Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Poly Relationships Corner

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-05-2013, 12:29 AM
Flowerchild Flowerchild is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 145
Default Sexuality Dynamics

Does anyone have experiences to share involving themselves and a committed partner....where both were heterosexual? And one of the partner's become heavily involved with a bisexual partner (who allowed them opportunity to have relationships with that partner and another man/woman)?

For example, a husband and wife, where the wife was straight. Then the husband starts dating a bisexual woman. Because she's bi, he and she can share experiences with another woman....where the wife can't/isn't interested (otherwise, she wouldn't really be "straight" would she?)

Does it make it harder for straight couples to be poly, as they can't really be fully integrated with their respective partners, but each has to date on their own?

How do you get around that, if so?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-05-2013, 01:08 AM
Vixtoria's Avatar
Vixtoria Vixtoria is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 299
Default

Um, wow. Okay first thing, understand you are making a TON of assumptions that are just not good. Assumptions really don't work out well in poly. Clarification does.

Now, to the stuff you are assuming. Straight women have threesomes. So just because a woman and a man are straight does not mean no threesomes. SO there's that assumption blown out of the water.

As for straight couples being poly and not able to be fully integrated, another assumption. My husband, straight, does that mean he can't REALLY be part of my relationship with my boyfriend? Um well, it wouldn't matter either way. It's MY relationship with my boyfriend so would prefer to NOT have them be interested in a threesome. Nothing wrong with a threesome but guess what? Not required!

As for HAVING to date on their own, yet another assumption. While it seems to be awfully popular for new poly couples to want to want to date together, many don't want to! Hubby wants to date, he can date without me. I date, I date without him.

So really, think about what the real issue is here. Do YOU want to be dating a couple? You are welcome to, go for it! However, if you are dating a man, and not his wife, then that's the situation. If she isnt' interested, is that a problem for you?

What I'm trying to say is there is, for many people, nothing to get around. I'm bi, but I date one person at a time. So the fact that I'm bi doesn't mean that my husband or my boyfriend are going to get a threesome. Or that they have that opportunity with me. Lots of assumptions. Try clarifying what you really want or are worried about and then clarifying with the husband and wife what they are wanting or willing to have in a relationship.
__________________
Me: Late 30s pansexual poly.
DH: My husband of 19 yrs and father of 3 teen girls.
DC: LDR of +4 year
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-05-2013, 01:20 AM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowerchild View Post
Does it make it harder for straight couples to be poly, as they can't really be fully integrated with their respective partners, but each has to date on their own?
If I'm picking up what you're putting down here, you are talking about a triad or quad type situation. That is, where all of the members of a relationship are sexually involved with one another. This would be the only time where being "fully integrated" with someone elses partner is even a topic of discussion.

For all of the other forms of poly which are not group-sex oriented, this is not a question that is relevant. I am more or less heterosexual, CV is heterosexual, IV is heterosexual... who cares? I am not part of a partner exchange program, I'm dating IV who also (completely unrelated to my relationship with her) is dating CV. CV and I don't need to be sucking each others dicks for this to be a fully functional poly arrangement. It just means that we are not a triad... who's got time for that kind of stress?
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:03 AM
bookbug bookbug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
If I'm picking up what you're putting down here, you are talking about a triad or quad type situation. That is, where all of the members of a relationship are sexually involved with one another. This would be the only time where being "fully integrated" with someone elses partner is even a topic of discussion.

For all of the other forms of poly which are not group-sex oriented, this is not a question that is relevant. I am more or less heterosexual, CV is heterosexual, IV is heterosexual... who cares? I am not part of a partner exchange program, I'm dating IV who also (completely unrelated to my relationship with her) is dating CV. CV and I don't need to be sucking each others dicks for this to be a fully functional poly arrangement. It just means that we are not a triad... who's got time for that kind of stress?
I was in a similar living arrangement to the one Marcus has. We did call it a triad, because we three all loved each other. However, the other woman and I did not share sex, so by strict sexual definition we were a vee. That said, the other female partner and I were the best of friends. She and I had common interests outside of our mutual guy and pursued those together. Loving relationships do not necessarily need a sexual component.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-05-2013, 02:39 AM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Haltom City, TX
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookbug View Post
We did call it a triad, because we three all loved each other. However, the other woman and I did not share sex, so by strict sexual definition we were a vee. That said, the other female partner and I were the best of friends. She and I had common interests outside of our mutual guy and pursued those together. Loving relationships do not necessarily need a sexual component.
Loving relationships do not need a sexual component, at all. If I have implied something to the contrary, I have misspoke, because the statement is not even remotely true.

However, using the definition you provided, I have a theoretical triad:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus
I live with my sister and her childhood friend. I love them both deeply, I'd do anything for them. I am not sexual with either of them but we are so close and share many interests - some of them the three of us share and some of them the pairs of us share.

I am in a triad with my sister and her childhood friend.
I have no problem with saying that loving relationships of all kinds can be valued. However, "triad" is a word referring to romantic relationships. Using that word to describe my friendships might be chuckle-worthy, but it is inaccurate.

The OP is talking about romantic relationships and is making an assumption that all involved parties should have sexual connection. That is an assumption which is only relevant in the triad/quad style of relating.
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single

Last edited by Marcus; 08-05-2013 at 05:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-05-2013, 04:53 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default how is that the same

when what you used as your example to discount Bookbug's use of the label, is incest.

Of course you come up with a theoretical example where something doesn't fit, people don't use the term triad on this site unless all three are fucking, that fine, people here get bent out of shape as this is like the Justice system of Polyworld where everything is right or wrong according to precedence.

