Japanese term for 'married but available'?

[lasciviousme]

Ive seen a lot of discussion about marrying, not marrying, breaking up, divorcing, or in a sexless marriage with a Japanese wife. I am in the same boat although a bit different since we basically dont care what the other does as long as its not obvious and in our 'face' so to speak.

My question is what is the Japanese word or term for this type of situation?? If a woman asks 'are you married' I want to be able to quickly convey yes BUT I am available, with a simple non threatening term they are already familiar with.

This isnt a gaijin only phenomenon so I am sure there is a Japanese term for it although I dont know what it is. When I was in Tokyo many years ago a Japanese co worker explained it as a 'working bachelor' or something like that since my family wasn't with me in Tokyo at the time.

As a sports metaphor I would compare it to say a re restricted free agent. As a guy who is free to entertain offers court other teams although there are some restrictions in place.

Im not interested in lying to women and want them to have the information to make an informed decision. Having said that it would be a big help knowing the appropriate word or term in Japanese.

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
thanks

 

[meiji]

"Open Marriage" in Japanese is just that in Katakana: オープンマリッジ

Although generally I don't think the distinction is going to matter a whole lot. I would think any woman asking if you are married is looking to see if you an unattached man. Women that are okay with just having sex are less likely to ask penetrating questions about your relationship status, IMO.

 

[Mr.Manaita]

I agree with the above post, but if you had to say "yea, I'm technically married but not really" a natural way of doing it would be
Ichio wa kekkon shiteimasuga (meaning something like "I'm married technically, but not really so much..."). You could also explain a little and say Ichio wa kekkon shiteimasuga, kateinai rikon no yo na mono desu ( "I'm married technically, but really it's like two divorced people who live together).

 

[lasciviousme]

Thank you for the reply's.... I think the second option better. Im not convinced all Japanese women would know what an 'open marriage' is and throwing the Ichio at the front is pretty basic.

I agree those who just want to hook up wont really be asking if I am married, but I'd rather think about and have a response than not think about one at all & blindsided when I get it.

 

[shammykun]

Hi. Maybe I am a bit late to answer this, but if you and your wife just play the "elephant in the room" situation, like most of us married folks here, then why even mention it to your target woman? What would you benefit from mentioning your married situation besides having a clean conscience?

 

[meiji]

Hi. Maybe I am a bit late to answer this, but if you and your wife just play the "elephant in the room" situation, like most of us married folks here, then why even mention it to your target woman? What would you benefit from mentioning your married situation besides having a clean conscience?

While I personally agree that if you are going to lie to have sex outside of marriage, lying to multiple people isn't going to sully your conscience any more, but there IS the additional benefit that you don't incur the wrath of the lady that you are bedding, whether it be a one night stand or a more long term thing. Having a mutual understanding ahead of time that it's just sex may still lead to complications, but at least both people theoretically know going in what the situation is.

 

[Zaphod222]

Hi. Maybe I am a bit late to answer this, but if you and your wife just play the "elephant in the room" situation, like most of us married folks here, then why even mention it to your target woman? What would you benefit from mentioning your married situation besides having a clean conscience?

Because it is a completely different dynamics. If you claim you are single, you present yourself as potential boyfriend material (even if that is not immediately on the table). I just think misrepresenting yourself is disgusting, and it will come back to bite you at some point, anyway.

Some people like to play these games and somehow think that is cool... I have no respect for that. You claim that "most of us married folks" do that. I don´t know where you get the number from, but do not include me or my friends in that poll of yours!

 

[Zaphod222]

"Open Marriage" in Japanese is just that in Katakana: オープンマリッジ.

I am not sure how widely understood that term is. In my correspondence, I write "結婚して,セックスレスです" (married but sexless). That lays out the parameters, and it is also quite understood in Japan, because it is such a common situation.

 

[GoldenDalton]

Because it is a completely different dynamics. If you claim you are single, you present yourself as potential boyfriend material (even if that is not immediately on the table). I just think misrepresenting yourself is disgusting, and it will come back to bite you at some point, anyway.

Some people like to play these games and somehow think that is cool... I have no respect for that. You claim that "most of us married folks" do that. I don´t know where you get the number from, but do not include me or my friends in that poll of yours!

It's not ideal, but if we were choir boys and Girl Scouts we'd probably find a different pasttime.

 

[Zaphod222]

It's not ideal, but if we were choir boys and Girl Scouts we'd probably find a different pasttime.

Sorry, don´t know what to make with that comment of yours. Having just returned from a love hotel, I don´t really consider myself a choir boy. However, I think deceiving other people sucks. Sorry if that concept is old-fashioned.

 

[Kitty Carr]

As a purely linguistic response to this enquiry, I think Zaphod's suggestion of セックスレス (or just レス in slang) is a good one. 結婚してるけどセックスレス is easily understood and immediately tells the woman in question what your relationship parameters are.

