sex and its status

[FlameKat]

Originally Posted by dingedheart

hi , just thought of another question.

In the mono world the intimate act of sex was or has sacred status. In the poly world that sacred status is given to furniture, places, rooms, sexual positions or acts, shower stalls and even shoes. "You can wear my partner so to speak but I draw the line with my shoes god damn it." It seems bit crazy particularly the sexual position one... not real verifiable . Is this some mental game of replacement. Is there some need for sacred status to replace a perceived loss?

That said I requested 3 rules. Yes Redpepper rules. I think I heard your teeth mash together... sorry.... And not just rules but, RULES. The good part is there are only 3.

Anyway.... Rule 1. Not at our house. Not because I place sacred status on or around the house but because of the neighborhood we live in. We are very close with the neighbors -relationship wise not in proximity. Every one notices everything. Kind of a fish bowl so to speak but in a good way. We all look out for each other. In the summer on most Friday nights my neighbor pulls old couches from his garage and people stop by for a beer or 2. Adults talk/ argue with the guy who's a lawyer and the kids running all over just having fun. We have only one family out ten or so that I'm indifferent to, and that's a choice he has made to isolate himself.

Rule 2. This is big... Don't bring anything home. " I don't want to catch so much as a fucking cold. If I do.... no one will be happy." Translation your life and his will become extremely unpleasant. And as happiness is the stated goal, then everybody better be very fucking careful. No pun intended. Pretty easy to remember.

Rule 3 He is not allowed to drive my mustang convertible. It took me and my dad 3 summers to restore so I get to say who sits in or drives that car. We got fleet take something else. The thing is that car is know in the community. I don't want somebody say hey saw your car didn't look like you. Maybe I'm being a dick about this as I have let our 17yr neighbor take out his new girlfriend. That was such a cool moment for both him and me. He really really appreciated it and it was my idea. I guess I don't care if they fuck in, just do it in the garage. I don't think she/they know this however. Don't think I'm going to share that either.

Well look forward to reading why I'm wrong..... ha ha thanks D

Without worrying about whether or not the above rules are "RULES or "BOUNDARIES" or "AGREED COMMON SENSE" etc they appear to be pretty standard to what a large majority of the posts I've read have used at the outset of their journeys (Noting here that I have not read every single post yet) and I wish you luck with the rest of your journey

As to the question... This is one I am having trouble comprehending myself... to me the act of physical intimacy (whether it be as mild as a caress to passionate kissing to intercourse) is a personal and private thing to the relationship... I have friends i hug and cuddle, and friends i kiss (although only lightly i.e. a peck)... while I can see the issue WW has with me becoming intimate in a deeper way with someone other than himself... I do NOT understand it...

From my perspective the intimacy in each relationship is sacred to that relationship and does not impinge at all on the other - I do not see how what I do with someone else impacts the sacredness of what I share with him...

**NOTING** I am a responsible person - so no assumptions of unsafe practises in responses to this please... truly just trying to understand the issue from the mono perspective

[Rarechild]

Originally Posted by NeonKaos

All I did was repeat what has been written a dick-zillion times on here.

I'll go ahead and repeat that appreciation.

-R

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by Rarechild

I'll go ahead and repeat that appreciation.

-R

LOL word.

[Ithink]

