Stay marry, but sleep with other people.

[kant]

I heard something from a friend today. She said she and her hushand had agreed on the possibility of "seeing other people" in the future, but still remain marry. I was sort of amused, because i could not in my wildest dream imagine such relationship with my own girlfriends. My question is this: Is this kind of relationship common?( couple stay marry, but sleep with other people) What is your opinion about it?

 

[Cyrus]

It's called swingers.

 

[Mk]

Its uncommon, but sometimes people do what cyrus is alluding to.

 

[Pengwuino]

There are plenty of people who sleep with other people but are married.

It's just the spouse doesn't know about it haha

 

[kant]

I would suppost most men would be turn off by such notions? Is this some type of sick perversions?

 

[Alkatran]

They did an episode of Bull****! involving a family set up like that.

 

[kant]

What is most surprising for me is how other people act as if this stuff is no big deal.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would suppost most men would be turn off by such notions? Is this some type of sick perversions?

There is no dishonesty, disingenuity, hurt or manipulation involved here. It is a completely open, honest and (for the participants) pleasurable relationship. What basis do you have, to call it a perversion ?

 

[sid_galt]

Having sex is not like scratching an itch. To sleep with someone you don't love is IMO disgusting.

 

[Averagesupernova]

What is most surprising for me is how other people act as if this stuff is no big deal.

That's their opinion and they are entitled to it. If no one involved thinks it's a 'big deal' then it isn't.

 

[scott_alexsk]

That kind of thinking is going to destroy society.

 

[dav2008]

That kind of thinking is going to destroy society.

On the contrary I think this kind of closed-mindedness is going to destroy society.

 

[Hurkyl]

On the contrary I think this kind of closed-mindedness is going to destroy society.

Nah, it's going to be the people who convince themselves that no criticism is deserved, because the sources are obviously closed-minded.

 

[Homer Simpson]

I was sort of amused, because i could not in my wildest dream imagine such relationship with my own girlfriends.

Sounds like you have a 'harom'. I want one.

 

[scott_alexsk]

There should be leeway in thinking and ideas, but a society still needs some sort of moral standard in order to keep going. Remember the Romans.
-scott

 

[Averagesupernova]

What is going to destroy society is the fact that people allow other people to make their decisions for them. Scott, you are apparently an example of this. Or at least you assume many other people do this. In my own mind I would NOT be in a marriage like this. I have made up my own mind. I do NOT rely on society to tell me what is wrong and what is right. Feel free to criticize me all you want. I believe it is your right to do so.

 

[scott_alexsk]

I am not for, forcing people what to do. Do not put words into my mouth. I am agaisnt the idea that screwing around is acceptable. I just believe that the media today protrays it as an ideal or something very common. People need to understand the consequences of this kind of action. I thought that we all were above personal attacks but I guess not.
-scott

 

[Hurkyl]

What is going to destroy society is the fact that people allow other people to make their decisions for them.

Or, maybe what is destroying society is that people think they have the knowledge and expertise to make any decision that they want to make?

 

[Averagesupernova]

Or, maybe what is destroying society is that people think they have the knowledge and expertise to make any decision that they want to make?

Yes, maybe a little. It is also an extreme. I know there are some decisions I am incapable of making on my own. But at the same time I don't blindly follow what society puts in front of me. There is a happy medium to be struck.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I am not for, forcing people what to do. Do not put words into my mouth. I am agaisnt the idea that screwing around is acceptable. I just believe that the media today protrays it as an ideal or something very common. People need to understand the consequences of this kind of action. I thought that we all were above personal attacks but I guess not.
-scott

Back the truck up. I in no way see what I posted as a personal attack. I simply said what appeared to be pretty obvious to me. So what if the media portrays whatever it portrays? Do you or anyone else have to blindly follow what is put in front of you? You are right, people DO need to understand the consequences of their actions. If they truly DO understand the consequences of their actions then the media or whatever else is put in front of them should be meaningless.

 

[JasonRox]

Let them have sex with whomever. They'll learn the hard way that's all.

scott seems a little naive at what really happens in this world. Cheating happens more often than people think, so I guess everyone is naive. Second, if you plan on cheating and you think your partner might also cheat, why not become swingers?

