# a question for all...relationships in general



## likeitmatters (Oct 9, 2009)

*do you think that having multiply bed partners makes you look less desirable in somebodies eyes? And I have observations from watching so many couples over the years and from my experience. I have and will always believe that if you truly love a man or woman that will be faithfull to them regardless of the urge. I see from other websites that men will cheat on their wives and wives will cheat on their husbands. And gay couples that have open relationships or triads or multi level relationships. How can you be in love and have a relationship like that? when I have been in a relationship I am in love with the man heart and soul and body and could never ever think of being with anyone else. So I am needing to know if you are in a relationship and you cheat(bad word) why do insist on staying with your partner when you could be happy with someone else and I mean totally happy.B]

I appreciate all comments about this topic.


:bow:*


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 9, 2009)

I think whether an open relationship works is totally dependant on the people in it. If they trust one another, and themselves, then it works. If there is ever a shred of doubt, then it has to be confronted and discussed by both parties. Rules have to be set on both sides, and then honoured in good faith.

That's how it works. It is still love between two people. Sex and love are not the same thing. Sex can be an intimate and close method of showing your feelings for a person, and demonstrating that you love them, but it is one part of a much bigger whole. If you come to understand that as a concept, and not everybody can, then it is much easier to see how you can love a person, but have sex with more than one person. The other people are sharing an experience with you, that is consenting between two adults and there may be more. There may be friendship in it, but there isn't love, just mutual attraction. Open relationships shouldn't be considered as being in the same vein as "cheating", because it isn't.

It's not always easy to understand. I, for instance, don't understand people who say they're in love with more than one person. To me, that doesn't make sense. I think you can love multiple people as friends but I can't fathom romantic love for more than one person. So, whilst I would not go out of my way to point that out to such an individual, I also wouldn't want to be with them either since I would lack in my understanding of them.


----------



## Horseman (Oct 9, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> I think whether an open relationship works is totally dependant on the people in it.



I concur. Not just with this first sentence, but with your post on the whole.

We've all heard the phrase "It takes all kinds ..."

Well, for an open or "swinging" relationship or whatever it might be to work, requires _two of the same_ kind of personalities. ... I would say those people need to be the sort who can view sex as an intensely personal experience with someone you love, and a purely recreational experience with someone who attracts you, _and_ be people who have the ability to keep those two types of sexual experiences completely separate. ... Not to mention people who aren't easily made jealous.


----------



## seasuperchub84 (Oct 9, 2009)

I have tried the whole multi relationship thing...its so confusing. lol.


----------



## Esther (Oct 9, 2009)

There is an ongoing debate about whether or not human beings were ever meant to be monogamous. There _are_ monogamous animals in nature (penguins are the most well-known, but foxes, mongoose, and gibbons are a few more examples of animals who also pair-bond for life); however, polygamy is overwhelmingly the rule.
I'm the old-fashioned type, myself, and I do not understand the need for human polygamy. When I love someone I am content with his companionship and I feel sexually satisfied by him. I do not ever feel the need to seek sex and attention from an outside source. If I was ever with a man who suggested that we seek other sexual partners I would prefer it if we just broke up. I would see his dissatisfaction with me as a symptom of a failing relationship. In other words... if he wants to fuck other girls so badly, I'm clearly not doing it for him anymore.
In my experience, many people use the "humans were never meant to be monogamous" line as a cop-out, in the same way that many people use the "humans were never meant to be vegetarian" line when they don't feel like debating their meat-eating. We are autonomous beings. We are thinking creatures... that is exactly what sets us apart from other animals. Even if polygamy can be said to be an innate drive, humans have already proven themselves to be more than capable of resisting these drives and making their own choices if they want to (it's probably also an innate drive to fuck your siblings when other partners don't present themselves readily enough... it's easy to resist the less-appealing drives, isn't it?).
This is why I will always see polygamy as a CHOICE.


----------



## Esther (Oct 9, 2009)

For the record I'd like to clarify my response so as not to offend anyone: While I could never be polygamous myself (I get too attached to my partners and my feelings would definitely get hurt), I am not at all saying I think having multiple partners is a BAD choice (just as I don't necesarily think meat-eating is a bad choice either). I just wanted to stress the fact that I do indeed think it is a choice and it bothers me when people claim that they can't help it.


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 11, 2009)

but I will stay to be monogamous and love one person at a time. and to the ones that they have to have one than more package in their mouths..fine by me but I wont be bothered with you. Not my cup of tea at all.

to me, I judge a man or woman on their values and self worth and whether or not they know the words restraint or NO. I do not understand nor will I ever understand a triad or multiply level relationship. My grandparents were married for almost 80 years and my late parents were married for almost 60 years and I will follow in their beliefs now and forever and if nothing else, lets not forget we have a disease out there called Aids!!!...some of you guys and gals are probably too young to realize how bad this disease is and I was smart enough to not engage in casual sex way back then and not now either. I would rather not have to take 10k worth of pills every month to stay alive...And did you know that their is a select group of men and probably women who have the disease and want to give it to others? Think about it...


:bow:


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 11, 2009)

This is what I don't understand about you likeitmatters. You've posted this topic in the form of a question. You've thanked people for the responses, and now the response you give not only fails to address ANYTHING that's been said by anyone it in, but you're also now taking the opportunity to suggest that a belief other than your own can't be correct. You keep doing this.

What you believe is fine. If it works for you then that's great. You have to be open-minded though. The belief of your parents and their parents is all good and well, but sometimes ideas HAVE to change. I don't think your parent's parent's or their parents would have liked the idea that you are gay would they? Socially, it would not have been acceptable at that time, much like having sex with more than one person.

You've decided to pick and choose which of their moral values you're living your own life by, because you obviously don't have a problem with being a homosexual. So, if somebody else chooses to pick different values, don't automatically assume they're wrong just because they're not the same as yours. Saying "thanks for the responses" or "this is just my opinion" is a thinly veiled way of disguising how judgemental you are.


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 11, 2009)

my parents were accepting of me being gay my late bros and my mom told us to bring our male dates and sleep with them in the house and she would even sit down with us and make breakfast for us and we would discuss how we met. so I am very proud to have parents who loved me for me and my chosen life as it were. and you do not need to be understand me at all..most dont which is fine.

I do not have a problem being gay I have a problem how the world perceives us but unless you went through the struggles I did sir you would not understand.

:bow:

p.s and this is coming from a well traveled gay man I take it? I wish the world would not perceive us as sluts or man whores is that so bad? remember one thing..to quote somebody sort of "it takes one person to make change in the world and I doubt I am that person but I will do my part to at least help the world change"

question chub uk do you and your partner have open relationship?


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 11, 2009)

Yes, I do have an open relationship. I have sex with men other than my partner. It is protected sex. I do not have HIV, I am aware of the dangers of it and I know what precautions to take. My partner did a lot of voluntary work for a HIV charity for several years. I am all too aware of the dangers of it.

I'm glad that your parents accepted your sexual orientation. What I'm asking you is, do you think this would have been true of your grandparents, or their parents? During their times, society's views on what was morally acceptable were different. They would probably not have taken as light a view on the subject as your parents did. 

Gay acceptance, as it is today, is founded on open-mindedness and understanding. It only because of change in belief that gay people have the rights that we do now. So what I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with your belief about monogamy; many would agree with you. At the same time though, there are many who don't share your idea of monogamy. To me, somebody that is in an open relationship isn't cheating. It's a choice. It doesn't mean they're not worth my time, nor does it mean they have HIV or that they're of a low moral standing.

Just because it's different doesn't mean it's wrong.


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 11, 2009)

my grandparents loved us very much and they did not understand my life but they loved me enough and my bros enough because that is all that mattered to them..like I said I had the greatest parents and grandparents bar none.

and yes I dont understand open relationship and what I dont understand is the following..I am committed but in open relationship? that does not make sense at all...how can you be committed to your partner? Like Judge judy sez if it does not make sense it is not right...I have always believe if you love someone you love them entirely mind body and soul...and they are the most important person in their lives...and you forgo having extra men in your life. I guess I am way to old fashion and I grew up...and fyi I had many men when I was 18 or 19 and someone told me something that stuck in my mind..I wanted to have a real date with him but he said to me" I wont date you because you are slutty" and from the point on I learned to say no...I dont want that tag on me...fine for others but not me..

:bow:


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 11, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> Like Judge judy sez if it does not make sense it is not right...



That's probably true. Think about that quote though. She says "If it doesn't make sense". That means YOU can't make sense of it. Just because YOU can't make sense of it, doesn't mean other people can't. Basically what you're saying is that you don't agree with what you don't understand. That's a shortsighted and closed-minded attitude and it really doesn't have much of a place on here. 

A few hundred years ago people thought that technology and science was witchcraft. It did not make sense. They did not understand it. They feared what they did not understand because to them it meant it wasn't right. If the human race kept held of that sort of thinking, we'd still be living in caves and mud huts.

Open your damn mind for a second. Look past what you think and at least accept that a viewpoint other than your own might have some merit. You don't have to agree with, or understand it, just realise that it is there and that just because it doesn't compare to your standards doesn't make it wrong and doesn't mean it's going to go away.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 11, 2009)

If I think it's a guy that has the attitude of "any hole is a goal" then I do feel a guard go up and instantly stop taking him seriously at all. So yeah, on some level, I do look at a person's past relationships as "measure" of how he might be with me. 
Do I care if he had a lot of girlfriends in the past? No....not really. It's how he treated them....or if he's got some victim mentality about it all that worries me most. 

So on that note, I can see why a guy might worry about a woman with the attitude of "any pole is a goal" 

That being said, who openly discusses their past relationships in great detail while getting to know a new love interest? It's bad to do so.....men don't like it. I would have a red light go off in the back of my own psyche if a guy carried on about a past relationship too much when he just met me......

As far as "open relationships" go....I'm okay with dating more than one guy....and he is welcome to do the same if we haven't agreed upon exclusivity. However, I am not comfortable of sleeping with a guy that is having sex with another woman at the same time. 
The sexual aspect makes me want something more exclusive.....I prefer monogamy....just seems healthier all around in my mind. *shrugs*

I have had new men I start talking to pointfully ask me about my past relationships....I'm open enough to be honest, IF ASKED. Even then, I try to limit what I say and not be too negative. If we get to know each better, then we can share more later on. It's important to get through the beginning stages without loading up too much baggage center arena, IMO.


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 11, 2009)

Love Sucking Dick to Competion, BB, Nothing wanted or expected in Return. Not into Dinner / Dating. Come over, Drop your pants, Drop a load and leave. No strings.

Not into Heavy Men, Slim to Average only. can you tell me anything about this guy? care to take a guess...

:bow:


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 11, 2009)

Open your damn mind for a second. Look past what you think and at least accept that a viewpoint other than your own might have some merit. You don't have to agree with, or understand it, just realise that it is there and that just because it doesn't compare to your standards doesn't make it wrong and doesn't mean it's going to go away.

I realize it wont go away so I just keep to myself and advise everyone of who I am and what I am not. I make no bones about what I will do and what I wont do. do you think for one moment I am alone in my thinking? I am just more vocal than others and to me I wont change my thinking.


----------



## escapist (Oct 11, 2009)

> do you think that having multiply bed partners makes you look less desirable in somebodies eyes?



I imagine that is totally dependent on each individual person, the culture they were raised in, and the belief system they adopted. As to me personally, nope I have never seen it really matter. I say it all the time, attraction is attraction, you are fairly powerless to control it. Plenty of people tell themselves, "This person is bad for me" and go on to feel even strong attraction. Even more to the point I've seen it work just the opposite...the more girls I have on me, the more girls I get. In Social Dynamics this is referred to as "Social Proof". Seen it work, know it works, and love how it works.



> So I am needing to know if you are in a relationship and you cheat(bad word) why do insist on staying with your partner when you could be happy with someone else and I mean totally happy



I've never personally condoned cheating, doing stuff behind your partners back, or something that is destructive to your relationship, which to me is the only true form of "cheating". Most people can feel if what they are doing is harmful or damaging to a relationship. Some people just choose to ignore such personal feelings.

Now if what you are really asking is, "Why stay in a relationship if you have sex with others"? I might have something to say. Most often I've seen this due to a miss-match of sex drives, or a physical impairment of some type; while at the same time a deep commitment to the love and relationship already created. The reality is there are just to many possible situations that work for couples. Great sex just isn't the key to a great relationship so I think some people find that as a point that can be adjusted to fit the situation.


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 11, 2009)

I guess I would rather be attractive to one man and know that he loves me totally than have a whole bunch of men telling me how good I am in bed and I would rather be with a man who does not believe in sharing himself to the world and know that he has a true partner. Probably the biggest problem I have is having a guy who has been with the whole world and then going to a function and someone telling me how good he was in bed. I would be thoughly embarassed to say in the least. And guess I am saying I dont want to share him with anyone.

I had it once in my life and I will have it again someday if it is to be.

sorry if I have stepped on peoples toes with my thoughts however I know that I am not alone in my thinking just that I am more vocal than others.

and thank you for responding and best of luck to all of you in your lives and be sure to wear protection or just say no...

:bow:


----------



## Flutterby68 (Oct 11, 2009)

I never CARED if other people disapproved. If I were casually dating, ALL the men I dated knew that there were others. If I were sleeping with more than one, they knew about each other. 

However, once I was seriously dating someone he was the ONLY one I was sleeping with and remained so until such time as the relationship ended. 

As for making me less desirable in someone's eyes.. that wasn't relevant. The only person I had to please was myself. I was respectful of others, and fair in my dating life... but if I didn't feel like I was in a committed relationship, I had no qualms about dating others. 

Of course, I'm now married so THAT sorta changed things. I no longer date LOL


----------



## escapist (Oct 11, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> I guess I would rather be attractive to one man and know that he loves me totally than have a whole bunch of men telling me how good I am in bed and I would rather be with a man who does not believe in sharing himself to the world and know that he has a true partner. Probably the biggest problem I have is having a guy who has been with the whole world and then going to a function and someone telling me how good he was in bed. I would be thoughly embarassed to say in the least. And guess I am saying I dont want to share him with anyone.
> 
> I had it once in my life and I will have it again someday if it is to be.
> 
> ...



Its a good thing that you know where you stand and what works for you, thats all thats really important. Others who have different relationship models will find their match as well. I'm not sure anybody is to keen on having such a thing as sexual powerless be the only reason for a long term relationship. As to your little example of with it being common knowledge of yours or a partners excellence in bed well, it happens. Once my the love of my life was in a movie where I had either slept with or dated all the other actresses including the directors wife. I was terribly nervous. In the end it was a great experience, she had a blast and had fun because everyone was so great to her and had nothing but nice things to say about me, and their wishes for our future relationship. I on the other hand had an awkward moment when the Director pulled me aside, I assumed he was going to ask about me and his wife, but instead he ends up asking me about one of the other girls he had been having fantasy's with, lol Oh man...I didn't even know how to react to that lol cause I was still friends with his wife.


----------



## Surlysomething (Oct 12, 2009)

I think many people can make a distinction between 'love' relationships and sexual relationships. It doesn't always have to be ALL or NOTHING for some. We all have varying libidos and desires and if two people in a relationship are ok with being open to others sexually I don't see a problem with it. TRUST is obviously the key. 

And if you play with others, I don't think that makes you a whore or a slut (play safe, of course). If there's an open line of communication, how can that be? 

