Is monogamy vanilla?

[muddler35]

I’d like to get other people’s thoughts on this. I don’t dispute that monogamy is a forced construct, and that in evolutionary terms it’s probably outdated. It is in my nature to be monogamous though. I’ve tried other ways, and they just didn’t fit me personally. Some people equate being in a committed relationship with being boring. I disagree. I think two partners can have as much adventure and fun as anyone else.

Thoughts from both sides please, and, as always, play nice.

 

[Fingerfuxs]

Some people equate being in a committed relationship with being boring. I disagree. I think two partners can have as much adventure and fun as anyone else.

Personally speaking , being in a committed relationship is anything but boring. Vanilla is nothing but a word choice some writer used to describe the difference between straight breeder heterosexual preferences and that of the rainbow tribe a long time ago. Ice cream and sherbet, both desserts but with differences. Vanilla ice cream being the mainstay dessert served , rather then sherbet.

The wording has now evolved over time and in social media mainstays to become in a sense the
word “kink “ now. Anything other than what “ breeders “ consider straight heterosexual is kinky in mainstream society at large.

It’s just a word choice that some writers used along the way in history that caught some traction and has now became the popular choice to describe their “normal “ .

 

[Fingerfuxs]

. I don’t dispute that monogamy is a forced construct, and that in evolutionary terms it’s probably outdated.

Again personally speaking , monogamy has its place in society , it actually works too. Prior to becoming empty nesters we were a committed monogamous couple. A really large group of people we have meet in the swinger community over the years where high school sweethearts and virgins when they married.

Monogamy creates ** Cheaters , they are the villains in the monogamy storyline. It’s as simple as that in this context. Here in Lit world.

 

[muddler35]

Thanks for your insight and the etymology lesson. I didn’t know any of that. I see your point. Monogamy, or more specifically, expecting to always be on the same page, can easily lead to resentment, bitterness, disappointment, and ultimately cheating. I guess I hadn’t thought about contractual faithfulness when I asked the question, although that is a very valid and relevant issue. I meant it more to ask if people found traditional partnerships boring or if two partners can keep things fun and exciting by choice and good communication.

 

[Fingerfuxs]

I meant it more to ask if people found traditional partnerships boring or if two partners can keep things fun and exciting by choice and good communication.

IMO , this is when peer pressure comes into the equation. As much as we as a society want to denounce peer pressure, we succumb to to daily. Via social media platforms , our own personal professional work environments and our families elders.

Humans are curious by nature , it’s what * other people think of our choosing not to be traditionally like them that’s exciting !

thus the expression “ My partner in crime , or chaos “ ride or die relationships can count on their partners support without exception!

 

[Fingerfuxs]

I see your point. Monogamy, or more specifically, expecting to always be on the same page, can easily lead to resentment, bitterness, disappointment, and ultimately cheating.

In that statement , imo , you‘re giving being a cheater a path to logical progression and acceptance as something normal.

Cheaters are villains , they hurt people with their behavior. Cheaters know who they are , the same as Kinkster’s know who they are. The differences being one is not a villain and the other is.

 

[muddler35]

In that statement , imo , you‘re giving being a cheater a path to logical progression and acceptance as something normal.

Cheaters are villains , they hurt people with their behavior. Cheaters know who they are , the same as Kinkster’s know who they are. The differences being one is not a villain and the other is.

Agreed. I was in no way trying to open the gate to cheating. I’m not so good with the words sometimes. I was only trying to say that it takes great communication and honesty to make it work. Without those, there is a path to unfaithfulness. How many “I’m in a loveless relationship” posts do you see on here. My girl and I wake up together every morning and say, “I love you, and I choose you today “. I have never cheated or, to the best of my knowledge, been cheated on. The hurt and betrayal would suck. I’m just talking about monogamy as a life choice.

 

[SixShooter14]

Agreed. I was in no way trying to open the gate to cheating. I’m not so good with the words sometimes. I was only trying to say that it takes great communication and honesty to make it work. Without those, there is a path to unfaithfulness. How many “I’m in a loveless relationship” posts do you see on here. My girl and I wake up together every morning and say, “I love you, and I choose you today “. I have never cheated or, to the best of my knowledge, been cheated on. The hurt and betrayal would suck. I’m just talking about monogamy as a life choice.

