Is the desire for multiple sex partners a true sexual orientation or just a kink?

[SouthByWest]

Monogamish?

It is an interesting question. Is an honest person honest 100% of the time? Is a hot girl hot 100% of the time? Is the dick of a guy with a big dick big all the time?

 

[CuriousinPennsylvania]

Is the tennis instructor likely to be willing to fuck the cheating wife? Probably. Is the female golf pro likely to be willing to fuck the Wharton MBA husband? Probably not. Will the tennis instructor have extra flexible standards in terms of the wives he fucks if it is all truly NSA and they are generous tippers? Sure why not. Will the female golfer have flexible standards for the middle aged dudes hoping to talk or tip their way into her pants? No, if she wants NSA sex she'll fuck the tennis instructor.

HAHA. ABSOLUTELY. You could use that story in a Stand-Up Comedy Routine. Funny AND True. You would have the ladies in the audience both laughing hysterically and nodding their heads.

 

[markchamberlain]

Are all of her relationships of equal importance? Ie., Does she have a primary partner while enjoying time w/ others on the side? Are all of her partners aware of her multiple relationships?

She has a "primary" as she calls it. And he is aware of her polyamory in general, but not aware of all her side partners. They are still working things out.

 

[policywank]

I get it now, PW thanks.... And I love the above comment in particular!! ...Hilarious and undoubtedly true.

Not to over simplify, but this reminds me a bit of guys who put little effort into their attractiveness (e.g., appearance, hygiene, sense of humor, conversational skills, etc..) who convince their reluctant wives to go to a swingers club thinking it will be a pussy fest only to find there's all kinds of interest in their wife but little or no interest in them.

I would say that swinger experience is pretty common. One of the things that I say to guys in this regard is to think of it as if they were suddenly single again. If they weren't a magnet for sexual attention when they were single, that isn't going to be different now (even if they put in the extra effort). Maybe the women at a swinger's club will be a little more receptive than the single ladies back in the day, but overall his sexual status probably hasn't gone up. But chances are she always had much more sexual opportunity than he did. If she didn't take that opportunity back when she was single it was for her own unique reasons usually related to society's expectations and the sexual double standard in some way. So, whereas nothing much has changed for him and there is nothing he can do about it, she can change her experience by simply choosing to take the opportunities that present themselves. His fantasy will be her reality.

The other factor that guys in this situation often overlook is the basic biology of the male orgasm. Any man can only orgasm so many times even if he is in good shape and his limitations will increase with age. Meanwhile if she is so inclined his wife can almost certainly engage in sexual activity longer than he can. So, even if he does get some action he may find himself done for the evening, sitting with post-nut clarity wondering what he has done while his wife is just getting going and thoroughly enjoying as many men as she can handle.

 

[LMWM321]

So, whereas nothing much has changed for him and there is nothing he can do about it, she can change her experience by simply choosing to take the opportunities that present themselves. His fantasy will be her reality.

Again, well said. ..And a sobering warning to any man contemplating convincing his wife to go to a swingers club.

As I see it, he'd better LOVE the idea of his wife fucking other guy(s) even if he's unsuccessful hooking up with other women. ..Because that is a very likely outcome.

 

[policywank]

Again, well said. ..And a sobering warning to any man contemplating convincing his wife to go to a swingers club.

As I see it, he'd better LOVE the idea of his wife fucking other guy(s) even if he's unsuccessful hooking up with other women. ..Because that is a very likely outcome.

Indeed. Or even if he is successful, she might be more successful and is highly likely to have more opportunities.

Any time I hear of a man saying he would be ok with his wife fucking other men as long [insert condition], my immediate thought is that he won't be able to handle it because there will come a time when that condition is not in place.

 

[Britva415]

This is more of a question of whether a kink can become an orientation

Only if you think it's a kink to begin with.

I wouldn't call it an orientation or a kink either.

I mean, it could be a kink, for some particular person, but for most polyam or non-monogamous people, I don't think it's a kink.

