Politics and Porn

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SlutAddicted]

Hold up, your stance seems to be "well he made a compromise" I take it that was to stick with her, in spite of her kink needs being met elsewhere, because he doesn't swing that way.

Nobody get to that point without THEM having "made a compromise" usually for years.

So I have no idea what went on, but if that's what went on, I don't think anyone owes anyone anything. It's a problem finding a solution instead of an impasse, and I would think that's acceptable or if not, then end the rel.

What a craptastic reason to do a sex act anyway. I can't even pretend to understand this POV. Certain things work with certain people and don't work for shit with other people, and that's the a huge part of the reason you might be with more than one person as a sex partner.

What I have said is that if he wants to do X.....as a stand-alone desire, not payback or equivalency......I believe that whether she agrees or not (which is her prerogative) as part of a relationship that involves compromise should be seen in the total context of the relationship, not just that isolated desire.

If it is a hard limit then so be it.

Take a more clear example. Imagine that a man wants to have sex with a woman other than his wife. How they address that desire is entirely up to them. But for her to say, no, and the fact that I am having sex with another man is an utterly irrelevant consideration is self-serving.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But as PW just stated, relationships are give and take. In this context your husband has made a rather large "give". The "give" isn't the fact that he "let" you be with another man because you aren't his possession and he has no right to stop you. The "give" is that he decided to stay and continue in the relationship in spite of a circumstance that he would rather not exist. From your past comments I gather that you want to stay with him or at least that you are not entirely indifferent. The fact that he may be more settled with the situation now does not change the fact that he made a rather large and notable compromise to be with you.

Now suppose I took a boys weekend away in Vegas and left my wife with the kids and a pile of chores. I come home to an orderly house with the yard work done, the house cleaned, the laundry folded, the chequebook balanced, kids quietly doing their homework and a warm meal on the table.

But I hate doing dishes. Do I owe it to her to do the dishes? No. We didn't make that deal ahead of time. I didn't force her to take care of everything while I was away. She is fine with the fact that she spent her weekend working while I was playing. These things are not linked and she can't oblige me to link them. She knows I hate doing dishes.

What if she loathed yard work even more so than I hate doing dishes? What if she sacrificed some other social event that was important to her because I was away? What if she just really does not want to do the dishes this one time? Should I take those things into account? Should I weigh my dislike of doing dishes against her sacrifice? I am not compelled or obliged to. I didn't agree that they be linked. It is not for any other person to say what I should or shouldn't choose.

All the same, it would be pretty self-serving to dismiss doing the dishes solely on the basis that I don't like doing them and refuse to consider any other context.

Comparing "doing dishes" to "having somebody cum on your face" is a bit of a stretch. One is a necessary household task; the other is not, and comes with a great deal of emotional baggage. (If it didn't, nobody would be interested in doing it, as opposed to just jerking off into a tissue or whatever.)

Even with household chores, in the big picture, that probably shouldn't be a transactional thing. When I do household chores, it's not because I owe my partner or want a favour from her; it's because (a) I like having a clean house, and (b) I like having a happy partner.

People being what they are, it's often useful to have a structured approach to ensure that the boring-but-necessary stuff gets done, and sharing out chores can provide that structure. But what happens if one person gets sick and can't do their share?

If the relationship is based on trading work for work, then the other partner is no longer getting what they bargained for, and the relationship's in serious trouble. But if it's based on "I want my partner to be happy so I'll do things that make them happy", then the healthy partner picks up some of the load.

 

[SlutAddicted]

As my reply was metaphorical .

Get the dishes out of your equation. Move onto something you can both not hate, both enjoy. Approach life creatively around solution not problem .



Or...see the simple and negative.

Approaching the positive requires that both parties see the full picture and make compromises that work for them or move on in some other way. We are off into a rather silly example......I think that most of us can agree that if he is in distress over his wife having a boyfriend, cumming on her face isn't going to help or change anything.

My point has only been that he made a very notable compromise. It was quite clear that her husband was not keen on this situation (her having a bf) but he sucked it up, adjusted and supported her for both of their net benefit. That is a big deal by any measure. That is what compromise is - give and take not as a negotiated settlement but as an overall spirit of mutual support and recognition of the compromises that the other has made.

