This is the text of the note that Robby sent to our friend regarding the term "open relationship" - although it addresses the concept of gay relationships I do believe that the tenants we hold translate very well to ANY relationship. The "open" aspect goes a lot further than "sex", although that is what is addressed here. The term "open" also can refer to the way in which you handle other aspects of a relationship. I have only edited his comments for privacy and clarity.
Good morning Wizard (aka Robby) here. Dave is off on another "business" trip, this time he rode his motorcycle from here to Denver for a conference so he's off on another great adventure. He'll return next week sometime.
He's wants me to respond to your recent query regarding open relationships, mostly cause he's curious to see just what I'll say> :-)> I thought the most intriguing coincidence was the publication of the most recent Advocate...the entire issue is focused on this exact topic! Must be THE trend of the decade, or at least the subject people are most curious about. The writers cover almost all viewpoints and, from what I've read so far, seem to represent all sides of the issue fairly. From my(our) perspective (and he hasn't seen the articles yet), there doesn't seem to be a whole lot new here for us but a lot of informative vantage points from which others may examine their lives.
Personally, I feel that the real issues here are the ones of basic biology and the conflict staged by the socialization of the masses over the centuries. Whew! That's a mouthfull! What I refer to is the historic biology of humans that sought to ensure man would survive as a species...that males automatically seek to mate with as many as possible while the females tend towards the more maternal roles, obviously, and in so doing, lean towards "one good dependable man". Fast forward this through centuries of evolutionary drama, add a dash of "gayness" to the equation and you still have the same basic genetics. We've simply (or not so simply) added layers and layers of social posturing and "acceptable" behaviors on top of the real issues.
One of the most interesting things the article points out to me is the issue of "serial monogamy", which they attribute to lesbians in the particular context of this article but also, for the first time I've seen in print, to the general much divorced and remarried straight population!. What a concept! Straights are screwing around?!? Who'd have thunk it? They just rationalize and justify with a little more social sanction and permission than we are generally given as a "gay population". (As an aside I ask myself "could this lack of social permission have any relation to our own behavior aka the ubiquitous Gay Pride events that showcase the most blatant of our sexual peccadilloes?" but then, I digress!) It occurs to me that "serial monogamy" is simply a term for people, couples if you will, who were tempted by the charms of another, physically and/or emotionally, for a moment/time, and rather than openly address/discuss/experiment/evaluate in the safety of their own relationship to one another, choose to submit their entire definition of their lives together unto the "court of Webster" and, consequently, feel forced to move away from what may very well be a completely loving and supportive partner. How sad.
I always felt that being a gay person in this time and age placed me outside the boundaries of traditional definition with regards to many aspects of society and my life in particular. As such, I took a long time (over 40 years) finding a person that I felt complimented my own specific (all right peculiar!) personality. I'll be damned if I will allow transient sexual fluctuations [and I don't mean we sleep with homeless people :-)>] to interfere with what I consider to be the culmination of my personal life-search for a mate. For what? The judgment of a population of people who are behaving exactly the same way and simply couching it in more socially acceptable terms. I think not.
It all comes back to our 3 C's of relationships; commitment, companionship and communication. Commitment to each other is the first and the foundation of our relationship, without that, the rest is verbiage. If you start from a place of trust and safety, where you know you will not be hurt, abandoned, misused in any way, then the rest is all about communication. Talking about the issues and really hearing what the other needs and has to offer. In the end, the result is the true companionship we all seek, without many of the "footnotes" that tend to sidetrack us so often throughout our lives.
A straight female friend called the other night to compliment us on our homepage and chat. She brought up the issue of monogamy and we had a similar discussion. The humorous bottom line was her final comment (Geesh, sometimes I wish I was a gay man!") referring to Dave's and my ability to conduct what others would define as an "open" relationship. This coming from a thrice married and multiple-affaired woman in her 40's with 3 children from 3 different men! I rest my case!
One final thought. As I write the term "open relationship" I felt a shudder in my soul and it occurs to me that it is vitally important not to be swayed by the accepted definitions and the inherent implications in these terms/words and their meanings. All these terms and concepts are only as relevant to you and yours as you allow them to be in the context of your, specific, relationship. Define them for yourselves! You both have the power of your commitment and the ability to communicate within it. Use it.
So...I've stood on this soapbox long enough this morning! Hope I've given some food for thought. From what I know of you you seem to be a thoughtful, sensitive soul and I hope you and your mate find your way through this next phase of your relationship with a gentle understanding and a stronger future.
I would love to sit down in person for a change! Keep in touch.
Hugs, The Wiz