I think an agreed upon mono relationship can absolutely be non-vanilla. If your kinks align and you have that openness and honest communication then you can absolutely be strictly mono but not at all boring.

But also, I think Vanilla shouldn't be seen as bad or boring. It's pretty common here on lit to insinuate that vanilla is bad or boring. But just like a kink, it should be celebrated.

I too see the many unhappily attached folks here. I have never really been in that situation. But I feel like they either aren't having that honest communication or they are having it but aren't acting on the outcome. Regardless, I do feel it has jaded a huge part of this community against monogamy. And that is kinda sad.

 

[Fingerfuxs]

Agreed. I was in no way trying to open the gate to cheating.

My bad , I didn’t mean for my statement to sound projecting towards you in that way. The thing is on Lit specifically “ cheaters aren’t called out very often. In the swinger community they are , because they give swingers a bad reputation to the “ straight vanilla world.”

Lit cheaters are basically excepted as being Litsters first and actual cheaters second more or less they are not held accountable for who would be hurt if they where found out IRL.

 

[muddler35]

My bad , I didn’t mean for my statement to sound projecting towards you in that way. The thing is on Lit specifically “ cheaters aren’t called out very often. In the swinger community they are , because they give swingers a bad reputation to the “ straight vanilla world.”

Lit cheaters are basically excepted as being Litsters first and actual cheaters second more or less they are not held accountable for who would be hurt if they where found out IRL.

No worries. I understand and appreciate the difference. I will admit there is some allure in an open honest relationship. My girl (who is a litster), and I have discussed it in the fantasy realm, just not something I think either of us want to pursue in reality. If one of us wanted to, it would be something we talked about. No sneaking, cheating, betrayal, or hurting.

I agree with everything @SixShooter14 said. A quick side note. Not really on point, but I’ve noticed that the relationships on Lit that are sustainable seem to be kept out of the limelight. You can’t draw causality from correlation, it’s just something I’ve noticed.

Anyone in a designed poly situation want to chime in?

 

[Fingerfuxs]

Is monogamy vanilla? ,​

No , not even remotely.

Sometimes I think the Lit playground spends more data byte and time justifying kinks or lifestyles they are involved in then needed. IMO , Love is love , compatibility is compatibility. That’s a form of monogamy in itself.

Sex can become an addiction , that’s another excuse cheaters have in their justification for doing it.

 

[muddler35]

Compatibility is such a great word!! How has this not come up until now? My girl and I usually pick a word for the week. Just something on which to give some thought. I think compatibility will be this week’s word.

Monogamy as a kink is an interesting thought.

 

[policywank]

No worries. I understand and appreciate the difference. I will admit there is some allure in an open honest relationship. My girl (who is a litster), and I have discussed it in the fantasy realm, just not something I think either of us want to pursue in reality. If one of us wanted to, it would be something we talked about. No sneaking, cheating, betrayal, or hurting.

I agree with everything @SixShooter14 said. A quick side note. Not really on point, but I’ve noticed that the relationships on Lit that are sustainable seem to be kept out of the limelight. You can’t draw causality from correlation, it’s just something I’ve noticed.

Anyone in a designed poly situation want to chime in?

I am poly. I don't think that there is anything intrinsically vanilla or boring about monogamy. A monogamous couple who is so inclined have abundant opportunity to explore their sexuality. And I think that for many and perhaps most couples monogamy is the preferred route.

The context in which I talk about non-monogamous relationships is that of a world in which we are raised and conditioned to believe that monogamy is the default and only acceptable relationship model. So the perspective is one of validating and discussing my choice, but certainly not one of invalidating or diminishing anyone else's.

 

[Fingerfuxs]

Monogamy as a kink is an interesting thought.

The Daddy / little dynamic is basically a monogamous relationship, Dom / sub the same thing. I could be wrong about that , but it’s a trust and compatibility relationship.

 

[Rob_Royale]

My wife and I are happily monogamous and I wouldn't call our 32-year sexual relationship as vanilla. It CAN get to be that if you put NO effort into keeping it Rocky Road Moose Tracks, with whipped cream, sprinkles, and a cherry on top. Like anything in a relationship, you get out of it what you put into it.

