If you want to love me you have to love my spouse?

ColorsWolf

New member
I can't tell if you are being obtuse or if you really don't make a distinction between different humans you encounter.

Your relationship with your sister is the same relationship as with your father? You treat them exactly the same in every way even though they are individuals and (most likely) very different people? Even though you likely have had vastly different life experiences with each of them?

Well actually if you look a little bit up on the quote you just made of one of my posts in this same post of your's, you would see that my mother, father, and sister are different people and I treat them accordingly.~ Meaning each has their own personalities and dislikes, etc. and how I treat them goes along with those things.~

As a "relationship" I would consider my "relationships" with my mother, father, and my sister to be the same because I do not hide one thing from 1 while telling it to the other, nor do I think of them in a way that how I relate to them is different.~ I relate to my mother as much as my father, although they are different sexes with different experiences, I can relate to them both.~ Maybe it's a Latino culture thing, but if we think you are 'family' then we treat you like family and we welcome you and we love as if you were our own brother or sister.~ ^_^ And I would not hide anything from you or treat you differently if I considered you my family, unless you had certain preferences about some things you would rather I not talk about or ask of you, in which case I would respect your wishes.~
 
Last edited:

Marcus

Well-known member

Marcus

Well-known member

ColorsWolf

New member

LovingRadiance

Active member
I think it's a communication style/terminology/wording conflict honestly.

I get the "treating anyone as family cause we decided that they are family" concept.

But the way you are wording things, is off-putting.

With all due respect, may I inquire your age?

My oldest child is from a Puerta Rican family on her dad's side (grandparents born and raised there).
They are very inclusive in ways much like you describe.
But also distinguish romance differently than you are wording it.

My impression is that you mean that you wouldn't be ok with a relationship style where someone was against the *possibility* and *option* of a romance for some *superficial* reason
& that you prefer to date people who are not heterosexual, but open to sex and romance with any gender.

Is that correct?
 

ColorsWolf

New member
I think it's a communication style/terminology/wording conflict honestly.

I get the "treating anyone as family cause we decided that they are family" concept.

But the way you are wording things, is off-putting.

With all due respect, may I inquire your age?

My oldest child is from a Puerta Rican family on her dad's side (grandparents born and raised there).
They are very inclusive in ways much like you describe.
But also distinguish romance differently than you are wording it.

My impression is that you mean that you wouldn't be ok with a relationship style where someone was against the *possibility* and *option* of a romance for some *superficial* reason
& that you prefer to date people who are not heterosexual, but open to sex and romance with any gender.

Is that correct?

You pretty much hit the nail on the head: meaning yes you are correct, although I could fall in love with anyone: love just happens sometimes and it's not like I planned it when it does.~ ^_^

I'll work with what I have, but I just hope I fall in love with someone who is very open-minded!~ :)

Also, my full age and birth date on displayed for all to see on my profile: I'm 23 by the way!~ ^_^ :)
 
Last edited:

LovingRadiance

Active member
You are about a year older than my daughter. ;)
Maybe that is part of why your post clicked a trigger for me-in addition to the latino reference.

Anyway-glad I was able to figure it out.
 

Dragon13

New member
wouitav Then

This is just my opinion, and how it works at our house. Either spouse may have a lover just for themselves, but that lover must be approved by the other spouse. Otherwise, I have to question the love and respect that the couple has for each other. We have said for years, that either of us can go out and find another lover, but before you get to spend time with that lover, it must be approved by the spouse. We have no doubts in our mind that our love for each other will continue no matter who is brought home. Our concern is that the person being brought into the relationship thinks they might be able to steal the person away. While we have no fear of it, we do not allow that kind of thinking. We will share our love with others, but do not allow anyone else to think they can steal the love away.
 

london

Banned
I think other conversations/discussions we have had recently basically boil down to this issue: whilst people aren't explicitly saying that unless you "love" me, you cannot "love" my spouse, it does seem as if they are saying unless you "love" me, a relationship with my spouse will be near impossible because dating my spouse effectively means dating my family and if you don't want to be that involved with us (opposed to you desiring involvement with the spouse only), then you won't be able to date. Ie, to have a chance at a healthy, happy relationship with someone's husband, I have to feel affection for his wife, kids, in laws too and want to spend time with them.
 

london

Banned
Otherwise, I have to question the love and respect that the couple has for each other.

What about if a couple trust one another so much, and have implicit trust that their partner will maintain their relationship and not allow any other relationship to have a negative impact on theirs, that they don't feel the need to approve metamours at all. They know that their partner will make sound choices about partners that will not harm anyone else.

Our concern is that the person being brought into the relationship thinks they might be able to steal the person away. While we have no fear of it, we do not allow that kind of thinking. We will share our love with others, but do not allow anyone else to think they can steal the love away.

Who cares what they think? If you trust your partner, you'll know that as soon as they discover that their new or potential partner has these ideas, they'll get rid of them. They don't need you to tell them the right thing to do. They know. Wouldn't you prefer a partner that you don't have to babysit?
 

Marcus

Well-known member
Either spouse may have a lover just for themselves, but that lover must be approved by the other spouse.

The "must meet committee approval before proceeding" rule.

