Open relationships

[Phil2]

A second, in my opinion minor reason probably is related to genetics: In the past, when there was no birth control, sexual intercourse with a different partner was naturally more likely to procude offspring with that (other) partner - therefore, especially in the case of men, it seemed desirable to make sure that the partner does not have sex with others.

Well this is correct and this has more to do with patriarchy than 'genetics' per se ... in fact in a patriarchal society, it can be said that men did totally 'confiscate' the ownership of children ... it was usually said that a wife "gave children" to her husband ... hence it was of primary importance to radically control women's sexual acitivities by all kinds of means including the wife's sequestration inside the house, 'chastity belts' or even 'infibulation' (closing off or obstruction the genitals of, especially by sewing together the labia majora in females) which is still practiced in some African countries ... among those practices the veiling/hiding of women behind covering clothings like burqas and the like in Muslim countries to avoid 'encounters' with other men ...

Matriarchy is a totally different organization: children belong to the mother (which is quite 'natural' in fact), the biological father does not take care of his own children, he might not even know that he is the father (the role of father is generally taken by the mother's brothers or other males in the matriarchal family) ... therefore the problem of controlling who is the biological father does not arise ... and women are totally free to have sexual relationships with the men she loves ... the notion of marriage does not exist, there is no permanent relationship instituted between men and women ... when a man loves a woman, he is 'invited' in her room at night, then at morning he goes back to work in his family (his mother, sisters and brothers ...)

Maybe Alex would love to live in a matriarchy

Personally I see this evolution as a major shift in human society, it will solve a lot of conflicts, because I really don't see how there could be peace when half of humanity is considered to be inferior to the other half ...

[Lazypoet]

The scandinavian countries are the most matriarchal in terms of politicians being women and having power.

(I don't see why we are bringing these things up in this thread though!)

However there is nothing matriarchal about sexual liberty,

as is there nothing patriarchal about monogamous relationships.

Women are not more free the more men they sleep with! It is not freedom, it is confusion in forms! The need to have more and more and more = Ego.

[Phil2]

However there is nothing matriarchal about sexual liberty,

as is there nothing patriarchal about monogamous relationships.

There is an obvious correlation, because in a patriarchy, men want to control women's sexuality in order to avoid children coming from another man ... this is also why monogamy was strictly controlled for women, but for men some kind of 'polygamy' was culturally acceptable, many men had and still have sexual relationships outside marriage ... and this is socially 'tolerated' (while somewhat hypocritically) ...

Women are not more free the more men they sleep with! It is not freedom, it is confusion in forms! The need to have more and more and more = Ego.

No, the question is not to 'accumulate' the relationships, just when there is love between two persons, this love can be shared freely in a sexual encounter ... this is not ego, this is just freedom ...

[Andreas]

Well this is correct and this has more to do with patriarchy than 'genetics' per se ...

What I meant with "genetics" is basically the importance of monogamy for men from an evolutionary perspective. If a guy is fine with his wife having sex with others, it's less likely that she will end up having his child and so this genes won't persist, i.e. the "My wife can have sex with whomever she wants"-gene will not be inherited by the next generation. If, in contrast, he makes sure that she does not have sex with others, her child will always be his child and therefore the "I want a wife that only has sex with me"-gene will be inherited to the next generation.

This obvioulsy strengthens a patriarchal society concept, but also the other way round. So it's kind of a chicken-egg thing but actually I'd rather say both things support each other and make the whole concept even stronger in itself. Anyway, as I said, I agree that nowadays probably the society aspect is the much stronger one... but actually, it's probably not even worth discussing it. The important point is: We now have the possibility to make a concious choice and do not need to act according to all this conditioning.

Women are not more free the more men they sleep with! It is not freedom, it is confusion in forms! The need to have more and more and more = Ego.

No, the question is not to 'accumulate' the relationships, just when there is love between two persons, this love can be shared freely in a sexual encounter ... this is not ego, this is just freedom ...

Lazypoet, of course you are right in the sense that defining oneself by the number of sexual partners is not freedom but confusion in forms. But that's not what I meant and, according to her previous posts, it's definitely also not what Alex seemed to have in mind. Again, for me, it's one of those weird things about discussions related to the monogamy/open relationship topic: The general assumption that the only options are "forbidding every sexual contact with other people" or "trying to have sex with as many (arbitrary) people as possible". Of course the second version is an extreme and most people will realize this. But interestingly, the first one is an extreme too and still the collective mind assumes it as being the healthy norm.