If you want to go a bit further and are looking for a mistress or something more than a casual hookup, you could also say some form of 結婚してるけど愛が消えた・冷めた・ない (I'm in a cold/loveless marriage).

FWIW I think if only for your own sanity you shouldn't lead a woman on, as things will only get messy for you later on if she wants something you're not able to provide - unless you only want to see her once, and are willing and able to cut her off without guilt. Much better for you both to be on the same page.

 

[GoldenDalton]

Sorry, don´t know what to make with that comment of yours. Having just returned from a love hotel, I don´t really consider myself a choir boy. However, I think deceiving other people sucks. Sorry if that concept is old-fashioned.

It's a polite way of requesting an end to preaching. I don't think you or I, or anyone else on this site, has too much in the way of moral credibility.

 

[Zaphod222]

It's a polite way of requesting an end to preaching. I don't think you or I, or anyone else on this site, has too much in the way of moral credibility.

Speak for yourself. I behave ethically and hope that others do too.

 

[TheDutchElm]

It's not ideal, but if we were choir boys and Girl Scouts we'd probably find a different pasttime.

With all due respect, this slightly misses the point. Hobbyists and providers both know the score. Even in the coldest of p4p, the quid-pro-quo aspect is 100% above board. Intentionally deceiving someone to get them in the sack is not being a good person no matter who they are.

Considering how common the mistress scenario is here, you may be surprised not find your chances entirely decimated by a little honesty, should the topic arise.

Also, OP: just thought I'd give you and your wife kudos for handling the situation of your marriage in such a mature way. So many people can't be practical about these scenarios and/or pretend that sex isn't important.

 

[TheDutchElm]

I don't think you or I, or anyone else on this site, has too much in the way of moral credibility.

Social approval is not synonymous with ethics. Surely we can agree on that point...

 

[GoldenDalton]

Social approval is not synonymous with ethics. Surely we can agree on that point...

It's not about approval. It's about credibility. I don't think this is a good environment to discuss morality and judge each other. I think people should mind their own business. There are activities I find unethical discussed all the time here. I keep it to myself because this is a p4p site.

No disrespect intended to Zaphod, who is one of the biggest contributors here, and of course this is all my opinion. I for one enjoy the laid back "Laissez Faire" attitude around here. If we get preachy were opening up a big can of worms.

 

[TheDutchElm]

There are activities I find unethical discussed all the time here. I keep it to myself because this is a p4p site.

With all due respect, you seemed pretty ready to jump on Zaphod and me for simply suggesting honesty when picking up a girl rather than deceiving her. Isn't your assessment of our credibility kind of a misapplication of your own statement?

The only way I could see this being consistent is if you think the entire p4p enterprise is morally bankrupt. I doubt that somewhat, since you're participating in the hobby! Not everyone is engaging in the dubious behaviors you've seen elsewhere. Let's treat everyone as an individual worthy of respect, which, whether it be on a forum, at a bar, or in a love hotel, is all Zaphod and I were advocating.

 

[Zaphod222]

It's not about approval. It's about credibility. I don't think this is a good environment to discuss morality and judge each other.

You keep up bringing up "morality". I am staying away from that term, because of all the religious crap that various "moral systems" are corrupted by. I used the term "ethics". And I am trying to act ethically in my life and expect others to do so. I reject your claim that we are a bunch of unethical low-lifes because we use p4p. For me, p4p is not unethical at all.

If it is for you, and you consider this forum some sort of shady den for worthless people, then maybe you should deal with some religious hangups first?

 

[GoldenDalton]

I

You keep up bringing up "morality". I am staying away from that term, because of all the religious crap that various "moral systems" are corrupted by. I used the term "ethics". And I am trying to act ethically in my life and expect others to do so. I reject your claim that we are a bunch of unethical low-lifes because we use p4p. For me, p4p is not unethical at all.

If it is for you, and you consider this forum some sort of shady den for worthless people, then maybe you should deal with some religious hangups first?

I
don't have religious hang ups. I don't see this place as a "shady den." I don't have a problem with p4p (obviously). Where we differ is that I don't feel the need to impose my own ethical code on everyone here.
With all due respect, I don't get why you have to tell someone off in every single thread.

Also, there's a strong hint of white knightism/manginaism in your preaching. I may be wrong, but that's what I detect. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I personally find CIM disgusting and unethical. You don't see me attacking people in reviews though. There's not a universal code of ethics here. I won't begrudge someone else his prerogative.

Whether or not someone wants to go bareback, uses giri to game a chick, or doesn't wanna reveal his marital status- that's none of anyone else's business in my opinion.

I don't wanna make an enemy as I really do enjoy many of your posts and your information has been very helpful to me. I'm grateful for your replies to my threads, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Zaphod222]

I
don't have religious hang ups. I don't see this place as a "shady den." I don't have a problem with p4p (obviously). Where we differ is that I don't feel the need to impose my own ethical code on everyone here.

