Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    There is a topic in the HUMAN_RELATIONS notesfile that touches on
    this.  Topic 265 - "Sex with others while married".
    
    -Jody
    

    In my opinion open relationships are more practical than ideal.
     To me, the ideal relationship would still be monogamous, because
    the ideal would be for two people to love each other so much that
    they would never want to be with anybody else, sexually.  I imagine
    that I hold this ideal in my mind because of all the movies, books
    I've seen and read, religious influences, and impressions I've gotten
    from friends, acquaintances, and society in general.  The reason
    I'm not sure it's practical (monogamy) is that in real life people
    don't seem to really feel this way about each other very often, or 
    for long.
    
    Another problem is defining what is meant by an open relationship.
     Some people seem to consider an open relationship to be simply
    *not* committing to fidelity.  (And I suppose it is in a way.) 
    They seem to have the attitude that they will not actively seek out
    other people to date, or sleep with, but if an appealing opportunity
    arises they will take it without feeling guilty, since they didn't
    promise to be faithful anyway.  This gets confusing for me since
    then, if the other person meets someone they find attractive, and
    decide to actually *pursue* this attraction then that is not really
    the same thing as just stumbling upon something, and then this person
    could be construed as still cheating on the other in some fashion.
     The possibilities for hurt feelings seem endless unless each person
    knows exactly what the other person means by having an open
    relationship.  
    
    I guess I basically feel that the ideal is to have a monogamous
    relationship, but that an open relationship (with someone you care
    for) is better than nothing.
    
    Lorna
     

    I have to agree with Lorna that defining what 'open' is is important.
    
    Most people seem to define open-ness as the implicit or explicit option
    of having sex with other people.  I find that tragic, because it
    defines the relationship based on sex.  Am I the only one who finds
    this a bit twisted?
    
    A recent break-up within my circle hinged upon just such a problem of
    definition.  He defined open as 'having relationships and interests
    with other people and acknowledging that no one person meets any one
    person's needs in total.'  Her definition was 'having sex with other
    people so long as one exercised care in not bringing undesirable
    diseases back home.'
    
    My definition is more in line with his.  This kind of open-ness leaves
    me feeling less secure but more empowered.  So, from my viewpoint, I
    come out ahead and have been doing so for 16 years in my relationship
    with Rick.
    
      Ann

    
    Neil and I have an open relationship, in .2's sense of 'having
    relationships and interests with other people and acknowledging
    that no one person meets any one person's needs in total.'  We
    assumed that this would not preclude being sexually close to
    another person (though how any couple with jobs, kids, and a house
    can find time to have an affair, I'll never know!)
    
    The odd result of this freedom is that we actually spend more time
    with each other and with the family than many of our friends who
    have more restrictive "I'll castrate him if I catch him cheating"
    type marriages.  Because we're friends as well as lovers, and
    because we have the choice of being somewhere else, doing
    something else, we don't have to go out with friends to "prove"
    we're still free and independent.  So we choose to be together. 
    In fact, we'd like to spend more time together. 
        
    So keeping in mind that .0 seemed to be asking mostly about sex
    and our "open marriage" hasn't dealt with outside sex, I'd answer
    the question of the base note as "the openness has been very good
    for me."  It affirms that my judgement counts, that I can be
    trusted to manage my own life just as he can be trusted to manage
    his, that each of us is an adult with our own interests and needs,
    and that we can share those independent lives to make something
    better and stronger than what we would be on our own. 
    
    --bonnie

    Re .4, well, I think that your type of "open" marriage sounds good
    because it should be acceptable for people to have friends of both
    sexes outside of the relationship.  It sounds perfect in fact. 
    But, it sounds like you're saying that in your relationship you
    had agreed that it would be okay to have sex with other people,
    but that neither of you wanted to.  So, you've never had to deal
    with what might happen if you did.  I think it's really nice that
    you've kept too busy!  Some people haven't been kept as busy by
    marriage! :-)  
    
    The problem for me would be in trying to decide whether or not it
    was supposed to be okay to have sex with other people.  I think
    if I were really in love with my partner, then I would prefer to
    decide together that it *wouldn't* be okay to have sex with other
    people.  That it would be okay to have friends of the opposite sex
    to get together with and do things with, but to stop short of any
    type of sexual activity.
    
    Lorna
    

    re.5 [Lorna], more to .3 [me]
    
    In our marriage, Rick & I never _agreed_ to anything concerning sex
    with other partners.  We wanted an open relationship.  We have 'had to
    deal with it' as you put it.  I didn't like dealing with it.  It was
    not threatening to either of us or to our marriage.  It was, however,
    unsettling. I don't think it will come up again. 
    
      Ann

        While I can't really imagine myself loving only one person or
        only one woman, over the years I've come to believe that sexual
        monogamy is the only really workable relationship, at least for
        me. Having said that, I must stress that it must me internally
        imposed. You can't and oughtn't force your spouse to be
        monogomous, and trying to will very likely poison the whole
        thing.
        
        After several years it seems to me most clear that I don't want
        an open relationship. A relationship with another woman would
        inevitably suffer because she could never be as close to my
        ideal woman as my wife. Selma is the standard by which other
        women are measured. None can be as much like her as she herself.
        
        There are women in my life that I love, and women with whom I
        could live my life if I were somehow deprived of Selma. But, my
        love for them is only expressed through a limited committment,
        and through limitted intimacy. Anything ese would be unfair to
        eveyone, me, my wife and the other women. I guess I agree with
        the mother of the topic note's author--except that I don't think
        it works for men any better than for women. If it appears
        differntly, I suspect it's because it is more acceptable for
        women to express their dissatisfaction with "mere sex" than for
        men. I mean can you be a real man if you don't enjoy sex
        whenever you can et it? Isn't "mushy stuff" just for girls?
        
