Politics and Porn

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

.............

LMAO - I never noticed that. Well spotted!

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

This has been one of the most ridiculously enjoyable threads I have read. In a couple of weeks I will be sipping with a feministphilosopher who gets a kick out of ham philosophical discussions. I am gigging thinking of relating the dishwashing and poly relation ship sad for your husbandbut you know, if I couldn't get what I wanted I'd see a prostitute or get a mistress and whether cumming on the face is as demanding as household chores or yard work.

You forgot about the fork in the eye.

 

[Blue]

You forgot about the fork in the eye.

And the implied transactional molestations.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Primalex]

Miele. It also has a drAwer for cutlery not one of those dreadful baskets.

Miele had a patent on that one but luckily it ran out some time ago, so there are several brands out there these days with a drawer.

I didn't like the Miele dish rack though, it was not very adjustable.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Blue]

What is owning two dishwashers called polydishwashery?

Cheating!

 

[Bramblethorn]

It's only really good for European size plates too. Bigger modern plates are tough for it. . But it's sooooooooo quiet. The cutlery drawers ( and I only know them on Miele but presume on all brands) are incredibly better than baskets

What is owning two dishwashers called polydishwashery?

Or Orthodox Judaism. (Some folk are really strict about separating meat from dairy, even in the dishwasher.)

Just be careful you don't buy the brand that fires forks into your eyes.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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

Ah, I remember that one. I did make one comment on it, but I'm a little surprised that anybody would characterise that as "bashing" the OP. I'll chalk that up to N's penchant for exaggeration, then.

 

[SlutAddicted]

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.

I agree that the tit-for-tat model is not a good approach. If he is feeling bad about the situation it probably won't help. But if he does feel that the circumstance justifies some leeway to indulge himself I don't agree that it is necessarily in the form of away games for him.

For example, my situation is that I have never been great at meeting women and am unlikely to find one with mutually beneficial objectives. Maybe that is too negative but take it as a given for now. So me having the right to chase women isn't valuable to me.

Or in a more non-sexual example I like to play golf on Saturdays - it is my sanity time away from family but it leaves a burden on her. So at other times she looks for me to carry the challenges of family - we don't insist that come in the form of her taking time away to play golf.

Fairness is not sameness or even equalness. I don't expect a quid pro quo for accepting the fact that she has other lovers. But I do expect a comparable level of compromise in all aspects of our life. That doesn't mean she is compelled to do whatever I ask but nor does it mean that allowing me to "play away games" is the pre-determined acceptable compromise.

 

[policywank]

I agree that the tit-for-tat model is not a good approach. If he is feeling bad about the situation it probably won't help. But if he does feel that the circumstance justifies some leeway to indulge himself I don't agree that it is necessarily in the form of away games for him.

For example, my situation is that I have never been great at meeting women and am unlikely to find one with mutually beneficial objectives. Maybe that is too negative but take it as a given for now. So me having the right to chase women isn't valuable to me.

Or in a more non-sexual example I like to play golf on Saturdays - it is my sanity time away from family but it leaves a burden on her. So at other times she looks for me to carry the challenges of family - we don't insist that come in the form of her taking time away to play golf.

Fairness is not sameness or even equalness. I don't expect a quid pro quo for accepting the fact that she has other lovers. But I do expect a comparable level of compromise in all aspects of our life. That doesn't mean she is compelled to do whatever I ask but nor does it mean that allowing me to "play away games" is the pre-determined acceptable compromise.

I think you borrowed that fairness description form me

This is similar to how it works with me and my hubby. He doesn't want to pursue other women but he accepts the fact that I have other lovers. He has never asked for anything as an offset or equalizer. There is no tit for tat. But when he does ask for something he wants I make damn sure to give him favourable consideration. That doesn't mean I will do it but I try to be as open, accepting and giving with him as he has been with me.

Like SA said, accepting that your wife fucks other guys is a very high standard of acceptance. That is my guide with him unique from all others.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

I agree that the tit-for-tat model is not a good approach. If he is feeling bad about the situation it probably won't help. But if he does feel that the circumstance justifies some leeway to indulge himself I don't agree that it is necessarily in the form of away games for him.

