Can you really be in a committed relationship yet still sleep with other people?

[notanumber]

I am a regular and I haven't namechanged, so it would me nice if we could sidestep any troll accusations.

I've been pondering this since reading the interview with George Michael in last weekend's Guardian.

Michael seems like a slightly troubled but very likeable man. He has been with his boyfriend Kenny Goss for a very long time and as such they are one of Celebrity Royalty's fêted couples.

However, Michael -in this interview and previously - has made clear that he routinely has sex with other people (clearly this is with Goss' consent or at least knowledge).

Now if they're happy, that's fine, I don't have a problem with someone having multiple sexual partners if that's their thing. I just find it very hard to buy that a couple can have this kind of understanding and for their relationship to be really truly committed.

It is hard work being committed to someone, and being sexually faithful is a big part of what makes it hard. The pay-off though (in my opinion), is a truly deep, fulfilling committed relationship. Basically, can someone be 'the one' if you routinely shag other people?

Of course, it's none of my bloody business what George Michael (or anyone else for that matter) does with his willy for fun. I'm not judging casual sex.

I would also like to stress that this is nothing to do with homosexuality for me - I'd feel similarly about a heterosexual couple who portray themselves as deeply committed yet regularly sleep with other people. I would be asking the question, well are you really that bloody committed then?

It really really isn't me being icky about anal sex. I don't get why someone would want a fist up their fanjo either, but this would in no way make me question their commitment to their relationship if it was something they only ever did with their partner.

So what do you think?

What a load of rubbish re gay men blah. As if heterosexual people rarely have sex outside their relationships Just look at the boards on here, friends and family and people are having affairs left right and central. if there is any difference (which I'm not convinced of personally) from the above posts it would appear that maybe gay men are more honest than heterosexual couples.

Also interested in whether anyone thinks that couples who do not have sex at all (the other side of the coin) are less comitted than those who are in monogamous sexually active relationship. if it's so important then surely people who don't do it can't be comitted either?

What is your definition of committed ?and is that the same as monogomous ?

I ,personaly, do think of committed relationships as mongomous.

I think the point you made about sex being the one thing we share with our partners and no-one else, which is what makes our relationship different with them from that with anyone else, is the important one.

For most monogamous couples, it's the sex that makes their relationship different. But I suppose for some, it isn't the sex. It might be the parenting, the emotional support, the love, etc. I don't know.

Waffle waffle.

If you've no kids you can do what the fuck you like

[literally]

DH and I aren't having sex at the moment (I mean in general, not while I type this).

I have a 5mo and am BF and she's up a lot in the night etc etc so our sex life has basically stopped. I just don't want it, and he respects that. I understand that it is quite normal for people to go through "dry spells" expecially when they have small babies.

I would not say that we are any less comitted because of this.

I think that there is so much more to a relationship than (to borrow from another thread) who sticks what where, and when. I would never think to judge the level of commitment of another relationship based purely on who sticks what where and when, if they say they are comitted, who am I to argue?

I can't spell comitted can I

My commitment to correct spelling is poor

I really do think it's the obsessively monogamous who are insecure. If your own wonderful monogamous relationship was so wonderful, you wouldn't constantly have your undies in a bundle about how everyone else's choices must be inferior to yours.

People who have agreed, negotiated, monogamy-free relationships may not be happier than the contented monogamous but they are an awful lot happier than the reluctantly monogamous or the paranoid monogamists who see everyone else as a threat to their precious pairbond.

Yes of course. Though it can sometimes be dificult when you've been committed.

I would certainly question whether anyone who regularly sleeps around is showing commitment to their partner.

But consider this scenario:

A errr... middle aged woman (mentioning no names, obviously!) been with dh 25 years and 100% monogomous since having children - a bit of a blip before that but WAY in the past. Very committed - no desire to split - love him like a brother - but physical attraction has waned.

Met someone of the opposite sex earlier this year via a sporting activity - become pretty close friends. Both wanting to stay with long term spouses (he's also been with his dw 20+ years but they have a difficult relationship.)

Gradually the conversations worked round to sex and - to cut a long story short - we have agreed to embark on a physical relationship totally separate from our friendship.

And so far it's great - fantastic sex and not affecting the friendship we already enjoyed.

Dangerous ground, obviously, but we both feel that we can cope with it. There is a certain amount of guilt but as far as our other halves are concerned we're trying to stick with 'what the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve over'. And we both believe that what we're sharing is making things better at home.

So flame me if you wish but - whilst it isn't 'harmless fun' we don't believe that we're hurting anybody.

