Not on same page about bisexual wife exploring polyamory

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hate it when I’m investing quality time with someone and the whole time they’re scatterbrained because they’re trying to multitask by texting someone else. The person is physically there, but they’re not consciously present in the moment.
This is a fair dislike. It's also very easily resolvable in that during quality time, phones are away.

You rather started ranting back there and I think you'll find many people will disengage with rants.

You claim this isn't a jealousy thing, but if you frame jealousy as a fear of loss, which we usually do, it's relevant. You may not be afraid of losing your entire relationship, but there's a lot of things you have identified as partial losses including you job/status in the church, quality time with Wife/her full attention, sexual exclusivity, the sanctity of marriage, fair parenting time, and more.
 
Last edited:
I see that you are collecting your arguments, loading your conversational weapons, and preparing to defend yourself against someone, but I don't get who it is that you are defending yourself from. You've stated clearly that you will absolutely not be in a polyamorous association, and that you are absolutely not going to be divorced (again), and that you have told your wife this in no uncertain terms. That doesn't leave a lot of room for maneuvering so I'm not sure I understand what is left to discuss?

This.

OP, you've gone into great detail about why you're not into polyamory. It's clear that you've educated yourself on this. OK, now what?

You're not into poly. Neither am I, BTW. I'm close with poly people in my community but the relationship framework is just not for me, for many of the reasons you lay out. Some people really respond to poly when they learn about it, but most do not. You're in the vast majority. What I don't quite understand is why you're so tortured by that and why you keep explaining and justifying your values. Nobody in this forum community is challenging you on your values. So who are you really talking to when you go on these deep dives?
 
This.

OP, you've gone into great detail about why you're not into polyamory. It's clear that you've educated yourself on this. OK, now what?

You're not into poly. Neither am I, BTW. I'm close with poly people in my community but the relationship framework is just not for me, for many of the reasons you lay out. Some people really respond to poly when they learn about it, but most do not. You're in the vast majority. What I don't quite understand is why you're so tortured by that and why you keep explaining and justifying your values. Nobody in this forum community is challenging you on your values. So who are you really talking to when you go on these deep dives?
I didn't understand how a busy father of a colicky baby would have the time to post all those posts around 7:30 pm. (My kids were not tucked in bed at 7:30 PM, ever, but maybe his kid is different. Or maybe he's in a different time zone. But in general, he posted a shit ton of words over the past couple days!)

But then he admitted he was copy/pasting all those things. So obviously they were from a journal, or more likely, from reddit, where he felt unheard, too harshly criticized and even mocked. Since he feels more comfortable here, he just unloaded all these old posts here, as quickly he could click and click.

Many of his thoughts are unfounded. (As GG said, who have you been talking to??) I've never met a truly libertarian Ayn Rand-dittohead polyamorous person. I've talked to few (to none) poly people who are into "total autonomy." Even relationship anarchists have some compassion and manners. They are not completely "my way or the highway." If they were, they would probably not be seeking partners at all, or if they did hook someone, would probably dump them, or be dumped, in short order.

Narcissists can and do call themselves "poly," but they are just soulless horny NRE junkies.

I just see a huge disconnect here, or even cognitive dissonance, which is common with fundamentalist Christians and right wingers. There is some compartmentalism. How can straightguy be so against polyamory, yet so determined not to divorce his clearly poly (or maybe just more into women than men now) wife? You can't have both.

You can have mono marriage with no poly.
You can have mono marriage with swinging.
You can't have a mono marriage while "Wifey" has other serious partners.
You can't have a mono marriage while "Wifey" is dating others, seeking Ms Right.
"Wifey" is willing to swing, may even like it, but just swinging is not what she wants!
You can't negotiate an illusory middle ground if "Wifey" refuses to do so.

Rock meet hard place. Both partners seem firmly entrenched in what they want. Since divorce is "out of the question," the misery will continue until one partner dies.
 