How that manifests itself in any given situation is unique to each situation. I am not arguing for a given outcome. I am arguing for a holistic approach to compromise.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[SlutAddicted]

Comparing "doing dishes" to "having somebody cum on your face" is a bit of a stretch. One is a necessary household task; the other is not, and comes with a great deal of emotional baggage. (If it didn't, nobody would be interested in doing it, as opposed to just jerking off into a tissue or whatever.)

Even with household chores, in the big picture, that probably shouldn't be a transactional thing. When I do household chores, it's not because I owe my partner or want a favour from her; it's because (a) I like having a clean house, and (b) I like having a happy partner.

People being what they are, it's often useful to have a structured approach to ensure that the boring-but-necessary stuff gets done, and sharing out chores can provide that structure. But what happens if one person gets sick and can't do their share?

If the relationship is based on trading work for work, then the other partner is no longer getting what they bargained for, and the relationship's in serious trouble. But if it's based on "I want my partner to be happy so I'll do things that make them happy", then the healthy partner picks up some of the load.

It is a metaphor not to be taken literally. The point is that we share and compromise together. Whether she chooses to let him cum on her face is her choice and her reasons are her own. As I keep stating I am not arguing for a specific outcome but a recognition that there are two sides to compromise. There is give and take. The very real compromise he made (being accepting of her bf) isn't irrelevant.....it doesn't dictate or prescribe any specific outcome or circumvent her sole prerogative but in a relationship built on compromise it isn't irrelevant.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Some people REALLY, REALLY do hate people cumming on their face. So it's fair.

Let's not limit shame.

I have a lovely dishwasher It's so quiet I only know it's finished when the door opens with s little puff of steam .

Totally fair for her to say no. Just not fair to suggest that his past compromises are irrelevant.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

It is a metaphor not to be taken literally. The point is that we share and compromise together. Whether she chooses to let him cum on her face is her choice and her reasons are her own. As I keep stating I am not arguing for a specific outcome but a recognition that there are two sides to compromise. There is give and take. The very real compromise he made (being accepting of her bf) isn't irrelevant.....it doesn't dictate or prescribe any specific outcome or circumvent her sole prerogative but in a relationship built on compromise it isn't irrelevant.

What he gets is a very happy wife. Also, the 'direct trade' is that I'm fine with him playing away games if he wants to - he just doesn't want to at present. The broader trade off is, as BT suggests, the ongoing relationship in which we do our best to makyeach other happy - trust me, that involves compromise on my part too.

 

[Nezhul]

OK, first of all I had some time to think and I see that my posts about Kim's relationship were not adressed. So I'll say I'm sorry for criticizing her approach now. I still think that it's really a jerk move to start a new relationship and then throw it in the face of your less than excited husband. I still think that the attitude "I do whatever the fuck I want and his opinion is irrelevant" very, very inconsiderate. But there are much more jerk moves that everybody do all the time, so I guess this is up to debate.
So I don't like that. But I was way too harsh with my words, probably.
About that part I'm sorry.

But my shock at double standards remains. Two situations:

A) A girlfriend doesn't like cum on her face, but the boyfriend wants this very much. He doesn't push, but surrounds her with attention and care, they emotionally bond very well. She gets to the point in the relationship when she's completely OK to let him come anywhere on her body, if that makes him happy, even if she herself gets nothing out of it (except feeling happy for making your loved one happy).
This is discussed here as not OK, as coercion, as forcing her to do something she doesn't want. Poor woman - and an abusive jerk of a boyfriend. He should stuff his desires somewhere if she doesn't like that.

B) A husband doesn't like sharing his wife with another men, but the wife needs that. She goes ahead and starts another relationship, then tells him about it. He's not thrilled, but he makes a concession to stay in the marriage because he loves the wife.
Now, this, compared to the situation A, is somehow OK. It's not abusive, not degrading. It's a woman's right to do her thing.
Note, that I'm not even talking about what the wife should/should not give in return. I'm not talking about tradeoffs for those concessions or some kind of bargain. I'm talking about an isolated cases, a situations.

Convincing your girlfriend to do something she doesn't initially want is not OK
Convincing your husband to tolerate something he doesn't like - is OK.

How does that work, explain to me? Either both are OK, or both are not OK, in my book.

 

[KimGordon67]

OMG the hypocrisy of you.

And this person actually tries to present herself as someone who knows a fuck about proper relationships, being considerate and things like that.