I really debated with myself whether or not to reply to your post as you have been given some very good information by some Poly smart people. After some consideration I thought I would contribute to the pool of comments for a couple of reasons. I wouldn’t mind receiving some feedback on my views and I thought perhaps you may glean some insight from my “take” on your post.
In the mono world the status of sex is (imho) a sadly distorted, forcefully imposed, barely recognizable shadow of what real sex should be and can be when given by people with an open heart, mind and soul. I found it very difficult to dig my way out of the pile of rubble that, for me anyways, represented the emotions, fears and laws that the Judeo-Christian ethic has forced upon mankind for many centuries and continues to this very day. One of the first things the J-C ethic imposes on people is the concept of “ownership” of your partner, particularly for men. We are conditioned to believe that our spouse is our “property”. It is very difficult to get past the conditioning and takes some work to realize the truth. We no more own our spouse than we own the wind. What she/he gives to you is of their own accord and that makes it even more beautiful when one considers that another human being is freely giving part of themselves to you. Keeping in mind all of the variables and that this is my own opinion I think that this is what you are representing with your rule about your car. You are finding a way to retain ownership of something. Most definitely not a judgement on my part, simply an observation from a distance and my ass might be blowing bubbles. Again, imho, don’t worry you will get past this stumbling block if you continue to keep an open mind and seek advice from the wonderful people on this forum.
My spouse and I have had many long heart to heart discussions on Poly topics and one of the things that has become clear to me is that I want my partners to be the very best person they can be in this life. I have an altruistic reason and a selfish reason for this view. If I love someone I want them to be happy and fulfilled for their own sake and when they are happy and fulfilled they shine better on me. I said selfish remember.
The rules you speak of are, imho, simply asking for respect. Well, perhaps in this case “demanding” respect but you get my drift. I empathize greatly with your desire to stay below the radar. Neighbours, co-workers and in some cases family members have no need to know about our private lives. Indeed, in some cases, the outside world can become very damaging and hurtful towards Poly people and I think most Poly people have witnessed the attacks from the religious right. We stay below the radar in our Poly life and intend on keeping it that way. Our choice. Asking for respect from your spouse in such a manner is closing the door to trusting in her own ability to make that judgement herself and has the sometimes unintended consequence of closing the door on communication. If we truly respect our significant other we would perhaps think to ourselves, “I sure would like to have sex on the hood of the car in the afternoon sun but maybe I’ll run the idea past my s/o in case I am missing something here.” This only happens when people have open, free communication without fear of judgement or conflict. Many people have said it here on the forum and I will repeat it because it should be the mantra of Poly people. COMMUNICATION IS KEY. Without it our relationships are doomed to failure.
So there you have my two cents on the topic. Laying down rules is an admission of fear, of unresolved questions and asking for respect. People sharing their hearts, minds, bodies and souls are about as sacred as anything this life has to offer imho. Where, when and with who are decisions we make ourselves. The road to becoming Poly is exactly that, a road, and we all travel down it at a different pace and we are all prone to becoming stuck, taking a wrong turn, having a wreck or turning off the road entirely. Communication is the fuel that moves us down the road.
Now that my reply has turned into a small novel I would like to be clear and say I in no way judge you or anyone else on the forum for that matter. The foregoing is simply my contribution to attempting to understand a complex issue.
IThink.

[dingedheart]

Flamekat

As to the question... This is one I am having trouble comprehending myself... to me the act of physical intimacy (whether it be as mild as a caress to passionate kissing to intercourse) is a personal and private thing to the relationship... I have friends i hug and cuddle, and friends i kiss (although only lightly i.e. a peck)... while I can see the issue WW has with me becoming intimate in a deeper way with someone other than himself... I do NOT understand it...

From my perspective the intimacy in each relationship is sacred to that relationship and does not impinge at all on the other - I do not see how what I do with someone else impacts the sacredness of what I share with him...

**NOTING** I am a responsible person - so no assumptions of unsafe practises in responses to this please... truly just trying to understand the issue from the mono perspective

I guess I was reading lots of stories and a common theme seemed to appear. People had certain rules/boundaries that helped them with the idea of partner being intimate or in the most extreme case actually having sex with another person. I was not trying debate the sacred nature of intimate relationships, it was more of a thought born from all the reading of what people are doing to be comfortable with all of this. It seemed a little strange to keep reading how person X is ok with their partner having numerous relationships which may or may not include sex as long its not in ear shod, or on a given piece of furniture.

Sex in a relationship does have a sacred status, like or not. No one has accused a partner of cheating by going to a restaurant and eating lunch. Here I'm talking about the act of eating lunch. Have sex with that same person instead of lunch and it may end up being a problem. Does your partner have a partner? If so, what are some of your rules/boundaries. Your intimate relationship don't impinge on each other because???? I think the reason for the rules/ boundaries is for the inpingement factor. Lots of folks talk about not being to affectionate in front of partners... well that might be considered an inpingement to your free and full expression of love. Said expression may make one or both partners extremely uncomfortable, so as to not have melt downs or hard feels or the like. The premise of this whole topic was /is perhaps flawed.

You said you see the issue but don't understand... what do you see as the issue? Or more importantly what is the issue as he knows it.

[Carma]

Good thinking, IThink

It seems the J-C model is so much about possession and OBLIGATION. I don't know how you get around that in a marriage, but we have found it to be a huge hurdle. I think that's one thing that drew me so strongly to my bf, because everything I do for him is freely given, with no strings attached (still want to go see that movie, btw, although I know it has a predictable ending). The one thing we are all striving for in our V is RESPECT. And yes -- communication is so key in that!

I've heard a saying, "An expection is just a premeditated resentment."

There's where I get all tangled up sometimes. Marriage has so many expectations, many of which are clearly defined duties/RIGHTS.... But a relationship outside of that monagamous structure has so much more wiggle room. Well, I for one, am highly enjoying all the wiggling!!! My husband and boyfriend are too, I think

[dingedheart]

thank Ithink for the reply
I began my post before yours arrived so some of this maybe cleared up. As for the car ...it is an antique or rather 70's vintage. It has been in/at car shows. It is 1 of 3 in our area that I know of. It has been in local parades, boy scouts,etc, etc... I own a business in the community, I'm involved in my kids sports teams, I do volunteer work so consequently me and the car are all over the place and are recognizable and are kind of connected. Because of all the activities my kids are involved in, too many imo ..thats another tread,... it next to impossible to know where everyone is in relation to each other. There's been a number of times when one of them will say "what where you doing at X location or the marina ,etc,... saying I saw your truck or saw the mustang".
I think I need to add that several years ago a built a vacation home up on lake. Way more man hours in the house than the restoration of the car. But because of the isolated nature of the house I have no problem with its use, all rooms and furniture even the hot tub. I'm not sure of the religious origin or its consequence. Do you know of religions that disconnect marriage and sexual fidelity? Hindu, buddist ??? I don't have A clue.. Thanks again D

