I have read a lot of stuff on this site that I
think is first class stuff. The Love Bank is a
great thing. I thank Dr. Harley for the great
stuff on this site.<p>But one of the things that seems to be a basic
rule for him is that sex outside of marriage
is wrong. He says that we are all wired for
infidelity and under the right circumstances
we will do it.<p>I think that the way we are wired is to want
other lovers but that we want our partner not
to have other lovers. But which ever way we
are wired, is there no way that we can
indulge that wiring without it being wrong?
If the great danger about infidelity is the
lying and sneaking around, what if we don't
lie to our partners and don't sneak around,
don't betray? How about practising Radical
Honesty in this area also. Like "I want to
have sex with that person. It is only a
short term thing. I have no desire to
divorce, but I want to experience sex with
that person. I want to be with you 95% of
the time, but 5% of the time I want to be
with him/her." Does it have to be all or
nothing?<p>Peace, Dan

The problem I see with that line of reasoning is with the desire to have other lovers is that it is not told before the marriage. If there is nothing wrong with having other lovers then why would the person that wants to indulge in it wait until after s/he is married to express it? Why not be upfront with your SO and see if they share the same beleif? To do so after one is married and claim that radical honesty is beign practiced by expressing it is purely and simply a lie.<p>And even in the scenario where both agree to have sex outside the marriage, there will come a time when one or the other will tire of this arrangement and start resenting the other spouse who still wants to continue having sex with others. Or one will fall in love with a lover and then the sex becomes secondary in importance and is replaced by the emotional need of bonding on a more permanent basis with the lover.<p>Except for one night stands, extra marital sex is usually an after effect of an affair. The driving force is the emotional attachment to the 'lover' at the expense of the BS.

Dan, I happen to be one who believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong.<p>Aside from religious beliefs, I can think of several reasons why the "open marriage" you propose is a horrible idea.<p>When two people get married, they are making a committment to make a life together and to become the same as one person. Marriage is not about being '"sort of committed" to one person, but if I get the chance, I'll have myself a good ol' time with that hot babe.'<p>I think that every person on this earth wants to be the most important thing in his/her mate's life...to feel so loved that our spouses would never even look at someone else, let alone have sex with her. Going outside the marriage for sex or emotional fulfillment is telling your spouse that she is not enough for you...that you don't love her enough to be faithful to her...that what "love" you have for her is not as important as your desire for a five minute roll in the hay with someone else whom you don't care about.<p>My husband has told me that the STD Tramp meant nothing to him...that he loves me. Well, that doesn't cut it. She apparently meant enough that he forgot all about me for the length of time it took to boink her and catch her STD that he brought home to me. And his desire to keep from confessing his infidelity to me led to his emotional and verbal abuse of me for about 15 years. Actually, the emotional and verbal abuse started long before the STD Tramp, which is why I believe he actually started cheating early in our marriage. The verbal abuse has stopped, and I do believe my H loves me again; however, I still don't believe that my H loves me more than anything else in the world, as there are things I need from him that he absolutely refuses to do.<p>I do need my H to be honest with me about anyone and everyone he has been with since our marriage, but that does not mean I would want him to tell me, "Oh, I met this hot babe today, so I'm taking her out to dinner and if I get lucky, I won't be home until late." PUH-LEEEEZE!!!! What a horrible thing to do to a person who loves you enough to be married to you and whom you are supposed to be in love with!<p>Another problem with an open marriage: What if you decide you are in love with the other person? Yes, if you cheat on your spouse, even if it is just supposed to be a meaningless sexual encounter, you run the risk of forming an emotional attachment to someone else. So, what are you gonna do then? Are you going to go home and say, "Hey, honey, you know that hot babe I boinked a couple of weeks ago? Well, I've decided that the sex was so good, I've gotta have it on a regular basis...so I guess I'm in love with her. Sorry about this, but you'll get over it. Hey! Maybe, I'll come over sometimes and we can have sex for old times sake."? Do you think your wife would go for that?<p>I'm going to quit posting now. I'm getting REALLY PO'd! Anyway, IMO, this open marriage stuff is for the birds!