 

[Britva415]

If we've had sex with other people 10-12 times over the course of our relationship, would that make us non-monogamous? Before answering, keep in mind our ratio of sex with each other to sex w/ others would therefore be 333:1. In the animal kingdom, a species with such a ratio would almost certainly be deemed solidly monogamous.

But in the humanity kingdom, it literally means "one partner." So, yeah, that's definitely non-monogamous, to an extent. There's no way to call that "perfectly monogamous."

Sometimes applying animal logic to humanity is sound, other times it's a red herring or not relevant. Extramarital sex is not monogamy.

Do you want to fall back on saying you have had periods of monogamy and other periods of non-monogamy? Because, while you want to make this be not-black-and-white, it simply isn't truthful to say that a human couple with a 1:333 ratio of extramarital to marital sex is monogamous.

I'm not judging, I'm in a nonmonogamous marriage too, I'm just saying this isn't a gray area.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Only if you think it's a kink to begin with.

I wouldn't call it an orientation or a kink either.

I mean, it could be a kink, for some particular person, but for most polyam or non-monogamous people, I don't think it's a kink.

This is one of those murky areas that switches from objective truth to subjective belief. When it gets to that point, I'd just say, "look, let's all just eat some strawberries and call it a day."

 

[LMWM321]

Any time I hear of a man saying he would be ok with his wife fucking other men as long [insert condition], my immediate thought is that he won't be able to handle it because there will come a time when that condition is not in place.

I'm not sure I follow you, PW. Are you saying consensual non-monogamy agreements b/w partners are inevitably doomed to breakdown? If so, do you feel this spells doom for the whole relationship, or just for the continuance of their CNM? In either case, I don't agree as I know of some that haven't. ..And there are accounts here on Lit of CNM agreements b/w partners that have held up and have (as reported anyway) enhanced the quality of their relationship.

I will say that some of the conditions a guy might propose in a CNM agreement - ie., no romantic activities such as candle-lit dinners, dancing, intimate phone convo's etc.. - may be SO restrictive as to preclude their female partner from having any real interest in pursuing it. After all, It's not hard imagining a woman saying, "Well, forget it then! Before I can let a guy - who's bigger, heavier and stronger than me - climb on top of me and fuck me, I need to get some sense of who he is first. Otherwise, I could end up being battered or worse! ...So, fucking someone without some degree of bonding beforehand may interest you (the guy), but it doesn't interest me."

 

[LMWM321]

But in the humanity kingdom, it literally means "one partner." So, yeah, that's definitely non-monogamous, to an extent. There's no way to call that "perfectly monogamous."

Well, you're right of course - in so far as we've historically defined Monogamy for humans. But that's the bigger question that I'm asking. ..Should it be so absolute as to mean just "one partner" without ANY degree of deviation?

I truly believe that 50-100 years from now we will be at a point where partners having occasional sex outside their marriage - with carefully agreed upon conditions/ rules - will be viewed as necessary to a person's mental health, their longevity and the success of their union.

..Just look how far we've come in our understanding of how some humans are sexually attracted to the same gender. 100 years ago it was viewed as a mental illness, a weakness, a perversion, an inability to control impulses. ..Thankfully, it is now viewed as perfectly normal and healthy for something like 5-8% of all humans.

 

[lc69hunter]

I believe that, without the societal restrictions currently put on women, that they are naturally non-monogamist. I have always preferred my women/wives that way, and, as I have never had trouble finding women interested in my company, it has worked out.

If my wife, out of town, finds a random cock (with a man attached to it), then comes home and rides me like a rented mule because of her increased libido, who is the loser here? She has just reinvigorated our love life, which builds on itself over time, making it a better marriage.

 

[policywank]

I'm not sure I follow you, PW. Are you saying consensual non-monogamy agreements b/w partners are inevitably doomed to breakdown? If so, do you feel this spells doom for the whole relationship, or just for the continuance of their CNM? In either case, I don't agree as I know of some that haven't. ..And there are accounts here on Lit of CNM agreements b/w partners that have held up and have (as reported anyway) enhanced the quality of their relationship.

