Ownership

[catalina_francisco]

And, at the end of the day, the most valuable knowledge for me is self-knowledge, and it is the hardest won. I am trying to get my own thoughts and feelings sorted on this so I can better express what is going on here. So far, it has been just a couple of degrees off from where we've been for years. That kind of bugs me, and makes me wonder if we're somehow holding back, yet, by the same token, I feel like doing anything to really emphasise the M/s thing would be pointless self-aggrandisation. No thanks.

Have to agree and discussing on Lit, even when it goes horribly wrong has helped me form a better response in my own mind to what works for us, what we strive for, what else there is in this world even if I don't personally care for it. In terms of ownership, our experience is firstly as you say, what works for us which matters most, not whether anyone else thinks it fits the criteria they go by. Add to that it fluxes for any variety of reason..sometimes the final goal changes, sometimes things he thought would never feature on his list of 'want to do' have become 'must do's', and resembles very little what we bagan with or where we thought we were headed and still it continues to grow and mold itself into what best fits his needs in that particular moment in time. It is a very creative and exciting journey over all full of self discovery and growth for both of us individually and as a couple.

Catalina

 

[Homburg]

Homburg, I know there are people on this board who blather on about "roleplayers" or "wannabes" or those who allegedly have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to kink.

But that is essentially just the reverse of the "true Dom" or "true sub" nonsense that everyone gets their panties in a twist about, and I for one don't see a difference in level of offensiveness.

My response to your comments is to repeat the obvious and state that there is no such thing as actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States. Therefore, as someone said on the other thread, though the effects of the "ownership" concept may be very tangible and real within our relationships, the concept itself is all in our heads, for every one of us - and no one person's take on the subject is any more valid than another's.

There is an enormous difference between asking about what people do, and questioning what they do. If I'm sitting down talking to a guy over a few beers, the only time I would be comfortable with the latter would be if he seems unhappy about what's going on, or if I suspect abuse within the relationship.

Neither of those apply to you, so I honestly can not fathom why I (or anyone else) would view your opinions on the concept of ownership as "wannabe BS."

Well, aside from the pedantry of mentioning various states and commonwealths have language (though it has been years since I read this) that refers to minor children as chattel, you have very solid points. That said, you are a rather even-handed chap. I would expect such things out of you as you are insightful and centered. Or something. My mighty three hours of sleep last night are catching up to me and vocabulary is suffering.

I would surmise that my core discomfort comes from my inability to articulate my own ideas on this, or even to really feel like I have a grip on them. I am struggling to lay my finger on some sort of definable difference in my own behaviour between now and before, and I can't do it. I can't say that I've been doing or feeling any given thing sice moving in this direction. I am a bit more assertive, a bit more casual about certain things, a bit more interested in certain acitivites, but they're all minor, subtle differences.

It certainly gives me something to chew on mentally.

 

[Homburg]

Have to agree and discussing on Lit, even when it goes horribly wrong has helped me form a better response in my own mind to what works for us, what we strive for, what else there is in this world even if I don't personally care for it. In terms of ownership, our experience is firstly as you say, what works for us which matters most, not whether anyone else thinks it fits the criteria they go by. Add to that it fluxes for any variety of reason..sometimes the final goal changes, sometimes things he thought would never feature on his list of 'want to do' have become 'must do's', and resembles very little what we bagan with or where we thought we were headed and still it continues to grow and mold itself into what best fits his needs in that particular moment in time. It is a very creative and exciting journey over all full of self discovery and growth for both of us individually and as a couple.

Catalina

Isn't this the truth! I am starting a collection of Soft Limits that are now Special Occassion, Soft Limits that are now regular features, Hard Limits that are now Soft Limits, and Hard Limits that cherished experiences that we look forward to repeating when the time is right.

Things change!

 

[Netzach]

And yes, I did say without any malice or assumption that perhaps when you are my age (a few short months off 50), with a few more life experiences, the usual changes of thinking and experiences incurred, you might be closer to seeing how I live my life in a similar way to how I do than it is possible for you to do right now. Sorry to have to tell you this but life has a way of making us grow, helping us see things differently (often the complete opposite way or at least inclusive of it alongside your present views), adding experience to our plate...if not there is little point in being alive IMHO because what growth do you have. Personally I can honestly say I see things differently to how I did when I was 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45....I have allowed myself to be open to growth, have learned knowledge is about experience and growth and gaining a wider focus and what I feel and know now will likely change even more in the next year, in 5 years, when I am 60, 65, and 70 or at least I hope
so. From your perspective for whatever reason you take a statement about growth to be an assumption and personal, and yet even on this board alone I see most people talk of the changes that have happened with their thoughts and approaches to relationship dynamics over the years, everyday...Netzach, serijules, Bandit 58, sinnOcent, Homburg, Marquis to name a few...it is called life.

