Just ran into this old topic, but felt a need to say thanks for it. I had not heard of the documentary, which I will investigate, but thought there was generally good sense and illumination until someone got carried away. There is no single rule for human behavior and what works for one does not necessarily work for another. The quoted incident is one of the most sweetly romantic stories I've ever heard, and I'm grateful for that sharing and insight.

The only polyamorous couple I know involved a male and female who were mock married and were shocked to discover it felt exactly like the real thing, at least in terms of its effect upon them. Later, another man joined in and they became a triple. Far as I know, the men are not interested in each other physically and I believe don't much frolic as a group, but are not so possessive as to deny the other two their happiness and pleasures. That certainly is not a standard arrangement, but it works for them.

There is a brilliant movie, El Diputado, by Spanish director Eloy de la Iglesia, very much a product of the cultural explosion that took place after Franco finally died and stayed dead. The man is a leading left member of parliament, is married to a beautiful woman, and falls in love with an attractive young man. The wife accepts that and they become some sort of marital unit, symbolized by a splendid three-way kiss that is tender and beautiful. While their hearts are true, they are still subject to turmoil and treachery around them, however.

It seems to me that male couples often do advertise for other partners, sometimes insisting that their partner is fully informed, sometimes requiring that both partners participate in any third-party contact. Could be entirely natural for someone to slip into a more privileged position than the passing trick to the point where bonds may, unexpectedly, be discovered, as life and possibilities unfold and to the extent circumstances and preconceptions allow.

Students at the college level, and well below that age as well, often do hang out in gangs or packs or cliques as a function of long-term consanguinity, shared academic, sports, cultural issues, and so on. Birds of a feather flock together, etc. When there are shared and compatible sexual interests as well (among gay men, for instance), close friends spending lots of time together could, at least in theory, develop beyond casual friendship, and at this point, is it really true that it is more difficult for three men or women to associate romantically than it was for a same-sex couple to find each other and make it work in the face of a violently hostile society that still has not accepted that the world is changing around them– partly because they are forced to see things they previously could ignore. Campus radicals often treated women as the cooks and scut workers. Other races are often invisible, hence in the US an astonishing level of shock and debate about "white privilege," apparently as invisible to some as it is a central and dominating fact of life for others, who in a supposedly great democracy cannot even reliably expect the right to vote. And so on.

Yes, the world shifts around us and demography is busy speeding things up as well, but partly what is happening is that we are being forced to notice stuff that not everyone likes. Equal pay for equal work. Or that women may do better in school than men of the same age. These can be catastrophic rattlings of a lifetime's foundation. And check out the Olds when it comes to technology and the way it is the wired young who are in constant digital contact with each other, but often not the person having coffee with them in person.

In any case, the impediments to gay couples that once existed are evaporating, and legalize marriage and adoption, gays and transsexuals in the military, are having a normalizing effect the pioneers of the Mattachine Society would have found literally inconceivable. To have childhood chums stay linked as three rather than pair off doesn't sound like such a radical thing for those who are so inclined.

Personally, because I found the love story that started this thread, so reassuring, so sweet, such a hopeful sign of possibilities and the power of love, that I hope no casual interest in alternatives gets in the way of deeply protecting and treasuring what already exists.

Perhaps I'm inclined to think about the matter also because I just saw a movie, available as a torrent here, called eCupid, where one of two partners signs up for a sort of dating ap to find the perfect lover-- free and guaranteed. After much comic incident and heavy misunderstandings, it turns out they already were the perfect couple and just did not realize it until it was almost too late. Fun movie.

And, so, for the most part, has been this thread for me to read through-- interesting, moving, intelligent, educational. Thanks to all.

I guess it could work, I know a group of 3 guys in a relationship and living together here in Taiwan, and they are very happy. It's quite rare because jealousy is a natural instinct, not to mention it's even more complicated to gays because apparently sexual domination and seed spreading instincts are also present in our subconscious.

