Talk:Open marriage

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ivonnejuraidini.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Swinging Open Marriage?
The article claims there is disagreement as to whether or not swinging is open marriage. I don't think this is a definitional issue. I think this is an issue about the psychological and social consequences of the diverse forms open marriage can take.

First, the claim a disagreement exists is not consistent with the definition provided. The opening line of the article states: "An open marriage is a marriage wherein both parties agree to permit some forms of sexual relationships for one or both outside the marriage, without regarding this as sexual infidelity."

A swinging couple can be married. Both partners of the swinging couple can agree to permit sexual relationships for one or both outside the marriage. Both partners in the swinging couple can decide the outside sexual relationships do not constitute sexual infidelity. If a swinging couple meets all the defining criteria for an open marriage, then either swingers do have open marriages by definition or the definition offered is incorrect (too inclusive).

Second, I've been around the polyamory, open marriage, swinging, and bisexual communities long enough to know people battle for social turf for psychological reasons. People want sexual non-monogamy for different psychological reasons:  On the one hand are people who want sexual non-monogamy for intimacy and self-identity. These people often want emotionally involved relationships with outside sex partners, and they often seek privacy with outside sex partners as a way to reaffirm self-identity ("Although I'm married, I'm still an individual who can have sexual and romantic relationships with whomever I want"). On the other hand are people who want sexual non-monogamy for sexual gratification. These people often prefer to avoid emotional involvement, and they tend to enjoy sexual activities as a couple ("The couple that plays together stays together.").  The psychological motives of these two groups conflict. Consequently, their personal interactions often lead to tension and conflict. This in turn leads to the formation of separate communities so people can find those who share their relationship motives and avoid those who share alternative relationship motives.

The so-called disagreement as to whether swingers are in open marriages has a lot to do with defnding social turf by controlling language. Open marriage is a large enough term to cover both groups of people described above, and this is intolerable for those who only want to interact with people sharing their own relationship motives. So the attempt is made to use language and definitions to exclude people holding different relationship motives.

I'd like to see the paragraph on the disagreement moved to its own section and elaborated upon in terms of open marriage diversity.

Kelly


 * Yeah, this phenomenon is a nuisance when trying to write an encyclopaedia entry. Entries need to start with a definition so people know what they're talking about, but different people use the term differently. Might be best to use the same fix that we thrashed out over at polyamory: start from the broad definition, acknowledging that others exist, and then discuss the narrower definitions later in the article. I've edited the intro sentence accordingly, which should at least remove the contradiction, but will leave the elaboration for others. --Calair 06:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that the definition originally quoted above by Kelly was an older version, omitting the qualifier "some forms of" sexual relationship. Most open couples would still find other forms of sexual relationship (eg: traditional secret affairs) to still be infidelity or breaking of agreements, so the earlier definition was clearly too broad to reflect actual usage.  Kelly's argument that the earlier unqualified definition would "automatically" include swingers was valid, but the newer definition avoids that pitfall and leaves open the question of whether or not swingers would be included.  Perhaps that part of the discussion should be removed in light of the newer and more focussed definition.

The problem with moving the paragraph on disagreement about swingers being automatically considered to have open relationships to a later section it that many of the points made in the article depend on the definition one has in mind - they may be true or false characterizations of open marriage depending on that definition.

I think part of the problem with defining this term is confusion between "identity politics" and "taxonomic objecitivity". Should the typical character of "open marriage" be defined by the participants who identify as having open marriages, or by outsiders who are seeking to classify relationship styles? For an example of the latter, an anthropologist could assert that a tribe practices polygyny without any need for the polygynous members of that tribe to self-identify as polygynists per se - it's a label applied from without, using definitions from anthropology rather than from within the culture in question. If one sees "open marriage" in that light, then an academic could classify all swingers as automatically having open marriages (by that academic's own definition) even if most of the subjects themselves vehemently rejected the term. On the other hand, one might define open marriage more descriptively by seeing what those identifying as having open marriages tend to have in common. Are we seeking to define open marriage based on prescriptive or descriptive usage? I would suggest descriptive, since unlike polygyny there is no consensus academic definition of open marriage to be applied objectively, and the prescriptive usages seen here tend towards personal advocacy.

