Polyamory

[PhaonsBrother]

Because I like sharpening my troll-busting skills on weaselly little punks like you. It's easy fun, and good practice for when the big boys roll into the forum.

If you can't take it, I suggest you step away from the computer and crack a book or two. Maybe you can learn something.

So, how's that twilight series coming along? Is Deenie's scoliosis really a setback for her modeling career?

 

[satindesire]

So, how's that twilight series coming along? Is Deenie's scoliosis really a setback for her modeling career?

Once again with your assuming things you know absolutely nothing about. Really, can't you do any better than this? You're just not living up to what I thought would be an excellent reputation at being a 4chan loser.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Once again with your assuming things you know absolutely nothing about. Really, can't you do any better than this? You're just not living up to what I thought would be an excellent reputation at being a 4chan loser.

For reals, I don't know what 4chan is. And the history of the thread hasn't been deleted. You can see for yourself that I gave my brief opinion, you responded by not responding. Then a series of BDSM folk assumed I was talking about facts of BDSM. My shit's on point for anyone following along.

 

[satindesire]

For reals, I don't know what 4chan is. And the history of the thread hasn't been deleted. You can see for yourself that I gave my brief opinion, you responded by not responding. Then a series of BDSM folk assumed I was talking about facts of BDSM. My shit's on point for anyone following along.

Really? You're shit's on point, huh?

You said subs were universally people with low self esteem. Wrong.

You said that poly relationships were solely for people with low self-esteem. Wrong.

You said that subs were universally people with intimacy issues. Wrong.

You said that someone had to be in a poly relationship to know they were capable of polygamy. Wrong.

You've made MUTLIPLE guesses about the state of my life, relationship, and personality, and have been wrong every time.

Not only that, but you seem to think you're important enough to seek approval from. WRONG AGAIN, Books.

I would continue, but I really don't need to.

If that's you being "right", then I'd HATE to see you on a bad day.

 

[fuckmeat]

Really? You're shit's on point, huh?

You said subs were universally people with low self esteem. Wrong.

You said that poly relationships were solely for people with low self-esteem. Wrong.

You said that subs were universally people with intimacy issues. Wrong.

You said that someone had to be in a poly relationship to know they were capable of polygamy. Wrong.

You've made MUTLIPLE guesses about the state of my life, relationship, and personality, and have been wrong every time.

Not only that, but you seem to think you're important enough to seek approval from. WRONG AGAIN, Books.

I would continue, but I really don't need to.

If that's you being "right", then I'd HATE to see you on a bad day.

Yeah, what she said!

Bazinga poppet.

And satin's now using her stern avatar with the sexy glasses. Boy are you in trouble if you keep this shit up.

sits down with some popcorn

 

[satindesire]

Yeah, what she said!

Bazinga poppet.

Lawl! *laughing face palm* You are too cute for words, FM. Too cute!!

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Really? You're shit's on point, huh?

You said subs were universally people with low self esteem. Wrong.

You said that poly relationships were solely for people with low self-esteem. Wrong.

You said that subs were universally people with intimacy issues. Wrong.

You said that someone had to be in a poly relationship to know they were capable of polygamy. Wrong.

You've made MUTLIPLE guesses about the state of my life, relationship, and personality, and have been wrong every time.

Not only that, but you seem to think you're important enough to seek approval from. WRONG AGAIN, Books.

I would continue, but I really don't need to.

If that's you being "right", then I'd HATE to see you on a bad day.

I said Subs were universally people with low self-worth/self-esteem and that Subs and Doms were people with intimacy issues.

I never said poly relationships were solely for people with low self-esteem. I said it would probably work best if there was one dominant personality Type A, one weaker dominant personality, and one submissive Type B personality. Which has nothing to do with BDSM.

I never said anything about polygamy. I said poly-capable is a misnomer if you've never been in a polyamorous relationship, whereas poly-curious would be more fitting as a relative in meaning to Bi-curious.

The additional points are you just being a rag.

 

[satindesire]

I said Subs were universally people with low self-worth/self-esteem and that Subs and Doms were people with intimacy issues.

I never said poly relationships were solely for people with low self-esteem. I said it would probably work best if there was one dominant personality Type A, one weaker dominant personality, and one submissive Type B personality. Which has nothing to do with BDSM.

I never said anything about polygamy. I said poly-capable is a misnomer if you've never been in a polyamorous relationship, whereas poly-curious would be more fitting as a relative in meaning to Bi-curious.

The additional points are you just being a rag.

Tip One:

Go back to the first page.

Tip Two: Read ALL of your posts.

Tip Three: If you do not understand just how ignorant and ill-informed your opinions and theories are by then you:

Tip Four: Get off the computer, go live in reality for a while, then come back once you've grown up.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

I said Subs were universally people with low self-worth/self-esteem and that Subs and Doms were people with intimacy issues.

