All about Threesomes
Sarah C
working lady. We have about 5 weeks to work out all the stuff we need
to work out between us before the time we're planning on having her
visit us.
The opinion of Teh Internets seems to boil down to "It can be AWESOME,
but you have to have BOUNDARIES and RULES or it won't WORK and you'll
SPLIT UP and DIE ALONE!!ONE1!"
That makes a certain amount of sense. We do have amazingly fantastic
communication between us (mostly gained by thrashing out some pretty
rough times, usually to do with the lack of equality of sexual
experience we have), but I'm not terribly certain about how to work
out what good boundaries might be.
So, I thought I might ask you fine people whether you could shed some
light on the processes you've used to work out your guidelines,
boundaries and rules for including another person in your sex life.
Cheers,
Sarah_C
sleepy
include another woman, and what your expectations are.
Sarah C
> I can't answer your question, but I'm curious as to your motivation to
> include another woman, and what your expectations are.
My motivation is to delight my partner.
My partner's motivation is to be delighted, and to cut a second notch
on his virtual bedpost.
I expect, from reading reviews of the particular woman's work, that
she will be friendly, pretty, generous and enthusiastic, as well as
understanding of both of our shyness.
Did that answer your questions?
Remus Shepherd
> My fellow and I are in the process of setting up a threesome with a
> working lady. We have about 5 weeks to work out all the stuff we need
> to work out between us before the time we're planning on having her
> visit us.
Wait. Is this a threesome -- a one or two night sexual experience with
the three of you -- or are you setting up an open relationship with a
recurring third person?
> The opinion of Teh Internets seems to boil down to "It can be AWESOME,
> but you have to have BOUNDARIES and RULES or it won't WORK and you'll
> SPLIT UP and DIE ALONE!!ONE1!"
I am a serial adulterer. I can't seem to help it. People who are
married and/or in relationships seek me out and consider me 'safe' to add
to their relationships. I've been in too many threesomes to count(*),
both as short experiences and as a permanent part of an open marriage.
(* -- Okay, I've counted. It's about seven times.)
In every single one of these cases, the partners involved have broken
up. In most cases it took years, and it doesn't look like the threesome
was to blame. I think there were many times that people wanted to add a
third person to their relationship to prevent it from falling apart, but
I could not help to avert that destiny. Adding a third wheel to a bicycle
that doesn't run doesn't fix any problems.
I think the main issue is when one is not giving their partner something
they need -- either sexually or, more important, emotionally -- the third
person *will* provide it. They have to, it's the niche they're called to
fill in the threesome. But that can lead to dependency on the third person,
which will threaten the relationship.
Your best bet is to have short, one-night experiences, avoid being with
the same third person more than once or twice (so emotional bonds are less
likely to form), and be absolutely communicative with your partner. This
is a gift to one or both of you. It should not be viewed as 'how your life
is now', it should be viewed as a special treat that you allow yourselves.
Afterward you have to go back to your regular lives and your normal
relationship without any regrets -- and by that I mean that you should not
regret that your relationship lacks something. I eat ice cream every once
in a while; I don't get sad if I don't have ice cream every meal.
I hope this helps, and I wish you luck.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Serene Vannoy
> My fellow and I are in the process of setting up a threesome with a
> working lady. We have about 5 weeks to work out all the stuff we need
> to work out between us before the time we're planning on having her
> visit us.
>
> The opinion of Teh Internets seems to boil down to "It can be AWESOME,
> but you have to have BOUNDARIES and RULES or it won't WORK and you'll
> SPLIT UP and DIE ALONE!!ONE1!"
Eh. You know yourself better than we do. If there's something particular
you think will be worrying, prepare for that and set some reasonable
boundaries. If not, just see how it goes. It's not like you can't change
your minds, or just have a less-than-stellar experience and try again
later. If you two think that this is so important/big/looming that it
has the power to split you up, you may not be ready for it yet. If, on
the other hand, you're doing it together to enjoy yourselves, I say go
for it and don't overthink it.
>
> That makes a certain amount of sense. We do have amazingly fantastic
> communication between us (mostly gained by thrashing out some pretty
> rough times, usually to do with the lack of equality of sexual
> experience we have), but I'm not terribly certain about how to work
> out what good boundaries might be.
>
> So, I thought I might ask you fine people whether you could shed some
> light on the processes you've used to work out your guidelines,
> boundaries and rules for including another person in your sex life.
I've never hired anyone for sex, but I've certainly had sex for sex's
sake, and I didn't find the need to set down rules ahead of time.
That's not to say you won't need to. If there's something you don't want
him doing (saying how beautiful she is, for instance, or having anal sex
with her, or whatever), then now's the time to say that, but beyond
that, I think it's likely you won't know what you want and don't want
until you're in the situation.
(I know you know this, but I feel like saying it: If you don't want to
do this, you shouldn't do it, no matter how much you think it may please
your partner. It's not your fault he's inexperienced sexually, and you
don't have to make yourself miserable to help him "fix" that.)
Serene
--
"Basic principles of the Universe, oo. Do tell. Quantum mechanics?"
"You cannot know simultaneously where you are in a relationship *and*
how fast it is going." - Piglet and Rob Wynne, on alt.polyamory
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>(I know you know this, but I feel like saying it: If you don't want to
>do this, you shouldn't do it, no matter how much you think it may please
>your partner. It's not your fault he's inexperienced sexually, and you
>don't have to make yourself miserable to help him "fix" that.)
On the other hand, if her partner is miserable because of his sexual
inexperience, she might love him enough to let him have more experiences that
may not have to involve her.
Orlando
Sarah C
> Wait. Is this a threesome -- a one or two night sexual experience with
> the three of you -- or are you setting up an open relationship with a
> recurring third person?
It's a one night only sexual experience with a person we expect to
have no contact with again.
Although it makes me feel like a bad, narrow-minded person*, I'm
simply not set up mentally or emotionally to enjoy, or even cope with,
polyamoury.
(*I said "feel" not "think" :))
> In every single one of these cases, the partners involved have broken
> up. In most cases it took years, and it doesn't look like the threesome
> was to blame. I think there were many times that people wanted to add a
> third person to their relationship to prevent it from falling apart, but
> I could not help to avert that destiny. Adding a third wheel to a bicycle
> that doesn't run doesn't fix any problems.
We're absolutely not doing this to attempt to fix a problem in our
relationship. I've never understood why some people try doing
something like this, or even worse, having a baby, to try to mend a
relationship.
> I think the main issue is when one is not giving their partner something
> they need -- either sexually or, more important, emotionally -- the third
> person *will* provide it. They have to, it's the niche they're called to
> fill in the threesome. But that can lead to dependency on the third person,
> which will threaten the relationship.
> Your best bet is to have short, one-night experiences, avoid being with
> the same third person more than once or twice (so emotional bonds are less
> likely to form), and be absolutely communicative with your partner.
It's lovely to have my feelings clarified into clearly expressed words
this way. What you have said here is the reason we have chosen the way
we have.
Also, we're talking so much it's almost funny in an effort to not miss
out on telling the other something important, we're telling one
another things which are really, really trivial and silly. I'm really
enjoying it.
>This
> is a gift to one or both of you. It should not be viewed as 'how your life
> is now', it should be viewed as a special treat that you allow yourselves.
> Afterward you have to go back to your regular lives and your normal
> relationship without any regrets -- and by that I mean that you should not
> regret that your relationship lacks something. I eat ice cream every once
> in a while; I don't get sad if I don't have ice cream every meal.
Thank you very much for that reminder, Remus.
It's great when someone says pretty much exactly what I am thinking
and feeling :)
> I hope this helps, and I wish you luck.
Thank you :)
Sarah C
> Eh. You know yourself better than we do. If there's something particular
> you think will be worrying, prepare for that and set some reasonable
> boundaries. If not, just see how it goes.
There are a coupe of sex acts I feel uncomfortable about his
performing on people who are not me. At this stage we've decided to
see how it goes, and have him check with me before he starts any of
them. I'm allowed to say whatever I like and have it respected,
whether it's "OK, give it a try and I'll see how I feel" or "Nope,
sorry, I can't cope with that," or even "Go for it, I want to see."
I'd certainly prefer to be able to let him have whatever experiences
are on offer. It wouldn't be nice of me to say "Here we are in the
lolly-shop. You can eat whatever you want. Except any red lollies, cos
I don;t like to think of you eating red lollies." Of course, if I'm
actually allergic to red lollies, and his eating them will make me
unwell, it's a different story.
The only actual boundaries I find myself wanting to set are about
making certain contact afterwards is limited to one Thank You email.
I've also said that if I need to get some distance from the action,
I'll let them know as gracefully and non-intrusively as possible, and
that they should go on with whatever they're doing. We'll be letting
the lady know that, too, before we meet.
I just realised we haven't talked about whether those Red Lollies I
was talking about earlier are to be embraced or avoided if I do need
to get some space. Hmm.. thanks for helping me think.
> It's not like you can't change
> your minds, or just have a less-than-stellar experience and try again
> later.
We'll be spending enough money that backing out - changing our minds -
would feel like a real failure, but you're absolutely correct, we can
change our minds. And we can have a less than awesome time, and we can
either try again later, or not. All these things are important to
remember.
> If you two think that this is so important/big/looming that it
> has the power to split you up, you may not be ready for it yet. If, on
> the other hand, you're doing it together to enjoy yourselves, I say go
> for it and don't overthink it.
I really don't feel that this has the power to split us up. I have
felt that relationships and experiences my fellow has pursued in the
past have had that potential, but each one has taught us its risks,
and this encounter is being planned specifically to avoid those risks.
I do feel it has the potential to make either or both of us pretty
uncomfortable for a while, but I'm confident that we can work out any
problems after the fact.
> I've never hired anyone for sex, but I've certainly had sex for sex's
> sake, and I didn't find the need to set down rules ahead of time.
> That's not to say you won't need to. If there's something you don't want
> him doing (saying how beautiful she is, for instance, or having anal sex
> with her, or whatever), then now's the time to say that,
My intimacy scale thingy whatsit is different from most of those I
have seen expressed online. Mine goes, from least to most intimate:
Oral on him, vaginal sex, passionate kissing, female-penetrated anal,
cunnilingus, male-penetrated anal.
