Question for people who are currently involved in a manogamous relationship.

Inviting a third party (or, obviously, more than just one additional person) into a relationship is the end of the relationship. I don't mean that from just an "I wouldn't do it" perspective, but that no relationships live long after that kind of thing. The longest lasting 3-person relationship amongst my network of friends was maybe 3 years, but they didn't all live together, and it was everyone's idea (that is, it wasn't something one person talked their partner into).

It's just a way to avoid having a happy monogamous relationship. If someone you know is going there, it's probably because they are not mentally/emotionally comfortable in a stable relationship and are trying to recreate the chaos and instability of their prior relationships/childhood [or end the relationship].

ETA: manogamous? is that a freudian slip for a committed gay relationship?

Yeah, three-ways end the relationship because there's so many consequences that result from it. The only time you should do it is when you know the relationship isn't going anywhere.

I'm not saying this from experience, but it doesn't seem crazy to me that two people might have such a strong trust in and deep love for each other that they are willing to let their partners explore sexual fantasies with other people, whether its a threesome or a swingers club or or something else.

Chemically speaking, love and sexual attraction work through very different systems. Sexual attraction happens over a faster time frame and involves smaller neurotransmitters which travel faster and over smaller distances. Long-term romantic love involves larger, slower neurotransmitters (peptides) which take longer to activate and break down.

Speaking from a biological perspective, you can be totally emotionally committed to one person and still sexually attracted to others. If your emotional bond with your parter is strong enough to sustain bigamy, it might make for greater sexual satisfaction in the relationship, which might help overall.

Some people get off on seeing their long-term partner have sex with another person. Bigamy seems to be a desirable aspect of the relationship, one that might even help it work.

I wonder how many people here will change their tune if they're still in the same relationship in thirty years, still emotionally committed, yet still turned on by others, maybe even moreso than by their parter.

Jesus. Just leave.

No one is that secure in the relationship. It always comes down to "you love them more than me" or "why am I not enough for you" etc. The person may not voice these feelings, but if they don't, it's likely a sign of their fear that voicing their concerns will terminate the relationship.

Casual sex with outside people is a risky behavior - not just for the emotional health of the couple, but it risks bringing STDs and pregnancies with other partners into the relationship.

Non-casual sex with outside partners (a long term exclusive relationship with an additional partner, for example a man who has a long term committed relationship that is entirely exclusive with his wife and separately with his mistress) is sometimes tolerated by a partner, generally because they either fear leaving the relationship or because they do not love their partner and have decided to settle for a more "roommate" type arrangement (another version of fearing leaving the relationship, but often for better causes like stability in child rearing).

In a committed relationship, over the long haul (years and years) the people normally do experience sexual attraction to, and sometimes even "crushes" or love for other people outside the relationship. However, acting on this inevitably ruins the primary relationship. As far as I know, all relationship or sex experts that think that introducing additional partners is an UNhealthy thing to do, and will significantly alter (in a bad way) the relationship.

Oh leave the poor guy alone. Can't you see he's trying to stay magnumoctopus?

Manoogamee ***;/2*

Thank you.

Even though this is coming from the person everyone would expect it to, I'm sick fo the sexual puritism on these boards. Of course a loving relationship can exist within the bounds of a three(or more)some. And it's pretty fucking presumptuous that someone in the throes of multiple partners is doing it because their relationship is emotionally stunted and disconnected. That's like having only one best friend or something- really, how narrow can one's life be that they can't squeeze in one more? I've never been in a relationship which experimented with multiple partners that ended as a result.

You're not in that relationship now, though, so the relationships with multiple partners did end.

I have a very good friend who tried very hard with his two partners to make it work. They did ok for three years, but it fell apart because it wasn't going to work in the first place.

It's hard enough to make it work with two, three or more is nigh on impossible.

Certainly, there's what, 6 billion people, so even in only one in a billion could do it, that's two three-way relationships.

I'm not suggesting that people can't love more than one person, or that they're messed up if they do.

I'm saying that everyone prioritizes, and no one wants to make Sophie's Choice in their commited relationships. In most loving relationships, the partner comes first. (Then if they have kids, it's kids first partner second) But if you have multiple partners, you have to pick whom to be with, and in a fight, whom to side with.

For the record, I wasn't talking about a long-term emotional relationship with three people involved. I don't think that would work, I imagine there will always be somewhat of a third wheel. I was talking about monogamous love which allows for sex with others. Swingers are a great working example of how this type of relationship can succeed.

For a non-monogamous relationship to work, I imagine that both partners have to be consenting, there has to be an unusual amount of trust between them, and they should probably both be present during the act(s).

