I hold no position on this subject, but.... The benefits of a two-parent home life for growing children are well understood. If two people with children are no longer in love -- which is probably the rule instead of the exception -- does that mean the two parents must be and remain miserable solely for the sake of their children, if being in an open relationship changes the nature of their relationship and the level of happiness of their lives, and allows them some reprieve from the misery? Why or why not?
I am more conservative than most, especially in the tech community, but I do keep an open mind and try to respect others opinions...hope you could do the same.
I first believe you shouldn't vow your life to someone if you have no intention on doing so. Sickness and in health...being depressed or miserable could be seen as a sickness. Relationships are hard, really hard. It's human nature to fall into habits and get bored. Relationships, and marriage, are work and should always be seen as such. It would be nice if we could always have the first month high, but it fades, and after a time becomes work. But marriage is after this typically, and should be seen as a commitment to keep each other happy and keep trying. You, at some point at least, cared so much for this person you pledged your life to them. Stop being complacent and rekindle that.
I also understand people change. Whether it's age, wisdom, hormones, etc, it happens. And in some cases more people may develop disorders that lead to an abusive relationship, sadly. While I think people should always try their hardest, divorce is always an option. It's sad, but it is what it is.
Too many people I think just internalize their feelings which causes resentment. I'm guilty of that, and make a conscious effort not to be anymore. In a relationship you need to be effectively...a whiny baby. If something bothers you, cry about it... figuratively. Solve it. But this is our nature and it leads to strangers in our homes that we knew 10 years prior.
Open marriage is having a roommate and a f* buddy. It's not a marriage. Sorry for the long rant, but I find open marriages distasteful and disrespectful to both the members and the institution of marriage. I'll step off my soap box now.
> does that mean the two parents must be and remain miserable solely for the sake of their children
Is there really nothing on the spectrum between madly in love and miserable? Even if so, the answer is yes. Remain miserable until the children turn into adults, because that is the responsibility you signed up for when you had children under a marriage contract.
Otherwise you're just a shitty parent. You can't have it both ways.
> being in an open relationship changes the nature of their relationship
Being in an open relationship is almost always a ticket for the woman to be unfaithful and shirk away from holding up her part of the contract. Why do you think that is?
Fair enough. Though the commenter even admitted to not reading most of the article.
And IMO it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask if you're willing to have a discussion about the topic but you're unsure if the other party is even capable of having it. There's no point in discussing an article with someone who has not read it.
About half of it, to the point of his 'wife' texting her boyfriend on a trip. Don't care to read the rest, really, but if you care to summarize i'll read it.
I am currently dating someone who is in an open marriage. To be honest I don't know much about their home life, but they don't have kids and are still kind of settling down, finding their way.
She is happy in general, and has exposed to me no complaints about her situation in life, aside from money.
The pursuit of such an arrangement in her case is about really involving oneself in the life of another person, much like typical relationships you see today. She's a self-described humanist. Others may use it purely as a sexual outlet, but from the polyamorous/nonmonogomous people I've spoken to, this is rarely the case.
I wonder occasionally if our situation is a way to hedge against those moments in marriage where things become a little more difficult. She obviously has more than enough love to give for both of us (and whomever else she may be seeing) but of course sometimes even those who give most can become strained. Likewise if things get "boring" or "monotonous", she can simply seek a new partner that stimulates her. Being cute and petite means she has the luxury of having a choice with relatively little effort. Tinder in a big city means she has a large pool to choose from.
As a form of having new and invigorating experiences with interesting human beings, open relationships seem to provide everything you need with few restrictions. At the same time, in such a commitment as marriage, one has to wonder if it can turn into a form of escapism if left unchecked.
I am curious if this trend has the potential to dissolve the current marriage trope as we know it into something more fluid. Nation-states still incentivize it with tax breaks because close-knit families have more kids, but there are likewise factors (like financial instability) that influence marriage rates in the other direction.[1]
I honestly don't think this article should have been flagged. First, say what you want, but it is an out-of-the-box way to look at the daily, decades-long drag - "hacking" it in a sense. Second, if you disagree and are, say, of the opinion that these people just fuck around due to boredom and lack of productive things to do (I don't think so, but it's possible), even then the topic is interesting to explore. Especially to tech-bent people like myself who rarely venture outside of day-to-day topics.
Open Marriage? Comes across as "Elizabeth" is cheating, and using her partners' previous dissatisfaction to justify her own behavior. I'm all for whatever works for peoples' relationships, but the particular example in the article about specifically these two people leaves me with the distinct feeling Elizabeth is a raging hypocrite.
That's a big problem I have with the article - there was way too much attention paid to a shaky example of an open marriage. "Elizabeth" seemed to be emotionally cheating on her husband and then "opened" the marriage to rationalize it. "Daniel" says their marriage is better for it, but I have my doubts about whether he's happy about it or is just trying to cling to it. And they've only been "open" since 2016.. not nearly long enough IMO to garner too much meaning from their arrangement, let alone have most of an article devoted to it. The couple with children and open since 2011 was far more compelling.
I do appreciate the author's honesty about their feelings toward the subject though. I think the subject is interesting and challenging (in a good way) to fundamental assumptions about marriage. But I do wish more attention was paid to other, longer-lasting examples.
