• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Is polyamory just a feel-good euphemism for adultery?

Mastertank1 said:


If you believe in the Christian version of Jesus, He saved the life of the woman taken in adultery, so He obviously forgave her. :wowzer:


Of course he forgave her, but that doesn't mean the orignal action wasn't wrong in his eyes, his comment, "go and sin no more" would imply that what she did was wrong
 
That wasn't the question.

jim66e said:
Of course he forgave her, but that doesn't mean the orignal action wasn't wrong in his eyes, his comment, "go and sin no more" would imply that what she did was wrong
I was answering Isabeau's question, which was is it forgiveable. If she didn't think it was wrong, she wouldn't have asked if it could be forgiven, would she?
Duh!

I suspect that the reason Christian proselytizers are always answering questions no one asked is because they have no answers to the questions people do ask.

On the streets of NYC, people were always accosting strangers to tell them that 'Jesus is the answer'. I always told them I didn't ask that question. I meant it.

If you believe in the New Testamant, read Romans 1-13. It says Jews are the original tree to which all those converted to Christianity are only a branch grafted from another tree. Christian theologians have interpreted that as meaning that Jews are all saved by being God's original chosen people, and to convert a Jew to Christianity is to take that away and force him or her to earn it back by obeying the Christian rules of conduct. Some have said that would be blasphemous.

Now, I've answered a question you didn't ask.

Annoying as hell, isn't it?

Mastertank1

We who play and dance are thought mad by you who hear no music.
 
Mimi said:
No, I won't "hack" your post up. You are entitled to your opinion, and as long as you express it in a way that does not specifically flame anyone then I'm not going to trample on what you've posted in any way. But that does not mean that I will not personally take issue with your views. Just as you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine, and it's been a disturbing trend of yours lately to sit on your high arrogant moral horse and judge others on the forum simply because you do not agree with the lifestyle decisions they've made. It's really none of your business, and your closed-mindedness has pretty much completely destroyed any respect I once had for you.
Lord, where do I start? First of all, EVERYbody has a "moral horse" they ride, and mine is no higher than yours or anybody else's. Different people have different value sets, but as soon as anybody dares make mention of a difference, you and the rest of the PC police jump all over it with accusation, disapproval, and outright slander. You accuse me of judging people on this forum, yet that is exactly what you are doing to me; judging me as an arrogant moralist who considers himself superior to others. Not only is it slanderous bullshit, but it's a disgraceful example for a staff member to be setting. And you know what? If keeping your respect requires me to adopt your code of what's right and who's cool, I can quite frankly live without it, thank you very much.

Mimi said:
So as long as you continue to judge members of this forum for decisions they make with their own lives, and express your distaste for our own personal lifestyle practices, I will continue to express my distaste over you doing so.
Name me one person I've "judged" in this thread. The only lifestyle practice I've publically disdained is a lifestyle that involves men hurting or degrading women for their own pleasure. I still stand by that position, as do many.

Mimi said:
You sure as hell wouldn't like it if someone was breathing down your back telling you everything you chose to do in your private life was immoral and shameful, stop doing it to others. Christ, we're all at a FETISH forum. NONE of us are friggin saints here, and the fact we all share our sexual fetish openly with one another on this public platform is reason enough we all should be morally condemned according to those in the outside world. No one here has the right to question the morality of anything else anyone else does on this forum.
See, this is the route of all things you are wrong about with this issue, Mimi. You've bought into this idea that any enjoyment of tickling is sinful, deplorable, socially unacceptable, whatever. Anybody who digs tickling has embraced a socially unacceptable lifestyle. Since we're all guilty of leading an unacceptable lifestyle, we're required to accept all sexual lifestyles, in order to avoid hypocrisy. The problem with this type of thinking is that if we follow it through, we'd have to accept lifestyles such as pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and God knows what else.

We dig tickling. Even if the majority of the world thinks that's weird or odd, most will not say it's "evil." I can't help but look at tickling as a wonderful thing. It makes people laugh. It causes no pain. It's a wonderful remedy for depression. There's really nothing for us who love tickling to feel guilty about.

Mimi said:
And you can try to blanket this thread with an innocent query about whether polyamory would fall in the catagory of adultery or not, but it's a thin veil to hide the fact you only wanted a chance to declare your moral superiority over others and here was a chance to get others together to share in your belittling of their personal lives.
Oh for the love of God, would you just give it a fucking rest, already? Take a look at this thread, Mimi. Who is fighting here besides you and me? It isn't often we get a good debatable topic beyond whether Eliza Dushku is more ticklish on her feet or her armpits. We have a good thought-provoking discussion on social interaction going on here, with excellent points being made. Either take part in the discussion or take a hike. Your flames are not welcome here.
 
