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

[Falvlun]

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."

How is it illogical to point out that less oppressive feelings about sex might result from open relationships becoming more mainstream?

As for your comparison, marriage probably does decrease the likelihood of reckeless sexual behavior, so I'm not quite sure what your point is there. Obviously, that shouldn't be the only reason you get married, just like decreasing society's sexual guilt load shouldn't be the only reason you personally should engage in an open relationship. But it still remains that both aspects can be an added benefit of their respective types of relationship.

The term relationship is so fluid that it has become transparent in today's society.

How does a term become transparent? :areyoucra

Might as well not even call it a relationship in the first place.

Why? Because it doesn't conform to some narrow one man + one woman relationship definition? There are all sorts of different types of relationships-- I have a different type with my fiance, than I do with my sister, than I do with my coworker's, than I do with my dog.

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.

How can you say absolutely that someone is always going to get hurt? How do you know? If getting hurt were the criteria for avoiding certain types of relationships, then surely we should ban marriage and child rearing all together. Those are just chock full of heartaches.

What are you referring to when you say "there is no such thing as an emotionless yet consensual relationship?" Obviously, you're gonna be emotionally invested in your main partner, the one with whom you've made this open relationship agreement. You may even be emotionally invested in long-term sexual partners (like friends with benefits sort of deal.) And if we are just talking about the one night stand sort of sexual experience, there may or may not be an emotional component (though I'd assume you must like the person), but how the heck is that different than any other sort of one night stand or casual fling perpetrated by a single (or cheating) person?

 

[Barcode]

Without giving you a lengthy response I will respond in order of quotes

1) It's bad logic because in religious communities they (In Judeo-Christian tradition) say marriage prevents promiscuity. Similar to the religious view having an open relationship doesn't decrease the liklihood to cheat. For one, me sharing myself with others especially in an environment such as swinger parties devalue what I hold to be intimacy, rather it is done not just out of curiousity but for pure physical pleasure. In my view such environments don't promote "real" intimacy. By this I mean intimacy that has an emotional connection. You cant love multiple people (adults in a sexual relationship) equally.

2) We all define our relationships based on how we feel and what we put value in each other. For me, what is the difference between an open relationship and me having a girlfriend or wife and a "booty call" on the side. At least with a monogamous relationship, we can define this behavior as "cheating" which holds a negative connotation.

3) Because if I am married and even though we have a consensual relationship, if I choose to value other women sexually than my wife there is a greater chance foe her to become jealous and if this continues greatly in frequency, there is an even a greater chance for her to be emotionally neglected. Just because people have open relationships doesn't mean they do sexual activities together. An open relationship of this kind can give way for people to be sneaky without even disclosing to their partner. Of course this is the same with monogamous relationships, but the difference is, in monogamous relationships, if a man or woman does it there is a negative label which may (or may not) have a psychological influence on their behavior. With open relationships this is almost accepted because its the nature of the relationship. Such relationships have no definition since the only relationship these people have are lukewarm emotional attachments and physical/sexual attraction because they lack substance they are thus transparent.

How can I value my wife if I value other (several) women at the same time?

 

[Songbird]

How can I value my wife if I value other (several) women at the same time?

If you can't, don't. Some can.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How can I value my wife if I value other (several) women at the same time?

It helps if they're naked, making out in your bed.

 

[Me Myself]

How can I value my wife if I value other (several) women at the same time?

Only because you can´t value more than one woman at the same time shouldn´t mean nobody gets to do so

Edit:

I can respect that you don´t want an open relationship (neither do I at least now) but that doesn´t mean nobody wants one or that it wouldn´t make happy other people ev en if it wouldn´t make YOU happy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think it's important to remember that there are more alternatives than open marriage and complete monogamy. And if a person has a sexual partner other than their spouse, if this is done openly, it can help reduce the harm of things like STDs.

If a cheating partner is exposed to an STD, he or she may be reluctant to share this with his or her spouse, or to alter his or her sexual practices for safety's sake. After all, if your spouse doesn't think you're seeing anyone else, saying "my lover might have chlamidya, so let's use a condom tonight just to be safe" might cause an - ahem - undesireable reaction.

OTOH, if a person feels free to be open and honest about seeing other people, he or she is in a better position to safeguard the health of his or her spouse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can I value my wife if I value other (several) women at the same time?

How can a parent value all his children if he has more than one?

 

[Songbird]

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.

Of course not! That's absolutely not the point, or else we'd be discussing how bad everything is because not everyone practices as they should. Not everyone drives safely, consumes alcohol responsibly, parents lovingly, or throws paint on a canvas well. That's not a case to make something forbidden or even bad.

I think you genuinely don't understand how an open relationship could be enjoyable or positive for some people. That's okay. And I think your motivations for dismissing open relationships are good. You don't want people to be used, objectified, neglected, etc. Consider that some couples - both partners - want and enjoy open marriages, and they feel safe, loved, and valued in them. Whatever the details are in them, I couldn't say.

 

[tomteapack]

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

No, there are no reasonable reasons of any kind to oppose homosexual relationships.

 

[Storm]

No, there are no reasonable reasons of any kind to oppose homosexual relationships.

That wasn't the question.

 

[dawny0826]

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

Only when those engaging in such open relationships and marriages overstep their own boundaries and knowingly and without care, inflict pain upon one another. Mean and cruel doesn't ring moral to me.