How does meeting someone once inform you of their cruel and nefarious intentions? Do you have an interrogation technique which forces their master plan to the surface? Do the two of you, when joined together (but not individually), have some kind of power which enables you to see into a humans "true self" and thus protect you from hidden intentions?
 

Inyourendo

New member
The "must meet committee approval before proceeding" rule.

How does meeting someone once inform you of their cruel and nefarious intentions? Do you have an interrogation technique which forces their master plan to the surface? Do the two of you, when joined together (but not individually), have some kind of power which enables you to see into a humans "true self" and thus protect you from hidden intentions?

I once met a guy and part of his dating process was all parties meet first. So it was a coffee date with his wife, him, N and me. I guess mainly to make sure all parties were ok. I was ok with this. But if me dating someone was contingent on their partner liking me or they had veto power, I wouldnt bother with them.
 
Last edited:

ColorsWolf

New member
The "must meet committee approval before proceeding" rule.

How does meeting someone once inform you of their cruel and nefarious intentions? Do you have an interrogation technique which forces their master plan to the surface? Do the two of you, when joined together (but not individually), have some kind of power which enables you to see into a humans "true self" and thus protect you from hidden intentions?

I applaud what ever works for others and in what ever ways they have come to make it work!~ :)

Although this is not my "style", if it works for them then it works for them.~ "What ever floats your boat, right?" :D
 

Dragon13

New member
Wow,
Well I guess we all have our opinions. There seems to be a lot of need for control. The system we have was decided by both of us and not forced on anyone. As to how can we determine in one meeting if a person was right or not, it is not that cut and dry. Generally the spouse has spent quite a bit of time chatting online with the person before ever even meeting them. Yes, you can learn a lot about them doing that. In the one day I have been on this board, I can already tell there are several people that simply would not work out with us. But it take all kinds of people to make a world. The meeting of the new partner at that point is really a formality. I respect my wifes judgment as she respects mine. But if the person that your partner wishes to spend time with really rubs you the wrong way, then it really isn't going to work. So far that hasn't happened because we tend to like the same kind of people. So....you folks can keep your control. Live your lives like your partners opinion doesn't matter. But we will move forward with the love and respect we have for each other.
 

Marcus

Well-known member
The system we have was decided by both of us and not forced on anyone.

I never suggested that anything was forced on anyone, nor did anyone else.

You said the main concern was your partner meeting a cowboy/cowgirl who will attempt to tear your relationship asunder. I called into question how this meeting would be effective in eliminating this primary risk. Your answer essentially confirms that this does, in fact, not eliminate this risk.

So the point of my remark was... what is the *actual* point of this meeting if not to eliminate your primary concern of accidentally hooking up with a cowboy/cowgirl?

In the one day I have been on this board, I can already tell there are several people that simply would not work out with us

Are you looking for new members to add to your relationship? A discussion forum isn't necessarily the best format for doing this. You might try OKCupid or other dating sites.

So....you folks can keep your control.... Live your lives like your partners opinion doesn't matter. But we will move forward with the love and respect we have for each other.

No idea what you are talking about or who you are directing it to. Who here is suggesting exerting control over other people?

Who here is suggesting that our partners opinions don't matter?

Are we changing topics?
 

london

Banned
I once met a guy and part of his dating process was all parties meet first. So it was a coffee date with his wife, him, N and me. I guess mainly to make sure all parties were ok. I was ok with this. But if me dating someone was contingent on their partner liking me or they had veto power, I wouldnt bother with them.
Did you really think that if the wife had decided that she didn't like you, he would be allowed to date you?
 

Natja

New member
No idea what you are talking about or who you are directing it to. Who here is suggesting exerting control over other people?

Who here is suggesting that our partners opinions don't matter?

I don't think anyone was, I just think that whole post is a weak defensive tactic tbh. :confused:

I have not said anything about control and to be fair, most people here are pushing for less control than what you are advocating, so how are we being controlling? It is difficult having an unpopular opinion (happens to me all the time) but don't let your defensiveness make you start throwing out wild accusations which have no basis in fact, it just makes you lose credibility.
 
Last edited:

Marcus

Well-known member
I once met a guy and part of his dating process was all parties meet first. So it was a coffee date with his wife, him, N and me. I guess mainly to make sure all parties were ok. I was ok with this. But if me dating someone was contingent on their partner liking me or they had veto power, I wouldnt bother with them.

I get wanting to meet my metamours, but the requirement is something completely different. Saying "I would like to meet the people in your life who are important to you" is just saying that I want to share in this type of intimate detail. It isn't an ultimatum or a demand, just a statement that if interest is mutual and time is available, I wouldn't mind meeting these people you've told me about.

On the other side of this spectrum, if meeting my partners is a requirement, that is not even remotely the same. This is a statement that "we group date, so everyone has to be yippy skippy happy with everyone else or you are not welcome". I don't group date because I don't want other people having some kind of say in how I carry on with my relationships, and I don't want any say in how other people carry on with their relationships.

ColorsWolf said:
"What ever floats your boat, right?"

No one is telling anyone else what to do. I don't see what is so scary about discussing ideas frankly and openly.

All ideas are not created equally; some stand up to rigorous scrutiny and other crumple like burned paper. This is how we gain knowledge and adjust our worldview. This is a discussion board... we discuss things here...
 

Dagferi

Well-known member
I prefer to date my partners and not have to interview for a position .
 
Top