Poly ... amory and other things

[Justfantasies]

I have had several open or polymerous relationships and enjoyed all of them. However, because they are not officially sanctioned, you have to make up your own rules.

Probably the best thing to do would be for each couple to discuss what is and isn't allowed openly. In reality, this isn't easy to do and there can be confusions. One experience I had for example was with a lady that that loved fucking other guys, but got jealous when I fucked other women. I hadn't understood that I was supposed not to stray when I entered the relationship.

I suspect that all this will get easier as this kind of relationship becomes more common, which seems likely given that we are living longer and are likely to find it is difficult to stay entirely loyal in marriages for 50 years or so

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Justfantasies]

Yes, but we get a lot of help from societal rules at least in terms of how to behave with other people. In terms of what we do privately far less so.




I think poly. open relationships are almost certainly the way of the future


I think some people are just naturally jealous. Personally, I have just never really felt it
Amen

 

[davenjenn]

I think I have become more polyamorous as I have grown older.

My husband and I have had an open relationship since we got married and I took full advantage of that and was quite promiscuous, especially on business trips and at parties.

As I head up to forty, I seem to need less of this. But I still fuck several old lovers and it feels very cosy and nice. I expect to continue to have multiple partners in this way for a long time

 

[SlutAddicted]

It's interesting that my original post has been interpreted as a question about 'causes', which it very definitely wasn't. I'm always suspicious of causal explanations, especially in the area of sexuality. Evolution etc simply doesn't, and can't, explain 99% of human behaviour, and I don't think I necessarily want it to either. For me, the 'problem' is never why does a certain thing happen/exist, but rather does that thing make life unpleasant for specific groups of people, and if so, is there anything we can do about it without making life unpleasant for anyone else. So, as a feminist, for me the 'cause' of patriarchy is somewhat irrelevant - rather, I want to work on dismantling it so that the lives of most women and a lot of men are improved.

My musing was more to point out how inadequately the system actually works. It's like the constantly repeated trope that teenagers shouldn't have sex, and telling them that is the best way to ensure they don't ... in spite of the fact that literally centuries of evidence proves that in almost all contexts, teenagers will find ways to have sex regardless of how much they're told not too. Finding new ways of preventing it just seems so counter-productive - dealing with the reality makes about a thousand times more sense, because then you can mitigate the negative consequences more readily.

Similarly, telling people to be faithful just seems to have been a doomed endeavour since forever, and the socially prevalent expectation (and accompany moral judgements) causes far more harm than good. If, instead, we accepted that some people just aren't monogamous, like some people aren't heterosexual, and got on with working out a way of making that work for everyone, it would seem so much more logical.

I suppose I indulge in the discussion of "causes" because it helps me understand why we are on the wrong track. The teenage sex example is very apt in that we knowingly ignore part of the obvious dynamics and keep trying to do something that doesn't work without much thought about why it doesn't work or why we are even doing it. To get to a more enlightened perspective I find it helpful to question how we got to where we are - not so much to justify or refute but to understand.

There are some rather good reasons for teenagers to approach sex with caution - but prohibition and scare tactics won't help. And for many parents I think the starting point is to accept the reality of it and equip the teenagers mentally and emotionally. For most I know that starts with reflecting on why they have such an immediate aversion to that reality. If they can't get past "they should wait until they are older" they stay stuck in that box where stopping it at all costs is the only option.

Substitute non-monogamy into that paragraph and the same principles apply. Many people can't advance beyond reflexive aversion. While I'd like to think that they should just accept that it is none of their business I think most won't see it that way until they look at why they have that aversion.

 

[KaseE]

Following on from a thread that I start a while back (http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1287864), various other discussions I've had in here, and a fairly 'interesting' year in my own life, I had a sudden epiphany the other day. Contemporary western culture, and indeed most Judeo-Christian cultures and many others besides, have tended to present monogamy as the ideal - and preferably heterosexual monogamy practiced within the institution of marriage. However, while this is theoretically what we're 'meant' to be doing, evidence clearly suggests that it's not what a great deal of people actually want ... or even what they actually do ... yet they are consistently cast as morally suspect.

It suddenly struck me that instead of trying to 'fix' those who aren't (or don't want to be) monogamous, maybe we should think about changing the system so monogamy isn't the ideal.
(I suspect this only works if you take religion and banal evolutionary psychological explanations for human behaviour out of the mix.)

