Justify Your Love

[intothewoods]

Something that occurred to me today is that I wonder how you, Marquis, are defining a working or successful poly household. I know of several working leather families, but I do not believe they live all together. Also, it seems to me that people within the family are pyls to some, and PYLs to others. Finally, I don't know how long these folks have been together.

It may very well be hard to find a group of submissive women who will live in your house and be submissive and partnered only to you for very long. Not because it's horribly evil. It's just that there aren't all that many people who want that life.

 

[Marquis]

It may very well be hard to find a group of submissive women who will live in your house and be submissive and partnered only to you for very long. Not because it's horribly evil. It's just that there aren't all that many people who want that life.

Yeah, probably not.

It looks pretty good on Big Love, but a big part of that is because they live in three interconnecting houses. I can't afford that (yet).

 

[intothewoods]

Yeah, probably not.

It looks pretty good on Big Love, but a big part of that is because they live in three interconnecting houses. I can't afford that (yet).

It looks good to me too. I just don't want to share Bill Paxton.

Bill is pretty stressed out dealing with all of those bitches, even if he does get some nice tail.

 

[BiBunny]

I just think it takes a special kind of person to deal with that sort of situation is all. It might not be what the majority of people would want, but it might make someone(s) very happy. Nothing worth having comes easy, that's for sure.

 

[Marquis]

It looks good to me too. I just don't want to share Bill Paxton.

Bill is pretty stressed out dealing with all of those bitches, even if he does get some nice tail.

I know I'm going to get some eye-rolls for this, but it really isn't all about the tail. I get a lot of tail without having to deal with the stress of perma-poly.

It's something else, something deeply egotistical. Something that says, "I'm so special, one of me = two or three of you. Accept that."

 

[Homburg]

I know I'm going to get some eye-rolls for this, but it really isn't all about the tail. I get a lot of tail without having to deal with the stress of perma-poly.

It's something else, something deeply egotistical. Something that says, "I'm so special, one of me = two or three of you. Accept that."

That's pretty much it in a nutshell for me too. Tail is easy. Lots of tail, likewise easy. Poly is not easy, far from it. The rewards, well, nothing in my life is more perfect than falling asleep at the end of the night with my gals on either side of me.

Nothing.

 

[intothewoods]

Calm down, Domlies. I'm not saying it's about the tail. Exactly.

I know I'm going to get some eye-rolls for this, but it really isn't all about the tail. I get a lot of tail without having to deal with the stress of perma-poly.

It's something else, something deeply egotistical. Something that says, "I'm so special, one of me = two or three of you. Accept that."

What you're saying here -- to me it's not all that different from the ego of going after a ton of women to fuck. Maybe it's 2.0. To have several women madly in love with you, right?

If you can say, at my core, having multiple women in love with me will make me truly happy, then go forth and build the collection. Knock yourself out. But you have talked before about your endless thirst for more, more, more, when it comes to sex, women, etc. To me, it seems like what you are describing is just upping the ante.

I'm not saying that as a slam. Honestly, you're a young, single guy, and whatever you want isn't hurting anyone. But just for what it's worth, it doesn't seem like what you want sounds like it will make you happy.

 

[intothewoods]

That's pretty much it in a nutshell for me too. Tail is easy. Lots of tail, likewise easy. Poly is not easy, far from it. The rewards, well, nothing in my life is more perfect than falling asleep at the end of the night with my gals on either side of me.

Nothing.

So, just to clarify - when you say "that's pretty much it in a nutshell fo rme too," are you referring to M's statement that it's not about tail, or are you agreeing with the statement that what it is about is "I'm so special, one of me = two or three of you. Accept that."

 

[Marquis]

But just for what it's worth, it doesn't seem like what you want sounds like it will make you happy.

I know, right?

That's what really fucks it up for me.

 

[Netzach]

Huh. I've talked to both of you guys a lot about these things and here's where my head goes 'splodie.

For me it's not at all about being special enough to garner that much attention and devotion and madness. Now, I'm not going to lie and say I don't love it!

But honestly, if I could just settle down with my ex and never have needed any of this weird ass shit at all -- man, are there ever days. Not that I don't love my husband, and not that I don't love my lover, and not that I'm not thrilled beyond belief to have a slave like H.

I have different partners because I have raging insane fringe NEEDS that I don't expect to be met by one person, or they're too conflicting for one person to meet even if they want to.

It makes my life very weird and my family gatherings very covert or very stupid.

 

[Marquis]

Huh. I've talked to both of you guys a lot about these things and here's where my head goes 'splodie.

For me it's not at all about being special enough to garner that much attention and devotion and madness. Now, I'm not going to lie and say I don't love it!

But honestly, if I could just settle down with my ex and never have needed any of this weird ass shit at all -- man, are there ever days. Not that I don't love my husband, and not that I don't love my lover, and not that I'm not thrilled beyond belief to have a slave like H.