Here are the real ground rules: You can have an orgy but you have to have your dick or your tongue in one of your girl's orifices at all times. Like for example you could being fucking another chick in the ass but only as long as your girl is sitting on your face. Or you could even be eating one random chick's box who's swinging from a chandelier while tagging some slut doggie style as long as your girlfriend is tea bagging you. Only then will you be able to maintain a magnacumlaudapus relationship.

Three years is a really really long time.

edited

Only if you're a dog. A "really really long time" is 60 years. Plenty of stable married couples achieve that.

Do you mean open to casual sex or open to other long term relationships?

People who can't spell monogamous or consummate shouldn't be allowed to do either.

However in terms of open relationships that work just look to Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell. They've been together for as long as I can remember.

That is physically risky. Casual sex is a good way to get disease. It is not very respectful of one's physical body (nor of one's partner) to engage in risky behaviors.

Casual sex with people one knows and trusts is a good way to mess up friendships and the primary relationship because there will still be the "did you like/want/need them more than me" aspect.

It is normal for people in a long term relationship to feel sexual and emotional attraction to others and desire to have that early-relationship rush. However, acting on it typically is a break with the agreement with the long term partner and erodes trust and respect.

If two long term partners are both looking for outside partners, then why are they together? Why would one be willing to risk one's own physical health and one's partner's health and the emotional health of the relationship for temporary sexual gratification?

Trying to fulfill a sexual fantasy or fetish is not generally grounds for risking the possible ending of a happy relationship. Therefore, typically, either the primary relationship is decidedly unhappy and therefore worth risking ending for something trivial, or the person wants to create that risk, that instability, because it fulfills their psychologic need to have an unstable life.

I would argue against the last part. What you don't know can't hurt you. If you watch your lover having sex with someone else and either s/he is or you perceive him/her to be having a better time with that person than with you, that's a relationship breaker.

If the other person isn't aware, then it's cheating. If they're not present, you kind of make them a cucold.

With both partners there, it's swinging, and either one has the chance to end it if it gets out of hand.

I think this is where everyone should take a break and go watch Chasing Amy.

That's crazy talk! Casual sex does not equate with risky sex. It's 100% possible to, and in fact many people do, use protection when engaging in casual sex. In fact, it's these people who know first hand why its important to do so. On the other hand, it's often people who are in long-term relationships who think they don't have to worry about protection.

You missed my meaning. The couple has to consent to an open relationship, they just choose not to witness their partner engaging in it.

Sorry, I guess I did. That could work. But there would always be the fear of what could happen, and having both partners there would help eliminate that. Separating the partners strains the trust.

Well, I didn't articulate my point clearly enough. Anyways, speaking from experience (I swear it's not me, I have friends into this!), this is the only way I've seen it work. The trust is in knowing your partner will always come back to you. If you have to be physically present to trust that person, then there really isn't that much trust to begin with.

This all sounds so complicated. What happened to a stable, committed, relationship? One based on mahogany. Monotony. Mon Calamari. Whatever.

Most relationships WITHOUT multiple partners end.

Not everyone is meant to stay with one person until they get old and die, the couples who can do that are very lucky to have found each other, but in my experience they are rare.

In the end, everyone needs to find their own way to experience love and sex. If you believe in stability and security, fine, go for it. But there are many other people in the world who are going to experiment with different types of relationships and will still find happiness, even if they don't go about it exactly the same way you do. Diversity makes life beautiful.

So you think it's healthy to be unstable and insecure?

True, and additional partners makes it even LESS likely to succeed.

There is a definite difference between engaging in sex with and without "protection." However, condoms and dental dams do not eliminate all risk of disease transmission. Further, how many people are willing to forgo a non-lubed condom or dental dam during oral sex, but use condoms during vaginal or anal intercourse? Yet transmission can occur through oral intercourse, or by having bodily fluids enter you in other ways (e.g. getting them on your hands and then rubbing your eyes).

There is a definite difference in having casual sex with people you know (e.g. "friends with benefits") and have more realistic expectations of their forthrightness in their sexual history and drug/disease/risk status and having casual sex with strangers. Further, engaging in casual sex, for some people, includes engaging in risky sex.

Certainly, long term relationship doesn't equal safety either (presuming there is a risk that the partners are not monogamous).

I'm not saying that one can't or should never engage in these behaviors, I'm saying its a good idea to be careful and respectful of one's health and one's partner's health (physical and psychological) and appreciate the impact one's actions have on oneself and others.

I think we should all fuck our way through this conversation.

If your goal is short term relationships and trying new things (as I'd suggest it probably should be for someone college age) the question is rendered almost completely irrelevant. If you're not looking to spend the rest of your life with the person you're with, then why worry too much about when or where another person enters into the equation? I'm not suggesting you go about with complete disregard for your partner, but if something happens to end the relationship, so be it... it was only a temporary thing anyway. It's sort of like a one act play vs. a four act. The structure and dramatic concerns are completely different.

