What I can't seem to come to terms with is people's false belief that their sexual libitos are sufficiant enough to satisfy the needs, wants and desires of their partner! Soulmate doesn't = the best sex ever...people believe that though! I've never considered myself bad in bed, more times than not I'm complimented for my abilities but even I'm not that cocky to believe every woman is going to drool after me and have mind blowing orgasmic sex everytime!
Being as passionate and complex as I am in bed...knowing my desires, fantasies and wildest dreams may be too extreme for even the freakiest woman alive how do I go about telling a woman she's not good enough to complete my sexual side! How do you break it to her that it takes more than one woman to get that job done?
I love squirters, muti-orgasmic women, DPs, 3somes (MFM and FMF), moaners, screamers, bondage, role playing, cream pies, gangbangs, group sex...i mean the list goes on! I've done many of these things and want to continue doing them (it may sound bad but it makes me feel good)! I realized long ago that mono lacked the freedom to make these things comes true so I concluded on poly (of course sex was NOT the only reason I made the change but even still its the topic of conversation)
But what happens when your partner (or in this case, potential partner) concludes that our "special bond" (you know that thing that just you and her do that no one else can do, that thing that makes her feel loved and like a special lady in your life and helps her control her jealousy during trying times) is that only you and her can have sex?
I feel like that compromise takes away half the joy and leaves me feeling incomplete and void of my desires, fantasies and wildest dreams...the things that mean so much to me! I don't wanna kick another one to the curb...I wanna make it work folks but I just don't know how! :(
Any advise would so help!!!!!:confused:
I think you may have to accept that you need to keep looking for a better match. I'd like to see you figure out a way to be completely fulfilled within the boundaries of your current relationship but it sounds unlikely.
Don't live in denial my friend. I did once, not in sex, but in other areas. I hurt a lot of people and myself.
Honestly, I'd take that as a major sign that this was not the right person for me- at least if this was at the potential stage.
If I got involved with someone, and he thought he could deal with poly, and really tried to work through the jealousy, but it was bothering him a lot, then I might be willing to take a break from other sexual involvements. If I was really deeply in love, AND my partner had issues with jealousy, AND he didn't have any interest in other people, AND I wasn't so deeply attached to someone else, then I might agree to monogamy, as long as it was re-negotiable if any of those factors changed.
I don't find it likely that will happen. There is one person who I think could meet all my needs, but even if by some weird happenings we ended up being in a relationship, he's a total slut and he's more likely to want to have all kinds of sexual adventures involving lots of other people than I am. He's not available, so I guess I've been assuming that the next major relationship I get into will be someone I'm settling for---and I would not be monogamous to someone I was settling for, even if there wasn't anyone else I was remotely interested in, I'd want to keep my options open.
I think this is a relative topic because you expressed it so openly. I think the roots of it are much more prevalent that appears obvious many times.
You opened a solid concept and I think I understand what you 'mean' and your bluntness may be good.
First off, I think it speaks boldly to the misunderstandings most people have about sexuality - especially in connection with love & relationships. The whole concept that a single individual will enjoy and be capable of matching/satisfying any other single persons sexual preferences - especially over a long period of time is basically flawed from the start. It's like saying any two (or even more?) people would be expected to always be in the same mood, same state of mind at all times. Totally unrealistic.
To hold something like that up as an expectation for a good - or great, relationship is a prescription for conflict & disaster. But that's the 'old' model and people still do that !
The problem lies in when people tangle that up in the desire to have.....let's call it "special bonding sex". They're not the same thing ! And neither is a requirement of the other. It's entirely possible to have both. But people tend to lose site of that fact. They don't make the distinction.
We (mate & I) for example enjoy most of the specifics you mentioned. And there's certain elements that are more important to one than the other. But there's also that close, intense sex we have with each other that is different yet. And to broaden that out - that 'special' sex is not necessarily limited to when it's only the two of us. We've experienced it with additional partners also !
But we've also worked out ways that we can cover all the bases in some way over time by acknowledging that it's an important part of our sexual side and satisfaction. It's NOT a conflict.
But to close this I think maybe the important point to make in all this is that the particular wording you used COULD lead to misunderstanding in some (or many) . When you said "how do I go about telling a woman she's not good enough to complete my sexual side" that adds a distinctly negative and competitive tone to the discussion. And that's counter productive. It's not a question of being "good enough". It's no more than having different tastes. And like I say - these tastes can vary widely on any given day.
So having THAT type of discussion is a whole different discussion than setting up some list of parameters that must be met for a relationship that includes sex to meet. That's like saying we all must be in the total mood for the same type of food before we can eat every day ! Unfair & unrealistic.
Better to focus on methods to fold the different desires into the picture in some way that everyone get's to eat what they like best on some regular basis.
Hope that makes sense..........
