Dual Rules
Brian K Petroski
On 2 Aug 1996, Tzimon Yliaster wrote:
> Has anyone had the experience wherein one partner insists on certain
>rules for the relationship, the others consent, and then the partner that
>invented the rules didn't follow them themselves?
>
> I currently find myself in this situation, and have handled it so far
>with slightly barbed humor. I should specify that I don't find the
My pet peeve is someone being a hypocrit. Initially I would likely
handle it the same way you have, with heavy sarcasm. Not that this is
necessarily a GOOD way to do it, but it's likely what I would do. :|
If the situation is ever to be remedied you have to be able to
discuss it openly. There is nothing wrong with making rules and later
changing them. People change, ideas and attitudes change, and the rules
should be able to change to fit these other changes. It is imporatant
that the changes be discussed between all parties involved FIRST before
anyone does anything that is not in agreement with the original rules!
The relationship I am in now would have never been possible under the
rules my first wife and I established three years ago, but through our
experiences we have ammended the rules and made compromises.
Brian K Petroski
On 2 Aug 1996, Stef Jones wrote:
> My partner and I made an agreement with fairly asymmetrical rules, but we
> had talked about them and laboriously agreed that although they looked
> asymmetrical from the outside, they were emotionally equitable (each of us
> got what zie most wanted and avoided what zie most hated and wasn't stuck
> with all of the frustration and angst).
Sounds great. WHo cares if it's symetrical? As long as everyone
involved agrees, and everyone feels they are having their needs met, what
else matters? Some people get into dominant/submissive relationships.
Certainly these are not symmetrical rules, but if it works for their
relationship, more power to them! The important factor is that it was
all agreed on. The question I took from the original poster was about
her partner not abiding by the original rules, but not discussing openly
a need to change them.
Steve Pope
Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
> Sounds great. Who cares if it's symetrical? As long as
> everyone involved agrees, and everyone feels they are having
> their needs met, what else matters? Some people get into
> dominant/submissive relationships. Certainly these are not
> symmetrical rules, but if it works for their relationship, more
> power to them! The important factor is that it was all agreed
> on.
I agree that symmetrical rules are unnecessary, but I disagree
that a dominant/submissive relationship implies assymmetrical
rules, at least respect to the category of rules under
discussion, i.e. rules pertaining to polyamory situations.
Personally, as a practicer of both d/s and polyamory, I believe
in keeping the two situations rather separate; I believe that one
can use rules to address the issues that pertain to participating
in multiple relationships (e.g. disclosure, permissions, vetos,
safety, schedules, living arrangements, etc.) without implying anything
about the preferences and orientations within those relationship
(vanilla, kinky, d/s, heterosexual, gay, celibate, etc.).
Indeed, one of the advantages of a reasonably open, fair,
symmetrical, non-hypocritical set of polyamory rules is that it
leaves the individuals free to engage in the forms of intimacy and
relationship styles that they prefer, possibly including d/s
relationships. So I see no conflict at all between d/s
practice, and symmetrical rules.
Just my opinion, of course.
Steve
Brian K Petroski
On 5 Aug 1996, Steve Pope wrote:
> Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
>
> > Sounds great. Who cares if it's symetrical? As long as
> > everyone involved agrees, and everyone feels they are having
> > their needs met, what else matters? Some people get into
> > dominant/submissive relationships. Certainly these are not
> > symmetrical rules, but if it works for their relationship, more
> > power to them! The important factor is that it was all agreed
> > on.
>
> I agree that symmetrical rules are unnecessary, but I disagree
> that a dominant/submissive relationship implies assymmetrical
> rules, at least respect to the category of rules under
> discussion, i.e. rules pertaining to polyamory situations.
My statement was that in a dom/sub relationship, regardless of if it
is mono or poly, the rules are inherently asymetrical. i.e. the dom spanks
the sub, but the sub does not spank the dom. I was just using that as an
example where both parties are having their needs met by intentionally
setting asymetrical rules.
> Personally, as a practicer of both d/s and polyamory, I believe
> in keeping the two situations rather separate; I believe that one
> can use rules to address the issues that pertain to participating
> in multiple relationships (e.g. disclosure, permissions, vetos,
> safety, schedules, living arrangements, etc.) without implying anything
> about the preferences and orientations within those relationship
> (vanilla, kinky, d/s, heterosexual, gay, celibate, etc.).
Certainly you may have different rules in different situations.
That's fine. My whole point is that ANYTHING is okay as long as it is
discussed and agreed upon BEFOREHAND by all the parties involved.
> Indeed, one of the advantages of a reasonably open, fair,
> symmetrical, non-hypocritical set of polyamory rules is that it
> leaves the individuals free to engage in the forms of intimacy and
> relationship styles that they prefer, possibly including d/s
> relationships. So I see no conflict at all between d/s
> practice, and symmetrical rules.
It is definately one of the advantage to a poly relationship that
you could have different lovers with different taste and so indulge in a
wider variety of pleasures, indlucing some that one lover might not be
comfortable with or might even be impossible (wrong physical build
and/or anatomy for a particular fantasy).
What my entire post was saying is that there is nothing wrong with an
honest, open, fair set of poly rules that are NOT semetrical as long as
all the parties invoved agree to them and are having their needs met.
Hine Nui Te Po
Brian K Petroski (petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us) wrote:
: On 5 Aug 1996, Steve Pope wrote:
: > Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
: >
: > > Sounds great. Who cares if it's symetrical? As long as
: > > everyone involved agrees, and everyone feels they are having
: > > their needs met, what else matters? Some people get into
: > > dominant/submissive relationships. Certainly these are not
: > > symmetrical rules, but if it works for their relationship, more
: > > power to them! The important factor is that it was all agreed
: > > on.
: >
: > I agree that symmetrical rules are unnecessary, but I disagree
: > that a dominant/submissive relationship implies assymmetrical
: > rules, at least respect to the category of rules under
: > discussion, i.e. rules pertaining to polyamory situations.
: My statement was that in a dom/sub relationship, regardless of if it
: is mono or poly, the rules are inherently asymetrical. i.e. the dom spanks
: the sub, but the sub does not spank the dom. I was just using that as an
: example where both parties are having their needs met by intentionally
: setting asymetrical rules.
Hmmm...it seems to me that it completely depends on the parameters. In
any relationship and especially and d/s relationship parameters are
discussed and adhereed to. If the sub cannot handle X, then X should not
be done until the sub wishes. Ideally, I believe it should all be
handled by open communication. There will be things that a top cannot do
and things that a bottom cannot do at any given moment, but with open
communication, a compromise can be worked out.
: > Personally, as a practicer of both d/s and polyamory, I believe
: > in keeping the two situations rather separate; I believe that one
: > can use rules to address the issues that pertain to participating
: > in multiple relationships (e.g. disclosure, permissions, vetos,
: > safety, schedules, living arrangements, etc.) without implying anything
: > about the preferences and orientations within those relationship
: > (vanilla, kinky, d/s, heterosexual, gay, celibate, etc.).
: Certainly you may have different rules in different situations.
: That's fine. My whole point is that ANYTHING is okay as long as it is
: discussed and agreed upon BEFOREHAND by all the parties involved.
Isn't that the problem? It is often har to distinguish what might be a
problem in advance.
: > Indeed, one of the advantages of a reasonably open,
fair, : > symmetrical, non-hypocritical set of polyamory rules is that it
: > leaves the individuals free to engage in the forms of intimacy and
: > relationship styles that they prefer, possibly including d/s
: > relationships. So I see no conflict at all between d/s
: > practice, and symmetrical rules.
: It is definately one of the advantage to a poly relationship that
: you could have different lovers with different taste and so indulge in a
: wider variety of pleasures, indlucing some that one lover might not be
: comfortable with or might even be impossible (wrong physical build
: and/or anatomy for a particular fantasy).
That is certainly the ideal. Were it so easy.
: What my entire post was saying is that there is nothing wrong with an
: honest, open, fair set of poly rules that are NOT semetrical as long as
: all the parties invoved agree to them and are having their needs met.
Here here.
HineNuit
IAMMAGICK
I'm new here and it helps me to play the devil's advocate to clear up some
things in my mind so please bear with me.
I hear alot of talk about rules and who can do what and asking permission
and meeting the "other" lover and how often... bla bla bla. I've found
that when a relationship was loving and real, all these fears and
obstacles were abscent. Everything usually flowed and even though
communication was open and allowed, most communication involving the
relationship "rules" were expressed on a non-verbal level.
It sounds to me like (in practice) the more people involved, the more
potential for complications and the more complicated the relationship(s)
become. I must say that I has been a difficult road for me but I thought
it ws because I was new at it. If people seasoned in this life style have
all kinds of complications, why bother? My goal is peace, simplicity, and
UNCONDITIONAL love. Where do all these rules fit in? Please explain.
With Love, Stephen
gable jenny lynn
IAMMAGICK (iamm...@aol.com) wrote:
: I'm new here and it helps me to play the devil's advocate to clear up some
: things in my mind so please bear with me.
: obstacles were abscent. Everything usually flowed and even though
: communication was open and allowed, most communication involving the
: relationship "rules" were expressed on a non-verbal level.
: all kinds of complications, why bother? My goal is peace, simplicity, and
: UNCONDITIONAL love. Where do all these rules fit in? Please explain.
As you may know, communication helps relationships work more easily.
If one person expects the other to act in a certain way, or do certain
things, or not do certain things, that person can only comply if they
know what's expected of them. In a monogamous couple, the expectations
have been somewhat defined by tradition. Certain things still have to
be talked about, such as expectations about spending money, raising
children, going on vacation, etc. That happes naturally, to a certain
extent, but it does require verbal communication.
In certain circumstances, one partner is able to guess what the other one
wants. To a certain extent, that can work. However, when there are
more and more issues to deal with (kids, school, changing jobs, whatever),
more verbal communication is needed.
When there are more people, guessing tends to be less accurate, so verbal
communication becomes more necessary.
Poly rules are not saying "I will love you if you do ____" -- they are saying
"I love you, and I will be happier if you do ___" or "I love you, but I
need you to do ___ to be able to live together happily." In a monogamous
couple, one such expected rule is "We can live together happily if you don't
have an affair." That gets changed in poly situations; some people like
a fidelitous group, some want a looser group than that. Whatever they want,
they have to make sure their partners know about and understand, because
there is no tradition to define it.
Rules are not conditional love. Love happens on its own. The conditions
are of having a continuing happy relationship, that meets the needs of
everyone involved. It is a way of defining what can keep the relationship
stable. Loving someone is not the same as being able to live with them,
for a lot of reasons, and the rules are for the relating and living, not
for the loving. It's true that it isn't as simple with more people, but
once the difficult spots are worked out, it can be just as happy in the
long term. And for some people, monogamy would not make them happy - they
need more people - so it's easier for them and happier to have a poly
situation instead of a monogamous one. The advantages outweight the
disadvantages for some people.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The ability to love http://www.imsa.edu/~jgable/
Skywind is universal. The
Jenny Gable right to love These opinions are mine only,
should be though I wish the rest of the
too. world shared them too. :)
\/
Pagan, poly, free-thinking, open, bisexual, long-haired, non-judgmental;
I'm committing every one of the Moral Majority's 7 deadly sins.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JennieD-O'C
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I hear alot of talk about rules and who can do what and asking permission
>and meeting the "other" lover and how often... bla bla bla. I've found
>that when a relationship was loving and real, all these fears and
>obstacles were abscent.
My milage varies greatly. I've been in a committed poly relationship for
more than four years, and monogamous before that with one of my present
partners for more than four additional years. Our relationships have
always been very loving and real, and yet we have a lot of rules. We
find that they prevent fears and obstacles, not that they encourage them.
Not that the rules are a huge part of our daily lives, anyway. They were
discussed and negotiated a LONG TIME AGO. We don't even think about them
anymore -- they've just become part of How We Do Things. Much like the
habit of eating dinner together in the evenings or watching Deep Space
Nine together on Sunday nights.
>Everything usually flowed and even though
>communication was open and allowed, most communication involving the
>relationship "rules" were expressed on a non-verbal level.
Pardon me, but Eew. I wouldn't want to live that way. Maybe it's
because I've found that every time things in my life have been "expressed
on a non-verbal level", they haven't been really expressed. Even between
people with a strong emotional connection. Or even a lifetime commitment.
>It sounds to me like (in practice) the more people involved, the more
>potential for complications and the more complicated the relationship(s)
>become. I must say that I has been a difficult road for me but I thought
>it ws because I was new at it. If people seasoned in this life style have
>all kinds of complications, why bother?
Actually, I don't see the three of us as having *any* poly-related
complications at the moment. We're very used to and happy with the way we
live. In the past year, members of our family have had one longer-term
serious relationship that didn't work out, one aborted relationship
attempt, and two major crushes where the feelings weren't returned. That
all probably sounds horribly complicated to someone in a traditional
monogamous relationship, and we do in fact often have friends comment on
how complicated our lives are. We don't see it that way at all. Not all
of it was pleasant, mind you, but none of it was at all complicated.
Perhaps precisely *because* we have specific ways of doing things and
*because* we communicate everything verbally, our lives and relationships
ran just as smoothly through all that as they always have. We talk about
problems with other relationships and crushes and attractions as easily
and casually as many people do work-related or social issues.
---
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org>
Janet W. Hardy
IAMMAGICK (iamm...@aol.com) wrote:
: it ws because I was new at it. If people seasoned in this life style have
: all kinds of complications, why bother? My goal is peace, simplicity, and
: UNCONDITIONAL love. Where do all these rules fit in? Please explain.
Try substituting the word "agreements" for the word "rules" and it will
start becoming clearer to you. We make agreements with many people in
our lives, not just our lovers. We agree to communicate with our parents
on a certain schedule. We agree to pay promptly the people who serve
us. If we break those agreements, it will cause friction, and possibly
even eventually the dissolution of the relationship.
The more ways we connect with a given person, the more agreements we have
to make. I have more agreements with my life partner and kids -- the
people to whom I am most profoundly connected -- than I do with my
girlfriend. Each "point of contact" (romantic, sexual, financial,
housekeeping, whatever) requires its own agreement(s).
If you don't like making and discussing agreements, celibate solitude may
be your best bet. Otherwise, you're kinda stuck with it.
Verdant
--
>>> COMING IN SEPTEMBER! "MERCY?? NO!!" -- KINKY CARTOONS BY B.N. DUNCAN <<<
* For this and other sexuality and BDSM publications, check the Greenery *
* Press page at http://www.bigrock.com/~greenery/, e-mail ver...@crl.com, *
* or send SASE to 3739 Balboa Ave. #195, San Francisco, CA 94121 *
*The Puppet Master*
On Aug 13, 1996 08:43:58 in article <Re: If Poly Is So "Natural" Why All
--
Who draws up the poly contract? What are the "punishments" for breaking a
rule in the poly contract? And why the hell are you associating poly with
love anyway?
Mr. BoomBasTik
~I Know Me Well Built~
Brooklyn, NY
Stef Jones
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm new here and it helps me to play the devil's advocate to clear up some
>things in my mind so please bear with me.
>
>I hear alot of talk about rules and who can do what and asking permission
>and meeting the "other" lover and how often... bla bla bla. I've found
>that when a relationship was loving and real, all these fears and
>obstacles were abscent. Everything usually flowed and even though
>communication was open and allowed, most communication involving the
>relationship "rules" were expressed on a non-verbal level.
I haven't found it to be true that love automatically confers the ability
to communicate and understand one's partner. This is a common myth about
romantic love, one that I think causes a lot of damage.
