There are 5 choices, 6 votes for trixie08's debate

Open relationships Harmful or Helpful?

Open relationships are when a couple or married couple decide to have no than one partner and they both have knowledge of their partners and are okay with it.

• crap

  This is open book for a major explosion. If you cannot stay faithful to one person then keep your butt single. If you don't respect the person you are with enough to stay faithful to them then you have a problem.

  33%  Voted for by Energizer Bunny, pajazz.

  View 21 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    Weydon
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    They are still being faithful if it is a mutual decision. You are not cheating, you have permission and are encouraged. I think I'd be too jealous to be so serious with someone while still "sharing" them, but I see no problem with others having the ability to do this.
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    mere excuses

    ***They are still being faithful if it is a mutual decision*** maybe in that screwed up relationship it might be called faithful but that is the only way.That would be making a joke out of marriage. ***You are not cheating, you have permission and are encouraged*** Oh so it's not murder if you give me permission to kill you, right? and I know what you are going to say and heck yes it's the same thing. You cannot use words like 'mutual' and 'permission' and expect those excuses to stand while you unzip your pants for the sole purpose to have sex with someone other than your spouse. It's a huge excuse to have sex with someone else and then come back to your partner and that is all it is.
  • • 
      petethemeat
      January 25, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      It irritates me when people analogise with murder anything they see wrong... Things aren't as black and white as murder can seem.
      
      And actually EB if you could prove to the courts that permission had been granted, then the crime would not be murder...
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    No problem Weydon, except that you have shown that it does the very thing that the question posed; it is harmful in that it would be hard to remain secure in such relationships, and it is bearing on the mental well-being of the individuals, so it is harmful for the relationship, and sometimes even for the self.
  • 
    bob2314
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    The wisdom of Solomon

