| — | George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman. (via zuimuss) |
Polyamory is a novel concept that has surfaced over recent decades in the debates about non-monogamy. Polyamory circumscribes a relationship philosophy, an identity, or a lifestyle that evolves around the belief that it is worthwhile and valid to have more than one partner. Combining word elements…
| — |
Richard Dawkins I’m not poly, but this is an awesome quote. And it leads me to question why I’m not poly. I don’t know, to be honest. I’m just…not. Kind of like how I know I’m straight, I guess. I don’t mean to trivialize the whole thing, of course—I know that for many people, it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than this. (via thehumorlessfeminist) |
Having sex with other people while you’re in a relationship doesn’t always have to be cheating. So many people are in a constant struggle — to cheat or not to cheat — and it never occurs to them that in order to cheat, they have to accept a set of rules before they can break them.
Why accept the rules? Why not make your own? It’s so much healthier to simply reject the underlying assumption that monogamy and fidelity are interchangeable concepts. They’re not.
| — | DearCokeTalk (via fortruthandlove) |
Monkeyfetish said
That’s exactly how I feel. Every relationship I ever had started as a friendship that grew closer and closer. I’m really puzzled…
untitledunidentifiedunfinished:
Like how could I say that when everyone else I know is so amazing?
Sucks to be polyamorous. People don’t get it.
When it comes to the open relationship you have with your partner, have either of you had a lover outside of your relationship with each other in those ten years you’ve been together? Have either of you gotten jealous over it, like agreed to have the openness but when the time came had some…
Relational anarchy, [syn. relationship anarchy, both shorted RA,] questions the idea that love is a special, limited feeling which is real only when kept between two people at any given moment. It is possible to love more than one person.
RAs do not divide relationships of partners and non-partners, but [have] a more flexible approach to relationships where everything is allowed as long as everyone can accept the agreement. One consequence of this is that relation anarchs can have multiple sexual, loving or intimate relationships, and the RA is often seen as closely related to polyamory. One noticeable difference is that polyamorous often still makes a categorical distinction between love relationships and friendships, but that relationship anarchs not recognize any such distinction.
Since relation anarchs [do] not make a difference in different types of relationships, [they] are not connected with anyone in the conventional sense, even if, for example, [they] have a lasting love relationship.
I loved a woman, long ago—
Loved her to the point of madness,
But I never told her so.
Then she moved away—O sadness!
.
Years went by before attraction
Ever came my way again.
Then, a crush — I took no action —
She moved on to other men.
.
Still inside my heart resided
High school…
Dan Savage Is Coming For—For! Not On!—Your Children!
Not knowing what women are like (or taste like) has never stopped the Pope from offering his unsolicited advice to women—no birth control, no abortions, no oral, no anal, no handjobs—and it’s hypocritical of you to suggest that I’m not qualified to advise women, since I won’t fuck ‘em, without first telling that old fag in Rome to STFU already.
Okay, yes, hilarious. But then this,
The possibility of taming one’s sexual desire for the sake of another most definitely exists within the Savage moral imagination. I frequently discuss the “price of admission,” that is, the personal sacrifices, small and large, that make long-term relationships possible. For some the price of admission—what it costs to ride a particular ride—includes “taming one’s sexual desire for the sake of another.” If anal sex is something you enjoy but you’re in love with someone who doesn’t do anal, then going without anal is the price of admission. If you’re not into monogamy but you’re in love with someone who insists on it, then monogamy is the price of admission. Settling down requires settling for, as I’ve said time and again, and on the sexual front many of us settle for less because we regard our partners are worth the price of admission.
I’ve never heard it put that way before but this rings so true. Over the years I’ve found that I’m willing to pay surprisingly high prices of admission because, yeah, my partners are indeed damn worth it.
Openness and honesty don’t automatically translate into everyone gets everything everyone wants. Not all needs can be met. But sometimes just having the sacrifices we’ve made for the good of our marriages acknowledged, getting a receipt after paying the price of admission, is enough. To be given credit for, say, going without anal—along with the green light to jerk off to anal porn now and then—can make going without anal easier. Indeed, it can make going without anal virtuous, something that speaks well to the going-without-anal partner’s character and priorities.
But there are times when monogamy—its pressures, discontents, and unquestioned acceptance—can destroy an otherwise decent marriage. Some of these marriages could be saved if both partners were encouraged to come to a reasonable, mutually-agreeable accommodation. Only those who are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy degree place a higher value preserving monogamy within a particular marriage over saving that particular marriage itself.
Dan is the man.
