Stay marry, but sleep with other people.

[DaveC426913]

The operative word here is polyamory - the practice of romantic relationships with more than one partner. It is not cheating - that is a misunderstanding of the issue.


To all those who feel they have a right to pass judgement on how other consenting adults carry on their consenting adult relationships:

I have a list of questions about your romantic life that I'd like to ask and have you answer in public, so the rest of us can judge whether or not we approve. Just say the word.

 

[Danger]

I'm quite in favour of 'open' relationships. Unfortunately, W isn't.

 

[arildno]

The attitude shown by several members here that obligation-less relationships somehow indicates a "lack of moral standards" is simply wrong and disgusting.
There ARE very important moral standards involved in this, namely those of mutual consent by rational adults.

 

[Dawguard]

It's all well and good to say people can do whatever they want and we shouldn't command their morality. That's a principle most rational people completely agree with, but it can be used as a blanket statement: something to hide behind and claim absolute immunity to questioning. The issue here is not so much the sexual promiscuity of "swingers", but that fact that they are married. While we can dissagree with the morals of promiscuity, these morals fall under the unprovable realm of religion. Marriage does not. For almost all of human history marriage has been entirely secular, it was only during Pope Gregory's time that it was made a sacrement, and Innocent III was the first pope to cannonify these rule and enforce it. There is a definable, loical purpose behind marriage, and one that is not based on unprovable morallity. This should be the focus of the debate, not a simple repition of "you're wrong, no you're wrong" that inevitably follows a question of morals.

 

[AngelShare]

(1) The operative word here is polyamory - the practice of romantic relationships with more than one partner. It is not cheating - that is a misunderstanding of the issue.

(2) To all those who feel they have a right to pass judgement on how other consenting adults carry on their consenting adult relationships:

I have a list of questions about your romantic life that I'd like to ask and have you answer in public, so the rest of us can judge whether or not we approve. Just say the word.

(3) The attitude shown by several members here that obligation-less relationships somehow indicates a "lack of moral standards" is simply wrong and disgusting.
(4) There ARE very important moral standards involved in this, namely those of mutual consent by rational adults.

What's wrong and disgusting is how some people think they can dictate to others what their opinions should be and whether or not they should give them. A question was asked, a discussion was sparked, opinions were given. This bull **** over who has the right to say what is just that-- bull ****.

(1) That's kind of a given, here. Those involved feel it isn't cheating while those who aren't and don't approve feel that it is-- that's probably why they, themselves, don't do it too.

(2) That's just asinine. People have opinions, people will speak their opinions. Welcome to America. No one here judged a specific person or couple, they were giving their opinions on swinging in general. What with how people have their own minds and all (*Shock shock*), it's unlikely that there's anyone topic no one has an opinion on. If possessing an opinion is "passing judgement", everyone here has, at one point, passed judgement on someone or something.

(3) That's what they think, that's how they feel. If they didn't feel that way, they'd probably be sleeping with five or six different people as well.

(4) Who knows, there probably are moral standards among those who can make it work but not everyone thinks it's possible and not every swinging couple can make it work.

What's moral and what isn't is clearly subjective.

 

[Hurkyl]

While we can dissagree with the morals of promiscuity, these morals fall under the unprovable realm of religion.

Not true -- there are other ways to argue that promiscuity is immoral that are not based upon religion. (Of course, everything depends on what you take as a philosophical basis for morality)

 

[scott_alexsk]

What about the swingers' kids? How will they turn out? What will their life be like?
-scott

 

[Gokul43201]

What about the swingers' kids? How will they turn out? What will their life be like?
-scott

I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you think will be wrong with their (the kids', assuming they have kids) lives ?

 

[scott_alexsk]

How would the multiple partners of ones parent affect the devolpment of the child's mind? (I really don't know the answer, but it is just something to think about. Divorce has a very negative impact on the life of a child. Also parents cheating on each other even without having a divorce has a negative impact. But with swingers the case is different since it is open and I am not sure how it would affect the devolpment.)
-scott

 

[DaveC426913]

(2) To all those who feel they have a right to pass judgement on how other consenting adults carry on their consenting adult relationships:

I have a list of questions about your romantic life that I'd like to ask and have you answer in public, so the rest of us can judge whether or not we approve. Just say the word.

