Tarantula questioned:
I am in a relationship where I have a much higher sex drive then my partner and he is strictly top and I am versatile. He has suggested that we be in an open relationship and I am totally intrigued with the idea but have never been in one before. He has said as long as I tell him upfront he would be okay and it has seemed to work so far. Do you think someone can actually be in a committed but open relationship?

Bernard opinioned:
Committed, but open relationship? That's an interesting concept, but it depends on a person's perception of what commitment means to them. From a personal standpoint, I don't think that it is not possible to be in a committed relationship and be open at the same time. I say this in regard to some new friends.

I do think there should be a certain line drawn though. When you are committed to something no matter what it is, you put your heart and soul into it until it comes out right or satisfies you. You don't give up on it when things get complicated, you find ways to alter or enhance the situation. Sometimes I think when two persons in a relationship, it establishes the fact that they are both open to having an open relationship. And sometimes it tends to go a little further than some may expect, or as I said one person's ideas on commitment may be different from the other party involved.

I think if you do come to a consensus that your relationship is going to be an open one, each person needs to define what they mean by open so that each party will have a clear understanding as to what is and is not acceptable within this aspect. That way there can be no real discrepancy between the two involved if one does decide that it has gone too far.

You said that thus far, it is working out pretty good in this fashion, so something is right. I would just make sure that the lines of communication stay open and are not clouded by prejudgement or underlying feelings.

Keith amazed:
This is a very modern practice which I still hesitate if I can perform it.

I suppose, COMMIT here means to put into another's charge or trust, or simply ENTRUST. So, if your bf trust you and willing to let you having fun outside, and if you don't exceed the limit, if you feel comfortable, I think the open but committed relationship is okay.

Kenneth Way disagreed:
It's utterly a so called great idea for majority number of PLU, which SEX is the main driving force for whoever in this circle (though there are minute niche of PLU who are not). First of all, please be clear in mind what is the definition of COMMITTED or COMMITMENT. This is the string that tight you up with your love one for depicting your sincerity, loyalty. In return, you got his trust, his treasure.

Nowadays, pity to say that PLU are so crazy about SEX and resulted that mainly their lovers need to "close an eye" by telling themselves this is the norm in this circle, NOT A BIG DEAL.

So there is no such thing as an open but committed relationship. If someone is so much driven sexually, you'd better state " practising open relationship" and please don't tarnish the word "committed" relationship. I don't meant to be harsh, just my own perception, but I still respect other guys' perceptions.

Azman differed:
I honestly don't believe you can be in a committed relationship and at the same time expected it to be an "Open" one, giving you or your partner the opportunity for outside sex. If that's what you want why settle or commit in the first place, just live together as "flat mates" or friends. To expect this in a relationship is, in my view, a selfish and immature attitude; to me it says that I don't respect or love my "partner" sufficiently and if I don't get what I want from him, I'm not going without as I can get it from someone/somewhere else.

In this 21st Century with the increase of HIV and STDs (Sexually Transmissible
Disease) around the world we can't afford to play "Russian Roulette Sex". In any committed relationship it requires the two partners to contribute equally and be prepared to communicate openly and honestly; it requires each of you to be flexible in attitude, to discuss your needs and wants and what you expect from each other, to be prepared to see and understand each other's viewpoint and compromise if needed. An open relationship to me is NOT a committed one; it's one that has a lot of problems ahead.

Lek whispered:
One man's meat is another man's poison, isn't it? It works for some people but not for everyone, I suppose. It has worked for me for the past 11 years...go figure.

Steve hinted:
I fully agree with Lek. There is no single prescription which applies to all mankind. The pleasure is absolutely all yours and of course the consequences.

Brandon Issac Dominic advised:
An open relationship with commitment??? Most of you are confused commitment with loyalty and exclusivity. Personally I will not have an open relationship if I consider myself committed to my partner. But the idea of an open and committed relationship isn't impossible, so long as both or more individuals in the relationship agree with it, if you are
doing something behind your partners back, then I don't think it's a committed relationship anymore.

But if you were to have multiple partners, how sure are you that you can be fair to all your partners? Taking up the responsibility of an open yet committed relationship isn't easy, you must spend equal time with each of your partner, you must treat all of them fairly n there are many more things you must do.

Do you really think it's worth the hassle to have an open but committed relationship? Rather than having an open relationship, why don't you learn to tolerate your partner's flaw? If you are committed in your relationship you should commit yourself to resolve the problems in your relationship, there's always neutral ground on which you and your partner can reach to a compromise on certain issues. Do think before venturing into the idea of an open but committed relationship, compare the pros and cons, make the decision after analyzing everything carefully.

Bernard varied:
Stop trying to live homosexual lives running by heterosexual rules - experience LIFE and that means experience sexuality - stop approaching sexuality like the hetero - it doesn't work. Having sex with someone else is not dismissal of love. Sex and love ain't the same.

You can Love and want the experience Sex with another - open up.

Love is committed to connectedness and not, as some would say, exclusivity.

We homosexual - it doesn't mean we have to be narrow.

To each man, his own end but narrowing options ain't homosexual - that is the heterosexual ideal. Relax, the dynamic of connectedness ain't define along narrow parameters BUT you both must want to experience the boundaries and likely, mostly together but it is wrong to consider those boundaries fixed and/or unapproachable. Love is exploring the damn boundaries and not being afraid to let go, sometimes of each other TOO and the occasional joint declaration that some borders not be bearable by either party.

We all know that men are sexual beings but we are loving beings as well. I n a "normal" relationship both are balanced, but what happens when the balance is thrown off. Two adults can be honest and open with their desires, both sexual and emotional. In this age, relationships are much more complicated especially with HIV and other diseases rampant out there. I'd rather be honest to my sexual desires with my partner than hold any resentment.

Jung shared:
This phenomenon of the open gay relationship is probably the top reason why I am celibate. The author notes that men can have sexual relations without intimacy or emotion. This appears to be attached to the western theory of the human male as some poor creature captivated by some primal urge to insert himself into as many recipients as possible. So, we condone, no, even esteem the anti-heros that have legitimized and capitalized on this theory. Pornographers are accepted into polite society (the prime example of Hugh Heffner) and people bat an eye to male infidelity. This behavior has a long history of tacet approval.

So, the nod towards open gay relationships stems from social phenomenon that originally never thought of a gay component to the male fantasy. Men are expected to sleep around and receive only a slap on the hand when families fall apart due to this. It's disgusting how hypocritical the larger society is on this issue.

For myself, I refuse to think of my sex as common with wild animals. I happen to believe in the preposterous idea that we can rise above our apparently animal origins and actually be considerate of ourselves and others. In a time when gay rights are still in a fledgling stage, it boggles my mind that we would want find excuses for this relationship style.

Praising non-monogamous styles send a clear message to our opponents. It screams that we are as ridiculous and hypocritical as the straight man who cheats on his family and runs years of deception. It doesn't matter whether or not this is true (most likely it is!). It matters that we triumph a demoralized and pathetic state instead of trying to be better. Emotional destruction is a regular visitor to open gay relationships and it is largely due to jealousy and feelings of comparative worthlessness. The idea that it is a healthy and natural alternative for gay couples is false.

Have something to share or add? Would like to talk further on this topic? Join our PLUPenang Yahoo! Group now!