|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 21 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
| Mistress Manners: Relationships take work and knowledge |
Posted by
callei on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 12:07 AM PST
For those of you with time on your hands, an explorative mind, and are at least 18 years old (depending on your country or state), I would like to pose an "exercise". The purpose of the exercise is to offer you a chance to see some other ways of thinking about sexual relationships and get your questions voiced. I am not an "authority" and, to my knowledge, no one here has their clinical sexology degree or is a registered counselor or therapist of any state board. But some of us have been around a while and are willing to talk about it.
What I/We (speaking for the other members here) can offer is the chance to see what is out there and be accepted for questioning it. I won’t tell you one thing is more right than another. I won’t tell you that one thing is less right than another. I am just providing a set of ideas that you can look at, think about, and, hopefully, de-mystify in your own minds. http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html http://www.master.webcentral.com.au/abis/undersub.html http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/HYBRIDVIGOR/issue1/mating.htm Here are three "types" of sex/relationship and all the articles are long and totally non-sexy, or at least mostly non-sexy. Questions: Why do you shy away from reading the whole thing?
Which one makes you "fight back" the most?
Which one made you doubt your views?
Which one made you think about your views?
Why do you think that (insert idea here) is "wrong"?
Why do you want to try (insert idea here)?
Which one makes you the most curious to learn more?
Which one makes you feel that you have learned more than you wanted?
What comes to mind first when you think back on what you have read?
Why are you answering these questions?
A few notes: I couldn’t find an article about monogamy that spoke about it as a sex/relationship style between people, only as one between a person and their god. If you can find one, I would love to read it. Please send it my way. I would really love to see any answers you come up with. I repeat that I will not judge you for them, whatever they may be. And yes, you can rant at me all you want. I may even write back. For those of you who wonder why there is no article about being "gay", that isn’t a sex/relationship style. It is a matter of partner style, not relationship style. Gay people have monogamous relationships, polyamorous relationships, and BDSM relationships. So why should I single out "gayness"?
|
| |
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 4.0
Total ratings : 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Relationships take work and knowledge | Login/Create an account | 44 Comments |
|
| | Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Ironboots on Sep 08, 2003 - 01:08 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://rangerjacket.tripod.com
|
I initially shyed away from it (until I read the question about shying away... ;) because I was lazy and wanted to go to bed.
None of them really made me 'fight back' per se... I kinda got bored with the third one, but that was because of the more formal attitude taken compared to the first two.
The first one kinda made me doubt my view that I'm not cut out for polyamory. I'm an insecure, jealous person, but that article addressed it pretty well..
Again, the first article for reasons stated above.
I didn't really find any of them to be wrong...
I want to try being a submissive because that's what gets me off. (to put it bluntly), but its not because of any of the articles...
Curious to learn more? hmmm... probably the first polyamory one, since I don't really know a lot about it.
None of them taught me more than I cared.
Thinking back on what I've read, I realize: Monkeys sure are weird creatures.
I'm answering these questions because I'm the first to get to them, and I have plenty of free time.
|
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by callei on Sep 09, 2003 - 05:19 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | *hands you the prize for most complete answer, a gift cert to disneyland*
thanks and you are so right about monkeys |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com)
on Sep 08, 2003 - 07:10 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://http://
|
Maybe somebody could answer something for me:
If polyamory is not about competition or adequacy, and the second study sites that women are driven to seek pairings outside a monogamous relationship is because they desire to seek males of a higher quality for breeding, while males are simply wired to spread their genes as far as possible, is it possible for polygyny(Which I believe is the proper phrasing, as poly- is a greek prefix while the Gallic-Slave-Latin French is merely defined as 'interest' rather than love, in as which "amor" evolved in moorish spain shortly before, but I might be wrong) to not be at least partially influenced by questioning of adequacy in an open enviroment?
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Sep 08, 2003 - 03:17 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | It's elementary that polygyny is the search for adequacy in an open enviornment - but if you're thinking of it in the serial monogamy way (each partner is a replacement for the last), then you're not understanding the whole concept.
Everyone has their ideal of the perfect person that would make them happy and fulfilled in all aspects of their lives. Anyone who says they have met that person is lying to you, or to themselves, or is still delusional from "New Love Chemicals".
You can't fully understand polyanything without thinking of your Loves as an entity and your Lovers as components of that entity. If you're not thinking about it that way, then you'll just be dancing around all of these cliche' issues that "Polyamory People" write so defensively about on the net.
By reading it again from that angle, your pointed question becomes not so pointed and becomes it's own answer. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com) on Sep 09, 2003 - 10:12 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | Warning: the following post contains an attempt to define love, and may prove to be dangerously corny. Moreover, it is being written by a guy on the rebound which increases the chances of maudlin sentimentality drastically. Enter at your own risk.
