Justify Your Love

[JMohegan]

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?

Monogamy is no guarantee of success, that's obvious. But I do know monogamous couples whose healthy, satisfying relationships have lasted many years - in some cases decades - and are still going strong. I don't know a single M/f/f poly arrangement about which I could say the same thing.

For the record, though, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with serial monogamy, or serial polygamy for that matter.

The point of my comments was to raise the question of what it means to be poly in the doing-the-sharing sense. A lot of the focus seems to be on the orientation of the D-type, and I'm not sure why. My observation is that the wiring of the s-type is the most critical factor in determining both the longevity and smooth sailing of the relationship.

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!

I didn't read Homburg as attempting to justify poly this way.

A lot of stuff that people write about M/f/f poly must sound like "That will never work! Why are you even trying!" That's not the point or purpose of my comments here, but I can understand why my comments would prompt the response he gave.

 

[JMohegan]

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.

I think we need more wars. Vote McCain/Palin!

I kid as well.

 

[intothewoods]

I didn't read Homburg as attempting to justify poly this way.

A lot of stuff that people write about M/f/f poly must sound like "That will never work! Why are you even trying!" That's not the point or purpose of my comments here, but I can understand why my comments would prompt the response he gave.

Oh no, I wasn't reading Homburg that way either. Just pointing out that the fact that most relationships fail is sort of neither here or there, and I just happen to hear a lot of "hey, we're all on a sinking ship so who gives a crap" as a life philosophy. On the other end of the spectrum, there are plenty of people who've been together for decades who are also miserable. They're not my model either!

 

[Netzach]

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 haven't seen much track record of success in relationships in which this is the case:

I have two of you you have ONE of me, motherfucker! For everything you could want!

Insert any and all gender permutations to that. M/f/f seems to be the one where people insist it works the most often, but it's not the only one.

In fact I've seen this pretty much work never. Sexually.

I know relationships in which the slave is allowed and encouraged to date, even because the romantic partnership is not compatible with slavery, and the Master wants the slave to be happy and fulfilled in that fashion.

I operate like this with H.

I share as the sharer as much as I'm shared as the shared in my relationships and with H, where it's less enacted, I encourage, nay *make* him date and play with others. I am elated when he gets laid in a vanilla way, because that's not going to be me.

Long term successful poly families and networks generally WANT to grow in numbers.

I've been pretty glee filled that my husband has a boyfriend. There have been a few annoyed moments of plans changing on me, but they're ironed out more or less.

 

[Netzach]

HAHA, omg. Wow.

I also have always been much more switchable and comfortable with letting other pussy run the show. It's not logical but for every woman who ever said "I only submit to men and I dominate other women only" which lent me a look kind of like the RCA doggie, I am now happy.

 

[Etoile]

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.

Not really. I don't consider myself poly anymore. I'm not happy, comfortable, or satisfied with the situation. I just tolerate it. I guess if someone is willing to be the secondary and doesn't mind it, they are probably okay with being poly, or if the primary doesn't have a secondary of their own and is okay with that, then they're okay with it. Not me though. I'm not happy this way, I just put up with it because I love her that much.

 

[JMohegan]

I haven't seen much track record of success in relationships in which this is the case:

I have two of you you have ONE of me, motherfucker! For everything you could want!

Insert any and all gender permutations to that. M/f/f seems to be the one where people insist it works the most often, but it's not the only one.

In fact I've seen this pretty much work never. Sexually.

I know relationships in which the slave is allowed and encouraged to date, even because the romantic partnership is not compatible with slavery, and the Master wants the slave to be happy and fulfilled in that fashion.

I operate like this with H.

I share as the sharer as much as I'm shared as the shared in my relationships and with H, where it's less enacted, I encourage, nay *make* him date and play with others. I am elated when he gets laid in a vanilla way, because that's not going to be me.

Long term successful poly families and networks generally WANT to grow in numbers.

This is my observation as well.

And you're right, instead of talking about people who are wired for sharing, I should say something like: Implicit in the D/s/s model is the idea that people wired for sharing without being shared actually exist.

 

[JMohegan]

Not really. I don't consider myself poly anymore. I'm not happy, comfortable, or satisfied with the situation. I just tolerate it. I guess if someone is willing to be the secondary and doesn't mind it, they are probably okay with being poly, or if the primary doesn't have a secondary of their own and is okay with that, then they're okay with it. Not me though. I'm not happy this way, I just put up with it because I love her that much.

I'm sorry, Etoile. Not happy and just putting up with it is a horrible place to be.

 

[Netzach]

I'm sorry, Etoile. Not happy and just putting up with it is a horrible place to be.

