Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-07-2011, 12:20 AM
AnotherConfused AnotherConfused is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 264
Default

Yes, it's always the matter of which body parts! Which makes sex seem so trivial, when you think about it. I've told L I'm pretty sure if he set his mind to it he could get me to orgasm just caressing his way from fingertip to elbow. But would that be cheating? I don't know!

I realize you didn't liken my marriage to a prison cell, MrFarFromRight. But I notice many people here seem to find monogamy too confining, and I wanted to explain why I don't. It would feel that way in a marriage with someone who expected to meet all my needs, certainly. I had a boyfriend like that once. (*Shudder*) And his hotel was more like 3 stars!

I'm not sure if I could go so far to say that my husband is happy with my interactions with other men, but he seems to understand that part of what he loves about me is the way I love, and he doesn't want to try to control that. I wrote ad nauseum last fall about my "coming out" to him about L, and the issues that came up for him. Not jealousy, but concern for propriety, and wasted emotional energy, on to where our careers were headed (that was a surprise) and even whether I'd be stuck caring for L in his old age. Seems we've addressed all that enough that he is ok with it all now, as long as sex isn't in the picture.

I haven't told him about D, because it seems like mostly just a dance floor flirtation. H told me last year he doesn't really want to know if I'm in love with someone. Hopefully that's ok. I would tell him if it were to move beyond dancing, but D doesn't want to do anything to upset his wife -even email is out, apparently. So we'll just stick with the appropriate body parts for our situation.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-07-2011, 01:31 AM
MrFarFromRight's Avatar
MrFarFromRight MrFarFromRight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Smack in the middle of The Spanish Revolution!
Posts: 483
Default

Well, I'm glad it's all working out for you.
__________________
If I can't dance, I want no part in your Revolution.
- Emma Goldman Anarchist and Polyamorous par excellence
The person who says something is impossible should not interrupt the person who is doing it.
- old Chinese proverb
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~ Anais Nin
I'd rather have a broken heart / Than have a heart of stone.
- from "Boundless Love (A Polyamory Song)" by Jimmy Hollis i Dickson
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-07-2011, 12:17 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,722
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Nothing personal at all. Monogamy and non-monogamy have existed in nature a lot longer than humans have existed. Look at the animal kingdom and broaden the resources drawn from. That's all I'm saying. Too many people read one book, don't question it becasue it fits their needs, and preach it as gospel.
Well, I am not going to take that personally! OK, I am. I've read more than one book. LOL

Perhaps you shouldn't condemn data in a book you haven't even read. The comparison of penis and testicle size, shape and location, between humans and other apes (chimps and bonobos which are promiscuous, and have similar genitals to humans, and then to gorillas which are polygynous, and gibbons, which are monogamous) is extremely interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post

The truth of science today will be the chance of it being false in the future. Science has an amazing history of being wrong once new(er) science has become better. Anthropologists make a living on those errors.
This, I agree with. However, the data in Sex at Dawn is pretty compelling. I am not saying you 2 are wrong in your feelings of monogamy or poly-fi. It's great it works for you and you're comfortable, even ecstatic, with your choices. I'm just asking you to consider a culture where every day is orgy day. Would you still be mono or poly-fi?
__________________
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
  #24  
Old 04-07-2011, 03:57 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
I'm just asking you to consider a culture where every day is orgy day. Would you still be mono or poly-fi?
Sorry if I came off as condemning a book as it is not my intention. Some people, not saying you Magdlyn, just seem to take everything in it as 100% based on fact and infallible research when even other people in the authors' field question it. That is where I find some difficulty.

As far as a culture where every day was an orgy? I would still be who I am...the only difference would be is that I would likely have to shed the orgy programming that society would impose upon me to find my true nature of monogamy. Similar to how poly people have to shed their monogamous programming to find their true nature. Maybe I would create my own little community of "enlightened" people…who knows.

Besides that, show me any orgy culture that has achieved anything like the level of modern infrastructure, technology or general societal order that I enjoy and I will definitely give it more credence. I'm glad that we have new theories of how our societal/relationship dynamics have evolved. For me the key word is evolved. I learn from the past, I don't live in it.


We are hi-jacking this thread...sorry everyone, I'm done with this topic now I swear
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-07-2011, 06:39 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,383
Default

Joining the thread a bit late, but I wanted to comment on this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherConfused View Post
I wonder though why monogamy comes so easily to so many people, though?
Does it, though? I'm of the opinion that some people are happier in a monogamous relationship, some in a poly one, and some are fine with either or both depending on the circumstances.
But with monogamy being the norm, we can see how it doesn't work for a lot of people. As usual with things like that, we tend to hear about it when it doesn't work more than when it does, so I can't pretend I have actual figures, but obviously, a lot of people cheat, some don't but are very tempted (and wouldn't that mean it doesn't come easily to them?), some would rather be allowed to date around but will settle for not being allowed to as long as their partner doesn't either, etc.

