There are also cultural variations to consider. Have you ever seen the show "Big Love"? Seems complicated and full of growth potential.

Open relationships are not so "taboo" in many other cultures. Even here in America The practice is widespread. In many ways we are "Poisoned by these fairytales" and "Lawyers dwell on small details cuz daddy had to fly" (Don Henly, "End of the innocence") {sorry... I just had to sing that a little bit, lol}
As much as we may hate to admit it we are all culturally conditioned to accept one thing as normal and another as deviant. I can only judge what is best for me. I cannot say what is best for everyone. That would be like saying "The world would be so nice if everyone would just do what I want"

And as much as I happen to be "gods gift to women" (lol) and the worlds greatest lover (LMAO) I am still (and pretty much, have always been) a one woman man.

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

If you type "Do open relationships work" in Google you get tons of results. Some pro, some con. Here are some interesting perspectives. Just here for consideration.

Steve Harvey on open relationships.

http://hellobeautiful.com/sex-love/hell ... hips-work/

An article with some seeming success stories, obviously more "pro" open relationship.

http://www.mensfitness.com/advice/datin ... ships-work

Psychology Today. "Con" perspective.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... ships-work

Ramon

Ramon,

You said, "Pursuing multiple partners is not about "other" no matter how you slice it although I'm sure there are exceptions to this, as every rule."

I humbly disagree. My feeling is that if one is an advanced being who cares about other beings in a loving and fearless (ideal) way- then there is a lot of "other" motivation in "pursuing multiple partners." But let me be clear: it might be a bit of a misnomer to say "pursuing" in the sense of "being out on the prowl." I don't mean that at all. What I mean is being open to one's feelings (which I take take to be more emotive, spiritual etc. than primal, aka sexual) about individuals that attract us and allowing whatever connection that could potentially exist with that person to blossom without FEAR of losing that same love for another or harming the egoic sense of possession of another. It seems that there is an invisible belief present in your statements that there simply isn't enough love to go around. To me: that is an economy based definition of love. By love, I do not mean "sticky situations" (sex) or playing women (through manipulation, false pretexts etc.) so as to "get oneself off." By love I mean a genuine caring, concern and healthy attachment/responsibility for another and yes- if that happens to manifest at certain times and in certain situations as the physical act of "sex" (a physical exchange of energy and a beautiful act that is about as intimate a situation as one can be in in PMR)- then such a manifestation should be welcomed without shame. "So be it!" I detest, however, the idea that having multiple romantic partner is only self-serving. If one is a spiritual being who really attempts to do what is right in any relationship, situation or scenario, then one is in fact serving others in these open-relationship (non-monogomous) kind of arrangements. One realizes that truly spiritual beings are (at this point in our evolution anyway) sort of rare and that one has an opportunity to spread ones love (not necessarily ones seed, Randy) to people who may genuinely need it.

Lynda, the only person I really feel has been making backhanded, somewhat judgemental comments is Randy, but I do know that he means well and that he has been fairly unbiased in his approach to the subject. For example, I really respected the statement he made when he said something along the lines of, "Well, if you can make this work without doing more harm than good- then more power to you." I know it isn't easy because many, if not most women in our culture, have this romanticised idea of "one man to have and to hold forever and ever" - at least while they're young. If one isn't upfront about ones ideas of open-relationship and non-monogamy then yes, there is real potential to hurt someone. On the other hand- if ones ego is causing one to approach relationships in terms of possession, control, fear and jealousy- then maybe a little heart break isn't such a bad thing. I'm just trying be objective here. The argument that having multiple partners may hurt others more than it benefts them is somewhat like saying, "Hey now, if this large group of people really feel like theft (acquiring and then possessing someone else's property as though it were ones own) is good or the ONLY way to acquire something desired, then we better not cause them any pain by letting them know they might be acting out of ego and that we don't believe that stealing is necessary." Wouldn't a little "pain" for these people be a "not so bad thing" if it helped them break down the walls of separateness and ego? I don't know. I certainly don't want to cause anyone, let alone a sweet, feminine being, any harm- but sometimes it cannot be avoided when doing what one thinks is right. Sometimes it can be avoided though, with honesty upfront- I agree.

