I’m in an open marriage AMA

[TigersEyes]

Or not! But if you have any questions, I’m happy to answer.

There was sth

It’s about what marriage is for. And in my view, what it isn’t for is to provide a legal safety net for someone who wants to have the security of marriage as well as the freedom to have sex with whoever catches their eye.

Given there are no legal parameters around marriage - I mean, in terms of what you're allowed to do, as a couple, within it (you can cheat and lie, even be emotionally abusive, if you want to) - your view is meaningless.

I don't mean that rudely or unkindly, before I get jumped on again.

I just mean that you conduct it your way, and other people who are operating within the law can conduct it their way.

The whole idea leaves me cold - having relationships within a small, inevitably incestuous, community of people sounds deeply unappealing - but that doesn't mean other people who want to do it, shouldn't.

Telling people they should divorce or separate because they're not doing marriage properly is empty words.

I mean, they're not going to, are they? They want to be together. They want to be married.

People 'having their cake and eating it too' seems to be at the heart of this really annoying some people.

It's sort of like having an issue with gay, or inter-racial couples getting married. What's the point in even having an issue with it - it doesn't affect or detract from anyone else in the slightest.

Tbh dowager, it’s irrelevant to me what you think of my view. But the OP herself says this about why she stays married:

Also, being married provides a legal connection to my husband that I wouldn’t have otherwise.

So maybe her view of the purpose of marriage is also meaningless.

And no-one is telling the OP to get divorced , just wondering why you would stay married if you want to have sex with other people. Much the same as when people on here wonder about lots of things.

Marriage is different from co-habiting because it imposes rights and obligations (principally around property and parental rights) but fundamentally it is only different from living together because it is a legal contract. Being a contract, the parties are free to negotiate its terms. If they want to negotiate to 'have their cake and eat it', they are entitled to.

It is not illegal to be in a non-monogamous marriage. So power to the OP if she can make it work with her dh.

just wondering why you would stay married if you want to have sex with other people.

And that question has been answered repeatedly (it's because they want to stay married), you just don't appear happy with the answer.

We are not going to agree dowager - I think if you want to have sex with multiple partners you are deluding yourself that you are living as husband and wife with all the commitments you made to each other through your vows.

But I acknowledge that these days, words mean what people want them to mean, so I won’t be commenting further.

We are not going to agree dowager - I think if you want to have sex with multiple partners you are deluding yourself that you are living as husband and wife with all the commitments you made to each other through your vows.

I agree with you.

But that's according to your particular interpretation of marriage.
There are very many ways of living a marriage. Some of them involve excessive control, violence, etc. etc. I'd much rather live op's version.

Marriage vows have always been interpreted as you want to interpret them.

Ultimately marriage is a contract, with clear legal implications regarding property. The rest is up for interpretation.

I would argue that trust, honesty, respect and commitment are the most important moral considerations. All of these are perfectly possible in a this situation.

Marriage vows are open to interpretation?
The whole point of the vows is a promise to keep only to each other ‘forsaking all others’. How is this open to interpretation?
This is a marriage only in legal terms. It is not what most of us mean by marriage and personally I think it devalues what marriage is supposed to be.
If the OP wants multiple partners why marry at all?

I don't think that the forsaking all others line is a legal requirement, and many people won't use this wording at all. The prescribed wording is pretty short and simple, and basically only consists of a few lines.

Ultimately it is clear that there are many different interpretations of marriage. As long as you and your spouse agree on yours, then what's the problem?

If the OP wants multiple partners why marry at all?

Probably because they want to make a particular sort of commitment to each other. And they're allowed and able to do this.

I'm not sure what the critics hope to get out of this. Do you want the OP and her partner to break up? As much as you think they should, do you think they will?

They're consenting adults - as are the other people in the arrangements. It might not be for you - it's certainly not for me - but that's OK.

Marriage has evolved over the generations, as it should. I'm sure there were plenty of people sniffing when some women opted to ditch the 'obey' part, but they were making it work for them.

I mean, if we're going to get back to nuts and bolts of marriage, why get married at all if you're not going to always do as your husband says? Or have your father walk you down the aisle? Take your husband's surname, as nauseum...

The whole POINT o marriage is exclusivity. A promise to be sexual and life partners to the exclusion of others . What else can it be about? A financial arrangement?

Yes, Moon, it is a financial arrangement to me. I love my husband but wouldn’t have married him if it wasn’t for needing to be financially secure.

That’s so sad witch

Green Why do you find what Witch said sad?

There was a thread on here not long ago, advocating all women who have children marry in order to be protected legally.

Witch is one of the lucky people who wanted children and got married in order to be legally protected. She also said she loves her husband. Why on earth would you feel sad for her? I am genuinely puzzled.

I think it’s sad that a woman would feel she had to get married just to be financially secure, I think it’s sad that anyone would get married when they didn’t want to

It's not sad at all, it's good. It means someone can take a hit to their career potential in order to raise children and doesn't have to worry about the financial consequences. How can this be bad?

I think people who are going on about marriage vows are confused about what 'marriage actually' is. It's literally a legal contract. I got married in a registry office so my husband could get a visa to my country and for tax purposes. We said the bare minimum of the 'script' and didn't say anything about 'forsaking all others'. We are just as married as those of you who got married in a church and made all those other promises.

Have people spectacularly missed the point that their marriage didnt start off like this. It developed like this. They have just decided on a way to make their marriage work after years of conventional marriage and it turned out it improved everything, so theres no actual reason to get divorced, cos theyre happy being married. What would be the point of divorcing if neither party wants to

I don’t judge anyone who wants multiple partners. I think it’s incredibly sad to want to stay with someone who is in love with someone else but to each their own.

I do think however that generally these types of arrangements come about because one partner knows that the marriage isn’t working for them as it is and that if something doesn’t happen they are more likely to enter down the route of an affair. And for the other partner, accepting an open relationship is more likely to mean their partner won’t leave, even if it does mean they will be off sleeping with other partners and building emotional connections with them.

I also think that having the open marriage in the open is more not less likely to lead to infidelity, since there are so many more opportunities for a partner to cheat if it’s already known they sleep with (known) partners.

It's not sad at all, it's good. It means someone can take a hit to their career potential in order to raise children and doesn't have to worry about the financial consequences. exactly. This is what I find sad about it.

@summergems

“I do think however that generally these types of arrangements come about because one partner knows that the marriage isn’t working for them as it is and that if something doesn’t happen they are more likely to enter down the route of an affair.”

This may be the case for all of your friends in open marriages but it’s not my experience.

And neither of us vowed to forsake all others. We did start off monogamous, as I said, but it wasn’t something we stated at our wedding. So I really haven’t broken any vows.

I.m a solicitor, I have a feeling you will be needing me or one of my colleagues pretty soon, dealt with plenty of these, " Open Jobbies "over the years

don't tell me it was , "His ", Idea , but of course you believe it was yours, its usually the husband who makes the poor wife believe that, its called control love