Obviously you've been burned pretty bad, LIM, but not everyone shares in your opinion.


----------



## BBW4Chattery (Oct 12, 2009)

Not to participate in any drama but just to put out my beliefs and practices on the subject.

Once upon a time, I told every guy my number and expected him to share in turn. My number is moderately high, in my opinion, however, I've always kept it below my age... so at least I kept a benchmark. 

I had some girlfriends who had more, many girlfriends who had less, but the only girlfriends who EVER said anything to me about my habits were the two girls who I called the "virgin sluts." They would lick and pet any penis within region as well as making out with random strangers at any club/bar/party... those are things I'd NEVER do and have never done... yet, because I wasn't a virgin, they frequently called me a whore if we ever got into a fight.

It hurt, at first, and the last time one particularly crazy virgin whore did it, I confessed the situation to my guy friend. He asked me, "why is it anyone's business?" Suddenly, it all clicked and I realized he was absolutely right. Not even my girlfriends have a right to know jack-crap about my sex life unless I choose to share and they damn sure don't have a right to comment on it. 

Likewise, the guy friend and I had a long discussion about how it isn't necessary to tell every guy I date my exact number; especially if he doesn't ask about it. The most important thing is that we are clean and safe and fulfilled by our choices.

So, I'm currently in a very successful phase of not talking about my sex life with anyone except my bestest friend and even then, it's rare he'll hear about it. The only purpose it serves is to give unstable people ammunition against you or otherwise ill-motivated folks the courage to try and get you into bed. It says little about what sort of person you are, etc... especially when a girl with 10 sex partners could have actually touched fewer penises than the chick that is still TECHNICALLY a virgin.

Buyer beware.


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 12, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> Love Sucking Dick to Competion, BB, Nothing wanted or expected in Return. Not into Dinner / Dating. Come over, Drop your pants, Drop a load and leave. No strings.
> 
> Not into Heavy Men, Slim to Average only. can you tell me anything about this guy? care to take a guess...



Erm, I'm guessing he knows what he likes and what he wants? He's being honest and upfront to other people about it before they meet him, so they know what they're in for?

You're not clever Likeitmatters. Taking one person's ad and using it as an example to prove some point isn't going to work. What about my profile?

http://www.biggercity.com/chubloveruk86

Do you think that's slutty too? I'm telling you, there are two sides to every coin. Not everybody in an open relationship is a slut, or a manwhore. I don't get together with every guy who responds, or every fat guy, or every man in my area. I sometimes meet people who I hit it off with. That's it.

Here's an excerpt from your blog about your ex:

_*he was really a golddigger and a moocher and user. really sad because he has potential and he wants to be like his good for nothing mother who did not even finish 4th grade and did not bother to go back to school and instead she freeloaded off the system and god knows what she did with her husbands...*_

Now, coming from someone who says you are in love with someone's heart, soul, body and could never think of being with anyone else (your words), I think you ought to be pretty humbled by how fickle you are. Your "old fashioned values" meant that this man went from being everything to you, to being a good for nothing moocher who didn't have a very nice Mom?

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. You have a complex of some kind because the man wronged you, and you feel the urge to spread your poisonous way of thinking onto other people. You can dress it however you want and you can tell me you've no bones about what other people do. Your words speak for themselves. You are a small man, with a small mind who would benefit greatly from having a fraction of the understanding and intelligence that you think you have. You don't though, and it's sad. It's your loss, not mine or anyone else's. 

Seriously, you anger me, but I don't know whether I should be angry or just feel sorry for you. I know my own mind, but I'd hate to bumble through life making cack-handed remarks about how others choose to live theirs and not realise how offensive I was being. You're bitter, mal-adjusted, fickle, hypocritical and obviously emotionally unfulfilled and yet, somehow, you own a very tall horse that you regularly climb upon to tell people your values and how they should live their lives! Amazing. Honestly, shove a bloody sock in it mate. It's better for you to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt.


----------



## chicken legs (Oct 12, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> I guess I would rather be attractive to one man and know that he loves me totally than have a whole bunch of men telling me how good I am in bed and I would rather be with a man who does not believe in sharing himself to the world and know that he has a true partner. Probably the biggest problem I have is having a guy who has been with the whole world and then going to a function and someone telling me how good he was in bed. I would be thoughly embarassed to say in the least. And guess I am saying I dont want to share him with anyone.
> 
> I had it once in my life and I will have it again someday if it is to be.
> 
> ...



You should be proud you have/attract hotties. Next time you encounter one...(before you get serious)..set some ground rules/deal breakers. Then be flexable with them according to the situation. 

I spotted this cool article on where to meet quality men..and it gives the hint that you should keep your eyes open to hotties that share interests in things you like


----------



## Teleute (Oct 13, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> *do you think that having multiply bed partners makes you look less desirable in somebodies eyes? And I have observations from watching so many couples over the years and from my experience. I have and will always believe that if you truly love a man or woman that will be faithfull to them regardless of the urge. I see from other websites that men will cheat on their wives and wives will cheat on their husbands. And gay couples that have open relationships or triads or multi level relationships. How can you be in love and have a relationship like that? when I have been in a relationship I am in love with the man heart and soul and body and could never ever think of being with anyone else. So I am needing to know if you are in a relationship and you cheat(bad word) why do insist on staying with your partner when you could be happy with someone else and I mean totally happy.B]
> 
> I appreciate all comments about this topic.
> 
> ...


*

Likeitmatters, I have a couple of questions for you - I'm just curious about your position, I hope this doesn't offend 

1. Do you think that the profile you posted - random sex with tons of strangers - is the same thing as being in a loving relationship with one person, but occasionally having sex with a few carefully chosen people when your partner knows and approves?

2. Do you think that the fact that other people live happily in such relationships implies that you should have such a relationship? 

3. If there are two people who are incapable of feeling completely happy in a one-partner relationship, do you think it's better for them to be with a partner who demands a monogamous relationship and for them to be miserable, or do you think it's better for them to be with a partner who also feels the same way and with whom they can be honest and happy?*


----------



## cammy (Oct 13, 2009)

Likeitmatters - Are you having relationship problems again, already?


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 13, 2009)

Teleute said:


> Likeitmatters, I have a couple of questions for you - I'm just curious about your position, I hope this doesn't offend
> 
> 1. Do you think that the profile you posted - random sex with tons of strangers - is the same thing as being in a loving relationship with one person, but occasionally having sex with a few carefully chosen people when your partner knows and approves?
> 
> ...



3. the men I have met want to go to bed with me and since I am unable to separate love from sex I dont engage in such foolishness. And if they are happy with it go ahead and live the life but dont tell me you are committed to that person and you are having a open relationship. when two people are in that type of relationship, it is nothing more than friends with benefits in my eyes..or a roommate with benefits. I am not the only one who feels this way folks like I said, I am more vocal.


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 13, 2009)

Like. Talking. To. A. Wall. (Only you get more sense out of a wall)


----------



## escapist (Oct 13, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> ...And if they are happy with it go ahead and live the life but dont tell me you are committed to that person and you are having a open relationship. when two people are in that type of relationship, it is nothing more than friends with benefits in my eyes..or a roommate with benefits...



lol I love how you just became the omnipotent authority on everyone's relationship/love models. I guess its easy to have the final word on what everyone else thinks and feels when you assume such a God like power... To bad its only in your head.



chubloverUK86 said:


> Like. Talking. To. A. Wall. (Only you get more sense out of a wall)



Yeah your right, the wall doesn't get to say, "I am the only type of wall that can exist in its true and correct form. All other walls are false and nothing more than pretending to be walls".


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 13, 2009)

sorry you dont get it and chub uk such words from a man who has been around for many years and you remind me of that boy that won the lottery in the uk a few years ago....dont recall sorry..

and escapist,....at least I am being honest with myself and trying to say what comes from my heart and my mind. 

sorry you dont agree with me which is fine...I will live my life and keep self respect for my body and my soul. And all of you can live your life just keep this in mind...I am not alone in this thinking.....if you think I am boy do you need a reality check.

thank you....


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 13, 2009)

I remind you of someone you don't recall? That statement is as confusing as it is redundant. Also, my username is chubloverUK86. You keep calling me something else. I've shown enough respect to write yours properly, I'm sure you can do the same. Here's a hint; if you forget, it's in the corner of every single one of my responses to you. 

Honestly, any sort of response to you, be it well mannered or blunt is just a waste of time. It's not that what you're saying is particularly offensive, it's just that you are like an immovable rock when it comes to conversation.

Frankly, I feel sorry for anyone who's unfortunate enough to land themselves in a relationship with you. Having any kind of thoughtful conversation must be like pulling teeth. But then apparently you are always right, so what's to talk about anyway?


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 13, 2009)

chubloveruk86...thank you for the response.

have a bloody good day...


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 13, 2009)

Thank you likeitmatters, I bloody well will!

Pip pip!


----------



## escapist (Oct 13, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> and escapist,....at least I am being honest with myself and trying to say what comes from my heart and my mind.
> 
> sorry you dont agree with me which is fine...I will live my life and keep self respect for my body and my soul. And all of you can live your life just keep this in mind...I am not alone in this thinking.....if you think I am boy do you need a reality check.
> 
> thank you....



No, your not alone in your thinking, there are plenty of people who think, the way they think should be the rule, and all others should obey and operate under such rules and conditions. The Nazi party had great time with such authoritarian posturing and opinions. The weapon of morality has long been used by social organizations, governments, groups, and religious zealots to control, belittle, and manipulate the masses. When one takes the posture and position of the moral high ground it is easy to thumb their noses at those who do not meet such levels of "perfection". Its even easier when they are the only authority on the subject.

I Never said you were a boy, but if you felt I was implying I feel as though your thoughts might be a bit immature and boyish in nature when concerning you believing your have the right to be the absolute authority on what a real, healthy, and loving relationship is...well your right I do feel that way. I do not believe anyone has the the right to dictate what another human being feels, thinks, or emotes. The only right you have is to your opinion just like me.

Hope I was clear that time, I apologize for any fuzziness.


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 13, 2009)

escapist said:


> No, your not alone in your thinking, there are plenty of people who think, the way they think should be the rule, and all others should obey and operate under such rules and conditions. The Nazi party had great time with such authoritarian posturing and opinions. The weapon of morality has long been used by social organizations, governments, groups, and religious zealots to control, belittle, and manipulate the masses. When one takes the posture and position of the moral high ground it is easy to thumb there noses at those who do not meet such levels of "perfection". Its even easier when they are the only authority on the subject.
> 
> I Never said you were a boy, but if you felt I was implying I feel as though your thoughts might be a bit immature and boyish in nature when concerning you believing your have the right to be the absolute authority on what a real, healthy, and loving relationship is...well your right I do feel that way. I do not believe anyone has the the right to dictate what another human being feels, thinks, or emotes. The only right you have is to your opinion just like me.
> 
> Hope I was clear that time, I apologize for any fuzziness.



no harm done sorry I forgot to put a comma there or something...you are not a boy at all and neither am I.

thank you for allowing me to post my opinion on this website though we do not agree with each other. I was just brought up differently than others I guess.


----------



## escapist (Oct 13, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> no harm done sorry I forgot to put a comma there or something...you are not a boy at all and neither am I.
> 
> thank you for allowing me to post my opinion on this website though we do not agree with each other. I was just brought up differently than others I guess.



No problem, I think you have a big heart and its been hurt. I think others just wanted you to see that your thoughts and feelings were your opinion, be it right or wrong. You are totally right to have whatever thoughts and feelings you have on the subject. I'm sure you are right and there are plenty of people to be in a happy singularly committed relationship. There really is someone there for everyone....or at least I tend to feel that way.


----------



## Teleute (Oct 13, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> 1. I do not understand how a couple can say two words that do not go together committment and open relationship..those two words are not meant to be together at least to me. Love is one thing but my idea of love is you love the man or woman for their mind and body and soul totally.



I think it's awesome that you have found your idea of love! Working out what you need is hugely important, and I don't think you should vary from that, or ever take a partner that doesn't feel the same way. But do you see how for some people that might not be how love is for them? 



likeitmatters said:


> 2. I would rather be alone in a relationship than be in a triad or open or swingers relationship..and for the truce I did that when I was a 20 something and grew up and realized it was not good and that aids popped in.



Again, I think that's great  I think it would be stupid for a person to try and force themselves to love in a different way than how they felt was right for them. Similarly, it would be a bad idea for you to try to date someone who needed an open relationship, because they would always be unhappy.



likeitmatters said:


> 3. the men I have met want to go to bed with me and since I am unable to separate love from sex I dont engage in such foolishness. And if they are happy with it go ahead and live the life but dont tell me you are committed to that person and you are having a open relationship. when two people are in that type of relationship, it is nothing more than friends with benefits in my eyes..or a roommate with benefits. I am not the only one who feels this way folks like I said, I am more vocal.



You're certainly not the only one who feels this way; I'd say most people probably agree with you. I think the most important thing in your response here is the statment "since *I *am unable to separate love from sex". I feel this way too, and so I don't have sex outside a loving relationship. However, I have friends who ARE able to separate love and sex, and for them it can be an important part of their relationship to engage in sexual activity with other people. I don't feel they are "slutty" or morally wrong; I just know they experience love differently than I do. It's like my straight friends who don't understand how I can be attracted to other women; they don't feel the same way, but they don't think I'm lying about my feelings or that I'm a bad person - they just know that I love in a different way than they do. I hope that makes sense


----------



## Durin (Oct 14, 2009)

What do you do if the person you love doesn't want Sex?


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 14, 2009)

Durin said:


> What do you do if the person you love doesn't want Sex?




sex takes on various roles and my late partner later on our relationship did not have any kind of traditional sex and we did other things that were just as meaningful and I did without because he could not function but I guess I am alone in that thought. He meant more to me than going out and having sex with some one I dont have a clue about and he could have been a bug chaser and that is something I dont need in my life.

thanks


----------



## Durin (Oct 14, 2009)

You misconstrue what I am saying. I think it's great that you were totally devoted to your partner. That is where my feelings lie, It's a sacrifice and you sacrificed that part of you for the person you love.

That being said, I did not sign up for Celibacy. It's sort of a crappy situation all around.


----------



## rabbitislove (Oct 14, 2009)

Esther said:


> There is an ongoing debate about whether or not human beings were ever meant to be monogamous. There _are_ monogamous animals in nature (penguins are the most well-known, but foxes, mongoose, and gibbons are a few more examples of animals who also pair-bond for life); however, polygamy is overwhelmingly the rule.
> I'm the old-fashioned type, myself, and I do not understand the need for human polygamy. When I love someone I am content with his companionship and I feel sexually satisfied by him. I do not ever feel the need to seek sex and attention from an outside source. If I was ever with a man who suggested that we seek other sexual partners I would prefer it if we just broke up. I would see his dissatisfaction with me as a symptom of a failing relationship. In other words... if he wants to fuck other girls so badly, I'm clearly not doing it for him anymore.
> In my experience, many people use the "humans were never meant to be monogamous" line as a cop-out, in the same way that many people use the "humans were never meant to be vegetarian" line when they don't feel like debating their meat-eating. We are autonomous beings. We are thinking creatures... that is exactly what sets us apart from other animals. Even if polygamy can be said to be an innate drive, humans have already proven themselves to be more than capable of resisting these drives and making their own choices if they want to (it's probably also an innate drive to fuck your siblings when other partners don't present themselves readily enough... it's easy to resist the less-appealing drives, isn't it?).
> This is why I will always see polygamy as a CHOICE.