It's kind of a par for the course place to be though in any long term and serious relationship. Some things aren't non-negotiables, but they sure stretch us. There are things anyone would change about their partner, almost all the time, which matter and sometimes aren't things you can do anything about. I am very unhappy with M's smoking, as someone who wants to have a healthy middle age to enjoy with him, but it's not something I can change for him.

 

[Etoile]

I'm sorry, Etoile. Not happy and just putting up with it is a horrible place to be.

Not really. It's a place I've gotten used to, actually. People always tell me it must be awful, why don't I leave, even my wife wonders why I'm still there. And it's because I love her. There are things that we can put up with even if we don't like them.

It's kind of a par for the course place to be though in any long term and serious relationship. Some things aren't non-negotiables, but they sure stretch us. There are things anyone would change about their partner, almost all the time, which matter and sometimes aren't things you can do anything about. I am very unhappy with M's smoking, as someone who wants to have a healthy middle age to enjoy with him, but it's not something I can change for him.

An excellent example. It's just like, well, this is the way it is. Other people might not tolerate staying in a relationship with a smoker the way Netz does. Lots of people would not tolerate the situation I am in, either. But I'm used to it, it no longer hurts on a daily basis like it used to. Sometimes it flares up and bothers me that I'm not in the relationship I really want to be in, but honestly it just is what it is. I love her, and I would never leave her over this.

 

[JMohegan]

Not really. It's a place I've gotten used to, actually. People always tell me it must be awful, why don't I leave, even my wife wonders why I'm still there. And it's because I love her. There are things that we can put up with even if we don't like them.

An excellent example. It's just like, well, this is the way it is. Other people might not tolerate staying in a relationship with a smoker the way Netz does. Lots of people would not tolerate the situation I am in, either. But I'm used to it, it no longer hurts on a daily basis like it used to. Sometimes it flares up and bothers me that I'm not in the relationship I really want to be in, but honestly it just is what it is. I love her, and I would never leave her over this.

I agree that there are things we can (and do) put up with, even if we don't like them. Compromise and sacrifice come with the territory for everyone long-term, though the specifics as to what can be tolerated vary from person to person.

I'm not sure this is what Marquis meant, though, when he said: "I also would like my selfishness to be more explicitly embraced." Marquis - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Marquis]

Not me though. I'm not happy this way, I just put up with it because I love her that much.

A lot of bullshit goes down in the name of love.

I thought love was supposed to make you happy?

Maybe you put up with it for another reason?

 

[Marquis]

I agree that there are things we can (and do) put up with, even if we don't like them. Compromise and sacrifice come with the territory for everyone long-term, though the specifics as to what can be tolerated vary from person to person.

I'm not sure this is what Marquis meant, though, when he said: "I also would like my selfishness to be more explicitly embraced." Marquis - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

I'm really not sure what I meant.

I just feel like sometimes I've stretched as far as I can into the whole "be a nice person, think of others" and it's time for anyone wanting to hold hands with me to lean further into "I won't take it so personal."

I'm in a tough spot because I'm already "getting" way, WAY more leeway than your average guy gets or whatever, I don't know.

I want to be asked, "What do you want?"

"What sort of things could we/I do to improve your life experience? Is there anything else you desire that I might be able to provide? Just tell me your fantasies, maybe we can deconstruct something feasible out of that."

 

[Etoile]

A lot of bullshit goes down in the name of love.

I thought love was supposed to make you happy?

Maybe you put up with it for another reason?

Who said her love doesn't make me happy? I just wish I didn't have to share it. It is the love that I DO get from her that causes me to stay with her. We are getting married in Massachusetts...I am not in doubt of the relationship. I put up with it because I love her, not everything has a sinister reason (like codependency if that's what you're thinking) behind it.

I absolutely adore my life with her. She makes me SO happy. To say that I'm not happy is inaccurate. It is true that I could be happier, but that doesn't mean I'm not happy now. I love her to pieces.

 

[Marquis]

To say that I'm not happy is inaccurate.

It may be inaccurate but it's what you said.

 

[Etoile]

It may be inaccurate but it's what you said.

I guess I did, didn't I? Well, consider it modified as above.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm really not sure what I meant.

I just feel like sometimes I've stretched as far as I can into the whole "be a nice person, think of others" and it's time for anyone wanting to hold hands with me to lean further into "I won't take it so personal."

I'm in a tough spot because I'm already "getting" way, WAY more leeway than your average guy gets or whatever, I don't know.

I want to be asked, "What do you want?"