Catalina

Honestly, if it's not partronizing "you'll understand it when you're older" head patting, why bring it up?

Why are you invested in any way shape or form in her "seeing it more your way" later on? I think it's a no-brainer that people change. Telling other people that they will, they'll see, and furthermore inserting HOW you think they might, is just pretty patronizing.

Things change. People do in some ways and don't in others. I think it's a fair bid that I'm not going to wake up a lesbian in 15 more years, and I don't think anyone would argue with me on that. Care to argue that I will, because that's what you're doing in this case, that suddenly those who feel right and less restricted personally in poly will suddenly feel right and less restricted with one person, we just haven't "met the right girl"

No one's arguing, I don't think, that they are doubtful the ownership/romantic dynamic can't work for other people. I'm pretty fucking certain it does not work for me. I know that for me it feels fake, just like the myriad times you've piped up to say "for us that just feels like roleplay and fake" - oh, it "squicks" you to hear people compare slaves to cats or shoes and you don't like that what you hold dear feels fake to other people? Isn't that unfortunate for you.

No one was talking about your relationship, so why take offense? I've seen you tell that to other people myriad times.

I like you cat, I love your honesty to death. Which is why I will argue with you without hesitation.

 

[Netzach]

Well, aside from the pedantry of mentioning various states and commonwealths have language (though it has been years since I read this) that refers to minor children as chattel, you have very solid points. That said, you are a rather even-handed chap. I would expect such things out of you as you are insightful and centered. Or something. My mighty three hours of sleep last night are catching up to me and vocabulary is suffering.

I would surmise that my core discomfort comes from my inability to articulate my own ideas on this, or even to really feel like I have a grip on them. I am struggling to lay my finger on some sort of definable difference in my own behaviour between now and before, and I can't do it. I can't say that I've been doing or feeling any given thing sice moving in this direction. I am a bit more assertive, a bit more casual about certain things, a bit more interested in certain acitivites, but they're all minor, subtle differences.

It certainly gives me something to chew on mentally.

Here's food for thought.

The degree of D/s in my relationship with my husband - outward, expressed dynamic, fluctuates. There are periods where he does fit the obedient property mold, there are periods where it's not about that at all. It's a shifting, organic, expanding and contracting thing in our relating to one another. There's nothing that says M/s or D/s has to be a linear progression in which rights are stripped bit by bit till you own your slave ta da - rather than a changing and fluctuating entity. Except some fiction, because linearity works in fiction, then it pretty much has to work that way all the time. And most people DO seek that linear movement - I think it's pretty appealing and makes a lot of sense. But it's not the only way to think of it.

 

[DeservingBitch]

You read words the way it suits you from the way your mind is working..notice when you reread the quote you used of my words that I started with "I spoke from the only form of poly (which I don't actually think of it as) that we ourselves engage in, from my perspective and feelings and experience, and the fact I have reached a point in my life where one person can fulfil me more than anyone who came before and V V for him.."...note the operative words here 'I" and "our" and "my", not "yours". You started a thread saying you wanted people who lived in Ownership type relationships to take part in a discussion to hopefully help you understand it and what it was you were missing as in it not appealing to you. You then posted this statement;

"See, the disconnect for me is to 'own' someone that I love (rather than care for, or have love for). Which is very much related to my reasons for being poly: I don't believe in love which restricts/limits the sexuality of said object of love."

Unfortunately I have not seen much which displays a desire to increase your understanding as much as your wanting to continually voice and promote why you do not see it as 'appealing' or possible to include love.

Catalina,

I tried to explain at one point in the thread why I brought up the poly stuff in this discussion. As I said, it was actually very much because I was starting to understand ownership differently than I had been (not)understanding it so far. As I mentioned, it was a "oh yes, if I think about it within a (poly) framework that I can relate too, then i'm starting to be able to understand ownerrship better, and see how i could like having such a relationship" moment. I made the point of mentioning this to you in one of my comment, because i didn't want you -- or others in similar situations -- to read my words as dismissing your experience.

