Is It Monogamy If...

[bearlee]

Okay, so my fiancee and I are having a discussion and she's getting ready to email an author on the site we've come to know for an his perspective, I thought the opinion of many than that of one(plus it can be more confusing this way), so I thought maybe it would be better here.

If we engage in a threesome from time to time, or if she's with another guy and I'm doing nothing but watching(all this shit is my idea) or she's with another woman with me present and there is no emotional invovlement by either of us with the other person and it is almost a form of foreplay for us later and we never do anything without the other present-do we still have a monogamous relationship?

By the way there is no jealousy on either part and we really do share everything, including the nasty little emails she sends out to people or when she has phone sex, I'm right there.
bearlee(Lee of Lee & Dawn)

 

[Andreina]

as long as neither of you gets jealous or hurt in an emotional way, i suppose it is okay.


revised to add: I don't think it is called "monogamy" but "semi-open" relationship. But who really gives a fuck about terminology as long as the two of you are happy.

 

[bearlee]

Nope, nobody does. Wer have only one rule-neither of us does anything that makes the other uncomfortable in any way. If one wants to walk to away, we do.

 

[HeavyStick]

I don't think so.

You have added a third element. Are you thinking that if there is no penetration it's still monogamy? That would be a unique spin of things.

 

[bearlee]

You must be talking ala Clinton!

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

It sounds like a variation of polyamory at the least....or just plain
'ol hedonism.

 

[Weird Harold]

do we still have a monogamous relationship?

NO.

I'm not sure exactly what your relationship is, but it's definitely not monogamous -- ie one man and one woman.

 

[Lasher]

Merriam Webster says "No"

Monogamy: the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time

 

[Soblue]

What does a title matter?

As long as both of you are ok with it, enjoy.

If you are trying to justify it to her by saying it's monogamous when it's not, then that's another thing altogether.

 

[Guest]

Merriam Webster says "No"

Monogamy: the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time

 

[Ishmael]

Okay, -do we still have a monogamous relationship?

Nope, not unless you're both without feelings. I've watched these 'arrangements' backfire time after time.

The fact of the matter is that you have come to depend on a third party for mental stimulation of your physical relationship. It all sounds so good on paper, but it is the path to distrust.

A partnership is just that. Two people working together for a common goal. There are times that things will not be perfect. But it is the weathering of these imperfections that strenghten the partnership. And all partnerships are based on explicit trust. If that isn't there, there is nothing. If one partner feels compelled to introduce a third party into the relationship, then where are you?

The fact that this is your idea tells me of your respect for your partner. It also tells me that your partner is willing to do this for you. And I've seen this backfire too. Afterall, if your partner can do this with you, then they are perfectly capable of doing this without you too. And so are you.

Great foundations there.

Ishmael

 

[bearlee]

Not trying to justify anything to her. We're both okay with it. Just some idle chat and I don't really know the answer. I'm not going to look in Webster's Dictionary but I do consider myself as having one mate-her. If the other stuff never happens again, I'm more than okay with that. Man, I hate narrow definitions-need to get a bigger dictionary, maybe one written by John Smith

 

[Ishmael]

Not trying to justify anything to her. We're both okay with it. Just some idle chat and I don't really know the answer. I'm not going to look in Webster's Dictionary but I do consider myself as having one mate-her. If the other stuff never happens again, I'm more than okay with that. Man, I hate narrow definitions-need to get a bigger dictionary, maybe one written by John Smith

No, like all of us you'd prefer one whose definitions fall in line with what you want to hear.

Sorry, life doesn't work that way.

Ishmael

 

[bearlee]

Don't know how to pull up quotes, and I did my last post without seeing the one just before it, but Ishmael, I have the greatest respect in the world for her. Don't misunderstand, this is not completely my idea. You are right, what she does with me she could do without me, but then again, whether we engaged in this type of activity or not, she still could.