I'm fine with (well, mostly fine with, I have a little possessiveness
about these things, but nothing I don't feel able to manage) anything
up to f-p a (and this lady doesn't offer that anyway). I'm quite a lot
less comfortable with the idea of cunnilingus, and pretty sure that
his receiving any sort of anal play from someone who isn't me is
something I am not ready to accept. I am completely unwilling to
accept his accepting or doing anything with her that we have not
already done together... but to be honest, after almost eleven years
of really good sex, there's not a whole lot left on that list that
appeals to either of us.
> but beyond
> that, I think it's likely you won't know what you want and don't want
> until you're in the situation.
That whole "You won't know what you want and don;t want til you're
there" thing is both scary and good. I had one homosexual relationship
and two homosexual encounters outside of relationships while I was a
teenager. but now the thought of giving cunnilingus kinda squicks me a
little. I know I loved it then. I don't know how I will react when
faced with the issue, so to speak.
> (I know you know this, but I feel like saying it: If you don't want to
> do this, you shouldn't do it, no matter how much you think it may please
> your partner. It's not your fault he's inexperienced sexually, and you
> don't have to make yourself miserable to help him "fix" that.)
It's taken me quite a few years to actually know it, but yes, I do
know it now. I'm certainly not making myself miserable. The worst of
the feelings I am having at the moment are nervousness and mild
anxiety. Unfortunately, that's pretty much all I'm feeling about it.
Yesterday I started feeling the tiniest flickers of arousal at the
idea, but they seem to be absent this morning.
It's funny to me that almost all the anxiety I am feeling is about me,
rather than him. Like... what if I hate it and need to leave? What if
I hate it and DON'T leave? What if I can't bring myself to enjoy the
idea of going down? What if I can't allow myself to be gone down on?
Will she think I am too fat? Will she scorn my underwear? What if she
only does couples because financially she has to, and she hates it?
Will she despise me as an exploiter?
I'd simply love to be able to relax, anticipate, and get horny over
the idea.
Sarah C
Or she might not.
One thing I have decided in the last decade is not not let Orlando
make me unhappy or angry.
Cheers.
Delila
"Sarah C" <secret....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa9dd687-f33c-44be...@u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> On the other hand, if her partner is miserable because of his sexual
> inexperience, she might love him enough to let him have more experiences
> that
> may not have to involve her.
>
> Orlando
Or she might not.
One thing I have decided in the last decade is not not let Orlando
make me unhappy or angry.
**Sarah, I don't get why Orlando's suggestion would make you unhappy or
angry? What am I missing here?
D.
Sarah C
> "Sarah C" <secret.sara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You're missing Orlando's history with me and my relationship.
I used to have a Very Hard Time dealing with a lot of my partner's
wants, in particular for a wider range of sexual experience, and
Orlando, on several occasions made cruel, rude, insulting or otherwise
unwelcome remarks. One example of this is when I was concerned that a
sexual liaison my partner was considering might turn emotional, and
posted for advice on how to avoid that, and reassurance, Orlando's
reaction was to suggest I step aside, leave the relationship, and let
my partner have a relationship with the other girl rather than me
(which neither my partner nor the other girl was at all interested
in), claiming that it was obvious I was an unsuitable partner for him.
He is a man without social graces or tact, and I an uninterested in
any comment he might have about me or my relationships.
And his post did not make me angry (although I am quite sure it was
merely the opening gambit in a "plan" to belittle me). I am done with
emotional reactions to Orlando.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>It's a one night only sexual experience with a person we expect to
>have no contact with again.
What is this experience supposed to accomplish, especially if it's being paid
for?
>Although it makes me feel like a bad, narrow-minded person*, I'm
>simply not set up mentally or emotionally to enjoy, or even cope with,
>polyamory.
Then why have this threesome? This is a very primitive, momentary version of
polyamory.
>We're absolutely not doing this to attempt to fix a problem in our
>relationship. I've never understood why some people try doing
>something like this, or even worse, having a baby, to try to mend a
>relationship.
Why then are you doing it?
>Also, we're talking so much it's almost funny in an effort to not miss
>out on telling the other something important, we're telling one
>another things which are really, really trivial and silly. I'm really
>enjoying it.
You're enjoying it because it makes you feel more connected, which is what
you've wanted all along. You've had your fun and now want intimacy and quality;
he's still wanting his fun and thus considers intimacy to be an obstacle to
more fun.
Orlando
Tom Allen
> On May 10, 10:14 am, "Delila"<watertige...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Sarah C"<secret.sara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fa9dd687-f33c-44be...@u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand, if her partner is miserable because of his sexual
>>> inexperience, she might love him enough to let him have more experiences
>>> that
>>> may not have to involve her.
>>
>>> Orlando
>>
>> Or she might not.
>>
>> One thing I have decided in the last decade is not not let Orlando
>> make me unhappy or angry.
>>
>> **Sarah, I don't get why Orlando's suggestion would make you unhappy or
>> angry? What am I missing here?
>>
>> D.
>
> You're missing Orlando's history with me and my relationship.
D, Orlando is pretty much a dickhead. He makes pretty much everybody
angry wherever he goes. He's got a talent for it.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>There are a coupe of sex acts I feel uncomfortable about his
>performing on people who are not me. At this stage we've decided to
>see how it goes, and have him check with me before he starts any of
>them. I'm allowed to say whatever I like and have it respected,
>whether it's "OK, give it a try and I'll see how I feel" or "Nope,
>sorry, I can't cope with that," or even "Go for it, I want to see."
>I'd certainly prefer to be able to let him have whatever experiences
>are on offer. It wouldn't be nice of me to say "Here we are in the
>lolly-shop. You can eat whatever you want. Except any red lollies, cos
>I don;t like to think of you eating red lollies." Of course, if I'm
>actually allergic to red lollies, and his eating them will make me
>unwell, it's a different story.
The whole purpose for this experience is for him to do things to another woman.
If you're at risk of not being okay with any of it, you probably shouldn't have
the experience. Granted, if you don't mind wasting money, just have the woman
come over and pay her no matter what happens or doesn't.
>The only actual boundaries I find myself wanting to set are about
>making certain contact afterwards is limited to one Thank You email.
Are you actually afraid she'll want more than that?
>I've also said that if I need to get some distance from the action,
>I'll let them know as gracefully and non-intrusively as possible, and
>that they should go on with whatever they're doing.
I think you're confused about all this. A few sentences up, you said you might
have problems with him doing anything to anyone else.
>We'll be letting the lady know that, too, before we meet.
How did you find her?
>We'll be spending enough money that backing out - changing our minds -
>would feel like a real failure, but you're absolutely correct, we can
>change our minds. And we can have a less than awesome time, and we can
>either try again later, or not. All these things are important to
>remember.
I wouldn't waste money if it's likely you'll change your mind. You might as
well experiment for free.
>I really don't feel that this has the power to split us up. I have
>felt that relationships and experiences my fellow has pursued in the
>past have had that potential, but each one has taught us its risks,
>and this encounter is being planned specifically to avoid those risks.
Yes, you're planning it specifically so that you control every moment and
possibly deprive him of a sexual experience for which he's already paid. You
fault him for wanting more sexual experiences besides you and don't even give
him freedom to have real experiences with real lovers rather than paid ones at
your command.
>I do feel it has the potential to make either or both of us pretty
>uncomfortable for a while, but I'm confident that we can work out any
>problems after the fact.
I wish you luck.
>That whole "You won't know what you want and don;t want til you're
>there" thing is both scary and good. I had one homosexual relationship
>and two homosexual encounters outside of relationships while I was a
>teenager. but now the thought of giving cunnilingus kinda squicks me a
>little. I know I loved it then. I don't know how I will react when
>faced with the issue, so to speak.
Who says you must go down on her?
I'm certainly not making myself miserable. The worst of
>the feelings I am having at the moment are nervousness and mild
>anxiety. Unfortunately, that's pretty much all I'm feeling about it.
>Yesterday I started feeling the tiniest flickers of arousal at the
>idea, but they seem to be absent this morning.
What changed? What aroused you before but not own?
>It's funny to me that almost all the anxiety I am feeling is about me,
>rather than him. Like... what if I hate it and need to leave?
Then leave.
>What if I hate it and DON'T leave?
You'll be a saint.
>What if I can't bring myself to enjoy the
>idea of going down? What if I can't allow myself to be gone down on?
This experience is mostly about your man having sex with someone else in your
presence. Anything else seems optional to me.
>Will she think I am too fat? Will she scorn my underwear? What if she
>only does couples because financially she has to, and she hates it?
>Will she despise me as an exploiter?
It actually doesn't matter what she thinks or why she does couples. When she
takes money from you, her opinion of you or him becomes immaterial. That's of
course not to say that you have license to do anything with her regardless of
her consent. That is, however, to say that prostitution is not the same as a
sexual experience in which attraction is actually involved. apart of why men
pay prostitutes is because they don't want to be evaluated in terms of
attractiveness; they just want sex regardless of their physique. So, whether
this woman thinks you're too fat or likes your underwear, she's being paid to
have sex with your man and possibly with you, both of which she will do or
forfeit her fee.
>I'd simply love to be able to relax, anticipate, and get horny over
>the idea.
I personally can never get horny over the idea of payment for sex because of
the desire factor being removed. A prostitute is paid to screw any man willing
to agree to her contract, which invalidates the desire factor. Since I have
undesirability issues, I would never trust a woman I was paying for sex if she
behaved as though she wanted me.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>**Sarah, I don't get why Orlando's suggestion would make you unhappy or
>angry? What am I missing here?
Delilah, it's nothing really. A few women on newsgroups have become convinced
that I'm a misogynist pig to be avoided at all costs regardless of what I
actually write. My chief offenses have been the sending of private emails to
usenet posters and the polite expression of sexual interest in certain women.
Some women are so dualistic in their thinking that they cannot imagine me being
interested in both their bodies and minds. It has to be one or the other. After
years of being meek, docile and obedient of every female whim regarding
relationship pacing, scale and scope, I finally decided to take matters into my
own hands and develop a sort of horny blind man militancy that scares many
women. I say what I think and feel, which can include sexually bold comments.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>You're missing Orlando's history with me and my relationship.
