RE: One-sided Monogamy

RE: One-sided Monogamy (Full Version)

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

Message

Vancouver_cinful -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/9/2006 2:36:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: raiken Yes, and there is also poly-fidelity and that trust may be even more fragile since there are more involved that would be affected by a breach in that trust. Good thought Cin. You're right, it becomes quite the juggling act, which is where the adage Don't bite off more than you can chew! applies. LOL The first thing people have to accept is that none of this is easy or uncomplicated. But then neither is a traditional marriage. Anyone looking for an easy answer to human relationships is doomed to disappointment.

cloudboy -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/9/2006 9:58:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vancouver_cinful quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy In my own case, I now find myself giving my wife some pointers, advice, and insights to make her own extra marital relationship work better. Naturally I did not foresee this role when we got married. Her partner refers to their arrangment as OBS, "our bizarre situation," which I think is quite funny. [sm=lol.gif] I think this becomes inevitable in almost all open relationships. In a way it's a sign of love and trust, and it truly can seal the bond so much tighter. I've found that in every open relationship I've had, I've done the same. I am hoping it works out. I agree with the distinction between fidelity and monogamy, but fidelity is the strongest sub component of monogamy. To me, long term fidelity is a form of monogamy. As for one sided monogamy and its permutations, I can only say poly is some complicated shit. It requires a great deal of people skills, sensitivities, and an adventurous, trusting spirit. Even for the one sided monogamist, they live vicariously through their poly partner --- being supportive, experiencing the ups and downs, the frustrations, etc. You also experience the ebb and flow of sharing --- which is inclusion and exclusion. I thought KoM made an excellent point when he said, "I think your right about serial monogamy being similar to poly. Poly is multiple realitionships at the same time. While the serial monogmist is having mulitple relationships one after the other. I am sure the arguement is that the poly individual deals with issues in all the relationships as the same time while the monogmist doesn't. Even thou the monogmist maybe only have one relaitonship at a time... there tends to be baggage that comes from one relationship to the next. In effect, the current relationship is often dealing with issues of past relationships, making if much more difficult to deal with in my opinion." Time and space do not necessarily separate the impact that intimate relationships. For poly, what would be a fresh, live issue --- would be "baggage" for the serial monogamist.

Vancouver_cinful -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 12:06:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Time and space do not necessarily separate the impact that intimate relationships. For poly, what would be a fresh, live issue --- would be "baggage" for the serial monogamist. Yes, it's a really interesting point. I'd never looked at it this way but yes, in many ways we often use our present relationships to work through the issues of our past relationship. So, in effect, unless you have only ever had one partner, you are, in a sense, always in a poly relationship.

Vancouver_cinful -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 12:07:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy As for one sided monogamy and its permutations, I can only say poly is some complicated shit. It requires a great deal of people skills, sensitivities, and an adventurous, trusting spirit. Even for the one sided monogamist, they live vicariously through their poly partner --- being supportive, experiencing the ups and downs, the frustrations, etc. You also experience the ebb and flow of sharing --- which is inclusion and exclusion. Good point!

smilezz -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 6:38:44 AM)
I don't find that strange at all. While i am monogamous to Thorns, He is free to snak all He wants. I find it amusing that when "some" people find this out they are just aghast that we live like this. As with most everything else, it truly boils down to communication. ~smilezz~

WhiplashGirlChld -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 6:51:57 AM)
In the wild, I have seen more Male/Male love relationships work as "open", even with two Male lovers sort of working as partners in crime to help one another seek other men for flings or whatnot. I believe it is something specific to the male DNA that makes this more possible, and in women, not as easy. In the vanilla world, I find one of the most enduring fantasies heterosexual men ask me about is "threesomes" and they find it difficult to understand how a person who has been polyamorous in both casual and long-term ways, a self-defined bisexual, would not want to continue. I think my darling boy has put it better than I can when he said "It adds an element of difficulty to a relationship that was already working out pretty well. Why make it harder?" I guess for some, there is a good reason to add this element. At this time in my life, I don't have a compelling enough reason, especially since I have a quite amenable primary relationship with needs met, and I value what the boy needs also, and he would find it hurtful. (Though he would grin and bear it dutifully if I insisted.)