In my best relationships, I've had to do some work to be understood and to
understand the other person. Sometimes that meant making agreements and
asking for the other person's feelings/feedback. These are codified
communications. They say "Here's where we stand." The love part enters
not in taking away the necessity for communication but in making me want to
communicate.
>It sounds to me like (in practice) the more people involved, the more
>potential for complications and the more complicated the relationship(s)
>become.
For me, complications arise when people have unspoken expectations.
Poly does not cause complications for me, in particular, unless things
aren't spelled out clearly.
>If people seasoned in this life style have
>all kinds of complications, why bother?
Relationships are always difficult, because people have conflicting needs
and people change. Why bother with relationships at all?
>My goal is peace, simplicity, and
>UNCONDITIONAL love. Where do all these rules fit in? Please explain.
There is no such thing as unconditional love, except in an abstract,
spiritual sense. As soon as you are actually interacting with someone,
instead of just sitting in your room thinking that you love everybody,
conditions are always imposed on behavior. You might prefer not to think
about them, and let them play themselves out in a way that you like to
think is "natural," and that works if you only get involved with people who
happen to be very similar to you. But otherwise not.
I don't know about "rules," because what I have with my partners are
guidelines, agreements, and understandings, not rules. But they help us
understand each other, they help us spend time together while minimizing
conflicts and maximizing enjoyment. That's how they fit in.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Cats seem to go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for
what you want. --Joseph Wood Krutch
IAMMAGICK
In article <4upltl$2...@beast.coast.net>, jenn...@kira.intranet.org
(JennieD-O'C) writes:
>Pardon me, but Eew. I wouldn't want to live that way. Maybe it's
>because I've found that every time things in my life have been "expressed
>on a non-verbal level", they haven't been really expressed. Even between
>people with a strong emotional connection. Or even a lifetime
commitment.
I'm probably jumping the gun here and letting alot of old prejudices have
their say but...From my experience most women I've known prefer if not
require monogamy. They also prefered alot of talking and analyzing
problems (aka communication).
I know this may sound synical but tell me if it has a ring of truth to it.
Could all this "talking out" and rules be sort of a substitute or should I
say enticement that the man offers the woman so that he can be allowed to
go out and make love to another woman. It seems to me that indulging a
woman with discussion and setting down all kinds of rules is like throwing
a dog a nice meaty bone. They've got to love it. It may be a replacement
for the sexual power which is lost when monogamy is no longer present. And
again we men are left asking "momie" for permission as to how to live our
lives. Men are so pathetic! :-)
Again I'm being the devil's advocate here but this kind of stuff hs
crossed my mind and it helps me to put it out there.
With Love, Stephen
songbird
IAMMAGICK wrote:
>I'm new here and it helps me to play the devil's advocate to clear up some
>things in my mind so please bear with me.
>
>I hear alot of talk about rules and who can do what and asking permission
>and meeting the "other" lover and how often... bla bla bla. I've found
>that when a relationship was loving and real, all these fears and
>obstacles were abscent. Everything usually flowed and even though
>communication was open and allowed, most communication involving the
>relationship "rules" were expressed on a non-verbal level.
this would work in those rare cases where all of my partners
were very similar to my noodscape(mental landscape/jungle/...) not
many people are, that means i have to verbalise and build bridges
between us. those are agreements, and times spent together talking
about whatever, and sometimes rules. so far though i can't say i've
felt hugely burdened by having some rules. only when there is more
time spent thrashing out rules than enjoying each other's company
(and there might be those who enjoy constructing huge labrynths of
rules with their partners -- i like complicated puzzles at times :)
but that is my own call on this.
>It sounds to me like (in practice) the more people involved, the more
>potential for complications and the more complicated the relationship(s)
>become.
it depends upon the people and what they want from the relationship.
i mean how complicated can meeting someone once a week for tea for
an hour or two be in comparison to meeting a lover once a week for
tea? (*grin* very devilish of me, but adding romantic notions and
emotions does add complicating factors, but how many of these factors
are things that you construct as compared to what might be coming from
the outside?)
>I must say that I has been a difficult road for me but I thought
>it ws because I was new at it. If people seasoned in this life style have
>all kinds of complications, why bother? My goal is peace, simplicity, and
>UNCONDITIONAL love. Where do all these rules fit in? Please explain.
if you want peace being around other people in big numbers is not a
way to get it. :) you might consider looking for more meditative sorts
(but you won't likely find them here -- i think newsgroup folk are also
fairly verbal :) (yes a generalization :)
plus i really don't believe in pure unconditional love. my love
depends upon a lot of things. some of which involve choices freely
made, but still intertwined with ruless, conditions, preconceptions,
social conditioning, genetics, etc.
(you wanted a simple explanation?! ;) look for the quiet person
who is still quiet after you have a few dates. those that aren't are
really shy people waiting for someone to talk to.
>With Love, Stephen
songbird *sqwawk*
JennieD-O'C
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I know this may sound synical but tell me if it has a ring of truth to it.
>Could all this "talking out" and rules be sort of a substitute or should I
>say enticement that the man offers the woman so that he can be allowed to
>go out and make love to another woman.
I don't know about generally, but since this was addressed to me, I'll
tell you that I know this is definitely not true in my relationship. My
partners would be disgusted at the idea.
The "talking out" is *fun*! We're not talking about agonizing, horrific
conversations, for the most part, but conversations where he tells me all
about how strongly he feels about someone and why and about his
conversations with her, and I help him plan ways of getting to know her
better. Or vice versa. We do it because we're bursting with excitement
about our feelings and dying to share them with someone we care about, not
because it's a requirement of the relationship.
I honestly can't imagine being in a relationship with someone who didn't
value that kind of communication as much as I do.
>It seems to me that indulging a
>woman with discussion and setting down all kinds of rules is like throwing
>a dog a nice meaty bone. They've got to love it.
There are lots of women who need rules in a poly situation, true. But
there are lots of men who need them, too. Just as there are women who
prefer not to have them and there are men who prefer to have them. I
don't think this is a gender-related issue at all.
>It may be a replacement
>for the sexual power which is lost when monogamy is no longer present.
Huh? I don't understand this part.
>And
>again we men are left asking "momie" for permission as to how to live our
>lives.
Well, we don't have a veto power rule, so there's no "asking for
permission" in our family. But I know that if I wanted to get involved
with someone who one or more of my partners really had problems with, I
probably wouldn't do it. And the reverse is true as well. So we don't
have to ask "permission", but we definitely do try to do things that are
best for the family in the long run.
---
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org>
Ryk
ny...@usa.pipeline.com(*The Puppet Master*) wrote:
>Who draws up the poly contract?
the parties to the contract, naturally
>What are the "punishments" for breaking a rule in the poly contract?
usually a little personal guilt, possibly followed by whatever the
parties put in the contract......
> And why the hell are you associating poly with love anyway?
poly amory ------> multiple loves........ get it?
Ryk
--
Sometimes you're the windshield,
and sometimes you're the bug......
Bernadette Bosky
In article <4urem0$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I know this may sound synical but tell me if it has a ring of truth to it.
>Could all this "talking out" and rules be sort of a substitute or should I
>say enticement that the man offers the woman so that he can be allowed to
>woman with discussion and setting down all kinds of rules is like throwing
>for the sexual power which is lost when monogamy is no longer present. And
>again we men are left asking "momie" for permission as to how to live our
>
is that agreements, rules, modifying behavior, etc. are all things that
one person in a relationship does to please the other. The thing is, I
think you're only seeing half of it. Around here, at least, it
definitely goes both ways (or more). In some ways, treating each other
even better may be a payoff for the freedom, but that's a very grim way
to put it; it is also an expression of love (yes!) and a way we make
things work.
I also think that women are more socialized to talk things out,
sometimes counterproductively. And often men are socialized not to talk
things out, covertly relying on the woman to bring things out in the open
based on their nonverbal signals that something is wrong--which is a
burden on the woman and on the man. This is not 100%, and I have
definitely known couples where the tendencies were the opposite. In our
household, it is more traditional that way. The thing is, we all
recognize each reaction as an extreme, and we (1) work on moderating our
extremes (the guys on talking more and me on not insisting things be
worked out verbally RIGHT NOW) and (2) realize the other person's approach
may be valuable, and certainly isn't being done "to" us.
I don't know if any of this is familiar to you at all. I guess
I'd say I think you could probably benefit from a better understanding of
how things are from the woman's point of view--what problems come up with
*either* kind of socialization.
Bernadette Bosky
Bernadette Bosky
In article <4uo2f7$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I hear alot of talk about rules and who can do what and asking permission
>and meeting the "other" lover and how often... bla bla bla. I've found
>that when a relationship was loving and real, all these fears and
>obstacles were abscent. Everything usually flowed and even though
>communication was open and allowed, most communication involving the
>relationship "rules" were expressed on a non-verbal level.
>
relationships--including one with one spouse for 15 years and one with
the other spouse for nine--and that isn't my experience at all.
My experience is that rules expressed nonverbally are more apt to
cause confusion and more vulnerable to mixed messages.
I also find that love undoes *some* fears, and that's plenmty for
me to be grateful for. But *all* fears and obstacles? Suddenly, because
I'm in love, all of the neuroses, bad habits, and learned problems from
decades just go away? No. I do find I am somewhat more sane around my
spice than by myself, and that's enough for me.
I also have found that spoken agreements are both easier and more
helpful as the relationship goes on--presumably *because* we know each
other better in both verbal and nonverbal ways, and because there is even
more desire to please and help the other person.
>It sounds to me like (in practice) the more people involved, the more
>potential for complications and the more complicated the relationship(s)
>become. I must say that I has been a difficult road for me but I thought
>it ws because I was new at it. If people seasoned in this life style have
>all kinds of complications, why bother? My goal is peace, simplicity, and
>UNCONDITIONAL love. Where do all these rules fit in? Please explain.
>
For us, certan stated rules help things be simpler--we agree on
something good and workable, and we don't have to keep rehashing the same
issue every time it comes up. We figure out what degree of a problem
something is, and then we can use that to make ongoing decisions. And so on.
I would say at this point we have complications but not really
problems--or only the kinds of problems we would have as a couple, and
actually less of those than if I were in a couple with either spouse.
That is, it's a matter of logistics to get all of us together to make
financial decisions and pay bills, but it isn't a source of stress or
disagreement. We have to decide things like when to come out to whom,
but it's a matter of all three of us discussing the best strategy, not a
conflict among us. And so on.
Obviously, you conceive of things differently, but to us, stated
decisions, made by consensus among all three of us (even if one person
really wants it a lot more, it has to be acceptable by consensus or it
doesn't fly) helps us express our unconditional love. It's like traffic
rules decreasing accidental collisions--as long as we know more and agree
to more, we step on each other less accidentally, and it's less severe
when we do. In factm I *might* go so far as to say that rules work best
the more unconditional love there is, because then there is more genuine
desire to do what is best for all, making rules a matter of mutual
agreement rather than oppression/imposition by one side.
Bernadette Bosky
Elf Sternberg
In article <4urem0$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) writes:
>I'm probably jumping the gun here and letting alot of old prejudices have
>their say but...From my experience most women I've known prefer if not
>require monogamy.
So? What is it about "most" that makes people want to equate it with "all?" Not ALL
women want, prefer, or require monogamy. The ones that do stay out of alt.polyamory and the
ones that don't come in.
>Could all this "talking out" and rules be sort of a substitute or should I
>say enticement that the man offers the woman so that he can be allowed to
>go out and make love to another woman.
To quote Jennie, "Eww." To any such women, I'd tell her to
go jump in a lake. Men are not so pathetic as you want to imagine
yourself, Steven. Maybe the women in these relationships, who don't
value monogamy so much as you would want them to, negotiate for their
own needs-- I know lots of poly women (mostly because I'm here a lot)
and I know that most of them value and treasure sex; they're not poly
for their husbands' sake, they're poly on their own. They want their
own freedoms to have their own friendships with other people, and to be
allowed to express those relationships in the manner of their choosing.
If you want to imagine men at the grips of their mother-
substitute wives, you're welcome to. But most of the men here will
just nod quietly in dismissal and go back to enjoying their lives.
Elf !!!
Elf Sternberg I'm not inclined to write pompous
e...@halcyon.com books about unanswerable questions.
Public key available That strikes me as a tremendous waste
http://www.halcyon.com/elf of time.
- Stephen Jay Gould
Maenad
iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) wrote:
>>...From my experience most women I've known prefer if not
>>require monogamy. They also prefered alot of talking and analyzing
>>problems (aka communication).
>>I know this may sound synical but tell me if it has a ring of truth to it.
>>Could all this "talking out" and rules be sort of a substitute or should I
>>say enticement that the man offers the woman so that he can be allowed to
>>go out and make love to another woman. ... we men are left asking
>>"momie" for permission as to how to live our lives. Men are so pathetic! :-)
I respectfully submit that you have probably been with
women who are traditionally monogamous. I further
offer that there is no real way to know what another
person wants and feels other than listening to him,
and there is no way to get across what you want
and feel than to say it.
Communication and "rules" if you wanna call them that
are important to me because I retired from guessing
what another person wants several years ago. If I guess,
or romantically believe that we vibrate so cosmically
together that verbalization is not needed, what ends
up happening is that I project what *I* want or am
afraid of in a particular situation onto my mate, and
I end up doing stuff that really hurts her. Mostly
what I want is pretty simple (for example, because
logistics in my life are so tough, I want my partner
to be willing to plan at least a couple days ahead
for our time together) and what my mate(s) want is
pretty simple (for example, one wants me to make
time to commit one evening a week just to her,
and wants me to call her or write to her a couple
of times a week). These things are very simple, but
we wouldn't know how important they are if I didn't
tell them or listen to my partners telling me. They
are not hard to provide, but they can become
very hard to overcome if they are not known or
are ignored when they are known. Guessing
doesn't usually work, in my experience.
By guessing, I might for example assume that my
mate wants me to "protect her feelings" by
telling her I didn't have sex with someone when
I did have sex with that someone, because I
perceive that my mate is in a bad mood. Then
my mate might be fairly irate when she finds out
I lied to her. If I then tell her that I "guess" that
she's REALLY pissed off at me because she's
jealous about me having had sex with this
person, not that she's mad because I've been
lying to her about it for 5 or 6 weeks, including
during several couples therapy sessions, that
might just put an end to any trust previously
built up in the relationship. If I do such
creative "guessing" about what she REALLY
means and feels, and "guess" that I should
lie about what I do, on a fairly consistent
basis over a period of, say, six months, she
might not even like me or want to talk to
me when she runs into me at the grocery
store.
IAMMAGICK, I think you could get yourself
into just as much trouble in a monogamous
relationship by acting like that as you can
in a poly relationship (or swinging, or the
nuns you play bridge with). I think whether
a woman wants monogamy or not is
not the same issue as whether you need
to make or keep agreements, and need to
tell each other the truth, especially about
what you want from each other.
Love,
Lydia
Simon Richardson
In article <4uo2f7$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) wrote:
> I'm new here and it helps me to play the devil's advocate to clear up some
> things in my mind so please bear with me.
>
> and meeting the "other" lover and how often... bla bla bla. I've found
> that when a relationship was loving and real, all these fears and
> obstacles were abscent. Everything usually flowed and even though
> communication was open and allowed, most communication involving the
> relationship "rules" were expressed on a non-verbal level.
Would you say the same thing about (conventional) marriage? Conventional
marriage in any country comes with a vast assemblage of laws and rules
governing the permitted conduct of the parties in the first part.
