# 3 things we get wrong about sex,love and monogamy



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

I know dan savage is a controversial figure. I do really enjoy listening to him but don’t always agree with what he says. I think this is a good watch though. 


1. There is no “one”. We need to round up that .64 to 1. 
2. We should be GGG (good, giving and game) within reason. 
3. Monogamy is difficult. And infidelity doesn’t have to be the end.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

https://youtu.be/brZIb4MG8oA


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Yes, the idea of the "one" is a Disney fantasy that unfortunately way too many people have bought into. We don't have soulmates either. We might meet someone who we happen to be in sync with at that particular moment in time, but unless we really make the effort, the petals typically fall off the flower as soon as the initial infatuation wears off.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> I know dan savage is a controversial figure. I do really enjoy listening to him but don’t always agree with what he says. I think this is a good watch though.
> 
> 
> 1. There is no “one”. We need to round up that .64 to 1.
> ...


True, there is no "one". However, there is "one" that is the very best possible match to us when we consider all of the possible matches in the world. It is extremely unlikely to meet that person. It is also no guarantee it will last. 

Don't know what "good, giving and game" mean. Will you explain or better, post a quote from Mr. Savage? 

Monogamy is only as difficult as it is for you. Everyone is different. For some, it is not so difficult. 

Infidelity never has to be the end, but the alternative is more difficult in many instances than either living alone or finding another. Remember, there are two in the standard marriage or relationship. Each has to be on the same page. In fact, it usually is only one who wants reconciliation and the other has to be convinced to continue working on themselves and the marriage. Most unfaithful don't believe they have made a poor decision for themselves. Only some do.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

How do "we" get it wrong? It is up to each individual to decide on these points for his/herself and they get to live with the outcome of their choices. Positive and negative.

There's no right or wrong provided that the individual is true to self.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Girl_power said:


> https://youtu.be/brZIb4MG8oA




Why does he look a little...pear shaped?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> True, there is no "one". However, there is "one" that is the very best possible match to us when we consider all of the possible matches in the world. It is extremely unlikely to meet that person. It is also no guarantee it will last.
> 
> Don't know what "good, giving and game" mean. Will you explain or better, post a quote from Mr. Savage?
> 
> ...


That is EXACTLY what he means by saying that there is no "one." You meet someone who matches almost everything that you are looking for in a partner, checks off all the big boxes and most of the small boxes, and who is likely the best fit you've every found. But there will always be something about them, one or two *minor* boxes that they don't check for you. Do you keep searching for someone who checks ALL the boxes (and for whom YOU check all THEIR boxes), the chance of whom you will find is infinitesimally small? Or do you take this person, who is *almost* perfect for you, and round up to 1?

GGG (good, giving, & game) means:

GOOD in bed. You've made the past and continued effort to know what you're doing in bed and be good at it.
GIVING in bed. You consistently aim to please your partner sexually, to meet their sexual needs, and are generous about it. This sometimes means doing things that make your partner happy, but to which you are indifferent (or that don't turn you on).
GAME in bed. You are willing to try new things and experiment with stuff outside your wheelhouse. Does you partner want to be tied up and spanked, but you've never tried it and don't know if you would like it? Be adventurous and give it a try anyway.

This doesn't preclude hard limits, though. If you are dead set against swinging because you believe that sex in a relationship should be monogamous, then you have the right to say no. And sometimes, with negotiations and creativity (roleplay, anyone?), one can have the "experience" of something outside one's boundaries without actually stepping outside of those boundaries, and find ways of meeting your partner's needs without violating your own boundaries.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

FeministInPink said:


> That is EXACTLY what he means by saying that there is no "one." You meet someone who matches almost everything that you are looking for in a partner, checks off all the big boxes and most of the small boxes, and who is likely the best fit you've every found. But there will always be something about them, one or two *minor* boxes that they don't check for you. Do you keep searching for someone who checks ALL the boxes (and for whom YOU check all THEIR boxes), the chance of whom you will find is infinitesimally small? Or do you take this person, who is *almost* perfect for you, and round up to 1?
> 
> GGG (good, giving, & game) means:
> 
> ...



You don't round anything up. You figure out by knowing yourself, if you truly believe you can handle what isn't checked off. Many think they can and truly don't realize they cannot. No one knows anyone fully. No one can know anyone fully. If two are constantly changing to meet each other's needs, which are constantly changing, there might be an issue. I've been through this. It destroys self esteem and creates bitterness and mistrust. 




> GOOD in bed. You've made the past and continued effort to know what you're doing in bed and be good at it.


Made the past? Not sure what that means. I don't do that. I'd have to read and then go find women who want to practice. No woman wants someone to practice, that I know. They all want you to already know how. So, I think it is necessary for two to be open to working together. 



> GIVING in bed. You consistently aim to please your partner sexually, to meet their sexual needs, and are generous about it. This sometimes means doing things that make your partner happy, but to which you are indifferent (or that don't turn you on).


It's no fun if your partner isn't having fun. Part of that is the feeling of being able to please them and hopefully they want more. Do some folks not know this? 




> GAME in bed. You are willing to try new things and experiment with stuff outside your wheelhouse. Does you partner want to be tied up and spanked, but you've never tried it and don't know if you would like it? Be adventurous and give it a try anyway.


Your wheelhouse? Like trying to be bisexual because she likes it when she can watch you with a man? Like pegging? What is outside your(not your personally, but in general)wheelhouse and how do you go about knowing what she wants, specifically and then how do you tell her yes or no without making her feel disrespected or disgusting? Most women I've known wouldn't say what they wanted because it made them feel dirty or something. Then, if you turned them down, look out. They were really hurt. 

Suggesting something could cause a huge issue, too. They may feel that you think they are some sort of dirt bag or something. I've had that experience, too. 

In my opinion, it isn't very realistic, but more of a fantasy for fantasy lovers. 

Anyway....whatever.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

The idea that there is a perfect mate out there is a silly fantasy, but I think that in a good relationship people move closer together and can become better partners for each other than anyone else. 




Ynot said:


> Yes, the idea of the "one" is a Disney fantasy that unfortunately way too many people have bought into. We don't have soulmates either. We might meet someone who we happen to be in sync with at that particular moment in time, but unless we really make the effort, the petals typically fall off the flower as soon as the initial infatuation wears off.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> FeministInPink said:
> 
> 
> > That is EXACTLY what he means by saying that there is no "one." You meet someone who matches almost everything that you are looking for in a partner, checks off all the big boxes and most of the small boxes, and who is likely the best fit you've every found. But there will always be something about them, one or two *minor* boxes that they don't check for you. Do you keep searching for someone who checks ALL the boxes (and for whom YOU check all THEIR boxes), the chance of whom you will find is infinitesimally small? Or do you take this person, who is *almost* perfect for you, and round up to 1?
> ...


I said nothing about changing one's self to accommodate another. I'm not sure how you got that our of what I said. "Rounding up" refers to assessing a partner's potential for being "the one."





2ntnuf said:


> FeministInPink said:
> 
> 
> > GOOD in bed. You've made the past and continued effort to know what you're doing in bed and be good at it.
> ...


"Past" and "continued" are both descriptors of "effort." If a woman wants you to already know what you're doing, either you've had to learn from past partners or do research and read [instructional] books. 



2ntnuf said:


> FeministInPink said:
> 
> 
> > GIVING in bed. You consistently aim to please your partner sexually, to meet their sexual needs, and are generous about it. This sometimes means doing things that make your partner happy, but to which you are indifferent (or that don't turn you on).
> ...


Actually, some men don't. Some men don't give a monkey's turd if the woman enjoys it, as long as he gets his rocks off. Or, going back to #1, they don't actually know how to do it.



2ntnuf said:


> FeministInPink said:
> 
> 
> > GAME in bed. You are willing to try new things and experiment with stuff outside your wheelhouse. Does you partner want to be tied up and spanked, but you've never tried it and don't know if you would like it? Be adventurous and give it a try anyway.
> ...


Did you miss the part where I also mentioned boundaries? By wheelhouse, I mean standard repertoire. Like freaking try something new. That doesn't mean trying to be bisexual if you don't want to be, or taking things up your butt if you don't want to go there. But be OPEN to trying new things.

And if the women you've been with can't honestly and openly discuss sex with you when they are HAVING SEX WITH YOU, then that's a problem with the relationship, because this shows a deficiency of trust and open communication in the relationship. Or you're sleeping with the wrong women.



2ntnuf said:


> In my opinion, it isn't very realistic, but more of a fantasy for fantasy lovers.


I wholeheartedly disagree. Since my divorce (from a man who was certainly not GGG), I have made a point to only date (and sleep with) men who are GGG, and I have been very satisfied. And there are plenty of people out there who read Dan Savage and are dedicated to being GGG. He's been around for 26 years and has a huge following. His podcast is literally one of the most popular in the world, and his column has been syndicated in every major metro area.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

FeministInPink said:


> I said nothing about changing one's self to accommodate another. I'm not sure how you got that our of what I said. "Rounding up" refers to assessing a partner's potential for being "the one."


That's not what I meant when I posted that the two have to be open to learning what works for each other. I didn't get that out of what you said. 

Again, I don't round up. I do it the way I posted. And, I'm not saying you do anything wrong. I'm just having a discussion with you. I'm reading what you post and offering what I do for comparison, not for proof you are wrong. 





FeministInPink said:


> "Past" and "continued" are both descriptors of "effort." If a woman wants you to already know what you're doing, either you've had to learn from past partners or do research and read [instructional] books.


True, but I would not be willing to read a book to learn how to have sex with her. Are you saying all women are the same and like the same things? I don't think so. Neither am I. You can't learn what she likes from a book. The basics are fairly simple. 



FeministInPink said:


> Actually, some men don't. Some men don't give a monkey's turd if the woman enjoys it, as long as he gets his rocks off. Or, going back to #1, they don't actually know how to do it.


Those men probably get more than those who care. lol If, I am interpreting what young women think is the "bad boy" type correctly. Since they get more, they know there will be another woman coming along. They will likely grow up some day, or not. 



FeministInPink said:


> Did you miss the part where I also mentioned boundaries? By wheelhouse, I mean standard repertoire. Like freaking try something new. That doesn't mean trying to be bisexual if you don't want to be, or taking things up your butt if you don't want to go there. But be OPEN to trying new things.
> 
> And if the women you've been with can't honestly and openly discuss sex with you when they are HAVING SEX WITH YOU, then that's a problem with the relationship, because this shows a deficiency of trust and open communication in the relationship. Or you're sleeping with the wrong women.


No, I didn't miss it. Standard is basic stuff in my mind. I've never been a guy that only does one thing. However, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate a bit? It would be easier to understand what you are imagining. 

And, I don't know what you meant. That's why I went to bi or butt stuff. You'll have to explain as I cannot know what you are thinking. With that part of your post, I don't know what some guy wouldn't want to do. 

As an example, I was asked if I would have sex with a woman and another man. She said she wanted us both in her vagina at the same time. Sorry, can't do it. Some men can. I thought I could do a threeway with two women. When it came down to it, I couldn't. Is that what you mean by being open to new things? I don't really know what you are thinking. 




FeministInPink said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree. Since my divorce (from a man who was certainly not GGG), I have made a point to only date (and sleep with) men who are GGG, and I have been very satisfied. And there are plenty of people out there who read Dan Savage and are dedicated to being GGG. He's been around for 26 years and has a huge following. His podcast is literally one of the most popular in the world, and his column has been syndicated in every major metro area.


How would anyone know if a person was GGG without having sex with them? That, I don't understand.

I don't care if the whole world reads and worships at the altar of Mr. Savage. I don't follow what some man says. I do what I want and think is best for me. That's not always going to be what he thinks. I'm sorry I disagree. I didn't mean to make you angry. 

But, let's continue. Tell me what you mean, as I asked above. I really want to know.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Girl_power said:


> I know dan savage is a controversial figure. I do really enjoy listening to him but don’t always agree with what he says. I think this is a good watch though.
> 
> 
> 1. There is no “one”. We need to round up that .64 to 1.
> ...


3b. but is should be in most cases.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

FeministInPink said:


> "Past" and "continued" are both descriptors of "effort." If a woman wants you to already know what you're doing, either you've had to learn from past partners or do research and read [instructional] books.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





2ntnuf said:


> That's not what I meant when I posted that the two have to be open to learning what works for each other.
> 
> Again, I don't round up. I do it the way I posted. And, I'm not saying you do anything wrong. I'm just having a discussion with you. I'm reading what you post and offering what I do for comparison, not for proof you are wrong.
> 
> ...


I find this discussion interesting from male and female perspectives. 

Now when @2ntnuf says that doesn't everyone get this stuff... I used to think that too. But over the years I have come to learn that is not the case. 

I don't completely understand why that is, but I do now understand that lots of guys don't get it. I was lucky in that I had some older ladies take an interest in me, and show me the ropes. Which I am eternally grateful to those ladies. 

On time a several years back, I heard two girls that I was hanging out with talk about a guy they had both been with. They both marveled at how HORRIBLE he was in bed. His equipment was not the problem, it was average, but he was evidently totally clueless about how to have sex and please a woman. 

And contrary to the comment that those (pretty but clueless alphas) get more than everyone else. Yeah, they may get many different women, but they don't get much repeat business. Women talk, and if you don't get the job done, they avoid you. 

Now, I have read books about sex, and articles. It used to be kind of a hobby for me, so I wanted to learn all I could. Which is how I learned about BDSM stuff. I had a girl that was pretty into it at times, so I did some reading, figured out the basics, because that is what she liked some of the time. 

It is not my natural thing but it is ok and can be exciting, it is just not an everyday thing that I personally into. 

But these conversations are interesting if for nothing else than the different points of view...


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

BluesPower said:


> I find this discussion interesting from male and female perspectives.
> 
> Now when @2ntnuf says that doesn't everyone get this stuff... I used to think that too. But over the years I have come to learn that is not the case.
> 
> ...


I would have to read a book or something, if she wanted something like BDSM. I'm not into being anally entered, but if I was, I'd have to read so I didn't get hurt. Basic sex and pleasuring her are fairly simple to do. If a man is into a woman, he's going to want to take her in as many positions as his imagination and physical abilities allow. If he isn't that into her, no book will help. 

Remember, though, BDSM is something very dangerous for a man and woman to engage in. Maybe you are talking about just tying up wrists, but there is a hell of a lot more that can and has been done. Specifics would need talked about. What is agreeable between the two would need researched to be done without causing permanent harm. Also, the laws today are tricky and the man is, when participating, sexually assaulting the woman. She is when she dominates him, but it's less likely a man will turn her in for a crime when he is angry, than a woman doing the same. 

So, it isn't as simple as reading a book and then doing it. She has to give approval throughout. Even then, there is no recording of the events, so how would you prove you didn't rape her and beat her when she has likely acquired some bruising from the BDSM? 

If you have no clue where her clitoris is, you don't have to read a book, but you should look it up. Being gentle at first, is always best. That doesn't take reading a book. It's common sense. Most women are gentle creatures. Yeah, they want to have fun, but all that needs worked out and you aren't going to do that on a ONS. Well, maybe I should say, I won't. I don't really know what others might do. 

If she is drinking, and usually both are when ONS occurs, but not always, she cannot consent, by law. So, there is that, too. It's tricky.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Wow, some people really should read a few books, Now, would be a good time because they really do need to get a clue.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Ynot said:


> Wow, some people really should read a few books, Now, would be a good time because they really do need to get a clue.


This is the place to talk about these things. Don't be shy.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> This is the place to talk about these things. Don't be shy.


No, please do not let me interrupt. You are doing a very good job of making my point.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Ynot said:


> No, please do not let me interrupt. You are doing a very good job of making my point.


