I don't think open marriage works if one or both people are out screwing other people. It only works until someone develops feelings for an outsider, or one of the partners feels neglected or jealous.

My boyfriend and I have a somewhat open arrangement - or, it might be more typically called "shared openess". What we do, we do together, and only by mutual consent....and only away from home...and only occassionally...and only within certain boundaries.

That's a lot of restrictions, actually. But it spices things up a little without ruining everything. I think it's more the idea of openness - of not saying, "You can only be with this one person forever and ever," that keeps our relationship from being stifling.

I don't know about other commenters but I would definitely like to meet Gregg. With all he's done, he's bound to be a very interesting person.
But I respect his privacy too.

As far as the open marriage thing goes, it reminds me of an epigram TS Eliot used, originally from Marlowe's "The Jew of Malta":
"Thou has committed..."
"Fornication. But that was in another country and besides, the wench is dead."

The nice thing is that Greg sounds interesting but also even-tempered. There's "interesting" in the "I'm so volatile and unpredictable that I'm interesting" kind of way, but a calm person can be just as interesting.

A female friend of mine said yesterday, "You and Jeff never fight. Don't you find that a little boring?" and I said, "Not AT ALL." I've had enough arguing to last a lifetime. An agreeable, even-tempered person is a lot more interesting to me.

> told me in a phone call that
> she felt it didn't work for
> most people. I agree.

Sure sure sure!

Y'know, our culture is in flux. Everything's in play, everything's up for grabs... Every boundary is a judgment call, and nobody in human history ever really knew anything until the day we were born....

Because we know so much better than everyone else ever did!; our hearts are purer, because we understand the importance of feelings, which is something our slaveholding grandmothers and 50's sitcom grandfathers never considered.

But also, we understand science! So we got that going for us... Which is nice! Science, reason and logic! Presentations at conferences, in rooms full of neatly dressed white people taking notes, with hors d'oeuvres in lobby! Tenure! Science!

And, plus, y'know, life is so much different now. Everything's changed.

So our broadest social contracts, those for personal unions, can never said to be truly dialed-in until—

• they're perfectly convenient for both parties (and only both parties, 'cause it's nobody else's beeswax, even if those nobodies are going to be paying for our health care and our mortgage and God knows what else)

• they can be whimsically, instantly suspended by either party, in whole or in part, for infinitely flexible durations

• they flatter and honor each party in the deepest, most individually touching way, celebrating our idiosyncratic unique-y-ness and the boundless magic of Personal Choice ('Hey Man, you gotta do what's right for you', etc.)

• they are nonetheless resolutely bankable investments, even though they require no apparent deposits by the contracted parities; after all, in this life, you gotta be able to count on sumthin', doncha? Sure you do. Sure sure sure.

Things just get better and better. Because we're so fabulous, and so comfortable in our own skin.

We just need to be sure it "works for people".

It is so much better when it "works for people." Much better than crochety, miserable couples who basically hate each other.

I've met some the happiest couples, with the longest marriages, who do not strictly adhere to the monogamy ideal.

You wouldn't always know this either. They're your neighbors and friends. It would suprise you.

I've never liked you. You're a grim little spirit.

Yes, I know. You make that point repeatedly. But I think you're the grim one, Crid. I don't know why you think life must be so hard and joyless. We've progressed since the plowing, slaveholding days of our grandmothers.

> We've progressed since the plowing,
> slaveholding days of our grandmothers.

"Progressed" into small-mindedness, self-centeredness, and proud cowardice. No one this blog can even MENTION a virtue without you witlessly chirping up about how little (adult) girls need to violate it. I've never seen you acknowledge an irony or any (personally) unpleasant truth. Why do you call yourself lovelysoul?

I sometimes feel like there's one master-controller commenter out there, one genius who sockpuppets all these stereotypical personalities, fleshing out their weaknesses and arrogance with a gentle, artistic touches that can't be resisted.

But no. America is really like this.

"I've never seen you acknowledge an irony or any (personally) unpleasant truth." That's bullshit. You must not read much of what I post. I'm very open about the personal failures in my life.

