Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I had this discussion with a friend the other day, so I thought I would put it to you guys on here.

My stance on this is yes. I actually know some couples that do this, they love each other and they stay with each other, they just get sexually bored of each other from time to time and have a little fun on the side. And those couples have stayed together for years longer then the monogamous ones I know have.

I think a huge problem in society today is that we put so much pressure and importance on sex. We get so stressed over it and make such a huge deal out of it that it ends up for allot of people taking the fun out of it.

I think as long as a person is safe and takes precautions and the other person in the relationship is fine with it then they should be allowed to occasionally have casual sex with other people.

But I do know there is other opinions out there and I want to hear them, so let's hear it guys, what do you think on this subject?

Yeah sure. If they're both okay with it then why not?

They should be "allowed", sure.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I had this discussion with a friend the other day, so I thought I would put it to you guys on here.

My stance on this is yes. I actually know some couples that do this, they love each other and they stay with each other, they just get sexually bored of each other from time to time and have a little fun on the side. And those couples have stayed together for years longer then the monogamous ones I know have.

I think a huge problem in society today is that we put so much pressure and importance on sex. We get so stressed over it and make such a huge deal out of it that it ends up for allot of people taking the fun out of it.

I think as long as a person is safe and takes precautions and the other person in the relationship is fine with it then they should be allowed to occasionally have casual sex with other people.

But I do know there is other opinions out there and I want to hear them, so let's hear it guys, what do you think on this subject?

I don't get "stressed" over sex, in fact, sex is a great stress reliever, so I can't relate.

But yeah, if both persons in the marriage are okay with an open relationship, then there shouldn't be a problem. I don't follow what you mean with "should be allowed" though, as people don't go to jail for cheating.

I mean "allowed" as in should it be socially acceptable? Should they be able to do it without the scorn of society?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I mean "allowed" as in should it be socially acceptable? Should they be able to do it without the scorn of society? I think it's nothing that society should scorn, really. Especially if both partners agree.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I mean "allowed" as in should it be socially acceptable? Should they be able to do it without the scorn of society?

Obviously yes, as it's their marriage. But religion will (probably) be used as the excuse for the scorn.

Swingers.

What a stupid question that has no idea on what the concept of marriage is all about. If you're married and respect your spouse and the sanctity of marriage, you should not be sexually active with anyone. I know some couples who are into freaky stuff like spouse swap do it, but it is not right.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Swingers. You can use words, now. That's adorable.Originally posted by Ghostface00
What a stupid question that has no idea on what the concept of marriage is all about. If you're married and respect your spouse and the sanctity of marriage, you should not be sexually active with anyone. I know some couples who are into freaky stuff like spouse swap do it, but it is not right. How is it "not right"? Cause you don't like it?

If you understand the concept of marriage, then it has nothing to do with me. It is law. That is way you have the term "Infidelity."

Look it up in Webster.

BTW, try driving over the speed limit because you feel like it and see what happens. I dont make up the rules or laws, I just try to enforce them.

Originally posted by Ghostface00
If you understand the concept of marriage, then it has nothing to do with me. It is law. That is way you have the term "Infidelity."

Look it up in Webster.

BTW, try driving over the speed limit because you feel like it and see what happens. I dont make up the rules or laws, I just try to enforce them.

So? Laws don't really mean that something is bad. Also, I drive above the speed limit all the time...it's quite refreshing. Also, you mean adultery, not infidelity.

Oh and it's not wrong, especially not if the partners in a marriage want that.

Should be up to the couple.

Of course they should be allowed to, it's their marriage. As far as I know they're technically allowed to do that in most places anyway.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I had this discussion with a friend the other day, so I thought I would put it to you guys on here.

My stance on this is yes. I actually know some couples that do this, they love each other and they stay with each other, they just get sexually bored of each other from time to time and have a little fun on the side. And those couples have stayed together for years longer then the monogamous ones I know have.

I think a huge problem in society today is that we put so much pressure and importance on sex. We get so stressed over it and make such a huge deal out of it that it ends up for allot of people taking the fun out of it.

I think as long as a person is safe and takes precautions and the other person in the relationship is fine with it then they should be allowed to occasionally have casual sex with other people.

But I do know there is other opinions out there and I want to hear them, so let's hear it guys, what do you think on this subject?


This has been going on since the dawn of time. Swingers exist they always have. This is how married couples want to spice up their relationship. Not every married couple does it, but some do.

No I meant Infidelity. BTW, you can Speed all you want and it will feel quite refreshing, until your @$$ is caught and you're paying for it later.

Originally posted by Ghostface00
No I meant Infidelity. BTW, you can Speed all you want and it will feel quite refreshing, until your @$$ is caught and you're paying for it later. Nah, you were talking about the legal side of things, so what I said.

And just because it is a law doesn't make it right, just like something being against the law doesn't mean it is wrong.

Originally posted by Ghostface00
If you understand the concept of marriage, then it has nothing to do with me. It is law. That is way you have the term "Infidelity."

Look it up in Webster.

BTW, try driving over the speed limit because you feel like it and see what happens. I dont make up the rules or laws, I just try to enforce them. Having sex with another person with your spouse's consent is not against the law. So your analogy sucks.

If both agree, sure, why not?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You can use words, now. That's adorable. Aw, your boner flatters me.

I agree, I think it's actually a good idea.

