View Single Post
  #22  
Old 09-24-2009, 02:58 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyAce View Post
Ok, i know i'm new here, but isn't anyone else having an issue with jryyc1 having a boyfriend before discussing this with his husband?
JohnyAce,

Jryyc1 described his relationship agreement as sexually non-monogamous but socially monogamous -- as these patterns are sometimes called. Had Jryyc1 described his relationship agreement as both socially and sexually monogamous, I personally would think and feel quite differently about his getting involved with someone else without talking with his husband about it.

Jryyc1 described a process of ... essentially..., falling in love quite unexpectedly with a "fuckbuddy" -- a sexual partner. Having outside sexual partners was an acceptable thing in the relationship. The falling in love part was an unexpected "accident," so to speak. And since that unexpected accident happened, Jryyx1 has simply been honest with his husband about what had happened, and let his husband know that he doesn't wish to sever his relationship with this other guy.

That all seems fair to me, really.

===

Now I want to say a few words about "fuckbuddies".

I do not believe sex is a form of "casual" recreation like shooting hoops or going bowling or going fishing.... And yet many people want to treat it as if it were a casual sport, a trivial play thing that doesn't and mustn't include our deepest, most soulful depths. (I'm at a loss to name it, since I can so easly be misconstrued. -- our soul, as folks have traditionally called it, our psyche, our most inward true and whole being....)

Nor am I an old fashioned prude who thinks one must essentially marry (monogamously or even polyamorously) anyone or everyone with whom one engages in sexual play. Sex may be "play" but it is serious play. Let's just say that it is always profound play -- whether or not we KNOW that this is so while we're engaging in it. Intense physical intimacy simply IS a form of "spiritual" intimacy; the soul and the psyche and the heart are always fully engaged -- whether we know it or not, whether we're conscious of it or not.

We are never half a person. We are always a whole person, and when we get under or on the sheets with someone, we're a soul encountering a soul. Even if we treat it as if we're just trivial pleasure machines.... We are NOT trivial pleasure machines. We're whole beings with hearts, hurts, wants, needs -- souls.

So when Jryyc1 and his "fuckbuddy" found themselves, rather unexpectedly, encountering a "soul" dimention in their fuckbudy-ing, I think to myself! Oh, thank the Goddess!! (Or goddesses, or whatever.) This means they're on a journey toward conscious wholeness, the realization of the true power of touch and encounter, and of sex.

If they keep it up, and I hope they do, they'll soon lose all interest in "fuckbuddies". I certainly have! I'd rather have lovers, and have the love part of the term "lovers" be bright and real and known to me. I don't think all loverly relationships have to be a sort of marriage. I don't think every loverly relationship has to last for years and years in order for it to be real, valid, nourishing, healing.... I have no problem with even one night encounters. Duration has little to do with the power of this magic -- But most good things like to continue, somehow.

If sex and touch can have the power to set our essential, innermost essence ablaze with startling wonderment-warmth, we should treat it as sacred. And, really, all this means is that we are treating others and ourselves as sacred. As whole. As holy. (And I use 'holy' here in a very non-traditional, non-religious way -- but only 'holy' suffices.)
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog

Last edited by River; 09-24-2009 at 03:02 PM.
Reply With Quote