Wife's affair
Wiz
I need some thoughtful advise from experienced people in the group on
my current situation. I had fantasized about sharing my wife for a
long time (8 years ). At one stage it was just a strange fantasy. Then
it progressed to a level where it was the only fantasy. I started
suggesting this to wife. She was OK with it as long it stays that way,
i.e., a fantasy. Basic theme of my fantasy was that she has a lover
and she enjoys him with my knowledge and approval and they meet pretty
frequently. I have no desire to participate or watch.
Over the last few months things have changed. She became more
interested in this idea herself. We started talking, joking and
teasing each other about this. I would generally encourage her to go
ahead and try this out. Sometime back she said that she is too out of
shape and no one will find her attractive. With a hind sight I can see
that she was working towards this with great focus (daily workout for
over an year). Now, she has lost some weight and her self image and
confidence has improved significantly.
About a month back she shared with me that she gets very depressed and
desperate for physical and emotional attention and may start an
affair. I probed more and she shared that she has two threads going on
which can turn into affairs. I was able to guess both names. She finds
the first one more attractive but second one is more available. I was
very exited and encouraged her. Also offered her my help in getting
close to the first one. We talked about inviting him for dinner etc.
Last night she told me that she is going for the second one. She
already has the game started for few weeks. He calls her three to four
times a day and she was actually about to meet / have sex with him two
days back. She actually started it the very next day we talk about
it.
That was a surprise for me. I was expecting that she would be sharing
the progress with me along the way. Also, since in our discussion she
was not so eager for this guy, I was surprised on that account too.
To be fair to her, I had not explicitly talked about she filling me in
on details.
Anyway, I told her about my feelings that I do not feel very good
about. I also asked her to keep me in loop as they are making progress
so that I can judge my emotional response to the situation and tell
her if we need to stop. As you would imagine she accused me of
freaking out now that something real is coming up. This may be true
but I don't want to go through this only because I asked for it and
now I should not freak out and stick to my words. I think i have the
right to do so it this is what it boils down to. She is visibly
disappointed though not angry with me.
She is reluctant to share any details of their conversation. She views
it is private and she was not expecting that she will have to share
that with me. In the initial phase of their relationship, she maybe
posing a little differently. It will not be any fun if she knows that
she will have to tell me everything.
She feels that if I let her be with him for a while, she will be done
and over with this. She does not want to suppress the desire as it may
come out in other (negative) manifestations.
She finds it difficult to share any details as for her emotions are
involved. This is not sex only thing for her. She has a desire to be
close to him. Feel the body and warmth. Get a lot of physical
attention (massage) and she does not mind / has any inhibitions about
doing PIV if it comes to that. What she likes about him is his
qualities of being simple, good at heart and good sense of humor. This
is what she likes about me as well ( that what she said !).
Anyway, its been a long background. We agreed on keeping very open
communication about it. She is still reluctant to share specifics. I
also asked her to go slow and let me figure out my emotional reaction
to it. At rational level I am all for it and don't find anything wrong
with the idea but at emotional level my reaction was a bit of a
surprise for me. All day i had been oscillating between feeling bad
about and feeling good about and getting exited.
I know open communication is a must. Please feel free to dissect what
I have shared. I know you love doing this :) Any pointer to areas I
should explore in our communication as well as in talking to myself.
thanks
Wiz
P.s. English is not my first language. Please ignore my limitations
there.
Wiz
> and fulfilled. She is probably right, it will probably only be a
> short-term thing, but even if it turns into a long-term, or even life-long,
> relationship don't you want your wife to be happy? You should rejoice that
> your wife has found pleasure in this world. Does she still sleep with you?
> If so then you really don't have anything to complain about. Don't be
> jealous, be happy in your wife's fulfillment! It isn't like she only has a
> limited number of fucks and that her new lover will use them all up. Let
> her have her fun and be supportive of her behavior.
>
> > P.s. English is not my first language. Please ignore my limitations
> > there.
Thanks for reading my long post and then sharing your thoughts. After
three days of no activity in the post i was loosing hope :)
Elizabeth
The way I'm reading your post is this: You fantasized about your wife
having an affair and knowing everything that is going on for her. She
felt alone and not close to you. She is contemplating having an
affair, but is keeping the details to herself. She is seeking
intimacy, the kind she doesn't have with you. You want her to divulge
her feelings regarding this other relationship. My comment is: Why
should she share her feelings with you, when you two haven't really
had an intimate relationship before anyway. Your wife, as you note
above, 'gets very depressed and
desperate for physical and emotional attention'. You have shared your
fantasies with her, but you haven't really communicated with her,
found out what she wants from your mutual relationship. I don't think
you have a case for insisting she communicates her feelings about
these other people. Seems to me your relationship with her has been
very one sided and now she's exploring other relationships. You cannot
control how other people deal with things. Her life is not an
extension of your fantasy world.
Remus Shepherd
> hi,
> I need some thoughtful advise from experienced people in the group on
> my current situation.
Let me try to help you by revealing a sorded part of my own love life.
A married woman propositioned me. It seems that her husband decided
that he liked men, so he told her she could have her freedom, but she could
only pick one partner. She chose me. I argued with her about this --
entering into an affair, even with forethought and openness, was likely to
destroy her marriage. But in the end (being a lonely man) I had that
affair. I also tried to be as good a friend to her husband as possible.
Her marriage went downhill. Her husband never chose a partner. She
told him -- understandably, I thought -- that if he did pick another partner
then she could never have sex with him again. Rather than be two people
with separate sex lives, they chose to remain a married couple with me
as an add-on.
But what began as sex turned into romance, and she and I fell pretty
deeply in love. Many times she admitted that if not for her children,
she'd leave her husband for me. And she hoped aloud that her husband
would do something stupid enough to make her push him away. They ceased
to get along because they ceased to rely on each other for support -- she
had me to support her, and he, well, I don't know what he did. I suspect
he dived into depression, which made him even less attractive to her.
The moral of my story? Well, let me get back to that after we look
at this...
> She feels that if I let her be with him for a while, she will be done
> and over with this. She does not want to suppress the desire as it may
> come out in other (negative) manifestations.
> She finds it difficult to share any details as for her emotions are
> involved. This is not sex only thing for her. She has a desire to be
> close to him. Feel the body and warmth. Get a lot of physical
> attention (massage) and she does not mind / has any inhibitions about
> doing PIV if it comes to that. What she likes about him is his
> qualities of being simple, good at heart and good sense of humor. This
> is what she likes about me as well ( that what she said !).
It seems that you are in almost the same situation as the man I
cuckolded. I sympathize with you.
The moral is that extramarital affairs start because someone has an
emotional need they are not getting in their marriage. Because of this,
the emotions are going to take over. Your wife will entertain thoughts
about leaving you. The man she is with will entertain thoughts about
stealing her away. These things are inevitable.
So, as a serial adulterer (yes, this has happened to me more than once),
I must offer you this advice: Any extra- marital affair, no matter how
reasonably planned or open, will endanger the marriage. That's not always
a sad thing...sometimes it is better for everyone if the marriage ends.
But the marriage is always at risk in these situations.
You have two possible goals, here.
One is to make her happy. Leave her to make her decision. She may
choose you, she may choose him, or she may choose to string you both
along as her personal stable of studs for as long as you'll allow her.
If her happiness is the most important thing (even at the cost of your
own!), let her decide what makes her happiest.
Two is to win her back. Woo her. Make her feel emotion toward you,
the emotions she used to feel when you two first fell in love. Tell her
that it upsets you that she has another man. Don't push, don't be harsh.
Steadily cut her off from other suitors, but not with fences -- bind her
more strongly by renewing her love for you.
I hope this helps, and I wish you the best.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Wiz
Wonderful feedback.It is highly appreciated.
illecebra
> hi,
> I need some thoughtful advise from experienced people in the group on my
> current situation. I had fantasized about sharing my wife for a long
> time (8 years ). At one stage it was just a strange fantasy. Then it
> progressed to a level where it was the only fantasy. I started
> suggesting this to wife. She was OK with it as long it stays that way,
> i.e., a fantasy. Basic theme of my fantasy was that she has a lover and
> she enjoys him with my knowledge and approval and they meet pretty
> frequently. I have no desire to participate or watch.
<snip>
> About a month back she shared with me that she gets very depressed and
> desperate for physical and emotional attention and may start an affair.
I find your trying to juxtapose things like "with my knowledge and
approval" and "depressed and desperate for physical and emotional
attention" and "affair", well, strange.
Some monogamous people have affairs, that is, outside relationships that
violate the terms of their agreement to monogamy.
Polyamorous people are open to multiple, simultaneous relationships, and
carry those on with the full knowledge and consent of all involved.
You seem to be trying to use ideas from both worlds together, and
combined with the comment about your wife being "depressed and desperate
for physical and emotional attention" it leads me to believe that your
relationship with your wife is an unhealthy one, that for whatever reason
the two of you aren't willing to fix or end, and you are both looking for
a "band-aid" solution. It sounds like in your ideal situation, your wife
will have a boy-toy on the side to alleviate you of the responsibility to
respond to her needs, but that you will still have feelings of control
and superiority in that the relationship should exist so that your wife
may fuel your fantasies with a play-by-play.
<snip>
> I also asked her to keep me in loop as they are making progress so that
> I can judge my emotional response to the situation and tell her if we
> need to stop. As you would imagine she accused me of freaking out now
> that something real is coming up. This may be true but I don't want to
> go through this only because I asked for it and now I should not freak
> out and stick to my words. I think i have the right to do so it this is
> what it boils down to. She is visibly disappointed though not angry with
> me.
<snip>
This reinforces my assessment made earlier -- you seem to see this in
terms of your needs, your control. You don't seem to be thinking much
about your wife's perspective.
<snip>
> I know open communication is a must. Please feel free to dissect what I
> have shared. I know you love doing this :) Any pointer to areas I should
> explore in our communication as well as in talking to myself.
<snip>
My first, gut-level reaction is that you two tried to take a mono
relationship poly without having a healthy marriage to begin with, and
without having bothered to learn about polyamorous relationships. You
seem to be using the idea of other relationships to escape what's going
on (and not going on) in your own.
So, my advice would be to figure out what's going on in your marriage
that is making it not work for both of you. Figure out where you want to
go from here... split up or stay together? Be mono or poly? Get
counseling?
I agree with Elizabeth that your expectations are unreasonable
considering how broken your relationship was in the first place.
I disagree with Remus that all extramarital relationships threaten the
marriage. I don't think Remus has been exposed personally to healthy
polyamory -- as he explained, the marriage he was involved with was
terribly damaged when he came on the scene.
As someone who has practiced polyamory happily and successfully, I can
tell you that it is possible, but that the situation you describe sounds
anything but healthy. Maybe counseling is the way to go?
-- illecebra
toramjero
> hi,
> I need some thoughtful advise from experienced people in the group on
> my current situation. I had fantasized about sharing my wife for a
> long time (8 years ).
I see that people have already responded and probably better than I
could. But I don't think that I understand your story completely. Why
are you attracted to the idea of sharing your wife? What do you
imagine that you would get out of it?
Does your wife have similar fantasies about you? What would you do if
she had them? Would you have sex with another woman? Do you have
fantasies about "being shared" yourself?
I am not criticizing, merely curious and trying to understand better.
Besides, maybe asking these questions to yourself (that is reversing
your roles and the one of your woman) could allow you to understand
better how she feels.
toramjero
>
> So, as a serial adulterer (yes, this has happened to me more than once)
Many times? Pardon my surprise, but how do you do that? Do you look
like Tom Cruise? Does your profession involves meeting many women
dissatisfied from their marriage? Do you work by the Chippendales?
It does not seem very easy to me to convince a woman to cheat on her
husband. Don't they have problems with adultery? I can't really
imagine suggesting to a married woman to jump in bed with me without
her pointing the obvious... namely that she is married. But then, I
never did that (and I don't know any married woman to whom I am
attracted enough to try, in case you wonder).
Wiz
Elizabeth,
Your summary is mostly accurate but I feel the need to provide
additional details on the state of our relationship. She feels close
to me emotionally as well as physically. We make love two to three
times a week which is a great improvement over our previous history
which may also be relevant here. During initial years 8 years of our
marriage which is now in its 10th year she was not interested in sex.
Our love making was reduced to once every two or three months. I tried
hard to keep myself engaged and not to allow this one factor destroy
the whole relationship. There were good and bad times but I loved her
then and love her now for the person she is. It is not solely based on
her performance in bed.
It was about an year back that she went through a transition. Her
libido increased significantly and she started craving for sex all the
time. All these years of low activity left me catching for my my
breath. She blamed me for first pushing her to have more sex and when
she wants it not showing the kind of interest she desired. We have
talked about the male arousal cycle and why I cannot do it right after
one orgasm. I have tried to compensate it with oral. Although i have
improved quite a bit mostly due to getting back to higher activity
level and I am satisfied and confident of my performance in bed. It
still leaves some unmet needs on her part though. In my honest
opinion, what she wants is beyond a working man with full time job and
two kids to take care of. When I am home I try to do my best to take
care of children as well as give her attention. She is pretty happy
with what I am doing and this is not me using my perspective here.
She keeps telling me how much she loves me. If you notice, in the
original post, I also mentioned (somewhat blushingly) that all the
things that she finds attractive in these guys she finds me ahead of
them.
Communication is an issue though. It is mostly one sides with all the
attention focused on her. This is the case when we talk and this is
how it is in the bed. If anybody, I am the one who should be
complaining about not getting enough attention. I do feel terribly
lonely at times but this is life. No one is perfect and no one is
always happy.
Her mention of feeling terribly depressed and craving to emotional and
physical attention is what she mentioned recently. This is second such
phase in her life. First one was before us getting married (we were
friends at that time) and she spent that time being with a guy she is
not very proud of but she says that at that time she wanted it so
badly she could not help it. When she told me about her recent affair
in the making, she said that she is feeling like those days again.
I am not able to comprehend her 'depressive' state fully. I had tried
to explore but she find it difficult to explain and gives up saying
that I won't get it. I don't want to press her too much but try to
comfort her as much as i can but hugging and holding her.
Hope to hear back form you.
Wiz
Wiz
> On Jan 26, 2:07 pm, Wiz <wizzy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > hi,
> > I need some thoughtful advise from experienced people in the group on
> > my current situation. I had fantasized about sharing my wife for a
> > long time (8 years ).
>
> I see that people have already responded and probably better than I
> could. But I don't think that I understand your story completely. Why
> are you attracted to the idea of sharing your wife? What do you
> imagine that you would get out of it?
I am not too sure. I had not been able to narrow it down to one things
despite so many years but here are few things which i think are
contributing:
- her lack of interest in sex, lead to the idea that may be someone
else can ignite her interest there. Now, the precondition is not there
anymore but the fantasy is established. This is deeply linked to my
desire of making her happy.
- at some point blaming her lack of interest on my performance and
seeking pleasure through this fantasy
- getting hooked to the idea through porn
- contribution of my own early childhood sexual abuse
> Does your wife have similar fantasies about you? What would you do if
> she had them? Would you have sex with another woman? Do you have
> fantasies about "being shared" yourself?
>
No she does not have such fantasies at all. I am not sure what I would
do if she was to share that desire with be over many years. I will try
to ensure that whatever we do does not jeopardize our marriage and
impacts our children.
I do not have fantasies of being shared
Your point is interesting though and I will try to think about the
role reversal some more to evaluate my emotional response.
> I am not criticizing, merely curious and trying to understand better.
> Besides, maybe asking these questions to yourself (that is reversing
> your roles and the one of your woman) could allow you to understand
> better how she feels.
I don't mind being criticized as I value your input. Thanks for being
kind though.
Remus Shepherd
> On Jan 30, 6:16?pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > ? ?So, as a serial adulterer (yes, this has happened to me more than once)
> Many times?
This is the third time I've had a sexual relationship with a married
woman.
> Pardon my surprise, but how do you do that?
You'd have to ask the women; I'm certainly not searching for them.
> Do you look like Tom Cruise?
No.
> Does your profession involves meeting many women
> dissatisfied from their marriage?
Profession? No. However, the circles I socialize in are...'open-minded'.
If couples are looking for spice in their relationship, they go searching
in these kind of social groups. At least, that's my theory.
> It does not seem very easy to me to convince a woman to cheat on her
> husband. Don't they have problems with adultery? I can't really
> imagine suggesting to a married woman to jump in bed with me without
> her pointing the obvious... namely that she is married. But then, I
> never did that (and I don't know any married woman to whom I am
> attracted enough to try, in case you wonder).
You're missing the point. I didn't proposition these women -- they
approached me. (I remember a fourth that I *did* try to seduce; she rejected
my offer, but we're still good friends.)
I think that these women regard me as 'safe' because I'm mature, I'm
well-off financially, I have no interest in spawning children, and in many
ways I'm a hell of a catch. I also think they regard me as 'dangerous'
because I have a history of deviant sexual practices. Somewhere between
'safe' and 'dangerous' I seem to have discovered 'attractive'. I don't
understand it, myself.
I will note that it's getting worse as I get older. I don't think
that's anything to do with me, though -- the women looking at me are also
older, and some married women in their 40s are embarrassingly desperate.
If you can suggest something I can use as a repellent, I'd be happy to give
it a try. :)
Remus Shepherd
> I disagree with Remus that all extramarital relationships threaten the
> marriage. I don't think Remus has been exposed personally to healthy
> polyamory -- as he explained, the marriage he was involved with was
> terribly damaged when he came on the scene.
Illecebra's right -- all the marriages I have been involved with were
damaged. In at least one, I was the cause of their final breakup.
I've been told that polyamory can work in a marriage. I don't know
any polyamorous people in real life, so I can't vouch for that lifestyle.
My sense is that people who are monogamous by nature find it difficult to
adapt to a polyamorous life.
Sarah
>My sense is that people who are monogamous by nature find it difficult to
>adapt to a polyamorous life.
Amen.
--
See the ssg homepage: http://socsexualitygeneral.org/
If you want to contact me directly on SSG moderation business, please replace TwoUnderscores with... well, two underscores.
toramjero
Your post raises more questions than it brings answers. Where to I
start? In chronological order:
-what are those "open minded" circles you are referring to?
-you said "if COUPLES are looking for spice" (emphasis added). I don't
understand: did those wed women come to you because their man had the
same fantasies than the o.p.? Do you mean that other persons, who are
in couple, come to those circles and that is how you met the female
half? Or did you meet couples and, separately, had women approach you?
-"deviant sexual practices": is that related to the "open minded"
circles? Else, how did they know about your history?
-getting worse as you get older: you seem to mean that it gets worse
as the WOMEN get older, did I understand that correctly?
-embarrassingly desperate: do you mean for sex? For "deviant" sexual
practices? Why are they desperate if they are married? Have their
husbands lost interest? I don't understand the situation at all here.
Suggesting a repellent: yes, try being like me. No woman has ever
approached me.
toramjero
I am not really sure I understand the concept of "monogamous by
nature", or "polyamorous by nature" for that matter. Can someone
please enlighten me?
toramjero
I am sorry, I reread your posts, and I cannot make a consistent story
out of them. In particular, I cannot reconciliate the first post with
the answer to Elizabeth. You have been married 10 years, of which the
first 8 were sexless and the last 2 say your wife more interested. You
said you have had the fantasy for 8 years. So far, I understand it.
The rest, I am less sure: when was she depressive? How can you
possibly still have a semblance of relationship during that time? What
happened 2 years ago that made her change? How did you both deal with
it?
Too many open questions for me to get a consistent picture.
You also mention child abuse. This is serious matter, and out of what
a forum or newsgroup like this one can help with. Was there also some
abuse on her side? If yes, you both definitely need professional help.
Matthew Vincent
> Elizabeth,
> Your summary is mostly accurate but I feel the need to provide
> additional details on the state of our relationship. She feels close
> to me emotionally as well as physically. We make love two to three
> times a week which is a great improvement over our previous history
> which may also be relevant here. During initial years 8 years of our
> marriage which is now in its 10th year she was not interested in sex.
> Our love making was reduced to once every two or three months.
You used the word "reduced". Had you been making love more often in
the initial stages of your relationship? Did the frequency decrease?
If so, what do you think might have led to that? Was the change sudden
or gradual? Were there any particular events immediately preceding
this change?
> I tried hard to keep myself engaged and not to allow this one
> factor destroy the whole relationship. There were good and
> bad times but I loved her then and love her now for the person
> she is. It is not solely based on her performance in bed.
You obviously love this woman a great deal, and you've had to work
really hard to try and make this relationship work.
> It was about an year back that she went through a transition. Her
> libido increased significantly and she started craving for sex all the
> time. All these years of low activity left me catching for my my
> breath. She blamed me for first pushing her to have more sex and
> when she wants it not showing the kind of interest she desired.
I'm hearing a lot about her blaming you for things and putting
pressure on you unfairly. I'm imagining that her intentions may be
sincere but she may also be leaning on you heavily without being aware
she's doing so.
>We have talked about the male arousal cycle and why I cannot do
>it right after one orgasm. I have tried to compensate it with oral.
That's a good idea. You don't need an erection to give her pleasure.
Toys might be another option depending on her preferences, but I think
it's great that you're giving her oral pleasure.
> She keeps telling me how much she loves me.
That's good. :) You obviously love each other a great deal and I
really hope you're able to work things out and improve your
relationship so that both of you are fulfilled whilst carrying less
bricks.
> Communication is an issue though. It is mostly one sides
> with all the attention focused on her. This is the case when
> we talk and this is how it is in the bed.
I'm getting the impression that she can be demanding and hard work
emotionally, perhaps in large part due to her condition, probably
without her realising she's leaning on you as much as she is. This
could leave you feeling like there's less space for your own emotional
needs in the relationship. It may have felt validating to try and
rescue her in the early stages of your relationship, but over time it
could have increasingly started to feel burdensome.