Is polyamory just a feel-good euphemism for adultery?

Not really, no. It's not for everyone, I don't think I could deal with it long-term.
 
You are not kidding any Drew. You purposely started this thread knowing it would be contraversial.We all know who it is aimed at, don`t insult everyone`s intelligence.Then you cry foul when someone calls you on it!!!
 
FlockOfSeagulls said:
You are not kidding any Drew. You purposely started this thread knowing it would be contraversial.
And that's bad, because....???

FlockOfSeagulls said:
We all know who it is aimed at, don`t insult everyone`s intelligence.Then you cry foul when someone calls you on it!!!
It's aimed at anybody who is interested in calmly discussing the issue, which evidently doesn't include you.
 
drew70 said:
And that's bad, because....???

It's aimed at anybody who is interested in calmly discussing the issue, which evidently doesn't include you.

It must be nice to be perfect and have no faults....tell us whats that like.
 
FlockOfSeagulls said:
It must be nice to be perfect and have no faults....tell us whats that like.
*whispers* Pssst - Why are you asking me this question? I've got more faults than California. Moreover, you are begging to get your ass censored, so ixnay already!

AHEM!

Sooo, what's your take on this polyamory business, Flock? You cool with it? Does it resemble adultry in any way to you?
 
I didn't flame you more than you flamed anyone else with your self righteous attitudes and opinions. I thought you liked it when someone took off the gloves and gave it to you straight? I finally do so after months of supressing my aggravation with your closed mind and all you do is cry foul play. Heh. I'll keep that in mind and chalk up another mark in the "those who can dish it out but not take it" list.

drew70 said:
Different people have different value sets, but as soon as anybody dares make mention of a difference, you and the rest of the PC police jump all over it with accusation, disapproval, and outright slander.

You're right. Different people do have different value sets. I'm not arguing or disagreeing with that at all. My point is that on this forum, amongst other sexual deviants, you have no right to say what they are doing is wrong and immoral, but what you're doing is safe and fun and innocent. That's a load of crap.

drew70 said:
Not only is it slanderous bullshit, but it's a disgraceful example for a staff member to be setting.

You're probably right there too. I should remain more unbiased as a staff member. But part of my job as a mod is making sure everyone on the forum feels welcome, and that they don't feel ridiculed by other members for their sexual interests. Hence why I jumped on you for repeatedly doing so. Aside from that....well, what can I say? I'm only frickin human. And I have every much of a right to be put off by your and your comments as you are by mine. Being a mod also does not mean I am never allowed to express my own opinions. As someone who hates the fact this is a moderated forum to begin with, I really have a hard time believing you stand behind any of this flag waving drivel you're aiming at me.


drew70 said:
Name me one person I've "judged" in this thread. The only lifestyle practice I've publically disdained is a lifestyle that involves men hurting or degrading women for their own pleasure. I still stand by that position, as do many.

Well, you outright named Lindy at the beginning of the thread, and in a round about way accused her of being an adultress because she practices a polyamorous lifestyle. You stated that you feel it's wrong, even if the partners consent. So yeah, I'd say you publically disdained this particular lifestyle choice. AFA your "unfavorable opinion" of men who get pleasure from degrading women, well, about 50-60% of our male members enjoy tickling a woman until she can't breathe, can't take anymore, and is nearing insanity. So, technically, you should even be here, amongst such immoral beasts.

drew70 said:
See, this is the route of all things you are wrong about with this issue, Mimi. You've bought into this idea that any enjoyment of tickling is sinful, deplorable, socially unacceptable, whatever. Anybody who digs tickling has embraced a socially unacceptable lifestyle. Since we're all guilty of leading an unacceptable lifestyle, we're required to accept all sexual lifestyles, in order to avoid hypocrisy.

Yeah, basically. According to most of the vanilla world, our practice of bondage and tickling is no different or worse than other sexual deviants. So if you don't like being judged, why do you do it to others?

drew70 said:
The problem with this type of thinking is that if we follow it through, we'd have to accept lifestyles such as pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and God knows what else.