For example, my situation is that I have never been great at meeting women and am unlikely to find one with mutually beneficial objectives. Maybe that is too negative but take it as a given for now. So me having the right to chase women isn't valuable to me.

Or in a more non-sexual example I like to play golf on Saturdays - it is my sanity time away from family but it leaves a burden on her. So at other times she looks for me to carry the challenges of family - we don't insist that come in the form of her taking time away to play golf.

Fairness is not sameness or even equalness. I don't expect a quid pro quo for accepting the fact that she has other lovers. But I do expect a comparable level of compromise in all aspects of our life. That doesn't mean she is compelled to do whatever I ask but nor does it mean that allowing me to "play away games" is the pre-determined acceptable compromise.

OK, I see your point in a more general sense ... but it did originally sound a bit like 'he's letting you fuck other men, so you should let him cum on your face so he can regain his status' - and your original argument did contain some element of the apparent need to redress the theoretical loss of status he was apparently experiencing. I think we probably do engage in quite explicit negotiations around time - e.g. I'm going to the BF's for a night next week, which is putting the husband under a little pressure with family obligations, so he's going away for a couple of days to a sports thing that weekend while I wrangle the family. But I think he's really doing his best to see my spending time with the BF as a 'recreational activity' that needs to be accorded the same priority as the other 'recreational activities' we engage in individual (like watching sports, something I'm never going to want to do ... although I'm more likely to watch sports that have someone cum on my face ). So then it becomes not a 'tit for tat' and more just part of the ebb and flow of our relationship, and our mutual desire to enable each others' happiness. Yes, I know that me having another relationship isn't the same as following the cricket, but I give him full credit for doing what he can to suck the moral element out of it.

 

[SlutAddicted]

OK, I see your point in a more general sense ... but it did originally sound a bit like 'he's letting you fuck other men, so you should let him cum on your face so he can regain his status' - and your original argument did contain some element of the apparent need to redress the theoretical loss of status he was apparently experiencing. I think we probably do engage in quite explicit negotiations around time - e.g. I'm going to the BF's for a night next week, which is putting the husband under a little pressure with family obligations, so he's going away for a couple of days to a sports thing that weekend while I wrangle the family. But I think he's really doing his best to see my spending time with the BF as a 'recreational activity' that needs to be accorded the same priority as the other 'recreational activities' we engage in individual (like watching sports, something I'm never going to want to do ... although I'm more likely to watch sports that have someone cum on my face ). So then it becomes not a 'tit for tat' and more just part of the ebb and flow of our relationship, and our mutual desire to enable each others' happiness. Yes, I know that me having another relationship isn't the same as following the cricket, but I give him full credit for doing what he can to suck the moral element out of it.

Yes I can see how my earlier comments came from that perspective. It wasn't meant as a matter of "you should let him" so much as "if he wanted to" maybe he deserves optimal consideration. Still your call either way.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes I can see how my earlier comments came from that perspective. It wasn't meant as a matter of "you should let him" so much as "if he wanted to" maybe he deserves optimal consideration. Still your call either way.

I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I'm wondering if it's just that I don't see my polyamory and specific sexual acts as in the same category. When you suggested that my husband's flexibility regarding monogamy might mean that I should consider 'indulging' his desire to cum on my face, I thought 'is he 'indulging' me at the moment', but I don't think I really see it like that. We've sort of changed the shape of our relationship in some way, which for me isn't really an 'indulgence'.

As an example I see as more parrallel (even though I know others are going to disagree), 18 months or so ago he came to me and said 'I hate my job, it's going nowhere, I want to retrain to do something I'm really passionate about'. This has necessitated him going back to university for two years, and is resulting in a considerable drop in our income, more strains on our time, and an accumulation of further debt, and I'm not entirely thrilled about any of these things ... but it's extremely important to me that he's happy, so I barely batted an eyelid, but just said 'sure babe, let's sit down and work out how we can make this happen without actually losing our house'. For me, that's also quite a fundamental change to our relationship - not the 'shape' of it maybe, but the effects of it have probably permeated our everyday lives far more extensively than me spending a night with the BF every 6 weeks or so. But I'd also never say 'OK, you're getting to spend a LOT of our money on something you want - I'm off to buy shoes'. I don't think he owes me anything beyond being happy in his new career (and if he isn't, I guess we'll work that out too).