I will say that what some guys ask for in a CNM agreement - ie., no romantic activities such as candle-lit dinners, dancing, etc.. - may be SO restrictive as to preclude their female partner from having any real interest in pursuing it. After all, It's not hard imaging a woman saying, "Well, forget it then! Before I can let a guy - who's bigger, heavier and stronger than me - climb on top of me and fuck me, I need to get a sense of who he is first. Otherwise, I could end up being battered or worse! ...So fucking him without some degree of bonding beforehand doesn't interest me."

No, that is not what I meant. Perhaps I didn't explain myself adequately. What I meant was that if one or both partners are relying upon specific conditions to mitigate jealousy or insecurity I think that they are quite likely to have a problem.

For instance, consider the guy who says he is ok with his wife fucking other guys as long as he can pursue other women or as long as he gets to reclaim her when she comes home from her date. There is nothing wrong with wanting those things. But I think that is different from them being necessary conditions for him to accept his wife's CNM activity. If he is not otherwise ok with it I don't think that those things will really change how he feels. What happens when she is on date and he is home alone because he doesn't have a date? What happens when she doesn't want to be "reclaimed" when she comes home after a date or when he enforces his "right to reclaim" and she resents it or he performs poorly?

Obviously there is a level of nuance to this. Effective CNM does not mean no limitations. So, what limitations are suitable parameters to ensure the health of the primary relationship versus controlling measures implemented with the intention of mitigating jealousy and insecurity? I think that is very personal and it isn't for me to say for anyone other than myself. But I do tend to believe that the more rules there are and the more rigid they are suggests a certain degree of one partner seeking to control the other partner's which raises the obvious question of why? And in answer to that question I start from the premise that both partners are mature consenting adults capable of making good decisions.

For instance, I have heard some guys say they need to know where their wife is at all times when she is on a date. They claim it is for safety purposes. To me that sounds like an excuse to be controlling. If that woman was single and dating would she need to have a male relative monitor her every move or would she be capable of making prudent decisions for her own safety, including telling someone where she is if she determines that is in her best interests? Of course she would be capable of making prudent decisions on her own. So, I have a hard time thinking her husband truly trusts her and is ready to embrace CNM if he feels the need to impose such a constraint.

Personally, I prefer to work with broad parameters. I understand that my husband would not want me to get too close to my lovers in the romantic sense. And I understand how that could have a negative effect on our relationship. However, I do want to have a personal connection with my lovers and I have no interest in one night stands or completely impersonal encounters. Meanwhile a commitment to not have feelings is untenable because feelings are involuntary. We have established our own approach to these things which mostly eschews fixed rules in favour of broad principles and a high degree of responsibility to conduct ourselves in accordance with those principles. To me that is in many ways a higher standard. If I do something that causes harm to my husband or my relationship it doesn't matter whether or not there was a rule against it - I have to own that outcome.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I believe that, without the societal restrictions currently put on women, that they are naturally non-monogamist. I have always preferred my women/wives that way, and, as I have never had trouble finding women interested in my company, it has worked out.

If my wife, out of town, finds a random cock (with a man attached to it), then comes home and rides me like a rented mule because of her increased libido, who is the loser here? She has just reinvigorated our love life, which builds on itself over time, making it a better marriage.

I want to agree with you, but lots of men and women just don't think that way. This strikes me as one of those "your truth is not all truth" type of things.

I think one major issue I have with the non-monogamy universe is that it works for some couples, but there's not a lot of evidence that suggests it's good for most couples. I can see a few major reasons it will be bad for a relationship and cause it to fail, though, even if there were no strong societal rules against it.

the biggest problem I see is that couples argue and bicker. Even the strongest couples can face moments in which the pair are in strong disagreement, and having an alternative partner to rely on can make it much easier for one (or both) of the partners to just call it off. I think the non-monogamy community would write it off as a "well, they were doomed as a couple anyways" type or situation, but there's no way to confirm that... they might have just as easily reconciled and stayed together.

 

[lc69hunter]

I want to agree with you, but lots of men and women just don't think that way. This strikes me as one of those "your truth is not all truth" type of things.