Oh here we go. Is this the best you can do? I always get a kick out of you moral henchmen who try to use this argument against accepting other sexual lifestyles...whether it be homosexual unions, Master/slave relations, and polyamorous practitioners. You are intelligent enough to know there is a HUGE difference between what I just mentioned, and the lifestyles you mentioned....every single one you listed DOES NOT INVOLVE TWO CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS. That defense doesn't even make any sense at all. It's completely ludicrous.

drew70 said:
We dig tickling. Even if the majority of the world thinks that's weird or odd, most will not say it's "evil." I can't help but look at tickling as a wonderful thing. It makes people laugh. It causes no pain. It's a wonderful remedy for depression. There's really nothing for us who love tickling to feel guilty about.

You keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. I have several friends and have read experiences from hundreds of people who have been abused through tickling...either by a partner or as a child by an adult, etc. Just because it does not cause pain does not mean it can not be used for VERY evil and malicious means. My best friend would rather be punched in the mouth repeatedly than be tickled. It is the worst most unbearable sensation in the world to her. But according to you she should just get over it, cause there's really nothing wrong with it, and she's laughing after all, she MUST be enjoying it. Bullshit. Tickling can be just as abusive as pain, if not even more so in some cases. So that defense doesn't work either.

drew70 said:
Oh for the love of God, would you just give it a fucking rest, already? Take a look at this thread, Mimi. Who is fighting here besides you and me? It isn't often we get a good debatable topic beyond whether Eliza Dushku is more ticklish on her feet or her armpits. We have a good thought-provoking discussion on social interaction going on here, with excellent points being made. Either take part in the discussion or take a hike. Your flames are not welcome here.

You could take everything you just said right there and apply it to yourself. I'm more than happy to give it a rest. In fact, I wouldn't bother you at all if YOU gave it a rest and stopped posting these morally superior threads in an attempt to insult and segregate other members of the forum for doing something YOU don't like. As for me taking part in the discussion or taking a hike.....I've provided numerous on topic posts to this thread, all detailing definitions and differences in arguments. Since your first post, you've done nothing but picked apart my posts, and only because I'm turning the finger pointing game you like to play right back on you. You've added nothing more to this discussion, and are taking part in the same heated personal debate I am. Another example of your constant state of hypocrisy. Your flames are not welcome either, which is precisely why I stepped into this thread in the first place. Stop questioning the lifestyle choices of other members of this forum and worry about yourself. You are no better than they are, and I'm tired of seeing you insult them and question their morality at every turn.

As for me, I am now taking leave of this thread and bringing it to the attention of my fellow moderators. I'm intelligent and humble enough to look in my own mirror and know that I'm probably not acting too moderly here by getting emotionally involved in a topic, and therefore I myself may need to be moderated here. I wish I could post this way without guilt and apprehension over my comments and views the way you do, but I'm mature enough to know I'm just as guilty as you now by judging you the way you've judged others.

So as of now I will not post in or read this thread any further. I've vocalized my angst, and it's time to move on since neither of us will change one anothers views. If my fellow mods feel my posts should be edited, then by all means I give them my blessing to do so. As I am now emotionally involved in the topic at hand, I can no longer play the role of the impartial mod and so I allow myself to be moderated just the same as any of you.

Mimi
 
Mastertank1 said:
I was answering Isabeau's question, which was is it forgiveable. If she didn't think it was wrong, she wouldn't have asked if it could be forgiven, would she?
Duh!

I suspect that the reason Christian proselytizers are always answering questions no one asked is because they have no answers to the questions people do ask.

On the streets of NYC, people were always accosting strangers to tell them that 'Jesus is the answer'. I always told them I didn't ask that question. I meant it.

If you believe in the New Testamant, read Romans 1-13. It says Jews are the original tree to which all those converted to Christianity are only a branch grafted from another tree. Christian theologians have interpreted that as meaning that Jews are all saved by being God's original chosen people, and to convert a Jew to Christianity is to take that away and force him or her to earn it back by obeying the Christian rules of conduct. Some have said that would be blasphemous.

Now, I've answered a question you didn't ask.

Annoying as hell, isn't it?

Mastertank1

We who play and dance are thought mad by you who hear no music.


Sorry I didn't realize that you were answering a question from a post 10 posts earlier. If I had I wouldn't have made my response. Thanks for clarifying that for me and anyone else who was confused.

As to your question, no I didn't find it annoying at all. It was informative. There, I ansewered a question you did ask.
 
cool!

jim66e said:
Sorry I didn't realize that you were answering a question from a post 10 posts earlier. If I had I wouldn't have made my response. Thanks for clarifying that for me and anyone else who was confused.