I never said poly relationships were solely for people with low self-esteem. I said it would probably work best if there was one dominant personality Type A, one weaker dominant personality, and one submissive Type B personality. Which has nothing to do with BDSM.

I never said anything about polygamy. I said poly-capable is a misnomer if you've never been in a polyamorous relationship, whereas poly-curious would be more fitting as a relative in meaning to Bi-curious.

The additional points are you just being a rag.

Your refutation of my universal assessment/opinion based on observation, is ridiculous. There is no data on the self-esteem of any significant population of Subs. And you stating that you are a Sub and have no intimacy issues is as much an opinion as my universal assessment. Subs and Doms are still people with intimacy issues, as far as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is concerned.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Tip One:

Go back to the first page.

Tip Two: Read ALL of your posts.

Tip Three: If you do not understand just how ignorant and ill-informed your opinions and theories are by then you:

Tip Four: Get off the computer, go live in reality for a while, then come back once you've grown up.

You were wrong, you didn't quote my posts so now you look like a sloppy little girl.

 

[satindesire]

Your refutation of my universal assessment/opinion based on observation, is ridiculous. There is no data on the self-esteem of any significant population of Subs. And you stating that you are a Sub and have no intimacy issues is as much an opinion as my universal assessment. Subs and Doms are still people with intimacy issues, as far as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is concerned.

If there's 'no data on the self-esteem of subs', then you don't have any facts to back up YOUR opinion either, there, smart guy.

Not too long ago, being homosexual was considered a mental illness too. Look how far we've come from that archaic thought process!

Grow up. Seriously, you look like a whiny little toddler.

You were wrong, you didn't quote my posts so now you look like a sloppy little girl.

really? The time I DID quote every single one of your tidbits of incredible wisdom and experience, you had nothing to say but "tl;dr! Bet it was a good story though!"

So we see how far trying to pump some sense into you has worked in the past, there. I'm not going to put forth effort you won't even understand or have an intelligent rejoinder to.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

If there's 'no data on the self-esteem of subs', then you don't have any facts to back up YOUR opinion either, there, smart guy.

Not too long ago, being homosexual was considered a mental illness too. Look how far we've come from that archaic thought process!

Grow up. Seriously, you look like a whiny little toddler.



really? The time I DID quote every single one of your tidbits of incredible wisdom and experience, you had nothing to say but "tl;dr! Bet it was a good story though!"

So we see how far trying to pump some sense into you has worked in the past, there. I'm not going to put forth effort you won't even understand or have an intelligent rejoinder to.

If you quoted them the first time around and spent time writing a cool story then there's no reason why you had to misrepresent me. The fact is, the quotes still exist and your paraphrasing and summarizing was inaccurate, probably purposely because it suited your hysterics.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Your Dom's gonna have to take you to the gyno to get that worked out. Can't have a hysterical sub spouting off on the Internet all afternoon. You've got household duties to take care of before he gets home.

 

[satindesire]

If you quoted them the first time around and spent time writing a cool story then there's no reason why you had to misrepresent me. The fact is, the quotes still exist and your paraphrasing and summarizing was inaccurate, probably purposely because it suited your hysterics.

Fine, then, Books, why don't you set us all straight? I seem to have seen several people in here that counted you as dead wrong and full of yourself, ignorant and blind...so why don't you be a nice boy and prove us wrong?

Fill us with your wisdom and tell US just how we misquoted, misread and took you out of context. I'd really like to see this.

Your Dom's gonna have to take you to the gyno to get that worked out. Can't have a hysterical sub spouting off on the Internet all afternoon. She's got household duties to take care of.

Just when I think you have promise, you go off making these stupid assumptions about things you know nothing about again.

I'm talking to you seriously right now. It makes you look like a -jackass-, and no one thinks you're hilariously funny when you do it. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to stop.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Fine, then, Books, why don't you set us all straight? I seem to have seen several people in here that counted you as dead wrong and full of yourself, ignorant and blind...so why don't you be a nice boy and prove us wrong?

Fill us with your wisdom and tell US just how we misquoted, misread and took you out of context. I'd really like to see this.



Just when I think you have promise, you go off making these stupid assumptions about things you know nothing about again.

I'm talking to you seriously right now. It makes you look like a -jackass-, and no one thinks you're hilariously funny when you do it. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to stop.

I don't perform for an audience on the Internet, I perform for myself.

First off, you're going to have to accept(along with FuckMe) that my first statement and my first response had nothing to do with BDSM. That there's a separation between my opinion on poly and my opinion on naughty little subs and mean ol' doms.

My poly opinions are fucking spectacular. I've educated somebody reading this.

 

[satindesire]

I don't perform for an audience on the Internet, I perform for myself.

