Newbie Wondering about the Freedom to Do Things vs. Actually Doing Them

Polyamory is to couples what kids are to couples.
Meaning. 1+1+xzy does NOT = happiness OR freedom.

Lots of couple's add kids to a relationship thinking it will make them happier, bring them closer, fulfil some fantasy one or both have etc. etc..

Sometimes I think that poly is used in a similar type of logic.

On the surface it looks like a good idea, but if you dig deeper you see that adding another person to an existing relationship that is struggling for whatever reason is just a disaster.

I suggest like what a other's have said, find a couples counsellor- go to therapy, maybe a support group that are for sexless / nearly sexless marraiges. Also talk about ideas, discuss with each other in books etc. And communicate first...then go from there.
 
And I feel that unsupported "opinions" like this are primarily meant to END conversation. Feel free to elaborate. ;)

Polyamory IS NOT couples therapy. Presenting/defending it as such is denigrating to people like me who've never seen good reason for monogamy to be elevated as "the natural order."

There's nothing wrong with sexual nonmonogamy. IMNSHO, problems begin when people start claiming that sex is a basic need like breathable air or potable water or nutritious food or affection or love or touch or social contact or whatever. (What is unnatural is not restriction of sexual desire but its repression, & that's another discussion entirely.)

But let's consider it from another direction: if sex IS a need, then larding all that other stuff onto fulfilling that need is utterly irrational, & looks more like OCD. If you knew someone who felt compelled to Riverdance energetically for five minutes before eating even the smallest snack, wouldn't you eventually wonder whether they were mentally unbalanced?

Whether that dysfunction stems from abnormalities that are physiological, biochemical, environmental, or emotional, or imposed willingly or unwillingly, is irrelevant. If it's truly a survival need, then fulfill that need & go about your otherwise perfect life; if you WANT to take regular chances of screwing up that perfect life, then the conversation has already moved far past "fulfilling a need."

I also can't overlook that statements such as "mismatched libidos in a relationship" begins entirely from a couplist premise, where The Sacred Dyad MUST be maintained at all costs, for instance finding a pre-packaged touchy-feely rationale for Monogamy But.

In a relationship where one-to-one-forever is NOT a rule -- even a rule that is casually broken while swearing regular fervent oaths to it -- the concept of "mismatched libidos" is totally absurd.

There's a lot of things I read and disagree with from your point of view. However I found my self nodding to parts of this. I Agree that problems arise in a sexual relation sometimes are because people claim that sex is a need- therefor it has to be met. And definitely if a person is blaming a need for the breakdown of the total relationship and cannot fufil it with masturbation, or swinging or therapy, or maybe even helping the wife address her own issues around sex and sexual pleasure, then it's not taking responsibility for the situation but thrusting it onto some unknowning third party who will be involved with O.P....

For some people it does feel that sex is a need- intensely. But I think it's simply a perk, I once thought myself it was a need, and was with a man who thought it was a need of his own. After I left him I realised that my libido was completely dependant on my own thought process and hormones and not an actual need. I also started to resent men who felt it was ok to excuse their behaviour because "sex was a need".

I don't agree with the concept of mismatched libidos. Libidos are real. But I think libidos and desires can be controlled. So While I agree with parts of what you say, I disagree that someone ones opinion is "Absurd". Everyone's opinion on their own sex life or self representation is THEIR truth and contradictory truths can happen and be correct At The Same Time. Including yours, I may disagree with a lot of what you say, but I will not act in a demeaning fashion towards others to verify what I said. I would kindly request as a frequent member here that you refrain from doing so too.

My last partner taught me a lot about self control of all desires. Moderation in all things. Sometimes I found his desire for control over all his faculties too extreme in the other side of the coin. This IS a polyamorous website, and we welcome all values and opinions but many people here travelling this path or have for years are generally, not always but generally, going to be pro-polyamory as an answer to their life and their questions. It's why the site exists.
 
If sex for the sake of sex is a NEED, then fulfill that NEED as any sane being would do for a NEED for water or air or nutrition or whatever.

But if at ANY point sex is a WANT -- as in if anything enters about touch or emotion or Riomance or whatever -- then any use of NEED is dishonest & manipulative. Openness about sex has become a means to an end... & what is the ACTUAL end purpose?

Avoiding confrontation with the real end purpose is a lie.
 
Back
Top