A lot of this is lawyers making each other rich, of course - but the reality
is that most people need some rules if they are going to live with each
oter.
>
> It sounds to me like (in practice) the more people involved, the more
> potential for complications and the more complicated the relationship(s)
> become.
Agreed. "Complicated" can also be called "diverse", "rich" or "with more
options".
> I must say that I has been a difficult road for me but I thought
> it ws because I was new at it. If people seasoned in this life style have
> all kinds of complications, why bother? My goal is peace, simplicity, and
> UNCONDITIONAL love. Where do all these rules fit in? Please explain.
In my experience, limited as it may be, unconditional love cannot be relied
on as the start and end of a relationship. It simply doesn't happen,
because people are too different.
Simon
---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16
si...@onechip.co.uk | Not affiliated to any religion
| Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?
"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"
IAMMAGICK
In article <4uscmu$s...@beast.coast.net>, jenn...@kira.intranet.org
(JennieD-O'C) writes:
>>It may be a replacement
>>for the sexual power which is lost when monogamy is no longer present.
>
>Huh? I don't understand this part.
Typically in a monogamous relationship what the man wants is sex, at least
it's number one on the list. Most women know this and often sex is used as
a weapon or least a bargaining chip, especially in a marriage since she is
his only source for sex. To say this doesn't happen would be pure denial.
In the case of polyamory this tool/weapon is not available. So to make up
for it, the man is required to operate under many rules ("agreements")
which IMO sound even more defined than in a monogamous relationship. This
is how the polyamorous woman takes back her power.
Just a paraniod theory of mine. In your case Jennie it seems that you
wholeheartedly support your lovers lifestyle. I have a hunch that this is
rare. It's my contention that most may say they accept it but merely
tolerate it and want compensation.
This is all based on my belief system (BS) that says that "men hunt and
women nest." For millions of years the survival of the human race depended
on it. Only in the last few hundred years in our industialized society has
this changed. You can't change inately in 200 years what has been bred
into us for millions of years. Although instinct can be mentally overcome
it takes effort and for this effort appeasment will be required. I don't
believe polyamorous women are following their instincts as polyamorous men
are. Tell me, in your experience who is usually the first to instigate
these "agreements" the man or the woman?
I'd like to chnge my belief system and truely believe that it is perfectly
natural for a women to have multiple lovers and have no territorial
instinct where "her" man/hunter/provider is concerned. Perhaps the
cavewoman did not concern herself with the fact that the caveman was
impreganating the rest of the tribe. I hope this possesiveness thing is
just the result of our culture and not inbred. If it is my theory is shot
to hell, but what I desire is much more in reach. I hope my theory is
wrong.
With Love, Stephen
gable jenny lynn
IAMMAGICK (iamm...@aol.com) wrote:
: Typically in a monogamous relationship what the man wants is sex, at least
: it's number one on the list.
Not in my experience - I've had relationships with guys who had little
interest in sex and a lot of interest in strong friendship and emotional
support. And I've pursued relationships (if you want to call them that)
based almost entirely on physical affection (incidentally, these have been
with the other person knowing that's all I wanted, and agreeing). Your
theory also doesn't take into account same sex relationships. (BTW I am
female in case you hadn't figured it out.)
: Most women know this and often sex is used as
: a weapon or least a bargaining chip, especially in a marriage since she is
: his only source for sex. To say this doesn't happen would be pure denial.
But to say it always happens would be just as incorrect a blanket statement.
: In the case of polyamory this tool/weapon is not available. So to make up
: for it, the man is required to operate under many rules ("agreements")
: which IMO sound even more defined than in a monogamous relationship. This
: is how the polyamorous woman takes back her power.
Not necessarily. In every relationship (with one possible exception) I've
had since I realized I was polyamorous, the guys I've dated had difficulty
with me being poly - because of emotional support they wanted and were
afraid of losing - and I've had no problem with any of their other
interests. The only definite rules that have been defined in my
relationships are "communicate even if you're scared - say what you
need" and "be safe." You are casting roles of the traditional female
and the traditional male, but those are only roles. Some people follow
them, but not everyone.
There is a book I read recently that you may find interesting - it throws
a totally different view on women than the stereotypes assume. It is
called "Women on Top" (by Nancy Friday) and is available in the relationships
section of most any major bookstore. Not every woman fits into the
stereotype of emotionally insecure and passive; not every man fits into
the stereotype of sex hungry and emotionally cold. Sex roles are
changing, and have been changing for a while, and there are fairly large
numbers of people who don't fit into them. You'll often tend to see more
nontraditional roles in people who are nontraditional in at least one area;
ie, if a person is nontraditional in one sense, they're likely to be
nontraditional in other areas too (but not always).
: Just a paraniod theory of mine. In your case Jennie it seems that you
: wholeheartedly support your lovers lifestyle. I have a hunch that this is
: rare. It's my contention that most may say they accept it but merely
: tolerate it and want compensation.
Some people have proposed a theory that there are people who are
naturally monogamous, some who are naturally polyamorous, and some who
can naturally be either. In that case, it may be that you are looking
at monogamous women who tolerate but don't really enjoy it. Consider
who you are sampling from - do they declare themselves poly, or did they
consider themselves monogamous until they started dating someone poly?
Do they consider themselves poly and interested in multiple relationships?
If not, you have a biased sampling of people.
: I don't
: believe polyamorous women are following their instincts as polyamorous men
: are. Tell me, in your experience who is usually the first to instigate
: these "agreements" the man or the woman?
It depends what you define as agreements. I have for a long time described
myself as polyamorous. Until recently, I had not dated a guy who considered
himself poly before meeting me. So, I was the one to encourage poly. With
some guys it worked, with others it did not. In every case, anything that
could be considered a rule was worked out by mutual agreement, though since
I have been the only person (until recently) to have multiple partners,
the agreements tended to influence my behavior more than my partners'
behavior. As a note, I recently have a partner who has other partners, and
that has never bothered me at all. Some I have met, some I haven't; I'm
still completely comfortable. I've never felt threatened by it at all.
Some of my partners have felt threatened emotionally by the presence of
my other partners, though. (So far most of my partners have been male.)
I have described myself as poly because I was emotionally unable to be
monogamous. It did not fill my emotional needs, and not for lack of
trying in my partner. It simply wasn't comfortable for me. I tried for
over a year to be monogamous, and was completely unable to do it. It
was most natural for me to have multiple partners - it was at least as
deep as instinct. It's who I am. I _am_ following my instincts.
: I hope this possesiveness thing is
: just the result of our culture and not inbred. If it is my theory is shot
: to hell, but what I desire is much more in reach. I hope my theory is
: wrong.
I believe fairly strongly that some people are naturally monogamous, some
are naturally poly, some are in between. So, some of the possessiveness
would be cultural, not all of it. But there ARE people out there who are
not possessive, who are comfortable with multiple partners (of their own,
and of their partners), who do make multi-adult families work for the long
term. It can and has been done, and people are happy that way. But as
in any type of human relationship, the people have to be compatible with
each other too.
Brian K Petroski
On 14 Aug 1996, IAMMAGICK wrote:
> Typically in a monogamous relationship what the man wants is sex, at least
> it's number one on the list. Most women know this and often sex is used as
> a weapon or least a bargaining chip, especially in a marriage since she is
> his only source for sex. To say this doesn't happen would be pure denial.
I certainly won't say this doesn't happen, but I will say it should
be a warning system that there sre serious problems in the relationship!
If the partners are looking for weapons to use against each other
something is wrong! Most often these problems happen because of
communication problems, partners assuming they know what their mate wants
instead of talking it out and listening to what they really want.
> In the case of polyamory this tool/weapon is not available. So to make up
> for it, the man is required to operate under many rules ("agreements")
> which IMO sound even more defined than in a monogamous relationship. This
> is how the polyamorous woman takes back her power.
This argument is only valid if you believe the woman gave away power
in accepting a polyamorous relationship. For one thing, you are assuming
all such relationship are one straight man with several women. We are a
triad in part because both of my ladies are bisexual. Sometimes I am
just watching the kids so the two of them can be together.
> Just a paraniod theory of mine. In your case Jennie it seems that you
> wholeheartedly support your lovers lifestyle. I have a hunch that this is
> rare. It's my contention that most may say they accept it but merely
> tolerate it and want compensation.
Again this attitude of "tolerate it but want compensation" should
set off all sorts of warning lights to the people involved that there is
something unhealthy going on in their relationship. Not saying it
doesn't happen, but it can certainly be avoided if everyone involved is
being open and honest with everyone else.
> This is all based on my belief system (BS) that says that "men hunt and
> women nest." For millions of years the survival of the human race depended
> on it. Only in the last few hundred years in our industialized society has
> this changed. You can't change inately in 200 years what has been bred
> into us for millions of years. Although instinct can be mentally overcome
> it takes effort and for this effort appeasment will be required. I don't
> believe polyamorous women are following their instincts as polyamorous men
> are. Tell me, in your experience who is usually the first to instigate
> these "agreements" the man or the woman?
Your belief system is reliant on what I consider to be
generalizations. This may be true of many, perhaps even most women and
men today, but we who have chosen polyamory as a lifestyle already know
we are in a minority and of a mind set that is different from most of
the population. As for who instigates these "agreements" in our case it
was a mutual agreement that was part of our relationship from the very
start. We both knew that being monogomous wasn't for either of us. For
one thing we were both bisexual and so craved partners of both genders.
In general though, it seems to me there are more women in it than men
which would tend to imply that women are finding more advantages to it
than men are.
>
> natural for a women to have multiple lovers and have no territorial
> instinct where "her" man/hunter/provider is concerned. Perhaps the
> cavewoman did not concern herself with the fact that the caveman was
> impreganating the rest of the tribe. I hope this possesiveness thing is
> just the result of our culture and not inbred. If it is my theory is shot
> to hell, but what I desire is much more in reach. I hope my theory is
> wrong.
It is the result of our culture and not inbred. This is easy to see
if you simply look at other cultures that evolved independantly of our
own. You will find that many of them have poly relationships as the
norm. In fact a number of them simply have no concept of pair bonding
and simply see the entire tribe as a single family with no partners of
any type.
Brian K Petroski
On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Simon Richardson wrote:
> In article <4uo2f7$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) wrote:
> > I hear alot of talk about rules and who can do what and asking permission
> > and meeting the "other" lover and how often... bla bla bla. I've found
>
> Would you say the same thing about (conventional) marriage? Conventional
> marriage in any country comes with a vast assemblage of laws and rules
> governing the permitted conduct of the parties in the first part.
You've hit it right on here. People in monogomous relationships
don't spend as much time on the "rules" and "agreements" because they
already know what is expected in that relationship. Society has defined
it and everyone growing up in this society has been taught what it is.
In poly relationships we have to make certrain all the partners involved
are talking about the same thing. This isn't anythng unusual, it's just
what you would expect when a group of people come together to work on a
new project together. Before you can begin to build you have to make
sure you all agree on the terms and design paramaters.
> > It sounds to me like (in practice) the more people involved, the more
> > potential for complications and the more complicated the relationship(s)
> > become.
>
> Agreed. "Complicated" can also be called "diverse", "rich" or "with more
> options".
Again, dead on the mark as fas as I'm concerned.
> > I must say that I has been a difficult road for me but I thought
> > it ws because I was new at it. If people seasoned in this life style have
> > all kinds of complications, why bother? My goal is peace, simplicity, and
> > UNCONDITIONAL love. Where do all these rules fit in? Please explain.
>
> In my experience, limited as it may be, unconditional love cannot be relied
> on as the start and end of a relationship. It simply doesn't happen,
> because people are too different.
My personal take on this: I have yet to hear anyone define
"unconditional love" in any terms that any did not describe a
co-dependant relationship. Love shoud never be unconditional. It should
always be under the conditions that the person continues to treat you
fairly and respectfully. Healthy relationships must always grow and
change and the agreements and rules should also grow and change to
reflect the changes in the people involved.
Brian K Petroski
On 14 Aug 1996, gable jenny lynn wrote:
> IAMMAGICK (iamm...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Typically in a monogamous relationship what the man wants is sex, at least
> : it's number one on the list.
>
> Not in my experience - I've had relationships with guys who had little
> interest in sex and a lot of interest in strong friendship and emotional
> support. And I've pursued relationships (if you want to call them that)
> based almost entirely on physical affection (incidentally, these have been
> with the other person knowing that's all I wanted, and agreeing). Your
> theory also doesn't take into account same sex relationships. (BTW I am
> female in case you hadn't figured it out.)
Fact is that is how my relationship with my lady C started. She
posted an ad on a local swinger's BBS because she wanted a man strictly
to take care of her sexual needs but with the understanding that nothing
emotional would ever come of it. I answered, it was a good arrangement
for both us, and somewhere along the way we accidently fell in love.
> numbers of people who don't fit into them. You'll often tend to see more
> nontraditional roles in people who are nontraditional in at least one area;
> ie, if a person is nontraditional in one sense, they're likely to be
> nontraditional in other areas too (but not always).
This is quite apparent. One example being that while the majority of
people in this country are christian, the vast majority of poly people I
have met and communicated with have been pagan. Likewise, the majority of
these same people have also been openly bisexual.
Tolovana
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote in article
> I'm probably jumping the gun here and letting alot of old prejudices have
> their say but...From my experience most women I've known prefer if not
> require monogamy. They also prefered alot of talking and analyzing
> problems (aka communication).
Well, I'd have to say the *same* thing about the non-poly men I know. They
absolutely *require* that their girlfriends be monogamous. A number of men
have told me stories about how their girlfriends told them they wanted to
'date other people' they broke off the relationships. (I got various
reasons as to why they did. Most were "I just couldn't deal with it.")
> I know this may sound synical but tell me if it has a ring of truth to
it.
> Could all this "talking out" and rules be sort of a substitute or should
I
> say enticement that the man offers the woman so that he can be allowed to
> go out and make love to another woman. It seems to me that indulging a
Any one can go out and make love to someone else if they want to. Unless
they're under lock and key, or some kind of constant supervision, there's
going to be no stopping them. I can't 'allow' my partner to have another
lover. The only thing I can do is choose to remain their lover, or choose
to remove myself from some (or all) aspects of my relationship with them.
They can choose to have other lovers covertly and dishonestly, or they can
choose to tell me what they're doing. If they're interested in staying in
a relationship with me, they'll attempt to work things out so that we're
*both* happy with the arrangements, and if some happy to all arrangement
can't be worked out, parting ways is a final option.
I don't consider my self a 'dog' all happy and lapping on a bone when my
partner talks to me about his life. Talking to me is a *requirement* of
having a relationship with me. Period. Monogamous or not. I'd have the
same reaction if they wouldn't talk to me about their work, or their
hobbies as I'd have to them not talking to me about the rest of their life.
(I'm also talking about *PRIMARY* partners here.)
> woman with discussion and setting down all kinds of rules is like
throwing
> a dog a nice meaty bone. They've got to love it. It may be a replacement
> for the sexual power which is lost when monogamy is no longer present.
And
> again we men are left asking "momie" for permission as to how to live our
> lives. Men are so pathetic! :-)
You're a *therapist* and you actually think this might be true? I suppose
if all you ever see are dysfunctional, broken relationships, you might
think this way. It's certainly a *good* way to have a broken,
dysfunctional relationship. ;-)
I just can't figure out what sexual 'power' I lost when I became
non-monogamous. Or maybe you're talking about some sort of one-way monogamy
(which is historically what's been the case) where the woman remains
monogamous, but the man has lovers/concubines/wifes. (Hmmm, is there even
a word for 'junior husband' that would equate to concubine?)
