Can open relationships actually work?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Can open relationships actually work?". Your opponent's style: Morpheus

Open relashionships can not work,it is to much effort and they are treating people like objects

You're confusing effort with impossibility. Plenty of hard things work beautifully when people commit. Your real complaint isn't that they can't work, it's that you wouldn't want one. So why frame personal preference as universal law?

To have an open relashionship,you need to share another person with another person,you need to accomodate to a very rigid agenda

You've just described scheduling, not sharing people. That's a logistics problem, not a moral one. Plenty of monogamous couples juggle rigid calendars too. What actually bothers you, rigid time or the idea itself?

There are specific harms with open relashionships,like not knowing whose the baby is if you get pregnant or having to little time for each parnet

The paternity issue exists in monogamy too when infidelity happens. You're naming real logistics, not proof they can't work. So which is it: are open relationships fundamentally broken, or just harder to manage poorly?

Stop pretending monogamy and open relationships are the same problem. Infidelity is a breach, a violation. Open relationships *require* constant negotiation and emotional labor just to function normally. That's not logistics, that's the relationship eating itself alive from the inside.

You've flipped the burden of proof. Monogamy requires negotiation too, just hidden under assumption instead of explicit. The difference is visibility, not pathology. If a relationship needs constant communication to survive, maybe that's honesty, not sickness. Why assume transparency kills what secrecy supposedly saves?

A mlnogamous relashionship is easier to mantain,if we accept open relashionships ,we are accepting it is good to share another person with somebody else

Easier isn't better. And you're still conflating "sharing a person" with "consensual non-exclusivity." They're not the same thing. If both partners choose it, who's being shared against their will?

You're hiding behind semantics. Call it "consensual non-exclusivity" if you want, but the foundation is still broken: you're asking people to watch their partner be intimate with someone else and accept it as normal. That's not consent talking, that's compartmentalization. Monogamy works because it doesn't require that psychological gymnastics.

Monogamy requires its own gymnastics: ignoring attraction, suppressing desire, pretending your partner doesn't want anyone else. You've just normalized one flavor of compartmentalization and called it natural. If accepting your partner's sexuality whole is "gymnastics," what's denying it?