hood of accidental incest. It also decreases competion from the 1 to many ration and raises competion to the pure open. monogamy increases child birth rates but it also increases how much time and energy can be put into child rearing. populations grow but parents are better able to rear their children.

Just to list a few... any of these can be harmfull to an idividual and or the race ergo (what an awesome word) moraly wrong. Some are more moraly wrong then others. Some are close or equal. pick your posion.

I'm not seeing individual harm that isn't a fault in a specific relationship and not due to the existence of open relationships as a whole, also there's a lot of speculation and assumption about childbirth etc. that doesn't really apply to modern society. We're not slaves to our instincts, if we were we wouldn't care about morals.

 

[Reine]

I think you misunderstood, single parents dating other people is very common though and it is essentially the same thing with one fewer person.

But there are about 500,000 polyamorous families in the US per the last Newsweek article on the topic. It's not shockingly rare.



If men just want sex and no relationship they have their hands/fleshlights/etc. right? But that's not true either right? And no, a vibrator, while fun, is not the same as the real thing.

So it's your belief, but that doesn't make it true.

I don't think single parents have the ideal set up either... and some women claim that a vibrator is better than the real thing. So, that would be their truth. I never did say that my beleif is the same as truth... but only that it is my truth. Subjective truths should not be made into law unless their is a proof of damage. I have no proof of damage, but I have my experiences that lead me to my own internal truths. These are truths that I take a personal stand on, by living in a way that includes them, and demonstrating this to my kids. If I find later that I am mistaken, I modify my stance.

 

[Drolefille]

I was just wondering if the man that you are in an open relationship brings you home for supper to meet the wife, or to the kids birthday parties, or family reunions?

I know both my boyfriends' wives and am very good friends with one, and becoming good friends with the other. One doesn't really have family, the other's far enough away we haven't done 'family stuff' really. Long distance relationships have their own struggles I talk to both on the phone.

Neither have kids, one wants them, it might happen, but we're not ready yet.

When I was in a relationship with a couple who had a kid, yes I was there for parties, events, and bought the kid presents. I had not been introduced to the kid as a partner, as we weren't there yet, and we didn't get there for other reasons, but that was the intent of things. This couple was one that had a large 'family by choice' with friends staying there most weekends when they're not travelling out of town for work so my presence wasn't odd.