> Her mention of feeling terribly depressed and craving to emotional and
> physical attention is what she mentioned recently. This is second such
> phase in her life. First one was before us getting married (we were
> friends at that time) and she spent that time being with a guy she is
> not very proud of but she says that at that time she wanted it so
> badly she could not help it. When she told me about her recent affair
> in the making, she said that she is feeling like those days again.
This "affair" word is unhelpful, as illecebra noted. I'll say more
about the polyamory/monogamy issues in a later post.
> I am not able to comprehend her 'depressive' state fully. I had tried
> to explore but she find it difficult to explain and gives up saying
> that I won't get it. I don't want to press her too much but try to
> comfort her as much as i can but hugging and holding her.
That's very caring and loving of you. I'm imagining you want with all
your heart to heal her and make her happy, and it must be
disconcerting for you that nothing seems to work. If having a loving
and caring husband for all these years has proven insufficient to fix
her depression, it's not likely that having sex with other partners
will fix her depression either. See below.
When you talk about a past relationship of hers that she was "not very
proud of", are you talking about an abusive relationship? Has she had
an issue with being attracted to abusive men? Does she sometimes have
a desire to be dominated, perhaps in an unhealthy kind of way? Are
there any issues of childhood sexual abuse on her side, or other abuse
issues from her childhood? How about father absence or other
inconsistent attachments during childhood?
Some more questions, just to clarify the scope of what we're dealing
with. You used the phrase "terribly depressed" -- how severe do you
think her depression is? To your knowledge, has she ever had a suicide
attempt or other acute psychiatric crisis, or been at risk of such?
Are there any issues with "cutting" or other forms of self-harm? Any
other psychiatric issues besides depression? (Not meaning to be
alarmist here; I'm just checking this out on a "just in case" kind of
basis, so we have an idea of the scope of what we're dealing with.)
I'll explain some more about why I'm asking. Your wife seems pretty
driven to use sex with multiple partners as a way to attempt to
alleviate her self-esteem issues. She's tried to pressure you into
going along with this, even when you've communicated to her that it's
emotionally unsafe for you for her to do it while keeping secrets from
you (and, I gather, that you may not even be sure if you're
comfortable with her doing it at all). Consequently, I'm inferring a
likelihood that she's really determined to do this because it holds
some kind of meaning for her self-worth and she feels she needs to
prove something.
One of my various concerns (of which I have many, to be frank with
you) in this situation is that your wife may find that there's no pot
of gold at the bottom of the rainbow she's chasing. In fact, she may
even feel *worse* after going to trouble to have sex with lots of men
and then finding out that it doesn't really fix her self-esteem issues
at all. I'm concerned about both how this might affect her
relationship with you, and also about how this might affect her
psychiatrically speaking. So, I'm just wanting to find out how much of
a concern there may or may not be with respect to the latter.
Has your wife ever had therapy for her depression? I'm thinking it
would really be a good idea to address this, and the need is becoming
more urgent given she may be about to respond to her depression in a
maladaptive way. Also, it is my view (on a number of accounts, not all
of which I've covered yet) that it is almost certainly not healthy for
either you or your wife to be having any other partners at this time.
There are some other issues that need to be addressed first, including
but not necessarily limited to her depression and self-esteem issues.
If your wife was able to talk her issues through in therapy before
making a decision about whether she wants to proceed with other
partners at this time, I think this would be best.
For what it's worth, I'm poly myself. Both my girlfriend and myself
are open to each other having other partners, and for us that's a
healthy relationship situation. I mention this to illustrate the fact
that my concerns about your and your wife's situation are not based on
any bias against polyamory.
There's more I'd like to say in this thread, but my time is limited
for now. I'll post again soon.
Matthew
suzee
Some people are quite content with only one partner, or only one at a
time (serial monogamy). Others just like to experience more than one
partner.
sue
toramjero
Well... yes, I understood that part. It is the "by nature" part which
I am not so sure about. Doesn't it simply depend on the conditions? I
mean: if you see no-one suitable, you are not tempted not to stay
monogamous, but if the conditions are right everyone is tempted?
suzee
Maybe this is an idiom that you my not know. By nature as in by their
own nature, a person's temperament, their likes/dislikes, qualities,
their character or constitution. Some people are wired only for
monogamy, others are not.
sue
toramjero
I understand the idiom. I dispute that it is a "wiring". I think that
it comes from external conditions, being tempted or not. Keep in mind
that over half of humanity has affairs at some point, according to
your theory, that would mean that over half of humanity is "wired" to
be poly.
I just think that people stay monogamous for lack of opportunities or
temptations.
Wiz
What would be a good starting point to understand polyamory and
related issues.
I don't see our relationship to be as unhealthy as it is coming out in
the posts. There can be some gaps there but as i said ealier, nothing
is perfect. We continue to to talk about this and make some progress
on reaching a common point or give it up altogether. i think it is
very healthy that we are able to discuss and make progress and
continue to feel passion for each other.
Wiz
Wiz
> the initial stages of your relationship? Did the frequency decrease?
> If so, what do you think might have led to that? Was the change sudden
> or gradual? Were there any particular events immediately preceding
> this change?
The frequency was much better before our marriage. I guess what led to
her low level of sexual desire was her pregnancy (which is very
difficult period for her) and then raising our first child. I do not
recall if there was any particular event.
> > Communication is an issue though. It is mostly one sides
> > with all the attention focused on her. This is the case when
> > we talk and this is how it is in the bed.
>
> I'm getting the impression that she can be demanding and hard work
> emotionally, perhaps in large part due to her condition, probably
> without her realising she's leaning on you as much as she is. This
> could leave you feeling like there's less space for your own emotional
> needs in the relationship. It may have felt validating to try and
> rescue her in the early stages of your relationship, but over time it
> could have increasingly started to feel burdensome.
I reread my commnets and feel that may be I am not being fair to her.
She must be doing something right to keep me engaged. Its only that I
am not able to say it that clearly. My response has its own merit
though since this is how I feel. I am going to start a separate
thread to seek input here.
> This "affair" word is unhelpful, as illecebra noted. I'll say more
> about the polyamory/monogamy issues in a later post.
Noted.
> When you talk about a past relationship of hers that she was "not very
> proud of", are you talking about an abusive relationship? Has she had
> an issue with being attracted to abusive men? Does she sometimes have
> a desire to be dominated, perhaps in an unhealthy kind of way? Are
> there any issues of childhood sexual abuse on her side, or other abuse
> issues from her childhood? How about father absence or other
> inconsistent attachments during childhood?
I don't think it was an abusive relationship. It is only that they had
little in common and she had that relationship because she was very
lonely. Was she the abuser here because she was using him? Can't say.
She has mentioned some desire to be dominated no where near what you
are suggesting.
> Some more questions, just to clarify the scope of what we're dealing
> with. You used the phrase "terribly depressed" -- how severe do you
> think her depression is? To your knowledge, has she ever had a suicide
> attempt or other acute psychiatric crisis, or been at risk of such?
> Are there any issues with "cutting" or other forms of self-harm? Any
> other psychiatric issues besides depression? (Not meaning to be
> alarmist here; I'm just checking this out on a "just in case" kind of
> basis, so we have an idea of the scope of what we're dealing with.)
There is no history of self harm. It is more like isolating her from
her environment. "terribly depressed" can be an over statement but
this is how she described it.
> I'll explain some more about why I'm asking. Your wife seems pretty
> driven to use sex with multiple partners as a way to attempt to
> alleviate her self-esteem issues. She's tried to pressure you into
> going along with this, even when you've communicated to her that it's
> emotionally unsafe for you for her to do it while keeping secrets from
> you (and, I gather, that you may not even be sure if you're
> comfortable with her doing it at all).
I agree. Since this post started, we have talked about this particular
aspect of I not feeling good about it. We need to go slow and unless I
need to makeup my mind. The fact that I had this fantasy does not mean
now I have no option but to accept it. Despite this fantasy, I have
never pressured her about this and she cannot do this either.
>Consequently, I'm inferring a
> likelihood that she's really determined to do this because it holds
> some kind of meaning for her self-worth and she feels she needs to
> prove something.
This is a very interesting point that I had not thought about at all.
She is saying that she is doing it for the exitement of a new
relationship.
> One of my various concerns (of which I have many, to be frank with
> you) in this situation is that your wife may find that there's no pot
> of gold at the bottom of the rainbow she's chasing. In fact, she may
> even feel *worse* after going to trouble to have sex with lots of men
> and then finding out that it doesn't really fix her self-esteem issues
> at all. I'm concerned about both how this might affect her
> relationship with you, and also about how this might affect her
> psychiatrically speaking. So, I'm just wanting to find out how much of
> a concern there may or may not be with respect to the latter.
> Has your wife ever had therapy for her depression? I'm thinking it
> would really be a good idea to address this, and the need is becoming
> more urgent given she may be about to respond to her depression in a
> maladaptive way.
She has consulted a therapist (a psychologist and not a psychiatrist)
about her depression but there was not any major improvement. I guess
it still helped her pull through the trough. When talking about her
desire to have sexual relationship(s), one of her argument is that it
is very 'natural' and what would be the point to spend so much time,
money and go through pain to try to suppress a natural desire !
Interesting simplification. Isn't it.
> Also, it is my view (on a number of accounts, not all
> of which I've covered yet) that it is almost certainly not healthy for
> either you or your wife to be having any other partners at this time.
I am moving towards this, but to be honest I am going through emotions
whihc are different during the day and night.
Remus Shepherd
> On Feb 2, 7:44?pm, Sarah <STwoUnderscor...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > ?Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> said:
> >
> > >My sense is that people who are monogamous by nature find it difficult to
> > >adapt to a polyamorous life.
> >
> > Amen.
> nature", or "polyamorous by nature" for that matter. Can someone
> please enlighten me?
When I fall in love, I want that person to myself. I want to own them
and be owned by them. I get extremely jealous and depressed if they flirt
or become intimate with someone else.
Now, I've had relationships -- even a marriage -- where I've strayed.
But in hindsight that happened because I was no longer satisfied,
emotionally, with my partner. I never wanted two partners, I just wanted
to change from the one I had.
That's a tendency toward monogamy, as I've experienced it.
Remus Shepherd
> -what are those "open minded" circles you are referring to?
Deviant sex chat rooms and newsgroups in the mid-90s. I'm sure places
like that exist today, but I don't know any of them now.
The first two couples I met in those rooms. One couple broke up then
reunited, the other broke up permanently.
The third couple I met at a science fiction convention. This is *not*
where you'd typically expect to find deviants, but the people there are
very open-minded.
> -you said "if COUPLES are looking for spice" (emphasis added). I don't
> understand: did those wed women come to you because their man had the
> same fantasies than the o.p.?
They all had different reasons. The point is that they had all made
a joint decision to indulge in adultery. Every time, it was the woman
who approached me. (I suspect it would be quite awkward for a man to
approach another man in sexual matters, not knowing his orientation.)
> -getting worse as you get older: you seem to mean that it gets worse
> as the WOMEN get older, did I understand that correctly?
It's getting worse as time goes by. I don't know whether it's
my age or theirs that's important. :) Probably a combination of the
two; I'm getting better as I get older, and they're getting more
desparate.
> -embarrassingly desperate: do you mean for sex? For "deviant" sexual
> practices? Why are they desperate if they are married? Have their
> husbands lost interest? I don't understand the situation at all here.
In general it's because their husbands have lost interest, yes. None
of these women were interested in deviant sex, except as a fantasy.
> Suggesting a repellent: yes, try being like me. No woman has ever
> approached me.
Just be friendly and charming and they will. If you want to keep them,
though, learn how to cook. One the best skills I ever learned was how to
make homemade pizza starting from yeast and flour. When you whip up
enough pizza to feed a woman's son's football team at short notice,
she'll look at you as if you're some sort of god. ;)
suzee
> I understand the idiom. I dispute that it is a "wiring". I think that
> it comes from external conditions, being tempted or not. Keep in mind
> that over half of humanity has affairs at some point, according to
> your theory, that would mean that over half of humanity is "wired" to
> be poly.
Probably not half - having an affair doesn't mean they're poly, just
cheating. People have affairs because they're bored with, angry at or
resentful of their partners. And other reasons. If they don't have the
consent of their main partner to have another relationship, that's
cheating. Polyamory isn't just simply the opposite of monogamy, it's
having other partners, usually in a long term loving relationship, with
the consent of the primary partner.
> I just think that people stay monogamous for lack of opportunities or
> temptations.
So do sure, for others, maybe it just doesn't occur to them. Sometimes
you have to go looking for opportunities, they don't always just fall
into your lap.
sue
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > -what are those "open minded" circles you are referring to?
>
> Deviant sex chat rooms and newsgroups in the mid-90s. I'm sure places
> like that exist today, but I don't know any of them now.
>
By "deviant" sex, I suppose that you mean things like BDSM, for
example?
> The first two couples I met in those rooms. One couple broke up then
> reunited, the other broke up permanently.
>
> The third couple I met at a science fiction convention. This is *not*
> where you'd typically expect to find deviants, but the people there are
> very open-minded.
>
> > -you said "if COUPLES are looking for spice" (emphasis added). I don't
> > understand: did those wed women come to you because their man had the
> > same fantasies than the o.p.?
>
> They all had different reasons. The point is that they had all made
> a joint decision to indulge in adultery. Every time, it was the woman
> who approached me. (I suspect it would be quite awkward for a man to
> approach another man in sexual matters, not knowing his orientation.)
>
I don't understand the "joint decision to indulge in adultery" part.
Do you mean that, as is the case for the o.p. that the man and the
woman agreed that the woman will seek and have sex with a third man
(you)? They would all have the same reason, then, wouldn't they?
> > -getting worse as you get older: you seem to mean that it gets worse
> > as the WOMEN get older, did I understand that correctly?
>
> It's getting worse as time goes by. I don't know whether it's
> my age or theirs that's important. :) Probably a combination of the
> two; I'm getting better as I get older, and they're getting more
> desparate.
>
You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
they get older.
> > -embarrassingly desperate: do you mean for sex? For "deviant" sexual
> > practices? Why are they desperate if they are married? Have their
> > husbands lost interest? I don't understand the situation at all here.
>
> In general it's because their husbands have lost interest, yes. None
> of these women were interested in deviant sex, except as a fantasy.
>
That seems a strange relationship. Let me recap: the man is interested
in deviant, the woman is not but comes to you who are interested in
deviant. Why? Why not come to a man interested in the same kind of sex
that she is?
> > Suggesting a repellent: yes, try being like me. No woman has ever
> > approached me.
>
> Just be friendly and charming and they will. If you want to keep them,
> though, learn how to cook. One the best skills I ever learned was how to
> make homemade pizza starting from yeast and flour. When you whip up
> enough pizza to feed a woman's son's football team at short notice,
> she'll look at you as if you're some sort of god. ;)
>
I am generally friendly and older women (say old enough to be
grandmothers) usually find me charming. Or at least they say so. I can
cook pretty well, although pizza is not my specialty. Either it is
just the pizza, or there are less obvious differences.
Tom Allen
> I just think that people stay monogamous for lack of opportunities or
> temptations.
Or because they have an ethical, religious, or moral code that precludes
or discourages such choices.
Or because they've weighed the potentials and decided it wasn't worth it.
It's hard (for me) to imagine no opportunities at all for the average
person.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Tom Allen
> On Feb 3, 3:22 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
> Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
> they get older.
:cough cough:
Speak for yourself, youngster!
> That seems a strange relationship. Let me recap: the man is interested
> in deviant, the woman is not but comes to you who are interested in
> deviant. Why? Why not come to a man interested in the same kind of sex
> that she is?
Because some people like associating with the element of the exotic - or
at least, with the *idea* of the element.
>>> Suggesting a repellent: yes, try being like me. No woman has ever
>>> approached me.
>> Just be friendly and charming and they will. If you want to keep them,
>> though, learn how to cook. One the best skills I ever learned was how to
>> make homemade pizza starting from yeast and flour. When you whip up
>> enough pizza to feed a woman's son's football team at short notice,
>> she'll look at you as if you're some sort of god. ;)
I second that - There is an old adage: "The way to a man's heart is
through his stomach." Trust me, for men its about 6 inches lower. But
for women? For some reason, it seems to work.
> I am generally friendly and older women (say old enough to be
> grandmothers) usually find me charming. Or at least they say so. I can
> cook pretty well, although pizza is not my specialty. Either it is
> just the pizza, or there are less obvious differences.
Remus, if you can be charming to grandmothers, then you've got the
ability to be flirty and charming with anyone.
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > I understand the idiom. I dispute that it is a "wiring". I think that
> > it comes from external conditions, being tempted or not. Keep in mind
> > that over half of humanity has affairs at some point, according to
> > your theory, that would mean that over half of humanity is "wired" to
> > be poly.
>
> Probably not half - having an affair doesn't mean they're poly, just
> cheating. People have affairs because they're bored with, angry at or
> resentful of their partners. And other reasons. If they don't have the
> consent of their main partner to have another relationship, that's
> cheating. Polyamory isn't just simply the opposite of monogamy, it's
> having other partners, usually in a long term loving relationship, with
> the consent of the primary partner.
>
I don't think that we are understanding each other. I hear that many
people cheat, men and women alltogether. Suppose that Mrs Smith is
cheating on her husband with Mr Brown, why is that so? Obviously,
there must be some sort of attraction between Mrs Smith and Mr Brown.
Now, some people stay in a relationship with a person to whom they are
not attracted to, but this is not always the case. For some Mrs Smith
who were fed up with their husbands and went cheating, there are
plenty of similar Mrs Smith who were still attracted to their
husbands, but met Mrs Brown, found him handsome, charming, you already
know the end of the story.
It seems ridiculous to imagine that Mrs Smith instantly imagine that
Mr Smith is a pile of filth, just because she met Mr Brown and found
him attractive. If you think about it, you will find out that there
are plenty of those Mrs. Smith who are actually loving both Mr. Smith
and Mr Brown. And vice-versa for Mr Brown.
I understood that "polyamory" meant "attracted to at least two
persons", correct me if I am wrong.
Now, if Mr Smith is upset about the story, Mrs Smith is indeed
cheating. But Mr. Smith's opinion does not change the intrinsic
properties attached to Mrs Smith, does it? Whether she actually cheats
or not, whether she decides to forfeit her love to Mr. Brown to please
Mr. Smith or whether both Mr and Mrs Smith decide that it is not a big
deal does not change anything to the fact that she is attracted to two
men at the same time. At worst, it is only social pressure that is
likely to make her choose between both men. If we lived in a society
were polyandry was accepted, Mrs Smith would probably simply keep both
men.
> > I just think that people stay monogamous for lack of opportunities or
> > temptations.
>
> So do sure, for others, maybe it just doesn't occur to them. Sometimes
> you have to go looking for opportunities, they don't always just fall
> into your lap.
>
By the definition above, all people who go looking for opportunities
but still love their partner are polyamorous. By your definition, some
are simply cheaters. The only differences is whether their primary
partner agrees with their philandering or not. Doesn't it seem
somewhat contradictory to you to say "naturally poly" on the one hand
and to make that "natural" property dependent on the judgement of your
partner on the other hand?
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > I just think that people stay monogamous for lack of opportunities or
> > temptations.
>
> Or because they have an ethical, religious, or moral code that precludes
> or discourages such choices.
>
> Or because they've weighed the potentials and decided it wasn't worth it.
>
Let me rephrase that: "I just think that people stay monogamous for
lack of opportunities or strong enough temptations."
> It's hard (for me) to imagine no opportunities at all for the average
> person.
>
I know plenty of people who complain about lack of opportunities, and
that is for the unwed ones only. Wed people don't complain about it,
of course, but have less opportunies than single, because... they're
married.
suzee
The difference between cheating and polyamory is that in cheating you
keep it hidden from your partner; with poly there's consent from your
partner. I wasn't necessarily equating them.
suzee
> toramjero wrote:
>
>> I just think that people stay monogamous for lack of opportunities or
>> temptations.
>
> Or because they have an ethical, religious, or moral code that precludes
> or discourages such choices.
>
> Or because they've weighed the potentials and decided it wasn't worth it.
>
> It's hard (for me) to imagine no opportunities at all for the average
> person.
Yes, there's bound to be some opportunities, whether looking for it or not.
Remus Shepherd
> On Feb 3, 3:22?pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> > ? ?Deviant sex chat rooms and newsgroups in the mid-90s. ?I'm sure places
> > like that exist today, but I don't know any of them now.
> By "deviant" sex, I suppose that you mean things like BDSM, for
> example?
Something like that. It's not pertinent to this discussion. And
the old regulars here know what I'm talking about. It's a part of my
life I'd like to put behind me.
> Do you mean that, as is the case for the o.p. that the man and the
> woman agreed that the woman will seek and have sex with a third man
> (you)? They would all have the same reason, then, wouldn't they?
No. Their reasons were all different. The ones I know about were
very personal, and I don't wish to air them here.
> You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
> Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
> they get older.
Now I suspect that you're trolling me. :)
In my 20s I was a wunderkind -- undisciplined, energetic, with ideas
that outstripped my abilities. In my 30s I had the energy and was learning
the skills, and if I had the discipline I could have done anything. Now
in my 40s I know where my limits are, and also where my strengths are, and
I've learned enough discipline to make that a powerful combination.
You'll see. :)
> That seems a strange relationship. Let me recap: the man is interested
> in deviant, the woman is not but comes to you who are interested in
> deviant.
Yes, you got it.
> Why? Why not come to a man interested in the same kind of sex
> that she is?
No idea. You'd have to ask her. It may be simple availability and
desperation.
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 3:22 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> > You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
> > Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
> > they get older.