I know for a fact that they started with just 2, then they grow too close for too long (ppl here call it "becoming a family member"), so they started looking for a third. I'm sure one of them came up with the idea first, normally this would probably cause chaos in a relationship, but the other guy was so nice and laid back, so he probably just accepted it.

eventually they found the 3rd guy which both of them like and got together. the 3rd guy was more fond of the 1st guy at first if i didn't remember wrong, but the super nice laid back guy are being very supportive and now they're all "equal" in the relationship.

however, i think before anyone look into 3 guys relationship.. you must first understand open relationship. because a good open relationship is build on trust and communication. without that, it would just fail. these 3 guys invites others to have safe-fun together as well.

this is one of the good example. there is another group i know of here. but it was quite nasty. basically it was 2 older guys and a young dude who was in love with one of them. lots of lying and stuff there.. but eventually the young dude broke off, knowing he got screwed big time.

I'm not sure what's gay life outside of taiwan like, but apparently it's a way of life that people cheats here. sex comes too easy here and we came up with a rule of  'don't ask don't tell' to maintain a relationship.. which is why most relationships don't last here, cos lies doesn't last.

to me, anything is possible, as long as you're honest and care for one another. trust is important in any form of relationship.

Your attitude from your very fist post in this thread has set the tone of my responses.  You attacked  anyone who liked monogamy by calling them possessive and controlling among other things.

I also noticed that you needed to eliminate any relationship that wasn't good, to prop up your idealistic views of open relationships.  If you are willing to take the "good" ones, then you must also take the bad ones.

As someone who has never been in an open relationship, nor ever plans to be in one, I fail to see what it is that you can bring to the table in any discussion about open relationships,

I don't see what you have to bring to the table when I busted your rubbish and you need to lie about what I've said.

well as your belief, not expounded upon, that these relationships are wrong

This is not the first time you lied about what I said.

I never said they were "wrong",  other than many times one party is forced into it.  I explained this several times.  Just because you don't like my answers does not mean you can lie about what I said.

++++

You are treading very close to getting banned.  Any more attacks on me and you will be banned.  This is your 3rd and final warning.

You have stated that open relations dont work, and yet you have failed to prove how they dont work, you have failed to prove why they dont work, and finally ―  and most importantly ―  you have failed to prove what it is about open relationships that is wrong.

As someone who has never been in an open relationship, nor ever plans to be in one, I fail to see what it is that you can bring to the table in any discussion about open relationships, other than your admonition that "I don't go out with whores," as well as your belief, not expounded upon, that these relationships are wrong ― viewpoints that in the light of day are hardly helpful or nor insightful.

Stop being so ignorant, raphjd stated a very liable reason - people are simply too envious to be fully commited in a three-way relationship, they're simply not built to work.

As someone who has never been in an open relationship, nor ever plans to be in one, I fail to see what it is that you can bring to the table in any discussion about open relationships, other than your admonition that "I don't go out with whores," as well as your belief, not expounded upon, that these relationships are wrong ― viewpoints that in the light of day are hardly helpful or nor insightful.

There is a huge difference between expressing opinions and your posts in this thread.

I'll repeat, either post something constructive in this thread or leave this thread.  The choice is yours.

I left the other place at the request of a moderator, who felt I was too opinionated.

@raphjd:

We like opinions here.

Glad to hear it. ;D

Just as different activities are turn ons for different people, other relationships may seem "right" to different people, too.  Now if your religion is "right" for you, then you also don't have any business bashing/criticizing others for their religions.

Plus, there is no "right" religion in general.  Hence, using religion as an argument in this thread doesn't work at all.

No, you're intolerant and pejorative of whores because their lifestyle choices are sub-human in your eyes, worthy of only disdain and disgust ― when in fact those types of relationships and the human beings who are in them are seperate from you, have nothing to do with you, and don't require your pity.

Again, your entire rant is that I'm evil because I'm not a whore nor will I ever get into a relationship with a whore.  And you call me controlling.

Be the biggest whore you can be with your fellow whores.  Why do you NEED those of us who aren't whores to change to suit you?!

I'll say it now, you are extremely intolerant of anyone who does not worship at the alter of whoredom.  Just look at how you describe people that like monogamy in your various posts.

You mentioned that you practice serial monogomy.

EXCUSE ME?!?!?!?!?!

I have been with the same person my entire adult life.

Maybe you are desperately trying to include the dating I did in high school, in your attempt make me look bad in your eyes.

Would you want perfect strangers to pity this relationship of yours just because it wasn't their type of relationship, before there was understanding of how these two differing types of relationships either work, or don't work, for the people involved in them?

