lovefromgirl
New member
My opinion. Maybe it's a generation age gap.
Between which generations, please? And with what evidence/experience to back it up?
Sign me the walking exception to a lot of rules, I guess.
My opinion. Maybe it's a generation age gap.
To me, if I'm in a committed relationship and I have a FB on the side, and neither of the two partners knows each other (although they do know OF each other) then that's still poly. However, some will say that since they don't know each other it's not poly. Others will say that since I only have one committed relationship, it's not poly. Someone else might ask if I would be open to a second committed relationship, and if that would make it poly.
But is anybody suggesting that a post like "We have been monogamous all our lives. My boyfriend and I really want to have a threesome with another female. We have both agreed that neither of us will develop anything beyond the sexual stuff with her. how do we go about finding a suitable person?"
Now, I know this is an extreme case, and as some have said, for some having a sexual relationship usually means that feelings develop beyond that. But would most of us agree that this isn't poly? or am I off base?
If it's NOT poly, then where is the line?
But is anybody suggesting that a post like "We have been monogamous all our lives. My boyfriend and I really want to have a threesome with another female. We have both agreed that neither of us will develop anything beyond the sexual stuff with her. how do we go about finding a suitable person?"
Come on! Lack of response? You wrote this less than 3 hours after that opening post. Give us some time! Some of us aren't hooked up 24/7 to the Internet, much less to this board. (This jab at you comes with a big dose of affection.) By now you'll have seen that several of us are interested in discussing this topic.Like I said, it's probably me, and I'm probably way off-base. Based on your response, and the lack of response from anyone else, it's more than likely just me...
I've seen posts with titles like "Kansas Couple Looking For Another Female For A Threesome". (Don't search this title, I wrote "titles like".) To me that reads more like something out of a contact mag, but perhaps I'm prejudging, because [see point f)].Has that popped up and I missed it?
I can say I'd rule that one off topic and delete it.
Please flag posts like that.
e) There are some - as Mya was the first on this thread to point out - who mix a bit of swinging with a bit of poly (and for me the two ARE definitely different). Since they don't shut out the potential of emotional involvement - and I would go even further and say "even if they consciously shut out that potential in limited cases, but are basically poly" - they are part of this community and if they need to talk about issues to do with the loveless-sex aspects of their whole poly-friendly existence, I think that's fair enough. Perhaps they should label this clearly, so that the rest of us know right from the start of a thread.
Mya, I believe Mr. FFR was only saying that you were the first to point out in the thread that some folks do both poly and swinging. He wasn't saying that that is what you do. At least, that's how I read it.Wow - now you're really putting words in my mouth and making me something I'm not. First of all, I'm not a swinger.
Mya, I believe Mr. FFR was only saying that you were the first to point out in the thread that some folks do both poly and swinging. He wasn't saying that that is what you do. At least, that's how I read it.
is I've seen posts with titles like "Kansas Couple Looking For Another Female For A Threesome".
First off, apologies to Mya for my apparent bunching together of open sex and swinging. I'm sometimes in a bit of a rush when here on the board - or connected to Internet in general - and compact concepts. What I should have written was: "There are some - as Mya was the first on this thread to point out - who mix a bit of not-emotionally-committed sex with a bit of poly; and there are others are on this board who mix a bit of swinging with a bit of poly (and for me the two ARE definitely different)." I'm sorry that my being lazy about typing that out caused upset. But when you write thatYes, I re-read your post and saw that you did not mention swinging. So, it looks like some incorrect assumptions were made and open was lumped together with swinging, in how Mr. FFR expressed his views. Still, I didn't think he was referring specifically to you with the other stuff (after saying you brought it up)... but now I am even more confused. I guess we'll find out next time he logs in.
I have to reply that it's you who are [unintentionally] bending what I wrote. I DIDN'T write that you 'mix "swinging" with "a bit of poly" '. I'll admit that I shouldn't have appeared to aim the description I DID use at you, but you've misquoted the description. It wasn't 'mix "swinging" with "a bit of poly" ', it was 'mix "a bit of swinging" with "a bit of poly" '. This may seem like hair-splitting on my part, but you accuse me of weighting that description as if there's more swinging than poly, and I never did that. Compare the 2 sentences "I'm Scottish with a bit of Welsh" and "I'm a bit of Scottish and a bit of Welsh", and you'll agree they have different meanings.And when you say I mix "swinging" with "a bit of poly" that makes it sound like I'm only a bit poly, but not really.
Would you have preferred "I have no problem with that"? Just what's your objection? This thread was started by someone apparently worried by a slide towards a bias on sex issues as opposed to emotional ones. This board is a forum, an interchange. We bring our problems here hoping for support or at least understanding and acceptance. What I meant to say was that - in my opinion, and as my contribution to this topic - it's "fair enough" for anybody to bring up non-poly aspects of their life for general consideration and/or comment/advice. What's condescending about that?You know, when you say things like "if they need to talk about issues to do with the loveless-sex aspects of their whole poly-friendly existence, I think that's fair enough", you sound quite condescending.