Threeways, Polygamy, Incest and Commitment.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 11:20 AM GMT
    Incest - is the toughest thing to consider as it has always been a thing of shame - if you have sex with your sister you'll have a deformed baby, and the reality is that I wouldn't want to have sex with my sister. She's nice, but the thing I would do is protect her against an abusive husband that thought that owning people was allowed. Now if there was a man I was involved with who had a been VERY amazing in bed and wanted to reveal that his twin brother had had sex with me on a couple of occasions when I thought I was having sex with him and they both wanted to have sex with me at the same time, there's a real question of what is shameful about that. The surprise of having had sex with someone's twin brother who liked it enough to have sex again would be a compliment. If a man found himself with a bisexual woman who wanted to have sex with her sister and him, that would be considered an article worth reading in a college campus newsletter in sex education class...

    Polygamy - is only a problem because law makers were hypocritical and said that there was freedom of religion, but not really. A man was only supposed to have ONE wife. That law is illegal because it goes against the freedom of religion where people are allowed to have more than one wife. You want to have one wife only? That's your choice, don't force it on others. Protecting someone from being scammed by a con-artist who wants to bilk a lonely person (man/woman) of their life savings is committing an act of theft and fraud, not performing an act of being religious and having more than one spouse.

    Threeways - if you think you have to stop letting your partner be interested and interesting in other people (and that includes sexually), then are you really letting your partner be with you? Rejecting an aspect of your partner, the sexual part that attracted you to them in the first place quite often, shouldn't be rejected. If I had a partner who was trusting me enough to have sex with a friend of theirs that they had sex with, I'd be feeling pretty good about the relationship at that point. The important thing is to approach it with the idea of being committed to working together for a deepening of a relationship instead of a competition to see who can take someone from someone else by out performing someone - the thing that helps the most is to not reject the idea, but be honest and think about it.

    What you would likely want in a relationship is a firm feeling that there was commitment and that takes continued work to be with someone. Working together to overcome problems and bring happiness into each others lives is what makes friendships last beyond any distance. With that - having a relationship with someone you know will treat your partner with respect and care for them without the goal of taking them away from you gives a very real sense of accomplishment because that talks about three people being committed to working together.

    I'd like to see people committed to helping each other feel good no matter how far apart they were.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Oct 28, 2008 8:40 PM GMT
    Umm. wow. Not much more that I can say than that. I have one guy, and he isn't a relative. I think I go far enough out on a limb for enough Americans with the fact that it is a he and he is a different race than me.

    (tehe, that rhymed!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 12:42 PM GMT
    Hi DCEric,

    I'm just saying, that people shouldn't be so hypocritical and not force your sexual likes to be on the fringe or on a limb - a different part of the main part of the tree of humanity - if your liking a black man is considered a limb, then I would like it to not be so spectacular to get gossiping tongues to wag.

    I'm not saying I've had sex with my sister or threeways with bisexual women or had more than one partner I was married to in another religion, what is important is that people start living together and not saying they live apart from us by being superior because of their lifestyle.

    Try not to say "I've got some very NICE straight friends". Instead say "I've got some very NICE friends" means you are accepting them and not making differences from the very start of the statement, and their sexuality doesn't need a label.

    I said this because there was so much discussion about a topic that has something to do with being human, and a person - the want to be accepted and sexual and living a good honest healthy life.

    Cheers!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 2:03 PM GMT
    three thumbs up! err, *looks down* ... that would be two -thumbs- up icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 2:27 PM GMT
    I'm horribly confused... are you suggesting we condone polygyny because of the sexual whims of certain men? Or simply be more accepting of idiosyncratic sexual praxis?

    As an aside, I would do nearly anything for my partner but if he asked me to have a threesome with another guy, I would seriously re-evaluate our relationship. Such a notion would inform me of deficiencies in our relationship.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 2:36 PM GMT
    DenverClimber3 saidI'm horribly confused... are you suggesting we condone polygyny because of the sexual whims of certain men? Or simply be more accepting of idiosyncratic sexual praxis?

    As an aside, I would do nearly anything for my partner but if he asked me to have a threesome with another guy, I would seriously re-evaluate our relationship. Such a notion would inform me of deficiencies in our relationship.


    part 1) i suggest people be more tolerant|accepting of the idea that other people have different perspectives of sex and relationships

    part 2) such a notion is considered a deficiency by you, but it isn't a deficiency in the minds of everyone.

    everyone is very much encouraged to discuss such things with their partners, hopefully before entering a relationship, to figure out how compatible you are. what is and isn't acceptable and is or isn't a deficiency isn't shared by everyone. nor should one person expect that another person to automatically adhere their values.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 2:46 PM GMT


    Denverclimber is speaking from the position of already being in a relationship.

    We agree with him as should either one of us suggest a threeway, it would be glaringly obvious that there was a deficiency somewhere. Why? Because our relationship is built on our mutual values. We were both in past relationships where the values of the partner were as fluid and fickle as quicksilver.