I agree with Devin here that no one person is ever going to be everything you need all the time. It's just not going to happen. So how do you deal with this problem? One way is to resign yourself to being unhappy sometimes, but I think we can safely disregard that one. It's the non-solution solution.
Then there's the polyamorous solution which Devin and callei are discussing (please forgive me if I misrepresent your ideas, this is what I interpret you to be saying). Picture everything you want out of a relationship as a giant puzzle, and people as pieces or collections of pieces. The chances of you finding one person with all of the pieces to your puzzle is statistically zero, but if you put several people together, you have a good chance of making a pretty picture. Of course, one of the reasons it's hard to find a "perfect" person is that people don't always want the same thing all of the time. Sometimes you want a partner who will listen to your problems patiently and give you their best advice, and sometimes you want a partner who is going to laugh off your problems and take you out to get drunk. The puzzle analogy breaks down a little here (well... you see... sometimes you need a purple piece in the left corner, but sometimes you need an orange piece, and if you have a purple piece AND an orange piece to choose from... aww fuck it) but I think everyone understands the basic concept being discussed. This is what I took Devin to mean when he referred to your Loves as an entity and your Lovers as components of that entity
Anyway, I think the one flaw in this thinking is that it underestimates the transformative power of love.
Yes, I just said "the transformative power of love" without even a trace of irony. What is this world coming to?
Let me start by saying that for the rest of this comment, when I say love, I'm talking about good old Eros... romantic love. All other types of love may work into this somehow, but I'm not worried about that right now.
So, what is love? I think most people would agree that there's something more to it than just being best friends who have sex. What that something more is is a little harder to pin down. It's certainly not the degree of intimacy. I have friends that I can tell anything but I wouldn't say I'm in love with them. I've even had friends with that level of intimacy who were also cohabitating and having sex with me, and again, I wouldn't say I was in love with them.
My personal feeling is that love is defined by your willingness to change, and be changed by, your partner. In this respect, my mentioning "the transformative power of love" is not technically correct; love is transformative power.
Now I don't mean transformation like, "honey I love you, so I'll learn to put the toilet seat down," or at least, I don't only mean that. Anyone who has been in a long term relationship can tell you, there's a bit of a mind-meld that happens after a while. You start to adopt pieces of each other. You share perspectives and personality traits. Some of the things that bugged you most about your partner turn into the things you can't live without. To continue the already strained puzzle analogy, instead of finding the pieces that fit your puzzle, you realize that your puzzle has changed and, lo and behold, the pieces you needed were sitting right here in front of you the whole time.
You both become different people, and in that sense, your love creates something entirely new.<
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com) on Sep 09, 2003 - 10:41 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | What cometh unto my mind from reading such as this(Enough Yea Olde Engalish for now) is a bizarre comparison of children dreaming less as they grow older. That too is a symbiotic change with the interpretation of the surroundings, or is it a more spiritual side? The problem people have defining any substance(which is why I think callei likes to harp back on nebulous attributations such as love, and manners[sorry sis] in an attempt to understand something which has at best a difficult time being categorized or accepted) produces two schools of thought on the topic. In the first we have the spiritual sense, in the second we have a scientific functionality.
The scientific side is rather easy to understand when broken down. Pheromone A released by sweat Gland F in female B is picked up by mucuous membrane E in male C, making chemical reaction D in male E's brain and causing him to search out the female for hot rabbit fucking.
Love is evil. Spiritually speaking, desire is the root of all evils that befoul and plague humanity. Love is defined by every person individually, just like spiritualism. People apply themselves to a certain sect or way of believing what love is; just like people who join a religion.
Is love what happens when mucuous membrane F is aggravated by some wonderful Pheromone A that it knows it can't acheive? Who knows; I know that I don't care.
Back to heroin and cheap 70's french lesbian pornography. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by callei on Sep 10, 2003 - 07:56 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | "The problem people have defining any substance... produces two schools of thought on the topic."
edited for the base sentance with "(which is why I think callei likes to harp back on nebulous attributations such as love, and manners[sorry sis] in an attempt to understand something which has at best a difficult time being categorized or accepted)" removed.
one of your better attempts at a complex sentance...
Truely it produces at least three, not merely two, not a duality at all (ie the point of this article), not just the body or the soul. I know that for some people, that is about the level of complexity that they feel comfortable with, but it is not so for everyone. some people find that body, soul, and mind works better for them, or body soul, mind, and will. there are lots of other variations.
But you unintentionally raise the point of the issues i was having finding an article about monogamy; the idea that the body had a relationship with another person and the soul had a relationship with God. It all sounded too poly for me to want to put it down as monogamy. I mean there are at least 3 entities in that relationship, probably 4, and if they also believe in the devil, maybe as many as 6. But in thier point of view, it is monogamous.
