Indeed. It is obvious from that statement and from things you have explicitly said throughout your time on this forum that you view redpepper's relationships with other men in a distinct hierarchical fashion, and I suppose that is prob'ly where the sentiments mentioned in the above quote are rooted.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies: Merged threads/General discussion
- Thread starter ladyjools
- Start date
Indeed. It is obvious from that statement and from things you have explicitly said throughout your time on this forum that you view redpepper's relationships with other men in a distinct hierarchical fashion, and I suppose that is prob'ly where the sentiments mentioned in the above quote are rooted.
MonoVCPHG
New member
Exaclty correct! Thanks for putting that into perspective for me. I definitely see her husband as Alpha and that is what makes this work for me. I have no problem with taking up the secondary role and see unique privileges to his position as her husband-- veto, access to information and such. There's is also the matter of trust. I don't trust easy and Redpepper's husband is the person I trust most, outside of Redpepper.
Thanks, Ygirl. I like the word hierarchical. I think I'll use it, just not in front of Redpepper.
Last edited:
Thanks Ygirl....I like the word hierarchical..think I'll use it, just not infront of Redpepper
You're welcome... except I don't own that word so use it as much as you wish!
redpepper
Active member
I used to talk all the time about my sex life to everyone. I couldn't see why anyone would object, so I would ramble on excitedly about everything, until, one day, I overheard a conversation I wasn't meant to hear between two people. They were talking about me and saying things that made me realize that I was annoying them and that I could use some respect of their boundaries, and perhaps my own. Of course, they didn't say this so kindly.
I was upset by this and decided not to give details unless asked, or in a situation where my thoughts could be in the context of the conversation. This has proved to be far more in keeping with what most people seem to be able to deal with.
As far as my loves go, I have the same policy. It works for us. I don't see it as insecurity, as much as respect that they are not thinking about sex right now, or they are not ready to hear details, or it's not all that interesting, or we don't have time to get into it, etc. When any of them want to know, then they can ask. Or if I feel they need to know some information, I will tell them. I have no problem giving as much detail as someone wants, including my feelings, but that would entirely depend on how many questions I get and what the focus of the topic is about.
Sometimes I miss talking as freely as I once did, as I think that on all levels that kind of openness would dispell a lot of misconceptions. Of course I would also have to be willing to hear everything people have to say... such as the conversation I overheard that made me aware that I was bugging people.
Ah well, it's all a balance that is worked out in the moment and in time and comfort level.
I was upset by this and decided not to give details unless asked, or in a situation where my thoughts could be in the context of the conversation. This has proved to be far more in keeping with what most people seem to be able to deal with.
As far as my loves go, I have the same policy. It works for us. I don't see it as insecurity, as much as respect that they are not thinking about sex right now, or they are not ready to hear details, or it's not all that interesting, or we don't have time to get into it, etc. When any of them want to know, then they can ask. Or if I feel they need to know some information, I will tell them. I have no problem giving as much detail as someone wants, including my feelings, but that would entirely depend on how many questions I get and what the focus of the topic is about.
Sometimes I miss talking as freely as I once did, as I think that on all levels that kind of openness would dispell a lot of misconceptions. Of course I would also have to be willing to hear everything people have to say... such as the conversation I overheard that made me aware that I was bugging people.
Ah well, it's all a balance that is worked out in the moment and in time and comfort level.
I can't even begin to imagine how many times I have done this...
...and how many times this must have happened (without my being aware of it)!
Of course, I've changed since those days, but there was no one moment of epiphany like you just described.
Last edited:
MonoVCPHG
New member
You do an awesome job of reaching that balance for me, by the way. I know it isn't easy, because I am soooo sensitive.
C
Ceoli
Guest
The thing is, choosing not to have DADT policy doesn't automatically mean that all things get told all the time. For me, the dynamic is just like you describe here. If people want to talk about it, they do. If people don't want to talk about it, they don't. But the foundation of trust and openness is there to build on. Setting up a policy to prescribe how one can and can't talk about these things just doesn't make sense to me.
crisare
New member
Ah. I see.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here - and possibly due to my finally realizing a communication error.Ceoli, it seems (based on this and other posts) you automatically equate "policy" with "prescriptive." It also seems that you're equating having a "policy" with having hard and fast, carved in stone rules.
Not everyone equates having a policy with prescribing behavior. For us, the policy is mostly an unspoken one, based on a conversation we had a few years ago. It's not a prescriptive rule or demand on either of our parts. It's knowing each other well enough (having been married for going on 12 years now, and knowing each other for nearly 18) that this is the amount of information each would be comfortable with.
