[Chamberlain]

In my time, I have experienced a few "open" relationships.  Have any worked? No. Not yet. Have "conventional" relationships worked? No. Not yet.  
What makes me most curious is a behaviour I find in the "open" relationships. Most predominantly, the jealousy.
I had "been" with a particular woman for more than a year.  We each had "extracurricular" engagements.  We were both fine.  Then she came to live with me amoungst circumstances both provocative and peculiar.  I told her, assured her, guaranteed her, that she was my love and no woman would stand before her.  She believed me... until I **84** with another woman, just a joyful romp in the hay (actually it was a sweaty bump and grind in a hot trailer on a bunch of burlap), then she was incensed! How dare I consummate a flirtation! Yet, she had done so previously!
My point: the young lady of the moment(gratious she was and I thank her for that) spent less than one hour with me (actually, less than thiry minutes). I intended to spend the rest of my life with the woman I loved, Xantipi (names have been changed to protect the unadvised).
I was so in love with her, BUT, could I still have sex with another?
The thrill, the excitement!  Who is this person? What will they do? How far will they go?
When one becomes intimate these questions cease.
I am going to make a bold statement:
Intimacy is the end.
Once one KNOWS another intimately then what?  All that is secret has been known, all that is wished, has been known.  Your lover IS known (pardon the phrase), inside and out!
But another...
New Horizons to explore, interesting moons on which to plant flags!  Ever as good as what you have??? No!! But the sheer adventure of it all!
The sex has never been as good as the one with which I loved, but I found it inticing and provacative and it always proves why I love her in the first place!
Can ONE devote themselves to the one they love, yet not maintain fidelity?
Sometimes I wonder about this.
I answer a firm, "YES!"
Fidelity and Devotion are mutually exclusive.  One can be had, without the other.
What if I meet the "perfect" girl and she has no boobs?
Now I know, "Would the perfect girl have no boobs?"
Yup, maybe!
Here's the rub: suppose I "had a chance" with a Big Bust Star(outside of marrying said perfect girl). Is an hour of ecstacy worth a lifetime of success?  Is the fullfillment of all your dreams enough to make you--dare I say the word-- "cheat"?
CAN the "perfect" girl have no boobs?
Yes, I say she can.
And Yes I say she does.

The Chamberlain

[BillN]

Excuse me?  Fidelity and Devotion mutually exclusive?  Do me a favor Chamberlain and re-read your post.  You talk about how much you love your partner and then in the next sentence you cheat on her.  You can cover it up by saying, "harmless romp", or whatever you want, but if you didn't feel guilty would you be motivated to want to talk about it?  

As far as intimacy being the end of a relationship, that's like saying "more than a handfull is a waste".  Intimacy is just the beginning for those of us with a little imagination.

Since you feel that sex is the most important part of the relationship then consider this;

Is the fucking you get worth the fucking you get?

If not, then one of you is in the wrong relationship.

I'm down off the soapbox now.

[Chamberlain]

What I am posting about is whether or not others out there agree that fidelity and devotion are seperate things NOT mutually exclusive nor mutually mandatory.  
I am now assuming that should have been mentioned in the first post.
Is this the case?
Can one be Devoted, yet not fidelous?
And the scariest yet!! (ladies, think of the previous as an alternative)
Can one be fidelous yet not devoted???

Thus is said
The Chamberlain

[kalani]

