RE: Mono vs poly? (Full Version)

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



Message

KnightofMists -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 8:13:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

.......Rather, I think most doms wanting multiple subs can't handle one girl much less two.


I completely agree with this. Unfortunately, most blame it on the s-type or the lack of compatibility etc etc etc. Rarely.... Do they take reponsibility for their own actions. Hence why they keep repeating their failed relationships. Secondly, there is a lot of S-types that settle for less than they deserve and need. It's often these poor people that get caught in the revolving doors of those D types that Jeff points out.


Lastly, I am really tired of the "It's Master right!" or "it's all about Master" etc etc etc line of thinking. What about the relationship? When does that get put first or does it? How in the hell will a relationship ever thrive and endure if the needs and wants of one individual always comes first?

My tag line says it all for me....




LadyPact -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 8:21:05 AM)

There was a time that I did monogamy only. As a poly person today, and like (in My opinion) most of the folks who have poly experience under their belt will tell you, if poly isn't for you, don't try to force yourself to be poly. It's a recipe for disaster if you attempt poly and it's something that you don't really want. It just makes folks miserable all of the way around.

I also happen to think that most poly people with their head on their shoulders are aware of the fact that most people are monogamous. There's a huge imbalance on the internet of people chasing poly compared to those who have actually done it for several years. In the real world, I still see more monogamous folks than anything else.

As for some points that came up in the thread, yes, there are some folks who are potentially or actually poly that are adamant 'conversion' types. (Trying to get mono folks to accept poly for their own relationships.) It's unfortunate that they do it because it gives the impression that poly people think that way. That's not really the case. A good number of poly people really do understand that many folks feel they are wired for monogamy and know they are going to be happier that way. Those of us who are poly who don't approach folks who label themselves monogamous exist, too. We just don't get as much attention because we're the ones who pass folks by who aren't interested in multiple relationships.

One quick word on the "it's the Master's right" thing. People are kind of scoffing at that. However, that is how some folks do things. Cuckold dynamics work exactly like that from the way that I've done them. It's a specific type of situation where I own My sexuality and yours. While it's far from being the situation that everybody would be happy about, some folks really do want that kind of thing. Hopefully, that will avoid the men bashing part because that would mean that folks have to bash Me, too.



KnightofMists -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 8:25:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

. "It's the master's right" is not a line, so long as it's not used as a line. It is, in fact, well within a master's rights to have more than one slave, if slaves are what we're really speaking of here (and usually that's not quite the case in discussions on public BDSM message boards). If he chooses to be monogamous, more power to him, but it is his decision, and one by which the slave, logically, must abide.



This is crap! Before one can begin logically state it's his right one must understand the parameters and caveats that allowed enslavement in the first place. To often, Master say the the line.... And conveniently forget about their obligations and responsibilities.

So no it's never a Master right logically or otherwise. With due consideration of All facts. Masters are bonded by enslavement as much as the slave is. The captain and the crew are all on the same ship and will suffer the same faith regardless of who steers the wheel.



LadyPact -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 8:50:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists
Lastly, I am really tired of the "It's Master right!" or "it's all about Master" etc etc etc line of thinking. What about the relationship? When does that get put first or does it? How in the hell will a relationship ever thrive and endure if the needs and wants of one individual always comes first?

My tag line says it all for me....

It's ironic that you mention this. If I hadn't been so busy this week, I probably would have started an original about the difference between 'it's all about Me' and the parameters of potential dynamics. I'm still working on getting My caffeine level up, so I'll use an example.

Anybody joining My life has to do so with acceptance of certain areas. My other half is My primary partner. Period. Anybody who expects that to shift because they enter a dynamic with Me is going to be hugely disappointed. The best they are ever going to be in My life is a secondary partner. Acting in ways to try to change that or manipulate it in some way is a fast way to see the door.

The same holds true for the play partners. If a person wants Me to only engage in BDSM with them, that's really not going to happen. I've engaged in casual play before anybody new in My life came along and it's not going to change just because they showed up.

