|
Lucis
Nutritional Yeast

Registered: 03/28/15
Posts: 15,622
Last seen: 1 month, 29 days
|
Thoughts on Open Relationships
#23685755 - 09/28/16 08:19 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I am curious what your thoughts are on open relationships.
What I consider an open relationship, is when you're in a relationship with someone basically to be their friend, and have sex sometimes, but without the attachments most physical relationships have.
You live together because you like the other person, you have sex sometimes, you do stuff all the time together, but you're not so attached that you can't think others are attractive and be vocal about it, you might even invite others into your relationship to have sex so both of you could enjoy someone new.
I had a friend that was with a guy for ten years, they never got married though. One morning she woke up and he was gone, never told her where he was going, so I could understand that being hard, you know people often change as they go through life, but if you discussed the changes with your partner, then I don't see how something like that would happen.
I don't think open relationships are good because I have an issue with fidelity, I just feel like people start becoming controlling to each other in relationships, even if they don't think they're doing so, often times they are.
I don't want to ever tie anyone down in anyway, so open relationships seem legit. I just feel like most of the pettiness that comes about in many relationships, would be avoided this way.
-------------------- ©️
Edited by Lucis (09/28/16 11:07 PM)
|
demiu5
humans, lol


Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Lucis]
#23691711 - 09/29/16 06:57 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
there's one person i considered trying this with. even then, i'm not sure how, over time, i would've handled the terms we had begun to layout.
i'm pretty much a monogamous ape.
to each their own as long as no one is being hurt physically/emotionally
-------------------- channel your inner Larry David
|
Anonymous #1
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: demiu5] 1
#23691887 - 09/29/16 07:38 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It doesn't sound natural.
A FWB kind of thing wouldn't be someone you live with or see with any sort of frequency if you planned on it staying FWB. Feelings are reactions, not choices.
As a man, I wouldn't want to live with someone who is banging another guy. What happens if she gets pregnant? How do I know it is mine? Why would I want to invest in someone else's child (unless she had one before we met)? What about AIDS?
|
Mojo
Stranger

Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 1,676
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Lucis] 3
#23692535 - 09/29/16 10:41 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You cant write a recipe for any relationship, they are all unique. The identifier of "open" merely describes one tiny detail in an otherwise highly customized arrangement, uniquely tailored to two or more individuals.
|
dodgem
Learner



Registered: 08/04/11
Posts: 2,683
Last seen: 6 months, 14 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Mojo]
#23696036 - 10/01/16 12:37 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
My girlfriend and I had a conversation one night with a gentleman that was in an open relationship. We were both staying at the same airbnb and had a few drinks out on the patio and he decided we were something along the lines of 'open and progressive enough' that he would share his story. He had been married to this woman for like 15 years and things had been good, but then they both decided to start seeing other people, each for their own reasons. I guess he has 2 some what stable other women that he is with and she has one guy at the moment. He mentioned it was definitely tough getting past the jealousy factor at first, but now they both realize that their partner is happier and healthier now so they have moved past that. They each have met the external partners as well and hang out together some times which seemed odd to me, but it all seemed to be working pretty well for them.
It seems odd when you grow up in a monogamous family/culture, but the more I think about it it doesn't really seem that crazy. I think being up front with your partner about it and truthful along the way is necessary, just as it is in any relationship. It was very insightful to hear his story from him and how it has worked out for them over the past 10+ years.
--------------------
Walk where you like your steps
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: dodgem]
#23696539 - 10/01/16 08:42 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think the most important thing to make any relationship work out is genuine honesty and integrity in both people. Although some people can make it work I think the idea of an open relationship is unnecessary because friends with benefits is no different, the only difference is semantics.
If someone doesn't want a physical commitment there's no need to be in a relationship in the first place.
Friendship suffices.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Lucis]
#23699161 - 10/02/16 04:50 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm currently in an open relationship and it going decently for the most part. I think that the people involved in a relationship matter more than the kind of relationship it is. If two people are compatible, unselfish, open and honest, then I don't see what the problem is.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23699226 - 10/02/16 06:10 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I get that it works for some people but what is the point of an open relationship in your view? Why not label it as friends with benefits instead?
I'm curious because I don't see much of a difference between an open relationship and being friends with benefits.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Mojo
Stranger

Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 1,676
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23699637 - 10/02/16 09:37 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe you need to re-check the definition. A "physical commitment" does not define a relationship. However, a sexual connection does fall under the definition of a relationship. I would argue that two connected sexual people are more appropriately described as being in a relationship than as being friends. Friendship is defined by a connection that typically excludes sex. You have associated monogamy with the word relationship in one of your previous posts (ie "physical commitment"), how do you justify that association?
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Lucis]
#23699986 - 10/02/16 11:52 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Depends on the lady, but generally I would prefer non-monogamy in the long run
All the semantic speculation doesn't make sense to me
|
Chakra Shock
Waxing Prophetic


Registered: 02/22/13
Posts: 2,514
Loc: The Enterprise
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Lucis] 1
#23700408 - 10/02/16 02:09 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It just depends on why you want to be in a relationship.
Personally, I prefer the idea of commitment to just one other person because it's challenging in the sense that there is immense responsibility in the development of the relationship, seeing as there are only two people involved. Do we have what it takes to find love and make it stay? That's no easy task. It sets a limitation on the way in which I will spend my energy and cultivate my emotions to reach the heights of love and interconnectivity, an enlightening process.
Hypothetically, since I've never tried an 'open' relationship, I think I would be spread too thin. I barely have the kind of time it takes to give one person the attention a relationship would require, let alone a few people. Sounds like a nightmare, being split up in such a way.
One of the reasons why I think people misunderstand commitment is because they associate it with possessiveness, and their happiness relies on that other person fulfilling their expectations. It becomes an ego trip, so to speak. The only way to circumvent this which I am aware of is to find the love and happiness one seeks in others within one's Self, and to genuinely and sincerely wish for one's partner's happiness over one's own personal desires. In that way, anything can be discussed, there's no need to hold someone in check or worry about whether or not the relationship will always be the same.
It takes being free to let others be free too. Being in an 'open' relationship does not necessarily entail that anyone is being more or less possessive than a monogamous one. I see it all the time, people in open relationships feeling hurt or slightly rejected when their partner begins to explore someone else. Then there are the people in open relationships whom i've noticed never seem to be effected one way or the other, yet they also exude a presence of self-interest and emotional detachment. These are just the people I've met, I'm sure there are countless examples of great, open relationships.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Chakra Shock]
#23700421 - 10/02/16 02:14 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Open relationships are more of a sex & empathy thing to me, psychology doesn't come into play, just hedonistic abandon.
Much like weed, I don't smoke medically, its recreational and I can easily go without (often do for months).
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Mojo]
#23701005 - 10/02/16 05:21 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Sexual connections can be completely about sensation and they often are.
Unless there is a strong emotional commitment between the two people in an open relationship the label seems pointless to me.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Mojo
Stranger

Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 1,676
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23701569 - 10/02/16 08:37 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
To be clear, semantics is the logical aspect of meaning in linguistics, and has nothing to do with how you feel inside about commitment being part of a relationship...
I also don't know why on earth you think people in an open relationship are not emotionally committed...
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Mojo]
#23701779 - 10/02/16 09:46 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think an open relationship is only viable if there is an emotional commitment.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23702422 - 10/03/16 04:12 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I get that it works for some people but what is the point of an open relationship in your view? Why not label it as friends with benefits instead?
I'm curious because I don't see much of a difference between an open relationship and being friends with benefits.
Why label it at all. Why limit love with language? Two people like spending time with each other, talking to each other, kissing each other and fucking each other. Let them talk, kiss, fuck and hang out. Call it whatever you like.
Quote:
Sexual connections can be completely about sensation and they often are.
Unless there is a strong emotional commitment between the two people in an open relationship the label seems pointless to me.
Quote:
I think an open relationship is only viable if there is an emotional commitment.
These expose the heart of your confusion sudly. You're separating mere sensation, from emotional connection. What are emotions, if not a kind of sensation? Where does care end and love begin? What's the difference between taking joy in the happiness of others (empathy/love), and getting off on making someone cum... You dig?
You're trying to create an artificial boundary between some connections and other connections. I like spending time with a person; watching movies together, talking, eating together etc. I like spending time with another person; fucking them, holding hands, expressing my feelings etc. Why do some types of connections have to be exclusive, but with others, you have the freedom to do as you please. Why are people fine with 'casual' relationship polygamy, but require 'serious' relationships to be monogamous? Why do we need to differentiate between sex&romance with people and chats&hangouts with people. If you like spending time with someone, you like spending time with them. If it involves sex, it involves sex.
Why must others attain your closed minded, culturally trapped standards for 'viability'? This reminds me of your misunderstanding of light/color/perception, in that discussion we had a few months ago. Don't let the arbitrariness of language and institutions limit your cognition.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23702440 - 10/03/16 04:41 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Because I don't confuse sex with love. Those two people hanging out together can be just friends.
And yes I am separating sensations from emotions because sensations are physical stimulations while emotions are mental feelings.
Care ends and love begins when the care of an individual for another person is selfless. This means that to love someone you need to selflessly care for them while being able to put aside your own desires.
My point is simply that open relationships are fundamentally the same as friends with benefits unless there is an emotional commitment involved.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23702468 - 10/03/16 05:20 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Care ends and love begins when the care of an individual for another person is selfless. This means that to love someone you need to selflessly care for them while being able to put aside your own desires.
We're born innately tied in affection with our family, and that affection simply is not selfless. The only difference in sexual relationships are sex and lust, affection doesn't change.
Absolute selflessness is a myth, the reality is compromise and generosity If selflessness were possible, it would be undesirable, a psychiatric disorder
|
Lucis
Nutritional Yeast

Registered: 03/28/15
Posts: 15,622
Last seen: 1 month, 29 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23702618 - 10/03/16 07:10 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: I'm curious because I don't see much of a difference between an open relationship and being friends with benefits.
I think friends with benefits would be more loose, meaning you guys wouldn't live together, and share everything. If you were in an open relationship, you guys would go about your business like a regular couple, but share bills and other responsibilities.
I have known plenty of people to be friends with benefits, but it's a very loose type of thing.
-------------------- ©️
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23702640 - 10/03/16 07:31 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Because I don't confuse sex with love.
Nor do I, a rape doesn't constitute love, the two are more or less completely separate. It's possible to love someone without sex being involved and it's possible to have sex with someone without the presence of love. I never suggested otherwise.
Quote:
And yes I am separating sensations from emotions because sensations are physical stimulations while emotions are mental feelings.
Your denial of consciousness in the equation renders you blind yet again. Both 'physical stimulations' and 'mental feelings' arise as sensations in consciousness, to differentiate the two for the purpose of trivializing one and aggrandizing another is arbitrary and silly.
Quote:
Care ends and love begins when the care of an individual for another person is selfless. This means that to love someone you need to selflessly care for them while being able to put aside your own desires.
And it's impossible to love a friend? Why must culturally orthodox monogamous relationships have a monopoly on love?
Quote:
My point is simply that open relationships are fundamentally the same as friends with benefits unless there is an emotional commitment involved.
Why? Cause you like the sound of one label, but not another? Why is a commitment necessary? To feel boundless love for someone and express it in every way you can; sexually, verbally, artistically, sacrificially etc. isn't good enough for you to merit "Real Relationship"? Would it be incorrect in your mind, having experienced a person as described above, to say that you had 'a relationship' with them? Why must some sort of official 'commitment' be necessary, you have yet to provide reasons, or, frankly, make any sense.
Quote:
Absolute selflessness is a myth, the reality is compromise and generosity If selflessness were possible, it would be undesirable, a psychiatric disorder
I don't think I agree with this. Although it is rare, I do indeed think that it is possible to be selfless, and to place another's wellbeing over your own.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23702856 - 10/03/16 09:17 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said:
Quote:
Absolute selflessness is a myth, the reality is compromise and generosity If selflessness were possible, it would be undesirable, a psychiatric disorder
I don't think I agree with this. Although it is rare, I do indeed think that it is possible to be selfless, and to place another's wellbeing over your own.
You're always getting something out of it psychologically, with children for example, your lineage and life itself are concerned, that's a lot of motivation for self-interest.
A self-less action would basically be to stop existing, everything you do gratifies either your mind or body in some way, it could simply be feeding your world view and image you have of yourself.
|
Chakra Shock
Waxing Prophetic