Chamberlain, there is ever a problem for a relativistic outlook.  Morality isn't just an attitude, it's grounded in what works to achieve mature growth as a human being; your definition of morality doesn't get near the fact that, to not make of hash of life we need to come to conclusions about the world around us and what it permits.  "Open" relationships don't work for most people because most people don't have the emotional equipment to handle such relationships -- nor were most of us built to handle such things.  Notions that seem just fine to our logical minds may be a poor fit for other parts of the human psyche.  Fidelity has a purpose.  Sexual intimacy is just the beginning of revealing oneself completely to another human being, no secrets, nothing hidden -- of utter trust.  Although the word "marriage" gets tossed about a lot, most relationships these days are anything but, and without a footing in what works to make relationships last, well, relationships won't last.  Relationships founder not because the design of human beings is such a botch and the design of the rest of reality so perverse that we are ever witlessly applying ourselves to an impossible task.  We are superbly designed to be happy and satisfied.  If what you have tried has not left you so, then you at least know what doesn't work.  That's the beginning of wisdom.  Study people who ARE happy and satisfied, see what they have to teach you about how to arrange your own life.  I, too, will make a bold statement: If you do seek a fulfilling long-term relationship with a woman, you will have to discriminate between circumstances in which your lust can be exercised and circumstances in which you will have to keep your pants zipped.

I respect your courage in putting your thoughts out in the open on such a personal subject.  

[Janus]

See, this is why 20 year olds shouldn't get married.

We have too many young idiots getting in puppy love marriages, and 50% end in divorce. Most don't even have the decency not to have kids.

Either fuck your brains out with random people, or get married to the one person who will have sex with you AND not mind your nasty man-odors.

J- This message was brought to you by a [censored] whose parents divorced at two. "Hey, at least I'm not a school shooter  " and by Philadelphia Cream Cheese "No, we don't know what the fuck it is either."

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Interesting subject, and a great response by kalani. To me Love, devotion, and fidelity are nearly synonymous. I don't want to be in a relationship without all three. Been there, done that, as they say. Can a relationship work where there is devotion but not fidelity?.....Maybe, but not with me. Can a relationship work where there is fidelity, but not devotion?.....What would be the point?....definitely not for me. Lust and fantasies are healthy and fine in a relationship, but without LOVE, it really means nothing.......just my perspective. Shannon

[Chamberlain]

By the by, to discourage others who would place an erroneous age, maturity or experience level upon me: I am 32 I have had about 115 lovers giver or take and only five of them have ever been of girlfriend status.  One said we could not possibly have an "open" relationship and I immediately eschewed all other women.  But then again, she was "the one."  Many have been my "open' relationships, and but one was "closed (albeit long distance but it was worth it)." And don't think about those cheap porn situations, it never happened (okay, think about it).
But I do remember one girlfriend to whom I was completely devoted, and in the beginning, we had an understanding that I need not be fidelous.  Granted this broke down but not because of any slacking in my department.  
As Irish girl said, it is "very logical."  When one intends to spend a LIFETIME with another, share ALL the special moments, live strive and survive for one person, what little matter is it to spend one half an hour, or a night with another engaging in a purely fun, satisfying and physical act?  This same act will be performed with more depth and more meaning with one's other.  We all know men continue to masturbate after marriage, how is it that much different (with the exceptionof a naked body in close proximity)?
If a man swears devotion, for the rest of his life, where does fidelity even enter into the picture?
Granted, I have sworn to both, but is not one possible without the other?  

[BillN]

Devotion is the emotional pledge given from one to another in a relationship.  Fidelity is the physical pledge given to the same.  Unless both are present in a relationship there will always be a question about one or the other.

[kalani]

>If a man swears devotion, for the rest of his life, where does fidelity even enter into the picture?

What does it mean for a man to "swear devotion?"  Is it just another attitude, or a pose to strike from time to time, or does he have to live that devotion 24x7?

"For the rest of his life" starts NOW, not tomorrow, not after the next fling.  And it includes EVERY moment henceforth, not just those that are convenient or facile, or moments of quiescent lust.

We're equivocating over words here.  To you, devotion and fidelity are unrelated.  To me, devotion without fidelity is not devotion at all, just self-indulgent emotionalism.  Such "love" as you seem to be describing isn't love.  It's blustery feeling that does not have any woman as it's true inspiration, rather it arises only from your need to flex your capacity to have feelings.

Fidelity is one of the demonstrations of devotion that make devotion real rather than just a pretty idea in the mind.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: kalani ]

[MinisterOfSillyWalks]

If you're devoted to someone, you're faithful to him/her. Always. Period, end of discussion.