>I used to have a Very Hard Time dealing with a lot of my partner's
>wants, in particular for a wider range of sexual experience, and
>Orlando, on several occasions made cruel, rude, insulting or otherwise
>unwelcome remarks.
You may have found them cruel and unwelcome because they did not boil down to
you getting what you want; they may have even hinted on Wolf getting what he
wants.
>One example of this is when I was concerned that a
>sexual liaison my partner was considering might turn emotional, and
>posted for advice on how to avoid that, and reassurance, Orlando's
>reaction was to suggest I step aside, leave the relationship, and let
>my partner have a relationship with the other girl rather than me
I suggested that because your partner was obviously unwilling to give her up
immediately and that was making you miserable. I was trying to decrease your
suffering.
>(which neither my partner nor the other girl was at all interested
>in), claiming that it was obvious I was an unsuitable partner for him.
Well, if your partner thinks he hasn't yet had enough sexual experiences and if
you don't want him to have sex with more women, you may indeed be an unsuitable
partner for him. There's nothing crude or rude about that assessment. You two
may love each other and be the best of friends, but cannot free on sexual
exclusivity.
>He is a man without social graces or tact, and I an uninterested in
>any comment he might have about me or my relationships.
Wow! How did I ever survive for 37 years without social graces or tact? Honey,
you don't want tact; you want sympathy. You want people to tell you that what
you want is what should be. You want people to encourage you to demand what you
want and not endure even a few seconds of anything you don't want. I'm standing
up for your man here. If he wants to have sex with other women, nothing you can
say or do will disabuse him of this desire. So, you might as well either accept
it or break up. Now, you're going to say that my comments are rude and crude
because I haven't hit you with a bunch of psychobabble encouraging you two to
suffer some more. Fact is, if he wants sex with other women and you're standing
in his way, neither of you are happy. You're unhappy that he wants other women
in the first place and he's unhappy that you won't let him have them. Again,
there's absolutely nothing crude or rude about this assessment.
>And his post did not make me angry (although I am quite sure it was
>merely the opening gambit in a "plan" to belittle me). I am done with
>emotional reactions to Orlando.
Sarah, why would I want to belittle you? I do not know you from Eve; you've
done nothing to annoy or irritate me. Your close mindedness isn't exactly
attractive, but I don't have to like you in order to have intelligent and
helpful things to say.
Orlando
Sarah C
name from years ago ;)
Orlando Enrique Fiol
Sarah C <secret....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Heh. Orlando doesn't know me from Eve, but he remember's my partner's
>name from years ago ;)
I survive on my prodigious memory, Sarah. What I meant by "not knowing
you from Eve" is that I have no reason to dislike you or want you to suffer. On
the contrary, I believe people should be as happy as they can be. Every time
you post about your relationship, it essentially boils down to Wolf wanting to
have sex with someone else. Either it's someone he could conceivably love
emotionally, which would threaten you, or it's a paid woman whose every move
has to be pre-approved by you before you can relax. Do you notice a pattern
here? Whenever Wolf wants to have sex with other women, you come here
anguished, anxious and nervous. Anyone with half a heart and a bit of brain can
see that this ongoing sexual issue is not making either of you happy. Also, I
speak from experience here. My partner and I struggled for years with me
wanting other sexual partners and us actually having sex less and less.
Finally, after more than a year of sexual drought, she came to me, acknowledged
my suffering and gave me permission to have other partners. I follow her rules
and honor her few boundaries. Things are working out very well for us. Of
course, she too is free to have other partners and has come close to doing so.
But, all the anguish is gone. She doesn't spy on my online activities anymore
because she knows I'll tell her honestly when I'm considering someone new. If
she wants to meet the new woman, I arrange it; if she'd rather I keep it
entirely separate and away from her, I honor that.
The point is that we're happy now. We're not wanting things from each other
that the other is unwilling or unable to give. She knows that whenever she
wants to resume our sex life, I'll get tested just for safety's sake and we can
go into sex therapy. But, she herself acknowledges that sex is no longer a high
priority for her. I shouldn't have to suffer because of that and I also don't
blame her for the changes in her libido.
You're still at the stage where you resent Wolf's every attempt to have other
sexual partners. You picked him eleven years ago knowing he lacked sexual
experience. Granted, you may not have known how much he'd crave new experiences
while still with you. But let's face it, this is the man you have now. You can
try to change him or restrict his activities with a combination of love and
intimidation, but he's going to do with his body whatever he wants. You might
as well try to get yourself into a peaceful state about it, or else one day,
you're going to have a nervous breakdown from all this anxiety around sex.
Sarah, it really is just sex. Where he puts his penis doesn't signify the end
of the world, much less your relationship. He can actually put his penis into
another vagina and still love you. If you can't wrap your brain around that
concept, then maybe you have indeed been with the wrong man. Maybe, you need a
totally monogamous man who will either earnestly want only you or will at least
do a better job at pretending to do so.
Orlando
Delila
"Tom Allen" <tao...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hs7pas$f5o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> D, Orlando is pretty much a dickhead. He makes pretty much everybody angry
> wherever he goes. He's got a talent for it.
I remember Orlando's posts from years ago, and as far as I could tell, he's
just brutally honest and not always 'politically correct'. To me these
qualities are not necessarily a minus. It also seems to me, that generally
speaking, relationships shouldn't be as hard as some of them seem. If a
relationship feels like it's a chore, maybe it would be best to not be with
that person. Of course, that's just my view on it. :)
D.
Delila
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" <of...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2651321e2...@news.albasani.net...
>
> Why then are you doing it?
It looks to me like having a threesome will just complicate things further.
I'm not passing judgement here, but if one partner has a lot of concerns
about how it will turn out, it may be best to shelf the idea.
D.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I remember Orlando's posts from years ago, and as far as I could tell, he's
>just brutally honest and not always 'politically correct'. To me these
>qualities are not necessarily a minus. It also seems to me, that generally
>speaking, relationships shouldn't be as hard as some of them seem. If a
>relationship feels like it's a chore, maybe it would be best to not be with
>that person. Of course, that's just my view on it. :)
Sarah evidently fetishizes her relationship's pain, which is why she posts
about it here. She wants usenet to know that she's holding on to her Wolf
through thick and thin and trying to accommodate his sexual needs. However, she
also wants the feminist contingent to know that she's not letting Wolfie run
over her, no sir! She's standing up for herself and controlling every aspect of
this planned threesome, from choosing the paid participant to setting
boundaries. My question is: Wouldn't her life be more productive and meaningful
if she weren't constantly suffering or carrying around this albatross of a
relationship?
Orlando
Delila
It sounds to me as if you two solved your problem in a mature way that works
well for both of you. Congratulations!
D.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>It looks to me like having a threesome will just complicate things further.
>I'm not passing judgement here, but if one partner has a lot of concerns
>about how it will turn out, it may be best to shelf the idea.
Any sensible person would conclude that. A threesome is meant to be a fun
experience for everyone. If anyone in the threesome has misgivings, they should
let the two people who want to have fun actually have it. I think Sarah is
using this threesome to exert control over Wolf's sexuality and to make herself
feel good about willingness to try it. But, the truth is that she doesn't have
to prove anything to us, to him or to herself. She doesn't have to be some
superwoman who's okay with everything, or a controlling bitch who's not okay
with much and aims to make sure her man colors within her boundaries. A
relationships shouldn't consist of one person setting boundaries and the other
adhering to them. It should be a consensus where the boundaries are agreed upon
by both people because they make sense for that relationship. For instance, my
partner has a boundary that I not have sex with other women in our bed or in
our house when she's home. I have no problem respecting both those boundaries
because they entirely make sense to me. I wouldn't want to smell some other
man's body in my bed or hear his groans in my house. Although her name is not
on the house's deed, she's lived with me for almost six years and it's as much
her house as mine. I respect her boundary because it seems just and fair to
both of us. In Sarah's case, Wolf clearly wants to have sex with other women.
The sooner Sarah accepts that and lets him have fun, the happier they'll be.
Alternatively, if she doesn't want to accept it, she can end the relationship.
But, trying to micromanage it isn't making either of them happy. Now, if Sarah
thinks I'm a rude and crudely insensitive pig for saying that, I can't stop
her. But, if she looks beyond her initial discomfort, she might see that what
you and I are saying actually makes sense and demonstrates our compassion
toward her.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>It sounds to me as if you two solved your problem in a mature way that works
>well for both of you. Congratulations!
It may not be a permanent solution. If my partner wants to be sexually involved
with me again, I'll be monogamous with her and make sure I'm entirely free of
any possible sexually transmitted diseases. but until then, it's unfair for her
to hold me a sexual hostage. I respect her boundaries and do not rub new
partners in her face, just as she requested. But, there's an incredible weight
lifted from our relationship. I don't have to hide my sexual interest in other
women and my partner is also understanding the fact that I don't stop loving
her when I'm interested in other women.
Orlando
Delila
All of this makes perfect sense to me.
> In Sarah's case, Wolf clearly wants to have sex with other women.
> The sooner Sarah accepts that and lets him have fun, the happier they'll
> be.
> Alternatively, if she doesn't want to accept it, she can end the
> relationship.
> But, trying to micromanage it isn't making either of them happy.
That's the impression I got from her posts, too.
> Now, if Sarah
> thinks I'm a rude and crudely insensitive pig for saying that, I can't
> stop
> her. But, if she looks beyond her initial discomfort, she might see that
> what
> you and I are saying actually makes sense and demonstrates our compassion
> toward her.
True. Either way, I hope they can finally firgure out a way to do things
both of them can live with. This problem seems to have gone on for way too
long.
D.
Delila
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" <of...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2651dd228...@news.albasani.net...
> My question is: Wouldn't her life be more productive and meaningful
> if she weren't constantly suffering or carrying around this albatross of a
> relationship?
I'm asking myself the same question. She must really love him in order for
her to put up with things the way they are. The same must be true for him as
well.
D.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Either way, I hope they can finally firgure out a way to do things
>both of them can live with. This problem seems to have gone on for way too
>long.
The longer it goes on, the more turned on Sarah will get in fetishizing her
martyrdom and suffering on usenet. If the relationship were to end now, she'd
have to concentrate on other aspects of her life and would have no more
suffering stories to tell us.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I'm asking myself the same question. She must really love him in order for
>her to put up with things the way they are. The same must be true for him as
>well.