Dan? Are you related to Ted. He posted here a couple days ago with somewhat the same thoughts.<p>Here's his Link:<p>Please Click HERE and read [i]Ca...ile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Love,
Jo<p>[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Resilient ]</p>

Dan,<p>And you are here at Marriage Builders because.............?????<p> [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Picture this scenario:<p>Husband enters the room and says to his wife, "I want to have sex with Jane Doe. It is only a
short term thing. I have no desire to divorce, but I want to experience sex with her. I want to be with you 95% of the time, but 5% of the time I want to be with her." <p>Wife smiles and replies "Thank you for being honest with me honey. Of course you want her too and it's fine with me because I want to have sex with John Doe. It is only a short term thing. I have no desire to divorce, but I want to experience sex with him. I want to be with you 95% of the time, but 5% of the time I want to be with him." <p>The camera then pans in to the cemetery scene where we see a double headstone with this husband and wife's names and beneath the names it says "Here lie two radically honest, sexually fulfilled people who forgot to disconnect their jealousy wiring and killed each other in the heat of passion".<p>Dan - thank you for the best laugh I've had in a while lol
[img]images/icons/grin.gif" border="0[/img]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Nina too:
<strong>Dan,<p>And you are here at Marriage Builders because.............?????<p> [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] </strong><hr></blockquote><p>Well, I'm here because I'm trying to make my
marriage better. I don't have time to write
all that has happened between me and my wife
(and I can't reduce it to a signature line)
but I find the material on this site to be
very helpful in helping me rebuild the
emotional relationship I have with my wife.<p>For example, I had never done an inventory
of my emotional needs until we did it together
a couple of days ago. (my thanks to Dr. Harley
for the questionaire)<p>So what am I doing here? Well, I see a lot of
pain here, most of it about infidelity, and
I wonder if there isn't a different way to live.
Dr. Harley writes in "what are plan a and plan b"
about the "addiction of the lover" I think he
is right. It can be like an addiction. But
after reading a lot of posts on this forum,
it seems there there may also be people who are
addicted to some emotional pain.<p>If, as Dr. Harley writes, we are wired for
infidelity, instead of letting it ruin the rest
of the relationship, how about letting it run its
course and then focus on the love bonds that you
share with your mate?<p>Speaking from my experience, the fact that my wife
lied and tried to manipulate me hurt more than the
fact that she had sex with another man.<p>Peace, Dan

If, as Dr. Harley writes, we are wired for infidelity, instead of letting it ruin the rest of the relationship, how about letting it run its course and then focus on the love bonds that you share with your mate?
Because, as humans, it ain't gonna happen. We tend to let emotions rule our choices, especially when we see immediate gratification from the action. (affair is good right now, so why worry about marriage)<p> But after reading a lot of posts on this forum, it seems there there may also be people who are addicted to some emotional pain
What you see is a lot of people wanting to stay married but not knowing how to make it happen. Just showing up here, reading and doing this stuff can have a tremendous impact. But in order for it to actually have a life changing affect, you have to understand why it works (the love bank and all). After that happens, you can figure out much of it by yourself.<p>Speaking from my experience, the fact that my wife lied and tried to manipulate me hurt more than the fact that she had sex with another man.
I'll agree with you 100% on that fact.<p>How about practising Radical Honesty in this area also. Like "I want to have sex with that person. It is only a short term thing. I have no desire to divorce, but I want to experience sex with that person. I want to be with you 95% of the time, but 5% of the time I want to be with him/her." Does it have to be all or nothing?
Why not discuss this before you get married & put something like this in your marriage vows? Then no one can use the excuse, "you broke your marriage vaows."