So at polyamory.com you need to go vee Bookbug, even low in reality I would agree you are very much in a triad, not a vee. If you need to label things for clarity the triad label is much closer as it sounds like more than where you all have a bed, you are involved in each others life. There are no walls, no screens for privacy and you don't want them as there is no separation between the three of your lives.

You didn't misspeak Marcus, just contradicting yourself, or possibly completely discounting a person's experiences with poly or concerns about dynamics when you said

For all of the other forms of poly which are not group-sex oriented, this is not a question that is relevant.

As if semantics is going to change her experience,

So as to the question presented by Flowerchild, it can be a problem, or it could be one where there is no problem to get around. The same way giving your situation a difference name won't do much to change your experience unless you are playing games with yourself and attempting to force yourself to be OK with somethings you are not, or possible find a problem that really isn't a problem and use it as an excuse

both things happen all the time

However there are people with mature enough attitudes, who don't drastically change their character depending on who they are with or where they are, it is completely possible to be fully integrated into each others lives without having sex with the bisexual, and you could have threesomes but it really doesn't matter as you can be "fully integrated" as three people in each others lives and whether or not it's called a triad or if someone claims you are not fully integrated that are foolish.

As it depends nothing on any of the information given here, and it is ok to make every assumption you want when you are talking about possibilities and dynamics because they can probably be accurate with certain people and not possible with others.

So regardless of anyone else's opinion or experience, yes it could be a problem, no it doesn't have to be.

It depends on the people and the the aspects that make up their life. If you are a couple that eats, drinks, and breathes camping, then a person who gets uncomfortable going to a park unless they can see cars whizzing by can have all the sex she wants with both partners at once and each pf them saparately, but she isn't likely ever going to be "fully integrated" into their lives if the couple is always camping somewhere any day they don't have to go to work in the morning because camping is such a big part of their life.

On the other hand, a person who is always camping with the couple and loves being around them, maybe even cuddles with them under a blanket every night by the fire but does not kiss nor have sex with either of them could easily be considered "full integrated"

It has more to do the breakdown or makeup of whatever it is that are the majority of each person's life, and how much involvement there is between the three of you.

If sex is the major component in your life you can still have a person be involved with your sex life and not actually be engaging in sex acts,


but the truth is, being involved in each other's lives is more important than both the presence of Love AND sex, when speaking about being fully integrated

another thing that happens is people are saying and doing two different things, and it doesn't matter if it is an honest mistake or intentional. Usually people who get all uptight above the precision meaning of words is smart enough to know the difference between the meaning of being "fully integrated" into a couples' life and how that communicates something completely different from "fully integrated sexually" or being "sexually fully integrated"

These semantics problems are not normally a problem because people who demand precision so that they know exactly what you are talking about do not use terms imprecisely, and if they do it is likely a case of them being manipulative.

If it's not them being manipulative there won't be any problems because in today's world we have such a robust and complete vocabulary in so many languages that anything can be clearly communicated, while at the same time the simplest notion can also be obfuscated intentionally for personal benefit over all others.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-05-2013, 06:33 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,349
Default

My Maca and GG are both straight. I am bi. I date both of them. GG doesn't choose to date others but would likely be open to the opportunity of sharing a gf with me were it to occur (not a goal, but we have hallened upon the experience and opportunity in years past.
Maca and I, not so much. He dates women and most have been bi. But they arent my type.
So-no I dont really see being bi or straight as relevant.

Additionally I have had threesomes with 2 straight men and i have had them with a lesbian, a straight man and myself, and a bi woman and a straight woman and myself. Just never had a bi or gay man.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-05-2013, 11:53 AM
bookbug bookbug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Loving relationships do not need a sexual component, at all. If I have implied something to the contrary, I have misspoke, because the statement is not even remotely true.
No, Marcus, you did not imply that. I utilized your example because your current living arrangement was the most similar to the one I had for a couple of decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
However, using the definition you provided, I have a theoretical triad:

I have no problem with saying that loving relationships of all kinds can be valued. However, "triad" is a word referring to romantic relationships. Using that word to describe my friendships might be chuckle-worthy, but it is inaccurate.

The OP is talking about romantic relationships and is making an assumption that all involved parties should have sexual connection. That is an assumption which is only relevant in the triad/quad style of relating.
I wasn't sure exactly what the OP was specifying. I gathered interest in the sexual / romantic component. But wanted to cover all bases by stating loving (non-romantic) relationships may have their place.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-05-2013, 03:18 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowerchild View Post

Does it make it harder for straight couples to be poly, as they can't really be fully integrated with their respective partners, but each has to date on their own?
Most poly people do not fuck their partners' partners, gay, bi, het or pansexual as they may be.

In fact, looking to do team dating, where a committed couple want to "share" a woman together, is looked down upon by experienced polyamorists, gay, bi, pansexual or straight.

That said, if your straight husband finds another woman to date, she could be straight, and eventually might come to like you as a friend, and you 3 could have a 3way sexytime, where the women do not kiss, fondle, or go down on each other. You both just focus on the man. This might happen very naturally if she is spending the evening at your house, and all 3 of you are sitting on the couch, man in the middle.

Problem solved.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

me: Mags, 59, living with:
miss pixi, 37
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-05-2013, 05:51 PM
Dagferi's Avatar
Dagferi Dagferi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,050
Default

My So's are both straight. So am I. They are friendly with each other, but neither wants to be integrated with each other.
__________________
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
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 04:09 PM.