Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Sex and Dating  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Ependa
Joined: 7/16/2009
Msg: 350
PolyamoryPage 5 of 22    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)

I am not referring to threesomes. Just the act of loving a person but allowing each other to love other people as well.


I wouldn't do be for it at all for the relationship side of things (for me personally)..It's too complicated. 3 somes are fine as long you aren't in a committed relationship (or are very open minded and know what you're getting into)..Personally, been there done that, great..but I'd say best left in the fantasy world (though everyone should try it once if they're comfortable with it)
 allegriadevida
Joined: 7/11/2009
Msg: 352
Polyamory
Posted: 8/25/2009 4:07:30 AM
Bravo miss_contemplative!

I like the way your mind works . . . I do take issue with poly couples who come as a package deal due to their concept of "primary" partners. Again, just seeems too close to the whole jealousy, possessiveness mindset.
 namrael
Joined: 8/10/2008
Msg: 354
Polyamory
Posted: 8/25/2009 4:49:33 AM

I do take issue with poly couples who come as a package deal due to their concept of "primary" partners. Again, just seeems too close to the whole jealousy, possessiveness mindset.


Why take issue with it? If it's not your cup of tea, then don't date those couples.

Not all--or even most--primary couples date exclusively as a couple. When I had poly relationships, I always wanted a primary relationship and then another relationship or two as well, but I dated on my own regardless, and my partner was free to do so as well. Primary in that context has to do with the place that relationship held in my life, as far as time and energy (which are finite).
 namrael
Joined: 8/10/2008
Msg: 360
Polyamory
Posted: 8/25/2009 3:25:28 PM

How many poly relationships are there compared to traditional relationships?

Do you have the stats?


There are fewer largely because it is not societally accepted, because many people don't realize it's an option. There are plenty of people who wouldn't choose it if they knew it was an option, but there are also some who would. Additionally, not all poly people are out about their polyness, so it's hard to tell.


A natural dominant would never share a sub, it's just not done.


This is patently untrue. What about dominants who ask their submissives to share themselves in obedience? There are a LOT of kinky people in polyamorous relationships--vanilla polyfolk may actually be a minority in comparison--and many of them are dominants who are secure enough in their dominance to share.


Ownership is implicit in the D/S relationship and allowing others in to that relationship changes that dynamic irrevocably.


Then you are sadly ignorant of the many manifestations of dominance and submission within the scene. Ownership is NOT always a facet of a dom/sub relationships, and there are plenty of dominants who don't have or want anything approaching a 24/7 relationship, and are on completely equal footing outside the bedroom.


Dominants don't share and Subs don't want to be shared.


No, YOU as a dominant don't want to share, and you want to be with subs who don't want to be shared. That's fine, but there are dominants who enjoy watching their sub's training in action with another dominant, and subs who enjoy being used by many people. There is not One True Way (TM) to practice dominance and submission. Your way is fine for you, but it's hardly universal.


If you're not strong in body and will, you're not a dominant.


I know of some awfully insecure doms, who enjoy dominance because it makes them feel more secure. I also wonder how you see submissives. Does it follow that you think submissives are weak?


Half the men are smaller than the women they're supposedly dominating!


Possibly. And half the dominants are women who dominate men, or men who dominate men, or women who dominate women. I wonder if I'm not sensing a fair bit of sexism in your post.
 namrael
Joined: 8/10/2008
Msg: 361
Polyamory
Posted: 8/25/2009 3:28:09 PM

Most people aren't emotionally mature enough to deal with another adult much less two in a committed relationship.

The percentage of polyamorous relationships is small and there's a reason for that.

They don't work, at least not longterm.


