Sharing Details of Relationships/Sex

[Ariakas]

I think that it is reasonable to expect one's partner to be free to talk about whatever they're doing with other partners. It changes things a bit when people are using your openness to spy on you. I think when you openly agree to having multiple partners, you should also feel comfortable talking about each other, with each other, as long as there is mutual respect. Keeping secrets is usually more painful than the information that is being kept secret, imo.

What about consideration for the other person? Not everyone in open relationships believes in full disclosure. In fact, in my case, I prefer some discretion. It makes the relationship feel private. This concept of the primaries having full rights removes the privacy rights of the secondaries. At least, that's how it feels to me when reading it.

Sometimes there is far too much openness in an open relationship.

In this case, we are talking about sex. Why does my wife need to know how I have sex with other people, or visa versa? There is 0 reason for that to be discussed, UNLESS it's within the confines of the sexual fantasy aspect within non-monogamy.

 

[IndieSolo]

sharing . . .

How does she touch you?

...like this?

Ooh, how about this?​

Am I doing it right?

Mmmmm.... Yeah!​

...you like that? Me too.​

<whimper>​

...and then what does she do?

...Really?​

Show me how.​

Ahhhhh....

Oh! Wow! <giggle>​

...and where are your hands when she does that?

Oooh! I like that.​

Oh, yeah...



Let me show you what ___ does to me...

yeah, right there.​

Oh, yesssss... that's right. Oh, I like this.​

YES!!!​

What else does she do for you?...

 

[serialmonogamist]

What about consideration for the other person? Not everyone in open relationships believes in full disclosure. In fact, in my case, I prefer some discretion. It makes the relationship feel private. This concept of the primaries having full rights removes the privacy rights of the secondaries.

In this case we are talking about sex. Why does my wife need to know how I have sex with other people, or visa versa? There is 0 reason for that to be discussed, UNLESS that's within the confines of the sexual fantasy aspect.

Well, like with everything else, there are private issues that don't beg disclosure. Sure, some people like to announce particularly significant aspects of, say, a bowel movement, but not everyone appreciates the information, and it may offend, as well.

I guess it depends on individual preferences, but I have too often seen people agree to mutual secrecy out of fear of offending a person they love by expressing honest curiosity. If someone loves you and you love them, why should you see it as a threat if they are curious about private thoughts, feelings, and experiences? Isn't love all about sharing and being able to express things comfortably that can't be expressed otherwise?

I'm not saying that love is lacking if full disclosure of anything and everything isn't sought and welcomed. I just find it interesting to examine why it is that secrecy and shame surround sexuality in so many ways. I think this has much to do with why sexuality has so much negativity and pain connected with it.

 

[AutumnalTone]

I just find it interesting to examine why it is that secrecy and shame surround sexuality in so many ways. I think this has much to do with why sexuality has so much negativity and pain connected with it.

In case you hadn't noticed, nobody's talking about secrecy and shame or negativity and pain. Folks are speaking of privacy and discretion--and those are quite different.

The only people whose business it is what happens during sex with me are me and whomever I'm having sex with. That's it. Nobody else's business.

 

[NeonKaos]

Sure, some people like to announce particularly significant aspects of, say, a bowel movement but not everyone appreciates the information and it may offend as well.

The thing is, your bowel movements are your business only and you have every right to discuss your business with whomever you wish. It has nothing to do with whether or not something "offends" your audience.

f someone loves you and you love them, why should you see it as a threat if they are curious about private thoughts, feelings, and experiences? Isn't love all about sharing and being able to express things comfortably that can't be expressed otherwise?

It isn't about how much the "original" partners share and care for one another. THERE IS ANOTHER PARTNER, and what about THEIR "private thoughts, feelings, and experiences"? Doesn't the "other" partner have a right to be in complete control of THEIR OWN privacy? I fail to see how violation of someone else's privacy demonstrates love between two people "that can't be expressed otherwise". Go back and read that quote very slowly, and see how it makes less and less sense the more times you read it.

 

[IndieSolo]

In the end, we worked out an agreement that if they did anything new in bed, that either he would ask her permission before telling me, or that she would tell me herself. Also, I would work on asking her directly about what they were doing, which made me uncomfortable, but I promised I would try.

This sounds like a recipe in a cookbook. I couldn't live that way. I just don't think that talking or not talking should be a requirement. Go with what feels right in the moment. Communicate what needs to be said, or whatever moves you. Why such control over talking about sex? It boggles my mind.

 

[NeonKaos]

I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who "has to" tell their other partner ANYTHING about what we do together. So the girlfriend will probably grow weary of this and leave, which is probably what the OP really wants down deep inside and doesn't even realize.

 

[serialmonogamist]

It isn't about how much the "original" partners share and care for one another. THERE IS ANOTHER PARTNER, with THEIR private thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Doesn't the "other" partner have a right to be in complete control of THEIR OWN privacy? I fail to see how violation of someone else's privacy demonstrates love between two people "that can't be expressed otherwise."