 

[Barcode]

If you can't, don't. Some can.

I highly doubt that. Nobody loves multiple things equally.

A father doean't love his daughter the same as his son because more likely he'll treat his daughter differently (with love of course) differently. Sure a parent can love their multiple children the same with intensity but as far as treatment love is done differently and uniquely.

 

[Barcode]

Only because you can´t value more than one woman at the same time shouldn´t mean nobody gets to do so

Edit:

I can respect that you don´t want an open relationship (neither do I at least now) but that doesn´t mean nobody wants one or that it wouldn´t make happy other people ev en if it wouldn´t make YOU happy.

Value doesn't equate happiness.

I am specifically referring to personal value.

Listen or read carefully......

A man or woman in an open relationship can be committed, sure, but where I question value depenss on the frequency of when he or she engages in sexual activity.

Also again nobody addresses STD's.

If my wife and myself continue to engage in swinger parties. In comparison to a monogamous relationship, the former is exposed to more people. Swingers don't regularly give each other STD check ups. If they do then that is one organized swinger party. By continuously exposing myself and wife how am I valuing her?

Nobody is giving a logical response.

Edit: Value doesn't necessarily equate to happiness.

At least in a monogamous relationship if I transgress it is known I don't value her, but what about open relationships? How am I valuing her?

 

[Barcode]

Just because you're responaible you still have a dependency on other people to be responsible.

A person with genital herpies with no visible outbreak can pass it on to other people. Even if these are familiar partners. Being virally infected doesn't mean you'll be symptomtic. In these kind of relationships you can't be another adults keeper. In these cases you rely on others to be responsible for themselves.

 

[Barcode]

Of course not! That's absolutely not the point, or else we'd be discussing how bad everything is because not everyone practices as they should. Not everyone drives safely, consumes alcohol responsibly, parents lovingly, or throws paint on a canvas well. That's not a case to make something forbidden or even bad.

I think you genuinely don't understand how an open relationship could be enjoyable or positive for some people. That's okay. And I think your motivations for dismissing open relationships are good. You don't want people to be used, objectified, neglected, etc. Consider that some couples - both partners - want and enjoy open marriages, and they feel safe, loved, and valued in them. Whatever the details are in them, I couldn't say.

Ok. Define open relationships if they don't involve sex?

 

[Falvlun]

2) We all define our relationships based on how we feel and what we put value in each other. For me, what is the difference between an open relationship and me having a girlfriend or wife and a "booty call" on the side. At least with a monogamous relationship, we can define this behavior as "cheating" which holds a negative connotation.

The difference is that your partner knows that you are having sexual relationships with other people; it is something you have dicussed and agreed upon. You really don't see how that is different from sneaking around, going behind someone's back?

Cheating is wrong. It is always a negative, hurtful thing. However, if you and your partner have agreed to having sex with other people, it is not cheating when you go have sex with other people.

3) Because if I am married and even though we have a consensual relationship, if I choose to value other women sexually than my wife there is a greater chance foe her to become jealous and if this continues greatly in frequency, there is an even a greater chance for her to be emotionally neglected. Just because people have open relationships doesn't mean they do sexual activities together. An open relationship of this kind can give way for people to be sneaky without even disclosing to their partner.

Obviously, you and your wife wouldn't be good candidates for an open relationship. How does that translate to "no one could make an open relationship work?

I also don't understand what exactly you think someone in an open relationship would be sneaky about.

Such relationships have no definition since the only relationship these people have are lukewarm emotional attachments and physical/sexual attraction because they lack substance they are thus transparent.

Huh? How can you say that? That would be like me saying "All monogomous relationships have lukewarm emotional attachments because everyone is only thinking about all the sex they could be having with other people, therefore they lack substance." Such blanket statements are ridiculous.

How can I value my wife if I value other (several) women at the same time?

How can I value my dog when I pet other dogs at the dog park?

Answer: I love and appreciate my dog more. We have a deep understanding; I train him, I feed him, I hike with him, and at the end of the day, he is the dog snuggling with me on my couch. Those other dogs at the park, they are cute and I like to pat them; I like dogs in general. But I like my dog the best.

Shorter answer: There are gradations of value. It is not all or nothing.

 

[Falvlun]

Also again nobody addresses STD's.

Really? I guess I'm nobody. :sad:

 

[painted wolf]

The only moral reasons I can think of are if one partner is uncomfortable with the idea and is pressured into it... and if one partner uses the relationship as emotional blackmail against another.

But those aren't inherent to the system any more than emotional abuse is to any other form of relationship.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

I highly doubt that. Nobody loves multiple things equally.

A father doean't love his daughter the same as his son because more likely he'll treat his daughter differently (with love of course) differently. Sure a parent can love their multiple children the same with intensity but as far as treatment love is done differently and uniquely.

The question shouldn't be whether someone can love two or more people equally. Just what does equal mean when applied to love, anyway. The question should be whether someone can love two or more people each fully and appropriately. The latter seems quite common.

 

[McBell]

I highly doubt that. Nobody loves multiple things equally.

A father doean't love his daughter the same as his son because more likely he'll treat his daughter differently (with love of course) differently. Sure a parent can love their multiple children the same with intensity but as far as treatment love is done differently and uniquely.

interesting how you are unable to distinguish between "differently" and "equally".

Of course, with your whole argument being based upon your own inability to distinguish between the two....