Is SGB around?

[spiderslegs]

Open relationships - tell me more.

That's a good point BOF and I was thinking the same myself. SGB will have loads of useful info, but not necessarily from the perspective that Spiders needs. And that will make a huge difference to her take on the whole thing.

Books???!!! You mean I've got to buy more fucking books?

I was hoping for pearls of solid brass wisdom straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Ethical Slut? If that means wearing faux leather shoes, banking with the Co-op, and turning veggie, I'll stick to being a non-ethical slut.

Thanks all- will do SGB, spoke to DH last night but he was rather more than less happy about anything approaching an open relationship. Ever. Suicide would be preferable apparently (worry not, he's a master of hyperbole).

So we may have more talking to do.

I would never do anything he didn't want me to.

I don't even have anything in mind now - I have just seen so many relationships ripped apart by infidelity & think love doesn't have to own a person.

He kept saying he could never lose his children - he had a shit childhood which has obviously coloured his views, but that's part of my point really - I want an OPEN relationship in the respect that we are OPEN about everything & we're very different people but I love him very much.

& he does get jealous about me flirting etc, which is also my point to him, if we're open & honest about everything it doesn't matter, he works away a lot & when I spoke to him last night he told me he'd been unfaithful which I was nonplussed about (not that I don't care at all - I do, but sexual infidelity bothers me less than dishonesty), I think he was lying anyway to test my reaction, & I told him about an article I read (which was one of the things that got me started thinking) about a couple who were quite instrumental in counter-culture (wish I'd kept it, can't remember who they were) & the wife said 'yes the 60's & 70's were quite bad in terms of infidelity'

& they'd been together 60 years & loved each-other very much & for 20 years of that they'd done all kinds of shit, but obviously loved each other & been so open & honest with each other as people that that was ok - they understood each other AS INDIVIDUALS - not as someone that would heal all their wounds or make their world complete.

As an individual who was on a journey with them - who they loved, were honest with, played no games, shared a life together.

Anyway - I'm rambling, that's where I'm coming from.

Hmm. I think 'the 60's and 70's being quite bad in terms of infidelity' stems from people having sexual freedom for the first time ever, because of birth control, and because of the after-effects (psychologically) of the second world war - live for today and all that. Previously people would have been quite repressed sexually (in terms of the amount of people they were comfortable with shagging without serious repercussions, and the risks they were prepared to take.)

You have grown up in a very different cutlural environment to that. You have always felt free to take your pleasures wherever and whenever without stigma, shame or fear, because of those post-war shifts in attitude. They had some catching up to do - you do not!!!!

Lots and lots of relationships survive 'all kinds of shit' because these days marriage can last a very, very long time, and we all change, relationships and people change and evolve, go through peaks and troughs. But I'm quite sure the vast majority of marriages that have survived the 'shit' have done so because one party never actually finds out - or because of a guarded tolerance/indulgence of their partner's casual infidelities provided discretion is practised, a blind eye can be turned. An 'understanding' the way the French have (apparently) about taking lovers; not so much 'open' but tolerated and ignored, providing it doesn't threaten the status quo, and MOST IMPORTANTLY because they don't want or need complete honesty - having their nose rubbed in the lurid details of who, where, when, how. They just want their lives to carry on as normal, relatively unaffected. I imagine there are many more marriages surviving because of that, than because of the 'honest and open' way you are thinking of approaching things, which is quite a lot to swallow. (no pun intended. )

I think some people just know whether they have the kind of relationship that could carry the weight of all that knowledge, and others (most) know absolutely that they do not.

I'm not sure total honesty is always a very good thing. It's like you've dumped this information on your DH for him to try to digest emotionally, and saying you want to be unfaithful is practically like being unfaithful, but you can have a clear conscience because at least you've been honest.

So what now? you say you'll never do anything he is unhappy about, but where does that leave you? And he is going to be wondering where the hell it leaves him if you say 'No, I categorically do not give you permission to do this.'

I hope you haven't opened Pandora's box. This is why marriage is hard. this is why it is what it is; a fantastic deal that comes with strict conditions. It's about sacrificing little bits of yourself for the ultimate good of the whole. I'm not sure it's possible to have it all, personally.

sorry, I meant if he says 'No, I categorically etc etc.'

Hilly, very, very thoughtful post.

I agree with much of what you say & I agree COMPLETE disclosure is intolerable - no-one needs to no the ins & outs (again - no pun intended) - I'm talking about honesty of feelings & life really.

& I'm talking about marriage in the way I see it - that two people have a complete & open understanding of each other - I don't know if that means compromising a piece of yourself - maybe it does, maybe you're right, possibly that is the way to a more fulfilling life.