I cant fuckin rep you and Im so frustrated. I hate the whole "Im a man and Im going to spread my wild oats because evolutionary psychology gives me carte blanc". I hate that whole "we HAVVE to eat meeeet" attitude (I respect your lifestyle just dont get up in my face). 

Esther, lets get married. I know Im already married to Lily, Dr. P, and probably Melian, and I know this is in contrast to my prior paragraph, but in this case I feel polyamorous FFA love is alll gooood baby.


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 14, 2009)

Durin said:


> You misconstrue what I am saying. I think it's great that you were totally devoted to your partner. That is where my feelings lie, It's a sacrifice and you sacrificed that part of you for the person you love.
> 
> That being said, I did not sign up for Celibacy. It's sort of a crappy situation all around.




what if you had a partner that you loved and were married to or whatever and she or he got sick and could no longer perform what would you do?

sometimes I think I am a human from another time...I was under the impression that when you love someone, you love them totally but I know get the message the world is trying to tell me...people like me need to dry up and accept that people wont change now or ever....sad though in my eyes


----------



## katorade (Oct 14, 2009)

Esther said:


> There is an ongoing debate about whether or not human beings were ever meant to be monogamous. There _are_ monogamous animals in nature (penguins are the most well-known, but foxes, mongoose, and gibbons are a few more examples of animals who also pair-bond for life); however, polygamy is overwhelmingly the rule.
> I'm the old-fashioned type, myself, and I do not understand the need for human polygamy. When I love someone I am content with his companionship and I feel sexually satisfied by him. I do not ever feel the need to seek sex and attention from an outside source. If I was ever with a man who suggested that we seek other sexual partners I would prefer it if we just broke up. I would see his dissatisfaction with me as a symptom of a failing relationship. In other words... if he wants to fuck other girls so badly, I'm clearly not doing it for him anymore.
> In my experience, many people use the "humans were never meant to be monogamous" line as a cop-out, in the same way that many people use the "humans were never meant to be vegetarian" line when they don't feel like debating their meat-eating. We are autonomous beings. We are thinking creatures... that is exactly what sets us apart from other animals. Even if polygamy can be said to be an innate drive, humans have already proven themselves to be more than capable of resisting these drives and making their own choices if they want to (it's probably also an innate drive to fuck your siblings when other partners don't present themselves readily enough... it's easy to resist the less-appealing drives, isn't it?).
> This is why I will always see polygamy as a CHOICE.



When it comes down to the instinctual level and people using polygamy as the "natural" leaning of human beings, they typically don't really have a grasp on the scientific aspects of things. Most non-monogamous animals do so because of short life spans, widespread territories, small population numbers, the state of being a prey animal with quick life turnover rates, etc. 

What they really should be focusing on is our similarities to animals that share similar, communal lifestyles, not just genotypical similarities, and that while there are many animals that practice close-proximity polygamy, like lions and elephants as groups of female families "sharing" a smaller number of or one male, and inter-communal "free love", like many ape species and dolphins that pay no attention sex for just breeding purposes, but that there are a large number of _communal _animals, especially in bird species, that are monogamous for the simple reason that their numbers NEED to be limited because of the risk of over-population and depletion of resources.

As far as animal instinct go, polygamy might be the logical decision for us considering we have more in common with apes and dolphins as far as intelligence goes, but in keeping with the animal tendencies, we'd be eating our own children right now because the nest is a little too crowded and there isn't enough space or food for everyone. 

The truly most logical instinctual habit for humans to veer towards at this stage in our evolutionary development IS monogamy because polygamy has made us a danger to ourselves and a veritable plague on this planet. The fact that we've been able to make it this far just proves even more that polygamy and monogamy as a choice are stronger than any animal instinct we still have.


----------



## cheekyjez (Oct 14, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> what if you had a partner that you loved and were married to or whatever and she or he got sick and could no longer perform what would you do?


Talk about it, probably. My wife has a higher sex drive than I do, and at the moment that's OK. We're entirely monogamous. But we've discussed what we'll do if we get to the point where it's not enough for her. And what we settled on was that before she does anything with anyone else, she needs to OK it with me first. And there are some ground rules - mostly to do with her physical and emotional safety.

So now, I feel better. Now if she has a problem, I know that she'll talk to me about it so we can work through it together, rather than snapping and doing something . We both hope that we'll never get to that point, but it's better to have a contingency plan than to pretend everything will be wonderful forever.


likeitmatters said:


> sometimes I think I am a human from another time...I was under the impression that when you love someone, you love them totally but I know get the message the world is trying to tell me...people like me need to dry up and accept that people wont change now or ever....sad though in my eyes


When you say "people like me", do you mean monogamous people or heinously judgemental people? Because yes, I think the world would be a better place if no-one was trying to enforce their sexual mores on other people.


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 15, 2009)

katorade said:


> When it comes down to the instinctual level and people using polygamy as the "natural" leaning of human beings, they typically don't really have a grasp on the scientific aspects of things. Most non-monogamous animals do so because of short life spans, widespread territories, small population numbers, the state of being a prey animal with quick life turnover rates, etc.
> 
> What they really should be focusing on is our similarities to animals that share similar, communal lifestyles, not just genotypical similarities, and that while there are many animals that practice close-proximity polygamy, like lions and elephants as groups of female families "sharing" a smaller number of or one male, and inter-communal "free love", like many ape species and dolphins that pay no attention sex for just breeding purposes, but that there are a large number of _communal _animals, especially in bird species, that are monogamous for the simple reason that their numbers NEED to be limited because of the risk of over-population and depletion of resources.
> 
> ...



With regard to what you're saying about the previous animal comparison, I think you are right. To fairly judge ourselves against animals, we have to do so against animals that share what we think is the same reasoning for their instincts.

I don't agree with your last paragraph though. Firstly because "logically instinctual" is oxy-moronic when you're talking about human beings. We have advanced to a conceptual state of being where we not only recognise and study our own behaviour, we have individuals that do nothing but study the behaviour of others. Nowadays we can often get insight into why humans have certain instincts, but most overarching ones like violence, territorialism and sexual procreation are completely illogical within the context of contemporary society.

Your statement would be true if you're going to assume that human beings only, and mostly, have sex with one another for the purposes of procreation. That is widely not the case however. In fact, it's probably fair to assume that most regular sexual activity is for the purposes of pleasure and recreation. How many heterosexual couples who enjoy regular sex, for example, go to bed at night and try to "make babies"? I'm sure they might decide they want to do that several times in their lives, but not every time they have sex.

I'm also interested in understanding how it is you feel the current human population is a result of polygamy. As an accepted and lawful practice, polygamy is much more prevalent in Eastern countries, particularly those where women have fewer rights and men can enjoy multiple wives. The history of Britain and America don't suggest any strong cultural leaning to the support or embrace of polygamy. My Great Grandmother had 12 children by one man. Families of that size in those days were not abnormal. My Grandmother had three children, and my Mother 2. The trend, at least here in Britain, of having many children is on the decline rather than the increase.

And since this topic was started by a gay man, it might also be interesting to introduce the idea that if you really wanted to lower population, instead of human's instincts changing to be monogamous they might change to being gay! Seeing as nature has a habit of working in absolutes, why risk higher-level thought entering into the instinctual equation? After all, straight people have a choice as to whether to naturally procreate, gay people don't. That is, if we're still talking instinct.

Edit: Having read your post a second time, I think I inferred too much on the instinctual discussion opposed to what your overall message was. So, in spite of what I said, I also agree with your closing sentiment and not just your opening one! Sorry!


----------



## katorade (Oct 15, 2009)

It was really supposed to be tongue in cheek. I think it's ridiculous for people to defend polygamy in human beings by relating them to animals.

Oh, and to address this: "I'm also interested in understanding how it is you feel the current human population is a result of polygamy", I don't think it's a _direct_ result, but I do feel like it's part of the problem. I really think that the downfall of man will be the advances in modern sciences, ironically. People are living longer, having more children with a lower mortality rate, and using more resources than we can sustain, but that's neither here nor there in the subject of this topic.


----------



## escapist (Oct 15, 2009)

katorade said:


> I think it's ridiculous for people to defend polygamy in human beings by relating them to animals.



I don't think polygamy needs to be defended at all. Thats like saying monogamy needs to be defended or marriage needs to be defended. For those that its right for its going to happen and be wanted by them, no matter what anybody else thinks or feels about it. Keeping in mind that modern humans have been around about 1/2 a million years I'm willing to wager that much of modern human existence has been touched by it at some point in time by polygamy.

I will say as a matter of opinion, due to our social nature it seems as though currently the acceptance of polygamy has more to do with money and religious social constructs. I seem to remember reading early Rome doing away with polygamy because it made for a messy situation dividing up the inheritance when the husband/father passed away.

It never ceases to amaze me how malleable and adaptable a persons mind becomes when threatened with becoming socially unpopular. Granted I believe thats more due to our nature as social beings and being a social outcast effecting ones survival and replication value. Through this very mechanism the acceptance and rejection of such socially meaningful lifestyle choices such as polygamy or gay marriage or any such things have been manipulated....just a side thought.


----------



## Esther (Oct 15, 2009)

escapist said:


> I don't think polygamy needs to be defended at all. Thats like saying monogamy needs to be defended or marriage needs to be defended. For those that its right for its going to happen and be wanted by them, no matter what anybody else thinks or feels about it. Keeping in mind that modern humans have been around about 1/2 a million years I'm willing to wager that much of modern human existence has been touched by it at some point in time by polygamy.
> 
> I will say as a matter of opinion, due to our social nature it seems as though currently the acceptance of polygamy has more to do with money and religious social constructs. I seem to remember reading early Rome doing away with polygamy because it made for a messy situation dividing up the inheritance when the husband/father passed away.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how malleable and adaptable a persons mind becomes when threatened with becoming socially unpopular. Granted I believe thats more due to our nature as social beings and being a social outcast effecting ones survival and replication value. Through this very mechanism the acceptance and rejection of such socially meaningful lifestyle choices such as polygamy or gay marriage or any such things have been manipulated....just a side thought.



I think there was a miscommunication somewhere along the line here. There was a discussion earlier about how some people compare human beings to the animal world to try and prove that a person _can't help_ but to seek many partners because that's the way it is in nature. The issue here was that some people fall back on "animal instinct" as a cop-out instead of owning up to the fact that polygamy was their conscious choice. I don't think anyone meant to say that polygamy had to be _defended_. Polygamy isn't the issue, it's the people who act like they can't help it.


----------



## katorade (Oct 15, 2009)

Esther said:


> I think there was a miscommunication somewhere along the line here. There was a discussion earlier about how some people compare human beings to the animal world to try and prove that a person _can't help_ but to seek many partners because that's the way it is in nature. The issue here was that some people fall back on "animal instinct" as a cop-out instead of owning up to the fact that polygamy was their conscious choice. I don't think anyone meant to say that polygamy had to be _defended_. Polygamy isn't the issue, it's the people who act like they can't help it.




Yes, this exactly. I don't take a stance one way or the other. I, myself, prefer monogamous relationships, but I'm not one to force my beliefs on others. I just think that when the two sides are being argued, and those in _defense_ of polygamy use animal instinct as an excuse for their _decision_, that it's a total cop-out. It is, in fact, just as much a decision as monogamy, because we are not simply animals. We are animals with the ability to reason.


----------



## escapist (Oct 16, 2009)

Esther said:


> I think there was a miscommunication somewhere along the line here. There was a discussion earlier about how some people compare human beings to the animal world to try and prove that a person _can't help_ but to seek many partners because that's the way it is in nature. The issue here was that some people fall back on "animal instinct" as a cop-out instead of owning up to the fact that polygamy was their conscious choice. I don't think anyone meant to say that polygamy had to be _defended_. Polygamy isn't the issue, it's the people who act like they can't help it.



lol, Damn strait polygamy is a choice! I can't imagine the polygamist who wakes up and goes "WTF! how did I get 4 wives?"...1 relationship is hard enough for most people. It sounds like the term polygamy got tossed in there by accident all together. Polygamy (a Greek word meaning "the practice of multiple marriage") has little to do with getting it on with any man/woman that passes by. As to the idea of feeling a driving need to have many partners, I can certainly imagine it has something to do with survival and replication instincts as well as just pure "fun-time".


----------



## cheekyjez (Oct 16, 2009)

Evo psych is such crap. You can come up with a "this behavior was beneficial for our ancestors" explanation for ANYTHING, and most of the theories end "and THAT'S why women should be subservient to men."

Aside from the previously mentioned point about how most of us have the ability to think about our actions rather than being purely impulsive, our early human ancestors had a life expectancy of about 35. Do we REALLY want that?


----------



## stldpn (Oct 16, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> *do you think that having multiply bed partners makes you look less desirable in somebodies eyes? And I have observations from watching so many couples over the years and from my experience. I have and will always believe that if you truly love a man or woman that will be faithfull to them regardless of the urge. I see from other websites that men will cheat on their wives and wives will cheat on their husbands. And gay couples that have open relationships or triads or multi level relationships. How can you be in love and have a relationship like that? when I have been in a relationship I am in love with the man heart and soul and body and could never ever think of being with anyone else. So I am needing to know if you are in a relationship and you cheat(bad word) why do insist on staying with your partner when you could be happy with someone else and I mean totally happy.B]
> 
> I appreciate all comments about this topic.
> 
> ...


*

I personally could not be involved in a multiple partner situation. I mean the thought of it for like ten minutes is kind of amusing but I have jealous and health conscious bones that forbid me to take the idea seriously. 

I believe strongly that if you're a 20 something without a career truly somebody who has no care about what tomorrow might bring it might look appealining enough. But, age and watching other people experience the fallout of a multiple partner situation that self destructs let's me know that the pleasures are brief and the troubles are many.*


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Oct 19, 2009)

I don't think love exists. It is an illusion.


----------



## littlefairywren (Oct 19, 2009)

Geodetic_Effect said:


> I don't think love exists. It is an illusion.



No, it exists and it is wonderful. Something worth holding onto and looking for


----------



## Melian (Oct 19, 2009)

Geodetic_Effect said:


> I don't think love exists. It is an illusion.



To each their own, but...



littlefairywren said:


> No, it exists and it is wonderful. Something worth holding onto and looking for




....I am inclined to agree with her.


----------



## Horseman (Oct 19, 2009)

Love exists. And it's armed with a knife.


----------



## RobitusinZ (Oct 19, 2009)

A relationship isn't about sex, it's about life.

Sex is a part of life. It doesn't define it.


----------



## katorade (Oct 19, 2009)

cheekyjez said:


> Evo psych is such crap. You can come up with a "this behavior was beneficial for our ancestors" explanation for ANYTHING, *and most of the theories end "and THAT'S why women should be subservient to men."
> *



I somehow missed this before. That...is awesomely awesome! Sorry I can't rep you.


----------



## escapist (Oct 19, 2009)

cheekyjez said:


> Evo psych is such crap. You can come up with a "this behavior was beneficial for our ancestors" explanation for ANYTHING, and most of the theories end "and THAT'S why women should be subservient to men."
> 
> Aside from the previously mentioned point about how most of us have the ability to think about our actions rather than being purely impulsive, our early human ancestors had a life expectancy of about 35. Do we REALLY want that?