 

[Spinaroonie]

mono = one

rail = rail

 

[bearlee]

I don't know how you keep getting these on before me-must be doing it at the same time: Ishamel-I was joking about the definition thing!

 

[Ishmael]

Don't know how to pull up quotes, and I did my last post without seeing the one just before it, but Ishmael, I have the greatest respect in the world for her. Don't misunderstand, this is not completely my idea. You are right, what she does with me she could do without me, but then again, whether we engaged in this type of activity or not, she still could.

Yep, you're right. But encouragement of this kind of activity generally backfires. Not always, but generally. When the first big argument comes up can you keep your mouth shut? Or can she?

You are building clubs to beat each other with. Whether you think that or not right now.

I've been there. And all the promise's that I made myself were for naught. As were hers. Very few relationships survive multiple partners. There is always an emotional factor that eventually creeps in.

Ishmael

 

[IrishWolfhound]

Merriam Webster says "No"

Monogamy: the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time

Not to be Clintonesque (Clinton: Sex between the Bushes), but I think it depends on the interpretation of mate. If by mate you refer only to the act of sex, then Webster applies. But two people can love each other and be devoted to each other, and still have sexual desires that include others. Tricky- yes. Dangerous to the relationship - certainly. But it is possible.

 

[Ishmael]

Not to be Clintonesque (Clinton: Sex between the Bushes), but I think it depends on the interpretation of mate. If by mate you refer only to the act of sex, then Webster applies. But two people can love each other and be devoted to each other, and still have sexual desires that include others. Tricky- yes. Dangerous to the relationship - certainly. But it is possible.

That's called 'having your cake and eating it too' IW. Crunch time comes eventually and a decision will be made, by someone. To think otherwise is folly.

Ishmael

 

[IrishWolfhound]

That's called 'having your cake and eating it too' IW. Crunch time comes eventually and a decision will be made, by someone. To think otherwise is folly.

Ishmael

Ishmael...unfortunately, you are right. I guess I was speaking hypothetically. But humans are humans. Sex changes everything between people.

 

[bearlee]

Orignally posted by Ishamel: To think otherwise is folly.

Now come back at me here. Just trying to figure out how you folks do quotes like that and I'm guessing this isn't going to work, which I'll find out as soon as it goes up(and there has to be an easier way then what I just did).

So, according to GB Shaw, "A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly..."

(Ishmael-please no suggestion you're a fool at all)

Would a genius digest folly as philosophy?

I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer. Didn't think there was but I certainly agree on most of what you've said, Ishmael. Probably depends on the people. I don't believe everything comes back to bite you in the ass however!

Now I get to see how this looks.

 

[bearlee]

Well, that was close but didn't work! It's okay though, it wasn't important!

 

[BustyTheClown]

bearlee, in order to do quotes like we do, look at the bottom right-hand corner of the poster's message. There are buttons that say "Edit" and "Quote." You want to click the "Quote" one.

As for the whole bringing other people into the relationship on a sexual level... I never in a million years thought I would say this, but I agree completely with Ishmael. I'm sure we all wish we could tell you to knock yourselves out and have a blast bringing other people into the bedroom. If we could say that, then we would be able to do it, too.

But the fact is that you will grow attached to the people you bring in, or unattached to each other, or some other mixture, and it can only end up in broken hearts, dreams, and lives. For your sake and for hers -- and for the sake of those you want to bring in -- please don't do anything more than fantasize about this.

There are many things that have looked good on paper that did not work in reality; Communism was one, and multiple sexual partners in a relationship where two people claim to be monogamous is another.

 

[IrishWolfhound]

bearlee, in order to do quotes like we do, look at the bottom right-hand corner of the poster's message. There are buttons that say "Edit" and "Quote." You want to click the "Quote" one.

Aww gee Busty...we were having fun watching him fumble around with it.

 

[BustyTheClown]

Hey, if you delete your quote, and I edit my post, we can still watch him fumble!