So - do swingers themselves typically identify as having open marriages? My sense is not, but I know of no statistics on this. Failing that, perhaps the fairest way to put this is that "some swingers may also identify as having open marriages or open relationships" (neither "most" nor "very few"). I think this is more useful than debating whether all swingers should be classified as having open marriages (relationships) or none should be. Z

More Citations of Source Material
This article is a good start, but it could do with better citations and source material. E.g. where does the list of "typical rules" come from? From what I have seen of open marriages/relationships, not all of these rules would be typical (some appear more restrictive than I'd have expected). I realise that my own anecdotal evidence isn't much to go on, but is there a scholarly basis for the assertion of what is "typical"? That would be interesting to know about. I'd also like to see some history of the concept and its advocates. Metamagician3000 11:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The agreements were given as examples from within a diverse range, not as the "typical" set used in open marriage. This somewhat reduces the degree of unvalidated assertion, as it's only asserting existance rather than preponderance of any given agreement.  In that regard, I believe it would be better to revert the agreements to  the version prior to "Revision as of 14:44, 17 June 2006" because the earlier version gave a number of variations that different couples have chosen.  The edit at that time eliminated all but one option for each area of agreement, which reflects a strong personal bias of that individual editor as to which of several options is more reflective of open marriage.  That narrowing of examples shifted the flavor from "some examples illustrating the diversity of agreements (without assertions of which versions were more commone)" to "the listed choices are more typical of open marrage than others".


 * I'm currently working on a complete revision of the article on Jealousy, which will include a well-referenced section on ground rules. It will take me until July 31 to finish the revision of the Jealousy article, as I have to write most of the new articles. I plan a revision of the Open marriage article after completing the Jealousy article; I will include a referenced section on ground rules at that time. I have not been able to get to this sooner because I was working on a complete revision of Monogamy and a substantial revision of Attachment theory. kc62301


 * If you should happen to come across referenced material relevant to polyamory, please consider adding it to that page as well - it would greatly benefit from a few more citations. --Calair 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally have mixed feelings about polyamory. I would rather collaborate on articles dealing with specific forms of relationships (Monogamy, Polygamy, Open Marriage, Group Marriage, Cohabitation, etc.). kc62301

Verification of 'notable people with open marriages' list
I'm concerned about inaccuracy in this list. There is a similar list over at Polyamory, and there's a tendency for people to add names to it willy-nilly without careful documentation. When I went checking some of the listed names, I found that their listing was often questionable, either based on the assumption that 'tolerated cheating' = 'open/poly relationship', or on no evidence at all that I could find; see Talk:Polyamory and archives for details. Some of those same names, and some other questionable ones, have shown up here.

In particular, I'm concerned about the accuracy of edits made by 64.26.98.90. After looking at comments on his/her talk page re. other pages, this anon seems to have a history of questionable edits. In particular, on this page:

- Listed Benjamin Franklin in the 'notable people with open marriages' section. No documentation offered, no discussion of this in Franklin's own article, and nothing elsewhere on a brief Google search. - Ditto Geronimo. I twice reverted the same IP's previous attempts to add Geronimo to the similar list in Polyamory for this reason. - Listed François Mitterrand; while Mitterrand certainly had a mistress, and his wife seems to have known about this, it's not clear whether she consented to the arrangement or just put up with it. - Changed his/her own edit 'François Mitterrand, the late president of France' to 'François Mitterrand, the late French Prime Minister'. AFAIK, Mitterrand was president but never prime minister; I'm not sure why 64.26.98.90 would be providing accurate information and then replacing it with inaccurate (unless s/he is unaware that those are two different positions), but that's what seems to have happened. - Various other edits that may well be true, but don't offer any supporting cites and aren't supported by the relevant people's articles.

IMHO, these sort of lists should be supported either by information on the relevant people's own pages, or at least by a reference provided here. In the absence of such evidence, people should not be included on these lists. --Calair 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed Bob Jones (which should've been Bob Jones, Sr. anyway), since this seemed more than usually unlikely and Googling on +"bob jones" +"open marriage" produced nothing obvious to justify inclusion in the list - if this can be confirmed it should be in his article. --Calair 01:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cindy Margolis disclosed that she has an open marriage in August, 2000 , on the "Howard Stern Show".

