What Are Your Thoughts on Open Relationships?

[JasonRox]

seems like you took that straight out of a players' handbook...

Care to elaborate?

My views and values stem from existentialism not a player's handbook.

 

[john16O]

Care to elaborate?

My views and values stem from existentialism not a player's handbook.

lol no need to elaborate. The fact that your views are stemming from a philosophical movement during the 19th and 20th century is quite musing...

 

[JasonRox]

lol no need to elaborate. The fact that your views are stemming from a philosophical movement during the 19th and 20th century is quite musing...

Monogamous views are from 2000 years ago.

Are they bad because they are outdated or recent? Please elaborate and contribute to the discussion.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think what john16O is saying is that what you describe sounds a bit like a sugar-coating of "I'll sleep with whomever I want to and if you do things I don't like I'll push you away without hesitation" - as though it could easily put you in a position to play various women off one another to get whatever you want from everyone. But as long as you're explaining this to people before you start a relationship with them it seems fair to me.

⚛​

 

[john16O]

I think what john16O is saying is that what you describe doesn't sounds a bit like a sugar-coating of "I'll sleep with whoever I want to and if you do things I don't like I'll push you away without hesitation" - as though it could easily put you in a position to play various women off one another to get whatever you want from everyone. But as long as you're explaining this to people before you start a relationship with them it seems fair to me.[RIGHT]⚛[/RIGHT]

Exactly! How many women are willing to agree to this? Actually, allow me to rephrase that: How many NORMAL women would agree to those terms when entering a relationship? Even if it is an open relationship. That is like me telling a girl this: "Hey, I find you interesting, and will hang out with you, but if, and when another girls comes along I am going to move on to her. Or we can keep what we have going, just do not interrupt my other relationships.". Seriously, what girl in their right mind would agree to that! I am about to move to Canada if that's really what Canadian women are like.

 

[cristo]

Exactly! How many women are willing to agree to this?

Well, there are clearly some women around that agree to it, else Jason wouldn't be able to hold down such a relationship, would he?

 

[john16O]

Well, there are clearly some women around that agree to it, else Jason wouldn't be able to hold down such a relationship, would he?

or he isn't telling us everything...

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Perhaps some of these women are inflatable. Y'know, the strong, silent type. Inflatable women will agree to anything once you get a few drinks in them.

(Just kidding jrox.)

⚛​

 

[NeoDevin]

Exactly! How many women are willing to agree to this? Actually, allow me to rephrase that: How many NORMAL women would agree to those terms when entering a relationship? Even if it is an open relationship. That is like me telling a girl this: "Hey, I find you interesting, and will hang out with you, but if, and when another girls comes along I am going to move on to her. Or we can keep what we have going, just do not interrupt my other relationships.". Seriously, what girl in their right mind would agree to that! I am about to move to Canada if that's really what Canadian women are like.

You have clearly been exposed to a very small subset of the women that are out there, and you are letting your limited experience cloud your opinion of what's `normal'.

Besides that, you seem to be defining `normal' to very specifically exclude any women who would be interested in a polyamorous relationship (implied, not stated). In that case, I'm sure Jason is not interested in any of the women who fit your definition of normal.

 

[cristo]

or he isn't telling us everything...

What's that meant to mean? What would he gain from lying about such things? Jason's spoken about such relationships for as long as I've 'known' him.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

In that case, I'm sure Jason is not interested in any of the women who fit your definition of normal.

Except for the ones he's had to degrade to secondary status, of course. But that's just business, I mean polyamory, it's nothing personal. It hurt him almost as much as it hurt her, gettin' his rules all violated and whatnot.

But seriously, if it's all handled openly and maturely by all parties involved and Jason isn't using the arrangement to leverage anything out of anyone, it's fine by me.

⚛​

 

[JasonRox]

Women who agree to this kind of relationship exist all over the world. I also think it's an insult to women when you make a claim of what is normal to them as if they can't think for themselves. It's another attempt at defining women, which is degrading.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Women who agree to this kind of relationship exist all over the world. I also think it's an insult to women when you make a claim of what is normal to them as if they can't think for themselves. It's another attempt at defining women, which is degrading.

But, you do tell women about these rules before doing anything that would lead them on, right? Because leading someone on in that way would be a bit more insulting and degrading than making statements involving generalizations to her would.

I agree that john16O made a generalization there but when you're talking in terms of demoting relationships to secondary status when someone more interesting comes along, it seems like you're in a precarious position to be schooling other guys on how to respect women. That is, it seems that you've chosen a path that explicitly exposes you to a high risk of mistreating women if you aren't careful.

⚛​

 

[john16O]

Women who agree to this kind of relationship exist all over the world. I also think it's an insult to women when you make a claim of what is normal to them as if they can't think for themselves. It's another attempt at defining women, which is degrading.