Sleeping with someone else, doesn't mean you don't still love the person your married to. It just means that having sex with them day in and day out for years can become really boring.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah sure. If they're both okay with it then why not?

You agree to it with your partner...when s/he finds someone who is much better sexually than you...you will see why.

However, yes they should be "allowed" to do whatever they want.

It should remain socially unncaeptable though- because it is usually unnaceptable to most couples.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It should remain socially unncaeptable though- because it is usually unnaceptable to most couples.

Or rather, it is likely to remain social unacceptable.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or rather, it is likely to remain social unacceptable.

Yeh, I like that better.

If a couple is not interested in or willing to be monogamous, I would question whether they should be in a relationship.

I don't think they should, but on the matter of should they be allowed to?

Most definately yes. Nothing should hinder you from happiness.

The only case I think of against it would be hurting your partner. If you're doing it to hurt your partner, or your partner gets hurt as a result and your act, I would have a problem with that.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a couple is not interested in or willing to be monogamous, I would question whether they should be in a relationship.

Because they love each other and want to spend time together, whether or not that means time in bed every day for the rest of their lives is a different matter.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a couple is not interested in or willing to be monogamous, I would question whether they should be in a relationship.

Why? Relationships don't have to be limited to being between two people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why? Relationships don't have to be limited to being between two people. Yeah! Just look at Utah.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why? Relationships don't have to be limited to being between two people.

I guess not but how the hell would that work.

If someone wanted to have sex with other people, why would they get married in the first place (excluding tax deductions)?

"I love you but I just want to **** her, her and her!" is pretty damn selfish. "Being human" is not an excuse. You want to be exclusive or you don't - that simple.

Originally posted by chithappens
I guess not but how the hell would that work.

If someone wanted to have sex with other people, why would they get married in the first place (excluding tax deductions)?

"I love you but I just want to **** her, her and her!" is pretty damn selfish. "Being human" is not an excuse. You want to be exclusive or you don't - that simple.

Tax breaks is a pretty good reason.

How it would work is that you love the person your married to, you just understand that the same boring mechanical sex for years on end can drive a person batty. Sex does not always have to be about love. Part of the problem with sex is how much people put on it, which most of the time sucks the fun out of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Tax breaks is a pretty good reason.

I mean it's a reason.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
How it would work is that you love the person your married to, you just understand that the same boring mechanical sex for years on end can drive a person batty. Sex does not always have to be about love. Part of the problem with sex is how much people put on it, which most of the time sucks the fun out of it.

Then you don't settle.

Personally, I'm a freaky guy so I'm not going to be with someone who is not sexually compatible with me. If you too timid to touch me, then that's ok. Generally, GOOD sex is about compatibility on more than just a physical level.

You don't screw much, do you?

GOOD sex? You actually had to all caps the word? And yes I have had sex many times. And I think you vastly underrate how good sex can be with someone your as you put it, physically compatible with. And it's not about being too timid to touch the other person, it's about not wanting to touch the same person you've touched a hundred times before every day for the rest of your life.

This is why allot of marriages fail or why allot of people are so put off by the idea of it, because it seems like such a prison.

Well, while you're home watching football, I hope your wife is getting the ride of her life by her side man in his bed. Also, since you think laws suck, when you get splattered on the streets for speeding I hope you dont injure an innocent bystander and I hoep the ambulance take their time scraping you off the pavement.

Have fun in your lawless town.

Originally posted by chithappens
I guess not but how the hell would that work.

If someone wanted to have sex with other people, why would they get married in the first place (excluding tax deductions)?

"I love you but I just want to **** her, her and her!" is pretty damn selfish. "Being human" is not an excuse. You want to be exclusive or you don't - that simple.

As Bardock pointed out the tax breaks are a pretty good reason. It's hardly selfish unless you say that the other person can't do the same. Obviously both parties would have to be fine with the idea which is what separates it from cheating or selfishness.

Originally posted by Ghostface00
Well, while you're home watching football, I hope your wife is getting the ride of her life by her side man in his bed. Also, since you think laws suck, when you get splattered on the streets for speeding I hope you dont injure an innocent bystander and I hoep the ambulance take their time scraping you off the pavement.

Have fun in your lawless town.

I'm pretty sure Bardock, like most anarchists, very much enjoys the benefits of law and order even though he's ideologically opposed to them.

Originally posted by Ghostface00
Well, while you're home watching football, I hope your wife is getting the ride of her life by her side man in his bed. Also, since you think laws suck, when you get splattered on the streets for speeding I hope you dont injure an innocent bystander and I hoep the ambulance take their time scraping you off the pavement.

Have fun in your lawless town. First of all, it is not breaking a law if both parties are cool with it.

And you are comparing manslaughter with screwing someone who you are not married to. One can be a victimless crime(it should be if both parties are fine with it), to one which is not.

Originally posted by Ghostface00
Well, while you're home watching football, I hope your wife is getting the ride of her life by her side man in his bed.
Thanx if I ever get married I'll be sure to pass that on to her, she'll be touched.



Since when is it illegal?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I had this discussion with a friend the other day, so I thought I would put it to you guys on here.

My stance on this is yes. I actually know some couples that do this, they love each other and they stay with each other, they just get sexually bored of each other from time to time and have a little fun on the side. And those couples have stayed together for years longer then the monogamous ones I know have.

I think a huge problem in society today is that we put so much pressure and importance on sex. We get so stressed over it and make such a huge deal out of it that it ends up for allot of people taking the fun out of it.

