Being honest, if it didn't hurt anyone would you want this?

[Blubba]

I was thinking about this last night and although I absolutely love my husband, if I knew it wouldn't hurt him, I'd love to have a more open relationship and I wondered how many people would also prefer that if they knew it wouldn't cause upset / hurt to their spouse or partner?

In reality, my husband would never agree and so I'd never bring it up as I know it would cause an issue the fact I'd even brought it up but in an alternate universe where it wouldn't cause any upset, I think I'd prefer it to a complete monogamy.

Anyone else?

YABU - Even if I could do so without causing any problems in my relationship, I still wouldn't.

YANBU - I would prefer a more open relationship IF it didn't affect my current relationship/marriage.

It’s also more accurate to say that monogamy has rarely, until relatively recently, been expected of men. That men would have courtesans, mistresses, visit prostitutes and generally just, you know, boys will be boys sowing their wild oats, was the accepted norm in virtually every society globally for centuries; despite those societies expecting (and indeed, often enforcing) monogamy of women.

Imo it’s no different.

To other people it’s akin to child abuse.

On that thread there was a definite suggestion, by more than one poster, that swingers/anyone poly were sex craved morons who’d ultimately inevitably end up inviting predators to their home and endanger their neglected children.

Marriage is a financial contract.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to marry someone you don't love or don't want to sleep with, but it's not at all unusual to marry for security.

Sorry, don't know how to put PP into quotes.
Yes, I agree there are financial rights and obligations attached to marriage. But I know of several couples who specifically didn't want to marry (gay, straight, mostly second wave feminists/left-leaning sorts from the sixties and seventies), who nevertheless made their own arrangements to ensure that property, pensions, life insurance, etc were all organised so that each partner would be secure financially in the event of break-up/death, and who extended their sex lives to additional partners. They wanted a non-monogamous relationship, they wanted NOT to be married, but to provide lifelong emotional and practical support and security to each other, while remaining open to other sexual partners.

So there are other models available for relationships. I'm suggesting that the OP might choose that path, and put in the work to create such a relationship with a willing partner. Rather than opt for marriage, as it's 'off the peg', so to speak, and then go, 'Oh, but I don't want that part of it.'

Yeah, I've seen that. Also an assumption that they're OW who clearly shag married men behind the wives' backs and even if they aren't, they obviously wouldn't care if they were.

@toomuchlaundry

I'd give an answer, but, be honest, that wasn't really a question, was it? It was an implicit statement of "poly people are gross and have broods of unplanned, confused, illegitimate children", wasn't it?

It's not the gross generalisations that get me - it's the assumption that people like us are easy targets that I find really exhausting.

Thanks for your honesty. 😁

A group of 4 school mums were in a swinging group it lasted about 4 months and one by one divorce followed, it really is not a smart move, there is always someone it doesn’t work for.

Civil partnerships are the best option if you want to remove all elements of sexuality from the legal aspects of the relationship.

However, you cannot fully duplicate marriage/CPs outside of having one. You may set up your affairs in a way that works for you, but it won't be the same. There are various rights and protections unique to them.

It isn't always the best option for people for various reasons. But you can't duplicate it without doing it.

I mean, this is clearly mental?

And also the reason I won't justify myself. I'm not being lumped in with these lunatics!

I get the impression that swinging is a lot of work; in establishing boundaries, getting a balance right and the fact that one partner might change their mind and so on. I can see a lot of potential pitfalls.

A poster up thread said they met their husband whilst swinging. I thought swinging was defined as seeking sex from others while being in a committed relationship so I guess sometimes people meet their soul mate “accidentally “whilst swinging and decide to leave their current relationship?

@InPraiseOfBacchus I assume if someone goes to a swingers party and gets pregnant then it would be some random at a party.

And @CloseYourEyesAndSee the majority of pregnancies on MN seem to be down to contraception failures!

They clearly weren’t actual swingers. No-one with an ounce of sense would actually do that.

But like many women who find themselves pregnant in a far from ideal situation of any type, they’d have an abortion, surely?