I would love to hear a females perspective on all of this...I think that you are taking my generalizations a little to far and putting words in my mouth(so to speak). No where in my previous post did I implicitly tell women what is normal. And to be more specific, I am going to define normal as what society classifies as the norm...

Edit: And what you are doingaving multiple relationships and downplaying some to a secondary status(CaptainQuasar's Idea)by seemingly viewing relationships as a game, is NOT normal...

 

[JasonRox]

But, you do tell women about these rules before doing anything that would lead them on, right? Because leading someone on in that way would be a bit more insulting and degrading than making statements involving generalizations to her would.

Do you tell women that you want to be exclusive and possibly marry her when you date her? Or do you tell her you're just scoping the field?

Does a gay guy tell you he's gay when he begins a friendship with you?

If I meet a nice girl, I hang out with them. Go on a date, make out with them if it's good, and so on. Even on the first date, there is no guarantee of boyfriend/girlfriend status or anything of the like, even in the monogamous world. Once the relationship reaches a certain level, different and subjective, then I do bring up discussion of open relationship. To bring it up on the first date would be absurd since she doesn't know me, my personality, character and values yet. Just like you don't ask someone on the first date if they want to be your boyfriend/girlfriend.

None of them found it degrading, or find it "manipulation". I do not use words like "love" either until everything is understood, and the relationship has matured. I know that "love" is a strong word, and when first exposed to open relationships, someone might be lured into it by using such words and expression. Abusive monogamous relationships are held together often by using strong words such as "love". I want them to make decisions on their own, which they are completely capable of doing.

A lot of times, I do not ask a girl on a date because I know first hand they wouldn't be ok with it. For example, if they know me, and we had that discussion before.

I agree that john16O made a generalization there but when you're talking in terms of demoting relationships to secondary status when someone more interesting comes along, it seems like you're in a precarious position to be schooling other guys on how to respect women. That is, it seems that you've chosen a path that explicitly exposes you to a high risk of mistreating women if you aren't careful.

Oh for sure. You are high risk at mistreating women for sure! I had two other friends who started following this path of relationships. One of them which I caught misleading, manipulating, lying, deceiving and playing women. My other friend also noticed this too. We haven't talked to him since, and it's been over 2 years. I do not respect him whatsoever, as he lied and tried to manipulate a female friend of mine and the third friend (who started this).

Also, don't frown on the possibility of mistreating women in this type of relationship. It's all too common and popular that women are also mistreated in monogamous relationships because the man lies and cheats, or the man abuses, or the woman manipulates, and so on. Also, I never point out risks of mistreatment in monogamy or open relationships as a reason to choose one or the other. I use them as reasons to choose a respectful mature partner.

 

[Moonbear]

I would love to hear a females perspective on all of this...I think that you are taking my generalizations a little to far and putting words in my mouth(so to speak). No where in my previous post did I implicitly tell women what is normal.

From a female perspective, it is demeaning that you presume women cannot make a decision for themselves on this. If they are comfortable with it, why do you have a problem with them participating?

And to be more specific, I am going to define normal as what society classifies as the norm...

But that's a flaw in and of itself. Normal isn't the same as average in this context. Just because one approach to relationships is more common than the other in society doesn't make one more right than the other.

Edit: And what you are doingaving multiple relationships and downplaying some to a secondary status(CaptainQuasar's Idea)by seemingly viewing relationships as a game, is NOT normal...

This is where you're being judgemental. Who said anyone is being downplayed to a secondary status? You are inserting your own hangups and misunderstandings into the issue, but they are not part of what Jason is describing. There is no reason that he could not date two women and have them both viewed as equal status, or that they could not date another man and have them considered equal status. If at some point someone feels they are being given secondary status, they should get out, and can make that decision. Jason has already explained that pretty clearly early on. If one girlfriend of his expects to get priority treatment, and interfere with another girlfriend to push her to "secondary status," then he would end that relationship.

Besides, how is this really any different from serial monogamy, which is what most people practice? At some point, a new person comes along and the previous is downgraded to secondary or non-existent status. The concept of an open relationship is different, in that one relationship isn't given more weight than another. Dating a new person isn't a phasing out of an old one as it usually is with serial monogamy.

It's perfectly okay if this isn't something you'd participate in and don't feel comfortable with, all we're asking is you refrain from being judgemental of other people's views.

 

[morphism]

If you're discrete, every relationship is an open one.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Do you tell women that you want to be exclusive and possibly marry her when you date her? Or do you tell her you're just scoping the field?

Actually, yeah, I do tell women that's what I'm looking for. And on the occasions when I've simply been interested in having sex with a friend or acquaintance I think I've indicated that.

Does a gay guy tell you he's gay when he begins a friendship with you?