        JimB.

    re: .5 (Lorna)
    
    JimB put it perfectly in .7 -- there's a difference between the
    two of us setting up a marital rule that "there won't be any
    outside sex" and in each of us choosing to be monogamous because
    we can't give the marriage what we each want to give it while
    having outside relationships.  For me, monogamy seems to be the
    only practical way of dealing with life's realities.  I have
    friends who I love dearly and would enjoy becoming sexually
    intimate with, but the time for a second (and secondary)
    relationship would take away time I'd rather spend with Neil and
    with my  family.  Other monogamous partners in open marriages  may
    not have the interest, or may have religious beliefs that cause
    them to devote their lives to one person, or may never find anyone
    as perfect for them as the spouse they love.  But in any case the
    dedication is freely chosen.  
    
    But that doesn't really mean we've decided ahead of time that sex
    outside the relationship is okay.  I can imagine sexual encounters
    for either Neil or I that wouldn't mean anything to the marriage,
    others that would be unpleasant to deal with but not threatening,
    others that would threaten the marriage, and still others that
    would almost certainly end our relationship.  It would depend on
    the circumstances of the second relationship and especially the
    why.  "I was with a person I used to live with and we got carried
    away" is a far different situation from "I feel burdened by my
    responsibilities at home so I'm having an affair with someone who
    doesn't ask anything of me and incidentally is better-looking than
    you are."
    
    So I guess in one sense all an open marriage is is an agreement to
    deal with sexual situations in the same way we deal with issues
    like career moves and deciding whether to have another child --
    according to how we feel at the time, rather than ahead of time.  
    
    --bonnie

    I don't think I ever feel so "old fashioned" as when I read note
    files like this one. 
    
    I have for a long time, tried to analyze *what* made my 30 yr. marriage
    work the way it did.  Why did we remain sexually faithful to each
    other for 30 years?  I don't think for one minute that John didn't
    have thoughts about other women; he was a gentle man that both
    men and women found comfortable to be with.  He certainly liked
    a prettily turned ankle...  But he didn't go home with it.
    
    For myself, I know I sound like I spent 30 years with my head in
    a Food Fair bag, but I never looked at another man in a sexual way.
    Oh, I thought about how handsome someone might be, and noted that
    they were sexually attractive, I guess, but somehow it just didn't
    seem to make much difference.  I had a few men friends, men that
    I had actually met because of John, and we became close friends
    over time, 1 in particular closer than any other.  But I never felt
    anything but love in the sense of agape, not eros.
    
    I guess we were just lucky.  We were best friends, even though we
    were as different as night and day in so many things.  [I still
    have a hard time dealing with the fact he voted for NIXON].  Our
    marriage was *not* made in heaven, and we often worked harder at
    keeping it going and riding the rough spots than many of our friends.
    
    We certainly didn't think that the other one fulfilled all our needs.
    We had many outside interests and friends.  But the life we had
    together with our 4 children was the bedrock.  Our standards and
    values were the same; and I don't think that either of us could,
    or would, have been able to deal with the other having intimate
    relationships outside.
    
    I often wonder if, where there is a divided loyalty, the person
    you are with can be counted on to be there when they are most needed.
    And that is something that I would be uncomfortable with if I were
    with someone who was also with someone else.
    
    Old fashioned, I guess.  And perhaps tied too much to exclusive
    relationships.  But I know what I would *not* want.  I have too
    high a level of insecurity to feel that I wasn't the most important
    person in the life of the one I loved.  
    
    Marilyn  
    

I found a number of people's comments on "open relationships" allowing one
to have friend outside the marriage a little unsettling.  The possibility
that a relationship/marriage meant that I might not be able to have friends/
interests outside has never even *occured* to me!  The fact that people
would apply a special phrase to indicate relationships that allow that seems
to imply that there is another way for a relationship to be.  ????

I guess I was using "open relationship" loosely, in the common euphemism.
What I meant is "relationships that, to some degree, allow sexual contact
with people outside the marriage."

People who have said they have always had an open relationship, but have 
never defined it mean one thing or another, makes me a little uncomfortable.
It seems like such as easy situation, as someone described, for people to have
differing ideas, and someone will get hurt.  In every relationship I have
had, we talked *explicitly* about the expectations of monogamy, etc, and I
have found it helped a lot.

For instance, while it is true that I would always want my "primary" more
than anyone, I might be attracted to another person.  If the opportunity
arose, and I *know* that it would be no problem for my partner, I might
sleep with the guy.  however, if it had been explicity discussed that he
would feel uncomfortable about it, then I wouldn't, and it wouldn't bother
me not to.

To the personn who said that "open relationships" seem to define relationships
in terms of sex, I think it is quite the opposite. In some sense it says
"Sex is just like anything else...your partner should be your primary, but
that doesn't mean exclusive."  It means I can go outside the marriage for
someone to play tennis with, someone to tell my problems to, and someone to
have sex with.  Why should sex be any different?  

On the other hand, I think the above view is naive, because, like it or not,
sex for most people *is* different than other activities.  Why, I have no
idea.  But it seems liek more of our emotions and insecurity and need for
acceptance is wrapped up there than anywhere else...

D!

>For instance, while it is true that I would always want my "primary" more
>than anyone, I might be attracted to another person.  If the opportunity
>arose, and I *know* that it would be no problem for my partner, I might
>sleep with the guy.  however, if it had been explicity discussed that he
>would feel uncomfortable about it, then I wouldn't, and it wouldn't bother
>me not to.
    
    What we talked about, and concluded, is that we couldn't tell
    ahead of time whether we'd feel uncomfortable, or how much of a
    problem it would be.  So much of it depends on circumstances --
    why we felt like getting involved with someone else, how secure
    and confident the spouse was feeling at the time, whether our
    relationship was in a secure or troubled period.  That's why I say
    we'd deal with it when and if it happened, as we would with a
    career option involving a move or some other difficult situation. 
    The only time (several years ago now) when I really wanted to have
    sex with another man, I passed because we were in the middle of
    trying to work out other problems; having an affair would have
    been tantamount to saying that I was giving up on the marriage. 
    So I didn't, and it didn't bother me, and I'm still good friends
    with the man in question.  If the same situation had happened at a
    different time, I might have behaved differently.
    
    To us, this is less threatening and less emotionally dangerous
    than saying now, and sincerely believing, that no, we wouldn't
    feel betrayed about an affair, and then finding out we were
    mistaken and yes, it did hurt, etc. 
    