Last edited:
So, here's one of the challenges. A mom can say, "This sucks" and people tend to respond with compassion and understanding. At least that's what I've observed. However, when a dad says, "This sucks" people think he's a deadbeat or inadequately paternal or whatever. It's a complete cultural double-standard, and I find it terribly vexing.
So I’m coming in late to this thread but I have lots of thoughts, but a few of them I want to say as I hit them. Honestly? I believe that this is your experience, but I also know for a fact that it’s not as easy as you say to say “this sucks” as a mother. Quite frankly when you do, you’re either gaslit into thinking it’s not as bad, told “it will get better” (and depending on the kid that may or may not be true), or shamed for not thinking every moment of parenting was complete and utter joy. You learn not to talk about it at all...
 
You rather started ranting back there and I think you'll find many people will disengage with rants.
Perhaps you missed the preface? I wrote, "Because I communicate far better in writing than speaking, my therapist had me write up some paragraphs for her on some specific topics. With a little editing to maintain privacy, I'd like to share some of them here. Here's the first:" Then came those paragraphs.

I didn't count, but I'd guess I shared somewhere in the ballpark of 10 or 12. Sorry if that came across as ranting, but with the preface I thought it was clear what I was doing. That was not freshly written material. I was sharing it to better flesh out my perspective.
 
What I don't quite understand is why you're so tortured by that and why you keep explaining and justifying your values. Nobody in this forum community is challenging you on your values. So who are you really talking to when you go on these deep dives?
Three things.

First, Oscar Wilde once said, "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." For the reasons you acknowledged, the overwhelming majority of the people in my life would agree with me on not wanting to go down the path of polyamory. That makes me intellectually uncomfortable. This is why I'm openly and honestly sharing my thoughts and feelings here. If someone who is in this lifestyle is able to offer a thoughtful, alternative perspective that I've not yet considered, then I'm more than willing to listen and consider.

Second, as I've said, I'm looking at this as my last effort to seriously consider changing my mind. What you seem to be perceiving as explaining and justifying my values is intended as seeking conversations partners with rather unusual perspectives to wrestle it through. With apologies for employing a biblical metaphor, it's the whole "iron sharpening iron" bit.

Third, don't know what to tell ya. Deep dives is what I do. This is a core part of my personality. I'm an endlessly curious guy who loves nothing more than a deep dive into various matters: philosophy, psychology, biological, social dynamics, spirituality, politics, political science, economics, sports, the arts, cultural anthropology... Love a good deep dive more than just about anything other than a good orgasm.
 
I didn't understand how a busy father of a colicky baby would have the time to post all those posts around 7:30 pm. (My kids were not tucked in bed at 7:30 PM, ever, but maybe his kid is different.)
Wifey got off work. I got 60 minutes of me-time. This is how I used it.

But then he admitted he was copy/pasting all those things. So obviously they were from a journal, or more likely, from reddit, where he felt unheard, too harshly criticized and even mocked. Since he feels more comfortable here, he just unloaded all these old posts here, as quickly he could click and click.
It was actually a preface: "Because I communicate far better in writing than speaking, my therapist had me write up some paragraphs for her on some specific topics. With a little editing to maintain privacy, I'd like to share some of them here. Here's the first:" But, yes, I did feel largely unheard by my therapy and, yes, I do feel more comfortable here, so I did copy/paste all of those old paragraphs to better flesh out my perspective.

Many of his thoughts are unfounded. (As GG said, who have you been talking to??) I've never met a truly libertarian Ayn Rand-dittohead polyamorous person. I've talked to few (to none) poly people who are into "total autonomy." Even relationship anarchists have some compassion and manners. They are not completely "my way or the highway." If they were, they would probably not be seeking partners at all, or if they did hook someone, would probably dump them, or be dumped, in short order.
I've been reading books + podcasts, listening to podcasts, talking to my therapist, and bouncing thoughts past the two polyamorous people (I'm aware) I know. But, hey, if my perspective is unfounded... By all means PLEASE educate me. Show me how I'm misunderstand or how I've gotten a bad read from a poor sample. That is precisely why I shared the paragraphs. I'm looking for a... oh, let's call it... "civil yet passionate" discussion. Please know I'm genuinely not trying to dump on anyone nor pick a fight. If my paragraphs inadverently came across that way, I apologize. Sorry. I'm looking to wrestle with this stuff as one final attempt at intellectual honesty before I close the door for 5-10 years if not permanently.