So, for at least those two points, that is the situation that is being offered. They are nonnegotiable and there isn't any flexibility. Like CP said earlier, I'm very up front about this and I'm vocal about it in real life just like I am on the boards.

On the surface, that could be construed as it being all about Me. However, it's not. Instead, it's giving a person the opportunity to look at the situation to see if they would be compatible with it.




OsideGirl -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 9:00:08 AM)

When we started I insisted on monogamy. I was not interested in poly what so ever and thought I wasn't suited to it.

Over the years, he earned my trust and showed me every day how he felt about me. Ultimately, it was me that decided poly was okay and approached him with the idea.

And I'll tell you right now, I don't believe it's a Master's right. My view is that when we got together, we agreed to a dynamic and a relationship. (A contract if you will) If one side suddenly decides to change the terms of the contract, then the contract is null and void.



MarcEsadrian -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 9:19:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

To often, Master say the the line.... And conveniently forget about their obligations and responsibilities.


Too often, people can't seem to separate between those who merely say the line and live the line and rhetorically conflate them in discussions such as these. What do you see as a master's obligations and responsibilities? I'm quite curious. We may be on the same page. Probably not, though, judging by the tenor of your comments.


quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists
With due consideration of All facts. Masters are bonded by enslavement as much as the slave is.


Such romantic platitudes may be "facts" in your world, Knight, and where your world is concerned, how could one argue? If you see yourself as "bonded" to your slaves as much as your slaves are to you, well, that's certainly your choice…and your unique fate (though you're certainly in good company). It's not a mandate for all, by any means, and attaching that mandate to the term master or mistress is what's "crap," quite frankly.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 9:32:06 AM)

Actually Marc nailed it for some. It may not work for you Knight, or be how you have seen it, but it is far from making it crap. What is crap are those that believe there is only a one size fits all for relationships.

To answer the OP, I currently have just one girl. It has been mentioned to her that if I find another there may be a est period to see how well they fit into the household. I doubt I will find another as I am pretty picky, and not many have ever measured up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

. "It's the master's right" is not a line, so long as it's not used as a line. It is, in fact, well within a master's rights to have more than one slave, if slaves are what we're really speaking of here (and usually that's not quite the case in discussions on public BDSM message boards). If he chooses to be monogamous, more power to him, but it is his decision, and one by which the slave, logically, must abide.



This is crap! Before one can begin logically state it's his right one must understand the parameters and caveats that allowed enslavement in the first place. To often, Master say the the line.... And conveniently forget about their obligations and responsibilities.

So no it's never a Master right logically or otherwise. With due consideration of All facts. Masters are bonded by enslavement as much as the slave is. The captain and the crew are all on the same ship and will suffer the same faith regardless of who steers the wheel.




njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 12:39:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss

One TINY, TINY rant... I am sure there are many men who can sustain two relationships...offer equal support, emotional balance, never play favorites..but HONESTLY???? Most men, vanilla or kinky, seem to have a hard enough time translating and understanding ONE woman enough to have ONE successful relationship...let alone the time management skills for juggling a full-time career, kids, and "quality time" for 2 or more women!!!

And I don't want to just bash men..my typical experience with women is that most expect to be #1 with the man they are involved with and, just basic terms of survival, dictate that you must fend off any threats.. When resources are plentiful and there are no threats it is very easy to "share" but, if for some reason, a choice has to be made we expect that WE will be the one our man will stand with.. I have seen many stories here about poly couples who either make it very clear from the beginning that wife/GF 1 was here first and don't try to emotionally separate them as a couple or that the 2nd woman comes in and starts insinuating her way into the man's good graces then forces a choice to be made or that, just by temperament, 2 members of the tricycle desire to be a bicycle because they are just more compatiable

Although..maybe it is just the emotions involved...I would have GLADLY shared my ex-husband with another woman.. Heck, I may have been able to tolerate remaining married to him...

