how do people cope in open relationships? how do you deal with having your girl fucked by other people and still being in a relationship with her
>>17250644
Open relationships only work if you're okay with it. If not, tell your girlfriend how you feel about it. Better to be honest, than live in agony.
You don't cope. If you're in a open relationship then you're just a beta that's completely fine with having his girl get dick on the side. Betas don't mind having their girls come home with STDs either
>>17250713
>Open relationships don't work.
Fixed that one for ya.
>>17250747
This post is so sad. He actually for real and serious believes in all that stupid beta/alpha retard shit.
>>17250766
Beta=let their women get fornicated. Alphas=don't. Just like how wolfs do. Yes we're not wolves but we can learn from them.
Have some dignity and stop having the mentality of a beta
>>17250644
There is no "how". If you aren't wired for it -and most people aren't- you can't do it.
>>17250781
Wolves don't behave like that in the wild. They only do that when we put them in captivity with a bunch of other random wolves they don't know.
Stop fucking comparing humans to animals. There's a reason we're the top of the motherfucking food chain, we're better than them, and definitely don't need to learn shit from wolves.
>>17250644
the fuck is this "open relationship" bullshit?
nigga if she's fuckin other dudes and you have permission to fuck other women you're not in a relationship, that's fuck buddy status
My friend was in an open relationship. She and her boyfriend only did it because they were LDR and because they both wanted each other to enjoy a "college experience". They didn't actively seek out to have sex with other people, it's just that if it ever happened (from being drunk or something idk) they would've been OK with it
>>17250855
>They only do that when we put them in captivity with a bunch of other random wolves they don't know.
Nigga I'm gonna need proof on that because your rebuttle sounds retarded.
Also I wasn't comparing us to wolves. That's why I said "I know we're not wolves"
And yes we could learn something from animals. Stop being arrogant you idiot. Also enjoy getting AIDS from your dirty GF
>>17250879
That sounds very interesting
I've a few friends who are in open relationships. They do it because they are SJW for lyfe bro. They've never actually done anything outside of the relationship because they don't want to, but they insist that it'd be ok because muh patriarchy and muh convictions.
When we've talked about it then it makes sense I guess. Having the option there means an adult discussion can be had about it and the discussion is basically if I wanted to cheat and you were ok with it then it wouldn't be cheating, so I'd ask you if it was ok and because I love you I'd accept your decision, but because you love me you'd be fair because you'd accept a compromise to avoid seeing me have to deny myself something I really wanted to do which would otherwise threaten the relationship.
Sounds pretty reasonable and preferable to a dishonest relationship, especially when both partners have to be ok with it and like I said they've not actually done it, but they insist they are into it because SJW bro.
Then I've some friends who are in open relationships and they are fucking filthy as fucking hell man. Like their entire lives revolve around sex and finding 'friends' for sex and indulging themselves in situations where sex is permissible. To me they seem shallow and insecure and they have an unhealthy attitude towards sex and attachment due to other issues and I'd say that they don't even have open relationships, they've just got fucked up attitudes towards life. Also mental health issues, also self harm, also LARPing and lawl so randum geek shit. Like I don't sit on their furniture.
They cope by fucking the other people in their relationship man. It's a two way street.
>>17250644
>open relationships
That's not really a relationship, that's just a good friends with benefits. No man or woman in their right mind would be fine with their lover fucking other people and not feel a certain type of way.
>>17250644
Dear People Into Open Relationships: That's not for me, but more power to ya.
Dear People Not Into Open Relationships: I feel the same way; can't really understand it, but no one's asking me to be part of one, so hey, can't complain.
Dear People Angry With Those Into Open Relationships: Stop trying to dictate who others can fuck. It only makes you look afraid and small-minded.
>>17250644
By finding a closed one.
>He fell for the current year memery
>>17250644
It can be done, but it's not easy. There are so many potential dangers that the odds are against you. Most common is that one gets jealous of the other's side adventures. Or one gets jealous because the other has more side adventures. Or one is not really into it from the start, and just going along to hang on to some bit of the other. Or one gets emotionally involved with a side adventure.