I think one major issue I have with the non-monogamy universe is that it works for some couples, but there's not a lot of evidence that suggests it's good for most couples. I can see a few major reasons it will be bad for a relationship and cause it to fail, though, even if there were no strong societal rules against it.

the biggest problem I see is that couples argue and bicker. Even the strongest couples can face moments in which the pair are in strong disagreement, and having an alternative partner to rely on can make it much easier for one (or both) of the partners to just call it off. I think the non-monogamy community would write it off as a "well, they were doomed as a couple anyways" type or situation, but there's no way to confirm that... they might have just as easily reconciled and stayed together.

I love @policywank and her knowledge and wisdom on this topic. However my second wife and I took a totally different approach to non-monogamy. Neither of us wanted the other to ever feel they were in competition to be number one in a relationship, so there were no boyfriends or girlfriends and very few repeat hookups except for special friends, and besides, we both enjoyed the thrill of a random hookup. There were some good stories though

 

[Yarglenurp]

I love @policywank and her knowledge and wisdom on this topic. However my second wife and I took a totally different approach to non-monogamy. Neither of us wanted the other to ever feel they were in competition to be number one in a relationship, so there were no boyfriends or girlfriends and very few repeat hookups except for special friends, and besides, we both enjoyed the thrill of a random hookup. There were some good stories though

Lol, I think you quoted the wrong person.

 

[policywank]

I believe that, without the societal restrictions currently put on women, that they are naturally non-monogamist. I have always preferred my women/wives that way, and, as I have never had trouble finding women interested in my company, it has worked out.

If my wife, out of town, finds a random cock (with a man attached to it), then comes home and rides me like a rented mule because of her increased libido, who is the loser here? She has just reinvigorated our love life, which builds on itself over time, making it a better marriage.

I want to agree with you, but lots of men and women just don't think that way. This strikes me as one of those "your truth is not all truth" type of things.

I think one major issue I have with the non-monogamy universe is that it works for some couples, but there's not a lot of evidence that suggests it's good for most couples. I can see a few major reasons it will be bad for a relationship and cause it to fail, though, even if there were no strong societal rules against it.

the biggest problem I see is that couples argue and bicker. Even the strongest couples can face moments in which the pair are in strong disagreement, and having an alternative partner to rely on can make it much easier for one (or both) of the partners to just call it off. I think the non-monogamy community would write it off as a "well, they were doomed as a couple anyways" type or situation, but there's no way to confirm that... they might have just as easily reconciled and stayed together.

I think that without societal restrictions non-monogamy in general would be more common. The mere fact that so much of society regards it as unacceptable suggests that is something that society feels the need to oppress and that at least a few people would embrace non-monogamy if not for that pressure. But how much more common it would be is difficult to say.

And I think that women in general would be just as inclined to engage in non-monogamy as men. Maybe even more so. But again how many women would be inclined towards non-monogamy is difficult to say. There was some literature I read about a while ago on why men and women cheat and one of the questions the author asked the test subjects was whether they would be willing to have an open marriage. Interestingly the women were substantially more likely to say yes. I don't think that was necessarily a representative sample of society at large as her focus was on men and women who cheat, but it was nonetheless an interesting observation.

When I think of men and women in today's world I do feel as though men are substantially more likely to take their wife's interest in other men as a personal affront. Either gender has plenty of capacity to feel jealous or insecure, but men are more conditioned to see that sexual interest as evidence of inadequacy on the husband's part. Women tend not to subscribe to the notion that if he was satisfied at home he wouldn't stray or at least less so than vice versa.

It is difficult to make any definitive assertions about how men and women would regard non-monogamy in the absence of societal pressure. By the same token trying to ascribe universal gender based characteristics to men and women on this topic based upon observed results in a society that is judgmental and maintains a double standard is entirely spurious in my view

 

[policywank]

I love @policywank and her knowledge and wisdom on this topic. However my second wife and I took a totally different approach to non-monogamy. Neither of us wanted the other to ever feel they were in competition to be number one in a relationship, so there were no boyfriends or girlfriends and very few repeat hookups except for special friends, and besides, we both enjoyed the thrill of a random hookup. There were some good stories though

Certainly we all have different ways of approaching it. I am curious what kind of rules or limitations you had.