Most relationships don't work long-term, period. It has everything to do with the people involved in those relationships, and generally very little to do with the structure. An awful lot of monogamous relationships, and marriage for that matter, end in divorce. Does that indicate that monogamy doesn't work? Of course not--it indicates that those relationships didn't work for whatever reason. The same goes for poly or swinger relationships. There are far more factors involved that who's sleeping with whom.
 wacowboy3
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 364
Polyamory
Posted: 8/25/2009 4:12:48 PM
I saw a clip on Real Sex about Polyamory : It looked to me like the people protrayed on the program seemed to be cerebral hippies searching for the meaning of life . It also looked like just a way for swingers to swing with a extra live in . While I am sure that is not the only reason for people actually intrested in Polyamory , I have a hard time grasping the concept. I have enought trouble having a relationship with one person let alone adding another person . It sounds to me like people are just using it as an excuse to screw around . I dont condem someone for being into Polyamory, just not what I am looking for .
 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 365
Polyamory
Posted: 8/25/2009 4:33:06 PM

You're making assumptions about traditional roles based on your own perspective, which cleary isn't applicable to everyone.

I believe in traditional roles between a man and woman, thus I'd never share a woman with anyone else.

It's not "ownership" in the sense of a master/slave relationship, but there are clearly boundaries and roles inherent for each.

Also, I'm a natural dominant, so the thought of me sharing a woman with anyone is out of the question.

As I said before, I look down on men who would share their women. They are Omegas and it shows. Masculine men don't share and women who are committed to them don't want other men anyway. That's how it works.

Wow, for such a seemingly open-minded individual this certainly is judgmental. As a former "lifestyler" I can assure you ~ truly Dominant men who share have full consent of their submissive(s.) If there is an impasse on the topic of sharing, it's most common that someone will be vacating said D/s situation rather than forcing one's own preferences on the other party. I can respect that you aren't into sharing and I was definitely hetero-monogamous when I choose a D/s relationship (and so was he.) That doesn't mean those who opt for another route aren't truly Doms/Dommes or alternate bottom half, it means different things work for different people.

~OT~ I wouldn't do well in a poly-situation myself, but I think that there are those who find that fulfilling and personal preferences should dictate how one lives their own private life. I would rather "him" tell me in the very beginning that he might or does desire others. At least with the preface I can make an educated decision for my own self. JMO
 namrael
Joined: 8/10/2008
Msg: 366
Polyamory
Posted: 8/25/2009 4:40:48 PM

I'm a "natural" dominant.


This is the part where I roll my eyes.

Look, people have different flavors of dominance. That someone else's doesn't match yours doesn't make them an imposter; it means they express their dominance in a different way than you express yours. That doesn't make them wrong, it makes them different.


My definition of what a dominant entails is very basic, devoid of semantics.


Everything verbal involves semantics of one kind or another. With "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.", how could you keep that out since everything has a meaning? Yours is different than mine, therefore semantics are very much involved.


Sharing the flesh is simply a no-no. I don't know any Alpha males who share their women.


So you don't know any; that doesn't mean they don't exist. You already said you're not involved in the scene anyway.


Rather, I have found that so-called Doms who share aren't Doms at all, but merely fetishists and actors who revel in scenes, but behind closed doors are not dominant at all.


How many times have you really been behind closed doors with them, anyway? How would you know?


You're a female, so I don't expect you to understand it from my perspective.


Right. I'm only a lowly female, so I couldn't possibly understand, eh? Careful, dear--your sexism is showing.



What about dominants who ask their submissives to share themselves in obedience?


I think you're confusing a sexual dominant with a dominant personality. A sexual dominant sharing his submissive partner is in himself submissive. A true dominant would not.


I understand the difference. That you don't know any "true dominants" who would share their submissive(s) does not indicate that there are none; it means you haven't come across them (or aren't aware of it if you have). There are certainly dominant men who see sharing their submissive(s) at their whim as part of the submissive's sexual servitude, and use that as a way to exert control over the submissive's body and sexuality.
 2HEDZ
Joined: 3/16/2005
Msg: 367
view profile
History
Polyamory
Posted: 8/25/2009 6:22:09 PM

I don't follow a "scene".

