Open relationships

>>34831620
Yes. Life's too short to tie yourself down to just one person forever

File: 243d2dda17daa943baa38a0ecf6fb3524662e044d006f836b8b0cb5ded60b48a.jpg (1019KB, 2048x1840px) Image search: [Google]

1019KB, 2048x1840px

Fuck off cuck
>>>/b/bc

>>34831620
No. I would never think of an open relationship, and I barely thing of polygamy in general. No adding anyone to a "relationship" after it has been established. it would have to be established between more than two people in the first place for me to accept it for myself, and it can't be with another dude.

>>34831620
If my bf suggested that nonsense he'd be out the door.

>>34831620
Yes. I get bored of people sometimes.

File: open relationship.jpg (113KB, 605x981px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 605x981px

>>34831684
what if she suggested it?

>>34831750
I'm not a lesbian, wouldn't have a gf in the first place. That pic you posted is nightmare fuel for me.

>>34831750
Man, white people have fucking problems

>>34831620
>relationship
ain't that shit just friends with benefits?

>>34831838
>sent her 'boyfriend' she cheats on after me for calling her a slut

okcupid's a weird place, guys

File: 1485276326255.jpg (59KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 655x527px

>>34831658
It's not forever, it's until the relationship ends or you die. And like you said, life is short so it's not even a long time. If anything, it's "who the fuck has the time for more than one person"?

It works for me. I'm what my girlfriend calls her "emotional boyfriend," meaning that we only really do things that further an emotional bond. Cuddling, buying her things, having a heart to heart and just being open with each other overall. When she has to scratch the sexual itch, she spends time with her "sexual boyfriend," rarely spending the night with him, and comes back to me to ease the post-orgasm tension. At first I was disappointed that she didn't want to have sex with me, but she said that her feelings for me are just more emotional than sexual, and that's fine because she has another man to fulfill that specific need.

We're getting married next month.

>cucking yourself

NOOOOO.

Also a good way to introduce STDs into the relationship tbqh.

File: kierkegaard2_360x450.jpg (183KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x1000px

>>34831658
The "life is too short" argument is faulty. It allows for unlimited pleasure at the expense of real fulfillment, of becoming anything worthwhile. Christianity, for example, has a very good reason for monogamy, which is because the bond of two people unites them with a strength that is beyond anything else the material world has to offer. It brings them closer to God -- the Truth, the ultimate meaning of life.

Now, I'm not saying it's impossible to love multiple people. But not committing yourself to one person is not only inconsistent, it is an error of indecision. To become something greater in this life, we must unite our entire being with another person. You cannot do that with more than one person. There will be everything from emotional/psychological differences, lifestyle differences, financial differences, etc. It is just sloppy. And because more often than not the partners will unite themselves with someone they love, but not each other, there is no true bond between all three or four or whatever of them. It's an expression of the utmost selfishness, in fact, for one person to allow themselves to be loved by, and to love, multiple people.

QED. I'll be here all night.

>>34832060
Mormons are basically Christians and they were/are poly. So your argument about God and bullshit makes no sense as they have arguments supporting the exact same thing.

File: openrelationship2.png (136KB, 1012x794px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1012x794px

>>34831828
red flags for people who haven't seen any before.

>>34832109
>As early as the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, Latter Day Saint doctrine maintained that polygamy was allowable only if it was commanded by God. The Book of Jacob condemned polygamy as adultery,[56] but left open the proviso that "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things."[57] Thus, the LDS Church today teaches that plural marriage can only be practiced when specifically authorized by God.

Apparently, the decision of polygamy is not allowed to be made by an individual alone. Modern polygamy is selfish and has no recourse to God. Marriage is not applicable to polygamy in Mormonism, either. They use a practice called "sealing," which was to be done in certain cases such as the death/divorce of a spouse. Theoretically, many former spouses could still be emotionally/financially dependent on a male, but remain divorced. Polygamy seems to have had more practical reasons, anyway, and had nothing to do with forming a lasting and eternal bond with multiple wives. More wives = propagation of your sect and beliefs, without interference from outside forces.

>>34832186
>hard to meet people
>I am absolutely an introvert
Is this a joke?

>>34832186
This is a troll account. That nigga has a catalog full of sad little weeb dick pics.

>>34832334
You don't want to see her cuck of a boyfriend

>>34831893
70-90 years is too short to live life, but 70-90 years is also too long to be with only one person during that entire time.

>>34832060
Please don't bring fairytales into the discussion

But your points does force me to bring up the fact that open relationships have had a bad rep ,since, for the longest time it was frowned upon by society.

So society never had a chance to fully explore open relationships without the negative stigma, so we don't know if they truly work or not. We've all seen the limits of monogamy. We don't know the limits of open relationships without the negatives. There is not enough evidence or sampling to form a strong conclusion.

People just say it doesn't work because cheaters go into open relationships and that ends miserably. But what happens when society is more tolerant towards open relationships and its not just cheaters who enter it. Its people who want to live more carefree and not be tied down.

We'll never know thanks to the stigma

File: 1447361750778.png (199KB, 992x1856px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 992x1856px

>>34832109
>Mormons are basically Christians
>They deny the Nicene creed

cuck trash bullshit

>>34832462
>fairytales
If you like, you can replace "God" with "universal purpose," or whatever atheistic/scientific term suits you. It has the same implications anyway.

You're right though, there is a huge stigma regarding open relationships. And yes, we haven't explored them fully, so we cannot see how they would ideally last. Assuming we are more tolerant and connected as a whole, though, what do you think that means? What would need to change in our psychology, our society, our notions of pair bonding, in order for it to work?

>>34831933
>buying her things
Goddamn cuck

>>34831750
>I don't thats slutty
>fuckbuddy
Do you understand what a slut is?

I enjoy an open relationship.

BF M has been my BF for almost 4 years now and BF T is actually the third guy I've dated in the 4 year period but I like him a lot even though it's only been like 6 months.

File: demisxualasexualcringewhatever.png (2MB, 1063x9092px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1063x9092px

>>34833351
Do you understand what a slut is?

>>34831933

bait

This is an original comment

yeah

>>34831620

Open relationships are for people who are too immature to commit to growing a real relationship tbqh