Obviously I don't know whether someone has not told me he's gay and has actually been gay. But if I started hanging out a lot with someone who I knew to be gay I would mention I was straight and if there was any question of attraction at all I would definitely make sure he knew that I'd never felt interested in being bi either.

Also, I never point out risks of mistreatment in monogamy or open relationships as a reason to choose one or the other.

I didn't point that out in the context of whether to choose monogamy or polygamy, I pointed it out because you were calling out john16O as being insulting and degrading to women. That still seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black if I'm properly understanding your approach, or to use another proverb people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I'm glad that you're careful in your use of the word "love" and obviously have some thought-out principles you're applying here. But it seems to me like you're waiting until someone may have developed feelings for you and then saying "Well, if you'd like to have a serious relationship with me, you're going to have to try out an open relationship". Which seems pretty sketchy even if you're refraining from actively deceiving them.

To try to concoct at least an imperfect analogy to illustrate what I mean: I live in the Boston area. If I was looking for a job and in a local Boston newspaper I found a great job opportunity, went through a multiple interview process at a local office, and made it down to the last two or three or was offered the job and they only then told me "but, you have to move to Chicago" I would feel played, to use john16O's term. That's something that ought to be disclosed very early in the interview process or ideally in the advertisement.

Who said anyone is being downplayed to a secondary status?

I may have misunderstood him but Jason said, emphasis mine:

If it starts interfering with another relationship, it can cause a break up in the problematic relationship. For example, I hang out with Melissa (fake name) two-three times a week. If I start a relationship with someone else, and I'm only hanging out with Melissa once a week now, it can cause conflict as it is obviously interfering with the relationship. The relationship can drop to "secondary" status, or we can just break it off, as a new primary relationship is emerging.

I don't have any problem with the open relationship or polyamory thing in general, it's just that if you can reasonably expect that a woman is trying to explore the possibility of a monogamous relationship with you, but that's not even possible because you're only willing to participate in open relationships, you cannot honorably let it go very far at all without telling her that.

It's kind of like one of the purposes of wearing a wedding ring, except that instead of signaling "I'm taken" you should be disclosing something like "I can't be taken, period."

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

If you're discrete, every relationship is an open one.

If that is a mathematics joke there should be a special tenth circle of hell for subtle forum gremlins like you. GROOOAN.

⚛​

 

[Moonbear]

If that is a mathematics joke there should be a special tenth circle of hell for subtle forum gremlins like you. GROOOAN.

⚛​

I'd have completely missed the joke if you didn't point it out!

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'd have completely missed the joke if you didn't point it out!

Yeah, at first I thought it was just a random provocative statement because it reads like a Zen koan. I was about to respond annoyed, but then I thought, knowing PF... Good one, morphism.

⚛​

 

[lisab]

Good one, morphism.

⚛​

Kudos, morphism.

 

[DaveC426913]

Exactly! How many women are willing to agree to this? Actually, allow me to rephrase that: How many NORMAL women would agree to those terms when entering a relationship? Even if it is an open relationship. That is like me telling a girl this:

or he isn't telling us everything...

John160, you are speaking as if JasonRox invented this.

Would you like to talk to my female friend who is poly?

Polyamory is:
- well-established.
- works both ways, and
- requires the participation of mature, communicative partners.

Surely you must recognize that, if you are not familiar with it, any judgeement you might have is from a position of ignorance.

 

[Evo]

I'll go on record here that although I don't think Jason is bad for what he does, I personally would not date someone like him. I am monogamous and I expect the guy I am interested into also be monogamous.

But different people want different things. I just know that I want someone that has decided that they want a one on one relationship and don't feel a need to play the field.

 

[DaveC426913]

Suggesting the polyamory is bad when compared to monamory is analagous to suggesting serious dating prior to marriage is bad when compared to immediate marriage.

It is the people in the relationship who get to judge what works for them.

If you felt that a long courtship is required before marrying, you wouldn't date someone who felt that marriage should be arranged by third parties.

If you are monogamous you wouldn't date someone who is polyamorous.

 

[JasonRox]

I'm glad that you're careful in your use of the word "love" and obviously have some thought-out principles you're applying here. But it seems to me like you're waiting until someone may have developed feelings for you and then saying "Well, if you'd like to have a serious relationship with me, you're going to have to try out an open relationship". Which seems pretty sketchy even if you're refraining from actively deceiving them.

No, I tell them if you're not ok with it, we must go separate ways because our views/values conflict. Much like two monogamous people where one wants to get married, but the other doesn't. Conflict of views/values and it is best to go your separate ways.

It's kind of like one of the purposes of wearing a wedding ring, except that instead of signaling "I'm taken" you should be disclosing something like "I can't be taken, period."