Just goes to show that you can define things any number of ways, but that the act of definition lets the definer know what it is that they personally think, rather than guess what they think or believe what others say without question.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 08:27 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | Spelt sentence wrong, sis.
What is the will, however? Triumph over the reactive mind? The desire to eat, fuck, sleep and shit? Primitivist watermelons believe we should all heed that and descend into an anarchistic society, but then people form into wolf packs. And let's not get in to that sex.
I mean, let's examine each part of that: the mind is the observer and recorder of actions. This seems simple enough: the ability to contemplate what has been done. Dogs lack this; memory goes straight to instinct, reactive mind. What was the name of the French-Canadian in "Call of the Wild"? The one with the red sweater who would beat the dogs they stole senseless all the time? If there was an observer mind in a dog, we could sit down and explain language to them. It is the ability to learn on a more than instinctual level.
The body is possibly what most consider the reactive mind. It is a collection of instincts(such as not shitting near where you eat, or eating your own shit), organs that react on those instincts or trigger those instincts based upon what they sense or work like, and fun dangly bits.
The soul. Oooh, that little sort-of-blue bit just below your heart. Like your adrenal gland. Which, after it is done releasing adrenaline into the system and you have escaped danger, receives no thanks but must be satisfied by hearing you thank whatever deity you might believe in. What people believe to be empathy might just be extremely good interpretation of facial gestures. Personally, I believe it is extremely easy to think in the same direction of someone who has the same fucking stupid ideas spirituality, indvididualism, and political sense. But I digress: What is enlightenment? Considered in most philosophies, it is triumph over the reactive mind. Which, as mentioned above, is merely will. Sorry to put spirituality and the soul down, but anybody willful enough to do anything will get it done, and usually, by spiritual standards, not go to whatever respective valhalla their contemporaries believe in. Ever wondered how many Christian and Jew peasants wanted to Caesar to burn in divine fire?
What does this have to do with sex? Well, that, in my opinion(of which there are no shortages, start a forum on handgun control next) delegates the idea of love to the mind. The observational bit. While most would interperate from some of the people who prnounce polyamory as the fulfillment of needs in this thread that the mind is partly responsible, the third paper pronounces that our body is the bit that does all the sensory perception necessary to get the nasty on, and that the mind just begins to form relationships that it believes in, relegating responsibility of such thoughts as blame to the soul or will. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 05:02 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | Just to take a stab at your extended metaphorical analysis of the situation. I think you are concentrating too much on the sexual aspects of polyamory (if I may be allowed to use the generalized term in the face of such extremely semantic debates as have passed before).
To put it more simply, it's not all about the sex mate. In fact, the sex itself is a very minor point of the equation. Sure, the genetic drive to procreate causes humans males to seek out as many sexual partners as possible, and a similar drive for genetic perfection and diversity causes the females of the species to seek out multiple daddies, but that's where the sexual aspect dies off.
As has been said before, being poly encompasses such things as a merging of funds (funds being money, effort, supplies, energy, support, etc...) and a division of labor. In a communal lifestyle, you will find a number of couples and single people who have joined together in the spirit of sharing their labor and interests. In a poly situation, you will find people who have all that and are not afraid to admit it is because they call each other family.
Take "A" who is with "B" and "C", "A" is with them, sleeps with both of them, and they all share a bed, but the "B" and "C" are not sexually interested in each other. Now these three live in harmony as the poly version of a couple, sharing the household upkeep, the maintenance of the communal funds, and general day to day life. Just because the two, "B" and "C", do not have sex, does this mean that "A" is the only one in a poly relationship? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 05:04 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | | Just to add another twist to the old plot, "B" and "C" actually live together full time, including sharing a bed for human comfort. Remember, they are not having sex. "A" only lives with them for three days out of the week. Does this change anything? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 06:21 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | Sex and the third degree, wot?
Okay, let's not look at the sex, and instead the relationship part. Are we assuming now that humans live as wolves, and that's all that polyamory is, extension of responsibility to a pack formation? I mean, the example you give is trangely reminisecent of gorillas and wolves, which both have strong relatiosnships sire the children of alpha and beta females, although while the females of each species relegate responsiblity of the pups differently, it sounds vaguely remeniscent of your example. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 06:48 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | Actually, I don't see why we shouldn't use the metaphor. Wolves, Gorillas and other social mammals live together for comfort, safety and other instinctual reasons. One of the biggest arguments that I can make about the poly lifestyle is that it feels more natural. How much sense does it make, on any front to limit oneself to one of anything? We do not limit ourselves to one flavour of ice-cream, we do not limit ourselves to (winks Callei) one flavor of syrup, the only people who limit themselves to one "god" are the same people who are voted most likely to go to war with themselves and their neighbors each year.