What is your point? I think all of us would like to know. If you know so much, prove it. It will be a boon to TAM to have some intelligent conversation that helps others. 

Isn't that why all of us are here? It's not just to pat ourselves on the back at others' expense.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> You don't round anything up. You figure out by knowing yourself, if you truly believe you can handle what isn't checked off. Many think they can and truly don't realize they cannot. No one knows anyone fully. No one can know anyone fully. If two are constantly changing to meet each other's needs, which are constantly changing, there might be an issue. I've been through this. It destroys self esteem and creates bitterness and mistrust.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I disagree. It can be realistic if you married a sex positive person.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

FeministInPink said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree. Since my divorce (from a man who was certainly not GGG), I have made a point to only date (and sleep with) men who are GGG, and I have been very satisfied. And there are plenty of people out there who read Dan Savage and are dedicated to being GGG. He's been around for 26 years and has a huge following. His podcast is literally one of the most popular in the world, and his column has been syndicated in every major metro area.



Yes girl!!! I 100% agree with you. I am a huge Dan savage fan and I am sex positive like yourself. Whenever I meet a new potential guy I always ask do you listen to Dan savage. Ahaha and I usually have them listen to a few podcasts so I can gauge their sexual personality.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> I disagree. It can be realistic if you married a sex positive person.


What is a sex positive person by your definition? I truly don't understand that terminology.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> What is a sex positive person by your definition? I truly don't understand that terminology.




Sex positive people are GGG. They also realize the importance of sex and have no judgments towards it at all. If you watch the video it talks about how more than 50% of men and women are into more than “traditional sex”, have kinks or whatever. 
Sex positive people know that it’s suppose to be fun. And you are always learning and you know embarrassing things happen and you don’t always get it right but the point is to try to fulfill your partners needs/wants as much as you can.
And the biggest thing is NO JUDGEMENT or shaming or making anyone feel bad. It’s important to always have a positive attitude.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

@2ntnuf Oh, I'm not angry! I think we're having a good discussion and exchange of ideas.



2ntnuf said:


> That's not what I meant when I posted that the two have to be open to learning what works for each other. I didn't get that out of what you said.
> 
> Again, I don't round up. I do it the way I posted. And, I'm not saying you do anything wrong. I'm just having a discussion with you. I'm reading what you post and offering what I do for comparison, not for proof you are wrong.


I actually think you do, we're just using different terminology and communicating differently.

And no one "rounds up" super early in the relationship, but one does make that assessment before deciding to make a serious commitment. And what you've mentioned in previous posts is pretty much exactly what goes into the process of rounding up.



2ntnuf said:


> True, but I would not be willing to read a book to learn how to have sex with her. Are you saying all women are the same and like the same things? I don't think so. Neither am I. You can't learn what she likes from a book. The basics are fairly simple.


Of course you can't read a book to learn how to have sex with a specific individual, because every person likes different things! I'm talking about reading books like _The Joy of Sex_ and _She Comes First_, etc.... at some point in the past before you're involved sexually with a woman. Maybe you don't need those books now, because you're sexually experienced and know a lot. Not everything in those books is going to be a hit with a woman, but you should at least KNOW (have knowledge) so have the ability to draw from a choice of multiple different actions to increae your probability of finding something that works to her.



2ntnuf said:


> Those men probably get more than those who care. lol If, I am interpreting what young women think is the "bad boy" type correctly. Since they get more, they know there will be another woman coming along. They will likely grow up some day, or not.


They probably do, or just are too selfish to care. I've learned how to avoid these types of men.



2ntnuf said:


> No, I didn't miss it. Standard is basic stuff in my mind. I've never been a guy that only does one thing. However, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate a bit? It would be easier to understand what you are imagining.
> 
> And, I don't know what you meant. That's why I went to bi or butt stuff. You'll have to explain as I cannot know what you are thinking. With that part of your post, I don't know what some guy wouldn't want to do.
> 
> As an example, I was asked if I would have sex with a woman and another man. She said she wanted us both in her vagina at the same time. Sorry, can't do it. Some men can. I thought I could do a threeway with two women. When it came down to it, I couldn't. Is that what you mean by being open to new things? I don't really know what you are thinking.


I wasn't talking about anything specific, and it literally could be ANYTHING sexual that you haven't done before, anything outside "standard." Like I said before, Game means being open to trying new things that don't violate your personal boundaries or limits. I think your example are quite extreme and really only apply to the absolute kinkiest of people. 

I don't think anyone's going to go from vanilla sex to "I want two men in my vagina at the same time." A) That's damn near impossible; B) and if it's possible, you have to work up to it and try other stuff first.

I think Game also means being inventive and having a vested interest in keeping the sexual relationship fresh and exciting.



2ntnuf said:


> How would anyone know if a person was GGG without having sex with them? That, I don't understand.


You can't, not always, especially not about the "Good" and the "Giving" part. The "Game" part is a little easier to suss out. I always talk with a potential partners about sex BEFORE I have sex with them. And in regards to Good/Giving, the way a man acts outside the bedroom can be a pretty solid indicator of both these things. I didn't learn that from a book. I learned that from experience.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> Sex positive people are GGG. They also realize the importance of sex and have no judgments towards it at all. If you watch the video it talks about how more than 50% of men and women are into more than “traditional sex”, have kinks or whatever.
> Sex positive people know that it’s suppose to be fun. And you are always learning and you know embarrassing things happen and you don’t always get it right but the point is to try to fulfill your partners needs/wants as much as you can.
> And the biggest thing is NO JUDGEMENT or shaming or making anyone feel bad. It’s important to always have a positive attitude.


I have kinks, too. It's nothing new. I don't talk about them. 

I don't know what traditional sex is, but I am guessing it is missionary only with little to no foreplay. Never has been me, after I am sure she is only with me. 

Depends on the wants and needs. 

Sure embarrassing things happen. We are all human. Make some woman feel bad during sex and you've lost her. Sometimes, I think there are assumptions made that are perpetrated by writers selling books. 



So, by that, I do have sex judgments and this sex positive world is not for me. I am glad I do not date. I would not be happy engaging in this sex positive world.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> I have kinks, too. It's nothing new. I don't talk about them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Traditional sex is penis in the vagina and some oral sex.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> So, by that, I do have sex judgments and this sex positive world is not for me. I am glad I do not date. I would not be happy engaging in this sex positive world.




Why? Why do you have sex judgements and why are you not happy to engage in a sex positive world?


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

I think the speaker is spot on in the video when talking about the myth of monogamy in a LTR. People are not perfect, and imperfect people make imperfect decisions sometimes. You may not like it, but you can deal with it and move on.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> What is your point? I think all of us would like to know. If you know so much, prove it. It will be a boon to TAM to have some intelligent conversation that helps others.
> 
> Isn't that why all of us are here? It's not just to pat ourselves on the back at others' expense.


My point is that you don't have a clue. Let's take a few of your own statements from this thread:

"Don't know what "good, giving and game" mean."

The OP provided a link to a podcast
In fact, it usually is only one who wants reconciliation and the other has to be convinced to continue working on themselves and the marriage
Perhaps they have already worked on themselves, it is just that they no longer want to "work on themselves" to your satisfaction
If two are constantly changing to meet each other's needs, which are constantly changing, there might be an issue.
That is exactly what is meant by "there is no "one". 
. No woman wants someone to practice, that I know. They all want you to already know how. 
That is so wrong. Not a single woman? There are lots and lots of women who are more than willing to explore and practice. 
Your wheelhouse? Like trying to be bisexual because she likes it when she can watch you with a man? Like pegging? What is outside your(not your personally, but in general)wheelhouse and how do you go about knowing what she wants, specifically and then how do you tell her yes or no without making her feel disrespected or disgusting? Most women I've known wouldn't say what they wanted because it made them feel dirty or something. Then, if you turned them down, look out. They were really hurt. 

Suggesting something could cause a huge issue, too. They may feel that you think they are some sort of dirt bag or something. I've had that experience, too. 

In my opinion, it isn't very realistic, but more of a fantasy for fantasy lovers.
Wow, where to begin? As FIP had already stated, you do what you are comfortable with. And if you aren't you don't. The ideas that you are expressed are rooted firmly in the scarcity mindset of the "one". You do not have to comply with anyone else's wishes, nor do they with yours. 

I would not be willing to read a book to learn how to have sex with her.
Wow, if a woman I was interested in was asking for something I was not familiar with, I would most definitely (and have) read books about it. 
You can't learn what she likes from a book. The basics are fairly simple. 
No one has said you can learn what she likes from a book. That is something she will tell you herself. But what you can learn from a book is how to do something she likes from a book. In so doing, you mat determine that that is NOT something you are comfortable with and move on.
Those men probably get more than those who care.
This is your inner Incel talking
How would anyone know if a person was GGG without having sex with them? 
Um. for starters, by talking about sex. 
Basic sex and pleasuring her are fairly simple to do. If a man is into a woman, he's going to want to take her in as many positions as his imagination and physical abilities allow. If he isn't that into her, no book will help.
As long as she is into whatever you are into, sure. Perhaps she likes this position or that position though? And yes, some books will definitely help.
Being gentle at first, is always best.
Not if you have talked about sex and she has told you otherwise
Most women are gentle creatures. 
Actually, no they are not. Many women are sexual beings who can and do want to be physical as much as a guy does. "Gentleness" is not what they are always looking for.
What is a sex positive person by your definition? I truly don't understand that terminology.
Another wow, you truly do not understand the term "sex positive"? As was explained to you later, that is someone who understands and accepts the sexuality of themselves and others in a non-judgmental way. They understand it is supposed to be fun.
I have kinks, too. It's nothing new. I don't talk about them.
You should. You would probably get to enjoy them

In another thread you likened casual sex to prostitution. 
You are all over the board and so confused that you have given up. Yet here you are going round and round, trying to understand. 

Let's end this with another quote: "So, by that, I do have sex judgments and this sex positive world is not for me. I am glad I do not date. I would not be happy engaging in this sex positive world. That is good to know. It is too bad that you would deny yourself due to your lack of understanding and acceptance.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

FeministInPink said:


> @2ntnuf Oh, I'm not angry! I think we're having a good discussion and exchange of ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, I'll concede defeat, now that you have proven yourself, below. 




FeministInPink said:


> Of course you can't read a book to learn how to have sex with a specific individual, because every person likes different things! I'm talking about reading books like _The Joy of Sex_ and _She Comes First_, etc.... at some point in the past before you're involved sexually with a woman. Maybe you don't need those books now, because you're sexually experienced and know a lot. Not everything in those books is going to be a hit with a woman, but you should at least KNOW (have knowledge) so have the ability to draw from a choice of multiple different actions to increae your probability of finding something that works to her.


Yeah, I agree, but it first takes some deep desire for that woman. Just wanting to get off is not going to be enough. I've had both feelings and one of them sucks. I bet you can guess which. 




FeministInPink said:


> They probably do, or just are too selfish to care. I've learned how to avoid these types of men.


Good. It's a waste of your time and he could just self pleasure to get past that and think of the woman, or he is not mentally well. 




FeministInPink said:


> I wasn't talking about anything specific, and it literally could be ANYTHING sexual that you haven't done before, anything outside "standard." Like I said before, Game means being open to trying new things that don't violate your personal boundaries or limits. I think your example are quite extreme and really only apply to the absolute kinkiest of people.
> 
> I don't think anyone's going to go from vanilla sex to "I want two men in my vagina at the same time." A) That's damn near impossible; B) and if it's possible, you have to work up to it and try other stuff first.
> 
> I think Game also means being inventive and having a vested interest in keeping the sexual relationship fresh and exciting.



That was one of my guesses, that it was too extreme. Who the hell are you running into out there? Not just you, but don't tell me. It was a rhetorical question. 

She had done it before. I didn't. I didn't know what she was into, but this happened on the second or third encounter with her, while we were in the midst. I lost my mood, so to speak, as I don't like discussing things during that I have to consider or think about, because I want to concentrate on what I am doing right or wrong. That's different from a woman telling me in a hungry voice to do something for her. That just increases my hunger. 

If that is sex positive, and I think it is, I don't want it. It's too much to think about and talk over during the act and ruins the mood. 



FeministInPink said:


> You can't, not always, especially not about the "Good" and the "Giving" part. The "Game" part is a little easier to suss out. I always talk with a potential partners about sex BEFORE I have sex with them. And in regards to Good/Giving, the way a man acts outside the bedroom can be a pretty solid indicator of both these things. I didn't learn that from a book. I learned that from experience.


I grew up in a time when explicit sexual talk wasn't so common, at least in my life, but generally we did. It wasn't that I was against it. In fact, I was the aggressor and the initiator, most times, but any slight body movement or what I thought was akin to ouch or anything uncomfortable, and I immediately stopped and addressed it. Sometimes I misinterpreted, but it's better to be safe than sorry. 

I have no clue what is done today and I have a feeling I would be uncomfortable unless we knew each other well and were exclusive. I'm not into doing anything much more than pleasuring each other, unless exclusive. I think that is a difference in our worlds. 

Thanks.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Girl_power said:


> Traditional sex is penis in the vagina...



As opposed to...vagina in a penis?

This GGG stuff...how do you explain some (many!) women’s desire to be dominated and ****ed selfishly by their partner, with her face pressed against the door (or pick an object), without getting all fussy with foreplay & oral etc...

I have a feeling men think (on balance) women like oral more than they actually do (and there are fewer things I like to do more than that. But it’s not about what I like).

I came to realise that you actually need two main prerequisites to be ‘good’ in bed. And they have nothing to do with skill as such:

1. to get your woman to really want you.

2. to anticipate how she wants you to take her (though you have to make it look like it’s coming from you)


1. Can be achieved many different ways, including, paradoxically, not giving a sh1t (or just focusing more on your life and give your partner space to breathe & exist). Because when you strip it down to basics, you really cannot ‘nice’ anyone into wanting you: they either see you as a strong ‘mate’ on a visceral level, or they don’t.

2. Requires some mind reading skills and individual fine tuning. Same ‘technique’ will not produce the same amount of pleasure (or even any pleasure at all) with different partners.


Lastly: why is there so much focus on sex? Is that really the main criteria people go by when evaluating a potential partner?

Does it mean a woman is constantly evaluating what I might ‘feel like’ in bed when I’m doing small talk and ****? 
I have to say when I was ‘selecting’ my wife, the attraction was a given. However there’s so much more to partner ‘evaluation’ than this. But there’s never any discussions about anything else apart from sex (or infidelity) which is entertaining; I’m not complaining. Just trying to be helpful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Ynot said:


> My point is that you don't have a clue. Let's take a few of your own statements from this thread:
> 
> 
> "Don't know what "good, giving and game" mean."
> ...


I only deny myself the heartache that would come from emotional attachment to someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about me, but about getting their orgasm.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> Why? Why do you have sex judgements and why are you not happy to engage in a sex positive world?


Gross to me. Sorry. I don't mean it to be rude. I only ever wanted one faithful woman all my life, for sex, friendship, companionship, love, sharing life and the joys of living. I will never be convinced that is an unhappy life. 

I cannot change. I am too set in my mind. 

I do not believe those things I want are capable of happening unless two spend a long time together. 

I know that sex without emotion is pretty unfulfilling. It is better than masturbation, but completely pales in comparison to a loving relationship with the love of your life.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> I only deny myself the heartache that would come from emotional attachment to someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about me, but about getting their orgasm.