    I can see where other people would find the risk of mistaken
    assumptions much more dangerous -- each couple has to work that
    out for themselves. 
    
    --bonnie

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes to
    remain anonymous at this time.

    						=maggie

    ===================================================================

    I am not sure I like the term "open Marriage".  What is that?  Better
    yet, what is a _closed_ one?  But, for what it's worth, here goes.
    
    We have been living together for 20 years and married for 17 and it's
    still working through several of my ongoing and non-ongoing outside
    relationships and several of his. What makes it work? The 25 cent
    answer is, of course, "a lot of hard  work!"  The 2 dollar answer? 
    Well, let's see....
    
    HUMOR
    
    We take neither ourselves nor our lovers too terribly seriously.  We
    are all susceptible at one point or another to the foibles of chemical
    versus intellectual attraction. But it's inevitably short-lived.  I
    mean what _does_ one talk about after the first 30 orgasms?  We giggle 
    at ourselves and our attractions.  It is first and foremost FUN to be 
    attracted and attractive to people. We keep it that way.
         
    We never (and I mean NEVER here, folks) react in anger or jealousy 
    without taking a good count to ten first, then edit all the filthy
    words.  Then, if there is anything left to say, say it. It is just  as
    delicious to say, "I am irrationally angry with you and cannot speak
    because I am going to call you every dirty word ever thought of and a
    few that haven't been thought of yet because the woman I just  saw you
    with threatens my sense of security" as it is to make a raving fool of
    oneself by exhibiting one's ability to lose self control in  public.
                                 
    Instead, we often make a joke. It puts the other person on notice  that
    some invisible line has been crossed, but allows for a graceful 
    extrication. No one is really happy about being pulled by ones hair out
    of a bar to avoid a shouting match ;-)
         
    RESPECT
         
    My husband is a person. Yes, he is also my husband, but that  should
    give him MORE rights and freedom, not less. If anything I  should be
    much more careful of his need for privacy and time alone  than I am of
    my other friends' needs.  This is reflected in little  things like
    neither of us *expecting* to accompany the other to social  or
    work-related events. If we are invited as a couple, we respond as 
    such.  If either of us is invited separately, we decide whether we 
    wish to invite the other to go with us - or someone else - of either 
    sex.  If we are the uninvited party we also have a perfect right to 
    say "No, thank you."
         
    When either of us is traveling, it is the traveling person's 
    prerogative to call home.  There are no potentially embarrassing
    telephone calls in hotels. I know this sounds rather *organized*,  but
    if you want to live in a seemingly *unstructured* way, it just works
    out better if it is very well-planned underneath.
         
    COMMITMENT
         
    A major point. In all simplicity, I _do_ and _have_ loved many  people
    in my life.  I have a _commitment_ to only two: my husband and my son. 
    Plans, parties, and playing all get thrown to the winds  if one of
    those two actually needs me to be somewhere on short notice.  I can
    depend utterly on my husband in the same manner.
         
    LOVE
         
    Such a word!  All (this means husbands, wives, lovers, friends)  people
    that get involved in these kinds of relationships _must_ buy  into
    having rules of the game. The rules need to be stated up front and 
    unequivocally agreed to.  LOVING multiple people in my world is okay.
    Being "in love" is not. "In love" results in threats to the health of 
    the above-mentioned points.

    For reference only, since everyone must make their own peace with their
    own gods, I have only three rules:

    1.	_Nothing_ interferes with my marriage. I may appear to do many		
    many things that might interfere with someone else's	marriage... but I
    never do anything that interferes with mine.

    2.  _Nothing_ interferes with my job.

    3.	_Anything_ that does not do one of the above is okay. That		
    _can_ include sex but does not have to. This *open*	marriage I have has
    resulted in my sleeping with very few people other than my husband --
    there is such a thing as "shelf-life" you know ;-)

    My rules appear very vague and quite capable of individual
    interpretation.  They are. BUT they are also, and this means all the
    time regardless of who we are talking about, Robert Redford included,
    totally incontrovertible. Cross a line anywhere, anytime, just once and
    I walk. Period.

    I may have very few rules; and they may be shoddy in terms of
    content. But I live by them. I never break them. And my husband never
    breaks them. To function in a relationship of such freedom, we must
    have total and unquestioning trust for each other. Total adherence to
    the few rules we have is the only way I know of establishing and
    keeping that trust.
         
    IN GENERAL
         
    Does it sounds like having a "free and open" marriage would  hardly be
    worth the effort to build it?  Yes?  Well, for most folks  it probably
    is.  We have found that working all these points, every day, allows us
    to have outside relationships that are full and rewarding.  And it
    allows us to maintain our own marriage. I would not trade my  husband
    for a single other man I have ever loved.  I know it, he knows  it, and
    my lovers have known it from day one.
    
    I also know that lots of people disapprove of my life-style. But  it
    works for us.  I am not sure that I would recommend it to many    
    people.  I only know about a handful who are capable of letting go  of
    the _ownership_ clause in their marriage vows long enough to find  out
    that the commitment of a partner borne of freedom is much sweeter than
    the one borne of duty.
         
    I do not own my husband or his body, and he does not own mine. This  is
    a partnership we are running here, and if that includes forays into 
    the crowd now and then, who cares?  He has extremely good taste (he 
    picked me didn't he?) and we are both extremely aware of health issues.
         
    ---
         
    Sorry it is long-winded, but it is a delicate and multi-faceted  topic.
    And a very personal one in the sense that what works for one  person
    may be totally untenable for another, and both may be right --mutually
    exclusive truths if you will.  I think it can be done: I  am living
    proof, as of today anyway. I am also CERTAIN that some people cannot do
    it, and so should not.

         <<< Note 729.11 by TLE::RANDALL "living on another planet" >>>
                         -< what if you're mistaken? >-
(Bonnie)
    
    To us, this is less threatening and less emotionally dangerous
    than saying now, and sincerely believing, that no, we wouldn't
    feel betrayed about an affair, and then finding out we were
    mistaken and yes, it did hurt, etc. 
    
