Originally Posted by LovingRadiance
Can you elaborate on what you mean here?
I'm interested, but not sure I understand what you are saying.
For example, we have a MMF relationship dynamic. Not because of a rule-but because Maca doesn't feel like he's ready to bring another woman into the dynamic yet. He's interested, but feels he has some personal issues to resolve before looking for another relationship. GG just isn't interested.
So in theory-it could be this way forever. Not out of a double standard though....
I think your situation illustrates exactly what I mean! You choose freely to keep it within the MMF dynamic. For now, and maybe forever. Kind of "one pussy" setting - and that's just fine! Because you _can_ change this without anyone being able to veto it on principal grounds, it's symmetrical in principle, and that's what matters. When the dick in a one-dick setting asserts rights to monopoly, as happened to the OP here, it is something entirely different. That is violation of the symmetry principle. And often asymmetry is built into the rules: If a woman in a polygamous realtionship where she is supposed to be faithful (biblical examples come to mind) takes a lover without permission, she is untrue. In my view, that kind of polygamy is completely contrary to polyamory. (But is sure can be a kind of "responsible non-monogamy", so we rather be careful with our terminology :-))
But rights to symmetry, and symmetry as an ideal, does not imply mandatory symmetry. Speaking for myself, because of other relationships ending, I have been in a one-dick-setting for quite some time now, but that is not at all something I want. Rather the contrary, but I really can't force them into other relationships when they at present lack the drive themselves - it's all about the situation, resolving personal issues etc, like it is with you.