Open Relationships: Could you/Have you?

[Alien Allen]

It's not about being a shit-stirrer or a debater. Guyzerr and I have both received PMs which testify to Retro's ignorance and immaturity. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. I have no problem with heated debates. I have a problem with those sticking their noses where they don't belong. That's all.

ah but the same could be said for the person he is commenting on

IMO

 

[FreightTrain]

And who wrote that definition and what or who gives them the authority to define it for everyone else?

His name is Webster and he is largely responsible for your understanding of the English language.

 

[Guyzerr]

And who wrote that definition and what or who gives them the authority to define it for everyone else?

Why didn't you ask retro the same question when he quoted the definition of ignorance?

 

[Tangerine]

His name is Webster and he is largely responsible for your understanding of the English language.

It's but one interpretation of the "word" in the English language. It has nothing to do with the defined use "in practice" in the world. On the language end, languages are always evolving, and dictionary definitions with them. What did "gay" mean in Webster's book 50 year ago? And today?

In practice, a word has no correlation to the actual "institution." If you think you have such a clear meaning and definition of marriage, answer this question: At what point do two people actually become "married"? That is, what specific action makes the marriage official?

 

[retro]

What my dear FreightTrain is so ignorant about is the fact that the marriage in question IS between a man and a woman that trust each other, as his definition stated. They've simply made the choice to allow each other to see other people. But their marriage is still between the two of them, and the most important of their relationships. They have a marriage... it may not fit with what you believe a marriage should be, but it works for them.

 

[FreightTrain]

It's but one interpretation of the "word" in the English language. It has nothing to do with the defined use "in practice" in the world. On the language end, languages are always evolving, and dictionry definitions with them. What dis "gay" mean in Webster's book 50 year ago? And today?

In practice, a word has no correlation to the actual "institution." If you think you have such a clear meaning and definition of marriage, answer this question: At what point do two people actually become "married"? That is, what specific action makes the marriage official?

Well, seeing how a marriage involves a binding contract. And legal definitions leave nothing open for interpretation...feel free to read how it is defined in the US.:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm

 

[JoeCool10]

I've been in one. I didn't like it and if I ever have another man ask me to have an open relationship with him, I'll take that as him not wanting to commit to me. That's pretty much what it boils down to. I'm not the kind of girl that is okay thinking about the man I'm with getting blown by some bitch I don't know. I wholeheartedly believe in a monogamous relationship.

 

[retro]

and where does it state that you cannot have a relationship with someone other than your spouse? Oh wait, as near as I could tell, it doesn't.

So, your own definition invalidated your point. Bravo.

 

[Tangerine]

Well, seeing how a marriage involves a binding contract. And legal definitions leave nothing open for interpretation...feel free to read how it is defined in the US.:
[URL="http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm"]http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm[/URL]

So in other words, you have absolutely no idea the answer to my question, so you Googled something, which, interestingly, proved my point exactly.

 

[per Me]

10 pages later and still no mention of disease. you can "trust" all you want, but that's not gonna keep you protected from AIDS and who knows what else. it's not impossible to contract these things in a monogamous relationship, but having all these partners increases your chances exponentially. and i don't trust or believe any of these yahoos doing it if they try to claim they always use protection.

these open marriage/relationship/swinger people really need to get some other hobbies.

not only is this my opinion, it is also a judgment

(that last statement is so awesome, gonna make it my signature)

 

[FreightTrain]

So in other words, you have absolutely no idea the answer to my question, so you Googled something, which, interestingly, proved my point exactly.

No, I'm tired of reiterating the same thing over and over, so I thought a legal definition on the all-accepted Google search engine would clarify it for you.


Apparently, I was wrong in thinking it would.

 

[per Me]

No, I'm tired of reiterating the same thing over and over, so I thought a legal definition on the all-accepted Google search engine would clarify it for you.


Apparently, I was wrong in thinking it would.

you do realize you're wasting your time

 

[FreightTrain]

10 pages later and still no mention of disease. you can "trust" all you want, but that's not gonna keep you protected from AIDS and who knows what else. it's not impossible to contract these things in a monogamous relationship, but having all these partners increases your chances exponentially. and i don't trust or believe any of these yahoos doing it if they try to claim they always use protection.

these open marriage/relationship/swinger people really need to get some other hobbies.

not only is this my opinion, it is also a judgment

(that last statement is so awesome, gonna make it my signature)

Finally, the topic of open relationships and the spread of disease comes up! You don't have to be a mathematician to realize how odds are increased with multiple partners. Good job, per Me! Now, we have a whole new can of worms opened. Open relationships still sound trusting? Who here likes STDs? Anyone? Anyone?? Bueller? Bueller??

 

[per Me]

"all our relationships with our multiple partners are based on trust. i trust i'll be diseased before long...."

 

[Butterfly]

Finally, the topic of open relationships and the spread of disease comes up! You don't have to be a mathematician to realize how odds are increased with multiple partners. Good job, per Me! Now, we have a whole new can of worms opened. Open relationships still sound trusting? Who here likes STDs? Anyone? Anyone?? Bueller? Bueller??

You have more chance of getting STDs from an unfaithful partner who fools around in secret than you do in an open relationship where everyone is honest.

 

[retro]

You have more chance of getting STDs from an unfaithful partner who fools around in secret than you do in an open relationship where everyone is honest.

shhhh... stop using logic. They don't care about such things.

 

[Pumpkin]

Hope you don't mind me asking, I just find it really interesting.
A few pages back you mentioned you were with a partner for 2 years, so is it like a normal relationship. You meet the friends and family, do things together, go on holiday? Or is it purely sexual?

Whilst I could never be in an open relationship, the people in this thread saying butterfly isn't really married are pathetic. Only the 2 people within the marriage know what works for them. As long as they are both happy with things who the hell are you to judge. Go back to your cave

 

[Butterfly]

Hope you don't mind me asking, I just find it really interesting.
A few pages back you mentioned you were with a partner for 2 years, so is it like a normal relationship. You meet the friends and family, do things together, go on holiday? Or is it purely sexual?

Yup, it's a 'normal' relationship.
We did all the things 'normal' couples do, except sometimes if he visited for dinner (for example) my hubby would join us :24:

 

[Tangerine]

No, I'm tired of reiterating the same thing over and over, so I thought a legal definition on the all-accepted Google search engine would clarify it for you.


Apparently, I was wrong in thinking it would.

Except your "legal definition" shows that there is a vast amount of disagreement over what and when a marriage occurs and what is required to make one happen. If the strictest criteria we know - the "LAW" - can't define marriage clearly, how can one person? Answer: You can't.

 

[hart]

You have more chance of getting STDs from an unfaithful partner who fools around in secret than you do in an open relationship where everyone is honest.

This is true. Look, swingers vary just like anyone else. There are clubs you can go too. A great one in Seattle is awesome. Very high end, great band, Olympic size pool, lots of covies to get together privately in, hot tub, movie room, you can even stay there for a small fee (no swinging allowed in that room you go to sleep in). Then there are clubs that you go to dance in and byob no swinging on the premises. There are people that correspond a while w/a couple, then meet then decide if any spark.

A lot of swinging clubs you have to go thru an orientation that talks about, jealousy, no means no, all sorts of things BEFORE you can even be accepted and any unacceptable behavior you are banned.

It's not just go to a place and rip you clothes off and all have an orgy...........