Is SGB around?

[spiderslegs]

Open relationships - tell me more.

clearly you aren't frightened of being boring.

No but SGB would have me locked up for it !!!

Not for being boring, Ikeywikey, but for making what comes across as veiled threats to people.

Aaanyways..back to the discussion..if you so please..'open relationships = honesty, monogamy = repression and dishonesty'. Waay to simple, and flawed arguments as being presented by yourself, sgb.

Ok,

the divorce-rate argument is utterly specious - separations and divorce are more to do with lack of talking about money, domestic-management expectations, and inter-personal respect being shown. Infidelity lies well down the ladder.

equating 'monogamy drum beaters' with creationists is simply risible, I'm afraid. Where on earth does that evidence come from?

Emotions involved? Well, yes, more than just 'I like choc chip but I'd like a bit of vanilla now and again' sort of analysis. We have v. delicate emotional drives as humans, beyond a choice of ice cream flavours. And in this very uncertain world we live in, even us sophisicated humans usually desire 'security', and emotional attachment to one person ( expressed sexually) rather than having to re-negotiate our security with another person repeatedly.

and "monogamy is unnatural" - for whom, exactly? Is my character, personal practices, morals and personality 'unnatural'?

PFS: That isn't what I said. Not everyone wants open relationships and I have never claimed that they do or that they should. My objection is to this insistence that people should be monogamous, that monogamy is the kind of default position, when it clearly doesn't work for a lot of people. And yes, open relationships can go wrong, but so do monogamous ones - in both cases, this may be for a variety of reasons other than the issue of where the monogamy boundary is drawn; people who are not monogamous can be wonderful but they can be just as prone to addiction, unkindness, mental health issues and skiving their share of domestic work as the monogamous.

But not everyone finds 'security' in monogamy, or has any interest in doing so. And there is no reason why they should. For one thing, you can't find 'security' in other people, not really. And certainly not unless you can find it in yourself. A lot of people clearly find a lot of insecurity in monogamy, the amount of snooping, policing and panicking about it that some people engage in. Some people are obsessive about monogamy in a way that seems utterly exhausting to an outsider - every other human being is a threat to their Sacred Relationship...

well, you haven't said anything 'new' in that last post, and conveniently side-stepped the absurd arguments you previously developed.

of course people are complex, have differing needs to be met, and sometimes those expectations are unrealistic and a 'prison' for the person who tries to meet them. But again the last sentence re "Some people are obsessive.." well, yes of course they are . We know this..but again "every other human being is a threat to their Sacred Relationship..." is merely an extreme upon which you wish to pivot an argument.

For the sake of this particular debate, I would draw back to the notion of 'open relationships' being predicated in honesty and freedom, which is a falsehood - they are predicated in something else, but has the elan of these things.
But what people do under this impression is a bit, I would say, misguided.

do I get extra points for the use of the word 'elan'? albeit without the accent, which I have noo idea how to do.

So what's the something else? Open relationships that work depend on honesty, otherwise they are not really open relationships. Is this just another way of expressing unease with the idea that some people like lots of sex with different partners?

Hmm...

I love sex as much as (and maybe more ) than the next person. I really do. And of course, having been with DH for years now I miss the trembly, exciting feelings when you first start fancying someone.

But I, personally, can't have both. DH and I cannot do an open relationship, it just wouldn't work for us. So it comes down to a choice, and I'm choosing him. I wanted a partner and a family, and the exciting ooh-wonder-if-he-fancies-me feelings were the sacrifice I made for what it was I truly wanted, which was the one man I could see myself spending the rest of my life and raising children with. Don't regret it for a minute. :)

Best of luck spiders.

(Goes back to read thread properly now)

my unease about other people's sexual choices? That isn't really a question is it? It's just a poor attempt to divert away from your poor arguments. As well as your hollow claims to be 'objective' about other people's choices. How about you post next something which substanitiates your various half-truths and speciousness?

A good point is where do children fit into an "open" relationship?

A good point is where do children fit into an "open" relationship?
Depends on the situation! They're all different. Some people are open about it with their children - sometimes because they're older or because the children have always known about it from birth. Some people keep it private from their children.

Examples: I know a man who's been divorced for 2 or 3 years. He has teenage children and has a close honest relationship with them. He's got a girlfriend and some other lovers (with girlfriend's full knowledge). His kids know about it and he has discussed it with them.

I know of several situations where there are long term family living arrangements with 3 people and children have been born into those families. They think it's just another type of family. I'm sure some people would be really horrified by this, but I'm not sure the arguments against are that different to arguments against children being brought up in gay households.

Another couple I know have a 'Don't ask, don't tell' arrangement. They both travel a lot and are allowed to sleep with other people when away, but don't want it brought home or discussed in lots of detail. They don't have kids, but imagine in that kind of situation, children wouldn't know about it.

What is a little ironic about this thread is that as far as I can tell, SGB is not in a "relationship" at all!

Some clarity needed: an "Open Relationship" surely means that you have committed to someone and see them regularly, or live with them, or are married. If the relationship is "open" that means you ( both?) have other sexual partners, and have agreed this.

The other lifestyle option - non-monogamous- is that you are a single person, you live alone, and you have a series of sexual partners, either single or multiple, with no greater commitment or attachment to any one more than any other.

Women have made these choices for decades. They are not simple repressed creatures who need rescuing from some cult which propels them into marriage.

What I find offensive about the arguments here- especially those of SGB is that a) you side step many questions and points made ( such as my pointing out that there are women bankers, lawyers, CEOs, drs, you name it, who are not supporting a man by being a domestic servant- sometimes the men support them) and b) that you criticise monogamy in a way that would be highly offensive if the tables were turned on you- and people criticised you for living the life you do.

I and other people may pick holes in your arguments, but as far as i can see, no one has criticised your intelligence, or you naivity for having the life you do- whereas you do that all the time to people who choose a different type of life.

You take someone's personal preferences and then extrapolate huge political, sociological and anthropological theories from that. These don't hold water , which is evident from the way you keep trotting out the same points even when asked specific questions, and there is no real evidence for the points you make.

Rather than simply saying "Do what makes you happy" to the OP, the discussion takes on a very nasty, patronising tone by belittling other women who think and feel differently.

The problem I have with SGB's posts is that they appear to come out of a textbook of psychobabble, rather than from the heart.

AMeliaGrey and your arguments all come from the same school as 'Well, we have women CEOs (yes in about 3 % of companies) so feminism is no longer necessary.' And you keep wilfully ignoring the point that it's not people engaging in monogamy that I object to, it's people insisting that other people have to do so, and that not to do so is bad and wrong.
CHeerfulYank's position, for instance, is of someone having made a conscious choice that's worked for her. No problem with that at all.
And to say that monogamy is not natural isn't to say that it's inherently wrong. Using the Internet isn't natural, either. It's just that claiming monogamy is natural hardwired behaviour for human beings is utter bullshit. If it was completely natural behaviour then everyone would just engage in it without any thought or discussion, and this would have been a constant throughout human history. And please don't try to claim that all human beings have always engaged in heterosexual monogamy throughout human history, because to do so will make you look a total idiot.

Agreed. And an outdated text book at that.

having a daughter of 23 who has friends her age I think I am maybe more qualified for want of a better word to know how young women think nowadays and know what their goals are, and whether they have been "conditioned" in some way to be "domestic servants".

Squeakytoy: It's called taking a wider view rather than just looking at one's own circumstances and thinking that those are universal.
AmeliaGrey: Yes, plenty of young women are refusing to settle too early into marriage with men who want them as a combination of pet, servant and sex toy. But many are not, and above all the propaganda's still there: whether it's Domestic Goddess stuff or WAG culture.

Sorry but you are wrong. I don't keep ignoring anything. But you do- often.
SGB who exactly are these people who keep insisting that others engage in monogamy?

I don't know any.

Who do you mix with?

As for a few women CEOs well...what about all the other women I mentioned? Ther are more women drs than men now. Women can be whatever they want to be these days given the brain power. Your views are so outdated it is unbelievable, frankly.

You do make me laugh with your analogies. "monogamy is not natural and neither is using the internet"

and your point is?

Can't you see that you do precisely the things which you accuse others of doing?

For instance, you argue that monogamy is not natural.

Well, I could argue that it is. Evidence shows that for women having a male- the father of their children around- for at least 2 years- has been proved- by anthropologists beyond doubt.

This has nothing to do with social conditioning or joining a cult perpertuated by the media.

AmeliaGrey: You are misunderstanding 'natural', whether wilfully or not. It's natural to seek food, to need sleep, to breathe and to excrete, etc. It's not natural, for instance, to be employed or to employ others. When I say that monogamy is not natural I mean that it is not a universal impulse or desire; there have been various types of family organisation throughout human history; tribes, harem-keeping, segregation of the sexes etc etc and people keep on trying to make different arrangements.

sgb's own relationships aren't the point, imo. What is the point though, again in my opinion, is the triteness of the analogies that are produced to back up arguments, which reveals the weaknesses of those arguments.

not much one can do in a debate when one side is soo avoidant.

SGB- can I ask why you need to convince people of the merits of the lifestyle you have chosen ( or maybe had forced upon you?)

I am quite relaxed about whatever anyone does- it's their life.

I am currently monogamous but as I said upthread it's not perfect, for me or most people.

However- I don't go out of my way to convince anyone of its merits, or otherwise, as it's a personal choice.

You, on the other hand, seem to need to constantly bang on about why it is not natural blah blah blah... to apparently defend your lifestyle choice.

Rather than simply accept that relationships- whatever form they take-are an individual's choice, you constantly turn it into a political/sociological rant, based on not a lot of evidence, other than your own prejudices.

If you have a PhD or something to back up your views I might take more notice, but you come over as bigoted and unable to sustain a discussion without resorting to cliches, or your own theories and opinion, masquerading as "facts".

But the ovewhelming message is that you constantly seem to be defending your lifestyle- ( and must be very insecure about it) and attack the whole concept of monogamy simply because it isn't what you want.

Ameliagrey:This thread was started by a poster who wanted to explore options outside monogamy and asked me, specifically, what I thought. Other people joined in and a lot of them were condemnatory.
You (and other people) are coming from the mainstream privilege position of insisting that because your lifestyle is OK it mustn't be questioned, and any questioning of the mainstream or majority position is a shocking attack on you personally and it's just... waaa! WRONG.

your dh must feel like he's going to have to lose you eventually, if he doesn't agree with this surely.

poor chap.