Never have.

Half of those people are not true Doms or subs in any sense of the word.

People like to act, like to be spectacles and draw attention to themselves but honestly, I can look at them and see them for what they are.

I'm a "natural" dominant.

Props and toys unncessary, binds not required.

My definition of what a dominant entails is very basic, devoid of semantics.

It has nothing to do with being secure, but everything to do with the D/S relationship.

Sharing the flesh is simply a no-no. I don't know any Alpha males who share their women.

I don't either.

Rather, I have found that so-called Doms who share aren't Doms at all, but merely fetishists and actors who revel in scenes, but behind closed doors are not dominant at all.

It's a joke, honestly.

I point it out when I see it......

Most of those men are not strong enough to pick up a woman, much less dominate her.

Try explaining that away.

You can call yourself whatever you want........until you meet up with the real thing and it changes your perspective.

You're a female, so I don't expect you to understand it from my perspective.

Leather doesn't make a Dominant.......Strength does..


you say you dont follow a scene yet you use the terminology and you buy into all the same crap that made me distance myself from the BDSM community. all the stupid rules and all the ceremony and that rigidness.

a true Dom lives by his own rules not anyone else's . he doesnt just fall in line and conform to a set of standardized rules of conduct. that appears to be what you have done so how can you truly be a Dom when you are a slave to your own predisposed limitations.

i have no limitations. i set my own rules. if i choose to "share" as you put it thats because in my world i am the master and am not worried that anyone will take anything from me. if someone has that ability then i dont deserve keep a "slave" as you call them.

the whole thing about polyamory is that its not for those who are prone to jealousy, or insecurity because it will eat you up. its for people who arent worried about wether the person they're "sharing" is meeting someone else's needs but wether your own personal needs are being met.

in other words. its for people who blaze their own trail and strong from within.

Division you're just another guy falling in step with the crowd. albeit a more exclcusive crowd.
 whytwater
Joined: 8/7/2008
Msg: 368
Polyamory
Posted: 8/25/2009 7:42:35 PM

That doesn't make them wrong, it makes them different.


The more I read of this lady's posts, the more convinced I am that she should hold some national office. Everything she says seems to make solid sense.
Hey, Nam, you're only 30, photogenic, and eminently reasonable.
Might be sticky running in NC, which seems to have as many socially, and certainly sexually, conservative thinkers resident as most of PA. lol Well, I'd vote for ya, dammit.
 SteveA67
Joined: 1/4/2010
Msg: 375
Polyamory
Posted: 1/11/2010 8:15:03 AM
I've been married for 19 years and have a great wife, though I married primarily because I gave up on finding that perfect someone that could be everything for me and instead picked someone who has been a good mother, homemaker and friend.

The "problem" is that the desire to find someone to be head over heels for is still there and really never left and my wife has even recognized this. I've been physically faithful or 19 years in our marriage and have managed to keep her happy and we have great children etc., but that ache has remained for me.

If the fairytale version can be real for someone, that's excellent, but it seems unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to find that soulmate.

My wife loves me a lot and has basically become open to the possibility of adding someone else to our relationship. My attentions have drifted toward someone else in the past a few times (I've noticed a pattern - it's happened when me and my wife have had troubles in the marriage) and in my wife's culture and among her relatives it's not unusual to have 3 or even 4 people living together intimately, though I was raised and taught differently, but I'm thankful that my wife has that view, otherwise we might have had worse marriage problems.

Though I've never really taken advantage of her offer ... yet, ironically, I think it already kept us together because when I see how lucky I am to have my wife (things have been going well for a long time now in our marriage, though there were quite a few years when she was drinking and gambling rather heavily and it almost broke us up), there's no reason to lose her, nor need to "swap" her with anyone else etc. What more could I have asked for or she have given? She has a love that is giving, caring and considerate etc. and not an obsessive clinging or possessive version where people try to chain each other up and it's interesting to look back and think that if she'd have tried to chain me, that might have instead broke us up.

