Welcome, Anthony Rapp! (part four)- Page 124

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:04pm

Good point JLC. I guess it's taking longer for me to get past the uhh, harmone aspect.

Okay, I'll try. I'll explain for everyone else--there was this one married couple where one of the guys clearly loved the other one very dearly and wanted to grow old with him, but also wanted to sleep with others.

Sometimes I think about intimate love vs. passionate love. I mean, our society teaches us that if you're married and love someone, you stay faithful to him...yet it was very clearly that the guy deeply loved his husband. It's interesting to ponder.

[jlc6314]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:07pm

Yeah exactly, they both loved each other, but wanted completely different things.

And, um, the hormone aspect was definitely abundant for me as well.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:07pm

What was most interesting to me there was that they were in LOVE, but it was "honey, I'll cook dinner tonight, you do the wash" love. They weren't sleeping with other people because they weren't in love or because their relationship was on the rocks, but purely for physical gratification. Of course, there were slip ups because that's a difficult thing to do and stick to and maintain this ideal of having no feels for the people you're screwing. But the premise is really interesting to me, because the logic is just not what you're used to. I also thought the differentiation between male and female views of sex, and how much value they put on that, as men dating men, was very interesting as well.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:12pm

I honestly wonder...and I'm not sure I *really* want to get into this...but sometimes I imagine having a relationship where I let whoever I'm dating sleep with other people as long as it's meaningless (though I guess that would be hard to maintain. I imagined hookers or something...I *really* am sharing TMI but anyway...)because like...I would be taking things slow and if the guy was getting sex, he wouldn't be thinking with his dick when he was around me, and I wouldn't feel pressured or anything. I'm not saying I would really do this...I doubt I would...but I wonder if both people accepted this, if perhaps a much closer, better relationship can form.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:17pm

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to maintain a *functional* open relationship, and like, the kind of incredible emotional stress it puts on everybody involved? It is so, so not ideal. It's just too messy.

The rest of what you said is way too personal for me to even touch with a ten foot pole, because that's all... well, based on personal comfort zones.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:29pm

Right...I don't really think I was contemplating it on a realistic level...more theoretically. You're right...it couldn't work well realistically.

[Silence = Death]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:31pm

It's possible to have open relationships and have them be healthy but it would have to be with someone who you REALLY trust and you'd have to know that there is a chance that they'd meet someone else, despite the fact that that isn't what your relationship is. It is extremely messy and I would give a standing ovation to anyone who can work one. But..they'd be fun for awhile, lol.

That play sounds extremely interesting. I've decided I must move to NY to see good plays. *pouts*

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:35pm

I think it depends on the seriousness of the relationship that's open in the first place. Have you just begun dating and are not yet exclusive, or are you married? Why do you feel the relationship needs to be open? Just because? Physical gratification? Bisexuality? It just... it's perplexing to me.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:38pm

I love talking about things that you can look at from so many ways, and never arrive at one true answer. That would be philosophy I suppose...which I do love.

And speaking of good plays, I need to see History Boys...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:40pm

Because there's homoeroticism?

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:49pm

Huh? In history boys? I don't know, I haven't seen it. Silence =Death just mentioned she needs to move to NY to see good plays, and from everything I've heard, History Boys should be a good play, so I want to see it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:50pm

Yeah, it's part of the plot, but not at all the sole premise of the play.

Nevermiiiiiind.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 6/20/06 at 11:55pm

I would be taking things slow and if the guy was getting sex, he wouldn't be thinking with his dick when he was around me, and I wouldn't feel pressured or anything.

It seems to me that if this is one of your concerns, you shouldn't be with that person in the first place.

Anyway, I think that open relationships must be incredibly difficult to have work out successfully. It has occurred to me that it's maybe more of an issue in heterosexual relationships because (and I don't want to seem sexist at all, but as a practical observation) women seem to attach more emotional importance to sex than men do. Even though it seems like it'd make things easier because you're skirting the possibility that cheating will be a problem, you're still opening up a whole new can of worms. Updated On: 6/20/06 at 11:55 PM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 12:00am

Em, we'll talk about it after I see it

Siren, that was something discussed during the play--one or some of the characters felt that part of the perks of being gay is open relationships--that guys don't view sex with the same emotional connection as girls. Others felt the total opposite, that relationships should be purely with one person.

[Alix7272]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 1:36am

Sex is also given a very different value in parts of Europe. This is a gross generalization of course, but people are more open sexually.

The play sounds really great in how it deals with the different views within gay culture. It'd be interesting to see something similar about lesbians, or to learn about the different issues that arrise among only women. Just a thought.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 1:43am

70% of first-borns in Scandanavia are born out of wedlock. I heard that statistic from Pat Robertson on the 700 Club. He was making it out to be a sign of the end of times, but he didn't go on to mention that those couples *do* get married later and stay together. I guess only telling half the statistics works for his purpose of making it seem like the sluts that have sex before marriage will never have happy or normal families.

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 01:43 AM

Posted: 6/21/06 at 1:51am

Even though it seems like it'd make things easier because you're skirting the possibility that cheating will be a problem, you're still opening up a whole new can of worms.

Exactly. I'm probably joining the conversation a bit too late, but I'd imagine the likely emotional stress resulting from your average "open relationship" (of course, this is barring any special circumstances, such as the male being a professional baseball star who's often on the road) caused by the people involved knowingly sleeping around far outweighs the stress you're avoiding by not having to worry about whether your significant other is cheating.