As to your question, no I didn't find it annoying at all. It was informative. There, I ansewered a question you did ask.

Thank you! I appreciate that.

Mastertank1

We who play and dance are thought mad by they who hear no music.
 
Icycle said:
I'd also like to point out that not all sexual intimacy has to involve the exchange of body fluids. For many people on this forum, tickling is a very sexually intimate act that is pretty much fluidless (except for sweat!). And you can do a lot of other stuff with your hands too!
Well, I hear what you are saying, but I have to disagree with tickling being sexual, but I do agree that not all sex involves an exchange of body fluids. The point I was making before I got sidetracked into a lot of silliness was that people can share a large degree of love and intimacy outside of a sexual relationship. Sex is not a requirement for sharing love and intimacy.

Now this is just my opinion, and contrary to what may have been said about me, I don't hold anybody who differs with it as any more or less inferior or superior. My personal opinion (which every here should take with a grain of salt) is that it would be better for somebody who is interested in a polyamorous lifestyle not to marry. Marriage, as I understand it, is to commit oneself emotionally and sexually to another, which to me in my admittedly limited understanding of such things would seem to be at odds with the multiple partner thing, not that anybody choosing to do so is in any way whatsoever less moral, or otherwise inferior.
 
Sorry about my absence from this thread, which was obviously aimed at me. I was too busy being a "self-centered amoral slut whose hedonistic lifestyle of debauchery and prostitution precludes any meaningful conception of monogamy and commitment." But I'm glad no one on this forum thinks I'm morally inferior. 😉

Drew says that anyone interested in practicing a polyamorous lifestyle should not marry, because they cannot be emotionally and sexually committed to that one other person. I have to disagree: I am both polyamorous, and happily married.

I love my husband, and he loves me. We understand each other, and we like each other as people. We are each others' best friends and confidants. When anything good or bad happens, we want to tell each other as soon as possible, to share our excitement, or our solace. We share our hopes, and our dreams. We've enjoyed our lives together so far, and we look forward to building our future. The experiences we have, both mundane and important, are made better because we can share them. If I were going to be stuck on a desert island with one person, forever, he is the one I would choose. Doesn't this sound like reason to marry?

At the same time, there are certain activities that each of us enjoys that the other doesn't really get into. Tickling is the big one for me. My husband understands and indulges me, which is all I would ask of him. Still, I've learned that playing with a partner who doesn't share the fetish, no matter how receptive he is, isn't quite the same as playing with someone who does. I feel that some of the "peak experiences" that I've enjoyed with tickling are only likely to happen with the patience and focus of someone who shares my enthusiasm.

Also, you just can't discount the value of diverse experiences, because different people have so many different things to offer. I feel the same way about dancing. If I could only dance with one other person, forever, I would choose my husband. No doubt or hesitation there. But I certainly wouldn't make that choice if I didn't have to, because Eric has a fantastic salsa, and Alex is a great swing dancer, and David has such amazing energy. The fact that I dance with them too doesn't detract from my dancing with my husband. In fact, we grow as dancers because our experiences with others energize and teach us.

I think the real point here is that my husband I don't seek out experiences, sexual or otherwise, with other people because there is something broken about our relationship. Our marriage is great. Fun with other people is the icing on the cake - it isn't central or essential, but it does make the cake better.

I'm not saying polyamory would be good for everyone, or even a sizable percentage of people. But since my husband and I are secure in our love for each other, and communicate freely about everything, it works for us. And if you don't like it, you can save your moralizing, because we're too busy enjoying our lives to care. 🙂
 
Last edited:
LindyHopper said:
Sorry about my absence from this thread, which was obviously aimed at me. I was too busy being a "self-centered amoral slut whose hedonistic lifestyle of debauchery and prostitution precludes any meaningful conception of monogamy and commitment." But I'm glad no one on this forum thinks I'm morally inferior. 😉

I have to disagree here, you are a SEXY "self-centered amoral slut with a hedonistic lifestyle of debauchery and prostitution." By the way the $100 I paid you was actually monopoly money but I figured since you were so slutty and busy jetsetting around the world to play with people you wouldn't notice. 😉

It is rare that I meet a couple that comes across as loving as the two of you, and I'm very happy for both of you and am glad I can count you both as friends. Many people here are not comfortable or happy with this type of lifestyle, that's fine it is not for everyone. In fact they are entitled to their opinion. I sincerely believe you and many other people are willing to respect that until it becomes a school yard name calling piss fight. At that point it is hard to respect the opinion when you cannot respect the person giving the opinion.