Wow, you are even more clueless I thought. Here I thought it was just about sex, but we can expand that to include life itself. Why would you think that women are only interested in getting their orgasm. You must have a seriously limited mindset to imagine that. You do realize that most people do not share your limited POV. They realize that in order to find their happiness, they have to take chances and make mistakes and learn from them? Don't you? It sounds like you are so afraid to get hurt that you refuse to make any effort at all.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Ynot said:


> Wow, you are even more clueless I thought. Here I thought it was just about sex, but we can expand that to include life itself. Why would you think that women are only interested in getting their orgasm. You must have a seriously limited mindset to imagine that. You do realize that most people do not share your limited POV. They realize that in order to find their happiness, they have to take chances and make mistakes and learn from them? Don't you? It sounds like you are so afraid to get hurt that you refuse to make any effort at all.


You aren't impressing anyone. I'm not a threat to your way of life. Women don't follow what I think because I said so. They are much more intelligent than that. Learn to be more accepting of others, as you think you have with sex.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> Lastly: why is there so much focus on sex? Is that really the main criteria people go by when evaluating a potential partner?
> 
> Does it mean a woman is constantly evaluating what I might ‘feel like’ in bed when I’m doing small talk and ****?
> I have to say when I was ‘selecting’ my wife, the attraction was a given. However there’s so much more to partner ‘evaluation’ than this. But there’s never any discussions about anything else apart from sex (or infidelity) which is entertaining; I’m not complaining. Just trying to be helpful.
> ...


Why is there so much focus on sex? Because in the end, at the most basic level, that is what most relationships between a man and woman are about. Most healthy people do not date to find someone to gaze off into the sunset with. They date to find someone they can enjoy having sex with. Most people don't date someone they are not attracted to. Most people do not continue to date unless they think they may want to have sex with that person. Everyone may have their own timeline for having sex, but that is the end game they are playing - even those people who wait until marriage.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> You aren't impressing anyone. I'm not a threat to your way of life. Women don't follow what I think because I said so. They are much more intelligent than that. Learn to be more accepting of others, as you think you have with sex.


I am not trying to impress anyone. I am stating an observation. And believe me, not in my wildest dreams, do I imagine that you are a threat to my way of life. But what I do not understand, is why you bother to involve yourself in discussions about subjects that you claim to have no concern with. What do attempt to gain but validation of your POV (which is seriously limited in any case)?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Ynot said:


> I am not trying to impress anyone. I am stating an observation. And believe me, not in my wildest dreams, do I imagine that you are a threat to my way of life. But what I do not understand, is why you bother to involve yourself in discussions about subjects that you claim to have no concern with. What do attempt to gain but validation of your POV (which is seriously limited in any case)?


I claimed not to do this. I did not claim I understood what it was all about. 

So, you just get pissed with folks who don't do what the topic of the thread is about and then harass them unceasingly? 

Why don't you tell me why you are feeling threatened by my posts? What's going on with you?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> I claimed not to do this. I did not claim I understood what it was all about.
> 
> So, you just get pissed with folks who don't do what the topic of the thread is about and then harass them unceasingly?
> 
> Why don't you tell me why you are feeling threatened by my posts? What's going on with you?


I agree you did not claim to understand what the topic was about. But even when it was explained to you, you accused others (including myself) of getting angry at you. 
Nor am I pissed off with folks or harassing them. In case you missed it, YOU are the one who keeps quoting ME. So if you feel harassed, stop harassing me.
Nor do I feel the least bit threatened by your posts. More so I simply do not understand why someone with such a limited view of the world, feels the need to interject yourself into a conversation, for which you claim to have no interest in. You do not date, you think sex is gross, you do not talk about sex, so I guess I am more curious than anything.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> As opposed to...vagina in a penis?
> 
> This GGG stuff...how do you explain some (many!) women’s desire to be dominated and ****ed selfishly by their partner, with her face pressed against the door (or pick an object), without getting all fussy with foreplay & oral etc...
> 
> ...




Sex is not just PIV sex and if you watched the video he goes into it. Sex can be anal, vagina, handjobs, mutual masterbation... ect. 

As for women that want to be done aggressively by their partner.... that is a total preference. I hate that. I don’t mind doing it every once in a while if that’s what my partner wants but I don’t prefer it that way, at all. People are different. Some like it zero to 100. I personally love slow torturous sex that really builds up my desire and makes me beg for an orgasm. And when I do orgasm I don’t like to do it at the “100” pounding fast whatever. I like to orgasm at like a “50”. Again, everyone is different. 

Some women love oral, others don’t. I LOVE it, and I wouldn’t be with a man that doesn’t love to give it. 

Again everyone is different and your generalizing. 

And as far as being “good” in bed I disagree. Some people aren’t that good and that’s ok they need to learn. For example I’m not that good at giving blowjobs, and I want to learn how to be better. Some men I’ve been with are not that good at oral, or playing with me with their hands. 
Trust me, when I really really want a man and we have a sexual encounter it can be disappointing because of skill level. And no one is perfect but we can all learn to be better. There is nothing worse than a brut that doesn’t want to learn and just does what he thinks feels good. 

And why so much focus on sex? Because this is a sex podcast we’re taking about. And sex is important. Of course it’s not the most important thing. But have a great sex life can make your relationship way better.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> Gross to me. Sorry. I don't mean it to be rude. I only ever wanted one faithful woman all my life, for sex, friendship, companionship, love, sharing life and the joys of living. I will never be convinced that is an unhappy life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with you though. I can never ever have causal sex. And when I pick my forever someone I want them 100%. Mind body and soul forever. And sex is part of that.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Ynot said:


> I agree you did not claim to understand what the topic was about. But even when it was explained to you, you accused others (including myself) of getting angry at you.
> Nor am I pissed off with folks or harassing them. In case you missed it, YOU are the one who keeps quoting ME. So if you feel harassed, stop harassing me.
> Nor do I feel the least bit threatened by your posts. More so I simply do not understand why someone with such a limited view of the world, feels the need to interject yourself into a conversation, for which you claim to have no interest in. You do not date, you think sex is gross, you do not talk about sex, so I guess I am more curious than anything.


I see. I'm not out to try to date @FeministInPink. We were having a conversation. Next time, let it go. Don't quote me constantly with abusive remarks and twisted truth trying to defend someone else and you won't be harassing anyone. Just state the facts and be done with it. Playing this game is tiring and useless. I won't change for you. You won't talk about your issues plainly and the one you keep posting isn't an issue on a forum for learning. 

There is nothing wrong with thinking someone is angry and talking about it. That's how you resolve potential issues. Bullies like you are a dime a dozen.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> I see. I'm not out to try to date @FeministInPink. We were having a conversation. Next time, let it go. Don't quote me constantly with abusive remarks and twisted truth trying to defend someone else and you won't be harassing anyone. Just state the facts and be done with it. Playing this game is tiring and useless. I won't change for you. You won't talk about your issues plainly and the one you keep posting isn't an issue on a forum for learning.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with thinking someone is angry and talking about it. That's how you resolve potential issues. Bullies like you are a dime a dozen.


LOL, you are so clueless. Go get a life. And do not quote me again.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Ynot said:


> LOL, you are so clueless. Go get a life. And do not quote me again.


Don't threaten me. I haven't threatened you.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> Don't threaten me. I haven't threatened you.


You have some serious issues. Now leave me alone. Do not quote me again or respond to me or I will report you. That is not a threat that is a promise.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> I agree with you though. I can never ever have causal sex. And when I pick my forever someone I want them 100%. Mind body and soul forever. And sex is part of that.


That's a very nice thought. I hope it works out for you.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

What is amazing to me....

I am about 15 posts into this thread and am bowing out after posting this.

The posters who are disagreeing are about 64% consistent in what they are saying they believe, with slightly different terminology.

Yet here they are arguing as if they have nothing in common. Funny, that. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

farsidejunky said:


> What is amazing to me....
> 
> I am about 15 posts into this thread and am bowing out after posting this.
> 
> ...




That’s too bad because I would like to hear your opinion about the OP.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Ynot said:


> Why is there so much focus on sex? Because in the end, at the most basic level, that is what most relationships between a man and woman are about. Most healthy people do not date to find someone to gaze off into the sunset with....



Aaaand we are off on a tangent.
Like I said: sexual compatibility/attraction is (and should be) a given. One of the easiest things to determine early on. There’s little discussion about anything else though. That’s what I said. You then wrote an essay about something unrelated.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Girl_power said:


> Sex is not just PIV sex and if you watched the video he goes into it. Sex can be anal, vagina, handjobs, mutual masterbation... ect.
> 
> As for women that want to be done aggressively by their partner.... that is a total preference. I hate that. I don’t mind doing it every once in a while if that’s what my partner wants but I don’t prefer it that way, at all. People are different. Some like it zero to 100. I personally love slow torturous sex that really builds up my desire and makes me beg for an orgasm. And when I do orgasm I don’t like to do it at the “100” pounding fast whatever. I like to orgasm at like a “50”. Again, everyone is different.
> 
> ...




Yes of course everyone likes different things: that was precisely what my post was about. I am not sure why this didn’t come across...
I always maintained that talking about how good one is or should be in bed is non-sensical: because everyone will have different needs. How I first approached sex with my wife for example, would have made somebody like extremely happy. However it didn’t work as well with my wife (though she likes that type of sex too, once in a while). It just depends on various things.

I did watch the video. Apart from the fact that I find it painful to watch someone talk whose neck is wider than their head, I found a lot of the things he said like good common sense, wrapped up in humorous delivery (points for that). However I can’t say that I heard something new or different.

One thing I have a problem with though (and I know somebody is bound to twist it into some kind of homophobia but **** it...): it’s a homosexual guy, who advocates and has a non-monogamous relationship himself with his partner who also have kids together (watch last 10 minutes)....It’s just not something I’m particularly thrilled about. I don’t get it why people give Esther Perel a hard time (who just used the word ‘monogamish’) and people are accepting of this dude saying that ‘your wife fooling around with her trainer’ should not really be a deal breaker. What, that’s ok because he is gay and we should therefore be more accepting for some reason what he has to say on the subject? 

Polygamy does not work (in context of also having a family). It’s like a vegetarian saying that it’s perfectly fine eating steak once in a while and still call yourself a vegetarian, if you want to, and if you don’t accept what I tell you then you are a closed minded piece of ****. It’s not ok to just use words and then redefine what they mean and call others who don’t accept THEIR retarded definitions ‘closed minded’.

What the **** is going on with this world...I feel like the left is going insane.

Otherwise I have no problem with what he is saying. But I feel I wasted 40 minutes on common sense and awkward humour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Girl_power said:


> Sex is not just PIV sex and if you watched the video he goes into it. Sex can be anal, vagina, handjobs, mutual masterbation... ect.
> 
> As for women that want to be done aggressively by their partner.... that is a total preference. I hate that. I don’t mind doing it every once in a while if that’s what my partner wants but I don’t prefer it that way, at all. People are different. Some like it zero to 100. I personally love slow torturous sex that really builds up my desire and makes me beg for an orgasm. And when I do orgasm I don’t like to do it at the “100” pounding fast whatever. I like to orgasm at like a “50”. Again, everyone is different.
> 
> ...




One more thing about the slow and sensual ****ing & oral etc: I don’t know how old you are or how long you have been with your previous partner(s). But once you trust a partner 100% (and been at it for a while) you can learn to allow them to take you to places (emotionally, physically or psychologically) that otherwise would be considered too taboo or that you feel you would never even dream of liking it...This was a revelation to me after many years. And something one can only learn after a certain level of trust has been achieved. The Savage guy never touches on these points and I feel like he is focusing on an extremely narrow perspective of what HE thinks relationships SHOULD be like (which is very standard advice).
There’s no such thing. There are no ‘standards’.

So one of his ‘clients’ was offended that her BF had a foot fetish and he told her she was a crazy ***** because of it: fine. But then goes on to say that other fetishes are a no-go by comparison: who the hell decides what’s a no go and what isn’t? That’s the whole point: there aren’t any standards between trusting partners or norms like this when it comes to sex (except not communicating and not engaging in ANY sexual activity regularly: THAT is not ‘normal’, between two partners. Otherwise be friends and don’t call yourselves sexual partners).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> I don’t get it why ... people are accepting of this dude saying that ‘your wife fooling around with her trainer’ should not really be a deal breaker.


I think it's vital to preserve the distinction between what HE has, which apparently is an agreed "monogamish" relationship, versus a deceitful infidelity. The wife fooling around with the trainer should not be a deal breaker if you both understood and agreed all along that this was allowed to happen. Savage (and maybe Perel, I don't know) may be advocating for the benefits of that kind of agreement. You and I may take a different view. But I think that's entirely different from saying that a little bit of cheating should be forgiven. And my problem with the Savage video here is that he seems to be kind of mixing those two things together. He's not clear which he's saying, or at least it wasn't clear to me.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Laurentium said:


> I think it's vital to preserve the distinction between what HE has, which apparently is an agreed "monogamish" relationship, versus a deceitful infidelity. The wife fooling around with the trainer should not be a deal breaker if you both understood and agreed all along that this was allowed to happen. Savage (and maybe Perel, I don't know) may be advocating for the benefits of that kind of agreement. You and I may take a different view. But I think that's entirely different from saying that a little bit of cheating should be forgiven. And my problem with the Savage video here is that he seems to be kind of mixing those two things together. He's not clear which he's saying, or at least it wasn't clear to me.



If you listened to the talk, he doesn’t talk about the fooling around in context of a pre-agreed arrangement. Just that HE thinks, it shouldn’t be a big deal (in ANY arrangement).
I don’t care either way (it’s between the two people): it’s just funny that people seem to be more accepting of what he has to say as opposed to a straight(ish) woman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> Aaaand we are off on a tangent.
> Like I said: sexual compatibility/attraction is (and should be) a given. One of the easiest things to determine early on. There’s little discussion about anything else though. That’s what I said. You then wrote an essay about something unrelated.
> 
> 
> ...


You asked a freaking question! I answered it. Because before the all the other stuff - sex is paramount to a good relationship. Look at most of threads on TAM - they are all about sex - infidelity, cheating, lack of, need for, etc. Besides this thread is exactly about sex. So if you don't like where discussions lead, then perhaps you shouldn't ask questions. And then you write FOUR posts, all of which were at least as long as my "essay" and three of which were two to three times as long!


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> If you listened to the talk, he doesn’t talk about the fooling around in context of a pre-agreed arrangement. Just that HE thinks, it shouldn’t be a big deal (in ANY arrangement).


I did listen to the talk, and I agree with you, it did sound that way at points.



> I don’t care either way (it’s between the two people): it’s just funny that people seem to be more accepting of what he has to say as opposed to a straight(ish) woman.


Well that's the thing - if it's deceitful cheating, then it's not really between the two people. One of them had no say in it!


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Laurentium said:


> I did listen to the talk, and I agree with you, it did sound that way at points.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's the thing - if it's deceitful cheating, then it's not really between the two people. One of them had no say in it!



I meant that it’s between the two people whether they feel like this is a make or break situation for them. If the guy doesn’t feel like he can forgive her for cheating, then he is perfectly justified to leave her, if he wants to. (Same true in reverse). Anyway. I am just amazed how you can get a neck like this....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

Laurentium said:


> I think it's vital to preserve the distinction between what HE has, which apparently is an agreed "monogamish" relationship, versus a deceitful infidelity. The wife fooling around with the trainer should not be a deal breaker if you both understood and agreed all along that this was allowed to happen. Savage (and maybe Perel, I don't know) may be advocating for the benefits of that kind of agreement. You and I may take a different view. But I think that's entirely different from saying that a little bit of cheating should be forgiven. And my problem with the Savage video here is that he seems to be kind of mixing those two things together. He's not clear which he's saying, or at least it wasn't clear to me.


