Open Relationships

[PozTalkAuthor]

I think human race has a serious problem: the desire to trap each other in pre-defined models without considering that a model is a starting point, not a goal to achieve. Like when you create a new blog or document in a computer; you have several layout to start from, but no one prevents you from changing the layout completely and use the main model just as a basic inspiration. 

A guy here has centered the point: "you must have common interests beyond sex" and I thank him for this statement. It could be obvious, but it isn't that much. 

That's why I have accepted to be psychologically abused for years: I concentrated most on sex and on that "rescue" attitude I have, rather than developing a really healthy relationship with him. After what happened with my so-called "monogamous" relationship with the cheater who pozzed me, I resigned to the models again: "monogamous is hetero love, gay love is open".

I would lie if I tell you it wasn't good sex then; in pre-pandemic times my ex and I had great sex with some regulars, I enjoyed it; no questions asked and no condoms, him on Prep, me Undet, fuck it. 

Then our mutual poz fetish revelation came, several issues -including pandemic- and all events made me realize I've lived with a fuckbuddy, not with a boyfriend. A fuckbuddy I was rescuing from a miserable life.

And now? With my current partner we are closed, but aren't at the same time.

I mean, we haven't had sex with others, at least not arriving to anal penetration, but we have not promised to be sexually faithful to each other. Only promise has been, "if you get the chance go for it but be careful" - especially me to him, as I don't want him to get pozzed. And not by strangers. 

For the rest, we have our occasional on line flirts, dirty messages here and there but no interest to go for it in real, at the moment. 

 

[wiltslad]

I've been in an open relationship for over 8 years and it works great for us! Allows me to be a whore and let him fuck who he wants! No jealousy just good fun!

[a2nudist]

My husband and I have been together 23 years in an open relationship.   We met while cheating on our current partners.   In the end we both acknowledge that it was miserable cheating and lying so we decided for us it was best to have an open relationship.    Somehow, by being open the jealously faded away.    We pretty much have a don't ask but do Tell!    My husband is a bit of a voyeur and loves to watch me fuck other guys.    Or at least hear the details afterwards.   

We also found this really helpful because my husband is so into his career that I was often alone on the weekends.  He encouraged me to go fuck around to help my mood.     It really helped.  I got laid.  He got to work (his passion) and he got a story later.       About 12 years ago a young guy  came over and I was fucking upstairs while my husband was cooking dinner and we fed the boy and he stayed.     Now we're in a triad.    It's been the best thing ever.   The two of them do things together (both sexually and in general) and I do separate hobbies with the boy.   And I am really surprised that there hasn't been jealously.    The boy and I attend a regular monthly sex party together.    He gets to watch me fuck other guys.    I look to the other part of the dungeon and he is seated in a rim chair getting eaten out having a great time.   So it all works.   

The other thing about the open relationship that has been a real positive for us is that we are each allowed to express our own sexual interests without shame.    The type of guys my husband and our boy like are sometimes different.   We each enjoy some different fetishes.   While we will sometimes all partake in the same fetish it allows each of us to explore deeper on our own again without judgement or shame.    Sometimes even at the same sex group event.    

Another memory just came back was one time we were visiting a friend in another state.   My husband said he would really like the opportunity to make love with our host.     He asked in advance and said it was something he really wanted to do.   So the 3 of us had sex and then I moved to sleep in the guest room.   In a little while I heard through the wall that they were fucking again.    In the morning they said they had a great mutual time.    Both my husband I have come to realize that we can have open sex and feelings for other guys but still be committed to each other.     

We never schedule a time to have sex with others that would take time when we could be together.   We still maintain our long term goals together, we still share financial goals together, etc.     Works well for us.

