To open, or not to open??

[Spork]

Oh, this would be great! The number of times I've spoken to people that seemed interesting until they told me all about their DADT, and I've gone…eeee…I'm not sure I'm down with that because it's just too easy to lie about it. This would be a massive help in sorting out the cheaters from the sincere, and also probably make the consenting partner feel better (I know I would) that their partner wasn't just hooking up with people that didn't care whether they had a relationship and were being up front about it. Win, win, win.

Yeah, I had to turn down a guy I really liked, because he claimed to have DADT with his wife, and I just...didn't trust it. Too many cheating guys I met on OKC for me to be sure he was on the up and up.

I'm going to start sharing this idea, in my poly discussion group and elsewhere, and see if I can get it to pick up a bit of traction.

 

[Saphy]

Thanks Tinwin and Gala, and no Spork, not at all offended.

Felt like you wanted something kind of impersonal...not a relationship, no serious emotional connection, NO DATING (!?) and just like you meet someone online for this scripted thing of going to clinic and then hopping over to their place for sex. It's like you've bought a human marital aid to take care of your needs, since your husband is so hung up on this particular thing he must have to enjoy sex.

That doesn't sound very nice, does it?

I agree with everything above, it's not nice if that for some, but again I think it depends on the desired connection. I'd say what Z and I have is still what I was initially searching for (I hate dating!). Most of our getting to know one another has been done over the phone and a good few meetups after work, but nothing like dating. We can go for days without being in contact. He doesn't live in London but travels back and forth for work and I'm usually busy with my own life. I don't think it's so much an issue of personal and impersonal, but about the kind of connection you're looking for and respect.

It may not sound ideal, but so far it's ideal for us three. To my knowledge, no one's being hurt and no one is being disrespected.

Some might consider our set up impersonal, or our connection not strong enough to delve into something like this. But I'll say, and I can't say it enough, at the forefront of it all really is respect: respecting his life and time and him respecting mine. It's important to me that nothing is promised here. We're friends, yes, and sometimes, hopefully, we'll have sex. But there are no obligations here. No heavy attachments.

In my search for finding someone, I've always offered respect, however, I realise it's highly possible that people found what I was offering to be disrespectful, and so I was treated this way in return.

Still, being Poly is considered disrespectful - but it's not always about what's considered "a relationship" but more about what kind of relationship works for you both, or three, or four...

Also, I think the idea regarding DADT is great! The lengths people will go to when lying is both horrendous and scary.

 

[Spork]

Thanks Tinwin and Gala, and no Spork, not at all offended.



I agree with everything above, it's not nice if that for some, but again I think it depends on the desired connection. I'd say what Z and I have is still what I was initially searching for (I hate dating!). Most of our getting to know one another has been done over the phone and a good few meetups after work, but nothing like dating. We can go for days without being in contact. He doesn't live in London but travels back and forth for work and I'm usually busy with my own life. I don't think it's so much an issue of personal and impersonal, but about the kind of connection you're looking for and respect.

It may not sound ideal, but so far it's ideal for us three. To my knowledge, no one's being hurt and no one is being disrespected.

Some might consider our set up impersonal, or our connection not strong enough to delve into something like this. But I'll say, and I can't say it enough, at the forefront of it all really is respect: respecting his life and time and him respecting mine. It's important to me that nothing is promised here. We're friends, yes, and sometimes, hopefully, we'll have sex. But there are no obligations here. No heavy attachments.

In my search for finding someone, I've always offered respect, however, I realise it's highly possible that people found what I was offering to be disrespectful, and so I was treated this way in return.

Still, being Poly is considered disrespectful - but it's not always about what's considered "a relationship" but more about what kind of relationship works for you both, or three, or four...

Also, I think the idea regarding DADT is great! The lengths people will go to when lying is both horrendous and scary.

I don't think that poly is inherently disrespectful. And I definitely don't think that the way you have gone about things with Z is disrespectful AT ALL.

It's this idea that one might formulate this whole idea of what one wants, and then try to order it up on the internet by placing ads and such, as though requesting a service. I'm talking the folks who hope they'll just get sex, and not really thinking of the person as...a person. And that can be really common, you know?

The "no dating" thing...it only spoke to me of that, because for many of us, dating is how you get to know someone before you have sex with them. And for me, it's also how I maintain a connection with my lovers when time doesn't permit more intimate opportunities. We get together and eat, and we have conversation. The conversation and sharing of face-time helps us continue to feel connected. But in your case, even though you have not gone on "dates" per se, you have taken the time to get to know this man, and you do seem to respect one another.

Again, point being, how very different it sounds once there is a person actually involved and it's not just a theory. I find that interesting. It kind of changes the perception.

 

[kdt26417]

Hi Saphy,

Good to hear from you again, and what good news about Z! I can't think of any new advice, it sounds like you guys are proceeding wisely so far. I'll continue following this thread; keep us posted!

Sincerely,
Kevin T.

 

[opalescent]

Saphy,

I'm glad to hear that you have someone interested. However, how does that address the mismatch in fetishes with your husband? I assume you still fulfill his fetish regularly and are seeking the other person for your own sexual fulfillment? Did I get that right?

Is your husband ok with his fetish needs? Because if he isn't, I do suggest hiring a pro. I know you two rejected that idea initially but I urge you both to reconsider. (This assumes you have the financial ability to hire someone. Fetish work is not cheap and not having the funds makes total sense.)

