Polyamory

[GrnEyedGrl]

Alright folks....have at it. Tell me all of your opinions on polyamory. Do you agree with it? Do you practice it? How do you practice it? I'm just very curious about the topic and would like to hear more...

 

[Bette_coquette]

In my experience, impossible.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

I'm in love with two women. But each wants the other to die.

 

[niv78]

Alright folks....have at it. Tell me all of your opinions on polyamory. Do you agree with it? Do you practice it? How do you practice it? I'm just very curious about the topic and would like to hear more...

Huh..what? Sorry, I'm to busy looking at your avatar.

 

[fuckmeat]

I don't currently practise it IRL but I do agree with it. I think it's very hard to find one person who can be all things to you, the only partner you'll ever need. Because I'm bisexual, I want and need lovers of both genders in my life and because I'm submissive, I'm open to my partner wanting to take on more than one sub and accept that that would be his/her prerogative. Obviously, if there are serious personality clashes it won't work. But if people are willing to sincerely give a poly dynamic a try and adhere to any restrictions that places on interactions with others, I don't see it as a huge deal.

You have to be realistic and sensible about it. There are far greater ramifications if an unplanned pregnancy occurs within a poly dynamic, for example. People should be willing to get an up to date STD test before any fluid bonding occurs and infidelity has STD risk for more than one other partner. Also, poly dynamics can involve different levels of loyalty and commitment with different parties. As long as those levels of commitment and loyalty are agreed to by all parties and each person is realistic about what they are able to offer the other people in their dynamic, there's no reason why it can't work. It'll always be a more delicate balancing act than monogamy but the rewards can outweigh the extra time, effort and communication involved.

There are a couple of very good threads over on BDSM Talk if you do a thread search for polyamory. Also, a guy there called Homburg is in a poly relationship that he has talked about at length. He and his wife live with another woman and both women are slaves to him. He and his wife have kids but this does not seem to cause undue hassle for them. I think he'd be a good person for you to ask about this.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

Huh..what? Sorry, I'm to busy looking at your avatar.

LOL

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

I'm in love with two women. But each wants the other to die.

Well, damn. I guess that's not successful poly, huh? Bummer.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Well, damn. I guess that's not successful poly, huh? Bummer.

I assume to have a successful poly you'd need some combination of people with low self-esteem and one dominant personality. Whenever I'm with one they want to be assured they're superior to the other in every way, but I'm not really in a poly relationship.

 

[satindesire]

I assume to have a successful poly you'd need some combination of people with low self-esteem and one dominant personality. Whenever I'm with one they want to be assured they're superior to the other in every way, but I'm not really in a poly relationship.

Well, you know what happens when you assume.

 

[fuckmeat]

I assume to have a successful poly you'd need some combination of people with low self-esteem and one dominant personality. Whenever I'm with one they want to be assured they're superior to the other in every way, but I'm not really in a poly relationship.

You are quite spectacularly ignorant.

1. Poly relationships do not require power-exchange to be successful.

2. Submissives are not 'people with low self esteem.' They are people who enjoy service, control and sometimes masochism. Yes, some people seek that kind of dynamic for the wrong reasons but people all over the planet seek relationships that aren't necessarily in their best interest because they are wired a certain way by their life experiences. It's not an issue unique to BDSM, nor does the BDSM community condone dynamics that are unhealthy or abusive. There is tons of great literature on this, much of which can be found over in BDSM Talk.

 

[Netzach]

poly is successful when each person feels and is treated as irreplaceable and unique enough

if you're good at this it works, if you're bad at this , you'll hear it!

 

[infinity706]

You are quite spectacularly ignorant.

1. Poly relationships do not require power-exchange to be successful.

2. Submissives are not 'people with low self esteem.' They are people who enjoy service, control and sometimes masochism. Yes, some people seek that kind of dynamic for the wrong reasons but people all over the planet seek relationships that aren't necessarily in their best interest because they are wired a certain way by their life experiences. It's not an issue unique to BDSM, nor does the BDSM community condone dynamics that are unhealthy or abusive. There is tons of great literature on this, much of which can be found over in BDSM Talk.

I assume to have a successful poly you'd need some combination of people with low self-esteem and one dominant personality. Whenever I'm with one they want to be assured they're superior to the other in every way, but I'm not really in a poly relationship.

Well, power exchange isn't required, but relationships do work better when someone can take charge and make the decisons, whether or not input from others is considered. It doesn't have to be the same person making all the decisions, but disagreements require a resolution have to lead to compromise for things to work smoothly.

Now, as for low self esteem, that can happen for both dominant people and submissive people and has to do with satisfaction. The dominance/submission aspect can also can also vary between relationships a person has. Dominance/submission also a sliding scale, just like everything else. It's not like relationships work very well when people have equal input on everything regardless of whether they know anything about it. Even in healthy slave/master relationships, the slave generally controls certain aspects of the relationship. That could even go as far as the the slave managing 100% of the financial, social, or whatever aspects of the relationship said slave is good at. D/s has to happen in every relationship to a certain degree and has nothing to do with self esteem or abuse.

poly is successful when each person feels and is treated as irreplaceable and unique enough

if you're good at this it works, if you're bad at this , you'll hear it!