You, on the other hand, reveal nothing but curmudgeonly nonsense, while condeming almost everyone here for not living up to your standards. Yet, you don't sound like a very fulfilled human being. Maybe "virtuous" but not happy.

It is possible to be both, you know.

Virtue - another subjective term crid

> Maybe "virtuous" but not happy.

We understand each other perfectly. You put your happiness before everything, and expect to be admired for it.

> Virtue - another subjective term crid

Are you fuckin' kidding me?

I don't expect to be admired for being happy, nor do I place happiness above "everything else". I'm certainly not as virtuous as Mother Teresa, but I'm not a bad person either. I don't hurt people, am easily forgiving, have lots of supportive friends, and no enemies (except, perhaps, you). The fact that I can also arrange my life in a way that leads to happiness doesn't mitigate any of that.

Do I believe that one must be some bible-thumping moralist or flawless person, never having made a mistake, to be virtuous? No. People who obsess over rules that are supposed to create virtue seem to be cheating themselves out of a life worth living.

I worry about you. Cut yourself some slack, Crid. Take a few risks just for the sheer joy of it. There's nothing about being happy that is inherently wrong. You remind me of art students I knew in art school who felt they must always "suffer" and be so serious for their art. They were just carrying around this self-imposed weight of superiority. To me, THAT is self-absorbed.

But also, we understand science! So we got that going for us... Which is nice! Science, reason and logic! Presentations at conferences, in rooms full of neatly dressed white people taking notes, with hors d'oeuvres in lobby! Tenure! Science!

Your ignorance of the workings of science is funny. Or it would be if this same sort of anti-intellectualism weren't part and parcel of the modern conservative movement of which you are a part.

The data say that humans are potentially driving calamitous climate change, and conservatives say that scientists hate freedom and want to return us to the dark ages, burn all the coal and oil you want! The data say that children of gays are just as healthy as the children of straight people, and the conservatives say that it's obvious the children of gays are horribly deprived and anyone who disagrees is ignoring the obvious. The data show that pot is less harmful than alcohol, and conservatives say that "pot screws people up". Apparently imprisoning people absent evidence they are harming anyone is a conservative virtue.

I'm with lovelysoul on this. What works for two people might not work for two others, so let them make their own rules as long as they are consensual and not hurting anyone. I don't always agree with lovelysoul, but she seems like a nice person and I'm not sure why, Crid, you don't like her, but I like both of you!

Thanks, Kristen. I like you too. :)

> Do I believe that one must be...

Who's asking you this? Are you conducting your own private talk show?

> if this same sort of
> anti-intellectualism

I'm not anti-intellectualism, I'm anti-"intellectual." When someone snaps so eagerly to attention in defending booklearnin', I wonder if they're backhandedly trying to claim a seat at the Big Table. Intelligence defends itself without a chorus.

> The data show that pot is less
> harmful than alcohol

So, like, perhaps there are other issues you wanna discuss. And other distractions at work.

When someone snaps so eagerly to attention in defending booklearnin', I wonder if they're backhandedly trying to claim a seat at the Big Table.

I've done shit and accomplished things; no backhanded claims needed. When you constantly attack science and learning, I wonder if you're doing so cause some smarty pants made you feel dumb back in the day and haven't gotten over it.

So, like, perhaps there are other issues you wanna discuss. And other distractions at work.

For the purposes of this discussion, that was simply another example of a place where conservatives' ideological predispositions trumps what science would science would suggest is smart policy.

> no backhanded claims needed

And yet here you are, on an anonymous forum, making sure we understand that you're an intellectual. And by gum, we do!

I do feel bad about "broadest social contracts", above, though. Shoulda said most broadly issued, or universal-honored, or something like that.

Remember, this is a free service, OK?

> she seems like a nice person

Wait. Wait until an issue comes up where someone else's interests need to be protected. Wait until society makes some trivial imposition on her (or people in her precise position) on behalf of some undefended party. Marvel at the reflexes as her keyboard begins clicking with inhuman speed, clearing rhetorical back-space for weakness and naivete and excuse-making.

Once you've seen it in action a couple times from top to bottom, the mechanical precision will awe you.