    When we met and fell in love we made commitments to each other (statements of values) long ago, and adherence to those values have us still together at 19 years.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 3:00 PM GMT
    meninlove said...those values have us still together at 19 years.


    Congratulations! That's so great!

    The example of stable gay couples over many years is one I always admire & praise. It counters the view of gays as incapable of long-term relationships, of being flighty and shallow.

    Most of our friends are gay or lesbian couples of 10+ years, and the warmth and love I sense from them when we visit their homes is an affirmation of our own relationship. I wish they could box what you guys have and sell it to the rest of our community. LOL!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 3:04 PM GMT
    meninlove saidDenverclimber is speaking from the position of already being in a relationship.


    i presumed as much from his statement. he asked a question, i gave an answer icon_smile.gif congrats on your relationship stability.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 3:07 PM GMT
    i don't think gay relationships are any more or less flighty than straight relationships. straight couples are legally bound together and it's far more difficult to get up and leave should you come to irreconcilable differences.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 3:08 PM GMT


    That's very kind of you, Red Vespa. If we could package up what we have we'd offer it free. Sometimes on these forums we see opportunities (and take them) to inspire, console or explain some of the mechanics of what has worked for us.

    Our email 'door' is always open and welcome for any who feel like asking a question.

    What would be equally great would be men in truly Long Term polyamorous and open relationships here offering the same.

    -us
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 3:23 PM GMT


    and thanks Firefighter!

    just a note; we're in Canada and common-law is quite legally binding, except that there aren't divorce papers if the couple splits, but division of assets, child visitation etc all stand as things that would require legal resolution, if necessary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 3:27 PM GMT
    FirefighterBlu3 saidi don't think gay relationships are any more or less flighty than straight relationships. straight couples are legally bound together and it's far more difficult to get up and leave should you come to irreconcilable differences.


    Good point. Plus straight couples are more likely to have children in their household than gay couples, another consideration that may keep them together long after their love for each other may have faded.

    But then that's exactly why I am so impressed by very long-term relationships like meninlove has. If there's no divorce to go through, and no dependent children to consider, then splitting up is much easier to do, notwithstanding the additional issues of joint property that married couples also face.

    No, I see gay relationships as voluntary at every point (except now where marriage & civil unions are happily possible). And when they last for many years, I automatically interpret them as a demonstration of loving commitment, not a result of legal compulsion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 3:37 PM GMT
    I think that a couple should come to an agreement about monogamy versus open relationship and respect that agreement. If one of the couple wants to open up the relationship then frank discussions should take place. Just because another person is not comfortable with an open relationship does not mean he is being selfish (and if he is well that is not such a bad thing at times). It could be he is not interested in having sex with other guys period. He may be the kind of person that needs the emotional connection, as well as the physical connection with another person.

    I personally am pretty adamant about a closed relationship and so is my partner so we are compatible on that level. If things ever changed I would hope we would discuss it first before opening the relationship. I heard the other day of another relationship that was ruined by one person cheating on the other. "Honesty is the best policy". Corny but true!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2008 3:44 PM GMT

    Here's a little story.

    Many years ago I was involved with a guy that wanted an open relationship. I loved the guy and said OK. He went to town! Wow.

    Then finally I did the same. He beat me within an inch of my life, saying that it was different for me as I was the 'marrying kind'.

    Confused? Me, too. But you know, in the final analysis he was right. He had sex for fun; I had sex as an extension of feelings of love. I found casual sex un-fullfilling, though fun in some respects.

    -Doug
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Oct 30, 2008 2:29 AM GMT
    mobiusstripped said
    if your liking a black man is considered a limb,


    Black who said anything about Black? I'm not even considered white (depending on which classifications on race are used)...

    /Not trying to start a pointless flame war.
    //He's South Asian
    ///I'm Middle Eastern
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2008 12:45 AM GMT
    DCEric said
    mobiusstripped said
    if your liking a black man is considered a limb,


    Black who said anything about Black? I'm not even considered white (depending on which classifications on race are used)...

    /Not trying to start a pointless flame war.
    //He's South Asian
    ///I'm Middle Eastern


    (Very big grin while I write this) - I'd like to say we're all first and foremost supposed to be kind to each other regardless of where they came from and what they look like.

    Me? I have enough of a mix in my history to say that if I insulted any minority anywhere, I'd be insulting a part of my family - what I think needs to be REALLY scrutinized (if it were easy, it wouldn't be worth doing); Do you want it so that people expect relationships and each other to be the same? no change? no growth? no new interests? and a firm belief that once committed to a relationship, there's no working at it anymore?

    I'm not so much in a confrontational viewpoint, but more of a bystander who's seen the differences and which ones work better.

    To me, it seems that those who say they're committed to monogamy with their partner have gotten used to being partners with one other person, and that's it, nothing wrong with that position. Don't assume that everyone has the same background or experience though. Broken families with a single parent always dating without strings attached because of a wide circle of very supportive friends has been maligned in society as being sluttish after a certain age where individuals expect the need to commit to a single other partner to be started.

