We've been having an interesting conversation in the shoutbox this morning about sexual relationships and family structures which involve more than two adults, in various combinations.
However, being that it was the shoutbox, the comments disappeared way too quick for there to be a continuing coherent conversation. Heck, I can't even copy and paste most of the cool stuff anymore.
In any case, discuss your thoughts - positive, negative, curious, or whatever - about multiple partner relationships in all its forms, across all cultures and in this one.
Based on the shoutbox comments, it seems that many here to have strong opinions and interesting questions about it. So this should be interesting...
<<steps back to watch the words fly>>
Posted by: Quicksand Sep 4 2004, 09:51 AM
I could go for one partner myself right about now.
Posted by: Lanakila Sep 4 2004, 09:52 AM
Very interesting topic you have here Kitty. I am of the opinion that all is fine as long as all parties consent or are of legal age to consent.
As a fundy the only thought of this was the Mormon idea of mulitple wives. I didn't agree with that because it seemed to have some serious issues for women. In other words it was more subjugating of women, than the standard 2 partner opposite sex marriage was.
But my eyes are opened now to so many possiblities. Some folks are so culturally oriented that they really cannot share their love with more than one person. For those people the idea of open relationship or even poly, or multipartner long term relationships is basically out of the question, unless they are willing to change. But, they must not judge others according to the standards set up by the culture.
We are free (to a small degree) in this world to love who we want to love, and live with who we want to live with. The government may not sanction your relationships, but who needs them anyway.
Posted by: Dhampir Sep 4 2004, 10:12 AM
I figure, if you're not going to have exclusive sex with one person, why marry? Shit, women outnumber men 2 to 1 in most of the world, so why marry at all?
Posted by: Nivek Sep 4 2004, 10:48 AM
We have had a wonderful life with our trioka for years now.
Only reason I can see that we have parted is that our partner has finanally gained her confidence and education to do so..
Our lives are well intertwined with a group of like minded families and individuals who find that beind adults about sex and sharing make for a *good thing*..
Don't know of any petty jealousies, nor any cliques in the group.. If ya wanna, do so, if you aren't so inclined, do not..
Not being a group of fyndie-driven folks we have mores and habits, preferences that are not *of the norm*.
Works for us, and yes, it is fun, educational, and quite a good way to live..
n
Posted by: BigToe Sep 4 2004, 11:26 AM
HAHA you know what my opinion is. Can I video tape you guys?
No seriously- I think that point of view is entirely logical. I think its great people can do that with no qualms. There are certainly times where I wish I could do just that. But knowing things I have experienced and things I want- I personally couldn't do the sharing thing when it comes to sex. I understand that its not simply sex for you and yours Nivvy, and I think it is great you have people to share things with about yourself, your life, the support you guys must all give each other. I think people should have a network of family and friends that provide that support, it certainly makes life more enjoyable, and the tough times easier.
When it comes down to multiple partners on the sex issue is where, knowing myself, I know I couldn't do it. And before anyone jumps to a conclusion- no its not some christian "moral" thing or whatever. I've never been one to think sex is wrong or dirty. I'm not opposed to premarital sex or having many sex partners through one's life. Heck I am not opposed to people who desire to to have as many concurrent sex partners as they can get. I guess I am selfish when it comes to it. I wouldn't want to be shared and I wouldn't want to share whomever I was with at the time.
I guess its the romantic in me.
Posted by: BigToe Sep 4 2004, 11:33 AM
Er I want to clarify something with that last statement. I mean its the fairytale romantic in me.... not that you aren't romantic haha. Just wanted to make sure no one thinks thats what I was saying!
Posted by: Saviourmachine Sep 4 2004, 11:43 AM
Respecting other's rights, I think persons can do what they want. I wouldn't do it, or maybe, I will, if the moment is there.
But I prefer something special/private with one person at a time. No others, cams, kids, dogs involved be it passively or actively.
Posted by: BigToe Sep 4 2004, 11:45 AM
Ok I'll leave the camera at home
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Sep 4 2004, 12:19 PM
I think consenting adults should be able to form whatever flavor of relationship they all agree to.
It's been happening since the beginning of history under all sorts of names - and I have no doubts it will continue that way as long as there are humans.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 4 2004, 01:08 PM
I think if there is to be a future together
relationships work best one on one
Trust is very important
I personally would have a hard time trusting in a situation where there was a third person involved
Plus I'm just selfish
I don't like to share
Thats just me tho
I dont think any worse of or look down on people that do like like to share
Posted by: The Pure One Sep 4 2004, 01:31 PM
I believe in monogamy. I think threesomes or moresomes involving you and someone you really care about is a horrible idea. Save that experimentation for when you're emotionally unattached, and get it out of your system.
I think open relationships actually imply closedness, the closing off of deep feelings, the fear of being open and trusting another, fear of real intimacy. Hedging your bets, trying to avoid being hurt and/or alone. There can also be a correlation with selfishness, trying to have your emotional cake and your freedom to boink someone else as well. This implies an unrealistic expection of human relationships, that the familiar feels the same as the new. Some people have addictive personalities, and the thrill of newness gives more of a charge than strict monogamy. Many reasons, but in short, I don't think it's emotionally healthy or particularly mature. But then I'm an opinionated S.O.B.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 4 2004, 02:02 PM
[QUOTE=The Pure One @ Sep 4 2004, 01:31 PM]
I believe in monogamy. I think threesomes or moresomes involving you and someone you really care about is a horrible idea. Save that experimentation for when you're emotionally unattached, and get it out of your system.[/quote]
A-men
Posted by: Nivek Sep 4 2004, 02:32 PM
And in return Pure One, at an earlier age in my life suspect that I may not have had the physical and mental clarity and ability to live in a more-some situation.
Trust is built when you can learn to depend on individuals. It does not take a mogie relationship to trust and inturn be trusted by your loved ones.
As for your stipulaton:
[quote]I think open relationships actually imply closedness, the closing off of deep feelings, the fear of being open and trusting another, fear of real intimacy. Hedging your bets, trying to avoid being hurt and/or alone. There can also be a correlation with selfishness, trying to have your emotional cake and your freedom to boink someone else as well. This implies an unrealistic expection of human relationships, that the familiar feels the same as the new. Some people have addictive personalities, and the thrill of newness gives more of a charge than strict monogamy. Many reasons, but in short, I don't think it's emotionally healthy or particularly mature. But then I'm an opinionated S.O.B.