Go ahead and pity my relationship if that makes you feel better about yourself and your "relationships", at least my relationship has lasted more than 2 decades.

I'm evil and fucked in the head because I'm not a whore

No, you're intolerant and pejorative of whores because their lifestyle choices are sub-human in your eyes, worthy of only disdain and disgust ― when in fact those types of relationships and the human beings who are in them are seperate from you, have nothing to do with you, and don't require your pity.

You mentioned that you practice serial monogomy. Would you want perfect strangers to pity this relationship of yours just because it wasn't their type of relationship, before there was understanding of how these two differing types of relationships either work, or don't work, for the people involved in them? If you wouldn't want a whore's pity, it's reasonable to assume they wouldn't want yours, either. A mutual desire for respect may be the only thing you find that you have in common with a whore, but its still something.

A requirement that the previous 250,000 years of human existence and their relationship trends/data cannot be variables which matter in any way.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

A requirement that you possess something that is, for you, the one-and-only idealized type of relationship. Nothing else will do… and not just for you, but alas! it shouldnt do for anyone else either! Reserved unto you, are the powers of deciding which relationships are worthy, and which ones are trash. Heavy indeed is the head that wears a crown.

Didn't you accuse me of creating strawmen arguments?

I never said that any other type of relationship should be under the death penalty or some other form of criminal punishment.

That this requirement of selflessness need not apply to you personally is assumed, if you believe that any misery you would possibly face could never be worth anyone's happiness.

So you are agreeing with me.

Giving in to these whoring relationships means giving up some of your happiness, to make your partnerS happy.

To sustain a desperate argument requires opponent as well as proponent; which without your help would have been impossible. Smiley

It can be unsettling at times to have the safe and secure world of what we comprehend placed so closely next to and compared with what others comprehend. The usual response to this upset of our own ethnocentric ideas on a topic such as open gay-relationships is stress, anxiety, and the urge to cling tighter to our own epistemological underpinnings of these views.

Because you are a whore, I have to be a whore and be in a whoring relationship or I'm evil.  That's your entire rant.  Do you see how screwed up your argument is?  It's extremely hypocritical to say the least.

But be assured raphjd, that this type of response is patently maladaptive. Your idealized relationship does not lend itself to entertain even for an instant any narrative which is alien to your own. Somehow, instead of exploring other's ideas about these relationships, you've taken to hybridise the topic of open gay relationships with that of plural marriage (or, more accurately, "forced" plural marriage) in a conceptually bizarre manner; probably because framing it to the content and conventions of your own internal relationship-schema is a safer, more familiar, and more appropriate manner for you – and god help anything that readily contravenes this idealized narrative that you've identified with for so long, and with which your chimeric-arguments protect at all costs.

Yet again, I'm evil and fucked in the head because I'm not a whore nor do I want a partner who is a whore.

You are quickly running out of any respect I've had for you.

I mean really…what does a woman being stoned in Isfahan have to do with Kyle's wanting to sleep with Derik & Sean together in San jose?

But you said that we have to take their claims at face value.

So the world in a great place and no one has ever been forced into a relationship they didn't want.

@raphjd:

Read the bible some time and you'll see that 1 man and many women was the normal type of "marriage" in the early days.

A requirement that the previous 250,000 years of human existence and their relationship trends/data cannot be variables which matter in any way.

@raphjd:

Because I'm not a whore and don't want a whore for a partner, that means, according to you, that I need to posses my partner?!

A requirement that you possess something that is, for you, the one-and-only idealized type of relationship. Nothing else will do… and not just for you, but alas! it shouldnt do for anyone else either! Reserved unto you, are the powers of deciding which relationships are worthy, and which ones are trash. Heavy indeed is the head that wears a crown.

@raphjd:

People will say and do anything to make their partner happy, even if it makes them miserable.  It's part of human nature and the thing we call love.

That this requirement of selflessness need not apply to you personally is assumed, if you believe that any misery you would possibly face could never be worth anyone's happiness.

@raphjd:

It does seem by some of your responses that you are a bit desperate to make this the normal type of relationship.

To sustain a desperate argument requires opponent as well as proponent; which without your help would have been impossible.