Narcissists can and do call themselves "poly," but they are just soulless horny NRE junkies.
lol

I just see a huge disconnect here, or even cognitive dissonance, which is common with fundamentalist Christians and right wingers. There is some compartmentalism. How can straight guy be so against polyamory, yet so determined not to divorce his clearly poly (or maybe just more into women than men now) wife? You can't have both.
I don't know if you caught the posts where I addressed this--there's quite a long thread at this point so obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to expect you to have carefully read everything--but I got out of fundamentalist Christianity years ago. The local church I now attend, and where I served as an associate minister before Covid, is completely LGBTQIA+ affirming and part of a Mainline Protestant denomination. Does that sound like fundamentalism to you? Also, probably 50-60% of the church "Feel the Bern" politically. Again, not right-wing.

You can have mono marriage with no poly.
You can have mono marriage with swinging.
You can't have a mono marriage while "Wifey" has other serious partners.
You can't have a mono marriage while "Wifey" is dating others, seeking Ms Right.
"Wifey" is willing to swing, may even like it, but just swinging is not what she wants!
You can't negotiate an illusory middle ground if "Wifey" refuses to do so.
Is there a reason you're putting that in quotation marks? That's my pet name for her, which she adores, just as she has a pet name for me. I've been trying to use it consistently instead of the possessive "my wife" to be sensitive to certain concerns likely present here about possessiveness. Clearly I can't share her first name. Would it be better if I made up an alias or something? I'm a little confused.

Rock meet hard place. Both partners seem firmly entrenched in what they want. Since divorce is "out of the question," the misery will continue until one partner dies.
Ummmmmm... yyyyyyyyyeah... I'm just gonna leave that one alone for now.
 
See, I don't want minimal entanglements. Again, I'm not criticizing those who do but that's not how I'm wired nor what I want out of life. As I've said earlier in this threaded discussion, I see these things on a spectrum with independence/autonomy on one extreme, co-dependence/enmeshment on the other extreme, and interpendence/self-differentiation in the middle. I'm aiming for the middle.
Lemme put it this way: I'm yet to come across an ethical and/or philosophical presentation of polyamory that wasn't built upon the presupposition of staunch autonomy. Not only that, but the belief that autonomy is one of the highest virtues to which we should all aspire. IF it were possible, or IF that's a thing, I'm more than willing to listen. That having been said, yes, right now my understanding is that interdependence with self-differentiation is totally incompatible with polyamory. Show me a model of polyamory where there's an irresolvable tension, or perhaps a Yin and Yang harmony, between the individual and the community as equally important... and I will give you my undivided attention. In other words, and I hope I'm not getting to political here, show me polyamory without libertarian freedom and I'm all ears to at least learn and consider.
Honestly I believe my polyamory makes me more interdependent rather than less, AND I still believe in autonomy. And no, this is not, IMO, a contradiction in terms.

Knight and I started this journey about as enmeshed as it is possible to be. We met when we were 16, moved in together at 19, married at 23, worked at the same place from 20-30, basically lived the same time intensive hobby for all that time too. We were enmeshed enough that our friends and acquaintances had nicknames for us as a couple.

(We even explored nonmonogamy, at first, as a “coupled” activity - dated several women and couples together as well as dabbling in swinging for a few years.)

Point here being, we were far too in each other’s pockets, and didn’t learn not to be until quite a bit into the part where we started exploring dating people separately (and by this I mean _actually_ separately, not just the weird quad relationships we had a few times, but I digress). And though there’s now a bit more air in our relationship, we’re still utterly committed to each other - growing old, raising our kid, the whole everything. If anything our relationship is in my opinion deeper, because we have to deliberately build it instead of it being the default.