[/quote]
What is this based on? Personal experience? Oprah? Dr. Phil?
Scientific research?
I cannot speak for all poly-family situations, nor am I ever the poster_bot for self_restraint, however I do live well within what we have choosen to be...
If a person, male or female, is uninterested in *sharing*, then don't.. No force, no fraud...
We live, we love, we learn, everyday presents something different and challenging.. We do tend to do things that *norms* may not be so inclined to take part in.. We do not advertise our preferences, nor open our doors for inspection from outside.. If invited *in* you can and will be treated with respect and partake in the table at haciendaFatman..
I am just another opinionated SOB also.. >:
n, Freeman
Posted by: The Pure One Sep 4 2004, 02:40 PM
Hi Nivek,
I only stop in here occasionally so don't assume I am up on everyone's backround. I don't know your beliefs/lifestyle so don't take my opinion as directed at you. That fact that you use lingo like "norms" makes me think this topic is more important to you, something you've been "into" for some time. My general opinion of people who buck social norms is that they could be a) the forward-thinking, free-spirited intelligentsia of our society, or
some variety of screwball. ;) Typically odds are vastly in favor of option (. ;) Joking aside, there are reasons for *why* people buck social norms, and in my experience I have rarely found those reasons to be things that seem mature and healthy, they tend to be along the lines of things I mentioned. Perhaps I am too judgmental, that is always a possibility. *shrug*. Certainly not for me, in any event. I do hope people are happy.Posted by: I Broke Free Sep 4 2004, 03:01 PM
Very interesting topic.
While my partner I share an exclusive one-on-one relationship, be we have agreed that an occasional sexual experience outside of our relationship is okay.
As it stands now after six years of being together, I have never had the desire or the opportunity to have sex outside of our relationship. My partner is 7 years my junior and two or three times back in California he did 'partake.'
I have never been insecure about my partner's desire to be with me for life. He has never given me any indication not to trust him in that way. Now that he is getting a little gray himself I see less of an interest in him to stray sexually.
The 'arrangement' we made when we decided to be a couple was based on the fact that both of us in past relationships did have sex with other people when we were in agreed upon monogamous relationships. We felt that giving each other the freedom to stray would allow for more honesty. In every case where my partner had sex outside of our relationship, I was aware of it and he had my blessing.
At this point in my life (age 44) I would have to be seduced by the guy who played Hector in "Troy" before you could get me off the sofa or away from my keyboard.
Posted by: Nivek Sep 4 2004, 03:57 PM
(
Option is it for me......Def a crackpot amigo. Got involved in our trioka by a slide in to the accidental problems of women who found they loved each other... Happened the other girl lived with us, and my properly state approved and minister married wife found love together..
Was not an easy row to continually hoe.. Weeds of every mental and physical sort popped up in this. many of the problems were solved, soime were ignored, many were abated and worked on in a chronic_pain way, "being there, can't touch it" sort.
We found that we as a poly-family were stronger and better together than we were apart.
As we found others like us, we've become closer to others where we do trust and enjoy each others company.
It isn't all foolin' around, sex and wine and dining..
Too much time working and living our lives. We happen tolive a comfortable god-less life sans the permissionof the *norms* who all seem to be religious_rightists of some sort.
You betcha I feel strongly about this kind of situation. Done well a family can live, raise the kid(s), and be as well adjusted and balanced as any *fyndie_norm* bunch..
Don't see divorce and/or separation on any horizions..
I would wish this kind of contented *olde married family shit* for anyone looking ...
n
Posted by: biggles7268 Sep 4 2004, 04:25 PM
I'll be happy just finding the one special person to share my life with. I don't think I could handle her wanting to sleep around and I wouldn't want to myself. That's not saying my attitude won't be different in 5 or 10 years that's just where I am now.
I do respect people who can live like that though. Do what makes you happy.
Posted by: Cerise Sep 4 2004, 05:08 PM
If you can have a polygamous relationship without it becoming unequal or harmful to one or more of the members involved then go for it.
I'm not sure I could make it work but then again, I'm not sure I could make a monogamous relationship work either.
Posted by: BigToe Sep 4 2004, 06:03 PM
Finding one right person is hard enough, I cant imagine how difficult it would be to find a whole group of right people!
Posted by: Reach Sep 4 2004, 07:08 PM
[QUOTE=Saviourmachine @ Sep 4 2004, 02:43 PM]
But I prefer something special/private with one person at a time. No others, cams, kids, dogs involved be it passively or actively.[/quote]
I heartily agree, SM. No offense to anyone at all but one partner works for me! Just one. Ain't he just wonderful?
Reach
Posted by: spamandham Sep 4 2004, 08:22 PM
If others find multiple simultaneous partners works for them, who am I to say otherwise.
Generally speaking, promiscuity may be fun, but it is also dangerous. There is a tendency to deceive others/be deceived regarding diseases/fertility/level of commitment, and so trust is important.
Personally, I have lived that part of my life that involved sleeping around and managed to survive. I'm now monogamous with my wife, but realize that isn't for everyone.
If I found myself single again, I would likely gravitate toward quasi-monogomous relationships; one at a time until the relationship became counter-productive.
For practical reasons, I just can't imagine juggling two+ women around. Nivek is a stud.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 07:15 AM
[quote]Personally, I have lived that part of my life that involved sleeping around and managed to survive.[/quote]
Me too and I dont want to ever do it again, Im glad that part is over. I want something better, something more, something that only two people can share.
Posted by: Lanakila Sep 5 2004, 07:33 AM
Having a poly relationship isn't sleeping around. Now many polyamorous relationships are open too, but not necessarily, that is up to the individuals involved. Just because the idea sounds foreign to you doesn't make it wrong, or immoral or even immature. Saying you are done with that part of your life, and don't want to go back, makes it sound like that is what you think.
That is more of a value judgement and not so much an opinion. Value judgements based on assumptions and we all already know that assumption starts with ass.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 08:05 AM
[QUOTE=Lanakila @ Sep 5 2004, 07:33 AM]
Having a poly relationship isn't sleeping around. Now many polyamorous relationships are open too, but not necessarily, that is up to the individuals involved. Just because the idea sounds foreign to you doesn't make it wrong, or immoral or even immature. Saying you are done with that part of your life, and don't want to go back, makes it sound like that is what you think.