I have different partners because I have raging insane fringe NEEDS that I don't expect to be met by one person, or they're too conflicting for one person to meet even if they want to.

It makes my life very weird and my family gatherings very covert or very stupid.

I can relate to this, but also I just like more.

Like, if I could have two lo's, that would be pretty cool. Like, clones. I could totally get down with some fucking clones.

 

[Homburg]

So, just to clarify - when you say "that's pretty much it in a nutshell fo rme too," are you referring to M's statement that it's not about tail, or are you agreeing with the statement that what it is about is "I'm so special, one of me = two or three of you. Accept that."

More of the former than the latter, but both elements are certainly there.

One person is just not going to make me completely happy, no matter who that person is, but I have exactly zero interest in random strange.

Edit: "zero interest in random strange" should not be construed to include play partners. Random strange is good there. I'm talking about actual sexual partners. Not into random sportfuck.

 

[intothewoods]

One person won't make me happy, or satisfy all my needs either. I guess that's why I still wonder what it is that makes someone poly. But it isn't all that important at the end of the day. I don't know that I'm ever really going to get it.

 

[Netzach]

One person won't make me happy, or satisfy all my needs either. I guess that's why I still wonder what it is that makes someone poly. But it isn't all that important at the end of the day. I don't know that I'm ever really going to get it.

There's "oh it would be really great if" kinds of things

and then there are needs which drive you off a cliff if you don't get them met. I don't think I'd have more than one partner if I didn't have to.

There are still things no one covers here, but they're not dealbreaker things.

 

[intothewoods]

There's "oh it would be really great if" kinds of things

and then there are needs which drive you off a cliff if you don't get them met. I don't think I'd have more than one partner if I didn't have to.

There are still things no one covers here, but they're not dealbreaker things.

I don't think it's that. I guess it's just there are some needs that can only be met by a romantic partner, I suppose.

Eh, this topic gets dicey for me, and it's not really relevant to the OP.

 

[Homburg]

One person won't make me happy, or satisfy all my needs either. I guess that's why I still wonder what it is that makes someone poly. But it isn't all that important at the end of the day. I don't know that I'm ever really going to get it.

See that line? Stepping across that line makes you poly. It's not like there's an entrance exam. You pretty much declare it and set your romantic equation to (love > 1).

I agree with Netz that it is a need, and a burning one at that. It is also the willingness to express that need. That is what seperates those who might be from those who are.

 

[JMohegan]

People often talk about those who are poly as the ones who love more than one person at a time - i.e., the one being shared.

But it seems to me that the one(s) doing the sharing would have to be poly, in a different way. Poly in the sense of being relaxed, comfortable, happy, and satisfied when sharing an intimate partner. For how many people is this true in a power-based M/f/f context? I don't personally know of any.

That is to say, I know plenty who've tried. But none that have sustained those relationships over the long haul. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the level of fabulousness of the D-type, or whether he's trying hard enough. It also doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether the s-type is submissive enough, or unreasonable, and so on.

It just seems as if very few people are wired to be poly in that doing-the-sharing kind of way in an M/f/f context. And when you're talking about the long haul, in any relationship of *any* flavor, all parties really do need to be wired for the basics in order for the relationship to be happily sustained.

 

[JMohegan]

Did you though? Did you really?

I shifted from a focus on scoring points relative to other guys, to a focus on my needs as an individual in the context of personal relationships.

The former was gratifying and a hell of a lot of fun. The latter, deeply satisfying.

 

[JMohegan]

Yeah, probably not.

It looks pretty good on Big Love, but a big part of that is because they live in three interconnecting houses. I can't afford that (yet).

I'm guessing that being raised fundamentalist Mormon helps a lot, too!

 

[Essene]

I like pie.

 

[Marquis]

I'm guessing that being raised fundamentalist Mormon helps a lot, too!

Actually, only one wife was raised with fundamentalist values, the others have merely surrendered to their lot in life like good Christian women.


As to your earlier comment:

In this day and age, sharing a male is a highly unattractive relationship prospect. Centuries of civilized living has pushed the mortality rate for men further and further back. Now there are almost as many men as women, an overabundance of dick by historical standards.

And so the economic laws of supply and demand apply.

The solution?

The rebirth of dueling.

I kid.

 

[intothewoods]

People often talk about those who are poly as the ones who love more than one person at a time - i.e., the one being shared.

But it seems to me that the one(s) doing the sharing would have to be poly, in a different way. Poly in the sense of being relaxed, comfortable, happy, and satisfied when sharing an intimate partner. For how many people is this true in a power-based M/f/f context? I don't personally know of any.

That is to say, I know plenty who've tried. But none that have sustained those relationships over the long haul. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the level of fabulousness of the D-type, or whether he's trying hard enough. It also doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether the s-type is submissive enough, or unreasonable, and so on.

It just seems as if very few people are wired to be poly in that doing-the-sharing kind of way in an M/f/f context. And when you're talking about the long haul, in any relationship of *any* flavor, all parties really do need to be wired for the basics in order for the relationship to be happily sustained.