However, if he said 'I'm off up the road to get beer' it'd be different. I don't drink beer and he knows that, so I'd probably say 'if you're getting beer for yourself, you should really get me some cider too'. Those sorts of mundane things I think might have some expectation of reciprocation ... more fundamental shifts are, for me anyway, of a somehow different order.

 

[Primalex]

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.

somehow OK

This is already wrong. I'm sure nobody said:"Fuck around first, then tell your partner, is okay."

If you stop changing the premises, you might stop being so confused about the various points of view.

 

[KimGordon67]

This is already wrong. I'm sure nobody said:"Fuck around first, then tell your partner, is okay."

If you stop changing the premises, you might stop being so confused about the various points of view.

Other points of note in this quote: "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 isn't 'sharing' me - I'm not a freaking chainsaw that he can lend to the neighbour.
I don't 'need' this - I never frame any of this stuff as 'need'. It's a word that, in my opinion, is often used to excuse bad behaviour.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Blue]

Hoooooo boy, take a gander at Trumpcare:

Summary of contents:

*Abolition of income-based tax credits, creation of age-based tax credits
Coupled with the removal of the insurance mandate, this will make it so low and middle-income earners have their medical insurance subsidies removed and become unable to purchase coverage and will go without healthcare just like before. ABC estimates that will create 21mil new uninsured people.

*Removal of state 'borders' for health insurance providers
Doesn't encourage competition as the Republicans have been saying, just gives the companies an incentive to all headquarter themselves in the state with the least tax and least regulation. It's a giant gift to the companies, not their customers.

*Giant tax breaks to health insurance companies that pay their CEO's >$500,000 annually.
*MeekMe's facepalm emoji*
Not even trying to hide it!

*Defunds planned parenthood and excludes coverage of health insurance plans that cover abortion for reasons other than rape/life-of-the-mother/incest.
Because why not?

*Phasing out of the Medicaid expansion
Screwing over poor people as usual.
For Europeans: The Medicaid expansion of the ACA (Obamacare) made it much easier for those living on or below the USA's poverty line to get healthcare coverage who ordinarily could not afford it. Medicare is the one that ensures coverage of those aged >65 since prior to Medicare, insurance companies just wouldn't cover people above that age since they are financial liabilities for the companies.

And 7 pages of the 66-page bill are specifically about denying healthcare to lottery winners? o-O

Fortunately there's a bunch of libertarian republicans who are supposedly gearing up to defeat this trash. I can't see this ever being put into practice, but it's a nice view into the mind of the current legislature.

 

[KimGordon67]

This is really fun topic.

I very much agree with 'need'. The only person I 'need' is me. That I 'want' my loved is better than keeping them because I 'need' them too I think. If I 'needed' them it would say more about me than my feelings for them I think, it's different but importantly so, in my mind.

We , mio maestro and I , do use the word share. He always said 'I don't share' so it became our lexicon and a joke in other areas of life - he is generous and ethical person) and it remains humour between us. A difference is, I am 'a freaking chainsaw' or at least 'his'. He cannot lend me to a neighbour, but i am his.

Sharing also implies less left for him. Love is not like that. In our particular case time is not like that .

You're definitely not a chainsaw Elle.

Time is definitely the difficult thing for us, more than probably anything else. So that's almost the thing my husband is sharing or giving up - he has all the love I could possibly give him, and all the other things that come along with that, but I'm always aware that time spent with my BF is time my family doesn't have, so I try to be extremely careful with that.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I'm wondering if it's just that I don't see my polyamory and specific sexual acts as in the same category. When you suggested that my husband's flexibility regarding monogamy might mean that I should consider 'indulging' his desire to cum on my face, I thought 'is he 'indulging' me at the moment', but I don't think I really see it like that. We've sort of changed the shape of our relationship in some way, which for me isn't really an 'indulgence'.