This is a REALLY important distinction, and the subtleties of this distinction may become lost in this thread, or overlooked. I will admit that I haven't watched the entire video, but only because I'm very familiar with Dan Savage and his POV on most things--I've been reading his column for years and listen to his podcast as well, albeit not consistently. And I have never heard him advocate that a person practice deceitful infidelity. However, I have heard him advise sex-starved people in sexless marriages to have a heart-to-heart with their spouse regarding the lack of sex in the marriage, and if the withholding spouse refuses to work on the problem in the marriage, the sex-starved partner has the right to tell the withholder, "I love you and I want to stay married to you, but if you aren't willing to have a sexual relationship with me, then I will be seeking sex elsewhere." In this scenario, it's not deceitful, because the sex-starved spouse is being up front about his/her intentions.

A lot of his answers are very dependent on the particulars of the situation.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> And I have never heard him advocate that a person practice deceitful infidelity.



He hasn’t said that. (Nor have i said that he said that). What he did say (if you just watch the last 10 minutes of the video) is that he doesn’t think that breaking up with your wife over her having an affair with her training instructor is a valid reason. My point was only this: who the hell decides what’s a valid reason and what isn’t? I certainly don’t think he should.
I also don’t think it’s ethical to ‘trash’ your clients or call them ‘crazy *****es’ to illustrate a point (earlier in the video).
I don’t get what’s so amazing about his advice.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

I think a straight guy giving sex advice is much funnier: https://youtu.be/I4QVPeQI9K0

This is like @She'sStillGotIt but with a ****.
It’s a shame guys who talk like this are all banned. It’s hilarious.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

His discussion about a foot fetish guy hit pretty close to home. My W, while now understanding/agreeing that she should not have been hosting a former co-working in our home for mutual pedicures a couple of years age, still doesn't think he was a weird foot fetish guy with impure motives. Of course he was. And the reaction from OMW told me she knew this as well when we talked. 

I agree that monogamy isn't perfect, and people aren't perfect. But it is a stretch to believe that a gay guy can completely understand the dynamics in a hetero couple. He had some good points that apply universally to all relationships - like in most other pursuits in life if a single mistake is made you don't lose you social acceptance, except in marriage.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Why does nobody comment on the fact that a (as agreed) non-monogamous gay couple are raising children together?
Is this wrong to think that there is something inherently wrong about this? (The non monogamous part is what bothers me mainly).
Am I becoming one of those grand dads who sit around, play chess and reminiscing about the past gone by? *


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> Why does nobody comment on the fact that a (as agreed) non-monogamous gay couple are raising children together?
> Is this homophobic to think that there is something inherently wrong about this? (The non monogamous part is what bothers me mainly).
> Am I becoming one of those grand dads who sit around, play chess and reminiscing about the past gone by? *


I'm guessing because no one else takes issue with it? And it also wasn't the point/topic of this thread.

Non-monogamy (or sexual orientation, for that matter) has nothing to do with whether a couple are good parents or not. Good parenting has everything to do with love, maturity, and emotional intelligence. I know several couples who are non-monogamous and who are also amazing parents.

Point of information: Savage and his husband have only one child, and that child is now a 21-year-old adult.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

FeministInPink said:


> I'm guessing because no one else takes issue with it? And it also wasn't the point/topic of this thread.
> 
> Non-monogamy (or sexual orientation, for that matter) has nothing to do with whether a couple are good parents or not. Good parenting has everything to do with love, maturity, and emotional intelligence. I know several couples who are non-monogamous and who are also amazing parents.
> 
> Point of information: Savage and his husband have only one child, and that child is now a 21-year-old adult.


I didn't want to be accused of going off on a tangent LOL


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> I'm guessing because no one else takes issue with it? And it also wasn't the point/topic of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But I thought they have been in non-monogamous relationship for 18 years? So the kid must have been 3 when they started.
How does it work in practice?
Child: where is my daddy2 gone tonight?
Dad1: he will be home soon, just finishing up his gangbanging session.

How do those parents have time? Since we had our first kid, we barely had time for each other, finding other people to hook up with, seems....impossible.

I think people are free to indulge in whatever lifestyle they want to indulge if they are BOTH happy. But for god’s sake, don’t involve children.
It takes a lot more than ‘love, maturity and emotional intelligence’ to bring up kids. They pick up on pretty much everything and worst of all, have no say in anything. 

Ps: Non monogamy is NOT a sexual orientation. It’s a life style choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Words fail me


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Ynot said:


> Words fail me



Then don’t use them.
Kids need a stable home. Non-monogamy as a life-style choice does NOT provide a stable home for small kids.
If there are no kids, I don’t care what two consenting adults do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> Then don’t use them.
> Kids need a stable home. Non-monogamy as a life-style choice does NOT provide a stable home for small kids.
> If there are no kids, I don’t care what two consenting adults do.
> 
> ...


I am sorry I do not have the ability to draw a carton picture of your ignorance so that you might understand. What makes you think that anyone would tell a three year old that Daddy2 is having a gangbang. For that matter what makes you think that a three year old even cares where Daddy2 is at that moment. Do your kids know where you are and what you are doing 24/7? And why would you even imagine that a non-monogamous relationship instantly defaults to a gang bang scenario that you would even post such an asinine example? Or that a non-monogamous life-style is any less stable than a monogamous one?
You really need to stop pretending you know anything and go back to playing chess and reminiscing about the good old days when gays stayed in the closet and every relationship was a stable monogamous one.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Ynot said:


> I am sorry I do not have the ability to draw a carton picture of your ignorance so that you might understand. What makes you think that anyone would tell a three year old that Daddy2 is having a gangbang. For that matter what makes you think that a three year old even cares where Daddy2 is at that moment. Do your kids no where you are and what you are doing 24/7? And why would you even imagine that a non-monogamous relationship instantly defaults to a gang bang scenario that you would even post such an asinine example? Or that a non-monogamous life-style is any less stable than a monogamous one?
> 
> You really need to stop pretending you know anything and go back to playing chess and reminiscing about the good old days when gays stayed in the closet and every relationship was a stable monogamous one.



I’m 38, how old are you? I have lived on several continents and travel (on average) to 2-3 different countries every week. I see different cultures and ways of life (including family lives) all the time. I have a ton of gay friends, a happy (first) marriage and 3 kids.

Yeah, I’m not going to get into this straw man bull**** again with you. It seems the only way you are able to communicate with people on these boards.

But the burden of proof lies on people like you, to prove that kids derive any benefit whatsoever within a non-monogamous home, not the other way around.
Until then, keep practicing drawing cartoons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> But I thought they have been in non-monogamous relationship for 18 years? So the kid must have been 3 when they started.
> How does it work in practice?
> Child: where is my daddy2 gone tonight?
> Dad1: he will be home soon, just finishing up his gangbanging session.
> ...





inmyprime said:


> Then don’t use them.
> Kids need a stable home. Non-monogamy as a life-style choice does NOT provide a stable home for small kids.
> If there are no kids, I don’t care what two consenting adults do.


You really know nothing about alternative lifestyles, or the dynamics that occur within. That's not your fault, but your posts makes your ignorance evident. I'm not intending that as an insult; I am completely ignorant of quantum dynamics, and that's not a fault, it's simply something that IS. However, you are also coming across as very judgemental.

Parents who engage in alternative lifestyles are generally aware that this is not something that young children should not be exposed to, and they make efforts to keep their sex lives private from their children, as do vanilla couples. Most non-monogamous (NM) couples do "come out" do their children when their children are older and have the maturity to handle that information, but some NM couples never reveal this to their children, even when said children are grown adults. And that is their choice.

Savage has offered advice for many years on how parents can simultaneously be NM and provide a stable home life for their child, and most of it revolves around scheduling. If little Johnny has a slumber party at a friend's house, that is the night that mom and dad go to a swingers club or out on dates with other people. Or maybe little Johnny has band practice on Tuesday night, so dad takes him the practice and mom gets to go out, and then the next week they switch out. NM couples may make friends with other NM couples with kids the same age to do sleepovers and play dates with the kids so that each couple can get some free time.

The swingers I've known aren't going out partying every week. They go out maybe once a month or every two months, and a lot of them go for an out-of-town weekend rather than stay local, to avoid the chance of gossip or things getting back to their kids or their kids' friends' parents. The poly people I know adhere to well-coordinated schedules that are built around their child's schedule.

Also, most NM couples are not consistently NM for the entire relationship/marriage. When they have small children, many will enter an agreed upon phase of monogamy until the children are a bit older and don't require as much [constant] time and energy.

Also, non-monogamous does not, by definition, mean gangbangs, incessant promiscuity, or having sex with a different person every night of the week. For some, non-monogamy is an occasional thing, and for some it means long-term secondary relationships. Sometimes it means threesomes, where a couple is only non-monogamous together. Non-monogamy encompasses a very wide range of alternatives to a traditional monogamous relationship. 

PS I am well aware that non-monogamy is a choice and not a sexual orientation. I mentioned sexual orientation in my response as a reference to the fact that Savage is gay, because you referenced it in your post as well.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

I really don't think that people who travel all the time for work and have to be away from home so much should be raising kids. Constant travel as a life-style choice does NOT provide a stable home for small kids.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> I’m 38, how old are you? I have lived on several continents and travel (on average) to 2-3 different countries every week. I see different cultures and ways of life (including family lives) all the time. I have a ton of gay friends, a happy (first) marriage and 3 kids.
> 
> Yeah, I’m not going to get into this straw man bull**** again with you. It seems the only way you are able to communicate with people on these boards.
> 
> ...


What Strawman are you talking about. You like to throw that out there as a way to throw people off but everything that I stated came directly from YOU! Are you a strawman?
And I agree with FIP, so much travel is no way to provide a stable environment for your children. Maybe you should stop throwing rocks while you live a glass house.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> You really know nothing about alternative lifestyles, or the dynamics that occur within. That's not your fault, but your posts makes your ignorance evident. I'm not intending that as an insult; I am completely ignorant of quantum dynamics, and that's not a fault, it's simply something that IS. However, you are also coming across as very judgemental.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think there’s some confusion: I don’t judge the lifestyle choice on its own - though I do think a relationship is at more risk of breaking down in a NM (there are studies on this).

But think about it for a minute from a little child’s perspective. Your post kind of answered it: if it’s something that is of no negative consequence to children, why would one need to wait until the child is ‘old enough’ to be ‘exposed’ to the idea?

People are getting caught up with all the choices that the current climate has to offer and neglecting to think about the children, who have no choice in this whatsoever.

I’m not sure why I’m the ignorant one: all the studies I have read make no indication that NM lifestyle choice is of any benefit to kids, and in fact all the data points to the contrary. Why is this ignorant?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> I really don't think that people who travel all the time for work and have to be away from home so much should be raising kids. Constant travel as a life-style choice does NOT provide a stable home for small kids.


You don’t think we travel together at times?
And yes I agree with you: that’s why I have cut it down significantly. And I spend the entirety of ALL their school holidays together as a family (home or abroad). As a self-employed, I have full freedom how much I want to work and I designed my life entirely to suit my family. As did my wife. Kids will always come first.
In fact if I thought it was beneficial for my family to quit my work altogether (which I can afford to do), I would have done it yesterday.
But they enjoy being proud of what I do so I keep going. And that’s what keeps me going. Not the financial gain which makes no difference anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> But think about it for a minute from a little child’s perspective. Your post kind of answered it: if it’s something that is of no negative consequence to children, why would one need to wait until the child is ‘old enough’ to be ‘exposed’ to the idea?


For the same reason you wait to talk to them about vanilla, monogamous sex. Do you have an open dialogue with your three-year-old about how you like to put your penis in mommy's vagina?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> For the same reason you wait to talk to them about vanilla, monogamous sex. Do you have an open dialogue with your three-year-old about how you like to put your penis in mommy's vagina?



Not vagina, but they will hear and see that mummy and daddy love each other very much.

But then explaining that mummy also loves Fred, Dave and Steve (who now also may or may not be disciplining you this week), you don’t think that’s a bit much for a child? 
I ask again: what’s the benefit to the child under this structure? 
It’s ALL about the adult’s choices, under the ‘excuse’ of being ‘liberal and progressive’ with no thought given about the child’s well being whatsoever. If that’s not the very definition of ignorance I don’t know what is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> I really don't think that people who travel all the time for work and have to be away from home so much should be raising kids. Constant travel as a life-style choice does NOT provide a stable home for small kids.



Also parents that work regular office hours barely get to see their kids at all, except on weekends. Trust me, I have given it A LOT of thought. It’s not even the quantity of the time but the quality of time spent together that counts (as a family). Nothing is worse than life stuck in an endless routine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> People are getting caught up with all the choices that the current climate has to offer and neglecting to think about the children, who have no choice in this whatsoever.


My experience has shown me the exact opposite. All the NM couples I know prioritize their children above their NM.



inmyprime said:


> I’m not sure why I’m the ignorant one: all the studies I have read make no indication that NM lifestyle choice is of any benefit to kids, and *in fact all the data points to the contrary*. Why is this ignorant?


I never said it was better for kids, I said that choosing non-monogamy is not related to one's parenting ability. The same way monogamy does not guarantee that someone will be a good parent; the two are unrelated. Someone can be a crappy husband and cheat on his wife, but he can be a great dad, too.

And I would argue that it's better for a kid to be in a home where both parents are happy than in a home where both parents are miserable, regardless of monogamy or non-monogamy.

Please provide your sources and data that prove that non-monogamy is bad for the kids.

Your ignorance comes from the fact that you've demonstrated that you don't actually know how a non-monogamous relationship works. You've equated it with absentee fathers and gangbangs. That's pretty ignorant.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> Not vagina, but they will hear and see that mummy and daddy love each other very much.
> 
> But then explaining that mummy also loves Fred, Dave and Steve (who now also may or may not be disciplining you this week), you don’t think that’s a bit much for a child?
> I ask again: what’s the benefit to the child under this structure?
> It’s ALL about the adult’s choices, under the ‘excuse’ of being ‘liberal and progressive’ with no thought given about the child’s well being whatsoever. If that’s not the very definition of ignorance I don’t know what is.


Again, you show that you know nothing about the dynamics and logistics of non-monogamy.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> My experience has shown me the exact opposite. All the NM couples I know prioritize their children above their NM.



And the biggest prioritisation would be M without the N.





FeministInPink said:


> I never said it was better for kids, I said that choosing non-monogamy is not related to one's parenting ability. The same way monogamy does not guarantee that someone will be a good parent; the two are unrelated. Someone can be a crappy husband and cheat on his wife, but he can be a great dad, too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don’t think people in NM relationships know themselves what form this endeavour will take for them. I doubt there is a ‘standard’ as such. But correct me if I’m wrong. ‘Gangbang’ was just an example of a form it CAN take. Should I be listing ALL possible scenarios under one post?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> My experience has shown me the exact opposite. All the NM couples I know prioritize their children above their NM.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but this isn’t the argument and it’s not comparing apples with apples.





FeministInPink said:


> Please provide your sources and data that prove that non-monogamy is bad for the kids.
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance comes from the fact that you've demonstrated that you don't actually know how a non-monogamous relationship works. You've equated it with absentee fathers and gangbangs. That's pretty ignorant.




On sources, there are many and doesn’t take long to google, this is just one:

https://stream.org/polyamory-not-family-structure-children/

Much empirical work in monogamous societies indicates that higher degrees of relatedness among household members are associated with lower rates of abuse, neglect and homicide. Living in the same household with genetically unrelated adults is the single biggest risk factor for abuse, neglect and homicide of children. Stepmothers are 2.4 times more likely to kill their stepchildren than birthmothers, and children living with an unrelated parent are between 15 and 77 times more likely to die ‘accidentally’. (Emphasis mine)
If the parents of a child have an obligation to care and rear their child, as everyone recognizes, then the child has a right to belong to a family structure composed of her biological parents and only them. As Melissa Moschella writes,

By acting as the biological cause of their child’s existence, and by providing the genetic and biological basis for their child’s personal identity, parents establish a personal relationship with their child. This relationship gives them the special responsibility to, in a sense, finish what they started when they brought a new human person into the world.
Just because children can’t choose their family structures doesn’t mean that adults won’t harm children by deciding to disregard the structure of natural marriage. With polyamory, society is embarking on a vast and sweeping social experiment. *The primary victims of that experiment will be children. *


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> I don’t think people in NM relationships know themselves what form this endeavour will take for them. I doubt there is a ‘standard’ as such. But correct me if I’m wrong. ‘Gangbang’ was just an example of a form it CAN take. Should I be listing ALL possible scenarios under one post?