I think as long as a person is safe and takes precautions and the other person in the relationship is fine with it then they should be allowed to occasionally have casual sex with other people.

But I do know there is other opinions out there and I want to hear them, so let's hear it guys, what do you think on this subject?

I know some people that do this as well. I believe some call it an open marriage. It seems to work for people who love each other but are not maybe in love with each other but like the friendship and stability of their marriage.

edit: Oh and there are some old laws on the books that would call it adultery and call it illegal.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I know some people that do this as well. I believe some call it an open marriage. It seems to work for people who love each other but are not maybe in love with each other but like the friendship and stability of their marriage.

Why can't you be in love with someone, and still have sex outside of the marriage?

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
First of all, it is not breaking a law if both parties are cool with it.

Is it even a crime if both parties aren't?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Why can't you be in love with someone, and still have sex outside of the marriage? I don't think you understand what I mean. When I say "In love," I mean with all the passion one has with another...i.e. passion.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
GOOD sex? You actually had to all caps the word? And yes I have had sex many times. And I think you vastly underrate how good sex can be with someone your as you put it, physically compatible with. And it's not about being too timid to touch the other person, it's about not wanting to touch the same person you've touched a hundred times before every day for the rest of your life.

This is why allot of marriages fail or why allot of people are so put off by the idea of it, because it seems like such a prison.

As someone who is surprised to have never contradicted an STD, trust me, I have done it quite a bit. Maybe this is just me but I can't do EVERYTHING I would like to do with a random chick. Reasons range from "smelly cat" to STDs but my point is that you can't do everything with everybody.

If you don't find them physically up to par, then don't vow to be with them forever. Keep your ass in shape; that's something you should want to do anyway. Concede some things. Try new stuff.

If you want casual sex, then keep it at that, but I disagree with getting married and then saying "We both can **** whoever we want!" because that would disrespect any religious understanding of marriage (and marriage is inherently a religious concept; for example, I'm not getting married but it is because I do not believe in an organized religion. it is disrespectful either way, I believe).

Marriage is marriage. That's it. Swingers are just on some psuedo marriage bullshit. I suppose you could love someone and **** others but that is not marriage.

You do it or you don't. I do not trust people like that - they will change the rules to suit their needs whenever it favors them.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I don't think you understand what I mean. When I say "In love," I mean with all the passion one has with another...i.e. passion.

That's a rather circular definition and doesn't really answer the question.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I don't think you understand what I mean. When I say "In love," I mean with all the passion one has with another...i.e. passion.

No I know what you mean. I just think I can be "In love" with someone and still sleep with someone else once in awhile.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I don't think you understand what I mean. When I say "In love," I mean with all the passion one has with another...i.e. passion.

The empathy for this idea comes from the "fact" that you will become bored with your mate.

Originally posted by chithappens
they will change the rules to suit their needs whenever it favors them.

You mean they're exactly like everyone else?

I cant believe I'm even entertaining this juvenile thread. Listen, if you are married and have sex with another person and your wife is ok wiht it, you are still breaking a fundamental traditional vow. If you believe in the Bible, it is stated that Infidelity and Adultery are wrong. If you're not a traditionists and believe in more eastern practices or you're a mormon, then this conversation is meaningless to us who believe in a more western protestant tradition.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
No I know what you mean. I just think I can be "In love" with someone and still sleep with someone else once in awhile.

You see, Phoenix, and the others who agree, have surpassed most of the average human beings need for exclusive attention.

They can have sex with other people and not feel detached to their mate after the fact. Never will they be jealous or feel as if some of the "passion" has left the relationship. They have real love!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You mean they're exactly like everyone else?

Go on...

Originally posted by chithappens
As someone who is surprised to have never contradicted an STD, trust me, I have done it quite a bit. Maybe this is just me but I can't do EVERYTHING I would like to do with a random chick. Reasons range from "smelly cat" to STDs but my point is that you can't do everything with everybody.
All that is, is an issue of safe sex. I believe in protection 100%



Or have a sexually open relationship which keeps everything fresh anyways. And I think I can vow to be with them forever and still do that.



You do know that you can be married outside of religion, right? And how is it disrespectful? I still love the person, sex doesn't change that.



Wow and you wonder why some people see marriage as a prison? And your definition of the word doesn't have to be the same as everyone else's.

Originally posted by Ghostface00
I cant believe I'm even entertaining this juvenile thread. Listen, if you are married and have sex with another person and your wife is ok wiht it, you are still breaking a fundamental traditional vow.

I can't think of anything in tradition wedding vows that says "and I'm not going to **** other people, even if you let me". Spiritual binding doesn't mean you can't have physical relationships with other people.

Originally posted by chithappens
You see, Phoenix, and the others who agree, have surpassed most of the average human beings need for exclusive attention.
Yup, we evolved.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
All that is, is an issue of safe sex. I believe in protection 100%



Or have a sexually open relationship which keeps everything fresh anyways. And I think I can vow to be with them forever and still do that.



You do know that you can be married outside of religion, right? And how is it disrespectful? I still love the person, sex doesn't change that.



Wow and you wonder why some people see marriage as a prison? And your definition of the word doesn't have to be the same as everyone else's.

1) Protection, during oral sex, works how?

2) Define marriage outside religion, please. This should be funny.

3) Marriage is not secular.

Originally posted by chithappens
Go on...