    Multiple partner marriages are a wonderful and beautiful thing. After all how could it be bad if it is supported by the old testament law and St. Paul?
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    ***Multiple partner marriages are a wonderful and beautiful thing*** talk about fantasy land...LOL.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Energizer, take a note from Techno and explain your defamations. Don't just say "fantasy world!!!" with no reason to explain why it couldn't work--especially when it HAS worked for couples. *Oh so it’s not murder if you give me permission to kill you, right?* It'd be more along the lines of euthanasia, also illegal. Either way it is entirely different. It's more like me giving you permission to "steal" from me or "rape" me. It is no longer stealing or raping once given permission. Murder is defined simply by the law, and since assisted suicide is illegal, it would still be murder. *Techno: * *, except that you have shown that it does the very thing that the question posed; it is harmful in that it would be hard to remain secure in such relationships, and it is bearing on the mental well-being of the individuals, so it is harmful for the relationship, and sometimes even for the self.* But the same could be said with your spouse having friends of the opposite sex. Couples stances on this vary greatly. From, it's perfectly fine as long as the couple is together whenever this friendship is going on, as long it is in groups, trusted to be alone, and even it's okay for on partner but not the other. Friendship of different genders (or the same gender if gay or bi) is not detremental to relations, just to the ones that aren't truly comfortable with it. To be honest, I wish I could be willing and able to find a relationship like that.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"But the same could be said with your spouse having friends of the opposite sex. Couples stances on this vary greatly. From, it’s perfectly fine as long as the couple is together whenever this friendship is going on, as long it is in groups, trusted to be alone, and even it’s okay for on partner but not the other. Friendship of different genders (or the same gender if gay or bi) is not detremental to relations, just to the ones that aren’t truly comfortable with it. To be honest, I wish I could be willing and able to find a relationship like that."* But that's because their is a line drawn, and that line is drawn at friendship. Your spouse having friendships with people of the same sex as yourself may cause you to feel a little uneasy, but after a certain point you are just being paranoid. However, if your spouse is having intimate relationships with other people, the jealousy level skyrockets, and it wouldn't be fair to say that the person is just being paranoid, because they are right in the assumption that they do not in fact have the person 'all to themselves'. Their is a difference between the two situations, that being the level of severity, and the ability to trust. Also, feelings of being unloved or unworthy are a lot more common in people who have multiple relationships rather than those who show they can commit, and regard their partner as the be all and end all for fulfilling their relationship 'cravings'. Also, what happens if multiple children are born as a result of such relationships? And the expontential increase in the spread of STD's? The 'harm' inflicted upon society would be phenomenal, should everyone choose to 'commit' to such lifestyles.
  • • 
      Weydon
      October 10, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      *But that’s because their is a line drawn, and that line is drawn at friendship.* Some people are not comfortable with even that. Paranoid? Controlling? Yeah, I'd say so. But some people take this further and don't mind the idea of sharing sexually. *However, if your spouse is having intimate relationships with other people, the jealousy level skyrockets, and it wouldn’t be fair to say that the person is just being paranoid, because they are right in the assumption that they do not in fact have the person ‘all to themselves’.* MINE, yes. Not everyones. I'd like to be more able to experience it. *Also, what happens if multiple children are born as a result of such relationships? And the expontential increase in the spread of STD’s? The ‘harm’ inflicted upon society would be phenomenal, should everyone choose to ‘commit’ to such lifestyles.* That is of course an issue, just as it is with all sex without intending to have kids (or STDs). If you're not ready for kids, and you obviously don't want STDs, you must exercise protection and responsibility. The debate is no different here then it is in any sex-out-of-marriage debate.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Multiple partner marriages are a wonderful and beautiful thing. After all how could it be bad if it is supported by the old testament law and St. Paul?"* A little different, considering that the 'swinging' was not in fact 'swinging' at all, due to the fact that the wives did not engage in relations with other men. I do think God intended people to have single relationship's where possible, as the Bible (particularly the New Testament) is clearly grey about its thoughts on marriage; if ya want to, go for it, if ya better of not, try to stay away from it, basically. However, there are no instances of women engaging in relations with multiple men, and the Bible is clear on the issue of women being faithful to their husband. Men only have the duty of 'loving' and 'caring for' their wife. When Abraham was forced to have relations with his slave girl, we see that it was considerably detrimental to his relationship with his wife, and had she been any less 'glued' to him, she would've abandoned the relationship with her husband (internally). As such, the slave girl was also forced to leave Abraham and retreat to the wilderness so that she could raise the child. Also, when Abraham, due to fear, posed as Sarah's brother, this brought some trouble to the two when the men sleeping with her found her to be his wife.
