Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > General Boards > General Chat Message Board
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-26-2019, 09:30 PM   #31
FoolofaTook
Immortal
 
FoolofaTook's Avatar
 
Posts: 28,277
Default

just look at him! gazing off into the distance, pondering, reflecting, musing.

it's the cat-scholar/professor!

 
FoolofaTook is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 09:35 PM   #32
ilikeplanets
Socialphobic
 
ilikeplanets's Avatar
 
Location: Ignore List
Posts: 13,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR View Post
do you think there are some people for whom their aversion to monogamy is simply a manifestation of indecisiveness?
probably either a fear of commitment, an unwillingness to give up what has been convenient, or a genuine distaste for having only one partner forever/at a time.

 
ilikeplanets is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 09:35 PM   #33
Run To Me
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Run To Me's Avatar
 
Location: Where the frog spoils the leaf
Posts: 4,590
Default

I’m monogomaous as F

Would feel a bit bashful if the kiddos saw me humpin anyone other than their mom

 
Run To Me is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 09:50 PM   #34
wHATcOLOR
THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!
 
wHATcOLOR's Avatar
 
Location: || MY NAME IS KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID ROCK!!
Posts: 46,173
Default

do the kiddos frequently see you hump??

 
wHATcOLOR is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 09:53 PM   #35
MyOneAndOnly
Shut the fuck up!
 
MyOneAndOnly's Avatar
 
Location: "You are the poster child for an uninformed brainwashed American" -OmegaConcern
Posts: 20,699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbreegull View Post
yo I was telling you years ago monogamy kind of sucks
you were right.

 
MyOneAndOnly is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 09:54 PM   #36
redbreegull
Just Hook it to My Veins!
 
redbreegull's Avatar
 
Location: WILD BOY
Posts: 30,722
Default

<3 be free and live your life <3

 
redbreegull is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 10:03 PM   #37
Run To Me
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Run To Me's Avatar
 
Location: Where the frog spoils the leaf
Posts: 4,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR View Post
do the kiddos frequently see you hump??
Not the actual humpage, címon

But like the fore- and -aft hump, yknow? Kids pick up on those vibes

 
Run To Me is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 10:05 PM   #38
wHATcOLOR
THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!
 
wHATcOLOR's Avatar
 
Location: || MY NAME IS KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID ROCK!!
Posts: 46,173
Default

hey man what do i know other than what you tell me

 
wHATcOLOR is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 10:10 PM   #39
MyOneAndOnly
Shut the fuck up!
 
MyOneAndOnly's Avatar
 
Location: "You are the poster child for an uninformed brainwashed American" -OmegaConcern
Posts: 20,699
Default

I have been told that I ....."just took every white fem trope and stereotype and rolled it into one. Now you love pink. Now you hate men."

i do like Pink. The artist and the color. Although I like red more. I have both my arms sleeved in red rose tattoos.

I don't hate men. I just don't want to have relationships with them. Or waste my time with them. Or have to experience their body odor. Or talk to them regularly.

If being gay and poly is a roll of stereotypes then I am one big gay poly avocado roll

 
MyOneAndOnly is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 10:23 PM   #40
MyOneAndOnly
Shut the fuck up!
 
MyOneAndOnly's Avatar
 
Location: "You are the poster child for an uninformed brainwashed American" -OmegaConcern
Posts: 20,699
Default

I am currently dating two people. One is into relationship anarchy, which I'm not sure I really understand. I also go on dates with new people a couple of times a month.

I don't think I could have a strictly monogamous relationship again. The expectations and jealously and close-mindedness of it just made me sad and lonely.

 
MyOneAndOnly is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 04:06 AM   #41
Sonic Johnny
Through Silver In Buds
 
Sonic Johnny's Avatar
 
Location: Centralia
Posts: 16,521
Default

are you still a neolib tho

Last edited by Sonic Johnny : 03-03-2019 at 08:52 PM.

 
Sonic Johnny is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 05:09 AM   #42
qwerty sp
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Posts: 1,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyOneAndOnly View Post
I am currently dating two people. One is into relationship anarchy, which I'm not sure I really understand. I also go on dates with new people a couple of times a month.

I don't think I could have a strictly monogamous relationship again. The expectations and jealously and close-mindedness of it just made me sad and lonely.
I wish you well on your journey

 
qwerty sp is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 06:40 AM   #43
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 61,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR View Post
the cat professor and i wouldn't mind a quick refresher on the difference between those two terms if you've got one handy..
Short version: polyamory means having multiple romantic relationships at the same time whereas non-monogamy can mean just having one partner but also allowing each other (or one allowing the other if thatís what works for a particular couple) to have sexual experiences with other people, either separately or together.

 
Eulogy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 07:30 AM   #44
Rairun
Ownz
 
Posts: 934
Default

That's wrong though. Polyamory basically means consensual non-monogamy. Some people might prefer one term over the other for various reasons, but there's no widely-agreed difference between them.