I admit she's better at loving me than I am at loving her and there are times when I'm almost jealous that I haven't found that same love ... (no, I can't complain at all and I recognize that it's something that takes work as well, but I don't know how to get the emotions to agree).

Anyway, yes, I'm still looking for my "muse" out there in the world, and if I find her she'll be someone that can accept I already have a good family that I don't want to lose (I'd rather live with the ache of never having found her than give up what I already have, and I think my wife and children would appreciate that as well).

P.S. It's rather ironic that generally, if someone messes up a marriage and is "available" that's considered to be a positive attribute for dating, whereas if someone manages to keep someone happy and can hold a marriage together, that's generally considered a negative attribute for dating (yes, I recognize it's not quite that simple but still ...).

Anyway, this is yet another subject where life experiences have shown how cultural norms can narrowminded and off the mark - sometimes you've got to improvise in life and write your own story.
 NappyKAT
Joined: 7/2/2008
Msg: 376
Polyamory
Posted: 1/11/2010 8:38:13 AM
Polyamory, how fun. That's basically an FWB right?

Except that it includes more than one FWB.

I like the idea of polyamory. I'd like to have a revolving group of disease-free males to have sex with, and that group can include other women for the males (or whomever) to have sex with.

The group would be sexually exclusive to each other so we could eliminate or prevent diseases and such. All others would be approve by the group. If someone got serious with someone (inside or outside the group) then they could let the group know and then opt to be not apart of it anymore (at least sexually).

Think of it as a sexual coven of sorts.

This would be single people and single people only. I won't knock what other's do, but I am not personally into polygamy, maligamy, married open relationships.

Anyways, like the idea but I don't have enough friends, especially males, to get that going on. And I don't trust some of my 'friends' to stay sexually exclusive to a group of a people. And one of them has herpes so she couldn't even be in it (at least not the one I am in).

Nice idea tho.
 namrael
Joined: 8/10/2008
Msg: 378
Polyamory
Posted: 1/11/2010 10:14:37 AM

Polyamory, how fun. That's basically an FWB right?


No. Most polyamorous people have romantic relationships that go beyond the sex; they just have more than one of those relationships at once. Sometimes there's a primary partner and secondaries, sometimes there's a triad or a quad. I know a vee who lives together (in this case, one woman involved with two men who are not romantically/sexually involved with each other, but the three of them live together and jointly raise their two children, who love all three parents).

There are certainly "circles of trust" like the type you're talking about, but that's hardly the majority of poly relationships. Further, "polyamory" translates to "many loves", which indicates the romantic component in most of these relationships. Plenty of poly people also have a FWB, but that doesn't mean that's the only or even majority form that poly relationships take. Many poly folk marry and have kids, and are plenty committed.

There's a good primer here, if you're actually interested: http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html
 NappyKAT
Joined: 7/2/2008
Msg: 379
Polyamory
Posted: 1/11/2010 11:02:01 AM
So 'polyamory' is catchall term for any term outside of monogamous relationship? Because I saw it as something different from swinging, polygamy (more than one wife), or polyandry (more than one husband - which I mistakenly called maligamy).

I heard that polyamory literates translates to 'many lovers' that why I see it as something outside of marriage - since most western marriages practice monogamy. And swinging wouldn't seem be part of it because it's basically an open married relationship where folks have no romantic interest, but purely sexual. And as it seems different people (or couples) can come in and out of a swinging set, there is no 'circle of trust' either.

Polyamory to me also implies that males and females are on equal standing socially and sexually and there is a mutual respect. My limited experience (through the media) is that this is lacking in most polygamous relationships. In those relationships, men have control and are 'catered' too by several women, usually each one younger than the last. It's his 'harem.' That seems true in the west as well as in the other countries that legally allow it. The other form of 'polygamy' or non-cohabitated man-sharing is basically cheating - she knows he has other women, doesn't like it, but tacitly allows it by pretending she doesn't know.