I think they love pain more than they love each other. If she truly loved him,
she'd let him have his fun or cut him loose to do his own thing with a
polyamorous woman. On the other hand, if he really loved her, he'd realize that
she's uncomfortable with him having other sexual partners. Clearly, neither of
them love each other enough to make sacrifices for one another without boasting
about them. A sacrifice is me quietly doing something to make someone else
happy, not posting on usenet about how much of a saint I am for trying to
accommodate someone's needs.
Orlando
Sarah C
>> = Sarah
> = Orlando
>>Also, we're talking so much it's almost funny in an effort to not miss
>>out on telling the other something important, we're telling one
>>another things which are really, really trivial and silly. I'm really
>>enjoying it.
>You're enjoying it because it makes you feel more connected, which is what
>you've wanted all along. You've had your fun and now want intimacy and quality;
>he's still wanting his fun and thus considers intimacy to be an obstacle to
>more fun.
I don't think it would be possible for us to be more connected than we
already are without being quite unhealthy. The enjoyment does not come
from a feeling of greater connectedness, but from a feeling of shared
silliness, mixed with shared seriousness.
He does not in anyway consider intimacy an obstacle to fun. Or to sex,
which I assume is what you meant. He may well view monogamy as an
obstacle to a greater variety of sexual partners - he'd be foolish not
to - but it's his choice to accept or reject monogamy, with whatever
variations the relationship feels comfortable with.
>>I really don't feel that this has the power to split us up. I have
>>felt that relationships and experiences my fellow has pursued in the
>>past have had that potential, but each one has taught us its risks,
>>and this encounter is being planned specifically to avoid those risks.
>Yes, you're planning it specifically so that you control every moment and
>possibly deprive him of a sexual experience for which he's already paid. You
>fault him for wanting more sexual experiences besides you and don't even give
>him freedom to have real experiences with real lovers rather than paid ones at
>your command.
1) I'm paying
2) If I wanted to deprive him of this sexual experience, why would I
be a equal partner in setting it up?
3) I do not fault him for his desires. I do try to help him find
outlets for those desires which are not destructive of the
relationship.
4) At my command? I was planning on paying for him to visit a parlour
for his birthday, but when I suggested/offered, he made the counter
suggestion of bringing someone home, and for me to be there too.
>>What if I can't bring myself to enjoy the
>>idea of going down? What if I can't allow myself to be gone down on?
>This experience is mostly about your man having sex with someone else in your
>presence. Anything else seems optional to me.
Perhaps that's because, being outside of the relationship, you have no
idea what you are talking about.
No where in this thread or elsewhere have I discussed what my partner
wishes to get out of this experience.
>You want people to tell you that what
>you want is what should be. You want people to encourage you to demand what you
>want and not endure even a few seconds of anything you don't want.
No, what I want is for people to tell me how they set the rules and
boundaries for sexual encounters with people other than their primary
partners. That is why I asked.
>I'm standing
>up for your man here. If he wants to have sex with other women, nothing you can
>say or do will disabuse him of this desire.
I think, perhaps, you might be standing up for yourself, or for some
other man you have seen in a relationship which looks, superficially
and from the outside, similar enough to mine to strike some sort of
raw nerve with you. My partner does not need to be stood up for.
I have not tried to dissuade him from desiring other women, since I am
neither an idiot, nor selfish.
>So, you might as well either accept
>it or break up.
See above.
>Now, you're going to say that my comments are rude and crude
>because I haven't hit you with a bunch of psychobabble encouraging you two to
>suffer some more.
No, I am going to say many of your comments are rude (not crude)
because you are (inaccurately) ascribing actions, feelings, and
motivations to both me and to my partner with no evidence and without
being asked.
>Fact is, if he wants sex with other women and you're standing
>in his way, neither of you are happy. You're unhappy that he wants other women
>in the first place and he's unhappy that you won't let him have them.
I am not unhappy that he desires other women.
He is not unhappy that he chooses to be with me rather than have sex
with other women.
Just because one would enjoy something does not mean one is miserable
without it - as in Remus' ice-cream idea, above. But of course, since
Remus is not a woman, you'll have killfiled him and so won't have seen
it.
>Again,
>there's absolutely nothing crude or rude about this assessment.
It certainly is rude in that, once again, you are making assumptions
about my and my partner's feelings, motivations and actions which are
both unasked for and inaccurate.
>You can
>try to change him or restrict his activities with a combination of love and
>intimidation, but he's going to do with his body whatever he wants.
... intimidation? You odd little man. How do you believe I am
intimidating my partner? I am interested to hear what projection
you've done to arrive at this most interesting point of view.
>Where he puts his penis doesn't signify the end
>of the world, much less your relationship.
Where have I said or intimated it might, please?
>He can actually put his penis into
>another vagina and still love you. If you can't wrap your brain around that
>concept, then maybe you have indeed been with the wrong man. Maybe, you need a
>totally monogamous man who will either earnestly want only you or will at least
>do a better job at pretending to do so.
You are such an insulting fellow. If I could not "wrap my brain
around" that concept, why on EARTH would I be organising for my
partner to fuck some else?
And suggesting I might need a partner who would cheat on me is almost
the rudest thing you have ever said to me. And that, Orlando, is a
large, large claim.
>Sarah evidently fetishizes her relationship's pain, which is why she posts
>about it here.
Show me the pain.
Certainly, in years past I have been in pain, while we have been,
together, working through issues of desire, monogamy, mismatched
libidos (and I am sure you will make the wrong assumption here, too,
and present it as fact), money, children and jobs. Now I am in no way
in pain.
I am slightly nervous, and perhaps slightly anxious. I am also
curious, expectant, and interested.
>She wants usenet to know that she's holding on to her Wolf
>through thick and thin and trying to accommodate his sexual needs.
Usenet can know or not-know whatever it likes. I have, in the past,
come to ssg for information, and yes, even for comfort sometimes. I
will accept that I have TOLD Usenet that I am STICKING WITH my
partner, even when things get difficult, and that WE always try to
accommodate ONE ANOTHER'S sexual WANTS.
>However, she
>also wants the feminist contingent to know that she's not letting Wolfie run
>over her, no sir!
Deary me. I couldn't give a hoot about the "feminist contingent",
whoever they might be. And since my partner has never once tried to
run over me, there's certainly no aspect of "not letting" him do so.
>She's standing up for herself and controlling every aspect of
>this planned threesome, from choosing the paid participant to setting
>boundaries.
He chose her.
Setting boundaries is sensible.
>My question is: Wouldn't her life be more productive and meaningful
>if she weren't constantly suffering or carrying around this albatross of a
>relationship?
If my relationship were, in fact, an albatross, you'd be correct.
But since it's not...
*sighs*
No doubt you will stomp all over this answer as you always do, telling
me how manipulative and controlling I am, and how unreasonable to take
my own sexual needs into account, rather than just pretending I have
none.
Have fun with that.
Cheers,
Sarah_C
Remus Shepherd
> > The sooner Sarah accepts that and lets him have fun, the happier they'll
> > be.
> > Alternatively, if she doesn't want to accept it, she can end the
> > relationship.
> > But, trying to micromanage it isn't making either of them happy.
> That's the impression I got from her posts, too.
I get the impression not that Wolf wants to have sex with other women,
but that he wants to have sex in other *ways*. Sarah said she's uncomfortable
with cunnilingus and not that fond of anal sex. He wants something Sarah
can't provide.
That can lead to emotional involvement, but as long as they limit their
threesomes to rare one-night stands, hopefully Wolf will realize that his
fantasy sex acts are supposed to be a rare treat. He needs to get his
emotional needs fulfilled by Sarah and no one else. Eventually Wolf might
realize that the fantasy sex is best kept as a fantasy, because making it
real too often might cause trouble in his marriage.
There is an opportunity cost in having a relationship; you lose the
potential to have all the relationships you might have had. If your
relationship is a good one, the benefits are well worth the cost.
And now to prove why I don't post on this newsgroup often: My ultimate
advice would be to go get a dog. :)
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I don't think it would be possible for us to be more connected than we
>already are without being quite unhealthy. The enjoyment does not come
>from a feeling of greater connectedness, but from a feeling of shared
>silliness, mixed with shared seriousness.
That's only your opinion. What's his?
>He does not in anyway consider intimacy an obstacle to fun. Or to sex,
>which I assume is what you meant.
I now know I had better be careful about meaning the wrong thing.
>He may well view monogamy as an
>obstacle to a greater variety of sexual partners - he'd be foolish not
>to - but it's his choice to accept or reject monogamy, with whatever
>variations the relationship feels comfortable with.
I don't think you would take his rejection of monogamy very well. If he broke
up with you today because he wants more sexual partners, you would likely be
devastated.
>1) I'm paying
Okay, this is just plain wrong. I won't take my partner's money to go have fun
with other women. If he can't afford his own fun, he must wait to earn more
money. Now, for you, a gift should not have strings attached. If you don't
really feel comfortable giving Wolf this gift, save your money and your sanity.
>2) If I wanted to deprive him of this sexual experience, why would I
>be a equal partner in setting it up?
You want to control the sexual experience because you think it will be easier
for you to stomach him having sex with someone else if you're paying, watching
and directing.
>3) I do not fault him for his desires. I do try to help him find
>outlets for those desires which are not destructive of the
>relationship.
What have you done to help him find outlets for those desires? You don't really
even understand them. He desires other women. he desires sexual variety,
something he can't get sleeping only with you. There's no accommodation of
those desires short of letting him have sex with other women. Any other half
measures are delusional.
>4) At my command? I was planning on paying for him to visit a parlour
>for his birthday, but when I suggested/offered, he made the counter
>suggestion of bringing someone home, and for me to be there too.
In that case, he's a hen pecked fool who should have taken you up on your
birthday present. Why did you agree to his counteroffer?
>Perhaps that's because, being outside of the relationship, you have no
>idea what you are talking about.
If you want a woman to find you attractive and have a lesbian experience with
you, don't pay for one. What is this woman going to say? Her hands are tied if
she wants the money. No matter how honest you ask her to be, she's not going to
tell you if she finds you unattractive and risk not getting paid.
>No where in this thread or elsewhere have I discussed what my partner
>wishes to get out of this experience.
