RE: Monogamy? (Full Version)

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



Message

dreamlady -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 9:10:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Plus for some of us it isn't about loyalty, it's about how we're wired.
I'm demisexual, meaning I don't find people sexually desirable unless I'm already in love with him.

That's a really good way to put it.

At the bare minimum, there has to be infatuation, and I don't mean mere carnal lust getting mistaken for being feelings of infatuation.

The loyalty aspect is a huge factor in remaining monogamous. Because let's face it, the honeymoon stage will eventually come to an end.
What remains are the bonds of loyalty, and with that a deepening of the love you share as a couple between yourselves.

I do understand how polyfidelity could work, and that there can be sexual exclusivity among partners in a closed loop system.
However, I still consider absolute fidelity to be more than sexual exclusiveness, just like I can't imagine being "in love" with more than one man at a time. I see it as a pair-bonding which ideally should be for life, but if circumstances don't permit that, then serial monogamy would have to be in order (for me).

I'm also the type of person who needs to be partnered up, and I'm not ashamed to admit that, but neither do I ever want to feel I had to "settle" for less.
It's at times like these that I wonder whether I will end up having to "settle" for more than just one partner (because that's how it would feel to me).
But then I [figuratively] slap myself upside the head to come back to my senses.
(I mean, I would mentally exhaust myself juggling more than one person at a time on an intimate level.)

DreamLady



UllrsIshtar -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 9:16:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisForLife71

By swap I mean between one person and another, even if it's only between two, not just random people.


Don't call it that. It's inaccurate and confusing.

Poly people don't 'swap' partners. They don't 'trade in' one partner for another partner.

It's the same as if a mother first reads a bedtime story to one kid, and then to the other kid. She didn't 'swap' her kids. She didn't 'trade in' one kid for another.

What she did was fist spend time with one person she loves, and then spend time with another person she loves. There is no 'swap'.


quote:

ORIGINAL: HisForLife71

It's not a case of "I'm going to be monogamous til I find someone else suitable to add".


It's not a case of them being monogamous at all. My husband has always been poly. He was poly the entire first 5 years of our marriage, despite the fact that he never fucked another woman besides myself until last month.

Just because somebody is sexually faithful to one partner until they find a second partner doesn't mean they're monogamous. It makes them poly-waiting-for-somebody-to-add.

I've never heard anybody say "I'm going to be monogamous until I find somebody else". What you hear people say a lot is "I'm poly, even though I'm acting in a monogamous way at the moment, because I happen to be fucking only one person".





tamaka -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 10:16:56 AM)

What I still struggle to understand is if you know you are poly, why get married to someone? If you want to be open to other equally important relationships, why marry one person and start all other relationships on an unlevel playing field.



HisForLife71 -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 10:26:23 AM)

I misunderstood then. I took your last post to be saying he was temporarily monogamous. That's how I understood your wording.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 11:06:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

What I still struggle to understand is if you know you are poly, why get married to someone? If you want to be open to other equally important relationships, why marry one person and start all other relationships on an unlevel playing field.


In our case it's because I'm a European, and wouldn't have been able to stay in the US without a marriage visa.
We wouldn't have married if it wasn't for that.

In a lot of cases, insurance, taxes, etc play a big role when poly people who hold all their partners as equals get married. Married people get all sorts of legal benefits that you don't get if you're just living together. While getting married means that you can only have those benefits with one other person, it still means you can have them.
Most poly people I know, at the ones who hold all their partners as equals (which especially in a kink poly relationship isn't always the case) would prefer being able to be married to multiple people.

But as long as that's not legally possible, the benefits of a legal marriage to one is the best we've got.



LadyPact -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 11:07:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
What I still struggle to understand is if you know you are poly, why get married to someone? If you want to be open to other equally important relationships, why marry one person and start all other relationships on an unlevel playing field.

Who said all additional relationships were equal?

