Article on WebMD about Polyamory

[intuition897]

Have a peek:

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationshi...-open-marriage

[WesternSwing]

Overall a pretty good article in support of polyamory even though the title The Truth About Open Marriage. Couples who practice ''polyamory'' say it's good for their relationships. Some therapists disagree. would make you think the opposite. Every reason not to be involved in an open relationship that was presented by the therapists was more than countered by those in poly relationships. In the end I didn't see where even the therapists said "don't do it!" so much as warned against some things that could be issues if someone was to pursue it. Pretty balanced I think.

Mr. WS

[rpu3]

Overall, it's pretty good. I'm a bit curious now as to "polyamory" = "open marriage", in the article, anyway. When did it become the same thing? Is it the same thing? Or was it just easier to interchange the words to get interviews, etc.?

In any case, the article did hit on a few of the reasons why I enjoy open marriage, while pointing out some of the obvious issues (time, scheduling, envy/jealousy/fear, etc.).

Nice to see a decent article instead of the usual slam pieces.

[rdy46227]

FWIW...

The phrase "Open Marriage" comes from the book of the same name by Nena O'Neill and George O'Neill (married) in Aug 1971.

Nowhere in their definition of "open marriage" was sex or sexuality referenced. The next to the last chapter in the book (16, Love and Sex Without Jealousy) is the only place any discussion even suggesting that sex outside of marriage is not necessarily bad.

Of course, popular usage defines the term, and "open marriage" now means "screwing around with (implied) spousal permission".

Many books against screwing around outside of marriage have been written using "open marriage" in the title -- Survivors of an Open Marriage is a prominent one generated by wife of a conservative christian minister who says she never connected with hubby because she let him screw around (as did she). In fact, they should never have married and (when the book was written) she'd lost him to the church instead of other women.

It's very sad to me that the original message is almost completely lost. A lot of poly people as well as non-poly swingers seem to have discovered how the message applies to their life.

In fact, most marriages I've observed which are "with it" seem to understand these ideas implicitly.





----------------------

To quote a couple of lists from chapter 4, Open vs Closed Marriage:

"The Open Contract Offers ... undependent living, personal growth, individual freedom, flexible roles, mutual trust, expansion through openness"


And from chapter 5, Living for Today:

"Realistic expectations of open marriage

- that you will share most but not everything

- that each partner will change -- and that change can occur through conflict as well as through a gradual envolvement

- that each will accept responsibility for himself and grant it to his mate

- that you can not expect your mate to fulfill all your needs, or to do for you what you should be doing for yourself

- that each partner will be different in needs, capacities, values and expectations because he is a different _person_, not just because one is the husband and the other a wife

- that the mutual goal is the relationship, not status or the house by the sea or children

- that children are not needed as proof of your love for each other

- that should you _choose_ to have children, that you will undertake the role of parents knowingly and willingly as the greatest responsibility in life

- that liking and loving will grow because of the mutual respect that your open relationship engenders"


"the ideas of open marriage are: intimacy, intensity, creativity, spontaneity, growth, respect, responsibility, learning, stimulation, flexibility, enrichment, freedom, and the liking and love that grow out of all of these."


"We think that the open relationship, out of which the above ideals will grow, can be achieved through the application to your individual case of the guidelines we have assembled here:

- through realistic appraisal of your situation and living in the now

- through giving of privacy and freedom to one another

- through open and honest communication

- through the shedding of inflexible roles

- through open companionship

- through identity, equality and trust"

[avid]

I think that was pretty decent. Nothing I would particularly disagree with.

I agree that it can be challenging to provide emotional support to more than one partner occasionally. Now that we're all living together, I sometimes feel that I'm juggling a lot.

Interestingly, when we go to swingers events, I often hear how "lucky" I am. I think outsiders think that we're having threesomes every night! Honestly, though, with family, business, and home renovations, I don't think I'm getting that much more sex than before!

One thing I value, and which I think is intrinsic to poly, is the fact that I don't have to get every need met through one person. For example, my husband is my emotional rock, and he almost always understands how I'm feeling - sometimes even when I don't! My partner, not so much. Sometimes we joke that he wouldn't recognise an emotion if it hit him on the head!

My partner, though, notices everything. He's a keen observer, and very insightful. He never forgets stuff either. We have the best conversations.

We're more than 2 years into this, and life is good, but it can be a lot of work sometimes.

[WesternSwing]

Originally Posted by avid

One thing I value, and which I think is intrinsic to poly, is the fact that I don't have to get every need met through one person.

Which is what we see too. I think one of the big problems in marriages as we know them today is that so many buy into the fairytale idea of "happily ever after" and that one person can be, should be all you ever need. When that bubble is burst, they look outside their relationship for what is missing in their relationship, then eventually replace partner A with partner B. Then maybe a few years down the road do the same again. Serial monogamy.

We discovered that Mrs. WS having a boyfriend wasn't threatening to our relationship, but actually added to it. He did fulfill emotional needs in her that I didn't because I'm just not the kind of person that is sensitive to those things. Mainly, he was more the caveman type and I'm more the intellectual. She needs both to feel fulfilled, and I can't fulfill the caveman role for her, I just don't know how. Mrs. WS was very happy during that period.

This is why I especially love the comment in the article about the "starvation" model of loving, how so many feel that there is only so much love and that if you love two people that each will only get half as much. I always try to explain it as loving two children, you don't love one less because you have another. In the big picture you love them both equally. In the smaller picture you love them differently because they are different people you love those individualities about them, too. It's a big concept for many to get their minds around, I know it was for us when we started swinging, then it happened and it was like a light turned on and "Hey! this makes so much sense!"