"I think murder is wrong."
"That man just raped you 6 year old daughter."
"I'll ****ing kill him!"

"Homosexuality is a moral crime."
"Care for some hot bathroom man sex?"
"Hell, yes."

"Marriage is a holy union between man and wife."
"Hey that hooker's pretty good looking."
"Pull over. Now."

Originally posted by Ghostface00
I cant believe I'm even entertaining this juvenile thread. Listen, if you are married and have sex with another person and your wife is ok wiht it, you are still breaking a fundamental traditional vow. If you believe in the Bible, it is stated that Infidelity and Adultery are wrong. If you're not a traditionists and believe in more eastern practices or you're a mormon, then this conversation is meaningless to us who believe in a more western protestant tradition.

Well my idea of a law is one the state passes and you can actually be punished for.

Why do people always tout tradition so much? The world is changing all the time, why not change with it, adapt. Tradition in the way your using it sounds an awful lot like stagnation to me.

Originally posted by chithappens
1) Protection, during oral sex, works how?

Asking your partner about their medical background and if your unsure then don't do oral sex.


Two people who love each other who want to live with each other for the rest of their lives.


Really? Cause lots of people besides the church can preform a marriage.

Originally posted by chithappens
You see, Phoenix, and the others who agree, have surpassed most of the average human beings need for exclusive attention.

Age of Aquarius biotch.

And how is the need for exclusive attention not selfish compared to the idea that you and your partner can have sex with other people?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"I think murder is wrong."
"That man just raped you 6 year old daughter."
"I'll ****ing kill him!"

"Homosexuality is a moral crime."
"Care for some hot bathroom man sex?"
"Hell, yes."

"Marriage is a holy union between man and wife."
"Hey that hooker's pretty good looking."
"Pull over. Now."

Obviously, people do not follow allow morals that they mean to go by but the only "extreme" situation is the first one.

I try to only surround myself with people who stick to their set morals until those extremes come about (and we all believe vastly different things).

My point is that marriage is not secular and is supposed to be a vow in front of God and whatever witnesses you have. People who are married are supposed to be physically faithful, or did the media just decide to obsess over husbands cheating because of some liberal feminist BS?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is it even a crime if both parties aren't? I wasn't sure so to avoid being pwned and looking stupid, I worded it the way I did lol.

Originally posted by chithappens
I try to only surround myself with people who stick to their set morals until those extremes come about (and we all believe vastly different things).

So do you keep tabs on them or do you just surround yourself with people who say they have set moral systems?

Originally posted by chithappens
People who are married are supposed to be physically faithful

According to?

Originally posted by Ghostface00
I cant believe I'm even entertaining this juvenile thread. Listen, if you are married and have sex with another person and your wife is ok wiht it, you are still breaking a fundamental traditional vow. If you believe in the Bible, it is stated that Infidelity and Adultery are wrong. If you're not a traditionists and believe in more eastern practices or you're a mormon, then this conversation is meaningless to us who believe in a more western protestant tradition. Oh God don't turn this into a religous debate.

Originally posted by chithappens
Obviously, people do not follow allow morals that they mean to go by but the only "extreme" situation is the first one.

I try to only surround myself with people who stick to their set morals until those extremes come about (and we all believe vastly different things).

My point is that marriage is not secular and is supposed to be a vow in front of God and whatever witnesses you have. People who are married are supposed to be physically faithful, or did the media just decide to obsess over husbands cheating because of some liberal feminist BS?

You do know people can get married outside of a religious organization right?

I try to surround myself with people who are fun, happy and nice. I don't really care what they choose to call their imaginary friend.

Although I did get in trouble in one class at school (I went to a catholic high school) and the teacher said "God speaks in many voices and names, it doesn't matter what name you give him, he will still love you" So during a prayer at our school mass I said "Praise be to Megatron." The teacher did not laugh (sourpuss)

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Although I did get in trouble in one class at school (I went to a catholic high school) and the teacher said "God speaks in many voices and names, it doesn't matter what name you give him, he will still love you" So during a prayer at our school mass I said "Praise be to Megatron." The teacher did not laugh (sourpuss)

Megatron is a bad guy. You should've gone with "Praise be to Optiumus Prime."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Age of Aquarius biotch.

And how is the need for exclusive attention not selfish compared to the idea that you and your partner can have sex with other people?

*holds temple* Part of the vows include being faithful.

Two things to keep in mind:

1) "Open marriage" is not the same thing as "faithful marriage. In fact, "faithful marriage" is how marriage is defined. "Open marriage" is entirely different and should be coined differently.

In contrast, some people call those who believe in God, but not an organized religion, "spiritual" but not "religious" because that would not make sense, obviously. Same thing here.

2) Everyone wants to feel important. Either way is "selfish" but that is determined by the comfort level of the couple.

I hardly think that if a husband was ****ing a random chick every night for a month and then touched his wife on one weekend that she would be ok with that.

In theory, it's a cute idea but in application problems still arise.

Marriage exists outside of God, You can get a civil marriage or you can be married by a list of others outside of any religious group.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Megatron is a bad guy. You should've gone with "Praise be to Optiumus Prime."

Megatron was just misunderstood.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So do you keep tabs on them or do you just surround yourself with people who say they have set moral systems?



According to?

- I trust the people I surround myself with and have known each of them for years. That's it.

Don't make this some egotist battle because that is far from my point.

I try. There is no absolute way to know they always do what they say they will.