Of course, you also find mono people struggling with poly partners because they can't relate to it at all. And poly relationships failing for various reasons.

I don't think one is superior to the other, I think you need to live your own relationship(s) the way it is/they are.

About different types of love, though, I remember reading up on various terms...
For instance there is one type I forget the scientific name of, but which is commonly referred to as crush. That's a feeling that is strong due to not being revealed. The thrill is in feeling that way and not saying so, picturing the scene in which you confess your feelings, or even just feeding off of it without planning to ever share it, ever. It's some kind of drug that you get off of, sometimes even when it's absolutely impossible because the person doesn't exist (character in a movie, book, etc), is out of reach (famous person you'll never meet) or doesn't exist anymore (died, or your crush is on a younger version of them than they are now).
Basically, that one type of love was all about fantasy and make believe, and would tend to shatter if something did become possible with said person, because it's not built on anything solid (although it's possible to later have a relationship with that person).

Then we talk a lot about NRE around here, which is the way you feel at the beginning of a relationship. It's not the same as the one above, because you do have concrete things and you do know the other person likes you.

And there is the feeling you get in an established relationship, which is more about complicity and knowing each other than about passion, and close to a friendship.

I know a couple who have loved each other for close to 20 years now (been together for ten), and they have that newlywed vibe to them still, despite how long they've been together. Yet the also have that more established feeling too, so I definitely believe they can coexist.

And of course there is love you feel for your friends, your family, etc.

But putting labels on everything isn't always productive. I find it easier to just say I love said person, and know that the way I love them isn't the same way I love anyone else. But the point is that I want them to be happy, and knowing they're happy makes me happy, and that's pretty much the only constant here between all the different love I feel for various people in my life.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-07-2011, 08:46 PM
BlackUnicorn's Avatar
BlackUnicorn BlackUnicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 906
Default

I've read of a typology of love compromised of three elements:
1) intimacy;
2) passion; and
3) commitment.

If none of these three are present, we are talking of a a friendship that is based on association or shared, usually temporary goals (Aristotle's typology of friendships). If intimacy is present without passion and commitment, we are talking of a true friendship (Aristotle would have probably added 'commitment', too, to his definition). If passion is present without intimacy or commitment, we are talking about 'infatuation' (or NRE, I might add, which often creates the illusion of higher intimacy and commitment than there actually is). And if there is commitment without passion or intimacy, the authors of this typology refer to it as the 'dead/empty marriage', which of course is a hugely normative statement.

The coming together of all the three elements in this typology is termed 'perfect love' as in something that is heavily idealized and striven for in our culture. They have names for all dyadic combinations, too. So I sometimes toy with categorizing my relationships with the help of this typology.

1) I have friendships that include intimacy and commitment but no passion in the sexual sense - I think they are part of how my possibly-poly nature seeks expression. Adding sex to these relationships is a) improbable because of orientation issues and b) would to my mind not add anything that wasn't already there.
2) I think most relationships start either with a strong element of passion and increasing intimacy, or with a strong element of intimacy and increasing passion.
3) I feel most sexually attracted to people I experience strong intimacy, passion and commitment to. I certainly don't mind having sex with people whom I don't feel this kind of 'perfect romantic love' for, but I don't feel the need to.

What am I getting at with this? AnotherConfused, maybe some of the confusion stems from the idea that all relationships with people to whom you are attracted to and who are attracted to you should progress towards the perfect love-ideal of combining all three elements and if possible, all three to an equal degree. That's maybe why you sometimes wonder if you are 'stalling' or 'stopping short' your relationship with L and D because of this progress model most of us carry around in our heads.
__________________
Me: bi female in my twenties
Dating: Moonlightrunner
Metamour: Windflower
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-07-2011, 09:44 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
This, I agree with. However, the data in Sex at Dawn is pretty compelling. I am not saying you 2 are wrong in your feelings of monogamy or poly-fi. It's great it works for you and you're comfortable, even ecstatic, with your choices. I'm just asking you to consider a culture where every day is orgy day. Would you still be mono or poly-fi?
No saying you are wrong either .. I am with mono, it is apparent most people that read this suddenly believe it to be one twue way. It isn't.

What you are showing an example of is cultural influence. Not biology. Its the "natural" aspect that annoys me. We were once slave traders (go back to the mayans) is that natural?

People are claiming biological influence when it is likely cultural. And all of these wonderful group settings, sound great. But what about the anthropological proof of alpha/beta. Maybe some culturing can get rid of that but I doubt it would work everywhere.

Again, the arguments show there definite signs of acceptable and cultural non-monogamy. Thats fucking awesome. But I dislike when its attached to the biology of people based on small sub sections. Again mags, not saying you are doing this, but I have seen a lot of debaters who are. The other side should be realized to. Trying to define a relationship structure around biology is comical.