That is more of a value judgement and not so much an opinion. Value judgements based on assumptions and we all already know that assumption starts with ass.[/quote]
Immature?
Immoral?
I certainly never said any such thing.
when you read more into something than is there, that is making an ASSumption that the person who wrote it meant something other than what they wrote
"and we all already know that assumption starts with ass."
Posted by: sexkitten Sep 5 2004, 09:26 AM
Sleeping around connotes indiscriminately having multiple sexual partners without a close bond w/ any of them.
Poly situations involve more than 2 people in a long-term bond. Open relationships involve a core relationship (of any size) which allows occassional flings w/ the other party's consent. Couples may be open, and a poly relationship may be "closed."
Neither of these are "sleeping around."
Posted by: Lanakila Sep 5 2004, 09:27 AM
Wasn't talking to you Rainy. I don't think I said Rainy you are an ass now did I? I never even quoted you.? This is the persons post I was discussing.
[quote]Generally speaking, promiscuity may be fun, but it is also dangerous. There is a tendency to deceive others/be deceived regarding diseases/fertility/level of commitment, and so trust is important.[/quote]
A polyamorous relationship doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity. The whole idea is to avoid deception.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 09:34 AM
Allowing "occasional flings" isnt the same as sleeping around?
I have no problem with people that do sleep around
I have no problem with who anyone fucks
Or how many people they fuck
It's just not for me
Anymore
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 09:36 AM
]QUOTE=Lanakila @ Sep 5 2004, 09:27 AM]
Wasn't talking to you Rainy. I don't think I said Rainy you are an ass now did I? I never even quoted you.? This is the persons post I was discussing.
[quote]
Generally speaking, promiscuity may be fun, but it is also dangerous. There is a tendency to deceive others/be deceived regarding diseases/fertility/level of commitment, and so trust is important.[/quote]
A polyamorous relationship doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity. The whole idea is to avoid deception.[/quote]
Still that post says nothing about
"wrong"
"immoral"
or "immature"
Posted by: Aminor7 Sep 5 2004, 09:46 AM
[quote]Value judgements based on assumptions and we all already know that assumption starts with ass.
[/quote]
Most great ideas start with an assumption as well, so does it follow that most great ideas start with an ass as well? Nothing wrong with an assumption.
Posted by: The Pure One Sep 5 2004, 09:48 AM
[QUOTE=(Nivek)]
(
Option is it for me......Def a crackpot amigo. Got involved in our trioka by a slide in to the accidental problems of women who found they loved each other... Happened the other girl lived with us, and my properly state approved and minister married wife found love together..
Was not an easy row to continually hoe.. Weeds of every mental and physical sort popped up in this. many of the problems were solved, soime were ignored, many were abated and worked on in a chronic_pain way, "being there, can't touch it" sort.[/quote]
Wow, that *is* a tough one, I'll give you that! I had an ex who revealed her bisexuality after I was already emotionally engaged, so I have an idea of what some of the emotions are. Before dealing with that I was like most guys, thought the girl-girl thing was kinda chic...until having to deal with it emotionally, now I find nothing appealing about it, relationship-wise. With a child involved(?) there is certainly strong motivation to make the unit work. I can only begin to imagine the balancing acts, treading the path through various emontional minefields to make things work.
Posted by: sexkitten Sep 5 2004, 09:49 AM
A good friend who has known me since college recently pointed out to me that I have been interested in polygamy/polyamory for well over a decade. Apparently, while I was studying cultural anthropology for my *missions/theology minor* I made several positive and rather envious remarks about poly societies. Something about wishing that the women enslaving Mormon fundies in the US weren't the only kind of polys left in our culture. In any case, I had a great deal of respect for, and saw a lot of sense in, family groupings involving more than two adults who worked together, shared resources, and raised the next generation together.
And, to be honest, just the idea that relationships other than the monogamous, lifelong exclusive, starting off as virgins together marriage that the churches and sex ed idealists touted as the "ideal" could work and produce both happy adults and happy children was intriguing.
At the time, I just chalked it up to inherent cultural differences. It could work in Tibet, but not in Anytown, USA. People like Nivek, and a threesome of old hippies that I've known for 3 years, have shown me very different.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 10:02 AM
[QUOTE=Aminor7 @ Sep 5 2004, 09:46 AM]
[quote]Value judgements based on assumptions and we all already know that assumption starts with ass.[/quote]
Most great ideas start with an assumption as well, so does it follow that most great ideas start with an ass as well? Nothing wrong with an assumption.[/quote]
Agreed
Posted by: Lanakila Sep 5 2004, 10:51 AM
The societal norm that says that two people should meet, date awhile, marry, have kids, and stay together for life, is not a norm obviously, or there wouldn't be so much divorce, multimarriages, straying partners, the seven year itch and all that jazz . Something is rotten in Denmark. If its not working fix it. Polyamorous relationships are a way to fix some of these problems. Not that that type relationship will be easy either, (which relationship is) but that its new and foreign to many of you way to have a family.
Poly doesn't equal promiscuous. Poly doesn't equal immoral, or immature. I would think person in a poly relationship would have to be more mature than just couple of people in a standard monogomous relationship. Because there are more people to learn to get along with and work out issues with.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 10:58 AM
I dont think anyone is immoral or immature because of who or how many people they are in a relationship with.
I just know that sharing is not for me
There is only one person I want
And I want that one person to only want me
Posted by: Rachelness Sep 5 2004, 11:44 AM
To each his or her own. If all parties are happy in their relationship then I don't see the problem with it at all. I think polygamous relationships should be recognised by law, just as I think homosexual ones should be. Nobody has the right to say what a relationship can or cannot be; that has to be a personal choice.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 12:01 PM
[QUOTE=Rachelness @ Sep 5 2004, 11:44 AM]
To each his or her own. If all parties are happy in their relationship then I don't see the problem with it at all. I think polygamous relationships should be recognised by law, just as I think homosexual ones should be. Nobody has the right to say what a relationship can or cannot be; that has to be a personal choice.[/quote]
Maybe off topic but even tho I agree with you Rach, I think we would all be better off if "the law" stayed completely out of our love/sex lives
Posted by: woodsmoke Sep 5 2004, 12:13 PM
Amen
Posted by: BigToe Sep 5 2004, 12:39 PM
I think thats precisely why she thought it should be legal- then its not some criminal offense. Though to be quite honest, the whole marriage thing isn't without its perks. Which is why other groups that aren't your 'standard' male/female marriage should be allowed access to the same.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 12:47 PM
Big Toe,
Could you please explain again precisely what Rachel was talking about?