It can be unsettling at times to have the safe and secure world of what we comprehend placed so closely next to and compared with what others comprehend. The usual response to this upset of our own ethnocentric ideas on a topic such as open gay-relationships is stress, anxiety, and the urge to cling tighter to our own epistemological underpinnings of these views.

But be assured raphjd, that this type of response is patently maladaptive. Your idealized relationship does not lend itself to entertain even for an instant any narrative which is alien to your own. Somehow, instead of exploring other's ideas about these relationships, you've taken to hybridise the topic of open gay relationships with that of plural marriage (or, more accurately, "forced" plural marriage) in a conceptually bizarre manner; probably because framing it to the content and conventions of your own internal relationship-schema is a safer, more familiar, and more appropriate manner for you – and god help anything that readily contravenes this idealized narrative that you've identified with for so long, and with which your chimeric-arguments protect at all costs.

I mean really...what does a woman being stoned in Isfahan have to do with Kyle's wanting to sleep with Derik & Sean together in San jose?

It does seem by some of your responses that you are a bit desperate to make this the normal type of relationship.

Multiple partner-type relationships have died out? This is news to me.

For the most part YES, they have.  However, the place they do thrive is relationships such as the middle east where a single male dominates everyone else in the relationship.

Do you think muslim or FLDS/mormon women are empowered enough to disagree with their male owners?

Have you heard of "honor killings"?

So where are all these relationships where people can honestly make the choice freely on their own?!

Read the bible some time and you'll see that 1 man and many women was the normal type of "marriage" in the early days.  Move more to Jesus' day and those types of relationships are in the minority.

If the benchmark for a type of relationship's usefulness is that it continues to occur, then open-type relationships are continually useful to some segment of the population.

Open relationships do happen, but they aren't common or the norm.

I think you're confusing jealousy with avarice, which is the desire to possess. As long as avarice remains the top goal of humanity, attempts at entering into and sustaining open-type relationships will continue.

Because I'm not a whore and don't want a whore for a partner, that means, according to you, that I need to posses my partner?!

Your stance is more than clear on this topic.

I'm going over this last point of yours again because I feel it's a very important one that you've made – one for a suspension of belief -- and it deserves more than just a passing glance from me. Your assertion is that we should suspend our belief of people who say they weren't coerced because they may be "just saying that" and not really meaning it. Thus, (and duly noted by you above to have been shown before) anyone who says they weren't coerced should not be taken at face value - because we cannot know for sure if they're telling the truth. More importantly though, and I suggest overlooked by you, is that this line of reasoning requires us also to "not believe" people who say that they were coerced, and offer this "not-believing you" equally amongst the other people who said that they were coerced - because your line of reasoning requires us not to- and makes mandatory the suspecting of anything that anyone says because they may "just be saying it." In other words, the only knowable thing about a given is that it can never be known, a proposition of yours that I would argue is absolutely correct.

Now if i have followed you correctly (and I hope that I have) is what I've paraphrased above right? Or is it more your point (and I'm guessing that it probably is) that anyone who says that they were coerced should always be believed while anyone who says that they weren't coerced is a liar.

Go back to the hundreds of millions of muslim and FLDS/mormon women and tell me they had an honest say in their situation they found themselves in.

Oddly, you want us to believe all the muslim women that under threat of stoning to death (FLDS/mormons have other ways of dealing with their women) when they say in front of their husband that they are willing partners, but anyone who claims they were coerced/forced is a liar.

Until you can get rid of the billions of women throughout history that were forced into polygamy, then the weight of proof is heavily stacked on my side.

If these same people said that they didn't agree, wouldn't that also mean that pro rata the same people could have just "said" that they didn't really want it, but really did? Couldn't it also mean that they actually did agree and didn't mean it simply because "they just said it"?

People will say and do anything to make their partner happy, even if it makes them miserable.  It's part of human nature and the thing we call love.

A lot of hetero men eat pussy because their women want them to, not because they like it.  Same thing goes with blowjobs.

