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

[Falvlun]

The point about STDs seems valid. In an open relationship there is no agreement that anyone is going to always use protection, and protection can fail.

But there isn't that guarantee in the single lifestyle or the supposed monogomous one either.

In monogamy there is an agreement that also serves to preserve the health of both partners. In open relationships that can't happen because even if your partners agree to safe practices, there is no agreement that all of their other partners will as well.

That's a pretty big assertion to claim that it "can't" happen. Why couldn't it? Just as in a monogomous relationship, it is assumed that your partner isn't sleeping around on you, why couldn't it be assumed in an open relationship that protection will always be used?

And as others have pointed out, communication is key. This could, and probably should be, something discussed before entering into an open relationship.

It is simple biology and statistics - more sexual partners = increased spread of STDs.

That's not necessarily the case. It only takes having sex with one person with an STD to get one. Or I could have sex with 3 people without STDs or using a condom and not get an STD then.

Having dumb sex increases the spread of STDs, not lots of it.

 

[lunamoth]

But there isn't that guarantee in the single lifestyle or the supposed monogomous one either.

But we are not comparing to a single lifestyle or a 'supposed' monogamous one. We are comparing open marriages to monogamous marriages. The cheating factor (and not revealing all information) would be a wash between the two situations.

That's a pretty big assertion to claim that it "can't" happen. Why couldn't it? Just as in a monogomous relationship, it is assumed that your partner isn't sleeping around on you, why couldn't it be assumed in an open relationship that protection will always be used?

The more open, the more partners involved, the less control there is over the transmission of STDs among those involved. It really is a numbers game. If the relationship is open, it is also open to the introduction of STDs from some third- or fourth-hand connection.

Is it safer than a sexually active single person - sure. Is it safer than a monogamous marriage - no. Is there a cost to society associated with increased STDs? Yes. Thus the moral connection.

And as others have pointed out, communication is key. This could, and probably should be, something discussed before entering into an open relationship.

Communication and trust are important in all relationships. You can't say that open marriages have better communication and trust than monogamous ones (unless you have done a study on this and found otherwise). So, as I said above, that's a wash.

That's not necessarily the case. It only takes having sex with one person with an STD to get one. Or I could have sex with 3 people without STDs or using a condom and not get an STD then.

Having dumb sex increases the spread of STDs, not lots of it.

If you are in an open relationship with others who are also all in open relationships, then person A can still get an STD from partner B, through removed partners C - Z'. The situation you describe would not be in an open marriage, but in a situation where there are four people all committed to each other, and not open to further relationships outside the group.

 

[blackout]

The question really is, What is it We're "Open" to?

Are we Open to committed multiple partnerships?
Are we Open to other partners in certain situations only?
Or are we Open to "anything goes"?

 

[Barcode]

Huh? How are the morals for transmitting STDs in an open relationship different than transmiting an STD in any sort of sexual relationship?

You have a responsibility to be upfront with your partner about any STDs you may have-- this goes for whether you are just like sleeping around or whether you are in a monogamous relationship or whether you are polyamorous. And if you don't trust your partner, or don't want to roll the dice, then wear a condom.

Um, you do know genital herpies is skin-to-skin so even wearing a condom won't protect you. As far as the comparison I am referring to how risky having an open relationship is. There is no gurantee either way sure, but there is a greater risk if this so-called open relationship allows for multiple partners {assuming those involved are not drug users}.

 

[Barcode]

From the few married couples I know in open relationships, this area is covered by the ongoing conversation and agreements they have regarding the details of their polyamory. They don't carelessly engage in random relationships, and they partner only with people they know very well. Usually their extra-marital partners are long-time lovers that both people in the marriage approve of. I don't know how they manage the emotions of polyamory, but I do know that they are far more cautious and slow-moving than most of the single people I know, and they sleep with fewer people than my single friends. Of course, "polyamory" covers a wide range of lifestyles, but it seems people have the impression it means having relationships with gobs of lovers at one time. In my handful of observations, polyamorous folks have fewer partners than serial monogamists.

Edit: Oh, I just realized I mistook "open" for "polyamory". I suppose open is a subset of polyamory, but I don't think my answer is quite relevant to your post in that light.