When we first discussed opening our marriage after our separation, I was dating someone else. I asked my H how much he wanted to know, and was willing to tell him anything and everything he wanted to hear, and he said he didn't need to know details, that as long as I let him know who I was seeing and when (so he didn't wait dinner on me or whatever), he didn't really want to know more. I realized that he had a level of discomfort hearing about my having sex with someone else and I respect that. I also know that (given his particular sexual kinks) I would not be comfortable hearing about the sex he had with someone else. That's not insecurity on my part, or his. It's just a level of comfort with what he enjoys vs what I enjoy.
THAT is the limit of our "policy." We know what our limits are on personal information and we respect them with each other.
I think when you read that someone has a "policy," you assume that it is a hard and fast prescriptive rule. Not all policies fit that description.
Last edited:
crisare
New member
This just occurred to me:
Ceoli - I think it's apparent that you and I have very different relationships in our lives. Your relationships (or the relationships you want) have everyone being involved with each other to a much higher degree than mine do.
In my relationships, my H and my b/f are separate. They only know each other incidentally by their association with me and have no desire to know each other better (no dislike for each other, mind you, it's not like that).
The bottom line is that in the way my life works, I have 2 separate intimate relationships that don't connect with each other. So it is important to all of us to respect those individual relationships. That's part of DADT in my world.
Ceoli - I think it's apparent that you and I have very different relationships in our lives. Your relationships (or the relationships you want) have everyone being involved with each other to a much higher degree than mine do.
In my relationships, my H and my b/f are separate. They only know each other incidentally by their association with me and have no desire to know each other better (no dislike for each other, mind you, it's not like that).
The bottom line is that in the way my life works, I have 2 separate intimate relationships that don't connect with each other. So it is important to all of us to respect those individual relationships. That's part of DADT in my world.
Last edited:
OK, before she gets back from walking the dog and reads your post:
I feel compelled to point out that Ceoli's thread was not about "rules being prescriptive". It was about RELATIONSHIPS being formed according to prescriptions - or not. The whole thing about "rules" came about in the course of the thread and it was other people, not Ceoli, that injected that aspect into the original sentiment.
I think it's important to not obfuscate the current discussion with misinterpretations of another discussion.
C
Ceoli
Guest
Actually, no. I equate a policy with an underlying principle upon which expectations are built. In many ways, those underlying policies do create rules and prescriptions. For me, it doesn't work to have an underlying principle (or "policy," if you will) that encourages less communication over more communication. If something different works for you, then great. That wouldn't work for me.
C
Ceoli
Guest
Crisare, I don't know the nature of your relationships, so I'm not going to compare mine to yours. However, I can say that what I'm involved in is an individual relationship with a man who has other partners. And those other partners have individual relationships of their own with him. The fact that there is open communication among us doesn't mean that we're involved to a higher degree with each other. I'm friends with one of my metamours, have been chatting with another of my metamours, and don't know the others very well at all. We're involved in a high level of communication, that's all.
When I move back to London, whoever I get involved with will also be a separate individual relationship. However, there will still be that level of communication between the relationships I have.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Honestly, this would be much more comfortable and natural for me, as well.
I find it difficult. For example, Tuesday I went with GG when he got a vasectomy. This was strenuous for me, with my neck issues, but I knew it would be easier on him if I were there, so I went, despite Maca and GG arranging so I wouldn't have to.
But afterward there were things I wanted/needed to vent. I sure as hell did not want to talk to GG about them! But Maca doesn't want to know, so I couldn't talk with him about what was on my mind. It was awkward, lying in bed with my mind in a whirlwind, when he asked "What are you thinking?" What the hell was I supposed to answer?
For me, personally, I'd rather just leave it to circumstance, which is more what GG and I do. I don't automatically tell him everything I did/do with Maca. But if it's right, I can and do, and it's no big deal. Likewise, while he doesn't have a lover right now, he has on a number of occasions over the last 17 years, and we talk about things pertinent to them (and my past relationships, too), fond or otherwise. And we did throughout that time, as well. It's just understood between us that neither of us would ever intentionally say something to hurt the other, so anything can be shared.
That said, some things I don't share generally. He doesn't have a keen interest in some of my BDSM interests. So unless they specifically pertain to our conversation, I don't talk about them. I guess... I don't talk about them just to share them with him, but I can, and if he asked, I certainly would.
Did that make sense? I sort of feel like I lost myself in trying to explain that last paragraph.
redpepper
Active member
I get what you are saying in terms of BDSM. Mono is not interested in details around what my tertiary and I do.