Actually, people in NM relationships typically know EXACTLY what form this will take for them, because people know what they like and what they don't like. Again, you are showing your ignorance of alternative lifestyles. You're the gift that just keeps giving and giving!

Couples who engage in NM relationships don't go into it lightly. They negotiate with one another, establish boundaries and limits regarding what is acceptable and not acceptable. For example, one couple may agree that we only have threesomes. Another couple may agree that we have a one-time-only policy; no repeat secondary partners. Another couple may agree that they each can have a consistent secondary partner, but no one night stands. There is no standard definition, but through negotiation and discussion, a couple entering the realm of NM know exactly what form it will take.

And yes, a couple could negotiate gangbangs as part of their agreement. That is, however, a niche kink limited to a small percentage even within the kink community, and equating the entirety of NM relationships to absentee fathers and gangbangs is reducing anyone who participates in a NM relationships to a negative stereotype. You were clearly using it in a derogatory way.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> Again, you show that you know nothing about the dynamics and logistics of non-monogamy.



I don’t really want to argue back and forth about it; especially not with you. You come across to me like a very measured, thoughtful and sensitive person. 
I had an emotional response to the idea of kids being exposed to non monogamous family structure and flipped out a little. I don’t mind if people call me ‘ignorant’.

There are many other, more pressing issues for kids and parents splitting up over some bull**** would probably trigger the same response in me. I think on balance, kids tend to get the short end of the stick since they can’t (and don’t know how to) stand up for themselves or even know what the hell is going on or what’s good for them. It won’t change anything though so the debates are unfortunately pointless except for venting...

I am curious though why you are defending polyamory so much: is that something you would choose yourself as your preferred life style or because of close friends? Or an ex?
If you can get everything you need from one person, would you still go for NM? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> On sources, there are many and doesn’t take long to google, this is just one:
> 
> https://stream.org/polyamory-not-family-structure-children/
> 
> ...


It's lovely that the first "source" you send me is a biased, pro-marriage Christian website.

I'm done with you. You are boring and predictable, and I have better things to do with my time.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> It's lovely that the first "source" you send me is a biased, pro-marriage Christian website.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done with you. You are boring and predictable, and I have better things to do with my time.



I looked at the studies mentioned and linked to on the site itself (they are not done by Christians but by statisticians if you care to read them).

Oh well. Here I thought you were measured...Ok, all the best to you too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> I looked at the studies mentioned and linked to on the site itself (they are not done by Christians but by statisticians if you care to read them).
> 
> Oh well. Here I thought you were measured...Ok, all the best to you too.


OK, then, one more.

A) The article focuses exclusively on polyamory, which only compromises a small fraction of non-monogamous relationships. Polyamory is very different from swinging, or open relationships, or monogamish relationships, etc. Also, very few people who identify as polyamorous actually live with with a partner who isn't their spouse/primary partner.

You cannot measure all NM based on polyamory. They are very different.

B) Did you see the comments from people who were raised in poly households who said that they were not damaged or hindered by growing up in a poly household?

c) You quote from the article: _by providing the genetic and biological basis for their child’s personal identity, parents establish a personal relationship with their child. This relationship gives them the special responsibility to, in a sense, finish what they started when they brought a new human person into the world_. 

The kid is still living with their biological parent, and the kid knows who his parents are and had a personal relationship with them. Poly doesn't negate that.

D) I'm really freaking tired and I hate debating crap and this is all a waste of my time because I'm monogamous anyway and don't give a flying fart about whether someone want to be monogamous or non-monogamous. In my personal experience, I've know plenty of people who are non-monogamous, and they are all, hands-down, great parents. And I don't like that someone like you, who a) doesn't know anything about my friends, who are good people, and b) doesn't actually know anything about non-monogamy... someone like you being all judgey and self-righteous, saying that they can't possible be good parents because they made different lifestyle choices than you. That's why I've wasted this time talking with you. But this whole conversation with you is BS and a waste of my time.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> OK, then, one more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I certainly don’t mean to judge or offend your friends. And also I agree with you that NM itself doesn’t say anything about skills as a parent. However it doesn’t change the fact that the risk is higher for kids ON AVERAGE for a NM of things going wrong. (That’s the part we can just agree to disagree).
You can be an amazing sailor but if you decide to cross the Pacific during hurricane season, you still may never get to the other side...

Alone the fact that it is so impossible to define precisely how each couple (with children) decide to structure their NM relationship is surely an indicator that more care should be taking when they apply to an adoption agencies. I don’t know the guidelines or rules (here I also plead ignorance) but if I was responsible for a child being put up for adoption, there surely should be certain boxes ticked. It has nothing to do with intolerance but everything to do with protecting the child.

1. Stable (preferably married) couple together for X amount of years: check

2. Financial stability: check (I guess)

3. Enough room/home: check

4. Gay couple: check

5.. Non-monogamous relationship: hold on a minute...need more details (at the very least).

Again, you and others may find this attitude/checkboxes ‘intolerant’ but I don’t.

I know you think this is a waste of time (and i kind of agree) but I do promise to do more in depth research on NM and all the subset categories, for what it’s worth. Thanks for your time.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

My wife and I were technically a NM couple for about 10 while our kids were young. We were involved in the swinging lifestyle for about a decade and for a number of those years we were quite active and have attended conventions and conferences etc 

For roughly 335-350 days out of the year we were completely indistinguishable from any other married couple. 

out of those approximately 15-30 days out of the year (on average) where we did have some kind of swinging encounter, for roughly 18-20some hours out of those days we were also completely indistinguishable from any other couple and even after 10 years our closest friends and relatives still have absolutely no idea of what did in our fun time. 

On our date nights, the kids stayed with grandparents or other legitimate, trusted babysitters. 

So I do not consider our extra curricular sex life as having *ANY* negative impact on our family or home life in any way shape or form. 

What takes place in private behind closed doors for what amounts to a handful of hours a month has no more impact on children or family or society than any other hobby or fun activity that a couple may engage in over the same time period whether that couple is playing golf, tennis, fishing, dining out with friends or dining out with friends and having sex with them at the end of the evening. 

If one is to imply that our kids were being subjected to a negligent or harmful environment because we met with and had sex with other couples for what basically amounted to a handful of hours out of a given month, then I would have to challenge that all forms of date nights and shared hobbies and activities that a couple does away from the kids must also be judged and condemned.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

The fact is that at least a simple majority of children are raised by non monogamous parents. At least one of the parents.

So the thing we are getting "wrong" about monogamy is that it is supposed to be non monogamous. 

Done.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> My wife and I were technically a NM couple for about 10 while our kids were young. We were involved in the swinging lifestyle for about a decade and for a number of those years we were quite active and have attended conventions and conferences etc
> 
> For roughly 335-350 days out of the year we were completely indistinguishable from any other married couple.
> 
> ...


Exactly. And your experience/example mirrors the lives of literally every NM couple I know.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> My wife and I were technically a NM couple for about 10 while our kids were young. We were involved in the swinging lifestyle for about a decade and for a number of those years we were quite active and have attended conventions and conferences etc
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wouldn’t condemn it; I’m proposing that the risks are higher ON AVERAGE for a relationship/household to fall apart within a NM structure. It doesn’t mean that ALL NM relationships go wrong nor does it mean that because your outcome was positive, that all NM relationships will also have such an outcome. It’s just a probabilities game: I can’t count how many times i have read that someone (involuntarily) slipped up and became ‘too involved’ with the other person. Or that one spouse didn’t abide by or understand the ‘rules’ properly. Or some other miscommunication and ‘accident’ involving jealousy and unexpected feelings etc. Or plain old STDs.

A recipe for a nuclear device is not given out for a reason; one can also argue that it’s the people who are at fault who don’t know how to use them safely and not the device/type of relationship. And it’s true: but perhaps for the majority of people, it is safer not to play with fire. It’s just a personal opinion based on personal observations and the many stories I have read. People are people.

For me, the risks are not worth the rewards for a childless couple. With small children, I would go further and state that the adults are potentially being irresponsible.

And actually, reading more about it, it looks like most adoption agencies agree that there is an increased risk factor (depending on State) and take this into account when evaluating potential parents.

In any case, I’m glad things worked out well for you and your family. Perhaps successful couples should write/blog more about it so that there is a wider understanding about this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Mr. Nail said:


> The fact is that at least a simple majority of children are raised by non monogamous parents. At least one of the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are diverting the focus from the risks that children might face to the fact that monogamy often fails: there is no denying that monogamy often fails. However this was never the point. There is also no denying that children are at higher risk of becoming troubled or traumatised by troubled/broken households.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/children-of-divorce-in-america-statistics-1270390


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Mr. Nail said:


> The fact is that at least a simple majority of children are raised by non monogamous parents. At least one of the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And btw you also can be ‘unfaithful’ within a NM lifestyle, just like any ‘regular’ relationship, which I’m sure you are aware of.
You can’t really use this argument both ways; just because a NM couple practice nm consciously and consensually, it somehow reduces or eliminates the risks of being unfaithful. It makes no logical sense to make this assumption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Much of this is simply judgementalism and church-ladyism on your part (and we all have our right to our own opinions and judgements) 

I'll respond to a few things in bold below. 



inmyprime said:


> I’m proposing that the risks are higher ON AVERAGE for a relationship/household to fall apart within a NM structure.
> 
> *I've personally known a few NM marriages that have fallen apart. Some due directly to the NM and some to regular factors. But I've personally known lots and lots of traditional marriages that have crashed and burned.
> 
> ...


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> My wife and I were technically a NM couple for about 10 while our kids were young. We were involved in the swinging lifestyle for about a decade and for a number of those years we were quite active and have attended conventions and conferences etc
> 
> For roughly 335-350 days out of the year we were completely indistinguishable from any other married couple.
> 
> ...


My agreement or disagreement in general aside, it sounds like you and your spouse did it right. Your kids didn't know mommy and daddy were with other people or see a parade of non-spouses in and out of the house.

I suspect that the people who are the most defensive about this whole thing might not be as circumspect as you were, and I DO believe letting kids in on the little escapades is NOT healthy.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Much of this is simply judgementalism and church-ladyism on your part (and we all have our right to our own opinions and judgements)
> 
> 
> 
> I'll respond to a few things in bold below.



Would you say that it is due to prejudice or misinformation or accident that societies have evolved to ‘favour’ the traditional model over the alternative one?
(I’m non-religious, if it’s of any help).
In fact the ‘traditional’ model is arguably a more recent phenomena. But societal evolution took us there. It’s far from perfect. But it seems (and perhaps I’m wrong) that evolution has already ‘decided’ that it’s the preferred structure to raise a family.
In the past it wasn’t the case: when men tried to inseminate as many females as possible to guarantee as much offspring as possible. (To put it simplistically).
It’s possible the future is non monogamy, who knows...I’m open to the possibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

the 3 messages that you should have gotten from my last post which I somehow completely failed to communicate.
1) Regardless of the effect on the children, most children (51% or more) are not being raised by monogamous parents. These non monogamous parents fall into several categories.
- parents who never married.
- parents who divorced.
- parents who are cheating.
- parents who are in an open marriage of some sort.
This may be bad for the children, but they will have a lot of peers to commiserate with. It is more common than not.
2) The article purports to tell us three things that we are getting wrong about monogamy, and concludes with telling us that monogamy is not monogamous, thus invalidating the entire argument. It is not that some people are doing monogamy better. it is that these people are not doing monogamy. 
3) I've read and discussed this topic more than I want to and I am not willing to discuss further. (see 2))


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Mr. Nail said:


> the 3 messages that you should have gotten from my last post which I somehow completely failed to communicate.
> 
> 1) Regardless of the effect on the children, most children (51% or more) are not being raised by monogamous parents. These non monogamous parents fall into several categories.
> 
> ...



No, I got what you were saying. But looking at the problem this way seems to me a bit like trying to look at someone’s face through the anus: it’s a bit convoluted and backwards...
Would you mind linking to the article? I’d like to read the whole thing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

personofinterest said:


> My agreement or disagreement in general aside, it sounds like you and your spouse did it right. Your kids didn't know mommy and daddy were with other people or see a parade of non-spouses in and out of the house.
> 
> I suspect that the people who are the most defensive about this whole thing might not be as circumspect as you were, and I DO believe letting kids in on the little escapades is NOT healthy.


I do not personally know any hippies living in communes nor do I know any polyamorous families all living under the same roof, but I do personally know 10s of dozens if not actually hundreds of swingers and I do not know ANY of them, not a single one, that involves their minor children in their lifestyle in any way, shape of form. 

If some of them have eventually told their adult children about it, that is between them. 

I have absolutely zero reason to believe that any swingers discuss their extracurricular sex life with their children any more than any traditional couple discusses their sex life with their children.

What goes on behind parent's closed doors is simply none of their business whether a traditional couple or a NM couple.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> I do not personally know any hippies living in communes nor do I know any polyamorous families all living under the same roof, but I do personally know 10s of dozens if not actually hundreds of swingers and I do not know ANY of them, not a single one, that involves their minor children in their lifestyle in any way, shape of form.
> 
> If some of them have eventually told their adult children about it, that is between them.
> 
> ...


Oh I agree. But if Mommy and Daddy have Tom and Suzie and Harry and Jennifer constantly in and out of the house, the kids WILL notice, even if they are playing fornite lol


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

personofinterest said:


> Oh I agree. But if Mommy and Daddy have Tom and Suzie and Harry and Jennifer constantly in and out of the house, the kids WILL notice, even if they are playing fornite lol


Because no traditional couples ever have friends over at their house right?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> I do not personally know any hippies living in communes nor do I know any polyamorous families all living under the same roof, but I do personally know 10s of dozens if not actually hundreds of swingers and I do not know ANY of them, not a single one, that involves their minor children in their lifestyle in any way, shape of form.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh I’m sure it’s possible to hide the swinging type lifestyle successfully from family. Not so much with polyamory and to some extent open relationships (see? I have been reading ).
However when a gay couple adopt kids (to refer back to the video), do they have to specify what type of NM life style they are leading? Or is it again ‘intolerant’ to request this information.

< caution, more venting > There is some kind of insanity going on on the far left (there’s also another type of insanity on the far right, and always has been, but it’s a different type of insanity).
People just do whatever they want and nobody seems to be allowed to say anything because you get smacked on the head with the ‘intolerance’ stick and then have to apologise to a lot of angry people publicly every time someone does speak out. 
I mean why choose marriage AND non monogamy? It’s like people need to have everything (out of principle) all at the same time and everyone has to be accepting (eg non monogamy within marriage) for fear of being labelled a discriminator. I mean why not just pick either marriage or non monogamy; wanting both (and also force everyone to sing songs of praises, in the name of liberalism) is kind of an oxymoron and redefining what traditional, cultural and historical values of a marriage have always been, between two COMMITTED people. It’s like some kids running around amok, demanding everyone to accept their behaviour because otherwise their feelings get so hurt which is so disrespectful. In the end it is just another way to justify selfish behaviour. I don’t like where this type of thinking is taking our society (not the non monogamy part per se but this general way of thinking, where ideas are not allowed to be challenged for fear of offending people. Free speech used to be the dish of the day, and now it is being replaced and suppressed by ‘political correctness’). 
Non monogamy specifically is actually not a ‘new’ or ‘progressive’ thing at all, contrary to how it’s ‘advertised’. It was the order of the day for millions of years until it evolved into ‘family values’ of two adults committing to each other, making certain sacrifices for the (greater) benefit of the offspring and the family, as a unit.

