Not interested.

Well, I think every women should have two men. One to cook and one to
clean! LOL joking!

hehe.

>> Well, I think every women should have two men. One to cook and one to
clean! LOL joking!

i would like one for massaging my feet.

if it comes with instructions no problem..'screw A into B, attach C,
glue D"

>> Many people already have multiple romantic partners in non-committed
relationships all the time. This is quite socially accepted, and it’s
also perfectly legal. So by the definition that you gave polyamory is
alive and well.

Well, its socially accepted in some circles, but not others.

If we are talking actual sexual partners here, then -being completely
honest about it- is not so socially accepted. Hell, even admitting to
your girlfriend that you have a lot of non-sexual appreciation and
respect for another woman can cause problems...

i think it would be interesting to be involved with a woman and a man.
and the two of them to also have a relationship. hmmmmmm.....

Hmm... a true love triangle, huh simplyupsidedown?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!


No.....I don't think I'm feeling very polyamorous tonight!!!!!!!!

yes, love triangle--i can picture it now.
but the truth be told i can hardly handle one person, let alone
two.......not to mention myself. sigh... but in an ideal world

Whatever floats your boat...I guess..not my scene, but then, I have
intimate, non-sexual, relationships with both genders, and I love them
all...

I call them friends....

Jess, I see what you mean about friends. Sometimes I think the whole
idea of non-sexual polyamory was just a response to artificial
restrictions people place on their real love for other human beings in
order to pander to the ego of their monogamous partner. Some people
seem to think that your love for your partner should imply a willingness
to restrict your love for your friends - have you ever been in a
situation where you felt the need to choose between a friend and a
partner? Have you ever discovered that you were actually much closer on
most levels to a friend then you were to a romantic/sexual partner?

And as for sexual polyamory, both polyamorist and traditional monogamist
agree that 'having sex behind someones back' is wrong, but the sexual
polyamorists focus on the 'wrongness of being dishonest' while the
monogamist focus on the 'wrongness of being sexual with a second
person'.

Massage wrote...

Jess, I see what you mean about friends. Sometimes I think the whole
idea of non-sexual polyamory was just a response to artificial
restrictions people place on their real love for other human beings in
order to pander to the ego of their monogamous partner. Some people seem
to think that your love for your partner should imply a willingness to
restrict your love for your friends - have you ever been in a situation
where you felt the need to choose between a friend and a
partner?

Have you ever discovered that you were actually much closer on most
levels to a friend then you were to a romantic/sexual partner?

*************************************************************

Hello,

Yes I have, and it was extremely uncomfortable to have to feel
pressured to make choices, based on anothers perceptions of acceptable
relationships..

It is for me, how I chose to look at relationships from a different
perspective...

Intimate, sexual relationships, monogomy, for a term to use, is me to a
tee, only because I choose it for myself...

Polygamy,as with multi sexual partners? Not my thing. Too confusing, too
may body parts, personalities, too much to too many...

Taking sex out of the equation, I encourage intimacy for all, it is the
deepening of 'relating', to others..and is as natural as breathing.

Only my veiws, my thoughts, but it works for me.

>> Taking sex out of the equation, I encourage intimacy for all, it is the
deepening of 'relating', to others..and is as natural as breathing.

I hope I'm no misrepresenting the views of others, but I think this is
exactly what many 'polyamorists' are about. Some of them limit their
sexual expression in the same way that serial monogamists do (one sexual
relationship at a time), but seek to deepen their non-sexual
relationships with others without artificial restrictions.

Its almost redundant, maybe, to give it a specific name, when it is as
natural as breathing.

Ok, I'll post. In the lesbian world polyamory is alive in many ways.
While some don't consider it polyamory, exactly, they consider it a
non-monogamous relationship. I had trouble trying to separate the two
for some time but I think I may have figured it out.

Mass just about has it when he wrote:

""And as for sexual polyamory, both polyamorist and traditional
monogamist agree that 'having sex behind someones back' is wrong, but
the sexual polyamorists focus on the 'wrongness of being dishonest'
while the monogamist focus on the 'wrongness of being sexual with a
second person'.""

Polyamory is about the honesty, however, it is also about a long term
relationship, maybe even a life long commitment. It's about allowing
yourself to be in love and committed to one another, while still
allowing for the possibility of another love. It seems rare that
Polamory couples actually live together on a full time basis as each
needs their own space, obviously. Still they share everything about
their 'dates' and thier feelings. Sometimes, polyamory couples only
choose anothe to share a close friendship with that includes sex,
thereby keeping only ONE LT relationship in tact all the time.

Non-monogamist relationships, on the other hand, are a seeming caring,
loving couple, who have many shared interests and share, in intimacy,
their mutual sexual attraction. However, one or both of them are not
willing to commit to a LT monogamist realtionship. These couples may
not date others for long periods of time, or may date many, even have
sexual relations with them. While this is understood between the
non-mono couple, there is usually not a lot of information sharing.

As to how I feel about these, I could never be in a polyamory
relationship. If I'm doing long term committment, I expect to give that
one person all of me, in my way of thinking, that all of me, is all I
truely own and have to give. I expect that from my partner as well.

However, I agree with and have been in non-monogamous relationships. It
open and honest, without being 'painfully' honest.

Nothing wrong with polyamorous activities. Except the potential for
disease exchange.


I've never been, but I know a very *very* committed 4 person
polyamorous "creche". 2 men, 2 women. All bisexual, and other than their
group, completely faithful. And in it for the long term, as they "paired
up" with legal marriages, and got these odd next-of-kin type legal
documentations that essentially makes you siblings with someone.


I rather envy them, in a way. They love each other. They trust each
other. They have a stability that most marriages will never know. They
also have three kids with a fourth on the way- deliberate "mix and
match" parentages. So each one has a biological child with the two
opposite-gender partners.


Even polygamy should be viable for both genders. As a man might have
multiple women, so should a woman be allowed multiple men.

Red, thanks for the further explanation. As always, words take on
slightly different meanings for different groups of people. I had
always (perhaps wrongly) thought of "polyamory" as also acting as a
catch-all, such that the non-monogamy you described would be a subset of
polyamory, as well as long term multi-party relationships.

Thanks again for the further info.

i know a three-some that has lived together for several years...sex is
usually between two at a time, but is often with all three.

they are very much in love, all three...and very much a group.