You don't have to. I'm a man and I know.
>No, what I want is for people to tell me how they set the rules and
>boundaries for sexual encounters with people other than their primary
>partners. That is why I asked.
They set rules according to what makes them comfortable. It's not rocket
science. If they don't want their partners having anal sex, anal sex is
forbidden. If they don't want their partner going down on another woman, that
is placed off limits. If they don't want their partner having enduring contact
with the other woman after the threesome, everyone agrees to that.
>I think, perhaps, you might be standing up for yourself, or for some
>other man you have seen in a relationship which looks, superficially
>and from the outside, similar enough to mine to strike some sort of
>raw nerve with you. My partner does not need to be stood up for.
I beg to differ. You have emasculated him by paying for a sexual experience
that you don't really want to have with him. You should insist that he visit
this parlor alone and at your expense.
>I have not tried to dissuade him from desiring other women, since I am
>neither an idiot, nor selfish.
Your posts suggest a different history. Any time he's wanted another woman, you
have stood in his way and made it either difficult or downright impossible.
>No, I am going to say many of your comments are rude (not crude)
>because you are (inaccurately) ascribing actions, feelings, and
>motivations to both me and to my partner with no evidence and without
>being asked.
My evidence comes from the same posts everyone else is reading. you may dislike
my reactions, but don't challenge the evidence you provide. If you think I need
better evidence to understand your relationship's subtleties, provide it.
>I am not unhappy that he desires other women.
>He is not unhappy that he chooses to be with me rather than have sex
>with other women.
Oh really? You're not unhappy? You seem tortured and anguished about this
threesome. You said yourself yesterday that although you were excited by the
idea the day before, today, you feel nervous. That doesn't sound like happiness
to me.
>Just because one would enjoy something does not mean one is miserable
>without it - as in Remus' ice-cream idea, above. But of course, since
>Remus is not a woman, you'll have killfiled him and so won't have seen
>it.
That's right, I don't read men's SSG posts because I'm not looking to make
friends with or have sex with men.
>It certainly is rude in that, once again, you are making assumptions
>about my and my partner's feelings, motivations and actions which are
>both unasked for and inaccurate.
If they are inaccurate, they are based on your provided evidence. If you would
like them to be more accurate, provide better evidence.
>... intimidation? You odd little man. How do you believe I am
>intimidating my partner? I am interested to hear what projection
>you've done to arrive at this most interesting point of view.
You're paying for a sexual experience that he clearly cannot afford on his own.
By accepting your offer of pseudo generosity, he also must acquiesce to a host
of controlling demands on your part: the ability to forbid any activity that
makes you uncomfortable, the ability to call off the threesome at any point,
the restriction of how many emails he can write the woman afterwards, need I go
on?
>Where have I said or intimated it might, please?
If you accept my premise that Wolf having sex with other women would not
signify the end of the world, let him fuck other chicks!
>You are such an insulting fellow. If I could not "wrap my brain
>around" that concept, why on EARTH would I be organising for my
>partner to fuck some else?
You're not really organizing for your partner to fuck someone else. You're
organizing something that looks like that, but something over which you retain
executive control.
>And suggesting I might need a partner who would cheat on me is almost
>the rudest thing you have ever said to me. And that, Orlando, is a
>large, large claim.
Sweet Jesus! Can you not read for content? I suggested that you need a partner
who would be totally monogamous with you and not even desire other women.
Where's the cheating in that?
>Show me the pain.
Anguished posts about this potential threesome, anguish about whether the
hooker will consider you too fat, anguish before about Wolf's emotional
dalliance with another woman, etc.
>Certainly, in years past I have been in pain, while we have been,
>together, working through issues of desire, monogamy, mismatched
>libidos (and I am sure you will make the wrong assumption here, too,
>and present it as fact), money, children and jobs. Now I am in no way
>in pain.
Have it your way. It's you who must decide whether or not to stay with Wolf,
not I.
>I am slightly nervous, and perhaps slightly anxious. I am also
>curious, expectant, and interested.
Then be curious, expectant and interested. Enjoy it for what it could be. Stop
worrying about what it all means. It's just sex. It will be physically safe and
emotionally flat, which is what you want.
>Usenet can know or not-know whatever it likes. I have, in the past,
>come to ssg for information, and yes, even for comfort sometimes. I
>will accept that I have TOLD Usenet that I am STICKING WITH my
>partner, even when things get difficult, and that WE always try to
>accommodate ONE ANOTHER'S sexual WANTS.
Wolf's sexual desires for other women have not been accommodated by you.
>Deary me. I couldn't give a hoot about the "feminist contingent",
>whoever they might be. And since my partner has never once tried to
>run over me, there's certainly no aspect of "not letting" him do so.
There might be some linguistic subtleties mismatched here.
>He chose her.
But you're paying.
>Setting boundaries is sensible.
Only to the setter.
>If my relationship were, in fact, an albatross, you'd be correct.
>But since it's not...
It sure sounds like it from your posts. You never post about happy times in
your relationship.
>No doubt you will stomp all over this answer as you always do, telling
>me how manipulative and controlling I am, and how unreasonable to take
>my own sexual needs into account, rather than just pretending I have
>none.
>Have fun with that.
Actually, Sarah dearest, I have said all along that your sexual needs do indeed
count. I never once have suggested you suck it up and do what makes you
uncomfortable. Rather, I have repeatedly suggested that if your sexual needs
truly matter to you as much as you say they do, that you break up with Wolf
because of his unwillingness to be monogamous.
Orlando
Delila
"Remus Shepherd" <re...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hs98sp$bvq$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> I get the impression not that Wolf wants to have sex with other women,
> but that he wants to have sex in other *ways*. Sarah said she's
> uncomfortable
> with cunnilingus and not that fond of anal sex. He wants something Sarah
> can't provide.
No, she wrote that she's uncomfortable with Wolf doing those things with
someone other than her.
D.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>No, she wrote that she's uncomfortable with Wolf doing those things with
>someone other than her.
Then she shouldn't fund threesomes where she knows that's a possibility.
Orlando
mopful
> Maybe, you need a
> totally monogamous man who will either earnestly want only you or will at least
> do a better job at pretending to do so.
As a middle-aged man who's off the scale monogamy-wise (in the
monogamy direction) (really there should be a word "monoamoury"), I
find myself in the unusual (for me) position of agreeing with Orlando
here.
I don't think that anyone "should" have sex with multiple partners or
"should" be comfortable with their spouse's doing so. Some people are
polyamorous and some people are not -- most people seem to be
somewhere inbetween -- personally, I'm not inbetween. I'm very open-
minded and I resent any implication that my lack of interest in
polyamoury would indicate a closed mind. I'm fully in favour of
polyamoury for those who want it, which does not include me.
(Along another axis: I'm bisexual, but I don't think that people who
are really straight or really gay are being closed minded about not
being attracted to Members Of The Inappropriate Sex. They're simply
not. Sex is wonderful, and as part of that, sexual diversity is
wonderful.)
There's lots of things you can do, sexually. People who are driven to
experiment can find safer or riskier things to do. Involving other
people gets in to a whole new level of risk, and if you're not
comfortable with it, don't. If your partner wants to involve other
people and you don't, my opinion is that you don't. Just like if your
partner wants to do something in particular -- say anal sex, or
fellatio -- and you don't, then you don't. There's lots to do. Find
something else which you _both_ want to try.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>As a middle-aged man who's off the scale monogamy-wise (in the
>monogamy direction) (really there should be a word "monoamoury"), I
>find myself in the unusual (for me) position of agreeing with Orlando
>here.
I'm flattered.
>I don't think that anyone "should" have sex with multiple partners or
>"should" be comfortable with their spouse's doing so.
The operative word there for me is "should". No one needs to be comfortable
with anything. If someone actually would enjoy the prospect of polyamory in
their relationship, they're welcome to try it, but only if their desire is
genuine.
>Some people are polyamorous and some people are not -- most people seem to be
>somewhere inbetween -- personally, I'm not inbetween. I'm very open-
>minded and I resent any implication that my lack of interest in
>polyamory would indicate a closed mind. I'm fully in favour of
>polyamory for those who want it, which does not include me.
I entirely respect that. Being personally polyamorous doesn't make me some sort
of zealot who assumes it's good for everyone.
>(Along another axis: I'm bisexual, but I don't think that people who
>are really straight or really gay are being closed minded about not
>being attracted to Members Of The Inappropriate Sex. They're simply
>not.
I agree again.
>Sex is wonderful, and as part of that, sexual diversity is
>wonderful.)
Amen!
>There's lots of things you can do, sexually. People who are driven to
>experiment can find safer or riskier things to do. Involving other
>people gets in to a whole new level of risk, and if you're not
>comfortable with it, don't. If your partner wants to involve other
>people and you don't, my opinion is that you don't. Just like if your
>partner wants to do something in particular -- say anal sex, or
>fellatio -- and you don't, then you don't. There's lots to do. Find
>something else which you _both_ want to try.
Exactly my point. If this threesome is causing untold anguish and anxiety
before it even happens, that's a sign that it shouldn't.
Orlando
Sarah C
> Sarah C <secret.sara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I don't think it would be possible for us to be more connected than we
> >already are without being quite unhealthy. The enjoyment does not come
> >from a feeling of greater connectedness, but from a feeling of shared
> >silliness, mixed with shared seriousness.
>
> That's only your opinion. What's his?
No matter what I tell you, you'll decide I'm lying, or possibly, if
you're feeling generous, delusional, so I don't know why I'm
bothering, but anyway.
My partner is also enjoying these exchanges of information, ideas,
trivialities and hopes. I know that because we smile and giggle
together while having them, and because of the expressions on his face
while we have them, and by his body language while having them, and
because he says so.
> >He may well view monogamy as an
> >obstacle to a greater variety of sexual partners - he'd be foolish not
> >to - but it's his choice to accept or reject monogamy, with whatever
> >variations the relationship feels comfortable with.
>
> I don't think you would take his rejection of monogamy very well. If he broke
> up with you today because he wants more sexual partners, you would likely be
> devastated.
Of course I would be devastated were he to end the relationship.
What's the point you're trying to make here? You've been advocating
for years that -I- end the relationship - do you you actually think
that either of us would be less devastated from breaking up if the
decision were mine rather than his?