That's just asinine. People have opinions, people will speak their opinions. Welcome to America. No one here judged a specific person or couple, they were giving their opinions on swinging in general. What with how people have their own minds and all (*Shock shock*), it's unlikely that there's anyone topic no one has an opinion on. If possessing an opinion is "passing judgement", everyone here has, at one point, passed judgement on someone or something.

Perhaps I should clarify.

Many people have no trouble passing judgment about what other people do or don't do. It rarely occurs to these people that the very act of thinking they have an opinion is hypocritical.

If I started asking questions like: "When was the last time you..." or "Do you and your SO ever try it X style" they would immediately get offended and say "That's none of your #@&$ business!"

If possessing an opinion is "passing judgement", everyone here has, at one point, passed judgement on someone or something.

[One edit, if I may]: Possessing an opinion about how others act (in the privacy of their own adult consenting relationships) is indeed passing judgment.

 

[Dawguard]

Not true -- there are other ways to argue that promiscuity is immoral that are not based upon religion. (Of course, everything depends on what you take as a philosophical basis for morality)

That's true, but usually any question of morals will boil down qustion of religion, since that is what most people use to justify their morals or lack thereof. Also, reading this thread a central argument people make is saying that "we can't judge someone's morals". I just wanted to bypass the entire question of whether it is moral or not. The issue in question seems to be to be the fact that the couple is married and still going out with other people. Scott Alessk asked if their would be a negative impact on their children, which I would be inclined to say there is. I have no statistics to verify that claim, but logicaly you would have to assume that if they know their parents are doing it they will think it's OK. You can't doubt that this will cause them problems when they grow older and enter a relationship. Also, it seemss to me that by enganging in this behavior, the purpose of a family is damaged. As I said, a family and marriage is not a moral that can be bantered back and forth without ultimate proof, marriage is a definable thing. Sexual promiscuity amongst the married people seems to erode the meaning of what marriage is, and therefore the meaning of a family. Unless this is thought as a good thing, I can't see any justification for a married couple being swingers.

Just as a side note, this thread might be more suitable in the Value section of Philosophy.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I base my morals on a tapestry of things, my social group, societys laws, my parents all are influenced by the religous no doubt, but since I'm agnostic I really get no direct influence from religion, it just so happens that many of the things I believe coincide with religous values.

One thing I will say though is that provided there is no harm to all those involved, I see no reason to be bothered.

I think some people should lighten up a bit as well, and yes that is passing judgement Passing moral judgement on someone, saying it's wrong and against marriage etc, etc, fine: saying it's disgusting is a bit OTT. This is the 2006 not 1746. Must be puritans or something

 

[Dawguard]

One thing I will say though is that provided there is no harm to all those involved, I see no reason to be bothered.

Herein lies the problem, because as of yet I have not seen any definition of who or what it harms. I personally feel that it does cause harm, most specifialy to the children in any relationship, but also, in a much broader sense, to the concept of marriage and family. I will admit that I have no data or statistics to prove this, but it would be interesting and hopefully constructive to see a rebuttal or proof thereof.

 

[scott_alexsk]

Remember the decadence of the Romans.
-soctt

 

[arildno]

Divorce has a very negative impact on the life of a child.

Not at all.
Parents who ought to divorce, but stay married all too long, however, DO harm their child with their incessant quarreling and poisoning of the domestic environment.

 

[Gokul43201]

Scott Alessk asked if their would be a negative impact on their children, which I would be inclined to say there is. I have no statistics to verify that claim, but logicaly you would have to assume that if they know their parents are doing it they will think it's OK.

This is an insufficient argument. You are arguing the effect (of the behavior of the parents) on their children against people who believe the behavior of the parents is "OK".