Let's forget the statements you made loosely comparing slaves to your cats, and stating you would not see yourself putting your life on the line for a possession, thus part of your issue with slaves being owned property and which despite the ick factor these and many of your words raised in me, I repeatedly tried to overlook and politely contribute to your discussion in your so-called pursuit of widening your understanding of Ownership. I'm begining to see it is a lost cause as you have already made up your mind, you know all about it and why poly is so much better, and why you are right.

I'm not the one who started with the cats thing, but yes, I did follow with it. And yes, that comment about not putting your life on the line for a possession was a bad example at best (as I later recognize in a response to Homburg), and offensive at worst. I realize that for you, it was probably more offensive than anything else. I should have seen when writing it that not only it was making a flaw argument (as i wrote to Homburg), but also that it could be offensive for others. I am sorry.

But to address your last comment there, I actually think that this thread has been quite helpful and productive, at least for me. As I just said, I'm starting to see what ownership could be for me and how I might enjoy and benefit from it. And your contribution has certainly helped -- of course, we disagree on a few things, and do not share the same perspective on love and whatnot. But once I translate what you tell me into a framework that I can relate better too, than it seems quite simple actually. So not only can I now see how ownership is not so far away from what I may want or desire, I can also better understand your own dynamic or that of others (as much as this kind of medium allow for it of course). In other words, I think that so far what was confusing me was not so much 'ownership' per se, but the framework (monogamy) in which i was reading it. Make sense?

And yes, I did say without any malice or assumption that perhaps when you are my age (a few short months off 50), with a few more life experiences, the usual changes of thinking and experiences incurred, you might be closer to seeing how I live my life in a similar way to how I do than it is possible for you to do right now. Sorry to have to tell you this but life has a way of making us grow, helping us see things differently (often the complete opposite way or at least inclusive of it alongside your present views), adding experience to our plate...if not there is little point in being alive IMHO because what growth do you have. Personally I can honestly say I see things differently to how I did when I was 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45....I have allowed myself to be open to growth, have learned knowledge is about experience and growth and gaining a wider focus and what I feel and know now will likely change even more in the next year, in 5 years, when I am 60, 65, and 70 or at least I hope so. From your perspective for whatever reason you take a statement about growth to be an assumption and personal, and yet even on this board alone I see most people talk of the changes that have happened with their thoughts and approaches to relationship dynamics over the years, everyday...Netzach, serijules, Bandit 58, sinnOcent, Homburg, Marquis to name a few...it is called life.

Yes, I do understand that life changes people, and that what I want/like/desire right now may change at some point down the road. But your comment is not happening in a vaccuum to me. It's the kind of comment I hear all the time: i'll find someone at one point that will make me change my mind about monogamy, i'll hit 35 and finally realize that i do actually want to make babies, this whole top thing is just a fab, i just haven't found the right man and that's why i'm queer, etc. I'm sure you know what I mean: you probably had your share of such dismissive comments throwed at you regarding your own choices from people assuming that they know better than you what you want/desire. I'm certainly ready to believe that you are not one of those people and that it is not how you meant your comment. But I guess you can understand how I read it as such.

 

[Homburg]

Things change. People do in some ways and don't in others. I think it's a fair bid that I'm not going to wake up a lesbian in 15 more years, and I don't think anyone would argue with me on that. Care to argue that I will, because that's what you're doing in this case, that suddenly those who feel right and less restricted personally in poly will suddenly feel right and less restricted with one person, we just haven't "met the right girl"

Ignoring the rest of the post to focus on this one aspect, What about the reverse? I had never considered poly, and was among the legions of squares that thought the whole idea of polyamory to be just flat strange, and that is probably the kindest terminology I would've used. Yet I met "the right girl" and suddenly it was no longer strange. Poly was, in fact, necessary for my continued emotional survival. Not that I am arguing in support of Catalina or not, but why would it be so unthinkable to meet "the right girl" and suddenly feel fulfilled?