No crid I am not kidding. Virtue is a term whoes definition is in flux depending on the culture in question and the meaning applied in context by the individual using it.

God where are the women like Amy?

lovelysoul

Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that there is no objective standard of virtue in a relationship? Is screwing around outside of the relationship not cheating if both parties agree that it is not cheating?

> definition is in flux

SFW? So are kitchen cleanliness and medical proficiency. Do you not care which direction those things go, either? Loo, dude, that is a seriously teenage argument. Words have meaning.

"Wait. Wait until an issue comes up where someone else's interests need to be protected."

Crid, I've spent 20 years as GAL. What have YOU done? I bet I've protected more people's interest than you have, especially children's interests.

And, just because, in the course of that - in the course of LIVING A LIFE, not a "THEORY" of life - I've discovered that things aren't always so black and white - so neatly assigned a "virtue" or fault - and I hate to see people maligned without all the facts, you fail to understand. That's because you only sit at your keyboard in judgment of others, professing great "virtues" that are never actually tested by a real and involved life.

I don't remember if you're married, but I don't believe you've raised any children, so it's all really easy for you. No risks...no mistakes...no complicated messiness to contend with. You're perfect. Everyone else is failing by YOUR high standard...which is that you do nothing, reveal nothing, so you can't be faulted for anything.

I'll take my messy, imperfect, yet full and happy life, over yours any day. And I've done more to defend the defenseless than you ever will, despite all your posturing. If you'd really been out there, you wouldn't be so rigid and judgmental.

"Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that there is no objective standard of virtue in a relationship? Is screwing around outside of the relationship not cheating if both parties agree that it is not cheating?"

Yeah, I don't think it's "cheating" if both people know about it and approve. Just like I don't think it's "sodomy" for the same reason.

It may be a crime to someone somewhere, but if it's not a crime to me or the person I'm with, and no one is being hurt, why should anyone else care?

Cheating, to me, is going behind someone's back. Telling lies and covering up your actions. If both parties discuss something and agree to it, I can't see where that's "cheating".

> I've spent 20 years as GAL. What have YOU done?

Spent 50 as a MAN. Not that I'd offer that as a point of argument or something, but since you put it like that....

Just promise me this: No tears. About anything. Ever. Bombers on airplanes, rapacious businessmen, predatory government, whatever. We can't complain... Because we haven't walked a mile in their shoes. We cannot judge! (As Carolla used to say, "It is impossible to judge....")

The world needs only forgiveness, OK? Don't ask anything of anybody ever, and if you hear of someone asking for better performance in any context, be sure to speak out to give the party being critiqued room to slip away. The important thing is that *everybody* be happy.

crid, you drank the expired eggnog, didn't you? heh, how nice.

dunno that there is the bridge between LS's relativeism, and absolutism, but might be worth mentioning that interacting with the outside world is a matter of an individual's interpretation of same. complications arise when we interact with things that don't operate as expected.

"Yeah, I don't think it's "cheating" if both people know about it and approve." LS

This is making quite the assumption that both people accespt and understand the situation in exactly the same way. That's what makes relativeism the moving target. Both people hold themselves to internal standards, but those standards are essentially unknowable in truth to the other person. Like how some people will eventually agree to something like putting the toilet seat down, not because it is right, but to shut the other person up. Does that mean that they agree? In simplicity, yes, but in body, no.

This is why there is an external standard that most people look at and agree to. Because it's repeatable, and regardless of how the rule is percieved, it can be applied similarly every time.

That there are a few people that can accept no external standard, shouldn't be surprising, after all. We are not clones. However, on an open arrangement like LS's there seem to be lots and lots of rules, as if this is a pantomime of freedom. Who makes up the rules, and who enforces them. Why is it different than regular monogamy with it's rules?

It's a curious topic.

Thank you for putting a rejoinder in eloquent terms SwissArmyD. There are a million and one problems with LovelySoul's model which is really another version of the definition of "is". Are both sides working from the exact same definition. And what is the life span of that definition. People might be using LS's relational model but are also suffering from its consequences when "is" changes. You might not hear so much about that part.