GddssBella -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 7:04:36 AM)
G'morning all: Sorry cloudboy, I disagree. Length of time does not a relationship definition make. It's intent and practice. See link below and article 3 of the definition for clarification. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/monogamy As to the OP's query? I believe in complete monogamy. Two sided. Even if the involved parties agree, if one is receiving sexual gratification outside the relationship, it's no longer monogamy. I've been told by a friend, "You're the most conservative kinky person I know.". I was a bit startled, but upon reflection, that's certainly true. I have old fashioned values. My ethics wouldn't allow otherwise. What it boils down to? What works for you is the path you follow and the rest can go fudge themselves. [;)] Stay safe, play nice, & share your toys w/ others... [:D] Bella

KnightofMists -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 7:32:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GddssBella Sorry cloudboy, I disagree. Length of time does not a relationship definition make. It's intent and practice. See link below and article 3 of the definition for clarification. I happen to agree to a point of what cloudboy is saying. That you may have intent and practice... but without success... Intent and practice is of little value. If I wish to gain an understanding on how to succeed at living a monogmist life. who would I be better served to ask... a person that that has been in 10 monogmist relationships in 50 years.... or 10 people that have been in one relationship for 5 years. or maybe 10.. or 15 or 30. I believe what cloudboy is saying is that intent and practice is of limited value in our own efforts to succeed. We need to learn what it takes to succeed. He has a measure of 10 years as someone that is succeeding. I suspect that he will look to such relationships to consider why they are succeeding and look for comparisons or perspectives that would apply in his own life. However, looking at the person that is a serial monogmist is indeed good to learn what not to do... which can be of equal importance.

impishlilhellcat -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 7:53:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vancouver_cinful quote: ORIGINAL: impishlilhellcat You know I absolutely can see that working for some, but why it didn't work for me was because it was causing this huge insecurity and he didn't bring this to me until we were well over a year into the relationship and it was just hard for me to deal with the fact that he was seeing other women on the side and in my opinion doing it in a sneeky fashion BY not being honest with them about me. I think I had a whole lot of issues with the situation in general that I am really just realizing now that I am away from that. But like I said I can see how that works for others. Your absolutely right cin. MY insecurities came directly from mistrust which caused more problems in the long run. He was unfaithful to me several times and I found out about it through others. I found out that towards the end of the relationship when he and I were working on things he put someone else from a different country under consideration so much for being committed to us and I have to say in an honest situation I wouldn't I guess have a problem with one sided monogamy although I would hope that if we are going to have an open relationship in that manner that it would be open for us both and not just one.. but then again that's just my own personal preference. He did often try to say that my insecurities came from my past and in reality it didn't have anything to do with my previous past just my past from him. Once again I agree with what your saying here.

GddssBella -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 8:40:58 AM)
G'morning all: KoM, sorry, I do not agree. Length of a relationship does not indicate if it's successful or not. Let's take some vanilla marriages for example. Sometimes they stutter on for years, making both parties unhappy, yet they have endured, 10, 15, 20+ years. They may have remained together for the sake of the kids or tax reasons, whatever. They have become utterly miserable though. Would you call that success? I wouldn't. To me, success in a relationship must encompass both parties being happy and having all their needs met. Not just sex. The time frame stated is irrelevant. People's needs change all the time, whether emotionally, mentally, physically, monetarily, etc. It's growing to adapt and work together that makes a relationship work. Building upon trust, love, communication, respect, etc. This is where intent and practice come in. None of which cloudboy mentioned. Nor did you. Length of time is not the ruler by which success is measured, happiness is. Stay safe, play nice, & share your toys w/ others... [:D] Bella

KnightofMists -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 8:47:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GddssBella KoM, sorry, I do not agree. Length of a relationship does not indicate if it's successful or not. mmmmmmm and where did I say that the length of a relationship is the indication of success! You talk but you don't actually listen.

KatyLied -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 8:55:50 AM)
quote: I find it amusing that when "some" people find this out they are just aghast that we live like this. I think those are people projecting their fears and values on to your relationship. Do you ever wonder why they protest so loudly? [8D] If it works for you and your relationship, that's all that matters.