Posted by: PseudoGod Sep 5 2004, 12:51 PM
I personally wouldn't have a problem with open relationships as long as all parties agree. What I don't like are people who "cheat" on other people without their knowledge. What that does is put one person at risk for things (i.e. diseases, "fatal attraction" type situations, etc.) they never signed up for. That is not right.
Posted by: woodsmoke Sep 5 2004, 12:51 PM
What the hell, Rainy? That was totally uncalled for.
Posted by: biggles7268 Sep 5 2004, 12:53 PM
[QUOTE =ainyday8169 @ Sep 5 2004, 12:47 PM]
Big Toe,
Could you please explain again precisely what Rachel was talking about?[/quote]
She agreed with Rachel and brought up another point there is no need for snide remarks
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 01:01 PM
[QUOTE=woodsmoke @ Sep 5 2004, 12:51 PM]
What the hell, Rainy? That was totally uncalled for.[/quote]
Maybe you think so
I don't tho
In just about every single thread she has responded to something I have said by explaining someone else's point
I get annoyed
I don't see a problem with expressing my annoyance
Sorry if you are offended but thankfully we live in a place where you don’t have the right not be offended.
Go ahead and get mad or annoyed at anything I post
Doesn't bother me
Maybe if she could express her opinion without implying that someone doesn’t understand and therefore need her to reiterate for them........
Posted by: BigToe Sep 5 2004, 01:10 PM
Anyway back on topic-
I think raising children in a communal aspect would be beneficial. So perhaps multiple partner relationships are not without their bonuses. But, I think if society at large decided to accept responsibility not only in their behavior but in their giving back to society at large- we could have this community inspired aspect in raising children.
Its an interesting subject, one thats been discussed for ages, Plato even discussed it as an essential part of a just society.
Posted by: biggles7268 Sep 5 2004, 01:12 PM
[QUOTE=BigToe @ Sep 5 2004, 01:10 PM]
Anyway back on topic-
I think raising children in a communal aspect would be beneficial. So perhaps multiple partner relationships are not without their bonuses. But, I think if society at large decided to accept responsibility not only in their behavior but in their giving back to society at large- we could have this community inspired aspect in raising children.
Its an interesting subject, one thats been discussed for ages, Plato even discussed it as an essential part of a just society.[/quote]
nicely put, I agree.
Posted by: Lokmer Sep 5 2004, 01:17 PM
I think it's important to distinguish between polygamy as was/is practiced in ancient near easter and Arabian cultures - as well as by religious sects like the mormons, and other poly setups.
The former is certainly something worthy of derision. Although in many African and aboriginal cultures today it is practiced primarily out of economic necessiy, when the practice carries over into wealthier situations, such as what we see in Saudi Arabia, Islamic tradition, or Mormonism, you have a situation where the women are the chattel and breeders to the man's sexual ego. The cultural backdrop of this practice is inherently degrading to women and is quite often accompanied by sequestering and repression of women, and outright abuse (which, it may be added, is not unknown in western monogamy nor was it uncommon up until 150 years ago even in America).
The other poly setups - triads, group marriages, communes, chain marriages, etc. (excluding open marriages for the moment) as practiced now in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are generally predicated upon mutual advantage in a situation freely entered into by all partners (and, since there is no law to enforce it, easily disolvable by any partner). These setups can involve a group of couples sharing finances and a home to raise their children, a MMF or FFM threesome that finds they share a strong emotional bond and decide to share a life, agricultural/industrial communes such as Oneida in the late 19th/early 20th century, or group-living Boston marriage (sexless partnerships) arrangements, and many others. These relationships, like any form of relationship between two adult humans, can be either healthy or unhealthy, and depend on proper communication and integrity to work.
In any case, whether a relationship is a monogamy or a plurality, the same basic ethics apply: keep your agreements, do not cheat on your partner(s), keep one another informed of the goings on that might effect the relationship (financial, romantic, relational, etc.), effective workload sharing, making provision for others in the case of death or dissolution of the relationship, and good honest clear communication. If the relationship is open, then extra care must be taken to protect the health and hearts of all involved parties.
Some people are wired for poly, others for monogamy, and there are some who can go either way. In my short life I have seen several long-term poly situations. Some of them worked beautifully and were a set of matches made in heaven, based on deep mutual respect (one comes to mind where one member of the MMF triad permenantly lost his potency due to diabetes, and the other two have voluntarily gone celibate - permenantly - so that he will not be left out or have his feelings hurt). Others were shithole situations racked full of abuse and people grabbing for every piece of ass they could get. The style and manner of the relationships runs the same gamut as monogamous relationships I have seen, in depth and quality or lack of both.
In either case, a good marriage or a good long-term poly setup requires mature, well-matched people who are unselfish and love each other enough to do what is best for the other(s), and trust that the same be done in return.
-Lokmer
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 01:24 PM
How could you stop yourself from having a preference toward one person and risk making the other feel like a third wheel.
Falling in love with more than one person is of course possible but I see a great possibility that one of these people is eventually going to be hurt.
Posted by: biggles7268 Sep 5 2004, 01:32 PM
That's where you find out if your able to handle a poly relationship I would guess. jealousy affects some people more than others, but if your willing to go into a 3 way relationship i would think there would be close to equal love between all 3. I would hope so anyway. That's prbly one reason why i couldn't do a poly relationship right now, I'm too much of an attention whore for it lol.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 01:37 PM
Yeah
I know for me anyway, I like getting attn from someone that loves me, the kind of attn that makes me know Im "the one" that special attn that I wouldnt feel the same about if it wasn't only for me.