Yes, it’s ‘boring’, it’s ‘blinkered’. But just like the new wave of feminism (another far left invention), it’s going to eat its own tail in time: everything has consequences. < waving finger in the air > 
We need more respect towards traditions and core values and stop being afraid to speak out for fear of being judged because of PC non sense. Ideas need to be allowed to be challenged and discussed; otherwise we have no chance of surviving; because the whole mechanism of how good ideas remain/bad ideas get chucked out (a type of societal evolution) breaks down. 
Ok rant over.
Back to jokes: my wife, who tends to be overly cautious, had the ultrasound last week which even the docs say is not necessary when you are adopting. 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> Oh I’m sure it’s possible to hide the swinging type lifestyle successfully from family. Not so much with polyamory and to some extent open relationships (see? I have been reading ).
> However when a gay couple adopt kids (to refer back to the video), do they have to specify what type of NM life style they are leading? Or is it again ‘intolerant’ to request this information.
> 
> < caution, more venting > There is some kind of insanity going on on the far left (there’s also another type of insanity on the far right, and always has been, but it’s a different type of insanity).
> ...


I'm not a Trump fanboy and nor am I a church lady, but other than that I am pretty much a textbook conservative. 

What spells out the difference between political correctness running amok and letting consenting adults live their own lives is taking an honest and sincere look at if what someone is doing is hurting anyone. 

What goes on between two consenting adult couples behind closed doors or two consenting adult gay men or gay women behind closed doors, does not harm or negatively impact anyone. 

Assuming that since their adult sex life is nontraditional that that must mean they are deviants that are placing children in harm's way, DOES harm people. 

I don't want to pick on @personofinterest but his/her post immediately above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. POI is pretty clearly implying that if a swinging couple has another couple over to their house, that the kids will somehow instinctively assume that something is amiss with that adult relationship and will be negatively impacted by that. 

That is a judgement based solely on the fact that there is a nontraditional sexual lifestyle involved and virtually zero evidence whatsoever that a swinging couple's children will be sexualized or exposed to more sexuality than a traditional couple. 

That is the kind of judgement that I am talking about. Even though thousands upon thousands of friends will be guests in the houses of traditional couples every single day across the land; POI is assuming that a swinging couple having guests at their house will cause children to be suspicious of sexual activity and will be impacted by that. It is the assumption of improper behavior and assumption of "badness" that is a negative force in much of society in many regards including not only sexuality and sexual orientation but also race, religion, place of origin etc etc. 


If the neighborhood kids are running wild in your yard and tearing up your rose bushes and their parents are turning a blind eye, that is different. That is something that is causing a bona fide harm. 

Assuming that since a couple has a nontraditional sex life that their kids will be harmed is an unfounded judgement. 


In it's lethal form, police stopping a car for a brake light out and then upon seeing a couple of young, black males and jumping to assumptions that they may be armed gang members is of the same genre. 

The assumption of bad behavior and potential threat simply because it is out of the societal norm is what is wrong.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

oldshirt said:


> I'm not a Trump fanboy and nor am I a church lady, but other than that I am pretty much a textbook conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 like x2!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I agree. But if Mommy and Daddy have Tom and Suzie and Harry and Jennifer constantly in and out of the house, the kids WILL notice, even if they are playing fornite lol
> ...


Oh, we have friends over. But none of them go into our bedroom, get naked and have sex with us.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

personofinterest said:


> Oh, we have friends over. But none of them go into our bedroom, get naked and have sex with us.


Neither do we.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Again, not to pick on POI, but post #103 illustrates my point.

Why is it assumed that a swinging couple is going to have people walking into their bedroom and getting nekkid with kids playing video games in living room next door? 

Gay couples went through this with people assuming they'd be having butt sex in front of kids and such. 

Why is it assumed that kids will jump to conclusions if a swinger couple has house guests?

I'm 54 years old and I still don't want to even think about my parent's sex life. Kids don't think about parents having sex. EEEEWWWWWW! :-O

That holds true whether the parents are a traditional or nontraditional couple.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> I'm not a Trump fanboy and nor am I a church lady, but other than that I am pretty much a textbook conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It’s another one of those false equivalent examples. (The cop example; though police do racial profiling all the time but that’s something else altogether).
It seems that marriages values are being redefined in order to suit people’s lifestyle. Then why get married?
Again, I’m not religious, but to ‘forsake all others’ does tend to be one of the core values.

The risks to kids I was referring to are mainly indirect risks (for example, boundaries overstepped/ignored = family falling apart = kids suffer).
I don’t think it is unfounded to assume that an open/NM marriage has a higher risk profile.
Just like with faster, more expensive cars, you pay more for insurance.

I mean who are we kidding here: we are not talking about some hobby like golfing or fishing or going out for dinner with friends; it’s real people having sex with each other which is an intimate act that has a meaning and that bonds people to each other. I realise not all people need or want to bond when having sex and just want to **** many different or specific people: but I ask again, then why stay or get married or/and have kids?

It’s normal to expect to have to pay a price for a particular lifestyle choice - that’s how it works. Somebody will have to (on average) and often it will be the kids.
Anyway, if it works for some, it works for some. I don’t really have a dog in this fight either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, we have friends over. But none of them go into our bedroom, get naked and have sex with us.
> ...


I should have added a wink emoji. I was mostly being facetious.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Again, not to pick on POI, but post #103 illustrates my point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It’s not about the acts. It’s about the risks that the acts pose and it seems silly not to acknowledge some of the obvious risks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> It’s another one of those false equivalent examples. (The cop example; though police do racial profiling all the time but that’s something else altogether).
> It seems that marriages values are being redefined in order to suit people’s lifestyle. Then why get married?
> Again, I’m not religious, but to ‘forsake all others’ does tend to be one of the core values.
> 
> ...


I'll ask the question if why does marriage have to be such narrow pidgeon hole that only a certain few people can fit into??

Why does marriage need to be such an exclusive club that if you don't exactly meet it's narrow criteria that they can't be allowed to join?

Why does the fact that I may want to have sexual contact with more than one person in my 80+ year life time bar me from the many benefits of legal marriage?

Why should the fact I may not want to only have sex with one person in my life prevent me from having offspring of my own like everyone else?

Even if it were true that there "might" be an increased risk of divorce, why should that necessitate barring marriage in the first place?

I get that most people are going to opt for a traditional marriage (as did my wife and I for the first 10 years and two kids of our marriage)

But why should others be barred if they don't completely ascribe to a narrow definition that does not affect anyone else in their pursuit of marriage?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

There are lots of people whose kids are grown and gone, who have custody free weekends or weeks, and who have no children. Children are not something that always complicate alternative lifestyles. Personally, I love having an empty nest in case I get my freak on, it’s wonderful to have so much freedom even if you never use it.

In my sex life, the only relationship I ever had crazy wild sex and freaky toy boxes and closets full of any number of terrifying looking sex things in my home, was the extremely monogamous one I had with my ex.

We just put locks on all the closets and dungeons, and told the kids (teens by then) that if they knew what was good for them they wouldn’t pick the lock. And also wouldn’t call 911 unless one of us WASN’T screaming from the bedroom. 

They never looked and just made fun of us. Though there is no doubt if they had an inkling what all we were up to that they may have been traumatized. It was far kinkier than simply adding other bodies to the mix.

Point being, kids don’t rule the world, especially not the world of child free adults. They will become adults and find their own kinks one day, and then (trust me if you don’t have adult children yet) it become their turn to freak YOU out! Ahhh.....circle of life....


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> I'll ask the question if why does marriage have to be such narrow pidgeon hole that only a certain few people can fit into??


I think you guys overstate your numbers. Even now it's all the rage and I don't see a big percentage of the population running to have poly relationships. 

Personally I have no problem with it except for the fact that most of the time the poly folks pretend to be monogamous to give themselves more choices and only admit to who they are after they have trapped someone. It just makes me think they are *******s so I really don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Sorry. 

Once they make the brain scans that can read our minds, I will make you a deal, everyone has to have their brain scanned and then you are registered into Mono or Poly. You have to show your registration card before you start dating.

I personally like the closeness that monogamy brings, but then again my sex count is low. Doesn't mean I am not all for crazy wild sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

sokillme said:


> I think you guys overstate your numbers. Even now it's all the rage and I don't see a big percentage of the population running to have poly relationships.
> 
> Personally I have no problem with it except for the fact that most of the time the poly folks pretend to be monogamous to give themselves more choices and only admit to who they are after they have trapped someone. It just makes me think they are *******s so I really don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt.


It’s probably different in different regions. It’s very common where I live that if you check yourself as open to dating “everyone” rather than men or women (that’s your only 3 choices on bumble), you’ll see tons of openly transparent poly and other alt people, along with full face and body pics, etc. They may or may not be decent people, but they do know how to date poly out here. Or ethically NM, some people would call it. Or some are swingers. They just say it. They give you an idea in their profile of who they are including if they are a we and what their parameters are.

Poly and other configurations of relationships are complicated and difficult, and so is strict monogamy. People get better at both over time, with experiences. Monogamous people (may) get tighter and NM’s (may) get looser. 

Newly NM people tend to falter a bit as they get their legs under them. I’ve seen many monogamous people struggle in the same way to get their legs, trying to not feel trapped by monogamy and not longing for greener grass. It takes some monogamous people quite a while to stop doing that (some never stop, and obviously some cheat).

People who attain self awareness and some amount of emotional intelligence can usually make whatever kind of relationship work that they put their mind to. Monog or non monog. (Mahna mahna. Doot doo, do doo doo.)

I’ve dated some poly people, some swingers, and some kinksters who don’t fall into a category. For me none of that was serious, just a bit of fluff. In between relationships kind of thing (not a sexual thing for me, just a time passer, dating, some making out). That was the funnest part of my journey actually! People in that world did tend to be more self aware than the vanilla monog world. They were fun because they would accept you even if you didn’t want to play with them. They just were detached from needing your approval that way, and would say well, don’t want to **** me, that’s no problem, come hang out anyway let’s go to a munch!

I didn’t take them up on that stuff, but I knew it was a sincere invite, no expectations. We have a couple of bar hop things here each year that are actually just a bunch of poly freaky swingers in costumes (even some furries) going around to dive bars all over town and then congregating into various after parties after midnight. I’ve gone to the dive bars with them a couple of times, which was a freaking blast because regular patrons and street people just think you bombed a place with fun costumes, yay, how fun! Then they start over hearing the conversation and realize...this is a group of freaks on the loose! Yay, even more fun! Some people join on the way!

I’ve never done any after parties because that’s not my gig. But obvi there is a bit of getting down going on.

The alt people I’ve met are for the most part settled into their thing and executing it in a healthy way. The monog people I’ve dated, I’d say roughly the same are healthy and self aware. 

Definitely true that younger people monog or non monog (doot dooo, do doo doo) are more likely to not yet be self aware and experienced enough to be balanced and happy in their chosen role. But plenty are very aware and balanced. No dig on the younger ones. I’ve met so many that are like zen masters compared to some people my age. No dig on my age either! :laugh:


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

sokillme said:


> .
> 
> Personally I have no problem with it except for the fact that most of the time the poly folks pretend to be monogamous to give themselves more choices and only admit to who they are after they have trapped someone.


don't you think that is kind of paranoid and silly?

Do you really believe that there is some kind of evil underground secret organization that is plotting and scheming to lure in naïve, unsuspecting monogs and then "trap" them into a life of poly??

Until we can build that defensive network of brain scanners, maybe we can just bring back McCarthy and see if we can uncover some 'Reds' trying to infiltrate American culture too.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Yes and that’s the thing: at the end of the day, isn’t the main reason deep down for NM people to open themselves up to other people because they feel there is something missing otherwise? It could be anything but if they are not getting it from their partner, isn’t it why there is a need to get it from other people?

‘Progressive’ people like Savage call monogamy ‘ridiculous’ and ‘stupid’ and anyone who doesn’t embrace their idea of NM is a closed minded prude but isn’t it actually the other way around? 

I mean I’m a guy with a (hungry) **** and I really do not see what adding more vajayjays to the repertoire would add for me; if anything it would ‘dilute’ the need for the vajayjay that I’m always hungry for. Now there are ways to enhance that experience but ****ing more vajayjays sounds like a lot of extra complication. And the only reason I would personally consider to want to **** any other person would be if I:
1. Felt attraction to this other person and NM would enable me to pursue that desire (leading where exactly? How high do you think would be the odds that I would keep wanting to go back for more instead of getting it at home?)
2. Didn’t feel as much attraction to the vajayjay at home, leading back to 1.

Isn’t a better solution to change to a partner where nothing (or as few things as possible) is missing?

I’m curious to understand the real, basic driver for this desire. Maybe for a monogamous person, this is not really possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

"Don't you think that is kind of paranoid and silly?

Do you really believe that there is some kind of evil underground secret organization that is plotting and scheming to lure in naïve, unsuspecting monogs and then "trap" them into a life of poly??"

Great, Now I am thinking of a secret cult where the men have hairy chests and wear silk shirts and the women wear leopard print, and they sneak around airports giving away free swinger flowers lol


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

https://youtu.be/7hvPj7Uu2Ew


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

https://youtu.be/G-ms3NPVMJg


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

I have also looked into various Swingers Clubs (yes, @FeministInPink, I’m extremely meticulous in my research, thanks very much ), just to get an idea of WTF is going on; one thing that striked (stroke?) me: why is everyone so so fugly??
I literally pictured scenes from Eyes Wide Shut movie in my head but looking at pictures and the reality, it’s a lot of quite old, fat and ugly hairy men. And women...I do think that all women are beautiful, but after looking at the ‘facts’, I’m not so sure anymore...it’s like people seem to look ok in clothes but once they come off...oh my eyes!!
Maybe I was researching the wrong ones...Are there ones where you need to have to fit some kind of benchmark for looks/age/body hair etc? (Like in Lunaparks: you can only ride it if you are a certain height).
The problem is, my wife really very very hot and if we ever went to one, it would be such a downgrade that it’s difficult to justify for it to be worth it....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

"It’s very common where I live that if you check yourself as open to dating “everyone” rather than men or women (that’s your only 3 choices on bumble), you’ll see tons of openly transparent poly and other alt people, along with full face and body pics, "

This is a little bit like using fet life to prove that BDSM is common lol


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> don't you think that is kind of paranoid and silly?
> 
> Do you really believe that there is some kind of evil underground secret organization that is plotting and scheming to lure in naïve, unsuspecting monogs and then "trap" them into a life of poly??
> 
> Until we can build that defensive network of brain scanners, maybe we can just bring back McCarthy and see if we can uncover some 'Reds' trying to infiltrate American culture too.


I was being facetious.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Girl_power said:


> I know dan savage is a controversial figure. I do really enjoy listening to him but don’t always agree with what he says. I think this is a good watch though.
> 
> 
> 1. There is no “one”. We need to round up that .64 to 1.
> ...


In my opinion @Girl_power perhaps the biggest challenge for love boils down to one's self . Too many people have an idea of who they want to be that is misaligned with who they actually are. Then a relationship adds to that misalignment as in "allowing myself to be close to someone prevents me from being who I want to be." 

All the time this is going on what is actually happening is that no one will love themselves or allow anyone else to do so in pursuit of trying to be someone else.

The reason monogamy is difficult is parallel to the same reason that people struggle to love and accept ourselves including our imperfections. Until then it is impossible to allow someone to love you in a long term relationship. 