Bette, very interesting point about all your potential marriages. I see that same situation in SOOOO many cases, personally. Glad you could see through the illusion of control and bondage in those situations. Manipulation from one or both partners in service of possession of another is (from my perspective) often a huge motivating factor for marriage--- but of course, often it is not a motivator but still present to some extent in wanting to keep a relationship "exclusive." Because then, how can one "exclude" others from ones loving affections when one is in fact- One with all Others? :)


JUST some thoughts people - thanks for playing these mind games with me!

-Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.

One more interesting thing from the Men's Fitness link Ramon posted... This one goes to Randy:

"There are a wide variety of open-relationship models out there, and they can vary drastically from one couple to another," says David Barash, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of Washington and co-author of The Myth of Monogamy. "Having an open relationship can work really well for some people," he says. "However, as people, we're also inclined to be sexually jealous of a partner being with someone else, and from a biological standpoint, we're resistant to that partner having another relationship."

I bolded when I think is important for you to see here. Granted, it's one man's statement, but with all your talk about biology/animal urges and the higher rule-set: I thought this idea was interesting... That it may be just as "animalistic" or a quirk of biological programming to resist open relationships as it is to "want to create as many FWAUs" and spread as much seed as possible. Thus: it comes down to that continuum you talked about. Balance is key... But I'm just saying. :)

-Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.

Cole ,
This is a great topic. Everyone has struggled with this idea at one time or another. Even though there is no single "answer" that will apply to everyone. Its great to look at this multi-faceted topic from all angles.

I once heard an old man say (he was even older than me, lol) : "We all start out promiscuous, and in the end we all end up devoted to one woman just like your grandfather"

Great stuff guys, Im loving this thread.

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

Cole: "It seems that there is an invisible belief present in your statements that there simply isn't enough love to go around. To me: that is an economy based definition of love. By love, I do not mean "sticky situations" (sex) or playing women (through manipulation, false pretexts etc.) so as to "get oneself off." By love I mean a genuine caring, concern and healthy attachment/responsibility for another and yes- if that happens to manifest at certain times and in certain situations as the physical act of "sex" (a physical exchange of energy and a beautiful act that is about as intimate a situation as one can be in in PMR)- then such a manifestation should be welcomed without shame. "So be it!" I detest, however, the idea that having multiple romantic partner is only self-serving. If one is a spiritual being who really attempts to do what is right in any relationship, situation or scenario, then one is in fact serving others in these open-relationship (non-monogomous) kind of arrangements. One realizes that truly spiritual beings are (at this point in our evolution anyway) sort of rare and that one has an opportunity to spread ones love (not necessarily ones seed, Randy) to people who may genuinely need it."

You are mistaken. I place absolutely zero limits on the concept or capacity of love. Love, real low entropy love, can and should be freely given to all whether one is committed to one person only for sexual interaction or engaging in it with many. Real love isn't a different type of love for one thing and a different type for another. You see, I don't differentiate between real love for one's spouse or partner and love for one's best friend or even love for one's dog. Even you said, in your original question to Tom, something along the lines of "How is that different from having multiple close friends, or even multiple best friends?" I don't think it is different but not being able to sleep with your friends because you are in a monogamous relationship doesn't limit your ability to express love to them or others.

I think monogamy is a good thing for growth because it is tough. There is little about it that is easy. I think in the long run, that one closer than close relationship teaches you more about what love really means than if you had a hundred friendships that also can also include sex. That's just my opinion. I respect yours, and your freedom to pursue it, immensely.

My point earlier that got mixed in with other statements out of context was that if you decide to leave a committed relationship, and hurt that person deeply in the process, only because you want to have "romantic" (and not just loving, close) relationships with others, that is only about self. Just wanted to clarify. Some of that got left off when I repeated it. I still argue that is a non-loving intent/action.