In my own case, that relationship is gone from my life, and while I felt the urge to try to replace it initially, now I've cooled off. Instead of desperately wanting that same level of interaction and emotion input/output, I have cooled towards it. I'm not ruling it out, but I'm not actively seeking it, and I think it is largely because I no longer have "the right girl" in my life, and am not going to get her back. Sure, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and I'm not going to deny it should it occur, but, to me, it is a plain, and probably common case of movement across the monogamy/polyamory divide.

Anecdotally, I've got a good friend that was polyamorous, included poly in his requirements for a potential partner, and still "settled down" when he met "the right girl". He's not a total success story, as he had the urge for many years, and would still be happier if he was allowed to stray a little, but he did successfully make that transition, and did it for "the right girl". Additionally, he has found a great deal of happiness and fulfillment that he'd never had in poly relationships, by his own admission (and said admission was made numerous times, sober and drunk, and away from his wife in situations where she would not have heard him breaking stride).

Now, I'm not arguing against the concept. I rather dig poly and would be willing to go that direction again (for "the right girl" of course), but I am wondering about strong your tone seems here.

 

[Netzach]

Ignoring the rest of the post to focus on this one aspect, What about the reverse? I had never considered poly, and was among the legions of squares that thought the whole idea of polyamory to be just flat strange, and that is probably the kindest terminology I would've used. Yet I met "the right girl" and suddenly it was no longer strange. Poly was, in fact, necessary for my continued emotional survival. Not that I am arguing in support of Catalina or not, but why would it be so unthinkable to meet "the right girl" and suddenly feel fulfilled?

In my own case, that relationship is gone from my life, and while I felt the urge to try to replace it initially, now I've cooled off. Instead of desperately wanting that same level of interaction and emotion input/output, I have cooled towards it. I'm not ruling it out, but I'm not actively seeking it, and I think it is largely because I no longer have "the right girl" in my life, and am not going to get her back. Sure, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and I'm not going to deny it should it occur, but, to me, it is a plain, and probably common case of movement across the monogamy/polyamory divide.

Anecdotally, I've got a good friend that was polyamorous, included poly in his requirements for a potential partner, and still "settled down" when he met "the right girl". He's not a total success story, as he had the urge for many years, and would still be happier if he was allowed to stray a little, but he did successfully make that transition, and did it for "the right girl". Additionally, he has found a great deal of happiness and fulfillment that he'd never had in poly relationships, by his own admission (and said admission was made numerous times, sober and drunk, and away from his wife in situations where she would not have heard him breaking stride).

Now, I'm not arguing against the concept. I rather dig poly and would be willing to go that direction again (for "the right girl" of course), but I am wondering about strong your tone seems here.

Because to me, it's like telling you you'd meet the right guy, and not just for tying up.

Aren't there some things that you can say are pretty darn certain without completely eliminating the possibility mathematically?

Additionally, my personal metrics hold this: if you *were* poly --

not capable of being poly, but at your core poly was what defines your sexuality--

yes, Homburg, I think you would be needing *needing* to replicate the numbers. When something is hot to a person, they like having it around, it's beautiful and marvelous, but if it wasn't there's no major disconnect. (and I refer here to numbers of people, not the people in your life) But if you *are* it, you have to have it, sex suddenly seems to make less sense without it, you won't function. I think I'm a switch in that regard - it's a lovely thing, it's not "what I am" if you define my sexuality -- if the person I do it with went out of my life, I would not be looking to replicate it. I CAN submit, I'm not "a submissive."

Most of us can understand how this applies to SM versus vanilla. We talk about how we can finally breathe and be who/what we are when we find kink. For people who are poly, it's not an option on the spread life offers you - it's what you HAVE to do. Like sexual dominance for me, or making art. It's not a negotiable, it's a certainty.

When other people treat your certainties linguistically, as flimsy uncertainties, it DOES become a personal affront.

 

[midwestyankee]

Because to me, it's like telling you you'd meet the right guy, and not just for tying up.

Aren't there some things that you can say are pretty darn certain without completely eliminating the possibility mathematically?

Yes, and I think it's called being a practical realist.

Just my small fraction of a euro.

 

[Homburg]

Here's food for thought.

The degree of D/s in my relationship with my husband - outward, expressed dynamic, fluctuates. There are periods where he does fit the obedient property mold, there are periods where it's not about that at all. It's a shifting, organic, expanding and contracting thing in our relating to one another. There's nothing that says M/s or D/s has to be a linear progression in which rights are stripped bit by bit till you own your slave ta da - rather than a changing and fluctuating entity. Except some fiction, because linearity works in fiction, then it pretty much has to work that way all the time. And most people DO seek that linear movement - I think it's pretty appealing and makes a lot of sense. But it's not the only way to think of it.