"I married a man, then I started seeing another person because I'm free to do whatever the fuck I want, even if it means breaking our sacred vows and stuff. I don't care! I'm a free woman! It's not the same as cumming on my face, because I don't involve him! I don't need permission, but he does."

Well, yeah. Sorry to break your bubble, but you are just that kind of person who deserves to die alone with only twelve cats around you.
And to think you have the nerve to actually tell other people who come on this forum to seek advice on how to keep their relationship - to break up? Because you found their posts offensive? Such a hypocrisy is even more than I have, and that says something.

Someone here called you an intelligent partner? More like abusive, inconsiderate and uncaring partner who uses her husband for benefits - is how that looks to me. Oh yes, intelligent is probably apt too - smart enough to use his love for you against him.

THis really puts all of your other posts into perspective for me. Of how you hate guys approaching you, your views about relationships, your constant WAY over-the-top defence of women's rights even where none are broken. You are just a misandrist, that's all there is to it.,

OK, so now I'm at a proper keyboard I can address this properly.

Firstly, I need to reiterate that our marriage didn't involve anything like 'til death do us part' or 'forsaking all others', because we both knew that was silly. We had no idea what each others vows were until the wedding, but we both excluded that stuff without even talking to each other about it.

Admittedly, saying 'I can do whatever the fuck I want' probably wasn't the best choice of words - what I was trying to convey there is that I don't need my husband's permission to do anything that doesn't expressly involve him, and he doesn't need my permission to do anything that doesn't expressly involve me. Obviously in the context of a 16 year relationship, we negotiate things so that our needs as individuals and as a couple and as parents are met. I would put 'I'm interested in extra-marital sex' in the category of 'deserving of a conversation with my partner'. Note that I could have just cheated on him and he'd be none the wiser, but I couldn't do that to someone I love, and as PW noted, it would also negate his ability to make an informed decision about our relationship.

As I outlined in the earlier comment, this current situation was very much NOT the result of a 'put up with it or leave' ultimatum. Here's a range of ways the initial conversation could have gone.

1. Me: I think I'd like to start seeing someone else - what d'you reckon?
Him: I'm not going to allow you to do that.
A short silence, and then general hilarity ensues and we have a proper conversation.

2. Me: I think I'd like to start seeing someone else - what d'you reckon?
Him: Obviously you're entirely within your rights do so, but I can't be in relationship with you if you're having a relationship with another man, so I'll end up leaving, as is my right.
Me: Is there any way I could convince you otherwise?
Him: No.
Me: [Hmmm - here's some relevant information I need to take into account when making my decision.] OK - I love you more than anything except our monkey child, so I'll forgo my desire for someone else in the interests of maintaining a marriage that means a lot to me.

3. Me: I think I'd like to start seeing someone else - what d'you reckon?
Him: I'm not entirely thrilled about the prospect, but I understand that monogamy is a social construct, and I want you to be happy. We've been together a long time, and seen some pretty solid marriages fall apart recently. Maybe it's not a bad idea to see if being a bit flexible might mean we actually end up with a stronger relationship. I do have some things I'd like you to take into account though, like I don't want to know details of the sex, and I don't want this to detract overly much from our happy family life.
Me: That's completely reasonable. I understand you're giving this a go, and I respect your willingness to do something pretty out there. If you find that it really isn't OK for you, let me know and I'll finish the other thing.
Him: If I meet someone else I want to hook up with, would you be OK with that?
Me: Sure, on the basis that my similar-but-not-identical things were taken into account. I'm not a hypocrite
Him: OK, let's see how it goes.

4. Me: I think I'd like to start seeing someone else - what d'you reckon?
Him: I'm fine with that provided I get to cum on your face.
Me: [I actually have no idea what I would have said at this point. I guess if it was THAT important to him, I'd have been able to compromise on that, but it's unlikely I'd ever enjoy it.]

Scenario 3 is pretty much what happened. Some months later my husband said he needed me to finish the other thing, and I did - and then a week later he changed his mind and decided he didn't really have the right to deny me something that was obviously making me happy. I've done everything in my power to demonstrate to him that he is still the love of my life, and that my family is my priority. We were literally sitting in a club at midnight a few nights ago talking about how awesome our relationship is.

Nezhul, none of this was gendered. He's come to me with propositions that have affected other parts of our marriage, like our financial situation, and we've similarly talked them through and worked things out. You can call me 'manipulative' or whatever as much as you want, but I think my husband would object pretty strongly to the implication that he's an idiot who can be that easily tricked. Because he really isn't.