I like to have discussions with my partners because it's *the honest* thing
to do. It's honest for me to let them know where my 'hot buttons' are (if
they're interested in avoiding them), it's honest for me to let them know
my needs and expectations. I want to know what *they* want from me, what
makes them happiest, and what hurts them.
Janet W. Hardy
IAMMAGICK (iamm...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4upltl$2...@beast.coast.net>, jenn...@kira.intranet.org
: (JennieD-O'C) writes:
: >Pardon me, but Eew. I wouldn't want to live that way. Maybe it's
: >because I've found that every time things in my life have been "expressed
: >on a non-verbal level", they haven't been really expressed. Even between
: >people with a strong emotional connection. Or even a lifetime
: commitment.
: I'm probably jumping the gun here and letting alot of old prejudices have
: their say but...From my experience most women I've known prefer if not
: require monogamy. They also prefered alot of talking and analyzing
: problems (aka communication).
"Most" men prefer if not require monogamy, too. Folks who prefer
non-monogamy are still a minority.
As for talking a lot, I've found that the farther you depart from the
well-trodden path of vanilla heterosexual monogamy, the more
"brush-clearing" you've got to do. You're clearing your *own* path, one
that few if any people have walked before, so you have to invent your own
map. The only way I know to do that is to talk it out.
: I know this may sound synical but tell me if it has a ring of truth to it.
: Could all this "talking out" and rules be sort of a substitute or should I
: say enticement that the man offers the woman so that he can be allowed to
: go out and make love to another woman. It seems to me that indulging a
: woman with discussion and setting down all kinds of rules is like throwing
: a dog a nice meaty bone. They've got to love it. It may be a replacement
: for the sexual power which is lost when monogamy is no longer present. And
: again we men are left asking "momie" for permission as to how to live our
: lives. Men are so pathetic! :-)
Not just cynical, but sexist and embittered as well. Look at it this way:
you're always "allowed" to go out and make love to another woman; you're
not being held prisoner against your will, you have a key to the front
door. If you actually do so, your lady's reaction may be "Oh, good! Was
it fun?" or it may be "You bastard, I never want to see you again," or
anywhere in between. The talking is about finding out where on that
spectrum her reaction will be, and about whether there are any ways you
can adjust your behavior to take the reaction closer to the first
possibility. Then you get to decide whether sex with a new partner is
worth whatever negative response it engenders. "Rules" and "being
allowed" and "asking permission" have nothing to do with it.
If you insist on thinking of romantic relationships in this rules-driven,
get-permission-from-Mommy model, you're going to have trouble with poly, I
think. (Come to think of it, you'll probably also have trouble with
monogamy, but that's a subject for a different newsgroup.)
Arnold Vance
In article <4ut8p6$h...@Holly.aa.net>, Maenad <mae...@aa.net> wrote:
>iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) wrote:
>
>>[...]
I, too, like communicating. And since you are listening, I'll say what I
want to say.
What gets me pissed off and in a bad mood is not the good intentions of what
you say, but the mistake you perhaps unwittingly propagate. I'll refrain
from putting the following in all caps, but please read it as if it were.
Not telling someone something is not lying. Lying is a communication
with bad intent. The communication could be empty--"withholding info".
Don't ask me what "intent" is. Good intent is the task of trying to ease
the pain of taking medicine--whether you take it as truth is up to you.
-arn
P.S. Just a guess.
LSReyn
In article <4ut9gd$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, iamm...@aol.com
(IAMMAGICK) writes:
>Typically in a monogamous relationship what the man wants is sex, at
least
>it's number one on the list. Most women know this and often sex is used
as
>a weapon or least a bargaining chip, especially in a marriage since she
is
>his only source for sex. To say this doesn't happen would be pure denial.
<Sigh> In my experiences with momogamy, this has been true,
unfortunately. However, I would hope this isn't true in all
relationships. Happily, my husband and I have resolved this problem in
our marriage. Of course, we are now poly.
>
>In the case of polyamory this tool/weapon is not available. So to make up
>for it, the man is required to operate under many rules ("agreements")
>which IMO sound even more defined than in a monogamous relationship. This
>is how the polyamorous woman takes back her power.
>
>Just a paraniod theory of mine. In your case Jennie it seems that you
>wholeheartedly support your lovers lifestyle. I have a hunch that this is
>rare. It's my contention that most may say they accept it but merely
>tolerate it and want compensation.
I'm with Jennie here. Wasn't always, but now I'm the one that would
prefer us to remain polyamorous while my hubby would be happy in a
monogamous relationship. The rules we have regarding possible lovers are
similar to agreements we have in other areas of our relationship.
>
>This is all based on my belief system (BS) that says that "men hunt and
>women nest." For millions of years the survival of the human race
depended
>on it. Only in the last few hundred years in our industialized society
has
>this changed. You can't change inately in 200 years what has been bred
>into us for millions of years. Although instinct can be mentally overcome
>it takes effort and for this effort appeasment will be required. I don't
>believe polyamorous women are following their instincts as polyamorous
men
>are. Tell me, in your experience who is usually the first to instigate
>these "agreements" the man or the woman?
In my case, my husband instigated it by cheating on me behind my back.
Before I knew this though, we had set up a poly arrangement with his lover
and her husband, which broke up because my husband and his lover could not
tolerate their spouses having other lovers! (This has pretty much been
resolved in my marriage, but not in theirs, unfortunately.) After this
blow-up, I pushed for us to remain poly because I had genuinely come to
want this before I knew about my husband's affair. I feel that I was
socialized to believe in mongomy and it took a number of years of thinking
about it before I was able to "unsocialize" myself. Of course, by the
time I did, I'd had a child by my husband. Would this fit in with your
belief system on instinct: that I no longer needed him for procreative
purposes?
>
>I'd like to chnge my belief system and truely believe that it is
perfectly
>natural for a women to have multiple lovers and have no territorial
>instinct where "her" man/hunter/provider is concerned. Perhaps the
>cavewoman did not concern herself with the fact that the caveman was
>impreganating the rest of the tribe. I hope this possesiveness thing is
>just the result of our culture and not inbred. If it is my theory is shot
>to hell, but what I desire is much more in reach. I hope my theory is
>wrong.
I have also heard that a woman's territorial instinct only lasts until a
resulting child is raised through infancy (when she would need the
protection and provisions of food and shelter from the man). This period
is about 3 years. After that she looks for a new mate to father the next
child ensuring a good mixing of the gene pool. Don't remember where I
heard this, but I found it interesting. My husband and I became poly when
our only child was 6 months old...hardly through infancy, so this doesn't
really hold true for me.
>
>With Love, Stephen
Laurie
p.s. I hope you're wrong too!
Marc Wilson
Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
|
| My personal take on this: I have yet to hear anyone define
|"unconditional love" in any terms that any did not describe a
|co-dependant relationship.
I've never come across unconditional love that didn't involve a dog!
:)
Marc
"Remember- two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do"
JennieD-O'C
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
>Or even said they were able to be sexual with more than one man at a time.
You have on this newsgroup. Do you mean only in real life?
>I'd like to know where and how some of the people on this newsgroup met
>their secondaries.
Not everyone on this newsgroup *has* "secondaries". I only have primary
partners, myself. And I like it that way.
---
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org>
Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet
iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) writes:
>I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
>Or even said they were able to be sexual with more than one man at a time.
>This is why I'm getting a little discouraged. I don't want to go to poly
>meeting or swinger clubs, or meet through the internet or magazines. I
>mainly go to spiritually related functions. That's where I meet people.
>From church (Unity), 12 step meetings, Course in Miracles, Prosperity
>meetings, stuff like that. I don't want to have to change my circle or my
>lifestyle to meet poly women.
>But I also want to be as open as possible. I'm afraid that unless I enter
>some sort of sub-culture my oppotunities to find a woman who will accept
>this will be few and far between.
Forgive me, but from my perspective, church, 12-step meetings,
and the other things you list are just as much sub-cultures as
whatever else you're thinking you'd rather not enter. And
unfortunately, they seem to me to select against people who would
want to be poly.
>I'd like to know where and how some of the people on this newsgroup met
>their secondaries.
Okay. I haven't got secondaries, I just have people I've been
involved with for a shorter period of time, but I met one in local
science-fiction fandom and the other on Fidonet. And I wasn't
looking for romance. I was doing things that interested me fiercely,
that interested me even more than romance, and so were they, and
suddenly there we were, in love. This is what worked for me; you
may find others's stories more helpful; but I do think actively
looking for romance can often be counterproductive.
--
"Moreover, fantasticality does a good deal better than
sham psychology." -- Virginia Woolf
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet pd...@ddb.com
Bernadette Bosky
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960814192127.3074Z-100000-100000-100000@freenet>,
Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
> My personal take on this: I have yet to hear anyone define
>"unconditional love" in any terms that any did not describe a
>always be under the conditions that the person continues to treat you
>fairly and respectfully. Healthy relationships must always grow and
>change and the agreements and rules should also grow and change to
>reflect the changes in the people involved.
>
each other--so I'm not trying to convince you, as much as provide my
(very different) take.
I think it depends a lot on what you call "unconditional love."
For me, it is a very different thing from any kind of personalized
love--erotic, filial, romantic, etc. Often, the overt content of the
action may be the same; but when I am functioning more from unconditional
love, I'll feel better and it will be done in a more gentle manner.
It doesn't mean that I don't stand up for myself, but rather than I do so
in a way that makes certain emotional assumptions--it's hard to describe,
but more "can't you shut the fucking drawers when you're done?" and more
"honey, you left the drawers open; would you please come in and shut them?"
In my experience, unconditional love comes and goes--no one I
know lives in that state all the time, although a dedication to it (&
psycho-spiritual practices) can help a person live there more and more of
the time. Certain attitudes are inimical to it, including wondering if
you are getting a "fair deal" in return.
But I basically believe that being a doormat, especially in a
long term relationship, is not a truly loving thing to do--not even to
the other person, & after all it's important we love ourselves, too. But
drawing lines *in a loving way*--that is what I think the goal to strive
for is. Also to deal with things that you may hate without concluding
(on any level) that this means the person doing them is a hateful
person. (In my view, no longer associating with someone can be a loving
act, but judging them to be hateful and continuing to interact with them
holding that attitude probably can't be.)
I also think that unconditional love means being there for
strangers as you would for a friend--but knowing your own limits, too.
I am reminded of Thomas Traherne's point that it is impossible to
love *anything* *too much*, but it is very possible to err by not loving
other things *even more* (in his case, God being what one should
reasonably love most of all). I guess I feel that is a key here:
codependence isn't erring by loving others too much, but rather erring by
not loving yourself enough. As far as I can tell, the more I love others
*and* myself unconditionally (that is, judging my behavior and theirs but
always being loving about it), the better my life has gone. (Doesn't
mean it's easy, though!!!)
Bernadette Bosky
IAMMAGICK
In article <4ute84$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, j-g...@students.uiuc.edu
(gable jenny lynn) writes:
> do they declare themselves poly, or did they
>consider themselves monogamous until they started dating someone poly?
>Do they consider themselves poly and interested in multiple
relationships?
>If not, you have a biased sampling of people.
I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
Or even said they were able to be sexual with more than one man at a time.
This is why I'm getting a little discouraged. I don't want to go to poly
meeting or swinger clubs, or meet through the internet or magazines. I
mainly go to spiritually related functions. That's where I meet people.
From church (Unity), 12 step meetings, Course in Miracles, Prosperity
meetings, stuff like that. I don't want to have to change my circle or my
lifestyle to meet poly women.
But I also want to be as open as possible. I'm afraid that unless I enter
some sort of sub-culture my oppotunities to find a woman who will accept
this will be few and far between.
I'd like to know where and how some of the people on this newsgroup met
their secondaries.
With Love, Stephen
Thank you for the understandingness of your reply. I read it while I was
still whirling from a flame that was sent to me privately. It really
helped, thanks again.
IAMMAGICK
In article <01bb8a45$c13875e0$751e...@snowwhite.ohsu.edu>, "Tolovana"
<tolo...@industrial.com> writes:
>Well, I'd have to say the *same* thing about the non-poly men I know.
They
>absolutely *require* that their girlfriends be monogamous. A number of
men
>have told me stories about how their girlfriends told them they wanted to
>'date other people' they broke off the relationships. (I got various
>reasons as to why they did. Most were "I just couldn't deal with it.")
I also want my girlfriend to be monoamous, but only if she wants to be. If
she doesn't want to be I'll have to find someone who will. I know this may
sound like a double standard, but that's how I want it. And I found that I
CAN have and am entitled to what I want. Once I figure out what that is of
course.
>You're a *therapist* and you actually think this might be true? I
suppose
>if all you ever see are dysfunctional, broken relationships, you might
>think this way. It's certainly a *good* way to have a broken,
>dysfunctional relationship. ;-)
Of course I know it's not true in most cases. Like I said, I was playing
the devils advocate. Alot of truth which is mostly unconscious can only be
found by the way people react to a statement. Most in this group didn't
get defensive and answered me in a caring rational manner. That shows me
that the "negative" theories I've presented don't ring true.
>I just can't figure out what sexual 'power' I lost when I became
>non-monogamous. Or maybe you're talking about some sort of one-way
monogamy
Like I said, that's the only way I would have it. For me anything
different would be settling. And in a world of millions of people and
millions of possibilties, why settle?
IAMMAGICK
In article <4v08cr$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lsr...@aol.com (LSReyn)
writes:
> I feel that I was
>socialized to believe in mongomy and it took a number of years of
thinking
>about it before I was able to "unsocialize" myself. Of course, by the
>time I did, I'd had a child by my husband. Would this fit in with your
>belief system on instinct: that I no longer needed him for procreative
>purposes?
I'm now working on a new theory. It's called the Family Stone Theory. You
know, "different strokes for different folks, and so on and so on and
scooby dooby do."
Janet W. Hardy
IAMMAGICK (iamm...@aol.com) wrote:
: I'd like to know where and how some of the people on this newsgroup met
: their secondaries.
Given that I hate the term "secondary" -- I've met some of my partners at
BDSM functions, and some on-line (mostly on local BBSs, but one or two
occasional partners on the 'Net.)
Michael Sullivan
In article <4v17h8$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
You're just not gettin' around.
Look at this newsgroup. I think there are more women regulars than men,
and most of the regulars here are poly -- nearly all of them
poly-accepting in some fashion.
Of the women I've been interested in the last couple years, all but one
seems quite willing to pursue open or multiple relationships. And note
that I didn't meet any of them on alt.polyamory (though most were on
the net from other groups).
>meeting or swinger clubs, or meet through the internet or magazines. I
>mainly go to spiritually related functions. That's where I meet people.
>From church (Unity), 12 step meetings, Course in Miracles, Prosperity
>meetings, stuff like that. I don't want to have to change my circle or my
>lifestyle to meet poly women.
That may be tough. There's a fairly strong meme in traditional religion
towards monogamy. You'd have to do a lot of looking.
Some of the stuff you mention isn't all that traditional though. You
might be surprised at who around you will understand if you bring these
issues up. Remember that poly is a bit of a tabu subject -- if noone is
already talking about it, anyone else who feels as you do probably doesn't
want to mention it either. You might bring a lot of people out of the
closet if you start talking. Then again, you might get the cold
shoulder. That's the risk of coming out.
