Open Sexuality in Marriage

[andyman32]

Hi everyone,

I post to this forum simply seeking insight. A word on background: my wife and I are very open and very secular. We do have a strong moral sense, but not in the "hijacked conservative" sense of "morality" that seems to be pervasive and ubiquitous these days. We are secular, rational, and extremely "liberal", as it were. As such, we have some alternative views of what marriage and family CAN and SHOULD mean.

We are both intensely interested in finding another girl to partake in our relationship, to share equally, to contribute, to both depend upon us and to support us; in other words, we seek a sincere relationship, as opposed to a simple fling, or one-night stand. We actually desire something neighboring a polygynous relationship, or, if not polygyny, at least a "serious" relationship. As such, naturally, we have nearly specified ourselves out of the market; we don't even know where to begin to look for such a person. All of our searches have ended in utter failure.

My inquiry here has not to do so much with this particular issue (though I may post about this issue in the future), as with the topic of sexual preference. Here is my conundrum: my wife seeks to have another female participate in our sexual and emotional relationship, as do I. But I do not have a desire for male companionship. Now, it is no emotional or social pressure to which I feel I must conform; instead, simply put, I do not find the male form to be [sexually] attractive. I understand that a majority of people do (all heterosexual/bisexual females, and all bisexual/homosexual males), and to be ABSOLUTELY certain, this is not a matter of cultural taboo. It is simply a personal preference. However, at the same time, I feel a touch of guilt, in that I fear I may be simply greedy in desiring more than one female to participate in our relationship, and not a male. My wife openly expresses desires to have relations with a female partner, so this is not in any way my own desires imposed upon her. We reached our conclusion about this desire mutually. Yet at the same time, it seems that, at least at first glance, I am indeed being selfish in not being interested in male partners.

To be quite frank, she also has occasional fantasies about me playing with another male, though she has no wish for another male to be with HER.

What do you all think about this? Do you believe it is indeed selfish of me not to be attracted to male partners? Or do you think this is simply a natural lack of desire for such partnership? Ought I not worry myself about this, as ebing an inequitable 'exploration' of expanding our relationship, and simply progress naturally with our discoveries? Is it silly for me to even worry about this in such excruciating detail?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts, and please forgive me if I have not sufficiently articulated my concern here.

[bigballsbiguy]

I don't think you're being selfish at all. Your wife isn't interested in other men so you're not depriving her of anything (exept perhaps her fantasy of seeing 2 guys get it on.) Not everyone is bisexual despite what some say. To have sex with someone you're not attracted to or interested in wouldn't make any sense.

[Brian]

Yep, I agree with BigBallsBiGuy. There are many, many couples where only one of the two people is bi and the other is completely straight.

It's tricky when one partner has fantasies involving the other that the other simply cannot fulfill because it turns them off. But there really isn't much that can be done about it other than talk about it, and see if you can come up with a Plan B or another fantasy entirely.

I wonder if your wife would have her fantasy partially fulfilled by this: What if the two of you had a love-making session with a male-male couple? You could be clear in advance that neither you nor your wife are looking for physical contact with the other two men, but perhaps your wife would find her fantasy partially fulfilled by watching the two gay/bi guys go at it, as the two of you make love. It would be especially good if you could find a male-male couple who's fantasy it is to watch a male-female couple make love. I've seen some porn that depicts this scenario; a male-male couple and male-female couple, watching each other but not touching as they make love. Just an idea.

- Drew :paw:

[Sex in Words]

I'd like to suggest another scenario that might work on two levels with you, though it might be hard to accomplish. Not knowing where you live, I've no idea if this will be possible, but have you considered participating in play parties, or, if you will, orgies? This could offer two benefits: your wife could likely have her fantasy of watching some guy on guy action fulfilled (if you're at a good party at least ;) , and you could also use the social aspect of such parties as an opportunity to meet women who might fit into the relationship model you two desire. There is often much conversation, cruising and community-building at such events, and you can really get to know people there.
That said, finding such a party may be difficult. And if I can offer a bit more advice, stay away from "traditional" swingers events. These organizations are, frequently but not always, very bi male-phobic.
Good luck!

[mike9753]

I will probably get lots of negative responses to this comment, but here goes. There is a reason why human beings have evolved in the form of diads. If I am with a partner, emotionally relating, it is very difficult to emotionally relate to another. Think of it in terms of a conversation. You have three people: a, B & C. It does not matter what sex they are. If A is talking to B, then C is only listening. Essentially C is outside that dynamic. C may interrupt, in which case if C interrupts C will then talk outloud and either A or B will respond, leaving the other out. Now in a conversation, this is not a problem. But in a relationship where there is a dynamic as powerful as sex, there can be a problem. As a matter of fact, I would venture to say that in an overwhelming majority of cases where 3 people have tried to find a balance and feel emotionally satisfied enough to maintain the relationship, there are very few who can do it for any length of time. I think that is why it does not happen often if it really happens at all.