I find it hard to bite my tongue sometimes in situations, as I know people are talking out of their ass about stuff they have never experienced, and I have. I have to try hard to let them talk it out and not roll my eyes at their preconceived ideas about stuff. I am getting better about that, as I think it's important to allow people to be where they are, and meet them there, instead of bowling them over with information that makes me look like I am showing off. That is not to say I won't give information, I will, but just at a time that is appropriate, after they have talked through as much as they know.
I find it hard to bite my tongue sometimes in situations, as I know people are talking out of their ass about stuff they have never experienced, and I have. I have to try hard to let them talk it out and not roll my eyes at their preconceived ideas about stuff. I am getting better about that, as I think it's important to allow people to be where they are, and meet them there, instead of bowling them over with information that makes me look like I am showing off. That is not to say I won't give information, I will, but just at a time that is appropriate, after they have talked through as much as they know.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Bolding/underlining by me. I think that word is key here. I was reading (and rereading) your post and Ceoli's previous post. I feel so comfortable with Ceoli's way of expecting it to go. It feels so much more... real(?) to me. But I read yours and something triggered. So in rereading it I finally got it. It's the "demanding." That is something I would definitely attribute to insecurity, just as strongly as "don't tell me, I don't want to know." (Not sure what that would be called in one word.)
I think that a comfortable acceptance of "what will be, will be" in action and conversation is a true sign of security, not a rule of either/or.
I personally don't spend any time comparing my men, and I don't share things to appease their desire to do so. (I'm not saying that they do desire to; just making a point.) I would and have immediately shut down a conversation before, when I got the impression that information was being requested for the purpose of comparing or competing.
But I do like knowing that I can tell GG, "Last night, Maca did X, and OMG it was so fucking awesome," or (as I have said often) "OMG Maca is so fucking amazing when he goes down; I can't fathom why women aren't standing in line."
GG is confident in his own strengths and he just finds it amusing. He isn't sitting there asking, "Well, what exactly does he do?" because he doesn't need or want to be Maca. He knows that I love things he does for how he does them, and I love things Maca does for how Maca does them.
I guess, for me (I know-- 5 minutes from the last post and I change the details of my thoughts-- I guess you all just make me think!
), I would prefer the freedom to talk about things, if they were pertinent, and for a level of trust that I wouldn't be sharing information that was going to be hurtful or used against the other lover.Definitely, I would prefer a level of trust in me, that my partners would know I wouldn't be sharing information that was intended to be hurtful to either of them, or that was likely to be used by one lover to hurt the other. I would prefer that they both trust me enough to know that I choose partners who have heart, consideration, maturity and an ability and willingness to act in manners that show those things, not only to me, but to one another.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Funny how proactive communication comes up in so many of the areas of relationship, huh?
C
Ceoli
Guest
This is really interesting. It kind of touches on something that this guy I'm getting involved with wrote about. He wrote a great post about why he thinks it's a good thing to compare different partners. I've found experiencing his perspective on it to be pretty refreshing. He sums it up really nicely in the conclusion to his post. (I bolded the part I really like.)
When you compare your lovers, when you notice the similarities and differences between your lovers--this is a necessary and inevitable consequence of seeing your lovers. Not as faceless, interchangeable units, but as human beings. You can not know a person, not in any meaningful way, without noticing those things that make that person unique.
It's not about comparing them on a stepladder to figure out which one is "best"-- Lessee, Gina gets four points for loving dogs, 'cause dogs are cool; Joreth gets six bonus points because she hates the novel Stranger in a Strange Land, and I don't like it either. And the one with the most points wins. 'Cause, y'know, the one with the most points is the best one.
Instead, it's about seeing each of my partners for exactly who she is. When you do that, you see that each person is someone who adds value to your life-- value that any other person can't.
And that, my friends, is awesome.
redpepper
Active member
Haha, I kinda figured Joreth was a metamour of yours, Ceoli. She had interesting timing a while back.
I read that article, and while I agree wholeheartedly I don't see it servicing my men well if I go on and on about comparing them, I do that in my head as a way of separating them as human beings, loving them for who THEY are, and to keep perspective and my expectations at bay. It's like the whole talking about sex thing. If they ask, or if it's necessary, I will tell them how I see them as lovably different in certain ways. I also take a lot of comfort in knowing the ways they are the same, too. This has also given me insight into myself and who I chose as a worthy person to invest in.
Mono compares me to his ex-wife this way too, and also notes our differences (sexually and otherwise). So does my husband, come to think of it. He compares his partners to his mother in character, yet notes the differences we have, also. All of it is interesting and helpful, but there is a fine line between too much talking, just as there is about sex talk.
redpepper
Active member
Um, they are all lined up in front of Mono's apartment building. Poor dears, they are hoping one day he won't be mono. I will tell them to head up to Alaska for Maca, then, K?