A lot of the men you are talking about are not poly per se, they don't want emotional involvements with the other women, they just want to have multiple sex partners IMO/IME, it is not emotional at all. Basically, the D/M wants to have his sub (you) that I presume would be the emotional relationship, and simply wants a bunch of women on the side to fuck around with.

I am sure, TMK, you will find a dom who wants only to be with you, and if you can't then there are a lot of stupid men out there. Like I said, I respect poly people, they often have their shit in order in ways I haven't gotten anywhere near, but quite honestly looking at your picture (besides putting it in my little black book of women I am totally green with envy at, and striking it out 4 times, not 3,you eyes alone do it!) if a man can't find it in someone who seems both to be beautiful and nice and submissive and is not willing to give that up simply to fuck around,there are many words for them, and jerk is the nicest one IMO:).

Keep looking, you will find someone who is on the same page as yourself. One piece of advice, don't put too much stock in the online world, you may get lucky and find someone cool, but having read profiles on here and other online sites, I see a lot of young, immature boys (I won't call them men) who are still in the tomcat phase of life, and they are the ones who will tell you things like a Master has to spread his seed around and such (all you have to do is read a lot of the erotic fiction written by dom wannabes on literotica and SOL to see what I mean, it is written by jerks like this a fair amount of the time), based on past experience you will be better served trying IRL, through groups and such, better odds of finding someone who isn't a perpetual adolescent. I ran into that type in a different context when I was attempting transition, and they were the same ones who got their nose bent out of joint when trans girls wouldn't give them the time of day when they treated them/us as objects, and got pissed off like we were turning down manna from heaven or something, when they were the equivalent of 1 white castle slider, not enough to fulfill anything and too toxic to risk get poisoned given the payout;).



TieMeInKnottss -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 12:44:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

To answer the OP, I currently have just one girl. It has been mentioned to her that if I find another there may be a est period to see how well they fit into the household. I doubt I will find another as I am pretty picky, and not many have ever measured up.

quote:

ORIGINAL:

This is actually one of the reasons I understand bringing up the "kink compatibility" when you start dating... There are just certain things that, if not discussed, are going to eventually cause major problems if things "go well". I have respect for those who are upfront about the fact they are poly...I then steer clear of them the same way I won't start dating someone who is bi or homosexual, who does not share certain beliefs or standards on drugs, employment... My issue is that I don't like being blindsided with it when the Dom thinks you are in too deep emotionally....

I know..comes down to ethics, standards..



njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 12:50:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss
Most men, vanilla or kinky, seem to have a hard enough time translating and understanding ONE woman enough to have ONE successful relationship.


Doubtless you are right about that, but where slavery is concerned, masters are concerned and neither states of being represent most men or women on even the best day. Lack of mettle and understanding is found well among males and females...no male bashing or writing women off as needy, competitive enigmas "struggling for resources" is necessary.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Please just toss out the 'it's the master's right' bullcrap.


Your statement requires some caveats, the one most key depending upon whether we're discussing The Real McCoy, dominant men at large, or prurient ass slapping players. "It's the master's right" is not a line, so long as it's not used as a line. It is, in fact, well within a master's rights to have more than one slave, if slaves are what we're really speaking of here (and usually that's not quite the case in discussions on public BDSM message boards). If he chooses to be monogamous, more power to him, but it is his decision, and one by which the slave, logically, must abide.

Ladies: does all that unchecked power in a man not sound right to you? Avoid being an outright slave to him, then, I'd say. The onus upon us all is to be honest about ourselves first and with others second where matters such as these or their limitations are concerned. If you are misapplying the term to yourself or your own personal vision, therein lies the first misstep. You can shrug all this off and speak of not wanting to "fit into labels" all you want, but once you have used an old, well-worn word to describe yourself or your desired reality, be prepared for its literal implications and repercussions.