I actually find this sort of discussion quite interesting and not too personal at all, although I'm not quite sure if it fits in the thread too well.

Skittles, Robertson absolutely drives me up a wall. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics..."
Updated On: 6/21/06 at 01:51 AM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 1:59am

Siamese, it's actually fairly ontopic, as it was an issue brought up in the reading Anthony did yesterday. Unless that's not what you meant about fitting in the thread...

To add another angle, what if two people are together that don't believe in monogamy? I mean...they believe in a relationship with one person but not devotion to one person. Do you think they could be happy in an open relationship?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:02am

If both people believe in polygamy, than that's an entirely different playing field. The issue brought up in the play, though, and the one that's still most interesting to me isn't so much "well, can you have an open relationship under circumstance x? What about y? Okay, z?" but rather this concept of being in love with someone, being committed to being with that person, but getting your physical gratification elsewhere. I think the play was claming that it was exclusive, at least in the States, to gay male culture; they had jokes at the expenses of both hetero and lesbian sexual expression. There's no emotion within this concept, in these situations -- or, at least there's not *supposed* to be.. I think the bottom line is that this is a culture, so to speak, that is able to very finely separate sex from love.

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 02:02 AM

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:07am

Siamese, it's actually fairly ontopic, as it was an issue brought up in the reading Anthony did yesterday. Unless that's not what you meant about fitting in the thread...

Oh, okay. To be completely honest, I hadn't read the thread in a while and read mainly the last few posts. I thought it was one of those interesting-yet-very-off-topic discussions that so often pop up in some of these threads, not that it's necessarily a bad thing at all.

Anyway, I don't see why an open relationship wouldn't work out between two people who were truly opposed to monogamy. However, if two people a) didn't believe in monogamy and b) slept with various other people, then personally, I'd question how much of a "couple" they really are. At that point, doesn't that situation become more of two people who happen to sleep with each other more than sleep with others? Of course I generally believe in calling people what they prefer, and if those two people preferred to be called a couple, so be it, but I have to admit that would be my thought process regarding those people.

I also imagine that you wouldn't be able to find many women who are completely opposed to monogamy and would be truly comfortable in that situation. Like Ashley, I'm not trying to be sexist, but it's a fact that women generally place a higher emotional value on sex than men. Would it work for some women? Yes, but I imagine that those women are far and few between.

ETA: I just read Emcee's post. I'm sorry if my responses weren't exactly in line with what was presented in this reading; I obviously have no real idea what the reading touched on exactly. Updated On: 6/21/06 at 02:07 AM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:09am

I just don't understand why you would even consider it a relationship if you're both sleeping with other people. The emotional intimacy? Then call them a good friend, or a friend with benefits, or whatever. The whole point of being in a romantic relationship with someone is that it's relatively exclusive, so an "open" romantic relationship is pretty much an oxymoron, in my opinion.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:09am

"It's Complicated." -- Facebook.com

It just, from my perspective (apparently because I am straight and female), seems odd to consider these... well, essentially meetings of f*ck buddies, "relationships." But, maybe it's just all about semantics. In the play, the two guys made up this rule to avoid emotional attachment and therefore damage to their relationship -- they couldn't see the same person twice. But, what about these... "on the side" relationships? I have to wonder if they're just physical. Some of you know to what I refer..... *devious grin*

ETA -- Lexi, sorry! That wasn't meant to target you. :)

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 02:09 AM

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:14am

Well I guess I didn't really mean polygamy, as much as I meant both people believe in getting sexual gratification elsewhere.

But I don't think sex was totally out of the love picture--they did still have it. Because I can think of quite a few really close friends that in my own way I think I have an intimate and committed love with...except they're girls and we're all straight. Then again, one of my friends and I plan to get married if/when we're not by a given age, and adopt kids and such.

I wonder how love has been perceived throughout history...like Ancient times even. Has it always been considered at least romantically to consist of passion, intimacy, and commitment? Was there a time when some parts were separated? And if so, when and what made us develop the concept that all 3 go together? Did we instinctually believe that and has it always somehow been this way?

I get very analytical late at night.

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:19am

Well I guess I didn't really mean polygamy, as much as I meant both people believe in getting sexual gratification elsewhere.

Yes, that's what I assumed you meant.

I don't feel like going into a diatribe about the history of love and marriage in the wee hours of the morning, but I think the most obvious example is the wide-spread practice of polygamy, which ran rampant in past times and obviously still exists in some countries today. I'm pretty sure polygamous marriages aren't the model for the intertwining of passion, intimacy, and committment.
Updated On: 6/21/06 at 02:19 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/21/06 at 2:19am

Monogamy. Polygamy. I mean, in between is an awfully, er, grey area. Polygamy at its simplest, though, is believing that it's okay to be with more than one person. When you say that these hypothetical people didn't believe in monogamy, then... they would by default believe in polygamy, I suppose; they would technically just not believe that monogamy is necessary, or they would simply believe in going *against* it in doing the exact opposite. Whatever.

They had sex, but it was clearly kind of obligatory, *because* they were in love. But they recognized that they could be in love without sex, and that it was no longer a necessary part of the relationship, as it's viewed *that way*. The whole concept of knowing everything there is to know about this person's body, physically, but still loving him and being emotionally connected to him. They seemed to define it very specifically, and walk a really fine line, but it's interesting, especially when you kind of try to apply it to situations in real life.

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 02:19 AM