And yet... we are _also_ committed to other people. Nick’s partner lives with us, and a lot of our future plans are intrinsically becoming plans for all three of us because of his commitment to her. I am equally, if not as logistically, committed to Artist - as a for instance, he and his spouse are planning on buying a new house and one of the reasons for this is to make it more comfortable for me to spend more time there and/or for ArtistSpouse’s partner to spend time there in the future. I am _deeply_ grounded in multiple communities - I mean, I once turned down a significant promotion with a 20% raise because it would have meant moving away from my chosen family, and that was pre-polyamory.

That said, I think the nature of what I believe commitment is may be a little different than yours. What I am committed to is that I will do everything in my abilities to make my partners’ lives better, even if that means wildly changing our relationship some day. I mean, you talk about “never say never” as a bad thing but I would have never dreamed, five years ago, that Joan would be living with us now. But it was the answer to a problem that made all parties happier. (Yes, even me, in the long run, though it did and does occasionally feel like I’ve lost something, it far more often feels like I’ve gained more.)

(Side note, yes many of us come up with aliases for our partners / significant people, for privacy while avoiding the possessiveness you mentioned.)

So anyway, my point here is that philosophically, I believe in relationship fluidity and autonomy but I put that fluidity in service of the people and communities I love.
 
Having now read and responded to a few comments...

I can sometimes be rather dense, but I seem to perceive a certain amount of defensiveness or annoyance at the paragraphs from therapy that I copied and pasted. I tried to explain my intention with the preface, but perhaps I anticipated a degree of careful reading that is unrealistic. Rather than blame anyone else, I'll take responsibility as the noob. Sorry. Please know I certainly wasn't intending to attack anyone or defensively put anyone on their heals. Nevertheless, I can see how my words may had inadvertently triggered that response. Again, I apologize for that.

Because I've felt safer here than in therapy or on Reddit, I thought it might be helpful to share those comments to better flesh out my perspective. I'm a curious guy who, for the sake of intellectual honesty, is making one last effort to identify any glaring holes in my perspective before making a final decision. Please know I'm neither looking to incite nor fight. What I am looking for is civil yet passionate deep dive discussion to see where my perspective is off: oversimplifications, misperceptions, factual misunderstandings, logical fallacies, etc.

But, again, I know I'm the "foreigner" here and perhaps my behavior violated the implicit social etiquette of this forum that has existed for some time. In so doing, I may have offended. If so, one last time, I apologize for hurting anyone's (or everyone's?) feelings.
 
Wifey got off work. I got 60 minutes of me-time. This is how I used it.


It was actually a preface: "Because I communicate far better in writing than speaking, my therapist had me write up some paragraphs for her on some specific topics. With a little editing to maintain privacy, I'd like to share some of them here. Here's the first:" But, yes, I did feel largely unheard by my therapy and, yes, I do feel more comfortable here, so I did copy/paste all of those old paragraphs to better flesh out my perspective.