What you leave out is that M/s relationships are negotiated, you are assuming that in a relationship like this a slave agrees to anything otherwise it isn't real, and that is bullshit, you may want that in your relationships, and that is fine, but guess what, that is consented to by the slave, they are willing to accept that. However, slavery exists in many forms, and if someone is looking for a mono relationship the choice is not just with the master, at least not before they have entered into the relationship, a slave negotiates what happens with the master, and that is an M/s relationship whether or not you approve of it or not. Unchecked power in a man doesn't bother me at all, if that is what slave wants, what bothers me is when egostical people say things like someone is 'misapplying the term'...guess what, Skeezix, so are you, since legal slavery died with the 13th amendment in the uS and died in England around the turn of the 19th century or so, so claiming there is a 'right' application of the term slave in a D/s is just plain arrogant nonsense



lizi -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 1:00:08 PM)

I'm monogamous. I'm happy with another person who is monogamous, not someone that is even remotely interested in poly or fucking around. It's a deal breaker for me and it's fine if I don't match with most men here then, I'll wait around for Mr. Right.

I have run across a LOT of male Dominants since I've been kinky that seem to think having the right to fuck around is a standard perk that comes with the Dominant title. Which is fine for them, however, if they want to be with me, I'm not on board with it. It does seem to be part of the fantasy that man men associate with having an s type at their side, that it gives them the option for playing the field rather than conforming to the usual way romantic relationships are run in society. There isn't any such option for a man I would choose to be with, I feel no guilt at all about informing a partner of my own needs and expecting them to hold to them if they want me. No guilt at all.

As far as I'm concerned, both poly and fucking around are not necessarily part of the BDSM lifestyle. It's common to find people seeking it, however it may or not not be the choice of every participant. Besides, I don't really care if everyone does it, I don't. I'm still kinky even with the fact that I won't fuck around - no one else has the right to tell me I'm not, or that I should change.



njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 1:00:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

There was a time that I did monogamy only. As a poly person today, and like (in My opinion) most of the folks who have poly experience under their belt will tell you, if poly isn't for you, don't try to force yourself to be poly. It's a recipe for disaster if you attempt poly and it's something that you don't really want. It just makes folks miserable all of the way around.

I also happen to think that most poly people with their head on their shoulders are aware of the fact that most people are monogamous. There's a huge imbalance on the internet of people chasing poly compared to those who have actually done it for several years. In the real world, I still see more monogamous folks than anything else.

As for some points that came up in the thread, yes, there are some folks who are potentially or actually poly that are adamant 'conversion' types. (Trying to get mono folks to accept poly for their own relationships.) It's unfortunate that they do it because it gives the impression that poly people think that way. That's not really the case. A good number of poly people really do understand that many folks feel they are wired for monogamy and know they are going to be happier that way. Those of us who are poly who don't approach folks who label themselves monogamous exist, too. We just don't get as much attention because we're the ones who pass folks by who aren't interested in multiple relationships.

One quick word on the "it's the Master's right" thing. People are kind of scoffing at that. However, that is how some folks do things. Cuckold dynamics work exactly like that from the way that I've done them. It's a specific type of situation where I own My sexuality and yours. While it's far from being the situation that everybody would be happy about, some folks really do want that kind of thing. Hopefully, that will avoid the men bashing part because that would mean that folks have to bash Me, too.



LP-

The answer is very simple, the key is in your words, "that is how some folks do things", and that is fine, that is the point. Cuckolding is in large part about asserting the right to have sex with others, and in a strict M/s the slave agrees the Master/Mistress has that right. The problem isn't that, it is when you have someone like another poster claiming that is a slave rules out polygamy as a hard bound, that they are 'misapplying the label', or assuming that any M has the right to sleep with others because basically a slave doesn't have that right, it is always 'what master wants" ...which is true is the slave negotiated a total control/absolute power thing with the M, but not all slave situations are like that.....I normally don't care, but what concerns me is the OP can see someone saying that, saying that 'of course if you are a slave it is the master's decision', which is basically saying if you want to be a slave, and don't want to have the M with anyone else you can't be a slave since slaves have no bounds...that is how others or yourself may choose to do it, but I also don't want the OP to feel like if she wants to be a slave,she has to either accept that the master will do what he wants or not be in a slave relationship at all, and that is silly, since there are M's who would accept that bound; if a master is monogamous or willing to be mono in his relationship with her, if they come to an accord, that is their business, that's all.....:). The bashing isn't about strict M/s relationships where the M is poly, the bashing is about horny jerks using it to get a woman and then be able to sleep around at will, there is a big difference, one is from a mature, negotiated position, the other is some neo adolescent using the M title to get his cake and eat it, too, and telling women that are perspective slaves that slaves have to accept that, which is crap, they don't. (since slave contracts are negotiated in terms of what level bounds, etc)



njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 1:11:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists
Lastly, I am really tired of the "It's Master right!" or "it's all about Master" etc etc etc line of thinking. What about the relationship? When does that get put first or does it? How in the hell will a relationship ever thrive and endure if the needs and wants of one individual always comes first?

My tag line says it all for me....

It's ironic that you mention this. If I hadn't been so busy this week, I probably would have started an original about the difference between 'it's all about Me' and the parameters of potential dynamics. I'm still working on getting My caffeine level up, so I'll use an example.

Anybody joining My life has to do so with acceptance of certain areas. My other half is My primary partner. Period. Anybody who expects that to shift because they enter a dynamic with Me is going to be hugely disappointed. The best they are ever going to be in My life is a secondary partner. Acting in ways to try to change that or manipulate it in some way is a fast way to see the door.

The same holds true for the play partners. If a person wants Me to only engage in BDSM with them, that's really not going to happen. I've engaged in casual play before anybody new in My life came along and it's not going to change just because they showed up.

So, for at least those two points, that is the situation that is being offered. They are nonnegotiable and there isn't any flexibility. Like CP said earlier, I'm very up front about this and I'm vocal about it in real life just like I am on the boards.

On the surface, that could be construed as it being all about Me. However, it's not. Instead, it's giving a person the opportunity to look at the situation to see if they would be compatible with it.



And that is all anyone could ask..which is a bit different then Marc, who told the OP that if she wouldn't accept the M's thing 'that it is only about me', then she isn't a slave....you are doing exactly what I would expect of an M, you lay out your nonnegotiable things,what you expect, and the person accepts it or not, and likewise, if a potential s told you that they didn't want to be cuckolded or humiliated as your slave, and you agreed to that, it is a negotiated bound, or you would say "sorry, I cannot accept that, I absolutely retain that power' and then they decide..doesn't mean you aren't an M, doesn't mean they aren't an s, simply means your style and their needs didn't mesh:)



SerWhiteTiger -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 1:23:35 PM)

The problem is that fucking around is a very insecure thing to do and is very unDomly behavior. It's a way of proving to yourself that a female has submitted to you, but if you're secure in your dominance, you don't need the act of intercourse for that. So female subs are in something of a catch-22 here. In agreeing to give their Master this right, they're basically agreeing to give their Master the right to prove he is too insecure to be their Dom. Often, the entire framework of a D/s relationship is built on the submissive's choice to perceive that the Dom is more dom than they maybe actually are (because honestly, we're all human), and giving them such an easy and irresistible way to prove that they aren't can be disastrous, all while neither party has any conscious understanding of what's wrong.

Personally, I have made it clear to my sub that I have the right to fuck around, but while I had a lot of desire to do so when I was just playing at being Dom, I have zero desire to do so since I have become truly dominant.. Sex is fun and all, but it pales in comparison to D/s.

OTOH, I do want another sub/slave. But that's not about fucking around.



njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 1:41:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger

The problem is that fucking around is a very insecure thing to do and is very unDomly behavior. It's a way of proving to yourself that a female has submitted to you, but if you're secure in your dominance, you don't need the act of intercourse for that. So female subs are in something of a catch-22 here. In agreeing to give their Master this right, they're basically agreeing to give their Master the right to prove he is too insecure to be their Dom. Often, the entire framework of a D/s relationship is built on the submissive's choice to perceive that the Dom is more dom than they maybe actually are (because honestly, we're all human), and giving them such an easy and irresistible way to prove that they aren't can be disastrous, all while neither party has any conscious understanding of what's wrong.

