|
|
|
|
Im just going to start off with a question that has always been in the back of my mind. Which is better for gay men, an open relationship or a monogomous one?
Im sure there is a certain Scotsman who will give us the pros and cons after a couple of malts. I await with baited breath.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Roger,
Welcome to the board!
Well -- I can't say I really know, having been in neither a monogamous relationship nor an open one. In terms of ideals, though, I don't see why it should be any different for gay men from straight men. So: "Which is better for men, an open relationship or a monogomous one?"
I honestly don't think you can generalise either way. It depends entirely on the individuals involved. Some people (myself included) can think of nothing better than having a single person to love, and who loves them back exclusively. If the relationship is intended to be long-term, and especially if the couple hopes to have children one day, then stability is likely to have the most beneficial effect on the people around them. But if it suits the couple to have an open relationship, and it doesn't adversely affect other people, then that's fine too. The only requirement is that both partners are aware of the relationship's nature and are perfectly okay with it, and one person does not attempt to redefine it without the full consent of the other party.
In my personal opinion, the best 'default position' is monogamy, as that is what is socially expected, and is, in most cases, the least selfish option. However, it doesn't necessarily suit everyone, and in fact I've been recommended not to rule out the possibility of an open relationship in the future. I've still got a lot to learn about relationships.
David
[Updated on: Thu, 15 February 2007 15:52] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that there IS a general "better". Each of us is different, each relationship is different.
I find this really complicated. I have totally monogamous instincts - when I've been in a relationship it wouldn't occur to me to have sex with anyone else, and I generally wouldn't even feel that degree of attraction to anyone else. I prefer it if my partner feels the same way, but this isn't a deal-breaker: I don't honestly regard a one-night stand when we're apart as a major threat to a solid relationship. Especially if it was oral sex (something I'm not keen on). For me, what WOULD be intolerable would be for him not to discuss it with me, and so for us to take any additional safer-sex etc precautions that we might feel called for. That's where I personally feel the boundaries of trust to lie ... and I think that trust is at the foundation of most good relationships.
I know a very happy couple who have been together for many years, and own property together ... they are in many senses 'partners', but they no longer have sex with each other, each of them having casual sexual encounters elsewhere. I also, of course, know couples who are (they tell me) strictly monogamous.
One of the really good things about being gay (although it is of course also one of the really difficult things about being gay) is that there are far fewer preconceptions and role-models about how we should conduct ourselves, and what kind of relationships we should have. This means that it may be easier (than it is for straight people) for us to actually construct relationships that suit those involved in them. Although I do have very little time for gay men who knowingly make passes at guys who are in monogamous long-term relationships - I think it is important that we're all able to respect each others choices.
There is no "right" way of being gay - all that matters is not to unnecessarily hurt other people, and honesty and open discussions go a long way to meeting that end.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I don't think there is a particular realtionship style that is best for gay men.
I can tell you that I only ever wanted a monogamous relationship with one young man and that I believe that would have suited me for life.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Actually, it is much better to not get into relationships at all. All they do is hurt in the end.
And there is always an end.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Why would you want an open relationship, if you godown that road then you are open to all sorts of problems.
A monogamous relationship is one of commitment and trust for each other.
By the way welcome back!
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a bleak thing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
And it is bleakly the truth.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So it's better never to love than to love and lose? Our ancestors would have died out millions of years ago if that were really the case. It would result in a very serious selection pressure against committed partnerships.
I have met many elderly couples who still love each other a great deal and I would like to aspire to a relationship like that. Sure, it may end with death, but then so does life, and I hope you're not saying that it's better never to have lived than to live and die at the end of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Wait untill it happens to you....... then you will know what I mean.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A warm welcome to you, friend!
All my instincts tell me that a monogamous relationship is the better one, sharing both the good and the bad. I can't see much difference between a gay and a straight relationship here.
Unless the relationship is merely regarded as a base station between the excursions, and I know people who act as if their marriages or relationships are simply that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
… I’d be happy to accept a double Dufftown Glenlivet!
Seriously, though, this is something I’ve thought a lot about over the years.
I don’t think that, in essence, gay relationships are significantly different from str8 relationships. At one time, there was the material difference that casual str8 sex could lead to pregnancy, but casual gay sex carried no such risk. The arrival of the HIV virus changed all that; both kinds of relationships now demand protected sex. It follows that much of what I have to say is applicable in both gay and str8 contexts, though I am writing with gay relationships in mind.