I've been reading books + podcasts, listening to podcasts, talking to my therapist, and bouncing thoughts past the two polyamorous people (I'm aware) I know. But, hey, if my perspective is unfounded... By all means PLEASE educate me. Show me how I'm misunderstand or how I've gotten a bad read from a poor sample. That is precisely why I shared the paragraphs. I'm looking for a... oh, let's call it... "civil yet passionate" discussion. Please know I'm genuinely not trying to dump on anyone nor pick a fight. If my paragraphs inadverently came across that way, I apologize. Sorry. I'm looking to wrestle with this stuff as one final attempt at intellectual honesty before I close the door for 5-10 years if not permanently.
I think we've all been trying to educate you. It would be easier if you asked questions instead of making assumptions that all of us are completely autonomous libertarian selfish Ayn Rand weirdos, unable to feel compassion, or to negotiate fairly as we and our partners grow, or our circumstances change. It does come across as a bit harsh and aggro.
I don't know if you caught the posts where I addressed this--there's quite a long thread at this point so obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to expect you to have carefully read everything--but I got out of fundamentalist Christianity years ago. The local church I now attend, and where I served as an associate minister before Covid, is completely LGBTQIA+ affirming and part of a Mainline Protestant denomination. Does that sound like fundamentalism to you? Also, probably 50-60% of the church "Feel the Bern" politically. Again, not right-wing.
Yes, I know that. But you'd been a right wing fundamentalist for much of your life before your change of attitude. Old habits die hard. You're still quoting right-wingers in your posts.
Is there a reason you're putting that in quotation marks? That's my pet name for her, which she adores, just as she has a pet name for me. I've been trying to use it consistently instead of the possessive "my wife" to be sensitive to certain concerns likely present here about possessiveness. Clearly I can't share her first name. Would it be better if I made up an alias or something? I'm a little confused.
Yes, as far as our social etiquette here, most of us make up names for our partners and friends that are more specific than the root of "my husband" or "my wife," less relationship-based, and more based on the personal characteristics of the person. Or we recommend you just choose something super generic like Apple or Blue or whatever. Wifey may sound cute to you but it sounds demeaning to me, like "the little woman." That's just my own reaction, no offense. Some examples are Pixi, Puck, MrMoonbeam, Artist, Punk, or just regular names like James, etc. This is pretty meta, because we aren't thinking of ourselves as half of one unit, but as individuals.
Ummmmmm... yyyyyyyyyeah... I'm just gonna leave that one alone for now.
 
Honestly I believe my polyamory makes me more interdependent rather than less, AND I still believe in autonomy. And no, this is not, IMO, a contradiction in terms.
Fair enough. I'm more than open to revising my perception.

Knight and I started this journey about as enmeshed as it is possible to be. We met when we were 16, moved in together at 19, married at 23, worked at the same place from 20-30, basically lived the same time intensive hobby for all that time too. We were enmeshed enough that our friends and acquaintances had nicknames for us as a couple.
Gotcha.

(We even explored nonmonogamy, at first, as a “coupled” activity - dated several women and couples together as well as dabbling in swinging for a few years.)
Actually, that sounds intriguing for me... lol

Point here being, we were far too in each other’s pockets, and didn’t learn not to be until quite a bit into the part where we started exploring dating people separately (and by this I mean _actually_ separately, not just the weird quad relationships we had a few times, but I digress). And though there’s now a bit more air in our relationship, we’re still utterly committed to each other - growing old, raising our kid, the whole everything. If anything our relationship is in my opinion deeper, because we have to deliberately build it instead of it being the default.
Interesting.

And yet... we are _also_ committed to other people. Nick’s partner lives with us, and a lot of our future plans are intrinsically becoming plans for all three of us because of his commitment to her. I am equally, if not as logistically, committed to Artist - as a for instance, he and his spouse are planning on buying a new house and one of the reasons for this is to make it more comfortable for me to spend more time there and/or for ArtistSpouse’s partner to spend time there in the future. I am _deeply_ grounded in multiple communities - I mean, I once turned down a significant promotion with a 20% raise because it would have meant moving away from my chosen family, and that was pre-polyamory.
Understood.

That said, I think the nature of what I believe commitment is may be a little different than yours.
Agreed. And, on my end, it's all good for us to have that disagreement. Right I'm I'm intentionally leaning even heavier into curiosity to just understand where you're coming from. Thank you.

What I am committed to is that I will do everything in my abilities to make my partners’ lives better, even if that means wildly changing our relationship some day.
OK. I'm mulling that over.

I mean, you talk about “never say never” as a bad thing but I would have never dreamed, five years ago, that Joan would be living with us now. But it was the answer to a problem that made all parties happier. (Yes, even me, in the long run, though it did and does occasionally feel like I’ve lost something, it far more often feels like I’ve gained more.)
Clarification #1: I talked about "never say never" in the context of my experience with people pushing rather than honoring (i.e. more than respecting) known, established boundaries.

Clarification #2: I value happiness, yes, but it's not my chief virtue or foremost goal in life. That's a whole other discussion, though.