I'm not sure irreplacable is the best word. I'd say it's more being loved and respected enough that replacement is undersirable. Being irreplacable would be an extremely high risk for abuse.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

but relationships do work better when someone can take charge and make the decisons,

I think I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I don't feel that in any relationship I have been in that it works better when someone is "taking charge" and making all the decisions. My relationships, especially that with my husband, are based on mutual respect, intelligent communication, open mindedness and an admiration and respect for others opinions. No decision in any of my relationships has ever been made without the other person's input. To use your own words, a relationship where one person is in charge and makes all the decisions is definitely a recipe for abuse.

Now, I'm not saying my relationship is perfect, but it is quite successful.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

I assume to have a successful poly you'd need some combination of people with low self-esteem and one dominant personality. Whenever I'm with one they want to be assured they're superior to the other in every way, but I'm not really in a poly relationship.

I know others have stated their opinions on your comment, but I'm wondering if you know what the definition of polyAMOROUS is. It's being in love with multiple people in different ways. It is not to be confused with polygamy and has absolutely nothing to do with dominance and/or submissiveness.

To clarify, I am talking about polyamory. I am married, but also find the possibility in my heart to love other people. Not more than my husband, not less, just different. I admire and respect my husband and love him unconditionally. But I believe that I have the ability to love other people too. Some people think this is wrong, or defies the institution of marriage. To each their own. I'm just curious what others opinions are....that is, if you actually know anything about the subject I am referring to.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

I know others have stated their opinions on your comment, but I'm wondering if you know what the definition of polyAMOROUS is. It's being in love with multiple people in different ways. It is not to be confused with polygamy and has absolutely nothing to do with dominance and/or submissiveness.

To clarify, I am talking about polyamory. I am married, but also find the possibility in my heart to love other people. Not more than my husband, not less, just different. I admire and respect my husband and love him unconditionally. But I believe that I have the ability to love other people too. Some people think this is wrong, or defies the institution of marriage. To each their own. I'm just curious what others opinions are....that is, if you actually know anything about the subject I am referring to.

Well, it's hard to confuse polyamory and polygamy/bigamy/polygyny when they can be used interchangeably depending on the context.

The previous commentators are single-minded, they live and breathe BDSM world, whereas I didn't use the word 'submissive' anywhere and my use of 'dominant personality' doesn't really resemble the 'D'om of BDSM. I didn't actually say the dominant personality couldn't have low self-esteem too, I actually think that's entirely possible.

I don't know that you or most people understand polyamory, as it doesn't just mean loving different people, it means actually participating in multiple kinds of loving relationships. Just because I'm with someone and also have a crush on some other person doesn't mean I'm polyamorous. The key to polyamory is participating in different intimate relationships.

So, back to my original comment. To have a successful poly, more than two people involved in an intimate relationship and aware of a partner's love directed in another place -- you're going to need at least one player with low self worth, as our society places great emphasis on highest level intimacy being between two people and only two people. It's easiest managing one person with two people, so you have a dominant personality and then a secondary dominant personality then a third who doesn't challenge much about the relationship structure, whereas the second is continually challenging the right of the dominant personality to direct intimacy in other places than her/him.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

You are quite spectacularly ignorant.

1. Poly relationships do not require power-exchange to be successful.

2. Submissives are not 'people with low self esteem.' They are people who enjoy service, control and sometimes masochism. Yes, some people seek that kind of dynamic for the wrong reasons but people all over the planet seek relationships that aren't necessarily in their best interest because they are wired a certain way by their life experiences. It's not an issue unique to BDSM, nor does the BDSM community condone dynamics that are unhealthy or abusive. There is tons of great literature on this, much of which can be found over in BDSM Talk.

Just to respond to you, FuckMeat. Polyamory has nothing to do with BDSM, my statement had nothing to do with BDSM context. But, Submissives are universally people with low self worth, self esteem, and most likely have intimacy issues, issues they deal with through a set of sex practices different from the way other people with the same issues use sex.

 

[satindesire]

Just to respond to you, FuckMeat. Polyamory has nothing to do with BDSM, my statement had nothing to do with BDSM context. But, Submissives are universally people with low self worth, self esteem, and most likely have intimacy issues, issues they deal with through a set of sex practices different from the way other people with the same issues use sex.

Universally? When have you met all the subs in the universe?

No offense, but, blanket statements are patently inflammatory, always false, and aren't likely to win you many brownie points with the regular BDSM crowd around here.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Universally? When have you met all the subs in the universe?

No offense, but, blanket statements are patently inflammatory, always false, and aren't likely to win you many brownie points with the regular BDSM crowd around here.

BDSM isn't part of the topic of discussion, I wasn't the one that brought it up. Fuckmeat's gotta change the lenses.