Posted by: fortunehooks Sep 5 2004, 02:01 PM
the world is a vampire sent to drain,and what do i get for my pain.
personally, i don't see myself with the romantic novel life,and if i actually discovered this novelesque,i would run as fast as i could run from it.
the idea of love scares the fuck out of me. i see love as a flipside something. all i know is that it could change on you in an instant. right now,i prefer to stay in the game and play.
so yes,multiple safe sex partners,and lasting friendships. after all,i am still working second by second on correcting fortunehooks. from the looks of things,a long process on hooks.
i understand that feelings are vital to each of us,and it is always my intention to inform people that i am not available for the love department. maybe,i am incapable of the blasted emotion,or my insecurities come to the forefront. i contend,that consented marriage is beautiful for the people who can hack it. i just don't know if i am one of those people.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 02:27 PM
Is that a smashing pumpkins quote I see there?
Posted by: spamandham Sep 5 2004, 03:14 PM
[QUOTE=Lanakila @ Sep 5 2004, 09:27 AM]
Wasn't talking to you Rainy. I don't think I said Rainy you are an ass now did I? I never even quoted you.? This is the persons post I was discussing.
[quote]Generally speaking, promiscuity may be fun, but it is also dangerous. There is a tendency to deceive others/be deceived regarding diseases/fertility/level of commitment, and so trust is important.[/quote]
A polyamorous relationship doesn't necessarily mean promiscuity. The whole idea is to avoid deception.[/quote]
I wasn't trying to imply that such a relationship involved being promiscuous, I was simply relating my own experiences. Chill out.
Posted by: spidermonkey Sep 5 2004, 03:22 PM
I have nothing against poly and/or open relationships. I've never tried anything but a one-on-one relationship, so I don't know what anything different would be like. I do have to say this, though, a poly relationship sounds good to me in theory but I do have some insecurity/jealousy issues to begin with. I don't want to risk feeling like a third wheel or second-best.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 5 2004, 04:24 PM
[QUOTE=spidermonkey @ Sep 5 2004, 03:22 PM]
I have nothing against poly and/or open relationships. I've never tried anything but a one-on-one relationship, so I don't know what anything different would be like. I do have to say this, though, a poly relationship sounds good to me in theory but I do have some insecurity/jealousy issues to begin with. I don't want to risk feeling like a third wheel or second-best.[/quote]
or making someone else feel that way.
Posted by: Lanakila Sep 5 2004, 05:05 PM
[quote]I wasn't trying to imply that such a relationship involved being promiscuous, I was simply relating my own experiences. Chill out.[/quote]
I am cold from drinking iced tea in a freezing restaraunt. So no need to chill out. Words on a message board are often easy to misinterpret. I don't know you, and didn't know what you implied by your statement.
No hard feelings and I'll keep cool, k.
Posted by: I Broke Free Sep 5 2004, 06:38 PM
Recognition of relationships by the state has nothing to do with love or sex, it is about the right to establish a family relationship.
If the gay community would focus more on our right to establish who is our "next-of-kin" rather than marriage, it would be easier for people to understand the real issue here.
When my first partner (8 years together) died in an accident back in 1987, his parents took me to cleaners and were able to sue for wrongful death because I was not considered my partner's next-of-kin. They got $360,000 and I got the debt on our truck!
Posted by: spidermonkey Sep 5 2004, 06:52 PM
[QUOTE=rainyday8169 @ Sep 5 2004, 08:24 PM]
[QUOTE=spidermonkey @ Sep 5 2004, 03:22 PM]
I have nothing against poly and/or open relationships. I've never tried anything but a one-on-one relationship, so I don't know what anything different would be like. I do have to say this, though, a poly relationship sounds good to me in theory but I do have some insecurity/jealousy issues to begin with. I don't want to risk feeling like a third wheel or second-best.[/quote]
or making someone else feel that way.[/quote]
that too. I'm all too used to the feeling of being the odd one out, and I don't want to make anyone else feel that way.
Posted by: spamandham Sep 5 2004, 07:17 PM
[QUOTE=Lanakila @ Sep 5 2004, 05:05 PM]
[quote]I wasn't trying to imply that such a relationship involved being promiscuous, I was simply relating my own experiences. Chill out.[/quote]
I am cold from drinking iced tea in a freezing restaraunt. So no need to chill out. Words on a message board are often easy to misinterpret. I don't know you, and didn't know what you implied by your statement.
No hard feelings and I'll keep cool, k.[/quote]
I may have come off a bit harsh. Please accept my apology.
Posted by: spamandham Sep 5 2004, 07:21 PM
[QUOTE=I Broke Free @ Sep 5 2004, 06:38 PM]
Recognition of relationships by the state has nothing to do with love or sex, it is about the right to establish a family relationship.
If the gay community would focus more on our right to establish who is our "next-of-kin" rather than marriage, it would be easier for people to understand the real issue here.
When my first partner (8 years together) died in an accident back in 1987, his parents took me to cleaners and were able to sue for wrongful death because I was not considered my partner's next-of-kin. They got $360,000 and I got the debt on our truck![/quote]
I think "that sucks" is an under statement. I like your insight. There are other issues of course, such as medical benefits, and a mess of estate and right to die issues involved in marriage as well.
Posted by: Nivek Sep 7 2004, 08:11 AM
In our House, we've been too busy doing our daily work and things that most folks are inclined to do...
Work, bills, stuff, things, feed kid, dogs, karate classes, all the stuff that needs taken care of..
The one thing here at Fatman's that has been a bit *different* is that I have insisted that Gina bank a considerable amount of her wages in preparation for her immediate future..
Figured she sould be useful to her employers, and she would be given opportunities to move up her work related ladders..
That she did so, and *work* quickly grabbed a promising young woman and promoted her was zero-suprise..
With her savings she now can do a move across Country and not have to borrow or use credit cards to do so..
If she had been a *single girl* trying to live on a sub par salary and go to school with no support, she may not have been able to do so...
In our House, we simply *live*. Adults doing adult things.
Work and school seem to be the most part of what we get done here..
Normal stuff.. That we choose to live together and have a relationship that is *non-xtian constraints traditional* does nothing to change the ebb and flow of our lives...
Now that Gina will be moving on to a Job that will take her away from the House, I can suspect we'll have the *norm*-like life continue.
Are we considering *replacing* gina? Nahhh.. She Who Is Red is special and a wonderful part of our lives.. I don't believe we'll be inviting anotehr woman into our home as a permanat partner..