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    ***From, it’s perfectly fine as long as the couple is together whenever this friendship is going on, as long it is in groups, trusted to be alone, and even it’s okay for on partner but not the other. Friendship of different genders (or the same gender if gay or bi) is not detremental to relations, just to the ones that aren’t truly comfortable with it.*** So now you are talking about friendship. One minute you are talking about screwing around on a spouse then you suddenly switch to friendship. Oh, so friendship makes it all okay? I don't think so. Oh, so cheating on your spouse is okay as long as we all can stay all chummy with each other. HHhuumm....sounds too screwball to me. I think I'll pass. that is like saying that marriage means nothing to you. To say it does but my spouse said I can stick my pecker in someone else is nothing but a cheap excuse. I don't buy that at all. Yes, I realize alot of sick or confused people out there do buy into that 'permission' excuse but many don't and see it for the lame excuse it really is. You quickly claim it works, but let all the ones that worked be placed side by side with all the ones that did not and then we'll see the lame success story it really is. ***swinging is undertaken by those who are either insecure in their current relationship or dis-satisfied*** Finally, I appreciate your understanding of this issue TeChNoWC. Some call it swinging. Heck, I'm sure it has several names, but I don't care what name you give it. If you can't respect your spouse enough to save yourself solely for them then your body is a waste of a perfectly good sex organ.
  • • 
      Weydon
      October 11, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      *So now you are talking about friendship. One minute you are talking about screwing around on a spouse then you suddenly switch to friendship. Oh, so friendship makes it all okay?* You missed the analogy. Some couples get jealous over the idea of their partner being friends with the opposite sex. Sometimes they allow it--but only if they were friends BEFORE they started going out. Others are comfortable enough and trusting enough to allow whatever friendships to blossom. Now, some (most) couples are uncomfortable with idea of their partner having sex with others. Some are okay with it only if it's like a group thing. Some are okay with switching. *that is like saying that marriage means nothing to you.* Not really. Many would feel there is only one person they could MAKE LOVE to, while the rest is just sport. And there is definately only one person they'd want to spend their days with and grow old with. *You quickly claim it works, but let all the ones that worked be placed side by side with all the ones that did not and then we’ll see the lame success story it really is.* Not as many people are willing to try this. It is a smaller population of people, but the success/failure ratio I would imagine isn't much different than in monogomous relations.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"MINE, yes. Not everyones. I’d like to be more able to experience it."* I am inclined to believe that the majority of people function as we do in this area, and so, whether conscious of it or not, will indeed find trouble when engaging in such affairs. It may start off pretty, but usually, the trip is just all down hill from there. Lovely analogy I was given once. It's like skiing. You start off, its exhilirating, the experience is truly awe-inspiring, and the rush fulfilling. However, as you go further and further down the slope, you pick up speed, and you just go faster and faster, whether or not you want to, because gravity just keeps pulling you down, until eventually you hit the bottom, and its all over. *"That is of course an issue, just as it is with all sex without intending to have kids (or STDs). If you’re not ready for kids, and you obviously don’t want STDs, you must exercise protection and responsibility. The debate is no different here then it is in any sex-out-of-marriage debate."* Well, such is my argument, for both issues. But it still pertains to the issue at hand.
  • • 
      Weydon
      October 11, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      *I am inclined to believe that the majority of people function as we do in this area,* Oh, well of course. The majority of people wouldn't even consider this. It's possible if we raised into accepting this as natural we wouldn't have an issue with it. Afterall, for a long time marriage itself was more about bartering and not about love. But there will always be those that do their won thing, and love and favoritism always has a way of rearing their heads. *Lovely analogy I was given once. It’s like skiing. You start off, its exhilirating, the experience is truly awe-inspiring, and the rush fulfilling. However, as you go further and further down the slope, you pick up speed, and you just go faster and faster, whether or not you want to, because gravity just keeps pulling you down, until eventually you hit the bottom, and its all over.* And then you either give up and live a happy life of non-intensive skiing, or get up again and practice and become good at it. *Well, such is my argument, for both issues. But it still pertains to the issue at hand.* I'd rather keep the debate separate, but would be willing to go into it here. Though I think we'd reach the same conclusion, just on different sides.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Energizer Bunny