 

[KimGordon67]

OK, first of all I had some time to think and I see that my posts about Kim's relationship were not adressed. So I'll say I'm sorry for criticizing her approach now. I still think that it's really a jerk move to start a new relationship and then throw it in the face of your less than excited husband. I still think that the attitude "I do whatever the fuck I want and his opinion is irrelevant" very, very inconsiderate. But there are much more jerk moves that everybody do all the time, so I guess this is up to debate.
So I don't like that. But I was way too harsh with my words, probably.
About that part I'm sorry.

But my shock at double standards remains. Two situations:

A) A girlfriend doesn't like cum on her face, but the boyfriend wants this very much. He doesn't push, but surrounds her with attention and care, they emotionally bond very well. She gets to the point in the relationship when she's completely OK to let him come anywhere on her body, if that makes him happy, even if she herself gets nothing out of it (except feeling happy for making your loved one happy).
This is discussed here as not OK, as coercion, as forcing her to do something she doesn't want. Poor woman - and an abusive jerk of a boyfriend. He should stuff his desires somewhere if she doesn't like that.

B) A husband doesn't like sharing his wife with another men, but the wife needs that. She goes ahead and starts another relationship, then tells him about it. He's not thrilled, but he makes a concession to stay in the marriage because he loves the wife.
Now, this, compared to the situation A, is somehow OK. It's not abusive, not degrading. It's a woman's right to do her thing.
Note, that I'm not even talking about what the wife should/should not give in return. I'm not talking about tradeoffs for those concessions or some kind of bargain. I'm talking about an isolated cases, a situations.

Convincing your girlfriend to do something she doesn't initially want is not OK
Convincing your husband to tolerate something he doesn't like - is OK.

How does that work, explain to me? Either both are OK, or both are not OK, in my book.

Scenario A is not how you originally explained the situation at all. You have a tendency to bring things like 'love' into the discussion very late in the piece. Even so, it seems like it's a foregone conclusion for you that she will eventually get that point, if showered with enough attention. She might not - and that's fine.

Scenario B bears little-to-no relationship to my situation. See above - my husband has actually the right of veto from the beginning.

 

[Nezhul]

Yeah, as I said above just a few seconds before your post - I was too judgmental and I'm sorry.

You can call me 'manipulative' or whatever as much as you want, but I think my husband would object pretty strongly to the implication that he's an idiot who can be that easily tricked. Because he really isn't.

No he's not. And I never implied he was tricked, but manipulated. Maybe not even that, I don't know your family situation.
What I was saying, just to clarify, is that he understood everything (not tricked, not an idiot) but decided to stay despite feeling uncomfortable. Made a sacrifice, basically. And you used his feelings and attachment, that buffer of durability of your relationship, to achieve your goals without much consequences. You took a hit at his trust and it endured.
But again, that's what I meant, just a clarification. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not saying that he didn't take hits at your trust in other ways. I just think that one doesn't justify the other - all of them are bad.

 

[Nezhul]

Scenario A is not how you originally explained the situation at all. You have a tendency to bring things like 'love' into the discussion very late in the piece. Even so, it seems like it's a foregone conclusion for you that she will eventually get that point, if showered with enough attention. She might not - and that's fine.

My original message:

A girlfriend will let you cum on her face no problem, if you care to generate the right emotion and connection. Maybe not the first time, but with a right approach 95% of women will, and will go it gladly. If you manage to establish trust, your sex will be much better eventually.

Ok, I admit, the word Love is never used. Instead the words "the right emotion and connection" are used. What could that be if not love? The word "gladly" is used to articulate that she doesn't mind the act at that point. "Establishing trust" is mentioned as a form of progressing the relationship too.

I don't see where I didn't articulate the point of love and deep bonding and affection enough.


Now to the other point:

Scenario B bears little-to-no relationship to my situation. See above - my husband has actually the right of veto from the beginning.

Your original post:

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 'If you have a relationship with someone else, I'm doing to leave you', and my decision about the other relationship would need to take that variable into account. He didn't say that - although it was clearly a risk until we worked through things.