This is interesting, and I hadn't considered it before.  I realized
that there was a (strong) possibility that even tho I *felt* as if I
could handle it, and it wouldn't bother me, it would.  (This, in fact,
is what happened... :-( )  But I am not sure that not coming to firm
conclusions ahead of time would be any better.  Can you tell me why
you think it would be?

It seems to me that (in other times this has happened, or I thought it
happened) the biggest hurt was a sense of betrayal.  "I know I didnt
tell you not to do this, but if you loved me, you'd know that if you did
it would hurt me".  That I think arises from different expectations.
I think I agree with you that you can't predict your feelings - but you
can say "This is okay to try and we'll see what happens" or "I think
theis would really hurt, let's *not* try."

I also think that each partner should have a trump card, to be able to
say, "This time, no. I don't care if I am being unreasonable, I don't want
you to do *this*, cause it would hurt too much."  I think that comes back
to what someone said earlier about always being able to count on your
partner.  If anything would interfere with you feeling that you could count
on your partner, you should be able to tell them and have them back off 
quick.

D!

D!,

You're second to last paragraph struck a note with me. I spend a lot of energy
trying to anticipate other's needs and wants. I'm not all that happy I do it,
but it is second nature. I think it comes from being raised female in the USA,
but where it comes from doesn't make it any less 'me'. And I too have problems
with people doing things that hurt or bother me without seeming to think. The
difficult part is, they just aren't like me. Their internal imperatives aren't
the same. And that's OK. It's even healthy (in a lot of cases). As long as
_after_ the hurt occurs, and I say 'get off my toe!' they get off my toe, and
we can even discuss how not to step on my toe again.
	Mez

    Other than the person wishing to remain anonymous, I must say I
    don't really understand many of you who are advocates of "open
    relationships."  Like one previous noter, perhaps I'm old fashioned.
    I never thought so, until reading many of these entries. 
    
    Perhaps, however, I am too logical, or think too logically.  This
    may be why I understand and respect the anonymous noter.  In that
    relationship little is left to chance(for lack of a better
    description).  There is some structure and an understanding of what
    is expected of one another and the relationship.  Though I don't
    condone the concept, I can respect the fact that they have defined
    and agree upon the nature of the relationship.
    
    I wonder, however, about others of you.  I wonder about those of you
    who consider yourselves in "open relationships," but haven't been
    "tested," so to speak.  Would you be so if the "openness" took place
    in *your* bed?  It seems these discussions tend to imply that any
    sexual activity takes place "somewhere else."  What if you happened
    to walk in unexpectedly?  Has it been agreed that your bed _won't_
    be used, but it's okay if it's someone else's?  What if the "openness"
    takes place with a member of the same sex?  Is that a different
    issue for any of you?
    
    I wonder about those of you who are married and have stated vows.
    Did none of you pledge fidelity?  Does that mean something different
    to you than to me?  Or, did you just recite words as part of a ceremony
    staged to please family and friends?
    
    For those of you who have stated you believe your in an open
    relationship, but would deal with the actuality of it when the
    situation arises (or some such thing), I really wonder.  Do you
    find yourself in a compromising position, go with it, and just not
    go home, hoping you'll be able to explain in the morning?  Do you
    get up in the middle of the night, go home, climb into bed and say,
    "A funny thing happened on the way home from work tonight..."? 
    In the throws of "getting carrried away" with someone you once lived
    with, for example, do you excuse yourself, make a quick phone call
    saying, "Well, honey, the situation is prsenting itself..."?  Or,
    do you broach the subject all cuddled in bed, nuzzled in each other's
    arms, "So, sweetheart, I'm having dinner with X tomorrow night,
    and I thought I'd take advantage of this open marriage thing we
    have."
    
    A little (alot?) sarcastic, perhaps a bit humorous, but have you
    thought about some of this?

>This is interesting, and I hadn't considered it before.  I realized
>that there was a (strong) possibility that even tho I *felt* as if I
>could handle it, and it wouldn't bother me, it would.  (This, in fact,
>is what happened... :-( )  But I am not sure that not coming to firm
>conclusions ahead of time would be any better.  Can you tell me why
>you think it would be?
    
    Good question, D!.  
    
    Since the situation has never arisen, it may well be that if he
    did become involved in a situation where he became sexually
    involved with one of his friends, I would, indeed, feel hurt and
    betrayed, and that I'm living in cloudland to think I wouldn't.
    
    But I think it's more because I trust Neil to do what he thinks is
    best in a given situation -- the best balance in the possibly
    conflicting worlds of his own personal needs, my needs, our needs
    as a couple, the family's needs.  I know he wouldn't hurt me
    without a good reason.  I don't have to worry about him doing
    something without thinking or without taking all the difficulties
    and complications into account.
    
    If I didn't have that, I don't think I'd be so complacent about
    not talking things out ahead of time -- whether that was a sexual
    relationship or a potential career move.
    
    --bonnie

                     <<< Note 729.15 by CASPRO::MILLER_T >>>
                       -< "I think, therefore I am...." >-

>    who consider yourselves in "open relationships," but haven't been
>    "tested," so to speak.  Would you be so if the "openness" took place
>    in *your* bed?  It seems these discussions tend to imply that any
>    sexual activity takes place "somewhere else."  What if you happened
>    to walk in unexpectedly?  Has it been agreed that your bed _won't_
>    be used, but it's okay if it's someone else's?  What if the "openness"
>    takes place with a member of the same sex?  Is that a different
>    issue for any of you?
    
>    For those of you who have stated you believe your in an open
>    relationship, but would deal with the actuality of it when the
>    situation arises (or some such thing), I really wonder.  Do you
>    find yourself in a compromising position, go with it, and just not
[...] 
    
>    A little (alot?) sarcastic, perhaps a bit humorous, but have you
>    thought about some of this?

Frankly, not at all humourous, more than a little sarcastic, and it
*appears* that you have already decided that we don't think about it.
Can't speak for anyone else, but yes, yes, yes, I have thought about it
and talked about it with my SO to death.