- As far as I know, the three main monotheistic religions, each support both spouses being faithful. I only know one man being faithful to his wife. I'm sure everyone found a loophole I don't know about.

Originally posted by chithappens
- I trust the people I surround myself with and have known each of them for years. That's it.

Don't make this some egotist battle because that is far from my point.

I try. There is no absolute way to know they always do what they say they will.

- As far as I know, the three main monotheistic religions, each support both spouses being faithful. I only know one man being faithful to his wife. I'm sure everyone found a loophole I don't know about.

What about marriage outside religion?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Megatron is a bad guy. You should've gone with "Praise be to Optiumus Prime." Megatron has helped save the universe from Unicron many times you n00b.

Originally posted by chithappens
*holds temple* Part of the vows include being faithful.

Never stated be require limiting the physical relationship, unless you've got some crazy wedding vows where you come from.

Originally posted by chithappens
1) "Open marriage" is not the same thing as "faithful marriage. In fact, "faithful marriage" is how marriage is defined. "Open marriage" is entirely different and should be coined differently.

Hence the phrase open marriage.

Originally posted by chithappens
2) Everyone wants to feel important. Either way is "selfish" but that is determined by the comfort level of the couple.

I'm pretty sure that any linguist will tell you that "You can only have sex with me." is more selfish than "You can have sex with other people if you'd like."

Originally posted by chithappens
I hardly think that if a husband was ****ing a random chick every night for a month and then touched his wife on one weekend that she would be ok with that.

In theory, it's a cute idea but in application problems still arise.

You realize the basis of the idea is that they're okay with it? People who aren't okay with it don't do it so there's no problem.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
What about marriage outside religion?

Know nothing of it, but that is not marriage.

That is something else altogether. It should be defined as such.

When people mention the word "marriage", the assumption is religious.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Never stated be require limiting the physical relationship, unless you've got some crazy wedding vows where you come from.



Hence the phrase open marriage.



I'm pretty sure that any linguist will tell you that "You can only have sex with me." is more selfish than "You can have sex with other people if you'd like."



You realize the basis of the idea is that they're okay with it? People who aren't okay with it don't do it so there's no problem.

Then rename the damn title to people in "open marriage."

Originally posted by chithappens
Know nothing of it, but that is not marriage.

That is something else altogether. It should be defined as such.

When people mention the word "marriage", the assumption is religious.

No sorry not in today's world. A know a large amount of people who were married outside of religion.

Originally posted by chithappens
Then rename the damn title to people in "open marriage."

No, why should we? Last I heard you didn't own a copyright on the word.

Originally posted by chithappens
- I trust the people I surround myself with and have known each of them for years. That's it.

Don't make this some egotist battle because that is far from my point.

I try. There is no absolute way to know they always do what they say they will.

Which is my point. People are happy to claim they believe X, Y and Z but that isn't evidence for what they'll actually do. Given the sheer number of people who make claims about their beliefs/morals and are then caught breaking them I'd say it's more than reasonable to assume that most people will adjust/rationalize/ignore any supposed moral system they have when it becomes inconvenient.

Originally posted by chithappens
- As far as I know, the three main monotheistic religions, each support both spouses being faithful. I only know one man being faithful to his wife. I'm sure everyone found a loophole I don't know about.

They did. It's typically "I wanted to" or "I didn't think I'd be caught."

Originally posted by chithappens
Then rename the damn title to people in "open marriage."

I'm afraid I lack that particular power. Besides open marriage is still marriage.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
No, why should we? Last I heard you didn't own a copyright on the word.

Originally posted by chithappens


In contrast, some people call those who believe in God, but not an organized religion, "spiritual" but not "religious" because that would not make sense, obviously. Same thing here.


If we are talking simply about two people who agree from the beginning to have sex with other people, what the hell was this discussion about from the beginning?

It's become a statement, not a topic of discussion.

Damn, some of you all act egoist on the dumbest shit.

Are you arguing with yourself now?

Originally posted by chithappens
If we are talking simply about two people who agree from the beginning to have sex with other people, what the hell was this discussion about from the beginning?

Going out on a limb I'm going to say, "should they be allowed to do that?".

Should I be allowed to eat popcorn while on the shitter?

If I want, yes.

What business would it be of yours?

Originally posted by chithappens
Should I be allowed to eat popcorn while on the shitter?

If I want, yes.

What business would it be of yours?

And you just proved our point, thanks.

Originally posted by chithappens
Should I be allowed to eat popcorn while on the shitter?

If I want, yes.

What business would it be of yours?

So then your answer is, yes.

Question. Answer. Reason for answer. I think that's the basic elements of a discussion.

Originally posted by chithappens
If we are talking simply about two people who agree from the beginning to have sex with other people, what the hell was this discussion about from the beginning?

It's become a statement, not a topic of discussion.

Why are you arguing with yourself?

Originally posted by chithappens
It's become a statement, not a topic of discussion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Question. Answer. Reason for answer. I think that's the basic elements of a discussion.

I'm here all week, folks.

Topic: Should two mad people fight?

Premise: Both people are mad and both want to fight.

Answer: ... You really just asked that?

Originally posted by chithappens
Topic: Should two mad people fight?

Premise: Both people are mad and both want to fight.

Answer: ... You really just asked that?

So what happened to your moral position on marriage?

"Open marriage" is not held to the same standard/guidelines/rules, apparently.

