Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-01-2013, 04:40 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Quote:
But to tell someone that you reserve that right for yourself and they are forbidden is hypocritical at best and somewhere along the spectrum as you are a male it is also misogynistic. If you a female it would be whatever the word is that is opposite-as in a female to a male
It's only misogyny or misandry if the reason for you forbidding them other partners is based on your interpretation of how their gender should behave. If a gay man forbids his male lover other partners, it isn't misandry. He surely doesn't hate men. He is just scared. Scared and pathetic.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-01-2013, 07:22 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default When you are involved with people who love responsibly

which is not to say they don't love wildly, nor does it automatically mean they don't love with reckless abandon, yet you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would ask their love to not do something they desire

In fact, I guarantee you, should you ever become involved with and end up loving a partner who understands that loving people responsibly can and does include wild, with reckless abandon loving, you will never ask that lover does or doesn't do anything other than what they desire, when they desire it

understanding how to love others responsibly -- in a very irresponsible way -- is one of the most freeing acts you can engage in, it's like exchanging your physical heart with somebody, but now the heart that pumps your blood in your body is immortal.

Once that happens you cannot keep the rest of your body and soul from taking it upon themselves -- and without yourself even realizing it -- things become fully exchanged. And it is the most peculiar occurrence that could ever happen. You are still you and she is still she (or he) but there is nothing not understood between the two, three, four or five of YOU.

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 11-01-2013 at 07:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-01-2013, 09:18 AM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookbug View Post
Hypocritical yes - if your partners do nor share your desire that you are their one and only.

I have no problem with Polygamy (for that is what it seems he is after - most people who know me really well know this) either but...if she says 'I'll do it if I can have another partner too' and he says 'No only me, yes, it is hypocritical.
If she says 'Oh yes, that is exactly what I would want' that is fine.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-01-2013, 12:20 PM
bookbug bookbug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 684
Default

It is important to know you own motivations. A tight family unit. Yeah, I get that. That is my preference too. But if you want to be the lone male due to jealousy, can't cope with you lovers having other lovers, you might want to explore the basis for this.

As mentioned in my previous comment, the last MFF relationship I joined ended badly. I joined a couple. They had issues that both had ignored and seemed happy. Bringing me in, rocked the boat and their issues could no longer be ignored. I was gone from their home for a year, when they separated. The male (E) and I are slowly rebuilding.

The reason for my backstory is this: E never had the chance to experience compersion. He very much wanted to test the limits of his jealousy and move past it to compersion. He had watched me do during our time as three. So the other night when out of the blue a young colleague of mine invited me over to watch a movie, E encouraged me to go. I was nervous because I didn't know what my young colleague had in mind. Just a movie or was he aiming for more? I said as much to E. His reply, was that if that turned out to be the case that the young man was after sex and I wanted to indulge , I absolutely should. This was E's test.

Long story short, it was just a movie and drinks, but E didn't know that would be the case. When I spoke to him afterward, he was just giddy that he had been not only okay, but happy.

So remember, motivations. In your MFF, you will be expecting the girls to be able to cope with their jealousy and move into the realm of compersion. Yet, you have not asked this challenge of yourself. And you might, just might, be selling yourself short.

Last edited by bookbug; 11-01-2013 at 12:21 PM. Reason: Typos
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-01-2013, 12:45 PM
MichiganMusic MichiganMusic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5
Default seasons oicser

Thank you all for the responses - I would like to respond to each one after work.

I just wanted to make a delineation that I hadn't made clear - I am in favor of an open relationship for all parties (dating/sex) - I am speaking only in terms of long-term relationships (i.e. marriage).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-01-2013, 01:25 PM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiganMusic View Post
Thank you all for the responses - I would like to respond to each one after work.

I just wanted to make a delineation that I hadn't made clear - I am in favor of an open relationship for all parties (dating/sex) - I am speaking only in terms of long-term relationships (i.e. marriage).
I shouldn't think that would make much difference, there are plenty of women around with two husbands in very stable relationships, FMF isn't always the most stable of poly configurations, if it is stability you want I would opt for a brother husband (Polyandry men are great.....)
Again, I am not knocking polygyny but I think you have to examine your motivation because what you are saying now looks a bit wishy-washy and weak.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-01-2013, 01:43 PM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 790
Default

Why not work on the relationship(s) first, and then find a configuration that works for all of you, as opposed to shoehorning your potential relationship(s) into a predetermined configuration?
__________________
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono. Divorced, two kids, two cats, one house with many projects.
Chops: My partner of ~3 years. Poly. In relationships with me, Xena, and Noa.
Xena: Poly. In relationships with Chops and Noa, and dating others.
Noa: Married, Poly. In relationships with Chops and Xena (individually).