I did some housecleaning on the list, trying to cut it down to verifiable info. I left in people whose open marriages were adequately documented on their own pages, and Googled the others (but not at great length; there may well be things I missed, and deleted people can certainly be re-added if documentation can be found).

I've added cites here for Margaret Sanger, Havelock Ellis, Dick and Naomi Mitchison, but if somebody has the time to work that info into their respective articles that would be great. There are probably better cites to be found than the ones I added - I just picked the first relevant links that came up on Google, and the Sanger one in particular could do with improvement.

Open Marriage Acceptance
Please get the citations correct or remove this section. It's full of weasel words, in addition to no being well sourced. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed for lack of verification: Cindy Margolis - no documentation found. Could be re-added if the above claim about disclosure on Howard Stern Show can be supported, but an anon comment on its own isn't verification. Joseph and Magda Goebbels - latter article claims "there is evidence that at some point they had agreed to have an open marriage" but gives no cite; could be re-added if/when cite is provided there. Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier, film stars; found one article headed 'Leigh and Olivier enjoyed open marriage', but what it describes sounds more like blatant cheating than an agreed arrangement. François Mitterrand, the late President of France - well known to have had a mistress, no documentation given for an agreement with his wife on this. Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith - source for claim is probably these much-reported remarks, but note Smith's followup on this topic here. His intended meaning seems to be hypothetical - along the lines of "I'd rather have an open marriage than go behind Jada's back" than "I have an open marriage." William Moulton Marston, creator of Wonder Woman - lived with Elizabeth Marston & Olive Byrne/Doyle, but this seems to have been closer to unofficial polygamy than an open marriage; AFAICT, Olive was effectively a spouse to William and perhaps also to Elizabeth.--Calair 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The source verifying that Cindy Margolis has an open marriage ,can also be accessed at ,just click ''archives 1996-2006, then click August 14,2000. 420 hottie


 * That first link still isn't working for me (not sure whether there's a referring-page issue involved or what), but from following through from the front page, this link should work.


 * AFAICT, this is the relevant section:


 * "Gary made a phony phone call to Cindy recently and in the call they asked her to do some wacky stuff. One of the things Gary asked her to do was sleep with Howard. She said she would do it. Today Howard said that Gary was unable to make the call to her for him to sleep with her because it was too awkward. Cindy told Howard that when she got married she and her husband made up lists of people they could sleep with and Howard was on her list. So she is still willing to have him come to her hotel and sleep with her. Howard said he really wants to do this and Cindy told him that he just has to come on her show. Howard doesn't want to do that but she convinced him that it's okay to come over to her hotel. Howard let Cindy plug her show and web site CindyMargolis.com. She gave him a kiss goodbye and Howard asked Gary if he got the info from Cindy. Gary said he got the address and phone number for her. Cindy even said she'd change her flight out of town just for Howard if he wants to come over. Howard knows that nothing will happen though. He predicts that she'll just want to have dinner because she's married."


 * This sounds to me more like lighthearted banter than a serious admission of an open marriage. People flirt on radio & TV shows all the time; if we reported every joking remark as fact, Wikipedia would be flooded with unreliable information. If Cindy Margolis really has an open marriage and is willing to make that public, there should be more about it than this - for starters, I'm sure such a story would sell magazines. --Calair 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the "unreferenced" template to this section. There is already a "fact" tag on Ellis. Labelling Einstein as being in an open marriage smells funny to me. He had a number of affairs, and his wives may have known of them. But that doesn't mean that his wives tolerated or condoned these affairs or had ones of their own. The article on Einstein doesn't use the phrase "open marriage" anywhere either.