MANC: Well, a partner who won't have sex with you forfeits the right to expect you not to have it elsewhere, certainly. And as to whether your H would prefer to know so he can flip out/leave/confess he's been shagging a whole women's netball team anyway, well you know the bloke and therefore it's your call as to what his preferences would be. Plenty of people would rather not know as they are perfectly happy with their own particular status quo.

Hmmm... that's interesting, thanks. Maybe I should start my own thread - but I do think I'd get flamed, wouldn't I? So many peopelon here have very young children and high ideals - that was me ten years ago!

I have pondered dh's reaction should he ever find out - and I'm going to be very careful to ensure he doean't. I fell 80% certain our marriage would survive and he'd cope with it.

What SolidGold said!

Just because in your relationship monogomy equates to commitment doesn't mean it does for everyone. Just as in religion commitment to a god can mean different things to different people even when it's the same faith - does going to church every week but doesn't read their Bible in the week make someone a more commited Christian than someone who doesn't go to church every week but reads their Bible every day? Don't answer that I don't want to go into that discussion!

My toddler and I have an almost daily discussion Toddler "coke's yucky eeeeeh" Me "Coke is yummy! Fish is yucky eeeeeeeh!" that's life! Just because the very smell of fish makes me retch doesn't mean it's wrong to eat fish.

Stop putting your lifestyle choice onto other people.

I suppose it all depends on the individual and the way the relationship works. I've tried the polyamoury route and it wasn't something that I wanted to pursue. For me, being told by someone that I deeply loved about the other people he was sleeping with was devastating. It then became a 'see you and raise you one' endless cycle of partners.

If I'm in love with someone I commit to that person wholeheartedly. But then, that's me. Different people obviously have different things that are acceptable to them. I suppose if all parties are honestly happy with the arrangement then it can all work out well.

MANC, I agree with SolidGold again!

Interesting question OP. From what I've heard from (heterosexual) friends and friends of friends in 'open' relationships, it's rarely satisfactory for both of them. It seems more often that it's one partner (usually the man) who wants the open relationship, and the other who struggles to accept it (or not). I think it is true that men have the ability to detach sex from love, whereas for women the two are more closely intertwined. Hence it seems more common for gay men to be promiscuous than gay women.

What I wonder is this: why is it so much more acceptable, when two people have mismatched opinions on monogamy, for the one who does not equate love with ownership to have to go against his/her preferences.
IE people talk about relationships where one partner is keener on open relationships than the other as though the open-relationships partner is being unkind to the other partner, whereas a monogamist who has succeeded in enforcing monogamy on someone who isn't that thrilled with it is seen as having done a Good Thing.

I'd be OK with an open relationship I think - for me the defining feature of a committed relationship is not the sex. (Similarly, the defining feature of a friendship is not not-having-sex - I don't have an objection on principle to sleeping with friends while remaining just friends (rather than partners).) I personally wouldn't be attracted to multiple committed, emotional relationships though (as many polyamorous people have) - just because I am not particularly good at the emotional side of things with one person, and find it hard work, so can't imagine sustaining it with more than one. Perhaps I have quite a "male" attitude to it all - sex and emotional connection are pretty separate for me, or at least they can be.

No because by having sex with other people you are not committed to that person.

Piglet: those are your feelings to be applied to your relationships. Other people conduct their relationships differently and are capable of being just as happy or unhappy as monogamists. I know several couples who have been happily married for decades while engaging in swinging and side-relationships. What they do is right for them and the opinion of lazy conformists not really of any interest to them.

If both partners are consenting then it is fine IMO. I have had a open relationship and although it was great fun when I was young it never got serious and we both split and ended in serious relationships.

It would bother me to do it now with my dp though because we have shared so much together and what we have feels special and there are other thing I do to keep a bit of spice. But my dp would never feel that way or be comfortable or happy with it he has a very good but harsh view on cheating.

Even though I have done it I cant see how it would work in a serious relationship though I am sure it does for some because me and that boy although we were dating a year there was never anything special or sacred felt for either of us and there was no respect although we had more trust than most relationships I have had funnily.

Yes, it's possible to be in a committed relationship with someone and have sex with other people. It's also possible to be in committed relationships with more than one person at a time.

www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html is a good place to start reading about polyamory. Books that often get recommended are the Ethical Slut [Janet Hardy + Dossie Easton] and Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships (Paperback)
~ Tristan Taormino

But yeah - it's entirely possible, though that doesn't mean it's something that would suit everyone.

ON a personal note I think i find it very difficult to understand. Sex and love are very entwined for me and my DH and I are not best friends and so a large part of 'us' is sex.

SGB, I think, in any relationship, it is easier to give up the things we want rather than force a partner to go along with something they'd rather not. Whether that be meat eating or swinging!