Well, if it bears no resemblance, then I'd say that it was very poorly worded.
If he had a veto right, then this means that you approached him about your relationship BEFORE starting it. This actually means that if he didn't use the veto - then he allowed you to engage into that relationship, which you clearly deny in your original message.
You said that he didn't allow you, but you still did because you can do whatever the fuck you want - this is how that sounds.
I read it as you starting the relationship and THEN lay down an accomplished fact in front of him, take it or leave it honey.

Again, maybe that's poorly worded, and in this case the entire discussion looses point.

 

[KimGordon67]

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.)

This is the thread Nezhul was referring to - I don't think either you or Elle were in on that. http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1377584

Notably, however, in spite of what Nezhul says, the OP never actually said he loved his wife, and didn't really seems sure whether she loved him or not. I personally can't see any way of interpreting his narrative as anything other than 'I screwed up a bit in a weak moment, and now I'm stuck in situation that really isn't working for me - what do I do?' Nezhul's solution seemed to fundamentally boil down to 'train her to be submissive', in spite of clear indications from the OP that she wasn't that way inclined, in the interests of saving the marriage. *shrug*

 

[KimGordon67]

My original message:
Ok, I admit, the word Love is never used. Instead the words "the right emotion and connection" are used. What could that be if not love? The word "gladly" is used to articulate that she doesn't mind the act at that point. "Establishing trust" is mentioned as a form of progressing the relationship too.

I don't see where I didn't articulate the point of love and deep bonding and affection enough.

"A girlfriend will let you cum on her face no problem, if you care to generate the right emotion and connection. Maybe not the first time, but with a right approach 95% of women will, and will go it gladly. If you manage to establish trust, your sex will be much better eventually."

OK - to me that reads like you only make these connections in order to achieve your goal, not because you really care about the other person. Possibly that's a legacy of writing in a second language. But also, it just contradicts your assertion that you need to respect other people's desires/lack of desire. If someone says 'really, don't cum on my face', why do you need to make it a goal to get her to 'do so gladly'? Why can't you just go 'sure - not a problem' and cum somewhere else?

 

[Nezhul]

First of all - sorry, I edited my last post a bit to add another point.

OK - to me that reads like you only make these connections in order to achieve your goal, not because you really care about the other person.

In that case, I'd go to the prostitute or something. Or find myself a mistress. I don't see a point in having a girlfriend, a relationship without caring for another person. Why bother? You have a relationship with the end goal of getting married and live happily ever after, with fluffy bunnies on your lawn and giggling kids in the future. You don't do the relationship stuff without caring for another person.

But also, it just contradicts your assertion that you need to respect other people's desires/lack of desire. If someone says 'really, don't cum on my face', why do you need to make it a goal to get her to 'do so gladly'?

It's not about "the goal". It's about getting so far that she doesn't have problems in indulging you. And that that point you don't have problems in indulging her either.
The point is not getting her to cum on your face. The point is that everything comes naturally as you develop your bond, but people are often too impatient to get there, and thus all the pain and disappointment.

Why can't you just go 'sure - not a problem' and cum somewhere else?

You can. I never said you can't. That's what you should do, if she's so much against that.
That's why I said that 95% of women would do that, not 100%. And even that - with a perfect approach. In reality this number is much, much lower because the approach, the emotion, the connection is not quite there. It doesn't mean it's impossible, in most relationships. It doesn't happen, true, but it's not impossible.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yeah, as I said above just a few seconds before your post - I was too judgmental and I'm sorry.

No he's not. And I never implied he was tricked, but manipulated. Maybe not even that, I don't know your family situation.
What I was saying, just to clarify, is that he understood everything (not tricked, not an idiot) but decided to stay despite feeling uncomfortable. Made a sacrifice, basically. And you used his feelings and attachment, that buffer of durability of your relationship, to achieve your goals without much consequences. You took a hit at his trust and it endured.
But again, that's what I meant, just a clarification. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm not saying that he didn't take hits at your trust in other ways. I just think that one doesn't justify the other - all of them are bad.

Good lord - did you actually read what I wrote, or just pick out the last sentence? He made a decision to see how things went. A lot of stuff happened in the intervening year. He's still there, and clearly a lot more comfortable with the situation, so things went pretty well. I didn't take a 'hit at his trust' - in fact, by choosing to not cheat on him, I demonstrated that he totally CAN trust me. I didn't USE his feelings - I've actually been completely respectful of his feelings the entire time, hence his ability to veto the situation if it becomes too much for him. And I don't need a 'buffer', because I (and my husband) don't NEED our relationship - we've talked about this at length, and we both agree we're in the relationship because we WANT to be, not because we're scare of the alternatives. He's also never taken 'hits at my trust' - and even if he had, I wouldn't use that to justify anything I'm doing.

