Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

Open relationship

170 replies

Purpleprints · 26/11/2018 21:18

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?

OP posts:

ElonMask · 01/12/2018 10:35

Perhaps you are in the vanguard of a revolution in sexual relationships made possible by modern contraception. It is possible to say you would be more likely to be monogamous if there was no such thing as contraception. But I agree with the rest of your post, there is no right or wrong you are just lucky to live in a time and society thst makes shagging risk free to a great degree.

I guess we are all lucky in that regard, my observation is just that sex and feelings always go together although some people claim to be able to suppress them, and that this is perfectly natural given how humans have evolved, people would do well to consider this before assuming they won't feel anything for their sexual partners was all I was really trying to get at.

Hoosh · 01/12/2018 10:40

SGB I bought Opening Up on your recommendation. I'm not far into it but I like the author's style - it suits my northern pragmatism much more than The Ethical Slut's therapy-speak (much as I like that book too).

ElonMask · 01/12/2018 10:42

Promoting the idea that the bonding process that takes place through sex is love is ridiculous and unhealthy

Err that's just silly, sorry.

There are essentially two ways to look at it. One is to believe that people do genuinely fall in love with long term sexual partners and the other is that they are being ridiculous like you seem to think.

There are negative behaviours brought about by bonding such as those you mention, I never denied that for a minute.

ElonMask · 01/12/2018 10:46

Anyway sorry for the derail, I do like to try and get to the bottom of where emotions come from, especially ones that can be an ..... inconvenience

I will take a look at those books, always important to read the other perspective but as a previous poster said I suppose you either relate to it or you don't really.

NotANotMan · 01/12/2018 10:49

my observation is just that sex and feelings always go together although some people claim to be able to suppress them

Observation of who?? Not people in general

NotANotMan · 01/12/2018 10:51

One is to believe that people do genuinely fall in love with long term sexual partners and the other is that they are being ridiculous like you seem to think.

Of course some peoole fall in love with some of their long term sexual partners! And of course love isn't ridiculous. But they don't fall in love because they are having sex

ElonMask · 01/12/2018 10:57

Observation of who?? Not people in general

The most important non familial relationships people have in their lives are with people they have had sex with. This is what I see around me at least.

NotANotMan · 01/12/2018 10:58

Do you get that many people are having sex with many other people who they are not in love with or partner bonded with?

The fact that most romantic relationships include sex does NOT mean that most sexual relationships are romantic

I can't believe that's not obvious to you

ElonMask · 01/12/2018 11:00

But they don't fall in love because they are having sex

That's debatable I think, but they certainly fall more in love and grow closer through sex.

ElonMask · 01/12/2018 11:03

does NOT mean that most sexual relationships are romantic

Are you actually serious?

NotANotMan · 01/12/2018 11:04

Obviously I'm serious
I've had sex with approximately 40 men. I've been in love with 2 of them. How are you asserting that most sexual relationships are romantic?

NotANotMan · 01/12/2018 11:05

How could you possibly know? The only sexual relationships you see evidence of (and you only assume they are sexual) are the socially acceptable, monogamous committed ones. How the hell do you claim to know what happens in people's lives that you know nothing about?

NotANotMan · 01/12/2018 11:06

Why are serial monogamists so defensive?

ElonMask · 01/12/2018 11:45

Having sex with someone once is not a sexual relationship. If people are in a sexual relationship and they don't love the other person then they usually end it. That's what I have done. If I carried on being intimate with someone and having sex despite being not being in love it would confuse me and them. As stated I believe this is because of the biological reality of intercourse and what it would result in if not for modern contraceptive technology. There's nothing unusual about this and that is why it is the norm, not because we're repressed or have been tricked by the 'patriarchy'.

It's more likely to me that sex removed from the possibility of pregnancy by contraception tricks people into the belief it's meaningless and that there should be no emotions other than lust attached. This was not the reality for 99.9% of humans that have ever existed.

Hoosh · 01/12/2018 12:31

OP as you can see, this is an area of life that people have a lot of differing opinions on .

I'm 46 and way past caring about 'proving' I'm objectively correct in my choices. I'm not right or wrong, I just am. Proving it feels like when I was 12 and went vegetarian and had to have the same argument with my annoying-arse uncle about why anyone would want to be veggie. Every bloody time I saw him.

I hope you can find a way that works for you and your DP. Whether you then choose to discuss it or engage with debates about it is of course entirely up to you.

I like talking about people's experiences of making non-monogamy work - the good and the bad. That's the kind of conversation I wish there was more of on MN which is a very pro-monogamy place.

NotANotMan · 01/12/2018 12:38

Having sex with someone once is not a sexual relationship

Did I say they were only once?