I can't figure out why people are so horrified by the concept of being with the same person forever, once you make the decision to be hitched. Sex is on a bell curve- there are some people who probably do just lay there, and some who hang from chandeliers, but most of us are in the middle and pretty damn similar. It's like saying you just have to have the occasional Burger King instead of McDonalds-does it really matter? Is it worth coming up with 8 different rules for when it's "ok"? How are those 8 rules any different than the one rule of monogamy?

I've been around the block a few times back in the day, and been the "other woman" with a couple, and cheated on a boyfriend. And you know what? It's just too damn hard. Me being with my husband only is what is easy. No messy jealousy, nothing unpleasant, just the occasional trip to the sex store for toys. Life is good.

> you drank the expired eggnog, didn't you?

You have no evidence! You can't prove a thing!

> heh, how nice.

I get very tired of her incessant, reflexive excuse-making. Ever word is a shriveling pander.

> It's just too damn hard.

Wonderful joke from John Astin: "The penalty for bigamy? Two wives!" (I don't remember where that came from... May have been a script.)

Listen, if married and fully, fully grown people are OK with their spouses fucking other people, then sure, we don't have to get all judgmental, man. Go sick, and Godspeed. But to hear of such unions being so casually offered as the policy for the whole society is just silly.

Silly silly. Yeah, right: Tell your daughters they shouldn't even DREAM of a man holding lifelong fidelity to her as a worthwhile aspiration. Go ahead, tell her she's not even supposed to want fidelity.

Listen, Disney made money from all those wretched movies 'cause Walt knew was what in the childish heart... He didn't put it there. He was following the market.

What was, not was what. No, not egg nog, coffee.

Y'know, the blog post was so weird that I didn't even noticed Amy's seeming even-handedness. I mean, is there anything typical of Angelina's life and marriage at all, beyond the embittering divorce of her parents?

When people say "We make sure that we never restrict each other", do you get the sense they missed some important themes in the contract?

The people I know who are most happily married are very, very restricted.

I mean, is there anything typical of Angelina's life and marriage at all, beyond the embittering divorce of her parents? -crid

Didnt she make out or have sex with her brother? Or was that just one of those celebrity rumors?
Then there was that weird vial of blood thing with billy bob

Sorry crid I thought your question said atypical, not typical

IJS, she's goofy. We expect nothing more from celebrities, but sane people ought not trust them to show us how family should work

"The people I know who are most happily married are very, very restricted."

And that was my original point. I'm in no way offering open marriage as the "policy for the whole society". I'm merely pointing out that it is done, successfully, but with many restrictions - usually more than traditional relationships.

The vast majority of swinging or open couples, do so because of the women. Women into women. This genuinely surprises me - how many ordinary seeming middle-aged housewives, nurses, teachers and grandmothers - are out there craving some action with other women.

It's not my cup of tea, so, at first, I suspected this was mainly for the men's benefit, but that doesn't seem to be the case. These women (who, interestingly, do not consider themselves lesbians or even bi) simply desire other women.

It's actually less common that the men do anything but watch. Many women could not handle seeing their man with another woman, although they feel it's fine for them to be with one...and , if their husbands disagree, they sure aren't complaining much. From the looks of...er, things...they heartily approve.

The main rule - at least among those who seem to manage open relationships successfully - is that the women call all the shots. If the woman doesn't like it, or thinks it's gone too far, or wants things to stop, it's HER call.

And, usually, everything happens in the open. It's not a situation where one party goes off with someone else. Although some couples do have that agreement, it's not typical, and I tend to suspect those relationships wouldn't work as well.

Most couples have very strict boundaries, which do not include intercourse. They use it more as foreplay for their own grand finale. It's just an appetizer - the main course is still about being with each other.

I'm stating all this as an observation. Take from it what you will. But if you want to discuss open relationships, it helps not to pretend they don't exist.

Re; Blog post title, Fidelity is essential. We'll not bother with the quibbles and exceptions and nuances; there might be children listening. Fidelity is essential. ThxNowBye.

We'll not bother with the quibbles and exceptions and nuances; there might be children listening. Fidelity is essential.