> >1) I'm paying
>
> Okay, this is just plain wrong. I won't take my partner's money to go have fun
> with other women. If he can't afford his own fun, he must wait to earn more
> money. Now, for you, a gift should not have strings attached. If you don't
> really feel comfortable giving Wolf this gift, save your money and your sanity.
My partner has a larger income and fewer expenses than I do.
And whatever gift I choose to give is just that. A gift, chosen by me.
If I choose to give him an ice cream come, he can say thank you and
eat it, or he can say no thank you, and not eat it, or he can say This
ice cream looks pretty good, but it would be better with sprinkles on
top. And then it's up to me whether or not I'm willing to add
sprinkles.
> >2) If I wanted to deprive him of this sexual experience, why would I
> >be a equal partner in setting it up?
>
> You want to control the sexual experience because you think it will be easier
> for you to stomach him having sex with someone else if you're paying, watching
> and directing.
It's absolutely true that I think that the sexual encounter we are
arranging together will be easier for me to cope with than some other
scenarios that I can imagine. Why is that a problem?
> >3) I do not fault him for his desires. I do try to help him find
> >outlets for those desires which are not destructive of the
> >relationship.
>
> What have you done to help him find outlets for those desires? You don't really
> even understand them. He desires other women. he desires sexual variety,
> something he can't get sleeping only with you. There's no accommodation of
> those desires short of letting him have sex with other women. Any other half
> measures are delusional.
You disagree with "half a loaf is better than no bread" then? Why is
that?
> >4) At my command? I was planning on paying for him to visit a parlour
> >for his birthday, but when I suggested/offered, he made the counter
> >suggestion of bringing someone home, and for me to be there too.
>
> In that case, he's a hen pecked fool who should have taken you up on your
> birthday present.
Or just maybe, he's a guy who gets off on the idea of having two women
at once. Which surely would make him almost unique.... Oh, wait....
>Why did you agree to his counteroffer?
He made the request. I found it acceptable. You're strongly
encouraging me to do what he wants elsewhere, why not here?
> >Nowhere in this thread or elsewhere have I discussed what my partner
> >wishes to get out of this experience.
>
> You don't have to. I'm a man and I know.
You are a man and you know what YOU want.
You are not my partner, nor have you ever discussed our relationship
with him, let alone this particular encounter. You do not know what he
wants.You've proven that quite thoroughly.
> >No, what I want is for people to tell me how they set the rules and
> >boundaries for sexual encounters with people other than their primary
> >partners. That is why I asked.
>
> They set rules according to what makes them comfortable. It's not rocket
> science. If they don't want their partners having anal sex, anal sex is
> forbidden. If they don't want their partner going down on another woman, that
> is placed off limits. If they don't want their partner having enduring contact
> with the other woman after the threesome, everyone agrees to that.
How pleasant it would have been if you had made this your reply to my
first post, rather than having a dig at me. Thank you for answering my
actual question, I appreciate it.
> You should insist that he visit
> this parlor alone and at your expense.
First you say it's "just plain wrong" that I am paying. Then you tell
me I -should- pay. You're being inconsistent.
Why would it be better for me to refuse to participate in an activity
he has specifically requested than to only offer him one he has less
interest in, and which is more emotionally costly to me?
> >I have not tried to dissuade him from desiring other women, since I am
> >neither an idiot, nor selfish.
>
> Your posts suggest a different history. Any time he's wanted another woman, you
> have stood in his way and made it either difficult or downright impossible.
At all stages of our relationship, it has been up to him whether he
remain in the relationship, along with my not unreasonable
expectations of monogamy, or leave it to pursue fresh pussy. Since he
has chosen to stay my partner, in spite of my requiring fidelity, I
can only assume that our relationship is more important to him than
his desire for other sexual partners. Also, the fact that he's
explicitly told me this is a bit of a clue.
Any time he has wanted another woman, I have done my best to
compromise with him in ways which will not be destructive to either me
or to the relationship. If you choose to see that as my being
obstructive, there's not really anything I can do about it, is there?
> My evidence comes from the same posts everyone else is reading. you may dislike
> my reactions, but don't challenge the evidence you provide. If you think I need
> better evidence to understand your relationship's subtleties, provide it.
I'm not challenging my evidence, rather I am challenging your reaction
it it. I say I am nervous, you say I am tortured...
> Oh really? You're not unhappy? You seem tortured and anguished about this
> threesome. You said yourself yesterday that although you were excited by the
> idea the day before, today, you feel nervous. That doesn't sound like happiness
> to me.
... and anguished, apparently.
It must be a very, very long time since you've done anything outside
your comfort zone, Orlando, if you think that "nervous and mildly
anxious" equal "tortured and anguished." Do you suggest that no person
should ever do anything they feel less than 100% positive about? I'd
better give up my job, stop renovating my house, and never drive my
kids anywhere ever again then.
> >Just because one would enjoy something does not mean one is miserable
> >without it - as in Remus' ice-cream idea, above. But of course, since
> >Remus is not a woman, you'll have killfiled him and so won't have seen
> >it.
>
> That's right, I don't read men's SSG posts because I'm not looking to make
> friends with or have sex with men.
It's very odd behavior, in my opinion.
> If they are inaccurate, they are based on your provided evidence. If you would
> like them to be more accurate, provide better evidence.
They are based on -your personal reaction- to my posts.
> >... intimidation? You odd little man. How do you believe I am
> >intimidating my partner? I am interested to hear what projection
> >you've done to arrive at this most interesting point of view.
>
> You're paying for a sexual experience that he clearly cannot afford on his own.
> By accepting your offer of pseudo generosity, he also must acquiesce to a host
> of controlling demands on your part: the ability to forbid any activity that
> makes you uncomfortable, the ability to call off the threesome at any point,
> the restriction of how many emails he can write the woman afterwards, need I go
> on?
I'm paying for a sexual experience he CAN afford on his own. By
accepting my offer, he must also conform to some rules to preserve our
relationship. I also must conform to these rules, which are being set
up by each and both of us.
You may go on if you wish, but I think you're being silly and
dramatic.
> >You are such an insulting fellow. If I could not "wrap my brain
> >around" that concept, why on EARTH would I be organising for my
> >partner to fuck some else?
>
> You're not really organizing for your partner to fuck someone else. You're
> organizing something that looks like that, but something over which you retain
> executive control.
Once again, you're wrong.
Each of us has some limited control, and some, less limited, freedom.
> >And suggesting I might need a partner who would cheat on me is almost
> >the rudest thing you have ever said to me. And that, Orlando, is a
> >large, large claim.
>
> Sweet Jesus! Can you not read for content? I suggested that you need a partner
> who would be totally monogamous with you and not even desire other women.
> Where's the cheating in that?
Here's what you actually said:
> Maybe, you need a
> totally monogamous man who will either earnestly want only you or will at least
> do a better job at pretending to do so.
The cheating, Orlando, is in the "do a better job at pretending to do
so" phrase. See?
> >Show me the pain.
>
> Anguished posts about this potential threesome, anguish about whether the
> hooker will consider you too fat, anguish before about Wolf's emotional
> dalliance with another woman, etc.
I really can't see any way any reasonable person could interpret any
of the posts I have made since my return to ssg as being "anguished."
I'm expressed nervousness. That's quite a different thing.
As for the previous relationship? I agree, I absolutely was anguished
then.
Three years ago, not last week or last month.
The fact that we remain in our relationship after that anguished
period might tell you something if you care to think about it.
> Have it your way. It's you who must decide whether or not to stay with Wolf,
> not I.
It's not really a decision at this point. There would have to be
serious stresses, not just mild anxiety or safety rules for a sexual
encounter, to make the idea of us not being together attractive to
either of us.
> >I am slightly nervous, and perhaps slightly anxious. I am also
> >curious, expectant, and interested.
>
> Then be curious, expectant and interested. Enjoy it for what it could be. Stop
> worrying about what it all means.
Dude, I wasn't worrying. You're the one who brought the idea of my
being worried, tortured, anguished, reluctant, miserable etc etc ad
nauseum into this conversation.
> >Usenet can know or not-know whatever it likes. I have, in the past,
> >come to ssg for information, and yes, even for comfort sometimes. I
> >will accept that I have TOLD Usenet that I am STICKING WITH my
> >partner, even when things get difficult, and that WE always try to
> >accommodate ONE ANOTHER'S sexual WANTS.
>
> Wolf's sexual desires for other women have not been accommodated by you.
And my partner has not accommodated my desires for a slim sexual
partner, or a hot-air balloon ride, or a trip to Vanuatu. Should he
leave me because he is unable to provide those things?
> >He chose her.
>
> But you're paying.
What's your point?
> >Setting boundaries is sensible.
>
> Only to the setter.
So why did you "allow" you wife to "emasculate" you by setting rules
for your sexual encounters?
> It sure sounds like it from your posts. You never post about happy times in
> your relationship.
Gods, what boring posts those would make!
"Today my partner and I lay in bed until 11am, talking giggling,
telling silly stories and blowing raspberries on one another. We had
been planning on getting up then, but we started kissing and couldn't
stop, and by the time we were finished the midday movie was over."
Seriously, who'd be interested in that?
> Actually, Sarah dearest, I have said all along that your sexual needs do indeed
> count. I never once have suggested you suck it up and do what makes you
> uncomfortable. Rather, I have repeatedly suggested that if your sexual needs
> truly matter to you as much as you say they do, that you break up with Wolf
> because of his unwillingness to be monogamous.
Yes, you repeatedly tell me that it's better to be devastated then to
be mildly uncomfortable. I don't understand why, but since you so
obviously don't understand me either, I guess that's fine.
Have a great day,
Sarah_C
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>No matter what I tell you, you'll decide I'm lying, or possibly, if
>you're feeling generous, delusional, so I don't know why I'm
>bothering, but anyway.
I never accused you of lying.
>My partner is also enjoying these exchanges of information, ideas,
>trivialities and hopes. I know that because we smile and giggle
>together while having them, and because of the expressions on his face
>while we have them, and by his body language while having them, and
>because he says so.
Very good. Those are useful data.
>Of course I would be devastated were he to end the relationship.
>What's the point you're trying to make here? You've been advocating
>for years that -I- end the relationship - do you actually think
>that either of us would be less devastated from breaking up if the
>decision were mine rather than his?