You asked a complex question, wired for infidelity is a poor choice of label for the issue of sexual behaviour. Infidelity is just a word and means nothing out of the made up context rules/expectations of our social institution of marriage. It is essentially a legal term (in spirit). We (humans) are hardwired to procreate, and both (males and females) are hardwired to mate with multiple partners, the explanation is rather simple and mundane....it is a reproductive strategy evolved by our DNA, and it is hardwired because it is the most successful strategy, those without that wiring leave the gene pool rather quickly. It is the strategy of choice for every single species of life on our planet, there is no such thing as exclusive sexuality......some folks had suggested that a few animal species (usually some birds I think) mate for life....turns out that is not true either, they are just much sneakier about the "infidelity". With the advent of DNA tools, all supposedly monagamous species have been studied, and found indeed, not to be monogamous....humans are no different in this regard.<p>The issue with humans is our cognitive ability, nature (or God if we wish to make this a religious discussion) rolled the dice and endowed humans with the ability act in opposition to our genetic programming, to play "God" so to speak, and experiment with different behaviours, solely cause we "think" we have a better idea than mother nature (instinct). In the long run this was a good move, cause instinctual behaviour, and evolutionary pressure only gaurantees eventual extinction, but that is another topic. However, the notion that we will "think" ourselves to immortal success seems pretty dubious too considering the havoc we raise, and the incredible cost we pay by giving self-serving, selfish creatures (individual humans, who like all life, who instinctualy act to preserve
themselves) the power to destroy their enviroment, and themselves. But anyways....<p>As we evolved a social structure that empowered females to practice self-determination (as opposed to essentially being chattle to males, the normal status quo until last few thousand years), we also evolved social institutions, one being marriage. Marriage started as a legal framework to ensure the proper disposition of male assets, it made clear who owned what woman/women, and the status of offspring to that union, most ancient cultures were polygamous, for obvious reasons, and women were essentialy bought and sold (maritally) for political and economic reasons, with no say in their fate (just read the Bible).<p>Monogamy arose as another wrinkle in the procreative process, driven mostly (IMO) by the continued expansion of female options in our evolving civilizations....and one can argue from a genetic viewpoint a female (once obtaining some power) has the same interest a male does in ensuring the best deal for her offspring, and not having to share the resources with other wives offspring, who she gentically cares nothing about. There are pragmatic advantages to polgamy, but on the whole it seems females prefer monogamy, and so here we are. This stuff (our procreative paradigms) did not just pop out of nowhere, they have evolved, and there are reasons for everything humans do. The problem with monogamy is it is a two-edged sword, it offers some advantages, security, safe sex, teamwork (females generally willing much more than males to carry the brunt of the relationship) so is a reasonable deal for males, and not too hard a sell..... is a very good deal for women cause they have the safety of a male protector and provider. On the other hand, that pesky "hardwiring" is a pressure for infidelity, and if one factors in a dysfunctional relationship, and much less "economic" penalties for unfaithful wives and we are off to the races (males and females).<p>Layered over all this genetic stuff is a social experiment, that being "romantic" love (as opposed to caring or pragmatic love). The idea someone completes us, blossoms us, fits us in a special way, sees and understands us, and so forth, and is something worth pursuing..... and if not achieved, reason to be unhappy and contribute to marital dysfunction. <p>Personally I think there is something to all this, and I think the psychologists are in fact unraveling the basis in their studies of temperament types, and personality disorders. There has to be a payoff for anything to make sense, monogamy is a lot of work, and means giving up hardwired procreative strategies, but the payoff seems to be there, and is measured in better health, and longer lives for those in deeply bonded relationships. Some (MB for example) claim one can achieve this state simply by wanting it, and behaveing in certain ways, others (Kiersey for example) say you can only fit to a certain extent, and the degree of fit determines the degree of bonding. I suspect both are right, but are looking at the subject from different viewpoints. Behaviour makes no difference if you don't start with the right materials (can't make a silk purse from a sows ear). And fitting like hand and glove doesn't gaurantee success either if one does not understand how the inherent selfish behabviour we all have, as well as our own "baggage", affects the ability to feel safe and be nurtured (two essential components of successful romantic love). Each individual and "couple" must decide for themself how to apply all these realities, and the standards by which they judge "success"....and they standards must be the same, or the couple will experience disharmony, and it's consequences.<p>Thing is, no one has to be married, or even stay married, and no one will, unless at some level it works better for them than being single or divorced. So understanding the why's of marital behaviour (and how a prospective partner views it) is essential. The question asked by the poster boils down to this.... they do not want to practice monogamy, they want to practice essentially polygamy in a mongamous relationship. If this would work, we would be doing it, that we are not, and have this whole notion of infidelity and unfaithfulness, suggests his strategy has serious flaws. What might they be? I think fairly obious things. First being the usual procreative issues, std's and pregnancy....no spouse is going to condone or accept the risk of (and diversion of family resources) their spouse having a child by another. One might argue safe sex, birth control, but our brains aren't wired for those considerations, they are wired for std risk, and pregnancy, and our psychological responses are going to be driven by that reality. Our spouse having sex with someone else is percieved as a huge risk to our well-being (and in fact it is)...and will trigger all our defense mechanisms, and manifests itself in the well-known bs angst seen here daily. It is interesting that almost universally the bs would prefer their spouses die (and leave them) then be unfaithfyul (and leave them), does anyone wonder about that? Seems irrational, but in fact it is very rational (and not emotional at all). The reasons are obvious.<p>That is why open marriage does not work, it is a psuchologically unstable circumstance...bad enough if one is doing it (those who are married to serial affair people), and completely nuts if both are practicing it. I personally know of no, and would be surprised if there exists any, open marriage that is actually psychologically healthy. So that is my 2 cents explaing the question of why if we are hardwired for infidelity, then why do we practice monogamy. There is a lot more to say about the nature of monogamy and it's benefits over other strategies (such as promiscuity "the singles lifestyle", celibacy, and various flavors of group marriage).....but that wasn't the point of the question asked.