I know you like everything simple and are so worried the poor children might get the idea that something other than the Cleaver family lifestyle works for people. But this is a blog for grown-ups. Fidelity is not essential, but everybody needs to be on the same page about what is and is not acceptable within the bounds of his or her relationship.

> something other than the Cleaver family

As noted above, that's all you got. Criticism of sitcoms is your whole worldview.

How did I know you were going to go down that path? Gosh, I must be a genius.

LS, if you re-read your post, what you describe there is not open at all. One person sets the rules and the other person is obliged to follow. Essentially the third person is like live pron... softer than a DVD...
How is that a relationship? It's certainly not an equal one, whatever it is. It isn't "open" because it doesn't apply to all parties.

All parties amy accept the stricture, but did all parties actually want that?

It seems so, Swiss. At least for me and my boyfriend (now fiance!) it is. But I agree that "open relationship" is somewhat of a misnomer, since there are usually rules, which are not always applied equally.

The only way it could be "equal" for many of those couples is if the men played around with each other - which NEVER happens. Not even alluded to. That is completely taboo. It's sort of funny how woman on woman is so appealing (apparently to both men and women) but man on man would be out of bounds.

I'd like to add that just because I don't believe a situation like this is "cheating" doesn't mean I agree that anything goes. I personally don't believe couples should have full-on sex with other people. I don't condone that. My boyfriend doesn't condone it. We never do that. Our boundaries are clear, and we're in mutual agreement about them.

We go to "Hedonism 2" in Jamaica once a year, frolic nude in the sand, and enjoy the stimulating, sexy atmosphere. It enhances our own relationship.

Crid will hate this, but I've met more happy couples there - some married 30, 40, or even 50 years. Most return yearly like we do. It's kind of a mecca for many couples. Some are "swingers", some aren't. Many are just nudists. But it's a special place where couples can explore their sexuality and shed inhibitions.

It's an adult resort, like this is an adult blog, so I see no harm in what we do, and I've seen plenty of evidence that it can, when kept in the proper context, be quite healthy and reinvigorating for a relationship.

Can you acknowledge any nuance? At all? Is it possible that there's more to sex than an on/off switch?

Can you ever just specifically state your grievances, without wrapping them in subtle, enigmatic language?

Sure, Crid. Sex has many different "nuances". When you're young and lose your virginity, it has a certain special nuance. When you're 25 and trying to have a baby - bring forth a life - sex has another very special nuance.

And, when you're 47, after a long marriage, several kids, and a vasectomy, it can have another special nuance - meaning it can be JUST FOR FUN.

Are you really suggesting that we must all do it in the dark, in the missionary position, after lighting some candles and saying a prayer, to show the proper reverence?

I'm not talking about 17 yr old virgins here. These are grown people, who are well-aware of the difference between lovemaking and sex, and well-past the need to treat the act as sacred each and every time.

> Are you really suggesting that we must
> all do it in the dark, in the missionary
> position, after lighting some candles
> and saying a prayer, to show
> the proper reverence?

See, that's what I mean. I never said anything of the kind... but that's where your reflexes are. All those things came straight out of your brain. Anyone who says there should be any discipline to anyone's conduct at all is "antisex".

Everytime on every topic. Someone says "people should behave", and you go apeshit.

interesting Ls, several of the Bi's I know don't seem to have a problem with 2 guys and a girl... or more.

But. I'd point out that fidelity is talking about the relationship aspect, not necessarily the sex one. I don't know what you mean by full-on... if you have orgasms with someone that seems full on to me. But it seems that what you describe is more '-play' where the third person is an object of desire, rather than a person to be related to. Though I'd bet that most people will relate to them in a friendly way.
If you compartmentalize in this way, it doesn't seem like cheating because you two are together, and then working with a third. The danger is that one or the other will like the third more than their normal partner, and the dynamics will change.

While you cut the semantics between lovemaking and sex, most people shy away from that line for a reason. Fear that they will lose that one person that they actually love, because they were looking for the next best encounter.

Really, it may not be you who treats it as a sacred encounter, but your body surely does. Millions of years of evolution had made it so that you do this to make the species survive, that's why it feels so good. It might well be true that pair bonds are much more a function of civilization, but they also allowed it to progress. The Hindi seem to believe that it should be sacred, and fun too. But they bond as pairs and very tightly. I'm not sure what point you are making about sacred.