 
Rairun is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 12:20 PM   #45
pale_princess
spanish harlem mona lisa
 
pale_princess's Avatar
 
Location: the barrio
Posts: 10,027
Default

but if some people prefer one term over the other and there's no widely-agreed difference... Eulo's definition isn't wrong for how he defines it!

 
pale_princess is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 12:25 PM   #46
myosis
Minion of Satan
 
myosis's Avatar
 
Location: the institute
Posts: 5,855
Default

OK, i'm still monogamous

 
myosis is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 01:24 PM   #47
D.
shoegaze thot
 
D.'s Avatar
 
Location: Houston
Posts: 35,963
Default

The wife and I are monogamous. Being bi, of course I'm still attracted to the same sex, but that is not an avenue open to me in this relationship.

Outside of our relationship (before, after, and during separation), while I was dating or seeing other people, I assumed an expectation that the person I was seeing and I were free to see other people, unless specified. I think it takes a healthy self of steam to be able to handle that, though. I have been in situations where it was not spoken and one of the parties felt slighted.

But in general I am a relationship-type person. I like being exclusive with one person. I don't think I could handle an open relationship.

 
D. is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 02:24 PM   #48
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 61,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rairun View Post
That's wrong though. Polyamory basically means consensual non-monogamy. Some people might prefer one term over the other for various reasons, but there's no widely-agreed difference between them.
No youíre wrong. Sex doesnít require love (amory)

 
Eulogy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 03:09 PM   #49
topleybird
Janis Jopleybird
 
topleybird's Avatar
 
Location: Where are you DeviousJ
Posts: 3,155
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyOneAndOnly View Post
One is into relationship anarchy, which I'm not sure I really understand.
I found this, because I'd never heard the term, and I'm still a little confused

Like there's this directive to never compromise, but then lots of communication is encouraged, so maybe you just work out among partners what's a reasonable way to achieve everyone's goals

I'm probably telling you, MyOneAndOnly, nothing you haven't already talked about ó I just figured other people might be curious

 
topleybird is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 04:13 PM   #50
MyOneAndOnly
Shut the fuck up!
 
MyOneAndOnly's Avatar
 
Location: "You are the poster child for an uninformed brainwashed American" -OmegaConcern
Posts: 20,699
Default

Relationship anarchy means avoiding hirarchy in relationships. Many poly people recognize primary and secondary relationship types. With primaries tending to overrule or take precidence over secondary relationships.

Primarily relationships tend to look a bit like monogamous relationships. Many of my poly friends have primary partners they live with or are married to and they date secondaries. It would look to mono people like an "open marriage".

Relationship anarchists don't use any of those terms and don't put one relationship before another. Each relationship is what it is and has its own terms. There is no hirarchy. This means each relationship is negotiated independently.

I think this actually makes a lot of sense in concept. But it's hard to practice. For example how do you do this when you have kids and there are legal issues tied to one relationship to the exclusion of relationships? It makes more sense when it involves young childless people. It seems less complicated.

 
MyOneAndOnly is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 04:21 PM   #51
MyOneAndOnly
Shut the fuck up!
 
MyOneAndOnly's Avatar
 
Location: "You are the poster child for an uninformed brainwashed American" -OmegaConcern
Posts: 20,699
Default

Like the idea of political economic/anarchy this kind of thing seems to not make sense in day to day practice. People have different wants and needs. How do you form anything more than casual relationships with multiple partners without those relationships starting to overlap and force compromises? There is not way to negotiate one relationship independently of others. Everyone's needs and expectations are different.

It feels like a recipe for perpetual casual relationships, or for behavior that is effectively no different from typical poly but pretends it's otherwise.

Either way I'm slowly finding out. The person I see the most subscribea to this.

 
MyOneAndOnly is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 04:27 PM   #52
smashingjj
Banned
 
smashingjj's Avatar
 
Location: Osama Bin Ladies Love Cool JJ
Posts: 32,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
No youíre wrong
ooooohh

 
smashingjj is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 04:30 PM   #53
ilikeplanets
Socialphobic
 
ilikeplanets's Avatar
 
Location: Ignore List
Posts: 13,510
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyOneAndOnly View Post

I think this actually makes a lot of sense in concept. But it's hard to practice. For example how do you do this when you have kids and there are legal issues tied to one relationship to the exclusion of relationships? It makes more sense when it involves young childless people. It seems less complicated.
I prefer this style too, and since I am not a (very) young and childless person, I cannot really date this way anymore. I have her feelings to consider. I can't have men and women in and out of her life with no real defined relationship to her besides "mommy's friend"....for the first time in my life I've been considering monogamy (maybe with a little agreed upon openness occasionally) just to create a stable environment for a person who is already going to be growing up without her biological father. Or I could just find a person who wants to be her second parent and have another one or two and get a dog, and become reliably boring. I don't hate it.

 
ilikeplanets is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 04:41 PM   #54
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 61,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smashingjj View Post
ooooohh
I hope it was clear that I only said that because thatís what was said to me essentially

 
Eulogy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 05:47 PM   #55
redbreegull
Just Hook it to My Veins!
 
redbreegull's Avatar
 
Location: WILD BOY
Posts: 30,722
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eulogy View Post
No you’re wrong. Sex doesn’t require love (amory)
and monogamy doesn't require marriage (gamy).