You may find it humourous to talk about someone calling home to find
out if it's okay before it happens, but i don't.  That was one possibility
my SO and I discussed.  We talked about everything we could think of; in
*our* bed?  Well, sure, but warn me, I do *not* want to walk in accidentally.
What about one person being virtually kicked out of the house while the
other has fun?  No, that's not allowed.  etc, etc... In fact, i bet since
you haven't considered the possibility of an open relationship, you haven't
even begun to consider all the possible glitches that must be hashed
out before hand.  I believe that to work, the expectations in a relationship
must be clearly and explicitly discussed.  (I see that some here disagree
with that...)

>    I wonder about those of you who are married and have stated vows.
>    Did none of you pledge fidelity?  Does that mean something different
>    to you than to me?  Or, did you just recite words as part of a ceremony
>    staged to please family and friends?
    
Intersting you should mention that.  I went to a wedding recently, where
the couple getting married is known (to friends, not to family) as being
in a very open relationship.  When the "faithful" part of the vows came up,
and both of them solemnly swore they would be faithful, a chuckle ran through
the crowd.  I chuckled too...

Then I thought about the meaning of the word "faithful".  It has come to
colloquially mean "not having sex outside the relationship."  But the *real*
meaning of the word doesn't have anything to do with sex.  When Stephen
swore he would be faithful to Martha he meant that he would always be there
when she needed him, that he would never deliberately hurt her, that she 
would always come first in his life, that he would support and help her in
all ways.  And he meant it with all his heart.  Isn't that meaning of the
word faithful so much more imporant than "not having sex with others?"

I asked Stephen about that.  He felt there was no conflict between his use
of the word faithful and their openness.  He meant he would stick by her
"faithfully"...which means, if their "outside experiences" ever interefered
with the relationship, then of course, being "faithful" would include the
sense of the word you seem to be implying.

D!

    re.15
    
    as the person who has gone on record as having been 'tested' and who
    has an open relationship, I wish to respond.
    
    most of the scenarios you present are quite silly.  I will agree that
    the situations you describe are not.
    
    a lot of thought and communication has gone into understanding what my
    husband and I expect of each other.  the vows we took at our wedding
    did not mention fidelity, we did/do expect it and that was understood.
    
    key here are 'understand' and 'expect'
    
    NOT 'agreed' or 'demanded'
    
    as we expect fidelity, having sex with someone else is not 'OK'
    where-ever it takes place.  I have also said that when it happened it
    was unsettling. It did not destroy the relationship.  It did, however,
    give both of us a better understanding of our own limits and pretty
    much guaranteed that it won't happen again.
    
    Not because we agreed that it wouldn't happen again, but because we
    learned a good deal about the effects, both upon ourselves and upon
    each other, of going against expectations.  
    
    The relationship is no less open because we still have the freedom to
    follow our own consciences.  Committing to an open relationship also
    means taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting the
    outcome without recrimination if one's partner is tested too severely.
    
    up front we acknowledged that these things happen.  up front we knew
    that neither one of us saw 'goodness' in having sex with someone else.
    up front we made a conscious decision _not_ to put terms and conditions
    on the outcome without first-hand knowledge of the situation. well it
    happened, it wasn't pretty, we now have first-hand knowledge, we both
    feel more strongly than ever that fidelity is best, AND we still trust
    each other.
    
      Ann
    

    
    re:.17
    i quite agree about the word 'faithful'. lauren and i almost decided
    to leave it out of our otherwise traditional presbyterian liturgy
    (in fact, the minister asked us, jokingly, i think, if there was some
    3rd party that she hadn't been told about...). then we realised that
    'faithful' means so much more than the relative triviality of sexual
    exclusivity. 
    

Bonnie (.16):
    best in a given situation -- the best balance in the possibly
    conflicting worlds of his own personal needs, my needs, our needs
    as a couple, the family's needs.  I know he wouldn't hurt me
    without a good reason.  I don't have to worry about him doing
    something without thinking or without taking all the difficulties
    and complications into account.

You say you trust Neil not to hurt you without good reason, to take your
feelings into account.  My point is that I think there is a catch with
that - he may not *know* how you will react.  You said at the beginning
of your note that even you are not sure how you would react - yet you
seem to be relying on him to correctly predict reactions you yourself can't
predict.

I trust my boyfriend completely to avoid hurting me.  But the reason to
talk things out is that he may think that something won't hurt me that does.
If he *knew* ahead of time how much it would hurt, he certainly wouldn't
have done it.  True, talking about things doesn't guarantee that he will
understand, mostly because I can't predict well either, but without talking
things out clearly, it seems to me almost guaranteed that he won't be able
to predict your reactions.

I guess I just don't really see the benefit of not talking about it, while
I see lots of potential harm.  

D!

    re: .20

    I see your point, D!, and I agree with it in general. 

    What I mean by saying I trust Neil not to hurt me without good
    reason is that if something hurtful does happen, and it's not
    something he had a way of knowing would hurt me -- or the other
    way around, if I did something I didn't know would hurt him, which
    has happened much more frequently in ten years of marraige -- 
    we'd at least be going into the pain and difficult time of working
    out the hurt with the belief that we each meant the best.  And
    that takes a lot of the sting out of a hurt.
    
    I think maybe the difference in our attitudes here isn't so much
    in the communication but in the way we're looking at extramarital
    sex.  For me, it's one of those things that might happen in a
    marriage, like having a serious illness, becoming disabled, having
    once-in-a-lifetime career opportunities on opposite coasts at the
    same time, or deciding whether to remodel the kitchen.  And I
    think if I came home from a week-long business trip to a new
    kitchen I had no hand in choosing, I might take the violation of
    my house more seriously than I'd take finding out Neil had been
    working late and then going home with one of the women he works
    with!
    
    So in that sense we do talk about it -- we have conversations with
    monogamy and/or fidelity, in general, as the topic.  We did talk
    about it when we wrote our marriage vows and agreed not to include
    sexual exclusiveness.  I imagine if sex outside of marriage was of
    major importance to either of us, we would talk much more about
    how we think we might feel, but at present it's an abstraction, an
    idea, something to speculate about in the same way we'd speculate
    about what it would be like to live in a world that had discovered
    a cure for cancer.  But it's not a serious, realistic possibility
    for either of us right now.
    