That is the problem we cannot assume everyone is a responsible human being. For example swinger parties are great examples. Men who bring their wives and share them with other men and their wives. From what I do know, usually these parties consist of alcohol and drugs which in turn increases the liklihood of risky sexual behavior.

Again using personal examples is fine, but not valid enough to justify or even validate having an open relationship.

 

[blackout]

That is the problem we cannot assume everyone is a responsible human being. For example swinger parties are great examples. Men who bring their wives and share them with other men and their wives. From what I do know, usually these parties consist of alcohol and drugs which in turn increases the liklihood of risky sexual behavior.

Again using personal examples is fine, but not valid enough to justify or even validate having an open relationship.

Well, if you're not going to *validate* having an open relationship,
then you can no more 'validate' single uncommitted people who have sex
with multiple/varried/changing partners.

Who can say to anyone-- YOU can only have sex with one person at a time,
AND you cannot have any new sexual partners without at least a ?? six month? respite in between.
Otherwise you may spread disease.

There is only personal choice in the matter.
No one has the power to "validate" another person's life, or not.

 

[blackout]

That is the problem we cannot assume everyone is a responsible human being. For example swinger parties are great examples. Men who bring their wives and share them with other men and their wives. From what I do know, usually these parties consist of alcohol and drugs which in turn increases the liklihood of risky sexual behavior.

Again using personal examples is fine, but not valid enough to justify or even validate having an open relationship.

Men don't BRING their wives.
Their wives go because they WANT to.

They go TOGETHER-
because they want to, as a couple.

Sexism dies hard.

 

[Songbird]

Men don't BRING their wives.
Their wives go because they WANT to.

They go TOGETHER-
because they want to, as a couple.

Sexism dies hard.

Zing.

 

[Songbird]

That is the problem we cannot assume everyone is a responsible human being. For example swinger parties are great examples. Men who bring their wives and share them with other men and their wives. From what I do know, usually these parties consist of alcohol and drugs which in turn increases the liklihood of risky sexual behavior.

Again using personal examples is fine, but not valid enough to justify or even validate having an open relationship.

Who's assuming?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Now, are we talking about personally opposing open marriages? Or legislating opposition?

Because if it's the first, kvetch away. Hope it makes you feel better.

But if it's the second, where open marriages are fair game for civil suits against them? (I can see it now, The People vs. Mystic).....It'll get ugly quick. :curtsy:

 

[atanu]

As a Muslim who sees the validity of polygamy. It is a bit difficult for me to come up with a substantial moral reason to outlaw Open Marriages. but, thought I would take a shot at it.

Is it valid equally for man and woman?

 

[atanu]

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

IMO, it would be ideal, when all concerned have equal willingness. But that is an ideal only and except in exceptional cases never seen. What are the moral grounds to oppose laissez faire?

 

[Falvlun]

But we are not comparing to a single lifestyle or a 'supposed' monogamous one. We are comparing open marriages to monogamous marriages. The cheating factor (and not revealing all information) would be a wash between the two situations.

Personally, I thought we were comparing open marriages to all sexual lifestyles, ie, if this sort of sexual behavior is already accepted, than why shouldn't that sort of sexual behavior also be accepted.

The more open, the more partners involved, the less control there is over the transmission of STDs among those involved. It really is a numbers game. If the relationship is open, it is also open to the introduction of STDs from some third- or fourth-hand connection.

I will concede that it is probable that the more sexual partners you have, the greater risk you have of contracting an STD. However, how much of that is simple correlation, and not causation? For example, I still find it likely that ultimately, smart sex with many partners has a better batting average than dumb sex with less partners. But, perhaps dumb people are more likely to have more sexual partners, hence raising the correlation.

Also note that the correlation is the number of sexual partners you have had that increases your risk of STD, not the sort of relationship you were in when you had them. If you are currently in a monogomous relationship, but had 4 sexual partners before you married your husband, you have had a total of 5 partners. If I, on the other hand, only had 1 sexual partner before I entered into an open relationship, and then procede to have 3 partners during that relationship, I still will only have had 5 sexual partners-- the exact same number as you. Our risk for contracting an STD was exactly the same.