For instance, I can see having a dynamic like you describe (not my preference but I can relate and I understand the rationale). But it would be in our nature to approach it on the basis of agreeing on the broad principles or parameters. I couldn't imagine us having a bunch of rules about how many times we can hook-up with someone or under what circumstances or for how long. I am not criticizing those who would go that way. But we would rather just discuss things openly and keep it informal and fun.

 

[LMWM321]

I have heard some guys say they need to know where their wife is at all times when she is on a date. They claim it is for safety purposes. To me that sounds like an excuse to be controlling. If that woman was single and dating would she need to have a male relative monitor her every move or would she be capable of making prudent decisions for her own safety, including telling someone where she is if she determines that is in her best interests? Of course she would be capable of making prudent decisions on her own. So, I have a hard time thinking her husband truly trusts her and is ready to embrace CNM if he feels the need to impose such a constraint.

Well... the rule applies to both myself and my wife. And I agree, it does amount to adding a measure of control, but it's one that we both agree helps keep everything on the up and up. The goal is no secrets - and full disclosure before and after. ..And not more than two meetings w/ same person.

Do such rules make CNM less fun? You bet it does! ..I'm sure it would be way more fun for my wife and I to move freely and without limit b/w a cadre of gorgeous side lovers - hers all looking like the Duke of Bridgerton and mine all looking like Julie Newmar (the original Cat Woman - Google her if you're curious). Instead, we opt for an arrangement that is definitely sub-optimal enjoyment-wise but one that feels less threatening. Still, it scratches the itch to occasionally be with other people. The fact that your arrangement is less tethered is wonderful for you and I give you Kudos for making it work.

But for us... It's a matter of not letting The Perfect be the enemy of The Good.

 

[LMWM321]

I think that without societal restrictions non-monogamy in general would be more common.

The above post from which I pulled this quote was awesome, PW.

One strain on monogamy that is seldom mentioned is how our increasing longevity, plus male-ED meds/ vaginal estrogen creams, etc.. has led to people still wanting sex well into their 70's (no, I'm not there yet). Speaking for myself, I still have the libido of a 22 yr old.

It's therefore not surprising that after having sex with the same person for 40+ years, some people might want to be w/ someone else on occasion.

Seriously, after raising a family with my beautiful wife, building a home, making it through a cancer crisis, traveling, planning a retirement etc... do I REALLY think she's going to leave me b/c a guy made her cum harder than me? It's fucking ridiculous for some men to be so insecure.

If you don't want your partner leaving you over sex, then make sure your relationship is about a great deal MORE than sex. Do that and you'll find yourself at peace w/ your partner occasionally fucking someone else.

 

[policywank]

Well... the rule applies to both myself and my wife. And I agree, it does amount to adding a measure of control, but it's one that we both agree helps keep everything on the up and up. The goal is no secrets - and full disclosure before and after. ..And not more than two meetings w/ same person.

Do such rules make CNM less fun? You bet it does! ..I'm sure it would be way more fun for my wife and I to move freely and without limit b/w a cadre of gorgeous side lovers - hers all looking like the Duke of Bridgerton and mine all looking like Julie Newmar (the original Cat Woman - Google her if you're curious). Instead, we opt for an arrangement that is definitely sub-optimal enjoyment-wise but one that feels less threatening. Still, it scratches the itch to occasionally be with other people. The fact that your arrangement is less tethered is wonderful for you and I give you Kudos for making it work.

But for us... It's a matter of not letting The Perfect be the enemy of The Good.

I think that is great! The key factor there in my opinion is that you are being honest with yourself and with one another in order to find the right balance.