>
> :cough cough:
>
> Speak for yourself, youngster!
OK. You and Remus are the exception to the rule.
>
> > That seems a strange relationship. Let me recap: the man is interested
> > in deviant, the woman is not but comes to you who are interested in
> > deviant. Why? Why not come to a man interested in the same kind of sex
> > that she is?
>
> Because some people like associating with the element of the exotic - or
> at least, with the *idea* of the element.
>
But it is an exotic they especially dislike, so why?
> >>> Suggesting a repellent: yes, try being like me. No woman has ever
> >>> approached me.
> >> Just be friendly and charming and they will. If you want to keep them,
> >> though, learn how to cook. One the best skills I ever learned was how to
> >> make homemade pizza starting from yeast and flour. When you whip up
> >> enough pizza to feed a woman's son's football team at short notice,
> >> she'll look at you as if you're some sort of god. ;)
>
> I second that - There is an old adage: "The way to a man's heart is
> through his stomach." Trust me, for men its about 6 inches lower. But
> for women? For some reason, it seems to work.
>
> > I am generally friendly and older women (say old enough to be
> > grandmothers) usually find me charming. Or at least they say so. I can
> > cook pretty well, although pizza is not my specialty. Either it is
> > just the pizza, or there are less obvious differences.
>
> Remus, if you can be charming to grandmothers, then you've got the
> ability to be flirty and charming with anyone.
>
I am not Remus. I have always been charming with grandmothers. When I
was younger, women of my age did not appreciate at all the kind of
behaviour which rendered me charming to grandmothers. Now that I am
older (and not better), women of my age find me flirty and charming,
just as grandmothers still do, but it stops at that.
toramjero
So you make the definition dependent on the partner's opinion. What is
a poly person expected to do when their partner does not agree, then?
suzee
They're kind of stuck in an impossible situation. Cheat or go without
another partner.
suzee
> On Feb 3, 6:11 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 3:22 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
>>> Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
>>> they get older.
>> :cough cough:
>>
>> Speak for yourself, youngster!
>
> OK. You and Remus are the exception to the rule.
Not at all. You could ask Gordon or Norton about it.
sue
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 3:22?pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > ? ?Deviant sex chat rooms and newsgroups in the mid-90s. ?I'm sure places
> > > like that exist today, but I don't know any of them now.
> > By "deviant" sex, I suppose that you mean things like BDSM, for
> > example?
>
> Something like that. It's not pertinent to this discussion. And
> the old regulars here know what I'm talking about. It's a part of my
> life I'd like to put behind me.
>
Your answer is sufficient, I don't need any more details. Thank you.
> > Do you mean that, as is the case for the o.p. that the man and the
> > woman agreed that the woman will seek and have sex with a third man
> > (you)? They would all have the same reason, then, wouldn't they?
>
> No. Their reasons were all different. The ones I know about were
> very personal, and I don't wish to air them here.
>
Well, that makes it impossible for me to understand what was going on,
but I respect your concerns for privacy.
> > You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
> > Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
> > they get older.
>
> Now I suspect that you're trolling me. :)
>
> In my 20s I was a wunderkind -- undisciplined, energetic, with ideas
> that outstripped my abilities. In my 30s I had the energy and was learning
> the skills, and if I had the discipline I could have done anything. Now
> in my 40s I know where my limits are, and also where my strengths are, and
> I've learned enough discipline to make that a powerful combination.
>
> You'll see. :)
>
I am not trolling you. I am 45 myself, and I don't feel that I have
gotten much better with age. Maybe I just realise my limits more, or
in other words I know better how "bad" I am.
> > That seems a strange relationship. Let me recap: the man is interested
> > in deviant, the woman is not but comes to you who are interested in
> > deviant.
>
> Yes, you got it.
>
> > Why? Why not come to a man interested in the same kind of sex
> > that she is?
>
> No idea. You'd have to ask her. It may be simple availability and
> desperation.
>
I don't understand why they were desperate? They needed sex? They
needed to feel attractive and their husband only rejected them? Your
story sounds like a heap of trouble, if you pardon my surprise.
toramjero
You seem to have strong feelings against cheating. Let me tell you a
story. Mrs Brown is a very jealous person. Mr Brown however still
loves her. He finds her attractive, his heart starts bouncing in his
chest when he sees her in her night gown, he is a good husband and a
good father. He will do all what he can for her.
If only there were no Mrs Smith. Mrs Smith is just the opposite of Mrs
Brown. She is not jealous, she is free of spirit, she and Mr Brown can
have the most wonderful of conversations together. And when they talk
about sex, they have the most wonderful time together. Mr Brown is in
love, and his love is parted.
Now, when Mr Brown only hints about free love, Mrs Brown waits for him
with a baseball bat in the right hand (she's american) and a divorce
filing in the left hand. And she says that if he ever cheats, she
would rather never find out.
Mr Brown can leave Mrs Brown, but he still loves her. Or part with Mrs
Smith, but she would be hurt. Either way is a wrong way.
Now, Mr. Smith is jealous too, and he owns a gun. He is american as
well.
What is wrong in this story? Mr Brown and Mrs Smith or the baseball
bat and the gun?
suzee
I don't actually. I cheated on my exhusband during our marriage. But it
was a wrong thing to do. I'm just pointing out the main difference
between polyamory and `having an affair'.
> Let me tell you a
> story. Mrs Brown is a very jealous person. Mr Brown however still
> loves her. He finds her attractive, his heart starts bouncing in his
> chest when he sees her in her night gown, he is a good husband and a
> good father. He will do all what he can for her.
> If only there were no Mrs Smith. Mrs Smith is just the opposite of Mrs
> Brown. She is not jealous, she is free of spirit, she and Mr Brown can
> have the most wonderful of conversations together. And when they talk
> about sex, they have the most wonderful time together. Mr Brown is in
> love, and his love is parted.
> Now, when Mr Brown only hints about free love, Mrs Brown waits for him
> with a baseball bat in the right hand (she's american) and a divorce
> filing in the left hand. And she says that if he ever cheats, she
> would rather never find out.
> Mr Brown can leave Mrs Brown, but he still loves her. Or part with Mrs
> Smith, but she would be hurt. Either way is a wrong way.
> Now, Mr. Smith is jealous too, and he owns a gun. He is american as
> well.
>
> What is wrong in this story? Mr Brown and Mrs Smith or the baseball
> bat and the gun?
There's not really a wrong or right here, the situation just is, and
sometimes common no matter what country you live in.
sue
Tom Allen
> On Feb 3, 6:11 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 3:22 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
>>> Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
>>> they get older.
>> :cough cough:
>>
>> Speak for yourself, youngster!
>
> OK. You and Remus are the exception to the rule.
As much as I'd like to believe that I'm special, I think it's more that
I have aged well, physically, combined with having developed personal
confidence, and an ability to laugh at myself, which I did not have at
20. That, plus, like Remus, I do have a rep for being generally kinky,
which some women find attractive - in the sense that they are fascinated
by something which they have not experienced.
In fact, I quite often find myself making sure that I don't flirt much,
or certainly, not with anyone who might misconstrue it. For example, I
will flirt with women in their 20s or early to mid 30s, and with women
in their 60s. Women my own age are much too likely to throw themselves
at me after I wink and smile.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
Seriously, I do tend to hold back with my peers because friendly
flirting on my part *has* been taken for something more.
>> Because some people like associating with the element of the exotic - or
>> at least, with the *idea* of the element.
>>
>
> But it is an exotic they especially dislike, so why?
If you want to start an especially long thread on a web board, just post
the question: "Why do women like jerks more than nice guys?"
I'm overstating this but it's similar: women - people - are often
fascinated with proximity to something that they would never do
themselves. For example, a lot of my friends like to suggest that they
know people related to various organized crime figures, but they would
never actually engage in that activity.
Being *seen* with the "bad boys" enhances your social stock.
> I am not Remus.
You're not Romulus, either. I was actually addressing Remus.
> I have always been charming with grandmothers. When I
> was younger, women of my age did not appreciate at all the kind of
> behaviour which rendered me charming to grandmothers.
They never do.
> Now that I am
> older (and not better), women of my age find me flirty and charming,
> just as grandmothers still do, but it stops at that.
Maybe you need to act more confident and push the boundaries a bit.
Anonymous Jack
> > according to your theory, that would mean that over
> > half of humanity is "wired" to be poly.
>
I had to re-read toramjero's original statement. I believe when he
(she?) says "poly", he means "polygamous" and not "polyamorous" - and
may not be aware of the distinction.
Hiya, Remus!
toramjero
No, I am aware that there is a distinction. I was just pointing out
that the definition of "polyamorous = not cheating" is not consistent
with the idea that people would be "wired" poly. I much prefer the
definition "polyamourous = capable of having feelings of love and
sexual attraction toward two or more persons simultaneously".
I understand that it is important, for some polyamorous people, to be
able to explain that they are not "cheating" because they have
relationships with more than one person. But it is not important for
me and I was not implying any judgment on the matter.
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 6:11 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> toramjero wrote:
> >>> On Feb 3, 3:22 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
> >>> Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
> >>> they get older.
> >> :cough cough:
>
> >> Speak for yourself, youngster!
>
> > OK. You and Remus are the exception to the rule.
>
> As much as I'd like to believe that I'm special, I think it's more that
> I have aged well, physically, combined with having developed personal
> confidence, and an ability to laugh at myself, which I did not have at
> 20. That, plus, like Remus, I do have a rep for being generally kinky,
> which some women find attractive - in the sense that they are fascinated
> by something which they have not experienced.
>
> In fact, I quite often find myself making sure that I don't flirt much,
> or certainly, not with anyone who might misconstrue it. For example, I
> will flirt with women in their 20s or early to mid 30s, and with women
> in their 60s. Women my own age are much too likely to throw themselves
> at me after I wink and smile.
>
> Well, I can dream, can't I?
>
But of course: you are on the usenet.
> Seriously, I do tend to hold back with my peers because friendly
> flirting on my part *has* been taken for something more.
>
> >> Because some people like associating with the element of the exotic - or
> >> at least, with the *idea* of the element.
>
> > But it is an exotic they especially dislike, so why?
>
> If you want to start an especially long thread on a web board, just post
> the question: "Why do women like jerks more than nice guys?"
>
Incidentally, my first post on s.s.g. was about that subject.
> I'm overstating this but it's similar: women - people - are often
> fascinated with proximity to something that they would never do
> themselves. For example, a lot of my friends like to suggest that they
> know people related to various organized crime figures, but they would
> never actually engage in that activity.
>
> Being *seen* with the "bad boys" enhances your social stock.
>
I think that there is another force at play here. Having a kink makes
it clear that you have an interest in sex and also makes it likely
that you will not be offended by somewhat unorthodox proposals. Being
just plain vanilla makes it more believable that you will be offended.
To take the example of organized crime again. If, say, you wanted to
do something a bit illegal, say for example that you wanted to buy
soft drugs, would you go to you Mr Smith, who is known to associate
with weirdos, enjoys rock music and sci-fi conventions or to Mr Brown
who is an army veteran, goes to church every sunday and works as an
accountant? Most people would probably chose Mr Smith, even if in
truth it's Mr Brown who smokes grass in secret.
> > I am not Remus.
>
> You're not Romulus, either. I was actually addressing Remus.
>
Oops, sorry.
> > I have always been charming with grandmothers. When I
> > was younger, women of my age did not appreciate at all the kind of
> > behaviour which rendered me charming to grandmothers.
>
> They never do.
>
So I noticed.
> > Now that I am
> > older (and not better), women of my age find me flirty and charming,
> > just as grandmothers still do, but it stops at that.
>
> Maybe you need to act more confident and push the boundaries a bit.
>
I will try to remember your advice if the occasion ever arises.
Wiz
> approval" and "depressed and desperate for physical and emotional
> attention" and "affair", well, strange.
>
Was the real word "irritating" instead of strange?
Wiz
Wiz
> out of them. In particular, I cannot reconciliate the first post with
> the answer to Elizabeth. You have been married 10 years, of which the
> first 8 were sexless and the last 2 say your wife more interested. You
> said you have had the fantasy for 8 years. So far, I understand it.
> The rest, I am less sure: when was she depressive? How can you
> possibly still have a semblance of relationship during that time? What
> happened 2 years ago that made her change? How did you both deal with
> it?
It’s more like one year or so that her interest in sex has increased.
Since this is about change in behavior and not about a particular
incident, I can be off by few months. If you are asking if there was a
particular incident that changed her. No. I have tried asking her and
she does not know anything specific either. We interpreted as change
in her hormone level and since it was very profound, I recall she even
consulted her doctor.
Contributing factors can be her consistent workout and our youngest
child (we have two sons) growing up. Younger one is now 5. Although a
mother is never free from the concern of raising children, she must
have felt the pressure decreasing. In this particular case we cannot
say if her physical burden has decreased as I and her mother (during
the day time when we are at work) were more involved in his care.
> Too many open questions for me to get a consistent picture.
Of course there will be as one cannot share whole life in one post. I
am trying not to come up with an inaccurate but more easily
communicable picture.
>
> You also mention child abuse. This is serious matter, and out of what
> a forum or newsgroup like this one can help with. Was there also some
> abuse on her side? If yes, you both definitely need professional help.
>
I understand that I am not coming to the group for help with my
childhood abuse. Don’t worry there. I had been to therapy and I am at
a level now where I do not have to suppress this. I am comfortable
acknowledging and processing related emotions. Having said that, I
also know that it is part of me and in a way defines who I am. There
is no way to erase it completely.
No. There is no history of abuse on her side.
Gordon
> On Jan 30, 1:44 pm, Elizabeth <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 12:07 am, Wiz <wizzy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > hi,
>> > I need some thoughtful advise from experienced people in the group on
>> > my current situation. I had fantasized about sharing my wife for a
>> > long time (8 years ). At one stage it was just a strange fantasy. Then
>> > it progressed to a level where it was the only fantasy. I started
>> > suggesting this to wife. She was OK with it as long it stays that way,
>> > i.e., a fantasy. Basic theme of my fantasy was that she has a lover
>> > and she enjoys him with my knowledge and approval and they meet pretty
>> > frequently. I have no desire to participate or watch.
>>
>> > Over the last few months things have changed. She became more
>> > interested in this idea herself. We started talking, joking and
>> > teasing each other about this. I would generally encourage her to go
>> > ahead and try this out. Sometime back she said that she is too out of
>> > shape and no one will find her attractive. With a hind sight I can see
>> > that she was working towards this with great focus (daily workout for
>> > over an year). Now, she has lost some weight and her self image and
>> > confidence has improved significantly.
>>
>> > About a month back she shared with me that she gets very depressed and
>> > desperate for physical and emotional attention and may start an
>> > affair. I probed more and she shared that she has two threads going on
>> > which can turn into affairs. I was able to guess both names. She finds
>> > the first one more attractive but second one is more available. I was
>> > very exited and encouraged her. Also offered her my help in getting
>> > close to the first one. We talked about inviting him for dinner etc.
>>
>> > Last night she told me that she is going for the second one. She
>> > already has the game started for few weeks. He calls her three to four
>> > times a day and she was actually about to meet / have sex with him two
>> > days back. She actually started it the very next day we talk about
>> > it.
>>
>> > That was a surprise for me. I was expecting that she would be sharing
>> > the progress with me along the way. Also, since in our discussion she
>> > was not so eager for this guy, I was surprised on that account too.
>> > To be fair to her, I had not explicitly talked about she filling me in
>> > on details.
>>
>> > Anyway, I told her about my feelings that I do not feel very good
>> > about. I also asked her to keep me in loop as they are making progress
>> > so that I can judge my emotional response to the situation and tell
>> > her if we need to stop. As you would imagine she accused me of
>> > freaking out now that something real is coming up. This may be true
>> > but I don't want to go through this only because I asked for it and
>> > now I should not freak out and stick to my words. I think i have the
>> > right to do so it this is what it boils down to. She is visibly
>> > disappointed though not angry with me.
>>
>> > She is reluctant to share any details of their conversation. She views
>> > it is private and she was not expecting that she will have to share
>> > that with me. In the initial phase of their relationship, she maybe
>> > posing a little differently. It will not be any fun if she knows that
>> > she will have to tell me everything.
>>
>> > She feels that if I let her be with him for a while, she will be done
>> > and over with this. She does not want to suppress the desire as it may
>> > come out in other (negative) manifestations.
>>
>> > She finds it difficult to share any details as for her emotions are
>> > involved. This is not sex only thing for her. She has a desire to be
>> > close to him. Feel the body and warmth. Get a lot of physical
>> > attention (massage) and she does not mind / has any inhibitions about
>> > doing PIV if it comes to that. What she likes about him is his
>> > qualities of being simple, good at heart and good sense of humor. This
>> > is what she likes about me as well ( that what she said !).
>>
>> > Anyway, its been a long background. We agreed on keeping very open
>> > communication about it. She is still reluctant to share specifics. I
>> > also asked her to go slow and let me figure out my emotional reaction
>> > to it. At rational level I am all for it and don't find anything wrong
>> > with the idea but at emotional level my reaction was a bit of a
>> > surprise for me. All day i had been oscillating between feeling bad
>> > about and feeling good about and getting exited.
>>
>> > I know open communication is a must. Please feel free to dissect what
>> > I have shared. I know you love doing this :) Any pointer to areas I
>> > should explore in our communication as well as in talking to myself.
>>
>> > thanks
>>
>> > Wiz
>>
>> > P.s. English is not my first language. Please ignore my limitations
>> > there.
>>
>> The way I'm reading your post is this: You fantasized about your wife
>> having an affair and knowing everything that is going on for her. She
>> felt alone and not close to you. She is contemplating having an
>> affair, but is keeping the details to herself. She is seeking
>> intimacy, the kind she doesn't have with you. You want her to divulge
>> her feelings regarding this other relationship. My comment is: Why
>> should she share her feelings with you, when you two haven't really
>> had an intimate relationship before anyway. Your wife, as you note
>> above, 'gets very depressed and
>> desperate for physical and emotional attention'. You have shared your
>> fantasies with her, but you haven't really communicated with her,
>> found out what she wants from your mutual relationship. I don't think
>> you have a case for insisting she communicates her feelings about
>> these other people. Seems to me your relationship with her has been
>> very one sided and now she's exploring other relationships. You cannot
>> control how other people deal with things. Her life is not an
>> extension of your fantasy world.
>
>
> Elizabeth,
> Your summary is mostly accurate but I feel the need to provide
> additional details on the state of our relationship.
[snip]
>
> Communication is an issue though. It is mostly one sides with all the
> attention focused on her.
NO! Problem here, *very* big one.
Communication is two ways in a relationship. Both of you need to hear/listen
to each other and respond to the needs one hears.
At the end of the day, maybe you need to part.
Tom Allen
> On Feb 3, 8:20 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>> I'm overstating this but it's similar: women - people - are often
>> fascinated with proximity to something that they would never do
>> themselves. For example, a lot of my friends like to suggest that they
>> know people related to various organized crime figures, but they would
>> never actually engage in that activity.
>>
>> Being *seen* with the "bad boys" enhances your social stock.
>>
>
> I think that there is another force at play here. Having a kink makes
> it clear that you have an interest in sex and also makes it likely
> that you will not be offended by somewhat unorthodox proposals. Being
> just plain vanilla makes it more believable that you will be offended.
I also think that for some people - and not just women - being with
somebody "bad" gives them permission to do or try things that they would
otherwise have not done. Some people choose partners who will aid and
abet because it makes them feel less responsible for crossing some line.
Denny Wheeler
>toramjero wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 6:11 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> toramjero wrote:
>>>> On Feb 3, 3:22 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
>>>> Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
>>>> they get older.
>>> :cough cough:
>>>
>>> Speak for yourself, youngster!
>>
>> OK. You and Remus are the exception to the rule.
>
>Not at all. You could ask Gordon or Norton about it.
Or me.
--
"Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
winds up persecuting someone else."
-Philip Pullman
-denny-
(not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)
suzee
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:39:16 -0700, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> toramjero wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 6:11 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> toramjero wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 3, 3:22 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
>>>>> Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
>>>>> they get older.
>>>> :cough cough:
>>>>
>>>> Speak for yourself, youngster!
>>> OK. You and Remus are the exception to the rule.
>> Not at all. You could ask Gordon or Norton about it.
>
> Or me.
Okay Denny, are you getting better? Or maybe we should ask Desi...
sue
Denny Wheeler
I'm definitely better than I was, say, 10 years ago. And a lot of
that I owe to the internet. I grew up with a lot of hangups about
sex; while they're not all gone, they're affecting me far less now.
Now, if we define "better" simply with reference to physical ability
(in particular wrt sustaining erections), no, I'm not better. But in
terms of caring, in terms of enjoying sex and helping partner to enjoy
it? Yeah. I've been getting better in those respects for at least 30
years.
Feel free to ask Desi, of course.
Matthew Vincent
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:48:45 -0700, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
> >Denny Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:39:16 -0700, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>
> >>> toramjero wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 3, 6:11 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>> toramjero wrote:
> >>>>>> On Feb 3, 3:22 pm, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> You're getting better? Did the find the secret of eternal youth?
> >>>>>> Pardon my surprise, but I don't think that anyone is getting better as
> >>>>>> they get older.
> >>>>> :cough cough:
>
> >>>>> Speak for yourself, youngster!
> >>>> OK. You and Remus are the exception to the rule.
> >>> Not at all. You could ask Gordon or Norton about it.
>
> >> Or me.
>
> >Okay Denny, are you getting better? Or maybe we should ask Desi...
>
> I'm definitely better than I was, say, 10 years ago. And a lot of
> that I owe to the internet. I grew up with a lot of hangups about
> sex; while they're not all gone, they're affecting me far less now.
Yep, the internet is a great thing indeed.