You might find that in triads, of which I don't participate. My version of poly is the "V" type, where I have a primary and secondary partner.

As to the "why". Personally, we're not poly for a lot of the reasons that other people have. It's why I do D/s, rather than have a vanilla boyfriend. For us, poly is all about getting the kink needs met.




seekingOwnertoo -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 2:38:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact


For Ishtar, I believe DaddySaytr is poly.




Hmm ... thought he was a Eunuch ...

He drove three Ladies off the boards with his BS; then I got an apology from the site after he tried to skewer me for defending one of them.

Actually, now that I say it, he is not a Eunuch .. is is just an ao

And a BIG ONE!




MrRodgers -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 7:17:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisForLife71

Thanks again. Interesting to see all the different thoughts and opinions.
And I don't "care" as such, I was just interested.
One thing I don't get is someone saying they are monogamous unless an atteactive prospect shows up. So to me that means you are not monogamous, but you do not swap partners as often as some. That is still non monogamy in my opinion. To me thats like saying
I am vegan unless I see bacon. We are what we are, why try hide it?

Let us not forget that history (Christianity et al) has dealt polygamy a serious social and legal blow one could say...on behalf of monogamy. Polygamy is more than one wife and has existed for millennia. At one point in history, most societies legally sanctioned more than one wife (polygamy) and a few still do.

Poly relationships can be and often are...still relationships, subject to the same emotional criteria. Yet there are such emotional relationships that allow for play outside of the primary or "closed" members.

I've seen husbands allowed to go out and play with whoever they want while the wife does not. That's an open marriage even though one-sided. I've seen where both partners are allowed such flexibilities.

I've seen poly affairs allow for the 'man of the house' to play with whoever he pleases yet does not 'love' them while still loving his 'wives' or poly partners. For such as a master with poly slaves, it is my personal belief that such a relationship requires all parties to be live-in 24/7 relationships or otherwise it is simply open play even though again, there may be emotional attachments.

What people say is more often than not, not what they do or really mean. And in what you ask about in a general sense, is all over the physical and emotional map rendering any label very difficult to apply and that includes monogamy.

Monogamy should be limited to only marriage between two people who do not stray at all...period.



LadyPact -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 8:21:17 PM)

Folks, can we stop calling it polygamy? Just as a personal favor? Thanks.



DeviantlyD -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 9:13:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

<snip>

Monogamy should be limited to only marriage between two people who do not stray at all...period.


If this were the case it would take away a choice. Although legally there are limits to choices, my belief is to add to freedom of choice and not to take any away.



MrRodgers -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 9:35:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

<snip>

Monogamy should be limited to only marriage between two people who do not stray at all...period.


If this were the case it would take away a choice. Although legally there are limits to choices, my belief is to add to freedom of choice and not to take any away.

True enough but along with the idea I put forth, that labels are difficult to apply, if one strays from monogamy, it is not...any longer.



MrRodgers -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 9:37:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Folks, can we stop calling it polygamy? Just as a personal favor? Thanks.


Sure but if we do call two people who don't stray...monogamous, then we can call polymory...polygamous.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 9:54:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Sure but if we do call two people who don't stray...monogamous, then we can call polymory...polygamous.



Actually, "polyamory" is a poorly constructed word. I've always objected to mixing Greek and Latin roots.

That aside, "gamos" is Greek for "marriage" while "amore" (from whence we get "amory") is Latin for "love".

So, the difference between "polygamy" and "polyamory" is: "many marriages" to "many loves". A fine hair to split but polygamy is illegal in most places in the world (and certainly in most places from whence originate a good portion of this site's users)



Michael



longwayhome -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 10:02:39 PM)

There are so many notions about what fidelity is in a relationship that I never assume what people mean until they explain it to me.

Fidelity for me is about keeping to the contract you agreed with the other party/parties and being honest before the event if you want to break those terms, understanding that it might end the relationship.