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by dingedheart

Flamekat

I guess I was reading lots of stories and a common theme seemed to appear. People had certain rules/boundaries that helped them with the idea of partner being intimate or in the most extreme case actually having sex with another person. I was not trying debate the sacred nature of intimate relationships, it was more of a thought born from all the reading of what people are doing to be comfortable with all of this. It seemed a little strange to keep reading how person X is ok with their partner having numerous relationships which may or may not include sex as long its not in ear shod, or on a given piece of furniture.

Sex in a relationship does have a sacred status, like or not. No one has accused a partner of cheating by going to a restaurant and eating lunch. Here I'm talking about the act of eating lunch. Have sex with that same person instead of lunch and it may end up being a problem. Does your partner have a partner? If so, what are some of your rules/boundaries. Your intimate relationship don't impinge on each other because???? I think the reason for the rules/ boundaries is for the inpingement factor. Lots of folks talk about not being to affectionate in front of partners... well that might be considered an inpingement to your free and full expression of love. Said expression may make one or both partners extremely uncomfortable, so as to not have melt downs or hard feels or the like. The premise of this whole topic was /is perhaps flawed.

You said you see the issue but don't understand... what do you see as the issue? Or more importantly what is the issue as he knows it.

I'm not flamecat,
but I do know what you are talking about.

I happen to find it VERY aggravating to have the expectation that I limit affection in front of Maca. I do it-because I ALSO love him, but it does bother me. GG does not ask me to limit my affection for Maca in front of GG.
Unfortunately this sometimes leads to ego b.s. with Maca, which just makes it even messier for me.

Personally-Maca and I have agreed to no other partners in our bed. Maca has had other partners in our bed, and I'm ok with that. But-after the last trial with him trying to find a new partner we agreed that it was better to keep that space "conflict free" so to speak.

It's a non-issue with GG. He is mono. So he doesn't bring other people to his bed and I wouldn't either.

As for "in the car"-who cares? (not your car, ours).

Mostly-I'm not possessive that way. I love the guys. There is no need for me to limit them in regards to how they show affection to others or where.

The primary limit I have is not pushing myself or the children into building relationships with their others faster than they've earned OUR relationship. Just because they spend time getting to know one of the guys does NOT mean that they deserve our close friendship. They have to spend time getting to know each of us individually for that to happen.

[dingedheart]

Originally Posted by LovingRadiance

I'm not flamecat,
but I do know what you are talking about.

I happen to find it VERY aggravating to have the expectation that I limit affection in front of Maca. I do it-because I ALSO love him, but it does bother me. GG does not ask me to limit my affection for Maca in front of GG.
Unfortunately this sometimes leads to ego b.s. with Maca, which just makes it even messier for me.

Personally-Maca and I have agreed to no other partners in our bed. Maca has had other partners in our bed, and I'm ok with that. But-after the last trial with him trying to find a new partner we agreed that it was better to keep that space "conflict free" so to speak.

It's a non-issue with GG. He is mono. So he doesn't bring other people to his bed and I wouldn't either.

As for "in the car"-who cares? (not your car, ours).

Mostly-I'm not possessive that way. I love the guys. There is no need for me to limit them in regards to how they show affection to others or where.

The primary limit I have is not pushing myself or the children into building relationships with their others faster than they've earned OUR relationship. Just because they spend time getting to know one of the guys does NOT mean that they deserve our close friendship. They have to spend time getting to know each of us individually for that to happen.

Thanks lovingRadiance for the input,

I think your primary limit is absolutely reasonable and very wise to say the least. You said GG doesn't ask you to limit your affection to maca but thats different than saying it doesn't bothers him. As I wrote here before "I don't care if the do it in the car just do it in the garage". And yes I would have a problem with them doing it on the hood just because I know how expensive it is to replace and or fix, hoods aren't designed for that use. Not my ego talking, I wouldn't do it on the hood of that car myself same reason. Maybe bent over a fender with polishing rags in each hand...then just maybe.













r

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by dingedheart

Thanks lovingRadiance for the input,

I think your primary limit is absolutely reasonable and very wise to say the least. You said GG doesn't ask you to limit your affection to maca but thats different than saying it doesn't bothers him.

Normally I wouldn't speak for him-but we've discussed this more times than I can count. So I'll say, at this point it doesn't bother GG. There was a time when it made him puking sick, but that was prior to us being in a poly-dynamic.