    I don't like the idea of anyone owning anyone, and if anyone tells me I have to be monogamous with them or their is no relationship, then that is something I would have to say 'don't try to own me'.

    I thought that was rejected with the idea that people had to be treated with less respect than individuals and like property. Any woman who has divorced from a 'my wife is barefoot and pregnant and cooking me dinner in the kitchen and LIKES it because I say so, and doesn't deserve any better' kind of husband would prefer being treated with respect instead of being slapped down for having a mind and an opinion of her own without it being given to her.

    The people who have a relationship like that and don't want changes to make their lives have a different kind of freedom, are not really common. I've been fed that doctrine and it doesn't fit for me.

    What am I saying? Just because you've gotten to know someone you love, make sure you tend to care for and about that person and be willing to talk about things that are assumed, and be prepared to be surprised. I had a relationship that lasted 12 years intimately, and we're still friends.

    Polygamy? it's not an illegal act to be married to more than one person if freedom of religion is observed. Don't force your lifestyle on others, you may like it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2008 12:58 AM GMT


    "I don't like the idea of anyone owning anyone, and if anyone tells me I have to be monogamous with them or their is no relationship, then that is something I would have to say 'don't try to own me'."

    ...hmmm, neither of us could ever say we own each other. In fact, that would likely strangle a healthy monogamous relationship. What makes it successful is the GIVING of each other to each other, then then the giving BACK of each other to each other. It's a dance, or if you like, a song; a duet where each sings, sometimes in counter-point to the other. In polyamorous relationships there is a chorus. (or a barbershop quartet. heh)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2008 1:03 AM GMT


    We'll have to disagree politely with the statement that,

    "Polygamy? it's not an illegal act to be married to more than one person if freedom of religion is observed. "

    because there are laws against it (google bigamy as an example) and as for religious freedom, not long ago Somalians coming to Canada wanted the religious right to have their girl babies go through clitoral removal. They wanted Canada's heathcare to pay for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2008 1:06 AM GMT
    I could be in a 3 way and find it full filling, but my partner no, just not his thing, though he does enjoy 3 ways. He is a the type of individual who enjoys his alone time, while I can see time spent between two different people I love.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2008 2:37 AM GMT
    mobiusstripped saidPolygamy - is only a problem because law makers were hypocritical and said that there was freedom of religion, but not really. A man was only supposed to have ONE wife. That law is illegal because it goes against the freedom of religion where people are allowed to have more than one wife. You want to have one wife only? That's your choice, don't force it on others. Protecting someone from being scammed by a con-artist who wants to bilk a lonely person (man/woman) of their life savings is committing an act of theft and fraud, not performing an act of being religious and having more than one spouse.

    I'm not positive, and I'd probably like to research further before I came to a final conclusion, but I think I disagree with you on this point. I think throughout history, even outside of the realm of religion, polygamy has almost universally manifested as polygyny (one man, many women), which on occasion has been an acceptable social norm at certain times in certain societies. Usually, in situations where polygyny is the norm, it's a socio-political status. Power & wealth were derived from fertility. You have have many children, and you're more powerful. That requires many females. So I would attribute this polygamy to a socio-political imperative, not as a form of polyamory. Polyandry (one female, many males) is rarely experienced in nature or in society. I'll be the first to admit though that homosexual forms of polyamory/polygamy are notoriously under-researched, if researched at all. From this, I would draw the conclusion that the human animal tends toward monogamy, either within or outside the confines of religious thought.

    This is not to say that I do not think that polyamory is wrong or not possible, simply that it is very likely not the norm of a human animal's mating ritual. Like I said, this is simply my diagnosis of what I know from previous studies. Of course I could research further. Perhaps I will at that. There have been a couple of threads about polygamy, which has piqued my interested.

    Oh, and just to clear up a few terms:

    Polygamy: Having more than one spouse
    Polyamory: Having more than one loving/sexual relationship at the same time.

    Hence, polygamy (as we are discussing, and not in the somewhat creepy Mormon way) would be the formal recognition of a polyamorous relationship.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2008 5:33 AM GMT
    "Polygamy: Having more than one spouse
    Polyamory: Having more than one loving/sexual relationship at the same time."

    Polyaddressee: Having more than one house

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2008 5:45 AM GMT


    .............................OH MY!


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2008 6:11 AM GMT
    cowHUSboySEINo said"Polygamy: Having more than one spouse
    Polyamory: Having more than one loving/sexual relationship at the same time."

    Polyaddressee: Having more than one house



    polyemail; of which i'm horrrrrribly guilty of
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2008 6:14 AM GMT
    meninlove said

    We'll have to disagree politely with the statement that,

    "Polygamy? it's not an illegal act to be married to more than one person if freedom of religion is observed. "

    because there are laws against it (google bigamy as an example) and as for religious freedom, not long ago Somalians coming to Canada wanted the religious right to have their girl babies go through clitoral removal. They wanted Canada's heathcare to pay for it.


    well that's why he said "if freedom of religion is observed" ;-) since some religions have an acceptance of polygamy, and if we legally observed the freedoms to practice such an institution, then polygamy would therefore be legal.