Search results

I believe that it's both, or either... depending on the person.

Seems to me that the best way to combat "fear of what could happen" is to think more about "fear of what could NOT happen" or "HOPE of what could happen". Also: a thought that I use to process EVERY situation I find myself in - I ask myself "Is there anything that I can do to make the situation...

While I like the idea of a society that is "pro-poly"... I think it should just be that the current Western society "normal" should be done away with and replaced with a "poly is normal" society (as well as nudity is normal, and BDSM is normal, et cetera... basically remove all societal...

I don't think it needed "fixing". Just my personal opinion here, but "you" could have meant both the husband and the bi-wife. She (the bi-wife) is looking for a woman to partner with, ane he (the husband) wants his wife to be happy... ergo, they both should receive good wishes on the search.

Ethics don't enter into the equation of to whom one is attracted to. Ethics only enter into things that we have a choice about AND how they affect others. For it to be an ethical dilemma, both criteria ("choice" AND "affect others") MUST BE met

If it was a case of polygyny, I'd say to tell them that multiple wives and concubines is Biblically permitted. There are many cases of one man and multiple women to choose from throughout the Good Book. Unfortunately though, one woman with multiple men doesn't appear anywhere in there so...

The problem as I see it is the usage of the word "afraid". Poly people aren't any more "afraid" of commitment than mono people are. They just simply don't commit to ONE. I agree with what was said earlier... "poly people are afraid of commitment" is mono-propaganda.

I did begin the paragraph with "For me..." For me the "mentally impossible" is in the category of "will not"... because it's a choice, whether it's a conscious one or not. ETA: when it's whether or not to do a physical act... not when it's whether or not to be attracted to a specific gender or...

I don't know where @GalaGirl is getting the idea that the OP ONLY wants to be with women. If that was the case, I'm sure that she wouldn't have gotten back with her on-again/off-again boyfriend. It's purely speculation, but I believe that the OP is bisexual. I'm also curious of the OP's...

The original playboy has left the building. Dim the lights.

Where the hell is the 'Like!' button when you need one?

Exactly. Maybe she tried "only play partners" with honest intent... and only after giving that a go for a while finally realized that that wasn't what she wanted. She might not have known what she wanted to start with... just knew that not having whatever it was was "leaving a hole in her soul"...

It could be that the partners were just for play at the time and she wasn't seeking poly then... but figured out that she wanted poly (even if she wasn't sure of the terminology or even what she actually wanted... just knew she didn't want "just play partners") and wasn't getting it, so now...

What we seek is most often found when we least expect it or have stopped looking for it. I concur with the ideas of "look without expectation" and "take what you find, as you find it". Those usually work out better than being uber-specific and only looking for specific things... and... you...

As any Lawyer worth his/her salt has probably said in a courtroom at least once... "Asked and answered". Maybe not asked by you and maybe I didn't reply the answer to you... but the question and the answer already exists within this thread. No I don't. That's the best part of variety... what...

I disagree... whether notice is or is not required is something that differs among the various groups. That requirement of fully informed and fully consented may fit in with "ethical non-monogamy" or "ethical polyamory"... where the ethicality of not getting permission may come into question...

Here's your common thread that you can't see: \/------------------\/----------------\/-----------------\/ You...............Your love..........their lover....... that person's lover (especially if everyone exchanges bodily fluids an ANY way) It's like a ball that's passed from the one that has...

I believe that that sentence refers to all poly that's linked (the same way that I say it's based on a linked grouping) no matter how thick or thin the strand. "Together" would be a triad, quad, or whatever that lives together in the same home. "Separately" would be poly where one home is NOT...

Bolded: I didn't say "your words" I said "your definition"... I'm guessing that you copied that definition from some dictionary source... so it would be their words copied by you. It's important because I live in a fact based world. Non-bolded: You've explained why you don't believe that they...

From your own definition, you prove my point. "a number of individuals" ... "having some unifying relationship". "Some" is very undefined. it can be grand in scope or miniscule in scope or any combination of anything in between. In the case of "polyamory" (which literally means "many loves")...