Is monogamy vanilla?

[policywank]

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. If you do have a real life partner and a cyber sex partner then you are not monogamous. But there is probably more uncertainty in what qualifies as cyber sex.

 

[policywank]

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 I said in my initial post that monogamy is probably an outdated societal construct.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.

Understood and agreed. Although I'm not sure it is outdated. It still works for many couples individually and arguably is valuable to society as a whole. What is outdated is the premise that it is the only suitable relationship model.

 

[muddler35]

Understood and agreed. Although I'm not sure it is outdated. It still works for many couples individually and arguably is valuable to society as a whole. What is outdated is the premise that it is the only suitable relationship model.

Perfectly said. Thank you.

 

[aussiegeekygal]

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?

Ooh. Meaty.

If we're going full literal, monogamy is having one sexual partner for your entire life. Many of us use the definition to mean one partner at a time.

I think there's flexibility for an additional vector of of what kind of sex. I don't think it's a socially acceptable vector, yet. But I can see both sides of this.

The real crux is whether we're ethically non-monogamous or not. That's where people seem to fuck up a lot.

 

[aussiegeekygal]

there is probably more uncertainty in what qualifies as cyber sex.

I've got 130 pages of thread trying to figure out what is the "cyber"... So much uncertainty!!

 

[Bbl87]

I thing monogamy isn't inherently vanilla. And there's nothing wrong with vanilla as long as both people are happy with it. But when one partner wants to explore sexuality to a greater extent than their partner (my case), that is when it can become an issue.

With that being said, 98% of the fantasies I would like to explore would involve just my wife. The exception being exploring a bull/hotwife relationship, swapping/sharing, etc.. Those are probably the fantasy at the forefront right now specifically because of the low likelihood of them being realized.

But things like sex in a semi-public-ish place, sex outside, sex in a car... hell, sex anytime other than bedtime any more... exploring bondage and the D/s dynamic further with her actually taking it seriously and not laughing when we try to take it a bit further. Things like that are not vanilla, but we could try in a monogamous context. Heck, even sexting and sending pictures is outside of her realm any more. Which is her prerogative, I won't force her into anything. But my sexuality does end up pretty stifled.

 

[muddler35]

I thing monogamy isn't inherently vanilla. And there's nothing wrong with vanilla as long as both people are happy with it. But when one partner wants to explore sexuality to a greater extent than their partner (my case), that is when it can become an issue.

With that being said, 98% of the fantasies I would like to explore would involve just my wife. The exception being exploring a bull/hotwife relationship, swapping/sharing, etc.. Those are probably the fantasy at the forefront right now specifically because of the low likelihood of them being realized.

But things like sex in a semi-public-ish place, sex outside, sex in a car... hell, sex anytime other than bedtime any more... exploring bondage and the D/s dynamic further with her actually taking it seriously and not laughing when we try to take it a bit further. Things like that are not vanilla, but we could try in a monogamous context. Heck, even sexting and sending pictures is outside of her realm any more. Which is her prerogative, I won't force her into anything. But my sexuality does end up pretty stifled.

This got touched on earlier. Without compatibility and communication, any relationship would be a challenge. A breakdown of those things inevitably would lead to resentment. It’s a slippery slope. Let’s be fair here, people will always have different expectations. If anyone has any suggestions here, please chime in.

As far as defining monogamy, I’ve given it some thought. @AmberLGreen will attest that when I get to thinking nothing good ever comes of it, but I think in this context I meant it as to be devoted to one person. Emotionally, sexually, etc. I know that is over simplified, but maybe a working definition for now?

 

[Chillygirl]

I think it has the potential of being vanilla if both people don’t continue to grow and branch out and try new things.

 

[scposteel]

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.

I don't think it's vanilla, in fact depending on the couple it can be quite exciting. However I do think that there is a stigma with especially monogamous relationships about talking about fantasies, and understanding that one can see someone as attractive, but not actually want to pursue something. I believe more than anything that its a lack of honesty on that front which adds to the stigma of monogamous relationships being vanilla.

 

[Fingerfuxs]

The meat and potatoes of this question , who are the Lit - monogamous people ?

It’s in their about section , their signature statement ,

to my fellow Lit Dawgs ,

read muther fux ‘urs , read !!!

Be a big Dawg , the non monogamous bitches will pet you no problem

then you can show them your doggie lipstick in PM

#SundayFunday

Don’t get “mud man ‘d “ , and pour a sip an out for him , , he set an example NOT to be followed . But unless he becomes a Alt , don’t hate a playa , hate the Lit- playgrounder game

 

[sister jenny]

I am faithfull to my husband.
Mainly because I love him so much and so far I don’t need anyone else.

If he would want to be with someone else and asked me I would let him.
But so far I don’t think he has the need either.
I could be wrong, of course, but I don’t think so.

 

[PandemicReader8]

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.

This begs the question, can people in an open relationship - as example - cheat? If the principals in that relationship have agreed to their own behavioral norns - what is "in bounds" for them - then yes. Breaking those rules makes it possible for cheating to exist even in an open relationship. At the same time I would suggest that the absence of rules - zero accountability to each other - might not make for much of a relationship. But who knows?

 

[Fingerfuxs]

This begs the question, can people in an open relationship - as example - cheat?

Everything inside these little white boxes needs to be read , appraised , then digested in Lit world context .

Until a Lit posting person actually E-bones , they are just a Lit bystander. How they feel after that is what makes it worth it in the first place. If they scratched an itch , good for them , if their confidence builds from risk taking , awesome .

Prick teasing is a unisex game , the ones that score are Lit winners. Fux the cheap seats and their chatter. You do you Lit world participants!

make good Lit choices ……https://www.literotica.com/s/soft-morning-with-myself I would suggest air buds for for Lit effect !!

My newest Lit discovery. Oh Canada , thanks for sharing

 

[policywank]

This begs the question, can people in an open relationship - as example - cheat? If the principals in that relationship have agreed to their own behavioral norns - what is "in bounds" for them - then yes. Breaking those rules makes it possible for cheating to exist even in an open relationship. At the same time I would suggest that the absence of rules - zero accountability to each other - might not make for much of a relationship. But who knows?

I guess it depends what you mean by rules. I would say that our relationship has broad parameters about how we engage in sexual activities with other people, but it isn't any more specific or granular than for a monogamous couple.

By way of example, I think that for most monogamous couples there is a clear "don't have sex or intimate relations with another person" parameter, but most that I know of do not have a series of specifics as to what that means. It is implied that they both can be trusted to deal with any relevant situation in a mature manner that respects their partner. Being poly means that those parameters are different and have involved more time to develop a deeper understanding of what each of us wants/needs (rather than relying on tradition) but the guiding principle is still that I must deal with any relevant situation in a mature manner that respects my partner.