I see your point, but then wouldn't you say that people also have the right not to have their partner talk about them with friends, therapists, etc.? Isn't the issue more talking about others with respect, rather than total secrecy? I read a book on truth once that said that when you keep people in the dark about things, it's like saying that you have a right to knowledge that they don't have a right to. This may be a legitimate right within a physical relationship, but doesn't it also ruin the intimacy you have with a person if they have secret parts of their lives that are off limits?

Granted, to have openness requires responsibility. It's hard to promise openness if the other person can't promise emotional maturity in dealing with disclosed information. But I have trouble seeing how you could maintain a healthy relationship with a "don't ask don't tell" policy between partners, though I'm sure it goes on all the time, in all sorts of relationships, for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Ariakas]

You are taking a specific point and now comparing it to a general point.

Talking about sex is never required. It is personal. It should be discreet. And it should be up to the people doing the fucking. Of course, personal discretion is just that, personal. Some groupings can do this "full disclosure sexual fun" thing. But others can't. And the right of the information lies with the people in the relationship, not with the metamour.

In general, most people do talk about their lovers with other people. But not everything. I don't know anyone that talks about everything and every aspect. There are always things left to privacy and discretion.

Lastly, therapy is something else. In the end, if you are that messed up about a poly relationship where you need to discuss every aspect of the relationship, you should probably get out of the relationship. Therapy is usually pretty specific and doesn't need every detail of everything. And, if you are in therapy, that's a protected environment. Its not the same as telling your wife how you banged your girlfriend, what positions, how many orgasms, how many bedsprings you broke, and what the neighbours thought.

The only person that should know every detail about every part of your relationship are the people involved in the relationship. Period.

 

[NeonKaos]

but then wouldn't you say that people also have the right not to have their partner talk about them with friends, therapists, etc.?

Re: "therapy" analogy

Please don't insult my intelligence like that.

That's an extremely flawed comparison. I talk to my GYN about those things but it's hardly the same as telling one partner what I do with the other partner. I ask my GYN for STD tests, but I don't tell my husband how many condoms my boyfriend and I used within a certain time period.

 

[serialmonogamist]

All I can say is that for me this is mostly a theoretical issue for discussion. I am open to exploring how polyamory would work in practice, but I've never had multiple sexual partners at the same time. From the responses I'm getting to things I say, it's as if I've triggered some primordial defensiveness regarding privacy rights. If the topic is as sensitive as it seems, it tells me that there are some deep-seated fears about what could happen if you were expected to openly field questions about your sex lives. Personally, I don't like it when people interrogate me about things I don't want to talk about either, and that's not just limited to sex. However, I can still reflect on the fact that the reasons I am sensitive about being asked about certain things is because of how I think the information could be used to harass me in some way or otherwise manipulate me.

With sex, I think it is a shame that people feel like they can't talk about what they feel or do with other people with those they love. A big part of the joy of intimacy, imo, is being able to talk about things you wouldn't talk about with just anyone. It's nice to be able to open up, and this thread is almost making it sound like people are having to sacrifice intimacy/openness with one partner to be able to have sex with another. Whether or not that's legitimate, it's still a sacrifice of sorts, isn't it?

 

[Ariakas]

You are reading too much into our defense of the right for privacy and discretion. Don't overthink our defense. Take it at face value.

We all treasure open and honest communication (allowing for human mistakes in communication) but we also all accept that there needs to be privacy.

That's all. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[serialmonogamist]

You are reading too much into our defense of the right for privacy and discretion. Don't overthink our defense. Take it at face value.

We all treasure open and honest communication (allowing for human mistakes in communication), but we also all accept that there needs to be privacy.

That's all. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Well, I guess you could read more into my questioning of privacy because, imo, secrecy and shame are byproducts of culture that equates open sharing with danger. When I am in a relationship, I like the feeling of being able to talk about past experiences, even if they took place in other "private" relationships. I think I would want the same freedom with multiple partners at the same time. I would feel repressed and used, if my partners expected me to protect their secrets from each other.

If they had other partners, I would expect them to talk about whatever they wanted regarding me, provided that their partner respected me enough to not exploit their position of receiving privileged information.

Really, what this comes down to is that it is better not to put others in the position of keeping secrets for you. If you don't want something disclosed, better to keep it to yourself, I think. That doesn't mean that there are no ethics to the way people respond to information they receive. E.g., I don't think Tiger Woods' prostitutes or Arnold Schwartzeneger's mistress should have been burdened with permanently keeping their relationships a secret, but then I also don't think it's legitimate the way the media and the public treat the information when they get it. The problem is you can't control other people, even when they're abusive, and there is a lot of harassment, bullying, shunning, etc., that goes on regarding sexuality, and many people don't even consider themselves as doing anything wrong by abusing people in this way.

 

[AutumnalTone]

Well, I guess you could read more into my questioning of privacy because, imo, secrecy and shame are byproducts of culture that equates open sharing with danger.

Once again you're assuming shame is part of the equation. Once again I will point out that it is not, and that you'll never understand our position if you insist on that assumption.