Wouldn't say No tho to the right person...
n
Posted by: Iconoclastithon Sep 7 2004, 09:32 AM
in short;
as long as no one is exploiting or beeing exploited, or hurt/hurting than all is legally fine and ethically fine.
problem is that open reliationships, spouse swapping,sometimes polygamy,orgys,etc, can be risky healthwise{remember, protection is not 100% effective], and alot{not all} people who do these things and others are dooing it w/questinable motives which leds to exploitation and harm. It can be quite shady.
Their are natural laws and pattwerns in nature which I believe should be respected. As an evolved species we have right to explore a little; however; emotives should be heavily exaimned as shady motives lead to questionable and less safe activities.
The sexual revolution was good; however, it has been taken to unsafe and risky and questionable lengths in many cases.
just my two cents.
Posted by: raineshower Sep 7 2004, 10:20 AM
Any Takers?
I'm too selfish to share my partner with someone else and usually vice versa. But then again, if he looks like the above, maybe I would.
Posted by: I Broke Free Sep 7 2004, 10:41 AM
Oh my gosh!!!
He reminds me of that Monty Python sketch in the restaurant. He could pop any minute!
Posted by: sexkitten Sep 7 2004, 10:46 AM
[QUOTE=I Broke Free @ Sep 7 2004, 10:41 AM]
Oh my gosh!!!
He reminds me of that Monty Python sketch in the restaurant. He could pop any minute![/quote]
Ack!
Mr. Creosote is *so* the last thing I want to think about just after lunch....
Posted by: BigToe Sep 7 2004, 10:49 AM
I've noticed Monty Python is brought up in most threads around here
Posted by: sexkitten Sep 7 2004, 11:11 AM
[quote]I've noticed Monty Python is brought up in most threads around here[/quote]
It shows we have taste.
Posted by: Nivek Sep 7 2004, 11:44 AM
[quote]in short;
as long as no one is exploiting or beeing exploited, or hurt/hurting than all is legally fine and ethically fine.
problem is that open reliationships, spouse swapping,sometimes polygamy,orgys,etc, can be risky healthwise{remember, protection is not 100% effective], and alot{not all} people who do these things and others are dooing it w/questinable motives which leds to exploitation and harm. It can be quite shady.
Their are natural laws and pattwerns in nature which I believe should be respected. As an evolved species we have right to explore a little; however; emotives should be heavily exaimned as shady motives lead to questionable and less safe activities.
The sexual revolution was good; however, it has been taken to unsafe and risky and questionable lengths in many cases.
just my two cents.[/quote]
JebusFuckMoosesBalls Icon....
What are you trying to do. Oprah-ize your relationship(s)?
Damn amigo, by the time you konsfluzlerkate all that you just stipulated, any potential partner(s) you find are gonna either gonna be a slave in your dungeon down in the basement, or run the hell away from you...
As an adult we are very aware of the various disease dangers and ptifalls that can and may happen in a poly-culture...
Not that it should be a problem, we test continually and make sure potential partners are *clean*.. Should go without having to be said in public.
I am unsure what *natural laws* that you refer to and choose to live by.. If you need them, please feel very free to abridge you life and choices by them..
We've been a stable tri for years folks.. Cool to have the Girls in a relationship together, having them love and trust..
Dunno where the ass-ump-shun that this or any other poly relationship is somehow demeaning or exploiting...
Unable to improve on Lokmer's post on what is good in such a relationship..
Ours has worked.
n
Posted by: biggles7268 Sep 7 2004, 12:45 PM
[QUOTE=BigToe @ Sep 7 2004, 10:49 AM]
I've noticed Monty Python is brought up in most threads around here[/quote]
and I wasn't even messing with this thread.
Posted by: Emperor Norton II Sep 7 2004, 12:57 PM
I hafta say I'm against multiple partners, if simply because of the dangers of disease. I'd never forgive myself if I diseased Alexy because I slept around. That'd be horrible.
Posted by: BigToe Sep 7 2004, 07:56 PM
HAHA we aren't talking about simply sleeping around or the occasional "open relationship
experience. But people in a committed relationship with multiple partners. They would know each other well enough to know if one of them has a disease.
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 7 2004, 08:17 PM
LOL@ "Oprah-ize"
Posted by: Saviourmachine Sep 9 2004, 07:46 AM
Love scares the fuck out of fortunehooks
Sorry, off topic for a second.
[QUOTE (fortunehooks @ Sep 5 2004, 02:01 PM]
the idea of love scares the fuck out of me. i see love as a flipside something. all i know is that it could change on you in an instant. right now,i prefer to stay in the game and play.[/quote]
I would definitely know more about your thoughts of life and love. I am maybe quite romantic, but I want to know with whom I fuck. I want to know everything of her, hmm, almost everything. Besides, with romantic, I don't mean candle lights and so on (although I can like that too), but a kind of emotional involvement. What are your thoughts about this?
i understand that feelings are vital to each of us,and it is always my intention to inform people that i am not available for the love department. maybe,i am incapable of the blasted emotion,or my insecurities come to the forefront.
Do you really think so? That you're incapable of love? What's love? Is it not a play? A play with emotions, a play with genitals, a play with people. Of course, you can get hurt, if you're playing like that. But IMHO it's much more fun, because you can loose more.
I like to play with my emotions, as I like to play with my brain, with ethical rules, with someones intellectual bagage, with my money, with my lunges. I'm glad I'm able to love, it's coloring my life. Maybe it's some Gypsy trait, I'm using (you'll probably say 'wasting') what I have.
Posted by: SmallStone Sep 9 2004, 01:11 PM
If the parties involved are happy, I'm happy. Hell, it's none of my business if they aren't happy.
Personally, I probably couldn't do it. I generally need a good deal of time alone. There's not enough of me to go around and emotionally satisfy more than one partner.
Posted by: spidermonkey Sep 9 2004, 01:46 PM
I need a great deal of time alone as well. It's hard enough to convince ONE person of this, let alone 2 or 3. My last boyfriend ridiculed me for being "antisocial" and "crazy" simply because I like to be alone most of the time.