You seem to be only pointing fingers at me here. What about non-married couples? What about those who are monogamous and don't tell me that they are? Just because they are, it isn't right for me to expect that they are just because it is the norm.

 

[JasonRox]

I'll go on record here that although I don't think Jason is bad for what he does, I personally would not date someone like him. I am monogamous and I expect the guy I am interested into also be monogamous.

But different people want different things. I just know that I want someone that has decided that they want a one on one relationship and don't feel a need to play the field.

You do realize what I'm doing is not playing the field right? I just want to clear that up for people.

 

[JasonRox]

I don't have any problem with the open relationship or polyamory thing in general, it's just that if you can reasonably expect that a woman is trying to explore the possibility of a monogamous relationship with you, but that's not even possible because you're only willing to participate in open relationships, you cannot honorably let it go very far at all without telling her that.

I don't tell girls or lead them into thinking it might become monogamous. I go as far to say that there is no chance of becoming monogamous and to NOT think it might become monogamous.

 

[lisab]

So, Jason, I'm just curious - what were you looking for by starting this thread?

 

[JasonRox]

So, Jason, I'm just curious - what were you looking for by starting this thread?

Opinions, thoughts, common beliefs, and views of what I feel an above average maturity community.

To be honest, the responses are of much higher quality of what you would see on most other websites.

Edit: Also, just a random conversation. This is GD... eh.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No, I tell them if you're not ok with it, we must go separate ways because our views/values conflict.

It just seems to me that if you wait until a point where she may have feelings for you to say that, if her feelings are strong enough you're going to be putting her between a rock and a hard place. It's not exactly a secret that people will be fools for love; some people might say "uh... okay, I'll try polyamory" at that point when they would have been much more reluctant at the outset.

I mean, if you're asking her out dates - just her, you're not saying "you should come and hang out with me and my other friends" - to me that would have implied some measure of exclusivity of interest in her on your part from the get-go.

If you're fine with telling her about this later on, why not right away?

To try another analogy: say you met a girl in a class or at work, you ask her - just her - to come get some lunch with you and she does, you ask her out to dinner a first night and then a second. At the end of the second date you go to kiss her and she acts uncomfortable so you back off. End of the third date, you go to kiss her again and she says "Oh, actually, I'm a lesbian." Now if you've been getting all dressed nice and lookin' sharp when you're going to see her, and you've been wining and dining her these several dates, wouldn't you feel a little bit played?

Much like two monogamous people where one wants to get married, but the other doesn't. Conflict of views/values and it is best to go your separate ways.

That's obviously much easier to say for the person who was never looking for a long-term relationship in the first place. If a monogamous person is certain they're just looking for a fling they too ought to disclose that while dating.

What about those who are monogamous and don't tell me that they are? Just because they are, it isn't right for me to expect that they are just because it is the norm.

Okay, how about this one: you ask the girl at work out and things do work out well with your overtures of physical affection. You enjoy some grade A tonsil hockey before saying good night after a few dates, then comes that night when she invites you inside. She "slips into something more comfortable" that shows off some really spectacular cleavage, and after a glass of wine and some more tonsil hockey the two of you go nuts, leaving the classic trail of clothes to the bedroom door. But come the point she's buck nekkid, you find that the equipment down below is not the, ahem, model you expected. And at your surprise she says cheerfully "Oh, I forgot to mention - I'm a post-op femme androphilic bigender individual!"

It wasn't right for you to have expected that she was a woman in the classic sense just because that's the norm, correct? (Unless you leave it a question mark about all aspects of another person's physical sexual identity until you actually have sex with them and really would not be surprised in the above situation.)

I think that there are all kinds of expectations built into our culture and culturally normative interactions from the way we dress and act right down to our unconscious body language, which transmen and transwomen end up having to learn consciously. And if you're interacting with somebody in a way that sends the culturally normative signals it's unavoidable, you're going to be setting culturally normative expectations.

In this sort of interaction that can lead to emotionally significant stuff like sex or a relationship, I think everyone has the right to personally differ from cultural norms in whatever way they choose but ought to be especially conscious of the potential to deceive people through those expectations. Like the analogy with the lesbian above: technically, it's just one person requesting the amiable company of another person, which could happen between friends. She would know that a man asking a woman he has recently met to dinner is culturally indicative that he is very likely looking for romance and it would be neglectful and intentionally setting you up for a fall to ignore that knowledge.

⚛​

 

[dyosa]

opinions won't matter. you said you're in an open relationship so go for it. what makes you happy would mean a lot.

 

[JasonRox]

opinions won't matter. you said you're in an open relationship so go for it. what makes you happy would mean a lot.

I don't care about the opinions. It's just a discussion for fun. It's GD!