Michael
IAMMAGICK
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960814210100.3074h-100000@freenet>, Brian K
Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
> Likewise, the majority of
>these same people have also been openly bisexual.
It would seem to me that the only way to have a relationship AND express
one's bisexuality is to be polyamorous. There's no choice in the matter
and would seem to me to be a healthy choice. In my case I'm straight but
want my ladies to be monogamous with me but yet I feel the need to have
more than one relationship.
I wonder to myself is this healthy behavior? Am I a relationship addict?
Or just an ego maniac who wants to have his cake and eat it? It doesn't
feel that way to me but I've been known to deceive myself in the past. I
am after all a recovering alcoholic and drug addict.
With Love, Stephen
gable jenny lynn
: IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
: >I'd like to know where and how some of the people on this newsgroup met
: >their secondaries.
On my university's poly newsgroup. :) I know it doesn't help you much,
but that is the answer to your question for me.
rg
iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) wrote:
>In article <4uscmu$s...@beast.coast.net>, jenn...@kira.intranet.org
>(JennieD-O'C) writes:
>>>It may be a replacement
>>>for the sexual power which is lost when monogamy is no longer present.
>>
>>Huh? I don't understand this part.
me either
>Typically in a monogamous relationship what the man wants is sex, at least
>it's number one on the list. Most women know this and often sex is used as
>a weapon or least a bargaining chip, especially in a marriage since she is
>his only source for sex. To say this doesn't happen would be pure denial.
According to a study I read a couple of years ago, men use this
technique more often than women do. (I should say, a report of a
study)
>In the case of polyamory this tool/weapon is not available. So to make up
Why not?
I love and care very much for all of my partners. If one chose to
attempt to manipulate me by withholding sex, I would be hurt
regardless of how many other partners I might have at the time.
Its the manipulation that's significant, not the specific manipulative
tool.
>for it, the man is required to operate under many rules ("agreements")
>which IMO sound even more defined than in a monogamous relationship. This
>is how the polyamorous woman takes back her power.
not more defined, more *explicitly* defined.
>Just a paraniod theory of mine. In your case Jennie it seems that you
>wholeheartedly support your lovers lifestyle. I have a hunch that this is
>rare. It's my contention that most may say they accept it but merely
>tolerate it and want compensation.
How many people do you know in a happy relationship of any description
who do not support their partner(s)'s lifestyle(s)?
>This is all based on my belief system (BS) that says that "men hunt and
>women nest." For millions of years the survival of the human race depended
>on it. Only in the last few hundred years in our industialized society has
>this changed. You can't change inately in 200 years what has been bred
>into us for millions of years. Although instinct can be mentally overcome
>it takes effort and for this effort appeasment will be required. I don't
>believe polyamorous women are following their instincts as polyamorous men
>are. Tell me, in your experience who is usually the first to instigate
>these "agreements" the man or the woman?
Me, because I'm up front with my poly nature as soon as I'm aware of a
potential for more than a casual friendship. Sometimes even before
that.
>I'd like to chnge my belief system and truely believe that it is perfectly
>natural for a women to have multiple lovers and have no territorial
Why does it have to be natural rather than learned?
Why can't one have territorial feelings, deal with them, and be
happily poly? (Or struggle with dealing with them, while striving to
be happily poly? Or...and or...and or)
>instinct where "her" man/hunter/provider is concerned. Perhaps the
>cavewoman did not concern herself with the fact that the caveman was
>impreganating the rest of the tribe. I hope this possesiveness thing is
>just the result of our culture and not inbred. If it is my theory is shot
>to hell, but what I desire is much more in reach. I hope my theory is
>wrong.
>With Love, Stephen
For me, it is.
Ron
rg
iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) wrote:
>I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
>Or even said they were able to be sexual with more than one man at a time.
>This is why I'm getting a little discouraged. I don't want to go to poly
>meeting or swinger clubs, or meet through the internet or magazines. I
>mainly go to spiritually related functions. That's where I meet people.
>From church (Unity), 12 step meetings, Course in Miracles, Prosperity
>meetings, stuff like that. I don't want to have to change my circle or my
>lifestyle to meet poly women.
Sounds contradictory to me. Like you're saying you want to broaden
your horizons without broadening your horizons.
>But I also want to be as open as possible. I'm afraid that unless I enter
>some sort of sub-culture my oppotunities to find a woman who will accept
>this will be few and far between.
Subculture? You mean those gloomy, incense laden basements under
run-down tenements where poly people gather to engage in their secret
rituals?
(Teasing mode off)
>I'd like to know where and how some of the people on this newsgroup met
>their secondaries.
Lets see... in a pub tieing one on...at work
(twice)...volunteering...shooting pool...school...being supportive of
a friend whose husband ran off with her sister...one I don't know.
(She was married to a friend of my brother, I met her occasionally
without paying much attention. One evening she phoned me and told me
she wanted to have a romantic relationship with me but didn't want to
leave her husband. It worked out OK (mostly) until she became too ill
to continue).
As to how, just my natural charm, I guess
Ron
Catherine Deville
In article
<Pine.SGI.3.91r.960814192127.3074Z-100000-100000-100000@freenet>,
Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>> My personal take on this: I have yet to hear anyone define
>>"unconditional love" in any terms that any did not describe a
>>co-dependant relationship. Love shoud never be unconditional. It should
>>always be under the conditions that the person continues to treat you
>>fairly and respectfully. Healthy relationships must always grow and
>>change and the agreements and rules should also grow and change to
>>reflect the changes in the people involved.
>>
This is my take on "unconditional love"...
Love is an emotion.
Unconditional Love is an emotion.
Healthy relationships cannot be defined solely upon emotions.
Simply because I love someone does _not_ mean that I can live with
them or relate healthfully with them.
I have experienced "unconditional love" many times. Whether or not I
love someone is not conditional on their behavior, their habits, their
interests, their likes and dislikes, their ethics (although I am not
likely to grow to love someone whose ethics are diametrically opposed
to my own) whether or not we communicate well and so on. Whether or
not I can have a healthy and growing relationship or not with them
_does_, however, depend on many of these things. Whether or not I can
live with them _does_.
So, I have found myself, throughout my life, parting, in love, with
people that I loved, unconditionally, because it was not a healthy
thing for either of us that we continue to be together. One of the
most emotionally intense relationships of my life ended with us
parting because we made good loving friends but we could not live
together as lovers because of our personalities. I still love him...
Unconditionally... but that does not mean that I would show the poor
judgement of trying to live with him again.
Love and practicality are two different things. Your heart and your
head are not always connected. One _can_ love unconditionally and can
do so without being stuck in codependent and destructive
relationships... but to do so One must learn to let their head rule
their heart.
never thirst,
cat
(Catherine Deville)
"May you live as long as you wish and love as long as you live"
_Time Enough For Love_ by Robert A. Heinlein
please note... cdev...@ix.netcom.com is also CatDe...@aol.com
For Faster responses:
if you are replying by e-mail, please send to cdev...@ix.netcom.com
and preface mail with PERSONAL: if Private e-mail
and PUBLIC: if cc'd to e-mail and posted.
The fact that my opinions are my own
and not anyone else's should be a given.
JennieD-O'C
IAMMAGICK said:
>> I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
>> Or even said they were able to be sexual with more than one man at a time.
>> This is why I'm getting a little discouraged. I don't want to go to poly
>> meeting or swinger clubs, or meet through the internet or magazines.
and then Mree <ma...@superstore.com> wrote:
>Hello... you're not going to just run into many people and casually
>bring up the subject... why don't you want to go to poly meetings?
Actually, I can understand why he might not want to go to poly meetings,
if he's not interested in talking about polyamory with other people. (Of
course, since this newsgroup is supposed to be an online equivalent, maybe
he wouldn't mind doing that.)
What I'm more weirded out by is why you aren't open to meeting a partner
through the internet, IAMMAGICK. What if you started becoming really
good friends through email, maybe from one of the newsgroups you read, and
realized she only lived twenty miles away, and so you decided to go out.
When you meet in person, you hit it off. Would that really be so awful?
>> But I also want to be as open as possible. I'm afraid that unless I enter
>> some sort of sub-culture my oppotunities to find a woman who will accept
>> this will be few and far between.
*Everyone* is part of different subcultures. (I'm part of the subculture
of science fiction fandom, for example. And we're *all* part of the
subculture of the Internet.) What makes things like church and 12-step
meetings more "subcultures" to you than the poly community? And why would
it be so awful to meet potential partners *outside* of your more familiar
subcultures? If you're afraid you won't find people there that value the
same things you do, I think you're wrong. Maybe you just need to be a
little bit "choosier" (or more patient) than some. :-)
---
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org>
Maenad
e...@panix.com (Arnold Vance) wrote:
>What gets me pissed off and in a bad mood is not the good intentions of what
>you say, but the mistake you perhaps unwittingly propagate. I'll refrain
>from putting the following in all caps, but please read it as if it were.
>Not telling someone something is not lying. Lying is a communication
>with bad intent. The communication could be empty--"withholding info".
>Don't ask me what "intent" is. Good intent is the task of trying to ease
>the pain of taking medicine--whether you take it as truth is up to you.
I won't put my reply in all caps either: I suggest you read the
cultural supplement to the alt.poly FAQ -- "How to Fuck Up."
Love,
Lydia
Brian K Petroski
On 16 Aug 1996, IAMMAGICK wrote:
> I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
> Or even said they were able to be sexual with more than one man at a time.
> This is why I'm getting a little discouraged. I don't want to go to poly
> meeting or swinger clubs, or meet through the internet or magazines. I
> mainly go to spiritually related functions. That's where I meet people.
> From church (Unity), 12 step meetings, Course in Miracles, Prosperity
> meetings, stuff like that. I don't want to have to change my circle or my
> lifestyle to meet poly women.
If you are trying to meet women in groups that are not openly
accepting of poly relationships, it is unlikley any of them will openly
state they are interested in poly relationships in those groups. It just
stands to reason you will not find what you are looking for if you insist
on only looking the wrong places. It would be like a straight man trying
to pick up women in a gay bar.
When in these groups, have you been open with the other people there
about wanting a poly relationship? There may be women in those groups
who are interested but are too shy or nervouse to bring it up first.
> I'd like to know where and how some of the people on this newsgroup met
> their secondaries.
I am in a triad now. My wife and I met out girlfriend through the
internet. It wasn't in one of the poly newsgroups either, it was in one
of the groups for fat people. I mentioned in there that while I'm very
slim myself I have always liked large women and my wife and I were
interested in meeting other like minded people in our area. A woamn read
this and responded in e-mail. We talked through the net for a while,
after a month or so we all met at a mall and saw a movie together. We
invited her to join us in a spirituallity discussion group that we were
starting. We had the meeting for that group a couple weeks later. After
that things just went along on their own and a strong relationship has
developed between all of us.
Brian K Petroski
On 16 Aug 1996, IAMMAGICK wrote:
> It would seem to me that the only way to have a relationship AND express
> one's bisexuality is to be polyamorous. There's no choice in the matter
> and would seem to me to be a healthy choice. In my case I'm straight but
> want my ladies to be monogamous with me but yet I feel the need to have
> more than one relationship.
This was one of the original reasons my lady and I agreed on a
polyamorous relationship. We are both bisexual and felt we both needed
the opportunity to express and exercise that openly with each other's
blessings if we were going to HAVE a healthy relationship.
> I wonder to myself is this healthy behavior? Am I a relationship addict?
> Or just an ego maniac who wants to have his cake and eat it? It doesn't
> feel that way to me but I've been known to deceive myself in the past. I
> am after all a recovering alcoholic and drug addict.
Since you seek to impose a double standard on your partners I
believe it is somewhat controlling and therefor unhealthy for the
relationships.
I vote for the ego maniac.
B.C. Holmes
> Brian K. Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
> > Likewise, the majority of
> >these same people have also been openly bisexual.
IAMMAGICK wrote:
> It would seem to me that the only way to have a relationship AND express
> one's bisexuality is to be polyamorous.
Other people will post to you to dispell the myth that to be
bi you must also be poly... I, myself, am also guilty of having wondered
what it must mean to be bi and also choose to live monogamously. Seemed
like a bit of a contradiction to me, but then I wondered what it must
mean to be gay or het in a monogamous relationship. Wouldn't it make more
sense to consider oneself 'uni-sexual' since one is only supposed to
love and lust after one individual?
BCing you
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.C. Holmes "It has always been the prerogative
http://www.interlog.com/~bcholmes/ of children and half-wits to point
out that the emperor has no clothes"
Mree
IAMMAGICK wrote:
> I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
> Or even said they were able to be sexual with more than one man at a time.
> This is why I'm getting a little discouraged. I don't want to go to poly
> meeting or swinger clubs, or meet through the internet or magazines.
Hello... you're not going to just run into many people and casually
bring up the subject... why don't you want to go to poly meetings?
> I
> mainly go to spiritually related functions. That's where I meet people.
> From church (Unity), 12 step meetings, Course in Miracles, Prosperity
> meetings, stuff like that. I don't want to have to change my circle or my
> lifestyle to meet poly women.
Poly women, and men, too, are the type who question the "way things
are". So you're going to be hard pressed to find them in places that
value conformity and adherence to all sorts of rules.
> But I also want to be as open as possible. I'm afraid that unless I enter
> some sort of sub-culture my oppotunities to find a woman who will accept
> this will be few and far between.
Yep, may have to enter those dangerous, uncharted waters.
Mree
Mree
IAMMAGICK wrote:
> I also want my girlfriend to be monoamous, but only if she wants to be. If
> she doesn't want to be I'll have to find someone who will. I know this may
> sound like a double standard, but that's how I want it. And I found that I
> CAN have and am entitled to what I want. Once I figure out what that is of
> course.
Yech. You're *entitled* to what you want? Stephen, I can understand
why you're getting flamed.
I can't believe you're a *therapist*. Are you sure it's not a
multi-level marketing form of therapy?
Mree
Allison Floyd
IAMMAGICK (iamm...@aol.com) wrote:
: It would seem to me that the only way to have a relationship AND express
: one's bisexuality is to be polyamorous. There's no choice in the matter
: and would seem to me to be a healthy choice. In my case I'm straight but
: want my ladies to be monogamous with me but yet I feel the need to have
: more than one relationship.
Doesn't look like anybody else has gotten to this one yet, so I'll
step up to the plate.
Not all bisexuals require partners of both sexes. Some of them manage
to settle down quite happily with an individual (of either sex) in
a monogamous relationship. There IS a choice in the matter.
For me, being polyamorous has to do with Not Owning People. Being
bisexual has to do with potential lust objects. Luckily, the two
options are compatible. ;)
You may want to check out the soc.bi FAQ for more information..
Allison
B.C. Holmes
> On 16 Aug 1996, IAMMAGICK wrote:
> > Am I a relationship addict?
> > Or just an ego maniac who wants to have his cake and eat it? It doesn't
> > feel that way to me but I've been known to deceive myself in the past. I
> > am after all a recovering alcoholic and drug addict.
Brian K Petroski wrote:
> Since you seek to impose a double standard on your partners I
> believe it is somewhat controlling and therefor unhealthy for the
> relationships.
>
> I vote for the ego maniac.
In the past, this conference has had an excellent reputation for
saying 'your kink is okay'. If IAMMAGICK only wants to seek partners that
only want one partner, well, that should be okay too.
In a related example, I personally find it really rubs me the wrong
way whenever you refer to your partners as your 'ladies', for exactly the
same reasons that were discussed on this conference several months ago.
But what should it matter to me how you refer to your partners? Your kink
is okay...