Posted by: spamandham Sep 9 2004, 07:50 PM
[QUOTE=spidermonkey @ Sep 9 2004, 01:46 PM]
I need a great deal of time alone as well. It's hard enough to convince ONE person of this, let alone 2 or 3. My last boyfriend ridiculed me for being "antisocial" and "crazy" simply because I like to be alone most of the time.[/quote]
Ok, I thought I was the oddball. I love my family, but I also cherish time alone.
Posted by: .:ºstankdeezº:. Sep 10 2004, 01:38 AM
I have a close friend who is married, she and her husband are swingers. poly in that they have more than one partner but not one specific 'other'
Her husband asked me to be his 'other' [a few times actually.. it made me feel good to have him flirt with me and ask for it.. i love when men beg for it.. i got sugar walls baby! suck all the anger right out of a man! ] and i found i couldn't do it because of the marriage... The anonymity of it all [i didnt know them very well when he first asked].
I do, however, see the benefit of such a relationship, if the people involved are mature and understanding [in general] of the situations that may arise from being involved in a relationship like that.
i mean, situations arise in any relationship, just depends on the people and how they handle them i think
Posted by: rainyday8169 Sep 10 2004, 02:35 AM
when you are in love with someone, you want to give that person your full attn. which just isnt possible with someone in between
oops
no one get bent
when I said you
I meant to say I
me
thats just what I happen to think
Posted by: Captain Ambivalent Sep 10 2004, 10:37 AM
Hi,
I would like to add my agreement to what Lokmer said about traditional polygamous relationship and to disagree somewhat with Nivek. Many, if not all, of the fundy "plural marriages" are terrible situations that need more, not less, government involvement. The novel "Under the Banner of Heaven" did a wonderful job of exposing the true face of these relationships, which resemble incest/slavery more than a loving and committed adult relationship. I think personal freedom has to be balanced with many factors, including protecting those who need it.
I have no objections to non-traditional relationships unless they involve children. One of the sad facts about divorce is that step-parents are many times more likely to abuse children than biological parents. I think that wholesale endorsement of non-traditional relationships could result in a disservice to children.
Personally, I find the idea of loving another woman repugnant, and insulting to my wife. My definition of love is finding all you need and lack in another person, to whom you provide all that they need or lack. I have had a much easier time giving up the idea of a trancendent God than letting go of the idea of a trancendent love...
One of the reasons I enjoy this site is that it forces me to think about ideas that I have always held as self-evident, and this definitely falls under that category.
Posted by: woodsmoke Sep 10 2004, 01:51 PM
I agree with you about the book, CA; but remember that's focusing almost exclusively on Mormon polygamy. If ever there was a poster-boy for horrible Jebus-endorsed relationships, that's it.
The main problem there lies not so much in the polygamic(?) system as in the base of their society. Men are superior and have God's favor and women are expected to defer to a man's judgment/authority on matters such as marriage. In cases such as these, both partners most certainly are not repsected equally, so it cannot be used as a valid example of a healthy relationship of any type.
Unfortunately you're probably right about the step-parent thing. I know a friend who has always been second-best to her step-dad behind her little sister, because (despite that the younger girl isn't his biological child) he was there to raise her younger sister from the beginning, whereas she was already 5 or 6 years old when he showed up.
Of course, I also know some folks whose step-parents have been better to them than others' biological parents often are, so it swings both ways. As with so many other things, I think this can only be effectively judged on a case-by-case basis.
Edit: D'oh, seem to have missed the last line of Stank's post there. Looks like you beat me to it. ;)
Posted by: woodsmoke Sep 10 2004, 01:56 PM
Stone, Spidey, Spam:
Me fourth.
Hopefully none of you had to go through the same hell as I did. (i.e. parents placing heavy emphasis on family togetherness, etc.) Can't tell you how many times that almost led to physical brawls between my Dad and I when he wanted me to go to yet *another* family gathering every other weekend and I just wanted to be left the fuck alone.
Posted by: Lanakila Sep 10 2004, 02:00 PM
[QUOTE=rainyday8169 @ Sep 10 2004, 05:35 AM]
when you are in love with someone, you want to give that person your full attn. which just isnt possible with someone in between
oops
no one get bent
when I said you
I meant to say I
me
thats just what I happen to think[/quote]
I know this is just your opinion. I would invite you to read the is love a zero sum thread and think about how much you love each of your children. Some folks are just plain able to be monogomous only. Thats fine, and perfectly healthy for you, if thats you. But, others are completely different in their being able to love more than one at a time. That is perfectly normal for them. People are different, and although monogomy is the "accepted" cultural norm today, that doesn't make it any more/or less correct. In other words to each his own in regards to this.
Posted by: SmallStone Sep 10 2004, 03:00 PM
[QUOTE=woodsmoke @ Sep 10 2004, 04:56 PM]
Hopefully none of you had to go through the same hell as I did. (i.e. parents placing heavy emphasis on family togetherness, etc.)[/quote]
Some but not to the same degree. What I experienced has definitely helped shape my opinion on the topic though.
We dutifully attended a battery of holiday events. There were always at least 2 christmas dinners, 2 easter dinners, etc.. Of course, the hosts always scheduled the meals at the same time. I grew to hate it pretty quickly despite loving my family. My father didn't enjoy it either so my forked tongue had some leeway. It was painful but it wasn't hell.
Meal time at home was almost always a family event. Sometimes it was a good idea and sometimes not. Alot of arguments would have been avoided if we would each have had more space and less routine.
Posted by: spidermonkey Sep 10 2004, 03:17 PM
[QUOTE=woodsmoke @ Sep 10 2004, 05:56 PM]
Hopefully none of you had to go through the same hell as I did.
My hell wasn't exactly like yours, but it was, is, and probably always will be hell.
My father has 12 siblings. His family is loud. Think My Big Fat Greek Wedding. They're just like that, except they aren't Greek. I totally don't fit in with them, either. Not surprisingly, I don't like going to family gatherings with my dad. I get accused of being rude and unloving.
My asshole ex went on and on about how I wasn't social enough and he thought that I was insane because of it. He's not the only one who has called my mental health into question simply because I don't like people that much. If I had a nickel for every time somebody labeled me "crazy" or "psycho" I'd make Bill Gates look like a pauper.
Now that my insurance benefits are going to become effective soon, I'm going to get some medication so I will be more social. It won't cure everything, but it will at least be a start.