Anyways, I am far to sick to put together a good counter point. I had a lot of great points when my brain wasn't fried. This rings of religion to me. People grab onto it and worship the point and ignore the rest. I am anthro-nostic maybe (hell I love made up words)... the beauty of being human is our diversity to chose. Too many people try to pigeon hole based on culture, religion, history and half truths.

BTW I do love the debate, my mother had her masters in sociology and anthropology with a minor in psychiatry. My father had his Bs... this is the kind of stuff I argued with them about... she would find that book fascinating and its one I intend to give her soon

*yawn* back to my brain frying (cough)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:29 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,722
Default

Well here is a biological condition to which I alluded above.

There is a chart in Sex at Dawn (read it), which shows the sizes of the penis and testicles in several species of ape, humans included. The testicles of bonobos, chimps and humans hang outside the body. The testicles of gorillas and gibbons are tiny in comparison to the others,' and are tucked up inside the body.

The first 3 have chilly testicles, which increases sperm production. They are meant to be used to take part in sperm competition with other males, having sex with the same female.

The head of the human male corona is extra large and works as a squeegee to scrape out another man's semen. Not mentioned in the book is the idea that women's watery ejaculate is produced to wash out semen, to make way for something better that just came along.

Loud female vocalizing during orgasm is a mating call to attract other men. "Ooh! Someone's in the mood." She is multi-orgasmic, while most men are good for just one shot (at least for an hour or so). So, the first guy or 2 are just warmups.
__________________
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
  #29  
Old 04-07-2011, 11:09 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
Well here is a biological condition to which I alluded above.

There is a chart in Sex at Dawn (read it), which shows the sizes of the penis and testicles in several species of ape, humans included. The testicles of bonobos, chimps and humans hang outside the body. The testicles of gorillas and gibbons are tiny in comparison to the others,' and are tucked up inside the body.

The first 3 have chilly testicles, which increases sperm production. They are meant to be used to take part in sperm competition with other males, having sex with the same female.

The head of the human male corona is extra large and works as a squeegee to scrape out another man's semen. Not mentioned in the book is the idea that women's watery ejaculate is produced to wash out semen, to make way for something better that just came along.

Loud female vocalizing during orgasm is a mating call to attract other men. "Ooh! Someone's in the mood." She is multi-orgasmic, while most men are good for just one shot (at least for an hour or so). So, the first guy or 2 are just warmups.
So in an orgy situation where pregnancy is the goal, the third guy in line needs to have a huge head, not have cum yet, and the woman needs to be thoroughly cleaned Got it ...

I have read about the head before, as well as the multi-orgasmic part. And of course the loud orgasming part, that ones I think obvious to most people However Thats a new one for the ejaculate. thanks..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-08-2011, 12:01 AM
AnotherConfused AnotherConfused is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 264
Default

No worries about hijacking the thread. These are all things I like to think about.

BlackUnicorn, I've often thought of love similarly, as a composite of different types of feelings in different degrees. Would you say "passion" is the same as sexual attraction, or different? I'm thinking about my feelings for D, which definitely fit the NRE definition, but I would hesitate to describe the passion as sexual. Last night between dances we went outside to talk, and he put his arms around me when I got cold, but it felt more snuggly. When L puts his arms around me I feel a sexual current run straight through me. I am eager to see D again (was thrilled he changed plans last night and showed up where he knew I'd be dancing) and we can get giddy looking into each other's eyes, but I don't really want to see him naked! But intimacy? I hardly know him and don't know if I'll get to. Commitment? I can't see this going anywhere. So passion, not sexual? What is that?

(With L and H I feel all 3 feelings, which is why I wonder if I'm missing out on anything by forgoing sex with L.)

Tonberry, I was thinking it felt like a crush, but that's only when you don't tell? I feel like every so often I get a crush and the first thing I want to do is go and tell. Being married and not seeking other relationships gives me a kind of devil-may-care confidence I never had when I was single, so I can say "I really like you" and not be vested in their response.

Anyway, I now find myself in the business of trying to cover up feelings for D so other people don't notice, because eyebrows are starting to be raised. That makes me feel sneaky, not in a fun way. I feel like people will look at us dancing and assume there's an affair going on, so now I think we have to limit how much we dance. Big bummer. I think I disappointed him last night when I accepted the last dance with someone else, but he left before I could explain. *sigh*

And Magdlyn, if every day was orgy day I think we'd just have to find some other ritual behavior to give meaning to our most special relationships. The kinds of physical touch we give out most freely -handshakes, side hugs, cheek pecks, depending on who you are -those don't really carry any meaning. I would not want sex to lose its meaning, myself. Lovely as it feels physically, it always feels better (to me) when combined with love.

I just love that there are all these open-minded people here to discuss all this with! I could talk about love for hours. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
love, mono/poly, sex at dawn

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 11:35 AM.