I'm kinky too. And I run into women who resent immensely being treated not as people or possible romantic partners but as "Fetish Delivery Systems". This seems to happen mostly with women who are dominant, or into mommy play or age play but it can occur with any gender or any kink. Unless your husband is also seeking a romantic partner and not only someone to fulfill his fetish with, he runs the risk of being 'that guy' who treats women as fetish fulfillers instead of people. (I assume your husband is straight as you did not mention otherwise.) It wasn't clear to me if he was also seeking a relationship, if one based on a particular fetish.

Now if your husband really does seek just to get his fetish needs met, well, why not hire an woman who is actually totally fine with being a fetish delivery system? And wants to do her job well, make her client happy and earn a living too? Despite the (minor, depending on where you live) legal risks, it would be immensely simpler than trying poly for your husband.

Just a thought.

 

[kdt26417]

I kind of assumed Saphy didn't mind indulging C's fetishes as long as she could also get vanilla sex elsewhere. Being that that was an assumption, we all know what "assume" makes out of "u" and "me." @ opalescent, I think your advice makes considerable sense.

 

[Spork]

Bearing in mind, it could be anything and OP has not chosen to divulge (understandable, these things are private.) Could be a very sexual, or not very sexual thing. And depending on what it is...could be more, or less, legal to hire someone to do. We've got pro Dommes that I know up in Denver and I've got an idea of what they can legally do for money. It IS limited.

What makes me frown a little bit is that I think it's an inconsiderate partner who won't put in the effort to accommodate their partner's needs when partner has been very accommodating to theirs. Sounds like OP has been willing to indulge husband's fetish an awful lot...and there are certainly ways to be attentive and loving to a partner and set aside one's own satisfaction for a while, and if OP is doing that, why is husband not willing to? Dan Savage talks about being the 3 G's "Good, Giving, Game." Seems to me like despite loving his wife and wanting to be with her, he isn't willing to NOT focus on his own needs in bed for a while and let hers take precedent...?

I could be wrong. But that is the sense I am getting. ??

 

[Saphy]

Hey all! In the order of your responses, here are my replies!

Spork: Yes I agree, which ever way it's done, getting to know one another is a must, or at least it is for me.

opalescent & kdt26417: KDT pretty much has it correct. For the eight years that we've been together I've indulged him in his fetish to the point where he doesn't feel the need to seek it elsewhere. HOWEVER, I stopped meeting his needs when I felt mine weren't being met and that was how we gradually moved into the idea of opening our relationship. Sexually speaking, when I'm happy, he is very happy!

I'm not against hiring a professional, though their aren't really any professionals that work directly with his fetish, but more sub versions of it. I suppose you could consider me a professional regarding his fetish as I'm also C's fetish model and we make money from it and sometimes cater to custom requests. He has a passion for the material he makes and it's also sexually satisfying for him. I've suggested using the money we make to hire someone to fulfill his sexual needs (even if it's only partially) but he's not really interested in doing that as he feels he already has what he needs. Either way, the money is there should he change his mind and I'm not against it. What he's into isn't illegal.

Spork I loooooove Dan Savage, I've even written to him. And yes, being GGG is a must, but if you know of Dan Savage, you also know that he advises kinksters to seek those with similar interests when their vanilla partners just aren't up to the job. This is basically me. I'm more sexually fluid than C and C does try to indulge me, he really does...but as he explains, he can't force it. Sex is simply secondary to him. There are days when the sex with C is great, but it always has to include some element of his fetish. To put it bluntly, I've always felt we can never completely be on the same page during sex and I don't think this is something he can change with "effort" alone. This is a mental thing (a paraphillia, even) - if you're not into something, you simply aren't into it. The most you can do is pretend or force yourself, and even if it's done out of love, it's not always satisfactory for your partner and the facade can feel like a pea under the mattress during sex!

As I've had other other "vanilla" partners who were into sex the way I am, I have a comparison and often I feel there's just something missing between C and I. I see a passion for his fetish that depletes when his fetish isn't present, and it's that same passion for sex that I miss in the bedroom.

I hope that answers some of your questions!

 

[IndieSolo]

. . . I loooooove Dan Savage, I've even written to him.

I wrote to Dan Savage anonymously way back when he only had a small "Dear Dan" column in the New York Press newspaper. He wasn't nationally known then. I was responding to a previous letter writer on the topic of cunnilingus! I wrote it in longhand, with pen and paper, and mailed it to him at the paper -- that's how long ago this was -- and I waxed poetically on the subject. And he published it, said it was brilliant and that he wished he knew who wrote it! Then I regretted not signing my name, LOL.

Gosh, that was such a long time ago.

 

[JaneQSmythe]

Just a comment on the "dating" thing...I, also, don't prefer to "date", never have. Seems too much like an "interview" for my tastes. My relationships (the few that I have had ) evolve from friendships first. The idea of meeting up with a, relative, stranger for express purpose of trying to determine whether we might want to explore a relationship and/or sex just sends my introvert soul into a downward spiral - it sounds like so much WORK!

(MrS and I went on our first "date" after we had been sleeping together for over 6 months. Dude and I met for lunch as "friends" when I was in crazy lust for him ...but NOT a date, as sex and/or relationship was not on the table at the time.)

 

[Saphy]

I agree Jane, though I suppose dates are what you make it?

I find conventional dating to be very stifling; you usually have to put your best foot forward and not your real foot, if that makes any sense!

C and I went on our first date a whole year after we got together. Before that, we would spend time together in our own familiar environments which I feel is far more genuine than meeting at a dinner table all dressed up. I also feel a lot of pressure getting ready for dates.

When I'm invited to meet people in their personal spaces, I learn so much about them because they're so much more relaxed. I immediately learnt C was a very messy person! He learnt I wasn't. C is also quite shy and reserved and coming over to mine with a box set of anime and a Wii made for great conversation starters.