What is monogamy?

[ownedsubgal]

I'm not that creative. I'm in an open relationship. On those stupid myspace things I go with "it's complicated" at the risk of being labeled a drama queen.

there does need to be a word for it. or better yet, 3 or 4. i never liked "open relationship" because it seems to imply this free-for-all where everyone happily gets theirs on the side, or a look the other way/don't ask don't tell type of deal. neither of those concepts sit well with me...i don't have sex with other men for the fun and giggles of it, and i would always want my sex life controlled and monitored by my Mate. what the heck do you call that? mono-amorous submissive slut?? lol

 

[JMohegan]

Ha! No, he's much more than the sperm donor, financier, and actual dick. I didn't realize I was coming off so blase about him....I think when you've kind of grown up with somebody and they're your best friend you can kind of forget that not everybody can see that as obviously as you can...especially online!

My feelings of love and affection for my husband are profound and wonderful. We are VERY compatible in most every way except the one I was trying to describe (and obviously failed to do so). I won't lay all those reasons out here because they're beside the point. I think the point is that I'm not with my husband because I don't believe in divorce....I actually do believe in divorce when appropriate...what defines "appropriate" is a whole other can of worms and neither here nor there. I'm with him because I want to be and I stand by my decision to marry him. I'm not with the man online because I wish I'd married differently; I love them both. That was supposed to be my whole point.

And my point was that you may never be able to reconcile the difference between a need for a one-on-one focus and a need for a focus that's split. But to the extent that such a reconciliation is possible, a productive key step might be helping your husband understand why & how your bond with him is unique, irreplaceable, profound, spectacular, special. You don't have to convince me; you have to convince him. He's the one feeling threatened.

 

[BiBunny]

I dunno. I call myself poly for the same reason I call myself a switch. It's not an entirely accurate label, but it beats spending hours expostulating and the poor soul who has to listen to it being more confused after the whole spiel than he/she was before I started.

I sometimes fantasize about the poly ideal of everyone all one big, happy family in one house together, blah, blah, blah. Then, I remember how I have a hard enough time trying not to murder my roommate sometimes. It'd be tons worse if I were fucking her. It'd be even worse than that if there were three, four, five people who were involved with one another living together.

Nobody'd get out of that house alive after a few months.

I like my solitude, really. As soon as I'm not Brokey McBrokeass, I'm going to have my own place again. The best I can hope for as far as the poly fantasy land game goes is everyone living in the same neighborhood. Or, even better, on a farm with tons of acreage in the middle of nowhere with a house apiece all within sight of one another and horses. I'd be ok with that.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm not that creative. I'm in an open relationship. On those stupid myspace things I go with "it's complicated" at the risk of being labeled a drama queen.

Tristan Taormino apparently came up with a number of categories. Partnered non-monogamy was one that sort of replaced the "open relationship" category, I think.

 

[JMohegan]

Tristan Taormino

Who is he?

 

[intothewoods]

Who is he?

She wrote Opening Up, a book about open relationshps. Here's the about page from her website which describes the book and her career in more detail.

 

[JMohegan]

She wrote Opening Up, a book about open relationshps. Here's the about page from her website which describes the book and her career in more detail.

Ah. Thanks.

I'm no Wagner expert, but I'm fairly certain Tristan was the dude. I wonder if that's her birth or pen name.


ETA: "OpeningUp.net is a website for people interested in open relationships of all kinds, including monogamy with benefits, nonmonogamy, partnered nonmonogamy, swigning, polyamory, polyfidelity, solo polyamory, mixed orientation marriages, and other relationships styles beyond monogamy." Wow! Looks like we've got some new vocabulary.

 

[intothewoods]

Ah. Thanks.

I'm no Wagner expert, but I'm fairly certain Tristan was the dude. I wonder if that's her birth or pen name.


ETA: "OpeningUp.net is a website for people interested in open relationships of all kinds, including monogamy with benefits, nonmonogamy, partnered nonmonogamy, swigning, polyamory, polyfidelity, solo polyamory, mixed orientation marriages, and other relationships styles beyond monogamy." Wow! Looks like we've got some new vocabulary.

Probably it's a pen name, but I have known other women named "Tristan."

 

[rakess]

Tristan Taormino apparently came up with a number of categories. Partnered non-monogamy was one that sort of replaced the "open relationship" category, I think.

She is awesome. Have read and listened to a lot she has said. Highly recommended.

 

[eastern sun]

unfortunately i cannot say it did the same for us. even though it's not mutual, i feel a tremendous gap between us that just wasn't there before (or rather, i didn't see it). He accepts and cherishes my obsessive, laser-focused love toward him, but does not understand why i cannot wrap my brain around his "there are no boundaries to love" wiring. i think for the time being, we have given up trying to understand one another in that area. it is still tender and prickly, and besides, it is very likely that we won't ever be on the same page there, so why continue to agonize over it.

one thing it has shown us...we are really, really, madly in love with each other and have a crack addict type NEED for each other. these things are unconditional. for better or worse, that is where we are, who we are.

It helped tremendously that he didn't choose to keep anyone else in the long run. In his words, "it complicates things too much." Which takes the pleasure out of it for him.

I can speak more confidently today, knowing that he feels this way, but for a few years it wasn't clear what the outcome would be.

To the thread's topic - I'd choose monogamy, if I had a choice, because it frightens me to introduce other people into our relationship. On the other hand, I have also thoroughly enjoyed the opportunities I've been given, felt guilt-ridden over the many ways I stepped outside of the clearly defined parameters, even while every misstep excited his latent cuckolding fantasies.