Registered: 02/22/13
Posts: 2,514
Loc: The Enterprise
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Repertoire89]
#23703294 - 10/03/16 11:38 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's interesting that you phrase it in such a way, that selfless action means to 'stop existing'. Considering that what we're talking about is selflessness, then yes, it does tend to imply a degree of ceasing to exist, but what, exactly, is this self which ceases to exist? Perhaps it's not in any physical sense, but a state of mind which values our own lives more so than others: the place from which we are acting.
It seems like a fine balance, between caring for ourselves yet remaining aware of the equality of all living beings. Maybe 100% selfless action is impossible, but perhaps by taking care of ourselves we are also, in some way, preparing the way for others to do the same? Hmm...
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Chakra Shock] 1
#23703370 - 10/03/16 11:58 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well I subscribe to the idea of an interconnected meta-consciousness, as expressed in the idea of Brahma.
I think as long as one retains an individual perspective we're operating on "self" instincts, that instinct being the same force which manifests our individual existence in the first place.
From a non-spiritual, purely psychological perspective, I don't think much changes, our self-interest is tied into survival instincts.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23704209 - 10/03/16 04:25 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
As long as it isn't blind love you can love a friend too.
I've denied consciousness now? As far as I know consciousness is an external awareness that all organisms have while a conscience is what makes a human unique.
A commitment is necessary because otherwise an open relationship is in my view friends with benefits.
Fennario made an interesting point though, maybe the difference is the living conditions, friends with benefits wouldn't live together but people in an open relationship might.
A friendship is a kind of relationship too.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23704504 - 10/03/16 05:57 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You're always getting something out of it psychologically, with children for example, your lineage and life itself are concerned, that's a lot of motivation for self-interest.
A self-less action would basically be to stop existing, everything you do gratifies either your mind or body in some way, it could simply be feeding your world view and image you have of yourself.
Yes of course, I think I misunderstood you earlier. You basically mean that there is no such thing as true altruism because you can only ever do something to 'benefit' yourself in some deep way, even if it's by benefiting your perception of the world by helping others etc. I agree
Quote:
sudly said:
I've denied consciousness now? As far as I know consciousness is an external awareness that all organisms have while a conscience is what makes a human unique.
Yes, you have, just as you did on the thread I referenced earlier. You redefine consciousness to mean something that no serious scientist or philosopher agrees with.
Quote:
A commitment is necessary because otherwise an open relationship is in my view friends with benefits.
Appealing to arbitrariness. Again.
You're ridiculous man. You appeal to science and reason when other people don't provide it, yet when these things are demanded of you, your responses ignore them altogether. Why can't you simply try practicing in reason with people for once? Intellectual honesty, that's all I'm asking for.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23704535 - 10/03/16 06:07 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said: Your denial of consciousness in the equation renders you blind yet again. Both 'physical stimulations' and 'mental feelings' arise as sensations in consciousness, to differentiate the two for the purpose of trivializing one and aggrandizing another is arbitrary and silly.
Physical stimulations arise as electrical impulses from nociceptors in our skin.
Mental feelings arise from chemical and electrical interactions within the Central Nervous System(Brain/Spine).
Physical stimulations and mental feelings don't originate from the same parts of the body, one comes from skin contact while the other comes from brain activity.
It's reasonable to say that an open relationship is like friends with benefits because they both lack a physical commitment.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Mojo
Stranger

Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 1,676
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23704584 - 10/03/16 06:24 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
secondorder said: Your denial of consciousness in the equation renders you blind yet again. Both 'physical stimulations' and 'mental feelings' arise as sensations in consciousness, to differentiate the two for the purpose of trivializing one and aggrandizing another is arbitrary and silly.
Physical stimulations arise as electrical impulses from nociceptors in our skin.
Mental feelings arise from chemical and electrical interactions within the Central Nervous System(Brain/Spine).
Physical stimulations and mental feelings don't originate from the same parts of the body, one comes from skin contact while the other comes from brain activity.
It's reasonable to say that an open relationship is like friends with benefits because they both lack a physical commitment.
Will you PLEASE look up the term relationship in the dictionary? A physical commitment has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of "relationship", no matter how many times you say it does.
End of story.
You feeling the way you do is perfectly fine, but trying to turn this into an argument of the logical association these terms have in language is ridiculous. Your wrong, plain and simple. Stating the way you "feel" about what a term "should" mean, or means to you in your heart of hearts is totally understandable, but that's not semantics, and the language is not up for debate.
Edited by Mojo (10/03/16 07:25 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Mojo]
#23705076 - 10/03/16 09:22 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A physical commitment has to do with defining types of relationships. With relationships being the way in which two or more people connect there are more than one ways to define them.
The way I define relationships is as a friendship(no commitment), a monogamous relationship(physical and emotional commitment) and an open relationship(emotional commitment).
These are pretty standard definitions for the types of relationships there are but you're free to disagree.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (10/03/16 09:30 PM)
|
Mojo
Stranger

Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 1,676
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23705243 - 10/03/16 10:16 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You keep flip-flopping between emotional commitment and physical commitment. The latter is the one I disagree with but I'm going to drop it since your view seems to change for every post you make. I'm obviously not getting anywhere.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Mojo]
#23705610 - 10/04/16 01:16 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't know why you'd think my views have changed.
These definitions come from my experience and in my experience open relationships are supposed to be an emotional commitment to one another (Aka. to love one another) without a physical commitment(1 sexual partner).
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23705846 - 10/04/16 06:45 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said:
Quote:
You're always getting something out of it psychologically, with children for example, your lineage and life itself are concerned, that's a lot of motivation for self-interest.
A self-less action would basically be to stop existing, everything you do gratifies either your mind or body in some way, it could simply be feeding your world view and image you have of yourself.
Yes of course, I think I misunderstood you earlier. You basically mean that there is no such thing as true altruism because you can only ever do something to 'benefit' yourself in some deep way, even if it's by benefiting your perception of the world by helping others etc. I agree
Yeah, the position wasn't easy to clarify.
Its worth mentioning that I view co-operation as being of paramount importance, there's a balance between our selfish motives and how we work with others. Being generous to others pays dividends to the individual's psyche at the very least, even when we don't gain materially.
So practically speaking, I'm not promoting selfishness or greed.
But philosophically I think we're very much selfish, and that even love or affection can be selfish, though it breeds co-operation (which is desirable).
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23705856 - 10/04/16 06:53 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
in my experience open relationships are supposed to be an emotional commitment to one another (Aka. to love one another) without a physical commitment(1 sexual partner).
By that line of reasoning, wouldn't I be in an open relationship with everyone I love but don't have a physical commitment with? I love my mum and dad, but don't have a physical commitment with them. So according to sudly I'm in an open relationship with them. Yeah that definition totally works...
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Repertoire89]
#23705857 - 10/04/16 06:54 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, the position wasn't easy to clarify.
Its worth mentioning that I view co-operation as being of paramount importance, there's a balance between our selfish motives and how we work with others. Being generous to others pays dividends to the individual's psyche at the very least, even when we don't gain materially.
So practically speaking, I'm not promoting selfishness or greed.
But philosophically I think we're very much selfish, and that even love or affection can be selfish, though it breeds co-operation (which is desirable).
Totally. Well said!
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23706016 - 10/04/16 08:44 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
According to Sudly you have a friendly relationship with your family and an open relationship with your partner.
I love my family unconditionally but I still have a friendly relationships with them.
I don't get your reasoning.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Chakra Shock
Waxing Prophetic


Registered: 02/22/13
Posts: 2,514
Loc: The Enterprise
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly] 1
#23706245 - 10/04/16 09:59 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I thought open relationships were the same thing as binary relationships, it's just that there's the possibility of having more than two people involved, either each individual finding others to be with simultaneously or a collective relationship.
It's all the same, just more of it. That's my only reason for not wanting to be a part of something like that: too much effort and energy required.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Chakra Shock]
#23706260 - 10/04/16 10:04 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It might not require that much time / effort, some people only see their SO every few days. A few of my exes were like that
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Chakra Shock]
#23707598 - 10/04/16 05:40 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chakra Shock said: It's all the same, just more of it. That's my only reason for not wanting to be a part of something like that: too much effort and energy required.
Take it from a man that's been there, this is definitely the case.
-------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
|
|