*nods*

I can see that. I gues sI am expecting some sort of linear thing. Stupid, as I don't work that way in anything. I'm a "Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, ...Oh, I get it... Step 8, Step 9" guy, and always have been. If I can figure out how to move circular or diagonal, I'll do it.

In my own case, I'm not concerned about rights, permissions, etc. Very little has changed in that front. I've asserted the right to ultimate veto, and made a few things permission only.

The coolest moment was one night she was in a funk, feeling down on herself, and the reasons behind it were just lame self-pitying hookum. Yeah, I know, insensitive of me to say that, but whatever. I got over it and just snapped an order at her to stop feeling sorry for herself and cheer up, dammit. And she did. I didn't notice, and ranted a bit more, and she quietly got my attention, and with hushed surprise, made clear that she was no longer feeling sorry for herself and was starting to cheer up. I ask why, she says because I told her to. It boggled me, but it worked. Never worked before. As a result, I'm sold on this M/s thing. If I can do that even 1 in 10 time, I'm happy. And that was the exact moment that sold me on the dynamic.

 

[DeservingBitch]

You were the one who said in your own words that you live poly because you believe it to be a way of loving which is not restrictive and limiting of your partner's sexuality with the counter inference (well actually stated in the same paragraph) that to own someone you love is restrictive and limiting their sexuality. I addressed that assumption and misconception politely saying that IMO and experience being owned and loved has been freedom in terms of sexuality, not restrictive and limiting as you assumed it to be, and further that I had a lot of sexual experience with huge numbers of multiple partners which though adventurous and fun (sheesh, I do remember fucking 2 brothers at the same time, though not together at one point), usually beyond the experience of most people in terms of sexual activities pursued, was far more restrictive in a variety of ways than what I have now in being owned by someone who I love and who loves me. You assumed and that being poly does not necessarily mean you are not being restrictive. I OTOH can see many ways it can be restrictive...it is all about opening your mind to see both situations from a variety of perspectives, and then remembering that whether any type relationship and said activities is restrictive and limiting is largely up to those involved, not the type relationship....I know people who are poly who still do not have variety in their sexual activities and basically do the same thing, just with more than one person...it doesn't necessarily free you up in terms of sexuality unless you make it so, thus for me personally all it would have to offer is different partners, not really anything I haven't tried before or can't do with F, thus I really don't see it as high on my list of what floats my boat these days....been there, done that.

I should probably mention that my beef with monogamy is bigger than just a question of sexuality. In other words, it's not merely in terms of sexuality/love that I find it limiting/restricting. But that is a topic for another time.

And yes, I can totally see that a lot of people are most happy in monogamous relationships and thrive in it. I'm not one of those. And yes, I also know some poly people who seem (at least for me) to basically merely reproduce the same monogamous relationship with multiple partners. Which to me defies the entire idea and purpose of poly. But hey - it's their life. That's not how I'm doing it, but really, it only matters to me and my partners how I do it.

 

[Netzach]

*nods*

I can see that. I gues sI am expecting some sort of linear thing. Stupid, as I don't work that way in anything. I'm a "Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, ...Oh, I get it... Step 8, Step 9" guy, and always have been. If I can figure out how to move circular or diagonal, I'll do it.

In my own case, I'm not concerned about rights, permissions, etc. Very little has changed in that front. I've asserted the right to ultimate veto, and made a few things permission only.

The coolest moment was one night she was in a funk, feeling down on herself, and the reasons behind it were just lame self-pitying hookum. Yeah, I know, insensitive of me to say that, but whatever. I got over it and just snapped an order at her to stop feeling sorry for herself and cheer up, dammit. And she did. I didn't notice, and ranted a bit more, and she quietly got my attention, and with hushed surprise, made clear that she was no longer feeling sorry for herself and was starting to cheer up. I ask why, she says because I told her to. It boggled me, but it worked. Never worked before. As a result, I'm sold on this M/s thing. If I can do that even 1 in 10 time, I'm happy. And that was the exact moment that sold me on the dynamic.