GddssBella -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 9:04:52 AM)
G'morning all: quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists I happen to agree to a point of what cloudboy is saying. That you may have intent and practice... but without success... Intent and practice is of little value. If I wish to gain an understanding on how to succeed at living a monogmist life. Actually KoM, I pay attention quite well. You were agreeing with cloudboy's point regarding duration. Which is the basis of the his discussion. He's hypothesizing that length of time indicates success. Also, this forum is not verbal, so "talking" and "listening" are not the components of the medium. Stay safe, play nice & share your toys w/ others... [:D] Bella

KnightofMists -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 9:09:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GddssBella quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists I happen to agree to a point of what cloudboy is saying. That you may have intent and practice... but without success... Intent and practice is of little value. If I wish to gain an understanding on how to succeed at living a monogmist life. Actually KoM, I pay attention quite well. You were agreeing with cloudboy's point regarding duration. Which is the basis of the his discussion. He's hypothesizing that length of time indicates success. Also, this forum is not verbal, so "talking" and "listening" are not the components of the medium. Thanks for validating that you are not listening.

raiken -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 9:10:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists However, looking at the person that is a serial monogmist is indeed good to learn what not to do... which can be of equal importance. It is definitely of EQUAL importance. One of the things my son said to me after his father and i split, was that he learned from his father, how NOT to be, and how NOT to treat the other person, when in a relationship.

raiken -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 9:29:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GddssBella G'morning all: KoM, sorry, I do not agree. Length of a relationship does not indicate if it's successful or not. Let's take some vanilla marriages for example. Sometimes they stutter on for years, making both parties unhappy, yet they have endured, 10, 15, 20+ years. They may have remained together for the sake of the kids or tax reasons, whatever. They have become utterly miserable though. Would you call that success? I wouldn't. To me, success in a relationship must encompass both parties being happy and having all their needs met. Not just sex. The time frame stated is irrelevant. People's needs change all the time, whether emotionally, mentally, physically, monetarily, etc. It's growing to adapt and work together that makes a relationship work. Building upon trust, love, communication, respect, etc. This is where intent and practice come in. None of which cloudboy mentioned. Nor did you. Length of time is not the ruler by which success is measured, happiness is. Bella i have to disagree a bit here, while i see what you're saying, and there is a certain truth to it, and old friend comes to mind. What may appear or "SEEM"to be unsuccessful and utterly miserable to those on the outside looking in, may in fact be quite the opposite. People are unhappy throughout life for many reasons. They need to vent, and most of the time it is on and with their partners. Some in a long term relationship may be unhappy about lost opportunities, or other losses where they feel life has passed them by, family troubles, etc., or just didn't like the flavor of the pasta sauce that day! This may seem to appear that they are unhappy within their relationship, but really most folks i know stay together because they have grown comfortable with each other. They come to an understanding, while all their fantasies may never be lived out, they weigh their priorities, and choose to stay with their partner, it is more about the greater picture sometimes. Granted others stay together out of fear of being lonely or for financial reasons and the myraid of other issues within each person. But i like to give folks more credit and the benefit of the doubt in this topic. However, getting back to my long time friends, Joe and Louise, they fight like cats and dogs, every day, there is something that has one or both of them riled, and who is divorcing who first thing in the morning type arguments. After knowing them both intimately, this is just how they communicate and allow each other to blow off steam. They don't it seriously, so i stopped worrying. LOL! Because, i got to witness them at the end of the day, they unite, reaffirm, and have an understanding of not sweating the small stuff. They make up and do it quyite well, with warmth and affection, that many who know them don't get to see, but it still can be felt. This is not seen by many, this is their private joining. i have often wondered about the ones who fight openly, say they need a divorce, etc., but like Joe and Lousie, who have been getting divorced for over 35 years now, LOL, they are tight and got each other's backs during the important issues and trials of life. i have known at least a dozen couples who live and communicate just like that, it is interesting the bonds we form and are capable of maintaining, if we do it on our own terms and not try to please the masses. There is something to be said for those couples who let each other vent and don't take it personally, they have success in that they understand the other, and accept the other and love them for just who they are.