I have seen poly where it works well and have seen poly where it ends in disaster. I have seen the same for standard marriages as well. I think the chances of disaster with poly are higher than average only because you have more than two people involved and thus statistically it should occur more often. However, just like any other relationship you should decide if that relationship is the best one for you before undertaking it whether it be poly or just you and one other person.
 
LindyHopper said:
Sorry about my absence from this thread, which was obviously aimed at me. I was too busy being a "self-centered amoral slut whose hedonistic lifestyle of debauchery and prostitution precludes any meaningful conception of monogamy and commitment." But I'm glad no one on this forum thinks I'm morally inferior. 😉
Personally I think that a large part of morality is adding to the light of the world. So by my standards you're a moral step or two above a few people I've encountered in my time.

Drew says that anyone interested in practicing a polyamorous lifestyle should not marry, because they cannot be emotionally and sexually committed to that one other person.
That is likely true for Drew, and so it would be unwise for him to attempt polyamory (and it's fortunate indeed for him that tickling isn't sexual).

Marriage, in its essense, is a commitment of faith, sustained by love. It's the creation of a union out of disparate parts. What binds it together though is not sex: many marriages of long standing are sexless. The bonds of marriage are love, faith and support, each for the other.

One can add as many strictures as one likes to that basic definition. One can say that it must include one man and one woman, no more or less. One can require that it be between people of the same religion, or the same race, or the same tribe, or the same ethnic background. Humans have tried all of these restrictions and more in the course of our history.

But that's all they are: restrictions that constrain the essence of marriage to flow in certain culturally-approved channels, like a tamed river. There is nothing in that basic definition that places a limit on who may marry, how many, or how, except this one: If marriage is fundamentally a matter of love, faith and commitment, then the ONLY basic requirement of marriage is two or more people who love each other and who are capable of understanding and sustaining the faith and commitment between them. The nature of that commitment and faith is up to them - and not for the judgment of anyone else. Criticizing love is surely the most misguided use of human energy imaginable - even war serves some useful purpose.

If a person is not able to keep a commitment to polyamory - that is, cannot in conscience agree to love and be honest with one or more partners in a non-monogamous relationship - then that person should not attempt a polyamorous marriage. Likewise if a person cannot make a commitment to monogamy. It's really that simple.

I just celebrated my 19th wedding anniversary. My wife and I have been together as a couple since we were teenagers - over 26 years now. And we've been polyamorous almost the whole time, beginning in college. That is a record that the vast majority of monogamous marriages would find it hard to match. Anyone who spends five minutes talking with Lindy and her husband can see what binds them together. I won't be surprised in the least to give them a card on their 20th anniversary.
 
This is fascinating. I never knew there was another word for it besides "swinging." My only question is, does the spouse always know the other swingers? Or is it more like, "Hi honey, I'm home! Say, you'll never guess who I screwed today!"? :blaugh: :jester:
 
Jackpot$ said:
This is fascinating. I never knew there was another word for it besides "swinging."
Actually swinging is something rather different. First, swinging is ALWAYS about a couple, usually a married couple. They're usually involved with another couple, rarely with a single woman, and almost never with a single man: swinging is almost entirely a heterosexual arrangement, with some bisexual play for the women involved. The swinging couple may be friends with their swing partners, but very often don't know them at all outside the sexual relationship: swinging is almost entirely about sex.

Polyamory, on the other hand, is almost always about deeper relationships that also include sex. It has very little bias in favor of heterosexuality. It doesn't require couples, let alone married couples.

In practice, swingers and polyamorists don't mix very much. Their values are so different that they don't have much to draw them together.

My only question is, does the spouse always know the other swingers? Or is it more like, "Hi honey, I'm home! Say, you'll never guess who I screwed today!"? :blaugh: :jester:
In actual swinging, the four swing partners are usually present nearby or directly involved while their mates have sex. In swinging this is called an "open swap." An exchange in which the partners go to separate rooms is called a "closed swap." Since the swing relationship is nearly always two couples, it would usually be difficult for it to happen without all four partners being aware of it.

In polyamory, the partners always know about an outside relationship - that honesty is one of the things that defines polyamory. They may or may not know about any given sexual encounter. For example, I live with three women. I'm sexually involved with two of them - my wives - and one of them is involved with the third. None of us generally makes an announcement when we have sex, though the others may well figure it out. On the other hand, if I'm going to visit one of my other partners, or if I'm having them over to visit me, then my spouses know about it. Likewise I know about theirs. There have been occasions for all of us where a visit with an outside partner was theoretically going to be non-sexual (a lunch date, for example) and ended up being sexual. In those cases our spouses find out about it soon after.

