Is Open Marriage Immoral?

[Justice44]

On Oprah, Oscar nominee Mo’nique mentioned that she had an open marriage. Some of the moral outrage toward her decision inspired me to write the following comment:

If open marriage is innately immoral because it violates sexual fidelity, one should conclude that sexual fidelity implies monogamy. If one is faithful to their spouse, they are also having sex with their spouse. The frequency of their sexual interaction may be negotiated between the couple, but they agree to have sex with only one another. It’s amazing that opponents of open marriage rebuke open marriage but accept marriages where there is no sex. They only focus on the part of fidelity that requires abstinence outside of marriage. If sexual fidelity is their moral construct, couples who permit extramarital sex and couples who decline to have sex in their marriages should receive the same degree of moral outrage. After all, they are both not monogamous.

What do you think about open marriage? Do you think it is immoral because it is not monogamous? Do you have the same moral outrage toward marriages which are sexless?

[LailaK]

I am a one man type of girl who doesn't share.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with an open marriage as long as both parties are fully aware of what going on and are a-ok with it all. If you're not hurting anyone, how is it immoral?

[Gigabitch]

Open marriage is not immoral. It implies consent on both sides.

Lying, cheating and betrayal are immoral.

[the_robot]

What people who say that should do stop sticking their heads up other people's asses.

I think the only immoral thing with that is people who say is immoral.. if you are jealous of people with an "open marriage", it's your problem, don't blame other people for it.

[SirWagginston]

No, it's not immoral, but I would never do it.

[vashti]

If open marriage is innately immoral because it violates sexual fidelity, one should conclude that sexual fidelity implies monogamy. If one is faithful to their spouse, they are also having sex with their spouse. The frequency of their sexual interaction may be negotiated between the couple, but they agree to have sex with only one another. It’s amazing that opponents of open marriage rebuke open marriage but accept marriages where there is no sex. They only focus on the part of fidelity that requires abstinence outside of marriage. If sexual fidelity is their moral construct, couples who permit extramarital sex and couples who decline to have sex in their marriages should receive the same degree of moral outrage. After all, they are both not monogamous.

I hope you didn't spend too much time coming up with this statement. It doesn't appear that anyone thinks open marriage is immoral.

[Kiechi]

Not immoral, however fail to see how it could strengthen a r/s. it's more detrimental than anything. plus, i reckon open marriages are doomed to fail from the start. just people who got into r/s too early and get too curious with "what-if..." scenarios.

[the_robot]

Not immoral, however fail to see how it could strengthen a r/s. it's more detrimental than anything. plus, i reckon open marriages are doomed to fail from the start. just people who got into r/s too early and get too curious with "what-if..." scenarios.

Most guys who are infidel do it just because of sex, so I believe that a marriage like that could take out the "sex factor"

[doppelgaenger]

There's nothing immoral about it. I think the more important question, is are such marriages worthy of all the benefits that marriages are entitled to?

[SirWagginston]

There's nothing immoral about it. I think the more important question, is are such marriages worthy of all the benefits that marriages are entitled to?

That is a better question. I say yes, they should be.

[Doc Durian]

The word, "immoral" is off from the start.

If there is no deprivation of life, liberty, or possessions and it's consensual.... who gives a rat's bottom gland whether some find it immoral and others don't?

All unions should be free and willingly entered into with all the facts detailed from the onset.

[SirWagginston]

The word, "immoral" is off from the start.

If there is no deprivation of life, liberty, or possessions and it's consensual.... who gives a rat's bottom gland whether some find it immoral and others don't?

All unions should be free and willingly entered into with all the facts detailed from the onset.

That's all good in theory, but you and I both live in republics, wherein policy inevitably follows from the will of the people, and the people are often pushy ideologues who think everybody should be forced to live their way.

[Doc Durian]

That's all good in theory, but you and I both live in republics, wherein policy inevitably follows from the will of the people, and the people are often pushy ideologues who think everybody should be forced to live their way.

While you or I may or may not live in a Republic, I believe that you're mistaking the concept of Republic with Democracy.

The will of the people can only go so far in a Republic. In a pure Democracy, the will of the people reigns supreme... despite unalienable civil liberties...

[girl68]

Absoluetly not. So long as everyone (including those engaged with the couple) know about this.

But it ain't my style.

[dewilliams2]

Its not for me but it isn't immoral...who am I to say what is moral?...as long as you can sleep with yourself at night and nobody is getting hurt then go for it.

I'm just more of a one woman kinda guy...I kinda like the idea of having that intimate relationship with somebody...its like home, its all yours and nobody else can have it, its where you go when you want to find comfort and relax or do things that you would get arrested for in public(if your caught).

I'm not the most social of guys...I have a small handful of close friends and then my gf and family and I'm happy with that...I'm not one of those people that opens myself up to a whole bunch of acquaintances and call them my friends.