Why have an "ideal" relationship at all?

Isn't individual liberty the greatest ideal? You know, as in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Let's let consenting adults define their "ideal" relationships, and let's not impose our ideals on others!

 

[dacoach44]

U go girl

I think I have become more polyamorous as I have grown older.

My husband and I have had an open relationship since we got married and I took full advantage of that and was quite promiscuous, especially on business trips and at parties.

As I head up to forty, I seem to need less of this. But I still fuck several old lovers and it feels very cosy and nice. I expect to continue to have multiple partners in this way for a long time

Nothing at all wrong with this deal, since you both agree to it. As long as the marriage isnt threatened, it sounds fine. I have never met a woman who could handle an open marriage.

 

[dacoach44]

Yup

I need a 'like' button for this.

You nailed it, Ginny

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

Why have an "ideal" relationship at all?

Isn't individual liberty the greatest ideal? You know, as in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Let's let consenting adults define their "ideal" relationships, and let's not impose our ideals on others!

I think we're using 'ideal' in slightly different ways here. I was more meaning a social ideal, whereas (I think) you're more alluding to 'ideal' as in 'perfect' ... although I could be wrong.

The 'individual liberty' argument is an interesting one, and I know people who operate on the basis that if everyone is primarily interested in their own happiness, then general happiness prevails. Logically that should be the case, but in reality it doesn't seem to work so well, in part because (especially for the person I'm thinking of) pursuing her 'individual happiness' necessitated lying to other people. She was OK with that, but it's not something I can handle. I tend to work on the 'maximising overall happiness' basis - that as a social animal, I have some responsibility for the wellbeing of the other members of my society. (The difference between those two philosophical approaches extends far beyond just relationships, but here I'm just thinking about intimate relations.) Therefore I tend to feel that ensuring the people I care about are happy is a consideration for me, and sometimes that might involve compromising my own 'liberty'.

 

[KimGordon67]

I suppose I indulge in the discussion of "causes" because it helps me understand why we are on the wrong track. The teenage sex example is very apt in that we knowingly ignore part of the obvious dynamics and keep trying to do something that doesn't work without much thought about why it doesn't work or why we are even doing it. To get to a more enlightened perspective I find it helpful to question how we got to where we are - not so much to justify or refute but to understand.

There are some rather good reasons for teenagers to approach sex with caution - but prohibition and scare tactics won't help. And for many parents I think the starting point is to accept the reality of it and equip the teenagers mentally and emotionally. For most I know that starts with reflecting on why they have such an immediate aversion to that reality. If they can't get past "they should wait until they are older" they stay stuck in that box where stopping it at all costs is the only option.

Substitute non-monogamy into that paragraph and the same principles apply. Many people can't advance beyond reflexive aversion. While I'd like to think that they should just accept that it is none of their business I think most won't see it that way until they look at why they have that aversion.

I see your point about the 'causal' argument, but in some cases it's just impossible to know why a particular set of social norms has developed - we can make some best-guesses, but ultimately that's all they'll ever be. Homosexuality is a good example here - people have been *sure* about the cause of homosexuality for centuries; it just happens to keep changing as new evidence emerges. But, as with so many things, society tended to act on whatever they understood the 'cause' to be at any given moment (sin; parenting; something that could be 'fixed' with electric shock therapy). My problem with 'causal' arguments is that they are often (although clearly not always) used as a way of 'fixing' something that is perceived of as a 'problem'. In this instance, I don't actually see monogamy as a 'problem' - the issue is that it's socially enforced as the *only* option, when centuries of evidence suggest that a lot of people actually would prefer something else.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SissySalina]

Following on from a thread that I start a while back (http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1287864), various other discussions I've had in here, and a fairly 'interesting' year in my own life, I had a sudden epiphany the other day. Contemporary western culture, and indeed most Judeo-Christian cultures and many others besides, have tended to present monogamy as the ideal - and preferably heterosexual monogamy practiced within the institution of marriage. However, while this is theoretically what we're 'meant' to be doing, evidence clearly suggests that it's not what a great deal of people actually want ... or even what they actually do ... yet they are consistently cast as morally suspect.