I think Wolf might be less devastated if you broke up over monogamy issues.
>My partner has a larger income and fewer expenses than I do.
After eleven years in an exclusive relationship, you should be living together
and pooling expenses.
>And whatever gift I choose to give is just that. A gift, chosen by me.
>If I choose to give him an ice cream come, he can say thank you and
>eat it, or he can say no thank you, and not eat it, or he can say This
>ice cream looks pretty good, but it would be better with sprinkles on
>top. And then it's up to me whether or not I'm willing to add
>sprinkles.
You're only emphasizing my point. If you want to give him a gift, give him a
real gift without conditions. If he wants to accept that gift, he in turn
should accept it without trying to amend it.
>It's absolutely true that I think that the sexual encounter we are
>arranging together will be easier for me to cope with than some other
>scenarios that I can imagine. Why is that a problem?
It's a problem first and foremost because you have enough issues with it to
warrant it never happening in the first place. It is also a problem because
it's not the kind of sexual experience Wolf craves. What you're offering him is
a stilted, sanitized version of what he really wants.
>You disagree with "half a loaf is better than no bread" then? Why is
>that?
What you're offering is not half a loaf of bread; you're offering half a
tortilla when he wants bread. It's not the halfness that bothers me; it's the
fact that you don't see how what you're offering is so vastly different from
what he actually wants.
>Or just maybe, he's a guy who gets off on the idea of having two women
>at once. Which surely would make him almost unique.... Oh, wait....
If he really gets off on having two women at once, he should go all the way
with a freely willing third rather than a paid prostitute.
>He made the request. I found it acceptable. You're strongly
>encouraging me to do what he wants elsewhere, why not here?
Because your intrinsic objections and boundaries will ruin it.
>You are not my partner, nor have you ever discussed our relationship
>with him, let alone this particular encounter. You do not know what he
>wants.You've proven that quite thoroughly.
Oh really? How have I proven that? What have I claimed he wants that is
incorrect?
>How pleasant it would have been if you had made this your reply to my
>first post, rather than having a dig at me. Thank you for answering my
>actual question, I appreciate it.
My dear, I took this discussion further because your initial question didn't
get at the heart of your issues. Fact is, you have so many problems with this
or that sexual activity that you might as well just come out and forbid Wolf
from fucking other chicks. Your compromise of hiring a prostitute whom he can
only thank in one subsequent email may be well intended, but I think it won't
work, so much so that Wolf will probably nag you about wanting to fuck other
chicks for real and for free in the future.
>First you say it's "just plain wrong" that I am paying. Then you tell
>me I -should- pay. You're being inconsistent.
If you're going to pay, which is ill advised, at least let him get his money's
worth. He wants to fuck another woman. You're going to kill his buzz at every
stage because you're really not okay with it. How many times must this be
paraphrased?
>Why would it be better for me to refuse to participate in an activity
>he has specifically requested than to only offer him one he has less
>interest in, and which is more emotionally costly to me?
Ah, so he has less interest in fucking other chicks alone than with you there?
This gets more interesting by the second. If he can find willing sexual
partners for free, why do you insist on paying? Why have you saddled him with
the single thank-you email boundary?
>At all stages of our relationship, it has been up to him whether he
>remain in the relationship, along with my not unreasonable
>expectations of monogamy, or leave it to pursue fresh pussy. Since he
>has chosen to stay my partner, in spite of my requiring fidelity, I
>can only assume that our relationship is more important to him than
>his desire for other sexual partners.
He could be weighing his options or it could be that he has not found many
"fresh pussy" opportunities. It could be that he loves you very much and is
constantly wrestling with which option he wants more.
>Also, the fact that he's explicitly told me this is a bit of a clue.
What else is he going to say?
>Any time he has wanted another woman, I have done my best to
>compromise with him in ways which will not be destructive to either me
>or to the relationship. If you choose to see that as my being
>obstructive, there's not really anything I can do about it, is there?
Sarah, try to be reasonable here. If Wolf wants to fuck other women, those
women are human beings, right? They're either in the room with him or they're
not, right? They're either doing sexual things or just sharing a few pints.
Now, you tell me, where's the compromise?
>I'm not challenging my evidence, rather I am challenging your reaction
>it it.
You can challenge my reactions all you want, but don't insult me by claiming
that I've fabricated evidence you've provided.
>I say I am nervous, you say I am tortured...
The difference is simply a matter of degree.
>It must be a very, very long time since you've done anything outside
>your comfort zone, Orlando, if you think that "nervous and mildly
>anxious" equal "tortured and anguished." Do you suggest that no person
>should ever do anything they feel less than 100% positive about? I'd
>better give up my job, stop renovating my house, and never drive my
>kids anywhere ever again then.
Your kids presumably need to be driven places and your house presumably needs
renovation. Stopping those things would prevent those you love from having
things they need. This is not something Wolf needs enough to insist upon, else
he would have done it long ago. It's something he wants and it's something
you're trying to accommodate in giving him. However, if it fills you with
nervousness, so much so that you have to ask common sense questions about
physical boundaries, we're all suggesting that you're not ready for this
threesome. That's what we're all telling you, Sarah. Going through with this to
please Wolf is a bad reason and you'll regret it. Plus, the experience won't be
that good because your heart and body won't be into it.
>I'm paying for a sexual experience he CAN afford on his own. By
>accepting my offer, he must also conform to some rules to preserve our
>relationship.
My point here is that if your offer comes with rules, it might be better not to
make it at all. Such an offer would be more enjoyable and way hotter if it came
with no rules attached. You don't seem to get that because you think your rules
are reasonable and that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. I'm
suggesting that in this case, your rules will make your offer odious and
awkward rather than enjoyable.
>I also must conform to these rules, which are being set
>up by each and both of us.
No, he must conform to your rules; if the rules were set up by the both of you,
he'd be having sex with other women.
>Each of us has some limited control, and some, less limited, freedom.
How much freedom or control will Wolf have here? If he wants to fuck the
prostitute in her ass or come in her mouth, are you going to allow it?
>Here's what you actually said:
>> Maybe, you need a
>> totally monogamous man who will either earnestly want only you or will at least
>> do a better job at pretending to do so.
>The cheating, Orlando, is in the "do a better job at pretending to do
>so" phrase. See?
It was a joke. Obviously, you want a monogamous partner and will not be
entirely happy until you get one.
>The fact that we remain in our relationship after that anguished
>period might tell you something if you care to think about it.
You managed to convince Wolf not to get emotionally involved with the chick he
wanted to fuck. Since Wolf loves you, he acquiesced but hasn't stopped wanting
other women. So, here you are again, only this time, you're trying a partial
accommodation strategy in hopes of chilling him out.
>It's not really a decision at this point. There would have to be
>serious stresses, not just mild anxiety or safety rules for a sexual
>encounter, to make the idea of us not being together attractive to
>either of us.
Then why does it matter so much to you how much intimacy he shares with a
hooker he'll presumably never see again? It's all an act, Sarah. You're paying
for one night of a scripted threesome the way someone might win a prize from a
radio station to hang out with a band backstage. They're not really a member of
the band; they won't get invited to the band's private barbecues or
brainstorming recording sessions. Everyone knows this is a scripted event. So,
if you know what it is, you should chill out, relax, not impose any boundaries
on it and let it happen for one magical night. That cuts to your original
question. I told you how to set boundaries if you must, but I've also advised
you to go with the flow if you really mean this as a gift for Wolf.
>Dude, I wasn't worrying. You're the one who brought the idea of my
>being worried, tortured, anguished, reluctant, miserable etc etc ad
>nauseum into this conversation.
Whatever! You sounded pretty worried. Now, you're changing your tune.
>And my partner has not accommodated my desires for a slim sexual
>partner, or a hot-air balloon ride, or a trip to Vanuatu. Should he
>leave me because he is unable to provide those things?
If you wanted a slim sexual partner and he's fat, you shouldn't have chosen
Wolf. He's not asking you to gain or lose weight in order to be sexually
attractive to him; he's just asking for some human variety in terms of sexual
partners, which shouldn't be that difficult with y'all living apart.
>So why did you "allow" your wife to "emasculate" you by setting rules
>for your sexual encounters?
Her boundaries don't emasculate me in any way. It's her house too and she
should feel comfortable knowing that my sexual experiences will not invade what
is partially her space as well. Her boundaries are easy to honor because
they're fair and sensible.
>Gods, what boring posts those would make!
>"Today my partner and I lay in bed until 11am, talking giggling,
>telling silly stories and blowing raspberries on one another. We had
>been planning on getting up then, but we started kissing and couldn't
>stop, and by the time we were finished the midday movie was over."
>Seriously, who'd be interested in that?
I really dig that! If you posted that stuff, I'd be on your ass trying to
ascertain your happy relationship secrets. Instead, I know what not to try in
order to mess things up royally.
>Yes, you repeatedly tell me that it's better to be devastated then to
>be mildly uncomfortable. I don't understand why, but since you so
>obviously don't understand me either, I guess that's fine.
You might be devastated for a while, but I genuinely think you'd be happier
with a sincerely monogamous man with whom these issues will never arise. That's
my opinion; accept or dismiss it as only you can. I think you and Wolf will
never achieve peace regarding his sexual desires for other women. Any attempts
on your part to accommodate him will make you so nervous and anxious that the
results will be less than satisfactory, awkward and not very arousing to anyone
involved.
>Have a great day,
You too,
Orlando
Delila
"Sarah C" <secret....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f2497b7-e533-494d...@a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
And my partner has not accommodated my desires for a slim sexual
partner, or a hot-air balloon ride,
*Why not? What's so hard about buying a hot-air balloon ride?
D.
Chr. Eichert
> My motivation is to delight my partner.
Supposing it was your partners idea ... if you don't feel like you want
it, and you just do it to delight your partner, better pack your thing
and go. Go before it happens ...
Tom Allen
> My fellow and I are in the process of setting up a threesome with a
> working lady. We have about 5 weeks to work out all the stuff we need
> to work out between us before the time we're planning on having her
> visit us.
>
> The opinion of Teh Internets seems to boil down to "It can be AWESOME,
> but you have to have BOUNDARIES and RULES or it won't WORK and you'll
> SPLIT UP and DIE ALONE!!ONE1!"
