# NT's and Open Relationships



## sinistralpal (Apr 30, 2010)

Some people say they could never do an open-relationship because emotional ties would get in the way, and jealousy would end up eroding the relationship. 

Can NT's detach themselves from the jealousy to make it work? Can NT's compartmentalize their feelings so the fact that one's partner is dating/sleeping with someone else does not impact a relationship in a negative way?

Or, even for NT's do you think that an open-relationship is walking on thin ice that is most assuredly going to break if stood upon for any length of time?


----------



## Jinxies (May 5, 2010)

I can compartmentalize my feelings rather well and can keep emotional strings separate. My second husband had a psuedo open relationship. 

It comes down to being secure and trusting of your partner really. I knew that no matter what either of us did, it wouldn't impact the emotional relationship that we had. 

With that said, most people aren't as emotionally detached as me and emotional people can make me emotional if they push at me for too long.

So, I guess my answer is that it is possible, but there are more factors than just the NT's ability to organize and block emotions.


----------



## KyojiK (Apr 14, 2010)

I did it, and it worked for a really long time, I might add. Neither of us felt lonely or needy. To me, if she felt okay with it, I'll feel okay with it. Nothing was in violation and therefore nothing was wrong.


----------



## sinistralpal (Apr 30, 2010)

Jinxies said:


> So, I guess my answer is that it is possible, but there are more factors than just the NT's ability to organize and block emotions.



Obviously the answer is more complicated than I implied in asking the question. However, I think perhaps NT's would be less averse to the idea of open relationships and more willing to try them than other MBTI types.


----------



## Hemoglobin (May 13, 2010)

KyojiK said:


> I did it, and it worked for a really long time, I might add. Neither of us felt lonely or needy. To me, if she felt okay with it, I'll feel okay with it. Nothing was in violation and therefore nothing was wrong.


Basically the same story here.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

If I want to screw around, I screw around, and there is no purpose of defining this as a "relationship".

If I want a monogamous relationship, then that's what I'll get.

I see no purpose, really, for an "open relationship".


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

I just don't see the point in such an arrangement. Desiring others sexually lessens the meaning your partner has to you, as it means they do not provide you with the satisfaction you need. It also means your partner isn't satisfied with you, and you are both apt to move on at a whim when someone more ideal turns up. To me, being in a relationship with someone means that they are the soul focus of your attraction and sexual energy and I'm not capable of considering anyone else in that capacity. Sex and love are not mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned and could not be with someone or think of someone sexually that I did not also have strong feelings for.

As far as NTs being more inclined to such an arrangement, I really don't see how type correlates to this. Just because someone is more apt to think logically rather than emotionally doesn't mean they are completely cold and devoid of feelings, morals, and ethics. Yes, we may come off as deeper thinkers than others, but there are emotions underlying all of it.


----------



## cardinalfire (Dec 10, 2009)

If two people define or make their intentions know, then there isn't a problem really.

If they both agree on an open relationship then fine, if they want to make it something with more commitment, then so be it. 

At the end of the day I prefer to give someone the room to do their own thing, I can't control other people or their actions. I do however have the ability to walk away if I feel that the terms of the relationship are violated.


----------



## Slkmcphee (Oct 19, 2009)

NiDBiLD said:


> If I want to screw around, I screw around, and there is no purpose of defining this as a "relationship".
> 
> If I want a monogamous relationship, then that's what I'll get.
> 
> I see no purpose, really, for an "open relationship".


Yeah, I think the NT is more likely to make a conscious choice to "screw around" rather than be ambiguous about the relationship. I don't see too many NTs feeling good about leading anyone on. 

I like things defined, for what they are and for what they are not. "Open Relationship" seems like an oxymoron to me.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

It isn't just some emotional experience that you can control. There are brain chemicals and hormones that effect us during bonding and mating which make us feel closer to someone. 

Google how 'oxytocin' works. I already wrote up some long spiel in another thread like this before. A bit too lazy to do it again.


----------



## themuzicman (Jul 13, 2009)

I don't honestly see why a rational would engage in an open relationship. It's a logical contradiction. It's essentially "friends with benefits."

A relationship, by definition, is one that is exclusive. That is the one thing that separates that relationship from all other friendships: it reserves the romantic to being between the two involved. Thus, an "open relationship" between two people who are supposed to be exclusive to each other is a logical contradiction.

Now, for a person who just wants to have sex, the "open relationship" is nice, since, if one fails at the bar, onecan always go home to the 2nd option. But that's not really a relationship. Like I said, that's just "friends with benefits."