WOW, SnL! (aka R&J)<p>Somehow I knew you'd respond to these two threads (the one by Dan and the one by Ted) since they support and advocate breaking your vows.<p>I sure wish you would have disappointed me, SnL. [img]images/icons/frown.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Jo<p>[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Resilient ]</p>

Snowycedar,<p>Many say that we are wired for non-monogamy. We are also wired (chemically and emotionally) to bond to a mate. Human mates use sex to maintain a bond as well as to procreate. Once other sexual partners enter into the mix, this bonding gets confused.Just as there is a constant struggle between good and bad, there is a constant struggle in humans between monogamy and non-monogamy. These are strong forces that pull and push us. But in the end, we make the choice.<p>Affairs are usually shrouded in deceit. As you have said the deceit alone leads to a lot of pain. Though I challenge the idea that it is the only part of extra maritical sex/affairs that leads to pain. Superficially I’d say that there is nothing wrong with non- monogamy if you and your wife freely agreed to it. But complications enter quickly. Lets look at the practical (or shall we say impractical) side of open marriages.<p>One is that each of you would be exposing each other to STD’s. Is it all right with you and your wife if either of you contracted STD’s in your sleeping around? Would one of you divorce the other if he/she contracted AIDS, herpes, etc? With multiple sex partners this is likely whether or not the sex is protected.<p>If your wife became pregnant from another partner, or if you impregnated one of your partners, how are the two of you going to handle this? Again, is divorce the answer? Are you willing to raise another man’s child? Are you and your wife willing to pay child support for your offspring?<p>Does time with an extra-marital sex partner take second to time with a spouse? Or is recreational sex the priority? If your wife leaves you at home for the evening so that she can date and sleep around, is this OK with you? Or visa versa with her?<p>Who gets to decide who has sex with whom? If your wife does not like one of your sex partners, does she have a say in it?<p>What about the money that is spent on dating? Will you and your wife decide how much money is allowable for this activity? Are over night trips and vacations OK with these partners? Is it ok to buy presents and pay bills for the OP? <p>Part of the problem with EMA’s is that eventually a person may meet someone and fall for that person. Are you willing to expose yourself and your wife to this possibility?<p>EMA’s introduce a lot of confusion into the marriage. The logistics become very hard to deal with. The deceit, while hurtful, is far from the only problem and hurt caused by an EMA.<p>It is often very hard for a couple, in our busy society, to find enough time to spend together to maintain romantic love and a strong emotional attachment. The marital relationship suffers.<p>Again, we are wired for infidelity and bonding. We choose a marital structure that gives us and our offspring stability. Marriage and a strong family structure ensure survival of our society and our species. Are there any thriving societies that accept open marriages? None that I can think of. This is no accident.