    Now that I have your attention, what was this idea you wanted to run by me in your email that you sent me? I have been trying to message you but you have not replied, and if my memory serves me correctly the initial email was sent to me almost a month ago.
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    October 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    ***I feel it is Energizers place to go first considering he made the claim as if it was fully apparent to all*** Hell man, what do you want alot of scientific research and mile long words??? Get real. Some things in life do not require a rocket scientist degree but only common sense and this is one of them. You don't have to work for Nasa to see this is a formula for destroying a marriage long term. Oh I'm sure you can point out a few who have been married a 'gazillion' years who swing, but that shows me absolutely nothing when common sense says it wrong. Sticking one's pecker in the wrong hole has destroyed more marriages than it has ever saved. A few sick individuals don't make a success story. If your spouse gives you permission to destroy your marriage then it's time to take a good look at who you chose as a spouse. When you start playing with people's feelings, especially your spouse's feelings, then all the scientific knowledge in the world will not do you any good for you are playing with fire. To me that is a very very selfish individual who cares more about this sick sexual fantasy than truly loving his spouse. Yeah, I can see it now when some say I love my spouse enough to have sex with someone else to save my marriage...LOL. Now, that my friend is a sick twisted individual who really needs help. Maybe not always but in most instances you do not need to conduct a research, just apply good 'ol common sense and this is one of those instances.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *Oh I’m sure you can point out a few who have been married a ‘gazillion’ years who swing, but that shows me absolutely nothing when common sense says it wrong.* Oh, well. I hadn't realized your common sense said so. *Sticking one’s pecker in the wrong hole has destroyed more marriages than it has ever saved* We're not talking about cheating. *A few sick individuals don’t make a success story* Regular people who have familes and jobs and friends, but do consenting things in the bedroom that you don't particularly like, makes them SICK? *To me that is a very very selfish individual who cares more about this sick sexual fantasy than truly loving his spouse.* It's MUTUAL. It's not "Hey, Honey, I think I'm gonna sleep with my secretary. I'm swinging now." In most cases they go into the relationship knowing their swinging lifestyles, and in rarer cases it is something that comes up after being together for a while already. *Maybe not always but in most instances you do not need to conduct a research, just apply good ‘ol common sense and this is one of those instances.* Common sense tells me that your argument about how faulty swinging relationships are when compared to monogomous ones is pretty funny considering that monogomous relations end EVERY day. One on one relations end the majority of the time. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was around 95% if we're talking outside of marriage as well.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 12, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"I’d rather keep the debate separate, but would be willing to go into it here. Though I think we’d reach the same conclusion, just on different sides."* I would say so, as we also seem to do that in our debates with each other. *"Oh, well of course. The majority of people wouldn’t even consider this. It’s possible if we raised into accepting this as natural we wouldn’t have an issue with it. Afterall, for a long time marriage itself was more about bartering and not about love. But there will always be those that do their won thing, and love and favoritism always has a way of rearing their heads."* So I guess what it boils down to is what your experience on the matter is. And for the majority, it would seem such a lifestyle is not a wise choice. For certain individuals, I would also argue that it is still not a wise choice, however, I could be wrong. But I doubt it. *"And then you either give up and live a happy life of non-intensive skiing, or get up again and practice and become good at it."* Are you suggesting that if one was to find that they in fact failed in their attempt to successfully find solace in flambouyant relationships, that they should simply just get up and try again? Such implications could be disastrous. It's a bit like saying, one should try and try again with their husband who is a wife beater and an adulterer. There is a place where one must draw the line.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 14, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *Are you suggesting that if one was to find that they in fact failed in their attempt to successfully find solace in flambouyant relationships, that they should simply just get up and try again? Such implications could be disastrous. It’s a bit like saying, one should try and try again with their husband who is a wife beater and an adulterer. There is a place where one must draw the line.* Which is why it's a poor analogy to be applied to all situations. If you give up on everything, you'll never get better. If you never give up on things, you could get stuck in dangerous and harmful situations.
  • 
    TeChNoWC
    October 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    *"Which is why it’s a poor analogy to be applied to all situations. If you give up on everything, you’ll never get better. If you never give up on things, you could get stuck in dangerous and harmful situations."* Yep. But in this situation, the analogy stands to reason, as the scenario requires one to proceed with a hunch. If the hunch were to slap you in the face, then following such a hunch to the end would be considered folly, as it is simply a hunch. The hunch being, that you believe that you are adequate enough to try and, disregarding prevailing social norms, sustain a relationship while agreeing to promiscouity. Risky hunch.
  • 
    Weydon
    October 15, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    That's in a nearly identical boat again. It's not like skiing was always an idea. Or snowboarding. Or anything ever. People had an idea, and tried it out. Often times the first few attempts didn't work. Sometimes they end in tragedy, sometimes they make something good, sometimes they first end in tragedy but then bring about something good. The main difference between having a hunch on consenting relationships and having a hunch on something like skiing, is the only danger in relationships is a failed relationship rather than serious injury or death. Does a failed relationship suck? Sure. Can it hurt? Of course. But this isn't that intense of a risk, especially when you consider that the most likely thing to happen when entering any relationship is to eventually break up. Besides, this isn't exactly a "hunch". It's not like swingers are a group of people who have theorized a new-form relationship, but no one's been risky enough to attempt it yet. They've been around for a while. It's being done, it's established.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: