For those who don't practice monogamy (solidgold? etc) How on earth do you not become jealous?

[poshsinglemum]

I am just curious as I am the most jealous insecure person ever and it's a horrid and unattractice trait. Is jealousy natural?

It is the secrecy that makes it inethical. I don't know what your point is.

Tadpoles: if a person is honest about refusing monogamy, any other person they have sex with (or discuss having sex with) has the option to walk away. Affairs involve decieving at least one person and not allowing them enough information to make their own choices.
Why do you find that difference so hard to comprehend?
If you re gong to say that some people go along with an open relationship when they are unhappy about it, then those people are adults and responsible for their own choices. What is important is that no one has the right to enforce monogamy on a partner, or try to, by means of force, spying, emotional blackmail or any other form of controlling behaviour.

"Affairs involve decieving at least one person and not allowing them enough information to make their own choices.
Why do you find that difference so hard to comprehend?"

I never said I didn't understand the difference - you did. I stated that the only difference between an affair and an open marriage is that in the former there is a level of deception (although, as I have already stated I think people often adopt the 'blind eye' approach) whereas in the latter there is (theoretically) not.

However, when I have met people who claim to be in 'open relationships' (to get around the 'affair' connotations) it can be quite surprising how differently their partner views their relationship! For instance, how open is each party prepared to be - what if emotions come into play and so on.

In practice, I imagine that open relationships are as fraught with problems, and dishonesty, as any other type of relationship.

To put it another way, I would be very wary of someone who was trying to claim some kind of moral highground for having a non-monogamous lifestyle simply on the basis of an 'open relationship'.

As it happens I couldn't care less whether everyone is practising non-monogamy. I am not remotely interested in other people's sex lives or in being some kind of morality ambassador.

However, I dislike hypocrisy and I will therefore restate what I have said before - there are lots of different ways in which people break the monogamy 'ethic' - affairs, divorce and remarriage, open marriage, 'swinging' polygamy and so on.

I am not arguing that any one is necessarily better than the other. I am simply saying they exist so plenty of people do not adhere to the monogamy ethic.

The point is simply that being honest about your refusal to engage in monogamy is more ethical than presenting yourself as monogamous to everyone (including your official partner) while shagging around in secret. Monogamy is not, in itself, morally superior to any other way of conducitng your sex life, whether that's celibacy, polyamory or weekly gangbangs (as long as whatever sex you have is consensual of course).

SGB, I actually agree with your first statement; it is definitely more honourable to be up front about your intention not to be monogamous than it is to be deceive. We part company over your second assertion, though.

apologies for rogue "be"

"Monogamy is not, in itself, morally superior to any other way of conducting your sex life, whether that's celibacy, polyamory or weekly gangbangs (as long as whatever sex you have is consensual of course)."

This is very much a minority view. I would suggest that as a society monogamy is viewed as pretty much the only acceptable way to conduct a sex life.

Calling a relationship 'open' is a way to avoid the negative connotations of an affair which is universally condemned by society (although probably remarkably common). I also find it quite amusing how a relationship that was previously monogamous suddenly becomes open when one or other of the parties in it develops an attraction for a third party.

There are quite a few (usually men) out there who proclaim their relationships open in order to attract a new sexual partner when their long-term female partner has quite a different view of the relationship!

"Monogamy is not, in itself, morally superior to any other way of conducting your sex life, whether that's celibacy, polyamory or weekly gangbangs (as long as whatever sex you have is consensual of course)."

But surely this is a very narrow view of monogamy. Are you saying that relationships are defined purely in terms of sexual behaviour?

Monogamy also encompasses caring and dare I say loving another person. The sexual side is just a part of that.

In the Christian marriage service, you promise to love, homour and obey- though the obey is not mandatory and I chose not to have that in my ceremony.

I think it would be interesting to throw the sex out of the window here in this discussion and focus on caring, responsibility, love etc - for one person- rather than the alternative, which is loving no one especially and having several friendships which involve sex.

what about it then Engel?

Engel- I was opening up the discussion, not saying anything was better or worse. I was though saying that monogamy is about loving a person, and not simply about having sex exclusively with them.

Sure, there will be people who can love one person and have that as theri main relationship and still be friends with and have sex with other people. There are though a lot of people I am certain who would say that if you do love someone you would not want to hurt them by having another close sexual relationship with anyone else- unless you have discussed it all first and they agree to you behaving like that.

But that scenario brings the whole discussion full circle- which is relaitonships are not simply about one person's wants and needs- they involve everyone else involved too.

So the person who does love someone but still wants sex with someone else can go ahead as long as her a) main partner is happy and b) the others are happy to share him/her.

As other posters have said it's a bit of a spectrum- some people behave like this and it is "understood deceit" ie turning a blind eye to affairs which some of the upper-classes seem to do .

Duchess of Devonshire- now aged 91- is quoted in interviews as saying she knew all along of her DHs many affairs but ignored them as "that's what men do".

Maybe that is simply a posher way of having a non-monogamous relationship?