It really can get complicated.

I kind of like the definition of monogamy as "married to one person at a time."

 

[Netzach]

By the way, Netzach, not that it matters how I would describe you, but per my notion of "established relationships" and according to my reading of you, I'd say you're in three. With M, T, and H. Not 3 picket fences, but 3 distinct and meaningful bonds.

I would have described you as poly, for that reason. But I know what you mean about the idealized poly expectation in some circles. All kidding aside, our language really is inadequate when it comes to alternative relationship structures - probably because, as you say, so many mainstream people are reluctant to legitimize them in any way.

Yeah, and I think this has a lot to do with my relative sanity to a lot of people I talk to, the main reason. Because you are right about the innate human need to feel like the relationships important to you and someone else are *specific* to you and them - and in my case, I've always spent more energy on the differences than on trying to work a dynamic that has to go in all directions and treat everyone the same in the interest of treating them fairly. The less same the more fair.

M and T and M and H and H and M and H and T (whew) have fond acquaintance relationships and will periodically do flirty and sexual stuff if I'm around to get all horny and demanding about it, but basically these are all people whose consensus is they like making the same woman happier than she probably has a right to be.

 

[Rubyswallows]

This is a question I think about from time to time. I'm in a serious committed relationship with a man I love dearly, but he can't fulfill all of my sexual needs. We tried all different techniques, etc, but ultimately we just weren't sexually compatible. I needed more than he could give me, while he was completely satisfied with what we had.

Eventually, I started picking fights and throwing tantrums (I swear I'm older than 12!) until finally one day I pulled on my big girl panties and told him what the problem was - I loved him, wanted to spend my life with him, but needed more than his dick. It was the most terrifying moment of my life because he's very vanilla and straight-edged, but I guess he really does love me because he acquiesed to me fulfilling my needs elsewhere.

We're still very happy together, we still have sex, but occasionally I make time with someone else for the needs my man can't appease. It works because we're honest with one another and he knows I come home to him. Plus, I think it eases him knowing there aren't a series of other men, but one steady one who I've been 'seeing' nearly as long as we've been together.

I should probably point out, neither of us wants marriage or kids, so I think this helps make our relationship work. There are no permanent ties, other than what we chose to bind ourselves with.

 

[C Stephen]

Partnership, however, does not seem useless to me. I think in the world of friendship/love/life finding a partner to help you along in all those respects is pretty reasonable and natural - and smart. Pairs are most common in the human world of business as well as nature, not to say that more than 2 is wrong by any means - it's not. What I'm getting at is: partnership doesn't mean you have to restrict your sexual life.[/QUOTE]


True Story: I agree fully with the idea that a partnership is a good thing. However I tend to disagree with the idea that forming a partnership doesn't mean restricting your sexual life. I think that all parties involved in a parnership must be in agreement about what their sexual life will be. Unless both/all partners agree not to be exclusive someone if not everyone will end up getting hurt. I have had both exclusive and open relationships in my life. Either way it is only when there is agreement about expectations that things were healthy.

If both/all agree to include others in a relationship, including others can work very well. Without that agreement jelousy and loss of trust are sure to follow.

 

[Rubyswallows]

True Story: I agree fully with the idea that a partnership is a good thing. However I tend to disagree with the idea that forming a partnership doesn't mean restricting your sexual life. I think that all parties involved in a parnership must be in agreement about what their sexual life will be. Unless both/all partners agree not to be exclusive someone if not everyone will end up getting hurt. I have had both exclusive and open relationships in my life. Either way it is only when there is agreement about expectations that things were healthy.

If both/all agree to include others in a relationship, including others can work very well. Without that agreement jelousy and loss of trust are sure to follow.

I agree completely - a few years ago I had a long-distance relationship with a guy. We agreed it was difficult to remain monogamous when we only saw each other two weekends a month, therefore if an opportunity came up we could take it (which actually fueled some of the best sex in our relationship).

Slowly I noticed we were burning up the minutes on our phones, spending every weekend together, using all our holiday/sick time off to see one another. Finally he said we were being stupid and told me he loved me, wanted to be with just me. So we decided we would try to make it work as an exclusive couple, with a few perks (a three some with his roommate) occasionally.

We were happy and everything seemed to be going well, but then things started getting weird between us. Eventually it erupted into a huge and pointless fight where I said some harsh things. I eventually calmed down, realized I was overreacting, and decided to drive out to him to patch things up.

Naturally he was sleeping with another girl - the next door neighbor - and I caught them together in bed. The thing that hurt and pissed me off the most is that I would've been fine with that and might even have joined them if he'd been honest all along. Apparently he was fucking around with her the entire time he was telling me he wanted to be exclusive.

I still sometimes look back and scratch my head in confusion - I was fine with our relationship being about fun and pleasure, but he was the one who wanted more. So, why lie and sleep around?

 

[MrMentor7]

...I still sometimes look back and scratch my head in confusion - I was fine with our relationship being about fun and pleasure, but he was the one who wanted more. So, why lie and sleep around?

Sorry to hear about that. Perhaps he wanted to have it all. He wanted to sleep around, but did not want you too.

 

[Rubyswallows]

Sorry to hear about that. Perhaps he wanted to have it all. He wanted to sleep around, but did not want you too.

That's the conclusion I came to as well. Stupid boy. Wanting his cake and eating it too.