That's awesome. One of those things that you can cash in on when you know someone like the back of your hand. I definitely feel like a stud when I can figure out if the solution to a problem is that really, he needs to be bossed around.

 

[Netzach]

Yes, and I think it's called being a practical realist.

Just my small fraction of a euro.

Maybe we could rub 'em together and buy a cup of tea in Dorset. Or half a cup of tea. Anyone else in?

 

[intothewoods]

That's awesome. One of those things that you can cash in on when you know someone like the back of your hand. I definitely feel like a stud when I can figure out if the solution to a problem is that really, he needs to be bossed around.

That is really awesome. Is it roleplay? Is it real? Is it based in a contract? At some level, does it matter?

 

[serijules]

It's one thing to say to the effect of "poly isn't for us because we have no interest in sharing and blah blah". It's another to say to the effect of "we are not poly because we are too mature and solid in our relationship to need others to blah blah blah".

The first example is simply saying why it doesn't work for you. The second is saying why it doesn't work for you while insulting and demeaning anyone who feels differently.

Putting the "i was talking only of me/mine/us" disclaimer after every patronizing comment doesn't make it any less patronizing or judgmental and intentional or not, a lot of people here tend to do that.

 

[Homburg]

Because to me, it's like telling you you'd meet the right guy, and not just for tying up.

Aren't there some things that you can say are pretty darn certain without completely eliminating the possibility mathematically?

Eh. I recognise eminently few personal "truths" about anyone that are that certain. People change, sometimes radically. Too many times I've seen someone experience a radical shift in sexual (and other) mores at given points in their lives. The number of times this sort of thing happens is significant enough to make it a bit more than a mathematically insignificant chance.

Am I saying it is likely? Nope. Just saying that I hold very little as "certain".

Additionally, my personal metrics hold this: if you *were* poly --

not capable of being poly, but at your core poly was what defines your sexuality--

8 months ago I would have identified myself as monogamous to my absolute core. Incapable of poly. In 15 years of being with my wife prior to that point, I had been honestly interested in another woman precisely twice, and the level of interest was never more than enough to allow some conversation and heavy flirting.

yes, Homburg, I think you would be needing *needing* to replicate the numbers. When something is hot to a person, they like having it around, it's beautiful and marvelous, but if it wasn't there's no major disconnect. (and I refer here to numbers of people, not the people in your life) But if you *are* it, you have to have it, sex suddenly seems to make less sense without it, you won't function. I think I'm a switch in that regard, but if the person I do it with went out of my life, I would not be looking to replicate it. I CAN submit, I'm not "a submissive."

I can understand your point here, and this is why I do not identify myself as poly. I do not consider it core to my sexual identity, and I understand the difference between us in that sense. And I stress that I'm not belittling anything, nor doubting how core it is to you.

Most of us can understand how this applies to SM versus vanilla. We talk about how we can finally breathe and be who/what we are when we find kink. For people who are poly, it's not an option on the spread life offers you - it's what you HAVE to do. Like sexual dominance for me, or making art. It's not a negotiable, it's a certainty.

When other people treat your certainties linguistically, as flimsy uncertainties, it DOES become a personal affront.

I don't think that it was being treated as a "flimsy uncertainty", merely as an uncertainty in itself. And it is probably more due to the fact that certain people view everything as uncertain. I have been known to argue that I won't trust the sun to rise in the morning until I see the light of dawn.

I have no problem accepting the concept that I would bottom to the right person. I have no problem accepting the concept that the right man would cause me to seriously question that whole 100% hetero thing. I have left my own art behind, only to pick it up again later, or, in some forms, never touch it again. I have no problem accepting that I might be radically different sexually ten years from now, largely because I was radically different sexually 8 months ago.

Apparently, I have no unassailable core. *shrug*

 

[DeservingBitch]

When other people treat your certainties linguistically, as flimsy uncertainties, it DOES become a personal affront.

Exactly.

And it also usually assume that i'm talking out of my ass, and that the choices aren't coming out of experience, and/or that those choices are easy to live by.

Like most queer people, I started my sexual life by fucking the opposite sex. In fact, i lived most of my active sexual/romantic life as straight. I know what it is, thankyouverymuch. I've also tried monogamy. And vanilla. In each case, I came to a point where i realized i was not happy with those choices, and looked somewhere else for something different.