> Now, if we define "better" simply with reference to physical ability
> (in particular wrt sustaining erections), no, I'm not better. But in
> terms of caring, in terms of enjoying sex and helping partner to
> enjoy it? Yeah. I've been getting better in those respects for
> at least 30 years.
Well, those are the important things. :)
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
>I reread my commnets and feel that may be I am not being
>fair to her. She must be doing something right to keep me
>engaged. Its only that I am not able to say it that clearly.
Growing awareness of whatever is or isn't present in your relationship
would be an advantage, especially when polyamory is being considered.
>My response has its own merit though since this is how I feel.
Indeed.
<snip>
>I don't think it was an abusive relationship. It is only that they had
>little in common and she had that relationship because she was very
>lonely. Was she the abuser here because she was using him?
No, I don't think that at all. In my book, "abuse" means either
physical or/and sexual violence, or/and a systematic and intentional
pattern of emotional battery. Anything short of that is not abuse, and
one of my pet peeves is not wanting to see real abuse trivialised by
defining the term overinclusively.
I do not think that either you or your wife have done anything even
remotely within the ballpark of committing abuse against anyone. I'm
relieved to hear that your wife was not abused in her past
relationship.
>She has mentioned some desire to be dominated no
>where near what you are suggesting.
That's cool. Lots of people have a genuine sexual interest in BDSM
without it being unhealthy, and I wasn't meaning to suggest otherwise.
How does her desire to be dominated play out with you? Do your
interests in the area match well with hers?
>Since this post started, we have talked about
>this particular aspect of I not feeling good about
>it. We need to go slow and unless I need to
>makeup my mind. The fact that I had this
>fantasy does not mean now I have no option
>but to accept it.
Agreed. Lots of people have fantasies that they don't necessarily want
to act out. It sounds like your fantasies about your wife having sex
with others have been something you used to help you cope with the low
frequency of sex in your relationship in the past.
Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the idea of my girlfriend
having sex with others but I'd be gravely concerned if they wanted me
to be excluded from knowing the details or from knowing the content of
her conversations with someone else. My girlfriend feels the same way
about me in return, and our relationship contract includes coming
first to each other over this. So, I think this part of your feelings
is very understandable regardless of whether you or your wife turn out
to be poly-inclined.
<snip>
>When talking about her desire to have sexual
>relationship(s), one of her argument is that it
>is very 'natural'
How "natural" would it be for her if *you* were to have sexual
relationships with other partners besides her? Would this feel
comfortable for her, or would it lead to insecurity and panic on her
part, and maybe jealousy? I'm not suggesting by any means that you
should rush out and do this, but I'm curious to know what her
perspective on it would be.
>and what would be the point to spend so much
>time, money and go through pain to try to suppress
>a natural desire ! Interesting simplification. Isn't it.
I suppose it is.
>>Also, it is my view (on a number of accounts, not all
>>of which I've covered yet) that it is almost certainly not healthy for
>>either you or your wife to be having any other partners at this time.
>
>I am moving towards this, but to be honest I am going through
>emotions whihc are different during the day and night.
I'd recommend that both partners should be consistently comfortable.
Some of my initial concerns seem to have been overly risk-aversive.
Still, it can't hurt to try to ensure that both of you feel
comfortable before going further. Also, I think that growing awareness
of your relationship with your wife would be useful; this is important
in *any* relationship, naturally, but in a way it's even more
important in an open relationship. Unmet emotional or/and sexual needs
in one's primary relationship can be problematic when one adds other
partners into the mix. They're bound to eventually cause problems in
*any* relationship, but a monogamous relationship at least provides a
temporary buffer zone.
This is why, in my view, a solid primary relationship with good
communication and awareness is of importance to having a successful
open relationship. Ideally, keeping unmet emotional and sexual needs
to a minimum is helpful, as is having the relationship fair and
balanced.
Matthew
Denny Wheeler
>Okay Denny, are you getting better? Or maybe we should ask Desi...
She read this exchange and
Desideria (12:04 AM):
Tell suzee that Desi would definitely state she has NO complaints,
especially about your ability to help your partner enjoy herself.
(now if we were both a bit more slim, and I were a bit more
flexible...)
suzee
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:48:45 -0700, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Okay Denny, are you getting better? Or maybe we should ask Desi...
>
> She read this exchange and
> Desideria (12:04 AM):
> Tell suzee that Desi would definitely state she has NO complaints,
> especially about your ability to help your partner enjoy herself.
> (now if we were both a bit more slim, and I were a bit more
> flexible...)
As long as you're both having fun and enjoying it... <WEG>
sue
Denny Wheeler
I certainly am, and by all reports, so's she. <big smile>
Dave
was claimed to have wrote:
>The difference between cheating and polyamory is that in cheating you
>keep it hidden from your partner; with poly there's consent from your
>partner. I wasn't necessarily equating them.
In terms of wiring though, it may originate from the same place, a
desire for a single partner vs multiple partners, with the social
component allowing the partners to be open and honest, or not.
Obviously it's more complex then that, many affairs are as a result of
something missing or lacking in the marriage, but certainly not all have
this as a root cause.
suzee
> In message <gm9ufm$ujp$1...@news.motzarella.org> suzee <su...@imbris.com>
> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>> The difference between cheating and polyamory is that in cheating you
>> keep it hidden from your partner; with poly there's consent from your
>> partner. I wasn't necessarily equating them.
>
> In terms of wiring though, it may originate from the same place, a
> desire for a single partner vs multiple partners, with the social
> component allowing the partners to be open and honest, or not.
That's true. It's how you go about dealing with those desires that
determine cheating vs poly.
> Obviously it's more complex then that, many affairs are as a result of
> something missing or lacking in the marriage, but certainly not all have
> this as a root cause.
Not at all. The sex may be very good, but there could be emotional needs
that are unmet as well, boredom, lack of common interests... many things.
sue
toramjero
> Dave wrote:
> > In message <gm9ufm$uj...@news.motzarella.org> suzee <su...@imbris.com>
I suppose that many affairs also simply arise from having
opportunities. In any case the opposite is true: if one does not have
opportunities, there can be discontent or unmet emotional needs, but
cheating won't happen for lack of a partner. There are plenty of
people in that case (who are dissatisfied with their partner but still
do not cheat).
illecebra
<snip>
> I understand the idiom. I dispute that it is a "wiring". I think that it
> over half of humanity has affairs at some point, according to your
> theory, that would mean that over half of humanity is "wired" to be
> poly.
> temptations.
I disagree entirely. I know many people who choose monogamy despite
plentiful opportunities to do otherwise. Cheating and polyamory are
completely unrelated.
Monogamous relationships are defined by their exclusivity, an idea of
ownership and of safety. Cheating is about giving in to temptation --
it's most often rationalized by claiming that one's partner is not giving
all that is owed to the relationship, or that one "didn't mean to" and
"it just happened" -- sometimes both. When a mono person cheats, the
relationships are by nature at odds with one another.
Polyamorous relationships each seem to find their own footing, they are
defined by what each partner *will* do more than by what they *won't*
do. It's just a different way of thinking. There is no disowning one's
behavior -- terms are negotiated as relationships form and change.
Similarly, there's no idea of being "safe" or "done" -- all relationships
are expected to see flux and need renegotiation from time to time.
Relationships are ideally never at odds with one another. It's quite fun
to go out with one's spouse, one's lover, and that lover's other lover
for a nice dinner once in a while, and insights gained from talking
relationships with one's significant other's other significant other can
be invaluable ;)
I've never experienced being a mono, so perhaps I don't explain that
well. I can say that I remember talking to one of my little friends
about grown-up relationships during a sleepover early in my childhood and
wondering even then why one couldn't have some wonderfully close people
with whom to share "romantic things and kissing" with, instead of only
one person forever. I just didn't get it, despite my fairly strict
Catholic upbringing. I was never wired that way.
--illecebra
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I know many people who choose monogamy despite
>plentiful opportunities to do otherwise. Cheating and polyamory are
>completely unrelated.
On the contrary, cheating and polyamory share one vital thing in common: they
both involve multiple partners. The only difference between them is that in a
cheating scenario, one partner is kept in the dark regarding the other's
activities, while everything is presumably above board in a polyamorous
scenario. Most cheaters would love it to be okay for them to have multiple
partners and for everything to be open and honest. Monogamous rules get in the
way of that.
>Monogamous relationships are defined by their exclusivity, an idea of
>ownership and of safety.
So are polyamorous relationships, except that there are usually many partners
involved in the web rather than only two people.
>Cheating is about giving in to temptation --
>it's most often rationalized by claiming that one's partner is not giving
>all that is owed to the relationship, or that one "didn't mean to" and
>"it just happened" -- sometimes both. When a mono person cheats, the
>relationships are by nature at odds with one another.
Spoken from personal experience, I gather? *grin* Monogamous people cheat for
many reasons, temptation or deprivation at home being only two. Just as
polyamorous people can find themselves in love with new people despite their
steady partners, monogamous people can find themselves in love with new or old
friends without necessarily intending to do so. You're making it sound like
cheating is motivated by less pure desires than polyamory and I'm saying that
both share a common desire to love and be loved by many people rather than only
one. The only difference is that the cheater breaks the rules before being
given permission, while permission is supposed to be built into any polyamorous
agreement.
>Polyamorous relationships each seem to find their own footing, they are
>defined by what each partner *will* do more than by what they *won't*
>do.
Plenty of poly agreements have prohibitions. Some forbid sex with others in the
marital bed. Others forbid the exchange of bodily fluids. Some prohibit certain
kinds of kisses, caresses or sexual activities. Still others prohibit romantic
attachments. Poly people have boundaries too. They even get jealous.
>It's just a different way of thinking. There is no disowning one's
>behavior -- terms are negotiated as relationships form and change.
>Similarly, there's no idea of being "safe" or "done" -- all relationships
>are expected to see flux and need renegotiation from time to time.
>Relationships are ideally never at odds with one another. It's quite fun
>to go out with one's spouse, one's lover, and that lover's other lover
>for a nice dinner once in a while, and insights gained from talking
>relationships with one's significant other's other significant other can
>be invaluable ;)
Hooray for Susan's poly utopia! Now, can we have some real descriptions of
polyamory? First, there are most definitely poly breakups where relationships
actually do end rather than get renegotiated. Second, not all polywebs are
peaceful and happy. Not all polyamorous people go out to dinner with their
partner's partners for a feel-good relationship exchange.
>I've never experienced being a mono, so perhaps I don't explain that
>well.
You can say that again.
>I can say that I remember talking to one of my little friends
>about grown-up relationships during a sleepover early in my childhood and
>wondering even then why one couldn't have some wonderfully close people
>with whom to share "romantic things and kissing" with, instead of only
>one person forever. I just didn't get it, despite my fairly strict
>Catholic upbringing. I was never wired that way.
Congratulations for finding a way to live how you've been wired all along. But
please, stop moralizing and pontificating against cheating because it's a short
walk from cheating to polyamory, mostly involving permission or consent. While
I am not necessarily an advocate of cheating, there are irreconcilable periods
in a relationship when one partner needs more than the other can give. At those
times, one either agitates for polyamory and gets summarily rebuffed, breaks up
the relationship in hopes of finding something better or incurs the risks of
cheating. There are plenty of instances in which two people in a relationship
find themselves wanting different things. One wants to sleep late, while the
other wants to rise and shine with the sun. One wants to live in a cold
climate, while the other prefers warmth. One is a vegetarian while the other is
carnivorous. One likes sex every day while the other is fine with it every six
months. Cheating is merely the act of one person deciding to satisfy their own
needs without waiting for permission from the other. It is of course ideal for
people to understand each other's needs and grant each other the freedom to
satisfy them. But, this rarely happens in monogamous relationships. When one
gets tired of waiting, begging, cajoling and explaining, cheating sometimes
feels like the only viable option. It of course hurts when affairs are
discovered, but that pain is sometimes worth the satisfaction of long standing
unfulfilled desires. Some monogamous people are so committed to monogamy that
they'd rather lose their partner entirely than know they've chosen to sleep
with other people. When children, history and property become involved, it is
much more difficult for people to walk away on principle.
Orlando
toramjero
I have to say that I agree with Orlando here. Furthermore there is
something important that you did not realise apparently: you are not
talking about monogamy here. Monogamy, strictly speaking, is
exceptional: there are very, very few people who have had one partner
only all their life (and even than it may not be by choice as I know
from experience).
What you are talking about is SERIAL monogamy, a completely different
concept. And in serial monogamy people do have different partners and
break up when they are dissatisfied enough or when they find something
better, whether the partner agrees or not. What difference does it
make in the end if you say "I'll have sex with this person whether you
agree or not" or "I'll leave you to have sex with this person whether
you agree or not"? Either way, you have a conflict.
I think that most people are not adverse to the idea of having sex
with a further attractive member of the right sex when they are in a
committed relationship. The only reason that they do not do it is
because they can't. They can't because their partner strongly opposes
and they fear retaliation, or because of social pressure (including
religion) or because they lack this attractive person. But there is
ample evidence that, given the right circumstances, the majority of
humans will have sex on the side. I think that this majority is an
overwhelming one.
And if this is true, the only difference between poly and "mono" is
that poly people are able to find partners who agree or better at
convincing their partners, that's all.
Note that it is probably easier to convince your partner if you are
not jealous and agree to give him or her the same sexual liberties
that you want and that is a problem for many mono people who are
simply jealous and possessive. But the opposite is not true: one can
agree to let the partner have external sex and failed to convince him
or her of course.
Jana
> I think that most people are not adverse to the idea of having sex
> with a further attractive member of the right sex when they are in a
> committed relationship. The only reason that they do not do it is
> because they can't. They can't because their partner strongly opposes
> and they fear retaliation, or because of social pressure (including
> religion) or because they lack this attractive person.
I kinda don't do it because it would (in principle) hurt my partner and
I love him and don't want him to be hurt.
Jana
Dave
<ille...@nowhere.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>I disagree entirely. I know many people who choose monogamy despite
>plentiful opportunities to do otherwise. Cheating and polyamory are
>completely unrelated.
I look at this quite differently then most.
Cheating is violating the established rules of the relationship.
This can be any number of things, on one extreme, one friend (finally
divorced) was literally not allowed to be at all friendly with other
women or even look at them for "too long" (a term defined by his wife's
current emotional state)
And yes, this did make life difficult, since simply smiling at a cashier
or watching to see when a woman finished crossing the road could result
in a fight.
Oh, in her case, she also saw masturbating as cheating, as was porn, as
well as thinking about another woman while physically being with her.
Oddly, bachelorette parties were okay for her, despite the presence of
male dancers, but only because she wasn't interested in them (her
explanation) -- Weird.
A more common set of rules in western society is probably somewhere
along the line of allowing cheek-kisses with long time non-threatening
friends and grandparents, but otherwise nothing more intimate then
holding hands, and no unchaperoned "dating" activities without a
business justification (and even then, you're on shaky ground)
In my own relationship, the rules basically just require honesty, as
well as imposing some loose safe-sex rules, but otherwise don't enforce
any restrictions on physical interactions with other partners.
Polyamory is just a term to describe loose collection of rules, and
those rules vary from relationship to relationship, anywhere from my
form out to a multiple-partner shared accommodation solution.
I wouldn't equate cheating and polyamory in any significant way, one is
entirely about honesty (or lack-there-of) and the other is entirely
about permitted activities.
toramjero
Yes, I neglected to mention that. But doesn't it fit in the category
"their partner strongly opposes it"? Even if what you fear is not
exactly "retaliation", in the end you fear some emotional damage that
you will get from your partner.
toramjero
> In message <6vkm8mFkeg4...@mid.individual.net> illecebra
> <illece...@nowhere.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>
> >I disagree entirely. I know many people who choose monogamy despite
> >plentiful opportunities to do otherwise. Cheating and polyamory are
> >completely unrelated.
>
> I look at this quite differently then most.
>
> Cheating is violating the established rules of the relationship.
>
> This can be any number of things, on one extreme, one friend (finally
> divorced) was literally not allowed to be at all friendly with other
> women or even look at them for "too long" (a term defined by his wife's
> current emotional state)
>
> And yes, this did make life difficult, since simply smiling at a cashier
> or watching to see when a woman finished crossing the road could result
> in a fight.
>
> Oh, in her case, she also saw masturbating as cheating, as was porn, as
> well as thinking about another woman while physically being with her.
>
Is this really a true story? If it is, I am not surprised that your
friend divorced.
> Oddly, bachelorette parties were okay for her, despite the presence of
> male dancers, but only because she wasn't interested in them (her
> explanation) -- Weird.
>
And unfair.
> A more common set of rules in western society is probably somewhere
> along the line of allowing cheek-kisses with long time non-threatening
> friends and grandparents, but otherwise nothing more intimate then
> holding hands, and no unchaperoned "dating" activities without a
> business justification (and even then, you're on shaky ground)
>
> In my own relationship, the rules basically just require honesty, as
> well as imposing some loose safe-sex rules, but otherwise don't enforce
> any restrictions on physical interactions with other partners.
>
> Polyamory is just a term to describe loose collection of rules, and
> those rules vary from relationship to relationship, anywhere from my
> form out to a multiple-partner shared accommodation solution.
>
> I wouldn't equate cheating and polyamory in any significant way, one is
> entirely about honesty (or lack-there-of) and the other is entirely
> about permitted activities.
But how can you be dishonest when everything is permitted? And how can
you be honest when everything is prohibited? As in the case above:
"thinking about other women": if you impose such unreasonable
restrictions, you should not wonder that your partner lies. I mean: no-
one can really control what they THINK about, can they?
This is an aspect that I rarely see discussed about cheating: it takes
two to cheat. The one who lies, and the one who imposes the
restrictions which are broken.
illecebra
<snip>
> What would be a good starting point to understand polyamory and related
> issues.
<snip>
There's a newsgroup called alt.polyamory, though I rarely visit any more
as the signal:noise ratio is pretty bad at times despite having some
pretty neat posters around.
I can *highly* recommend the podcast "Polyamory Weekly" (consult your
favorite search engine), and some of the regulars here for good info.
--illecebra
Jana
Not really. I truly feel for my partner enough to be miserable when he's
in pain.
Jana
toramjero
I was not clear enough. I did not want to imply by "emotional damage"
that your partner will actively provoke it. "Being miserable when he
is in pain" is more like the "emotional damage" I was thinking about.
illecebra
> ille...@nowhere.invalid wrote:
>>I know many people who choose monogamy despite plentiful opportunities
>>to do otherwise. Cheating and polyamory are completely unrelated.
>
> On the contrary, cheating and polyamory share one vital thing in common:
> they both involve multiple partners. The only difference between them is
> that in a cheating scenario, one partner is kept in the dark regarding
> the other's activities, while everything is presumably above board in a
> polyamorous scenario. Most cheaters would love it to be okay for them to
> have multiple partners and for everything to be open and honest.
> Monogamous rules get in the way of that.
Actually, most so-called-mono "cheaters" I've met have been very
threatened or even outraged by polyamory. A few say they think it sounds
nice (yet don't have the guts to seek out such relationships), but most
are just as opposed to the idea as monos who don't cheat. You see, even
monos who cheat tend not to want their partners to have other partners,
or at least want not to know if they do.
>>Monogamous relationships are defined by their exclusivity, an idea of
>>ownership and of safety.
>
> So are polyamorous relationships, except that there are usually many
> partners involved in the web rather than only two people.
Uhh, no. I think you are thinking of "polygamy" which is an exclusive
marriage among multiple people. Polyamory is a much broader term,
meaning "loving many". The vast majority of polys I know pursue
relationships as they see fit, one relationship does not dictate what
other relationships exist, although some polys set boundaries such as
"this bed is just for you and me, your other partners need a different
space", etc. -- things that are limits on time, or spaces, etc, but not
on the relationships themselves.
>>Cheating is about giving in to temptation -- it's most often
>>rationalized by claiming that one's partner is not giving all that is
>>owed to the relationship, or that one "didn't mean to" and "it just
>>happened" -- sometimes both. When a mono person cheats, the
>>relationships are by nature at odds with one another.
>
> Spoken from personal experience, I gather? *grin*
Nope, which is why I admit I may be missing things -- I've never cheated
or been cheated on, just listened to the stories of others here and
elsewhere.
> Monogamous people
> cheat for many reasons, temptation or deprivation at home being only
> two. Just as polyamorous people can find themselves in love with new
> people despite their steady partners, monogamous people can find
> themselves in love with new or old friends without necessarily intending
> to do so.
If that is the case, are they really monogamous, or are they polys trying
to carry on a type of relationship (a monogamous one) that they don't
belong in?
> You're making it sound like cheating is motivated by less pure
> desires than polyamory
I'm not making it sound that way... it *is* that way. Lying, cheating,
promise-breaking, etc. are not noble things, you can't make them so by
changing your rhetoric. Poly people say "here's what I need and what I
have to offer, my partners need to know these things in order to
negotiate relationships that work for both/all of us". Cheating people
choose to be dishonest because either they don't care about how it
effects others in their lives, or they are too stupid to think at all
before they do something.
> and I'm saying that both share a common desire to
> love and be loved by many people rather than only one. The only
> difference is that the cheater breaks the rules before being given
> permission, while permission is supposed to be built into any
> polyamorous agreement.
You seem to think that honesty and informed consent are quite trivial.
That is sad for anyone you may attempt a relationship with.
>>Polyamorous relationships each seem to find their own footing, they are
>>defined by what each partner *will* do more than by what they *won't*
>>do.
>
> Plenty of poly agreements have prohibitions. Some forbid sex with others
> in the marital bed. Others forbid the exchange of bodily fluids. Some
> prohibit certain kinds of kisses, caresses or sexual activities. Still
> others prohibit romantic attachments. Poly people have boundaries too.