 

[JasonRox]

It just seems to me that if you wait until a point where she may have feelings for you to say that, if her feelings are strong enough you're going to be putting her between a rock and a hard place. It's not exactly a secret that people will be fools for love; some people might say "uh... okay, I'll try polyamory" at that point when they would have been much more reluctant at the outset.

I don't wait until she's in "love". Like I'm talking 2-3 weeks here. If she's so infatuated by feelings at that point, I am NOT the one with the problem.

I mean, if you're asking her out dates - just her, you're not saying "you should come and hang out with me and my other friends" - to me that would have implied some measure of exclusivity of interest in her on your part from the get-go.

Who said it's an interest of exclusivity? Because it's the norm? I had gay guys ask me out. If I didn't know they were gay, then I would have thought that it was just a friend thing since they NEVER told me it's to date me or kiss me or whatever. This doesn't make any sense. I would not feel wronged if a gay guy did such a thing.

Note: I've talked to girls about this and they said it was fine if I waited after 2-3 weeks to tell them. Even married women agreed my time and approach is very respectful.

If you're fine with telling her about this later on, why not right away?

The reason why I wait is because I want them to get to know me. Otherwise, they may reject me without thought. There are lots of girls who are polyamorous and have not come out of the "closet". If she so happens to be like that, my approach will essentially give her the opportunity to become herself without harm.

To try another analogy: say you met a girl in a class or at work, you ask her - just her - to come get some lunch with you and she does, you ask her out to dinner a first night and then a second. At the end of the second date you go to kiss her and she acts uncomfortable so you back off. End of the third date, you go to kiss her again and she says "Oh, actually, I'm a lesbian." Now if you've been getting all dressed nice and lookin' sharp when you're going to see her, and you've been wining and dining her these several dates, wouldn't you feel a little bit played?

You can't compare this story to mine. The lesbian is outright playing the other person. I said I do not date girls who I see would never consider or is not within their values to be an open relationship. What does that mean? I am more aware of myself and other people. I actually THINK about them and so on. For example, if you want to get married, you're not going to ask a girl out who clearly does not. You would be wasting your own time and hers as well.

That's obviously much easier to say for the person who was never looking for a long-term relationship in the first place. If a monogamous person is certain they're just looking for a fling they too ought to disclose that while dating.

Becareful with the judgements. I never said one wanted a fling or not. Comprehension, comprehension, comprehension. You made a clear negative stereotypical judgement on the individual who does NOT want to get married. Lots of people do not want to get married and are interested in life partners and not a fling. If I started using your rational, I can argue the person who wants to get married wants a fling because she/he wants a fling before marriage. The arguments make no sense. Avoid such judgements please. (You made several already.)

(You are making the clear judgement that I am playing girls just because I am interested in polyamorous relationships. There are players in every type of relationships.)

Okay, how about this one: you ask the girl at work out and things do work out well with your overtures of physical affection. You enjoy some grade A tonsil hockey before saying good night after a few dates, then comes that night when she invites you inside. She "slips into something more comfortable" that shows off some really spectacular cleavage, and after a glass of wine and some more tonsil hockey the two of you go nuts, leaving the classic trail of clothes to the bedroom door. But come the point she's buck nekkid, you find that the equipment down below is not the, ahem, model you expected. And at your surprise she says cheerfully "Oh, I forgot to mention - I'm a post-op femme androphilic bigender individual!"

That's life my friend. I can't say what the person did is wrong simply because I would be disgusted.

I think that there are all kinds of expectations built into our culture and culturally normative interactions from the way we dress and act right down to our unconscious body language, which transmen and transwomen end up having to learn consciously. And if you're interacting with somebody in a way that sends the culturally normative signals it's unavoidable, you're going to be setting culturally normative expectations.

It is the individuals responsibility to be aware of themselves and other people. By letting expectations create choices for you, you are barely acting as an individual. I wouldn't even be interested at that point.

I have usually have no expectations. Hence, why I wouldn't starting yelling wrong doing on the other person if the person turned out to be transgender female (MTF).

In this sort of interaction that can lead to emotionally significant stuff like sex or a relationship, I think everyone has the right to personally differ from cultural norms in whatever way they choose but ought to be especially conscious of the potential to deceive people through those expectations. Like the analogy with the lesbian above: technically, it's just one person requesting the amiable company of another person, which could happen between friends. She would know that a man asking a woman he has recently met to dinner is culturally indicative that he is very likely looking for romance and it would be neglectful and intentionally setting you up for a fall to ignore that knowledge.

You can not use that analogy. The lesbian should probably let the man know.

I was hanging out with a girl quite often at one point. Very very very pretty, smart and so on. I never made a move on her because I know she's monogamous at heart. Hence, I stopped hanging out with her so much because I don't want to lead her on. Unfortunate because I did like her a lot. Amongst the best in the past year (very social and meet lots of people).