Not sure where the subservient part comes in cause sexual desire and impulses do not belong only to men. Women will often feel the urge seek other partners as part of nature due to not having all their needs fulfilled. Sure plenty of people put aside such urges when they feel commitment or devotion to only one person, but often these days that's not even good enough hence why divorce rates are so high these days. Not sure what your statement about life expectancy has to do with anything just cause we live longer there is no evidence to suggest it changes some of instincts. In truth it only suggest that one should take more time and consideration when putting thought into relationships. However, there will always be people who just act and live almost purely on "feeling" or instinct. As a people I don't know if we will ever make it to a Logical society....I don't even know if we should; "Feelings" and instinct seem pretty important to a lot of people.


----------



## cheekyjez (Oct 27, 2009)

escapist said:


> Not sure where the subservient part comes in cause sexual desire and impulses do not belong only to men.


I'm speaking about evo psych theories in general here. The difference is that men have historically had greater opportunities to ACT on their whims - initially through brute force and later through societal pressures (if women aren't allowed to leave the home, they're less able to have affairs). 


escapist said:


> Not sure what your statement about life expectancy has to do with anything just cause we live longer there is no evidence to suggest it changes some of instincts.


You're mixing up cause and effect. I'm not saying "We live longer, so we shouldn't do that (or want to)" - I'm saying "Not doing that makes us live longer."
Evo psych says "Doing X gave our ancestors an advantage, and* hence we should also do it*." My point is that if we lived like our ancestors, our lives would be short and miserable. Current behaviors (such as cooking our food instead of eating it raw) are MORE advantageous than what our ancestors did, so fetishizing cavemen as "evolutionary winners" is incredibly wrongheaded.


escapist said:


> In truth it only suggest that one should take more time and consideration when putting thought into relationships. However, there will always be people who just act and live almost purely on "feeling" or instinct. As a people I don't know if we will ever make it to a Logical society....I don't even know if we should; "Feelings" and instinct seem pretty important to a lot of people.


Would a logical society be one where we're assigned a breeding partner by matching algorithm? I don't think anyone's suggesting that. Most of us have or want relationships because they make us happy.


----------



## escapist (Oct 27, 2009)

cheekyjez said:


> I'm speaking about evo psych theories in general here. The difference is that men have historically had greater opportunities to ACT on their whims - initially through brute force and later through societal pressures (if women aren't allowed to leave the home, they're less able to have affairs).



Hey brute force isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes a little hair-pulling and forcefulness goes a LONG ways, and OMG do I thank our ancestors for that.



cheekyjez said:


> You're mixing up cause and effect. I'm not saying "We live longer, so we shouldn't do that (or want to)" - I'm saying "Not doing that makes us live longer."
> Evo psych says "Doing X gave our ancestors an advantage, and* hence we should also do it*." My point is that if we lived like our ancestors, our lives would be short and miserable. Current behaviors (such as cooking our food instead of eating it raw) are MORE advantageous than what our ancestors did, so fetishizing cavemen as "evolutionary winners" is incredibly wrongheaded.



Interesting I opinion and I just disagree.



cheekyjez said:


> Would a logical society be one where we're assigned a breeding partner by matching algorithm? I don't think anyone's suggesting that. Most of us have or want relationships because they make us happy.



I just love Star Trek, and on that note: "Live long and prosper".


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 27, 2009)

escapist said:


> Hey brute force isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes a little hair-pulling and forcefulness goes a LONG ways, and OMG do I thank our ancestors for that.




Wait ... what?

Do I really even want clarification? Probably not, considering that I'm cringing while typing the request for it.


----------



## chicken legs (Oct 27, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Wait ... what?
> 
> Do I really even want clarification? Probably not, considering that I'm cringing while typing the request for it.



If you really want clarification...just PM me

Or you can just google passionate love making.


----------



## CleverBomb (Oct 28, 2009)

cheekyjez said:


> Evo psych is such crap. You can come up with a "this behavior was beneficial for our ancestors" explanation for ANYTHING, and most of the theories end "and THAT'S why women should be subservient to men."
> 
> Aside from the previously mentioned point about how most of us have the ability to think about our actions rather than being purely impulsive, our early human ancestors had a life expectancy of about 35. Do we REALLY want that?


...and just because it "worked" centuries or millenia ago, doesn't mean it has any bearing on contemporary society. 
(Insert obsolete, deplorable social situation of your choice here)

-Rusty


----------



## escapist (Oct 28, 2009)

CleverBomb said:


> ...and just because it "worked" centuries or millenia ago, doesn't mean it has any bearing on contemporary society.
> (Insert obsolete, deplorable social situation of your choice here)
> 
> -Rusty



Exactly what "it" are you referring too?


----------



## CleverBomb (Oct 28, 2009)

escapist said:


> Exactly what "it" are you referring too?


The stereotypes and role-typing that evo-psych is often used to support.

-Rusty


----------



## escapist (Oct 28, 2009)

CleverBomb said:


> The stereotypes and role-typing that evo-psych is often used to support.
> 
> -Rusty



Oh I get ya, like how we have the genetic markers for defense against human forms of mad cow disease its almost a definite that we were cannibals in the past. And you guys are saying just cause we were cannibals in the past for whatever reason we shouldn't be again.

Got ya....but go with me here for a moment...what if people are better tasting than a sweet meat or pork....mmmmm I could think of a few people I could have over for dinner 

Chicken Legs says, "Eeeeewwwwww"!

If I open up a BBQ and rib shop just don't ask me what the dinner special is lol.


----------



## chicken legs (Oct 28, 2009)

I have noticed when it comes to relationships there are a few basic qualities that will define a relationship. 

1. If you have a dominate or submissive personality
2. If you are a giver or taker
3. If your are a high energy or laid back person
4. Maturity level
5. The ability to adapt an be flexable

So basically ..having some clue as to who You are and what you want and expect in a relationship and clearly understanding the object of your desire will define your relationship.

If you look at someone with rose colored glasses and you have a delusional view of yourself....you will never be happy..much less content.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 28, 2009)

chicken legs said:


> If you really want clarification...just PM me
> 
> Or you can just google passionate love making.



Wait ... what?

Why would I PM you, when you aren't the person who said it? 

Didn't seem to be about passionate lovemaking to me, at least not in the context in which it was offered. If so, then great! As long as I'm the one doing the clubbing and the hair pulling, that is. Wouldn't want to give these damn uppity men any hint of a suggestion of the upper hand


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 28, 2009)

escapist said:


> Hey brute force isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes a little hair-pulling and forcefulness goes a LONG ways, and OMG do I thank our ancestors for that.






TraciJo67 said:


> Wait ... what?
> 
> Do I really even want clarification? Probably not, considering that I'm cringing while typing the request for it.





chicken legs said:


> If you really want clarification...just PM me
> 
> Or you can just google passionate love making.





TraciJo67 said:


> Wait ... what?
> 
> Why would I PM you, when you aren't the person who said it?
> 
> Didn't seem to be about passionate lovemaking to me, at least not in the context in which it was offered. If so, then great! As long as I'm the one doing the clubbing and the hair pulling, that is. Wouldn't want to give these damn uppity men any hint of a suggestion of the upper hand



ROFLMAO!!! This one wins the prize for too much and too little information all at the same time!! Escapist and chicken legs I'm giving you both Rep for this and trust me TraciJo, you do NOT want to know.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 28, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> ROFLMAO!!! This one wins the prize for too much and too little information all at the same time!! Escapist and chicken legs I'm giving you both Rep for this and trust me TraciJo, you do NOT want to know.



oooooh ... I'm starting to get the impression that Escapist and Chicken Legs are ... involved.

::: tiptoes around looking frantically for an exit, any exit, where the bloody @#$%! is the $#@% exit??? :::

Carry on :bow:


----------



## RobitusinZ (Oct 28, 2009)

chicken legs said:


> I have noticed when it comes to relationships there are a few basic qualities that will define a relationship.
> 
> 1. If you have a dominate or submissive personality
> 2. If you are a giver or taker
> ...



I gotta say, there's a metric f'-ton of wisdom in this one simple post.

I can sum up my marriage by saying that I didn't become truly happy until I axed all of my expectations and brought them back down to the level of the flesh-n'-blood person I married. Even the most laid back of people can have some ridiculously skewed perspectives on things, and not having your expectations met is a grinding, frustrating experience if you aren't willing to bend.

One quick addition, though..."energy level" becomes a hideously important issue once kids become involved. Especially when it comes to a fat guy (me) and a limber, athletic, ex-dancer (my wife). "Baby, let's take the kids to the zoo?" "Bitch, you crazy? It's like 104 degrees, the zoo's like 20 miles away, the little one's a pain in the ass to take anywhere, aside from the fact that she's potty-training, and even if I dump 2 tons of talc between my thighs, I'll still be frying bacon by the time we hit the elephant pen. In other words...PASS!" *wife goes crazy, everybody dies*


----------



## escapist (Oct 28, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> ROFLMAO!!! This one wins the prize for too much and too little information all at the same time!! Escapist and chicken legs I'm giving you both Rep for this and trust me TraciJo, you do NOT want to know.





TraciJo67 said:


> oooooh ... I'm starting to get the impression that Escapist and Chicken Legs are ... involved.
> 
> ::: tiptoes around looking frantically for an exit, any exit, where the bloody @#$%! is the $#@% exit??? :::
> 
> Carry on :bow:



LOL OMG, hehehehe, uhhhh, yeah, we are  ...been together almost a year now.



chicken legs said:


> I have noticed when it comes to relationships there are a few basic qualities that will define a relationship.
> 
> 1. If you have a dominate or submissive personality
> 2. If you are a giver or taker
> ...



She has that little list for good reason too. We very different in some ways and very alike in others. We have both been in very ridged controlling unhealthy relationships and now we take great care with the relationship we are in now. There is not only a lot of openness in who and how we choose to be, but there is also a deep appreciation for the love so deeply and freely given.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 28, 2009)

escapist said:


> LOL OMG, hehehehe, uhhhh, yeah, we are  ...been together almost a year now.



Sorry, escapist & chicken legs ... nothing personal. I just don't follow board relationships very well. They don't really interest me. Not as much as, say, foodee confessions do


----------



## escapist (Oct 28, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Sorry, escapist & chicken legs ... nothing personal. I just don't follow board relationships very well. They don't really interest me. Not as much as, say, foodee confessions do



Its cool, I'm sure we don't spread it around much other than maybe in the BHM/FFA Forum which is kinda where it belongs anyways. Its funny how these sub forums kinda have there own identity and community.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 28, 2009)

escapist said:


> Its cool, I'm sure we don't spread it around much other than maybe in the BHM/FFA Forum which is kinda where it belongs anyways. Its funny how these sub forums kinda have there own identity and community.



Unfortunately I must have repped chicken legs someplace else earlier because I can't now.


----------



## Victim (Oct 28, 2009)

The only reason being poly would put off a potential partner is if it wasn't made known at a time in the relationship when it should have been. 

Some people would be rather put off if they opened a Snickers wrapper only to find a Three Musketeers bar. Then again, others would just eat it anyway because they want candy and don't really care what kind it is. 

Find out what kind of candy someone likes before offering them yours, and they will be much more likely to accept it, even if they haven't tried it before. They might just like candy, or they could be allergic to what you tried to give them.


----------



## RobitusinZ (Oct 28, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> 3. the men I have met want to go to bed with me and since I am unable to separate love from sex I dont engage in such foolishness. And if they are happy with it go ahead and live the life but dont tell me you are committed to that person and you are having a open relationship. when two people are in that type of relationship, it is nothing more than friends with benefits in my eyes..or a roommate with benefits. I am not the only one who feels this way folks like I said, I am more vocal.



Sorry, guess I should've applied the "TLDR" to the first reply I made to this thread because I just jumped in with a random comment without really knowing what the discussion was about. However, since I found this nugget, I wanted to comment.

I'm in an open marriage. I love my wife to the extreme - hey, she pisses me off plenty, it's no bowl of cherries. To us, our relationship is way more than the pieces of meat dangling between our thighs. We have an entire LIFE together. We've chosen to create children and raise them together. We have a home together. My career successes, I share with her. Our vacations, we take together. This is, without a doubt, my #1 partner, the person around whom my entire day and life revolves.

But...

We like sex.

A lot of it.

Often.

Fucking is fucking great.

So, you're saying that because my wife and I enjoy exploring sex, enjoy sexually knowing others, the rest of our relationship is invalid?

Man...please.

I really don't know nor understand gay relationships. And maybe your point of view is colored by the fact that we're talking about apples and oranges. But dude, a relationship involves SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more than just sex. I really hope that's something you learn someday.


----------



## tankgirl (Oct 28, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> I really don't know nor understand gay relationships. And maybe your point of view is colored by the fact that we're talking about apples and oranges.


 
As one of the bisexual people here, I feel somewhat obligated to observe that it's much the same thing... Failing the concept that love is love, no matter the skins the participants wear... I'd like to suggest that lust is lust, and mostly for the same reasons. Heh. The major difference is in the plumbing.



> But dude, a relationship involves SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more than just sex. I really hope that's something you learn someday.


 
But it's such a nice part of a relationship. *snigger*
But no. There's no way it could be the only part. If it was, you'd be like me, and hate yourself for tying your life up in such a Gordian knot.


----------



## escapist (Oct 28, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Unfortunately I must have repped chicken legs someplace else earlier because I can't now.



Its cool I'll enjoy the rep for both of us  :happy:



RobitusinZ said:


> I'm in an open marriage. I love my wife to the extreme - hey, she pisses me off plenty, it's no bowl of cherries. To us, our relationship is way more than the pieces of meat dangling between our thighs. We have an entire LIFE together. We've chosen to create children and raise them together. We have a home together. My career successes, I share with her. Our vacations, we take together. This is, without a doubt, my #1 partner, the person around whom my entire day and life revolves.



Yeah that was kind of my point in the entire thing. It might not work for him or others, but there are plenty whom find it a happy and healthy way to live. I know people (men and women alike) who dream of things like polygamy being legal so they can live life the way they choose without the government telling them how they can live and love. Unfortunately the media has a way of glorifying anything negative and making it the stereotypical view of such things.

I'll just speak for myself here right now and say, it wasn't my idea to have more than one woman in my life. I was actually against the idea for some time until I finally decided I would try it. It wasn't till I started engaging in a multiple partner lifestyle that I found myself still in a loving and wonderful relationship.


----------



## escapist (Oct 28, 2009)

To avoid any confusion I should state that at this exact moment I do not have more than 1 girlfriend.


----------



## stldpn (Oct 29, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> Sorry, guess I should've applied the "TLDR" to the first reply I made to this thread because I just jumped in with a random comment without really knowing what the discussion was about. However, since I found this nugget, I wanted to comment.
> 
> I'm in an open marriage. I love my wife to the extreme - hey, she pisses me off plenty, it's no bowl of cherries. To us, our relationship is way more than the pieces of meat dangling between our thighs. We have an entire LIFE together. We've chosen to create children and raise them together. We have a home together. My career successes, I share with her. Our vacations, we take together. This is, without a doubt, my #1 partner, the person around whom my entire day and life revolves.
> 
> ...



Relationships are about intimacy. If you can seperate sex from intimacy that's fine, but I don't think the fact that likeitmatters has a difficult time doing the same makes him a horrible closeminded person.

