Reading The Smart Girl's Guide to Polyamory and feeling Philosophical

[Scareltt]

Has anyone read The Smart Girl's Guide to Polyamory?

Would anyone like to talk about it?

 

[Scareltt]

Haha.. I’ll start..

I haven’t finished, but I have to admit a lot of it makes sense.

It’s silly to expect one person to be able to satisfy all your needs.

It’s equally as silly to think I can satisfy all the needs another person has.

 

[HisArpy]

It depends on the individual. I believe there are 3 "groups" here.

A group which does not need anyone to "make them complete".

A group which are fully content with just 1 life partner.

A group which are not satisfied with a steady monogamous relationship no matter how comforting and fulfilling a single individual life partner can be for them.

Trying to put all people into the third group doesn't work.

 

[Maeven_quinn]

Has anyone read The Smart Girl's Guide to Polyamory?

Would anyone like to talk about it?

I've recently finished that book, and I wish that the book had been written when I began my first poly relationships. Would have saved a lot of trouble.

Too many things had to get disentangled between me and my first primary due to "controlling information" in regards to our other partners. I learned the hard way about trying to keep metamours from each other too.

 

[Scareltt]

Nodding my head.

I've recently finished that book, and I wish that the book had been written when I began my first poly relationships. Would have saved a lot of trouble.

Too many things had to get disentangled between me and my first primary due to "controlling information" in regards to our other partners. I learned the hard way about trying to keep metamours from each other too.

I can see where that could be a problem. I also had to learn from my mistakes regarding what to share and what to hold back. I have gotten better about it but sometimes I feel like I might be giving too much..

In these relationships it’s all about communication, and sharing information. Still it will always be about making myself a better communicator..

For me some information is just harder to share, and sometimes it’s not what I say but how I say it..

 

[Scareltt]

Figuring everything out, it’s rough on the first partner..

I've recently finished that book, and I wish that the book had been written when I began my first poly relationships. Would have saved a lot of trouble.

Too many things had to get disentangled between me and my first primary due to "controlling information" in regards to our other partners. I learned the hard way about trying to keep metamours from each other too.

First I have by no means figured this whole thing out.. not even close..

I do regret some of my early choices, when I started dating again. My first partner Carlos got a front row seat. I have since apologized, to him..

I am also learning from my mistakes..

 

[BotanyBoy]

First I have by no means figured this whole thing out.. not even close..

I do regret some of my early choices, when I started dating again. My first partner Carlos got a front row seat. I have since apologized, to him..

I am also learning from my mistakes..

Why apologize?

Men are just tools for women to exploit.

 

[Scareltt]

Haha..

Why apologize?

Men are just tools for women to exploit.

He just said what I have always thought..

 

[BotanyBoy]

[Threats of physical harm are prohibited per our forum guidelines] and are cause for permanent banning.

 

[Scareltt]

What an ugly thing to say..

Everyone knows....your sexism is pretty apparent.

Just like with your misogynistic counterparts I hope one of your door mats grows a pair one day and beats you into a month long ICU stay.

Statements like that have no place here..

 

[docoral]

Has anyone read The Smart Girl's Guide to Polyamory?

Would anyone like to talk about it?

Sharing is better, less complicated. It's hard enough to please and understand one person. Sharing responsibilities are impossible to set up. Jealousy is always around the corner and the whole thing is all about socialism in the home.

 

[badbabysitter]

Statements like that have no place here..

My god

He wants women to get beaten, and calls other people the misogynists

 

[BotanyBoy]

Statements like that have no place here..

I'm not one of your doormats or fuck trophies you can boss around, I'll post freely within the forum rules.

My god

He wants women to get beaten, and calls other people the misogynists

My god.

You need to learn how to read, I said I want misogynists and misandrist beaten, you illiterate cow.

Sexist sacks of shit don't get a pass because they got a fur burger between their legs.

 

[policywank]

Statements like that have no place here..

Even if there was apparent sexism it would not justify such hostility. But there was no sexism that I could see - apparent or subtle.

Making personal decisions that the opposite sex finds odious or offensive is not intrinsically sexist Being openly polyamorous is a personal choice and there is nothing sexist in pursuing that life honestly.

For many the amorous part of polyamorous implies love. A non-monogamous person could just as easily be inclined to embrace multiple sexual experiences that don't include love. That doesn't make their choices less valid. They might choose to pursue those sexual experiences in the form of short-term or one-night hook-ups that are generally viewed by society with disdain - still entirely valid choices that do not imply sexism.

Those acts only veer into sexism when they involve prejudice and discrimination towards the opposite sex.

There are those that think that a man who pursues primarily casual sexual relationship holds women in low regard and is therefore sexist - but there is no evidence that that is his motivation or attitude so in fact the person making that assumption is the one exhibiting sexist stereotyping. Likewise it is very easy to presume the nature and motivations of a woman who engages in non-traditional sexual relations but that is spurious and baseless - it is the person making those assumptions that is being sexist.

It is entirely possible for either gender to engage in regular casual and non-traditional sexual relations and still respect their sexual partners without exercising and prejudice or discrimination. Your reference to your first other partner Carlos suggests an awareness and empathy that is not aligned with any presumption of disrespect our casual neglect, let alone sexism.

