Open relationship

[Purpleprints]

Name changed as I know a few people on here.
Married 10+ years, DH and I haven’t had sex in about 3 years. His choice; I initiate and he’s not interested. We’ve talked about it a few times and in the beginning (ie when it first started to dwindle), he would make a renewed effort but it became sporadic duty sex and there is nothing worse than having sex with someone who doesn’t want it so I stopped asking.

We had a chat about a year ago and at the end, I suggested opening the relationship and he looked surprised but didn’t assent nor decline. A couple of weeks ago, I re-visited the subject of our sexless marriage and mentioned an open relationship again. To my surprise, DH agreed to me having sex with other men because, amongst other things, he admitted he is just not a sexual person and feels like he had neglected me when it comes to my needs. His demeanour has changed for the positive since this, he appears more relaxed if we hug or touch, it’s like the pressure is off.

I actually don’t know where to start with this new freedom. I have made it clear to DH that my priority is our family and as I see love and sex as two completely separate entities, I’m not going to fall in love with anyone because they are a great shag. Is anyone in an open relationship (one sided or both) who can shed some light on how it works for them?

NotANotMan

You admitted yourself you had to supress feelings of jealousy. The modern incarnation of mate guarding instinct is what that is, another evolved response to feelings developed for a sexual partner.

The feelings are natural and need to be stopped artificially because you have to admit that biologically that is kinda how it is meant to work.

Most humans will form the closest relationship of their lives with a sexual partner. Do you think this is a coincidence ? Social conditioning ?

Purple
No, I don't think it's ideal for men either, however men's sexuality is wholly conflicted about this stuff. Men have never borne the same cost as women as a result of sexual intercourse though. Again, need to take that up with God

there must be some element of emotion involved

I'm interested to know what kind ?

The feelings of jealousy didn't spring from love or wanting him to myself. They came from me wanting his time at a specific time when he was already committed to someone else.

I didn't like the feeling, it wasn't helpful, fair or reasonable so I got rid of it. It doesn't mean I was attaching to him in a romantic sense

Well what you describe doesn't exactly sound like jealousy either to be fair. It sounds like mild irritation.

But if you are relying on somebody for something you really like doing, that's gonna happen.

Why do you think you felt jealous ? Where does it come from do you think wrt to a sexual partner ?

Oh fgs Elon I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore. I've explained my position; I don't need to do so further. Our positions are different and that's fine.

Fair enough. You didn't say whether you thought it odd that most humans form their closest non familial bonds with sexual partners. Do you not think that ? Is that not true for you ?

I feel jealousy regarding my main partner, but not anyone else. I think that is because I genuinely love my main partner but for a number of reasons, we can't be together that often. The others, I have chosen not to have that depth of feeling and therefore the jealousy hasn't come up.

I would rather not feel jealousy, it's a very negative emotion and hard on our relationship.

But I think it stems from love and wanting to feel certain of a future. The others are more transient.

Elon I was referring your element of emotion, not my own. Mine is purely sexual.

It is likely that women felt like this before contraception became so freely available, now we can actually act on that. Why are you so against that Elon? Don’t you want women to be as free as men?

I agree, I hate feeling jealous, but when it comes to sexual partners it most likely is some kind of evolved mate guarding type instinctive response, it's a real gut emotion.

That's why I don't really believe that you can just "choose" not to have it happen, we don't even really understand where it comes from and are surprised when it does rear it's ugly head. Which is why this lifestyle can be risky emotionally.

Elon, you're either making all that rubbish up yourself, or you've been reading bullshit elsewhere.
Monogamy was invented by men, for the benefit of men - the point of it was a) that men could be sure any children they were helping to raise were biologically theirs and b) every man got to own a woman for domestic and reproductive services. There's nothing remotely 'natural' about longterm monogamy, otherwise it wouldn't need to be so strongly enforced (people are still, to an extent, willing to accept death as a justified punishment for breaches of monogamy...)

Biologically, evolutionarily, it is better for women to have sex with a variety of men, particularly when ovulating, so that the strongest sperm makes it to the egg. But we've had thousands of years of a culture (designed and driven by men) which suppresses that concept, often with brutal violence.

Some people are, basically, love fetishists: they really struggle to separate sex from love, do not want to have sex when there is no love involved, insist on combining sex with love even when the person they are having sex with is not interested in love... When these people find a person who shares their fetish, however, they may well live happily for some time after.

People vary. Relationships which do not involve monogamy - or love - are no more and no less likely to go wrong than those which do, because there are all sorts of other factors which can make a relationship thrive, or fuck it up.

Elon FFS! For the vast majority of people, up until fairly recently, the relationship with the spouse was about practicalities and legalities. Men were expected to be loyal first to other men or maybe their mothers. Go back far enough and everyone was supposed to be closer to their imaginary friend than any human being. Even in modern times, it's still fairly common for (heterosexual) people to confide in and be closer to friends of the same sex than their spouse, particularly when the couple-relationship is in trouble.

Don’t you want women to be as free as men?

Eh ?

ReanimatedSGB

I think your utterly wrong. What's your explanation for love then, if not pair bonding ?

Elon: are you really this ignorant about human history? Marriage, for centuries, was all about practicalities - inheritance, politics etc as well as reproduction (and domestic service). The earliest concepts of romantic love were all about relationships that were either illicit, non-sexual or some mixture of both.

' love fetishists'. I think you are just making words up! ReanimatedSGB

Love is not a fetish! It may not be necessary for good sex, but that doesn't make its presence a fetish.