I'm making some big assumptions but given the fact that likeitmatters is older and gay I'm thinking he may have another totally different set of reasons why intimacy became important to him in the first place. Gay in the south in the late eighties and early nineties was a scary thing to be. Homosexual men in the seventies and early eighties were in general anything but monogamous. If you watched a friend die because he or his boyfriend indulged their momentary sexual needs with the wrong person in a metro bathhouse or a truck stop, safe sex and monogamy took on a whole new importance.

Disease may not be the only reason why a lot of gays changed their mind about monogamy but it was one of them. Watching an entire social circle die out because you all had one or two common sexual partner would certainly make me rethink the idea that I wasn't hurting anyone.

Just as someone who practiced as a primary care provider, if you told me that you were a safe sex swinger, I'd remind you just how ineffective condoms are with herpes and hpv. Statistically they both have alarmingly high infection rates in the teen and young adult population. Why? unmarried twenty somethings and teens tend to have more than one partner.


----------



## RobitusinZ (Oct 29, 2009)

I did mention that I don't know how to view this topic from LIM's perspective, and that I'm likely discussing my apples against his oranges. However, I didn't call him close-minded. I'm really not advocating the swinger lifestyle. It's not for everyone, and I understand that it's not "normal". It's one of those things that's an alternative lifestyle choice, but it still doesn't put my relationship lower than anyone else's.

As far as STDs, it's funny that "swinger" implies rampant promiscuity. You can still be "open" or be a "swinger" and retain your personal standards. At the height of our participation in the lifestyle, I slept with 3 women in a 1 year period. On average, we'll swing about once a year, after finding the right people, engaging them...well, like a courting, really. Most of the fun is the "hunt"...getting to know new people, seducing them, etc. Even during our "club" days when we'd actually go to the clubs, we pretty much kept things to a well-knit group.

So, no, it's not a crazy, "fuck everything that walks" lifestyle. People are still "normal" human beings with their own insecurities and issues. Regardless of how kinky someone is, it's rare to find people who just jump you, spread their thighs and start having wanton sex. Just cuz you go to a swing club doesn't mean you jump into the orgy room and stick something in the nearest hole.

I guess, think of it this way...if I got divorced right now, I would eventually have to date. I'd date a woman, have sex, and if it worked out = relationship, if not = move along. Being open or swinging is the exact same thing, except that instead of a romantic relationship, you get a friendship relationship.


----------



## stldpn (Oct 29, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> As far as STDs, it's funny that "swinger" implies rampant promiscuity. You can still be "open" or be a "swinger" and retain your personal standards. At the height of our participation in the lifestyle, I slept with 3 women in a 1 year period. On average, we'll swing about once a year, after finding the right people, engaging them...well, like a courting, really. Most of the fun is the "hunt"...getting to know new people, seducing them, etc. Even during our "club" days when we'd actually go to the clubs, we pretty much kept things to a well-knit group..



See and that's where people lose their sense of the mathematical information... let's be honest you had sex with three women in a year yes? and were these women non-swingers... puritanical virgins of some sort? if they'd had at minimum only two other partners that year that means you've exposed yourself to the pathogens of seven people and that's within a year. I myself will admit to exposing myself personally to up to five people in my lifetime and that means that I may have exposed myself to the pathogens of nearly 31 people in my life total. If you've been as responsible as you claim I'm sure you've seen this chart I'm enclosing on a wall somewhere.

I'm not suggesting that the swingers lifestyle is completely careless but I'm telling you it's not one without it's own distinct risks. Whether you choose to blow them off, play against the odds, whatever... that's not my problem. My point is you don't have to "fuck everything that walks" to get something nasty that can't be treated with a doubleshot of antibiotics. 

And let's be honest about this, just because you can speak for yourself, doesn't mean you can speak for all your partners. Knowing someone for a few months, is not the same as knowing them for five years. I've known some very decent people who have taken some pretty ridiculous risks with their sexual health. Mostly it's because it's difficult to visualize 127 people in a room when you're fucking one person.



RobitusinZ said:


> So, no, it's not a crazy, "fuck everything that walks" lifestyle. People are still "normal" human beings with their own insecurities and issues. Regardless of how kinky someone is, it's rare to find people who just jump you, spread their thighs and start having wanton sex. Just cuz you go to a swing club doesn't mean you jump into the orgy room and stick something in the nearest hole.
> 
> I guess, think of it this way...if I got divorced right now, I would eventually have to date. I'd date a woman, have sex, and if it worked out = relationship, if not = move along. Being open or swinging is the exact same thing, except that instead of a romantic relationship, you get a friendship relationship.



This last statement is precisely why I'm telling you it's dangerous. In a swinging relationship people are more likely to live with a false sense of security. If you fuck like a teenager moving from partner to partner every six months, you're more likely to spread something like hpv without even knowing where you got it. Adults in monogamous relationships are not likely to expose themself to 15 people a year but swingers are. 

View attachment 1204577586.jpg


----------



## katorade (Oct 29, 2009)

stldpn said:


> This last statement is precisely why I'm telling you it's dangerous. In a swinging relationship people are more likely to live with a false sense of security. If you fuck like a teenager moving from partner to partner every six months, you're more likely to spread something like hpv without even knowing where you got it. Adults in monogamous relationships are not likely to expose themself to 15 people a year but swingers are.



It's also worth putting out there that MOST people have or have had HPV by the time they hit 25. Typically, men don't even know they have it until they found out vicariously from a partner who got tested and was positive, even men who get tested because it can be incredibly hard to detect and throws many a false negative. Fortunately most strains are relatively harmless, but it's not exactly like guessing which chocolate in the box is coconut.


----------



## RobitusinZ (Oct 29, 2009)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I understand the health risks. I'm definitely the type to do one thing and then tell everyone else not to do it. Swinging isn't safe. Heck, sex in general isn't safe.

But, as adults, we can make choices. I would rather live to be 40 and have a wonderful, sex-filled life, than live to 80 while being boring and monogamous. I'm incredibly selfish and self-centered, I really am. 

We do our part to stay clean. We get checked routinely. We put a limit on our activity. We try to stay away from the more "porno" people. We try to keep things as close to "normal" as possible....if we were single, we would meet people, court them for a while, and let a relationship develop, we know how to do that. If THAT is going to lead to an STD...well, fuck it...what can you do?

It's difficult to explain how it all works without writing a book detailing my experiences, but up to now, we haven't had any issues with STDs, and don't plan on having any. I don't feel more exposed to diseases than any other normal guy my age.


----------



## stldpn (Oct 30, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you. I understand the health risks. I'm definitely the type to do one thing and then tell everyone else not to do it. Swinging isn't safe. Heck, sex in general isn't safe.
> 
> But, as adults, we can make choices. I would rather live to be 40 and have a wonderful, sex-filled life, than live to 80 while being boring and monogamous. I'm incredibly selfish and self-centered, I really am.
> 
> ...



No offense but you don't need to explain how swinging or polyamory works to me to help me understand more about why it's not for me. I've watched family members and friends who were into the novelty of it long enough to know that 99% of the time it's not really a way to "grow with" your partner. Add to that the fact that I've never seen a couple put on a unified front when it comes to the decision of when to stop swinging, and I just don't think it's worth the risk of losing a relationship that would benefit more from a solid working commitment to monogamy. Because let's face it monogamy is work, and while it may not have the short term yeilds of polyamory, it ends up being a more solid investment in the long run.

When you add to that the fact that I might expose someone I love to something deadly just because a warm wind blew my barn door open it all seems very trite. You may not feel that you're more exposed but I've already put the information in front of you that contradicts that assumption on your part. The reality is this is not quite as harmless of a guilty pleasure as eating red meat.

People get testy when you tell them that monogamy is good for society... they start trying to poke holes and tell you that polyamory has been around for a long time in several cultures and none of those cultures seemed to suffer etc etc... To that I can only ask one question... if polyamory is so beneficial to a culture's success, how is it that only two G20 nation have laws on the books to protect polygamy?


----------



## RobitusinZ (Oct 30, 2009)

1) Don't wanna tell you how swinging works. It's simple. What I was trying to explain is that there's more to my life than swinging.

2) You seem to think that the existence of swinging negates the relationship two people have with each other. I disagree.

3) I don't believe in polyamory. I have a life with one person. Our "poly" activities only revolve around sex.

4) I believe monogamy is DEFINITELY good for society. Hence why every control structure set up in any community has always included monogamy...government, religion, social stigma, etc.

5) Hey dude, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I personally think everyone should just live how they want and stop messing with other people. When people start to speak up about things they don't know about, then I see it as my duty to educate them a little bit. I don't want anyone walking away from this thread thinking, "Wow, swinging is awesome, and I want to live in an open relationship too!". However, I would like them to walk away going, "Eh...no big deal...it's just not for me."


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 30, 2009)

I wonder how many people who died back in the day from 80's used common sense when they were out playing with so many people? When I found out I stopped right then and there and maybe had a date with someone after knowing them further.

I would rather stay alive than have the next tube steak in my mouth or my butt (sorry) and I am often laughed at or people do not wish to speak to me because of my beliefs but I rejoice in the fact that I am a survivor of the 80's and so on and part of does not feel sorry for the ones that get infected now. I am truly sorry I feel this way but where does common sense come into play?

:bow:


----------



## stldpn (Oct 30, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> I wonder how many people who died back in the day from 80's used common sense when they were out playing with so many people? When I found out I stopped right then and there and maybe had a date with someone after knowing them further.
> 
> I would rather stay alive than have the next tube steak in my mouth or my butt (sorry) and I am often laughed at or people do not wish to speak to me because of my beliefs but I rejoice in the fact that I am a survivor of the 80's and so on and part of does not feel sorry for the ones that get infected now. I am truly sorry I feel this way but where does common sense come into play?
> 
> :bow:


I feel bad for teenagers actually. We've really let them down, we've taught them that a piece of rubber is a substitute for being smart and protecting themself properly. When it comes to adults well, they're adults and they can choose to engage in that sort of thing if they like. But you know, I admit to thinking a lot less of them when they try to pretend they're being responsible with their sexuality with a little piece of rubber. We don't level with them fully, or attempt to put the risks of infection in more personal terms. ie. What if you meet someone and think they're great, but you know you'll have to explain your herpes to them?


----------



## cheekyjez (Oct 30, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> 3) I don't believe in polyamory. I have a life with one person. Our "poly" activities only revolve around sex.



The word "believe" has a lot of conotations so I want to check - when you say you don't believe in polyamory, do you mean for yourself or for the world?


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 31, 2009)

stldpn said:


> I feel bad for teenagers actually. We've really let them down, we've taught them that a piece of rubber is a substitute for being smart and protecting themself properly. When it comes to adults well, they're adults and they can choose to engage in that sort of thing if they like. But you know, I admit to thinking a lot less of them when they try to pretend they're being responsible with their sexuality with a little piece of rubber. We don't level with them fully, or attempt to put the risks of infection in more personal terms. ie. What if you meet someone and think they're great, but you know you'll have to explain your herpes to them?



Lucky me I have never had that either or any form of std's and I feel blessed in that I can hold my head high and tell people proudly that I am Drug/Disease free. But you are right, the kids today are clueless for the most part. The flatly refuse to listen to adults for the most part and they are getting infected and some are having children and the tax payers are paying for it. (I feel the govt should not give any financial support to anyone who has a child under 21) unless they are married. but that is another topic for another day. Kids seem to think that bit of rubber will keep them from getting a disease and they are so wrong because it could possibly break and then what? Another one that needs to have a red letter on their forehead....

:bow:


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 31, 2009)

What's happening here is that the topic is slowly veering off the subject of whether open relationships or similar are valid, and more towards pointing out the dangers of unprotected sex and STDs which people of course associate with having sex with more than one person.

STDs are a danger to anybody who has sex, they are just more of an issue for people who have sex with multiple people. You can pipe on all day long about how maintaining a monogamous relationship protects you (providing your partner is as honest as you think they are) but in reality, that isn't what this is about, and to let it take such precedence in this discussion shows a lack of understanding on behalf of the people who condemn having sex with more than one person concurrently.

Likeitmatters. Your past partner, from what I've gathered, cheated on you. That means he was sleeping with other people. Were you protected then? You can have all the trust in the world but it counts for nothing if the trust is misplaced, or your judgement isn't sound. Hopefully, even though you only have one bed partner at any given time, you still use protection when you're having sex, else an incident like that - should such a thing occur again - may mean you end up with that which you've managed to avoid for so long.

All this crap about no sex before marriage is archaic. Marriage doesn't count for anything these days if the divorce rate is anything to go by and it's got nothing to do with this topic. Being married doesn't make you any more trustworthy, any more intelligent or any more hardy to an STD if you encounter someone with one.

All this shows that it's a human issue. It's not about how many people you sleep with, or what type of protection you use. It's about being educated, about knowing a person and about not being a fucking idiot. I don't condone any kind of unsafe sex between anybody. It doesn't matter if they're 15 or 55, man or woman, gay, straight or anything in between. It's about being smart, honest and knowing what you're doing. If you can't tick all of those boxes then the best type of sex to have is sex with yourself and nobody else.


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 31, 2009)

Likeitmatters. Your past partner, from what I've gathered, cheated on you. That means he was sleeping with other people. Were you protected then? You can have all the trust in the world but it counts for nothing if the trust is misplaced, or your judgement isn't sound. Hopefully, even though you only have one bed partner at any given time, you still use protection when you're having sex, else an incident like that - should such a thing occur again - may mean you end up with that which you've managed to avoid for so long.

when I found out he cheated on me, sex stopped completely and eventually he moved out....sorry but I do not feel I was worthy of such a fine human being and if I am not able to satisfy your urges...I told him to find it somewhere else.

thanks for asking


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 31, 2009)

I do not have sex for at least a few months till I get to know them and I check them out with my friends who may know him...and I ask questions...lots of questions. and then we go for blood tests...lucky for me, he was just tested before he met me and showed the documents...

:bow:


----------



## likeitmatters (Oct 31, 2009)

to me he was the perfect man and a fine example of a partner any man can have and sorry about the picture quality and I had hair in those days..lol

and loyal as shit and we were like peas and carrots and together 24-7 for most of our relationship till he started getting sick and then we were still together with cellphones and text messages...

:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow: 

View attachment carland joseph.jpg


----------



## RobitusinZ (Oct 31, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> What's happening here is that the topic is slowly veering off the subject of whether open relationships or similar are valid, and more towards pointing out the dangers of unprotected sex and STDs which people of course associate with having sex with more than one person.



Basically, all the "points" that were made against open relationships were made moot, and this is pretty much the only thing left.

Look folks, being open doesn't mean you're a walking disease bucket. You're trying to compare an open relationship to a monogamous relationship, so of course the open relationship is more exposed to diseases. Why even bother using "polygamous" and "monogamous" then? It's easier just to say "people who have more sex" are more prone to infection than "people who have less sex".

I compare my open relationship against a normal, single person living a very routine life. You work 9-to-5, you meet people via friends, work, hobbies, or whatever other typical channels people use (i.e. NOT going through every Sexsite online looking for dates). Because, basically, if I couldn't be open, I wouldn't be married. I enjoy people, I don't like having artificial barriers between me and how close I can get to another person. So to me, the choice is either poly or single...and in either case, I will likely have as many sex partners. And I also go about it the same exact way - a friendship, courting, and sex.


