Politics and Porn

[Blue]

Polyamory = stunts

So does that make homosexuality like circus tricks?

But kink and coming on faces is normal because 'we' do it?

Kim, i gave up.

Oh gee.

If polyamory is a stunt, and being gay is a circus trick, does that mean we get our own carnival parade?

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nezhul]

I think Kim's point is that she can do whatever she wants with her relationships and not have somebody else's wishes forced on her for doing it, consequences aren't relevant

That's a moot point, because then we can start getting it further.

You can kill anyone you dislike, and consequences aren't relevant.

Well yes, technically you can. But does it make this healthy to do so? No.

Also you seem to be painting Kim as somebody acting unilaterally with no consideration for her husband's wishes, which is clearly not the case.

Oh yeah?

my husband wasn't really thrilled with the whole situation
My husband hasn't 'allowed' me to have another relationship - I can do whatever the fuck I want. However, he was perfectly within his rights to say '... I'm going to leave you'. He didn't say that [so it makes it all right]

Again, technically you can treat a relationship like this. It doesn't mean that's healthy.

 

[Nezhul]

The second point is really what I was trying to say. Kim and I have spoken a little about this subject as we have some common ground, and never have I had the impression she has disregard for her husband. Rather she has included him in her path and loves him.

Ok, that may be a fair point. But don't you see double standards here.

To include her husband on this path (even though he wasn't thrilled = read, disliked it) is totally OK.
But then somehow persuading your girlfriend to let you cum on her face - is so wrong we have to have a huge discussion about it.

Don't you see it's kind of not even the same scale? Kim's one-sided decision is MUCH more inconsiderate to her partner than a negotiation with your girlfriend to let you cum on her face (where the answer no can be accepted).
It's MUCH more degrading and abusive towards her husband. And yet it's totally fine! While cum on face is totally wrong!

Treating your girlfriend gently and lovingly, making her trust you and want to please you by letting you perform this atrocious act - is coercing her to do something she doesn't want.
Putting a fact of polyamory in front of your husband and "including him on that path" even though "he wasn't thrilled about it" - is totally, genuinely good way of doing things. Completely consensual, considerate and loving way of doing things.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You and I can agree on the merits of a third-party lover but it is unrealistic to assume that his existence doesn't undermine the husband's sense of self. Is some level of equalization fair and reasonable.....I don't know......that would seem to come from a negative place that I don't like because it disrespects your agency. But from a man's point of view consider the scenario.....you drive away to meet other at a cheap motel where he spanks you and fucks your brains out while calling you dirty names.....but when you come home hubby can't cum on you because that is where the line is?

No, that doesn't add up. Maybe what you do when you are away is a figment of imagination. But you are not too precious to have cum on your face from the guy who accepts all of this. Taking a load on your face is not more degrading or emotionally traumatizing than knowing your wife is away for the weekend with some guy who provides what you can't.

You don't get to make that call, because it's not your body. Kim gets to decide just how significant that act is to her, even if her answer is way different to yours.

Side note: in my experience of polyamory, approaching it as transactional ("you can fuck Bob if I get to come on your face") doesn't seem to work very well. IME, if somebody is the type of person who feels insecure about the thought of their partner having sex with somebody else, such tradeoffs don't actually cancel out that insecurity.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[tryn2Bgood]

Ok, that may be a fair point. But don't you see double standards here.

To include her husband on this path (even though he wasn't thrilled = read, disliked it) is totally OK.
But then somehow persuading your girlfriend to let you cum on her face - is so wrong we have to have a huge discussion about it.

Don't you see it's kind of not even the same scale? Kim's one-sided decision is MUCH more inconsiderate to her partner than a negotiation with your girlfriend to let you cum on her face (where the answer no can be accepted).
It's MUCH more degrading and abusive towards her husband. And yet it's totally fine! While cum on face is totally wrong!

Treating your girlfriend gently and lovingly, making her trust you and want to please you by letting you perform this atrocious act - is coercing her to do something she doesn't want.
Putting a fact of polyamory in front of your husband and "including him on that path" even though "he wasn't thrilled about it" - is totally, genuinely good way of doing things. Completely consensual, considerate and loving way of doing things.

I have to agree with the double standard thing. All other details aside, questioning 'why' you need to cum on your partner's face is the same as questioning 'why' do need to have sex with other men. Both situations require discussion and consent. In both situations, an "I'm ok with that" or "I'm not ok with that" is an acceptable response from your partner.