So why not make the argument that a poly relationship is very much like a wolf pack or pride of lions. There is often an alpha, the group is usually somewhat insular (Just like a monogamous couple) and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Does the fact that it's instinctual as well as workable make it any less fun? Or any less viable? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 08:09 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | | It makes it less human, to use the comparison, if your definition about huamnity revolves around societal structure. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by callei on Sep 09, 2003 - 05:31 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | there are at least three seperate components here: marriage, love, and children, inter-related, but not inter-dependant.
or in more blunt terms:
he who makes a good sperm doner, doesnt not necessarily make a good daddy
She who bares children well doesnt not necessarily cook well
he who makes a good daddy doesnt not a great bed partner make
she who a makes alot of money does not a close close confidant make
he who makes a great confidant does not make as good of a organizer.
she who rocks in bed may not also rock in the investment world.
Two people arent enough to raise kids (ego schools, extended family, summer camp, and afterschool activities)
Two people that make "enough" money dont also have time to run a house
Two people that are busy raising kids and trying to fun the corporation that is marriage surly dont often have enough time left over to be best freinds, lovers, and each other confidants (therefor best freinds, week end get aways, and affairs)
marriage is a construct designed to consolidate goods and property for the next generation
Love is something that people share to make life more fun and fulfilling
Happiness is a personal thing to each person.
to try to make one of these, usually love, also do the job of marriage and happiness, is to shoot yourself in the foot with explosive rounds. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Why poly didn't work for me...
by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com)
on Sep 08, 2003 - 08:54 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I agree with a lot of the things written in the article about polyamory. I'm all for exploring alternative relationship styles, and I think our society would be better as whole if everyone lightened up a little on who and how everybody loves.
That said, I'd like to talk about a couple of difficulties I found with polyamory that I don't think get discussed very often This is not meant to dissuade anyone from experimenting with polyamory or choosing it for themselves, rather, speaking as someone who has tried it and decided it wasn't for me (at least not at this point in my life) I'd like to toss my two cents in about the trials of a polyamorous relationship.
One problem, social pressure, gets brought up a lot, but I think people tend to underestimate it. Now I bet that most of you reading this are scoffing (hah! I flout at least three social conventions before breakfst!), and I'm with you. I, like most of the people on this site I'm guessing, get a preverse pleasure from going against social norms. And when your relationship is going fine, you hardly feel any social pressure at all... but when things get ugly.
If you try to talk to a non-poly friend about problems in your poly relationship, chances are their first reaction is going to be "Well, maybe this polyamory thing wasn't such a good idea." The bottom line is, because of the dominance of the monogamous ideal, it's easy for people (even the people involved) to see any problem in a poly relationship as something wrong with polyamory itself. I know quite a few people who have given up on polyamory because of relationship problems that a monogamous couple would have taken in stride.
There's also a danger of going to the other extreme, though. You get so defensive about your polyamorous relationship that you feel the need to be perfectly happy so you can prove to the rest of the world (and to yourself) the viability of your chosen relationship type. You ignore problems, or persist in a relationship that you're not really into, because you don't want all those naysayers to be right.
For example, imagine you have a nose ring. One day you realize this thing is just a pain in the ass, so you decide to take it out. But before you do, some moron comes along and says, "wipe your nose you fucking freak," and so you go and get an eyebrow ring and a labret and you run a chain between them and your nose ring because FUCK HIM! ...Well, that's all in good fun if all it costs you is fifty bucks at the Piercing Pagoda, but that's not the kind of pressure that makes for a healthy relationship.
The only two ways I've found to fend off this social pressure are to either 1) Not give a damn about what anyone else thinks (which seems counter to the spirit of polyamory, if not the letter) or 2) Build up a network of poly people around you for friendship, support, and encouragement. Thanks to a new invention called "The Internet" option 2 is getting easier all the time.
Warning: do not get in a relationship with your poly "buddies." That defeats the purpose Try to pick a support network of poly people who are old and unattractive :).
Anyway, enough about social pressure. It's tough, but it's manageable. The real difficulty in polyamorous relationships, in my experience, is much simpler. Poly people (myself included) are always spouting great "unlimited love" cliches, such as "the more love you give away, the more love you have to give" (this is from the poly article linked above), and you know what? They're all true. But time is limited.