I know of few instances (none actually) of female-led polyandry (more than one husband - legally or non, or one woman romantically and sexually co-habitating with more than one man). Men, seemingly territorial creatures that they are, wouldn't seem to allow for it. Some 'allow' for the tacit cheating like women do, but a full all-out woman sharing they don't seem to vibe for. And it seems like it would inhibit their sexual libido - as it often higher than a woman's. This is something I wouldn't mind experimenting with tho along with those 'circle of trusts' as you called it.

I don't think I'd have a problem with polygamy as long as I got my own house and he could financially support that (or had a gigantic mansion where I had my own suite of rooms).
 namrael
Joined: 8/10/2008
Msg: 380
Polyamory
Posted: 1/11/2010 11:26:17 AM
NappyKat:

So 'polyamory' is catchall term for any term outside of monogamous relationship? Because I saw it as something different from swinging, polygamy (more than one wife), or polyandry (more than one husband - which I mistakenly called maligamy).


Yes, polyamory is different from swinging (though there is certainly some overlap between those communities and how they behave--however, most swingers and polyamorists are pretty clear that they identify as one and not the other). Technically, polyandry and polygyny (the type of polygamy where one man has multiple wives) both fall under the umbrella of "polyamory", but there's a huge difference between the way the larger polyamorous communities related, and those of polygamous Mormon sects, for instance.


I heard that polyamory literates translates to 'many lovers' that why I see it as something outside of marriage - since most western marriages practice monogamy. And swinging wouldn't seem be part of it because it's basically an open married relationship where folks have no romantic interest, but purely sexual. And as it seems different people (or couples) can come in and out of a swinging set, there is no 'circle of trust' either.


"Many loves" (which has slightly different connotations for me than "many lovers"--but I realize I am nit-picky with language, so forgive me). I think your impression here is fairly accurate, generally.


Polyamory to me also implies that males and females are on equal standing socially and sexually and there is a mutual respect.


Yes, very much so--with the exception that there are morons in any given community, and the poly community is no exception.


My limited experience (through the media) is that this is lacking in most polygamous relationships. In those relationships, men have control and are 'catered' too by several women, usually each one younger than the last. It's his 'harem.' That seems true in the west as well as in the other countries that legally allow it. The other form of 'polygamy' or non-cohabitated man-sharing is basically cheating - she knows he has other women, doesn't like it, but tacitly allows it by pretending she doesn't know.


Yes. This is actually something a lot of poly communities are actively working for, is more positive press. There is a complete imbalance in the way it's covered. It's complicated by the fact that there are a lot of poly folks who aren't out about their polyness, for whatever reason: personal, fear of family reaction, fear of retaliation at work, of because they have kids and fear a custody battle (yes, this happens, and people have lost their kids because they are polyamorous). The Boston Globe recently did a good article on it (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/01/03/loves_new_frontier/), but generally, positive/neutral press on poly folks is few and far between.

As to someone knowing her BF/husband has other women but she doesn't like it: That's cheating, not polyamory.


I know of few instances (none actually) of female-led polyandry (more than one husband - legally or non, or one woman romantically and sexually co-habitating with more than one man). Men, seemingly territorial creatures that they are, wouldn't seem to allow for it. Some 'allow' for the tacit cheating like women do, but a full all-out woman sharing they don't seem to vibe for. And it seems like it would inhibit their sexual libido - as it often higher than a woman's. This is something I wouldn't mind experimenting with tho along with those 'circle of trusts' as you called it.


I know of a couple cases where there's one woman with two men, most notably the one I mentioned early, which is effectively polyandry. It works well for them largely because both men get along so well with each other and consider each other family; one of the nice things about polyamory generally is that people tend to meet and get to know each other. One of the things I enjoyed in my poly relationships was getting to know my partners' partners, who often became friends. It doesn't always work that way, but it can.