It's quite simple: if you and I are involved with the same woman, what she and I do sexually is none of your business. I am *not* choosing to share that intimacy with you simply because you are also involved with her.

Should you ask for any such details, you are attempting to coerce intimacy with me that I don't choose to offer.

Should she speak of such details without my consent, then she is violating my trust and forcing an intimacy on me that I don't wish to share.

I guarantee it's a self-limiting process, for once I find out about such a thing, there would be no further intimacies to worry about.

In short: *I* get to decide with whom I'm intimate. Not her, and not you. Anybody who can't understand that isn't ready for a relationship, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[serialmonogamist]

Once again, you're assuming shame is part of the equation. Once again, I will point out that it is not, and that you'll never understand our position if you insist on that assumption.

It's quite simple: if you and I are involved with the same woman, what she and I do sexually is none of your business. I am *not* choosing to share that intimacy with you simply because you are also involved with her.

Should you ask for any such details, you are attempting to coerce intimacy with me that I don't choose to offer.

Should she speak of such details without my consent, then she is violating my trust and forcing an intimacy on me that I don't wish to share.

I guarantee it's a self-limiting process, for once I find out about such a thing, there would be no further intimacies to worry about.

In short: *I* get to decide with whom I'm intimate. Not her and not you. Anybody who can't understand that isn't ready for a relationship, as far as I'm concerned.

It doesn't have to do with coercing intimacy out of anyone. It has to do with people controlling information with people other than you. What you're basically saying is that someone is required to keep what they do with you a secret from other people. Obviously it would be nice if people cared enough about each other to either not gossip or not react to gossip, but few people are that mature, in my experience. That's why I brought up the high-profile examples like Tiger Woods and Arnold Schwartzenegger. Both of these cases involved people who kept their relationships with these men secret/private at first, but later decided to disclose them for money and/or other reasons.

A personal relationship isn't really much different. A person who is deeply in love with you might not want to disclose information about you to other friends, but when they get annoyed with you for some reason, they might just go ahead and gossip about you. I see people talking/gossiping about each other all the time, presumably without a thought regarding the ethics of disclosing others' information. I think if you told them they weren't allowed to talk about people without their permission, they would take it as you trying to control them unfairly. I'm not saying they're right, but I think they have the power in the situation, since no one can really STOP them from talking about whatever they know. If you want to restrict your relationships with people you trust, it can be really hard. Just ask Tiger and Arnold.

 

[Magdlyn]

Eh, I am with Cindie here, and so is my gf. None of our other lovers have ever asked for us to keep sexual details a secret either. I guess we're all loosey goosey here and getting off on each others' escapades all around. *shrug* Maybe it's a New York thing. We talk a lot.

 

[Ariakas]

Eh, I am with Cindie here, and so is my gf. None of our other lovers have ever asked for us to keep sexual details a secret either. I guess we're all loosey goosey here and getting off on each others' escapades all around. *shrug* Maybe it's a New York thing. We talk a lot.

Of course we aren't specifically talking about this kind of freedom when all involved want it.

This is specifically to when the metamour doesn't want that kind of information shared.

At what point do you start disrepespecting the other person and start removing the other person's right to discretion?

My wife and I are open about what we do. Very. So I am not opposed to the idea. But I also believe in respect. I am far from perfect, but I try to uphold the wishes of my partner involved.

 

[SourGirl]

A personal relationship isn't really much different. A person who is deeply in love with you might not want to disclose information about you to other friends, but when they get annoyed with you for some reason, they might just go ahead and gossip about you. I see people talking/gossiping about each other all the time, presumably without a thought regarding the ethics of disclosing others' information. I think if you told them they weren't allowed to talk about people without their permission, they would take it as you trying to control them unfairly. I'm not saying they're right, but I think they have the power in the situation, since no one can really STOP them from talking about whatever they know. If you want to restrict your relationships with people you trust, it can be really hard. Just ask Tiger and Arnold.

You are 100% right on the money there. It's been my experience that the very same people screaming for privacy actually mean secrecy. They want the ability to keep hush about what suits them, and the ability to whine and gossip about what doesn`t.

 

[serialmonogamist]

You are 100% right on the money there. It's been my experience that the very same people screaming for privacy actually mean secrecy. They want the ability to keep hush about what suits them, and the ability to whine and gossip about what doesn`t.

I don't think there's enough discussion about the social politics of secrecy, shame, and fear. I think people are afraid of what they imagine could happen as a result of their secrets being made public and that results in repressive avoidance of openness. Of course you want to respect people who are sensitive to information disclosure, but where does that leave you in questioning why there's a need for secrecy in the first place?

 

[AutumnalTone]

I don't think there's enough discussion about the social politics of secrecy, shame, and fear.

Once again, the assumption that there's shame and fear involved-- that's really pathetic.

Your constant pushing of your agenda makes any substantial discussion with you impossible, as there's obviously no place for anybody else's experience and understanding in your world. It would make things so much easier if you'd just state your agenda up front so folks can then know to not bother trying to have a reasonable discussion.