One free night a year

this thread is interesting...it seems to be fairly common to think that having an open marriage means something is wrong with the marriage and/or there is no love there.

there are PLENNNNTY of couples that happily and successfully engage in open relationships, swapping, additional partners, and a myriad of other activities considered nontraditional.

the fact that this is so taboo and equates to not loving the other person is just archaic.

Marriage is between two people. Not three, not four. TWO.

If an individual cannot be/does not want to be with one person, there is absolutely no point in getting married.

Marriage is exactly what the people involved decide it is. The people in a marriage ascribe value to it. There are people who stay together their whole lives, some in a monogamous relationship without ever going through the ceremony, whether civil or religious, that many of us use to declare the state of marriage. Their relationships can be just as valid, sacred, whatever as one that follows the traditional path. In the same way, a ceremony doesn't always mean anything. Brittany Spears was married and divorced in 24 hours. It's illogical to assume that because her "marriage" fits the construct of your definition, it is somehow more sacred or valid than a union with no ceremony, a union between two or more men and/or women, or any other combination of consenting adults. <b>Sorry kiddo....you don't get to define love for other people.<b> Nobody does...assuming that it doesn't involve force or coercion. In that case, the courts are the authority. Otherwise it's none of your, nor anyone else's business.

this thread is interesting...it seems to be fairly common to think that having an open marriage means something is wrong with the marriage and/or there is no love there.

there are PLENNNNTY of couples that happily and successfully engage in open relationships, swapping, additional partners, and a myriad of other activities considered nontraditional.

the fact that this is so taboo and equates to not loving the other person is just archaic.

Marriage is between two people. Not three, not four. TWO.

If an individual cannot be/does not want to be with one person, there is absolutely no point in getting married.

Marriage is exactly what the people involved decide it is. The people in a marriage ascribe value to it. There are people who stay together their whole lives, some in a monogamous relationship without ever going through the ceremony, whether civil or religious, that many of us use to declare the state of marriage. Their relationships can be just as valid, sacred, whatever as one that follows the traditional path. In the same way, a ceremony doesn't always mean anything. Brittany Spears was married and divorced in 24 hours. It's illogical to assume that because her "marriage" fits the construct of your definition, it is somehow more sacred or valid than a union with no ceremony, a union between two or more men and/or women, or any other combination of consenting adults. <b>Sorry kiddo....you don't get to define love for other people.<b> Nobody does...assuming that it doesn't involve force or coercion. In that case, the courts are the authority. Otherwise it's none of your, nor anyone else's business.

First of all, don't call me kiddo. I'm an adult.

Second, marriage doesn't always equal love. And no where did I say two people had to be married in order for their relationship to hold value.

Never. And I know he would say the same. My opinion is that if you feel you need to be with someone else, ever, then your marriage has serious problems and is probably already over.

I don't judge others' relationships though, so whatever works for them.

Different STROKES for different folks, right?

Different STROKES for different folks, right?

Oh Hail NO.

So I just read an article that says that NBA player Andre Kirilenko has a deal with his wife where they each get one free night a year to be with someone else. Would you ever do that with your spouse/partner?

Also it's not the same circumstances as you or me, this guy is a millionaire with women throwing themselves at him. If he only does it once a year, I would be surprised!

Also it's not the same circumstances as you or me, this guy is a millionaire with women throwing themselves at him. If he only does it once a year, I would be surprised!

This is like the whole moderation thing. By allowing it once a year, the temptation is lessened. You know, you skip the office doughnuts so that you can have that creme brulee after dinner.

but apparently you had the target all year though...so what does that say?

Also it's not the same circumstances as you or me, this guy is a millionaire with women throwing themselves at him. If he only does it once a year, I would be surprised!

This is like the whole moderation thing. By allowing it once a year, the temptation is lessened. You know, you skip the office doughnuts so that you can have that creme brulee after dinner.

but apparently you had the target all year though...so what does that say?

I'm confused by what you are asking. Obviously, if he gets to go outside of his marriage once a year, he is going to choose a high caliber individual, and not just your average basketball groupie.

meaning you are thinking about it well in advance of the free day, therefore, you are setting it up etc got to have a little convo etc....etc...

Well yeah... I can't ever remember a time when I just spontaneously had creme brulee...

well I mean, Id atleast like to know how it was made........ya know.


point being......aren't you cheating if you are talking about it before it happens, whether its cheating the significant other out of time or whatever.

So I just read an article that says that NBA player Andre Kirilenko has a deal with his wife where they each get one free night a year to be with someone else. Would you ever do that with your spouse/partner?

My SO could do that....as long as I can join him and her...