"Just because they say they agree, doesn't mean they actually did, as my point showed.  I'm god.  Does that mean I am really god or believe I am?  Nope, it just means I said it. "

I'm going over this last point of yours again because I feel it's a very important one that you've made – one for a suspension of belief -- and it deserves more than just a passing glance from me. Your assertion is that we should suspend our belief of people who say they weren't coerced because they may be "just saying that" and not really meaning it. Thus, (and duly noted by you above to have been shown before) anyone who says they weren't coerced should not be taken at face value - because we cannot know for sure if they're telling the truth. More importantly though, and I suggest overlooked by you, is that this line of reasoning requires us also to "not believe" people who say that they were coerced, and offer this "not-believing you" equally amongst the other people who said that they were coerced - because your line of reasoning requires us not to- and makes mandatory the suspecting of anything that anyone says because they may "just be saying it." In other words, the only knowable thing about a given is that it can never be known, a proposition of yours that I would argue is absolutely correct.

Now if i have followed you correctly (and I hope that I have) is what I've paraphrased above right? Or is it more your point (and I'm guessing that it probably is) that anyone who says that they were coerced should always be believed while anyone who says that they weren't coerced is a liar.

Just because they say they agree, doesn't mean they actually did, as my point showed.  I'm god.  Does that mean I am really god or believe I am?  Nope, it just means I said it.

If these same people said that they didn't agree, wouldn't that also mean that pro rata the same people could have just "said" that they didn't really want it, but really did? Couldn't it also mean that they actually did agree and didn't mean it simply because "they just said it"?

It's not a straw man until you prove that all three willingly entered into the "three" relationship.  Just because they say they agree, doesn't mean they actually did.

What is it about coercion-free open relationships that is wrong?

@raphjd:

If these "three" relationships are so great, then why have they failed to take off

If the benchmark for a type of relationship's usefulness is that it continues to occur, then open-type relationships are continually useful to some segment of the population.

@raphjd:

Historically, we know that multiple partners existed, but died out.

Multiple partner-type relationships have died out? This is news to me.

@raphjd:

Humans are by nature very jealous.  This is a primitive biological imperative, to make sure it's our seed that is spread and not every other male's seed.

I think you're confusing jealousy with avarice, which is the desire to possess. As long as avarice remains the top goal of humanity, attempts at entering into and sustaining open-type relationships will continue.

If these "three" relationships are so great, then why have they failed to take off considering throughout history they have been cropping up, with the most notable in the communes of the 1960s/70s.  Historically, we know that multiple partners existed, but died out.  If you were right, then "Big Love" would be the norm, not the minuscule exception to the rule.

Humans are by nature very jealous.  This is a primitive biological imperative, to make sure it's our seed that is spread and not every other male's seed.

I don't know of a couple that has lasted that is "open".  My monogamous relationship and those of many of our friends are still going strong.

"Open" relationships are 2 people where one or both can whore around.

This definition is correct. The key word you're using is "can" meaning both have agreed, in honesty, that one or both "can" (without reservations) fool around. One of them being "forced" does not equal a "can."

@raphjd:

This "three" relationship is a hoax.

I can see where the relationship you're describing is a hoax (one of the partners is not being honest about their level of commitment). But what about an open relationship where both partners agree wholeheartedly? What is it about this type of relationship that is a hoax?

@raphjd:

I'll tell you about one couple I knew in an open relationship…..  Fred didn't want this but grudgingly accepted it to make Chris happy.

You've chosen the straw man fallacy:  In place of arguing against a position, construct a similar, more-easily assailed position (the straw man) and attack it instead. Here we have one that's very easy to condemn: a relationship that one of the individuals was coerced into entering (the straw man). What about relationships where coercion isn't an issue?

I am married(to a woman) and my gay escapades always lead to pain even though my girl understands my "urges". I love her more than I love men so I am the one who is hurting not her. When I do give in to my "primal needs" it usually means I am forced to keep a secret.

Even if it's a 3 guy thing with no girls involved I can see it being a recipe for conflict.

Just my opinion.

This "three" relationship is a hoax.  Humanity tried it in the 1960s, as well as a variety of other times throughout history and it never worked.  Humans, by nature, are jealous.

I'll tell you about one couple I knew in an open relationship.  Chris and Fred decided to open their relationship, meaning they both could fuck whomever they wanted, as long as it wasn't brought home.  Fred didn't want this but grudgingly accepted it to make Chris happy.  On the flip side, Chris never in a million years wanted Fred to have sex with anyone else, that was a NO NO.  After about a year or two, Fred decided what the hell and he started being a man slag and that lead to the downfall of their relationship.