cloudboy -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 9:42:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists who would I be better served to ask... Although "time" is not necessarilly the greatest measure of "success" in monogamy, it is one benchmark of significant experience and committment to monogamy. For me, its difficult to take a monogamist seriously if they have not been able to sustain it for at least a decade. It reminds me a little bit of what Deborah Anapol said, "The fact is that most of us are polyamorists at heart whether we are willing to admit it to ourselves or not. It is no accident that "seriel monogamy," which is not really monogamy at all, is currrently the most common relationship form in our culture. Serial monogamy can be viewed as being one step closer to who we really are. Unlike lifelong monogamy, it allows us to express our polyamorous nature while maintaining a monogamous fiction in which our multimple mates are separated by linear time. For some people this marriage-divorce-remarriage cycle remains the best solution." "Most of us are not monogamous in the strict sense of the word. That is, we do not limit ourselves to one sexual partner for an entire lifetime. Census data reveal a global tendency for couples to divorce after four years of marriage." --Polyamory, Love w/o Limits, Secrets of Sustainable Intimate Relationships And Raiken, I have to agree with you. Monogamy is not really about happiness, so much as it is about committment. Monogamy places a heavy burden on the individuals involved to keep things honest, fresh, new, loving, adventurous, and romantic. For many, its a recipe for crash and burn.

KnightofMists -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 10:01:52 AM)
cloudboy.... I agree... time is a signficant indicator.... thou I wouldn't benchmark it as a particular time value... maybe more of a sliding scale. Of course.... common sense dictates that time is only an indicator that succes is occuring. The question is it really successful and can it be continued to be substained into the future. With this question in mind... when one gains insight into a given relationship we make our own subjective opinions on the success and substainability of the relationship. Time is but an indicator that it has occurred... and when it has occurred over a specific period of time...like you...my interest is peaked and I ask why and are they happy. I would also state that even being happy is rather time based. I maybe happy today... but tomorrow or yesterday I am or was not so happy. However, when I take all those moments that I have substained the relationship.... and I ask am I happy? well I hope to always say yes.

KnightofMists -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 10:10:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: raiken quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists However, looking at the person that is a serial monogmist is indeed good to learn what not to do... which can be of equal importance. It is definitely of EQUAL importance. One of the things my son said to me after his father and i split, was that he learned from his father, how NOT to be, and how NOT to treat the other person, when in a relationship. and for me it would be of less importance... I look at my parents of over 40 years and see much of the path they have traveled (the good and the very bad)... and can say what I need to do in order to substain as well as what I need from my parters. As a note... I look upon my mothers family of 12 children.... all have been together with their first so-called life time partner for at least 40 years plus, except for two that only reach about 30 years... both because death seperated them. I have visited my moms brothers and sisters on several occassions of the years.... what has always struck me is they are Happy in the living of their Committment to each other

juliaoceania -> RE: One-sided Monogamy (8/10/2006 10:26:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists interesting.... I was with alandra for over 12 years before I ventured outside of the the relationship for any intimate reasons. Now... I have had various intimate relatioships of varying significance in the over the past 7 years. mmmmmmmm I guess that makes me a bit of a hybrid. YES, you know both sides of the fence. My point, though, is that many people profess to be monogamous when in reality their life experience is a series of one-on-one relationships, one after-the-other. (serial relationships) These folks are often quite opinionated about monogamy, marriage, and the rest --- when in fact they have not even achieved monogamy in a LTR. (The real test.) Very few people have been monogamous on both sides as far as your "definition" goes. It is not one I subscribe to myself. I have two episodes in my life where I was celibate for more than 3 years at a time (one occasion I was celibate over 5 years), and a few times I was celibate over two years in my adult life. In fact celibacy has been my predominant sexual pattern, so I am what is termed a "serial celibate"...hmmmm....perhaps. People define themselves, I do not define them. If they have been together exclusively for one week and they consider themselves exclusive and monogamous, I consider them so too. Social scientists call it "serial monogamy:.. their definition is a better term. I was married for two years before my husband stepped out on me. I consider myself monogamous in my marriage for two years. Now if you wanted to say, "In my opinion no one can understand what monogamy truly is unless they are monogamous for 10 years" I guess that would be your opinion. My sister has been monogamous for over 20 years, my mother was monogamous with two different men for over 20 years. I guess they could say that unless you were monogamous as long as they were you weren't "really" monogamous. I guess I have this personal dislike of other people's timelines for my self label. It is like those people that say "You aren't reallt collared unless you have been together a year, or 6 months, or whatever". It also reminds me of this woman who told me I had no clue what being a mom was because I only had one child, and she had two.. according to this woman unless you have more than one you were not an experienced mother. I told my mother about this, and she laughed and said"Tell this broad she ain't a mother until she has had 4" (my mom had 4...smiles).

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875