I want to point out that you seem to be jumping the gun at wrong doings on my part. How many monogamous players do you know that would actually just let the girl go(previous paragraph)? Probably none would. Well, I did and I'm not a player.

 

[john16O]

John160, you are speaking as if JasonRox invented this.

Would you like to talk to my female friend who is poly?

Polyamory is:
- well-established.
- works both ways, and
- requires the participation of mature, communicative partners.

Surely you must recognize that, if you are not familiar with it, any judgeement you might have is from a position of ignorance.

hah, i think you missed my post were i said that it sounds like he took his ideas out of a players' handbook...

...essentially all it comes down to is being a player. Juggling your relationships with more than one female. Not necessarily a player as in dating more than one female, but he is a player in the sense that he is caring multiple relationships(not the same as dating) with more than one female...I am not a fan of this at all...

 

[hypatia]

If the world was free of STD's, I would consider a open relationship ok. Safe sex isn't always safe, it's not worth dieing for.

 

[john16O]

If the world was free of STD's, I would consider a open relationship ok. Safe sex isn't always safe, it's not worth dieing for.

yeah and why would you want to be known as that person who sleeps around, even if it is consensual between ALL parties involved?<-- This is more of a bad rep for the ladies, not so much for the men...wonder why though?

 

[Moonbear]

If the world was free of STD's, I would consider a open relationship ok. Safe sex isn't always safe, it's not worth dieing for.

Safe sex and STDs are issues regardless of whether one has an open relationship or not. I think too many different issues are getting conflated here.

Consider these different scenarios:
A. Serial monogomy
Jack dates Jill and they have sex.
Jill had an STD, now Jack does too, but doesn't know it.
Jack and Jill break up and Jack starts dating Mary.
Jack and Mary have sex.

B. Serial monogamy with cheating
Jack dates Jill and they have sex.
Jill had an STD, now Jack does too, but doesn't know it.
Jack isn't satisfied with Jill, so starts seeing Mary on the side.
Neither Mary nor Jill knows about the other.
Jack and Mary have sex.

C. Open relationship
Jack dates Jill and they have sex.
Jill had an STD, now Jack does too, but doesn't know it.
Jack and Jill have an open relationship and agree it's okay for each of them to date other people.
Jack meets Mary who is also open to this idea.
Jack and Mary have sex on Tuesdays and Thursdays and Jack and Jill have sex on Wednesdays and Fridays, Jack takes off Mondays and alternates weekends.

Question, is Mary's risk of contracting an STD different in any of those three scenarios?


Okay, let's try another set of scenarios:

A. Jack is quite the "ladies' man," but can't commit to relationships.
Over the course of a six year period, Jack has dated 30 women.
Jack's "relationships" never last more than 2 months, but he can always find another woman to "pick up" whenever he breaks up with one.
Jack would never "cheat" on anyone he dates though. He always breaks up with the previous partner before starting to date a new one.
Jack only dates women who will have sex with him.

B. John is somewhat picky, but in an open relationship.
Over the course of a six year period, John has been dating Jane and Mary exclusively, both of them know about the other and are okay with it. Mary hasn't dated anyone else, but Jane has dated two other men during the course of the 6 year relationship, with John's full knowledge.
John, Jane and Mary are all very careful that any new partners introduced into the relationship are tested for STDs before any of the three has sex with them. Because of their open relationship status, if any of their other partners meet someone else, they also require STD testing of the new partner, or dump the partner.

Who is more likely to get an STD, Jack or John?

There are a lot of things that influence your STD risk, and multiple sexual partners is certainly one of them, but one shouldn't assume that an open relationship would involve more partners than serial monogamy. There's also not much difference in terms of risk if you have all your partners at the same time vs one after another.

 

[DaveC426913]

hah, i think you missed my post were i said that it sounds like he took his ideas out of a players' handbook...

No I did not miss it. I merely dismissed it as the first of several passive-aggressive attempts to put down JasonRox's relationship choices.

but he is a player in the sense that he is caring multiple relationships(not the same as dating) with more than one female...I am not a fan of this at all...

Nobody asked you to be. Why is it open for judgement?

You seem to be perceiving it as a guy-strings-along-several-females thing. This is a very uninformed and skewed viewpoint. You are aware that females engage in polyamory as well, right?

A guy might have a relationship with two girls.
A girl might have a relationship with two guys.
A girl might have a relationship with two guys, one of which has a relationship with another girl.
Two guys and two girls might all have a relationship together.
And the above list doesn't even touch on same-gender combos. The possibilities are broad and gender-equitable.

Further, everyone involved knows about the other relationships to a greater or lesser extent; there is no subterfuge.