You're reading what you want to read and seeing what you want to see. How tedious

Dirtybadger · 01/12/2018 12:39

Elon are you saying that people who say they aren't in love with someone they have regular sex with are lying, in denial, or what? I'm not sure I follow.

Dirtybadger · 01/12/2018 12:42

There are evolutionary benefits to monogamy and non-monogamy (in various forms). It's a bit naive to say that one definitely is when psychologists are still arguing about it and I believe always will. Because there are plenty of persuasive but contradictory theories of "mating" behaviour and psychology. If it works for the individual, then it works. And what works for you doesn't give a shit about what someone else thinks the deep rooted reason is for that.

Hoosh · 01/12/2018 12:49

@Dirtybadger exactly

Bimwit · 01/12/2018 14:35

Elon i've read a few times on this thread you saying that monogamy is 'mother nature' and similar but you really seem to be basing that on the last few hundred years of life in The West only - sex at dawn smacks that west-centric view out of you and explains why human feelings that are 'an inconvenience' are actually grounded in biology...and dont make sense for apparently monogamous species.

ElonMask · 01/12/2018 18:14

Bimwit I agree that inconvenient feelings, like an apparent desire to be with or touch someone or jealousy etc do have biological purposes.

Sex at dawn was rejected for academic publication.

I personally find it persuasive that pair bonding in humans is evolutionary, given the vulnerability of human infants. I think children knowing who their fathers are and their fathers having some role in their early life makes sense.

You're in a very privileged position to be denying the biological reality of sexual intercourse. I don't see how human females could have had sex with men without a high chance they would be having his children, and they must have known this and that must have informed their behaviour.

aren't in love with someone they have regular sex with are lying, in denial, or what? I'm not sure I follow.

I think they are in denial a bit or they just have an aversion to the word love or a different meaning of it.

If you don't care about someone then it is not possible to have any sort of mutually rewarding relationship with them. No emotions means that nothing the person can do can affect you, you must at least care that they are enjoying themselves and trust that you can tell they are etc, the potential for hurt and misunderstanding is always there you can't just flip a switch and turn all emotions off. I don't believe that, no.

Bimwit · 02/12/2018 18:29

Rejected for academic publication or not (this could just be because it goes against the status quo, the authors ARE academics) it explains the evidence against all your points. I would be really interested to hear any counter evidence as it was so convincing. Not that humans need a blueprint for how to behave, but there are alternative explanations for all the behaviour described that arent fown to the pair bond the patriarchy told us was natural ;)

ReanimatedSGB · 04/12/2018 08:21

Elon, you do know that children can be concieved when there is no love at all or even liking between the participants in the act of PIV which led to conception, don't you? How about all those men who are serial impregnators yet shit fathers - men whose motivation is to prove their dicks work by creating loads of babies that they have nothing to do with? For that matter, how about people who have babies via artificial insemination?

As to your silly post about 'no emotion at all' between people who have frequent sex with the same person: many people have partners they have sex with and are on good, friendly terms with, but there is no interest on either side in 'building a life together'. There is a sliding scale between 'passionate romantic childish and unhealthy sexual relationships, and people who fuck once or twice and are otherwise completely indifferent to one another. It's generally a good idea to have sex with people you like as in you are not disgusted by the person and do not wish to harm them, but you don't need to be planning a future with someone to enjoy a few sex sessions.

Think about friendship in general - you may have close friends who you have known for a long time, who would lend you money, keep your secrets, be relied on for almost anything, etc, and then there are the more casual acquaintances whose company you enjoy or whose interests you share and participate in. Just because you're not 'best' friends with someone doesn't make your friendship worthless.

ReanimatedSGB · 04/12/2018 08:28

Also, re Sex at Dawn, quite a few of the people quoted as criticising it are people with a track record in evolutionary psychology, which is a pseudoscience anyway, and full of fucknuggets who reason along the lines of Jordan Lobsterknob Peterson - 'men are superior and dominant and women are just spunkbuckets because SCIEEEENCE!'

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 09:39

Elon, you do know that children can be concieved when there is no love at all or even liking between the participants in the act of PIV which led to conception, don't you? How about all those men who are serial impregnators yet shit fathers - men whose motivation is to prove their dicks work by creating loads of babies that they have nothing to do with? For that matter, how about people who have babies via artificial insemination?

Oh dear. Surprisingly, I am aware of that yes. However I am also aware, as are you I bet, that women prefer to pick a partner with attributes they find attractive. People who go down the sperm donation route do not just use the first batch to hand.

Regards my friends, I agree with you. However I have no problems admitting that I love them and would miss them terribly. Also they won't stop being my friend when they make new ones, our relationship will not fundamentally change if they get a boyfriend etc.

but you don't need to be planning a future with someone to enjoy a few sex sessions.

Never said you did, however you can only do this because of contraception not biology.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7