Maybe we are still unclear on definitions.
There is no "own ethical code". Unlike "morality", ethics is universal, because it the result of logical thought. Not of the supposed sayings of some mystical god.

And somehow I doubt that you yourself are really OK with all unethical behaviour. So you state that lying in order to get laid is OK. Now where do you stop that train? Would drugging be OK? Violence? Take a step back and look at your thought system.

 

[GoldenDalton]

Maybe we are still unclear on definitions.
There is no "own ethical code". Unlike "morality", ethics is universal, because it the result of logical thought. Not of the supposed sayings of some mystical god.

And somehow I doubt that you yourself are really OK with all unethical behaviour. So you state that lying in order to get laid is OK. Now where do you stop that train? Would drugging be OK? Violence? Take a step back and look at your thought system.

I personally find lying to get laid unethical. I probably have a more rigid code than most people here.

 

[Zaphod222]

I personally find lying to get laid unethical. I probably have a more rigid code than most people here.

Well, then we agree. So why do you lambast me (and the Dutch tree)?

And I am not sure at all that most people here think that lying to people in order to take advantage of them is OK, by the way.

 

[GoldenDalton]

Well some of it is just the fact that if we start judging each other, we're going to open up a huge can of worms. That's really all I meant to say.

I personally think a lot of things that go on here are unethical. I think there is a lot about Japan that is unethical. Doesn't do me much good in the end to complain.

Just my two cents.

 

[Wwanderer]

Fwiiw, I definitely agree that we should all behave ethically to the best of our understanding and ability in p4p activities, as in all others.

However, this

Maybe we are still unclear on definitions.
There is no "own ethical code". Unlike "morality", ethics is universal, because it the result of logical thought.

totally astonished me. I mean...seriously?! "Universal"...really?? Are you joking? Or, since you mention definitions, maybe you are using one or more of the key words with some unconventional or unfamiliar meaning?

Anyway, at least taken literally and with the conventional definitions, I don't see how that assertion can be even remotely correct.

First of all, there is not even any "universal" agreement on what constitutes logical thought, but putting that aside, not even the most theoretical/abstract and rigorously logical professional ethicist (yes, I know a few) would claim that ethics is universal and objective, like the laws of physics or something of that sort. For starters, all logical arguments (like all mathematical ones) must start with axioms/assumptions of some sort. In ethics these are usually normative standards, i.e., what constitutes right and wrong, what makes something good or bad. And while these ethical starting points often "feel" intuitively right (to some people), they are no less arbitrary and unsupported (in a purely logical sense) than the "supposed sayings of some mystical god"!

But in any case, if you start with different normative standards, you can arrive at completely different and incompatible ethical conclusions by completely air tight logical thought. I could go on about this at great length, but just to make the point briefly, here's one example: Found your ethics on the principle of maximizing good, the greatest good for the greatest number (Utilitarianism) vs basing your ethics on the principle that each "actor" (person) must bear the responsibility for his/her own choices and actions but is not responsible for the choices and actions of other "actors"...and you end up with a totally different ethical system.

But if all of the above is waaay too academic and philosophical for you, there is the option of looking at ethics in the real world...of ethics as thoughtful, concerned, rational and well intentioned people actual practice it. If you go that route you will find that ethics is even less "universal". It varies all over the map and is highly dependent on culture, personal histories, age and a host of other factors. Surely no one with even a smidgen of experience of the world would want to claim that everyone agrees on what is ethical/unethical; it would probably be closer to the truth to say that everyone agrees on what flavor of ice cream tastes best.

To give also give one example from the real world, many would say that it is unethical to break one's solemn wedding vows to remain faithful to one's spouse *no matter what*...because it was not a conditional promise/commitment (at least as it is phrased in most marital ceremonies). Many others would say that it is ok to violate such a vow when one's spouse no longer honors the implicit, or explicit in some cases, commitment of marriage to be a sexual partner. Again, this is an ethical question on which thoughtful and well intentioned people can and very much do disagree...not even close to universal.

-Ww

 

[Wwanderer]

Well some of it is just the fact that if we start judging each other, we're going to open up a huge can of worms. That's really all I meant to say.

Far more important than what I had to say in my previous post, I want to strongly second GD on this point.

Based on literally decades of experience in Internet forums of many many sorts (anyone recall the heyday of network news groups...well before the web came along?), I am dead certain that posting negative and disrespectful evaluations/judgements of other participants and/or their actions, opinions or whatever (e.g., such as calling them disgusting or stupid or immoral or whatever) is useless and counterproductive in the extreme almost (but not quite) always. It is very very rare to have any effect on the person being so criticized and very very common to generate discord that reduces the value of participation for nearly everyone involved.

-Ww