Personally, I have made it clear to my sub that I have the right to fuck around, but while I had a lot of desire to do so when I was just playing at being Dom, I have zero desire to do so since I have become truly dominant.. Sex is fun and all, but it pales in comparison to D/s.

OTOH, I do want another sub/slave. But that's not about fucking around.


I don't think it is necessarily insecure, there are dom/mes I have met who are poly who are anything but insecure, they were clear who they are, the sub knew and agreed to it and there was no pressure there. I have met 'dom's' who do fuck around (I mean go to singles bars and pick up women) and use it as a bragging point, who throw it in their subs face and basically say 'see, I can do that, and there is nothing you can do about it' (and I am not talking about humiliation play here, I am talking dickheaded behavior that is not play), and they go around to their dom wannabe friends and brag about it and get the 'dude, you are so domly' and the like *ick*..but there also are a lot of people I respect, like LP and some of the male doms on here, who don't fuck around the way I am talking about, they do have outside relationships but they are that, big difference, it is the difference from being an immature player in the vanilla world and being someone people want to be in a relationship with; one is a fuck partner for a night of hot sex, the other is someone you want to actually be around:)



searching4mysir -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 1:46:13 PM)

quote:

It is, in fact, well within a master's rights to have more than one slave, if slaves are what we're really speaking of here (and usually that's not quite the case in discussions on public BDSM message boards).


Even slaves have hard limits. Poly can be one of them. Before I ever allowed myself to be enslaved to my Master, this was discussed and known that poly was a hard limit. If he wants more than one woman, he is welcome to find it, but without me.



OsideGirl -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 1:46:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SerWhiteTiger

The problem is that fucking around is a very insecure thing to do and is very unDomly behavior. It's a way of proving to yourself that a female has submitted to you


I disagree. Sex is just sex. It doesn't prove love, intimacy or submission. It's merely a physical act.



searching4mysir -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 1:48:02 PM)

quote:

Cuckold dynamics work exactly like that from the way that I've done them. It's a specific type of situation where I own My sexuality and yours. While it's far from being the situation that everybody would be happy about, some folks really do want that kind of thing. Hopefully, that will avoid the men bashing part because that would mean that folks have to bash Me, too.


The difference is that, generally, cucks seek out those types of dynamics. The cuck still has to agree to it. Both parties do.



MarcEsadrian -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 2:17:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
What you leave out is that M/s relationships are negotiated.


I leave that out because what you said above isn't correct. A master-slave relationship is a destination. It doesn't exist within a nexus of broad compromises, hashed out conditions, and careful provisos. What you are describing, instead, is a general prescription for general D/s relationships out of the box. Confusing the two happens, of course, when we start speaking of doms and masters and subs and slaves interchangeably, which is no rare thing, of course.

Consensual slavery is the ultimate terminus of being under the control of another; it is not a state of negotiation, but intimate accord and alignment. It may be entered into fairly quickly and with very little dialog, or quite gradually, as fears and limitations melt away and a mind is brought to more absolute heel. But either way, it is the destination that is of import and, make no mistake about it, that destination is as whole and complete a form of surrender and devotion to another as humanly possible. If you don't have that in your midst, if your "slave" insists on heavy conditions to the arrangement, like something as banal as other women in the circle and will indeed throw in the towel if you decide you want another, you are not in possession of a slave, but what's commonly called a "submissive." And you probably don't even have that.


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Legal slavery died with the 13th amendment in the US and died in England around the turn of the 19th century.


It would seem, then, that your deeper conviction is slavery doesn't really exist at all! In such case, I'm not certain why I'm even bothering with replying. Nonetheless, you'd be a fool to assume:

a. Legality alone defines a state of slavery, and;
b. That slavery does not still exist today within the very countries you cite.



TNDommeK -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/23/2013 2:30:55 PM)

We're much like Knight. Hubby and I entered into a monogamous relationship. Later we talked, and became poly. Best choice ever! I love the girls.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625