First off, you're going to have to accept(along with FuckMe) that my first statement and my first response had nothing to do with BDSM. That there's a separation between my opinion on poly and my opinion on naughty little subs and mean ol' doms.

My poly opinions are fucking spectacular. I've educated somebody reading this.

It doesn't matter if your opinions had nothing to do with BDSM, moron. You stated things that were FALSE due to the fact that you had inadequate real-life experience to justify your opinions. And what's hilarious about that is the fact that even after being given several very real and solid examples of just how wrong your theories were, you still held stubborn to thinking you were right, instead of doing the gracious and smart thing and going "Okay, I thought wrong. No big, thanks for clearing that up."

If you had done that instead of treating the people here like a bunch of worthless lackwits, you would have never gotten yourself into this situation. Now you look like an arrogant bastard when you could have made yourself look REALLY GOOD by accepting the education at face value rather than fighting it because it bruised your poor little ego so badly to be told you were wrong!

You acted like a jackass, not an enlightened educator. Anyone who learns something from YOU in this thread is a pretty sad figure indeed.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

All someone has to do that's auditing this is read post 8, then read the responses in post 9, 10, 14 to see how the nonsense started. In 9 you respond by not responding to anything, in 10 fuckme thinks I'm talking about BDSM, in 14 the TS says I probably don't know what polyamory means. So, I had to educate her later on what it meant and explain to her why her definition for poly-capable was inferior to mine.

 

[satindesire]

All someone has to do that's auditing this is read post 8, then read the responses in post 9, 10, 14 to see how the nonsense started. In 9 you respond by not responding to anything, in 10 fuckme thinks I'm talking about BDSM, in 14 the TS says I probably don't know what polyamory means. So, I had to educate her later on what it meant and explain to her why her definition for poly-capable was inferior to mine.

You didn't even answer my post. Good freaking job.

I gave you the opportunity to right this situation and you blew it...AGAIN.

Okay, you know what? Just forget it. If you want to continue being retardedly stubborn and an egomaniac, that's your prerogative. You're obviously immune to logic and therefor, pointless to continue talking to.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

It doesn't matter if your opinions had nothing to do with BDSM, moron. You stated things that were FALSE due to the fact that you had inadequate real-life experience to justify your opinions. And what's hilarious about that is the fact that even after being given several very real and solid examples of just how wrong your theories were, you still held stubborn to thinking you were right, instead of doing the gracious and smart thing and going "Okay, I thought wrong. No big, thanks for clearing that up."

If you had done that instead of treating the people here like a bunch of worthless lackwits, you would have never gotten yourself into this situation. Now you look like an arrogant bastard when you could have made yourself look REALLY GOOD by accepting the education at face value rather than fighting it because it bruised your poor little ego so badly to be told you were wrong!

You acted like a jackass, not an enlightened educator. Anyone who learns something from YOU in this thread is a pretty sad figure indeed.

I don't know why you're asking for me to respond to what I think of you, but that's what this is. I think if you and FuckMe are examples of Subs in the BDSM lifestyle, then every Sub on this thread has a feeling of low self-worth and seeks approval from random guys on Internet message boards. I can't speak for your intimacy issues, but that's okay, DSM IV speaks about that in practitioners of various paraphilias including 's'ubmission/slavery.

 

[coastal-boy]

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!

worthy of a quote because of the truth within

 

[CNYCarol]

Polyamory?

A strange question. When I was married, I also had a gf of the live in variety. It was kind of a "We're all adults thing".

For the most part she was my gf, and we periodically got into a 3some. Eventually hubby worked up the courage to become intimate with her, which I came to enjoy watching.

Is this considered Poliamory?

 

[Bette_coquette]

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.

This post is funny.

 

[FurryFury]

I love people. I really do. I can, in theory, get into polyamory but, people are also trouble. Each person added in comes with a ton of baggage. There are times when I hate people too.

My girl tells me that monogamy makes no sense to her. That having one person be all things to you is crazy. I have to agree. It is crazy. If that is your definition of monogamy you are bound to be disappointed and angry as things don't turn out that way.

However, monogamy works for me personally because I'm too shy and jealous to be sharing my body or my husband's body with anyone else. Maybe if it were uber important to him I would find a way to be okay with it.

The Laurell K. Hamilton idea of big puppy piles of orgies and sleep sounds good to me. If I were less uptight I might go for that.

The Robert A Heinlein idea of matriarch lead group marriage (In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) also sounds very good to me.

In real life, IDK I can do all that though. Maybe if I'd grown up with the internet I'd think differently.

 

[satindesire]

This post is funny.

Just wait til you get to the later posts. xD;

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

That having one person be all things to you is crazy. I have to agree. It is crazy. If that is your definition of monogamy you are bound to be disappointed and angry as things don't turn out that way.

I like this line of thinking and find that it is similar to what I have come to believe. I also would like to say I appreciate your open minded view of the subject.