----------



## Slkmcphee (Oct 19, 2009)

themuzicman said:


> I don't honestly see why a rational would engage in an open relationship. It's a logical contradiction. It's essentially "friends with benefits."
> 
> A relationship, by definition, is one that is exclusive. That is the one thing that separates that relationship from all other friendships: it reserves the romantic to being between the two involved. Thus, an "open relationship" between two people who are supposed to be exclusive to each other is a logical contradiction.
> 
> Now, for a person who just wants to have sex, the "open relationship" is nice, since, if one fails at the bar, onecan always go home to the 2nd option. But that's not really a relationship. Like I said, that's just "friends with benefits."


If you are going to screw around, it is best not to do it with friends. Unless you want more drama in your life. Just because it looks cool on TV doesn't mean that it works in RL. No one wants to be a consolation prize, even a friend. Best to keep these worlds separate.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

NT's are far more capable of forming relationships around sexual ties before emotions ties then with other types. particularly all NF types


----------



## 1057 (Apr 9, 2009)

i'm too misanthropic to not be monogamous. although that's not particularly an NT thing.


----------



## vENOMIZEd (Feb 20, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> If I want to screw around, I screw around, and there is no purpose of defining this as a "relationship".
> 
> If I want a monogamous relationship, then that's what I'll get.
> 
> I see no purpose, really, for an "open relationship".


That's it.


----------



## Thorgar (Apr 3, 2010)

Regan said:


> i'm too misanthropic to not be monogamous. although that's not particularly an NT thing.


"Misanthropic" may be a bit strong for most, but I would think NTs, while probably adept at conceptualizing and justifying the idea, may be disinclined to actually follow through due to having to deal with the extra emotional baggage of more than one partner.


----------



## sinistralpal (Apr 30, 2010)

Promethea said:


> It isn't just some emotional experience that you can control. There are brain chemicals and hormones that effect us during bonding and mating which make us feel closer to someone.
> 
> Google how 'oxytocin' works. I already wrote up some long spiel in another thread like this before. A bit too lazy to do it again.


Humans are natural omnivores, yet there are happy vegans in the world.


----------



## RomanticRealist (Mar 26, 2010)

Imo, open relationships can work and takes nothing away from the couple. If humans were truly monogamous, the concept of marriage won't even exist, we would simply just be with one mate throughout our life. When comparing open relationship with a monogamous relationship, I neither favour one nor the other nor do I judge one to be inferior to the other.


----------



## bionic (Mar 29, 2010)

OmarFW said:


> NT's are far more capable of forming relationships around sexual ties before emotions ties then with other types. particularly all NF types


Says who? I only have sexual relationships WITH emotional ties. Its not about personality type here... its about ones values and preference. Your statement comes across like a generalization to me. Not all NTs are like this.


----------



## Molock (Mar 10, 2010)

Can't do it. Monogamy or no relationship at all.


----------



## INFPPP (Feb 23, 2010)

Spoken like a true NT.:tongue:


----------



## dude10000 (Jan 24, 2010)

you guys are all f-ed up


----------



## Antithesis (May 10, 2010)

I would never ever have an open relationship. Fidelity is paramount for me. I want my lover to be all mine, and I want to be all his.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Why not. I don't have time for commitment anyway. I'm not really interested in relationships anyway. I value freedom. That said, I am young ... In some ways, it would be better not to meet someone I'd want to "settle down" with.


----------



## antiant (Jul 4, 2010)

Wow, there sure are a lot of misconceptions about open relationships in this thread, very interesting to say the least.

I'd suggest reading some books such as:
1. The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Adventures By Dossie Easton & Janet W Hardy
2. Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships by Tristan Taormino
3. Redefining Our Relationships: Guidelines For Responsible Open Relationships by Wendy-O Matik

I own and have read all of these books, I learned quite a lot from them. One of those lessons learned is that a lot of things the author(s)/interviewers describe within these books is that these lessons can be applied to ALL types of relationships, whether straight, lesbian, gay, bi, transgendered, hetero, queer, ****, it does not matter, they are all universal lessons that can be applied to the *human relationship*, two important key words.

Here is more information, if anyone is interested in learning more:
1. There are 10 parts, to this youtube series. 



2. Common Misconceptions About Polyamory
3. Wikipedia article on polyamory
4. Franklin's polyamory FAQ

That is all I have to say on the matter.


----------

