View Single Post
  #11  
Old 07-20-2012, 02:17 AM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 351
Default

Maca sounds like a really difficult partner to deal with. Constantly breaking boundaries? Refusing to grant you the same freedoms he claims he needs? Ugh.

But my comments aren't going to be about that. I want to offer a different perspective on play partners vs. committed relationship partners.

I don't think your clear-cut distinction between the two is fair.

When I meet someone I like, I start with something casual and easy-going, a friendship with sex involved. If we are a good match for each other and have good chemistry, we might become regular lovers (or lover-friends, to use a term I encountered here). Maybe we'll keep going like that for a short time, or a long time, or maybe eventually we'll find that we have "something more" with each other.

I don't think I could get into a loving, committed relationship any other way. I just naturally gravitate toward people who like being friends who have sex, rather than people who need commitment right away. If I fall in love, it will be through sexual chemistry, through slowly getting to know a friend I have sex with.

I don't classify people I might like into "play partner" material or "relationship" material.

If someone told me, "You can either have sex with me immediately and just be a play partner who will NEVER meet my wife and kids, or you can immediately meet my family and eventually become serious," I would not get involved with him at all. Neither of those choices makes sense to me. Neither of those choices allows things to develop naturally.

Of course, maybe he wouldn't offer me the choice--he would have already decided which "type" I was.

I find this attitude really insulting. But I encounter it everywhere (not just in poly dating). So it's very common.

However, it's also pretty common for people in the dating world (both mono and poly) to start with something more casual and then see where it goes from there.

I do think that more people should question why they have such a firm distinction, why it must either be "serious dating" or "fuckbuddies" but nothing in between, and no progression from one to the other.

LovingRadiance, you seem to feel very strongly that your husband's "fuckbuddies" are people you would not want your children exposed to. You think they are people who mean nothing and will move out of your husband's life quickly.

Why couldn't they be friends your husband has sex with, but who just aren't all that involved in your family? He could have a long-term lover-friend who never has any involvement with your kids.

Or, is the problem that your husband gets too caught up in casual things and breaks boundaries? (That might be, in which case, discount my advice!)

I do understand that you want to make sure that anyone your husband gets serious with should be a good match for your family. That makes sense.

(And, frankly, that's why my approach to dating probably wouldn't work for someone with a primary partner, which is why I haven't dated someone with a primary partner yet).

But it sounds like Maca takes sex less seriously than you do, and wants the freedom to pursue relationships where sexual chemistry comes first and seriousness may come later (or not at all).

His view sounds reasonable to me, but his treatment of you doesn't seem reasonable. So...I'm not sure what I'm trying to tell you here.

I just don't feel comfortable with your attitude that you don't mind if he has a fuckbuddy or a serious partner, but it has to be one or the other, and you need to know WHICH one.
__________________
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.
Reply With Quote