I'm an oldfag and I actually have known several couples, married and not, who were in open relationships. I say "were" because almost all of them eventually split up for one of those reasons.
>>17251045
>Dear People Angry With Those Into Open Relationships: Stop trying to dictate who others can fuck. It only makes you look afraid and small-minded.
The reason that people get worked up about this is that an awful lot of people who're in open relationships are extremely self-righteous about it and their justifications for it can be borderline offensive. If I had a nickel for every time a "poly" person had told me something like "Monogamy is just so possessive" (an obvious fallacy and very aggressive to boot) -- well, I'd have a pretty decent-sized pile of nickels.
It's also that this is an advice board and, while I'm sure it works for some people, I personally have seen an awful lot of open relationships flame out spectacularly. It's not an arrangement that seems to attract a very emotionally mature crowd. Talking averages here, obviously.
>>17251322
The possessive argument is stupid, I grant you. But consider the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Consider the fact that among the remaining 50% plenty will cheat at some point, would not be surprised if more than 50% (remember, some marriages last decades, so there's plenty of time.) Also, I dare say most bf/gf relationships, exclusive or not, do not end in marriage, typically if they last more than 5-8 years without marriage or children, they're closing in on rarity. The number of marriages that are in fact life time monogamy is staggeringly low, if you take into account the number of relationships were one partner cheats and the other partner never finds out. If one or both parties cheats, even if it's just once, it's per definition not monogamy.
You're left with people who are either exceptionally devoted and in love with each other from beginning until death (extremely rare), or low sexual libido married couples, very boring and/or religious married couples or miserable married couples.
Personally, I'd only go for the exceptionally devoted kind, and chances of me dating that type of woman atm is outweighed by the comfort of any arrangement where it does not constitute cheating if either one of us happen to meet someone we'd like to test waters with (or indulge with, for that matter,) - could be next week or 18 years down the road - without it necessarily qualifying as a deal breaker for the relationship.
But you got to be a special kind of forgiving and strong-minded. It's always a gamble, but poly people tend to be quite spiritual about sexual/romantic relations.
My gf's sister is in one and it's weird as hell. I'm like "dude do you not care that your wife is getting dicked by other dudes because I know you aren't pulling mad pussy"
>>17251387
That's a pretty pessimistic view of monogamy and I don't think that it holds up in practice! When you leave out couples who rush into marriage (something I expect most of the people here would advise against), the divorce rate is a lot less scary, significantly under 50%, and has actually been improving for some time now (several decades). Cheating is also less common than you've been led to believe -- that 50% figure gets thrown around a lot but I don't think there's much hard data behind it at all. The most recent figures I read that seemed credible put the percentage at something like a 20-25% chance of infidelity at some point (that's spread across all relationships ever, not just marriages that survive.) I'm not trying to claim that marriage is easy, but the picture you've painted is frankly unfairly bleak.
I also don't think that drawing a contrast between poly/open relationships and lifetime monogamy is fair or reasonable, both because 1) to talk about that we'd really need data on the survival rate for open marriages (I suspect it's not much better than for conventional marriages) and 2) there's other forms of monogamy out there, i.e. serial monogamy, that are a lot more stable than either of them. Open relationships aren't the only other option.
Sorry if this post rambles a little, I can't seem to get my thoughts in order today.
you don't need to cope if you picked it because it suits you
>>17250766
You forget it's summertime.
Dubs right again.
>>17251435
Fair enough, there's no hard data.
Point is, if people in relationships were adjacent to the opinions of /adv/ersary's complete anxiety for betacuck.html, people wouldn't risk getting into relationships at all, because there's going to be a complete meltdown at the slightest sign that any partner has a flirtatious nature - which is stupid and sad. I WANT my girlfriends to be flirtatious, because it's healthy to be in touch with one's own nature, and I wouldn't want to date anyone who isn't sexually tuned. It's not about being so-called beta, it's about accepting that we are sexual creatures, and that sex is as natural as eating and shouldn't be put on such a high pedestal. To out that much emphasis in the difference between my girlfriends spending time with other people and developing friendships, and them hugging/kissing/sleeping with other people, seems more paranoid than I wish to be characterised as. That's not to say that jealousy can't become an issue, but it's more emphatic to consider the circumstances, than to end the relationship just out of principle.