Sorry, I realize you were trying to be sarcastic. I hope I didn't spoil it by answering you seriously.
 
Not at all. I might have been a little flip about it, but I really am interested. Two wives and one of them has a girlfriend? Dang! You must have more money than me! 😱 But hey, I appreciate you spelling out the differences between swinging and polyamory. But what happens if you go to a party without your two wives, and meet a lady with whom things go well. Do you have the green light or do you need to make a call or two to inform the wives? I'm just trying to figure out how you introduce somebody new to the harem. :woot:
 
kis123 said:
When you marry, you promise monogomy. What I don't understand is if a person wants multiple lovers, why even marry in the first place? That just makes things messy to me.

What about STDs? Condoms don't fix everything-I worked on an AIDS floor for years and many of them wore condoms.

My bottom line is this-I don't see the point in traditional marriage because people cheat, plain and simple. Why get married when fifty percent of the time, people are going to divorce and even higher percentages cheat on their spouses? Maybe there's something to the concept of polyamory after all.



Howdy folks,

I'm late to this thread, and I'd like to thank Mimi, Redmage and Lindyhopper for speaking about this subject so correctly and with such intelligence and eloquence. You three said much of what real poly is about :wavingguy .

To answer the original question: since the definitions I've seen always state that adultery interferes with the marriage, poly doesn't fit the bill. True poly folk's marriages are only enhanced by the increase of love and devotion that naturally occurs. And yes, as many of you know I'm speaking from long term experience. I quoted Kis because she brought up a few very good points that I've heard many, many times in such conversations, that I'd like to take a moment to address.

On commitment: while there are tons of people who automatically promise monogamy when they marry, many of us have standards by which we define commitment that have nothing to do with sex, and so we didn't promise monogamy when we wed. For us, commitment means staying together and being there for each other no matter what, and keeping each other happy, safe, loved and secure for the rest of our lives. And we're most definitely keeping those vows. Frankly, sex isn't a factor; we feel that other displays of loyalty and faithfulness are far, far more important than physical acts. Ironically, many of us with more than one partner feel that there's too much importance placed on sex in relationships.

Why marry if you want multiple partners? Simple. The man I married is the one with whom I wanted to do all of the traditionally marriage-oriented life activities. He's the father of my babies, the one with whom I share a home and dental plan. He's the one who's last name I carry with honor, because I've never loved anyone the way that I love him. He would do ANYTHING for me or for our babies. And he's shown me that over and over and over in the last 14 yrs. If you ask him, he'll tell you he married me because from the moment he fell for me he wanted us 'on the same team facing the world' :xpulcy: . That's corny as hell but it makes my heart skip a beat. We each have others whom we love very much and are welcome additions to our lives, but we each hold the other in the highest place in our hearts. Thus, we're married.

And I've said this before: when you have someone who

*willingly works insane hours so that you can work at home on your dreams and to give you the retirement plan he thinks you deserve,

*lets you basically break his hand squeezing it through 20 hours of hard labor and then gets up every night for months to bring you that baby for nursing,

*never lets the sun go down without telling you he loves you

*treats you like a queen when you're sick or hurting and does the same for your children

*is never ever ever too busy to listen or to hold you no matter what

*would die before calling you names or hurting your feelings no matter how intense the argument

*is dedicated to doing everything in his power to keep a smile on your face for the next 50 yrs and proves it every single day

it's just kinda hard to think about sex as a factor in how devoted he is. Especially when his other partner is your best friend and you're the one that put them together. But that's another post 😀 .

As far as multiple partners making things messy, I imagine it can, but not in my experience. It takes a bit of planning so that you know who's spending time together and when, but that's a factor whatever your social life is like. The reality is that most poly folk are poly-fidelitous, meaning we have ONE, possibly two other partners, and those partners are long term. It's not hard at all to arrange things or to be safe STD-wise. The amount of love, support, and deeply intimate bonding we receive from our other relationships greatly make any extra responsibilities worth the effort. Hey, having more than one child made life a little crazier and more complex, but we wouldn't change it for the world. Our other parters fall under that category as well 😉

Personally, I don't see marriage remaining the way it is now. Not because people can't commit, we most certainly can. I just believe that the ways by which we define commitment are going to increasingly change, more and more openly, as people realize that we don't have to continue using blanket definitions and groundrules that don't work for so many of us and aren't necessary for stable, happy unions. Time will tell.

bella
 
This is one really interesting thread. I think that Bagelfather, Lindy and Redmage have made a great case for polyamory, a word I confess I'd never heard of before reading this thread. It sounds like it's a type of relationship that could either really work well or fail miserably. I do find the idea intruguiging but I think I would rather play it safe and stick with one guy. For me, the idea of having other partners besides him would cheapen our relationship--make it less significant and special. I want him to know he's the only man for me.