No matter how much unlimited love you have, building intimacy is a time consuming process, and it never ends. You never g
Read the rest of this comment...
|
Re: Why poly didn't work for me...
by callei on Sep 09, 2003 - 05:16 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | I think you hit on one REALLY key factor that effects all relationships, be they platonic, sexual, familial, or economic. The fact of the matter is that most people dont have the TIME to have freinds, family, and/or lovers. We live in a time and place where a 60 hour week is normal (yeah you think you work forty hours, but what about your commute? your prep time? your comeing down time?) if you combine that with sleep, most people have about 4 hours a day that isnt "work" or "sleep". oh and weekends.
Then you have to factor in "housework" and, for some at least, "personal maintenance", and most people are left with about 30 minutes a day to spend growing thier relationships with others, learning, thinking, reading, and sex.
Some times it amazes me that anyone manages to have a relationship with anyone else at all. I dont think its any harder per se to maintain 2 close relationships than it is to maintain one, after all most of us have at one time or another had a close relationship with two friends, or both parents, or siblings, or some combination of those.
But when you barly have time to think, when you have to do two things at once so that you can keep up (for example shaving your legs while talking bitching at the cable company) then when do you have time for close personal time with anyone else, let alone 2 or 3 other people.
I wont address the peer pressure issues because i cant really speack about it. I think it is a very valid point, especially the need to be around people that support you in what you do, not in what they think you ought to be doing, but I think that is something for someone else, perhaps you, to go into further.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Why poly didn't work for me...
by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com) on Sep 09, 2003 - 07:19 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | Just a tad more exposition on the social pressure of monogamy...
The difficulty in dealing with social pressure and polyamory is that society essentially puts you in the position of having to defend your relationship. My point in my original response was that I've seen people screw up by defending too little and by defending too much.
The other quick point I would like to make is that, for the most part, this social/peer pressure isn't overt or antagonistic in any way. The reason it's hard to talk to a monogamous person about problems in a poly relationship isn't that the other person won't try to understand or be supportive, it's just that they've solved their issues in a different way.
For example, I have a Catholic friend who I consider to be very intelligent, open minded, and supportive, but I (as an atheist) would never go to him and say, "You know... I'm really having a hard time finding direction and meaning in my life."
So there's a pressure, but it's not the kind of social pressure that's fun to fight against... like outright intolerance, bigotry, and oppression. It's just the constant, low hum of people's assumptions about the way relationships work.
And that's about all the insight I can muster on that topic. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Why poly didn't work for me...
by Tiresias on Sep 09, 2003 - 12:40 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http:// | Ahh...the lovely, Heinleinian plural-marriage-as-utopia...who hasn't dreamed of it at some point? Once I make some money (ha!), I'm going to get a big farm someone way out in the middle of nowhere, and let anyone come stay if they want to. It won't be a poly relationship, but at least I'll have company. I have enough trouble making a relationship with one person work.
Have you ever noticed how much free time all of Heinlein's characters seem to have? Yeah, they might have jobs, but they never go to them. No wonder they have sex all the time. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Why poly didn't work for me...
by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com) on Sep 09, 2003 - 07:26 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | Yeah, Heinlein makes it seem really easy, but then all of the characters are beautiful, smart, independently wealthy, nymphomaniacs. I imagine most things are easy when you've got all of that going for you.
:) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Qualifications?
by Kira (mod_complexathotmaildotcom) on Sep 09, 2003 - 09:44 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.livejournal.com/users/mod_complex | "Yeah, Heinlein makes it seem really easy, but then all of the characters are beautiful, smart, independently wealthy, nymphomaniacs. I imagine most things are easy when you've got all of that going for you."
Hmm...I know a couple of people with all of the above qualifications, except that whole independently wealthy part. It's just money, right?
Now I know what to do with my first million. lol |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Qualifications?
by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com) on Sep 09, 2003 - 10:09 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | Yeah, count me in too.
You know, usually when people say "time is money" they mean "you're wasting my time, and I'm losing money." But it works the other way too, unlimited money = unlimited time to pursue... whatever. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Qualifications?
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 07:51 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | Can we do it off the grid, but still close enough that we can string the wires for a net connection? We'll still need our net porn after all. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Qualifications?
by Tiresias on Sep 10, 2003 - 07:34 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http:// | | I actually think that part of why Heinlein's characters never seem to have money woes is because of the whole group setup. More people=more resources, right? I can't remember exactly what the group marriage setup in "Friday" was called, but the families in it were basically set up as corporations, with each member contributing money...you had to buy your way in. I thought it was interesting that the families had formal contracts, including dowry...it made it seem more like the traditional, marriage-as-business-exchange theory. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Qualifications?