 

[DaveC426913]

If the world was free of STD's, I would consider a open relationship ok. Safe sex isn't always safe, it's not worth dieing for.

All things are risks. Risks are managed.

Scuba-diving is contra-indicated for Diabetics. Does that mean I can't scuba-dive because I might die? No, it means I manage the risk.


Again, multiple partners is not the exclusive domain of open relationships. Every sexually-active person takes the disease risk to the degree that they are comfortable.

 

[fileen]

The thought of sleeping with multiple people disgusts me. My BF and I both believe in waiting until marriage. Not everyone in a relationship is at an equal risk of STD's I have absolutely no risk. I think of sex as an expression of love. I understand that one can love more than one person and I know most people don't wait until marriage, but whether you tell the person or not it seems very disrespectful to be with more than one person. You say that there's a lot more to it than sex, but even emotionally being with more than one person seems wrong and disrespectful. I would not endure a relationship like that, it lacks commitment.

 

[DaveC426913]

The thought of sleeping with multiple people disgusts me.

The thought of other people sleeping with multiple people disgusts you?
or
The thought of you sleeping with multiple people disgusts you?

There's a biiiig difference.

 

[Moonbear]

Not everyone in a relationship is at an equal risk of STD's I have absolutely no risk.

That's not true. Some STDs are a bit misnamed, because they can be transmitted by other forms of contact aside from intercourse. You also never know if your boyfriend might cheat on you at some point...of course you trust him not to, but it's still a non-zero risk.

I think of sex as an expression of love.

Not everyone views it that way. Others "fall in love" more easily.

I understand that one can love more than one person and I know most people don't wait until marriage, but whether you tell the person or not it seems very disrespectful to be with more than one person. You say that there's a lot more to it than sex, but even emotionally being with more than one person seems wrong and disrespectful. I would not endure a relationship like that, it lacks commitment.

I know a lot of people who claimed that at your age...all women, I never really asked men back then. They also were adamant that if they ever had a boyfriend or husband who cheated on them, he'd be kicked out immediately. Sadly, many of them have had husbands who cheated on them, and these were the first women to beg to get them back. Oddly, the ones who seemed more ambivalent about it, that they might consider the circumstances and take him back if they were sure it was a one-time mistake, etc., ended up the ones who ordered their cheating husbands to move out as soon as they were caught. Pretty ironic. Hmm...I seem to know about a lot of men who have cheated on their wives...not all of them have been caught yet. I'm not convinced that the whole idea of monogamy really works, or is even practiced as much as people claim it is.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I don't wait until she's in "love". Like I'm talking 2-3 weeks here. If she's so infatuated by feelings at that point, I am NOT the one with the problem.

Okay, this is exactly what I'm talking about - you're saying "that's just her problem" if by singling her out and seeking one-on-one romantic experiences with her, she thought you were trying to explore a one-on-one relationship with her and developed the corresponding feelings.

"That's her problem" - but then you're deriding other people for not respecting women enough. That's a disconnect to me, that's why that particular criticism of john16O was the pot calling the kettle black in my book.

Becareful with the judgements. I never said one wanted a fling or not. Comprehension, comprehension, comprehension. You made a clear negative stereotypical judgement on the individual who does NOT want to get married. Lots of people do not want to get married and are interested in life partners and not a fling. If I started using your rational, I can argue the person who wants to get married wants a fling because she/he wants a fling before marriage. The arguments make no sense. Avoid such judgements please. (You made several already.)

(You are making the clear judgement that I am playing girls just because I am interested in polyamorous relationships. There are players in every type of relationships.)

You aren't doing too shabby passing judgments yourself. I never said anything about marriage. I said "long term relationship", which includes monogamous people looking for life partners.

Monogamous people and others who are definitely just looking for a fling, no possibility of any other form of relationship, ought to disclose or somehow indicate that when they're pursuing others romantically.

You are very quick to declare other people to be judgmental, it seems to me. Like, how you explained that you're all aware of yourself and you "actually think" about things compared to other people? That would be being judgmental.

That's life my friend. I can't say what the person did is wrong simply because I would be disgusted.

The question isn't whether you'd be disgusted, it's whether you would feel deceived. I think that most people would feel deceived in that situation and would say that there ought to have been some mention before the point of having sex, from someone who is intentionally sending all of the culturally normative womanhood, that they're bigendered. I don't think that you can say it's wrong for someone to expect that they're having sex with a woman at that point.

Unless you're content with being judgmental like that. As I said, being judgmental appears to be perfectly fine with you if it's based on your principles rather than someone else's.

I have usually have no expectations. Hence, why I wouldn't starting yelling wrong doing on the other person if the person turned out to be transgender female (MTF).

I wasn't intending to describe an MTF, I was intending to describe a bigendered individual. Not simply someone who regards their gender to be that of a straight woman regardless of their physical sexual characteristics.