    --bonnie

    What confuses me while reading many of these replies is that I get
    the impression that many people are very pleased with the fact that
    they did not ask their partner to promise sexual fidelity, as though
    this means that they are not possessive, jealous and demanding.
     But, at the same time, some have said that even though they were
    both free to have sex with others, that neither of them have.  It
    seems to me as though the modern day ideal is to refuse to promise
    sexual fidelity in order to prove you are free and your own person, but then
    to never actually have sex with anybody else, to prove how happy
    you really are with your partner.  As though to say, see, even though
    I've been free to have sex with somebody else, I didn't.  This confuses
    me.  I'm not saying that it's right or wrong.  I'm just saying that
    it would never work for me.  If/when I enter into a relationship
    with another person, if sexual fidelity is important for the other person 
    then they had better say so, and if having a relationship with the
    other person is important enough to me, then I am capable of promising
    sexual fidelity.  It would have to be mutual of course.  If we agreed
    that sex outside of marriage/or live-in relationship was okay, then
    I could guarantee to them that at some point I would indeed wind up
    having sex with somebody else.  There are just too many attractive
    men in the world, and sex is too enjoyable to stay faithful to just
    one man if he (1) doesn't expect it or (2) won't promise that he'll
    be faithful.  This gets very complicated for me because I still
    really believe that a monogamous relationship is the ideal.  But,
    I feel no one has a right to expect monogamy from me without explicitly
    asking for that committment.
    
    I guess what I'm saying, Bonnie, is that if I had been married for
    ten years to somebody and we had not promised each other sexual
    fidelity, I just know I would have wound up doing it with somebody
    else sometime or other before those 10 years were up!  (You can
    always find time for those things you really want to do!)  Well,
    at least I'm trying to be honest.
    
    Lorna
    
    to it

re: -1

Lorna, yes, I agree, what you say confuses you confuses me, too.  I mean, if 
I am in an open relationship, then it's *open*.  That is the type of 
open relationship I meant when I started this discussion - one where it
was *decided* that it would be open, because the people involved did want
outside experiences.  This describes mine, although lately I feel I don't
want outside experiences, and he does, which is the inequity I hope to figure
out.  I agree with everything you said (except perhaps the part about
moogamy being ideal, haven't decided yet.)

You helped me clarify what I am looking to discuss - open relationships, not
where oen parter or the other is "allowed" to go outside the relationship
but expected that if he or she really loves the other he/she won't, but
relationships where outside experiences are expected, perhaps even encouraged.

D!

 I couldn't have an open relationship. First of all, the idea of another man
and my wife having sex makes me exceedingly jealous- probably a result of the
insecurities that would undoubtedly crop up- "Am I not good enough?... Don't
I satisfy her?" Also, I would expect my relationship with my wife to suffer
as I explored new pastures, so to speak. I suppose if I were the type to
jump in the sack and leave while she's sleeping it would be possible to have
extramarital sex without affecting the day to day aspects of our marriage, but
I'm not. When I find a good thing, I generally want more and more and more of
it until I sort of burn out on it. Then I find something new. My wife and
I each expect sexual exclusivity from each other; that determination was made
before things got serious between us. The problem with open relationships
(to me) is that there is always the possibility that your SO will find someone 
that they like better, then ta ta!

 The Doctah

Doctah,

The problem with *any* relationship is that your SO may
find someone more interesting and then tata...

Let's be realistic....there are a whole bunch of "non-open"
relationships floundering out there...how do you suppose that
happened? Osmosis? The Plague?

The onus of sexual fidelity describing faithfulness is merely
an added irritant. The behavior you describe of finding a
good thing and OD-ing on it until you move on to something
else is as much an *outcome* of forbidden fruit as it is
a result of the action itself.

If occasional extramarital sex was the norm...it would hardly
be verboten enough to cause such a stir. *Because* it is
"not allowed" it is irresistable. Ask any 16 year old.

It is a difficult world to hold any kind of a relationship
together in....and it has nothing to do with sexual mores
or lax moral structure [although those are certainly
"effects" of the situation]. It has to do with the mere
physical proximity of hundreds of men and women to hundreds
of other men and women to whom they are *not* married.

The institution of marriage was never meant to withstand such
an onslaught. It was developed, after all, merely to insure
legal succession and birth right...good old fashioned gene
pool stuff...in a world that was much less cosmopolitan.

We are struggling to maintain, against normal human nature, the
rigid structures of a social institution whose reason d'etre has
long since come [s'cuse the pun] and gone. Do not misread this
reply...I am not denegrating marriage or its usefulness...only
fidelity and the clauses of chattledom that are inherent in the
marriage vows currently accepted as common usage.

Sorry, I am nobody's chattle...and certainly nobody's personal
sex toy. I have the honor and joy of being in a partnership
of marriage for over 15 years...without benefit of ownership
on either person's part. But, I think partially it works
because we both understand the origin of our insecurities around
fidelity and *work* at ignoring them.

[BEFORE someone jumps....the origin of the marriage vows and the
socail insitution on marriage *IS* fact...easily documented...the rest
is my own often misguided opionion....{grin}]

Melinda

    re: Lorna and D! 
    
    Now I'm confused.  Just because a person has the freedom to do
    something doesn't mean that they HAVE to do it.  I have the
    freedom to quit my job, for example, but I have no desire to quit
    right now and might never want to.  I have the freedom to sell my
    house and move somewhere else, but I don't have any desire to do
    that now, though I might in a few years. 
    
    It doesn't make any more sense to me to say that because I have
    the freedom to become sexually involved with someone else, I will
    definitely become involved with someone else.  
    