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 08:10 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | | You know, I read "Friday" when I was about 12 or 13. I don't remember ANY of the poly stuff. I don't know if it's because I wasn't paying attention, or because none of it seemed out of the ordinary enough to remember. I must have been paying some attention though, since I remember her bellybutton. Her bellybutton was out of the ordinary enough to remember. Mmmmmm.... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Schizo (Aranea@spidersdance.com)
on Sep 09, 2003 - 05:41 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://http://
|
|
I don't think I shied away from reading anything here. Even though I'm most certainly the Shmeng poster child for monogamy, I like to think about alternate sexualities. Ever since escaping from fundamentalist cult/Christianity, I like to check and double check to make sure that I'm not just doing something because that's what I've been told to, or because that's what I've always done.
I also don't think that I felt any "fight back" reaction to anything. Although, BDSM appeals to me the least. Well, maybe a little bondage, and a tiny bit of pain, but I am far too stubborn and independant to make a good sub, and I really don't find any attraction to the idea of taking on the vast responsibility of being dominant. The thought makes me feel exhausted. And hardcore BDSM practices are really too much for me. I think I'm just a little too ordinary. But if it floats your boat, I have no problem with it.
I didn't doubt my views. I do what makes me happy in the bedroom (and my partner), you do what makes you and your partner(s) happy, and as long as it's all between consenting adults, it's none of my beeswax. That was, and still is my view.
And I don't think that any of your options are wrong. Some may be wrong for some people, i.e., not what is best for them, but I'm not going to say that being polyamory or BDSM is sick or somehow sinful.
Part of me would like to try polyamory. But not now. I have little enough time to spend with my one relationship without trying to branch out with others. But as for the whole sharing thing, I think, under the right circumstances, I could handle, and even enjoy it. Maybe if I had approached sexuality with the intent to practice polyamory, instead of monogamy, since, as I've already said, I'm stubborn and tend to stick to a chosen path. And maybe, if my life ever frees up and allows me time and energy for it, and my boyfriend feels equally comfortable, perhaps polyamory would be an option for the future. But I wouldn't try to force it, just to be different or revolutionary. If I'm meant to be poly, it will happen it it's own time. But certainly not around here! I'd be lucky to find two people I'm attracted to here in Hickville, USA, let alone ones that are really capable of participating in a polyamorous relationship!
Probably BDSM makes me the most curious, probably since it's the most foreign to my own nature. I think it would be very interesting to really get to know a true sub or dom, and find out their motivations. The same with a true sadist or masochist. I mean one who is not desperately in need of psychiatric help, of course. I don't see the motivation for BDSM for more than the smallest doses, so I would be fascinated to see in person what drives these people. Perhaps I have something to learn from this lifestyle, even though I really cannot see myself participating to any serious degree.
I don't think that any of these articles taught me more than I wanted. If anything, they barely scratched the surface, and left me with more questions than answers. And I was kind of disappointed in the one on monogamy. The research into animal relationships was fascinating, but I really don't think the author truly addressed the issues and motivations of someone who practices true monogamy, by which I mean one partner for life, not one partner until the magic disappears, and that partner is exchanged for a new one. Perhaps I should look deeper into my own reasons and issues while experiencing monogamy, and write my own article on the subject.
What comes to my mind is, every person is an individual, and you can't cookie-cutter rules for a healthy relationship. Each person must find what satisfies them and their partner(s). It's no use trying to stuff
Read the rest of this comment...
|
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com)
on Sep 09, 2003 - 08:29 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://devin.vibechild.com/
|
|
I'm a little disappointed with the responses to this article. It seems most of the respnses so far are from the people with the answers, rather than the people with the questions. I wonder if people just don't realize the vast amounts of firsthand knowledge and experience some of the people here have with these subjects. Or if maybe they're just too shy to ask.
|
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com) on Sep 09, 2003 - 10:44 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | | Hey Devin, D.B. Cooper, Dennis Miller, P.J. O'Rourke and I are getting together to snort some cocaine off the big dead tittes of deceased hookers and circle-jerk on the gravesites before they get buried. Want to come along? We've got vanilla pepsi. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by callei on Sep 10, 2003 - 07:59 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | I am not too supprised, after all it was alot of reading for the "Average" nethead, really open questions, and asking alot of people.
I did hope for more tho too. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 01:11 PM
(User info | Send a Message) | | It could just be that you're preaching to the choir. I think most of these ideas are pretty mainstream, especially for netheads, and particularly for people who visit this site. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Squire-of-Gothos (Brian0049@hotmail.com)
on Sep 10, 2003 - 09:47 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
|
I have a question. How does everyone feel about the acceptance level of BDSM, polyamory, etc, in society. I know their is a portion of members here who subscribe to such sexual preferences (me included) but for some reason, the world at large has picked such issues as the last sexual Alamo, of sorts.