Brian K Petroski
On 16 Aug 1996, IAMMAGICK wrote:
> I also want my girlfriend to be monoamous, but only if she wants to be. If
> she doesn't want to be I'll have to find someone who will. I know this may
> sound like a double standard, but that's how I want it. And I found that I
> CAN have and am entitled to what I want. Once I figure out what that is of
> course.
You do come across as very egotisical. This does indeed sound like
a double standard because you expect someting of the other person that
you are not willing to abide by yourself. What really irks me is the
statement that you feel you are entitled to it!
Actually what bothers me the most is your mention that you are a
therapist. I seriously wonder about the value to your clients when you
seem to have such per-conceived notions about what is "natural" in a
person's amorous and sexual feelings.
Leigh
Just another thought...
I personally find 12-step groups and AA meetings to represent far more of a
sub-culture than this newsgroup or a poly/bi/gay/lesbian group.
That's because, in my experience, those kinds of groups attract far greater
numbers of co-dependants than any other groups I've seen. They simply trade in
a drug/alchohol addiction for a 12-step addiction. They becomming addicted to
the warm-fuzzy atmosphere of the AA meetings and can no longer face the real
world without their weekly (oft-times daily) fix.
Again, just my opinion.
Leigh
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <4v3bu2$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>It would seem to me that the only way to have a relationship AND express
>one's bisexuality is to be polyamorous.
To give the standard response: that's like saying you're not het if
you're celibate.
>In my case I'm straight but
>want my ladies to be monogamous with me but yet I feel the need to have
>more than one relationship.
Why do you want your lovers to be monogamous with you?
>I wonder to myself is this healthy behavior? Am I a relationship addict?
>Or just an ego maniac who wants to have his cake and eat it? It doesn't
>feel that way to me but I've been known to deceive myself in the past. I
>am after all a recovering alcoholic and drug addict.
Well, it is a bit different. On the one hand, there are certainly
images of a man with multiple women (just read the bible). OTOH, you
will probably encounter fewer women willing to be monogamous with you
while you have other relationships than purely poly women. My take on
it, as long as you're open about what you want: your kink is okay.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
bearpaw
iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) writes:
>
>In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960814210100.3074h-100000@freenet>, Brian K
>> Likewise, the majority of
>>these same people have also been openly bisexual.
>
>and would seem to me to be a healthy choice.
Well, now, that all depends on what you mean by "express one's
bisexuality". If by that you mean "be sexual with (at least) one
person of each gender" (whether simultaneously or in concurrent
relationships), then one would have to be at least non-monogamous,
if not polyamorous.
Polyamory can certainly be a "healthy choice", but it's not the only
choice. There are other ways of expressing *any* sexuality than
actually having sex with someone -- fantasizing, for instance.
There's plenty of healthy and happy monogamous-by-choice (and even some
celibate-by-choice) bisexuals who don't feel like their bisexuality is
unexpressed.
(There's a theory that I like that says there's *roughly* two types
of bisexuals -- those who are attracted to *all* genders and those
who are attracted to *any* gender. (Then, of course, there's those
of us who sometimes feel one way and sometimes t'other.) Those
attracted to *all* genders are -- in general -- more likely to want to
be non-monogamous. Those attracted to *any* gender are probably no
more or less likely to want to be non-monogamous than any random
non-bisexual. If you follow.)
Bearpaw
+---------- Bearpaw MacDonald bea...@world.std.com ----------+
| http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/ |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
\ The "Defense Of Marriage Act" = "Special Rights" for Straights /
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>their secondaries.
At a con, on Usenet, at a party, off a BDSM mailing list (sort of), at
a poly support group, the spouse of one of my primary's partners.
Of course, as Jennie has already pointed out, 'secondaries' cuts out a
lot of people on this newsgroup.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <munn.7.54...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Leigh <mun...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>Lastly, it is also my opinion that women are more inclined to agree to a 3some
>involving another man, just as a man is more open to a 3some with another
>woman. However, if you change that around, in a traditional relationship, men
>will balk if the 3rd is a man while women will balk if the 3rd is a woman.
>Competition, you know. Which is probably why men believe women want monogamy.
>Given a choice between a 2some or a 3some-with-another-woman, traditional
>woman will pick monogamy every time. Change that to another-man though and I
>bet women would care less about the monogamy issue.
There's some truth to what you say, but given that I think that our
society pushes a message that it's more okay for women to be bi than
for men, I think that on a statistical basis fewer women would balk at
adding another woman than men would balk at adding another man.
Mark Evans
Brian K Petroski (petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us) wrote:
:
:
: On 16 Aug 1996, IAMMAGICK wrote:
:
: > I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
: > Or even said they were able to be sexual with more than one man at a time.
: > This is why I'm getting a little discouraged. I don't want to go to poly
: > mainly go to spiritually related functions. That's where I meet people.
: > From church (Unity), 12 step meetings, Course in Miracles, Prosperity
: > meetings, stuff like that. I don't want to have to change my circle or my
: > lifestyle to meet poly women.
: If you are trying to meet women in groups that are not openly
: state they are interested in poly relationships in those groups. It just
: stands to reason you will not find what you are looking for if you insist
: on only looking the wrong places. It would be like a straight man trying
: to pick up women in a gay bar.
Your analogy would be better if you also pointed out that at least 99%
of bars were gay bars in the sample place :-)
: When in these groups, have you been open with the other people there
: about wanting a poly relationship? There may be women in those groups
: who are interested but are too shy or nervouse to bring it up first.
There are many problems, including language, how does one bring up something
which one has to often "invent" terms to describe?
*The Puppet Master*
On Aug 18, 1996 00:34:30 in article <Re: If Poly Is So "Natural" Why All
This Talk About Rules?>, 'mun...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Leigh)' wrote:
>>It sounds to me like (in practice) the more people involved, the more
>>potential for complications and the more complicated the relationship(s)
>>become. I must say that I has been a difficult road for me but I thought
>>it ws because I was new at it. If people seasoned in this life style have
>>all kinds of complications, why bother? My goal is peace, simplicity, and
>>UNCONDITIONAL love. Where do all these rules fit in? Please explain.
>
>>With Love, Stephen
>
>You're right, Stephen, it is more complicated. The math of it alone tells
you
>that it will be: a problem is more complicated the more variables it has.
In
>my experience though, the more variables there are, the more worthwhile
(or
>accurate) the solution is.
>
>Also, if you want "simplicity" as you say, don't fall in love. There's
nothing
>
>simple about it. Like anything else worth having, a good relationship (or
>love) takes work. And lots of it. And the best way in any relationship for
all
>
>partners involved to know what is going on is to communicate openly and
>honestly about what they want out of the relationship and how they intend
to
>go about getting it. This just happens to be moreso true in a poly
situation
>where there are more people involved.
>
>It is my personal opinion that poly love requires an even deeper level of
>honesty and openness than a traditional relationship. In a one-on-one, if
you
>make a mistake there's only one way it can go wrong. In a triad, there's
at
>least three ways it can go wrong (person A is ok, person B is not; person
B is
>
>ok, person A is not; neither person A nor B are ok) Again, the math alone
>tells you why the "rules" are so important.
>
>Leigh
>
--
Discussion between pimps. LOL! Polyamory. Give me a break.... No self
respecting, rightouse woman would go for you numb nuts. SO! How's the
"stable"?
Mr. BoomBasTik
~I Know Me Well Built~
Brooklyn, NY
Leigh
Leigh
>I'm probably jumping the gun here and letting alot of old prejudices have
>their say but...From my experience most women I've known prefer if not
>require monogamy. They also prefered alot of talking and analyzing
>problems (aka communication).
>I know this may sound synical but tell me if it has a ring of truth to it.
>Could all this "talking out" and rules be sort of a substitute or should I
>say enticement that the man offers the woman so that he can be allowed to
>go out and make love to another woman. It seems to me that indulging a
>woman with discussion and setting down all kinds of rules is like throwing
>a dog a nice meaty bone. They've got to love it. It may be a replacement
>for the sexual power which is lost when monogamy is no longer present. And
>again we men are left asking "momie" for permission as to how to live our
>lives. Men are so pathetic! :-)
>With Love, Stephen
Being a female who has instigated several poly situations for her own reasons
I can tell you that not every woman wants to be monogamous. And furthermore,
in my opinion, most women would probably just as "infidelous" as men are
reported to be if it weren't for the social conditioning women have always
faced in this male-dominated society. Watch TV sometime and see just how much
men are encouraged to go out and be promiscuous while women are expected to
stay home and be content with their lot.
Ask any woman...if given a chance to sleep with a wonderful man who is not
your spouse with the understanding that you would never be caught, would
you...most will say "Sure!" as most men will if you ask them an equivilant
question.
Lastly, it is also my opinion that women are more inclined to agree to a 3some
involving another man, just as a man is more open to a 3some with another
woman. However, if you change that around, in a traditional relationship, men
will balk if the 3rd is a man while women will balk if the 3rd is a woman.
Competition, you know. Which is probably why men believe women want monogamy.
Given a choice between a 2some or a 3some-with-another-woman, traditional
woman will pick monogamy every time. Change that to another-man though and I
bet women would care less about the monogamy issue.
But then, what would I know about traditional relationship men or women. I've
been polyamourous my whole sexual life. :)
Leigh
Leigh
> This is quite apparent. One example being that while the majority of
>people in this country are christian, the vast majority of poly people I
>have met and communicated with have been pagan. Likewise, the majority of
>these same people have also been openly bisexual.
For what it's worth, I am openly female, bisexual, polyamourous, and
Christian. And let me tell you, I catch hell from all the angles! But it never
gets dull :)
Leigh
Michael Sullivan
In article <4v2k0l$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I also want my girlfriend to be monoamous, but only if she wants to be. If
>she doesn't want to be I'll have to find someone who will. I know this may
>sound like a double standard, but that's how I want it. And I found that I
>CAN have and am entitled to what I want. Once I figure out what that is of
>course.
I'm surprised to hear that, as a self-identified Christian, you feel
*entitled* to much of anything beyond basic freedoms and sustenance on the
material plane. Then again, maybe I'm not all that surprised. *sigh*
But whatever...
Good luck finding people who can accept your terms.
Michael
Philip David Morgan
Greetings, Catherine:
Back on Sat, 17 Aug 1996, you wrote:
> This is my take on "unconditional love"...
>
> Love is an emotion.
>
> Unconditional Love is an emotion.
>
> Healthy relationships cannot be defined solely upon emotions.
>
> Simply because I love someone does _not_ mean that I can live with
> them or relate healthfully with them.
>
> I have experienced "unconditional love" many times. Whether or not I
> love someone is not conditional on their behavior, their habits, their
> interests, their likes and dislikes, their ethics (although I am not
> likely to grow to love someone whose ethics are diametrically opposed
> to my own) whether or not we communicate well and so on. Whether or
> not I can have a healthy and growing relationship or not with them
> _does_, however, depend on many of these things. Whether or not I can
> live with them _does_.
(later on...)
> Love and practicality are two different things. Your heart and your
> head are not always connected. One _can_ love unconditionally and can
> do so without being stuck in codependent and destructive
> relationships... but to do so One must learn to let their head rule
> their heart.
Blessed be, Catherine. So very true.
And knowing that reminds me how very little I still understand above
"love," which can never be narrowly defined in the first place.
Perhaps some time for solitude can help...?
We get taught so much in school, but pratically not a word about human
interaction, for reasons too complicated to post here...
Thank you for those kind words, Catherine. A lesson like this helps make
the newsgroup worthwhile.
In loving thought,
Philip David
8/18/1996
http://www.li.net/~philipda/welcome.htm
Diane Wolkstein on the W3: http://www.li.net/~philipda/dianaw.htm
"Now the truth is known...God is a woman and a man...we're together... no
domination"--Serpentine, 1993.
JD
Maenad wrote:
>
> I won't put my reply in all caps either: I suggest you read the
> cultural supplement to the alt.poly FAQ -- "How to Fuck Up."
>
> Love,
> Lydia
Hi!
Is there a web sight where the FAQ is kept, or can someone please
send it to me.
Thanks!
JD
Walk in Balance, with Wisdom and Love.
Michael Sullivan
In article <4v4mb0$9...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Allison Floyd <cyp...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>: It would seem to me that the only way to have a relationship AND express
>: one's bisexuality is to be polyamorous.
I've never understood this one (though I realize there is a small subset
of actual bis who feel this way). I can't see why being attracted to both
genders isn't similar to being attracted to different body types or
different personalities. It just widens the field, it doesn't necessarily
make it imperative to experience all options all the time.
>For me, being polyamorous has to do with Not Owning People.
This statement bothers me. Do you have the idea somehow that monogamy
involves Owning People? The way I have practiced or ever would practice
it certainly doesn't. That's true of most thinking people I know.
What about really tight polyfi? How would it be different from monogamy
in this way?
Michael
Allison Floyd
Michael Sullivan (m...@panix.com) wrote:
[in response to my comment]
: >For me, being polyamorous has to do with Not Owning People.
: This statement bothers me. Do you have the idea somehow that monogamy
: involves Owning People? The way I have practiced or ever would practice
: it certainly doesn't. That's true of most thinking people I know.
I probably shouldn't have used the short form. What that statement was
intended to convey is the observation that I believe that having a
relationship with someone does not give me the right to control zir
other relationships, whether they be with friends, family, or otherloves.
I can ask that zie treat *me* in a given way, which may include
stipulations on the amount of time zie needs to spend with me in order
for me to want to stay in the relationship, but I don't feel that I
can in good conscience request that zie behave in a given fashion
towards other people. A priori closed relationships are not an option,
although "closed by default" relationships may occur.
I realize that this view is fairly militant, and that it wouldn't
work at all for some people. I should probably also mention that I
have a strong relationship-preference for people who share this view;
retaining the freedom to act is critical for me to feel comfortable
in a relationship. My behavior here stems from a belief system where
personal autonomy is absolutely sacred. I've used "not owning people"
as shorthand for that idea for a while now; sometimes I forget that
I haven't defined the concept to just everybody I meet... thus the
confusion.
Scatter IMO, IME, "for me", and similar disclaimers where necessary
in the above for your comfort level.
Note that I *do* think many monogamists (although not all) behave
as if they believed they owned their spouse, whether or not they'd
admit to that belief. My childhood contained quite a bit of ownership
dynamic with regards to a step-parent, which is probably why I've
got this hangup.
Allison
JennieD-O'C
IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>Typically in a monogamous relationship what the man wants is sex, at least
>it's number one on the list. Most women know this and often sex is used as
>a weapon or least a bargaining chip, especially in a marriage since she is
>his only source for sex. To say this doesn't happen would be pure denial.
It wouldn't be denial for me, it would be naivete. Because in my world,
this has never happened. In both of my serious relationships, the sex has
always fed the emotional intimacy and romance and the emotional intimacy
and romance have always fed the sex. I couldn't imagine using sex as a
weapon, and I couldn't imagine my partners just using me as a source for
sex. That would be a truly horrible relationship, in my opinion, one I
wouldn't want to be in.
I'm not going to argue with you and say you're wrong, because you're
probably right -- this probably does happen a lot. I just think it's
kind of sad that you think this is "typical". It doesn't have to be.
>In the case of polyamory this tool/weapon is not available. So to make up
>for it, the man is required to operate under many rules ("agreements")
>which IMO sound even more defined than in a monogamous relationship. This
>is how the polyamorous woman takes back her power.
I suppose it is, in one way of looking at it, a way to maintain power.