As to men being territorial: it depends entirely upon the men involved. Jealousy happens in polyamorous relationships, and anyone who tells you that you can't be poly if you get jealous doesn't know much about polyamory. However, there are ways to deal with it, talk about underlying insecurities, etc.

One of the main ideas behind polyamory in the first place is that there's now "allow" here in the sense you're using it. People aren't yours (er, the general "you", not you in particular). They choose to share part of themselves and their lives with you, and you mutually agree upon parameters that work for your relationship and have everyone feeling comfortable, but no one "lets" you do anything. You choose to abide by those parameters because they work for you and your partner(s). No one owns you or your affections.

As to libido--it really depends. In most poly arrangements, everyone is allowed outside involvements, so men are also able to find outside partners as well. And there are plenty of women with much higher libidos than their male partners. I've not seen this be an issue to most poly people I know, and when I have, at least half the time it's a woman complaining about the libido of her male partner.
 NappyKAT
Joined: 7/2/2008
Msg: 383
Polyamory
Posted: 1/11/2010 12:11:50 PM
Thank you for all the information Namreal

One of the main ideas behind polyamory in the first place is that there's no "allow" here in the sense you're using it. People aren't yours. They choose to share part of themselves and their lives with you, and you mutually agree upon parameters that work for your relationship and have everyone feeling comfortable, but no one "lets" you do anything. You choose to abide by those parameters because they work for you and your partner(s). No one owns you or your affections.
Now that's what I'm sayin! I never got the whole thing the 'WHO'S PU$$Y IS... THIS!' thing some people have going on. I'm not as much of a stickler for words as you are, but I get stuck on terms, phrases, words, and meanings because how something is said has meaning just as much as what is said - and I tend toward the literal meaning of most things said. For instance I hate that whole 'I lost my virginity' thing. I prefer the term 'I shared my virginity.' In a marriage I like to practice monogamy but even then I figure it's a mutual choice and it's my choice. I don't like men feeling they 'own me' and have the papers to show for it (i.e., a marriage license). Jealousy and possession just does not flow or fit well with me. I understand they are natural emotions, but it's not one I'm flattered by when a man has them. And if I have them, I'm a little disturbed and want to introspect about why I'd be jealous of something or someone.


P.S. It's rather ironic that generally, if someone messes up a marriage and is "available" that's considered to be a positive attribute for dating, whereas if someone manages to keep someone happy and can hold a marriage together, that's generally considered a negative attribute for dating (yes, I recognize it's not quite that simple but still ...).
I don't get it. If you can keep someone happy and is holding a marriage together, then why are you dating? Please explain your comment further.
 SteveA67
Joined: 1/4/2010
Msg: 384
Polyamory
Posted: 1/11/2010 8:24:13 PM

What does "basically" mean?

And I have to ask...what about HER unmet sexual needs?

I hope SHE too gets to have a new lover.


Well, I guess if it was high on her list and she also spent a lot of time getting me comfortable with the idea, then it's possible.

Actually, she gets more attention when I've been interested in someone else too because I've always tried to keep her happy and generally "take out" that energy on her.

Admittedly, if there was someone else physically in the relationship then some division of attention would happen, but I can pretty much vouch that with some motivation there's more that twice the energy I normally put into things and so there's not necessarily a reason anyone has to have problems. Also, my wife is at least curious about bisexuality (she has a bisexual sister) and so it's not as intimidating in that respect either.

Basically, half the world (and a lot of the animal kingdom) works fine without things strictly monogamous. I've known people that have cheated on their spouse or left for someone else. It seems much better to me to keep a stable relationship and simply add than to unnecessarily toss out something (she doesn't want to leave or lose me and there's no reason to split things up).

Yes, this hasn't been her idea and it would have been better if I'd have been able to find more with her (I know part of the reason why I'm still looking is that she's a bit older than me and our children are growing up and I'd still like to have a couple more children).