We can't have rationale discussions about this type of topic until we drop the ridiculous proposition that a given set of behaviour automatically implies some pre-determined thing. Both genders can be guilty of making baseless inferences as to the reason for certain behaviours based upon dogma and outdated tropes. A man or woman who pursues multiple sexual partners is first and foremost a free human exercising their right to make their own decisions - nothing more can be inferred from the sexual habits alone.

 

[RoryN]

Everyone knows....your sexism is pretty apparent.

Just like with your misogynistic counterparts I hope one of your door mats grows a pair one day and beats you into a month long ICU stay.

^^^^
Ladies and gentlemen, BotanyBoy.

Quote this early and often.

 

[butters]

^^^^
Ladies and gentlemen, BotanyBoy.

Quote this early and often.

and report the fucker

 

[Comshaw]

It depends on the individual. I believe there are 3 "groups" here.

A group which does not need anyone to "make them complete".

A group which are fully content with just 1 life partner.

A group which are not satisfied with a steady monogamous relationship no matter how comforting and fulfilling a single individual life partner can be for them.

Trying to put all people into the third group doesn't work.

While what you say is true, it's pretty damned easy to see where your bias lays by the way you stated it. I'll ad that trying to force everyone in to any of those groups is stupid and futile. We are all individuals, not cookie cutter copies of some master form. As such we are all a little different, which is how I prefer it. It ain't nunmi to try to force someone else to live by my rules. In return I expect the same.

I've recently finished that book, and I wish that the book had been written when I began my first poly relationships. Would have saved a lot of trouble.

Too many things had to get disentangled between me and my first primary due to "controlling information" in regards to our other partners. I learned the hard way about trying to keep metamours from each other too.

As a member of a long term (15 year) poly quad I learned like any relationship that communication, honesty, openness and understanding goes a very long way to make things go smoothly and conflict free. When we went from a two person to a four person group we didn't just double the number of relationships we needed to maintain. With two you each have one relationship, the one with your partner. With four it expands. Each of you have a personal relationship with the other three, one with the entire group and one with the other couple. Five in total.

It wasn't that easy or smooth from the git go. We weren't perfect at it, but we all wanted to work at it because we all enjoyed the benefits. Like any couple the four of us had our ups and downs, fights and disagreements. People are individuals after all and each sees things in a different light, so disagreements will occur, no matter what.

Many people try to make it complicated. It isn't. It's like anything else, if it's worth it, it takes work.

I'll have to read the book and see if I agree with the opinion of the author.


Comshaw

 

[suurfer]

and report the fucker

The other ones might or might not be right about BB, it's not for me to judge.


But how come your superior British ass is in every thread where people that you either hate, or look down your nose to, say stupid or outrageous things?

Did you ever report SaintPeter, Fata (as much as I like her), Sean or Luke
when they said similar things?

 

[badbabysitter]

The other ones might or might not be right about BB, it's not for me to judge.


But how come your superior British ass is in every thread where people that you either hate, or look down your nose to, say stupid or outrageous things?

Did you ever report SaintPeter, Fata (as much as I like her), Sean or Luke
when they said similar things?

Its not for you to judge BB... but then you immediately..and i do mean immediately judge someone else

 

[Saint Peter]

Statements like that have no place here..

So true.

Edit that crap, Botany.

 

[Saint Peter]

Its not for you to judge BB... but then you immediately..and i do mean immediately judge someone else

Hash always goes low. Always.

Lit ages and changes. What was accepted years ago is brought up as evidence (EVIDENCE!!!! ) of wrong doing today. It is a common tactic of the corrupt republican posters, hash included.

 

[suurfer]

Its not for you to judge BB... but then you immediately..and i do mean immediately judge someone else

butters?
The no.2 snitch of Literotica?
Come on...

 

[Hal9000_]

Back to topic at hand:

There's a lid for every jar.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Back to topic at hand:

There's a lid for every jar.

It's true but still surprising.
You see some disgusting blob rolling down the street, stink lines coming off her like a cartoon and all the bugs dying when they fly too close to her crotch and think "no way is anyone fucking that" but oh, someone is. In many cases more than 1 someone.

 

[KimGordon67]

While what you say is true, it's pretty damned easy to see where your bias lays by the way you stated it. I'll ad that trying to force everyone in to any of those groups is stupid and futile. We are all individuals, not cookie cutter copies of some master form. As such we are all a little different, which is how I prefer it. It ain't nunmi to try to force someone else to live by my rules. In return I expect the same.



As a member of a long term (15 year) poly quad I learned like any relationship that communication, honesty, openness and understanding goes a very long way to make things go smoothly and conflict free. When we went from a two person to a four person group we didn't just double the number of relationships we needed to maintain. With two you each have one relationship, the one with your partner. With four it expands. Each of you have a personal relationship with the other three, one with the entire group and one with the other couple. Five in total.

It wasn't that easy or smooth from the git go. We weren't perfect at it, but we all wanted to work at it because we all enjoyed the benefits. Like any couple the four of us had our ups and downs, fights and disagreements. People are individuals after all and each sees things in a different light, so disagreements will occur, no matter what.

Many people try to make it complicated. It isn't. It's like anything else, if it's worth it, it takes work.

I'll have to read the book and see if I agree with the opinion of the author.


Comshaw

I'm super interested in how the quad thing works ... I mean, not in a logistical sense, that's hardly rocket surgery, but do you feel there are benefits to it that don't exist in a standard two-person relationship - e.g. I can see that it would be nice to have that sort of 'relationship level' support from more than one person.