Sigh, I'm not doing this anymore.

You guys are incredible asses.

Originally posted by chithappens
"Open marriage" is not held to the same standard/guidelines/rules, apparently.

Sigh, I'm not doing this anymore.

You guys are incredible asses.

Or you'd rather debate a different question.

It's not even a question

Originally posted by chithappens
"Open marriage" is not held to the same standard/guidelines/rules, apparently.

Sigh, I'm not doing this anymore.

You guys are incredible asses.

Marriage is Marriage. Regardless if the spouses sleep with other people.

Originally posted by chithappens
2) Define marriage outside religion, please. This should be funny.

3) Marriage is not secular.

2) 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments.

3) 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm pretty sure Bardock, like most anarchists, very much enjoys the benefits of law and order even though he's ideologically opposed to them.

Of course, I enjoy the benefits of everything. Doesn't mean that I wouldn't trade them for more benefits.

Originally posted by Ghostface00
Well, while you're home watching football, I hope your wife is getting the ride of her life by her side man in his bed. Also, since you think laws suck, when you get splattered on the streets for speeding I hope you dont injure an innocent bystander and I hoep the ambulance take their time scraping you off the pavement.

Have fun in your lawless town.

I would. I somehow don't see blind respect for every authority as a good thing.

You know, Nazi Germany and the USSR had a shitload of laws, right?

Yeah.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah sure. If they're both okay with it then why not?

Originally posted by chithappens


I do not trust people like that - they will change the rules to suit their needs whenever it favors them.

Neither do I. I was watching some program concerniing this. This guy was saying that he loved this other women but he was going to marry this other women but screw them both at the same time ( no I mean at the same time in bed, not screw his wife and then go to her house and screw her).

You could clearly see that the other women (the one hes not going to marry) was upset. This guy was trying to feed her some bullshit that he still loved and trying to come off all sincere. It was just his excuse to have his cake and eat, also lukcily for him in swining circles men dont sleep with men but women sleep with women.

As for your opinion on this I kinda agree. Its just that I don't want to dictate to other people how they define love.

So now marriage is not even a vow of monogamy?
And don't give me this shit on how ONLY religion feels it's a vow of monogamy.

I am convinced that marriage is totally useless nowadays.
What benefits does marriage offer, really?

Anybody hitched here?

Marriage offers the chance to be with the one you love for the rest of your life and some very nice tax incentives. It doesn't require and most often functions better without the vow of sexual bordem.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Marriage offers the chance to be with the one you love for the rest of your life and some very nice tax incentives. It doesn't require and most often functions better without the vow of sexual boredom.

A) You don't have to be married to stay with somebody for life. Old gay couples from the 50's that are still together today prove that.

B) Where do you get your fact that "It doesn't require and most often functions better without the vow of sexual boredom" from. That can't be proven. Why do you assume that all monogamous couples are sexually bored?

I never said all of them were, but myself and a large group of others don't find the idea of having boring mechanical sex with the same person day in and day out for the rest of our lives appealing.

And being married to someone doesn't have to mean you can't have sex with other people from time to time as long as both people in the relationship are fine with it.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I never said all of them were, but myself and a large group of others don't find the idea of having boring mechanical sex with the same person day in and day out for the rest of our lives appealing.

And being married to someone doesn't have to mean you can't have sex with other people from time to time as long as both people in the relationship are fine with it.

Ok, ok, I get that monogamy isn't implied when speaking about marriage anymore. But I am asking what benefits marriage offers, besides tax breaks... I won't argue with anybody there. But given that 50% of marriages end in divorce... that probably gets cancelled out by legal fees anyways. What does marriage offer that merely dating someone for a long time does not?

Originally posted by Blinky
But given that 50% of marriages end in divorce...

By the way does this happen because there is something inherently wrong with marriage or is it people tend to insincere and lack commitment generally?

Why does it have to offer anything? People love each other and want to live together, they just from time to time want to have sex outside the marriage. They just want to be married, there is no reason they shouldn't be.

Originally posted by Blinky
Ok, ok, I get that monogamy isn't implied when speaking about marriage anymore. But I am asking what benefits marriage offers, besides tax breaks... I won't argue with anybody there. But given that 50% of marriages end in divorce... that probably gets cancelled out by legal fees anyways. What does marriage offer that merely dating someone for a long time does not? I agree, marriage shouldn't exist outside of personal rituals, like, for example, that ridiculous Christian stuff.

Originally posted by Blinky
But given that 50% of marriages end in divorce.

Maybe if they were allowed to have some fun outside of the marriage once in a while that number would go down.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
By the way does this happen because there is something inherently wrong with marriage or is it people tend to insincere and lack commitment generally?

Both, IMO.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Why does it have to offer anything? People love each other and want to live together, they just from time to time want to have sex outside the marriage. They just want to be married, there is no reason they shouldn't be.

Ok so... it really does not offer anything then, I agree. I want to see what other people have to say.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Why does it have to offer anything? People love each other and want to live together, they just from time to time want to have sex outside the marriage. They just want to be married, there is no reason they shouldn't be.

If that suits you and you have an agreement then nobody has a right to tell you what you are doing is wrong.

Im just saying that most people lack commitment and sincerety in every day things, why would marriage be any different? The problem may not be that they can't have sex with other people when married it could also be that they just aren't commited enough.

Originally posted by Blinky

Ok so... it really does not offer anything then, I agree. I want to see what other people have to say.