Agreeing the involvement of another, perhaps for mutual play, whilst you both remain each other's primary partner in every regard feels like a form of monogamy to me. I know it isn't really but it fits with the notion of putting one significant other first.

Reserving the term monogamy to marriage between two people who do not stray does seem a bit narrow though. Why marriage as the only vehicle? The word stray is also pejorative.

I get it as one way of looking at things but there are of course many.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Monogamy? (3/6/2016 10:32:47 PM)

I think this thread, in it's entirety, is a good explanation of why there is a polyamory section.



HisForLife71 -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 2:08:31 AM)

Yes it was more for a discussion of people who live monogamously and it's kind of gone more of the other way lol. I got involved myself with the trend of the conversation but that wasn't really my intention.



Wayward5oul -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 3:55:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Folks, can we stop calling it polygamy? Just as a personal favor? Thanks.


Sure but if we do call two people who don't stray...monogamous, then we can call polymory...polygamous.

Polygamous refers specifically to having more than one spouse. I know that within this lifestyle people like to think outside the box, but when it comes to touchy topics that involve legal issues, its best to stick with accepted definitions, I think.



LadyPact -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 4:33:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Sure but if we do call two people who don't stray...monogamous, then we can call polymory...polygamous.

Well, you can, but by definition, you'd be incorrect.




HisForLife71 -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 4:48:25 AM)

So back to monogamy, and the fact people seem to have differing opinions on what it actually means. For me personally it is based on loyalty and fidelity to one single person during the whole of that relationship. And that's not just sexually. I personally have very clear definitions on what cheating is, and full sex is only one of them.
It's not complicated with any side roads or loopholes. It's extremely simple and clear cut.
I am monogamous, which means (to me) I do not engage in any kind of intimacy with any other person other than him, either physically or mentally /emotionally. Apart from obvious distinctions such as closeness and a different kind of intimacy with my children, close friends. But like I say, that is a different kind of intimacy and is not included in this context. I assume the definition of intimacy is very much implied. Yes that includes romantically and sexually, but not just that. Anything within the realms of that type of relationship.



ExiledTyrant -> RE: Monogamy? (3/7/2016 5:28:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HisForLife71

So back to monogamy, and the fact people seem to have differing opinions on what it actually means. For me personally it is based on loyalty and fidelity to one single person during the whole of that relationship. And that's not just sexually. I personally have very clear definitions on what cheating is, and full sex is only one of them.
It's not complicated with any side roads or loopholes. It's extremely simple and clear cut.
I am monogamous, which means (to me) I do not engage in any kind of intimacy with any other person other than him, either physically or mentally /emotionally. Apart from obvious distinctions such as closeness and a different kind of intimacy with my children, close friends. But like I say, that is a different kind of intimacy and is not included in this context. I assume the definition of intimacy is very much implied. Yes that includes romantically and sexually, but not just that. Anything within the realms of that type of relationship.



Okay, the giant flag you're waving is that you're monogamous. We get that. The point you are trying to make, and you are missing, is that YOUR FIDELITY is crucial to you within your monogamous relationship.

Here: http://www.collarchat.com/m_4865304/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4865347

Again, divorce courts are filled with people everyday that ARE monogamous, signed up for monogamy, had their FIDELITY violated by whom they believed to be a monogamous partner and are now damaged. Now they will miss a hundred opportunities to have a great relationship because their trust was damaged and they rather miss an opportunity rather than invite disaster.

The same thing happens to our submissive boys and girls Every Single Day. They get damaged by some asshole that talked a good story but violated them once they were in their clutches and as much as they NEED to be in a dynamic, they harbor that damage and fear deep inside them and miss hundreds of opportunities because they do not want another disaster.

It happens to D's also.

So, we get that you're monogamous, we get that you're trying to hammer home your expectation of fidelity, and we get that this is starting to look like a campaign against poly-dynamics.

Jus sayin



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875