    --bonnie

    Re .26, Bonnie, now I'm even more confused!! :-)
    
    I can only describe how I feel from my own perspective, if I were
    beginning a relationship with a person (we had decided to move in
    together/get married/decided we were in love and/or decided to spend
    a lot of time together, whatever-a new relationship), I would have
    to discuss how we both felt about outside sex.  If I were in love
    with him I know that deep-down-in-my-heart I would hope that he
    would want us to decide that we wanted to try to have a monogamous
    relationship, which to me means, that to the best of our present
    knowledge neither one of us has any desire to have sex with anybody
    else and that we value the relationship more than a chance to sleep
    with some other attractive person who might happen along.  I would
    not demand this of anyone.  If the person said that they could not
    commit to this, then I would say, fine.  But, that would mean that
    I would eventually wind up with somebody else on occasion.  If somebody
    I was in love with, was so in love with me, that they thought they
    wanted a monogamous relationship, and I really loved that person
    and wanted to be with them, and knew that it would really hurt him
    if I slept with somebody else then I wouldn't do it.  But, if I
    am in a relationship with somebody who says that they do not choose
    to promise sexual fidelity, then why should I pass up a chance of
    some fun with, for example an attractive friend or co-worker who
    might be interested.  I would assume that my partner would occasionally
    be doing it with other people.  Otherwise, why the big deal about
    promising fidelity.  I guess, the thing is, Bonnie, if I were free
    to do it, I would want to do it, because the only reason I wouldn't
    want to do it would be if somebody made it worth my while, by promising
    to be monogamous with me.
    
    Lorna
    
    

         <<< Note 729.26 by TLE::RANDALL "living on another planet" >>>
 
    Now I'm confused.  Just because a person has the freedom to do
    something doesn't mean that they HAVE to do it.  I have the
    freedom to quit my job, for example, but I have no desire to quit
    right now and might never want to.  I have the freedom to sell my
    house and move somewhere else, but I don't have any desire to do
    that now, though I might in a few years. 

Well, here's my feelings.  You have said (I am paraphrasing, so kick me
if I add connotations that weren't there in the original messages) that
you haven't had outside relations because you are satisfied with your
partner, and don't feel the need, yes?  The implication here is that if
you are satisfied with your partner, you won't want to have sex with 
others.  This leads one to the conclusion that if you do have sex with
others, it means you aren't satisfied with your partner.  In the examples
you give, this is true - you wouldn't give up your job unless you were
dissatisfied or has found something betters.  Same with selling your house.

In my idea of an open relationship, outside sex does *not* mean that the
partner is unsatisfied at home, or that anything is wrong with the relationship
at all.  It seems possible to me (or maybe I am kiddig myeslf, seeing as
how I am having problems dealing with an open relationship) that someone
can be very happy with their "primary", fully satisied sexually and otherwise,
and still want more/new experiences.
    
    It doesn't make any more sense to me to say that because I have
    the freedom to become sexually involved with someone else, I will
    definitely become involved with someone else.  
    
Certainly not!  I was saying (and I think Lorna was too) that we *personally*
would take advantage of such a situation if it were there.  Not that everyone
must.  But that if your reasons for not doing it are because "If I am 
satisfied with my partner, then I wouldn't *want* to have sex with someone
else" then it isn't really open.  Although technically you are "allowed"
to do it, it would indicate that there was a problem with the relationship.

IS that clearer?

D!

    When all is said and done, I think what it all boils down to is
    
    	"What does sex mean to you?"
    
    If sex to you is a physical expression of a certain level of
    emotional intimacy, then the idea of extramarital sex by your
    SO can (and will) be bothersome.
    
    If sex to you is a casual physical activity, then there's no
    problem.
    
    The trick is to know that you feel the first way even when you're
    trying to fool yourself in believing that you feel the second way.
    
    --- jerry

Well, the title of this note has jarred me every time I see it,
since most of the relationships I'm in close touch with are
woman-woman relationships.  "Bad for the woman?"  Which one?

But, at the risk of adding another perspective -- I've seen
a few very healthy, long-term open relationships between women.
The ones that work seem to me to be the ones in which  the
partners are very self-assured and secure, have done alot of thinking
and communicating about what they both want, and are fairly
independent.  They mutually agree to the premises that a) theirs
is a "primary" relationship, and b) they may each become
emotionally and/or physically close to other women as well
over time, as "secondary" relationships, or friendships, or whatever.

In my own (11-year) relationship, we've had both "open" and
"closed" periods, based on what's best when.  Our premise is that
we change and grow and so does our relationship, so the "rules"
ought to be re-visited from time to time.

Yes, in an "open" relationship there's a risk that someone will
find someone they'd rather have as their primary relationship, but
that can happen anyway, anytime.  To me the "openness" has nothing
to do with it (except maybe to impose artificial bounds -- "If
I don't let you out of the house you can't meet anyone else"
(to be a little facetious about it)).  

	MKV

I've been doing some rethinking of some of my own positions of this
recently.  I think .29 was very insightful.  For me, sex is an
expression of love.  I tend to find sex without love empty and
denigrating (not that I don't have purely physical needs).  I also
realize that other people don't see things this way.  Many times in
this type of discussion, both the monogames and the nonmonogames seem
to claim moral superiority over the other.  I think its up to each of
us and each couple to work out.

The other possibility is being in love with two people at once which I
think I would find too confusing and intense and too much hard work
(ie, love).

Anyways, I have found myself to be a monagamous person for whatever
reasons although I've tried to imagine it others ways.  I am wondering
if I am more relaxed about having sex without being in love now - I
may find out soon since I'm single again.  One thing I have noticed is
that sex releases a lot of powerful emotions for me.  I can get sex
and love confused.  If I hop into bed with someone, I can end up
falling for someone that may not be healthy for me (all perspective is
lost).

So, I am thinking I have to either be comfortable just having sex and
being careful emotionally or take the time to really get to know
someone, be be friends, to go slow before having sex.  [Actually I
have a gut feel that the latter is what is right for me.]

When I get into a "serious" relationship again, it will be a
monagamous one.

But sometimes I wonder about my own veiws and feelings about monagamy. 
I have to respect the fact that they are but I wonder about their
origin sometimes.  Some of it is cultural.  This society places alot
of emphasis on monagamy and until death do you part.  Other societies
didn't and they seemed to work OK.  Sex was recreational mostly while
marriage was more of a finincial arrangement and same sex affairs and
marriages were no big deal either.  I also know that part of my
feelings on monagomy are in fact based on insecurity and fear that I
was not good enough or in danger of being dumped.  But I think another
part has to do with my particular values which stress long term
relationships and being content and growing and working through things
with one person and expressing love through both sexual and non-sexual
means.