Anyway, it's something that can potentially work out fine for everyone involved, though I know it's not my wife's ideal, but then again there my wife hasn't been perfect either and most the times when my attentions drifted were caused by things she did that pushed me away as well. I'm not trying to "get even", but there has been a recurring theme that keeps pointing the same direction and it's basically that we don't share a lot of common interests outside the family and she has family and friends that fulfill that for her, whereas I tend to focus more on my immediate family and when she's not available, I still need that woman in my life for company. Yes, maybe that's a personality flaw for me, but whatever it is, it's not going anywhere.

Of course a polyamorous relationship is a challenge though, but in the end, with the right people, it can work fine.
 SteveA67
Joined: 1/4/2010
Msg: 387
Polyamory
Posted: 1/12/2010 12:23:39 AM

I don't get it. If you can keep someone happy and is holding a marriage together, then why are you dating? Please explain your comment further.


Well it would be nice to skip by the dating and just find a great person to bring in, but of course you have to know if someone can truly work for a long term relationship and, of course that can still be done while keeping a good marriage together too.

I recognize you're assuming that a spouse is suppose to be most everything needed in a relationship, but again, I think that's a bit too unrealistic to expect.

Yes, there could be such a lady out there somewhere ... I dated for about 2 1/2 years and almost had it right a couple times, but things slipped by and I finally gave up trying to find her. My wife and I shared a lot of common desires for having a family and children and we've basically done that. She's a bit older than me and is happy with what we have, but nature didn't give it quite as easy to me and I can still support more people and have a lot of energy waiting to be burned off. It's obviously an additional challenge finding someone who wouldn't mind becoming part of an existing family and who knows if I can even find someone mature and stable enough to be able to do it, but I can't ignore the possibility of having something particularly beautiful in life :) and so it's just something I've got to go for - I know if I don't I'll be sitting around at 60 and still wondering whether or not it might have worked and that wondering is something I've already done for long enough.

I know it's not something for everyone and I wish people here the best. (I've got a very nice prospect right now that I'm hoping works out well ... hey, maybe I'll still get lucky and find that "muse" too! So far it looks like neither her nor my wife are against the idea, so I hope it works out! ... then again, I remember how tough dating can be at times ... oh well)
 NappyKAT
Joined: 7/2/2008
Msg: 388
Polyamory
Posted: 1/12/2010 12:34:56 AM

nappykat, go read what polyamory is, u sound uneducated as always.
What the hell???

What the hell are you talking about MsJohnnyCumLately? That is one of the nicer terms I could call you because I wanted to call you a dip---t!

And I HATE the way you write. It's a hard read on the eyes.
Even if you are educated your lack of intelligent thought in a thread combined with your terrible netspeak writing makes you look like a dolt.

Thank you Blueceleste for the information. I appreciate it, but Ms. Namreal did an excellent job of respectfully giving me pertinent information about my queries and correcting any misinformation I may have about polyamory. So your little sidesweep was a bit redundant and unnecessary. Reading comprehension is fundamental. Try it sometime and you may just learn how to write a coherent thought.

Because you know.....
you do indeed sound uneducated as always.
 NappyKAT
Joined: 7/2/2008
Msg: 389
Polyamory
Posted: 1/12/2010 1:30:55 AM


P.S. It's rather ironic that generally, if someone messes up a marriage and is "available" that's considered to be a positive attribute for dating, whereas if someone manages to keep someone happy and can hold a marriage together, that's generally considered a negative attribute for dating (yes, I recognize it's not quite that simple but still ...).