That way you maintain the trust and honesty of the relationship.

 

[kant]

There is no dishonesty, disingenuity, hurt or manipulation involved here. It is a completely open, honest and (for the participants) pleasurable relationship. What basis do you have, to call it a perversion ?

What basis is there for the sacredness of a marriage, or trust? What is the value of a single human life? The worth of an act of kindness? These are all questions of values that are beyond scope of reason. The otherwise options are polygamy, or infanticide... I do think being disgusted by such notions are any more close-minded than being disgusted by an act of brutality in wars. Having one s values all mix up is not open-mindedness.

 

[kant]

Sounds like you have a 'harom'. I want one.

I have many girlfriends, but not all at the same time.

 

[Smasherman]

This is a fairly rare relationship, but I certainly don't condemn it. If both partners are aware of the consequences, primarily disease, then I really don't care. I'm not in favor of such a relationship for myself, but thinking that the idea that marriage is somehow more important than happiness is, in my opinion, absurd. Not everyone wants to be in a closed relationship, and not everyone relates sex to love. Furthermore, not everyone who's marriage is in love. I agree that there must be a moral standard for a society to operate (for each province, anyway), but I do not agree that the morals of recent generations are the ones to fulfill that role.

 

[Moonbear]

The otherwise options are polygamy, or infanticide...

HUH? How do you get from an "open" marriage to infanticide?

I think it's a strange arrangement and wonder why people get married in the first place if they aren't really interested in settling down with just one person, but it's hardly a perversion. Just because someone, somewhere says humans are supposed to remain monogamous doesn't mean it's the only way. If you don't like the idea, then don't do it if/when you get married. If it works for another couple, and they're both in agreement that it's okay, and their additional partners are also all in agreement that the arrangement is okay, then that's their choice.

 

[Astronuc]

What basis is there for the sacredness of a marriage, or trust? What is the value of a single human life? The worth of an act of kindness?

Well, the sacredness of marriage rests upon the integrity of the two people who commit themselves to the relationship. Both take vows, and make promises to the other to be respectful and cooperative, and to honor the other.

Apparently more than 50% of men (someone has mentioned 75%) and more than 30% of women (some have mentioned ~50%, apparently women are equalizing with men) have had extramarital relations. I believe the usual outcome is divorce, but I remain uncertain.

The value of a single human life is determined by one's values. In theory, all life is sacred, but many pick and choose as to the value of others lives - as is the case with the war against terrorism in which so many innocent lives have been sacrificed.

An act of kindness is priceless.

 

[Averagesupernova]

So basically what moonbear said can be summed up by saying: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

 

[Mk]

am not for, forcing people what to do. Do not put words into my mouth. I am agaisnt the idea that screwing around is acceptable.

What?? I just got my new power drill! A step up from the screwdriver.

 

[AngelShare]

Hey, as long as it isn't hurting me, they can do what they want. I don't understand it though...that isn't really settling down with one person, that's being legally bound to someone but sleeping around. It's like saying, "I can't get everything I need from you so I'll have to find it elsewhere." in my mind... Apparently, some people can keep sex and love completely separate and remain in love with the one they're tied to...others find out the hard way that it isn't always possible... Isn't that why not all "friends with benefits" relationships work? They try to keep it as simple as, "We're friends...but we have sex...that's all." but at least one of them winds up falling for the other. I can't imagine that not happening here...

 

[DaveC426913]

What basis is there for the sacredness of a marriage, or trust? What is the value of a single human life? The worth of an act of kindness? These are all questions of values that are beyond scope of reason. The otherwise options are polygamy, or infanticide... I do think being disgusted by such notions are any more close-minded than being disgusted by an act of brutality in wars. Having one s values all mix up is not open-mindedness.

Please, don't forget to surround your text with < soapbox >< /soapbox > so that we recognize it as an attempt to hijack the thread.

Seriously though, these issues you raise are what are known as "straw men". You feel that your argument against polyamory is too weak, so you have attempted to handcuff polyamory to "the value of human life", "kindness" and "infanticide", where you have a much stronger argument.

Bzzt.


Now we return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

 

[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 :)