"What sort of things could we/I do to improve your life experience? Is there anything else you desire that I might be able to provide? Just tell me your fantasies, maybe we can deconstruct something feasible out of that."

Well, they're only human, you're partners. You have to be responsible for your own happiness, and asking for what you want.

 

[Marquis]

I guess I did, didn't I? Well, consider it modified as above.

I'll consider it.

 

[Netzach]

I want to be asked, "What do you want?"

"What sort of things could we/I do to improve your life experience? Is there anything else you desire that I might be able to provide? Just tell me your fantasies, maybe we can deconstruct something feasible out of that."

Are you not being?

Careful what you ask for, 'cause the problem I run into is when I'm asked that and I don't have a good answer.

 

[Essene]

You probably wouldn't have to do much posturing, fwiw. He's 20!

Any posturing is too much for my level of patience these days.

Of course, my gas tank only has 1/4 left this evening. Are you saying that I should take the opportunity to score some beautiful man action?

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.



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!

Mmm. Okay. I get it.


Sounds like you've got yourself a good one though.

I LIKE PI!

(It had to be said.)

----

You just like it cuz it's round...and tasty.

And if pie was like Pi, then it would be a never ending supply, and you'd have a wide variety. I imagine pie will be like Pi...in heaven. *nods*

HAHA, omg. Wow.

I also have always been much more switchable and comfortable with letting other pussy run the show. It's not logical but for every woman who ever said "I only submit to men and I dominate other women only" which lent me a look kind of like the RCA doggie, I am now happy.

*laughs* I'm glad.

 

[Marquis]

Are you not being?

Careful what you ask for, 'cause the problem I run into is when I'm asked that and I don't have a good answer.

Yeah, I've been there too.

There's no pleasing some people.

Like me, there's no pleasing me.

I'm one of those people.

 

[rida]

.....
I want to do so while presenting a specific topic of discussion: Justifying Your Love.

I think that justifying our love is something most people in the scene are familiar with. The need to, at one point or another, come to grips with their desires and how we feel about them. How important they are to us, and how committed we are to them.

.....

It took me a while to come to accept myself, my desires and my needs. And now that I have accepted them, I don't feel the need to justify them anymore: they are part of me. Take it or leave it.

It does not mean that I do not struggle with them anymore. It means that I do not struggle with the why I have them, I struggle with the how to fulfill them. Specifically my biggest struggle at the moment is that, for how happy I am with my Hubby, for how much I love him (and he loves me), I need someone else. He knows it and not only understand it, he encourages it. So where is the struggle? That I'm the submissive party in out marriage, that I am discovering that a 'nilla lover/relationship is not going to cut it and that is not easy to find/balance an external Dominant with Hubby being Dominant as well.

So the questions that are taking up a lot of brain power at the moment are something along the line of questioning my submissiveness in general and to Hubby in particular, questioning Hubby and I compatibility in term of a D/s or M/s dynamic and if there is any real feasibility to my desires at this point of my life.

Yeah, I've been there too.

There's no pleasing some people.

Like me, there's no pleasing me.

I'm one of those people.

I've married one of those and I am one myself

Cheekiness aside, it is only a problem when the blame for the lack of satisfaction is put on the partner(s). Otherwise just accept that there are something missing in your life that you are still trying to find, and if you realize that it is something that you will never be able to have, you'll have to learn to live without.

Sorry that it didn't work out with C. Right decisions and actions are the hardest to make.

 

[satindesire]

A lot of bullshit goes down in the name of love.

I thought love was supposed to make you happy?

Maybe you put up with it for another reason?

We love not because of, or in spite of, the other person. We love because we have no choice but to. It's not the person's actions or even the person's PERSON that we love, it's the fact that the person we love makes US a better person.

Person person person. Person. Hah.

Okay, I'm done.

So this is kind of an old thread, but I keep going back and back and back to it, and the only thing I can say to you is this Marquis...

Sometimes women aren't the only ones who confuse sex with love.

Pussy won't fill that empty ache in your heart.






On a lighter note...person.

 

[satindesire]

Monogamy is no guarantee of success, that's obvious. But I do know monogamous couples whose healthy, satisfying relationships have lasted many years - in some cases decades - and are still going strong. I don't know a single M/f/f poly arrangement about which I could say the same thing.

For the record, though, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with serial monogamy, or serial polygamy for that matter.

Just do the math. If two people's life paths can't merge, we're gone on an added a third, or fourth, etc etc ad infinitum to the mix to muck it all up even worse.

Poly can be so beautiful, but to actually find TWO perfect soul mates instead of just one is the most astroNOMically horrid odds I've seen yet.