Well the Christian aspect is completely fucking irrelevant to lots of people. But this idea that you can only love someone if you own them is wierd. People who have more than one child love them all. It's perfectly possible for people to love more than one partner at the same time.
As to this being a minority viewpoint, again, so what? Do bear in mind that every single progressive movement in human society (from the abolition of slavery to votes for women to whatever you can think of) started off as a minority opinion.

I am sorry but how does a negotiated relationship discussed with everyone involved and their feelings taken into consideration equate to ' understood deceit'.?

The scenario you described is not ethical non monogamy it is called rationalising living with a liar and a cheat. If someone wants to do that, knock yourself out - but it is not the same thing.

SGB- I am no longer a practising Christian but I am still a bit shocked at how you can be so dismisssive of what is in fact the main religion of the UK.

You may consider it "fucking irrelevant to lots of people" but if you did some research i am pretty sure that you'd find most marriges- which are in fact still the "norm" for couples and families- are in church.

CR: I think most marriages take place in register offices these days. Given, you know, the number of UK residents who are Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish etc (whose marriages are only legal if performed by a registrar) let alone the number of people who are free from religion.
Christianity is relevant to Christians, no one else is obliged to give a flying fuck about it. I certainly do not take into account other people's imaginary friends when making decisions about my life.

Snowmama- i think you are engaging in semantics. Unless either of us talks to the person I quoted, then neitehr of us know what the arrangement was- some suggest the situation was not so one-sided as I describe here.

I know it is not the same as agreed "open relationships" or whatever anyone wants to call them, but what I was doing was pointing out that some couples manage to turn a blind eye to each other's affairs or sex with friends- whatever.

You don't know any more than I do whether them man in my example was a cheat or liar- what he did was public knowledge so I don't think it's valid that you extrapolate too much from my one example of what may in fact have been an "open relationship".

Well why don't you find out then SGB?

And as for other religions, their marriage services are much longer and more "religious" than the quickies in a Christian church. ( I have actually been invited to a Hindu wedding next month in the UK which lasts the entire day.)

So I don't really seee your point there. They are religiious ceremonies whether they are in a "church" or not- if you want to split hairs.

You seem to not understand that Christianity is the basis of much of our legal system , so whether you give a flying fuck or not is irrelevant.

Cabbageroses: the length and religious content of non-Christian religious ceremonies is not exactly the point - if you add together all the other faiths along with the faith-free then you probably end up with something near equal numbers to those who get married with a Christian ceremony. Mind you, some sects of some religions actually include provision for polygamy...
But a great many marriage ceremonies are free from religion anyway. That, just like monogamy/polyamory options, is a matter for the individuals concerned.
And I think you might find that a fair bit of the basis of contemporary UK culture, legal system etc, has its roots in pre-Christian societies such as Roman and Greek civilisations. Christianity itself is basically a patchup job of various myths stitched together and rebranded BTW.

Actually I am not engaging in semantics. I am arguing that there is a clear and material difference between making a agreement and turning a blind eye.

It is possible that it was an agreed position, though that is not how it sounds ...instead it sounds a little like the well worn tale not want wanting to rock the boat and give up a 'certain quality of life'.

I think that men openly cheating on their wives to whom they have publicly promised monogamy is an issue for monogamy.....not non monogamy.

So, this polyamory....

Person A in 'open relationship' with 3 people.
Person B in 'open relationship with Person A and 2 others.
Person C in 'open relationship' with Person B and 4 others....

...so in theory, total people in sexual contact just there is 10. Am I right?

So you could potentially be sexually sharing 20-30 people between you?

What happens when you decide one part of your open relationship isn't working? Do you just fade it out, or do you officially 'break up' with that person?

I find the thought quite mindboggling, tbh, just the logistics. I mean, who do you know who first to turn to when you are sad? Or overjoyed because something wonderful has happened? Or is it situational? Do you turn to person 1 when sad, person 2 when happy. Or make it 'topic based'?

How do you ensure that everyone is safe sexually? Do you have agreements, or whatever?

I am genuinely not trying to complicate it, but I just have such a different experience. I mean, I know that DH has only had sex with me. He knows I have only had sex with him. We both know that if we don't want another baby, we use a condom, but don't need to worry about STD.

SGB, where you go wrong, imo, is in characterising monogamous relationships as being synonymous with ownership. And "open" relationships as progressive, come to that.

SGB- you have a frequent habit of posting your own opinions as if they were facts. Are you aware of this trait?

I am not going to engage in a proplonged debate about Christinaity as I am an agnostic. However, it is your opinion that this religion is comprised of myths cobbled together. There is really no "BTW" about it.

Your opinion is simply an opinion- as are Richard Dawkin's and the Archbishop of Canterbury's. The whole point about faith is that it is just that- and God etc cannot be proved or disproved.

Please don't patronise or insult people's intelligence by making statements as if they are true when they are your own take on a topic.

No one can seriously present any myths as facts, CR. That's why they are called myths, and not facts. It is a fact that the Christian Old Testament is pretty much identical to the Jewish Torah, for example. But both of them are collections of mythology.