 

[KimGordon67]

Good lord - did you actually read what I wrote, or just pick out the last sentence? He made a decision to see how things went. A lot of stuff happened in the intervening year. He's still there, and clearly a lot more comfortable with the situation, so things went pretty well. I didn't take a 'hit at his trust' - in fact, by choosing to not cheat on him, I demonstrated that he totally CAN trust me. I didn't USE his feelings - I've actually been completely respectful of his feelings the entire time, hence his ability to veto the situation if it becomes too much for him. And I don't need a 'buffer', because I (and my husband) don't NEED our relationship - we've talked about this at length, and we both agree we're in the relationship because we WANT to be, not because we're scare of the alternatives. He's also never taken 'hits at my trust' - and even if he had, I wouldn't use that to justify anything I'm doing.

And PS (I meant to say this, but forgot) - no one in our marriage 'allows' anyone to do anything. We each have individual wants, if the impact on the other person, we talk to the other person about it, and we work something out. The thing we work out takes into account how both of us feel about the particular thing, and when the original person make a decision about the thing they want, they take into account the relevant information about how the other person feels about it. If you see Scenarios 1-4 that I outlined above, you'll see how that works - with the exception of Scenario 1, no one is granting anyone 'permission' to do something - people are just making decisions on the basis of the available information, most important how the other person feels about that thing.

 

[KimGordon67]

And PS (I meant to say this, but forgot) - no one in our marriage 'allows' anyone to do anything. We each have individual wants, if the impact on the other person, we talk to the other person about it, and we work something out. The thing we work out takes into account how both of us feel about the particular thing, and when the original person make a decision about the thing they want, they take into account the relevant information about how the other person feels about it. If you see Scenarios 1-4 that I outlined above, you'll see how that works - with the exception of Scenario 1, no one is granting anyone 'permission' to do something - people are just making decisions on the basis of the available information, most important how the other person feels about that thing.

Bugger - PPS. The exception to this is if the thing A wants directly involves B, e.g. A wants to come on B's face. In that instance, I guess B might 'allow' it (although I'd hope that A & B would just either not bother, or some to place where they both enjoyed it - I'm really not down with the idea of people doing thing sexually that they don't enjoy just to make the other person happy, but I understand that's how things work a lot of the time).

 

[KimGordon67]

Transactional no. I agree with that. But if you put yourself in the shoes of a man who accepts his wife having sex with another man......I would say he deserves the benefit of the doubt as to why he likes this or that and a very high level of indulgence.

Obviously I don't know your situation. But if you put yourself in the shoes of hubby, your perspective that "I'm just being honest about wanting to have sex with someone else" isn't less innocuous than his perspective that "I am just being honest about wanting to cum on your face." We can debate why each person wants what they want but neither is inherently more innocuous, honest or acceptable.

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.

SA - I've just come back to this point. Surely the 'equalization' is that the husband can do the same if he wants to - if the wife got pissy about that, it would be pretty hypocritical. (I'm not a fan of the 'tit-for-tat' model of polyamory, but if it's something the husband wants, then surely there's no problem?)

I don't think my husband see my other relationship as 'degrading'. We've talked it through a lot, and he really admitted that his jealously stemmed from a sense of 'ownership' that he knew was misplaced. There's a more fundamental thing in that he just doesn't like the thought of me having sex with someone else - that's the one thing I can't really ameliorate, because I totally get there. He seems to be getting increasingly OK with it over time, but ultimately that may be the thing that results in the whole polyamory project being terminated. Possibly him finding someone else would help resolve that for him, but once he got over the initial 'yay - now I have licence to screw around' thing, he realised that he's just not that interested. Maybe that'll change too ... who knows. It's all a process.

 

[KimGordon67]

Some people REALLY, REALLY do hate people cumming on their face. So it's fair.

Let's not limit shame.

I have a lovely dishwasher It's so quiet I only know it's finished when the door opens with s little puff of steam .

I really want your dishwasher. We argue MUCH more about dishes than we do about cumming on faces.

 

[Blue]

That dishwasher does sound magnificent indeed.

~ ~ ~

Oh god no.
I'm too young to already be musing over the properties of dishwashers!

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]