I fully agree with you, Phil. The point is not to "you have to 'accumulate'...". "You have to..." is obsessive in the same way as "You must not..." is obsessive and both comes from the ego. The opposite is exactly what you write: WHEN there is LOVE between two person, this love CAN be shared FREELY in a sexual encounter. Thanks for your nice formulation... I think I will remember this one !

[Andreas]

Oh, by the way: Alex, will you tell us when you have talked to your husband (of course only if you feel comfortable with it)? I have to admit that I'm really curious about the outcome .

[alex]

I've really enjoyed this whole conversation guys. You've bought up such interesting facts about different societal norms and everyone's view point is muchly loved and appreciated.

Oh, by the way: Alex, will you tell us when you have talked to your husband (of course only if you feel comfortable with it)? I have to admit that I'm really curious about the outcome .

I'll keep you posted funnily enough, the urge to even meet other people or be sexually adventurous has completely gone for now. We'll see how it unfolds. I have a feeling I'll be totally ok with it if he's not ok with it. He did agree initially but I think his little mind has been grinding over it and I'm not sure he's so cool about it now. I'm not so worried either way.
Thanks again!

[Phil2]

funnily enough, the urge to even meet other people or be sexually adventurous has completely gone for now.

Love ... and do what you like ...

[KathleenBrugger]

I've really enjoyed this whole conversation guys. You've bought up such interesting facts about different societal norms and everyone's view point is muchly loved and appreciated.

Oh, by the way: Alex, will you tell us when you have talked to your husband (of course only if you feel comfortable with it)? I have to admit that I'm really curious about the outcome .

I'll keep you posted funnily enough, the urge to even meet other people or be sexually adventurous has completely gone for now. We'll see how it unfolds. I have a feeling I'll be totally ok with it if he's not ok with it. He did agree initially but I think his little mind has been grinding over it and I'm not sure he's so cool about it now. I'm not so worried either way.
Thanks again!

This conversation is really awesome. Thanks also Alex for being so open. This is really interesting that the urge to be adventurous is not present now. That is what I meant when I wrote back on page 1:

I've long thought that if our culture figured out how to open up a little bit sexually, and there was more freedom to have outside sexual relationships within a committed relationship, the divorce rate would drop. I think it's natural to have sexual feelings for certain people we meet, and if you're in a committed "closed" relationship you have to either suppress your desires, or have a covert affair which almost always leads to problems...

When we can be honest about our feelings with our partner and express them fully, sometimes that's all that's needed. It's the suppression of the desire that causes it to build until we are compelled to act. That's why I also said that an open relationship doesn't even necessarily mean involving another--it can just mean the two of you acknowledge that sometimes you have sexual feelings for others and that's ok!

[Andreas]

I've really enjoyed this whole conversation guys. You've bought up such interesting facts about different societal norms and everyone's view point is muchly loved and appreciated.

Oh, by the way: Alex, will you tell us when you have talked to your husband (of course only if you feel comfortable with it)? I have to admit that I'm really curious about the outcome .

I'll keep you posted funnily enough, the urge to even meet other people or be sexually adventurous has completely gone for now. We'll see how it unfolds. I have a feeling I'll be totally ok with it if he's not ok with it. He did agree initially but I think his little mind has been grinding over it and I'm not sure he's so cool about it now. I'm not so worried either way.
Thanks again!

Wow, awesome ! This seems to be such a positive strong connection you have with each other, it's really beautiful to read this. I think your husband is a really great person. So are you.

This conversation is really awesome. Thanks also Alex for being so open. This is really interesting that the urge to be adventurous is not present now. That is what I meant when I wrote back on page 1:

I've long thought that if our culture figured out how to open up a little bit sexually, and there was more freedom to have outside sexual relationships within a committed relationship, the divorce rate would drop. I think it's natural to have sexual feelings for certain people we meet, and if you're in a committed "closed" relationship you have to either suppress your desires, or have a covert affair which almost always leads to problems...

When we can be honest about our feelings with our partner and express them fully, sometimes that's all that's needed. It's the suppression of the desire that causes it to build until we are compelled to act. That's why I also said that an open relationship doesn't even necessarily mean involving another--it can just mean the two of you acknowledge that sometimes you have sexual feelings for others and that's ok!

I think it's a nice spot for bringing up this comment of yours from page 1 again. Kind of starting with it... and now coming back to it again after Alex telling us her personal experience. Gives such a nice complete picture and now, after all, I agree with you even more than before .