I was a convent school girl, I was always told life, a well lived life, meant compromise & denial. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

This is what I'm struggling with.

& if I have opened Pandora's box - come what may - it's done.

Sorry Spiders, it sounds like I am lecturing you disapprovingly. I am not, honestly - just musing aloud really. I suppose I am trying to get my head around how I or my DH would feel, if faced with the same proposition. Don't me wrong, I miss the thrill of shagging someone new as much as the next person - I'm just not sure how many relationships honestly can survive this freedom to screw around thing. And whether it is a risk worth taking.

No Hilly - I appreciate your honesty - I've been musing too, I haven't done, nor plan to do anything.

It's all thought, just thought about how marriage should, could or would be.

Really.

Well if it was a successful/viable in practice as it sounds in theory we'd all be doing it! I know I would

Thing is, longterm monogamy is not natural at all. There are all sorts of really rather unpleasant cultural reasons for the obsession with monogamy, and many many people would be a lot better off and happier if they stopped trying to practice it.

'he finds every thread I've ever written & I don't really mind'- well, it seems rather unlikely that he'll be happy about letting you have sex with other people (i.e. have an area of life which is kept separate from him), if he cannot even stop himself from looking for and reading every post on MN.

I have discussed the issue of open relationships with a few folk. It seems it works best if the couple involved have that understanding from the beginning of the relationship. Maybe even met as part of the scene.

Under those circs I think it usually works well. I am not sure if changing the 'rules of the game' half way through a relationship, in such a radical fashion, is a recipe for success. However some may have made it work. Were you not aware of this penchant before you got together with Mr Spiders?

DOn't know about the OP's specific history, but an awful lot of people don't find out for quite some time that monogamy isn't for them, simply because it's peddled so constantly as The Only Way To Live.
ANd there is nothing wrong with wanting to renegotiate a relationship because you've changed your mind about an aspect of it.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that it's wrong- more that it is unlikely to be successful if both parties don't feel equally enthusiastic about an open relationship.

Its a fab idea, but to get two people on the same page is nigh on impossible!

I have two favourites on here...

One is SGB and one is AF. Two very very different people from the opposite prospective but both Im rather in awe of.

Haven't got a clue why I just said that

Whenever I think if SGB i think of AF.

Both in drag by the way

I've been in a few non-monogamous situations/relationships and know a number of people who do it - some successfully, some disastrously. I would agree, from observation, that opening a relationship seems to have more challenges than starting from a mutual point. That could be because they happened to be relationships already in deep trouble and non-monogamy was a last ditch attempt.

Oh I agree SGB there is nothing wrong in trying to renegotiate, however it should not be a surprise if your partner does not want to go with the option, it is after all a major change to some people's views on how they want to experience sex in a relationship . THEN it may well be that you have to either 'lump' it or find a partner that has the same approach or be single.

I know peeps who are v. happy in open rels but they have ALL entered the rels with those expectations.

Hi Spider

From what you've said, I have to say, I'm not sure this would (at this point) be a great move for you. His initial reaction is quite telling, and as I said previously, in reality the male partner often has far fewer opportunities than the female, so it is unlikely to make him any more secure in the relationship if that scenario pans out.

I think relationships can develop and move on and survive this introduction as SGB states, but as many have pointed out, there should be no coercion or emotional blackmail used to get there...

In our case, I knew already that my DW was bisexual and had had no issues with her being with other women. Hence when the conversation came up as to whether this could also be extended, then logically I couldn't think of any reason not to. I knew full well that I could have no strings sex if the opportunity was there, and so it would have been hypocritical of me to assume my wife couldn't. But as I said in my previous post, the discussions to get there were detailed and long and we also needed full trust in each other that the boundaries that were set up would be kept to...

Maybe there are opportunities together to experience something, rather than alone?

In any case - best of luck.

< says nowt >

Well, yes, it could be that the monogamous partner is not willing to open the relationship and therefore the other partner has to decide whether to remain in the relationship and be monogamous, or to end the relationship and look for a more poly-minded partner or two. And indeed the monogamous partner may decide that s/he can't stay in the relationship now the other partner has thought of opening it (which might be a bit of an over-reaction).
But the thing is, relationships go wrong for a variety of reasons. And if one partner is unhappy with an aspect of the relationship, pretending there's nothing wrong and/or expecting that partner just to suck it up, is never going to be a long-term fix.

probably best,AF.

Tried this in my twenties,as then h wanted it. Agreed to it with slight misgivings,and it didnt suit my personality at all. Good luck to the poster, though!