No, I just think that when YOU say "people should behave" you mean people should behave by your standards, which are quite rigid.

I get that you don't like the "live and let live" philosophy - that you think everything's gotten too loose in society - but you're fooling yourself if you don't believe that much of this wasn't also going on two hundred years ago. There were open marriages and homosexuals, and all sorts of hedonistic goings on that don't sit well with your Norman Rockwell-ish view of the world.

The only thing different today is that it's out in the open, which I'm sure you'd rather it not be, but you can't put the cat back into the bag now. Berating me may make you feel better, but it's not going to change anything. I take a pragmatic approach to what is, rather than what "ought" to be - examining the pros and cons -while you'd rather sweep reality under the rug in hopes that it'll go away, and we can return to a simpler, sweeter time when these things weren't discussed, much less acknowledged.

I agree there are positive aspects to that kind of social denial and engineering, but it also had its negatives, like repression and intolerance. But I think you choose not to see those. You glorify the past too much.

"If you compartmentalize in this way, it doesn't seem like cheating because you two are together, and then working with a third."

Swiss, I think cheating requires deceit. There may be other terms more appropriate, but "cheating" isn't the right one. If you both agree on what you're doing, and you're there together, who is being cheated on?

Any good relationship takes trust. I think those that are more open require, and ultimately achieve, a greater level of trust because they're not hiding from all temptations.

I actually believe that this is the reason the couples I've met at Hedonism seem stronger and more secure than those typically met elsewhere. It takes a strong, trusting couple to go there in the first place. If either partner has a jealous, insecure streak, it won't work. They'd run crying from the beach the first day...or yell at their partner for looking at another naked person.

But it's not as if those vulnerabilities aren't already there in the relationship, even if untested or dormant. They'll still come out eventually - whether on a nude beach or a cocktail party.

To be honest, the first time I went, I had to confront those myself...and I cried on the beach the first day. It brought up a lot of those feelings of insecurity, distrust, and body issues. Having my boyfriend embrace me and reassure me of his love, in that environment, made us even closer.

In fact, they say Hedonism is one of the best places for women, particularly, to overcome those insecurities, and I agree. We are ALWAYS comparing and feeling inferior to each other. But, by the end, you're realizing that we all pretty much have the same fallible, imperfect bodies - the same fragile human condition. Strange as it sounds, the whole experience makes a woman feel more beautiful and accepted.

The images conjured by these latest posts are just barferific.

Well, I can't speak for crid, but I may well be more Norman Rockwell than him...

"I take a pragmatic approach to what is, rather than what "ought" to be - examining the pros and cons " - LS

If this is the case, what is your starting point? You say you have plenty of rules for your encounters...where did those rules come from? Did you make them up from scratch as if you had never heard of rules before?

Or is it experience talking? Is it witnessing bad outcomes from other people? You were born and rasied in a society, and you make a choice to deviate from it's stricture. Everyone does this pretty much, in some form, regardless if it's a bj from the sleazy girl in 8th grade, getting falling down drunk and found taking a leak on the mayor's car, or spitting gum on the sidewalk... or any of billions of other little deviations from some percived idea of normal.

There IS something that you are deviating from, and it's usually a patchwork buildup of thoughts and ideas from your parents back through time. Lots of those things seem unfair, until you are on the other side of the lens, and realize that there was some truth to those old ideas.

Seems like you are chomping at the bit on what might be considered puritanical ideas of relationships, rules and such and how they are applied. Do you get how limited your POV is based on an entire world of humans? Cultures have a very specific idea of cheating, and what it is and what it entails. Most cultures have sexual mores that inform how people deal with each other. Many of them are quite different but one thing seems pretty common, and that is that when you actually partner with a person permanently it is more difficult if you have more than one partner. [naturally polygamous socities not so much]

This serves more to protect women than anything, because a guy can knock up a lot of different women in a short time. Without being responsible for the children involved.