 

[Nezhul]

La damnee elle la licorne
So, basically I'm wrong, and that's your argument?
Do you even HAVE any opinion about those two examples I described? The examples from this thread, not twisted or changed in any way.

Very convincing.

In both situations, an "I'm ok with that" or "I'm not ok with that" is an acceptable response from your partner.

And in both cases those responses should be honored.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nezhul]

There was a thread here recently, where a guy wanted BDSM from his wife. He said he loved her, but that he just had those urges and she wasn't thrilled about it. He asked how could he save his marriage or if he should divorse and move along. Asking how he could, I quote elle here, "included her in his path and loved her"

GOD how all of you bashed him.

Now there's an example of Kim having polyamory urges and putting her new relationship as an accomplished fact in front of her husband. She says he wasn't thrilled about it. Bud this didn't matter because she doesn't need his approoval and "can do whatever the fuck she wants"

And now you all protect her right to do her own thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's sexism, isn't it?
If it's a male wanting something from his unwilling wife - he's a fucking mysoginist and abusive.
If it's a female wanting something from her unwilling husband... yeah, that's ok. That's her right.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nezhul]

Elle. There are different ways to say "No".

"No, thank you, not interested" - is one way.

"No, I'm not interested in discussing this, but here are my points:"
Is another way. You say no, but then you immediately promote further conversation by disagreeing strongly and providing further arguments. So what am I to do? Just ignore you? What if I find your reply interesting? If you want to disengage, just do so. "I'm not interested in arguing" would be enough. Instead you knowingly put more fuel to the fire by telling me how wrong I am and how right you are, and how you know Kim and that's why she's right.....

I admit, I'm not a good person for disengaging from conversations, but I can understand a "no" What I can't understand is a "no, but". Is it a "no", or is it a "but"? Should I just swallow and turn around and leave? Or should I argue?

 

[Blue]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's sexism, isn't it?
If it's a male wanting something from his unwilling wife - he's a fucking mysoginist and abusive.
If it's a female wanting something from her unwilling husband... yeah, that's ok. That's her right.

I've looked at every thread in the past 100 days and can't find one that fits your description as well as having that quote from Elle. If it exists I don't believe for a second you're portraying the discussion in it accurately.

Now then:
You are actually trying to equate molestation (I take it that you're referring to the idea that Kim's relationship with her husband should be transactional, consent be damned) with relationship tribulations with a single conceptual link that they share!?! 1920's cartoons weren't even that black and white!
Holy bejeezus!
That's why I'm not discussing with you.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nezhul]

That's why I'm not discussing with you.

Erm. You just discussed it with me. And now you are saying you are not discussing it to sound cool.

Just make up your mind, will ya?

On the other hand, you are free to keep not discussing things with me, if that means you quoting my posts and addressing my points with yours.

Because clearly a discussion with me, (which you are not doing) would look like you never replying to any of my posts at all. At least logically it should be.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nezhul]

i do not enjoy having my words more twisted than I contort them, and I would not leave Kim
Exposed on a limb alone here.

Yeah, but you were quite fine when Primalex, Bramblethorn or KimGordon, for that matter, twist other people's words, my own included. That's fine, so as long as your words or those of your friends are left untouched.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Bramblethorn]

I've looked at every thread in the past 100 days and can't find one that fits your description as well as having that quote from Elle. If it exists I don't believe for a second you're portraying the discussion in it accurately.

Yeah, I certainly remember quite a few threads that started with some variant of "my partner and I have different kink needs, are we doomed?" but I can't recall any where I "bashed" the husband as N's claiming, and it certainly doesn't sound like something Elle would say. (I have him on iggy but I see when other people quote him.)

 

[SlutAddicted]

He was 'struggling' ... I think we've moved past that into us being in a place where this is what our marriage is now, and if it hadn't shifted like that, we quite possibly would have finished. That does mean it's an 'accept this or I go' scenario at all - it's more a realisation that people change, and that monogamy is a social norm that we can choose to ignore. (In fact, he was as close to walking away as I was over the last couple of years. We've done a few things to see if we can remain together, because we love each other - trying a bit of sexual flexibility is one of those things.)