So what IS a monogamous relationship? Historically, monogamy meant mating for life, but in today’s Western society that definition isn’t really satisfactory. Leaving aside (as I always prefer to do) any religious considerations, the fact is that few relationships of any kind survive for life. Should we regard a couple who have both had previous relationships but who are faithful within their current relationship as being other than monogamous? Obviously not, at least in my view. So, to me, monogamy simply implies being mutually faithful during the term of a relationship; it follows that it is possible to have a series of consecutive monogamous relationships, but impossible to have more than one monogamous relationship concurrently.
Having sorted that out, what do we mean by an open relationship? Well, I suppose the term covers any relationship which is not monogamous, but I’ll restrict myself to relationships which are regarded by both participants as continuing. This is the situation in which one or both partners have sexual contact outside of the partnership with the knowledge and consent of the other partner.
Which of these is better? Well, for my money, monogamy wins every time. Perhaps I should qualify this sweeping statement a little; monogamy doesn’t enter the equation until the partners want it to do so – say at the time corresponding to the obsolescent concept of engagement. Until then, the sowing of wild oats is the order of the day, and is much to be commended. If you develop a good hand action, wild oats can be sown at an amazing rate! Even after the notional engagement, partners shouldn’t forget their joint human frailty. It’s possible to succumb to temptation and to genuinely regret having done so, and each partner should be prepared to forgive in such circumstances – though succumbing to temptation on a regular basis would be a strong indication that the other partner would be wise to cut his losses and look elsewhere.
I can see why some people enjoy open relationships, but I just can’t see where love fits into that picture. I guess that I’ve fallen in love three times in my life – twice with a boy, once with a girl. In each such relationship I could not contemplate sex with anyone else, nor could I have accepted the idea of my partner having other sexual contacts, though I hope I could have been forgiving if the need had arisen. In my experience, sex with love reaches a whole new dimension of enjoyment. OK, I’ve never had an open relationship, but I find it very hard to believe that such a relationship is founded upon love rather than sex. Still, I suppose others may feel differently, though I suspect their definition of love would not be the same as mine.
So, in summary, I think that all of the above reduces to the basic principle that you should never deceive your partner. Most partnerships don’t endure for life, and break-up is always painful – but deceit is even more painful, and it is a pain to which no-one should be exposed.
This is, I think, the only moral consideration. If you want to change partners on the third Saturday of every month, good luck to you. I see no harm in it, as long as both partners are happy with the arrangement. But I don’t think they realise what they are missing!
Here endeth the lesson – how about another double malt?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
What a bleak thing to say.
David, sometimes people do feel bleak because of the buffetting they get from life, "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". When someone seems bleak maybe they have good reasons for feeling "down". With the help of friends and well-wishers hopefully the bleakness will pass. But we should always bear in mind that our own life experiences inform our reactions to given situations more than anything else. My own ethical tradition teaches me: "Do not judge a man until you have stood in his place."
Hugs for both you and Marc,
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As always great advice and perspectives, I can only add another spin on what’s already been said, the main thing to my mind I think is that as NW said we have no real model of what a gay relationship should or even the breadth of what it could be, at least in western society.
I have often thought disease in our age is the only thing that limits the possibilities. It to me is interesting in retrospect how thing have played out in our life times. In my youth the prospect and possibility of having a long term monogamous relationship was remote though they did under very special circumstances exist, the only one I personally know of started in the early sixties and is still intact, though as with NW friends it seems mostly for financial reasons, (They are under writers for Lloyd’s) I real can’t or shouldn’t say more than this, but lets just say money can and has been an insulating factor under less than favorable social conditions. So, LOL that option being out of the question for the majority of us, including me, I’ll try to briefly add my two penny’s.
Other than having acquired the HIV virus I think I would still be happily having sex with whom ever I found my self having affection for, and when I say that I do mean guys that I have bonded with in a very special way. LOL I know I could sound like a real slut here but in reality I sure haven’t had as many partners as I could have had simply because when I was younger there had been times when I would gladly jump into bed with a hot bod and pretty face, in the end, (pun intended) those encounters tended to be a pain in the ass more often than not. It didn’t take long for me to realize I really did want to, as the CSNY song says, “Love the one you are with.” Case in point, the partner from whom I acquired HIV was a very special guy to me and I him, thing is, I was a merchant seaman and could be away for many months at a time. I would have a month or more at a time when I wasn’t at sea and would make a bee line for his bed hehe, never expected either of us to be monogamous, LOL for two forty year olds I will tell you we never needed Viagra.. Hmmm still don’t, but I digress.