But not power over my partners -- power over the circumstances I live
in and the things that affect me. I don't like to feel powerless over my
own life any more than anyone else does. But it's not power for the sake
of having power, not at all.
>In your case Jennie it seems that you
>wholeheartedly support your lovers lifestyle.
IAMMAGICK, do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds? *I* am
"supportive" of "their" lifestyle?! You are talking to a woman with two
husbands, and you are calling polyamory "their lifestyle"?
I was the one who first brought up the idea of polyamory, because I fell
in love with Iain. It's as much my lifestyle as it is theirs, and
arguably more so, since I have two partners, and at the moment they do
not have more partners than just me. I don't "support their lifestyle", I
*embrace* the lifestyle we all share.
>I have a hunch that this is
>rare.
Polyamory is rare, you're right. But if you look around this newsgroup,
there do tend to be more vocal women posters than men. And I doubt
they're all just deceiving themselves.
>It's my contention that most may say they accept it but merely
>tolerate it and want compensation.
That is true for some people, but in my experience with the poly
community, relationships that are based on that don't last very long
anyway. The ones that last are the ones where all partners either
embrace being poly from the start (not meaning that all partners have
other partners, but that they embrace the idea of wanting to have the
freedom to do so), or learn to do so with time.
>I don't
>believe polyamorous women are following their instincts as polyamorous men
>are. Tell me, in your experience who is usually the first to instigate
>these "agreements" the man or the woman?
It's about half and half, from what I've seen.
>I'd like to chnge my belief system and truely believe that it is perfectly
>natural for a women to have multiple lovers and have no territorial
>instinct where "her" man/hunter/provider is concerned.
I have multiple lovers *and* a "territorial instinct" (as you would
understand it). That doesn't mean I don't want my partners to have other
partners, not at all. It doesn't even mean that I always want to be
first in their lives -- I would very much like it if one of my partners
were to have an equal marriage-type relationship with another woman.
What my "territorial instinct" translates as is that I want him to
continue to be my "territory", even if he does have other partners.
>I hope this possesiveness thing is
>just the result of our culture and not inbred.
I personally don't believe that possessiveness has to be the opposite of
polyamory. I'm poly, and I can enjoy "sharing" my partners with people
they and I both care about. But I also feel a very pleasant sort of
possessiveness toward them -- I enjoy the fact that they are "mine" and I
am "theirs". I just don't think that means they can't be someone else's,
too.
---
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org>
piranha
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960814192127.3074Z-100000-100000-100000@freenet>,
Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>
> My personal take on this: I have yet to hear anyone define
>"unconditional love" in any terms that any did not describe a
>co-dependant relationship.
hm. i don't like the term "unconditional love" being bandied
around as it is in some circles, but i do believe it exists,
and does so without codependence being an issue.
i have experienced moments of it. most of the time those mo-
ments are directed at animals, and i think i've felt them
_from_ animals the most too. but i've also felt them towards
human beings. it's the same feeling that makes me take in a
stray kitten, or a stray human, for a while, because i feel
something more than pity, something really primal. it never
lasts long, but it is truly unconditional, and i don't know
what else to call it but "love"; it feels very close to the
love i feel for my partner, except it's more transient.
>Love shoud never be unconditional. It should
>always be under the conditions that the person continues to treat you
>fairly and respectfully.
i'm not exactly a person who'd be confused with a doormat, and
you'd never find me in an abusive relationship, so this sort
of "unconditional love" is the sort that makes me sick, and i
hesitate to call it "love" at all. but those moments of love
i feel sometimes for another creature _are_ unconditional, they
do not depend on that creature's behaviour towards me; they
just _are_. they also don't carry an implied promise that i'll
love them forever; i think they're just spurts of goodwill to-
wards the world, whatever is left of the feelings i had when i
was a child and felt this way a lot more often.
>Healthy relationships must always grow and
>change and the agreements and rules should also grow and change to
>reflect the changes in the people involved.
yeah, i agree with that.
-piranha
Brian K Petroski
On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, B.C. Holmes wrote:
> Brian K Petroski wrote:
>
> > Since you seek to impose a double standard on your partners I
> > believe it is somewhat controlling and therefor unhealthy for the
> > relationships.
>
> In the past, this conference has had an excellent reputation for
> saying 'your kink is okay'. If IAMMAGICK only wants to seek partners that
> only want one partner, well, that should be okay too.
If he wants to SEEK partners who want that, fine. What I said is if
he wants to IMPOSE rules on them that he himself is not willing to abide
by it is a double standard and that is unhealthy for a relationship. I
have stated in other threads that there is nothing wrong with partners
having asymetrical rules as long it they agree to them in advance and
each feel they are getting their needs met.
> In a related example, I personally find it really rubs me the wrong
> way whenever you refer to your partners as your 'ladies', for exactly the
> same reasons that were discussed on this conference several months ago.
> But what should it matter to me how you refer to your partners? Your kink
> is okay...
I don't know the string you refer to so I suspect it occured here
before I joined this newsgroup. Hence, I do not know on what grounds you
are objecting to the term "ladies". I have been calling my first partner
"my lady" for almost three years now and she has commented numberous
times on my well chosen phrase because we both feel "girlfriend" sounds
too high-schoolish, "wife" implies a legal bond that does not yet exist,
and "significant other" sounds clinical and impersonal. I refer to them
both as "my ladies" in the same context as a night of old would bow to
the ladies of the court as he addressed them. It is a show of respect
and in some small measure, humbling myself to someone I regard as being
of great position.
|#385| Jedi Squire
>Your heart and your head are not always connected. One _can_ love
>unconditionally and can do so without being stuck in codependent and
>destructive relationships... but to do so One must learn to let their head
>rule their heart.
You do realize, of course, that you've just revealed one of the hidden
meanings to the second part of Crowley's Law of Thelema: "Love Is The Law,
Love Under Will."
<thought-provoking smile>
******************************************************************************
The header address above is a Usenet gateway =only=. E-Mail replies should be
addressed to 263-...@tnet.bluethun.com. Thank you. Neep-neep. Plergb.
******************************************************************************
JennieD-O'C
Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>I have been calling my first partner
>"my lady" for almost three years now and she has commented numberous
>times on my well chosen phrase because we both feel "girlfriend" sounds
>too high-schoolish, "wife" implies a legal bond that does not yet exist,
>and "significant other" sounds clinical and impersonal.
What about "partner"?
---
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org>
Brian K Petroski
On 19 Aug 1996, Allison Floyd wrote:
>
> Note that I *do* think many monogamists (although not all) behave
> as if they believed they owned their spouse, whether or not they'd
> admit to that belief. My childhood contained quite a bit of ownership
> dynamic with regards to a step-parent, which is probably why I've
> got this hangup.
Point of fact: ownership of the woman is the historical basis of
marriage. It was the official observation that the woman no longer
belonged to her father, but had now become property of her husband.
Place tounge firmly in cheek and read:
Hmmm, I wonder if this is why the fundies have trouble with gay
marriages, they are confused then about which partner owns the other. <smirk>
Elf Sternberg
In article <4uo2f7$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
iamm...@aol.com (IAMMAGICK) writes:
>I hear alot of talk about rules and who can do what and asking permission
>and meeting the "other" lover and how often... bla bla bla. I've found
>that when a relationship was loving and real, all these fears and
>obstacles were abscent. Everything usually flowed and even though
>communication was open and allowed, most communication involving the
>relationship "rules" were expressed on a non-verbal level.
In order to understand this question better, I guess I should
understand what you mean by "when a relationship was loving and real."
How long do / have these "real and loving" relationships lasted, in your
experience? If you did not experience them yourself, how do you know
that the moments you were permitted to view were not the result of many
many hours of very private communication?
Peace comes through negotiation, and simplicity from repetition.
Nothing is simple unless you've done it before-- many, many times. The
so-called "simple life" is only the result of habit. And unconditional
love is a lie-- there are always conditions.
Elf !!!
Elf Sternberg I'm not inclined to write pompous
e...@halcyon.com books about unanswerable questions.
Public key available That strikes me as a tremendous waste
http://www.halcyon.com/elf of time.
- Stephen Jay Gould
Catherine Deville
IAMMAGICK wrote:
>> I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
>> Or even said they were able to be sexual with more than one man at a time.
>> This is why I'm getting a little discouraged. I don't want to go to poly
>> meeting or swinger clubs, or meet through the internet or magazines.
Hi! Hello! I'm a poly woman. In fact, in reply to your statement
I'm going to post my article on being a poly woman. BTW... I have 2
husbands and I am "able to be sexual with more than one man at a
time."
>> I
>> mainly go to spiritually related functions. That's where I meet people.
>> From church (Unity), 12 step meetings, Course in Miracles, Prosperity
>> meetings, stuff like that. I don't want to have to change my circle or my
>> lifestyle to meet poly women.
While I admit that it is difficult to meet poly people unless you are
in an environment where one knows that polyamory is acceptable (you
may _know_ poly people but they are'nt 'out' because of fear of
prejudice). People don't just walk around going "Hi, I'm
polyamorous... how about you?" Or at least not most people (ok... so
I'm _weird_... get over it!)
But you can go to poly functions without changing the rest of your
social life and you are likely to meet people just like you. The
folks who organize the Poly-Wanna-Potluck here in Atlanta are members
of the Unity church (I believe).
But I didn't meet my two husbands in "poly" circles. I just met them
and explained the way I felt, and luckily, because I chose men whose
beliefs and values were close to my own, they were open to the idea.
If the people that you socialize with are not open minded, then you
might want to re-examine your social circles and ask why you are
surrounding yourself with people who would not accept your lifestyle.
If the people around you _are_ openminded, then you should be able to
be open about your lifestyle without fear of prejudice.
never thirst, and good luck,
cat
Catherine Deville,
Nest Coordinator,
(Proto)-Nest of the Phoenix (Atlanta GA)
For more information on CAW, Atlanta area nests or the
CAW SE Region Council, e-mail me at cdev...@ix.netcom.com
For faster response begin your subject line CAW INFO:
Disclaimer!!
Unless otherwise SPECIFICALLY stated, the opinions expressed
are _always_ my own and not the "Official" opinion of CAW.
Be aware that Members of CAW rarely, if ever, speak on behalf
of the Church. Even specifically held positions (where they
do exist) of the Church are often not held by all members.
We're Eclectic and Proud of It!
Catherine Deville
>IAMMAGICK wrote:
>> I also want my girlfriend to be monoamous, but only if she wants to be. If
>> she doesn't want to be I'll have to find someone who will. I know this may
>> sound like a double standard, but that's how I want it. And I found that I
>> CAN have and am entitled to what I want. Once I figure out what that is of
>> course.
yes... it is a double standard and yes, there are women who will
cater to your needs and be floor mats if necessary to do so (because
it is my experience that few monogamous women _want_ their man to be
polyamorous).
On the other hand, it sounds like you should check out polyboy's
group, which believes in biblical polygyny and concubinage but not in
other forms of polyamory or polygamy. sounds like that's the belief
that you are espousing as well.
Catherine Deville
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 11:52:48 -0500, in article #
<Pine.SGI.3.91r.960820114740.4805G-100000@freenet>, Brian K Petroski
<petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
> Point of fact: ownership of the woman is the historical basis of
>marriage. It was the official observation that the woman no longer
>belonged to her father, but had now become property of her husband.
>Place tounge firmly in cheek and read:
> Hmmm, I wonder if this is why the fundies have trouble with gay
>marriages, they are confused then about which partner owns the other. <smirk>
Just felt this was good enough to bear repeating!
never thirst,
cat
Catherine Deville
Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>>I have been calling my first partner
>>"my lady" for almost three years now and she has commented numberous
>>times on my well chosen phrase because we both feel "girlfriend" sounds
>>too high-schoolish, "wife" implies a legal bond that does not yet exist,
>>and "significant other" sounds clinical and impersonal.
Lady also holds a connotation of respect for some people, while,
mysteriously having gained a connotation of patriarichal disrespect
for others. What is important is is that your _lady_ prefers this
form of address, which shows me that, in your case it is a respectful
term.
I had to explain to a friend of mine my connotation of "ladies" a
while back but she excepts my intent where she might not accept it
from others because she has also heard me refer to the guys as
"gentlemen" or "lords" (SCA background showing), so the connotation of
respect rather than patronizing is evident in my speech.
punjab
On 19 Aug 1996, Allison Floyd wrote:
> Michael Sullivan (m...@panix.com) wrote:
>
> : This statement bothers me. Do you have the idea somehow that monogamy
> : involves Owning People? The way I have practiced or ever would practice
> : it certainly doesn't. That's true of most thinking people I know.
>
...
> I can ask that zie treat *me* in a given way, which may include
> stipulations on the amount of time zie needs to spend with me in order
> for me to want to stay in the relationship, but I don't feel that I
> can in good conscience request that zie behave in a given fashion
> towards other people. A priori closed relationships are not an option,
> although "closed by default" relationships may occur.
>
To me it seems possible to agree on monogamy without it being closed as
above. I tend to ask the other person(s) involved about their preferences
on the subject, and based on where I am in my life, their preference, and
potential problems with both of the above had decided in favor of monogamy
based on the other parties preference before. I do, also insist that
rules like that are always open to reevaluation if new factors come up,
but if i have agreed to be monogamous with someone, that needs to be
rehashed before I will include someone else in my life in such a fashion.
If the monogamous person still needs that, and if my need for something
else are strong enough, then I break that initial monogamous tie. This
part of it is hypothetical for me, though, because all of the manogomous
relationships I've had ended for reasons entirely separate of pther
partners.
Allison Floyd
: On 21 Aug 1996, Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
: > Other good possibilities include 'lover', 'sweetie', and
: > 'paramour'.
<grin> my sweetie's last name is "Paramore" and we've always thought
that it's spelled wrong...
Allison
B.C. Holmes
> > On 21 Aug 1996, Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
> >
> > > Other good possibilities include 'lover', 'sweetie', and
> > > 'paramour'.
> On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Brian K Petroski wrote:
>
> > What about "my lady" since the two women I am refering to regard it
> > as a form of respect and a compliment?
Coni Ann Johnson wrote:
> Excuse me for butting in, but I have to ask why certain people in this
> newsgroup take such delight finding offense about everything that is
> posted?
As the person who started this thread, I'll start by saying that I
apologize for evoking such an angry-sounding response from you. The
point that I think was lost somewhere between my original post and yours
was this: I have, in the past, been very impressed by the way this
group has held the belief that 'your kink is okay'. People in this group
respect that everyone does things a little differently.
I started this thread, somewhat agressively, because Brian told
another poster that his ideal relationship is 'unhealthy', going so far
as to call the other poster an ego-maniac. It saddens me to see such
responses, and I tried to illustrate that people could just as easily
find fault with Brian's relationships. However, I thought I was
fairly clear in my original post that Brian's kinks, such as referring
to 'his ladies', are nobody else's place to criticize.
Criticism hurts, especially when it is unnecessary. I suspect
from the tone of your note, that you and Brian are feeling some of
that hurt, and I am genuinely sorry for it. Perhaps IAMMAGICK, the
poster whom Brian origianally criticized felt some hurt as well. I
don't know. But I really believe that we cause less hurt when we
agree to allow other people to have their kinks without feeling the
need to moralize.