> They even get jealous.
I never said that poly people have no rules. I said that what defines a
poly relationship is the "dos" rather than the "don'ts". I'm trying to
illustrate the fundamental difference in how I and the other polys I know
approach relationships compared to monos.
>>It's just a different way of thinking. There is no disowning one's
>>behavior -- terms are negotiated as relationships form and change.
>>Similarly, there's no idea of being "safe" or "done" -- all
>>relationships are expected to see flux and need renegotiation from time
>>to time. Relationships are ideally never at odds with one another. It's
>>quite fun to go out with one's spouse, one's lover, and that lover's
>>other lover for a nice dinner once in a while, and insights gained from
>>talking relationships with one's significant other's other significant
>>other can be invaluable ;)
>
> Hooray for Susan's poly utopia! Now, can we have some real descriptions
> of polyamory?
I'm sorry if your poly experiences have been less awesome than mine.
I've not described poly life any differently than I have experienced it.
Perhaps if you are unsatisfied in your experiences, you need to think
about what you may be doing wrong instead of giving up and thinking that
good relationships aren't possible.
> First, there are most definitely poly breakups where
> relationships actually do end rather than get renegotiated. Second, not
> all polywebs are peaceful and happy. Not all polyamorous people go out
> to dinner with their partner's partners for a feel-good relationship
> exchange.
Not all human beings are functional, let alone capable of healthy
relationships. That isn't news. People who are mature and confident,
who are good communicators, who have the skills they need to create and
maintain healthy relationships and who make good choices in doing so, can
have satisfying low-drama relationships (mono or poly). Seriously, if
you are poly and you can't have a comfortable dinner with your SO's and
their SOs, or your SO's SOs, there is something very *wrong* with at
least one of those people or relationships.
<snip>
> Congratulations for finding a way to live how you've been wired all
> along. But please, stop moralizing and pontificating against cheating
Sorry if you don't have the courage to build the type of relationship(s)
you need/want, that doesn't make lying and promise-breaking okay.
Cheating is wrong. I am not going to pretend it's not to protect the
feelings of those who choose to cheat on their loved ones.
> because it's a short walk from cheating to polyamory, mostly involving
> permission or consent.
Informed consent is no small thing. I suppose you favor date rape then,
because "it's a short walk from" consensual sex, "mostly involving
permission or consent."
> While I am not necessarily an advocate of
> cheating, there are irreconcilable periods in a relationship when one
> partner needs more than the other can give. At those times, one either
> agitates for polyamory and gets summarily rebuffed, breaks up the
> relationship in hopes of finding something better or incurs the risks of
> cheating. There are plenty of instances in which two people in a
> relationship find themselves wanting different things. One wants to
> sleep late, while the other wants to rise and shine with the sun. One
> wants to live in a cold climate, while the other prefers warmth. One is
> a vegetarian while the other is carnivorous. One likes sex every day
> while the other is fine with it every six months.
So compromise, or break up, or agree to open up to other relationships.
Being dissatisfied doesn't make lying okay. (Hmm, my comment on excuses
above is seeming more realistic the more I read this.)
> Cheating is merely the
> act of one person deciding to satisfy their own needs without waiting
> for permission from the other.
Lying, willful deception...how can you apply "merely" to that?
> It is of course ideal for people to
> understand each other's needs and grant each other the freedom to
> satisfy them. But, this rarely happens in monogamous relationships.
Then the relationship and/or the people in it are broken. Cheating can
only compound the problem.
> When
> one gets tired of waiting, begging, cajoling and explaining, cheating
> sometimes feels like the only viable option.
And to some people, alcoholism or spousal abuse feel like the only viable
option. Guess what -- some people are cruel and/or stupid!
> It of course hurts when
> affairs are discovered, but that pain is sometimes worth the
> satisfaction of long standing unfulfilled desires.
To the one who cheated, it may be -- what did the one being cheated on
get in the deal? That person had to choice.
> Some monogamous
> people are so committed to monogamy that they'd rather lose their
> partner entirely than know they've chosen to sleep with other people.
That is their choice. It is perfectly reasonable to say "these are the
relationship terms I can live with -- if they don't work for you we do
not belong together".
> When children, history and property become involved, it is much more
> difficult for people to walk away on principle.
With children, I can see your point, though really finding out one parent
cheated on the other isn't good for them either. As for property and
history, either it's worth living with the other person's terms or it's
not. If it's not, then stop whining and move on. If it is, then do it.
What are you teaching your children if you can't even be honest with your
spouse?
toramjero
Mmhh. Very interesting description. I think that I understand how it
works in principle, but I have a problem with the practicalities.
At various points in the text, you describe the aspect of negotiation,
making it sound as if it were easy if only people had sufficient
courage. I can't really relate to that. How do you "negotiate" with
new partners? Aren't many of them surprised and shocked at the idea?
I am a man, maybe you see things differently as an openly polyamorous
woman. It has been some years since I last "negotiated" a
relationship, but I remember that, for all the women I met, the
"exclusivity" clause was not negotiable. I suppose that you know what
I mean, because this is quite the mainstream opinion in our culture:
most people have this "model" of relationship where love equals
commitment. Most people have this idea that one can only "love" one
person, it actually belongs to their definition of "love".
So, to put it frankly, I do not see how this is supposed to work. I
don't see myself negotiating an open relationship and having the
opposite party rejoice at the idea. As a man, when I imagine talking
relationships with a woman, I can't imagine myself saying that I would
like her and me to be more than friends but keep the relationship open
without imagining that she would answer that she wants exclusive love,
or that she would voice more conflictual comments about men who always
want to have their cake and eat it too. I said it has been some years,
but this was roughly my experience before I married some 20 years ago.
So the question is: how do you find people who do not run at the idea?
Is it easier for a woman? Are we different generations and did those
things change in recent times?
I realize that I also neglected to clearly negotiate this part with my
present wife. It simply is something she assumes but on which we do
not quite agree. I never asked her for a promise of exclusivity,
simply because the idea seems absurd to me. I have had, some years
ago, an indication that she may have pursued a short extra-marital
affair, but I never asked about it. I respect her silence in this
matter. So in this respect I am true to my idea that I did not ask for
exclusivity. From her side, she assumes a promise of exclusivity which
I actually never made. It worked in practice, because I did not have
any occasion to be more than friends with another woman in those 20
years. But in the unlikely event that another woman would be
interested to me more than friends with me, we would have a problem
indeed. Of course all this is rather theoretical, since I do not know
a woman who would be interested in a married man.
All this description of polyamory is very nice and makes sense in
theory, but I have a bit the impression to hear about a different
planet. I can't relate it to any experience I have had in real life.
Why?
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Actually, most so-called-mono "cheaters" I've met have been very
>threatened or even outraged by polyamory. A few say they think it
sounds
>nice (yet don't have the guts to seek out such relationships),
Polyamory takes more than mere guts to seek out; it takes willing participants.
Plenty of poly individuals lament the dearth of possible partners where they
live.
>Uhh, no. I think you are thinking of "polygamy" which is an exclusive
>marriage among multiple people.
Have you never heard of poly fidelity? That is quite different from polygamy.
>Polyamory is a much broader term,
>meaning "loving many". The vast majority of polys I know pursue
>relationships as they see fit, one relationship does not dictate what
>other relationships exist, although some polys set boundaries such as
>"this bed is just for you and me, your other partners need a different
>space", etc. -- things that are limits on time, or spaces, etc, but not
>on the relationships themselves.
Nonsense! Just lurk around alt.polyamory for a few days and someone will
discuss jealousy and veto powers.
>Lying, cheating, promise-breaking, etc. are not noble things, you can't make them so by
>changing your rhetoric.
I never claimed lying or cheating to be noble; I merely attempted to explain
some possible reasons for such behaviors.
>Poly people say "here's what I need and what I
>have to offer, my partners need to know these things in order to
>negotiate relationships that work for both/all of us". Cheating people
>choose to be dishonest because either they don't care about how it
>effects others in their lives, or they are too stupid to think at all
>before they do something.
You're overcomplicating matters here. The only real difference between monogamy
and polyamory is the number of partners. Mono people are inherently opposed to
any relationship configuration involving multiple partners because they feel
their supremacy will be threatened or supplanted by new partners. In fact, some
mono people feel threatened by the mere presence of anyone else significant on
the horizon, whether or not an actual romantic or sexual relationship exists.
>You seem to think that honesty and informed consent are quite trivial.
>That is sad for anyone you may attempt a relationship with.
Honesty and informed consent are not trivial at all, but sometimes necessary.
We lie to each other about all sorts of things, large and small. We lie about
where we are if we don't want to be discovered. We lie about what time we woke
up if we want to justify lateness. We lie about who's responsible for an
accident if it means our insurance company will handle the claim. We lie to
ourselves about what we've eaten or how much we exercise. Lying is the attempt
to create an alternate reality from the one actually being experienced,
especially if the odious reality carries serious repercussions.
>I never said that poly people have no rules. I said that what defines a
>poly relationship is the "dos" rather than the "don'ts". I'm trying to
>illustrate the fundamental difference in how I and the other polys I know
>approach relationships compared to monos.
Poly relationships are often built as much around prohibitions as openness and
inclusion. I think you're painting polyamory with an overly broad idealistic
brush, perhaps because you're young and enthusiastic about it.
>I'm sorry if your poly experiences have been less awesome than mine.
>I've not described poly life any differently than I have experienced it.
>Perhaps if you are unsatisfied in your experiences, you need to think
>about what you may be doing wrong instead of giving up and thinking that
>good relationships aren't possible.
This discussion is academic because I'm not currently in a polyamorous
relationship, even though I consider myself a philosophical sympathizer.
Honestly, my four-year-and-counting monogamous relationship is so rewarding
that I wouldn't give it up for the sexual freedom I might find in a rare poly
relationship.
>Not all human beings are functional, let alone capable of healthy
>relationships. That isn't news. People who are mature and confident,
>who are good communicators, who have the skills they need to create and
>maintain healthy relationships and who make good choices in doing so, can
>have satisfying low-drama relationships (mono or poly).
Idealism speaks again. It takes much more than competent individual
communicators to build good relationships because relationships are not
governed by single individuals. If I want to get good at a musical instrument,
painting, cooking, poetry or any other endeavor, I can lock myself in "the
shed" and practice until I'm ready for prime time. But, relationship success
involves at least two people on the same wave length and wanting the same
things. As you surely know, relationships can start out with both people in the
same zone, but end up discombobulated and estranged because the people involved
have each grown in separate directions. It may have nothing to do with the
individuals' communicative or amorous skills.
>Seriously, if you are poly and you can't have a comfortable dinner with your SO's and
>their SOs, or your SO's SOs, there is something very *wrong* with at
>least one of those people or relationships.
Not all poly relationships require contact between sets of partners. Some poly
people never even meet their partners' partners, while others insist it is a
prerequisite.
>Sorry if you don't have the courage to build the type of relationship(s)
>you need/want, that doesn't make lying and promise-breaking okay.
I've tried having the courage to wait for my ideal relationship, and found
myself doing far too much waiting.
>Cheating is wrong. I am not going to pretend it's not to protect the
>feelings of those who choose to cheat on their loved ones.
We're not going to get anywhere by butting heads in this manner. You may be
polyamorous, but when it comes to cheating, you adopt a rather conservative
morality emphasizing betrayal and honesty. Plenty of cultures expect that
people will cheat in overtly monogamous relationships; provisions and etiquette
are developed to handle those situations. One thinks of the French multiple
mistress stereotype or the classic wandering Latin eye. One also thinks of the
independent black woman with multiple partners because one does not satisfy all
her needs. Your lexicon has two switches: mono and poly. That's it. You either
start out wanting multiple partners or stick to a monogamous agreement. I'm
saying that relationship lexicons can include other types of moral frameworks.
There are honorable ways for men and women in monogamous relationships to have
other lovers, stopping short of completely open polyamory but also not entirely
deceitful either.
>Informed consent is no small thing. I suppose you favor date rape then,
>because "it's a short walk from" consensual sex, "mostly involving
>permission or consent."
Are you truly incapable of sufficient logic to realize that there's a
difference between cheating and date rape Cheating involves nonconsent for a
partner to have another. But, the secondary relationship takes place during
people's independent time. If a man wants another lover, he is only given two
options by traditional Western society: either he cheats or he opens his
monogamous relationship. And if the wife will not consent to a "don't ask,
don't tell" arrangement or any flavor of polyamory, the man is faced with the
stark choice of breakup or perpetual misery. Where's his consent there The
wife's withheld consent is supposed to be respected at all costs, but what
about the husband's desires What about another person who has fallen in love
with a member of an existing couple Don't they get a say too? You would say
that unless they made the polyamorous agreement, they don't. But, this is
ridiculous because we are approached by competition every day. Think about it.
You've already had lunch, but you step into another restaurant for some
dessert. You already have a job, but someone offers you something part-time
that does not conflict with the job you already have. You have a copy of a
certain recording, but someone offers you a remastered one. You've paid full
price for a car, but someone offers you a better quality used vehicle at a
lower price. This is all healthy competition. Relationships, whether poly or
mono, encounter competition. You're happy with your spouse of thirty years, but
meet someone who also attracts you. You were about to get married, but your
first love reenters the picture a week before the wedding. You have a monogamy
agreement with your domestic partner, but meet someone exciting and new on
vacation. You make it sound as simple as poly people being entirely open to
competition, while mono people are locked away. The truth is more difficult to
classify. Plenty of poly people are theoretically free to have dozens of
partners, yet stick to only one or two at a time. Mono people are supposed to
desire only one partner, yet some end up cheating with hundreds. My sense from
this discussion is that your relationship taxonomy is excessively simplistic
and moralistic. You believe that there are only two alternatives: monogamy and
polyamory. What about swinging? What about nonsexual but intimate Platonic
relationships What about monogamous relationships between opposite sexes as
fronts for homosexual ones behind closed doors? There are a myriad ways in
which people relate. Sometimes, they agree to stay with one until death parts
them. Other times, they agree that anyone can be with anyone. Other times, they
agree that love is reserved for one, while sex is reserved for anyone of the
opposite sex with a clean bill of health. Some agree that a homosexual
relationship will be primary, while heterosexual tristes can happen on the
side. With others, the homosexual versus heterosexual divide is converse.
>So compromise, or break up, or agree to open up to other relationships.
As usual, three choices and that's it. Oh, if life were always reduceable to
three little choices, how easy it would be. Compromise, break up or open the
relationship, huh? What if one partner now has a different sexual preference,
but there is still love within the couple? Compromise? What if one person wants
to open the relationship, while the other wants to break up at the mere mention
of the idea? Compromise? What if one person can no longer have sex because of
illness? Break up? What if one person wants to open the relationship, while the
other's pride or cultural upbringing will not abide it? What then? Compromise,
break up or force the relationship open?
>Being dissatisfied doesn't make lying okay.
You're confusing cause and effect with right and wrong. They're two separate
lexicons. I'm saying that dissatisfaction often leads to cheating, but not that
it makes cheating right. I'm not making a moral claim on behalf of cheating,
just giving some reasons for its existence.
>Lying, willful deception...how can you apply "merely" to that?
I get it. In your moral lexicon, lying is never justified. So, when someone
invites you for dinner and you hate what they've cooked, you can't make an
excuse to decline the invitation or taste a few bites and claim lack of hunger?
No, it would surely make your host feel good to know you dislike their food and
they'd forget their hurt feelings because you were honest. Come on!
>Then the relationship and/or the people in it are broken. Cheating can
>only compound the problem.
There is only a problem when this relentless moralizing takes over a
relationship. Cheating can enable one person to get off the other's back about
what they're not doing.
>And to some people, alcoholism or spousal abuse feel like the only viable
>option. Guess what -- some people are cruel and/or stupid!
No comparison. There are different punishments for different types of crimes
because the law acknowledges that one punishment is inappropriate for all
crimes. Spousal abuse, for instance, puts the abused spouse in constant
physical danger, forces her to fear every moment and second guess every
movement for fear of incurring more random wrath. Cheating only forces the
wronged spouse to decide whether to refrain from sex as a punishment, get
another partner themselves or opt out of the relationship. Those choices do not
compare with physical violence in any universe.
>To the one who cheated, it may be -- what did the one being cheated on
>get in the deal?
In two cases where I was cheated upon, I got to find out that I would never
entirely satisfy the particular women who cheated on me. When I was the
cheater, I stopped pestering my ex wife for sex, which was a relief to her.
>What are you teaching your children if you can't even be honest with your
>spouse?
What are you teaching your children if the only three possible responses to
mismatched sexual desires are breakup, compromise or polyamory?
I don't know how much further this discussion can continue with our respective
positions. Your mind is strictly binary. Relationships are either polyamorous
or monogamous. It's like there's only one or many. I'm saying that
relationships don't always work in binary terms. There are times when there can
be only one of one type, but two of another, or one of one gender and four of
another, or one forever, or three for six months, then two, then one forever.
You get the idea.
Orlando
Dave
<7038635d-4a3d-4258...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>On Feb 13, 7:15 pm, Dave <calgaryg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In message <6vkm8mFkeg4...@mid.individual.net> illecebra
>> <illece...@nowhere.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>> >I disagree entirely. I know many people who choose monogamy despite
>> >plentiful opportunities to do otherwise. Cheating and polyamory are
>> >completely unrelated.
>>
>> I look at this quite differently then most.
>>
>> Cheating is violating the established rules of the relationship.
>>
>> This can be any number of things, on one extreme, one friend (finally
>> divorced) was literally not allowed to be at all friendly with other
>> women or even look at them for "too long" (a term defined by his wife's
>> current emotional state)
>>
>> And yes, this did make life difficult, since simply smiling at a cashier
>> or watching to see when a woman finished crossing the road could result
>> in a fight.
>>
>> Oh, in her case, she also saw masturbating as cheating, as was porn, as
>> well as thinking about another woman while physically being with her.
>
>Is this really a true story?
Sadly, yes.
>If it is, I am not surprised that your
>friend divorced.
She was a little bit unstable at the best of times though, this was just
one particular manifestation.
They split some time ago now. She's now on Lithium and seems to be more
stable, although still obsessively jealous.
>> Oddly, bachelorette parties were okay for her, despite the presence of
>> male dancers, but only because she wasn't interested in them (her
>> explanation) -- Weird.
>
>And unfair.
You'd think.
On one hand, she was absolutely correct that he was interested in each
and every moderately attractive female wandering within his field of
view, and he was not particularly subtle about checking women out, so it
was pretty obvious he was violating the "not fantasizing about other
women" rule.
In other words, I can understand her being upset, given her tendency
toward jealousy (although I don't subscribe to this viewpoint myself, I
can understand)
*shrugs*
I think they're both idiots; independently as individuals, for getting
together in the first place, and for marrying despite their obviously
different social viewpoints.
>> A more common set of rules in western society is probably somewhere
>> along the line of allowing cheek-kisses with long time non-threatening
>> friends and grandparents, but otherwise nothing more intimate then
>> holding hands, and no unchaperoned "dating" activities without a
>> business justification (and even then, you're on shaky ground)
>>
>> In my own relationship, the rules basically just require honesty, as
>> well as imposing some loose safe-sex rules, but otherwise don't enforce
>> any restrictions on physical interactions with other partners.
>>
>> Polyamory is just a term to describe loose collection of rules, and
>> those rules vary from relationship to relationship, anywhere from my
>> form out to a multiple-partner shared accommodation solution.
>>
>> I wouldn't equate cheating and polyamory in any significant way, one is
>> entirely about honesty (or lack-there-of) and the other is entirely
>> about permitted activities.
>
>But how can you be dishonest when everything is permitted?
If I say to my g/f that I'm going out to be with another girl, that's
honest. If I say I'm working late and go out with another girl, that's
dishonest.
I'd suggest that such dishonesty is automatically stupid since it would
be permitted under the terms of the relationship, but it would still be
dishonest and quite frankly, I'd classify it as cheating. Our rules
require honesty (with regards to answering questions), and some level of
disclosure, at least a rough idea of who/what/where, although that's
more about safety, peace of mind and common courtesy so that I know
whether to cook for one or two, whether to wait up or not, whether she's
got plans or was hit by a bus, etc.
Despite our openness, we haven't actually sat down and negotiated all of
the specific point by point rules, but we have similar viewpoints and
understand each other's needs, and we err on the side of more
communication rather then less. The system isn't perfect, but it works.
>And how can you be honest when everything is prohibited?
Don't commit to any terms that you can't abide by, and abide by any
terms to which you commit.
>As in the case above:
>"thinking about other women": if you impose such unreasonable
>restrictions, you should not wonder that your partner lies. I mean: no-
>one can really control what they THINK about, can they?
I think it depends on your definition of think. Sure, your mind may
occasionally wander or take you places you don't plan to go, but it's
one thing to have a "nice boobs" moment as you avert your eyes while a
waitress leans just the right away across the table, it's another
entirely to consciously create a fantasy about her later that afternoon.
The "nice boobs" moment just happens, the other is something you can
control (at least with a bit of discipline)
Personally, I would never give up the right to think whatever I want
about whatever I want, but if you choose to enter into such an
agreement, then I would highly encourage you to stand up to your promise
(for degrees of "you" that probably don't include any readers of this
rambly post)
>This is an aspect that I rarely see discussed about cheating: it takes
>two to cheat. The one who lies, and the one who imposes the
>restrictions which are broken.
I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with this -- If both parties agree to
the restrictions, then one violates the rules, I put the entirety of the
blame on the violator.
If, on the other hand, the rules are assigned unilaterally without
negotiation/discussion/mutual-agreement then I'd put the blame primarily
on that individual, and less-so on the one who violated a rule to which
they never agreed to in the first place.
If only life were that simple.