Ramon

I just happen to be watching a show about the Zoe tribe, they have interesting ideas, but bottom line is no jealousy, lots of team work, and a nice, calm, life if you don't mind walking around naked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%27%C3%A9_people
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Just an insert here...

When a person has become facile with slipping around his ego, that is, he recognizes it, and pushes it out of the way when it wants to act up, or just somehow transcends the whole thing, 'self' is experienced as other, and should be treated with the same deference and care as we extend to all the other 'others'.

-just my 2 cents

-Montana

Great point Montana. As usually happens with these things, I post and then I think about it all day and think of things to add to the discussion or even to add to my own understanding.

In this particular case, what has been in my mind all afternoon is the exact same thing you mention about "self" being part of the object of loving intent as well as "other." For example, just because a decision to do or not do something might be about self, rather than other, it doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing. We have sort of been conditioned to think that it is, but if a decision that is about self leads you to be the best "you" that you can be, then how can it be bad? If by making a choice to be a certain way is, in fact, the best way for you to be then that will lead you to give the best "you" to others anyway. Even making a decision to pursue the Path of Knowledge and lower your own entropy starts with a decision about self.

Yes, if love for the all is your goal then that necessarily would include self as we are an intrinsic part of the same.

Thanks Montana.

Ramon

sorry to not be around to respond to specific comments...on vacation and out of my normal routine

indeed the key is anything, and I mean absolutely anything goes, as long as you are open about it, not doing a bait and switch, and are not reneging on commitments in place, and even then, not my place to judge anyone's specific intent - there was an invitation to discuss views and principles attached to this topic - not repeat back the mainstream cultural pablum that most people live by.

and along these lines, I will remind forum members that beastiality is still legal in Florida (my current location). There is however the problem of getting the chicken's informed consent
; - )

I also believe that an anti establishment attitude, a view I once held, is highly entropic, is a great life error, and is usually a sour grapes game the ego plays to create an internal fantasy to cover up ineffectiveness - and once this attitude takes hold, the FWAU is blocked from moving forward materially and fixing the source problem. This is an important topic and common correlate with spiritual seekers.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Randy, your self is showing.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

OMG - I am trying to get over my jealousy! I believe in teamwork (cooperation over competition)! and I REALLY want a nice, calm, life! Do they live off the land and off grid there as well? I will look at the wiki link when I get the chance. I may have found my new home :) Montana, this is the point I am trying to make. I love other humans. I know how to give and receive love and pleasure when I am with a male human I love. Is it only because "the Bible" says "marriage" has to be between "one man" and "one woman"? Because that's really not fair to me, it's not my book. Do I have to live by its rules? wtf is up with that?
Bette you are hilarious in an honest, direct, straightforward and loving way.

Thank you Cole. Thank you so much.

Love,
Lynda

I think you need to look at nature. We are, biologically speaking, animals. Some animals mate for life and some only come together to mate once. In the case where a species mates for life the males stick around to rear the offspring every year. While men (especially young men) have a biological urge to mate with as many females as possible, I think many women are hard wired to want a mate that will stick around and raise the offspring - even if there aren't any.

For humans I think the one concept fits all is outdated - whether it be marriage or numerous partners. You have to find what works for you in a low entropy way. If you get into every relationship to satisfy your own ego or physical needs that isn't very low entropy.

More generally, being stuck in either belief system is... well... being stuck in a belief system. My personal preconception is that there is a slightly greater chance that being stuck in an anti-establishment belief system is less resistant to escape than being stuck in a pro-establishment belief system ("It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven"), but I very well could be wrong ...

Waking Up can happen anywhere, and, as far as I know, there are no predicting indicators.

-Montana

People who enter into polygamous relationships quite often do so to serve out some form of learning exercise which will better help them evolve.

If you have the time and energy to satisfy and honour each of your partners adequately and fairly, than perhaps polygamy would work - but it would probably be a full time and utterly absorbing occupation. There wouldn't be a lot of time left over for entropy lowering activities like meditating, artistic expression and learning (outside of what you learn from your multiple interactions with multiple partners).

I'd be interested to hear this guy's opinion: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ldren.html

Nick