RE: Monogamy

RE: Monogamy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:38:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: clwangkai yes you may have two monogamous relationships but if you have two relationships then you yourself aren't monogamous yes i am - it's not poly ...there's no co-domination from the 2 men together ...both have uniquely different dominating style from the other. in your opinion, i may not seem monogamous however actually i am.

clwangkai -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:42:09 PM)
how do you define monogamy then? And look it up under any dictionary. A word can only be defined one way, as soon as you make exceptions you begin to warp the word and it has lost its meaning

agoodgirl4Daddy -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:45:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl quote: ORIGINAL: agoodgirl4Daddy the person having 2 Dominants is POLYAMOROUS...the Dominants may be Mongamous...but the person with 2 "partners/Dominants/Daddies/etcetcetc" is HARDLY MONOGAMOUS!!! how is it polyamorous if the 2 dominants are NOT (and i strongly repeat the word NOT) co-dominating said submissive? Polyamory has nothing to do with whether the Dominants are "co-dominating" or not. The key here is that YOU have 2 relationships. The "MONO" in MONOGAMY is from the Greek word monos, which means one or alone! ONE RELATIONSHIP! Here's a definition that may explain it better than I, or others who've told you same thing, have been able to express: "Polyamory (from Greek πολυ (poly, literally “multiple”) and Latin amor (literally “love”)) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Polyamorous perspectives differ from monogamous perspectives, in that they respect a partner's wish to have second or further meaningful relationships and to accommodate these alongside their existing relationships." If this doesn't explain it for you, i just think you are not willing to accept the fact that you are NOT monogamous. lol there's nothing wrong with polyamory, but if you think it's a dirty word, i'd suggest reading up on it....especially if you're gonna do it!

clwangkai -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:45:51 PM)
nicely done! couldn't have said it any better

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:48:05 PM)
sometimes the dictionary definitions do not apply to BDSM - relationships are determined and defined by the persons involved ...not one-way twu-ism like yours. have a nice evening

camille65 -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:48:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: agoodgirl4Daddy quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl quote: ORIGINAL: agoodgirl4Daddy the person having 2 Dominants is POLYAMOROUS...the Dominants may be Mongamous...but the person with 2 "partners/Dominants/Daddies/etcetcetc" is HARDLY MONOGAMOUS!!! how is it polyamorous if the 2 dominants are NOT (and i strongly repeat the word NOT) co-dominating said submissive? Polyamory has nothing to do with whether the Dominants are "co-dominating" or not. The key here is that YOU have 2 relationships. The "MONO" in MONOGAMY is from the Greek word monos, which means one or alone! ONE RELATIONSHIP! Here's a definition that may explain it better than I, or others who've told you same thing, have been able to express: "Polyamory (from Greek πολυ (poly, literally “multiple”) and Latin amor (literally “love”)) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. Polyamorous perspectives differ from monogamous perspectives, in that they respect a partner's wish to have second or further meaningful relationships and to accommodate these alongside their existing relationships." If this doesn't explain it for you, i just think you are not willing to accept the fact that you are NOT monogamous. lol there's nothing wrong with polyamory, but if you think it's a dirty word, i'd suggest reading up on it....especially if you're gonna do it! That is how I have always understood the word.

clwangkai -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:50:03 PM)
by saying that you are warping the word's meaning and the english language. There are no exceptions to what a word means

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:51:30 PM)
sheeeeeesh - another strong advocate for one-way twu-ism. as i told him, relationships are determined and defined by the persons involved. in your eyes it's poly but according to Daddy and SO it's not. so whom am i going to believe? certainly not opposing, single-minded views like yours. have a nice evening.

agoodgirl4Daddy -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:51:32 PM)
s quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl sometimes the dictionary definitions do not apply to BDSM - relationships are determined and defined by the persons involved ...not one-way twu-ism like yours. have a nice evening i've been around for a while, and i've NEVER heard anyone describe the type of relationships you have as MONOGAMOUS. it's ludicrous and makes me sad for you...that you cannot accept that you are NOT monogamous. but..whatever! it's your life, and if you want to believe that you have TWO MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS...you'll continue to have people laughing behind your back!

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:54:25 PM)
so what if people are laughing behind my back - i have thicker skin than they do. NOT every BDSM relationship has to follow the letter of the law of your thinking or twu-ism. everyone has something unique and special ...and you should respect that as i have respect for yours. but then - this is not a utopian society where open-mindedness is the norm.

clwangkai -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:54:30 PM)
lol exactly...that has to be an oxy moron or something..."two monogamous relationships"

clwangkai -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:56:09 PM)
you accuse us of being open minded and yet you refuse to even consider the options. We don't judge you for being in those two relationships nor do we think that you are lesser of a person for it. I personally don't think any less of you but what we are saying is that the relationships you have described aren't monogamous

Amaros -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 4:59:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl sheeeeeesh - another strong advocate for one-way twu-ism. as i told him, relationships are determined and defined by the persons involved. in your eyes it's poly but according to Daddy and SO it's not. so whom am i going to believe? certainly not opposing, single-minded views like yours. have a nice evening. No need to get upset, objectively, these words do have well defined and widely understood meanings, and ouside your relationship these meanings are assumed - inside your relationship, you can think about it any way you want, and as compartmentalized as this stuff can get, what with balancing conflicting identities even in the vanilla world, compartmentalizing relationships like this doesn't strike me as all that strange. You should just be aware that when a person says they're monogamous, it is automatically assumed that they are not talking about more than one SO. Nice collars BTW.

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 5:03:20 PM)
i don't have to consider any options you two have to offer or say - you're not either of my dominant. if my dominants are cool calling what we have two separate monogamous relationships then so be it. laugh behind my back - i don't really care. i'm not here to be liked or loved - just to share my opinions

Lordandmaster -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 5:04:22 PM)
Why do we argue so much about words? No, it's not "monogamy" according to the way the overwhelming majority of people understand that word. I don't see the point of trying to argue that it really is monogamy even though it doesn't appear to be, but whatever... Debating whether a human relationship fits one or another category is usually a colossal waste of time.

bamabbwsub -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 5:04:29 PM)
sambamanslilgirl, I normally agree with your posts and I hold you in very high regard based on what I've read on the boards. Although I think I understand where you're coming from (you are "loyal" to each Dom individually, perhaps?), I must confess that if others take on your definition, then I would be seriously pissed. In my profile, I state that I am looking for a long-term, monogamous relationship. By my definition (and likely the most accepted usage of the word), monogamy means that he doesn't date anyone else, dominate anyone else, or sleep with anyone else. However, if I found out that he had a SO and/or another submissive, the relationship would be over for me, as I would definitely consider him NOT monogamous. My point in posting this is that if your relationship changes in the future, or if you consider adding a third Dom to your life, please don't advertise yourself to them as being monogamous. Your definition of monogamy may mislead someone who goes by the standard dictionary usage of the term.

clwangkai -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 5:05:17 PM)
and you call me close minded? you just epitomized the definition of being narrow minded...and yes if they are cool with that then so be it...i guess the saying "ignorance is bliss" is true

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 5:08:42 PM)
the only way my relationships will change if one of us dies. end of subject

clwangkai -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 5:11:47 PM)
and who said that one of them did have to die? lol we aren't demanding any action out of you or anything close to that? This is merely a discussion of ideologies and beliefs...

bamabbwsub -> RE: Monogamy (1/13/2008 5:15:01 PM)
clwangkai, I believe she was responding to my post, wherein I stated, "...if your relationship changes in the future..."

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875