Unfortunately not all couples sit down and discuss things, which leaves
room for ambiguity. In western society you can normally assume that
having any sort of unnecessary intimate physical contact outside an
established relationship is cheating, but beyond that, the specific
rules get a little more fuzzy (and even within that definition, you may
need to define the word "is")
There is no universal definition of that line, no rule book to consult,
and in a typical monogamous relationship things will probably get weird
if one partner tries to site down and define that line.
Wiz
thanks
toramjero
As you noted, life is not that simple. Couples do not discuss
restrictions usually, lots of them are assumed and the restrictions
often change unilaterally. Relationships are a dynamic state and imply
some kind of power game to a point.
Why do people agree to restrictions? Everyone's self-interest is to
have as little restrictions to their liberties as possible. It is a
give and take where one would trade restrictions of his or her
liberties to equivalent concessions on the other end. But, in the
course of time, people try to improve their end of the deal. And yes:
they are not always honest about it. Often they are not even honest
with themselves about it.
If you see this negotiation as what it really is: a contract, you will
find out that things evolve with years so that promises can't be set
in stone and that "cheating" goes beyond the sexual realm. For
example: if your wife has negotiated her sexual liberty with you when
you were 20, physically attractive and energetic, and after 20 years
you are a grumpy couch potato who doesn't go out as he used to do, you
will also have "cheated" in the sense that you have cheated the
contract. OTOH, maybe your wife is not quite the partying hottie that
she used to be as well and the contract needs redefining.
It is this constant evolving process that causes many problems in
couples. It is de facto a power game where each party tries to improve
their positions: making as little concessions as possible while
keeping the restrictions imposed on the other end active. It takes a
very strong mind to stay honest at this game and many people do not
have such strong minds which explains why so many couples have
relationship problems.
You also noted that some things are automatically assumed in western
society. That is another aspect: to be able to negotiate one needs a
partner. When the rules of society make part of the clauses of the
negotiation pre-written, one may not be able to find a partner for the
type of arrangement they want, even if this arrangement is, as such,
reasonable for both parties. The choices are then to accept a type of
contract that they do not like or live alone, not an attractive choice
for a social animal as humans are. For example: arrangements in
polyamory appear reasonably balanced to me. But I still have not
figured out how people can find a partner for such an arrangement,
giving that in our society sexual exclusivity appears, at least to me,
to belong to those unwritten non-negotiable clauses.
illecebra
<snip>
> Mmhh. Very interesting description. I think that I understand how it
> works in principle, but I have a problem with the practicalities. At
> various points in the text, you describe the aspect of negotiation,
> making it sound as if it were easy if only people had sufficient
> courage. I can't really relate to that. How do you "negotiate" with new
> partners? Aren't many of them surprised and shocked at the idea?
I'm a bit more careful with people I meet through interests (firearms,
tactical knives, motorsports) that draw more conservative crowds than
others (writing, technology, RP, BDSM). In the latter case, the fact
that I'm poly comes up pretty naturally; even those who aren't poly
generally know what polyamory is and whether they are interested in poly
relationships.
That leaves what to do about a love interest who likely has never heard
of polyamory. I tend to try to feel people out early on to see how
traditional they are (or, as my best friend puts it, how easily they
scare). When I flirt, I'll make comments that allude to BDSM (another
one of my interests) or polylife, and judge their reaction. If I'm
scaring someone, I'd rather move on without outing myself.
For those who don't seem likely to panic, I bring polyamory up (if it
hasn't come up already of its own accord) when I'm certain that both he
and I are interested in more than flirting. I'll ask him if he knows
what polyamory is, and the questions usually flow pretty naturally from
there.
Some men aren't interested in me because I'm poly, that has never
bothered me much. What can really hurt is when someone new to polyamory
thinks they are wired for it and they just aren't. There is a certain
safety to becoming interested in another practicing poly -- if we break
up it'll be because things didn't work out between us, nothing more.
There is much less chance that we'll really like one another but find we
need very different kinds of relationships to be happy.
> I am a man, maybe you see things differently as an openly polyamorous
> woman. It has been some years since I last "negotiated" a relationship,
> but I remember that, for all the women I met, the "exclusivity" clause
> was not negotiable. I suppose that you know what I mean, because this is
> quite the mainstream opinion in our culture: most people have this
> "model" of relationship where love equals commitment. Most people have
> this idea that one can only "love" one person, it actually belongs to
> their definition of "love".
I've certainly run into it. I was lucky enough to live on the west coast
for a couple of years, where there are a lot more polyfolk than some of
the more conservative places I've lived. When I lived in the Bible belt
for a time, I practiced monogamy more for fear of being stoned or lynched
than anything else.
Now I'm in the midwest, which is mediocre in all regards -- there isn't
the kind of poly community I found on the west coast, but I'm also not
concerned about anything worse than some awkward conversations with my
parents were I suddenly outed to everyone I know.
I find that when explaining polyamory to people who fall somewhere
between "getting it" and running away, it can be helpful to point out
that most people have a few particularly close friends, not one "best
friend" as they may have in childhood -- that is because these friends
fill different needs. Similarly, people don't have just one child for
fear of not having enough love to go around -- we don't love children
less because there are more of them.
> So, to put it frankly, I do not see how this is supposed to work. I
> don't see myself negotiating an open relationship and having the
> opposite party rejoice at the idea. As a man, when I imagine talking
> relationships with a woman, I can't imagine myself saying that I would
> like her and me to be more than friends but keep the relationship open
> without imagining that she would answer that she wants exclusive love,
> or that she would voice more conflictual comments about men who always
> want to have their cake and eat it too. I said it has been some years,
> but this was roughly my experience before I married some 20 years ago.
>
> So the question is: how do you find people who do not run at the idea?
Some of my interests naturally attract people who are open to different
types of relationships. I'm a computer geek (we're an odd lot in many
ways), I enjoy BDSM and go to munches when my schedule permits, I do some
writerly activities as a hobby, I've even been known to take part in
tabletop roleplaying games. Also, I sometimes meet partners through
friends, which is nice because I know going in that my friends have at
least made sure the person in question won't be afraid of me. ;)
> Is it easier for a woman?
I think it's different for het. men and woman, but not really better for
either (I can't speak for GBLT folks, feel free to chime in if you can).
I find that some men think polyamory sounds great until they have to
actually deal with the fact that I will have other partners -- it's like
they zone in on getting to date multiple women, and don't realize they
can't handle it working both ways.
OTOH, I've seen some of my male partners deal with women who think they
can be turned monogamous. These women are in for a rude awakening!
> Are we different generations and did those
> things change in recent times?
I can't really compare to earlier generations, as most of my friends
around my parents' age are monogamous -- someone else could enlighten
us. I'm in my 20s, for reference, though most of my social circle lately
are 30+.
What I see among my age group is that some people (both men and women)
assume that "polyamory" means "casual sex with multiple people" rather
than "non-exclusive relationships in whatever form they may take", or
that when a relationship reaches some level of "serious" polyamory will
naturally give way to monogamy.
The former doesn't bother me much, as I tend to see where relationships
go rather than start in some predetermined direction. The latter is very
frustrating to me, however, and I try to make it extremely clear to new
partners that my poly lifestyle is here to stay.
> I realize that I also neglected to clearly negotiate this part with my
> present wife. It simply is something she assumes but on which we do not
> quite agree. I never asked her for a promise of exclusivity, simply
> because the idea seems absurd to me. I have had, some years ago, an
> indication that she may have pursued a short extra-marital affair, but I
> never asked about it. I respect her silence in this matter. So in this
> respect I am true to my idea that I did not ask for exclusivity. From
> her side, she assumes a promise of exclusivity which I actually never
> made. It worked in practice, because I did not have any occasion to be
> more than friends with another woman in those 20 years. But in the
> unlikely event that another woman would be interested to me more than
> friends with me, we would have a problem indeed. Of course all this is
> rather theoretical, since I do not know a woman who would be interested
> in a married man.
I've never tried it, but in theory it seems that changing a long-term
mono relationship to a poly one would be difficult. I've been poly from
the start -- even when I lacked the vocabulary to label it -- so I'm not
sure how one goes about a mono=>poly change.
Also, I'm not sure that I could live with a partner who I believed had
cheated on me. (Note that I am very specific in negotiating relationship
terms.) I don't appreciate being lied to. There are few things I won't
deal with in a relationship -- deception is #2 on that list (#1 being
anything that harms or threatens to harm my child).
> All this description of polyamory is very nice and makes sense in
> theory, but I have a bit the impression to hear about a different
> planet. I can't relate it to any experience I have had in real life.
> Why?
It sounds to me like you have conducted relationships in a way that
assumes there are "rules" that exist of their own accord, rather than
looking at every relationship as something that must be negotiated. That
seems to be what most people do.
I've had a different experience -- largely due to my feeling that the
"traditional" rules I grew up with didn't work for me. Of course some of
the credit goes to the SSG regulars who got hold of me in my not-so-
innocent teen years and helped me figure out what I *do* want and how to
communicate it.
/me hides while everyone googles her immature teenage posts.
Thank you for this post, by the way, it really made me think more than
most do!
--Illecebra
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> So, to put it frankly, I do not see how this is supposed to work. I
> don't see myself negotiating an open relationship and having the
> opposite party rejoice at the idea. As a man, when I imagine talking
> relationships with a woman, I can't imagine myself saying that I would
> like her and me to be more than friends but keep the relationship open
> without imagining that she would answer that she wants exclusive love,
> or that she would voice more conflictual comments about men who always
> want to have their cake and eat it too. I said it has been some years,
> but this was roughly my experience before I married some 20 years ago.
I'm a man, and have been through several relationship negotiations.
Sometimes the women were already polyamorous and it was just figuring
out how our definitions of polyamory and relationship models and
expectations meshed, but sometimes the women were not. One of my female
partners is still herself monogamous. My wife and I started dating in a
fairly usual fashion and so were presumably de-facto-monogamous, but we
had discussions fairly early on which fleshed out our thoughts on that
and opened the idea that we didn't require monogamy from each other.
More discussions occurred when this became practical rather than
theoretical.
I'm not heteronormative enough to say that for every polyamorous woman
who negotiated in a relationship, there has to be a man who was
involved in that negotiation, but given that many polyamorous
relationships are heterosexual, there are certainly a huge number of
cases where that's the case. I highly doubt that they were all
initiated by the women involved.
> So the question is: how do you find people who do not run at the idea?
> Is it easier for a woman? Are we different generations and did those
> things change in recent times?
It's easiest, of course, if you can find someone who is *already*
polyamorous or is already familiar with the idea of polyamory, but even
in cases where that's not true, specifically selecting for that trait
would be like specifically selecting for any relationship trait: bring
it up early and see how they seem to react and feel about it. If they
seem not averse to it, follow up on that conversation later, and so on.
The other thing is that not all existing couples who are
de-facto-monogamous and then become polyamorous find the transition
easy, so trying to imagine someone just being totally okay with it from
the get-go might be a stumbling block. Often the transitional period is
very difficult and takes a lot of work on everyone's part.
.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Why do people agree to restrictions? Everyone's self-interest is to
> have as little restrictions to their liberties as possible. It is a
> give and take where one would trade restrictions of his or her
> liberties to equivalent concessions on the other end. But, in the
> course of time, people try to improve their end of the deal. And yes:
> they are not always honest about it. Often they are not even honest
> with themselves about it.
I don't know that I agree that people always want to have as few
restrictions as possible. I think in some cases restrictions make
things easier, make choices simpler, etc.
A trivial example: It's my night to cook and my wife asks what we're
having for dinner. I will often respond with, "I haven't decided yet.
Do you have any cravings?" Of course, if she expresses cravings, while
I'm not 100% obligated to cater to them, it would certainly be good to
consider her cravings into the matter and in many ways, having asked
that question, presuming she answers it, restricts me. So why ask? The
answer is that having some restrictions makes things a bit easier -- the
wide-open field of choice was difficult beforehand.
Let's take polyamory as well, since that's what you were actually
discussing: One thing that many people who are new to polyamory in a
long-term relationship report is that there's an unexpected downside in
that suddenly you're "on the market" and there are a lot of pressures
there -- finding partners, facing rejection, being nervous around people
who you're interested in, maybe putting yourself out there on dating
sites if you're pursuing it that actively, maybe you even feel that you
need to take even more care than usual about picking outfits or doing
your hair before a party, whatever. (Okay, I never worried about the
last one, but I did find that it did open a huge yawning black hole of,
"What if nobody (else) wants me?" that I thought I'd put behind me once
and for all when I got married.) Some people, when they encounter this,
actively choose to try to stuff it all back into Pandora's box -- to go
back to monogamy because it's simpler and more comfortable and doesn't
put them out of their comfort zone in the same way. That's a totally
legitimate decision, providing all involved parties are okay with it,
but it's also a situation where someone chooses to have more
restrictions because they find it easier or simpler or more comfortable.
Many people, of course, do this in the job world. Pretty much all of us
who work for other people accept restrictions and rules and impingements
upon our liberty in return for a somewhat safer, somewhat more sheltered
environment.
.
toramjero
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:47:24 -0800, toramjero wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Mmhh. Very interesting description. I think that I understand how it
> > works in principle, but I have a problem with the practicalities. At
> > various points in the text, you describe the aspect of negotiation,
> > making it sound as if it were easy if only people had sufficient
> > courage. I can't really relate to that. How do you "negotiate" with new
> > partners? Aren't many of them surprised and shocked at the idea?
>
> I'm a bit more careful with people I meet through interests (firearms,
> tactical knives, motorsports) that draw more conservative crowds than
> others (writing, technology, RP, BDSM). In the latter case, the fact
> that I'm poly comes up pretty naturally; even those who aren't poly
> generally know what polyamory is and whether they are interested in poly
> relationships.
>
You seem to have interests which draw many more men than women, is
that correct? There is nothing wrong with that, it just that it helps
me understand the situation better: you seem to have a large number of
choices, at least because of the particular demographics of the
population interested in the same activities as you are.
I have interest for technology myself, and it was my field of study.
My experience with it is that the demographic is overwhelmingly male,
and that those male have no girlfriend and no sex. I am just
describing a fact here: I would say that 8 out of 10 guys I studied
with had no girlfriend at the time. The few who had one were
monogamous and it is not possible to say whether it was by choice or
by lack of opportunities. A tiny fraction was partying and pretended
to have sex on a regular basis, but how much of that is true I don't
know.
I did a bit of role playing at the time. The attendance was 100% male.
I don't know anyone who used the word polyamory or hinted at the
notion in my presence. Sometimes I discuss it. For example if the
conversation is about a couple where one has an affair, I may say that
maybe the other party agrees or something to that effect. Another
example: I have a divorced friend who can dance and is considered as a
possible partner by half of the dance school he attends, and I
sometimes said that maybe he should work out an arrangement. Those
comments are rarely taken positively, even in jest. Come to think of
it, they were taken positively twice in the past years (but still in
jest) and each time by a woman.
> That leaves what to do about a love interest who likely has never heard
> of polyamory. I tend to try to feel people out early on to see how
> traditional they are (or, as my best friend puts it, how easily they
> scare). When I flirt, I'll make comments that allude to BDSM (another
> one of my interests) or polylife, and judge their reaction. If I'm
> scaring someone, I'd rather move on without outing myself.
>
I don't really know what to say. You are describing a lifestyle which
is totally alien to me. from what you describe, I understand that you
meet potential romantic partners on a regular basis. This is nothing
like what I have experimented. I am trying to figure out what that
means. Please note that I am not criticizing, just trying to
understand.
I suppose that in an university where there is little gender unbalance
(i.e. not what I have experimented) and because all students are young
and unwed, it is natural to come across potential partners on a
regular basis. Is this what you describe? When I started to work, the
situation was very different: I had coworkers of all ages, which means
most of them were older than I were and most of them were married. For
some reason, the activities I practiced at the time (sports, for
example) tended to attract few if any potential partners as well. I
met my present wife at work.
This to explain why what you are describing seems alien to me.
I am not saying that my experience is representative in any way of
Europe, BTW. I have friends who report that their neighbors break up
and come with new partners on a regular basis. In my children's school
there are families with 4 kids, none of which has a father and a
mother in common. I live in a city with a very high percentage of
singles. I have second hand experience of all this, but no first hand
experience. I don't know why.
I never met a female computer geek. No criticism, just remarking that
it is another activity which attracts more males than females. I could
count as a computer geek myself.
>(we're an odd lot in many
> ways), I enjoy BDSM and go to munches when my schedule permits, I do some
> writerly activities as a hobby, I've even been known to take part in
> tabletop roleplaying games. Also, I sometimes meet partners through
> friends, which is nice because I know going in that my friends have at
> least made sure the person in question won't be afraid of me. ;)
>
I am rarely afraid of anyone. I tend to take people as they are, so
this idea of being "afraid" of you is also quite weird to me. Unless
you want practice your hobbies of firearms and tactical knives, of
course. ;)
> > Is it easier for a woman?
>
> I think it's different for het. men and woman, but not really better for
> either (I can't speak for GBLT folks, feel free to chime in if you can).
>
> I find that some men think polyamory sounds great until they have to
> actually deal with the fact that I will have other partners -- it's like
> they zone in on getting to date multiple women, and don't realize they
> can't handle it working both ways.
>
> OTOH, I've seen some of my male partners deal with women who think they
> can be turned monogamous. These women are in for a rude awakening!
>
Either one has to give in, yes.
I wasn't talking about changing from mono to poly. As I noted, this is
not really an option anyway. I was just noting that I never really
negotiated that part with my wife. The obvious reason is that it did
not appear necessary.
> Also, I'm not sure that I could live with a partner who I believed had
> cheated on me. (Note that I am very specific in negotiating relationship
> terms.) I don't appreciate being lied to. There are few things I won't
> deal with in a relationship -- deception is #2 on that list (#1 being
> anything that harms or threatens to harm my child).
>
#1 goes without saying.
> > All this description of polyamory is very nice and makes sense in
> > theory, but I have a bit the impression to hear about a different
> > planet. I can't relate it to any experience I have had in real life.
> > Why?
>
> It sounds to me like you have conducted relationships in a way that
> assumes there are "rules" that exist of their own accord, rather than
> looking at every relationship as something that must be negotiated. That
> seems to be what most people do.
>
That's interesting. I realize that I have not conducted relationshipS,
I have conducted A relationship or merely let it develop. That might
explain things.
> I've had a different experience -- largely due to my feeling that the
> "traditional" rules I grew up with didn't work for me. Of course some of
> the credit goes to the SSG regulars who got hold of me in my not-so-
> innocent teen years and helped me figure out what I *do* want and how to
> communicate it.
>
The difference to me is that you have conducted more than one
relationship. So you had the possibility to see how they start,
develop and end. Then you have had to make informed choices and you
were in a position to find people who agreed on that choices. For some
reason I do not quite understand, and even if I am older than you are,
this is not what happened to me. And were I to start again, and decide
that I wanted a poly relationship, and that if a woman does not agree
I won't have a relationship with her, I imagine that I will simply
have to live alone.
> /me hides while everyone googles her immature teenage posts.
>
> Thank you for this post, by the way, it really made me think more than
> most do!
>
You are most welcome, and I can say the same.
> --Illecebra
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Why do people agree to restrictions? Everyone's self-interest is to
> > have as little restrictions to their liberties as possible. It is a
> > give and take where one would trade restrictions of his or her
> > liberties to equivalent concessions on the other end. But, in the
> > course of time, people try to improve their end of the deal. And yes:
> > they are not always honest about it. Often they are not even honest
> > with themselves about it.
>
> I don't know that I agree that people always want to have as few
> restrictions as possible. I think in some cases restrictions make
> things easier, make choices simpler, etc.
>
> A trivial example: It's my night to cook and my wife asks what we're
> having for dinner. I will often respond with, "I haven't decided yet.
> Do you have any cravings?" Of course, if she expresses cravings, while
> I'm not 100% obligated to cater to them, it would certainly be good to
> consider her cravings into the matter and in many ways, having asked
> that question, presuming she answers it, restricts me. So why ask? The
> answer is that having some restrictions makes things a bit easier -- the
> wide-open field of choice was difficult beforehand.
>
That is an interesting take on the subject, but I dispute that what
you are describing are "restrictions". As you noted, you are not 100%
obligated. Leaving the choice of the menu to the other party is not
quite the same as negotiating a lifelong arrangement.
> Let's take polyamory as well, since that's what you were actually
> discussing: One thing that many people who are new to polyamory in a
> long-term relationship report is that there's an unexpected downside in
> that suddenly you're "on the market" and there are a lot of pressures
> there -- finding partners, facing rejection, being nervous around people
> who you're interested in, maybe putting yourself out there on dating
> sites if you're pursuing it that actively, maybe you even feel that you
> need to take even more care than usual about picking outfits or doing
> your hair before a party, whatever. (Okay, I never worried about the
> last one, but I did find that it did open a huge yawning black hole of,
> "What if nobody (else) wants me?" that I thought I'd put behind me once
> and for all when I got married.) Some people, when they encounter this,
> actively choose to try to stuff it all back into Pandora's box -- to go
> back to monogamy because it's simpler and more comfortable and doesn't
> put them out of their comfort zone in the same way. That's a totally
> legitimate decision, providing all involved parties are okay with it,
> but it's also a situation where someone chooses to have more
> restrictions because they find it easier or simpler or more comfortable.
>
You make me totally puzzled here. Does a polyamorous arrangement
require that you actively seek new partners? Why the sudden pressure?
I really don't understand. Some people do seek new partners all the
time. For example, because they need to reassure themselves that they
are attractive or because they simply like the game. I can understand
that, at least in theory. These people will probably not want to put
all the stuff back into the Pandora box, since they like the game.