My navel-gazing blog thread: A Mono's Journey Into Poly-Land (or, "Aw hell, there's no road map?!")
My slightly more polished blog (external): From Baltic to Boardwalk
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-01-2013, 03:20 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiganMusic View Post
Gender has nothing to do with it,
Which is precisely why I said that it would be true if it were a female making those demands on a male as well.

It's still wrong.

To demand that you get freedoms a partner does not get.
It's different to say everyone has the freedom-and someone doesn't choose to use it. But not allowing someone-wrong.

It's like saying caffeine isn't a drug becasue it's widespread.
It is a drug. It's listed as a drug from a medical side-because it IS.

In the same way-treating any able-minded adult as if they should not have equal privileges in choosing their relationships is wrong. Even if it is common. Still wrong.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-02-2013, 12:49 AM
Dagferi's Avatar
Dagferi Dagferi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natja View Post
I shouldn't think that would make much difference, there are plenty of women around with two husbands in very stable relationships, FMF isn't always the most stable of poly configurations, if it is stability you want I would opt for a brother husband (Polyandry men are great.....)
Again, I am not knocking polygyny but I think you have to examine your motivation because what you are saying now looks a bit wishy-washy and weak.
I am going into my second year with my second husband.

There is a total lack of drama between my guys.

But I maintain two separate households. Murf is mono. Butch is poly but dislikes drama so he is picky about who he dates. If Murf came to me and said that he wanted another partner who am I to say no.
__________________
40 yo straight female
Married in the eyes of the government to Butch since 2001...
Murf my monogamous second husband has been with me since May of 2012.
In a V relationship with an average 60/40 split of time. Only due to Murf's and Butch's crappy work schedules.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-02-2013, 02:04 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiganMusic View Post
My initial line of thought, and perhaps you could shed some light that would alter my perspective, is that it is simply not practical to have too many long term relationships intertwined. How would a family or household be established?
Why would all relationships be intertwined? And why would multiple relationships preclude lasting long-term? You are forgetting about two major factors: personal preferences and each person's autonomy.

Here is an imaginary scenario: You are in two relationships with women who also have other relationships. One of the women you're involved with loves you, wants to live with you, and is really into all the typical homemaker stuff that married couples share. She also has another boyfriend and a girlfriend, one whom she sees once or twice a week and another who is also married and she sees less frequently, like two or three times a month. If she moves in with or marries you, you've got a live-in partner who is able to build a life with you but also has a fairly frequent other partner takes her out twice a week, and sometimes hangs out with you and her. Her other partner is an occasional night out and you don't have much, if any, interaction with that person. This is not unlike having a live-in partner who has a social life with friends and several hobbies that take her out of the home regularly. That in itself wouldn't get in the way of managing and building a life together.

So, let's say your other girlfriend is more of an introvert and very independent. She loves you, too, but doesn't want to live with anybody. She has another boyfriend she sees about the same frequency as she sees you, let's say two to three times a week. And she has a married long-distance lover she Skypes with and goes to spend a short vacation with about two to three times a year.

So, basically, you've got one independent girlfriend you go out with fairly frequently but you go home to the other one who lives with you. The independent girlfriend likes keeping her relationships separate. When you see her, it's usually at her place unless your live-in partner isn't home, because the independent girlfriend likes her privacy. Your live-in girlfriend likes hanging with you and her other lovers together sometimes, but those lovers each have their own lives and preferences, so it doesn't happen too often unless well-planned. She enjoys going out with her other loves, but she loves being the one you come home to. Both your girlfriends know each other but might not hang out together very often except for holidays, events, or some such thing.

It's totally doable to have this sort of scenario long-term and in a very committed and nurturing way. Forbidding your partners to have other partners is nothing short of a dictatorship.

Each person is responsible for managing their own relationships and if someone ever feels like they need or want something more from a particular lover, they speak up and then that lover either meets their needs, negotiates, or says they cannot. But you don't go managing your partners' other relationships in order to feel better about what you have with them. You just manage your own frelationships. You ask for what you need, express your feelings, work out logistics, and develop intimacy with each partner at its own pace and according to the dynamic between you. That is your responsibility.

To expect the women you get involved with to accept that you can have multiple partners while decreeing that they cannot is beyond the scope of your responsibility. Everyone is an individual and free to live their lives as they see fit, and you don't get a say in how someone else chooses to live. If what you want is a harem at your beck and call, that is not really polyamory, in my opinion. If your partners also choose to have other relationships, then they are responsible for managing those relationships and making sure that they all get taken care of in ways that are appropriate to the dynamics they share. They don't have to have anything to do with you if they don't want and that's okay. You run your life, they run theirs. So, whether lives intertwine or relationships develop into serious commitments has nothing to do with how many partners anyone has. It's all about each person manages their time and the relationships they have.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00 AM.