Anywho, do as you may. This section has the potential to be very inflammatory. I hope I'm not pouring fuel on the flames; that's not my intent. I hope people can cite some unambiguous, reliable sources for these claims (on all the persons listed). Cheers, Lunch 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Will and Jada
C&Ping my comments from Talk:Polyamory on the same subject:

Will Smith gave an interview which was widely interpreted as saying they had an open marriage (see e.g. here) but Jada Smith has indicated that he was misinterpreted/taken out of context on this one and Will Smith is rather less than clear on the point in a subsequent interview. IIRC there was another interview with Smith in which he said his intended meaning was not "we're open" but "open marriage would be better than dishonesty", or words to that effect, but I can't find that one at present. --Calair 09:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Referencing Sources
I'm currently writing the section on adult attachment in the Wikipedia article on Attachment theory. I plan to start working on a revision of this article around the middle of July--with many references included. If you look at my revision of the Monogamy article, or the adult section of the Attachment theory article, you will see I'm a big fan of scientific references. kc62301

Proposed revision
I am currently working on a complete revision of the open marriage article. Open marriage is a broad enough topic for several articles, and I have finished outlining the articles I am writing. Please check out the new article outlines at User:Kc62301/Open marriage. Here are some of the thoughts behind the proposed changes:
 * All the new articles will be well-referenced. For examples of my love of references, see the Monogamy articles as well as the Attachment in adults and Attachment measures articles.
 * Open marriages are first and foremost relationships. Polyamory and swinging are communities, and as communities encompass more than open relationships. For example, polygamy is not an open marriage (as typically understood) and swingers can be single. Both polyamory and swinging involve organizations. The proposed revision of the open marriage article focuses on open marriage as a relationship (and contains several links to the polyamory and swinging articles as related community topics).
 * Researchers have recently started distinguishing between two type of sexual non-monogamy: polyamorous and swinging. This distinction will be discussed in detail in an article devoted to the styles of open marriage.
 * All open marriages (polyamorous and swinging) share certain things common: they are disapproved of in most Western societies, they involve a marriage that needs to be maintained, and they require strategies to manage jealousy. Each of these common themes are discussed in a separate article. The article on jealousy will be relatively short and point to a newly revised article on jealousy (including an article devoted to coping with jealousy).
 * Ground rules will be discussed at length, with several references to scientific studies, in the article on coping with jealousy. This is because the main purpose of ground rules is to manage jealousy and romantic rivalry in relationships.
 * If there is a topic not included (e.g., legal issues or sexual orientation issues), people are welcomed to write an article about that topic. It can then be added to the main page along with the other articles. This format has gone over well in other areas (e.g., Monogamy and Attachment), since it helps readers easily find what they want to read and allows contributors to easily expand the topic with new articles. Kelly 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All in favour of good referencing. On the other points: worth noting that while polyamory can be a community, not all polyamorous folk consider themselves part of that 'poly community'. (Much like homosexuality in this regard - some gay folk build their social circle around orientation, some don't.)
 * Contrarywise, in some cases the distinction between 'polyamory' and 'swinging' is more about community than about the actual type of relationship involved. I've seen several people say that they chose between identifying 'poly' or 'swinger' not because of whether they placed emotion over physicality, but because they already had friends in one of those communities (or alternately, didn't like what they'd seen of the other one). Getting this sort of thing into verifiable, encyclopaedic form is hard, though.
 * May also be worth noting that the distinction between 'poly' and 'swinging' didn't start with researchers; this is more a matter of researchers acknowledging an existing distinction in usage among practitioners of both. --Calair 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Points taken. Please let me know what you think about the way I'm handling it in User:Kc62301/Open marriage styles. The article is not complete. But I think you will see how it attempts to deal with the issues you raised. This would be an excellent time to suggest improvements. Kelly 03:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision July 26, 2006

 * I have exercised the Wikipedia philosophy of being bold and made major revisions to the Open marriage article.
 * The topic of open marriage is broad enough for several articles. Reorganizing the main page to summarize the various articles will help readers find the information they seek more easily. It will also allow contributors to write new articles on open marriage and easily integrate them into the new page. This strategy has gone over well with the Monogamy article and the Attachment theory article.
 * I released the articles a little early due to my upcoming vacation. I will continue to polish and improve the articles after my vacation.
 * I have an unfinished article in the works on Open marriage relationship. This article will look at the various effects open marriage can have on relationships--positive, neutral, and negative. It will contain a few brief notes on relationship maintenance.
 * I think the articles I've added have enough verifiable references from credible sources to remove the template for lack of citations. I've removed the template. I'd be happy to discuss if anyone objects. Kelly 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the new article on relationship maintenance. That's the last article I plan to add, although I will go back after my vacation and improve some of the existing articles (including the addition of some figures). I hope no one objects to removing the emotional issues section. I think those are now covered in the relationship maintenance article and the jealousy management article. Kelly 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Should emphasize the usual temporary nature of the "marriage". One study of upper class educated "opens" tried to do a follow up interview after five years and noone was still "married". The long-term success rate ( or happiness rate ) seems low. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).