The result of all that I have experienced, finds me longing for an enduring love, yes with out a doubt. Could I have ever been monogamous? I really don’t think so, not when I think of what I would have missed. Could I be now? Even the HIV which would have been a good miss, and has really cocked things up when it comes to finding a love, which at this point in life would give me great comfort. Mmmm looking at circumstances it would be most likely the only option.
Not to belabor the HIV thing but in a way looking on the past of gay life where it seemed it was a point of pride for some to keep score cards of sexual “conquest” LOL if you can call it that, that went into the hundreds in many cases, we have by nature been made to slow down and rethink what is to be gay. It’s been a devastating lesson, but some how through it all maybe we can take away something good. After all, in recent news there has been some very exciting news for an HIV vaccine. Who, what, how are we going to be when or if this scourge has been defeated? LOL I have heard it said more than once “When this has past there will be a huge orgy.” Will there? Dang, hehehe I’ll be sixty by that time, someone pass the Viagra.
I don’t drink but I’ll join you in that double malt cossie!
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR,
I agree with you. But I don't think I was judging 'a man' -- I was judging an opinion. If it really is true that it's better never to have a relationship then (to exaggerate slightly in the interests of making a point) it takes most of the purpose out of my life, as a long-term relationship, and one day a family, is my ultimate ambition.
I don't know Marc off-board, and I have no way of placing his remark within context. I'm inclined to take the things that people say at face value; and the face value in that case seems very bleak and depressing to me. I assume that there is a reason for it, but I don't know it, and as Marc hasn't posted about it it's none of my business.
I myself have made generalisations along those lines in the past, but I've always regretted saying them afterwards, because I've found them to be untrue.
Anyway, my best wishes to you and Marc.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc said
> Actually, it is much better to not get into relationships at all. All they do is hurt in the end.
And there is always an end.
and Deeej said
> If it really is true that it's better never to have a relationship then (to exaggerate slightly in the interests of making a point) it takes most of the purpose out of my life ...
I'm with Deeej on this one. I do not - for one second - underestimate the pain of a relationship ending (for whatever reason). When the second great love of my life announced - completely out of the blue - that it was over between us, and that I had a fortnight to move out of the flat (which was in his name), and that he would prefer not to see me after that, I was devastated. I went to stay with friends and was (rightly) on suicide watch for six weeks or so ... and it took me a year to recover enough to be able to move forward with my life and start working again.
Nevertheless, the best few days in that relationship were among the best days in my entire life, and now - some thirty years later - I would not have missed out on it for anything.
For me, it is summed up by something my grandmother said to me just after her husband died: "I'm glad he went first. I wouldn't want him to have to have lived without me, getting more miserable and feeling alone." That quiet recognition of the pain of loss, and the willingness to take it on oneself rather than leave it on one's partner, spoke very powerfully to me about the depths of love.
Obviously, we're all different, and Marc's experiences are his own - I don't seek to deny them. But for me, and probably for others, it remains true that it "is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
>I myself have made generalisations along those lines in the past, but I've always regretted saying them afterwards, because I've found them to be untrue.<
All generalisations are untrue; even this generalisation may be untrue. (Source unknown unless of course someone out there knows better.)
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yeah..... I must be lying.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no need for the "even this generalisation may be untrue". It's more concise and cleverer just to say: "All generalisations are untrue."
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In which case, my dear David, you have misunderstood. It is not the same.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why not? The former implies the latter, and therefore succeeds in provoking thought without elaboration. In any case, the word "may" is essentially meaningless in terms of binary logic.
If I am wrong, please explain why. Don't patronise me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Unless they actually are true.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc said,
>Unless they actually are true.
"All generalisations are untrue" is itself a generalisation. It cannot be true, because if it were true it would provides an exception to its own rule. This would prove the rule false.
Marc, you are right that generalisations can be true. There are no logical problems with such a statement.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... with all due deference, obsequiousness and cringing humility (I do this sort of thing rather well, don't you think?) I suspect that your quotation is in fact a misquotation. Detailed academic research lasting in excess of ten minutes suggests that the original you had in mind is:
"All generalisations are dangerous, even this one."
Authorship is uncertain, but it's usually attributed to Alexandre Dumas fils, son of the author of 'The Three Musketeers', and a noted dramatist in his own right.
Ever at your service, Monsieur!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, I see you have got the point.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elementary, my dear Watson. Play it again, Sam. Come up and see me sometime.