 

[satindesire]

BDSM isn't part of the topic of discussion, I wasn't the one that brought it up. Fuckmeat's gotta change the lenses.

No, it wasn't the original topic of discussion, but that's what's great about Literotica. The threads constantly morph and evolve from one topic to another, growing and changing with each person's input. And if you're going to enjoy your time here, you'll get used to that quickly.

The fact is, you've mentioned more than once that people involved in poly MUST have low self esteem (for some reason?!) and that subs are "universally" people with low self-esteem.

I call BS, only not only am I poly-capable, but I'm also a submissive, and I am probably one of the most confident and secure people you will ever meet in your life.

I know quite a few subs on this site alone that could shred your theory to ribbons as well.

Remember, YOUR experiences are limited to just YOUR experiences, where as other people's experiences may have much more truth and a broader sense of reality than you.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

No, it wasn't the original topic of discussion, but that's what's great about Literotica. The threads constantly morph and evolve from one topic to another, growing and changing with each person's input. And if you're going to enjoy your time here, you'll get used to that quickly.

The fact is, you've mentioned more than once that people involved in poly MUST have low self esteem (for some reason?!) and that subs are "universally" people with low self-esteem.

I call BS, only not only am I poly-capable, but I'm also a submissive, and I am probably one of the most confident and secure people you will ever meet in your life.

I know quite a few subs on this site alone that could shred your theory to ribbons as well.

Remember, YOUR experiences are limited to just YOUR experiences, where as other people's experiences may have much more truth and a broader sense of reality than you.

I made it pretty clear that my responding to Fuckmeat was an aside from my response to the topic.

You stating you're a Sub and you know other people that are Subs doesn't really hold water with the standards you placed for me, that I needed to know every Sub on the planet.

You're only poly-capable if you're in a polyamorous relationship that's lasted longer than a few months. Maybe you're not the one with the low self-worth, maybe the other two guys or girls are and you mitigate the tensions through your dominant personality. Most likely you just like to lick coochie and you and your hubby have a girlfriend who shows up once in a while for some fun.

 

[littlebabyclit]

To clarify, I am talking about polyamory. I am married, but also find the possibility in my heart to love other people. Not more than my husband, not less, just different. I admire and respect my husband and love him unconditionally. But I believe that I have the ability to love other people too. Some people think this is wrong, or defies the institution of marriage. To each their own.

Bravo ! I love the way you put that. I think that polyamorous thinking goes on inside more people's heads than they admit to or can act upon in real life. I am one of them. I could definitely love more than one person at a time. IMO latent, unfulfilled polyamorous tendancies, strangled by a monogamous culture, might be a major frustration factor that leads some to cheat...

 

[satindesire]

I made it pretty clear that my responding to Fuckmeat was an aside from my response to the topic.

When you have a response that is not only wrong, but also insulting to the people you're talking about, people are going to quote you, talk to you, and PM you wether you're including them first or not. Get used to that, too.

You stating you're a Sub and you know other people that are Subs doesn't really hold water with the standards you placed for me, that I needed to know every Sub on the planet.

Okay, see, here's where you're starting to worry the crap out of me. You said that subs were "UNIVERSALLY" people with low self-esteem. The fact that -I- exist, and am a sub, and I DO NOT have low self-esteem proves right then and there quite definitively that your theory is false.

Universal equals ALL. Do you understand the meaning of the word?

My argument that I know more than one sub besides myself that does not have low self-esteem also proves your theory wrong. So you're wrong. Let's move on.

You're only poly-capable if you're in a polyamorous relationship that's lasted longer than a few months.

Obviously you are confused with the term "poly-capable" as you are with the term "universal". Poly capable doesn't mean someone HAS to be in a poly relationship, it means THEY ARE CAPABLE OF BEING IN A POLY RELATIONSHIP. Since I am currently married to one single male, I am not in a poly relationship and therefore I am not currently polyamorous. If you need even more explanation, someone doesn't have to be in a heterosexual monogamous relationship to KNOW that they are both heterosexual and monogamous.

Hope I cleared that up for you too.

Maybe you're not the one with the low self-worth, maybe the other two guys or girls are and you mitigate the tensions through your dominant personality.

Again, with the confusion of terminology. You need to visit your local library and get a dictionary or something.

I'm a SUBMISSIVE. I do not have a "dominant Personality" If I did, I would not be a submissive. Being confident does not mean I am dominant, it means I am secure in my beauty, my intellect, my talent and my ability.

Most likely you just like to lick coochie and you and your hubby have a girlfriend who shows up once in a while for some fun.

Since you know nothing about me or my relationship(s) past or present, I'm just going to remind you that making wild assumptions for the sake of trying to insult me doesn't make ME look like an ass, it makes YOU look like one.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

tl;dr. Probably not on topic anyway.

 

[satindesire]

tl;dr. Probably not on topic anyway.

Don't worry, I won't tell anyone how bad you looked. We can keep it between us.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Don't worry, I won't tell anyone how bad you looked. We can keep it between us.

I bet it was a cool story though, Bro.