I made the choices to live as queer, to not have vanilla relationships anymore, and to be poly. All of those choices are not easy ones. I have to *work* on a daily basis to be consistend with my choices and make them work for me. And part of this work I have to do comes from the fact that society at large doesn't work that way. On a daily basis, I am confronted with values, beliefs, norms, etc. that go against my own choices. In other words, the choices I made, I am constantly making them everyday, everytime that I have to reaffirmed them against the 'mainstream'. And frankly, there's been quite a few times that I've wished (for a brief moment) that i was a straigh vanilla monogamous girl. Because sometimes, it seems like it would be much more easy. But then, i remember how unhappy i was as a straight vanilla monogamous girl, and my choices make sense to me again, and all the work i have to do is again worth it.

Everybody here i assume can relate to that in terms of their choices re: BDSM, D/s, M/s.

 

[Netzach]

Eh. I recognise eminently few personal "truths" about anyone that are that certain. People change, sometimes radically. Too many times I've seen someone experience a radical shift in sexual (and other) mores at given points in their lives. The number of times this sort of thing happens is significant enough to make it a bit more than a mathematically insignificant chance.

Am I saying it is likely? Nope. Just saying that I hold very little as "certain".



8 months ago I would have identified myself as monogamous to my absolute core. Incapable of poly. In 15 years of being with my wife prior to that point, I had been honestly interested in another woman precisely twice, and the level of interest was never more than enough to allow some conversation and heavy flirting.



I can understand your point here, and this is why I do not identify myself as poly. I do not consider it core to my sexual identity, and I understand the difference between us in that sense. And I stress that I'm not belittling anything, nor doubting how core it is to you.



I don't think that it was being treated as a "flimsy uncertainty", merely as an uncertainty in itself. And it is probably more due to the fact that certain people view everything as uncertain. I have been known to argue that I won't trust the sun to rise in the morning until I see the light of dawn.

I have no problem accepting the concept that I would bottom to the right person. I have no problem accepting the concept that the right man would cause me to seriously question that whole 100% hetero thing. I have left my own art behind, only to pick it up again later, or, in some forms, never touch it again. I have no problem accepting that I might be radically different sexually ten years from now, largely because I was radically different sexually 8 months ago.

Apparently, I have no unassailable core. *shrug*

Haha, no, it's contextual. We could all be hit by busses. My unassailable core eats shits and breathes and I don't know about a lot else.

That's how I wound up bottoming again anyway, WTF, why get uptight about it? I haven't taken anything you've said as a slight. I'm explaining why "you may see it like I do in x y z years" (not differently, but "more like I do") phrased just like that, is a slight to people sitting where I'm sitting.

These are things I think people get to state for themselves and our self-definition is what we've got. Especially, sorry, but when YOUR core mode of being is a relationship style that can't even masquerade as anything but totally outside the mainstream if you wanted to make it do that.

Let's face it - mono hetero - you are not going to be in the position of picking which of your lovers to take to a function, you are not going to be explaining or deciding not to, who this other person you kiss on the lips and cry with in the hospital is - if you are neither mono nor hetero ALL you have is your own validation and your own concept of what you are doing. No one else is applauding for any reason.

It's one thing to sit around and say "shit, I don't know" something about yourself and another when someone comes in to tell you you don't know shit about yourself. At least any more than they don't about themselves.

 

[Homburg]

That's awesome. One of those things that you can cash in on when you know someone like the back of your hand. I definitely feel like a stud when I can figure out if the solution to a problem is that really, he needs to be bossed around.

Yeah, it was kind of a Stud Moment

---

That is really awesome. Is it roleplay? Is it real? Is it based in a contract? At some level, does it matter?

Very insightful, ITW, and rather useful for me right at this moment. Thank you.

If it works, it works, and nothing else matters.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Homburg]

Haha, no, it's contextual. We could all be hit by busses. My unassailable core eats shits and breathes and I don't know about a lot else.

That's how I wound up bottoming again anyway, WTF, why get uptight about it? I haven't taken anything you've said as a slight. I'm explaining why "you may see it differently in x y z years" phrased just like that, is a slight to people sitting where I'm sitting.

These are things I think people get to state for themselves and our self-definition is what we've got. It's one thing to sit around and say "shit, I don't know" something about yourself and another when someone comes in to tell you you don't know shit about yourself. At least any more than they don't about themselves.