I can say in theory that it wouldn't and doesn't bother me, but it is theory at this point, frankly.


Heh. Actually? Mister Man can fuck others because he's catching up to my fucking others before we became exclusive. He hasn't actually fucked anyone else at this point. And actually, he wouldn't do the full on sexy sex, just oral or something. But anyway, at the time I was getting my groove on, he said, hey, I have all this life shit going on right now (long commute, yada yada), but I may want to sow some oats before we settle down. I said fine, and I'm sticking to my word.

I do feel like he should do some sowing of oats and all. I have, and because of life's circumstances, he's a little behind (he's not a virgin or anything! ). But yeah, as I said in reply to JM, I'm sure it will be hard. It's all bravado - she wouldn't be me so who cares - at this point.

My own personal experiences with male dominants and my feelings toward them get in the way of objective discussions. (You guys are great as friends and aquaintances, but I get squeamish about the love thing.)I don't trust male dominants to keep to the rules. Too often have I seen them make up the rules, and then change the rules midstream to suit their own objectives and goals...and they can do that because they're in charge.

Kind of puts me off of the whole submitting thing.

I guess I'm technically poly, although I like to keep a specific number of partners because they meet specific needs. I'm not the kind of person who always wants more.
Someone to dominate - check
Someone to submit to - check
One penis - check
One vagina - check

I'm done.

What was it? Polifidelity vs. polyamory...seems silly, but a differentiation seems neccessary.

*nod* The first time I ever heard of poly, my then husbands ex girlfriend was doing the bisexual poly household thing-totally vanilla.

*laugh*

I have this weird ultra feminist thing in my being where if I know a woman is in charge of all of that stuff, then it doesn't bother me.

Like a few weeks back - I think you mentioned that you think it'd be hot to have a male submissive who would then dominate a female. That seems totally cool to me. As long as there isn't an egomanical penis at the top - which pisses me off - I'm totally cool with it. Can't explain why I feel that way. *shrug*

I tend to have a lot more comfort with gay leather households then an egomaniacal penis type. You know, I'm with a straight D type, but most of my friends are queer and/or switchy. So I feel you. I will say it's possible to find a male Dominant who does not change the rules midstream. At least, for me, so far so good!

 

[rida]

I've been thinking about this thread a lot ... but have not gotten my thoughts in order yet.

Subscribing while I organize my thoughts.

 

[Homburg]

Yeah, but just because it's love > 1, doesn't mean that it's love=3.14159265

I LIKE PI!

(It had to be said.)

----

People often talk about those who are poly as the ones who love more than one person at a time - i.e., the one being shared.

But it seems to me that the one(s) doing the sharing would have to be poly, in a different way. Poly in the sense of being relaxed, comfortable, happy, and satisfied when sharing an intimate partner. For how many people is this true in a power-based M/f/f context? I don't personally know of any.

The ones I know are F/m/m, or something similar. Similar in the sense that they're vanilla with a strong, dominant female at the head of the household.

That is to say, I know plenty who've tried. But none that have sustained those relationships over the long haul. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the level of fabulousness of the D-type, or whether he's trying hard enough. It also doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether the s-type is submissive enough, or unreasonable, and so on.

It just seems as if very few people are wired to be poly in that doing-the-sharing kind of way in an M/f/f context. And when you're talking about the long haul, in any relationship of *any* flavor, all parties really do need to be wired for the basics in order for the relationship to be happily sustained.

I keep hearing this, and, by and large, I agree. The problem I have is that *most* relationships of *any* flavour have tall odds against them. Monogamy is not some guarantee of success, and serial monogamy is the more common model. So it might fail, and? If someone poly is involved, poly may stand more of a chance of success than monogamy, especially so if the poly person is a D-type.

I do agree though. All parties need to be on board for a relationship to work long-term. That is the white elephant in the room in my own life. Is everyone present and accounted for, and are we all heading in the same direction?

 

[intothewoods]

I keep hearing this, and, by and large, I agree. The problem I have is that *most* relationships of *any* flavour have tall odds against them. Monogamy is not some guarantee of success, and serial monogamy is the more common model. So it might fail, and? If someone poly is involved, poly may stand more of a chance of success than monogamy, especially so if the poly person is a D-type.

I do agree though. All parties need to be on board for a relationship to work long-term. That is the white elephant in the room in my own life. Is everyone present and accounted for, and are we all heading in the same direction?

Most relationships don't succeed. And monogamy is certainly no guarantee. However, I often hear this as a justification for poly, and I don't think it should be. If most monogamous relationships fail, but say, even more poly relationships fail (which I am not saying, btw), don't make a choice that is going to stack the odds even higher against you. Or, to put it another way, it seems like sometimes the subtext is, hey, all relationships fail anyway, why not have some fun. That's obviously a guarantee for failure!

That said, I like the bolded part.