(Side note, yes many of us come up with aliases for our partners / significant people, for privacy while avoiding the possessiveness you mentioned.)
Ah. Didn't know that. So, was I perceiving correctly that "my wife" would be seen as possessive but "wifey" was then widely seen as condescending or derogatory? If so, I guess I can refer to her with an alias.

So anyway, my point here is that philosophically, I believe in relationship fluidity and autonomy but I put that fluidity in service of the people and communities I love.
I understand. Thank you for taking the time to explain your life from your perspective.
 
I think we've all been trying to educate you. It would be easier if you asked questions instead of making assumptions that all of us are completely autonomous libertarian selfish Ayn Rand weirdos, unable to feel compassion, or to negotiate fairly as we and our partners grow, or our circumstances change. It does come across as a bit harsh and aggro.
OK.

Perhaps some context is needed. I need to be careful to not to disclose where exactly, but in the part of the country where I live both major segments of the ethical non-monogamous community (i.e. swingers and poly) tend to have a strong libertarian streak. So I think there's a regional cultural component maybe at work.

However, I do want to add that in various places and in various times I've brought this up to denizens of the ENM world and had them vehemently deny it up and down. OK, cool. Yet within an hour I hear 'em talking once again about personal liberty galore, autonomy in relationships, etc. Honestly, to me it sometimes it seems like people are like fish, unaware of the cultural-philosophical water in which they swim. That part is hard for me, but I say that as a student of intellectual history. Most folks doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about when I talk about a term like "expressive individualism." They're just unaware of the presuppositions stemming from their cultural-historical context, ya know?

Yes, I know that. But you'd been a right wing fundamentalist for much of your life before your change of attitude. Old habits die hard. You're still quoting right-wingers in your posts.
For me that's not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I still glean whatever elements of truth, beauty, and goodness I perceive regardless of the source. For example, Louis C.K. is a predatory masturbating jerk but that doesn't mean I suddenly think his comedy bits aren't funny nor that he doesn't offer some penetrating insights worth pondering. I happened to have quoted John Boehner and referenced Rush Limbaugh here. I've also referenced Ester Perel and I referenced an idea without citation that I got from Cornel West... I'm just the guy who utterly rejects tribalism and ideological purity.

Yes, as far as our social etiquette here, most of us make up names for our partners and friends that are more specific than the root of "my husband" or "my wife," less relationship-based, and more based on the personal characteristics of the person. Or we recommend you just choose something super generic like Apple or Blue or whatever. Wifey may sound cute to you but it sounds demeaning to me, like "the little woman." That's just my own reaction, no offense. Some examples are Pixi, Puck, MrMoonbeam, Artist, Punk, or just regular names like James, etc. This is pretty meta, because we aren't thinking of ourselves as half of one unit, but as individuals.
Gotcha.

In our case, my wife (sorry) was never treated feminine-ly before me. She was always been perceived by most males as too intellectual, too confident, too successful, too opinionated, too head strong, too... anti-makeup. If asked, she'd probably tell you I was the first male friend who can match up with her intellectually, treated her as an equal in competitive activities like board games and billiards, and had the self-confidence without the assholery bravado. So, when I called her "wifey" the first time she melted and told me that made her, and I quote, "feel like a woman." (Cue the Shania Twain.) It stuck immediately and she loves it.

I knew to avoid "my wife" because it sounded possessive, but never anticipated that wifey would come across as demeaning because she's my badass Wonder Woman.
 
Last edited:
Magdlyn offered this quote:

"Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve." - Shelley

I think liberty is important. Yes. Definitely. However, I do not affirm it as the best and highest virtue. Certainly not in isolation. Taken to an extreme, I think the virtue of liberty folds back in on itself and becomes a vice. As Oscar Wilde put it, "Everything in moderation, including moderation." I don't want to get off on a whole rabbit trail here, but I think our culture now is inflicted by a virulent philosophical virus that demands liberty and individualism without an equal and accompanying concern for responsibility and community. That's why, when faced with a public health crisis, Dr. Fauci had to say, "I don't know how to explain to someone that they should care about others beyond themselves." (That may not be a direct quote, but it's pretty close.) And, yes, I bring this into my understanding of love, relationships, marriage, and family as well.