Their was a time, not too long ago, when homosexuality was the target of religious and social persecution. It was easy; their was no condensed group to represent the homosexual community, and they suffered. Luckily though, a great American revolution began, starting in the mid 60's. Between the painful realization that the government was corrupt, the maturity or rock, the sexual revolution, womens rights, and civil rights, gay rights began to gain an organized representation.
Though it may not be fully accepted, "gay" is a term people no longer readily fear and the understanding behind it is no longer a disgusting mystery. Homophobia is still our their, and some Christians and the like still damn the gays for blasphemising God, but not nearly with the same zeal as before. It would be like publicly denouncing people with SUV's; I hate em, lots of people hate em, but plenty don't, and I doubt it would go over well. All things considered, what about BDSM?
Where is our representation? Where is our acceptance? My mother told me that she would love me if where gay, straight, whatever, but when I told her I enjoyed pain, that I liked to tie and be tied, and that I wanted to be commanded, needless to say she was shocked. Why is it that the subject conjures up so many images of Satanic ritual, bloody acts, The dominatrix beating her helpless victim, et all. As if this is torture? As if we bring in blind, naive people and rape and destroy their lives. The worst part is that popular society has known of such acts for decades; DeSade was putting on play with subject matter like flogging, beating, rape, homosexuality, binding to chains, whips, exhibition and Sub and Dom action.
Despite all of this, society at largeis still mystefied, scared and ignorant of the entire subject, and as most of us know, people dislike or ignore that which they don't understand. Now that we have a few articles dealing which such subjects, and a good contingency of people who practice and a good contingency who don't, what do you all think of BDSM and polyamory, do they need a movement? Should we together work to get the message out, and fight for BDSM acceptance? Is BDSM really a disgusting fetish, that people don't need to know about? Or is it a step towards a racial, religious, and sexual equality?
Hell if I know.....
|
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 09:55 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | I would like to point out again that it is impossible to become addicted to pain, only nominally tolerant of certain levels of pain.
As for the idea of a movement, movement of what? Cosplayers get together in gardens in Tokyo every sunday to show off their costumes. There are various bondage and sexual deviancy conventions world-wide. Do you want a BDSM political party? The red, white, and blue whip on a flag background?
Sexual groups don't often gain much movement unless they have something that unites them. Do people get arrested for practicing bondage frequently, or sent to prison? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Squire-of-Gothos (Brian0049@hotmail.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 10:44 AM
(User info | Send a Message) http:// | Good points. It is dificult for a unity of people to gather when their is no concrete issue which is ailing them. But cosplay conventions are one thing, acceptance is another. Most people dismiss the acts, and I think the real problem I see is that lots of individuals who are interested in the subject find it hard to learn and be accepted. Often the conventions are too extreme for beginners, the groups are hard to get acustomed too, but worst of all, family and friends don't see this as anyhwere near normal. Without out support from the people around them, or a message from others like them saying, "Hey it's ok. This doesn't make you a freak. You can explore and learn from us." how can they accept themselves. They often repress the feelings.
I have met so many closet subs and doms, and so many people who secretly need to be bound or hurt to really gain sexual pleasure, its not even funny. They all tell me its because they knew their friends and loved ones would freak, and they didn't seem to think their where others like them.They felt alone and help less. It is entirely too underground for mainstream persons to get a hold of it in their community, and we haven't helped at all in getting people to accept their friends and relatives who enjoy such things. Sure their are accepting families, but many aren't and they have no idea how to react to hearing the person in question "likes pain" or "wants to be tied up".
This is the heart of what I'm talking about. I hope ive clarified my views, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 05:37 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | "I would like to point out again that it is impossible to become addicted to pain, only nominally tolerant of certain levels of pain." Think endorphins, there is an enormous amount of proof showing that the chemical addiction to adrenaline and other endorphines not only exists, but the withdrawl from a deep addiction can kill more readily than the withdrawl from heroin. You know why? Because the body can produce those chemicals and will, if the actual circumstances that naturally generate these chemicals do not exist, flood the system and cause little things like heart attacks.
So yeah, actually, a person can become addicted to pain, just as they can become addicted to running, mountain climbing, parachuting, or the gun range. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 12:01 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | I know this is not exactly what you were asking, but I don't think acceptance levels of these kinds of things are as low as people think. In my experience, I stopped having to defend my lifestyle choices when I stopped feeling persecuted about them. I think there are a few elements to this.
When you feel like what you're doing is weird, you're going to be far more sensative to anything people say about it. Sometimes people say icky things, but how is that different from anything else? There's going to be stupid people who say icky things about what you're wearing too - even if you're wearing almost what they're wearing. ("Like - ohmygod - LOOOK at what she's wearing - that is like SO last week"). If you feel like what you're wearing is last week, this will bother you a lot. Otherwise, who cares?