(edit- that is to say, the structure informs the dramatic concerns.)

Again, I think you are attaching values and meaning to terms that don't warrant them. I already pointed to a relationship that is stable and secure AND involves an open relationship -- Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn. The stability comes from trust (i.e., trust that they love each other, will resepct each other, will always in the end put their love before any of the peripheral encounters they may have, etc.). Monogomous couples don't have a monopoloy on that trust (or protected sex for that matter).

As an aside (and this is not a slam on you bele, but a comment about society in general), I think this attachment of value to cetain social structures is what is dividing our country. Take the issue of gay marriage. The focus of the debate surrounding this issue is not really about hating gays (although some proponents of the ban may), but rather its about how the meaning of marriage will change. For them, marriage means a pact of commitment between a man and a woman. However that is a value that they have attached to it. The meaning that should be attached to marriage is one of committment -- that two people are making an explicit agreement to love and respect one another. The gender of the two people making that commitment shouldn't impact the meaning of the word. Similarly if a couple has trust and respect with one another, I don't see how one can say their relationship is not a stable and secure one. The logic doesn't follow.

Be sure to share your star ratings of said gang bang once it reaches its conclusion.

If you both consider yourselves polyamorous, and that is the initial agreement, it is probably a little more likely to work. That said, sexual relationships generally generate emotional attachment. Even if the partners don't expect exclusivity, they are rarely secure enough in themselves and their partners' affections to not feel that the partner is preferring or going to leave for the alternative partner, so there are often tensions there. Further, although love is infinite, time is finite, so any given partner has to choose with which partner to spend their time. Generally increased time with one means decreased time with another. And again, prioritizing occurs; if both of one's partners make the same demand (e.g. "be with me on Saturday") then one has to choose, and this typically offends one party.

Some people who fulfill much of their emotional needs through other friends (not their partner) might be able to handle this, but again it would be very rare.

Typically this is successful because at least one of the involved partners has abandoned their hope of truly having a functioning relationship with their partner and is "settling." Most people want their partner to put them first and to be physically and emotionally available to them, and not investing that time and energy in others.

No, Werewolf Girl said: " If you believe in stability and security, fine, go for it. But there are many other people in the world who are going to experiment with different types of relationships and will still find happiness, even if they don't go about it exactly the same way you do. Diversity makes life beautiful."

I was questioning if she felt that instability and insecurity were healthy.

I'm not arguing that if you have an alternative route to stability or security that you can't be equally healthy in your alternative method.

I don't know them so I don't really know what their relationship is or if it works. However, theoretically, yes, that would be a stable and secure open relationship. If it were unstable and insecure (they didn't trust one another to put each other first, etc.), then I don't think it would work.

Of course not, as I said.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but my personal feelings on marriage is that a commited relationship doesn't require a ceremony or a piece of paper or whatever to be commited. It's about the beliefs and behaviors of the two (or more) people involved; they either will or won't uphold the agreement they have with their partner(s) regardless of the name or legal status or religious status of their relationship. The most loving long term romantic relationship I have ever personally witnessed was between two men, and they are a perfect example of the kind of relationship I want to have, whatever you want to call it.


This is where I think you're misunderstanding me.

I'm not saying that a relationship wouldn't be stable and secure if it has trust and respect.

I'm saying the odds of two people having that much trust and respect in a simple monogamous relationship is unfortunately low. Adding a third party or an open relationship reduces the odds that all parties will cooperate and form a stable, secure, trusting, respectful, loving relationship.

This is not only because of the additional people (that is, if finding 2 who get along is tough, finding 3 has got to be tougher), but because often what drives people to seek a 3way or open relationship is a fundamental problematic tendency in themselves (a desire to be with someone who is emotionally unavailable, for example) which means they are exactly the kind of people who won't have the trust and respect and stable and secure relationship anyway.

Having a lot of money isn't important. Being responsible with your money is.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cater to their mind set" and knowing about emotion. If you mean be empathetic and respond with the kind of support that satisfies their emotional needs, then GREAT!

If your partners are all actively interested, have a good time.

I'm interested to know the long term outcome of the relationship(s) (you can save the titillating details for Penthouse Letters ) if you're interested in sharing.

To answer your question, yes I do think instability and insecurity can be healthy. I feel it is for me anyway, I'm happier and less bored when I don't know what will happen next.

But I do believe that an open relationship or one with multiple partners can be stable as long as all parties are mature and it's really what they want. There's no reason why sex and relationships have to be limited to two people.

Perhaps not, but a functional multiple partner (that is, more than 2) relationship is extremely rare. As I stated previously, as far as I know, all experts in the field feel that they don't work. In my own experience, all people whom I know which have tried it, it hasn't worked for them. Sure, there have been lots of failed 2-person relationships, too, but at least there are many examples of successful, long term 2-person relationships.