So your only interest in marriage is what you can gain from it? It's not about what it offers.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone

Im just saying that most people lack commitment and sincerety in every day things, why would marriage be any different? The problem may not be that they can't have sex with other people when married it could also be that they just aren't commited enough.

I think you can be committed to someone without necessarily being monogamous.

Originally posted by Blinky
Both, IMO.

Im inclined to think its lack of commitment. Hell its hard enough to find real friends let alone a good wife or husband. Human beings tend to be a disappointment regardless of wether it concerns marriage or not....what do you expect?



Originally posted by Aster Phoenix


I think you can be committed to someone without necessarily being monogamous.

You would probably be more committed if you were.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So your only interest in marriage is what you can gain from it? It's not about what it offers.

No it's just that I personally hate to partake in totally useless activities.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I think you can be committed to someone without necessarily being monogamous.
Hahha, ok... we differ there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree, marriage shouldn't exist outside of personal rituals, like, for example, that ridiculous Christian stuff.

Was that sarcasm? I cant tell. *whimpers*

Originally posted by Blinky

Was that sarcasm? I cant tell. *whimpers*

Nope

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Im inclined to think its lack of commitment. Hell its hard enough to find real friends let alone a good wife or husband. Human beings tend to be a disappointment regardless of wether it concerns marriage or not....what do you expect?
It's not being a bad wife or husband if the other person in the marriage is okay with it.



No, you can be just as committed and still sleep with other people from time to time.



Marriage does not become useless simply because the people in it want to sleep with other people once in awhile.

I know that this has been said, but I believe that as long as the two people within the relationship feel that what they are doing is not cheating, they should continue doing whatever it is that makes them happy.

Key word here is cheating, I for one would not be able to share my wife with another man, and if she slept with someone else it would be cheating, fortunately we both feel the same way.

Title Correction should be this:

Should married people (who agree to have sex with other people) be allowed to sleep with other people?

Why is it people care so about defining things so strictly?

Originally posted by chithappens
Title Correction should be this:

Should married people (who agree to have sex with other people) be allowed to sleep with other people? I don't see where "allowing" comes in. Who would do that "allowing"?

Originally posted by chithappens
Title Correction should be this:

Should married people (who agree to have sex with other people) be allowed to sleep with other people? Good point.

The title is fine and theres nothing that can be done about it now anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't see where "allowing" comes in. Who would do that "allowing"?

"Accepting" is part of the topic. That's been my point.

This is just an excuse to rant about having sex with whomever you please if you agree and how society won't accept it, etc.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Why is it people care so about defining things so strictly?

When you offer a question, it must have a definition, otherwise it ends up becoming a statement and an excuse for illogical rambling.

Originally posted by chithappens
"Accepting" is part of the topic. That's been my point.

This is just an excuse to rant about having sex with whomever you please if you agree and how society won't accept it, etc. So?

Yes to make us all understand exactly what you mean. As I have said before there is "Open Marriage." But your question does not address that, it's different. However, I do know couples that after they have been married for some time agree to a more open marriage type marriage...

Originally posted by chithappens
"Accepting" is part of the topic. That's been my point.

This is just an excuse to rant about having sex with whomever you please if you agree and how society won't accept it, etc.
Why shouldn't it be socially acceptable?



There is nothing wrong with the question branching out into other areas. And my comments and those that agree with me have been perfectly logical and not at all rambling.

And "open" marriage can still be called marriage without the distinction. and I know couples who have gotten married and are fine with each other sleeping with other people.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Why shouldn't it be socially acceptable?



There is nothing wrong with the question branching out into other areas. And my comments and those that agree with me have been perfectly logical and not at all rambling.

And "open" marriage can still be called marriage without the distinction. and I know couples who have gotten married and are fine with each other sleeping with other people.

Sigh, stop being offended. You are not even reading what I said.

I said it is not socially acceptable not that "it should not be socially acceptable."

Also, you have to have the definition of whatever so sort of marriage "situation" so that we can properly discuss it; otherwise, it turns into a statement or an argument of semantics. That's all this has been so far.

If two people agree, then no shit it's ok. That's not how the topic reads.

That's fine but only a handful of people have an issue with the topic title, which I cannot change at this point anyways.

And I don't think it's an issue of semantics at all. A marriage where the couple each have sex with someone else is still a marriage in every sense of the word.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
The title is fine and theres nothing that can be done about it now anyways.


Would you be fine with another man giving your wife the good goodies?

Let's also consider diseases when you answer, as well as the strange fact that the human body was not designed to filter out diseases.... hey but whatever right?

I mean whomever you sleep with will be with you for the rest of your life. Take these things into consideration when you answer ok, and the idea of possibly sleeping with a few thousand people everytime you trip and fall into some strange pussy.

Originally posted by CaptainStoic
Would you be fine with another man giving your wife the good goodies?

Yes, Sex does not always mean love, nor does it have to.



Thats just a matter of using proper protection and making sure you know the medical history of your sexual partner, its actually irrelevant to this topic.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes, Sex does not always mean love, nor does it have to.



Thats just a matter of using proper protection and making sure you know the medical history of your sexual partner, its actually irrelevant to this topic.

Do you know the meaning of Murphy's Law?

As irrelevant as an STD may seem to you, I think that it is very much relevant. All angles need to be seen in a topic like this one. Then again STD's were irrelevant to all of the millions of people who have died contracting AIDS on a sexual level right?

