Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

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

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:
ReanimatedSGB · 04/12/2018 10:14

Again: not all sex involves PIV. One of the great things about the younger generation's attitude towards sex is their acceptance of the idea that PIV is not compulsory and, for heterosexual people who really don't want a pregnancy to begin at the present time, PIV-free sex is a good option.

Also, PIV, even without the use of any contraception, doesn't always result in a pregnancy. It's only in the sillier sort of romance novel that women invariably get up the duff from the one shag they have in the first half of the book. There's about 20 days in any given month where a normally-fertile woman will not get pregnant even if she shags an entire football team.

All your arguments about how human sexuality works appear to be based on your own personal preferences and prejudices. None of them have anything to do with 'natural' behaviours. You don't appear to understand the difference between custom, convention, instinct and choice.

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 11:08

There's about 20 days in any given month where a normally-fertile woman will not get pregnant even if she shags an entire football team.

maybe, but they would be unlikely to have this scientific knowledge. Loads of teenagers do get pregnant from one off sex. I agree with you though that teaching children about other kinds of sex is great.

All your arguments about how human sexuality works appear to be based on your own personal preferences and prejudices. None of them have anything to do with 'natural' behaviours. You don't appear to understand the difference between custom, convention, instinct and choice.

Same as you then ? Smile the desire to have sex is itself an instinct. I find the idea that no other behaviours have evolved around this instinct and the biological consequences of its fulfillment to be pretty non persuasive. But I get that other people do not agree with me and evidence as such is very hard to come by.

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 11:27

@Elonmask I don't think your interpretation of 'evolution' is correct. Humans evolved to live in groups not monogamous pairs, to looks after children. I very much doubt early humans (the only ones 'affected' by evolution) realised sex=pregnancy=baby. I would also add that evolution wants us to have as much sex as possible. No one argues this affects the behaviour and desires of men. But for every man having sex with 'another woman' there is a woman having sex too. So maybe we're not so different after all :)

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 11:44

I think early humans would know fine well that sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy, as soon as they kept animals for example.

I think men have actually been more socialised into "the men should be willing and ready to have sex with any woman and at any opportunity" mindset. I don't believe thats the reality either. I sound like my granny but people these days are obsessed with sex. In the past I believe the biological realities of sex would relegate it to a position of lesser import than many other things, eg staying alive.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic and I'm aware I'm just theorising as well and there is no definitive evidence.

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 11:55

Humans have only kept animals relatively recently. Before that we were hunter gatherers. I think it is odd to think that early humans would not have had sex with more than one partner. As this happens across time and throughout history. I also don't think we are any more obsessed with sex now than at any other time. We are just more open about it. Sexual attraction is an incredibly powerful instinct, that evolution did not intend us to ignore!

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 11:56

*throughout history and across every single culture

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 12:00

In the past I believe the biological realities of sex would relegate it to a position of lesser import than many other things, eg staying alive.

Not true!! People risk their lives, prison, their marriages, their families, STIs, unwanted pregnancy and poverty. All for sex. Always have always will

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 12:03

Domestic dogs have been around for a long time. The idea that people had know idea that sexual intercourse led to pregnancy is very unlikely. As is the idea that women would have several children with several different men in a small group. Think of the biological impact these sorts of incestious relationships would quickly have in a small group where everyone was shagging everyone else.

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 12:06

Not true!! People risk their lives, prison, their marriages, their families, STIs, unwanted pregnancy and poverty. All for sex. Always have always will

Well this is a useful test, would you be having anything like as much sexual intercourse as you do or have if there was no contraception ? It surely affects your own sexual behaviour.

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 12:08

Of course there is always movement between groups. Otherwise even if everyone in the group was monogamous the relationships would quickly become incestious. It sounds like your theories are based more around the God you mention rather than evolution ;)

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 12:14

"Well this is a useful test, would you be having anything like as much sexual intercourse as you do or have if there was no contraception ? It surely affects your own sexual behaviour."

Again in evolutionary terms, women would have started menstruating later, would have become pregnant at some stage, would have breastfed for much longer (each time making them less receptive to sex/not fertile) and would have had more children. Would have had a much higher chance of dying (especially during childbirth)...

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 12:16

Not at all, I'm not remotely religious. I disagree that religious ideas about chastity and sexual abstinence are based entirely on a conspiracy against women though.

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 12:20

ayeplesandbaynaynays
I'm not sure that is answer to the question or not. All the things you mention are huge influences on how much sex women would have had and who with. This is my point, the idea you can have risk free sex with whoever you want has no basis in the biological reality.

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 12:23

That's fair enough, but I can assure you chastity and abstinence have nothing to do with evolution Grin. I wonder where the concepts came from...

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 12:44

No evolution would not dictate abstinence of course, but it would have some influence on who we choose to reproduce with and how often.

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 12:46

Would you consider a man who had a dozen children by several different women to be a good choice of partner for example ?

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 12:46

I probably do sound like a religious nut, but I am absolutely not Smile

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 12:56

You don't sound like a religious nut (although you did mention asking God earlier) just someone who doesn't know much about evolution (sorry). I have no problems with your views, just with you using pseudoscience to justify them.

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 12:58

"Would you consider a man who had a dozen children by several different women to be a good choice of partner for example ?"

Well I'd think it unlikely he was into lifetime monogamy!

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 13:01

You don't come across like someone who understands evolution yourself.

ReanimatedSGB · 04/12/2018 13:02

All religious rules around sex are toxic bullshit because they were [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/17/ancient-metaphor-that-created-modern-sexism/ all made up]] to reinforce the idea that women are property, not people.

As to your example, a man with several children by different women might be a rubbish partner, but if what the woman wanted was a good-looking, fertile sperm donor, she might consider him ideal (particularly if it was obvious that he would fuck and run, and not be in her way).

And the incest aspects - both the ancient Egyptians and some current royal families actively went in for it, due to their dodgy (in both ethical and evoluntionary terms) views about 'royal' blood.

Official views on what is 'natural' and/or 'moral in terms of sexual behaviour change in line with whatever benefits those currently in power, as even a very superficial bit of research into social history will show you. Your utter cluelessness about this stuff is not your fault; most people are fed similar bullshit to what you have swallowed. But perhaps you need to do a bit more research before you try to make out that your personal preferences for sexual behaviour are the human default, when they so clearly are not.

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 13:07

As for the claim I'm using pseudo science, I haven't quoted any science, I freely admitted that it's just my opinion based on what seems likely to me.

All you've done is dodge my questions, claim I've used pseudo science and that I don't understand without presenting any appealing evidence for your claim, that multiple sexual partners is the norm and we've been tricked into monogamy or serial monogamy by some great conspiracy.

I find the general tin foil hattery that goes on to reject the evidence history and most adult humans relationships (which are monogamous) ridiculous. You haven't provided any argument. I think you admit your own sexual behaviour is what it is thanks to technology, then you claim this is normal ?

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 13:16

I have a question for you- how many people in the monogamous relationships that you know have had an affair?

ElonMask · 04/12/2018 13:16

Your argument seems to be that we have survived and created a flourishing advanced society despite doing the opposite of what evolution intended. This is where it gets daft to me. Having dozens of sexual partners (PIV sexual partners) is something modern contraception has enabled.

I suppose that we'll just have to disagree as there is nothing really other than opinion on either side.

ayeplesandbaynaynays · 04/12/2018 13:21

"despite doing the opposite of what evolution intended"

I wouldn't worry about that- we do exactly what we EVOLVED to do. Hence the obesity epidemic, high divorce rates and extra marital affairs, wars etc etc