Italian SGB isn't saying that love is a fetishise. She's saying that people like Elon who insist that sex is ALWAYS better when you're in love, or who attach love feelings to sex even when those feelings aren't based on reality are fetishising the concept of romantic love and making it a prerequisite for sex. That's the very definition of a fetish.

I never said romantic love was a prerequisite for sexat all. What i was trying to say in the context of the thread is that love grows from repeated sexual intercourse, and that's because biologically the act would produce children, which humans pair bond to nurture. I agree there is no biological need for life time pair bonding but I believe being grandparents has been theorised.

Monogamy exists because people fall in love and want to be monogamous. It's not some conspiracy where people have been socialised out of their natural instincts. That's tin foil hat stuff.

Are you denying humans have a pair bond instinct ?

love grows from repeated sexual intercourse, and that's because biologically the act would produce children

Love grows from sex? What on Earth are you saying here? Sex can trigger attachment behaviour, positive associations, yes, bonding behaviour, but that's not love

My attachment style is avoidant, therefore I am less likely to feel bonded to someone after sex. I'm not saying that's better than those who are, it's not. But it's a perfectly normal and common way to function. It's not a moral failing or a psychological dysfunction.

SGB your information is fascinating. I've always been happy to experience a variety of partners etc and feel no need for marriage (for myself) as I'm self sufficient career wise etc. At the moment I have two non monogamous relationships/fwb and I'm happy with that.

OP I think it's a good idea but I do get feelings for a man I have sex with for a while, even if I don't expect to. Doesn't necessarily mean I want a commitment, but all the fun and happiness, intimacy etc can make them more of a priority than you expect. Good luck!

Elon, have you only ever had PIV sex? Is that the only thing you consider 'sex'? Lots of people don't engage in that particular sex act at all (and some people, who consider themselves very much in love with a long term partner, can't do PIV because there's either two Ps or two Vs...)

And you are, basically, wrong about the idea that people 'fall in love and want to be monogamous' as some sort of instinct-led behaviour. There have been plenty of human societies where monogamy wasn't the dominant model for relationships, and even where it has been ,the culture has been full of stories of people who reject monogamy; ways round monogamy; criticisms of monogamy and ownership.

If monogamy is essential for you in a relationship then fine, good luck. FInd a partner who is as keen on it as you, and you have every reasonable chance of being happy together. But it is neither the only way nor the 'best' way to conduct your sex life, and lots of people who reject monogamy are much, much happier without it than they would be if they were trying to fit into an artificial model of 'good' behaviour.

Sex can trigger attachment behaviour, positive associations, yes, bonding behaviour, but that's not love

I think these feelings are what most people think of as love actually. Again, the purpose of these feelings are clear, propagantion of the species and all that when you meet someone with whom you would produce healthy children nature kind of takes over.

I thought avoidant attachment was considered to be unhealthy ? Depends what motivated I suppose.

All I'm trying to say is that I have seen and have experience of the idea that you can decide to overrule mother nature when it comes to this stuff, and it ended in tears every time. Sorry for the detail.

And you are, basically, wrong about the idea that people 'fall in love and want to be monogamous' as some sort of instinct-led behaviour.

That's a fact is it ? Evidence ?

I've never met anyone who has never been in love. All those people love or loved someone who is a sexual partner.

I find it rather hard to believe this is coincidence.

Elon you and everyone else on here could probably cite 'evidence' about whatever part of the debate we wanted to legitimise. But why? What's the point?

We're talking about the incredibly nuanced world of human relationships. Everyone's experience is different.

It would be really wonderful if those of us who don't wish to/feel unable to follow the very restricted norms of the culture we live in could explore what works for us.

Obviously this means having consent, respect and open communication with everyone involved.

It's really bloody boring, frankly, to have to justify it all with evidence and have neverending, ultimately pointless debates with people who have different opinions.

Different opinions are fine. Go ahead, have all the opinions you want. Find all the evidence you want to back yourself up. I'll defend your right to have an opinion to the moon and back.

But I'm not going to bother justifying my opinions with evidence in the hope you'll accept it. Life's too short for what I suspect would be an utterly futile exercise.

Sone people are happily monogamous. Some are not. Some relationships work. Some do not. That's pretty much all the generalising it's possible to do.

In my opinion

I've been intensely in love with more than one person in my life. In the case of one person, for example, we were absolutely smitten and very committed to each other.

I am a straight woman who loves sex. He was a gay man who was pretty much celibate. We didn't fancy each other at all. But we were genuinely in love.

Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean it can't happen.

I think these feelings are what most people think of as love actually. Again, the purpose of these feelings are clear, propagantion of the species and all that when you meet someone with whom you would produce healthy children nature kind of takes over

I know people think of those feelings as love. That's what gets people into dangerous and awful situations like pregnant by an abuser, trapped in tedious marriages due to financial constraints, sexless lives not through choice etc

Promoting the idea that the bonding process that takes place through sex is love is ridiculous and unhealthy. Love relationships may or may not include sex, and sex can be part of a loving relationship. But your assertion that we are somehow programmed to be monogamous is just wrong. We might be programmed to be monogamous for a while until the baby is less dependent on us but lifetime monogamy is a model that is entirely social for reasons SGB explains and which has no biological evolutionary purpose.

Most people have an element of avoidant or anxious attachment to them. Attachment disorder is a different matter. In my work I have been acquainted with the dynamics of hundreds of partner relationships and I see so many people with anxious attachment behaviour which we, as a society, have decreed is 'normal' such as jealousy, control, need to be physically close where possible, emotionally and physically dependent. In relationships like that sex becomes a currency to show love or prove love and can become a weapon of hurt and control.