@ComtesseDeSpair

It’s also more accurate to say that monogamy has rarely, until relatively recently, been expected of men. That men would have courtesans, mistresses, visit prostitutes and generally just, you know, boys will be boys sowing their wild oats, was the accepted norm in virtually every society globally for centuries; despite those societies expecting (and indeed, often enforcing) monogamy of women.

This is very true and very relevant.

I guess a lot of these "models" for committed relationships which allow for some sexual openness seek in some ways to replicate this in a more equitable way. Which is understandable.

The problem is that I think in the days when men were not monogamous and women were, very little emotional fidelity was expected of either men or women. The woman's job was not to shag around and to raise the offspring of the marriage competently (guaranteeing the man a healthy and pure bloodline). The man's job started and ended with providing for the woman and offspring. That was where the responsibility ended on both sides. No one gave a flying fuck about whether the partners satisfied their respective emotional needs.

It seems to me that the polyamory model seeks to allow sexual freedom within a framework of emotional fidelity but I'm not sure it quite works. I'm no particular fan of marriage: I think very often it uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut and the intertwining of financial dependency with sexual fidelity is toxic in many cases. But I am not convinced that long-term emotional dependence can coexist with multiple sexual partners.

You’d have to be the sort of person who can separate sex and love I think. Some people can and some can’t.

Sex is so intimate, you’re making yourself so vulnerable to another person. I suppose you have to detach and the sex has to be purely physical to protect yourself from feeling used/hurt or whatever.

To those who say that one partner usually ends up wanting to stop and it becomes a sticking point - it doesn't have to be! I've told DH we aren't seeing people separately any more and he accepted it immediately. We have already been very clear from the start that our relationship is the priority and we would stop everything if one person wanted to so it's really not an issue.

there are probably down sides to swinging but we haven't found them yet. We were planning to go to a club recently but had had a difficult couple of weeks so agreed not to go as we weren't in the right headspace together. Better that than go and someone gets upset.

I don't think for a second that our relationship is better because we swing/are open. However I know that we wouldn't be where we are if it hadn't been open at first/for the first couple of years at least. I also know we have a solid relationship with brilliant communication so we work through any and all issues that come up. That would be the case whether we swing or not.

There are potential pitfalls, but for a lot of people they are worth it.

The very original definition of swinging may have only included couples, but there are a lot of single swingers. It has massively evolved from car keys in a bowl at a couples party.

There will be people who leave their partner for someone they meet swinging, just as that happens at work, tennis clubs, cycling clubs etc. That’s part of life. Not remotely exclusive to swinging (and in my experience happens far less in swinging than in other hobbies or workplaces).

Plenty of singles on the swinging scene.

Not a chance. One relationship at a time is more than enough.

Yes. Purely for that initial buzz that I can't recreate with my husband, as much as I love him.

YANBU - I would prefer a more open relationship IF it didn't affect my current relationship/marriage.

Isn't that also known as "having your cake and eating it"?

Having multiple relationships is messy. You cannot have a relationship without emotions getting involved.

Again with the sweeping generalisations!

I've had a partner as well as multiple "cakes" (ugh) for fifteen years now. It's hardly a flawless hedonistic paradise, but there have been no serious problems, no lines crossed, and no feelings stepped on.

I am NOT a rare exception.

^Again with the sweeping generalisations!
I've had a partner as well as multiple "cakes" (ugh) for fifteen years now. It's hardly a flawless hedonistic paradise, but there have been no serious problems, no lines crossed, and no feelings stepped on.
I am NOT a rare exception.^

Are children involved?

If so, and they are all emotionally healthy and having all their needs meet I have no problem with it.

I'm late 60's and have not met anyone who would recommend it.

Sounds more like just a very varied cake bar.

I pondered this after watching Sex Life and wondered how it doesn't get complicated. Who do you decide who to spend special occasions with? How do you not get emotionally attached and end up being incredibly confused about who you want full time.

I can see the appeal when your long term relationship gets boring and you crave the intenseness of a new person but I don't think it would work for me.