It suddenly struck me that instead of trying to 'fix' those who aren't (or don't want to be) monogamous, maybe we should think about changing the system so monogamy isn't the ideal.
(I suspect this only works if you take religion and banal evolutionary psychological explanations for human behaviour out of the mix.)

sissy is simple minded and that makes a great sissy but sissy does not remember anything in wedding vows that specified a monogamous relationship, did sissy miss something? sissy is married and Her to the ends and She decides if the relationship is monogamous or not. To sissy ideal relationship is the one that works for both.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

I was pretty careful with our wedding vows ... in fact, I think we both were. It's the useful thing about writing them yourself - you can make really sure you're not promising anything that you might feel differently about in ten years time.

 

[KimGordon67]

It's been a really interesting thing for me to think about over the last year or so, especially having a close friend whose doing vaguely similar things but in quite different ways - there's nothing like having a point of comparison for making one really think through one's own actions. I'm sure she feels the same way - I don't think either of us are necessarily 'right', we're just right for ourselves.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SlutAddicted]

I see your point about the 'causal' argument, but in some cases it's just impossible to know why a particular set of social norms has developed - we can make some best-guesses, but ultimately that's all they'll ever be. Homosexuality is a good example here - people have been *sure* about the cause of homosexuality for centuries; it just happens to keep changing as new evidence emerges. But, as with so many things, society tended to act on whatever they understood the 'cause' to be at any given moment (sin; parenting; something that could be 'fixed' with electric shock therapy). My problem with 'causal' arguments is that they are often (although clearly not always) used as a way of 'fixing' something that is perceived of as a 'problem'. In this instance, I don't actually see monogamy as a 'problem' - the issue is that it's socially enforced as the *only* option, when centuries of evidence suggest that a lot of people actually would prefer something else.

I guess my approach to causal is not to prove a hypothesis but to to challenge the assumptions of those who think they have the absolute truth. I feel as though that is often the way to break down fallacious assumptions.

For instance prevalent among men is the "if she was getting what she needs at home she wouldn't go anywhere else" premise. Yet every man accepts that even if he was married to the #1 most sexy and desirable woman in the world......he would still want to bang all of the top 10, plus his sister-in-law. Put another way, we accept the possibility that no one woman is the be all and end all. So why assume that a woman's desire is so linear and simplistic that it stops at one man?

Such a narrow set of assumptions lead to pre-determined outcomes that makes no sense. And as a man I feel that men need to ask why do you make that silly ass assumption? What is the cause of that? The pursuit of "cause" isn't to find a definitive answer but to reflect upon and question the answers that we already assume to be true.

Again much as with homosexuality, if we try to analyze it with an open mind we won't find clear answers......but we will see that the previous explanations don't pass muster and consider that maybe we don't have all the fucking answers. In that sense the truth doesn't come from knowing it all but realizing we don't know it all.

 

[KimGordon67]

I guess my approach to causal is not to prove a hypothesis but to to challenge the assumptions of those who think they have the absolute truth. I feel as though that is often the way to break down fallacious assumptions.

For instance prevalent among men is the "if she was getting what she needs at home she wouldn't go anywhere else" premise. Yet every man accepts that even if he was married to the #1 most sexy and desirable woman in the world......he would still want to bang all of the top 10, plus his sister-in-law. Put another way, we accept the possibility that no one woman is the be all and end all. So why assume that a woman's desire is so linear and simplistic that it stops at one man?

Such a narrow set of assumptions lead to pre-determined outcomes that makes no sense. And as a man I feel that men need to ask why do you make that silly ass assumption? What is the cause of that? The pursuit of "cause" isn't to find a definitive answer but to reflect upon and question the answers that we already assume to be true.

Again much as with homosexuality, if we try to analyze it with an open mind we won't find clear answers......but we will see that the previous explanations don't pass muster and consider that maybe we don't have all the fucking answers. In that sense the truth doesn't come from knowing it all but realizing we don't know it all.

Ah ... you're bringing a gendered element into that which wasn't really part of my thinking at all. I have no conception of men and women have quantitatively different sex drives. I've probably had sex with more men than most men I know ... I would never apply nor assume a different set of rules or desires to either.

 

[ouchfeelsgood]

I would think that from an evolutionary standpoint, like most species trying to maintain or increase their population, humans are innately wired to procreate often, and with multiple partners. I think if asked, Charles Darwin would have offered a very sound scientific explanation for orgies.