BCing you
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.C. Holmes "It has always been the prerogative
http://www.interlog.com/~bcholmes/ of children and half-wits to point
out that the emperor has no clothes"
Brian K Petroski
On 21 Aug 1996, Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
> In article <4vd77s$l...@beast.coast.net>,
> JennieD-O'C <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
> >Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
> >
> >>I have been calling my first partner
> >>"my lady" for almost three years now and she has commented numberous
> >>times on my well chosen phrase because we both feel "girlfriend" sounds
> >>too high-schoolish, "wife" implies a legal bond that does not yet exist,
> >>and "significant other" sounds clinical and impersonal.
> >
> >What about "partner"?
>
> Other good possibilities include 'lover', 'sweetie', and
> 'paramour'.
What about "my lady" since the two women I am refering to regard it
as a form of respect and a compliment?
Somtimes people I think we need to step back. It would be
impossible to post anything at all if we were to get obsessed with never
using a single word that someone felt there were negative connotations
attached to.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <4vd77s$l...@beast.coast.net>,
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
>Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>
>>I have been calling my first partner
>>"my lady" for almost three years now and she has commented numberous
>>times on my well chosen phrase because we both feel "girlfriend" sounds
>>too high-schoolish, "wife" implies a legal bond that does not yet exist,
>>and "significant other" sounds clinical and impersonal.
>
>What about "partner"?
Other good possibilities include 'lover', 'sweetie', and
'paramour'.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
JennieD-O'C
Leigh <mun...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>For what it's worth, I am openly female, bisexual, polyamourous, and
>Christian. And let me tell you, I catch hell from all the angles! But it
>never gets dull :)
Hey, you sound like me! Although I do wonder about the "openly female"
part. :-)
---
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org>
punjab
On 16 Aug 1996, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> In article <4v17h8$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> IAMMAGICK <iamm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I have so far never in my life met a woman who "declared themselves poly."
>
> >meeting or swinger clubs, or meet through the internet or magazines. I
> >mainly go to spiritually related functions. That's where I meet people.
> >From church (Unity), 12 step meetings, Course in Miracles, Prosperity
> >meetings, stuff like that. I don't want to have to change my circle or my
> >lifestyle to meet poly women.
>
> That may be tough. There's a fairly strong meme in traditional religion
> towards monogamy. You'd have to do a lot of looking.
>
I also don't understand why you couldn't add a new circle witout giving up
any of the rest. I circulate in sevearl groups, some prone to poly
discussions, some not.
> Some of the stuff you mention isn't all that traditional though. You
> might be surprised at who around you will understand if you bring these
> issues up. Remember that poly is a bit of a tabu subject -- if noone is
> already talking about it, anyone else who feels as you do probably doesn't
> want to mention it either. You might bring a lot of people out of the
> closet if you start talking. Then again, you might get the cold
> shoulder. That's the risk of coming out.
>
But, it seems to me, that if it is important to you, it is worth a certain
amount of risk in that department, or at least acceptance of yourself. In
that respect I treat it about the same way I treat being bi. I do not go
out of my way to hide it in casual conversation, nor to force it on other
people and justify it. There is a graceful (usually) middle ground in my
life where people who want to know do and those that don't manage to avoid
dealing with the signs because people are so good at missing what
they don't want to know.
A...@does.that.make.me.a.hot.bi.babe?
(yeah, I read the FAQ)
Brian K Petroski
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Catherine Deville wrote:
> huh!? sexual power _lost_ when "monogamy" is no longer present? my jr
> husband should get a real laugh out of that one!
Actually if a woman has more than one husband, doesn't she GAIN
sexual power? I mean, if the guy knows she can get what she needs from
another guy doesn't that mean he has to try extra hard to keep her
happy? Otherwise she can just give him the wave and walk out with her
other partner.
Coni Ann Johnson
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Brian K Petroski wrote:
> On 21 Aug 1996, Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
>
> > Other good possibilities include 'lover', 'sweetie', and
> > 'paramour'.
>
> What about "my lady" since the two women I am refering to regard it
> as a form of respect and a compliment?
Excuse me for butting in, but I have to ask why certain people in this
newsgroup take such delight finding offense about everything that is
posted? If you have a problem with Brian calling me his Lady, then I
imagine you'd have a stroke to find out that I refer to him as my Pet.
Haven't any of you ever heard the term "a Lord and his Lady?" Or how
about "the Lady of the house," when refering to you very own mother, and
do any of you remember who Prince Charles married? Lady Diana Spencer.
If you want to take it negatively, then that is your problem, not ours.
When he calls me his Lady, its usually done on bended knee with so much
love coming through you can almost taste it. It's done with the respect
that it was intended as for the past 400 years. I ADORE being called his
Lady mainly because I AM ladylike. If he ever called me his Lover, or
S.O. I'd probably deck him because I find both those terms offensive TO
ME. If your S.O. likes it then by all means, go ahead, but don't you DARE
refer to ME as Brian's S.O. unless you are TRYING to cause offense. T or
I might even want Brian to call us his Bitches, Whores, or even
Cum-Sucking Sluts, but that is between us and none of your business, so
keep your P.C. terms our of our relationship and get on with your own.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. Blessed Be .
. --<-<@ Coni @>->-- .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Janet W. Hardy
Mean Green Dancing Machine (aa...@baygate.bayarea.net) wrote:
: In article <4vd77s$l...@beast.coast.net>,
: JennieD-O'C <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
: >Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
: >
: >>I have been calling my first partner
: >>"my lady" for almost three years now and she has commented numberous
: >>times on my well chosen phrase because we both feel "girlfriend" sounds
: >>too high-schoolish, "wife" implies a legal bond that does not yet exist,
: >>and "significant other" sounds clinical and impersonal.
: >
: >What about "partner"?
: Other good possibilities include 'lover', 'sweetie', and
: 'paramour'.
Also "honey." And, for you Peanuts fans, "sweet babboo."
Verdant
--
>>> COMING IN SEPTEMBER! "MERCY?? NO!!" -- KINKY CARTOONS BY B.N. DUNCAN <<<
* For this and other sexuality and BDSM publications, check the Greenery *
* Press page at http://www.bigrock.com/~greenery/, e-mail ver...@crl.com, *
* or send SASE to 3739 Balboa Ave. #195, San Francisco, CA 94121 *
Catherine Deville
IAMMAGICK wrote:
>>I'm probably jumping the gun here and letting alot of old prejudices have
>>their say but...From my experience most women I've known prefer if not
>>require monogamy. They also prefered alot of talking and analyzing
>>problems (aka communication).
sounds to me like a lot of the women that you have known in the past,
while being monogamous have also been _smart_. communication is
important to any healthy relationship.
did someone say you had said that you were a therapist? a therapist
who doesn't understand the need for communication?
>>I know this may sound synical but tell me if it has a ring of truth to it.
>>Could all this "talking out" and rules be sort of a substitute or should I
>>say enticement that the man offers the woman so that he can be allowed to
>>go out and make love to another woman.
huh! I don't even understand your thinking on this?
what are you trying to say?
>It seems to me that indulging a
>>woman with discussion and setting down all kinds of rules is like throwing
>>a dog a nice meaty bone. They've got to love it. It may be a replacement
>>for the sexual power which is lost when monogamy is no longer present.
huh!? sexual power _lost_ when "monogamy" is no longer present? my jr
husband should get a real laugh out of that one!
I have _more_ sexual power over my men _because_ I am polyamorous
since I am satisfying their needs better than a monogamous woman
could.
"Let's see, dear... you can have woman A, or woman B...
Woman A is a loving, caring, warm and sensual woman who enjoys sex and
understands that _you_ enjoy sex. She doesn't mind if you have sex
with other women, in fact, she will most likely even set you up on
dates. Of course, she reserves the right to have sex with other men
should she desire to...
Woman B is a jealous bitch who is going to question every time you go
out... of course you can sneak around behind her back but if she
catches you with another woman... Oh Boy!...
Which do _you_ prefer?"
no, dear... I deny that monogamy, which, I remind you was an
institutionalization of the ownership of women, gives women more
"sexual power". you are _completely_ off base here.
>And
>>again we men are left asking "momie" for permission as to how to live our
>>lives. Men are so pathetic! :-)
>>With Love, Stephen
hmmmm....
you know... if you _are_ a therapist I suggest you give yourself a
referal. you sure seem to have some female power issues. "ask
mommie"...? you seem to have bought into the cultural double standard
paradigm fully... 'boys will be boys', 'good girls don't', so men are
at the mercy of women to grant them the favor of sex.
you have no grasp, it appears, of the fact that clear expectations and
clear communication help to strengthen a relationship, especially in a
relationship where the 'rules' are not pre-defined by cultural norm.
you also seem to have no grasp of what a happy or equitable
egalitarian relationship would be like.
if you -are- a 'therapist', you certainly need to do some study on
viable and healthy relationship models, by the sounds of it.
Catherine Deville
On 18 Aug 1996 03:11:43 GMT, in article #
<4v61lf$e...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, ny...@usa.pipeline.com(*The
Puppet Master*) wrote:
>Discussion between pimps. LOL! Polyamory. Give me a break.... No self
>respecting, rightouse woman would go for you numb nuts. SO! How's the
>"stable"?
My 'stables' does quite nicely, thank you...
and my studs are all clean and well kept...
Mistress Kat
Catherine Deville
On 20 Aug 1996 03:35:39 -0700, in article #
<0.3219882D.|#385|.pcg...@crl.com>, pcg...@crl.com (|"#385"|) (Jedi
Squire) wrote:
>>Your heart and your head are not always connected. One _can_ love
>>unconditionally and can do so without being stuck in codependent and
>>destructive relationships... but to do so One must learn to let their head
>>rule their heart.
> You do realize, of course, that you've just revealed one of the hidden
>meanings to the second part of Crowley's Law of Thelema: "Love Is The Law,
>Love Under Will."
>
> <thought-provoking smile>
absolutely.
in fact, the more I learn about what Crowley _meant_ (i.e., the
"mysteries" behind his words), the more I agree with much of what he
said. perhaps he had a "hidden" reason for his use of shock and
theatrics to keep the uninitiated away from his secrets as well?
never thirst,
cat
Mean Green Dancing Machine
[riiiip]
In article <Pine.UW2.3.95.960821115737.29768A-100000@november>,
punjab <amil...@diac.com> wrote:
>
>A...@does.that.make.me.a.hot.bi.babe?
No, it makes you a fluffbunny from soc.singles.
Paul Broeker
Brian K Petroski (petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us) said this about that:
: I don't know the string you refer to so I suspect it occured here
: before I joined this newsgroup. Hence, I do not know on what grounds you
: are objecting to the term "ladies". I have been calling my first partner
: "my lady" for almost three years now and she has commented numberous
: times on my well chosen phrase because we both feel "girlfriend" sounds
: too high-schoolish, "wife" implies a legal bond that does not yet exist,
: and "significant other" sounds clinical and impersonal.
Sounds better than the Census Department's term "POSSLQ" (pronounced, I
believe, "possel-cue") which is supposed to mean Persons of the Opposite
Sex Sharing Living Quarters.
--
--Paul Broeker ************************************************
Santa Maria CA * If you walk in the middle of the road *
* you get hit by trucks going both ways. *
pbro...@slonet.org ************************************************
piranha
In article <4vf83j$i...@pier2.bayarea.net>,
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <4vd77s$l...@beast.coast.net>,
>JennieD-O'C <jenn...@kira.intranet.org> wrote:
>>Brian K Petroski <petr...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>>
>>>"my lady" for almost three years now
>>
>
>Other good possibilities include 'lover', 'sweetie', and
>'paramour'.
ya know, i don't much like the term "lady" myself, but i don't
see where brian asked for alternatives. this is starting to
look as if you folks are critical of his and his lady's choice
of appellation, which is sorta ruining BC's point that "your
kink is ok", *snicker*. seems to me brian missed that point,
and you're not helping.
-piranha
Michael Sullivan
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960821130338.8159C-100000@freenet>,
>> huh!? sexual power _lost_ when "monogamy" is no longer present? my jr
>> husband should get a real laugh out of that one!
> Actually if a woman has more than one husband, doesn't she GAIN
>sexual power? I mean, if the guy knows she can get what she needs from
>another guy doesn't that mean he has to try extra hard to keep her
>happy? Otherwise she can just give him the wave and walk out with her
>other partner.
There's a whole raft of assumptions underpinning both your and Cat's
opinions (as well as whomever it was you are responding to) that I simply
do not share. I suspect that you don't really either, but you are trying
to think in that original poster's terms.
The whole idea of sexual power being expressed by "withholding" sex, or of
some worry about "keeping your partner happy sexually" strikes me as
completely incongruous.
In my universe -- either it's fun and works personally for both(all) of
you so you do it, or it isn't so you don't.
Michael
IAMMAGICK
In article <4v397b$7...@panix2.panix.com>, m...@panix.com (Michael Sullivan)
writes:
> Remember that poly is a bit of a tabu subject -- if noone is
>already talking about it, anyone else who feels as you do probably
doesn't
>want to mention it either. You might bring a lot of people out of the
>closet if you start talking. Then again, you might get the cold
>shoulder. That's the risk of coming out.
>
>
As a matter of fact I have started talking about it in meetings. Everyone
seems to be very accepting. In fact the women seem fascinated with the
idea. I think I never met accepting people because I never looked for
them. I never even realized what I was until recently. Or that there was a
name for what I was. And if someone told me a couple months ago I would be
"coming out." I'd have asked, out of where?
With Love, Stephen
IAMMAGICK
In article <321585...@superstore.com>, Mree <ma...@superstore.com>
writes:
>Hello... you're not going to just run into many people and casually
>bring up the subject... why don't you want to go to poly meetings?
It just sort of seems contrived to me. Also when I have gone to singles
clubs get togethers I kind a felt nervous and pressured, sort of out of my
element. It felt very unnatural to me. I wouldn't want to go to pickup
places either for that reason. I'd rather do something I like to do anyway
and come with secondary motive of meeting someone if it were meant to be.
Also, although I am open to another love relationship, I am very happy
with my present girlfriend and wouldn't want to make any waves unless the
person I met were really special and we really clicked. I've only decided
this recently so if I sound schitziod you'll know it's because I'm still
trying to figure out how to go about this with grace.
With Love, Stephen
"Rabbi Elazar thus said,"The paragraphs of the Torah are not in order. If
they were in correct order, anyone who read them would be able to create a
world, resurrect the dead, and perform miracles." Midrash Tehillim 3:2
(17a)
August 19, 1996
5:23 pm
IAMMAGICK
In article <munn.7.57...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mun...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Leigh) writes:
>That's because, in my experience, those kinds of groups attract far
greater
>numbers of co-dependants than any other groups I've seen. They simply
trade
>in
>a drug/alchohol addiction for a 12-step addiction. They becomming
addicted to
>
>the warm-fuzzy atmosphere of the AA meetings and can no longer face the
real
>world without their weekly (oft-times daily) fix.
After over six years going to various 12step meetings I would hve to
agree. Unfortunately most never get around to actually working the steps
so rater than developing a relationship with God, the meetings and other
addicts become their God.
IAMMAGICK
In article <4v7os9$j...@panix2.panix.com>, m...@panix.com (Michael Sullivan)
writes:
>I'm surprised to hear that, as a self-identified Christian, you feel
>*entitled* to much of anything beyond basic freedoms and sustenance on
the
>material plane. Then again, maybe I'm not all that surprised.
I NEVER identified myself as a Christian although I do believe in Christ.
I doubt there are any Christians of the type you are trying to identify me
as who have the screen name Magick, much less practice it.
This Christoid believes "this plane" is his playground and is the product
of his own mind. So sure I'm entitled! So are you. And remember you
sinner... :-)
JESUS LOVES YOU!!!