You make him responsible by making him part of a unit. That's where the rule comes in. Now when you are older and done having kids and so forth as you have said, it would seem that this rule doesn't need so much to happen. EXCEPT. Yeah, boyo is fertile pretty much all of his life. Thus he could be having kids with other women most of same.

That's why you have YOUR rules about what happens when you include more partners in bed. But you insist that makes you better as a couple, and deepens the trust and so on. Um, committed couple with lotsa trust is SO Norman Rockwell. You have put many rules in place to make sure that you will stay as a couple, and those rules may/may not be rules your future husband would have in place for same.

You speak of open marriages and so forth, but if it's open it's not a marriage. Open means free agent, no permanent partners. Marriage means one partner... In 6Billion people, sure, there are people who break a way from this variously, obviously Muslims do a lot, but to the detriment of the women who are not seen as equals.

I think in a lot of ways you are proceeding from the idea that a law or rule externally is a box that people are shoved into. The other way of looking at this is that a law or rule is a place of beginning, where then individuals end up tweaking things as needed. Which is what in fact YOU are doing.

Acting like rules are worthless to start with, even such odious rules as being married to one person at a time, is a falsehood. You have to begin with soemthing. Likely that you begin with what you were taught as a child and work form there. Regardless if you choose to veer away, or hold directly to them without waver, you began somewhere.

As a sidelight, open marriages are interesting, but when you get children involved? It messes them UP. I know several that were products of the 70's and it's strange hippie leftover-ness, and there adulthood has been pretty misreable. One was tragically short inability to deal with the way the world works outside themselves.

In the longrun living with external rules is a way for two people to communicate, much the way as having a similar language is. When both people understand the same rule, the same as their grandparents had and so on, it's a point of interchange. Making rules up as you go, has the distinct disadvantage of making it more difficult to communicate, because of the differences in perception. Additionally, the rules may be held in a lower standard because they change so much.

You mentioned that your BF is now a fiance, I take it to mean you are getting married. Will the rules change again then?

"I think in a lot of ways you are proceeding from the idea that a law or rule externally is a box that people are shoved into. The other way of looking at this is that a law or rule is a place of beginning, where then individuals end up tweaking things as needed. Which is what in fact YOU are doing."

That is proably true. Yeah, I think it is a box that most of us are shoved into. And I'm not sure that it's the healthiest box, given that half of marriages fail.

"You speak of open marriages and so forth, but if it's open it's not a marriage. Open means free agent, no permanent partners. Marriage means one partner... In 6 Billion people, sure, there are people who break a way from this variously, obviously Muslims do a lot, but to the detriment of the women who are not seen as equals."

As I said, that is not how I observe what is happening among American couples with open marriages. It is the reverse. The women have all the power. Otherwise, it wouldn't work, because, as everyone knows, men would screw multiple women, all the time, if given that freedom...if there were no boundaries. Western women wouldn't be at all interested in open marriage if that was the standard. Places like Hedonism 2 would close.

"That's why you have YOUR rules about what happens when you include more partners in bed. But you insist that makes you better as a couple, and deepens the trust and so on."

We do not include other couples in our bed. I guess that is what people imagine in the term "open marriage," but that isn't usually the case. It isn't with me and my fiance. That's what my original point was - that open marriage doesn't generally work if couples are free to go out and screw other people or bring someone into the marital bed. Who would want that?

We have OUR bed and that doesn't include others. Our normal life doesn't include others. But, on our Jamaican jaunts, do we allow each other to fulfill some fantasies within agreed upon boundaries? Yes. And are we better, stronger, and more intimate for that as a couple? Yes. And will that continue after we are married? Yes, I hope so. It is basically a VACATION from total monogamy, not our real life.

The way I look at is this: We love each other and we aren't getting any younger. We are blessed with a fantastic sex life, which is only maximized by these experiences. I know, from having been married to a much older man, that these spontaneous sexual experiences don't last forever. Things don't stay as reliable. And I love my fiance so much, and he loves me so much, that we feel comfortable giving each other the freedom to be who we are sexually...because it won't last forever.

We are both almost 50. That paints things in a different light. I don't fear, as I might have if we were 20, that either of us will trade in what we have for something more elusive - for someone else. We are mature and know how great we have it with each other...day to day...for the rest of our lives.