I don't get it. If you can keep someone happy and is holding a marriage together, then why are you dating? Please explain your comment further.
Oh so this initial comment was to SteveA67. OK. I haven't read that yet. If I have comments about it I'll post.
 NappyKAT
Joined: 7/2/2008
Msg: 390
Polyamory
Posted: 1/12/2010 1:42:13 AM

im new to poly with my bf and we both like it im poly hes mono. right now, our relationship is back to mono. if u wanna ask me questions about it u can ask me privately if ya want.
Wow. So you're new to the whole poly thing and already you're a sexpert? Who gave you your degree in that, Dave36?

Gotta love it!

Lord forgive me. I thought 'mono' meant 'mononucleosis' or you were misspelling 'homo.'
Do us all a favor - when you abbreviate something that it not typical net abbreviations (such as BRB) SPELL OUT THE WORD FIRST, and then put your abbreviated version in parenthesis beside it. From then on in that thread or posts, you can use your abbreviated version of the word. That way we know what you mean or are referring too.

That's one reason why netspeak sucks, especially yours. But whatever.
 jojoaus
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 391
view profile
History
Polyamory
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:16:29 AM
Nappykat... her name is Namrael not Namreal. I think if you are going to quote a source, you are obligated to spell that sources name properly. Picky?? Hell yeah.
On topic... just because I have to... I have no idea how polyamory might feel for those who want it simply because I know it wouldn't work for me. Not because I'm jealous (which some contributors wear like a badge of honour) but because I truly cannot imagine loving 2 adult males equally. I make no apology for that, nor do I think those who CAN do so need to explain themselves. If the OP is interested or already into polyamory then she can explore that side of her sexual/loving persona however she wants to.
Is live and let live a foreign concept today???
 NappyKAT
Joined: 7/2/2008
Msg: 392
Polyamory
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:48:07 AM

Nappykat... her name is Namrael not Namreal. I think if you are going to quote a source, you are obligated to spell that sources name properly. Picky?? Hell yeah.
What the hell...is this yo main squeeze? I gave ol' girl all kinds of credit and I'm one letter off on the name - so shoot me.

Nonetheless, I stand corrected. Not that I care on that particular tidbit.
And apparently you ain't that dam picky. My name is NappyKAT, not Nappykat. KAT is in all capital letters, see? It's right above my picture.
It means Nappy, Kinky And Twisted. Thanks for asking.


On topic... just because I have to... I have no idea how polyamory might feel for those who want it simply because I know it wouldn't work for me. Not because I'm jealous (which some contributors wear like a badge of honour) but because I truly cannot imagine loving 2 adult males equally. I make no apology for that, nor do I think those who CAN do so need to explain themselves. If the OP is interested or already into polyamory then she can explore that side of her sexual/loving persona however she wants to.
Is live and let live a foreign concept today???
Dam, what's your particular agitation? Nobody said you had to be down with polyamory. Nobody said you had to apologize for what you are not down with. Maybe you want to do it but can't wrap your head around it. I mean... whatever. Do what you do, however you do it. I ain't got no probs either way.

And I haven't read where anybody felt the the need to explain themselves regarding polyamory, but granted I've only read the last two pages before I inserted my $2 worth. The person who felt the need to respond to me, NAMRAEL was kind enough to offer her opinion on it and expound on what I offered, and I appreciate that. I would appreciate that from anybody who is respectful and not condescending about what I said, so wasn't anything about her in particular.

Gone 'head and practice your monogamy gurl! Rock with it!
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 393
view profile
History
Polyamory
Posted: 1/12/2010 5:13:07 AM
I understand the concept of polyamory, being able to love several people but in unique ways. I've loved different people over the years some more intensely than others, but I'm still drawn more to a monogamous relationship. To me relationships require work, communication and dedication to another person besides ourselves, having multple partners would feel like I was depriving that one special person of my full attention, but thats just me. It would take a strong person to be with a couple and risk that you are not loved as intensely as the other, you really couldn't be insecure. What other people do is there business, I am curious, it sounds like from these posts that many of these relationships are one man and 2 or more women, seems limiting. Do you see many single females with more than one man in polyamory?
Show ALL Forums  > Sex and Dating  >