Posted by: spamandham Sep 10 2004, 05:51 PM
[QUOTE=spidermonkey @ Sep 10 2004, 03:17 PM]
Now that my insurance benefits are going to become effective soon, I'm going to get some medication so I will be more social. It won't cure everything, but it will at least be a start.[/quote]
I use a drug called "beer" when I want to be more social.
Seriously though, it sounds like you want to be alone. What's wrong with that that requires meds? It's none of my business, so don't answer if your uncomfortable with it.
Posted by: woodsmoke Sep 10 2004, 07:06 PM
My Old Man was kind of a two-face on that one. He doesn't care to spend a lot of time in public or around people he doesn't know, it's just when it's a family activity that he does an about-face.
I never make such a distinction. Family or stranger, as far as I'm concerned they're all just people around me when I want to be alone.
I feel for ya', Spidey. I've never been outright accused of hating my family, but a good amount of the relatives have made (not so) subtle insinuations regarding my characteristic lack of social skills, or even the desire for them. Maybe I am an anti-social bastard, but at least I'm honest about it; and you can rest assured on the occasion that I actually do make a trip to visit someone it's because I genuinely want to be there.
I've gotta' agree with Spam, though. So you're not a fucking socialite, how is that a bad thing? If memory serves me correctly, most of the people who have had the greatest impact on humanity throughout history weren't exactly the shining example of popularity themselves. Of course if it's your personal desire to be more sociable and you feel you'll need medications to do so, then more power to ya'. No reason to go looking for a cure to a "problem" that ain't there just to satisfy those few shallow fucktards who can't see the worth of a person who doesn't pullute the air with their grating vocal chords at every conceivable opportunity, though.
Posted by: sexkitten Sep 10 2004, 08:42 PM
Would getting enough space really be that affected by monogamy vs polygamy though?
I mean, I know couples that do everything together, and hover around each other at parties. I know couples who never do things for themselves. I know other couples who have their own thing and are content to catch up w/ each other when they can. I know couples who constantly argue about social gatherings vs. solitude, large family gatherings w/ all the relations vs. just the immediate family, wanting nights in vs. wanting bf to go along with the woman's gfs.
Conversely, there are groups of friends with whom I can have space and not have them feel unloved, and other groups that want constant togetherness and big group things to feel happy.
I need a lot of space (physically and emotionally), but I've found that what is crucial for me getting space is being in relationships with people who can respect that need and be confident that I still care for them even when I want to be alone reading a book or drawing a turtle.
In some ways, I think getting your own space and getting your needs for togetherness can be easier in a group situation if everyone respects each other's needs. One doesn't need to be lonely because another wishes to be alone, and when one wants companionship, there are more people to hang out with.
Posted by: LloydDobler Sep 10 2004, 09:04 PM
For me, I have issues with abandonment or something, even when it's groups of friends I have a hard time with not being included if some want to pair off and do things without me.
You can imagine that this is amplified in romantic relationships...
Hey if it works for any of you, more power to ya. I could never do more than a one on one relationship. Add to that the fact that my ex who I believed would be faithful forever basically dumped me because she was attracted to several other men and took that as a sign that we weren't 'meant to be'.
Damn, reading that back makes it suck more.
Posted by: spidermonkey Sep 11 2004, 03:05 AM
[QUOTE=spamandham @ Sep 10 2004, 09:51 PM]
I use a drug called "beer" when I want to be more social.
Seriously though, it sounds like you want to be alone. What's wrong with that that requires meds? It's none of my business, so don't answer if your uncomfortable with it.[/quote]
Sadly, I already tried alcohol and ended up becoming a drunk, all in the name of being more social
As for meds, I feel horribly self-conscious when I'm around people and I feel the need to socialize and fit in, but can't bring myself to do so. Like work or family gatherings, for instance.
Posted by: Saviourmachine Sep 11 2004, 08:02 AM
Sorry, I'm (also ) off-topic again.
[quote]As for meds, I feel horribly self-conscious when I'm around people and I feel the need to socialize and fit in, but can't bring myself to do so. Like work or family gatherings, for instance.[/quote]
I am aware of every word someones says, about the meaning behind it. Often I try to imagine where he/she comes from, what he/she had experienced, and so on. That doesn't easify conversation.
The kind of persons I am with does have a big influence in my abilities to socialize. I can't socialize with my family (besides my parents, bros and sister). They aren't able to think - I could stop here - about things that do have my interest. The students I live with are often likewise; intellect doesn't seem to make a difference. I don't enjoy family meetings, but I do have fun at other times, with other people.
Posted by: spidermonkey Sep 11 2004, 11:00 AM
[quote]Would getting enough space really be that affected by monogamy vs polygamy though?
[/quote]
it's not about space.
It's about the fact that I've had my mental state called into question by "friends." It's about the fact that my not being "outgoing enough" has been a huge stumbling block in my relationships, romantic and non-romantic alike. No matter how many times I say "it's nothing personal, it's just ME" people are still offended by me. Being shit on for being the way I am is bad enough when it comes from one person. I couldn't imagine that garbage coming from two or more people.
Posted by: sexkitten Sep 11 2004, 12:10 PM
[QUOTE (spidermonkey @ Sep 11 2004, 11:00 AM]
[quote]Would getting enough space really be that affected by monogamy vs polygamy though?[/quote]
it's not about space.
It's about the fact that I've had my mental state called into question by "friends." It's about the fact that my not being "outgoing enough" has been a huge stumbling block in my relationships, romantic and non-romantic alike. No matter how many times I say "it's nothing personal, it's just ME" people are still offended by me. Being shit on for being the way I am is bad enough when it comes from one person. I couldn't imagine that garbage coming from two or more people.[/quote]
{{HUGS}}
Friends and lovers who respect their loved ones' needs for space are a rare but awesome thing.
I definitely don't think that you're a freak (well, at least not the *bad* kind) because you're not outgoing. You rock!
Posted by: spamandham Sep 11 2004, 05:35 PM
[QUOTE=sexkitten @ Sep 11 2004, 12:10 PM]
I definitely don't think that you're a freak (well, at least not the *bad* kind) because you're not outgoing. You rock![/quote]
I second the motion. Of course, your on-line personality could easily differ substantially from the world of wetware, but you certainly seem open enough here. Not to mention you're damn hot (photos thread).
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)[B]