You can not use that analogy. The lesbian should probably let the man know.

Ah, I see. So I'm judgmental for thinking that women should know ahead of time about your open relationship orientation, but you're just being perfectly reasonable to say that a lesbian should let men know about that in a dating situation? What's special about being into open relationships as a sexual orientation that the lesbian has some level of obligation to reveal her sexual orientation but you don't?

I want to point out that you seem to be jumping the gun at wrong doings on my part. How many monogamous players do you know that would actually just let the girl go(previous paragraph)? Probably none would. Well, I did and I'm not a player.

I don't think that "I'm better than a player" is entirely a high standard to maintain in terms of honesty. But from what you've said, I actually do believe that.

Also, you shouldn't think that because I ask a particular question I'm assuming wrongdoing on your part. I do accept that you undoubtedly have a much better intuitive sense of whether someone is disposed to polyamory / open relationships than I ever could. But no one is perfect. It's the "well that's just her problem" attitude above when someone turns out to be monogamous that I object to.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Okay, here's another analogy that might go over better. Imagine, Jason, that you are an utter Adonis, the perfect piece of man-candy, the dating equivalent of a delicious shot of Peppermint Schnapps mixed with Creme de Menthe. (Maybe you are, I don't know you.)

Actually, for the sake of this analogy you're literally that drink. And there's a Christmas party for a company where most of the people, but not all of them, happen to be alcoholics on the wagon, so there's almost no booze.

Some guy asks a girl in Accounting he hasn't talked to much before "Want a drink?" and she nods and he goes and mixes you up special. Now the guy knows that there are some non-alcoholics at the party, so he technically doesn't have to assume that she's an alcoholic. But with the party being mostly alcoholics, if she is an alcoholic she might well expect him to have mentioned ahead of time that he was offering her an alcoholic drink.

Now if he puts the drink in her hand, and she savors its delicious aroma, and it's not until she's lifted it to her lips that he mentions it's got alcohol in it (imperfect analogy I know, she'd be able to smell the alcohol), is it correct to say he'd be completely blameless for her saying "Awww, nuts... oh, what the hell." and falling off the wagon? I would say he's partially responsible - for him to say "not my problem" would be a crock.

That's how I see it. A lot of women I know would say "I'm like a choc-a-holic, but for men! (Oh, and chocolate too.)" Once a woman's been exposed to three weeks of your awesome virile potency, been irradiated in that sweltering inferno of manhood, it's like kryptonite for Superman - by the time you're telling her you're only looking for longer-term relationships that are open relationships she may be weakened and her judgment may be impaired by your intoxicating manliness.

⚛​

 

[fileen]

That's not true. Some STDs are a bit misnamed, because they can be transmitted by other forms of contact aside from intercourse. You also never know if your boyfriend might cheat on you at some point...of course you trust him not to, but it's still a non-zero risk.Not everyone views it that way. Others "fall in love" more easily.
I know a lot of people who claimed that at your age...all women, I never really asked men back then. They also were adamant that if they ever had a boyfriend or husband who cheated on them, he'd be kicked out immediately. Sadly, many of them have had husbands who cheated on them, and these were the first women to beg to get them back. Oddly, the ones who seemed more ambivalent about it, that they might consider the circumstances and take him back if they were sure it was a one-time mistake, etc., ended up the ones who ordered their cheating husbands to move out as soon as they were caught. Pretty ironic. Hmm...I seem to know about a lot of men who have cheated on their wives...not all of them have been caught yet. I'm not convinced that the whole idea of monogamy really works, or is even practiced as much as people claim it is.

Im not saying that what I believe is right, I am simply saying what I believe (no I am not religious.. just a hopeless romantic). I know lots of people disagree with me. I've been with people who have cheated on me.. mostly women (yes I tended to wander in either direction) but I have not "begged them back" I don't need to be with someone, I am quite content to be alone. I have even had multiple boyfriends and girlfriends... sometimes a boyfriend and a girlfriend... I had one boyfriend who didnt care how many girlfriends I had provided I wasnt with other guys. It was great for a while, but eventually you grow up and want the togetherness of a relationship. I have no desire to be with anyone who does not suit my needs perfectly, relationships are too much work to be with someone who doesn't completely make you happy. Its true my boyfriend could cheat on me, but I doubt it. He won't sleep with me so I doubt he would sleep with someone else. One of the major contributing factors that led us to being together was knowing that his beliefs coincided with mine. We were friends for many years before we decided to commit to a relationship. I know it could happen but I would be surprised if he cheated.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Since we happened to mention TS/TG stuff here, I thought it was a good place to note that along with the first black president we also evidently got the first openly transgendered mayor in the U.S. in this recent election.

⚛​