I hope I can add to the discussion by putting a slightly different spin on this.
There is no universal "right" - there is only right for you and right for your partners. For some people one person is all the ever need, both sexually and emotionally, for others it's not. That doesn't make any one point of view right or wrong. So I don't think that the concept is flawed form the start at all - what is flawed is to expect ones partner to be exactly the same as you when it comes to desire or pleasure. If you are the same, then that's great.
If you have a need to have multiple sexual partners in your life, and that is part of your bottom-line - it's non-negotiable, then her needing you to only have sex with her and that being her bottom-line means that the two of you are basically incompatible and should stop wasting time beating yourselves up over it.
They say you should never enter into a relationship (or stay in one) where you are expecting your partner to change to make you happy, especially if that change is something that is fundamental to their make-up and desires. It sounds like she is expecting you to be sexually monogamous with her, and that you are expecting her to let you be with other people.
So, I think the first thing to do is for the two of you to sit down and work out whether these standpoints really are non-negotiable "bottom-lines" for you or not. If there is room for change, then work on it together. If there is not, recognize it, and go your separate ways.
(Edit to add: I have a real problem with the concept of "completing oneself" - if you see relationships as adding something to who you are, and people not being "enough" to "complete" you, then I think you are always going to be on a very rocky path.)
Ciel may have picked up on something here that I didn't. After reading your following quote several times, I still am not sure exactly what you were saying here. But if Ciel interpreted it correctly - i.e. that your current prospect desires absolute sexual exclusivity, then I agree you two are in different worlds and it's not likely or fair to expect either to shift their views & expectations that far to meet the other. Time to call a spade a spade and move on.
If on the other hand (as I interpreted) she's saying she needs a certain amount of special bonding alone time - that's perfectly normal & understandable and you should be able to meet that without conflict.
So it depends on what you meant and what the reality is.
Yet again I find the blanket generalizations based on personal opinions to be bluntly irritating but I understand the need to justify this internally. The "old model" is practiced by the vast majority of the population so I don't see it as old at all. That implies there is some new way on the quick rise. Non-monogamy is far from the new way, it is however a viable different way.
These kind of "MY way is right and yours is wrong" statements are what perpetuate conflicts. Not to hi-jack this thread but if non-monogamy is to achieve better acceptance this type of negative argument approach has got to be abandoned in my opinion. They do more harm than good, they darken and not enlighten.
If these types of statements can trigger someone who has been in a loving multi-partner relationship for over a year and who surrounds himself in the poly community, imagine what it does to the vast majority who are not.
We just spoke about looking at effective and non-aggressive/non-defensive ways to present "poly" during our last monthly meeting.
You don't impress your neighbours with your house by tearing theirs down and saying "here, look at how much better mine is". You build your own house with a solid foundation and quality and the structure will speak for itself.
Seriously if your platform to reform is feeling superior than you've already failed.
That's my rant for the day....nothing personal, just frustrated.
Peace and love
Nothing better than a good debate between friends - yes ?
Yes - Broad (different than 'blanket') generalizations are always parts of a discussion covering sensitive topics.
First - your mention of "MY" way is personalizing something that can't be personalized. It's not "MY" way - only "A" way - A-nother way. And it's not about tearing down anyone's 'house' (belief system).
A broad generalization is generally applied to a majority - or a number of sufficient quantity - to support the example.
I don't think you - or anyone - would argue the point that there has been "differences" is sexual likes & preference since the beginning. And especially since religion intervened and made any it's efforts to supress sexuality or any discussion of it openly we've been faced with the fact that there's been few responsible & ethical means of addressing the disconnects. SO we've always had prostitution, cheating, various other 'work-arounds", none of which really addressed the problem. Actually prostitution probably comes the closest !
So that's the "old" part ! Ancient.
And yes - poly (not that it's new either) has the potential to reform much of that. You now can put sexual desires right out on the table and discuss & deal with them intelligently all the while keeping the real foundations of a loving relationship separate. It's JUST SEX !
So if you got "triggered" - well I'm sorry for that - well - sort of :)
Let's look at that hair trigger ? Maybe it needs a shim :)
How is being with someone who insists that only the two of you can have sex polyamory????
Just a bit lost here.
As for HER being satisfied only having sex with you, sure! As Mono pointed out-he is satisfied having only one lover, but he's not insisting that SHE only have him. HE is mono, SHE is poly.
You may be poly and your potential may be mono-but if she's insisting YOU have to be mono-she's not REALLY a potential if you are REALLY poly..
I LOVE Maca and I LOVE GG and I have sex with each.
Neither of them are having sex with anyone else and at least for now they both seem to be sexually satisfied....
but part of accepting me as poly is accepting that I need both of them.....
Do you understand my comparison?
|All times are GMT. The time now is 11:08 AM.|