For over achievers and those striving for excellence they will see this as giving up, lowering expectations and letting go of yourself. It is definitely not that. It is about not second guessing yourself by constantly comparing yourself to others and being confident to just be yourself in a way that is true and honest while you pursue your dreams and love.

Regards,
Badsanta


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

badsanta said:


> In my opinion @Girl_power perhaps the biggest challenge for love boils down to one's self . Too many people have an idea of who they want to be that is misaligned with who they actually are. Then a relationship adds to that misalignment as in "allowing myself to be close to someone prevents me from being who I want to be."
> 
> All the time this is going on what is actually happening is that no one will love themselves or allow anyone else to do so in pursuit of trying to be someone else.
> 
> ...


QFT. @badsanta You win this thread today


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> Yes and that’s the thing: at the end of the day, isn’t the main reason deep down for NM people to open themselves up to other people because they feel there is something missing otherwise? It could be anything but if they are not getting it from their partner, isn’t it why there is a need to get it from other people?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m curious to understand the real, basic driver for this desire. Maybe for a monogamous person, this is not really possible.


This is a very common misconception among monogs. (I think it is part of the mentality that there is only one "right" way to live and if there is any deviation from that, then it must involve some form of pathology, but that is for another discussion)

In my personal experience and the people I have known first hand, it has actually been quite the opposite. The vast majority of the swingers I have known personally have had very active and robust sex lives. That may seem a bit of a no-brainer at first when you say swingers have active and robust sex lives but I am talking about before they got into swinging. 

From what I have experienced is swingers have had active and satisfying enough sex lives that they do not feel threatened or insecure about bringing others into their sex life. 

It's the people that are 'missing' something and are experiencing sexual dissatisfaction that are the ones that run for the hills at the thought of someone else coming into their bedroom. 

People that are secure and have a sex-positive attitude and an open mind and have a solid and satisfying sex life are often the ones that are the GGG that Dan Savage was talking about. 

Swinging is terrible and destructive sex therapy and people trying out the swinging world to try to address marital sexual problems are the ones that self-destruct in minutes of walking in the door. 

Swinging is not about replacing anything or filling in any missing gaps. It is about talking things to another level of excitement and pleasure and stimulation into the marital bed. 

Many times it is simply about some variety and new flesh after many years or even decades of marriage and raising kids and mowing the lawn. It's rarely even about "better" - just something new and exciting for all.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> I’m curious to understand the real, basic driver for this desire.
> 
> Maybe for a monogamous person, this is not really possible.


Each couple will have their own set of desires, objectives and agendas. 

For my wife and I, we both wanted to experience 3somes, couple/couple and group sex in real life. We were both open minded, sex-positive and GGG about it. We discussed it, came up with a plan and put it into action. 

It was something we both wanted to try and to experience so we discussed it and gave ourselves the green light and then set out to find others that wanted to experience the same thing and we made it happen. 

I assume many people would rather stick sharp objects in their eyes that have any other partys in their bedroom and that is their choice and prerogative. 

My wife and I ourselves were completely monogamous and traditional the first 10 years of our marriage. Because of that, I don't think people come from to two different molds with some being created monogamous and others being created NM. 
(that's why I don't think @sokillme brain scan will actually work LOL) In my 10 years in the lifestyle I did meet a few flower-children and free spirits that have always embraced nonmonogamy, but the vast, vast majority of swingers that have met were middle aged couples with teen or grown kids and who had lived 10,15, or even 20 years as traditional as Ward and June Cleaver and then one day decided to expand their horizon's and get out of the pidgeon hole. 

It's a choice. you either want to do it and experience it. Or you don't. 

Both monogamy and MN have their own set of risks and benefits and each has their own pros and cons. 

But the point I want to make is that it is not a pathology or dysfunction or that there is anything "wrong" with people or couples who make an informed, conscious choice to do it. It is not for everyone. But the fact that it is something nontraditional does not automatically make it something bad or harmful or maladaptive.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> I have also looked into various Swingers Clubs (yes, @FeministInPink, I’m extremely meticulous in my research, thanks very much ), just to get an idea of WTF is going on; one thing that striked (stroke?) me: why is everyone so so fugly??
> I literally pictured scenes from Eyes Wide Shut movie in my head but looking at pictures and the reality, it’s a lot of quite old, fat and ugly hairy men. And women...I do think that all women are beautiful, but after looking at the ‘facts’, I’m not so sure anymore...it’s like people seem to look ok in clothes but once they come off...oh my eyes!!
> Maybe I was researching the wrong ones...Are there ones where you need to have to fit some kind of benchmark for looks/age/body hair etc? (Like in Lunaparks: you can only ride it if you are a certain height).
> The problem is, my wife really very very hot and if we ever went to one, it would be such a downgrade that it’s difficult to justify for it to be worth it....
> ...


NEWSFLASH: old, fat and ugly people like to get out and have fun and have sex too. And even though they may be old, fat and ugly, they have the right to seek enjoyment just like everyone else. 

If someone doesn't trip your trigger, simply swipe left and move on to the next until you do find someone you like that will also have you. 

I personally do not have any interest in obese chicks but there are those that do and I think it is great that there are venues where they can each find each other. 

If other people think that only the young and beautiful are entitled to sexual fun and pleasure, that is their problem.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> NEWSFLASH: old, fat and ugly people like to get out and have fun and have sex too. And even though they may be old, fat and ugly, they have the right to seek enjoyment just like everyone else.
> 
> If someone doesn't trip your trigger, simply swipe left and move on to the next until you do find someone you like that will also have you.
> 
> ...


YES! I'm neither old nor ugly, but I AM overweight (since I was a teen, pretty much), and I hated my body for years. I didn't learn to truly love and appreciate my body until I got into the kink scene, which in my experience has been very body positive and accepting (and appreciating) of all shapes and sizes. And the people who expressed appreciation of/for my body came in all shapes and sizes (and genders) as well. It literally (in the true meaning of the word) changed my life.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Many times it is simply about some variety and new flesh after many years or even decades of marriage and raising kids and mowing the lawn.



In other words, because something is missing?  Joking.

But really, I don’t think there’s any pathology. 
Just that if you are going to different restaurants to try different foods, rather than eating the same food every day, it’s not irrational to deduce it’s because you are bored eating the same food (not because it’s wrong or a mistake to be eating different foods).

If you travel to different destinations, it’s because you are not that tied to the one destination that you love and want to see the world.

Again, it’s all good and well but there is always a cost to consider (which you personally maybe didn’t have to pay). Otherwise a lot more people would be doing it!

Non monogamy and being married seems a bit like eating meat and calling yourself a vegetarian, wouldn’t you say?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> NEWSFLASH: old, fat and ugly people like to get out and have fun and have sex too. And even though they may be old, fat and ugly, they have the right to seek enjoyment just like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That’s not what I meant: I just wondered why there’s only one type of....’clientele’ in Swinger Clubs (as far as I could tell). Of course everyone and anyone can and should experience pleasure.
I blame Kubrick for providing false expectations 
But wouldn’t you say that men tend to go to swing with the expectation to have sex with someone hotter than their wife or is that a very off the mark statement?

This is off tangent... but if they do have all kinds of kinks in nature, why do they not seem to have the kink of, for example, a beautiful model wanting to do unspeakable sex acts with extremely ugly men? (And not the other way around).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> That’s not what I meant: I just wondered why there’s only one type of....’clientele’ in Swinger Clubs (as far as I could tell). Of course everyone and anyone can and should experience pleasure.
> I blame Kubrick for providing false expectations
> But wouldn’t you say that men tend to go to swing with the expectation to have sex with someone hotter than their wife or is that a very off the mark statement?
> 
> ...


It's rediculous to say that there is only one kind if clientele. I have been to clubs all across the country and it is just like going to the supermarket (only people are dressed sexier) in that there is everything from young and hot to old, fat and ugly.
It is a cross-section of the population and so there is an entire spectrum.

And no, I would not say that men go there with a specific expectation of hooking up with someone hotter than their wives. I'd say you are off the mark on that one. 

People are drawn to who they are attracted to and hit off with. Some may be hotter, some may not be. 

I've found that many men in NSA sex situations will have sex with people that that they would never date or marry. This applies not only to married swingers but also single guys picking up drunk chicks in bars and cheaters etc etc. if they aren't dating/marrying that or bringing them around their friends and family etc, guys tend to not care as much about how hot someone is or isn't. 

Men don't care so much about that but women do. Women have a much higher standard for physical attractiveness when it is just NSA sex.

Guys have sex with people yet would never marry based on attractiveness and women marry men they would never have NSA sex with. 

Those old, fat, hairy, ugly men you saw probably did not score with any hotties.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

FeministInPink said:


> YES! I'm neither old nor ugly, but I AM overweight (since I was a teen, pretty much), and I hated my body for years. I didn't learn to truly love and appreciate my body until I got into the kink scene, which in my experience has been very body positive and accepting (and appreciating) of all shapes and sizes. And the people who expressed appreciation of/for my body came in all shapes and sizes (and genders) as well. It literally (in the true meaning of the word) changed my life.


What you are describing has been my observations as well in the swinging community. 

Many women who are not what would be considered classically "hot" have found acceptance and appreciation in the swinging community. 

Some for the first time in their lives have felt desired and embraced and have felt that they can finally let loose their inner sexual beast.

Some have felt that in regular society they were marginalized and and as if there was an undercurrent that told them that they should not be entitled to a vigorous sex life like other people (an example of which was posted above). 

Some for the first time in their lives have felt sexy, desired and accepted.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

"What you are describing has been my observations as well in the swinging community. 

Many women who are not what would be considered classically "hot" have found acceptance and appreciation in the swinging community. "
I say this as a more curvy woman, so there is no insult intended. But the above statement reminded me of when I have heard men say that they like fat women because fat women try harder. So I wonder if one of the reasons a less than model perfect woman is appreciated in certain circles is simply because she is willing to be in those circles in the 1st place.

I think it can depend on region and area as well. For example, if you go to a munch in Germantown Tennessee you will see a different type of person than if you go to a munch in Op Alabama lol


----------



## She'sStillGotIt (Jul 30, 2016)

personofinterest said:


> So I wonder if one of the reasons a less than model perfect woman is appreciated in certain circles is simply because she is willing to be in those circles in the 1st place.


I think that plays into it A LOT.

Hey, in the Land of the Blind the one-eyed man is King, right? 

I saw a program on Netflix called "Real Life Wife Swap" (it's a series with 3 different hour-long documentary/shows in it about swinger parties) and could only get past the first two. I'm still queasy and not ready to watch the third. My husband actually came upstairs while I was watching the first show and asked why I was grimacing. I didn't even realize I was.

Gotta be honest - the 'everyday' folks in the two shows I've seen so far are just hideous. They're downright circus ugly. They're British and the ONLY appealing thing about them is their accent. A lot of it is pre-interviews with those planning on attending or those who are hosting the big event, but eventually, they get to the actual party and the body parts start coming out. I honestly need brain bleach before I can even attempt the third and last show in the series.

So yeah, I think for a lot of these much older and/or very unattractive men and women, in their their 'world,' they're the bomb.com. But throw them on Match.com and they'd probably be very, very lonely.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

In other words....most strippers don't actually look like Demi Moore? lol

My husband believes I am utterly beautiful. But I have no illusions. Put me in between Jessica Alba and Cindy Crawford....and I won't make the top 2


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

I couldn't resist, and I started the Netflix series. Within 5 minutes we see the couple's teenage daughter helping get the house ready for the 100 guest swinger party.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> but eventually, they get to the actual party and the body parts start coming out. I honestly need brain bleach before I can even attempt the third and last show in the series.


Ugh, I worked in an international book store that carried Scandinavian swingers magazines, I thought I erased those memories, thanks for having them resurface, yuck. (Note, contrary to the stereotype not everyone in Scandinavia is tall, thin, blonde and hot.)


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

I might have to finally cave and get Netflix, because I am curious about this series.

My XBF really wanted to see me have sex with another man. The idea really turned him on, but I had no interest in being physically intimate with another man. I'm kinky about a lot of things, and open to trying new stuff, but I know non-monogamy isn't for me. Even so, he still liked to go to swingers events/parties because they were friendly and so sex positive. I think part of it was also that he thought, "Hey if I put FiP in an environment where there are readily available options, she might see someone she really likes and decide to go for it in that moment." I let him keep this little fantasy of his, because I think most of the time, it was more about the fantasy than actually doing it. But I digress. 

Going to these parties, I never met a man I was interested in sleeping with, anyway. Part of it was that there was rarely a man there whom I found physically attractive, other than my XBF... but also the fact that I knew these people came out with the intention of having sex with someone else, that was very unappealing to me on a gutteral level, and so all the men were unattractive to me, regardless of their overall physical attractiveness. I might have found them attractive outside this setting, but not IN this setting (and if I learned they were into swinging in the outside world, I would have lost attraction as well).

Conversely, knowing that someone is into the same kinky stuff as you... that's going to up their attractive quotient, especially in the scene.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Girl_power said:


> I know dan savage is a controversial figure. I do really enjoy listening to him but don’t always agree with what he says. I think this is a good watch though.
> 
> 
> 1. There is no “one”. We need to round up that .64 to 1.
> ...


*While there may not be a perfect match, I still strongly believe in monogamy and the commitment that it represents!*


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> In other words....most strippers don't actually look like Demi Moore? lol
> 
> My husband believes I am utterly beautiful. But I have no illusions. Put me in between Jessica Alba and Cindy Crawford....and I won't make the top 2


Strippers are sex workers and not necessarily engaging sexually for any reason other than money. What they are selling is their specific body, which for most strip clubs is going to be of a certain level of youth/attractiveness. Strippers do in fact many times blow Demi Moore out of the water looks and body wise. Because they are essentially actors. 

Strippers are not the same as swingers, poly, etc. So they do not look the same.

Some sex parties and clubs do hire strippers to hang around and add some sexy.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> "What you are describing has been my observations as well in the swinging community.
> 
> Many women who are not what would be considered classically "hot" have found acceptance and appreciation in the swinging community. "
> I say this as a more curvy woman, so there is no insult intended. But the above statement reminded me of when I have heard men say that they like fat women because fat women try harder. So I wonder if one of the reasons a less than model perfect woman is appreciated in certain circles is simply because she is willing to be in those circles in the 1st place.
> ...


Well ladies, and guys I guess, Often times a woman that is a little heavier has certain... advantages... shall we say. 

Not that are regular women is not wonderful. Fact is, I find all woman fascinating... That is only one of my issues...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

BluesPower said:


> Well ladies, and guys I guess, Often times a woman that is a little heavier has certain... advantages... shall we say.


By advantages you mean huge boobs? :laugh:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> "It’s very common where I live that if you check yourself as open to dating “everyone” rather than men or women (that’s your only 3 choices on bumble), you’ll see tons of openly transparent poly and other alt people, along with full face and body pics, "
> 
> This is a little bit like using fet life to prove that BDSM is common lol


Well, no, it’s actually literally like saying that on the most popular dating site, there are LOTS of poly and NM daters.

Make a fake account and see for yourself. You don’t even have to right swipe anyone, just read the profiles and left swipe them all.

By saying you are open to dating “everyone”, this is actually a catch all so that people can view profiles of not only same sex people but also poly and alt people. It was awkward in OLD at first for how to share profiles with people who were gay or bi or curious, because you also had to say you would allow your profile to be viewed by same sex if you were open to that. This all got really confusing so they just made the “everyone” category for both who you see and who sees you if are open to more than just straight monogamous dating.

So when I say I’m open to seeing “everyone”, I’m still going to get mostly straight guys (because that is who is most open to seeing me) but also gay or bi women, and men or women or couples who are NM. I’d say it is about 80/20 straight guys to everyone else.