[KathleenBrugger]

This conversation is really awesome. Thanks also Alex for being so open. This is really interesting that the urge to be adventurous is not present now. That is what I meant when I wrote back on page 1:

I've long thought that if our culture figured out how to open up a little bit sexually, and there was more freedom to have outside sexual relationships within a committed relationship, the divorce rate would drop. I think it's natural to have sexual feelings for certain people we meet, and if you're in a committed "closed" relationship you have to either suppress your desires, or have a covert affair which almost always leads to problems...

When we can be honest about our feelings with our partner and express them fully, sometimes that's all that's needed. It's the suppression of the desire that causes it to build until we are compelled to act. That's why I also said that an open relationship doesn't even necessarily mean involving another--it can just mean the two of you acknowledge that sometimes you have sexual feelings for others and that's ok!

I think it's a nice spot for bringing up this comment of yours from page 1 again. Kind of starting with it... and now coming back to it again after Alex telling us her personal experience. Gives such a nice complete picture and now, after all, I agree with you even more than before .

Cool! Yes it seemed like it fit seamlessly.

[alex]

Wow, awesome ! This seems to be such a positive strong connection you have with each other, it's really beautiful to read this. I think your husband is a really great person. So are you.

Thanks mate, I think he's a really great person too. We have always had a very easy seamless connection

I really agree with you Kathleen, honest, open and free communication that is free from blame and victim stories (where most people need to do work!) can do so much good for relationships.

[imago dei]

i feel exactly like you, Alex. Im 29 but the difference is that i don't want a partner at all for many reason, i'm among those who put freedom first. I feel oppressed and suffocated having someone but my side, i gave it up. I left the father of my daughter after 5 years "suffocating" relationship, i was extremely unhappy, i needed to live and experience and he tried to put me chains all of the time, with jealousy and other bad things.
My suggestion is: follow your heart. He knows what is good for you. I very bad judged from many people i know but i don't care, i found my balance and wellness the way i live now, living alone with my 5-years-old daughter, being a lovely mom and a bit crazy in the weekend, love flirting and partying. Well, pay attention with sex with unknown people anyway, don't be too light since diseases are spread...i have 1-2 sexual adventures a year about and always "protected".
It means i make very less sex in my life, unlike some my think

[Phil2]

i feel exactly like you, Alex. Im 29 but the difference is that i don't want a partner at all for many reason, i'm among those who put freedom first.

Hello ID, I appreciate your post and I can relate totally with what you say

There is a huge difference between you and alex ... you do not depend from anyone ... so you are a free person ... congratulations ... you had the courage to make it ...



... in some sense it could be said that alex looks for freedom but also the comfort of being dependant and taken in charge ... this is a little bit wanting the cake and to eat the cake too ...

[imago dei]

i feel exactly like you, Alex. Im 29 but the difference is that i don't want a partner at all for many reason, i'm among those who put freedom first.

Hello ID, I appreciate your post and I can relate totally with what you say

There is a huge difference between you and alex ... you do not depend from anyone ... so you are a free person ... congratulations ... you had the courage to make it ...



... in some sense it could be said that alex looks for freedom but also the comfort of being dependant and taken in charge ... this is a little bit wanting the cake and to eat the cake too ...

I hope you're not being sarcastic. I don't think there's such a "good" or "bad" thing dealing with reationships, i mean, we're all different and everyone has to know and choose what he wants. I realized that "traditional" families are not for me. A very strong impulse comes out when someone tries to give me rules in my private life, i mean where to go, what to do, not meeting other people...it's simply a nightmare for me. I like waking up in the morning and putting my fav music, eat what i like, being lazy when not working ecc....a partner is an enormous stress that i can't stand. I also like flirting when i go partying, it's part of me and i don't want to deny and repress it, it brings only unhappiness in my life.
Irt's very hard living alone with a daughter (also abroad), i muss be a bit manly als character, i'm very strong also physically (despite being slender), i do all by myself: working, taking care of her, burocracy, carrying furniture from one room to the other, fighting to survive....this is me, i feel so good in my skin and i found the sense of my life: freedom and independence....I don't care at all of judgements of very narrow minded individuals - in real life.
I'm very feminine but also very manly in some context, let's say i don't need anyone else to fullfill my life....well, i love friends'company anyways

[Phil2]

I hope you're not being sarcastic.

No, no ID, I am very sincere here, not sarcastic at all ... I know how difficult it might be to live in your situation, to face the material difficulties of living alone and raise your daughter ... and have a job etc ...

But you chose freedom (instead of the comfortable prison of 'conformism' and doing what others tell you), and I respect this infinitely ...