But we are still sexual and can enjoy that to the maximum possible, without hurting anyone. I see that as a gift to both of us - him to me, and I to him. To say, "I know you're still young enough to lust...and your lust is okay with me, for I feel it too. Let's celebrate it."

Soon enough, it will be gone. We'll be dealing with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, strokes, heart attacks, and dementia. Hopefully, we'll have some sexy Hedonistic memories to share as we waste away, side by side.

"Acting like rules are worthless to start with, even such odious rules as being married to one person at a time, is a falsehood. You have to begin with soemthing. Likely that you begin with what you were taught as a child and work form there. Regardless if you choose to veer away, or hold directly to them without waver, you began somewhere."

Gosh, Swiss, I begin and end with the idea that you should be with one person forever. That is my ideal. Sadly, the one person I committed myself to at 19 couldn't see that through, but I, in no way, believe relationships should be any less than that, and I fully intend on seeing this next one through to the end. I lasted 20 years with the first one, so I'm not a quitter. I'll be married next time until death do us part.

"As I said, that is not how I observe what is happening among American couples with open marriages. It is the reverse. The women have all the power." LS

If it isn't open to both partners then it isn't open. On the other hand, if the guy gets several partners who aren't jealous of each other, he's prolly fine with that.

LS it seems your lifestyle IS about fidelity to one person.

"Gosh, Swiss, I begin and end with the idea that you should be with one person forever." - LS

and yet you ended your first post by saying this:

"I think it's more the idea of openness - of not saying, "You can only be with this one person forever and ever," that keeps our relationship from being stifling."

perhaps all my confusion on what you mean is a misunderstanding... but of what? What you keep describing is just a little play on the side, with supposedly no ramifications...

"We are both almost 50. That paints things in a different light. I don't fear, as I might have if we were 20, that either of us will trade in what we have for something more elusive - for someone else." - LS

Uh, yeah. 50 year old guys never trade in for a new model. Which is why you never see old dudes walking around with hot tamale babes on their arms. You never hear about famous guy's mistresses... And Hugh Hefner is perpetually alone. I'm not saying anything bad about your or your sidekick. But assuming it can't happen is foolish. Besides, when you treat your partner like you have to try in order to keep their eyes on you, they WILL keep their eyes on you.

...and not on the 23yr old waitress who passed them her phone number.

[heh, I grinned ear to ear all day after that ;)]

"But assuming it can't happen is foolish. Besides, when you treat your partner like you have to try in order to keep their eyes on you, they WILL keep their eyes on you."

I would never be one to believe it CAN'T happen. That's precisely why I believe couples should do everything possible to fulfill each other. I belive the sexual bond is one of the most critical components to building and maintaining lasting love.

But I also believe that cheating has nothing to do with the 23 yr old waitress. Cheating is ultimately about character. Some people have cheating characters. Other people are inherently loyal. No matter what opportunities are presented - even a room full of hot, naked people - and they won't cheat.

You can take a natural cheater to someplace like Hedo and they'd be like a kid in a candy shop, ogling everybody and trying to take advantage of every opportunity for sex. There are people like that there. Easy to spot.

Loyal people are loyal no matter where they are. They are true to you, even in the face of extreme temptation. I'm lucky to have found one of those. And it's precisely because I've seen him in the very situations that would've unraveled a cheater - seen how he won't cross boundaries and always honors his word and honors me - that I'm quite sure he is trustworthy.

> you mean people should behave
> by your standards, which
> are quite rigid

You prefer to be constrained by forgiveness than boundaries. Good luck out there, but don't wait up for admiration, OK?

Ye Gods! I'm glad I missed out on this clusterfuck!

It's never to late, P-pear. Clusters are by definition informal. No need for eveningwear or introductions, just jump on in...

"The images conjured by these latest posts are just barferific."

See, I was expecting 'craptastic', but you just created something entirely fresh instead. Very nice.

There are some things for which "craptastic" just won't do.

"Ye Gods! I'm glad I missed out on this clusterfuck!"

Nice choice of words, P-pear.