What I don't get is why Drew was attacked so viciously for starting this thread? I don't really see anything that tells me he thinks he's better or morally superior. Just because he has questions about a lifestyle doesn't make him Jerry Falwell.
 
Last edited:
Scarlett Moon said:
What I don't get is why Drew was attacked so viciously for starting this thread? I don't really see anything that tells me he thinks he's better or morally superior. Just because he has questions about a lifestyle doesn't make him Jerry Falwell.
I can answer that, Scarlett. It's because earlier this year Drew pissed off the BDSM crowd when he denounced men who take pleasure in hurting women as cowardly and predatory. Mimi, Redmage, Bella, and a few others were indignantly outraged. How dare he question our lifestyle?, etc. They called him a troll, arrogant, self-righteous, moralistic, ad nauseum, dispite the fact that drew and others showed a disturbing parallel between BDSM pain play and domestic abuse. They've never forgiven him for that and likely never will.

As for this issue of polyamory, I'm not surprised to find the exact same crowd defending it. I personally don't have any issues with polyamory in and of itself, as it doesn't try to exalt the value of one person over the other. Is it adultery? Without a doubt it is. Since everybody's okay with it, it doesn't matter in the short term. But if the marriage in question goes south down the road somewhere, you can be sure that the lawyers will deal with it as adultery.
 
I can answer that, Scarlett. It's because earlier this year Drew pissed off the BDSM crowd when he denounced men who take pleasure in hurting women as cowardly and predatory. Mimi, Redmage, Bella, and a few others were indignantly outraged. How dare he question our lifestyle?, etc. They called him a troll, arrogant, self-righteous, moralistic, ad nauseum, dispite the fact that drew and others showed a disturbing parallel between BDSM pain play and domestic abuse. They've never forgiven him for that and likely never will.

While others who have read those threads came to a very different conclusion. Particulerly about some apparent abuse-BDSM connection. However, this isn;t a thread to discuss that. If you use the search engine scarlett, and search up BDSM, you'll probably find the threads and be able to make up your own mind.
 
Johnny Ticklish said:
But if the marriage in question goes south down the road somewhere, you can be sure that the lawyers will deal with it as adultery.

Actually, this to the best of my knowledge isn't the case. I have poly aquaintances going through a divorce as we speak. (Nothing to do with poly btw, their issues are about their basic personalities plus life taking them to opposite parts of the country). Consentual poly isn't considered adultery and used in a divorce situation if both parties agree that it was indeed consentual, and if one is dishonest enough to try and use it negatively it's thrown out pretty often once the truth comes to light, which isn't hard to show when both parties have willing other partners.
 
Last edited:
Jackpot$ said:
Not at all. I might have been a little flip about it, but I really am interested. Two wives and one of them has a girlfriend? Dang! You must have more money than me!
Well, collectively the four of us probably have more money than you. We're all adults, and we all work. So the finances are the net of four professional incomes and one rent.

Polyamory has some economic advantages over monogamy.

But what happens if you go to a party without your two wives, and meet a lady with whom things go well. Do you have the green light or do you need to make a call or two to inform the wives? I'm just trying to figure out how you introduce somebody new to the harem. :woot:
There are a couple of different types of situations wrapped up in that.

If I go to a party without my primary partners, then most of the time I'll be going with someone that they already know about. That happens at gatherings, for example, because neither of them is particularly into tickling. It also sometimes happens at BDSM play-parties, usually as a planned date with a known partner. But I do go alone occasionally.

Both of my wives are kinky, and they understand how parties like that work. So if I meet someone at a party and we end up playing, that's not something they need to know about in advance. They'll generally hear about it afterward. If I and my new playmate hit it off so well that we want to make it an ongoing thing, then sooner or later they'll meet my primary partners and everyone will get to know everyone else.

By way of illustration, here's how I met my second wife, Sonja. Bear with me while I fill in some background.