I had a discussion with a guy on here a few months ago. I can't recall the thread but the discussion was about rules among swingers. He had a long list of rules for him and his wife. As noted I prefer to minimize the rules, but I respect everyone else's limitations. The thing that struck me was that he had the silliest reasons why certain rules needed to exist. Their activity was more narrowly focussed on swinging but it was things like needing to be in the same room. When I asked why the response was to ensure that she followed the other rule of always using a condom. So he had a rule that she must always be in sight because he didn't trust her to follow any of the other rules when she isn't? To me that makes no sense. I completely understand the premise that that is where he wants to draw the line because it feels less threatening. You have to respect one another's limitations. I just think it is a lot healthier to recognize that and be open and honest about it.

Otherwise the lack of transparency may get misinterpreted. In the example of needing to know where I am at all times, my husband doesn't feel that way. But if he did and it was because that made him feel more secure I would be agreeable. As it is I always leave on "Find My Phone" and tell him if I am likely to be off grid anywhere. But if he tried to tell me it was for my own safety I would be irritated because I am obviously a grown woman who can look out for my own safety. And I would be irritated that he wouldn't be owning his own anxieties. If that is a line he is prepared to cross I will respect that, but I want him to be open and honest about it or the whole arrangement breaks down.

 

[LMWM321]

the biggest problem I see is that couples argue and bicker. Even the strongest couples can face moments in which the pair are in strong disagreement, and having an alternative partner to rely on can make it much easier for one (or both) of the partners to just call it off.

Even after the worst of arguments, I can't imagine bailing on my marriage because I think a woman I had sex with twice will be an eager stand-in for my wife. ..To do what? ..Help raise my kids? ..Nurse me after ACL surgery? ..Support me if I'm b/w jobs? ..Help me build a retirement nest egg? Keep meticulous record of all our Streaming passwords ...All after fucking me once or twice? ..Not likely.

I think you're confusing Polyamory w/ consensual non-monogamy. ..I'm a believer in the later, but not the former.

 

[Britva415]

Should it be so absolute as to mean just "one partner" without ANY degree of deviation?

A linguist would call that "prescriptivism." It's more useful to describe how words are used than try to prescribe how some particular party thinks they should be.

We can check back in 50-100 years and see whether usage has changed, but if it does, it won't be because people campaigned for it, it'll be because people just went and did it.

Or not.

 

[LMWM321]

The thing that struck me was that he had the silliest reasons why certain rules needed to exist.

Yeah, that sounds like it's bound to go off the rails. And insisting he's in the room to make sure she's requiring a condom? Sheesh... If he has so little trust, then swinging ain't for them... Maybe that's a red herring and he has a kink for watching her be w/ someone else?

 

[policywank]

Yeah, that sounds like it's bound to go off the rails. And insisting he's in the room to make sure she's requiring a condom? Sheesh... If he has so little trust, then swinging ain't for them... Maybe that's a red herring and he has a kink for watching her be w/ someone else?

Could be. However, my impression (speculative) was that he was a husband trying to engineer roughly equal outcomes for he and his wife.

I find that to be an interesting aspect of swinging. In some ways it is another version of forced pairing that arguably benefits men more than women. My husband made this point to me years ago when we were at a swingers event. He estimated that there were about 25 couples at the event. And he made the point that for him that pool of 25 prospective female sexual partners was better than he could ever access on his own while the pool of 25 prospective male sexual partners was nothing special for me. He was right and that reflected our experience at the time. Of course that wasn't a commentary on the people involved but on the nature of sexual opportunities available to women.

Presumably either partner might want to have roughly equal outcomes as a way of feeling as though things are in balance. Although I think that men are more likely to want/need it from an ego perspective and substantially more likely to be the partner with fewer opportunities. It is an interesting dynamic to watch people new to that scene. Women often start out somewhat hesitant and may exhibit jealousy as their husband is more anxious to dive right in. But once the women get comfortable it often shifts 180 degrees and the man gets feelings of jealousy as she quickly outpaces him. Then the rules come in - ostensibly to assuage the concerns of both but often to let him feel like he is keeping up.

Of course that is all a gross over generalization. I think most couples adapt just fine. I am just observing some of the dynamics at the margin.