Other people simply have less interest in playing "the market", and
simply won't do it even if their marital arrangement would allow it.
The idea that one would seek a monogamous arrangement to prevent him
or her to do what they are naturally inclined to do (play the
"market") appears absurd to me.
Or do you think it is like a drug? Something that you'd like to do,
but is detrimental to your interest, so you need a prohibition? A bit
like the promise not to drink people make at the Alcoholics Anonymous?
That seems far-fetched to me.
> Many people, of course, do this in the job world. Pretty much all of us
> who work for other people accept restrictions and rules and impingements
> upon our liberty in return for a somewhat safer, somewhat more sheltered
> environment.
>
Not everyone who works for themselves is successful. It can be a pure
cost-benefit analysis. If by starting your own firm you have a chance
in ten of earning 100000$ a year and 9 chances in ten of going
bankrupt, a fixed job proposal at 50000$ a year seems like a good deal
to me.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> I did a bit of role playing at the time. The attendance was 100% male.
This has certainly changed. Of the people I know who are heavily into
role-playing games, the vast majority are female, especially those who
actually *play* them as opposed to just being generally interested in
them. The overall majority is probably more male than female, but
female role players are nowhere near rare anymore. This is especially
true of online role playing games conducted via social networking sites
-- my impression through my girlfriend (who is hugely into RPGs) is that
quite a lot of these are dominantly female, and she has made a huge
number of female friends through them.
> I don't really know what to say. You are describing a lifestyle which
> is totally alien to me. from what you describe, I understand that you
> meet potential romantic partners on a regular basis. This is nothing
> like what I have experimented. I am trying to figure out what that
> means. Please note that I am not criticizing, just trying to
> understand.
I think that most people who meet *people* in general on a regular basis
meet potential romantic partners on a regular basis. Poll people about
where they met their partners, and you'll find that a lot of people meet
through ordinary everyday events. This is obviously very different if
you don't get a lot of social exposure to new people. I think that
that's probably one of the keys, though. I know some people who have a
really hard time finding partners, for example, and quite often it turns
out that one factor is that they just don't meet new people, in general,
very often. That may not be their fault (maybe they live in a small
town or have a job that demands them at odd hours or whatever), but it
does cut down their odds a lot.
>> Some of my interests naturally attract people who are open to different
>> types of relationships. I'm a computer geek
>
> I never met a female computer geek. No criticism, just remarking that
> it is another activity which attracts more males than females. I could
> count as a computer geek myself.
I know lots of female computer geeks. :) Surprisingly, a lot of them
deal with "big iron," which is not what I would have expected. A lot of
the female computer gooks that I know deal with very high-end database
replication and acceleration systems, mission-critical enterprise
disaster recovery, that sort of thing. I don't know a lot of women in
desktop support, as a counter-example. I'm a sysadmin myself, and I'm
seriously outgeeked by many of my female friends. (My wife has recently
transitioned to an education role within a high-end financial software
solution company, but was previously a project lead and senior technical
consultant for them.)
> I wasn't talking about changing from mono to poly. As I noted, this is
> not really an option anyway. I was just noting that I never really
> negotiated that part with my wife. The obvious reason is that it did
> not appear necessary.
I think that there is a sort of de-facto relationship contract that is
assumed in a lot of society (although it varies between different
cultures and subcultures), and if you are okay with that set of
expectations, then most people don't do a lot of negotation about it.
(This sometimes backfires, though, when the parties involved *thought*
that they both understood what these unstated expectations and rules
were, but discovered that they didn't actually have exactly the same
definitions.)
.
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I did a bit of role playing at the time. The attendance was 100% male.
>
> This has certainly changed. Of the people I know who are heavily into
> role-playing games, the vast majority are female, especially those who
> actually *play* them as opposed to just being generally interested in
> them. The overall majority is probably more male than female, but
> female role players are nowhere near rare anymore. This is especially
> true of online role playing games conducted via social networking sites
> -- my impression through my girlfriend (who is hugely into RPGs) is that
> quite a lot of these are dominantly female, and she has made a huge
> number of female friends through them.
>
What are online role playing games conducted via social networking
sites?
> > I don't really know what to say. You are describing a lifestyle which
> > is totally alien to me. from what you describe, I understand that you
> > meet potential romantic partners on a regular basis. This is nothing
> > like what I have experimented. I am trying to figure out what that
> > means. Please note that I am not criticizing, just trying to
> > understand.
>
> I think that most people who meet *people* in general on a regular basis
> meet potential romantic partners on a regular basis. Poll people about
> where they met their partners, and you'll find that a lot of people meet
> through ordinary everyday events. This is obviously very different if
> you don't get a lot of social exposure to new people. I think that
> that's probably one of the keys, though. I know some people who have a
> really hard time finding partners, for example, and quite often it turns
> out that one factor is that they just don't meet new people, in general,
> very often. That may not be their fault (maybe they live in a small
> town or have a job that demands them at odd hours or whatever), but it
> does cut down their odds a lot.
>
Well, yes: if one does not meet people, one does not meet potential
romantic partners. But unless it is part of their job, I don't think
that most people meet many people regularly (which also explains the
success of dating sites). There are only so many hours in a week, of
which a sizable chunk is taken by your job (where you may meet people
or not, depending on the job), and another sizable chunk is taken by
the basics of life like sleeping, cleaning or buying groceries (where
one usually does not meet that many people). Remains some free time,
hobbies, etc... And many hobbies do not imply meeting new people on a
regular basis, even if they are practiced in a group: the group does
not change that much. For example if you are playing football or
learning to tango, people stay at least for a full season, so they are
not replaced very fast. If you are in an amateur theater group, you'll
need to stay long enough to prepare the play (takes months, I've done
that). If you play in an orchestra, it also takes months to prepare a
concert. Actually, I cannot think about a hobby were people would meet
new people relatively fast and relatively regularly.
> >> Some of my interests naturally attract people who are open to different
> >> types of relationships. I'm a computer geek
>
> > I never met a female computer geek. No criticism, just remarking that
> > it is another activity which attracts more males than females. I could
> > count as a computer geek myself.
>
> I know lots of female computer geeks. :) Surprisingly, a lot of them
> deal with "big iron," which is not what I would have expected.
Come to think of it, I actually know a few women working in "big
iron", I had forgotten about that.
illecebra
<snip>
> You seem to have interests which draw many more men than women, is that
> correct? There is nothing wrong with that, it just that it helps me
> understand the situation better: you seem to have a large number of
> choices, at least because of the particular demographics of the
> population interested in the same activities as you are.
That's right. I really don't tend to hang out with other women much,
unless we have a partner in common. I have three female friends, the
rest are guys (who see me as one of the guys, of course, so not a lot of
dating going on there).
> I have interest for technology myself, and it was my field of study. My
> experience with it is that the demographic is overwhelmingly male, and
> that those male have no girlfriend and no sex. I am just describing a
> fact here: I would say that 8 out of 10 guys I studied with had no
> girlfriend at the time. The few who had one were monogamous and it is
> not possible to say whether it was by choice or by lack of
> opportunities. A tiny fraction was partying and pretended to have sex on
> a regular basis, but how much of that is true I don't know.
I find that the disparity is pretty crazy in college (my undergrad
compsci lectures generally had about 150 males and 2-3 females including
myself), but in my professional life (perhaps because I went from
hardcore security and systems stuff to web development in order to
accommodate the lifestyle I want) the gap seems smaller. I run into
almost as many women as men in my field.
> I did a bit of role playing at the time. The attendance was 100% male.
When I did tabletop RP regularly, it was me and the guys, unless one of
them dragged an uninterested girlfriend along. However, the one LARP
group I participated in was predominantly female.
> I don't know anyone who used the word polyamory or hinted at the notion
> in my presence. Sometimes I discuss it. For example if the conversation
> is about a couple where one has an affair, I may say that maybe the
> other party agrees or something to that effect. Another example: I have
> a divorced friend who can dance and is considered as a possible partner
> by half of the dance school he attends, and I sometimes said that maybe
> he should work out an arrangement. Those comments are rarely taken
> positively, even in jest. Come to think of it, they were taken
> positively twice in the past years (but still in jest) and each time by
> a woman.
I get the feeling there's an age gap between you and I, that may be the
difference. Regardless of how open to *sex* one is, I find that people
my age are far more likely to *talk about* sex openly in a casual
situation. I meet lots of nonvanillas and/or polyfolk when doing
writing, RP, and techy stuff. On the west coast, people were more likely
to be open about it than other places I've lived, but usually it's not
hard to sniff 'em out. ;)
<snip>
> I suppose that in an university where there is little gender unbalance
> (i.e. not what I have experimented) and because all students are young
> and unwed, it is natural to come across potential partners on a regular
> basis. Is this what you describe?
That was the case when I was in college, but that was some years ago.
> When I started to work, the situation
> was very different: I had coworkers of all ages, which means most of
> them were older than I were and most of them were married. For some
> reason, the activities I practiced at the time (sports, for example)
> tended to attract few if any potential partners as well. I met my
> present wife at work.
>
> This to explain why what you are describing seems alien to me.
I work from home, so no meeting people that way. This office houses me
and one doberman pinscher.
I meet potential partners at tech conferences, local LUGs and DUGs, the
firing range, NaNoWriMo events, through RP interests, munches, through
existing friends or sweethearts, or wherever one might run into other
human beings. I even met a guy at a bakery once while waiting for a
special order of sourdough boules (sp?) for a big picnic.
It seems like most people today run around with blinders on, or at least
iPods. It used to be that if you were waiting in line somewhere or
working out at the gym, you made conversation with the people around you
to pass the time. I meet some *very* cool people that way -- just
striking up random conversations. I met one of my best friends going
through her line at the grocery store where she worked as a cashier.
Sadly, most people have refined ignoring their surroundings to an art
form.
<snip>
> In my children's school there
> are families with 4 kids, none of which has a father and a mother in
> common.
That always makes me sad. Kids need stability. That's why I mentioned
elsewhere that I'm specifically looking for someone who *won't* try to
insert himself into my family. Having someone different in my household
all the time would be too hard on my son. I'd rather run the family on
my own until and unless I find someone I'm reasonably sure will be a
permanent fixture -- something that would take a lot to convince me of.
> I live in a city with a very high percentage of singles. I have
> second hand experience of all this, but no first hand experience. I
> don't know why.
Interesting. Do you just hang out in the same group of mostly "taken"
people?
> I never met a female computer geek. No criticism, just remarking that it
> is another activity which attracts more males than females. I could
> count as a computer geek myself.
We do exist! As I said earlier, I've met more female techies in my
professional life than I did as a student. You remind me of an old
saying: "IRC: where the men are men, the women are men, and the 13-year-
old girls are FBI agents!"
> I am rarely afraid of anyone. I tend to take people as they are, so this
> idea of being "afraid" of you is also quite weird to me. Unless you want
> practice your hobbies of firearms and tactical knives, of course. ;)
You'd be surprised -- I've found that most men I meet (not most men I'm
*interested in* however) are pretty put off by a woman who is
straightforward about sex, and unapologetically un-vanilla. Still more
seem to feel uncomfortable when they find out about my defense-related
interests -- it's like they think any woman who can handle a weapon must
be a feminazi out to get all men, or that dating a strong woman who can
defend herself makes them less "manly" somehow. **rolls eyes**
<snip>
>> Also, I'm not sure that I could live with a partner who I believed had
>> cheated on me. (Note that I am very specific in negotiating
>> relationship terms.) I don't appreciate being lied to. There are few
>> things I won't deal with in a relationship -- deception is #2 on that
>> list (#1 being anything that harms or threatens to harm my child).
>>
> #1 goes without saying.
You'd think, but sadly too many people stay with SOs who abuse their
children, and/or make excuses to go back soon after leaving. People who
do that *sicken* me.
<snip>
> The difference to me is that you have conducted more than one
> relationship. So you had the possibility to see how they start, develop
> and end. Then you have had to make informed choices and you were in a
> position to find people who agreed on that choices. For some reason I do
> not quite understand, and even if I am older than you are, this is not
> what happened to me.
That's certainly a big difference.
> And were I to start again, and decide that I wanted
> a poly relationship, and that if a woman does not agree I won't have a
> relationship with her, I imagine that I will simply have to live alone.
That's just silly -- you would just need to keep looking! As I said
above, I think most people roam around completely oblivious to others
around them. There are certainly people out there of all sexes/ages/
preferences looking for partners.
-- Illecebra
toramjero
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:10:38 -0800, toramjero wrote:
>
<snip>
> > I don't know anyone who used the word polyamory or hinted at the notion
> > in my presence. Sometimes I discuss it. For example if the conversation
> > is about a couple where one has an affair, I may say that maybe the
> > other party agrees or something to that effect. Another example: I have
> > a divorced friend who can dance and is considered as a possible partner
> > by half of the dance school he attends, and I sometimes said that maybe
> > he should work out an arrangement. Those comments are rarely taken
> > positively, even in jest. Come to think of it, they were taken
> > positively twice in the past years (but still in jest) and each time by
> > a woman.
>
> I get the feeling there's an age gap between you and I, that may be the
> difference. Regardless of how open to *sex* one is, I find that people
> my age are far more likely to *talk about* sex openly in a casual
> situation. I meet lots of nonvanillas and/or polyfolk when doing
> writing, RP, and techy stuff. On the west coast, people were more likely
> to be open about it than other places I've lived, but usually it's not
> hard to sniff 'em out. ;)
>
Yes, age and probably the place where I live is less positive than the
US west coast.
<snip>
> I meet potential partners at tech conferences, local LUGs and DUGs, the
> firing range, NaNoWriMo events, through RP interests, munches, through
> existing friends or sweethearts, or wherever one might run into other
> human beings. I even met a guy at a bakery once while waiting for a
> special order of sourdough boules (sp?) for a big picnic.
>
Let me see:
LUG = local user group (but of what?)
DUG = ?
munches = obviously a gathering where you can eat, but I don't
understand the particulars.
> It seems like most people today run around with blinders on, or at least
> iPods. It used to be that if you were waiting in line somewhere or
> working out at the gym, you made conversation with the people around you
> to pass the time. I meet some *very* cool people that way -- just
> striking up random conversations. I met one of my best friends going
> through her line at the grocery store where she worked as a cashier.
>
> Sadly, most people have refined ignoring their surroundings to an art
> form.
>
I found that it was far worse where I live than when I went to the US
(south: texas). Still: I sometimes engage conversation when waiting in
line, or in public transport, and it can lead to a pleasant
conversation, but I never met anyone back.
> <snip>
>
> > In my children's school there
> > are families with 4 kids, none of which has a father and a mother in
> > common.
>
> That always makes me sad. Kids need stability. That's why I mentioned
> elsewhere that I'm specifically looking for someone who *won't* try to
> insert himself into my family. Having someone different in my household
> all the time would be too hard on my son. I'd rather run the family on
> my own until and unless I find someone I'm reasonably sure will be a
> permanent fixture -- something that would take a lot to convince me of.
>
In my experience, most of these children are doing ok. Kids can be
pretty resilient. More importantly: in these extremely flexible
arrangements, there appear to be less fighting about the children than
in the classical monogamous arrangement when there is a divorce.
Interestingly, in these flexible families, when a single person
decides to take responsibility for the children, it is usually a man.
But I only have a small sample, of course.
> > I live in a city with a very high percentage of singles. I have
> > second hand experience of all this, but no first hand experience. I
> > don't know why.
>
> Interesting. Do you just hang out in the same group of mostly "taken"
> people?
>
I don't really "hang out" in a group. And no, it is not a single
group: I have circles of friends who do not meet each others (because
I know them for completely different reasons).
> > I never met a female computer geek. No criticism, just remarking that it
> > is another activity which attracts more males than females. I could
> > count as a computer geek myself.
>
> We do exist! As I said earlier, I've met more female techies in my
> professional life than I did as a student. You remind me of an old
> saying: "IRC: where the men are men, the women are men, and the 13-year-
> old girls are FBI agents!"
>
Yes. After the post, I remembered that I actually know (distantly) two
who work in big iron. But I knew female geeks existed: I see them
online... ;)
> > I am rarely afraid of anyone. I tend to take people as they are, so this
> > idea of being "afraid" of you is also quite weird to me. Unless you want
> > practice your hobbies of firearms and tactical knives, of course. ;)
>
> You'd be surprised -- I've found that most men I meet (not most men I'm
> *interested in* however) are pretty put off by a woman who is
> straightforward about sex, and unapologetically un-vanilla. Still more
> seem to feel uncomfortable when they find out about my defense-related
> interests -- it's like they think any woman who can handle a weapon must
> be a feminazi out to get all men, or that dating a strong woman who can
> defend herself makes them less "manly" somehow. **rolls eyes**
>
No, I am not surprised. I know about that problem. I don't know people
who are straightforward about sex or unapologetically un-vanilla
(although there are plenty: I see them at Christopher Street Day...)
but I know a least one woman interested in martial arts. I don't think
she is out to get all men.
<snip>
>
> > And were I to start again, and decide that I wanted
> > a poly relationship, and that if a woman does not agree I won't have a
> > relationship with her, I imagine that I will simply have to live alone.
>
> That's just silly -- you would just need to keep looking! As I said
> above, I think most people roam around completely oblivious to others
> around them. There are certainly people out there of all sexes/ages/
> preferences looking for partners.
>
No, this is only about the "poly" part. I am perfectly confident that
I could find another monogamous relationship relatively quickly, if I
wanted it. I just meant that polyamory does not appear to be a known
option around here. But note that the operative words were "imagine"
and "appear": I don't know. For example BDSM does not appear to be a
known option around here, but I know that this is just silly. There
must be practitioners, because I see shops catering to their needs
(and it is a very old and very widespread practice after all). It is
just that I don't meet them. Or maybe I do, but they hide it from me,
I don't know.
Dave
<ille...@nowhere.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>When I flirt, I'll make comments that allude to BDSM (another
>one of my interests) or polylife, and judge their reaction. If I'm
>scaring someone, I'd rather move on without outing myself.
It's funny, once you know the lingo you can pick up on a lot of
different things, and this trick is more or less self-regulating since
the conservative group by and large has no reason to learn the lingo.
Knowing the difference between a crop and a whip, for example, is one
easy example of knowledge of BDSM play -- Not specific, I know all sorts
of random facts about anything and everything, but it's enough to see
who's ears perk up.
Poly doesn't have the same lingo, but the signs are similar.
>For those who don't seem likely to panic, I bring polyamory up (if it
>hasn't come up already of its own accord) when I'm certain that both he
>and I are interested in more than flirting. I'll ask him if he knows
>what polyamory is, and the questions usually flow pretty naturally from
>there.
I've still been working on this stage, although it's a fun stage to
explore, I rarely introduce anyone these days without learning something
myself. More on this later re:casual vs commitment.
>Now I'm in the midwest, which is mediocre in all regards -- there isn't
>the kind of poly community I found on the west coast, but I'm also not
>concerned about anything worse than some awkward conversations with my
>parents were I suddenly outed to everyone I know.
Makes life much easier, no? I moved recently and this is one of the
perks.
>I find that when explaining polyamory to people who fall somewhere
>between "getting it" and running away, it can be helpful to point out
>that most people have a few particularly close friends, not one "best
>friend" as they may have in childhood -- that is because these friends
>fill different needs. Similarly, people don't have just one child for
>fear of not having enough love to go around -- we don't love children
>less because there are more of them.
This is the perfect analogy. Mind if I steal it?
>> So the question is: how do you find people who do not run at the idea?
Time and patience combined with some trial and error.
>Some of my interests naturally attract people who are open to different
>types of relationships. I'm a computer geek (we're an odd lot in many
>ways),
So true.
>I enjoy BDSM and go to munches when my schedule permits,
Around here they're all clique, if you don't fit their mold of what you
should be doing, you're not in the game. Plague on all of them.
>> Is it easier for a woman?
>
>I think it's different for het. men and woman, but not really better for
>either (I can't speak for GBLT folks, feel free to chime in if you can).
Is it easier for a woman to find a willing male? Yes.
Is it easier for a women to find the relationship they want? My answer
is probably no. I've been spending time with a couple women recently
and this topic has come up, despite having far more offers available,
the quality is way down as absolutely every guy offers rather then
prescreening.
Oh, plus men tend to be more willing to lie about what they want.
>I find that some men think polyamory sounds great until they have to
>actually deal with the fact that I will have other partners -- it's like
>they zone in on getting to date multiple women, and don't realize they
>can't handle it working both ways.
So true. Women seem more able to handle this better then men although
I'm not sure if it's because men are more blinded by the concept of two
women, or something else.
>OTOH, I've seen some of my male partners deal with women who think they
>can be turned monogamous. These women are in for a rude awakening!
So are the men.
>I can't really compare to earlier generations, as most of my friends
>around my parents' age are monogamous -- someone else could enlighten
>us. I'm in my 20s, for reference, though most of my social circle lately
>are 30+.
I'm in the same ballpark exactly. I don't think any of my friends are
in their 20s, but then I've always been mature for my age and intolerant
of immaturity.
>What I see among my age group is that some people (both men and women)
>assume that "polyamory" means "casual sex with multiple people" rather
>than "non-exclusive relationships in whatever form they may take", or
>that when a relationship reaches some level of "serious" polyamory will
>naturally give way to monogamy.
There doesn't seem to be a clear way to differentiate these. I'd love
to correct people, but I can't say "no, that's actually 'x'" to either
topic.
Myself I'm more into the casual side of things right now, but that's
more because I'm "dating" rather then getting to the point of a
commitment, it's not the eventual goal. I'm more interested in the
relationship part then sex anyway, but not jumping into anything too
serious unless it just happens.
Even worse with regards to terminology are the polygamy arrests
involving children which make big news, yet the media always focuses on
the polygamy rather then the pedophilia related charges.