----------



## RobitusinZ (Oct 31, 2009)

cheekyjez said:


> The word "believe" has a lot of conotations so I want to check - when you say you don't believe in polyamory, do you mean for yourself or for the world?



Don't worry, I'm not bashing polyamory. It exists, and I have no problems with it.

To me, polyamory implies a commited relationship with more than one person. I have traditional family values, and I feel that the best way to have a home and raise children is with a couple as the head of the household. If, for example, I was part of a trio, then my kids would start asking certain questions a little earlier than I feel appropriate. So that's pretty much it...for me, I like having my "anchor", my home, with my wife and my kids.

I don't even like the word "polygamy" because it also has relationship implications.

I'd just use "open" as the best adjective for my wife and I, or "swinger", but that word seems to imply that you have sex with anything and everything that moving.

LOL, someone should invent a term to describe a pretty typical couple who enjoy a wife-swap or threesome once a year or so. "Swinger-lite"?


----------



## stldpn (Oct 31, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> What's happening here is that the topic is slowly veering off the subject of whether open relationships or similar are valid, and more towards pointing out the dangers of unprotected sex and STDs which people of course associate with having sex with more than one person.
> 
> STDs are a danger to anybody who has sex, they are just more of an issue for people who have sex with multiple people. You can pipe on all day long about how maintaining a monogamous relationship protects you (providing your partner is as honest as you think they are) but in reality, that isn't what this is about, and to let it take such precedence in this discussion shows a lack of understanding on behalf of the people who condemn having sex with more than one person concurrently.
> .



Ok I'll tell you how I think STD's really relate. I have an issue with people who use sex solely as a means to feed their ego. 

Anybody who has sex can catch an std...true... but when you think about the people you know that have disclosed the fact that they have had crabs more than once... do you really believe any of them caught it from the toilet seat?

Even if you look at sex as just another bodily function... if you knew that a bunch of people were catching things off of toilet seats you'd want to crap at home in private right? The only reason you would purposefully go to a public toilet is because you don't really care, or you have no choice or your ego feeds off of the fact that you're flirting with danger. no matter what you're a danger to public health.


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Oct 31, 2009)

stldpn said:


> Ok I'll tell you how I think STD's really relate. I have an issue with people who use sex solely as a means to feed their ego.
> 
> Anybody who has sex can catch an std...true... but when you think about the people you know that have disclosed the fact that they have had crabs more than once... do you really believe any of them caught it from the toilet seat?
> 
> Even if you look at sex as just another bodily function... if you knew that a bunch of people were catching things off of toilet seats you'd want to crap at home in private right? The only reason you would purposefully go to a public toilet is because you don't really care, or you have no choice or your ego feeds off of the fact that you're flirting with danger. no matter what you're a danger to public health.



Your opinion is fine, but don't make the mistake of projecting your opinion onto people who have open relationships. If you do that, you're sidestepping the point and essentially suggesting that people who have sex with more than one person are doing it for their ego.

Have you ever been in love with someone and then, willingly, had consensual sex with another person in a situation that your partner was aware of? If so, then I think you'd realise it has nothing to do with ego when it comes to the majority.

Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of people who use it to make themselves feel better, more loved or more desirable but I think that is the exception as opposed to the rule. During my time in an open relationship, I have met men who have had sex with far more men than I ever have, and they are not in open relationships themselves. They are simply single and looking in some cases. People churn is very high in some individuals. The reasons don't always matter when it comes to discussing the end result. There are lots of reasons why any given person might have had a lot of bed partners, an open relationship just happens to be more of an honest one than a lot of them.

What you're suggesting is that I'm either stupid or that sleeping with other people is some ego trip for me. The way you phrase your opinion makes it sound very strong, so I doubt I'm going to change your mind. But, I will say, that I'd be very willing to allow you to talk to any person I've ever had sex with under the banner of my open relationship and let you make your own mind up based on their opinion of me. So confident am I that my "escapades" have nothing to do with my ego and everything to do with me and another person enjoying themselves.

The term "don't knock it until you've tried it" springs to mind, but in actuality, I would suggest that in this case, "don't knock it until you understand it", is more apt. Your comments suggest that you don't understand it, and that's fine because it's not something that everybody can 'get' or be comfortable with. Just don't set your decisions about people's motivations in stone unless you can see the whole picture.


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 1, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> Your opinion is fine, but don't make the mistake of projecting your opinion onto people who have open relationships. If you do that, you're sidestepping the point and essentially suggesting that people who have sex with more than one person are doing it for their ego.
> 
> Have you ever been in love with someone and then, willingly, had consensual sex with another person in a situation that your partner was aware of? If so, then I think you'd realise it has nothing to do with ego when it comes to the majority.
> 
> ...



I can think of a term also that comes to mind.."sometimes the grass is not always greener on the other side". or happiness comes from within is another one.

and I am single, and do not sex have period. I cannot remember the last time I had any kind sex lustful or otherwise because I do not believe in that foolishness unless I am in a relationship. And also given the nature how people lie about their hiv status big time but I do not wish to continue to veer off course...

:bow:


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Nov 1, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> I can think of a term also that comes to mind.."sometimes the grass is not always greener on the other side". or happiness comes from within is another one.
> 
> and I am single, and do not sex have period. I cannot remember the last time I had any kind sex lustful or otherwise because I do not believe in that foolishness unless I am in a relationship. And also given the nature how people lie about their hiv status big time but I do not wish to continue to veer off course...
> 
> :bow:



Nobody's saying the grass is greener on the other side. But if you're going to make a point about you not having sex or experiencing lustful thoughts, then all you're doing is weakening your own argument.

If you're someone who doesn't have sex, period, and you're someone who considers "lustful" thoughts as foolish instead of what they, which is human nature, then you're not in a very good place to be judging people who have sex, let alone people who have sex regularly and with more than one individual.

That's like a blind person being a judge at a beauty pageant.

Furthermore, if happiness comes from within, then surely we make it for ourselves? If that is the case, one man's happiness will be another man's strife and that is exactly what this comes down to. What works for one person, does not for another. I would not be happy in a relationship where I didn't have some sexual freedom. But that doesn't mean I don't see the value in monogamy, or understand many other people prefer it. Again, this is coming back to the whole thing about you not liking what you don't understand. A concept that you don't seem to be able to get your head around.


----------



## stldpn (Nov 1, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> Your opinion is fine, but don't make the mistake of projecting your opinion onto people who have open relationships. If you do that, you're sidestepping the point and essentially suggesting that people who have sex with more than one person are doing it for their ego.
> 
> Have you ever been in love with someone and then, willingly, had consensual sex with another person in a situation that your partner was aware of? If so, then I think you'd realise it has nothing to do with ego when it comes to the majority.
> 
> ...



Yes actually my opinion is strong and yeah you are unlikely to change it. I have my reasons and some of them may not seem pertinent to you but they are the product of living the life I've led personally and professionally for ten years now. I'll admit to you that I wasn't always so decisive on this point but the bottom line is I am now. I don't believe that responsible emotionally mature adults enter into open relationships in this day and age. It doesn't take a boatload of insight to understand why someone would want to do what you apparently do, the fact that you'd like to see it glorified/vindicated/recognized as a new and unique kind of life experience is bull. It's not new, it's not really even all that unique among predatory mammals, and there are established viable reasons why society doesn't encourage it.

I'll concede to only understanding open relationships from the outside. I've seen my mother in them. My uncle lost his family because he couldn't live without one. I've watched friends, neighbors and fellow gymrats struggle with them. I'm not the type of person that has to step in shit to know what the texture will be like. I've simply never seen anything of any value come out of that kind of unrepentant debauchery. You say don't knock it til you understand it... I say what I understand about your lifestyle is that it has a tendancy to spread disease.


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Nov 1, 2009)

stldpn said:


> Yes actually my opinion is strong and yeah you are unlikely to change it. I have my reasons and some of them may not seem pertinent to you but they are the product of living the life I've led personally and professionally for ten years now. I'll admit to you that I wasn't always so decisive on this point but the bottom line is I am now. I don't believe that responsible emotionally mature adults enter into open relationships in this day and age. It doesn't take a boatload of insight to understand why someone would want to do what you apparently do, the fact that you'd like to see it glorified/vindicated/recognized as a new and unique kind of life experience is bull. It's not new, it's not really even all that unique among predatory mammals, and there are established viable reasons why society doesn't encourage it.
> 
> I'll concede to only understanding open relationships from the outside. I've seen my mother in them. My uncle lost his family because he couldn't live without one. I've watched friends, neighbors and fellow gymrats struggle with them. I'm not the type of person that has to step in shit to know what the texture will be like. I've simply never seen anything of any value come out of that kind of unrepentant debauchery. You say don't knock it til you understand it... I say what I understand about your lifestyle is that it has a tendancy to spread disease.



Yeah, it spreads disease, even though I'm disease free and I'm regularly tested and I make a point of ensuring I'm safe in what I do.

While we're at it, let's also just concede to a few other stereotypes. You're a man, so that's why you're strong and bullish in your opinions. There are a lot of people who are fat here, and they're all lazy and I'm gay, so I'm obviously a complete queen who minces around with a handbag. Happy now?

You might not have to step in shit to know it's texture, but you need glasses, because that shit you can see? It's just mud...


----------



## stldpn (Nov 1, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> Yeah, it spreads disease, even though I'm disease free and I'm regularly tested and I make a point of ensuring I'm safe in what I do.
> 
> While we're at it, let's also just concede to a few other stereotypes. You're a man, so that's why you're strong and bullish in your opinions. There are a lot of people who are fat here, and they're all lazy and I'm gay, so I'm obviously a complete queen who minces around with a handbag. Happy now?
> 
> You might not have to step in shit to know it's texture, but you need glasses, because that shit you can see? It's just mud...



fantastic... so now you're trying to apply the stereotype that I'm some sort of typical hetero male... I can hear likeitmatters snickering right now... I'm not going to explain my situation publicly to you mostly because who I am is less important than what i stand for. I will say though that while I've not agreed with anything you've written so far i've tried not to pigeonhole you as some sort of prisspot diva. 

I will tell you that I've spent a few years working on the farm, and I'm pretty sure I know horse apples when I see them.


----------



## chubloverUK86 (Nov 2, 2009)

stldpn said:


> fantastic... so now you're trying to apply the stereotype that I'm some sort of typical hetero male... I can hear likeitmatters snickering right now... I'm not going to explain my situation publicly to you mostly because who I am is less important than what i stand for. I will say though that while I've not agreed with anything you've written so far i've tried not to pigeonhole you as some sort of prisspot diva.
> 
> I will tell you that I've spent a few years working on the farm, and I'm pretty sure I know horse apples when I see them.



Hey, if you can apply a stereotype that makes me sound like I'm some filthy disease-ridden whore on an ego trip, I can sure as hell tell you you're bullish. I mean, I deserve that at least.

Nobody is asking you justify yourself as a person, but if you're going to openly make comments towards my preferred lifestyle which, as far as I'm concerned has been harmless to all those I've met and actually quite positive, then perhaps some justification is in order? You can use figures and statistics all you want, but like I said, this is something on a personal level and it is personal to the people doing it.

If anything, I'm not asking you to change your mind or even agree with me, but some of the things you've said are beyond opinion and are instead just insulting to people like me. What I don't like about it is that you've said these things almost trying to be offensive; it's not just about flipping your two cents into the pot. But whatever.

I don't think anyone is snickering though; least of all that person. He doesn't 'get' irony.


----------



## stldpn (Nov 2, 2009)

chubloverUK86 said:


> Hey, if you can apply a stereotype that makes me sound like I'm some filthy disease-ridden whore on an ego trip, I can sure as hell tell you you're bullish. I mean, I deserve that at least.
> 
> Nobody is asking you justify yourself as a person, but if you're going to openly make comments towards my preferred lifestyle which, as far as I'm concerned has been harmless to all those I've met and actually quite positive, then perhaps some justification is in order? You can use figures and statistics all you want, but like I said, this is something on a personal level and it is personal to the people doing it.
> 
> ...



I think he understands the irony a bit better than you do... Especially since you're now painting yourself in as a queer martyr being bullied by some big mean heterosexual... I'm all for being socially progressive... but if you're looking for me to coddle you concerning your blatant disregard for your own health... well I won't... you've chosen to throw your hat in on a hot button issue with which you feel personally vested. You're perfectly free to keep on living just as you were before, you never needed my permission for that. But I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you're doing a great thing or that you're a responsible person for doing it because i just don't believe it. If you feel recused perhaps it's because deep down you know there's plenty of validity in what I'm saying. 

I'm not asking you to join a religious cult or accept something that isn't 100% backed up by medical research, and scientific understanding. So don't sit around thinking I'm the only stubborn person here.


----------



## Paquito (Nov 2, 2009)

Didn't really know what to quote, so I'm just gonna talk about open relationships.

Personally, I have no qualms with people being in open relationships, provided that both partners agree to the arrangement and are both still being fulfilled by the main relationship. Open relationships are not synonymous with being promiscious, and just because a couple is open does not mean that they are sex-driven whores that have to fuck everyone they see. That is such an overgeneralization that anyone who thinks that clearly has no ability for higher thinking. And while I don't think that a open relationship would be for me, I don't see it as an issue, provided that both partners are careful (but everyone with a sexual life should be careful anyway, monogamous or not).

And I find it very amusing that someone can basically call someone elses entire lifestyle dangerous, despite reassurances that the person is taking every precaution, and get mad when a stereotype is made about them. 

How. Amusing.


----------



## Melian (Nov 2, 2009)

free2beme04 said:


> And I find it very amusing that someone can basically call someone elses entire lifestyle dangerous, despite reassurances that the person is taking every precaution, and get mad when a stereotype is made about them.
> 
> How. Amusing.




Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## RobitusinZ (Nov 2, 2009)

free2beme04 said:


> Didn't really know what to quote, so I'm just gonna talk about open relationships.
> 
> Personally, I have no qualms with people being in open relationships, provided that both partners agree to the arrangement and are both still being fulfilled by the main relationship. Open relationships are not synonymous with being promiscious, and just because a couple is open does not mean that they are sex-driven whores that have to fuck everyone they see. That is such an overgeneralization that anyone who thinks that clearly has no ability for higher thinking. And while I don't think that a open relationship would be for me, I don't see it as an issue, provided that both partners are careful (but everyone with a sexual life should be careful anyway, monogamous or not).
> 
> ...



That's why I quit this discussion. It got to the point where it isn't a discussion, it's just bait to a fight now. If it were a discussion, you'd read things like, "I see where you're coming from, but I'm me, you're you, and that's cool. Thanks for the quick peek into your life, though."


----------



## Tad (Nov 2, 2009)

Hey Robituzin--thanks for the quick peek into your life ;-)

More seriously, while the part of me that loves discovery reads about this sort of things and goes "wow, cool, imagine getting to know new people in that way possibly, how awesome!" another really big part, that loves building things, looks at is and wonders "but why would you take that energy from your primary relationship, especially for things that are just in passing?" 

So I don't think it would ever have been for me, not because I think there is anything wrong with it, but because I don't think I do well splitting my energy and focus, I'm just not good at that. But that is based on how I view it, waaaayyyyy off from the outside. How does it feel to you, from the inside? Is it hard to balance the discovery of a new partner with the relationship with your existing one? Or do those compliment each other for you in some way?