Aren't all the best quotations misquotations?
Cossie, I adore you.
Hugs
Nigel
Whoops - I think I'm hijacking the thread.
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What point? There is no point that I had 'got' at the point I replied to Marc that I had not got at the point you accused me of misunderstanding you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack wrote:
> Why would you want an open relationship, if you godown that road then you are open to all sorts of problems.
There can be all sorts of good reasons why a couple may feel that an open relationship is appropriate. Some of the situations that I know about include:
one or both partners having self-image problems, and finding validation in checking that they are still desirable to others - particularly common in guys as they approach 40
the partners being unable to satisfy each other sexually - perhaps they are geographically separated, or one has a particular kink the other does not share, or one is physically incapable of certain sex acts
the partners have a belief that exclusive relationships are a legacy of a "heteronormative society"
the partners get a major turn-on from random or dangerous sex - cottaging, darkrooms and stuff
Sure, all of these could cause problems in a relationship ... but it is the nature of good relationships to have and surmount problems. I don't think that a monogamous relationship that runs entirely placidly on the surface is necessarily going to be the most rewarding and richest for everyone ...
My own instincts - as I've said - are monogamous. But now I'm disabled, and there are certain sex acts that I'm almost certainly physically incapable of {this has not yet been put to the test  }. If I meet a guy who is wonderful and fully compatible in every way except that he needs something I can no longer do for him, I would certainly discuss him taking casual partners if he felt it was that important. I'd prefer a monogamous relationship as an ideal, but I do live in the real world sometimes.
On a broader issue, I think that is is often shown in the media that once people meet a perfect partner (gay or straight), that partner meets all an individuals needs. I strongly believe that this is not the case - partners need differences as well as similarities, they need their own friends as well as friends-in-common, they need their own interests as well as interests-in-common, they need their own jobs or whatever, and so on. Otherwise (if partners do everything together) there is no external stimulation, and relationships die as things are reduced to a "lowest common denominator". For me, sex does not fall into the category of "things to do apart" - but intellectually I can see that for some other people it might!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
Unfortunately in many cases you are right. But "hope springs eternal". If giving up hope of finding that one monogomous relationship, what's left? Just one night stands; short relationships that also hurt when they are over. Physically satisfying but emotionally unfulfilling.
Tad Durham
Belfast, Maine U S A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking from my limited experiences, and from my desires of a life partner,
and not in any way in a judgemental attitude toward anyoned, I find an open relationship to be on very dangerous ground. Putting disease aside, if you are in a LOVE relationship with someone, tempted I might be, but being emotional human beings, liking someone and going into an attraction, can definitly lead to jealously and hurt for the other love, and devestating if it leads to falling in love with someone else. The price/cost of an open relationship is just too high to take a chance on losing the one you really love. That hurt is so deep and the wound lasts a long time. A monogomous relationship has its ups and downs yes but communication in love is the key to make the relationship stronger. Being alone and lonely is a terrible price to pay for a "fling". "A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush".
Tad Durham
Belfast, Maine U S A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If one looks at statistics it would at least on the surface seem that monogamy is at best a rare bird indeed. In my perfect world love is not possession, it is not selfish, despite the hurt it might cause me I would rather someone I love, love another in happiness and joy rather than be with me and unhappy.
Beside that I have never been able to get my head around this hetro concept of a gay relationship. I have said this so many times it getting boring even for me, but the dynamic of gay relationships has never had the opportunity to explore the diversity of what they could be. Even in this day of HIV and Hep C, how about multiples but monogamous within the group, I sure know I have the capacity to love more than one. Why can I not live in love with 3, 6 or 8 others? The end point is love above all else. We live in a dark age in so many ways. Tad I think you are a spiritual man, well, at least you seem that way, many of us feel that there is a Greater Spirit, God, Progenitor One, Big Guy in the Sky, Universal Mind(s). I for one can not limit this concept to an anthropologically antiquated idealism, and as to the agnostic and atheist double shame on you, you should be on the vanguard of change.
Hahahah I bet I’ll raise so hackles with this one, sorry if that’s the case. I do hope all of you can and will realize your ultimate love !
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arich,
Every one is entitled to their opinon. My post is not based on any religious or spiritual thought but on my experience and desire. I don't
"possess" anyone. But if I love someone, I don't want to share that someone with anybody else. If that's the kind of relationship they want that is their right and choice. But it would be a deal breaker for me as a relationship but not to a friendship.
Tad
Tad Durham
Belfast, Maine U S A
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