No one is 'banging me in a cheap motel room'. I'm having another relationship with another person that involves a significant emotional connection and sex. He doesn't cum on my face. NO ONE cums on my face. I don't need to explain why I don't want that - I just don't. The fact that I'm having sex with someone else doesn't alter my relationship with my husband at all, including give him licence to do things I'm not OK with. (I probably love him more than I did before, because it's evidence of what an amazing person he is that he'd be OK about trying something that was quite difficult for him to see how it worked out, but that's about it.)

As you and others have noted it is of course your call. There is no equivalency or prescribed trade-off other than what each of you and your husband accept. I am also firmly of the view that if your husband isn't ok with your poly life, having the right to do X or Y isn't going to change that.

It simply struck me as an odd line in the sand all things considered. I for one accept that my wife has a great deal more sexual latitude than I do. That in and of itself is a significant shift in power dynamic for us. And she takes that as well as my long-term devotion into account in determining that me cumming on her face is not degrading to her either in my eyes or hers. She does not allow her lovers to do so and as a result it is a small nod to my status in her very open sex life. If she said no then that would be all there is to it.

I would never try to oblige her to do this or that as a quid pro quo. The only thing I expect is that she have an open mind. For someone who has an open mind and whose relationship benefits from her husband's open mind this seems an oddly restrained line in the sand that I don't understand.

But what I think about it is of no consequence. I respect that you see it differently.

 

[Primalex]

If she allows the other men she is fucking to cum on her face, then that's a different story.

Not really, in my experience.

In the cases I know you seek a different person exactly because your current partner does inhibit certain emotions. For example, you don't want him to see which degrading acts you would be willing to perform for the right person. Or he does not hold the same power another person has, because you have lived decades with this person together and when he suddenly said:"Drop your panties, girl." your immediate reaction would be a 'raised eyebrow' and not your cunt getting wet.

Humans are not driven by a desire to be consistent in their actions. If there is consistency, it is a cause-effect relationship.

 

[tryn2Bgood]

Not really, in my experience.

In the cases I know you seek a different person exactly because your current partner does inhibit certain emotions. For example, you don't want him to see which degrading acts you would be willing to perform for the right person. Or he does not hold the same power another person has, because you have lived decades with this person together and when he suddenly said:"Drop your panties, girl." your immediate reaction would be a 'raised eyebrow' and not your cunt getting wet.

Humans are not driven by a desire to be consistent in their actions. If there is consistency, it is a cause-effect relationship.

I disagree in this particular scenario. Your husband - the person you have committed to spend the rest of your life with - should be someone you are comfortable sharing all of your desires with. IMO, you should only seek outside the relationship for the things your partner is unwilling to provide for you. If variety is what you seek, then okay. But if the husband knows his wife is letting other men cum on her face, then he already knows what degrading acts she is willing to perform, so what would be the point of denying that to her husband? I understand what you are saying about different perseptions, but...see what I'm saying?

 

[Primalex]

Again, technically you can treat a relationship like this. It doesn't mean that's healthy.

Of course the relationship was not healthy at the time the decisions were made, the way you define "healthy". If it was, nobody would change anything.

But people consider a relationship also "healthy" when it has troubles but where the people still try to tackle the problem(s) and "unhealthy" where it has crumbled beyond any hope of repair and/or where the relationship has serious negative effects on your well-being.

Then you are mixing up "fairness" with "healthiness" it seems.

Is it fair to hold a gun against your partner's head in a situation? No, of course it is not fair. But this doesn't mean it's malicious. It wouldn't be fair either to let the relationship deteriorate into a state of mutual unhappiness and 3 years later come to the conclusion that a divorce is the only option. Humans change. I'm as much still the same person as I'm totally not the same person I was 15 years ago.

 

[Blue]

I disagree in this particular scenario. Your husband - the person you have committed to spend the rest of your life with - should be someone you are comfortable sharing all of your desires with. IMO, you should only seek outside the relationship for the things your partner is unwilling to provide for you. If variety is what you seek, then okay. But if the husband knows his wife is letting other men cum on her face, then he already knows what degrading acts she is willing to perform, so what would be the point of denying that to her husband? I understand what you are saying about different perseptions, but...see what I'm saying?

The point is self-descriptive. She, for whatever reason, doesn't want to do that with her husband. You can question and/or disagree with this hypothetical reasoning to your hearts content but that's ultimately the answer to your question. There's no deep philosophical meaning to be discerned here.

Honestly now, if you really can't comprehend that then you must have even worse relationship skills than I do. My user title is only 1/4 a joke after all.