What do you think about open relationships? Is it bound to fail?

>being a cuck means you're mature

Open relationships aren't real relationships.

I think theyre disgusting. An open relationship is just a FWB where you maybe live with each other.

I would agree that healthy open relationships are a rare thing. I personally know one couple that seems to make it work pretty well and maintain a strong relationship with each other. But if I had to guess, from the outside looking in - one of those partners seems to be pretty much asexual, and their relationship is like a best friends/life partners thing more than a traditional romantic/sexual connection.

I know that I could never be happy in an open relationship, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if other people are "unable to stay sexually fulfilled by one partner." It seems like some people are just like that, and I don't agree that it ALWAYS suggests a weakness of character. If they can find a way to make a loving relationship work without denying themselves sexual fulfillment, more power to them

Open relationships can be the most successful and stable of them all. The important thing is that you both agree from the start what your relationship is. If you are just FWB's to begin with and never an exclusive couple, it can work just fine. It can work even better than a conventional relationship since there's no things like jealousy, drama, petty lies.

t. Am in open relationships and it's so much easier than the conventional relationships I had before

i don't even consider them valid relationships

You don't bash people in the face because you were raised not to and currently live in society where bashing someone in the face is not a necessary skill. I'm also not talking about physically bashing people, but merely the impulses we have that we curb with better judgement. Additionally, if this were 200 years ago, when face bashing was a normalized and necessary skill for survival you would most likely not have the same position. My entire post was about perceiving human behavior through the lens of both nature and nurture; understanding where our biology ends and the manner in which we wield that biology begins. The point, apparently, completely sailed over your head.

This has nothing to do with "blaming" modern society and understanding how social constructs both embrace and reject our natural biology. You seem to have this idea that we are the way we are solely because of biology yet fail to acknowledge that if the world were to dip into darkness today; the electricity goes out, food becomes scarce and the government collapses, the evolutionary mechanism that you believe somehow makes you too good for base violence would most likely not be a factor. All you need to do is look up any footage of a riot to understand the delicate line we often ride between elevated beings and animals. You are, in fact, an animal. Never forget that. I'm no evolutionary biologist but you seem to have a very weak understanding of basic human psychology.

If you can't be fulfilled by one person, why even be in a relationship? I see open relationships like the ultimate "having your cake and eating it too" situation.
Because it gives you pretty much a free pass to look for other partners who would be a better fit, all while still having a security blanket to fall back on.
It seems like a lot of open relationships end because one of the partners just finds someone else.
Instead, alternatively, of finding someone, building roots and learning about them so deeply that you can satisfy both their emotional and physical needs.
A lot of relationships fail for this reason too.
The minute actual work becomes involved in maintaining a relationship, people just give up and scrap the entire thing.
New relationships are too easy, there's passion and lust, it feels like the best thing ever, but those feelings are temporary and fleeting. The emptiness will catch up to you in the long run too.

I had a few friends that were dead set on being in open relationships forever. Most of them are now married (monogamously funny enough) with kids or out of it.
I remember sitting with one friend on new years eve, alone.
Her boyfriend was fucking some girl in their bed
Her girlfriend was fucking some guy in her bed.
She was the only one supporting the 3 of them.
And she was sitting on the couch, alone, with no where to go and no one gave a fuck about her. She had to sleep on the couch that night.
She got rid of both of them right after and she doesn't touch open relationships anymore.

Well of course it's "easier," but that doesn't mean it's better. Everything is easier when you have no real feelings for someone. I think you're basically just talking about casual sex here, which is a completely different thing than a deep, loving relationship that isn't monogamous. If there are deep feelings involved, there will also be occasional jealousy and "drama" whether it's an open relationship or not

Nobody said anything about deep, loving relationships. Just open relationships, where both enjoy each other's company, but aren't exclusive to each other. Believe it or not, it works for some people just perfectly. I'm the type who has always been a bit wary about commitment, so it's just the right thing for me.

>If you can't be fulfilled by one person, why even be in a relationship?
You're operating under the assumption that fulfillment means the same thing to everyone. You're also operating the assumption that the relationship you have with intimacy is the same that everyone has. Its difficult to understand the mind frame of someone else when you refuse to try to put yourself in their shoes.

maybe I'm nitpicking, but calling it an "open relationship" does imply that it's a deep, loving relationship with some form of commitment. You're talking about casual sex, a "friends with benefits" arrangement, which is a different thing from the topic of this thread

No one is saying one is better than the other, user, simply that one way works better for some than it does for others. Is it so difficult for you to believe that someone in an open relationship could be healthy and happy? What threat does that reality pose to you?

With what we know about agriculture, building, engineering and medicine, there's no excuse to go back to being cavemen.
Like people still live off grid to this day and aren't running a muck. Look at people that are isolated, like in remote villages in Russia or China.
They're not running around throwing shit at each other, they just farm and build their own infastructure.
We've been evolving and developing for thousands of years. If you need to be violent in the event of google going down, you're probably pretty fucking useless anyways.
I think the problem is we've stopped allowing nature to do it's job and weed people out.

>You're talking about casual sex, a "friends with benefits" arrangement, which is a different thing from the topic of this thread
That isn't accurate. There are many kinds of open relationships with all sorts of guidelines. Someone with a primary partner has a different relationship with them than the people outside of the relationship. People outside of the relationship are, for all intents and purposes, guests. I think maybe you should ask more questions instead of jumping to conclusions. Being in an open relationship is much, much different than having casual sex with multiple people.

Seems like we disagree on what is an "open relationship". There is a level of commitment and loving, just not in the normal way. What probably is a key point I didn't mention is that these are all sort of long distance. So I could message one of them that I'm coming to her city this weekend, is she free? And then we'll spend time together and enjoy each other's company. It's not like we will fuck other people in front of each other.