Sarah, just an observation on my part, don't read any more into it than
that.
You've been with Wolf about 10 years, IIRC. For somebody to *still* be
obsessed ^H^^H^H^H^^H overly concerned with the balance in the number of
partners makes me think that having *one* experience - and a supervised
visitation, at that - won't be enough for him. I think that what's
really driving this is personal insecurity, but it's manifesting as this
desire to try different women.
My concern is that at some point, having had sex with another woman,
Wold then turns to you and says "Yeah, well, it was oaky, but it wasn't
like, you know, *really* having sex with somebody, because she was paid.
Or because you were watching. Or whatever."
I'm also wondering about why you've chosen to give him this "gift", but
you're going to hamstring his exploration by limiting what he can and
can't do. Yes, I understand that you may not want him exploring
something that you haven't done together, but it seems to me that this
misses the point of his partner imbalance insecurity; to make this work
for him, he might *need* to have experienced something (anal, aural,
whatever) first with another woman, simply to have something more
personal, something that makes him feel like his *entire* sexuality has
not revolved around you.
And on our end, I'm not sure why you feel the need to make sure that he
doesn't do this. I'm assuming that you've had considerably more
experience than he, and that you must have had other partners in the
past who have done things that you have not. Why it makes a difference
here I can't imagine.
Anyway, having had a 3-way in the too-distant past, I can tell you that
they can be enjoyable and rewarding experiences. Good luck.
--
Tom Allen
The Edge of Vanilla
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
Sarah C
> Sarah, just an observation on my part, don't read any more into it than
> that.
I shalln't :)
> You've been with Wolf about 10 years, IIRC. For somebody to *still* be
> obsessed ^H^^H^H^H^^H overly concerned with the balance in the number of
> partners makes me think that having *one* experience - and a supervised
> visitation, at that - won't be enough for him.
>I think that what's
> really driving this is personal insecurity, but it's manifesting as this
> desire to try different women.
I think you're probably correct about that, Tom.
What you won't know is that over the years most of our issues have
been worked out. Our mismatched libidos ended up finding a balance (a
natural adjustment in the end, we've been able to leave compromise
behind on this issue) and a general lessening of personal insecurity
and lack of feelings of worthiness. It's been such an interesting
trip, and we're still both enjoying it very much.
> My concern is that at some point, having had sex with another woman,
> Wold then turns to you and says "Yeah, well, it was oaky, but it wasn't
> like, you know, *really* having sex with somebody, because she was paid.
> Or because you were watching. Or whatever."
You know, if we were going into this with an attitude of "Let's Fix
Sarah's Parter with a Threesome!" this point would be more thingy.
Salient. But you know what?
We're not.
I'm giving him something he will enjoy, because I love him.
> I'm also wondering about why you've chosen to give him this "gift", but
> you're going to hamstring his exploration by limiting what he can and
> can't do.
Hi.
Dear Tom,
Here is the entirety of what -I- have said on this:
"There are a coupe of sex acts I feel uncomfortable about his
performing on people who are not me. At this stage we've decided to
see how it goes, and have him check with me before he starts any of
them. I'm allowed to say whatever I like and have it respected,
whether it's "OK, give it a try and I'll see how I feel" or "Nope,
sorry, I can't cope with that," or even "Go for it, I want to see."
I'd certainly prefer to be able to let him have whatever experiences
are on offer. It wouldn't be nice of me to say "Here we are in the
lolly-shop. You can eat whatever you want. Except any red lollies,
cos
I don;t like to think of you eating red lollies." Of course, if I'm
actually allergic to red lollies, and his eating them will make me
unwell, it's a different story. "
and
"I'm quite a lot
less comfortable with the idea of cunnilingus, and pretty sure that
his receiving any sort of anal play from someone who isn't me is
something I am not ready to accept. I am completely unwilling to
accept his accepting or doing anything with her that we have not
already done together... but to be honest, after almost eleven years
of really good sex, there's not a whole lot left on that list that
appeals to either of us. "
___________________________
That's it.
The Controlling Bitch Rules are "Just make sure I'm doing OK before
you go down on her," "Your arse is mine" and "Don't do anything new
with her."
It is certainly not my plan to "hamstring" my partner's enjoyment of
the situation. It is, in fact, my plan to do everything in my power to
see that he has every experience out of the night that is on offer by
the lady. Who doesn't do anal play, anyway.
I wonder, perhaps, whether other people's words have influenced you
more than you realised?
Or is it that you think that making eye contact with one's partner, to
gauge how she's doing and have confirmation she's not actually about
to break and exchanging nods and smiles is way too intrusive to be
thought about?
The thing is, Tom, we're doing this TOGETHER. It's not "Sarah's
partner's going to shag a tart while Sarah watches and blows a whistle
if he crosses any boundary lines." It's "Sarah and another lady are
going to take Sarah's partner to bed and do their best to give him
the night of his life."
Do you really feel that his chances of having the night of his life
would be enhanced by my bursting into tears or shaking with rage?
Cause I don't.
>Yes, I understand that you may not want him exploring
> something that you haven't done together, but it seems to me that this
> misses the point of his partner imbalance insecurity; to make this work
> for him, he might *need* to have experienced something (anal, aural,
> whatever) first with another woman, simply to have something more
> personal, something that makes him feel like his *entire* sexuality has
> not revolved around you.
That's a good point. Thing is, I can't think of anything we haven't
done together that 1) he has any interest in and/or 2) would be
offered by any but the most specialist providers. So it's not going to
be a problem at this time.
> And on our end, I'm not sure why you feel the need to make sure that he
> doesn't do this. I'm assuming that you've had considerably more
> experience than he, and that you must have had other partners in the
> past who have done things that you have not. Why it makes a difference
> here I can't imagine.
Right this minute, it feels as though the reason is that I've put in a
decade's "work" making us fit together better, sexually (as has he).
Part of that "work" on my part has been expanding his sexual horizons
and encouraging him to try the things he'd like to but is embarrassed
by, or guilty about wanting, or whatever. (And to examine his comfort
zones and give me things which rest on the border, or even slightly
over it, when he feels ready.) Over that period I have spent a lot of
time waiting for him to be ready to commit a number of sexual acts
which I enjoy. I don't begrudge him the time, but just because you
don't resent something doesn't invalidate the fact that there has been
effort, restraint, and patience on my part. I would feel a bit cheated
if, after all that, he chose to give someone else the payout, so to
speak.
Would it make a difference to you if it was "Don't do anything we
haven't done together unless I have refused to do it with you"?
Cos... that's a lot of redundant words, but if it makes you more
comfortable... ;)
> Anyway, having had a 3-way in the too-distant past, I can tell you that
> they can be enjoyable and rewarding experiences. Good luck.
Thanks, Tom :)
Cheers,
Sarah_C
Tabula Rasa
news:MPG.26513fff9...@news.albasani.net:
> after more than a year of
> sexual drought, she came to me, acknowledged my suffering and gave me
> permission to have other partners. I follow her rules and honor her
> few boundaries. Things are working out very well for us. Of course,
> she too is free to have other partners and has come close to doing so.
> But, all the anguish is gone.
Wow, I can't believe I'm starting a thread about Orlando. But I'm curious.
When she came close to having sex with other partners, how did you feel
about that? Was there any resentment that she might have had sex with
another man, after refusing to have sex with you? That seems like it might
be a difficult thing for you (or many people) to deal with.
Denny Wheeler
Wouldn't your life be more productive and meaningful if you quit
projecting your own inadequacies to others?
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
Perhaps by his lights, that's brutal honesty; by my lights so much of
what he says is brutally ignorant, that I often laugh at it. I don't
understand why Sarah doesn't just KF Orlando and have done.
<shrug>
Tom Allen
> Perhaps by his lights, that's brutal honesty; by my lights so much of
> what he says is brutally ignorant, that I often laugh at it. I don't
> understand why Sarah doesn't just KF Orlando and have done.
> <shrug>
She's reading through Google Groups. I imagine somebody running Firefox
with Greasemonkey might be able to script a KF, but really, it would
just be easier for her to say "Oh, Orlandick's written this post," and
skip over it.
suzeeq
> Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
>> Perhaps by his lights, that's brutal honesty; by my lights so much of
>> what he says is brutally ignorant, that I often laugh at it. I don't
>> understand why Sarah doesn't just KF Orlando and have done.
>> <shrug>
>
> She's reading through Google Groups. I imagine somebody running Firefox
> with Greasemonkey might be able to script a KF, but really, it would
> just be easier for her to say "Oh, Orlandick's written this post," and
> skip over it.
Is greasemonkey an addon that allows you to filter GG? Was reading about
somethint that does, but don't remember if it's greasemonkey.
sue
Tom Allen
> Tom Allen wrote:
>> She's reading through Google Groups. I imagine somebody running
>> Firefox with Greasemonkey might be able to script a KF, but really, it
>> would just be easier for her to say "Oh, Orlandick's written this
>> post," and skip over it.
>
> Is greasemonkey an addon that allows you to filter GG? Was reading about
> somethint that does, but don't remember if it's greasemonkey.
Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension that allows a lot of tweaking in the
way that web pages are viewed. Somebody has a script that will allow it
to skip over certain words. Recently, younger nerds were happy to point
out that they had written a script that eliminates Justin Bieber from
displaying.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
sleepy
> suzeeq wrote:
>> Tom Allen wrote:
>
>>> She's reading through Google Groups. I imagine somebody running
>>> Firefox with Greasemonkey might be able to script a KF, but really, it
>>> would just be easier for her to say "Oh, Orlandick's written this
>>> post," and skip over it.
>>
>> Is greasemonkey an addon that allows you to filter GG? Was reading about
>> somethint that does, but don't remember if it's greasemonkey.
>
> Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension that allows a lot of tweaking in the
> way that web pages are viewed. Somebody has a script that will allow it
> to skip over certain words. Recently, younger nerds were happy to point
> out that they had written a script that eliminates Justin Bieber from
> displaying.
>
>
So much for the digression on newsreaders - I guess we're all curious to
know how Sarah's adventure worked out?
Sleepy.
suzeeq
Hey, threaddrift happens.
But yes, I'd like it if Sarah could post on the results of their adventure.
sue