 * Got a cite for that? --Calair 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Margolis mentioned that she and her husband made lists of people they can sleep with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chester polarbear (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Just because someone is on that list,it doesn't mean they're going to have sex.

Joseph and Magda Goebbels did NOT live an "open marriage"
Joseph Goebbels cheated on his wife, a lot even, but that's not the same as an "open marriage". An open marriage provide consent of both partners, which sure was not given with Magda Goebbels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.47.170 (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why has this subject has been splintered into several articles?
To my count, there are 4 separate articles aside from this one that are basically expanded sections of this article. There's Open_marriage_relationship, Open_marriage_styles, Open_marriage_jealousy and Open_marriage_incidence. I understand separating a long section into it's own article, but each section in this article has it's own separate article, each of which don't really justify having their own page. I suggest merging them back into the main article. 174.112.6.146 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd wipe it after about Jealousy. All the add-ons after this aren't well cited, full of weasel words ("most people" disapprove of open marriage), and are biased against the subject matter. Merge the articles, find out how much of this subject is actually true, and cut out the dead wood. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

One-sided open marriage
The current definition allows only marriages where each spouse is given permission to engage in sexual relations outside the marriage, but what about cases when one spouse is and another isn't? Is that an open marriage or not? EIN (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since a marriage suggests two people and "open" suggests free will, I would think that restricting/forbidding the other partner would violate the principle. Unless of course the 1st partner is given permission to fuck around by the second partner (freely and willingly) and the 2nd partner does not seek anything for themselves, e.g. hotwifing and/or cuckolding.  Then their lack of participation is not really a restriction. 09:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, where do I begin? First, the concept of marriage isn't limited to two-people relationships: otherwise, the word “polygamy” wouldn't exist. Now, I think that it's fine to say that “open” suggests free will, but whose free will? Why can't it be free will on part of only one party? And then, also, if your spouse demands, not by force but by request, that you abstain from extramarital sexual relations and you choose to comply with hir demand, aren't you in fact acting out of your will, which is free?


 * Just another thing: if open marriage cannot be one-sided by definition, then what term can be used in reference to such an arrangement? “Hotwifing” and “cuckolding” are each useful, but what term is there left to someone trying to articulate the same situation with the genders reversed (or, better yet, regardless of gender)? Me has never heard anyone saying “hothusbanding.” xD Cheers. EIN (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC). (See Cuckquean for gender opposite term of cuckold in lifestyle definitions)175.142.232.164 (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Some valid points, but I would suggest that all of what you said would probably be Original Research and debated. Wiki isn't in the business of developing an ontology or lexicon for sexual relations.  I think consensus would be that a marriage is two people (unless you wanted to expand it to the non-English speaking wikis where polygamy is legally permissible.  I dont even think polygamy is recognized as a civil union in North America or GB) and that open would simply be free and willing.  As to coercion or duped or begrudging acceptance....who knows?