*nod*

Personally, I'm hoping for no more busses for a while. I'm still recovering from the last couple. See, you've had time with this poly business. It fuckin' mugged me. Hell, it's probably the reason why I am unconcerned about other aspects of my sexual ID kit. Better to be aware that shit changes rather than being so bowled over when something does experience a paradigm shift.

 

[Netzach]

John [Master Darling™] has a standing "order" that I have to ask permission to give into negative feelings (failure to do so will result in not fun pain). If I'm starting to feel overwhelmed and fragile about something and just need to fall apart for a bit, I ask. I usually get 10 minutes to be a mess, then I'm expected to go back to feeling peaceful and balanced (as best I can).

At first it was frustrating and stupid and idiotic and just aggrivating as hell because feelings just ARE dammit... but I have to admit it makes me think twice before getting caught up in hurt feelings or negative thoughts, and it's getting easier to just let stuff roll off my back...

It's the M/s version of "don't sweat the small shit".

I may have to try this with someone I love, hmmm...

 

[serijules]

I should probably mention that my beef with monogamy is bigger than just a question of sexuality. In other words, it's not merely in terms of sexuality/love that I find it limiting/restricting. But that is a topic for another time.

And yes, I can totally see that a lot of people are most happy in monogamous relationships and thrive in it. I'm not one of those. And yes, I also know some poly people who seem (at least for me) to basically merely reproduce the same monogamous relationship with multiple partners. Which to me defies the entire idea and purpose of poly. But hey - it's their life. That's not how I'm doing it, but really, it only matters to me and my partners how I do it.

I love this reply. I can relate.

I'm poly by proxy. My owner is poly and I adore 2 of the other people she is involved with very much and consider them family. One I don't even interact with at all because we just clash personality wise. I have no doubt whatsoever that she has a solid, lasting love for each one of us and we each offer her something unique and special. It was hard to get to this point and feel secure in this thought, but I've come there. I used to think I was "not enough". Poly is a very complicated choice at the best of times.

I'm not certain how poly I am. I do wish for a romantic relationship with another woman and since obviously that woman can't be my owner...who knows what the future holds as far as my own poly status. I'm open to it, but I'm not certain of it. I have a hard time with the idea of having anyone else in my life that would take my time and focus off of serving D, but I'm also not in love with anyone or even interested in anyone else at the moment, so it's hard to say how I'd really feel if such a person would come into my life.

What I AM certain of though, is that D will be a part of my life and that her own poly status will not change. She's been poly for too long and had too much experience with it to have it suddenly not be a need for her. All of her relationships are solid and lasting....the longest being 10 years and still going strong and the shortest being our own at 3 and a half years. She has the process down pat, I'd say. Not that's it easy by any means, but it obviously brings her happiness and joy or she wouldn't bother.

I can't say I'd advise poly to most people because it really is tough, but for some of us freaks it just plain works.

 

[Homburg]

John [Master Darling™] has a standing "order" that I have to ask permission to give into negative feelings (failure to do so will result in not fun pain). If I'm starting to feel overwhelmed and fragile about something and just need to fall apart for a bit, I ask. I usually get 10 minutes to be a mess, then I'm expected to go back to feeling peaceful and balanced (as best I can).

At first it was frustrating and stupid and idiotic and just aggrivating as hell because feelings just ARE dammit... but I have to admit it makes me think twice before getting caught up in hurt feelings or negative thoughts, and it's getting easier to just let stuff roll off my back...

After you mentioned this recently, I flat stole it. "v" was told last night that she has to ask permission to be depressed. Going to wait and see how it works. It might be easier to just go for the full monty like John did.

Really a brilliant idea

 

[serijules]

John [Master Darling™] has a standing "order" that I have to ask permission to give into negative feelings (failure to do so will result in not fun pain). If I'm starting to feel overwhelmed and fragile about something and just need to fall apart for a bit, I ask. I usually get 10 minutes to be a mess, then I'm expected to go back to feeling peaceful and balanced (as best I can).

At first it was frustrating and stupid and idiotic and just aggrivating as hell because feelings just ARE dammit... but I have to admit it makes me think twice before getting caught up in hurt feelings or negative thoughts, and it's getting easier to just let stuff roll off my back...

I have a similar rule, and I don't think our relationship would have thrived as it has without it