none of this is my idea jo, just passing on what the anthropologists and psychologists already know....all one has to do is read the relevant literature. Makes no difference whether I like it or not, the fact is vows are meaningless in any real sense, you have to understand and apply human psychology if you expect to have a functional relationship beyond the benefits of just being single. The trouble with most folks is they want what they want, and have no idea why they want it, or whether it is realistic. But anyways my post was supportive of monogamy, which I suppose makes me supportive of vows as well, it seemed otherwise? My only issue with vows is they have to be based on a functional relationship, which has to reflect the psychology of the individuals involved, and can be measured in real terms.....those who argue that vows are a life sentence, and makes no difference whether the relationship makes sense are applying coercion and making marriage a sacrificial/possesive exercise, I know of no psychologist who is supportive of that notion. In other words no one can base a marriage on vows alone, and very few people would argue against that....most people feel divorce is acceptable, they just differ on when it is acceptable......and of course no one can walk in anothers shoes, and tell them they are excused or not from the marriage.<p>btw the whole point of the name change is to avoid the reason I was blocked in the first place, conflict with my wife who would not let me be....since we are 1/2 way through divorce proceedings, and seperated, hopefully she will let me be, or not notice.....otherwise I will be blocked again probably...both of us can post from other ip's, so I don't think the blocking was anything more that an effort to reduce an extremely tense interaction between 2 board members, a decision I am sure was not fun for steve to make, as basically he is not into censoring ideas long as it doesn't cause serious disruption. I emailed about it, with no response, so I assume long as I stay away from volatile personal situations (mine or others), and just deal with my own stuff (and I don't say anything others don't say as well, so I assume it is not my content that is the issue) I will be left alone to find my own path. <p>I guess we will see. Anyways, I have no illusions re annonymity, my posting style is pretty much unique and recognizable, I would just ask that people let me be, and not harass me about this. (at least those who dislike me or my views, a surprising number of people value my presence, such is life). Nor do I have a lot of time, so don't expect to have much to say anyways, and that mostly on threads of this nature. I am still working out some things, I have come a long way, understand a lot of things (and myself, and what happened to me) but still value the interaction from others who been there done that, it is not much use talking about this stuff with the average person, so to speak. If anyone cares to email me can do so at mb_discussion@yahoo.com<p>btw I do lurk, and have kept up, guess needed the time off too, I am not so caught up in the obsessive quest for answers anymore, and I do want to see what happens to some of those whose stories I have followed, so I read those posts (like yours) and sometimes feel a need to make mention...but feel no need to respond to folks I don't know personal circumstances....<p>[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: R&J ]</p>

Sorry, sad_n_lonely, AKA R&J. Steve Harley is the boss - and what he says, goes. He hasn't notified me of any change in the rule, so I must enforce it as it was told to me.