As an example I see as more parrallel (even though I know others are going to disagree), 18 months or so ago he came to me and said 'I hate my job, it's going nowhere, I want to retrain to do something I'm really passionate about'. This has necessitated him going back to university for two years, and is resulting in a considerable drop in our income, more strains on our time, and an accumulation of further debt, and I'm not entirely thrilled about any of these things ... but it's extremely important to me that he's happy, so I barely batted an eyelid, but just said 'sure babe, let's sit down and work out how we can make this happen without actually losing our house'. For me, that's also quite a fundamental change to our relationship - not the 'shape' of it maybe, but the effects of it have probably permeated our everyday lives far more extensively than me spending a night with the BF every 6 weeks or so. But I'd also never say 'OK, you're getting to spend a LOT of our money on something you want - I'm off to buy shoes'. I don't think he owes me anything beyond being happy in his new career (and if he isn't, I guess we'll work that out too).

However, if he said 'I'm off up the road to get beer' it'd be different. I don't drink beer and he knows that, so I'd probably say 'if you're getting beer for yourself, you should really get me some cider too'. Those sorts of mundane things I think might have some expectation of reciprocation ... more fundamental shifts are, for me anyway, of a somehow different order.

Whether your taking a lover represents a change in the shape of your relationship or an indulgence is a matter between you and your husband. Personally I agree that each couple determines the shape of their relationship. What that looks like is entirely up to that couple. And that runs in all directions including (as long as nobody is being oppressed or abused) situations with which you or I or society at large might disagree.

But I am not sure one can readily compartmentalize these things. He was prepared to deal with something that was mentally and emotionally challenging in order to be with you and because it was important to you. That doesn't oblige you to do anything. But to the extent that your are willing to reciprocate I think it is an artificial distinction to say you will do so in relation to that which you regard as affecting the shape of your relationship but not in relation to that which you regard as an indulgence.

Personally I don't want my wife to perform any particular sexual (or non-sexual) act because I accept the fact that she has lovers. But I do appreciate the fact that she does things to show me that I am special to her and nothing demonstrates that more clearly than going outside her comfort zone.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

Whether your taking a lover represents a change in the shape of your relationship or an indulgence is a matter between you and your husband. Personally I agree that each couple determines the shape of their relationship. What that looks like is entirely up to that couple. And that runs in all directions including (as long as nobody is being oppressed or abused) situations with which you or I or society at large might disagree.

But I am not sure one can readily compartmentalize these things. He was prepared to deal with something that was mentally and emotionally challenging in order to be with you and because it was important to you. That doesn't oblige you to do anything. But to the extent that your are willing to reciprocate I think it is an artificial distinction to say you will do so in relation to that which you regard as affecting the shape of your relationship but not in relation to that which you regard as an indulgence.

Personally I don't want my wife to perform any particular sexual (or non-sexual) act because I accept the fact that she has lovers. But I do appreciate the fact that she does things to show me that I am special to her and nothing demonstrates that more clearly than going outside her comfort zone.

As I think I said before, what I take from all this in relation to our marriage is that my husband loves me a LOT, and wants me to be happy, even if that necessitates him having to re-evaluation what 'being in a relationship' means to him and the expectations that he has around that. I'm pretty confident part of the reason he does that is because he knows he's special to me - I've demonstrated that in numerous ways, including giving up the BF at one point because my husband asked me to. In our relationship, I don't think me going outside my comfort zone would make him feel any more special - in fact, I think the idea I was doing something I didn't particularly like (regardless of the reason) would probably make him a bit unhappy. It makes ME a bit unhappy that he doesn't really 'like' the whole situation with the BF, but I think the overall benefits to our relationship (and hence to him as well) outweigh that. I think - if anything causes me to stop what I'm doing though, it's likely to be any shift in that balance.