 

[ray b]

Remember the decadence of the Romans.
-soctt

real history vs your sunday school's lies

rome did just fine and expanded under pagan morals
only after the christians took over did the empire fail
and fail fairly fast
maybe the problem was christian morals

roman morals were strong , just not exactly the same as christian

I see no problem with open marrage
and find the idea of ownership of others wrong

when most people see a truly free person
it scares the he! out of them

 

[scott_alexsk]

I was taught that as one of the reasons for Roman decline in a public school. Since there was a decrease in morals the Romans did not have as many children since the family structure collapsed, which made them weaker. Also the gluntony and self indulgence of Caligula did not help .
-scott

 

[BornLogician79]

Physics Forums?
To the original Q?
Someone is not getting there cookies! Women not cheat when intrigued, and not just sexually. Hmmmmmmmmm!
Other than that keep the higher ground! Too easy to hook up, more challenging to not.
I did think marriage was about spending your life with someone, not everyone?

 

[big man]

This is an interesting discussion.

My opinion would be that the whole concept of 'swinging' is wrong and disgusting.

What a closed-minded person I am...how dare I say this. After all it's the life choice of those people and I should respect that regardless of how morally wrong I believe it to be.

I'm sorry but I just don't see how you should just accept these things and have it seem like it's OK. You do lack some moral standards if you think 'swinging' is the thing to do. It's not to say that you are amoral, but 'swinging' is considered immoral and that means that you lack moral standards to some degree.

I see 'swinging' as a lifestyle that makes a joke of marriage. It is also a lifestyle that treats sex as a purely recreational activity.

Now that I've finished you can rip into me :)

 

[arildno]

I was taught that as one of the reasons for Roman decline in a public school. Since there was a decrease in morals

Eeh?

the Romans did not have as many children

Wrong

since the family structure collapsed

"Familias" was NOT the same as "family"!
, which made them weaker.

Also the gluntony and self indulgence of Caligula did not help .
-scott

Eeh?
Caligula was no "glutton", besides, he lived about 70-100 years before the Hadrian, Antonius Pius, Marc Aurel (that is, the period generally recognized as the strongest period in Imperial Rome.

 

[J77]

You've got to blame the internet for the increase in swinging as a life-style choice --- allows the strange to meet more easy

I thought the Romans died from eating whilst lying down

 

[Dawguard]

I see 'swinging' as a lifestyle that makes a joke of marriage. It is also a lifestyle that treats sex as a purely recreational activity.

Indeed, and that is my main contention with it. To ignore the danger that sexual promoscuity in marriage poses by protecting under a blanket statement of freedom is a dangerous thing. While I admit that these are not the only things that are said to defend it, it is defenitly the main argument people use. I find it almost amusing how terms such as "passing judgement" are bantered around lightly until they loose their meaning. Consider how immature it sounds to argue such as "'I find it disgusting', 'I find it disgusting that you pass judgement'". Please, remove pointless rhetoric from the debate.

I personally find the nature of sexual promescuity unappealing, but I also realize that I cannot make an absolute claim that it is wrong. I can't prove it's wrong morally, so I won't even try.

What I can say is that promescuity in marriage destroys the purpose of marriage. Marriage is supposed to create a family: this goes as far back as the patriarchal days of family dynasties. If we want to this focus from marriage then it looses its creates purpose. We might as well abolish it altogether and just mate like most animals. While you might say that is more free, please don't try to put it in a system of marriage and claim it's fine. The two are opposed, and without going into the question of which one is right or wrong, they cannot coexist.

Treading carefuly as always, I confess that I haven't spent a large amount of time invested in this particular topic. If I've stumbled through my logic, please point it out where I'm wrong.

 

[shmoe]

What I can say is that promescuity in marriage destroys the purpose of marriage. Marriage is supposed to create a family: this goes as far back as the patriarchal days of family dynasties. If we want to this focus from marriage then it looses its creates purpose. We might as well abolish it altogether and just mate like most animals. While you might say that is more free, please don't try to put it in a system of marriage and claim it's fine. The two are opposed, and without going into the question of which one is right or wrong, they cannot coexist.

Sexual promescuity does not equate to mating at random. The mating in an open marriage would still be between husband and wife. The extra-marital sex is for recreational purposes and I don't see how this interferes with what I consider the basics of building a family- having and raising children (putting aside any moral objections with the values you are teaching the children).