You think that it's fine to sleep with other women, and don't see it as a faux pas... as long as your mate feels the same as you do keep it moving friend.

If your mate thinks it's wrong, and you wind up giving them the cooties then your misery will be well deserved. Not trying to stir up shyt with you pal, but in reality there are many people who hate sharing.

It is a subject that needs to be talked between each other..

I believe C.S. Lewis stated it the best

Excerpt from "The Problem of Pain"

"One critic said that if he found a country in which such
striptease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that
the people of that country were starving. He meant, of course, to
imply that such things as the strip-tease act resulted not from
sexual corruption but from sexual starvation. I agree with him
that if, in some strange land, we found that similar acts with
mutton chops were popular, one of the possible explanations
which would occur to me would be famine.

But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence showed that a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the same way, before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip- tease, we should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip- tease were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times. Nor is the hypothesis of "starvation" the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the famished, like titillations."

Originally posted by CaptainStoic
Do you know the meaning of Murphy's Law?

As irrelevant as an STD may seem to you, I think that it is very much relevant. All angles need to be seen in a topic like this one. Then again STD's were irrelevant to all of the millions of people who have died contracting AIDS on a sexual level right?

As long as you use protection and know your partners background, yes it is irrelevant.



Thanks, it's always good to have moral support.

it depends on the type of marriage. if its an open marriage, go ahead. but dont if it isnt. on the other hand, i think marriage=commitment. u shudnt really get married if u wanna sleep with other people, just have an open relationship instead.

But why is sleeping with someone else not being committed if the other person is fine with it?

If your a good husband, you help out, your their for your wife when she needs help love and support, then why are you not committed?

I don't think you should sleep with anyone else other than your spouse. But if other couples feel different, I'm not gonna shake my finger at them and tell them they are wrong. I think that sleeping with someone else other than your spouse would ruin a marriage completely. Marriage is a commitment to ONE PERSON and one person only for the rest of your lives.

polyamory anyone?

If the couple are both okay with it, then I don't see a problem at all. As for the actual being allowed bit, what's that all about?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
As for the actual being allowed bit, what's that all about?

some people can't let others have fun





















so chilly, your hottub or mine

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If the couple are both okay with it, then I don't see a problem at all. As for the actual being allowed bit, what's that all about?

Excuse for a rant. That's all

Originally posted by inimalist
some people can't let others have fun





















so chilly, your hot tub or mine

You have a hot tub?

I'm booking my flights now.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You have a hot tub?

I'm booking my flights now.

actually, no, i was hoping you would...

Oh and another thing. If you are so tired of the sex life between you and your husband/wife that you have to go and sleep with someone else...I think that is sad.

Originally posted by BlackSunshine
Oh and another thing. If you are so tired of the sex life between you and your husband/wife that you have to go and sleep with someone else...I think that is sad.

What would you do if you still loved your husband, you had a great family/life together, but the sex he was giving you failed and failed some more?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Because they love each other and want to spend time together, whether or not that means time in bed every day for the rest of their lives is a different matter.

Which begs the question, "If you do not want or intend to forsake all others, then why be married?"

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, "If you do not want or intend to forsake all others, then why be married?"

Tax...benefits.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, "If you do not want or intend to forsake all others, then why be married?"

is the only kind of commitment that exists to you sexual? ie, it is a symbol of love rather than a symbol of sexual exclusiveness? lol, or should all people be forced to live with traditional interpretations of marriage?

what about polyamorus marriages?

and the obvious, what about the tax benefits?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Tax...benefits.

Then it becomes a marriage of convenience. In which case, why marry this specific person? Why not marry someone else altogether?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then it becomes a marriage of convenience. In which case, why marry this specific person? Why not marry someone else altogether? Cause you want to marry someone that you can trust not to screw you over in the long run?

Originally posted by inimalist
is the only kind of commitment that exists to you sexual? ie, it is a symbol of love rather than a symbol of sexual exclusiveness? lol, or should all people be forced to live with traditional interpretations of marriage?

what about polyamorus marriages?

and the obvious, what about the tax benefits?

If there is no sexual exclusivity in their relationship, then how are they different than friends who occasionally sleep together?

What of polygamy?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause you want to marry someone that you can trust not to screw you over in the long run?

Then one would do better to marry a sibling, a parent, or another blood relative.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If there is no sexual exclusivity in their relationship, then how are they different than friends who occasionally sleep together?

What of polygamy? They aren't. But it doesn't matter, I mean in your scenario you could just as well ask "How are they different than friends who exclusively sleep together?"

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then one would do better to marry a sibling, a parent, or another blood relative. True, is illegal though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
True, is illegal though.

So is polygamy.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So is polygamy. Also true. Am I missing a point you are making, here?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If there is no sexual exclusivity in their relationship, then how are they different than friends who occasionally sleep together?

the only difference between a person's mate and their friends is that they sleep together?

I would think, emotional commitment, loyalty, honesty, etc.

but more importantly than anything, why should traditional definitions of marriage apply to people who consensually want to live without monogamy but not to homosexuals? Or why not to women who want a choice in who they marry?

I must say, it seems really odd to see you playing the tradition card here. I'd think you would be motivated to have marriage be defined as much by choice as possible.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What of polygamy?

i see what you did there

The term I used was polyamory, its a tad different than polygamy

but basically, what about people who are in relationships with more than one person?