Now I have somethnig else that maybe controversial to say as well. I too, have never thought of the male form (despite my screen name: moneeke, I am a male) as particularly sexy or attractive. However, I have found people to be sexy and attractive. They usually inhabit a female body, but I have known attractive people to also be male. In the abstract, if you ask me, would I ever kiss, make love to, cuddle, etc. a male. I will say, NO, No a thousand times NO. However, if you ask me if I would kiss, etc. a very close friend of mine who I believe to be a wonderful person and who happens to be inhabiting a male body, I would say, "of course, if the attraction was mutual".

Just some thoughts to add to the ones already expressed.

[sashawillowick]

Of course it's not selfish..it's your preference..im bicurious but you appear to be straight...although the gay/bisexual scene is prevalent moreso than ever in society, do not feel that you must force feed this way of life to yourself. I am with a straight man, although i am curious about being with a woman..I've thought about him being with a man, primarily because we have an extreme sexual attraction to one another and anything that has to do with him turns me on..anyway..i would not ever expect him to be with a man just because i fantasize about it..lord forbid i begin to fantasize about barn animals..catch my drift..

good luck to you both :)

[leizy]

My wife and I are both bi, and coming to terms w/ our polyamorous leanings - for different reasons, neither of us are really cut out for monogamy. We've set very clear boundaries though, away from swinging, and towards a relationship-based, committment-focused concept. We're both Christian, though my wife is much more dogmatic and Bible-based than I. She is exploring how these ideas work for, within her faith, and the Bible. There is stuff out there, exploring these ideas -

http://www.libchrist.com/
http://www.christianpolygamy.info/

Good luck.
d

[andyman32]

I appreciate all the thoughts; I've been reading along but haven't felt the gumption to reply yet. Here goes:

My wife and I are completely secular (atheist), very liberal folks (as if that should come as a surprise!). Part of the general philosophical project to achieve secular enlightenment is to find a very complete and very satisfying account of the provenance of accepted moral standards and social standards that we generally accept uncritically - at least as children - then to review those standards against other, more objective, less historically-colored, biased or prejudiced analyses. Without a lengthy digression into philosophical ethics, I just want to point out that there are complete and satisfying analyses to be had for moral evaluations, even of subjects such as alternative sexuality, alternative family structure, etc.

Studying anthropology, studying history, studying ethics, one finds that aside from some political considerations (having to do with wealth and power) for the Church during the early Dark Ages, there is nothing in human history (or in primate history more generally) that presents itself as explicitly prohibitive of polygynous or polyandrous relationships, and even less so for homo-/bi-sexuality more broadly. Now, note that this is to be held distinct from the "swinging" principle; though I am not formally familiar with the statistical results of disease epidemics, at least at first blush I could see an argument running something along the lines that since many chronic or even fatal sexually-transmitted diseases can be latent for many months or even years, a completely "open" and "swinging" lifestyle could potentially have dire results for many, many members of a population, even without the knowledge of the initial carrier.

This lends prudential merit to some kind of 'seriousness', a 'commitment' aspect to an alternative style of relationships. Well, there's where our goals begin. I can see that there are things my wife likes to do (for fun, not sexually), moods she's in, that may benefit from having another person around, with similar thought processes, similar moods, similar reactions to things. I think the same is true for sex. There are many great things we can do for one another, in both the social/emotional arena, and in the sexual arena, but there are also many that we cannot. There are ways that another girl (or, were circumstances slightly different, another guy) would satisfy both of us. However, simultaneously, these prudential considerations (i.e., our self-assigned eminence of our own health, our ability to have children, our independence from an ailing medical machine) do warrant the application of some strict standards - perhaps strict enough to eliminate what little chances we had to begin with. This is an unfortunate feature of life, but a reasonable and well-met one.

moneeke - I understand your concerns about the social/sexual dynamic of a three-plus-person exclusive relationship. I agree. It may not be inherent to the form of the relationship, but instead, it may simply be difficult to synthesize certain situations in light of the fact that we are all so strongly cast by the social environment throughout our lives to interact in pairs. I've often thought about that. Sometimes I worry about it. What if I want some gratification but my wife and "girlfriend" are already, say, being intimate, or are already out doing something together, and do not desire partnership? Sure, that's not exactly something one would encounter in an exclusive monogamous relationship. However, I do not think this is a sufficient reason to scrap the entire project. Thanks to the puritanical leanings of this country, there is no way to formalize any such relationship. And while we may desire longevity at the outset, if things don't work, things don't work, and we will know more for it. I think the problems we might encounter by way of the 3-person dynamic might simply be "grist for the mill"; something substantive and important to be mindful of before and throughout any such three-way relationship.

I should also emphasize that this topic is highly academic. While I appreciate the suggestions (and they sound like good ones), as things are, we live in the South (to quote Peter Griffin from Family Guy: "Isn't America great! Except for the South..."). We aspire to move up to the northeast, but this may take a few years. And even then, I think our chances of finding the right person in ANY area are, at very best, dismal. There are probably 5 girls in the country (world?) interested in this kind of relationship, but there are 20 personal ads every week of the local independent newspaper for couples looking for another woman. *shrug* So, again, here I am merely seeking thoughts from other folks in like situations, as it is a topic that (obviously!) interests me a great deal, but which is difficult to discuss openly in most first-person social contexts.

Thanks -