>Open relationships can be the most successful and stable of them all
>It can work even better than a conventional relationship
I'm not threatened by it at all, I've been one of the people in this thread defending that open relationships do work for some people. Do what you want with your own sex life, if you're happy and you're not hurting anyone then I say good for you.

I was responding to a post that literally does say they're better than conventional relationships. And that post doesn't even seem to be talking about "open relationships," but rather casual sex with no commitments or attachments at all, which is a totally different thing

it's not a moral disagreement, just literally a correction to a misleading post by someone who appears to be misunderstanding the topic of the thread

>there's no excuse to go back to being cavemen.
Yet again, you fail to understand literally everything I said. Your poor reading comprehension and profound lack of knowledge about biology and human psychology has rendered this conversation pretty counterproductive.
>I think the problem is we've stopped allowing nature to do it's job and weed people out.
So edgy, user.

Immoral and ultimately pointless.

>I was responding to a post that literally does say they're better than conventional relationships.
I think you're failing to understand the meaning of the word "can". It CAN work better than conventional relationships. It CAN be the most successful and stable. That is all, just like the user said, completely dependent on personal preferences.

>Being in an open relationship is much, much different than having casual sex with multiple people.
Yes, that was exactly my point. re-read the post I'm responding to. You're talking about a deep, committed relationship with "guests." The other user was talking about a non-exclusive fuck buddy with no commitment whatsoever. why are people so quick to take offense about these things?

No, I understand what you're saying, but you seem to think we were still learning how to walk upright 200 years ago.
Which isn't even close to the case.
We've been homo sapiens for thousands of years, this isn't new.
We learned about agriculture and created laws to further human progression as of the like 20th century B.C.
At this point it has nothing to do with our primal biology, we haven't been at the bottom of the food chain for a long time.
And by that logic, how do you explain animals that aren't aggressive predators or that practice monogamy in the wild? What societal norms are they being conditioned by?
Murders been frowned upon since before Christ man, this also has nothing to do with modern laws.
We haven't had the need to bash people in the face for food since the days of being hunter/gatherers.
Not being able to use the internet (which hasn't even been around for 100 years) isn't going to cancel out thousands of years of progress.
None of these concepts are even relatively new, including family upbringing and monogamy.
You're trying to blame a tradition that's thousands of years old of social conditioning.

Its not offense, merely clarification. Gauging exactly how much deep "love and commitment" exists in any relationship, open or not, is a difficult feat. Plenty of people in monogamous relationships exist in ambiguous states, not sure what to call each other or what their relationship guidelines clearly are. It seems as though you're holding open relationships to a strict standard that you would not hold a normal, monogamous relationship. I'm more than open to discussing this topic but if you're going to start tossing that grade school "WOAH BRO Y U SO MAD?" bullshit at me in an attempt to dismiss my points then I'll just tap out right now.

i think open relationships are fine if that's what both parties want. and both parties also need to be clear as to why they want open relationships, just like they should be clear as to why they want monogamy.

*typically* they don't work because one party is pushing for it while the other is going along to make that person happy.

You're still not understanding a single word I'm saying. You and I are discussing almost two completely different topics and you don't seem to have the reading comprehension to pick up on that. Your cognitive dissonance and false assumptions are also pretty fantastic.

>And by that logic, how do you explain animals that aren't aggressive predators or that practice monogamy in the wild? What societal norms are they being conditioned by?
Its sad that I have to explain to you that the biological evolution of swans and the biological evolution of humans are wildly different.

>Murders been frowned upon since before Christ man
You should probably read a history book or two, user. Historically, this statement is inaccurate. Our societal concept of justifiable murder has drastically changed since the days before Christ, user.

>We haven't had the need to bash people in the face for food since the days of being hunter/gatherers.
Also historically inaccurate. Also irrelevant to my point.

>None of these concepts are even relatively new, including family upbringing and monogamy.
Child rearing and the concept of monogamy has drastically changed over the years. It doesn't take an extensive amount of research to see that.

>You're trying to blame a tradition that's thousands of years old of social conditioning.
Not only are you historically incorrect, again, its almost like you didn't read my post in the slightest. I'm done talking with you, user. You're shockingly uninformed on the topic you're discussing.

You're literally making no sense,
I'm answering your points directly and you're insisting I'm not reading what you're writing? Do you understand your own points or have you not had enough classes in your intro to human behaviors class?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure lots of ancient religions and society have condemned murder, the first mention of which was in ancient Sumerian texts from the 20th century B.C
I don't mean murder without cause, I mean like the golden rules of what not to do? Murder, adultery, stealing, etc...
The death penalty still exists all over the world.

People have been capable of being civilized for thousands of years, we've been bartering and trading resources for a long time.
Sure there's been blood shed in the past, but not because we aren't capable of providing for our own.
Most barbarian acts were in the name of war or conquest.

And people have been getting married and providing for their families since the time before Christ.
I don't know where you found information otherwise.
The concepts of furthering bloodlines and having large families to ensure survival has been around since literal ancient times.

Like you do realize 200 years ago was 1818, right? Like this was like 70 years before cars were a thing, if we were still slaves to primal biology at that point, I don't think we would have gotten that far.

You sound like someone who genuinely believes that you can change a child's gender if you just force them to believe it themselves.

Like our needs and abilities have changed drastically over the last 4 thousand years.
A lot of the things that we still do to this day are based off old traditions of our ancestors, not the animals we evolved from.
That's incredibly silly.

Open relationships only work when multiple bicurious women submit to one man.

Everything else is gilded cuckoldry