I would never want to be in a couple could not have same sex friends (for het
relationships).  That's seems real confining and insecurity based.
However, people get jealous and that's OK as long as you can work it
out and talk it thru if need be.  I think we have to acknowledge our
own human nature too.  I'm sure in active open relationships people
have to do a lot of this work all the time.

I've also met couples that don't even have any primary/secondary
notions or sex notions (ie, whether the other relationship is same
sex or opposite sex)  and live in extended groups without restictions.
For me this was at first mind boggling!  Anyways, who knows, I have
enough trouble finding out what's right for me!

john

    re:.31
    
    Well, there's sex without love and sex without love. The question
    is whether a certain amount or type of love needs to be present
    to make the sex emotionally fulfilling. Some people can find sex
    emotionally fulfilling with people they "love" but aren't "in love
    with"; others need to be "in love with" their sexual partner to
    be fulfilled.
    
    I can't resist quoting Diane Keaton and Woody Allen, from Allen's
    film LOVE AND DEATH:
    
    DK: "Sex without love is a meaningless gesture."
    
    WA: "Yeah, but as meaningless gestures go, it's the best."
    
    --- jerry

< Note 729.25 by HARDY::REGNELL "Smile!--Payback is a MOTHER!" >

> [BEFORE someone jumps....the origin of the marriage vows and the
> social [sp] insitution on marriage *IS* fact...easily documented...the rest
> is my own often misguided opionion....{grin}]

  I would be interested in the documentation you have seen of this.  What
  are the best references that people in here know of regarding the history
  of the social institution of marriage ?

  My own personal feelings are towards monogamy.  My feelings are that in a
  relationship (in my relationship with my wife), we have made a commitment
  to be monogamous, in various others facets of intimacy as well as sexual
  intimacy, and we do so not because the institution constrained us, but because
  we COULD see in advance that this was the type of life we wanted.

  For us, it is not just sexual intimacy, but all levels of intimacy that we
  want to share.  I feel that for me, it would be difficult to develop deeply
  intimate relationships with more than one person, and I do want to establish
  that type of relationship with Susan.  So, while I recognize she could change
  her mind, I have committed to not change mine.  We mutually agreed that this
  was what we wanted, and so found no problem in making a commitment to live
  in a "closed" relationship.

  Moreover, for us there is another facet.  While some of you may not consider
  it important, for us our religious views would "forbid" this for us.  We do
  not look as a "restriction" as we feel in our hearts a spiritual presence
  that comes from our worship of God through our daily living.  As He has
  fulfilled a total commitment, we worship Him through our emulation of that
  commitment.  He has asked us to be monogamous.  Our experience has been that,
  as we try our best to live in harmony with Him, we are granted His peace, and
  we strongly feel our relationship with him provides much more than intimate
  relationships with others.

  Just my feelings ...

RE: .33 (Re: .25) (questions on the history of marriage)

    I've been  doing  some  reading on this lately, and the (Orthodox)
    Jewish  view  of  the history of marriage and fidelity is that sex
    outside of marriage is prohibited. Sex between two people, each of
    whom  is unmarried (fornication) is not nearly so bad as adultery.
    A  major point of the laws was to identify the parents of a child,
    so  polygamy  was  allowed  (and actually almost required if a man
    married a barren woman), but polyandry was considered adultery and
    was very illegal.

    Sometime before  800 AD, polygamy started to go out of fashion (as
    did  required  divorce for couples who couldn't have children) and
    the  ketubah (marriage contract) would often have a promise by the
    man  not  to  marry  a  second  wife.  Around  1000 AD, the rabbis
    prohibited  polygamy  in  most  Jewish  cultures.  Apparently  the
    (formal) reasoning went something like this: A man was required to
    treat  his  wife  well, and must certainly treat both of his wives
    equally  to  maintain  domestic  peace, which is very important in
    Jewish  law.  But  it took all of a man's energy to treat one wife
    well,  so  if he had two, he could either treat them unequally, or
    not  treat  them well. Neither was acceptable, so second marriages
    became illegal.

--David

re: .28
    
    >The implication here is that if you are satisfied with your
    >partner, you won't want to have sex with  others.  This leads one
    >to the conclusion that if you do have sex with others, it means
    >you aren't satisfied with your partner.  In the examples you give,
    >this is true - you wouldn't give up your job unless you were
    >dissatisfied or has found something betters.  Same with selling
    >your house.
    
    D!, 
    
    Yes, the examples I gave do have that implication, which I didn't
    intend.  A better analogy would be buying a vacation home. It
    would be an extra, and having it wouldn't interfere with the fact
    that the house I live in now is my primary residence.  I also
    wouldn't consider getting involved with a vacation home -- even a
    timeshare weekend! -- if my main house needed the financial or 
    emotional resources I was considering putting into the vacation.
    
    --bonnie

          An article in the 1952-53 _Yale Law Journal_ explains explicitly
          why the preservation of the bodies of women is important to men:

               The consent standard in our society does more than protect
               _a  significant item of social currency for women_; it
               fosters, and is in turn bolstered by, a masculine pride in
               the _exclusive possession of a sexual object_.  The consent
               of a woman to sexual intercourse awards the man a privilege
               of bodily access, a personal "prize" whose _value is
               enhanced by sole ownership_.  An additional reason for the
               man's condemnation of rape may be found in the threat to his
               status from a _decrease in the value of his sexual
               possession_ which would result from forcible violation.

          NOTE:  The source of this analysis is **not** a feminist tract:
          it was part of an explanation of the nature of rape laws given in
          the _Yale Law Journal_.
                         
                                   as quoted by Susan Griffin in _Ramparts_

    re .36
    
    *Oh* yes. My understanding of the history of laws about rape is
    that they reflect men's concern for the protection of men's property 
    (= women's bodies) at least as much as they do concern for women.  

    I don't see what that has to do with open relationships, however.  
    
    Open relationships don't rely on possession.  They rely on free
    choice and free committment. 
    
    --bonnie

    Sorry, Mike -- looks like I deleted a line by accident.  I was
    also replying to .37 about the origin of rape laws.
    
    --bonnie