----------



## escapist (Nov 2, 2009)

Tad said:


> Hey Robituzin--thanks for the quick peek into your life ;-)
> 
> More seriously, while the part of me that loves discovery reads about this sort of things and goes "wow, cool, imagine getting to know new people in that way possibly, how awesome!" another really big part, that loves building things, looks at is and wonders "but why would you take that energy from your primary relationship, especially for things that are just in passing?"
> 
> So I don't think it would ever have been for me, not because I think there is anything wrong with it, but because I don't think I do well splitting my energy and focus, I'm just not good at that. But that is based on how I view it, waaaayyyyy off from the outside. How does it feel to you, from the inside? Is it hard to balance the discovery of a new partner with the relationship with your existing one? Or do those compliment each other for you in some way?



Bingo I agree this is the real important stuff of the topic to me. Time and energy. Some people do have more than others. Some partners require more than others. Its all just a very delicate balance. Personally I'm not good at giving my attention to more than one thing at one time, but when I do you tend to get my full attention. I have no problem telling someone to wait their turn so I can give them my best.


----------



## stldpn (Nov 3, 2009)

free2beme04 said:


> Didn't really know what to quote, so I'm just gonna talk about open relationships.
> 
> Personally, I have no qualms with people being in open relationships, provided that both partners agree to the arrangement and are both still being fulfilled by the main relationship. Open relationships are not synonymous with being promiscious, and just because a couple is open does not mean that they are sex-driven whores that have to fuck everyone they see. That is such an overgeneralization that anyone who thinks that clearly has no ability for higher thinking. And while I don't think that a open relationship would be for me, I don't see it as an issue, provided that both partners are careful (but everyone with a sexual life should be careful anyway, monogamous or not).
> 
> ...



Oh it's you again with your very amusing BS not having enough fun in the fat tub o lard thread? I have to admit I thought very hard about whether I wanted to disagree with you openly over there last week and i decided that it would be childish to post just to call you out on the irony of your posting here... but hey now that you've followed me...I think i'm going to put you on ignore because I don't see anything positive coming from the resulting posts...

But before I do... I'll just let ya know... if you think that someone in an open relationship is totally clean why don't you wear their secondhand underwear for a week and catch everything that a condom never will...

and just for the record... I didn't call anybody a whore I might have implied moronic self destructive tendancies but i never called anyone a whore... whores get paid clearly these people are amatures....


----------



## stldpn (Nov 3, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> That's why I quit this discussion. It got to the point where it isn't a discussion, it's just bait to a fight now. If it were a discussion, you'd read things like, "I see where you're coming from, but I'm me, you're you, and that's cool. Thanks for the quick peek into your life, though."



I like how everyone in here now has officially forced preconceptions. I like how everyone expects respect when they didn't genuinely offer it to the OP. 

You know people make mistakes, lots of them. And as much as everybody hates to hear it most of the things that we call national health crisis are a result of people taking a flippant attitude concerning personal care. For two years I worked with a boston area project to educate diabetics on the importance of maintaining an accurate glucose log and a proper diet. The problem is that most people only hear you after they've become insulin dependent. And by then, well, the permanent damage has already started and they are unlikely to ever break the cycle.

Watching that you can only develope an abject wonder at the width and breadth of things that people do thinking that they will be an exception to the rule. They never believe until they're about to lose a leg, and even then some of them still say they're going to continue eating, drinking and smoking the way they always have.

They're just people with all the foibulous trimmings, but that doesn't mean I like watching people run back into the burning building.


----------



## Melian (Nov 3, 2009)

stldpn said:


> But before I do... I'll just let ya know... if you think that someone in an open relationship is totally clean why don't you wear their secondhand underwear for a week and catch everything that a condom never will...




Are you for real?

Relax, it's just the internet.


----------



## Paquito (Nov 3, 2009)

stldpn said:


> Oh it's you again with your very amusing BS not having enough fun in the fat tub o lard thread? I have to admit I thought very hard about whether I wanted to disagree with you openly over there last week and i decided that it would be childish to post just to call you out on the irony of your posting here... but hey now that you've followed me...I think i'm going to put you on ignore because I don't see anything positive coming from the resulting posts...
> 
> But before I do... I'll just let ya know... if you think that someone in an open relationship is totally clean why don't you wear their secondhand underwear for a week and catch everything that a condom never will...
> 
> and just for the record... I didn't call anybody a whore I might have implied moronic self destructive tendancies but i never called anyone a whore... whores get paid clearly these people are amatures....



Trust me, there's nothing remotely interesting enough about you that I would actually follow you around these boards. Am I not allowed to post in the BHM boards now? Should I just scan each board from now on, and if I see your name on a recent post, to just go about my business and never post there again?

Seriously, this is a huge forum. Get off your damn pedestal and realize that. And when did I post on the "fat tub of lard...a compliment?" thread? Tsk tsk, if you're going to make accusations, make sure you have some proof to go with that.

And on a final note, I did not say that _every_ person in an open relationship is safe. But (and I'm going to use Robitusin as my example) if someone gets checked on a regular basis for STDs and other diseases and takes precautions that most people who are single and just dick around don't do, then yes, I'm going to trust that person.

It's my only regret that you won't get to see my super stalker post since I'm on ignore now.



AMUSING!


----------



## RobitusinZ (Nov 3, 2009)

Tad said:


> How does it feel to you, from the inside? Is it hard to balance the discovery of a new partner with the relationship with your existing one? Or do those compliment each other for you in some way?



Hiya Tad. 

That's a good question. For the most part, my wife and I play as a couple. So it becomes an exercise where we're both sharing with each other while we're sharing with others.

Let me put it this way...you've got friends, yes? Well, every once in a while, you go and visit your friends. You sit, converse, maybe share a dinner, watch a movie...and then you go home. The only difference for us is, that if the vibes are right, we could have some more adult entertainment later.

When we do play apart, we do it during the time when we'd be alone anyway. For example, Wednesday nights are mine, and Thursdays are hers. I have a standing D&D (Dungeons & Dragons) game on Wednesdays. She has a standing dance class that she attends on Thursdays. However, if I did meet someone and wanted to spend time with them, I'd cancel my D&D game and meet up with them instead. My wife would know about the schedule change, though we typically keep our playmates to ourselves and give each other privacy.

So, it's not a matter of neglect...it's a matter of scheduling. Earlier in the thread I posted on polyamory...the reason why we don't pursue polyamory is because it DOES take time to properly LOVE someone. I devote that time to my wife. I don't have time to devote to someone else in that fashion. But, I do have spare time to pursue my own hobbies and interests, so that's the time I spend with others.

And look, it's not the circus of f'-buddies at my house. How often does one make a new friend anyway? I haven't been with someone other than my wife in about 3 years. And I actually *HAVE* been looking for a while now. I personally refuse to meet with people who are cheating - what I do, I do honestly, so I expect the same - so that cuts down the number of people. LOL, single folks also have a hard time comprehending an open relationship, so they think that *I* am cheating, so that causes problems. Then, you've got the people who would prefer me be cheating than have it be open...the old, "Oh, I don't feel comfortable with your wife knowing about it.", which I still don't get.

Anyway...for a fat dude to find someone who's a) interesting and b) attractive, and who's up for a casual friendship with a little extra is pretty damn hard. I have been looking for dating sites, but even those are all phony anyway, so it all boils down to random luck. That's pretty much why the health risks aren't a HUGE issue with me...I play safe and infrequently, so I figure if I do catch a disease, oh well....I'm not pushing my luck by having bazillions of partners, but I'm not entirely safe by keeping monogamous. I play 1 lotto ticket a week and still haven't hit the lottery, so my 1 extramarital affair every so often shouldn't kill me.


----------



## JenFromOC (Nov 3, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> *I play safe and infrequently, so I figure if I do catch a disease, oh well*....I'm not pushing my luck by having bazillions of partners, but I'm not entirely safe by keeping monogamous. I play 1 lotto ticket a week and still haven't hit the lottery, so my 1 extramarital affair every so often shouldn't kill me.



Really? Thank you 8lb baby Jesus for Dims...just when I think this site couldn't get any better, it does. I laughed out loud and woke my baby up...and you know what? It was worth it. LOL Thank you, RobitusinZ.


----------



## stldpn (Nov 3, 2009)

Melian said:


> Are you for real?
> 
> Relax, it's just the internet.



I'll be the first one to say that it's " just the internet " but we're discussing an issue of public health that I have to say I feel pretty passionate about... It's the blaise oh it's ok cause I get tested attitude that causes everyone else to suffer later. Nonverbally Condoning this type of socially irresponsible behaviour is what caused the HIV outbreaks of the seventies... and while we've made strides.. we're certainly not where we should be.. 

the culture of promiscuity is dangerous for us in physical ways that we are able to understan statistically... for example in the UK 397,990 people were diagnosed with an STD in 2008... that was a six percent rise from 2007 half of the infections were in people under twenty five... people under twenty five only make up an eighth of the total population.

Genital herpes saw a twenty percent increase in diagnosis...Genital warts up seven percent... overall more than half of the newly reported cases were in teenagers 16-24... How would you explain that kind of rise in infection?

Isn't it reasonable to suggest that young people are simply attaching more and more casual attitudes toward sex and sexual experimentation? It wouldn't exactly be something we haven't seen before in say the seventies right before AIDs rendered a deadly wake up call? Do we really have to repeat history? Cause I'm sure now that we've more or less marginalized new infections of aids mother nature will find another bug for all of us to pass around and kill each other with.

PS As a side note I'm betting on a antibiotic immune strain of bacteria... Say syphilis or gonorrhea(btw the strains of gonorrhea now available at your local swingers club are now pretty much completely untreatable with Amoxicillin and Tetracycline which are basically our staple antibiotics) on steroids... I mean to me that would just be the ultimate schizzle you get the clap you go in and get two or three intramuscular injections that should clear it up and then you don't bother to go in for the follow up testing two months later and you spread your little supergerm for a good six months before someone comes back and confronts you about their burning sensation.


----------



## cheekyjez (Nov 4, 2009)

You seem to be making the following argument:

Kids are getting more STDs.

=>Therefore kids must be having more sex with more different partners.

=>They're all using condoms but getting diseases anyway, so condoms must not work.

Am I missing something?


----------



## escapist (Nov 4, 2009)

Melian said:


> Are you for real?
> 
> Relax, it's just the internet.



You mean the internet wont give me cooties? 

**starts to light some candles and unzip his pants**


----------



## RobitusinZ (Nov 4, 2009)

stldpn, I understand your concern over public health. For the typical single person, what do you feel their sexual lifestyle should be?


----------



## cheekyjez (Nov 4, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> stldpn, I understand your concern over public health. For the typical single person, what do you feel their sexual lifestyle should be?



Chastity belt. Remove only after 10 years of marriage - THEN you know it's for real.


----------



## stldpn (Nov 4, 2009)

cheekyjez said:


> You seem to be making the following argument:
> 
> Kids are getting more STDs.
> 
> ...



yeah basically that is what I'm saying... I'm saying that getting tested and wearing a rubber is not a good way to keep yourself from getting the germs that only require mucous membrane access (hint if you're involved in a sexual activity mucous membranes are involved even if you're giving somebody a fully clothed hand job you'll probably inadvertently touch your face and expose yourself... you'd need a full body condom to avoid infection so what's the point of that.) Add to that the fact that most people misuse condoms and you'll see my issue with the "I'm safe" and I don't really have to worry mindset.


----------



## stldpn (Nov 4, 2009)

escapist said:


> You mean the internet wont give me cooties?
> 
> **starts to light some candles and unzip his pants**



LOL go to the wrong site and your pc will end up with more cooties than a streetwalker... 

oops now i sound like a killjoy again...


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Nov 4, 2009)

People actually do fully clothed hand jobs? 

Why bother? :blink:


----------



## stldpn (Nov 4, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> stldpn, I understand your concern over public health. For the typical single person, what do you feel their sexual lifestyle should be?



generally? that which is sure to be boring for you... 

Limit your exposure always... more than two partners in any given year and you might want to do some soul searching concerning whether or not you're making smart choices in your relationships... should you really be having sex with someone you will lose track of in 3 months? not if you want to prevent the spread of disease...

Even if you're monogamous develop a dialogue on the subject before you have sex... 

Avoid people who have a tendancy to party too much... it's another unfortunate statistical fact that people who drink and use drugs are more likely to come up with somethin nasty... people who regularly lack inhibition make stupid decisions on all fronts. 

You can never be tested too often... Get tested don't be afraid to ask lovers/prospective lovers to go with you and get tested... If they won't go with you, won't produce recent paperwork or they seem afraid to find out it's a big red flag...

If you know for a fact that your last partner was screwing around on you just assume you have something and refrain from that all too human urge to run out and have rebound sex for a few months especially if you were having unprotected sex with your previous partner. Get to your doctor or a clinic asap and don't be shy about disclosing the situation.

Don't be afraid of sounding like a complete asshole concerning your expectations about testing and safe sex practices... Someone who gives you flack about your desire to be STD free may not make for the best bed partner... 

Read your condom packaging carefully and use it the way it was designed...


----------



## stldpn (Nov 4, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> People actually do fully clothed hand jobs?
> 
> Why bother? :blink:



lol I think it's mostly a lack of actual privacy and time thing but yeah... absolutley...


----------



## cheekyjez (Nov 4, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> People actually do fully clothed hand jobs?
> 
> Why bother? :blink:



You can do them under the table in restaurants.


----------



## Paquito (Nov 4, 2009)

stldpn said:


> generally? that which is sure to be boring for you...



Seriously, he's trying to have an intellectual conversation with you. Despite your clear disgust for his lifestyle, he still is interested in your opinion. But no, you can't make it ONE post without being condescending.


----------



## escapist (Nov 5, 2009)

stldpn said:


> LOL go to the wrong site and your pc will end up with more cooties than a streetwalker...
> 
> oops now i sound like a killjoy again...



That's why I try to stick to sites I trust  However, I never caught a bug I couldn't kill. I ran the same copy of windows xp for 7 years till I upgraded to Vista  **carefully tucks away his computer science degree out of sight**



Green Eyed Fairy said:


> People actually do fully clothed hand jobs?
> 
> Why bother? :blink:



Yeah they are called women  ...I'm only a little jealous of that cause in all fairness though, if I could I would.


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 6, 2009)

A polygamist sect member arrested following last year's raid of a west Texas ranch was convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting an underage girl with whom he had entered into a "spiritual" marriage, the state's attorney general said.

Raymond Jessop was found guilty of assaulting a girl under the age of 17, and is expected to be sentenced Monday, said Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the attorney general.

Jessop, a member of the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado, Texas, faces up to 20 years in prison.

The girl was among more than 400 children seized from the ranch in April 2008 by state child welfare workers. The children were returned after the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state had no right to remove them and lacked evidence to show that they were in danger of abuse.

A Texas jury indicted Jessop of sexual assault of a minor along with other members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The church -- a 10,000-member offshoot of the mainstream Mormon church -- openly practices polygamy on the ranch, as well as in Utah and Arizona.

Critics of the sect say young girls are forced into "spiritual" marriages with older men and are sexually abused. Sect members have denied that any sexual abuse takes place.