Again, we probably disagree and that's OK. I'm just explaining my perspective.
 
Last edited:
Magdlyn offered this quote:

"Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve." - Shelley

I think liberty is important. Yes. Definitely. However, I do not affirm it as the best and highest virtue. Certainly not in isolation. Taken to an extreme, I think the virtue of liberty folds back in on itself and becomes a vice. As Oscar Wilde put it, "Everything in moderation, including moderation." I don't want to get off on a whole rabbit trail here, but I think our culture now is inflicted by a virulent philosophical virus that demands that liberty and individualism without an equal and accompanying concern for responsibility and community. That's why Dr. Fauci had to say, "I don't know how to explain to someone that they should care about others beyond themselves." (That may not be a direct quote, but it's pretty close.) And, yes, I bring this into my understanding of love, relationships, marriage, and family as well.

Again, we probably disagree and that's OK. I'm just explaining my perspective.


To me, "autonomy" means that I make the choice every day to be with my partner(s) (right now I only have a husband and a roommate who is like my annoying twin brother, lol). It doesn't mean that I just do whatever without any regard for how it affects those in my household. But that's just me. I do not speak for "the poly community", in fact I eschew any sort of "belonging" as much as possible. Maybe that's part of autonomy too, who knows. I also don't follow any politics or religion. Not caring about what other people think of me helps with the whole autonomy trip, too. Peace, bro.
 
Magdlyn offered this quote:

"Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve." - Shelley

I think liberty is important. Yes. Definitely. However, I do not affirm it as the best and highest virtue. Certainly not in isolation. Taken to an extreme, I think the virtue of liberty folds back in on itself and becomes a vice. As Oscar Wilde put it, "Everything in moderation, including moderation." I don't want to get off on a whole rabbit trail here, but I think our culture now is inflicted by a virulent philosophical virus that demands that liberty and individualism without an equal and accompanying concern for responsibility and community. That's why Dr. Fauci had to say, "I don't know how to explain to someone that they should care about others beyond themselves." (That may not be a direct quote, but it's pretty close.) And, yes, I bring this into my understanding of love, relationships, marriage, and family as well.

Again, we probably disagree and that's OK. I'm just explaining my perspective.
You're making more assumptions about me. (I love Oscar Wilde and his aphorisms, and I agree with that one.) My views on liberty are more nuanced than you seem to be implying.

I am well aware that humans are social animals. I also know that, conversely, the USA is kinda based on a pioneering individualistic ideal. But that just doesn't work. It takes a village to raise a child. Polyamory can strengthen communities. If you read Sex at Dawn you'd see the anthropological evidence for how "pre-civilized" people were not monogamous, and how that propensity to be rather promiscuous strengthened the bonds between tribal members. No one paired off for life. Sure, you might have preferred to bang a few people whom you find particularly appealing, but there was no formal possessiveness.

Our closest cousins, the bonobos, have sex all the time, MF, MM, FF, while eating, during an argument to end it, to relax and reduce boredom, while nursing a baby, etc., etc. They choose whom to shag. They shag multiple times a day, and it varies who they do it with.

Even chimpanzee females will "cheat" on their formal "mates," outside of the family unit, making a dangerous trek through the jungle to find a "strange" partner, as will any animal. DNA has proven this. Humans don't mate for life. We give lip service to monogamy, but the cheating and divorce numbers, not to mention the popularity of romantic books, films and porn, belie this so-called adherence to the sanctity of marriage. Monogamy is an economic construct based on the patriarchy. Modern polyamory is based on the increasing power of women.

That's interesting about your... spouse. You're saying she never felt very femme until she met you? And now she's exploring her "bi" side. Things that make you go hmm.
 
Actually, that sounds intriguing for me... lol
It is actually kind of interesting/surprising, or at least unusual in the context of this board and others, that that wasn’t a direction y’all considered (or is it?) There are a _lot_ of couples that start down a polyfidelity path to avoid the “growing apart” problem you reference - I don’t think it solves it, and it comes with its own problems (I’ll enumerate) but it does seem one answer you haven’t considered.