Is it safer than a sexually active single person - sure. Is it safer than a monogamous marriage - no. Is there a cost to society associated with increased STDs? Yes. Thus the moral connection.

By the same reasoning, you must also conclude that it is immoral to be a sexually active single person, no? And if we already accept that, then why not this?

In addition, I believe that open relationships have the ability to make our attitudes about sex healthier. Instead of the current sneaking around going on in many marriages, you have an acceptable way to release some of that excess horniness. It could put sexual spice back into marriages-- there is an excitement about a new partner that is hard to match in a tried-and-true one, but the tried-and-true knows you better and there is the comfort and deep love associated. Playing the two off of each other could help you appreciate your husband/wife all the more. So, there also may be a benefit to society as well.

Um, you do know genital herpies is skin-to-skin so even wearing a condom won't protect you. As far as the comparison I am referring to how risky having an open relationship is. There is no gurantee either way sure, but there is a greater risk if this so-called open relationship allows for multiple partners {assuming those involved are not drug users}.

I didn't know that actually. Thanks. (Upon looking it up, a condom doesn't provide 100% protection against contracting herpes, but it does provide some.) As for the rest, see above.

 

[Barcode]

Well, if you're not going to *validate* having an open relationship,
then you can no more 'validate' single uncommitted people who have sex
with multiple/varried/changing partners.

Who can say to anyone-- YOU can only have sex with one person at a time,
AND you cannot have any new sexual partners without at least a ?? six month? respite in between.
Otherwise you may spread disease.

There is only personal choice in the matter.
No one has the power to "validate" another person's life, or not.

The fact of the matter is open relationships lead to more problems. There is always room for multiple partners to be hurt compared to one. Also, again as I mentioned, swinger parties tend to involve drugs. This in turn increases serious risk to contracting STD's along with other problems. Sure there is choice. There is always choice. I can choose to shoot cocaine in my veins tonight but the fact of the matter is there is more risk as far as hurt in open relationships than monogamous.

You cannot engage in a relationship without emotions no matter how consensual. You might as well not call it a relationship to begin with since the perameters of the relationship are obscured.

 

[Barcode]

Men don't BRING their wives.
Their wives go because they WANT to.

They go TOGETHER-
because they want to, as a couple.

Sexism dies hard.

Sigh*

A play on words sure, still men do in fact "share" their wives. If a woman chooses to objectify herself fine by me.

Ignorance endures...

 

[Barcode]

Who's assuming?

Because you used your own friends as an example to validate your views. Like I said because you know responsible people in open relationships doesn't mean everyone practices it. Hence, I used swinger parties as an example.

 

[Barcode]

In addition, I believe that open relationships have the ability to make our attitudes about sex healthier. Instead of the current sneaking around going on in many marriages, you have an acceptable way to release some of that excess horniness.

The above bold is bad logic. That is almost as bad as saying "people should get married because it decreases the liklihood of reckless sexual behavior."

The term relationship is so fluid that it has become transparent in today's society. Might as well not even call it a relationship in the first place. There is no such thing as an emotionless, yet consensual relationship. Someone is always going to get hurt. The issue is how to decrease the liklihood of those who can be hurt.

 

[Sunstone]

In addition, I believe that open relationships have the ability to make our attitudes about sex healthier. Instead of the current sneaking around going on in many marriages, you have an acceptable way to release some of that excess horniness.

The above bold is bad logic. That is almost as bad as saying "people should get married because it decreases the liklihood of reckless sexual behavior."

The term relationship is so fluid that it has become transparent in today's society. Might as well not even call it a relationship in the first place. There is no such thing as an emotionless, yet consensual relationship. Someone is always going to get hurt. The issue is how to decrease the liklihood of those who can be hurt.

Bad logic? Please, by all means, do elaborate.

 

[Sunstone]

Someone is always going to get hurt. The issue is how to decrease the liklihood of those who can be hurt.

Why worry about a little hurt? Life is full of hurts. Most don't kill you. Many are worth the pain.

 

[Sunstone]

The term relationship is so fluid that it has become transparent in today's society. Might as well not even call it a relationship in the first place. There is no such thing as an emotionless, yet consensual relationship.

Meaningless word salad.