However, this is my personal standard; other people have their own, and we all live with the consequences of our actions.

My girlfriend and I have, for practical purposes, been husband and wife for nearly four years. Our reasons for not "making it legal" are personal and have nothing whatsoever to do with commitment, despite what some others think. I could not possibly be more devoted to her if she had a ring on her finger and we had a piece of paper from the State of California authorizing our union.

A lot of men (and some women, I suppose) swear that humans are not naturally monogamous. Anthropology indicates otherwise, and those who espouse this theory do so only to justify their own unwillingness to be monogamous. Still, monogamy (i.e. fidelity [?]) is not synonomous with or necessarily inclusive of devotion.

Therefore, I have no idea where this post is going.  

[Chamberlain]

Unless freely given, is fidelity another way of saying, "do this or else..."  What about trust that is so strong you could **82** with a the big bust stars of your dreams and your SO would still lie comforted in the fact that at the end of the night you'd be home to let out the dog and cook breakfast in the morning?
We are NOT equivocating over words.  There is a large difference between devotion and fidelity, which is the primary reason there are two different words ( don't make me get Foucaultian on you).
Kalani seems to be bordering close to that love=sex thing which only sullies and brings down the value of love.  
Dale Carnegie: "Love is when you never demand another person satisfy you in any way."  
Would you rather your SO was **83** with you and thinking of a big bust star or **83** with a big bust star and thinking of you?
Many of us are quite devoted to our girlfriends/wives/what have you.  We have made a pledge and intend to spend the rest of our days in a mutual shared fulfillment.  Just being in the other person's presence lifts our souls.  But do we not wonder(espescially about Chelsea or Sable)?  Do some of us not stray?  If we stray does this mean we are any less devoted than before or just less fidelous?
I maintain, that devotion seeks the high ground while fidelity is often trampled.  Throwing away a devotion for a mere breach of etiquette seems to defeat the purpose of a relationship in the first place.  

[kalani]

>Unless freely given, is fidelity another way of saying, "do this or else..."

Chamberlain, stand on top of a tall building.  Climb up on the ledge, lift one foot, point it out and stand there.  You can either complete the step and die, or you can hear the laws of physics saying to you, "Bring that foot back and turn around, or else!"  It doesn't take someone, in a fit of emotional pique, saying, "Give me fidelity or else!" to make the human need for fidelity worthy of our attentiveness -- that very need contains within it the assertion, "Acknowledge me, or else!"  If human nature demands fidelity for the preservation of long-term relationships, what the hell does your liking the idea or not liking it have to do with it?  Wake up!  No amount of heavy thinking can make reality go away.  As well bitch and moan about gravity, heat gradients, and the permeability of cell membranes!

>What about trust that is so strong you
>could **82** with a the big bust stars of
>your dreams and your SO would still lie
>comforted in the fact that at the end of
>the night you'd be home to let out the
>dog and cook breakfast in the morning?

You leapt right over the main event and are cooking breakfast!  She would NOT be comforted, whatever else she knows, knowing that you stuck your dick in someone else the night before.  Get it?  And she doesn't really have to explain or justify that to you!

>We are NOT equivocating over words. There
>is a large difference between devotion
>and fidelity, which is the primary reason
>there are two different words

Oh yes we are, as well as laboring under your straw man argument.  I never said the two concepts were identical, only that they are, in intimate relationships, intimately related.  Which is no small point to make.  Apparently it is still lost on you.

>don't make me get Foucaultian on you

I'll let you explain that one.

>Kalani seems to be bordering close to that
>love=sex thing which only sullies and
>brings down the value of love.

More straw man rubbish.  Never said such a thing, and how you can infer such a remark from what I said blows me away.  Don't impute to others the simple-mindedness that arises between your own ears.  Or adopt a better class of argument.

>Dale Carnegie: "Love is when you never
>demand another person satisfy you in any
>way."