I met my first wife, Michele, when I was a sophomore in college and she was a senior in high school. We've been together ever since, and polyamorous after the first year (I dated her and her roommate in college). Not quite 10 years ago, Michele met Lynn, and they became partners as well. Lynn is the fourth member of our household, and calls herself my "wife in law."

Michele and I lived (and still live) in California, and Lynn lived in the NY/PA area back then, so they kept up a long-distance relationship with frequent visits for a few years. There was an annual BDSM party that a group of our friends threw in New York City every February, and all of us attended, so that was one of the places that Michele and Lynn always liked to get together. I went along both as Michele's husband and because I knew and liked the people at that party as well (it was sort of like NEST, only with less tickling, more SM, and a lot more sex and nudity).

So, about 6 years ago we went out for our annual pilgrimmage to NY, and in the course of that weekend's party I was asked to give a demo of a fun and flashy electrical toy called a violet wand. Michele and Lynn were off in another part of the hotel having fun, so I didn't have anyone immediately to hand that I knew I could call on to be a demo bottom for me. As luck would have it though a very pretty lady named Sonja stepped forward and volunteered. (Actually it wasn't luck - she tells me she'd been waiting for an opportunity. But I didn't know that then.)

Sonja and I ran through a long demo of the VW. It actually ran longer than I'd originally planned, because she and I were having so much fun with it. We connected so well that weekend that we exchanged contact information and kept in touch by email for the 12 months until the next February party rolled around. In the course of that we became very close, and arranged for Sonja to be my "date" that following February.

As it happened that next year, Michele went out a few days ahead of me to spend a little extra time with Lynn before joining us at the party. I arranged with Sonja to pick me up at the airport in New York. But before I arrived, fate intervened in an interesting way. The day of my arrival, Michele and Lynn found themselves in one of the hotel's restrooms, and there they met Sonja. Michele knew about Sonja, but had never met her in person. So it was only after they had chatted for a while and gotten to like one another that Michele and Sonja each realized who the other was.

And so it happened that, when Sonja returned from the airport with me, Michele and Lynn met us in the hotel lobby. Michele pointed at Sonja and told me, quite firmly, "We're keeping this one." She didn't need to twist my arm though. A few months later Lynn and Sonja both moved to California, and the four of us set up as a household. That was 5 years ago, and we're still going strong.

So that's one way to add someone to the harem. :cool2:
 
Johnny Ticklish said:
I can answer that, Scarlett. It's because earlier this year Drew pissed off the BDSM crowd when he denounced men who take pleasure in hurting women as cowardly and predatory. Mimi, Redmage, Bella, and a few others were indignantly outraged. How dare he question our lifestyle?, etc. They called him a troll, arrogant, self-righteous, moralistic, ad nauseum, dispite the fact that drew and others showed a disturbing parallel between BDSM pain play and domestic abuse. They've never forgiven him for that and likely never will.
Heh. I encourage Scarlett to check out the thread in question and come to her own conclusions. Drew's opening rant should establish who fired the first shot, and at whom.

This thread has a similar origin - Drew starting a "discussion" by way of sniping at someone with whom he had a disagreement on another thread. This time it was aimed at Lindyhopper, with whom Drew had a disagreement about polyamory on an earlier thread.

So Scarlett, if you're really curious as to why Drew's potshots at other people's lifestyles draw an unfriendly reaction, you can search up the background threads and see the history.

As for this issue of polyamory, I'm not surprised to find the exact same crowd defending it.
Why, thank you. It's nice to be known for defending the right of people to love as they choose.

Is it adultery? Without a doubt it is.
Since anyone reading this thread can see the doubts, you might want to rephrase that as "I don't doubt it is," just for the sake of accuracy.

But if the marriage in question goes south down the road somewhere, you can be sure that the lawyers will deal with it as adultery.
Again, you're stating as certain something that experience shows us is not so at all. I've seen polyamorous marriages break up, and since they are consensual on the part of all concerned I have very rarely seen a divorce lawyer try to portray them as adulterous. It's even more rare for such an attempt to succeed. This is especially so when the partners involved all live with one another and mingle their incomes. It's very difficult for a spouse to claim to have been "wronged" when he or she knew about the other relationship and even actively supported it.

Just as a legal footnote, there's a trend in some quarters of the poly community for multiple cohabiting partners to incorporate. This allows them to hold assets and real property jointly, and simplifies legal issues such as inheritance and insurance benefits.
 
What's New
10/4/25
Check out the TMF Chat Room. It's free to all members and always busy!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1704 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top