 

[Averagesupernova]

What I can say is that promescuity in marriage destroys the purpose of marriage.

By YOUR and the conventional accepted definition of marriage. However, there are scores of people who get married for many reasons besides the the classic reason. I can go to the hardware store and buy a tool that generally is used for something specific. But there is nothing that says I cannot use it for something else. I know this will sound apalling to some of you, but I'm simply trying to illustrate that those who get married and still fool around were most likely not interested in the conventional purpose of 'marriage'. They had their eyes on some other reason.

 

[daveb]

I find it almost amusing how terms such as "passing judgement" are bantered around lightly until they loose their meaning. Consider how immature it sounds to argue such as "'I find it disgusting', 'I find it disgusting that you pass judgement'". Please, remove pointless rhetoric from the debate

I too find it interesting that many (not all) who claim that others should be more tolerant are themselves intolerant of intolerant opinions. Let us stay focused on the OP.

As for how common it is, I guess that would probably depend on which which culture you examine. Just like there are polygamous cultures (both male polygamy and female polygamy), there are probably polyamorous cultures. In the U.S., I imagine it isn't that common since much of the U.S. is still tied to much of its puritanical roots, and this would have been considered an abomination back then. Now, it is true we have grown more tolerant of such things (not a value judgment on whether that tolerance is a good thing or not, just an observation), but the aversion to such ideas still lingers. Europe is probably a little more tolerant of such things, though I have no basis for that opinion. I could make an educated guess and claim that it is abhorrent in fundamentalist societies (regardless of Christian, Islam, etc.). My overall guess is that it isn't that common even though marriage historically has been a social and economic contract (rather than a religious one).

As for my personal opinion of the practice, I would never do it, I don't think it's immoral (given several caveats), but if someone else wants to claim it's disgusting and immoral, I'm not going to call them closed-minded - they are entitled to their opinion as long as they don't try to legislate morality. I can say that if both parties agree to it, and no children are involved, then as long as all parties enter into it aware of the potential consequences, I can see no rational reason why it is immoral.

And for what it's worth, I am not a moral relativist.

 

[ray b]

I was taught that as one of the reasons for Roman decline in a public school. Since there was a decrease in morals the Romans did not have as many children since the family structure collapsed, which made them weaker. Also the gluntony and self indulgence of Caligula did not help .
-scott

how his life that ended January 21, 41 CE: Caligula was assassinated
could effect the fall of rome in 476 is beyond me
far more likely is the takeover by christians, who refused to join the army or fight to save the city something that the christians don't teach
I wonder why that is?

btw the upper class family size had very little to do with army size
as very few of the upper class joined and they only needed a few leaders
and family size of the lower class stayed about the same

 

[Evo]

how his life that ended January 21, 41 CE: Caligula was assassinated
could effect the fall of rome in 476 is beyond me
far more likely is the takeover by christians, who refused to join the army or fight to save the city something that the christians don't teach
I wonder why that is?

Rome fell in 410 when it was sacked by the Visigoth King Alaric.

The sacking of Rome by King Alaric of the Visigoths is a good story by Procopius of Caesarea. The Visigoths had the city of Rome surrounded, the inhabitants of Rome were cut off, but after a long and fruitless siege Alaric realized it was going to take too long and be too difficult to capture the city so he made a plan. He decided on what basically amounted to a human "trojan horse"

He told the Romans that he gave up and would be moving out. He chose 300 of his youngest warriors to present to the Roman nobles as slaves, of course buttering the Romans up and telling them how great they were (the Romans of course believed this ).

Alaric instructed the Visigoth youth that they were to obey their new masters without argument and serve them eagerly to gain their new master's trust. On a predetermined day, at noon, (a time when Roman Nobles normally napped), they were to head to the Solarian gate, kill the guards and open the gates so that Alaric's men could invade the city.

 

[ray b]

yes the city was sacked at that date still 350 plus years after Caligula
but the empire did not fall at that time
the rulers had moved to Ravenna and so Rome was no longer the capital
the end was near, but the 410 sack was not it