*Please note the references to having sex....and they dont mention love but sex. and I do believe this qualifies as an open relationship to.*

:bow:


----------



## Melian (Nov 6, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> A polygamist sect member arrested following last year's raid of a west Texas ranch was convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting an underage girl with whom he had entered into a "spiritual" marriage, the state's attorney general said.
> 
> Raymond Jessop was found guilty of assaulting a girl under the age of 17, and is expected to be sentenced Monday, said Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the attorney general.
> 
> ...



Um.....that was a cult. Not exactly a relevant comparison, there. :doh:


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 6, 2009)

*sex is the word I am focusing on and no where does love filter into the story.*


----------



## RobitusinZ (Nov 6, 2009)

stldpn said:


> generally? that which is sure to be boring for you...
> 
> Limit your exposure always... more than two partners in any given year and you might want to do some soul searching concerning whether or not you're making smart choices in your relationships... should you really be having sex with someone you will lose track of in 3 months? not if you want to prevent the spread of disease...
> 
> ...



Ok, so basically, less than 2 sexual partners per year, regularly tested, up-front about the risks of STDs, and properly practices safe sex.

Is my summary accurate?

Since 2002, I have had sex with 7 women other than my wife, for a total of 8. The "big year" was in 2004, after we'd moved to Minnesota and met two nice couples we got together with. We've pretty much been "inactive" since 2006, once my wife got pregnant with our second child. So, in fairness, it's 8 women between 2002 and 2006...so, 2 a year.

While we were active, I got myself checked for STDs twice a year, along with my routine bloodwork. Since 07, I haven't bothered. (One advantage of an open relationship - My wife doesn't sleep around without telling me, so I don't have to worry it during our monogamous periods)

No, I don't require my partners to come with me to get tested, and no, I don't ask for their paperwork before having sex. However, that topic is always discussed thoroughly...luckily, I've never been lied to about that. I've never met a swinger to whom STDs were a taboo subject.

Out of the 8 women I've been with, 1 I'm married to, and 6 I keep in touch with. There was an incident with the other that I'd rather not get into, and she is off-limits to me. Nobody's dropped dead, thankfully.

Safe sex...well, I use condoms...but you've already stated that sex is never truly safe. I've never used a dental dam in my life, I wouldn't even know how to use one. I don't do any anal activity at all.


So, can we coexist?


----------



## RobitusinZ (Nov 6, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> A polygamist sect member arrested following last year's raid of a west Texas ranch was convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting an underage girl with whom he had entered into a "spiritual" marriage, the state's attorney general said.
> 
> Raymond Jessop was found guilty of assaulting a girl under the age of 17, and is expected to be sentenced Monday, said Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the attorney general.
> 
> ...



I'm calling this out as a punk move.

Why would you start this topic, and then throw out something as ridiculous as this?


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 6, 2009)

I saw read and felt it was rather interesting similarity dont ya think?

and not a punk move. I did not write the article I just cut and pasted it.


----------



## LurkerGirl (Nov 6, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> A polygamist sect member arrested following last year's raid of a west Texas ranch was convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting an underage girl with whom he had entered into a "spiritual" marriage, the state's attorney general said.
> 
> Raymond Jessop was *found guilty of assaulting a girl under the age of 17*, and is expected to be sentenced Monday, said Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the attorney general.
> 
> ...



So, just so we're clear...you believe that a ranch where hundreds of women are married by force and children are sexually abused is the same as an open relationship between multiple *adult* sexual partners, all of whom know of each other and consent to any sexual acts that take place?

Sorry, but that's apples to oranges. The connection you're trying to make is not there. That's like someone posting a story on Michael Vick and saying "See! Having more than one dog is dangerous and wrong! No one should own two dogs because of what this person did!"

I guess the real question is who are you to judge, and why do you care in the first place? I am sure that many people have looked down on you for things they didn't understand, why the pressing need to condemn others?

I've read through many of your posts and threads and the common trend is just like this one. You start a topic that seems inviting and harmless, as if asking a genuine question you really desire the answer for. People come and respond, offering their answers and life experiences. Then you change the game, using the thread to bolster your own narrow opinion and attempting to silence anyone who doesn't agree with the use of weasel words and irrelevant drivel. You rarely respond directly to anyone, especially anyone whose argument was solid. The responses you do give are vague one-liners that overlook anything that is less than convenient to your point. When too many people disagree with you, you abandon the topic completely and move on. There is a word for people like this on forums, although I can't seem to recall it right now. In any case, I would encourage you to consider other people's input. Their opinions may not be right, but there's always the possibility they're better than your own.

By the way, I think your signature is probably one of the most naive things I have ever read.


----------



## RobitusinZ (Nov 6, 2009)

Dude, seriously? Mormon polygamy camp raid?

Ya know, stldpn feels strongly about the spread of STDs, and I see his point of view, thus I keep discussing with him because, heck, it might provide information for SOMEONE out there reading all this, and it's a decent way of passing the time. But what's the point of bringing up a police raid on a polygamist camp?

There's no possible way that I can condone or be anywhere NEAR OK with those polygamy camps and the constant sexual ***ABUSE*** that goes on there. Yeah, there may be plenty of "sex", and since you're so narrow-minded and tunnel-visioned, you somehow think that that is relevant to this discussion. However, no one here is advocating statutory rape...actually, I'm as anti-rape of any kind as it gets, considering that my entire position is that *adults* should be free to do as they please.

Let me provide an analogous argument.

Topic: Anal sex

Opinion 1: I dislike anal sex, it hurts and the increased friction makes it easier to spread diseases.

Opinion 2: I enjoy anal sex, there are a lot of nerve endings back there, and with the increased pressure, it can be enjoyable for two people who do it correctly.

Opinion 1-revisited: I read a story about a guy getting anally gang-raped in a penitentiary. Anal sex is the devil.

Opinion 2: *shoots himself in the head*


----------



## katorade (Nov 6, 2009)

Melian said:


> Um.....that was a cult. Not exactly a relevant comparison, there. :doh:



No kidding! The whole issue with that is that children were being sexually abused, not that people were in polygamist relationships, and no, those are not exactly the definition of "open relationships".:doh:


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 6, 2009)

katorade said:


> No kidding! The whole issue with that is that children were being sexually abused, not that people were in polygamist relationships, and no, those are not exactly the definition of "open relationships".:doh:




I agree with you but I have a thought and I am curious how the curve will go with this.

Too all who are in open relationship, if you met someone who you felt was truly enjoyable and lovely and cute or whatever and that person you invited to come live with you, and on the day they are to move in with you, they decide they do not want to have sex with you ever. Would you still want them to come live with you? All this depends on whether or not you are building a commune or a multi-level relationship ofcourse.

Now back to the what I cut and pasted. I am merely stating the obvious that open relationships are about sex and please do not say it is not. If it is not about sex, what is it about? Educate me and the rest of the world.

Thank you.

:bow::bow:


----------



## katorade (Nov 6, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> Now back to the what I cut and pasted. I am merely stating the obvious that open relationships are about sex and please do not say it is not. If it is not about sex, what is it about? Educate me and the rest of the world.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> :bow::bow:




The "open" part is about sex. The "relationship" part is not. 

I think it's important to note that there isn't just one kind of polyamory. Polygamy is defined by multiple marriages, whereas a lot of other types are simply referred to as open relationships. Under that description, there are still more differentiations. 

Some promote seeking sexual AND emotional attachment with multiple partners on an individual basis. Some promote fidelity between a finite amount of joined couples that are sexually active with each other. Swinging typically refers to a bonded couple that display emotional fidelity, but mutually seek out sexual relationships with one or more partners.

The most important part is paying attention to the original agreement one enters into, and from what I know, the "rules" are usually strictly adhered to or heavily discussed before being changed (e.g. some people may want to stop swinging while raising children), more so than many typical monogamous relationships where polyamory is unwelcome by at least one partner and outside sexual activity is considered adultery.


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 6, 2009)

katorade said:


> The "open" part is about sex. The "relationship" part is not.
> 
> I think it's important to note that there isn't just one kind of polyamory. Polygamy is defined by multiple marriages, whereas a lot of other types are simply referred to as open relationships. Under that description, there are still more differentiations.
> 
> ...



I am not afraid to learn something and this statement was by far the most easy to understand though I do not fully agreement but it was enlightening to me.

thank you :bow::bow::bow::bow: you are the first to receive the quad bow from me...lol


----------



## Teleute (Nov 6, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> Now back to the what I cut and pasted. I am merely stating the obvious that open relationships are about sex and please do not say it is not. If it is not about sex, what is it about? Educate me and the rest of the world.



SOME open relationships are about sex only. Some are about sex AND having an emotional relationship with more than one person. I have never encountered a situation where there was an open relationship without sex, but then, I've only encountered one asexual monogamous relationship in my life. Try out that example you gave on yourself:



likeitmatters said:


> if you met someone who you felt was truly enjoyable and lovely and cute or whatever and that person you invited to come live with you, and on the day they are to move in with you, they decide they do not want to have sex with you ever.



Even people in single-partner relationships would balk at that, because MOST relationships are about sex. 

The story you pasted about the cult has NOTHING to do with open relationships. Sure, it can be technically classified as that, but it's really child abuse, and completely irrelevant to the topic of healthy, consenting adult relationships. 


As a side note, you seem to use the "bow" emoticon whenever you think you have made a point, and it comes across as being really smug and offensive. I don't know if that's the way you mean for it to come across, but if it isn't, you might want to try using the emote differently.


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 6, 2009)

if you look at all my posts in the past I use the "bow" just for the heck of it and not to be smug or anything I just like using it...to me it is the cutest one among all of them..dont ya think?


----------



## RobitusinZ (Nov 6, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> I agree with you but I have a thought and I am curious how the curve will go with this.
> 
> Too all who are in open relationship, if you met someone who you felt was truly enjoyable and lovely and cute or whatever and that person you invited to come live with you, and on the day they are to move in with you, they decide they do not want to have sex with you ever. Would you still want them to come live with you? All this depends on whether or not you are building a commune or a multi-level relationship ofcourse.
> 
> ...




Ya know, I picture the "Thank you" and the two stupid bowing smilies as you spewing out a bunch of garbage, then flipping around, sticking a hand up in the air and yelling "THANK YOU!" with a smug look of satisfaction, as if you just finished educating the entire world with your awesomeness.

The punchline, though, is that you're the dude alone in the corner enthralled by his own tangent. Your dramatic exit would have you slamming into a wall.


Who said open relationships were NOT about sex? Of course they're about sex...if you're not having sex, then there's no need for being 'open'. A monogamous male can have all the friends in the world.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, though...with the whole "comes over and no sex" thing, do you mean a play-buddy who's coming over, or more along the lines of a single person meeting another single person?

I *have* had people come over to my house and not have sex. They're just friends. Perhaps *I* wanted to have sex with them, but they didn't, so no big deal. I am a pretty normal, well-rounded individual...you would have a good time at my place regardless of sexual activities.

Regarding a spouse, though, no, I wouldn't be in a relationship with a person who didn't want to have sex. While I separate love from sex, I can't separate sex from love. I don't love everyone I have sex with, but I can't truly love anyone if I'm not having sex with them. I really don't care what the reasons are for the lack of sex...religion, handicap, etc...'no sex' is a deal-breaker for me when it comes to any sort of relationship.

Nobody's trying to act holy here...well, at least I speak for myself. Being open is what it is. That is one HELL of a black kettle, and that's just fine. We just don't want any pots talking a bunch of crap.


----------



## Teleute (Nov 6, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> if you look at all my posts in the past I use the "bow" just for the heck of it and not to be smug or anything I just like using it...to me it is the cutest one among all of them..dont ya think?



Ah, got it. I was not reading it correctly then. It is cute, though I'm quite fond of the "happy" one myself.


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 6, 2009)

I finally received my answers to my questions from this crowd and lets say it is what I have always thought...I for one do not have sex outside a relationship for personal reasons and let it go at that.

And to the ones that gave me the answers, thank you very much and it was much appreciated.

:bow::bow:


----------



## stldpn (Nov 6, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> So, can we coexist?



well if you've been having sex with your wife all this time wouldn't that mean you've been having sex with up to three women in a year off and on?

This is not... contrarian to what some people think a coexistence/respect/appreciation of others as unique or special human beings issue for me... simply a matter of public health and being sexually responsible... I can't and won't condone your lifestyle. You're allowed to be whatever you are, my only job as a public health advocate is to mak sure you know that you could get sick as a result and you could unknowingly infect others.

It's not a defensible issue just one that's important to accept.


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 6, 2009)

but I am looking at it from another stand point. And that stand point is that are you truly happy in your current relationship or not? I do not agree with open relationships at all maybe because I was brought up another way which is sort of old fashion. I have been in one relationship where I loved him mind and body and soul totally and I learned that if I could not have sex with him I would do without because he meant the world to me and frankly I would rather be hugged by him anyday of the week than have a stranger hug me.

but I am all for agreeing to live or coexist in this world and I for one found the entire thread interesting for one very good reason...I like to know what people are thinking and how they are living.

We should really wrap up this because I found my answers to questions that were never answered before and to that end I want to thank you.

:bounce: ( I used another emoticons) lol


----------



## RobitusinZ (Nov 6, 2009)

stldpn said:


> well if you've been having sex with your wife all this time wouldn't that mean you've been having sex with up to three women in a year off and on?
> 
> This is not... contrarian to what some people think a coexistence/respect/appreciation of others as unique or special human beings issue for me... simply a matter of public health and being sexually responsible... I can't and won't condone your lifestyle. You're allowed to be whatever you are, my only job as a public health advocate is to mak sure you know that you could get sick as a result and you could unknowingly infect others.
> 
> It's not a defensible issue just one that's important to accept.



The wife's included as part of the 8, but I think the math's unimportant at this point. 

I had two goals - answer questions (even unasked ones), and change the stereotype of open/swingers being disease-ridden human filth, or incapable of having a perfectly typical (rather than 'normal') home while still engaging in activities.

Hopefully I achieved both, but if not, I hope that I at least excluded myself from the "Mormon Polygamy & Child Rape" camp.


----------



## stldpn (Nov 6, 2009)

RobitusinZ said:


> The wife's included as part of the 8, but I think the math's unimportant at this point.
> 
> I had two goals - answer questions (even unasked ones), and change the stereotype of open/swingers being disease-ridden human filth, or incapable of having a perfectly typical (rather than 'normal') home while still engaging in activities.
> 
> Hopefully I achieved both, but if not, I hope that I at least excluded myself from the "Mormon Polygamy & Child Rape" camp.



Nah you're not a mormon, mormons avoid caffeine, and ride bicycles a lot...


----------



## likeitmatters (Nov 6, 2009)

I find having sex with children or even children having sex with children so wrong I just posted that to show that open relationship are in fact mostly sexuall in nature...and you sir are not part of that and never thought that..

with a name like RobitusinZ reminds of when I was a child and my mom would give me that tonic to fall asleep..great taste too lol

:bow:


----------



## RobitusinZ (Nov 10, 2009)

likeitmatters said:


> I find having sex with children or even children having sex with children so wrong I just posted that to show that open relationship are in fact mostly sexuall in nature...and you sir are not part of that and never thought that..
> 
> with a name like RobitusinZ reminds of when I was a child and my mom would give me that tonic to fall asleep..great taste too lol
> 
> :bow:



Hey LIM, I got really upset when you brought the polygamist camp into the conversation and I flew off the handle. :doh: I apologize for that.


----------