>Also, I'm not sure that I could live with a partner who I believed had
>cheated on me. (Note that I am very specific in negotiating relationship
>terms.) I don't appreciate being lied to.
Oddly, this is pretty much my definition of cheating too, and if I did
catch her cheating, one of us would be moving just as soon as the lease
could be killed and/or movers could be arranged. I'm looking at
exploring my kink interests, but this is a hard limit.
We don't always discuss specific details to the letter, but lies are
unacceptable, as is general deceit.
>/me hides while everyone googles her immature teenage posts.
That actually sounds like fun. I might have to do that.
Dave
<9386bfaf-9820-4273...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>You make me totally puzzled here. Does a polyamorous arrangement
>require that you actively seek new partners? Why the sudden pressure?
It doesn't so much require actively seeking new partners, but if you
don't, then are you really polyamourous?
What I bumped into with my girlfriend is that I am completely okay with
her doing pretty much whatever she wants (within safety lines -- Not a
concern, but worth mentioning), and she's alright with me doing whatever
I want.
You've all heard why the engineer got a mistress, right? This way his
wife thinks he's with the mistress, the mistress thinks he's with his
wife, and he can go to work.
I never went to school, but I'll play the part of the engineer here. In
my case I'm often not particularly interested in finding another
partner. I like the freedom to do so, and I sometimes really enjoy the
hunt, but I don't need or want the sex or even the company. Having not
had another partner she was somewhat concerned that I might be upset by
her having one, or at least she was concerned by the lack of fairness.
So yes, sometimes there is pressure to seek a partner. Even if there
isn't pressure to do so, actually looking for one isn't always fun.
toramjero
So you are pretending to have other partners so that your girlfriend
feels free to do whatever she wants? These Polyamorist arrangements
continue to baffle me.
Anyway, my questions were a bit different. My understanding is that
men who look for a second partner usually pretend that they are
single. They simply cannot convince a partner otherwise. I have yet to
meet a woman who will accept to have sex with a man, knowing that he
happily has a primary partner. Men, on the other hand, do not appear
to be that picky. In other words: polyamory is possible, but only for
women.
Desideria
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 09:48:29 -0700, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
> >DennyWheeler(REMOVE LUNCH) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:48:45 -0700, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>
> >>> OkayDenny, are you getting better? Or maybe we should ask Desi...
>
> >> She read this exchange and
> >> Desideria (12:04 AM):
> >> Tell suzee that Desi would definitely state she has NO complaints,
> >> especially about your ability to help your partner enjoy herself.
> >> (now if we were both a bit more slim, and I were a bit more
> >> flexible...)
>
> >As long as you're both having fun and enjoying it... <WEG>
>
> I certainly am, and by all reports, so's she. <big smile>
She is indeed. ;-)
Desideria
Desideria
wrote:
Huh----I've always wondered this: in a relationship with polyamory, is
there ever any concern about STDs, and how does one deal with that
concern? I know that some of the diseases one can get are not totally
prevented by using condoms or dams.
Desideria
Matthew Vincent
> illece...@nowhere.invalid wrote:
>>Actually, most so-called-mono "cheaters" I've met have
>>been very threatened or even outraged by polyamory.
Yeah, I've found that too. Wanting other partners for oneself is the
easy part; the real acid test is whether one feels comfortable with
one's partners seeing other people.
>>A few say they think it sounds nice (yet don't
>>have the guts to seek out such relationships),
>
>Polyamory takes more than mere guts to seek out; it takes
>willing participants. Plenty of poly individuals lament the
>dearth of possible partners where they live.
Well, finding people who are suitable and compatible can take time. My
experience (speaking as someone who's poly) is that being in a
negotiated open relationship has a different feel to it than being in
a monogamous relationship, even in the absence of actual current
secondary partners.
>The only real difference between monogamy
>and polyamory is the number of partners.
I view the difference as being more about whether there's a framework
that includes consent to having other partners, or whether there's a
monogamous framework. Sometimes, there's a convoluted framework due to
poor communication or defaulting to societal mores -- an arrangement
which I consider patently unacceptable for my relationships.
>Mono people are inherently opposed to any relationship
>configuration involving multiple partners because they
>feel their supremacy will be threatened or supplanted
>by new partners.
My understanding from talking to monogamous people is that usually
they either feel threatened by the idea of their partner being
sexually intimate with someone else, or/and they view sex as reserved
for a monogamous relationship and view the idea of either partner
having sex with others as something which would cheapen or invalidate
their relationship's intimacy in some way. Often, I think there's both
a concern for the emotional consequences of having sex with others, as
well as a feeling that the very act of sex with others would
inherently take away from the relationship.
No doubt, a monogamous person could explain this better than I can,
given that my understanding is limited to intellectualising and
putting ideas together based on conversations I've had with monogamous
people.
>>You seem to think that honesty and informed consent are quite trivial.
>>That is sad for anyone you may attempt a relationship with.
>
>Honesty and informed consent are not trivial at
>all, but sometimes necessary.
I'm confused by your grammar here. If you're saying that foregoing
honesty and informed consent is sometimes necessary in a relationship,
then I disagree -- although I qualify that by adding that it's
important to look for relationship partners who are emotionally intact
enough to handle regular, consistent honesty.
>We lie to each other about all sorts of things, large and small.
As an overall comment, your examples below largely seem to involve
lying readily and gratuitously for personal convenience, which is
something that many people make a point to avoid doing. Cheating is a
particularly gratuitous form of dishonesty, and worse still, it's
committed against one of the closest and dearest people in your life
over an issue which is of considerable emotional significance to them.
Cheating is also premeditated dishonesty, as opposed to lying after
the fact in an awkward situation. If physical intercourse is involved,
cheating on someone also exposes them to a medical risk of catching
STIs, without them having consented to taking such a risk.
>We lie about where we are if we don't want to be discovered.
Unless you're in the kind of situation that Jack Bauer has to deal
with, there generally isn't cause to lie about one's whereabouts.
>We lie about what time we woke up if we want to justify lateness.
I don't even *get* this one. Punctuality is normally judged by how
often you're late and how badly late you are. Either I'd just say
"sorry I'm late", or else add a brief truthful explanation e.g. being
stuck in traffic. In the last few years, I can only think of one time
I've been late that I couldn't have avoided through better planning
and organisation -- which is when I had to pull over and help an
elderly gentleman who'd fallen over at the side of the road. (He was
taken to hospital with minor injuries, and he was fine.)
>We lie about who's responsible for an accident if it
>means our insurance company will handle the claim.
There's a risk of civil or/and criminal court proceedings, as well as
damage to one's career and professional reputation. Also, one's
credibility as a witness in future court proceedings can be affected.
It's important to maintain one's standing as a person of good
character, and generally this is more important than avoiding a short-
term financial loss. Also, one could argue that even minor instances
of fraud cause harm to society by reducing the overall level of
honesty in society. Furthermore, it's best not to drive without
insurance, so that this situation doesn't transpire in the first
place.
>We lie to ourselves about what we've eaten or how much we
>exercise. Lying is the attempt to create an alternate reality
>from the one actually being experienced, especially
>if the odious reality carries serious repercussions.
Cheating on one's partner is a very plain, blatant, intentional
action. "What do you mean, it was an accident? He slipped on a banana
peel and his cock became erect and landed inside your pussy?"
>Poly relationships are often built as much around
>prohibitions as openness and inclusion.
There are usually some ground rules, but they're less restrictive
(from a poly person's perspective) than those in a monogamous
relationship. A significant part of why I feel comfortable in an open
relationship is that it gives me pleasure to hear about (or watch, or
be involved in) my primary partner being intimate with others. If
another person were to meet an emotional or sexual need of my
girlfriend's that I am not currently meeting, then this discovery
would lead to an opportunity for me to try and meet that need of hers
as well, thus leading to growth in our primary relationship.
>Honestly, my four-year-and-counting monogamous relationship
>is so rewarding that I wouldn't give it up for the sexual freedom
>I might find in a rare poly relationship.
I'm happy for you, and I don't presume my primary relationship is any
more valid than a monogamous person's relationship is valid for them.
It's only for me as an individual that I judge polyamory to be
preferable.
>>Not all human beings are functional, let alone capable of healthy
>>relationships. That isn't news. People who are mature and confident,
>>who are good communicators, who have the skills they need to create and
>>maintain healthy relationships and who make good choices in doing so, can
>>have satisfying low-drama relationships (mono or poly).
>
>Idealism speaks again. It takes much more than competent
>individual communicators to build good relationships because
>relationships are not governed by single individuals.
True, but illecebra's claim was that such a person is capable of
having a satisfying low-drama relationship in general, whilst not
necessarily with any particular individual. You do raise a good point
that compatibility is also important, even between competent
individuals.
>I've tried having the courage to wait for my ideal relationship,
>and found myself doing far too much waiting.
I've found a relationship that fits my ideal very closely, and I
wasn't particularly looking for a relationship when I met her. Perhaps
I'm just lucky, but I do think there's something to the idea that
having too high a need/want for *a relationship in general* can get in
the way of finding a relationship partner with whom one is
specifically compatible.
>>Cheating is wrong. I am not going to pretend it's not to protect the
>>feelings of those who choose to cheat on their loved ones.
>
>We're not going to get anywhere by butting heads in this manner. You may be
>polyamorous, but when it comes to cheating, you adopt a rather conservative
>morality emphasizing betrayal and honesty.
The idea that cheating is wrong, and that relationships should be
based on honesty and informed consent, is a very basic, nonpartisan,
secular ethical value that ought to be universal for any relationship,
monogamous or otherwise.
>Plenty of cultures... expect that people will cheat in overtly
>monogamous relationships; provisions and etiquette are
>developed to handle those situations. One thinks of the French multiple
>mistress stereotype or the classic wandering Latin eye. One also thinks of the
>independent black woman with multiple partners because one does not satisfy all
>her needs. Your lexicon has two switches: mono and poly. That's it. You either
>start out wanting multiple partners or stick to a monogamous agreement. I'm
>saying that relationship lexicons can include other types of moral frameworks.
>There are honorable ways for men and women in monogamous relationships to
>have other lovers, stopping short of completely open polyamory but also not
>entirely deceitful either.
There are various intermediary options. To me, they sound convoluted
and I personally would rather be in an explicitly negotiated open
relationship where my primary partner and I tell each other
everything. For me, this honesty and sharing creates intimacy and
closeness. However, if other people are happy with different
arrangements then that's their choice as long as no-one's having their
rights violated.
>>Informed consent is no small thing. I suppose you favor
>>date rape then, because "it's a short walk from" consensual
>>sex, "mostly involving permission or consent."
>
>Are you truly incapable of sufficient logic to realize that
>there's a difference between cheating and date rape
There's a difference in severity, which is why one is a serious crime
and the other isn't a criminal matter. However, the absence of consent
is still a huge issue and it's definitely not a "short walk" between
polyamory and cheating.
>Cheating involves nonconsent for a
>partner to have another. But, the secondary relationship takes place during
>people's independent time. If a man wants another lover, he is only given two
>options by traditional Western society: either he cheats or he opens his
>monogamous relationship. And if the wife will not consent to a "don't ask,
>don't tell" arrangement or any flavor of polyamory, the man is faced with the
>stark choice of breakup or perpetual misery. Where's his consent there
He's free to choose not to enter into a monogamous relationship
contract in the first place. If everyone was familiar with both
monogamy and polyamory as feasible options depending on individual
preference, fewer people would enter a relationship contract that
poorly matches their preferences. It would be to monogamous people's
advantage for polyamory to be more equally accepted, thus reducing the
number of poly-inclined persons who marry a monogamous person due to
confusion over those issues. The same principle applies regarding
marrying a different-sex partner who's gay/lesbian.
>What about another person who has fallen in love
>with a member of an existing couple
I've been a secondary partner to someone in an existing couple, as
well as to both partners in a couple. In these situations, I make a
point of treating their primary relationship with dignity and being
supportive of it.
>What about swinging?
I personally tend to prefer getting to know secondary partners first
to determine their suitability, but sure, swinging is another option.
For me, there's no urgency over finding casual sex partners because
I'm comfortably in a relationship that doesn't involve a contract to
only have sex with one person for the rest of my life.
>What about nonsexual but intimate Platonic relationships
Yeah, I've got a number of those too.
>I'm saying that dissatisfaction often leads to cheating, but
>not that it makes cheating right.
Yes, I'm inclined to agree that emotional distance in a relationship
can increase the appeal of cheating. The process can be circular, too,
as cheating tends to create more emotional distance.
>>Lying, willful deception...how can you apply "merely" to that?
>
>I get it. In your moral lexicon, lying is never justified. So, when someone
>invites you for dinner and you hate what they've cooked, you can't make an
>excuse to decline the invitation or taste a few bites and claim lack of hunger?
If that person is likely to cook for me again in the future, or/and if
I have a close enough relationship with them to value deep honesty
between us, I'd tell them the truth. If it was a casual acquaintance
cooking for me as a once-off, I might lie to spare their feelings, but
that's very different from cheating, for the reasons covered above.
>>Then the relationship and/or the people in it are broken. Cheating
>>can only compound the problem.
>
>There is only a problem when this relentless moralizing
>takes over a relationship. Cheating can enable one person
>to get off the other's back about what they're not doing.
For me, the idea of being in a relationship with this much emotional
distance in it due to dishonesty is unfathomable.
>In two cases where I was cheated upon, I got to find out that I would
>never entirely satisfy the particular women who cheated on me.
When I was cheated on, I felt emotionally violated, though it's hard
to separate out how much of this was due to the cheating in particular
and how much was due to her treating me badly more generally. I'm glad
I left her not long after this.
By comparison, I've watched and heard about both primary and secondary
partners being sexually intimate with others with my consent, and this
hasn't had the same negative effect for me. Being cheated on felt
different, because of the betrayal and dishonesty and the emotional
distance.
I've never cheated on anyone, so I can't speak for how that feels. I
can only imagine that it would create emotional distance and extra
baggage and stress.
>When I was the cheater, I stopped pestering my
>ex wife for sex, which was a relief to her.
I'm curious what each of you were getting out of staying in a marriage
like this. For me, such a relationship would be patently unsuitable.
Matthew
Dave
<deside...@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Huh----I've always wondered this: in a relationship with polyamory, is
>there ever any concern about STDs, and how does one deal with that
>concern? I know that some of the diseases one can get are not totally
>prevented by using condoms or dams.
Well, that depends on which polyamorous relationship type you're talking
about.
If we're talking about the open-relationship where there are primary
partners with one or more casual relationships outside, then the same
way singles deal with it, you take appropriate precautions and accept
the risk.
If we're talking about the multiple-partner-monogamous relationship then
the same way a married pair does it, get tested or trust up front as
appropriate.
Like with most things in life, the system isn't perfect, but the
involved individuals simply need to accept the risk or not participate.
Desideria
wrote:
So basically, everyone in the relationship starts with essentially
consenting to the risk of possible STDs? Not disagreeing with it if
so, just making sure that what I 'heard' is what you 'said'.
Desideria
toramjero
> He's free to choose not to enter into a monogamous relationship
> contract in the first place. If everyone was familiar with both
> monogamy and polyamory as feasible options depending on individual
> preference, fewer people would enter a relationship contract that
> poorly matches their preferences. It would be to monogamous people's
> advantage for polyamory to be more equally accepted, thus reducing the
> number of poly-inclined persons who marry a monogamous person due to
> confusion over those issues. The same principle applies regarding
> marrying a different-sex partner who's gay/lesbian.
>
I don't think so. For a start, some non-monogamous options have become
widely advertised enough so that most people are "familiar with them
as feasible options", but the problem is to find a willing partner, or
willing partners.
Take for example swinging: it is not quite the same as polyamory but
is also a non-monogamous option and is widely known. The result is
that you have 10 times as many men as women who are interested. Which,
in turn, means that for 9 willing men out of 10, it is not a real
possibility.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> In message
><9386bfaf-9820-4273...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
> toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>You make me totally puzzled here. Does a polyamorous arrangement
>>require that you actively seek new partners? Why the sudden pressure?
>
> It doesn't so much require actively seeking new partners, but if you
> don't, then are you really polyamourous?
Yes, resoundingly, absolutely.
For example, suppose you have three partners right now and are looking
for no more because that's all the time and energy you have or because
you agreed to a polyfidelitous arrangement with them. You're not
looking but you're still poly.
Furthermore, you can have just one or even zero partners and still be
polyamorous, just as you can have no partners and still be straight or
gay or bisexual.
.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> On Feb 17, 9:18 pm, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > I did a bit of role playing at the time. The attendance was 100% male.
>>
>> This has certainly changed. Of the people I know who are heavily into
>> role-playing games, the vast majority are female, especially those who
>> actually *play* them as opposed to just being generally interested in
>> them. The overall majority is probably more male than female, but
>> female role players are nowhere near rare anymore. This is especially
>> true of online role playing games conducted via social networking sites
>> -- my impression through my girlfriend (who is hugely into RPGs) is that
>> quite a lot of these are dominantly female, and she has made a huge
>> number of female friends through them.
>>
>
> What are online role playing games conducted via social networking
> sites?
Social networking sites such as livejournal sometimes host role playing
games that people play entirely online. Sometimes it's just a matter of
taking the standard game online, where you type your statements exactly
as you would make them around a table in someone's house and a standard
gaming system is used to control the game mechanics. Sometimes they're
a little more like a collaborative story, where there's still a system
but its effects are more hidden and the posts read more like prose.
> Well, yes: if one does not meet people, one does not meet potential
> romantic partners. But unless it is part of their job, I don't think
> that most people meet many people regularly (which also explains the
> success of dating sites). There are only so many hours in a week, of
> which a sizable chunk is taken by your job (where you may meet people
> or not, depending on the job), and another sizable chunk is taken by
> the basics of life like sleeping, cleaning or buying groceries (where
> one usually does not meet that many people). Remains some free time,
> hobbies, etc... And many hobbies do not imply meeting new people on a
> regular basis, even if they are practiced in a group: the group does
> not change that much. For example if you are playing football or
> learning to tango, people stay at least for a full season, so they are
> not replaced very fast. If you are in an amateur theater group, you'll
> need to stay long enough to prepare the play (takes months, I've done
> that). If you play in an orchestra, it also takes months to prepare a
> concert. Actually, I cannot think about a hobby were people would meet
> new people relatively fast and relatively regularly.
A lot of people do so via conventions organized for their hobby.
There are also meetup.com groups, which lead to meeting people quite
regularly. When I was doing NaNoWriMo (a story writing contest), I met
more people through that than through my entire college career.
.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> On Feb 17, 6:41 pm, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let's take polyamory as well, since that's what you were actually
>> discussing: One thing that many people who are new to polyamory in a
>> long-term relationship report is that there's an unexpected downside in
>> that suddenly you're "on the market" and there are a lot of pressures
>> there -- finding partners, facing rejection, being nervous around people
>> who you're interested in, maybe putting yourself out there on dating
>> sites if you're pursuing it that actively, maybe you even feel that you
>> need to take even more care than usual about picking outfits or doing
>> your hair before a party, whatever. (Okay, I never worried about the
>> last one, but I did find that it did open a huge yawning black hole of,
>> "What if nobody (else) wants me?" that I thought I'd put behind me once
>> and for all when I got married.) Some people, when they encounter this,
>> actively choose to try to stuff it all back into Pandora's box -- to go
>> back to monogamy because it's simpler and more comfortable and doesn't
>> put them out of their comfort zone in the same way. That's a totally
>> legitimate decision, providing all involved parties are okay with it,
>> but it's also a situation where someone chooses to have more
>> restrictions because they find it easier or simpler or more comfortable.
>>
>
> You make me totally puzzled here. Does a polyamorous arrangement
> require that you actively seek new partners?
No, not at all.
> Why the sudden pressure?
Because the possibility exists. The fact that you *could* pursue other
partners can bring back doubts and insecurities one had left behind when
they figured that they didn't have that option anymore. If you see an
attractive person, where it's easy to say, "They're nice, but I'm
taken," and not even let your brain stray into the question of whether
or not you have a chance, you don't have that safe stopping point for
your thoughts anymore. Also, for those who *do* seek other partners,
there will be some who don't succeed, and there will be some who, not
seeking other partners but being known to be poly, will wonder why
people don't flirt with them, for example. But sometimes just having
that possibility there can be a little bit scary for some people, even
if they are not presently intending to pursue it at all.
.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Anyway, my questions were a bit different. My understanding is that
> men who look for a second partner usually pretend that they are
> single. They simply cannot convince a partner otherwise. I have yet to
> meet a woman who will accept to have sex with a man, knowing that he
> happily has a primary partner. Men, on the other hand, do not appear
> to be that picky. In other words: polyamory is possible, but only for
> women.
I have four female partners currently. All of them knew that I was in a
relationship already when they met me. I've never pretended to be
single when I wasn't. (And not all of them themselves identify as
polyamorous, so it's not that I'm just working within a subset of people
who want to find someone who will accept their behaviour.)
.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Huh----I've always wondered this: in a relationship with polyamory, is
> there ever any concern about STDs, and how does one deal with that
> concern? I know that some of the diseases one can get are not totally
> prevented by using condoms or dams.
Sure, just as there is with any relationship. Basically it comes down
to being very open about your sexual history and status, getting tested
for things you can get tested for either regularly or whenever there is
a change in the overall poly structure, or perhaps both, and then people
deciding what acceptable risk is. Not all poly relationships even
include sex or sexual acts that carry STD risks, and while it may seem
like it must be impossible to stay on top of everyone's status for
everything, many poly webs are extremely stable and there would really
only be any kind of concern or re-evaluation needed once in a very long
time. (For example, I know of one poly triad who have no outside
partners at all and have been that way for at least fifteen years.)
.