 

[MuscledHorse]

People forget that sexual monogamy in a relationship is a made up church construct that has no basis in reality. This was done by the church as a means of control, tying the idea of being sexually faithful to the holy sacrament of marriage. Without this concept, there is no "cheating" in a relationship because sex isn't a part of the conversation. WHat religion essentially created is a relationship based on Jealousy of the Other, and not Love as it claims. Scientific research has demonstrated mamaals are not sexually monogamous, even paired ones. My husband and I are open. Sex is sport to us. It's what horny males do because we're horny males. The fact is, who I have sex with has no bearing on how much I love my partner, BUT the churhc has marketed sex and love are synonymous for so long, people accept it without question. Because we don't do sexual monogamy, there is no cloud of jealousy having over the relationship. When one of us goes someplace there's no nagging "is he seeing someone else behind my back?", "did he have sex with a guy on hos way home?" to it. We have no jealousy and can talk about our hookups like we talk about anything else. Having the monogamy thing a non-issue, lets us focus on each other and our relationship and emotional commitment to each other. It's a far healthier state of mind to live in. Many gays want to copy the hetrosexual relationship structure created by the church because that's al they know.  However, there's a reason the divorce rate runs so high among the hetersexuals where "cheating" is involved: it's not normal and it's not natural. Further, the whole finding and loving "the one" thing the church and every rom-com known to man has pushed is mad eup as well. There's nothing that says you can't equally love more than one person and all have a relationship together. If my partner brought in another guy he really cared for and wanted to expand our relationship, I would welcome him with open arms (and legs00I'm a slut, what can I say?).  So, don't limit yourself by trying to adhere to a structure the heterosexuals have already demonstrated doesn't really work. THatn's not to say it can't work for some people, but they are a minority.  Hope this helps.

[PozBearWI]

24 years now in our open relationship.  We had been the monogamous one of a partner who strayed.  And we had similar reactions to that.  We weren't put off by the sex, but rather the over lying about it.  Honest that lying crap is tiring.  Once we know someone is lying about at least some things; we really don't know when they are lying.  And so our relationships had been built on sand.  

We are open, sometimes together, more often these days separately.  But not secretive.  It fun to watch each other enjoying sex with others and from time to time we get to enjoy that.  

We are lifemates.  The sucky part of that of course is that one of us is going to experience the loss of the other.  We'll probably never "be ready for that" and yet we accept the inevitability of it.  We've lost siblings, close friends, parents many years ago.  ( aside: for years it always amused me when I heard peers utter words "If I die....".  )

[blackrobe]

On 3/30/2024 at 1:48 PM, Cutedelicategay said:

If you aren't able to get what you want from that person then you shouldn't be in a relationship with them.

Getting 100% of what you want now and in the future from one person is, in my experience, staggeringly unlikely. If that were the standard almost no-one would be in a relationship with anyone else. 

As Dan Savage often opines, and I've come to agree, there is no such person as "the one" who can give you everything you want. They might be a .75 and that's when we round them up to "the one". 

[hntnhole]

19 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

We'll probably never "be ready for that"

Of course one is never "ready" when that time comes, but you can prepare for it.  By all means get the arrangements (you probably already have, maybe some years ago), codified, put to paper, and early enough that neither guy is of "un-sound" mind.  

In our case, we had our attorney draw up an extensive outline of what was to be done, who gets what, who gets nothing, who gets to decide what to do with properties, etc.  That documentation may need to be re-visited at some point, years from when it was created, and that's ok too (for instance, knowing my cousins a bit too well, I added a stipulation some years later that each cousin was to receive one dollar - thus proving that they were in my mind at the height of my intellectual powers) and at the approval or disapproval of my sister, who will inherit.  

Having everything done well in advance relieves us of having to deal with unhappy decisions when we're least inclined (or even able) to do so.  Plus, each guy gets to reflect on what he'd like to have happen when that terrible time comes.  

[Poz50something]

3 minutes ago, MuscledHorse said:

People forget that sexual monogamy in a relationship is a made up church construct that has no basis in reality. This was done by the church as a means of control, tying the idea of being sexually faithful to the holy sacrament of marriage. Without this concept, there is no "cheating" in a relationship because sex isn't a part of the conversation. 

Not that it matters, because the result is the same - most of the marriage laws that European social norms predate Christianity. They were instituted by Augustus Caesar. "To encourage population expansion, the leges Juliae offered inducements to marriage and imposed penalties upon the celibate. Augustus instituted the "Law of the three sons" which held those in high regard who produced three male[29] offspring. Marrying-age celibates and young widows who would not marry were prohibited from receiving inheritances and from attending public games.

Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus (18 BC): Requiring (likely) all citizens to marry. Also limiting marriage across social class boundaries. 

Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis (17 BC): This law punished adultery with banishment. The two guilty parties were sent to different islands ("dummodo in diversas insulas relegentur"), and part of their property was confiscated. Fathers were permitted to kill daughters and their partners in adultery.[30] Husbands could kill the partners under certain circumstances and were required to divorce adulterous wives.[30] Augustus himself was obliged to invoke the law against his own daughter, Julia (relegated to the island of Pandateria) and against her eldest daughter (Julia the Younger). Tacitus adds the reproach that Augustus was stricter for his own relatives than the law actually required (Annals III 24)." ([think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Julia).

Evidently, early Christian church leaders found these norms to perfect, and with Constantine, Church laws became social norms, There was absolutely no separation between religious dogma and public laws. 

[PozBearWI]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

Of course one is never "ready" when that time comes, but you can prepare for it.  By all means get the arrangements (you probably already have, maybe some years ago), codified, put to paper, and early enough that neither guy is of "un-sound" mind.  

In our case, we had our attorney draw up an extensive outline of what was to be done, who gets what, who gets nothing, who gets to decide what to do with properties, etc.  That documentation may need to be re-visited at some point, years from when it was created, and that's ok too (for instance, knowing my cousins a bit too well, I added a stipulation some years later that each cousin was to receive one dollar - thus proving that they were in my mind at the height of my intellectual powers) and at the approval or disapproval of my sister, who will inherit.  

Having everything done well in advance relieves us of having to deal with unhappy decisions when we're least inclined (or even able) to do so.  Plus, each guy gets to reflect on what he'd like to have happen when that terrible time comes.  

Yes of course, and we've done that.  

[PozBearWI]

1 hour ago, Poz50something said:

Not that it matters, because the result is the same - most of the marriage laws that European social norms predate Christianity. They were instituted by Augustus Caesar. "To encourage population expansion, the leges Juliae offered inducements to marriage and imposed penalties upon the celibate. Augustus instituted the "Law of the three sons" which held those in high regard who produced three male[29] offspring. Marrying-age celibates and young widows who would not marry were prohibited from receiving inheritances and from attending public games.

Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus (18 BC): Requiring (likely) all citizens to marry. Also limiting marriage across social class boundaries. 

Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis (17 BC): This law punished adultery with banishment. The two guilty parties were sent to different islands ("dummodo in diversas insulas relegentur"), and part of their property was confiscated. Fathers were permitted to kill daughters and their partners in adultery.[30] Husbands could kill the partners under certain circumstances and were required to divorce adulterous wives.[30] Augustus himself was obliged to invoke the law against his own daughter, Julia (relegated to the island of Pandateria) and against her eldest daughter (Julia the Younger). Tacitus adds the reproach that Augustus was stricter for his own relatives than the law actually required (Annals III 24)." ([think before following links] [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Julia).

Evidently, early Christian church leaders found these norms to perfect, and with Constantine, Church laws became social norms, There was absolutely no separation between religious dogma and public laws. 

For sure, we've centuries of practice telling each other what they can do; rather than fretting what we ourselves do.  

[myDNA4u]

IMHO, most gay men are not wired to be monogamous. Indeed, most of the supposedly monogamous gay couples I know, one or both are cheating. That is way more likely to end a relationship if caught that being honestly open. There is a huge difference between love and lust and the the couples I know in open relationships (which are the majority of the long term gay couples I know) know the difference. 

Indeed, if you truly love someone, you want him to be happy. If going out and playing with others makes him happy, then he should.  It doesn't mean he loves you less. In fact giving him that freedom will probably make him love you more.

[MuscledHorse]

On 4/1/2024 at 11:51 AM, Poz50something said:

Not that it matters, because the result is the same - most of the marriage laws that European social norms predate Christianity. They were instituted by Augustus Caesar. "To encourage population expansion, the leges Juliae offered inducements to marriage and imposed penalties upon the celibate. Augustus instituted the "Law of the three sons" which held those in high regard who produced three male[29] offspring. Marrying-age celibates and young widows who would not marry were prohibited from receiving inheritances and from attending public games.

Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus (18 BC): Requiring (likely) all citizens to marry. Also limiting marriage across social class boundaries. 

Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis (17 BC): This law punished adultery with banishment. The two guilty parties were sent to different islands ("dummodo in diversas insulas relegentur"), and part of their property was confiscated. Fathers were permitted to kill daughters and their partners in adultery.[30] Husbands could kill the partners under certain circumstances and were required to divorce adulterous wives.[30] Augustus himself was obliged to invoke the law against his own daughter, Julia (relegated to the island of Pandateria) and against her eldest daughter (Julia the Younger). Tacitus adds the reproach that Augustus was stricter for his own relatives than the law actually required (Annals III 24)." ([think before following links] [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Julia).

Evidently, early Christian church leaders found these norms to perfect, and with Constantine, Church laws became social norms, There was absolutely no separation between religious dogma and public laws. 

It should be noted though, the definition of adultery had far more latitude for the males as adultery only related to having sex with another man's wife. The adultery laws were really aimed at keeping women from having extra marital affairs. Married males could still have sex with willing partners, such as prostitutes or slaves and this did not fall under the definition of adultery, which Christianity and its celibacy and abstinence obsessed leaders would never approve. The laws created by Augustus as you mentioned in your post were passed increase a flagging population (and make more male soldiers, especially, hence the emphasis on male offspring), but by the time of Constantine, those laws had all been repealed or had fallen into disuse. The Romans were, even with Julius himself, much more relaxed when it came to having sex--as long as it wasn't another man's property, er, wife.

[ryanroman]

On 3/31/2024 at 8:19 AM, MuscledHorse said:

People forget that sexual monogamy in a relationship is a made up church construct that has no basis in reality. This was done by the church as a means of control, tying the idea of being sexually faithful to the holy sacrament of marriage. Without this concept, there is no "cheating" in a relationship because sex isn't a part of the conversation. WHat religion essentially created is a relationship based on Jealousy of the Other, and not Love as it claims. Scientific research has demonstrated mamaals are not sexually monogamous, even paired ones. My husband and I are open. Sex is sport to us. It's what horny males do because we're horny males. The fact is, who I have sex with has no bearing on how much I love my partner, BUT the churhc has marketed sex and love are synonymous for so long, people accept it without question. Because we don't do sexual monogamy, there is no cloud of jealousy having over the relationship. When one of us goes someplace there's no nagging "is he seeing someone else behind my back?", "did he have sex with a guy on hos way home?" to it. We have no jealousy and can talk about our hookups like we talk about anything else. Having the monogamy thing a non-issue, lets us focus on each other and our relationship and emotional commitment to each other. It's a far healthier state of mind to live in. Many gays want to copy the hetrosexual relationship structure created by the church because that's al they know.  However, there's a reason the divorce rate runs so high among the hetersexuals where "cheating" is involved: it's not normal and it's not natural. Further, the whole finding and loving "the one" thing the church and every rom-com known to man has pushed is mad eup as well. There's nothing that says you can't equally love more than one person and all have a relationship together. If my partner brought in another guy he really cared for and wanted to expand our relationship, I would welcome him with open arms (and legs00I'm a slut, what can I say?).  So, don't limit yourself by trying to adhere to a structure the heterosexuals have already demonstrated doesn't really work. THatn's not to say it can't work for some people, but they are a minority.  Hope this helps.

Sexual monogamy is a social construct and is not natural in nature, if for nothing less, biodiversity.  Men are genetically programmed to spread and share our DNA to propagate. Even if your sexually fluid, you still have that primal need based on biological evolution.  I have been in an open relationship for almost 8 years - since the first date.  I believe in polyamory as well as emotional monogamy, but sexual monogamy is a social construct the str8s can't get - there's a reason why the divorce rate is as high as it is. IMHO...

[BlueSaphir]

I would be upset if my significant other engaged with another boy. For that reason, I want my relationship to be focus on my man  and my man to focus on me solely. And no one else. But I’m single so I feel free to get laid with who ever and whenever. 

[MuscledHorse]

4 hours ago, ryanroman said:

Sexual monogamy is a social construct and is not natural in nature, if for nothing less, biodiversity.  Men are genetically programmed to spread and share our DNA to propagate. Even if your sexually fluid, you still have that primal need based on biological evolution.  I have been in an open relationship for almost 8 years - since the first date.  I believe in polyamory as well as emotional monogamy, but sexual monogamy is a social construct the str8s can't get - there's a reason why the divorce rate is as high as it is. IMHO...

That is very true. You can see that reflected in the content of half the country music catalog, most of Taylor Swift's musical output and one VERY angry song by Alanis Morrisette.