And, how is it more mature to go on a string of serial monogamy? You're just postponing the inevitable incompatibility, instead of asking yourself, if we can't have an exclusive, loving relationship, what other kind of loving relationship can we have? The constant bickering between people who ask advice on how to get her back, and the anons who immediately rant about how dirty and whorish she is, just because she took care of very basic needs in the time they were broken up, should point to some unspoken truth about how it doesn't have to be one way or the other, and that if you continue to sleep with someone you were monogamous with for a certain time, the bond between those involved can still mean more than some fuck buddy arrangement.
>>17250747
this guys in open relationships are huge beta faggots because they need to let their girlfriend fuck other guys so he can keep her. also I am sure the girl will get most of the sex as well.
>>17251515
Saging this because this thread kinda died a long time ago, but feel free to reply if you see this.
In brief: drawing a line between "spending time with other people" and "hugging/kissing/sleeping with other people" isn't paranoid, it's natural. It's fine if you're not a naturally jealous type, but most people -- the vast, vast majority -- do in fact experience sexual jealousy. It's not cultural and certainly not religious, it's biological, as old as our species (actually a lot older). Slapping a negative label on something so deeply fixed into our instincts strikes me as an exceptionally unhealthy thing to do, and regardless, sexual jealousy and the desire for fidelity is not going anywhere regardless of how we characterize it.
I don't want to write too, too much about serial monogamy; honestly I'm not trying to make value judgments here, I'm not saying that open relationships are less "mature" than serial monogamy or that serial monogamy is less mature than marriage or whathaveyou. There's a substantial body of evidence suggesting that people's natural tendency, on average, is to practice serial monogamy, with a substantial minority practicing lifelong monogamy or polygyny (almost never polyandry or group marriage); that's how our species developed. I don't think it's necessarily a less respectable option -- there's nothing wrong with forming a strong bond with a particular person and then moving on without rancor when you both naturally drift apart -- but for some reason it's never discussed as an alternative. Poly people often point to the divorce rate (although as I mentioned their figures are often exaggerated) as evidence for marriage being a failed institution, but I'm not sure I agree that a marriage that ends should necessarily be regarded as a failure. Some people are meant to be together forever, some people are meant to be together for a while, and there's nothing wrong with that.
>>17250644
>your girl
Women are not sovereign property and monogamy isn't natural. Even if it is the best system, it doesn't work because both you and "your" gf will be physically and emotionally turned on by others, and some people are very good at cheating while the other is oblivious.
So open relationship cucks have a point saying they don't have to worry about getting cheated on by just openly letting her fuck other guys. I personally would not be comfortable with this, but I don't feel comfortable with the idea of being with only one woman and this making it immoral to enjoy getting sensual pleasure from looking at women in bikinis or having a close intimate hug with someone else.
Well, so much for being a dead thread.
>>17251788
>monogamy isn't natural
This is the myth that just won't die. There's an awful lot of pretty compelling research that says you're wrong.
>>17251793
If its natural then why does cheating, cucking, open/poly happen ever?
>>17251808
It being natural doesn't mean that it's the only behavior that human beings demonstrate. In the ancestral environment, humans practiced both lifelong monogamy and serial monogamy as well as polygyny (that's one man with multiple female partners). All three relationship structures are ones that our species naturally seems to gravitate towards, absent societal pressures to the contrary. Infidelity certainly can occur in all three, but it doesn't always occur either. When I say that monogamy is natural, I don't mean that humans always practice it perfectly, I mean that it naturally occurs in our species; in other words, it's not an artifact of civilization.
To contrast, open/poly relationships (in the modern sense) *don't* naturally occur in our species, they're experimental and a pretty recent development. That's not an argument against them, just a factual point (what's natural isn't always praiseworthy, and vice versa; murder is natural.) I'm not including structured polygamy in that claim, e.g. of the kind practiced throughout much of the Arab world, in traditional Chinese culture, etc, as it's not really what people think of when they today refer to "poly" relationships. It's almost always polygynous and not polyandrous or cenogamous, for instance, and certainly on average isn't any less rigid than western monogamous marriage.