A lot has happened.<p>We had big communication problems. We almost
divorced in September. But we got a book
by John Gottman that had a lot of good stuff in it
about communication. We worked at it.<p>We were under financial pressure. We sold our
house in Seattle for an obscene sum and bought
a house in the burbs for the profit from the
old, fine house. I hoped that we could work it
out.<p>I found out that while at a conference, she
had been fooling around. I confronted her.
She swore that there was no sex, that she
would get counseling to deal with the fact that
she felt no loyalty to me.<p>A day later, she said that she couldn't be
monogamous. It was a relief to consider an
open marriage. I have been attracted to other
people too, but I always recognized it and
kept my attraction for them at bay. I felt
that a huge burden of hypocrisy had been lifted
from me.<p>We started reading books like "Open Marriage"
and "The Ethical Slut". It seemed like it
would work. There was this guy she had a
crush on, Stan, and she wanted to hook up
with him. I said okay.<p>But after they had lunch where she told him
that we had an open marriage, I realized that
I was not okay with it. I was wrecked; fear
of abandonment and all of that. She agreed to
tell Stan that we were going to move more
slowly.<p>We talked about a lot of things. Basically,
she has a low sex drive and she said that it
wouldn't improve if she was having sex with
other men.<p>We negotiated rules for our open marriage. Other
people have talked about the fear of STDs. Well,
there are sex workers who don't get STDs. They
practice safe sex. That was one of our rules.<p>After three weeks, I asked her if there was
more to the relationship with Stan than she
had told me. She said that they had an affair.<p>I felt betrayed again. My trust for her was at
low ebb. We talked some more. Since both of
us are unemployed, this is just about all we
talked about.<p>At some point, it became clear to me that if I
was going to stay married to her, it would be
because I wanted to, not because I was afraid to
leave or I was worried about our children, ages
3 and 6.<p>I resolved to work it out based on my desire for
her. That has been a constant. When we almost
blew up in September, I stopped touching her
because I was not attracted to her.<p>Yesterday, she told me that she had never been
attracted to me sexually, that there were other
forms of attraction, but not sexual. Hmmm, she
used to comment on my broad shoulders, narrow
hips and muscular thighs. I'm 47, am in good
shape for a man of 37. I'm 6'3", 200 lbs.
I'm attractive enough that people notice me.
I'm friendly, with a good sense of humor.<p>I realized that I could not trust her sense of
self perception. Since the big deal for her is
the sense that she HAD to have sex with me, I
decided to make it easy for her. Last night I
told her that as far as I was concerned, she
could see whoever she wanted to see, whenever
she wanted to see them. But I told her that she
would not have to worry about HAVING to have sex
with me because she wasn't going to GET to have
sex with me.<p>We had previously talked about how this was all
going to play out. One of the things we talked
about was co-parenting. Basically, I want to
see my kids every morning and put them to bed
every night. I don't want some stranger doing
that. If you could see my Jonny, you would
understand why. He is sweet, with a heart as
big as the world. Maggie has a smart, sharp
mind and is trying to get a good grip on the
world so she can understand it. She is reading
at the 4th grade level as she finishes
kindergarten.<p>So I'm sleeping on a foam mattress in the living
room, and I'm okay with that. I'm not in a
hurry to hook up with anyone else. My first
priority is to be a good father. I don't know
what will happen between my wife and myself, but
I do know that I will not settle for what was
the status quo.<p>When I told her last night, at first she thought
I was angry. I guess I do have some anger for
having been jerked around, but mostly I just
wanted to be decoupled from her emotionally.
Being involved with her gets me hurt. I need
some protection from her.<p>I think that non-monogamy can work. There are
people who practice it. I have seen too many
relationships and marriages where the people
lost desire for each other and the marriage
crashed. If they could have agreed to see other
people and come up with some rules for how to
do it where everything is open and above board,
I don't think it is a bad thing. The thing that
hurt most was not the fact that she had sex with
some other guy, but that she was lying to me and
tried to manipulate me.<p>Peace, Dan