 

[SissySalina]

I would think that from an evolutionary standpoint, like most species trying to maintain or increase their population, humans are innately wired to procreate often, and with multiple partners. I think if asked, Charles Darwin would have offered a very sound scientific explanation for orgies.

sissy is not a smart or thinking person but the homosapiens are not included in Charles Darwin conclusions because they are just after self indulgence and most do not look at increasing their population only having their fun.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SlutAddicted]

Ah ... you're bringing a gendered element into that which wasn't really part of my thinking at all. I have no conception of men and women have quantitatively different sex drives. I've probably had sex with more men than most men I know ... I would never apply nor assume a different set of rules or desires to either.

But others do and that is my point with a male example. I take Gianbattista's point that not all men think as I have described. But all men know that some other men feel this way - most or even all men know men that do not see loving their wife and desiring (notice I said desire, not have sex with) other women as mutually exclusive things yet subconsciously assume women are different. And their perspective on their status and how their wife's fidelity affects their status is directly linked to this fallacy which they are determined to believe.

Likewise when we hear women say sex is better if there is an emotional connection we choose to extrapolate that into women only enjoy sex when they are in love and monogamous.

Men want to believe that if we satisfy certain needs our wife will never even want another man much less actually stray so we have a stake in perpetuating false assumptions in support of monogamy.

Each person has their own views on love, sex and marriage. They don't all fall along gender lines but there is commonality. And as a man I can see where male status among men links directly to a certain set of attitudes about monogamy which is "caused" by certain assumptions about women. Those assumptions may not be universal but they are sufficiently prevalent to sway most of half the population.

Back in the 60s, did anyone think less of Jackie Kennedy because they all knew JFK was banging Marilyn Monroe? I don't know but it isn't something we read about. But if the tables were turned he would be completely humiliated. Times have changed but not so much. Men still feel that powerful pressure which dictates that our status is linked to the fidelity of our spouse - reinforced but false assumptions about women. Imagine how much our thinking on monogamy would advance if the male half of the population could stop applying a different set of rules or assumptions to each gender.

 

[KimGordon67]

But others do and that is my point with a male example. I take Gianbattista's point that not all men think as I have described. But all men know that some other men feel this way - most or even all men know men that do not see loving their wife and desiring (notice I said desire, not have sex with) other women as mutually exclusive things yet subconsciously assume women are different. And their perspective on their status and how their wife's fidelity affects their status is directly linked to this fallacy which they are determined to believe.

Likewise when we hear women say sex is better if there is an emotional connection we choose to extrapolate that into women only enjoy sex when they are in love and monogamous.

Men want to believe that if we satisfy certain needs our wife will never even want another man much less actually stray so we have a stake in perpetuating false assumptions in support of monogamy.

Each person has their own views on love, sex and marriage. They don't all fall along gender lines but there is commonality. And as a man I can see where male status among men links directly to a certain set of attitudes about monogamy which is "caused" by certain assumptions about women. Those assumptions may not be universal but they are sufficiently prevalent to sway most of half the population.

Back in the 60s, did anyone think less of Jackie Kennedy because they all knew JFK was banging Marilyn Monroe? I don't know but it isn't something we read about. But if the tables were turned he would be completely humiliated. Times have changed but not so much. Men still feel that powerful pressure which dictates that our status is linked to the fidelity of our spouse - reinforced but false assumptions about women. Imagine how much our thinking on monogamy would advance if the male half of the population could stop applying a different set of rules or assumptions to each gender.

I'm not sure what men you're talking about here, but this doesn't describe any guy I know - none of the men (or women) I know would hold a different set of standards or expectations for men and for women. Although I'm aware that could be because they're not a 'typical' group, I think we need to be careful about extrapolating from our own immediate knowledge to the population in general - before I attribute any perspective with any sort of 'universality', I'd want to see some research that demonstrated that any one of those perspectives were held by a representative sample of men/women.

 

[KimGordon67]

I would think that from an evolutionary standpoint, like most species trying to maintain or increase their population, humans are innately wired to procreate often, and with multiple partners. I think if asked, Charles Darwin would have offered a very sound scientific explanation for orgies.

I just don't understand why we even care about the 'evolutionary standpoint'. There's a grillion things humanity does that don't have any benefit from an evolutionary perspective - why do we think sex 'should' have some evolutionary function? Is it because it's so integrally linked to reproduction? Yet for centuries we've been trying to find a reliable method of severing that link.
I'm far more interested in the ethics of the situation, and resolving what I see as something of a 'social problem' (although admittedly not one that maybe has the same priority as poverty or quite a few other things).