Whatever his other accomplishments, on this particular definition of love Dale Carnegie is full of crap.  Love makes all sorts of demands, because love is not just a giddy ride for your feelings (which include your emotions, not just your nerve endings).

>Would you rather your SO was **83** with
>you and thinking of a big bust star or
>**83** with a big bust star and thinking
>of you?

Sophistry.  These are not only NOT the only two options, but I can just picture you, Bubba, going to town on a big bust star's tits pining the while for your S.O.!

>But do we not wonder(espescially about
>Chelsea or Sable)? Do some of us not stray?

Bingo!  You know you've got love and all of that higher devotion stuff on your hands, when you stop wondering about Chelsea or Sable (with all respect to Chelsea and Sable).

>If we stray does this mean we are any less
>devoted than before or just less fidelous?

It means your are less devoted than before.  That's what being unfaithful, as a manifest action, signifies.

If I told you that you are my best friend, but I steal your money, bad-mouth you to everyone I meet, and piss in the shoes in your closet when you're not looking, of what value to you is my ongoing assertion that I am your best friend?  You might, rightly, doubt that I know what a friend is.

I don't care whether you've fucked 8115 women, you have, for all your experience, accrued little insight.

>...devotion seeks the high ground while
>fidelity is often trampled.

True.  But that doesn't make fidelity junk, just a casualty of misbegotten attitudes like yours.

>Throwing away a devotion for a mere breach
>of etiquette seems to defeat the purpose
>of a relationship in the first place.

You consider your failure to recognize the need of your S.O. for your fidelity as a breach of etiquette when in fact it is a breach of the devotion you profess!  You are, it seems, devoted to your own IDEA of your S.O., not the woman who is actually there.  Why not just piss in her shoes and accuse her of demanding just oh too much of you when she tells you to knock it off?  If there is a line that you would draw somewhere, that constrains your behaviour, then I have news for you.  The world also draws lines for us.  Smart move is to nudge yours as close as possible to those given us by the world.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: kalani ]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Shall we refer to the Merriam Webster dictionary?

Main Entry: de·vo·tion
Pronunciation: di-'vO-sh&n, dE-
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 a : religious fervor : PIETY b : an act of prayer or private worship -- usually used in plural c : a religious exercise or practice other than the regular corporate worship of a congregation
2 a : the act of devoting b : the fact or state of being ardently dedicated and loyal (as to an idea or person)
3 obsolete : the object of one's devotion
synonym see FIDELITY

Fidelity, devotion, they're the same thing. You can be friends with many people, but you can only be devoted to ONE. And, clearly, you weren't. Your problem, (ONE of your problems.) is that you didn't realize (Or perhaps care.) that in pledging your devotion to her, you'd "told her, assured her, guaranteed her" that the relationship was no longer "open".

[Chamberlain]

Ouch!  Someone's been hurt.
Of all of my open relationships, both sides were informed and agreed.  Each side carried out their own liasons.  So for two years she was unfaithful as well but it didn't bother me because I loved her and knew she was quite devoted to me.  I felt bad on the occasions when she didn't have a good time.  So I would try to make up for it with a gift or a fun time of our own.  Today we are still close and fast friends.  The monogamous relationships are those that seem to have peculiarly faded away. Seems they had faith but not devotion.  

Thanks to werelocktemp for the precise denotation.  I guess according to the dictionary there is no difference ( never knew it implied piety though).

So technically, verbatim, it's a "no."

Is anyone in an open relationship or marriage, or had a fairly successful one, that can speak to the contrary (being devoted but not faithful that is)?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The point, Chamberlain, is not that you were necessarilly wrong in your mutually open relationship. It's just that you didn't pick up on the fact that she didn't WANT it to be open anymore, and that, perhaps without realizing what you'd done, you'd promised her that it wouldn't be anymore. So naturally she felt betrayed when you violated that promise.

Next time you promise to be devoted to some woman, you'll know what you're promising.