That sort of coupled dating _does_ have its own issues - like swinging, finding people you’re both into is _hard_, probably even more so as it’s more than shallow / physical compatibility. And you end up with different relationships growing differently and a _real_ danger of triangulation. (Ask me how I know ::shudder::). But it _can_ be pretty glorious when it works.

That said, from the things you’ve said I don’t necessarily think it would help your wife in this case unless it was a situation where you could back off (in the long run?) from the “all sex is group sex” thing. As a bi woman who was already (basically and emotionally, if not legally) married when I figured that out, solo sex with a woman is intrinsically very different than in a group context, and it was eventually very much something I needed and wanted to experience to even come to terms with my own sexuality. I still have barely dated any woman that wasn’t also a metamour, covid messed up the first potential on that front I had had in a long time. So, the few times I have had one on one intimacy with a woman it’s been part of a larger relationship that also included a group dynamic...
Anyway, you’ve obviously somewhat started down that path. (If it’s not too much to ask, were your swinging experiences one offs at clubs or more friendship based? I missed that part of the story, I think.)
 
First of all, I screwed up. I thought that Shelley quote was a response to me and not your permanent quote at the end of every post. Just plain misread that. Sorry about that. That being said...

You're making more assumptions about me. (I love Oscar Wilde and his aphorisms, and I agree with that one.) My views on liberty are more nuanced than you seem to be implying.
OK.

I am well aware that humans are social animals. I also know that, conversely, the USA is kinda based on a pioneering individualistic ideal. But that just doesn't work. It takes a village to raise a child. Polyamory can strengthen communities. If you read Sex at Dawn you'd see the anthropological evidence for how "pre-civilized" people were not monogamous, and how that propensity to be rather promiscuous strengthened the bonds between tribal members. No one paired off for life. Sure, you might have preferred to bang a few people whom you find particularly appealing, but there was no formal possessiveness.
Yes, I've read Sex at Dawn. Have you also read the scholarly critiques of Sex at Dawn?

Our closest cousins, the bonobos, have sex all the time, MF, MM, FF, while eating, during an argument to end it, to relax and reduce boredom, while nursing a baby, etc., etc. They choose whom to shag. They shag multiple times a day, and it varies who they do it with.
I would argue there's a reason those are our cousins and not us, but OK.

Even chimpanzee females will "cheat" on their formal "mates," outside of the family unit, making a dangerous trek through the jungle to find a "strange" partner, as will any animal. DNA has proven this. Humans don't mate for life. We give lip service to monogamy, but the cheating and divorce numbers, not to mention the popularity of romantic books, films and porn, belie this so-called adherence to the sanctity of marriage. Monogamy is an economic construct based on the patriarchy. Modern polyamory is based on the increasing power of women.
FYI - While more than willing to carefully listen to others, it's worth noting that I, personally, equally reject both patriarchy and matriarchy AND see these options as a false dichotomy. Yes, I believe in female empowerment. No, I don't believe in corresponding male disempowerment. No, I don't believe we need to frame these things as a zero-sum game. Again, just my perspective.

That's interesting about your... spouse. You're saying she never felt very femme until she met you? And now she's exploring her "bi" side. Things that make you go hmm.
As I noted before, "Wonda" never dated anyone before me. She just grew up in a home with an extremely mentally unwell mother who never modeled healthy femininity to her. She also didn't have any aunties around to take her to Victoria's Secret, teach her to wear makeup, tell her it's OK to feel sexy, etc. Remember the home run hitter from A League of Their Own? Her dad approaches the scout and says her mom died and he raised her himself, doing the best he could, but he didn't know anything about what it meant to be a lady. (I'm paraphrasing.) That would be an exaggeration to say my wife's experience was quite that bad with her dad, but she never had much of a maternal presence in her life teaching her what it means to be a woman. She loves cock and I'm quite confident is not lesbian IF that's what you're angling at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top