Polyamory can mean multiple serious relationships but the term can also be correctly used by people in a commitment exclusive but sexually non-exclusive relationship.

Source: myself

 
redbreegull is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 05:59 PM   #56
LaBelle
Socialphobic
 
LaBelle's Avatar
 
Location: Away
Posts: 10,217
Default

Some loves require armory tho

 
LaBelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 07:05 PM   #57
Eulogy
huh
 
Posts: 61,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbreegull View Post
and monogamy doesn't require marriage (gamy).

Polyamory can mean multiple serious relationships but the term can also be correctly used by people in a commitment exclusive but sexually non-exclusive relationship.

Source: myself
I just donít see it that way. Agree to disagree!

 
Eulogy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 10:15 PM   #58
Rairun
Ownz
 
Posts: 934
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyOneAndOnly View Post
Like the idea of political economic/anarchy this kind of thing seems to not make sense in day to day practice. People have different wants and needs. How do you form anything more than casual relationships with multiple partners without those relationships starting to overlap and force compromises? There is not way to negotiate one relationship independently of others. Everyone's needs and expectations are different.

It feels like a recipe for perpetual casual relationships, or for behavior that is effectively no different from typical poly but pretends it's otherwise.

Either way I'm slowly finding out. The person I see the most subscribea to this.
I think that to some extent, depending on how you define "casual", your relationship with a relationship anarchist needs to be more casual than the one between two hierarchical primary partners. This casualness has nothing to do with your depth of feeling, connection or significance to each other. It's more about being upfront about the fact that no one person is going to be prioritized by default? When dealing with conflicting interests, there is no automatic assumption that the stability of one relationship is going to be your priority.

I've been in a relationship with a partner for 15 years, and we've lived together for 9. An important part of our relationship has to do with being able to rely on each other financially. In this sense alone, they are very likely to be my priority - they don't have any veto power over what I ultimately decide, but I take the fact that we've chosen to rely on each other very seriously. The other people I love can rely on me to some extent - I'd do everything I could in a time of need - but we all know this help is a little bit more conditional, at least for the time being.

Emotionally, this is simply not true. Most of the time, it's very possible to be smart managing your time and resources so that no one feels uncared for. But sometimes you just can't be in two places at the same time, and you need to make a call. I make this call based on (1) where I myself want to be the most, (2) who will benefit more from my presence. I'm very committed to not being a jerk, but no one who is close to me is under the impression that their needs will always come first, nor that they can somehow make this decision for me based on some rigid relationship hierarchy.

 
Rairun is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 10:32 PM   #59
Rairun
Ownz
 
Posts: 934
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pale_princess View Post
but if some people prefer one term over the other and there's no widely-agreed difference... Eulo's definition isn't wrong for how he defines it!
I don't think so? This is a bit like the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. Both words are by and large synonyms, but they highlight slightly different aspects of attraction. I can totally see why someone would choose to identify as pan rather than bi. As someone who primarily identifies as bi (though pan wouldn't be wrong), I can see how "pan" would feel more comfortable for some people.

But pan people don't get to say: "the difference being bisexuality and pansexuality is that bisexual people are only attracted to people who adhere to gender binary." This is factually wrong. This is not what most bi people mean when they identify as bi. This is not what bisexuality has historically meant. And it'd be quite arrogant for them to say, "Sorry, I just don't see it that way!"

 
Rairun is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2019, 11:27 PM   #60
ilikeplanets
Socialphobic
 
ilikeplanets's Avatar
 
Location: Ignore List
Posts: 13,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rairun View Post
But pan people don't get to say: "the difference being bisexuality and pansexuality is that bisexual people are only attracted to people who adhere to gender binary." This is factually wrong. This is not what most bi people mean when they identify as bi. This is not what bisexuality has historically meant. And it'd be quite arrogant for them to say, "Sorry, I just don't see it that way!"
this has been true for me. it's just the "label" that feels right and felt right over half my life ago when I claimed it. the lingo has changed, but i have always meant "I'm bi" similar to the way "pan" people describe themselves now. I don't know what will be the new way to say it in 15 more years, but I will still be what I am. I guess whoever is concerned can just ask for me details, but there's been a lot of pressure of bisexuals to justify and define themselves. Plus the usual erasure and complete dismissal of us. It's dumb.

 
ilikeplanets is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What other animals are monogamous like us? mpp General Chat Archive 40 11-29-2007 08:04 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2014