 

[muddler35]

My wife and I are happily monogamous and I wouldn't call our 32-year sexual relationship as vanilla. It CAN get to be that if you put NO effort into keeping it Rocky Road Moose Tracks, with whipped cream, sprinkles, and a cherry on top. Like anything in a relationship, you get out of it what you put into it.

Perfectly spoken sir. Thank you.

 

[muddler35]

I am poly. I don't think that there is anything intrinsically vanilla or boring about monogamy. A monogamous couple who is so inclined have abundant opportunity to explore their sexuality. And I think that for many and perhaps most couples monogamy is the preferred route.

The context in which I talk about non-monogamous relationships is that of a world in which we are raised and conditioned to believe that monogamy is the default and only acceptable relationship model. So the perspective is one of validating and discussing my choice, but certainly not one of invalidating or diminishing anyone else's.

I agree. I said in my initial post that monogamy is probably an outdated societal construct. Your “I’ll do what works for me, you do what works for you” attitude is rare and admirable. Thank you sir.

 

[Annabelle36]

I’d like to get other people’s thoughts on this. I don’t dispute that monogamy is a forced construct, and that in evolutionary terms it’s probably outdated. It is in my nature to be monogamous though. I’ve tried other ways, and they just didn’t fit me personally. Some people equate being in a committed relationship with being boring. I disagree. I think two partners can have as much adventure and fun as anyone else.

Thoughts from both sides please, and, as always, play nice.

Speaking from my own personal experience as a happy monogamist, and as your devoted girlfriend, I've yet to discover anything vanilla or boring about being in a committed partnership. In fact, I'd argue that for many couples the opposite can be true. Having the freedom to be your authentic self and express your wants, needs and desires within a stable, loving relationship can open up a whole new world of excitement. There's nothing vanilla about that!

 

[aussiegeekygal]

Vanilla is one of the most complex flavor profiles. There's an estimated 250-500 flavor and fragrance components to make up that spice. Definitely not boring.

I'm a vanilla loving non-monogamist

 

[ToPleaseHim]

My relationship is far from vanilla and we are 100% monogamous. I tried a poly relationship once and even though I absolutely loved (and still care for) the guy and his amazing wife, it really just wasn’t for me. Kinky and monogamous is my style.

 

[muddler35]

My relationship is far from vanilla and we are 100% monogamous. I tried a poly relationship once and even though I absolutely loved (and still care for) the guy and his amazing wife, it really just wasn’t for me. Kinky and monogamous is my style.

I was considering asking you to delete this thread because I had second thoughts about it. I’m glad to see people responding and being nice. Different perspectives, shared in good will, are so refreshing.

Speaking from my own personal experience as a happy monogamist, and as your devoted girlfriend, I've yet to discover anything vanilla or boring about being in a committed partnership. In fact, I'd argue that for many couples the opposite can be true. Having the freedom to be your authentic self and express your wants, needs and desires within a stable, loving relationship can open up a whole new world of excitement. There's nothing vanilla about that!

Uh-oh. The Brains of the Outfit is here. Everyone behave.

 

[AmberLGreen]

Can I ask for some clarity here as I am a little confused.

If a person is married and only has physical sex with their spouse, then that is monogamous?

If a person is in an online relationship and only has a cyber sex life with one person, then that is monogamous?

If a person has both of these relationships, is that still monogamous?

 

[muddler35]

Can I ask for some clarity here as I am a little confused.

If a person is married and only has physical sex with their spouse, then that is monogamous?

If a person is in an online relationship and only has a cyber sex life with one person, then that is monogamous?

If a person has both of these relationships, is that still monogamous?

Great question Unicorn. I think mono implies only one, but I don’t have a definitive answer. Anyone else?

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Can I ask for some clarity here as I am a little confused.

If a person is married and only has physical sex with their spouse, then that is monogamous?

If a person is in an online relationship and only has a cyber sex life with one person, then that is monogamous?

If a person has both of these relationships, is that still monogamous?

Different relationships may define things differently. I would consider the first two monogamous, but the third example, the person doing both, would be non-monogamous. Whether or not it’s wrong depends on the people involved.

 

[SixShooter14]

Different relationships may define things differently. I would consider the first two monogamous, but the third example, the person doing both, would be non-monogamous. Whether or not it’s wrong depends on the people involved.

I agree.