If your friends don't understand your choices, they will either get all weird on you, or they'll giggle about it. If they giggle about it, just play along and help them be comfortable enough to understand it. It IS funny. If you take yourself so seriously that you can't giggle about this kind of thing, then you're probably not ready for it. If your friends get all weird on you - you shouldn't be taking it as the persecution of your preferences, you should be taking it as a sign that you need new friends.
I don't think family pressure in this case is a valid thing to go by. They're your family. If they don't approve of your sexual choices, it's probably more a matter of TMI, than anything. Think about it - if your mother was telling you that she liked missionary sex, would you want to hear that she likes it best with her feet behind her head? How about if she was telling you that she liked putting her ass on a pillow to get just the right angle, so daddy's trobbing cock hits her g-spot just right and makes her scream. I bet you would have a hard time being supportive without giving her any kind of "Mom, I really don't want to hear this" vibe.
As far as movements go - there ARE movements. There is a whole "Sex posative" movement. There are meetings and events in most major cities - they're not hard to find. I've found that these groups kind of create their own persecution. I did feel persecuted when I was talking to those people. The world WAS out to get me. Everything they said was valid and true, but when I quit talking to them, and just went about living my life, being open about my preferences, and not hiding anything - suddenly I couldn't find any persecution. It seems the "them" that these people are struggling against is the "them" in their heads - their own social issues, guilt, and shame. These things are a lot easier to overcome with a very small amount of therapy (once you recognize the problem), than trying to change a percieved persecution, when almost the entire world does't even know or care about your movement.
People will react to you in the way that you present yourself. If you introduce 2 lovers to someone in a defensive way and present it as a challenge to their tolerance - they WILL take you up on the offer and they will give you disapproving vibes. If you introduce them both as your friends instead of your signifigant others, spices, mates, etc.., and just hold hands and kiss them both and stuff like it's no big deal, people will treat it like it's no big deal.
The difference between people thinking you're eccentric and people thinking you're a freak, is when you're eccentric, you're comfortable with it. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Arthegarn on Sep 10, 2003 - 02:03 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I did not shy away from reading any of the whole things.
The one on Polyamory made me fight the most, because it's a well-written, logic-based article which just uses axioms I don't believe to be axioms. Several of the starting points are not "Truths so evident that they are out of discussion". The one on concupescency I just didn't agree with. The one on BDSM I had some points of disagreement, but none to bring me so wishful to have an interactive debate about the topic as the pliyamory one
None made me doubt my views, because my views start with "I think" and end with "to me". What might be good for others might not be good to me and vice versa
All of them did, specially the polyamory one. The BDSM might have done more if I wasn't so much turned into a toy doll...
I think that promiscuity is wrong for me becasue I have tried it and it fired back. I so not neccessarily think polyamory is wrong for me, but I really consider it extremely unlikely (I admit to be a serial monogamist, but if you dig a little you'll find me to be a frustrated monogamist). I do not think BDSM is wrong for me.
I do not want to try promiscuity because I already did and I don't like it. I want to try polyamory to see if it's really possible, and because if it were I would love and be loved by more than one individual. I want to try BDSM for the reasons exposed in my Toy Dolls 13 (I think) comment
BDSM is the one I am most curious about.
None makes me feel I have learned more than I wanted. Perhaps polyamory, but I think it's because there are many points I'd like to discuss and they burn inside me
"Geeek, that's weird" is the first thing that comes to mind when I think back. Sorry, brainwashed since I was a kid, I suppose. At least I know it ;-)
I answer because you asked and said you'd love to see the answers, and because trying to explain yourself to others is the best way to put your own ideas in order and really understand what you have just learned.
As for Monogamy being a relationship between a person and hir God... Though that relationship is by definition monogamous and I understand what you mean (and I like it, it's beautiful) I don't consider that it's a definite truth. But my opinion is quite long and I'd need to write an article In Dubio Pro Monogamia or something like that... Perhaps I will
|
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Sep 10, 2003 - 03:27 PM
(User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | As for Monogamy being a relationship between a person and hir God... Though that relationship is by definition monogamous
Speaking of Axioms not being Axioms, doesn't that only apply in monotheistic religions? In a polytheistic person's world, the relationship between a person and hir gods would by definition be non-monogamous.
Callei and I had a discussion a long time ago about how polytheistic people seemed to be the ones that had the hardest time with monogamy (and the easiest time with non-monogamy). I think she was going to write an article about it. I hope she still writes it, because that subject is also too long to hash over in these comments. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Relationships take work and knowledge
by Arthegarn on Sep 12, 2003 - 06:26 AM
(User info | Send a Message) | | Ops. Point taken. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
|
|