 * Nah, not really. The fact that marriage doesn't always come in sets of two isn't any more of an OR case than anything written in the marriage article. Wiki certainly is in the business of offering knowledge, which includes lists and definitions (especially on Wiktionary). The governments of North America and Great Britain indeed do not offer polygamous marriages as a legal option—not that NA and GB are the only English-speaking majority regions, and actually, I've heard that Canada legalized polyandry—yet the English Wikipedia is concerned not only with a few select countries, but rather, with universal matters, in whatever country and on whatever planet. Thus, if you see an article biased in favor of one jurisdiction or culture over another, please tag it with a “Globalize” template. Also, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Anglo-American focus. I've got no idea what you meant in the coercion part. EIN (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well...have at it then. If you think you can provide peer reviewed references and citations that suggest that POV, go for it.  The coercion comment was just to show a scale of "willingness" to permit other relations outside of monogamy.  Coercion, cajoled, shamed, convinced, begged, begrudgingly, permitted, casual, unconcerned, suggested, encouraged.  It all goes to what is truly willing.  I just think the word OPEN is self-explanatory and needs no further claification.  And I get it about English being spoken in a lot of places, but polygamy is rare in most English language cultures.  I know it exists in some, but have a hard time seeing a consensus where Open Marriage (as it relates to sex--and not childcare as in the Canadian polyandry) would be widely accepted to the idea of one member being allowed while the other is not. (Outside of cuck/hotwife as we discussed and concur.) As for me, I have a hard time seeing how a housewife who turns a blind eye to a cheating husband would be perceived as an open marriage.  I think the consensus for the concept would be two people (extended to civil unions and common law) who are pretty "open" about sex outside of the "norm" of a monogamous union. Even in polygamy in English speaking countries the idea of sex outside of a sanctioned union is frowned upon and could hardly be called an Open Marriage.  JVB (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no, you see, I don't know if the term “open marriage” can refer to hot-spousing or V type of relationships or anything of the sort, which is why I asked for clarification. I'll see what I can find online. Merriam-Webster defines the term as “a marriage in which the partners agree to let each other have sexual partners outside the marriage,” and I take it that ‘each other’ means all parties, so again, I concur. I think we can settle at that. Everything Is Numbers 23:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. If there is more, it should be included.JVB (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

proposed merge
The articles Open marriage, Open marriage relationship, Open marriage styles, Open marriage acceptance, Open marriage incidence, and Open marriage jealousy ought to be merged into Open relationship.

The destination article clearly encompasses the subject matter of all six articles. These are content forks, and these have in fact become interleaved and self-referential; for instance, sections have been added to Open marriage simply to justify the existence of other articles, and likewise sections have been put into the smaller articles to point back to each other.

When the merge is completed, the significant redundancies can be readily removed, leaving a single credible destination for the topic. Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

supportive evidence for merge
Set aside for a moment that most of the articles appear derivative right from the title. The fact is that most of the content is of little (perhaps no) interest to Wikipedia users.


 * Open relationship
 * page views in past 30 days: 25,246
 * number of page watchers: 76
 * number of redirects to this page: 4
 * page creator: Branddobbe


 * Open marriage
 * page views in past 30 days: 17,027
 * number of page watchers: 113
 * number of redirects to this page: 2
 * page creator: Kerada


 * Open marriage relationship
 * page views in past 30 days: 929
 * number of page watchers: <30
 * number of redirects to this page: 0
 * page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage


 * Open marriage styles
 * page views in past 30 days: 1,980
 * number of page watchers: <30
 * number of redirects to this page: 0
 * page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage


 * Open marriage acceptance
 * page views in past 30 days: 429
 * number of page watchers: <30
 * number of redirects to this page: 0
 * page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage


 * Open marriage incidence
 * page views in past 30 days: 544
 * number of page watchers: <30
 * number of redirects to this page: 0
 * page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage


 * Open marriage jealousy
 * page views in past 30 days: 410
 * number of page watchers: <30
 * number of redirects to this page: 0
 * page creator: Kc62301 merged to Open marriage

Clearly, defunct editor Kc62301 was a serial forker, spawning questionable articles to support his own theories of interpersonal relating (e.g., Outline of relationships). Most of them show a tiny visitorship, most of those likely arriving from the superior articles in hopes of further enlightenment. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

