View Single Post
  #19  
Old 06-23-2013, 02:47 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default Dagferi is a perfect example

of an honest, no sugar coating, delivery of a perspective. Nothing intended as a slight or subtle insult. Nothing high and mighty.

to the OP

I 've found myself in a couple of situations similar to yours Starmonkey, from both sides of the fence, including a time when I wasn't even dating the woman nor had I even met her face to face, in fact I am pretty sure he was already friendzoned and maybe that's why he couldn't deal with my online "friendship".

But one of the other times when there was a point or two of contention, the woman who was dating both of us I had asked if "they had ever thought about seeing other people" and I was told "No" I emphasized "they" because although I didn't ask both of them personally, I had asked his girlfriend if "they" had thought about it because I respected their relationship. My relationship was much more than a casual friendship but I did make try for quite some time to be supportive as a friend, but it didn't work out.

To be honest this was over five years ago and I had a few relationships that I guess most people these semantically correct days would consider swinging, even though my relationships were never just about sex. When I began dating this woman however, I kept my relationships with other women platonic. I remained friends with women I had been sexually involved with because I was truly their friend, and their spouses knew of me and had met me (a couple of them trusted me more than they did their SO) This was years before I ever had internet access at home and the only online networking I did was from work and only e-mail as a form of communication with others and only work related communicating.

When I finally did get internet access at home, was about the same time I met the woman whose boyfriend I clashed with. I met her in everyday life, not on the internet. Social networking was how I found out that she was not "seeing" me exclusively and I had thought that our commitment was to fully disclosing other friendships that became sexual as we weren't using protection.

SC advice sounds right on to me, and it would have rung true in my situation, as many times he was being a prick about things, when I had often stuck up for him, and the times I didn't was due mainly to the fact that I was in the dark after I had asked her if they had thought about seeing others (poly wasn't a term I was familiar with) and I was told "No, neither of us is into "seeing" other people" in tone that as I understood it, my question was like slapping them in the face, which I in no way meant to do.

As far as I knew, he was an old friend, but from the information I was given, the relationship didn't turn sexual until long after my sexual relationship with her (which was never more then "dating" according to her, which I didn't have a problem) I was hurt because I was emotionally involved but not such an ass that I would not be friends with her because she chose to date somebody else. I respected her autonomy to make to her own decisions, and it was actually my respect for their relationship that caused problems and actually started the situations were shit hit the fan. Evidently "poly" was not something people uttered out loud, it was more an attitude like that of fight club and the dumbest "rules" I had ever heard of, like don't talk about it.

It goes against my beliefs to be in an unethical relationship, as poly without talking is for the most part, cheating. Which is really a shame seeing how it takes something that is a freedom in which there is absolutely nothing wrong, nothing immoral, and bad about it whatsoever when the freedom is exercised responsibly.

And like every and any Freedom exercised that is just, right, and moral can be turned into unjust, wrong, and immoral simply by not being honest and responsible in your actions of exercising said Freedom.

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 06-23-2013 at 02:49 AM.
Reply With Quote