So while it is a smaller percentage of the population, it is quite common to consistently appear in my apps when I’m dating and using them. 

In fact, there are many straight monog profiles that say “swipe left if you’re one of these poly people” because it is so common.

This is though more common where I live than other urban areas. Things are pretty swingy out here.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> By advantages you mean huge boobs? :laugh:


No that is a given, not just boobs...


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

If I have 1 million people, and I self-select to attract group B, and 95 people are interested in group B, that is a lot of people. But it still isn't a high percentage compared to 1 million.

But it's actually irrelevant. Commonality really doesn't have anything to do with the overall acceptance of something, when we are talking about society at large.

Golden shower fetishes are actually not all that uncommon numerically. You still aren't gonna find a high percentage of people looking for them.

There are a growing number of people who believe in a flat earth. That doesn't mean flat earth is the new normal.

However, I have encountered many flat earthers who feel COMPELLED to get people to agree with them. Why? If they are comfortable they are right, why do they care what I think?


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> However, I have encountered many flat earthers who feel COMPELLED to get people to agree with them. Why? If they are comfortable they are right, why do they care what I think?


I am no sure sometimes that the earth in not flat, I just don't talk about it!!!!


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> Strippers are sex workers and not necessarily engaging sexually for any reason other than money. What they are selling is their specific body, which for most strip clubs is going to be of a certain level of youth/attractiveness. Strippers do in fact many times blow Demi Moore out of the water looks and body wise. Because they are essentially actors.
> 
> Strippers are not the same as swingers, poly, etc. So they do not look the same.
> 
> Some sex parties and clubs do hire strippers to hang around and add some sexy.


I must have intercommunicated or the lol wasn't specific enough. I do know that strippers are not the same as swingers.

I forget how literal people on the internet can be due to the lack of body language and voice tone.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

BluesPower said:


> I am no sure sometimes that the earth in not flat, I just don't talk about it!!!!


I know the earth is not flat because if it was, cats would have pushed everything over the edge already


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> If I have 1 million people, and I self-select to attract group B, and 95 people are interested in group B, that is a lot of people. But it still isn't a high percentage compared to 1 million.
> 
> But it's actually irrelevant. Commonality really doesn't have anything to do with the overall acceptance of something, when we are talking about society at large.
> 
> ...


Not sure why you would argue this point.

Poly and openly NM dating is common where I live and this is a fact that all daters where I live know.

You may believe whatever you want from your non dating, non dating app using married position. But you don’t know.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure why you would argue this point.
> 
> Poly and openly NM dating is common where I live and this is a fact that all daters where I live know.
> 
> You may believe whatever you want from your non dating, non dating app using married position. But you don’t know.


I wasn't trying to be argumentative.

Believe it or not, i have only been married a short while, and prior to getting married......

I had to - wait for it - DATE

I've noticed a particular chip a few people seem to have about married people having any opinion about anything to do with dating.

Not to mention that a high portion of swingers are married.

But whatever.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> I wasn't trying to be argumentative.
> 
> Believe it or not, i have only been married a short while, and prior to getting married......
> 
> ...


Nope. You specifically insinuated that NM dating is not that common. And I’m saying it is. I haven’t twisted anything nor am I having a chip. Just stating a fact that you have said is not a fact, and I still don’t know why.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

FeministInPink said:


> I'm kinky about a lot of things, and open to trying new stuff, but I know non-monogamy isn't for me. Even so, he still liked to go to swingers events/parties because they were friendly and so sex positive.
> 
> Conversely, knowing that someone is into the same kinky stuff as you... that's going to up their attractive quotient, especially in the scene.


Both of these statements are very fair and probably accurate assessments. 

Being in an open, sex-positive environment around like-minded people was very important to me.

It's kind if like if you are really into golf and want to golf with other people, you would prefer to and have a much more enjoyable time if you do it with someone who is equally into that activity as well.

Now there still had to be a mutual attraction and desire and everyone has their requirements that must be met.

Finding that mutual attraction did not always happen and there are definately times that people go home without playing with others.

But when it does happen, it is awesome and a good time is had by all!! ;-) :-D


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

FeministInPink said:


> QFT. @badsanta You win this thread today


Yay! 

I was wondering why Dan Savage showed up to my house today and gave me a copy of his book!


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Girl_power said:


> I know dan savage is a controversial figure. I do really enjoy listening to him but don’t always agree with what he says. I think this is a good watch though.
> 
> 
> 1. There is no “one”. We need to round up that .64 to 1.
> ...


I just watched the video, very interesting. I agree with much that he has to say with the exception of the monogamy / infidelity part. He talks about it in terms of expecting perfect execution, but to me that is his way of making is sound almost mythical / unattainable (which is a far cry from being difficult). I don't think most people in a monogamous relationship expect perfect execution. There are however areas that I think are quite reasonable to expect. No one in a relationship is perfect, and there are varying degrees of imperfections. Some areas are black & white while others are more a shade of grey. For me at least, infidelity falls into the Black & White area, a relationship killer. 

It is interesting as well, as he states that based on recent statistics, the chances of infidelity seem to be rather high (he also gives the sense that it could very well be higher than reported since some people may not be forthcoming). I am not sure where he gets the stats from though, but at least from my experience with people I know IRL, infidelity is by no means rampant or high (or course, no way of knowing for sure if anyone I know is hiding this or maybe there was infidelity in one of their prior relationships).


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> It's rediculous to say that there is only one kind if clientele. I have been to clubs all across the country and it is just like going to the supermarket (only people are dressed sexier) in that there is everything from young and hot to old, fat and ugly.
> 
> It is a cross-section of the population and so there is an entire spectrum.
> 
> ...


So, would you then say that men go to hook up with someone uglier than their wife? why?
The answer must be one or the other surely?





oldshirt said:


> People are drawn to who they are attracted to and hit off with. Some may be hotter, some may not be.
> 
> 
> 
> I've found that many men in NSA sex situations will have sex with people that that they would never date or marry. This applies not only to married swingers but also single guys picking up drunk chicks in bars and cheaters etc etc. if they aren't dating/marrying that or bringing them around their friends and family etc, guys tend to not care as much about how hot someone is or isn't.


You mean men don’t have standards? I don’t think that’s true. I had a conversation about it with wife today and she was surprised that I’d rather choke the one-eyed snake  than stick it into one of her (fairly hot) friends, if I had that choice (I was being honest).
Also before I met my wife: I remember attending parties where girls would literally try to rip my clothes off (few occasions) and I didn’t want to go through with it because I wasn’t that into them. Those were young 18-24 year old ‘tight’ bodies.





oldshirt said:


> Men don't care so much about that but women do. Women have a much higher standard for physical attractiveness when it is just NSA sex.


I don’t think that’s true either. Plenty of women use sex as a validation tool (sometimes they justify it to themselves in a very elaborate way, but in the end, that’s what it boils down to), with very little regard to a ‘standard’ or nothing even to do with the person they sleep with: they want to feel accepted.





oldshirt said:


> Guys have sex with people yet would never marry based on attractiveness and women marry men they would never have NSA sex with.
> 
> 
> 
> Those old, fat, hairy, ugly men you saw probably did not score with any hotties.



I never saw any ‘hotties’, unless they were ‘professionals’. Even with those, I wouldn’t exactly call them ‘hot’. They just weren’t ‘disfigured’. Like I say, I may not have looked into the right clubs so more ‘research’ may be needed...

I also don’t really quite understand what you mean by ‘sex positive’ attitude. You said yourself that you weren’t into ‘fat chicks’ when you went to these places; how is this more ‘positive’?

And btw, the reason I use this language is not because I’m ‘prejudiced’ (I know you might be expecting me to be). But if you go somewhere for the sole reason of shagging or getting shagged, then what other attributes are you supposed to use for selection?

If you date or have a relationship with someone, you have plenty of time to get to know them as a person, and physical attributes will then play a secondary role (in most cases). Any person can (and is) beautiful, if you take the time to get to know them. It’s a very subjective perception anyway.

It’s funny, but my mother told me the other week that she was invited by a friend to go to a sex club. (Actually, it’s not THAT funny...). She said she couldn’t believe the cheek that he asked her straight up and that they guy was super ugly and overweight. Though she is not super hot herself anymore, turning 60 in a few years. This is difficult to tell with your own mother though...
I wonder where the younger ones hang out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> I just watched the video, very interesting. I agree with much that he has to say with the exception of the monogamy / infidelity part. He talks about it in terms of expecting perfect execution, but to me that is his way of making is sound almost mythical / unattainable (which is a far cry from being difficult). I don't think most people in a monogamous relationship expect perfect execution. There are however areas that I think are quite reasonable to expect. No one in a relationship is perfect, and there are varying degrees of imperfections. Some areas are black & white while others are more a shade of grey. For me at least, infidelity falls into the Black & White area, a relationship killer.
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting as well, as he states that based on recent statistics, the chances of infidelity seem to be rather high (he also gives the sense that it could very well be higher than reported since some people may not be forthcoming). I am not sure where he gets the stats from though, but at least from my experience with people I know IRL, infidelity is by no means rampant or high (or course, no way of knowing for sure if anyone I know is hiding this or maybe there was infidelity in one of their prior relationships).


It’s silly; just because he finds it hard to keep his d1ck in his pants, doesn’t mean everyone else does too. And it doesn’t make him incredibly ‘open minded’, ‘sex positive’ and ‘progressive’. It makes him look like a bit of an idiot (IMO) and a bit of a hypocrite, giving people relationship advice from that vantage point.
Otherwise I don’t have a problem with what he has to say (nothing new though).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

personofinterest said:


> In other words....most strippers don't actually look like Demi Moore? lol
> 
> 
> 
> My husband believes I am utterly beautiful. But I have no illusions. Put me in between Jessica Alba and Cindy Crawford....and I won't make the top 2



My wife doesn’t believe she is hotter than any actresses either; I find it sometimes frustrating because I absolutely would choose her over any of these. Jessica Alba has a long, nasal face and acts like an entitled little teenager. I want to slap her sometimes (not in a sexual way). And I thought Cindy Crawford used to be a dude?
Ok if my wife did force me to have a threesome with Margot Robbie...maybe. But I’d only do it for her 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

> just because he finds it hard to keep his d1ck in his pants, doesn’t mean everyone else does too. And it doesn’t make him incredibly ‘open minded’, ‘sex positive’ and ‘progressive’.


This is what i think bothered me. The sometimes covert and sometimes overt implication that someone who finds monogamy preferable isn't "progressive" enough. Or someone who finds hooking up with random people in someone else's living room distasteful isn't "sex positive."

That is a bit of why I pushed back on the "None of them look like Demi" thing. I mean, to each his own, but don't imply people who aren't into it are somehow less elevated. That's just silly.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

inmyprime said:


> It’s silly; just because he finds it hard to keep his d1ck in his pants, doesn’t mean everyone else does too. And it doesn’t make him incredibly ‘open minded’, ‘sex positive’ and ‘progressive’. It makes him look like a bit of an idiot (IMO) and a bit of a hypocrite, giving people relationship advice from that vantage point.
> Otherwise I don’t have a problem with what he has to say (nothing new though).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It just seems off about how nonchalant he is about infidelity. He tries to draw a parallel to someone who is an alcoholic and falls off the wagon. What do they do, they dust themselves off and get back on the wagon (you know, we are talking about an actual disease here). If you accidentally fall on someone's **** or into someone's *****, just dust yourself off and get back on the monogamy train... Agreed as well, I think he takes this POV b/c this makes him "open minded"...

Someone else had commented the below regarding his video:



> I agree with everything here but the infidelity part. Everything can be shared, including voicing the desire for sex with someone else. Infidelity is an avoidable breach of trust. That's something that can be avoided by telling your partner before you cheat, that you are about to cheat. Hard to do, hard to hear, but better than breaching trust. What happens after that conversation will empower both, and decisions to stay together or allow an affair can be negotiated. Infidelity does not have to be a predictable component of a long-term relationship - desire for others probably is.﻿


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> So, would you then say that men go to hook up with someone uglier than their wife? why?
> The answer must be one or the other surely?
> 
> 
> ...


You're just being argumentative, condescending and silly.

We are are talking about consenting adults here. If someone does not want to have sex with someone, all they have to do is keep their clothes and their hands to themselves.

If anyone else has any legitimate comments, questions or discussions, I will offer my input. Otherwise I'm done talking in circles.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> You're just being argumentative, condescending and silly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you. I am trying to talk about the topic in a lighthearted but non offensive way.

I wondered a bit about some practical aspects: for example let’s say you get all hot & ready about going to the club and the thought of participating in an orgy is really exciting.
And all is well, you meet nice people and start getting on with it, but then you see two guys double penetrating your wife and another one from the front (for example) and you begin to have doubts that it was a good idea to come here after all. You obviously can’t stop the whole thing mid-act. What are your options, practically? Have you seen situations like this? How do people cope afterwards?

I guess my point is: can you really always know and predict how you are going to feel about it during or after? Is this even possible?
What if you change your mind about it afterwards? 

Even as a woman, I can imagine that it’s possible to change your perception from it being an all-accepting/inclusive experience to ‘hold on a minute, I just let a bunch of guys gang bang me for no good reason’. Or does this kind of thing generally not tend to happen?
Also presumably you can’t really have sex with all the other people’s wives but not let them have sex with your wife? (Bad etiquette?)
Maybe I’m overthinking it.
I will probably be barred for life from entering these clubs for even asking such questions...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

This probably falls in line with Dan Savage's thinking lol:


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

EllisRedding said:


> This probably falls in line with Dan Savage's thinking lol:


LOL


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> This probably falls in line with Dan Savage's thinking lol:


I would say it doesn't, but this is still a funny meme


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

FeministInPink said:


> I would say it doesn't, but this is still a funny meme


Well, of course it is an exaggeration  However, don't think it is terribly far off from his thoughts on monogamy (at least my take from that YT video posted)


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I have read a lot of studies on this safety issue as well. 

Children appear to be WAY safer with their biologics, though I believe adoptive parents also provide a high degree of safety.

The main limitation of the studies, is identical to that of intimate partner violence. Which is that there is NO data quality on sub homicidal violence. Death and only death is measured. 

Which means that a lot of egregious behavior simply isn’t tracked in a systematic manner. 

That said - you can be NM without exposing young children to non biological parents. Or more to the point leaving the children in their unsupervised care. 






inmyprime said:


> Yes, but this isn’t the argument and it’s not comparing apples with apples.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Wow! 
Seems to be an emotional topic.

Why I love history. I remember, listening to a seminar given by an anthropologist who had just returned from a south american country where he spent a lot of time among some of the tribes still living in the jungle. 
He said since "they could get everything they needed within a few hours of a day they had lots of time on their hands. What did they do with their free time? Sex! Lot's of it." They basically all "knew" each other. Created social cohesion. But. some "witnesses were working on that!" LOL


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

red oak said:


> Wow!
> Seems to be an emotional topic.
> 
> Why I love history. I remember, listening to a seminar given by an anthropologist who had just returned from a south american country where he spent a lot of time among some of the tribes still living in the jungle.
> He said since "they could get everything they needed within a few hours of a day they had lots of time on their hands. What did they do with their free time? Sex! Lot's of it." They basically all "knew" each other. Created social cohesion. But. some "witnesses were working on that!" LOL


Reward for working together as a communal society is likely sex. They all need each other to protect the whole group. Mostly, men do the hunting, warring and protection from outsiders. Yes, I'm sure the women do their part. In essence, the only way to ensure they will be protected from other tribes or wild animals is to give the men something to fight for. Otherwise, they can go on their own, and visit once in a while, a woman they find attractive. The women would then have to band together and their burdens would be doubled.


----------