necessary changes/repairs: notes for helpful people
The Definitional issues subsection of Incidence ought to be relocated higher in the article, possible at/near the top, as these conditions are fundamental to determining what the hell the article is supposed to be about. resolved (though it could benefit from editing/sourcing) Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's still possible that Incidence — after getting its blockquotes removed — would be much more appropriate near the top of the article. (This would be even vital if there were links to educated guesses of the prevalence of "open marriage" closer to 2018.) Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The Acceptance section (arrived from Open marriage acceptance could benefit from judicious editing, summarizing of long quotes, and the usual common-sense attention. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone should feel free to have a whack at the Styles section, which has recently been brought in from Open marriage styles and is still unruly. Rather than "multiple issues," I tagged it as a POV, on the rationale that the original author is trying to divide open relating into "there for the love" vs. "there for the sex," and repeatedly gets trapped trying to cram examples into one pigeonhole or the other. The worst over-rationalization is the big blockquotes in the Polyamory vs swinging subsection; seems to me like any "versus" stuff better belongs either in Polyamory or in Swinging (maybe both!) but here anything more than a mention is extraneous at best. resolved (mostly) Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

single-sourcing
The article as it stands relies too significantly on one book, namely Taormino's Opening Up, inarguably raising the yellow flag of POV doubts, not to mention whether it might have advert or fansite bias. Since that book is a marketing brochure for open relating, rather than any sort of scholarly study, the article relies heavily on a primary source; I'd say the flag becomes red. Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Do studies really provide evidence for a strong genuine social disapproval of open marriage?
IO have a bone to pick with the unsourced sourced statements in the article that read: The evidence thus shows strong social disapproval of open marriage. Very large majorities of people in Western societies disapprove of extramarital sex in general, and substantial majorities feel open marriage is wrong even when the spouses agree to it. Nine out of ten people say they would never consider open marriage for themselves. While the studies referenced do in deed show study participants expressing strong disapproval of open marriage and extramarital sex, even between consenting couples, it does not tell us if all the study participants where completely honest. Anytime your dealing with a subject the carries with strong stigmas, as open marriage and extramarital sex do in the West, there is always the possibility of people lying about how they feel about open marriage and extramarital sex due to the perception that society overall does not approve of it so they shouldn't either. Thus they might lie to the researchers if the feel uncomfortable with being honest to them and afraid there true feelings will leak out publicly. We see this sort of thing happen with sex surveys all the time (or so it's assumed), which is why it's difficult to determine things like what percentage of American's are gay or how many American women masturbate. So while the studies cited in the article show a strong expression to the researchers of disapproval they do not tell us how many of those surveyed were being honest. As such. we need to rewrite the above quoted statement to reflect that this is not proof of the general public's true views but rather simply what they state to researchers (with maybe a statement about the difficulty is determining who is being honest and who is telling the researchers what they think they want them so as avoid any possibility their true views on the subject become public).

And one other concern, when reporting on how many married couple participate in open marriage, we again always have the problem that some open marriage participants may lie about their participation due to the stigma associated with it. Thus the section on "prevalence" needs to be rewritten in parts to reflect this. The studies cited only reflect estimates of the prevalence, with the usual questions as to how accurate they are, given the possibility that many open marriage married couples are not comfortable being honest to the researchers on this subject. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You're mixing stuff up. There is significant difference between a marriage in which both partners agree that one or both may experience intimacy (sex &/or emotional attachment) to other adults, and a marriage in which one or both partners engage in such intimacy without the consent or even knowledge of the other. Few people are likely to speak up in support of secretive affairs.


 * Furthermore, there is the human propensity to believe in essence that "I could handle having more than one sexual partner, but I also happen to be much more emotionally mature and stable than most people." This is one factor in the self-reporting bias you mention. Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Terminology is not interchangeable.
The article seems to equate open marriage with both swinging and CNM ("consensual non-monogamy"). This at least is highly misleading and must be removed.

Open marriage is a type of open relationship, but not all open relationships are married or even marriage-like. An open relationship can be an example of CNM; not all examples of CNM are open relationships. Open marriage is not equivalent to polyamory just because they both can fit CNM. Swinging is not CNM except in a very limited technical sense.

A DADT open relationship is not polyamorous, because of the intentionally limited communication — giving initial permission (consent) is not the same as keeping regularly informed. A DADT open relationship is not necessarily consensual: they do not talk about it, so consent cannot be established.

Not all CNM is open. A relationship can be non-monogamous without being open, e.g. group marriage and polyfidelity. Nkofa (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points all around. There is significant crossover from various communities, but as noted, they aren't always interchangeable.  This page really needs a clean up in general.-- Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk 01:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)